By: F-18RN
- 12th April 2009 at 19:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here are my latest efforts. I also included the ship and the little jets which I hope are to scale though I did have to cheat and made the s'board cat' shorter so that the jets didn't touch.
By: hawkdriver05
- 13th April 2009 at 00:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Think you could do the same for japanese carriers Shinano and Taiho? Show what they would look like with a late 50s style rebuild with angled deck an steam cats?
New
By: Anonymous
- 13th April 2009 at 05:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Think you could do the same for japanese carriers Shinano and Taiho? Show what they would look like with a late 50s style rebuild with angled deck an steam cats?
By: crgritchie
- 7th October 2009 at 16:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The balance between fighters and strike aircraft is dependant on the type of mission the carrier is sent on, and to be sure the RN in the 60s showed flexibility when required. With only two commando carriers in service, strike carriers were occassionally pressed into service as makeshift commando ships eg Centaur transporting troops to quell a mutiny by the Tangayikan rifles in the early 60s, squeezing the troops into the hangar deck on camp beds and gingerly moving the ship's air group around them. At the time Centaur operated a unique air group, composed of 12 Sea Vixens for both Air defence and strike, four Gannets for AEW and six Wessex for ASW/SAR. Previously she had operared with six Vixens and eight Scimitars, but the cramped conditions aboard (and a high attrition rate for the scimitars) lead to the Scimitars being withdrawn and the Vixen sqn being brought up to full strength.
If Victorious is retained through the 70s unmodified and the Vixens are withdrawn anyway she could carry a completely strike oriented air group of up to 20 Buccaneers, with the usual complement of Gannets and Sea Kings and sailed in company with Eagle or Ark Royal providing fighter cover with their Phantoms, though this would be unlikley given the normal independent nature of peacetime ship deployments.
Hi - where did you get your info for Centaur's airgroup from? I've trawled the web and only found 2 sources thus far: http://www.btinternet.com/~a.c.walton/navy/rn-cv3.html http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=228
Whilst they differ slightly on helo complement, they seem to agree that Centaur mounted 9 Sea Vixen + 8 Scimitar, and when the Scimitars were withdrawn they were not replaced.
Also, any info on Vic's airgroups from the Scimitar era onwards would be much appreciated, have seen even less for that (just harpoon).
By: Obi Wan Russell
- 7th October 2009 at 18:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi - where did you get your info for Centaur's airgroup from? I've trawled the web and only found 2 sources thus far: http://www.btinternet.com/~a.c.walton/navy/rn-cv3.html http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=228
Whilst they differ slightly on helo complement, they seem to agree that Centaur mounted 9 Sea Vixen + 8 Scimitar, and when the Scimitars were withdrawn they were not replaced.
Also, any info on Vic's airgroups from the Scimitar era onwards would be much appreciated, have seen even less for that (just harpoon).
Primarily from Neil McCart's book on HMS Centaur, plus a few other refence books. I believe Nieil got his info from the RN and from ex crew members. I'd regard those sources as more reliable than most online sources (ie people who were there). Hermes operated 9 Sea Vixens for most of the sixties alongside 8 Scimitars, then post 66 she swapped the scimitars for 6 Buccaneers (she had a bigger hangar deck courtesy of the deck edge lift and more deck parking space than Centaur). Having re checked my sources, Centaur is listed as operating 8 Sea Vixens and 8 Scimitars from 1960-62, thereafter 12 Sea Vixens. Photos of the period seem to confirm these numbers. Hermes appears to have increased her fighter complement to 11 aircraft by 1970, though the extra aircraft may have been just for trials/ excercises. I'll have a dig around for info on Victorious' air group.
By: crgritchie
- 7th October 2009 at 22:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It could be (though a tenuous suggestion) that Robin in HMS Victorious context could have that the Robin was England's national bird, until the currency changes when our Farthing (which had a Robin on it) was withdrawn. Still, I'll leave it at that- Trivial Pursuits...
Hi, VICTORIOUS spent a period on secondment with the USN in the Pacific theatre of WWII when they were short on flattops after Pearl Harbour, the ship was called USS Robin by the USN.
By: crgritchie
- 7th October 2009 at 22:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Primarily from Neil McCart's book on HMS Centaur, plus a few other refence books. I believe Nieil got his info from the RN and from ex crew members. I'd regard those sources as more reliable than most online sources (ie people who were there). Hermes operated 9 Sea Vixens for most of the sixties alongside 8 Scimitars, then post 66 she swapped the scimitars for 6 Buccaneers (she had a bigger hangar deck courtesy of the deck edge lift and more deck parking space than Centaur). Having re checked my sources, Centaur is listed as operating 8 Sea Vixens and 8 Scimitars from 1960-62, thereafter 12 Sea Vixens. Photos of the period seem to confirm these numbers. Hermes appears to have increased her fighter complement to 11 aircraft by 1970, though the extra aircraft may have been just for trials/ excercises. I'll have a dig around for info on Victorious' air group.
Thanks for that, so Hermes was 11 Sea Vixen plus 6 Buccaneers from 1970?
How many Helos & Gannets did Centaur embark with 12 sea vixens?
By: Obi Wan Russell
- 8th October 2009 at 00:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The standard RN Helo carrier sqn in the 60s would have been six Whirlwinds (later Wessex HAS1/3) plus two whirlwinds for SAR/plane guard. The normal Gannet flight would have had four AEW3s and one COD4, though on Centaur and Hermes the photos of the ships at procedure alpha (entering/leaving port with crew lining the deck and the air group displayed) usually only show three AEW3s and one COD4. all the RN air groups varied in size due to the differing sizes and capacities of the carriers in service, the ideal being those embarked in Eagle and Ark Royal. So, Ideally the aim was for 12 Fighters for air defence/ secondary attack capability (Sea Vixens, later Phantoms), 14 Strike aircraft (10 bombers, two tankers and two recce Buccaneers), six ASW Helos to maintain a round the clock screen, four AEW Gannets and one Carrier Onboard Delivery Gannet. The smaller carriers had the same range of aircraft, but reduced numbers, Centaur being the smallest was the only one to give up her strike sqn. She was only kept on through the 60s to make up numbers as it had been anticipated that there would be one carrier undergoing a major rebuild at any given time for the decade (Eagle 1959-64, Hermes 1964-66, Ark Royal 1967-1970). In fact during the period 1959-1961 Both Ark and Eagle were in dockyard hands, so Albion's Commando Carrier conversion was delayed by a year so that she could make a deployment to the far east as a fixed wing carrier, retaining an air group of Sea Hawks, Sea Venoms, Gannet ASW, Whirlwind ASW/SAR and Skyraider AEW due to her hydraulic catapults.
Victorious first commission post reconstruction was the only one to feature a 'transitional' air group, from fifties vintage aircraft to the new generation. Instead of a Sea Hawk sqn she embarked the first sqn of Scimitars (803NAS), alongside sqn of Sea Venoms, one of Whirlwinds and a flight of Skyraiders. No ASW Gannet sqn was included. From 1960 onwards, Victorious air group was compositionally the same as Hermes, but usually with a few moe aircraft due to her larger capacity (eg Hermes had six Buccs, Victorious had eight, though their fighter sqns were about the same size).
By: The Doc
- 9th October 2009 at 21:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A couple of points/questions.
Had Victorious been recomissioned & HM Government forcing scrapping of the 'big carriers' would it not have been better to keep Vicky & Hermes as they would've been cheeper to run. There is a photo in Richard Johnstone-Brydens book 'HMS Ark Royal IV' of the P1127 landing dated Feb 7 but no year, so presume it was before her feb'67 refit. Eagle trialed Phantoms in '68 & Harrier GR1's March 70. Ark flew Phantoms 70+ & trialed Harrier GR1's May'71 & GR3's October '75. Could Navy not try & go for 12 SHARS + 14 GR1's as a replacement for Sea Vixens & buccaneers plus AEW, HAS etc? SHAR development sped up due to need? Could Victorious & Hermes have been projected to operate such an air group? Then designing a purpose built bird farms of 30- 35,000 tons sort of a cross between Victorious & Invincible, for commisioning 1980+?
By: 90inFIRST
- 9th October 2009 at 22:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A couple of points/questions.
Had Victorious been recomissioned & HM Government forcing scrapping of the 'big carriers' would it not have been better to keep Vicky & Hermes as they would've been cheeper to run. There is a photo in Richard Johnstone-Brydens book 'HMS Ark Royal IV' of the P1127 landing dated Feb 7 but no year, so presume it was before her feb'67 refit. Eagle trialed Phantoms in '68 & Harrier GR1's March 70. Ark flew Phantoms 70+ & trialed Harrier GR1's May'71 & GR3's October '75. Could Navy not try & go for 12 SHARS + 14 GR1's as a replacement for Sea Vixens & buccaneers plus AEW, HAS etc? SHAR development sped up due to need? Could Victorious & Hermes have been projected to operate such an air group? Then designing a purpose built bird farms of 30- 35,000 tons sort of a cross between Victorious & Invincible, for commisioning 1980+?
By: Obi Wan Russell
- 10th October 2009 at 02:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A couple of points/questions.
Had Victorious been recomissioned & HM Government forcing scrapping of the 'big carriers' would it not have been better to keep Vicky & Hermes as they would've been cheeper to run. There is a photo in Richard Johnstone-Brydens book 'HMS Ark Royal IV' of the P1127 landing dated Feb 7 but no year, so presume it was before her feb'67 refit. Eagle trialed Phantoms in '68 & Harrier GR1's March 70. Ark flew Phantoms 70+ & trialed Harrier GR1's May'71 & GR3's October '75. Could Navy not try & go for 12 SHARS + 14 GR1's as a replacement for Sea Vixens & buccaneers plus AEW, HAS etc? SHAR development sped up due to need? Could Victorious & Hermes have been projected to operate such an air group? Then designing a purpose built bird farms of 30- 35,000 tons sort of a cross between Victorious & Invincible, for commisioning 1980+?
The Healy axe was never about running costs, because the reality proves no savings were made by cancellation. The difference in running costs between Eagle/Ark and Hermes/Victorious wasn't that great, certainly not enough to make any difference. In the 60s the RN had five CVs and two LPHs, in order to maintain one CV and one LPH in the Far east, and one CV in the Atlantic/Med at all times. This force level needed five carriers because it had been realised in the 50s that all the carriers would need lengthy reconstructions during the next decade to remain viable for faster and heavier jets entering service. Hence the retention of Centaur as a CV instead of the expected conversion to LPH. Of the aircraft intended to eqip the 70s FAA, the Buccaneers had alreay been bought and were mostly in service, while the Phantoms were bought anyway as well. The plan was to replace the five existing CVs with three CVAs, whilst the two LPHs (and one of the CVs, as well as the three Tiger class CLs or CLHs if their refits went ahead) with three 'Escort Cruisers' which evolved into the Invincibles. In 1960's prices, the three CVAs were estimated to cost around £100million each, whereas the Invincibles were estimated originally at around £60million each in early 70s prices. At no point prior to the 66 axe was anyone considering less than a three carrier force, Healy said so himself. The plan was to upgrade both Ark and Eagle for Phantoms to operate alongside CVA-01 until her two sister could be built. CVA-01 was to replace Victorious in 72, CVA-02 to replace Ark Royal by 76-78 and CVA-03 Eagle by 84. Hermes was to remain a CV until the mid 70s at least, to help cover for any teething problems with the new ships at the very least. Albion could have continued at least as long as Bulwark, and was only paid off because there was only enough money for two LPHs, and Hermes was a newer ship.
The Harrier first went to sea (as the P1127) in 63 as stated above, but didn't enter service as a combat aircraft until 1969, and took some time to prove itself as more than just a gimmick. Given a choice between a force of Phantoms and Buccaneers, and a force of Harriers, in the late 60s or early 70s it would have been no contest. The Harrier's advantages were far outweighed by the combat capability of the former aircraft (twice as fast, twice the range, twice the bombload). Also, if a large Harrier air group is to be considered for carriers the size of Hermes and Victorious, remember they could embark much larger numbers due to the Harrier's small size. Hermes could accomodate about thirty Harriers in addition to a sqn of helos for example. Mixing the FRS1 with the GR1 would be unecessary also, as the FRS1 was derived from the GR3 and was an improvement on it. An all FRS1 air group would be a better idea as the aircraft are swing role, and can carry out the strike mission as well as the GR model. A single aircraft type allows better stadardisation for maintenance and training. The Shar wasn't ordered until 1975 and first flew in 78, with the first frontline sqn commissioned in 1980. Victorious would have gone by 78 at the latest, so a replacement carrie program would have been required anyway.
By: The Doc
- 16th October 2009 at 20:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Many thanks Obi Wan & 90in FIRST.
another query. If the 3 big carriers went ahead (informed opinions please) would the air group most likely be Phantoms & Buccaneers continuing up to date or a possibility of Sea Jaguars/ Sea Harriers or other types?
By: John1964
- 16th October 2009 at 22:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IMHO I would think that after paying for the Phantoms and Bucanneers nothing would have been left in the purse for any additional aircraft, plus there is no role that couldn't be done by them, so no need for Sea Jaguar.
Neither can I see a pressing need for S Harrier, more likely an evolution along the lines of the U.S. with the us initially of GR3 type aircraft (with basic marinisation) off helo carriers, then AV8B with improved air to ground.
I would then predict that the Phantoms and Bucs would be replaced either by marinised version of Eurofighter (based on history a bad option), or more sensibly by F18's. I don't think that; sadly, Tomcat would have been an option, unless the USN had continued production of the F14D or better (the Phantoms would have been too new to be replaced by F14's and would have been regarded as too expensive).
By: Voodoo
- 17th October 2009 at 03:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wouldn't the F-14 be too heavy and large to fit on the CVA's. I think they were to big and heavy to go on the Midway class carriers which I think were equivalent in size.
I think they would have continued upgrading Bucc's and Phantoms along the lines of germany's ICE program.
By: Bager1968
- 17th October 2009 at 05:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The only issue with the F-14 on USS Midway* was "the hangar is too low to allow preventative maintenance (landing gear drop-checks and ejection-seat removal)".
The Midway class had the USN WW2-standard 17' 6" hangar "clear height"... while the RN's CVA class was to have a greater overhead height.
The CVA class were to have a 250 foot BS-6 catapult, which would have been capable of launching F-14s with a normal combat load, and arresting gear which could have handled them as well.
*Only USS Midway had the C-13 catapult (2 bow), USS Coral Sea had 3 weaker C-11 cats**, and USS Franklin D. Roosevelt had 3 C-11 (as Coral Sea) until until 1968, when the waist cat was removed.
Midway also had upgraded arresting gear which could handle F-14s.
**2 C-11-1 on the bow, and a shorter C-11-2 on the waist.
By: crgritchie
- 3rd November 2009 at 22:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Many thanks Obi Wan & 90in FIRST.
another query. If the 3 big carriers went ahead (informed opinions please) would the air group most likely be Phantoms & Buccaneers continuing up to date or a possibility of Sea Jaguars/ Sea Harriers or other types?
Sea Jaguar would've been more of an option if:
i) we'd built 3 Hermes-sized ships instead of the CVA01 class or the Invincible class, and
ii) if the French had adopted it, though they strangely opted for the inferior Super Etendard, showing the British that they don't have a monopoly on crazy defence decisions.
A Sea Jaguar would have been akin to the Sea Harrier and Tornado ADV conversions, making an interceptor from a strike aircraft (though retaining that capability aswell). Hermes would in all likelihood have been able to embark around 20 of these, assuming they replaced both the Sea Vixen and the Buccaneer.
By: TinWing
- 4th November 2009 at 23:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sea Jaguar would've been more of an option if:
i) we'd built 3 Hermes-sized ships instead of the CVA01 class or the Invincible class, and
ii) if the French had adopted it, though they strangely opted for the inferior Super Etendard, showing the British that they don't have a monopoly on crazy defence decisions.
A Sea Jaguar would have been akin to the Sea Harrier and Tornado ADV conversions, making an interceptor from a strike aircraft (though retaining that capability aswell). Hermes would in all likelihood have been able to embark around 20 of these, assuming they replaced both the Sea Vixen and the Buccaneer.
As stated in a previous thread, the MN version of the Jaguar exhibited very poor takeoff and landing characteristics. Considering the high costs involved, the cancellation was inevitable.
It also should be obvious that the Jaguar would make a terrible fighter, due to limited maneuverability and a relative lack of power.
The RN briefly toyed with the Jaguar after the cancellation of CVA-01, but just as quickly discarded it since it wasn't going to be all that cheaper than the Phantom, despite having a much poorer performance in just about every imaginable way. Given the poor carrier characteristics of the Jaguar and the fact that the RN had plenty of Phantoms on the way, it isn't hard to see why interest in the type died so quickly.
From the standpoint of the MN, the Super Etendard might have been more expensive than the A-4, but it was a low risk design, affordable choice that was politically viable. Looking at the subsequent decades of successful service, it appears that the MN made the right decision in canceling the Jaguar.
By: PMN1
- 30th July 2010 at 19:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Out of interest, if you have STOVL aircraft and can dispense with the steam catapults, would it be feasible to replace the steam turbine with gas turbines with the gas turbines having electric drive to the shafts to avoid needing all the trunking that usually goes with gas turbines?
By: Lindermyer
- 30th July 2010 at 22:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As stated in a previous thread, the MN version of the Jaguar exhibited very poor takeoff and landing characteristics. Considering the high costs involved, the cancellation was inevitable.
It also should be obvious that the Jaguar would make a terrible fighter, due to limited maneuverability and a relative lack of power.
The RN briefly toyed with the Jaguar after the cancellation of CVA-01, but just as quickly discarded it since it wasn't going to be all that cheaper than the Phantom, despite having a much poorer performance in just about every imaginable way. Given the poor carrier characteristics of the Jaguar and the fact that the RN had plenty of Phantoms on the way, it isn't hard to see why interest in the type died so quickly.
From the standpoint of the MN, the Super Etendard might have been more expensive than the A-4, but it was a low risk design, affordable choice that was politically viable. Looking at the subsequent decades of successful service, it appears that the MN made the right decision in canceling the Jaguar.
That allways made me chuckle, A major MN complaint was that in the event of a single engine failure the jag had poor performance and would struggle to remain airborne. They then selected the Etendard - which i have no doubt proved superiour in many ways, but one cant help but wonder if its flight charecteristics in the event of a single engine failure would really have been any better.
Posts: 251
By: F-18RN - 24th March 2009 at 18:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here's the 'Phantomised' Victorious, with and without the boat crane.
[ATTACH]171335[/ATTACH]
Posts: 251
By: F-18RN - 12th April 2009 at 19:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here are my latest efforts. I also included the ship and the little jets which I hope are to scale though I did have to cheat and made the s'board cat' shorter so that the jets didn't touch.
[ATTACH]172007[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]172008[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]172009[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]172010[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]172011[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]172012[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]172014[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]172015[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]172016[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]172017[/ATTACH]]
Posts: 1,190
By: hawkdriver05 - 13th April 2009 at 00:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Think you could do the same for japanese carriers Shinano and Taiho? Show what they would look like with a late 50s style rebuild with angled deck an steam cats?
By: Anonymous - 13th April 2009 at 05:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting idea............count me in!:D
Posts: 13
By: crgritchie - 7th October 2009 at 16:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi - where did you get your info for Centaur's airgroup from? I've trawled the web and only found 2 sources thus far:
http://www.btinternet.com/~a.c.walton/navy/rn-cv3.html
http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=228
Whilst they differ slightly on helo complement, they seem to agree that Centaur mounted 9 Sea Vixen + 8 Scimitar, and when the Scimitars were withdrawn they were not replaced.
Also, any info on Vic's airgroups from the Scimitar era onwards would be much appreciated, have seen even less for that (just harpoon).
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 7th October 2009 at 18:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Primarily from Neil McCart's book on HMS Centaur, plus a few other refence books. I believe Nieil got his info from the RN and from ex crew members. I'd regard those sources as more reliable than most online sources (ie people who were there). Hermes operated 9 Sea Vixens for most of the sixties alongside 8 Scimitars, then post 66 she swapped the scimitars for 6 Buccaneers (she had a bigger hangar deck courtesy of the deck edge lift and more deck parking space than Centaur). Having re checked my sources, Centaur is listed as operating 8 Sea Vixens and 8 Scimitars from 1960-62, thereafter 12 Sea Vixens. Photos of the period seem to confirm these numbers. Hermes appears to have increased her fighter complement to 11 aircraft by 1970, though the extra aircraft may have been just for trials/ excercises. I'll have a dig around for info on Victorious' air group.
Posts: 13
By: crgritchie - 7th October 2009 at 22:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi, VICTORIOUS spent a period on secondment with the USN in the Pacific theatre of WWII when they were short on flattops after Pearl Harbour, the ship was called USS Robin by the USN.
Posts: 13
By: crgritchie - 7th October 2009 at 22:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for that, so Hermes was 11 Sea Vixen plus 6 Buccaneers from 1970?
How many Helos & Gannets did Centaur embark with 12 sea vixens?
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 8th October 2009 at 00:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The standard RN Helo carrier sqn in the 60s would have been six Whirlwinds (later Wessex HAS1/3) plus two whirlwinds for SAR/plane guard. The normal Gannet flight would have had four AEW3s and one COD4, though on Centaur and Hermes the photos of the ships at procedure alpha (entering/leaving port with crew lining the deck and the air group displayed) usually only show three AEW3s and one COD4. all the RN air groups varied in size due to the differing sizes and capacities of the carriers in service, the ideal being those embarked in Eagle and Ark Royal. So, Ideally the aim was for 12 Fighters for air defence/ secondary attack capability (Sea Vixens, later Phantoms), 14 Strike aircraft (10 bombers, two tankers and two recce Buccaneers), six ASW Helos to maintain a round the clock screen, four AEW Gannets and one Carrier Onboard Delivery Gannet. The smaller carriers had the same range of aircraft, but reduced numbers, Centaur being the smallest was the only one to give up her strike sqn. She was only kept on through the 60s to make up numbers as it had been anticipated that there would be one carrier undergoing a major rebuild at any given time for the decade (Eagle 1959-64, Hermes 1964-66, Ark Royal 1967-1970). In fact during the period 1959-1961 Both Ark and Eagle were in dockyard hands, so Albion's Commando Carrier conversion was delayed by a year so that she could make a deployment to the far east as a fixed wing carrier, retaining an air group of Sea Hawks, Sea Venoms, Gannet ASW, Whirlwind ASW/SAR and Skyraider AEW due to her hydraulic catapults.
Victorious first commission post reconstruction was the only one to feature a 'transitional' air group, from fifties vintage aircraft to the new generation. Instead of a Sea Hawk sqn she embarked the first sqn of Scimitars (803NAS), alongside sqn of Sea Venoms, one of Whirlwinds and a flight of Skyraiders. No ASW Gannet sqn was included. From 1960 onwards, Victorious air group was compositionally the same as Hermes, but usually with a few moe aircraft due to her larger capacity (eg Hermes had six Buccs, Victorious had eight, though their fighter sqns were about the same size).
Posts: 72
By: The Doc - 9th October 2009 at 21:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A couple of points/questions.
Had Victorious been recomissioned & HM Government forcing scrapping of the 'big carriers' would it not have been better to keep Vicky & Hermes as they would've been cheeper to run. There is a photo in Richard Johnstone-Brydens book 'HMS Ark Royal IV' of the P1127 landing dated Feb 7 but no year, so presume it was before her feb'67 refit. Eagle trialed Phantoms in '68 & Harrier GR1's March 70. Ark flew Phantoms 70+ & trialed Harrier GR1's May'71 & GR3's October '75. Could Navy not try & go for 12 SHARS + 14 GR1's as a replacement for Sea Vixens & buccaneers plus AEW, HAS etc? SHAR development sped up due to need? Could Victorious & Hermes have been projected to operate such an air group? Then designing a purpose built bird farms of 30- 35,000 tons sort of a cross between Victorious & Invincible, for commisioning 1980+?
Posts: 240
By: 90inFIRST - 9th October 2009 at 22:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
7 Feb 1963. Fourth commision Sept 61-Feb 64
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 10th October 2009 at 02:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Healy axe was never about running costs, because the reality proves no savings were made by cancellation. The difference in running costs between Eagle/Ark and Hermes/Victorious wasn't that great, certainly not enough to make any difference. In the 60s the RN had five CVs and two LPHs, in order to maintain one CV and one LPH in the Far east, and one CV in the Atlantic/Med at all times. This force level needed five carriers because it had been realised in the 50s that all the carriers would need lengthy reconstructions during the next decade to remain viable for faster and heavier jets entering service. Hence the retention of Centaur as a CV instead of the expected conversion to LPH. Of the aircraft intended to eqip the 70s FAA, the Buccaneers had alreay been bought and were mostly in service, while the Phantoms were bought anyway as well. The plan was to replace the five existing CVs with three CVAs, whilst the two LPHs (and one of the CVs, as well as the three Tiger class CLs or CLHs if their refits went ahead) with three 'Escort Cruisers' which evolved into the Invincibles. In 1960's prices, the three CVAs were estimated to cost around £100million each, whereas the Invincibles were estimated originally at around £60million each in early 70s prices. At no point prior to the 66 axe was anyone considering less than a three carrier force, Healy said so himself. The plan was to upgrade both Ark and Eagle for Phantoms to operate alongside CVA-01 until her two sister could be built. CVA-01 was to replace Victorious in 72, CVA-02 to replace Ark Royal by 76-78 and CVA-03 Eagle by 84. Hermes was to remain a CV until the mid 70s at least, to help cover for any teething problems with the new ships at the very least. Albion could have continued at least as long as Bulwark, and was only paid off because there was only enough money for two LPHs, and Hermes was a newer ship.
The Harrier first went to sea (as the P1127) in 63 as stated above, but didn't enter service as a combat aircraft until 1969, and took some time to prove itself as more than just a gimmick. Given a choice between a force of Phantoms and Buccaneers, and a force of Harriers, in the late 60s or early 70s it would have been no contest. The Harrier's advantages were far outweighed by the combat capability of the former aircraft (twice as fast, twice the range, twice the bombload). Also, if a large Harrier air group is to be considered for carriers the size of Hermes and Victorious, remember they could embark much larger numbers due to the Harrier's small size. Hermes could accomodate about thirty Harriers in addition to a sqn of helos for example. Mixing the FRS1 with the GR1 would be unecessary also, as the FRS1 was derived from the GR3 and was an improvement on it. An all FRS1 air group would be a better idea as the aircraft are swing role, and can carry out the strike mission as well as the GR model. A single aircraft type allows better stadardisation for maintenance and training. The Shar wasn't ordered until 1975 and first flew in 78, with the first frontline sqn commissioned in 1980. Victorious would have gone by 78 at the latest, so a replacement carrie program would have been required anyway.
Posts: 72
By: The Doc - 16th October 2009 at 20:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Many thanks Obi Wan & 90in FIRST.
another query. If the 3 big carriers went ahead (informed opinions please) would the air group most likely be Phantoms & Buccaneers continuing up to date or a possibility of Sea Jaguars/ Sea Harriers or other types?
Posts: 34
By: John1964 - 16th October 2009 at 22:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IMHO I would think that after paying for the Phantoms and Bucanneers nothing would have been left in the purse for any additional aircraft, plus there is no role that couldn't be done by them, so no need for Sea Jaguar.
Neither can I see a pressing need for S Harrier, more likely an evolution along the lines of the U.S. with the us initially of GR3 type aircraft (with basic marinisation) off helo carriers, then AV8B with improved air to ground.
I would then predict that the Phantoms and Bucs would be replaced either by marinised version of Eurofighter (based on history a bad option), or more sensibly by F18's. I don't think that; sadly, Tomcat would have been an option, unless the USN had continued production of the F14D or better (the Phantoms would have been too new to be replaced by F14's and would have been regarded as too expensive).
Posts: 161
By: Voodoo - 17th October 2009 at 03:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wouldn't the F-14 be too heavy and large to fit on the CVA's. I think they were to big and heavy to go on the Midway class carriers which I think were equivalent in size.
I think they would have continued upgrading Bucc's and Phantoms along the lines of germany's ICE program.
Voodoo
Posts: 3,614
By: Bager1968 - 17th October 2009 at 05:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The only issue with the F-14 on USS Midway* was "the hangar is too low to allow preventative maintenance (landing gear drop-checks and ejection-seat removal)".
The Midway class had the USN WW2-standard 17' 6" hangar "clear height"... while the RN's CVA class was to have a greater overhead height.
The CVA class were to have a 250 foot BS-6 catapult, which would have been capable of launching F-14s with a normal combat load, and arresting gear which could have handled them as well.
*Only USS Midway had the C-13 catapult (2 bow), USS Coral Sea had 3 weaker C-11 cats**, and USS Franklin D. Roosevelt had 3 C-11 (as Coral Sea) until until 1968, when the waist cat was removed.
Midway also had upgraded arresting gear which could handle F-14s.
**2 C-11-1 on the bow, and a shorter C-11-2 on the waist.
Posts: 13
By: crgritchie - 3rd November 2009 at 22:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sea Jaguar would've been more of an option if:
i) we'd built 3 Hermes-sized ships instead of the CVA01 class or the Invincible class, and
ii) if the French had adopted it, though they strangely opted for the inferior Super Etendard, showing the British that they don't have a monopoly on crazy defence decisions.
A Sea Jaguar would have been akin to the Sea Harrier and Tornado ADV conversions, making an interceptor from a strike aircraft (though retaining that capability aswell). Hermes would in all likelihood have been able to embark around 20 of these, assuming they replaced both the Sea Vixen and the Buccaneer.
Posts: 932
By: TinWing - 4th November 2009 at 23:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As stated in a previous thread, the MN version of the Jaguar exhibited very poor takeoff and landing characteristics. Considering the high costs involved, the cancellation was inevitable.
It also should be obvious that the Jaguar would make a terrible fighter, due to limited maneuverability and a relative lack of power.
The RN briefly toyed with the Jaguar after the cancellation of CVA-01, but just as quickly discarded it since it wasn't going to be all that cheaper than the Phantom, despite having a much poorer performance in just about every imaginable way. Given the poor carrier characteristics of the Jaguar and the fact that the RN had plenty of Phantoms on the way, it isn't hard to see why interest in the type died so quickly.
From the standpoint of the MN, the Super Etendard might have been more expensive than the A-4, but it was a low risk design, affordable choice that was politically viable. Looking at the subsequent decades of successful service, it appears that the MN made the right decision in canceling the Jaguar.
Posts: 338
By: PMN1 - 30th July 2010 at 19:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Out of interest, if you have STOVL aircraft and can dispense with the steam catapults, would it be feasible to replace the steam turbine with gas turbines with the gas turbines having electric drive to the shafts to avoid needing all the trunking that usually goes with gas turbines?
Posts: 408
By: Lindermyer - 30th July 2010 at 22:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That allways made me chuckle, A major MN complaint was that in the event of a single engine failure the jag had poor performance and would struggle to remain airborne. They then selected the Etendard - which i have no doubt proved superiour in many ways, but one cant help but wonder if its flight charecteristics in the event of a single engine failure would really have been any better.