RN standardised the Ark Royal as their war emergency carrier design

[Volkodav]

Instead of designing and building the Armoured Fleet Carriers the UK standardised the Ark Royal with various improvements indicated during the build of Ark, as their war emergency carrier design.

It was already in production, it carried for more aircraft, it could have continued to have been built without interruption of a new design.  More carriers built, more aircraft at sea, doctrine behind the design was more inline with US and Japanese, i.e. closer to ideal than the Armoured Fleets.  When time permitted the expansion of the design with lessons learnt would have resulted in an even larger more capable design than the Implacable or following Audacious designs.  Enough of the ships could have been built to supply to allies during the war, more ships available could have saved Force Z.

Late war construction would have been closer to Midways in size and capacity leaving the RN with a far more capable legacy fleet going into the Cold War.  These larger, roomier ships would have been far better at operating jets then the Armour Fleets and would have been far easier and cheaper to upgrade and modernise.

[Weaver]

The problem with the Ark as designed was narrow lifts. Her longitudinal strength lay not just in the edges of the deck but also down the middle, so the lifts were narrow rectangles to either side of the centreline to avoid breaking the "beam". An "Ark Royal Mk.II" could certainly have got around that by having big centre lifts and all the bending loads taken by the hangar sides, but then you'd be approaching the condition of the armoured fleets with a lot of weight in the hangar walls, and that would drive you to reduce the hangar heights, with unfortunate consequences post-war.

Hangar height was the defining problem in post-war modernisations. The situation had actually got worse through the war, with the pressure to carry more aircraft resulting in Implacable and Indefatigable having double hangers with just 14" under the beams (too low to store an F-4U Corsair, never mind later jets!). This is why the re-build program started with Victorious, since her single-deck hangar was easier to strip down and re-build. Vicki's re-build turned into a nightmare and that's why they never attempted in on the later, harder hulls.

[Volkodav]

The problem with the Ark as designed was narrow lifts. Her longitudinal strength lay not just in the edges of the deck but also down the middle, so the lifts were narrow rectangles to either side of the centreline to avoid breaking the "beam". An "Ark Royal Mk.II" could certainly have got around that by having big centre lifts and all the bending loads taken by the hangar sides, but then you'd be approaching the condition of the armoured fleets with a lot of weight in the hangar walls, and that would drive you to reduce the hangar heights, with unfortunate consequences post-war.

Hangar height was the defining problem in post-war modernisations. The situation had actually got worse through the war, with the pressure to carry more aircraft resulting in Implacable and Indefatigable having double hangers with just 14" under the beams (too low to store an F-4U Corsair, never mind later jets!). This is why the re-build program started with Victorious, since her single-deck hangar was easier to strip down and re-build. Vicki's re-build turned into a nightmare and that's why they never attempted in on the later, harder hulls.

Yes the Implacable modernisation would have seen the hangers amalgamated into one.

My thinking on Ark was her greater size and volume avoided the constraints of the Armoured Fleets, as a war emergency post escalation clause the design could have been strengthened and improved from lessons learnt without having to worry about displacement limits.  Structural strengthening to permit larger or even relocated lifts, diesel generators etc. for improved damage control.

Back on the Impacables, they could have operated and hangered Grumman Tigers and Super Tigers with the low hangers 

[Weaver]

Back on the Impacables, they could have operated and hangered Grumman Tigers and Super Tigers with the low hangers 

Good spot - I never noticed that!  :)  13'10" to the tip of the fin in parked condition: two inches to spare!  No folded wing problem to complicate matters either because the Tiger only folded a short section of it's wingtip downwards. Mind you, I intend to fix that for my RN versions, with the wing folding upwards level with the tips of the tailplanes, but moving though about 270 deg so that the tips end up just resting on the fuselage.

[Volkodav]

One thing I have never understood is with the RNs two largest and most capable carriers being limited to aircraft that could fit in a 14" high hanger, why they didn't just write specifications for aircraft that would fit?  If they fit in a 14" hanger they would fit in all the other carriers, the UK could have future proofed themselves saving huge sums on money spent on modernisations and invested that money instead on a new generation of carriers with taller hangers that could cross deck US aircraft.  Had the UK been able to retain Victorious, Indomitable and the Implacables with minimal structural modifications along side Eagle, Ark, they could have sold the Centaurs and Hermes to Commonwealth navies in place of the Majestics, in turn future proofing them as well.

Design the aircraft to fit and the RN could have retained four of the Armoured Fleet Carriers through the 50s into the 60s with minimal affordable angle deck and steam catapult refits.  I don't understand why they didn't do it.

That aside the Sea Vampire and Venom fit, unfolded the Seahawk fit (they could have unfolded it on the lift before moving it into the hanger; from the mid 50s the Fury, Tiger and Skyray fit and the Sea Vixen should have been fairly easy to design to fit as well, the Gannet fit with an inch to spare AEW did not so would have been a deck park option.  Too bad the RN didn't look outside the square and keep these ships in service much longer, freeing up cash for a new generation in the 60s.

[Weaver]

LOL - I typed something just like that last night, then lost it, gave up and went to bed...

You could certainly have designed useful fixed-wing aircraft to fit in a 14" hangar: what'd wrong with folding fins? The Viggen had one. Helos seem a little more difficult: all of the desirable types were too tall (Wessex = 15"). I think though that there was an assumption that all naval aircraft were heading towards Phantom territory and that a size limit would automatically limit capability.

Height-compatible aircraft wouldn't have removed the need for refits, it would just have made them simpler, but that's a relative term. All of the ships had significant wear on them from war usage (Indomitable's flight deck was twisted!), and none of them had "atomic age" stuff like washdown systems and sealed control "citadels". Also, they would still have needed angled decks. The 5 1/2 deg "interim" angled decks that were basically just painted lines and small deck-edge additions also offered limited advantages compared to a proper structural re-build to an 8-10 deg deck. Elevators were another problem: the stressed flight deck design meant that they'd been made as small as possible in the first place and ensured that enlarging them was a non-trivial exercise. Likewise, their weight capacities were too low for the predicted future aircraft and would also need to be increased. The same predicted weight increase meant that new catapults and arrestor gear was needed too. Jets needed more fuel storage capacity, accomodation standards had to be increased to retain personnel in peacetime, radar fits had to be updated... the list goes on and on until you get to the point where you've practically built a new carrier on an old one, and it's still too small....

[Volkodav]

It would have been good to get another ten years out of Indomitable and the Impacables without too much expense just to free up cash for new carriers.  Designing aircraft for the smaller hangers would have also helped the Centaurs and Hermes with more viable airgroups.  A RN FAA version of the Tiger would have solved a lot of problems, fit it with Ferranti Airpass and Fire Streak then Red Top with an Avon in place of the Sapphire and it would have made a nice viable and practical jet ino the 60s or even the 70s.  Actually if the RN went Avon Tiger it could have served through until replaced by the Sea harrier in the late 70s which also would have fit in the 14" hanger!

[Weaver]

My "FAA goes American" story uses an Avon-Tiger. Basically, the RN gives up on refits, gives up on big carriers, turns Eagle and Ark Royal (the latter completed earlier than IRL with an axial deck) into commando carriers, and uses all four Centaurs as small fighter carriers. They've already "gone Grumman" (due to the RR engines) with the Panther and Cougar, so the next generation is the Tiger, who's J-65 problams are fixed by giving it an Avon. They also take the Skyhawk for strike, giving that an Avon as well to ease maintenance. The Avon-Tiger is a big seller and with the USN shunning the Tiger, Grumman becomes somewhat dependent on it.

Then in the mid-'60s, with some Vietnam experience under their belt, the FAA decides that it doesn't like having penny packets of two different aircraft on it's small decks, so it asks for a multi-role replacement that can do both jobs. Grumman and HSA stick a Spey in the Tiger, move the wing to the high position, and create the Jaguar II, which serves through the '70s and '80s. I'm still debating whether to give the Jag II a swing wing or not, prompted by the fact that the best way of modelling it seems to be to use a MiG-23 centre and aft fuselage.....

Harriers in this world are the choice for the two Marine Corps and armies.

[Volkodav]

My "FAA goes American" story uses an Avon-Tiger. Basically, the RN gives up on refits, gives up on big carriers, turns Eagle and Ark Royal (the latter completed earlier than IRL with an axial deck) into commando carriers, and uses all four Centaurs as small fighter carriers. They've already "gone Grumman" (due to the RR engines) with the Panther and Cougar, so the next generation is the Tiger, who's J-65 problams are fixed by giving it an Avon. They also take the Skyhawk for strike, giving that an Avon as well to ease maintenance. The Avon-Tiger is a big seller and with the USN shunning the Tiger, Grumman becomes somewhat dependent on it.

Then in the mid-'60s, with some Vietnam experience under their belt, the FAA decides that it doesn't like having penny packets of two different aircraft on it's small decks, so it asks for a multi-role replacement that can do both jobs. Grumman and HSA stick a Spey in the Tiger, move the wing to the high position, and create the Jaguar II, which serves through the '70s and '80s. I'm still debating whether to give the Jag II a swing wing or not, prompted by the fact that the best way of modelling it seems to be to use a MiG-23 centre and aft fuselage.....

Harriers in this world are the choice for the two Marine Corps and armies.

I like!

RMs more like USMC with their own organic air and armour?  I was toying with a RM ACR idea using light / medium tanks, i.e. a 76/62mm in a beefed up, up armoured CVR(T).

Love the Tiger always have, cant wait to see what you come up with but failing swing wing a Mirage F1 wing would look good, or even a Grumman / Mirage tie up to navalise the F1.

On the Skyhawk I would actually be tempted to go for the FJ-4B Fury instead, it fits in a 14" hanger and CAC had already AVON'd and ADEN'd the Sabre.  Would love to have seen an AVON Furys flying off Melbourne (and Sydney) instead of Skyhawks.

With the smaller strike aircraft would you keep fixed wing ASW or still go to helos?  I would be tempted to upgrade the more modern Gannet than to buy Trackers.  They take up less space and would have made an interesting addition to the airgroup with new tech, i.e. Martel, Sea Eagle etc in an anti shipping strike roles in the 70/80s.

[elmayerle]

Possibly re-engine the Gannets with a turbo-prop version of PWAC's PT6T "Twin-Pac"? 

Weaver, regarding folding fins, look at how much of the A3J/RA-5 vertical find folds; properly designed, they shouldn't be a problem.

[Volkodav]

Out of curiosity what is the folded height of a Vigilante?  Would it be under 14" 

[GTX_Admin]

Out of curiosity what is the folded height of a Vigilante?  Would it be under 14" 

Height:
    Tail Upright:  19 ft
    Tail Folded:   14 ft 6 in

[Volkodav]

M...let the tires down, or a kneeling function for the undercarriage.....

[elmayerle]

M...let the tires down, or a kneeling function for the undercarriage.....

Or a nose gear extension for parking only?

[Volkodav]

Good thinking 99, just need bigger lifts now

[GTX_Admin]

Something like this perhaps:



See more details here

[Volkodav]

Mmmm... so basically we can fit a minimally modified, folded Vigilante on / in a minimally modified Implacable class Armoured Fleet Carrier that may or may not have hypothetically been in RAN service in the 1960s?  Really starting to look like RAN crewing of the Implacables as part of the BPF followed by a post war transfer would have been a very interesting turn of events.

My one-eyed parochialism aside it is looking more and more as if the RN retired the class too early without really looking at what they could do with some quite limited upgrades.  Had they investigated acquiring Tigers under MAP both ships could have been quite viable into the 70s at lower cost than the Victorious rebuild.  Tigers and Furies from the mid 50s, Super Tiger, Mirage F1M.  They could even have made it into the 80s.

[Weaver]

Err, nope: the Implacables' lifts were 45' x 33' and 45' x 22' and lifts, decks and cats were all limited to 20,000lb aircraft. The proposed modification, the one that proved too expensive, involved combining the two hangars into one 17'6" one, strengthening the deck, lifts and cats to take 30,000lb aircraft, and enlarging the lifts to 55' x 32' ft. None of that would have helped handle a 60-odd' x 42' Vigilante that weighed 32,000lb when completely empty and 47,000lb when fuelled and bombed up.

Cutting larger lift wells in an armoured deck carrier is a non-trivial exercise, because you're weakening the strength member of the ship's hull. It was easier to do it on the Essexes because their deck was not load-bearing: it was superstructure. It might be possible on examination, but it's anything but minimal. When they were considering what to do about the Implacables' refits in the light of the emerging horror show with Victorious' simpler re-build, the problem was that the most basic modifications needed, the ones that simply couldn't be done without, were the structural ones that incurred most of the cost and most of the potential time delay.

Basically, the only way to keep The Implacables and their ilk in the fast jets business was to buy/build aircraft that fitted them. Even the Tiger and Skyhawk were marginal without the lift modifications. Neither of them fitted on the original aft lift and that was the only one which went down to the lower hangar.

[Volkodav]

Err, nope: the Implacables' lifts were 45' x 33' and 45' x 22' and lifts, decks and cats were all limited to 20,000lb aircraft. The proposed modification, the one that proved too expensive, involved combining the two hangars into one 17'6" one, strengthening the deck, lifts and cats to take 30,000lb aircraft, and enlarging the lifts to 55' x 32' ft. None of that would have helped handle a 60-odd' x 42' Vigilante that weighed 32,000lb when completely empty and 47,000lb when fuelled and bombed up.

Cutting larger lift wells in an armoured deck carrier is a non-trivial exercise, because you're weakening the strength member of the ship's hull. It was easier to do it on the Essexes because their deck was not load-bearing: it was superstructure. It might be possible on examination, but it's anything but minimal. When they were considering what to do about the Implacables' refits in the light of the emerging horror show with Victorious' simpler re-build, the problem was that the most basic modifications needed, the ones that simply couldn't be done without, were the structural ones that incurred most of the cost and most of the potential time delay.

Basically, the only way to keep The Implacables and their ilk in the fast jets business was to buy/build aircraft that fitted them. Even the Tiger and Skyhawk were marginal without the lift modifications. Neither of them fitted on the original aft lift and that was the only one which went down to the lower hangar.

Sorry Weaver, I have been a little loose and frivolous on this thread. I am aware of the planned modernisations for the various armoured fleets, Friedman covers them in some detail in the annexes of "The Postwar Naval Revolution" a book I have owned for over 25 years. 

It has always struck me as somewhat ironic that had the RN been aware of the material condition of Illustrious and Formidable in all probability Victorious would never have been modernised with efforts concentrated on the larger pair of ships instead.  Victorious' modernisation included lifting the entire flight deck, a rather non-trivial exercise in anyone's estimation and it is debatable as to whether that would have been more or less difficult than the planned merging of the two hangers on the Implacables together with the working in of a gallery deck, or not.

Long story short I got carried away with the thought of a cat, trap, lift upgrade, with or without and angled deck letting the ships operate Furies first (FJ-3 then 4 and finally 4B) and then Tigers into the 60s.  Love the FJ-4B in-particular and would love to see it in RN/RAN FAA colours and what better justification than the RN (or RAN) needed a capable, contemporary fighter that could fit in the carriers they had.

The biggest joke with this entire discussion is I do not think anyone makes a model of either Implacable, in any scale, so I have (considering my complete lack of scratch building cred) zero chance of ever doing any of these whiffs we are discussing.  Quite sad actually as they are great looking ships with lots of almosts and nearlys in their development and careers.  Australian crewing was apparently on the cards, as was a transfer to the RAN, while being the largest and most capable RN carriers for many years (closest to the Essex in capability) they had a lot of potential for future development, money permitting.  Imagine them deployed to Korea with MAP Bearcats and Avengers, or in the RAN case Hellcats and Avengers left in Australia post war that could have been acquired for next to nothing.

I actually have a 1/700 Eagle in my stash, what were your plans for Ark and Eagle with your US sourced FAA?  Any chance one or both could have ended up with the RAN as CVS?

[Weaver]

I actually have a 1/700 Eagle in my stash, what were your plans for Ark and Eagle with your US sourced FAA?  Any chance one or both could have ended up with the RAN as CVS?

Nope! 

In my background, Ark was finished earlier, and to a similar axial-deck standard to Eagle, by abandoning work on Vanguard. Both served in Korea with Panthers and Skyraiders, but all Panther orders were converted to Cougars when the MiG-15 appeared. Faced with the costs of re-building them to angled deck configuration, the government decided to go 100% small carrier, finish all four Centaurs as angled deck carriers and convert Ark and Eagle to commando carriers (LPHs) for Suez, with transport helos in the upper hangar, troops and supplies in the lower one and LCVPs on davits (giant equivalents of the real world Bulwark and Albion, essentially). They prove incredibly useful and they see out their days in this configuration, and the RN clings to them for grim death, their swansong being the Falklands. They're eventually replaced by new build LPHs in the 1980s.

Full story (kinda, so far) here : http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3361.msg52133#msg52133
and here : http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3529.msg53106#msg53106

My story doesn't feature Furies either, sorry. However, this is Whiff World, so feel free to write your own story in which the RAN gets them, or something else cool. The real-world refitted Victorious might have been a financial disaster, but the end result was a pretty ship that was almost certainly retired too soon for political reasons. You might imagine the government offering her to Australia as a replacement for Melbourne after the 1967 fire and decomissioning. Airfix do a 1/600th model too......

[Volkodav]

Sort of like what I was speculating for the Implacables but using Sea Sprites due to limits in hanger height.

A more fanciful whiff of mine is the UK continues with building all four Audacious, eight Hermes as well as the three Maltas post war due to the Soviet threat and the realisation that Illustrious and Formidable are in poor condition and the remaining carriers are simply too small in the light of how doctrine (not to mention aircraft) has developed.  Financial reality soon curtails these plans but the ships exist in various states of completion and can be made available for sale as the Majestics were.

I imagine the Maltas would be retained and upgraded, as would some of the Hermes but everything else would be up for grabs.  RAN Eagle off the coast of Korea, flying Seahawks and Venoms, here we come. 

[Volkodav]

Something like this perhaps:



See more details here

Did the Vigilante ever fly off the Essex class CVAs?

[Volkodav]

I now have 1/700 Aoshima Ark Royal and Victorious, Orange Hobby Modernised Victorious, Fujimi Eagle, Dragon Invincible (Falkland's Edition) and an Essex (cant remember which one  ) , Revell Kearsarge as well as an old (over thirty years), partially built Airfix 1/600 Victorious.

Thinking:
Ark Royal as either a UK built sister ship crewed by the RAN, or as an Australian built half sister with two shafts (fixing the vulnerability that sunk Ark) and a reprofiled flight deck making full use of her length, as well as larger lifts.  The other thought is a post war upgrade of either of the first two options for service in Korea operating either post war RN FAA types or surplus USN types.

Victorious either OOB, as transferred to the RAN after serving with the USN with the call sign Robin in 1943, an Australian built half sister with US airgroup, post war Korean service with RAN with either post war RN FAA types or USN types.

Modernised Victorious as RAN, either as bought in the late 50s prior to the completion of her modernisation, or as refitted after her minor fire in 1968 and transfer to RAN, alternatively as an Australian built ship that was incomplete and suspended at the end of the war and then completed to a design based on Vic's modernisation but with Mk6 3"/70s, Seacat etc.

Eagle, really not sure, will likely use bits on other projects as required and do major surgery on what's left.  My only thought on her, which is beyond my skill level, is there was a rumour with Australia deciding to develop a two ocean navy in the late 60s that the fleet would grow to 23 destroyers and frigates plus three larger, more capable carriers, with these ships being Eagle, Hermes and Victorious.

Invincible as an RAN derivative of the RN Escort Cruiser concept, may even be nuclear powered.

The Essex as a USN reserve ship transferred to the RN during Korea and maybe retained into the 60s, possibly as a CVS or maybe as an LPH.  Don't know if she will be completed with a Korean War type air group FAA or USN, a CVS group or a RAM assault group.

Kearsarge, most likely as a RAN CVS with cats and traps, trackers or maybe Vikings, Hawkeyes, Sea Kings / Seahawks / Merlins, and maybe even a CTOL fighter attack type of some sort.  Alternatively OOB as a RAN LHD with USMC type group.

The 1/600 Victorious as a modernised 1/700 RN Malta.  Incomplete at the end of the war Malta, or maybe the entire class were completed during the late 50s to a fully modernised design.  This is where some of the Eagle bits will go as well as some Tiger conversion bits from Shapeways and I will try and copy the relevant bits from the Orange Hobby Vic, i.e. the Type 984 etc.

[M.A.D]

So it would be something like this:

MAD

[M.A.D]

You're probably already familiar with the planned modernisation of the two Implacables:

The two Implacables were tentatively scheduled to be modernised in 1953–55 with Implacable following Victorious. The draft Staff Requirements were drawn up in July 1951. This included combining the two hangars into a single 17-foot-6-inch (5.33 m) hangar, strengthening the flight deck and aircraft handling equipment to deal with 30,000-pound (14,000 kg) aircraft, enlarging the lifts to 55 by 32 feet (16.8 by 9.8 m), adding a gallery deck between the hangar and the flight deck to accommodate the additional personnel required, the addition of steam catapults, and the increase of her aviation fuel stowage to 240,000 imperial gallons (1,100,000 l; 290,000 US gal). Other desired improvements were new boilers to increase her endurance, more space for the latest radars, and the replacement of her anti-aircraft armament with the British version of the 3"/70 Mark 26 gun and sextuple mounts for the Bofors guns.

Implacable was scheduled to begin her modernisation in April 1953 for completion in 1956, but the Director of Dockyards pointed out that existing schedules prevented her from beginning any earlier than April 1955 unless the modernisations of two cruisers and the guided missile test ship RFA Girdle Ness were delayed. The Controller of the Navy asked if the time and cost of the reconstruction could be reduced, but the minimum modifications were the most expensive as they involved structural alterations. The Controller ordered the Director of Dockyards to plan for rebuilding Implacable between June 1953 and December 1956 even after the latter protested that even a limited modernisation would require about three-quarters of the structural work of the original plan and that the shortage of skilled workers (already insufficient for Victorious by herself) would delay work on both ships. In order to reduce the amount of structural work, the requirement to replace the boilers was cancelled and the ship would receive existing radars instead of systems then still under development. In January 1952, the ship's new armament was finalized at six twin-gun 3"/70 mounts and three sextuple Bofors mounts. Five months later the Admiralty decided that Victorious would be the last fleet carrier modernised as experience showed that the process would take longer and cost more than was practicable."

It would be interesting to see drawings of this proposed modernised Implacable, if they exist🤔

MAD