Could the UK have done a better job of maintaining carrier based air power?

[Pioneer]

Even in failure, had 3 carriers been available then they'd have proved more useful than V-Bombers out of Cyprus.

Interesting Zen.
Sorry, I detract, but I've always been somewhat sceptical of the likes of British and French single purpose nuclear deterrent platforms like dedicated bombers, MRBM and later SSBN's, especially when obe appreciates the money and resources that go into them.........

Regards
Pioneer

 

[zen]

Interesting Zen.
Sorry, I detract, but I've always been somewhat sceptical of the likes of British and French single purpose nuclear deterrent platforms like dedicated bombers, MRBM and later SSBN's, especially when obe appreciates the money and resources that go into them.........

Regards
Pioneer

I will certainly agree the carriers provide flexibility and in context more rapid adaptability.

 

[Archibald]

France developped a carrier nuclear strike capability the cheapest way. Borrowing the AN-52 then ASMP from the AdA and strapping them to Super Etendards. Wasn't a Vigilante by any mean but added flexibility to Force de frappe.

 

[Rule of cool]

While South East Asia as an area of interest for Western powers pretty ended by the early-mid 70s by the end f the 70s South West Asia was starting to become important, with the Iran-Iraq War and Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. Despite ostensibly withdrawing from the region in 1971 in 1980 the Royal Navy established the Armilla Patrol of 2 or 3 surface warships in the Persian Gulf, this remained on station for decades. IIRC at about the same time the USN established a presence in the Indian Ocean, which is a reason why Reagan wanted to boost the USN from 12 to 15 carriers.

Should the RN have retained a significant carrier capability into the 80s would it have provided a presence in the Indian Ocean to assist the USN carrier rotation?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Should the RN have retained a significant carrier capability into the 80s would it have provided a presence in the Indian Ocean to assist the USN carrier rotation?

I don't think so, except maybe taking one of the US rotations.

Remember, even with 12 carriers in the fleet, the US only had 4 deployed at a time normally. Desert Storm surged the 4 that were in workups out to sea earlier than planned.

 

[Rule of cool]

I don't think so, except maybe taking one of the US rotations.

Remember, even with 12 carriers in the fleet, the US only had 4 deployed at a time normally. Desert Storm surged the 4 that were in workups out to sea earlier than planned.

Yes, adding 3 allowed 1 to be deployed to the IO. However until that happened the US could work something out with the RN to have periodic visits to the IO.

Interestingly enough the final deployment of the RANs carrier Melbourne was to the Indian Ocean in 1980. This was the first time the Melbourne had spent any time in the IO.

 

[aim9xray]

... Adm Rickenbaker, supported by the ultimate paymaster ...

For confused USians, that would be Adm Hymen Rickover. We return you to the thread currently in progress.

 

[Croatian Sailor]

A question: Considering that the UK built 4 Centaur-class light carriers ( that had approximately same tonnage like 2 Malta's ), would it be better to build 2 Malta-class big carriers instead or 4 Centaurs? After all, all Centaurs were laid in mid-1944, when the end result of the war was pretty much clear to all and none of them was finished before war's end anyway.

 

[Dilandu]

A question: Considering that the UK built 4 Centaur-class light carriers ( that had approximately same tonnage like 2 Malta's ), would it be better to build 2 Malta-class big carriers instead or 4 Centaurs? After all, all Centaurs were laid in mid-1944, when the end result of the war was pretty much clear to all and none of them was finished before war's end anyway.

Its not merely a matter of tonnage. Centaur-class required much less efforts and time, being a further development of existing design, optimized for mass production. Malta-class ships of the same tonnage would require significantly more efforts and time to construct, being a new design - and rather large one requiring shipyards of sufficient capability.

 

[Croatian Sailor]

Its not merely a matter of tonnage. Centaur-class required much less efforts and time, being a further development of existing design, optimized for mass production. Malta-class ships of the same tonnage would require significantly more efforts and time to construct, being a new design - and rather large one requiring shipyards of sufficient capability.

Yes, I know it isn't really a ton-for-ton, but after 1944, I don't think that large shipyards had much else to do. Battleships were finished ( it was maybe a mistake that Vanguard wasn't converted into another Audacious class carrier but I digress ), carriers mostly too. Steel is steel, propulsion is propulsion, okay, here you need stronger propulsion, but for two ships, armament is more-less the same, aircrafts also, no change there, sensors same... I know that it would take time, but Centaurs ( and Audacious too ) went into service in early 1950s. So, same thing for two Maltas.

 

[EwenS]

A question: Considering that the UK built 4 Centaur-class light carriers ( that had approximately same tonnage like 2 Malta's ), would it be better to build 2 Malta-class big carriers instead or 4 Centaurs? After all, all Centaurs were laid in mid-1944, when the end result of the war was pretty much clear to all and none of them was finished before war's end anyway.

Well first you need a design to build.

The 1943/44 Malta design was an enlarged armoured carrier, a stretched Audacious if you like. But there were questions about where she could be docked. Design C was approved by the Board of Admiralty for detailed design in Oct 1943.

The then Fifth Sea Lord (VA Sir Denis Boyd from 14 Jan 1943), responsible for Naval Aviation, changed his mind on the open v closed hangar question, based largely on events in the Pacific to date, and persuaded the Board to order a new design in May 1944. Yards had been told not to order / accumulate materials for these ships the month before. And the contract for New Zealand had to be transferred from Cammell Laird to Harland & Wolff which while previously planned (see below) took place in July 1944.

This New design finally emerged as Design X1 (open hangar, no flight deck armour) in early 1945, went before the Board in April 1945 but was never approved.

Then we have events in mid 1945.

New Fifth Sea Lord from 1 May 1945, RA Sir Thomas Troubridge. On the 28th May 1945, the former DNC Sir Stanley Goodall recorded in his diary:-

"DNC told me the new 5th SL is opposed to carriers with open hangars and unarmoured flight decks!!"


At the end of June 1945, HMS Illustrious arrived back in the UK. Her Captain then gave lectures explaining the experience of being under kamikaze attack, and the effects it had on his ship v the reports from the USN of their experience with their wooden flight decks.

So back to square one!

The Centaurs were laid down March, May & June 1944 and May 1945 with a relatively low priority.

So the first 3 were laid down at a time when indecision about the type of ship required was at its greatest. So which "Malta" is it that you wish to build? An armoured carrier like the 1943 Design C? An unarmoured 1945 Design X1? Or a completely new design taking account of the kamikaze experience and Troubridge's views?


At the end of 1943, when the 1944 New Construction Programme was being considered, it was noted that only 2 would proceed initially. Malta couldn't be laid down at John Brown until the end of 1944 (presumably after the launch of Vanguard) and New Zealand at H&W in April 1944 (edit - that should read 1945) (After the launch of Audacious aka Eagle whose launch actually took place a year later than thought at the time).

None of these were expected to complete until 1948 or later.

 

[EwenS]

Yes, I know it isn't really a ton-for-ton, but after 1944, I don't think that large shipyards had much else to do. Battleships were finished ( it was maybe a mistake that Vanguard wasn't converted into another Audacious class carrier but I digress ), carriers mostly too. Steel is steel, propulsion is propulsion, okay, here you need stronger propulsion, but for two ships, armament is more-less the same, aircrafts also, no change there, sensors same... I know that it would take time, but Centaurs ( and Audacious too ) went into service in early 1950s. So, same thing for two Maltas.

In the mid -44 timeframe the naval shipyards were still extremely busy,

John Brown was building Vanguard, Bellerephon (aka Tiger), had a large destroyer programme in hand (4 C class, 2 Battle and orders for another pair). It's workforce May have been a bit smaller than in 1943 but it was fully occupied. In fact they were glad the order for Malta had been postponed to give some relief.

Harland & Wolff had Audacious, 4 Colossus / Majestic, Minotaur (Ontario), were heavily involved in the LST(3) Programme which although only started in Dec 1943 was a high priority for IO operations in 1945, as well as the Loch /Bay frigate programme.

Add to that a massive requirement to refit ships for the war in the Far East from mid1944.

There were problems in yards getting ships from the 1942 programme finished in order to allow a start to be made on ships of the 1943 programme.

There were slipways in yards to build ships on, but the workforce was stretched to the limits. There were shortages in various trades, particularly electricians, right across the industry.

You mention carriers. A quick look says that in June 1944 of the 16 Colossus/Majestics, 9 were still on the slips, 7 had been launched (with 2 earmarked for conversion to maintenance carriers). The first only completed in Dec 1944 and the next pair in Jan 1945.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I would have delayed the orders and completed 2 Malta class to an improved standard, post war. Give the yards something to do instea of scrap surplus ships/hulls.

Little or no sacrifice of ability to the fleet and extend the use of shipyards into the mid to late fifties.

 

[EwenS]

I would have delayed the orders and completed 2 Malta class to an improved standard, post war. Give the yards something to do instea of scrap surplus ships/hulls.

Little or no sacrifice of ability to the fleet and extend the use of shipyards into the mid to late fifties.

By autumn 1944 the yards were chomping at the bit to start building profitable merchant ships to replace the cargo liner, ferry, whale factory ship etc tonnage lost in WW2, or taken up by the RN for conversion to auxiliaries. Good all noted in Sept 1944 how the Clyde yard owners were already approaching him about the prospective work that was incoming but which they needed approval before even beginning to plan.

One job some weren't happy about was converting trawlers back to civilian use, under Admiralty instruction.

There was also a large merchant ship repair requirement immediately post war.

So, all in all, plenty of work to keep the workforces in the yards occupied.

 

[Archdude]

Agree

 

[BlackBat242]

Yes, I know it isn't really a ton-for-ton, but after 1944, I don't think that large shipyards had much else to do. Battleships were finished ( it was maybe a mistake that Vanguard wasn't converted into another Audacious class carrier but I digress ), carriers mostly too. Steel is steel, propulsion is propulsion, okay, here you need stronger propulsion, but for two ships, armament is more-less the same, aircrafts also, no change there, sensors same... I know that it would take time, but Centaurs ( and Audacious too ) went into service in early 1950s. So, same thing for two Maltas.

Only two Audacious class carriers were completed - the third (named Eagle*) was suspended 23% complete in January 1946 and later scrapped.

There were actually 6 Centaurs laid down by May 1945 (Centaur, Albion, Bulwark, Elephant, Hermes,** and Arrogant) - and those last two were cancelled and scrapped in October 1945.
The last two planned (Monmouth and Polyphemus) were cancelled before laying-down in October 1945.

All of the Majestics were suspended after the end of the war - the only ones completed were for other nations' orders (2 RAN, 2 RCN, & 1 RIN).



I can't see any Malta being continued with even if the Centaurs were all cancelled, considering the historical imperative to save as much money as possible - I would expect at most to see the 3rd Audacious completed, and a second full rebuild of an Illustrious alongside Victorious.


* Audacious was renamed Eagle, just like Irresistible was renamed Ark Royal.

** Elephant was renamed Hermes after the cancellation of the original Hermes.

 

[Croatian Sailor]

Well first you need a design to build.

The 1943/44 Malta design was an enlarged armoured carrier, a stretched Audacious if you like. But there were questions about where she could be docked. Design C was approved by the Board of Admiralty for detailed design in Oct 1943.

The then Fifth Sea Lord (VA Sir Denis Boyd from 14 Jan 1943), responsible for Naval Aviation, changed his mind on the open v closed hangar question, based largely on events in the Pacific to date, and persuaded the Board to order a new design in May 1944. Yards had been told not to order / accumulate materials for these ships the month before. And the contract for New Zealand had to be transferred from Cammell Laird to Harland & Wolff which while previously planned (see below) took place in July 1944.

This New design finally emerged as Design X1 (open hangar, no flight deck armour) in early 1945, went before the Board in April 1945 but was never approved.

Then we have events in mid 1945.

New Fifth Sea Lord from 1 May 1945, RA Sir Thomas Troubridge. On the 28th May 1945, the former DNC Sir Stanley Goodall recorded in his diary:-

"DNC told me the new 5th SL is opposed to carriers with open hangars and unarmoured flight decks!!"


At the end of June 1945, HMS Illustrious arrived back in the UK. Her Captain then gave lectures explaining the experience of being under kamikaze attack, and the effects it had on his ship v the reports from the USN of their experience with their wooden flight decks.

So back to square one!

The Centaurs were laid down March, May & June 1944 and May 1945 with a relatively low priority.

So the first 3 were laid down at a time when indecision about the type of ship required was at its greatest. So which "Malta" is it that you wish to build? An armoured carrier like the 1943 Design C? An unarmoured 1945 Design X1? Or a completely new design taking account of the kamikaze experience and Troubridge's views?


At the end of 1943, when the 1944 New Construction Programme was being considered, it was noted that only 2 would proceed initially. Malta couldn't be laid down at John Brown until the end of 1944 (presumably after the launch of Vanguard) and New Zealand at H&W in April 1944 (edit - that should read 1945) (After the launch of Audacious aka Eagle whose launch actually took place a year later than thought at the time).

None of these were expected to complete until 1948 or later.

Yes, I know that the original plan was for larger Audacious.

Yes, interesting thing about design. But could they not started the construction with plans for un-armoured deck, and change their mind later?

 

[Croatian Sailor]

Only two Audacious class carriers were completed - the third (named Eagle*) was suspended 23% complete in January 1946 and later scrapped.

There were actually 6 Centaurs laid down by May 1945 (Centaur, Albion, Bulwark, Elephant, Hermes,** and Arrogant) - and those last two were cancelled and scrapped in October 1945.
The last two planned (Monmouth and Polyphemus) were cancelled before laying-down in October 1945.

All of the Majestics were suspended after the end of the war - the only ones completed were for other nations' orders (2 RAN, 2 RCN, & 1 RIN).



I can't see any Malta being continued with even if the Centaurs were all cancelled, considering the historical imperative to save as much money as possible - I would expect at most to see the 3rd Audacious completed, and a second full rebuild of an Illustrious alongside Victorious.

Okay. But you are looking this as cost cutting exercise. But if we accept that 4 new Centaurs will be built, when we think about future of RN, wouldn't it be better, if the money will be spent anyway, to build 2 larger, Malta-class (or even a 3rd and 4th Audacious class, maybe little improved), than 4 Centaurs?

 

[BlackBat242]

Okay. But you are looking this as cost cutting exercise. But if we accept that 4 new Centaurs will be built, when we think about future of RN, wouldn't it be better, if the money will be spent anyway, to build 2 larger, Malta-class (or even a 3rd and 4th Audacious class, maybe little improved), than 4 Centaurs?

Looking back from now?

Sure - but you need to come up with something that would change their minds in 1945.

For whatever reason they did not look very far forward, perhaps because they were used to ships being replaced every 20 years or so, and expected brand-new bigger and better carriers to come along at the end of the 1950s and into the 1960s, so there was no need to build new ones right then.

5 Centaurs had been laid down in 1944 with a 6th in 1945, and those could handle any aircraft then in service or in development so why should all of those be scrapped in favor of only 2 "biggest we've ever built" ones?

 

[Archibald]

Better to build the third Audacious and call it a day. The real death trap is: rebuilds of the six Illustrious, with their nightmarish hangar differences that directly impact the rebuilds, one by one; plus WWII battle damage.

 

[zen]

The mechanism by which bigger carriers came back on the menu was the future expectation of jet Mosquito type carrying a nuclear bomb.
This became a conceptual naval Canberra.

Ultimately this evolved to N/A.39 (M.148T) and the Buccaneer resulted.

But we have to recognise that timing wise, 1947 was the earliest for both new carriers and the nuclear submarine effort.

 

[Croatian Sailor]

Looking back from now?

Sure - but you need to come up with something that would change their minds in 1945.

For whatever reason they did not look very far forward, perhaps because they were used to ships being replaced every 20 years or so, and expected brand-new bigger and better carriers to come along at the end of the 1950s and into the 1960s, so there was no need to build new ones right then.

5 Centaurs had been laid down in 1944 with a 6th in 1945, and those could handle any aircraft then in service or in development so why should all of those be scrapped in favor of only 2 "biggest we've ever built" ones?

Yes, I know that UK economy and workforce was in deep shit at the time and that they thought that they have (or very soon) will get rid of their naval adversaries (Axis) and that the RN needs enough hulls to cover all standing tasks, they don't need to be great, just good enough for next 10-15 years.

But yes, I was speaking from OTL and hindsight position...

 

[EwenS]

Only two Audacious class carriers were completed - the third (named Eagle*) was suspended 23% complete in January 1946 and later scrapped.

There were actually 6 Centaurs laid down by May 1945 (Centaur, Albion, Bulwark, Elephant, Hermes,** and Arrogant) - and those last two were cancelled and scrapped in October 1945.
The last two planned (Monmouth and Polyphemus) were cancelled before laying-down in October 1945.

All of the Majestics were suspended after the end of the war - the only ones completed were for other nations' orders (2 RAN, 2 RCN, & 1 RIN).



I can't see any Malta being continued with even if the Centaurs were all cancelled, considering the historical imperative to save as much money as possible - I would expect at most to see the 3rd Audacious completed, and a second full rebuild of an Illustrious alongside Victorious.


* Audacious was renamed Eagle, just like Irresistible was renamed Ark Royal.

** Elephant was renamed Hermes after the cancellation of the original Hermes.

Not sure how you get to 6 Centaurs laid down.

Orders for 8 placed in July 1943, before the design was finalised. But these were only placeholders. The Board of Admiralty didn't authorise construction in July 1943, expressing the view that a Cabinet decision was required. In Oct the yards were cleared to purchase long lead items for all 8, but Cabinet approval was still awaited.

After much towing & froing approval from Churchill to build 4 was obtained at the end of Jan 1944 (options for 2,4&6 were put to him for consideration).

Which 4 of the 8 was also in a state of flux. In Jan 1944 it was to be Albion, Centaur, Elephant & Hermes. Bulwark & Arrogant were pencilled in to start in Q1 & Q2 1945, with Monmouth & Polyphemus postponed until they did not interfere with existing production.

By July 1944 Albion, Centaur & Elephant were to go ahead "full speed" to clear the slips (laid down March-June 1944) while Monmouth was to go ahead slowly. At that point the other 4, Arrogant, Bulwark, Hermes and Polyphemus had a very uncertain future and remained suspended.

By Spring 1945 Fairfield had started to accumulate material for Monmouth but none of my sources give any indication that she was "laid down" there. Instead work on her was ordered halted & H&W were ordered to proceed with Bulwark. Bulwark was laid down in May 1945 with construction aided by the materials gathered by Fairfield being transferred to Belfast.

All my sources seem clear that Arrogant, ordered from Swan Hunter, was also never laid down. Again some materials May have been gathered ahead of her being laid down, but nothing more than that.

Polyphemus, ordered from the Devonport Royal Dockyard, couldn't even have been laid down until the only slip near long enough was cleared of the 1942 light carrier Terrible (which didn't happen until 30 Sept 1944) and the slip itself extended. Land for that had been acquired from the local authority in a part of Plymouth badly bombed earlier in WW2.

I would like to see the evidence you have for Arrogant as it seems to have escaped numerous authors. Always something new to learn.

I think you may be confusing the original Hermes, ordered from VA (Barrow), with Elephant (renamed Hermes on 5 Nov 1945) ordered from Cammell Laird.

 

[EwenS]

Yes, I know that the original plan was for larger Audacious.

Yes, interesting thing about design. But could they not started the construction with plans for un-armoured deck, and change their mind later?

I would have thought it highly unlikely.

Consider the effect on stability of adding the weight of 4in of armour on the flight deck, high up in the ship (armour plate is normally taken as 40lb per square foot per inch of thickness). If you change the design to that extent sacrifices have to be made elsewhere, to remain within the original stress and stability limits.

In late 1942 it was decided to increase the hangar height in the Audacious class to 17.5ft. That meant the armoured flight deck had to be carried higher. To ensure stability was maintained, the beam had to be widened. That was only possible since Audacious had only just been laid down. One effect was that, with the increased beam, the original Eagle couldn't be built at Swan Hunter where the original order had been placed. Instead it had to be moved upriver to VA (Tyne).

 

[BlackBat242]

Not sure how you get to 6 Centaurs laid down.

Orders for 8 placed in July 1943, before the design was finalised. But these were only placeholders. The Board of Admiralty didn't authorise construction in July 1943, expressing the view that a Cabinet decision was required. In Oct the yards were cleared to purchase long lead items for all 8, but Cabinet approval was still awaited.

After much towing & froing approval from Churchill to build 4 was obtained at the end of Jan 1944 (options for 2,4&6 were put to him for consideration).

Which 4 of the 8 was also in a state of flux. In Jan 1944 it was to be Albion, Centaur, Elephant & Hermes. Bulwark & Arrogant were pencilled in to start in Q1 & Q2 1945, with Monmouth & Polyphemus postponed until they did not interfere with existing production.

By July 1944 Albion, Centaur & Elephant were to go ahead "full speed" to clear the slips (laid down March-June 1944) while Monmouth was to go ahead slowly. At that point the other 4, Arrogant, Bulwark, Hermes and Polyphemus had a very uncertain future and remained suspended.

By Spring 1945 Fairfield had started to accumulate material for Monmouth but none of my sources give any indication that she was "laid down" there. Instead work on her was ordered halted & H&W were ordered to proceed with Bulwark. Bulwark was laid down in May 1945 with construction aided by the materials gathered by Fairfield being transferred to Belfast.

All my sources seem clear that Arrogant, ordered from Swan Hunter, was also never laid down. Again some materials May have been gathered ahead of her being laid down, but nothing more than that.

Polyphemus, ordered from the Devonport Royal Dockyard, couldn't even have been laid down until the only slip near long enough was cleared of the 1942 light carrier Terrible (which didn't happen until 30 Sept 1944) and the slip itself extended. Land for that had been acquired from the local authority in a part of Plymouth badly bombed earlier in WW2.

I would like to see the evidence you have for Arrogant as it seems to have escaped numerous authors. Always something new to learn.

I think you may be confusing the original Hermes, ordered from VA (Barrow), with Elephant (renamed Hermes on 5 Nov 1945) ordered from Cammell Laird.

Hermes (ex-Elephant) was built by VA (Barrow), with the original (and cancelled) Hermes assigned to Cammell Laird (according to Wiki, Jane's, etc.)

Both of those ships were shown on the http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/uk_light.htm website with the same lay-down date (June 21 1944), and Arrogant had been shown with a "1944" laydown date when I copied the Centaur class section text back in 2008-2010 or so.

Looking at it just now I see those dates have been removed, so it seems they have corrected their info (the identical laydown dates for both Hermes had looked funny to me).


It is always good to get errors corrected, thanks for giving me the nudge.