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

[NOMISYRRUC]

. . . changes that require PODs before 1945 shouldn't be allowed.

Talking of shouldn't be allowed.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_DMffILNjI

I've always thought he looked a lot like a young Trevor Eve, but I've been unable to find confirmation that it is him.

Susie Vanner the actress has it on her Facebook page, but she doesn't say who he is. Someone said it was Barrie Rutter in the comments, but I'm not sure that it's him.

I found an Australian version of this on YouTube years ago when I first looked for the British version, but it appears to have been taken down.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And an obvious question. If the USN were developing a slotted tube type using explosive powder, why didn't they think of using steam until it was demonstrated to them on the Perseus?

Possibly due to how little excess steam most USN ships had?

Carriers usually cruise pretty fast, so as to get maximum wind over deck.

 

[zen]

RN could have made the choice in 1947 and started the institutional processes to design a new large carrier taking into account the increasing weights and minimum speeds of future aircraft.
This would roll on through the crisis of 1948 and start setting out decisions on critical elements by 1949, hopefully starting build by then or 1950.
At which point Korea!
Which could either surge the effort or park it for a year or two.
But even with a redesign of the flight deck in 1952-53 the bulk of the ship and long-lead items would be ongoing and likely completion would happen sometime between 1956 to 1958. In place of Victorious.
Between 1953 and 1955 a second and more rapid construction could take place to the same revised design.

 

[Hood]

The flexible deck and angled deck were contemporary projects and were complimentary to some extent - you could have a rubber angled deck and leave the bow cats free for take-offs.
Both were solving different problems - aircraft weight and aircraft size (parking).

 

[uk 75]

Unlike the US Navy which developed its Forrestals to compete with the USAF in nuclear bombing the USSR the Royal Navy were more interested in using its carriers to protect shipping from Soviet submarines.
Development of the Gannet (and the awful Seamew) was matched by the Buccaneer as a Swerdlow cruiser killer.
It would be interesting to see how seriously the RN took its provision of carriers for the NATO Atlantic Striking Fleet.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The flexible deck and angled deck were contemporary projects and were complimentary to some extent - you could have a rubber angled deck and leave the bow cats free for take-offs.
Both were solving different problems - aircraft weight and aircraft size (parking).

As discussed here.

Prior to the angled deck the complementary solutions being considered were nets strung across the deck (there is a huge amount of surviving material about net materials, designs and layouts) to catch aircraft that missed the wires and a large fold down deck edge extension on the side of the carrier for parking. Fold down because carriers (supposedly through agreement with the US) were being designed as Panamax vessels. The angled deck swept all of that away.

 

[Archibald]

I would hazard that the difference between Audacious and Malta is similar to a early Midway and a SCB-125A Essex. What I mean: average Midway vs Essex pushed to its limits. In turn, it makes a significant difference when operating Phantoms.
Audacious were on a knife edge for Phantoms, even with Speys.
Malta could more easily handle Spey-Phantoms - and also handle non-Spey Phantoms.