The Centaur carrier fleet - a better fate...

[F.L.]

I think it would be a very good fate if the Hermes were sold to Australia in 1966, the Centaur to France in 1965, the Albion in 1972 to Canada and the Bulwark to Peru with Harriers in 1978.
As for the Indians, I haven't got any ideas yet. Maybe the French Centaur after it was withdrawn from service in 1990.
I would have liked one of them to have gone to Argentina around 1970, but I think all they have left is Victorious. Or the best of the best, an Essex !

 

[orlovsky]

While the option of a twin M.45 Mirage G type design exists.....where is it's brother the twin M.45 Mirage F2 and F3 fixed wing design?
For surely a twin M.45 Mirage F3 would literally be a proto-Hornet a la Dassault.

Unlikely, as the twin M45 was a concession to the RAF/RN wishes for AFVG. France alone would likely go single engine, SNECMA TF30 or Spey or larger M53 in Mirage G as prototyped.

But let's say AFVG goes ahead, but the design is split: Heavier VG Bomber "Tornado" with the Germans and smaller fixed wing fighter/interceptor especially for the Centaurs and Clems.
M45 develops into something like the RB199 for both designs.
Dassault and BAe rediscover the Delta for the fighter.
Could the result look like this? Could it fly from a carrier?

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/evolution-of-the-eurofighter-typhoon-tkf-90-ast-396-ast-403-and-more.169/#post-929

 

[uk 75]

The US operated Essex class carriers as CVS.
Instead of removing the catapults in its four Centaur class ships the RN retains them but still configures them with landing craft and accommodation for RMarines.
In their new role the ships carry Seaking ASW helos and Gannet AEW/COD. A mixed airgroup of Sea Vixens and Buccaneers is deployed depending on the operation at hand.

 

[Hood]

Ok peeps, you all love alt-carrier fighters. Where would you place this in the batting order?
A Jaguar M powered by a single Pratt & Whitney F100.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Centaur-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How would you proceed to get all 4 Centaurs a) to the same standard and b) keeping their catapults ?

When designing them make them 50ft longer at the waterline and a few feet beamier so they can take 151ft stroke BS.4 steam catapults and a fully-angled flight deck. They are also designed with AC electrical systems.

Albion, Bulwark & Centaur are still completed as Standard C ships 1953-54 with BH.V hydraulic catapults and interim angled flight decks. Hermes is completed in 1955 as a Standard B ship with a pair of 151ft stroke BS.4s and a fully-angled flight deck, but no Type 984 radar, CDS or DPT and no deck-edge lift either or if it is it is positioned further aft so it doesn't obstruct the angled flight deck. Centaur is brought to Standard A in her 1956-58 refit. That is she's fitted with a pair of 151ft stroke (instead of 139ft stroke) BS.4 steam catapults, a fully-angled flight deck is fitted and she receives the Type 984 radar, CDS & DPT that Hermes received.

The longer flight deck and slightly wider hangar allowed the ships to carry the same size air group as Victorious, 12 Sea Vixens, 14 Buccaneers, 4 AEW Gannets and a squadron of helicopters for ASW, SAR & Vertrep.

Hermes has a special refit 1964-66 in which one of the BS.4s is removed while the second is replaced by a 151ft stroke BS.5 and a 199ft stroke BS.5A is fitted in the waist. She also receives a Type 984M radar, ADA & DPT. Centaur is brought the same standard in a 1967-70 refit that also sees her upgraded to operate Phantoms. Hermes is Phantomised in a £25 million refit 1971-73 instead of being converted to a commando carrier. Meanwhile, it's decided to refit Albion to Standard A instead of Eagle. The refit takes 5 years and costs £31 million, but the ship carried the same size air group as Eagle with a smaller crew and had an AC electrical system. This ship was Phantomised in the late 1960s or early 1970s too.

Thus the RN had 3 Phantom capable strike carriers which saw it through the 1970s and were replaced in the 1980s . . . Wait a minute! I'm having an attack of déjà vu!

Edit: The Above Is Not A Serious Suggestion - It's Only A Bit Of Fun.​

 

[zen]

When designing them make them 50ft longer at the waterline and a few feet beamier so they can take 151ft stroke BS.4 steam catapults and a fully-angled flight deck.

So get Y300 plant, a 'safe' low risk development of capital ship plant used for the Audaciouses aiming at 45,000shp to 50,000shp funded.
Because with that extra power, a ship close to Illustrious/Victorious is possible on two shafts.

And then these Super Centaurs have considerable potential as cheaper options to the Illustrious class.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

So get Y300 plant, a 'safe' low risk development of capital ship plant used for the Audaciouses aiming at 45,000shp to 50,000shp funded.
Because with that extra power, a ship close to Illustrious/Victorious is possible on two shafts.

And then these Super Centaurs have considerable potential as cheaper options to the Illustrious class.

The extra 50 feet increases their waterline length to 736ft 9in which is 26ft 9in more than the Illustrious class and the few extra feet of beam gives them nearly the same waterline beam as the Illustrious class. They have the same machinery as the Real-Hermes class or it's upgraded to from 76,000shp to 80,000shp with two sets of Colossus/Majestic boilers.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

So get Y300 plant, a 'safe' low risk development of capital ship plant used for the Audaciouses aiming at 45,000shp to 50,000shp funded.
Because with that extra power, a ship close to Illustrious/Victorious is possible on two shafts.

And then these Super Centaurs have considerable potential as cheaper options to the Illustrious class.

And it's not a serious suggestion. It's only a bit of fun.

 

[SSgtC]

When designing them make them 50ft longer at the waterline and a few feet beamier so they can take 151ft stroke BS.4 steam catapults and a fully-angled flight deck. They are also designed with AC electrical systems.

Albion, Bulwark & Centaur are still completed as Standard C ships 1953-54 with BH.V hydraulic catapults and interim angled flight decks. Hermes is completed in 1955 as a Standard B ship with a pair of 151ft stroke BS.4s and a fully-angled flight deck, but no Type 984 radar, CDS or DPT and no deck-edge lift either or if it is it is positioned further aft so it doesn't obstruct the angled flight deck. Centaur is brought to Standard A in her 1956-58 refit. That is she's fitted with a pair of 151ft stroke (instead of 139ft stroke) BS.4 steam catapults, a fully-angled flight deck is fitted and she receives the Type 984 radar, CDS & DPT that Hermes received.

The longer flight deck and slightly wider hangar allowed the ships to carry the same size air group as Victorious, 12 Sea Vixens, 14 Buccaneers, 4 AEW Gannets and a squadron of helicopters for ASW, SAR & Vertrep.

Hermes has a special refit 1964-66 in which one of the BS.4s is removed while the second is replaced by a 151ft stroke BS.5 and a 199ft stroke BS.5A is fitted in the waist. She also receives a Type 984M radar, ADA & DPT. Centaur is brought the same standard in a 1967-70 refit that also sees her upgraded to operate Phantoms. Hermes is Phantomised in a £25 million refit 1971-73 instead of being converted to a commando carrier. Meanwhile, it's decided to refit Albion to Standard A instead of Eagle. The refit takes 5 years and costs £31 million, but the ship carried the same size air group as Eagle with a smaller crew and had an AC electrical system. This ship was Phantomised in the late 1960s or early 1970s too.

Thus the RN had 3 Phantom capable strike carriers which saw it through the 1970s and were replaced in the 1980s . . . Wait a minute! I'm having an attack of déjà vu!

Even lengthened, those ships would be extremely marginal for Phantoms. Even if they could physically operate them, they're going to run into the same problem as the Essex class, but on steroids: extremity limited fuel and ordinance storage. These ships would have to UNREP practically daily to be able to operate a Phantoms

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Even lengthened, those ships would be extremely marginal for Phantoms. Even if they could physically operate them, they're going to run into the same problem as the Essex class, but on steroids: extremity limited fuel and ordinance storage. These ships would have to UNREP practically daily to be able to operate a Phantom.

I repeat. It's not a serious suggestion. It's only a bit of fun. However ...

In their stretched form they're only 12 feet shorter than Ark Royal and that combined with the 5 feet of extra beam means more hull volume for ordnance (not ordinance) and fuel. The stretched ships have the same catapults as Ark Royal. Normally, they'll be armed with four Sparrow/Sky Flash instead of the Sea Vixens four Red Tops. Do they consume significantly more space? I'm not being sarcastic. I simply don't know. Neither do I know what the difference between the fuel consumption of the two Avons on a Sea Vixen and the two Speys on a F-4K Phantom.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Ok peeps, you all love alt-carrier fighters. Where would you place this in the batting order?
A Jaguar M powered by a single Pratt & Whitney F100.

Possibly less successful than the actual Jaguar.

Early F100 was a bit of a dog. Not as reliable as desired and underpowered.

Even lengthened, those ships would be extremely marginal for Phantoms. Even if they could physically operate them, they're going to run into the same problem as the Essex class, but on steroids: extremity limited fuel and ordinance storage. These ships would have to UNREP practically daily to be able to operate a Phantoms

Won't be as bad if the Phantoms are just flying CAP, but it's going to be a nightmare as soon as the Phantoms start using ordnance.

 

[zen]

A Jaguar M powered by a single Pratt & Whitney F100.

Just.....errrr.....why?
I mean Jaguar with a single RB.199 or M.53 has a logic of sorts and something like that was studied.
But what is the reasoning behind it?

 

[zen]

Neither do I know what the difference between the fuel consumption of the two Avons on a Sea Vixen and the two Speys on a F-4K Phantom.

Sort of rough idea is twice the fuel burn during reheat and because of the weight, all things being equal, more power is needed in any climb however gentle.
So while the F4 goes faster it comes at a price.

 

[orlovsky]

RN assumed even Eagle and Ark deck strength limit about 50k lbs, and catapult limits are in the same region even with the long bs5.
Bombing missions using lots of ordnance would take the weight into the 55k lbs region, so probably no issue.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Won't be as bad if the Phantoms are just flying CAP, but it's going to be a nightmare as soon as the Phantoms start using ordnance.

Sea Vixen could carry 2,000lb of ordnance and the F-4K could carry 10,000lb which is 5 times more. However, the longer and wider hull will allow the ship to have larger magazines as well as a bigger flight deck and wider hangar.

But you're all taking it too seriously. It was the same as me saying that the 3 Audacious class were laid down with a longer & beamier hull, a single deck hangar, more powerful machinery and an AC electrical system. Which for those that haven't noticed is saying, "What if the Audacious class were laid down as Maltas?"

 

[Hood]

Just.....errrr.....why?
I mean Jaguar with a single RB.199 or M.53 has a logic of sorts and something like that was studied.
But what is the reasoning behind it?

Someone at Warton disagreed and thought it logical.

 

[orlovsky]

The bastard child of the navalised Jaguar und the navalised F-16 - Faluar or Cutlass II?

 

[Yellow Palace]

View attachment 714507

Someone at Warton disagreed and thought it logical.

How's the engine-out performance?

 

[Archibald]

As good as a F-104G, probably...

Faluar or Cutlass II?

All should be fine as long as you avoid Falsair as combined name (falsar is french slang for trousers)

 

[Hood]

How's the engine-out performance?

A stock Jaguar M would barely get back to the carrier with one Adour out so its about even really...

 

[H_K]

My takeaways from this whole thread so far:

- Full modernization of Centaur/Albion/Bulwark unlikely. 8 degree angled deck and extension of port bow catapult as on Hermes probably sufficient. Some deck edge sponsons for additional parked aircraft would be nice to have.

- Spey Twosader remains the most realistic supersonic fighter option, with either British avionics or American AWG-10 derived pulse-Doppler radar (F-4J/K) with smaller antenna

All others are fun thought experiments but not very likely. ;-) The above would be sufficient to pay off Eagle and Ark Royal in the 1960s when they come up for expensive refits (Eagle 1959-64, Ark Royal 1967-70).

 

[orlovsky]

With the caveat that the F-8 would need at least the 175 ft bs5, better the 199 ft version.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

My takeaways from this whole thread so far:

- Full modernization of Centaur/Albion/Bulwark unlikely. 8 degree angled deck and extension of port bow catapult as on Hermes probably sufficient. Some deck edge sponsons for additional parked aircraft would be nice to have.

H.K
Centaur

Hermes


Your idea is something like this

I have in my mind, a question about the posibility of refit the Centaur witn the angled deck of the Hermes.?
One thing I do was using the modification some thing of the Black Bat242 (moving the foward lift and 2 cat

 

[H_K]

With the caveat that the F-8 would need at least the 175 ft bs5, better the 199 ft version.

Why so? The 150ft BS5 as on Clemenceau should be sufficient for launching F-8s in air defense configuration. Hermes' extended 175ft port catapult would be useful for A2G loadouts.

Here is what I have in mind for the Centaurs... same angle deck and catapult arrangement as Hermes, but retaining the centerline forward lift. I also added a deck park behind the island.

 

[uk 75]

Only one country since WW2 has had the resources to operate cutting edge carrier aviation: Midway, Forrestal, Enterprise, Nimitz.
Royal Navy carriers in Korea and at Suez deployed aircraft of negligible capability compared with the US Navy.
But the four Centaurs would have made excellent anti-submarine ships (CVS) at less cost and with a large airgroup than the Invincible class Command Cruisers.

 

[zen]

They would make a better platform for Anti-ship strike as well.

The ability to keep fixed wing AEW could be a major force enabler. Maybe not Hawkeye level capability but a decent successor to Gannet.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Why so? The 150ft BS5 as on Clemenceau should be sufficient for launching F-8s in air defense configuration. Hermes' extended 175ft port catapult would be useful for A2G loadouts.

Here is what I have in mind for the Centaurs... same angle deck and catapult arrangement as Hermes, but retaining the centerline forward lift. I also added a deck park behind the island.

Dont forget that you can use the F-8 as a ground attack plane





Of course you can use th S2.
I dont knot your idea of her air group.

 

[uk 75]

I would keep the cats in the CVS role.
The Gannets in the AEW and COD role could have been refurbished.
A joint programme with France for a small carrier replacement (Breguet something or other with Brough?).

 

[Scott Kenny]

Only one country since WW2 has had the resources to operate cutting edge carrier aviation: Midway, Forrestal, Enterprise, Nimitz.
Royal Navy carriers in Korea and at Suez deployed aircraft of negligible capability compared with the US Navy.
But the four Centaurs would have made excellent anti-submarine ships (CVS) at less cost and with a large airgroup than the Invincible class Command Cruisers.

Remember that even ASW carriers need an airborne CAP and AEW, so you gotta keep the catapults.

I would keep the cats in the CVS role.
The Gannets in the AEW and COD role could have been refurbished.
A joint programme with France for a small carrier replacement (Breguet something or other with Brough?).

Or buying/converting Turbo Tracker/Tracer/Traders from the Americans. RR Dart engines.

 

[zen]

I would keep the cats in the CVS role.
The Gannets in the AEW and COD role could have been refurbished.
A joint programme with France for a small carrier replacement (Breguet something or other with Brough?).

Depends on the timing.
Keeping Centaurs in planning rather than Audaciouses beyond 1966 could keep the AEW P.139 going and in some ways the physical constraints could keep the effort on track.

I rather wonder whether the P.139 might have made a neat tactical transport for the RAF....

 

[uk 75]

P139 looked a lot like the ill fated AEW Nimrod. I would go with a Tracer/Hawkeye style radar on a nifty turboprop airframe.
RAF was offered the DH129 and decided to stick with the excellent Andover till the 70s cuts killed them too early.

 

[Scott Kenny]

P139 looked a lot like the ill fated AEW Nimrod. I would go with a Tracer/Hawkeye style radar on a nifty turboprop airframe.
RAF was offered the DH129 and decided to stick with the excellent Andover till the 70s cuts killed them too early.

Say, one of the DHC STOL jobs. Still from a Commonwealth country.

 

[orlovsky]

Why so? The 150ft BS5 as on Clemenceau should be sufficient for launching F-8s in air defense configuration. Hermes' extended 175ft port catapult would be useful for A2G loadouts.

I think we have to take the F-8J as starting point, not much room for further carrier optimization.
Hopes for performance due to Spey did not materialise with the F-4K.

Internal fuel, 4 sidewinder: ~32k lbs
CAS: ~34k lbs



This means 8 resp. 20 kts wod with the c-11 catapult.

For the 157ft BS4 on the Clems add ~25 kts. Fighter ~33 kts wod. Which probably caused the switch to:
The 169ft high pressure BS5 on the Clems - add ~12 kts. Fighter ~20 kts wod.

For the 199ft low pressure BS5 on Ark etc add ~12 kts. Fighter ~20 kts wod.
For the 151ft low pressure BS5 on Ark etc add ~25 kts. Fighter ~33 kts wod.
For the planned 175ft low pressure BS5 on Hermes add ~18 kts. Fighter ~26 kts wod.

The latter is rather marginal with 25 kts ship speed and maybe another 5 kts needed in tropical conditions. Might work if you manage to squeeze another few kts reduction out of the design.

 

[zen]

Rather like the basic DH129 sans liftjet pods.

P139 looked a lot like the ill fated AEW Nimrod. I would go with a Tracer/Hawkeye style radar on a nifty turboprop airframe.
RAF was offered the DH129 and decided to stick with the excellent Andover till the 70s cuts killed them too early.

Always thought the DH.129 was rather neat and attractive....bar the liftjet pods.

 

[zen]

Hopes for performance due to Spey did not materialise with the F-4K.

Due to fusilage increases in cross sectional area, structural weight and weight shift.
F8 wouldn't suffer such in any detrimental form.
Getting reheated (water injection) thrust over 20,000lb static ought to offset lower pressure catapults

Assuming that is correct as it might more relate to acceleration limits of the airframe.
Again having new build for RN carriers ought to allow strengthening for higher acceleration on the catapult.

Potential thrust increases might follow the real world mk205 engines to 25,000lb

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The objective of the thread is to keep the class in service for longer as strike carriers. However, another way to give the class a better fate is to complete them sooner. Say a less austere Austerity Era allows them to be completed 1949-51, instead of 1953-54 & 1959, which as they were laid down 1944-45 is perfectly feasible on timescale grounds. They would be completed to the same standard as Centaur in 1953.

That would allow all 4 ships of the class to serve in the Korean War, where their larger air groups and second catapult would be useful. Albion & Bulwark would still be converted to commando carriers circa 1960 but they would have served as fixed-wing aircraft carriers for about 10 years each instead of about 6 years each. Similarly Centaur still serves as an fixed-wing aircraft carrier to the end of 1965 (and still receives steam catapults 1956-58) but she would have served in that role for 16 years instead of 12 years. All other things being equal Hermes is paid off in 1970 after 19 years service in the role instead of 11 but it also means that she'd be carrying a smaller air group than she did in the "Real World" after 1959 and couldn't be refitted 1964-66 to operate the Buccaneer because she's refitted to the same standard as Centaur after her 1956-58 refit in the late 1950s instead of having a more extensive (and more expensive) refit to bring her to Standard A-Star.

Incidentally, the same could be said about Ark Royal and Eagle, which were laid down early enough to be completed 1947-48. Then the British taxpayer would have got 12 years of service out of Eagle in her original configuration in stead of 8. My guess is that Ark Royal has steam catapults & an interim angled flight deck fitted 1952-55 and is then Phantomised 1967-70 as in the "Real World". Plus completing her sooner may have avoided the defects that plagued the ship in the "Real World" so she might have been in better material condition in the 1970s in this "Version of History" in spite of being 7 years older.

 

[Archibald]

Supersonic naval fighter options, 1958-1962
FRANCE
-Breguet 1120 Sirocco
-Dassault Mirage IVM (shrunk Mirage IV, high-tail delta - think of Etendards control surfaces)
GREAT BRITAIN
-Saro SR.177
UNITED STATES
-F5D Skylancer
-Super Tiger
-Crusader I/II
-Crusader III
-Phantom

Best / most realistic of the lot for mid-size carriers might be Super Tiger. We got some fascinating discussions here about a Big Wing Super Tiger...

In my TL I salvaged the Skylancer through its Sparrow II connection with the Arrow - and Canadair. Indeed it was Canadair who got the Sparrow II contract, after scrapping of Velvet Glove SARH missile. So I got a smartass Canadair engineer send to USA in 1955-56 for the transfer of Sparrow II to Canadair for the Arrow. The guy however stumbles on the F5D Skylancer and realizes it might be a far better deal than CF-104 for his company, Canadair: also the RCAF, both looking for a Sabre replacement, after the 1815th and last airframe rolls out of Valcartier in 1957. In passing, the Skylancer uncannily looks like a "baby Arrow"...

 

[zen]

Supermarine Type 576 intended to run of the Marston production line. A lot which could be applied to extent Scimitar production.

Various Folland Gnat developments.

Blackburn Buccaneer variants.

Saro scaled up for twin Gyron Junior or single Gyron offered at the last minute to a desired revised F.155.

 

[orlovsky]

Due to fusilage increases in cross sectional area, structural weight and weight shift.
F8 wouldn't suffer such in any detrimental form.
Getting reheated (water injection) thrust over 20,000lb static ought to offset lower pressure catapults

Assuming that is correct as it might more relate to acceleration limits of the airframe.
Again having new build for RN carriers ought to allow strengthening for higher acceleration on the catapult.

Potential thrust increases might follow the real world mk205 engines to 25,000lb

The Spey has a higher air mass flow I think. So redesign the inlet.
A larger radar? Redesign front section/nose.
We all know the history of UK aircraft procurement. F-8K will suffer the usual problems.

As for catapult performance:
- I don't think airframe limit is a problem, the F-8 being launched from the more powerful C-11 or Clem BS5.
- Usually engine power is worth 3-4 kts. Full AB launch allows a few kts reduction, maybe from the safety margin.
- I think the SAC is based on stall speed+safety margin vs (full) catapult power+engine allowance.

For the 151ft low pressure BS5 on Ark etc we have with the F-8J Fighter ~33 kts wod, CAS ~ 45 kts. Tropical maybe +5 kts extra.
Can you bring it down more than 10 kts?

 

[zen]

So redesign the inlet.

Not that big a deal, as effects on fusilage waisting is further back.

A larger radar? Redesign front section/nose.

30" diameter not enough for you?

We all know the history of UK aircraft procurement. F-8K will suffer the usual problems.

An overly pessimistic opinion.
You should better focus on Shorts particular abilities. Which would be a more valid criticism.