The idea was that during continuous operations that the aircraft would land, fold their wings, taxi back towards the stern inboard of the island, then turn onto the Alaskan Highway where there are four refuelling and rearming stations, then move forward to the bow catapult, extend wings and take-off.
If I have the runout correct on the #3 wire, the plane comes to a stop at roughly the front of the island, then needs to go aft all the way around the island to refuel and rearm.
It wasn't a true parallel deck as the ship was too small to allow it, b
And note The Alaskan Highway running starboard side outboard of the island, allowing aircraft with wings folded to be moved forward and aft.
The fight deck of a Nimitz class has an angle of 9 degrees.
How? And the Invincible class is conspicuous by its absence from that sentence.
Did you mean?
Once again how?
True. However, is land based air significantly cheaper than carrier based air, when the cost of building & operating the Invincible class is included? My conclusion is, no, it isn't.
The estimated costs of CVA.01 in 1966 that I've seen are between £60-70 million. How much would have been saved by deleting the Sea Dart system?
Whoops! Scotties! I didn't see that before writing my reply.
I think some Sea Dart armed escorts would have been required if some Hawkeye's had been purchased for CVA.01.
For a change, I more or less agree with you.
And look at the cost of the Type 42 Batch 1s.
Hang on!
Here's the link.
www.bankofengland.co.uk
The Ikara launcher would have been on a sponson just ahead of the aft lift. In the final design this installation was replaced by a another refuelling/rearming position.
And how do you explain the first ship built by each yard costing less than the rate of inflation?
Isn't that obvious?
The six Type 42 Batch 1s were built in 3 yards.
Which is missing my point.
What he meant, was that, the rate of inflation for military products is higher than the rate of general inflation. I was saying that it was not always the case.
Dunno how they do the accounting in the UK, but things like the radars and weapons are considered Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and aren't part of the cost that the shipyard bills to Congress.
Certain items may have even been ordered before the ship was officially ordered. Long Lead Items, like reduction gears and boilers/reactors, usually gets ordered a couple of years before the ship is officially ordered and laid down.
The RN used to do the Vote 8 cost and the total cost. Vote 8 being Vote 8 (Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.) of the Navy Estimates. So the Vote 8 cost of a ship didn't include its armament because that was in Vote 9 (Naval Armaments) of the Navy Estimates.
Again, that's irrelevant to the discussion that I'm having with @zen, because the cost of each and every Type 42 Batch 1 that I've quoted includes the cost of the long-lead items or the cost of each and every Type 41 Batch 1 that I've quoted doesn't include the long-lead items. Therefore, it doesn't explain why the cost increases were less than the general rate of inflation.
So what I was thinking of were the design studies posted here and on the following post: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...scort-cruisers-1963-to-1968.1049/#post-165711
So two things to note: first, that the cost of fitting a Sea Dart and an Ikara looks to be about the same as fitting 4 Tartar launchers and associated infrastructure. Second, that fitting Tartar directly cost at least 5 million pounds, and possibly more - the cost leap from the 42,000-ton to 48,000-ton alternatives was double the cost leap from 48,000 to 55,000 tons, with my thesis being the difference was entirely down to the SAM fits.
Oh, absolutely, but it's the difference between needing 13 Sea Dart ships for two carriers and needing 8-10.
HMS Eagle R05, HMS Ark Royal R09.
Nothing quite as wide as what was proposed for CVA01 - the same moniker, though.
Thank you Hood, very kind of you and much appreciated.
The question is how you get the Royal Navy to not only get new carriers funded in the mid-50s, but have those new carriers be full-size fleet carriers instead of the Medium Fleet Carriers actually pushed. Anything earlier runs afoul of political fights or financial realities.
I would not say that Victorious was too tired. It had emerged from its reconstruction in 1958 as basically a new ship - rather, it was somewhat too small and with a sub-optimal catapult configuration. Instead of two bow-mounted 145' BS-4 sets, it should have received a bow-mounted 151' BS-5 and a waist-mounted 199' BS-5A if in any way possible (at least steam should not be a problem as its new boilers provided steam at a clearly higher pressure than all the other carriers in the fleet). When it comes to Hermes, I would say that in addition to being too small, it had a sub-optimal configuration (should have had the rear lift as a deck-edge unit instead of the front lift and a similar catapult configuration as I suggested for Victorious; it also lacked a gallery deck) and was too slow and had an insufficient steam generation capability (they should have switched to the same Foster-Wheeler boilers as fitted to Victorious after her reconstruction - this should have provided roughly 90 000 shp and a clearly higher steam pressure).
