You have 40-ish million pounds to build a CV for the RN early 60s...what does it look like?

[uk 75]

On point defence missiles I always regret that the supersonic Seacat 2 was not adopted as a retrofit on the numerous RN Seacat launchers.
Building a brand new carrier to operate a fighter without Sparrow/Skyflash capability and only Sidewinders seems the worst of all possible worlds.
As I have written more than once the RN will not accept a single seater single engined fighter. Ah but why does it then accept Harrier I hear you cry.
Sea Harrier was a limited role add on to the Sealing carrying cruiser (Invincible) to give some protection against Soviet "snooper" planes. Serious fleet air defence was left to the US Second Fleet and its two carrier striking groups for which the Invincibles were a key ASW asset.
France with its mainly Mediterranean and African colonies roles has a very different carrier requirement from the RN. A wartime role helping NATO convoys get to French ports was not the main purpose of Foch or Clemenceau.
Excellent MN pilots could get the best out of the F8 and Etendard in various jobs, notably the Lebanon crisis in the early 80s.
For the RN it is either providing NATO a carrier group for the Atlantic Striking Fleet or an ASW group for the same force.
East of Suez was untenable after the mid 60s financial meltdown in the UK and its dependence on West German help to get into the EEC. NATO not the Commonwealth is the focus.
France flirted with various paper planes for the MN. But it cut its suit to fit off the shelf cloth.
Ark Royal and its Phantom/Buccaneer group served throughout the 70s as well as CVA01 with the same group was once planned to do.
It is worth remembering that planners in the 60s expected missiles to make aircraft unnecessary in both defence and strike roles by the 80s. The impressive Soviet missile ships and US experience with Talos made this a not unrealistic aim.
Just as Polaris had replaced Skywarriors and Vigilantes in the strategic strike role future tactical seaborne systems would do the same for other aircraft

 

[uk 75]

If the UK were to follow France in the 1960s by pursuing a Commonwealth rather than NATO based defence policy the Centaurs (Albion, Bulwark, Hermes and Centaur). could have provided a coherent carrier force.
The Commando Ship role inherited from Ocean and Theseus could have been filled by other less useful vessels or new builds.
Rather than the F4/Buccaneer combo needed for high intensity NATO roles the F8 and A4 as used on US Essex class ships in the Vietnam War would have been suitable.
Replacement ships similar in size and capability could have operated Etendards or Jaguar Ms.
Assuming the real world crises of the period the four Centaurs and their successors would have had plenty of work. With no war with the Soviet Union the F4/Buc combo would not be missed nor for that matter alll those Seakings.

 

[bobtdwarf]

On point defence missiles I always regret that the supersonic Seacat 2 was not adopted as a retrofit on the numerous RN Seacat launchers.
Building a brand new carrier to operate a fighter without Sparrow/Skyflash capability and only Sidewinders seems the worst of all possible worlds.
As I have written more than once the RN will not accept a single seater single engined fighter. Ah but why does it then accept Harrier I hear you cry.
Sea Harrier was a limited role add on to the Sealing carrying cruiser (Invincible) to give some protection against Soviet "snooper" planes. Serious fleet air defence was left to the US Second Fleet and its two carrier striking groups for which the Invincibles were a key ASW asset.
France with its mainly Mediterranean and African colonies roles has a very different carrier requirement from the RN. A wartime role helping NATO convoys get to French ports was not the main purpose of Foch or Clemenceau.
Excellent MN pilots could get the best out of the F8 and Etendard in various jobs, notably the Lebanon crisis in the early 80s.
For the RN it is either providing NATO a carrier group for the Atlantic Striking Fleet or an ASW group for the same force.
East of Suez was untenable after the mid 60s financial meltdown in the UK and its dependence on West German help to get into the EEC. NATO not the Commonwealth is the focus.
France flirted with various paper planes for the MN. But it cut its suit to fit off the shelf cloth.
Ark Royal and its Phantom/Buccaneer group served throughout the 70s as well as CVA01 with the same group was once planned to do.
It is worth remembering that planners in the 60s expected missiles to make aircraft unnecessary in both defence and strike roles by the 80s. The impressive Soviet missile ships and US experience with Talos made this a not unrealistic aim.
Just as Polaris had replaced Skywarriors and Vigilantes in the strategic strike role future tactical seaborne systems would do the same for other aircraft

But they would have accepted SR177 if it made it to production, they put a lot of effort into building support for it into Eagle and Victorious.. and I have never seen anything about it being a two seater. This is why I said I was positioning the ST as an SR fallback. The UK budgeted 50 mil to mod the phantom, they could have built a carrier capable of handling unmodified ones for that.. this is why I refer to this period of the RN as the "WTF?" era. Between the rebuild of the Audacious' and the modification to Phantom to fly off of them we are talking 160+ million..

 

[uk 75]

The whole Super Tiger thing is just too far away from reality. If the USN didn't want it there was no way the RN were going to.
SR177 belongs to the crazy period when the UK tried to do weird and wonderful stuff on a shoestring. The RN and RAF fixation with two seater two engine comes later.
Post Suez and with Mountbatten in charge the RN sticks as close to the USN as possible. CVA01 is as close to a Forrestal as the RN can get.
A different RN as per my Commonwealth Option above with four Centaurs might have taken your Super Tiger if it had a Vickers or a Hawker badge on it.

 

[zen]

To be fair....which frankly I don't think UK75 is on this topic
...
F.177 was pre-1957 and arguably was a legacy of late 1940s thinking.
It's fairly obvious it was undergoing evolutions that would ultimately scrap the rocket element for more jet fuel.
It's quite reasonable to suggest the whole project would collapse under the weight of compromises and changes. Because fitting more a powerful engine would force a conplete scaling up and redesign.

The answer to that whole problem lurks in Saro's last ditch F.155 request for a lowered specification leading to more reasonable solutions. Either a single large engine or a twin. Essentially they got close with the P.162 supersonic research tender. A much applauded first stab at such from a small team.

Arguably however we have two paths forward pre-1964. Namely P.1154 and Shorts licensed F8. Both single engined.

 

[uk 75]

Zen explains the problem well.
The UK industry is at its safest building single engined low tech stuff like Hunters and Hawks later on. Anything complicated like Lightning and early Buccaneers have issues for the operator.
Enough senior people in this era remembered the difference in quality between US kit supplied to the FAA and the British efforts

 

[H_K]

Building a brand new carrier to operate a fighter without Sparrow/Skyflash capability and only Sidewinders seems the worst of all possible worlds.

Any thoughts on Aim-9D or Red Top vs Aim-7E? Both could be operated from a Crusader/Super Tiger or (if the RN wants a two seater) Spey Twosader.

Skyflash didn’t enter service until 1978, the same year Ark Royal was decommissioned, so not really relevant to the timeline in this thread which is to have a new carrier from the mid-60s onwards.

 

[bobtdwarf]

The whole Super Tiger thing is just too far away from reality. If the USN didn't want it there was no way the RN were going to.
SR177 belongs to the crazy period when the UK tried to do weird and wonderful stuff on a shoestring. The RN and RAF fixation with two seater two engine comes later.
Post Suez and with Mountbatten in charge the RN sticks as close to the USN as possible. CVA01 is as close to a Forrestal as the RN can get.
A different RN as per my Commonwealth Option above with four Centaurs might have taken your Super Tiger if it had a Vickers or a Hawker badge on it.

In the time frame of the related scenario the Tiger was in service with the USN, and the number 1 prototype for the ST was an unmodified long nose with a J-79, which the UK has zero interest in. Hypothesis is that if McD and Grumman both maintain contact with the RN regarding their birds instead of only McD the tipping point would be the local production of ST where that was never on offer for Phantom. It costs have as much, does not require 50 mil in modifications as it will fly off every deck you got and you can build it in the UK and use AI.23 in it. But they weren't really thinking about Phantom historically until after Tiger was out of front line USN service, so for it to work at all would require Grumman to maintain a sales effort and that requires a change in USN command thinking.

 

[uk 75]

Okay I will plod. Skyflash simply replaced Sparrow on UK aircraft. I was assuming a carrier equipped with F4 and Buc running on until 1991.
If you are simply deploying aircraft only able to use Red Top or Sidewinder then you might as well ditch conventional carriers and move to the Invincibles with Sea Harrier as soon as possible
Four Sidewinder and FourSparrow are essential for a decent carrier air defence mission in the East Atlantic. Anything leas than that is not worth a CTOL carrier.

 

[uk 75]

Sorry "out of front line USN service" means forget it for the RN.

 

[zen]

The other elephant in the room was the F8U-III. Vought would not have proposed such if there wasn't interest.

Ironically the F8 slab sided fusilage is more amenable to the sort of next generation AAM studied in the UK.

The actual answer from UK Government was P.1154 prior to 1964.

 

[H_K]

Skyflash simply replaced Sparrow on UK aircraft. I was assuming a carrier equipped with F4 and Buc running on until 1991.
If you are simply deploying aircraft only able to use Red Top or Sidewinder then you might as well ditch conventional carriers and move to the Invincibles with Sea Harrier as soon as possible
Four Sidewinder and FourSparrow are essential for a decent carrier air defence mission

In the real world the F-4K served on Ark Royal from 1970-78 with AIM-7Es and AIM-9Gs.

The F-4K’s head-on engagement capability could be provided by a simpler supersonic fighter with Red Top or AIM-9C five years earlier. Then in the late 70s that fighter could be upgraded with the latest electronics to launch Skyflash, much like the F-104S had Aspide and the Mirage F1 had the Super 530F.

Questionable whether a Phantom with 8 missiles would be much more effective than another fighter with 2 Red Top/AIM-9Cs, 2 AIM-9Gs and a gun, given the limited number of engagements a fighter could do. I do think a two-seater has value, which is why personally I lean towards the Spey Twosader.

Certainly Invincibles with Sea Harrier do not come close to a supersonic fighter with head-on engagement capability… so there should be room to consider something in between the F-4K and Sea Harrier that could have provided more durable value from the mid-60s through the 90s.

 

[uk 75]

The P1154 saga is well covered on this site.
The RN did not want it and killed it off by turning it into a British F4.
If the USN had bought a Vought or Grumman fighter instead of F4 then I think the RN would have been likely to want it.
The F8 Crusader has always seemed to me to make sense for the Centaurs. It is miles better than a Sea Vixen.
But persuading the Navy Board takes my Commonwealth instead of NATO French style policy.
Hermes rather than Eagle or Ark offers an easier to dock and repair size. Lose the F4 requirement and you have four carriers.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Sorry "out of front line USN service" means forget it for the RN.

I agree, that is why I structured the original scenario the way I did: So the RN could commit while it was still in front line service.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The F-4K’s head-on engagement capability could be provided by a simpler supersonic fighter with Red Top or AIM-9C five years earlier.

Out of curiosity. Sea Vixen Mk 2 was armed with four Red tops. Did it have a head-on engagement capability as well?

 

[H_K]

Out of curiosity. Sea Vixen Mk 2 was armed with four Red tops. Did it have a head-on engagement capability as well?

Yes but Red Top’s head-on capability apparently only worked against supersonic targets. On the other hand Red Top was expected to be better than Sparrow for crossing shots at lower altitudes (where a semi-active radar guided missile would be impacted by ground clutter).

Discussed here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/red-top-missile-performance-all-aspect-capability.32917/

 

[zen]

Correction: RN viewed the MRI platform as applicable for short-range offensive missions as part of the wider TAU.
This would later change to increase long-range platforms utilised for the short-range missions.
------
The addition of area SAM systems obviate the then perceived need for DLI. Substantially reducing airwing numbers in favour of standing CAP.
This being 1960 implies the Missileeer concept.
It seems HSA had gotten their hands on AIM-47 (as intended for F108 and then F12) information. So Eagle is not the only US option.
--------
Tiger to Super Tiger or Crusader
Arguably this is an excellent option to ditch the mixed powerplant fighter in the mid 50's and licensed an option to make up for the delayed Swift and Hunter which had much lower performance.
Once the Type 556 FAW development was cut and the DH110 yet again delayed. An interim option was needed.

Arguably no Suez Crisis, might permit this outcome.
-----------
The argument for Commonwealth Support Carrier force does mate with EoS requirements if RoA is downgraded by the force being brought within 450nm of the target set. Arguably even a 600nm to mesh with GOR.339's shorter radius figure.
The 1,000nm figure was excessive even by USN requirements as per A5 and TFX.
A general acceptance of the 600nm figure cuts fuel fraction and eases design demands on achieving other performance criteria.

Strictly then by a focus on a limited force of A5s in synergy with the RAAF and USN. The RN could field a a highly compatible element into Allied forces EoS. Which would also mesh with Strike North again with the USN.
Support for Australia is the metric by which a Commonwealth Support Option would be measured.

A complimentary path is continued Buccaneer development and providing a low level compliment to high level A5s. This latter option is still better to field a CV capable of recovery and launch of A5 and successor TFX.
Even the 42Kton study can achieve this....albeit at low weights for limited capability. Which would still be highly valued by USN.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

But please no paper airplanes.

First. You're British not American. Therefore, it's aeroplanes not airplanes.

Remember Michael Gough and Kenneth Moore in "Reach for the Sky!"

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LgYtZ0yLCM

At about 5 minutes 45 seconds Gough says to Moore.

"Never! Never! Call it a plane Bader! It's an aeroplane!"​

At about one hour 30 minutes Moore says to Michael Ripper.

"Never! Never! Call it a plane! It's an aeroplane Mister West!"​

Second. Although I think having the RN buy the F11F-1F Super Tiger is a bad idea it wasn't a paper aeroplane.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

It seems HSA had gotten their hands on AIM-47 (as intended for F108 and then F12) information. So Eagle is not the only US option.

As I'm in "Ed Reardon" mode.

That non-word should have been gotten rid of a long time ago.

The only legitimate uses are.

1. The phrase, "Ill gotten gains". And.
2. Quoting Oliver Hardy. That is, "That's another fine mess you've gotten me into Stanley!"

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Although I think it's a bad idea. Would some of the navies that bought Skyhawks in the "real world" have bought the Super Tiger if the RN had bought it?

 

[Pioneer]

Although I think it's a bad idea. Would some of the navies that bought Skyhawks in the "real world" have bought the Super Tiger if the RN had bought it?

NOMISYRRUC, as has already been discussed in other thread pertaining to the F11F-1F Super Tiger, almost every navy that operated the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk from carriers, were of the Colossus/Majestic class ships, which was ascertained as being most unlikely to operate the F11F-1F Super Tiger safely.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Hood]

But please no paper airplanes.

First. You're British not American. Therefore, it's aeroplanes not airplanes.

Remember Michael Gough and Kenneth Moore in "Reach for the Sky!"

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LgYtZ0yLCM

At about bout 5 minutes 45 seconds Gough says to Moore.

"Never! Never! Call it a plane Bader! It's an aeroplane!"​

At about one hour 30 minutes Moore says to Michael Ripper.

"Never! Never! Call it a plane! It's an aeroplane Mister West!"​

Second. Although I think having the RN buy the F11F-1F Super Tiger is a bad idea it wasn't a paper aeroplane.

Interestingly Aeroplane has declined much greater than airplane has increased so I would presume aircraft has taken up the mantle or some other terminology.

Technically Moore was getting an ear-bashing for shortening the word, not for the missing prefix.

 

[zen]

It seems HSA had gotten their hands on AIM-47 (as intended for F108 and then F12) information. So Eagle is not the only US option.

As I'm in "Ed Reardon" mode.

That non-word should have been gotten rid of a long time ago.

The only legitimate uses are.

1. The phrase, "Ill gotten gains". And.
2. Quoting Oliver Hardy. That is, "That's another fine mess you've gotten me into Stanley!"

Oh don't get me started or I'll type "HSA did their hands on AIM-47 y-get"

And from there the slippery slope ends up with talk about Loftwains flying off the Rikes Fleet shipen

 

[Hood]

Arguably the F-4 is a bit of a cul de sac in these kinds of discussions. It was brought because the RN didn't like the P.1154 and there was nothing else on offer off the shelf which could replace the Sea Vixen.

I have posted this handy timeline before, the blue sentence is the most relevant - the early CVA-01 studies are stuck in Sea Vixen/Buccaneer-era baselines some 3-4 years after the ER.206/AW/406 saga of large VG types. I would doubt that any British carrier design before 1962, even built to the logistical constraints of docks/slips, would be fully F-4 compatible without some kind of refit/redesign.
But for the premise of the Super Tiger AH, well I can't see any major problems with it using existing carriers. It's cancellation comes before CVA-01 is even dreamed of. With brand-new Super Tigers entering FAA service in 1960-62 as a P.177 replacement, arguably they would have to solider on until the early 70s. The Treasury wouldn't be buying F-4Js in 1964 unless the Admiralty could put up a damn good reason to save the all-weather fighter capability. If anything it increases AFVG's chances as a 1970s replacement.

March 1959 - OR.346 was issued in outline form, which brought about the ER.206 mini-TSRs and Swallow-derived VG designs.
1961- the RN wanted to go with a VG type to replace Sea Vixen and Buccaneer for 1970-72 (about the time when CVA-01 would probably be completed as estimated at that time). Vickers is tinkering with the 58x series of VGs, Brough brings out the B.123 and Hatfield the DH.127
April 1962 - the Sea Vixen replacement for 1969-70 is spun off into AW.406/OR.356 and the RAF joins for a Hunter replacement
August 1962 - the P.1154 is tendered to OR.356
Late 1962 - design studies for CVA-01 begin, at this stage Sea Vixen/Bucc are the design baselines
Jan 1963 - the DRPC says "no way" to funding the OR.346 Type 589 full-scale VG research aircraft.
1963 - OR.356 studies at Vickers/BAC, VG Lightning and the 583 series revived but VSTOL P.1154 wins the day
October 1963 - RN walks away from P.1154 and wants F-4C Phantoms
1964 - F-4J Phantom selected, Spey added etc. for UK workshare, 170 ordered. The four V/STOL take-off positions are removed from CVA-01.
June 1964 - Commando Ship role added to CVA-01.
December 1964 - Ikara deleted from CVA-01 to improve aircraft facilities/hangar space.
April 1965 - AFVG begins for land-air-sea-Anglo-French roles, the AFVG is seen very much as a complement to F-111K.
May 1965 - F-111B first flies
Dec 1965 - CVA-01 design finalised, full compatibility with Phantom, including changes for compatibility with F-111B (lift size etc.) Plan is to lay down in Sept 1967 and sea trials in late 1971 for full operational capability in June 1973.
27 Jan 1966 - CVA-01 Board approval
14 Feb 1966 - review kills CVA-01 just before tender documents issued and all naval interest in AFVG evaporates, F-4K order cut to just 48 plus options for 7
April 1966 - 10 F-111K ordered plus 40 options (firmed in April 1967)
June 1967 - France walks away from AFVG
July 1967 - BAC begins cooking up UKVG and of course there is no naval interest at all given reliance on Phantoms on existing carriers.
Early 1968 - F-111K cancelled
April 1968 - F-4K FGR.1 arrives with 700P NAS
July 1968 - F-111B cancelled, VFX is born

 

[zen]

Super Tiger effectively kills F.177.
Which means it takes the F mk I slot in succession of Scimitar. Arguably quick to service on Victorious.

Addition of AI.23 and Firestreak will ultimately draw in automated datalink, autopilot and AIRPASS.

Why bother with Sea Vixen at that point?

 

[uk 75]

I acknowledge my laziness in tarring Super Tiger as a paper aircraft. But for the RN it was as good as, unless the USN operated it.
I admit to prefering the F8 Crusader, not least because that had a long and distinguished career with the USN and MN.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Although I think it's a bad idea. Would some of the navies that bought Skyhawks in the "real world" have bought the Super Tiger if the RN had bought it?

NOMISYRRUC, as has already been discussed in other thread pertaining to the F11F-1F Super Tiger, almost every navy that operated the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk from carriers, were of the Colossus/Majestic class ships, which was ascertained as being most unlikely to operate the F11F-1F Super Tiger safely.

Regards
Pioneer

Operation of the historic IRL SuperTiger from a Majestic would not be possible. For it to be possible you need a minimum of 300 sqft. of wing at which point it would have the same kind of limitations as the A-4. In other words there will be times when you can launch either with the fuel to reach the target or the bombs to attack but not both.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Although I think it's a bad idea. Would some of the navies that bought Skyhawks in the "real world" have bought the Super Tiger if the RN had bought it?

depends really. In the Alt-F-11 thread there is some discussion of who would or could use it as an A-4 supplement or replacement, I think I noted that the A-4 has better ordinance clearance under the wing(not entirely certain on that as I have not done a photoshop overlay of scaled drawings but in my minds eye it seems right), so in some cases no, but we were mainly talking about that for land based aircraft. If there were surplus RN Alt-Tigers floating around I could see Argentina and India wanting to lay their hands on some, but they have the same limitations as the Skyhawk and Super E do on the Majestics... India would have a ball operating them off Hermes if there wasn't that ramp in the way...

 

[bobtdwarf]

Super Tiger effectively kills F.177.
Which means it takes the F mk I slot in succession of Scimitar. Arguably quick to service on Victorious.

Addition of AI.23 and Firestreak will ultimately draw in automated datalink, autopilot and AIRPASS.

Why bother with Sea Vixen at that point?

I would consider it as a fallback to F.177, once that dies then they step over to ST. In my head in the scenario I did not think the RN would acquire ST until '62-'63; in one version I considered the absolute downest, dirtiest, and cheapest possibility: Surplus USN birds using used engines pulled from retiring scimitars no reheat just "slam-bam" off you go.

 

[Archibald]

We agree on that. Colossus / Majestic, NO; Centaurs maybe; Centaurs to Hermes standard, YES.

France never dared to try landing or launching an Etendard IVM from Arromanches.

 

[bobtdwarf]

We agree on that. Colossus / Majestic, NO; Centaurs maybe; Centaurs to Hermes standard, YES.

France never dared to try landing or launching an Etendard IVM from Arromanches.

but they did look at enough to make a blown flap version.

 

[Archibald]

Wish I could know more about that one (sigh)

 

[uk 75]

To return to the subject of the thread. Hood has given us a useful summary of what aircraft were driving the design of CVA01.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/you-have-40-ish-million-pounds-to-build-a-cv-for-the-rn-early-60s-what-does-it-look-like.40164/post-555173

The RN had been working on a design for a replacement carrier for years. It started with Hermes size ships through Eagle size to CVA01.
In an ideal world the RN wanted its own Forrestal attack carrier (CVA) but the infrastructure in the UK did not allow it. Nuclear power was not available as the submerine force had priority to take on the Soviet threat
Polaris and other missiles make the need for RN carriers in "general war" with the Soviet Union doubtful and the RN focuses on sending a carrier "East of Suez" to reinforce Singapore and support remaining British interests in the Gulf.
Existing carriers can be converted to maintain a two ship force at least into the 70s consisting of Eagle and Hermes. A third carrier (CVA01) should join them.
My options in 1962 (with or without hindsight) are in the shadow of Polaris.
a) abandon CTOL carriers for a smaller VSTOL carrier on an Iwo Jima LPH or a through deck version of Jean d'arc or Andrea Doria missile cruisers. Six of these ships would also replace the three Tigers and Belfast.
b) modernise Eagle and Hermes to serve through the 1970s but build no new ships.
c) dispose of either Hermes or Eagle and focus on building new ships of a similar size to the remaining vessel (Eagle if you want F4 otherwise Hermes).
d) CVA01 is the right size but as the RN found with its Invincibles you dont need the big radar and CF299/Seadart so a simpler design. But you do need new infrastucture.

My answer to the above is based on my reading of "Silent Deep" and the view that the Soviet Navy in the North Atlantic needs as much ASW effort as possible and the RN is good at it.
To support the new SSN force I would ditch the WW2 era carriers and cruisers and build a force of six fast LPH Anti Sub carriers capable of carrying 20 Seakings and operating VSTOL combat aircraft developed from P1127 or Balzac. The lead ship (Ocean, Glory, Magnificent, Centaur, Elephant and Powerful) would be laid down in 1966 for trials in 1970 and service in 1972 replacing Eagle.

 

[H_K]

While you guys have been debating fighters, I've been working on my 45,000 ton medium carrier proposal.

Starting point is the PA58 design. I've drawn it in detail by upscaling the Clemenceau plans (as that's basically what PA58 was), adding the longer 199ft BS5a catapults used on Eagle/Ark Royal. This is not meant to imply that the RN would buy PA58, just meant to illustrate what a 45,000ton RN carrier might look like.

Also including a side-by-side comparison vs. Clemenceau and CVA-01.

Next up... going to add the air group!

 

[bobtdwarf]

While you guys have been debating fighters, I've been working on my 45,000 ton medium carrier proposal.

Starting point is the PA58 design. I've drawn it in detail by upscaling the Clemenceau plans (as that's basically what PA58 was), adding the longer 199ft BS5a catapults used on Eagle/Ark Royal. This is not meant to imply that the RN would buy PA58, just meant to illustrate what a 45,000ton RN carrier might look like.

Also including a side-by-side comparison vs. Clemenceau and CVA-01.

Next up... going to add the air group!

something that would be interesting in particular to PA58 as a side note: France ran at a higher steam pressure than British ships. The first three CVA19 Hancock class ships used British BUILT cats, so one would think they are essentially British cats designed to take American pressures and thus had better throw weight. I want to say that the Clem's ran at 600 PSI like the Hancock but am NOT certain on that.. but the point remains that these cats could have some extra "OOOMPH"

Also in case the board messes with the scale.. how wide and long is the hangar of 58?

 

[uk 75]

There has been much discussion on this site about the size of drydocks and berths in the UK.
What constraints applied in France to their carriers?

 

[JFC Fuller]

Arguably the F-4 is a bit of a cul de sac in these kinds of discussions. It was brought because the RN didn't like the P.1154 and there was nothing else on offer off the shelf which could replace the Sea Vixen.

I have posted this handy timeline before, the blue sentence is the most relevant - the early CVA-01 studies are stuck in Sea Vixen/Buccaneer-era baselines some 3-4 years after the ER.206/AW/406 saga of large VG types. I would doubt that any British carrier design before 1962, even built to the logistical constraints of docks/slips, would be fully F-4 compatible without some kind of refit/redesign.
But for the premise of the Super Tiger AH, well I can't see any major problems with it using existing carriers. It's cancellation comes before CVA-01 is even dreamed of.

The studies that resulted in CVA-01 started in late 1958 and were derived from work undertaken by the then Director Naval Air Warfare over the summer/autumn of that year. From the very outset the carrier was coupled, indeed intimately linked with, a next generation of aircraft beyond the Sea Vixen/Buccaneer combination, OR.346 being the resultant naval requirement. Even this work was probably informed by studies dating to 1956/57. The timeframe is almost perfect for the Super Tiger (or perhaps a Spey powered Spiger?) but given the demanding nature of the air defence requirement the RN was considering I can't imagine it being pursued.

The tale is rather difficult to put into a simple linear timeline as its an incredibly complex story with different stakeholder groups often simultaneously trying to achieve the exact opposite objective and having different perceptions of what individual aircraft programmes were meant to be.

 

[zen]

This I think hits a nail.
Something seems to happen after the NARC Committee meeting in '56 and it's not just Suez and Sandys.

The connection might be the study that briefly looked at head-on Intercept with a Mach 2 fighter using radar guided AAMs. This with a effective range under AEW and Type 984 of 200nm. Which I think might be '55.
Mostly that focused on mixed powerplant fighters and IR homing AAMs under Type 984.

Now it maybe that while the F.177 was still pursued as the best chance of something, it carries the suggestion they were reasoning out the alternatives and why the US wasn't pursuing a similar approach.

It's of note the all jet fuel option for F.177 was 2 hours CAP and the question has to be raised could yhe Super Tiger actually achieve this?

 

[H_K]

how wide and long is the hangar of 58?

The images are in Shipbucket scale (2 pixels = 1 ft).

PA58's hangar was nominally 200m x 28.5m (vs. 180m x 24m for Clemenceau). However on Clemenceau this length included some engine and weapons workshops, with the effective hangar length being 134m. The hangar also narrowed by 2m towards the ends.

Most likely the same was true on PA58, so I estimated effective hangar length at 158m (as PA58 is 24m longer than Clemenceau). I also assumed a small 18m extension forward where the centerline lift used to be - this could be used for helicopters, boats and pallets.

All in all, flight deck and hangar sizes are very similar to the Essex class. I estimate maximum density spotting of 58 F-4B Phantoms (27 in the hangar and 31 on the flight deck), which with the standard USN density factor of 75% implies a max air group of 44 F-4Bs.

Operationally that gives me an air wing of:

- 36 large fast jets (e.g. 18 F-4s + 18 Buccaneers)
- Or 50 small jets (F-8/Super Tiger)
- Or a mix of large & small jets (e.g. 25 F-8s + 18 Buccaneers)
- 5 Gannet AEW/COD
- 6 Wessex/Sea King ASW/plane guard helos

 

[bobtdwarf]

There has been much discussion on this site about the size of drydocks and berths in the UK.
What constraints applied in France to their carriers?

St. Nazaires facilities from what I have read, the main dock there was their absolute limit