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

[starviking]

Coming a bit late to the party, but I suspect that a CV for the RN in the early 60s would look quite like a CVA-01.

Given the size of the planes intended for interim service, the Sea Vixen and Buccaneer, the trick of deconflicting landing and launching operation by use of an Alaskan Highway to the forward catapult seems like an idea for the times. Whether we’d get the parallel deck or not, who knows?

With the new fancy steels planned for CVA-01 being a few years back in development, I’d expect standard steels, and perhaps standard arresting gear too.

The RN might see if they can get a transistorized Type 984 on her, that could be a useful development to update the other 984 ships with.

Missiles? Seacats and maybe Terrier or Tartar, though the latter possibly FFBNW.

Standard steam, though it would be nice to have gas turbines in there too.

 

[Cjc]

Now here's my 45,000 ton carrier with a mixed airgroup of 48 jets... using the usual USN 75% spotting density factor. It's a little tight as the Buccaneer takes up more space than I expected, but otherwise looks good.

30x F-8 Crusaders (could be replaced 1:1 with Super Tigers)
18x Buccaneers
5x Gannet AEW/COD
6x Sea King ASW/plane guard

I wonder what would the spotting density be if the f8 were cut down to 24 and the buccaneers uped to 24.

 

[H_K]

I wonder what would the spotting density be if the f8 were cut down to 24 and the buccaneers uped to 24.

Probably wouldn’t change much - the Crusader and Buccaneer can be exchanged 1:1 with no material impact.

 

[Cjc]

I wonder what would the spotting density be if the f8 were cut down to 24 and the buccaneers uped to 24.

Probably wouldn’t change much - the Crusader and Buccaneer can be exchanged 1:1 with no material impact.

good to know, earlier posts made it seem like the f-8 was much smaller then the Buccaneer.

 

[CV12Hornet]

good to know, earlier posts made it seem like the f-8 was much smaller then the Buccaneer.

It is. But the Brits designed the Buccaneer to fold very compactly, while the US Navy was less concerned about that with the Crusader.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Now here's my 45,000 ton carrier with a mixed airgroup of 48 jets... using the usual USN 75% spotting density factor. It's a little tight as the Buccaneer takes up more space than I expected, but otherwise looks good.

30x F-8 Crusaders (could be replaced 1:1 with Super Tigers)
18x Buccaneers
5x Gannet AEW/COD
6x Sea King ASW/plane guard

I wonder what would the spotting density be if the f8 were cut down to 24 and the buccaneers uped to 24.

shouldn't be that different. Bucc's fold up to about 20 feet F-8s about 23 and they are roughly the same length so should be swappable 1-1

 

[bobtdwarf]

Coming a bit late to the party, but I suspect that a CV for the RN in the early 60s would look quite like a CVA-01.

Given the size of the planes intended for interim service, the Sea Vixen and Buccaneer, the trick of deconflicting landing and launching operation by use of an Alaskan Highway to the forward catapult seems like an idea for the times. Whether we’d get the parallel deck or not, who knows?

With the new fancy steels planned for CVA-01 being a few years back in development, I’d expect standard steels, and perhaps standard arresting gear too.

The RN might see if they can get a transistorized Type 984 on her, that could be a useful development to update the other 984 ships with.

Missiles? Seacats and maybe Terrier or Tartar, though the latter possibly FFBNW.

Standard steam, though it would be nice to have gas turbines in there too.

I always looked at the CVA-01 as the 60 mil option and was curious what might be had for cheaper and earlier. Since the timeline is not likely to favor earlier than we have CVA-01 as an option in the later time frame. Personally I hate the idea of the starboard bow cat, something about parking aircraft between the two cats gives me a nervous stomach.

 

[BlackBat242]

Assuming said fighters are just F8 Crusaders or Super Tigres implies a standard CAP of 2 hours and consequently you'd need to double the fighter component to 64 aircraft

There’s not much of a range difference between an F-8 Crusader with 4 Aim-9s and an F-4 Phantom with 4 Aim-7Es and a 600 gallon tank… in fact add external tanks to the F-8 (even a pair of small 150 gallon tanks) and it will significantly out range the Phantom. And adding Aim-9s to the Phantom cuts it’s range even further.

Part of the answer to the range/endurance problem is also the Spey - one reason I would favor the Spey Twosader.

According to what I read over the years, Crusader pilots felt that the 300 gal. drop tanks were next to useless... as the added drag used up ~80% of the fuel in the drop tanks just to fly the same distance at the same speed - and this was on ferry flights!

I have never read where smaller tanks were tried.
It seems counter-intuitive, but that's what the pilots reported.

 

[H_K]

Crusader pilots felt that the 300 gal. drop tanks were next to useless... as the added drag used up ~80% of the fuel in the drop tanks

The F-8J performance tables seem a little more positive:

Case #1: 35,000lb take off weight
(catapult launch limit on Essex class)
Drop tanks 75% full
Fuel load increases by 33%
Range increases by 16%
Combat radius and mission time increase by 65%
CAP loiter time increases by 200%

Case #2: 36,100lb take off weight
(may require more powerful catapults)
Drop tanks 100% full
Fuel load increases by 45%
Range increases by 28%
Combat radius and mission time increase by 85%
CAP loiter time increases by 250%

Source: https://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-8J_Crusader_SAC_-_March_1973.pdf

Rather than use partially filled 300 gallon drop tanks I would also have looked at some low drag 150 gallon tanks.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Assuming said fighters are just F8 Crusaders or Super Tigres implies a standard CAP of 2 hours and consequently you'd need to double the fighter component to 64 aircraft

There’s not much of a range difference between an F-8 Crusader with 4 Aim-9s and an F-4 Phantom with 4 Aim-7Es and a 600 gallon tank… in fact add external tanks to the F-8 (even a pair of small 150 gallon tanks) and it will significantly out range the Phantom. And adding Aim-9s to the Phantom cuts it’s range even further.

Part of the answer to the range/endurance problem is also the Spey - one reason I would favor the Spey Twosader.

According to what I read over the years, Crusader pilots felt that the 300 gal. drop tanks were next to useless... as the added drag used up ~80% of the fuel in the drop tanks just to fly the same distance at the same speed - and this was on ferry flights!

I have never read where smaller tanks were tried.
It seems counter-intuitive, but that's what the pilots reported.

I read similar about the F-3 demon, they had big external tanks that they almost never used because the drag penalty was so horrid.

 

[H_K]

The

I read similar about the F-3 demon, they had big external tanks that they almost never used because the drag penalty was so horrid

The problem with drop tanks isn’t that they don’t work, it’s the performance penalties and safe take-off limits from all the extra weight and drag. Especially for an underpowered jet like the F-3 Demon.

But looking at the Demon’s SAC the range increase was pretty significant… and doubling the CAP time would be worth it.

https://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-3B_SAC_-_1_July_1967.pdf

 

[bobtdwarf]

The

I read similar about the F-3 demon, they had big external tanks that they almost never used because the drag penalty was so horrid

The problem with drop tanks isn’t that they don’t work, it’s the performance penalties and safe take-off limits from all the extra weight and drag. Especially for an underpowered jet like the F-3 Demon.

But looking at the Demon’s SAC the range increase was pretty significant… and doubling the CAP time would be worth it.

https://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-3B_SAC_-_1_July_1967.pdf

it has been awhile since I read the reference but the tanks I was referring to are BIGGER than 282 gallons but they literally never used them because of the drag penalty I want to say it was like a 500+ gallon centerline tank and in a google book preview. Not all that important since it wasn't used on the daily and I was just mentioning it as example of diminishing returns being a possibility.

 

[Pioneer]

The

I read similar about the F-3 demon, they had big external tanks that they almost never used because the drag penalty was so horrid

The problem with drop tanks isn’t that they don’t work, it’s the performance penalties and safe take-off limits from all the extra weight and drag. Especially for an underpowered jet like the F-3 Demon.

But looking at the Demon’s SAC the range increase was pretty significant… and doubling the CAP time would be worth it.

https://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-3B_SAC_-_1_July_1967.pdf

it has been awhile since I read the reference but the tanks I was referring to are BIGGER than 282 gallons but they literally never used them because of the drag penalty I want to say it was like a 500+ gallon centerline tank and in a google book preview. Not all that important since it wasn't used on the daily and I was just mentioning it as example of diminishing returns being a possibility.

These "BIGGER than 282 gal tanks" you refer to bobtdwarf, they wouldn't have been ferry tanks?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[bobtdwarf]

The

I read similar about the F-3 demon, they had big external tanks that they almost never used because the drag penalty was so horrid

The problem with drop tanks isn’t that they don’t work, it’s the performance penalties and safe take-off limits from all the extra weight and drag. Especially for an underpowered jet like the F-3 Demon.

But looking at the Demon’s SAC the range increase was pretty significant… and doubling the CAP time would be worth it.

https://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-3B_SAC_-_1_July_1967.pdf

it has been awhile since I read the reference but the tanks I was referring to are BIGGER than 282 gallons but they literally never used them because of the drag penalty I want to say it was like a 500+ gallon centerline tank and in a google book preview. Not all that important since it wasn't used on the daily and I was just mentioning it as example of diminishing returns being a possibility.

These "BIGGER than 282 gal tanks" you refer to bobtdwarf, they wouldn't have been ferry tanks?

Regards
Pioneer

may have been, you know how it is when you are doing some reading and come across something unexpected and mildly interesting but not the thing you were looking for so you note it in the back of the brain and pay it no further heed? Yeah that is about as much as I remember the details here.

 

[uk 75]

It is interesting to play around with paper carriers and alternatives to F4 like the F8 and Supertiger. This thread contains many good ideas and useful bits of information.
I would argue that it is the POLARIS programme that kills CVA01 in this period.
The Nassau agreement in 1962 gives the RN a considerable programme to implement in the 1960s.
The 1964 Labour government cancelled the fifth submarine as a political fudge after promising to cancel Polaris during the election. But the programme remained and absorbed much effort by the RN and industry.
Let' us instead stick with the force structure the UK thought it was getting after 1962. Skybolt equipped Vulcans would maintain the deterrent into the 1970s when it was expected that Polaris or an equivalent would be purchased.
CVA01 was a reasonable solution to the problem of replacing Ark Royal and Victorious. It is likely that it would have entered service with no Seadart and a radar fit like the modified Ark Royal in 1970.
Without Polaris CVA01 could have been ordered as early as 1963. The 1966 carrier row would still have threatened it but I think it is likely that a 1970s line up of CVA01 and Eagle could have been achieved with F4 and Buccaneer airgroups. This force could have survived to see the end of the Cold War.
With Polaris absorbing so much UK effort it was inevitable even without the 1964 Labour government that other stuff would have to go.

 

[BlackBat242]

Hopefully, that earlier lay-down date would allow the design to be the original "luxury" plan, not the "economy" plan that was in place at cancellation.

I found this commentary online a few years ago - note the comment I marked in red at the end:

..... when it was pointed out that a carrier capable of accommodating the latest aircraft and catapults of the necessary length would displace over 60,000t, the politicians asked for the length of catapult to be reduced (!).

To cope with such ill-considered requests the designers cut the catapults from four to two and eliminated the deck park, reducing displacement to 55,000t, but there was still pressure to cut the size to 30,000t, half as big as the original target. Even though the design was changed to a 'furniture van' concept, with very light structure, no armour and only a novel form of underwater protection against torpedoes, it could not be reduced below 50,000t. Speed was restricted to 27-28kts, but after doubts were raised about putting so much power out through two shafts, the old 3-shaft system of the Illustrious class was re-adopted, so that one engine could be closed down for maintenance and still leave enough power for Fleet speed.

The flight deck layout was unusual, offset to port, but angled at only 3½°. The passageway (known as the 'Alaska highway') fitted in the Hermes and other carriers was made even wider, allowing aircraft as well as vehicles to be moved forward and aft without disturbing the deck park. There were other novel features, such as doors at the after end of the hangar to allow engines to be run inside, and a new 'scissors' type of lift. It had been hoped to have two Anglo-Dutch 'Broomstick' radars housed in radomes forward and aft, but it was soon discovered that two radars of this type would have to be kept very far apart - miles in fact! - to avoid mutual interference, and so one was dropped. Two BS6 catapults were planned, with water-spray type arresting gear.

Displacement had been kept to 50,000t, but when 2,000t of armour were added, for political reasons the total continued to be referred to as 50,000t. Things got worse. To fit all the requirements in such a small hull, many ingenious ideas were adopted. This was a recipe for disaster, as experience shows that only some 20-25 per cent novelty can be accepted in a design; more than this raises insoluble problems. With hindsight the biggest blunder was the political one of confusing size with cost, but given the Treasury's insistence that CVA-01 should not exceed the full load tonnage of Eagle there was very little that either Staff or Ship Department could do. Not for nothing did the project leader refer to the cancellation as the happiest day of his life. The design work was authorised in July 1963 and ended in February 1966 without an order being placed.

 

[bobtdwarf]

It is interesting to play around with paper carriers and alternatives to F4 like the F8 and Supertiger. This thread contains many good ideas and useful bits of information.
I would argue that it is the POLARIS programme that kills CVA01 in this period.
The Nassau agreement in 1962 gives the RN a considerable programme to implement in the 1960s.
The 1964 Labour government cancelled the fifth submarine as a political fudge after promising to cancel Polaris during the election. But the programme remained and absorbed much effort by the RN and industry.
Let' us instead stick with the force structure the UK thought it was getting after 1962. Skybolt equipped Vulcans would maintain the deterrent into the 1970s when it was expected that Polaris or an equivalent would be purchased.
CVA01 was a reasonable solution to the problem of replacing Ark Royal and Victorious. It is likely that it would have entered service with no Seadart and a radar fit like the modified Ark Royal in 1970.
Without Polaris CVA01 could have been ordered as early as 1963. The 1966 carrier row would still have threatened it but I think it is likely that a 1970s line up of CVA01 and Eagle could have been achieved with F4 and Buccaneer airgroups. This force could have survived to see the end of the Cold War.
With Polaris absorbing so much UK effort it was inevitable even without the 1964 Labour government that other stuff would have to go.

I am not familiar enough with mid 60s industrial capacity in the UK to do more than speculate that money fixes many problems; and this TL seems to have a sizable hunk of cash in it.

 

[zen]

The logic of a smaller CV works in the perception of different priorities and compromises.

If in the most stressing mission, the operation of a full Tactical Air Unit from 2 CVA-01 Type carriers is instead 3.....then the reality of normal operations needing just one works fairly well.
Since 96 fast jets can divide into 32 per CV.
Obviously this is more inefficient compared with 1 CV able to operate all 96.
But retains a higher degree of 'graceful degradation' in that the loss of one CVA-01 halves available aircraft, while the loss of a smaller would cut aircraft by a third.

Irony is 3 makes for a better cyclic pattern of operations and the earlier maintenance requirements of Type 984 meant 3 sets was a military minimum.

And obviously it's easier to accommodate the earlier TAU of 107 aircraft.

 

[starviking]

Hopefully, that earlier lay-down date would allow the design to be the original "luxury" plan, not the "economy" plan that was in place at cancellation.

I found this commentary online a few years ago - note the comment I marked in red at the end:

The flight deck layout was unusual, offset to port, but angled at only 3½°. The passageway (known as the 'Alaska highway') fitted in the Hermes and other carriers was made even wider, allowing aircraft as well as vehicles to be moved forward and aft without disturbing the deck park. There were other novel features, such as doors at the after end of the hangar to allow engines to be run inside, and a new 'scissors' type of lift. It had been hoped to have two Anglo-Dutch 'Broomstick' radars housed in radomes forward and aft, but it was soon discovered that two radars of this type would have to be kept very far apart - miles in fact! - to avoid mutual interference, and so one was dropped. Two BS6 catapults were planned, with water-spray type arresting gear.

The bolded section is new to me. I wonder if the author is confusing the Royal Navy toying with putting two Type 984 radars on cruisers planned for the 50s?

I’d also think self-interference would be a reasonably-understood concept by the 60s.

 

[starviking]

The logic of a smaller CV works in the perception of different priorities and compromises.

If in the most stressing mission, the operation of a full Tactical Air Unit from 2 CVA-01 Type carriers is instead 3.....then the reality of normal operations needing just one works fairly well.
Since 96 fast jets can divide into 32 per CV.
Obviously this is more inefficient compared with 1 CV able to operate all 96.
But retains a higher degree of 'graceful degradation' in that the loss of one CVA-01 halves available aircraft, while the loss of a smaller would cut aircraft by a third.

Irony is 3 makes for a better cyclic pattern of operations and the earlier maintenance requirements of Type 984 meant 3 sets was a military minimum.

And obviously it's easier to accommodate the earlier TAU of 107 aircraft.

If also costs more than the 2 CVA-01 types, both financially and in manpower. On the flip-side facilities like docks may cost much less.

 

[starviking]

Coming a bit late to the party, but I suspect that a CV for the RN in the early 60s would look quite like a CVA-01.

Given the size of the planes intended for interim service, the Sea Vixen and Buccaneer, the trick of deconflicting landing and launching operation by use of an Alaskan Highway to the forward catapult seems like an idea for the times. Whether we’d get the parallel deck or not, who knows?

With the new fancy steels planned for CVA-01 being a few years back in development, I’d expect standard steels, and perhaps standard arresting gear too.

The RN might see if they can get a transistorized Type 984 on her, that could be a useful development to update the other 984 ships with.

Missiles? Seacats and maybe Terrier or Tartar, though the latter possibly FFBNW.

Standard steam, though it would be nice to have gas turbines in there too.

I always looked at the CVA-01 as the 60 mil option and was curious what might be had for cheaper and earlier. Since the timeline is not likely to favor earlier than we have CVA-01 as an option in the later time frame. Personally I hate the idea of the starboard bow cat, something about parking aircraft between the two cats gives me a nervous stomach.

I was assuming the carrier for the early 60s would cost less than the CVA-01, as it’s a carrier for the mid-60s. Savings would be had in using more standard technologies than all the new tech in the CVA-01.

 

[zen]

The logic of a smaller CV works in the perception of different priorities and compromises.

If in the most stressing mission, the operation of a full Tactical Air Unit from 2 CVA-01 Type carriers is instead 3.....then the reality of normal operations needing just one works fairly well.
Since 96 fast jets can divide into 32 per CV.
Obviously this is more inefficient compared with 1 CV able to operate all 96.
But retains a higher degree of 'graceful degradation' in that the loss of one CVA-01 halves available aircraft, while the loss of a smaller would cut aircraft by a third.

Irony is 3 makes for a better cyclic pattern of operations and the earlier maintenance requirements of Type 984 meant 3 sets was a military minimum.

And obviously it's easier to accommodate the earlier TAU of 107 aircraft.

If also costs more than the 2 CVA-01 types, both financially and in manpower. On the flip-side facilities like docks may cost much less.

Unit cost would obviously be less but total fleet costs higher.

 

[BlackBat242]

Hopefully, that earlier lay-down date would allow the design to be the original "luxury" plan, not the "economy" plan that was in place at cancellation.

I found this commentary online a few years ago - note the comment I marked in red at the end:

The flight deck layout was unusual, offset to port, but angled at only 3½°. The passageway (known as the 'Alaska highway') fitted in the Hermes and other carriers was made even wider, allowing aircraft as well as vehicles to be moved forward and aft without disturbing the deck park. There were other novel features, such as doors at the after end of the hangar to allow engines to be run inside, and a new 'scissors' type of lift. It had been hoped to have two Anglo-Dutch 'Broomstick' radars housed in radomes forward and aft, but it was soon discovered that two radars of this type would have to be kept very far apart - miles in fact! - to avoid mutual interference, and so one was dropped. Two BS6 catapults were planned, with water-spray type arresting gear.

The bolded section is new to me. I wonder if the author is confusing the Royal Navy toying with putting two Type 984 radars on cruisers planned for the 50s?

I’d also think self-interference would be a reasonably-understood concept by the 60s.

OK - I looked in my files, and found the source for that text... it is word-for-word the text of the CVA-01 entry in Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1947-1982 and repeated in the update of that volume retitled Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1947-1995.

 

[Cjc]

What was the loiter time for P.1154RN?

2.7 hours, minimum was 2.5 I believe.

 

[bobtdwarf]

The logic of a smaller CV works in the perception of different priorities and compromises.

If in the most stressing mission, the operation of a full Tactical Air Unit from 2 CVA-01 Type carriers is instead 3.....then the reality of normal operations needing just one works fairly well.
Since 96 fast jets can divide into 32 per CV.
Obviously this is more inefficient compared with 1 CV able to operate all 96.
But retains a higher degree of 'graceful degradation' in that the loss of one CVA-01 halves available aircraft, while the loss of a smaller would cut aircraft by a third.

Irony is 3 makes for a better cyclic pattern of operations and the earlier maintenance requirements of Type 984 meant 3 sets was a military minimum.

And obviously it's easier to accommodate the earlier TAU of 107 aircraft.

was thinking about this and went digging for this from the other thread. Assuming we have the pair of Audacious's and Hermes and Victorious we can swap the SR 177 1-1 for the SuperTiger, and Sea Vixen 1-1 with Buccaneers. Ark should carry the same numbers as Eagle so that is 24+8+30(Hermes goes all Tiger)= 62 SuperTigers between the four of them and 62 Bucs

This is the air group for Victorious in 1963 as projected in October 1956

8 SR.177

8 Buccaneer

10 Sea Vixen

8 ASW helicopters

4 Gannet AEW

2 SAR helicopters


40 Total


This is the air group for Eagle in 1963 as projected in October 1956

12 SR.177

12 Buccaneer

10 Sea Vixen

8 Gannet ASW or ASW helicopters

6 Gannet AEW

2 SAR helicopters


50 total

 

[zen]

The question is...is there a need for the Sea Vixen FAW if we can get two seater radar equipped Super Tigers?

As with other threads if we had two seater able to perform DLI and FAW missions, then it ought to be possible to reduce fighter numbers.

 

[bobtdwarf]

The question is...is there a need for the Sea Vixen FAW if we can get two seater radar equipped Super Tigers?

As with other threads if we had two seater able to perform DLI and FAW missions, then it ought to be possible to reduce fighter numbers.

I don't see a reason to keep them around. I just don't know if we want all of the SuperTigers as 2 seaters or just some of them.

One thing has become clear to me over all this time is that Grumman really, REALLY needed a 300 sqft. winged Tiger. That extra 50 makes a big difference on loiter/range and usable decks!

 

[Cjc]

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.

True, how long is a piece of strong? You could argue it goes all the way back to the 1952 Medium studies.

Just dug out a couple of tables from Friedman on sizes and costs:
1960 Alternatives
42,000 tons, 31 aircraft, 770x165ft flight deck, 2 cats, Sea Cat, £44M
48,000 tons, 41 aircraft, 820x165ft flight deck, 2 cats, 3 Tartar, £54M
48,000 tons, 43 aircraft, 820x200ft flight deck, 2 cats, 3 Tartar, £54M
50,000 tons, 44 aircraft, 860x165ft flight deck, 2 cats, 3-4 Tartar, £55M
55,000 tons, 34 aircraft, 870x200ft flight deck, 3 cats, 4 Tartar, £59M
68,000 tons, 59 aircraft (+4 ASW heli), 1004x190ft flight deck, 3 cats, 4 Tartar, £67M

1962 Alternatives
50,000 tons, 36 aircraft inc. heli (36 interim Vix & Bucc), 890x177ft, 2 cats (200 & 250ft), 1 Sea Dart & 1 Ikara, £50-60M
52,000 tons, 39 aircraft inc. heli (36 interim Vix & Bucc), 900x177ft, 2 cats (200 & 225ft), 1 Sea Dart & 1 Ikara, £50-60M
53,000 tons, 40 aircraft inc. heli (36 interim Vix & Bucc), 920x180ft, 2 cats (250ft), 1 Sea Dart & 1 Ikara, £50-60M
55,000 tons, 40 aircraft inc. heli (36 interim Vix & Bucc), 940x180ft, 2 cats (250ft), 1 Sea Dart & 1 Ikara, £58-63M
58,000 tons, 46 aircraft inc. heli (48 interim Vix & Bucc), 970x190ft, 2 cats (250ft), 1 Sea Dart & 1 Ikara, £60-65M

Sence I'm always a little cautious about price estimates (especially from the uk during this time period) what did the French pay for the Clemenceau nucular energy and all? And what were there estimates for the pa 2? Gust so we have a different countrys estimates of what it would cost.

 

[starviking]

Hopefully, that earlier lay-down date would allow the design to be the original "luxury" plan, not the "economy" plan that was in place at cancellation.

I found this commentary online a few years ago - note the comment I marked in red at the end:

The flight deck layout was unusual, offset to port, but angled at only 3½°. The passageway (known as the 'Alaska highway') fitted in the Hermes and other carriers was made even wider, allowing aircraft as well as vehicles to be moved forward and aft without disturbing the deck park. There were other novel features, such as doors at the after end of the hangar to allow engines to be run inside, and a new 'scissors' type of lift. It had been hoped to have two Anglo-Dutch 'Broomstick' radars housed in radomes forward and aft, but it was soon discovered that two radars of this type would have to be kept very far apart - miles in fact! - to avoid mutual interference, and so one was dropped. Two BS6 catapults were planned, with water-spray type arresting gear.

The bolded section is new to me. I wonder if the author is confusing the Royal Navy toying with putting two Type 984 radars on cruisers planned for the 50s?

I’d also think self-interference would be a reasonably-understood concept by the 60s.

OK - I looked in my files, and found the source for that text... it is word-for-word the text of the CVA-01 entry in Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1947-1982 and repeated in the update of that volume retitled Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1947-1995.

Cheers! I guess that the mutual interference problem was realized then, and retroactively mentioned for double-Type 984 cruisers (as mentioned in Brown & Moore’s Rebuilding the Royal Navy.)

However, I am quite puzzled as to what was thought to be gained from two air-search radars.

If they were able to operate at the same time, surely their range and discrimination would be similar? Repetition rate would double though - useful for fast contacts.

How would the air picture be combined? If electronically, perhaps some weak contacts could be picked up. But that set-up would be a big ask for the time. If manually, that’s a big jump in radar and CIC manpower.

If one was a backup for the other, then not much in the way of problems (except for the naval architects), but no possibility of mutual interference either.

We have the real-life example of Ark Royal R09 - two Type 965 radars in her final form. A quick survey of her on Youtube shows either no Type 965 in operation, or only one in operation at any time.

So, what was the purpose of the two broomsticks, or the two 984s in the 50s cruisers?

 

[EwenS]

Having multiple air search / fighter direction radars goes back to WW2.

Type 279 & 281 on the carriers in 1945 to exploit the different lobe patterns for height finding.

Postwar Eagle and Ark Royal received a single Type 960 combined with 2 Type 282/283 combos for fighter direction / height finding. (The Centaurs had a similar set up but made do with a single height finder due to lack of space on the island).

When it comes to Type 984, Friedman has a comment in British Carrier Aviation, that

“Type 984 had a long range search beam and a series of shorter range scanning height finding beams. The long range beam had limited height coverage, and the nacelle could be adjusted angle to vary its height band. In theory, a fleet needed to combine three 984s (at three different angles) to achieve solid long-range coverage”.

 

[zen]

Two 984 didn't have the sort of interference issues the 988's had.

 

[bobtdwarf]

I have read they wanted to put 984 on the county but the article says they needed to remove one or both gun turrets "as weight compensation"... not really a weight thing the electronic guts of the thing weighed 35 tons but more a VOLUME thing: That takes up a lot of room! You could probably put it in the volume taken up by the missile room.. lol

 

[bobtdwarf]

pretty sure I got this from this board awhile back, not my work and I don't remember where I put a copy of a drawing I did on here so... this implies that the SeaDart could be used, or thought to be able to be used from a horizontal magazine.

Point being if you want to put a 984 on the County you simply need to cut her and add in a plug forward. Replace B turret with an Ikara installation like on the Leander and put a proper hangar on the aft end that is strong enough to hold four Exocet tubes and the targeting radar.. you got enough volume in the plug for 35 tons of electronics and a low budget type 82.

My drawing had a vertical SeaDart in the B position and the Ikara at the stern which would allow extending the landing deck a wee bit and put all the electronics in the former missile room... still had the hull extension forward though.

 

[Hood]

How accurate is that diagram though? I thought the Egyptian conversions were meant to add a minelaying capability (presumably utilising the long Sea Slug magazine)?

I've not seen a CVA-01 study with two 'Broomsticks' mentioned in any later works than Conway ATWFS, and to be honest I have doubts about some of the information in those books given that I've found more than a few things in all the volumes that don't quite tally with other sources.

 

[bobtdwarf]

How accurate is that diagram though? I thought the Egyptian conversions were meant to add a minelaying capability (presumably utilising the long Sea Slug magazine)?

I've not seen a CVA-01 study with two 'Broomsticks' mentioned in any later works than Conway ATWFS, and to be honest I have doubts about some of the information in those books given that I've found more than a few things in all the volumes that don't quite tally with other sources.

no clue on the accuracy like I said I think I got it here.. as we all know there are many proposal iterations and this one could have been when they thought SeaDart could go horizontal.. so *shrugs*

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I have read they wanted to put 984 on the county but the article says they needed to remove one or both gun turrets "as weight compensation"... not really a weight thing the electronic guts of the thing weighed 35 tons but more a VOLUME thing: That takes up a lot of room! You could probably put it in the volume taken up by the missile room.. lol

For what it's worth I've read that the RN wanted to put Type 984 on the County and that it would have entailed removing one or two of the 4.5" turrets too. It might have been in Leo Marriotts book about RN destroyers since 1945 and that he might have also written that it wanted one-in-four Counties to have it.

 

[bobtdwarf]

I have read they wanted to put 984 on the county but the article says they needed to remove one or both gun turrets "as weight compensation"... not really a weight thing the electronic guts of the thing weighed 35 tons but more a VOLUME thing: That takes up a lot of room! You could probably put it in the volume taken up by the missile room.. lol

For what it's worth I've read that the RN wanted to put Type 984 on the County and that it would have entailed removing one or two of the 4.5" turrets too. It might have been in Leo Marriotts book about RN destroyers since 1945 and that he might have also written that it wanted one-in-four Counties to have it.

that tracks with my memory. In my opinion it would have been worth doing but I would prefer adding a bit more length to increase the needed volume so you only have to lose the B turret while keeping the position available for Exocet.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I have read they wanted to put 984 on the county but the article says they needed to remove one or both gun turrets "as weight compensation"... not really a weight thing the electronic guts of the thing weighed 35 tons but more a VOLUME thing: That takes up a lot of room! You could probably put it in the volume taken up by the missile room.. lol

For what it's worth I've read that the RN wanted to put Type 984 on the County and that it would have entailed removing one or two of the 4.5" turrets too. It might have been in Leo Marriotts book about RN destroyers since 1945 and that he might have also written that it wanted one-in-four Counties to have it.

that tracks with my memory. In my opinion it would have been worth doing but I would prefer adding a bit more length to increase the needed volume so you only have to lose the B turret while keeping the position available for Exocet.

The following quote is from "Royal Navy Destroyers Since 1945" by Leo Marriott. It's the last third of the first paragraph of the section on the County class which straddles Pages 100 and 101.

At one point consideration was given to carrying the new Type 984 long rage "3D" radar (which was eventually fitted to the carriers Eagle, Victorious and Hermes) so that the ships could act in the aircraft direction role although this would have necessitated the removal of the 4.5" guns.

Marriott doesn't mention any plans to fit one-in-four Counties with the Type 984 radar. However, in the second half of the next paragraph he does say this.

Finally, of course, there was a single Type 901 associated with the GWS1 Seaslug system. It would have been desirable to carry two Type 901s to give two separate control channels, but this was impossible without substantially increasing the size of the ship and in addition the slow rate of production of this equipment would have delayed completion of the ships.

I suspect that my "one-in-four" memory comes from Friedman's book "British Destroyers and Frigates: The Second World War and After".

 

[Hood]

Re-reading the relevant section of Friedman's British Destroyers and Frigates: The Second World War and After, the first mention of Type 984 was in November 1956 when the Ship Design Policy Committee raised the subject. Which we must note is after the DNC had already added Type 177 sonar, VDS, tube stowage layout for Seaslug, stabilisers, air conditioning, and a helicopter hangar for Ultra-Light. It still had eight torpedo tubes at this time.
DNC felt a destroyer was not suitable for such a valuable (and massive) system and had a cruiser sketched out at 11,000 tons deep (Seaslug, 4.5in guns) for 29kt, the desired 30kt would require 13-14,000tons. Then work shifted to a destroyer hull from then until March 1957.
The choices were Type 984 & Seaslug but no 4.5in guns or Type 984 & 4.5in guns but no Seaslug! (but maybe 1x 3in/L70 instead). This was no good as guns were wanted for 'warm war' duties. Later two Type 901 was also studied as part of this series.

The sketch design was approved 11 April 1957. DNC again offered Type 984 but sacrificing the 4.5in battery. Another study was made but rejected. By November 1957 the design had grown again and was being labelled a Guided Weapon Ship and DNC was offering to remove the 4.5in battery since it was clear by now the ship was primarily for air defence of a carrier.
In January 1958 the First Sea Lord suggested one of the four ships should have Type 984. But other new toys suggested included Canadian CAST VDS (which became Type 199) or even the massive Type 2001 as fitted to Dreadnought as a future option. Limbo was also mooted to return. Instead in May a hangar for Wessex was added. By July interest was shown in replacing 'B' gun with a second Type 901.
By 1960 interest switched to the electronically-scanned Type 985 and ADAWS - of which only ADAWS survived.


I am quite sceptical about the double Broomstick on CVA-01 claim - the type of 3D radar was never specified for the sketch design and was only confirmed as the Type 988 for the final design (probably late 1965). Early sketches may have shown two radars but they would have been generic 'golfballs' at best (maybe the highly elusive Type 985).

 

[zen]

Keep in mind a full Broomstick might encompass two radars back-to-back.

However the potential for later build County DDG might have included the ASWRE C-band 3D radar and ideally Seaslug mkIII instead of NIGS.

The combination of Seaslug mkIII (polyrod SARH likelyusing a different, cheaper and lighter Guidance radar) , ASWRE C-band (possibly Type 966 in designation), ADAWS and a mk8 4.5" could have kept the Countys relevent .....as surely as helped with the Type 82 effort.

Alternatively the addition of Blue Slug could offload the Anti-ship requirements of main gun, leaving the option open for a lighter system.