1952 aircraft carrier

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 72

whilst much having been said on various threads concerning CVA-01, HMS Victorious etc, i've noticed little other than a brief mention on 'Navy Matters' and a drawing on 'shipbuckets' concerning this design.
i'd like to pick your brains, notions, ideas etc concerning 'what if' this class had been constructed.
Consider this time line;
upon closure of the second world war, the Admiralty decide to complete the four Audacious class carriers:- Audacious, Eagle, Irresistible & rename Africa Ark Royal, along with four of the light fleets, Albion, Bulwark, Centaur and Hermes. So by 1950 all eight were in service and all the war-time carriers retired.
With the 'light fleets' being too small to carry future planned aircraft types the Admiralty decided to scrap/ sell off the smaller carriers replacing them firstly with the 1952 design and eventually also replacing the 'fleet carriers'. the order being placed on July 8, 1953 to start building.
From what a gather these vessels were to be 870Ft long, 815 WL, a beam of 150 ft and capable of 30 knots.
The first HMS Queen Elizabeth being commissioned in 1958 with a deck layout and radar fit similar to "Vickys". the second, HMS Duke of Edinburgh in 1964 similar to "Eagles" and a third HMS Lord Mountbatten in 1967 similar to "Ark Royals". launched from different yards.
by 1970 therefore we could have:-
HMS Queen Elizabeth, 801 squadron with 14 Buccaneers, 893 with 12 Sea Vixen 814 with 6 Rotodynes, 849A with 4 Gannets and a Gannet COD & 2 Seakings SAR.
HMS duke of Edinburgh, 800 squadron iwth 14 Buccaneers, 899 with 12 Sea Vixen, 826 with 6 Rotodynes, 849D with Gannets a COD & 2 SAR's.
HMS Lord Mountbatten, 809 with 14 Buccaneers, 892 with 12 Sea Vixen, 849B with 4 gannets, 824 with 6 rotodynes, a COD & 2 SARs.
In an emergency, due to their size these vessels aught to be capable of carrying an extra squadron of either Buccaneers or Sea Vixen depending on the threat.
In reserve two Audacious class, though unmodified externally, should be capable of operating a similar sized CAG.
Two further Audacious being converted to 'Commando Carriers' with Rotodynes and Sea Kings.
With the Sea Vixen becoming dated, and the two Audacious class needing replaced, how would you modernise the 3 1952 class and replace the two 1942 class?
If any-one would be so kind as to publish the "shipbucket' drawing, and the deck plans from other threads of Vicky, Eagle & Ark Royal, suitably stretched to suit the hull size of the 1952's it would be much appriciated.

Original post

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 3,614

There are major flaws in your assumptions.

That would require a very major change in Britain's economic situation at the end of WW2 for a start.

You have the RN deciding in 1952 that the Centaur class is nearing obsolescence, and need to be replaced post-haste. The problem is that 1952 was before they were even completed (historically), and all aircraft under design in 1952 were perfectly capable of operating off these 4 ships.

Yes, by 1958 or so they were recognized to be too small, but that is too late for your scheme.

What would work is to take off from the historic time-line in 1950, rather than 1945 (as your scheme requires in order to start construction of the 4th Audacious-class ship, and continue with the third past its historic 23%).

There are still only 2 Audacious-class ships remaining, Eagle (ex-Audacious) & Ark Royal (ex-Irrisistible), and the RN sees the need for improvement.

The change comes when it is decided to NOT modernize any of the existing fleet carriers (so no 8-year fixing-up of Victorious), and to not re-design Hermes with the deck-edge elevator, but to build new ships instead.

Two "CV-1952" class ships are laid down in 1953-54. They will complete around 1958-59 (perfect timing to fill the slots of Victorious & Hermes in the historic RN). They will be fitted with a full 7° angle, and with 3 steam catapults (corresponding to the historic BS-4/4A, one on the angle and two on the bow).

Two "CV-1952 Batch II" are laid down in 1956-57, to replace the 3 ships of the Centaur class in 1961-62. These will be fitted with an enlarged flight deck (more deck parking), and with only 2, but more powerful, catapults (corresponding to the historic BS-5/5A). This will give the RN 6 large carriers, and the Centaurs will all 3 be converted to "Commando Carriers".

Then, in around 1964-67, the 2 "CV-1952 Batch I" would be brought up to the new "Batch III" standard, and the 2 "CV-1952 Batch II" ships would follow in 1968-70. All 4 would be fitted with even more powerful arresting gear and 2 catapults (call them a BS-5B, halfway between the BS-5A on the waist of the historic Phantomized Ark Royal and the BS-6 of CVA-01) and water-cooled JBDs, to operate either Phantoms or a naval BAC-583.

This allows a budget-conscious UK to choose to retire Eagle & Ark Royal around 1970 without replacement.

The Audacious class would make bad Commando Carriers, with their large crew requirements and maintenance-intensive propulsion systems.

The Centaurs would be well adequate, and if Hermes is completed in the late 1950s as the prototype of the concept, then the RN would have 4 large carriers and 4 commando carriers... not a bad fleet for the 1960s-mid 1980s.

Here are my design variants for the 3 CV1952 versions:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Own%20designs/CV1952designBatchIBatchII.gif

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Own%20designs/CV1952designBatchIIBatchIII.gif

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 72

Firstly thanks very much for the sketches Bager1968.

Time line was only chosen as a base point, the furthest realistically i could see to go back to. Your timescale for batch's I & II would appear to be more plausible, but would wonder upon a name for the fourth carrier.

Point taken concerning the commando carriers, and do like the idea of 4 of them, reinforcing the need to keep 40, 41, 42, 44 & 45 RM Cdo's.

However thinking of modification to batch III standard, would this not be better post 1970, considering the Polaris boats & modernisation of the carriers be a large financial burden in late 60's, and could be partially financed by sale of Eagle/ Ark Royal to Australia, who were then in the market for a carrier & possibly Canada or India also. Theoretically the vessels could stay in service for a further 15-20 years so replacements needed sometime between 1990-1995ish.

How would the running costs compare with, during 1980's with a new 50,000 ton class powered by 6 olympus or speys?

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 3,614

Good points.

I agree a post-1970 modernization makes more sense, but the first two will still get an upgrade of at least their catapults and arresting gear in the late 1960s, for the new generation of aircraft.

I don't know about the running costs, but unless the RN comes up with a better STOVL aircraft than the Harrier/Sea Harrier, they need the catapults... which in that time-frame means high volumes of fairly high-temperature steam. There have been proposals for "waste-heat steam generation plants" using the exhausts of the GTs, but it is more likely that a couple of boilers would still need to be fitted to power the catapults.

By the way... here are the historic "two best" variants of the CV1952 design.

All of these had the same problem wrt the aft part... the standard hull design for UK carriers tapers only a little at the stern, with a full-width flight deck, not drastically tapering as these show. That was the first change I made for my drawings.

Moving the aft part of the angle deck to be more centered reduced the angle from 9° to 7°, but did not change the forward location of the landing path.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Carriers/CVA%2001%20and%20PA%2058/CV1952designsCD.jpg

HMS Ark Royal 1970s
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/3119/medium/HMS_Ark_Royal_R09_20.JPG

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 338

According to Brown, draft requirements for what became the Colossus class were agreed in December 1941.

If the design process for these had started sooner, could this impact the laying down of the Audacious class?

I doubt if the RN would like it but could they be forced into not laying down as many?

Member for

16 years 3 months

Posts: 630

The idea of 6x fleet carriers in the 1960s (4 CV-1952 plus Eagle & Ark Royal) is a bit of a wet dream. Cut the number in half & we have something plausible. ;) Here's what I think is the most realistic scenario:

Late 1952
- Cancel Victorious, Implacable & Indefatigable modernizations & replace them with 2x CV-1952.
- This is justified based on new information indicating the need for reboilering and a complete redesign to fit angled deck, steam catapults & Type 984 radar. Also, each CV-1952 is at least 2x as capable as Victorious, so this is a net gain in capability for less cost.
- Contract signature early 1954; CV-1952 #1 enters service 1959 (one year after Victorious in real life); CV-1952 #2 enters service in 1962.

1956-1959
- Centaur & Eagle major refits cancelled to pay for CV-1952 #2. Both laid up in reserve until CV-1952 #2's commissioning in 1962.
- CV-1952 #1 effectively replaces both Victorious & Centaur; CV-1952 #2 replaces Eagle. This nets out to a 30% INCREASE in capability. :cool:

1960
- Follow-on CV-1952 #3 is ordered, to replace Ark Royal & Hermes in 1966
- Justified based on avoided cost of major refits (Phantomization for Ark Royal, Buccaneerization for Hermes) & commonality.
- Hermes converted to commando carrier 6 years ahead of real schedule.

This is the BEST CASE scenario. Worst case, CV-1952 #3 is never ordered and Ark Royal is retired in 1966 without replacement.

Member for

16 years 3 months

Posts: 630


Two "CV-1952" class ships are laid down in 1953-54. They will complete around 1958-59 (perfect timing to fill the slots of Victorious & Hermes in the historic RN). They will be fitted with a full 7° angle, and with 3 steam catapults (corresponding to the historic BS-4/4A, one on the angle and two on the bow).

Two "CV-1952 Batch II" are laid down in 1956-57, to replace the 3 ships of the Centaur class in 1961-62. These will be fitted with an enlarged flight deck (more deck parking), and with only 2, but more powerful, catapults (corresponding to the historic BS-5/5A).

Actually, CV-1952's catapult arrangements were changed during the design process sometime between Sept. 1952 and July 1953 (according to Brown's book). This involved one 150ft bow catapult and one 200ft waist catapult (launch weight: 60,000lbs), instead of 3 short catapults. Presumably BS-5 & BS-5A?

HMS Lord Mountbatten, 809 with 14 Buccaneers, 892 with 12 Sea Vixen, 849B with 4 gannets, 824 with 6 rotodynes, a COD & 2 SARs. In an emergency, due to their size these vessels aught to be capable of carrying an extra squadron of either Buccaneers or Sea Vixen depending on the threat.

CV-1952's maximum airgroup would have been considerably greater than that - in fact, CV-1952 would have been equal to CVA-01 in most respects! It would have had more aviation fuel, slightly larger hangar & higher aircraft capacity than CVA-01, but shorter catapults:

The proposed airgroup was 55 aircraft:
12x strike (NA.39, would become the Buccaneer)
33x fighter (Scimitar)
8x ASW (Gannett)
(+ presumably 2 SAR helos)

In 1970, that would have given us about 50 aircraft. Quite something! :diablo:
22x Phantom
16x Buccaneer
5x Gannett
7x ASW/SAR helos

I've updated my list of post-war medium carriers to show how CV-1952 compares to other RN carriers, as well as the contemporary Clemenceau & Essex classes.

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee106/OPEX-Afghanistan/Carriercomparison-RN-1.jpg

Member for

13 years 8 months

Posts: 311

Great graphics there. The 1952 carriers would have been handsome ships, but in the economic situation of the time, could not have been afforded. The Korean War was raging, and Britain was spending huge sums developing the H Bomb and the V Force.

In retrospect, it strikes me as a shame that so much time and money was spent on the refit of HMS Victorious, especially as we got less than ten years out of her post refit (or one might say post rebuild).

It might have been wiser to spend money on Albion, Bulwark and Centaur, fitting them with steam catapults and fully angled decks, and maybe even deck edge lifts, making them almost on a par with Hermes. With Eagle and Ark Royal that would have given the Navy six carriers well able to run into the 1970s. The LPH role could surely have been handled by Colossus class carriers, which were surplus to requirements by the mid 50s, and were cheap to run. The Navy could have had several LPHs, rather than just the two of Albion and Bulwark.

I would argue that the advantage of my "scheme" is that it does not rely on any ships which were never built, but just imagines getting rather more value for money out of ships which really were built. Given that other navies managed to use Colossus class carriers into the 1980s, and HMS Hermes is still in service in India, it can be argued that the Royal Navy never really got full value out of the ships it had in the 1950s.

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 3,614

The idea of 6x fleet carriers in the 1960s (4 CV-1952 plus Eagle & Ark Royal) is a bit of a wet dream. Cut the number in half & we have something plausible. ;) Here's what I think is the most realistic scenario:

There is a difference between "Best-case" scenarios, depending on what your underlying economic assumptions are.

Anyway, perhaps the program would be a bit more stretched than I laid out, with more years between the first & second "batches", and even only one on the building slip at a time, instead of the two-at-a-time I proposed. That would place #3 commissioning around 1967 (in time for an un-modernized Eagle to be placed in reserve), and 1970 for #4 (to replace Ark Royal).

Thanks for the heads-up on the catapults... I see I need to make a change in my drawings & program details.

Member for

16 years 3 months

Posts: 630

There is a difference between "Best-case" scenarios, depending on what your underlying economic assumptions are.

Anyway, perhaps the program would be a bit more stretched than I laid out, with more years between the first & second "batches", and even only one on the building slip at a time, instead of the two-at-a-time I proposed. That would place #3 commissioning around 1967 (in time for an un-modernized Eagle to be placed in reserve), and 1970 for #4 (to replace Ark Royal).

I think the window for ordering the last carrier ends in 1962, when the decision is made to buy Polaris. After that, all the evidence points to the fact that the money simply wasn't there:
- Huge Polaris spending in 1964-1968 (four SSBNs with missiles each worth as much as CVA-01 :eek:)
- Cancellation of CVA-01 and Polaris sub #5 in 1965
- Retirement of Centaur, Victorious & Eagle in 1965, 1969 & 1972

That's why I suggested that hull #3 would be ordered circa 1960, so that it would be almost complete by 1964, before the budget crunch. Trials in 1965 and commissioning in early 1966 so Ark Royal doesn't need an expensive 3 year refit & Phantomization.

Basically, hull #1 is paid for by scraping Victorious & Centaur's modernisations. Half of hull #2 is paid for by scraping Eagle's 5-yr refit. Half of hull #3 is paid for by scraping Ark Royal's 3-yr refit and Hermes' 2yr refit. Add the additional savings of having a common class of 3 carriers instead of 4 unique carriers, and the net capital cost in the decade from 1955 to 1965 has got to be less than that of one brand new carrier. ;)

After 1966, either Hermes is converted to a commando carrier or more likely laid in reserve because of manning constraints.

Member for

16 years 3 months

Posts: 630

Looking at costs, it's interesting what happens when you adjust published figures for inflation. Here's what costs look like in 2010 pounds.

Historical carrier modernisation costs
- Victorious 1951-1957: £500MM
- Eagle 1960-1963: £500MM
- Hermes 1964-1965: £140MM
- Ark Royal 1967-1969: £400MM
--> TOTAL: £1.5B

New carrier cost projections
- 1952 fleet carrier (54,000t): £550MM
- 1954 medium carrier (35,000t): £350MM
- 1960 medium carrier (42,000t): £750MM
- 1962 medium carrier (40,000t): £700MM
- 1960, 1963 & 1963 CVA-01 (55,000t): £950-1000MM

--> Three CV-1952 would have cost ~£2.4B, assuming a £800MM unit cost with economies of scale and a lower electronics fit than CVA-01. Only £900MM more than historical, with higher aircraft capacity than the 5 carriers they were replacing!

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 72

In response to H_K and the small air-group.
My 1970 fleet consisted of 3 active (CV 1952) and 2 reserve/refit carriers ( Audacious). Theoretically allowing for a standard CAG (39 aircraft) to fit aboard each flat top, can't remember where read but think this was the CAG of Eagle or Ark (pre-modernisation), and a reasonable peace time deployable force. 1 fighter squadron, 1 strike squadron, 1 ASW squadron plus supporting aircraft.

Scenarios
If a CV1952 active in North Atlantic and Soviets carrying out a submarine exercise then an extra squadron of ASW aircraft (43 aircraft) could easily be accommodated. If an airborne exercise then an extra squadron of fighters (51 aircraft).
In support of anti-terrorist operations/ colonial war such as Aden then an extra squadron of buccaneers (53 aircraft) could be deployed.
In a Belize, Falklands or Kuwait'61 type incident then you have a choice of either extra fighters, strike or Marines depending on timescale when CVBG deployed.

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 72

Re H_K's costings, could the cost gap be closed when you include the difference in the 'as built' difference between Hermes and her 3 sisters?

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 338

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Own%20designs/CV1952designBatchIIBatchIII.gif

Out of interest, for your Batch II and Batch III, why didn't you extend the port side sponson forward of the gun/missile sponson as you did with the starboard sponson aft, electing in the Batch III to have the overhang aft of the missile sponson and bringing that forward in the process?

So ultimately having a flight deck shape something along the lines of the US carriers.

Member for

14 years 10 months

Posts: 604

nice picture on ship bucket although the planes look wrong in terms of scale.
http://www.shipbucket.com/Never%20Built%20Designs/Great%20Britain/GB%20CV%201952%20Carrier%20Design%201.gif

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 3,614

Out of interest, for your Batch II and Batch III, why didn't you extend the port side sponson forward of the gun/missile sponson as you did with the starboard sponson aft, electing in the Batch III to have the overhang aft of the missile sponson and bringing that forward in the process?

So ultimately having a flight deck shape something along the lines of the US carriers.

All of the RN's large carriers rebuilt in the 1960s kept at least one weapons mount on each side. Eagle was fitted with 6 SeaCat launchers (1964), Hermes with 2 SeaCat (1966), and Ark Royal (1970) was fitted for 4 SeaCat, but never shipped them.

If you look, there would be little room to use that small area of flight deck when landings are taking place, as you couldn't park any aircraft there and still clear the landing path.

The USN's carriers got away with it because their hulls are wider, and their flight decks at least 1 (if not 2) more decks above the waterline, giving room to mount missile launchers below the flight deck and still have good arcs of fire.

This ship doesn't have that kind of room, so to protect the port side a missile launcher needs to be in a "cut-out" in the flight deck.

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 338

Anyone know why in the Option D, the forward lift went to an inboard position, it looks like there would be space just forward of the forward island for it to be deck edge.....concern over the weather conditions where it was likely to be operated?

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 338


If you look, there would be little room to use that small area of flight deck when landings are taking place, as you couldn't park any aircraft there and still clear the landing path.

I was going to say, a rough drawing suggests more deck area with your layout but would the hull be able to support such an overhang at the stern?

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 3,614

If you look at the pic of the stern of Ark Royal I posted back in post #4 of this thread, you will see a very similar flight-deck extension there.

Look at how far that one extends compared to the flat end of the hull.

It is this very actual item on a UK carrier of just slightly smaller size that inspired my version.

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 338

If you look at the pic of the stern of Ark Royal I posted back in post #4 of this thread, you will see a very similar flight-deck extension there.

Look at how far that one extends compared to the flat end of the hull.

It is this very actual item on a UK carrier of just slightly smaller size that inspired my version.

I see what you mean now, I don't think I have seen a still of Ark stern before.