| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 seasick |
Glorious, Courageous, and Furious: Canceled |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 4836 (18-Feb-2007 04:13:33) |
Admiral Fisher is relieved and the Admiralty cancels the three 'light cruisers'. Glorious is reordered as an aircraft-carrier. Using the original design of the Glorious as a base (material already ordered), and rebuild it as an aircraft-carrier. The ship was laid down days before the reorder. What changes should be made to the ship so that it could be a good CV? A RN Lexington?
--- Mark V. |
||
 PMN1 |
Glorious and Courageous | ||
|
Posts: 3582 (18-Feb-2007 17:18:20) |
If you are re-ordering Glorious a few days after the original was laid down then you also have Courageous and presumably a lot of items for Furious.
A wider hull maybe something along the lines of the proposed late 30's rebuild. You still have the problem with twin islands and no Furious means the airflow problems wont be realised until later unless more attention is paid to what Hugh Williamson and the Board of Intervention and Research have been saying by the time the placement of the islands comes around. |
||
|
Pengolodh |
Re: Glorious, Courageous, and Furious: Canceled | ||
|
Posts: 1725 (20-Feb-2007 04:53:16) |
It is not a given that all the material ordered for the ship as originally designed, will be available for the ship redesigned as an aircraft carrier. I can easily see that the redesigned ship may have to make do with less machinery, for instance - speeding up cruiser construction by making more machinery available for cruisers will be seen as quite beneficial. While we now know that high speed is necessary for aircraft carriers, I don't think they had determined that yet at the point of time you are talking about - as far as I know March 1915 was when Courageous and Glorious were laid down, while Furious was laid down a few months later. Aircraft still had a very low take-off speed in those days.
If you look at the historical initial carriers (Argus, Hermes, Eagle, Furious, Vindictive), they were not all speed devils. Hermes, the first purpose-built carrier, was constructed with a top speed of 25 knots, while Eagle had 22.5 knots and Argus 20 knots. Furious was faster, but that was, I think, a result of her origins, and the initial conversion being at a late stage in construction. Vindictive too was fast, for the same reason, and was in any case not considered a success. In your proposal, the re-designed Courageous would be the first purpose-designed aircraft carrier to be completed - it is far from certain that the ship will be fully satisfactory before experience operationg aircraft carriers has been gained. And the ship will be experimental - Admiralty might have misgivings about installing all the machinery into an experimental unit when they also need machinery for other, more urgently needed ships (like cruisers). If 90,000 shp gave Courageous a speed of 32 knots, 60,000 shp should be able to get her around 26-27 knots. Another effect of this will be with the Washington Treaty - that is perhaps a more interesting effect for the Royal Navy. The retention and conversion of Glorious and Courageous was in accordance with Article IX of the Washington Treaty: Quote:If Courageous is completed as an aircraft carrier, then she won't fall under that clause. If Glorious also is completed as a carrier already when building (or is cancelled outright), Britain won't really have any new carriers completed, but useless, capital ships to converted into carrier tonnage. Would this result in the second paragraph of Article IX being gone from the Washington Treaty - meaning no Lexington and no Saratoga for USA, no Akagi and Kaga for the Japanese? I'm not sure I see that - I believe the clause would still stand, as I think particularly Japan would want that. Then Britain would then either do without using that loophole, or look for other ships to convert. I can't see Britain converting Repulse and Renown, if those are completed - though underarmoured, they will be two of only three truly fast 15inch gunned capital ships in the Royal Navy, and two of four fast capital ships allowed to the Royal Navy under the terms of the treaty. Converting Repulse and Renown to carriers (which also would be a bit outside the treaty's text, as they were not designated to be scrapped) would see them replaced in the battleline by 13.5 inch gunned ships, which I don't think the British would want. The incomplete Hood sisters were already dismantled by time of the treaty negotiations, as far as I can see, so they're out. Converting Hood herself is right out. Lion and Princess Royal were due for scrapping, and might have been considered candidates, but I'm not sure how suitable they would be - for one thing, removing large, concentrated masses like turrets with capital guns presents some challengers wrt hullstresses, and the Lions had four such turrets while Fisher's Follies only had two each. But there are also the G3s - while not laid down, they were ordered and merely suspended for the duration of the treaty, and - importantly - were listed in the treaty as ships due to be scrapped, which seems to make it acceptable under the historical text of Article IX to have two of these vessels completed as carriers. They could then displace up to 33,000 tons standard displacement, plus the ability to provide means of defence against air and submarine attack with bulges, blisters or deck protection, as long as "the increase of displacement thus effected does not exceed 3,000 tons (3,048 metric tons) displacement for each ship". Assuming the British do not use the 3,000 ton trick, have completed Courageous as a carrier, cancelled the two sisterships outright, has completed Hermes, Eagle, and Argus as carriers satisfactory enough to keep them for a while, and assuming carrier tonnage limits in the Washington Treaty remain as historical, completing two G3-ships to the maximum size available as carriers would see the the following post-Washington Royal Navy carrier strength: Two G3 converted to carriers (2 x 33,000 tons, let's call them HMSs Vindictive and Victorious) HMS Courageous (22,500 tons) HMS Hermes (10,800 tons) HMS Eagle (22,600 tons) HMS Argus (14,000 tons) Total displacement 135,900 tons (900 tons over treaty limit), six hulls of which four (with an aggregate displacement of 69,900 tons) fall into the category experimental carriers. I'd expect Courageous is good enough to keep in the long run - that leaves 46,500 for replacement ships within treaty limits. That splits into two by 23,250 tons or three by 15,500 tons. The ships are diverse enough that they should offer extensive lessons on advantages and disadvantages between different ways of building carriers. The presence in the Royal Navy of two carriers of a size comparable to the Lexington and Saratoga (though likely with somewhat smaller aircraft capacity - while the G3 was designed with a greater displacement than the US Lexington-class, they were nearly 20ft shorter and only one foot beamier, so chances are the hangar would be smaller) - should have an effect on the development of British naval aviation in the interwar years. I expect there would be cahnges in the evaluation of various topics, like: - "open" vs "closed" hangars - armour - the utility of high speed - the utility of more smaller carriers vs. fewer bigger carriers - the importance of offensive fleet tasks vs scouting vs trade protection. With some extra luck, the presence of carriers with capacities of perhaps 80+ aircraft per ship might also lead to changes in the development of HACS. Best regards
Pengolodh The fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, therefore those that needed to advise and inform the Home Secretary perhaps felt the information he needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or needed. Bernard Wooley, "Yes, Minister!" |
||
|
PMN1 |
Rebuilding | ||
|
Posts: 3582 (20-Feb-2007 21:21:08) |
If one of the trio had completed as a full length flight deck carrier but with a single hanger, would their rebuilding to two hanger as per historical be allowed under the WT while still being an experimental carrier.
I recall Friedman saying their was some debate over legality the Furious rebuild from a fore and aft flight deck carrier. |
||
|
PMN1 |
Glorious, Courageous + Furious construct. and Adm 116/11140 | ||
|
Posts: 3582 (27-Feb-2007 22:26:42) |
Does anyone know at what stage of construction Furious, Courageous and Glorious were in August 1915 and has anyone seen the paper Adm 116/11140?
Naval Aviation in the First World War: Its impact and Influence, R.D. Layman Page 105 An experiment aboard Argus shortly after her completion led to a lasting feature of carrier design the offset superstructure that came to be called the island. This configuration had been suggested in 1915 by Hugh Williamson, whom we last encountered as the exponent of use of aircraft against submarines. He carved a crude wooden model of a ship with a starboard island that he showed to John H Narbeth, the Assistant Director of naval Construction, and the idea was considered on 25th August 1915 by the Admiralty Airship, Aeroplane and Seaplane Subcommittee. (Reports and Minutes of the Airship, Aeroplane and Seaplane Subcommittee, Adm 116/11140 PRO). Nothing came of the proposal then, but wind tunnel tests in 1918 indicated that an island would not impede deck landing. The Aircraft Carrier Story 1908 1945, Guy Robbins Page 29-30 On 5th March (1915) Williamson, injured in a seaplane crash, went home for treatment and was appointed to the Supply Section of the Air Department on 19th July. He tried to improve seaplane design by met with resistance from Booth, the designer who told Churchill seaplanes could not be used as aeroplanes. He there fore turned to the problem of fleet carrier aircraft when scouting and attacking Zeppelins and, as in 1911, concluded that the solution lay in superior performance of both aeroplanes and landing-on technique. His design consisted of a long deck with flying-off forward and alighting aft (aided by arrestor gear) with a streamlined island (for navigation, funnel and mast) on the starboard side to give a clear air flow. His explanatory model was similar to Eagle in the 1920s. Williamson went to Vaughn Lee and also to the Board of Intervention and Research (BIR), which Balfour set up on the 5 July to organise scientific theory for the Navy and to evaluate new ideas. The senior officer on the Seaplane Sub-Committee, Squadron Commander J W Seddon (AD test pilot), was a friend who had sponsored another of his ideas, undercarriages to enable seaplanes to fly-off decks. The seaplane Sub-Committee was considering three proposals for launching sea-planes and preparing a Report .on the problem of Seaplanes rising from and alighting back on Ships (18 September) for the BIR Central Committee. The Third Sea Lord had already decided on 23 September to ask the DNC to sketch a converted vessel (special unit) to go with their report. This was based on an Americans (P F B Biddle) proposal for a mother ship with a clear run fore and aft. A direct development of existing practice, his fast, flush-decked ship, with no superstructure to create dangerous air conditions, seemed the simplest solution for launching and landing, but required 20kts for safe alighting and 25-30kts for employment with the battlefleet. This was close to Williamsons ideas. The Seaplane Sub-Committee embodied Williamsons proposal into the report, but the DNC stated Biddles flush-decked shi was impracticable because a reliable internal combustion engine (to eliminate funnels) capable of 20kts was not yet available. Williamson, moreover used ship speed and arrestor wires to reduce the deck length for safe landings. The BIR therefore recommended building a land deck, arrestor gear, and island to test the wind conditions of landing on. Seddon also showed Williamsons model; to Sueter, now Superintendent of Aircraft Construction (SAC), who recognised the originality and importance of the island on the starboard side. As Williamson required advice on placing the funnels on one side of the ship, Sueter arranged for him to see Chief Constructor J H Narbeth (DNCs carrier designer) who saw no difficulty. The BIR performed a most valuable service in championing deck landings, to which, Sueter, always ready to take advice, now committed the Air Departments. At Grain it tested Williamsons arrestor gear, which worked well. Squadron Commander G W Aldwell also tested aircraft brakes, suggested by Commander R M Groves (ASAC) which were adopted, together with a safety barrier of netting. Sueter hoped to test them in another cross-Channel conversion (Manxman) but she was too small. The arrestor gear feature was shelved until August 1916 when it was decide d to convert a new carrier (Argus), with flying-on deck. Little interest was now shown in Williamsons island and the BIR mock-up was not built. The DNC preferred two islands for navigation, accommodation, etc, and the advice of the BIR, which like Williamson appreciated the dangers of causing air eddies (later proved in Furious), was ignored. Williamson was appointed to the Air Departments Operations Section as the DASs Assistant and continued to recommend the island carrier. The DNC later took up the idea in 1918, but made no recognition of Williamsons role. His only reward for the island carrier concept was £500 from the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors (1925). |
||
|
Razor |
Re: Glorious, Courageous, and Furious: | ||
|
Posts: 420 (28-Feb-2007 17:27:13) |
I often wonder how the FAA would have turned out if they had built 2 or 3 ADMIRAL class batle cruisers as carriers like the Lexington or Akagi classes instead of spending any more money on C,G,& F which were very limited
|
||
|
Dave Bender |
Admiralty cancels the three 'light cruisers'. | ||
|
Posts: 6735 (28-Feb-2007 18:35:16) |
www.worldwar1.co.uk/light...geous.html
HMS Courageous Built Armstrong, Elswick, laid down March 1915 HMS Glorious Built Harland & Wolf, laid down April 1915 I doubt that Britain would spend money for experimental 20,000 ton aircraft carriers during the Spring of 1915. Britain is struggling to retool her economy for war, and does not even receive her first major U.S. loan until September 1915. Now something might be done in 1917 or 1918. By that point the U.S. is in the war and aviation technology is rapidly advancing. Perhaps the Courageous class engines were completed and placed into storage, as construction was too far advanced at the point the monster CLs were cancelled. These engines will power the new CV(s). However except for the engines the CVs would be designed from the keel up as aircraft carriers. Any remaining material from the cancelled Courageous class would have been absorbed into the British war effort. |
||
|
PMN1 |
|||
|
Posts: 3460 (20-Apr-2008 20:35:32) |
If the three ships had been converted early and the value of the full length unobstructed flight deck had been realised in time, what are the chances of the ships having a double hanger and ending up like Furious eventually did or would wartime urgency mean a single hanger is most likely? |
||
|
Admiral Beez |
|||
|
Posts: 4492 (23-Apr-2008 20:45:25) |
I think that if Admiral Fisher is relieved, there is a good chance the Admiralty will cancel the three 'light cruisers' and not build them as carriers,
but simply cancel them. So, it's early 1915 and Furious, Courageous and Glorious have not yet started building. The Admiralty cancels the ships and diverts
the material to building destroyers to combat the growing submarine menance.
If this occurs, I'd say the RN is in definite trouble come WW2. Without Furious, Courageous or Glorious to convert, there will be only Eagle, Argus and Hermes to serve as the RN's carriers until Ark Royal is commissioned. Unless of course this lack of carriers pushes the RN to convert the unfinished Hood-type battlecruisers into 860ft carriers....now those would be Lexington-worthy. |
||
|
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 3461 (23-Apr-2008 23:21:59) |
What three Hood class Carriers?
1940
Last Edited By: Zen9
23-Apr-2008 23:32:04.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Pengolodh |
|||
|
Posts: 1694 (24-Apr-2008 02:51:13) |
Dave Bender wrote: I doubt it. If Courageous and Glorious at the time of cancellation are not so far along that it is easier to convert them into whatever the Royal Navy wants at that time (or at least lay them up while thinking about what to do with them), then their machinery will be needed elsewhere - for light cruisers. The decision to convert a vessel to aircraft carrier was made in March 1917, apparently, and Furious - nearly complete - was chosen. At that time the other two were already completed, historically. They are not going to have perfectly good cruiser machinery just lying in storage for up to two years, when it can be used elsewhere. Admiral Beez wrote: If the Admiralty cancels the three large light cruisers, wouldn't they be likely to also cancel Repulse and
Renown? Only a few months separate their laydown dates, after all. Or would the promised rapid construction of those two ships save
them? If Repulse and Renown are also not completed, that might have caused the RN to proceed with one or more
of Hood's half-sisters - or later a much harder fight to keep at least two G3-class battlecruisers under the WNT.
The fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, therefore those that needed to advise and inform the Home Secretary perhaps felt the information he needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or needed.
|
||
