Likely on their projections for completion end of 1945.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Zen9 |
Vanguard as a Carrier? |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 3448 (19-Apr-2008 10:46:48) |
What is the impact if the Future Building Comittee wins its case and Vanguard is completed as a aircraft carrier?
Likely on their projections for completion end of 1945. |
||
DonnieBaseball23 |
|||
|
Posts: 32 (19-Apr-2008 13:31:27) |
Arrangements were to have been similar to the 1942 CVs (Audacious/Ark Royal)--so you're talking an air wing of like 90 perhaps--Seafires, Fireflys,
Barracudas. I'm sure as a conversion there would've been issues, but I guess one could argue at that point a mediocre carrier is worth far more than a
v.good battleship.
With Vanguard complete as a large carrier, and Ark Royal and Eagle nearing completion, sounds like a great excuse to just scrap the other armored carriers (Victorious and the Implacables can soldier on until they all are in service) rather than getting into those long, expensive rebuild scenarios. RN has it's 3 fleet carriers plus a bunch of light fleets which is a very solid force. The time & money saved on Victorious can go to other projects (like finishing a couple more of the light fleets that were cancelled, or perhaps improving/expanding some base/dock infrastructure). |
||
Obi Wan Russell |
|||
|
Posts: 174 (19-Apr-2008 14:24:20) |
If the money spent on Victorious was spread about instead, then more of the light fleets could have been upgraded as Warrior was (modern radar suite/Lattice
mast, angled deck, upgraded arrestor gear, and unlike Warrior's historical refit, a steam catapult). More modern carriers in the 50s would have been harder
to dispose of politically (though not impossible by any means) and within the fleet they could have assumed most of the duties of the cruiser force which was
in sharp decline at the time.
|
||
Dave Bender |
Vanguard is completed as an aircraft carrier? | ||
|
Posts: 6435 (19-Apr-2008 18:43:32) |
I am under the impression that HMS Vanguard was constructed to take advantage of 15"/42 guns and twin turrets in storage. If you are not going to build
Vanguard as a battleship then you do not build it at all. Instead you build an additional Implacable class CV plus an additional CV air wing.
|
||
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 3450 (19-Apr-2008 18:45:40) |
There would of course have to be a refit of this Vanguard for steam catapult and angled deck, looking at this it would suggest that completion of the third
Audacious ship (26% complete when work stops) rather than continuing with Centaur or Colossus types is the likely outcome. Thus Four large (for the RN) CVs
obviating the need to upgrade the Illustrious class. This also undermines the Malta effort and the talk of such large ships in 1947.
But planning of the 1952 CV will still occure, driven by the dictates of a nuclear bomber and the then Scimitar, and still fall afoul of the same problems. Suez will still happen and this means their successors will be planned from 1958 onwards....so we're back to CVA-01 territory. But perhaps in interim from 1953 to 1956 the Medium fleet CV would take on a different character, by virtue of keeping the Y300 plant at 50,000shp. Upgrade of drydock facilities is a useful option if the monies are there in say 1951-53. A military drydock built to cope with large carriers would open up possibilities or the purchase of a civilian drydock and changes for military refit work. A drydock able to cope with a 1000ft long flightdeck of 190ft width is the prerequisit for the future as the 1952 effort would highlight. Always when I think of such a dock at Portland seems to come to mind as ideal if there is a major road/rail bridge over the fleet built. But won't refit and completion of the Audacious and Vangaurd still soak up all the funds available? Refit of Colossus class in the 50's is either to the standard Warrior was or a more substantial change in the 1952 timeframe. That second option is to refit the fleet of Colossus types including one for replenisment as per the DNC offering 1951, they'd use two YEAD 1 machinary for 60,000shp and 28.5kts. But again only the 105ft catapult, and mk12 arrestor gear. This limits their usefulness once NA.38 switches from a fighter operable from Colossus types with 103ft catapults and mk12 arrestor gear to 151ft catapults and mk13 arrestor gear. If machines like the DH116 Super Venom (not much Venom left but having great potential) and SeaSwift are built its not a problem, but once the RN focuses on SeaVixen and Scimitar FAW it seems unlikely. NA39 would put the final nail in the coffin for that idea. A third option for the Colossus is to refit them to an even more extensively capable standard, but mk13 arrestor gear will impinge into the hanger height and the 180ft catapult will also do this. However such equipment with appropriate deck strengthening would keep it valid for Scimitar and the Saro P177 in limited numbers, so this option is persuable upto 1957 at the latest. How far would they be completed by that time is the next question? Alternative is to continue with the Centaurs and build all eight but their completion is a problem, for the RN far more logical to persue these ships than any more Colossus/Majestic types as the end of WWII comes into prospect and then finaly happens. But the work on the Colossus fleet was such completion was the simplest option, however the Majestics might have been cut. Reworking of Centaur types to Hermes standard would likely be chosen, and continue upto 1956/57 in the expectation of the Saro P177 would keep them as military useful into the 1960s. But once that fighter is canceled the fleets future looks bleak beyond Commando carrier, Training and relinishment/repair functions. Their future can be resurrected if something like the F8 Crusader or Type 583 or navalised Mirage F2 (or even the F1) or later Mirage G is produced. To keep them useful otherwise requires a single 250ft catapult instead of two 151ft units, but in planning terms the OR346 types would still be at best very marginal in them if at all so from 1960 onwards their fate is sealed. AW406 could give them life if the RN does'nt choose the F4 in 1964. |
||
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3689 (19-Apr-2008 19:00:48) |
I think it's pretty incontrovertible that the Vanguard was a waste of resources; had the RN chosen to build a carrier of similar size, their
post-war strength would have been greater.
|
||
FreeloaderUK |
|||
|
Posts: 124 (19-Apr-2008 20:10:37) |
as a carrier vanguard would have been useful but post-war she'd need a lot of new upgrades
|
||
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3692 (19-Apr-2008 21:12:12) |
FreeloaderUK wrote: Certainly: angled deck, steam catapults, improved radars, etc. On the other hand, about the only post-ww2 use for the Vanguard was as a royal yacht, and maybe tossing a few 15in shells at Egyptians in 1956. |
||
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 3452 (19-Apr-2008 23:56:09) |
They all did Freeloader.
Ark Royal and Eagle where substantialy modified. |
||