Fantasy CVA01 fleet

Aboard USS Ranger CV-61 in 1985-87, there was always a guy with a garbage bag walking back & forth along the “fod-walker” line, collecting everything we picked up.

Nothing was ever thrown over the side, stern, or bow.

Assuming the ship is steaming even vaguely into wind, if you throw the ‘FOD’ over the side instead of the stern it’ll probably blow back onto the deck and you’d have to pick it up again! Over the stern on CVA-01, given the rear round down is short of the actual stern doesn’t matter; it’s the flight deck that has to be cleared of FOD not the quarterdeck.

Hi folks, apologies to the moderators about resurrecting an old thread but it was the only one I could find re: CVA-01 and I didn’t want to start a new one. I’ve watched a couple of documentaries over the years about carrier ops and at the beginning of each day, a party of crew members walk in a line from bow to stern looking for rubbish and such like that could be sucked up into engine intakes or burst tyres on undercarriages, the FOD Plod as its called in the RN. Typically when the party reached the stern they’d throw what they found over the round-down. Now assuming there’s a good reason why you don’t throw it over the side and given the fact that CVA-01 flight decks ended short of the stern with the open quarter deck, how was FOD to be disposed of? Placed in bags and then chucked overboard from the fantail? Anyone have any ideas?

looking at info on other posts i’ve decided to revise my Fantasy fleet cira 1979ish.

TYPE CLASS UNITS REFIT CREW DEPLOYED PLANNING
SSBN Resolution 5,……. 2……143…….429………..0
SSN Trafalgar .. 0,……. 0…….130……….0………..7
SSN Swiftsure ….5………2……..97…….291………..3
SSN Valiant………5……..2…….103…….309……… 0
SSN Dreadnought 1……..0………88………88……….0
SSK Oberon……..13…….2………68……..748………0
SSK Porpoise……..5…….1…….. 71……..284………..0
CV Invincible…….1…… 0…..3250,……3250,…….. 2
CV Queen Elizabeth 3……..1……2940……5880……..0
LPH Hermes……..1…….0……..980……..980………0
DLG County………2…….0……..471……..942……….0
DD Sheffield…….7…….1……..299……1794………..5
FF Amazon……..7……..1…….250……1500…………8
FF Leander……..8……..2…….251……2008…………0
FF BB Leander…..10…….2…….260……2080,……….0
FF Vosper V……..16…….5…….125……1375………..4
FF type 81…………3…….2,……253,……253,……….0
FF type 12 M………1…….0…….235…….235………..0
TOTALS……………..93……23…………..22446……..29

CV Invincibles, cancelled 1966 revised & ordered 1972 ish.Invincible, Illustrious,Indomitable, to be modified CVA-01 with full lenght flight deck, removed Alaskan highway, Ski jump on bow & fitted with Sea Wolf.(Indomitable to replace a Queen Elizabeth by 1987?)
CV Queen Elizabeths, Queen Elizabeth, Duke of Edinburgh & Lord Mountbatten CV1953;s. Flight decks modified as per batch III by Badger1968. fitted for but not with Sea Wolf. QE currently in refit for ski jump.
DD Sheffield & FF Amazon built using common hull 4250 ton 425 x 48 in junction with Australian DDL. DD employing COGOG Sea Dart SAM, Ship Martel SSM, NATO standard 127mm gun, Phalanx CIWS & Lynx helicopter. FF employing CODOG as per the Vosper 5’s, 12 (2×6) Sea Wolf SAM [ bridge roof & Hanger roof] Ikara in lieu of Sea Dart, Ship Martel SSM f’ard of hanger, NATO Standard 127mm gun, Phalanx CIWS &Lynx Helicopter.
Vosper 5’s based at Hong Kong, Aden (vital strategic importance not surrendered) Gibraltar & Belize. CODOG Phalanx CIWS, 76mm DP gun, limbo mortars.
Based on Bristol & T21’s & last 2 counties not being built, tiger’s & leanders not being modified & 5th SSBN constructed. Fewer combat ships but more capable all round for approximately the same manpower.

I’m sure you are right. Having devised a complicated housing for the Ikaras on Type 82s, I suppose that when they were cancelled, the powers that be could not bear to let all that work go to waste, so plonked them on the poor old Leanders. Apart from anything else, I object to the way that having a huge dustbin on their bows affected the looks of a very handsome class of ships. Ikara Leanders just didn’t look good!

The plan the RN had for fitting Ikara on the Leanders was to provide “stand-off ASW” capability during conditions which would preclude Wasp/Lynx from operating (night/bad weather).

The zareba was to protect it from wave damage and ice formation in the north Atlantic (especially during winter) in its exposed bow position on HMS Bristol.

Part of the fragility was due to the RN Ikara launcher being more complex… to provide a reload time in seconds rather than minutes, and to launch that winged steerable-in-flight torpedo-dropping drone with minute precision.

The Leanders had far more wave problems, so the zareba really was needed with the launcher on the bow. Of course, the launcher was on the bow because it was so large that was the only place it could go.

Admitting it could be reduced in size and placed on the stern would have required admitting they had taken the wrong course with all that costly over-engineered design work… and you know that would never happen.

See the logic?

Down under, the RAN decided that taking a couple of minutes to reload was fine, and that aiming the launcher within a couple of degrees of the exact course to the target was acceptable, as the controller would then just twitch his steering controls a smidge and it would be on-course.

Therefore, the launcher could be small, which meant it could be placed on the stern, where it got very little wave action (and it could take the water better because it was simpler and less fragile).

The RAN also operated mainly in much warmer waters than the RN, with only the underbelly of the continent (the Great Australian Bight) being subject to icing conditions… and operating there would require hostile submarines to make a very long voyage around one end or the other, and for very little potential gain.

You can see from the photo of HMAS Swan that Ikara does not take up a lot of space, so long as it is not housed it a grandiose zarebra. I can’t see any reason why the RN’s Leanders could not have had Ikara fitted in place of Limbo, keeping their Wasp. They could then have kept their 4.5″ guns, making them much more capable ships all round. The RN’s Ikara Leanders were turned into single purpose ASW ships to a stupid extent.

However, overall, I would not have bothered with Ikara at all. It was meant for the Type 82 destroyers, and should have died with them. Leanders fitted with a Lynx in place of the Wasp and Limbo would have had a much better ASW capability, whilst keeping a general purpose ability. I would not have spent any of the huge amounts of money converting the Leanders to take Ikara, Exocet or Sea Wolf.

RAN Ikara installation; aft starboard side; HMAS Swan.

The Mk.10 Limbo launcher was later removed to provide a helo landing spot, but the extended superstructure for increased accommodation precluded a hangar.

Here is the RN’s installation on the same basic design of hull, note the Ikara forward, the hangar & landing pad aft, then the Mk.10, then the VDS in the stern.

HMS Naiad F39 in 1982:

Talking of the Counties and Sea Slug

British Destroyers and Frigates: The Second World War and After Norman Friedman

P190

(by 1958?) A proposal to add a second helicopter died because it would have required a complete revision of superstructure arrangements in the building drawings.

There was considerable interest in modifying the missile stowage. The tube magazine arrangement, called Phase 1, used 290ft of the ship, from the centreline of the missile launcher to the fore end of the magazine at the foremast. Phase II envisaged a forward launcher and a total capacity of sixty-two missiles, including fourteen on an endless-chain loader. Phase III, as envisaged in 1959, would use a US style twin revolver loader (as in the Mk10 system on the Leahy and Belknap cases) carrying twelve missiles on each revolver. Presumably they were a projected further development of Seaslug with an integral booster, the NIGS or SIGS mentioned below. Forward of the revolvers would have been further stowage for thirty-six missiles, for a total of sixty in a space only 129ft long. There were several other proposed arrangements.

The Phase II idea does suggest a launcher in B position, or removal of all guns.

Phase III suggests a complete redesign of Sea Slug or its abandonment for a new missile.

Also

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5634.0/highlight,slug.html

I think Ikara would have fitted in the space taken by Limbo, so long as it was not housed in the grotesque zarebra structure the Royal Navy specified. The Ikara Leanders had Ikara, Wasp and Limbo, as well as two Sea Cats and two Bofors guns.

Personally, I think huge amounts were wasted on Leander conversions. They were a good basic design, all I would have done is refit them to take a Lynx and ASW torpedo tubes, replacing the Wasp and Limbo. Nothing else was needed to keep them as perfectly good general purpose frigates with an ASW bias. Considering the Navy in the 70s had Type 21 frigates, which were built to take both a 4.5″ gun and four Exocets, yet by the time of the Falklands two of them had still not been fitted with Exocet, did it make much sense to take the guns off Leanders and fit them with four Exocets?

As for the Ikara Leanders, it seems to me that a better idea would have been to replace their Limbos with Ikara, keeping the 4.5″ guns forward. They ended up with three ASW systems, Ikara, Limbo and Wasp, which is surely too specialised a weapons fit for a frigate.

You would never have fitted Ikara AND a wasp to a leander, not enough space, by fitting it on the rear you would been fitting it instead of the Helicopter. The Limbo went by the board when Ikara was fitted as far as I know.

from what info I have available Sea Dart development began in August ’62, the year the Devonshire entered service, with full go-ahead given in May’63. It would appear the last 4 counties were built with what was known to be an obsolete missile system. Bristol was ordered on 4/10/66 so her design was around before this date.
‘Sea Dart was designed as a sucessor to Seaslug. By using considerably smaller and lighter handling equipment that its predecessor it could be made to occupy no more space than a medium-calibre gunnery system.’
1973 saw the conversion of Norfolk with 4 exocets launchers replacing the twin 4.5’s @ B.
With the Counties intended to be A/A escorts, surely common sense would dictate the removal of a system that was now known to be at least 10 years out of date, and as it was designed to fit an area no bigger than a medium-calibre gunnery system, B would be an obvious & straight forward location. It might even have been possible to replace the twin Limbo mortars with the Ikara system, and in all 8 by this date.
With 8 1st class general purpose escorts in service (the counties) there would be no need for the T82, T42’s and the Ikara conversions to the Leanders.
conversion costs could’ve easily been met with the scrapping of the 3 obsolete cruisers in place of their own conversions, Blake 65-68 & tiger 69-72.
with the decisions taken not to go ahead with the ’52 carriers, CVA-01, etc & going ahead with ships that were obsolete before they were even in service one is left to consider which side those that ran the navy were on????

The Counties were never fitted with Limbo. They were meant to have it, but ti was replaced at a late stage in the design by the Wessex helicopter, hence the ludicrous hangar arrangements.

I agree that by the time the last four Counties were ordered, it would have been apparent that beam riding was an outdated technology, hence the Navy was working on semi-active homing for the Sea Dart. That’s why I wonder if consideration was ever given to modifying Sea Slug to SARH?

As for the Ikara Leanders, it seems to me that a better idea would have been to replace their Limbos with Ikara, keeping the 4.5″ guns forward. They ended up with three ASW systems, Ikara, Limbo and Wasp, which is surely too specialised a weapons fit for a frigate.

with the decisions taken not to go ahead with the ’52 carriers, CVA-01, etc & going ahead with ships that were obsolete before they were even in service one is left to consider which side those that ran the navy were on????

Amazingly the RN scoffed at the RAN for buying CF Adams class and laughingly declared the Roo-shaggers should have bought Counties!

Its the fact the counties looked like “proper warships” in the eyes of the old duffers that helped I think. The RN is not famous for buying or operating the latest kit, look at how old Victory was at Trafalgar, Fairey Swordfish anyone? Mk8 – the gun for all decades…..etc

IMMOO seaslug is a bit naff as a name. But no worse than other near contemporaries ‘Red Top’ what? Are we firing copies of the Scum at our enemies? Sparrow? Sparrow? Of all the birdies to name your AAM after

Sparrow? Vicious little ******s, ever seen a Passerine fight? ouch. Sea Slugs (Nudibranch) are pretty nasty too, some species eat Portugese-man-o-war.

Red Top made me laugh! never thought of that, now picturing Lightning pilots lobbing copies of the daily star and sun at Russian Bears. “hey dimitri look at the jugs on her…”

I Love the UK Rainbow codes, my faves are Pink Possum (amazingly code for nerve agent!) and Orange Poodle ( a radar system).

Black Arrow though has to be the coolest name ever for a spacerocket, straight out of Dan Dare.

from what info I have available Sea Dart development began in August ’62, the year the Devonshire entered service, with full go-ahead given in May’63. It would appear the last 4 counties were built with what was known to be an obsolete missile system. Bristol was ordered on 4/10/66 so her design was around before this date.
‘Sea Dart was designed as a sucessor to Seaslug. By using considerably smaller and lighter handling equipment that its predecessor it could be made to occupy no more space than a medium-calibre gunnery system.’
1973 saw the conversion of Norfolk with 4 exocets launchers replacing the twin 4.5’s @ B.
With the Counties intended to be A/A escorts, surely common sense would dictate the removal of a system that was now known to be at least 10 years out of date, and as it was designed to fit an area no bigger than a medium-calibre gunnery system, B would be an obvious & straight forward location. It might even have been possible to replace the twin Limbo mortars with the Ikara system, and in all 8 by this date.
With 8 1st class general purpose escorts in service (the counties) there would be no need for the T82, T42’s and the Ikara conversions to the Leanders.
conversion costs could’ve easily been met with the scrapping of the 3 obsolete cruisers in place of their own conversions, Blake 65-68 & tiger 69-72.
with the decisions taken not to go ahead with the ’52 carriers, CVA-01, etc & going ahead with ships that were obsolete before they were even in service one is left to consider which side those that ran the navy were on????

I used to think that Skyflash was a manly, heroic name but I am now forced to reconsider thanks to that observation 🙂

In the same vane, how about Firestreak.:D

Yeah and what about Skyflash. Is the pilot going to stop in mid air and show off his nose radome?:diablo:

I used to think that Skyflash was a manly, heroic name but I am now forced to reconsider thanks to that observation 🙂

IMMOO seaslug is a bit naff as a name. But no worse than other near contemporaries ‘Red Top’ what? Are we firing copies of the Scum at our enemies? Sparrow? Sparrow? Of all the birdies to name your AAM after

Yeah and what about Skyflash. Is the pilot going to stop in mid air and show off his nose radome?:diablo:

I agree that Sea Slug did not perform in the Falklands, but that was hardly surprising, as it was an outdated beam rider. If it had been updated to semi-active homing would it have done better? As I said, the Americans and French both did this, so it must be possible.

Obviously, Sea Dart was better than Sea Slug. My question is whether Sea Slug could have been updated at a reasonable cost? If possible, this could have maintained the Counties as viable air defence ships without having to rebuild them. As with our 50s carriers, I can’t help but think we never really got value for money from the County class.

I think the argument was more along the lines of “it’s not worth spending money on the missile systems of the Counties, because they’re expensive to run steam-powered ships which we’re replacing with Type 42”. I’m sure that conversion to semi-active homing would have been seen as a waste of money.

Note that the only Se Slug fired against a live aerial target missed. In 1982, the missiles were used for shore bombardment against large, fixed, targets. I think that tells you what the RN though of their value by then.

The only thing really worth debating is not whether it was worth trying to modernise the Sea Slug, but whether there was anything that could have been done to the Counties that would have kept them useful for the RN. As I see it, that necessitates reducing operating costs while increasing the value of the ships. I can’t see how that could have been done while keeping Sea Slug: was it not maintenance-heavy (both missiles & other elements of the system)? Did it not need a large crew for handling the missiles? Was it not ineffective against fast, agile targets, or anything at low level?

We had a vastly superior system coming into service. Even if Sea Slug 2 did have a range of 48 km, it was still outclassed by Sea Dart, & not just in range The only rational choice was whether to replace the ships at the same time as the missiles, or upgrade the ships. Given the Sea Slug missile performance & characteristics, there was no point at all in spending any money on it.

Upgrading the missile would also have required upgrades of associated systems. Why spend a lot of money on developing those upgrades, when a better system already existed, with a better missile? No, suggesting it would have got you shown the door. I’m baffled that you consider it.