F-18RNHi I meant to say that the Tomcat never flew from Midways. Thanks for reminding me of that. Though why didn’t the Midways operate them? I could easily imagine had the Royal Navy built the similarly sized CVA-01 (and 02 for that matter) back in the 60s and 70s that the F4s slated for their airwings would have eventually given way to the F14.
F-18RNUS Super Carriers can easily carry 80 plus aircraft but rarely do! During the 70’s & 80’s for example a typical Air Wing was…….
24 Tomcats
24 Corsair II’s or Hornets
14 Intruders
10 Vikings
6 Seakings or Seahawks
4 Hawkeyesplus one or two COD’s
in short it was not uncommon to carry 82-84 aircraft! Many of which have a larger foot print that types used today!:cool:
Actually according to the US Aircraft Carriers section of the 1977/78 edition of Jane’s Fighting Ships during the 70s (and one assumes ) 80s the airgroup for Super Carriers was:
24 Tomcats (or Phantoms in the case of the Forrestals) ie 2 fighter squadrons
24 Corsair IIs/Hornets 2 light attack squadrons
12 Intruders 1 medium attack squadron
4 Intruder tankers
4 Prowlers
10 Vikings 1 ASW squadron
4 Hawkeyes
1 Greyhound
8 Seahawks/Seakings 1 ASW squadron
3 Vigilantes or Crusaders (up until 1980)
That’s 94!
With the Midways foregoing the Vigilantes/Crusaders and the Vikings. Hope I’m not nitpicking. I believe following the Cold War the US Navy adopted the concept of notional airwings with fewer aircraft per ship ie single 20 aircraft squadrons of Tomcats and Hornets.
F-18RN1. The warhead had a selectable yield in the range of 200 to 350 kT. A warhead with such a high yield must be a thermonuclear device. :rolleyes:
Apparently Britain tested an atomic bomb in the mid-late 50s in the Pacific with a 720 kt yield as a back-up in case of the failure of its mt yield thermo-nuclear weapons being tested at the same time. It was the second of the three bombs tested during Operation Grapple and was code-named Orange Herald (small).
F-18RNabout the size of the carriers needed for Phantoms, I thought the modified Essexs can operate the Phantoms? I believe they even operated the A-3s. So, the thing is, what happened to all those Essexs in terms of whether anyone else asked for them? There are many of those. Why only British carriers went on “sale”?
I think the Essexes were deemed too small by the US Navy to operate Phantoms and thats why the two or three used as attack carriers in the ’60s and ’70s operated Crusaders. The Midways for example couldn’t operate Tomcats and carried an extra squadron of Hornets to compensate. Though apparently a pair of Essex class carriers were offered to Britain following CVA01’s cancellation to keep us in the carrier game. One assumes they may have been ‘Phantomised’. Also the US Navy had plans for its Essex class carriers at the time the other navies were shopping around for flat tops whilst we couldn’t afford to run/didn’t need our light fleets. And possibly many of these navies may have liked an Essex but saw the CVLs as easier and cheaper to operate re maintenance, crewing and the number of aircraft they could afford to fly from them. After all whats the point in buying a ship that could carry 50 modern aircraft if you only have perhaps two dozen? Remember most of these carriers carried a squadron of fighter bombers, Sea Venoms or Banshees in the ’50s and early ’60s, Skyhawks from then on (except for Argentina who bought Super Etendards to replace its Skyhawks). A squadron of antisubmarine warfare planes, Skyraiders or Gannets in the ’50s, Trackers in the ’60s and for some navies Seakings more recently, plus a planeguard helo or two. No admittedly the size of the carrier may have dictated the size of the airwing, but its just a s possible it was the other way around.
F-18RNIn the interests of clarity I would like to point out my dislike for all politicians of whatever party. Sandys (Conservative) 57 review was an unmitigated disaster, Healy’s (Labour) 66 review was a catastrophe and the Heath Government was too spineless to decide whether to have cereal or toast for Breakfast… the Tories (old Irish word meaning thieves!) could have saved the day from 1970 onwards, as there were still three CTOL carriers in commission with their air groups still intact as well as two LPHs. The remaining ships had more than enough hull life left in them to remain in service until a new generation of carriers could be built (in the same time frame as the Invincible class historically) but chose not to ‘rock the boat’ and continued the decline of the RN.
I agree about the Malta class, four or five of them would have put the postwar RN on a whole different level compared to what it had to work with. Also, consider the possibilities of a developed Scimitar, with two seats, radar, andarea ruled fuselage for Supersonic flight. A british built Phantom equivalent?
Hi Obi-Wan I hope I didn’t come over as attacking you or any other specific posters’ politics or views on such matters. I certainly liked your assessment of the ’57, ’66 and ’70s defence reviews. I guess it just gets me about the bad press Labour in particular and centre-left parties in general get on defence matters from some quarters whilst their Conservative/centre-right counterparts can seem to do no wrong. Both parties I feel have reason to feel shame and pride with decisions they’ve taken on defence.
Certainly as far as Labour mistakes are concerned, if a book I recently read about TSR2 is correct Dennis Healey behaved dreadfully with some of the things he allegedly said and did to undermine that project. And regarding the 1966 defence paper, particularly where carriers were concerned, given that one of the reasons behind the cancellation was apparently a lack of credible scenarios requiring carriers, one could only speculate what would happen had someone in that 1966 debate stood up in Parliament and asked what would happen if in 15 years time Argentina invaded the Falklands, miles from any available RAF cover? Or in 20+ years time the Cold War would end and we’d go back to requiring an ‘East of Suez’ defence policy? They’d have been laughed out of the House.
Whilst on the Conservative side in the early ’70s Lord Carrington’s comments on keeping HMS Eagle in reserve (reserve mind you, not actual commission), that if he had the money to do so he would instead spend it on speeding up deliveries of new weapons, in the light of the Falklands War and its effect on his career, are sadly ironic.
Getting back on topic, at least to a point, that brings up an interesting question, if Eagle had been retained and ‘Phantomised’ does anyone think she might have outlasted her ‘younger sister’, perhaps even into the ’80s?
F-18RNVictorious was removed from service because the Labour government WOULD not afford her. The fire that was the excuse for her premature demise was nowhere near as bad as the government stated, and her captain said that it would not delay her recommissioning by even one day. The descision was purely political. As to the longevity of the refitted carriers, again this is clouded by their premature withdrawal for political reasons. Both Victorious’ and Eagle’s reconstructions were said at the time of their completion to extend the ship’s lives by twenty years, which would more than justify their costs. Victorious when recommissioned in 1958 was effectively a new ship, new engines new boilers, rewired throughout and everything above hangar deck level was new. Eagle retained more of her hull structure and her engines and boilers, but these had not seen strenuous war service and were in good condition. Ark Royal never recieved as extensive a refit as Eagle yet still soldiered on until 1978, and she was always described as being in the poorest mechanical condition. Even after the 66 Healy axe the RN was planning on keeping two carriers operational through the seventies and ordered enough Phantoms for three squadrons (two frontline and one HQ/training+spares). They were hoping two carriers would maintain the minimum capability long enough for a change of government to reverse the 66 axing, so even while Healy was telling parliament that the carrier force would be all gone by 1972 (including Ark Royal, her three year refit was only to produce two years service!), the Navy was making other plans. The government got wind of this and cancelled Eagle’s proposed ‘Phantomisation’, and the FG1s intended for her air group were diverted to the RAF. The first the RN knew of this was when they were delivered in RAF camouflage for 43sqn. Eagle could otherwise have remained in frontline service until around 1984 (Victorious could have lasted to at least 1978).
There was no need to refit Hermes as a commando carrier (£25million, compared to £5million to phantomise Eagle) as there were already two LPHs in service (Albion and Bulwark) which had plenty of hull life left and were only five years older than Hermes. Albion was paid off for further commercial service though that deal fell through and she was quietly scrapped whilst Bulwark remained until 1981(and could have served longer if not for the 81 defence review, as she was the same age as Albion it only illustrates how long the latter could have served) so if Hermes had been retained as an ASW carrier unmodified and still operating an airgroup of Sea Vixens (plenty of fatigue life left, plenty of airframes available and support infrastructure already in place) for air defence and Buccs for anti shipping strike alongside Sea Kings and Gannets, albeit with the numbers adjusted in favour of the helos, then the money wasted on her LPH conversion could have been better spent (on Eagle for a start).
In the interests of balance I would like to point out, that the other lot didn’t exactly distinguish themselves either. Heath didn’t reverse the decisions of Wilson’s government when he came to power in 1970. Though I except that it was in part due to the fact that many of these decisions were too far down the line to undo. How things might have been if the Tories had won in 1966 is open for debate.
But it should be pointed out that many of the decisions taken on defence by both lots were frequently is response to mistakes made by their predecessors. The 1957 defence white paper, the ‘Sandys Storm’ cast a long shadow. And going back further the decisions taken in immediate aftermath of the war on which and how many carriers would be built/retained had an impact. I wonder what it would have been like if the decision had been taken to scrap or not complete Vanguard, Lion, Tiger and Blake or any of the Audacious’ and Hermes’ or for that matter convert Victorious and her sisters, instead building the three Maltas (and possibly adding a fourth or even fifth to make up the numbers). If construction had been suspended for a few years until the 1950s as happened with Eagle, Ark etc that the Navy would have ultimately gotten several large carriers with steam cats, angled decks, mirror sights and by the ’60s type 984s built to post-war standards. And let’s not forget the role played by the state and organisation of the British shipbuilding and Aero industries not to mention interservice rivalries. Conditions both parties were responsible for. For instance on interservice rivalries, the RAF could have possibly diffused the whole P1154 situation where the RN were trying for as many differences as possible between the two versions of the aircraft to get it cancelled in favour of the F4 by selecting the P1154RN as a Lightning replacement. Or at least outmanouvred the RN.
F-18RNHmmmm… the Aircraft Carrier Operations section is labelled “Coming Soon”… maybe I can piece the data together from the Technical Specifications & External Payload & Airframe Configurations sections?
If it is any consolation, however, I am sure the Hornet could have launched from Vicky & Hermes with a nearly full payload :diablo:
I’m glad to see someone’s reopened this thread. I was trying to find it some time ago. I don’t know Bager if you’ve revisited the above site but the first part of the Aircraft Carrier Operations section is now open and seems to contain some interesting technical data about the RN Buccaneer. http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/
Also does anyone know where I might find a website with profile and plan drawings of warships, including ships like Victorious post war?
F-18RNHmmmm… the Aircraft Carrier Operations section is labelled “Coming Soon”… maybe I can piece the data together from the Technical Specifications & External Payload & Airframe Configurations sections?
If it is any consolation, however, I am sure the Hornet could have launched from Vicky & Hermes with a nearly full payload :diablo:
I’m glad to see someone’s reopened this thread. I don’t know Bager if you’ve revisited the above site but the first part of the Aircraft CArrier OPerations section is now open and seems to contian some interesting technical data about the RN Buccaneer.
Also does anyone know where I might find a website with profile and plan drawings of warships, including ships like Victorious post war?
F-18RNYes, but the design work was still unfinished for lack of funds. A firm order had not been placed.
A subsequent design was made in the 1960s, and it looked like it would go ahead. But then Labour won the election and capped defence spending – this pressure and attacks from the RAF finished the carrier plan off.
In comparison, the CVF design is pretty much complete, and there is no fear of the Conservatives coming in and capping defence spending like Labour did.
Defence spending was capped because when Labour won the 1964 election they inherited a whopping budget deficit not to mention the fallout from the infamous 1957 Defence White Paper.
And don’t rule out the Conservatives scrapping things whether they’re complete or not, look at HMS Invincible, she was actually complete and in service. Had the Argentines not inadvertantly come to Maggie’s rescue by invading the Falklands, it would have been sold to Australia.
F-18RNRemember the 1960s?
The Royal Navy’s new carrier, CVA-01 had been laid down, and was actually being built… when the entire programme was cancelled.
The building contract for CVF hasn’t even been formally approved, much less signed… material ordered… “keel laying ceremony” held… etc, all of which had been done with CVA-01!
Sorry Bager, to my knowledge (admittedly culled from several books and articles) CVA-01 never left the drawing board. Perhaps you are thinking of the wartime HMS Malta supercarrier laid down and then broken up on the slipway or the USS United States? The order was never actually placed. I wish it were the case, the likelihood then would have been the ship would have been built. From what I can see CVF’s design, development and construction is a lot further along than CVA-01’s.
F-18RNInteresting, I almost forgot! The CVF’s are to be named Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales? What happen to Military Hero’s and Historic Battles?
The rule, if it can be called that, is for the lead capital ship in the Navy to be named for the Monarch and (some) of the subsequent units to be named after other Royals hence HMS Queen Elizabeth II and Prince of Wales. Back when Battleships were Capital ships you had the King George V class; King George V, Prince of Wales, Duke of York. Though technically this broke the rule as the ships were planned and laid down after his death and should have been christened King Edward VIII but the abdication crisis meant that King George VI wanted the ship to be named after his late Father (who had already had a class of battleships named for him).
And had the CVA-01s ever sailed through the beautiful briney they would have been christened Queen Elizabeth II and Duke of Edinburgh. The reason by the way that this nomenclature wasn’t applied to the Invincible class was political as by giving the lead ship a cruiser name it might slip under the anti-carrier lobby’s nose.
As for things like historic battles, there have in times gone by been battle class destroyers such as Agincourt. And two King George V Battleships were named Howe and Anson after admirals along with the Battlecruiser Hood. We did have an SSN named Churchill but apart from him there never has been (to date at least) any politician-inspired ship names eg HMS Edward Heath, Harold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair.
F-18RNI can’t remember exactly where, but I do recall reading somewhere that following the cancellation of the CVA-01 programme the Royal Navy did submit a proposal for an austere CTOL carrier that would have operated the Jaguar M. Not sure if they would have been radar equiped like the Jaguar International though. Suffice to say the powers that be declined the suggestion.
F-18RNYou mean like the USS JFK?:rolleyes:
Personally, I think we need to go back to naming them after battles or other names, like America/Ranger/etc. I’m sick of elected pols of either party getting carriers named after them, esp living ones.
Lets not forget USS Franklin D Rooservelt and USS Harry S Truman while we’re at it.
F-18RNA program to build two aircraft carriers for the British Royal Navy is expected to go before the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) Investment Approvals Board (IAB) Nov. 9 after a last-minute deal was agreed over the price of the vessels between government and the industry alliance set to build the warship.
At one stage last week, it looked as though the Defence Procurement Agency’s plan to present the business case for the aircraft carrier development and construction to the IAB when it meets Nov 9 had foundered.
Now, though, sources close to the program say a series of meetings in recent days between senior officials from industry and the MoD has culminated in a compromise agreement on the price the government is willing to pay for the carriers.
At one point, Defence Procurement Minister Lord Drayson and the chief executives of the top companies involved in the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, created to build the vessels, met in an attempt to bridge the gap between the 3.5 billion pounds ($6.6 billion) the government was willing to pay and the 3.8 billion pounds the alliance wanted to charge.
IAB go-ahead is the start of a process which, if things go according to plan, could see the government announce the deal, known here as Main Gate, before Parliament goes into Christmas recess in mid-December.
The two sides have settled on an incentive agreement which reduces the final cost of the two 65,000-metric-ton carriers to about 3.6 billion pounds, sources say.
The Aircraft Carrier Alliance includes BAE Systems, Babcock International, KBR, Thales, the VT Group and the MoD.
The first of the two warships, the largest ever proposed for the Royal Navy, are expected to enter service in 2013.
The MoD was unable to respond to requests for comment late Nov. 8. Alliance leader BAE declined to comment.CVF(HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Prince Of Wales)
Is there any more news on this only no other website seems to be carrying this story and the meeting was to have been held on the 9th? Its now 17th.
F-18RNThe reason for the F35B is twofold. One as mentioned its a follow on from Joint Force Harrier, in that the airforce needs a like for like replacement for its harriers namely a Vstol fighter and the bean counters in Whitehall will not be too chuffed at forking out for two different versions of the same plane.
And two if they go with the F35B the only flight deck acoutrements required will be a ski jump which I imagine is an inanimate object with no moving parts. A CTol carrier requires cats and arrestor wires and that requires more personnel to maintain which ultimately means more money.
Sign In
