I wish someone would take Mr Kopp into a quiet corner, grab him firmly by the lapels and whisper gently into his shell-like: “The F-22 is not for export, not now, not ever. Get over it!” The RAF has blown it’s money on the Typhoon, there is nothing left in the kitty for another type to replace them, and certainly not an aicraft like the F-16 which is technologically a step backwards from the Typhoon. Even if the RAAF was alowed to buy F-22s, could they afford them? Certainly not in the numbers required or anything like the numbers of F-35s they want. I think this thread is certainly producing a consensus amongst members, so that in itself seems to be the one positive achievement of Mr Kopp!

Argentina was certainly spreading the load around when buying ships and other equipment. Had they shown more foresight they could have stockpiled engines and parts for their ships against any possible embargo. But certainly they were not buying further type 42s or any type 22s for their fleet in the late 70s early 80s, and were looking elsewhere for fleet units. Had they seriously believed there would be war/embargo etc they could have specified different engines for the new fleet units, though the next obvious choice would be American GTs, though these would also be potential embargo candidates too. Implications and consequences don’t appear to be high on the list as regards the ARA in this period.

I understand one of the big cpmplaints bout the ww2 Illustrious class was hanger height. What was it on Vicky after rebuild?

The original three Illustrious class carriers (Illustrious, Formidable and Victorious) had a single hangar with a height of 16ft, the fourth vessel had her side armour thinned to release weight for an extra half hangar to fitted aft below the main hangar. The half hangar had a height of 16 ft, but upper hangar had it’s height reduced to 14 ft to maintain stability. She also had her forward lift enlarged in order to strike down non folding aircraft like the Sea Hurricane. The final two ships Implacable and Indefatigable were an attempt to produce a four screw two hangar design, but were constrained by the limited displacement of the design, and the demans of the increased crew for the the added fourth engine room and the increase in aircrew/maintainers meant the forward end of the lower hangar had to be given over to crew accomodation at the design stage, thus they becam ‘hangar and a half’ carriers also. Both hangars in this class were 14 ft, which was acceptable at the time as the only aircraft in service they couldn’t fit into the hangar were Corsairs. Most British Naval Aircraft of the time folded their wings aft rather than upwards, so vertical height in the hangar wasn’t often an issue.

The aims for the Implacables weren’t achieved until the follow on Audacious class, which were no longer constrained by treaty limits, and managed to fit four screws/ two full length hangars on a much larger displacement. The Hagars were both at the new standard of 17ft 6inches, in common with contemporary American carriers. This height was not adopted in order to accomodate American Aircraft specifically, but to fit British aircraft then in prospect.

When Victorious was reconstructed, the purpose of the refit (which was intended to be applied to the whole class and take no more than four years each) was to remedy the low hangar height/ small lift problem primarily, which is why Victorious was stripped back to the hangar deck. The new design included two much larger lifts, the forward one repositioned further back from the bows in order to make it wider. The original hangar length was maintained resulting in an extension forward of the lift. The new hangar was 17ft 6 inches in height, and now had a gallery deck above it sandwiched between the hangar and the flightdeck. This extra volume allowed the island to be reduced in size as the CIC was moved below decks, and added to the new bulged hull stability was further improved. The extra weight of the ship meant she sat deeper in the water, but the addition of the rasied hangar roof and the gallery deck meant her freeboard was about the same, if not higher. Her refit was extended from the original four years due to the continual stream of additions and alterations to the plan such as the angled deck, steam catapults, and most seriously the replacement of the boilers after most of the hull, hangar and flight deck had been rebuilt over them, necessitating undoing much of the work that had been done. Shortages of skilled manpower at Portsmouth dockyard also added to the delays. She was floated out of the drydock in 1956 but didn’t put to sea until 1958.

Around 1953 the decision was taken to abandon refitting her sisters as the costs were rocketting on Victorious and the admiralty decided it was better to devote their limited resources to new construction rather than reconstructing older ships. Formidable was the first choice for the reconstruction, but a survey of the hull apparently revealed more serious damage than previously thought as a result of Kamikaze hits in 45. Also after being paid off following her trooping duties in 1947 Formidable was laid up in an unmaintained state and deteriorated rapidly. Damage abobe hangar deck level would be irrelevant to her future as it would have been removed anyway, so the damage to the hull that decided her fate must have extended much deeper (below the waterline, a twisted hull/keel has been suggested as well as possible propeller shaft problems). Illustious also had issues relating to war damage and being generally worn out through being driven hard in the war. The two Implacables would probably have benefitted most from a Victorious style reconstruction, as they had a larger hull to begin with, so on top of the stripped down hull a rearranged accomodation deck and in place of the hangar and a half situation a single full height hangar (17ft 6inches), two larger lifts, a gallery deck, new island etc. Ships resembling Victorious in 58 but with four screw machinery and larger all round. With a single hangar they would have been better balanced internally and better suited to the jet era. Less likely to need new boiler and engines due to their late completion and lower mileage.

The whole story strikes me as a lot of fuss over nothing. EMALs uses technology that has been proven elsewhere, and it is a matter of adaptaion rather than developing something completely from scratch. So they’ve asked for a few million more for development. Par for the course. Teething troubles. If disaster does strike, the space and weight reserved in the design for the EMALs cats will probably be more than adequate for Steam cats, and the ships propulsion still uses steam in quantities similar to a Nimitz. I would be very surprised if Northrop Grumman didn’t have an alternative set of plans already drawn up just in case sitting on a hard drive at their HQ. Name a recent defence technology program in recent decades that didn’t ask for more development money. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the Compliment Obi Wan. I’ll have to alter the date and try and do another one with different colours if I can find an appropriate pallet. I love the new set of images you posted and I too think that the markings sported by Ark Royal in the late 70s are the best. If our CVFs ever go CTOL, those are the markings to use.

I have a fondness for the RN’s deck colours because they were distinctively British, whereas everyone else seems to blindly copy the US markings. We invented CTOL carrier technology (and the carrier itself lest we forget!) and whatever type of carrier we have deployed, we have always punched above our weight and confounded the critics!

Obi Wan, many thanks, a gentleman & a scholar. Any thing further on the 1952?

Beyond shipbucket and other published sources, not a lot I’m afraid. In the timescale if she had been built I believe she would have resembled an enlarged Victorious as both were the products of the same technology, though this impression from the aforementioned shipbucket site gives a possible view of the finished ship:

Obi Wan, your expert opinion please, Had Victorious been recomissioned then a further refit due mid to late seventies with bow ski-jump like Hermes & waist cat. Possible CAG would be 9 Buccaneers; 12 Sea Harriers; 4 Gannets & 5 ASW Sea Kings. Would she still be mechanically sound enough for service? If the RN top brass decided to surrender both the Ark & Eagle instead & kept Vicky & Hermes (no waist cat due to deck edge lift) would I be correct to assume the loses would’ve been avoidable in the South Atlantic? Do you know the results of the modified nose cone on the 3 1977 buccaneers & what effect would this have on operations in 1982?
PS like the drawings on Ship buckets. Any further info on the 1952 design other than the few lines in ‘Navy Matters’ & Tornados drawing on ‘ship buckets’?

IMHO, Victorious was mechanically and materially viable to the late 70s. When she was rebuilt in the 1950s, she was stripped down to the hangar deck, re boilered, re engined, re wired and re plumbed, essentially producing a new ship. At the time, the refit was said to have extended her life by twenty years, so 1978 becomes the OSD if no further major refits are given. Her 1972 pay off date was brought up when replacement by CVA-01 was on the cards. Considering the longevity of Hermes, I don’t think it would have been difficult to keep Victorious in service into the 80s and possibly 90s, although justifying keeping her in service is another matter altogether. If possible, I’d keep the flight deck as is, two cats for the Buccs and Gannets, and the Sea Harriers can launch form the angled deck with a reasonable run. Victorious’ angled deck sponson is probably to thin to support a catapult so if one is fitted there then a more substantial structure may be required. Refit costs are rising already, which is why I’d keep her as she was.

A ship of her size could comfortably operate about 30 Sea Harriers plus a sqn of helos (ASW/AEW) if the STOVL path is followed. The problem comes in keeping her active through the seventies. Assuming CVA-01 and her sisters go ahead, Victorious is relieved as a frontline carrier by 1972-74 (probable building delays with the CVAs), then she could be kept active as an ASW carrier/ training carrier, operating mostly with Sea Kings (20-30) and giving DLPs to Home based sqns like 736 and 767. The latter, with Phantoms, would only be able to do touch and go’s, but these are valuable in themselves for practice. By 1980 she could embark an air group as illustrated earlier, 12 Sea Harriers for air defence, 9 Buccaneers for strike/tanking/recce, 4 Gannets for AEW (by the early 80s paerhaps a new mark with Searchwater radar instead of APS-20), and six to nine Sea Kings for ASW/SAR. As a parallell, the Indian carrier Vikrant operated as a hybrid CTOL/STOVL carrier in the mid 80s, with SHARs and Alize flying from the same deck. Hermes could likewise have been retained in CTOL form through the seventies in this manner, saving considerably on the cost of converting her to an LPH (and retaining Albion in the process, as she was in no way decrepit when paid off). In any case Victorious would have needed a major SLEP refit in the late 70s to keep her going for the 80s.