It was, unfortunately, a ‘ship too far’; I say this not because it wasn’t needed, but because it was designed too late, and was too big a political target. If the CVA-01 had been designed five to ten years earlier, it might have worked. By the mid ’60s, too much had been spent on the rebuilds of the older carriers (Victorious, Ark and Eagle all having gone through very expensive rebuilds in the preceding few years) to allow funds for new carriers. Equally, by being pushed at a time when the Royal Navy had lost it’s most ardent supporter, Lord Mountbatten, yet facing staunch opposition from the RAF (who ‘needed’ the TSR-2 funded) it was a no-hoper.

A much better plan would have been to build something a bit more modest, probably something a bit bigger than the French Clemenceau, but not as large as Ark or Eagle. By going for a carrier a little smaller than Eagle/Ark, but in the mid to late ’50s, with Mountbatten’s support, a lot more could have been achieved.

Design-wise, the CVA-01 had a lot of flaws, partly as a result of trying to put too many things on the same hull.

– Remove Sea Dart (it takes up valuable deck and hangar space)
– Eliminate the ‘Alaskan taxiway’ (it took up valuable deck space, for dubious gains)
– Stretch the flight deck all the way aft, into a more normal layout
– Shrink the island down to more normal size (again, it takes up valuable deckspace)
– Fit more sensible armament, better suited to self defence, e.g. a fast-firing Bofors 40mm L/70, or even the RN’s 4.5in guns if necessary! Also fit Sea Cat, to be replaced with Sea Wolf on the same mount (discussed below)

At the same time, I would change the Typ 82 requirement, though this is based on a heck of a lot of hindsight! Put the Sea Dart forward, in the ‘B’ position, behind either a Mk6 twin 4.5in or the new Mk8 in the ‘A’ position. This then leaves the aft clear (unlike on the County or T82) for a hangar and flight deck; a hull this sort of size should be capable of carrying a hangar sized for two Sea King ASW helos minimum. Also add a pair of Sea Cat launchers, to be switched to Sea Wolf (again, discussed below).

For defensive purposes, the carriers, without their Sea Dart launchers, would still have needed some form of defensive anti-air capability. This should have been provided by means of the Sea Wolf, but not quite the version that emerged. The Sea Wolf was intended as a replacement for the old, and quite limited, Sea Cat system; but what emerged didn’t really fit the bill, since it was quite a bit larger, and incompatible with the Sea Cat’s launchers. If, on the other hand, they had stuck with the original plan, and made it backwards compatible (though with the necessary directors added), then things are a lot brighter! Sea Cat was in service on many of the RN’s existing frigates, plus the County class destroyers, probably the new Type 82s, as well as the carriers, amphibs and other types. Switch them to using Sea Wolf, and they gain a pretty good self defence capability!

AFAIK, CVA-01 did include four Sea Cat Launchers in the specs, though these tend not to be shown in the artists impressions. I would retain the Alaska Highway, because it in itself provides more deckspce. Aircraft can be brought up on the aft (deck edge) lift and taxied forward outboard of the island to the forward catapult without interfering with either landing operations or the deck park, which was the whole point. Also the sponson supporting it greatly increased internal volume which would make a huge difference to the crews accomodation. I agree about dispensing with the Sea Dart, though I would retain the ‘Parallell’ deck layout, as this maximised the deck area to starboard of the landing strip. The landing area was more than adequate for anything up to and including the Tomcat and the Hawkeye, though I would use the former Sea Dart launcher are aft to extend the flight deck and hangar beneath as much as possible.

There has been some confusion over how many ships were intended to be ordered. To be sure, when the program started proper back in 1962, the RN wanted to replace the existing carrier fleet on a one for one basis, so it started as a five ship program. By 1964 this had dropped to four ships as the Navy had been making do with no more than four available at any given time with one in major refit. The new class wouldn’t require such major reconstructions so four would do. By 1965-66 the number had dropped to three for financial reasons, and the Navy’s position was that three was the minimum viable number for the carrier force. Denis Healy himself said in later interviews that there was never any proposal to order less than three ships for this reason. At the time the sequential nature of the ordering process meant only one carrier, CVA-01 herself, was on the table, with some mention of long lead items for CVA-02. There would in reality have been a gap of up to two to four years between the actual orders for the ships so in 1966 CVA-03 was up to eight years away from requiring a decision.The new Phantom fighter jets on order could not safely be operated by Hermes or Victorious, so these two were to be run on with their existing air groups until the new carriers were ready (early 70s for the first unit) and to provide the minimum three carrier force with Phantom/Buccaneer/Gannet/Sea King air groups as soon as possible, Ark Royal and Eagle were to be ‘Phantomised’ in the late 60s to fill the gap until CVA-02 and 03 were ready. Even after the Healy Axe of 66, the Navy held out that a change of government around 1970 would reverse the decision, but as usual the politicians reneged on their promises. 🙁

Only 24 aircraft on a Carrier at least 3/4 the size of a Nimtiz Class super carrier! Hey, India’s forth coming IAC’s could handle that on almost half the displacement……..

24 aircraft in peacetime, in war CVF can carry 36 F-35s + 4 AEW Helos/aircraft + 6 Merlin ASW. On a ship that size they can do it without jabbing each other in the ribs.

TOMCAT TERRITORY: The CVF design is adaptable to Cat and Trap ops without major reconstruction, the cats and wires are already a part of the design, they are just being left out for the time being (to save cash of course). It’s the RAF who have been pushing for STOVL, the RN would probably be quite happy to return to CATOBAR ops if the politicians would agree to it (financially). All military projects have five dimensions, length, width, height, cost and politics. No prizes for guessing which are the most important these days.:(

Smaller aircraft carriers than The Invincibles do exit but they can only operate Harriers, there are no other fixed wing aircraft available for them now or in the future. The Harrier is being replaced by the F35B which is obviously much larger and will probably require a larger aircraft carrier (can they even operate from an Invincible?).

I don’t see much future for small aircraft carriers, I certainly don’t see much point in anything much smaller than Cavour.

Back in the summer at ‘Meet Your Navy’ I asked one of Illustrious’ officers about F-35B compatability with the Invincible class; the aircraft are a lot heavier than a Harrier when fully loaded, but they aren’t actually that much bigger. They do fit on the lifts but it is a tight fit. In rough weather the aircraft would be loaded onto the lifts at an angle to increase clearance. In terms of ‘spot factor’ (ie how much relative deck space an aircraft takes up) the Harrier II has a SF of 0.82 and the F-35B has a SF of 1.09; not that different. If your carrier can currently accomodate for arguments sake 8 Harriers it should be able to operate a similar number of Daves. The weight issue with regard to lifts doesn’t rear it’s head as aircraft are fuelled and armed on deck, so only ride the lifts when unarmed and empty of fuel. Well within limits.

As to the general question of smaller carriers, I wouldn’t build anything smaller than an Invincible (ie 20,000tons approx) simply because carriers efficiency improves with size, which is the cheapest way to increase it’s capability. It’s the radars, sonars and weapons that make warships expensive, not the steel. A 30,000ton carrier is not that much more expensive to build than a 20,000ton design if all ‘fixtures and fittings’ are otherwise the same. Hence CVF growing to 65,000 tons and Garibaldi’s follow on Cavour being double the displacement of her predecessor. Big is Beautiful when it comes to carriers…:D

Thanks for the heads up, I’m going tomorrow (Sunday) and will keep an eye out for the tent.

Perhaps the MOD should propose a new class and call it FSC or whatever alphabet soup is in vogue, a class of six escorts that can be built a lot cheaper than the current T45s (call them Type 46 for arguments sake) because all the design work is done and the bugs ironed out. Repeat Type 45s! As long as no one mentions to the pollies what they actually are they’ll never know…:diablo:;):D

The only possible upside from such an arrangement would be if it forced HMG to provide Illustrious with a full time fixed wing component for her air group. It’s all very well having an Invincible assigned as the ‘European Carrier’, but the RAF doesn’t like it’s Harriers getting wet…

There again if the European Nations were prepared to Pay for a dedicated carrier we could reactivate Invincible herself for this duty and borrow Harriers as required for ops from (in rotation) Britain, Spain and Italy in order to make up a truly multinational force.

Otherwise I agree with the previous comments. Monsieur Sarkozy, as we say round our way, “Get thy belly up to the Bar and dig deep in thy pockets, this round is yours!”:D

Many thanks the info Badger.

Ive done a little more digging and found that they removed Melbourne’s entire flight deck for use as a training aid and that her basic hull was rumoured to still be extant in 2002.

Another myth in circulation for years. Her deck was scrapped with the rest of the ship. Flight deck equipment such as the catapult and arrestor gear were removed for study but the deck itself was just steel, and only of benefit if still attached to a moving ship. The rumours came about because a replica of Melbourne’s flight deck was painted onto the concrete of a Chinese airbase for trials, something all carrier operating nations do. The French have a full sized replica of CdG’s flight deck painted onto the concrete of the main base for her air group. At RNAS Culdrose their is a full sized replica of an Invincible class CVS flight deck. Even the Russians have a dummy deck for training, though unfortunately it is now in the Ukraine and they have to rent it periodically when required. Most USN air bases have dummy decks painted onto the runway with projector sights alongside so that aviators can practice their approaches before they join their carrier. It is very useful for training ground crew as well as flight crew as it gets them used to working in cramped conditions as opposed to the wide expanses of an airbase. Melbourne alas is long gone.