Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Fascinating Obi Wan!

Would CVA-01 have been able to operate F-14's? Something that's apparent fromreading Richard Beedall's history of the project ( ) was that thanks to the inevitable political meddling it had become a bit of a pig of a design that had it's flight deck area reduced by 15% on what was possible, primarily because of the need to mount a Sea Dart SAM launcher on the stern. Beedall mentions that CVA-01's chief designer regarded the day it was cancelled as the happiest of his life as it had become such a difficult ship to engineer! So given those compromises, would CVA-01 have had the deckspace to operate a Tomcat squadron? In my own opinion I do think that it would have had to have been redesigned either while under construction or in service to replace the lost deck area, I don't see why a carrier needs to have an area defence system, that's the job of the escorts and the carrier's fighters, CIWS and point defence should be all that a carrier should have.

Any chance you have a mock up of a CVA-01 modified in that way?

bd popeye said:

Eacellent response Obi Wan. You are indeed wise.

I'm trying to envision FAA Tomcats with FAA markings and colours.Very nice.

So you see the CVA programme of the 60s & 70s going through? Humm would they last until the QE class come into service? And in your what if scenairo would the FAA possibly buy other aircraft besides the ones you mentioned?

Click to expand...

I imagine that had things proceeded as Obi Wan suggested then yes the CVF's would indeed be the replacements for CVA-01. As to what they would then be operating is an interesting question! CVF will also be the basis for the French PA2 carrier. Wasn't one of the reason France dropped out of the Eurofighter program was because it needed a navalized version which the other partners didn't need? Well if the FAA still had a large CTOL fleet of F-14's and Buccaneers, then perhaps Britain and France would have agreed to jointly develop a common naval strike fighter that might have turned out like a navalized Typhoon or a slightly larger Rafale. They would both be using the Hawkeye for AEW so it would make sense to combine both their fleets. There would be the potential for significant savings for logistics and also the aircrew training could be combined. Alternatively the RN could have decided on a "Buy American" policy and selected the Super Hornet for it's next generation aircraft. As to what route to go down, that would have been a political decision and sadly they rarely are based on logic.

I have a lot of respect for Richard Beedall and his Navy Matters site, though I find him a little pessimistic at times (understandably so). At no time was the CVA-01 project ever allowed to drop below three ships for one thing, as three was the minimum viable number to ensure one at sea at any given time. Denis Healy himself has said this, that the proposal in front of him in 66 was for three carriers built over a protracted period. That is why Only one firm order (CVA-01) was on the table along with long lead items for CVA-02. A government in 1966 would have no reason to give further consideration to the third ship as she wouldn't be ordered until the mid 70s. This, combined with the RN's plans to up grade just two of the existing carriers (Eagle and Ark Royal) to operate Phantoms has lead many to the wrong conclusion that a two carrier fleet was the plan. No. The plan was that Ark and Eagle would hold the line ALONGSIDE CVA-01 until her two sisters were complete, allowing a three carrier (Phantom equipped) fleet to be in service from the early seventies. I based my scenario on this analysis of projected events.

The Invincibles grew out of the associated Escort Cruiser project, which sought to increase the number of fixed wing aircraft aboard a strike carrier by offloadin the ASW helos to an accompanying Cruiser sized missile armed escort. I think even if the CVAs had gone ahead the escort cruiser would have evolved into Invincible anyway, the 'through deck/hangar below' concept was unavoidable to carry more than six helos, and these ships would have been justified to the Treasury as replacing both the Tiger class cruisers (which I would not have converted, saving a small fortune in the process) and the Commando Carriers. The latter requirement itself would have pushed the ship's size/capacity up to their historical size.

In practice, the intention would be to operate each carrier group with a CVA and an Invincible, With the CVA loaded to the max with CTOL Fighters and Bombers (Phantoms and Buccaneers, 18 of each) as well as Hawkeyes, and just a couple of helos for SAR. This give the group it's offensive potential; The Invincible is the centre of the defensive capability. It's 9 Sea King ASW Helos provide round the clock coverage supplemented by helos from the escorts, whilst the 8-12 Sea Harriers provide the standing CAP over the group, releasing any Phantoms from the task for offensive duties.

As to the aircraft of the FAA in this period, Ican confidently predict 'Tooms and Buccs for the seventies, probably Tomcats and Bucc NG for the eighties along with first generation Sea Harriers, a Possible move to Hornets in the mid 90s (or a British lead upgrade of the Tomcat which could filter back to the USN) before moving to the F-35C in the next decade (with some Bs to operate from CVS/LPHRs alongside the 3CVFs).

Russ, Do you have a drawing of an CVA-01? I seem to remember one but I can't find it? If you do have one would you please post that? Thanks!!

bd popeye said:

Russ, Do you have a drawing of an CVA-01? I seem to remember one but I can't find it? If you do have one would you please post that? Thanks!!

Click to expand...

I have several lurking on my hard drive: Probably a few more lying around as well.

Thanks Russ. What I'd like to see in that design is that elevator(lift) in front of the island should be a deck edge lift. ..And I don't like the way the fantail is exposed. The RN was just asking for a ramp strike in that configuration. And of course the weapons should have been added later.

You should re-fit the ship with your MS paint

bd popeye said:

Thanks Russ. What I'd like to see in that design is that elevator(lift) in front of the island should be a deck edge lift. ..And I don't like the way the fantail is exposed. The RN was just asking for a ramp strike in that configuration. And of course the weapons should have been added later.

You should re-fit the ship with your MS paint

Click to expand...

As requested, here's three variations on a theme: I have heard from some sources that the Parallell deck concept meant there was insufficient bouyancy aft to support the flight deck all the way to the stern, hence the position of the Sea Dart Launcher. To port of the launcher the deck drops down to hangar deck level where there is an opening into the hangar itself to be used for engine testing, exhausting out into the open air. US carriers also test aircraft engines at the stern, though usually after they have been removed from the aircraft. In CVA-01 the aircraft itself is positioned in the bay and flexible trunking is fitted over the engine intakes leading from the outside of the ship so that the risk of FOD ingestion from the hangar (or even the odd maintainer!) is eliminated. In my mods this feature would be retained, as the aft flight deck extension would be a lightweight structure similar to the fore and aft flight deck extensions on ww2 US and Japanese carriers simply supported on pillars rather than plated into the hull. Also most specs for CVA-01 list the armament as including four close range Sea Cat SAM launchers, though these do not usually appear on artists impressions. HAd they been installed, I'd imagine in the 80s they would have been replaced by a pair of lightweight Sea Wolf launchers and two or three Phalanx.

Great job Obi wan.

I like the drawing in the middle best. Was it the intention of the RN to taxi aircraft behind the island? If so where would the ordnance destined to be loaded on aircraft be stored? Behind the island is where the USN CVs store ordnance waiting to be loaded.

As far as engine testing is concerned the USN also test engines in the aircraft. It's called a "maintenance turn". Usually this is done on the flight deck but I've seen it infrequently on the hangar deck.

bd popeye said:

Great job Obi wan.

I like the drawing in the middle best. Was it the intention of the RN to taxi aircraft behind the island? If so where would the ordnance destined to be loaded on aircraft be stored? Behind the island is where the USN CVs store ordnance waiting to be loaded.

As far as engine testing is concerned the USN also test engines in the aircraft. It's called a "maintenance turn". Usually this is done on the flight deck but I've seen it infrequently on the hangar deck.

Click to expand...

The area outboard of the island was known in the RN as the 'Alaska Highway', and during the 60s the in service carriers (apart for Centaur) had this fitted so that towing tractors and flight deck personnel could move fore and aft without passing through the deck park on the other side of the island. In CVA-01 this idea was expanded to include aircraft movements, the Idea being aircraft could be brought up on the aft lift and moved to the bow catapult without interefering with aircraft parked next to the island, or indeed interefering with landing operations, as seen in this artists impression:

Also you may notice at the base of the island a pair of 'tunnels' leading from one side to the other, this was for deck tractors and personnel to move quickly from one side to the other. It is a remenant of the original 1950s concept of having two islands (following from the 1940s Malta class as well) which merged into a single island to accomodate the ever growing radar systems.

Captain's log: Supplemental

Here's a diagram from the early studies into the deck layout for CVA-01; The difference in usable deck area between the angled and parallell deck layouts is noticeable. Also of note are the original catapults with CALE aircraft positioning gear, non watercooled JBDs and no Bridle catchers. These drawings date from around 1962-63 (enhanced for clarity), and also included below are some of the 1950s carrier studies. The twin island idea is included.

Thanks for all that Obi Wan!

Interesting to see the twin island design there, some 50 years before it was selected for the CVF's! Obviously hindsight is the most wonderful thing, but would it have been more cost effective to have built an all new carrier such as the 1952 Carrier rather than have spent the money on modifying/rebuilding the RN's existing carriers? Fine ships as they were, Eagle, Ark Royal, Victorious and Hermes were designed during WW2 as axial deck carriers and it cost a lot of money to get them up to the requirements of the jet age. Even then they were on the small side and Hermes in particular struggled to operate jets like the Sea Vixen and Scimitar. So perhaps it would have been better in the long run to have not bothered with them and have gone for a new purpose built ship?