A better FAA twin seat, single engine fighter for 1940?

Britain should have left the LNT when it expired in December, 1935. Then begin the Illustrious class a year earlier, and if they do, the AM needs to specify its fighter, single or twin seat ASAP. By Dec 1935 the Germans are building Graf Spee, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.... the writing was on the wall. Only one carrier was laid down in Europe in 1936.... and that was in Germany! Britain was complacent, and waited too long.

Admiral Beez said:

Good points, though Britain's yards were churning out large ships.

Click to expand...

Of course, look at the Hood, it was the biggest ship in the world at the time when it was launched. Britain's expansion of Dreadnought type battleships and battlecruisers prior to and during the Great War exceeded its capital shipbuilding programme prior to WW2 by a large margin, so although it had problems with infrastructure, it made do.

nuuumannn said:

Of course, look at the Hood, it was the biggest ship in the world at the time when it was launched. Britain's expansion of Dreadnought type battleships and battlecruisers prior to and during the Great War exceeded its capital shipbuilding programme prior to WW2 by a large margin, so although it had problems with infrastructure, it made do.

Click to expand...

I'd consider HMS Hood of the WW1 era programs. The decline in Britain's post-WW1 capital ship construction capacity is notable. Just look at all these yards in existence during WW1, Shipyards, 1914-18

I've made a quick list of all the dreadnought battleships and battlecruisers built by Britain before and during the First World War. Between Dec 1906 and Jan 1915 eleven yards in England and Scotland built forty-seven ships. Interestingly, none were made in Ireland, including the massive Harland and Wolff yard in Belfast where the aircraft carriers HMS Formidable and Unicorn were later constructed - perhaps fears of civil war and secession drove the RN's business elsewhere. Look at the build times, only a very few ships approach the 3-4 years Britain needed to make its six armoured deck fleet carriers. The very few long WW1 build times can be explained by HMS Hood incorporating the lessons of Jutland, and HMS Canada being originally a private, and thus not prioritized build for Chile.

Nice wee chart, Admiral. Of course Hood was Great War, hence the statement it was built within that time period. Agincourt was also built for a foreign government too.

As for Harland and Wolff, I don't think politics was the issue - the firm was certainly busy building ships in the lead up to and during the Great War, just not capital warships. Let's not forget that between 1908 and 1914, Harland and Wolff's shipyards were busy preparing for and building the Olympic Class ships Titanic, Olympic and Britannic. The massive dual slipway that the hulls were built on was purpose-built before their manufacture could begin. During the war, monitors, cruisers and also the cruiser/aircraft carrier Glorious were built in Belfast. The Abercrombie Class, Erebus Class, Lord Clive Class monitors were all built by H & W following the clearance of its workshops and factories of its ocean liner priorities.

Unstable politics in Ireland did cause H & W to purchase facilities at Govan on the Clyde though, as well as a yard in Liverpool.

nuuumannn said:

Nice wee chart, Admiral. Of course Hood was Great War, hence the statement it was built within that time period. Agincourt was also built for a foreign government too.

Click to expand...

Of course, I missed that one. The British should have let Turkey have Sultan Osman (Agincourt) in order to keep good relations and maybe avoid that whole debacle over the Dardanelles, etc.

It's interesting how ships of the same class were made at different yards - I'd expect it would make more sense for economies of scale to make them all in one place. Otherwise you have two or three yards making duplicate full scale drawings (check out these pics how that was done) and tooling.

Admiral Beez said:

Of course, I missed that one. The British should have let Turkey have Sultan Osman (Agincourt) in order to keep good relations and maybe avoid that whole debacle over the Dardanelles, etc.

It's interesting how ships of the same class were made at different yards - I'd expect it would make more sense for economies of scale to make them all in one place. Otherwise you have two or three yards making duplicate full scale drawings (check out these pics how that was done) and tooling.

Click to expand...

Look at the dates, most yards had no more than two under construction (or at least on the building ways/slips) at a time.
Each yard was kept up to date on latest practices. As one ship was launched and towed to the fitting out basin/dock another was being set up to be built on the same slip.
It also kept work forces together and yards in business.
Give Inflexible, Australia and Tiger to other yards and John Brown might not have been in business to build the Barham, Repulse and Hood.
There may also have been competitive bidding going on.
Giving 3-5 battleships of one class to one yard might give you economy of scale for a few class but a rather restricted pool of Shipyards after a few years.
Which could raise prices as you have nowhere else to go. That was one reason for the Royal dockyards. They had a pretty good idea of the cost of construction (labor) and could evaluate bids accordingly.

nuuumannn said:

As for Harland and Wolff....between 1908 and 1914, Harland and Wolff's shipyards were busy preparing for and building the Olympic Class ships...the massive dual slipway.. were purpose-built

Click to expand...

So they didn't have dreadnought sized slipways beforehand?

I wonder what the last large non-military ship made in the UK was. Somehow the French, Germans and Italians are able to build most of the cruise ships, but the UK doesn't make any.

The UK's New Mega Cruise Ship is Finally Delivered.... made in Germany
The UK's New Mega Cruise Ship is Finally Delivered.