Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Never have guessed about your views of the Skua!!I'm a fan of the Skua. The first all metal, retractible undercarriage, folding wing monoplane carrier aircraft of any type. The Americans and Japanese would not have a dive bomber of this spec until the SB2C Helldiver and Yokosuka D4Y enter service in 1942, four years after the Skua was introduced. Blackburn was ahead of its time with the Skua. I would have liked to have seen a successor powered by the Hercules. As it was, after the Skua everything from Blackburn was rubbish until their swan song, the superlative Buccaneer.
Whoops, I meant the Aichi B7A as the IJN's first all-metal, folding wing, monoplane, retractible undercarriage dive bomber (also came with Barracuda-like torpedo capability).Never have guessed about your views of the Skua!!
The Yokosuka D4Y Suisei didn't have folding wings.
Fairey did offer a monoplane design. As you say, a more powerful engine was needed to lift a viable bomb load off the existing decks. Hence the Albacore got the alternative large wing area by using the biplane layout to lift 2,000lb of bombs etc. together with a useful amount of fuel off those decks at the speed the existing engines could attain by lift off. The Barracuda being able to do this with a monoplane wing of smaller area due to the extra power of the day.So with a little more foresight, better co-operation, it might well have been able to get a monoplane TBR spec issued 12 months earlier with the prospect of having it in service around 1940. If Fairey wasn't building so many Battles at Heaton Chapel, more production space could have been devoted to that type. Or Blackburn having space from not building Bothas. Only one question then remains. Finding a suitably powerful engine in that 1937-1940 timeframe to power it to give it a decent performance, while allowing for the substantial weight growth that kicked in historically come WW2.
And the use of high lift devices on the wing - the Fairey Youngman flaps that doubled up as dive brakes.Fairey did offer a monoplane design. As you say, a more powerful engine was needed to lift a viable bomb load off the existing decks. Hence the Albacore got the alternative large wing area by using the biplane layout to lift 2,000lb of bombs etc. together with a useful amount of fuel off those decks at the speed the existing engines could attain by lift off. The Barracuda being able to do this with a monoplane wing of smaller area due to the extra power of the day.
IIRC the requirement for the bomber to return and land with a torpedo was a real issue, torpedoes being very expensive thing for the budgets of 1930s.Fairey did offer a monoplane design. As you say, a more powerful engine was needed to lift a viable bomb load off the existing decks. Hence the Albacore got the alternative large wing area by using the biplane layout to lift 2,000lb of bombs etc. together with a useful amount of fuel off those decks at the speed the existing engines could attain by lift off. The Barracuda being able to do this with a monoplane wing of smaller area due to the extra power of the day.
I wonder if a Japan and PTO focused Admiralty would observe the 31,000 ton, 845 ft long Shōkaku-class then building and reconsider some of their assumptions for the Illustrious class. Wasn't Ark Royal and her larger CAG built with PTO ops in mind? And by pre-war 1941 once Britain has radar, and sees the huge Taihō and Essex classes, the Implacable-class may be deemed insufficient, with instead a jump to something like an early Audacious class. Which makes we wonder if Britain may follow Japan and quit the Washington Naval Treaty, igniting a new global naval race. And what are the Weimar Germans and Stalin making of all this?The Illustrious class emerged from the conclusion that with increasing aircraft speed the visual warning time of an attack reduced, and therefore the ability of single engined deck launched fighters to intercept in time to prevent an attack reduced their efficacy. With carrier size limited by treaty, they couldn't carry both a decent number of fighters to maintain standing CAP patrols throughout the daylight hours and a decent sized strike group to perform attacks on an enemy fleet to slow it down for the big guns to kill. So reduce the fighters to a number needed for strike escort (which required two seats) and protect the air group under armour while relying in the fleets AA guns for protection.
All of which pre-supposes knowledge of Japanese plans in 1936 when the Illustrious class were designed with 4 laid down in 1937.I wonder if a Japan and PTO focused Admiralty would observe the 31,000 ton, 845 ft long Shōkaku-class then building and reconsider some of their assumptions for the Illustrious class. Wasn't Ark Royal and her larger CAG built with PTO ops in mind? And by pre-war 1941 once Britain has radar, and sees the huge Taihō and Essex classes, the Implacable-class may be deemed insufficient, with instead a jump to something like an early Audacious class. Which makes we wonder if Britain may follow Japan and quit the Washington Naval Treaty, igniting a new global naval race. And what are the Weimar Germans and Stalin making of all this?
Assuming peace in Europe until Dec 1941, what changes do we foresee in the Royal Navy's fleet composition. On peacetime budget and manpower levels it would become increasingly difficult to keep the older large warships in commission, such as the Courageous trio, the five Revenge-class and the older cruisers like the Danae and Hawkins classes. I don't know if their smaller size presents any savings, but one of Argus, Hermes and Eagle might be found to still be useful on colonial service, though Argus must have been worn out. As it was, in July 1938 Hermes became a training ship.As for Ark Royal it is true that she was designed with a view to operations against Japan. But she was designed between 1931 and 1935.
Firstly, reconstructions of old ships were not seen by the RN as a replacement for new construction. They were seen as a means of extending ship life until new construction came along. So as the fleet was aging there would have to be an ongoing replacement programme so the RN would probably have first bite at the cherry when it came to funding of the 3 services. Then you have to take account of the age of replacement terms built into the Treaty system (all being from completion). The ages given are from the 1936 London Treaty.Assuming peace in Europe until Dec 1941, what changes do we foresee in the Royal Navy's fleet composition. On peacetime budget and manpower levels it would become increasingly difficult to keep the older large warships in commission, such as the Courageous trio, the five Revenge-class and the older cruisers like the Danae and Hawkins classes. I don't know if their smaller size presents any savings, but one of Argus, Hermes and Eagle might be found to still be useful on colonial service, though Argus must have been worn out. As it was, in July 1938 Hermes became a training ship.
Try doing your own research.OTOH, the >30-knot Repulse, Renown and Hood would be useful alongside the fast carriers, and I'd encourage all three to have updated and expanded AA
Why do we speak to each other like this? Instead of a dismissive, you could have led with a contribution.Try doing your own research.
Well it is frustrating that we cover the same old ground over multiple threads, without the ability to carry what is learned from one into another!Why do we speak to each other like this? Instead of a dismissive, you could have led with a contribution.
Why are online forum users rude?
Answer (1 of 2): Not all online forum users are rude. But I believe the anonymity of online forums makes it much easier for people to post their thoughts without fear of repercussions, other than matching rudeness from another forum member. One big problem with forums/social media is that they a...www.quora.com
Or if you did not like my post; just ignore it.
Agreed. But we don't learn anything by dismissing others. Build them up, don't knock them down. But that's probably a minority opinion.Well it is frustrating that we cover the same old ground over multiple threads, without the ability to carry what is learned from one into another!
I'm not sure what to do with the Revenge class, would any deep refit or modernization address their deficits?
All to do with Churchill's hair brained scheme to send a squadron into the Baltic in 1940. Operation Catherine. Churchill was then First Lord of the Admiralty. Fortunately, by highlighting all the difficulties, the First Sea Lord, Admiral Pound, made Churchill see the folly of the idea and it came to nothing.re
There was some idea of modifying some(all?) of the surviving 'R' class to a form of Monitor, with the addition of huge torpedo/mine bulges, additional deck armour, additional AD radars and AA weapons, and updated FC systems suitable for shore bombardment. I have never run across any of the detailed estimates (their were some basic estimates/plans of different modification levels done up) but there were quick&dirty ideas (remove 2x 15" turrets and add a modest bulge, along with additional AA and radars) as well as more sophisticated upgrades (various numbers of 15" turrets, huge bulges, heavy cruiser AA outfit, complete radar suite, updated engineering, etc).
Quite right.The RN decided in the mid-1930s that, after the large refit given to Royal Oak, they were not suitable for major reconstruction. The QEs despite being older, were preferred.