Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think lift enlargement is out of the question for a fast mod, but really isn't necessary. The Courageous class 46-by-48-foot lifts, shown below moving the ship's band were wide enough for every non-folding aircraft the FAA operated.How extensive a refit would it have been to enlarge the elevators/lifts? The flight deck extension seems the easiest improvement. Could the massive island structure be somehow reduced to improve sea keeping?
Indeed, on that we wholly agree. When they were lost the Courageous class had sixteen single 4.7" QF DP guns. That's it, no 2-pounder pom-poms or even automatic 20mm singles. This isn't unusual for pre-war carriers, but if they survive into 1941 and beyond I'd like to see these ships absolutely bristling with 20mm and 40mm single and multi-barrel AA. That's my priority one mod, more AA, and plenty. But we'll need to find accommodations and rations for all these extra gun servers.More AA Drill Sergeant! More AA!
C&G had 3 octuple Pom poms and 2 quad 0.5" fitted from the mid 1930s. 1 Pom Pom Mount on flight deck abaft the island, with the other pair on the lower flying off deck, ahead of the 4.7" mounted there. I don't know where the 0.5" were fitted.Indeed, on that we wholly agree. When they were lost the Courageous class had sixteen single 4.7" QF DP guns. That's it, no 2-pounder pom-poms or even automatic 20mm singles. This isn't unusual for pre-war carriers, but if they survive into 1941 and beyond I'd like to see these ships absolutely bristling with 20mm and 40mm single and multi-barrel AA. That's my priority one mod, more AA, and plenty. But we'll need to find accommodations and rations for all these extra gun servers.
It's a good point. My thinking was the kinder waters of the MTO and Pacific, along with the removal of the twin cats might allow for a relatively light weight forward extension. Not that the Pacific wasn't capable of chewing up carriers.In particular I doubt that any weight to extend the flight deck forward would have been available. The explanation lies in the fine battlecruiser bow construction of these ships and how they rode heavy seas.
That's kinda where I'm going. Add crash barriers and outriggers to enable deck parking, keep it simple. These are two 30 knot carriers with relatively up to date machinery (better than Furious anyway). If they live to see 1941 they'll be very useful. For starters at Taranto in Nov 1940.You'll never get a first-class carrier out of the hull, but you can certainly get better.
Is the bow forward of the hangar truly so daintily constructed that adding a 200 ft, open extension would cause the keel to snap? If so then we can still flatten the aft deck to increase useful space and fill the old flying off deck with AA.
Short answer - Yes, the bow (and stern) are so daintily constructed that adding flight deck would cause the keel to buckle in a seaway.Is the bow forward of the hangar truly so daintily constructed that adding a 200 ft, open extension would cause the keel to snap? If so then we can still flatten the aft deck to increase useful space and fill the old flying off deck with AA.
I agree. It's too bad the Brits didn't negotiate a fresh start of two CVs rather than seeking conversions.Great posts, EwenS and don4331. Very informative. Good stuff!
You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette; when given lemons, make lemon aid.I agree. It's too bad the Brits didn't negotiate a fresh start of two CVs rather than seeking conversions.
I doubt taking the Courageous conversion route saved any money. Per Wikipedia, converting Courageous into an aircraft carrier cost £2 million. Yes this is 1/3 less than the £3 million cost of Ark Royal, but she was significantly larger than Courageous or Glorious. I imagine for £2 million the RN could have got two advanced and new designed and built bespoke 30 knot CVs with a single three-aircraft-wide hangar to support 48 aircraft.
It does seem that the interwar the RN and Admiralty were often penny wise but pound foolish.
I have always believed that not producing more Ark Royals with some modifications around the lift arrangements, would have been a much better idea that designing the Illustrious and following classes. The ships would have been available sooner and they carried more aircraft.I agree. It's too bad the Brits didn't negotiate a fresh start of two CVs rather than seeking conversions.
I doubt taking the Courageous conversion route saved any money. Per Wikipedia, converting Courageous into an aircraft carrier cost £2 million. Yes this is 1/3 less than the £3 million cost of Ark Royal, but she was significantly larger than Courageous or Glorious. I imagine for £2 million the RN could have got two advanced and new designed and built bespoke 30 knot CVs with a single three-aircraft-wide hangar to support 48 aircraft.
It does seem that the interwar the RN and Admiralty were often penny wise but pound foolish.
Actually, the final cost of Ark Royal was £2,330,000! (The £3million was the original estimate). Shows that when you know what you are building from the start you can get it done at a much lower price (being in middle of depression doesn't hurt either).I have always believed that not producing more Ark Royals with some modifications around the lift arrangements, would have been a much better idea that designing the Illustrious and following classes. The ships would have been available sooner and they carried more aircraft.
I hadn't thought about building them as replacements for C and G but I admit it makes sense. If the Ark Royal was approx £3m then a class would almost certainly have been cheaper per vessel. Bringing it closer to the £2m to convert C and G