Size of the RN Aircraft 'market' prewar

[Shortround6]

We spend a lot of time arguing about which aircraft the RN should have used or bought in the time leading up to the war or in the first couple years of the war.

The size/number of planes the RN could put to sea on carriers was somewhat limited and a few of the carriers had limitations of their own.

the smaller British carriers were
name...........................planes.............speed...............length
Argus...........................15-18...............20kts.................565ft
Hermes.........................20....................25kts.................600ft
Eagle............................25-30...............24kts.................667ft

the "medium" carriers were
Furious...........................36..................30kts..................787/586 ft (AOL/Flight deck)
Courageous..................48..................30kts..................787/570- (?)
Glorious.........................48...................30kts..................787/ 570

New big carriers
Ark Royal.....................60.....................31kts....................800ft flight deck?

This gives a total carrier "population" of about 260 aircraft.

Laid down in 1937 but not launched until 1939/40 were the four
Illustrious class carriers. 36 planes, 30.5 knts and 743 ft of flight deck, please note that these four had less rear overhang and a less pronounced down turn to the rear of the flight deck than the Ark Royal so effective flight deck length may be closer.

I don't know if the war had broken out in late 1940 or in 1941 if one or more of the early small carriers would have been decommissioned /replaced by the Illustrious class carriers,

The US had space for 476 aircraft on it's 6 carriers (not counting the Langley but counting the Wasp, laid down in 1936) the Hornet was laid down in Sept 1939) so offered a much large "market" for manufacturers to compete for, the slowest of the 6 was 29.5 kts and it had a flight deck around 700ft long.

I am not trying to get into an argument about which country was better. Just trying to point out that the requirements for British carrier aircraft could be/would be different than requirement for American carrier aircraft leading up to the war.

 

[The Basket]

American carriers were designed for the Pacific theatre against Japanese threat.
British carriers were more Atlantic or North Sea types probably against land based aircraft or land based targets.

So in my view Japanese and American carriers were designed to fight over the huge expanse of the Pacific and British carriers were European theatre in rough weather operating closer to enemy borders.

FAA was hamstrung by the RAF and was not as independent as the IJN or USN.

RN carriers had armoured flight decks and had to operate in bad weather or a North Sea Winter so couldn't have aircraft on deck.

 

[Shortround6]

Most of the carriers I am talking about were "legacy" carriers, They weren't designed to do anything beside get airplanes to sea.

Of the 7 british carriers only the Hermes and the Ark Royal were designed as carriers.
The Argus was a converted Ocean Liner, the Eagle was a converted battleship hull (ex-Chilean) and the Furious, Courageous and Glorious were converted large cruisers form Jackie Fishers Baltic scheme. Turning them into carriers was a way to save the hulls from scrapping under the Washington Naval treaty.

The US Saratoga and Lexington were the same deal, turn partially completed battle cruisers into carriers or scrap them. The Ranger and Wasp were attempts to get the most planes on the lightest ship so as to get the most carriers under the treaty tonnage limits.

The RN Armored carriers were the last four mentioned. The first 7 did not have armored flight decks.

 

[The Basket]

The most important task of the royal navy aircraft carriers at start of war is the sinking of U-boat so as long as you have an aircraft faster than a sub it is fine.

 

[The Basket]

Glorious was a bitsa so little point discuss it as a gold standard of carrier design.

Can only discuss purpose designed carriers to see what a carrier design is.

One aspect of British carrier design is the ability to shrug off Kamikazes but the lower number off combat aircraft would give it less striking power and less ability to absorb losses. American carriers carried spare disassembled aircraft to make up losses.

 

[nuuumannn]

Turning them into carriers was a way to save the hulls from scrapping under the Washington Naval treaty.

Actual plans to convert these ships into carriers came in early 1917, with the RN's decision to increase the number of aeroplanes that went to sea aboard ships. This included placing aeroplanes for anti-Zeppelin defence, bombing of port facilities and reconnaissance, on all or at least as many capital warships as possible. Also the Argus was intended to have taken part in the 1917 Rutland/Richmond scheme to torpedo the High Seas Fleet in the Shillig Roads; Furious was already half way to being a carrier and Glorious and Courageous were earmarked for conversion to carrier status before the war ended owing to their decidedly bad design from the outset as Large Light Cruisers.

Can only discuss purpose designed carriers to see what a carrier design is.

Not really. Despite its hybrid design, Furious launched the first ever successful aircraft carrier launched air strike, against the German airship sheds at Tondern in 1918, so it's usefulness was guaranteed. Furious was an early attempt at carrier design, but was of course the first, so it was crucial to evolving the type's role and responsibilities. It is worth noting that Furious did most of the leg work in developing deck landing techniques - prior to the end of the war, no one had come up with a satisfactory means of arresting a landing aeroplane on a ship. Argus also aided in this rather hazardous job; surplus-to-requirements Sopwith Pups and Beardmore WB.IIIs were expended in deck landing trials that lasted well into 1919 on board both ships.

Argus was earmarked as a torpedo carrier ship and her decks were to be equipped with Sopwith T.1 Torpedoplanes, named Cuckoos after the war's end, whereas Furious was to be allocated for reconnaissance and air defence in 1918 plans. I have copies of original Admiralty documents that outline the responsibilities of the carriers that were forseen for the future during the war itself.

 

[Shortround6]

Actual plans to convert these ships into carriers came in early 1917, with the RN's decision to increase the number of aeroplanes that went to sea aboard ships. This included placing aeroplanes for anti-Zeppelin defence, bombing of port facilities and reconnaissance, on all or at least as many capital warships as possible. Also the Argus was intended to have taken part in the 1917 Rutland/Richmond scheme to torpedo the High Seas Fleet in the Shillig Roads; Furious was already half way to being a carrier and Glorious and Courageous were earmarked for conversion to carrier status before the war ended owing to their decidedly bad design from the outset as Large Light Cruisers.

Plans may have been under way but work did not start until 1924 on the Courageous and Glorious. Waiting for more data from tests? waiting for funding after the post war decline in military spending? Treaty provided "push" (start converting or start scrapping?) A bit of all three?

Point I was trying to make was that the RN because of the size/speed of it's carriers might have wanted planes with a lower stalling speed than the Americans wanted. 1938 most of 1939 is still peace time and safety considerations might outway some operational consideration. even with the new armored carriers starting construction there was still a limited amount of slots for carrier planes in the RN and trying to buy different aircraft for the different carriers would reduce production runs even more.
With the Ark Royal being the only carrier to hold over 50 aircraft (officially) even the under construction armored carriers had small airgroups and could ill afford specialty aircraft let alone the older carriers.

It makes for a rather different "market" than the American carrier aviation "market"

I am not saying better, just different and the planes purchased (aside from the Roc) may have to be viewed in that light.

 

[nuuumannn]

am not saying better, just different and the planes purchased (aside from the Roc) may have to be viewed in that light.

Could do, but the onset of peace and the disappearance of the RNAS had something to do with it. Modifying existing ships seemed like a cheaper option (I just wanted to point out that the decisions had been made to modify these ships well before Washington in 1922 is all) in a cash strapped time of de-escalation. Britain also shredded its battleship fleet to the bone after the enormous pre-war build-up and ships that had barely been in service for a couple of years were sent to the breakers.

Peacetime stripped military budgets in Britain and that might go some way to explaining the multi-role specifications that brought about abominations like the Avro Bison, Blackburn Blackburn and even the Fairey Barracuda. Still doesn't explain why (going onto another thread) the FAA steered away from the single seat requirement in the late 30s when it had good single-seat fighters in the 20s and early 30s like the Fairey Flycatcher and the Hawker Nimrod.

 

[RCAFson]

Add up all FAA carrier aircraft received from 1 Jan1936 to 1 Sept 1939 and compare it to all USN aircraft recieved. My quick look shows about twice as many FAA aircraft received including ~600 Swordfish alone.

 

[Barrett]

Just FWIW: it's Deja-vu All Over Again with the new RN carriers: F-35s flown by the RAF.
That's bad enough, but the entire JSF program remains atrocious. Now in its 21st or 22nd year and despite what DoD and L-M are bleating, none of the things are FMC. The early production blocks never will be, since the price to upgrade them to contract specs is too steep. Can anybody spell "Corporate Charity?"

 

[fastmongrel]

none of the things are FMC.

? what does FMC stand for

 

[jetcal1]

? what does FMC stand for

Full Mission Capable
PMC = Partial
Non -Self explanatory

The fun part was the contest between Maintenance and Supply to keep the airplane out of either NMCM or NMCS depending on which side of the fence you were on.

 

[buffnut453]

Just FWIW: it's Deja-vu All Over Again with the new RN carriers: F-35s flown by the RAF.

Except that's not correct. The squadrons will be manned jointly by RAF and FAA crews. The first named operational squadrons are 617 and 207 Sqns RAF and 809 Sqn FAA. AFAIK the last squadron is yet to be named but I'd put money on it being 899 Sqn FAA.