Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

one good initial sortie doesn't qualify for me compared to the other planes. Right from the get go once 109's got a good look at em they were meat. Skua and Fulmar "debut" was longer and in the latter case it's success stretched out for a good initial period.

While the two naval planes had limited shelf lives, they did have a period of usefulness. The Turret fighter concept just didn't work at all.

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Nikademus)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


[Depends on your definition of debut After the initial clashes the Defiants were done for, but there were some successes in there against modern fighters. As with all things the usefullness of the Skua/Fulmar is dependant on the opposition. As you posted, they did well against bombers but would have suffered (like the Def) against anything approaching modern fighter quality.

I'm not saying the turret fighter concept worked, but it would have done if those pesky baddies had stuck to the plan and sent unescorted bombers flying in clear daylight along a set course...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Since when was Skua and Fulmar a "turret fighter"? Are we talking about the Roc and Defiant all of a sudden?

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Terminus)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


My primary point in this would be to differentiate the fact that the entire concept of a turreted fighter (with pilot and gunner doing seperate jobs which results in them impairing each other's effectiveness) was so flawed as to be virtually unworkable outside of an isolated success or two.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

Few points here that need clarification :
(1).  The concept of the armoured flightdeck certainly protected the carrier from bomb damage,  but actually when it was hit the damage took longer to be repaired - queue the Formidable being hit by 1 bomb in the Med (dropped by a Stuka),  and being out of action for 1 year - it had to go to the US for repairs.  Also there was the problem that this made the carrier slightly top-heavy,  which also made it vulnerable to torpedo attacks - the Courageous was lost in Sept '39 in such a way and the Ark Royal in the med in '41,  both suffering damage that US carriers might well have survived.  Finally there was the theoretical problem that the armoured flightdeck created an armoured box which would actually concentrate any fires and make them worse, this is why the RN drilled so long and hard in fire control & no carriers were lost this way.
(2). After the war nearly all RN carriers were determined too big and expensive to maintain, so went the way of the breakers prematurely or were sold off to other navies (like India, Australia, and ironically the Argentinans).  A few light ones (Glory class) did sterling service in Korea though.  Out of the WWII carriers only Victorious soldiered on with a ludicrously long 9-year refit/upgrade. in the 40/s/50's only to be the last in the Indomitable class of ships & then scrapped prematurely in the early 60's after very little service.
(3). After WWII the UK only finished two 'modern carriers',  the Ark Royal (laid down in '43) and the Eagle, althogh others were planned.  Neither outlived the 70's as both were scrapped due to economic concerns and lack of cash for refits/upgrades & were replaed with the 'through deck cruisers' of the Invincible class, which are still aroudn today although about to be withdrawn/laid up.
(4). The UK is now building two massive new aircraft carriers which should be ready about 2015, the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales.  Originally the plan was to build them in Korea by Nippon Steel on the grounds that 'the Japanese knew more about aircraft carriers than the UK ever did' in ironically the same shipyard as turned out hte Musashi, Yamato & Shinano...  A political decision ignoring the fact that the Japanese actually hadn't built a proper CV since WWII...  Some say that the navy minister actually came up with this brain-wave after w atching the Pearl Harbour movie in 2001...  After a public outcry Nippon Steel were paid off (£1 billion down the drain for doing nothign) and the ships are now being constructed in the UK although they will now take longer & be more expensive, although ironically to the original Japanese design.  Just to make matters more interesting, there is no money in the budget left over for any new planes to equip them - work on the JSF and also the F-35 has now been mothballed by the UK government on the grounds of cost,  so looks like they will deploy Harriers and some choppers (bring back the Buccanneer & Phantom, anyone?)
I guess they will probably go the way of previous UK post-war carriers, being too expensive to deploy and then going prematurely to the breakers yard, unless hte Chinese or North koreans want to buy them...

For point 1, neither Courageous nor Ark Royal were armoured carriers.

quote:

After a public outcry Nippon Steel were paid off (£1 billion down the drain for doing nothign) and the ships are now being constructed in the UK although they will now take longer & be more expensive, although ironically to the original Japanese design.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

Apart from crippling the Bismark, crippling the Italian fleet at Taranto, ferrying fighters to and from Norway (RIP HMS Glorious), escorting the Malta convoys...

apologies, I meant in the Pacific. Was any action contemplated, or did they not want to get in range of Japanese land based aircraft?

quote:

The Americans assigned them to secondary roles. They really did not want to share the honors.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

It was true of all four carriers. After the fires burned out you'd be left with four hulls intact below water, but with such structural damage up top that you might as well build new ships. Add to that the challenge of trying to tow 1-4 hulks halfway across the ocean with the inherrant risk to the escorting ships and it just wasn't practical. Hence all four were scuttled.

Yorktown case was different. Her bouyancy was compromised but stable (at the time). Structurally she was in decent shape and PH was far closer to them than Kure was for the Nagumo. Hence the effort was made and might have succeeded (though we'll never know for sure even had I-168 not intercepted her)

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed
At the end of the war, the capacity of late war UK designs which had evolved since the Illustrious allowed for a much larger complement of planes - just like Terminus said, the first reason why the British had anemic airgroups, apart from the lack of planes, was a doctrinal one. They wouldn't use deck space for parking. Some ended the war carrying 70 birds, that's pretty respectable...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed
We don't argue about which design was sounder, they all answered to different needs. But this is a little far-fetched: the reason why Franklin burnt is foremost because the bombs actually went through its flight deck, seems obvious to me. Armored flight deck proved to be a disadvantage in the long run for the lifespan of these ships, but they were a blessing at the right moment for whoever would fight aboard those CVs, especially in 1945. 1951 just shows that HMS Indomitable was vulnerable to hangar fire just like any other ship - but more so because of its design - but the whole point of having an armored flight deck was specifically to render "such an attack" fruitless... Your logic is weird, man.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Not exactly. Illustrious took a serious number of heavy bombs to which it is more than possible neither a Japanese nor American carrier would have survived. Franklin's experience compared to Victorious is a better one when comparing the effects of fire and aviation ops.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk
(4). The UK is now building two massive new aircraft carriers which should be ready about 2015, the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales.  Originally the plan was to build them in Korea by Nippon Steel on the grounds that 'the Japanese knew more about aircraft carriers than the UK ever did' in ironically the same shipyard as turned out hte Musashi, Yamato & Shinano...  A political decision ignoring the fact that the Japanese actually hadn't built a proper CV since WWII...  Some say that the navy minister actually came up with this brain-wave after w atching the Pearl Harbour movie in 2001...  After a public outcry Nippon Steel were paid off (£1 billion down the drain for doing nothign) and the ships are now being constructed in the UK although they will now take longer & be more expensive, although ironically to the original Japanese design.  Just to make matters more interesting, there is no money in the budget left over for any new planes to equip them - work on the JSF and also the F-35 has now been mothballed by the UK government on the grounds of cost,  so looks like they will deploy Harriers and some choppers (bring back the Buccanneer & Phantom, anyone?)

Why they will have Harriers at the start is no big surprise. The F-35's will not be ready at commissioning.

quote:

After a public outcry Nippon Steel were paid off (£1 billion down the drain for doing nothign) and the ships are now being constructed in the UK although they will now take longer & be more expensive, although ironically to the original Japanese design.

Mate, never heard of that - and the design is a Thales one (which had great publicity in France as there was the debate about sharing the construction of the second Aircraft Carrier taking advantage of the Thales design). Are you sure you're not day-dreaming?!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Braedonnal
My logic is pretty sound, thanks. USS Franklin was caught with 36 armed and fueled aircraft on her deck aft warming up. She also was caught with her aft avgas lines open and something like 20 aircraft below decks (some armed, most fueled). Hit once centerline and once aft, what happened was academic and I'm not sure an armored deck would have helped had one been available. Those 36 aircraft were going to burn, the avgas was going to spread and munitions were going to burst. I think more than anything what the ordeal of the USS Franklin proved was that a carrier caught with armed and fueled aircraft was asking for trouble but it's not like Midway didn't tell us that.

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Braedonnal

No argument here though low hanger heights hurt those later designs. They could not carry Corsairs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed
We don't argue about which design was sounder, they all answered to different needs. But this is a little far-fetched: the reason why Franklin burnt is foremost because the bombs actually went through its flight deck, seems obvious to me. Armored flight deck proved to be a disadvantage in the long run for the lifespan of these ships, but they were a blessing at the right moment for whoever would fight aboard those CVs, especially in 1945. 1951 just shows that HMS Indomitable was vulnerable to hangar fire just like any other ship - but more so because of its design - but the whole point of having an armored flight deck was specifically to render "such an attack" fruitless... Your logic is weird, man.

quote:


My logic is pretty sound, thanks.

quote:

USS Franklin was caught with 36 armed and fueled aircraft on her deck aft warming up. She also was caught with her aft avgas lines open and something like 20 aircraft below decks (some armed, most fueled). Hit once centerline and once aft, what happened was academic and I'm not sure an armored deck would have helped had one been available. Those 36 aircraft were going to burn, the avgas was going to spread and munitions were going to burst. I think more than anything what the ordeal of the USS Franklin proved was that a carrier caught with armed and fueled aircraft was asking for trouble but it's not like Midway didn't tell us that.

No British carrier was ever caught in such a state during the war but if one had been would the ship have been proof against the damage? I'm not convinced as there are lots of variables to consider.

quote:

I think more than anything what the ordeal of the USS Franklin proved was that a carrier caught with armed and fueled aircraft was asking for trouble but it's not like Midway didn't tell us that

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

quote:

ORIGINAL: Braedonnal

No argument here though low hanger heights hurt those later designs. They could not carry Corsairs.

They could - FAA Corsairs had clipped wings on purpose, and they actually pioneered the efficient use of shipboard operated Corsairs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed
The main reason why something so horrible happened to Franklin is that the two AP bombs penetrated several decks below into the hangar, period.

quote:

I think more than anything what the ordeal of the USS Franklin proved was that a carrier caught with armed and fueled aircraft was asking for trouble but it's not like Midway didn't tell us that

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Interesting thread.....and I seem to recall that this topic comes up every three or four years or so IIRC.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Does anyone know if the RN is still going ahead with their new CVs?  Or has the project been rejected due to cost? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Braedonna

As Fishbed says they are still going ahead with the CVs. I heard that the issues concerning the F-35 wasn't so much cost as it was simply the fact they would not be ready so they'd use Harriers and whatnot until they were available. There are also rumors of ditching the F-35B STOVL for the conventional F-35C CATOBAR as it would save roughly £2.2 billion and also give greater capabilities in range and payload. If they do finally decide to go with the F-35C, the class might not have the ski jump and will have an EMALS catapult and arrestor gear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

quote:

ORIGINAL: Braedonna

As Fishbed says they are still going ahead with the CVs. I heard that the issues concerning the F-35 wasn't so much cost as it was simply the fact they would not be ready so they'd use Harriers and whatnot until they were available. There are also rumors of ditching the F-35B STOVL for the conventional F-35C CATOBAR as it would save roughly £2.2 billion and also give greater capabilities in range and payload. If they do finally decide to go with the F-35C, the class might not have the ski jump and will have an EMALS catapult and arrestor gear.

Reckon they are a General Election and a Defence Review away from cancellation. Cheaper to pay off Thales/Corus etc than to complete an aircraft carrier that:

We cannot arm
We cannot maintain over it's lifespan
We cannot get aircrews for (we can't get sufficient crews for the existing carriers - check out the Navy Air ads, in reality more than half the airwing comes from the RAF)
We cannot defend - we are buying 9 too few Type 45's to provide availability for CVBG's
We have adopted the wrong propulsion system

Biggest money magnet in defence is 'kit' and they don't come much bigger than a CV!

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

Yes, and just think of the MEALS!!

At the risk of starting an argument I believe that Italian cuisine is superior to French cuisine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Valgua

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

Yes, and just think of the MEALS!!

At the risk of starting an argument I believe that Italian cuisine is superior to French cuisine.

No doubt about that!