PoD: Ark Royal Class in WW2

[kelgar04]

Was reading through some stuff to do with aircraft carriers recently and picked up some stuff in regards to HMS Ark Royal (91) and got me thinking what if the Royal Navy when coming up with a build program decides to include for a new class of Carrier and then had been able to win one of the subsequent skirmish with the treasury and was able to secure funding to build up three carriers to the Ark Royals specifications with attached air groups. Let's also say that two are given to Cammell Laird and one to the Vickers yard in Barrow as well.

From here I have to ask how will additional carriers effect the interwar period for the RN?
When it comes to the early War period will there be any major change? Especially given there are some extra air groups that can be set ashore for air defence?
How will this effect the skill level and practices of the FAA?
Could this encourage earlier British carrier development?

 

[alspug]

HMS Ark Royal was the Far East carrier and should not have been used in the Mediteranean. They wanted more of her big air group but the armoured flight deck was the preferred option due to the North Sea and Mediteranean.

I think the faa and rn would hve still gone for the armoured flight deck.

 

[pjmidd]

Depends on dates, if they are get ordered in the brief window that Japan was seen as the major Naval threat then you might get 2 Ark Royals and an armoured carrier. However as soon as the main threat was seen in Europe then just armoured carriers are coming. Unless the RN finds that everyone else is cheating and, unlike OTL, in a fit of rage play fast and loose with the tonnage, again unlike OTL, these will be the same as OTL.

 

[sonofpegasus]

I think that the term 'Armoured Deck Carrier' is in fact a bit of a misnomer because the RN carriers in my understanding were designed with what was in reality an armoured hanger more than just an armoured flight deck. the requirements for this armoured hanger was; proof against 500lb bombs dropped from above 7,000ft, or 1,000lb bombs dropped from below 4.500ft and crucially protected from cruiser shells at ranges of 7,000 yards or more. This last criteria basically resulted in the bulkheads and sides of the armoured hanger being 4,1/2 inches of armoured plate. Unless these requirements are changes yo will basically end up with the same ships as OTL.
Is it really necessary to armour the side of your hanger against 6"shells fired at less than four Nautical miles!
In OTL the illustrious class had about the same area of 4,1/2 inch armour used in the hanger sides and bulkheads as there was 3 inch armour on the flight desk!
If in an ATL you just make the hanger sides 'splinter proof' then a second hanger might become more viable and more armour can be used on both the flight deck and hanger deck.
Would a 3,1/2 inch flight deck be practical with a 2 inch hanger deck to the upper hanger. In otl there was 2,1/2 inches of armour linking the hanger side armour to the 4" belt armour.
I am not and engineer, let alone a Naval Architect so I will leave it to others to argue how realistic and possible this is.

 

[jsb]

The largest effect will probably be the large increase in FAA numbers in men and aircraft that will act as a huge pool to expand from & and provide leadership for the I class and the rest of WWII.

Is it really necessary to armour the side of your hanger against 6"shells fired at less than four Nautical miles!

With radar and once you think CV are the centrepiece of the fleet and thus will get body guarded by everything else no, but early on they are worried about meeting a CL in the dark or fog.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

HMS Ark Royal was the Far East carrier and should not have been used in the Mediteranean. They wanted more of her big air group but the armoured flight deck was the preferred option due to the North Sea and Mediteranean.

I think the faa and rn would hve still gone for the armoured flight deck.

Yes it depends on when?

If before the Italian militancy - Invasion of Ethiopia etc which is late 35 then I can see more arks being planned and laid down with the need for ships to fight in the far eastern seas

Post that date then the British will be looking at a more littoral focused design to serve in teh med often within range of shore based aircraft

What would I have done - I hear you all ask...well as you asked!

I would have gone for a 27,000 ton Ark Royal Shokaku type ship and pushed for this limit in the 2LNT (OTL they were pushing for a smaller weight of 23,000 tons)

Full length double hanger - capacity for 72 Swordfish sized aircraft with a good 62' plus wide and 18' tall - armoured deck to protect the machinary and magazines etc with a lighter thinner armoured flight deck and lots of compartmentalisation.

 

[sonofpegasus]

Quite, Getting caught out can happen, just look at the loss of Glorious but in the balance of risk and benefit was the right decision made at the time? Could you in the knowledge condition oy 1936/7 come to a different conclusion?
Is the benefit of a larger air-group and a tougher armoured deck worth the risk that your carrier might succumb to a surprise attack in dirty weather or at night, I think yes it is.

 

[kelgar04]

Stability is key no matter where you are I've been in enough blows to know that you need to get the Stability right in the Ballast and adjust it in the heeling rank to keep the shipping nice and balanced.

Which us key for any ocean going ship in particular those with carriers.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

HMS Ark Royal was the Far East carrier and should not have been used in the Mediteranean. They wanted more of her big air group but the armoured flight deck was the preferred option due to the North Sea and Mediteranean.

I think the faa and rn would hve still gone for the armoured flight deck.

I think you could reasonably make the case for a sister ship being ordered either with the Ark Royal or the year after, but the Armoured carriers are still going to be ordered following the Abyssinia Crisis.

 

[1Big Rich]

Was reading through some stuff to do with aircraft carriers recently and picked up some stuff in regards to HMS Ark Royal (91) and got me thinking what if the Royal Navy when coming up with a build program decides to include for a new class of Carrier and then had been able to win one of the subsequent skirmish with the treasury and was able to secure funding to build up three carriers to the Ark Royals specifications with attached air groups. Let's also say that two are given to Cammell Laird and one to the Vickers yard in Barrow as well.

From here I have to ask how will additional carriers effect the interwar period for the RN?

Interesting scenario. I had a similar idea a while back for an alt-RN building plan, adding additional Ark Royals in the '36, '37, and '38 programs.

I think the biggest interwar effect would be, in addition to @jsb 's mention of a larger trained manpower pool, a larger market for domestic aircraft industry for naval air. We might get Gloucester's single seat monoplane fighter for Specification F5/34 turned into a naval fighter given the bigger market.

When it comes to the early War period will there be any major change? Especially given there are some extra air groups that can be set ashore for air defence?
How will this effect the skill level and practices of the FAA?
Could this encourage earlier British carrier development?

Early war I think there could be serious impact.

Argus might be delegated to training and Hermes and Eagle could be on second-line duties like raider-hunting very early on.

With three Ark Royals, there would be less need to pull Glorious from the Med. She was the Med Fleet carrier, and when attacking the Italians at Taranto was conceived, Dudley Pound was CinC Med and Lumley Lyster was her captain. They trained the Glorious' aircrew for such an attack, and having that cadre together when Italy enters the war could make the attack more effective. And an additional carrier could be assigned to Cunningham for Judgement. It's no coincidence when Illustrious sailed to the Med to be part of Operation Judgement, Admiral Lyster was flying his flag in her.

Even if Courageous is still lost, Glorious surviving with her larger lifts makes her a good candidate for the F4F-3 fighters diverted to the UK from other orders early in the war.

A fully worked up Ark Royal-class would be the Home Fleet carrier for the Bismarck chase instead of just a brand-new Victorious with an understrength air group. Bismarck's final battle may be much further into the Atlantic, with the historic Force H Ark Royal playing no part.

As our recent discussion of Indomitable with Force Z implies, additional carriers means a fully-worked up or veteran carrier could be sent east with Force Z. That could mean Phillips would have indigenous recon, fighter cover and strike with his force. And if a carrier is present, perhaps he could get a proper fleet as well with some cruisers (preferably AA, C-class would be fine) to accompany her.

Even if an Ark Royal-class is lost in place of Glorious and the historic Force H carrier is lost, there would still ben an additional hull or two for Somerville when he is deployed to the Indian It could either be the surviving Ark Royal class, and/or Glorious and/or an additional armored-deck carrier.

My thoughts,

 

[Hammerbolt]

The FAA, at this point, needed better aircraft than carriers. There's no point in extra fleet-carriers if you have still have only fulmars and swordfish.

 

[jsb]

I think the biggest interwar effect would be, in addition to @jsb 's mention of a larger trained manpower pool, a larger market for domestic aircraft industry for naval air. We might get Gloucester's single seat monoplane fighter for Specification F5/34 turned into a naval fighter given the bigger market.

The FAA, at this point, needed better aircraft than carriers. There's no point in extra fleet-carriers if you have still have only fulmars and swordfish.

I think as suggested having 2 more larger CVs would almost inevitably lead to better aircraft, it would probably push them more away from sharing with float types on BBs/CAs/CLs as production numbers would rise and the Arks aircraft numbers and decks would really want monoplane aircraft to justify them.
72 (designed)
50–60 (actual)
So three Arks will lead to a design need for 216 aircraft as well as the aircraft on C&G&F (48+36+36) for 336 and any spare on any of the other kept that much more than the OTL ships.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Argus might be delegated to training and Hermes and Eagle could be on second-line duties like raider-hunting very early on.

Argus was in reserve from 1932 before being recommissioned in 1938 as a mothership for target drones after a 2 year refit.

 

[Dorknought]

From here I have to ask how will additional carriers effect the interwar period for the RN?
When it comes to the early War period will there be any major change? Especially given there are some extra air groups that can be set ashore for air defence?
How will this effect the skill level and practices of the FAA?
Could this encourage earlier British carrier development?

Additional carriers weren't the problem. In the 30's there was talk of limiting military aircraft by size and numbers so having huge numbers of naval aircraft was a potential problem for the RAF. However, the RAF is overplayed in the RN's aircraft acquisition problems pre-war, the RN didn't know what it wanted. In 1939 Ark Royal actually brought her fighters down to get them under the flight deck to 'protect' them from the bombers - the problem was doctrine.

It was the evidence that land based aircraft would out perform carrier based aircraft that lead the RN down the path of better protecting the carrier because 'the bomber will always get through'. They didn't foresee radar being an enabler for fighter direction (radar does not automatically equal fighter direction) the way the USN was able to (luckily) build on it.

In terms of 'total cost of ownership', a carrier is an expensive capability. 3 Ark Royals would have an equivalent lifecycle cost of 8 Nelsons or 7 KGV's and yet a carrier is only daylight fair-weather platform.

In looking at RN choices, why do armoured deck carriers get such a bad rap?

Ark Royal
Flight Deck 720x95ft (68400sq)
Upper Hangar 568x60ft (34080sq)
Lower Hangar 452x60ft (27120sq) (61200sq total)

Fuel: 100,000gal

Illustrious
Flight Deck 740x95ft (after round-downs removed) (70300sq)
Hangar 458x62ft (28396sq)

Fuel: 50,540gal

Yorktown
Flight Deck 802x86ft (68972sq)
Hangar 546x63ft (34398sq)

Fuel: 178,000gal

The flight deck areas is with all three designs, within a 1000 square feet in area. Yorktown and Illustrious have half the hangar space of Ark Royal.
The real clear advantage that US carriers had was their ability to repair flight decks rapidly in theatre. The Fleet Exercises were nice for tactical ideas and eye catching stunts but the strategic tabletop gaming showed that the USN needed vast numbers of aircraft and the ability to stay close to the front by rapidly repairing decks that were so vulnerable to damage. The telling stat between navies is in how much avgas the carry, not just the size of the airgroup by the tempo of sorties it can run. However, the flight deck and keeping it safe is the most important feature of a carrier as without it, the ship is just a handicap.

Back to the shop!

That'll buff out!

 

[jsb]

Additional carriers weren't the problem. In the 30's there was talk of limiting military aircraft by size and numbers so having huge numbers of naval aircraft was a potential problem for the RAF. However, the RAF is overplayed in the RN's aircraft acquisition problems pre-war, the RN didn't know what it wanted. In 1939 Ark Royal actually brought her fighters down to get them under the flight deck to 'protect' them from the bombers - the problem was doctrine.

It was the evidence that land based aircraft would out perform carrier based aircraft that lead the RN down the path of better protecting the carrier because 'the bomber will always get through'. They didn't foresee radar being an enabler for fighter direction (radar does not automatically equal fighter direction) the way the USN was able to (luckily) build on it.

I think it's also when and where you intend (or really are forced to fight) early and close to major industrial nation's homeland then you will probably get hit as radar is simply not developed sufficiently and land based air can overwhelm you with numbers and performance and it is effectively impossible to knock out unless you have overwhelming industrial advantage like late war US against an already mostly broken IJN island garrisons?

 

[JasTysoe]

I thought the RN couldn't get enough planes out of the RAF until the navy got control of its aircraft back in 1939? I can't recall who wrote it, but it has been said that one reason for the armoured carriers was that when they were designed, it appeared as if the limiting factor was the number of aircraft, not the number of carriers. Given that the RN had such a limited number of available aircraft, there was no reason to design carriers to have a higher capacity and it was more important to spread them out and protect them under steel.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The biggest issue with the navy getting enough aircraft in 1940/41 was not the RAF per se

The RN had aircraft equal to its capacity including amphibious aircraft based on cruisers and battleships etc

It was the fall of France and the need for the rapidly expanding British Aircraft industry to provide as many fighters as possible for Fighter command that throttled early expansion of the FAA.

Given that Britain built 16000 aircraft in 1940 but only 3500 in the first 6 months without the invasion scare there should have been the capacity to provide the FAA with enough planes.

Without the unforeseen events of May to June 1940 many of the issues would not have existed.

Also the burdens on the RN would have been far less.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

A big change is that a couple more ark royal style carriers might Jumpstart production of stuff like 4.5" turrets, fire control, and above else armor plate just in time for rearmament to kick in

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I wonder what changes would be made to a follow up design after the 2 or 3 Ark Royal class ships are built. While the Ark performed as well as could be expected it was compromised by trying to squeeze a quart of capability into a pint pot sized ship. You only have to look at her stern to see that.

 

[sparky42]

I wonder what changes would be made after the 2 or 3 Ark Royal class ships are built. While the Ark performed as well as could be expected it was compromised by trying to squeeze a quart of capability into a pint pot sized ship. You only have to look at her stern to see that.

Wasn’t it restrictions of docks that caused that choice? If so then even if a couple more were built wouldn’t they still be stuck?