Max Q wrote:

Yes, the Sea Harrier was a superb aircraft, combined with the Invincible class 'mini carrier' the RN had a surprisingly effective
platform as was seen in the Falklands.

But if you want real flexibility, build a larger ship and equip it to operate ANY carrier capable type, they like the F35 so much
then you can buy the C version. Just because the RN had so much success with the S Harrier on a smaller deck doesn't
mean you're committed to VSTOL from then on, this was a compromise forced on them after the cancellation of CVA01.


A big deck carrier should make the most of its space, otherwise, what's the point ? might as well build three more updated
Invincible class.

You seem to be fixated on the UK needing to "have more" than its determined it needs, be it in carrier capability or air to air refueling... why is that?

aklrno wrote:

All this talk of steam catapaults...... exactly where would the British carriers get the steam? I suspect the huge cost of steam catapults is the steam generating equipment because diesel/turbojet generators don't make much steam. Perhaps if they have some excess generating capacity in the future they could add EM catapults. The Nimitz and Ford carriers each have two (not three as someone said) truly enormous teakettles in the basement. All the older US and British carriers had steam turbines with oil-fired boilers IIRC. The steam pipes need very large risers going from the engine room to the flight deck. Not easy to add later.

And the question about two islands. Was that a necessity of having large air intakes and exhaust uptakes that nuclear carriers don't have? US carrier islands can be much smaller without those requirements, and their are special considerations to be sure the exhaust gases don't poison the deck crews and damage the aircraft (they are acidic).

IIRC the idea was to use electromagnetic catapaults. Not steam.

As for the islands. No idea. Your thoughts seems plausible

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

aklrno wrote:

All this talk of steam catapaults...... exactly where would the British carriers get the steam? I suspect the huge cost of steam catapults is the steam generating equipment because diesel/turbojet generators don't make much steam. Perhaps if they have some excess generating capacity in the future they could add EM catapults. The Nimitz and Ford carriers each have two (not three as someone said) truly enormous teakettles in the basement. All the older US and British carriers had steam turbines with oil-fired boilers IIRC. The steam pipes need very large risers going from the engine room to the flight deck. Not easy to add later.

And the question about two islands. Was that a necessity of having large air intakes and exhaust uptakes that nuclear carriers don't have? US carrier islands can be much smaller without those requirements, and their are special considerations to be sure the exhaust gases don't poison the deck crews and damage the aircraft (they are acidic).

IIRC the idea was to use electromagnetic catapaults. Not steam.

As for the islands. No idea. Your thoughts seems plausible

For the location of the islands, both the engine exhaust and air requirements for the gas turbine engines played a significant role in their placement, and a secondary part involved the optimal location for ship control and aircraft control. The forward island handles the the navigation and sailing of the ship, as it is well forward and thus provides a good view from the front for navigation. The aft island handles the flight control, and is also in the optimal place to manage aircraft approach and deck landings.

The alternative was to build a carrier with a single long island; that would have taken up deck space unnecessarily, and increased the wind turbulence around the flight deck as well.

aklrno wrote:

All this talk of steam catapaults...... exactly where would the British carriers get the steam? I suspect the huge cost of steam catapults is the steam generating equipment because diesel/turbojet generators don't make much steam.

As far as I know, ZaphodHarkonnen is correct the plan was to use EMALS.*

However, steam could have been generated by diverting part of the exhaust from the gas turbines through a heat exchanger as necessary, although that might actually be more complex and require more room, even if more fuel efficient, than just have a completely separate separate boiler. The amount of waste heat in the exhaust of a gas turbine is in a similar ballpark to the waste heat shed by the condensers for a steam turbine. The steam generator would have been part of that large cost, but I'm guessing a minority of it. The whole system is expensive.

* Looking for confirmation of this, I happened on a related article about the QE2's air wing, and somehow found my self reading the comments, which included a gem from a fellow who recommended the QE2 air wing include...

Swordfish. Much cheaper than any helicopter, very short take off and landing, low fuel consumption, reasonable operational range. Fit it with a modern engine, make it of modern composites rather than plywood and urea-formaldehyde, enclose the cockpit. Design suitable cruise missiles and torpedoes. Almost zero radar profile...Avoidance of enemy fighter aircraft facilitated by helpless laughter of their pilots.

My grandfather flew as an observer in a Swordfish. I was told he had a cutlass as a weapon.

SamYeager2016 wrote:

Completely offtopic but it reminds me of the problem the Bismarck had during the WW2. They had problems targeting the swordfish because they were travelling too slowly for their aiming systems to cope.

False.

johns624 wrote:

SamYeager2016 wrote:

Completely offtopic but it reminds me of the problem the Bismarck had during the WW2. They had problems targeting the swordfish because they were travelling too slowly for their aiming systems to cope.

False.

Not entirely false, not as simple either. Fact remains, one 'Tin Fish' from a Bi-Plane effectively did for the Bismark by wrecking it's ability to steer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-leCeiWXFo

The Bismarck had primitive directors but the whole premise that they couldn't track the Swordfish because it flew too slow is false. The Bismarck's maneuvering had more to do with the misses than anything else.

There were all kinds of problems facing the AA crews of the Bismarck, including:
A well executed multi-vector attack by the swordfish, keeping the AA fire spread out, unsatisfactory AA gun placement that was modified for Tirpitz, low precision directors for the aft AA mounts due to a trade deal with the Russians, low light conditions, poor weather conditions (clouds, wind), less than favorable sea conditions, insufficient AA gun crew training, incomplete AA systems testing and validation post construction and exhausted gun crews.

Through all of that, they managed to hit many of the swordfish many times, at least one well over 100 times, injuring a pair of crewman, and almost bringing it down. The swordfish was a well built, reliable aircraft that was a stable gunnery platform. It had an attack radar for day/night attack capability, considerable range, and high quality crews that were well rested and fresh as compared to the Bismarck gunners.

If you ever look at war footage from the USN pacific operations against Kamikaze fighters and Japanese attack aircraft, you can see the absolute wall of lead that was thrown at them with actual shoot downs being more the exception than the rule. And this includes late war when the USN was bristling with well directed 40mm boffers guns armed with proximity fused rounds backed by a multitude of 20mm automatic cannons and many 5 inch dp mounts also slinging flak and proximity rounds, all from closely packed ships that we're supporting each other. The Bismarck was either alone or only with one other ship, with an early war AA suite. I believe it did a decent job attempting to defend itself in the situation.

Here is a nice discussion on the topic...

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65

LightningZ71 wrote:

It had an attack radar for day/night attack capability

That was a joke? I also don't think the crews of swordfish aircraft were better rested, they were flying round the clock trying to locate and then attack the Bismarck.

Not a joke. They carried the ASV radar set. It was a late add to some MK Is and was a standard from 1943 onwards on the MKII. The airframe design may have been old, but the plane was well developed.

As for crew rest, while they had been searching for the bismark, they were operating in shifts, and the attack squadron on that raid had been waiting for the go order. Their conditions were markedly better than the Bismarck gun crews.

Thank you all for your very informative posts. Very insightful reading for me. It almost certainly would have added huge cost to the project especially making the changes late on, but it would have been interesting to see how the costs may have changed by adding different (cheaper) aircraft.