Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
CVA-01
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=== Considerations === Once the Chiefs of Staff had given their approval to the idea of new carriers being necessary, in January 1962 in the strategic paper [[COS(621)1]] ''British Strategy in the Sixties'', the [[Admiralty Board]] had to sift through six possible designs. These ranged from 42,000 to 68,000 tons at full load. The largest design, based on the American {{sclass|Forrestal|aircraft carrier|4}}, had space for four full-sized [[steam catapult]]s but was rejected early on as being significantly too costly, particularly in terms of the dockyard upgrades that would be needed to service them. The advantages of size were immediately apparent; a 42,000-ton carrier could only hold 27 aircraft, while a 55,000-ton carrier could carry 49 Buccaneers or Sea Vixens. This was an 80% increase in the size of the air group for a 30% increase in [[displacement (ship)|displacement]]. The Board of Admiralty decided in 1961 that the minimum would be 48,000 tons. The carriers would have two main roles: strike carrier (including attacks on airfields) and defence of the fleet. They would also operate early warning aircraft and - later - anti-submarine helicopters.<ref>{{harvnb|Brown|Moore|2003|p= 243-244}}<!-- ebook version--></ref> Even with these smaller designs, the cost was a serious issue. The [[UK Treasury|Treasury]] and the [[Air Ministry]] were pushing for a new set of [[BAC TSR-2|long-range strike aircraft]] operating from a string of bases around the globe. For the former, this appeared a cost-effective solution for the [[East of Suez]] issue, and for the latter, it meant that the Royal Navy would not get a majority of the defence budget. Four ships were planned but the addition of construction of four Polaris missile nuclear submarines (ordered in April 1963) introduced delays of ten months in expected production. Considerations included the availability of berths at shipyards, sufficient trained welders for use of QT35 steel, drawing office capacity at the shipyards, number of electrical fitters{{efn|While an estimated 800 were needed, the largest number employed at any one yard was less than 400}}. A new dry dock at Portsmouth was also needed.<ref>{{harvnb|Brown|Moore|2003|p= 252}}<!-- ebook version--></ref> By July 1963 it was announced that only one carrier would be built, though there was a possibility that one would be ordered by the Australian Navy.{{Citation Needed|date=August 2024}}
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)