Aircraft Carriers

well then we can only setle for the fact that we arent ship desingers, and if that would be as trouplefree solution as you suggest, Why havent it been already choosen? Having maxium ammount of aircrafts in smallest possiple hull has always been the key factor of carrier desinging....

A lot of design descisions are not the result of designers deliberations, but political interference and dogma. I'm not suggesting it would be a trouble free solution by any means (double hangars don't go well with deck edge lifts for example, which is why they would not suit supercarriers) but they could theoretically increase the capacity of smaller vessels allowing them to 'punch above their weight'. The Prewar Ark Royal (sunk 1941) had two hangars and a capacity of 72 aircraft, which were a lot smaller than todays types admittedly, but even so her design would be capable of carrying up to 40 Harriers on 22,000tons. An Invincible can officially carry about 22 on 20,000tons, but also has a much more extensive C3 fit which takes up a significant volume too as well as the uptakes and downtakes required for her gas turbines (which are the reason her hangar is narrow in the middle, the so called 'dumbell' layout). A 35,000ton twin hangar design would be a much better solution in my opinion and personally I would rather have four of these ships than the two CVFs (on the grounds that four ships can be in more places than two no matter how good those two are), and would still be able to deploy a reasonable sized air group. This, combined with GTDAs in the superstructure and stern (as in the VT Harrier carrier) frees up internal hull volume which can be given over to extra accomodation, munitions, spares, workshops etc so the old rule of thumb that 1,000tons displacement equals one aircraft carried can be bettered.

When I was refering to two hangars I was talking about two on the same deck with divisional doors...I hope you guys understand.

In the Chinese CV thread Obi Wan sez;

FYI, RFA Argus has the largest hangar of any British carrier active today (I've been inside it, and both Invincibles and Ark Royals, it's huge!) Practically the whole hull above the waterline from the superstructure aft is hangar, with a side loading door at the stern too and two lifts. argus Hangar is divided in to three bays which can be isolated by fire doors and at 28'000tons she has a capacity on a par with HMS Hermes. The F-35s dimensions have been kept down to a size that would fit on an Invincibles lifts (Argus and Ocean have lifts the same size) probably with a view to export sales, as most of the worlds small CVs have lifts the same size, and this has been one of the primary British influences on the design so far. Ski Jumps are certainly desireable, but not essential for Harrier ops (no US LHA/LHD has a ski jump and they manage) and the RN is probably happy for people to think Ocean and Argus are not capable of full Harrier/JSF operations. After all, they were happy for everyone to think Ark Royal (IV) was to be the last British carrier whilst they were building three Invincibles. If the politicians find out that smaller carriers can do the job, they might use that as another excuse to cancel the CVFs, and I believe the RN already has contingency plans for smaller ships if that does happen. In the meantime, they will continue to emphasise how necessary the CVFs are.

Click to expand...

Obi Wan I'm really intrested in this ship. I did look up some info..True enough the Argus has all that hangar space. True enough she could probally handle Harriers or JSF in a pinch. But where would the crew live?(the total ships complement is only 135) Is there space enough on board for repair shops. What about the mess decks?(chow hall) Is it large enough? You say the RN has contingency plans to operate this ship. Can you elaborate? Obi Wan any info you have will be of intrest to me.

There's a little information on RFA Argus here, at least its future.



Shame Richard doesn't have a whole article on it, but it's still a very useful resource for looking up aspects of the RN, especially future ships. I thought you might enjoy looking through some of the other bits, Popeye.

Argus ships complement is so low because she is a converted Merchant vessel and as a RFA she is still manned by civillians, with all aircraft ops being handled by embarked RN personnel. RFA Accomodation standards are a lot more spacious than Naval standards so if the crew was change to Naval personnel you could easily double that number. The Hangar has workshops fitted to maintain any embarked Helos, and these could be expanded by use of ISO containerised workshops (developed for the Arapaho project in the 80s, as used in RFA Reliant). These containers, 40ft x 8ft x 8ft 6" can be stacked two high at one side of the hangar without taking up too much space, and to the best of my knowledge some of these 'prefab' workshops are held in store at an MOD depot near Bicester north of Oxford (I used to deliver army containers up there a few years ago and heard mention of them then).

Any use of Argus or Ocean as front line carriers operating Harriers or Lightnings would be a stop gap measure to cover for any untimely unavailability of the two CVFs due to unexpected repairs or docking of both ships at the same time, and the smaller ships would only have to 'hold the line' until one of the larger vessels could be made ready for sea. In March 1982 both Hermes and Invincible were docked in Portsmouth when Argentina invaded the Falklands, and despite peacetime estimates of three weeks to make Hermes ready for sea she sailed in 72 hours. When she embarked her air group the day before sailing her island was still covered in scaffolding and her boilers were partly dimantled!

My point was that while three CVs are normally needed to guarantee one forward deployed at any given time, the RN will only be getting two CVFs so will probably only be able to guarantee 60-80% availability despite official statements. The existence of Ocean and Argus eases this problem, and can be considered an 'insurance' against the potential non availability of the CVFs, and justifies the choice of the STOVL F-35B as against the CTOL F-35C.

Just looked up the official facts and figures for Argus as listed in the 'Royal Navy Handbook' the definitive MOD guide (so it says on the cover):
length 175.1m,
beam 30.4m,
draught 8.1m,
displacement 28,081 tonnes,
machinery: 2-shaft deisel engines, 17MW, 1 bow thruster,
speed 18 knots,
complement 115 +137 RN aircrew,
Military lift 138 x 4 ton vehicles in place of aircraft
Aircraft five spot flight deck for helicopters, STOVL capacity
the vessel is fitted with it's own air traffic control centre, the flight deck is made of 5ft thick concrete (to restore stability of original container ship design) and is two thirds of the ships length. Armament is limited to two 30mm mounts on the after island and four 7.62mm GPMG mounts.

The 115 civillian crew could be replaced in wartime by 230+ naval personnel in addition to the 137 aircrew already embarked

Oh, and I posted some pics of Argus in the 'British Military pic Thread' a couple of days ago if anyone's interested...

In my opinion, a converted container ship brought up to a similar standard to RFA Argus (though perhaps one with an aft superstructure, as most container ships have anyway) would provide a major boost to relatively small navies with large ocean patrol areas and a small number of escorts, eg South Africa. An Argus style conversion can be carried out for less than the cost of a frigate (approx £100million) and allows a large number of helicopters to be taken far beyond their normal land based patrol areas for ASW, SAR, anti piracy patrol, economic policing and AEW, actual air group mix as required. Being a merchant ship to start with the running costs of such a vessel would be much less than a full carrier and manning requirements would not stretch a small navy too much, but would provide a capability increase far beyond that which another frigate could bring.

Obi Wan sez;

In my opinion, a converted container ship brought up to a similar standard to RFA Argus (though perhaps one with an aft superstructure, as most container ships have anyway) would provide a major boost to relatively small navies with large ocean patrol areas and a small number of escorts,

Click to expand...

Thanks for the response Obi Wan.

I know that the USN has several USNS ships(USNS=RFA) of the roll on roll off type that are convereted civillian cargo ships. they are manned mostly by civillians and are part of the "pre-positioned force".

I wonder did the RN when coverting these ships completly "navalize" them? With armour, better watertight doors, more compartmentation. I ask because believe you me that civillian ship are not built to the same standards as any naval warship. They just aren't.

There has been a move in recent years away from fully navalised designs towards mercantile standards of construction, purely to keep costs down. A false economy in my opinion, but if it is the only way to get the ships built at all, then there is little choice but to accept it. This policy does not apply to DDGs, FFGs, or CVs so far, but to 'second line' ships such as amphiboius vessels (including HMS Ocean) and RFAs (Argus). Protection is only applied to vital areas, fire fighting equipment is upgraded to a degree as are other safety features but subdivision is not up to full warship standards by any means. Crews of RFA ships are trained to the highest standards and have Damage control training similar to the RN, so the survival prospects are better than a normal merchant ship.

Obi Wan Russell said:

There has been a move in recent years away from fully navalised deigns towards mercantile standards of construction, purely to keep costs down. A false economy in my opinion, but if it is the only way to get the ships built at all, then there is little choice but to accept it. This policy does not apply to DDGs, FFGs, or CVs so far, but to 'second line' ships such as amphiboius vessels (including HMS Ocean) and RFAs (Argus). Protection is only applied to vital areas, fire fighting equipment is upgraded to a degree as are other safety features but subdivision is not up to full warship standards by any means. Crews of RFA ships are trained to the highest standards and have Damage control training similar to the RN, so the survival prospects are better than a normal merchant ship.

Click to expand...

In time of war the RN well knows there is no such thing as a second line ship. In my opinion those ships should be built to the smae "navalized" standards. But I do understand why the UK and other nations may do so.

In peacetime with ever shrinking defence budgets, you take what you can get. Of course the RN and other Navies would prefer ships built to ful naval standards, but that pushes the cost up makes the politicians twichy. The hope is that the so-called front line ships (DDGs FFGs CVs) and their aircraft can hold the line and prevent enemy attacks penetrating to the amphibs and auxilliaries, but as was proved in the Falklands there are no guarantees this can be done.