'There's a novel idea loose somewhere in the building...'[Permanent Secretary] One might even call it a bold and courageous decision...
To keep the arcs clear, both for normal combat and in case the deck is damaged in action (and yes, that's a bit of an admission that guns and carriers don't mix)Curiosity, why didn't they try to extend the flight deck over the turrets? Concerns over blast damage? IIRC the OTL Akagi and Furious had the flight deck supported by pillars up to the actual bow. That would allow the cruiser- carrier to have a longer flight deck which works better for aviation operations. It would also help future proof it against the likelihood of heavier aircraft that need longer take-off rolls.
The main problem is that the turrets would have restricted elevation, but that shouldn't be a disqualifier unless they are really counting on 45 degree or higher elevation for AA use. If the blast is a real problem, they could use a grid structure for the deck which ould allow most of the blast to pass through the deck.
It's not as radical as perhaps it sounds. The first all-welded ship was launched in 1920 (it wasn't a warship though).I agree they are doing it for the weight savings, but the more prudent approach would be to try it on one or two ships first and see if it works, before building five at once. It is roughly like the gamble Churchill took with the Queen Elizabeths combining oil-fired turbines and 15-inch guns for the first time in one ship and building five of them at once. When it works its great. If it doesn't work, you have two to five times the problems to fix.
Spot on ... in particular, 4 might provide a useful justification.My guess is that the thinking is more like...
1. We want to order all five in order to keep yards busy and employed
2. The weight calculations require welding to work so we need to use it on all of them
3. Welding is only being used on non-load bearing structures so even if it's not as good as advertised then it still shouldn't affect the structural integrity of the ship.
4. If there is a problem we can always do a refit and possibly use that to justify other changes.
I suspect that's their thinking but that's a major departure from OTL and really "courageous".
Then you try it with a destroyer first, like they did with high pressure boilers.
True, I suspect that absent pressures to conform to the treaty they wouldn't be quite as "courageous".
They did it was in ‘the impossible ship’ with one of the 3 test destroyers
Sneaky...Or maybe the welding is publicised and acknowledged to bring the weight down, maybe even used in the first one to be launched. The other four, however, are merely declared to have the same welding, but what no one checks can’t be disproven...
It’s an existing name for a RN vessel whereas Imperious or Immortal are not. I can see imperious rather than the French spelling (the French are still allies, remember) but Immortal seems a... arrogant name to use for a vessel that could well be sunk.It has precedent, but Imperious or Immortal should work just as fine since French names aren't as popular.
I do hope not, I'm holding out for the next Nelson-class (after Trafalgar) to be Temeraire.It has precedent, but Imperious or Immortal should work just as fine since French names aren't as popular.
Arrogant is another name I can't stand; like Inflexible (or Terrible), it just has the wrong connotation to me.HMS Arrogant and Invincible were actually used. Coincidentally, ships using both names were sunk.
That’s a fair point.HMS Arrogant and Invincible were actually used. Coincidentally, ships using both names were sunk.