PC/WI: RN license build an 'Improved' Clemenceau class in the 1960' instead of CVA-01?

What if the UK government after scrapping the CVA-01 project and not listening to the RAF in relation to moving the land mass of Australia play it safe and license build two of an improved (enlarged) 'Clemenceau' class?

These two ships would be around 24% longer at 1,100 ft, 24 % wider in the beam and would carry around 60 aircraft. Also the ships would carry higher powered catapults allowing the embarkation of F-4 and heavier aircraft.

How would this pan out post 1970?

Much obliged!
 
What if the UK government after scrapping the CVA-01 project and not listening to the RAF in relation to moving the land mass of Australia play it safe and license build two of an improved (enlarged) 'Clemenceau' class?

These two ships would be around 24% longer at 1,100 ft, 24 % wider in the beam and would carry around 60 aircraft. Also the ships would carry higher powered catapults allowing the embarkation of F-4 and heavier aircraft.
Why enlarged 'Clemenceau' class rather than any of the many RN studies?
 
Why enlarged 'Clemenceau' class rather than any of the many RN studies?
It's already been developed so saves on the costs, and an enlarged version makes it into a proper strike carrier which the 'Clem's weren't as their air wing was limited by their cat's and lifts. An F-4 and Bucc' based air wing beats the F-8 and Etendard one.

Do the RN actually want to go with their CVA-01 project?
 
Why do they need to license a design? They could copy it with no problems, there are only so many ways to build a carrier. It just like an airplane, lots of ones look alike, doesn’t mean you have to have a license to build a similar one unless you are making an exact copy.
 
Britain doesn't need to licence a Clemenceau. If it wants to build an intermediate sized carrier it can just stretch the Hermes design. If it wants an F4 and Buccaneer air group it can revisit the 1952 carrier design and incorporate new technology or just go ahead with CVA 01.
 
It's already been developed so saves on the costs, and an enlarged version makes it into a proper strike carrier which the 'Clem's weren't as their air wing was limited by their cat's and lifts. An F-4 and Bucc' based air wing beats the F-8 and Etendard one.

Do the RN actually want to go with their CVA-01 project?
The CVA01 design was exactly what the RN wanted/needed, every design feature was arrived at logically.

For example the 54,000t version was chosen because the 58,000t version required a 4th shaft and machinery for no tactical value. The Sea Dart was included because the RN needed 8 Sea Dart ships in the Task Group, and USN carriers at the time carried the Terrier SAM. The Alaskan Highway outside the Island was an extension of the Alaskan Taxiway for support vehicles on the Eagle and Ark Royal that was found to work so well. That doesn't mean that carrier design is easy, it isn't and Britain had some particular limitations that made designing their particular requirement tough, the most well known one is the size; to fit into British docks the carrier could be no longer than about 960' and greater than about 58,000t which is why the Malta, the 1953 carrier, CVA01 and the current Queen Elizabeth are all about the same size - as big as Britain can handle.

CVA01 was cancelled because the incoming Labour government wanted to avoid devaluing the Pound, so chose an RAF East of Suez strategy that was cheaper (and less capable/flexible and based on incorrect assumptions about the P1154-RAF) than the RN strategy. After choosing the RAF strategy and announcing that Britain would withdraw EoS by 1975 they cancelled CVA01, not because the design was unsuitable.
 
What if the UK government after scrapping the CVA-01 project and not listening to the RAF in relation to moving the land mass of Australia play it safe and license build two of an improved (enlarged) 'Clemenceau' class?

These two ships would be around 24% longer at 1,100 ft, 24 % wider in the beam and would carry around 60 aircraft. Also the ships would carry higher powered catapults allowing the embarkation of F-4 and heavier aircraft.

How would this pan out post 1970?

Much obliged!
So, basically, you're asking the Royal Navy to make a clean-sheet supercarrier design.

That's a complete non-starter.
 
unless they go for a USN design and copy a lot of it.
Even then such a ship would need British radars, ADWAS, weapons and likely either extensive changes to fit British standard parts like hatches and the million other widgets a ship has or an extensive non-standard US supply chain that sucks up precious US dollars for inconsequential stuff.

Countries don't foster domestic arms production for pork barreling, there are sound economic and capability reasons behind these decisions.
 
It's an interesting idea but there is zero chance of the Royal Navy building any kind of Clemenceau variant. The problem wasn't that the British government didn't want the CVA-01 carrier design, the problem was that the government didn't want the Royal Navy to have any aircraft carriers. If you give Britain a different government, they'd just go ahead with the design they wanted in the first place.
 
No . . . check out the Type 22 & 42's
?
Type 42 (from wiki)

Displacement:
  • Batch 1 & 2:
  • 3,500 long tons (3,600 t) standard,[1]
  • 4,100 long tons (4,200 t)[1] or 4,350 tons[2] full load
  • Batch 3: 3,500 long tons (3,600 t) standard,[1]
  • 4,775 long tons (4,852 t)[1] or 5,350 tons[2] full load
Length:
  • Batch 1 & 2: 119.5 m (392 ft) waterline,[1]
  • 125 m (410 ft)[1] or 125.6 m (412 ft)[2] overall
  • Batch 3: 132.3 m (434 ft) waterline,[1]
  • 141.1 m (463 ft)[1][2] overall
Beam:
  • Batch 1 & 2: 14.3 m (47 ft)[1][2]
  • Batch 3: 14.9 m (49 ft)[1][2]

That's not increasing it by "24% longer at 1,100 ft, 24 % wider in the beam"

Type 42 only adds 125.6 - 141.1 = 15.1m extra on the B1 and only .6m to beam? Thats just a stretch segment added to the centre of the hull compared to your addition to length and beam at the same time that's a complete redesign and will add to displacement hugly?
 
?
Type 42 (from wiki)

Displacement:
  • Batch 1 & 2:
  • 3,500 long tons (3,600 t) standard,[1]
  • 4,100 long tons (4,200 t)[1] or 4,350 tons[2] full load
  • Batch 3: 3,500 long tons (3,600 t) standard,[1]
  • 4,775 long tons (4,852 t)[1] or 5,350 tons[2] full load
Length:
  • Batch 1 & 2: 119.5 m (392 ft) waterline,[1]
  • 125 m (410 ft)[1] or 125.6 m (412 ft)[2] overall
  • Batch 3: 132.3 m (434 ft) waterline,[1]
  • 141.1 m (463 ft)[1][2] overall
Beam:
  • Batch 1 & 2: 14.3 m (47 ft)[1][2]
  • Batch 3: 14.9 m (49 ft)[1][2]

That's not increasing it by "24% longer at 1,100 ft, 24 % wider in the beam"

Type 42 only adds 125.6 - 141.1 = 15.1m extra on the B1 and only .6m to beam? Thats just a stretch segment added to the centre of the hull compared to your addition to length and beam at the same time that's a complete redesign and will add to displacement hugly?
I never said the 22's or 42's were 24% longer, re-read my post.

You said "Is not enlarging a design its a new ship" No it isn't as you've stated in your reply that "Thats just a stretch segment added to the centre of the hull"
 
No . . . check out the Type 22 & 42's
As for the Type 22, that was just a length increase, albeit a considerable one. No changes to beam were applied - and as the US Navy later noted for the Flight III Burkes, enlarging the beam leads to having to redo everything, so that the result is a new class entirely.

More to the point, a Clemenceau enlarged that much won't stick to the existing layout. Such a ship is too big for a two-shaft arrangement, and has the space for more and better placed elevators and catapults. Which is another dead ringer for a new class.
 
IIRC the increase in beam of the T42b3 was a foot wide boxed strake along each side. This steel boxed strake gave more longitudinal strength to account for the greater stress placed on the longer hull. The hull form itself wasn't any wider, there was no extra hull volume due to the extra beam.
 
You said "Is not enlarging a design its a new ship" No it isn't as you've stated in your reply that "Thats just a stretch segment added to the centre of the hull"
I don't follow?

You can increase just length (by adding a plug as an enlargement and that is done often) but increasing length and beam at the same time isn't a slight change as the volume will increase massively (L x B) it's a total redesign?
 
I'd suggest that OTL Clems are about as big as you could go on a 2 shaft power-plant at the time. CVA01 proposed a 3 shaft arrangement in the 60s and Malta and 1953 carriers proposed a 4 shaft arrangement earlier.

Small ships have a lot more excess power to allow good sized stretches, but the Clems don't.
 
Top