WesWorld

Hi!

On various occasions I got feedback from other players that they see the SAE falling behind in carrier aviation. Despite my personal opinion that the CV still has to proof its value as strike platform I could not deny truth: Comparable navies already had or planned for larger CV fleets. Even smaller navies, like those in South America for example, were building up capacities.

As a result the SAE began to increase the carrier wing of their Royal Fleet, driven more by external influence than interal doctrine at this point, a victim of an arms race the SAE could not escape.

In end of 1941 the RSAN OOB listed seven carriers, including four fleet carriers of 20,000+ts, two light fleet carriers of 13,500ts and a training carrier of 10,000ts. One more full size fleet carrier was about to be completed in 1942.

Plans were made to double these numbers until the mid-40s, and a building program started respectively. Although stretching building capacities to the extreme, four large fleet carriers of 30,000+ tons and two light fleet carriers of 14,000ts were laid down in 1942/43, none to enter service later than 1946. Additionally the aging RSAN Force, laid down 1926 and extensively used till then, underwent a 50% rebuild.

However, all these new hulls would probably not suffice accoding to external analysists, and so RSAN planners were looking for other options that would not increase stress on the SAE shipbuilding industry beyond reasonable levels.

They found the purpose-built floatplane carriers of the Thjazi class. Laid down in 1929 to modified plans of some Indian semi-sisters these units, RSAN Thjazi and RSAN Ymir, were due to life extension refit in 1944/45 and came with many features that a CV would need like an existing below deck hangar deck. Calculations soon revealed a 50% rebuild would allow to turn a medium-sized AV design into a useful, albeit small, escort carrier. Yard capacities were checked but discussions arose whether such units really should be rebuild. Of course they would offer a new spectrum of mission profiles but in return the Navy would loose two valuable floatplane carriers for duties a floatplane carrier is better suited for than a CVE, especially in the Indian Ocean area.

A final decision is still pending, though yard capacity and material is already secured for both units in 1944. What does the board think about a conversion of both units?

Original data:


Thjazi, laid down 1929
Ymir, laid down 1930

Displacement:
5.308 t light; 5.493 t standard; 6.710 t normal; 7.684 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
473,96 ft / 459,32 ft x 62,34 ft x 16,40 ft (normal load)
144,46 m / 140,00 m x 19,00 m x 5,00 m

Armament:
4 - 5,91" / 150 mm guns (2x2 guns), 102,98lbs / 46,71kg shells, 1929 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, all forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns (4x3 guns), 1,95lbs / 0,89kg shells, 1929 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
12 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1929 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 438 lbs / 199 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2,76" / 70 mm 1,38" / 35 mm 2,36" / 60 mm
3rd: 0,59" / 15 mm - -
4th: 0,39" / 10 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 13.405 shp / 10.000 Kw = 20,60 kts
Range 12.000nm at 15,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2.191 tons

Complement:
369 - 481

Cost:
£1,158 million / $4,631 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 55 tons, 0,8%
Armour: 98 tons, 1,5%
- Belts: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Armament: 98 tons, 1,5%
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,0%
Machinery: 412 tons, 6,1%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2.543 tons, 37,9%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.402 tons, 20,9%
Miscellaneous weights: 2.200 tons, 32,8%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
16.057 lbs / 7.284 Kg = 155,9 x 5,9 " / 150 mm shells or 2,6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,11
Metacentric height 3,0 ft / 0,9 m
Roll period: 15,1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 72 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,17
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2,00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low forecastle
Block coefficient: 0,500
Length to Beam Ratio: 7,37 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 21,43 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 43 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 36
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3,28 ft / 1,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Forecastle (25%): 14,76 ft / 4,50 m (22,97 ft / 7,00 m aft of break)
- Mid (50%): 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Quarterdeck (15%): 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Stern: 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Average freeboard: 21,41 ft / 6,53 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 63,0%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 226,2%
Waterplane Area: 19.077 Square feet or 1.772 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 188%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 86 lbs/sq ft or 418 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,91
- Longitudinal: 2,20
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

10 floatplanes normally embarked. Capacity allows to handle up to 18 floatplanes.

Modified Design:

The rebuild requires cutting away all old superstructure and main armament, adding a new bow to bring freeboard to the level of the aft hull and erecting a new, second hangar deck and almost full-length flight deck above. New superstructure and main armamanet would be build outside the original hull dimensions, compensated by a large bulge on the opposite site. New and more powerful machinery would be added, too. As a result a CVE capable of 26kn with a clean flight deck of about 142m x 19m would be created.



CVE44A (ex-AV29), South African Escort Carrier laid down 1929 (Engine 1944)

Thjazi, laid down 1929, rebuild 1944
Ymir, laid down 1930, rebuild 1944

Displacement:
6.351 t light; 6.586 t standard; 7.769 t normal; 8.716 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
479,65 ft / 459,32 ft x 62,34 ft (Bulges 72,18 ft) x 16,40 ft (normal load)
146,20 m / 140,00 m x 19,00 m (Bulges 22,00 m) x 5,00 m

Armament:
4 - 4,92" / 125 mm guns (2x2 guns), 63,93lbs / 29,00kg shells, 1943 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,95lbs / 0,88kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1940 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 274 lbs / 124 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 500

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1,38" / 35 mm 0,98" / 25 mm 2,36" / 60 mm
2nd: 0,59" / 15 mm - -
3rd: 0,39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 0,79" / 20 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 40.215 shp / 30.000 Kw = 26,48 kts
Range 12.000nm at 15,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2.130 tons

Complement:
413 - 537

Cost:
£1,579 million / $6,314 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 32 tons, 0,4%
Armour: 297 tons, 3,8%
- Belts: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Armament: 19 tons, 0,2%
- Armour Deck: 278 tons, 3,6%
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,0%
Machinery: 1.039 tons, 13,4%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2.883 tons, 37,1%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.419 tons, 18,3%
Miscellaneous weights: 2.100 tons, 27,0%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
14.632 lbs / 6.637 Kg = 245,5 x 4,9 " / 125 mm shells or 2,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,25
Metacentric height 3,7 ft / 1,1 m
Roll period: 15,8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 57 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,06
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,59

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,500
Length to Beam Ratio: 6,36 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 21,43 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 36
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3,28 ft / 1,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 29,53 ft / 9,00 m
- Forecastle (25%): 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Mid (50%): 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Quarterdeck (15%): 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Stern: 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Average freeboard: 23,62 ft / 7,20 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 77,5%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 202,1%
Waterplane Area: 19.077 Square feet or 1.772 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 164%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 88 lbs/sq ft or 431 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,89
- Longitudinal: 2,77
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Airgroup: 20 planes of WW2-vintage normally embarked.
Capacity allows to handle up to 28 aircrafts (assembled plus 4 more in crates).

It's an interesting idea, and should be useful in secondary roles for a few years. In the longer term, the ship's small dimensions will limit her usefulness, but by then you'll probably have the number of large hulls you want.

I've been pondering the fate of my own two semi-sisters. My own inclination was to raze the aft superstructure and convert them to Jeanne D'Arc-style autogyro carriers. It'd be a less comprehensive refit, and a less useful one, though.

My only concern would be topweight. Yes, its bulged and SS shows a drastic improvement in stability but now you've got twice the aircraft weight and superstructure above the upper deck plus a flight deck (perhaps wooden?).

The original ship had two fairly blocky superstructures but would their weight equal what has been added for the upper hangar and island?

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
A final decision is still pending, though yard capacity and material is already secured for both units in 1944. What does the board think about a conversion of both units?

I don't think it's worthwhile. My personal opinion is that CVEs (or for that matter, CVLs) are not worth the expenditure unless you're in a wartime situation where a carrier, any carrier, is needed regardless of the merits of the completed hull - the situation the RN, USN, and IJN all saw during WWII. Perhaps the RSAN envisions such a situation, but your analysis of the current situation implies that it's just a straight-up comparison of 'Our Numbers Versus The Other Guy's Numbers.' In my opinion, that's a very dangerous mindset to make decisions from, particularly if taken to extremes like the Mexican Navy. If the SAE was preparing for a war against someone, then I could see a viable reason for a decision to seek lower-quality quantity. But I don't really see that South Africa is in that sort of desperate situation: South America is quiet and the wounds of the war are healing; South Africa itself faces no threat from the European colonies in Africa; and the empire is friendly with the Asian countries which most of the Europeans still regard with wariness or distrust. The RSAN has one of the most professional and experienced carrier arms in Wesworld, and only those nations most distant from South Africa can take them lightly.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
On various occasions I got feedback from other players that they see the SAE falling behind in carrier aviation.

Okay - what are their reasons for telling you this? What metric are people using to declare you 'behind'? You mention in your post comparing quantity of hulls, but I think that's not really the best way to assess the situation. The questions I'd ask instead are:
- "What is the RSAN's mission and how do the carriers fit into that mission?"
- "Is my mission being achieved?"
- "Can it be done better?"

You've stated to me a number of times that the foundation of the RSAN's mission is a "triangle trade' between the three main pieces of your empire - be it peacetime merchant travel or wartime troop convoys. How do the carriers fit into that mission? Are they achieving it? If the answer to that question is 'yes', then I'd challenge the assertion that the SAE is falling behind in carrier aviation. Any analysis of hull quantities should be taken into consideration when the mission is written. If the RSAN's mission is being completed well, then what does it matter if X other power has more aircraft carriers on their list?

From what you're saying, you're considering weakening your floatplane aviation assets and making their mission more difficult - just so the RSAN can claim to have two more carriers on their list when they compare it against their neighbors. I'm not convinced the trade-off is worth it. I think it undermines what makes the RSAN respectable - a force that, in its chosen theater, can protect its trade and gather overwhelming force to smash an interloper.

@Rocky:
A Jeanne D'Arc-style conversion I never considered as I am in doubt the RSAN is fielding any autogyros - and helicopters I have not really thought of yet. I am happy to have an idea of SAE jet development. Helicopters just cause me more headaches...

What I messed around with is a 25% refit to keep these units alive and in service as floatplane carriers. Given the wide distances to cover in the Indian Ocean and their ability to serve widespread islands without the need of a runeway, floatplanes still serve an important role in the RSAN.

However, I think modern long-range flying boats probably perform likewise and 1-on-1 a carrier launched wheeled a/c usually outperforms a floatplane.

@Hood:
Topweight might be an issue, although I think it is not critical. Sure, the new hangar, wooden fly-off deck and island add topweight but they are probably less massive, compact and heavy than the former superstructure and main armament was. Add in the new bulge and I think it should be okay.

Also.... Using SpringSharp I have to stick to its calculations. *shrug* So it should be fine, really.

@Brock:
Valid points. Thanks for sharing your point of view.

The "numbers" theory centers around two ideas:
a) The fact that more CV exist now in South America and few large fleet CV are probably too easily lost to long-ranged land-based a/c as to deploy them to that region.
b) The RSAN is in a similar situation as the British fleet was OTL when war broke out 1939: Large enough to deal with any single opponent but stretched to limits shall a two front war be fought (e.g. focus on Indian Ocean and opportunits trying stunts in South America, or Atlantis jumping to aid an adventerous Brazil/Argentina).

Of course a careful analysis may reveal such scenario is not all too likely, but a need to increase the RSAN carrier fleet exists anyway even if there is no real need to double numbers for numbers alone.

So with more CV entering service there is a need for more trained aircrews. The RSAN has only one small training carrier in serivce and that's probably not enough to support the growing carrier fleet. Two more small decks for training purpose may be welcome.

The main mission for the RSAN still is to protect SAE trade which is indeed centered on the triangle in the South Atlantic and a second one in the Indian Ocean (between SAE, India and DEI). The carrier wing within the RSAN shall provide all means to enable the battle and cruiser forces to perform that task. In the early days that meant recce first place, now strike missions become more and more imortant. In a secondary role CV are seen as an asset for attacks against land targets (ships in harbor our of range of land-based bombers or in support of an amphibious force).

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
The "numbers" theory centers around two ideas:
a) The fact that more CV exist now in South America and few large fleet CV are probably too easily lost to long-ranged land-based a/c as to deploy them to that region.
b) The RSAN is in a similar situation as the British fleet was OTL when war broke out 1939: Large enough to deal with any single opponent but stretched to limits shall a two front war be fought (e.g. focus on Indian Ocean and opportunits trying stunts in South America, or Atlantis jumping to aid an adventerous Brazil/Argentina).

Mmm, well. In that case, it sounds like you're actually revisiting what your mission is, rather than just measuring off numbers like I heard in your first post. Would you say that's more accurate?

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
What I messed around with is a 25% refit to keep these units alive and in service as floatplane carriers. Given the wide distances to cover in the Indian Ocean and their ability to serve widespread islands without the need of a runeway, floatplanes still serve an important role in the RSAN.

Why a 25% refit? Seems unusually expensive for a unit that's still basically pretty modern and workable. I'd have probably just done a manual refit to add radar and update the 40mm guns.

The class is of 1929 vintage. According to our rules, although this is one of the parts that disappeared one fine day, a ships combat power suffers after 15 years. Life extension requires a 25% refit.

IC the class' 15cm LA main guns are also not up to date. The war of 1935 saw the RSAN Ymir in action against cruisers and the like (Battle of Porto Alegre, got torpedoed at the bow). It turned out it is not a good idea to risk such a floating avgas bomb that way. The "cruiser part" of her former mission profile became obsolete. As a result her main armament is obsolete too. To replace it a 50% rebuild is required.

I would not say I am revising my carriers mission profile in general, but there are reasons to question it.

I see what you mean about the main armament. A DP battery would be nice to have, I suppose.

Felt a need to kitbash.



For a 25% refit, iirc, you can replace those turrets so long the barbettes are not altered. So, installing a newer DP weapon may be economical.

Also, I trimmed the bulge from the port side, because examples of asymmetrical bulging work the other way around; you bulge the heavier side wider, to give more bouyancy to that end. Saratoga's late-war wider bulge was under her island, for example.

Nice work, Shin.

Thanks for the pic, Shin. The way you lowered her bridge gives me ideas although I must admit I do not think it is feasible that way.

On the first deck (flight deck level) of the island there will probably be a radio room or storage for items used on the flight deck. The deck above I thought would be useful for flight ops contollers. Hence there is this "oriel" towards the flight deck. Finally the last deck houses ship control (bridge) with all you need to have a good overview to operate the ship including chart room. Fire-control also has to be put somewhere...

Reducing her deck the way you did would render it almost useless, methinks. Too short and cramped. Finally those 15cm LA guns are what I consider the biggest weight waste today. To keep them does not serve any purpose.

I agree that a 25% refit would allow me to replace guns of that caliber - but barbets would remain and my AA/DP guns do not fit on a barbet (turret & barbet versus mount & hoist). So any useful modification results in a 50% - which would be required for the rebuild you propose anyway as you cannot modify a ships superstructure to that extend by use of a 25% refit, at least the way I read our rules.

So if I am stuck with 50% it seems better to me to make a full-deck CV of her.

Regarding bulges information seems fuzzy but you may have a point here. Guess I need more research. From what I know the following options are feasible:

1) Bulging on both sides. Often used OTL for almost all CV conversion that used long, slim hulls (Independance CVL or japanese shadow program CV). Bulging served the purpose to generally increase stability and make those fine hulls "less lively". As all of these conversions had littel or no islands, island weight hardly caused troubles. It was often compensated by moving other heavy gear to port (if island was on starboard), such as catapults, lifts and bunkerage.

2.) Asymetrical bulging per your example to compensate the weight of an island by additional bouyancy on the same side. The moments of force regarding the ships longitudinal axis cancelled each other out.

3.) Asymetrical bulging on the opposite side of the ship (relative to island) if said bulge is used to store avgas, fuel, water or even concrete in it. Again the moments of force compensate each other. To the best of my knowledge this option was used for the japanese Hiyo class conversions, probably also some others if a large island had to be compensated. I know I have seen a cross section for a carrier in this configuration in some of my books but cannot tell, which one. :o/

Probably somebody else here can help to get this addressed? If the bulge should be below her bridge I will modify my drawing of course...

I also ran calculations for the other large AV operated by the RSAN. As these classes grow larger step by step, a conversion probably makes more sense. At least these studies ensure the RSAN is prepared in case of emergency. According to our rules each conversion takes about 8 to 9 month (plus 3 month trials) and costs about 3,000 to 4,000 tons of material. Might be doable in case of a war...





Btw, the plane shown is a navalised Walter F-11 alias Nakajima 84 (length 10m, wing span 11m) scaled down to fit the ship size. I have not finally decided what current naval airplanes are, but it is not unlikely the F-11 would be used. At least the planes fits the era and gives an idea of size.

the picture I cobbled together was just a quick concept. Part of the idea for the reduced island was to retain the ship's original bridge, which is now at the leading edge of the flight deck, as many of the smaller Japanese CVs tended to do, and similar to the auxilliary bridges on several of the US carriers well forward.

The root of the concept was an overall cheaper conversion, though admittedly our refit rules may not reflect it as well as it would be IRL.

Well...

After some research I have modified bulging on my drawing.

The flight deck is now slightly offset to port. In return the islands moves a bit more inboard. In combination with the heavier gear (elevator, catapult etc.) that should do to keep her in balance. Bulging is now equal on both sides to increase stability in general.

I prefer this solution over the larger bulge beneath her bridge as the latter would grand all the problems that come with an asymetrical hull (steering port/starboard different).

What do you think?

[img]http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/schiffbilder/CVE Thjazi Class 29.jpg[/img]

Nice drawing. Seems reasonable, though I'm still not all that fond of CVEs.

Well, during weekend I had little time but could browse some books. I found out the USN operated both floatplanes and wheeled planes from their carriers. I had a nice photo showing Saratogas hangar. It was meant to show how roomy her hangar deck was, but the same time it showed they easily stored floatplanes and other planes down there.

When planning my conversion I kept height of the former upper deck hangar which was high enough for floatplanes. So actually I should still be able to operate them from the "new" ship. That way the benefits of using planes that do not need a landing strip and of using high-performance planes can be combined, with probably 8 floatplanes and 10-12 other planes embarked.

During war times I could then decide what is required most and concentrate....

A ship like the one proposed could be useful if hostilities every came between SAE and the ABCs again. It would allow you to provide ASW and/or CAP for a troop convoy without tying up fleet carriers from their mission of reconnaissance and as thing progress strike missions. You could simple assign say an older BB (or even a CDS is there is a tanker to keep her tanks up considering most CDS have limited range) and a few AA/ASW escorts to a troop convoy and one of these 6k CVs and spare the more modern/larger units for theaters where they would be more useful.

Thanks Sachmle. What you describe is what I had in mind. A CVE is good for CAP, ASW and training. Not too bad for a relatively small and cheep unit. The relatively high speeds of RSAN floatplane carriers help a lot to, though.

The other AV conversions are even larger, RSAN Wyvern almost touching the CVL category given her airgroup and speed.

CVE46A (ex-AV39), South African Escort Carrier laid down 1939 (Engine 1946)

Displacement:
7.967 t light; 8.263 t standard; 10.088 t normal; 11.549 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
509,83 ft / 498,69 ft x 65,62 ft (Bulges 75,46 ft) x 18,04 ft (normal load)
155,40 m / 152,00 m x 20,00 m (Bulges 23,00 m) x 5,50 m

Armament:
4 - 4,92" / 125 mm guns (2x2 guns), 63,93lbs / 29,00kg shells, 1943 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
24 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 1,95lbs / 0,88kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 10 raised mounts
12 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1940 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 8 raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 305 lbs / 139 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 500

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1,38" / 35 mm 295,28 ft / 90,00 m 18,04 ft / 5,50 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 91% of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
0,98" / 25 mm 295,28 ft / 90,00 m 18,04 ft / 5,50 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1,38" / 35 mm 0,98" / 25 mm 2,36" / 60 mm
2nd: 0,59" / 15 mm - -
3rd: 0,39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 2,36" / 60 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 45.577 shp / 34.000 Kw = 26,45 kts
Range 10.400nm at 18,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3.285 tons

Complement:
503 - 654

Cost:
£2,726 million / $10,903 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 36 tons, 0,4%
Armour: 1.505 tons, 14,9%
- Belts: 320 tons, 3,2%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 194 tons, 1,9%
- Armament: 21 tons, 0,2%
- Armour Deck: 970 tons, 9,6%
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,0%
Machinery: 1.138 tons, 11,3%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3.188 tons, 31,6%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2.121 tons, 21,0%
Miscellaneous weights: 2.100 tons, 20,8%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
20.011 lbs / 9.077 Kg = 335,8 x 4,9 " / 125 mm shells or 4,0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,28
Metacentric height 4,1 ft / 1,3 m
Roll period: 15,6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 62 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,04
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,29

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,520
Length to Beam Ratio: 6,61 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22,33 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 48
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3,94 ft / 1,20 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 26,90 ft / 8,20 m
- Forecastle (20%): 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Mid (50%): 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Quarterdeck (15%): 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Stern: 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Average freeboard: 20,26 ft / 6,18 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 91,6%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 165,5%
Waterplane Area: 22.206 Square feet or 2.063 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 164%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 92 lbs/sq ft or 451 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,95
- Longitudinal: 1,57
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Airgroup: 24 planes of WW2-vintage normally embarked.
Capacity allows to handle up to 32 aircrafts (assembled plus 4 more in crates).

Still kinda small in comparison to historical CVEs...

Yeah, but I do not think one should compare them to historical CVE only. Based on AV designs they are almost purpose-build, much different than CVE made of merchantile hulls. The RSAN AVs already incorporate a hangar deck and workshops in their hulls, are build to military standards etc. Makes a difference and probably it is better to compare them to historical small CV like Hosho or Ryujo.