WesWorld

For years the number of BB's in service was a key indicator of naval strength. Now the CV is beginning to enter the picture.
At what point does it become practical for a navy to develop CV's?
Just because you can build a CV, should you?
With only a small number (or single CV) your carrier operation options are limited - partly due to availabilty.
CV's operate best in their own TF's, meaing that not only will you need the CV but the associated escort vessels and fleet support.

It becomes practical if there's political reason for it to be. India only developed its prototype carrier, a converted collier, because of the coming Cleito Treaty. It was felt that it was better to convert a surplus ship in 1920, and be legally able to replace it within five years, than to wait until a ship was necessarily needed (say, the late 20's), build it with no prior experience, and then be stuck with it for twenty years. So far as I'm concerned, an 8,000 t, 15 knot, coal-fired aircraft carrier would be very effective in teaching India how not to build a carrier, and the ship's woeful record in exercises and the 1924 spat with Denmark/Siam would be a strong motivation to build a much better ship.

A nation without the political need might still find a strategic need. Denmark found itself on the receiving end of that Indian proto-carrier's attack in 1924. It wasn't a very effective attack, but it must have indicated that there was a potential for the type to be a problem later on. Perhaps the Danes wanted local fighters to defend against future attacks, or perhaps they wanted to undertake these attacks themselves. Either way, a cruiser that was subsequently mauled in battle with the Indians found itself converted to a proto-carrier as well.

India could build more carriers - two or three, depending on the size - right now. However, it's not going to happen for a bit yet, probably not until 1932. The battleship is still king of the seas, the opinion of some Italian staff officers not withstanding. So the next capital ship is going to be an improved Akbar class battleship. The missions India needs additional naval aviation for right now - regional recce and sealane patrol - can be fulfilled through a combination of seaplane carriers and patrol vessels equipped with one or two planes. This was alluded to in that article on Indian SLOC, and these vessels are the kind of aviation assets India will be building before 1932.

The Philippines also considered an "experimental carrier", back in 1924, converted from a "California" type AC, for much the same reasons as the Indians converted Otta. However that ship was blown up by anarchists before the conversion could begin...

Given the lack of carrier-building experience, the Philippines has now ordered a carrier from India, virtually identical to their first "keel-up" ship except for the calibres of the armament. This was seen as the best move, as it allowed the Filipinos both to profit from the Indians' learning curve, and to have their own shipwrights study the ship as it was built, so that future Filipino projects would have something to build on.

A second ship, of much the same type but deleting the cruiser armament in favour of a larger hangar, was scheduled for construction in 1929 in a Filipino yard, but has been cancelled on account of revolution.

This ship was to be in some ways a "comparision piece" to the Indian-built ship; one would be the 'cruiser-carrier' hybrid type, the other a pure CV, and evaluations of the two types would lead to one or the other design being selected for future vessels.

However with the cancellation of CV29, the case has been clinched that the next two Filipino carriers will be the 'hybrid' type, of the design purchased from the Italians. Depending on the outcome of the civil war, of course, these ships are tenativly scheduled for keellaying in 1929.

The favouring of the 'cruiser-carrier' type by the MdF Design Office is based on several considerations; one is that the ships can act as "pure", if slightly lightly-armed, cruisers in extremis; secondly, the role of naval aviation is still largely seen as (1) scouting for the enemy and (2) destroying the enemy's scouts; and thirdly, these ships are seen to have excellent potential as commerce raiders; unlike India, the Philippines currently considers the French to be 'Public Enemy No.1' and tailors its war-plans accordingly, given the widespread French holdings in Polynesia, the interdiction of their sea-lanes is considered a priority.

In addition, the Design Office is also preparing, in the 'Proposal for a Post-Revolutionary Fleet Development Plan', a design for a seaplane tender of roughly 5,000 tons, carrying ten seaplanes (number limited by Treaty) and also capable of replenishing small patrol units with fuel and supplies.

Now in the Post-Treaty (1937 onwards) world, it is considered that the 'pure' carrier may be more practical for the Fleet, and therefore several plans are being considered; one of them is a vessel of ~20,000t, carrying 70 aircraft; another is a heavily-armoured ship built on the same hull as one of the 1938 Battleship designs, displacing ~45,000 tons and carrying up to 90 "very large aircraft". In addition, a seaplane carrier of 10,000 tons (OTL 'Commandant Teste' type) is on the drawing boards...

I suspect that carriers and carrier aviation are cheaper in Wesworld than real life. Wesworld must also be more 'tense' than the RL inter war period. The CT encourages all navies to develop carriers. Without this I'd probably put more resources into cruisers but I can't. I can have 2 15k ton carriers from my total. I figured this is better than one 10k and one 20k. I'll build one in the 20's and a second in the 30's after learning from the first. I've also invested heavily in aviation support ships that are not restricted. I'll probably use the carriers defensively rather than offensively with the greater proportion of planes being fighters but this bucks the current philosophy that the bomber will always get through. Scouting would be the domain of the aviation support ships.

I think we should also have to 'pay' for the airgroup - but that's another issue. A 1931 New Orleans CA was about $11m and a Yorktown CV was $25m but I don't think that includes the airgroup.

Cheers,

I thought that we did pay for the airgroup in the sense that we pay for miscellaneous weight when building the ship.

Roger, I believe the treaty allows 50% of carrier tonnage to be used as light cruiser tonnage instead. This might give you a couple extra CLs, you know.

I know there is a degree of transfer possible but the tonnage is more valuable as carriers. If carriers were restricted and CL's were not then I'd put greater resources to CL construction and probably slow CV construction. As it is, I push both along at the same rate. I'm influenced by Kerr's(?) pre-war RN officer as head of a Naval mission to Greece that the Greek Navy should be cruisers and torpedo craft. I'm using carriers as an extension to cruisers. I have the Greek Fleet organised as carriers being incorporated with the cruisers for a 'scouting' force. This is two battlecruisers, two heavy cruisers, a carrier, and support forces.

With regards to cost, I think you should be buying planes - in addition to just the ship, just as you buy anything else. A work in progress. Taking a look at some real world prices, Hood was £5 000 000, a VW class DD was £200 000 so one 40,000 ton ship is 25 1,300ton destroyers. By our reckoning it is about 30 DD to 1 BB. 20 years later it is 1 Iowa BB $100m to 9 Fletcher DD $11m. So, are Iowa's relatively cheap or Fletcher's relatively expensive? What bought you a cruiser will only buy a destroyer 10 years later. I need to do more analysis.

Cheers,

The problem with DD costs is they grew due to the extra tasks attributed to them such as radar picket and anti sub where as BB's didn't really change all that much, the only additional role they gained was AA defence of Carriers which switched the CV/BB roles of offence defense.

I have to agree with Rocky, miscellaneous weight effectively pays for the airgroups, SS limits numbers as does subsequent refits and rebuilds. Seeing as we don't have a reasonable, user freindly aircraft design program we have to fudge certain things as well so accounting for cost is that much more difficult.

I'd say Miscellaneous weight only makes room for aircraft. The RN was at the stage (pre-WW2) where limited number of aircraft (and quality) was influencing their carrier design. Naval Aircraft were invariably paid for out of Naval budgets.

I agree that we don't have a mechanism for it but I don't think what we do have is an accurate reflection of the true costs.

Cheers,

The SS design rules do factor in aircraft not just the room for them..........

Quoted

1) Take the square root of miscellaneous weight; e.g., if
miscellaneous weight is 10,000 tons, the weight-based limit
for your carrier is 100 aircraft. (In addition, allow at
least 25 tons per aircraft , i.e., if miscellaneous weight
is just 100 tons, your ship can carry 4 planes, not 10.)

However if you have a preposal for how we should pay for planes I'd like to take a look, but seeing as most here are adding Mich weight in the assumtion that planes are part of that mich weight that kinda puts them at a disadvantage.

I'd throw a few suggestions arround but I already know the answer...."wait till the next wesworld". Personally I've advocated some sort of GDP system that would limit our non naval assets, but to no avail, so I understand the level of realism your striving for Roger.

The way I see it is this:
- Square root of miscellaneous weight is the number of planes the carrier can carry, as long as it does not exceed (l*b)/750.
- Weight assigned to aircraft, its ammunition and fuel is the number of planes*25 tons.
- Remaining miscellaneous weight is for hangar, deck, etc.

Thus using the Springstyle notes as base, 10,000 tons miscellaneous weight on an 800*100 carrier will give you 100 planes. Of the 10,000 tons 100*25=2500 tons is for the aircraft, ammo and fuel. The remaining 7500 tons is for the deck, hangar, etc.
So as I see it, a part of that 2500 tons is payment for the planes you have aboard your ship. It is flawed as lost aircraft can be replaced without cost.

BTW, does anyone have something that gives a proper breakdown of a carrier's displacement? I have the books "Battleships of the Scharnhorst Class" (english edition) and "Battleships of the Bismarck Class" (german edition), both by Gerhard Koop and Klaus-Peter Schmolke, in which there are good displacement breakdowns of both classes of ships so I am looking for something like that.

Unfortunetely Carriers get seriously neglected in the books department. IIRC M.J. Whitley was to write one but he has since passed away, at least thats what my hobbie shop guy told me.

I've yet to come up with a book as detailed as Whitleys on Carriers...

'Carrier Glorious' by Winton(IIRC) has a lot of detail on early carrier construction, development and exercises.

Cheers,

Quoted

At what point does it become practical for a navy to develop CV's?
Just because you can build a CV, should you?

Hi John,

I'd say in an environment like Wesworld, it should be as soon as possible. With so much competition, and a treaty environment allowing it, I'd say there doesn't even have to be hindsight as a factor, just a drive to keep pace.

That said, it does take time to 'learn' carrier ops. It's not as easy as building a ship with a flat deck and putting planes on it. Given the technology of the time, things like warming engines, arming, refueling, and especially basic deck handling have to be learned by the men who are going to do them. Another factor is take-off intervals, and that, like the others, can only come with experience. And this says nothing of the experience required of the pilots.

alt naval,

You have a good point on relativel costs. I would also argue, that historically battleship development essentially stopped ~1918, when the last generation of interwar ships were building. Only Nelson and Rodney were able to take advantage of the lessons of the war and they were only 2 ships. But Washington and London both allowed the continued development of every other type of naval vessel, especially the aircraft carrier. I'd say the closing of the gap between the cost of BB and DD was a result of the increased capability of the DD combined with the 'economy of scale' of putting similar capabilities into (DP guns, HA Fire Control for example) into a single hull.

Wes,

Do you have Roger Chesnau's Aircraft Carriers of the World, 1914-Present? I'd recommend it as a good starting point for you.

Regards gents,

Big Rich

Rich, thanks for the book recommendation, the books I do have are fairly generic with the basics and some interesting pictures but thats about it.

I do have Richard Worths book however which was IMO a unique way to look at the worlds navy's.