Barracudas

[adarbrauner]

Ok, correct, forgot to write "aircraft CARRIER airplanes", mistake acknowledged

[JeffroK]

Sea Fury, but then it was late as the US was able to supply a quality Carrier fighter.

[rustysi]

And Mosquito.... and Lancaster.... and Typhoon.... and Sunderland.... and Beaufighter..... and.....

... and Spit... and Hurri... and last but not least lets not forget the Defiant.[:D]

Why you people, why , why don't you read all the words.

AIRCRAFT CARRIER AIRPLANES! only.

...and, yes the FAA did seem to get shortchanged. But hey you can only stretch a budget so far...

[Dili]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

And Mosquito.... and Lancaster.... and Typhoon.... and Sunderland.... and Beaufighter..... and.....

... and Spit... and Hurri... and last but not least lets not forget the Defiant.[:D]

Why you people, why , why don't you read all the words.

AIRCRAFT CARRIER AIRPLANES! only.

...and, yes the FAA did seem to get shortchanged. But hey you can only stretch a budget so far...

There was enough of money to build decent plans but they went for Skuas and Roc.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

And Mosquito.... and Lancaster.... and Typhoon.... and Sunderland.... and Beaufighter..... and.....

... and Spit... and Hurri... and last but not least lets not forget the Defiant.[:D]

Why you people, why , why don't you read all the words.

AIRCRAFT CARRIER AIRPLANES! only.

...and, yes the FAA did seem to get shortchanged. But hey you can only stretch a budget so far...

warspite1

As indicated previously (post 20) the problem wasn't just financial - although yes, at the time the Skua prototype was ordered (1935), re-armament had not properly started (1936). There is never enough money - as any General, Admiral or Air Marshal will testify [;)]

But there were other factors too that contributed to the wrong aircraft equipping the FAA when war came in 1939 and this included what types of aircraft (function) that were believed to be actually required. Other navies were able to benefit from war experience while still at peace - a luxury that Britain did not have - and this made rectification of earlier problems difficult.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

... the FIREBRAND, worse aircraft airplane (or maybe worse British warplane design ever?) ever designed and flown.

The Blackburn Firebrand is an interesting aircraft. It started life under FAA design specification 8/39 for a two seat 'fleet fighter ' to replace the Fulmar. Fairey's design under this specification ultimately turned into the Firefly 'fighter bomber', but Blackburn's took a more convoluted path. Along the way the second seat was dropped, and it was switched from the Napier Sabre engine to the massive Bristol Centaurus radial putting out 2450hp (with a max speed superior to the Firefly IV).

The aircaft that emerged could lift a combat load of 4000lb off a carrier deck, and was re-specified as a 'torpedo fighter'. It saw limited post war service, being overtaken by the jets, but in my mod arrives as an upgrade for the Barracuda, modelled as a dive bomber. It can carry a torpedo on a shipping strike, but the alternative 2 x 2000lb AP might work better. The AD-1 is an all-round better aircraft, but only carries one 2000lb bomb at a time (although it also carries a lot of smaller ordnance as well).

[crsutton]

Well, no matter the qualities of the the Barracuda, it has to be one of the most butt ugly aircraft produced during the war.....

[Zorch]

Is it true that British carriers could not handle some US planes because their hangars weren't tall enough?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Is it true that British carriers could not handle some US planes because their hangars weren't tall enough?

Don't know for sure, but the armoured flight decks would put pressure on the designers to lower the C of G so that could mean a less spacious hangar.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Is it true that British carriers could not handle some US planes because their hangars weren't tall enough?

Don't know for sure, but the armoured flight decks would put pressure on the designers to lower the C of G so that could mean a less spacious hangar.

It is indeed true.

The Illustrious class only had one hanger deck (hence the small air complement, even with deck parking). At 16 ft it was almost tall enough to spot F4Us with wings folded. They had to clip 8 inches from the wingtips to get them in.

The Indomitable had a 14 ft upper, and (short) lower 16ft hanger deck. (Her flight deck was 14 ft higher than the Illustrious class, they "built upwards").

The Implacables, which were suspended for a time, and redsigned on the slips, had 2 hanger decks (the lower one was shorter as in Indomitable), but along the way CG and stability issues resulted in them both being limitede to 14 ft. So no Corsairs. They arrived in the Pacific with a mix of Seafires, Fireflies, and TBFs.

[One internet wit has described the Implacables as the Incomprehensible class, referring directly to the hanger design. The RN single hanger carriers actually had almost as much hanger space as the Yorktowns, but they never operated deck parks as big as those used by the USN. Edit - in part because the enclosed hangers mean you can't run up the aircraft engines until you spot them on the flight deck, limiting the operational ability to get a strike launched in reasonable time. The Implacable's lower hangers were hardly used for parking aircraft anyway, more for workshop space.]

On the other hand the Colossus class light fleet carriers (designed later when the larger aircraft were coming into service) could fit Corsairs (unclipped) in their 17 and a half ft hangers.

[JeffroK]

And the Skua wasnt all that bad, the Val & Dauntless first flew after the Skua sank its first Cruiser,
now the Roc......

[warspite1]

Which was the point I was making earlier. Too many people compare 1939 FAA with 1941 USN and IJN aircraft. What were those two navies flying in the late thirties? Two years is a long time considering the rate of technological progress being seen. There is no substitute for battle experience, and it no doubt helped in some cases that others were benefiting from bitter British experience. As said, there were plenty of mistakes made and, what turned out to be, wrong avenues of thinking too. So that has to be taken on the chin. But at a time when British attention could have been turned to the shortcomings of the FAA, the need to win the Battle of Britain and to build up bomber command - not to mention the need to re-build an army and build escorts for the Atlantic - meant that more resource was given elsewhere. As said, the replacement aircraft were disappointing too and so purchase from the US was seen as being more practical. Sadly the Wildcat was delayed due to the folding wing version not being available on time which compounded the problems.

As for the carriers, iirc the British ended the war seeking to adopt the American solution, while in the Midway-class the Americans were leaning toward the armoured carrier concept!

[warspite1]

And anyway, ugliness has a beauty all of its own.... or something

I love this aircraft sooooo much

[Ian R]

As for the carriers, iirc the British ended the war seeking to adopt the American solution, while in the Midway-class the Americans were leaning toward the armoured carrier concept!

Yup. 75% of one, and 25% the other, or thereabouts.

The Midways had 3.5 inch armoured flight decks, but as part of the superstructure, and started life with open hangers. The hanger deck was still the strength deck.

The unbuilt Malta design abandoned the armoured flight deck so that it could have an open hanger and the planes' engines could be run up "downstairs", so a big strike could be launched. The hanger deck became the armoured deck. I don't think they finally decided if the flight deck would be non-armour steeel, or mild steel covered by teak planking.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

As for the carriers, iirc the British ended the war seeking to adopt the American solution, while in the Midway-class the Americans were leaning toward the armoured carrier concept!

Yup. 75% of one, and 25% the other, or thereabouts.

The Midways had 3.5 inch armoured flight decks, but as part of the superstructure, and started life with open hangers. The hanger deck was still the strength deck.

The unbuilt Malta design abandoned the armoured flight deck so that it could have an open hanger and the planes' engines could be run up "downstairs", so a big strike could be launched. The hanger deck became the armoured deck. I don't think they finally decided if the flight deck would be non-armour steeel, or mild steel covered by teak planking.

Saw a classified (low level) film about the carrier Franklin's damage control after being hit by the Japanese with her decks fully loaded with a strike. They must have mentioned the armoured deck low down just over the engine spaces a half dozen times, emphasizing how it made it possible to save the ship despite raging fires, heavy topside and hangar deck damage and heavy loss of life. No doubt that combat experience was used in design of the newer British carriers.

[Barb]

IRL Barracudas were sent to the Pacific aboard carriers, but after their not so stellar performance in the initial raids against Indonesia (Operations Cockpit, Transom, Crimson, Banquet, Light, Millet) they were replaced by the Avangers.
Barracudas performance in the tropics and limited range made them unsuitable for the Pacific.

It is also true that each British Carrier carried a different load of aircraft based on the hangar capacity and capability. Spitfires were mostly kept for the fleet defense, while Corsairs and Fireflies performed fighter sweeps and strike escorts.

Anyway comparing 1939-40 FAA with the 1942 USN/IJN is something completely different. It was in no great position, but actually it performed well given the circumstances.
In 1939 the idea was to strike all planes below when attacked by air and leave the enemy to AA! Then Skua/Gladiator was used in 1939-40 with some help of radar mostly against un-escorted bombers bombing from high altitude - just enough and effective to disrupt the attackd. In 1940 Skua/Fulmar performed miracles in the Mediterrean - aided by radar they were just enough to keep Regia Aeronautica at bay. Biggest problem was the size of the reserve pool of fighter planes! In 1941 the Sea Hurricanes supplemented Fulmars and just kept the fleet defense through the Malta convoys till Germans arrived. Seafires and Martlets took over for 1942 North Africa and Sicily campaigns. Seafires had their own problems, and Martlets but the planes were enough for the job (again barely but just enough). Later the Hellcats, Fireflies, Seafires, and Corsairs took over and kept at the job.

The situation clearly shows that RN has its problems (having 4 different planes for fighters, not to mention several different Marks), hangar size, smaller strike capacity, etc, but it certainly did a good job in what it was tasked to do.

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Sea Fury, but then it was late as the US was able to supply a quality Carrier fighter.

No, Sea Fury is out of the contest, because it's an adaptation of land based and designed Tempest

ORIGINAL: warspite1


There is never enough money - as any General, Admiral or Air Marshal will testify [;)]

Were you asking John Boyd and affilates instead you'd get out with billions saved + the F 16

ORIGINAL: Barb

The situation clearly shows that RN has its problems, but it certainly did a good job in what it was tasked to do.

Agreed!

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Sea Fury, but then it was late as the US was able to supply a quality Carrier fighter.

No, Sea Fury is out of the contest, because it's an adaptation of land based and designed Tempest


Who said that you made up the rules??

[rustysi]

But at a time when British attention could have been turned to the shortcomings of the FAA, the need to win the Battle of Britain and to build up bomber command - not to mention the need to re-build an army and build escorts for the Atlantic - meant that more resource was given elsewhere.

No other choice.

[RedLancer]

If you like alt history and want to learn by divergence about the FAA then google 'The Whale has Wings'.