Talk:CVA-01

The image shows an interesting deck layout: it appears there is a usable area on either side of the island. I think a discussion of the layout is needed! Maury 22:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The deck area on the outboard side of the island was to allow aircraft to taxi along the ship without taking up flight deck space while aircraft were taking-off and landing-on. One of the consultants on the deck design was Eric "Winkle" Brown, he mentions it in his book Wings On My Sleeve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.250.58 (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why was there a "stigma" attached to carriers? Bastie 09:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The Government of the time didnt want to spend alot of money on defence and concentrated on domestic matters. Read the 1966 white paper they cancelled the TSR as well which was one of the worst aviation mistakes ever. The cost was a major reason the word "carrier" says expensive really but "through deck curiser" says some sort of technological breakthrough when in fact it means "anti submarine Carrier". Thats why i think the royal navy's "future surface combatant" was cancelled but basically the same day they started a new project called "medium vessal derivative" with the same team.

The term "Through-Deck Cruiser" was an entirely political expedient, to avoid the embarrassment to government of admitting to a carrier-building programme soon after declaring that no more carriers were to be built.

The origins of the "through deck cruiser" design lay in a Naval Staff study of 1960 now declassified in the National Archives. ADM 205/193 ADM 1/27685 DEFE 4/142/5 The study was tasked with increasing the size of strike aircraft groups on the then existing smallish strike carriers. The study concluded that the operating tactics of the carrier's own embarked ASW dunking-sonar helicopters were incompatible with those required for efficient operation of strike aircraft and would be best used if located on another vessel in company with the strike carrier. A cruiser-sized vessel was best suited as it could accommodate approx 12 large helicopters. The study referred to these vessels as Escort Cruisers, and these were seen as an addition to the fleet, not as a replacement for carriers. The space freed by relocation of the helicopters was then available for a larger and more efficient strike air group.

The Type-82 area-air-defence destroyers proposed for the strike-carrier fleet would be in company with the ASW escort cruiser and strike carrier and therefore did not need its own ASW capability, a flight deck or helicopter, and could be configured most efficiently for air defence roles. As an interim measure, the old Tiger class gun cruisers were converted to carry large ASW helicopters and used in the escort cruiser role. These converted Tiger class ships were the true ancestors of the Through-Deck-Cruisers.

Only after the cancellation of CVA-01 did the possibilities of enlarging the Escort Cruisers to take Harriers begin to surface.

George.Hutchinson (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CVA-01 (2nd).jpg

Image:CVA-01 (2nd).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Woodym555 20:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

WAS CVAO1 EVER A VIABLE PROJECT

(1) Only one CVAO1 was ever provisionally approved, in 1964 by the Douglas Home Conservative Government. The CDS Earl Mountbatten claimed the CVA01 class and 1-5 carriers were approved, but no more than one was and Mountbatten was notorious among the other Defence Chiefs for claiming government and committee approval for his plans, which existed only in his mind. As the 1950's Army head, General Templer said, 'Dickie your so bent, if you swallowed a corkscrew, it would come out bent.' (2) Even if the conservatives had held on to office it is doubtful if it would have been built. In 1964 one of the Conservative service ministers, Lord Carrington, told the Navy that a 42,000 ton carrier was about the limit and their remain issues as to whether the CVA01 design was ever finalized or buildable. It simply seems too large for UK naval facilities and their other design issues,such as the steam propulsion, perceived as required for catapults. Nuclear propulsion being rejected on account of cost, servicing req, political issues of port access and disposal and destruction of the life expired hull. (3) It is not credible that a 42,000 ton carrier would be limited to 27 aircraft-say 4 Gannet, 5 Sea King , 8 Buccaneer and 10 F-4 Phantom. In 1970 Hermes on 25,000 ton displacement had an air group of 25 in the North Atlantic: 12 Vixen, 8 Buccaneer and 4 helicopters. It is relevant to note that the original Invincible in 1982 configuration had an air group of 18 - but after the rather solid Chinese walls had been removed and the officers bathrooms reduced from the size of staterooms, air capacity was increased to 27 Sea king and Harriers. The CVA01 designs were intended to incorporate both Ikara and Sea Dart Missile system,but long range a/a missiles were space consuming on a conventional carrier and T82 Sea Dart escorts or USN Cruisers were more suitable for group a/a. (4) The intention was the mid 1970s Navy would consist of Hermes , Eagle and CVA0l which seems to be a poorly balanced force. Test were made flying the F-4 Phantom of Hermes in 1970 ,but it was clearly too small. How much longer than Ark Royal, the Eagle could have remained viable for remains debatable. The cost of refitting Eagle in 72-4 would obviously have exceeded 40 million pounds and it had apparently suffered significant damage in running aground in 1971. It remains doubtful if Eagle could have been extended beyond the span of life of Ark Royal and Bulwark although it might have been more viable in 1977-80 in terms of operational reliability. To be useful, reconstructing the Eagle and Hermes to last till the end of the Cold war with 3D Broomstick radar to replace 984 would have cost as much as the 3 Invincible light carriers as the Eagle would have required new turbines, boilers and electrics. (5) The most challenging role for the 2nd generation RN carrier fleet was the Indonesian confrontation and it was immensely difficult to keep one of the two carriers available, fully operational and ready to offer conventional and nuclear deterrence. The Admirals who commanded the Far East fleet at this time Peter Hill Norton and Frank Twiss believed a viable RN carrier force was unsustainable and to continue as planned with CVA01 and the Hermes and Eagle in the 1970s would have been a disaster. Later Twiss as Second Sea Lord and Hill Norton as First, powerfully backed the Invincible class thru deck cruisers, which in the words of the First Lord in 1970 Le Fanu was only approved after a massive fight, against all odds,121.99.34.140 (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC) by Labour in 1970 and the Conservatives in 1971,most of the Admirals believing it offered no real capability and was not worth building. RFM-Auck

Well they would have come in very-handy in 1982. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.173 (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Any point to the Future Carrier section?

Is there any real point to the whole section, given that the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier has it's own article? Obviously the impact of the cancellation needs to be covered, but that shouldn't take more than a single paragraph, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CVA-01. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121107082608/http://navy-matters.beedall.com:80/cva01.htm to http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cva01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on CVA-01. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070915094338/http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/britain/british-carriers.html to http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/britain/british-carriers.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cva01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060307092333/http://www.ijnhonline.org/volume1_number1_Apr02/article_speller_amphibious_royalnavy.doc.htm to http://www.ijnhonline.org/volume1_number1_Apr02/article_speller_amphibious_royalnavy.doc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Names

The article asserts that "Had CVA-01 class been built, it is likely they would have been named HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Duke of Edinburgh, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Princess Royal respectively." The cited source, however, only mentions Queen Elizabeth and Duke of Edinburgh as likely names for the first two ships, and makes no mentions of prospective third and fourth ships, let alone what they might have bene named. — Red XIV ^(talk) 01:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)