How would you improve the Royal Navy

[dunmunro]

Britain did have hundreds of pilots(officers) at administration jobs that could have been performed by WRAFs but the old social structure still held. .

I have no doubt that many RAF pilots were promoted into administrative jobs, but this doesn't mean they were available for combat flying. Many (probably most) of these officers were overage for flying and many held jobs that could not be performed by non-pilots. Many aspects of intelligence work (debriefing pilots), mission planning, staff work and flight crew training required intimate knowledge of aviation. Some famous pilots: Somerville, Dowding, Park, Leigh-Mallory...were these men available for service as pilots? Was someone who had been flying a desk for years really available for combat? Not likely.

[Djoser]

Geeze Ted, why don't you install phasor banks while you are at it?

That was funny! But hey, this is 'Hypothetical Naval Scenarios', I didn't think his post/recommendations were all that outrageous. Rather there were some good ideas there, and not too far removed from reality for a thread like this one.

The first priority if I were in charge in 1936 with a little hindsight (and this entire thread postulates exactly that), would be to hasten the development of effective naval aircraft. Not to knock the outstanding achievements of the 'Stringbags with Wings', but Swordfish and Fulmars were not the ideal planes to operate off the otherwise formidable British carriers, to say the least.

Second priority, escorts. Boring compared to BBs and heavier cruisers, to be sure--but still, more escorts earlier and the war would have gone a lot more smoothly for the battered Brits. Others more knowledgeable than I have already plotted wiser courses of development, no need to add to it.

I wouldn't scrap the BBs, I'm inclined to side with Peter C. Smith (The Great Ships Pass) to some extent on this one, even if he is clearly a bit biased to the big beautiful behemoths. They were much harder to sink than any other vessels, especially without torpedoes, and they provided some very valuable service. Plus we can talk about hindsight all day and night, in 1936 the Powers That Be would never have gone for the wholesale scrapping of the Battlefleet. In that case you might as well go right ahead and bring in Kirk and the Enterprise to take out the Bismarck, Tirpitz, and the Italian BBs. (Not to be mean and nasty to whoever it was that suggested it--I forget who it was now as I am typing this, it wasn't all that outrageous an idea either--just sayin' lol).

[dunmunro]

The first priority if I were in charge in 1936 with a little hindsight (and this entire thread postulates exactly that), would be to hasten the development of effective naval aircraft. Not to knock the outstanding achievements of the 'Stringbags with Wings', but Swordfish and Fulmars were not the ideal planes to operate off the otherwise formidable British carriers, to say the least.

S

The Swordfish that crippled Bismarck were launched from a carrier into a full gale, under incredibly poor conditions for flying off and on...and then found their target with the aid of airborne radar. When they were introduced the Swordfish, Fulmar and Albacore were highly advanced aircraft that compared favourably with any contemporary aircraft and were well suited to conditions in the North Atlantic. The only real problem was that there was not enough of these aircraft, nor aircraft carriers available during the first few years of the war.

[lwd]

I realized as soon as i sent it that CVs were part of Washington. Sorry.
Since we were using American designators, (BB for battleship) I used CB (as in USS Alaska, CB 1) for battlecruisers.

But the american designator for battlecruiser is BC. CB is for "large cruiser"

Lex and Sara. Giant at the time?
Some contemporaries:
Ryuzyo 548' x 60.5. ' 7,100 tons
Bearn 599' x 89' 22,000 tons
Eagle 667' x 100'. 22,600 tons
Akagi 763' x 92'. 28,100 tons
Ranger 769' x 80'1" 14,500 tons
Furious 786.25' x 89.75'. 19,100 tons
Lex and Sara 888' x 106', 33,000 tons.
Yes. Giant at the time.

Well less tan 25% larger than Akagi and 50% larger than Bearn or Eagle. Not what I'd consider "giaganitc" but it's a rather elastic term. One also has to consider that it was pretty clear that carrier size was important for efficiency and of course tonage isn't necessarily direcdtly correlated with size when combaring conversions to purpose builts or conversions of various types.

.... A Force with a CV and five 8in cruisers should have little to fear from anyone.

That seems a bit extreme. Indeed there are any number of threats I wouldn't want to encounter with that force.

[Djoser]

The first priority if I were in charge in 1936 with a little hindsight (and this entire thread postulates exactly that), would be to hasten the development of effective naval aircraft. Not to knock the outstanding achievements of the 'Stringbags with Wings', but Swordfish and Fulmars were not the ideal planes to operate off the otherwise formidable British carriers, to say the least.

S

The Swordfish that crippled Bismarck were launched from a carrier into a full gale, under incredibly poor conditions for flying off and on...and then found their target with the aid of airborne radar. When they were introduced the Swordfish, Fulmar and Albacore were highly advanced aircraft that compared favourably with any contemporary aircraft and were well suited to conditions in the North Atlantic. The only real problem was that there was not enough of these aircraft, nor aircraft carriers available during the first few years of the war.

I disagree.

The Fulmar was a thoroughly mediocre aircraft. The British naval air arm would have benefited greatly from having a free hand and a better development budget. While the Stringbags performed valiant service and were quite effective against Bismarck and the moored Italian BBs, a better torpedo bomber could have been quite useful in the early years of the war. They were tough, reliable planes and did very well in heavy weather, of course.

I can only imagine how Swordfish and Fulmars would have done against an effective, more advanced naval aircraft ensemble such as the Japanese possessed in 41. Admittedly the Vindicators didn't do so well at Midway either (and the Wildcats had a tough time with the zeros, at first especially), but if we were to allow the US naval air arm a similar, wiser head start in '36, it might not have been such a debacle (and if they had had fighter protection and dive bombers distracting the Japanese fighters and AA).

I'm no aircraft expert, but I have yet to read a single review praising the Fulmar's performance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Fulmar

"Although its performance (like that of its Battle antecedent) was lacking..."

"...high performance or maneuverability was not considered important..."

"With this engine, performance was poor, the prototype only reaching 230 mph (370 km/h). With the Merlin VIII engine - a variant unique to the Fulmar and with supercharging optimised for low-level flight - and aerodynamic improvements, speed was improved to 265 mph (426 km/h) at 7500 ft (2286m)[5][6][7], which, owing to the desperate need for modern fighters, was considered adequate. As a simple derivative of an existing prototype, the Fulmar promised to be available quickly..."

Adequate... Not how I would choose to be described, if I were a carrier aircraft.

[dunmunro]

I disagree.

The Fulmar was a thoroughly mediocre aircraft. The British naval air arm would have benefited greatly from having a free hand and a better development budget. While the Stringbags performed valiant service and were quite effective against Bismarck and the moored Italian BBs, a better torpedo bomber could have been quite useful in the early years of the war. They were tough, reliable planes and did very well in heavy weather, of course.

I can only imagine how Swordfish and Fulmars would have done against an effective, more advanced naval aircraft ensemble such as the Japanese possessed in 41. Admittedly the Vindicators didn't do so well at Midway either (and the Wildcats had a tough time with the zeros, at first especially), but if we were to allow the US naval air arm a similar, wiser head start in '36, it might not have been such a debacle (and if they had had fighter protection and dive bombers distracting the Japanese fighters and AA).

I'm no aircraft expert, but I have yet to read a single review praising the Fulmar's performance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Fulmar

"Although its performance (like that of its Battle antecedent) was lacking..."

"...high performance or maneuverability was not considered important..."

"With this engine, performance was poor, the prototype only reaching 230 mph (370 km/h). With the Merlin VIII engine - a variant unique to the Fulmar and with supercharging optimised for low-level flight - and aerodynamic improvements, speed was improved to 265 mph (426 km/h) at 7500 ft (2286m)[5][6][7], which, owing to the desperate need for modern fighters, was considered adequate. As a simple derivative of an existing prototype, the Fulmar promised to be available quickly..."

Adequate... Not how I would choose to be described, if I were a carrier aircraft.

And what fighters were the IJN and USN flying in Sept 1940, when the Fulmar scored its first carrier based kill? The Fulmar had a maximum speed of 265 mph (the footnotes say that some sources state 280mph) and an armament of 8 x 7.7mm MGs. The A5M4 had a maximum speed of 273 mph and was armed with 2 x 7.7mm MGs, while the F3F had a maximum speed of 264mph and an armament of 1 x 12.7mm and 1 x 7.7mm...everything is relative, and relatively speaking the Fulmar was easily the most powerful carrier based fighter in the world when it was introduced. The Fulmar also had folding wings where the other two had fixed wings. If the RN had had a 100 Fulmars based in Egypt in May 1941, the RN could have defeated the Invasion of Crete, since the Fulmar had the range to provide fighter cover over Crete. The Swordfish was being phased out in favour of the Albacore by late 1941 while the Sea Hurricane supplemented the Fulmar as a fleet fighter. The performance of the USN's Devastator torpedo bomber was actually inferior to the Albacore in every metric except maximum speed, and of course the Albacore had radar unlike the Devastator or the IJN's B5N. The Swordfish and Albacore also had excellent STOL characteristics and were well suited to the RN's mix of carriers. It simply wasn't possible to build a better TB than the Swordfish/Albacore, outfit it with radar,and still give the resulting aircraft the STOL ability needed using the engine technology available in 1940.

[Djoser]

And what fighters were the IJN and USN flying in Sept 1940, when the Fulmar scored its first carrier based kill?

"On 13 September 1940, the Zeros scored their first air-to-air victories when 13 A6M2s led by Lieutenant Saburo Shindo attacked 27 Soviet-built Polikarpov I-15s and I-16s of the Chinese Nationalist Air Force, shooting down all the fighters for no losses."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_%28aircraft%29

They weren't flying from carriers yet, but a few short months later they were, and by the time hostilities broke out between Great Britain and Japan (i.e. when the British could have used something to fight back with), there were 420 zeros, a force so much more powerful than anything Great Britain had in the way of carrier-based fighters, as to make any contest a joke. Given the desire of Great Britain to maintain some kind of competitive status as a major sea power, this was not a good situation to be in. Had the Royal Navy air branch been given any sort of real power and funding to develop itself in the inter war period, the situation would not have been so dismal.

...everything is relative, and relatively speaking the Fulmar was easily the most powerful carrier based fighter in the world when it was introduced. The Fulmar also had folding wings where the other two had fixed wings.

Relatively speaking, the Royal Navy air branch was stifled and held back during the inter war period. The Fulmar may have been the most powerful carrier based fighter when it was introduced (for a few months), but when it was needed to fight the zeros a short time later it was--relatively speaking--a piece of garbage. The zeros were quickly given folding wings, as were the USN's aircraft, within a few months of the Fulmar's appearance. I think you are granting the British aircraft an advantage it most certainly didn't have during the majority of its active service life, due to its being introduced on carriers a few months before the corresponding Japanese 'latest model' being developed at the same time, and introduced into service at the same time, was introduced on carriers. Now if the Royal Navy had developed the Supermarine Seafire in a more timely fashion, you'd have a valid point!

If the RN had had a 100 Fulmars based in Egypt in May 1941, the RN could have defeated the Invasion of Crete, since the Fulmar had the range to provide fighter cover over Crete.

But they didn't have 100 Fulmars in Egypt. Probably due as much to the fact that the Royal Navy air branch was stifled during the interwar period, as any other cause.

Which was the main point I was trying to make, as opposed to debating the dubious merits of a relatively mediocre aircraft which held a dubious, very temporary advantage over potential opponents for all of a few short months.

It simply wasn't possible to build a better TB than the Swordfish/Albacore, outfit it with radar,and still give the resulting aircraft the STOL ability needed using the engine technology available in 1940.

But if the engine technology had been fostered by wiser heads during the interwar period, recognizing the need for a more powerful naval air arm, there could well have been better aircraft available.


"The Navy had lost control of naval aviation when the Royal Naval Air Service was merged with the Royal Flying Corps to form the Royal Air Force in 1918, but regained it with the establishment of the Fleet Air Arm in 1937. However, the effectiveness of its aircraft lagged far behind its rivals and around this time the Imperial Japanese Navy and the United States Navy began to surpass the Royal Navy in power. [bold print added by Djoser]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_navy

Not that wilkpedia is the ultimate authority on the subject, but this point has been made time and time again by innumerable authorities on naval history. If in 1936 there had been the equivalent of a Jacky Fisher in charge of naval aviation, making up for all the lost time, the Royal Navy might have performed a lot better in WW II than it did (not to say it performed badly, far from it--I am a great admirer of the Royal Navy, despite its having had lousy carrier aircraft when it needed good ones).

[dunmunro]

The Topic of this thread is: How would you improve the Royal Navy

The problem faced by the FAA was not inadequate aircraft, but simply not enough of the aircraft that were already in production.

The Zero received folding wing tips and never had folding wings, nor armour nor SS tanks. It was actually a very mediocre aircraft that only seemed fearsome because it was fighting against 2nd line western aircraft.

On 13 September 1940, the Zeros scored their first air-to-air victories when 13 A6M2s led by Lieutenant Saburo Shindo attacked 27 Soviet-built Polikarpov I-15s and I-16s of the Chinese Nationalist Air Force, shooting down all the fighters for no losses."*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_%28aircraft%29

They weren't flying from carriers yet, but a few short months later they were, and by the time hostilities broke out between Great Britain and Japan (i.e. when the British could have used something to fight back with), there were 420 zeros, a force so much more powerful than anything Great Britain had in the way of carrier-based fighters, as to make any contest a joke. Given the desire of Breat Britain to maintain some kind of competitive status as a major sea power, this was not a good situation to be in. Had the Royal Navy air branch been given any sort of real power and funding to develop itself in the inter war period, the situation would not have been so dismal.

Zero's appeared in IJN CVs just about the same time that the Sea Hurricane appeared aboard RN CVs. You seem to forget that the RN was fighting a two ocean war from Sept 1939 and had lost 3 x 30 knot fleet carriers and their aircraft by Dec 07 1941, and that it was the BofB that caused the FAA to lag in total aircraft acquisitions and aircraft development. With no war in the west the FAA would have have 10 carriers in service including 8 x 30 knot fleet carriers and about 350-400 embarked aircraft, by Dec 07 1941. The FAA had a number of advanced designs in the works by Dec 07 1941 but production and design was delayed by about a year or more due to the outbreak of war, Fall of France, BofB and the war in the west. The Fairey Barracuda was delayed for nearly two years due to the cancellation of the RR Exe, for example, while the Firefly suffered similar delays.



* 13 aircraft shooting down 27 for no loss...somewhat unlikely.

[dunmunro]

The Fairey Barracuda first flew on Dec 07 1940, exactly 9 months before the Grumman Avenger's first flight on Aug 07 1941, while the Fairey Firefly prototype first flew on Dec 22 1941, 7 months before the first flight of the Grumman F6F on June 26 1942, and both aircraft would probably have flown at least a year sooner except for the disruption caused by the war in Europe. Britain, faced with possible invasion simply couldn't spare the resources to develop FAA aircraft in a more timely fashion, and this had exactly NOTHING to do with the prewar status of the FAA. By Dec 31 1941 Grumman had only built about 400 F4Fs and Martlets which was rather less than the combined production for the Sea Hurricane and Fulmar (about 700 or so). The idea that the FAA was behind in terms of quantity or quality to Dec 07/41 is simply wrong, but this gets lost from sight because the FAA was simply so heavily engaged and so badly damaged prior to Dec 07/41. To improve things the best solution would have been to have cancelled the Blackburn Roc and built more Skuas, while Hawker should have been given a contract to produce a navalized Hurricane sooner, along with the Fulmar being given a higher production priority along with the Albacore, especially Albacore engine development. Of course not having 3 30 knot carriers sink prior to Japan entering the war would have also helped things enormously, and if Glorious and Courageous had survived longer, the Taranto raid would have been made with about 70 Swordfish instead of 22, and the RM battlefleet would have been nearly wiped out, while Somerville would probably have had 5 CVs instead of 2 under his command when he tried to stop the KB in April 1942. With more aircraft available it is possible that the FAA would have adopted USN style deck parks sooner with a consequent increase in aircraft complements.

[Djoser]

The Topic of this thread is: How would you improve the Royal Navy

Whoops! My mistake, I thought the topic was how Captain Kirk could have used his phasor banks to destroy the Japanese navy.

The problem faced by the FAA was not inadequate aircraft, but simply not enough of the aircraft that were already in production.

The problem faced by the FAA was the fact that there was no FAA until 1937. Had there been a well funded, fully supported FAA at an earlier date, the Royal Navy would no doubt have had a much easier time of it; would have had better aircraft, and more of them. And could likely have had aircraft described in other terms than merely 'adequate', 'lacking in performance', etc.

The Zero received folding wing tips and never had folding wings, nor armour nor SS tanks. It was actually a very mediocre aircraft that only seemed fearsome because it was fighting against 2nd line western aircraft.

The zero's wings folded at the ends, enabling them to fit easily on the carriers they were designed to fly off, with a length of 29' and wingspan of 39' as opposed to the Fulmars' length of 40' (which of course, cannot be folded at all) and wingspan of 46'. They were extremely maneuverable, compact aircraft, and certainly more than a match for Fulmars. We can argue all day as to whether wings folding at the tips are folding or not, but I suspect that would be a colossal (if possibly enjoyable) waste of time and effort.

You seem to forget that the RN was fighting a two ocean war from Sept 1939...

Sorry, I do seem to have forgotten that the British and the Japanese were at war in Sept 1939, instead of more than two years later.

...and that it was the BofB that caused the FAA to lag in total aircraft acquisitions and aircraft development.

You may feel that the lack of any sort of FAA at all before 1937 wasn't a problem for its subsequent use in the biggest war in history, starting merely two years later. And that this had no effect whatsoever on the development and acquisition of enough high quality aircraft when that war presented the Royal Navy with possibly its greatest challenge. I cannot agree. Many qualified naval historians apparently also tend to feel it was a bit of a problem.

With no war in the west the FAA would have have 10 carriers in service including 8 x 30 knot fleet carriers and about 350-400 embarked aircraft, by Dec 07 1941.

It would be interesting to see how well this force of 10 carriers, with 350-400 Swordfish and Fulmars, would have fared against the Japanese Pearl strike force of 6 carriers and 353 (mediocre) zeros, Judys, and Kates. I think I would choose to fly a 'mediocre' zero, rather than an 'adequate' Fulmar, thank you!

* 13 aircraft shooting down 27 for no loss...somewhat unlikely.

Certainly no less likely than inflated Allied claims for aircraft shot down, throughout the war. Again, I'll choose to fly the zero, rather than the Chinese aircraft, thanks!

[lwd]

... The Zero received folding wing tips and never had folding wings, nor armour nor SS tanks. It was actually a very mediocre aircraft that only seemed fearsome because it was fighting against 2nd line western aircraft.....

I take issue with several parts of this. First and foremost that the Zero was a "very mediocre" plane. It had it's flaws but it also had several very important virtues range and endurance being among the most important. It was also quite maneuverable. If you want a carrier based fighter it was certainly far supperoir to the Me109. As for 2nd line western aircraft I wouldn't call the F4F or later the F6F or F4U and such 2nd line by any means.
As for the RN if they had control of their own aircraft development and the budget to buy what they needed then I suspect they would have been in better shape. A serious question though is what do they have to give up to pay for it? Or do we assume that they can take it out of other military and/or civilian budgetary items?

[Djoser]

Britain, faced with possible invasion simply couldn't spare the resources to develop FAA aircraft in a more timely fashion, and this had exactly NOTHING to do with the prewar status of the FAA...

NOTHING???

Again we have this curious notion you are apparently espousing, with firm resolve, that the FAA would have been not one tiny bit better had it been fully supported and financed (or barring that, maybe in existence at all), during the inter war period. According to Spock (as well as many qualified naval historians), "This is not logical."

By Dec 31 1941 Grumman had only built about 400 F4Fs and Martlets which was rather less than the combined production for the Sea Hurricane and Fulmar...

Well the fact that the USA wasn't at war until 24 days before that date might have had something to do with it. As well as the fact that the USA was devoting a very large proportion of its military/industrial productive capacity to supplying the embattled British Empire with munitions. Furthermore, I'll take 200 F4Fs over 350 Fulmars on my carriers, anyday.

The idea that the FAA was behind in terms of quantity or quality to Dec 07/41 is simply wrong...

While I have the utmost respect for your intelligence and integrity (and I am rather enjoying this little repartee, actually ), the idea that the FAA certainly suffered from its nonexistence prior to 1937--the point I have been trying to make--is simply...correct.

To improve things the best solution would have been to have cancelled the Blackburn Roc and built more Skuas, while Hawker should have been given a contract to produce a navalized Hurricane sooner, along with the Fulmar being given a higher production priority...

To improve things in 1936 (the topic of this thread, or was it the phasor banks? ), the best thing to have done was not to build more Skuas, Hurricanes, and Fulmars in 1940, but to have taken immediate and drastic action to compensate for the lack of the FAA prior to that time, and to push for the development of superior, as opposed to merely adequate aircraft, in greater quantities. A daunting task, I admit. But one the likes of a Jacky Fisher could probably have pulled off with some success.

[José M. Rico]

dunmunro, if the Fulmars were such fine carrier borne planes, I was wondering why were you suggesting the introduction of Sea Hurricanes in 1939 with folding wings on the first page of this thread?

[dunmunro]

The problem faced by the FAA was the fact that there was no FAA until 1937. Had there been a well funded, fully supported FAA at an earlier date, the Royal Navy would no doubt have had a much easier time of it; would have had better aircraft, and more of them. And could likely have had aircraft described in other terms than merely 'adequate', 'lacking in performance', etc.

You keep saying this, but refuse to provide any concrete data as to exactly how the FAA could have obtained better aircraft than it had or even how the FAA's aircraft were deficient. There was nothing wrong with the FAA's aircraft other than the fact that they were in a shooting war from Sept 1939, and the IJN and USN wasn't, and the War in Europe caused a lot of attrition to the FAA which prevented it from growing in strength, when the IJN and USN were free to expand without losing aircrew, aircraft and aircraft carriers from over two years of intensive combat. The FAA's aircraft were the product of available technology, and Britain's aircraft technology led the world in most aspects. All the aircraft that the FAA had in service in 1939 were built to FAA design specs.
In pre-radar days long distance navigation was an extremely difficult task. The requirement for a long range twin seat SE fighter, for example, was a logical expression of pre-radar navigation requirements and the fact that the resulting fighters (the Skua and then Fulmar and Firefly) would also be tasked with acting as a recon aircraft (requiring long range radio gear and a radio operator who could transmit in Morse code) and a strike bomber. The only problem with the Skua and Fulmar was that there was never enough of them, but this lack of numbers and production and design priority was a by-product of the fact that Britain's greatest threat was the Luftwaffe and German Army sitting twenty miles away, across the English channel. I suspect that if Japan was being bombed daily from an airforce sitting on the Asian Mainland, that the IJNAF would have received a relatively lower production and design priority than it historically had, ditto for the USN.

The best way to test FAA aircraft capability is too imagine them being used by the USN or IJN in lieu of what they historically had during the Battle of Midway, for example. If the USN was equipped with Sea Hurricanes, Albacores and Fulmars could they have defeated the IJN at Midway? It seems very likely that they could have, and in fact would have probably done rather better than historically: The USN had about 225 aircraft on three carriers at Midway. If we give these carriers say a mix of 75 Sea Hurricanes and Fulmars and 150 Albacores does this degrade the USN's capability at Midway? The Albacore was fully capable of operating as a pure dive bomber and unlike the Dauntless also had a radar search capability, with which to find the IJN. It seems likely that flying the exact same mission profiles that more Albacore DBs would have found the KB and then sank all four carriers in the first strike wave, while the Albacore TBs would have suffered a similar fate to the Devastators, with the exception that they would have been dropping a much superior torpedo.

[dunmunro]

dunmunro, if the Fulmars were such fine carrier borne planes, I was wondering why were you suggesting the introduction of Sea Hurricanes in 1939 with folding wings on the first page of this thread?

The Sea Hurricane could and did act as a point defence fighter, and the development of a navalized Hurricane was probably possible sooner than historically occurred, but the Hurricane was not capable of taking over all the Fulmar's task set, especially in the area of long range recon and long range fighter support. Fulmars flew recon/escort missions during the hunt for the Bismarck, for example, that the Sea Hurricane was not capable of doing. But again, imagine the FAA having large numbers of Fulmars available during the German invasions of Norway and Crete...the biggest problem with the Fulmar was that there simply wasn't enough of them.