Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "Audacious class - Guide 245" video.

  1. Not only was Ark scrapped, Bulwark suffered fires in her hangar (November 1980) and boiler room (March 1980). Damage from neither was repaired, and she decommissioned March 27th of 81. The Argies invaded the Falklands on April 2.
    25
  2. I would dispute the characterization of the Essex class as "non-treaty restricted" ships. The treaty limit for carriers through Washington and First London was 27,000 tons. The Essex, according to Wiki, came in at a standard displacement of 27,100 (close enough). I submit that Essex was based on a design the USN had been developing through the 30s as a treaty-max concept, that had been shelved when Second London reduced carrier tonnage to 23,000, then quickly dusted off and updated when the treaty system collapsed and Congress authorized two new carriers. I would say the Audacious class is closer to a Midway in being a completely post-treaty, clean-sheet, design.
    22
  3.  @shawnc5188  the Gannet is the major difference. With airborne AEW, they would have had more advance warning of inbound strikes. iirc, Sheffield was on radar picket duty, due to the lack of AEW, when she was hit. Tristram and Galahad might not have been caught flat-footed either.
    12
  4.  @TheJuggtron  you are talking about the battlecruiser? The WNT included ships owned by commonwealth navies in the RN's total. The "British Empire" delegation included representatives from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India. So, if Australia retained it's battlecruiser, something else from RN inventory would need to be disposed of.
    2
  5.  @TheJuggtron  I read a book about the Washington conference last winter, but I was more focused on the US and UK activities. iirc, the Australian member had some input into the decision making, but I don't recall what that was specifically. A bit of background: Australia became independent of the UK in 1901. New Zealand declined to join the Australian federation, so became a dominion of the UK in 1907: self-rule for internal affairs, but foreign affairs directed by the UK. While Australia formed the RAN, a division of the RN was assigned to defend New Zealand, largely funded by Wellington and increasingly manned by Kiwis. There was no formal New Zealand navy until 1941. Australia's GDP, hence it's ability to fund a navy, was about 5% of that of the UK. New Zealand's GDP was about 20% of Australia's. Australia had funded and operated a battlecruiser. New Zealand funded the construction of a battlecruiser, then gifted it to the RN. By the time of the WNT, both of those battlecruisers were nearly ten years old, with an entire war's worth of hard running. I don't think either country would want a badly worn, obsolete, coal-fired, battlecusier. How about the UK expressing it's gratitude for the gift of HMS New Zealand and the contributions during the war of HMAS Australia, by gifting Courageous and Glorious to the two countries? Nearly new, oil fired, state of the art weaponry. If Australia did take on both Courageouses, they probably never would have bought the two County class cruisers. If the Kiwis had a Courageous, they probably could not afford any other cruisers of any description. Of course, the other fly is the Courageouses were too big for the Sutherland drydock at Cockatoo Island, the dock being 210 meters long and the ships 240 meters. The RN would have to gift the Aussies a floating drydock too.
    2
  6.  @athena139c  The terms of the Washington Naval Treaty said that carriers built or building at the time of the treaty, I think they used a date in November of 1921 as the cutoff, were to be regarded as "experimental", not subject to the replacement schedule, hence could be replaced at any time. Langley, Argus. Eagle, and Hermes were all laid down/converted before that date. Ranger, being laid down well after that date did not qualify as "experimental", so could not be replaced until it was twenty years old. Langley was redefined as a seaplane tender, to release tonnage for Wasp. The Admiralty could have scrapped or redefined it's three oldest carriers to release tonnage for two more Ark Royals, but, presumably, did not have the money in the mid 30s to build more new carriers. When Yorktown and Enterprise were built, the Navy did have some extra tonnage available, including that released by conversion of Langley, the 15,000 odd tons that went into Wasp. With the Yorktowns at 20,000. that remaining tonnage could have been used to build the Yorktowns at the treaty maximum of 27,000. but the Navy's concern was having all their tonnage quota used by so few hulls.
    1