Ark Royal in the Falklands

[Gunnarnz]

Having recently seen footage of RN Phantoms and Buccaneers flying off the HMS Ark Royal, it occurred to me to wonder what could have kept her in service long enough to go south for Operation Corporate. Looking at some of the previous threads on the board that have dealt with similar subjects, it seems plain that her air group would have been a significant advantage in the operation. However it would also have been an expensive business to refit her yet again in the late 70's.

So there are two main questions:
1) What sacrifices would the RN have to make in order to keep Ark Royal in service long enough to see action in the Falklands War?
2) Given the sacrifices in 1), what effect would the presence of the carrier and her air group have on the conduct of the war?

[Some Bloke]

I think Eagle would be a better bet. People thought it was a mistake to decomission her first as she was in a much better condition than the Ark. A refit would probably have been cheaper too.

[The Oncoming Storm]

The problem was Ark Royal was in a very poor condition near the end of her life. As the RN's only carrier she had been worked hard and it was a tribute to her crew that she lasted so long. Under the original plan for CVA-01, Ark was scheduled to be retired in 1979-80 and replaced by CVA-02 (HMS Duke of Edinburgh?) while her sister Eagle would have served into the 1980's. Eagle was the more reliable ship (Ark had such a poor reliability record earlier in her life that she was dubbed "Park Royal") the fact that it was Ark that got the full Phantom capability probably tells you about how quickly Denis Healey wanted to get the RN out of the carrier game.

So it would be Eagle that would have the best chance of being around for Corporate, it would have given the RN a huge boost in capability, the Phantoms could have used their Sparrows to take out Argentinean fighters at distance while the Buccaneers would have provided a much more capable attack force and crucially the Gannets would have closed the RN's vulnerability to Exocets.

[Gunnarnz]

Eagle sounds like a better bet for the role, given a hasty googling. So what would have been needed to keep her around and refitted instead of Ark Royal? Does it really all boil down to Denis Healey?

[Riain]

1964 Eagle comes out of 4 year rebuild.
1966 CVA01 cancelled, Centaur sold to RAN, proceeds go toward Ark rebuild.
1967 Ark goes in for 4 year rebuild.
1972 Hermes is sold to Australia as strike carrier, proceeds go toward Ark rebuild and major refit on Eagle.
1982 Agentina invades Falklands on 25 May, weather too rough to operated Eagle and Ark`s aircraft. Over winter months invasion is accepted as fiat accompli, no task force is sent south in spring.
1983 useless Ark and Eagle scrapped without replacement.

[Riain]

No sorry.
1982 Ark CBG detaches from Exercise Springtrain 82 and steams south. More aircraft join Ark off Ascension Island, now 16 Phantom, 18 Buccaneer, 5 Gannet AEW.
Arks CAG kicks the shit out of everything until the rest of the task force catches up.

[Peg Leg Pom]

With the Ark Royal or the Eagle in service never mind both the Argentinians would not have invaded the Falklands. They only did it because John Notts hatchet job on the Fleet made them think Britain couldn't do anything but protest, and didn't really care.

[JN1]

Actually I think they still would have if the RN had half a dozen US style CVNs. It was a case that they believed that the UK lacked the will to fight for the islands, something that sucessive governments had given the impression of.

Now while it is fashionable to castigate Nott for the review (and I'm not defending him here) he was acting on advice given to him and the review was approved by Thatcher. What is interesting is that post-review the RN and RM persuaded Nott to reprieve the LPDs after giving him a demonstration onboard HMS Fearless.

It would be interesting to study on how many days the Ark, or Eagle would not have been able to operate aircraft in April and May '82. Not long before the war HMS Invincible had demonstrated off the coast of Norway that she could continue to operate Sea Harriers in weather that kept USN aircraft grounded.

[Arachnid]

The Argies were nuts and invaded because they thought Britain couldn't intervene but I think you've got the train of thought wrong.

Britain doesn't have proper carriers>Britain is withdrawing from the South Atlantic>Britain doesn't care about the Falklands>We can invade because Britain doesn't care and if they did they couldn't do anything.

If the RN still had a fleet carrier the whole train of thought would have been stopped at the first stage.

[StevoJH]

The Argies were nuts and invaded because they thought Britain couldn't intervene but I think you've got the train of thought wrong.

Britain doesn't have proper carriers>Britain is withdrawing from the South Atlantic>Britain doesn't care about the Falklands>We can invade because Britain doesn't care and if they did they couldn't do anything.

If the RN still had a fleet carrier the whole train of thought would have been stopped at the first stage.

What forces the UK has available doesnt matter if the Argentines don't think they will try retake the island.

Given an identical political situation, i'd still give better then 50% odds that they would invade.

[Peg Leg Pom]

They didn't in 1978 when Callahan let them know we had SSNs in the south Atlantic. Everything in 1982 suggested Britain not only couldn't fight for the islands but wouldn't even if we could. In fact there were so many indications given to that effect that it was suggested that the whole thing was a deliberate ploy to bolster the Tories flagging support in time for the next election. It's almost certainly not true but thats what some suggested.

[Gunnarnz]

That fits with what's been said in previous threads on the subject here - the Argentinians didn't think the British would fight for the islands, so the British inventory is irrelevant. After all the Brits were a nuclear power back then as well, and that didn't deter the invasion.
I've also seen speculation that the whole "the British can't/won't do anything about it" may have been something of an ex post facto justification by the Galtieri government. The idea is that they needed some kind of stunt to distract people from other concerns and fixed on the idea of taking the Falklands, justifying it after the decision by saying "the British won't fight for the islands and they couldn't do anything anyway".

Under these circumstances I can't see that the presence of Eagle in the RN would stop the invasion, if the will to send her south is presumed to be absent. However, the expense of keeping her in service might force cuts elsewhere. Is it possible one - or more - of the Invincible-class carriers might not have been built?

[Hyperion]

That fits with what's been said in previous threads on the subject here - the Argentinians didn't think the British would fight for the islands, so the British inventory is irrelevant. After all the Brits were a nuclear power back then as well, and that didn't deter the invasion.
I've also seen speculation that the whole "the British can't/won't do anything about it" may have been something of an ex post facto justification by the Galtieri government. The idea is that they needed some kind of stunt to distract people from other concerns and fixed on the idea of taking the Falklands, justifying it after the decision by saying "the British won't fight for the islands and they couldn't do anything anyway".

Under these circumstances I can't see that the presence of Eagle in the RN would stop the invasion, if the will to send her south is presumed to be absent. However, the expense of keeping her in service might force cuts elsewhere. Is it possible one - or more - of the Invincible-class carriers might not have been built?

As mentioned earlier, when the Argies thought the British would fight in the 1970s, they backed down, and at the time the Royal Navy wasn't as gutted.

Had Ark and Eagle one or both still been in operational service at the time, I strongly doubt the Argies would have gone in.

With long range stroke aircraft like the F-4, it goes way beyond being able to bomb the tar out of the Argentine Air Force. F-4 aircraft, given their range and the amount of ordnance they can carry, could have conducted strikes on the Argentine mainland, even if restricted to purely military targets.

Though that would likely at some point have moved to somewhat mixed targets, ie oil storage, possibly taking out some road or rail bridges near or around Argentine military bases.

[Riain]

The Argies were nuts and invaded because they thought Britain couldn't intervene but I think you've got the train of thought wrong.

Britain doesn't have proper carriers>Britain is withdrawing from the South Atlantic>Britain doesn't care about the Falklands>We can invade because Britain doesn't care and if they did they couldn't do anything.

If the RN still had a fleet carrier the whole train of thought would have been stopped at the first stage.

I`d change the order if not the points; Britain is withdrawing from the South Atlantic>Britain doesn't care about the Falklands>Britain doesn't have proper carriers>We can invade because Britain doesn't care and if they did they couldn't do anything.

But with the Ark and Eagle in service the first two points could still well be true, the third point could be `British carriers won`t work in the southern winter` and therefore the fourth point remains.

[juanml82]

One of the reasons why Galtieri and Anaya thought that Britain wouldn't fight, besides both of them being complete idiots, was because they thought Britain couldn't fight. Change the "couldn't" for a "certainly can" and the "wouldn't" goes away.
Now, Anaya might choose to team up with a more assertive general to coup Viola and retake the islands anyway. However, IITL that would have to be a far more prepared operation, with better equipped and trained armed forces. The HMS Eagle air group would still have too much of an edge on the Argentine Air Force - the USA was not going to sell Sparrow missiles to a Latin American country and there was no way to get comparable Soviet equipment.

[Riain]

As mentioned earlier, when the Argies thought the British would fight in the 1970s, they backed down, and at the time the Royal Navy wasn't as gutted.

Had Ark and Eagle one or both still been in operational service at the time, I strongly doubt the Argies would have gone in.

With long range stroke aircraft like the F-4, it goes way beyond being able to bomb the tar out of the Argentine Air Force. F-4 aircraft, given their range and the amount of ordnance they can carry, could have conducted strikes on the Argentine mainland, even if restricted to purely military targets.

Though that would likely at some point have moved to somewhat mixed targets, ie oil storage, possibly taking out some road or rail bridges near or around Argentine military bases.

I think that with Ark or Eagle around the British could/would keep the war both more limited and fight it more completely. The RN could station a T64 combo/Gannet AEW/Phantom CAP (buddy refuelled by Buccaneers) to the west of the islands and shoot down large numbers of Arg aircraft over the sea and make others turn back. Behind this defensive cordon the Buccaneers could conduct a thorough bombing campaign at leisure to write down Arg assets on the islands, nothing would be out of reach of the Buccs.

If Britain went after the mainland they`d look like a bullyboy arsehole. It`s the reason they didn`t do it IOTL.

[Hyperion]

I`d change the order if not the points; Britain is withdrawing from the South Atlantic>Britain doesn't care about the Falklands>Britain doesn't have proper carriers>We can invade because Britain doesn't care and if they did they couldn't do anything.

But with the Ark and Eagle in service the first two points could still well be true, the third point could be `British carriers won`t work in the southern winter` and therefore the fourth point remains.

You do of course have evidence that a carrier can not operate in the South Atlantic.

Or are you trolling?

[Riain]

You do of course have evidence that a carrier can not operate in the South Atlantic.

Or are you trolling?

Yes I`m trolling. Or perhaps I thought it was common knowledge that conventional carriers cannot operate their aircraft when the ship is pitching beyond certain limits. JMN1 bought this up in post #8, and I`d read it a lot of times. Harriers get around this limitation by hovering over the middle of the ship where the pitching moment is least and then drop vertically onto the deck.

British planning for OTL Op Corporate was based on the assumption that the war would have to be well and truly won by the end of June, preferably weeks before then, otherwise the southern winter would make operations too difficult. As it was in late May early June the weather was terrible and caused a considerable limitation of the Argies flying in particular.

[sharlin]

The seas were rough yes but not so bad as to hugely effect sea launches, the Eagle and Ark are both considerably bigger than the Hermes and Invincible and that extra size helps them deal with rough weather. Hell when the Argie carrier tried to lauch there was so little wind and the sea was so smooth she could not get up enough speed + windspeed to safely launch her aircraft and gave up.

[Peg Leg Pom]

You are assuming that Ark Royal or Eagle would be the only carrier in the British Fleet. Even if the Invincible class are delayed there's still Hermes and potentially Bulwark. I think that given the age of the conventional carrier it is likely that if the Invincible was delayed Bulwark would have been repaired after the boiler room fire to be sure of having an anti submarine platform until the Invincible and Illustrious are ready. Even if not fitted with a ski ramp Bulwark could operate Harriers just as well as Hermes. The fleet heading south would consist of one aged conventional carrier and two slightly less aged Harrier Carriers.

A seperate but related point is if the Audacious class was still in service in 1982 it would be because the decission to cease conventional carrier ops had been reversed. If both were still in service it means the decision was made at least 10 years earlier so what is the planned replacement.

The quick fix is to to a complete refit of two of the US mothballed Essex class carriers, or one Essex and the Franklin Roosevelt. This would buy time for a replacement class to be designed and built probably due for service some time after 1986.

[sharlin]

If the RN had not lost out on the funding war with the RAF and their boondoggles with things like the Nimrod AWACS or the failure with the TSR2/F111 which resulted in billions spent for no gain what so ever you could probably see at least the Eagle in service.

The engine fire she suffered was really just used as a poor excuse to decomission and scrap her. The money spent on refitting the WW2 carriers was waaaaaaaaay too much for what we got out of them.

Hindsight we can look back and see where the RN and UK went wrong and boy did we fuck up and miss a LOT of opportunities, but with hindsight and proper management you'd see the Eagle and maybe the Ark in service.

[Landshark]

A couple of years back at CF.Net I wrote a quick, not particularly good TL about Eagle getting the Ark Royal's refit and lasting till the Falklands as part of a taskforce consisting of Eagle, Victorius, Invincible and Hermes, (the latter as a commando carrier).

[Thande]

Although the claim about the Argies invading because they viewed the retirement of the carriers as indicating Britain no longer cared about the islands is true, they were still ready to invade at the end of 1977 and were only dissuaded by submarines. There's no contradiction here--remember the leadership of the dictatorship changed between 1977 and 1982 and Galtieri was more cautious and less ideological-crazy than Videla et al.

So really you can just ask the question "Falklands War in 1977/8, Ark Royal is in it with Phantoms etc, what does it look like?"

[StevoJH]

With a full update/SLEP could eagle and ark royal have lasted into the 1990's with victorious sticking around until the late 1970's?

With the invincibles still built as ASW/commando carriers replacing bulwark, Hermes and victorious to be followed in construction by a pair of large carriers to replace AR & E.

Make a few different decisions on government spending in that period and the money should be there.

[CalBear]

With the Ark Royal or the Eagle in service never mind both the Argentinians would not have invaded the Falklands. They only did it because John Notts hatchet job on the Fleet made them think Britain couldn't do anything but protest, and didn't really care.

I have to agree with this. A single CV, even one limited as Eagle (45 fixed wing aircraft), would have quite literally outgunned the entire Argentine air force, especially those aircraft that could make the run out to the islands. Throw in the fact that she could have operated an actual AEW aircraft (while the Gannet wasn't a E-2C, or even an E-1, it was sufficient to give significant raid warning, which would have reduced RN ship losses to zero).

The Junta was looking for an easy win. It figured that the UK couldn't fight back effectively and would not be willing to risk most of the RN where it would lack serious air cover. As it turned out the Harrier proved itself to be a very capable opponent, especially in the hands of highly trained operators. If the Junta had ever dreamed it would have faced 40+ front line combat aircraft, including the F4 (an aircraft literally meant to fulfill the fleet defense role from the first sheet of paper) and Buccaneer it would have done something else, probably get into a war with Chile. to rally folks 'round the flag.

[Peg Leg Pom]

If the RN had not lost out on the funding war with the RAF and their boondoggles with things like the Nimrod AWACS or the failure with the TSR2/F111 which resulted in billions spent for no gain what so ever you could probably see at least the Eagle in service.

The engine fire she suffered was really just used as a poor excuse to decomission and scrap her. The money spent on refitting the WW2 carriers was waaaaaaaaay too much for what we got out of them.

Hindsight we can look back and see where the RN and UK went wrong and boy did we fuck up and miss a LOT of opportunities, but with hindsight and proper management you'd see the Eagle and maybe the Ark in service.

Agreed, the RAF got away with far too much, but they were by no means the only culprits.

Victorious refit 6 times estimated cost, not ready until the late fifties and only able to match the French Clemeceau class light carriers. Scrapped 10 years later after a small fire on a mess deck.

Hermes re design. Not ready till 1959 and obsolete before she commisions.

The TSR 2 saga. A large fortune spent on bleeding edge tech only for it to be cancelled just as the design was ready for production. Then F111 ordered because the Airforce didn't want a naval aircraft only for that to be cancelled and the Bucc that they should have bought ten years earlier bourght instead.

Tornado. Waste of money the aircrew just wanted an upgraded bucc.

Black knight cancelled after it proves succesfull.

Sky Bolt rug pulled out by the US.

There's so much bureaucratic waste it's unbelievable.

[Thande]

I have to agree with this. A single CV, even one limited as Eagle (45 fixed wing aircraft), would have quite literally outgunned the entire Argentine air force, especially those aircraft that could make the run out to the islands. Throw in the fact that she could have operated an actual AEW aircraft (while the Gannet wasn't a E-2C, or even an E-1, it was sufficient to give significant raid warning, which would have reduced RN ship losses to zero).

The Junta was looking for an easy win. It figured that the UK couldn't fight back effectively and would not be willing to risk most of the RN where it would lack serious air cover. As it turned out the Harrier proved itself to be a very capable opponent, especially in the hands of highly trained operators. If the Junta had ever dreamed it would have faced 40+ front line combat aircraft, including the F4 (an aircraft literally meant to fulfill the fleet defense role from the first sheet of paper) and Buccaneer it would have done something else, probably get into a war with Chile. to rally folks 'round the flag.
See my point above. This is true of the later junta under Galtieri, but not earlier on under Videla when they were more prone to doing crazy things (see also: Operation Soberania). There seems strong evidence that the Videla junta was ready to invade in 1977, despite the Royal Navy being in a much better position than in 1982: there was already a widespread belief that "the English have lost their stomach to fight" and the Thatcher defence cuts were viewed simply as a confirmation of that to the more cautious Galtieri, justifying the idea of an invasion.

[CalBear]

With a full update/SLEP could eagle and ark royal have lasted into the 1990's with victorious sticking around until the late 1970's?

With the invincibles still built as ASW/commando carriers replacing bulwark, Hermes and victorious to be followed in construction by a pair of large carriers to replace AR & E.

Make a few different decisions on government spending in that period and the money should be there.

SLEP can keep a ship going for most of forever. Midway was commissioned a week after the Japanese signed the surrender documents in Tokyo Bay and she was launching strikes over Iraq in 1991. Eagle was five years younger.

The really sad thing about Eagle was that she was still in great condition when she was paid off. Even without a full SLEP, just with a regular visit to the yard for a year or so, she would have still been good shape in 1982, with a full SLEP she could have been in in the Gulf with Midway. The UK could have had her and two of the Invincibles and wound up SAVING money (the third Invincible cost $500 million and she was scrapped in 2011. Half of that would have kept Eagle in service until at least 2005, when HMS Invincible herself was decommissioned). Talk about false economy.

[sharlin]

Aye...so much potential wasted...We was called the sick man of Europe for a good reason.

[Riain]

...... Hell when the Argie carrier tried to lauch there was so little wind and the sea was so smooth she could not get up enough speed + windspeed to safely launch her aircraft and gave up.

Either the day before or day after this she couldn`t launch because there was too much wind. This sort of thing would form an impression in Argie minds about how well a carrier can operate aircraft way down in the sub-antarctic in winter.

[juanml82]

See my point above. This is true of the later junta under Galtieri, but not earlier on under Videla when they were more prone to doing crazy things (see also: Operation Soberania). There seems strong evidence that the Videla junta was ready to invade in 1977, despite the Royal Navy being in a much better position than in 1982: there was already a widespread belief that "the English have lost their stomach to fight" and the Thatcher defence cuts were viewed simply as a confirmation of that to the more cautious Galtieri, justifying the idea of an invasion.
Well, actually, they didn't. **Apparently**, the navy was, as usual, the hawkish party regarding war with Chile while the army wasn't eager to go to war. And keep in mind in 1977 the Argentine armed forces had worse equipment: no Mirages, F-86s were in active duty instead. No type-42 destroyers (not that they contribute much, other than training pilots on how to bomb them). No Super Etandards/exocets. OTOH, the RN would be in better shape than in 1982.

[Bureaucromancer]

If the Junta had ever dreamed it would have faced 40+ front line combat aircraft, including the F4 (an aircraft literally meant to fulfill the fleet defense role from the first sheet of paper) and Buccaneer it would have done something else, probably get into a war with Chile. to rally folks 'round the flag.

The point about Chile really deserves more attention IMO. I don't entirely agree that having carriers available would have dissuaded the Argentinians of the idea the British wouldn't fight, but it certainly would have increased the risk involved if they did. You have the remember that the decision whether to go after the Falklands or Chile was a very near thing even OTL.

[Riain]

Perhaps if the Argies decided the risk was greater they would have taken steps to mitigate against the risk rather than fold altogether. The first thing that comes to mind is extending the runway at Pt Stanley to 6000ft with PSP like the British did postwar.

[The Oncoming Storm]

Either the day before or day after this she couldn`t launch because there was too much wind. This sort of thing would form an impression in Argie minds about how well a carrier can operate aircraft way down in the sub-antarctic in winter.

Apparently 25 de Mayo had also suffered a failure of one of her boilers which meant she couldn't steam fast enough to make up for the lack of wind and this kept her Skyhawks grounded.

As to whether or not Argentina would have invaded, remember that you had a vile regime with a whole catalogue of attrocities behind it, and was struggling to maintain its grip, such regimes don't always think rationally. While the RN would have been more formidable any operation to retake the Falklands would have been dependent on a hugely long SLOC that with a large carrier on the end of it would have needed to carry much more supplies. The Argentinean Navy, in my view, made a big mistake IOTL by trying to confront the RN directly when they didnt have proper ASW cover. It would have been better to attack the supply ships coming up behind it. The loss of Atlantic Conveyor badly hampered the operation, had 2 or 3 more ships like that gone down the RN could have run out of fuel and other supplies. So I think Argentina may still have considered a Falklands invasion to be worth the risk

[Riain]

The Majestics could only do 24kt by 1980, not nearly enough to launch a heavy skyhawk in low-wind conditions, dodgy boilers or no. Heremes was the same with Buccs in the Sth China Sea in hot and low-wind conditions.

[Cook]

You do of course have evidence that a carrier can not operate in the South Atlantic.

Or are you trolling?
When news of the Argentine invasion arrived in London, First Sea Lord Sir Henry Leach, and Rear Admiral Sandy Woodward informed the Prime Minister that a task force could be sent and in their opinions should be sent, but that it had to be sent immediately because their window of opportunity was extremely tight, once winter arrived in the South Atlantic they could not fight, no-one could. The South Atlantic at that latitude makes the North Atlantic look placid.

It is worth noting that the Junta did originally plan to invade in the period July – October when no immediate British response would have been possible. The incident on South Georgia with the scrap metal crew, combined with rioting in Buenos Aires, forced them to bring their plans forward.

[abc123]

If the Junta had ever dreamed it would have faced 40+ front line combat aircraft, including the F4 (an aircraft literally meant to fulfill the fleet defense role from the first sheet of paper) and Buccaneer it would have done something else, probably get into a war with Chile. to rally folks 'round the flag.


INTRESTING idea.
Thanks.;)

[Landshark]

SLEP can keep a ship going for most of forever. Midway was commissioned a week after the Japanese signed the surrender documents in Tokyo Bay and she was launching strikes over Iraq in 1991. Eagle was five years younger.

The really sad thing about Eagle was that she was still in great condition when she was paid off. Even without a full SLEP, just with a regular visit to the yard for a year or so, she would have still been good shape in 1982, with a full SLEP she could have been in in the Gulf with Midway. The UK could have had her and two of the Invincibles and wound up SAVING money (the third Invincible cost $500 million and she was scrapped in 2011. Half of that would have kept Eagle in service until at least 2005, when HMS Invincible herself was decommissioned). Talk about false economy.

It's quite possible that was why Ark Royal was chosen for a refit over Eagle. The British Government has been trying to kill the Royal Navy's carrier arm since the 50's, the politicians and civil servants would dearly love to reduce the RN to a submarine force garnished with a few frigate sized patrol boats. Unfortunately for Westminster reality keeps interfering and the British public aren't totally sea blind yet.

While I've got a whole heap of problems with Blairite Labour's defence policies the one thing they did get right was ordering CVF.

[abc123]

While I've got a whole heap of problems with Blairite Labour's defence policies the one thing they did get right was ordering CVF.

IMO they didn't go far enough.
They should reduce the size of RAF and Army in favour of stronger Navy.;)

[Peg Leg Pom]

IMO they didn't go far enough.
They should reduce the size of RAF and Army in favour of stronger Navy.;)

Better yet swing the axe against the bloated MOD civil service contingents as well. That and have defence contracters sign fixed price contracts to stop the insane increases in cost for new equipment.

[Landshark]

IMO they didn't go far enough.
They should reduce the size of RAF and Army in favour of stronger Navy.;)

Do you want me to come round to your gaff and beat you to death with the importance of properly balanced armed forces?*



*For the purposes of this demonstration the importance of properly balanced armed forces will be represented by a baseball bat.

[Landshark]

You see now I'm hungry for a TL where Britain's aircraft carriers get SLEP's, TSR 2 reaches squadron service and the EM-2 is NATO standard.

[The Oncoming Storm]

Better yet swing the axe against the bloated MOD civil service contingents as well. That and have defence contracters sign fixed price contracts to stop the insane increases in cost for new equipment.

At the time of the 2010 Defence Review there was something in the papers about how in 2009 Britain spent £10 billion on arms procurement overseen by a staff of 22,000 at the MoD's procurement executive, in the same year Israel spent $9 billion on procurement overseen by a staff of 400 at its MoD.

Therein lies the problem. :mad:

[The Oncoming Storm]

IMO they didn't go far enough.
They should reduce the size of RAF and Army in favour of stronger Navy.;)

Do you want me to come round to your gaff and beat you to death with the importance of properly balanced armed forces?*



*For the purposes of this demonstration the importance of properly balanced armed forces will be represented by a baseball bat.

TBF the 1998 SDR was a good balanced strategy. The problem was after 9/11 we got stuck in two large scale, open ended commitments that were the complete opposite of the small scale, Sierra Leone type operations that the SDR was based on and the budget wasn't increased to compensate. :p

[voodoomaster]

At the time of the 2010 Defence Review there was something in the papers about how in 2009 Britain spent £10 billion on arms procurement overseen by a staff of 22,000 at the MoD's procurement executive, in the same year Israel spent $9 billion on procurement overseen by a staff of 400 at its MoD.

Therein lies the problem. :mad:

couldn't agree more with that comment.

I for one want to totally Axe the Army and the RAF and use their resources to bring the Royal Marines up to a Division strength and the Fleet Air Arm up to scratch.
In short turn the navy back into what it was in the Napoleonic wars, the sword of the British Empire with the navy using its personal to enforce gunboat diplomacy, the Shield of the Empire can be a token remainder of the RAF & Army in the form of Fighter Commander & the Home Guard.

In short turn the British Armed forces into a entity similar to the USA Marine Corp just like the navy was hundreds of years ago, just with smaller guns, more sails.

[Macragge1]

couldn't agree more with that comment.

I for one want to totally Axe the Army and the RAF and use their resources to bring the Royal Marines up to a Division strength and the Fleet Air Arm up to scratch.
In short turn the navy back into what it was in the Napoleonic wars, the sword of the British Empire with the navy using its personal to enforce gunboat diplomacy, the Shield of the Empire can be a token remainder of the RAF & Army in the form of Fighter Commander & the Home Guard.

In short turn the British Armed forces into a entity similar to the USA Marine Corp just like the navy was hundreds of years ago, just with smaller guns, more sails.

Haha what?

[Landshark]

I for one want to totally Axe the Army and the RAF and use their resources to bring the Royal Marines up to a Division strength and the Fleet Air Arm up to scratch.
In short turn the navy back into what it was in the Napoleonic wars, the sword of the British Empire with the navy using its personal to enforce gunboat diplomacy, the Shield of the Empire can be a token remainder of the RAF & Army in the form of Fighter Commander & the Home Guard.

In short turn the British Armed forces into a entity similar to the USA Marine Corp just like the navy was hundreds of years ago, just with smaller guns, more sails.

I'm going to need a bigger importance of properly balanced armed forces.

[Peg Leg Pom]

At the time of the 2010 Defence Review there was something in the papers about how in 2009 Britain spent £10 billion on arms procurement overseen by a staff of 22,000 at the MoD's procurement executive, in the same year Israel spent $9 billion on procurement overseen by a staff of 400 at its MoD.

Therein lies the problem. :mad:

Isn't it strange how in these reviews carried out by the civil service it's never their numbers that get cut, or recruitment that gets slowed down.

[Peg Leg Pom]

I'm going to need a bigger importance of properly balanced armed forces.


Might I suggest replacing the baseball bat with a six pound sledge hammer. All of the armed forces need reinforcement with the most urgent needs the Navy and the Reserves. If they struggle to get recruits do what the US does and offer to scholorships in exchange for a period of service.

[voodoomaster]

I am Serious, the Navy has the capacity to be the sole force the UK needs, with the Royal Marines at around 60,000/70,000 strong that fulfills the requirements of the army, yes the RM would need to take over the Armoured roles currently done by the Army and their tanks/artillery. Ground attack from the Apache's is already compatible with the navy as they operated from HMS Ocean during Libya.

The RAF is a bit trickier but with no real bomber wing anymore they have Attack Wings, Interceptor Wings and Support Wings. These can easily be merged with the Navy with the Fighter Element left behind with a token RAF (Fighter Command) for defensive purposes on the British Isles. You'll already find that in the RAF Sentry Aircraft when they are up they always have RN officers aboard to coordinate with the Fleet. The Attack wing would be taken up by the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm, indeed the RAF and FAA will be merging their attack wings when the F-35 comes online in place of the Harrier & Tornado.

The Navy is the first point of defense for the British Isles and also the last act of Defiance, the UK cannot afford the 3 separate branches any more each one with their own civil staff and also own factions within the MoD that cause most of the overspend in there, you remove the 3 branches with 1 you can remove a big chunk of the MoD.

And these are not my own ideas, they bare origins from a conversation/debate with my fathers former Commanding officer on Exeter Sir Nigel Richard Essenhigh & Sir Michael Walker at the Army vs Navy Game about 7 years ago when they mentioned being asked to look at combining the services into a "National Defense Force" by a Govt Minister in order to save money and resources.

The memo never made it to parliament as it was killed from higher up as a being "courageous" to put it in Yes Minister Speak

[Riain]

It`s amazing how talk of carriers quickly becomes a force-distorting wank.

[Gunnarnz]

It`s amazing how talk of carriers quickly becomes a force-distorting wank.

I know! All I wanted to do was keep a small carrier in service for an extra 5 years, and find out what sacrifices would have to be made to do that.

Instead we have a division-strength RM taking full responsibility for British land warfare, a general increase in military strength across the board, and a quick driveby shooting against the MOD. Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if there's some equivalent of crystal meth that gets pumped into the water around alternatehistory.com...

[abc123]

When I said that they did not gone far enough I meant this:

Army will 2020 have about 85 000 soldiers. In 2010 it had about 110 000. In 2000 I'm not sure, but not less than 120 000...

So, small force of 85000, capable for deploying of single 30 000 strong corps, is IMO good enough.

As for RAF, in all reality, air defence of UK needs one flight in north and one flight in south. UK is surrounded by friends and allies, so there's no need for large home defence force. So, single large squadron of 24 aircraft is enough for UK Air Defence and Falklands Islands 4-6 aircrafts.

So, all other aircrafts could be in expeditionary role, say, 2 24-strong squadrons, that's about 72 aircrafts. Let's add another 36 aircrafts, that's about 110 fighters.
And since UK for intervention in Libya sent huge number of about 12 aircrafts in Sicilia, I don't see how sending 48 aircrafts is small number.

That's something pretty different than current number of 160 Typhoons or 230 that were planned in 90s.

Or, British Forces Germany really have no role after the end of Cold War. So, why not bring them home, so at least they will spend their money in UK, not in Germany.
Yes, I know, there's no enough barracks for all of them. Fine, but: a) it doesn't needs 17 years to build barracks, b) if you reduce the size of Army, they will need less barracks...

So, after configuring of Army and Air force this way ( downsizing, but IMO justified ) all else money should be transferred to the Navy and Royal Marines.

[Landshark]

If you'll excuse me I just have to pop out and buy a sledgehammer.

[Peg Leg Pom]

The last thing any of Britains armed forces can afford is more cuts, in fact the budget needs increasing. Already the Army has to use the Territorials as individual re-inforcement, which is not what they are supposed to be for. It's ment to be a trained force ready and able to deploy en mass if a major war breaks out, not that its greatly reduced strength would be much help, 20,000 total strength.

The RAF could just about manage at current levels but is still badly over stretched.

The state of the Royal Navy is little short of treason

[abc123]

If you'll excuse me I just have to pop out and buy a sledgehammer.

You can buy whatever you want, but that won't change the fact that while UK spent 2/3 of their defence money for Navy and 1/3 for Army UK was strongest power on Earth.
And I don't ask that today, what I ask is say 40-50% for Navy and the rest for other two services.

[corditeman]

This idea is not far-fetched and reminds me of something I drafted as a letter to the SNP but never posted :-

Home Service Force of locally-recruited reservists with a 10% cadre of professional officers and NCOs. An infantry force with AA/AT missiles and recoilless rifles on Land Rovers, maybe with autogyro 'dragoons' for air support (these days, Predator drones) and light fast armour.
Navy of missile-armed fast patrol boats and AIP submarines. Possibly a depot ship and a handful of Fisheries protection vessels.
Air Force of Hawks or similar with air-to-air missiles and ground-attack capability and a basic AEW or AWACs similar to USN carrier-borne types. Possible transport or tanker aircraft based on commercial air freighter airframes.
This sounds similar to the Norwegian Navy and is based around defence needs. If a deterrent is needed this could be cruise missiles with thermobaric/FAE warheads.

[PMN1]

Now while it is fashionable to castigate Nott for the review (and I'm not defending him here) he was acting on advice given to him and the review was approved by Thatcher. What is interesting is that post-review the RN and RM persuaded Nott to reprieve the LPDs after giving him a demonstration onboard HMS Fearless.

.

A thought on this, given the way politicians work, what are the chances of the 'savings' from gutting the Navy to 'put more on the Central Front' actually happening?

[CalBear]

I'm going to need a bigger importance of properly balanced armed forces.

Try a hockey stick. Nicely balanced

[Landshark]

Try a hockey stick. Nicely balanced

Too Canadian.

[sendô]

You can buy whatever you want, but that won't change the fact that while UK spent 2/3 of their defence money for Navy and 1/3 for Army UK was strongest power on Earth.
And I don't ask that today, what I ask is say 40-50% for Navy and the rest for other two services.
Except in those days we had a nice big empire full of slaves and colonials pumping money into the British economy.

Plus in those days there was only two services - land and sea - whereas now there are three - land, sea and air - and you need the airforce as much as the navy to stop an invasion.

[Landshark]

Plus in those days there was only two services - land and sea - whereas now there are three - land, sea and air - and you need the airforce as much as the navy to stop an invasion.

Also back then army equipment was much lower tech in comparison to navy equipment than it is now.

In 1914 the Royal Navy had battleships, cruisers, destroyers and various other ships which were probably the most complex pieces of large machinery in the world, the most complex weapons in the British Army however were feild guns.

[abc123]

Well, I wonder then what would "balanced force" mean to some members?

Army of about 160 000 soldiers?
RAF with 200 Typhoons and 150 F-35?
Navy with 5 QE class carriers?

or

Army of about 120 000 soldiers?
RAF with 107 Typhoons and 50 F-35.
Navy with one carrier?

or?

[abc123]

Also back then army equipment was much lower tech in comparison to navy equipment than it is now.

In 1914 the Royal Navy had battleships, cruisers, destroyers and various other ships which were probably the most complex pieces of large machinery in the world, the most complex weapons in the British Army however were feild guns.

All of that doesn't changes the fact that if current defence spending is about 5:4:3 ( Army:RAF:Navy ) you can't expect that UK will be something special in either of these branches...

[sendô]

How much smaller do you want the British Army to be? We're down to about 85,000 regular troops plus a token TA. The RAF only has a couple of hundred aircraft. The Navy has 6 Destroyers, 13 Frigates and 11 submarines plus numerous other auxiliary craft and two large Carriers in production.

The key is to be flexible and prepared to fight the next war, not to fight the last war. As an island nation we assume (because it has been true historically) that we can use a large Navy to prevent an invasion, and the fact that we are currently surrounded by allies helps this theory. However things can change quickly and if we have no Army and no Airforce we could leave ourselves and our numerous expensive ships vulnerable.

Keeping an even balance between the services whilst we lack a credible threat to the UK is the cautious but smart thing to do.

[abc123]

How much smaller do you want the British Army to be? We're down to about 85,000 regular troops plus a token TA. The RAF only has a couple of hundred aircraft. The Navy has 6 Destroyers, 13 Frigates and 11 submarines plus numerous other auxiliary craft and two large Carriers in production.

The key is to be flexible and prepared to fight the next war, not to fight the last war. As an island nation we assume (because it has been true historically)

About Army and Air force IMO they are now on their optimal size for UK.
On the other hand, Navy should be larger.

About historical experience, yes, Britain is a island, and never in history britain had more benign home defence situation. If Britain survived Kaiser's Germany, Napoleon's France, Nazi Germany with just a token Army, then I think that current token Army should be good enough for current strategic environment. Also, there's one thing named geostrategy. British geostrategic position is as it is, and will not change. Same as German or Russian. Germany and Russia will allways be land powers ( except if some Kaiser tries to defeat Britain or USA at sea ) while UK clearly allways has to be naval power.

And since British strategy is clearly expeditionary, to fight distant wars either in defence ( Falklands ) or in attack ( Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia...... ) and it will remain so for forseeable future, IMO strong investment in RN is more than justified.

[NothingNow]

About Army and Air force IMO they are now on their optimal size for UK.


Except, when the F-35s come in, you'll need more aircraft to protect the various possessions as well, including Gibraltar, the Falklands, Bermuda, and the Caribbean Territories. Each of which could honestly use a Squadron or two, even if they were just hastily re-issued Tornado F3s.

[abc123]

Except, when the F-35s come in, you'll need more aircraft to protect the various possessions as well, including Gibraltar, the Falklands, Bermuda, and the Caribbean Territories. Each of which could honestly use a Squadron or two, even if they were just hastily re-issued Tornado F3s.

Err, why?
Who threatnes them? ( Except for the Falklands )

About F-35, I would much rather see them on flydeck of RN aircraft carriers than in some airbase in UK or in some minor colonial outpost like Cayman Islands or Gibraltar...

[Simon]

With a full update/SLEP could Eagle and Ark Royal have lasted into the 1990s with Victorious sticking around until the late 1970s? With the Invincibles still built as ASW/commando carriers replacing Bulwark, Hermes and Victorious to be followed in construction by a pair of large carriers to replace AR & E. Make a few different decisions on government spending in that period and the money should be there.
SLEP can keep a ship going for most of forever. Midway was commissioned a week after the Japanese signed the surrender documents in Tokyo Bay and she was launching strikes over Iraq in 1991. Eagle was five years younger.

The really sad thing about Eagle was that she was still in great condition when she was paid off. Even without a full SLEP, just with a regular visit to the yard for a year or so, she would have still been good shape in 1982, with a full SLEP she could have been in in the Gulf with Midway. The UK could have had her and two of the Invincibles and wound up SAVING money (the third Invincible cost $500 million and she was scrapped in 2011. Half of that would have kept Eagle in service until at least 2005, when HMS Invincible herself was decommissioned). Talk about false economy.
I'd change the order if not the points; Britain is withdrawing from the South Atlantic > Britain doesn't care about the Falklands > Britain doesn't have proper carriers > We can invade because Britain doesn't care and if they did they couldn't do anything.


Just to try and drag the thread slightly back on track if the Gunnarnz doesn't mind substituting Eagle how about as the point of departure Eagle gets the yard time instead of Ark Royal like CalBear suggests and serves into the early 1980s, finally being retired in late 1981 once the new Ark Royal is commissioned due to manpower and running costs. Now in our timeline it took roughly a year from when the old Ark Royal was decommissioned to it being announced that she was to be scrapped and then another six months before she was sent on her way. They'll certainly start to remove some of the important systems whilst she's sitting there but how fast could they put them back in? Or maybe there's a bureaucratic fuck-up so it takes a fairly long while to get started. Either way the Argentinian Junta see her getting decommissioned, get the wrong idea and it's full speed ahead for the invasion. The main question then becomes could Eagle have been readied fast enough to participate, she might have to catch up - but at 30 knots versus the 20 knots maximum some of the other ships were only capable of do-able - and what was the status of her former aircraft? There's no point having a carrier if there's nothing to fly off it.

[Peg Leg Pom]

Sadly that wouldn't work. First as you said she'll have been raided for spare parts. Then as was shown with the Bulwark if the ship hadn't been properly mothballed,(and why would they as she was due for the scrappers tourch) the ships condition will have deteriorated and she may not be seaworthy. Her aircraft would still be available but carrier qualified pilots may not be, as many will have left the navy when conventional carrier ops cease. It's not just the aircrew either, a conventional carrier needs people to work the catapults, arrestor gear and landing systems.

These skilled men will have had no place to go in the new ships and have either retired or been made redundant. Yes men can be recalled but what you get is a ship full of men who have been told we don't need you any more, then been told get back on duty or we'll arrest you and know that as soon as the shooting stops they're out on they're ear again. This does not an efficient crew make.