What if when Labour canceled CVA-01 they decided to keep the Centor class in service, and replace them over the next 15 years with ships of about 30,000 tons. They would also develope the Kestrel and it's supersonic big brother into operational aircraft. What effect would this have on events such as the Falklands and Gulf wars?
Different Navy in the 70s
- Thread starter Peg Leg Pom
- Start date
Operational P.1154 would have had some issues- the collision of RN and RAF requirements resulted in an aircraft that had to be catapulted to launch with any sort of war load.
If the decision was taken pre-1980, the carriers would have kept their catapults- but would have probably been too small to operate F-14s/F-18s or similar. I think they'd probably have a mixed air group of Buccaneers and a fighter version of the Jaguar, possibly with something based on the Hawk or Gripen eventually replacing one or both- or Harriers.
If the RN keeps a decent carrier capability, the Falklands war is probably going to be alot easier for the British (if it occurs at all). An organic AEW capability, fighters with BVR missiles are going to massively increase air defence, and proper strike aircraft are going to properly put Port Stanley airfield out of operation. As for the Gulf War not much difference probably.
I know its not really anything to do with this thread but what would a carrier capable TSR 2 look like ?
I know its not really anything to do with this thread but what would a carrier capable TSR 2 look like ?
I assume you mean Vickers Type 577? Looked exactly like the TSR2, but 66 feet long, not 89, so looked a bit tubby.
Back to original post, I don't think a different navy would have a hugh effect on the Falklands. The removal of HMS Endurance and some conflicting Foreign Office actions were key to stimulating the war, not an assessment of comparative military strength.
The Argentinean military had banked on the British not fighting a war. So whether the air combat was against sidewinder armed Sea Harriers, or sidewinder armed P1154s, the result would have been similar.
More carriers with more aircraft would have probably meant fewer British ships lost; Gannets (or their replacement) might have also been handy, but not sure how well the Nimrods performed in any case?
Riain
Banned
I don't think there is a reasonable compromise between big strike carriers and small STOVL carriers, it's one or the other (or both) but nothing in between. A 30,000 ton carrier is a bit big for low performance but versatile Harriers and too small for a decent airwing of high performance aircraft. 30,000 tons will get you something that will carry lightwieght aircraft types that aren't that much better than a Harrier but with the added difficulty/expense of cats, wires and all that shit.
I was thnking that the replacement ships could be along the lines of the french Clemenceau class. Also as a part of the decision to keep a carrier force the R.A.F is told that what they are getting for a Canbera replacement is not T.S.R 2 but the Buccanier with T.S.R 2 avionics. As a fighter the navy will use the Crusader until the either the 1154 is ready or the Naval Jaguar. This will determin whether ctobar or vstol will be used on the carriers.
Last edited:
Riain
Banned
The Jaguar M, Skyhawk, Etenard and Crusader aren't vastly better than the OTL Sea Harrier the way the Buccaneer, A6, A7, F4, F14 and F/A18A are. The small carriers would still have to go without high performance AEW and tankers and make do with helicopter AEW. The question is do you bother with the extra 5-10,000 tons, catapults and wires to get an extra mach .7 and a touch more payload/range. If you really want that extra performance and you're are going to build the cats and wires you may as well go 50,000 tons and have a world beater.
Also though the treasury dosn't realise it until is to late the Navy uses the 30,000 ton limit as the standard displacement not the full load. (Never trust an English gentleman 
)
)Hermes carried Bucc's at one stage - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hermes_(R12) - Buccs were of course bombers, but they had the buddy tanker refueling system so could fly long range.
The reason it was converted to a Commando carrier is because the lifts weren't big enough for F4s.
If Hermes had say a mix of Buccs, Gannets, and light fighters (which one?), the Falklands could have been a long different thanks to the first two.
The reason it was converted to a Commando carrier is because the lifts weren't big enough for F4s.
If Hermes had say a mix of Buccs, Gannets, and light fighters (which one?), the Falklands could have been a long different thanks to the first two.
By the time of the Falklands the new carriers, I'll call them the Furious class would be comming into service. To keep as close to reallife I'll say that Hermies was still in service and due to better funding the Bulwark was in use as a training ship. These two ships would be equiped with the Sea Harrier and Seakings. The 2 new ships would be equiped with 2 full squadrons 1 Buccanier, 1 Jaguar M and a flight of 3 E 2s bought second hand from the Americans. The question is knowing these ships were aavailable would the Argintines still attack? If they did would any of their fleet make it back 2 port? Also after seeing the new ships would Canada and Australia be interested in the Centaur and Albion. I am also interested in what effect the increased emphasis on the navy would have on the Army and Airforce given the financal circumstances of the 70's.
A 30,000-ton carrier is still too small to operate real high-performance aircraft. Yes, you could use navalized variants of the Jaguar, Etendard and Crusader. If you are bother with a CATOBAR carrier, go to 40,000-tons ish and get something that can use large aircraft.
That would allow the UK to comfortably use the Buccaneer, but the Kestrel would be a big expense when the UK could buy CATOBAR aircraft such as the F-4 Phantom. Considering the timeframe we're looking it, they would probably buy the F-14 Tomcat and the AIM-54 Phoenix instead, thus giving Britain a great-big sledgehammer to use on the high seas. If the UK had a new 40-45,000 ton carrier (or two), I still don't think it would have scared the Argentines enough for them to back off. And considering the F-111 was developed initially with a carrier variant in mind (even though it turned out to be a POS), that might actually hurt the TSR.2's case more.
That would allow the UK to comfortably use the Buccaneer, but the Kestrel would be a big expense when the UK could buy CATOBAR aircraft such as the F-4 Phantom. Considering the timeframe we're looking it, they would probably buy the F-14 Tomcat and the AIM-54 Phoenix instead, thus giving Britain a great-big sledgehammer to use on the high seas. If the UK had a new 40-45,000 ton carrier (or two), I still don't think it would have scared the Argentines enough for them to back off. And considering the F-111 was developed initially with a carrier variant in mind (even though it turned out to be a POS), that might actually hurt the TSR.2's case more.
Given the history of Britains post war carriers the size would have crept up. Also as I said earlier the Navy would quote the standard displacement figure not full load which would gain them another 4 to 6 thousand tons. The reason I went with the Jaguar and Bucc was because the government wouldn't want to be seen as selling out British workers in tough times. In times of peace the Navy has to fight not only potential enemies but also the Treasury.
Mini-TL
1966 - CVA-01 is cancelled. Decision on new carriers is made, to enter
service in 1975 with new high performance fighters. Three are to be
ordered in order to have at least one in service
1975-1976
The Third Cod War. UK "loses" spectacularly as it has no deployable
maritime capability.
1980 - New carriers - two of them - HMS Outrageous and HMS Spurious
finally enter operational service with the Kestrel - P.1154. With
mission creep the ships have loaded displacement of some 54000
tons and crew of 4000. Kestrel II with BVR missiles is scheduled to
enter service in 1985. To pay for the new carriers RN isrestructured
to provide for escort of a single carrier strike group. The RN escort
force has in service a few Type 82's and Leanders for general
escort duties.
1980 - To pay for less corporate taxes Thatcher government cuts RN
funding. Only one carrier to operate at any time with other as
mobilization reserve.
April 1982 - Argentina invades Falklands. Britain deploys the Carrier Strike
Group, scraping enough manpower to fully man HMS Outrageous.
May-June 1982 - With not enough escorts to provide air and ASW defense
of the British Task Force Argentine gains major victories. After
sinking of Canberra the conflict is clearly lost. Thatcher resigns.
1985 HMS Outrageous and HMS Spurious are sold to India.
1966 - CVA-01 is cancelled. Decision on new carriers is made, to enter
service in 1975 with new high performance fighters. Three are to be
ordered in order to have at least one in service
1975-1976
The Third Cod War. UK "loses" spectacularly as it has no deployable
maritime capability.
1980 - New carriers - two of them - HMS Outrageous and HMS Spurious
finally enter operational service with the Kestrel - P.1154. With
mission creep the ships have loaded displacement of some 54000
tons and crew of 4000. Kestrel II with BVR missiles is scheduled to
enter service in 1985. To pay for the new carriers RN isrestructured
to provide for escort of a single carrier strike group. The RN escort
force has in service a few Type 82's and Leanders for general
escort duties.
1980 - To pay for less corporate taxes Thatcher government cuts RN
funding. Only one carrier to operate at any time with other as
mobilization reserve.
April 1982 - Argentina invades Falklands. Britain deploys the Carrier Strike
Group, scraping enough manpower to fully man HMS Outrageous.
May-June 1982 - With not enough escorts to provide air and ASW defense
of the British Task Force Argentine gains major victories. After
sinking of Canberra the conflict is clearly lost. Thatcher resigns.
1985 HMS Outrageous and HMS Spurious are sold to India.
Riain
Banned
I seriously doubt that a 30-35,000 ton carrier could operate the E2, that would take something as big as the Charles De Gaulle or CVA01. And if you are building a carrier capable of operating such high performance aircraft as the E2 and Buccaneer you would cripple it by giving it such a shitty fighter as the Jaguar M. If a carrier can operate buccaneer and E2 it can operate the Phantom or Tomcat.
Bearcat
Banned
Umm... no.
A CV that big will definitely have a fixed-wing AEW asset.
Against such an asset, the Argies can't hope to even do as well as OTL. Regardless of the number of frigates present.
More likely, you get an Argentinian Great Turkey Shoot.
The Jaguar is not the best solution I know, but it's light, local and the development costs would be shared with the French. As to the E2 are we thinking of the same aircraft? The one I'm thinking of is the A.E.W. version of the Grumman Tracker. The Australians and Canadians operated the tracker of the 14,000 ton Collosis and Majestic class carriers.
On the fighter front I almost went for a Navalised Lightning but it just wouldn't work. Would look great though.
Bearcat
Banned
You're thinking of the Grumman Tracer, the E-1.
Retired in USN service with the last of the Essex's in 1976-78. And so they could be available to the RN cheap. The RN would probably do a modest update of the radar, and have a very nice AEW platform that would give ample warning of Argie raids as they formed up over Argentina proper.