A different Royal Navy

Inspired by a previous thread of mine I thought I'd have a go at writing an alternate history of the British armed forces. Primarily focused on the aircraft carriers of the CVA-01 program but also including other things. Apologies now if I end up veering into ASB territory but some small liberties might have to be taken to keep things interesting.
So we might as well start 50 years ago at a convenient point.

1966

The 1966 defence white paper has been called one of the most bad tempered and fraught government reviews in modern history.
The defence secretary Dennis Healey was adamant in his desire to save money by reducing expenditure on both new equipment and the demands of maintaining a 400,000 strong force spread throughout the world.
The 3 services were desperate not only to preserve as much as they could of what they already had but to safeguard the big ticket equipment programs which they felt would guarantee their future in the long run.
The relatively new Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson was forced to take on the unenviable task of convincing the military establishment that money would have to be saved from somewhere while at the same time reigning in his defence secretary who wanted to go to extreme lengths to save money regardless of the cost to the British armed forces or industry.

The 3 services were told in no uncertain terms that rather than squabling amoungst each other it would be a much better use of their time to start doing a bit of soul searching and work out the differnce between needs and wants.
Defence secratary Dennis Healey was reportedly extremely unhappy at what he felt was meddeling from the PM preventing him from doing his job. However when Wilson was told of the extent of the cutbacks that Healey proposed (even today the rumor mill claims that he planned things like scrapping all of Britains aircraft carriers and withdrawing everything east of Suez) he felt that he had no choice in order to prevent possible major political fallout from the mass job losses and resignations that would pottentially follow such things.
In the end after much compromise, bartering, horse trading, soul searching and more than a few resignations and forced early retirments threatened the following review was announced:

  • The Royal Navy would be formed around 3 carrier battlegroups. To this end 3 Aircraft carriers of the CVA-01 program would be ordered the first to be named HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH. HMS HERMES being to small to realistically operated the Phantom was deemed surplus to requirements and was to be decommissioned and disposed of. HMS VICTORIOUS, HMS ARK ROYAL and HMS EAGLE would be disposed of and replaced by QUEEN ELIZABETH class vessels as they became available. HMS EAGLE was to be given a major rebuild to extend her service life and enable her to operate the Mcdonnell Douglas F4 Phantom.
  • A new class of large air defence destroyer named the type 82 was to be procured to provide air defence for the carriers. An initial batch of 4 was to be immediately ordered with long term plans for a total of 12.
  • A requirement was identified for up to 3 vessels to carry at least 9 ASW helicopters. To this end funding was made available to allow design and development work to commence.
  • Of the TIGER class cruisers HMS BLAKE was at the time undergoing a refit to convert her to become a helicopter and command cruiser. Further conversions of HMS LION and HMS TIGER were considered to be an inefficient use of funds owing to the large costs and limited increases in capability. In their current form they were considered near obsolete and thus were to be decommissioned as soon as was practical.
  • While there had been some within the navy and MOD pushing for the procurement of a 5th RESOLUTION class SSBN it was felt that this would be a step to far on the part of the navy and if ordered would simply drain away funds from other projects and take up space and build time at Barrow that would be better spent on the upcoming SWIFTSURE class SSN program.
  • The BAC TSR-2 program would continue with an initial order of 110 aircraft for the RAF. While Healey had been strongly in favour of cancelling the program in favour of the General Dynamics F-111K from the USA political pressure over the potentially massive damage to the British aircraft industry and the superior capabilities offered by the TSR-2 forces his hand. While unhappy with the decision he does state that at least costs will probably be eased by export orders for the aircraft.
  • The revolutionary Hawker Siddeley Harrier was showing great potential as a ground attack and close support aircraft about which the RAF were very enfusiastic and the USMC had shown a big interest. Therefore an initial batch of 60 aircraft designated GR1 were to be ordered.
  • The Anglo-French Variable Geometry program was cancelled. There was too little money available to adequately fund the program and there was not considered to be a short term need for the aircraft that could not be fulfilled by other programs. It was also secretly hoped that the French might now become interested in the TSR-2. However the Sepcat Jaguar program would continue as planned.
  • The Mcdonnell Douglas F4 Phantom would become the principle air defence fighter for both the RAF and FAA. An order of 200 aircraft (150 for the RAF and 50 for the FAA) would be made. Both services are quick to point out that this number falls well below the number they feel they require. This is especially true in with the FAA which now has to form 3 carrier air groups.
  • The British military global presence was to be scaled back. Outside of British sovereign territory the only bases that were to be maintained were Malta, Oman and the far east. Far east command was to be dissolved and instead bases would be maintained in Singapore, Brunei and Hong Kong. While British owned these would be made available to and part funded by Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore as part of the Five Power Defence Arrangements.
 
While money is being shaved off of the defence budget it is not being done at the same level as OTL.
IOTL the driving force behind the 1966 defence white paper wasn't a fiscal crisis but the desire to shift resources to the domestic budget. ITTL that desire is still there but balanced against the needs of the armed forces and Britain's position in the world.
 
  • The Royal Navy would be formed around 3 carrier battlegroups. To this end 3 Aircraft carriers of the CVA-01 program would be ordered the first to be named HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH. HMS HERMES being to small to realistically operated the Phantom was deemed surplus to requirements and was to be decommissioned and disposed of. HMS VICTORIOUS, HMS ARK ROYAL and HMS EAGLE would be disposed of and replaced by QUEEN ELIZABETH class vessels as they became available. HMS EAGLE was to be given a major rebuild to extend her service life and enable her to operate the Mcdonnell Douglas F4 Phantom. Not sure CVA-01 is a good design and that you really need replace ARK and Eagle at least in the short term, rather than on a 20 year time frame?
  • A new class of large air defence destroyer named the type 82 was to be procured to provide air defence for the carriers. An initial batch of 4 was to be immediately ordered with long term plans for a total of 12. Why what can a 82 do better than an early batch III T42 at less cost?
  • A requirement was identified for up to 3 vessels to carry at least 9 ASW helicopters. To this end funding was made available to allow design and development work to commence. Well at least this will cover when you run out of cash for the CVs....
  • Of the TIGER class cruisers HMS BLAKE was at the time undergoing a refit to convert her to become a helicopter and command cruiser. Further conversions of HMS LION and HMS TIGER were considered to be an inefficient use of funds owing to the large costs and limited increases in capability. In their current form they were considered near obsolete and thus were to be decommissioned as soon as was practical.ok
  • While there had been some within the navy and MOD pushing for the procurement of a 5th RESOLUTION class SSBN it was felt that this would be a step to far on the part of the navy and if ordered would simply drain away funds from other projects and take up space and build time at Barrow that would be better spent on the upcoming SWIFTSURE class SSN program.as OTL.
  • The BAC TSR-2 program would continue with an initial order of 110 aircraft for the RAF. While Healey had been strongly in favour of cancelling the program in favour of the General Dynamics F-111K from the USA political pressure over the potentially massive damage to the British aircraft industry and the superior capabilities offered by the TSR-2 forces his hand. While unhappy with the decision he does state that at least costs will probably be eased by export orders for the aircraft. Who is really going to buy what is effectively a light strategic bomber? Might be cheaper than the OTL TSR2-F111k-Tornado as long as you add weapons and sensor systems slowly?
  • The revolutionary Hawker Siddeley Harrier was showing great potential as a ground attack and close support aircraft about which the RAF were very enfusiastic and the USMC had shown a big interest. Therefore an initial batch of 60 aircraft designated GR1 were to be ordered. OK this might at least sell commercially as in OTL.
  • The Anglo-French Variable Geometry program was cancelled. There was too little money available to adequately fund the program and there was not considered to be a short term need for the aircraft that could not be fulfilled by other programs. It was also secretly hoped that the French might now become interested in the TSR-2. However the Sepcat Jaguar program would continue as planned. Not sure why bother with Jaguar with hindsight few sales and doesn't add much capability that cant be done by others?
  • The Mcdonnell Douglas F4 Phantom would become the principle air defence fighter for both the RAF and FAA. An order of 200 aircraft (150 for the RAF and 50 for the FAA) would be made. Both services are quick to point out that this number falls well below the number they feel they require. This is especially true in with the FAA which now has to form 3 carrier air groups.What types F-4K and F-4M or F-4J? UK built with or without Spey?
  • The British military global presence was to be scaled back. Outside of British sovereign territory the only bases that were to be maintained were Malta, Oman and the far east. Far east command was to be dissolved and instead bases would be maintained in Singapore, Brunei and Hong Kong. While British owned these would be made available to and part funded by Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore as part of the Five Power Defence Arrangements. As OTL ?
My main problem would be cash as I think most of the post war 'plans' have really been driven by the need for cuts more than anything else.
 
HMS VICTORIOUS, HMS ARK ROYAL and HMS EAGLE would be disposed of and replaced by QUEEN ELIZABETH class vessels as they became available. HMS EAGLE was to be given a major rebuild to extend her service life and enable her to operate the Mcdonnell Douglas F4 Phantom.
This section is a little confusing. You're saying Eagle gets a major rebuild, but is also due to be disposed of as soon as a QE class carrier is available to replace her? I'm guessing you mean that Eagle is the last of the current carriers to go, and to last out the time gets a rebuild, but I might be wrong.
 

Riain

Banned
The Royal Navy would be formed around 3 carrier battlegroups. To this end 3 Aircraft carriers of the CVA-01 program would be ordered the first to be named HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH. HMS HERMES being to small to realistically operated the Phantom was deemed surplus to requirements and was to be decommissioned and disposed of. HMS VICTORIOUS, HMS ARK ROYAL and HMS EAGLE would be disposed of and replaced by QUEEN ELIZABETH class vessels as they became available. HMS EAGLE was to be given a major rebuild to extend her service life and enable her to operate the Mcdonnell Douglas F4 Phantom.

This is good, but the Eagle already had her rebuild in 1964 so only needs a small 5 million pound refit for Phantoms and could easily run to 1980-85.

Of the TIGER class cruisers HMS BLAKE was at the time undergoing a refit to convert her to become a helicopter and command cruiser. Further conversions of HMS LION and HMS TIGER were considered to be an inefficient use of funds owing to the large costs and limited increases in capability. In their current form they were considered near obsolete and thus were to be decommissioned as soon as was practical.

God yes, burn it with fire!

  • The BAC TSR-2 program would continue with an initial order of 110 aircraft for the RAF. While Healey had been strongly in favour of cancelling the program in favour of the General Dynamics F-111K from the USA political pressure over the potentially massive damage to the British aircraft industry and the superior capabilities offered by the TSR-2 forces his hand. While unhappy with the decision he does state that at least costs will probably be eased by export orders for the aircraft.
  • The revolutionary Hawker Siddeley Harrier was showing great potential as a ground attack and close support aircraft about which the RAF were very enfusiastic and the USMC had shown a big interest. Therefore an initial batch of 60 aircraft designated GR1 were to be ordered.
  • The Anglo-French Variable Geometry program was cancelled. There was too little money available to adequately fund the program and there was not considered to be a short term need for the aircraft that could not be fulfilled by other programs. It was also secretly hoped that the French might now become interested in the TSR-2.

Yes, enough was spent on the F111K, AFVG, Vulcan, Buccaneer, Jaguar and Tornado to bring the TSR2 into service.

However the Sepcat Jaguar program would continue as planned.

What plan? The Jag was initially a 60s fad of supersonic trainer and morphed into a sophisticated ground attack using some avionics initially destined for TSR2. With TSR2 and harrier much of the need isn't there.

The Mcdonnell Douglas F4 Phantom would become the principle air defence fighter for both the RAF and FAA. An order of 200 aircraft (150 for the RAF and 50 for the FAA) would be made. Both services are quick to point out that this number falls well below the number they feel they require. This is especially true in with the FAA which now has to form 3 carrier air groups.

The order was for 170 with options for 30, so it was 57 for RN and 143 for RAF all up. The Spey is needed for boundary layer bleed air for operating around RN carriers and their requirement to bring back bombs rather than dump them like the USN. If you're going to develop this for the RN its best to go balls deep and have your whole fleet with Speys using as much national input as possible.
 
My suggestions,

- Cut CVs down to only Eagle and Ark. Cut and scrap Vic's 67 refit and Centaur immediately and just keep Hermes until AUCV1 is built then sell.

- Build a cut down US super CV, ie the minimum that can fit US standard cats, traps, lifts and hangar sizes. Don't try and be complicated with missiles offload them to the escorts to save size but accept its still going to be big. Maybe accepted reduced engines & speed as long as it doesn't kill take-offs.

- Buy US standard F4Js as long as they can fly from Eagle and Ark as they are much cheaper than Spey custom aircraft, buy for RAF as well.

- Small buy of harriers for RAF and in collaboration with USMC hopefully in negotiated work share swap for buying F4Js.

- Negotiate a deal with a fixed price for F111 bombers as long as we cut the TSR2 production. (this deal might then be used to renegotiate at a huge profit when we don't actually want the F111s) actually use Buccaneer for RAF.

- Cancel Jaguar and Anglo-French Variable Geometry program.(try probably unsuccessfully to sell the French on a joint swing to civilian aircraft and Airbus)

- Is it to late to combine the VC10 and Nimrod order? I would also buy VC10 tankers so as to scrap all the V bombers once R class are working.
 

Riain

Banned
Build a cut down US super CV, ie the minimum that can fit US standard cats, traps, lifts and hangar sizes. ....... Maybe accepted reduced engines & speed as long as it doesn't kill take-offs.

What is the advantage of using US cats etc compared to the well developed British ones? Similarly what is the advantage of using US designs over British ones, in the 60s the British weren't behind the US in ship design and were ahead in the adoption of gas turbine engines.

- Buy US standard F4Js as long as they can fly from Eagle and Ark as they are much cheaper than Spey custom aircraft, buy for RAF as well.

The US versions can fly from RN carriers but not with any appreciable warload, however the biggest design driver for the Spey is the requirement for bleed air for the boundary layer control and the requirement to bring unused ordnance back to the ship which the USN didn't do.

- Negotiate a deal with a fixed price for F111 bombers as long as we cut the TSR2 production. (this deal might then be used to renegotiate at a huge profit when we don't actually want the F111s) actually use Buccaneer for RAF.

Given the massive development cost blowouts its probably better for GD to pay the cost of breaking the contract than undertaking the work.
 
Personally I wouldn't keep T.S.R.2 as anything other than a research aircraft, or go for the F111 but would tell the RAF straight they're getting the Buccaneer whether they like it or not. Better to continue the Bucc's development into an S.3 and S.4 into the 70's. If they must have a supersonic strike aircraft Hawker Siddely (as Blackburn) did propose a supersonic Bucc.
 
What is the advantage of using US cats
I just want them to be compatible so we can use any future USN aircraft, also why spend money developing cats when we will only need maybe 2 or less per decade?
the requirement to bring unused ordnance back to the ship which the USN didn't do.
The USN must have brought nukes back so why is the requirement so different, the UK requirement talks about bringing fuel back as well so could you just cut it down to only brining back expensive ordinance and get most of the savings?
 
I just want them to be compatible so we can use any future USN aircraft, also why spend money developing cats when we will only need maybe 2 or less per decade?
Mostly because the actual work required isn't hugely expensive (the British invented the things in the first place and from memory the US were still licensing the design from a British company at this point), and the initial purchase cost is a small fraction of the lifecycle cost. Given the issues of national pride and balance of payments involved, you need a very good justification not to buy the UK design.
In any case, your justification on money makes little sense - you're talking about spending a vast quantity of cash (much of it Dollars) over and above what was spent in OTL, and are now trying to penny-pinch to get a little bit back.

The USN must have brought nukes back so why is the requirement so different, the UK requirement talks about bringing fuel back as well so could you just cut it down to only bringing back expensive ordinance and get most of the savings?
Nope - trying to land back with ordnance but no fuel means that as soon as anything at all goes wrong you're dumping an entire aircraft into the briny rather than just some bombs. Nuclear weapons are also fairly light and a single store per aircraft - I've not got access to the actual UK requirement but I'd bet it is for more than say 500 lbs of bombs. Note also that the USN didn't so far as I'm aware use Phantoms in the nuclear strike role, making the point rather redundant.
 
1966
With the defence whitepaper now official government policy the defence establishment spends the remainder of 1966 working out its implementation.
The Royal Navy's second SSN HMS VALIANT is commisioned. This follow on from HMS DREADNOUGHT could be considered to be the RN's first true SSN as opposed to the experimental platform that her older half sister has been used as.
An order is placed for a 4th SSN to be named HMS CONQUEROR.
On the 15th of September with great fanfair the UK's first SSBN HMS RESOLUTION is launched in Barrow. Although some years from being fully opperational and despite her use of US manufactured missiles government press officials are relentless is their message that the government is fully commited to remaining a member of the nuclear club and to maintaining an independent credible nuclear detterent.
This comes as a welcome relief after the Skybolt crisis during which it was thought by some that the UK might be forced to give up on having a nuclear capability.
HMS EAGLE is taken in hand in Devonport for a refit to allow her to be the first carrier operate the F-4 Phantom when the aircraft becomes operational.
Regarding the Phantom it is decided to order the K version for both the RN and RAF. Those destined for the RN however require some significant modifications.
Differences in operating procedure and ships between the RN and USN mean the RN Phantoms will be fitted with Rolls Royce Spey engines and extended landing gears. These modifications however significantly increase the individual aircraft price.
The first carrier of the CVA-01 program HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH is ordered from Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast. The intention is for keel laying to take place late in the next year after the launching of the supertanker Myrina when a large enough slipway will become available. This allows time for the design to be properly matured and for a build plan to be devised.
It is decided that HMS HERMES will be retained until 1970. This will allow the RN to maintain 3 operational aircraft carriers while EAGLE and VICTORIOUS are refitted. Afterwhich she will be disposed of. It is the hope of the MOD that either Australia, Canada or India might be interested in purchasing her.
Of the TIGER class cruisers HMS BLAKE will complete her refit as planned and be retained in the service. HMS LION and HMS TIGER have been slated for disposal and being relativley young ships are offered for sale. Brazil shows some interest in purchasing at least one of the vessels.
Final design work continues on the Type 82 destroyer. A smaller design unofficially named the Type 42 is proposed. However at only 3,600 tons this design is considered to be to small to provide a proper fleet escort. Faults in the design such as its cramped conditions and presumed poor seakeeping capabilities ensure that the idea is quietly dropped despite the lower price.
With the resurrection of the TSR-2 program (the project having been technically cancelled in 1965) manufacture and testing of prototype aircraft is resumed. BAC begins to gear up for production and starts designing an export version (minus nuclear capability and some classified avionics/technology).
 
VICTORIOUS are refitted
I don't see why you would bother with hindsight?
Long term you have CVA-01 what does Vic give you?

In any case, your justification on money makes little sense - you're talking about spending a vast quantity of cash (much of it Dollars) over and above what was spent in OTL, and are now trying to penny-pinch to get a little bit back.
Ok thanks, I was just hoping that they could be designed to US standards so the RN can use more USN aircraft without modifications like the Speys.

On the Speys for F4 how needed are they? Does anybody have any detailed info on them?
- Could you replace the CATs on ARK and Eagle?
- Are they needed just for ARK and Eagle not something stupid like Vic as well?
- Could a standard F4 with the nose wheel raise work at an aceptable reduced load?
 
Ok thanks, I was just hoping that they could be designed to US standards so the RN can use more USN aircraft without modifications like the Speys.

On the Speys for F4 how needed are they? Does anybody have any detailed info on them?
- Could you replace the CATs on ARK and Eagle?
- Are they needed just for ARK and Eagle not something stupid like Vic as well?
- Could a standard F4 with the nose wheel raise work at an aceptable reduced load?
Its been mentioned a couple times up thread; UK carriers were smaller, which necessitated more powerful engines to take off from. It's also been mentioned that they provided air for the blown boundary layer system required to generate enough lift in the landing phase to allow weapons to be returned to the carrier. You can read the wiki articles on F4k and the Spey for more information.
 
Its been mentioned a couple times up thread; UK carriers were smaller, which necessitated more powerful engines to take off from. It's also been mentioned that they provided air for the blown boundary layer system required to generate enough lift in the landing phase to allow weapons to be returned to the carrier. You can read the wiki articles on F4k and the Spey for more information.
I have, I was just hoping for more information as its wonderfully vague, I just wanted to know if it was at all possible to modify the E&A to be just sufficiently good to operate a less modified F4K even if as a slightly limited stopgap for the new CV-01 (or better) replacements?
 

Ramontxo

Donor
I have, I was just hoping for more information as its wonderfully vague, I just wanted to know if it was at all possible to modify the E&A to be just sufficiently good to operate a less modified F4K even if as a slightly limited stopgap for the new CV-01 (or better) replacements?
They were more expensive and slower, But had better climbing, field performance and slightly more range than conventional Phantoms
 
They were more expensive and slower, But had better climbing, field performance and slightly more range than conventional Phantoms

If I'm remembering this right the Spey F-4's had better performance at low and at mid levels had marginally better performance, while the regular F-4's were clearly superior up high. This is in addition to the points you brought up... then again this is remembered from research i did a little more then a year ago so i might not have remembered everything correctly. The other point that is kinda of important in the Spey Phantoms is that their avionics package was British, so that probably helps out the British air industry long term.
 
They were more expensive and slower, But had better climbing, field performance and slightly more range than conventional Phantoms
I think the R&D cost of the Spey Phantom was estimated to be £25 million, but ended up being double or quadruple the original estimate. Can anyone confirm or deny that? My copy of Project Cancelled says that the unit cost for the Spey Phantom turned out to be well over £3 million each, which was 3 times the original estimate.

I think there is room for a timeline called On Time and On Budget for British defence procurement in the 1960s and 1970s. It would start with the TSR2 making its first flight in September 1963 and end with the Nimrod AEW Mk 3 entering service in 1982.
 
I have, I was just hoping for more information as its wonderfully vague, I just wanted to know if it was at all possible to modify the E&A to be just sufficiently good to operate a less modified F4K even if as a slightly limited stopgap for the new CV-01 (or better) replacements?

No. Absolutely not.

F - 4 J / N / S flown off Ark or Eagle simply isn't going to loft an operationally viable combat load for a meaningful operational radius - stopgap or not.

I have no idea why people get so hung up on the Spey idea - the fact is, for the entire life of the UK Phantom fleet, they were the better donk for the regime the aircraft operated in. Who cares about a few, missing knots of Vmax. To date, no air combat (or ground attack, for that matter) has taken place at FL500 & M 2.0.
 
I think the R&D cost of the Spey Phantom was estimated to be £25 million, but ended up being double or quadruple the original estimate. Can anyone confirm or deny that? My copy of Project Cancelled says that the unit cost for the Spey Phantom turned out to be well over £3 million each, which was 3 times the original estimate.

I think there is room for a timeline called On Time and On Budget for British defence procurement in the 1960s and 1970s. It would start with the TSR2 making its first flight in September 1963 and end with the Nimrod AEW Mk 3 entering service in 1982.

No idea if those figures are correct or not (although I'd suggest not) without researching them. Raw figures however, do not tell the whole story. What was the inflationary environment like at the time? Do they factor benefits to the UK economy / industry base in spending this money internally rather than externally? Etc, etc. Additionally, we need to remember that originally, these extra costs were to be mitigated & amortised by a much larger Phantom purchase, too.
 
Last edited:
Top