Riain
Banned
I could easily see a third being ordered in the aftermath of the Falklands War and a Commando carrier to replace the Hermes.
I'm not convinced.
CVA.02 is built instead of Invincible. Therefore, CVA.03 if built ITTL would have taken the place of Illustrious. That is ordered in May 1976, laid down in October 1976 and completed in June 1982.
I think the minority Labour Government would have ordered a large warship from Swan Hunter in 1976 as a way of buying votes in Tyneside. Failing that it would have ordered an extra pair of Type 42s.
There is a precedent for this. IOTL the Callaghan Government ordered 2 Type 22 frigates and 2 Type 42 destroyers on 25th April 1979. I think it was no coincidence that the 1979 General Election campaign was going on at the time. That is the Vote of No Confidence was on 28th March and the General Election was on 3rd May.
A commando carrier certainly,and I'll put that in alongside the Type 44 destroyers, but they don't have the aircraft to equip 3 CVAs. ITTL the RN had 100 Phantom and Buccaneer by 1982 which is enough to send ~70 to sea in wartime but only 28-56 in peacetime. If they buy a 3rd ship they'll have maintain 56 at sea in peacetime and surge 100 in wartime so CAV03 will have to be accompanied by an aircraft buy and these will be orphan fleets not compatible with the Spey Phantoms and Buccaneer already in service.
There's also the policy justification for a 3rd CVA. ITTL during the Heath government the withdrawal from East of Suez is still happening to the 1975 schedule, the Beria patrol wound down 1971-75 and HMS Jufair still closed in 1971 although they hang on in Malaysia with Lightnings and TSR2 until beyond OTLs 1971 withdrawal. The roles of the 2 CVAs envisaged by the Heath government are in the Med alongside the British positions in Gibraltar, Malta and especially Cyprus alongside the NEAF TSR2s, and in the North Atlantic with Strike Group 2 of NATO strike Fleet Atlantic. The Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and the Mason Review, which won't be a cut and run from the Med like OTL will still reduce Britain's responsibilities there, giving work for the CVA not assigned to NATO Strike Fleet but beyond that there's not really a lot of work for a 3rd CVA to do in the late 70s. The Nott review reinforced this IOTL, he felt comfortable cutting back to 2 command carriers in 1981.
ITTL Britain has undertaken a bit of a policy shift in 1974, driven partly by the fact they have a pair of CVAs in service and another 2 coming along, that as the only country in NATO able to operate a strike carrier they will continue to do so even at the expense of BAOR and RAFG if needed. but even this can't justify a 3rd CVA. While the Falklands will be able to justify bumping up the FAA to over 100 aircraft again, maximising the CVA's availability after Nott minimised it and the building of a Hermes replacement I can't see it justifying building another strike carrier and it's air wing.
Sorry, nobody wants another production run of Buccaneers and Spey Tomcats more than me, but the whole point of this is what the British government will pay for not what's cool.
EDIT; just a word on 100 FAA jets seeming like plenty, IOTL the FAA/RAF lost 5 Harriers to ground fire and 5 to operational accidents, ITTL that's 8 FAA aircraft getting the FAA down to 92 jets and 2 RAF Harriers. However it wouldn't take many more losses for the FAA to start running short of planes to keep the CAGs up to strength, and any number of things could have caused such losses.
Last edited: