A series of assumptions: a Britwank on a budget?

[Riain]

If they load the two wing pylons with external tanks, yeah, it's possible without tanking. The A-4C had a combat radius of 600 nautical miles so loaded with a Hi-Lo-Hi flight profile, and 485 Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi. Source, page 9.

They definitely need tanking if they want to go very far beyond the Falklands, though.

They'd do a bit of both, some lightly loaded without IFR and others heavily load using IFR.

Keep in mind that ITTL the PSP has been installed, as have the BAK 12 portable arrestor gear, which was pretty half arsed IOTL and Mirages, Daggers and A4s have visited the airfield and a damaged Mirage III made an emergency landing on 1 May. This doesn't make Port Stanley an airbase by any means, but I've seen it written that not using it at all was a missed opportunity so I'm going to have a crack at playing it out.

 

[Riain]

What does the Jaguar look like in TTL?

A sportier Tornado with 1 seat.

 

[Riain]

Conformal tank?

Yeah, I saw a diagram of a proposal once and thought it was cool. Britain loves a good belly tank.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Yeah, I saw a diagram of a proposal once and thought it was cool. Britain loves a good belly tank.

All that warm ale.

 

[McPherson]

Comments on Skyhawk radius of action.

But this all has nothing to do with RAF being less capable than the Argentine Airforce - they could barely reach the Falklands - not sure what the point is?

A-4 Skyhawk - The Vietnam Era Fighter Flown by John McCain​

It has a combat radius of 625 nmi. World Speed Record – In October of 1955, the prototype of the A-4 set the World Speed Record of 695 mph Bringing The Fight – The Skyhawk may have a small airframe but still packs a big punch.

That is with two bombs and a drop tank.

Comodoro Rivadavia to Port Stanely is 522 nautical miles. Meaning?, The Skyhawk did not "need" to mid-air refuel to strike at San Carlos Water. This has to be so, because there is no way one KC130 tanker can air to air fuel EIGHT SHIP strike packages. Two KG 130s? Maybe.

Argentina went to war with a G7 nuclear armed nation - that also had Nuclear powered subs something for which they had no possibility of answering - my only surprise is that TF71.1 (25th DM CBG) was not equally and ruthlessly dealt with - the carrier - arguably a greater threat than Belgrano's SAG was at one point during those few days being stalked by another SSN.

Was not for want of trying. The RN just could not get it done.

IIRC Argentina generally used US 500lb Mk82 and British 1,000lb MC bombs. The usual load of a Dagger was 4 x 500lb Mk82 and the big 1,700l ferry tanks, A4s were 1-3 1,000lb or 4 Mk 82 and big drop tanks. The ARA A4s used Mk82 'snakeye' retarded bombs and I don't think the FAA had these.

The UK made MC bombs were the ones with the fuses that were not proper anti-ship delay function. Those bombs were properly designed for land attack and dropped from medium altitude. The Argentines procured replacement fuses for those bombs from interesting sources, such as Spain, and certain Middle Eastern states.

I've seen pictures of A4 with a single 1,000lb bomb in the centreline, I doubt this load would need inflight refueling but I imagine that carrying 3 of these definitively would. The standard procedure for inflight refueling is to fly no further than 45% of the aircraft's range and top off the tanks so if the tanking fails the aircraft can recover to base rather than falling into the sea.

Unless you were tanker short and were a kamikaze. Also from what I've seen, the Skyhawks used pairs and a drop tank, which would just barely reach San Carlos Water.

The carriers would be 150-200 miles east of the Falklands, the centre of which were themselves some 400 miles from the mainland. The tankers were likely ~100-150 miles off the mainland flying at about 20,000' so would be below the radar horizon of any ship no stationed to the west of Falkland Sound at least. Any attempt to attack the tankers would require Phantoms to fly some 600 miles into a general area, (localised enough I suppose like the Argentines used to watch where Sea Harriers came and went on their radars), and locate these tankers with their own radars. This can be done, I have no doubt, but like the Argentine efforts to locate carriers using the same method it is likely to fail as succeed so the effort would have to weighed up against the reward against other missions more likely to deliver results.

Likely and I believe true. The proper "assassin mission" would be alert 5 of two pairs on the cats and waiting for radio intelligence to get a search bearing. They would speed launch and fly low-low-low to avoid enemy coastal radar until they thought they were within acquisition range of own radar, then they would pop up and take a paint and if they had a confirmed target would close and shoot, then skedaddle before the bodyguards could react. It would be high-high on after-burner to their own refuel point and then with a short top-off, it would be trap/land-on and report.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Comodoro Rivadavia to Port Stanely is 522 nautical miles. Meaning?, The Skyhawk did not "need" to mid-air refuel to strike at San Carlos Water. This has to be so, because there is no way one KC130 tanker can air to air fuel EIGHT SHIP strike packages. Two KG 130s? Maybe.

Was not for want of trying. The RN just could not get it done.

Yes as I said strike packages of 4 or 8 planes as they would have both KC130s working together each refuelling one pair each - if the top up was done efficiently they could attack in a package of 8 planes if not then the first 4 would go it alone as they could not afford to hang about.

I have read multiple accounts claiming that the strike planes including the Skyhawks required the tankers to effectively reach the islands

I am quite sure that the A4s could have just about reached the islands flying at an economical altitude but not having to fly High-Low-High with a reasonable reserve

Otherwise why did they not simply sortie every Skyhawk (possibly as many as 58 in total including the 8 A4Qs) at the same time to utterly overwhelm the British?

Obviously they had to tank, this has to be so, because they never attacked with more than 8 planes in a given strike (as far as I am aware anyway)

Also if you read the sortie reports from the Argentine side many aircraft aborted when they had issues tanking.

Just read up on the 30 odd Israeli made Daggers and like the Mirage III they did not have air refuelling either limiting them to about 10 minutes over the islands giving them a very predictable approach corridor.

The RN had 25 DM in their sights but the trigger order from No 10 did not come during that window of opportunity - General B was unlucky in that when No 10 made the decision to sink her HMS Splendid had lost track of 24 DM but Courageous had General B in her sights and after the cruiser was sunk the Argentine Navy decided wisely not to play anymore and withdrew their ships - after which there was nothing to be gained by sinking her.

Political decision making at both ends of the Atlantic saved the carrier which I am pleased about on the one hand as lots of young lads would have undoubtedly died when she was sunk but equally 3 of her air groups A4Qs subsequently flying from an airbase sank the damaged HMS Ardent several weeks later (all 3 being shot down following the attack).

Apparently I just read that the US had embargoed Argentina (due to the dirty war) and they had not had any spares or replacements for the A4 fleets equipment including the ejector seats since 1977!

 

[Riain]

The RN had 25 DM in their sights but the trigger order from No 10 did not come during that window of opportunity - General B was unlucky in that when No 10 made the decision to sink her HMS Splendid had lost track of 24 DM

I've heard different things about Splendid and de Mayo, that she didn't make contact, or made it and lost it. I've alsa read that her Trackers located the TF, or at least elements of it, then lost them again. And 3 Sea Harriers conducted a clearance search out to 150 miles, picked up the T42 radars on their RWRs and did a radar sweep picking up these ships.

I'm pretty sure the aircraft detections are true, but am not so sure about Splendid, wiki says she chased de Mayo into the 12 mile limit so maybe they got onto it too late.

 

[Riain]

While a lot of action was occurring close to the Islands further afield naval forces had begun shadow boxing in preparation for a confrontation. From late April the ARA had put 3 Task Groups to as part of Task Force 79. In the north were TG 79.1 consisting of the Exocet armed 6” gun Cruiser Belgrano and a pair of Exocet armed destroyers, and TG 79.3 consisting of three Drummond class Corvettes armed with Exocets. While to the south TG79.4 consisting the aircraft carrier 25 de Mayo and the two Type 42 destroyers, also Exocet armed unlike RN type 42s patrolled between Tierra del Fuego and the easternmost point of the Burwood Bank. (1) The SSN HMS Conqueror had been in contact with the de Mayo group for some time but was experiencing some difficulty keeping in contact as the carrier changed direction to launched and recover her aircraft. These changes in direction took her over the Burwood Bank, a rise in the seabed that shoals up to less than the 200’ minimum depth for SSNs to operate, as well as being alive with sea life creating a cacophony of sound to confuse the Conqueror's sonar operators. In contrast HMS Splendid had not been able to make contact with the Belgrano group in the north.

On the morning of 1 May, as the San Luis was attempting to torpedo the Brilliant and Yarmouth, Alacrity's Lynx was attacking ARA patrol boats and Glamorgan was dueling with a shore battery, ARA Admiral Lombardo issued a general order to these Task Groups. They were to to seek out the British task force around the Falklands and launch a "massive attack" the following day. Intercepted to British intelligence, this order was passed up the chain of command to be assessed at the highest level. ARA Neptune, conducting radar searches in support of the northern Task Groups managed to make contact with elements of the RN Task force, but was unable to maintain this conact throughout the day.(2) A RAF Nimrod, operating out of Ascension with extensive VC10 tanker support(3), was able to locate the ARA Task groups.(3) Like the Neptune was unable to hold the track for long as it was at the extreme end of a fragile in-flight refueling chain stretching back over 3,500 miles to that tiny volcanic speck in the mid Atlantic. While away to the south the de Mayo’s Trackers were searching for the TN Task force themselves.(5)

1. IOTL the 25 de Mayo was in the North as TG 79.1 and Belgrano was in the south as TG 79.4
2. ITOL this was Trackers from de Mayo
3. IOTL the RAF tanker-supported mission on 1 May was Black Buck 1
4. IOTL 3 Sea Harriers conducted a clearance search (after the de Mayos Tracker was detected or an RN Sea King detected something, I can’t find the book) to 150 miles, detected Type 965 radars on their RWRs and did a radar sweep locating the de Mayo’s Type 42 destroyer escort.
5. IOTL the Trackers were searching in the north.

 

[McPherson]

Otherwise why did they not simply sortie every Skyhawk (possibly as many as 58 in total including the 8 A4Qs) at the same time to utterly overwhelm the British?

a. Inexperience.
b. They are not the United States Navy.
c. Strike controller is an art form.

Obviously they had to tank, this has to be so, because they never attacked with more than 8 planes in a given strike (as far as I am aware anyway)

That is my understanding, usually two elements one behind the other of four planes apiece.

Also if you read the sortie reports from the Argentine side many aircraft aborted when they had issues tanking.

d. Why did they tank burdened over water? Didn't they know enough to tank after climb to orbit over their own airfields, then fly the mission, and meet to tank again on RTB?

 

[Riain]

May 2nd dawned without the flurry of activity that characterised the previous day. The Argentines had shown the previous day that they could hit back, and while the British got the better of it should the ARA enter the battle alongside the FAA things could get very difficult indeed for the Task Force. As such they stood on the defensive in the morning, with the Gannets and Phantoms sent up but only a pair of Buccaneer armed with 1,000lb bombs in their bomb bays were launched. The previous day it was made obvious that the British had little hard intelligence on enemy strength and dispositions, this must be remedied in order to avoid needless casualties. Special forces teams had already been inserted into Bluff Cove, Stanley, Berkeley Sound, Cow Bay, Port Salvador, San Carlos Water, Goose Green and Lafonia, and over on West Falkland, Pebble Island, Port Howard and Fox Bay. Now these Buccaneers set off in opposite directions to do a clearance searches around the coast of East Falkland using their differential RWRs system and Blue Parrot radar, with orders to attack any target of opportunity. Such an opportunity was not long in coming as the northerly Buccaneer came across the Formosa which was sneaking away from Port Stanley, her unloading was complete. She was attacked with 1,000lb bomb, however these were not fused specifically to attack ships and while being hit with a single bomb this did not explode and Formosa continued her journey home.(1) As the light became better another pair of Buccaneer were launched, fitted with the camera packs in their bomb bays to conduct recce of likely sites around the islands. Meanwhile a strike package was being prepared, four Buccaneer each armed with an Anti-radar and a pair of TV Martels, with their guidance pod on the spare outer wing pylon, four with 6 1,000lb ballute retarded bombs and a pair of Phantoms for escort.

At the other end of the Atlantic Prime Minister Thatcher met with Admiral Fieldhouse at the PMs country estate of Chequers to discuss the signal intercepted the previous day from Admiral Lombardo. The situation with the de Mayo was explained, now that she was almost to the western end of the Burwood Bank she could make a high speed dash, shake contact with the Conquerer and be in a position to launch her aircraft. Should this be coordinated with the movements of the Belgrano and Corvettes, as it was expected to be, the Task Force could face attack by 20 or more Exocet missiles and be in grave danger of catastrophic losses. Being reminded of the diplomatic note passed to Argentina of 23 April that threats to the Task force would be dealt with Prime Minister Thatcher authorised attacks on the ARA outside of the 200 mile TEZ.(2)

While these deliberations were being made British SIGINT detected the radio chatter of an ARA Super Etendard Exocet attack being aborted, which focused attention considerably. In the afternoon Captain Christopher Wreford-Brown moved the HM Conqueror into an attacking position while the Prince of Wales turned into the wind and began launching the 10 aircraft ranged ready. The Martel carrying Buccaneer flew line abreast 10 miles apart with the bomb toting Buccs and Phantoms flew a closer tactical formation somewhat behind. Captain Wreford-Brown was thwarted by the erratic movements of the de Mayo as he closed in for his attack, as she steamed over the shaoling water of the Burwood Bank, but by 3.57pm he was in position and fired three Mk8 torpedoes of WW2 vintage at the de Mayo. The first missed while the second hit de Mayo without exploding, but the third hit the Santisima Trinidad squarely (3)and exploded, breaking her back and sinking her, killing dozens of her crew. Minutes later the Buccaneers lit up their Blue Parrot radars, locked on to the largest target, passed this information to the bomb Buccs and went on the attack firing 4 Radar guided and 8 TV guided Martels. Four missiles failed while another 4 missed, but the 4 which did caused massive damage to the old ship. Seconds later four more Buccaneers screamed in at low level plunging three 1,000lb bombs into her, killing 323 of her crew. They then turned their attention on the Bouchard and Piedra Buena with their remaining bombs without success although Bouchard was mildly damaged by a glancing hit that exploded nearby. By 4.30pm on 2 May the Argentine Navy was heading back to port at high speed.

1. IOTL Formosa didn’t finish unloading and was attacked accidentally by Gruppo and hit with a 1,000lb bomb that didn’t explode.
2. IOTL only the Belgrano attack was authorised, IIUC the RN was not in close contact with de Mayo.
3. IOTL 2 torpedoes hit Belgrano and exploded while a 3rd hit Bouchard without causing damage

 

[Riain]

d. Why did they tank burdened over water? Didn't they know enough to tank after climb to orbit over their own airfields, then fly the mission, and meet to tank again on RTB?

The way the Argentines tanked was textbook.

Tanking is risky, it doesn't work often enough, Black Buck 6 Vulcan landed in Brazil was because the probe snapped. Black Buck 1 had a reserve Victor which needed I think because the Victor couldn't extend its IFR hose.

The perfect place to tank is at 5-15% less than Bingo point, that way if the tanking works you've picked up 40% more range but if it fails the plane can divert to base rather than crash into the sea. Tanking on return legs is very risky, not something a planner wants to do often because of the high chance of non combat loss of the aircraft.

Otherwise why did they not simply sortie every Skyhawk (possibly as many as 58 in total including the 8 A4Qs) at the same time to utterly overwhelm the British?

I've read that their command above Air Brigade level wasn't very good. A Gruppo launching two flights of 4 aircraft is pretty normal, a 65% availability rate and as has been pointed out this is about all the tankers can service at once. But it doesn't appear to have occurred to them to speak to 6 AB and asked what time their Daggers were going to attack or 8 AB to see if their Mirages were going to do a feint or whatever

 

[Riain]

I've changed post #265 to take out the but about truck launched exocets, it's based on incorrect information.

 

[Riain]

Both sides paused from breath the next day, to take stock of two days of hectic fighting. While the British had definitely gotten the better of it they quickly realised that daylight bombardment attracts gunfire and enemy fighters like dogshit attracts flies. They also realised that while guided missiles are very useful they certainly have their limitations, with only 1/3 of Sparrows and Martels fired finding their targets although the SRAAM was faring much better at close to 80%.(1)

The Argentines most certainly had lost these initial battles, losing 4 combat jets, 2 major warships and a medium artillery battery in 2 days without inflicting any commensurate losses on the enemy. While artillery bunds might provide some protection against naval gunfire they were no defence against unopposed bombers. In the future shoot and scoot would be the only way to survive, indeed mobility might be the key to hitting back at the enemy, luring his aircraft into AA traps with artillery or his ship into artillery range with AA fire. Certainly to do nothing was to invite death and as they say necessity is the mother of invention, so began a ‘shell game’ moving artillery, SAM launchers and AA batteries back and forth so every time the British arrived they would face something new. Already back on the mainland a small team was working on a mobile, ground based Exocet launcher, which was given a boost now the Navy was confined to port and missiles were available. Back on the mainland 6 Air Brigade, the only FAA unit attack the British ships noted that the ships were alert, facing head-on with main guns blazing which was not conducive to a good bombing target and decided to try rockets next time. They considered that their survival was due to the defending Phantoms being elsewhere, fighting Mirages and other Daggers, so wandered over their co-tenants at San Julian, 5 Air Brigade with it’s A4Cs to learn when they planned to undertake their next attacks, advising their sister squadron at Rio Grande to do the same with the Navy units there..Surprisingly enough BAM Malvinas remained open, makeshift repairs had been done allowing furtive cargo flights to arrive, light aircraft and even MB339 Machhi jet trainer-light attack. So far only the single Mirage had used the airfield as an emergency landing strip, and this aircraft was moved regularly in order to avoid it being targeted while under repair.

1. IOTL the 9L Sidewinder got an 80% hit rate in the Falklands

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This part of the thread reminds me of @flasheart's HMS Eagle in the Falklands thread with the ALT-CVA.01 taking the place of HMS Eagle.

HMS EAGLE in the Falklands

Story only thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/hms-eagle-in-the-falklands-story-only.506141/ 31st March 1982 Whitehall Pausing only to make a quick phone call to get a quick update on the disposition and readiness of his fleet and having found the defence secretary not in...

www.alternatehistory.com

 

[Riain]

While 3 May was relatively quiet with British activity limited to CAPs, recce and clearance searches in the absence of serious enemy action the following day was certainly not. In the two weeks leading up to the 4 May, Argentinian Super Etendard pilots had been attack practicing tactics against their own ships, including Type 42 destroyers using the same radars as other ships in the British Task force. and knew the optimal procedure to programme the Exocet missile for a successful attack profile. The PoW was operating in it’s huge area some 150-250 miles east of East Falkland with the HMS Sheffield operating as a forward picket some 50-60 miles south of Stanley(1) operating with the radar cover of the southerly Gannet AEW. An ANA Neptune first detected Sheffield at 07:50 and kept the British ships under surveillance, verifying Sheffield's position again at 08:14 and 08:43. Two Argentine Navy Super Étendards, both armed with AM39 Exocets, took off from Río Grande naval air base at 09:45 and met with an Argentine Air Force KC-130H Hercules tanker, with two IAI Daggers as escorts, to refuel at 10:00. At 10:35, with a Learjet 35 nearby as a decoy, the Neptune climbed to 3,800’ and detected one large and two medium-sized contacts and few minutes later updated the Super Étendards with the positions. Flying at very low altitude, at approximately 10:50 both Super Étendards climbed to 500’ to verify these contacts, but failed to locate them and returned to low altitude. They later climbed again and after a few seconds of scanning, the targets appeared on their radar screens, the pilots loaded the coordinates into their weapons systems, returned to low level, and after last minute checks, each launched an Exocet at 11:04 while 25 miles away from their targets then turned for home.

The Learjet had done it’s job, a little too well as it turned out and as the Phantoms on CAP went to investigate they located the elderly Neptune, firing a Sparrow which damaged the aircraft before finishing it off with the 30mm gun in the belly tank.(2) However the Super Etendards were at the edge of the Gannet’s radar coverage and flying very low so a track was not developed as they turned around, while the very small and very low Exocets evaded the Gannet completely. While nearby Type 42 Glasgow detected the Super Etendards, called a warning, fired chaff and made evasive manoeuvres in a litany of errors Sheffield did not react and was struck by one of the missiles. The Exocet warhead did not explode but the solid rocket sustainer motor continued to burn starting fires in the destroyer.

While the Sheffield’s crew was battling the raging fires three Buccaneer from 809 sqn attacked Goose Green airstrip with CBU's and retard bombs. Little damage was done, but one aircraft was hit by Skyguard-directed 35mm Oerlikon fire and crashed killing the crew.(3) As was now new operating procedure the three twin 35mm AA guns and their Skyguard radar were packed up and moved to be replaced by a single triple Tigercat SAM in a general rearrangement of the defences. If the British came back to attack the 35mm AA guns they’d find things to be different. Some two hours later, with the fires threatening the Sea Dart magazine, Sheffield was abandoned to the flames. For the loss of 7 crew on a barely flyable Neptune Argentina had stuck back, showing the potential of cooperation between units sharing bases.

1. ITOL the CBG was as close as 70 miles to Stanley to the South East, Sheffield was ~50 mile South West of the CBG
2. IOTL The 2 Neptunes flew until May 15 when they became permanently unserviceable.
3. IOTL this was a Sea Harrier

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Why thank you, IOTL the British spent 400 million pounds between 1973 and 1982 to build the first 2 Invincible class ships, while the Ark Royal cost another 335 million pounds. I don't know how much money between 1975 and 1982 to design/adapt the Sea Harrier and build 28 but the unit cost of a GR3 in 1975 was somewhere between 2.5-3.5 million pounds so the production of the 28 Sea Harrier used in the Falklands was at least 98 million pounds (using the upper GR3 number) plus whatever the development cost to raise the cockpit and adapt the Seaspray helicopter radar into the Blue Fox. Surely 500 million pounds will go a long way toward building CVA01 and 02.

I agree.

It has been said that "steel is cheap". That is the hull and machinery of modern warships are a small part of the total cost. The expensive parts are the weapons systems and electronics.

CVA.01 and Invincible both had Sea Dart and comparable electronics. As far as I can see the major difference was that CVA.01 was to have had the Type 988 radar and Invincible was fitted with a Type 1022. Therefore, this part of the TTL CVA.01 aught to cost exactly the same as Invincible.

Invincible had 4 Olympus gas turbines that produced about 100,000shp and drove 2 shafts. The steam plant of the OTL CVA.01 was to have produced 135,000shp and driven 3 shafts. My guess is that the TTL-CVA.01 would have had 6 Olympus gas turbines producing 150,000shp. Would that have cost 50% more?

CVA.01 and Invincible both had two lifts. The former's will be more expensive because they have to lift larger and heavier aircraft.

CVA.01 has steam catapults and arrester gear that Invincible didn't. They will be additional costs.

Therefore, I think that the money spent on Invincible and Illustrious would have covered more than half the building cost of CVA.01 and CVA.02.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Why thank you, IOTL the British spent 400 million pounds between 1973 and 1982 to build the first 2 Invincible class ships, while the Ark Royal cost another 335 million pounds. I don't know how much money between 1975 and 1982 to design/adapt the Sea Harrier and build 28 but the unit cost of a GR3 in 1975 was somewhere between 2.5-3.5 million pounds so the production of the 28 Sea Harrier used in the Falklands was at least 98 million pounds (using the upper GR3 number) plus whatever the development cost to raise the cockpit and adapt the Seaspray helicopter radar into the Blue Fox. Surely 500 million pounds will go a long way toward building CVA01 and 02.

The estimated cost of CVA.01 in 1966 was £70 million. (Source: Leo Marriott Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers 1945-1990 published 1985.)

I don't know how accurate the estimate that Marriott was quoting was, but it's the only one I have.

According to the Bank of England Inflation Calculator £70 million in 1966 was worth £369.49 in 1982. (Inflation averaged 11.0% a year.)

So the £500 million spent would have covered about two-thirds of the estimated cost of two OTL CVA.01 class aircraft carriers.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I agree.

It has been said that "steel is cheap". That is the hull and machinery of modern warships are a small part of the total cost. The expensive parts are the weapons systems and electronics.

CVA.01 and Invincible both had Sea Dart and comparable electronics. As far as I can see the major difference was that CVA.01 was to have had the Type 988 radar and Invincible was fitted with a Type 1022. Therefore, this part of the TTL CVA.01 aught to cost exactly the same as Invincible.

Invincible had 4 Olympus gas turbines that produced about 100,000shp and drove 2 shafts. The steam plant of the OTL CVA.01 was to have produced 135,000shp and driven 3 shafts. My guess is that the TTL-CVA.01 would have had 6 Olympus gas turbines producing 150,000shp. Would that have cost 50% more?

CVA.01 and Invincible both had two lifts. The former's will be more expensive because they have to lift larger and heavier aircraft.

CVA.01 has steam catapults and arrester gear that Invincible didn't. They will be additional costs.

Therefore, I think that the money spent on Invincible and Illustrious would have covered more than half the building cost of CVA.01 and CVA.02.

The estimated cost of CVA.01 in 1966 was £70 million. (Source: Leo Marriott Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers 1945-1990 published 1985.)

I don't know how accurate the estimate that Marriott was quoting was, but it's the only one I have.

According to the Bank of England Inflation Calculator £70 million in 1966 was worth £369.49 in 1982. (Inflation averaged 11.0% a year.)

So the £500 million spent would have covered about two-thirds of the estimated cost of two OTL CVA.01 class aircraft carriers.

Unfortunately, those estimates look too good to be true and in my experience when something looks too good to be true it often is.

 

[Thoresby]

Great TL and I don't think you are being unrealistic at all with the exception of the civilian jetliner sales especially into the US market.

Labour’s Harold Macmillan became Prime Minister for a second time at the head of the first minority government in Britain since 1929.

I think you mean Wilson here.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I've heard different things about Splendid and de Mayo, that she didn't make contact, or made it and lost it. I've alsa read that her Trackers located the TF, or at least elements of it, then lost them again. And 3 Sea Harriers conducted a clearance search out to 150 miles, picked up the T42 radars on their RWRs and did a radar sweep picking up these ships.

I'm pretty sure the aircraft detections are true, but am not so sure about Splendid, wiki says she chased de Mayo into the 12 mile limit so maybe they got onto it too late.

Having a re-read of the situation - Splendid had a harder job than Conqueror as her target had better ASW capability in the form of aircraft, better surface radar making detection of a periscope a greater possibility and also the Carrier kept changing course to recover and launch aircraft and apparently there was fog on the 2-4th in the region.

She did chase the CBG as it fell back into Argentine territorial waters where the RoE did not allow her to engage.

What's interesting is that she detected a D-E sub that was not British or Argentinian (one of the enduring mystery's - apparently the CBG attacked a submarine contact multiple times on the 4th that was not it has since been established HMS Splendid - so possibly a Chilean sub or possibly Russian? Or more likely a biological) and gave it a wide berth (having already concluded that the CBG was not leaving the 12 mile limit) and on the 6th with drew from the AO for 6 days due to a failure on one of her 2 generators.