A series of assumptions: a Britwank on a budget?

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:
There's also the policy justification for a 3rd CVA...
The justification is availability rates.

A force of two ships allows one to be available at all times. Although I admit that the change from steam turbines to gas turbines aught to increase the amount of time when two ships were available due to the gas turbine ships spending less time refitting.

A force of three ships allows two to be available at all times. A third air group would be nice, but not essential because the third ship would usually be refitting. My guess is that on the rare occasions when all three ships were available the third ship would be used for deck landing training and embark the Buccaneer and Phantom training squadrons (736 and 767NAS).
 
The justification is availability rates.

A force of two ships allows one to be available at all times. Although I admit that the change from steam turbines to gas turbines aught to increase the amount of time when two ships were available due to the gas turbine ships spending less time refitting.

A force of three ships allows two to be available at all times. A third air group would be nice, but not essential because the third ship would usually be refitting. My guess is that on the rare occasions when all three ships were available the third ship would be used for deck landing training and embark the Buccaneer and Phantom training squadrons (736 and 767NAS).
Generally, with a force of three ships, you have one on station, one refitting and the third working up. With the three moving in rotation. Ships and crews need to work up, to figure out how things work and make sure they work.
 
Snip of Post 581.
Some thoughts about the Buccaneer and Phantom.

Phantom

IOTL 59 F-4K were ordered (including 4 prototypes) and 52 were actually built. AFAIK 28 of the 48 production aircraft were delivered to the FAA (to equip 767 and 892 NAS) and the other 20 were delivered to the RAF which used them to equip No. 43 Squadron.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the order was reduced from 59 to 52 in 1968 as a consequence of the decision to cancel Eagle's Phantomisation and bring forward the phasing out of the aircraft carrier force from 1975 to 1972.

ITTL Eagle is Phantomised in the second half of the 1960s and the Wilson Government stuck to their plan to withdraw Ark Royal and Eagle in 1975. Therefore, my guess is that the last 7 F-4Ks would not be cancelled ITTL. (The unit cost of the F-4K ITTL will be higher than IOTL because the R&D costs of £100 million aren't shared with the F-4M (because there isn't one) and the production cost may be higher because the 52 to 59 Spey-Phantoms are built instead of 170.)

AFAIK 767NAS had 5 aircraft and 892 NAS 12 so the other 11 must have been reserve aircraft. ITTL the two operational squadrons will require 24 aircraft, the training squadron 10 aircraft which would leave 14 reserve aircraft if 52 F-4K are built ITTL and 21 if 59 aircraft are built.

The OTL CVA.01 was planned to have an air group of 18 Phantoms and 18 Buccaneers. However, IIRC the TTL CVA.01 class only operated 12 Phantoms and 14 Buccaneers in peacetime. Production of the Spey-Phantom terminated before the end of 1969 IOTL and the Heath Government came to power in June 1970. Therefore, it might not have been possible to build more Spey-Phantoms even if the Government wanted to and could have afforded to. However, more Phantoms could be embarked by breaking up the training squadron and IIRC that's what @Riain did in 1982 ITTL.

I accept what @Riain wrote about "orphaned fleets". OTOH the RAF bought second-hand F-4Js IOTL and the CVA.01 class aught to be able to operate the J79-Phantoms without difficulty.

Buccaneer

146 Buccaneer Mk 2s were ordered IOTL and 133 were completed. That is 96 for the FAA (12 were cancelled), 46 for the RAF in a batch of 26 and a batch of 20) and 4 for the RAE (one cancelled). The FAA aircraft were delivered 1964-69, the RAF aircraft were delivered 1970-77 and the RAE aircraft were delivered in 1974.

I don't know, but I suspect that the FAA order was reduced from 96 to 84 in 1968 when the phasing out of the aircraft carriers was brought forward from 1975 to the end of 1970. That doesn't happen ITTL so my guess is that 96 Buccaneers will be built for the FAA.

96 Buccaneers will be more than enough to maintain a front-line of 28 aircraft in 2 squadrons of 14 plus a training squadron. When the Heath Government reinstates the CVA.01 class there would be enough aircraft to maintain a force of 36 aircraft in 2 squadrons of 18 plus an enlarged training squadron. There might be enough to maintain a front-line of 48 aircraft in 2 squadrons of 24 plus the training squadron. That is Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales would embark a squadron of 12 Phantoms and two squadrons of 12 Buccaneers.

Finding the money to pay the extra personnel is a different matter, which I suspect is why Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales operate the same size air group as Ark Royal and Eagle in peacetime (12 Phantoms and 14 Buccaneers plus Gannets and helicopters). However, in common with the Phantom more Buccaneer aircraft could be operated by breaking up the training squadron, which is what @Riain did in 1982 ITTL.
 
Last edited:
Generally, with a force of three ships, you have one on station, one refitting and the third working up. With the three moving in rotation. Ships and crews need to work up, to figure out how things work and make sure they work.
Generally, with a force of three ships, the ship that's working up can be made operational at short notice.

Generally, with a force of two ships there will be times when no ships are on station.
 

Riain

Banned
The justification is availability rates.

A force of two ships allows one to be available at all times. Although I admit that the change from steam turbines to gas turbines aught to increase the amount of time when two ships were available due to the gas turbine ships spending less time refitting.

A force of three ships allows two to be available at all times. A third air group would be nice, but not essential because the third ship would usually be refitting. My guess is that on the rare occasions when all three ships were available the third ship would be used for deck landing training and embark the Buccaneer and Phantom training squadrons (736 and 767NAS).

What will Britian do with all this availability? They had a commitment to strike group 2 which will occupy 1 carrier. The 50% of the time when the 2nd carrier is available it will do NATO stuff in the med or world cruises. Having 2 carriers all the time is the tail wagging the dog, spending money on ship and crew in excess of what is required for British security.
 
What will Britian do with all this availability? They had a commitment to strike group 2 which will occupy 1 carrier. The 50% of the time when the 2nd carrier is available it will do NATO stuff in the med or world cruises. Having 2 carriers all the time is the tail wagging the dog, spending money on ship and crew in excess of what is required for British security.
It's the "rule of three" explained by @Rickshaw.

AIUI that was why 3 Invincibles were built and these ships are doing the same job as them, only considerably better. I know that the official reason for building 3 Invincibles was that they were a one-for-one replacement of the Tiger class, but that appears to have been a convenient pretext.

What if a crisis like the Falklands War happens during the 50% of the time when the second carrier isn't available? IOTL the British were lucky that the Falklands happened during the 50% of the time that Hermes and Invincible could be made operational at short notice.
 
Last edited:
Generally, with a force of three ships, the ship that's working up can be made operational at short notice.
That is a given. However, in doing that, it invariably means the ship and crew are learning on the job. Look at the Prince of Wales during the chase of the Bismark. They had contractors still on board when they were committed to the chase and the battle.
 
That is a given. However, in doing that, it invariably means the ship and crew are learning on the job. Look at the Prince of Wales during the chase of the Bismark. They had contractors still on board when they were committed to the chase and the battle.
I wouldn't be surprised if many of the ships that set sail for the Falklands in 1982 had dockyard workers aboard and they had to be put ashore at Ascension Island to be flown back to the UK.

And I reiterate that with a force of 2 ships it won't be possible to have one on station at all times.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be surprised if many of the ships that set sail for the Falklands on 1982 had dockyard workers aboard and they had to be put ashore at Ascension Island to be flown back to the UK.

And I reiterate that with a force of 2 ships it won't be possible to have one on station at all times.
Hermes famously sailed south with loads of dockyard workers still onboard, and so it is said, "with their redundancy papers in their back pockets"
 
Did they need, or likely feel they would need, to buy votes on Tyneside though?
It could explain why Swan Hunter got the contracts for Illustrious and Ark Royal instead of Cammell Lard, Harland & Wolff or one of the Clyde shipyards.

According to Hobbs in The British Carrier Strike Fleet after 1945...
It was originally intended that Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering would build all three ships at its Barrow-in-Furness shipyard and as we saw above Vickers’ staff acted as lead yard in the production of drawings. For political reasons, however, the Labour Government that returned to power in 1974 decided that the second and third ships should be built by Swan Hunter on the Tyne.¹³ This led to delays and an increase in cost of about £50 million¹⁴ over the production phase of the project.

13. By then, both yards actually formed part of the nationalised ‘British Shipbuilders’.
14. Dare I say, not far short of the projected cost of CVA-01!
I had previously thought that Illustrious and Ark Royal were ordered from Swan Hunter instead of Vickers because the latter yard was overloaded with work.

This was why the Type 42 destroyer Cardiff had to be completed by Swan Hunter. See the following quote from Modern Combat Ships 3: Type 42 by Leo Marriott.
Cardiff was fated to spend the longest time under construction of any of the Type 42s built. Laid down in November 1972, she was launched in February 1974 but fitting out proceeded at an extremely slow pace. By this time Vickers was heavily committed to the hunter-killer nuclear submarine programme as well as construction of HMS Invincible, the first of the new class of light aircraft carriers, and fitting out was proceeding on ARA-01 (Hercules). This heavy workload coupled with a shortage of skilled labour led eventually to a decision to transfer Cardiff to Swan Hunters' Tyne yard for completion and she was towed from Barrow to Newcastle in February 1976. Even so it was over three years before she finally commissioned in September 1979, making a total construction time of nearly seven years.
 
Last edited:

Riain

Banned
It's the "rule of three" explained by @Rickshaw.

AIUI that was why 3 Invincibles were built and these ships are doing the same job as them, only considerably better. I know that the official reason for building 3 Invincibles was that they were a one-for-one replacement of the Tiger class, but that appears to have been a convenient pretext.

What if a crisis like the Falklands War happens during the 50% of the time when the second carrier isn't available? IOTL the British were lucky that the Falklands happened during the 50% of the time that Hermes and Invincible could be made operational at short notice.

The reason Britain needed 3 I's to have 2 available was because one was assigned to NATO strike fleet ASW Group 2 and the other was a Commando carrier carrying 500 Marines, the first trials of which occurred in 1981 as a replacement for Bulwark. However Nott reversed this and said Britain only needed 2 I's because there was no need for opposed Commando capability, the RM could be transported at least in part by civilians ships. The Falklands reversed this decision, 1 I was for NATO ASW TG2 and the other for Commando, but the Falklands also showed the the I's in their 'as designed' form were pretty shit so Britain really needed the 2nd ships online to get 20 Sea Harriers to sea when not being used as Commando carrier.

None of this applies to the CVA, it doesn't make a good Commando carrier and it isn't shit so doesn't need backup to get 2 squadrons of jets to sea.

What Britain needs is 1 CVA for NATO Strike TG2 and a pair of Commando ships for the RMB to land in Norway with the ability to surge more in wartime. Therefore Britain needs 2 CVAs, and 3 amphibious ships being 2 LPDs and a Commando carrier available in 1982.

A word on availability. In April 1982 only Invincible was truly available in its operating role, Fearless was a training ship, Hermes was 2 weeks into a 6 week refit, Intrepid was de-stored awaiting disposal, Bulwark was fire damaged, neglected, decommissioned awaiting disposal, Blake and Tiger were decommissioned in reserve and Illustrious was in the hands of the builders. 5 days later Hermes was flagship of Op Corporate with Invincible, with Fearless not far behind. Intrepid sailed 3 or 4 weeks later and Illustrious commissioned at sea about 4 weeks after that. Blake and Tiger's refits were stopped when Sheffield was sunk. So there's no such thing as 'not available', if an important ship is built and not fucked like Bulwark it will be bought into service in short order.
 

Riain

Banned
Here's a picture I found that illustrates the way the British were going with the Chieftain, I think that is the FV4201, an actual Chieftain of 1959 rather than the FV4202 40 Ton Centurion of 1956.


conq_cent_chief.png

Centurion-Tank-FV4202-Prototype.jpg
 
It's one of the Chieftain Ps yes.
This is what the sides of the engine bay looked like before equipment was moved to the outside.
Capture.PNG
 
According to Hobbs in The British Carrier Strike Fleet: After 1945

[SNIP]​
That seems somewhat odd as from 1945 onwards Labour appear to have continuously held all the local parliamentary seats barring two which went Conservative, even during the 1983 landslide. The area certainly isn't what you would think of as naturally leaning towards Conservatives – quite the opposite. I haven't dug out the actual voting numbers per constituency but I'd be surprised if they were all that close.
 
Top