This is probably not allowable, but here goes...
IIRC the Victor tanker force was cut from 3 to 2 squadrons under the 1974 Defence Review and the number of Victors converted to K Mk 2 standard cut from the 30-odd planned to 20-odd. If no 1974 Defence Review or a less severe one there would be another 10 Victors available in No. 214 Squadron and the Tanker Training Flight in 1982. There would also be an expansion of the programme to convert VC10s into tankers as 50% more would be needed and possibly an acceleration. Though it would have to be a big acceleration as the VC.10 tanker squadron wasn't formed until May 1984.
The Victor tankers were deleted due to wrong flight profile issues (High vs. lo/lo/lo) and a technical fault (fuel flow rates problem during droguing).
The 1974 Defence Review also reduced the RAF's transport force from 12 squadrons (1 VC10, 1 Belfast, 2 Britannia, 1 Comet, 6 Hercules and 1 Argossy) to 5 (1 VC10 and 4 Hercules) squadrons. It also killed off plans to buy C-5 Galaxies to replace the Britannia.
Britainias suffered from icing problems.
Comets? Well...
Argosy? Kind of like a flying boxcar that one.
VC10? Excellent. Why weren't more of them made?
C-5s were expensive to operate and suffered from "Lockheed disease".
The Belfast was expensive.
Good British defence policy decisions are asb, therefore are not allowed.
Any universe where the Belfast survives is awesome but I was thinking about the VC10 not for the number of aircraft but the offload capacity. I think blackbuck missions could be mounted with far less vc10s than victors, assuming that the Vulcans diversion range was the limiting factor.
I prefer the Vulcan developed as a tanker.
As it happened 5 Belfasts did survive until 1982. IIRC they were operated by a civilian cargo airline and the MoD hired them to transport cargo to Ascension during the Falklands.
Okay then. They were STUFT.
There was one at Cairns airport about 7 years, they moved it for scrapping while I was up there, it ruined my holiday.
Shrug. Airframe hours.
IIRC the 1974 and subsequent defence cuts were driven by the state of the British economy, but a better performing British economy from the early 1970s to early 1980s probably requires changes of ASB magnitude in themselves.
Or an invasion by alien space bats.
And if there hadn't been a 1974 and subsequent defence reviews there would have been a much stronger Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary to back it up. E.g. Fearless and Intrepid would have been in full commission as amphibious assault ships, instead of one as the cadet training ship at Dartmouth and the other in reserve. Bulwark would have been in continuous service since 1976 instead of being paid off in 1976, brought back into service in 1979 (for a projected 5 years) but paid off in 1981. Triumph would still be around either in commission or in the Standby Squadron at Chatham. There would be 70 frigates and destroyers instead of 60. And last but not least more Sea Harriers because the orders would not have been delayed for 18 months.
Full Catobar carrier.
Edit
The Sandys, Healey and Knott defence reviews receive nearly all the attention on this board. The Mason Review of 1974-75 is hardly discussed. However, I think maintaining HM Forces at pre-Mason levels to the end of the Cold War is a lot more realistic than the "What If No Duncan Sandys and Denis Healey Reviews" threads and variations thereof that popup on the board regularly.
Once the pattern is established, it continues. Witness the current US predicament?
Isn't this effectively a 'pointless mass death scenario', and thus liable to get locked?
You should read the Beatty battle cruiser thread.
No, it certainly isn't. That wasn't my intention as the OP nor has it been the aim from other posters as far as I can see.
Report the thread if you feel the need though.
I would like to amend the OP to a more relevant what if, to suppose British or Argentinian different decisions had rendered more decisive results one way or the other.
As for the carriers, posting out of air reach does not solve submarines or Exocets. Mission kill is as good as a lost war.