AHC/WI: Royal Navy Receives the CVA-01 and Type 82

[Delta Force]

With the cancellation of the CVA-01 class fleet aircraft carrier and Type 82 class light cruiser programs in 1966 and the British government's 1968 decision to withdraw from East of Suez, the Royal Navy slowly lost the CATOBAR capabilities that it had helped to pioneer. Anti-submarine warfare capabilities were pursued instead, with three Invincible class light aircraft carriers entering service. In 1978 HMS Ark Royal was retired without replacement, leaving the Royal Navy without a modern fleet carrier for the first time in decades. Only recently, in 2009, has the Royal Navy begun the process of reestablishing CATOBAR capabilities by placing orders for two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, similar in size to the CVA-01 class ships canceled in 1966. Had the CVA-01 class been completed, it's likely that the Queen Elizabeth class would have been their directly replacement.

Obviously there would have some changes with respect to the Falklands, but apart from that, what kind of impact would the CVA-01 and Type 82 have had on British hard and soft power during the Cold War and beyond? What would the United Kingdom have to give up for an aircraft carrier capability?

 

[Riain]

The ark royal refit cost 32 million pounds and was planned to only be used until 1972. Money is not the issue, there was sufficient money for at least two cva's.

 

[Delta Force]

The ark royal refit cost 32 million pounds and was planned to only be used until 1972. Money is not the issue, there was sufficient money for at least two cva's.

The CVA-01 and Type 82 programs would have cost around £275 million more to complete, seeing as one Type 82 (HMS Bristol) and 48 Phantom FG.1 interceptors were purchased. The Buccaneers and other aircraft could come from existing Royal Navy units. The British were in a troubled economic and fiscal situation at the time though, so it might have been bigger for them then the cost would indicate. Of course it could just be a consequence of the chaotic environment of British military procurement during the 1950s and 1960s.

 

[Riain]

If money was the real issue then the Eagle would have only cost 5 million pounds and a year to refit, rather than the Ark Royal's extensive rebuild which took 3 years and 32 million pounds. Similarly they spent 13 million pounds on rebuilding the Tiger to accommodate 4 ASW helicopters, which isn't very good value for money.

As for the longer term, past the Labor government hump, the costs are 185 million for the Invincible to 1980, 214 for Illustrious to 1982 and 333 for Ark Royal to 1985. On top of this must be added whatever the development cost for the Sea Harrier and production of 28 aircraft by 1982, and the first batch of Sheffields.

The money was spent, or more likely misspent, IOTL.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

With the cancellation of the CVA-01 class fleet aircraft carrier and Type 82 class light cruiser programs in 1966 and the British government's 1968 decision to withdraw from East of Suez, the Royal Navy slowly lost the CATOBAR capabilities that it had helped to pioneer. Anti-submarine warfare capabilities were pursued instead, with three Invincible class light aircraft carriers entering service. In 1978 HMS Ark Royal was retired without replacement, leaving the Royal Navy without a modern fleet carrier for the first time in decades. Only recently, in 2009, has the Royal Navy begun the process of reestablishing CATOBAR capabilities by placing orders for two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, similar in size to the CVA-01 class ships canceled in 1966. Had the CVA-01 class been completed, it's likely that the Queen Elizabeth class would have been their directly replacement.

Obviously there would have some changes with respect to the Falklands, but apart from that, what kind of impact would the CVA-01 and Type 82 have had on British hard and soft power during the Cold War and beyond? What would the United Kingdom have to give up for an aircraft carrier capability?

This is the usual story of Everybody, Somebody and nobody which has hamstrung British Peace time Defence procurement at least as far back as 1934.

Everybody in British Government thought that someone would make a Decision and Nobody did. Not helped by the continous change of parties during the 50s 60s and 70s at every General election not ended until the 1979 General Election.

This allowed a single party to persue a Defence plan of sort for 18 years (flawed or not its better than no plan) and then the New Labour "Cool Britannia" government to do the same from 1997 - 2010.

Basically the flawed decision making process at the time was due to yet another 'Traitorous' RAF attempt to prove that carriers were not needed in the face of real facts and this totally ignored what the Royal Navy had managed to achieve historically and what the US Navy continued to achieve.

Obviously 150 TSR 2 Aircraft (not then proven and subsequantly cancelled) could do the same global role as a pair of big Carriers for less cost (2 lies in one sentence).

This is just the type of thing that the then government needed to hear and so cancelled CVA-01.......and then cancelled TSR2 / F111 when it was realised that they wouldnt work / couldn't deliver.....and then failed to overturn the earlier decision.

So assuming that the Government of the day had not put lead in it's tea and has some inkling of history and realises that Land based Airpower cannot do the same job as an Aircraft carrier and goes ahead and orders some.

What would have gone?

Basically Britain would have to give up the TSR 2 Project and the follow on idea of a fleet of F111's (which it would ultimately do anyway).

So no loss.

The V Bomber Force (Vulcan, Victor etc) - would probably have been retired earlier with the introduction of the Trafalger class Ballistic missile Subs - there having been no need for a risky (yet still brilliant) very long range Black Buck air raid - to extend their service life.

Britain had the Buccaneers and had already ordered the Phantoms - so again no loss to the UK.

I would imagine that the Ark Royal and Eagle would not be given Refits and would be paid off as soon as the QE and POW were commissioned in the early 70s.

So no costly refits for a limited increase in life / capability.

The Type 42 DDG progamme was on the back of the cancelled Type 82 DDG programme (with only HMS Bristol being commissioned) - this would certainly have been a much reduced programme - possibly built to their full length rather than shortened (as in the earlier batches to save costs).
The last 4 units were built to the full intended length.

The only down side that I see would be that there would have been less of a need for the Harrier and this may have been ultimately axed - denying the Western powers this superb aircraft.

The Final CVA-01 design was a flawed creature that had had too much 'committee' inflicted on it

This from an Interview with the chief Designer before he died


"I interviewed the last chief designer of CVA-01, Louis Rydill, just before he died, and he confirmed that he had said that the day the project was cancelled was the happiest of his life. However, that was not because he did not believe in the carrier case. It was because he felt that he had been forced to make so many compromises, and introduce so many risky design elements, because of size and budget restrictions, that the whole project had become a nightmare"

Full article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28128026


But a CVA is a CVA and better than no CVA.

The Falklands would not have happened - 2 of the main events that made those mad men in Buenos Aires think that the UK would turn a blind eye was the planned cancellation of HMS Endurance and the scrapping of HMS Ark Royal.

They (having at least a semblance of historical knowledge) knew that a proper carrier was needed to retake the islands and did not see the Invincable CVLs + Sea Harrier 1 as a threat.

That and a feeble woman was in charge in the UK!

With 1 or possibly 2 CVA-01s flying Phantom, Buccaneer and AEW a far more effective CAP could be maintained and the Argentine Airbases (or the Dictators Office's even?) might even have been attacked by Bucaneer which was arguably the best low level bomber at that time with high speed and long range with a decent payload.

Ark Royal's Job before she was decommed As I understand it had the Balloon gone up was to have launched her Buccaneers to attack the Russian Long range Bomber forces on the Kola Pennsular degrading their ability to strike at North Atlantic convoys. My understanding is that she was not expected to survive for very long.

A larger air group might possibly have given a CVA01 a longer expected life time for such a mission with a greater impact.

 

[abc123]

The ark royal refit cost 32 million pounds and was planned to only be used until 1972. Money is not the issue, there was sufficient money for at least two cva's.

This.
It only required smart spending.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I recently finished reading an article about the CV-01 in Warship 2014 and would have to consult it before really commenting in this thread. The flight deck layout was certainly very interesting.

 

[Delta Force]

This.
It only required smart spending.

Indeed. For a country with a reputation for usually wise spending, a lot of the decisions of the 1950s and 1960s don't seem very wise. It seems the issue isn't so much funding as much as having that funding sucked up in infrastructure and research costs on a decade or two worth of military projects that never entered service before being cancelled in favor of the next best thing. That the British felt they always had to be a generation ahead of the Soviets and Americans certainly contributed to this, because they ended up going down the wrong path or abandoning promising technologies all in an attempt to predict the future.

Given all of this, it's surprising the Harrier program survived long enough to actually enter service.

 

[Riain]

About the only loss I can think of is that the RAF needed the Phantoms and Buccaneers it inherited from the RN in the 70s. But that needn't be the case since Britain could afford both CVA01 & 02 as well as the TSR2, if money spent is any indication.

 

[Landshark]

Indeed. For a country with a reputation for usually wise spending.

Which country is that? Because the UK could take some lessons from it.

 

[Delta Force]

About the only loss I can think of is that the RAF needed the Phantoms and Buccaneers it inherited from the RN in the 70s. But that needn't be the case since Britain could afford both CVA01 & 02 as well as the TSR2, if money spent is any indication.

The Royal Air Force didn't have enough Phantoms to keep unit strength up, to the point that they ended up acquiring a small number of former USN F-4J Phantoms in the 1980s, complete with the J79. Ideally they would simply purchase more aircraft for the RAF.

The TSR-2 or an F-111K with greater British content would be quite interesting, perhaps seeing adoption by foreign militaries.

 

[Riain]

The f4j were purchased to cover the gap that was created by the need to keep a Phantom squadron in the Falklands, not as attrition replacements.

 

[Simon]

Whilst CVA-01 is the post-war carrier that normally gets this kind of discussion I've often felt that the 1952 carrier design was actually more interesting and potentially more viable to have been built. IIRC it's come up in discussion in the past, will have a search for them later.

I recently finished reading an article about the CV-01 in Warship 2014 and would have to consult it before really commenting in this thread. The flight deck layout was certainly very interesting.

You can have a look inside at the article on the Conway page.

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

Whilst CVA-01 is the post-war carrier that normally gets this kind of discussion I've often felt that the 1952 carrier design was actually more interesting and potentially more viable to have been built. IIRC it's come up in discussion in the past, will have a search for them later.



You can have a look inside at the article on the Conway page.

My thoughts exactly! One of the reasons why CVA-01/TSR2 and other projects got cancelled was because a number of big bills became due at the same time, especially the hugely expensive but politically sacrosanct Polaris project and the economic state of the country meant that something had to give. Had the '52 carrier been given the go ahead then you probably have 2 ships (HMS Queen Elizabeth and Duke of Edinburgh?) in service by the early 60's along with the modernised Eagle and Ark Royal. This means the RN hasn't spent millions on the rebuild of Victorious and of the Centaur Class, which were unable to operate the type of aircraft that would enter service in the late 1960's.

As to whether the Falklands would have been prevented? Maybe but I think its possible that the Argentine junta, if it was in a similar position to OTL's 1982 might have decided it was worth the risk. Even with a CTOL carrier force its still going to be a huge challenge to carry out an invasion, while TTL's RN would have been more powerful it would have had a far greater logistical need. A CTOL CBG on combat ops guzzles fuel and ammo on an enormous scale and all at the end of an immensely long SLOC. Attacking such a force head on would have been suicidal so perhaps the Argentine Navy focuses on the supply ships? The loss of the Atlantic Conveyor was a major blow to the British IOTL, losing some more supply ships might have brought the whole thing to a halt?

 

[Riain]

The problem with the 1952 design is the same as building the Malta class, the problems that cva01 was supposed to address hadn't fully formed and the existing carriers were sufficient for the 60s and 70s. So the danger is that the carrier is underdone and becomes obsolescent before the end of the hull life.

 

[Delta Force]

The problem with the 1952 design is the same as building the Malta class, the problems that cva01 was supposed to address hadn't fully formed and the existing carriers were sufficient for the 60s and 70s. So the danger is that the carrier is underdone and becomes obsolescent before the end of the hull life.

That's assuming it won approval to begin with. The early 1950s were only a few years removed from World War II, and it was more a time for experimentation than major rearmament programs. There's a danger that anything developed in the 1950s will turn out to be a technological dead end or simply a poor approach to an otherwise promising concept.

This is the first I've heard of a 1952 Royal Navy aircraft carrier proposal though. Could anyone provide a link to more information or a general overview of it?

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

There's some general details of it in this discussion

 

[Riain]

From what I understand the 1952 carrier will do what the soon to be completed Eagle and Ark Royal could do, with what would at the time appear to be minor improvements. Now perhaps the 1952 carrier will be better by 1967 when the Buccaneer and Phantom enter service but a veritable ocean of water has to pass under the bridge before then, things such as the 1957 White Paper declaring manned aircraft obsolete and the whole P1154 clusterfuck. Bring on the CVA01 I say!

 

[Simon]

The problem with the 1952 design is the same as building the Malta class, the problems that CVA-01 was supposed to address hadn't fully formed and the existing carriers were sufficient for the 60s and 70s. So the danger is that the carrier is underdone and becomes obsolescent before the end of the hull life.

Being no great expert the four main changes that I can think of were angled flight decks, steam catapults, optical landing systems, and the height of the hangar decks. They'd already been thinking about angled flight decks for a while and experimented with HMS Triumph, the American's Antietam had an actual angled deck by the end of 1952 so it was pretty much seen as the coming thing. Likewise they'd been experimenting with steam catapults on HMS Perseus since 1950. Plus it's put in later on in the build so if necessary there's some room for change. Optical landing systems look to have been used in WW2 but not tested properly until 1954 which is a bit of a bugger but it seems the simplest of the four to add. For hangar height and lift weight they were already running into trouble with the Illustrious-class and Implacable-class carriers not being able to operate the last generation of propeller aircraft due to size and weight constraints so with jets being even larger I think they would have built with that in mind. Of the four all the designs I've seen for the 1952 carriers have incorporated all of them except the optical landing system, and than may have just not been mentioned/illustrated.

I'll try and dig up what the planned hangar heights and lift dimensions/weight capacity were since I thought I had some figures at one point but can't seem to find them now. One other important factor is that I've been reminded that whilst they became known as the 1952 design the shipyards wouldn't of had openings to start building until mid-1954, that gives you a couple of extra years to tinker with the designs and incorporate and major new developments. Pulling a rough guesstimate out of my arse if you say they'll take six years then that would give you the first commissioning in 1960, start the second a year later for 1961, and ideally a third a couple of years after that for 1963 at which point you scrap everything else apart from maybe HMS Eagle.

Bring on the CVA01 I say!

I've been led to believe that the 1952 carriers would of carried more aircraft fuel than CVA-01 and had a similar amount of space, or actually slightly more, for aircraft despite what a quick glance might suggest. If the navy were willing to drop the port aft guns they would also appear to offer the possibility of expanding the deck a bit more, not sure if you could do anything on the starboard side. USS Forrestal would have been building since 1952 so if we go with a 1954 start for the British carriers they could of perhaps picked up some ideas in the intervening year or two.

 

[Riain]

I'm a bit sceptical of the claims made of the 1952 carrier design; it is about 60' longer than the Eagle and has a larger hangar and aviation fuel bunkerage but still has the 151' and 199' catapults that had such trouble launching Phantoms and Buccaneer from 1967. I don't think it is enough of an advance over Eagle and Ark Royal to warrant the scrapping of these ships after they have only done less than a decade of service.

I also think that the talk surrounding the 1952 design is as much a search for a circumstance to get better carriers built rather than the inherent superiority of the design itself. And if we're searching for a circumstance then we may as well have the CVA01 built, since it was primarily political ideology that lead to its cancellation.