Buccaneers in the Falklands

Maybe the Ark Royal's problems and costs that had her scrapped might, just might, have been lessened if the story I heard in Devonport in the 1970's is true.

The story goes that the Dockyard knew that one of the carriers being refitted would probably end up being scrapped. The best hull was Eagle so all the best fittings went into Eagle and the worst into Ark Royal. Then came the announcement that it was Eagle that was to be scrapped. No one had the courage to tell MoD that they had paid for a carrier to be refitted with rubbish. There was even talk of how they might disguise one as the other and keep Eagle.

Now Eagle in the 1980's would be Phantom/Gannet so the task would be so much easier. If Hermes were still in service then it would be pure helicopter so, with these and a probable unsunk Atlantic Conveyor there would have been a usable troop lift capacity to move whole units forward and for a forward operating base for the GR8 Harriers on land.
 
I don't think the mutterings in Parliament in 1965, about 3 years before the first aircraft were delivered, can be taken as gospel as to what was and wasn't technically possible with regards to Phantom/Hermes compatibility. Nor are touch and go's of USN Phantoms much of an indication of suitablity since the F4K required 20% more thrust than the F4B to get off Ark Royal's bigger and faster deck.

I never said it was practical, only perhaps not as impossible as suggested. I'm sure that it probably possible to operate an F-4 from the deck of Hermes, albeit with no weapons load and minimal fuel, thus being more or less useless from an operational standpoint.

However, back to the OP, I find it seriously doubtful that the RN would continue to operate Bucc's from a CATOBAR carrier. The decision to kill Britains CATOBAR strike force was politically motivated, not military practicality.

Russell
 
Top