Callaghans follies (1970s new build fleet carriers)

[sparky42]

It’s basically a forestall scaled down

Sorry but I'm still not buying it, between taking 10K tons from the design, "Britishising" it for UK electronics, engines, etc any connection to a Forestall seems notational at best by the end result.

 

[sparky42]

Ark was in a sorry state even in 1978 by 1980 she was In an even worse state
Quote from Viscount Long 30th July 1980 in the House of Lords:
Unfortunately, the ship is now in a very dangerous state; she will not last another winter where she is, and therefore must be towed away as soon as possible.

Then its hard to see your pod working, if its post 1976 that the choice is made to build new carriers then Ark Royal is already materially broken and simply can't last the 10-15 years getting a replacement built will take, something would have to give which I would guess would be Invincible actually being in service with the Harriers.

 

[sparky42]

No its a valid question.

Ark Royal Served into the late 70s.

And I was deliberately vague in suggesting "An earlier Falklands like" scenario - it does not have to be the Falklands / Argentina - not sure what though?

And a mid 70s Falkland's would see the Argentine Airforce not then starved of US spares and expertise etc as the US Heavily sanctioned Argentina in 1978 after the details of Argentina's dirty war became public knowledge in the USA.

Could the 1972 support of Belize against the threat from Guatemala escalate into something more, demonstrating the reaction capabilities of a Carrier wing? I mean it would predate the pod but might be the latest chance to keep the RN in big carrier operations?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Could the 1972 support of Belize against the threat from Guatemala escalate into something more, demonstrating the reaction capabilities of a Carrier wing? I mean it would predate the pod but might be the latest chance to keep the RN in big carrier operations?

I was thinking something like that but perhaps it goes hot?

(Have you read Roland Whites Phoenix Squadron?)

Another might be a later Indonesia thing - the RN goes East post 66 to defend Singapore or some such and gets into a scrap

Not sure if Indonesian political situation fits but...???

 

[sparky42]

I was thinking something like that but perhaps it goes hot?

(Have you read Roland Whites Phoenix Squadron?)

Another might be a later Indonesia thing - the RN goes East post 66 to defend Singapore or some such and gets into a scrap

Not sure if Indonesian political situation fits but...???

I have the book, just haven't had time to get actually give it a read. But yeah I think if you are talking about a 1976+ date, then its too late. Ark Royal must decommission, the Invincibles are already being built with all the structure changes that brings to the FAA, and the timeline for any new build large carrier means they would stay (I can't see politically how they could be cancelled/sold new and a second hand USN hull bought to sustain Conventional operations) until the mid to late 80's...

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I have the book, just haven't had time to get actually give it a read. But yeah I think if you are talking about a 1976+ date, then its too late. Ark Royal must decommission, the Invincibles are already being built with all the structure changes that brings to the FAA, and the timeline for any new build large carrier means they would stay (I can't see politically how they could be cancelled/sold new and a second hand USN hull bought to sustain Conventional operations) until the mid to late 80's...

Its a hard sell

I do believe however that OTL the Government was right to prioritise BAOR and RAF(G) over carriers for the Navy - I feel dirty having said it - but the threat to Western Europe from the Warsaw pact was a bigger priority in the late 60s and 70s.

 

[Ramontxo]

Its a hard sell

I do believe however that OTL the Government was right to prioritise BAOR and RAF(G) over carriers for the Navy - I feel dirty having said it - but the threat to Western Europe from the Warsaw pact was a bigger priority in the late 60s and 70s.

Obviously that is what the, various, governments thought. I strongly desagree. How many troops you have, on land about to be converted in glass, is anecdotal. Copy the French and let Red Ivan know that the two brigades you have in the north of Germany* are protected by the UK Special Weapons Force.
And use the money to develop both the RAF and the RN.


* Seriously? That must be the most British thing ever. The British Army On the Rhin was deployed in North Germany...

 

[jsb]

Obviously that is what the, various, governments thought. I strongly desagree. How many troops you have, on land about to be converted in glass, is anecdotal. Copy the French and let Red Ivan know that the two brigades you have in the north of Germany* are protected by the UK Special Weapons Force.
And use the money to develop both the RAF and the RN.


* Seriously? That must be the most British thing ever. The British Army On the Rhin was deployed in North Germany...

Is the issue not that it invites suggestions in everyone's (both NATO and WP) minds that UK is going back into 20/30s and might if it goes bad go for a limited liability and retired behind its moat and be an island with and RN & RAF? Committing to the BAOR is as much political commitment to NATO as anything else is it not and showing that UK will really support and stand by the rest of NATO?

Was the British Army On the Rhine not more just UK liking traditional names and not changing them...... ie it reusing the name it used for the post WW1 occupation army of the Rhineland after 1945 and then not changing it when it changed more into the NATO force in a now mostly or later fully sovereign Germany?

British Army of the Rhine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ramontxo]

Is the issue not that that invites suggestions is everyone's (both NATO and WP) minds that UK is going back into 20/30s and might if it goes bad g for a limited liability and retired behind its moat and be an island with and RN & RAF? Committing to the BAOR is as much political commitment to NATO as anything else is it not and showing that UK will really support and stand by the rest of NATO?

Was the British Army On the Rhine not more just UK liking traditional names...... ie it reusing the name it used for the post WW1 occupation army of the Rhineland after 1945 and then not changing it when it changed more into the NATO force in a now mostly sovereign Germany?

British Army of the Rhine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes I know it comes from the original post WW1 force. But still. Having the British Army On the Rhin deployed just under Denmark is still funny.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Why not make them nuclear and solve all the problems?

Because of the higher building & operating costs.

Plenty of designs available in the timeframe.

Initially the only designs that I could think of were the A4W on the contemporary Nimitz class which may be too big and the D2G on the Virginia class which may be too small. Then I remembered the A2W on Enterprise and C1W on Long Beach that might be the right size for a nuclear powered ALT-CVA.01 built instead of the Invincible class, but they were out of production by the early 1970s.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Have an earlier Falkland's like kick up (early /mid 70s) with the RN showing how necessary carriers are.

Enough so that they are moved up the priority list of 'Things we would like to have' to the point where they happen.

An analogous Thatcher type government are obliged to maintain a more powerful navy with carriers due to their increased popularity by the general unwashed electorate (a new period of 'New Navalism' if you like similar to that nationalistic fever that drove the large amount of RN ship building that existed from 1889 to 1914) and the Conservatives somehow find the money to keep them and due to the navy's new found popularity they do not get 'John Nott'd'.

If you want a plausible POD, have the OTL Operation Journeyman escalate into an earlier Falklands War. Except that it happened in November 1977 which may be later than you want.

 

[Dalriadan Archangel 21]

Because of the higher building & operating costs.

Initially the only designs that I could think of were the A4W on the contemporary Nimitz class which may be too big and the D2G on the Virginia class which may be too small. Then I remembered the A2W on Enterprise and C1W on Long Beach that might be the right size for a nuclear powered ALT-CVA.01 built instead of the Invincible class, but they were out of production by the early 1970s.

Surely any of the contemporary reactor plants would suffice given the interchangeablity between designs e.g. the S6W and the D2G/D2W.

After all there is not going to be an issue with space in the hull of a CVA compared to a sub/cruiser.

 

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

2. Join in with the American CVV medium carrier program. (Probably too expensive in both money and manpower, the USN isn't interested in reducing either cost)

Beat me to it, that's what I would've done.

 

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

Have an earlier Falkland's like kick up (early /mid 70s) with the RN showing how necessary carriers are

Enough so that they are moved up the priority list of 'Things we would like to have' to the point where they happen

An analogous Thatcher type government are obliged to maintain a more powerful navy with carriers due to their increased popularity by the general unwashed electorate (a new period of 'New Navalism' if you like similar to that nationalistic fever that drove the large amount of RN ship building that existed from 1889 to 1914) and the Conservatives somehow find the money to keep them and due to teh navys new found popularity they do not get 'John Nott'd'.

Or the Belize (British Honduras) - Guatamala Crisis goes hot in 1972?

PS: Replied before reading following posts.

 

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

Not to be a smart arse, but how reliable was Ark Royal by that period?

Not very, didn't they cruelly call her "Park Royal" as she was always in dock?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

If you want a plausible POD, have the OTL Operation Journeyman escalate into an earlier Falklands War. Except that it happened in November 1977 which may be later than you want.

There was the hijacked airliner in 1966 that crash landed on the race course - apparently there was also several Special forces like recce missions that took place at about the same time - the locals at the time thought it was finishing boats stealing sheep etc.

We could have a larger special ops mission coupled with an escalation of the Flight 648 hijacking or maybe one of the larger missions that supposedly intended to use a boat full of armed troops that would force the Islanders to leave and then use the island as a base for Peron to return to Argentina or something equally batshit crazy

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Most of the aircraft for the air groups already existed. That is the F-4Ks, Buccaneers & Sea Kings, while the money spent on the first 34 Sea Harriers should be sufficient to buy enough E-2Cs & C-2As to equip the AEW & COD flights. Therefore, purchase cost of the air groups would have been the same.

The RAF would have had 2 fewer Phantom squadrons & 2 fewer Buccaneer squadrons ITTL.

To which @jsb commented.

Is this not where it falls down as the main drive to cut the CVs was simply to save the cash as they needed to spend it on forces to defend the UK and NATO?

No, because it wasn't the main drive to cut out the strike carriers.

Did RAF not really need the Navy F4Ks it got as fighters with nothing else between obsolescent Lightings and the first Tornado F3s in 1987...?

That was barely comprehensible. Did you mean?

Didn't the RAF really need the F-4Ks it got as fighters, because they had nothing else between obsolescent Lightings and the first Tornado F3s in 1987?

If you did, then the answer is no, because 118 F-4M Phantoms were delivered to the RAF in the late 1960s.

• They equipped 7 ground attack & reconnaissance squadrons (4 in RAF Germany & 3 in No 38 Group) which converted to the Jaguar 1974-77.
• The redundant aircraft then re-equipped 6 of the 8 extant Lightning squadrons 1974-77.
• The 2 Lightning squadrons that remained in 1977 didn't convert to the Tornado ADV until 1988.

The RAF also acquired 17 F-4Js second-hand from the USN. These were used to reform No 74 Squadron in 1984. This squadron's last incarnation was a Lightning squadron at RAF Tengah, Singapore and was disbanded in 1971 as part of the withdrawal from "East of Suez".

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Surely any of the contemporary reactor plants would suffice given the interchangeability between designs e.g. the S6W and the D2G/D2W.

After all there is not going to be an issue with space in the hull of a CVA compared to a sub/cruiser.

It's not the space available in ALT-CVA.01's hull. It's the number of reactors needed to produce the required shaft horse power. The OTL-CVA.01 was to have had oil-fired boilers producing 135,000shp and my guess is that the RN would want two nuclear reactors producing 60-75,000shp each for the ALT-CVAN.01.

One A4W as used on the Nimitz class could produce the required shaft horse power on its own, but I thought the RN would want two reactors for safety reasons, which is why I said it was probably too large. Meanwhile, four D2Gs would be needed to produce the required shaft horse power and that would be too many, which is why I though it was probably too small. However, the A2W on Enterprise produced 70,000 shp and two of them producing a total of 140,000shp would have been just right in terms of shaft horse power and the number of reactors, but it was out of production by the middle 1970s.

Furthermore, the RN and HMG would want a British built reactor, which would mean using four PWR2 reactors or designing a new reactor that produced twice the shaft horse power.

And don't call me Shirley.

 

[jsb]

It's not the space available in ALT-CVA.01's hull. It's the number of reactors needed to produce the required shaft horse power. The OTL-CVA.01 was to have had oil-fired boilers producing 135,000shp and my guess is that the RN would want two nuclear reactors producing 60-75,000shp each for the ALT-CVAN.01.

One A4W as used on the Nimitz class could produce the required shaft horse power on its own, but I thought the RN would want two reactors for safety reasons, which is why I said it was probably too large. Meanwhile, four D2Gs would be needed to produce the required shaft horse power and that would be too many, which is why I though it was probably too small. However, the A2W on Enterprise produced 70,000 shp and two of them producing a total of 140,000shp would have been just right in terms of shaft horse power and the number of reactors, but it was out of production by the middle 1970s.

Furthermore, the RN and HMG would want a British built reactor, which would mean using four PWR2 reactors or designing a new reactor that produced twice the shaft horse power.

Could you not go Bristol or Kirov and have a split plant? ie a couple of sub reactors and Gas turbines on different shafts?

Maybe 2 PWR2 on 2 inner shafts and 4 Olympus GT in pairs on outer shafts?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Could you not go Bristol or Kirov and have a split plant? ie a couple of sub reactors and Gas turbines on different shafts?

Maybe 2 PWR2 on 2 inner shafts and 4 Olympus GT in pairs on outer shafts?

I think that's the worst of both worlds. However, as nuclear power was @Dalriadan Archangel 21's suggestion, I'll leave it to him to provide the definitive answer.