Carriers of South America: a Chilean WI

Could the Chilean navy have bought and operated a carrier in 1970? I think that the Eagle could have been purchased, but don’t quote me on that. If Chile could have gotten their hands on it could they have afforded it, or is this just a pipe dream? Would they be able to get the Eagle or would there be another carrier available? If they could get a carrier, just what kind of plane would they embark Skyhawk’s like the Argentinian and Brazilian navies or would they try for something like the crusader?

As an example of what I’m thinking is that the tensions over the Beagle islands in 1969 get even closer to war then they were, as a result the Argentine Navy deploys the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo to the area and the Chilean navy realizes that they don’t have a hard counter. As it becomes a point of national pride the Chilean government tries to acquire its own carrier so as to bring their navy back to parity with the Argentine and Brazilian forces.
 
Last edited:
What about Chile, Peru and Bolivia fighting over the Acampo (sp?) Desert?
Would a carrier have given Chile a deep strike capability?
 
What about Chile, Peru and Bolivia fighting over the Acampo (sp?) Desert?
Would a carrier have given Chile a deep strike capability?


Unless the ’64-78 negotiations broke down completely, and I don’t see how that could happen, then Bolivia wouldn’t want a repeat of the Pacific War. Frankly given the relative strengths of the countries I can’t see Peru and Bolivia representing a serious threat to the Chileans the way that the Argentinians did.

Besides there were three incidents of the Argentines opening fire on the Chiles in the 50s and 60s, two naval and one land based. That is disregarding the Beagle conflict and just how close it came to war.


As to the deep strike capability? I think that really depends on both the carrier that the Chileans aquire and just what jets they stock it with. Something like the A4, then not really. A7? That's a whole new game.
 
Would they be able to get the Eagle or would there be another carrier available?
IIRC one of the Centaur-class carriers was decommissioned in the mid- to late-1960s after about twelve years or so service, give it a thorough overhaul and it should have some life left in it. Hell, just look at what the Indians did with the INS Vikrant, formerly HMS Hercules, she stayed in commission for just shy of thirty-six years.


A7? That's a whole new game.
The A-7? Bah! Never really taken to the Corsair for some reason, always just struck me as an incredibly ugly looking aircraft, which is somewhat odd considering that I have a soft spot for the A-6 Intruder and Blackburn Buccaneer. :)
 
would think a better plan for Chile would be submarines.

a quick glance at their fleet shows that as their primary weapon now, although there was a gap circa 1970s when they did not operate any (or missed them if they did.)

assume a panic over their naval situation? they could construct or buy subs a lot faster than carrier, render any foe at least cautious about deploying their carrier(s)

(picture of Chilean commercial aircraft armed with missiles near bottom of page, another option? http://www.quora.com/Commercial-Air...o-air-missiles-for-active-defense-and-offense)
 
IIRC one of the Centaur-class carriers was decommissioned in the mid- to late-1960s after about twelve years or so service, give it a thorough overhaul and it should have some life left in it. Hell, just look at what the Indians did with the INS Vikrant, formerly HMS Hercules, she stayed in commission for just shy of thirty-six years.



The A-7? Bah! Never really taken to the Corsair for some reason, always just struck me as an incredibly ugly looking aircraft, which is somewhat odd considering that I have a soft spot for the A-6 Intruder and Blackburn Buccaneer. :)

Former HMS Hermes .... not Hercules ;)

But yes both HMS Centaur decommissioned in 1965 and HMS Albion were decommissioned in 1972. Both were scrapped in 1973.

HMS Bulwark was decommissioned in 1981 and scrapped in 1984.

HMS Hermes decommissioned from the RN in 1984 and still in commission with the Indian Navy.

The ships had operated Buccaneer but could not operate F4s so perhaps a mix of Buccs and Sea Vixens?

The other available types are the modernized SCB - 125A type Essex carriers which start to be taken out of fleet service.

So at least 3 of the British carriers and 7 odd US carriers might be up fro grabs during the 60s/early 70s.
 
You also have Canada's HMCS Bonaventure (CVL 22) being decommissioned in 1970, so that could be up for grabs.

Either that or a British light carrier seems to be the best bet. The Americans don't seem to be fond of selling their old ships after they are decommissioned.
 
The Americans don't seem to be fond of selling their old ships after they are decommissioned.

That could be because of their manpower requirements compared to the British light carriers that were coming up for disposal at the same time.

The Americans are in the fortunate position of having a lot of money so they can afford their personnel to be very specialised at what they do (their Army's the same in comparison to the British Army, not sure about the USAF/RAF but it wouldn't surprise me if that's the same too) whereas the RN are comparatively skint and need sailors to be able to do two or three jobs on board. For a similar size vessel the US Navy will always need more sailors than the Royal Navy.

(As an example, although it's an army based one, you can look at a radio rebroadcast detachment. The US Army version has a lot of crew members - you'll have the driver who'll do nothing but drive. You'll have the man who looks after the generators, the man who does the radios, the man who does the masts etc etc etc. In the British Army you'll get two men, three if you're lucky, on a detachment in the same role).
 
That could be because of their manpower requirements compared to the British light carriers that were coming up for disposal at the same time.

The Americans are in the fortunate position of having a lot of money so they can afford their personnel to be very specialised at what they do (their Army's the same in comparison to the British Army, not sure about the USAF/RAF but it wouldn't surprise me if that's the same too) whereas the RN are comparatively skint and need sailors to be able to do two or three jobs on board. For a similar size vessel the US Navy will always need more sailors than the Royal Navy.

(As an example, although it's an army based one, you can look at a radio rebroadcast detachment. The US Army version has a lot of crew members - you'll have the driver who'll do nothing but drive. You'll have the man who looks after the generators, the man who does the radios, the man who does the masts etc etc etc. In the British Army you'll get two men, three if you're lucky, on a detachment in the same role).

Naval wise at least the overcrewing is to free up men for damage control and keep the ship operational despite casualties. Doing more with less isn't always an advantage.
 
Naval wise at least the overcrewing is to free up men for damage control and keep the ship operational despite casualties. Doing more with less isn't always an advantage.

That's not an attack on the US way of doing things, just pointing out that a US ship would probably cost even a Third World nation a lot more in personnel costs than the UK light carriers that would have been available over the same time period.

I'm sure the Royal Navy would love to have the USN's manpower budget and the choice over whether to have a bigger crew or not.
 
That could be because of their manpower requirements compared to the British light carriers that were coming up for disposal at the same time.

The Americans are in the fortunate position of having a lot of money so they can afford their personnel to be very specialised at what they do (their Army's the same in comparison to the British Army, not sure about the USAF/RAF but it wouldn't surprise me if that's the same too) whereas the RN are comparatively skint and need sailors to be able to do two or three jobs on board. For a similar size vessel the US Navy will always need more sailors than the Royal Navy.

(As an example, although it's an army based one, you can look at a radio rebroadcast detachment. The US Army version has a lot of crew members - you'll have the driver who'll do nothing but drive. You'll have the man who looks after the generators, the man who does the radios, the man who does the masts etc etc etc. In the British Army you'll get two men, three if you're lucky, on a detachment in the same role).

And on the day you need then of the 3 men 1 is on Leave and the other has been nabbed by Battalion HQ for 'An important task at HQ' - leaving you with just one man LOL

The British ships tended to operate with a smaller air group 24-30 jet planes and Helicopters than the later Essex ships - this meant a smaller crew

I think a smaller air group would fit in with the needs of a Nation like Chile who would not want or possible be able to afford to operate a large carrier based air group
 
And on the day you need then of the 3 men 1 is on Leave and the other has been nabbed by Battalion HQ for 'An important task at HQ' - leaving you with just one man LOL

The British ships tended to operate with a smaller air group 24-30 jet planes and Helicopters than the later Essex ships - this meant a smaller crew

I think a smaller air group would fit in with the needs of a Nation like Chile who would not want or possible be able to afford to operate a large carrier based air group

Its always good to have some slack manpower you can use for sentry duty or dealing with unforeseen problems/special duties and still complete your main mission.


Cutting things to the wire saves cost and gives you more capable individuals but it isn't ideal imo. You always want extra bodies for when things go wrong.
 
HMS Centaur was laid up in 1965 but used as an accommodation ship for the refit of HMS Victorious and then HMS Eagle, so most likely wasn't really available. The Hermes was offered to Australia in 1968 so she was available and most likely HMS Eagle could have been made available in 1972, but IOTL was cannibalised for spares for Ark Royals last 6 years of service. I believe that several US Essex class carriers could have been available, in various states of modernisation, assuming the US would transfer such a power ship to a poor, small South American country.

In any event big carriers in small countries isn't a recipe for success. A carrier is a demanding beast, the RAN declined to deploy the small HMAS Melbourne to Vietnam because of the difficulty in providing at least 2 escorts for her at all times, so how would Chile fare in this regard? The RAN rejected the HMS Hermes because of the manpower requirements, 2100 instead of 1300 with HMAS Melbourne, again how would Chile fare in this regard? The aircraft requirements for a carrier are also hefty, for every squadron on the ship a squadron of equal or greater size is needed ashore for training, to cover deep maintenance, attrition replacement and the like. So Hermes or Centaur would require a fleet of 30 Skyhawks, 20+ Trackers and 15-20 ASW helicopters, Eagle or an Essex would require 50 jets most likely of 2 types as well as more Trackers and helicopters, how would Chile go supporting this fleet and how would the Air Force react?
 
would think a better plan for Chile would be submarines.

a quick glance at their fleet shows that as their primary weapon now, although there was a gap circa 1970s when they did not operate any (or missed them if they did.)

assume a panic over their naval situation? they could construct or buy subs a lot faster than carrier, render any foe at least cautious about deploying their carrier(s)

(picture of Chilean commercial aircraft armed with missiles near bottom of page, another option? http://www.quora.com/Commercial-Air...o-air-missiles-for-active-defense-and-offense)

They did have a small gap when they replaced their subs in the fifties, but by the seventies they did have solid coverage, even if what they had was a touch out of date (The Thomson and Simpson both Balao class subs commissioned in 61 and 62). In 71 and 72 two Oberon class subs were added to their roosters. Having a sub response to a carrier is probably a possibility but I didn’t go that way because of the prestige involved.

The reason why I was thinking carriers is because they are prestige units. Just like the dreadnought race back before world war one. Brazil and Argentina were operating carriers at that point in time so I could see it being a point of pride for the Chileans. Of course if it’s financially an option? No clue. One thing you would have to do would be to butterfly Allende’s election and the American hack job on the economy that resulted from that event.

HMS Centaur was laid up in 1965 but used as an accommodation ship for the refit of HMS Victorious and then HMS Eagle, so most likely wasn't really available. The Hermes was offered to Australia in 1968 so she was available and most likely HMS Eagle could have been made available in 1972, but IOTL was cannibalised for spares for Ark Royals last 6 years of service. I believe that several US Essex class carriers could have been available, in various states of modernisation, assuming the US would transfer such a power ship to a poor, small South American country.

In any event big carriers in small countries isn't a recipe for success. A carrier is a demanding beast, the RAN declined to deploy the small HMAS Melbourne to Vietnam because of the difficulty in providing at least 2 escorts for her at all times, so how would Chile fare in this regard? The RAN rejected the HMS Hermes because of the manpower requirements, 2100 instead of 1300 with HMAS Melbourne, again how would Chile fare in this regard? The aircraft requirements for a carrier are also hefty, for every squadron on the ship a squadron of equal or greater size is needed ashore for training, to cover deep maintenance, attrition replacement and the like. So Hermes or Centaur would require a fleet of 30 Skyhawks, 20+ Trackers and 15-20 ASW helicopters, Eagle or an Essex would require 50 jets most likely of 2 types as well as more Trackers and helicopters, how would Chile go supporting this fleet and how would the Air Force react?

In terms of manpower I think the Chileans could hack the HMS Eagle (Compliment of 2,500 to 2,750) if they give up their Cruisers. In the sixties the Chileans were operating two Brooklyn class cruisers (The Capitan Prat and O’Higgins both of which had a compliment of 868) and in the early seventies they added a Tre Kronor class cruiser (The Almirante Latorre, compliment of 618-445 depending on the source.) Scrapping those three assets would free up ~2300 men. With that number I think that manning a carrier is doable. Of course none of this covers the aviation questions. Given those numbers the smaller Brit carriers are a real possibility. The Essex class and the Eagle would be on the very edge of possible, but it could be done.

From what I’ve read the Chileans haven’t been that big into aviation, and the Navy has a long history of being the senior service. Of course there was the issue with the last navy mutiny but… I could see the navy stealing aviation wholesale if it had a good enough reason to. One of the things I could see happening is that the Navy goes for heavier jets and begins to subsume the lighter air force. Of course none of this covers the moniatary cost, and if the Chileans could afford it, which i don't know the answer to.
 
Top