Different Navy in the 70s

[Peg Leg Pom]

Thanks Bearcat. Thought my memory had let me down there. Got a terrible memory for names. (and spelling)

 

[daniel_g]

Kestrel - P.1154

The Kestrel was the P.1127 - Harrier. Hawker had 'reserved' several names for their VTOL aircraft; Kestrel, Harrier, Falcon and the Peregrine was to be the name of the P1154.

The whole CVA-01 decision had multiple facets - aircraft being just one. The Royal Navy decision to switch to the Phantom for fleet defense was primarily based on weapons. British aircraft proposed could match the Phantom in performance, but not in weapons load and systems.

British aircraft manufacturers at the time presented many options for the Royal Navy to fill any type of configuration of carrier. From BAC (Vickers/EE):

• Type 576 (Supersonic Scimitar)
• Type 577 (66ft TSR.2 - TSR.2 was the Type 572)
• Type 582 (twin fuselage plane with engines buried in the wing section between fuselages)
• Type 583 (Tornado lookalike)
• Type 583V (VG tornado lookalike powered by pegasus style engines)
• Type 588 (Variable geometry Lightning)

Hawkers main proposals were the P.1154 supersonic harrier and P.1132 subsonic twin boom Harrier. The P.1154 got as far a engine development and mock up; the BAC Type 583 was their most promising proposal!

There was a huge number of designs for the Navy to choose from depending on their carrier choice. It doesn't really matter if we made faster, better aircraft than the Sea Harrier and Harrier GR.3; in 1982 they would have been carrying the same weapons.

Buccaneers might have done a better job that Vulcans in bombing Stanley airfield; but then the Vulcans could be said to have had a strategic effect that Buccaneers wouldn't have had. Argentinean air defenses around Stanley also made this area a bit of a no-go zone.

BTW - both being strike aircraft, the Jag and Bucc and mutually exclusive - you'd need a radar equipped fleet defense bird!

 

[Jukra]

A CV that big will definitely have a fixed-wing AEW asset.

Against such an asset, the Argies can't hope to even do as well as OTL. Regardless of the number of frigates present.

French Navy did not have an AEW asset and historically RN woke up to the need only during the Falklands conflict. After alll, a technical fix was available.

It's certain that instead of two decks there will be only one present. While whatever will be serving on board RN carrier (most likely some political bird being made in particular constituencies) may be better than Sea Harrier it is likely that it will be available in smaller numbers than Sea Harriers of OTL. In OTL, 28 Harriers flew from HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes. In TTL, there will be one deck which has to be used for strike aircraft too.

What is certain is that there will be a lot less escorts available for covering the task force, and it was escorts which bore the brunt of air defenses. Even a large carrier, operating, say, 28 Politi-Birds, will have trouble maintaining any measurable CAP over long periods needed.

In OTL, the RN accepted until end May 1982 the following combat ships in service:

- 3 Type 22 frigates - 222 men - total 666
- 8 Type 42 destroyers - 274 men - total 2192
- 8 Type 21 frigates - 185 men - total 1485
- 17 Leanders - 260 men - total 4420
- 2 Type 12 - 235 men - total 470
- 1 Type 82 - 397 men - total 397
- 3 Country-class - 471 men - total 1413

Carriers:
- HMS Hermes - 2100 men
- HMS Invincible - 1051 men

Total combat ship complement:

14194 of which carriers 3151, escorts 11043.

Imagine what even two CVA-01 (about 4000 men each) or even something like two Clemenceaus (about 2000 men each) do to this ship list, not to even mention that they will gobble up procurement budget meaning that much less modern ships will be done. But let's say this aspect is being handled better and the RAF will face the cuts to fund a more modern FAA.

Let's have two CVA-01's, with one in reduced manning (say, 2000) and form a task force.

14194 - 6000 = 8194 for escorts

Carriers need the larger escort ships, so let's imagine there's 4 Type 82's to be built

8194 - (4x397) = 6606

What? No money for shipbuilding? Let's modernize those old ships with large complements instead.

6606 - (17 Leanders, 17x 260) = 2186

There has to be some new ships built for factory jobs! Let's built some cheap ships!

2186 - (8 Type 21, 8x 185) = 706

And now the carriers are built, let's build new ships for 1980's. Like Type 22

706 - (3 Type 22, 3x 222) = 40


In sum, we might imagine a RN consisting of

2 CVA-01 (with one in mobilization reserve etc.)
4 Type 82 area air defense ships
17 Leanders
8 Type 21 patrol frigates
3 Type 22 new frigates

How many could be sent to Falklands? In OTL, out of historical escort fleet the RN was able to send some 23 out of 42 ships in commission, some 55% of the force. In TTL, the amount of escorts which can be sent is some 18 ships with much less capabilities.

What I'm trying to say with this is that usually the money has to come from somewhere and I'm not at all sure that in context of Falklands war this would result in something more useful for winning the particular war.

 

[Riain]

The cancellation of the CVA 01 was done in the midst of a general defence drawdown. I can't imagine a scenario where the RN shufles resources around to get CVA 01, it will only be purchased in a scenario where Britain decides to maintian a level of global power which requires a navy powerful enough to need a pair of strike carriers and everything else this implies. In such a scenario I could also see the TSR2 and other British military projects entering service because that's where the British goverment and people are comfortable being.

 

[Jukra]

The cancellation of the CVA 01 was done in the midst of a general defence drawdown. I can't imagine a scenario where the RN shufles resources around to get CVA 01, it will only be purchased in a scenario where Britain decides to maintian a level of global power which requires a navy powerful enough to need a pair of strike carriers and everything else this implies. In such a scenario I could also see the TSR2 and other British military projects entering service because that's where the British goverment and people are comfortable being.

This would require very different and very difficult political choices. Britain spent vast amounts of pounds on defense during 1945-1989 and it's hard to see where the additional money would come from. Only realistic route for British carriers I could see would be a scenario in which BAOR and RAF will be scrapped as unusable (in hindsight, this would be sensible thing to do). A British "New Look" with focus on brushfire wars and tactical nuclear weapons. I tried to write something along those lines in one of my TL's, but had to scrapt the project. Will see if I have time again although I'd like to continue my two latest TL's first.

If you want a scenario with TSR2, CVA-01 etc. all the paper projects I think you have to have every British government to win all global lotteries...

Edit:

UK spending on defense hovered on about 7% of GDP during mid sixties and 6 per cent in 1970's, so increases in spending alone would have to be massive. Riots?

 

[Riain]

If Britain had stayed a major power after Suez in 1956 it's feasable that she may have found the money to buy carriers and indeed more money may have been around to find. Instead Britian vacated the power politics field to a large degree and divested itself of the tools to discharge such policy. What's more British goverments as a result have deliberately or stupidly wasted vast sums of defence money and crippled Britains ability to provide military hardware at a reasonable cost. Just in carriers alone the wasted money was incredible, Victorious was rebuilt as great effort and cost but scrapped 5 years early, Eagle was also rebuilt but instead of staying in service she was scapped and Ark Royal rebuilt. How much money could have been saved by mothballing Ark Royal, squeezing every drop from Victorious and Eagle? What about forfeiting the fighter field to the F105, F5, Mirage, MiG21, how much lost exports and political influence was lost? I could go on for ever, but the point is Britian may have spent a few bucks but it wasn't spent to even close to best effect and wasn't as much as could have been spent in alternative scenarios.

 

[Jukra]

If Britain had stayed a major power after Suez in 1956 it's feasable that she may have found the money to buy carriers and indeed more money may have been around to find. Instead Britian vacated the power politics field to a large degree and divested itself of the tools to discharge such policy.

But Britain as more major power would have to fund even more vast defense institutions, most likely more Army units to occupy territory of the rebellious natives. I'm not sure if this would lead to more resources for RN or RAF with glittering things. What we might see, instead, might be earlier scrapping of strike carriers in favor of more commando carriers which proved themselves to be useful even in OTL.

IWhat's more British goverments as a result have deliberately or stupidly wasted vast sums of defence money and crippled Britains ability to provide military hardware at a reasonable cost.

Tongue in cheek, I think Soviets placed a number of very succesful moles inside British defense procurement. That's the only explanation on British defense spending effectiveness!

But here's my short list for more effectiveness, post-Suez

1.) Scrap Bomber Command right after introduction of Polaris
2.) Scrap BAOR. Useless in nuclear war, useless in peace time
3.) Scrap most of the RAF. Useless in nuclear war, not very useful in peace time. Very hard to do with the tradition of 1940 and all that. Red Arrows can provide for air defence of the UK during Cold War period.
4.) Scrap SSK's as soon as possible.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Let's have two CVA-01's, with one in reduced manning (say, 2000) and form a task force.

1

Think more the modernised Victorious but without the armour and built to comercial standards.

The Navy already accepted the need for A.E.W. but couldn't get funding for the A.E.W Seaking that had been proposed. They flew Gannets in this role from the conventional carriers.

As for the Jaguars you're right but I couldn't think of anything else that the Treasury would pay for, except possibly a modified Buccaneer or an improved Sea Vixan.

As for the Money to pay for the ships my thoughts are :-
1. The Money from the Invincible class.
2. No wasting billions on the Nimrod A.E.W. Buy second hand E 1s with an option to buy E 2s later.
3. No Tornado the improved Buccaneers can do the job well enough. Also continued development of the Bucc might lead to some export orders.
4. Drawdown of the B.A.O.R. they were only there for show and as a tripwire to justify using tactical nukes anyway.

Granted alot of these proposals would bite us in the rear later but so did alot of what realy happend.

 

[Riain]

Britian wouldn't hold down rebelious natives, it had an array of mechanisams with which it held together it's empire, for example in Iraq Britain couldn't station more than a certain number of troops due to the nature of the arrangement. In the 50s these arrangements were changing, but post Suez they fell in a heap. In a world where these arrangements morphed into TOs where Britian was the key the British economy would be stronger and Britain would more or less get its treaty partners to pay for the expeditionary forces.

 

[daniel_g]

Taking a step back, the role of the Royal Navy (and whole of the British Military) evolved after WW2 from the global peace keeper to being a defensive line stretching from Hanover to Reykjavik.

The Royal Navy was structured accordingly, so in an alternative timeline, Britain needs to accomplish both this role, and maintain a blue water navy. This would cost lots of money, so without changing the state of the British economy, I can perceive a Commonwealth Navy could undertake this role, having two CVA-01s complete with fast jets under joint command of Britain, Canada and Australia?

 

[Jukra]

Think more the modernised Victorious but without the armour and built to comercial standards.

The Navy already accepted the need for A.E.W. but couldn't get funding for the A.E.W Seaking that had been proposed. They flew Gannets in this role from the conventional carriers.

If we're talking about Clemenceau-sized carrier then the crew will be in region of 2000-3000 anyway. But both carriers to Falklands? Iffy, I think. Usually one is in maintenance or training in an inconvenient time. And on the issue of air wing, I'm not sure if more efficient can be offered than one which was used historically, although use of even Gannet AEW's is a bonus, but paid probably with less missile defenses.

 

[Riain]

The way the Falklands went down having two carriers there would be probable, the analogue would be the Fearless and Intepid. The initial taskforce sailed within days of the invasion and included the Fearless. But the counter invasion couldn't take place without the Intrepid which wouldn't be ready for 3 or 4 weeks. So the initial Task Force went south, did some fighting and then the main landing force arrived a few weeks later. The same could happen with a second carrier, if it was in refit or whatever this could be rushed to completion within a few weeks and the ship sent to war for the main event.

 

[TheMann]

Taking a step back, the role of the Royal Navy (and whole of the British Military) evolved after WW2 from the global peace keeper to being a defensive line stretching from Hanover to Reykjavik.

The Royal Navy was structured accordingly, so in an alternative timeline, Britain needs to accomplish both this role, and maintain a blue water navy. This would cost lots of money, so without changing the state of the British economy, I can perceive a Commonwealth Navy could undertake this role, having two CVA-01s complete with fast jets under joint command of Britain, Canada and Australia?

If you can get this done before Australia's constitutional crisis in 1975, you might have a hope at this. I would say, however, that Riain has a point. The British in several cases spent BIG sums of money of defense and didn't get much out of it, and spending wisely alone might be able to support a blue-water Royal Navy.

And also, with that in mind, why scrap Eagle and Ark Royal? Both of them could have soldiered on into the 1980s, and perhaps a major rebuild was in the cards then......

Here's what I have in mind. The RN needs new vessels - the Polaris submarines aren't cheap, and the RN wants to build a pair of new carriers - but they have only so much money they can spend on it, owing to Britain's late 1960s/early 1970s economic problems. In addition, the United States already sees itself as being the boss of NATO, and British high command still wants to play i nthe big leagues. Crucially, there is enough support to do it, provided its done wisely.

So, how do you do it? Use what you have, sell what you can't use.

Australia was looking for a new carrier at the time, and Canada having just gone through the traumatic merging of the forces - which in particular gutted the Royal Canadian Navy - caused some serious consideration of just how to rebuild the forces. Plus other countries are interested in some other gear.

The RAF makes the first move, offering to give up a number of the V-bombers in return for the TSR.2 being built. An idea to buy a variant of the F-111 falls short due to political concerns - the TSR.2 is more costly, but provides lots of jobs to Brits. The TSR.2 enters service in 1967, and a fleet of 78 of them is eventually built. That same year, the Handley-Page Victor is formally retired and 16 Victor B.2 and 6 B(SR).2 aircraft are offered up for sale. The bombers are sold to the South African Air Force and the recon aircraft go to the Royal Canadian Air Force. The Avro Vulcans begin to be sold off in the 1970s.

At this point, Canada has changed somewhat from OTL. Pierre Trudeau loses badly to Robert Stanfield in the 1972 election, and Stanfield decides to fix the Canadian Forces as a way of reducing unemployment. But to do that, he needs to create jobs in Canada. The leaders agree that things need to change, and the severe morale problems of the post-unification need to be fixed, not to mention they need new equipment just to keep up. Stanfield doubles down his bets, announcing in February 1973 that he will commit to a major growth of the Canadian Forces' capabilities - and that the larger forces will be a key driver in reducing unemployment by doing as much as possible in Canada. Eight months later, Canada bites hard and buys no less than 28 Vulcans, at a cost of $325 million Canadian. All 28 are soon planned for conversion to maritime reconaissance and strike aircraft. The CP-182 Vulcan enters Canuck service in 1977, with electronics done by Canadian manufacturers and new engines made by Orenda and Pratt and Whitney Canada.

1968, Britain in 1968 orders up two 40,000-ton class fleet carriers for 1973-74 delivery, and puts Ark Royal on the auction block, and whoever wins the biddings will get the carrier, ready to go as a military unit. Australia snaps up Ark Royal quickly, and that warhorse moves down under, commissioning as HMAS Australia in July 1972. Victorious and Eagle stay in RN service, as the two new Fleet carriers are built. Australia keeps the F-4 Phantoms ordered as stopgaps while they awaited their ordered F-111s, and they become the air wing aboard Australia.

The Furious class, as the new fleet carriers are now known, are 35,400 tons without a load, roughly 41,000 tons ready to fight. They are full CATOBAR carriers, with similar catapults to the US' contemporary Kitty Hawk class carriers though the ships themselves are about a third the size. They are capable of handling about 50 aircraft. The Blackburn Buccaneer and McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom are envisions for usage on the carriers.

HMS Furious is launched in December 1972, and HMS Audacious is launched in September 1973. As they near service, Britain puts up HMS Eagle for sale. Eagle is quickly snapped up by Canada, and they ask Britain not to give it a refit before delivery - the Canucks want to do that themselves.

Furious commissions into the RN on August 18, 1974, and Audacious is commissioned May 23, 1975. Both vessels perform very well, and require far fewer crews their predeccessors. Victorious goes into the mothball fleet (it is still up for sale at this point), and Eagle lowers the White Ensign on July 15, 1975. Delivered to Canada's immense Saint John Shipbuilding shipyard, she begins her rebuild on September 7, 1975.

The surface fleet, contrary to many analysts predictions, does not suffer as a result of the substantial expense in building the Furious class. NATO exercises in 1976 and 1977 allow both carriers to show off, in one case going toe to toe with the might USS Nimitz. Nimitz' fleet of F-14 Tomcat interceptors, however, is far more than the British aircraft can handle, but despite that the Americans have to give the Brits credit for excellent work.

The last of the V-bombers are sold off in 1977. Five countries - Canada, South Africa, Argentina, India and South Korea - are owners of the V-bombers. Only Canada owns both Victors and Vulcans, and both share only superficial resemblance to the bombers that rolled out of British factories.

HMAS Australia enters dry-dock in Sydney for a major overhaul in 1980, which replaces much of its engineering plant with modern fully automated systems and 1200psi boilers, as well as American radar systems and landing and arrestor gear. As well as improving its speed to 33.5 knots, the upgrades reduce her crew size by 360 - a big deal for the manpower-short Royal Australian Navy - but it also improves fuel efficiency, allowing for a major drop in running costs, and a virtual guarantee of another decade of service, if not more, to Australia.

In Canada, Eagle's rebuild, far from being the pariah many expected it to be, has turned into a national hero and an example of Canadian engineering prowess. Truthfully, the almost complete rebuild done by the Canadian shipbuilders effectivelly leaves Eagle's hull but little else. The Canucks fit virtually the full engineering plant from the America Kitty Hawk class carriers, allowing for a dramatic increase in power for both propulsion and electrical generation. HMCS Eagle is launched out of her dry-dock on April 20, 1978, and shakes down on Canada's Atlantic coast, where she proves to be astoundly fast - 35.4 knots top speed - but her four catapults have the power to fire anything in the Canuck arsenal. Eagle's strength allows the idea of a navy-capable fighter to be added to the NFA program, which debuts in June 1977.

The NFA program settles on the F/A-18 Hornet in January 1980, though a month later Canada and Iran come to an agreement to buy 24 of Iran's F-14A Tomcats, which are delivered to Canada in August 1980 - a decision that haunts the Iranians, who are without those aircraft when Iraq declares war on Iran on September 22, 1980.

In July 1981, the United States Britain and Canada agree to commit Audacious and Eagle to a major exercise, pitting HMS Audacious and HMCS Eagle against USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and USS Forrestal in one of the biggest modern exercises, which launches off on February 27, 1982. The Canadian Tomcats hold their own, as do Britain's Phantoms and Buccaneers, though it is apparent that the Brits need to improve those aircraft. The exercise ends on March 15, 1982, with an American victory - though many had said that a Canadian sneak attack on Forrestal would have likely been the end of her, a giant blow to the Americans. Rumors begin within days of bidding for replacements for the Phantoms and Buccaneers.

On April 2, 1982, Argentina launched its invasion of the Falkland Islands. The Royal Navy responds with Audacious, which had just come back from the exercise and was fully ready to go, and she picks up commando carriers Bulwark and Hermes along the way. The Argentines attempt a desperate attempt to hit Ascension island with their Vulcan bombers, an attempt that fails miserably and costs Argentina four of their eight Vulcans, and they lose one more than battle damage forces another to land in Brazil. Wary of Argentina's Air Force and Navy reach, the Royal Navy is on guard long before they reach the Falklands. The war is a British victory, with two Type 42 destroyers lost to Argentine attacks and a frigate severly damaged. Audacious is not hit, however, and her F-4 Phantoms have little trouble clearing the skies of the Argentine Air Force.

The British victory gives a massive morale boost to the Royal Navy, and a massive lost one to the Royal Air Force, which had nothing to do with the conflict. On September 25, 1982, the RAF asks to put ten Vulcan bombers back in service as strike platforms to give the British forces greater striking power. Normally such a request would probably been vetoed, but with the glow of the Falklands Victory shining, Thatcher approves it. The RAF buys the Pratt and Whitney turbofans for their new Vulcan B.3 bombers, and fit them with air-launched versions of most late-model British cruise missiles. The B.3 models also have larger wings and wing roots, allowing for a 20% increase in fuel capacity - and when combined with the turbofan engines, gives the Vulcan B.3 a truly intercontiental range. The Vulcan B.3 enters operational service in June 1986.

The NATO militaries of the 1980s, between their own buildups and American President Reagan's huge buildup, provides the most powerful alliance anyone had ever seen in NATO. Exercises in the 1980s show off just how far just about everyone has come.

The Canuck F-14s are such a revelation that Britain and Australia order them in the 1980s. The First RN F-14s enter service in 1985, and first RAAF enter service in 1986.

OOC: OK, so this is probably TOO amibitous, but sod it, I don't care.

 

[Workable Goblin]

The NFA program settles on the F/A-18 Hornet in January 1980, though a month later Canada and Iran come to an agreement to buy 24 of Iran's F-14A Tomcats, which are delivered to Canada in August 1980 - a decision that haunts the Iranians, who are without those aircraft when Iraq declares war on Iran on September 22, 1980.

This seems unlikely considering Iran had gone through a revolution just a year earlier and was decidedly hostile to all the NATO nations.

 

[TheMann]

This seems unlikely considering Iran had gone through a revolution just a year earlier and was decidedly hostile to all the NATO nations.

It's also truth. Canada DID start negotiating to buy Iran's F-14s in 1980, but the deal fell through when the Iranians found out a Canadian diplomat had helped smuggle half a dozen American embassy workers out of Iran.

 

[Workable Goblin]

It's also truth. Canada DID start negotiating to buy Iran's F-14s in 1980, but the deal fell through when the Iranians found out a Canadian diplomat had helped smuggle half a dozen American embassy workers out of Iran.

Huh. Well, shows me.

 

[TheMann]

Huh. Well, shows me.

Your reasoning was sound, though. Iran didn't like, well, anybody at that point in history.

 

[Riain]

Not only did the British not prioritise (Victor or Vulcan pick one and get on with it) but the govt meddled and poorly managed in virtually every defence project during Britains last gasp of military-industrial might. How is it a political matter if a carrier is 53,000 tons or 56,000 tons, the pollies either approve of a big carrier or they don't.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The critical divergance for thamanns fleet would have to be before the decision the withdraw from East Of Suez in 1966. One thing that could possibly cause the change would be an attack on a 7th fleet ship in Singapore by an over ambitious Viet Cong (I.E swimmers and limpet mines). It wouldn't do much damage but would enffuriate the British.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

This seems unlikely considering Iran had gone through a revolution just a year earlier and was decidedly hostile to all the NATO nations.

It's also truth. Canada DID start negotiating to buy Iran's F-14s in 1980, but the deal fell through when the Iranians found out a Canadian diplomat had helped smuggle half a dozen American embassy workers out of Iran.

Don't you purely hate it when the ASB elements of a scenario are actually OTL?