HMS EAGLE in the Falklands

[Blue cat]

Not really. By the 80s, both Canada and Australia used almost exclusively American hardware. Particularly in regards to aircraft, avionics, radars and missiles. That would be a massive expense in both equipment and training to transition back to British standard equipment

I suppose there are a range of options for the UK. The thing is once they start replacing American electronics and weapons with UK equivalents the air craft will be progressively "less off the shelf."
If the UK air craft are projected to cost significantly more than the Canadian ones for example then the treasury may be less than amused

I suppose in the near term the RAF and the RN can argue that it makes more sense to be able to use existing weapons stocks, but as the UK is also increasing their weapon stocks, it might be less expensive just to buy off the shelf air craft and American weapons to go with them ?

The sky flash AAM vs Sparrow AAM choice will probably be one of the bigger decisions, with the eventual prospect of the AMRAAM also factoring in to the decision making process.

I expect the bean counters will be busy number crunching this.

I'm thinking making the minimum changes necessary to the American supplied electronics to be able to use existing UK weapons (ie. skyflash) might make the most sense ?

I also recall from a 1980's issue of aviation week that the Canadians tested their CF18's with BL755 Cluster bombs so presumably those will be compatible as well.

 

[PorkNuggets]

While the bean-counters are important dont forget the politicians. They'll he looking to throw a bone to the British aerospace industry who wont be getting to build new airplanes.

Putting British weapons and electronics on airframes assembled at the McDonnell Douglas facility in Winnipeg strikes me as an option that would have a lot of support.

 

[Blue cat]

While the bean-counters are important dont forget the politicians. They'll he looking to throw a bone to the British aerospace industry who wont be getting to build new airplanes.

Putting British weapons and electronics on airframes assembled at the McDonnell Douglas facility in Winnipeg strikes me as an option that would have a lot of support.

And would likely drive up the cost and the program risk. Still it may very well happen.

Edit to add:
It also occurs to me if the UK decides to go in their own direction vis a vis systems such as the radar, then they will also be on their own for any future upgrades of those systems. Buying more or less US spec aircraft presumably means they can somewhat leverage any future U.S. upgrades ?

 

[SsgtC]

I also recall from a 1980's issue of aviation week that the Canadians tested their CF18's with BL755 Cluster bombs so presumably those will be compatible as well.

IIRC, all NATO dumb bombs (and some smart weapons) used common mountings and could be mounted on any NATO aircraft. I'm not sure if the computer had to "learn" the areodynamic features of each type or if the bombs were all designed to have similar drag numbers so the standard bomb sight would work with them all

 

[Blue cat]

IIRC, all NATO dumb bombs (and some smart weapons) used common mountings and could be mounted on any NATO aircraft. I'm not sure if the computer had to "learn" the areodynamic features of each type or if the bombs were all designed to have similar drag numbers so the standard bomb sight would work with them all

My recollection of the theme of the article was that the Canadians carried out a test program to test various weapons that were unique to Canada (presumably vis a vis weapons the U.S. had already tested on the F/A 18) on their CF18's.

Presumably the Canadians wanted to confirm things actually worked as expected.

 

[steamboy]

Though ideally the best product to have on offer would be a 5,000ton multirole frigate design that is continuously updated. That the UK failed to develop such an export orientated design and allowed the Germans, Spanish and Dutch to dominate the market was a massive failure of forethought.

I like this Idea, its basically a UK made version of say the German's MEKO series of ships where they produced a patrol ship, frigate and DD.

 

[JamesHunter]

I like this Idea, its basically a UK made version of say the German's MEKO series of ships where they produced a patrol ship, frigate and DD.

Even better if you are offering the complete package ( like Germany does subs as well).

Get your destroyers, frigates, a carrier and some subs from the UK. Instant fleet with cross compatible components and systems that talk to each other.

 

[Killer in]

Well the British could easily market a Type 24, Type 45 adjusted for Falkland experience, the diesels subs whose name I forget and the Invincible class with upgraded Harriers. You could buy a whole fleet that way.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Well the British could easily market a Type 24, Type 45 adjusted for Falkland experience, the diesels subs whose name I forget and the Invincible class with upgraded Harriers. You could buy a whole fleet that way.

What nation has the money for such in the 1980s who also didn't have a decent shipbuilding industry? I can't think of any of the top of my head.

 

[Killer in]

What nation has the money for such in the 1980s who also didn't have a decent shipbuilding industry? I can't think of any of the top of my head.

They can market successfully but that doesn't mean they'll get anywhere.

 

[CV12Hornet]

There isn’t anyone out there buying a full fleet, but over 20 MEKO 200 frigates have been built, and if they can corner the market upgraded La Fayettes got that’s even more customers.

Right now, Canada has requirements for a new patrol frigate, Australia and New Zealand are also looking into such ships, and Malaysia isn’t far off, either. That’s 24 ships right as the British start tapering off orders. A Commonwealth Frigate early would be an excellent idea, especially if like the Type 24 the weapons/sensor fit can be tailored to the customer.

Then the Valour and Formidable classes in the 2000s, and the possibility of license production in India... lot of excellent possibilities for a Commonwealth Frigate.

 

[Nick P]

Fleet Air Arm

· The Fleet Air Arm would procure the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 to operate from the decks of the future aircraft carriers
· The F/A-18 would be procured by the RAF to replace the Phantom and English Electric Lightening
· The Sea Harrier would receive an upgrade
· The E-2C Hawkeye would be procured as a replacement for the Gannet

Yes. These all make sense. India was very concerned that the Harriers being built for them at the time would be handed over to the RN instead. They actually installed their own staff in the factory to make sure no tricks were played and they got the machines they had paid for.

· A naval variant of the British Aerospace Hawk would be developed and produced as an aircraft carrier capable training aircraft

He most cost effective option was to navalise the current jet trainer the British Aerospace Hawk. The Americans were known to be in the market for a new carrier training aircraft. If they could be convinced to adopt the navalised Hawk then the sheer number they were likely to buy would likely cover the cost of development and mean that the Government may even make a profit off of the aircraft.

Even better than this... the T-45 Goshawk has already been chosen by the US Navy. It was proposed in 1978 and selected in 1981, first flight was in 1988. Entered service in 1991. That puts it in the right timeframe for the new RN carriers. And it's being built by British firms - Rolls Royce engines, British Aerospace, and partly built in Britain. Win-Win!

Royal Air Force

· Procurement of the Panavia Tornado would be scaled back
· The proposal to build a new air base on the Falkland Islands would not go ahead
Instead the RAF would establish a presence at Port Stanley Airport to act as a jump off point for reinforcements should the Argentines begin to pose a significant threat.

Improvements to Port Stanley Airport will be needed and I don't just mean filling the holes in the runway. New terminal, radar posts, control tower. A new long concrete runway capable of handling airliner flights direct from the UK for rapid troop reinforcement. Hangars or hardened shelters for the RAF fighters plus accommodation blocks.

Getting fewer Tornado will hurt in the long run. Less work for Panavia and UK workers. Fewer dedicated strike aircraft and long-range interceptors for the North Sea patrols against the Soviet Bears.
Potentially less sales to Saudi Arabia and other places.

 

[Schlock]

Assembling the aircraft from knockdown kits was pretty common for the F-18 operators. With 200 airframes to assemble, I suspect whoever does the work in the UK could possibly subcontract to do the job for other users. The numbers just about double when you add all the airframes up.

The Spanish and Finnish batches cover the acquisition period, so there might be some economies of scale for industrial participation from the other European operators for a common assembly line and deep maintenance.

Also, with the RAF & RN being big users, you might see some of the other European Air Forces go with the Hornet instead of what they historically, for example Austria, which operates a small number of Eurofighters, which isn't going to happen in this timeline. Others like Poland, might not go with the F-16 if there is a bigger European user base for the F-18.

 

[Hammerbolt]

Not really. By the 80s, both Canada and Australia used almost exclusively American hardware. Particularly in regards to aircraft, avionics, radars and missiles. That would be a massive expense in both equipment and training to transition back to British standard equipment

Selling fighters to Canada has the added problem of having to make them compatible with the NORAD systems, which Canada is a part of. In the current race to replace the F-18, this issue has, apparently, forced both the Typhoon and Rafale bids to bow out, and it's not looking good for the Grippen. So, in this timeline, I don't see any joint Canada+anyone else fighter showing up.

 

[Mike D]

Selling fighters to Canada has the added problem of having to make them compatible with the NORAD systems, which Canada is a part of. In the current race to replace the F-18, this issue has, apparently, forced both the Typhoon and Rafale bids to bow out, and it's not looking good for the Grippen. So, in this timeline, I don't see any joint Canada+anyone else fighter showing up.

If you believe the Typhoon team it was less the NORAD systems (the RAF are integrating Typhoon and F-35 and the UK is part of Five Eyes so neither the technical nor security side should be a major issue) and more that they were offering significant industrial/technology benefits which they felt were being undervalued because Canada changed their requirements to allow the F-35 back into the competition.

 

[Hammerbolt]

If you believe the Typhoon team it was less the NORAD systems (the RAF are integrating Typhoon and F-35 and the UK is part of Five Eyes so neither the technical nor security side should be a major issue) and more that they were offering significant industrial/technology benefits which they felt were being undervalued because Canada changed their requirements to allow the F-35 back into the competition.

That too. The NORAD "problem" is just an extra, and one that gives US-made fighters a massive advantage.

 

[Blue cat]

That too. The NORAD "problem" is just an extra, and one that gives US-made fighters a massive advantage.

I'm just curious do you have any details about what is actually required to be "NORAD compatible" ?

Special IFF systems ? Or ?

 

[fester]

The biggest cost to carriers is the maintenance and crewing, bigger carriers need more crew for the bigger air group and sufficient provision for damage control. The specialist machinery to run it comes second, and the steel of the hull a distant third. Most of the RL VTOL light carriers have point defence, radars, battle management, and planning spaces, the increase to larger versions on a larger hull would not result in that much cost increase, but would drastically increase the number of crew, spare parts and other sundry costs that keeping the carrier running would require. It was crew requirements above all that lead to most of the smaller naval powers to abandon or shrink their carriers.

Amusingly the same pressures that induced the smaller naval powers to shrink their carriers are also why the USN's ones ballooned to gargantuan size, by operating a smaller number of larger hulls they were able to cut duplicated crew and maintanenace costs.

This assumes that the carrier at peace time is going to sea with a full wartime crew and warload. And then, yes, the cost of maintaining a 55,000 ton ship at full war time complement is significantly more expensive than a ship at 35,000 tons. However if the peacetime load for both ships is 2 Bug squadrons, a detachment of AEW Hawkeyes and 8 Seakings, the larger carrier can take on another squadron of Bugs from the on-shore OTU unit and several more Sea Kings during a wartime mission. That extra squadron of fighter bombers is a massive increase in proportionate striking power (fixed costs of defending the fleet are constant) with fairly low marginal peacetime running cost.

And if we hold airwings constant, the much larger carrier has lower accident rates, and can sustain an operation significantly longer due to larger magazines, more spare parts, and more fuel.

 

[Blue cat]

Assembling the aircraft from knockdown kits was pretty common for the F-18 operators. With 200 airframes to assemble, I suspect whoever does the work in the UK could possibly subcontract to do the job for other users. The numbers just about double when you add all the airframes up.

The Spanish and Finnish batches cover the acquisition period, so there might be some economies of scale for industrial participation from the other European operators for a common assembly line and deep maintenance.

Also, with the RAF & RN being big users, you might see some of the other European Air Forces go with the Hornet instead of what they historically, for example Austria, which operates a small number of Eurofighters, which isn't going to happen in this timeline. Others like Poland, might not go with the F-16 if there is a bigger European user base for the F-18.

I'm just curious, other than the Australians (and the Americans of course ) which F18 operators assembled their own F18's ?

 

[Blue cat]

If you believe the Typhoon team it was less the NORAD systems (the RAF are integrating Typhoon and F-35 and the UK is part of Five Eyes so neither the technical nor security side should be a major issue).

Yes that would seem to make sense vis a vis a UK supplier. For other non US suppliers I could see this being more of an issue.