HMS EAGLE in the Falklands

[Blue cat]

And using the carriers to do UK-AEW would mean permanently stationing one on the north sea. With escorts. So... a Sentry would be far cheaper and wouldn't rob the navy of a carrier to deploy.

I suppose depending on how far the RAF gets cut, the RN could end up with a secondary UK air defence role. Ie. station a carrier with escorts in North Sea with an air defence role. Not a great use of resources IMHO..

Maybe the RAF plays a long term game and pushes for the RN carrier force (especially if they actually get three carriers) to eventually assume a formal wartime air defence role, figuring that eventually the treasury will realize land based aircraft can do the job for less money

 

[Hammerbolt]

I suppose depending on how far the RAF gets cut, the RN could end up with a secondary UK air defence role. Ie. station a carrier with escorts in North Sea with an air defence role. Not a great use of resources IMHO..

Maybe the RAF plays a long term game and pushes for the RN carrier force to eventually assume a formal air defence role, figuring that eventually the treasury will realize land based aircraft can do the job for less money

The RN's fuel bill alone would drive the Treasury into a raging fit...

 

[Blue cat]

The RN's fuel bill alone would drive the Treasury into a raging fit...

Yeah... I doubt that idea would get much traction in reality

 

[Lascaris]

France has a history of not playing well with others and will still want carrier compatablity built in which no one else will see the need for. End result is probably the OTL breakup as France goes it alone.

And the Germans and Italians may very well go along with that with Britain out of the game. Also around this time MBB was in discussions with Dassault about what became Rafale coming in two variants, one with M88 for France and one with F404 for Germany (source from French Secret Projects 1 book). This may well have potential in the ATL.

 

[Palantir]

I still think there will be a push back to just gutting most of the UK's aerospace industry, the reaction to the White Paper is going to be brutal from the companies, Unions, universities doing the research, MPs with marginal seats, MPs who suddenly find themselves with marginal seats, the list goes on.

Nailing together a few kits is absolutely no substitute for having a proper aerospace industry and this will be made exceptionally clear to the government after that paper is published.

Balance of payments, international credibility, national pride, domestic political pressure - take it all together and it can over-power even the Treasury. On that basis I can see some sort of Eurofighter project making a comeback, particularly if the upfront R&D and prototype costs are kept reasonable.

By buying F/A-18 on the shelf for the FAA and the RAF, the UK is pretty much replacing its entire combat aircraft fleet with 2 fighters, the Tornado and the Hornet. They are left with the Harrier (replaced by a new variant) and the Jaguar (in need of replacement only in the early 2000's, by F/A-18 ?). The UK has just trashed it's aerospace industry (at least as tier one designer). If they don't get into a new program, they will lose their capacity to design fighter aircraft and possibly engine.
So I can see a backlash coming from the industry and research in the UK, but I don't know if the MOD can be moved from it's stance. Or if money can be made available for an ITTL Eurofighter program (I'm really pessimistic).

France has a history of not playing well with others and will still want carrier compatablity built in which no one else will see the need for. End result is probably the OTL breakup as France goes it alone.

What others have already said, also if they're laid down in '87 they'll be far to far along to stop in 1992-93 when major defence cuts finally start to kick in.

Because the largest potential user of the type isn't going to be part of the consortium and using the F/A-18 instead?

Rafale might still happen, but I can't see the Germans getting in bed with the French. German tactics for this sort of workshare project historically is to order more airframes up front to get a bigger slice of the work pie and then play funny buggers with the numbers, reducing the number of aircraft they ordered. It's unlikely that the French would put up with that sort of behaviour from the Boche, so they'd probably go it alone like they did historically.

France is the only other country in Europe the capable of developing a fighter from A to Z. OTL, the French had was they were competing directly with the UK for the lead in design and the engine development. And the UK had one big advantage, they already were producing the Tornado with two of the other three nations involved. The UK leveraged this advantage hard (thinking they could block French competition), notably imposing engines of the same size than the ones on the Tornado.
With the UK out ITTL, France is very good spot to take the lead on the program, even if they are alone to pay for the naval version. But, if the German and Italians don't go head with an aircraft in cooperation, they will need to buy US aircraft on the shelf. This is contrary to what they've just done with the Tornado (and realistically what they've done since the mid-60's), they'll just loose hard won competences. In longer term, it means their aircraft industry will be more and more integrated in the US one, with the associate loss of sovereignty.

By the way, it's false to say that "France has a history of not playing well with others". It's more the UK projecting it's rivalry with France (and the direct competition in key area) than anything else.

snip

Just note that UK carrier's construction planning is really close to the French one (87 for the lay down of the CdG), except, as you said, the second carrier was postponed indefinitely.
I can see the French building a second CdG this time (Anglo-french rivalry works both ways), but I don't think that they will buy British design.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Fortunately for the UK's aircraft industry in this timeline it has the power of authorial fiat to help save it.

 

[Blue cat]

By buying F/A-18 on the shelf for the FAA and the RAF, the UK is pretty much replacing its entire combat aircraft fleet with 2 fighters, the Tornado and the Hornet. They are left with the Harrier (replaced by a new variant) and the Jaguar (in need of replacement only in the early 2000's, by F/A-18 ?). The UK has just trashed it's aerospace industry (at least as tier one designer). If they don't get into a new program, they will lose their capacity to design fighter aircraft and possibly engine.
So I can see a backlash coming from the industry and research in the UK, but I don't know if the MOD can be moved from it's stance. Or if money can be made available for an ITTL Eurofighter program (I'm really pessimistic).






France is the only other country in Europe the capable of developing a fighter from A to Z. OTL, the French had was they were competing directly with the UK for the lead in design and the engine development. And the UK had one big advantage, they already were producing the Tornado with two of the other three nations involved. The UK leveraged this advantage hard (thinking they could block French competition), notably imposing engines of the same size than the ones on the Tornado.
With the UK out ITTL, France is very good spot to take the lead on the program, even if they are alone to pay for the naval version. But, if the German and Italians don't go head with an aircraft in cooperation, they will need to buy US aircraft on the shelf. This is contrary to what they've just done with the Tornado (and realistically what they've done since the mid-60's), they'll just loose hard won competences. In longer term, it means their aircraft industry will be more and more integrated in the US one, with the associate loss of sovereignty.

By the way, it's false to say that "France has a history of not playing well with others". It's more the UK projecting it's rivalry with France (and the direct competition in key area) than anything else.



Just note that UK carrier's construction planning is really close to the French one (87 for the lay down of the CdG), except, as you said, the second carrier was postponed indefinitely.
I can see the French building a second CdG this time (Anglo-french rivalry works both ways), but I don't think that they will buy British design.

Maybe trident gets cut to save the domestic aerospace industry ?

Maybe the UK stretches the Tornado into something resembling the proposed stretched FB111 proposals and buys US stand off weapons off the shelf to arm the resulting aircraft with ?

The calculus might go along the lines of:

The UK will have more geo political influence by having air craft carriers and a viable domestic aerospace industry, than having aircraft carriers and a SLBM based nuclear deterrent force which is based on (edit to add, essentially useless without ) missiles purchased from the U.S.

The aircraft could if needed use British supplied gravity bombs.

Maybe the U.S. produces the SRAM 2 if the UK expressed interest ?

Edit to add:
I don't really agree with this line of reasoning.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Just note that UK carrier's construction planning is really close to the French one (87 for the lay down of the CdG), except, as you said, the second carrier was postponed indefinitely.
I can see the French building a second CdG this time (Anglo-french rivalry works both ways), but I don't think that they will buy British design.

I think that after the CdG experience there would be little appetite for a 2nd go at it

And apologies if I have misunderstood you - but to be clear OTL France did buy the QE design for the cancelled PA2 / Richelieu and it cost them €55 Million over all (with a further €45 to be paid had they gone ahead with it)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Snip

Just note that UK carrier's construction planning is really close to the French one (87 for the lay down of the CdG), except, as you said, the second carrier was postponed indefinitely.

I can see the French building a second CdG this time (Anglo-french rivalry works both ways), but I don't think that they will buy British design.

I think that after the CdG experience there would be little appetite for a 2nd go at it

And apologies if I have misunderstood you - but to be clear OTL France did buy the QE design for the cancelled PA2 / Richelieu and it cost them €55 Million over all (with a further €45 to be paid had they gone ahead with it)

For what it's worth the following is a quote from the section about the French Navy in Jane's Fighting Ships 1982-83

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

0 + (2) NUCLEAR-PROPELLED AIRCRAFT CARRIERS​

On 23rd September 1980 the Defence Council decided to build two nuclear-propelled carriers of 32,000-35,000 tons to replace Clemenceau in 1990 and Foch some years later. First ship, Bretagne, to be laid down at Brest in 1983. The second to be named Provence. Aircraft complement, 30-40. Funds for preliminary work at Brest provided in 1981 estimates.

As we know, this is not what happened.

 

[Palantir]

I think that after the CdG experience there would be little appetite for a 2nd go at it

And apologies if I have misunderstood you - but to be clear OTL France did buy the QE design for the cancelled PA2 / Richelieu and it cost them €55 Million over all (with a further €45 to be paid had they gone ahead with it)

Oh, I know about the QE design buy, but it was in 2006 (from memory), almost 20 years after beginning the GdG construction. What I'm proposing is the original plan of 2 CdG build simultaneously (the second beginning in 89 or 90). The CdG costed about $2.2 billion (against $4.3 billion for the USS Ronald Reagan). It wasn't particularly over budget.
From memory, the 2 biggest over costs and delays for the CdG were :
1. Adapting the runway for the E-2C's (adding 4 meters for safety reasons) ;
2. Changing the propellers (US made) in 2000 after one of them broke (the defect was some air bubbles in the metal).

None costed that much, and a second ship will be modified from the get go.

 

[jsb]

What, I'm proposing is the original plan of 2 CdG build simultaneously

Would CdG chance with RN building carriers at the same time? Especially would they swap to using the larger civilian dock over the bay if RN ships are going to be that much larger than CdG....!

 

[Palantir]

Would CdG chance with RN building carriers at the same time? Especially would they swap to using the larger civilian dock over the bay if RN ships are going to be that much larger than CdG....!

When you talk about civilian dock, I'm assuming you're talking about the Saint-Nazaire "Chantiers de l'Atlantique", which have the biggest dock in France. OTL, the CdG was constructed in Brest's Arsenal (DCN Brest, now Naval Group). You can note that the CdG is roughly 4 meters shorter than the Clemenceau, which was also build in Brest. The Brest's Arsenal has also institutional knowledge in handling nuclear power (it was already refitting the French SSBN). SO, it's possible that Saint-Nazaire get to construct the second carrier (if there is one), but I don't think the first can escape from Brest's Arsenal hands. (And that's without counting that the French President is a Socialist.)

Can the new French carrier(s) be (slightly) bigger ? Yes, specially if the French want E-2C from the get go (as they saw AEW was maybe THE biggest game changer in ITTL Falklands naval campaign). So, it's possible to increase the size of the carrier(s) from 261.5 to 265 meters and from 42,500 to 47,500 (metric) tonnes, if the MN can convince the politicians that they need 40 fighters, 2/3 E-2C and 2/3 helicopters for the air group.
The biggest problem with an increased size and tonnage in France is the Toulon dry dock (used for refit), but the one I'm proposing is manageable with a (slightly) bigger reconstruction of the dock than OTL. If you go over a certain size, maybe 60 000 tonnes, you need to reconstruct half the docks in Toulon, which will cost as much as one carrier.

As for comparing French and British carriers capacities, it's difficult. Part of the tonnage advantage the British carriers will have (55,000 against 42,500) will be eaten by ship's fuel, not by aviation fuel, spare parts and munitions (the 2 gives the extra capacities). Both are announced at around 40 aircraft, so the advantage of the increased tonnage of the British carriers is also limited.
In fact, I think the major capacity break through with the CATOBAR is when one carrier is big enough to launch and land aircraft at the same time. But, neither the French nor the British break that barrier.
So, all in all, the British carriers have slight advantage, specially in high intensity warfare (they probably still have bigger storage capacities for aviation fuel, spare parts and munitions).

Note : the 2nd Clemenceau, the Foch was built in St.-Nazaire.

 

[Triune Kingdom]

How far did the design and building process on the CdG CV go at this point in time? It would be really interesting to see French and British cooperation on the design of the new generation of carriers, but would it be possible for the planned British Design to be fitted with Nuclear propulsion if the French wish to do so?

Though, how plausable would it be for the French to decide for 2 CVs instead of just 1 as in IOTL? It would give them a bit more flexibility, and if the time is right, support might be there, as the French Military switches from its Cold War mentality to a greater focus on overseas interventions and the like, with smaller, but much more professional force at its disposal.

 

[JamesHunter]

How far did the design and building process on the CdG CV go at this point in time? It would be really interesting to see French and British cooperation on the design of the new generation of carriers, but would it be possible for the planned British Design to be fitted with Nuclear propulsion if the French wish to do so?

Not very. Certainly preliminary work had been done but the order wasn't placed until '86, but as said before the French often don't play well with others in defense procurement. In any case CdG is a good deal smaller than the CV-90 and with their closer relationship with the US, Britain will likely recognise the issues with building a nuclear surface vessel. Far better to stick with what works or at least build a nuclear destroyer first before embarking on such am ambitious project.

 

[Hammerbolt]

How far did the design and building process on the CdG CV go at this point in time? It would be really interesting to see French and British cooperation on the design of the new generation of carriers, but would it be possible for the planned British Design to be fitted with Nuclear propulsion if the French wish to do so?

Afaik, the requirements were set on the mid 70s, carrier ordered in 1986. The hull was layed down in 89, with parts being built as far back as 87. In this TL, I can't see any talks beginning before 83, by which time the french carrier's design will be well advanced.

 

[Triune Kingdom]

Will the changes ITTL perhaps cause that some of the weapon systems of today never see any development and use? First and foremost of these, at least in my mind, would be the F-35 Aircraft, would the changes ITTL maybe cause that aircraft to never come into being, or would its design requirements be different then those IOTL?

Also, I really want to see what the Soviet Union, and later Russia, do in regards to Carriers and Carrier Aircraft, if RN use of Eagle seemingly proves without a shadow of a doubt necessity of CATOBAR CVs for any "serious" navy.

Lastly, would we see any changes to the future ships and weapon systems due to the Falklands conflict. Even IOTL has shown the vulnerability of the surface ships to AShMs and Aircraft, so I am not certain that any further changes might be caused ITTL?

 

[SsgtC]

Will the changes ITTL perhaps cause that some of the weapon systems of today never see any development and use? First and foremost of these, at least in my mind, would be the F-35 Aircraft, would the changes ITTL maybe cause that aircraft to never come into being, or would its design requirements be different then those IOTL?

There's still likely to be an F-35 equivalent. Stealth will still be important and the military will still want a High/Low mix (OTL F-22/F-35). Their final forms may be different though and we may even see the proposed carrier capable variant of the F-22 that was cancelled in 1993.

 

[JamesHunter]

There's still likely to be an F-35 equivalent. Stealth will still be important and the military will still want a High/Low mix (OTL F-22/F-35). Their final forms may be different though and we may even see the proposed carrier capable variant of the F-22 that was cancelled in 1993.

Yeah, although without the Harrier proving itself in the Falklands as a fighter (and with the return to CATOBAR) I suspect you won't see a B model Lightning. Instead I could easily see a Harrier 3 built as a ground attack/sea attack aircraft. It might still go to sea though as the CV-90 is likely to be at least the size of a Wasp class so it can be launched without needing a ski jump. Although its likely the F/A-18 will duplicate most of its capabilities.

 

[Virginia Liberal]

Yeah, although without the Harrier proving itself in the Falklands as a fighter (and with the return to CATOBAR) I suspect you won't see a B model Lightning. Instead I could easily see a Harrier 3 built as a ground attack/sea attack aircraft. It might still go to sea though as the CV-90 is likely to be at least the size of a Wasp class so it can be launched without needing a ski jump. Although its likely the F/A-18 will duplicate most of its capabilities.

or Nations like Australia,Brazil, India,Italy or Japan who cannot or can no longer afford CATOBAR carriers no matter how much they may want to

 

[Virginia Liberal]

TTL it might be the Japanese who buy out the Yak 141 as CATOBAR is completely against there constitution but VSTOL can be fuged like in otl