HMS EAGLE in the Falklands

To be fair, have the British Government on behalf of the Falkland islanders offer him a nice little cottage in the wilds of East Falkland Island. Nearest neighbors, 50,000 sheep, enjoy!
 
St Helena, I hear its a lovely place for enemies of the British Crown to see out their days.
Not really, the Junta members would get an ego boost thinking by exiled to St Helena that they are the equals of Napoleon. Better the Orkneys or East Falklands. !
 
Ok, I know the Junta are cruel despots, partial to sending people on one way helicopter trips, using death squads, murdering nuns etc, but Hull?

Really? No one deserves Hull, not even people that live there.
Now be fair.
There's one good thing about Hull.
The A63 westbound.
 
If the world had piles, they'd be in Hull.

There's a saying, "From Hell and Hull and Halifax, God Lord deliver us."

It's a dump.
 
Moving away a bit from revenge fantasies some people have, will the employment of Eagle by the RN have any effect on other navies of the world, in comparison to OTL, where Invincible class and Harriers got a lot of spotlight?

I did have an idea, that perhaps French go a bit different way, that British use of conventional powered carrier causes CdG CVN to drop the N, and instead is conventionaly powered. Is this plausable, was there any reason French made it Nuclear, aside from perhaps reasons of national pride?
 
... will the employment of Eagle by the RN have any effect on other navies of the world, in comparison to OTL, where Invincible class and Harriers got a lot of spotlight?

I did have an idea, that perhaps French go a bit different way, that British use of conventional powered carrier causes CdG CVN to drop the N, and instead is conventionaly powered. Is this plausable, was there any reason French made it Nuclear, aside from perhaps reasons of national pride?
I would expect that CATOBAR carriers are seen as the only "real" option if you're serious about having a carrier at all, with the Harrier carriers rather unfairly seen as the "toy" version. RN methods will gain even more credibility than they had otherwise. We could also expect that the equipment and weapons they used will become popular export items.

As for the French, they built their CVN with the same reactors used by their subs. This was not ideal, and I seem to recall they had a fair amount of trouble with their powerplants. However, it did mean that more space could be devoted to fuel and weapons for their air group, and it also kept their skilled nuclear-tradespeople usefully employed. Another possible advantage was that it provided a pool of trained operators who could transition into the submarine arm if necessary - it's hard to make sure you have enough nuclear engineers, given military life and pay. And, of course, it meant that their carriers had theoretically unlimited range at full speed.

Generally speaking, though, if I was trying to find out why they went with CVNs, I wouldn't look purely at military reasons. It's entirely likely that there were political-industrial reasons as well, and perhaps even a dose of prestige too - don't underestimate the desire of the French to be able to operate independently, and be taken seriously as a world power.
 
Top