how long could HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Duke of Edinburgh lasted
- Thread starter Ward
- Start date
I would guess probably 30-35 years, replaced in the mid 2000’s by HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Duke of York.
There could be lots of interesting discussions about what configuration the replacements are in. Any aircraft purchased in the mid-late 1980’s to replace Buccaneers and Phantoms are going to be just about due for replacement. And the F-35 program is underway by then.
There is still a chance that the Invincible class are built as well, they are through-deck cruisers remember, not carriers. The Centrepiece for NATO ASW task groups.
There could be lots of interesting discussions about what configuration the replacements are in. Any aircraft purchased in the mid-late 1980’s to replace Buccaneers and Phantoms are going to be just about due for replacement. And the F-35 program is underway by then.
There is still a chance that the Invincible class are built as well, they are through-deck cruisers remember, not carriers. The Centrepiece for NATO ASW task groups.
Agree with StevoJH, about 30 - 35 years depending on money. IIRC there was an idea to make the Tornado capable of being deployed on carriers so if these carriers entered service then you might see a navalized Tornado as its main aircraft with them keeping the Buc's around because they were a really good aircraft.
If they butterfly the Falkland's conflict away I think that the Nott Review could be a problem. Though maybe it'd end up with the cancellation of the helicopter escort cruiser that had been planned to complement the CVA's rather that the CVA's themselves. Even if CVA's survive Nott they could become obvious targets for cuts in the post-Cold War peace dividend, particularly because it'll coincide with the procurement phase of replacing the Phantom and Buccaneer.
I imagine they would have come up for repalcement in the mid 2000s. The replacements would not look like the CVF, as their design is heavily dependant on the lapse in UK carrier design and operation, aand coming to the problem form an entirely new angle. Instead it is likely designed as a development of the CVA-01 and using operational experaince gained from them. I would imagine that the Royal Navy would have been considerably frsutrated by the size resitrictions of the CVA-01 design, and would push heavily for a much larger 80,000 or even 90,000 ton vessel, with the accompanying deverlpemnt of large dry docks to serve them.
The EFA program would probably have a carrier version as designed from the beginning, possibly leading to the French staying in the program, maybe even getting into service sooner. Any gap between the Phantoms going out of service, and the EFA being deployed is likely covered by surplus F-18s on loan from the USN.
The through deck cruiser repalcements for the Tigers, ITL Invincibles, are the likely targets for any economisation. If any are built they are liekly sold off in the 80s. The Australians and Canadians in particular might see utility in a large heliopter carryiung surface ship to replace their old carriers. The reasoning being that some ASW helicopters could be operated from the heavy carriers, and a reduced strike air group was an acceptable price to pay.
The EFA program would probably have a carrier version as designed from the beginning, possibly leading to the French staying in the program, maybe even getting into service sooner. Any gap between the Phantoms going out of service, and the EFA being deployed is likely covered by surplus F-18s on loan from the USN.
The through deck cruiser repalcements for the Tigers, ITL Invincibles, are the likely targets for any economisation. If any are built they are liekly sold off in the 80s. The Australians and Canadians in particular might see utility in a large heliopter carryiung surface ship to replace their old carriers. The reasoning being that some ASW helicopters could be operated from the heavy carriers, and a reduced strike air group was an acceptable price to pay.
The Tornado and the Buccaneer would perform exactly the same mission, so it would be one or the other. The Tornado could fill the air defense role in navalized F3 form.
I don't see much advantage in navalizing the Tornado when the RN could just buy US aircraft. The ships should be able to operate the F/A 18.
Probably jobs, the UK might well make a fuss about having stuff made in at home, without having to pay a licensing fee etc, its more a political decision than a military one. Because by the time they are looking at retiring the CV's the F-18 would be pretty darn new because you can bet that the UK would be looking to save money following the peace dividend at the end of the Cold War and these ships could well be threatened with the axe.
I could see one getting axed in the 1990s, maybe sold to Brazil as a newer/better option than Foch/Sao Paulo. The other probably survives into the early 21st Century, maybe gets a new lease on life from 9/11 (assuming that still happens).
One question - if these ships are built and the Invincible class ships are not, what does this mean for the development of the Sea Harrier?
Way to capable (and expensive) a ship to be sold to Brazil. India might be able to aford it
Unlikely - they were the RN's attempt to retain a fixed-wing naval strike capability with decent range and payload in the absence of a proper carrier. With CVA-01 in service there's no need for either.
Easy - it doesn't happen. The tipping point that convinced the junta that annexation was possible was the planned reduction of the RN to a purely regional ASW force. They wouldn't have tried it on if there were a couple of fleet carriers available to come charging south.
McPherson
Banned
I respectfully disagree, If these contraptions had been built,...
at least one of them would have been converted into a STOVL ship and the catapults landed. From takeoff runs and trap space seen in the illustrations; by the early 70s US aircraft will be too heavy to safely operate off those flattops. One of the reasons Hermes was converted is because of operating costs and those aircraft limitations.
I would have been far far more afraid of RN subs. RN Carriers (Atlantic Conveyor is an indicator) were meat on the table for the Argentine air force, if the idiots in charge had listened to their air staff and waited three months for all the pieces to fall in place. Leopoldo Galtieri was an army ignoramus who knew jack squat about air power. Jorge Anaya, his junta navy counterpart, was equally ignorant. Look to the Argentine mid-grades though who had to fight the junta's stupid insane imperialist adventure. An Exocet mission kill of 1 flattop is good enough to lose the war for Britain. The Argentines came close.
Last edited:
I respectfully disagree, If these contraptions had been built,...
at least one of them would have been converted into a STOVL ship and the catapults landed. From takeoff runs and trap space seen in the illustrations; by the early 70s US aircraft will be too heavy to safely operate off those flattops. One of the reasons Hermes was converted is because of operating costs and those aircraft limitations.
I would have been far far more afraid of RN subs. RN Carriers (Atlantic Conveyor is an indicator) were meat on the table for the Argentine air force, if the idiots in charge had listened to their air staff and waited three months for all the pieces to fall in place. Leopoldo Galtieri was an army ignoramus who knew jack squat about air power. Jorge Anaya, his junta navy counterpart, was equally ignorant. Look to the Argentine mid-grades though who had to fight the junta's stupid insane imperialist adventure. An Exocet mission kill of 1 flattop is good enough to lose the war for Britain. The Argentines came close.
CVA-01 would have been more than capable of operating the heavy late war US carrier aircraft, even the giant Tomcat (though hanger space issues would make operating the type impractical). A phantom and buccaneer air group would have mulched anything the Argentinian Navy ventured to oppose it.
The Junta may have been dumb enough to pick a fight with a Britain armed with proper fleet carriers, but they would bitterly regret it.
McPherson
Banned
British vector intercept methods were outdated, the catapults for the proposed type (Good for F-4s, not for Tomcats) were inadequate, British radars, and ship based AAA was terrible, the hardstand and workspace on the flightdecks was wrongly laid out, hanger overheads a problem, trap runs too short for projected US aircraft.
But the main problem is that the British just did not have air defense experience at sea. The dispositions they actually adopted prove this.
None of those problems are alleviated by moving to a ski jump and SHARs
a ski jump conversion would only happen for budgeting reasons, not problems with the layout of the ship.
ontop of that if the RN has two phantom capable carriers and a decently sized naval airwing then it's unlikely to spend the money developing the SHAR.
and if there is no SHAR, there is no really practical possibility of a Ski jump conversion, so budgetary problems would probably result on one carrier being mothballed.
The CVA-01 would have been able to operate Phantom, if it can launch and retreive Phantoms, it can do the same for any later aircraft. Tomcats would be possible, but impracticle due to the cramped nature of the hanger and flight deck. The RN wouldn't operate them, instead sticking with Phantoms until the 90s when they would replace them with carrier-EFA or Hornets.
Yes the CVA-01 was badly laid out and designed, but that would just impact the number of modern aircraft it could operate, not preventing them from operating them at all.
Even if the Argies mission kill a carrier, guess what? The USN will instantly bail out one of THE most important members in NATO.
USS Forrestal or some such would have been immediately put up for "Sale" to the RN, 'renamed' Ark Royal or some such, and crewed by a bunch of Englishmen with funny accents.
Or as was actually planned, USS Iwo Jima. I'm pretty sure the Argies are going to run out of ASM's before the Brits run out of hulls.
Last edited:
Disagree - way I understand it, the Argies didn't think the UK would fight, not that they couldn't. Even with the respective inventories of OTL the UK armed forces significantly overmatched what the Argentinians could throw at them. The only way the war made sense is if those forces weren't going to be used, and the Argentinian leadership managed to convince themselves that they wouldn't be. Once that piece of mental gymnastics has been achieved, the presence or absence of a couple of fleet carriers is irrelevant. The decision was never made on the basis of a comparison of forces in OTL, and I don't see why it would be ITTL.