FWIW I read a file on the proposed RAF name for the F-111 many years a go during a visit to the National Archives at Kew.This leads me to think an earlier POD may be needed, specifically with the F-111K. Should this order not be cancelled, this should butterfly away the all UK Tornado variants (GRs & Fs), the SPETCAT Jaguar & RAF Buccaneers at the very least, with the TSR-2 & AFVG cancelled as per the OTL too.
If CVA.01 isn't cancelled ITTL the F-15 isn't purchased ITTL.There is something else that was cancelled in the 60s that would be much better than the F-111K for providing fighter cover over the Falklands: CVA01.
If CVA.01 isn't cancelled ITTL the F-15 isn't purchased ITTL.
F-14s are purchased for the RN to replace its Phantoms and the RAF is forced to buy Tomcats instead of Tornado ADV. However, the 3 CVA.01 class that I hope would be built by 1980 would still be operating Phantoms ITTL instead of the Tomcat in 1982. I think the CVA.01 class would be operating a similar sized air group to Ark Royal and Eagle towards the end of their careers. That is 12 F-4K Phantoms, 14 Buccaneer S Mk 2, 4 E-2K Hawkeyes, 6 ASW helicopters, 2 SAR helicopters and one cod aircraft.
I know that is a total of 26 Phantoms and Buccaneers when CVA.01 could carry at least 36 however, it's unlikely that enough sailors could be recruited to operate the 10 extra aircraft afloat and in the required second-line units ashore. That is even if the Treasury could find the money.
Not without a stronger British economy which will be required ITTL anyway. IOTL the Knott Defence Review of 1981 was because the UK couldn't afford to maintain 3 helicopter carriers, 60 destroyers & frigates and replace Polaris.Could the RN afford a escort fleet and trident subs if 3 CVA were obtained?
Most AH.con members fail to realize that the Trident programme was and still is the biggest money grabber in the UK defence budget.
And an aircraft that could do the job just as well as the F-111K in that role was the TSR.2. I know that it was cancelled before CVA.01 but it's likely to survive in a TL where CVA.01 isn't cancelled because the UK economy has to be performing better than it did IOTL. There would be a lesser chance of the P.1154 RAF and HS.681 surviving too.There is something else that was cancelled in the 60s that would be much better than the F-111K for providing fighter cover over the Falklands: CVA01.
I think that many Labour politicians of the era couldn't care less if that is what happened and the rest would be quite pleased if it did. Their major complaint would be that the UK was buying military aircraft, not who they were being bought from.The problem I have with the Idea that Britain only buys US aircraft with the exception of the Harrier and the Hawk is that it destroys Britain's ability to ever design and build combat aircraft again. First the design teams have been disbanded and can never be rebuilt and second thousands of jobs have been lost building the aircraft. Once these skills are lost it's almost impossible to regain them.
Not without a stronger British economy which will be required ITTL anyway. IOTL the Knott Defence Review of 1981 was because the UK couldn't afford to maintain 3 helicopter carriers, 60 destroyers & frigates and replace Polaris.
However, the CVA.01 class would be built in the 1970s and Trident wasn't built until the 1980s, which will help. They'll probably go for two ships in commission and the third in refit/reserve which what they did with the Invincible class IOTL after Invincible herself was reprieved in the wake of the Falklands War.
However, two CVA.01s even with their reduced air group require about twice the personnel afloat and ashore as 2 Invincibles. OTOH some of the RAF's Phantom and Buccaneer squadrons took the place of FAA fighter and strike squadrons. ITTL the 4 extra FAA Phantom and Buccaneer squadrons in the 1980s would be offset by a corresponding reduction in the number of RAF Phantom and Buccaneer squadrons.
There won't be an Invincible class if CVA.01 isn't built which will help too. Although they are roughly in the gap between the CVA.01 class and the Trident submarines they money could be spent on more frigates and destroyers. But my preferred option would be 2 or 3 new commando carriers to replace Albion and Bulwark.
They'd soon start caring when their seats in Parliament were threatened after half their constituents suddenly lost their jobs.I think that many Labour politicians of the era couldn't care less if that is what happened and the rest would be quite pleased if it did. Their major complaint would be that the UK was buying military aircraft, not who they were being bought from.
The Buccaneers the RAF used were effectively cut-price TSR.2s and F-111Ks so I can see an additional batch of 50 F-111Ks being bought instead of the last 50 Buccaneers. The UK economy has to be performing better for the first batch of 50 F-111Ks to be affordable which ipso facto makes a second batch of 50 affordable even if it is more expensive than the last 50 Buccaneers.Buying the F15 instead of the Tornado ADV, sure it's a better fighter. Not cancelling the F111K? That's possible. Buying hundreds of F111's in the 1970's? No, where's the money coming from and it's not suited to all of the roles it would need to fill. So the Tornado IDS goes ahead not just for Britain but the other partners, otherwise alternatives would need to be found. Those would be a Buccaneer S3, A6 Intruder or SAAB Viggen.
A lot of voters lost their jobs due to the 1964-65 cancellations. A lot of voters lost their jobs due to the Mason defence review of 1974-75.They'd soon start caring when their seats in Parliament were threatened after half their constituents suddenly lost their jobs.
I know you did and that's what I meant too.When I say "trident", I mean the SSBN and associated infrastructure programmes.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8166/
The UK nuclear deterrence is in reality quore expensive, especially if you takes into account of the costs of sites like
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corsham_Computer_Centre.
The flippant reply is that General Galtieri provided the answer to your question on 2nd April 1982.How does one justify such spending on RN when the main threat of the era, the Warsaw Pact, is a land based threat?
A lot of USA based members go on about pork barrel politics, seemingly unaware it happens everywhere else with a different name!The problem I have with the Idea that Britain only buys US aircraft with the exception of the Harrier and the Hawk is that it destroys Britain's ability to ever design and build combat aircraft again. First the design teams have been disbanded and can never be rebuilt and second thousands of jobs have been lost building the aircraft. Once these skills are lost it's almost impossible to regain them. Buying the F15 instead of the Tornado ADV, sure it's a better fighter. Not cancelling the F111K? That's possible. Buying hundreds of F111's in the 1970's? No, where's the money coming from and it's not suited to all of the roles it would need to fill. So the Tornado IDS goes ahead not just for Britain but the other partners, otherwise alternatives would need to be found. Those would be a Buccaneer S3, A6 Intruder or SAAB Vigan.
I think the E-3 Sentry would have been more useful than both because the absence of AEW was a bigger problem than the small number of Sea Harriers.PS - If you think that the F-14 Tomcat for the RAF in this situation would work better, feel free to say so. I went for the Eagle due to its longer range & superb combat record.
Isn't the SSBN also the only realistic UK defence capability that can stop/deter the entire USSR/Red Army without US/NATO support? It may not be at all flexible but it's relatively powerful....even for it cost v any conventional capability, just look at the cost of say a conscript army to do the same job?How does one justify such spending on RN when the main threat of the era, the Warsaw Pact, is a land based threat.
When I say "trident", I mean the SSBN and associated infrastructure programmes.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8166/
The UK nuclear deterrence is in reality quore expensive, especially if you takes into account of the costs of sites like
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corsham_Computer_Centre
SSBN's are great for stopping the other fella launching his nukes at you, they do damn all to stop him parking 2-300 submarines in the Atlantic and starving you into submission.Isn't the SSBN also the only realistic UK defence capability that can stop/deter the entire USSR/Red Army without US/NATO support? It may not be at all flexible but it's relatively powerful....even for it cost v any conventional capability, just look at the cost of say a conscript army to do the same job?
The later Black Buck missions were Wild Weasel, hunting the Argentine radars with Shrike ARMs. This is something that the RN could not do, although there was work going on to fit the G3s with Shrikes but this wasn't finished in time for the war.
The Black Buck missions didn't detract from any other mission, landed a bomb on the runway, caused the Argies to be on alert for the rest of the war, destroyed 1 radar and damaged another. A lot of air campaigns have achieved much less in 6 attack missions.