Sale of "Ark Royal" & "Eagle" to other navies post '70?

Would the US Government allow the Phantoms to be sold on to a third party in the first place?

According to Chris Chant on Page 28 of Super Profile Super Etendard...
I think Dassault-Breguet would offer an updated Mirage G to the buyers of Ark Royal and Eagle arguing that combining their purchase of about 40 aircraft plus another 40 for the Aeronavale to replace their Crusaders would be an economically viable production run.

That would be expensive. The G never made it past prototype so any buyer would have to finish funding the project and a naval version. If the Aeronavale doesn't go for it, it would cost even more...
 
That would be expensive. The G never made it past prototype so any buyer would have to finish funding the project and a naval version. If the Aeronavale doesn't go for it, it would cost even more...
Correct, which is why I wrote a sentence that you didn't quote.
Whether the offer would have been taken seriously is another matter.
It's also an excuse to put this link in.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...DD89881CD2FD41A1F9BDDD89881CD2FD&&FORM=VDRVRV
 
Last edited:
I agree about the Spey-Phantoms. However, the last Buccaneer was delivered in 1977 IIRC and if I also recall correctly the British Government turned down a request by South Africa for 20 Buccaneers and some Nimrods in 1974.

Countries that buy old, used aircraft carriers don't often buy state of the art new aircraft fleets at the same time, and often don't buy new aircraft at all.
 
Countries that buy old, used aircraft carriers don't often buy state of the art new aircraft fleets at the same time, and often don't buy new aircraft at all.
I only mentioned it in regards to Australia because they were trying to buy the F-111 at the same time and the Buccaneer could be marketed as a more affordable option
 
I only mentioned it in regards to Australia because they were trying to buy the F-111 at the same time and the Buccaneer could be marketed as a more affordable option

The Buccaneer was never in the aircraft considered by the RAAF to replace the Canberra. There were 5 aircraft in 2 batches: those available in 1966 A5, F4C and Mirage IV and those available in 1969 F111 and TSR2. Supersonic dash at low level and mach 2 at altitude were prerequisites and the Buccaneer doesn't come close.
 
The Buccaneer was never in the aircraft considered by the RAAF to replace the Canberra. There were 5 aircraft in 2 batches: those available in 1966 A5, F4C and Mirage IV and those available in 1969 F111 and TSR2. Supersonic dash at low level and mach 2 at altitude were prerequisites and the Buccaneer doesn't come close.
Ah. I didn’t know the specifics, so... withdrawn.
 
Countries that buy old, used aircraft carriers don't often buy state of the art new aircraft fleets at the same time, and often don't buy new aircraft at all.
That's perfectly true. I was merely pointing out that it was feasible to buy Buccaneers up to the middle of the 1970s.

One possibility is that the British sell some of their own Buccaneers along with the aircraft carriers and use the proceeds to buy a batch of new aircraft. Which is unlikely but possible.

Another unlikely but possible scenario is that the British sell their whole stock of F-4K Phantoms along with the aircraft carriers and use the proceeds to buy some new or used Phantoms with J79 engines as the RAF doesn't need the extra performance or shorter take off and landing characteristics the RN needed to enable the Phantom to operate from its aircraft carriers. The Phantom was still being built in the USA at this time and in the 1980s the RAF did buy some used F-4J Phantoms from the USA. I repeat its possible, but unlikely.

However, I think the idea of Ark Royal and Eagle being sold to another navy in the 1970s is unlikely in the first place on the grounds of their age and condition. The required equivalent of the American SLEP/FRAM refit needed to keep them operational for at least another 10 years would be prohibitively expensive.

I also think that the only possible candidates for buying the ships are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada and India.

IMHO Australia and Canada are the least likely. The OTL RAN and Maritime Command were simply too small to absorb even one of the two ships. IIRC Ark Royal had a crew of 2,640 in the 1970s, which is the equivalent of 7-10 destroyers with a crew of 200-250. It would only be feasible if Australia didn't cut back its defence spending at the end of the Vietnam War and Canada didn't cut back its defence spending from at about 3.0% of GNP in the middle 1960s to 1.8% of GNP by the late 1970s. Even then I think it would be very difficult to recruit and retain the extra sailors needed to keep both ships operational.

Argentina and Brazil are more feasible. IIRC their navies had more personnel in the 1970s than both Australia and Canada. They also had an aircraft carrier each in the 1970s anyway both of which had a crew about half the size of Ark Royal in the 1970s (admittedly so had the Australians) but they also still had one or two of the 2 Brooklyn class cruisers acquired in the 1950s so the surviving ships could have been paid off prematurely to provide some of the extra crews. Also they had conscription so it would be easier for them to have for them to recruit more sailors. It would also help that both countries were under military dictatorships in the 1970s. Plus Argentina bought 2 Type 42 destroyers and Brazil 6 Vosper-Thornycroft frigates in the 1970s so TTL the sale of the ships could have been part of a larger package.

India with it's massive population could have easily recruited the extra men needed for these ships without paying off any of their existing ships if the Indian Government was prepared to spend the extra money. I think they would have kept Vikrant on as a training ship or converted her into a helicopter carrier. What is needed here is the military need and political will to do it.
 
The potential issue with India is what would they need with another carrier when her most likely wars would be on land probably not in the short term?
 
Last edited:
Way too expensive and manpower intensive for Italy and Australia.

Australia rejected the much smaller and less manpower intensive Hermes in the late 60s because of the running costs; Melbourne had ~1300 men and the final deployment of the Centaur ~1400 so the Hermes would have had about that in RAN service.
 
Imperial Iran is a possibility. The Shah placed lots of gigantic orders for advanced military hardware and did express an interest in acquiring Invincible class vessels. However the program fell through when it became apparent that the Imperial Iranian Navy would not be able to provide the necessary manpower to operate the ships.
If somehow this issue could be overcome then the Shah might view acquiring Eagle or Ark as a relatively cheap way to make the transition to blue water navy costs and common sense be damned.
The timing here would make things interesting. If Iran takes possession of the ship before the revolution would the Islamic Republic be willing or able to retain the ship in service?
Might she even still be around today either still serving or laid up somewhere?

If not might the RN be tempted to complete whatever work would probably have been underway on the ship to retain it for their own use?

Australia would probably more likely go for an Invincible class vessel as per otl owing to the lower manpower requirements, lower running costs and longer lifespan.

India's probably the best bet. Would they be able to keep it running as long as they did with the former HMS Hermes?
 
Australia rejected the much smaller and less manpower intensive Hermes in the late 60s because of the running costs; Melbourne had ~1300 men and the final deployment of the Centaur ~1400 so the Hermes would have had about that in RAN service.
This is from various Jane's Fighting Ships from 1959-60 to 1969-70.

However, I think some of the figures are suspect. E.g. the complements of the British Carriers, Hermes has a crew 50% greater than Centaur (2,100 v 1,400) for 5 extra aircraft (25 v 30). The crew for Eagle seems to be her crew when she was completed in 1951, not after her 1959-64 refit.

Aircraft Carrier Complements.png
 
This is from various Jane's Fighting Ships from 1959-60 to 1969-70.

However, I think some of the figures are suspect. E.g. the complements of the British Carriers, Hermes has a crew 50% greater than Centaur (2,100 v 1,400) for 5 extra aircraft (25 v 30). The crew for Eagle seems to be her crew when she was completed in 1951, not after her 1959-64 refit.

View attachment 396236

Check out the size of the centaur and Hermes crews without the air staff and you will see the difference. My guess is that the Hermes type 984 radar and associated aircraft control gear required the huge crew. It was cutting edge in 1959 and likely far beyond what the Hermes CAG could use.
 
For the Audacious class, what's the maximum realistic air group with smaller aircraft than Phantom/Buccaneer? Say with A-4 or (Sea) Harrier sized aircraft? Assuming 12-ish support aircraft (~4x AEW (maybe second hand Gannets from the RN, maybe a helicopter based system such as the Sea King AEW variant or similar), ~6-8 ASW (again, possibly second hand Gannet/Trackers or maybe helicopter based) and ~4 utility helicopters (for plane guard/SAR/Captain's barge type duties)).

Are you realistically looking at being able to put 30+ jets on top of that or is ~25 more realistic (assuming the buying nation's finances allow, of course). The RN seem to have managed 26 fast jets on Ark Royal in the 1970s with 5x Gannet and 9x Sea King but are the smaller aircraft small enough to allow significantly larger air groups?
 
Off the wall suggestion. USSR or PRC, not necessarily to use the things, but to take them apart and get some pointers for building Carriers of their own

Of course the issue would be the UK being willing to sell to them, even as scrap, though the Aussies did that with Melbourne
 
Off the wall suggestion. USSR or PRC, not necessarily to use the things, but to take them apart and get some pointers for building Carriers of their own

Of course the issue would be the UK being willing to sell to them, even as scrap, though the Aussies did that with Melbourne

Well my first suggestion would be to stop fucking up a perfectly good flight deck with a battery of heavy SSM's.
 
For the Audacious class, what's the maximum realistic air group with smaller aircraft than Phantom/Buccaneer? Say with A-4 or (Sea) Harrier sized aircraft? Assuming 12-ish support aircraft (~4x AEW (maybe second hand Gannets from the RN, maybe a helicopter based system such as the Sea King AEW variant or similar), ~6-8 ASW (again, possibly second hand Gannet/Trackers or maybe helicopter based) and ~4 utility helicopters (for plane guard/SAR/Captain's barge type duties)).

Are you realistically looking at being able to put 30+ jets on top of that or is ~25 more realistic (assuming the buying nation's finances allow, of course). The RN seem to have managed 26 fast jets on Ark Royal in the 1970s with 5x Gannet and 9x Sea King but are the smaller aircraft small enough to allow significantly larger air groups?
There is likely to be little or no increase in the size of the air group that could be accommodated if A-4 or Sea Harrier sized aircraft were used because British carrier aircraft folded into smaller packages than US naval aircraft. See the table in Post 7.

The Buccaneer with its wings, nose and tail folded was smaller than the A-4, A-7 and Etendard.

The F-4K needed a folding nose so that it could fit the lifts of Ark Royal and Eagle, which actually made it shorter than a Crusader. Furthermore the Crusader was about 6 inches longer than the lifts on Ark Royal and Eagle. It might not be possible to modify the Crusader so that it could fit.

Depending upon the source the hangars on Ark Royal and Eagle were 63 to 67 feet wide. That means that only 2 A-4s, 2 A-7s, 2 Etendards or 2 Sea Harriers could be stored abreast, which is no improvement on the 2 Buccaneers or 2 Phantoms that could be stored abreast.

So an air group of aircraft like the Crusader, Corsair II, Etendard, Sea Harrier and Skyhawk is likely to be no bigger than the OTL air group of Buccaneers and Phantoms.

Also it would be considerably less potent.
 
Top