Brilliant picture lots of older folk from Birkenhead remember the great white whale.This reminded me of this great pic.
The third Audacious class carrier - what might have been ?
- Thread starter Archibald
- Start date
Just thinking, the 3rd Audacious might alter the whole trajectory of post 1955 British military history. If it butterflied away the Vic fiasco Britain might have more carriers in commission for Suez and launched it quicker before world opinion evaporated. In addition it would most likely evaporate the 60s carrier crunch where the Hermes and Vic were unsuitable for Phantoms, forcing the CVA01 issue which broke the RNs carrier ambitions for 50 years. The CVA01 decision wouldn't be needed until 1975 rather than 65, and if it fails then the legacy Audacious would limp on for another decade like the Ark and Hermes did IOTL.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
With 3 Hulls say all commissioned during the 50s then they might serve as he 3 Invincible class ships did 1 always in refit, 1 in training/reserve and 1 in service and less 'stress' on each hull as a result
I'm of the opinion that an Audacious carrier with AEW, Phantom and Buccaneer in service during 1982 would give the Argentine Junta pause in any Falklands scenario and very likely mean that it will not happen and the majority of people in the UK would have no idea where the Islands are.
I'm of the opinion that an Audacious carrier with AEW, Phantom and Buccaneer in service during 1982 would give the Argentine Junta pause in any Falklands scenario and very likely mean that it will not happen and the majority of people in the UK would have no idea where the Islands are.
Admiral Beez
Banned
It's always a favourite What'if, but it's not going to happen. Two or three Audacious from the 1950s onwards, it makes no difference unless government policy in the 1970s is your POD. Otherwise one Audacious will be active until the late 1970s, another will be in reserve and the third likely sold, with all three gone before Maggie even makes PM, same as IOTL.
If you want Audacious class ships for the Falklands, your POD isn't the number of hulls, but is government defence policy between 1970 - 1985.
Archibald
Banned
What a fascinating scenario. As I said earlier, this might open a window of opportunity to butterfly away the Charles de Gaulle and build large carriers with France (which very nearly happened OTL between 1999 and 2012, PA2 / CVF).
I can see the French touting their 45 000 tons Verdun while Great Britain would essentially propose a 55 0000 tons, second generation Malta hull, and then some kind of in-between the two being adopted.
France usual issue with large ships (all the way from Richelieu battleships to Charles de Gaulle) is the size of dockyard. Cooperation with Great Britain brings two solutions to that issue a) larger shipyards or b) segmented construction as done with the CVF / Queen Elizabeths).
Next step: I'll try to compare PA-58 Verdun, Audacious and Malta respectives dimensions and weights. I'll post the results later.
EDIT: D'oh, wrong thread. I thought about the Maltas, but this is the Audacious thread.
I can see the French touting their 45 000 tons Verdun while Great Britain would essentially propose a 50 0000 tons, second generation Audacious hull, and then some kind of in-between the two being adopted.
WILDGEESE
Gone Fishin'
I might have the wrong end of the stick but is it Guatamala's threat to invade Belize in the early 70's, 1972 I think, the book "Phoenix Squadron" by Rowland White details this, highly recommended, I enjoyed reading it.
Regards filers
WILDGEESE
Gone Fishin'
Falklands War still happens, Junta's invasion happens due to the fact that they thought the UK govt would send a Task Force to retake them. It just means less or even no ships lost to air attack and the Argie Airforce getting kicked even more.
A deterrant is only as good as the oppossition think you're willing to use it.
Regards filers.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
I always understood that the scrapping of Ark and the planned withdrawal of Endurance were large parts of colouring the Juntas opinion that Britain would not contest the invasion. Multiple political elite being caught by the tabloids with their trousers down with a rent boy on some common somewhere didn't help matters either. And of course Britain's Prime Minister was a 'weak' woman.....(that's what 'they' said).
I appreciate that I'm in a minority here but I don't think the Junta was that crazy that they wanted to pit their airforce against Phantoms
Admiral Beez
Banned
Makes sense only if the Audacious class were not replaced, but they were with the trio of Invincible class with SHAR, any of which is more powerful than Argentina's single carrier.
That's the core point. The RN could have three Nimitz class and the invasion still goes ahead if Britain is perceived as not caring. History is full of examples of such miscalculations based on incorrect perception of the opponent's will and likely reaction, such as Pearl Harbour.
Archibald
Banned
As a space buff I heard of Rowland White recently because of his Columbia STS-1 book. That other book look pretty good, too.
Archibald
Banned
You know, the Jaguar M is my very own personal Alaska large cruiser (or Sea Lion). It was such a bad aircraft, yet people insist it could be great, including an interceptor, just because it was supersonic (the Sea Harrier wasn't, and AIM-120 AMRAAM don't care, because what matters since Vietnam is the air to air missile, not the aircraft that carries it.).
The Jaguar had the air-combat agility of an A380, it was underpowered for carrier landings. It didn't had a decent air-to-ground radar. The twin reheats made catapult launches a mess (for example, the Foch and Clem' deflectors couldn't handle them, which mean they were worse than a Crusader J-57) and cut into the range.
Give me a Phantom or a naval Mirage F1 or a Sea Harrier or a Crusader any day, but a Jaguar naval interceptor is an heresy.
Just like Adele says in her all time best song "Set fire to the rain" "LEEEEET IT BUUUUUURN"
Last edited:
Cryhavoc101
Donor
His Vulcan 607 book that details the black buck raids is a cracking read as well - wasn't aware he had another book out!
The Shar was not perceived to be nor was it as effective as Phantom (difficult for me to admit given the amount of man love I have for the SHAR! But its true the Phantom was superior in all respects as a fighter interceptor) and until SHAR II was developed with it excellent radar and BVR missiles it was not even close to the Phantoms capabilities.
And Hermes + Invincible where not fighting the 21st De Mayo they were fighting the entire Argentine Land Based Air force who had a 4 to one advantage in jet planes- 60 odd Skyhawk's (combined) 30 daggers 17 Mirage III 8 Canberra's, 4 Super Etendard's as well as 2 Neptunes and other support aircraft - it was for all intents and purposes a littoral battle where the Argentines could to some degree choose when they would launch a given attack and overwhelm the CAP.
Against this lot the RN had a total of 28 SHAR I and despite being the plucky little fighter that could - the following still happened and if it was not for operational deficiencies in the Argentine Air Force resulting in multiple bombs not going bang when they should have it would not have been enough and the British Campaign would possibly have failed.
Archibald
Banned
https://www.amazon.com/Into-Black-Extraordinary-Columbia-Astronauts/dp/1501123629
As much as I like the Sea Harrier, it was a leap backward when compared to both Phantoms (radar, missile, range, speed) and Buccaneers (bombload and range). Only the F/A-2 variant somewhat re-established air supremacy. To its credit, it was one the first interceptors in Europe to boast "fire and forget" long range missiles, that is, AMRAAMs.
For the sake of comparison, the French armée de l'air first interceptors with MICA (= France AMRAAM) where 37 Mirage 2000-5 delivered from in 1998.
Anybody else had AIM-7s or Super 530 SARH missiles (keep your radar locked on the target, silly, otherwise it get lost) which meant a Sea Harrier could trounce Mirage 2000s or F-16s in air combat. Or even F-15A, for fuck sake.
As much as I like the Sea Harrier, it was a leap backward when compared to both Phantoms (radar, missile, range, speed) and Buccaneers (bombload and range). Only the F/A-2 variant somewhat re-established air supremacy. To its credit, it was one the first interceptors in Europe to boast "fire and forget" long range missiles, that is, AMRAAMs.
For the sake of comparison, the French armée de l'air first interceptors with MICA (= France AMRAAM) where 37 Mirage 2000-5 delivered from in 1998.
Anybody else had AIM-7s or Super 530 SARH missiles (keep your radar locked on the target, silly, otherwise it get lost) which meant a Sea Harrier could trounce Mirage 2000s or F-16s in air combat. Or even F-15A, for fuck sake.
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Banned
No one said it was. But the SHAR is definitely more effective than anything on the Argentine carrier, especially as the Super Etendard was not deployable on the carrier at this time.
But you don't need a RN carrier or any Royal Navy warship presence or even the survey ship Endurance to show willpower. Increase the garrison from the ITOL 57 Royal Marines to 400 RM or other combat troops (equipped for heavy combat - mortars, Carl Gustavs, SAMs, etc) and Argentina will stop cold. The extra 343 troops could be sent by ship in late 1981 (summer in those climes) or if late in the game but still pre-war, by C-130 via Chile.
EDIT - or consider some unconventional assistance https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...gurkha-battalion-arrives-at-falklands.381166/
Last edited:
Cryhavoc101
Donor
Super Etendard did not have to be deployable from the carrier it did just fine from the mainland - the only Surface action attempted by the Argentine Navy on May 1/2 ultimately woke them up the realisation that they had bought a mostly WW2 surface fleet to a SSN fight and had the decision been made or had she been given more robust rules of engagement HMS Spartan would very likely have sunk the Argentine Carrier on May 1st the day before Conqueror Sunk the Belgrano
The only thing the carrier would have achieved was to allow the Argentine Navy's 8 Sky Hawks to have a greater potential area of effect (which they nearly did before returning to port after the sinking of the Belgrano) but they like the other 50 or so Air Force Sky Hawks seemed to manage from the mainland with the advantage being that SSNs cannot sink an Airbase.
Regarding deploying troops to the Falklands I did once work out that it is just doable to deliver a light Company of troops to Port Stanley and their weapons (GPMG, 51 and 81mm Mortars Charlie Gs and Some Milan) using a Shorts Belfast (some where still operational and were used to help with the Airhead to Ascension) - so long as you don't expect it to return until some fuel gets down the slow way.
Archibald
Banned
The distance from Great Britain to the Falklands is so absurdly huge, I'm not sure even a B-52 could get there and back without aerial refueling. Which makes the Black Buck raids even more awesome (even from Ascension, the Vulcan was not a B-52 class bomber, rather like a B-47, that is, medium, not heavy).
It is as if somebody tried to invade France Kerguelen islands and the French Navy had to fight back from the Metropole.
I like the Short Belfast a lot. It was very much the A400M of its time.
It is as if somebody tried to invade France Kerguelen islands and the French Navy had to fight back from the Metropole.
I like the Short Belfast a lot. It was very much the A400M of its time.
IOTL the third Audacious was cancelled in 1946 while Hermes was suspended in 1946, resumed in 1952 and completed in 1959. Reversing that might be the simplest way to do it.
Unlike Eagle and Ark Royal their sister would have been completed with a fully armed flight deck, an AC electrical system, a Type 984 radar, the Comprehensive Display System and Direct Plot Transmission. I want to say that she had 2 steam catapults as powerful as the ones Eagle received in her 1959-64 refit, but I think that is overoptimistic so she would have a pair of 151 foot BS Mk 4 fitted like Ark Royal as completed and Hermes as completed.
IOTL Hermes had a refit 1964-66 that cost £10 million. ITTL the third Audacious would have a refit starting in 1964 that could include Phantomisation.
Hermes could operated 16 Buccaneer/Scimitar/Sea Vixen, but the third Audacious could operate 24 of these aircraft. The price of that was a larger crew. Hermes had a crew of 1,834, increasing to 2,100 with her air squadrons. The Audacious class had double the installed horsepower and twice as many shafts as the Centaur class. The extra aircraft also mean more men are needed aboard ship to operate them and in the training and maintenance organisation ashore.
So the price of a better aircraft carrier might that the size of the frigate force is reduced by one or two ships 1959-71.
Unlike Eagle and Ark Royal their sister would have been completed with a fully armed flight deck, an AC electrical system, a Type 984 radar, the Comprehensive Display System and Direct Plot Transmission. I want to say that she had 2 steam catapults as powerful as the ones Eagle received in her 1959-64 refit, but I think that is overoptimistic so she would have a pair of 151 foot BS Mk 4 fitted like Ark Royal as completed and Hermes as completed.
IOTL Hermes had a refit 1964-66 that cost £10 million. ITTL the third Audacious would have a refit starting in 1964 that could include Phantomisation.
Hermes could operated 16 Buccaneer/Scimitar/Sea Vixen, but the third Audacious could operate 24 of these aircraft. The price of that was a larger crew. Hermes had a crew of 1,834, increasing to 2,100 with her air squadrons. The Audacious class had double the installed horsepower and twice as many shafts as the Centaur class. The extra aircraft also mean more men are needed aboard ship to operate them and in the training and maintenance organisation ashore.
So the price of a better aircraft carrier might that the size of the frigate force is reduced by one or two ships 1959-71.
Archibald
Banned
Now that's a pretty good idea, swapping an Audacious with one of the Centaur, Hermes or one of the other three. That third Audacious was 25% complete; does anybody know what percentage of Centaur(s) was build as of 1945 ?
I think that third Audacious thing is more viable than the Malta. It is slowly but surely becoming my favorite RN carrier whatif.
Scrap a couple of Centaur from 1945 to build it instead; then scrap that perfectly unuseful Victorious upgrade. Together it should be enough to have that third Audacious in service along Ark and Eagle, plus a couple of Centaur commando carrier, and that's a five-carrier fleet by 1963. Scrap everything else: Vanguard, Tigers, Implacable, Illustrious.
Then over the next two decades cut into that fleet to save money - scrap one Centaur, then the Ark Royal.
Three carrier fleet by 1975, should be enough to hang through the end of Cold War even with thatcher and his minions in the 80's. To cool them scrap Eagle by 1978 or 1981, and use it for spares to support the third Audacious until 1995.
After that hopefully cooperation with the French should be possible, with or without the Charles de Gaulle, better without it but that's before 1985, not sure it is feasible. If not, well, that's PA2 / CVF / Queen Elizabeth more or less as per OTL...
I think that third Audacious thing is more viable than the Malta. It is slowly but surely becoming my favorite RN carrier whatif.
Scrap a couple of Centaur from 1945 to build it instead; then scrap that perfectly unuseful Victorious upgrade. Together it should be enough to have that third Audacious in service along Ark and Eagle, plus a couple of Centaur commando carrier, and that's a five-carrier fleet by 1963. Scrap everything else: Vanguard, Tigers, Implacable, Illustrious.
Then over the next two decades cut into that fleet to save money - scrap one Centaur, then the Ark Royal.
Three carrier fleet by 1975, should be enough to hang through the end of Cold War even with thatcher and his minions in the 80's. To cool them scrap Eagle by 1978 or 1981, and use it for spares to support the third Audacious until 1995.
After that hopefully cooperation with the French should be possible, with or without the Charles de Gaulle, better without it but that's before 1985, not sure it is feasible. If not, well, that's PA2 / CVF / Queen Elizabeth more or less as per OTL...
Last edited:
Could a Lockheed C141 with air tankers fly from Ascension, land at Port Stanley and get back to Ascension with a useful load of troops and kit. I am sure the USAAF could decide if asked nicely to do an experimental run to the south.