Could land based, naval aviation forces be used to augment RN carrier operations?


  • Total voters
    25

Archibald

Banned
V-bombers were used for the maritime reconnaissance role (the last Victor B2s got a side looking radar) so that might be a good start. What you suggests looks a bit like the Soviet Naval aviation: there were very small carriers (Kiev class) but the main strike force was land-based Tu-26 Backfires, the same used by the Soviet Air Force. There were also maritime patrol tu-95s with an enormous chin radar, the Big Bulge, to track US carrier task forces.
So I can see Victors or Vulcans playing a similar role, with the Nimrod MR2 taking the role of the Tu-95s. All three aircraft armed with loads of antiship missiles (Sea Eagle ?)
 
Last edited:
I don't think it matters v Argentina level of air defence rather than Soviet, politically I don't think the RAf would get permission to hit the mainland anyway.
Good point.


100% better than something they cant afford.
Yes they did in OTL but I would think only for Nuclear strike in early 80s.
I just think GB could have got some very cheap or free second hand B52s in late 70s as they are obsolescent and getting scraped by USAF, pay for US to re-skin them and then fit new RR engines and they would then work fine at massively less cost than designing a new aircraft.
That's possibly true, and as far as the 1970's till now, sure.

What I am looking to do is get a skeleton outline, say something like this:

RN in 1945, as regards their carrier force, and power projection. This would mean that Airbases would be built throughout the Empire, to augment the fleets ability to hold things together. As the Empire shrinks, the retention of any scraps is of greater and greater importance. And while building bases in out of the way, isolated islands might seem a waste, I say that it is better to first build the bases you are sure you can hold, rather than to pump money into lands that others are going to take out of the Empire with them when they gain their independence from it, and then be left with a smaller economy, less territory, and still having to build new bases anyway to hold onto what is left. That being said, build the bases in the isolated spots first, so you have a secure set of bases from which to expand you power projection.

Then, something like every 5 years or so, as newer and bigger planes keep pushing older models off to the sides, and the existing RN carriers are going to be less and less capable, begin fielding the long range, land based, naval aviation squadrons to make up the difference.

So my question would be, every 5 years, what would the RN carrier force + the land based components be comprised of?
 
So, lets fill in the blanks a bit here:
1945 RN carrier force. In service, in reserve, building, or in refit. Then...
Same in 1950, but toss in whatever they would be using in the LBLRNA forces?
1955.
1960.
1965.
1970.
1975.
1980.
1985.
1990.
1995.
2000.
2005.
2010.
2015.
2020.
This is what I am trying to get a feel for. Can anyone get me started on the carriers?
 

Archibald

Banned
Yes, but you would have to make sure to train extensively with the Carrier Force to be effective.

Voted for that. The Soviet Navy managed to get submarines, long range bombers and surface fleet (kirov cruisers + Kiev carriers) to coordinate their attacks against US carrier forces - saturation attacks by large number of large antiship missiles.
 
Yes the VC10 was an airliner, so is the B707 yet that has spawned many non airliner variants. Vickers and later BAE proposed numerous VC10 variants, which can be read about in Pofflers. Briefly a super duper MPA, a cruise missile carrier, one carrying Blue Water/name your strategic missile of choice, a conventional bomber, a cargo carrier, an AEW variant, an ELINT spooky, and most strangely a fighter. Yup a fighter VC10 basically carrying 18 CF299 missiles (air launched Sea Dart) for swotting Bears out of the sky.
 
Voted for that. The Soviet Navy managed to get submarines, long range bombers and surface fleet (kirov cruisers + Kiev carriers) to coordinate their attacks against US carrier forces - saturation attacks by large number of large antiship missiles.
Good information. I didn't realise that they had practiced joint missile attack between the Backfires, cruise missile subs, and cruise missile surface ships. Did they get all the bugs worked out, or were those training exercises just a "proof of concept" kind of thing?

Yes the VC10 was an airliner, so is the B707 yet that has spawned many non airliner variants. Vickers and later BAE proposed numerous VC10 variants, which can be read about in Pofflers. Briefly a super duper MPA, a cruise missile carrier, one carrying Blue Water/name your strategic missile of choice, a conventional bomber, a cargo carrier, an AEW variant, an ELINT spooky, and most strangely a fighter. Yup a fighter VC10 basically carrying 18 CF299 missiles (air launched Sea Dart) for swotting Bears out of the sky.
Wow! Ok, I should take the time to read up on the VC10 a bit more then it seems. I was just put off a bit when the first thing I read on their wiki started describing an airliner. Should have read all the way through the page.

So, does anyone want to get me started building a time frame? After reading up on the V bombers, and all their variants, it is obviously possible for the UK to both develop and field a force of heavy bombers and tankers, as well as maintain a small carrier force. IIUC, it was only the 1963 advent of polaris missiles capability, which ended the UK's bomber command, by making them all "Surplus to requirements" and being gotten rid of. This doesn't actually give me what I am looking for right from 1945 on, but does prove that budgets cannot be claimed to preclude my ATL concept. A short, and not quite what I had in mind, answer would be to replace the RAF aircraft budget for LRLB bombers and tankers, and make the navy inherit the existing aircraft and develop naval aviation types to replace them.

Such a thing would be later than I wanted, and starting out with aircraft probably not exactly "right" for the mission, but it is at least good enough to serve as a talking point to get the ball rolling.
 
So it looks like the UK spent much money developing the V bombers, atomic weapons, a stand off delivery system for those weapons, while also maintaining the OTL carrier force. Hundreds of bomber aircraft, with tankers and such, and pretty much as soon as they could have developed my posited ATL long range, land based, naval aviation forces.

Any thoughts now, about how to bring about my alternate aircraft/mission? Obviously, the UK CAN afford them, as they historically spent even more money on different aircraft?
 
The problem for the RN is simply three letters long, i.e. The RAF. They 'moved' Australia in 1966 so that they could get themselves 66 F111K which were then cancelled (even though several had already been built), the result of moving Australia was the cancellation of the CVA01 fleet carriers, although they were rather white elephantine in concept.
 
Heh heh, it sounds like my concept isn't financially unachieveable, but we just need to prune back the RAF? Seems like I may have discovered an initial POD, then, How about this:

After WWII, the USA refuses to share Nuclear weapons data with the UK, supposedly because the Soviets have penetrated the UK government, but when the Soviets detonate their first A-bomb in 1949, the USA immediately gives the UK both actual bombs and all their data to date.

The first of the V bombers are built, and world wide air bases are constructed, as the UK does not have to spend the same level of funds to develop their own program as OTL.

With the advent of the Polaris missile deal in 1963, the RN becomes the nuclear armed force of the UK, and as such, all the various V-bombers of bomber command are rendered "Surplus to requirements", and turned over to the RN.

So, what would the likely effects of the UK getting restored cooperation with the USA, in 1949, be on their defense budget and bomber development? Could we see enough cost savings over OTL, and far enough back, that the bases I posited could be built?
 

Archibald

Banned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Victor#Further_development

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan#Further_developments

Both Vulcan and Victor were used in the maritime reconnaissance role in the 70's. They remained with the RAF, however. So did the Nimrods. We need to find a POD were all three aircrafts are transferred to the RN.

I had never realized that Nimrods were RAF and not RN. I can tell you that in France the Atlantic 2 are with the Navy and Aéronavale.
I wonder if this might work, have the US GIVE the polaris missiles to the UK, but require the UK to GIVE the US an equivalent value of a new, blended wing and body, MRA. So the UK gets it's polaris missiles, and the OTL funds are put into developing a new generation of aircraft that can be tankers, transports, bombers, cruise missile platforms, and other roles.

I love trying to get alternative technologies in my alternate history, and have wondered for some time what a high capacity aircraft could do it terms of payload/cargo, and maybe this way we get something interesting. Say the UK started development somewhere in the 1963-1965 range, could they have come up with something and have it in service by the early 1970's?
 
Oh definitely light blue. If you ever visit Guernsey go to Castle Cornet as they have the museum of 201 Sqdn which flew Nimrods. They were originally No1 Squadron RNAS and in the 1920s established a relationship with the island. When I worked at the castle the last sqdn CO hands me a parcel containing his mess dress, so now you can see a waxwork of him in the museum clutching a full pint glass. The museum has the complete sqdn history and examples of things bangy including a Stingray.
 
Last edited:
In 1969 RAF Coastal Command was subsumed into RAF Strike Command. How about instead it goes to the Navy along side FAA because the RAF have been neglecting the role like they did pre WW2. This could happen in either 69 or earlier.
 
Top