UK gets QE's, Bombcorde's, or both

Well we already seem to be getting the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers, if rather delayed and in a bit of a muddle, so that's one right there. Or do you mean the proposed CVA-01 carriers from the 60s? Either way they're going to be much larger than the Majestic-class carriers the Canadians and Australians operated historically, possibly too large. They're going to be much more expensive to build and fit out, to supply the numbers of planes for, and the big killer of needing a crew roughly two and a half times larger which is going to really strain the manpower supply. Hell, they ended up being too expensive for the UK. You'd have to rejig about with the domestic political set-up in both countries to start with to get them ton continue in the naval aviation business, then figure out how to pay for it all.
(bold mine) Not correct AFAIK.

Britain's OTL alternatives - flirting with the F-111K, the F-4K/M, the Invincible class etc. - ended up being actually more expensive then the original plans with CVA-01 and such with an enormous loss in capability.



The main point is that the money was there.

QFT.
 
The Victorious' rebuild would probably have lasted 20 years, taking her to 1980 or so, not very long if you buy her in 1969. The Hermes and Centaur were fitted with steam catapults, the Bulwark and Albion were only fitted with hydraulic cats. Which is probably why they were turned into commando carriers in the late 50s, it being crunch time to refit with steam cats or do something else.

Just a word on the money available between 1967 and 1973. The British govt spent 30 million Phantomising the Ark Royal, 13 million making Tiger into a helo cruiser and 25 million making Hermes into a commando carrier. I struggle to believe that 68 million pounds would not have been better spent building 80% of CVA01. Its the same story with TSR2, after cancelling it on the verge of production after spending 195 million, they spent 46 million on F111K only to cancel that too then buying the F4M, developing the Jaguar, buying extra Buccaneers and developing Tornado.

The turbojet powered blue steel mk 2 could have kept the V force viable until 1975 or so, long enough to build the first 3 polaris (posiden) subs after a later start.
 

sharlin

Banned
British military spending in the 60s and 70s was a laugh and partially F'd in the A by the USA offering to back things then pulling out or waving F-111 shaped candy before our eyes. We spent way too much money on the Victorious and the Tiger conversions, the Ark was a good investment but she was old and needed replacement.
 
The Victorious' rebuild would probably have lasted 20 years, taking her to 1980 or so, not very long if you buy her in 1969. The Hermes and Centaur were fitted with steam catapults, the Bulwark and Albion were only fitted with hydraulic cats. Which is probably why they were turned into commando carriers in the late 50s, it being crunch time to refit with steam cats or do something else.

Just a word on the money available between 1967 and 1973. The British govt spent 30 million Phantomising the Ark Royal, 13 million making Tiger into a helo cruiser and 25 million making Hermes into a commando carrier. I struggle to believe that 68 million pounds would not have been better spent building 80% of CVA01. Its the same story with TSR2, after cancelling it on the verge of production after spending 195 million, they spent 46 million on F111K only to cancel that too then buying the F4M, developing the Jaguar, buying extra Buccaneers and developing Tornado.

The turbojet powered blue steel mk 2 could have kept the V force viable until 1975 or so, long enough to build the first 3 polaris (posiden) subs after a later start.

From hindsight it looks bad but you need to look at things from the perspective of the 1960's and 70's.

I am just about old enough to remember the 70's and back then it was agreed that Britain was finished as a world power and only the USA and USSR counted for anything.

Britain having carriers or not having them MADE NO DIFFERENCE to anyone except those trying to keep their jobs in the defence industry.

The consensus was that any war beyond SAS actions would involve a Third World War with the USSR. The conventional superiority of the Warsaw Pact was so great that NATO would have to go nuclear in days.

What's the use of a carrier, cruiser, extra 500 Chieftan tanks, TSR2 if the bombs start falling after 2-3 days tops?

Another big problem and one which continues is that the cost of almost every major weapons project spiralled out of control.

F 35 anyone?

TSR2 was already expensive and there were no guarrantees it wouldn't cost far more before being ready for service. The British bought the F 111 to keep the airforce happy and because they needed American help to support the value of Sterling.

Denis Healy wanted to cancel Concorde too.

Almost every modernization and rebuild cost far more than originally budgeted so yes they could have spent the money better but unless you had Dr Who's TARDIS there was no way for them to know that.
 
The HMS Eagle already had 1 DAX II arrestor wire and a BS5A catapult, all it needed were another 4 DAX II wires, water cooled JBDs and a Van Zelm bridle catcher to make it Phantomised, at a total cost of 5 million pounds. On top of this it had a 5 year rebuild which included new boilers and rewiring. In no way was the Ark Royal even close to this standard when it was decided to Phantomise her in a 3 year refit, in fact her shit condition was a positive political bonus since it provided dockyard work in a marginal constituency for 3 years.

As for WW3, the big 3 decided as early as 1956 that it wasn't the most likely scenario and prepared for an array of lower contingencies where they could jockey for position. If the world was going to end in 3 days why do anything?!?!
 

I agree with everything you say but how come France, with a similarly sized economy, also facing a Soviet threat, was able to retain a CTOL carrier fleet, its own version of East of Suez as well as developing a genuinely independent nuclear deterrent? Granted it took them longer to develop their SSBN fleet but its a genuinely French system and arguably they have a better range of military capability than we currently do.
 
I agree with everything you say but how come France, with a similarly sized economy, also facing a Soviet threat, was able to retain a CTOL carrier fleet, its own version of East of Suez as well as developing a genuinely independent nuclear deterrent? Granted it took them longer to develop their SSBN fleet but its a genuinely French system and arguably they have a better range of military capability than we currently do.
Because France pulled out of the military forces of NATO and HAD to have her own systems?
 
I agree with everything you say but how come France, with a similarly sized economy, also facing a Soviet threat, was able to retain a CTOL carrier fleet, its own version of East of Suez as well as developing a genuinely independent nuclear deterrent? Granted it took them longer to develop their SSBN fleet but its a genuinely French system and arguably they have a better range of military capability than we currently do.

Because their national pride had been wounded in WW2 and they wanted to prove to themselves and the world that they were still a major power.

Most important of all their economy grew much faster than Britain's between 1945 to 1973. By the late 70's their economy was about 40% larger than the UK's.
 
Because their national pride had been wounded in WW2 and they wanted to prove to themselves and the world that they were still a major power.

Most important of all their economy grew much faster than Britain's between 1945 to 1973. By the late 70's their economy was about 40% larger than the UK's.

Not only that but the UK in the 50's and 60's was having a identity crisis. Men who had been brought up to believed they were going to rule the world find themselves in the position of a 2nd rate power and don't know how to react. They had dreams of global power and influence and then find out they can't pay for it, so they hang on to every carrot the US. dangles in front of them.
 
Because their national pride had been wounded in WW2 and they wanted to prove to themselves and the world that they were still a major power.

Most important of all their economy grew much faster than Britain's between 1945 to 1973. By the late 70's their economy was about 40% larger than the UK's.

Not only that but the UK in the 50's and 60's was having a identity crisis. Men who had been brought up to believed they were going to rule the world find themselves in the position of a 2nd rate power and don't know how to react. They had dreams of global power and influence and then find out they can't pay for it, so they hang on to every carrot the US. dangles in front of them.

So, you get around this problem. Britain and France both let go of colonies at roughly similar rates, just France rebuilt a successful economy using a variety of principles and didn't spend twenty-five years trying to get full employment for every person in the nation and racking up a mountain of debt and pissing away money on stupid projects. As Riain has also pointed out (and made a TL about), Britain's defense industries pissed away hundreds of millions of pounds on things that came to nothing.

For improving the economy, take the lead you had in commercial airliners and build on it, likewise focus your industrial capacity on the most economic industries and projects and advance technology wherever possible. Britain built the first commercial nuclear power plants, why did they not do what France did and have them make 70% of their electricity? Likewise, the car industry went to hell in a handbasket thanks to awful quality control and rushing some things unnecessarily - why do that? Focus on building an efficient industry, spend money on stuff that you know works, and keep your expectations realistic. Britain has the funds and abilities to still be a world power in the 1950s and 1960s, it just won't have the power of the Americans or Soviets. Just because they have more than you does not make you irrelevant.
 

abc123

Banned
So, you get around this problem. Britain and France both let go of colonies at roughly similar rates, just France rebuilt a successful economy using a variety of principles and didn't spend twenty-five years trying to get full employment for every person in the nation and racking up a mountain of debt and pissing away money on stupid projects. As Riain has also pointed out (and made a TL about), Britain's defense industries pissed away hundreds of millions of pounds on things that came to nothing.

For improving the economy, take the lead you had in commercial airliners and build on it, likewise focus your industrial capacity on the most economic industries and projects and advance technology wherever possible. Britain built the first commercial nuclear power plants, why did they not do what France did and have them make 70% of their electricity? Likewise, the car industry went to hell in a handbasket thanks to awful quality control and rushing some things unnecessarily - why do that? Focus on building an efficient industry, spend money on stuff that you know works, and keep your expectations realistic. Britain has the funds and abilities to still be a world power in the 1950s and 1960s, it just won't have the power of the Americans or Soviets. Just because they have more than you does not make you irrelevant.

I fully agree with this.;)
 
The Victorious' rebuild would probably have lasted 20 years, taking her to 1980 or so, not very long if you buy her in 1969. The Hermes and Centaur were fitted with steam catapults, the Bulwark and Albion were only fitted with hydraulic cats. Which is probably why they were turned into commando carriers in the late 50s, it being crunch time to refit with steam cats or do something else.

I would imagine that Canada would buy Victorious for as little as possible and send it for work - it will need a bunch of it to work within the conditions and structures of the Royal Canadian Navy, and Canada has got shipyards big enough to handling that. Bought for cheap in 1968-69, Victorious then goes to Canada's quite-big dry dock at Saint John Shipbuilding and the guys there go to work. Out go the 3" and 40mm guns, the armor belts (if possible) and the short catapults, in goes a bigger flight deck, new (longer) catapults and new machinery. This puts her back in the water in 1971 or so, ready for another 20 years or so of actions, which puts her retirement right at the end of the Cold War.

The turbojet powered blue steel mk 2 could have kept the V force viable until 1975 or so, long enough to build the first 3 polaris (posiden) subs after a later start.

With the size and weight of the Blue Steel and Britain's jet engine industry, I'd bet you could do a damn sight better than a weapon capable of being used until the mid 70s. A British AGM-86 would probably be viable even today.
 
Top