WI: British naval Cold War strategy?

[Riain]

Given the navy was so keen on carriers why didn't they propose cancelling some conversions and invincible and illustrious, if this was all it took?
2. I think you posted on CVA-01 and costs before, but I'm afraid I'm not convinced that you're correctly allowing for general inflation and the inevitable cost overruns on CVA01 specifically. For comparison, the similarly sized US CVV was estimated to cost $1.5bn in 1977. I know US construction costs were higher, but the US did have more experience in modern carrier building. The idea that CVA-02 and its planes can be purchased for the cost of about 1.5 illustrious I find doubtful.
3. If RAF planes are deployed on carriers then either the RAF is weakened or replacements have to be purchased.

While CVA01 was being planned it was government policy to have a carrier permantly forward deployed to the far east, which means 3 carriers in commission and one in deep refit/rebuild. Thats why early documents say 5 cvas and 140 phantoms. To meet this they needed to do the conversions. As for invincibles the there was a fair bit of muddled thinking about cruisers as flagships on foreign stations and major asw ships, thus these ship muddied the waters with regards to the big carriers.

I don't doubt that the cvas would have drastic increases in cost, but the British spent 440 million on air capable ships in the 70s. The cvas would be finished by 1977 when cvv was quoted at 1.5 billion after most of the stagflation, which at the exchange rate would be 600 million pounds.

The RAF would be 5 or so sqns short because of the planes not transferred from the RN.

 

[michael1]

The figure of £440mn you're throwing around has no real meaning as it's in current prices. UK prices more than doubled between 1964 and 1974 and then more than trebled again between 1974 and 1981. Let's take $1.5bn in 1977, which was worth £860mn at then current exchange rates and assume UK construction costs were about 1/2 US construction costs (a dubious assumption). Let's also assume all the cost of illustrious was in 1977 prices (I know it was ordered before then, but she was laid down in 1976 so the actual costs of construction probably averaged out at £185mn in 1977 prices since there would be some expenditure before and some afterwards). Then we get 1 CVA01 in return for 2.3 illustrious not 1.5. Making a purchasing power parity conversion instead of the ad hoc construction cost adjustment we get a cost of 1 CVV of £630mn (again at 1977 prices) and 3.4 illustrious per CVA-01.

I know these are just back of the envelope calculations, but I think they indicate that swapping the 3 illustrious is unlikely to get the Royal navy more than about 1 CVA-01 and even then they won't arrive until the mid 1980s, meaning the phantom modernization is needed for the 1970s. On top of this, you say 5 or so squadrons, but the carriers were designed to embark 48 strike planes in an emergency, so 2 carriers will need around 100-120 planes purchased (including reserves/replacements and OCU units), ie a third of the phantoms and most of the RAF Buccaneers, which would indicate a significant loss in capability elsewhere.

 

[PSL]

Operating costs for a CV-01 carrier would mostly be driven by the cost of the 4 dozen jets needed on each carrier. That's going to be ~ 45 million per carrier per year by the early-mid 1970s.By the end of that decade the figures should more double and reach ~ 125 million per carrier per year, by THE FALKLANDS. That amounts to ~ 40% of the operating 1980 budget. The 3 SSBN could also be operated along side either a dozen SSN or 2 dozen DDG.

Not much wiggle room for anything else, but operating only one carrier should free up sufficient funds to operate a commando carrier plus a LPD & 10 SSN plus an escort force of 8-9 DDG OR 16 FFG.

 

[Riain]

440 means as much as any other number that grts thrown around specifically because it is 'that year' pounds. The point is that the estimate of 70 million by the RN and 100 by the treasury for CVA01 isn't some extra cost out of nowhere, it can be set against the 45 million spent on Tiger and Ark 67-72. Similarly given the doubling or tripling of this price for the CVA02 can be set against the 185 million spent on Invincible 73-80 and 215 on Illustrious 76-81. Another cost is the development and purchase of Sea Harrier, I don't know what it was but it can be set against the other costs in this time frame.

What this means is that if Britain wants to go this route with her NATO commitment she doesn't have to find whatever figure out of the blue and thus gut BAOR for it. She only has to find the difference between what was spent and what is required for the strategy, BAOR/RAFG has to be reduced by this much and no more.

 

[Riain]

Operating costs for a CV-01 carrier would mostly be driven by the cost of the 4 dozen jets needed on each carrier. That's going to be ~ 45 million per carrier per year by the early-mid 1970s.By the end of that decade the figures should more double and reach ~ 125 million per carrier per year, by THE FALKLANDS. That amounts to ~ 40% of the operating 1980 budget. The 3 SSBN could also be operated along side either a dozen SSN or 2 dozen DDG.

Not much wiggle room for anything else, but operating only one carrier should free up sufficient funds to operate a commando carrier plus a LPD & 10 SSN plus an escort force of 8-9 DDG OR 16 FFG.

The RN operated 2 dozen jets at sea through the entire 70s and 80s, and the RAF operated ex RN jets during that time so the total cost of those aircraft was paid for OTL. ITTL the RN can use its OTL funds for 1/3 of the operating costs and OTL RAF funds for the rest. Bear in mind that only one carrier will be on task 2/3 of the time, the other carrier will be in refit, training or out of area tasks. About 1/3 of the time 2 carriers will be on task, coinciding with major exercises etc.

 

[michael1]

I can see that if you don't make adjustments for inflation then it looks like it is possible to buy strike carriers in the 1960s without significant cuts elsewhere by using the money that was spent on the illustrious class and other projects sometime later, but I'm afraid I don't buy the story. I'm obviously not going to change your mind though so best of luck.

 

[Riain]

I have my laptop back, no more tyranny of the phone, woo hoo!

I can see that if you don't make adjustments for inflation then it looks like it is possible to buy strike carriers in the 1960s without significant cuts elsewhere by using the money that was spent on the illustrious class and other projects sometime later, but I'm afraid I don't buy the story. I'm obviously not going to change your mind though so best of luck.

I'm trying to figure out what 'significant' is, firstly by working out what OTL spending on similar things was, then working what the defined Strike Fleet would cost (both money and manpower, either is a deal breaker), then identifying the delta. Once that's done I can see how needs to be cut from the Army and RAF, bearing in mind that the RAF is already losing 20 F4K and maybe 35 Buccaneer in about 1970 and another 20 F4K and 30 Buccaneer in 1979.

As for inflation, I think I'm putting it in proper perspective it because the UK defence budget almost quadrupled during the proposed CVA01 and 02 building period 66-78 from 2.5 billion to 9.5 billion. So spending increased more or less in line with inflation and buying power remained more or less constant.