Wi:HMS Queen Elizabeth supercarrier

That makes sense. They'll probably still be looking to replace them around about nowish.
One thing that occurs is maybe helping to design a replacement carrier with the French,
meaning they get 2 conventional powered carriers rather than the Nuclear power de Gaulle.
 
That makes sense. They'll probably still be looking to replace them around about nowish.
One thing that occurs is maybe helping to design a replacement carrier with the French,
meaning they get 2 conventional powered carriers rather than the Nuclear power de Gaulle.

If previous "joint" programs stay true, they'd likely end up going their own way anyway.
 
What if instead of the illustrious class carrier been built the Queen Elizabeth class carrier was built. What would the knock on effect be regarding the Falklands war

Surely you cant mean the brand new RN carrier? That cant be possible at that time. Is the question: How the RN would have operated the aircraft carriers proposed in the mid 1960's in the Falklands war & what impact would that have had on the outcome

I would have presumed that the de Mayo would be a priority target for any extended war situation given that she was in danger of being sunk OTL.

Like the Belgrano I would have ordered it to be sunk in an instant if an SSN captain had called up to say he had the carrier in his sights and wanted to fire. I would have sunk the thing on the quayside given the chance. Given Tomahawk fitted SSN's i would have attacked "regime targets" in Buenos Aires and throughout the country. Message: Don't invade British territory or else.

It's a very different set of circumstances. The SSN's would be operating a blockade for at least five months with their nearest support 3,000nmi away. Their enemy would know that the SSN's could only engage within the 200nmi circular MEZ. Combine those two facts and I don't think that it's terribly unlikely that Argentines would come up with a plan to entrap at least one of them. And even if that trap is unsuccessful the possibility of new attempts to entrap the SSN's will constrain the tactics of the UK SSN's when enforcing the blockade.

The RN SSN's would have rolled over the Argentinian Navy in no time. You are talking about modern, cutting edge, well armed, well trained attack submarines ( crewed and designed to take on the Russians) v a motley collection of old vessels with less good training and inferior weapons and sensors. It wouldn't have been a fair fight. No wonder they stayed in port...........
 
Its a massive increase in capability over OTL as each Phantom would carry 4 BVR Sparrow Missiles and 4 Sidewinders vs SHAR1/GR3s 2 Sidewinders and the Phantom had a far greater performance Envelope than SHAR 1/GR3 allowing them to operate further out and for longer than a given Harrier CAP

Also with Buccaneers providing the strike capability this pressure is off the Phantoms allowing them to concentrate purely on providing the fleet CAP

And then there is the is the then AEW capability

As for the configuration of the airgroup - for the South Atlantic mission I would expect the British to cram more aircraft onto this Flattop than they would have carried in peacetime and therefore far more than the 36 peacetime compliment

And that the airwing would bias towards Phantom given the primary mission being one of Fleet CAP with a secondary Strike Capability

So 45 AC - 5 Wessex (Mix of AsW and HC), 6 Gannet AEW, 22 Phantom and 12 Buccaneers

36 is just the fast jet compliment, the Gannets and helicopters are on top of that.

The RN only ordered 48 Phantoms, recieved 28 and lost 8 in accidents, but had about 80 Buccaneer S2, so I think as Bucc heavy airgroup would be standard. The Ark had 12 Phantoms and 14 Buccs in the 70s and 2 of these Buccs were permanently configured as maxi-tankers which took about 12 hours to strip back into bombers.

That makes me think that of the 36 fast jets will be a few more Buccs than phantoms and any padding will be extra Buccs as tankers to get more out of the limited numbers of phantoms.

As for the Gannet, its radar had a fighter detection range of ~65mn, so it at an altitude of 3000 where this detection range met the horizon. Basically it covered a downward facing circle of 130nm in the direction of the expected threat, which isn't much. I think if CVA01 was built the Gannet fleet would get replacement or an upgrade which would increase the radar range. In the event of war I think adding another Gannett or 2 would be beneficial so that for part of the day the fleet could have 2 in the air, which like having a couple of extra tankers would make the Phantom fleet more effective.
 
36 is just the fast jet compliment, the Gannets and helicopters are on top of that.

The RN only ordered 48 Phantoms, recieved 28 and lost 8 in accidents, but had about 80 Buccaneer S2, so I think as Bucc heavy airgroup would be standard. The Ark had 12 Phantoms and 14 Buccs in the 70s and 2 of these Buccs were permanently configured as maxi-tankers which took about 12 hours to strip back into bombers.

That makes me think that of the 36 fast jets will be a few more Buccs than phantoms and any padding will be extra Buccs as tankers to get more out of the limited numbers of phantoms.

As for the Gannet, its radar had a fighter detection range of ~65mn, so it at an altitude of 3000 where this detection range met the horizon. Basically it covered a downward facing circle of 130nm in the direction of the expected threat, which isn't much. I think if CVA01 was built the Gannet fleet would get replacement or an upgrade which would increase the radar range. In the event of war I think adding another Gannett or 2 would be beneficial so that for part of the day the fleet could have 2 in the air, which like having a couple of extra tankers would make the Phantom fleet more effective.

Yes that was 48 Phantoms ordered for 2 Medium sized decks - a pair of larger CVA-01 or 'lite' copy of a Kitty Hawk might very well result in more Phantoms or at least the full order being delivered

Arks mission in big mistake number 3 would be a death run at the Kola peninsula - she only had to live long enough to launch the Buccs so they could create 12 mini suns and then retire to Norway

Same probably true of a 1960s/70s QE - its proposed Airgroup would have been "Up to 50 aircraft, with the planned airgroup having 18 × Phantom FG.1; 18 × Buccaneer S.2; 4 × Gannet AEW.3; 4 × Sea King HAS.1; 2 × Wessex HAS.1 (SAR), probably with 1 × Gannet COD.4"

Down south the Buccs are not as critical while fleet defence would be which Is why I would expect the airgroup to reflect the littoral environment in range of shore based Air power and therefore need to maximise CAP

As for the Gannet if a pair of large deck's were in commission (1 on 1 off) into the 80s and beyond then I would expect the Gannet to go AEW 7 - OTL there was no desire for an upgrade

"The AEW.7 version would have seen the ventral radome containing the AN/APS-20 radar removed and replaced with a dorsal rotating dome or 'rotodome', similar to that used on the US Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, carrying a newly developed FMICW radar system. To accommodate a new installation of the size of the rotodome, together with its position right at the rear of the aircraft, the intention was to rebuild the rear fuselage with the single tailfin being substituted by a twin tail arrangement, as well as the wingspan being increased to 60 ft (18.3m). The rotodome was designed to be moveable on its installation, able to tip backwards to allow the radar beam to operate clear of interference from the Gannet's propellers, negating the need to replace the Double Mamba with a turbofan engine assembly. In the end, this proposal was not proceeded with"

Fairey_Gannet_AEW.7.png
 
Yes that was 48 Phantoms ordered for 2 Medium sized decks - a pair of larger CVA-01 or 'lite' copy of a Kitty Hawk might very well result in more Phantoms or at least the full order being delivered

Given CVA01 was to be named Queen Elizabeth I assume the OP was talking about this class. The process to get to CVA01 specifically rejected at Kitty Hawk clone as too big for the infrastructure, too expensive to build, man and arm.
 
The AEW.7 version would have seen the ventral radome containing the AN/APS-20 radar removed and replaced with a dorsal rotating dome or 'rotodome', similar to that used on the US Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, carrying a newly developed FMICW radar system. To accommodate a new installation of the size of the rotodome, together with its position right at the rear of the aircraft, the intention was to rebuild the rear fuselage with the single tailfin being substituted by a twin tail arrangement, as well as the wingspan being increased to 60 ft (18.3m). The rotodome was designed to be moveable on its installation, able to tip backwards to allow the radar beam to operate clear of interference from the Gannet's propellers, negating the need to replace the Double Mamba with a turbofan engine assembly. In the end, this proposal was not proceeded with"

The rotodome AEW7 gets a lot of attention, I think because of its outlandish nature, but it is virtually a brand new plane so I doubt it has a hope in hell of being approved. The minimum change version , perhaps with an AEW version of the Nimrod Searchwater radar, would be far more likely to be approved.
 
Given CVA01 was to be named Queen Elizabeth I assume the OP was talking about this class. The process to get to CVA01 specifically rejected at Kitty Hawk clone as too big for the infrastructure, too expensive to build, man and arm.

And fails to meet the role intended. The Invincibles are not tiny carriers they are very large ASW platforms with potent area air defence capability. That can be in three places at the same time.
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
What if instead of the illustrious class carrier been built the Queen Elizabeth class carrier was built. What would the knock on effect be regarding the Falklands war

Try this post No 89 which I replied to this thread. "A third Audacious class - What might have been"

Would this help?

Regards filer.
 
Phantom with skyflash/sidewinder combination of AAM's would be a huge target rich environment for the Royal Navy's FAA, in a Falklands War with two fleet carriers, as the Phantom could engage the argentina air force at long range without much risk?

Main strike would be Buccaneer with a full bomb load then they could cause a lot of damage.

As for AEW I would go with what Riain said Gannet upgraded with Searchwater radar.
 
Given CVA01 was to be named Queen Elizabeth I assume the OP was talking about this class. The process to get to CVA01 specifically rejected at Kitty Hawk clone as too big for the infrastructure, too expensive to build, man and arm.

Does not have to be as big as Kitty just the same layout - the same "ethos" - can have smaller airgroup but like the Kitty built to primarily operate aircraft at maximum possible efficiency above all else unlike the CVA-01 which was designed by a committee of good idea fairies

Bit like what they have done with QE with it just fitting under that bridge etc - so as big as then possible.


And fails to meet the role intended. The Invincibles are not tiny carriers they are very large ASW platforms with potent area air defence capability. That can be in three places at the same time.

They however failed at providing a comprehensive CAP over the fleet down south - a single CVA-01 or mini Kitty would have done a far far better job than both Invincible and Hermes together

That all being said they (Invincible class) were the right ships for the latter Cold war for the UK - with the correct focus on the RAFG and BAOR with the real then threat of the Warsaw Pact and quite rightly relegating larger carriers to the 'nice to have but cannot afford' list

Now the British no longer have the large burden of RAFG and BAOR the nation can move the Larger carriers off the 'nice to have but cannot afford' list and onto the 'nice to have, we will have 2 please' list
 
They however failed at providing a comprehensive CAP over the fleet down south - a single CVA-01 or mini Kitty would have done a far far better job than both Invincible and Hermes together

That all being said they (Invincible class) were the right ships for the latter Cold war for the UK - with the correct focus on the RAFG and BAOR with the real then threat of the Warsaw Pact and quite rightly relegating larger carriers to the 'nice to have but cannot afford' list

Now the British no longer have the large burden of RAFG and BAOR the nation can move the Larger carriers off the 'nice to have but cannot afford' list and onto the 'nice to have, we will have 2 please' list

Without going into "larger Carriers", could the Invincible class have been better designed for Harrier operations, or could the RN for not huge money gotten something bigger (again not talking Conventional Carrier, just wondering could there have been an "improved Invincible class"?)
 
Without going into "larger Carriers", could the Invincible class have been better designed for Harrier operations, or could the RN for not huge money gotten something bigger (again not talking Conventional Carrier, just wondering could there have been an "improved Invincible class"?)
Would be a lot better if the government weren't in denial about not needing new carriers anymore and start with a carrier design instead of the OTL route of evolving from a "through deck cruiser" (which despite the salad title was not actually an attempt to sneak a carrier but actually what it says it is: a cruiser with some extra aviation facilities).
 
And fails to meet the role intended. The Invincibles are not tiny carriers they are very large ASW platforms with potent area air defence capability. That can be in three places at the same time.

The role of the Ark Royal in the 70s when Britain pivoted from South East Asia to NATO from 1968 was the centre of 'strike group 2' in NATO Strike Fleet Atlantic, a USN carrier was the centre of 'strike group 1'. When the Ark retired and the Herme/Invincibles took over strike group 2 was downgraded to ASW Group 2; however if the 2 CVAs were built instead of the 3 Invincibles they would have been committed to 'strike group 2' which would have retained an offensive mission.

Does not have to be as big as Kitty just the same layout - the same "ethos" - can have smaller airgroup but like the Kitty built to primarily operate aircraft at maximum possible efficiency above all else unlike the CVA-01 which was designed by a committee of good idea fairies

Bit like what they have done with QE with it just fitting under that bridge etc - so as big as then possible.

I agree about getting too smart with the design, that was to fool/satisfy politicians and certain Admirals who were obsessed with particular tonnage limits, in particular while the flight deck was 5% bigger than Eagle it was some 15% smaller than could have been supported by the hull. A little less obsessive scrutiny over the tonnage would have worked wonder for the design.

That all being said they (Invincible class) were the right ships for the latter Cold war for the UK - with the correct focus on the RAFG and BAOR with the real then threat of the Warsaw Pact and quite rightly relegating larger carriers to the 'nice to have but cannot afford' list

I disagree with this. I doubt the Soviets would have much noticed that BAOR had one less Brigade and RAFG one less wing if the RN had 2 strike carriers instead. Any little country can raise a mechanised/armoured brigade and a few fighter-bomber squadrons but to operate a pair of strike carriers in the 70s and 80s is a very rare thing indeed.

Would be a lot better if the government weren't in denial about not needing new carriers anymore and start with a carrier design instead of the OTL route of evolving from a "through deck cruiser" (which despite the salad title was not actually an attempt to sneak a carrier but actually what it says it is: a cruiser with some extra aviation facilities).

Amen to that!

Without going into "larger Carriers", could the Invincible class have been better designed for Harrier operations, or could the RN for not huge money gotten something bigger (again not talking Conventional Carrier, just wondering could there have been an "improved Invincible class"?)

Yes, in the 90s they removed the Sea Dart facilities and converted the area into a bomb magazine and deck parking space for the GR5/7/9s that joined 'Joint Force Harrier' in 2000.

However back in the early 70s when the ships were laid down the Sea Harrier wasn't even thought of, so they were designed as better Blake/Tiger helo cruisers with Sea Darts and their main weapon.
 
Without going into "larger Carriers", could the Invincible class have been better designed for Harrier operations, or could the RN for not huge money gotten something bigger (again not talking Conventional Carrier, just wondering could there have been an "improved Invincible class"?)
Almost certainly if you trust the ability of SHAR from the start why fit the Sea dart and with hindsight its removal tells us the RN thought the same?
 
Almost certainly if you trust the ability of SHAR from the start why fit the Sea dart and with hindsight its removal tells us the RN thought the same?

I kind of presumed that the removal of Sea dart at that stage was due to the drop in threat of Soviet air attacks tbh.
 
Would be a lot better if the government weren't in denial about not needing new carriers anymore and start with a carrier design instead of the OTL route of evolving from a "through deck cruiser" (which despite the salad title was not actually an attempt to sneak a carrier but actually what it says it is: a cruiser with some extra aviation facilities).

They were quite rightly focused on defending Europe and winning any BotA round 3 which for the Navy meant ASW and not force projection negating the need for such large ships - also 'non habetis argentum' (No Money) what was to hand was correctly spent on BAOR and RAFG


Without going into "larger Carriers", could the Invincible class have been better designed for Harrier operations, or could the RN for not huge money gotten something bigger (again not talking Conventional Carrier, just wondering could there have been an "improved Invincible class"?)

I am great believer in Steel is cheap and absolutely the type could have been bigger and wider etc say 20-25 KT dry - not much in the way of extra crew if they had done that.
 
I kind of presumed that the removal of Sea dart at that stage was due to the drop in threat of Soviet air attacks tbh.

Remember that these ships were developed and designed in the 70s when they were intended to be ASW Helicopter Carriers operating in the GIUK gap vs Soviet subs when the big threat was Russian Long range bombers - SHAR came into service in April 1980 and quickly proved itself

Up till then it was a dinky little jet with a few tricks up its sleeves.
 
They were quite rightly focused on defending Europe and winning any BotA round 3 which for the Navy meant ASW and not force projection negating the need for such large ships - also 'non habetis argentum' (No Money) what was to hand was correctly spent on BAOR and RAFG




I am great believer in Steel is cheap and absolutely the type could have been bigger and wider etc say 20-25 KT dry - not much in the way of extra crew if they had done that.

I wasn't talking about building full size carriers but rather the design process being born out of a mistaken assumption the UK government at the time believing that there is no future for carriers of any type, not even light ones. If they had gone with a light ASW carrier from the beginning of the plannings stage (with a secondary eye towards command facilities) the result would probably have been a bit better than OTL.
 
I wasn't talking about building full size carriers but rather the design process being born out of a mistaken assumption the UK government at the time believing that there is no future for carriers of any type, not even light ones. If they had gone with a light ASW carrier from the beginning of the plannings stage (with a secondary eye towards command facilities) the result would probably have been a bit better than OTL.

I don't think anyone in Government thought that there was no futures in carriers of any type - simply that HMG at the time could not afford them.

Focusing on Airpower and the Army for a conventional kick up in Europe even if just being a thicker tripwire was the correct choice.

We saw in the 80s NATO going from said thick tripwire to an actual force capable of defeating conventionally the Warsaw pact forces as it engaged the East in an accelerated Arms race

Don't get me wrong I would be very happy if the RN had 2 or 3 new strike carriers from the late 70s onwards, but the Warsaw pact was the wolf at the door, a true and obvious threat and could not be ignored and in that respect there was little that a pair or trio of better carriers could do to influence that other than doing their bit to defeat the large fleet of Russian subs that would threaten REFORGER. In that respect having 2 of 3 Invincible class carriers in service at any one time was probably good enough.
 
Top