Wi if the US navy offered the British CV's in the 1990's
- Thread starter Ward
- Start date
Isn't CVA 59 to CVA 66 at least fifty years old...?
They are kinda worn out ; lots of dangerous asbestos and chemical residues all over the Carriers to be cleansed out..
And the metal fatigue to both the Carriers' hull and flight desk...
I don't think you can even consider selling CVA(N) USS Enterprise to Britain without alot of folks back home screaming at you...
I brought up the idea once on here about the Canadians, Brits, Aussies, and New Zealand operating their own Nimitz class carriers, just because it would be so cool to have the major English speaking nations all operating big honking carriers. But apparently, all the rest of you are too small/poor to do that. Darn it.
Perhaps Zumwalt's proposed CVV medium carrier would be a better bet.
Aircraft Carrier (Medium)
In terms of overall size it's similar to the Queen Elizabeth Class, however manpower may be a stumbling block.
Aircraft Carrier (Medium)
In terms of overall size it's similar to the Queen Elizabeth Class, however manpower may be a stumbling block.
Yes, too small, too poor. The reason why the Malta, CVA 01 and Queen Elizabeth were/are all about 900ft and 60K-t is because this is as big as Britain can service in her facilities.
Yes, these carriers would have been better suited to Britain's needs. Sadly, I believe they came too late to change British politicians minds should they have ever been offered.
As Riain has pointed out, Britain lacks the fascilities to operate such large vessels, not to mention that neither Devonport or Portsmouth harbours are large enough to accomodate such vessels. The CVF's are only just going to fit. In terms of crewing such vessels, we're talking nearly 3000-4000 men each, Britain simply cannot afford to man them. Then there is the carrier airwings - two carriers would need nearly 150 aircraft. The costs alone would prevent that, not to mention the RAF having kittens.
However, I do believe that some crusty/mad British british MP or Peer put forth the same idea to aquire two of the Forestall class in lieu of two brand new carriers as a means to save money (naturally ignoring costs of reft, manpower, dock upgrades and carrier airwing).
If you want an interesting ex-U.S. Navy carrier POD, I believe that after the CVA-01's fell through in the 60's the USN offered the USS Oriskany and one or two other Essex class flatops to the RN.
Russell
There's also the Franklin Roosevelt in the mid 70s, she'd need a heafty refit, but could be used as the blueprint for 1 or two newbuilds post Falklands or more likely Gulf War. Would have to cancel the Ark Royal and only keep illustrious as a commando carrier. Bulwark and Hermes sold by 1980.
Aye, Midway and Coral sea are also options. However, they too have extremely large crew requirements and in terms of physical size may again be too large. Personally, for an independent Britain (i.e. without joint European or Commonwealth military co-operation) would be for two or three Clemenceau sized carriers operating Spey powered F-8 Crusaders and Corsairs.
Russell
Dayton Kitchens
Banned
The U.S. Navy did offer to give more than 100 A-6 & A-7 carrier attack aircraft that could also be used as tankers to any allied nation interested as these aircraft were being removed U.S. carrier air wings.
Sadly, no one was interested and most of the aircraft were scrapped. Some being dumped into the ocean to form artificial reefs.
Sadly, no one was interested and most of the aircraft were scrapped. Some being dumped into the ocean to form artificial reefs.
My very first thread was on that very idea. New Navy in the 70s.
I sugested keeping all 4 centaurs as carriers in the 60's, to be replaced by Clemencaue type ships in the 70s. My problem was finding a fighter to base on them. Looking back if I want to avoid depending on the US I had wondered if the SAAB Dracken could be adapted, maybe have Hawker help in its development and get a licence as a safeguard against the Lightning failing and so be able to step in when the navy is looking for a fighter, this could possibly aid in keeping Eagle and Ark Royal operational longer. Sell Victorious to either the Aussies or the Indians. Probably only be able to keep two Centaurs and one Audacious in service at the same time with the other three ships in refit and reserve with each ship seeing six years service before being relieved.
I sugested keeping all 4 centaurs as carriers in the 60's, to be replaced by Clemencaue type ships in the 70s. My problem was finding a fighter to base on them. Looking back if I want to avoid depending on the US I had wondered if the SAAB Dracken could be adapted, maybe have Hawker help in its development and get a licence as a safeguard against the Lightning failing and so be able to step in when the navy is looking for a fighter, this could possibly aid in keeping Eagle and Ark Royal operational longer. Sell Victorious to either the Aussies or the Indians. Probably only be able to keep two Centaurs and one Audacious in service at the same time with the other three ships in refit and reserve with each ship seeing six years service before being relieved.
Last edited:
BlairWitch749
Banned
the kitty hawks might have been a better option; they underwent extensive refits in the 90s including new turbine engines that would have made them still fit to serve for some time
enterprise could have been xferred/sold whatever at some point in this period as well
enterprise could have been xferred/sold whatever at some point in this period as well
I'm not sure about the Draken. While it's a very nice fighter I recall that it was equipped with a fourth set of undercarriage wheels just in front of it's jet pipe as that area of the fuselage tended to come into contact with the runway. I don't think that sounds like the sort of thing you'd want on a carrier.
The Indians may be interested in the Victorious but the Aussies would have a hard time manning her, with a crew of between 1800 and 2400. Personally I wouldn't modernise her at all and reinvest the vast sums used in her somewhere else. I'd modernise the two Audacious class to keep them until the latter half of the 70's, maybe even the early 80s (at a push) and keep two Centaurs as commando carriers.
The Centaurs would be a good shout - pretty economic all round. As to aircraft, i'm not sure about the Draken - it's landing speeds may be too great for carrier ops. You could always go down the really cheap option of operating large numbers of A-4's.
Yea, but the same manpower/basing problems still apply, even more so with the Enterprise. She would require considerable new dockside fascilities to deal with such a large nuclear powered vessel.
Russell
Have to agree about the Kittyhawks, and especialy Enterprise there is no way the Royal Navy could afford to man them. Any idea what the minimum safe manning level on a Kittyhawk was?
As for the Victorious my starting point was post Suez so I had to live with decisions made already. Personally I'd never have started her rebuild. I sugested A4s but got shot down, no one wanted to lose the Buccanier. Dracken was designed for operations from short stretches of road, meaning it had a tough structure and landing gear, good start points for a carrier version. I did also consider a beefed up Gnat, but it's probably no better that the A4 and with a worse payload.
As for the Victorious my starting point was post Suez so I had to live with decisions made already. Personally I'd never have started her rebuild. I sugested A4s but got shot down, no one wanted to lose the Buccanier. Dracken was designed for operations from short stretches of road, meaning it had a tough structure and landing gear, good start points for a carrier version. I did also consider a beefed up Gnat, but it's probably no better that the A4 and with a worse payload.
Ah, fair enough on the Vicky.
As for the Bucc, it was probably Britains best post war aircraft but its size limits both the size of an effective airwing on the Centaurs (and even, to a lesser extent, the Audacious class too) as well as their combat loads. they need bigger carriers. Bigger carriers means fewer carriers. So the trade off must come somwhere.
A Sea Gnat would be cool but probably very pish. ibelieve even in India the most they ever carrier was either two SNEB packs or a single 30mm ADEN with 60 rounds. Wouldn't be worth it.
If the Draken is designed for STOL operations it bay be a contender.
Russell
Getting back to the origonal point of the thread I think the Forrestals/Kittyhawks are just too large for Britain to opperate. As this is post Gulf war I think that its possible that if one of the Invincibles were to either strike a mine or be dammaged by terrorists then at the expence of decomissioning one of the remaining invincibles a single midway might be possible.
1993 Persian Gulf HMS Illustrious is rocked by two simultanious explosions and after 4 hours of fighting flooding and fires is abandoned taking 127 crewmembers with her to the bottom. US offers the recently decommisioned USS Midway as a replacement as well as help manning her. Due to the upsurge in support for the navy and recognising that this will greatly increase it's effectivness John Major Agrees. Due to the ships age and the likleyhood of her needing frequent refits the British also ask if they could takeover the Corral Sea, with the idea that durring their service with the RN one will be operational with the other undergoing refit at any one time. To increase the availability of trained crew the same will hold true for the remaining Invincible class ships. HMS Ocean is quietly canceled.
Britain purchasses 60 F/A18s and 6 Hawkeye. Extra pilots to come from the RAF. All Sea Harrier pilots to be retrained on the F18.
1994 USS Midway and Coral Sea are formally transfered to the Royal Navy with the Corral Sea going into reserve/refit.
HMS Midway begins workup with a mixed US/RN crew. Her Airgroup will be 35 F/A 18s, 4 Hawkeyes and eight SeaKings.
1995 HMS Midway declared operational. Planning begins for the replacement of the Midways and Invincibles. RN wants three similar sized ships, and two hellicopter assault ships.
1997 HMS Corral Sea replaces the Midway. HMS Ark Royal replaces HMS Invincible.
New Labour Government agrees to two large carriers and one Assaultship with Arkroyal in reserve. New Assault ship will be a joint venture with the Spanish and Australians.
1998 Numbers of new escort ships and submarines reduced. Britain decides not to participate in the Joint Strike Fighter Programme. Orders for the Eurofighter reduced by 20%. RAF screams rape.
1993 Persian Gulf HMS Illustrious is rocked by two simultanious explosions and after 4 hours of fighting flooding and fires is abandoned taking 127 crewmembers with her to the bottom. US offers the recently decommisioned USS Midway as a replacement as well as help manning her. Due to the upsurge in support for the navy and recognising that this will greatly increase it's effectivness John Major Agrees. Due to the ships age and the likleyhood of her needing frequent refits the British also ask if they could takeover the Corral Sea, with the idea that durring their service with the RN one will be operational with the other undergoing refit at any one time. To increase the availability of trained crew the same will hold true for the remaining Invincible class ships. HMS Ocean is quietly canceled.
Britain purchasses 60 F/A18s and 6 Hawkeye. Extra pilots to come from the RAF. All Sea Harrier pilots to be retrained on the F18.
1994 USS Midway and Coral Sea are formally transfered to the Royal Navy with the Corral Sea going into reserve/refit.
HMS Midway begins workup with a mixed US/RN crew. Her Airgroup will be 35 F/A 18s, 4 Hawkeyes and eight SeaKings.
1995 HMS Midway declared operational. Planning begins for the replacement of the Midways and Invincibles. RN wants three similar sized ships, and two hellicopter assault ships.
1997 HMS Corral Sea replaces the Midway. HMS Ark Royal replaces HMS Invincible.
New Labour Government agrees to two large carriers and one Assaultship with Arkroyal in reserve. New Assault ship will be a joint venture with the Spanish and Australians.
1998 Numbers of new escort ships and submarines reduced. Britain decides not to participate in the Joint Strike Fighter Programme. Orders for the Eurofighter reduced by 20%. RAF screams rape.
1999 Trident replacement ssbn canceled in favour of submarine launched cruise missiles. Bae asked to submit proposals for B52 equivilent using only existing tech. Aircrafts mainrole is seen as being a cruise launch platform. Sites on British owned islands surveyed for possible trident silos.
HMS Midway relieves Hms Coral Sea.
2000 Designs for new carriers assesed and shortlist of two selected.
Bae proposes Typhoon variant for new ships, France counters with the already in service Rafel. Initial design for new strategic bomber resembles an elarged Nimrod. Us offers licence for the B1. The Ukrainen allso submits a proposal from Tupolev.
HMS Midway relieves Hms Coral Sea.
2000 Designs for new carriers assesed and shortlist of two selected.
Bae proposes Typhoon variant for new ships, France counters with the already in service Rafel. Initial design for new strategic bomber resembles an elarged Nimrod. Us offers licence for the B1. The Ukrainen allso submits a proposal from Tupolev.
AWACS type deal?
NATO formed a multinational agency that owns, operates and maintains a fleet of E3 Sentry aircraft for colective use. If the USN wanted to share the carrier burden, it would make sense to create a NATO carrier project, with two Nimitz class carriers being built in the US with NATO funding, and being operated by multinational crews and used for NATO missions. This would only have made sense if started at the cold war, and would be a more cost efective way of putting european pilots at sea than national carrier projects. The ships would not be avaiable for the pursuit of national policy, but most actions involving carriers since the 70s were NATO or UN sponsored anyway. There could be a rule that one carrier always had a British CO, the other a French one, and a fixed cota of crewmembers from each nation. It sounds weird for non NATO people, but NATO multinational units and HQs have always worked well.
NATO formed a multinational agency that owns, operates and maintains a fleet of E3 Sentry aircraft for colective use. If the USN wanted to share the carrier burden, it would make sense to create a NATO carrier project, with two Nimitz class carriers being built in the US with NATO funding, and being operated by multinational crews and used for NATO missions. This would only have made sense if started at the cold war, and would be a more cost efective way of putting european pilots at sea than national carrier projects. The ships would not be avaiable for the pursuit of national policy, but most actions involving carriers since the 70s were NATO or UN sponsored anyway. There could be a rule that one carrier always had a British CO, the other a French one, and a fixed cota of crewmembers from each nation. It sounds weird for non NATO people, but NATO multinational units and HQs have always worked well.
The USN tried a multinational crew on a destroyer in the 1960s, and while it worked fairly well, not much came of it again. As for whether it works for putting other nations' carrier pilots at sea, I would imagine that it would, but it raises a few more problems, namely under whose command are they. Having French and British COs solves one problem, but under peacetime conditions who commands them? SACEUR? Which country's naval command?