Wi if the US navy offered the British CV's in the 1990's

[KillerT]

continued carrier? Bucc every time....maybe even the mk3 supersonic development....

I have a story about Buccs from another website.

this post from Mark Stockwell over on the HP&CA board and I haven't heard anyone accuse him of exaggeration.

There are 2 things I know about the Buccaneer. One, it was considered to be a very successful aircraft by its users. Two, the last time I saw them was when the Ark Royal bounced Cherry Point at the very beginning of the Ark's four day reign of terror against military airfields on the US East Coast in 1972. We were doing a dawn FOD walk (Foreign Object Drebris) on the flight line when Phantoms and Bucs from the Ark blasted over the pine tree tops at zero elevation and beat up our field. The Bucs were so low they had to rise to clear the tails of our KC-130's.

I thought they were the Ark's, but when I saw the Omega on the tail of the F-4K's, I knew they were the Arks. The umps ruled that only the aircraft airborne at the time and the F-4s at the NARF survived the raid. This was the first airfield wiped out in a four day rampage by the Ark Royal. She was finally done in by the Sara, which launched its strike group inside the harbor at Jacksonville, in violation of numerous ordinances and directives. The Sara's aircraft actually flew under the bridge at Jacksonville just after launch. The Ark's haul in military aircraft ruled damaged and destroyed during that spree was incredible. For 4 days, I flew 4 tanker missions a day refuelling aircraft looking for the Ark and hoping to kill her. No such luck. Had that been an actual combat mission, the Ark Royal's performance would have been the greatest carrier op in history, well worth the ultimate loss of the carrier and its air group. When the Ark Royal pulled into Norfolk after the exercise, she was escorted into Pier 12's number one spot by Navy tugs firing their water cannons.

 

[BlairWitch749]

But you still have to deal with public opinion, crewing costs and the fact that the British aren't gonna use the American aircraft or American systems, which means you need to refit them again to handle the new stuff, and that costs considerable money. The refits you speak of also didn't particularly reduce the number of men on board, and a crew of 3,300 is far too much for the 1970s RN.

If you want the British to operate two full-sized fleet supercarriers, you have to have them expand their facilities (Devonport and Southampton are very marginal for a supercarrier, and their dry-docks aren't big enough) and be willing to expand their military budget or keep it high through the 1970s. That means improving Britain's industrial economy, and quite a lot. That means a POD of around the end of WWII, which in itself causes lots of butterflies.

I was suggesting the British buy them up right before they go in for refit, hell they could do both jobs themselves over 4 years or something like that; and during the course of the refit, the British can install their own systems and configure them for whatever aircraft of the day meets their fancy... I don't follow the idea about the size being too big, the British maintain cruise ships of comparable size to the kitty hawks... sure there would need to be some additional infrastructure for them, but nothing earth shattering, and they are conventional powered boats so no special facilities needed for nuke material

I'm sure with mid 90's computer systems installed they could trim required head count down; and if it was a sustained effort could trim them down again several years later if they upgraded computers additionally

the cost versus flexibility and power projection is still quite favorable

 

[AdA]

Political, aircraft, etc

A Britain alone path will not work. Real navies need two carriers and there is no money for two CVN. But if France and Britain agree to cooperate, they can have one carrier each and cover each other dock periods. This was more or less the plan in 2011. Building a nimitz in each country would be nearly impossible and double the cost. Since the Nimitz was being designed round that time why not go the F35 way and tell people, with a straight face, it was am anglo.franco.american project. Build the ships in the US but claim they are using a lot of British bolts or cables or something. Ideal air group would have been US sourced, but the jaguar M had potential.
Decisions have to be made in the 60s. By the way, a multinational F14 with British engines wouldn't have al those TF30 induced crashes...

 

[El Pip]

But if France and Britain agree to cooperate, they can have one carrier each and cover each other dock periods. This was more or less the plan in 2011.

And that plan died for the same reason this plan would die - what happens when France needs the at sea carrier for something Britain doesn't want or vice versa.

The ships will have to have some form of shared crew and joint air-wing (its' the manning and operational costs that are the killer, not the construction costs) so both nations are effectively giving the other a veto over their biggest military asset. I really can't see that working.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

And that plan died for the same reason this plan would die - what happens when France needs the at sea carrier for something Britain doesn't want or vice versa.

Nelson lives, the purpose of the French Navy is to build, store and maintain ships which the Royal Navy will confiscate in time of war. Any they refuse to hand over are to be used for target practice. Rule Britannia. (and yes I am taking the mick, but that does seem to be the lesson of the last 300 years of Anglo-French navel relations)

More seriously I wouldn't want to be a French (or Spanish) crewmember on a mainly British manned ship on Trafalger Night.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

the purpose of the French Navy is to build, store and maintain ships which the Royal Navy will confiscate in time of war.

Sigged Filler

 

[Riain]

The problem with these sorts of scenarios is that any set of circumstances where Britain could run a US carrier she wouldn`t need to, she could run her own more suitable carriers. Similarly if the British are going to the effort and expense of building a Clem they may as well go that bit further and build a CVA01.

 

[TheMann]

The problem with these sorts of scenarios is that any set of circumstances where Britain could run a US carrier she wouldn`t need to, she could run her own more suitable carriers. Similarly if the British are going to the effort and expense of building a Clem they may as well go that bit further and build a CVA01.

Riain, there is a wee bit of gap between a Clemenceau and a CVA-01, my friend.....

Clemenceau class aircraft carrier
Displacement: 32,780 tons full load
Range: 7,500 miles
Aircraft Capacity: 40
Crew Size: 1,338

CVA-01 class Aircraft Carrier
Displacement: 63,000 tons full load
Range: 7,000 miles
Aircraft Capacity: 50
Crew Size: 3,250 + air crews

Your point about the RN operating their own carriers is, however, quite accurate.

 

[Riain]

I know, but for twice the carrier you wouldn`t be paying twice as much, probably only 50% as much.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Yes but on those figures you get 80% of the airgroup on the smaller ship but with slightly more than 1/3rd of the crew. Thats a huge saving in manning and training costs.
It also makes it more likely for the treasury to pay for it. (H.M. Treasury is a worse enemy for the navy the Nappolian, Hitler and the Kaiser combined)

 

[TheMann]

Yes but on those figures you get 80% of the airgroup on the smaller ship but with slightly more than 1/3rd of the crew. Thats a huge saving in manning and training costs.
It also makes it more likely for the treasury to pay for it. (H.M. Treasury is a worse enemy for the navy the Nappolian, Hitler and the Kaiser combined)

Quite true, but the problem with that is that a bigger ship with the same crew could well make for a bigger air wing, which is more effective. If it was me designing something for the RN for the 1970s, I'd be aiming for 65,000 tons or so, four catapults for maximum usefulness and fast airplane turnaround, a crew of 1,400 for the ship (down from 2,250 on the Ark Royal or Eagle) and an air wing of 70-75 aircraft. From that, assuming the naval Jaguar is in service, is a squadron of those, two squadrons each of Buccaneers and Spey Phantoms, as well as three Hawkeyes, a Greyhound COD airplane and the usual helicopters. The overall result is a decent air defense carrier (better once the F/A-18 is available and if its bought) and a very capable strike carrier.

 

[Riain]

40 Crusaders and Super Etenards is not 80% of 50 Spey Phantoms and Buccaneers, it would lucky to be half. Not all planes are created equal, a Phantom is a much better fighter than the Crusader and the Bucc is light years better than an Etenard or Super Et.

Similarly my 69 Janes`s Fighting Ships has Clems crew at 2150, not 1338. 1300 is what a Majestic class with 20 planes had as a crew, 1338 would be without the airgroup to run 40 planes. I you took away the airgroup of CVA01 it wouldn`t look nearly as bad.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Let see three of those in place of the Invincibles. Hermes and Bulwark as Commando Carriers. Friends, Britons, Countrymen the Royal Navy is back in business. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!!

(Shame you'd have to do an airstrike on the treasury to get them).

 

[AdA]

sustainable sorties

When comparing carriers, the most imprtant factor, rather than the size of the airgroup, is the ability to sustain a high sortie rate. The US carriers have not only a bigger airgroup, they have a much bigger capability for sustained operations.
Nuclear carriers also have only need for one major maintenance operation within their life cycle (and by major I mean long and unrushable) , when they have to replace their reactor cores, and take the oportunity to do all the necessary upgrades. The rest of their operating cycles is dictaded more by human and cost factors. So if the RN and the French Navy had a carrier each, starting in 78, they would rotate them on missions based on operational needs and running costs, but would be able to have their respective ships ready on short notice until they went in for their midlife updates (core changes) around 96/98. Since there was just one "Britain alone" major carrier operation for the RN in that time frame (Falklands 82) there would really be no major problem with having one big carrier rather than three small ones (70) or three very small ones (80s/90s...)
There is of course a prejudice against multinational anything, but like riding a bike, it only looks difficult until you've tried it.
The OTL way was the obvious one, but it left the UK in the position of having no fixed wing aircraft on carriers now, and paying for two ship only to use one with a handfull of F35 (it that does happen) with a capability to sustain about 20 F35 sorties a day...
And if the F35B falls through, there would be no other european carrier in ten year time flying fixed wing aircraft but CdG, everybody's harriers ending their useful lifes. The USN will be nearly alone in the (westhern)carrier game, at a time when the Chinese and Indian navies are about to get serious...
To change the game the europeans would have to accept that they can't afford to go at it alone, and the US that they need partners if they want to afford sustainable global superiority.
Do we really want to live in a multipolar free for all world or do we want a NATO vs The rest of the World controled game?
For those who dream of EU forces, well, I've done NATO, and I've done EU. NATO is for real...

 

[Russell]

Riain, there is a wee bit of gap between a Clemenceau and a CVA-01, my friend.....

Clemenceau class aircraft carrier
Displacement: 32,780 tons full load
Range: 7,500 miles
Aircraft Capacity: 40 small aircraft. The Clems operated F-8's and Super E's - not exactly huge aircraft when compared to Bucc's and F-4's. The Clems had a hangar space of 3300m2 and carried 1500tons of aviation fuel.
Crew Size: 1,338 in peacetime. At full (war) capacity she had a crew of around 1900-2000

CVA-01 class Aircraft Carrier
Displacement: 63,000 tons full load
Range: 7,000 miles
Aircraft Capacity: 50 large aircraft. Hangar space was 4800ms and 2200tons of aviation fuel.
Crew Size: 3,250, including air crews (max). The CVA-01 class would have had a normal crew of around 2000-2500 in peacetime. It 's hard to know exactly - so many weapons systems (Ikara, Sea Dart) were being removed that crew numbers were dropping considerably.

Your point about the RN operating their own carriers is, however, quite accurate.

This isn't quite accurate, I've changed the bits that are wrong.

All that said, CVA-01 was a bollocks designs that the government and admiralty didn't know what they wanted it to be.

Russell