WI: USS Eagle?

[Riain]

A lot of people suggest that Britain and/or other countries might get an ex American carrier for their fleets, but what if the USN decided to buy the HMS Eagle which was prematurely retired in 1972?

A possible justification might be that it is easier to Americanise an existing 50,000 ton British carrier carrier to get more big aircraft to sea than do another Midway style refit on Coral Sea and FDR and lose freeboard and seakeeping.

 

[SGTBookWorm]

I dont really see a reason why they would, given how many carriers they still had at that point

 

[Riain]

Between 1973 and 76 the USN decommissioned its last remaining Essex class carriers, leaving it with 12. A far cry from 15+ only a few short years earlier.

Whats more, in global terms the USN can't rely on the RN to shoulder a decent chunk of the NATO strike task with Eagle gone. So she might kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

What about the technical aspects of the USN operating the Eagle?

 

[Alanith]

Seems to me it’s easier to just spend more for an extra Nimitz.

 

[SsgtC]

If the Navy needed a carrier that badly, they would have just modernised Oriskany and maybe Hancock while also refitting FDR. Too much on Eagle would have been a "one off" item making maintenance a god awful expensive nightmare.

 

[CV12Hornet]

More to the point, Eagle only carried 34 fighter/strike aircraft to an Essex’s 60. Albeit 14 of the British strike aircraft were Intruder-sized Buccaneers instead of Corsairs or Skyhawks.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Do please note that the British used many parts from HMS Eagle to Keep her sister ship HMS Ark Royal in commission till 1979 so by doing as the OP suggests effectively mothballs Ark Royal far earlier.

 

[Riain]

Seems to me it’s easier to just spend more for an extra Nimitz.

In rational terms that's pretty much it, and is what the USN actually did amongst other things like retain the Coral Sea.

However the 'just' is not a reflection of that path to get to that 4th Nimitz. The USN had to go through a prolonged process to kill the CVV and the SCS between 1970 and 1976, and perhaps somewhere within this political turmoil the acquisition for the Eagle to cover a short term (10 years?) requirement might be a solution.

If the Navy needed a carrier that badly, they would have just modernised Oriskany and maybe Hancock while also refitting FDR. Too much on Eagle would have been a "one off" item making maintenance a god awful expensive nightmare.

Again the 'just' doesn't do justice to the issues involved with the Oriskany and/or Hancock. The obsolescence and dwindling size of the F8 fleet is something we've discussed at great length in the Essex thread, as well as the seaworthiness issues that the Essex and Midways were experiencing as a result of their extensive modifications. The Eagle might well do an end-run around these issues for a short (in carrier life span terms) time.

More to the point, Eagle only carried 34 fighter/strike aircraft to an Essex’s 60. Albeit 14 of the British strike aircraft were Intruder-sized Buccaneers instead of Corsairs or Skyhawks.

60 aircraft was in the early 60s, by 1972 an Essex's CVW was 48 F8 and A7. I imagine the USS Eagle's CVW would be a sqn of F4 and 2 sqn of A7, the F4's higher performance and all-weather capability making up for the lack of numbers. As for the F4's performance in the Eagle, I think the F4S version would address some of the issues that the F4B had that caused the British to develop the Spey Phantom; it certainly had more powerful engines and aerodynamic improvements to the wings.

Do please note that the British used many parts from HMS Eagle to Keep her sister ship HMS Ark Royal in commission till 1979 so by doing as the OP suggests effectively mothballs Ark Royal far earlier.

True, but that is in large part making virtue of necessity; the Ark had only been given a 5 year reprieve so cannibalising Eagle is both needed and useful. If the USN picked up Eagle and was going to sustain her for 10 or so years the sustainment cost would be divided between the USN and RN to manufacture the spares rather than strip Eagle, and when Ark pays off the USN would strip her to get some spares for Eagle.

 

[Riain]

Just to provide a bit of an idea of what the USN was up against here are a couple of pictures from the Essex thread showing the effects of the massive modernisation of the Midways.

Here's a example of that list with her sister ship Coral Sea, which had a similar but less extensive version of Midway's modernization.

And this picture probably best illustrates the extreme nature of Midway's 1966 modernization.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Seems to me it’s easier to just spend more for an extra Nimitz.

Or slip the RN the funding to keep her in service, so avoiding the possible need to allocate a US carrier for tasks Eagle would have performed.

 

[Riain]

Or slip the RN the funding to keep her in service, so avoiding the possible need to allocate a US carrier for tasks Eagle would have performed.

By the 70s US Security Assistance didn't work like that, leaving aside that Nixon's 'Guam Doctrine' said Allies should more after themselves more.

By the 70s the US had Foreign Military Finance, US dollars appropriated to assist Allies to buy military goods and services but that money had to be spent in the US on US stuff. It also had Foreign Military Sales where the US Military buys goods and services on behalf of Allies, but this has no Congressional appropriation and comes at no cost to the US taxpayer.

It would be very difficult for the US to pay for the RN to keep the Eagle, either directly or indirectly.

 

[Md139115]

“Sir, I have the senators from Virginia on the line and they would like to know, and I quote: ‘why the Navy is giving money to foreigners when we have a perfectly good shipyard that could build something that size.’”

“Well, I...”

“The Senior Senator from Mississippi is also calling in.”

“We were trying to save time...”

“I have New Jersey and Pennsylvania on the line too...”

“Why do they care?!”

“Now I have Connecticut... California... Oregon... Florida...”

“G-damnit.”

 

[CV12Hornet]

60 aircraft was in the early 60s, by 1972 an Essex's CVW was 48 F8 and A7. I imagine the USS Eagle's CVW would be a sqn of F4 and 2 sqn of A7, the F4's higher performance and all-weather capability making up for the lack of numbers. As for the F4's performance in the Eagle, I think the F4S version would address some of the issues that the F4B had that caused the British to develop the Spey Phantom; it certainly had more powerful engines and aerodynamic improvements to the wings.

Er, no, they retained air wings with 60 fighter/strike aircraft right up until the last of the ships were retired. Oriskany's final cruise had her carry two Crusaders squadrons and three Corsair squadrons, I can pull up a source for that if you want.

 

[bsmart]

The U.S. was not going to buy Royal Navy carrier when they had ones of their own that they were decommissioning to make another Nimitz more palatable to Congress. First there is the issue of parts compatibility and training on different ships systems that would make it difficult to support in operations. At this same time the Navy very quickly decommissioned and scrapped the FDR so it wasn't available to be upgraded (even on a spartan basis) to delay the need for a new Nimitz. If anything I could see the U.S> through Military Aid providing funds for the Royal Navy to keep a carrier in commission and absorb some of the Atlantic and Mediterranean to free up an American carrier to deploy elsewhere.

 

[Riain]

Er, no, they retained air wings with 60 fighter/strike aircraft right up until the last of the ships were retired. Oriskany's final cruise had her carry two Crusaders squadrons and three Corsair squadrons, I can pull up a source for that if you want.

Yep, the Oriskany had 2 sqns of A7s in 1970 during her first deployment with them but picked up a 3rd in 1971. AFAIK only Oriskany and Hancock remained as attack carriers into the 70s, and Hancock didn't operate A7s. From an old favourite; https://www.navysite.de/carriers.htm

 

[Riain]

The U.S. was not going to buy Royal Navy carrier when they had ones of their own that they were decommissioning to make another Nimitz more palatable to Congress. First there is the issue of parts compatibility and training on different ships systems that would make it difficult to support in operations. At this same time the Navy very quickly decommissioned and scrapped the FDR so it wasn't available to be upgraded (even on a spartan basis) to delay the need for a new Nimitz. If anything I could see the U.S> through Military Aid providing funds for the Royal Navy to keep a carrier in commission and absorb some of the Atlantic and Mediterranean to free up an American carrier to deploy elsewhere.

Yes I know that.

However we did have a 13 page discussion on an equally unlikely scenario of retaining an Essex as an attack carrier into the 80s where the same issues of FDR etc were conveniently ignored in favour to teasing out the technical, airwing and other aspects. And the US did have some 'interesting' discussions in the 70s about the CVV and SCS and did some drastic stuff like quickly scrap FDR, so some crazy shit was happening in the time-frame.

So although I know it won't happen, if it did what would the USN do about the catapults and Type 984 radar?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

So although I know it won't happen, if it did what would the USN do about the catapults and Type 984 radar?

They would do a FRAM I/SLEP refit. They would renew all the machinery, strip out the existing DC electrical system and replace it with an AC system (which the Admiralty wanted to do as part of the 1959-64 refit, but couldn't afford), take out the Sea Cats and 4.5" guns, remove ADA and replace it with NTDS, all the British sensors would be removed and replaced by American sensors, specifically Type 984 would be replaced by SPS-48 and the catapults would be replaced by their American equivalents. Ditto all the other British equipment, fixtures and fittings. The only thing that HMS Eagle and USS Eagle would have in common is the hull and superstructure.

It would have been so expensive that the SCB.101.66 refit Midway had 1966-70 would look like a bargain by comparison. It's not the OP, but the USN would have been better off giving FDR and Coral Sea SCB.101 refits.

Plus FDR and Coral Sea could operate standard USN Phantoms. Eagle could not.

The F-4B required so many changes to turn it into the F-4K that I suspect that building it under licence in a British factory would have been no more expensive and possibly cheaper than the OTL American built version. I also suspect that a "clean sheet of paper" twin Spey fighter would have been no more expensive to develop and built than the P.1154 and Spey-Phantom in addition to making better use of the extra power the Spey provided in comparison to the J79.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I dont really see a reason why they would, given how many carriers they still had at that point

I don't know about the need, but the want was 15 CVA, 6 CVS and one deck landing training ship.

 

[Dilvish]

By the 70s US Security Assistance didn't work like that, leaving aside that Nixon's 'Guam Doctrine' said Allies should more after themselves more.

By the 70s the US had Foreign Military Finance, US dollars appropriated to assist Allies to buy military goods and services but that money had to be spent in the US on US stuff. It also had Foreign Military Sales where the US Military buys goods and services on behalf of Allies, but this has no Congressional appropriation and comes at no cost to the US taxpayer.

It would be very difficult for the US to pay for the RN to keep the Eagle, either directly or indirectly.

What would be the possibility of US squadrons operating from HMS Eagle? A RN carrier with a US air group? Oh, maybe a NATO air group, like the later NATO E-3 squadron.

 

[CV12Hornet]

It's not the OP, but the USN would have been better off giving FDR and Coral Sea SCB.101 refits.

FDR, maybe, but aside from maintenance and refit work Coral Sea was perfectly fine without the .101 refit. Certainly, I'm fairly certain she was up to Forrestal standards in most regards besides size.