Short of finding a major source of revenue, or being gifted new equipment by Venezuela, it seems somewhat unlikely that much will change. The best thing now would be to normalise relations with America, and switch emphasis to the more relevant counter-narcotics role. Picking up a load of nice cheap patrol boats in the 100-300 ton range would probably be the best bet – Kilo class subs aren’t much good at the counter-narcotics mission! :diablo:

One thing that must be taken account of is the presence of the Venezuelan Flankers in the region. This would, in my opinion, favour one of two choices – either Rafales (in smaller numbers), or Flankers (again, possibly in smaller numbers). There could even be competition from F-16s as well though, given the weak dollar (which makes some non-dollar numbered aircraft effectively more expensive). One possibility might even be the Mirage 2000 – the French production line is shut down, but they were offering the 2000 originally, and for Brazilian production it might make sense. It could even benefit France – have Brazil churning out bits that France can use to support its other customers. It could even replicate the old Volkswagen Beetle, which was (is?) produced in Mexico, well after the European production lines shut down.

Actually, I quite liked the supersonic Scimitar version, the Type 576 – a twin seater version might have been a good stopgap solution, pending the much more advanced Type 583. The 576 could probably have entered service by the early ’60s, with 583s coming in the early ’70s…

Actually, that’s a very good point. If the Maltas had been laid down, but never finished (i.e. not even fitted with hangars yet), then they might have been targetted as the best bets for completion in the ’50s. As it was, the RN had to rebuild existing carriers, but a single uniform class of four Malta class, completed from the start with angled decks etc… The RN would muddle its way through the early ’50s with the wartime carriers, but then finish building the Maltas, to a spec much like the American Midway class (minus their problems…). This would have solved one of the other problems of the time, i.e. commonality, since the UK operated a muddle of different carriers, all to slightly different specs. The UK could even have aimed to have the four Maltas, and keep Centaur, Albion, Bulwark and Hermes as combined ASW and commando carriers. When not supporting Marine ops, they would embark large numbers of ASW aircraft, initially Gannets, and then Sea Kings (ideally keeping the cats, to allow for AEW and COD aircraft to operate from them).

The reason why the rebuilds were pursued was becouse they were economical, if new ships had been cheaper they would have been purchased. The RN always wanted the Phantom, to the extent that when they were told they had to have the P.1154 for the CVA-01 they tried to turn it into a phantom, massive radar, two speys and catapult launching.

The problem was that it only seemed to be cheaper – in part because it was portrayed as little more than a major overhaul, when in practice, it was a complete rebuild. The rebuild program was a very shortsighted plan, i.e. the RN didn’t quite have enough money to buy new ones, so it went for the ‘cheap’ option. In practice, Ark and Eagle were still pretty beaten up by the late ’60s. If you look through Beedall’s pages on the CVA-01, it certainly seems clear that a Clemenceau sized carrier would have come in around the same price as the rebuilds.

The RN did want the Phantom though, I do agree with that, but the problem is that the Phantom would struggle to operate off anything short of 50,000 tons. This basically means that, in the absence of new large carriers, only Eagle and Ark would have a hope of operating Phantoms. Large new carriers, as we know now, weren’t going to happen. Smaller carriers, in place of the rebuilds, were very much doable, even within the limited budgets of the time. Also, it has to be remembered that even if Victorious had been rebuilt, Crusaders could probably have flown off her decks. The Victorious rebuild showed just how expensive the ‘cheap’ rebuild option was, so it would have been reasonable to cancel the other rebuilds.

It also has to be remembered that in the late ’50s, Mountbatten was still around, and pushing for carriers, so pushing through an order for Clemenceaus would have been doable. The problem was that the project just rolled ever onwards, with no real progress made (new designs, updated designs, but nothing really settled upon). By the time the CVA-01 came to the ‘go or no go’ point, Labour was in charge, and just said ‘no’! Clemenceaus would be at a much earlier point, being built in the late ’50s, and would have been in service by the early to mid ’60s.

One possibility that might have real benefits would have been the UK ordering too many, perhaps as many as five (not unreasonable thinking at the time), and then selling one to Australia. This would of course have allowed Australia to stay in the carrier business much longer, possibly even using Hornets off the ‘other’ Melbourne!!

Basically, cost reasons were valid, but they really didn’t favour either option – rebuilds were cheaper in the short term, but handicapped the entire fleet in the long term. New builds would have been a bit of a struggle in the short term, but have solved a lot of problems in the long term.

How is Leclerc in “much” lower weight category,when he weights 54 tons,Leopard 2A4 is 55 and M1A1 Abrams is 57.And the benefit of lower weight is always big.On the Greek trials Challenger was unable to climb the 30 degree slope test,Abrams was unable to stop,Leopard 2A5 also failed to climb.Afer they change the tracks of Leopard the test was passed,but required another track change.

The modern Abrams (i.e M1A1 or later, not the original 105mm armed one) is around 69 tons, Leopard 2 is more like 62 tons, and Challenger 2 is at least 62. The problem for the Challenger was in part the choice of the 1200hp power pack, where the 1500hp pack was much more suitable. There isn’t much terrain that can support a 55 ton vehicle that can’t support a 65 ton vehicle, with the obvious exception of some bridges (especially older AVLB MLC60 bridges…).

The answer is quite easy, during the Cold War the French were the only ones who did sell fighter-jets in a strictly commercial non political manner. With the Soviet and American hardware the super power behind you could always cut off you spares supply if you didn’t do what they wanted you to do and in the worst case their “military instructors” were involved in coups. Of course many times they were also unwilling to supply their most modern military hardware to third-world countries. Today you also have the Russians and Chinese which sell military hardware (and that at a considerably cheaper price) without interfering in politics.

It should be noted that the French were going to cut off spares support to Australia, if they chose to use their aircraft in Vietnam. There are quite a lot of other examples, not all of them being very pleasant, since a few of them had the French bullying the ‘good guys’. Every military sale involves politics, it was only that the French politics tended to be internal, or resource oriented, far more so than those of the US or USSR.

The French kit is, however, excellent stuff, and ironically the example of the AMX-30 versus Leclerc one really ruffles my feathers. The AMX-30 was a pretty lousy tank, being unremarkable in armour, firepower, and overall capability, and seriously compromised by having unstabilised armament. The Leclerc is another pretty unremarkable tank, but at least is comparable in capability to its rivals.

Basically, if you buy French, you still have to play their game, it is just a different game to that of the US or Russia. If you do something with the equipment that they don’t like, then you still face the prospect of having support cut off.