If we accept that the RN had two potential missions, basically GIUK/Escort and potential East of Suez ops…. Perhaps the best bet would have been to maintain an ASW-heavy fleet for the N.Atlantic, and a relatively modest expeditionary fleet. Bear in mind that the RN still had a modest requirement for force projection. The RN could, at the bare minimum have maintained Hermes as a CTOL carrier, East of Suez, perhaps based in Australia; with sisterships Albion and Bulwark as commando carriers based in the UK (especially for the Norway mission). This would be the bare minimum for maintaining any kind of out of area capability. A follow-up may then have allowed replacement of all three ships with a common, basic, carrier type, capable of undertaking either fleet or commando roles. I know, I know, we’ve discussed this ad nauseam, but there are legitimate reasons for preserving the force projection capability.

On the subject of the Type 19, I have been reading a little on it (alas, sadly not in the ‘Rebuilding the RN’ book), and found some of the designs a little odd, especially the lack of helo capacity. By the ’60s, it had already become clear that helos were the best bet for chasing after Soviet subs. Another possible change would be a dual-role launcher, more akin to the American Mk26 type, perhaps with Sea Dart and Malafon or similar. Even without, a slightly modified Leander-type hull, with the appropriate updates, could have had the potential for a really capable ship. A large batch of these dual role vessels, with Sea Dart and Malafon (modified to use the standard 324mm Mk46, not the 533mm French torpedo) would have been excellent ships, with a heck of a lot of potential. For the ‘low’ in the mix, a more sensibly designed Type 21 would have made some sense – a lot of it’s problems could actually have been avoided with better project guidance. In essence, ordering them built with more stability and top-weight allowance, plus more room for growth, could have helped.

A combination of dual-role high capability AAW/ASW ships and cheap dual role ASW ships would make sense. Sea Dart gets installed on the high end ships, alongside Anglo-Malafon, with the cheaper ships just getting a simpler Malafon launcher. The multi-purpose launcher concept (hopefully) then allows relatively smooth integration of Exocet or similar.

Another option would have been to go earlier – use the experience of Suez ops to justify fleet renewal. Quick design effort, to Anglicise and slightly enlarge the Clemenceau, and order it ASAP, initially intended as a replacement for the more worn-out carriers retiring in the late ’50s. In effect, an order for two or three new carriers, initially to maintain the five or six carrier navy, and ending up as the whole of a three carrier navy.

The Clemenceau, or a slightly enlarged version of it, is not going to be Phantom compatible, but it might be viable for something smaller. Obvious options would be:

– Vought F-8 Crusader, or the proposed Spey-engined Two-sader? Possibly as an interim option, pending a better choice.
– A navalised Mirage F-2 type, or fixed wing Mirage G4. Two seats, and preferably twin Spey engined, for commonality with Buccaneer. Should, hopefully be possible for the mid to late ’60s.

As we’ve discussed in previous threads, some slightly less ambitious targets could have helped both the RN and RAF. A less ambitious, but earlier, carrier program for the RN might have been more successful. Equally, for the RAF, they could have opted for a less risky approach than the TSR-2; e.g. buying Buccaneers, or buying in and modifying F-105s or Mirage IVs (not ideal, but lower risk). For the RAF, the big ‘what if’ would have been Skybolt – i.e. what happens if it hadn’t been cancelled? Does Polaris go ahead? etc…

One of my favourite types, alongside the A-4, A-6, A-7 and F-4. A great pity the Bronco didn’t see wider service – it would have been ideal for many roles. The OV-10 had an excellent warload, and good STOL characteristics. Sadly, it was less glamorous than the attack helo, and the Marines had the Harrier for fixed wing support.

The other problem was that Britain was rather short of cash in the ’80s – the willpower was there (Thatcher), but not the money…

Another possibility for the ’80s, though, would have been the government realising how close to the wire they were in the Falklands with the existing carriers. The government then settles on buying a pair of larger carriers, perhaps a little bigger than the CdG, but minus the nuclear propulsion. Invincible still gets sold to Australia, replacing HMAS Melbourne, to keep the Aussies happy!

They therefore select an ‘evolved’ CVA-01 cross-bred with PA-58 and other studies. They settle on a three shaft derivative of Invincible’s two shaft arrangement, i.e. six Olympus, to generate ~140,000shp, with a steam generator to power two C13 catapults, one bow, one waist. The first ship is ordered in ’84, and finally enters service in 1992, after a long trials period; the second enters service in late ’94. The two new carriers allow Lusty and Ark to be used for the commando role (sans Sea Dart), even though they aren’t ideally suited to the role… The new airwing is to be made up of the new BAE P110, which has been given full government support; plus an appropriate airborne early warning aircraft, and the new EH-101 Merlin for ASW. The P110 becomes Britain’s main fighter, replacing the Phantoms, Tornado ADVs (which might never be developed in this scenario, perhaps in favour of an interim batch of F-4s), and Jaguars.

This could work, but it would be a struggle, though giving work to the shipyards might have been a good move in the circumstances….

As long as the F-35B project remains roughly on track, then no, I don’t think we will see them building large CTOL carriers. More likely is that both Japan and South Korea will ‘decide they need more amphibious aviation capability‘, and use that as a justification for building ever larger LHD/LHAs. They will then ask for a modest batch of F-35Bs, to provide their Marines with ‘top-cover’, arguing it is no different than US Marine Harrier ops. The number bought then just increases, until they are de facto aircraft carriers.

In some ways more interestesting would be what happens if the F-35B doesn’t arrive, i.e. in cancelled. This would leave them with little opportunity to build carriers under a different name, short of building something like the British CVF, that is designed for but not with cats and arrestor gear. This would be very difficult to justify, though.

However, finding pilots and geeting them up to speed on air defence, using the radar etc would be a greater challenge than the aircraft themselves. An even bigger issue would be getting ample intelligence warnings and having the political will to act on it.

I disagree – many of the Harrier pilots have flown other types, and could easily be given a refresher course (a few flights in a Dominie, and perhaps a few flights in a twin-stick Tornado F3 or Typhoon).

I do agree with your point about the ample warning and political will issue, though. The likelihood is that we would get about three months warning that the Argentines were up to something, and a months notice of what they were up to, and a weeks notice as to the how/when of it. IF, and it is a big IF, they get the leap on the forces on the Islands, then we would then have a week or two to put together whatever forces we want to send down there.

This is insufficient time to get the Sea Harriers back into operation, but it may be time enough to improve the Harrier GR-9’s air-to-air abilities. If we can put in the helmet mounted sights, and Link 16/JTIDS, then we can at least have a go at them. We should be able to muster around thirty aircraft, hopefully all fitted for ASRAAM and HMDs, plus JTIDS. These then go on Lusty and Ark, with Ocean and a couple of container ships being used for helo decks. The ASaC-7s can be distributed around the task force, and probably be supplemented by converted Lynxes (they tested a Lynx with a Searchwater radar a couple of years ago, for some reason). The good thing is that the Harriers would be able to focus mainly on the air defence mission, though, since we now have Apaches, which could be used for some of the close support mission. Now, none of this is ideal, but to be honest, we’re talking about worst-case scenarios anyway.

One interesting question would be whether it would be possible to give the ASaC-7s the ability to provide guidance (and updates) for AMRAAMs. If this could be done, then it would help a lot…

“No catapults.”

“and no ski-jump.”

If catapults or a ski jump was added to the USS America (LHA-6) for a foreign nation what type of aircraft and how many aircraft could she carry?? Thanks for any help?

Theoretically, it could be done, by adding an angled deck on sponsons, but the fundamental problem is that it would be too compromised by it’s LHA heritage. Simply adding a ski-jump would certainly help it’s F-35B operations, improving takeoff performance (e.g. allowing heavier weights). If combined with a UAV-based AEW aircraft, capable of both long endurance and high altitudes, then the LHA becomes a pretty powerful carrier. It would effectively boost it’s capability to somewhere at par with, or better than, ships like the Sao Paulo, Vikramaditya, Vikrant, and arguably Kuznetsov in some categories.

Yes, the EU is very large, but in practical termes is bankrupted, just like USA, printing endless columns of painted paper to try to control the crisis that they unleashed.

The idea that Europe is bankrupt is, frankly, absurd. European banks are encountering many problems, but even with these problems, they are still quite strong, and certainly not bankrupt. The European economies are, in general, going into a recession, which is always painful, but they will recover. Inflation is not out of control, partly because of the recessionary pressures, and as such, comments about them ‘printing endless columns of painted paper’ are misguided. The European states are doing what is needed to help the financial sector recover, and this will likely last a couple of years, but it will end.

Overall, the idea that Europe is going to be needing to go to Russia, begging for trade, is beyond absurd. Europe has a massive collective economy, recession or not, and a lot bigger than Russia’s. With oil and gas prices coming down, Russia too will have to tighten their belt. Russia is not immune from global economic trends; if anything, due to it’s dependence on the oil and gas sector, it is more vulnerable to these trends.