John KI think you are being optimistic there Tempest. Ocean will be retired without replacement, the idea of having a new LPH with F35 capacity makes little sense. Most of the time the carriers will only have a handful of F35s aboard, and there will be more than enough room on their huge flight decks for as many helicopters as might be needed. As for the Type 26 frigate, if 13 of them actually replace the 13 Type 23s, it wil prove there is a God. The prospect of getting more than 13 is nil.
John KI completely agree that Britain needs a dozen well armed corvettes to supplement its inadequate force of frigates and destroyers, but I would query the names you suggest. We have fallen a long way, but giving corvettes the names of capital ships is a step too far.
John KWell………I doubt Buccaneer could have been operated with adequate safety margins off the French carriers (Hermes had problems with them, she really wasnt big enough) The three Invincibles started out as cruisers that then morphed into through deck ASW/command ships……..they really werent designed with Harrier in mind.
But, once again, the choice of fighter aircraft the RN made was really irrelevent as far as the carrier force being cancelled was concerned, in the early 70s when the concervative govt had a chance to revive RN carrier air power……they chose not to spend the money on it. Clemy sized ships simply wouldnt have made a difference. Remember, the Invincibles werent even refered to as aircraft carriers until 1980.
The problem for carrier aviation was that it was viewed through the prism of East of Suez. In 1966 the government chose the F111K to provide air power East of Suez, and cancelled CVA01, then in 1968 decided to pull out East of Suez, and cancelled the F111K order.
Of course there is far more to naval air power than just East of Suez, and it was to provide air cover in the North Atlantic that the Sea Harrier was developed in the early 1970s. The Navy’s problem in 1970 was that it had one carrier which could operate the Phantom, and no prospect of any more, An aircraft such as the
F8 could have operated from Eagle, Ark Royal and Hermes, and off a carrier in the 35 to 40,000 ton range. Given that three 20,000 ton carriers were built, I cannot see why two medium size carriers could have been built instead, but there was never any prospect of resurrecting a CVA01 size carrier. Thus, the choice of the Phantom as the fleet fighter turned out to have doomed British naval aviation.
John KKilling the CVs was a political descision. Weather the RN bought Phantom or Crusader was irrelevent.
The decision made in 1966 was to buy 50 F111Ks rather than CVA01, which were in turn cancelled in 1968. However, it is a fact that in the 1970s the Royal Navy developed the Sea Harrier and built three carriers. In going for the Phantom, the Admiralty ensured that it would be too expensive to build a carrier big enough to operate them, but Clemenceau sized carriers could have operated a very worthwhile air group built round the Buccaneer and F8.
John KI don’t think it was cost in a small way, ie the cost of individual ships or planes, but cost in a big way, ie the overall cost of defence that caused the govt decision to forgo fixed wing carriers. If it was about individual ships the Eagle would have been Phantomised and the Ark Royal not refitted to serve until a planned date in 1972.
This is why I don’t think that if the F8 was bought the govt would have kept building carriers, it saw the entire FAA as a luxury that could be ditched wholesale.
CVA01 was cancelled in 1966 because the government was persuaded that 50 RAF F111Ks would provide air power cheaper East of Suez. However, that did not mean that carriers were scrapped there and then, and Hermes was still in the fleet until 1984. Choosing the Phantom meant that only ships the size of CVA01 made sense, and they could not be afforded, but as I said, we did develop the Sea Harrier and built three carriers in the 1970s. If the fleet fighter had been the F8, carriers the size of Foch and Clemenceau would have been viable, and, more importantly, affordable. If we had kept conventional carrier aviation through the 80s and 90s, then it is quite conceivable that the Eurofighter would have been navalised from the start, and would now be flying from Royal Navy carriers, and we would not have had the F35B/F35C/F35B fiasco, nor had to suffer a ten year carrier gap.
John KHow would the 2 seat Crusader be better than the Phantom for the RN, other than having guns and better turning performance? It would be slower, shorter range, have less capable avionics and carry less weapons.
Because in 1966, Britain had four carriers, none of which could accomodate the Phantom without modification. It would have cost £5 million to Phantomise the Eagle, and £30 million was spent Phantomising Ark Royal, at a time when £3 million bought you a frigate.
If Britain had opted for a fighter such as the F8, which could operate from all of its four carriers, then the cancellation of the CVA01 project need not have led to the end of British carrier aviation. After all, in the 1970s Britain did develop the Sea Harrier and built three light carriers, so money could still be found for naval aviation, just not for ships the size of CVA01. Two or perhaps three ships of 35 to 40,000 tons could well have been built, if only the Admiralty had been prepared to compromise. I would rather have seen a new generation of carriers operating a smaller fighter such as the F8 than one carrier with the F4, which was out of commission by 1978.
John KLooking at this discussion from the British point of view, it is clear that the Admiralty wanted the F4, and bet the farm on it. Let us suppose the Admiralty had been less dazzled by the F4, and decided to buy the cheaper F8 instead. All four modernised carriers, Eagle, Ark Royal, Hermes and Victorious, could have carried a decent number, along with the Buccaneer. There would have been no need to spend a huge sum Phantomising Ark Royal if we were not buying Phantoms, and all four carriers would have remained viable throughout the 1970s. The cancellation of CVA01 would not have had to mean the end of British carrier aviation, and without the need to be built for Phantoms, new carriers could have been more the size of Hermes or Victorious, and thus much more affordable. As so often happens, the Admirals wanted the latest and most expensive new weapon, but we ended up with nothing.
John KThat raises a point; are small carriers more easily cast aside than big carriers?
Britain downsized their fleet from 4 big/medium carriers in 1965 to 2 medium/small carriers in 1980 and then made the decision to dispose of these. Was is a necessary step to make the carriers small before making them obsolete, or could Britain have just scrapped all of its carriers in the 70s and be done with it with no political problems?
Under John Nott’s disastrous plans for the Royal Navy, two CVSs would in fact have been kept, Invincible would have been sold to Australia and Hermes disposed of.
I don’t think the size of the carriers was the issue. Britain lost its fleet carrier capability in 1978 when Ark Royal was decommissioned. The Invincibles were designed as North Atlantic ASW carriers. Their main weapon system was the Sea King, the Sea Harrier was a bonus to help shoot down Soviet LRMP aircraft. The fact that within a year Invincible was forced to act as a de facto light fleet carrier was never foreseen. Unlike Hermes, the Invincibles were never big enough to carry an air group big enough to fulfill the role of a fleet carrier, but we made do with what we had.
John KNope. The Soviets were utterly stupid and always revealed their full capabilities despite having absolutely no reason to do so, and always sent out all their aircraft, despite again, having no reason to do so. So proclaimed Jonesy and now John K; therefore, it must be true.
Back to reality…
NATO frequently had exercises well within range of Soviet land-based air, such as in the Norwegian sea. The Soviets’ response to these exercises varied. Sometimes they showed up with MPAs. Sometimes they observed from a distance with frigates. Sometimes the task forces were emitting and the Soviets didn’t overfly them. In at least one instance a Soviet sub surfaced in the middle of the exercise, but strangely enough the Soviets didn’t fly out with swarms of backfires to sink them!
Yet in this thread we’ve actually got posters claiming that since the Soviets didn’t send out aircraft to greet every carrier in peacetime in international waters, that is “proof” that those “carriers were tested against the best the Soviets had”!
So the Soviets shot down some aircraft that were inside their airspace and failed to respond, and “neutral” Swedish aircraft (thirty years earlier too). The US Navy also on occasion shot down aircraft such as Libyan fighters or an Iranian airliner that they deemed a threat. Oddly enough here though they weren’t shooting at the Soviet aircraft that were sent out, and the Soviets weren’t shooting at the US ships and aircraft… I wonder why…
So then, what are you suggesting?
Wilk:
What I am suggesting is that you have put forward a theory which, on the balance of probabilities, I do not find convincing. It is possible that the Soviets knew the Midway battle group was in their back yard, but chose to pretend they did not know, so as to confuse the Americans as to their true surveillance capabilities. However, based on their behaviour, it is unlikely. The USSR was a fiercely militarised society, and any state prepared to shoot down a civilian airliner which had strayed into its airspace seems, in my opinion, to have been unlikely to have been quite so sanguine about a carrier battle group operating so close to their homeland.
John KWilk:
Your argument re the Midway episode seems to be that the Soviets may have known the Midway battle group was there, but chose to appear not to know, so as to deceive the Americans as to their capabilities. Really?
Consider the history of incursions into Soviet airspace over the years. Korean Airlines flight KAL007 was shot down with all its passengers, merely for encroaching on Soviet airspace. I recall a Swedish Dakota was shot down over international waters in the Baltic with the loss of all on board. Over the years of the Cold War several US intelligence gathering flights were shot down, some in Soviet airspace, some not, again, with the loss of all on board. In short, the Soviets were not at all cool about incursions into or even encroachments upon their air or sea space, and showed the will to deal with such events using lethal force.
I am not suggesting that they would have attacked the Midway battle group in international waters, but the idea that they knew it was there, but cunningly failed to take any action does not seem to be in accord with the Soviet psyche displayed many times over. Your theory therefore seems implausible.
John KOr if the TSR2 was still axed, would the RAF have actually gotten F-111K?
The decision taken in 1966 concerned the cheapest way to provide British air power East of Suez: 50 F111Ks v 3 new fleet carriers. The F111K option won that battle, only to be cancelled when a financial crisis led to the East of Suez commitment being abandoned in 1968. In that context, even if CVA01 had been given the go ahead in 1966, it still might have been cancelled in 1968. However, that did not mean that the existing carrier force needed to be scrapped prematurely, just as the existing V bombers soldiered on until the 1980s. It was quite within the power of the incoming Conservative government in 1970 to have kept the then existing carriers, Eagle, Ark Royal and Hermes in commission during the 1970s, whilst beginning work on new carriers for the 1980s. They chose not to do this. Like the previous Labour government, they thought Britain was a declining power with no role in the world outside the NATO area, and thus no need to project power any further. People like John Nott still seem to believe this, judging by his comments.
John KI think TSR2 pushed it out of the British govt mindset that they were capable of developing their own first rate combat aircraft. When the Eurofighter came around I doubt the British could get a naval version developed, they lack the national ‘minerals’.
France was originally part of the Eurofighter consortium, and wanted to include a navalised version. However, they were on their own on this, and eventually pulled out and developed the Rafale. If both Britain and France had wanted a navalised Eurofighter, it would probably have gone ahead, and be flying off the Royal Navy’s carriers now, as well as France’s carrier.
John KWould CVA-01 thru 03 have been “Tom Catized”? :p
I very much doubt it. The Conservatiernment of 1970 could, if it had wished, have had two Phantom carriers in Eagle and Ark Royal, which I hope would have been followed by two new CVAs in the 1980s. When the Eurofighter was in the design stage, it would have made sense to navalise it from the start, much as France did with the Rafale (indeed, this might have kept France in the Eurofighter programme). The two CVF carriers would have been equipped with cats and traps from the start to accomodate a Eurofighter air group, and I somehow doubt we would be in the market for F35s, but you never know.
John KHer sale as a going concern in 1972/3 could pay for a chunk of CVA02, or some other FAA related expense.
I’m not sure if Hermes could have been sold for more than scrap value, the only customer suggested was Australia, but they had not long modified Melbourne, and felt Hermes was too big for them. Hermes was a modern ship in 1970, and is still in service with India to this day. Her air group was quite adequate in the 1970s, and in my opinion the Conservative government should have kept her in service as cover for Eagle and Ark Royal. Eagle should have been given a fairly short refit to Phantomise her, and Ark Royal a more extensive refit around 1973 to retube her boilers, which had not been done in her 1967-70 refit, as her service life was due to end in 1972; it was a miracle she kept going till 1978. I would much rather have spent £5 million to Phantomise the Eagle than £15 million to convert Hermes to an LPH.
John KI can’t see Hermes being Phantomised, but she would have provided useful cover during refits of Eagle or Ark Royal. She had an air group of 12 Sea Vixens and 7 Buccaneers, along with 4 Gannets and 5 Sea Kings, which frankly even as late as the Falklands War would have been a nice thing to have had on your side.
Sign In
