A lot of fascinating ideas and technical information from which I've learnt lots.
On following this topic, I've come to the conclusion that Britain, if it wished to stay in the carrier game seriously needed to abide by:
- Britain seriously needed to come to terms that it was no longer the big player it was Post WWII. In saying this, I guess it was fortunate enough to not have it's empire forcefully taken from it, but instead seeded to the U.S., for which it was a strong ally.
- As much as Britain tried to hold onto the notion that it was/still could be a world leader in aircraft research, development and manufacturing, it perhaps should have bitten it's pride and read the writing on the wall, that it was not in an economical place to continue, let alone afford to design and build specialised carrier-based aircraft for the shrunken Navy it had, let alone what it could actually operate efficiently and effectively.
So how about Britain actively sorts to bring its indisputable talent and expertise to the table with the U.S. and say - 'how about we actively participate in joint development and manufacturing of carrier-based aircraft with you?'
This way Britain could participate and have input into the formulation of U.S. Navy aircraft Specifications and Request for Proposals.
This way, instead of the British government (and tax payer) being hamstrunged with the ever pressing costs of updating or building new carriers, compounded by the cost of developing and fielding RN-centric carrier-based aircraft [deciding one or the other, but not both], the British/RN could considerate on building carriers specific to it's needs, while sharing the R&D and building risks of specialised carrier-based aircraft with the U.S./USN.
For example, the RN could possibly more readily influence size and weight perimeters of some given USN aircraft or at least incorpate a British derivative - lighter, less sophisticated, less internal fuel tankage, etc...
After all, the modification (or considerations of modifications] the British/RN had to contend with U.S. carrier-based aircraft (the McDonnell F-4 Phantom II and Vought F-8 Crusader for example) usually equated to substantial modifications, additional costs and reduction in capabilities.
So the British/RN get GE J79-powered F-4 Phantoms, possibly bigger-winged F-4L's? Or
GE J79-powered two-seat F-8 Crusaders (in an initial purchase anyway. Wheather Britain wants to develop a more capable Rolls-Royce Spey-powered derivative later to extend the feasibility of the F-8 as it's principle carrier-based fighter-bomber, might be considered - perhapes in coordination with the French.....);
Possibly a turboprop-powered Grumman E-1T Turbo Tracer for AEW;
Possibly turboprop-powered S-2T Turbo Tracker for ASW;
Maybe Britian convinces the USN to run with it's Blackburn Buccaneer instead of the Grumman A-6 Intruder.....;
Britain/RN participate in the VFAX/NACF to gain the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18A/B Hornet to replace its F-4L's;
Britain/RN still get their derivative of the Sikorsky/Westland Sea King helicopter;
Instead of participating in the EH-101, Britain/RN participate and adopts the Sikorsky SH-60B Seahawk program for it's carriers, but continues with their participation in the development and fielding of the smaller and lighter Lynx as it's principle Cruiser, Destroyer and Frigate based ASW helicopter.
This way, with the money saved in development and costly small numbered manufacturing of specialised carrier-based aircraft, Britain/RN could more readily afford to build and operate the likes of modern and capable CVA-01 carriers.....
Sorry, just my thoughts....
Regards
Pioneer