Why did the Royal Navy choose to convert the HMS Ark Royal to carry Phantoms instead of the HMS Eagle?
I read in Hobbs's book that the Ark Royal was in worse condition than the Eagle, so why not convert the better Eagle?
The the plan in February 1966 (when CVA.01 was cancelled) was to
"Phantomise" Ark Royal & Eagle and that both ships would serve until 1975. This plan was not altered by the 1967 decision to withdraw from
"East of Suez" in 1975. However, in 1968 it was decided to bring the withdrawal forward to the end of 1971 and retire Ark Royal & Eagle in 1972.
Eagle's refit was cancelled in 1968, which I suspect was because it was thought that
"Phantomising" a ship due to decommission in 1972 wasn't worth it. On the other hand Ark Royal's
"Phantomisation" refit was allowed to continue, although at this point she was only about a year into a refit which would take three years and cost six times more than the estimated cost of
"Phantomising" Eagle and under the new plan would only have operated Phantoms for two years (1970-72). However, in 1970 the new Heath Government reprieved Ark Royal and she served until the end of 1978 so she operated the Phantom for eight years instead of two.
I suspect that Eagle would have been reprieved in 1970 and served until 1978 too had she been
"Phantomised". Or Edward Heath & Lord Carrington would have decided to retire Ark Royal in 1972 (as planned by their predecessors) and keep Eagle in service until the end of 1978 because the she was in better material condition, had ADA and had a Type 984 radar. That is, provided that she avoided the grounding in Plymouth Sound which allegedly damaged her beyond repair.
