RN operating USN Super Carrier and nuclear powered escorts

[Volkodav]

Trying to think of a realistic alt history scenario that would see the RN operating either ex USN carriers, or buying new build US carriers. The only way I can see this happening is something very big happens in the late 60s or early 70s that reverses the decision to get out of fixed wing carrier operation but after it is too late to restart a UK design and build program.

The end point I desire is UK participation in the Nimitz class build, with an RN version of the Virginia Class CGN with Sea Dart and Mk8 4.5" guns to escort the two or three resulting CVNs. So what I need is a situation dire enough and urgent enough to see the UK buying US built ships, adapted to RN requirements, instead of going it alone, but not so urgent that the US would be unwilling or unable to help. It also needs to be a situation where the obvious, in fact the only realistic solution is the revitalisation of the RN FAA.

The rest of the RN would remain basically the same, i.e. Invincibles, Type 42, 21, 22 and 23, there is still Sea Dart and Sea Wolf, Lynx and Sea Skua, probably still Sea Harrier as well. The big difference is the carriers and their close escorts, paid for by a supplementary budget, justified by a specific threat or incident. Perhaps something to do with the Five Power Defence Arrangements, maybe Indonesia's Communist Coup succeeds and they become a Soviet Client State requiring the RN to maintain a carrier group East of Suez while still evolving and deploying the through deck cruisers in the Atlantic.

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated and while I know this is the stuff of fantasy and is pretty much inconceivable in reality, what I am looking for is ideas for a back story for an anglicised Virgina I am about to start bashing as we speak. For such a ship to exist it follows that the RN must have one or more CVNs for the type to escort and, while having sufficient time to adapt the design with UK systems, must not have had the time available to develop their own designs.

 

[_Del_]

Well, it's obviously going to be out there.

Maybe something similar to the Suez crisis involving a drawn out low-intensity conflict with Egyptian forces or factions that threatens or denies the Canal in 1979. Sadat's govt fails to survive the bread riots (or the later outreach to Israel in the late 70s). Maybe a civil war or revolution that denies the canal to the West either by policy or damage. New government reverses the movement of Egypt away from USSR and toward the West. UK and Israeli relations are strained (UK actually embargoed Israel in the early 80's over Lebanon). Israel retains the east bank, but refuses to allow UK to use Sinai facilites to retake canal zone for fear of igniting a larger conflict with neighbors (Syria, Jordan, etc).

Carter Administration has no political will to get directly involved militarily while the country is still fresh out of Vietnam. The timeline can line up with the Iranian revolution which is another wrinkle. You have the oil crisis of 79. Iran-Iraq war, and British embargo of Israel follow shortly for context.

Maybe Egypt gets lucky with a Romeo or Whisky class and sinks HMS Ark Royal in the Med (explains why RN does not just keep her in service). The canal is closed. The Oil crisis in 79 after the Iranian revolution compounded with a closure of the Suez sees the US agree to allow the RN to finish and commision the CVN 70 due to be completed in 1980.

(On the whole, in this chaotic scenario I think the US would probably just loan a CV that was recently or ready to be decomm'd after Vietnam and retain their Nimitz classes. Or just go clean up the mess themselves, but I tried)

 

[Volkodav]

Well, it's obviously going to be out there.

Maybe something similar to the Suez crisis involving a drawn out low-intensity conflict with Egyptian forces or factions that threatens or denies the Canal in 1979. Sadat's govt fails to survive the bread riots (or the later outreach to Israel in the late 70s). Maybe a civil war or revolution that denies the canal to the West either by policy or damage. New government reverses the movement of Egypt away from USSR and toward the West. UK and Israeli relations are strained (UK actually embargoed Israel in the early 80's over Lebanon). Israel retains the east bank, but refuses to allow UK to use Sinai facilites to retake canal zone for fear of igniting a larger conflict with neighbors (Syria, Jordan, etc).

Carter Administration has no political will to get directly involved militarily while the country is still fresh out of Vietnam. The timeline can line up with the Iranian revolution which is another wrinkle. You have the oil crisis of 79. Iran-Iraq war, and British embargo of Israel follow shortly for context.

Maybe Egypt gets lucky with a Romeo or Whisky class and sinks HMS Ark Royal in the Med (explains why RN does not just keep her in service). The canal is closed. The Oil crisis in 79 after the Iranian revolution compounded with a closure of the Suez sees the US agree to allow the RN to finish and commision the CVN 70 due to be completed in 1980.

(On the whole, in this chaotic scenario I think the US would probably just loan a CV that was recently or ready to be decomm'd after Vietnam and retain their Nimitz classes. Or just go clean up the mess themselves, but I tried)

Perhaps Franklin D Roosevelt could be upgraded and transferred as an interim, Eagle upgraded and retained and the first CVN replaces Ark in 78 -80 when she was pretty shagged. I know the equipment I want to see in RN service, what is missing is a believable scenario that would convince the UK government to not just increase funding but maybe reallocate it from the other services, i.e. the RAF and Army's worst nightmare. Whatever it is it would have to be a real shock, something survived but still present and necessary to counter into the 90s, something that even the "Mobile Global RAF" would have to admit they couldn't handle without carrier support.

My thinking is once the UK is out of the carrier design and build game in the late 60s, early 70s the option of a US built Nimitz derivative potentially becomes cheaper and timelier than a UK option, then once the CVN is on the way then a new, much more capable escort is needed, enter the mass produced DLGN/CGN 38 with UK systems.

To me the only way the RN stays in the carrier game is if the British Government determines they need to retain globally deployable, or at least able to maintain a presence east of Suez, i.e. the cost of not doing so is much higher than of doing so, otherwise no banana.

 

[zen]

What might drive a emergency build up forcing US CVN are events that signify the Soviets are gearing for takeover in say Iran.

 

[Volkodav]

What might drive a emergency build up forcing US CVN are events that signify the Soviets are gearing for takeover in say Iran.

Yes of course, the RNs carriers were the go to rapid response for the Gulf region, thankyou. Nothing like oil supply being threatened to open the coffers.

 

[Hood]

I can't think of a suitable scenario to come up with a plausible backstory.

I've toyed with a British-built Spruance and although slightly off-the-wall its a workable idea if you can set up enough a home production line at a suitable shipyard.
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6879&start=10#p155975

A Virginia and Nimitz programme is problematic given the totally different standards and regulations for damage control, messing, accommodation, structural elements, shipbuilding etc. Just adding the Sea Dart and 4.5in Mk8 isn't enough, you'd have to add ADAWS and host of other electronic equipment and your more or less rebuilding 70% of the ship. Even the reactors are tricky, do you go for letting Rolls-Royce licence-build the US plants or try and come up with something home-grown?

The major problem is infrastructure, I don't think there is a dry dock big enough in the UK to get a Nimitz into. CVA-01 was limited to about three docks (a fourth was big enough but the approach to get in and out of it was impossible). Also there is no nuclear refuelling/ maintenance section outside of Scotland to support the SSBN fleet other than the refuelling facility at Chatham. So unless the US is going to splash serious amounts of cash on building Britain's infrastructure I don't see it happening. Just giving the UK some ships is cool but its not practical (saying that offering a knackered Essex in 1982 would be implausible but it happened!). A Virginia & Nimitz programme would probably suck all resources from Invincible and Type 42 and possibly even Type 22 too.

So I can't come up with a plausible scenario, despite the coolness of this as a wild AU idea. I'm not against wild AU ideas as stand-alones but when you try to tie them into plausible real-world elements these things tend to look messy.
Good luck with the kitbashing of the Virginia though, certainly an interesting idea.

 

[Volkodav]

What I was considering was an urgent operational requirement that would lead to the UK buying minimum change Nimitz and Virginias from American yards. A once only to replace the existing carrier force with in production US designs in the late 70s and early 80s when Eagle and Ark would be worn out but this urgent requirement sees the UK needed to sustain a conventional carrier presence East of Suez for the foreseeable future, i.e. the 30 year plus life of the carriers and their escorts.

NATO obligations would ensure the existing fleet is maintained, perhaps even enhanced (once sea mindedness took hold in parliament), i.e. five or six through deck cruisers or Escort Cruisers and perhaps even Type 43 keeping UK industry busy.

The air groups could be a mix of US and European, originally Phantoms, Buccaneers and Gannets, but with the size of the ships they would likely reintroduce fixed wing ASW, likely Viking but maybe with UK avionics and I could see a navalised Tornado replacing Buccaneer. When the Phantoms reach their use by date, how about a Spey powered F-14? There could be a significant offset deal to sweeten the construction of three super carriers and three to twelve cruisers in the US, maybe the USN buys Tornados as an A-6 replacement, adopts Skua for the Seahawk and buys Merlin instead of developing the SH-60F Oceanhawk, maybe Merlin could sneak in as a CH-46 replacement and I have always liked the idea of an evolved Seaharrier instead of the F/A2 and the AV-8B Plus.

Anyway that's off on a tangent, my thinking is as the ships are built in the US to reduce acquisition costs and service entry delay, they would be limited in what the US (or the Exchequer) would be willing to change. Hence my thinking it would be limited primarily to combat system items, radars, guns, missiles and launchers, if possible the core combat management system. The Nimitz changes may be limited to the replacement of Sea Sparrow with Seawolf but possibly it could include CMS, radars and maybe a switch to Goalkeeper for such a critical platform. The Virginias on the other hand I could see evolving into a hybrid of the original DLGN-38 configuration and the cancelled CGN-42 follow on, i.e. missile launchers and guns transposed (Sea Dart installed in a raised structure immediately fore and aft the superstructure) and helicopter facilities moved from the fantail to the aft third of the superstructure. If there are only three Virginias they would likely be minimum change, if there were six I could see a greater level of Anglicisation and if there were nine to twelve I imagine there would be multiple batches evolving as they go and possibly even seeing a UK built batch in the late 80s that is basically a nuclear powered hull under a Type 43.

When these ships finally come due for replacement I could see a joint RN USN program to develop the Ford Class, maybe even including block work in the UK and transported to the US for consolidation, in particular the island and block containing command and control functions.

 

[Thorvic]

The major problem is infrastructure, I don't think there is a dry dock big enough in the UK to get a Nimitz into. CVA-01 was limited to about three docks (a fourth was big enough but the approach to get in and out of it was impossible). Also there is no nuclear refuelling/ maintenance section outside of Scotland to support the SSBN fleet other than the refuelling facility at Chatham. So unless the US is going to splash serious amounts of cash on building Britain's infrastructure I don't see it happening. Just giving the UK some ships is cool but its not practical (saying that offering a knackered Essex in 1982 would be implausible but it happened!).

The Shangri-La was offered in the sixties when the CVA-01 future looked suspect. The offer in 1982 was actually for an LPH of the Iwo Jima class as they were nearest to the mark as a Harrier Carrier.

 

[Thorvic]

As has been mentioned before the UK just doesn't have the capacity to dock a USN Supercarrier let alone operate one (Although now wondering if the new CVF mooring in Portsmouth is capable of accommodating a US CVN where two CVFs can dock ? ).

The only plausible option would be in the early 70's the UK government changed its mind regarding fixed wing carriers and possibly signed up with the US to develop the CVV medium carrier design as something we could possibly accommodate and operate.

 

[kaiserd]

I can't think of a suitable scenario to come up with a plausible backstory.

I've toyed with a British-built Spruance and although slightly off-the-wall its a workable idea if you can set up enough a home production line at a suitable shipyard.
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6879&start=10#p155975

A Virginia and Nimitz programme is problematic given the totally different standards and regulations for damage control, messing, accommodation, structural elements, shipbuilding etc. Just adding the Sea Dart and 4.5in Mk8 isn't enough, you'd have to add ADAWS and host of other electronic equipment and your more or less rebuilding 70% of the ship. Even the reactors are tricky, do you go for letting Rolls-Royce licence-build the US plants or try and come up with something home-grown?

The major problem is infrastructure, I don't think there is a dry dock big enough in the UK to get a Nimitz into. CVA-01 was limited to about three docks (a fourth was big enough but the approach to get in and out of it was impossible). Also there is no nuclear refuelling/ maintenance section outside of Scotland to support the SSBN fleet other than the refuelling facility at Chatham. So unless the US is going to splash serious amounts of cash on building Britain's infrastructure I don't see it happening. Just giving the UK some ships is cool but its not practical (saying that offering a knackered Essex in 1982 would be implausible but it happened!). A Virginia & Nimitz programme would probably suck all resources from Invincible and Type 42 and possibly even Type 22 too.

So I can't come up with a plausible scenario, despite the coolness of this as a wild AU idea. I'm not against wild AU ideas as stand-alones but when you try to tie them into plausible real-world elements these things tend to look messy.
Good luck with the kitbashing of the Virginia though, certainly an interesting idea.

Similarly while trying not to be a misery-guts I just can't see any at all remotely realistic scenario where this could have happened.
Even allowing for US subsidisation of purchase and infrastructure costs it would have also subsidised the day to day running costs (potentially includeing salaries of the relavant sailors and airmen).
All in all just a bit too far fetched for serious discussion.

 

[Volkodav]

While I agree the idea is far fetched and hideously expensive I have to wonder how its though life costs would compare to an indigenous conventional medium carrier program, which would be about the only other way the UK could stay in the fixed wing carrier game.

Another thought is a joint Anglo French medium carrier program, or alternatively a later UK indigenous one, following the acquisition of a single Nimitz plus escorts in the late 70s, early 80s. My thinking is if the UK found they needed to reverse their carrier decision in the late 60s, early 70s, it would have been too late to restart CVA01, Eagle and Ark would have been past sustaining until a new replacement program could deliver, the Clemenceau's and Kittyhawks would be out of production, maybe, just maybe a JFK could be ordered, but otherwise Nimitz is literally the only option for a timely new build.

Infrastructure is an issue but not really that major as it can be upgraded and could be worthwhile as it would then be available for use by the USN as required. I have worked on projects where people these days claim the limiting factor was infrastructure and it was impossible to upgrade it because A,B,C, when not only have I seen old supposedly impossible facilities upgraded, I know very well that it was always planned, and the original work on the new or upgraded infrastructure was done in such a way to facilitate upgrade and expansion, often using extensive prefabrication to reduce facility down time. I am nowhere near as familiar with site in the UK but some of the work done in Australia, and even more so some of the plans never executed show what can be done.

The idea is fanciful but the more I thought about it the more I realised that if retaining a fixed wing carrier capability beyond the 1980s became a "must" for the UK around 1970, then the only way would be to buy a new, or near new ship from the US. In reality this would kill the idea stone dead, no matter what the need, i.e. look at the lessons learned just after SDSR retired the carrier strike capability and the joint Harrier Force, or that capabilities used in Libya had also been slated for retirement, the UK has a track record of going ahead with most capability cuts, no matter the circumstances and rarely if ever reverses direction and invests in improved capability.

 

[Grey Havoc]

For discussion purposes, here's a few possible carrier designs from the late 1970s and early 1980s:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,11052.msg104107.html#msg104107

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3727.0.html

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,16236.0.html
(The Protean could be scaled up, at least in theory.)

EDIT: I should have said possible carrier designs with regards as to a 'indigenous conventional medium carrier program'.

 

[zen]

The obvious nuclear option from the 70's and 80's is surely the French PA75?

 

[Grey Havoc]

The obvious nuclear option from the 70's and 80's is surely the French PA75?

The problem with that is that Anglo-Franco collaborations were going through something of a rough patch during that period.

 

[zen]

The obvious nuclear option from the 70's and 80's is surely the French PA75?

The problem with that is that Anglo-Franco collaborations were going through something of a rough patch during that period.

But perhaps that is a pathway for this outcome (CVN albeit mini-CVN) to become possible?
In fact if one ponders this, alongside things like Mirage G, System C (System B being Sea Wolf) etc....then Anglo-French CVN seems quite plausible.

 

[royabulgaf]

Here is the problem: Your scenario envisions the RN needing a large carrier rather quickly, and the UK somehow convinces the US to sell them one. This is at the height of the Cold War and the VietNam War. The supercarriers have a long build time, and the UK would be doing good to get one in 4-5 years. This, plus the lack of suitable facilities to handle it, as mentioned above. The US Oriskany class was still in service, but as I understand it they could not handle Phantoms, which nixes them for the UK. However, three Midways are still around. They could handle Phantoms, but not the new F-14s and S-3s. They were old, but still had plenty of life in them. In fact, the Midway and Coral Sea remained in service until the 90s. I thin they would be the only choice assuming short notice. Perhaps a deal to sell one to the UK for a token sum in return for buying American aircraft and doing as much refit as was reasonably possible in the US.

 

[zen]

Had the USN had the CVV type then this being produce able in other yards would permit the possible sale of one to the RN.

 

[Volkodav]

Here is the problem: Your scenario envisions the RN needing a large carrier rather quickly, and the UK somehow convinces the US to sell them one. This is at the height of the Cold War and the VietNam War. The supercarriers have a long build time, and the UK would be doing good to get one in 4-5 years. This, plus the lack of suitable facilities to handle it, as mentioned above. The US Oriskany class was still in service, but as I understand it they could not handle Phantoms, which nixes them for the UK. However, three Midways are still around. They could handle Phantoms, but not the new F-14s and S-3s. They were old, but still had plenty of life in them. In fact, the Midway and Coral Sea remained in service until the 90s. I thin they would be the only choice assuming short notice. Perhaps a deal to sell one to the UK for a token sum in return for buying American aircraft and doing as much refit as was reasonably possible in the US.

The time line I was looking at was several years after the cancellation of CVA01, i.e. the late 60s or very early 70s, when Eagle, Ark Royal, Hermes and possibly Victorious were still in service, none of which were expected to be able to see out the 70s, but there was no new carrier building and the existing CVA01 design had been recognised as flawed and compromised (mostly by political limitations), meaning a new design would be needed to keep the RN in the carrier game after the late 70s. This means there is enough time to build an existing design and upgrade infrastructure to support a new ship of Forrestal size, but not enough time to design, then build a new ship.

Assuming the baseline capability was three carriers able to operate Phantoms and Buccaneers then, irrespective of whether Victorious and Hermes were still available or not, the RN would still need one new carrier by the early 70s and another by the late 70s and a third by the early 80s. Acquiring FDR and upgrading her to the same standard as Midway and Coral Sea, to replace Vic and Hermes would mean a new build carrier wouldn't be needed until the late 70s, still too soon for a new design to be ready. So the solution buy FDR and upgrade her in the US, upgrade Ark, then Eagle in the UK, retire / sell Vic and Hermes as CTOL carriers, while ordering a Nimitz in 1970 for delivery in 1979 to replace Ark. A second one could be ordered in the mid 70s for delivery in the mid 80s to replace Eagle and a third in the mid 80s to replace FDR in the mid 90s.

Initially I was thinking along the lines of an Anglo French CVN, or even a modernised CVA01 but the timing just didn't work out and the costs likely would have exceeded those of a US build at Newport News, slotting in between the builds for the USN. Besides, the 53,000 ton limit was a political one, the RN always wanted a Forrestal sized ship to its growth potential and ability to operate and USN carrier aircraft type, it would also make it easier to design, or adapt UK aircraft designs for carrier operations.

Maybe a way to get the RAF on board would be to literally get them on board with their Phantoms retaining carrier compatibility to provide a surge capability when required. there could possibly be a (highly inefficient) political compromise where the FAA has Fleet air defence, maritime strike and ASW, while all land attack and interdiction missions are the domain of the RAF flying their own Buccaneers, then Tornados, Jaguars and Harriers from the carriers as required by operational deployments. Maybe the RN could even magnanimously allow their own Buccaneers to be transferred to the new RAF maritime command and look after the maritime strike role as well.