The RN made a fundamental mistake in basing its arguments for a carrier force on "East of Suez" rather than contributing to NATO's Atlantic Striking Fleet.
CVA01 and Ark/Eagle become defensible as a two carrier force.
The RN was never going to get two CVA new builds unless it stretched procurement over two decades. CVA01 should have entered service in 1972 with CVA02 following in 1982.
But things in 1963 looked very different and East of Suez was still seen as essential.
Maybe they could have included the contributions to NATO's Atlantic Striking Fleet in their arguments as well as East of Suez? Kinda requires someone asking "what if those idiots in charge abandon East of Suez" and planning around that, though.
 
Maybe they could have included the contributions to NATO's Atlantic Striking Fleet in their arguments as well as East of Suez? Kinda requires someone asking "what if those idiots in charge abandon East of Suez" and planning around that, though.

They did! The reason that Centaur was refitted in 1958 was because the RN couldn't cover EoS and NATO with only the Ark, Vic and Hermes while the Eagle was rebuilt.

The difference is the nature of the service. The NATO one was pretty easy, crises with the Soviet Union were not very common so this carrier would do the round of scheduled NATO exercises, with the ship regularly being home on the weekend, Christmas and the like.

In contrast EoS was where the Cold War was being fought. There were often crises like Iraq-Kuwait in 1961, Aden rebellion in 1963, Brunei revolt 1963, Tanganyikan mutiny and Beria Patrol 1964. Then there's the Indonesian Confrontation when the RN was on a war footing for 2 whole years during a low level shooting war where the RAF conducted airstrikes on 3 occasions. This was far more important and intense than the 'showing the flag' or 'colonial policing' as it's often portrayed here.

If the RN emphasised the EoS role for its carriers over the NATO role it was emphasising the difficult and immediate war fighting role over the easier deterrence role.
 
The F8 is the only option in a scenario where the Hermes is the centrepiece of the RN conventional carrier fleet. However the Eagle was rebuilt and Ark refitted so the F4 becomes an option, and its a better plane. Someone said earlier in the thread that the F8 is a backup choice for those (like France) can't get a better fighter. This is correct and the RN with Eagle, Ark and CVA01 was right to choose the F4 over the F8.
oh this has been discussed in detail on here but it boils down to by picking the absolutely excellent F-4 the RN is now saddled with only 2 hulls capable of operating them in sufficient numbers to be useful; both of which are reliant on a partially DC electrical system parts for which are limited at best or bordering on extinct at worst: Some had not been made since the 40s.

Hermes and Victorious are small but completely modern vessels in terms of sourcing replacement parts for all systems. They could operate after 1978 when Ark even if they wanted to carry her forward was out of replacement parts for the DC electrical and Eagle had been stripped bare to keep her going as is.

The decision is not as easy as it first looks
 
oh this has been discussed in detail on here but it boils down to by picking the absolutely excellent F-4 the RN is now saddled with only 2 hulls capable of operating them in sufficient numbers to be useful; both of which are reliant on a partially DC electrical system parts for which are limited at best or bordering on extinct at worst: Some had not been made since the 40s.

Hermes and Victorious are small but completely modern vessels in terms of sourcing replacement parts for all systems. They could operate after 1978 when Ark even if they wanted to carry her forward was out of replacement parts for the DC electrical and Eagle had been stripped bare to keep her going as is.

The decision is not as easy as it first looks

When the decision was made in 1964 the RN was looking to build 2 CVA01s and the Victorious was expected to last until the first of these was to be delivered in 1973. The plan was that by the time the fighter (f4 or F8) was delivered in 1968 the Vic had only 5 years left in her, the CVA01 was to have been under construction for 2 years, the Ark was in refit for the new fighter for a year and the Eagle was to have a quick refit if the fighter was the F4.

Defence planners have to predict the future, and in mid 1964 the future was looking pretty good for the RN, certainly too good to select the 2nd best fighter because 1/4 of the carriers in 1973 would be too small and that ship could be gone by 1975. The reason the F8 for the RN gets the love is because we know about the train wreck that happened in 1966-68 and the F8 looks like a good bet to get the RN through that.
 
In retrospect Mountbatten should have kept out of TSR2 and generated a feud which the RAF handled brilliantly and the RN handled clumsily.
In saying this is important to remember that British politicians have a short attention span. So the vision of RAF planes dashing round the world in days rather than the weeks needed for a naval group was easy to grasp...The impact of the months required to mount the Suez operation had not been forgotten.
It came down to RAF aircraft which all had NATO roles carefully costed and argued to the bizarre combination of two old carriers, a newer one that couldnt carry F4, and CVA01 which even its designers were sceptical of.
Besidea the RN had Polaris and the new Hunter Killer subs both much less vulnerable than carriers. Images of WW2 RN carriers sinking were still fresh in many politicians' minds.
Arguably both the RAF and RN came out of the mid 60s a lot wiser and more focussed
 
When the decision was made in 1964 the RN was looking to build 2 CVA01s and the Victorious was expected to last until the first of these was to be delivered in 1973. The plan was that by the time the fighter (f4 or F8) was delivered in 1968 the Vic had only 5 years left in her, the CVA01 was to have been under construction for 2 years, the Ark was in refit for the new fighter for a year and the Eagle was to have a quick refit if the fighter was the F4.

Defence planners have to predict the future, and in mid 1964 the future was looking pretty good for the RN, certainly too good to select the 2nd best fighter because 1/4 of the carriers in 1973 would be too small and that ship could be gone by 1975. The reason the F8 for the RN gets the love is because we know about the train wreck that happened in 1966-68 and the F8 looks like a good bet to get the RN through that.
There may be some of that at play but it can also be argued in good faith and with some supporting evidence, that there was some wishful optimism going on in '64 and perhaps as far back as '59 when the rebuild plan on Eagle was signed off on.

Even with that rosy optimism in '64 the decision to write off two vessels with 20-25 year hull lives which the nation recently spent around 60 million pound sterling on when they were 4-5 years old is PROFOUNDLY wasteful of resources... food rationing ended in '54! Politics IS a thing and this allows the RAF to paint the service as not super cool dudes in the eyes of people who only a few short years back were rationed to one egg per week.

The RN was swimming with sharks wearing their luck ham and eau de la Chum perfume...
 
In retrospect Mountbatten should have kept out of TSR2 and generated a feud which the RAF handled brilliantly and the RN handled clumsily.
In saying this is important to remember that British politicians have a short attention span

It always comes back to a handful of decision makers or otherwise key people, I think this is why the British discussions are so common. Every decision seems to be a toss of the coin, with plenty of factors for and against any option. This led to all sorts of political interference, spin and even outright lies.

Funnily enough I've been looking at the history of British nuclear reactors and the same thing happened there.
 
There may be some of that at play but it can also be argued in good faith and with some supporting evidence, that there was some wishful optimism going on in '64 and perhaps as far back as '59 when the rebuild plan on Eagle was signed off on.

Even with that rosy optimism in '64 the decision to write off two vessels with 20-25 year hull lives which the nation recently spent around 60 million pound sterling on when they were 4-5 years old is PROFOUNDLY wasteful of resources... food rationing ended in '54! Politics IS a thing and this allows the RAF to paint the service as not super cool dudes in the eyes of people who only a few short years back were rationed to one egg per week.

The RN was swimming with sharks wearing their luck ham and eau de la Chum perfume...

Rosy optimism on the part of whom? These decisions are made at the highest level, Cabinet Ministers including PM, Navy/Defence, Foreign Office and Treasury. The Navy itself does as the Government of the day asks, optimistic or not.



As for hull life, that wasn’t a major driver of ship life in the era of steam. The biggest driver of ship life were the long and expensive re-lining of the boiler fireboxes with new firebricks/tiles, every time this happened it was a decision point to keep or dispose of the ship. The initial set of firebricks/tiles would last about 12-15 years and the first relining would last about 6-7 years, subsequent relinings were at shorter and shorter intervals. 12-15 years on Victorious’ initial firebricks/tiles gets her to about 1970-73, at which point the RN has to decide if it wants to take the ship out of service for a year and spend millions to get another ~6-7 years out of her pre-WW2 hull parts. This was all known in 1964 when planning the new Fighter and Carrier.

People who were on 1 egg a week could legitimately be dirty on a government that scrapped a carrier for a minor fire during refit when it had 5 of 15 years of life left in its boilers. Similarly they could be dirty that Eagle was retired with 8 of 15 years left in her boilers.
 
In 1966 the Soviet Navy had yet to emerge as a serious surface force. But its early sleek looking Kyndas and Krestas were contrasted by critics of the RN with the question "Why does Russia not have aircraft carriers?".
Added to this the Britain of the 1960s was engaged in a rapid withdrawal from Empire. While the confrontation with Indonesia ended well the misery of Aden and the inability to bring Rhodesia to heel reinforced the Post Suez desire to bring the legions home.
Within the RN the submarine service took full advantage of the carrier debate. To its credit the RN moved quickly to design a.navy that matched the Soviet threat in the North Atlantic.
Cannibalising Eagle kept Ark in service until 1979. Hermes became a Commando/ASW ship.
CVA01 like Invincible would have taken much longer to build and get into service than planned. 1976 rather than 1972 seems likely. It is hard to see CVA02 being in service before 1984.
 
In 1966 the Soviet Navy had yet to emerge as a serious surface force. But its early sleek looking Kyndas and Krestas were contrasted by critics of the RN with the question "Why does Russia not have aircraft carriers?".
Added to this the Britain of the 1960s was engaged in a rapid withdrawal from Empire. While the confrontation with Indonesia ended well the misery of Aden and the inability to bring Rhodesia to heel reinforced the Post Suez desire to bring the legions home.
Within the RN the submarine service took full advantage of the carrier debate. To its credit the RN moved quickly to design a.navy that matched the Soviet threat in the North Atlantic.
Cannibalising Eagle kept Ark in service until 1979. Hermes became a Commando/ASW ship.
CVA01 like Invincible would have taken much longer to build and get into service than planned. 1976 rather than 1972 seems likely. It is hard to see CVA02 being in service before 1984.
I had a thought about Phantom and delaying purchase until after CVA01 was in hand that this answers... if it would likely take that long then replacing the J-79 with RB199 would be doable. Should easily fit and wouldn't require inlet changes while giving 20% better SFC at about the same thrust.
 
I had a thought about Phantom and delaying purchase until after CVA01 was in hand that this answers... if it would likely take that long then replacing the J-79 with RB199 would be doable. Should easily fit and wouldn't require inlet changes while giving 20% better SFC at about the same thrust.

By January 1966 some 3.5 million had been spent on ordering long lead items for CVA01. It seemed that CVA01 was on the verge of being ordered in 1965. This is why it's all so tragic.
 
Given the state of British shipbuilding in the 1960s I still dont see CVA01 commissioning before 1975.
By this time Ark/Eagle would have revealed how costly and difficult it was to keep in service.
The mid 70s were perhaps the nadir of UK economic fortunes and political incompetence.
Without the 1966 Fleet Working Party hard decisions on escort ships the RN might have had 4 T82, 8 Countys and a mainly Type 12 frigate force. Assuming Polaris succeeded as in our timeline the SSN force would also have been hit by the need to fund CVA01 and its air wing.
Assuming a Labour government does a Defence Review it would be faced with a choice between a One Carrier fleet and the S class Hunterkillers.
Australia might have been offered CVA01 or worse still, plagued with mechanical and electrical problems she might have been scrapped.
 
I had a thought about Phantom and delaying purchase until after CVA01 was in hand that this answers... if it would likely take that long then replacing the J-79 with RB199 would be doable. Should easily fit and wouldn't require inlet changes while giving 20% better SFC at about the same thrust.

That's the beauty of the second generation, smaller turbofans: RB.199, F404: smaller and lighter than Spey and TF30. Just compact enough to roll in place of Atar, Avon and J79 in the first generation Mach 2 fighters. Except the timing is all wrong: the aircraft are obsoletes and the turbofans are too late.
A real missed opportunity related to the earlier generation of "compact turbofans" : J101 and RB.153 / RB.172 / M45. Imagine a scaled up F-5 with them (hello, F-20 except 15 years earlier) or the F-104 / F-4 / Mirage upgraded with these engines. For example a Mirage IVA with a pair of M45.
There were a few interesting projects using these turbofans: HS.1173, P.141. Also the P.530 Cobra, the first iteration on the way to the Hornet.
 
Last edited:
Given the state of British shipbuilding in the 1960s I still dont see CVA01 commissioning before 1975.
By this time Ark/Eagle would have revealed how costly and difficult it was to keep in service.
The mid 70s were perhaps the nadir of UK economic fortunes and political incompetence.
Without the 1966 Fleet Working Party hard decisions on escort ships the RN might have had 4 T82, 8 Countys and a mainly Type 12 frigate force. Assuming Polaris succeeded as in our timeline the SSN force would also have been hit by the need to fund CVA01 and its air wing.
Assuming a Labour government does a Defence Review it would be faced with a choice between a One Carrier fleet and the S class Hunterkillers.
Australia might have been offered CVA01 or worse still, plagued with mechanical and electrical problems she might have been scrapped.

Britain built 3 the I class, funded the development and production of the Sea Harrier and built some 14 Type 42s and formed the RAF TASMO in the 70s. The cancellation of CVA01s and most of the Type 82s was not some free good that freed up a bunch of money for other stuff.
 
My point is that the Invincibles, T42 and T22, Seakings, Nimrods and Lynx were essential to NATO and the UK while the CVA01 and T82s were not.
I am afraid between 1966 and 1991 there is no way round this one.
It is ironic that history has repeated itself. The RN has got two carriers, again of controversial design and performance, for expeditionary warfare just as the threat from Russian submarines demands a 2026 Fleet Working paper.
 
but back to the threads point... Yes the twosader would work and be a great hedge against politicians that can get flakier than pie crust.

I would a FULL rebuild on Eagle to double hedge: New higher pressure boilers also give you more options in getting a future Phantom off the deck.

Zen would know better what yard would be big enough to handle possibly putting a hull plug in as has been brought up... I suspect Belfast' Harland and Wolf might be the only one but am in noway as well versed as Zen. A full rebuild with a 66 foot plug forward gets you pretty close to a minimum Phantom carrier without huge mods to the Phantom. I would still get the F-8 (or SuperTiger to stay true too form for me), it doesn't do any long term harm in maintaining carrier numbers up until I have a CVA1 IN HAND. Then I have 2 hulls Phantom capable and 2 that can go Harrier.
 
Where does the P.1154 (and HS.681) fit into this?

If the RAF has no need for the P.1154/HS.681-NBMR3/NBMR4 because of earlier procurement/fleet management decisions what is the RN doing about it's Sea Vixen replacement? I imagine the same development cost vs production numbers problems occur with a domestic naval fighter but the schedules might be different.
 
Hmmm....I cannot claim great knowledge, just the possession of a few books and a sometimes effective memory.

On F8 it all depends when.
If we assume the early option, this gets disrupted by Suez in '56, but resolves by 1958. Possibly with RR Avons supplanting AS Sapphires.
Possibly trials on Victorious.

This could cut short Sea Vixen production and see UK firms piling in on F8U-III.

RR might justify funding RB.106 to fruition as a drop in replacement for Avon or Sapphire on F8.

Next up is the F8U-III itself, and this could potentially solve NA.47 making F.177 a non-starter for the RN. This would then shape minimum CVA-01 planning.

Thirdly F8 Twosader with Spey to AW.406 and likely chosen by 1963.

Edited additional
In any such case the RN wouldn't be in the market for P.1154, freeing the RAF yo stubbornly pursue this.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm....I cannot claim great knowledge, just the possession of a few books and a sometimes effective memory.

On F8 it all depends when.
If we assume the early option, this gets disrupted by Suez in '56, but resolves by 1958. Possibly with RR Avons supplanting AS Sapphires.
Possibly trials on Victorious.

This could cut short Sea Vixen production and see UK firms piling in on F8U-III.

RR might justify funding RB.106 to fruition as a drop in replacement for Avon or Sapphire on F8.

Next up is the F8U-III itself, and this could potentially solve NA.47 making F.177 a non-starter for the RN. This would then shape minimum CVA-01 planning.

Thirdly F8 Twosader with Spey to AW.406 and likely chosen by 1963.

Edited additional
In any such case the RN wouldn't be in the market for P.1154, freeing the RAF yo stubbornly pursue this.
Had not thought about F8U-III.... interesting alternate where RN uses it but USN uses regular F8. Just don't know if it could be made to fit down the lifts.
 
NA.47 making F.177 a non-starter for the RN. This would then shape minimum CVA-01 planning.

I'd forgotten the SR.177, being cancelled on Christmas Eve 1958. 1959 would be the perfect time for the RN to pick up some F8s to over the supersonic DLI role, call it 'interim' so they have a long and successful life. However this still leaves the Sea Vixen needing replacement in the late 60s and likely if the F8 was adopted to cover NA.47 in the 50s this would be replaced by the same aircraft.

In any case even if the F8 was a key capability in the fleet in the early 60s the logic of he biggest carriers possible is impossible to escape, having a medium sized fighter available doesn't change that, CVA01 will be big.
 
F8 solves in the interim the DLI need and does so from the mid-50's.
French AN might join this earlier under these circumstances.

But F8 Twosader solves the 1963 Soviet Anti-ship Missile threat....without having to fund F4s with modifications for RN short carriers.....it puts off the hard decisions....
Next generation carries UK AI.24 (not Foxhunter) for 1970's.

F8U-III might progress if Vought already has F8 licensing deal.....

F8 with RB.106 Thames might obviate need for F8U-III........opening potential USN 'upgrade' to F8 fleet as US license for the engine was expected.....this all well before 1965.

CVA-01 might indeed still become what it did.
But airwing costs could now be spread over a wider period. Essentially F8 is either paid for or being paid for ahead of CVA-01 funding.
 
France hit the sweet spot with Foch and Clemenceau. It used them in a variety of roles for years with the F8/Etendard combo or various French helicopters.
But unlike the UK France had a clear sighted relationship with NATO and a determined overseas presence which survived the Cold War.
The SR177 debacle did not prevent the UK trying to do another joint RAF/RN fighter first with P1154 and then briefly with AFVG.
When F4 showed it could be done well it became the obvious solution.
Had a Vought Crusader variant (or that other favourite of many here the Supertiger) found a home like F4 with both USN and USAF it would have dislodged the F4.
Javelin and Sea Vixen should have been retiring in 1962 in favour of a two seat all weather interceptor with at least four AAM but the SR177 was not that plane and the various drawing board alternatives stayed on the boards.
Lightning was one reason for this. It was just good enough for the RAF to defend airbases in UK and elsewhere but no more.
 
France hit the sweet spot with Foch and Clemenceau.
I think it’s widely acknowledged that they were just a little too small, especially the catapult length limitations.

A slightly longer Clemenceau was probably the real sweet spot. Basically PA58 Verdun.

The key was to build the carrier around the longer C11 catapults (211ft shuttle run, 225ft track length) which were ordered by the USN but actually British designed and initially manufactured in the UK. These entered service in 1954 aboard the Essex class and 1955 aboard the Forrestal class and were the minimum length required to operate planned USN jets.
 
Last edited:
I'd forgotten the SR.177, being cancelled on Christmas Eve 1958. 1959 would be the perfect time for the RN to pick up some F8s to over the supersonic DLI role, call it 'interim' so they have a long and successful life. However this still leaves the Sea Vixen needing replacement in the late 60s and likely if the F8 was adopted to cover NA.47 in the 50s this would be replaced by the same aircraft.

In any case even if the F8 was a key capability in the fleet in the early 60s the logic of he biggest carriers possible is impossible to escape, having a medium sized fighter available doesn't change that, CVA01 will be big.

If the RN orders them in 1959 they will be F8U-2s (F-8C) with a minimal "all-weather" capability (the AN/APS-67 of the F8U-1E [F-8B], which was replaced in the early 1960s by the larger AN/APQ-83 of the F8U-2N [F-8D, first flight 1960]). Even with the AN/APQ-83, the nose was still smaller in diameter than the F-8E's nose with its AN/APQ-94.
 
Not to mention that the USN had selected the F4 over it.
well they did want to have both but congress had other ideas. I have used that restriction on having a single type of all weather, one day, and one general purpose type as part of a pitch for the F-11 before... possible anti-trust implications for Grumman gets in the way though(and it ANNOYS me mightily).
 
Last edited:
t
If the RN orders them in 1959 they will be F8U-2s (F-8C) with a minimal "all-weather" capability (the AN/APS-67 of the F8U-1E [F-8B], which was replaced in the early 1960s by the larger AN/APQ-83 of the F8U-2N [F-8D, first flight 1960]). Even with the AN/APQ-83, the nose was still smaller in diameter than the F-8E's nose with its AN/APQ-94.
I think that they would want to use the AI.23 here. If they could also fit AIRPASS that would make it quite interesting
 
If the RN orders them in 1959 they will be F8U-2s (F-8C) with a minimal "all-weather" capability (the AN/APS-67 of the F8U-1E [F-8B], which was replaced in the early 1960s by the larger AN/APQ-83 of the F8U-2N [F-8D, first flight 1960]). Even with the AN/APQ-83, the nose was still smaller in diameter than the F-8E's nose with its AN/APQ-94.

The Sea Vixen would provide the all weather capability.
 
Sea Vixen FAW2 with four Red Tops only seems poor if you have the F4. Otherwise it is not too bad by UK standards (better than the Javelin FAW9).
It is of course no dogfighter but RN carriers were not expected to operate within the range of shore based Migs.
Against Bears and Badgers a Sea Vixen FAW2 was more use than a Sea Harrier FRS1 with two Sidewinders.
Hermes 1968 with its airgroup would have been a lot more useful in the Falklands than the 1982 ship.
 
I'm pretty sure only Ark Royal and Eagle have the capacity to run both Sea Vixens and Crusaders.

I have a vague recollection that SR177 and Sea Vixens would be carried in small sqns of like 8 rather than full sqns of 12. F8 would have a smaller SAC than Sea Vixen, to fit more in?
 
I have a vague recollection that SR177 and Sea Vixens would be carried in small sqns of like 8 rather than full sqns of 12. F8 would have a smaller SAC than Sea Vixen, to fit more in?
Victorious was set up to operate SR177 and Sea Vixen, I posted in another thread the projected air group and it came out to 40 AC... I just don't remember which was an 8 and which was a 10/12 unit squadron.
 
I had a thought... how many ADENS were they planning on putting in the 2sader? Reason I ask is the Italian F-104S that carried Sparrow removed the M-61 to make room for the electronics needed for it coupled with the radar in the nose.

might be able to do the same on the F-8 by removing 2 Adens...
 
The reason for the F4 is the combination of radar and Sparrows needed to tackle Blinders and Shaddocks. F8 does not solve this problem any better than Sea Vixen.
Migs etc are not a problem for RN carriers as they would stay at sea far out of range. Fast jet strikes as in the Falklands by Mirages are also better dealt with by Gannet AEW and F4s away from the carrier. Even truer if ASMs are available to the enemy.
Sadly the answer would have been a fighter/strike aircraft AFVG/Tornado sized able to give Hermes a single type fast jet group but until decent radar/missile combos arrived in the 70s this was not state of the art.
 
If F8 ordered earlier it would be 1955 or 1958.
In each case likely with UK engines.
1955 AS Sapphires and piggyback on Javelin.
AS could pile on next generation technologies intended for supersonic recce bomber, still live at that point. This either results in yet further improved Sapphire or a virtually new engine. Either way reheat gets more developed.

1958 RR Avons piggyback on Lightning.
AI.23/Firestreak combination likely from 1958 order as well.
Possibly RB.106 technologies applied.
A left field option is DH Gyron Junior as used on T.188.

1963 would see AI.23/Red Top combination and early Spey options. Possibly Ferranti Auto-interception system.

F8 out climbs and out runs Sea Vixen, result is more ability in interception.
 
Sea Vixen FAW2 with four Red Tops only seems poor if you have the F4. Otherwise it is not too bad by UK standards (better than the Javelin FAW9).
It is of course no dogfighter but RN carriers were not expected to operate within the range of shore based Migs.
Against Bears and Badgers a Sea Vixen FAW2 was more use than a Sea Harrier FRS1 with two Sidewinders.
Hermes 1968 with its airgroup would have been a lot more useful in the Falklands than the 1982 ship.
Would the Sea Vixen FAW2s been armed with Red Top or Skyflash missiles in 1982? And how many Skyflash missiles could a Sea Vixen carry?

Hermes had her Type 984 & CDS removed when she was converted to a commando carrier. The former was replaced by a Type 965 AKE-1 when she was converted to a commando carrier and CAAIS was fitted in her 1980-81 refit.

My guess is that in your time line she'd keep the Type 984 & CDS until the 1980-81 refit when the Type 984 might have been replaced by a Type 1022 radar & the CDS would probably have been replaced by the version of ADAWS that Invincible & Illustrious had. I presume that having a Type 984 or 1022 with ADAWS backing it up would have been a lot more effective than a Type 965 AKE-1 backed up by CAAIS.
 
I was assuming Hermes and Eagle survived without F4s but in their 1968 states.
Likewise their Red Top armed Sea Vixens.
Their Falklands role would be a kind of Final Countdown Nimitz in reverse or a daydream by Admiral Woodward.
But seriously my scenario for the Brit carriers to survive at lowest cost is this:
No CVA 01 or F4
Hermes and Eagle retained into the 70s with least mods as possible.
A single type of aircraft (AFVG comes closest) is ordered to replace their Sea Vixens and Bucs from the mid 70s. This would carry F4 style weapons and replace RAF Lightnings and Hunters as well.
In this austere world TSR2 survives but only 75 very basic aircraft are ordered replacing all Vulcans and Canberras. Victors are retained as conventional bombers and recces. VC10s as refuelers.
The Lightning and Hunter prove easy and fast to deploy at short notice. So no P1154, P1127 or Jaguar. Lightnings are all quickly brought up to F2A/F6 standard and equip 9 squadrons. Hunter FGR10s serve with 3 sqns in 38 Group and in overseas squadrons until AFVG arrives in 1975. It takes longer for AFVG to replace Lightning and Sea Vixen because of the usual Brit problems with radars and missiles.
 
Ok so now we're severely veering off topic if we're talking Sea Vixen.

But within context of a decision to retain Sea Vixen and the carriers into the future.....
The arguments for upgrading AI.18 and Red Top become substantial.

Namely we'd see the improved liquid motor on Red Top MkII. Extending performance both in terms of range and engagement envelope.

And we'd see the AMTI circuits upgrade and general upgrade on AI.18, which GEC had priced up. Effectively doubling detection and tracking ranges.

This would keep Vixen viable for longer at what is minimum extra cost.....and far below talk of F4 or the much cheaper F8.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top Bottom