Royal Navy with F-8 Crusader instead of F-4 Phantom II

[Scott Kenny]

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.

 

[Rule of cool]

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.

 

[bobtdwarf]

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