The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

I think it's fair to say the P1154 was an option for the RN and equally that they largely killed it and lead the way to the F4. It would have been a very different aircraft to the F4, I sure it would have been more agile; but a 60,000 lb v 40,000 lb and VSTOL design, load and range would be a lot less. But that's not the point, the F4K lasted 8 years in one operational sqn and was not available for the: Falklands/GW1, GW2 & Afghanistan. The P1154 would have been a far superior capability to the: FRS1, FA2 & AV8B. This is probably all hindsight but if you were armed with that, the P1154 was a much better offering for the RN than the F4K.

Add to that the P1154 could have easily operated from the Centaurs, Victorious and Eagle, without major modernisation / modification. My thinking in suggesting that the existing carriers be retained into the 80's, flying Seaharriers, would have been even more applicable if the P1154 was available.

It is my belief that two, three or possibly more existing carriers in decent material condition, flying Seaharriers and Seakings would have provided (overall) more capability than Ark Royal (post Phantom refit) or the Invincibles. It could have been justified as a cost saving, using existing hulls instead of building new ones, having significantly smaller airgroups (hence smaller crew), and removing the justification of a RN Phantom buy, while allowing the order for new ships to be pushed back into the late 80's or early 90's.

 

[1805]

Add to that the P1154 could have easily operated from the Centaurs, Victorious and Eagle, without major modernisation / modification. My thinking in suggesting that the existing carriers be retained into the 80's, flying Seaharriers, would have been even more applicable if the P1154 was available.

It is my belief that two, three or possibly more existing carriers in decent material condition, flying Seaharriers and Seakings would have provided (overall) more capability than Ark Royal (post Phantom refit) or the Invincibles. It could have been justified as a cost saving, using existing hulls instead of building new ones, having significantly smaller airgroups (hence smaller crew), and removing the justification of a RN Phantom buy, while allowing the order for new ships to be pushed back into the late 80's or early 90's.

I think the Centaurs would have been more useful, but I am assuming the Invincibles were much cheaper to run than the old steam powered fleet. It might have been an option to retain a catapult to launch AEW Gannets, with P1154s armed with a BVR missile, a much more potent combination.

 

[Hambo]

"It is my belief that two, three or possibly more existing carriers in decent material condition, flying Seaharriers and Seakings would have provided (overall) more capability than Ark Royal (post Phantom refit) or the Invincibles. It could have been justified as a cost saving, using existing hulls instead of building new ones, having significantly smaller airgroups (hence smaller crew), and removing the justification of a RN Phantom buy, while allowing the order for new ships to be pushed back into the late 80's or early 90's"
Volkadav

HMS Eagle. Laid down 1942, complement 2,500 to 2,750 max.

HMS Victorious. Laid down 1937, complement 2,200

The Centaurs. Laid down 1943-45, complement depending on role but 1,300-1,600.

I know the Indians work wonders with the ex Hermes, but low wage costs etc play a factor for the Indians. On those crew sizes, antique machinery and physical age of the ships, it would have been very expensive to nurse them to the 1990's. Refits rarely come in cheaply, didnt they even operate on different voltage circuits for instance?

 

[StevoJH]

They may have been laid down in the 1940's, but with the exception of Victorious which received one complete rebuild and one massive refit (after which it was removed from service), none of the ships were completed until the 1950's, so they werent as 'old' (in service) as you suggest.

 

[Hambo]

They may have been laid down in the 1940's, but with the exception of Victorious which received one complete rebuild and one massive refit (after which it was removed from service), none of the ships were completed until the 1950's, so they werent as 'old' (in service) as you suggest.

But by the 1990's they would be, and would have required much work in the 1980's when we as a country were struggling with the economy as well as trying to pay for SSNs, Tornado, challenger and everything else required during the cold war.

The decision to bin the conventional carriers was political so the sentence had already (wrongly) been passed. Obviously the better decision would have been to continue with at least one carrier, or better Ark and Eagle until a replacement may have been affordable, with the existing phantom and Buccs.

But once they go, and you only need harriers to kill MPA in the north Atlantic war, the Invincibles were fair value, though its a shame they were not a bit bigger.

 

[Seaforth]

But by the 1990's they would be, and would have required much work in the 1980's when we as a country were struggling with the economy as well as trying to pay for SSNs, Tornado, challenger and everything else required during the cold war.

The decision to bin the conventional carriers was political so the sentence had already (wrongly) been passed. Obviously the better decision would have been to continue with at least one carrier, or better Ark and Eagle until a replacement may have been affordable, with the existing phantom and Buccs.

But once they go, and you only need harriers to kill MPA in the north Atlantic war, the Invincibles were fair value, though its a shame they were not a bit bigger.

Ark Royal was stuffed by the late 70s. Look at the TV series Sailor, the Ark barely made it out of Portsmouth at the start of the deployment.

 

[Volkodav]

Ark Royal was stuffed by the late 70s. Look at the TV series Sailor, the Ark barely made it out of Portsmouth at the start of the deployment.

I believe Victorious, Eagle and Hermes were all in pretty good condition and definately in better shape than Ark. Remove the stress of Sea Vixens and Bucc thumping down on the deck and they could have easily lasted a lot longer.

Retaining these three in service as harrier and helo carriers (with air group personnel number reduced accordingly) instead of Phantomising and retaining Ark and instead of building the Invincibles would have been a cheaper option.

The political aim of getting rid of fixed wing carrier air power would have still been achieved as there would have been no cats, no traps, no Phantoms, no Buccaneers and not even a Sea Vixen or Gannet to be seen in FAA colours. The RN could have pointed at their remaining ships, tear in the eye, and said "they can only carry helicopters and subsonic harriers now, they aren't real carriers any more".

The money saved could have been spent on additional escorts, or on building the entire Type 42 class with the longer hull and better radar initially planned. When 1982 came around the RN could have loaded up with every Seaharrier, Harrier GR3 and Sea King they could lay their hands on and sailed south and proven how usefull medium STO/VL carriers really were.

The small added advantage is without the Invincibles there would have been no spare brand new carrier to have offered to Australia before having to reneg and keep, meaning the RAN would have ended up ordering and unable to cancel either a modified LPH or SCS.

 

[StevoJH]

HMS Victorious was basically still a new ship whwn retired, there can't have been much left of the original ship by then except some of the lower hull.

 

[WillS]

There’s a brief article about Phalanx 1B units being finally fitted to HMS Daring on the MOD website. The article includes a photo of the latest installation. Attached to the side of the Phalanx mounting is what looks like a thermal/IR weapons sight, is this part of the latest upgrade to allow for visual confirmation of incoming surface threats (fast attack boats, Jet Ski’s etc), or is it totally unrelated?

#There are some better photos (not mine) at:

[ame="http://www.flickr.com/photos/grant359/5870029115/"]Phalanx CIWS on HMS Daring | Flickr - Photo Sharing!@@AMEPARAM@@http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5152/5870029115_e6fb11b626_m.jpg@@AMEPARAM@@5870029115@@AMEPARAM@@e6fb11b626[/ame]

This looks odd when I preview but clicking the title should still get you there.

WillS

 

[Seaforth]

HMS Victorious was basically still a new ship whwn retired, there can't have been much left of the original ship by then except some of the lower hull.

I'm not convinced. Victorious was launched in 1939 and commissioned in 1941. As I understand it ships were thrown together during the war, with little expectation of a long service life. I seriously doubt that Victorious could have soldiered on through the 80's even with the refits.

The RN was very well equipped (relatively as well as to satisfy taskings) with 3 Invincibles followed by the Ocean, and with the RN FRS2 upgrade combined with RAF Harrier II. A very potent force for a while.

It only really fell apart with the disposal of FRS2 and then the decision to design the new QE class around a single unproven, risky aircraft.

In hindsight, FRS2 should probably have been retained, and the new QE class should have been CATOBAR from the get-go, with an early competitive tender between F35, Super Hornet and Rafale.

In my view those were the real mistakes, though granted that some may argue (with some justification I concede) that history has shown the FRS2 withdrawal was the right decision.

 

[StevoJH]

I'm not convinced. Victorious was launched in 1939 and commissioned in 1941. As I understand it ships were thrown together during the war, with little expectation of a long service life. I seriously doubt that Victorious could have soldiered on through the 80's even with the refits.

Victorious was largely built pre-war, specifically the hull was completed conpleted prewar, once launched the work carried out would have been the fitting of equipment, little to none of which would have remained by the time she was retired.

By the time she was retired Victorious had received:
- Hull stretch.
- New engines
- Complete reconstruction from hanger deck upwards

Hull plates can be replaced, but overall, there wouldn't have been much materially speaking in terms of equipment that would have dated from when the ship was first commissioned.

The RN was very well equipped (relatively as well as to satisfy taskings) with 3 Invincibles followed by the Ocean, and with the RN FRS2 upgrade combined with RAF Harrier II. A very potent force for a while.

I'd agree with that, however they should have kept Bulwark in service and then replaced it and Hermes with a pair of LPH's in the late 1980's early 1990's. LPH's built for a full 30-40 year service life rather then the 20 years Ocean was designed for.

It only really fell apart with the disposal of FRS2 and then the decision to design the new QE class around a single unproven, risky aircraft.

In hindsight, FRS2 should probably have been retained, and the new QE class should have been CATOBAR from the get-go, with an early competitive tender between F35, Super Hornet and Rafale.

I disagree, it fell apart when HM Treasury refused to fund the forces mandated by the 1998 Defense White Paper (SDR).

In my view those were the real mistakes, though granted that some may argue (with some justification I concede) that history has shown the FRS2 withdrawal was the right decision.

I don't agree it was the correct decision, some of them were less then 10 years old. However, it may have been the only possible decision, especially if it was as impossible to reengine them as suggested.

 

[Hambo]

Volkdov, The timeline though doesn't lead to a likelihood that the older carriers would continue with Harrier.

The RN loses interest in p1154 and for various technical reasons its axed in 1964 due to protracted development, but the RN needs a replacement for Sea Vixen so orders F4K in 1964, first flight 1967 and squadron service 1968.

The Kestrel starts development in 1961 but first flies in 1964, the year F4K is ordered, albeit using design work dating from 1957 on P1127.

The RAF continues with what becomes GR1, first flight in 1967, service starts with RAF in 1969, actually after the RN phantoms enter service on The Ark.
The RN start looking at harriers ordering sea harrier in 1975.

The White Paper of 1966 officially signs away the carriers, but is already committed to F4K, and long before the Harrier/Sea Harrier has shown any form of maturity or potential of what it would become.

24 Sea Harrier are ordered in1975, upped to 34 in 1978.

Now the carriers, Victorious gets her final refit straddling the white paper in 1966/1967 and under some dubious reason of fire damage is decommissioned in 1968, but that is a year before even the simple GR1 has entered RAF service, let alone seen any serious appetite from the RN who had already committed to F4K and had Buccs.

So the money had been spent on Ark Royals phantomisation long before the harrier was ever mature enough to be an option, and Victorious had already virtually been killed by the white paper along with the others, Eagle was assessed as being in relatively good nick in 1966 with at least a decade left, but was paid off in 1972, again, slightly before the decision to develop and order sea harrier.

Had the ships been stored then i suppose they could have been converted to Harrier carriers, but be 1973 the Invincibles were ordered in any case, with Harrier sneaked on as an after thought, the prototype of which didnt actually fly until 1978.

So the RN would have needed a crystal ball and kept ageing ships on in case a VSTOL fighter came along, rather than buy what at the time was a state of art Phantom.

I dont think the actually history adds up with your proposal?

 

[Volkodav]

Volkdov, The timeline though doesn't lead to a likelihood that the older carriers would continue with Harrier.

The RN loses interest in p1154 and for various technical reasons its axed in 1964 due to protracted development, but the RN needs a replacement for Sea Vixen so orders F4K in 1964, first flight 1967 and squadron service 1968.

The Kestrel starts development in 1961 but first flies in 1964, the year F4K is ordered, albeit using design work dating from 1957 on P1127.

The RAF continues with what becomes GR1, first flight in 1967, service starts with RAF in 1969, actually after the RN phantoms enter service on The Ark.
The RN start looking at harriers ordering sea harrier in 1975.

The White Paper of 1966 officially signs away the carriers, but is already committed to F4K, and long before the Harrier/Sea Harrier has shown any form of maturity or potential of what it would become.

24 Sea Harrier are ordered in1975, upped to 34 in 1978.

Now the carriers, Victorious gets her final refit straddling the white paper in 1966/1967 and under some dubious reason of fire damage is decommissioned in 1968, but that is a year before even the simple GR1 has entered RAF service, let alone seen any serious appetite from the RN who had already committed to F4K and had Buccs.

So the money had been spent on Ark Royals phantomisation long before the harrier was ever mature enough to be an option, and Victorious had already virtually been killed by the white paper along with the others, Eagle was assessed as being in relatively good nick in 1966 with at least a decade left, but was paid off in 1972, again, slightly before the decision to develop and order sea harrier.

Had the ships been stored then i suppose they could have been converted to Harrier carriers, but be 1973 the Invincibles were ordered in any case, with Harrier sneaked on as an after thought, the prototype of which didnt actually fly until 1978.

So the RN would have needed a crystal ball and kept ageing ships on in case a VSTOL fighter came along, rather than buy what at the time was a state of art Phantom.

I dont think the actually history adds up with your proposal?

Fits perfectly if you assume the government decides not to waste money replacing the Sea Vixen, cancels Arks modernisation and lets the three best carriers continue on with reduced versions existing air groups (i.e. no Bucs) and extra helos into the 70's. The SeaVixens having been retained for anti Bear ops are then replaced by the Sea Harrier in the late 70's early 80's.

The RAF can still buy Phantoms if so desired, but with the carrier requirement removed they could have looked at other options, say revisit the the F-111 order to cover the stike requirement and look at the F-14 or F-15 for air defence later in the 70's (remembering the RAF Phantoms were initially used for strike until the arrival of the Jaguars in the mid 70's).

 

[Hambo]

Fits perfectly if you assume the government decides not to waste money replacing the Sea Vixen, cancels Arks modernisation and lets the three best carriers continue on with reduced versions existing air groups (i.e. no Bucs) and extra helos into the 70's. The SeaVixens having been retained for anti Bear ops are then replaced by the Sea Harrier in the late 70's early 80's.

The RAF can still buy Phantoms if so desired, but with the carrier requirement removed they could have looked at other options, say revisit the the F-111 order to cover the stike requirement and look at the F-14 or F-15 for air defence later in the 70's (remembering the RAF Phantoms were initially used for strike until the arrival of the Jaguars in the mid 70's).

So the UK Govt decides to kill the carriers earlier? because in the 1950's into the early 1960's there is every intention to continue building and operating aircraft carriers. Therefore it was completely reasonable to look to replace the Sea vixen which would be fast fast approaching obselescence by the end of the 1960's.

What member of the Admiralty in their right mind at the time of 1960 or so (during a cold war) would have proposed not modernising the FAA aircraft and muddling along into the 1970's with 1950's technology? As well as being accused of working for the Russians they would have been slated. it would have needed an argument of "don't worry gents, no need to replace Sea vixen and buy an expensive replacement and upgrade the ships, there is this funny little Kestrel thing, ideal for short take offs in germany, carries a few bombs in daylight , doesnt have a radar but I reckon by 1975 we could have a working naval version of it" Or " Gents, no need to replace the Sea Vixen, lets just carry on with it and see if something comes along in the next 15 years"

Neither are really likely propositions. By the time of the 1966 white paper, money and orders have already been committed for Phantom , as well as numerous UK contracts to tinker with the Phantom (adding more cost), plans would have been drawn up for carrier modernisation and work had already been going on since around 1961 on new carrier designs , by around 1963 a decision on CVA01 had been made that was due to be built. When exactly is the plug pulled? Does the RN see itself as simply an ASW force much earlier? even when the 1966 paper killed CVA01 it still recognised a future for phantom, planning Ark and Eagle to be upgraded, but in 1966 Harrier was no where near a viable aircraft with which defend the surface fleet (in fact many where doubting it up till 1982)

I cant see cancelling Phantom or modernisation in general was ever likely or sensible. Phantom was on the scene long before Harrier morphed into Sea Harrier, as was Buccaneer, a supremely good naval striker. It requires a big spoonful of hindsight to put the eggs in the sea harrier basket in the timeframe as it actually existed. My alternative history would have been that the RN fights for just one carrier, either a patched up Ark and Eagle or a spartan CVA01 minus sea dart, alaskan highways and broomstick radars, very cheap and cheerful. Get it afloat, keep it going as long as possible and dont even bother with Harrier at all. That way we might still be in the cat and trap game along with France.

 

[StobieWan]

So the UK Govt decides to kill the carriers earlier? because in the 1950's into the early 1960's there is every intention to continue building and operating aircraft carriers. Therefore it was completely reasonable to look to replace the Sea vixen which would be fast fast approaching obselescence by the end of the 1960's.

What member of the Admiralty in their right mind at the time of 1960 or so (during a cold war) would have proposed not modernising the FAA aircraft and muddling along into the 1970's with 1950's technology? As well as being accused of working for the Russians they would have been slated. it would have needed an argument of "don't worry gents, no need to replace Sea vixen and buy an expensive replacement and upgrade the ships, there is this funny little Kestrel thing, ideal for short take offs in germany, carries a few bombs in daylight , doesnt have a radar but I reckon by 1975 we could have a working naval version of it" Or " Gents, no need to replace the Sea Vixen, lets just carry on with it and see if something comes along in the next 15 years"

Neither are really likely propositions. By the time of the 1966 white paper, money and orders have already been committed for Phantom , as well as numerous UK contracts to tinker with the Phantom (adding more cost), plans would have been drawn up for carrier modernisation and work had already been going on since around 1961 on new carrier designs , by around 1963 a decision on CVA01 had been made that was due to be built. When exactly is the plug pulled? Does the RN see itself as simply an ASW force much earlier? even when the 1966 paper killed CVA01 it still recognised a future for phantom, planning Ark and Eagle to be upgraded, but in 1966 Harrier was no where near a viable aircraft with which defend the surface fleet (in fact many where doubting it up till 1982)

I cant see cancelling Phantom or modernisation in general was ever likely or sensible. Phantom was on the scene long before Harrier morphed into Sea Harrier, as was Buccaneer, a supremely good naval striker. It requires a big spoonful of hindsight to put the eggs in the sea harrier basket in the timeframe as it actually existed. My alternative history would have been that the RN fights for just one carrier, either a patched up Ark and Eagle or a spartan CVA01 minus sea dart, alaskan highways and broomstick radars, very cheap and cheerful. Get it afloat, keep it going as long as possible and dont even bother with Harrier at all. That way we might still be in the cat and trap game along with France.

And the thing is, the money was there for new ships in the right time frame - the three CVS's were ordered and built with the first one popping out barely six years after Ark was paid off. Both Eagle and Ark could have ran on for a few more years, til their replacement with say, a pair of 40Kt ships instead of the three 22kt ones commissioned. Like yourself, I'm not buying Volkadov's timeline here.

Ian

 

[Volkodav]

And the thing is, the money was there for new ships in the right time frame - the three CVS's were ordered and built with the first one popping out barely six years after Ark was paid off. Both Eagle and Ark could have ran on for a few more years, til their replacement with say, a pair of 40Kt ships instead of the three 22kt ones commissioned. Like yourself, I'm not buying Volkadov's timeline here.

Ian

The point is the Phantom was a dead duck where the FAA was concerned once the CVA-01 was cancelled. Yes Eagle could launch and recover them but not deploy them operationally and she was the only RN carrier that could without major modification. Ark was in poor condition and probably not worth modernising, Victorious, Hermes and Centaur were too small. Arks modernisation following the cancellation of the CVA-01 was political, i.e. to save jobs in the ship building industry.

Once a new carrier was out of the picture the choice became, continue with the existing aircraft that could operate from the existing carriers, acquire new aircraft that could operate from them, or get rid of the capability altogether. The government of the day chose the final option, with the caveat that huge sums of money be wasted modernising the carrier with the worst material condition (therefore the most expensive and most difficult to retain) for an extra decade.

What did Ark deliver? One squadron of 12 Phantoms in addition to the Bucs, AEW Gannets, Seakings and Wessexs that could already operated by any of the other four carriers.

The Phantom only made sense if there was a new large CTOL carrier for them to move to in numbers once Ark was decommisioned, it was set in concrete in 1966 that this was not going to happen during the lifespan of the Phantom so why continue with the acquisition? It was a waste of time and money.

It was only the Seavixen being replaced so why not replace it with something that could operate from the same ships? Crusader anyone? How about a marinised Mirage F1, modernised Grumman Tiger or new build Super Tiger. Then there is always the option of a life extention and modernisation for the Seavixen to give the FAA more time to come up with a long term solution for the three carriers.

Assuming politics continued to be the driver the Bucs were on the hit list as they were an offensive capability, so irrespective of which carriers were retained the Bucs would go. This is why I speculated that the carriers would operat reduced ASW biased groups with some Seavixens retained for air defence.

 

[StobieWan]

The point is the Phantom was a dead duck where the FAA was concerned once the CVA-01 was cancelled. Yes Eagle could launch and recover them but not deploy them operationally and she was the only RN carrier that could without major modification. Ark was in poor condition and probably not worth modernising, Victorious, Hermes and Centaur were too small. Arks modernisation following the cancellation of the CVA-01 was political, i.e. to save jobs in the ship building industry.

Once a new carrier was out of the picture the choice became, continue with the existing aircraft that could operate from the existing carriers, acquire new aircraft that could operate from them, or get rid of the capability altogether. The government of the day chose the final option, with the caveat that huge sums of money be wasted modernising the carrier with the worst material condition (therefore the most expensive and most difficult to retain) for an extra decade.

What did Ark deliver? One squadron of 12 Phantoms in addition to the Bucs, AEW Gannets, Seakings and Wessexs that could already operated by any of the other four carriers.

The Phantom only made sense if there was a new large CTOL carrier for them to move to in numbers once Ark was decommisioned, it was set in concrete in 1966 that this was not going to happen during the lifespan of the Phantom so why continue with the acquisition? It was a waste of time and money.

It was only the Seavixen being replaced so why not replace it with something that could operate from the same ships? Crusader anyone? How about a marinised Mirage F1, modernised Grumman Tiger or new build Super Tiger. Then there is always the option of a life extention and modernisation for the Seavixen to give the FAA more time to come up with a long term solution for the three carriers.

Assuming politics continued to be the driver the Bucs were on the hit list as they were an offensive capability, so irrespective of which carriers were retained the Bucs would go. This is why I speculated that the carriers would operat reduced ASW biased groups with some Seavixens retained for air defence.

I think F4K was probably a disaster from the point of cost vs capability - better to have just ordered F4J's right off the production line, with possibly a UK radar fit. Sticking Spey's in the damn things was a waste of time and seemed to require a lot of faffing around with water cooled JBD's and so forth. Worse, they were no quicker in the flight regimes concerned.

Now, selecting Mirage on the other hand? They seemed to work well off smaller carriers and the Israeli's have certainly handed out canings on a regular basis with them. Rewind a bit, once CVA is cancelled, buy something that works on smaller carriers and keep going with CATOBAR, yeah, sounds smarter than what happened.

Harrier was one of those unhappy accidents of fate, it kind of worked out but if we'd stuck with CATOBAR, it'd have been easier to get the replacements beaten into something that wasn't ASW shaped.

NATO had a distorting effect on UK capability and we spent a lot of time trying to bring a strong ASW element to cover the supply lines between the US and Europe.

We could have done things differently I'm sure.

Ian

 

[Hambo]

The point is the Phantom was a dead duck where the FAA was concerned once the CVA-01 was cancelled. Yes Eagle could launch and recover them but not deploy them operationally and she was the only RN carrier that could without major modification. Ark was in poor condition and probably not worth modernising, Victorious, Hermes and Centaur were too small. Arks modernisation following the cancellation of the CVA-01 was political, i.e. to save jobs in the ship building industry.

Once a new carrier was out of the picture the choice became, continue with the existing aircraft that could operate from the existing carriers, acquire new aircraft that could operate from them, or get rid of the capability altogether. The government of the day chose the final option, with the caveat that huge sums of money be wasted modernising the carrier with the worst material condition (therefore the most expensive and most difficult to retain) for an extra decade.

What did Ark deliver? One squadron of 12 Phantoms in addition to the Bucs, AEW Gannets, Seakings and Wessexs that could already operated by any of the other four carriers.

The Phantom only made sense if there was a new large CTOL carrier for them to move to in numbers once Ark was decommisioned, it was set in concrete in 1966 that this was not going to happen during the lifespan of the Phantom so why continue with the acquisition? It was a waste of time and money.

It was only the Seavixen being replaced so why not replace it with something that could operate from the same ships? Crusader anyone? How about a marinised Mirage F1, modernised Grumman Tiger or new build Super Tiger. Then there is always the option of a life extention and modernisation for the Seavixen to give the FAA more time to come up with a long term solution for the three carriers.

Assuming politics continued to be the driver the Bucs were on the hit list as they were an offensive capability, so irrespective of which carriers were retained the Bucs would go. This is why I speculated that the carriers would operat reduced ASW biased groups with some Seavixens retained for air defence.

Ark gave 12 good years of service post 1966 paper, 12 years during a cold war is relatively long term,especially as things could have turned hot with little warning. The RN Phantoms contributed directly to the air defence of the UK, from land bases as well, the avionics an improvement on anything else actually flying in the UK at the time, add the fact that those same airframes did then give service upto 2002 says they were far from a dead duck in any sense.

Spending money on Sea Vixen would have been dead wasted money for little gain, as would taking a risk on untested naval designs such as the Mirage F1 (which by the way didn't make its first flight until 1966 - 2 years after the Phantom F4K was ordered, and wasn't introduced into french service until 1973, let alone in any possible navalised version). As for the Grumman designs, no one else was using them at sea as far as I know, so the UK could take the risk on developing a very small number of unproven airframes, or buy a proven F4 that was produced in huge numbers, that could with the addition of some beefier cats and blast deflectors, operate from our two biggest carriers? Whats the riskier and more expensive option?

12 Phantoms gave 2 on CAP, 100 miles from the ship with 8 BVR Sparrow, for the time a very potent weapons system. The Ark for a decade could hold its own in any NATO exercises. The plan was for Eagle to continue to the very late 70's as well, its a shame that didn't happen as they might have out lived some of the Politicians and Air vice Marshalls who wanted the carriers dead in the first place.

A small note but after the Argentinian invasion in 1982, Maggie asked how quickly the Ark Royal could be readied, unsure if actually true but an indictment of politicians defence knowledge but also telling that she naturally assumed Britain would have them. If and a big alternative history indeed is that Ark and Eagle could have been nursed up to 1980, you have the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and a new broom in the USA, mainly Ronald Reagan overseeing a massive military build up, allied to the Iron Lady, could the carrier picture be different? There would have to be a follow on ship(s) of some form, or would the massive planned cuts of the 1981 paper have killed it in any case? This alternative history would have seen FAA phantoms and Buccs still flying in 1980, those squadrons get flown off a US Carrier, until the UK builds a single austere cat and trap carrier designed to support the US Fleet in the N. Atlantic. Anyway it didn't happen, it took over 25 years for someone to see sense.

 

[Volkodav]

Ark gave 12 good years of service post 1966 paper, 12 years during a cold war is relatively long term,especially as things could have turned hot with little warning. The RN Phantoms contributed directly to the air defence of the UK, from land bases as well, the avionics an improvement on anything else actually flying in the UK at the time, add the fact that those same airframes did then give service upto 2002 says they were far from a dead duck in any sense.

Spending money on Sea Vixen would have been dead wasted money for little gain, as would taking a risk on untested naval designs such as the Mirage F1 (which by the way didn't make its first flight until 1966 - 2 years after the Phantom F4K was ordered, and wasn't introduced into french service until 1973, let alone in any possible navalised version). As for the Grumman designs, no one else was using them at sea as far as I know, so the UK could take the risk on developing a very small number of unproven airframes, or buy a proven F4 that was produced in huge numbers, that could with the addition of some beefier cats and blast deflectors, operate from our two biggest carriers? Whats the riskier and more expensive option?

12 Phantoms gave 2 on CAP, 100 miles from the ship with 8 BVR Sparrow, for the time a very potent weapons system. The Ark for a decade could hold its own in any NATO exercises. The plan was for Eagle to continue to the very late 70's as well, its a shame that didn't happen as they might have out lived some of the Politicians and Air vice Marshalls who wanted the carriers dead in the first place.

A small note but after the Argentinian invasion in 1982, Maggie asked how quickly the Ark Royal could be readied, unsure if actually true but an indictment of politicians defence knowledge but also telling that she naturally assumed Britain would have them. If and a big alternative history indeed is that Ark and Eagle could have been nursed up to 1980, you have the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and a new broom in the USA, mainly Ronald Reagan overseeing a massive military build up, allied to the Iron Lady, could the carrier picture be different? There would have to be a follow on ship(s) of some form, or would the massive planned cuts of the 1981 paper have killed it in any case? This alternative history would have seen FAA phantoms and Buccs still flying in 1980, those squadrons get flown off a US Carrier, until the UK builds a single austere cat and trap carrier designed to support the US Fleet in the N. Atlantic. Anyway it didn't happen, it took over 25 years for someone to see sense.

Well lets look at Arks service following her Phantom refit (key dates from Royal Navy Carriers Part 3)

Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers Part 3

Paid off for modernisation and major refit at Devonport Dockyard 4 October 1966. (Increase in angled flight deck, facilities for Phantom aircraft)

Recommissioned at Devonport 24 February 1970.

Refit at Devonport 26 July 1973 to 10 April 1974.
Refit at Devonport 21 October 1976 to May 1977.

Returned to Devonport to pay off for last time 4 December 1978. Stricken 1980 and broken up at Cairn Ryan, Wigtownshire from 22 September 1980.

To my reckoning that is seven and a half years in service following the modernisation.

This is not really surprising and goes to show why only having one ship was a waste of time money and effort. It was an awful lot of effort to get 12 Phantoms to sea for three quarters of a decade.

Retaining Eagle, Victorious, and Hermes instead would have ensured the RN had at least one carrier available through out the 70’s and potentially into the 80’s. (Wouldn’t bother with Ark or Centaur as their half angled decks meant they were more limited in their ability to operate large aircraft and I am not sure that Centaur could operate Bucs at all. Although they could have been used as commando carriers as Albion and Bulwark were apparently both shagged.)
These ships could have continued to operate their Sea Vixens (still capable in most scenarios), Buccaneers, Gannets (AEW) and Sea Kings with the potential to replace the Sea Vixen with Crusaders (or similar) if the extra speed was deemed necessary. IMHO Sea Vixen could have been modernised with improved radar, missiles and perhaps even an internal gun to serve into the late 70s or even the early 80’s until alternative was available. Whether that alternative was the Sea Harrier or a CTOL type would be up to the government of the day as would a decision to build suitable ships to operate them from.

 

[Seaforth]

I thought it would be interesting to put together a timeline of the transition to the Invincible class and Sea Harrier.

Actually quite well planned with not too much in the way of gaps compared to the debacle the RN is now facing:

1969 Staff Requirement written that will lead to Sea Harrier
1972 January Eagle decommissions*
1972 February 800 NAS Buccaneer stands down
1972 February 899 NAS Sea Vixen stands down
1972 February 849 NAS D Flight Gannet AEW stands down
1972 August Eagle towed to Plymouth and cannibalized for spares for Ark Royal R09 over following 6 years
1972 contract awarded to develop Sea Harrier
1973 March Albion decommissions
1973 July Invincible laid down*
1975 May 24 Sea Harriers ordered
1976 October Illustrious laid down
1977 January Harrier trials on Hermes (no ski jump)
1977 May Invincible launched*
1977 June trial ski jump construction completed at RAE Bedford
1977 August first Harrier flight from trial ski jump at RAE Bedford
1978 March Bulwark refit to full ASW helicopter carrier commences, due to delays with Invincible
1978 Ark Royal R09 final deployments including May/June Fort Lauderdale, November Mediterranean
1978 June 10 more Sea Harriers ordered
1978 August first Sea Harrier prototypes delivered
1978 December Illustrious launched
1978 December Ark Royal R07 laid down
1978 December Ark Royal R09 decommissioned
1978 December 809 NAS Buccaneer stands down
1978 December 892 NAS F4K Phantom stands down
1978 December 849 NAS B Flight Gannet AEW stands down
1979 February Bulwark recommissions as full ASW helicopter carrier
1979 September*700A NAS Sea Harrier stands up
1979 March Invincible starts sea trials
1979 November Sea Harrier sea trials on Hermes (no ski jump)
1980 ski jump trials completed at RAE Bedford
1980 March*700A becomes 899 NAS Sea Harrier
1980 April 800 NAS Sea Harrier stands up
1980 May Invincible commissioned
1980 October first Sea Harrier ski jump launch at sea on Invincible
1980 Hermes enters refit for ski jump etc
1981 March Bulwark decommissions
1981 June Hermes refit completed with ski jump
1981 January 801 NAS Sea Harrier stands up
1981 June Ark Royal R07 launched
1982 April-September Invincible Falklands deployment
1982 April-July Hermes Falklands deployment
1982 April 809 NAS Sea Harrier stands up as emergency reinforcements
1982 June Illustrious commissioned immediately deployed to Falklands
1982 June 824 NAS D Flight Sea King AEW stands up
1982 December 809 NAS Sea Harrier stands down
1983 December Hermes enters refit but never to return to RN deployment
1984 Sea Eagle trials on Sea Harrier
1984 Sea Harrier FRS2 upgrade approved
1984 November 849 NAS Sea King AEW stands up
1985 November Ark Royal R07 commissioned