US Navy CVN in RN post Falklands

[Lawman]

During the Falklands conflict, it is now known that the US offered the UK a carrier - for years it was thought to be one of the Iwo Jima type LPHs, but recently, it was suggested that the offer was of one of the US Navy's super carriers. I was wondering, if the UK government, recognising how difficult the task was with the existing carriers, and with some extra income from the North Sea drilling, decided to take the US up on the offer. The UK would still retire Hermes, selling her to India (as happened), but building the third Invincible class, and selling the first one to Australia (as was planned pre-Falklands). The UK decides to buy two large carriers (possibly replacing the borrowed USN CVN), with the two Invincible class ships being used as ASW and Commando carriers. What aircraft does the UK buy? Any thoughts?

[Geoff_B]

The UK would probably have re-transferred the Buccaneers & Phantoms back to RN control. These would probably have been supplemented by off the shelf ex-USN F-4J or N. Hawkeye & Greyhound would probably be bought from either US stocks or borrow example till newbuilds arrived.

Doubt the Tornado would be adapted for carrier role although we might have seen a rebuilt and upgraded Buccanner instead as she was a a great carrier strike aircraft.

Probably a high chance that the F-18 would be ordered to replace the Phantoms and Buccs as that best met the role and would have the advantage of lower unit price due to large numbers then coming into service with US and allies. But always possible something more local coule have been developed with the F-18 only acting as a stop gap

Follwoing this scenario i would expect the Eurofighter program to possibly take a different route, given carrier need i guess we would have orientated more with the French in going for a carrier capable example possibly leading to a Rafale style aircraft rather than the Typhoon.

G

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

Follwoing this scenario i would expect the Eurofighter program to possibly take a different route, given carrier need i guess we would have orientated more with the French in going for a carrier capable example possibly leading to a Rafale style aircraft rather than the Typhoon.

Just before France decide not to be part of Eurofighter, some last minute negociations nearly start...

The idea was to have both Rafale and Eurofighter in France, UK and maybe Germany! France had to stay in the British leaded Typhoon while the British finance part of rafale program.
The Rafale will be the standard naval fighter/striker while the Typhoon had to be the standard interceptor...
The negociations ended here, before starting!

But with some large carrier in UK service, we could imagine that this option was viable!

That gives:
Rafale
-100 Rafale M for French Navy
-150/180 Rafale M for Royal Navy
-80/100 Rafale B for Marineflieger
-150 Rafale B for French Air Force
-40 for Spain

Typhoon
-250 for RAF
-250 for Luftwaffe
-187 for Italy
-60 for Spain
-100/120 for France

Total:
-520/570 Rafale
-647/667 Typhoon


Of course, that's before the end of Cold War! After 1992, things could have been different, but with 2 European fighters (each with its speciality: land and sea strike with air-defense secondary for Rafale, interception and air defense with land-strike secondary for Typhoon), the world could have been very different...
A real need for a carrier capable aircraft for the Royal Navy could have, in my mind, had such finality...


The other solution is, indeed, a full Rafale solution... But lesser funny for modelers!
 

[Archibald]

given carrier need i guess we would have orientated more with the French in going for a carrier capable example

Yes! This would ne a mean of forcing Dassault (and Mitterrand behind him!) to stay in the Typhoon programm...

[dragon]

So, it the UK had purchased (or leased) a Nimitz-class CVN, what would it have been called?   B)  

[Archibald]

Queen Elizabeth? Hood (never!!!) ? Prince of Walles ?  

[Jeffry Fontaine]

So, it the UK had purchased (or leased) a Nimitz-class CVN, what would it have been called?   B)

Doubt seriously that a CVN would have been offered up for use by the RN.  A Forrestal class or Kitty Hawk class CV would have been a more realistic option for the RN.  The reason for this is that a conventional oil fired steam propulsion is much easier to operate than a nuclear powered version.  The required manning levels of the nuclear program propulsion systems require about twice as many personnel as the conventional systems.  

Personnel strenght requirements created by a CVN in use by the RN would have seen a drastic reduction in other ships in the fleet to support the personnel requirements of the CVNs.  The RN has a number of nuclear powered submarines but the surface fleet has yet to operate such a vessel.  The required training for certification to operate and maintain the nuclear power program in the surface fleet would mean ramping up to meet those requirements many years ahead of the actual commissioning of the carriers into the RN.  Not sure that would have fit in with the overall planning at the time.  

While it might look good on paper, the logistics trail required to actually get the ship to fly under the flag of the RN would have been a long and arduous journey to meet that goal.  

[Lawman]

The suggestion was that it was the Ike that was offered to the RN, though obviously this would only be a short term option. I suspect that a Forrestal could have been made available, but the most likely longer term option would actually have been a rapid build of a CVF in the '80s. Since the UK would have been in the market for a carrier around the time the French were in the market for the CdG, a collaberative effort would have been a possibility. If the UK had been using a borrowed CVN (probably with a mostly TAD'd USN crew), then the next carrier would probably have been bigger than the CdG - probably more around 60,000tons, possibly a smaller Kitty Hawk, but using far more automation.

As for the Eurofighter/Rafale, if the UK had been operating a carrier, then Typhoon and Rafale would probably have been the same aircraft. With two UK carriers, and one or two French ones, the total number would have been a lot larger.

150-200 Rafale/Typhoon for the RN
300-400 Rafale/Typhoon for the RAF
100-150 Rafale/Typhoon for the MN
300-400 Rafale/Typhoon for the AdlA
150-200 Rafale/Typhoon for the Luftwaffe
100-150 Rafale/Typhoon for the AMI (Italian Air Force)
100-150 Rafale/Typhoon for the FAMET (Spanish Air Force)

That would be c.1200-1650 fighters, which would be a very respectable number, and it would probably have gone into series production in the very early '90s. Even with only a genuinely firm commitment for half that number (which would have been relatively easy to get politically), with two options for the remaining quarters, you could certainly get production running. Obviously it would make a lot more sense to just have two production lines (one in France, on in UK), turning out knock-down kits, which each nation could then assemble. With the aircraft entering full scale service in '94-96, they would also have been a lot more popular for export, since they would be a lot cheaper.  

[GeorgeC]

What would we fit on a British CVN today?  The entire front-line strength of the RAF...  Even in the 80s a couple of CVNs would have absorbed most of the UK-based Fast Jet Force.

Regards

GeorgeC  

[cletus spuckler]

Hey Dragon;

A couple of possible names for the RN (ex-USN) CVN:

1) Benedict Arnold---------Smart and Spiteful.

2) Vanguard----------------Named after the Post WW2 Battleship.

3) Prince of W(h)ales------"By God Jim; that's a big ship"

4) Montgomery------------The Big "M" or Full Monty.


Any way you cut it, Phantoms and Buccaneers until the new millenium!

[MartG]

A prototype naval version of the Jaguar was produced and underwent carrier trials - maybe this would have been put into production for the loaned carrier.

[Lawman]

I agree that a pair of CVNs would have been able to carry a reasonable percentage of the RAF's total number of frontline jets, but in this scenario, the Thatcher government has more money to play with. I was thinking in terms of the Thatcher government copying the Reagan-era military buildup - Thatcher was reported to have looked into building the TSR-2 in the '80s! Also, the carriers actually built for the RN (to replace the short term lease of the CVN or CV) would probably have been a lot smaller, more like 60,000tons, so would only carry 40-50 fighters each).

In the shorter term, obviously the Hornet would be the most likely post-Phantom option - the carrier could have been supplied with a complete batch of ~100-150 F-4Js, though replacing them with an interim purchase of Hornets would make some sense. It was around that time that the Canadians and Australians were buying Hornets, so a joint purchase might have been an option. The RAF in reality received a batch of F-4Js for 74 Sqn, to allow for the fact that a Phantom unit had to be stationed on the Falklands. In this scenario, the RAF might have received some more aircraft, given the increased funding - 100 F-4Js for the RN, 100 F-4Js for the RAF perhaps?

In the longer term, it might have given the Eurofighter (pre-separation into Typhoon and Rafale) program a massive boost - more aircraft, and earlier. With the aircraft entering service in the mid-90s, it would now be a mature design, and probably have cost half as much!

[cletus spuckler]

Lawman;

I can see Commonwealth and Allied F-18 squadrons being deployed aboard this ship in a similar manner as the US Marine Fighter Attack squadrons. This would allow a quicker in service schedule, along with "joint" operations capability.

[GeorgeC]

But the UK did have a proportionate build-up of forces in the early 80s to those of the US - and you could still fit them all on a couple (well 4) carriers

Regards

GeorgeC  

[Archibald]

A prototype naval version of the Jaguar was produced and underwent carrier trials - maybe this would have been put into production for the loaned carrier.

Yes, but it was a crap and was quickly abandoned http://frenchnavy.free.fr/projects/jaguar/...r/jaguar_fr.htm

[/QUOTE]Lawman;

I can see Commonwealth and Allied F-18 squadrons being deployed aboard this ship in a similar manner as the US Marine Fighter Attack squadrons. This would allow a quicker in service schedule, along with "joint" operations capability.

Why not adding Swiss, Spanish or even Finish Hornets ?