Plausability check: Falklands War consequences

abc123 · Feb 20, 2011

How possible is this development after Falklands war?

HMG, after seeing that Falklands War was in fact pretty close thing, decides that it's a imperative to get 2 BIG ( 65 000 t ) aircraft carriers. Carriers will be conventionally powered. So 2 CTOL carriers, with proper AEW airplanes.
It would be expencive, but national security has no price.
So, HMS Invincible will be sold to the Australia, and HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal will be converted in commando/ASW carriers.
Aircrafts for carriers will be from USA, so UK buy's F-14 and F-18 for them, and E-2 Hawkeye for AEW.
Plausible?

Dunois · Feb 20, 2011

Another idea but it might be too much of a stretch would be for a common Franco-British carrier in the 60 000 tons range. At the time France was looking at what would become the PN Charles de Gaule to replace its current two carriers. It might just be possible to have the RN to show some interest in the design which would obviously modified and allow nuclear as well as gas turbine propulsion.

Domenic · Feb 20, 2011

I think it would have been not only plausible but sensible. Instead of pouring a fortune into building and operating Mount Pleasant airfield that protects only the Falklands, pour it into carriers and their air wings that can protect British interests and nationals in many places, and if they had been already been in existence in 1982 would have deterred the Argentine aggression from ever happening, thus saving many lives and colossal expenditure.

abc123 · Feb 20, 2011

Domenic said:
I think it would have been not only plausible but sensible. Instead of pouring a fortune into building and operating Mount Pleasant airfield that protects only the Falklands, pour it into carriers and their air wings that can protect British interests and nationals in many places, and if they had been already been in existence in 1982 would have deterred the Argentine aggression from ever happening, thus saving many lives and colossal expenditure.

True.
Does someone has some data's how much construction of Mt. Pleasant Air Base costed?

abc123 · Feb 20, 2011

Dunois said:
Another idea but it might be too much of a stretch would be for a common Franco-British carrier in the 60 000 tons range. At the time France was looking at what would become the PN Charles de Gaule to replace its current two carriers. It might just be possible to have the RN to show some interest in the design which would obviously modified and allow nuclear as well as gas turbine propulsion.

Well, no, actually HMG wanted these carriers ASAP. And international cooperation will delay things.

Blue cat · Feb 20, 2011

abc123 said:
How possible is this development after Falklands war?

HMG, after seeing that Falklands War was in fact pretty close thing, decides that it's a imperative to get 2 BIG ( 65 000 t ) aircraft carriers. Carriers will be conventionally powered. So 2 CTOL carriers, with proper AEW airplanes.
It would be expencive, but national security has no price.
So, HMS Invincible will be sold to the Australia, and HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal will be converted in commando/ASW carriers.
Aircrafts for carriers will be from USA, so UK buy's F-14 and F-18 for them, and E-2 Hawkeye for AEW.
Plausible?

Sure anything is possible

In reality I don't see this happening. The real threat to the UK in the 1980's was the Soviets / Warsaw Pact. Adding two more mid size CTOL carriers to NATO does not make that much difference to the outcome of a NATO / WARPAC war. Buying two mid sized CTOL carriers with air wings, and paying for the crews to run them is going to mean less money spent on something else. (ie. the UK probably gives up on buying the Tridents, and drops out of the Eurofighter program.)
Unless some one could predict the collapse of the Soviet Union I don't see the UK going down this road in the 1980's.

abc123 · Feb 20, 2011

Blue cat said:
Sure anything is possible In reality I don't see this happening. The real threat to the UK in the 1980's was the Soviets / Warsaw Pact. Adding two more mid size CTOL carriers to NATO does not make that much difference to the outcome of a NATO / WARPAC war. Buying two mid sized CTOL carriers with air wings, and paying for the crews to run them is going to mean less money spent on something else. (ie. the UK probably gives up on buying the Tridents, and drops out of the Eurofighter program.)
Unless some one could predict the collapse of the Soviet Union I don't see the UK going down this road in the 1980's.

True.
The price is big.
But, price of Falklands war was bigger.
After all, if UK had these two carriers in 1982, Argentina most probably never would have invade Falklands.

The another option is lease of 2 older carriers from USA.
Maybe Coral Sea and Midway or Oriskany and Lexington?

abc123 · Feb 20, 2011

abc123 said:
True.
The price is big.
But, price of Falklands war was bigger.
After all, if UK had these two carriers in 1982, Argentina most probably never would have invade Falklands.

The another option is lease of 2 older carriers from USA.
Maybe Coral Sea and Midway or Oriskany and Lexington?

OK, I calculated some things.

The cost of War was about 700 millions of GBP ( 1982 ).
Cost of Mt. Pleasant airfield was about 225 millions of GBP ( 1983 ).
Additional costs for defence of Fallklands are about 600 millions of GBP ( 1983 ).
In today's money thats about 4,2 billions of pounds.

That should be enough for buying of carriers.
For the costs of airgroups, that should be a problem. But if Harriers or Bucaneers were used for ground strike or if only Hornets were bought that should reduce costs.
Also, Sea Kings are allready there.
So only buying Tomcats ( or Hornets if cheaper )? And E-2 for AEW.

Selling of Invincible ( if Australian Government stays with buying ) could provide some additional funds.

Russell · Feb 20, 2011

RAF Mount Pleasant exists so that in theory you won't have to send a massive (and expensive) naval task force across 6000 miles of ocean to defend them. The base acts as a conduit where more troops and equipment can be brought in to defend the island in short notice (24 hours or so). All in all, RAF Mount Pleasant is a far cheaper option both in terms of money, logistics and lives than great big lumbering carriers.

Carriers are not a substitute for a good garrison.

Russell

abc123 · Feb 20, 2011

Russell said:
RAF Mount Pleasant exists so that in theory you won't have to send a massive (and expensive) naval task force across 6000 miles of ocean to defend them. The base acts as a conduit where more troops and equipment can be brought in to defend the island in short notice (24 hours or so). All in all, RAF Mount Pleasant is a far cheaper option both in terms of money, logistics and lives than great big lumbering carriers.

Carriers are not a substitute for a good garrison.

Russell

True.
But, as someone said- RAF Mt. Pleasant is good for one thing only. Carriers are good for more than one thing.

Blue cat · Feb 20, 2011

abc123 said:
True.
The price is big.
But, price of Falklands war was bigger.
After all, if UK had these two carriers in 1982, Argentina most probably never would have invade Falklands.

QUOTE]

I'm not sure about that, my sense is that Argentina didn't plan on having to fight the UK beyond the initial operation to capture the islands.

I'd be really curious in seeing a source that outlines how the Argentineans assessed the ability of the UK to re capture the Falklands vs their ability to defend them, if in fact a detailed assessment was carried out.

abc123 · Feb 20, 2011

Somewhere on the net I found that in beginning of 2000s CDN offered to build updated version of Charles de Gaulle carrier with all the glitches sorted out for 2 billions of Euros.
Let's say that not-nuclear version of CDG would cost 10 % less.
That's about 1,2 billion of pounds per carrier.

So if UK decided to build 2 such smaller carriers, that could be achievable.
Maybe leaving only one Invincible class ship ( because of manpower ). That could be possible?

abc123 · Feb 20, 2011

Blue cat said:
abc123 said:

True.
The price is big.
But, price of Falklands war was bigger.
After all, if UK had these two carriers in 1982, Argentina most probably never would have invade Falklands.

QUOTE]

I'm not sure about that, my sense is that Argentina didn't plan on having to fight the UK beyond the initial operation to capture the islands.

I'd be really curious in seeing a source that outlines how the Argentineans assessed the ability of the UK to re capture the Falklands vs their ability to defend them, if in fact a detailed assessment was carried out.

Click to expand...

It's truth that Argentinians thinked that UK will let falklands go without a fight.
But they had some reasons to think so, and one of them is that Britain decided to scrap Hermes and Invincible, and total scrapping of carriers was in sight...

Thande · Feb 20, 2011

We didn't have the money and it would have been political suicide coming at the time of the miners' strike (i.e. "how can you claim these mines are uneconomical and will have to close putting thousands of people out of a job when you're wasting money on a white elephant aircraft carrier for an impossible war?")

abc123 · Feb 20, 2011

Thande said:
We didn't have the money and it would have been political suicide coming at the time of the miners' strike (i.e. "how can you claim these mines are uneconomical and will have to close putting thousands of people out of a job when you're wasting money on a white elephant aircraft carrier for an impossible war?")

Well after Falklands war it isn't so impossible anymore.

After the war, Government should not have big problem in increasing of defence budget a bit.

And also, mines should be closed never mind does Goverment has the money for subsidies, that's a matter of phillosophy, not the Treasury.

Thande · Feb 20, 2011

abc123 said:
Well after Falklands war it isn't so impossible anymore.
:

Yes it is, because the Argies no longer had the capability to do it.

abc123 · Feb 20, 2011

Thande said:
Yes it is, because the Argies no longer had the capability to do it.

One day they could have.
Also, then is no need for construction of Mt. Pleasant and keeping a garrison there.
But they decided not to take any risk about that.
So, only thing needed is to make a different descision.
And construction of 2 aircraft carriers is good for employing.

KillerT · Feb 20, 2011

the money wasn't there-fact. The Type 43 was supposed to have been built after Falklands-instead we got 4 Type 22 C batch.

Blue cat · Feb 20, 2011

abc123 said:
OK, I calculated some things.

The cost of War was about 700 millions of GBP ( 1982 ).
Cost of Mt. Pleasant airfield was about 225 millions of GBP ( 1983 ).
Additional costs for defence of Fallklands are about 600 millions of GBP ( 1983 ).
In today's money thats about 4,2 billions of pounds.

That should be enough for buying of carriers.
For the costs of airgroups, that should be a problem. But if Harriers or Bucaneers were used for ground strike or if only Hornets were bought that should reduce costs.
Also, Sea Kings are allready there.
So only buying Tomcats ( or Hornets if cheaper )? And E-2 for AEW.

Selling of Invincible ( if Australian Government stays with buying ) could provide some additional funds.

In a cold war context I can't see the RN buying CTOL carriers that are not capable of fighting the USSR. That means buying F14 class interceptors with Phoenix class AAM's, modern strike aircraft (I can see billions being spent trying to navalize the Tornado, or maybe the UK buys into the A12 program..), first class escort ships to help defend them from mass AS4 attack from Backfire bombers etc..

The RN is going to end up having to fund and man the equivalent of two US CVBG's plus invest in modern naval strike and fighter air craft.

abc123 · Feb 20, 2011

KillerT said:
the money wasn't there-fact. The Type 43 was supposed to have been built after Falklands-instead we got 4 Type 22 C batch.

True.
But Falkland war showed the value of expeditionary warfare. Invincible class, while doing the job in South Atlantic, was clearly not best suited for that.
What I want is to find some way that RN has 2 CTOL carriers in service after Falklands or some other way of stronger RN carrier fleet after the Falklands..