Buccaneers in the Falklands

So in OTL 1960s, HMS Hermes carries Sea Vixens, Buccs, Wasps, and Gannets

There were apparently plans in the early 60s for it to carry Phantoms but these never occured, partly (presumably) because of Phantom Engine troubles, partly (presumably) for money, etc. Round about 1970, the Sea Vixens retired, Hermes gets converted to a Commando Carrier. Later in the 70s Hermes gets converted to an ASW carrier with Sea Harriers.

So what if: ATL

Sea Vixens retire in 1970ish. Still no Phantoms (or other fighter replacement) for Hermes.

Instead money is saved by not converting to a Commando carrier, but continuing to carry Buccs (and Gannets and Wasp or Sea King probably). Perhaps the threat of Soviet Cruisers (which Buccs were designed to sink) is considered more important.

By the late 70s Hermes is not converted to an ASW Carrier, but carries Buccs, Gannets, & Sea King. It's lack of fighters is justified, by the fact that it will always operate under cover of land-based aircover, or near Invincible etc. Some of ths space freed up by Sea Vixens removal, is taken up by a few extra Buccs (ex-Ark or ex-Eagle ones)

Some RN Buccs even get Sidewinders (which they did get in OTL RAF service).

1982: Argentina invades the Falklands

The Navy sends Invincible (with Harriers + Sea King), plus Hermes with a load of Buccs, Gannets + Sea King.

Assuming the Argentines are even stupid enough to try anything, Hermes' Airwing will be capable of providing longer-ranged AEW, reducing the need for radar pickets. So that's fewer losses, and now you've got Harriers, Buccs, and a few hastily re-navalized Phantom FG.1 (easily done, and probably worth it) clearing the skies over the Falklands.

It's a Brit wank, although certain deficiencies in the RN aren't made apparent, so it might bite them in the ass later.

It does make the decision to retire Ark Royal and Eagle look really bad in retrospect, so perhaps the RN, buoyed by a quick victory buys two/three fleet carriers afterward, both for Colonial duties and NATO commitments.

Hermes carried a total of 28 aircraft in the time stated. This was usually 9 Buccaneers, 9 Sea Vixens, a single COD Gannet, 3 AEW Gannets, 2 Wessex as plane guards and balance being Sea Kings. Assume the Vixens are gone then its probably for Falklands a few Sea Harriers for CAP, say half dozen? 12 Buccaneers, 4 AEW Gannets and 6 Sea Kings plus a smaller Lynx for plane guard and Exocet decoy. Your dozen Buccaneers can probably deploy 2-3 with recce pod, 2- 3 with buddy tanks and balance with Martels, rocket pods, iron bombs and the like, maybe even Shrike instead of the Vulcan doing that job.

Oh btw there is NO way you'd get Phantoms flying off Hermes, it was a tight enough squeeze on Ark Royal!
If however we now look post Falklands then maybe we are talking 2 new carriers with F18s and E2s....now how good would that have been?

KillerT said:

Oh btw there is NO way you'd get Phantoms flying off Hermes, it was a tight enough squeeze on Ark Royal!
If however we now look post Falklands then maybe we are talking 2 new carriers with F18s and E2s....now how good would that have been?

Click to expand...

Maybe some Skyhawks? It would obviously cause confusion with the Argentinean A-4's but its the only aircraft I can think of that could operate off Hermes in CTOL mode and carry out air defence missions.

I can't see that the RN would operate a carrier with a powerful long range strike aircraft but no fighters, the Sea Vixens would have to be replaced with a proper fighter and as KillerT said Phantoms are not an option.

The big problem with the Hermes is its speed, or lack thereof. In the Sth China Sea in the 60s she really struggled with her heavy CAG in low wind conditions because she had to maintain flank speed of 29kts as well as full power catapult shots. I think the RN would have breathed a sigh of relief when Hermes was taken off heavy fleet duties, although they would have been pissed that the Victorious and Eagles were being scrapped early.

The RN was in a funny position in the 60s, where its best option was also its only option; to put Phantoms on Eagle and Ark Royal and demote/scrap everything else.

KillerT said:

Oh btw there is NO way you'd get Phantoms flying off Hermes, it was a tight enough squeeze on Ark Royal!
If however we now look post Falklands then maybe we are talking 2 new carriers with F18s and E2s....now how good would that have been?

Click to expand...

given the investment in the Invincible class I can't see the UK changing things, perhaps you'd see the CVF project done in the 00's than the 10's and perhaps CATBOR as designed rather than the STVOL aircraft.

Though I think the RAF would be well pissed if the RN FAA did the jobs instead of the Vulcans.

Riain said:

I can't see that the RN would operate a carrier with a powerful long range strike aircraft but no fighters, the Sea Vixens would have to be replaced with a proper fighter and as KillerT said Phantoms are not an option.

The big problem with the Hermes is its speed, or lack thereof. In the Sth China Sea in the 60s she really struggled with her heavy CAG in low wind conditions because she had to maintain flank speed of 29kts as well as full power catapult shots. I think the RN would have breathed a sigh of relief when Hermes was taken off heavy fleet duties, although they would have been pissed that the Victorious and Eagles were being scrapped early.

The RN was in a funny position in the 60s, where its best option was also its only option; to put Phantoms on Eagle and Ark Royal and demote/scrap everything else.

Click to expand...

Hermes probably summed up all that was wrong with the RN's post war carriers, she was laid down just after D-Day but wasn't commissioned until 1959 in the intervening time aircraft had changed and grown out of all recognition, in truth she was obsolete as a fleet carrier from the outset, service as a CVS or LPH was all she was up to.

If there's one thing I could change about the postwar RN it would be to scrap the Centaurs and Audacious' on the docks and either build something like the Malta's or the 1952 Carrier design. Had the RN got 2 or 3 big deck carriers in the early 1950's then they could have served into the 1980's and been available had the Falklands still happened.

Heremes was designed to be a light fleet carrier, but by 1959 Britain's carrier fleet was shrinking to a point where if a ship wasn't a full fleet carrier it was an LPH, there was no room in the RN for light fleet carriers. However prior to that there were two wars that light fleet carriers did sterling work in; Korea and Suez.

In my mind the best course of action would have been to get the Centaurs in the water and into the later part of the Korean war with Sea Hawks. Once that's done and it becomes obvious that the RN needs to concentrate of big fleet carriers push these Centaurs out to allies like Canada and Australia who can use them as light fleet carriers.

I think it would be a serious waste of scarce money to scrap 6 ships on the ways when 4 of them could do good work for the RN until the early 60s and then good work for allies until the 80s and the other 2 ships could do good work for the RN until the 80s.

KillerT said:

Oh btw there is NO way you'd get Phantoms flying off Hermes, it was a tight enough squeeze on Ark Royal!
If however we now look post Falklands then maybe we are talking 2 new carriers with F18s and E2s....now how good would that have been?

Click to expand...

I have seen a transcript from the early 60's where it was stated that Hermes would be upgraded for Phantom ops (it came as a bit of a surprise). I doubt it would have been possible in any meaningful way.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1964/mar/02/vote-a-numbers#S5CV0690P0_19640302_HOC_423

I also have this news cutting showing US navy F-4's doing touch-and-go's on Hermes deck. While it is not exactly "operating" them, it is an interesting fact.

Russell

NothingNow said:

Assuming the Argentines are even stupid enough to try anything, Hermes' Airwing will be capable of providing longer-ranged AEW, reducing the need for radar pickets. So that's fewer losses, and now you've got Harriers, Buccs, and a few hastily re-navalized Phantom FG.1 (easily done, and probably worth it) clearing the skies over the Falklands.

It's a Brit wank, although certain deficiencies in the RN aren't made apparent, so it might bite them in the ass later.

It does make the decision to retire Ark Royal and Eagle look really bad in retrospect, so perhaps the RN, buoyed by a quick victory buys two/three fleet carriers afterward, both for Colonial duties and NATO commitments.

Click to expand...

No I don't see Phantoms being plausible on the Hermes. Too small, and it was too optimistic in terms of budget, size and probably Phantom performance too.

Neither do I see Harriers being on a Bucc-equipped Hermes. No room for ski-jump and catapults. It's either/or.

And A4s, F8s, etc., don't seem too likely either. Does anybody realistically seeing the RN agreeing to get these circa 1970? Even if there was money. I don't.

I can just about imagine a Bucc equipped Hermes soldiering on into the early 80s, without fighters. Yes it's vulnerable, but the Buccs are outstanding aircraft against Soviet SAGs, and if beggars can't be chooser, somebody is going to say "Of course we'd prefer to have onboard fighters, but if we can stay within range of land-based fighters..."

You do know a Harrier can do a rolling take off from a normal deck? The only fighter UK had at the time was the SHAR so its that or nowt. Certainly wouldn't go back in time and get Crusaders nor indeed the Skyhawk. The only other feasible option might at a great push have been Jaguar M optimised as a multi role asset a la OTL SHAR but in that case the SHAR would never have been progressed with. Having said all of this an unconverted Hermes does save some money in the sense of the conversion costs but I guess this is offset by keeping the fixed wing force intact albeit severely reduced.

Russell said:

I have seen a transcript from the early 60's where it was stated that Hermes would be upgraded for Phantom ops (it came as a bit of a surprise). I doubt it would have been possible in any meaningful way.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1964/mar/02/vote-a-numbers#S5CV0690P0_19640302_HOC_423

I also have this news cutting showing US navy F-4's doing touch-and-go's on Hermes deck. While it is not exactly "operating" them, it is an interesting fact.

Russell

Click to expand...

I don't think the mutterings in Parliament in 1965, about 3 years before the first aircraft were delivered, can be taken as gospel as to what was and wasn't technically possible with regards to Phantom/Hermes compatibility. Nor are touch and go's of USN Phantoms much of an indication of suitablity since the F4K required 20% more thrust than the F4B to get off Ark Royal's bigger and faster deck.

Even prior to this speech only enough Phantoms were ordered (54) to equip a single squadron on Eagle and Ark Royal plus the base squadron. So if the govt thought the Hermes could operate Phantoms they didn't buy enough to put a squadron on her, although perhaps the govt thought only 2 carriers would be in commission at any one time so 2 sea squadrons would be enough.

I read somewhere once that up to 128 Phantoms were being considered for RN although bear in mind at one time 150 Saro rocket fighters were also being touted, almost in same breath. Of course that's all back when CVA01 was on the cards along with 02 and 03, plus an Aussie 04.

Aussie 04, I've never heard of that.

A lot of crap gets spoken by people who should know better. 128 Phantoms on 4 CVAs, sound ridiculous when they couldn't even get 2 CVAs or even 54 Phantoms into RN service.

I think the best thing a Conventional capable Hermes could bring to the Falklands would be the AEW aircraft that she would bring to the fight. Buccaneers with AIM 9Ls would be great but the early warning capability was desperately needed

KillerT said:

You do know a Harrier can do a rolling take off from a normal deck?

Click to expand...

Yes, but it loses a significant portion of its load/fuel - 30% ?

SunilTanna said:

Yes, but it loses a significant portion of its load/fuel - 30% ?

Click to expand...

Nope. You've got the two backwards.
Thanks to the laws of physics, the Harrier is limited in a vertical take-off to just about what it's engine can push upwards, or on a Sea Harrier FA.2, under 21000lbs, of which ~14,000lbs is plane, leaving you ~6-7,000lbs of fuel and weapons.
A Rolling take-off allows it much higher performance overall, meaning said Sea Harrier FA.2 can now fully exploit it's maximum take off weight of 26,000lbs, for a fuel and weapons load of ~12,000lbs.

Which is greater?

As for the Phantoms, if you could squeeze Buccs belowdecks on Hermes, you could fit Phantoms. It'd be uncomfortable, and terrifying for the LSO, but possibly doable. Probably something you'd only do to get them to Port Stanley after you'd taken the field, but still reasonable enough.

That said, you'd never get me to try and land anything the size of a Phantom on a deck that small.

Its a bit tricky with the Harrier because of the interplay of wing and engine lift. Once the plane goes off the edge of the deck or jump the pilot rotates the engine nozzles down a bit so the plane flies on a combination of wing and engine left, but the nozzles are still pointed aft so the plane picks up speed. As speed increases so does wing lift and the pilot gradually rotates the nozzles fully aft, I think all of this happens in less than a minute.

Fitting the Phantom on the Hermes isn't the problem, its operating them from a small, slow ship which doesn't have the big waist catapult of the Ark Royal.

NothingNow said:

Nope. You've got the two backwards.
Thanks to the laws of physics, the Harrier is limited in a vertical take-off to just about what it's engine can push upwards, or on a Sea Harrier FA.2, under 21000lbs, of which ~14,000lbs is plane, leaving you ~6-7,000lbs of fuel and weapons.
A Rolling take-off allows it much higher performance overall, meaning said Sea Harrier FA.2 can now fully exploit it's maximum take off weight of 26,000lbs, for a fuel and weapons load of ~12,000lbs.

Which is greater?

Click to expand...

Well d'oh. Of course VTOL is worse than STOL, but that's the wrong comparison

The comparison is STOL with a ski-jump versus without. With a ski-jump is ~30% better. If there are Buccs, then no ski-jump, I think.

Phantoms on Hermes is realistically a fantasy. However a supersonic Sea Vixen variant serving into the 80s....? Maybe if the RAF had adopted the DH110 instead of the Javelin, the proposal for a Super Sea Vixen might have come off?

BTW it occurs to me if the Hermes continues without fighters, then the AEW Gannets probably go to in the 70s.