Eagle most certainly could have operated definitively into the 90s and, depending on how thorough Eagles 1964 rebuild was (if she’d been rebuilt and refitted completely like victorious) she may very well have kept going into the 2000s
Bulwark, Tiger and Blake to the Falklands
- Thread starter HMSAnson
- Start date
Callaghan was extremely critical of the Defence cuts. If he had his hand forced into cutting the military he would have most likely gone after the RAF (anyway it serves them right for getting CVA-01 through 04 cancelled)
If that would the case, it's very interesting. Almost bridging the gap to the QEs, or maybe a more sane timeline being a british variant of de Gaulle (rather than the QE hermaphrodite monstrosities- imo no sane decision makers should built a 75,000 ton carrier with severely range and payload limited VTOL planes, VTOL planes should only be used on smaller ships that cannot accomodate CTOL operations) built in the 1990s-2000s as i think some timelines suggest.
Yes
Or BAOR, as the Germans and Beneluc could fill gaps there but not in a naval force or the long range air strike role.
Giant Man Eating Rabbits
Banned
Or how about instead of the three Invincible's built in OTL, the UK instead in 1973 build just two larger Invincible's around 50% larger in length and beam carrying 50 aircraft, 36 x Sea Harriers and 12 x SeaKing HAS's? Would the money spent on three I's cover two larger I's? Any left over £'s could then can go to building SeaKing AEW's.
It will still need the RN to hide the fact that they Harr-Carriers and call them "Through Deck Cruisers" with Commando facilities.
Giant Man Eating Rabbits
Banned
Could the BOAR be returned to the UK and used as a "Operation Reforger" style force? Surely that would save £££'s for an improved RN?
The problem was the hiding (and the design started when they still thought they might get CVA-01 as well...), large ships would have been far better and even not cost much more if you dont add any more expensive system to them.
Last edited:
At the risk that it's not taken seriously and that increase the risk of war? I mean fundamentally stopping the Russian army was probably the most important defence requirement of the Cold War, that it did not happen doesn't mean it did not need to be prepared for unless you have hindsight. If you have to pick losing the Falklands or Europe in the 70s you will pick the Falklands and would be right to do so, one really isnt vital to UK..... Russian army tanks getting to Belgium and French border, then it going nuclear would be.
Did NATO not already have issue with Dutch and Belgium armies not being in place on weekends as they had gone home, If UK takes BOAR home the force is even weaker?
Last edited:
Having served in BOAR there is no way the 55,000 British troops, and all their vehicles and equipment could be found the bases in the UK to accommodate them; and it would be very expensive to relocate all of the above. Even if you left all the kit and just moved back the soldiers there is still not enough base's and accommodation.
The Invincible class should really have been 10,000 tons larger for the role they ended up performing. It would have made them much more capable but I doubt the RN could have got away with a Through Deck Battlecruiser.
Last edited:
What parts of the RAF would have been cut? I'm not being sarcastic. I'm genuinely curious.
Ramontxo
Donor
VTOL planes have an ginormeus advantage for any limited forces country (that is anyone but the USA) they can cross deploy from the land based Airforce to the carriers. Even if an Airforce uses navy capable aircrafts (Phantoms, F-18, Scooters etc) they are not carrier deployable if their pilot isn't. It takes a lot of, continuous, training (if using conventional aircrafts) to make an pilot being able to fly from carriers. With an Harrier (or even better an BAE P-125) you can surge your RN carriers with RAF fighters.
Last edited:
50% larger you say.
That would make them 30,000 ton vessels
Hermes was 28,000 tons
If we don’t change the governments then the plans for these larger invincibles would be seen for what they were and cancelled
Why would you build ships that size to operate nine Sea Kings? That's what the INVINCIBLE class were designed to do. They really were helicopter cruisers. They were severely compromised as aircraft carriers by their design as cruisers. It wasn't just a bluff to get them past the Treasury.
As far as running on EAGLE and ARK ROYAL goes, the planning in the early 1960s was for ARK ROYAL to be retired more or less when it was, and for EAGLE to run on until 1984, to be replaced by CVA-03 and CVA-04 respectively. You might get a few more years out of EAGLE, but probably not many more. In material condition terms, both were probably closer to the FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT - retired in 1977 - than to MIDWAY or CORAL SEA.
The other half of the reason for the raids was to make the Argentine junta realise that if the UK could hit the Falkland Islands with strategic bombers then they could also hit the mainland, which caused them to modify their deployments. IIRC to the embarrassment of the RAF it was apparently a Royal Navy officer who made the suggestion. Even with the two cruisers reactivated I'd expect them to still occur.