Plausability check: Falklands War consequences

[Domenic]

I don't see what's so implausible about us building two fleet carriers when we are currently engaged in... building two fleet carriers. Doing it wouldn't at all have been beyond our means, it would just be a matter of reallocating priorities. Nor do I buy that the carriers would have been useless in the Cold War. Conflict with Soviet proxies was far more likely than with the Soviets themselves, and in the event of hot war the RN carriers would have been useful adjuncts to US CBGs. Finally, why does Britain have its own SSBN force? To provide an independent deterrent. Why not have an independent carrier force for less drastic scenarios than one in which SSBNs might be used?

We didn't do it, and I'm sure there were reasons. I just don't find the idea ridiculous, in fact I rather wish we had done it.

 

[Blue cat]

I don't see what's so implausible about us building two fleet carriers when we are currently engaged in... building two fleet carriers. Doing it wouldn't at all have been beyond our means, it would just be a matter of reallocating priorities. Nor do I buy that the carriers would have been useless in the Cold War. Conflict with Soviet proxies was far more likely than with the Soviets themselves, and in the event of hot war the RN carriers would have been useful adjuncts to US CBGs. Finally, why does Britain have its own SSBN force? To provide an independent deterrent. Why not have an independent carrier force for less drastic scenarios than one in which SSBNs might be used?

We didn't do it, and I'm sure there were reasons. I just don't find the idea ridiculous, in fact I rather wish we had done it.

Dropping the SSBN force in order to pay for a CTOL fleet and aircraft would likely have been the type of trade off that would need to have been made in the 1980's if the UK wanted a credible CTOL fleet. For what ever the reason the UK seems to value having their own SSBN force.

 

[KillerT]

manpower was the other issue as to why it didn't happen. There was a HUGE shortfall in recruiting-they're still having problems now and this is when you have forces overall of 180,000 (and decreasing) back in 82 there were still 170,000 in the Army, over 90k in RAF and 50K in RN... how the mighty have fallen eh? So yup would have been nice, but sadly never happening. IF it had though the best scheme would be lease or buy Oriskany and while she's in use build 2 new ships, aircraft? F18's and E2's. UK would not operate S2 Viking -the Merlin does everything a Viking can (and probably better), F14 Tomcat-cat in hells chance! Long term then maybe Typhoon is a naval aircraft from the start a la Rafale...I'd buy that for a dollar!

 

[abc123]

I don't see what's so implausible about us building two fleet carriers when we are currently engaged in... building two fleet carriers. Doing it wouldn't at all have been beyond our means, it would just be a matter of reallocating priorities. Nor do I buy that the carriers would have been useless in the Cold War. Conflict with Soviet proxies was far more likely than with the Soviets themselves, and in the event of hot war the RN carriers would have been useful adjuncts to US CBGs. Finally, why does Britain have its own SSBN force? To provide an independent deterrent. Why not have an independent carrier force for less drastic scenarios than one in which SSBNs might be used?

We didn't do it, and I'm sure there were reasons. I just don't find the idea ridiculous, in fact I rather wish we had done it.

My way of thinking exactly.

And public debt of UK today is? How many?

I found data on public debt of UK as about 1600 billions of USD in 2009.
So, do you have public debt of 1600 billions or 1603 billions- is that so important?

 

[abc123]

Dropping the SSBN force in order to pay for a CTOL fleet and aircraft would likely have been the type of trade off that would need to have been made in the 1980's if the UK wanted a credible CTOL fleet. For what ever the reason the UK seems to value having their own SSBN force.

Scrapping of all SSK?
Earlier scrapping of Leander class?
Putting of second Invincible class in reserve?
Delaying of Trident for a pair of years?

 

[abc123]

manpower was the other issue as to why it didn't happen. There was a HUGE shortfall in recruiting-they're still having problems now and this is when you have forces overall of 180,000 (and decreasing) back in 82 there were still 170,000 in the Army, over 90k in RAF and 50K in RN... how the mighty have fallen eh? So yup would have been nice, but sadly never happening. IF it had though the best scheme would be lease or buy Oriskany and while she's in use build 2 new ships, aircraft? F18's and E2's. UK would not operate S2 Viking -the Merlin does everything a Viking can (and probably better), F14 Tomcat-cat in hells chance! Long term then maybe Typhoon is a naval aircraft from the start a la Rafale...I'd buy that for a dollar!

About the manpower, manpower for Hermes was more than 2000, and for 3 Invincible class about 3000.
So, 5000 sailors, enough for 2 smaller CTOL carriers. I'm pretty sure that carrier made in 80s could have 2500 strong crew.

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

I don't think this idea is plausible, although I would loved to have seen it happen, unless there was a massive increase in the defence budget, where that money would have come from given the range of economic problems Britain faced at that time is unclear. More likely perhaps would have been the building of a 30,000 tonnes "Super Invincible" to replace Hermes which would have been capable of operating up to 30 Harriers and AEW Sea Kings and replacement of Fearless and Intrepid with more modern assault ships.

One of the reasons given for killing CVA-01 was the affordability issue, so unless there's a huge new pot of money, (or you privatize the RAF! ) then that would still apply. The best argument you could have made for a big carrier post 1982 was that it would give you the flexibility to deal with unforeseen crises like the Falklands. That is persuasive but you still have the money issue. The Super Invincible option would have allowed the RN to be able to deploy a sizeable number of Sea Harriers, which had proven themselves to be effective in the Falklands, to any conflict zone. You would probably also have seen a lot of money being poured into an Advanced Harrier project like the AV-8B which would have been adopted by the RN instead of the comparatovely more modest FA.2 OTL

 

[KillerT]

Yup a stretched BIG Vince is as much as you're probably going to get-say embarking up to 16 helicopters (mix of ASW, AEW and junglies), plus 2 sqdns worth of SHAR's-OMG we've just gone and got ourselves a Kiev.....(albeit better built and with far better aircraft embarked)

 

[Blue cat]

Scrapping of all SSK?
Earlier scrapping of Leander class?
Putting of second Invincible class in reserve?
Delaying of Trident for a pair of years?

Well according to Wikipedia the design of the Upholder class was started in the 70's and the Falkland experience re affirmed the usefulness of SSK's. So if you drop the SSK force you lose the money already invested in the Upholder program and lose an asset that was useful in the type of war you where having your own CTOL carriers would be useful.

If you scrap the Leander class early you have fewer general purpose warships to provide ASW escorts for your carriers, convoy escorts if WW3 breaks out, escorts for your amphibs etc.

With regards to the Invincible class I can't see the UK building CTOL carriers and keeping any of the invincibles around.

If you delay the Trident program then you need to spend more money to keep Polaris in service and my recollection was that in real life the UK kept Polaris going as long as they could. Dropping the SSBN program entirely is probably going to be needed to fund a viable CTOL force IMHO. Even then you are still faced with a manpower problem.

Wikipedia states the UK contribution to the Trident R&D was estimated to cost 5 Billion pounds in 1982 (total program cost of over 9 Billion Pounds)and the relevant agreement was signed in 1982 so this seems a reasonable POD.

The SSBN force seems to be a sacred cow for the UK and I can't see the UK dropping this during the cold war.

 

[abc123]

Yup a stretched BIG Vince is as much as you're probably going to get-say embarking up to 16 helicopters (mix of ASW, AEW and junglies), plus 2 sqdns worth of SHAR's-OMG we've just gone and got ourselves a Kiev.....(albeit better built and with far better aircraft embarked)

Kiev was major waste of money, and such Super-Invincible would be too.
In generall, any one-piece ship is a waiste of money.
Better then to build 2 ordinary Invincibles more and use them as a commando/ASW carriers, and OTL 3 as strike carriers.

 

[abc123]

Well according to Wikipedia the design of the Upholder class was started in the 70's and the Falkland experience re affirmed the usefulness of SSK's. So if you drop the SSK force you lose the money already invested in the Upholder program and lose an asset that was useful in the type of war you where having your own CTOL carriers would be useful.

If you scrap the Leander class early you have fewer general purpose warships to provide ASW escorts for your carriers, convoy escorts if WW3 breaks out, escorts for your amphibs etc.

With regards to the Invincible class I can't see the UK building CTOL carriers and keeping any of the invincibles around.

If you delay the Trident program then you need to spend more money to keep Polaris in service and my recollection was that in real life the UK kept Polaris going as long as they could. Dropping the SSBN program entirely is probably going to be needed to fund a viable CTOL force IMHO. Even then you are still faced with a manpower problem.

Wikipedia states the UK contribution to the Trident R&D was estimated to cost 5 Billion pounds in 1982 (total program cost of over 9 Billion Pounds)and the relevant agreement was signed in 1982 so this seems a reasonable POD.

The SSBN force seems to be a sacred cow for the UK and I can't see the UK dropping this during the cold war.

I agree that a independent nuclear deterrence is vital.
No discussion about that.

IMO, increase of defence budget was nescesarry.

About Leanders, tehy were not really usefull any more, except for patrols in most benign environments.
And Type 22 is in construction and Type 23 in planing. Leanders were manpower intensive, Type 23 has 50 sailors less. Type 22 is about the same in manpower, but is much better frigate. So quality for quantity.

I didn't understand that argument about usfulness of SSK?
I agree that they are usefull, but IMO 10 existing SSNs could do the trick. And 7 new Trafalgar class will come in service by 1991.
After all, after 1990 RN scrapped SSKs.
And yes, we loose money spent on designing of Upholder, but we don't build them, and that is a big saving.

Maybe UK get's some sort of credit from USA or some grace period, so that she has longer period for paying for Trident.

 

[Blue cat]

I agree that a independent nuclear deterrence is vital.
No discussion about that.

IMO, increase of defence budget was nescesarry.

About Leanders, tehy were not really usefull any more, except for patrols in most benign environments.
And Type 22 is in construction and Type 23 in planing. Leanders were manpower intensive, Type 23 has 50 sailors less. Type 22 is about the same in manpower, but is much better frigate. So quality for quantity.

I didn't understand that argument about usfulness of SSK?
I agree that they are usefull, but IMO 10 existing SSNs could do the trick. And 7 new Trafalgar class will come in service by 1991.
After all, after 1990 RN scrapped SSKs.
And yes, we loose money spent on designing of Upholder, but we don't build them, and that is a big saving.

Maybe UK get's some sort of credit from USA or some grace period, so that she has longer period for paying for Trident.

Well the Batch 3 converted Leanders got Seawolf sams (amongst other upgrades) that were quite useful in the Falklands. I'm not sure you would want to scrap warships carrying Seawolf until new replacements are built.

My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that SSK's were used for inserting Special forces teams and other tasks during the Falklands conflict. In any event as the Upholder program was started before the Falklands war there were likely other reasons why the RN felt SSK's were worth having.

Of course if you can simply increase the defence budget to fund CTOL carriers without having to scrap something else that is important (such as the SSBN force) and you can recruit enough sailors and air crew for the ships and air craft then go for it

Still if you can spend more money on defence I'd still argue buying more tanks for BAOR, more fighter aircraft for the RAF, more munitions for the weapons you already have so you could fight a full scale conventional war for months instead of days or weeks etc, is a better investment in a cold war context but presumably the budget could be increased to pay for these items as well

 

[abc123]

Well the Batch 3 converted Leanders got Seawolf sams (amongst other upgrades) that were quite useful in the Falklands. I'm not sure you would want to scrap warships carrying Seawolf until new replacements are built.

My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that SSK's were used for inserting Special forces teams and other tasks during the Falklands conflict. In any event as the Upholder program was started before the Falklands war there were likely other reasons why the RN felt SSK's were worth having.

Of course if you can simply increase the defence budget to fund CTOL carriers without having to scrap something else that is important (such as the SSBN force) and you can recruit enough sailors and air crew for the ships and air craft then go for it

Still if you can spend more money on defence I'd still argue buying more tanks for BAOR, more fighter aircraft for the RAF, more munitions for the weapons you already have so you could fight a full scale conventional war for months instead of days or weeks etc, is a better investment in a cold war context but presumably the budget could be increased to pay for these items as well

Not the newest Leanders, begin in 1983 with oldest Leanders, Batch 3 can be retired only when first Type 23 ships are in service. Let's say first 9 Leanders could go in 1983. That would provide 2200 sailors. 6 2nd batch later in 80s, and 10 of the 3rd Batch in beginning of 90s.

The fact that only 4 Upholders are made at the end speaks too. I agree that they are usefull. But you have to make savings somewhere.
So, all Oberons until 1985 and not construction of Upholders, that saves
Giving Oberons to the Canada/Australia/other NATO members keeps them in fight against USSR and not a trouble for UK budget.

One of reasons why I decided that POD is Falkland war is my opinion that after the war, where the concept of putting of whole RN in service of NATO, and disregarding UK national interests ( and capability of independent expeditionary operations is certainly one of them ) proved wrong and that public resistance to the increasing of defence budget wouldn't be so strong.

I wouldn't spend not even a penny more on those things you mentioned in last paragraph.

 

[PhilKearny]

Would purchasing and refitting one of the American carriers that was in reserve/mothballs be an option or would the refit be too expensive?

 

[abc123]

Would purchasing and refitting one of the American carriers that was in reserve/mothballs be an option or would the refit be too expensive?

Too much manpower needed for them.
Too old. They would need some serious refitting.
In 10 years you would be again on the same place.

 

[Blue cat]

Not the newest Leanders, begin in 1983 with oldest Leanders, Batch 3 can be retired only when first Type 23 ships are in service. Let's say first 9 Leanders could go in 1983. That would provide 2200 sailors. 6 2nd batch later in 80s, and 10 of the 3rd Batch in beginning of 90s.

The fact that only 4 Upholders are made at the end speaks too. I agree that they are usefull. But you have to make savings somewhere.
So, all Oberons until 1985 and not construction of Upholders, that saves
Giving Oberons to the Canada/Australia/other NATO members keeps them in fight against USSR and not a trouble for UK budget.

One of reasons why I decided that POD is Falkland war is my opinion that after the war, where the concept of putting of whole RN in service of NATO, and disregarding UK national interests ( and capability of independent expeditionary operations is certainly one of them ) proved wrong and that public resistance to the increasing of defence budget wouldn't be so strong.

I wouldn't spend not even a penny more on those things you mentioned in last paragraph.

I expect this may be my last post on this topic

IMHO UK national interests in the 1980's were closely aligned with helping NATO deter the Soviets from attacking Western Europe and cutting the North Atlantic sea lanes. If war with the Soviets and their allies does break out then UK national interests are closely aligned with favorably concluding this war without resorting to Nuclear weapons. Strangely enough some other countries such as USA and Canada also came to a similar conclusion despite being considerably farther away from Western Europe than the UK.

Conventional forces able to do this are more likely than not going to be useful in various possible overseas conflicts (as happened during the Falklands war) but in the long run the UK is likely going to be able to figure out a way to handle Falkland islands type wars with the forces they have on hand. Worst case they accept a set back and spend a few years building the required conventional forces to crush the enemy, or rent them from the US, or ask the commonwealth or NATO to help, or sink enemy shipping with SSN's or come up with some other way to deal with the problem.

Having reasonable stock piles of modern weapons would be helpful in a re run of the Falklands war especially if the UK can't count of foreign help. I seem to recall that the AIM9L sidewinders that proved to be fairly important in 1982 came from US stocks.

Having an independent nuclear deterrent force is also nice to have in the late cold war context as well (but it seems we agree on this.)

Anyways I've enjoyed this discussion.

All the best Blue cat.

 

[abc123]

Could someone tell me what major units British Army had except BAOR in 1983?

 

[Blue cat]

Could someone tell me what major units British Army had except BAOR in 1983?

Here is an order of battle from 1989 it's likely fairly representative to the situation in 1983 for the UK.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37695/NATO-Order-of-Battle-1989

 

[abc123]

Here is an order of battle from 1989 it's likely fairly representative to the situation in 1983 for the UK.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37695/NATO-Order-of-Battle-1989

Thanks.

 

[abc123]

How about this?

Can UK decide to keep HMS Hermes and HMS Bulwark in service for another 10 years until they have more money?
And, since Bulwark was in bad condition, how much money could cost a major repair and adding a ski-jump?

What is better/cheaper, constructing No.4 and ( maybe ) No.5 Invincible class vessel or keeping these two in service and rebuilding them?

I admitt, these two are not some real quality improvements, but they do increase number of carriers.