Could the UK have done a better job of maintaining carrier based air power?

[Rule of cool]

How they could do that without reallocating money from the RAF

Easy, the RAF had a TASMO Group of fighters, ex RN Buccaneers and a few cats and bogs like SR V bombers specifically tasked with providing support to the RN. Indeed the name is Tactical Air Support Maritime Operations. Instead of the RAF providing the support to the RN AND the RN having its own carriers each with an afloat jet fighter sqn these assets and their funding could have just stayed with the RN and its fleet carriers.

 

[EwenS]

A cunning plan......isn't that what happened to the Vaubon docks at Toulon, two of the back to back docks can take a Forrestal?

Sorry but dont have a photo of a Forrestal in said dock but from what i've read that was the case.

From AI/wiki.....During the Cold War, the southwest dry dock was widened so that the US Navy's massive Forrestal-class supercarriers (and later, even larger Nimitz-class nuclear carriers) could be safely docked, repaired, or serviced in the Mediterranean theatre.


View attachment 818923

As originally built, the two Vauban dry docks at Toulon were 422m x 40.66m. and could be divided into two sections, like many other dry docks, to accept smaller vessels. Given the waterline beam of a Forrestal was 39.42m it would have been a very tight squeeze, leaving no working room, and impossible for a Nimitz at 40.8m waterline beam.

According to a post on another site way back in 2007 (i.e.before AI) the South West dock was widened in the 1960s to accept the US carriers (final width not given). The cost was covered from NATO funding.

 

[1635yankee]

I had a different idea: See if the USN could be persuaded to help fund Midway-sized (or even Forrestal-size) drydocks around the globe.

Yes, you'd have to make them available to the US if needed for fixing one of their carriers. But you'd also have them for your carriers!

I'm not sure if any UK government could tolerate giving away that much sovereignty.

 

[EwenS]

As far as I am aware no US supercarrier has ever docked at either Portsmouth or Devonport Dockyards. When visiting Portsmouth they anchor out in the Solent. A Forrestal had a draught of about 36ft and a Nimitz has a draught of up to 41ft.

A great deal of dredging had to be carried out in the approaches to Portsmouth ahead of the introduction of the Queen Elizabeth class carriers with their draught of 36ft. The scale of that project iscdescriged here.
https://boskalis.com/media/dw5lbt5u/project_sheet_-_portsmouth_qec_capital_dredge.pdf

I can't see what depth it has been dredged to, but the supercarriers still anchor offshore.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm not sure if any UK government could tolerate giving away that much sovereignty.

To get someone else to help pay for infrastructure improvements? Also, remember that I said docks around the globe, not on the UK islands.

See also the US funding longer runways at airports.

As far as I am aware no US supercarrier has ever docked at either Portsmouth or Devonport Dockyards. When visiting Portsmouth they anchor out in the Solent. A Forrestal had a draught of about 36ft and a Nimitz has a draught of up to 41ft.

A great deal of dredging had to be carried out in the approaches to Portsmouth ahead of the introduction of the Queen Elizabeth class carriers with their draught of 36ft. The scale of that project iscdescriged here.
https://boskalis.com/media/dw5lbt5u/project_sheet_-_portsmouth_qec_capital_dredge.pdf

I can't see what depth it has been dredged to, but the supercarriers still anchor offshore.

Okay, so any docks at the UK would need serious channel dredging in addition to enlarging the docks. That makes a much more expensive upgrade to those drydocks.

 

[spikedpsycho]

US could have sold or donated it's modded Midways.
Or had Modded Centaur to CATOBAR small nuclear carrier.

 

[CV12Hornet]

US could have sold or donated it's modded Midways.

They were old and largely needed to keep up carrier numbers.

Or had Modded Centaur to CATOBAR small nuclear carrier.

LMAO. No they couldn't.

 

[GK. Dundas]

They were old and largely needed to keep up carrier numbers.


LMAO. No they couldn't.

And it would have been cheaper to build a Nimitz class .....at Harland & Wolff
There's a pretty good reason no one modifies a ship to use a reactor and it's not just cost factors although it's probably a pretty major part of the puzzle.

 

[PMN1]

As far as I am aware no US supercarrier has ever docked at either Portsmouth or Devonport Dockyards. When visiting Portsmouth they anchor out in the Solent. A Forrestal had a draught of about 36ft and a Nimitz has a draught of up to 41ft.

A great deal of dredging had to be carried out in the approaches to Portsmouth ahead of the introduction of the Queen Elizabeth class carriers with their draught of 36ft. The scale of that project iscdescriged here.
https://boskalis.com/media/dw5lbt5u/project_sheet_-_portsmouth_qec_capital_dredge.pdf

I can't see what depth it has been dredged to, but the supercarriers still anchor offshore.

True, they've never docked inside Portsmouth or Devonport....they anchor offshore and the crew then invade the local McDonalds like a bunch of Gannets....the actual bird...