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

Not wishing to encroach on P1216 territory I think the timing of replacing the Sea Harrier/Invincible combo is always going to depend on the USA.
UK economic misery in the 70s hands Harrier leadership to McDD. Any Sea Harrier successor is going to have to be an earlier F35B.
In OTL the end of the Cold War in 1991 delayed the US Marine need for a Harrier replacement and Sea Harrier/Invincible are not replaced until 1997. A Cold War programme might have seen a Vickers Light Fleet ship mated to a McDD/BAe design sponsored by the US Marines.
 
uk 75 said:
If I had a clean piece of paper the RN in 1982 would have had three improved Eagle type carriers operating F4, Buccaneer, a new AEW/COD platform (Anglo French?) Seakings while a VG strike/attacker similar to UKVG (or AFVG) would be about to enter service.
Click to expand...
If you're running an Eagle type carrier (hopefully with deck edge elevators like a civilized ship), could either new build Turbo Stoofs or Hawkeyes fit? hangars, elevators, catapult capacity, etc?

I just don't see even a joint Anglo-French purchase being large enough to make it worth the development costs if a Greyhound/Hawkeye or Turbo Stoof would fit. Just order some new build Hawkeyes if they will fit, otherwise buy the Turbo Stoof production rights outright and build a couple dozen brand new E-1Ts, C-1Ts, and maybe even S-2Ts for some fixed wing ASW work.
 
uk 75 said:
If I had a clean piece of paper the RN in 1982 would have had three improved Eagle type carriers operating F4, Buccaneer, a new AEW/COD platform (Anglo French?) Seakings while a VG strike/attacker similar to UKVG (or AFVG) would be about to enter service.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't use anything related to Eagle's design. She's outdated in all aspects by 1982, saddled with multiple inefficiencies thanks to her WW2 origins, and frankly too small for efficient CATOBAR operations.
 
I try to remain within the scope of real world options. In the 1950s the Eagle was the best the UK could build. CVA 01 required much more effort and as events showed, only two at most could have been built, with CVA 02 not entering service till the late 70s.
Talk of a Midway or Forrestal can only remain that given the state of the UK in the late 1950s early 1960s.
 
The efficiency or not of a given size of aircraft carrier is directly related to the aircraft carried.
The requirements of the aircraft dictate the systems for launch and recovery and in turn this along with the dimensions of the aircraft determine the deck layout and minimum size.
The operational requirements for the aircraft in turn dictate the numbers to be operated from a carrier and in turn this dictates the minimum size. Which of course dictates the size of hull and machinary used for propulsion.

Within this context it is obvious that any design from before or during WWII, never included the need to operate Mach 2 fighters or a nuclear bombers of the size and operational parameters of the F4 Phantom or Buccaneer.

Yet it is a testament to sound design and engineering that such could be with heavy modifications, operated in reasonable numbers from carriers like Ark Royal or Eagle.

Talk of any carrier over 870ft long at the flight deck is talk of either using commercial or heavily expanded or new military drydocks for the UK's RN.
When CVA-01 began, it too hit this problem and the long term solution was to contemplate a new drydock.
CVF ultimately involved heavy expansion of existing military drydock at Rosyth. Accepting that the bridge imposed modest constraints on timing of access and height of non-folding structures.
 
Part of Post 115.
BlackBat242 said:
Eagle's modernization had cost £500 million, and the required work to operate Phantoms was estimated to be ~£5 million and 6 months in the yard. While this almost certainly would have gone up somewhat in both cost and time, it really wasn't much in either respect.

Ark Royal's 1967-70 modernization cost £400 million, and was much less complete. In particular, her propulsion plant had not been fully overhauled, and gave repeated problems for the entirety of her 8 year post-modernization service.

With the 8 years between the start dates inflation had had some effect, so the cost in 1959 £ was probably more like £350 million.
Click to expand...
What was your source for those costs? They're highly inaccurate.
  • £350 million at the 1959 exchange rate of £1 Sterling = $2.8 US equals $980 million. That's enough to pay for 2 Enterprise class CVAN whose cost was $393 million according to my copy of Jane's 1969-70.
  • £500 million at the 1964 exchange rate of £1 Sterling = $2.8 US equals $1,400 million USD, which is enough to pay for 3 Enterprise class CVAN.
  • £400 million at the 1970 exchange rate of £1 Sterling = $2.4 US equals $960 million USD, more than enough to pay for USS Nimitz, whose estimated cost in 1969 was $536 million according to my copy of Jane's 1969-70.
  • According to the Bank of England inflation calculator.
    • £350 million in 1959 was worth £400 million in 1964 and £516 million in 1970.
    • £500 million in 1964 was worth £438 million in 1959 and £646 million in 1970.
    • £400 million in 1970 was worth £271 million in 1969 and £310 million in 1964.
My source for the exchange rates is: https://fx.sauder.ubc.ca/etc/GBPpages.pdf

According to my copy of Jane's 1969-70.
  • Ark Royal cost £21,428,000 to build and the "Phantomisation" refit (which began in March 1967 and was scheduled to end in July 1970) was estimated to cost £30 million.
  • Eagle cost £15,795,000 to build and the cost of her 1959-64 refit was £31 million.
  • The 1964-66 refit of Hermes cost £10 million. It doesn't quote her building cost.
  • The building costs of Centaur, Albion & Bulwark were £10,434,000, £9,836,000 and £10,386,000, excluding guns, aircraft and equipment.
  • It doesn't have the cost of the "great rebuild" of Victorious. All it has about her is a paragraph on Page 314 saying that she decommissioned on 13th March 1968 and was still laid up in 1969.
According to my copy of Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers 1945-1990 by Leo Marriott.
  • The estimated cost of CVA.01 in 1966 was £70 million.
    • £70 million in 1966 was worth £83 million in 1970, therefore the £400 million that your source says was spent on Ark Royal 1967-70 would have paid for 4 CVA.01s with ease.
    • £70 million in 1966 was worth £64 million in 1964, therefore according to my sources the 1959-64 refit of Eagle was equivalent to nearly half the estimated cost of CVA.01.
  • The cost of Ark Royal's 1967-70 refit was £32 million and she re-commissioned in February 1970, so it was completed 5 months ahead of time and £2 million (7%) over cost.
  • The 1950-58 "great rebuild" of Victorious cost £20 million.
  • Hermes cost £37.5 million to build, which was nearly double the cost of rebuilding Victorious 1950-58.
    • According to Hansard the cost of the ship was £18 million, but it doesn't make it clear if that includes the £1 million spent on her electronic equipment. (https://api.parliament.uk/historic-...estimates-1960-61#S5CV0619P0_19600307_HOC_318)
    • Therefore, the £37.5 million quoted by Marriott may be a typo for £17.5 million.
    • It doesn't say how much her 1971-73 conversion from a strike carrier into a commando carrier cost, but from memory it was £25 million.
BlackBat242 said:
Had another 2 years and a couple hundred million £ more been spent in the modernization, Ark Royal likely would have been good until 1985-90.
Click to expand...
According to the Bank of England inflation calculator:
  • The £31 million spent on the 1959-64 refit of Eagle was the equivalent of £27 million in 1959 and 40 million in 1970.
    • And.
  • The £32 million spent on the 1967-70 refit of Ark Royal was the equivalent of £22 million in 1959 and 25 million in 1964.
Therefore, my guess is that it would have cost an extra £8 million to refit Ark Royal to the same standard as Eagle. That standard included a Type 984M radar and ADA. However, Ark Royal might have received a Type 984P radar (or even a Type 988) instead of the Type 984M and ADAWS Mk 3 instead of ADA, which may be more expensive.

Scott Kenny said:
Good luck prying a couple hundred million GBP out of Treasury, however.
Click to expand...
My guess is that an extra £8 million was required to refit Ark Royal to the same standard as Eagle. See above.

Edit 12.35PM GMT 04.11.23.
My memory was correct. The entry on Hermes in Jane's Fighting Ships 1981-82 (Internet Archive copy) says that the cost of her commando carrier conversion was £25 million.
 
Last edited:
lancer21 said:
How much did an Invincible cost? Looking at the price quoted for Australia, it seems for the price of one Invincible it would have been enough to say give Ark Royal the rest of the needed refit in the seventies so it could serve into the 1980s at least. And Eagle's small cost for full Phantom capability could have been covered as well. Both offering far, far greater capability compared to the puny Invincibles.
Click to expand...
According to my copy of "Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers 1945-1990" by Leo Marriott.
  • £184,500,000 million for Invincible completed in 1980.
  • £220,000,000 million for Ark Royal completed in 1985.
It didn't have a cost for Illustrious.

Using the Bank of England inflation calculator.
  • £184,500,000 million in 1980 was worth £255,600,000 million in 1985.
  • £220,000,000 million in 1985 was worth £158,800,000 million in 1980.
As far as I know the major differences between Invincible and Ark Royal when they were completed were that:
  • Invincible had a smaller ski-jump than Ark Royal.
  • Invincible (and Illustrious) had ADAWS Mk 6 and Ark Royal had ADAWS Mk 10.
  • Invincible didn't have any Phalanx CIWS, but (Illustrious had 2 and) Ark Royal had 3.
My guess is that they made a negligible difference to the costs and the differences were all due to inflation.

Illustrious was completed in 1982 and according to the Bank of England inflation calculator:
  • £184,500,000 in 1980 was worth £220,200,000 in 1985.
  • £220,000,000 in 1985 was worth £191,100,000 in 1982.
And now a bit of fun.
  • The total cost of the Invincible class was £624,500,000 if we assume that Illustrious cost the same as Ark Royal.
  • Marriot wrote that the estimated cost of CVA.01 in 1966 was £70 million, which according to the Bank of England inflation calculator was worth.
    • £265,400,000 in 1980.
    • £319,400,000 in 1982.
    • £367,600,000 in 1985.
    • Total £924,400,000.
  • On that basis 3 CVA.01s built instead of the 3 Invincibles would have cost £331,900,000 or 50% more.
  • In the region of £1,000,000,000 was spent on the Nimrod AEW project between 1977 and 1986. That aircraft would not have been needed if 3 CVA.01s had been built instead of the Invincible class.
However, I repeat it's only a bit of fun, but it does support my theory that the building cost of 3 CVA.01s would have been no more than double the building costs of the 3 Invincibles and that the money spent on the Nimrod AEW would have made up the difference.
 
Certainly 3 CVA would give far greater flexibility for both aircraft options and operational missions.

Their main downsides would be operating costs and size limiting factors on certain missions where a smaller ship might have more benefit.

But whether we are talking a Falklands War, or Yugoslavia, or Gulf War or Sierra Leon, they would deliver far greater effectiveness. As they would to Atlantic patrols and threatening Soviet SSBN bastions.

As surely as it's political impact at say the handover of Hong Kong.
 
Or just go the easy route and only build two CVA-01s. Still far, far more capable ships than the Invincibles, though presumably in this scenario the Sea Harrier would not exist, or would it?

The CVA-01s could then confortably serve until the QEs or something similar but more down to earth (with cats and Sea Typhoons) are built.
 
Last edited:
zen said:
Certainly 3 CVA would give far greater flexibility for both aircraft options and operational missions.

Their main downsides would be operating costs and size limiting factors on certain missions where a smaller ship might have more benefit.

But whether we are talking a Falklands War, or Yugoslavia, or Gulf War or Sierra Leone, they would deliver far greater effectiveness. As they would to Atlantic patrols and threatening Soviet SSBN bastions.

As surely as it's political impact at say the handover of Hong Kong.
Click to expand...
lancer21 said:
Or just go the easy route and only build two CVA-01s. Still far, far more capable ships than the Invincibles. Though presumably in this scenario the Sea Harrier would not exist, or would it?
The CVA-01s could then comfortably serve until the QEs or something similar but more down to earth (with cats and Sea Typhoons) are built.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth the point I'm making is that phasing out the strike carriers didn't save a great deal of money once the cost of the Invincible class and the RAF's TAMSO force is deducted from the cost of 3 CVA.01s.
 
lancer21 said:
Or just go the easy route and only build two CVA-01s.
Click to expand...
Three are needed because three Invincibles were built. Only building two will create availability issues so there might be important occasions when one or no ships were available in this "version of history" when two or one ships were available in he "Real World".
lancer21 said:
Still far, far more capable ships than the Invincibles.
Click to expand...
I agree. Imagine CVA.01 and Eagle in the Falklands War instead of Invincible & Hermes and being relieved by CVA.01 instead of by Illustrious.
lancer21 said:
Though presumably in this scenario the Sea Harrier would not exist, or would it?
Click to expand...
You presume correctly. The Sea Harrier would not exist. That is unless India still wants to buy some, but they'll have to pay the R&D cost, which may have made their cost prohibitive.
 
NOMISYRRUC said:
Part of Post 115.

What was your source for those costs? They're highly inaccurate.


According to my copy of Jane's 1969-70.
  • Ark Royal cost £21,428,000 to build and the "Phantomisation" refit (which began in March 1967 and was scheduled to end in July 1970) was estimated to cost £30 million.
  • Eagle cost £15,795,000 to build and the cost of her 1959-64 refit was £31 million.


My guess is that an extra £8 million was required to refit Ark Royal to the same standard as Eagle. See above.
Click to expand...
I got those numbers from somewhere in the internet, and you are right that they are highly inaccurate.

I found the following numbers here https://www.seaforces.org/marint/Royal-Navy/Aircraft-Carrier/R-05-HMS-Eagle.htm
and here https://www.seaforces.org/marint/Royal-Navy/Aircraft-Carrier/R-09-HMS-Ark-Royal.htm.

Eagle modernization: £31 million, estimated Phantomization "no more than 5 million pounds in 1968".

Ark Royal modernization: £30 million "and was confined to changes needed to operate the RN's version of the Phantom" (including flight deck changes and enlargement). "Significantly, there was little more than an overhaul of her steam turbines and boilers; meaning that mechanically she was very dated".

Using the exchange rates you quote, Ark Royal's modernization (if the £30 million was in 1970 £) was £23.22 million in 1964 £. Compared to £36 million total if Eagle had been Phantomized, you see just how austere Ark Royal's modernization had been.
 
Last edited:
Maybe those figures, 400 million or whatever where in today's money, or at any rate adjusted for a more recent time which would make more sense.
NOMISYRRUC said:
Three are needed because three Invincibles were built. Only building two will create availability issues so there might be important occasions when one or no ships were available in this "version of history" when two or one ships were available in he "Real World".

I agree. Imagine CVA.01 and Eagle in the Falklands War instead of Invincible & Hermes and being relieved by CVA.01 instead of by Illustrious.

You presume correctly. The Sea Harrier would not exist. That is unless India still wants to buy some, but they'll have to pay the R&D cost, which may have made their cost prohibitive.
Click to expand...
I only speculated for two CVA-01s just to save money on the ever tight budgets. There would also be some money saved by not building the Sea Harrier, since Phantoms and Buccaneers already exist.
So then CVA.01 is built replacing Ark Royal in late 1970s, and CVA.02 is build replacing Eagle in early part 1980s.
What options India has then, perhaps Super Etendard?
 
BlackBat242 said:
I got those numbers from somewhere in the internet, and you are right that they are highly inaccurate.

I found the following numbers here https://www.seaforces.org/marint/Royal-Navy/Aircraft-Carrier/R-05-HMS-Eagle.htm
and here https://www.seaforces.org/marint/Royal-Navy/Aircraft-Carrier/R-09-HMS-Ark-Royal.htm.

Eagle modernization: £31 million, estimated Phantomization "no more than 5 million pounds in 1968".

Ark Royal modernization: £30 million "and was confined to changes needed to operate the RN's version of the Phantom" (including flight deck changes and enlargement). "Significantly, there was little more than an overhaul of her steam turbines and boilers; meaning that mechanically she was very dated".

Using the exchange rates you quote, Ark Royal's modernization (if the £30 million was in 1970 £) was £23.22 million in 1964 £. Compared to £39 million total if Eagle had been Phantomized, you see just how austere Ark Royal's modernization had been.
Click to expand...
This is a paragraph from https://www.seaforces.org/marint/Royal-Navy/Aircraft-Carrier/R-05-HMS-Eagle.htm.
While fitting adequate blast deflectors and other minor changes for Phantom operation were estimated to cost no more than 5 million pounds in 1968, refitting the ship to operate with a modern airgroup of Phantoms into the late 1970s was clearly going to cost much more, and the new Conservative government in 1970 confirmed plans to convert Hermes to a Commando carrier and withdraw Eagle. In February 1972, the Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Carrington, estimated refitting Eagle to operate Phantoms would cost 25-30 million pounds, and the overall manpower and cost requirements of operating two large strike carriers were beyond Britain, particularly as Ark Royal was expected to serve to the end of the 1970s with only two short refits. To preserve Eagle in maintained or unmaintained reserve would require refits, estimated at around £4m, every 3-4 years, and maintenance crew of 350-400 Navy personnel for 1.5-2 million pounds a year. Reactivation would take four and a half months to a year, while maintaining a Sea Vixen squadron was unjustified expense for aircraft that were obsolete. The refit of Ark Royal cost £32 million to allow operations of a fully modern airwing, though it was generally accepted that even after her return to service she considered to be in a significantly worse overall material state in comparison to Eagle. Of the 48 Phantom FG1s ordered for the FAA, 20 were diverted to the RAF equipping 43 Sqn, though some were loaned back to the Navy to equip the Phantom FG1 training unit 767 NAS which trained both RN and RAF Phantom crews until it was disbanded in 1972.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the £25-30 million quoted by Lord Carrington in February 1972 included repairing the damage done by her grounding.

My memory that the 1971-73 conversion of Hermes from a strike carrier to a commando carrier cost £25 million was correct because the copy of Jane's 1981-82 on Internet Archive says it cost £25 million. Had she not been converted into a commando carrier it would have been possible to Phantomize Eagle 1971-73 instead and Albion would have continued to serve as a commando carrier instead of being decommissioned in 1973.

Eagle remained at Devonport until 1978, so does that mean that she absorbed 350-400 navy personnel at a cost of £1.5-2 million a year at 1972 prices for 6 years?

Lord Carrington said that Ark Royal's refit cost £32 million, which matches what Marriott wrote.

For what it's worth the £32 million that it cost to refit Ark Royal 1967-70, the £25 million that it cost to convert Hermes 1971-73 and the £23 million that it cost to build Bristol 1967-73 comes to a total of £90 million which would have gone a long way towards building CVA.01 in its 1966 form because it's estimated cost of £70 million in 1966 was £105 million in 1973 according to the Bank of England inflation calculator.
 
It was my impression that "refitting the ship to operate with a modern airgroup of Phantoms into the late 1970s was clearly going to cost much more," referred to more than just the ship work - in the same way that the estimates of cost for CVA-01 included the aircraft and escorts - and the quoted cost for converting the new HMS QE to CTOAL operations included the cost of C-2 Hawkeyes instead of Merlin AEW, the cost differential of F-35C vs F-35B, the extra personnel to operate the EMALS and AAG, and the extra training costs needed for cat&trap operations.

So yes... he almost certainly was lumping in every cost he could find (including the aircraft themselves, as more would be needed with two carriers in service) to jack up the total to "we can't afford this" totals to support the "scrap them all" decision.
 
In March 1972 there was a debate about the future of Eagle during which it was asked if the Govt would change its mind and retain her in “maintained reserve”. Lord Carrington said this during the debate:-

“.....After a thorough and careful studythe Government came to the conclusion that it was not practicable to run HMS Eagle on after 1972. If I had a lot of money available I would not seek to keep HMS Eagle in Commission, but would seek to speed up the entry into service of the new weapons. The arguments against keeping the vessel in reserve are conclusive. Initially, she would need a refit costing between £2 million and £4 million and frequent refits thereafter. Even under the most favourable circumstances, it would take four and a half months to get her out of Reserve and made fully operational.”

Unfortunately keeping a ship in maintained reserve comes with a cost. Not necessarily in terms of large numbers of men to man her, but in terms of regular dockings to ensure it remains watertight, and machinery regularly serviced and maintained.

Having made the decision not to keep her, she was stripped bare of reusable equipment over the summer of 1972 at Portsmouth. Then in Aug she was towed to Devonport and moored off Cremyll. Between then and her eventual disposal in Oct 1978 she was left unmaintained and was plundered to supply spares to keep Ark Royal going.

Her fate was similar to Leviathan back in the 1960s.
 
uk 75 said:
I try to remain within the scope of real world options. In the 1950s the Eagle was the best the UK could build. CVA 01 required much more effort and as events showed, only two at most could have been built, with CVA 02 not entering service till the late 70s.
Talk of a Midway or Forrestal can only remain that given the state of the UK in the late 1950s early 1960s.
Click to expand...
Eagle was most certainly not the best the UK could build in the 50s. And I'm not even talking about CVA-01 or the classic 1952 fleet carrier when I say that, the 1954 Medium Carrier was of similar dimensions and air wing size despite being so much lighter, thanks to being actually built after WW2 after the big revolutions in carrier design to operate jet aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Certainly a fleet if 2 or 3 Medium Fleet Carriers would likely have a lifespan not too different from the Clemenceaus.
 
Details of 1954 design? The 1952 fleet is too small and CVA01 too complicated (its designer's view too).
 
NOMISYRRUC said:
My guess is that an extra £8 million was required to refit Ark Royal to the same standard as Eagle. See above.
Click to expand...
You're still attempting to pry money out of Treasury, which never wants to actually spend ANY. Despite a pretty good % coming back in taxes. To a government, what should matter is that money flows. Any place that just accumulates money is a drain on the economy, even and especially if that place is part of the government.
 
uk 75 said:
Details of 1954 design? The 1952 fleet is too small and CVA01 too complicated (its designer's view too).
Click to expand...
IIRC it was an 800-footer of 35,000 tons designed to carry 40 fixed-wing aircraft (12 Sea Vixens, 12 Scimitars, 8 notional strike aircraft that became the Buccaneer, and 8 Gannets).

Also, bruh, if the 1952 fleet is too small what does that make Eagle? The 1952 design, despite being the same weight, was a good 70 feet longer with attendant benefits in capacity and deck handling. This is the sort of thing I'm referring to when I say that Eagle's WW2 origins badly hampered her.
 
Archibald said:
An Anglo-French Mirage G with a Spey and in place of (altogether) AFVG, Jaguar, Mirage F1 and Tornado, plus a naval variant, would be completely awesome.
Can be done starting in 1965 in place of AFVG if Jaguar is stuck at Hawk / Alphajet level of subsonic trainer and only that.
Click to expand...
My variant of that brings the point of departure forward from 1965 to 1962.

Instead of the P.1154 to replace the Hunter and Sea Vixen the plan was for a development of the P.1127 to replace the Hunter (which became the Real-Harrier GR.1) and an Anglo-French Mirage G with two Speys to replace first the Sea Vixen and then the Lightning.

HMG paid its portion of the R&D bill with the money spent on P.1154, the BS.100 engine and the Spey-Phantom's R&D in the "Real World". My "guesstimate" is that it would enter service at the same time as the Spey-Phantom and cost no more to build. Plus it would have been paid for in Sterling & Francs instead of Dollars to the cost wouldn't have gone up as a result of the devaluation of the Pound in November 1967. Therefore, the order may not have been reduced from 209 to 170. Although serials for 233 aircraft were actually allocated.

The Real-Mirage G could operate from Clemenceau & Foch. Would the Spey powered version have been able to operate from Eagle, Hermes, Victorious and Ark Royal before her 1967-70 refit?

I think there would still have been a Jaguar like aircraft, because the ALT-Mirage G would have been too expensive for a one-to-one substitution even after allowing for a longer production run and not having to pay the R&D costs of the Real-Jaguar. But, the ALT-Jaguar was probably a British led project because France led the ALT-Mirage G project and therefore had a single-Spey engine and might have been the Real-BAC P.45.

I think Mirage F-1 and Tornado would have still happened.

No BS.100 means the HS.681 would have needed a different engine in this "version of history". Any suggestions? All I can think of are a Medway development, Conway or RB.178. However, it would still be cancelled in 1965.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You're still attempting to pry money out of Treasury, which never wants to actually spend ANY. Despite a pretty good % coming back in taxes. To a government, what should matter is that money flows. Any place that just accumulates money is a drain on the economy, even and especially if that place is part of the government.
Click to expand...
No. I'm not attempting to pry more money out of the Treasury. I'm estimating the extra cost of refitting Ark Royal to the same standard as Eagle.
 
The G and G8 Mirages were perhaps the best VG planes in the world as of 1969. Much less troubled development than F-111 and MiG-23. The G touched down at 108 kt, not bad for a 15 tons aircraft.
 
On a purely UK basis, had the Medium Fleet gone ahead, both a greater focus on a AW.406-like solution is inevitable and yet the potential to ease operational parameters allows a more standard F4 based solution as well. Not that this will ultimately make it much cheaper due to necessary UK content.

Thus Type 583, Type 584/585 VG solutions are likely to gain greater traction.
Of which 584/585 was designed to meet NMBR.3 and only lost due to a high focus on VTOL.
 
NOMISYRRUC said:
No. I'm not attempting to pry more money out of the Treasury. I'm estimating the extra cost of refitting Ark Royal to the same standard as Eagle.
Click to expand...
You're missing my point.

Refitting Ark Royal to the same standard as Eagle would require prying money out of Treasury. And Treasury never wants to spend any, always penny wise and pound foolish!
 
Scott Kenny said:
You're missing my point.

Refitting Ark Royal to the same standard as Eagle would require prying money out of Treasury. And Treasury never wants to spend any, always penny wise and pound foolish!
Click to expand...
Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves!

And I didn't miss your point.
 
Archibald said:
The G and G8 Mirages were perhaps the best VG planes in the world as of 1969. Much less troubled development than F-111 and MiG-23. The G touched down at 108 kt, not bad for a 15 tons aircraft.
Click to expand...
Were the dimensions of the G and G8 the same. All I've been able find are those for the twin-engine G8 which I'm guessing is the closest to the ALT-version with Spey engines.

The Wikipedia entry on Mirage G & G8 doesn’t have the dimensions for the former, but according to it the latter was 61ft 8in long and 17ft 7in high. The lifts on Ark Royal & Eagle were 54 feet long and their hangars had a clearance of 17ft 6in. Therefore, it the naval version requires a folding nose (like the Buccaneer & Phantom) and the tail would have to be redesigned.
 
Nope, the G8s were way too big and heavy: as large as a Mirage IV, a touch bigger than a Tornado. Too much for any carrier smaller than a Forrestal. Unless of course you shrink them to M45... wait, that's the AFVG. :D

The -G, on the other hand, did wonders even with a bloody f*cking TF30. With a Spey, it would rock the skies. Australia and the Australians badly wanted it. Also the US Navy, circa 1969 they wanted a 3 planes test squadron not unlike the P.1127 multinational squadron.

Since then I realized the US Navy probably saw the Mirage G as the VFAX-1, come true. Unfortunately the Tomcat ate the budget and VFAX had to wait 1972to get reborn: only to be screwed by NATF and then the Hornet was born, as the Tomcat sidekick.
Bottom line: Mirage G could have been VFAX & Tomcat sidekick a few years before the Hornet. A baby Tomcat, circa 1975...
 
Last edited:
NOMISYRRUC said:
Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves!
Click to expand...
And yet, the British military is filled with things "fitted for but not with" items required for the mission.

The ships lost at the Falklands from fires? The bulkhead penetrations had not been fireproofed as a cost saving measure. The fires spread through the bulkhead penetrations.

Escort ships were given missile systems that could not engage incoming missiles if the missile wasn't coming directly at the escort.
 
NOMISYRRUC said:
Re the Medium Aircraft Carrier. I wrote this thread on Alternatehistory.com before I became a believer in the theory that "steel is cheap and air is free".

Argus class Aircraft Carrier HMS Glorious

It became so big that I'm spinning it off Alternative Warships of Nations into its own thread...
www.alternatehistory.com
Click to expand...
Which appears to be offline at the moment.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom