Planned UK carrier order of battle 1975

The RAF drove AFVG to Phantom or Tornado weights, up to 14 tons empty. The french tried to keep it at about 12 tons empty.

Oddly enough, the only "smaller aircraft carrier aircraft development" came a bit later from the US: The Hornet.
 
The main problem for the UK was the refusal to adopt nuclear power for a catapult carrier. Once you have adequate reactors available a carrier of about Midway size becomes a realistic proposition with a valid airgroup.
CVF had the same problem so is limited to F35 stovl.
Two nuclear powered carriers were within the scope of UK industry but then as now there are much more pressing uses for the defence budget: Combined Arms forces in Germany or UK an SSN force with global reach a national deterrent of last resort.
 
@uk 75 No the propulsion is completely irrelevant. CVA-01 would have been a perfectly competent Midway-sized carrier. Both had conventional propulsion. If anything nuclear propulsion would just have made the budget problems worse.
 
The real dilemma for the RN IMHO was whether to commit to large carriers with specialized aircraft (Sea Vixen/F-4K + Buccaneer) or small carriers with multirole light fighters.

They swung for the fences with CVA-01 (option 1) but instead ended up with a suboptimal mix of Option 1 (Ark Royal + F-4Ks) and Option 2 (Hermes until 1970).

So the question is whether an earlier cancellation of CVA-01 would have allowed the RN to more clearly commit to either option. I.e. either Phantomize Eagle earlier and ditch Hermes, or ditch Ark Royal & Eagle (maybe even cancel Eagle’s 1959-64 modernization), cancel the F-4K and Buccaneer S.2 purchases, and develop instead 1 multirole aircraft based on the F-8, F11F, A-4, or Etendard IVB leveraging the Avon or Spey engines and British avionics.
 
IMO the fundamental problem was: CVA-01 was a carrier in search of a mission. The RN never came clear on requirements; east of Suez would end as soon as the last CVA-01 was ready. For ASW, it's overkill. Remains NATO striking fleet Atlantic, but that one does not appear in the planning - or does it?
 
The RN were acutely aware of the prestige associated with providing a carrier to one of the two Carrier Striking Groups in the Carrier Striking Fleet. Ark Royal served in this role in the 70s.
However, after the USN lost its dedicated ASW carriers and put S3s etc on their big carriers, NATO was keen on having the RN provide one or in wartime 2 ASW carriers.
 
There was never any question of the RN operating aircraft less capable than the Phantom/Buccaneer combination from 1970 on. Any less capable alternatives (A4s, Jaguars, Crusaders) were consistently rejected.
AFVG might have provided the single fighter/attacker type first examined with the various swing wing studies in the 60s.
It could not have been in service much before 1979 but it would have allowed a Hermes size carrier to follow on from Ark or CVA01.
Problem was that the UK was flat broke and East of Suez was abandoned even by the Tories from 1970.
NATO ASW becomes the RN's prime role alongside providing the Nuclear Deterrent.
 
uk 75 said:
The RN were acutely aware of the prestige associated with providing a carrier to one of the two Carrier Striking Groups in the Carrier Striking Fleet. Ark Royal served in this role in the 70s.
Click to expand...

Which makes it odd that this was not the role for CVA after EoS. The Air wings for WoS were tilted towards ASW. All very strange.
 
CVA01 with steam boilers in the 1980s would have been an anachronism. It would have required heavy manning and maintenance levels.
A nuclear carrier with a number of UK built reactors was well within our capability. But its the carrier requirement that even today is questionable.
 
orlovsky said:
uk 75 said:
The RN were acutely aware of the prestige associated with providing a carrier to one of the two Carrier Striking Groups in the Carrier Striking Fleet. Ark Royal served in this role in the 70s.
Click to expand...

Which makes it odd that this was not the role for CVA after EoS. The Air wings for WoS were tilted towards ASW. All very strange.
Click to expand...
Not from the 60s on. ASW old style (Gannets/Seamews) dies in 1957
 
uk 75 said:
CVA01 with steam boilers in the 1980s would have been an anachronism. It would have required heavy manning and maintenance levels.
A nuclear carrier with a number of UK built reactors was well within our capability. But its the carrier requirement that even today is questionable.
Click to expand...
Not really. Both the USN and RN would have ships equipped with steam plants into the 2000s. So having a steam powered carrier or two really isn't that strange. And given the sheer cost of designing a nuclear plant and the ongoing cost to maintain it and the pool of very specialized and highly trained techs, nuke plants cost far more than an equivalent steam plant.
 
Fearless and Intrepid had steam plant, the older Type 81s, and Leanders had steam plant. As did the Tigres.
So steam was still fairly in use in the RN into the 1980's.
It's not until Sierra Leon, that steam had so fallen out of use and certain retired persons had to be dragged back to show how to fire up and run the boilers.
 
The UK had nuclear reactors in its SSNs and SSBNs. It had them well developed by the 70s when CVN01 would have entered service.
The same is also true when CVF appears.
A far bigger objection is the unpopularity of nuclear powered ships..
 
uk 75 said:
The UK had nuclear reactors in its SSNs and SSBNs. It had them well developed by the 70s when CVN01 would have entered service.
The same is also true when CVF appears.
A far bigger objection is the unpopularity of nuclear powered ships..
Click to expand...
And look at the hell that the French have gone through trying to use a submarine plant in a carrier. What about that screams "good idea?"
 
What I will say in favour of nuclear is that yes, the UK was at the time of CVA-01 well into the process of ramping up nuclear powerplant design.
And Further in it's favour is the concept of a new larger core and plant than used on submarines, then quite current in thinking.
 
uk 75 said:
CVA01 with steam boilers in the 1980s would have been an anachronism. It would have required heavy manning and maintenance levels.
A nuclear carrier with a number of UK built reactors was well within our capability. But its the carrier requirement that even today is questionable.
Click to expand...
Technically a nuclear plant is a steam plant but with higher maintenance and safety requirements.
 
All somewhat academic as no UK government after 1967 was in the position to pay for a new carrier and the SSN force.
However, and for another thread, CVF should have been proper carrier
 
uk 75 said:
However, and for another thread, CVF should have been proper carrier
Click to expand...
By that; I assume you mean it should have cats and traps. Which I couldn't agree with you more.

If a been a far more flexible ship, it could have carried force multiplier the Hawkeye, rather than the far more limited Crows Nest, and could launch a tanker. We would have a choice of aircraft Typhoon (if the decision had been made early enough for the necessary air frame modification, F18, Rafale or the F35c,

In my opinion I would go for a mixed air-group of F18 for air-defence and the F35c for strike.
.
I also strongly believe we should have a third carrier. (I know we can't afford it, (although if the Government can find £5 billion for a completely duff
Track and Trace) it's another example of politicians wanting a position on the world stage, but not being prepared to pay for it.
 
uk 75 said:
Not from the 60s on. ASW old style (Gannets/Seamews) dies in 1957
Click to expand...

Well, the RN shifted ASW to Helicopters.

So the RN tried to sell the politicians three 60thsd tons heli carriers?
 
The Jaguar M is an odd beast, it wasn't completely ideal for the job, as Archibald says the higher-rated Adour 104 might have helped but some aerodynamic tweaks would have been needed and I believe there were some undercarriage issues too, though no doubt that could have been fixed.
It would have needed a decent multi-mode radar, please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the Jaguar M prototype ever received provision for a radar? This could only have realistically come from Britain.

But what role would it have for the RN? It wasn't an all-weather interceptor, for that it needed radar and AAMs, Sidewinder might have been ok for tackling Bears and Mays but Backfire would have needed something better and I can't see the RN paying to integrate Sparrow/Skyflash on Jaguar M. Plus it was only single-seat and probably would have needed additional fuel for a decent CAP. Adding radar, decent inertial navigation etc. would have bumped up the weight too.
For strike the Buccaneer was purpose-designed for all-weather strike, again Jaguar M lacked a radar and couldn't tote four Martels (well 3 and a datalink pod).
As UK75 says, nothing less than Phantom/Buccaneer capability was ever desired by the RN. Jaguar M was probably closer to what the French wanted, but even they were lukewarm.

It would have been better as a swing-role platform than Sea Harrier for a conventional carrier... but Sea Harrier wasn't even a dream yet and Jaguar M is useless for the Command Cruiser backdoor carrier capability being cooked up in the recesses of the Admiralty.

As for the ships, we've gone over carrier permutations and plans and what-ifs in dozens of threads, I'm not sure what more we can say on the subject. No option is fully optimal or fool-proof and indeed I've yet to see any what-if provide a realistic alternative to what really happened once all the factors of money, manpower, materiel and geopolitics are weighed up. The RN got out of the big carrier business for 40 years but its not like we really missed it (someone is bound to point out the 2 months out of the 480 that might have mattered - but we still won out).
 
The Jaguar M was designed without a radar. It seems the SuE was planned with a radar from the outset, I do not know that caused that change of mind.
 
orlovsky said:
IIRC, they assumed a 15 carrier fleet with a 30 year lifetime per carrier.
Click to expand...
One of the contributing factors to dropping the build rate was an increase in CVA(N) life expectancy from 30 years to 50 years. A 15 carrier fleet then becomes one ship every three and a bit years, which is what we see with the NIMITZ class all the way through to CVN-75 apart from one missing ship whilst the CVV controversy was going on.

It really goes to pot with the end of the Cold War, with the interval getting stretched out to nearly six years between ships in the 1990s and 2000s. Through the Clinton, Bush and Obama years that implies a future fleet of just eight big deck carriers.
 
orlovsky said:
The Jaguar M was designed without a radar. It seems the SuE was planned with a radar from the outset, I do not know that caused that change of mind.
Click to expand...

You have a point there. What's more, even plain old Etendard IV had a radar, AFAIK called Aida 7.
SEM had Anemone or Agave.

And I swear that some Indian Jaguars have a radar able to target and guide British or French anti-ship missiles (but I may be wrong). Then again, they are British, not French, Jaguars, so their avionic suit is far more complete.

This well informed website mentions no radar whatsoever, for Jaguar M.

Weird. I can't see French naval aircraft without exocets... but how would the Jaguar M picks its Atlantic Conveyor... pardon, its target, I have no idea.

 
Archibald said:
orlovsky said:
The Jaguar M was designed without a radar. It seems the SuE was planned with a radar from the outset, I do not know that caused that change of mind.
Click to expand...

You have a point there. What's more, even plain old Etendard IV had a radar, AFAIK called Aida 7.
SEM had Anemone or Agave.

And I swear that some Indian Jaguars have a radar able to target and guide British or French ati-ship missiles (but I may be wrong). Then again, they are British, not French, Jaguars, so avionics is far more complete.
Click to expand...
They do. The Jaguar IM. It has an Agave radar and is capable of launching Sea Eagle ASMs
 
And the Agave is the very radar of the Super Etendard, and Exocet capable, obviously.

Yet no trace of it inside a Jaguar M nose.
 
Archibald said:
And the Agave is the very radar of the Super Etendard, and Exocet capable, obviously.

Yet no trace of it inside a Jaguar M nose.
Click to expand...
Well, it was only a prototype. Maybe it was planned to be fitted in the production examples. I know several US prototype fighters were built that way too reduce complexity during testing and trials
 
Archibald said:
orlovsky said:
The Jaguar M was designed without a radar. It seems the SuE was planned with a radar from the outset, I do not know that caused that change of mind.
Click to expand...



Weird. I can't see French naval aircraft without exocets... but how would the Jaguar M picks its Atlantic Conveyor... pardon, its target, I have no idea.
Click to expand...

In Nov 1971, the Navy complained about Jaguar M: "Absence de radar. Il s’agit là d’une demande nouvelle opérationnelle liée, à l’évidence, au fait que les Alizé ne seront pas remplacés."

http://www.eurosae.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Bonnet_Avions_militaires_I.pdf p 171

Still odd, as the Alizé radar was used for ASW and AEW.
 
Well done ! A little weird, indeed. Maybe the Alizés were to guide combat aircraft toward their naval targets ?! The Etendard IV radar was pretty crude and antiquated, even by 1970 standards. Maybe it needed Alizés to somewhat pick or illuminate targets, one way or another. Perhaps finding ships on the ocean.

Note that the Super Etendard with its radar could do the job all by itself.
 
With the exocet's active radar, it should suffice to direct the carrying plane towards the target. Must have been this way with the joystick guided AS-30.
 
So the Alizés would be needed to guide Jaguar-Ms to the target until the Exocet finishes the job...

The funny thing is, the Alizés only died with the Clemenceau... in 1997.
 
What would the role be of a navalised Jaguar for the RN?
In the context of being a P1154 successor, the answer has to be a missile delivery platform. Extending the reach of anti-ship missiles.
A secondary Anti-Fleet-Shadower role is obvious and in which it ought to outperform the likes of P1127 Harrier or Skyhawk.
All at extra cost in terms of catapults, arrestor gear, fuel burn rates etc over the Harrier.
 
Much more interesting than Jaguar is the naval version of AFVG which might have combined the capabilities of the Phantom and Buccaneer in one smaller sized aircraft.
If France had persevered with this aircraft for the AdA and MN the incoming Tory government in 1970 might have taken another look at the aircraft carrier question.
 
Given the discussion above I was wondering what would have been the ideal engine power for the Jaguar M. Also with regard to planned Big Wing Jaguar what were the dimensions going to be.
 
orlovsky said:
With the exocet's active radar, it should suffice to direct the carrying plane towards the target. Must have been this way with the joystick guided AS-30.
Click to expand...

Exocet needs radar data to give it an estimated target location so it knows when/where to turn on the seeker.
 
Last edited:
uk 75 said:
Much more interesting than Jaguar is the naval version of AFVG which might have combined the capabilities of the Phantom and Buccaneer in one smaller sized aircraft.
If France had persevered with this aircraft for the AdA and MN the incoming Tory government in 1970 might have taken another look at the aircraft carrier question.
Click to expand...

The RAF wanted a 14 ton (empty) bomber (as Tornado).
The RN was out in 1966.
The MN wanted to keep it at 12 tons. Still almost F-4/Buccaneer size.
French defence planners were pushing for single engine, 10 ton, simpler and cheaper (as Mirage G).

So a compromise around the 12 ton version may have been possible, but neither side was too interested in it. BAC and SNECMA lost out, Dassault and RR got their way.

AFVG would have been quite expensive either way. So the Aeronavale get's what, maybe 40 instead of SuE, and the FAA could buy about the same instead of the first batch Sea Harriers. But it still has no catobar carrier after 1978...
 
TomS said:
orlovsky said:
With the exocet's active radar, it should suffice to direct the carrying plane towards the target. Must have been this way with the joystick guided AS-30.
Click to expand...

Exocet needs radar data to give it an estimated target location so it knows when/where to turn on the seeker.
Click to expand...

But does it need a continued radar signal for that? I thought the Argentinian SuE used their radar only for short blips and fired the Exocet "in the general direction" of where the task force would have been?
 
Bar the lack of a second engine, the Mirage G and Type 585 are almost perfect for French and British carriers. As I've pointed out on multiple occasions.
Far superior to the Jaguar as well.
 
Well it seems to confirm no radar was planned, at least initially, for Jaguar M. Very odd for a 1960s naval aircraft. I suspect all the avionics were standard Jaguar A fit as per the French AF airframes?
You get the sense the Jaguar M was a low-cost conversion with minimal changes. Had they spent a little more time developing the airframe they might have had a better chance, or even if they had waited a couple of years until the airframe and Adour had matured and designed a new radar nose and stocked it with some decent avionics.

Surely Jaguar M would predate air-launched Exocet? Wouldn't a TV-Martel be more likely? Which might explain the lack of radar.
 
orlovsky said:
But does it need a continued radar signal for that? I thought the Argentinian SuE used their radar only for short blips and fired the Exocet "in the general direction" of where the task force would have been?
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Exocet doesn't require continuous illumination. But it does require a launch aircraft with onboard radar. Those quick radar looks are used to generate a flight path for the missile to follow under inertial navigation before it gets close to the predicted target location and turns on its radar. A Jaguar M without radar could not effectively use Exocet, even with another aircraft to point it in the right direction.
 
Interesting. But there seems to have been the idea to use the Alizé's radar and the Jaguar to only carry the missile... or this was all about AS-30 and Martel.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom