FAA Counterfactual
Thread Starter
FAA Counterfactual
If the decision in the 1970s to buy Sea Harriers and 'Through deck cruisers' hadn't been made what were the alternatives?
I seem to recall there was a proposal to build a new full size carrier, but was it expected to stick with F4s Buccaneers and the odd gannet for the foreseeable future? Or was something like F18 or a navalised Tornado being considered?
I seem to recall there was a proposal to build a new full size carrier, but was it expected to stick with F4s Buccaneers and the odd gannet for the foreseeable future? Or was something like F18 or a navalised Tornado being considered?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK Labour Govt. cancelled CVA-01 (thus any prospect of -02/03) 22/2/66, electing to run on Hermes/Eagle/Victorious/Ark Royal until heavy refit, then to cease operation of Strike carriers. That occurred, November,1978.
UK 1970 Conservative Govt. participated fully in recasting NATO operations and accepted a Task of flank amphibious reinforcement. CVS were funded 17/4/73; UK Labour Govt. accepted that and funded Sea Harrier FRS.1, 15/5/75.
There were no alternatives. If UK had chosen to leave Norway to other NATO Member States, and to do, say, more Atlantic ASW, then other procurement decisions, but not involving Strike carriers.
(So, why, I hear you cry, did UK come back to mobile real estate now a-building, with F-35s. What a good question.)
UK 1970 Conservative Govt. participated fully in recasting NATO operations and accepted a Task of flank amphibious reinforcement. CVS were funded 17/4/73; UK Labour Govt. accepted that and funded Sea Harrier FRS.1, 15/5/75.
There were no alternatives. If UK had chosen to leave Norway to other NATO Member States, and to do, say, more Atlantic ASW, then other procurement decisions, but not involving Strike carriers.
(So, why, I hear you cry, did UK come back to mobile real estate now a-building, with F-35s. What a good question.)
