FS

 

If you would like to read a detailed account of the loss of "real" aircraft carriers from the RN in the 60s/70s take a look at:

 

http:navy-matters.beedall.com/cva01.htm

 

To put it briefly, the Royal Navy lobbied hard in the late 50s/early 60s for replacements for the carrier fleet. However, they insisted on asking for carriers in the 50,000 - 55,000 Tonne range as they had grave reservations about smaller carriers (limited airgroup, restrictions on type of aircraft operated, difficulties operating in rough seas, poor accident rate). They also suffered from a bad case of hubris; they regarded themselves as a global power and wanted carriers to match that status. Consequently, when in 63 there was political backing for a (relatively) cheap 40,000 Tonne carrier the RN turned it down flat.

 

After that things went a bit pear shaped. The UK economy went into another one of its post-war financial crisis and the new Labour government decided to cut defence expenditure by (I think) about 20%. The replacement carriers were an ideal target as it was perceived at the time that the UK would not be operating independantly out of area.

 

The RN then tried to revive the smaller carrier design but the government wouldn't spend millions on carriers the RN had previously said were unacceptable.Consequently, the RN was re-configured to counter the Soviet threat in the North Atlantic. (The RAF were also stuffed as first TSR2 and then the proposed F111 purchase were cancelled).

 

The financial position of the UK deteriorated even further in the 1970s (I would imagine it would be hard for anyone under 35 now to remember how bad things were then) and in 1981 the (Conservative) government decided to make even deeper cuts to the RN. The RN was only saved from becoming a fisheries protection fleet by the actions of Gen Galtieri & Co.

 

After the collapse of the Soviet Union there were a couple of defence reviews that didn't really take any hard decisions about the balance of forces the UK required and the level of defence expenditure needed to create and sustain them. Instead all three services suffered cut-backs as the government cashed-in the peace dividend.

 

At some point in the early to mid 90s the RN/Mod started to consider how they should replace the Invincible class ships. Initially, the plan was to replace them with similar sized class but they soon started thinking about more capable ships of up to 40,000 Tonnes. The 1998 Strategic defence review confirmed the requirement for more capable ships (the RN wanted ships that could handle an airgroup of about 46) and the proposed designs became larger and more expensive just as the defence budget was being cut to about 2.3% and the GWOT started.

 

So this is the current situation; the UK's public finances are about $10bn in the red, the politically untouchable NHS is spending money as if there were no tomorrow, no government can raise taxes any further, and the existing defence budget is stretched to the limit by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The RN has accepted severe cuts in its escort fleet in return for the promise of two large carriers. Being a cynical old bastard I doubt they'll get them.

 

I know a lot of people here hate "what ifs" but .... what if the RN had gone for the 40,000 Tonne carriers when they had political backing? We would have kept some sort of carrier capability (flying upgraded Jaguar Ms perhaps?);we would probably have joined the Rafale programme (identical requirement with the French) and bought F15s for the RAF for UK air-defence ie not wasted billions on the Typhoon; and the RN would have been in a better position to push for more capable carriers to replace the 40,000 Tonne class.

 

(FS - I was little surprised you haven't posted on AdamB's latest thread on the UK board, I was looking forward to one of your rants) :-)