The UK goes another route...

[Shadow Master]

Hey everybody, just a quick question thread about a path not taken (At least as far as I know), by the RN post WWII. There are some good threads lately about the RN carrier force post WWII, but while participating in one such thread, a thought crossed my mind, and I thought that perhaps this might be an alternative, as a stop gap, short term solution for power projection for the RN, until the new carriers come into service.

So, what if, after WWII, the UK decides that if their carriers cannot accommodate a large enough group of strike aircraft of the newest aircraft types, they instead developed a land based, long range naval aviation capability, that would be an integral part of the RN, NOT part of the RAF, and would include all the types that the RN needed.

This force would have long range, land based aircraft, in the form of bombers, tankers, AEW and EW planes, and in addition, some carrier capable strike aircraft, built to be able to land on and take off from a carrier with a limited payload, but also capable of long range, mid-air refueling missions from land bases with a much larger payload than they could carry when operating from a carrier.

So the RN at the time of the Falkland War, would have it's carriers handling fighters and some limited strike aircraft, but would have a force of tankers and long range naval aviation bombers and AEW aircraft, and also a fighter escort capable of carrier landings, but based from land bases.

Would this kind of a force, if developed right from the end of WWII and specifically as an integral part of the RN power projection capability, give the RN a workable way forward, without the need for a large carrier?

Any thoughts?

 

[Musketeer513]

I don't think it would happen. Too much encroachment of RAF territory. In US terms the Navy would operate KC-135, E-3 and B-52 aircraft. Some land based aircraft will be used by navies, look at Liberator usage during WW2.

 

[SsgtC]

Or P-3/P-8 usage by the USN, RN and Indian Navy today

I don't think it would happen. Too much encroachment of RAF territory. In US terms the Navy would operate KC-135, E-3 and B-52 aircraft. Some land based aircraft will be used by navies, look at Liberator usage during WW2.

 

[Shadow Master]

Welcome to the thread, folks, and thanks for participating.
Yes, interservice rivalry would have to be accounted for, for sure. How about the basing issues? Or how about the training issues? Not to mention the force composition issues?

I don't think it would happen. Too much encroachment of RAF territory. In US terms the Navy would operate KC-135, E-3 and B-52 aircraft. Some land based aircraft will be used by navies, look at Liberator usage during WW2.

2 questions on this, first, if the aircraft were part of the RAF rather than the RN, but the forces were dedicated to a naval support role, so the RAF would have to actually restrict usage of these assets to naval support over any and all other missions, without even the possibility to ever changing that, would the RAF & RN agree to that? My personal thought is that making these forces part (or even partly controlled by) the RAF, would be opening the door to all sorts of confusion, and misunderstanding, that would basically reduce the effectiveness of the force, and for no better reason than that "the forces fly, and therefore should be RAF, rather than RN". I agree with you that this would indeed be a huge stumbling block, and would ask for some brain-storming for some ideas to sell this to the UK population and government.

Second, when you need to depend upon, and count on, having close co-operation between forces based in different locations, it comes down to training, training, training, and then more training still. Having two different armed forces, each with their own budgets and fiscal constraints, not to mention missions, attempting to achieve this kind of co-operation, I would think that this would be a strong counter-argument against RAF Involvement/influence/interference.

Or P-3/P-8 usage by the USN, RN and Indian Navy today

Thanks for these! Yes, I realise that asking for a dedicated, land based, long range naval aviation force, that includes both big bombers and carrier capable bombers, is asking allot, but maybe some discussion on force mission could achieve a basis for how such could come about?

Maybe at first the force is started out with two small contingents, in order to test out how things work (or don't) when the land based aircraft are from two different branches of service, and based upon the results of these operational training missions, it is then decided that an RN force is far and away preferable, as communications and operations show it is better when the forces are comprised of elements of just one branch?

 

[SsgtC]

The forces on question have to be dedicated naval attack aircraft, not level bombers. Build a big, long ranged, land based attack aircraft designed to launch cruise missiles. Something similar to the TU-22M. You sell it to the RAF as a strictly a Naval aircraft optimised for antisurface warfare. It just also happens to incidentally include the ability to launch land attack cruise missiles. That's how the RN keeps control of it.

Instead of the RN aquiring KC-135 analogs, they buy KA-6Ds (not sure if they can operate from RN carriers or not, but they do provide the cover of being a carrier based refueler) and KC-130s (similar to the USMC).

Land based P-3 or P-8 are also able to conduct the full slate of naval strike missions. They carry antisurface, anti-submarine and land attack munitions.

Thanks for these! Yes, I realise that asking for a dedicated, land based, long range naval aviation force, that includes both big bombers and carrier capable bombers, is asking allot, but maybe some discussion on force mission could achieve a basis for how such could come about?

Maybe at first the force is started out with two small contingents, in order to test out how things work (or don't) when the land based aircraft are from two different branches of service, and based upon the results of these operational training missions, it is then decided that an RN force is far and away preferable, as communications and operations show it is better when the forces are comprised of elements of just one branch?

 

[Shadow Master]

The forces on question have to be dedicated naval attack aircraft, not level bombers. Build a big, long ranged, land based attack aircraft designed to launch cruise missiles. Something similar to the TU-22M. You sell it to the RAF as a strictly a Naval aircraft optimised for antisurface warfare. It just also happens to incidentally include the ability to launch land attack cruise missiles. That's how the RN keeps control of it.

I like that idea.

Instead of the RN aquiring KC-135 analogs, they buy KA-6Ds (not sure if they can operate from RN carriers or not, but they do provide the cover of being a carrier based refueler) and KC-130s (similar to the USMC).

Not so much this one, as the idea is to give power projection to the RN world wide, without the need for super carriers, and using up limited, and vital, flight & hanger deck space for small tankers instead doesn't appeal. Not that they don't also have a place, but the big tankers are what gives the ability to take the fight to the enemy.

Land based P-3 or P-8 are also able to conduct the full slate of naval strike missions. They carry antisurface, anti-submarine and land attack munitions.

This is where I would have to have the KC-130's, working with the P-3's. How does the P-8 stack up against the P-3 endurance wise?

Actually, I just checked that out, and IIUC, then the jet version is better performance wise, but lacks loiter time, so the longer it takes to actually kill a detected sub, the P-8 might have to split the scene, whereas the P-3 could wait up too 4 times longer.

So, the idea is coming along nicely, thanks to the input received.

 

[SsgtC]

The reason I suggested the KA-6D is because the RAF will never allow the RN to buy or operate strategic tankers. However, putting say, 4 tankers on a carrier, maybe even only 2, allows you to tank the strike after they launch and are on their way home. Then you have another couple tankers meet them a couple hours out from home and tank them again. This is especially useful with KC-130s. They can fly with the strike force for 2-3 hours outbound, top off the bombers tanks and head for home. They do the same in reverse. Fly out 2-3 hours, meet the strike, transfer fuel and fly home together.

Not so much this one, as the idea is to give power projection to the RN world wide, without the need for super carriers, and using up limited, and vital, flight & hanger deck space for small tankers instead doesn't appeal. Not that they don't also have a place, but the big tankers are what gives the ability to take the fight to the enemy.

 

[Shadow Master]

The reason I suggested the KA-6D is because the RAF will never allow the RN to buy or operate strategic tankers. However, putting say, 4 tankers on a carrier, maybe even only 2, allows you to tank the strike after they launch and are on their way home. Then you have another couple tankers meet them a couple hours out from home and tank them again. This is especially useful with KC-130s. They can fly with the strike force for 2-3 hours outbound, top off the bombers tanks and head for home. They do the same in reverse. Fly out 2-3 hours, meet the strike, transfer fuel and fly home together.

I got that, its just that I wanted the carriers to provide the CAP for the fleet, and maybe a bit more, but the hitting power would almost totally be the land based squadrons, and these would have both large bombers, and smaller, carrier capable bombers.

I have to admit, I am thinking here about an ATL Falklands War, where we get to see the S Atlantic islands used as stepping stones to stage a large force of tankers out of, and allowing the UK to send in far more aircraft than historically. The UK has three islands in the middle of the S Atlantic between S America and Africa, near the Equator, but they also have, much closer, the S sandwich islands and S Georgia islands, and all of these would seem to be well outside if Argentina's air-force range, while possibly providing a most excellent set of secure staging areas for just the kind of force I am imaging...

 

[Shadow Master]

This is kinda what I had in mind:
1
2
3
4
So aircraft from the UK would stage out to the S Atlantic islands, moving progressively further south, until the arrive at "4", and from bases located there (Which would all have to have been built years before), pound the heck out of the Junta forces, and perhaps make strikes on their homeland's ports?

Looks like this:

 

[SsgtC]

You need a really early POD too make that work. And the Brits need a huge amount of foresight to KNOW that at some point in the future, Argentina is going to contest the Falklands. You also have to give Britain enough money to be able to afford to build bases, just in case, and have them full of prepositioned equipment and arms.

 

[Shadow Master]

Drat, The darn image not working as designed, but I'm out of time, gotta go to work.

As for that, I remember a conversation that the media quoted between Reagan and Thatcher, that went to the effect that the UK would defend any part of their territory, just as the USA would if invaded.

Edited, here we go, and off I goto work, back later.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Those are some pretty out of the way places to build airstrips on the off chance of trouble in the South Atlantic. The only time I could see it being done would be WWII as a way to search for commerce raiders and even then I don't see any airfields being kept up after the war, except possibly on St Helena.

 

[jsb]

I got that, its just that I wanted the carriers to provide the CAP for the fleet, and maybe a bit more, but the hitting power would almost totally be the land based squadrons, and these would have both large bombers, and smaller, carrier capable bombers.

I have to admit, I am thinking here about an ATL Falklands War, where we get to see the S Atlantic islands used as stepping stones to stage a large force of tankers out of, and allowing the UK to send in far more aircraft than historically. The UK has three islands in the middle of the S Atlantic between S America and Africa, near the Equator, but they also have, much closer, the S sandwich islands and S Georgia islands, and all of these would seem to be well outside if Argentina's air-force range, while possibly providing a most excellent set of secure staging areas for just the kind of force I am imaging...

Why does it have to be an RN force or even a naval strike aviation focused capability? The RN SSNs are totally adequate to sink anything at sea its just that they lacked land attack capability at the time.

Just having a small squadron of B52s (and a few big tankers) would change the Falklands war significantly if they can strike the islands routinely rather than with massively complexity like the Vulcan's.

What about if GB bought a single batch of second hand B52s in late 70s, they then refit and reengine them. They would be originally be tasked as survivable European Cruise Missile carriers but then pressed into use for the Falklands war?

 

[KillerT]

The UK did have the potential to have a Brit B52 near three times over. Firstly Valiant could have been developed further into a higher capacity, longer ranged variant. Next Victor, the same and finally the VC10. Several variants were proposed including a conventional bomber.

Oh and finally Nimrod MRA4 of course which would have been capable of chucking several cruise missiles and the like about. Oh and Coastal Command was land based Navair, albeit light blue...

 

[Shadow Master]

Why does it have to be an RN force or even a naval strike aviation focused capability? The RN SSNs are totally adequate to sink anything at sea its just that they lacked land attack capability at the time.

The subs cannot shoot down enemy aircraft & missiles, they take far longer to arrive in theater, and cannot take and hold territory. That said, they can kill shipping, arrive in theater unobserved, and perhaps slip in a covert mission force, so they do play a part.

Just having a small squadron of B52s (and a few big tankers) would change the Falklands war significantly if they can strike the islands routinely rather than with massively complexity like the Vulcan's.

That, and/or hit the Argentinians airbases and ports. Would want to see cruise missile armed bombers, so they can at least make the enemy have to come out to play if they want to score some kills.

What about if GB bought a single batch of second hand B52s in late 70s, they then refit and reengine them. They would be originally be tasked as survivable European Cruise Missile carriers but then pressed into use for the Falklands war?

It would be ok, but not optimal IIRC. Can the B-52 carry cruise missiles? I would rather have the UK design and build their own aircraft, rather than just use american EQ, but that's just me.

 

[David Flin]

Drat, The darn image not working as designed, but I'm out of time, gotta go to work.

As for that, I remember a conversation that the media quoted between Reagan and Thatcher, that went to the effect that the UK would defend any part of their territory, just as the USA would if invaded.

Edited, here we go, and off I goto work, back later.

The cost of building those, just to defend the Falklands, would be prohibitive. It would be a bit cheaper to extend the facilities in the Falklands, but no-one in authority particularly considered the Falklands as worth it. The FCO had been trying to get a Leaseback arrangement set up.

Even if we arm wave and say they are built, because the economy was pretty much always demanding cuts, these would have been steadily denuded of resources until they became ghost bases.

 

[Shadow Master]

The UK did have the potential to have a Brit B52 near three times over. Firstly Valiant could have been developed further into a higher capacity, longer ranged variant. Next Victor, the same and finally the VC10. Several variants were proposed including a conventional bomber.

Oh and finally Nimrod MRA4 of course which would have been capable of chucking several cruise missiles and the like about. Oh and Coastal Command was land based Navair, albeit light blue...

I don't come up with a bomber for the VC10, but an airliner. Did you perhaps mean the vulcan instead, or was a bomber indeed developed from the VC10?

Not knowing anything much about any of these designs, I should probably ask if they would need more than minor changes to be built for long range, over water flights (Salt water corrosion protection), and could they perform mid-air refueling? Be converted to carrying cruise missiles? If so, then these would fit the idea of the UK building their own force, and keeping alive their own aerospace firms/industry, which can only mean the world gets some new thinking, and new developments not occurring in OTL.

 

[jsb]

That, and/or hit the Argentinians airbases and ports. Would want to see cruise missile armed bombers, so they can at least make the enemy have to come out to play if they want to score some kills.

I don't think it matters v Argentina level of air defence rather than Soviet, politically I don't think the RAf would get permission to hit the mainland anyway.

It would be ok, but not optimal IIRC. Can the B-52 carry cruise missiles? I would rather have the UK design and build their own aircraft, rather than just use american EQ, but that's just me.

100% better than something they cant afford.
Yes they did in OTL but I would think only for Nuclear strike in early 80s.
I just think GB could have got some very cheap or free second hand B52s in late 70s as they are obsolescent and getting scraped by USAF, pay for US to re-skin them and then fit new RR engines and they would then work fine at massively less cost than designing a new aircraft.

 

[Shadow Master]

Those are some pretty out of the way places to build airstrips on the off chance of trouble in the South Atlantic. The only time I could see it being done would be WWII as a way to search for commerce raiders and even then I don't see any airfields being kept up after the war, except possibly on St Helena.

Sorry, I missed your post until now. Welcome to the thread.

The cost of building those, just to defend the Falklands, would be prohibitive. It would be a bit cheaper to extend the facilities in the Falklands, but no-one in authority particularly considered the Falklands as worth it. The FCO had been trying to get a Leaseback arrangement set up.

Even if we arm wave and say they are built, because the economy was pretty much always demanding cuts, these would have been steadily denuded of resources until they became ghost bases.

Welcome to the thread.

It was posted upthread that building these forces would be unlikely, and if they were JUST in case of trouble in the S Atlantic/Falkland islands, then sure, but if they are built as a "Defense of the Empire" kind of thing, as in "We will not yield an inch of ground" mentality thinking, and with the understandings that these would not be the only such bases being built...

You have a valid point about ever present budgetary cutbacks, but for the moment, let us not worry about that, as I have some thoughts along these lines.

Are the Falkland islands worth defending? Or is the rights that having them, and the effects on surroundings worth having? I would say yes, but that's just me.

 

[David Flin]

Are the Falkland islands worth defending? Or is the rights that having them, and the effects on surroundings worth having? I would say yes, but that's just me.

Depends when you're talking about. 1979-1981 saw some fairly intense activity by the British government to set up a leaseback arrangement. For example, this is just one of many Times pieces that mentioned the discussions Ridley was having with the Islanders, trying to persuade them that they really wanted this solution, and the Argentine government (including detailed talks with Carlos Cavandoli in September 1980 under the guise of a holiday in Geneva).

The FCO was under the impression, mainly through reports from Ridley, that the most common language spoken on the Islands was Spanish, because of all the Argentine tourists. OK, it's a politician lying to suit his political agenda, but it's fairly clear that from 1979-1981, Britain was keen to get rid of the Islands, and was just trying to find a face saving way of doing it.

Whether they're worth keeping or not is a separate kettle of red herrings.