An alternate F-11 Tiger

[uk 75]

A lot of interesting stuff about UK.
Assuming the alt world keeps the same governments as in ours (safer as it keeps politics out of this) you have a window for Super Tiger to substitute D110 as the Seahawk/Venom replacement.
SR177 out of the picture.
Polaris puts a new UK carrier out of the picture after 1962, though it takes till 1966 to die.
1966 solved the F4 dilemma by keeping 1 carrier in servicr until 1972 (new Gov keeps this until 1979 (1974 confirms).
So your Supertigers serve on Centaur and Victorious till1966. They continue on Hermes and Eagle till1972. Ark enters service in 1970 with F4.

 

[bobtdwarf]

A lot of interesting stuff about UK.
Assuming the alt world keeps the same governments as in ours (safer as it keeps politics out of this) you have a window for Super Tiger to substitute D110 as the Seahawk/Venom replacement.
SR177 out of the picture.
Polaris puts a new UK carrier out of the picture after 1962, though it takes till 1966 to die.
1966 solved the F4 dilemma by keeping 1 carrier in servicr until 1972 (new Gov keeps this until 1979 (1974 confirms).
So your Supertigers serve on Centaur and Victorious till1966. They continue on Hermes and Eagle till1972. Ark enters service in 1970 with F4.

you could later convert the Centaur to the harrier carrier and run Hermes as conventional until her normal retirement date

 

[uk 75]

I think rearranging the UK carrier fleet is an alt too far.
Manning and budget levels limit the number of carriers in service. Only Eagle and Hermes were seen as viable. Ark got converted for Phantom because Eagle was too useful.
Hermes with SuperTiger and Bucs might be a candidate to stay in service under the 1970 Defence White Paper

 

[Archibald]

It is a shame the Centaur fleet of 4 ships couldn't be entirely converted to Hermes standard. What a waste of fine ships, really.
Hindsight is always 20/20, but GB should have bet on Eagle + Centaur fleet and scrapped everything else. Ark Royal was a wreck, the 6 armoured carriers were either crippled by WWII or had the wrong hangars (too low) the Colossus / Majestic were too small.
In the end only Eagle and Hermes could have lasted until the end of Cold War without too much difficulty. Then again, if Hermes could last the legth of time it did (India included - 2016 !!!), then imagine all the others Centaurs.

The more I look into the post-war British fleet carrier, the more I think, Audacious + Centaur + 1956 Medium Fleet Carrier was the way to go.
Ideally, get the third Audacious in 1946 - hopefully an Eagle rather than an Ark Royal (otherwise get ride of it ASAP, Ark royal was a lemon, no need for a second lemon !).

Then carefully handle the 2 Audacious + 4 Centaur fleet, deflating it gradually and intelligently - keeping the decommissioned ships to provide spares to the remaining in service.
I would say, by the 80's - Eagle + Hermes + Albion or Bulwark.

In the meantime, blend the 1956 Medium Fleet Carrier with the French designs (Foch Clem' Verdun), and start building joint carriers.

That's really the best the RN / FAA can hope for with a 1945 POD.

 

[Archibald]

As for aircraft, since Phantom will be too big for Hermes, bet on two-seat Crusader with Spey, and do that with the French - including handling a Spey licence to SNECMA, they will love it better than the cranky TF306.

Get ride of the Majestic / Colossus faster, since so many navies loved them.

Never, ever, modernize Victorious.

Anybody can think of a country navy that could get ride the RN of the armoured carriers - Illustrious and Implacable classes ?

 

[uk 75]

The constraints on the RN in terms of budgets and manpower do pretty much limit the force to 1 aircraft carrier and 1 commando ship in commission. Even maintaining this proves too difficult by the end of the 70s.
Ark Royal and Eagle are almost interchangeable, but Eagle would have been better. Hermes and Bulwark end up as ASW ships as well as Commando ships. Sea Harrier before the Falklands had the same role as the Essex's A4s to fend off snoopers.
France has 1 carrier and a helicopter training ship in commission in this period. The second CV was sometimes also available.
If both navies had been using Supertigers instead of F4 and F8, and the UK had honoured election promises in 1970 to save the carriers, a joint UK French carrier might have been supported by the Heath government. A four ship programme to go into service from 1979 instead of the Invincibles and PH75 would have carried a new Anglo French fighter

 

[bobtdwarf]

It is good that people are starting to look at how they could USE this alternate Tiger.. think like a defense minister

speaking of that.. IF the UK does the two prototypes in '55/'56 it would likely derail SOME, not all, F-104 procurement. Probably Canada, Germany and Japan would be safe bets now that I think about it.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Just to put the cat among the pigeons, Supertiger might have led to CVA01 being closer to Hermes in size than Eagle. Especially if this allowed a one for one replacement of Victorious, Ark, Eagle and Hermes in that order.
On the down side, replacing the Supertiger would have been difficult.

Well.....rather it might lend weight to either the earlier 50,000ton design or the Civil Lord proposal for a 40,000ton affordable CV adaptable from CTOL to STOV/L.......in the real world starting with Buccaneers and Sea Vixens and then moving on to P1154 "Harrier".

More thoughts....

A potential run off is possible for an interim fighter for the RN. Come 1963 USSR displays heavy anti-ship missiles and the pressure is on to field effective defense against them. Something is needed now!
Shorts chose the F8 Twosader, so one of the others could choose a two seater Super Tiger, perhaps DH, Fairey or AWA or Brough (Blackburn).
This would compete for AW.406, against domestic P1154RN, and Type 583, and of course the mighty F4....however that would be the F4K.

However a Mach 2 capable twin seater Super Tiger, would 'seem' cheaper than domestic, higher performance than F8, and as 'quick and dirty' as the Spey F4 was projected to be. But much lighter, potentially much cheaper, easier to operate from current equipment on the CV Fleet and conveniently less threatening to the longer term ambition of OR.346....

I explained part of my thinking on the scenario in a prior post... If the RN was sufficiently intrigued by Tiger in its initial viewing in '54/'55 and ordered a prototype if for no other reason to evaluate the reheated Avon in the suprmarine project that was going nowhere (I can't recall the number at the moment); they would still have that prototype in their possession. Even if they had not ordered the Tiger initially, opting to stick with the stuff in the domestic pipeline pre '57, it still would have left a.positive impression and the subsequent Grumman improvements in the J-79 Supertiger WOULD be noticed and reinforce that positive impression.

Post '57 blowing up the pipeline.. the RN would be open to considering even a single seat version in place of the SR177 in much the same supplemental role to SV though with not as great a rate of climb. With half the money spent on Scimitar being figuratively launched into the ocean via accidents and the S1 Bucc being twitchy.. the Tiger actually looks like a SAFE outlet: Tiger had a fantastic safety record.

IF as I posit this alternate Tiger supplants F-3 Demon in the general purpose fighter role the RN would have some cross deck experience with it as they did with the demon in the late 50's and early 60's. That should give them a level of comfort that would make saying "yes' to the type more likely. I can see them still wanting phantom, the potential is just to great... but I could see them delaying on that using ST in either a two seater or single seater form to buy them some time and absolutely secure a new carrier.

The minute the RN inks the phantom deal the fuse is lit on the death of the carrier fleet: It ties them to two hulls with no more than 10 years of life.

Tiger in any form does not have to be seen as a Sea Vixen replacement or alternative, but more a Seahawk/SR177 replacement to supplement the FAW types. Viewing it that way you can see the logic of spending no more than 5 million pounds on a light refit of Ark Royal to allow her to operate ST and S2 Buccs and running her out until '74 using the rest of the budget to pay for most if not all the cost of at least one new phantom comfortable carrier.. RAF is going to buy F-4's no matter what, make them absorb all the risks of incorporating a new type until you have a ship in hand that has a 30 year life span and size capable of operating them.. and buy off the shelf.

If the treasury won't play ball? Well you still have a very capable M2 fighter capable of operating off of Hermes and Vic the ships with the new drive trains that could last into the 80s with a bit of luck. I have done my best to give the FAA a plausible "out" to a single engine type that could save the conventional carrier force.. Since it is still going to come down to a day in the South Atlantic wherein Hermes will be capable of launching a strike on an Argentine carrier but not have the range, while the Argentines have the range but not the wind. In this alternate a still conventional Hermes, armed with a bastard fighter no-one really "wanted" has the range, and turns into the wind.

The effect on the British public would be electric.

 

[bobtdwarf]

What killed the "Two-sader" as a viable option for the RN was its size: It was either it or Sea-Vixen not both. This version of the Tiger takes up less room than the SR177 allowing you to have both. As I have read the RN had a max fold requirement of 23 feet, Crusader was near enough at 23 and change to not require a waiver; the historic Tiger was 27.5 and would require one.. might as well go Phantom at that point and get the number of engines you want and a huge honking AI radar and two seats if you are going to give out one of those.

EDIT.. At 23 feet folded two Sea-Vixens take up 46 feet, my Tiger is 13.5, so in theory 3 can fit in the same space. Buccaneer takes up about the same space as SV so after SV ages out of being ethically deployable, you can replace SV 1-1 with Buccs and boost the fighters by 1/3. So it should be possible for Victorious to embark a 12/12 air wing.

 

[zen]

What killed the "Two-sader" as a viable option for the RN was its size: It was either it or Sea-Vixen not both. This version of the Tiger takes up less room than the SR177 allowing you to have both. As I have read the RN had a max fold requirement of 23 feet, Crusader was near enough at 23 and change to not require a waiver; the historic Tiger was 27.5 and would require one.. might as well go Phantom at that point and get the number of engines you want and a huge honking AI radar and two seats if you are going to give out one of those.

EDIT.. At 23 feet folded two Sea-Vixens take up 46 feet, my Tiger is 13.5, so in theory 3 can fit in the same space. Buccaneer takes up about the same space as SV so after SV ages out of being ethically deployable, you can replace SV 1-1 with Buccs and boost the fighters by 1/3. So it should be possible for Victorious to embark a 12/12 air wing.

23ft plus a foot separation between aircraft or hanger walls.
Victorious modernised hanger 65.5ft wide.
Centaurs 62ft
Audacious 67ft

 

[bobtdwarf]

What killed the "Two-sader" as a viable option for the RN was its size: It was either it or Sea-Vixen not both. This version of the Tiger takes up less room than the SR177 allowing you to have both. As I have read the RN had a max fold requirement of 23 feet, Crusader was near enough at 23 and change to not require a waiver; the historic Tiger was 27.5 and would require one.. might as well go Phantom at that point and get the number of engines you want and a huge honking AI radar and two seats if you are going to give out one of those.

EDIT.. At 23 feet folded two Sea-Vixens take up 46 feet, my Tiger is 13.5, so in theory 3 can fit in the same space. Buccaneer takes up about the same space as SV so after SV ages out of being ethically deployable, you can replace SV 1-1 with Buccs and boost the fighters by 1/3. So it should be possible for Victorious to embark a 12/12 air wing.

23ft plus a foot separation between aircraft or hanger walls.
Victorious modernised hanger 65.5ft wide.
Centaurs 62ft
Audacious 67ft

yup... so call it 24 feet (six inches on either side x2 gives you the foot sep), and 14 for the Tiger.

Centaur you can fit 2.58 SV across... Or 4.4285 ST. I was being a bit conservative.. that fractional gives enough wiggle room so the 6 inch add thing should get ya eyeball close on numbers

 

[uk 75]

Centaur was unable to operate Buccaneers so unless you have a Red Beard nuke option on Supertiger, its Hermes, Eagle/Ark and Victorious plus a new build if there is one.
As even in the early 60s the RN already had difficulty manning more than three in commission carriers including the Commando Ship.
If you could turn Supertiger into a sort of50s "fighter/attacker"( the single aircraft type the RN envisaged as replacing F4s and Bucs in the 70s) you would delight the RNand the Treasury. Suddenly Hermes, Centaur, Albion and Bulwark become your carrier force. Youcan opt to keep Eagle but scrap Ark and Victorious for spares. Ocean and Theseus can carry on until new build ASW/Commando carriers (instead of cruisers) enter service in 1968. This new hull will also be the basis for a new STOVL gas turbine carrier for the 70s and may also carry the controversial NIGS "Bounder" killer( The Myasichev works conveniently in our timeline).
France takes the new Supertiger f/a for its 2 CV and with Australia, Canada and the Netherlands looks at the UK ASW/ Commando ship which may carry a sqn of Supertigers in addition to its helos.

 

[Archibald]

Dassault-Aviation Étendard IVM/ P/ PM [in french]

En complément au programme d'avion léger d'appui tactique, le Service technique de l'Aéronautique demande à Dassault, le 14 janvier 1955, d'étudier l'embarquement de cet avion pour en faire un appareil embarqué d'assaut et de chasse à basse altitude.
Le 19 décembre 1956, les services officiels notifient le marché de commande de l'étude, la fabrication et la mise au point d'un avion prototype Étendard IVM embarqué. Il s'agit d'un appareil d'attaque et de chasse à basse et moyenne altitudes, utilisable à partir des porte-avions Clemenceau et Foch, alors en construction, équipé du réacteur SNECMA Atar 8 de 4 500 kg de poussée. Une présérie de cinq appareils est commandée en mai 1957

If your Super Tiger can sneak into the Aéronavale sights before december 1956, it will kick away the Etendard IV and may get an order for 42, 71 or 113 aircraft (Crusader, Etendard IV, and the two cumulated).

 

[zen]

Dassault-Aviation Étendard IVM/ P/ PM [in french]

En complément au programme d'avion léger d'appui tactique, le Service technique de l'Aéronautique demande à Dassault, le 14 janvier 1955, d'étudier l'embarquement de cet avion pour en faire un appareil embarqué d'assaut et de chasse à basse altitude.
Le 19 décembre 1956, les services officiels notifient le marché de commande de l'étude, la fabrication et la mise au point d'un avion prototype Étendard IVM embarqué. Il s'agit d'un appareil d'attaque et de chasse à basse et moyenne altitudes, utilisable à partir des porte-avions Clemenceau et Foch, alors en construction, équipé du réacteur SNECMA Atar 8 de 4 500 kg de poussée. Une présérie de cinq appareils est commandée en mai 1957

If your Super Tiger can sneak into the Aéronavale sights before december 1956, it will kick away the Etendard IV and may get an order for 42, 71 or 113 aircraft (Crusader, Etendard IV, and the two cumulated).

But wasn't Etendard developed to a NATO requirement for a light low level fighter?

 

[bobtdwarf]

Centaur was unable to operate Buccaneers so unless you have a Red Beard nuke option on Supertiger, its Hermes, Eagle/Ark and Victorious plus a new build if there is one.
As even in the early 60s the RN already had difficulty manning more than three in commission carriers including the Commando Ship.
If you could turn Supertiger into a sort of50s "fighter/attacker"( the single aircraft type the RN envisaged as replacing F4s and Bucs in the 70s) you would delight the RNand the Treasury. Suddenly Hermes, Centaur, Albion and Bulwark become your carrier force. Youcan opt to keep Eagle but scrap Ark and Victorious for spares. Ocean and Theseus can carry on until new build ASW/Commando carriers (instead of cruisers) enter service in 1968. This new hull will also be the basis for a new STOVL gas turbine carrier for the 70s and may also carry the controversial NIGS "Bounder" killer( The Myasichev works conveniently in our timeline).
France takes the new Supertiger f/a for its 2 CV and with Australia, Canada and the Netherlands looks at the UK ASW/ Commando ship which may carry a sqn of Supertigers in addition to its helos.

I don't know the dimensions of red beard.. supposedly the historic Tiger was capable of carrying a US 1200 pound nuke, though I am suspicious of the clearance. This alternate should be able to do so if we move the landing gear from the main body into the wings, but that would kill any wing fuel on the 13.5 folded model.. but you could use more body fuel to compensate in the old space for the main gear

 

[zen]

Actually I think Buccaneers folded down to 19-20ft width and specifications for later AW.406 was 22ft maximum width.
Overruled for the F4K which was viewed as a cheap and quick to deliver aircraft that happened to have a great deal of potential....though ultimately rather less than advertised and more than twice the predicted cost.

Back to the plot.....certainly if in '54-'55 this was in the offing for the RN built under UK license. Then it's attractions compared to domestic aircraft are quite notable.
Hooked Swift is dead, Type 545 Crescent Winged Swift is headed for cancellation.
Supersonic Hunter is actually headed for cancellation too.

Scimitar is slow in comparison, slow to arrive and never got reheat or AI radar.
Saro F.177 is still in genesis but by '56 is really the only game in town for a supersonic fighter for the RN before '62.
So although Suez intrudes, a licensed Tigre and Super Tiger is both much more achievable in their desired timescales and superior to current fighters for the RN.
After all remember DH110 is a winner from the early 50's, that progressively got later and later and finance for it and Scimitar seems to emerge only after '57.....
It's arguably a quicker route to supersonic fighters to piggyback on the USN order for the Super Tiger and license that. For an ISD by '62-63.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Actually I think Buccaneers folded down to 19-20ft width and specifications for later AW.406 was 22ft maximum width.
Overruled for the F4K which was viewed as a cheap and quick to deliver aircraft that happened to have a great deal of potential....though ultimately rather less than advertised and more than twice the predicted cost.

you are correct Bucc did fold to 20, the max they normally would accept was 23. Still in general they can replace 1-1 SV

 

[Archibald]

Dassault-Aviation Étendard IVM/ P/ PM [in french]

En complément au programme d'avion léger d'appui tactique, le Service technique de l'Aéronautique demande à Dassault, le 14 janvier 1955, d'étudier l'embarquement de cet avion pour en faire un appareil embarqué d'assaut et de chasse à basse altitude.
Le 19 décembre 1956, les services officiels notifient le marché de commande de l'étude, la fabrication et la mise au point d'un avion prototype Étendard IVM embarqué. Il s'agit d'un appareil d'attaque et de chasse à basse et moyenne altitudes, utilisable à partir des porte-avions Clemenceau et Foch, alors en construction, équipé du réacteur SNECMA Atar 8 de 4 500 kg de poussée. Une présérie de cinq appareils est commandée en mai 1957

If your Super Tiger can sneak into the Aéronavale sights before december 1956, it will kick away the Etendard IV and may get an order for 42, 71 or 113 aircraft (Crusader, Etendard IV, and the two cumulated).

But wasn't Etendard developed to a NATO requirement for a light low level fighter?

What i quoted here are the dates for the naval variants. There was a shitload of Etendard prototypes all the way from 1955 to 1959.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Actually I think Buccaneers folded down to 19-20ft width and specifications for later AW.406 was 22ft maximum width.
Overruled for the F4K which was viewed as a cheap and quick to deliver aircraft that happened to have a great deal of potential....though ultimately rather less than advertised and more than twice the predicted cost.

Back to the plot.....certainly if in '54-'55 this was in the offing for the RN built under UK license. Then it's attractions compared to domestic aircraft are quite notable.
Hooked Swift is dead, Type 545 Crescent Winged Swift is headed for cancellation.
Supersonic Hunter is actually headed for cancellation too.

Scimitar is slow in comparison, slow to arrive and never got reheat or AI radar.
Saro F.177 is still in genesis but by '56 is really the only game in town for a supersonic fighter for the RN before '62.
So although Suez intrudes, a licensed Tigre and Super Tiger is both much more achievable in their desired timescales and superior to current fighters for the RN.
After all remember DH110 is a winner from the early 50's, that progressively got later and later and finance for it and Scimitar seems to emerge only after '57.....
It's arguably a quicker route to supersonic fighters to piggyback on the USN order for the Super Tiger and license that. For an ISD by '62-63.

Tigers first flight was in '54 historically, I figure if Grumman had been aggressive about having more than the USN as a customer demonstration flights to allies by '55 is certain. The J-65 would not excite anyone in the UK, so a prototype with an Avon would have to be shown by '56.. historic delivery of Tiger was '57 so I don't think it would derail SV or scimitar though it could severely cut into overall scimitar numbers given their accident record. A license built Tiger is the right size and capabilities while not being threatening to any sacred cows.

If the licensee decides to tweak on the basic design by relocating the main landing gear to the wings as they are in the FJ-4 donor and compensate with fuel in the old wheel wells, it would not impact range negatively and increase deck clearance for ordinance. Fast forward a few years as new avionics comes online you start talking about some serious lethality upgrades! There is growth potential.

 

[kaiserd]

The basic real-world F-11 lacked endurance (it struggled to fit within US carrier cycles - not something that’s readily apparent when looking at the often quoted ferry range) and rather like the F-104 there would be a concern that the Super Tiger didn’t have a weapon system (radar, weapons, etc.) that kept up with its Mach 2 performance and had very little space to try to put it (with the space and weight required effectively eating into and competing against the fuel fraction which again counted against range and endurance).
And wasn’t the FJ-4 (and hence it’s wing) not actually designed for supersonic speed?

 

[Archibald]

Note that the FJ-4 is only mentionned as an "undercarriage model" (AFAIK). "Move the wheels from main fuselage to wings as per FJ-4".

Ferry range has little significance. It is combat aircraft very own equivalent of those fuel consumption numbers / range on car adverts.
"Urban cycle at 50 kph" my a$$, they don't take into account traffic congestion. Rather the car speed is constant, and surely enough, so is fuel consumption. Try stop and start and stop and restart in a traffic jam.

This said, maybe the J79 or Avon had better fuel consumption than J65 ? or the aircraft better T/W also helps fuel consumption ? (no idea, just asking in passing).

 

[Archibald]

Actually I think Buccaneers folded down to 19-20ft width and specifications for later AW.406 was 22ft maximum width.
Overruled for the F4K which was viewed as a cheap and quick to deliver aircraft that happened to have a great deal of potential....though ultimately rather less than advertised and more than twice the predicted cost.

Back to the plot.....certainly if in '54-'55 this was in the offing for the RN built under UK license. Then it's attractions compared to domestic aircraft are quite notable.

Hooked Swift is dead, Type 545 Crescent Winged Swift is headed for cancellation.
Supersonic Hunter is actually headed for cancellation too.
Scimitar is slow in comparison, slow to arrive and never got reheat or AI radar.
Saro F.177 is still in genesis but by '56 is really the only game in town for a supersonic fighter for the RN before '62.

So although Suez intrudes, a licensed Tigre and Super Tiger is both much more achievable in their desired timescales and superior to current fighters for the RN.
After all remember DH110 is a winner from the early 50's, that progressively got later and later and finance for it and Scimitar seems to emerge only after '57.....
It's arguably a quicker route to supersonic fighters to piggyback on the USN order for the Super Tiger and license that. For an ISD by '62-63.

As I said earlier, situation in France is mostly similar. Future naval aircraft (OTL Etendard IV and Crusader, even more) are in limbo.
I will check Jean Cuny "les avions de combats français" to get a rough timeline of my beloved Breguet 1120 Sirocco. Which look uncannily similar to your Super Tiger as described here.
Incidentally, how about an Atar Super Tiger variant ?

 

[Archibald]

There it is. Five pages of pre-Crusader, naval supersonic French fighters. Naval Durandal and naval Mirage, both unrealistic with their delta-wings. Shame, because they derived from existing aircraft. breguet Sirocco by contrast has the "right" wing shape... but it is a paper project. So in the end - Crusader, here we go. Seems the whole thing started in 1957. Just after Etendard IV-M was started, in December 1956.

In a nutshell: if the Aéronavale jumps into the Super Tiger bandwagon, it has to happen before 1957. Otherwise - it's dead, Jim.

Strangely enough, the Crusader story doesn't seem to have started before 1962.

Vought (Chance) F-8E/ P (FN) Crusader [in english]

There is a reason for that. Buying 42 Crusaders meant cutting the number of Duquesne / MASURCA / air defense frigates.
OTL 2 were build, and a third MASURCA went to the Colbert cruiser. The last two MASURCA systems were not build and the money went buying the Crusaders instead.
Famously, the French Navy was unable to make the move and the debate was so bad, it went to Charles De Gaulle himself.
Having little confidence in military cost estimates or future plans, De Gaulle asked... his son, Philippe, an admiral in the French Navy.

Philippe de Gaulle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Philippe answer was the Crusaders were necessary, so 42 Crusaders were bought at the expense of two MASURCA frigates.

(dang, didn't knew De Gaulle son was still alive. 98 years old ! Had De Gaulle been as long lived as his son, he would died in 1988 (!!) rather than 1970.)

 

[bobtdwarf]

The basic real-world F-11 lacked endurance (it struggled to fit within US carrier cycles - not something that’s readily apparent when looking at the often quoted ferry range) and rather like the F-104 there would be a concern that the Super Tiger didn’t have a weapon system (radar, weapons, etc.) that kept up with its Mach 2 performance and had very little space to try to put it (with the space and weight required effectively eating into and competing against the fuel fraction which again counted against range and endurance).
And wasn’t the FJ-4 (and hence it’s wing) not actually designed for supersonic speed?

The FJ-4 could do mach 1.41 with 12,000 pound thrust in level flight.. the wing itself is fine(she is the same thickness and sweep as the F-11 and used the same construction method), the non area ruled body however not so much. As to weapons system, all the long nose Tigers were wired for, but not fitted with APQ 50 or 61 AI radar. Using the SAC sheet figures for various ranges and configs and boosting those by the 20% increase in fuel she should meet req.

EDIT: I should make clear that I am using the FJ-4 wing to save myself time, it is the right shape, and size and has the control surface break in the right enough place. It is NOT a direct graft of the wing onto another airframe and would use the same control surfaces that the Tiger used, so flapirons not ailerons etc.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Note that the FJ-4 is only mentionned as an "undercarriage model" (AFAIK). "Move the wheels from main fuselage to wings as per FJ-4".

Ferry range has little significance. It is combat aircraft very own equivalent of those fuel consumption numbers / range on car adverts.
"Urban cycle at 50 kph" my a$$, they don't take into account traffic congestion. Rather the car speed is constant, and surely enough, so is fuel consumption. Try stop and start and stop and restart in a traffic jam.

This said, maybe the J79 or Avon had better fuel consumption than J65 ? or the aircraft better T/W also helps fuel consumption ? (no idea, just asking in passing).

As I say in the first post I blatantly rip off the wing of the FJ-4.. so he has a legit point, and one I had already considered. The J-79 had a substantially better SFC than the J-65, hell the F-11 was supposed to have better range than the F-8 IRL but the J-65 never met the goals on anything.. it was a HORRIBLE disappointment all around. So roughly 20% better range/endurance on the same tankage. Before I forget about it, it is also worth noting that the J-79 used in the Supertiger was not the 15,000 thrust model, it was the 14.250 pound earlier run model with the initial tests using a phase 0 model with 650 less thrust than even that.. 13,600 pounds full on and that was enough to push the #1 prototype to M 1.61 and the number 2 with the new intakes and other tweaks to M2.

As to ATAR.. you pay the money and Grumman will shove whatever you like up that birds tail.

 

[bobtdwarf]

IF this alternate Tiger can live long enough for some bright lad to notice that the TF-41 is within an inch and 50 pounds of the dimensions of the J-65 then we are in business!

15,000 pounds of thrust for 30 minutes at an SFC of .664 as opposed to that same thrust on AB and an SFC IIRC of 1.9 on the J-79. Sure it would come at the cost of the same kind of performance hits the F-4k had in comparison to the standard F-4, because of the bigger intakes, but still...

 

[Archibald]

Some random idea about your "Alt Super Tiger".

It first plays havoc with the Crusader (1956- 1963)

But later on, it can impact the F-5 Tiger as a "low end to the Phantom" and "Mirage III competitor"

And in the late 60's, with a TF-41, not only it could impact IFA and the F-5E, but also the LWF program. Hornet and F-16.
And this bird is a Grumman, just like the F-14.
How would this affect the F-18 Hornet, no idea... it is, too, a "low end to the F-14 Tomcat".

You have opened a terrific can of worms - "be careful what you wish for" as they say.

 

[Archibald]

While the F-5A was "alone" in 1962-63, by 1968-70 for IFA the F-5E had plenty of competitors
(derived from)
- Crusader (V-1000)
- Phantom (single-seat)
- F-104 (CL-1200 Lancer)
Now this alt Super Tiger could be Grumman entry into IFA. And compared to the four above, it has very serious chances. J79 or TF41, doesn't change much...

 

[bobtdwarf]

Some random idea about your "Alt Super Tiger".

It first plays havoc with the Crusader (1956- 1963)

But later on, it can impact the F-5 Tiger as a "low end to the Phantom" and "Mirage III competitor"

And in the late 60's, with a TF-41, not only it could impact IFA and the F-5E, but also the LWF program. Hornet and F-16.
And this bird is a Grumman, just like the F-14.
How would this affect the F-18 Hornet, no idea... it is, too, a "low end to the F-14 Tomcat".

You have opened a terrific can of worms - "be careful what you wish for" as they say.

Yes quite a can.. though I think the impact on F-5 and F-8 in some cases will not be massive, F-5 in particular is exquisitely tailored to some customers needs. There will be impacts..and here is one that sneaks up on us:

From the F-11 SAC sheet for the actual aircraft.. combat range for full internal fuel and guns is 1108 NMI with an endurance of 1.57 hours.

The alternate with the 27.5 wing is 20% better, the 13.5 folded one is identical to historic.

Increase each by 20% if a J-79 is fitted.. increase THAT by 20% if you swap a TF-41 for the J-79. The USN in my scenario is using the 27.5 version, at the TF-41 stage of development the 13.5 will have a range acceptable for USN usage. This is going to cause massive cramps.

Here is where.. using USS Oriskany's final air group as a guide and excluding the detachments of sea kings, AEW and EW aircraft she had 2 squadrons of F-8's and 3 of A-7's, all of which have a folded span of about 23 feet. The A-7 is about the same length as the 13.5 with the folding nose and the F-8 is much longer, a bit longer than the Sea-Vixen. As we figured in an above post about how many RN spec ST's can fit side by side in comparison to SV's.. you can double the capacity of an Essex.

But yeah it will have some impacts on how many models of some types come in.. and a number of programs

EDIT.. doing some quick math a hypothetical 27.5 version fitted with an F-404 sometime in the late 70's should have a range as above of about 1560 and an endurance of 2 hours and 10 minutes. She would also be about 1400 pounds lighter if the weight I have for the F-404 is correct, putting her at unity under AB.

 

[Volkodav]

Great topic!
Just some tidbits for consideration ref possible RN use.
- If I recall correctly the RN determined that Hermes could effectively operate twenty Skyhawks, plus Gannets, Wessex etc. This suggests on your calculations she (and modernised Centaurs) could operate close to 30 Tigers
- The Tigers 13.5' height would permit storage in the hangars of Implacable and Indefatigable, permitting a cheaper, more austere modernisation on those two ships than that conducted on Vic.

Yeah pretty much. Regrettably the time frame I have in this precludes the Implacable's since they would have been sent to the breakers a year prior

True but, according to Friedman, the order of modernisation of the armoured fleet carriers was determined by the number of ships in each sub class, making the first three single hangar ships the most attractive as a single design would suit all three, Indomitable was the least attractive as she was unique. Had the RN been aware of the serious structural issues both Formidable and Illustrious had from battle damage, the Implacables would have become the most attractive and one detailed design would have suited two ships. The two were also newer, had seen less service and had a larger more powerful propulsion plant, things that should have resulted in a less drawn out and expensive modernisation.

The availability of multiple aircraft types that could fit within the 14' hangar height means the major structural changes to merge the two hangars initially assumed would not be necessary. I didn't realise until recently that the 14' hangar height referred to the height to the deck head beams and that there was actually a significant amount of storage space between the beams. By my estimation, not only could aircraft such as the Tiger and Fury fit in an Implacables hangar, but so too could the F4D Skyray, Fairey Gannet, I believe also the Sea Vixen and (height wise at least) A-5 Vigilante, as well as notional navalised variants of such aircraft as the Hunter, or cancelled types such as the SR.177. The modernised Implacables could have gotten away with retaining the existing hangar height and repurposing the lower hangar, limiting structural work to an angled flight deck, and associated equipment. Their 33% larger plant would have made operation of steam catapults more viable as well.

 

[Archibald]

Had the RN been aware of the serious structural issues both Formidable and Illustrious had from battle damage

Give me a break... they were not aware the two carriers had been perfored and wrecked by big Stuka bombs and Japanese Kamikazes ? wasn't the carnage visible enough ?

 

[zen]

Post '45 the RN faced a Labour government, and so things were judged in order to get past political objections.

Strictly as I've laid out earlier, the RN knew the future lay in building new carriers. It there in their meetings.
But the Year of Maximum Danger was upmost in their minds.

All that said I agree a modest Flight Deck level of modernisation of the Implacables seems a reasonable option.

 

[Volkodav]

Had the RN been aware of the serious structural issues both Formidable and Illustrious had from battle damage

Give me a break... they were not aware the two carriers had been perfored and wrecked by big Stuka bombs and Japanese Kamikazes ? wasn't the carnage visible enough ?

All right then, they were unaware that the entire hull structure had been deformed by the over pressure damage to the armoured box hangar structure. Is that better? They thought the damage they knew about was economically repairable, hence why they planned to upgrade them, it was only after a detailed survey they realised the two ships were a lost cause. Not me saying this, its Friedman in the annexes of his book "The Post War Naval Revolution".

Post '45 the RN faced a Labour government, and so things were judged in order to get past political objections.

Strictly as I've laid out earlier, the RN knew the future lay in building new carriers. It there in their meetings.
But the Year of Maximum Danger was upmost in their minds.

All that said I agree a modest Flight Deck level of modernisation of the Implacables seems a reasonable option.

That's the key, obtaining the required capability at the least cost, making a new generation of carriers for the late fifties / early sixties, realistically affordable and achievable. Something akin to the Super Tiger is a step in the right direction, suitable ships to affordably fly them from is also critical.

Another factor is economy of scale, or more to the point, making carriers affordable and effective for friendly navies so they will share the costs of maintaining said carrier capability, strong hint here, modernised Majestics was not the way to do it. As highlighted in VADM David Shackleton's Doctoral Thesis "The Adams-class guided-missile destroyers and the RAN" the Chief of the RAN was advised prior to the delivery of HMAS Sydney (1948) that the Majestics were too small to operate the next generation of naval aircraft already being planned. Modernised Centaurs and Implacables could have affordably kept Canada, Australia and the Netherlands in the carrier game longer than their Light Fleet Carriers were able to, ships that could easily and effectively operated Super Tigers (in fighter and attack variants), Gannets (upgraded and retained as ASW) etc. into the 70s, while the RN also operated Tigers, Gannets and Bucs of Ark, Eagle and three or four new medium carriers.

Less money wasted on ships that would be effective for only a decade, if that long, and more on good enough upgrades, good enough aircraft and good enough new ships.

 

[zen]

Except that the planning was all about the Year of Maximum Danger, so getting ships available for the next ten years was THE priority.
Korea only made things worse.

But yes, this seems a better 'future proofed' solution than what was chosen.

 

[Archibald]

All right then, they were unaware that the entire hull structure had been deformed by the over pressure damage to the armoured box hangar structure. Is that better? They thought the damage they knew about was economically repairable, hence why they planned to upgrade them, it was only after a detailed survey they realised the two ships were a lost cause. Not me saying this, its Friedman in the annexes of his book "The Post War Naval Revolution".

Don't take it badly. I wasn't criticizing you. And you explained very well why some *damage* can be somewhat invisible at first sight.
One think about big holes in the flight deck and fire damage (remember poor USS Franklin in 1945 ), but this is actually worse.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Great topic!
Just some tidbits for consideration ref possible RN use.
- If I recall correctly the RN determined that Hermes could effectively operate twenty Skyhawks, plus Gannets, Wessex etc. This suggests on your calculations she (and modernised Centaurs) could operate close to 30 Tigers
- The Tigers 13.5' height would permit storage in the hangars of Implacable and Indefatigable, permitting a cheaper, more austere modernisation on those two ships than that conducted on Vic.

Yeah pretty much. Regrettably the time frame I have in this precludes the Implacable's since they would have been sent to the breakers a year prior

True but, according to Friedman, the order of modernisation of the armoured fleet carriers was determined by the number of ships in each sub class, making the first three single hangar ships the most attractive as a single design would suit all three, Indomitable was the least attractive as she was unique. Had the RN been aware of the serious structural issues both Formidable and Illustrious had from battle damage, the Implacables would have become the most attractive and one detailed design would have suited two ships. The two were also newer, had seen less service and had a larger more powerful propulsion plant, things that should have resulted in a less drawn out and expensive modernisation.

The availability of multiple aircraft types that could fit within the 14' hangar height means the major structural changes to merge the two hangars initially assumed would not be necessary. I didn't realise until recently that the 14' hangar height referred to the height to the deck head beams and that there was actually a significant amount of storage space between the beams. By my estimation, not only could aircraft such as the Tiger and Fury fit in an Implacables hangar, but so too could the F4D Skyray, Fairey Gannet, I believe also the Sea Vixen and (height wise at least) A-5 Vigilante, as well as notional navalised variants of such aircraft as the Hunter, or cancelled types such as the SR.177. The modernised Implacables could have gotten away with retaining the existing hangar height and repurposing the lower hangar, limiting structural work to an angled flight deck, and associated equipment. Their 33% larger plant would have made operation of steam catapults more viable as well.

It is more about the AEW/ASW... will have much more later on this but in the meantime... trust me I have thought about it.. had a number of posts on this here https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...-of-maintaining-carrier-based-airpower.32516/

 

[Archibald]

Oh geez. The Falklands war, if there is ever one, has just become far more... interesting. This is no freakkin' 25 de Mayo. Skyhawks will have no issue getting out of the deck, even with zero wind.

Hopefully for them the British will keep Eagle in better shape, or find a way to efficiently milk out the Centaur fleet (Hermes-izing all of them), or get some 1956 Medium Fleet Carriers build with the French (it just screamed for that).

 

[bobtdwarf]

Oh geez. The Falklands war, if there is ever one, has just become far more... interesting. This is no freakkin' 25 de Mayo. Skyhawks will have no issue getting out of the deck, even with zero wind.

Hopefully for them the British will keep Eagle in better shape, or find a way to efficiently milk out the Centaur fleet (Hermes-izing all of them), or get some 1956 Medium Fleet Carriers build with the French (it just screamed for that).

Don't get to excited about the file name... I started that drawing project after reading how Argentina was offered the Implacable but turned it down. Her hull number is RN...

It would have been much smarter of Argentina to pick up Centaur than Karel D but they didn't do it, cost to operate would not have been much more if at all.

 

[Archibald]

D'oh !

 

[uk 75]

Although the Sverdlov cruisers alarmed the RN sufficiently for it to develop Buccaneer and get it into service on Victorious, Hermes, Eagle and Ark (Green Cheese was not so lucky) the main work of RN carriers in general war was seen as being ASW.
The focus was on getting whatever could be got into service.
Reinforcing Singapore and providing fighter cover with their Tigers would have been the main impetus for using Bulwark and Albion as well as Centaur and Hermes as fixed wing carriers. With Victorious, Eagle and Ark they would have worked hard up until 1966 East of Suez.
After 1966 the focus has to shift to NATO for both political and budgetary reasons. But Eagle and Hermes could have survived with their Tigers into the 70s with Centaur and Bulwark taking over from Ocean and Theseus as Commando ships.
The AFVG/Mirage M is selected to replace the Tigers in 1970. The incoming Conservative government orders the Hermes sized anglo french carrier (PACV70) to enter service from 1979. The RN gets Queen Elizabeth and Eagle (Prince of Wales is renamed Eagle after the latter became the star of the BBCTV doc "Sailor" and is adopted by HM theQueen Mother). France gets Charles De Gaulle and Richelieu.
Queen Elizabeth and Hermes sail for the Falklands in 1982. QE has the new Tornado/Mirage M fighter/attacker while Hermes operates Tigers and Bucs. Hermes and her airgroup had been sold to Australia as HMS Australia. Canberra agrees to let the RN keep her for the duration. But Eagle is completed at breakneck speed. Hermes returns to Portsmouth in the Summer to be refurbished for the RAN with her Tigers and Bucs. The Tiger has had its second combat moment with the RN (the first was in the F East in 1963 against Indonesian Migs and Badgers)