How about a Hawker P.1121 version fitted with American radar (say similar to F-4) plus AIM-7 & AIM-9?
Cold Warriors: The Essex Class in the Cold War
- Thread starter SSgtC
- Start date
_Del_
I really should change my personal text... Or not.
- Joined
- 4 January 2012
- Messages
- 1,019
- Reaction score
- 1,223
Setting apart the time/money required for Australia to develop two versions of the P.1121 by itself, I don't see how it works. By the time you're looking at a production aircraft, you're inching towards the Phantom in size, weight, complexity, and hence cost without factoring the development costs.
I'm extremely skeptical that you could get it on deck without serious performance compromises. And at the end of the day, if it's approaching the same weight class as a Phantom, you'll need the same large carriers. The Phantom is already flying, and about to become the premier tactical fighter with a dozen air forces and a production run of over 5,000. Even without hindsight, and assuming a pick was made in the direction of Hawker, I don't know how that decision survives the F-4's early performance shattering all sorts of records as it works it's way toward USN service. It would rapidly become clear that funding a giant "maybe" is going to ultimately be more expensive than the Phantom.
It'd make more sense to go with Crusaders like the Aeronavale if you're not getting bigger carriers. You get your range, payload requirements for cheap, and the USN is pushing AIM-9C and D variants, so you get SARH and IR already in the pipeline. Won't meet the speed requirements. I wonder how much work it takes to mate a J79 and produce the engine under license.
Super Tiger might fit the same profile, as well, if you're willing to trade capability for speed,
I would think the Starfighter and Mirages would miss the boat, so to speak, due to the carrier requirement.
I'm extremely skeptical that you could get it on deck without serious performance compromises. And at the end of the day, if it's approaching the same weight class as a Phantom, you'll need the same large carriers. The Phantom is already flying, and about to become the premier tactical fighter with a dozen air forces and a production run of over 5,000. Even without hindsight, and assuming a pick was made in the direction of Hawker, I don't know how that decision survives the F-4's early performance shattering all sorts of records as it works it's way toward USN service. It would rapidly become clear that funding a giant "maybe" is going to ultimately be more expensive than the Phantom.
It'd make more sense to go with Crusaders like the Aeronavale if you're not getting bigger carriers. You get your range, payload requirements for cheap, and the USN is pushing AIM-9C and D variants, so you get SARH and IR already in the pipeline. Won't meet the speed requirements. I wonder how much work it takes to mate a J79 and produce the engine under license.
Super Tiger might fit the same profile, as well, if you're willing to trade capability for speed,
I would think the Starfighter and Mirages would miss the boat, so to speak, due to the carrier requirement.
A J79 Crusader IV circa 1959 is one of my pet peeve.
Consider OTL 1969 V-1000 for IFA against the F-5E : it was exactly THAT - a J79 Crusader.
Why Vought didn't got the idea in 1959 for the USN, is beyond me.
It would have ruled Vietnam skies and provided a perfect match to the Mig-21. Even more with two M61 Vulcan guns.
5000 pounds lighter thanks to J79, a much shorter ass and thus no V.I wing anymore. AIM-9L later.
It wouldn't be a Mig-killer but a Mig-genocider.
Consider OTL 1969 V-1000 for IFA against the F-5E : it was exactly THAT - a J79 Crusader.
Why Vought didn't got the idea in 1959 for the USN, is beyond me.
It would have ruled Vietnam skies and provided a perfect match to the Mig-21. Even more with two M61 Vulcan guns.
5000 pounds lighter thanks to J79, a much shorter ass and thus no V.I wing anymore. AIM-9L later.
It wouldn't be a Mig-killer but a Mig-genocider.
SSgtC
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 July 2020
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 2,780
Vought was focused on the Crusader III around that time. And IIRC, the USN all but ordered Vought not to develop a J79 powered Crusader but to focus on the J75 powered Super Crusader.
_Del_
I really should change my personal text... Or not.
- Joined
- 4 January 2012
- Messages
- 1,019
- Reaction score
- 1,223
Isn't the proto-F-5, N-156 still a USN project at this time? Would be an interesting wrinkle if the USN kept their smaller carriers until a later date which keeps one or more of the Super Tiger and N-156 (could probably throw the Crusader into this bag to some degree) relevant for small decks...
SSgtC
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 July 2020
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 2,780
IIRC, the N-156 was proposed specifically to give the USN a carrier capable, supersonic fighter that could operate off of the large fleet of American escort carriers in the Reserve Fleet. Otherwise it's not really what the USN wants for its fighter structure. The Super Tiger was a great concept, but Grumman should have taken the concept further than they did.
Lascaris
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 14 November 2008
- Messages
- 281
- Reaction score
- 336
Were the Argentines interested in an Essex historically? Of course there is also the matter of needing twice the crew but you get what you pay for...
SSgtC
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 July 2020
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 2,780
I couldn't find if they were or weren't in OTL. I saw a brief reference to them considering it, but then very soon after deciding on a light fleet instead. So I'm not sure if its something that they actually tried to make work and couldn't or if it was a "covering our bases" discussion
So on scenarios for the P1121.
1. The UK could have opted to purchase a limited number for FAW role in place of certain orders for more Lightnings. With eyes on the need to provide something for Australia. Not impossible. Likely orders in 1960 for at least 60 machines. Gyron dropped for Olympus, ties in with TSR.2.
2. Once such a process sets off, then after NMBR.3 turns into political farce in April 1962, further orders for MRI Strike present a cheaper and swifter to service option compared to the P1154 Harrier. This being an initial 70 for austere nuclear strike leveraging extent work on TSR.2 and Buccaneer S.2. Likely wrapped around the AI.23 development Blue Parrot.
This would expand to over 175 aircraft, the latter 85 being a fully integrated weapon system using the UK avionics proposed to MRCA that had been in development for the TSR.2, AFVG and UKVG.
Likely some dedicated trainers might be purchased.
Consequently Sweden sticks with Olympus for System 37 a.k.a SAAB Vigen.
3. A navalised option would be forthcoming, to the RN, and imposed just as the P1154 was. Expecting this to be some 140 aircraft. Being well underway by 1965 and with FAW marks ISD by this time, and GRmk1 expecting to reach IOC by 1967, program not cancelled.
So unlikely to be worse than costed 1.5 million for P1154, and reasonably less than projected Spey F4 of 1.2 million that actually rose to 3.5 million.
Though not as cheap as F8 of 0.5 million. But F8 production is heading for closure by 1965 and from the UK perspective is priced in precious dollars unless licensed built by Shorts as the proposed to do. Which is with the Spey, twin seats, 30mm ADEN and the AI.23/Red Top system. Very different from USN examples.
This means even as TSR.2 is dropped in 1965, components funded can be utilised for P.1121 variants.
Under this sort of scenario, a RAN order for operation from a modernised Essex carrier is quite reasonable.
1. The UK could have opted to purchase a limited number for FAW role in place of certain orders for more Lightnings. With eyes on the need to provide something for Australia. Not impossible. Likely orders in 1960 for at least 60 machines. Gyron dropped for Olympus, ties in with TSR.2.
2. Once such a process sets off, then after NMBR.3 turns into political farce in April 1962, further orders for MRI Strike present a cheaper and swifter to service option compared to the P1154 Harrier. This being an initial 70 for austere nuclear strike leveraging extent work on TSR.2 and Buccaneer S.2. Likely wrapped around the AI.23 development Blue Parrot.
This would expand to over 175 aircraft, the latter 85 being a fully integrated weapon system using the UK avionics proposed to MRCA that had been in development for the TSR.2, AFVG and UKVG.
Likely some dedicated trainers might be purchased.
Consequently Sweden sticks with Olympus for System 37 a.k.a SAAB Vigen.
3. A navalised option would be forthcoming, to the RN, and imposed just as the P1154 was. Expecting this to be some 140 aircraft. Being well underway by 1965 and with FAW marks ISD by this time, and GRmk1 expecting to reach IOC by 1967, program not cancelled.
So unlikely to be worse than costed 1.5 million for P1154, and reasonably less than projected Spey F4 of 1.2 million that actually rose to 3.5 million.
Though not as cheap as F8 of 0.5 million. But F8 production is heading for closure by 1965 and from the UK perspective is priced in precious dollars unless licensed built by Shorts as the proposed to do. Which is with the Spey, twin seats, 30mm ADEN and the AI.23/Red Top system. Very different from USN examples.
This means even as TSR.2 is dropped in 1965, components funded can be utilised for P.1121 variants.
Under this sort of scenario, a RAN order for operation from a modernised Essex carrier is quite reasonable.
Shiiiiiiiiit ! So it was a deliberate murder. There was really a bottleneck there, at the " low end " of the coming Phantom. J57 and J79 Crusader, Super Tiger, Skylancer. An embarrassment of riches once again. Too many companies colliding with superb types.
SSgtC
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 July 2020
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 2,780
Pretty much. The USN already had a bunch of types being designed around the J79. But nothing using the far more powerful J75. So Vought was "encouraged" to focus on their existing J57 powered Crusader II and their mach 2+ J75 powered Crusader III. From a pure fighter standpoint, the Crusader III could literally fly rings around the Phantom, was faster than the Phantom, with better fuel economy and nearly double the combat radius. But the Phantom was a true multirole aircraft, every bit as adept at ground attack as air-to-air. So the Crusader III lost. But it's an interesting "what if." Particularly concerning the air war over Vietnam.
Will the United States have it written down that the carrier will not be used in any action against a ally of them and that they have the right to regularly inspect it if they want it, i know the United States and India did this with the Austin class amphibious transport dock India bought in OTL where the United States obtained an assurance that the naval ship could not be used for any offensive purposes, and had the right to regularly inspect it.
SSgtC
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 July 2020
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 2,780
I won't be listing all the details of the purchase agreement, but as I understand it, that's a petty standard clause in almost any military sales contract
Last edited:
Two M61 Vulcan in a Crusader? Was that possible? I would have thought that the weight would thrown off the aircraft centre of gravity? Would two Aden/Defa as suggested for the UK two seater proposal?
Also what is FAW - Fighter Attack ???
The F5 as a carrier aircraft? I've wondered about that for a while, and thought it would have been ideal - no need for anything to fold. The one feature I've never liked was the twin M139 canons could they be replaced with Aden/Defa and moved to the underside of the fuselage? Reading above that they would be compatible with the remaining escort carrier, they would be ideal for the Colossus, Majestic and even Centaur carriers?
Yup, it surprised me too. There were indeed three different N156s by 1955
- N156T (= T-38)
- N156F (= future F-5)
- N156N (Navy variant)
The USN had a huge number of light and escort carriers in storage. The Saipan class (two of them) and the Independance class. Of the later, nine had been build, yet two lost / scrapped (Taffy 3 1944 and 1946 nuclear blasts), two more had already gone to France (Lafayette / Bois Belleau) - and one last would be passed to Spain, but only in 1967 (Dedalo).
So five available, plus the two Saipan = seven 30 kt carriers. I suppose the N156N was for these 7 ships.
The Saipan were no Essex but still pretty large (23 000 tons) and fast. They ended instead as Nuclear Command Posts at Sea, better known as doomsday ships: very much a floating, Navy Boeing E-4B. One big cruiser was also converted for the job.
And in addition there was an even larger number of Sangamons and Casablancas which were much, much slower at 20 kt. Dozens of such ships.
Last edited:
I am aware that the M139 was considered to be a poor weapon, I've wondered why the US didn't go to a 30mm cannon, although it does follow on by the retention of the 50cal machine gun during WWII, while the RAF went to 20mm guns.
SSgtC
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 July 2020
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 2,780
The problem with the F-5 as a carrier aircraft is that it's already piss poor range would be even worse flying off a carrier. A naval variant would be much heavier and beefier, and given that the F-5 only has about a 100 mile combat radius, it's really kinda useless as an air defense fighter for a carrier given most AShMs had a range of at least that long.
SSgtC
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 July 2020
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 2,780
July 26, 1958
Washington DC, USA
Neil McElroy, the United States Secretary of Defense, had both the Secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations in his office. On his desk was a Letter of Request from Argentina to buy an Essex class carrier. Over the last two weeks, his staff, along with the staffs of Secretary Gates and Admiral Burke had debated the pros and cons of selling a carrier to South America. In a vacuum, the United States would not want any country in South America buying carriers. But considering both Brazil and Argentina were going to buy carriers regardless, it would be in the best interests of the United States to draw at least one of those countries into a closer relationship with the United States by supplying the carrier themselves. At least then they could have some control over the vessel by controlling access to spare parts.
And given the United States history with Argentina, having previously built two battleships for them, and sold multiple cruisers and destroyers to them, Argentina was the logical choice. After finalizing the details with his subordinates, Secretary McElroy agreed to the proposal and would endorse it to Congress.
Washington DC, USA
Neil McElroy, the United States Secretary of Defense, had both the Secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations in his office. On his desk was a Letter of Request from Argentina to buy an Essex class carrier. Over the last two weeks, his staff, along with the staffs of Secretary Gates and Admiral Burke had debated the pros and cons of selling a carrier to South America. In a vacuum, the United States would not want any country in South America buying carriers. But considering both Brazil and Argentina were going to buy carriers regardless, it would be in the best interests of the United States to draw at least one of those countries into a closer relationship with the United States by supplying the carrier themselves. At least then they could have some control over the vessel by controlling access to spare parts.
And given the United States history with Argentina, having previously built two battleships for them, and sold multiple cruisers and destroyers to them, Argentina was the logical choice. After finalizing the details with his subordinates, Secretary McElroy agreed to the proposal and would endorse it to Congress.
SSgtC
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 July 2020
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 2,780
July 27, 1958
Washington, DC, USA
Argentina agrees to buy ex-Leyte for scrap value and have her refitted at the New York Naval Shipyard and brought up to the same SCB-27C/125A standard as Oriskany and Lake Champlain. To facilitate the transfer, the US Navy officially evaluates the scrap value of Leyte to be one dollar. Following her overhaul, Leyte is to be commissioned into the Argentine Navy as ARA Independencia.
In order for the deal to become official, it still requires the formal approval of Congress. In order to secure that approval, Argentina agrees to abide by certain conditions regarding the operation of the carrier. In particular, they were required to agree not use the carrier in any operations against American allies without the express permission of the United States. Failure to abide by that restriction will result in the supply of spare parts for the carrier and her aircraft being cut off.
Washington, DC, USA
Argentina agrees to buy ex-Leyte for scrap value and have her refitted at the New York Naval Shipyard and brought up to the same SCB-27C/125A standard as Oriskany and Lake Champlain. To facilitate the transfer, the US Navy officially evaluates the scrap value of Leyte to be one dollar. Following her overhaul, Leyte is to be commissioned into the Argentine Navy as ARA Independencia.
In order for the deal to become official, it still requires the formal approval of Congress. In order to secure that approval, Argentina agrees to abide by certain conditions regarding the operation of the carrier. In particular, they were required to agree not use the carrier in any operations against American allies without the express permission of the United States. Failure to abide by that restriction will result in the supply of spare parts for the carrier and her aircraft being cut off.
SSgtC
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 July 2020
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 2,780
August 2, 1958
Jakarta, Java, Indonesia
The first flight of four TU-16s land at Iswahyudi Airbase. The bombers are flown by Soviet training officers who will remain in Indonesia for the next year training the Indonesian flight crews. The Badger strategic bombers provide a marked increase in capability over Indonesia's current fleet of Beagle light bombers. Indonesia has 28 Badgers on order, twelve land attack bombers, twelve anti-ship bombers equipped to launch anti-ship missiles and four unarmed trainers. The four aircraft that just landed are the trainers. The remaining bombers will arrive over the next six months.
The flight of bombers also serve as navigators for the first MiG-19s sold to Indonesia with each bomber "escorting" four fighters. Indonesia plans to have one squadron of MiG-19s and one squadron of TU-16s operational by May, 1959.
Jakarta, Java, Indonesia
The first flight of four TU-16s land at Iswahyudi Airbase. The bombers are flown by Soviet training officers who will remain in Indonesia for the next year training the Indonesian flight crews. The Badger strategic bombers provide a marked increase in capability over Indonesia's current fleet of Beagle light bombers. Indonesia has 28 Badgers on order, twelve land attack bombers, twelve anti-ship bombers equipped to launch anti-ship missiles and four unarmed trainers. The four aircraft that just landed are the trainers. The remaining bombers will arrive over the next six months.
The flight of bombers also serve as navigators for the first MiG-19s sold to Indonesia with each bomber "escorting" four fighters. Indonesia plans to have one squadron of MiG-19s and one squadron of TU-16s operational by May, 1959.
1 dollar plus a couple of millions to refit i assume.
isayyo2
Lurker alert
- Joined
- 24 November 2011
- Messages
- 1,082
- Reaction score
- 2,128
Yikes, I hope Australia reaches out to the Commonwealth or ADC for some reinforcements.
SSgtC
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 July 2020
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 2,780
Oh yeah. The SCB-27 and -125 programs were not cheap
The Argentine purchase of a Essex would have made the Falklands Conflict an interesting proposition for the RN, unless US intervention would have prevented its use. Although what would its airgroup have been, would they have had longer legs than as historical.
isayyo2
Lurker alert
- Joined
- 24 November 2011
- Messages
- 1,082
- Reaction score
- 2,128
And if Conqueror sinks her too it'll make the loss of Belgrano look like a joke.
If the RN knows that Argentina has an Essex, no way in hell Eagle gets the axe in 67-72 instead of cranky Ark Royal. Also, Hermes would not lose its catapults. For a start. Earlier in time, CVA-01 would not be allowed to die, at least not without a valid replacement. Which might very well be - the irony ! a couple of rebuild Essex... for example, the WWII crippled Bunker Hill and Franklin, thoroughly rebuild.
Scratching my head... What's the point of that clause, really ? I really can't see any foe of Argentina being also an ally of America. Chile maybe ?
Common, Argentina don't need a carrier to wadge a war again them, even for the Beagle islands...
SSgtC
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 July 2020
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 2,780
As I understand it, that's a fairly standard clause in military sales contracts. It's a way for the selling country to maintain some control over the use of the asset.
SSgtC
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 July 2020
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 2,780
Lol. I got it now. In my defense, I hadn't had any coffee yet when I responded.
So any developments on the bomber requirement(s)?
SSgtC
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 July 2020
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 2,780
So the RAAF will not get the F-111 most likley as they did in OTL, shame, i always liked the a dump-and-burn.
Also i think the quote from Benny Murdani, Indonesian defense minister in the 1980s, told his Australian counterpart Kim Beazley that when others became upset with Australia during Indonesian cabinet meetings, Murdani told them "Do you realise the Australians have a bomber that can put a bomb through that window on to the table here in front of us?" will not happen, ore will it.
Similar threads
-
Royal Navy got Essex carriers - with a twist.
- Started by Archibald
- Replies: 51
-
Royal Navy Type 82 Alternatives and comparisons with other navies- Started by uk 75
- Replies: 20
-
1980's 600 Ship Navy Essex Class Reactivation Plan
- Started by Ironmiked
- Replies: 32
-
Royal Navy Destroyers and Frigates post 1966
- Started by uk 75
- Replies: 88
-
Could NATO Frigate 90 have been made to work?
- Started by uk 75
- Replies: 7