Could the UK have done a better job of maintaining carrier based air power?

[JFC Fuller]

The proliferation and then decline of the light fleet carriers post-war is a fascinating tale but one must understand the roles they performed. Once the Dutch ship lost its imperial policeman role it was left with two functions, ASW and fleet air defence, the Canadian ship was the same. The former was better provided within the available budget by a combination of helicopters distributed on frigates and destroyers combined with sonobuoy laying land based MPAs and the latter by guided missiles similarly deployed across escort fleets. Such solutions provided much higher availability than a single steam powered carrier. The south American and Indian ships were, in practical terms, prestige vessels and of questionable utility.

The emergence of the Harrier and the gas turbine changed things, ships could now have higher availability and the Harrier provided a light attack and fighter capability but those vessels built for them before 1990 were still designed around what I would call escort carrier type air wings and lacked the deep magazines and avgas reserves for really sustained strike operations. One of the reasons the QE class got so big is that they were conceived as strike carriers. Every ton one shaves off a carrier design is a sacrifice somewhere, combat endurance, combat systems, armament etc.

The Sea Control ship was essentially a modernised version of the WW2 escort carrier, slow, weakly armed and never intended to go anywhere really dangerous, the Spanish navy basically built one of Zumwalt's mid-Atlantic escort groups - frigates and all.

 

[zen]

The proliferation and then decline of the light fleet carriers post-war is a fascinating tale but one must understand the roles they performed. Once the Dutch ship lost its imperial policeman role it was left with two functions, ASW and fleet defence, the Canadian ship was the same. The former was better provided within the available budget by a combination of helicopters distributed on frigates and destroyers combined with sonobuoy laying land based MPAs and the latter by guided missiles similarly deployed across escort fleets. Such solutions provided much higher availability than a single steam powered carrier. The south American and Indian ships were, in practical terms, prestige vessels often and of questionable utility.

The emergence of the Harrier and the gas turbine changed things, ships could now have higher availability and the Harrier provided a light attack and fighter capability but those vessels built for them before 1990 were still designed around what I would call escort carrier type air wings and lacked the deep magazines and avgas reserves for really sustained strike operations. One of the reasons the QE class got so big is that they were conceived as strike carriers. Every ton one shaves off a carrier design is a sacrifice somewhere, combat endurance, combat systems, armament etc.

The Sea Control ship was essentially a modernised version of the WW2 escort carrier, slow, weakly armed and never intended to go anywhere really dangerous, the Spanish navy basically built one of Zumwalt's mid-Atlantic escort groups - frigates and all.

Agreed and that's why the Civil Sea Lords proposed CTOLto V/STOL carrier was 40,000tons for just 24 combat aircraft.
Clearly reflecting the need for sustainability of the airwing.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The RN was nowhere near being intellectually ready for it, I have my doubts as to whether the P.1154 would ever have really worked, it probably wouldn't have moved the cost needle enough to save the "big carrier" fleet, the AEW problem would have needed a credible solution and it wouldn't have fulfilled the threat derived Operational Requirement but I have occasionally wondered whether a three shaft/six Olympus STOVL CVA01 could have been viable.

 

[Archibald]

1952 CV ended up as a 54,000ton ship of 870ft overall length (although strictly that's it's flight deck but we're not talking much more) and 161ft waterline beam.
Airwing would likely end up as 12 Scimitar, 12 Sea Vixen, 12 Buccaneer, 8 Gannet, 4 AEW Skyraider then Gannet and 2 SAR dragonfly then Wessex.

Clemenceau-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Displacement:	22,000 standard; 32,780 maximum[1]
Length:	265 m (869 ft)[1]
Beam:	51.2 m (168 ft)[1]
Draught:	8.6 m (28 ft)[1]

I don't understand. Why 20 000 tons+ if the overall dimensions are very similar ?

 

[zen]

1952 CV ended up as a 54,000ton ship of 870ft overall length (although strictly that's it's flight deck but we're not talking much more) and 161ft waterline beam.
Airwing would likely end up as 12 Scimitar, 12 Sea Vixen, 12 Buccaneer, 8 Gannet, 4 AEW Skyraider then Gannet and 2 SAR dragonfly then Wessex.

Clemenceau-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Displacement:	22,000 standard; 32,780 maximum[1]
Length:	265 m (869 ft)[1]
Beam:	51.2 m (168 ft)[1]
Draught:	8.6 m (28 ft)[1]

I don't understand. Why 20 000 tons+ if the overall dimensions are very similar ?

The design was deeper in the water and a more fuller shape displacing much more water. Consider the Clems were originally narrower but bulged for stability reasons.

1952 CV had a full gallery deck over the hanger and the flight deck was to be rated for 60,000lb aircraft.
It had inches of armour plate too and four Y300 plant machinary.
It's more a cut down ship that ought to be longer and wider.

 

[zen]

So PCB works but HGR along with the effects of the hot jet on surfaces is not a trivial problem.
Rolling VL is the answer.

The P1154 with the new AI set was reasonably certain to meet AW.406 requirements. It could TO fine, do the 2 hour minimum CAP and go for longer, reach the 200nm strike range and recover safely. It would make the 3000nm self deployment range.
The mach 2 issue is overrated and would soon prove so. AW.406 prioritises acceleration to supersonic speed from a Patrol cruising speed.

The chief problems this had was adding in the use of the 151ft catapult use, the thinking they'd recover VL and the issues around single engine and high bypass turbofans limitations at altitude.

But strictly it would meet everything desired and stripping out catapult usage and using rolling VL would make it all more achievable.

It would be faster than the F8, lighter than the F4 and frankly it's cost/risks are only made worse by catapult and arrestor requirements.
Rolling VL would make recovery assured. No bolters.
It's unlikely it would spiral out of control like the F4K. I seriously doubt it would end up costing over £3 million like the F4K. Maybe £2 million at most.

Sharing most risks with the RAF machine , the main none catapult and arrestor issue is the radar missile system and this is not as bad as some paint it.

 

[Archibald]

HMS Eagle in the Falklands - a nice TL from AH.com (yes, those things still exist, although they have become extremely rare).

Here the ATL 1983 Defense white paper, a watershed compared to OTL isn't it ?

HMS EAGLE in the Falklands

IIRC Brian Hanrahan was with a platoon of Gurkhas when the Argentines surrendered IOTL. Their British officer's comment on the signal was, "Bloody marvellous!" This was in stark contrast to the miserable expressions on the faces of his men after he told them (in Nepalese). Did that still...

www.alternatehistory.com

With Hornets for the RN and RAF, ding dong, the Typhoon is dead and buried. Rafale will have a free hand.

 

[Hood]

Rolling VL might have been evolved sooner had the P.1154 come into service.
It just seems such a typical half-hearted faffy approach, catapult launch and VL landing when you need to keep the arrestor gear for the Bucc anyway so aren't saving anything on the ship at all.
It meant you could operate a higher gross weight fighter on a smaller flightdeck and recover more safely but it seems a rather convoluted approach when CVA-01 was being designed with novel arrestor gear to overcome the same problem anyway.

 

[zen]

No the argument for the 40kton CV was with an initial airwing of 24 Sea Vixen and Buccaneer replaced by P1154.
Not then concurrent use of 'Harrier' and Buccaneer.

 

[uk 75]

The answer lay between CVA01 and the 1952 ship. An updated EAGLE type ship was feasible if the decisions had been taken sooner. One could have been laid down in the late 50s instead of some of the modification programmes.
P1154 for the RN was NEVER going to happen. It was too complicated and the designs offered were not practical. Even the RAF version might have been difficult to operate as the BS100 had reheat unlike the P1127RAF. The various paper swing wing designs of the early 60s were just that, paper. Tornado took a decade to enter service. MRCA starts in 1968

 

[zen]

The midway between 1952 and CVA-01 is the Medium Fleet Carrier. Or the smaller comparison studies during CVA-01.

The sweet spot caused by the infrastructure limit is the same as the Davenport No.10 limited Malta study during the War.

In other words about 45,000tons.

The P1154 would have worked. PCB worked just fine. Though it has issues that limit operational flexibility compared with the P1127.
However it's an expensive way to get a superior F8 sort of level of capability on a carrier.
Though there are gains since recovery with rolling VL is assured.

But the cheap option was a Spey Twosader. At a projected £0.5 million it was thus less than half the projected cost of the F4K and a third the cost of the projected cost of the P1154.
Even if it doubles in cost it's still going to end up a third of the final cost of the F4K.

The Tornado is not a good example to site. International cooperation tends to slow everything down.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The various paper swing wing designs of the early 60s were just that, paper. Tornado took a decade to enter service. MRCA starts in 1968

Those concepts had a target in-service date of 1970, e.g. a decade of development had it been chosen to pursue them instead of the P.1154.

 

[Archibald]

In other words about 45,000tons.

Wham, right in CdG territory, 42500 tons. Three decades, too late, of course. Now that PA.58 Verdun, however... https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/verdun-french-aircraft-carrier-images.16711/


Displacement: 45,000 tons full load
Dimensions: 860 x 112 x ?? feet/262 x 34 x ?? meters
Extreme Dimensions: 939 x 190 x ?? feet/286.3 x 58 x ?? meters
Propulsion: Steam turbines, 4 shafts, 200,000 shp, 33 knots
Crew: ???
Armor: none
Armament: 2 Masurca SAM, 8 single 100 mm DP

1952 CV ended up as a 54,000ton ship of 870ft overall length (although strictly that's it's flight deck but we're not talking much more) and 161ft waterline beam.

But the cheap option was a Spey Twosader. At a projected £0.5 million it was thus less than half the projected cost of the F4K and a third the cost of the projected cost of the P1154.
Even if it doubles in cost it's still going to end up a third of the final cost of the F4K.

And if you share it with the French, you get 42 more.
Use SNECMA as a bait, have RR promise them a Spey licence, and screw the TF-104/106/306.
What's more, as a two seater for attack, it completely outclass any Etendard IV, and wham, 71 more. Sell the Etendards to the Indian Navy.

Oh, what might have been...

 

[Archibald]

1953 The French carrier program is a total loss.
"Please, we want De Havilland Venoms; We will build them under license at SNCASE, Marignane, and called them Aquilons".
"But... what carriers do you have ? are you sure... Aquilons can land on them ?"
"Oh, Arromanches is 210 m long at 24 kt, Lafayette, 180 m at 31 kt."
"Hmmm... you do realize, one of the two is long enough but too slow, and the other one is the opposite - fast enough but too short ?"
"Yeah... maybe. We will see."
"didn't you have a new carrier project, called the PA.28 Clemenceau ?"
"Sure. Six of them for NATO. We even build naval fighter prototypes for them. And then they were all cancelled as too expensive and obsolete."
"Sigh. What happened to your naval aircraft prototypes ? they looked so promising.
"Hmm, they were not that good. We build two VG.90, they crashed, two pilot dead. We build a single NC.1080, and it crashed, killing a pilot. And finally we build one Nord 2200."
"and it crashed, killing its pilot ?"
"Shut up. It flew, but proved to be a total dog, unstable like hell and heavy as a led brick. Why do you think we come buying a Venom license, you idiot ?"
"Ok, I see. You have no clue at building a proper carrier and the aircraft that go on its deck, do you ?"
"Hmmm... we are not done yet. We have just budgeted another Clemenceau, PA.54 "
"Brave you. how big ?"
"35000 tons and 870 feet long, 168 ft beam draft."
"What do you just said ? 870 feet long, 168 ft beam draft... how about that. That was much exactly like our 1952 carrier, 870ft overall length and 161ft waterline beam. Except it was 20 000 tons heavier, 55000 tons, kind of Midway to Essex in tonnage, don't you think ?"
"Unbelievable, that coincidence in overall size. But 20 000 tons more ? How can this be ?"
"Because yours is barebone while our WWII experience suggests we need far more internal room and armor and defensive weapons. this drive weight through the roof."
"Fair enough. Midway size is way too big for our budget. Give me that Venom licence, and goodbye."
"Wait, don't leave. You are right on one point with your Clemenceau: 35 000 tons makes it pretty cheap. By the way, since then we have scaled down our plan to a Medium Fleet carrier at 45 000 tons."
"Are... are you kidding me ? mind you, we plan a much improved Clemenceau later on, perhaps with nuclear bombers on the deck like the USN Savages and Skywarriors, you know. To handle such large beast of aircraft we planned to inflate the basic Clemenceau design to exactly 45 000 tons, can you believe that ?"
"Excellent, another amazing coincidence. Well, here is what I suggest. At 35000 tons your Clemenceau will go nowhere. What if we drag it upwards, to something a little smaller that Verdun / Medium fleet carrier ? how about 42500 tons ?"
...
"I have a bad feeling Charles De Gaulle will never agree with the idea of anglo-french carriers."
"De Gaulle ? are you nut, this is 1954, he won't be president until 1958. And we have the looming Suez crisis to try and learn teaching our carrier forces working together..."
"excellent really. Let's do that: push the Clemenceaus to 43 000 tons, and make that into your Medium Fleet Carrier. "
"That's a go."
"And, l'appétit venant en mangeant, as you French gourmets use to say, maybe at a later date we could build another serie of these carriers, perhaps pushing into 50 000 tons territory. Right between your Verdun and our past "1952 Carrier", what do you think ?"
"Well, since both ends of the spectrum - Clemenceau to 1952 Carrier - were of similar overall dimensions although 20 000 tons aparts in tonnage... we can probably find a compromise at 50 000 tons, just as you said. But that we will be in the 60's, and we French will be lucky if we can afford a third carrier... main effort will be yours."
"Oh by this point Ark Royal and Eagle will need successors, this might help..."
"If we build those new... 1954 Medium French Carrier (let's call them that way) what will you do with all these Illustrious, Implacables, and Centaurs old hulls ? Will you keep funding these massive upgrades of Victorious and Hermes ?
"Hell no, those were desperate moves before we found your deep pockets and fresh look at carrier matters, which are very welcome. We will turn these oldies into commando carriers or sold them to foreign navies. There will be no lack of customers to replace those old Arromanches sisterships we sold worlwide, a decade ago..."
"France and Great Britain carriers rule the waves ! Pretty cool..."

 

[zen]

Oh the wam gets bigger. ...

Among the comparison studies during CVA-01....

42,000tons
Flight deck 770ft Width 177ft
Two 225ft stroke catapults
Rated for 60,000lb aircraft.

 

[Archibald]

Whaaat ? Don't tell me one of the CVA-01 "comparison" was smaller than a Clemenceau in dimensions BUT larger in tonnage ? Scratching my head...

Something I learned reading this thread is that for the same dimensions overall, a carrier tonnage can vary wildly - from 30 000 to 55 000 tons !
I should not have been surprised, since the 35 000 tons, "fresh" 1960 designs Clemenceau / Foch capabilities were not much inferior to the big, old (55 000 tons & 1944) Audacious-class Ark Royal and Eagle - they even shared the same BS-5 199 ft catapults (AFAIK)

For the sake of comparison... so far we discussed
- Hermes 1959, 28 000 tons max
- PA.54 Foch & Clemenceau 35 000 tons max
- Charles de Gaulle 42 500 tons max
- Medium Fleet Carrier 45 000 tons
- PA.58 Verdun 45 000 tons
- Audacious class 36 000 to 54 000 tons (!!!!)
- 1952 carrier 54 000 tons

 

[zen]

Displacement difference here is explained by the shape of the hull and particulars. In this case the 42Kton study is deeper and wider in the water than the Clemenceau's.

 

[CNH]

French carriers were more much more effective than the British Sea-Harrier through-deck-cruisers, including as nuclear weapon platform (Super-Etendard ASMP). Real limitations, of course, but certainly not "status symbol". You have to take into consideration for what type of conflict they were intended. And they provided decades of real carrier aviation that made the current carrier operations possible, instead of off-an-on or dead-end approaches.

More effective for what?

 

[Archibald]

It's complicated, very complicated - and pretty much an apples to oranges comparisons.

Take the ships: It is very much like comparing a SBC-125 Essex with a SCS / Principe de Asturias.

What's more, Clemenceaus were build as small CATOBAR attack carriers while Invicibles were for NATO ASW task forces - land attack vs chasing nuclear submarines !

Take the aircraft: basically the Sea Harrier was doing the job of both Super Etendard and... Crusader. For attack, it certainly matched the S.E (the two machines are strikingly similar) ASM, reco, same roles.
... and for air defense... it evidently crushed the antiquated Crouzes.
SHAR FA.1 had the AIM-9L that ravaged the ARA in the Faklands; Crusaders were given Magic 1 (inferior) and later Magic 2 (much, much better). IR missiles their old radar was not concerned about.

And surely enough, SHAR FA.2 managed to pack an AMRAAM into a Harrier airframe, quite a feat, and Blue Vixen was a terrific radar. Because radar, Crouzes stayed with the abysmal R.530...

Clemenceau advantages essentially related to be twice larger and in helicopter mode - like in GW1- it could carry 50 choppers. While obsoletes the Alizées did a job closer from the old Gannet than the mandatory Sea Kings on Invincibles.

By 1993 when SHAR FA.2 entered service fact was that the Invicibles, with them, packed as much punch as the far bigger but largely obsolete Clemenceaus air group.
Interestingly enough both ships operated jointly in the NATo balkan wars, 1995 and 1999.
then Great Britain brutally threw away both SHAR and Invicible force in the 2000's.... just after it had reached its zenith.

 

[Hood]

Was Clemenceau an effective strike carrier even for the nuclear strike role? I've seen mention that stowage for the AN 52 bomb was not added until 1978 and of course ASMP did not arrive until the early 1990s. The Invincibles were designed for stowage of the WE.177 from the start (admittedly for the WE.177A depth-bomb but the Harrier could use them as bombs too).
In terms of self-defence, Clemenceau had to rely on 100mm gun mounts until the late 1980s when Crotale was added. The Invincibles had Sea Dart to help contribute to fleet defence, and could of had Sea Wolf LW had the 1990s Peace Dividend not intervened, perhaps more usefully they got Phalanx and Goalkeeper CIWS which the French carriers never received.
Much has already been said about comparing the airgroups, but neither Navy had an effective AEW platform on either carrier, but at least the Sea King AEW offered some useful capability.

Its horses for courses, still nothing like the capabilities the USN. I've never rated the Principe de Asturias that highly in terms of capability, but the Giuseppe Garibaldi was very much a missile frigate draped around a hangar.

 

[steelpillow]

I don't know too much about the first decades after the war, but when the Sea Harrier appeared we were definitely slow to make the most of our money. First of all the ski-jump should have been appreciated sooner. Second, the ability it brought to operate fast jets from smaller ships should have been better exploited. Two smaller Harrier Carriers plus a lighter or two make for far greater operational flexibility and visible global presence than one supercarrier hiding behind a protective fleet.

The BAe Kingston P.1216 supersonic STOVL "Harrier replacement" was larger and more capable. It arrived at exactly the right time to be pushed through in the post-Falklands era and the Harrier carriers could have been modified to operate it. Yes some funding in the 1983-2003 era would have been necessary, but remember that the Cold War had just ended and we were slow in diverting that cashflow towards a more third-world focused capability. Clearer thinking and more realistic priorities in the MoD would have bridged most of the extra need, getting rid of that ridiculous off-on policy we bridged it with instead.

Then again, the new F-35 carrier/s should have been a lot smaller and cheaper, enough to build another one and still have cash to spare. The F-35 would have then used a lot more proven UK tech, licensed to Uncle Sam, giving us a better price, and it would also be a more practical design being now a second-generation S-STOVL fighter.

 

[CNH]

Why did the Navy scrap the Invicibles and the Harrier?

 

[zen]

Why did the Navy scrap the Invicibles and the Harrier?

Politics and finance. The UK government likes to take 'holidays' in capability and then spend vast sums recovering it.

It pays to recall how Brown kept the decisions about CVF from completion for years among the various financial chicanery he got up to.

 

[steelpillow]

Why did the Navy scrap the Invicibles and the Harrier?

The Harrier itself was obsolescent and the planes were on the way out. They were always a maintenance nightmare and their airframes and engines were nearing end of life. To keep them would have demanded massive refurbishment, new avionics, and an ongoing maintenance nightmare. Moving on from those particular planes was inevitable. Scrapping the whole RN fast jet thing was basically because Gordon Brown was spending the money on his own unsustainable political agenda.

The Invincibles kept going as chopper carriers for a while but were eventually mothballed. They were scrapped to make way for the ludicrously humunguous money-eaters that eventually replaced them, though to be fair they would have needed a major refit to return to service. Brown of course got the kudos for ordering them but would be long gone before the bill arrived (As I understand it, ahem).

 

[kaiserd]

I don't know too much about the first decades after the war, but when the Sea Harrier appeared we were definitely slow to make the most of our money. First of all the ski-jump should have been appreciated sooner. Second, the ability it brought to operate fast jets from smaller ships should have been better exploited. Two smaller Harrier Carriers plus a lighter or two make for far greater operational flexibility and visible global presence than one supercarrier hiding behind a protective fleet.

The BAe Kingston P.1216 supersonic STOVL "Harrier replacement" was larger and more capable. It arrived at exactly the right time to be pushed through in the post-Falklands era and the Harrier carriers could have been modified to operate it. Yes some funding in the 1983-2003 era would have been necessary, but remember that the Cold War had just ended and we were slow in diverting that cashflow towards a more third-world focused capability. Clearer thinking and more realistic priorities in the MoD would have bridged most of the extra need, getting rid of that ridiculous off-on policy we bridged it with instead.

Then again, the new F-35 carrier/s should have been a lot smaller and cheaper, enough to build another one and still have cash to spare. The F-35 would have then used a lot more proven UK tech, licensed to Uncle Sam, giving us a better price, and it would also be a more practical design being now a second-generation S-STOVL fighter.

The P.1216 is one of those over-rated “great white hope” designs. It had zero chance of being built unless (1) somehow the Americans were paying or (2) it somehow took the place of what became the Eurofighter Typhoon and Germany etc. were helping to pay for it.
(My understanding is was primarily the RAF requirements that split off into the Harrier II GR5/ GR7 and into what became the Typhoon that it was designed to.)
And that’s assuming it survived the technical issues that have killed so many supersonic V/STOVL designs (hot gass ingestion given likely heat of the P.1216’s downward thrust using PCB, etc?)
The UK ended up far better off as the Typhoon, Harrier II and then the F-35 are far superior and working designs
And influence/ timing re: UK carriers is also off; P.1216’s would have had to fly off Invincible class carriers but perhaps would have been too much for them, at least in terms of meaningful numbers etc.

 

[steelpillow]

The P.1216 is one of those over-rated “great white hope” designs. It had zero chance of being built unless (1) somehow the Americans were paying or (2) it somehow took the place of what became the Eurofighter Typhoon and Germany etc. were helping to pay for it.
(My understanding is was primarily the RAF requirements that split off into the Harrier II GR5/ GR7 and into what became the Typhoon that it was designed to.)

Which is not directly related to maintaining our Naval carrier base, as there never was a Naval Harrier II. One can make the argument that, as with the Buc, it was subsonic and thus fell between the low-speed helicopter and the supersonic fast jet in terms of operational needs. What the Navy wanted was supersonic STOL or STOVL and the P.1216 was the only game in town until the F.35 came along. Given the tempestuous history of the Eurofighter, with Spain pulling out and Germany only staying in because of contractual penalty clauses, I cannot see that trying to keep them sweet was a very productive thing to do. And yes, the Americans would not have wanted to be left out, your (1) would have been a pretty solid bet.

And that’s assuming it survived the technical issues that have killed so many supersonic V/STOVL designs (hot gass ingestion given likely heat of the P.1216’s downward thrust using PCB, etc?)

Needless to say the Kingston team studied hot gas ingestion thoroughly and introduced several measures such as retractable air dams and exhaust temerature management to limit its effects.

The UK ended up far better off as the Typhoon, Harrier II and then the F-35 are far superior and working designs.

It's hard to be a superior working design if no example was ever built.

P.1216’s would have had to fly off Invincible class carriers but perhaps would have been too much for them, at least in terms of meaningful numbers etc.

Or "perhaps", as I suggested, the carriers would have required some modification. Oh, and since when has the MoD bought "meaningful numbers" of anything (except Windows computers)?

If I may say so, you seem to have a pre-formed opinion of the P.1216.

 

[zen]

The P1216 seems to be the last gasp of domestic design and industry.
It's certain that without the issues of international partnerships a domestic design could be proceeded with at a far greater pace than the constant delays associated with the Typhoon.
In terms of the engine, radar, avionics, defensive aids and fusilage. It was certainly possible for the UK then to produce a domestic fighter.
In terms of making PCB work, this was proved during the BS.100 back in the 60's and only reconfirmed during the 80's. It works.
But in terms of the effects and issues of PCB reheat this was always going to force a more limited STOV/L operation than the Pegasus powered non-PCB aircraft.
The likes of rolling VL seem obviously linked to high temp and pressure jets.

Would it work....Yes.
Would it come at the price of the Eurofighter. ...Obviously.
Would the US but it.....that is just not guaranteed.

However the Invincible class was not ideal even for the Harrier, let alone the P1216.

 

[Hood]

The problem with P.1216 is that it probably was among the finest supersonic V/STOL designs ever conceived but it was the wrong era.
The design was just too 1980s, it was not stealthy enough and although capable it was probably over-equipped as a Harrier replacement for the RAF, but certainly more suited to the naval needs. With EFA in the pipeline for the mid-1990s the RAF did not need two fighters and P.1216 was arguably too sophisticated for ground attack, probably needed the radar replacing by a passive/laser sensor set. Without an RAF order it would have been too expensive for the naval mission alone. The Invincibles could of carried a slightly smaller airgroup but it would of pushed earlier development of CVF in the late 1990s with much larger fuel and stores requirements.

It might well of killed off or scaled back British participation in JSF, its hard to see P.1216 becoming operational before 1990 and the justification to spend larger sums on a successor as part of JSF might of evaporated (Britain joined JSF in 1996), especially if the UK was trying to fund EFA at the same time. Of course the BAe/McD JSF entry might have been rather different. Its hard to tell what experience might have been beneficial for JSF's development, the two are completely different in layout, technology and powerplant.

 

[steelpillow]

Without an RAF order [P.1216] would have been too expensive for the naval mission alone.
...
It might well of killed off or scaled back British participation in JSF

Given the American adoption of AV-8A, participation in and continued operation of Harrier II/AV-8B, and design lead for JSF, I think that they are almost a dead cert for participating in P.1216 pull-through/operation. That would have brought its price down, though at the cost of some delay over patching-in US requirements, and USAF/Navy/Marines requirements would not have merged into JSF for another generation (unless conceivably it also found a landplane niche, as the original UK Harrier had done).

 

[zen]

I just don't see EFA funded if P1216 is funded. It's one or the other really.

That said I agree that the machine seems like overkill for the RAF attack missions.
However if this is 'the only game in town' then it's also going to be the QRA Fighter where an AI radar is essential. So rather like the 'Jaguar Successor' became ever more Fighter oriented, there is nothing to prevent the same process in this scenario.
Remember until the end of the Cold War, the RAF was thinking of upgrading the F4 fleet to keep it running.
Arguably had a less Europhile minister been making the key decisions. It's possible the P1216 could have won out.
A need for sone 60-80 austere Attack machines is matched by some 175 advanced attack and some QRA Fighter to compliment the ADV Tornado.
Then the FAA. ...

A deeper view is that funding the scaled up XG40 that was the basis of the desired powerplant of the P1216 produces a potential alternative powerplant for JSF and FOAS......
That latter might have been funded instead of JSF in the UK.

It possible that the more powerful Blue Vixen/Red Hawk radar might be simply licenced to Ericsson for the Swedes.
In fact funding the P1216 might lure the Swedes to a licensing deal.

 

[steelpillow]

I just don't see EFA funded if P.1216 is funded. It's one or the other really.

Yes, the P.1216 was designed to meet the AST.410 requirement for an RAF/FAA Jaguar/Harrier replacement, with the F4 also vaguely on the same page - maybe for the Mk II. EFA grew out of the UK-funded BAe EAP demonstrator, in turn underpinned by the ACA studies which involved European collaborative work and broadly paralleled the P.1216 studies. Ca. 1983 the UK faced a political choice between Europe or the USA as its collaborative partner. Europe won out and AST.410 was dropped. "Could the UK have done a better job of maintaining Carrier based airpower?" Yes, it could have kept with AST.410 and dropped EAP/Eurofighter a decade before Spain did and Germany tried to (As I recall. Spain later came back in). Now, we are buying the US/UK successor to P.1216 to replace our Typhoons, which kinda supports the suggestion that would have been the better decision back in '83.

 

[zen]

I just don't see EFA funded if P.1216 is funded. It's one or the other really.

Yes, the P.1216 was designed to meet the AST.410 requirement for an RAF/FAA Jaguar/Harrier replacement, with the F4 also vaguely on the same page - maybe for the Mk II. EFA grew out of the UK-funded BAe EAP demonstrator, in turn underpinned by the ACA studies which involved European collaborative work and broadly paralleled the P.1216 studies. Ca. 1983 the UK faced a political choice between Europe or the USA as its collaborative partner. Europe won out and AST.410 was dropped. "Could the UK have done a better job of maintaining Carrier based airpower?" Yes, it could have kept with AST.410 and dropped EAP/Eurofighter a decade before Spain did and Germany tried to (As I recall. Spain later came back in). Now, we are buying the US/UK successor to P.1216 to replace our Typhoons, which kinda supports the suggestion that would have been the better decision back in '83.

I agree with most of that, Germany outright banned it's own industry from participating in the EAP demonstrator at one stage, and of course at several moments years later threatened to ditch the effort for US licensed aircraft, causing delays and huge cost increases for no savings or change in capability (as downgrading systems only increased costs as they found out (but which the UK had hit waaay back during the TSR.2 fiasco)).

Arguably a national 'go it alone' effort, like the French would be quicker, cheaper and position the UK to an even stronger position vis-a-vis the JSF or FOAS.
Of the two, FOAS was by the late 1990's a much higher priority if the Harrier and Jaguar are already being replaced.
There would be no GR.9 upgrade, or that on the Jaguar. All available monies being sucked into the P1216 production and service entry.

Replacing Harrier and Jaguar with a single type would deliver savings through the 90's and the F4 would still get chopped. ADV Tornado might carry on patrols but the QRA P1216 would actually be used more once Putin get the Russian Airforce to probe defences again by the 2000's.

A USMC buy is the obvious US move, and I suspect that varying developments of Super Hornet and Fighting Falcon would receive more orders. CALF is likely the longer term result I suspect and JAST to JSF is potentially doomed.

But I will go further here, and say it doesn't matter whether it's the P1216 or some CTOL aircraft the UK funds, either way the UK would be better positioned than the interminable delays and cost overruns of the Typhoon.

After all Blue Vixen was funded. and forms the basis of Captor.
Zeus was funded.
XG40 to a production engine was funded.
fusilage developments was funded, and at that time a full fuselage was within capacity and capability of domestic industry.
FBW RSS CCV technology was funded. In the end the FBW effort was first handed over to the Germans as workshare and ended up having to dig them out of a mess on that front.
IRST was funded.
Cockpit interface was funded.
ASRAAM was funded.
Brimstone was funded.
Meteor was funded.
After 1985 domestic design was effectively dismantled for the Eurofighter and only now with Tempest is it being resurrected.

 

[kaiserd]

Illuminating comments.
For some contributors “purity” clearly is more important than capability and hence, see clearly inferior choices as their optimal outcomes.

 

[steelpillow]

Illuminating comments.
For some contributors “purity” clearly more important than capability and hence, rather perversely, see clearly inferior choices as their optimal outcomes.

Yes, I felt that was your approach, which was why I noted, "If I may say so, you seem to have a pre-formed opinion of the P.1216." I expect you feel that is my approach, though I do at least try to consider technical possibilities rather than make unfounded judgements.
But what is a possibility vs. barking mad? What was a mistake or a missed opportunity rather than a political necessity? Exploring these will always involve a mix of factual technical/historical analysis and personal judgement based on that, and that is really what threads like this are aimed at exploring. For example I made a case for the P.1216 and have been delighted to receive some considered and constructive criticism of it.

 

[Archibald]

Why did the Navy scrap the Invicibles and the Harrier?

The Harrier itself was obsolescent and the planes were on the way out. They were always a maintenance nightmare and their airframes and engines were nearing end of life. To keep them would have demanded massive refurbishment, new avionics, and an ongoing maintenance nightmare. Moving on from those particular planes was inevitable.

I was comparing S.E and SHAR but we tend not to realize the price the Harrier paid to VSTOL - in design p1127 and later in operations.
While CATOBAR is harsh on airframes the SE lasted from 1980 to 2015 and nobody ever complained about the airframes going down - not even Argentina in 2017.
What you say about SHARs by comparison is disturbing. SHAR 1980 - 2005 is 10 years less...

 

[Hood]

What you say about SHARs by comparison is disturbing. SHAR 1980 - 2005 is 10 years less...

The Sea Harrier FA.2 would have served on until 2012 had their final upgrade been funded, but it was decided to be too expensive to prolong their lives for 6 years.

 

[Fluff]

Illuminating comments.
For some contributors “purity” clearly ia more important than capability and hence, see clearly inferior choices as their optimal outcomes.

Forgive me if I simplify, but basically being debated is slow/late/complex but multinational, versus single country effort, some sacrifice ( but your getting it possibly quicker). The discussion in inherent in the question.....

And national traits come to mind, panther v Sherman etc. From personal experience, Germans tend to re-design perfectly acceptable designs. Americans and to some degree British tend to go with good enough, and let’s tweak this a little.

 

[kaiserd]

Illuminating comments.
For some contributors “purity” clearly is more important than capability and hence, see clearly inferior choices as their optimal outcomes.

Forgive me if I simplify, but basically being debated is slow/late/complex but multinational, versus single country effort, some sacrifice ( but your getting it possibly quicker). The discussion in inherent in the question.....

And national traits come to mind, panther v Sherman etc. From personal experience, Germans tend to re-design perfectly acceptable designs. Americans and to some degree British tend to go with good enough, and let’s tweak this a little.

I’m not trying to be harsh or argumentative.
Re: the P.1216 it may have worked and turned out to have been a perfectly reasonable combat aircraft.
But it was the riskier and probably the overall very slight inferior of the 2 competing UK designs that were overtaken by the UK Harrier II buy (which separated out the V/STOVL requirements) and by what evolved into the Eurofighter Typhoon. The latter of which is, apart from the V/STOVL capability, was and is far superior than either of those 2 original UK designs would have been.
And the Harrier II was at least as good in the air to ground role as the P.1216 ever would have been at much lower risk and cost.
And as previously mentioned (keeping on actual topic) it is not like the P.1216 would have been well matched to the then still relatively young Invincible classes.
And if built and technically successful and entered into service the P.1216 would have likely meant death before conception for the clearly better Typhoon and clearly entirely different league F-35 (at least re: UK service).
The UK couldn’t afford the P.1216 & Typhoon.
All so UK pilots could have had the satisfaction of flying around in 100 percent British but objectively inferior airplanes versus the ones they actually ended up flying which are somehow tainted by their lack of total UK “purity”.

Specifically re: the real P.1216 design I’d strongly recommend Tony Butlers UK secret projects fighter book (the recent 2nd addition).

 

[Fluff]

With the us funding harrier II it was a no- brainer, I cant remember what % we built but just like Jsf a-small % of a lot is a lot.

Typhoon, more or less a British project.

As always hindsight is great, but what if soviets invaded Iceland in 82, what if Argentina had bought a sqn of f4 in 1980.....

 

[steelpillow]

All so UK pilots could have had the satisfaction of flying around in 100 percent British but objectively inferior airplanes versus the ones they actually ended up flying which are somehow tainted by their lack of total UK “purity”.

As I said earlier, the US has been involved increasingly with all of the West's VTOL fast jets. The assumption that they would not have participated in a P.1216 programme is unjustified. They might well have been more supportive than the Europeans were with Typhoon.
Using words like "tainted" and purity" comes across as perjorative (especially in the current Brexit atmosphere), so if you are genuinely not trying to be argumentative I would suggest that you avoid such words.

it is not like the P.1216 would have been well matched to the then still relatively young Invincible classes.
...
I’d strongly recommend Tony Butlers UK secret projects fighter book (the recent 2nd addition).

Interestingly, our Michael Price (BAe P.1216, Project Tech profile) does document studies of operating the P.1216 from the Invincible class. Of course it was a big machine to squeeze in in one lump as the Harrier was, so in the traditional way various bits folded up. It was eminently do-able and the "not well matched" argument does not stand up.

Also, you note that we developed both Harrier II and Typhoon, yet going for P.1216 instead of the big-wing Harrier would have been too expensive alongside Typhoon. And of course, with the historical US involvement in the Harrier II then transferring that involvement to P.1216 would still have led to cost escalation. Rather, I am suggesting that we would have done better to give the RAF requirements less dominance over the RN's, go straight for P.1216 and drop both the others. That would have freed up the cash to do the one job properly and keep its carriers sailing longer. Although P.1216 would have been slower than Typhoon it would have had built-in viffing (vectoring in forward flight) and been available a lot earlier.
Of course, your view that Harrier II + Typhoon was the better interim solution until JSF came along is a perfectly sensible one and has brought us a better air superiority fighter. But it has been more expensive and that led to the medium-term demise of our carrier fleet. Mach 2+ for the RAF or carriers for the RN? What a choice!