MOTS Phantom for the RN?

[Archibald]

I thought @Archibald had written a post saying that the 3 ways to get a MOTS Phantom were:

1. Have 3 Maltas laid down instead of the 3 OTL Audacious class and have all 3 completed in the 1950s.
2. Have a number of 1952 Fleet Aircraft Carriers built in the 1950s.
3. Have the CVA.01 class built earlier so that at least 2 were in service by 1970 with at least one more following by 1975.

However, when I looked through the thread I couldn't find it. Although with my luck, it is there and I didn't go far enough back in the thread.

This non-post by @Archiballd ninja'd a post that I had abandoned before uploading which did the 3 options above in more detail and an Option 4 which only @uk 75 will like, which is . . . the Government decides to leave the Strike Carrier business early enough for MOTS Phantoms to be purchased because there were no CATOBAR aircraft carriers for the Spey-Phantom to operate from. The POD for that might be the Sandys Defence Review as IIRC he wanted to abandon carrier based air power there and then, but on that occasion the Admiralty defeated him. There wasn't an Admiralty in 1966 because it became the the Ministry of Defence (Navy) in 1964.

Lol. Can't remember making such post either. But yeah, what can support Phantoms
-2, 3, 4 ? Audacious 1945
-One of the 1950's carrier studies (if possible merged with PA.58 Verdun, to produce an anglo-french Midway)
-CVA-01 done right

 

[zen]

F4D is what the RAF expressed interest in.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't see why that's relevant to Option 4, but no it wasn't.

• Originally it was 100% of the Phantom buy. That is 140 F-4K for the RN (and none for the RAF) out of 140 Phantoms when the P.1154RN was cancelled.
• It was briefly 43% (2/5ths) of the Phantom buy. That 140 F-4K for the RN (and 182 F-4M for the RAF) out of 322 Phantoms when the P.1154RAF was cancelled.
• It was actually 31% (1/3rd) of the Phantom buy. That is 52 F-4K for the RN (and 118 F-4M for the RAF) out of 170 Phanoms that were actually built.
• However, 20 of the F-4Ks were delivered to the RAF, which means the RN only received 32 of the 170 Phantoms that were actually built, which is 19% (1/5th).
• And the survivors of the 32 F-4Ks delivered to the RN were transferred to the RAF when 767NAS (the RN's Phantom training squadron) and 892NAS (Ark Royal's Phantom squadron) were disbanded. (Or as the were RN squadrons were they decommissioned rather than disbanded?)

I know that some people will say that the RN received 28 F-4Ks. I'm saying 32 because I'm including the 2 YF-4Ks and 2 F-4Ks built for the Ministry of Aviation/Ministry of Technology/Ministry of Defence (Procurement Executive) in the total received by the RN.

If the RN buy goes away due to not having carriers anymore, that drops the total UK buy. As you note in point 2, that's 140 fewer airframes.

There's also an Option 5.

Make the TTL MOTS Phantom the Spey-Phantom. Ideally, it would be built for the US Armed Forces instead of the F-4B and F-4C onwards, but it's more likely to be from the F-4D and F-4J onwards. One of the OTL F-4L proposals was for a Spey-powered aircraft that could operate safely from the Essex class.

There are several precedents for British aero engines being built under licence (and in quantity) in the USA for American military aircraft. Obviously, there's the 1,440 non-afterburning AR.168/TF41 Speys built by Allison for the A-7E Corsair II onwards. There's the Nene and Tay which were built under licence by P&W as the J42 (1,139 built) and J48 (4,108 built). Wright built 10,023 Sapphires under licence as the J52.

Ideally, the A-7A-to-D would have had non-afterburning TF41s instead of their OTL TF30s, with bonus points for the F-111 and F-14 built with afterburning TF41s instead of TF30s too. More bonus points would be for the USN to have the J79s on its A-5s replaced by afterburning TF41s in the interest of standardisation.

I also looked into the TF41 supplanting the J79 on the Starfighter from the F-104G onwards, but it looks like the best that could be done is for Aeritalia to build the F-104S with RR-built Speys for which there's a "subsequent" as the AMX had a non-afterburning Spey. The IAI Kifir had a licence-built J79 engine which ITTL might be a licence-built TF41 to standardise with the TF41-engined Phantoms they had ITTL.

Eh, that'd be a really hard sell, IMO. Especially in the late 1950s.

I agree that it'd be a viable POD in terms of end result. But it's really, really hard to get the US to buy a non-US-made engine.

 

[zen]

It's more likely had RB.106 gone ahead as there was significant interest both from the US and Canada in the 50's.
This might actually have McDD sketching an F4 with them.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

If the RN buy goes away due to not having carriers anymore, that drops the total UK buy. As you note in point 2, that's 140 fewer airframes.

No. Please read it again.

Eh, that'd be a really hard sell, IMO. Especially in the late 1950s.

I agree that it'd be a viable POD in terms of end result. But it's really, really hard to get the US to buy a non-US-made engine.

It's not a non-US-made engine. It's a US-made engine.

I clearly wrote that there were several examples of British designed engines being built in quantity by US firms and listed four of them. Here are those engines again and their applications.

• Armstron-Siddeley Sapphire - 10,223 built under licence by Wright as the J65 - Applications
  • A-4 Skyhawk up to and including the A-4D
  • F-11 Tiger
  • F84F Thunderstreak and RF-84F Thunderflash
  • B-57 Canberra
• Rolls Royce Nene - 1,139 built under licence by P&W as the J42 - Applications.
  • F9F Panther.
• Rolls Royce Tay - 4,108 built under licence by P&W as the J48 - Application.
  • F9F Panther
  • F9F Cougar
  • F94 Starfire
• Rolls Royce Spey - 1,440 built under licence by Allison as the TF41 Application.
  • A-7 Corsair II from the A-7D onwards.

 

[MadRat]

Interesting when you think about what would have been possible if the USN had settled on adapting TF41 for F-4, F-8, and A-6.

 

[BlackBat242]

HMS. Hermes, Eagle, Ark Royal ...

The photo of a USN F-4 Phantom making a "touch & go" aboard Hermes is from the 1962-63 Hermes cruise pamphlet, and there it is titled "grandstand views of their practice roller landings".

Thus, in USN parlance, "touch & go" practice - the aircraft never stopped and thus never needed a catapult. Note also this was in 1963, when Hermes had arresting gear with a 35,000lb capacity - and only the short 103' BS4 catapults - the 40,000lb arresting gear and 145' BS4A catapult were not until 1966.

 

[BlackBat242]

No. Please read it again.

It's not a non-US-made engine. It's a US-made engine.

I clearly wrote that there were several examples of British designed engines being built in quantity by US firms and listed four of them. Here are those engines again and their applications.

• Rolls Royce Spey - 1,440 built under licence by Allison as the TF41 Application.
  • A-7 Corsair II from the A-7D onwards.

HOWEVER - the TF41 was not available until the late 1960s... it was created when the USAF decided it liked the A-7 and on 5 Nov. 1965 ordered its own version (A-7D) with an Allison-built modified version of the Spey.

Development of the TF41 started in June 1966, and this became the TF41-A-1, which was more powerful than any RR-built Spey (14,500 lbst vs 12,250 lbst).

The TF41 was first run at RR-Derby on 18 Oct. 1967, and production deliveries started in 1968 (the first A-7D with a TF41 first flew on 26 Sept. 1968 - the two prototypes had TF30 engines and flew in April 1968).

The 15,000 lbst TF41-A-2 for the USN's A-7Es followed shortly after.

 

[BlackBat242]

Interesting when you think about what would have been possible if the USN had settled on adapting TF41 for F-4, F-8, and A-6.

The TF41 had not even started development when the F-8 line closed in 1965.

 

[zen]

TF41 is 40" diameter
Spey is vaguely from memory 37" or 35"
But the Medway, which is live in the late 50s and early 60's, is 42" diameter.
So it would certainly have distorted history had the US opted for this, but.....had the Civil Medway gone ahead instead of the scaled down Medway a.k.a Spey....
Then it's much more likely.

Equally had RR's Medway got GOR.339 funding, then the military version would be in development already.
A US order would again distort history. As would a Swedish order and who knows.....maybe a French one.

 

[BlackBat242]

TF41 is 40" diameter
Spey is vaguely from memory 37" or 35"
But the Medway, which is live in the late 50s and early 60's, is 42" diameter.
So it would certainly have distorted history had the US opted for this, but.....had the Civil Medway gone ahead instead of the scaled down Medway a.k.a Spey....
Then it's much more likely.

Equally had RR's Medway got GOR.339 funding, then the military version would be in development already.
A US order would again distort history. As would a Swedish order and who knows.....maybe a French one.

TF41's intake diameter (not engine body diameter) is 37.5". Its engine body diameter is not listed that I can find - the 40" is listed for "height".

Every source on the Spey I can find lists engine body diameter as 37.5" and afterburner module diameter as 44".

 

[Archibald]

The TF41 had not even started development when the F-8 line closed in 1965.

We french got the last 42 Crusaders, after what the production line, indeed, shut down. Deliveries started in 1964.

 

[zen]

Afterburner is the same, 44" as originally intended for Medway.

Height is an odd way of measuring and engine!

 

[BlackBat242]

Afterburner is the same, 44" as originally intended for Medway.

Height is an odd way of measuring and engine!

I know... it frustrates me that all the TF41 spec lists I've seen use that instead of diameter.

 

[Rule of cool]

In the 'Could the UK have done a better job of maintaining carrier based air power?' thread it has been shown that the Hermes could steam at 24kts while reserving 20% of its steam to charge its 2 catapults. In other threads it's been noted that the US Essex class could steam at 19kts and each of its 2 catapults required 13% of available steam, and the Midway class could steam at 23kts and each of its 3 catapults required 10% of the available steam.

The Eagle and Ark had about double the Hermes' powerplant for about 3 knots extra speed and larger, more powerful catapults that presumably required more steam than the BS4s on Hermes. I can't help but think that if the Hermes steam conditions scaled up to the vastly more powerful Eagle and Ark that these ships provided a somewhat Phantom friendly launching environment. Sure the 151' BS5 and 199' BS5A aren't as powerful as the C11s on Essexes and Midways but perhaps the Ark and Eagle can go considerably faster while providing full steam for the cats, so it evens out in the wash.

 

[zen]

Errr Hermes got at least one catapult extended beyond 151ft stroke.
Can't remember to what stroke length though.

Victorious ought to generate enough steam.

 

[Rule of cool]

Errr Hermes got at least one catapult extended beyond 151ft stroke.
Can't remember to what stroke length though.

Victorious ought to generate enough steam.

The shuttle run of Hermes BS4A was 145', overall length (whatever that means) was an extra 30' or so.

 

[starviking]

Errr Hermes got at least one catapult extended beyond 151ft stroke.
Can't remember to what stroke length though.

Hobbs’ British Aircraft Carriers gives the Port BS4 at 175 feet, Starboard 151 feet - both 50,000lb at 94 knots end speed.

 

[Rule of cool]

Hobbs’ British Aircraft Carriers gives the Port BS4 at 175 feet, Starboard 151 feet - both 50,000lb at 94 knots end speed.

That sounds like overall length rather than shuttle run. I assume that includes all the stuff at the starting end like the little pop up wheel chocks, or maybe the water brake at the ending end that Melbourne had. That said I find it strange that a 103' shuttle run needed 48' extra when a 145' shuttle run only needed 30' extra.

 

[BlackBat242]

Hobbs’ British Aircraft Carriers gives the Port BS4 at 175 feet, Starboard 151 feet - both 50,000lb at 94 knots end speed.

Yes - and those two (and Ark Royal's BS4s) are the only ones where he lists the overall length as the "stroke". Note he also lists Victorious' BS4As as "hydraulic", so errors are present. His end-speed vs weight numbers are all screwed up - he has the BS4A with a higher end-speed at 50,000lb than the longer BS5, among other mistakes.

The higher numbers are the lengths of the installed catapult - the "stroke length"/"shuttle run" mentioned earlier is the distance the catapult moves the shuttle the aircraft is attached to, and is what Hobbs lists for all other steam catapults.

The BS4 (Hermes starboard) had a stroke length of 104', the BS4C (Centaur) had 139' (overall length 165'), and the BS4A (Hermes port after 1966 and Victorious) had 145'.

The BS4 was also used for Melbourne, Bonaventure, and Vikrant - in Melbourne it was lengthened in 1971 to 112' (160' overall including bridle catcher).

A lengthened BS4 (#9 built) with a stroke length of 174' (199' overall) was used in Karel Doorman (Venticinco de Mayo) when modernized in the Netherlands in 1955-58.


The BS5s in Eagle (post 1964) and Ark (post 1970) were 151'/220' and the BS5As (same dates) were 199'/268'.

 

[Archibald]

BS5s were also used on Clemenceau class carriers, last time I checked: 171' length.

 

[zen]

I'm far from my measurements at the moment but.....
Victorious track length is, I reccal from my measurements, something like 175ft but 180ft to CALE gear from stop and about 5ft from stop to the bow end of the flight deck.

Arguably Victorious could have gained a Melbourne style bridal catcher in which the retardation cylinders allowed a longer track/stroke length. Essentially getting her upto 151ft stroke to ready her for F4K.

My measurements for Eagle's 199ft stroke was something like 240ft.

 

[Foo Fighter]

This is possibly a 'silly' question but..... Could a suitably powerful electric motor, power a shuttle system to launch rather than full on EMALS?

 

[Archibald]

The Internal Combustion Catapult - SlideServe

The Internal Combustion Catapult. The C14 Internal Combustion Catapult was developed in the 1950s and successfully launched planes. Used the same launch engine as the steam catapult. Was more powerful than the steam catapult. Used JP5 and compressed air burned in a single large combustor.

www.slideserve.com

This was one big missed opportunity of the early 1960's.

 

[Rule of cool]

The Internal Combustion Catapult - SlideServe

The Internal Combustion Catapult. The C14 Internal Combustion Catapult was developed in the 1950s and successfully launched planes. Used the same launch engine as the steam catapult. Was more powerful than the steam catapult. Used JP5 and compressed air burned in a single large combustor.

www.slideserve.com

This was one big missed opportunity of the early 1960's.

I don't know, the US C7 was a beast and the C11 was a very versatile catapult that served well for a long time.

Catapults are a frustrating topic, one where exact details are crucial to knowing capabilities, but firm details are lacking and otherwise good sources like Hobbs doesn't get these details right. I find myself quoting things I've noted years ago as if they;'re gospel when in fact they're best guesses based on prolonged sifting of information including old photos.,

 

[Scott Kenny]

This is possibly a 'silly' question but..... Could a suitably powerful electric motor, power a shuttle system to launch rather than full on EMALS?

That's literally what EMALS is, a linear electric motor.

If you mean a spinny electric motor, you'd need a stupidly powerful motor and a super reliable brake/clutch to hold the cable solidly until the plane is at the release point.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Internal Combustion Catapult - SlideServe

The Internal Combustion Catapult. The C14 Internal Combustion Catapult was developed in the 1950s and successfully launched planes. Used the same launch engine as the steam catapult. Was more powerful than the steam catapult. Used JP5 and compressed air burned in a single large combustor.

www.slideserve.com

This was one big missed opportunity of the early 1960's.

It was inconsistent in terms of ending airspeed. Even in the later developments competing against EMALS!

 

[Foo Fighter]

That's literally what EMALS is, a linear electric motor.

If you mean a spinny electric motor, you'd need a stupidly powerful motor and a super reliable brake/clutch to hold the cable solidly until the plane is at the release point.

Thanks, I thought it would be stupid.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Thanks, I thought it would be stupid.

No such thing as a stupid question. Gotta have it written down somewhere about why something was not chosen.

And that comes down to needing like a 10,000hp electric motor!

 

[Foo Fighter]

Well, it would be enough to keep the 'Duck' quiet.