MOTS Phantom for the RN?

[Scott Kenny]

The timelines of remaining carrier life and the life of the fighter do not overlap enough to make that a particularly important factor.

The fighter fleet was to enter service in the late 60s and serve until the late 80s.

In 1963 when it was announced in Parliament that CVA01 would be built the RN had the Victorious and Ark Royal which were to leave service in the early 70s, the Eagle in rebuild and Hermes scheduled for refit to last until 1980 or so. When the Phantom was selected in mid 1964 the plan changed so the Ark Royal would be refitted to operate Phantoms, alongside the CVA01 and Eagle. This changed again when CVA01 was cancelled in early 1966 and only Ark and Eagle would operate Phantoms until the late 70s and early 80s and Hermes converted into an Commando carrier. This changed again in 1968 when only the Ark would operate Phantoms until the early 70s, and changed yet again in 1970 to stretch this out to the late 70s yet again.

Selecting the F4 was at the time a forward looking decision, one where the CVA01 that had 3.5m pounds on long-lead items on order, was to be the future of the RN. Selecting the F8 would be a regressive decision, tying the RN to a WW2 rebuild due to leave serve ~5 years after the fighter entered service and the smallest carrier they had which was converted into a Commando carrier, while providing the Eagle, CVA01 and Ark Royal with a far less capable fighter than these ships could operate.

And yet selecting Phantom instead of Crusader also requires massive refits on the existing carriers, which is funds that could better be spent on CVA01 or some AAW escorts.

While buying Crusaders means that you can operate the planes off your existing carriers without spending any extra money on refits. Plus you can sell the F-8Ks to the French (assuming that the UK buys the whole Crusader assembly line from Vought).

Spey Twosader with AWG-10 (or British-built equivalent, don't care). Convert the rocket tray on the belly into some conformal carriage slots for Sparrows or British missiles, assuming that there's ground clearance. Say, two missiles on the fuselage corners, two more on the outer wing pylons, and a pair of big drop tanks on the inner pylons. You now have exactly the same weapons load as a Phantom, and can have all the other fun bits as well.

 

[Rule of cool]

And yet selecting Phantom instead of Crusader also requires massive refits on the existing carriers, which is funds that could better be spent on CVA01 or some AAW escorts.

While buying Crusaders means that you can operate the planes off your existing carriers without spending any extra money on refits. Plus you can sell the F-8Ks to the French (assuming that the UK buys the whole Crusader assembly line from Vought).

Spey Twosader with AWG-10 (or British-built equivalent, don't care). Convert the rocket tray on the belly into some conformal carriage slots for Sparrows or British missiles, assuming that there's ground clearance. Say, two missiles on the fuselage corners, two more on the outer wing pylons, and a pair of big drop tanks on the inner pylons. You now have exactly the same weapons load as a Phantom, and can have all the other fun bits as well.

What carriers are you referring to?

Can the F8 physically fit an AWG10? What will all of that drag do to an already slow plane?

 

[red admiral]

the time and cost of development means large production runs are a necessity to recoup the development time and cost. It's why I bang on about the Lightning all the time, gotta get those production numbers up to make it worthwhile.

There was no recouping of development time and cost. This was all government money being spent. Producing more aircraft simply.means spending more money. There are no "savings".

Even more so at this point where government did not want companies to go bust and so implemented "make work" projects or selecting a preferred bidder, necessitating more spending. (With the exception of small fry like Miles Aircraft)


Supermarine 556 on paper looks attractive for a Phantom analogue, but based on history then I'd have zero confidence in their ability to actually deliver vs just draw in pencil.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What carriers are you referring to?

Vicky, Arc, and Hermes (since Eagle was in rebuild at the time)

Can the F8 physically fit an AWG10? What will all of that drag do to an already slow plane?

Won't have the same size radar dish in the nose, no. F8U-2NEs got a 21" diameter radar dish in the nose (only a little smaller than the dish in F-4Es), and you'd have the entire belly rocket pack volume available for radar units in addition to whatever would fit in the nose. Well, minus where you're putting the ejectors for the pair of Sparrows on the corners.

And the F-8 Crusader "slow"? Mach 1.8 isn't bad, and I'm sure you could have tweaked the area ruling a little with the two-seat mod. Plus the Spey is putting out more power than the J57.

 

[zen]

Personally it's more interesting to explore in this thread the RN jumping on the F4 early.
As in the early period, the J65 a licence built Sapphire was the main propulsion and the J79 was a hoped for future.
Frankly AS delivered better performance out of their Sapphire than the US licensee and had potential to further develop the engine if not just outright design a 'drop-in' successor.
Which being desperate after Supersonic Recce-Bomber cancellation is an interesting AH itself.
An Armstrong Siddeley Engines success story possibly?

What this Attack aircraft with a Night Fighter variant offered was quite potent and considerably better than Scimitar and Sea Vixen....And Javelin.

By jumping on early we can potentially draw funding for a revised RB.106 "Thames" or BS.30 Zeus and while this has the potential to suffer Spey-like delay and cost overruns. The potential benefits in terms of power to weight, climb and supersonic flight performance is not trivial.

This would preempt the whole NMBR.3 fiasco and offer an immediate alternative path as early as 1962. The RAF could already be opting in for FAW and just expand for tactical lay down and Attack duties.

This also allows a better planning and implementation of 'Phantomisation' of RN carriers. Arguably Eagle' refit and interim measures on Victorious.

 

[Rule of cool]

There was no recouping of development time and cost. This was all government money being spent. Producing more aircraft simply.means spending more money. There are no "savings".

Recoup is best used for aircraft that had at least some company money invested in their development. Also governments often try to recoup some of their development money when facilitating exports, IIRC the US charges about $1000 development money for an OH58. Amortise would be a better term in most cases, it's better to spread a fixed development cost over a large production run.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 121.

And yet selecting Phantom instead of Crusader also requires massive refits on the existing carriers, which is funds that could better be spent on CVA01 or some AAW escorts.

Part of Post 122.

What carriers are you referring to?

Part of Post 124.

Vicky, Arc, and Hermes (since Eagle was in rebuild at the time).

I was going to write that the RN would have been in a better position if the third Audacious class hadn't been cancelled in 1946 and been completed 1950-58 instead of rebuilding Victorious.

However, she would probably have been completed with a pair of bow-mounted 151ft stroke BS.4s (like Ark Royal in 1955) instead of a 151ft BS.5 in the bow & a 199ft BS.5 in the waist (like Eagle after her 1959-64) refit. Therefore, she would have needed a long & expensive Phantomisation refit like Ark Royal.

On the other hand she'd also have had a Type 984 radar, CDS & DPT (which the rebuilt Ark Royal didn't), an AC electrical system (which Ark Royal & Eagle didn't) and maybe Vickers-Armstrong (Tyne) would have preserved her hull properly when she was laid up so she avoided the problems that Ark Royal had.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of the OP.

Its a world where the RN focuses on its big carriers, Eagle rebuilt as per normal, Ark Royal getting its 'Phantom' refit starting in 1964 and CVA01 & 02 getting started as soon as the Fearless class are off their slips at JB and H&W. Additionally the RAF went with the Lightning for its 1958 fighter-bomber requirement, so there is no P1154 leaving the RN with a requirement for a Sea Vixen replacement with no convenient British type to do it but no burning desire to Anglicise something foreign.

Does that mean that Ark Royal's OTL Phantomisation refit is brought forward from 1967-70 to 1964-67 and takes the place of the refit that Hermes had 1964-66 IOTL? Because I think Friedman wrote that the plan had been for Eagle & Ark Royal to be refitted to Standard A (in that order) and Ark Royal's was cancelled because Eagle's took longer than planned and was more expensive than planned. Which, if I've remembered correctly means you're sticking to Plan A, except that Ark Royal would have been refitted to Standard B (plus Phantomisation) instead of Standard A (plus Phantomisation).

Another part of the OP.

What is the closest the RN can get to a Military Off The Shelf Phantom buy, starting in about 1963? Without having to worry about the Hermes and Vic does the Spey need to be fitted? IIUC the extended nose oleo and drooping ailerons were McD ideas not adopted for the USN. What about the 'bring back' requirement for ordnance, is the F4Js capability enough for this?

I haven't the foggiest.

Although, if they had completed the third Audacious instead of rebuilding Victorious, you only have Hermes to worry about whether Spey needed to be fitted. And going back to the first paragraph that I quoted maybe you can postpone CVA.02 as the third Audacious could take its place.

A more off-the-wall idea is that the fourth Audacious wasn't re-ordered as a Malta and was laid down at Fairfield in 1944 or 1945. This ship isn't cancelled at the end of the war (because Hermes was instead) and she's completed in 1959 instead of Hermes. However, she'd have been completed with a pair of bow-mounted 151ft stroke BS.4s and therefore like the third Audacious would have required a long and expensive Phantomisation refit. OTOH you don't need to worry whether Spey needed to be fitted.

Based on 20 year service lives: the third Audacious (Phantomised 1967-70 instead of Ark Royal) should be good until at least 1978; the fourth Audacious (Phantomised 1964-67 instead of Hermes' 1964-66 refit) should be good until at least 1979; and the rebuilt Eagle (Phantomised 196?-6?) should be good until 1984. Then construction of the CVA.01 class could be postponed for about 5 years which would be concurrent with the OTL Invincible class which they were built instead of ITTL.

And the question that I think should be asked is how soon could you start the Spey-Phantom? My ideal is 1962 with the RN being allowed to buy it instead of the P.1154RN and the RAF buying the P.1127 Harrier instead of the P.1154RAF. Hopefully, that allows Eagle to be Phantomised as part of her 1959-64 refit, the Spey-Phantom enters service in 1967 (instead of 1969-70) and the Harrier in 1966 (instead of 1969).

 

[uk 75]

The RN needed to order a Malta like carrier instead of the Audacious class.
Building 2 to 3 Maltas between 1945 and 1960 would have given the RN a carrier similar to Midway
Experience with the Maltas would have allowed a less radical CVA01 design to be laid down in the 60s and 70s.
F4J and Bucs operate from these ships until replaced by F18s.

 

[red admiral]

Amortise would be a better term in most cases, it's better to spread a fixed development cost over a large production run.

While this is a "thing" it wasn't a thing in this time period of the warfare state where even the notionally private aircraft companies were really just arms of the state - basically wholly funded and controlled.

In which case, building more aircraft simply costs more money.

Personally it's more interesting to explore in this thread the RN jumping on the F4 early.

Maybe another alternate is both RAF and RN jumping onto F-4 early, which forces rationalisation of existing projects and consolidation/reduction of industry over capacity.

 

[zen]

Maybe another alternate is both RAF and RN jumping onto F-4 early, which forces rationalisation of existing projects and consolidation/reduction of industry over capacity.

That's not as insane as it might sound.
The RAF repeatedly used the Scimitar as a bludgeon to try to get Buccaneer cancelled. They even analysed how much a Scimitar could tote from airfields and ir was 10,000lb of bombs.
But what if the FAA turned round and threw F4 back and said things like "why are you bothering with Javelin and using Canberras in tactical?"

As it was F4D attracted quite a bit of RAF interest....

This could all have been going from 1958 and a UK license might have resulted considering the numbers then being bandied about.

Could easily have swung.
140 FAA
175 RAF tactical
160 RAD FAW

475 airframes.

 

[Rule of cool]

While this is a "thing" it wasn't a thing in this time period of the warfare state where even the notionally private aircraft companies were really just arms of the state - basically wholly funded and controlled.

I've been giving this a bit of thought lately, but with the airliners of the period. I'll start a thread when I get the angle that doesn't see the thread devolve into a big no-fest.

In which case, building more aircraft simply costs more money.

At which point the aim becomes getting the most value for the money; the most capability, the best industrial participation, the least amount of scarce foreign currency used, the longest useful service life etc.

The Spey Phantom is the most cost-effective way of getting the worlds best fighter into the RN, and a more MOTS spec would be cheaper again.

 

[Rule of cool]

Personally it's more interesting to explore in this thread the RN jumping on the F4 early.

This thread is the RN jumping on the F4 early, in early-mid 1963 instead of mid 1964.

 

[Rule of cool]

The reason I don't go for changes prior to the 1957 DWP was because prior to that the British (and everybody else) had a fundamentally different view of defence. Prior to thermonuclear weapons on ballistic missiles and sophisticated, mach 2 all weather aircraft and SAM warships everyone pretty much assumed WW3 would be similar to WW2 but with a few nukes thrown around. This includes mass production of relatively simple weapons like the Canberra and Hunter, or the rapid refit of large number of ASW frigates while the shooting was going on, and manning these with large conscript forces and reservists.

Therefore making changes prior to ~1957 will be basically wrong, they will suit neither the existing defence strategy nor the one that emerged after that point.

 

[zen]

Well what I'm saying is that the thinking can already be heading in the right direction prior to '57.....which factually is correct anyway since the reforms were really intended for '56, but Suez and a change of leaders delayed the inevitable.

And so the shift to F4 is quite plausibly a product of the '57 event and makes the formal shift likely in '58.
Right at the right moment to get in this. When US-UK relations be thawing out.
This is ideal as the 'interim' to OR.346 and cutting out the mkII Vixen as well as later marks of Javelins.
Which in turn would make the NMBR.3 fiasco and very short one.

 

[Rule of cool]

Does that mean that Ark Royal's OTL Phantomisation refit is brought forward from 1967-70 to 1964-67 and takes the place of the refit that Hermes had 1964-66 IOTL? Because I think Friedman wrote that the plan had been for Eagle & Ark Royal to be refitted to Standard A (in that order) and Ark Royal's was cancelled because Eagle's took longer than planned and was more expensive than planned. Which, if I've remembered correctly means you're sticking to Plan A, except that Ark Royal would have been refitted to Standard B (plus Phantomisation) instead of Standard A (plus Phantomisation).

I'm not all over plans and standards, and I don't have a defensible reason for swapping the Ark refit to start in 1964 instead of 1967 other than that plans for carriers changed like dirty undies and were closely linked to the aircraft being procured for their Air Groups.

Given the Ark actually was Phantomised, the Eagle rebuilt and could easily be Phantomised and 3.5m worth of long-lead items for CVA01 were ordered from 1964 and Hermes was slated for Commando carrier conversion at about the same time my approach is to have the 'good decision fairy' wave her magic wand to achieve this result, then justify it politically afterwards.

 

[Rule of cool]

Well what I'm saying is that the thinking can already be heading in the right direction prior to '57.....which factually is correct anyway since the reforms were really intended for '56, but Suez and a change of leaders delayed the inevitable.

The RN was changing as a result of the 1953 Global Strategy Paper, the Albion and Bulwark were slated for conversion to Command carriers quite early for example. However the RAF most certainly was not moving toward the new paradigm, or if it was it wasn't doing so very quickly. It appears that the RAF was at least in part changing it's hordes of Korean War era fighter-bombers to much heavier hitting Canberra interdictors, but in 1956 Macmillan mentioned in the aviation press that RAF Fighter Command was not fit for purpose and longer-ranged fighters were needed yet the RAF made no move in this direction.

And so the shift to F4 is quite plausibly a product of the '57 event and makes the formal shift likely in '58.
Right at the right moment to get in this. When US-UK relations be thawing out.

A major factor in the 57 DWP was the requirement to save 100 million pounds. I think this with the reduction of the RN carrier force from 6 to 4 were the big reasons why the SR.177 in Dec 1957. My guess is that when saving its share of 100m the RN had enough on its plate introducing the Sea Vixen while developing the Buccaneer in 1958 without giving much thought to an evolving US design.

 

[Archibald]

the fourth Audacious wasn't re-ordered as a Malta

I didn't knew. An interesting bit of information for sure.

 

[Rule of cool]

Vicky, Arc, and Hermes (since Eagle was in rebuild at the time)

Vic had 151' BS5 cats like the Clem and Fch so could operate the F8, but prior to her 1964 refit the Hermes had 103' BS4 cats and was refitted with a single 145' BS4A. With a single small-medium cat and slow speed could the Hermes even operate the F8 with the French mods to slow their approach? I doubt it, the F8 was a hot ship and known for an appalling crash rate.

In any case by the mid-late 60s Hermes was slated for conversion to a Commando carrier, primarily because even if she could operate supersonic fighters it would have been in such small numbers that she would have been ineffective. Buying superseded, 2nd-rate fighters in order to keep an unsuitable carrier in service is not good procurement policy.

 

[red admiral]

It appears that the RAF was at least in part changing it's hordes of Korean War era fighter-bombers to much heavier hitting Canberra interdictors, but in 1956 Macmillan mentioned in the aviation press that RAF Fighter Command was not fit for purpose and longer-ranged fighters were needed yet the RAF made no move in this direction.

This was sort of where I was coming from with "earlier Phantom for RAF". Fighter Command was very much "Interceptor Command" but you can't defend against the majority future threat of BMs. And SAMs are the near future Vs projected supersonic bomber threats.

The domestic lack of a longer ranged multi role fighter (or capable of being turned into one), then leads to early adoption of Phantom and allows earlier withdrawal of the types it can replace, and consolidates the different historical 60s programmes into 1-3 to replace Phantoms with a domestic (or more domestic) equivalent.

 

[Rule of cool]

This was sort of where I was coming from with "earlier Phantom for RAF". Fighter Command was very much "Interceptor Command" but you can't defend against the majority future threat of BMs. And SAMs are the near future Vs projected supersonic bomber threats.

The domestic lack of a longer ranged multi role fighter (or capable of being turned into one), then leads to early adoption of Phantom and allows earlier withdrawal of the types it can replace, and consolidates the different historical 60s programmes into 1-3 to replace Phantoms with a domestic (or more domestic) equivalent.

The RAF needs ~20 tactical fighter sqns in service in the early 60s, far too early for any Phantom variant to fill. Once these aircraft are in service they will have a fleet life of 20+ years, which is outside the Phantom window at the back end as well.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Vic had 151' BS5 cats like the Clem and Fch so could operate the F8, but prior to her 1964 refit the Hermes had 103' BS4 cats and was refitted with a single 145' BS4A. With a single small-medium cat and slow speed could the Hermes even operate the F8 with the French mods to slow their approach? I doubt it, the F8 was a hot ship and known for an appalling crash rate.

In any case by the mid-late 60s Hermes was slated for conversion to a Commando carrier, primarily because even if she could operate supersonic fighters it would have been in such small numbers that she would have been ineffective. Buying superseded, 2nd-rate fighters in order to keep an unsuitable carrier in service is not good procurement policy.

Okay, so the RN would be operating Vicky, Arc, and Eagle as their primary carriers, shuffling Hermes off to Commando duties but keeping the cats, and buying CVA-01 to replace Hermes as a real carrier to maintain a force of 4 carriers. (and/or building Maltas/Midway-equivalents, but that requires an earlier point of departure and some much better economic conditions immediately post-war)

The RAF needs ~20 tactical fighter sqns in service in the early 60s, far too early for any Phantom variant to fill. Once these aircraft are in service they will have a fleet life of 20+ years, which is outside the Phantom window at the back end as well.

Which is what makes Crusaders so possible. The first Twosader (F8U-1T/TF-8A) trainer was built in 1962. UK was strongly considering the Spey Twosader. The only major mod I would do would be stuffing the AWG-10 bits into the airframe from Phantom into the TF-8E. It'll have an IRST, using all the AWG-10 and HMS bits from the F-4J (available in 1966 or a little earlier), and would be most of the capabilities of the Phantom available a lot sooner than the F-4K/Ms.

 

[Rule of cool]

Okay, so the RN would be operating Vicky, Arc, and Eagle as their primary carriers, shuffling Hermes off to Commando duties but keeping the cats, and buying CVA-01 to replace Hermes as a real carrier to maintain a force of 4 carriers.

The Vic was laid down before WW2 and Eagle and Ark during WW2, none of these will have particularly long lives. I think the Vic was expected to get 15 years from her rebuild, Eagle 15-20 years from her rebuild and Ark 8-10 years from her refit. This means CVA01 had to be started when she was to replace Vic at least, and initially Ark although these plans changed every few months. Thus any new fighter with an entry into service of the late 60s and a 20+ fleet life has to revolve around CVA01 and Eagle and likely Ark with CVA02 in the longer term. The F4 was a better fighter in the md 60s and was still viable in the late 80s the way the F8 was not.

The only major mod I would do would be stuffing the AWG-10 bits into the airframe from Phantom into the TF-8E. It'll have an IRST, using all the AWG-10 and HMS bits from the F-4J (available in 1966 or a little earlier), and would be most of the capabilities of the Phantom available a lot sooner than the F-4K/Ms.

I got these cutaways from https://conceptbunny.com/, they show the size of the radars of the F8E and F4J and I think they show the much greater size of the AWG10 and the lack of room for it to fit into the F8E. In fact I recently read that the F8D radar size was the optimum for the F8 airframe and the bigger radar in the F8E was somewhat detrimental to the aerodynamics. I don't think it's physically possible to fit the AWG10 into the F8.

UK was strongly considering the Spey Twosader.

I'd be interested in the extent of this interest. I've read about how the RN wanted out from the P1154 in favour of the F4, and I've also heard of the Spey Twosader; but that seems to Plan B of Plan B rather than a close call that might be put to the Minister for a decision.

 

[uk 75]

The RN recognised it needed the CVA01 and a modern airgroup of F4 and Buccaneers to be followed by a single VG type.
The RN wanted four ships in this class. It was the politicians that forced it to make do with existing ships instead.
Unfortunately the RN was also getting SSBNs and SSNs which were new and expensive capabilities.
At the same time the Army had to re-equip with new armoured vehicles and artillery while the RAF had to replace its frontline combat aircraft.
Only a UK economy matching that of West Germany from 1960 to 1980 could afford everything above.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Only a UK economy matching that of West Germany from 1960 to 1980 could afford everything above.

Well that, and maintaining a frankly ruinous level of Social spending at the same time.

 

[Rule of cool]

IIUC the SSBNs were not funding from the RN's budget, but from it's own separate line item outside the budgets allocated to each of the services. So while these did put pressure on the RN's budget, they did not rest on the RN alone.

CVA01 and 02, assuming they're built from 1966 in the most cost effective manner the UK can arrange in that period, would take 10-12 years with their peak spend coming in the years after the SSBNs are commissioned and before the 1973 oil crisis.

 

[BlackBat242]

The Vic was laid down before WW2 and Eagle and Ark during WW2, none of these will have particularly long lives.
I think the Vic was expected to get 15 years from her rebuild,
Eagle 15-20 years from her rebuild and
Ark 8-10 years from her refit.

So Vic was to be good to 1974, Eagle 1979-84, and Ark either 1978-80 (with historic refit) or 1976-78 (with historic refit started in 1965 instead of 1967) or 1985-90 (if given a rebuild equal to Eagle's starting in 1965).

So the first replacement needed to complete ~1975, with the second in ~1979-80, and the third in ~1985 (or 1975, 1980-85, & 1986-91 if Ark gets full rebuild like Eagle).

 

[zen]

Plan 0 was hybrid 3 GWS/CV with Strike aircraft....this justified a Buccaneer successor in performance terms a naval TSR.2.

Plan A was OR.346, and 5 CVA.

Plan B1 was AW.406, and 4 CVA.
This saw F8 Spey Twosader and P1154, competing with VG Lightning developments and Type 583 options.

Plan B2 was the foisted P.1154 and 4 CVA....though some were pushing for smaller CVs and other the F4. While BAC pushed Type 58# options.

Plan C was F4K (which broke the limits of AW.406), and 3 CVA.

 

[Archibald]

For some obscure reasons, that thread title... "The MOTS in the Navy's eye" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_in_God's_Eye

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The RN recognised it needed the CVA01 and a modern airgroup of F4 and Buccaneers to be followed by a single VG type.
The RN wanted four ships in this class. It was the politicians that forced it to make do with existing ships instead.
Unfortunately the RN was also getting SSBNs and SSNs which were new and expensive capabilities.
At the same time the Army had to re-equip with new armoured vehicles and artillery while the RAF had to replace its frontline combat aircraft.
Only a UK economy matching that of West Germany from 1960 to 1980 could afford everything above.

Well that, and maintaining a frankly ruinous level of Social spending at the same time.

FWIW much of the social spending was unemployment related. (And it increased in the 1980s.) Had the British economy matched that of West Germany there would have been less unemployment and therefore less unemployment related social spending.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Vic had 151' BS5 cats like the Clem and Foch so could operate the F8, but prior to her 1964 refit the Hermes had 103' BS4 cats and was refitted with a single 145' BS4A.

Not according to Hobbs. According to him.

Centaur after her 1956-58 refit.​

- 2 x BS.4 with 139ft stroke and capable of launching 40,000lb aircraft at 94 knots end speed.​

Hermes after her 1964-66 refit.​

- 1 x BS.4 with 175ft stroke - Port.​

- 1 x BS.4 with 151ft stroke - Starboard.​

- Both capable of launching 50,000lb aircraft at 94 knots end speed.​

- When completed in 1959 she had a pair of BS.4s, both with 151ft stroke, not 103ft.​

Victorious after her 1950-58 rebuild.​

- 2 x BS.4 with 145ft stroke and capable of launching 50,000lb aircraft at 97 knots end speed.​

Eagle after her 1959-64 refit.​

- 1 x BS.5 with 151ft stroke capable of launching 50,000lb aircraft at 91 knots end speed - Forward.​

- 1 x BS.5 with 199ft stroke capable of launching 50,000lb aircraft at 105 knots end speed - Waist.​

Ark Royal after her 1967-70 refit.​

- 1 x BS.5 with 151ft stroke capable of launching 50,000lb aircraft at 91 knots end speed - Forward.​

- 1 x BS.5 with 199ft stroke capable of launching 50,000lb aircraft at 105 knots end speed - Waist.​

- When completed in 1955 she had a pair of BS.4s, both with 151ft stroke.​

CVA.01 as designed.​

- 2 x BS.5 with 250ft stroke capable of launching 55,000lb aircraft at an end speed of 115 knots.​

- Not BS.6s as most other people say.​

 

[Sintra]

I accept your reservations about SSGNs. Save to say there was a lot of vague talk at the time about missiles for the SSNs.

F4s served in the Fighter and Recce roles with the Luftwaffe. I am not persuaded the mods you mention were as drastic as the Spey Phantoms.

An all F4 Luftwaffe and RAFG in the 70s and 80s alongside USAF F4s for much of that time seems reasonable compared with what served.

An "all F4 Luftwaffe and RAFG in the 70s and 80s" would have killed Sepecat, Panavia, Alpha Jet and the entire British and West Germany defense aerospace industry including Rolls Royce... It would have been a disaster and arguably inferior to the Tornado/Phantom combo that was the mainstay of the RAF and Luftwaffe in the 80's.

Cheers

 

[Sintra]

The genesis of this thread comes from my belief that the British had what it took to have a great 1960s in terms of aircraft, warship and tank production if only for a handful of political decisions. It is explored in this thread and others.

Whatever else happens to sort out the rest of the British armed forces (and civil aviation) using good procurement policy decisions from 1957 the RN is left with a requirement for a world class fighter fleet that is too small to be worthwhile for the British to develop domestically, hence the F4.

I suppose that's the way of things, you can get 4 out of 5 things right but that will likely make the 5th thing bad, or at least look bad by comparison. In reality 75 million pounds to develop the best naval fighter in the world at the time, then a high unit cost, is still cheaper than trying to develop a suitable British fighter, or to build carriers big enough for MOTS F4s to operate from.

Or buy the MOTS F-8 Crusader and accept that you dont have the money for everything...

 

[Sintra]

The timelines of remaining carrier life and the life of the fighter do not overlap enough to make that a particularly important factor.

The fighter fleet was to enter service in the late 60s and serve until the late 80s.

In 1963 when it was announced in Parliament that CVA01 would be built the RN had the Victorious and Ark Royal which were to leave service in the early 70s, the Eagle in rebuild and Hermes scheduled for refit to last until 1980 or so. When the Phantom was selected in mid 1964 the plan changed so the Ark Royal would be refitted to operate Phantoms, alongside the CVA01 and Eagle. This changed again when CVA01 was cancelled in early 1966 and only Ark and Eagle would operate Phantoms until the late 70s and early 80s and Hermes converted into an Commando carrier. This changed again in 1968 when only the Ark would operate Phantoms until the early 70s, and changed yet again in 1970 to stretch this out to the late 70s yet again.

Selecting the F4 was at the time a forward looking decision, one where the CVA01 that had 3.5m pounds on long-lead items on order, was to be the future of the RN. Selecting the F8 would be a regressive decision, tying the RN to a WW2 rebuild due to leave serve ~5 years after the fighter entered service and the smallest carrier they had which was converted into a Commando carrier, while providing the Eagle, CVA01 and Ark Royal with a far less capable fighter than these ships could operate.

While selecting the F-4K, the Bucanneer and CVA-01 ended with the lot being canned with the airframes being delivered into the RAF loving hands.
The RN in the 60's simply did not had the budget for what it wanted, droping the gold plated requirements for gigantic (for the time) twin engined combat aircrafts would have gone a long way in adressing that.

Cheers

 

[uk 75]

The RN did at least get one Phantom equipped carrier in service for much of the 1970s.
Arguably Ark with its F4s was a much more useful ship than a carrier with F8s.
Indeed, one could argue that Sea Harriers with Sidewinders were a better bet than F8s.
If the RN had not staked its carrier force on the East of Suez requirement in 1966 and recognised sooner that the Cuban Missile Crisis had made a short spasm nuclear war less likely than a period of global conventional war against the Soviet Union.
A UK carrier contribution to NATO's Striking Fleet Atlantic was something that should have been front and centre in the RN's case for new carriers. This was especially true once US carriers became embroilec in Vietnam.
Instead the RN rolled over and decided its ASW role against the Soviet Union was more important.

 

[MadRat]

The original Harrier more useful? No.

 

[_Del_]

A UK carrier contribution to NATO's Striking Fleet Atlantic was something that should have been front and centre in the RN's case for new carriers.

USN commitment peaked at three or four carriers on station in Vietnam. Not inconsiderable, but the Atlantic/Med was hardly stripped bare.

Instead the RN rolled over and it was probably rightfully decided by others its ASW role against the Soviet Union was more important.

A lot of things going on in this time frame that drove this direction. RAF assuming East of Suez duties for cost reasons.The Royal Marine Commando assuming prominence after the Suez Crisis. The Soviet surge of submarines. The 1967 devaluation crisis. The 1967 adoption of "flexible response" by NATO, and prioritizing keeping the shipping lanes safe in case of a conventional war (which sort of ironically seems to be the lesson you don't think they learned).

A combination of smaller carriers and escorts could assume ASW duties, commando support, and economic zone enforcement (see: never-ending Cod Wars) which seemed more important than adding redundant strike carriers due to economic factors. It's not that the RN rolled over, it was that reality came quickly to the fore.

 

[uk 75]

The saga of the three Command Cruisers was to last throughout the 1970s. The RN survived with Ark Royal in the fixed wing carrier role and Hermes/Bulwark as the commando/ASW ship. See my post about the BBC TV series Warship to watch them in action.
The Royal Navy in 1982 had completed its transformation to NATO's North Atlantic ASW force with T42 and T22 escorts taking over from the Countys and T12s of the previous decade.
I doubt if the alternative Royal Navy envisaged before 1966 of two carriers (Eagle and CVA01) with T82 and T12 escorts could have survived the disastrous inflation of 1973 onwards. Service in carriers was less popular than in escorts. The big ships would have been vulnerable to industrial unrest during refits.
Keeping both Eagle (or in reality Ark and Eagle cannibalised into one ship) and the one-off and probably temperamental CVA01 in service would have been challenging to say the least.
The decision to replace Polaris by Trident was inevitable some time in the early 80s.
With one obsolescent and one awkward carrier operating 60s designed aircraft it is hard to see the RN getting both new ships and new aircraft to replace them into service before the end of the decade.
So 1966 did turn out for the best..

 

[CV12Hornet]

Service in carriers was less popular than in escorts.

How much of this was the fact that the carriers were WW2-era ships with upgrades kludged on? My books make the important point that the habitability of these ships was horrid by postwar standards.

The escorts tended to be newer, though I can't imagine sailors on a Daring or Battle picket would've been very happy about their ship. So this is an unsurprising fact to me.

 

[Rule of cool]

So Vic was to be good to 1974, Eagle 1979-84, and Ark either 1978-80 (with historic refit) or 1976-78 (with historic refit started in 1965 instead of 1967) or 1985-90 (if given a rebuild equal to Eagle's starting in 1965).

So the first replacement needed to complete ~1975, with the second in ~1979-80, and the third in ~1985 (or 1975, 1980-85, & 1986-91 if Ark gets full rebuild like Eagle).

These dates are accurate more or less for planning purposes, but of course everything is dependent on events. For example the Eagle was grounded late in her career which would have cost money to fix.