Planned UK carrier order of battle 1975

[TomS]

Interesting. But there seems to have been the idea to use the Alizé's radar and the Jaguar to only carry the missile... or this was all about AS-30 and Martel.

You're talking about that quote about the next strike aircraft needing radar because of the retirement of Alizé, right? I don't think that's necessarily tied to Exocet; it's probably referring to the difficulty of simply finding targets at sea without a radar-equipped aircraft. Without radar, you'd use something like Alizé to help lead a flight of strike aircraft to the general vicinity of the target. (Argentina did this with Skyhawks and S-2 Trackers in the Falklands., for example.)

 

[Archibald]

Mirage G with Spey would have been a pretty outstanding aircraft. Touchdowns were achieved at a speed as low as 108 kt. Not bad for a 15 mt plane. And two seater, with that. It would have been the ideal "in between" Phantom and Tomcat. In another forum long ago, we found a name for it: the Tomkitten.

It could have certainly hauled a pair of AIM-54s (from ESSEX carriers !) or, alternatively, 530 / Skyflash. On mobile underwing pylons, Tornado / F-111 style.

After the F-111B and before Tomcat / Hornet, the USN was very interested. So was Vought, which had a special relationship with France (since 1939 and the V-156F) and Dassault (in the 60's). Vought entry in the Tomcat race had a MoU with Dassault, and strong Mirage G DNA, including the air intakes.

 

[TomS]

It could have certainly hauled a pair of AIM-54s (from ESSEX carriers !) or, alternatively, 530 / Skyflash. On mobile underwing pylons, Tornado / F-111 style.

But could it have carried AWG-9? Without that, those Phoenix are expensive ballast. I suspect it could not, as AWG-9 was huge.

 

[Archibald]

You probably have a point... just like Cyrano de Bergerac, it would need a very large nose.


Cutaway

 

[uk 75]

The Phantom/Buccaneer combination was probably as good as any of these unbuilt designs. Ark or Eagle take you to 1978.
CVA01 if it had been built in the late 60s might have joined in 1974 or so.
F18s would probably have been bought at around the same time the USN replaced its Phantoms on Midway and Coral Sea.
Sorry no paper planes.
CVA01 might have been a nightmare to operate in real life. But I think it would have survived Nott in 1981. NATO would have argued strongly for her retention.
Whether CVA02 would have followed in the 70s is hard to say. With NATO backing and no East of Suez baggage as in our timeline she might have done.
Seakings, a couple of Hawkeyes and maybe even a Greyhound would have been part of the air group.
The quid pro would have been disposal of the 8 Countys and Blake and Tiger in the 70s as the T42s arrive. Probably the SSN programme would also have been more drawn out and the earlier boats phased out sooner.

 

[orlovsky]

Mirage G with Spey would have been a pretty outstanding aircraft.

The Aeronavale had a strangely ambitious requirement for the Crusader replacement and would not accept anything less:

"... monter à Mach 2/50 000 pieds en 7 minutes, avec deux engins, et avoir un temps d’attente de 1h 40 à 100 miles nautiques. Il est précisé qu’un appareil ne satisfaisant pas à ces minima ne présenterait plus d’intérêt militaire pour la Marine dans la période considérée"

Maybe they wanted to push through the Mirage G as per the demonstrator, but they also have something on the Spey:

"Ainsi, le seul avion répondant aux demandes de l’état-major de la Marine est un avion à géométrie variable avec réacteur américain TF 306 E ; avec un réacteur britannique Spey, l’avion à réservoir ventral supersonique se rapprocherait des performances demandées"

Again from http://www.eurosae.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Bonnet_Avions_militaires_I.pdf

 

[Archibald]

Those COMAERO / Bonnet documents are very good and useful.

That was one of the reasons the F1-M53 while considered by the Aéronavale, never had a "true" chance. The M53 lacked thrust (that's an understatement, and remained true until M53-P2 in the mid-80's) and the wing was too small.

The real missed oportunity, even more than the F1-M53, was the Mirage F3. In fact a F3-M53-P2 would have been near perfect. Alas, these two missed by two decades (1967-1987). Shame.

Had the F3 and (nascent) M53 been combined circa 1968-69, they could have erased three aircraft from history
-Mirage F1-Atar
-Mirage F1-M53
-Mirage 2000
It also would have saved the Armée de l'air a rather expensive duplication (F1+2000) and the best part of a decade.

 

[starviking]

The trouble with these Ark Royal at the Battle of the Falklands scenarios is that they often miss the vital detail.

<SNIP>

I don't really buy the argument one carrier would have prevented an invasion, the Argentines had carrier airpower, were operating with shore-based fast jet support, they had diesel subs. An Exocet hitting Ark could well have caused serious damage, she was not invulnerable and if there were no Gannets, just as vulnerable to air attack as the newer RN ships. If anything they should have been more worried about the SSN fleet.

Nice post, but shouldn't this be in the Ark Royal in the Falklands thread?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Since before just the weekend, posts have been randomly ending up in the wrong threads at times.

 

[Hood]

Yes this has randomly popped up here! Hopefully a Mod can move it.

Done, sorry for the delay.

 

[Pioneer]

To be honest I don’t see how you improve on the historic Hermes air group of 12 Sea Vixen, 7 Buccaneers, 5 Gannets and 5 Wessex...

The RN apparently did a study on an all A-4 Skyhawk group, I believe the number was 28 or 30 but will need to find and check the reference (if I can ever remember where I read it).

I have wondered how a Jaguar M air group would have done. More to the point how a Sea Jaguar FRS1 then F/A2 using Sea Harrier avionics, would have done flying into the 80s or potentially 90s on Hermes, Vic and Eagle.

So had the Jaguar M worked out better it might have delivered such a capability.
But this does remind me of a curious question I still have. Why is there no supersonic version of the Skyhawk?
As this would solve this conundrum, and sell quite well.

If you don't mind me saying zen, to have the A-4 Skyhawk supersonic would undoubtedly require an afterburning engine to replace the reasonable fuel-efficient J52/J65 engine. A thinner wing (which might cause issue with main landing gear storage), an air-to-air centric radar (and it's associated black boxes)....all equating to a very short legged and limited fighter, with limited offensive/defence armament because external fuel would most likely be required.
Saying this I have read that Douglas (or it could have been McDD by that stage) studied a proposed fighter/Interceptor derivative of the Skyhawk, which seems to have remained subsonic, but carried it's air-to-air radar in a modified droptank and was to be armed with Aim-7 Sparrow AAM's...... [I'll attempt to find the quote/literature!].

Such configuration would seemingly give the Skyhawk the best of both worlds - attack and fighter/interceptor options (alas subsonic).

Regards
Pioneer

 

[SSgtC]

To be honest I don’t see how you improve on the historic Hermes air group of 12 Sea Vixen, 7 Buccaneers, 5 Gannets and 5 Wessex...

The RN apparently did a study on an all A-4 Skyhawk group, I believe the number was 28 or 30 but will need to find and check the reference (if I can ever remember where I read it).

I have wondered how a Jaguar M air group would have done. More to the point how a Sea Jaguar FRS1 then F/A2 using Sea Harrier avionics, would have done flying into the 80s or potentially 90s on Hermes, Vic and Eagle.

So had the Jaguar M worked out better it might have delivered such a capability.
But this does remind me of a curious question I still have. Why is there no supersonic version of the Skyhawk?
As this would solve this conundrum, and sell quite well.

If you don't mind me saying zen, to have the A-4 Skyhawk supersonic would undoubtedly require an afterburning engine to replace the resalable fuel-efficient J52/J65 engine. A thinner wing (which might cause issue with main landing gear storage), an air-to-air centric radar (and it's associated black boxes)....all equating to a very short legged and limited fighter, with limited offensive/defence armament because external fuel would most likely be required.
Saying this I have read that Douglas (or it could have been McDD by that stage) studied a proposed fighter/Interceptor derivative of the Skyhawk, which seems to have remained subsonic, but carried it's air-to-air radar in a modified droptank and was to be armed with Aim-7 Sparrow AAM's...... [I'll attempt to find the quote/literature!].

Such configuration would seemingly give the Skyhawk the best of both worlds - attack and fighter/interceptor options (alas subsonic).

Regards
Pioneer

Going from memory here, but I'm pretty sure that the Skyhawk was not area ruled either, so getting it to go supersonic may also require a redesign of the fuselage. Which would definitely make the project more trouble than it's worth given the absolute embarrassment of riches the United States had when it came to supersonic naval fighters.

 

[Pioneer]

To be honest I don’t see how you improve on the historic Hermes air group of 12 Sea Vixen, 7 Buccaneers, 5 Gannets and 5 Wessex...

The RN apparently did a study on an all A-4 Skyhawk group, I believe the number was 28 or 30 but will need to find and check the reference (if I can ever remember where I read it).

I have wondered how a Jaguar M air group would have done. More to the point how a Sea Jaguar FRS1 then F/A2 using Sea Harrier avionics, would have done flying into the 80s or potentially 90s on Hermes, Vic and Eagle.

So had the Jaguar M worked out better it might have delivered such a capability.
But this does remind me of a curious question I still have. Why is there no supersonic version of the Skyhawk?
As this would solve this conundrum, and sell quite well.

If you don't mind me saying zen, to have the A-4 Skyhawk supersonic would undoubtedly require an afterburning engine to replace the resalable fuel-efficient J52/J65 engine. A thinner wing (which might cause issue with main landing gear storage), an air-to-air centric radar (and it's associated black boxes)....all equating to a very short legged and limited fighter, with limited offensive/defence armament because external fuel would most likely be required.
Saying this I have read that Douglas (or it could have been McDD by that stage) studied a proposed fighter/Interceptor derivative of the Skyhawk, which seems to have remained subsonic, but carried it's air-to-air radar in a modified droptank and was to be armed with Aim-7 Sparrow AAM's...... [I'll attempt to find the quote/literature!].

Such configuration would seemingly give the Skyhawk the best of both worlds - attack and fighter/interceptor options (alas subsonic).

Regards
Pioneer

Going from memory here, but I'm pretty sure that the Skyhawk was not area ruled either, so getting it to go supersonic may also require a redesign of the fuselage. Which would definitely make the project more trouble than it's worth given the absolute embarrassment of riches the United States had when it came to supersonic naval fighters.

Yes, good and valid point about the Area Ruling issue SsgtC, something I completely overlooked.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[H_K]

An Etendard IV would make a better starting point than a Skyhawk for a supersonic fighter, as it already is transonic (and therefore area ruled).

However the stumbling block in both cases is the lack of a suitable afterburning engine in the early 60s. The Atar & J79 being too big and the Jaguar’s Adour being too small. The F404 or RB199 would have been perfect but came one generation later so would only have been an option for the Super Etendard.

In fact an RB199 Super Etendard would seem like the perfect basis for a late 70s small naval multirole fighter, as the RB199 is very similar in size to the Atar 8K50 but with the benefit of reheat and much lower fuel consumption… would have been a nice what if.

 

[zen]

An Etendard IV would make a better starting point than a Skyhawk for a supersonic fighter, as it already is transonic (and therefore area ruled).

However the stumbling block in both cases is the lack of a suitable afterburning engine in the early 60s. The Atar & J79 being too big and the Jaguar’s Adour being too small. The F404 or RB199 would have been perfect but came one generation later so would only have been an option for the Super Etendard.

In fact an RB199 Super Etendard would seem like the perfect basis for a late 70s small naval multirole fighter, as the RB199 is very similar in size to the Atar 8K50 but with the benefit of reheat and much lower fuel consumption… would have been a nice what if.

There was the RB.153, which worked.
There was the M.45 which also worked.

While both don't produce as much thrust as a late model Avon or Atar in dry thrust. Their reheated thrust does match them.
But they both weight a lot less, through the use of convergent divergent nozzles produce higher velocity thrust than dry Avon or Atar and consequently do allow for supersonic flight.
Especially so with variable inlet(s).

In fact this is why a twin RB.153 offering on the Lightning made sense. Despite what seems like lower static sea level thrust levels.
Again this is because of much lower engine weight, lower fuel burn, modern exhaust nozzles. Such that performance was very similar to the older Avon version.

 

[TsrJoe]

Re. Island Bases strategy mentioned earlier in the thread ... https://theses.gla.ac.uk/1058/1/2009dyndalphd.pdf

 

[Yellow Palace]

Re. Island Bases strategy mentioned earlier in the thread ... https://theses.gla.ac.uk/1058/1/2009dyndalphd.pdf

This, together with Ian Speller's doctoral thesis available from KCL (below) really need to be mandatory reading for understanding the development of the Royal Navy east of Suez through to 1968.

https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/2925352/244039.pdf