The Centaur carrier fleet - a better fate...

Archibald said:
Yeah, sure, but the French history of the Crusader is hardly encouraging. 22 lost out of 42 bought, and the type was already obsolescent within a decade, 1974.
I would pick a "Buccaneer ADV" any time, any day. Particularly with the radar and missiles of the Sea Harrier FA2 (earlier on: Phantom / AIM-7). What I mean is, the SHAR proved that, you can be subsonic and with little range, yet provided with the correct missiles and radar, you can do a pretty decent job.
Click to expand...
Archibald, do you think this high attrition rate could have been averted had the French adopted the F8U-1T/TF-8A to training it's pilots?

Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
Archibald said:
Yeah, sure, but the French history of the Crusader is hardly encouraging. 22 lost out of 42 bought, and the type was already obsolescent within a decade, 1974.
I would pick a "Buccaneer ADV" any time, any day. Particularly with the radar and missiles of the Sea Harrier FA2 (earlier on: Phantom / AIM-7). What I mean is, the SHAR proved that, you can be subsonic and with little range, yet provided with the correct missiles and radar, you can do a pretty decent job.
Click to expand...
Archibald, do you think this high attrition rate could have been averted had the French adopted the F8U-1T/TF-8A to training it's pilots?

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Strictly my opinion, but probably not. The type was known as the Ensign Eliminator in USN service. It didn't have the best landing characteristics and more than a few inexperienced pilots cracked it up on landing when they first went to the boat.
 
SSgtC said:
The type was known as the Ensign Eliminator in USN service.
Click to expand...
As was the F4U Corsair and the F7U Cutlass*.

Seems to be a pattern here, eh?

* Since only 2 XF5U were built, and the 33 F6U built were never put into full squadron use, they never had a chance to show whatever carrier landing characteristics they may have had.
The 30 production examples gaining only 945 flight hours combined, some only flying for acceptance test and ferry to storage [6 hours flight time each]- and only 1 reserve squadron operated them for training purposes.
The F6U was the first USN jet with an afterburner, but was still nicknamed "the groundhog" and was declared completely unacceptable for operational use.
 
Last edited:
Volkodav said:
Maybe a Sea Vixen FAW 3 with US radar, Sparrow and Sidewinder, maybe Spey instead of Avon ;)
Click to expand...
Why ?
Sea Vixen could have had upgraded AI.18 for enhanced performance (actually prototyped and costed) with Look-down and lock-on against clutter.
Red Top, had two SARH seeker options and a new liquid rocket motor as options.
All available for IOC by latter half of the 60's.
 
Part of Post 49.
uk 75 said:
The Command Cruiser as the large surface ship was called at first morphed into a more carrier like Through Deck Cruiser. Initially 6 ships were planned (replacing the Tiger class and HMS Belfast! as well as Bulwark and Albion) but eventually three struggled into service as Anti Submarine Carriers (CVS).
Click to expand...
Plans to build replacements of Bulwark and Albion weren't abandoned until the Mason Defence Review of 1974-75 but I had no idea that they were to have been replaced by Command Cruisers/Through Deck Cruisers. Do you have a source for that?
 
zen said:
Volkodav said:
Maybe a Sea Vixen FAW 3 with US radar, Sparrow and Sidewinder, maybe Spey instead of Avon ;)
Click to expand...
Why ?
Sea Vixen could have had upgraded AI.18 for enhanced performance (actually prototyped and costed) with Look-down and lock-on against clutter.
Red Top, had two SARH seeker options and a new liquid rocket motor as options.
All available for IOC by latter half of the 60's.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, it was a throw away suggestion but I'm system agnostic, it's the capability that matters. Had the USN gotten the Missileer of the ground and into service it could have seen a reconsideration of what was required by the RN and made smaller carriers more attractive.
 
NOMISYRRUC said:
Part of Post 49.
uk 75 said:
The Command Cruiser as the large surface ship was called at first morphed into a more carrier like Through Deck Cruiser. Initially 6 ships were planned (replacing the Tiger class and HMS Belfast! as well as Bulwark and Albion) but eventually three struggled into service as Anti Submarine Carriers (CVS).
Click to expand...
Plans to build replacements of Bulwark and Albion weren't abandoned until the Mason Defence Review of 1974-75 but I had no idea that they were to have been replaced by Command Cruisers/Through Deck Cruisers. Do you have a source for that?
Click to expand...
As ever Friedman and Brown/Moore.
 
The UK does a pretty good job of using the Centaurs for the work that needed doing.
Centaur herself although not converted to a Commando Ship was used to quell a mutiny in Tanzania with both her Sea Vixens and Royal Marines plus a couple of RAF Belvederes.
Hermes survived the 60s.as.a fast jet carrier with Vixens and Bucs before replacing Albion as a Commando Ship in the 70s.
Before becoming Commando Ships both Bulwark and Albion (with Eagle) used fixed wing aircraft at Suez in 1956.
Given the reduced circumstances of 1970s Britain Bulwark and Hermes were kept going as useful ships throughout the decade gaining ASW Seakings to join their Wessexes.
As the youngest ship Hermes went on to operate Sea Harriers for both the UK and India.
None of the options proposed here would have made them more useful in the various real world activities they took part in.
 
As the Centaur class came up in the Super tiger thread, I was wondering about their catapults. As far as I can see:
Albion and Bulwark: no steam catapults

Centaur: 2 139ft bs4 (Hobbs)

Hermes: Probably a change with the 1960s refit; Hobbs just gives (assuming after refit): bs4 175 ft and 151 ft, both 50k lbs @ 94 kts
Or: two 103 ft bs4 initially, 1 lengthened to 145 ft ?
There is much more detail available for Eagle and Ark Royal, but the Centaur class looks a bit lost.

But ok, you can put a Phantom on the elevator of Centaur...
1670009943235.png
 
orlovsky said:
As the Centaur class came up in the Super tiger thread, I was wondering about their catapults. As far as I can see:
Albion and Bulwark: no steam catapults

Centaur: 2 139ft bs4 (Hobbs)

Hermes: Probably a change with the 1960s refit; Hobbs just gives (assuming after refit): bs4 175 ft and 151 ft, both 50k lbs @ 94 kts
Or: two 103 ft bs4 initially, 1 lengthened to 145 ft ?
There is much more detail available for Eagle and Ark Royal, but the Centaur class looks a bit lost.

But ok, you can put a Phantom on the elevator of Centaur...
View attachment 688208
Click to expand...
I seem to recall reading that one of the reasons that Centaur was retired (used as an accommodation ship) early was that her main hangar deck had a much more limited weight capacity rating.
might be wrong, but am sure I recall reading that. Probably could have put her in as an additional Commando Carrier, but money and numbers were too tight by then.
 
Last edited:
Pirate Pete said:
orlovsky said:
As the Centaur class came up in the Super tiger thread, I was wondering about their catapults. As far as I can see:
Albion and Bulwark: no steam catapults

Centaur: 2 139ft bs4 (Hobbs)

Hermes: Probably a change with the 1960s refit; Hobbs just gives (assuming after refit): bs4 175 ft and 151 ft, both 50k lbs @ 94 kts
Or: two 103 ft bs4 initially, 1 lengthened to 145 ft ?
There is much more detail available for Eagle and Ark Royal, but the Centaur class looks a bit lost.

But ok, you can put a Phantom on the elevator of Centaur...
View attachment 688208
Click to expand...
I seem to recall residing that one of the reasons that Centaur was retired (used as an accommodation ship) early was that her main hangar deck had a much more limited weight capacity rating.
might be wrong, but am sure I recall reading that. Probably could have put her in as an additional Commando Carrier, but money and numbers were too tight by then.
Click to expand...
Given the weight of the SeaVixen it was probably more a limited number issue not a weight one. When Hermes was carrying 31 jets, Centaur could carry 26 of the same kind of aircraft if my memory serves.
 
This could be interesting, unfortunately not digitised.

HMS Hermes: the 1964/65 special refit | The National Archives

The official archive of the UK government. Our vision is to lead and transform information management, guarantee the survival of today's information for tomorrow and bring history to life for everyone.
discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk
 
orlovsky said:
As the Centaur class came up in the Super tiger thread, I was wondering about their catapults. As far as I can see:
Albion and Bulwark: no steam catapults

Centaur: 2 139ft bs4 (Hobbs)

Hermes: Probably a change with the 1960s refit; Hobbs just gives (assuming after refit): bs4 175 ft and 151 ft, both 50k lbs @ 94 kts
Or: two 103 ft bs4 initially, 1 lengthened to 145 ft ?
There is much more detail available for Eagle and Ark Royal, but the Centaur class looks a bit lost.

But ok, you can put a Phantom on the elevator of Centaur...
View attachment 688208
Click to expand...
Where does the graphic come from?
 
starviking said:
orlovsky said:
As the Centaur class came up in the Super tiger thread, I was wondering about their catapults. As far as I can see:
Albion and Bulwark: no steam catapults

Centaur: 2 139ft bs4 (Hobbs)

Hermes: Probably a change with the 1960s refit; Hobbs just gives (assuming after refit): bs4 175 ft and 151 ft, both 50k lbs @ 94 kts
Or: two 103 ft bs4 initially, 1 lengthened to 145 ft ?
There is much more detail available for Eagle and Ark Royal, but the Centaur class looks a bit lost.

But ok, you can put a Phantom on the elevator of Centaur...
View attachment 688208
Click to expand...
Where does the graphic come from?
Click to expand...
aviationarchives.blogspot.com

Royal Navy F-4K Phantom II Report

McDonnell report No. B148 dated December 1, 1964 on the company proposal to sell F-4K’s to the British Royal Navy. Credit: Greater St. Lou...
aviationarchives.blogspot.com aviationarchives.blogspot.com
 
The whole sorry UK engined Phantom saga was created by the belief that an F4M could operate from Hermes with more powerful engines.
In the event it meant the RAF was then stuck for years with the wrong kind of Phantom.
By the time Phantom came into service in 1970 the RN had only enough manpower for two operational carriers later one carrier and one commando ship
Manpower and money means that by 1975 you have:
Ark Royal(with Eagle as spares box)
Hermes (with Bulwark as backup)
Ironically if the RN could have looked ahead from 1965 and seen the shape of their fleet they might have built CVA01 instead of refurbing Ark and built the simple Commando ship design shown in Brown/Moore based on Iwo Jima instead of developing the Command Cruisers (Invincible).
Might have been difficult if CVA01 in full refit in 1982 and no Sea Harrier for the new Commando ships.
 
As for the Spey Twosader:

Based on the F-8J, internal fuel + missiles ~ 32k. The Spey may be a bit lighter, but second seater and basic bvr capability, so let's say that's a wash.
The RN would want drop tanks for endurance, so that's 35k.

Launch speed @32k: at least 145 kts; 151ft BS5 at best 115 kts; =wod ~30+ kts with only 25 kts ship speed. And that is ISA, add maybe 5 for tropical conditions.
Launch speed @35k: closer to 160 kts; 151ft BS5 110 kts; =wod ~50 kts.

It may be counter intuitive, but the Crusader has a higher catapult requirement than the long-nosegear version of the Phantom.
 
uk 75 said:
The whole sorry UK engined Phantom saga was created by the belief that an F4M could operate from Hermes with more powerful engines.
In the event it meant the RAF was then stuck for years with the wrong kind of Phantom.
By the time Phantom came into service in 1970 the RN had only enough manpower for two operational carriers later one carrier and one commando ship
Manpower and money means that by 1975 you have:
Ark Royal(with Eagle as spares box)
Hermes (with Bulwark as backup)
Ironically if the RN could have looked ahead from 1965 and seen the shape of their fleet they might have built CVA01 instead of refurbing Ark and built the simple Commando ship design shown in Brown/Moore based on Iwo Jima instead of developing the Command Cruisers (Invincible).
Might have been difficult if CVA01 in full refit in 1982 and no Sea Harrier for the new Commando ships.
Click to expand...
That is the strange thing.. as was shown in the AltST thread you COULD! Unless I totally blew the reading on the post...


Problem is that they are essentially only light AA load out and you can only operate 8 of them! Remember the quote is "could not operate in SUFFICIENT numbers"... Sure you would probably exceed a pucker factor of 12 every time you landed on her and those that did it on the regular would be prone to levels of drinking that would make Oliver Reed envious... but it would only be 8
 
Now now.
There's Navy drinking
There's Bomb Disposal drinking
There's Alcoholic drinking
There's suicidal drinking.....

And then there's Oliver Reed drinking!
Which is on another plane of existence.
 
orlovsky said:
As for the Spey Twosader:

Based on the F-8J, internal fuel + missiles ~ 32k. The Spey may be a bit lighter, but second seater and basic bvr capability, so let's say that's a wash.
The RN would want drop tanks for endurance, so that's 35k.

Launch speed @32k: at least 145 kts; 151ft BS5 at best 115 kts; =wod ~30+ kts with only 25 kts ship speed. And that is ISA, add maybe 5 for tropical conditions.
Launch speed @35k: closer to 160 kts; 151ft BS5 110 kts; =wod ~50 kts.

It may be counter intuitive, but the Crusader has a higher catapult requirement than the long-nosegear version of the Phantom.
Click to expand...
Funny thing is, the best plane for the RN, is the F8U-3 Super Crusader. Just under 38k max take-off weight, but a power-off, flaps down, at max TO weight stall speed of only 134 knots
 
SSgtC said:
zen said:
For reference on F8 alternative engine options

I'll agree the F8U-III is rather attractive for the RN.
Click to expand...
Plenty of British engine options for the Super Crusader too. You could easily swap the J75 out for the de Havilland Gyron, Rolls Royce Medway or Bristol Olympus.
Click to expand...
We have a proposal here for a Conway powered option and reference to a Gyron powered option.
 
zen said:
SSgtC said:
zen said:
For reference on F8 alternative engine options

I'll agree the F8U-III is rather attractive for the RN.
Click to expand...
Plenty of British engine options for the Super Crusader too. You could easily swap the J75 out for the de Havilland Gyron, Rolls Royce Medway or Bristol Olympus.
Click to expand...
We have a proposal here for a Conway powered option and reference to a Gyron powered option.
Click to expand...
Conway would be a good fit. 1,000 pounds more thrust dry than the J75-P-6, about a foot shorter and an inch narrower (without afterburner). About 600 pounds lighter. And roughly comparable SFC at sea level.
 
An Americqn F4 visiting a little Brit slat top. Oliver Reed reacting to a suggestion that he might like a try.
 

Attachments

  • F-4B_of_VF-96_aboard_HMS_Hermes_(R12)_in_1963.jpg
    F-4B_of_VF-96_aboard_HMS_Hermes_(R12)_in_1963.jpg
    979.5 KB · Views: 32
  • IMG_20221203_193630.jpg
    IMG_20221203_193630.jpg
    24.8 KB · Views: 32
SSgtC said:
orlovsky said:
As for the Spey Twosader:

Based on the F-8J, internal fuel + missiles ~ 32k. The Spey may be a bit lighter, but second seater and basic bvr capability, so let's say that's a wash.
The RN would want drop tanks for endurance, so that's 35k.

Launch speed @32k: at least 145 kts; 151ft BS5 at best 115 kts; =wod ~30+ kts with only 25 kts ship speed. And that is ISA, add maybe 5 for tropical conditions.
Launch speed @35k: closer to 160 kts; 151ft BS5 110 kts; =wod ~50 kts.

It may be counter intuitive, but the Crusader has a higher catapult requirement than the long-nosegear version of the Phantom.
Click to expand...
Funny thing is, the best plane for the RN, is the F8U-3 Super Crusader. Just under 38k max take-off weight, but a power-off, flaps down, at max TO weight stall speed of only 134 knots
Click to expand...

Would have been perfect for Audacious and Clemenceau class.
On the 151 ft bs5 still 30+ kts wod necessary, but good endurance without droptanks. The F-4 would need the centerline droptank to match, going towards 50k lbs and ~35 kts wod even with the extra extended nose gear.
 
orlovsky said:
SSgtC said:
orlovsky said:
As for the Spey Twosader:

Based on the F-8J, internal fuel + missiles ~ 32k. The Spey may be a bit lighter, but second seater and basic bvr capability, so let's say that's a wash.
The RN would want drop tanks for endurance, so that's 35k.

Launch speed @32k: at least 145 kts; 151ft BS5 at best 115 kts; =wod ~30+ kts with only 25 kts ship speed. And that is ISA, add maybe 5 for tropical conditions.
Launch speed @35k: closer to 160 kts; 151ft BS5 110 kts; =wod ~50 kts.

It may be counter intuitive, but the Crusader has a higher catapult requirement than the long-nosegear version of the Phantom.
Click to expand...
Funny thing is, the best plane for the RN, is the F8U-3 Super Crusader. Just under 38k max take-off weight, but a power-off, flaps down, at max TO weight stall speed of only 134 knots
Click to expand...

Would have been perfect for Audacious and Clemenceau class.
On the 151 ft bs5 still 30+ kts wod necessary, but good endurance without droptanks. The F-4 would need the centerline droptank to match, going towards 50k lbs and ~35 kts wod even with the extra extended nose gear.
Click to expand...
Yup. And from what I can tell, adding a second crew member would only cost about 50 gallons of fuel. The upper mid fuel tank holds 90 gallons, but it's a ways back from the cockpit. Pushing the avionics back to fit the RIO wouldn't cut into that tank by much. So if you replace the J75 with a more efficient engine (like the Conway or Medway), you wouldn't even see a drop in range.
 
SSgtC said:
orlovsky said:
SSgtC said:
orlovsky said:
As for the Spey Twosader:

Based on the F-8J, internal fuel + missiles ~ 32k. The Spey may be a bit lighter, but second seater and basic bvr capability, so let's say that's a wash.
The RN would want drop tanks for endurance, so that's 35k.

Launch speed @32k: at least 145 kts; 151ft BS5 at best 115 kts; =wod ~30+ kts with only 25 kts ship speed. And that is ISA, add maybe 5 for tropical conditions.
Launch speed @35k: closer to 160 kts; 151ft BS5 110 kts; =wod ~50 kts.

It may be counter intuitive, but the Crusader has a higher catapult requirement than the long-nosegear version of the Phantom.
Click to expand...
Funny thing is, the best plane for the RN, is the F8U-3 Super Crusader. Just under 38k max take-off weight, but a power-off, flaps down, at max TO weight stall speed of only 134 knots
Click to expand...

Would have been perfect for Audacious and Clemenceau class.
On the 151 ft bs5 still 30+ kts wod necessary, but good endurance without droptanks. The F-4 would need the centerline droptank to match, going towards 50k lbs and ~35 kts wod even with the extra extended nose gear.
Click to expand...
Yup. And from what I can tell, adding a second crew member would only cost about 50 gallons of fuel. The upper mid fuel tank holds 90 gallons, but it's a ways back from the cockpit. Pushing the avionics back to fit the RIO wouldn't cut into that tank by much. So if you replace the J75 with a more efficient engine (like the Conway or Medway), you wouldn't even see a drop in range.
Click to expand...
it will be a bit more than 50, though the electronics only consumes that much volume you will want to leave some breathing room so radiant heat from the electronics doesn't overheat the tank.. I thought about that after a post in the other thread... probably could be fixed with some insulation but don't want to convert that tank into a bomb
 
bobtdwarf said:
it will be a bit more than 50, though the electronics only consumes that much volume you will want to leave some breathing room so radiant heat from the electronics doesn't overheat the tank.. I thought about that after a post in the other thread... probably could be fixed with some insulation but don't want to convert that tank into a bomb
Click to expand...
Actually, the fuel being there is exactly why the avionics are positioned there. The fuel acts as a heat sink. At 35,000 feet, that fuel is going to be somewhere between -20 and -40 degrees. So the fuel will keep the avionics package cool. Not to mention, the flash point of JP-5 is 60° Celsius (or 140 Fahrenheit). You'd have have a fire already burning in the avionics bay to risk spontaneous combustion
 
SSgtC said:
bobtdwarf said:
it will be a bit more than 50, though the electronics only consumes that much volume you will want to leave some breathing room so radiant heat from the electronics doesn't overheat the tank.. I thought about that after a post in the other thread... probably could be fixed with some insulation but don't want to convert that tank into a bomb
Click to expand...
Actually, the fuel being there is exactly why the avionics are positioned there. The fuel acts as a heat sink. At 35,000 feet, that fuel is going to be somewhere between -20 and -40 degrees. So the fuel will keep the avionics package cool. Not to mention, the flash point of JP-5 is 60° Celsius (or 140 Fahrenheit). You'd have have a fire already burning in the avionics bay to risk spontaneous combustion
Click to expand...
excellent to know
 
starviking said:
bobtdwarf said:
uk 75 said:
An Americqn F4 visiting a little Brit slat top. Oliver Reed reacting to a suggestion that he might like a try.
Click to expand...
https://letterboxd.com/film/the-final-programme/ A little film from the early 70's where Reed's character had an F-4 as a private plane...
Click to expand...
I’m afraid that was Jon Finch
Click to expand...
weird that it came up when I googled Michael Moorcock movie Oliver Reed.. I barely remember the film so I had to use the google lol.. I guess the reason it came up was someone compared Finch to a constantly hungover Reed in his portrayal

lol. He certainly did look like Reed, well enough that I thought he was him in prosthetic makeup
 
Last edited:
You do realize that in order to really understand this thread , now that we've introduced the Oliver Reed factor into it. We may have to sacrifice our livers .
This will call for days and nights of arduous research going on for months on end. Purely in the interests of science of course......
We might even be able to get a grant for all this heavy research...if correctly written.
Anyone ?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom