The Centaur carrier fleet - a better fate...

[Archibald]

Neat thing with Crusader's J57 (compared to Phantom's J79s): being much larger and heavier than J79, the resulting "J57 engine bay" is a better match for a big Spey turbofan. J57 was an older, larger jet engine.

Hence, had that "Short Twosader" been taken seriously...
- on the british side: less issue with Spey changes
- on the french side: more power for smaller carriers
And I could add, for the USN: more "fresh" Crusaders for Vietnam, instead of rebuilding 500 older machines (F-8A to F-8E).
"Fresh" Crusaders with a Phantom's two crew and a more modern engine than J79, on a smaller and lighter airframe for smaller carriers like Essex - even at the end of their rope.
As for Vought, they could have put more A-7 DNA into that Twosader. Or, wait: the other way around. A-7 derived from the Short Twosader...
... how about a supersonic, two-seat A-7 as the successor to USAF F-105s in Vietnam ? An A-7F Strikefighter two decades before, and with the USN onboard.
And then there is the case of Vought V-1000, competing against F-5E in 1969...

 

[orlovsky]

30" diameter not enough for you?

The F-8E had a 21 inch radar. 30 inch was planned for the Crusader III, I think... was there ever a 30 inch radar on a production F-8?

As for inlets, there is some variation in the nrs for air mass flow, the quick nrs I find for the military versions:

J57 165 lb/s
J79 170 lb/s
Spey mk202 (F-4K) 204 lb/s
TF-41 non AB, +20% dry thrust vs Spey 258 lb/s

 

[H_K]

Hence, had that "Short Twosader" been taken seriously...
- on the british side: less issue with Spey changes
- on the french side: more power for smaller carriers

The most important benefit of the Spey vs. J57 would be the much lower fuel consumption (SFC 0.63 vs 0.83 - a 25% reduction). This would be greatly beneficial for CAP loiter times and other naval missions. Also ~1,000lb weight savings.

This is what Centaur might have looked like with a Crusader & Buccaneer airgroup (22 jets) + Gannet AEW and Sea King ASW helos.

 

[uk 75]

The UK up until 1966 had two separate and distinct roles for the Royal Navy.
General War. Contributing to NATO forces in the Atlantic and Mediterranean.
Limited War. Actions such as Korea, Suez, Kuwait and the Confrontation with Indonesia.
In General War scenarios the main role of the Royal Navy was to hunt Soviet submarines and shoot down long range bombers/missiles. The Sverdlovs and other large surface units would be attacked by Buccaneers with nuclear weapons or by the new nuclear fleet submarines with torpedos.
In Limited War the Royal Navy would provide an amphibious warfare ability to make opposed landings with carrier based airpower in support.
Soviet transfers of fast jets to other countries were a big headache in this role. Migs could outperform current FAA types.
These two roles pushed the RN toward heavier and more capable aircraft than the available carriers could handle. CVA01 was seen as the only way out of this dilemma though the RN would have liked their own Forrestals.
A Centaur based RN carrier fleet becomes more acceptable if you downgrade the threat assessments.
Sea Vixens with Red Tops could cope with Bears and Badgers. Most recipients of Soviet Migs would not have been a match for FAA Sea Vixens.
By the 70s the threats were increasing beyond the ability of Sea Vixen.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

But you're all taking it too seriously. It was the same as me saying that the 3 Audacious class were laid down with a longer & beamier hull, a single deck hangar, more powerful machinery and an AC electrical system. Which for those that haven't noticed is saying, "What if the Audacious class were laid down as Maltas?"

Are we talking about Malta Design Bii, Design X, or Design X1?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Are we talking about Malta Design Bii, Design X, or Design X1?

None of the above. It was Malta Design Oozlum Bird.

 

[H_K]

These two roles pushed the RN toward heavier and more capable aircraft than the available carriers could handle. CVA01 was seen as the only way out of this dilemma though the RN would have liked their own Forrestals.
A Centaur based RN carrier fleet becomes more acceptable if you downgrade the threat assessments.

I think the debate here is whether spending $$$ on Victorious/Eagle/Ark Royal was the right choice vs. investing a smaller amount in the Centaurs.

This could be fairly independent of the CVA-01 decision, which was more about what would replace the WW2 carriers from the 70s onwards.

For example:
- If Victorious’ rebuild had been cancelled, Hermes could have been accelerated and Bulwark upgraded in 1959-60 to replace Vic (no capability loss)
- Albion & Centaur could have been modernized instead of Eagle in 1959-63, producing 2 carriers with 20-22 fast jets instead of only 1 with 26 fast jets
- With Spey Twosaders, Ark Royal could have been paid off in 1966, rather than undergoing expensive Phantomization from 1966-69
- The commando carrier role could have been performed by 2 of the Colossus/Majestic carriers (Ocean, Theseus & Magnificient all put in reserve in 1957-58)

Adding all these little pieces of the puzzle together, the capability difference in the 50s and 60s would be marginal but there would be savings on a decade of expensive refits (Vic rebuild, Eagle 1959-63, Ark Royal 1966-69), and savings on the running costs of 3 expensive ships. Offset by the cheaper modernizations of 3 Centaurs and running costs of 2 Colossus class commando carriers.

In the 1970s instead of Ark Royal with 26 fast jets there would be at least 2 Centaurs with 20-22 jets in service (with a 3rd in reserve and the 4th possibly sold to the RAN instead of HMAS Melbourne). Assuming CVA-01 was still canceled as historical, 1-2 Centaurs could be extended into the 80s and the Illustrious class would probably not need to be built, leading to further savings until a new carrier design in the late 80s.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm all for a Spey Twosader, but it's going to require a major nose redesign for the radar the British want. So much so that it's looking more like cheek inlets than a chin sharkmouth.

 

[orlovsky]

That would be drifting towards a different aircraft.
I don't know how far a nose à la Crusader III would get the Crusader II? Still a very substantial difference.

 

[uk 75]

However you cut it the only way to remove the bigger carriers (Ark, Eagle and Victorious) and go with four Centaurs, even if modified to operate Buccaneers is to do what France was happy to do for three decades and accept the F8 Crusader in its French version.
No paper projects could have been delivered in a form as competitive.
One could even argue that the Sea Vixen could have been refurbished with new radar and missiles as an alternative.
Paper projects generally stay on paper for good reasons

 

[Scott Kenny]

That would be drifting towards a different aircraft.
I don't know how far a nose à la Crusader III would get the Crusader II? Still a very substantial difference.

View attachment 714613View attachment 714615

Note how much bigger a Crusader III is compared to a normal Crusader. 5ft longer between the landing gear. 6" taller on deck. 8" wider fuselage. 4ft4in longer wingspan.

 

[zen]

On Crusader.
Back in days when Vought? Looked at reheated turbofans on A7 developments, they actually knocked up a sketch of a supersonic recce version with.....an inlet changed to something rather similar to that of the F8U-III.

Had Vought and Shorts developed their F8 offering it's likely that a scaled F8U-III style inlet would be an option.

 

[orlovsky]

Note how much bigger a Crusader III is compared to a normal Crusader. 5ft longer between the landing gear. 6" taller on deck. 8" wider fuselage. 4ft4in longer wingspan.

Most dimensions are about 5-10% bigger, so obviously you'd have to scale it down. But if the III has room for a 30-32" dish, the new front section might allow a 26-28" dish on the II.

But however that may be: If you want an almost-F-4 radar and a 25k lbs turbofan on a crusader II, the nose and inlet need a massive redesign. What happens from there is everybody's guess.

 

[uk 75]

However you play around with paper designs (which I get and enjoy by the way as they are the reason for this site) it is important to remember that all designs seem to be heavier and perform less well than they did on paper.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The most important benefit of the Spey vs. J57 would be the much lower fuel consumption (SFC 0.63 vs 0.83 - a 25% reduction). This would be greatly beneficial for CAP loiter times and other naval missions. Also ~1,000lb weight savings.

This is what Centaur might have looked like with a Crusader & Buccaneer airgroup (22 jets) + Gannet AEW and Sea King ASW helos.

Were aircraft really packed so tightly in the hangars? Does anyone have photographic evidence to prove it? In that drawing the two Crusaders at the back look like they'd hit the one in the middle if they were moved onto the lift.

Most of the photo's I've seen of British aircraft carrier hangars have the aircraft in rows of two or three abreast with little or no staggering and bigger clearances than shown above.

 

[H_K]

Were aircraft really packed so tightly in the hangars?
Most of the photo's I've seen of British aircraft carrier hangars have the aircraft in rows of two or three abreast with little or no staggering

I went with USN style packing but initially had a more conservative version with 2 rows abreast (Buccaneers to port and Crusaders to starboard). The only difference with that more conservative packing was I lost 2 helos or 1 jet in the hangar.

The above isn’t far off from HMS Hermes historically, which had 24 fixed wing and 5 helos. The centerline lift loses 2 spots vs Hermes’ deck edge lift, offset by the additional deck park behind the island (+4 spots), for a net gain of +2 spots. So I show 26 fixed wing and 6 helos… which would be 4 helos with the more conservative hangar density. Which should be spot on.

In practice the hangar and flight deck wouldn’t feel so packed, with several aircraft in the air (1 Gannett AEW, 1-2 helos in the air, potentially a fighter CAP too), and some of the aircraft moved from the hangar and ranged on the stern or bow for launch/recovery (I have left 5 spots open on the bow - 4 along the port catapult and 1 on the fwd lift).

 

[H_K]

P.S. @NOMISYRRUC Maximum alpha strike size would be 16 jets (8 Buccaneer strike + 8 Crusaders escort / light attack).

This leaves 4 Crusaders for CAP/Alert 5 and 2 Buccaneer recovery tankers/spares. Plus a patrol of 1 Gannet AEW and 1 Sea King ASW always in the air, with one spare each on alert.

 

[orlovsky]

The above isn’t far off from HMS Hermes historically, which had 24 fixed wing and 5 helos. The centerline lift loses 2 spots vs Hermes’ deck edge lift, offset by the additional deck park behind the island (+4 spots), for a net gain of +2 spots. So I show 26 fixed wing and 6 helos… which would be 4 helos with the more conservative hangar density. Which should be spot on.

Now that's a happy little carrier. [/Bob Ross]

But I'm the spoilsport again: If you go with Crusaders (possibly followed by Hornets) you need a stronger catapult. At least one. How long could a waist cat be?

It would be easier to extend Sea Vixen into the 1970s and then switch to a version of AFVG for the fighter role.

 

[BlackBat242]

The Spey has a higher air mass flow I think. So redesign the inlet.
A larger radar? Redesign front section/nose.
We all know the history of UK aircraft procurement. F-8K will suffer the usual problems.

The F-8E had a 21 inch radar. 30 inch was planned for the Crusader III, I think... was there ever a 30 inch radar on a production F-8?

As for inlets, there is some variation in the nrs for air mass flow, the quick nrs I find for the military versions:

J57 165 lb/s
J79 170 lb/s
Spey mk202 (F-4K) 204 lb/s
TF-41 non AB, +20% dry thrust vs Spey 258 lb/s

The numbers I have (from the engine section of Jane's Aircraft, many different years) show 180-200 lb/sec airflow for the J57, and 200-210 lb/s for the Spey (the higher numbers for both are for afterburning versions). That's a 5% increase.
The J79 and TF41 match yours really closely.

The F-8E had the largest radome of any production Crusader I/II.

You need a proper redesign for the forward fuselage anyway, for the second seat. The sole TF-8A built was longer to fit the second seat and still keep the 4 20mm cannon and full fuel capacity - with the lower fuel use of the Spey and changing to a single M61 Vulcam (or 2 30mm Aden cannon) you might be able to not lengthen it as much, or fit more of the radar avionics below the seats. Tweak the inlet and duct a bit, and make the radome a tad longer and fatter (drop the intake a few inches down the fuselage, or make it wider). Of course, the nose forward of the canopy would fold to the side.


Much of the Phantom FG.1's problems with the Spey installation was the need to widen the intake ducts on both sides of the fuselage all the way along the fuselage (increasing cross-sectional drag for that 2 x 170 lb/s > 210 lb/s flow increase {23.5% increase}) as well as slightly enlarging the engine housing area. That made a significant increase in cross-sectional area (and drag).

However, low-level speed was still increased due to the higher thrust output - and most of the high-altitude speed loss was the normal higher drop-off at altitude of turbofans in general, compared to turbojets like the J79.

 

[orlovsky]

My J57 nr may be from an early version.

I assume fitting a standard Spey would not be a big problem, but would not improve launch performance either.

Fitting a 25k lbs Spey would probably be in the 250 lb/s air flow need region vs 180 or 200 for the J57, and this would require a more substantial change. Would it cause a problem similar to the Spey Phantom? Don't know.

If I understand that correctly the Spey in the F-4 did not cause a problem with launching apart from the AB issue, but it also did not really help, contrary to expectations.

 

[H_K]

If you go with Crusaders (possibly followed by Hornets) you need a stronger catapult. At least one. How long could a waist cat be?

The port bow cat on Hermes was long enough, approximately the same length as Clemenceau. Here’s a side by side comparison.

On the improved Centaur I drew (bottom pic) it might be possible to lengthen it further, depending on what is under the deck.

P.S. Looking at these pictures I’m always amazed at how small the Centaurs were… they make Clemenceau look positively huge!

 

[zen]

I assume fitting a standard Spey would not be a big problem, but would not improve launch performance either.

All things bring equal, the higher static thrust rating results in higher take off weight OR lower a WOD requirement.

Would it cause a problem similar to the Spey Phantom? Don't know.

The chief issue with mass flow increased would affect static and low speed inlet limitations. This can either be solved by increased inlet area or by adding 'suck in' doors to supplement airflow. Of the two the latter is quite common, the former can cause issues at higher speeds and has often resulted in variable inlet design (cost complexity and weight) or blow out doors to shed excess airflow.

 

[BlackBat242]

If I understand that correctly the Spey in the F-4 did not cause a problem with launching apart from the AB issue, but it also did not really help, contrary to expectations.

It may be that the bleed air drawn off the Spey for the higher-flow boundary-control system in the main wings etc siphoned off enough power to basically cancel out the increased lift function.

All things bring equal, the higher static thrust rating results in higher take off weight OR lower a WOD requirement.

The chief issue with mass flow increased would affect static and low speed inlet limitations. This can either be solved by increased inlet area or by adding 'suck in' doors to supplement airflow. Of the two the latter is wuote common, the former can cause issues at higher speeds and has often resulted in variable inlet design (cost complexity and weight) or blow out doors to shed excess airflow.

The Spey 202/203 (12,250lb/20,515lb) had 1,500lb/2,500lb more thrust than the J57-P-20 (10,700lb/18,00lb) in the F-8E and the upgraded F-8s.

The RF-8G (upgraded from the RF-8A in 1965-70) was upgraded a second time in 1977 with the J57-P-429 (11,650lb/19,600lb).
I have wondered why the upgraded aircraft had the 1960-production -20 and not the -420 that was certified in 1965 (same thrust as the -429)... perhaps it was still a bit "buggy" and the Navy didn't yet trust the upgrade.

 

[orlovsky]

The port bow cat on Hermes was long enough, approximately the same length as Clemenceau. Here’s a side by side comparison.

The C-11 was only 12 ft longer then the 199 ft BS5 (Ark waist). That would be good for 3-4 kts, actual difference was more like 12 kts. The rest coming from higher steam pressure.

So when you squeeze a 169 ft catapult as in the Clems on Centaur (Hermes had 145 ft?), you'll still be about 8 kts catapult end speed and ~5 kts ship speed short of the Clems after their catapult upgrade.

Which gets back to the minimum wod: ~20 kts on Clems with 30 kt ship speed, ~28 kts in this scenario with 25 kt ship speed. More in the tropics.

1500 lb more thrust with the Spey and less weight may help a few kts, but not more. Even AB launch is only good for a few kts (with the exception of the F-4K, where for some reason non-AB end speed went through the roof).

 

[alejandrogrossi]

The most important benefit of the Spey vs. J57 would be the much lower fuel consumption (SFC 0.63 vs 0.83 - a 25% reduction). This would be greatly beneficial for CAP loiter times and other naval missions. Also ~1,000lb weight savings.

This is what Centaur might have looked like with a Crusader & Buccaneer airgroup (22 jets) + Gannet AEW and Sea King ASW helos.

H.K.
I would love to see this draw (superb) but replacing the S-2 by A-4 and GAnnet x S-2E tracker.
That CV fit perfect on the forum "Alternative fighter for Argentine AF & Navy during Falklands war." for our Navy

 

[zen]

If Spey Crusader is chosen operating from Hermes standard Centaurs (that sounds almost Disney level lol), then processes favour something like Jaguar as it's successor.
Presumably the Big Wing version, possibly with RB.199s.

Outrageous quoting of myself, but relevant since Jaguar M was tested aboard a MN Carrier....
Which indicated a lot of changes were needed. But not impossible.

Even had this focused on a new wing and more powerful Adour variants, this could mate with UK AST.396 (which would be NAST.396 because the Navy would remain involved).
The key question would be how quickly could RR and SNECMA improve the Adour to the higher thrust figures?
As it was Jaguar M abandoned in 1973.
But higher power engines and revised wing options were looked at under P.69.
Warton's report is March 1972.

With RN keeping Centaurs in CATOBAR condition and operating them through the 70's.
With presumably a successor Carrier program in train...
Jaguar M could remain a solution.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I went with USN style packing but initially had a more conservative version with 2 rows abreast (Buccaneers to port and Crusaders to starboard). The only difference with that more conservative packing was I lost 2 helos or 1 jet in the hangar.

The above isn’t far off from HMS Hermes historically, which had 24 fixed wing and 5 helos. The centerline lift loses 2 spots vs Hermes’ deck edge lift, offset by the additional deck park behind the island (+4 spots), for a net gain of +2 spots. So I show 26 fixed wing and 6 helos… which would be 4 helos with the more conservative hangar density. Which should be spot on.

In practice the hangar and flight deck wouldn’t feel so packed, with several aircraft in the air (1 Gannett AEW, 1-2 helos in the air, potentially a fighter CAP too), and some of the aircraft moved from the hangar and ranged on the stern or bow for launch/recovery (I have left 5 spots open on the bow - 4 along the port catapult and 1 on the fwd lift).

I'd assume 2x fighters up for CAP as standard, and two on deck for ready replacement.

 

[Hood]

Outrageous quoting of myself, but relevant since Jaguar M was tested aboard a MN Carrier....
Which indicated a lot of changes were needed. But not impossible.

Even had this focused on a new wing and more powerful Adour variants, this could mate with UK AST.396 (which would be NAST.396 because the Navy would remain involved).
The key question would be how quickly could RR and SNECMA improve the Adour to the higher thrust figures?
As it was Jaguar M abandoned in 1973.
But higher power engines and revised wing options were looked at under P.69.
Warton's report is March 1972.

With RN keeping Centaurs in CATOBAR condition and operating them through the 70's.
With presumably a successor Carrier program in train...
Jaguar M could remain a solution.

There were some naval designs as part of the AST.396 submissions, all of them based on the P.70 V/STOL and P.71 STOL (lift-engine) developments based on the Jaguar (P.70 was much looser in Jag DNA). From analysis I've seen of the early AST.396 designs, the MoD assessors felt that only V/STOL types were potential naval aircraft - presumably because by this time the CVS was the future for the RN.
But saying that, projects like the F100-engined Jag M I mentioned earlier date a couple of years later, obviously someone thought it was a good idea even though Hermes and Ark were running to the end of their lives.

AST.396 had more powerful Adour and RB.199 options, RB.231 came along too and there were other engines too, with as many single-engine as twin-engine solutions.
I can't see an improved NASR.396 Jaguar appearing much before 1980-81 (assuming development is approved in 1975 instead of 396 being chopped in favour of AST.403). By 1981 RT.172-19 rated up to 9,400lbf in reheat would be available, more exotic developments like -69 up to 10,000lbf would probably be available in 1983-84.

At the very least, I supposed a tarted up Jaguar M with RT.172-26 could have been ready for 1977.
BAC felt that the M would have been fine with the Mk.104, but the French never went with that option.

 

[Archibald]

About the naval Jaguar... don't forget France stuck with Adour Mk.102 until the deep end of 2007 and Jaguar scrapping.

BUT you, British, were smarter and got all those wonderful Adour improvements: Mk.104 then Mk.106. Exactly what the Jaguar M needed - plus a big wing. Wait, big wing ? you studied this, for Harrier but also (from memory) for Jaguar variants, thinking of AST.396 as mentionned up thread.

And thus, by a pretty sickening irony, you British had all the right cards on hand to help the belaguered Jaguar M. Alas, no carrier anymore bar poor old cranky Ark Royal, bound to the scrapyard...

"Life in unfair..." (Malcolm in the middle intensifies)

 

[Hood]

Yeah the French decided not to adopt the Mk.104 as they didn't want to delay service entry. For some reason they never did upgrade the engines (or much else on the aircraft).
Saying that, French Jag pilots tend to bitch less about the lack of thrust than Brit pilots. They pilot didn't feel any real benefit from the upgrades, probably because a load of draggy stuff was clagged on at the same time.

Breguet had designed a big wing for the M and Marcel Dassault wanted to fit it, but it came too late.

But yes, a Jag M 2.0 with big wing, RT.172-26, Agave in the nose and couple of Exocets/Sea Eagles could have been developed very easily and probably fairly cheaply - but it would have taken a little time.
It might have sold to Brazil, maybe even Australia to keep their carrier fleet alive.

 

[Archibald]

Saying that, French Jag pilots tend to bitch less about the lack of thrust than Brit pilots.

Where it's gets even weirder is that the French did massive use of Jaguar, guess where ? in Africa (and Gulf War One, too). The hottest places on the goddamn planet... and we all know jet engine don't like hot climates: kills thrust even more. As if Mk.102 Jaguars could afford to lose additional thrust... On top of that, they flew in Tchad & Lybia with the heaviest missiles in the Jaguar arsenal: AS.37 Martels.

French Jaguar pilots motto was "Il décolle seulement parce que la Terre est ronde".
"Jaguars can takeoff only because Earth is round".

In 1986 and 1987 French Jaguars from Tchad delivered AS.37 Martels against Gaddhafi SAMs. Taking off from Tchad with underpowered Jaguars and a heavy Martel on the centerline, even at dawn hence lower temperatures was... spectacular. But they did the job nonetheless.

 

[Pirate Pete]

Were aircraft really packed so tightly in the hangars? Does anyone have photographic evidence to prove it? In that drawing the two Crusaders at the back look like they'd hit the one in the middle if they were moved onto the lift.

Most of the photo's I've seen of British aircraft carrier hangars have the aircraft in rows of two or three abreast with little or no staggering and bigger clearances than shown above.

Some pics of aircraft stowed on British Carriers: Eagle, Ark Royal and two of Hermes - one as a ‘strike carrier’ the other when operating Harriers.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Some pics of aircraft stowed on British Carriers: Eagle, Ark Royal and two of Hermes - one as a ‘strike carrier’ the other when operating Harriers.

I've gone blonde again. Have you posted that to say "yes you're right" or "no you're wrong", because I've seen the first two before and they support my argument, the third (which I haven't seen before) is closer to the fashion in @H_K's drawing and in the fourth image doesn't give a clear view of how the aircraft were arranged.

The clearances of the Sea Vixens on Hermes look so low compared to the Sea Harriers on Hermes that it's hard to comprehend that the photographs were taken on the same ship. It also makes the hangars on Ark Royal & Eagle look higher in spite of them having the same 17ft 6in clearance as Hermes.

I tried to find image number one or one like it because it seems to show that each row consisted of a different type of aircraft. E.g. on the upper hangar deck it was Gannets on the left, Scimitars on the right and Wessexes down the middle. Does anyone know if that was done deliberately so it was easier to get an aircraft of the type wanted on deck when it was needed?

One of my criticisms of @H_K's arrangement of the aircraft in the hangar is that all the Crusaders have to be taken out of the hangar or all the Buccaneers have to be taken out of the hangar to get one of the Sea Kings on to the flight deck.

 

[orlovsky]

Breguet had designed a big wing for the M and Marcel Dassault wanted to fit it, but it came too late.

But yes, a Jag M 2.0 with big wing, RT.172-26, Agave in the nose and couple of Exocets/Sea Eagles could have been developed very easily and probably fairly cheaply - but it would have taken a little time.

You mean a carrier version? Cancellation of the Jaguar M meant that the french air force had to take an additional 100 Jaguars while the navy had to develop the SuE and I assume they would have preferred to avoid this. But they were extremely sceptical of the Jaguar M after the trials.

 

[H_K]

One of my criticisms of @H_K's arrangement of the aircraft in the hangar is that all the Crusaders have to be taken out of the hangar or all the Buccaneers have to be taken out of the hangar to get one of the Sea Kings on to the flight deck.

Easy to fix. Here’s an earlier drawing I did with 2 lanes in the hangar. Like I said you only lose 1 fixed wing or 2 helos with this lower density layout vs. a standard USN style spot.

P.S. Even with high density USN spotting you wouldn’t need to take all the aircraft out. A good rule of thumb is that each elevator should always be accessible by 2 aircraft, and moving just 1 of these aircraft should be enough to reach deeper into the hangar and pull out any 2 more aircraft, with all types accessible by moving no more than 2 other aircraft. This reduces hangar movements to a minimum. Aircraft furthest from the lifts should be in maintenance or reserve and don’t need to be accessed as frequently. My previous high density drawing meets those standards.

 

[Archibald]

You mean a carrier version? Cancellation of the Jaguar M meant that the french air force had to take an additional 100 Jaguars while the navy had to develop the SuE and I assume they would have preferred to avoid this. But they were extremely sceptical of the Jaguar M after the trials.

At some point during the sea trials (september 1971, from memory) they found a severe crack on one of the Jaguar M01 engine bays. This was the final nail in the coffin. It was a pig - underpowered, needed modular reheat, plus a bigger wing... I think the twin reheats were also a nuisance - aparently more than a Crusader single one. Think some modifications would have been need to the carrier.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I forget, how much did the UK use the flight deck for parking if they weren't doing flight ops?

I mean, leaving a couple of Sea Kings, a Gannett, and a pair of fighters on the roof, ready to arm up and fly.

 

[orlovsky]

At some point during the sea trials (september 1971, from memory) they found a severe crack on one of the Jaguar M01 engine bays. This was the final nail in the coffin. It was a pig - underpowered, needed modular reheat, plus a bigger wing... I think the twin reheats were also a nuisance - aparently more than a Crusader single one. Think some modifications would have been need to the carrier.

Jaguar M modifications would have been expensive, reducing the nr from 100 to 80 or even 50 with the fixed budget.

Les concurrents du Jaguar M [in french]

The SuE was sold as a little development from the Etendard. But, as usual, the commonality turned out to be wishful thinking and just 71 aircraft instead of 100.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Jaguar M modifications would have been expensive, reducing the nr from 100 to 80 or even 50 with the fixed budget.

Les concurrents du Jaguar M [in french]

The SuE was sold as a little development from the Etandard. But, as usual, the commonality turned out to be wishful thinking and just 71 instead of 100.

So about as many Jaguar Ms as Super Etandards, then.

 

[Archibald]

Or even less, 71 to 80...