Warsaw Pact Britain - naval strategy and other considerations

[Yellow Palace]

It was probably the same application of the Bristol style that I did, but it pleases me to no end as they look like the same line of development, only separated by several decades of technology.

Ah, Green Steel... looked good, but there were reasons (some good, some less so) why it didn't go anywhere.

Could you elaborate, please? I heard this mentioned several times, but I can't pinpoint what exactly happened and when?

The story is that at some point in the 1970s (possibly the 1972 deployment) the ARK ROYAL spent a week or more running simulated strikes against US military bases along most of the Atlantic coast, with the usual claims of Buccaneers climbing to avoid the continental shelf etc., evading detection for a substantial period and generally causing chaos.

Claims made include that:

• The carrier detached its escorts, making it impossible to detect from their transmissions,
• That it was only detected in the end by a lucky USMC C-130 visual sighting through the cloud cover ,
• That the carrier was 'sunk' by a USN carrier air group launching from within Jacksonville harbour.

The assessment was that the carrier would certainly have been lost - but that the damage done by its air wing up to that point would have justified the sacrifice of an aircraft carrier.

It's not entirely clear what actually did happen, or if it even happened at all. There's no real documentation of it anywhere that's been publicly released, only sea stories.

 

[Dilandu]

The story is that at some point in the 1970s (possibly the 1972 deployment) the ARK ROYAL spent a week or more running simulated strikes against US military bases along most of the Atlantic coast, with the usual claims of Buccaneers climbing to avoid the continental shelf etc., evading detection for a substantial period and generally causing chaos.

Hm! Thank you for the data! I'll try to find more info.

 

[Martes]

Ah, Green Steel... looked good, but there were reasons (some good, some less so) why it didn't go anywhere.

Is there any (open) additional information about this variant and the model itself?

evading detection for a substantial period and generally causing chaos.

Sounds like they had a lot of fun out there
And quite in line with Woodward's exercises in the Indian Ocean.

I'll try to find more info.

If you do, please share it!

 

[Yellow Palace]

Is there any (open) additional information about this variant and the model itself?

I don't think there's anything specific, but in general terms: it was tied up with the idea that ASW and GP variants would be mutually exclusive, rather than the latter being the former with no sonar fitted. That drove the aft mission bay (which isn't without problems) and it was a rather larger ship than would fit within the budget.

And quite in line with Woodward's exercises in the Indian Ocean.

And Exercise SKY SHIELD II, for that matter. Making the US look silly is a common theme of exercises. The US counterargument is usually that it was holding back its true capabilities.

Unless it's someone else's submarine embarrassing a carrier strike group, when the USN surface people say that, and the USN submariners say 'we told you so'.

Hm! Thank you for the data! I'll try to find more info.

All I can say is good luck - I've been looking for years!

If anything, it's less well attested than the Soviet submarine that supposedly kept the Argentine navy busy in 1982, in a weird quirk of Cold War geopolitics.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Where would you place the radar? Gannet has it below the fuselage (although there was a study for a conventional dish), but with the Pegasus-style engine it may be problematic.

Below the fuselage, and use some extensions between the engine and nozzles if necessary.

If weight and balance allows, try to put the antenna so that the cold nozzles are at the back of the radome, so on a Harrier the radome would be mostly under the forward fuselage.

Could you elaborate, please? I heard this mentioned several times, but I can't pinpoint what exactly happened and when?

The gist of the story was that the carrier went to right at the western edge of the exercise area, close to the US coast, while the USN thought they were closer to the eastern edge of the area, well out at sea. Cue Buccaneers doing low-level fly-bys of every Naval Base on the East Coast (and IIRC a few Air Force Bases as well).

 

[Martes]

Below the fuselage, and use some extensions between the engine and nozzles if necessary.

If weight and balance allows, try to put the antenna so that the cold nozzles are at the back of the radome, so on a Harrier the radome would be mostly under the forward fuselage.

So a child of Harrier and Gannet in every respect. Hm. I really like that.

I don't think there's anything specific, but in general terms: it was tied up with the idea that ASW and GP variants would be mutually exclusive, rather than the latter being the former with no sonar fitted. That drove the aft mission bay (which isn't without problems) and it was a rather larger ship than would fit within the budget.

Yes, it took me some time to realize that the complex structure under the helipad isn't simply a VDS bay.

But in our context the size of the ship (and the whole concept of Bristol-2000) is very appealing, there is a lot of place for additional weapons and it fits the overall style so well. Which, among other things, retroactively confirms my reconstructions are not entirely baseless.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Forward deployed land-based ASW and AEW squadrons could use the same aircraft as well.

Maybe. I'd still expect shore based aircraft to go for something bigger, like Comet/Nimrod.

So a child of Harrier and Gannet in every respect. Hm. I really like that.

I was really pushing the KISS rule for this one, my mental image is basically a Harrier with a big growth under the chin and a different wing.

 

[Martes]

I was really pushing the KISS rule for this one, my mental image is basically a Harrier with a big growth under the chin and a different wing.

A very, very rough approximation - nose gear would have to be moved forward and extended somewhat -



And maybe a bit "fatter" fuselage is in order for the data processing/communications suite.

But it probably could fly

 

[Martes]

Maybe. I'd still expect shore based aircraft to go for something bigger, like Comet/Nimrod.

That's RAF turf. I meant Fleet Air Arm shore-based squadrons for forward deployments on various remote islands and such.

 

[Scott Kenny]

A very, very rough approximation - nose gear would have to be moved forward and extended somewhat -

View attachment 766946

And maybe a bit "fatter" fuselage is in order for the data processing/communications suite.

But it probably could fly

Don't forget that we also get a 2-3 seat front end, so there is more space for extra systems. Probably have to stick the data processing systems in a humped spine, though.

That's RAF turf. I meant Fleet Air Arm shore-based squadrons for forward deployments on various remote islands and such.

Ah, gotcha. FAA shore squadrons would greatly appreciate the STOL capabilities.

 

[Yellow Palace]

That's RAF turf. I meant Fleet Air Arm shore-based squadrons for forward deployments on various remote islands and such.

The RAF might still consider it their turf... they haven't entirely forgiven the Navy for the Inskip Award.

TBH the simplest fix is taking Coastal Command and making it part of the Fleet Air Arm. In reality they were operationally closer to the Navy than to the Air Force anyway, right up until the Nimrods became primarily an overland ISTAR platform in the early 2000s.

 

[Martes]

Don't forget that we also get a 2-3 seat front end, so there is more space for extra systems. Probably have to stick the data processing systems in a humped spine, though.

That was "Harrier with radar" option, now there is a "Gannet with Pegasus"...



The engine practically replaces the radar operators compartment. But with any newer radar we are hopefully not going to need it.

 

[Martes]

TBH the simplest fix is taking Coastal Command and making it part of the Fleet Air Arm.

What I thought was duplicating it, leaving the Coastal Command in the British Isles area to RAF and East of Suez to FAA. But cutting the RAF out of it completely since it has enough on it's hands already is definitely an option.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Message 419.

More or less exactly how I thought about it. Hannover is good historically, but could seem like an overly political considering it's exact location (does DDR lay claim to it? Does the British Crown lay claim to it? Lots of questions, all unnecessary).

No it doesn't, because it can't.

When William IV died, he was succeeded as King of Hanover, by his brother, Ernest Augustus I, Duke of Cumberland, rather than his niece, Princess Victoria. This happened because of the Hanoverian law, which prevented female rulers from inheriting the throne, while a male heir was available.

And according to the research I did on the internet.

The Kingdom of Hanover was dissolved in 1866, and there is no current King of Hanover in the traditional sense. However, the senior male-line descendant of the last King of Hanover, George V, is Ernst August, Prince of Hanover, who is considered the head of the House of Hanover. He is a titular King of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick, and Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale.

For what it's worth he's 71 and been married to Princess Caroline of Monaco since 1999.

 

[Martes]

No it doesn't, because it can't.

I wouldn't go as far as "can't" with an overtly militarist UK. It's just that sticking it to West Germany is probably lower on the list of priorities than issues of Canada, Australia and Ireland.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That was "Harrier with radar" option, now there is a "Gannet with Pegasus"...

View attachment 766949

The engine practically replaces the radar operators compartment. But with any newer radar we are hopefully not going to need it.

I hope for the sake of the UK they end up with something a lot closer to "Harrier with Radar" instead of "Gannet with Pegasus"

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I wouldn't go as far as "can't" with an overtly militarist UK. It's just that sticking it to West Germany is probably lower on the list of priorities than issues of Canada, Australia and Ireland.

It's a legal impossibility.

The only way you're going to do it is in the version where the POD is 1945. The British reconstitute the Kingdom of Hannover from their German Zone of Occupation with King George VI as head of state and give it a new constitution that allows the then Princess Elisabeth to inherit the throne.

However, in that situation the British are more likely to create a greater DDR by merging their German Zone of Occupation with the Soviet Zone.

 

[Martes]

I hope for the sake of the UK they end up with something a lot closer to "Harrier with Radar" instead of "Gannet with Pegasus"

You know the answer to that.

It's a legal impossibility.

The only way you're going to do it is in the version where the POD is 1945.

Not that serious, please!

I am not talking about practical application of the claim. Only rhetorical and long after POD. I mean naming a yacht Hannover, in the 70s, totally out of the blue, would spur the question - is there suddenly a policy interest of (re)claiming part of West Germany in case of future war? Even if it's a piece of radioactive wasteland? May cause a media scandal for a week or two (in Bonn) and very raised eyebrows in the Army (in London).

From the legal paperwork point of view all it takes is a Royal Proclamation, akin the part in the Act of the Union 1800 that abolished the claim to French throne (which claim also can be considered to be restored under certain circumstances), a vote in Parliament followed by update of government policy & army operational plans and an accent from Moscow. Not that anybody is going to do this, but only because it's daft, not because it's technically impossible.

But the bottom line is that while this naming may be considered, it but would be obviously rejected for the above reasons. And yet, I had to mention it because of the ship's German origin

 

[Martes]

I hope for the sake of the UK they end up with something a lot closer to "Harrier with Radar" instead of "Gannet with Pegasus"

Rejoice, I found something even more convenient.

There is an airframe in the game that I already repainted and used as a carrier aircraft - the Korchagin Ko-45.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/okb-korchagin-typhoon-multirole-carrier-based-aircraft.353/

An obscure Soviet project that can (again) represent any parallel HS/BAE development, but most importantly it's a working model with a full set of animations. 2-person cockpit, sufficient place for communications suite, all that.

So I went and replaced the bomb bay with two(? or one, but adopted for the wider fuselage) Pegasus engines:

Variant 1 - radar under the fuselage (it would have to be squished a little to fit with the landing gear)



Variant 2 - radar on top of the fuselage
​

A conventional dish is also an option, or placing a radar in a growth forward, similar to Soviet RLD configuration.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not gonna lie, Variant 1 is very close to what I was imagining (with a total lack of artistic skills to get it out of my head!)

 

[Martes]

Not gonna lie, Variant 1 is very close to what I was imagining (with a total lack of artistic skills to get it out of my head!)

Well, IF I manage to fit the radar cover with some clearance for the landing gear, I'll leave it there. If not, I'll probably move it to the nose, Soviet-style.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Well, IF I manage to fit the radar cover with some clearance for the landing gear, I'll leave it there. If not, I'll probably move it to the nose, Soviet-style.

I think you could install longer landing gear in the mains as-is, and a stretched nose would fix the space issue forward.

 

[Martes]

I think you could install longer landing gear in the mains as-is, and a stretched nose would fix the space issue forward.

It seems there is enough space, but I will play with the configuration a bit more accurately and see what I get.
Because I desperately want to avoid messing with the landing gear and associated animation setups.

I doubt, though, the ability of this plane to make the Harrier-style sideways landing, because of much larger wings, especially on a carrier underway. The landing probably will have to be rolling.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It seems there is enough space, but I will play with the configuration a bit more accurately and see what I get.
Because I desperately want to avoid messing with the landing gear and associated animation setups.

Fair point!

I doubt, though, the ability of this plane to make the Harrier-style sideways landing, because of much larger wings, especially on a carrier underway. The landing probably will have to be rolling.

Yeah, that'd be a challenge for sure.



One other thing that comes to mind would be scaling the inlets up, but that's an "if you can do it" detail. The actual aircraft would require at least 50% more mass air flow due to the greater thrust, so inlets with 50% more cross-sectional area. That's ~23% larger radius.

 

[Martes]

Yeah, that'd be a challenge for sure.

Reading Barringon's description of how they did it, I doubt it could land vertically in anything but laboratory conditions. But they should manage a very short rolling landing.

One other thing that comes to mind would be scaling the inlets up, but that's an "if you can do it" detail. The actual aircraft would require at least 50% more mass air flow due to the greater thrust, so inlets with 50% more cross-sectional area. That's ~23% larger radius.

Shouldn't be much of a problem, I am going to modify that part quite extensively to fit the fuselage, blend it with the wing, etc. Do the exhausts have to be scaled up as well?

Under the hood, though - 1 engine or 2 engines, one per each side? And isn't it getting too large to fit on an Invincible-sized ship, for instance? It's pretty much the same length as a Harrier, but the wing span is about twice as wide.

 

[BlackBat242]

No, more likely the US would keep making or converting real cruisers, so as to have Talos available for shorter-range AShM in addition to heavy SAM use. So all the old Baltimore-class cruisers and maybe earlier cruisers would get converted to Albany-class. Maybe even re-convert the Boston-class to Albany-class spec so they lose the forward 8" guns entirely, or maybe just rebuild the aft end for Talos like the Galveston-class. I would not go earlier than the 4 survivors of the Astoria/New Orleans class for cruisers to convert into Talos ships, and even they'd probably be really tight.

Even if you stuck with Baltimores and Oregon City class, it'd still give you 18x total hulls available to convert, 16x not counting the two Bostons. Looks like the USN kept 4x Baltimores (and the 3x Salem/Des Moines) in service as pure gun cruisers, so there'd be 14 hulls available to convert as either single-ended or double-ended missile boats.

The US made a lot more Light Cruisers than Heavy cruisers in WW2, but the Cleveland-class CLGs didn't work out well. Talos in particular was just too much topweight, but Terrier wasn't much better.


With RedUKRN on the other side (and some 5x larger), the USN would also need to have a roughly equal-sized enlargement(!).

It'd also end up in an interesting bit of internal politics. Pacific Fleet is the bigger, more important fleet in our timeline, but with a huge RedUKRN Atlantic Fleet would end up the more important role in the USN.

Worse than that. Every RN platform that NATO loses needs to be replaced, then countered. So (big handfuls) there's a deficiency of 140ish escorts, 40ish submarines, and 6-10 carriers, before adding in any expansion.

Well, there is a quick way for the US to boost its carrier fleet.

Of the 24 Essex-class carriers the USN kept and completed post-war, only 14 historically received angled decks etc - 7 with steam catapults for attack aircraft and 7 with improved hydraulic catapults for ASW aircraft.

1 received a modernization that did not include the angled flight deck, and was decommissioned in 1966 (CV-39).
1 received no modernization but received a "provisional" angle deck (smaller than the other angled decks were) to test the concept, then served as training carrier until decommissioning in 1963 (CV-36).
3 more received no modernization, but were used as LPHs from 1958-61 until 1969-70 (CV-21, 37, & 45).
3 were decommissioned 1958-60 without any modernization (CV-47, 32, &40).
2 were decommissioned in 1947 (CV-13 & 17).

That makes 7 more that could be given the full angled flight deck etc without touching the 3 LPHs (10 if those are used as well).

That would double the available ASW carriers, and with the increased threat provided by the RN and Red Britain there would certainly be a larger "self-defense" fighter complement aboard the CVSs than the original 4 x A-4s of the Vietnam era.
These could be A-4s fitted with air-air radar (see A-4B "Rudolph") or possibly 2-seat F9F-8 Cougars fitted with air-air radar (Grumman 1955 night fighter proposal) and J52 engines (1961 Grumman proposal for an advanced carrier trainer).
Or FJ-3 / FJ-4 Furies to provide daylight-only CAP so as to reduce the flight-load on the radar-equipped aircraft (the FJ-4 was 40 mph faster at all altitudes than the Cougar was).

 

[Scott Kenny]

Reading Barringon's description of how they did it, I doubt it could land vertically in anything but laboratory conditions. But they should manage a very short rolling landing.

That's totally fine, and probably safer in general!

Under the hood, though - 1 engine or 2 engines, one per each side? And isn't it getting too large to fit on an Invincible-sized ship, for instance? It's pretty much the same length as a Harrier, but the wing span is about twice as wide.

Single engine, losing either engine in a twin engine results in a crash. Hence the greatly-uprated dry BS100 instead of Pegasus.

Wingspan shouldn't be an issue, the aft two landing spots on an Invincible are clear of the superstructure. And you have the wings fold at more or less half span on either side, and fold all the way over. None of this "fold the wingtips up 90deg" like a Hornet! More complex wing-hinge option to borrow the Grumman Sto-Wing pivot-fold.

 

[Martes]

Of the 24 Essex-class carriers the USN kept

And their service lives would probably be extended even more. Especially if any supersonic VSTOL fighter makes it to production.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Well, there is a quick way for the US to boost its carrier fleet.

Of the 24 Essex-class carriers the USN kept and completed post-war, only 14 historically received angled decks etc - 7 with steam catapults for attack aircraft and 7 with improved hydraulic catapults for ASW aircraft.

1 received a modernization that did not include the angled flight deck, and was decommissioned in 1966 (CV-39).
1 received no modernization but received a "provisional" angle deck (smaller than the other angled decks were) to test the concept, then served as training carrier until decommissioning in 1963 (CV-36).
3 more received no modernization, but were used as LPHs from 1958-61 until 1969-70 (CV-21, 37, & 45).
3 were decommissioned 1958-60 without any modernization (CV-47, 32, &40).
2 were decommissioned in 1947 (CV-13 & 17).

That makes 7 more that could be given the full angled flight deck etc without touching the 3 LPHs (10 if those are used as well).

Excellent point!

I think I'd assume that the Essex LPHs would stay as LPHs, even if the USN suddenly needed another 20 carriers. I don't think any CVLs or CVEs would be big enough to operate enough helicopters to prove the concept.

We're still needing A LOT of ships in this timeline's USN, but it's probable that France would greatly increase their fleet as well. It might be possible to arm-twist Canada to maintain an actual Navy with a couple of carriers. If Canada tried to follow the UK and go fully Red, the US would absolutely invade.

That would double the available ASW carriers, and with the increased threat provided by the RN and Red Britain there would certainly be a larger "self-defense" fighter complement aboard the CVSs than the original 4 x A-4s of the Vietnam era.
These could be A-4s fitted with air-air radar (see A-4B "Rudolph") or possibly 2-seat F9F-8 Cougars fitted with air-air radar (Grumman 1955 night fighter proposal) and J52 engines (1961 Grumman proposal for an advanced carrier trainer).
Or FJ-3 / FJ-4 Furies to provide daylight-only CAP so as to reduce the flight-load on the radar-equipped aircraft (the FJ-4 was 40 mph faster at all altitudes than the Cougar was).

I think I'd stick with A-4s as the "fighters", but put a full dozen on the CVS.

The older fighters are possible for a short time, depends on just how quickly the front-line carriers get their Skyhawks. Skyhawk IOC was 1956, after all.

Could E-2s operate off the Essex-class?

 

[Scott Kenny]

And their service lives would probably be extended even more.

While the US did keep one Essex around till 1991(!) as a training carrier (USS Lexington), I'd expect the Essex CVS to be replaced 1970-1980, maybe 1975-1985 at the latest.

This would likely require a boiler replacement in the 1950s SCB-27 and/or SCB-125 upgrades.

Especially if any supersonic VSTOL fighter makes it to production.

I could see Red UK developing a supersonic VSTOL fighter around BS100, probably, but I see the US struggling without some significant espionage.

Pegasus first ran in 1959, BS100 in 1960. Both after our POD.

So the US is going to be locked into lift engines pretty hard. But once someone gets the Pegasus idea, I think a supersonic VSTOL would follow reasonably quickly. Whether doing some weird stuff with dual flow paths to put the cold nozzles into a single exhaust with an afterburner and "lobster tail" curl or going to BS100 style PCB.

 

[BlackBat242]

Excellent point!

I think I'd assume that the Essex LPHs would stay as LPHs, even if the USN suddenly needed another 20 carriers. I don't think any CVLs or CVEs would be big enough to operate enough helicopters to prove the concept.

We're still needing A LOT of ships in this timeline's USN, but it's probable that France would greatly increase their fleet as well. It might be possible to arm-twist Canada to maintain an actual Navy with a couple of carriers. If Canada tried to follow the UK and go fully Red, the US would absolutely invade.




I think I'd stick with A-4s as the "fighters", but put a full dozen on the CVS.

The older fighters are possible for a short time, depends on just how quickly the front-line carriers get their Skyhawks. Skyhawk IOC was 1956, after all.

Could E-2s operate off the Essex-class?

Furies were a little faster than the A-4 at all altitudes, and were still in production in 1956 (the last fighter-versions delivered 1957, with the fighter-bomber versions last delivery May 1958).

Skyhawks were a very high-demand aircraft, among the aircraft it replaced were the "FB" versions of the F9F Panther & Cougar, the FJ-4B Fury, the F2H-2B Banshee, and the F4U-4/5s & AU-1s.

I was thinking about ASW-CAP aircraft for ~ 1960 to around 1968 or so. By then one of the proposed naval Northrop fighters (most likely the N156D (single-seat) and N156B (2-seat) offered to Australia for HMAS Melbourne in 1965) could be entering production.

Which reminds me - Melbourne sailed for Australia in March 1956 - just before the UK's Red Revolution.
Without the RN to help protect Australia from external threats in the late 1950s & Red Indonesia etc in the 1960s, I can see HMAS Sydney getting her historically-cancelled modernization*, to be started in 1958+ rather than entering reserve then converting to troop transport in 1962.


* Originally to be started in the UK after Melbourne reached Australia, no possibility in our A/H so they would turn to the US for technical help here.

Canada would Likely have still helped the UN with Suez (HMCS Magnificent delivered vehicles and troops to the UN force in Port Said in 1956), and would then pacify the new Red UK leadership long enough to take delivery of HMCS Bonaventure in January 1957, while finding a way to hold Maggie in Canada instead of giving her back to the UK in June 1957.
That would leave Canada in the same situation as Australia - modernizing Maggie at the same time and to a similar design as Sydney would work here.

 

[Martes]

I could see Red UK developing a supersonic VSTOL fighter around BS100, probably, but I see the US struggling without some significant espionage.

Pegasus first ran in 1959, BS100 in 1960. Both after our POD.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/warsaw-pact-britain-naval-strategy-and-other-considerations.45194/post-753584

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/warsaw-pact-britain-naval-strategy-and-other-considerations.45194/post-753707

IIRC it was more or less decided that P.1154 goes ahead in Britain and the US opts for joint development of Convair 200 with West Germany.

 

[Martes]

Canada would Likely have still helped the UN with Suez (HMCS Magnificent delivered vehicles and troops to the UN force in Port Said in 1956), and would then pacify the new Red UK leadership long enough to take delivery of HMCS Bonaventure in January 1957, while finding a way to hold Maggie in Canada instead of giving her back to the UK in June 1957.

The way I imagined it Canada goes under the US immediately, the moment the switch becomes public, probably under a threat of invasion. I can't see the US being subtle at that moment at all, and they can't allow even a chance to deploy British/Soviet nukes on Canada's territory, practically in DC backyard. There would be a crazy CIA rush to determine that they are not there already and probably a coastal blockade from both sides, an enormous navy operation.

Australia, on the other hand, has several years to maneuver and wiggle itself out of the direct taking sides, and would be heavily wooed by both blocs. Still eventually ends up Blue, I suppose.

 

[Martes]

​

A totally random auto-generated civilian traffic.
It seems the game knows something.

 

[Scott Kenny]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/warsaw-pact-britain-naval-strategy-and-other-considerations.45194/post-753584

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/warsaw-pact-britain-naval-strategy-and-other-considerations.45194/post-753707

IIRC it was more or less decided that P.1154 goes ahead in Britain and the US opts for joint development of Convair 200 with West Germany.

Which is still stuck with a large volume taken up by lift engines that could be used for fuel/range, plus the dead weight of lift engines hurting performance.

Pegasus/BS100 has the advantage of simplicity and zero dead weight in forward flight, at the cost of a physically bigger base engine. Pegasus has a 48" diameter (think that's total engine, not fan diameter), while BS100 has a 52" fan.

IIC, much of the reason to use lift engines was because you only had the cruise engine(s) exhaust at the back and needed some type lift forward. If/when someone has the eureka moment of using the fan thrust to provide the forward lift instead of lift engines, you can get a much better aircraft.

Furies were a little faster than the A-4 at all altitudes, and were still in production in 1956 (the last fighter-versions delivered 1957, with the fighter-bomber versions last delivery May 1958).

Skyhawks were a very high-demand aircraft, among the aircraft it replaced were the "FB" versions of the F9F Panther & Cougar, the FJ-4B Fury, the F2H-2B Banshee, and the F4U-4/5s & AU-1s.

I was thinking about ASW-CAP aircraft for ~ 1960 to around 1968 or so. By then one of the proposed naval Northrop fighters (most likely the N156D (single-seat) and N156B (2-seat) offered to Australia for HMAS Melbourne in 1965) could be entering production.

Holy crap! Okay, I can definitely see using Furies at the start instead of radar-equipped A-4s.

Call it ~8x Furies and ~8x night fighters in that case, changing to 12x radar-equipped A-4s once the front line fighter-bomber squadrons all got their Scooters (mid 1960s?).

I found pictures of Tracer/Tracker/Traders on an angled-deck Essex, so we can definitely use those through the 1960s and maybe into the mid-1970s.

Could Hawkeyes and Grayhounds operate off the Essex class, or do we need to look at a turboprop conversion of Tracker/Tracer/Trader? Or a Sea King AEW?

 

[Martes]

Which is still stuck with a large volume taken up by lift engines that could be used for fuel/range, plus the dead weight of lift engines hurting performance.

Pegasus/BS100 has the advantage of simplicity and zero dead weight in forward flight, at the cost of a physically bigger base engine. Pegasus has a 48" diameter (think that's total engine, not fan diameter), while BS100 has a 52" fan.

IIC, much of the reason to use lift engines was because you only had the cruise engine(s) exhaust at the back and needed some type lift forward. If/when someone has the eureka moment of using the fan thrust to provide the forward lift instead of lift engines, you can get a much better aircraft.

The problem, as I see it here, is that this approach mixes the benefit of a hindsight and underestimates the political climate. So I am not sure we can be confident that the Pegasus concept would impress the US planners, let alone manufacturers sufficiently to blindly copy it (I am not even sure the AV-8 engines were ever produced in the US - correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears they were all Rolls-Royce production).

Pegasus was invented by a French engineer, whose idea was rejected in France, so he brought it to Britain, and did it just around the side switch, so there is a decent chance he never made it out - it was outlined here before.

With this background I see it much more probable there would be a scramble for a local VSTOL solution with the emphasis to produce a supersonic fighter, which would be superior to the Harrier and ideally faster than 1154, and this would happen only after first Harrier-carrying ships would appear in service and would be observed by US.

Unless I miss anything, our candidates are either Convair 200 or Rockwell SFV-12. Essexes, being quite large, can easily carry complements of either of them.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The problem, as I see it here, is that this approach mixes the benefit of a hindsight and underestimates the political climate. So I am not sure we can be confident that the Pegasus concept would impress the US planners, let alone manufacturers sufficiently to blindly copy it (I am not even sure the AV-8 engines were ever produced in the US - correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears they were all Rolls-Royce production).

Pegasus was invented by a French engineer, whose idea was rejected in France, so he brought it to Britain, and did it just around the side switch, so there is a decent chance he never made it out - it was outlined here before.

Don't know about engines production location, but if that French engineer went to the US because he had a little advance warning on the politics leaning towards the switch it'd work out.

With this background I see it much more probable there would be a scramble for a local VSTOL solution with the emphasis to produce a supersonic fighter, which would be superior to the Harrier and ideally faster than 1154, and this would happen only after first Harrier-carrying ships would appear in service and would be observed by US.

Agreed here, but if the Harriers are observed, the US could see how the nozzles worked.

Unless I miss anything, our candidates are either Convair 200 or Rockwell SFV-12. Essexes, being quite large, can easily carry complements of either of them.

And the Rockwell XFV-12 had issues.

 

[Martes]

Don't know about engines production location, but if that French engineer went to the US because he had a little advance warning on the politics leaning towards the switch it'd work out.

A bit too much if here, and he would've been very likely watched by Mi-5 anyway. He was quite happily employed at Bristol Engines, all that.

Unable to interest the French government or industry in the idea, in 1955 Wibault submitted it to the NATO Mutual Weapons Development Programme and was subsequently introduced to Stanley Hooker who was then technical director of Bristol Engines.[12] Soon Wibault agreed to work with Bristol, and they worked to lighten and simplify the engine design, leading to a new patent in 1957, jointly authored by Michel Wibault and Hooker’s assistant, Gordon Lewis.[1]

There was even a proposal in NATO archives, but would it be dug out? And when?

From what I read, American experience with the Harriers was surprisingly different than the British (American sources tend to say it was a very difficult aircraft to control, Brits write kind of the opposite, etc).

Basically, I see the following problems:

1) US requirements include supersonic speed, which Harrier is not capable of
2) US firms will likely exhaust ALL possible options before admitting they can't do their own VSTOL configuration and agree to copy a rival British (especially Red British, as they would see it) technology, even if they will have all the plans and a working engine available.
3) There would be insane amount of lobbying to force any of configurations developed during 2)
4) I am not sure if I ever saw the American military-industrial complex looking for cheap and effective solutions if they could rather pull off complex and overwhelming.

Agreed here, but if the Harriers are observed, the US could see how the nozzles worked.

Yes, but IRL they had real Harriers and still everybody ended up with F-35B.

BTW, why not assume some kind of proto-35B, non-stealth, but with similar engine configuration? Although, I must admit, I already grew accustomed to the image of Convair 200 appearing ITTL. Secondary engine weight on the Convair 200 may be compensated by using additional fuel tanks and catapult launch.

 

[BlackBat242]

I found pictures of Tracer/Tracker/Traders on an angled-deck Essex, so we can definitely use those through the 1960s and maybe into the mid-1970s.

Could Hawkeyes and Grayhounds operate off the Essex class, or do we need to look at a turboprop conversion of Tracker/Tracer/Trader? Or a Sea King AEW?

The ASW angled-deck Essexes (with their H-8 hydraulic catapults) ran a mostly-Tracker air wing, with helos, A-4s, and sometimes a Tracer as well.

The E-2 Hawkeye was originally designed to operate from the Essex class (most likely the steam cat-equipped 7), but did not actually do so. The E-2's radome can retract two feet to fit in the 17'6" hangars of the Essex & Midway class carriers.

I do not know if the S-3 Viking could operate from Essexes - most likely they could from the steam cat-equipped 7.


If the ASW Essexes were kept longer then a new S-2/E-1 model with turboprops (most likely T53s, or T55s, or T58s, or PT6s, or Garrett TPE-331s) sometime in the late 1960s or early 1970s, along with newer more-capable & lighter avionics.

 

[Scott Kenny]

A bit too much if here, and he would've been very likely watched by Mi-5 anyway. He was quite happily employed at Bristol Engines, all that.

Unable to interest the French government or industry in the idea, in 1955 Wibault submitted it to the NATO Mutual Weapons Development Programme and was subsequently introduced to Stanley Hooker who was then technical director of Bristol Engines.[12] Soon Wibault agreed to work with Bristol, and they worked to lighten and simplify the engine design, leading to a new patent in 1957, jointly authored by Michel Wibault and Hooker’s assistant, Gordon Lewis.[1]

Okay, so he was already in the UK at least a year before the flip. That would be harder to "alert" him to...

From what I read, American experience with the Harriers was surprisingly different than the British (American sources tend to say it was a very difficult aircraft to control, Brits write kind of the opposite, etc).

I suspect that the Americans are complaining about how hard it is to control in the hover and transition, while the Brits are writing about how it flies.

Roommate/coworker of mine before I went in the Navy was a Harrier mechanic, he said the takeoff and especially landing were complex, but they flew very well. His squadron had a team of pilots that usually rocked the contests, planting a dumb iron bomb within feet of target and harassing the Top Gun students air-to-air.

Basically, I see the following problems:

1) US requirements include supersonic speed, which Harrier is not capable of
2) US firms will likely exhaust ALL possible options before admitting they can't do their own VSTOL configuration and agree to copy a rival British (especially Red British, as they would see it) technology, even if they will have all the plans and a working engine available.
3) There would be insane amount of lobbying to force any of configurations developed during 2)
4) I am not sure if I ever saw the American military-industrial complex looking for cheap and effective solutions if they could rather pull off complex and overwhelming.

Well, P1127 Kestrel/Harrier isn't capable of supersonic speed, but P1154 Harrier would be. And I'm assuming that Red UK would go straight for P1154.

The big issue with lift jets is the triple-whammy of

1) loss of fuselage volume for fuel, taken up by lift jets;​

2) the extra fuel burned by the lift turbojets at takeoff (and landing); and​

3) the dead weight of the lift engines.​

Yes, but IRL they had real Harriers and still everybody ended up with F-35B.

Because nobody pushed to a supersonic Harrier, or built an experimental plane powered by BS100.

Though the need for weapons bays on the aircraft CG mean a Harrier solution has a LOT of mid-body volume which wreaks havoc on your area ruling; while the F-35B LiftFan allows you to put the LiftFan forward of CG, the weapons bays on the CG and the engine aft of CG.

BTW, why not assume some kind of proto-35B, non-stealth, but with similar engine configuration? Although, I must admit, I already grew accustomed to the image of Convair 200 appearing ITTL. Secondary engine weight on the Convair 200 may be compensated by using additional fuel tanks and catapult launch.

If you're catapult launching Convair 200s, why do they have lift engines at all?

Plus, I'm leaning more towards a 3-nozzle option and a design layout like the P1214 or P1216.