You have 40-ish million pounds to build a CV for the RN early 60s...what does it look like?

[bobtdwarf]

Not something I think fits in the alt-F11 thread but related to it, kind of. The RN is going to spend 16 million rebuilding Eagle, picking Tiger saves about 20-25 million over F-4 combine those two figures as your budget to build a new carrier with a 30 year hull life rather than spending 16 of it on a ten year hull life rebuild. But what would you get for that amount of money?

Try to keep it a size that could operate Phantom down the road, at least to cross deck with the USN. We can assume that some work would be done to Eagle along the lines of Centaur; so adding steam cats and updating shops to handle existing aircraft.

 

[zen]

Final stages of Medium Fleet Carrier seem to resolve at 45,000tons.

Hybrid GWS-CV at 30,000tons still on the books 1960.

The 42,000ton study at the lower end of trade off assessments was close at £45 million circa 1960.
This designed to start life with N/A.39 Buccaneers as it's metric and later replaced with OR.346.

Some 31 Buccaneers or 18 OR.346 aircraft and 2 Helicopters.

Two BS6 225ft stroke catapults and four wires for DA arresting engines.
Also one Tartar-type launcher and Type 985 radar.
ADA that led to ADAWS.

LWL 720ft, LFD 770ft
BWL 112ft, WFD ....I cannot remember
3 shafts with 135,000shp, 45,000sho per shaft.
31kts d&d

So the radar saga is unavoidable unless you add in ASWRE C-band 3D set.
The Tartar-type launcher is likely a stand in for Sea Dart at this early NMBR.11 stage.
Again if ASWRE C-band then DDG effort is slightly more achievable and might permit offloading the NMBR.11 SAM System.

Or alternatively.....
Civil Lord of Admiralty proposal was 40,000tons 24 fast jets and a cost of £40 Million.

 

[Grey Havoc]

For the PDMS, are we thinking a naval version BAC PT428 or the Sea Mauler here?

 

[H_K]

picking Tiger saves about 20-25 million over F-4

Why pick Tiger over the F-8 Crusader?

Are you envisioning a 2-type air group with Buccaneers for strike in addition to the fighter component? What size air group do you need? Gannet AEW?

(Keeping in mind Clemenceau could operate ~32 F-8 sized fast jets plus a few helos)

 

[bobtdwarf]

picking Tiger saves about 20-25 million over F-4

Why pick Tiger over the F-8 Crusader?

Are you envisioning a 2-type air group with Buccaneers for strike in addition to the fighter component? What size air group do you need? Gannet AEW?

(Keeping in mind Clemenceau could operate ~32 F-8 sized fast jets plus a few helos)

A 98-L style SuperTiger with the fold at the control surface break illustrated allows four across storage in an Audacious and will fit down the lifts without a swing nose. However if you add the swing nose and do a total conversion of the air group on an Audacious we are talking about a 62 A/C air group, and 30 plus the AEW and helicopters on Hermes.

Purchase price of a Tiger/SuperTiger is about $400k LESS than an F-8

 

[bobtdwarf]

Final stages of Medium Fleet Carrier seem to resolve at 45,000tons.

Hybrid GWS-CV at 30,000tons still on the books 1960.

The 42,000ton study at the lower end of trade off assessments was close at £45 million circa 1960.
This designed to start life with N/A.39 Buccaneers as it's metric and later replaced with OR.346.

Some 31 Buccaneers or 18 OR.346 aircraft and 2 Helicopters.

Two BS6 225ft stroke catapults and four wires for DA arresting engines.
Also one Tartar-type launcher and Type 985 radar.
ADA that led to ADAWS.

LWL 720ft, LFD 770ft
BWL 112ft, WFD ....I cannot remember
3 shafts with 135,000shp, 45,000sho per shaft.
31kts d&d

So the radar saga is unavoidable unless you add in ASWRE C-band 3D set.
The Tartar-type launcher is likely a stand in for Sea Dart at this early NMBR.11 stage.
Again if ASWRE C-band then DDG effort is slightly more achievable and might permit offloading the NMBR.11 SAM System.

Or alternatively.....
Civil Lord of Admiralty proposal was 40,000tons 24 fast jets and a cost of £40 Million.

the medium cv study that I am familiar with is one with 47 aircraft and was referred to as a 35k ton study, is the 45k one part of the same study and more capable? Could probably rob some cash from the Ark refit that is NOT going to take place here so a max of maybe 50 mil could be our top end on the overall construction budget.

 

[Pioneer]

Interesting scenario bontdwarf
A few questions if I could please....

a/ would one spend so much money on designing and building all but one carrier?

b/

Try to keep it a size that could operate Phantom down the road

Granted, almost everything and everyone leads to the ubiquitous F-4 Phantom II. If the Phantom II was to be the pinnacle of the Royal Navy, is there some serious weight reductions the RN could stipulate in it's derivative of the F-4 Phantom II? (Granted such engineering could possibly lead to a more costly F-4 Phantom II, due to it's no standard manufacturing, but it's performance from such a ship could only be beneficial right?.....)

c/

Also one Tartar-type launcher and Type 985 radar.
ADA that led to ADAWS.

Zen, I fully appreciate and endorse your inclusion of a self-contributing area defence SAM system incorporated into an aircraft carrier, regardless of the argument about 'the principle role and mission of the ship'; 'space used which could be better employed by aircraft'; etc.... I think the Falklands War, alas sometime in this scenarios future, emphasised the reality of leakers getting through both outer and inner defensive screening escorts....

I also recall that with the development of the GWS.30 Sea Dart system, a "A 1968 study suggested Sea Dart would have the same capability as eight F-4 Phantoms on patrol." Which I think is an interesting operational figure when one considers such a carrier aircraft complement size and the amount of aviation fuel bunkerage saved, aircraft maintenance, etc....
(Source: Friedman, Norman (2012). British Destroyers & Frigates: The Second World War & After. Seaforth Publishing.)

I also support your notion of your employment of the RIM-24 Tarter as either

a stand in for Sea Dart

or as a permanent system of the carrier.
Can I enquire whether you envisage a single twin arm launcher and magazine like the Mk10 or would you spread the defence (and minimise vulnerability) of the carrier out with say two single Mk22 or Mk13 launchers? (I'm guessing one Mk10 launcher, if you're adamant about facilitating the later Sea Dart launcher and magazine....)

d/

What size air group do you need? Gannet AEW?

H_K, IMO, I'd definitely pushing for AEW capability, whether it was Gannet AEW or Grumman E-1B Tracer.

e/ How many aircraft lifts are we talking? Hopefully the RN would adopt USN practice of deck-edge lifts to not impair deck operation....

I'm looking forward to some potential art work for this design!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[bobtdwarf]

Interesting scenario bontdwarf
A few questions if I could please....

a/ would one spend so much money on designing and building all but one carrier?

b/

Try to keep it a size that could operate Phantom down the road

Granted, almost everything and everyone leads to the ubiquitous F-4 Phantom II. If the Phantom II was to be the pinnacle of the Royal Navy, is there some serious weight reductions the RN could stipulate in it's derivative of the F-4 Phantom II? (Granted such engineering could possibly lead to a more costly F-4 Phantom II, due to it's no standard manufacturing, but it's performance from such a ship could only be beneficial right?.....)

c/

Also one Tartar-type launcher and Type 985 radar.
ADA that led to ADAWS.

Zen, I fully appreciate and endorse your inclusion of a self-contributing area defence SAM system incorporated into an aircraft carrier, regardless of the argument about 'the principle role and mission of the ship'; 'space used which could be better employed by aircraft'; etc.... I think the Falklands War, alas sometime in this scenarios future, emphasised the reality of leakers getting through both outer and inner defensive screening escorts....

I also recall that with the development of the GWS.30 Sea Dart system, a "A 1968 study suggested Sea Dart would have the same capability as eight F-4 Phantoms on patrol." Which I think is an interesting operational figure when one considers such a carrier aircraft complement size and the amount of aviation fuel bunkerage saved, aircraft maintenance, etc....
(Source: Friedman, Norman (2012). British Destroyers & Frigates: The Second World War & After. Seaforth Publishing.)

I also support your notion of your employment of the RIM-24 Tarter as either

a stand in for Sea Dart

or as a permanent system of the carrier.
Can I enquire whether you envisage a single twin arm launcher and magazine like the Mk10 or would you spread the defence (and minimise vulnerability) of the carrier out with say two single Mk22 or Mk13 launchers? (I'm guessing one Mk10 launcher, if you're admit about facilitating the later Sea Dart launcher and magazine....)

d/

What size air group do you need? Gannet AEW?

H_K, IMO, I'd definitely pushing for AEW capability, whether it was Gannet AEW or Grumman E-1B Tracer.

e/ How many aircraft lifts are we talking? Hopefully the RN would adopt USN practice of deck-edge lifts to not impair deck operation....

I'm looking forward to some potential art work for this design!!

Regards
Pioneer

Good questions. We can assume that the plan would be to at least replace the two Audacious class; will that actually happen we don't know. Not even saying that THIS plan would occur, but I am curious what might be possible if some staffers ran the numbers and said to themselves "at this point in history we can really afford either the aircraft or the carrier, not quite both". Certainly Britain would make some input on what they would like to see in a future model, and there is all the reasons that the USN will have its own reasons for it and that is going to lead to the F-4L.

The RAF will still buy the Phantom but will use Avons not Speys which will be way cheaper and the RN having a new carrier with a larger flight deck means they can buy the L when it comes out for much cheaper and without Britain footing the whole development bill. In practical terms and if what I have gathered over the years that takes the costs from the close to $4 million a unit the UK paid for their phantoms to about $2 million the USN was paying. Edit: Yeah you NEED AEW or it is almost not worth doing.

 

[zen]

is the 45k one part of the same study and more capable?

It seems a sort of notional concept in planning terms prior to the CVA-01 process starting up.
More likely the 35kton version underwent growth to that figure in estimates as the new N/A.39 Buccaneer formed up on various metrics.
I'm not certain if this is the Medium Fleet Carrier .....
--------

Can I enquire whether you envisage a single twin arm launcher and magazine like the Mk10 or would you spread the defence (and minimise vulnerability) of the carrier out with say two single Mk22 or Mk13 launchers? (I'm guessing one Mk10 launcher, if you're admit about facilitating the later Sea Dart launcher and magazine....)

That's a tough question.
For the times the 42Kton option is likely a single twin arm launcher, but arguably in cost and military analysis it would be more effective to spread as many SAM systems as possible throughout the fleet.

Reccal though that Tartar is just a administrative stand in for comparison purposes as the actual system intended would meet NMBR.11. As such it's just what is available to judge cost/benefits in various sizes of carrier and airwing.

I've argued elsewhere that alternatives could meet NMBR.11.
‐------
Use of Avons would raise interesting options. But arguably higher power Sapphires could save AS from the disaster of '57.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

...The RN is going to spend 16 million rebuilding Eagle,...

Is £16 million the estimated cost of the refit? The final cost was £31 million which as far as I know was the estimated cost of a new ship with the same capabilities. That would give you £50-55 million to "play with".

Except...

...picking Tiger saves about 20-25 million over F-4 combine those two figures as your budget to build a new carrier with a 30 year hull life rather than spending 16 of it on a ten year hull life rebuild. But what would you get for that amount of money?

Development of the F-4K didn't begin until 1964, which reduces the amount of money available in the early 1960s to £31 million.

The RAF will still buy the Phantom but will use Avons not Speys which will be way cheaper and the RN having a new carrier with a larger flight deck means they can buy the L when it comes out for much cheaper and without Britain footing the whole development bill. In practical terms and if what I have gathered over the years that takes the costs from the close to $4 million a unit the UK paid for their phantoms to about $2 million the USN was paying. Edit: Yeah you NEED AEW or it is almost not worth doing.

If you're going to do that, have the RAF buy Phantoms with the bare minimum of changes from the USAF version. That is the changes needed to make the aircraft fit the RAF's requirements. That includes keeping the GE J79 engines. (I wrote the USAF version because the RAF Phantom will probably be based on the F-4C rather than the F-4B.)

I'm guessing that in your timeline the sequence of events is along these lines.

• Development of the "F-11K" begins in 1964 which in the "real world" was when development of the F-4K began.
• Meanwhile, development of the P.1154 still begins in 1962 and it's an all-RAF aircraft from the start "this version of history".
• However, being an all-RAF aircraft from the start isn't enough to save it from cancellation along with the HS.681 and TSR.2 in favour of the Phantom, Hercules and F-111 respectively.
• At this point the RAF might study buying Phantoms with British engines but it would conclude that any improvement in performance wasn't worth the increased cost. As far as I know the RAF also considered buying C-130Ks fitted with Tynes and concluded that the improvement in performance over the original GE T56s wasn't worth the increased cost.

The R&D cost of the Spey-Phantom was expected to cost £50 million (including £25 million for the engines) and actually cost about £100 million (including £50 million for the engines). Please note that these aren't the exact figures, I've rounded to the nearest 10 million. Please also note that I can't quote the source, because the notes that I made didn't include the book that I wrote them from or its author.

An Avon-Phantom might not cost as much to develop as the Spey-Phantom (e.g. no modifications to the airframe to make it capable of operating from RN aircraft carriers) but it would be more expensive to develop than the Phantom with it's original engine.

The British Phantom cost more to build because it was a non-standard aircraft. That was in part because of the change of engine and the necessary changes to the airframe needed to make it capable of operating from RN aircraft carriers. It was also because some of the airframe and some of its avionics were built in the UK.

I'd have all the the aircraft built in America. However, there is a trade off between a cheaper aircraft and the loss of jobs in the areas where the British-built components of the aircraft were manufactured. On the other hand HMG would be able to use some of the money saved to place different contracts with the British firms that built the engines, some of the airframe and some of the avionics.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Purchase price of a Tiger/Super Tiger is about $400k LESS than an F-8.

When? And how much did each aircraft cost?

According to my Putnams US Naval Aircraft since 1911 production of the F-11 ended in December 1958 after 199 aircraft had been built. Meanwhile (according to Norman Polmar's "World Combat Aircraft Directory") 1,261 Crusaders were built 1954-65 of which 448 were remanufactured 1965-70. Furthermore, according to Wikipedia (sorry) approximately 5,000 Phantoms were built 1959-79 by McDonnell.

The F-11 would have been out of production for over half-a-decade by the time the Tiger is selected instead of the F-4K and the costs associated with re-starting production of the aircraft might make it as expensive if not more expensive than the Crusader or even the Phantom.

Plus it's likely that the RN would want the aircraft to be fitted with up-to-date advanced avionics and be capable of firing Firestreak and Red Top AAMs which would make it more expensive. I suspect that the RN would want a more modern engine than the Wright J65 which probably means the Spey which would make it more expensive. I also suspect that HMG would want some of the airframe and some of the avionics built in the UK which would push up the cost as well. However, on the bright side it wouldn't be a non-standard aircraft because it had been out of production for the USN since 1958.

I think the disadvantages are going to outweigh the advantages. However, if you are going to do this have the F-11 built under licence in the UK as it won't cost more in absolute terms and it will save some Dollars. There is a precedent for this with the Sikorsky helicopters built under licence by Westland. Although this is likely to be no cheaper or more expensive than an indigenous design.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Not something I think fits in the alt-F11 thread but related to it, kind of. The RN is going to spend 16 million rebuilding Eagle, picking Tiger saves about 20-25 million over F-4 combine those two figures as your budget to build a new carrier with a 30 year hull life rather than spending 16 of it on a ten year hull life rebuild. But what would you get for that amount of money?

I'm guessing that:

• One ship is built circa 1959-64 instead of Eagle's 1959-64 refit.
• A second ship is built in the second half of the 1960s instead of "Phantomising" Ark Royal.
• A third ship is built between the late 1960s and early 1970s to replace Hermes and Victorious which in common with our timeline would not be "Phantomised".
• The third ship would have been built instead of Bristol and she would have been built in the same yard as Bristol provided that the slipway was big enough.
• Some of the money that pays for the third ship would have come from not converting Hermes to a commando carrier as Albion is run on instead.
• Some of the money that pays for these ships comes from not converting Blake and Tiger into helicopter cruisers.
• The money spent on the Invincible class between the early 1970s and middle 1980s is used to build 2 or 3 commando carriers to replace Albion and Bulwark. Any money left after that would be used to buy more destroyers, frigates and Hunt class MCMVs.

Try to keep it a size that could operate Phantom down the road, at least to cross deck with the USN. We can assume that some work would be done to Eagle along the lines of Centaur; so adding steam cats and updating shops to handle existing aircraft.

I'm going to comment on this in reverse order.

I think it's either refit Eagle 1959-64 to the same standard as the "real world" or don't refit it at all because my interpretation of the Opening Post is that the new carrier replaces Eagle in 1964 and is paid for with the money spent on Eagle 1959-64.

It took 2 years to fit steam catapults to Centaur which means that the RN would only get 3 years service out of the ship. Plus it might take more than 2 years to fit Eagle with steam catapults as refits of RN ships in the 1950s and 1960s had a habit of going way over time (and cost). If Eagle is going to be in service for longer than that then the RN will want BS.5 catapults instead of BS.4s, a fully angled flight deck and upgraded electronics, i.e. a Type 984 radar, ADA and DPT which puts us back to "square one" that is a refitted ship that costs as much as a new ship with the same characteristics.

If you want it to be able to operate the Phantom why not have the Phantom in the first place instead of the F-11? It's probably cheaper in the long term.

As @zen wrote in Post 2 we're probably going to get a Phantom capable ship completed in 1964, but it would be "more Phantom capable" than Ark Royal in 1970 due to having longer catapults. It's probably going to have longer lifts than Ark Royal and Eagle too.

I suspect that that the changes needed to make the Phantom capable of operating from these ships will be less than the changes needed to make it capable of operating from Ark Royal, Eagle and Hermes. E.g. there would be no need for the folding nose, longer nose wheel and no need to reposition the engines as I believe the Spey engine had a higher "angle-of-attack" than the original J79. However, I think it would still have Speys instead of J79s and part of the fuselage and some of the electronics would be built in the UK instead of the USA.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Use of Avons would raise interesting options. But arguably higher power Sapphires could save AS from the disaster of '57.

For what it's worth the Wright J65 that powered the F-11 was a development of the Sapphire.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Use of Avons would raise interesting options. But arguably higher power Sapphires could save AS from the disaster of '57.

Are you referring to the 1957 Defence Review or HMG's decision to cancel the Sapphire engines that were to power the Victor Mk 2?

If that's the case might the Victor Mk 2 have entered service sooner with more of the 84 production aircraft built to Mk 2 standard instead of the "real world's" 50 Mk 1s and 34 Mk 2s? It might have saved some or all of the last 25 aircraft from cancellation due to being too far advanced for cancellation to be economical.

On the other hand what does that do to the Conway? In the "real world" it was fitted to 37 Boeing 707s, 32 DC-8s and 54 VC.10s was well as 34 Victors. Having the Victors fitted with Sapphires reduces the production from 157 aircraft's worth to 123 which is 22% less.

 

[Pioneer]

When speaking of the Grumman F11 Tiger are we referring to the legacy F11F Tiger or the Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger?

Yes, as much as I see the intended merit of fitting the Spey turbofan to the British F-4 Phantom II's, I have to admit, for the time, engineering effort and cost, was it really necessary and practical?

Can I enquire as to what 'NMBR.11' denotes please?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

picking Tiger saves about 20-25 million over F-4

Why pick Tiger over the F-8 Crusader?

Are you envisioning a 2-type air group with Buccaneers for strike in addition to the fighter component? What size air group do you need? Gannet AEW?

(Keeping in mind Clemenceau could operate ~32 F-8 sized fast jets plus a few helos)

A 98-L style SuperTiger with the fold at the control surface break illustrated allows four across storage in an Audacious and will fit down the lifts without a swing nose. However if you add the swing nose and do a total conversion of the air group on an Audacious we are talking about a 62 A/C air group, and 30 plus the AEW and helicopters on Hermes.

For what it's worth.

According to the Standard Aircraft Characteristics booklets for the F-8C and F-11A published in July 1967...

Wingspans:​

31ft 7.5in which folded to 27ft 4in for the F-11A​

35ft 8in which folded to 22ft 6in for the F-8C​

The "on the ground" lengths were:​

44ft 10.75 in for a F-11A​

55ft 3.2in for a F-8C​

"Spotting" on a CVA-19 class aircraft carrier was:​

80 aircraft (45 flight deck and 35 hangar) for a F-11A​

81 aircraft (43 flight deck and 38 hangar) for a F-8C​

 

[Dilandu]

What about some radical ideas? A bunch of small, gas turbine powered carriers with fuel-air catapults? Would be much cheaper in service than steam turbine ones, while still be able to launch heavy planes.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

When speaking of the Grumman F11 Tiger are we referring to the legacy F11F Tiger or the Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger?

That's a point.

Unfortunately, the only information that I have on the F11F-1F Super Tiger is the Wikipedia entry. According to that:

• It had a GE J79 engine (like the Phantom) and Avon powered versions were proposed.
• It's "in the air length" was 48ft 9in and the "in the air length" of the F-11A was 44ft 1.5" so it's "on the ground" length would probably have been 4 to 4.5 feet longer as well. (The "in the air length" of the F-8C was 54ft 2.75".)
• The wingspan of the F11F-1F Super Tiger was 48ft 9in which I suspect is the 31ft 7.5in of the F-11A rounded up to the nearest inch and based on that I think the folded length would have been the same as a F-11A which was 27ft 4in.

Yes, as much as I see the intended merit of fitting the Spey turbofan to the British F-4 Phantom II's, I have to admit, for the time, engineering effort and cost, was it really necessary and practical?

I don't know.

However, if it wasn't necessary and practical to make the Phantom operate from the existing British aircraft carriers there are still the changes that were made to the airframe which as far as I know were necessary. If the source I've been quoting is correct they accounted for half the R&D cost of the F-4K and for some of the extra production cost.

For what it's worth the British Phantom was so expensive to develop and build that it would probably have cost no more to have it built under licence in the UK. The Japanese bought 138 Phantoms under licence by Mitsubishi which is about 20% less than the 170 Phantoms built by McDonnell for the RAF and RN.

 

[zen]

On Sapphire and Armstrong Siddeley. Loss of the supersonic recce bomber and 1957 spelt the end of their efforts. Which had focused on improved turbojets of higher supersonic performance.
I'm starting to suspect they were further along than RR. But we all focus on RR offerings possibly because we've all seen more documents on them.

Bear in mind F4 origins included design around J65 engines.....

F11 with improved Sapphires ought to perform well and requires less changes.

F4K without Spey is possible on such a new carrier, using BS mk6 catapults and DA arrestor gear.

However I have dealt elsewhere with the concept of an Avon powered F8.

NMBR.11 is the requirement for tenders to meet a Tartar successor self defence SAM system. SIGS is worked around this in the UK and CF.299 ultimately 'won' that with a trade off on minimum range to maximum range enhancement.

42Kton study CV would be theoretically capable of limited TFX (F111B) operations. Thus existing F4 with J79 is sufficient and affordable and aircraft like F8 and F11 are operable throughout a wide range of conditions.

 

[bobtdwarf]

When speaking of the Grumman F11 Tiger are we referring to the legacy F11F Tiger or the Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger?

Yes, as much as I see the intended merit of fitting the Spey turbofan to the British F-4 Phantom II's, I have to admit, for the time, engineering effort and cost, was it really necessary and practical?

Can I enquire as to what 'NMBR.11' denotes please?

Regards
Pioneer

we are talking about some variant of the Super as we have been kicking around in the Alt Tiger thread though we do not have to use as the basis of the discussion the custom version I came up with and started the thread with as the 98-L version that was an official Grumman design works and if I had access to a decent drawing of it I would not have bothered bashing together the one I did.

Going the historic route the RN committed themselves to a set of hulls that had a bit over 10 years of life and to spending a bunch of cash modifying an aircraft to fit on them, with no fall back if the fickle finger of fate poked their pint. Securing the ship first ensures a future.

 

[bobtdwarf]

When speaking of the Grumman F11 Tiger are we referring to the legacy F11F Tiger or the Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger?

That's a point.

Unfortunately, the only information that I have on the F11F-1F Super Tiger is the Wikipedia entry. According to that:

• It had a GE J79 engine (like the Phantom) and Avon powered versions were proposed.
• It's "in the air length" was 48ft 9in and the "in the air length" of the F-11A was 44ft 1.5" so it's "on the ground" length would probably have been 4 to 4.5 feet longer as well. (The "in the air length" of the F-8C was 54ft 2.75".)
• The wingspan of the F11F-1F Super Tiger was 48ft 9in which I suspect is the 31ft 7.5in of the F-11A rounded up to the nearest inch and based on that I think the folded length would have been the same as a F-11A which was 27ft 4in.

Yes, as much as I see the intended merit of fitting the Spey turbofan to the British F-4 Phantom II's, I have to admit, for the time, engineering effort and cost, was it really necessary and practical?

I don't know.

However, if it wasn't necessary and practical to make the Phantom operate from the existing British aircraft carriers there are still the changes that were made to the airframe which as far as I know were necessary. If the source I've been quoting is correct they accounted for half the R&D cost of the F-4K and for some of the extra production cost.

For what it's worth the British Phantom was so expensive to develop and build that it would probably have cost no more to have it built under licence in the UK. The Japanese bought 138 Phantoms under licence by Mitsubishi which is about 20% less than the 170 Phantoms built by McDonnell for the RAF and RN.

You have a lot of questions, I will address them as I have time. This is a thread for an offshoot of the Alt-Tiger thread down the page, doesn't quite fit but is related to it; so some of your questions are already answered in that one. The question about costs between the two is based on the per unit cost paid by the Navy for each.. the F-8 was $1.3 mil a pop and the Tiger was dead on 900k and the Phantom was $2.2-2.6. The used F-8s the French bought were just under $900k, don't know if that included mods but Vought was flogging used units at IIRC $868k.

As to why would you swap in an Avon? Politics, they are going to want a percentage of local content and the Avon gives nearly identical performance in a very close to the same size unit with air flow requirements that would use the same inlets with little trouble. Swapping a J-65 with a J-79 in the #1 prototype SuperTiger did not require any major work, it was essentially an unmodified stock long nose Tiger... swapping an Avon would be just as easy given the J-65's roots.

Since I don't know what the cost difference is between a J-79 and an Avon or J-65 off the top of my head, nor do a lot of people on the board we generally don't factor them in but rather assume them... and there is substantial wiggle room in those numbers before a SuperTiger is not cost effective... and Grumman is ok with local production, and local production allows you to recover a good 20% of the outlay in taxes at the very least.

If you use the same swing nose trick on the K you get a super tiger that folds up to the same size as an A-4 and would use the same spot factor

 

[zen]

Odd I had a valuation of 0.55 million for a F8......

 

[Grey Havoc]

Odd I had a valuation of 0.55 million for a F8......

Was that related to the Shorts Brothers licence build proposal, I wonder.

 

[uk 75]

I am always puzzled when I read optimistic proposals for carrier aircraft that noone ever built or ordered.
The reality of 60s 70s naval airpower was the F4 Phantom and the Buccaneer S2 with good reason. They were the best aircraft available in the timescale.
VSTOL in the shape of Sea Harrier and Yaks of various marks don't really mature until Amraam and Sea Eagle arrive in the 90s.
Making do with Jaguar M, Crusader F8, Super Etendard or Skyhawk A4 is never going to get past even a fantasy Navy Board.
A carrier the size of Eagle with two cats is the bare minimum you can get away with. So we got Ark Royal until 1979.
Does the RN really want to operate big steam boiler ships (the only option for cats) beyond the mid 80s.
The Invincible class with their gas turbines and large ASW force of Seakings are what the RN needs to support NATO in the Eastern Atlantic.
Arguably simpler Invincibles (no Seadart) might have allowed for more than three to be built, ensuring two available at all times.
In a Harrierless world the Invincibles would have to rely on US or RAF airpower. So no Falklands Task Force.
If the RN had been able to build three Eagle class ships in the 50s instead of converting Victorious and finishing Hermes et al..Then like Clemenceau and Foch they could have lasted until the end of the Cold War as a coherent force.
By 1963 it is too late to build such ships.

 

[GK Dundas]

What about some radical ideas? A bunch of small, gas turbine powered carriers with fuel-air catapults? Would be much cheaper in service than steam turbine ones, while still be able to launch heavy planes.

The US tried Fuel air cats in the late 40s . Using AvGas . To put it mildly after that experience, they were delighted by the British developing the steam catapult.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Odd I had a valuation of 0.55 million for a F8......

could it be in pounds? There is a site on the web that lists costs including program fees and they had it at 1.3 mil... same site had the costs for the F-9 Cougar at 2 mil per unit

 

[Anderman]

In Combined cycle power plants the exhaust gases of a gas turbine are used to create steam for steam turbines. The gas leaving the gas turbine still have a temperature of 450 to 600 C that is enough to drive a rankine cycle steam turbine and should provide enought steam for a steam catapult.

 

[bobtdwarf]

I am always puzzled when I read optimistic proposals for carrier aircraft that noone ever built or ordered.
The reality of 60s 70s naval airpower was the F4 Phantom and the Buccaneer S2 with good reason. They were the best aircraft available in the timescale.
VSTOL in the shape of Sea Harrier and Yaks of various marks don't really mature until Amraam and Sea Eagle arrive in the 90s.
Making do with Jaguar M, Crusader F8, Super Etendard or Skyhawk A4 is never going to get past even a fantasy Navy Board.
A carrier the size of Eagle with two cats is the bare minimum you can get away with. So we got Ark Royal until 1979.
Does the RN really want to operate big steam boiler ships (the only option for cats) beyond the mid 80s.
The Invincible class with their gas turbines and large ASW force of Seakings are what the RN needs to support NATO in the Eastern Atlantic.
Arguably simpler Invincibles (no Seadart) might have allowed for more than three to be built, ensuring two available at all times.
In a Harrierless world the Invincibles would have to rely on US or RAF airpower. So no Falklands Task Force.
If the RN had been able to build three Eagle class ships in the 50s instead of converting Victorious and finishing Hermes et al..Then like Clemenceau and Foch they could have lasted until the end of the Cold War as a coherent force.
By 1963 it is too late to build such ships.

I agree that the F-4/Buccaneer combo is about the best you are going to see for the era.. thing is the RN only got to run it for 8-9 years. My thought is run the ST for 6-8 years while you build a new carrier that run mostly off the shelf F-4s for 30 years.

 

[bobtdwarf]

In Combined cycle power plants the exhaust gases of a gas turbine are used to create steam for steam turbines. The gas leaving the gas turbine still have a temperature of 450 to 600 C that is enough to drive a rankine cycle steam turbine and should provide enought steam for a steam catapult.

that would be interesting as part of a turbo-electric drive.

 

[uk 75]

I understand and appreciate the naval architecture side of your idea. CVA01 has been pawed and mauled by many.
I think Foch and Clemenceau show how two to three Eagle type carriers could have been in service in the 1960s and serve until the end of the Cold War and even a bit beyond.
The F4 (preferably an off the shelf version as close to the USN as possible) could easily have served for that time. But so too could the Buc S2 as it did in the RAF.
Foch and Clem got Crotale fitted in the 80s. I think Phalanx replacing Seacat in 1982 would do for the RN.
But please no paper airplanes.

 

[zen]

No paper airplanes just a paper carrier

 

[uk 75]

No offence but the paper airplanes have been to death on various threads.
By keeping some grounding in actual aircraft used by the RN the thread can as you say focus on the paper carrier.

 

[Cjc]

I am always puzzled when I read optimistic proposals for carrier aircraft that noone ever built or ordered.
The reality of 60s 70s naval airpower was the F4 Phantom and the Buccaneer S2 with good reason. They were the best aircraft available in the timescale.
VSTOL in the shape of Sea Harrier and Yaks of various marks don't really mature until Amraam and Sea Eagle arrive in the 90s.
Making do with Jaguar M, Crusader F8, Super Etendard or Skyhawk A4 is never going to get past even a fantasy Navy Board.
A carrier the size of Eagle with two cats is the bare minimum you can get away with. So we got Ark Royal until 1979.
Does the RN really want to operate big steam boiler ships (the only option for cats) beyond the mid 80s.
The Invincible class with their gas turbines and large ASW force of Seakings are what the RN needs to support NATO in the Eastern Atlantic.
Arguably simpler Invincibles (no Seadart) might have allowed for more than three to be built, ensuring two available at all times.
In a Harrierless world the Invincibles would have to rely on US or RAF airpower. So no Falklands Task Force.
If the RN had been able to build three Eagle class ships in the 50s instead of converting Victorious and finishing Hermes et al..Then like Clemenceau and Foch they could have lasted until the end of the Cold War as a coherent force.
By 1963 it is too late to build such ships.

Maby the royal navy should have realized that wile the f-4 was the best, being less ambitious means they don't end up with only the invincibles, but insted something much better.

 

[zen]

For the PDMS, are we thinking a naval version BAC PT428 or the Sea Mauler here?

Take your pick.
Per history it would be Sea Cat, then Sea Mauler then Sea Wolf through the design process. Mauler of course died for obvious reasons and took precious dollars in the process.
Opt for PT.428 and maybe it comes good, but that means no Sea Wolf as this would be rolled out across the Army and Navy and thus no Rapier either.
Opt for alternative SIGS-16.
Or Orange Nell.
Or Q-band Tartar.

 

[bobtdwarf]

No offence but the paper airplanes have been to death on various threads.
By keeping some grounding in actual aircraft used by the RN the thread can as you say focus on the paper carrier.

could stand pat on the air group you got until '64-'66 and only do the steam cats on Eagle (jumbo Centaur), and put it all in on a new CV. Timeline doesn't match up is the problem, so you have to look at an alternative to the Ark rebuild where it does, and that is going to get into the paper planes. At least Grumman kept the jigs and stuff for the Tiger around into the mid 60's

 

[Grey Havoc]

What about some radical ideas? A bunch of small, gas turbine powered carriers with fuel-air catapults? Would be much cheaper in service than steam turbine ones, while still be able to launch heavy planes.

Just to throw some more raw meat (nicely irradiated ) into the water:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saunders-roe-hovercraft-aircraft-carrier.33630/

 

[H_K]

Paper carrier: Use PA58 Verdun as the closest analog. 45,000 tons, 55-60 aircraft. Straightforward scale-up of the Clemenceaus, with 1 long BS5a catapult and 1 short BS5 as on Eagle/Ark Royal.

Air group:
18 strike (Buccaneer)
30 fighters
5 Gannet AEW/COD
6 Wessex (later Sea King) ASW/plane guard

Fighter:
F-4Bs, F-8Es, Super Tiger… license build in UK.
F-4B might be marginal on landing/take-off, F-4J too late? Maybe pursue that Spey Twosader proposal?

Might be interesting to do a side-by-side comparison of PA58 Verdun with the RN medium carrier proposals of the same era… results are probably the same.

 

[starviking]

What about some radical ideas? A bunch of small, gas turbine powered carriers with fuel-air catapults? Would be much cheaper in service than steam turbine ones, while still be able to launch heavy planes.

I think the most in this timeframe could be a carrier with a COSAG plant. However, the RN, despite using such plants in the Tribals and Counties, reverted to steam for CVA-01, perhaps reflecting the lack of large, proven marine gas turbines.

 

[Archibald]

Paper carrier: Use PA58 Verdun as the closest analog. 45,000 tons, 55-60 aircraft. Straightforward scale-up of the Clemenceaus, with 1 long BS5a catapult and 1 short BS5 as on Eagle/Ark Royal.

Air group:
18 strike (Buccaneer)
30 fighters
5 Gannet AEW/COD
6 Wessex (later Sea King) ASW/plane guard

Fighter:
F-4Bs, F-8Es, Super Tiger… license build in UK.
F-4B might be marginal on landing/take-off, F-4J too late? Maybe pursue that Spey Twosader proposal?

Might be interesting to do a side-by-side comparison of PA58 Verdun with the RN medium carrier proposals of the same era… results are probably the same.

I did that, many times. In "rebuilding the Royal Navy", there is a 1956 Medium Fleet Carrier design which just screams "I am a British PA58 Verdun, please merge us, CVF style".
What's more, Foch and Clem indeed had (shortened) BS-5 catapults so, at some point in 1953 or 1954 the French must have bought either catapults or a licence to build them. Well, we should use that as a starting point for anglo-french carriers.
France went for Crusaders in 1962 because Phantoms were a touch too large for the Clems, as they were a touch too large for Hermes and SBC-125A Essex (the latter also went for Crusaders, rebuilding one-third of the fleet in the Vietnam days).

OTL France build one Clem, then one Clem clone called Foch, and then PA58 Verdun was proposed only for its budget to be eaten by the nuclear deterrent (Force de Frappe) after 1960.

It wouldn't be too hard to a) build Clemenceau as per OTL (1956-1960) and then b) have the British drive Foch (1959-1963) to an earlier PA58 size and tonnage, then c) British cooperation helping to get PA58 build as a clone of Foch after 1960. And there we enter CVA-01 time span, which isn't a bad thing as the new carriers would fit into that timeline.

Note that from 1957 to 1962, Etendard IVM was to be the only fast jet onboard french carriers, including for air defense. Neat thing is, Etendard IVM doesn't care about Clemenceau or PA58 size.

But when the OTL Crusader moment comes (1962, not before) then the French ITTL still pitch it against Phantom... except they have now two Verduns instead of two Clems, with +12000 tons of tonnage each. With some British impulse, the French may go for Phantoms rather than Crusaders.

While the British and Americans had fleet defense requirements where the Phantom easily crushed the Crusader, the French just didn't cared. It was only a matter of "Geez, we need a supersonic naval fighter besides the Etendard IVM, so what's available those days ?"

So when the Phantom didn't fit the Clems, they went for Crusader instantly, despite what you British or Americans would see as a huge loss in fleet defense capability. Foch and Clem were not cut for that role, too small. Their role was very close from the last Essex CVA in Vietnam: land attack first, air defense being secondary (through a) old Crusaders, or b) AIM-9 Skyhawks, c) air defense ships, or d) a NATO / USN supercarrier, Red Storm Rising, cough, cough).

 

[bobtdwarf]

What about some radical ideas? A bunch of small, gas turbine powered carriers with fuel-air catapults? Would be much cheaper in service than steam turbine ones, while still be able to launch heavy planes.

I think the most in this timeframe could be a carrier with a COSAG plant. However, the RN, despite using such plants in the Tribals and Counties, reverted to steam for CVA-01, perhaps reflecting the lack of large, proven marine gas turbines.

it would be interesting to look at a turbo-electric plant, SS Canberra used a big two shaft one and venting the exhaust gasses into steam generators gives you more steam to spin a turbine... COSAG spinning generators and feeding steam cats as needed. Canberra was 85k SHP on two shafts so 170k on four should get this thing moving at what speed got no clue but it would be interesting.