Alternate history for the RAF & RN

[charlie_c67]

So as not to clog up Cookenbacher's FGA.3 thread and take it too far off topic I thought we could continue the discussion here.

In short, the 1966 defence cuts never happened. During the 60's Sino-soviet relations soured to the point the in 1968 they clashed over border issues. Seeing the increasing tension western governments kept defence spending up to deal with any potential fall out if the conflict widened.

This lead to the Royal Navy gaining the CVA-01 carriers which were designed to take the planned Buccaneers and Phantoms and the RAF gaining the TSR.2. However, as time went on these aircraft would've needed replacement or something to compliment them.

The question is what would have been used? Further development of existing aircraft? Or would they have been tempted to buy elsewhere?

Discuss!

[Cookenbacher]

Thanks for starting this Charlie, it will be nice for newcomers as well, as the 'alternate RN & RAF' thread won't be hidden in a discussion of a single type.

To sum up the discussion so far:

Alternate RN with new CATOBAR carriers:

• Navalised F-16/Vought 1602
• Navalised Hawker/BAe P.1202-9
• Navalised Jaguar
• Navalised Tornado

Alternate RAF:

• Hunter P.1083
• F-15
• F-16 (Falcon FGR - little plug there)
• Hawker/BAe P.1202-9

I'm sure we can come up with dozens more! Post 'em if you got 'em.

And maybe even build a couple.

[Max Headroom]

The big question for me is whether a pull out east of Suez would have happened. If not then a lot more kit would have been needed.

Types we already had may not have had their numbers slashed. We would have had all of the Phantoms we initially ordered (unless of course the P.1154 in its RN/RAF guises would have happened. All those cancelled Hunter FGA.9's in the latter part of the XK*** batch would have been retained rather than sold off to India.

Maybe the rumoured batch of CH-47A's in the XV*** range would have been procured. Someone is doing an FAA WHIF on this premise.

To supply the Far East forces maybe the HS.680 STOL transport would have happened too.

I think a study of 'Project Cancelled' would furnish some likely candidates.

Of course all this ignores the fact that we pulled back to Europe because we were broke. How would we have paid for that lot, American funding perhaps. Maybe the quid pro quo would have been to join the Aussies in 'Nam. Some interesting schemes would be a possibility there!

Trevor

[charlie_c67]

The choice for the navy would be an interesting one as during the 60's they wanted a twin seat interceptor, one reason given for their pulling out of the P.1154 project. Ultimately this ended up being the phantom, a plane which the smaller Centaur carriers struggled with.

Further to my thoughts on the falcon thread, a navelised Jaguar and supersonic Hunter could've been the answer, indeed the French did start to develop one as the Jag M until Dassault absorbed Breguet and pushed their product instead. But the smaller sizes would have been better suited to the smaller carrier.

As you can tell, I've an idea rolling round my head that I may need to take further...

Edited November 26, 2014 by charlie_c67

[Max Headroom]

If the CVA-01 had happened, would the FAA have gone with the 1154? Possibly not and the extra mods to the FG.1 to cope with the smaller carrier would not have been necessary so (relatively) cheaper and closer to the J.

I've never heard of the FAA showing interest in the Jag M, but would agree that an EDSG/White scheme with 899 Sqn would look rather nice.

Trevor

Edit if not Jags, then maybe A-4'K's would fit the bill - see above for colour scheme.

[JohnT]

Intrigued by this

I heard that a loaded Jaguar managed to take off only due to the curvature of the earth. I wonder how it would have managed off a carrier deck even sailing into a strong wind and beefed up catapults?

I think the game changer if this is to work is that UK finances which were in an atrocious state in the 1960s as was the aircraft industry would need to be changed. I suggest that financial assistance comes from the USA to support UK aviation industry and that the quid pro quo would be that either the RN or the RAF gets a home grown product while the other service buys from Uncle Sam. In this case I would guess the RN eventually goes down the F-14 and F 18 route to replace the F-4 and Buccaneer while the RAF gets a split new design from the home manufacturer. - what would that have looked like I wonder?

[2wheels]

Royal Navy Crusader anyone?

[Procopius]

A few feverish thoughts:

CVA-01, large though it was to Eagle and Ark Royal, was a "minimum carrier", the smallest, cheapest ship that the Navy felt would still be effective. From what I recall from David Brown's Rebuilding the Royal Navy and Eric Grove's Vanguard to Trident (both excellent albeit somewhat depressing books), the navy felt that even CVA-01 would only barely suffice as a fleet carrier, and would still be smaller than the USN Midways, built in 1945 and already showing their age.

The problem with the Jaguar is that, despite being supersonic-capable (stemming from its original intended role as an Anglo-French T-38), it was and is rather underpowered, with poor throttle response. This is less than ideal for a carrier-based aircraft.

As for the P.1154, the Royal Navy had always preferred the Phantom, and I believe Eric Brown mentions pushing for the Phantom over it in Wings of the Navy. I'd love to read -- or write, were I a man of leisure -- a full-length book on the P.1154 saga.

I think the greatest "what-if" of the 1950s-1970s is "what if" the RAF and Royal Navy hadn't squabbled so much, but instead had presented a united front? My general impression from my reading on the era is that the Treasury simply let each service explain why what the other wanted was too expensive, and then, to save time, agreed with both, but only after lots of money had been invested.

Imagine, if you will, that in 1956 the Duke of Argyll gets divorced early, naming among other co-respondents a well-known writer of White Papers...when Peter Thorneycroft is called upon to give his 1957 White Paper on Defence, he argues that Great Britain cannot compete with the Americans in missile-building and instead must focus for the foreseeable future on manned and passenger aircraft, as these employ the larger number of workers and have greater possibility of export success. (Denis Healey will later face much opprobrium for his purchase of American Terrier and Standard missiles for Royal Navy warships, and the Airfix C-130 box art of a HAWK missile being loaded onto a RAF BAC.222 will become iconic.) Faced with economies and the threat of a rationalization of fixed-wing aircraft to one service, the Royal Navy and RAF grudgingly accept "jointery" decades early (or again), with RAF P.1154 Harriers responsible for half the wartime air group of CVA-01 and -02.

Also, I hope Freightdog make a swing-wing Lightning conversion set for the Sword T.4/5 kit.

[Bangor Lad]

I've had a hankering to do an RN Jaguar for years. With all this talk of low power and poor throttle response the time might be right! After all it is a "what if"

Dave

[Procopius]

To save time, you can just use the spare tailfin from the Hasegawa boxing and model it sticking out of the water...

[charlie_c67]

No they showed no interest in it, was all a French variation though the potential was there had the M been taken further or the Navy "losing" it's fixed wing element. Perhaps a twin seat version could've been developed, Jaguar N maybe? I believe the A-4 was looked at when the F-111 fell through but was considered to be not advanced enough.

Hopefully this potted Whiffery will make sense.

In the mid 60's the Royal Navy received three new carriers to replace the ageing Audacious class, two of the Centaur class and to cope with the newer larger aircraft such as the Phantom and Buccaneer. This left the HMS Hermes and HMS Bulwark without suitable modern aircraft that would fit in their hangers and allow full operations to take place. At the time there was talk of also decommissioning both carriers as well, but when the Sino-soviet border clashes flared up to full conflict, the decision was taken to refit and upgrade both ships. After searching for a suitable fleet interceptor, the Folland F.1 was selected in navalised form for the smaller ships, but a suitable strike option was not immediately available.

Around the same time, the RAF was taking delivery of the first Jaguars which the French were further developing for their carrier Clemenceau. Although the Jaguar M went no further, the FAA showed enough interest for another variant based on the Jaguar B to be produced, namely the Jaguar N. The ability of the design to take off from rough airstrips making it perfect for the role. First delivered in 1974 with the requisite carrier operation equipment and a lightweight version of the Blue Parrot, colloquially known as the Blue Parakeet, this was known as the Jaguar S.1.

After the experience of the Falklands, it was realised that the S.1 did not have sufficient self defence and the decision was taken to fit wing tip rails, upgrade the Adour engines and improve avionics. To reduce costs, the decision was taken to replace the radar with the Blue Fox found in the Sea Harriers that had replaced the Gnats as fleet defence. Known as the S.1A's, 12 were further upgraded to take TIALD pods and become the S.1B.

Soon after however, the future of the entire fleet was called into question when the Centaur class carriers were replaced with the Invincible class that only carried the SHAR. The Jags were used to replace older life expired Buccaneer frames until their full replacements had been delivered. However, before the decommissioning took place the first Gulf war took place during which the S.1B provided laser designation for the S1A's as well as other coalition aircraft. Like the GR1's of the RAF, they achieved a high availability and in the post war report, the decision was made to give the entire fleet a mid life update at the expense of the remaining Buccaneers.

Again, the designers took an existing radar unit in the form of the Blue Vixen and retro fitted it to the existing airframe. All were given the ability to use TIALD pods, the new Adour 106, various new weapon systems such as the Sea eagle and ALARM missiles as well as integrated GPS and a new HUD amongst other avionics upgrades. Delivered in 1996, the S.3 was used in various conflicts such as the Balkans and the second Gulf war. A few years later however the writing was on the wall with the aircraft finally being retired in 2006 in preparation for its replacement, the F-35.

Hope this isn't too wordy!

[JohnT]

Like Charlies musings though might the Folland Midge/Gnat suffer as a carrier type form the aircraft notorious lack of fuel capacity/range and therefore not be suitable for naval operations? Didn't I hear a Red Arrow pilot joke that the Gnat was fuel critical after the taxi out to threshold for take off?

[charlie_c67]

To be fair I picked it as the smallest, cheapest fighter I could think of quickly. Javelin was too big, Hunter no all weather radar (though wasn't there one that did?) and the Lightning, well 12 change of underwear trip wouldn't cover it!

Maybe an SR.177 instead?

[Procopius]

To be fair I picked it as the smallest, cheapest fighter I could think of quickly. Javelin was too big, Hunter no all weather radar (though wasn't there one that did?) and the Lightning, well 12 change of underwear trip wouldn't cover it!

Maybe an SR.177 instead?

I just got Tony Buttler's new book on the Hunter, and there actually is a carrier-based Hunter proposal! P.1117, from 1955, with two Firestreak, tip tanks, an Avon RA.24, AI.23 radar, and retaining two of the Aden guns. Could easily be made using the new Freightdog set and a pair of suitable tanks for the wingtips.

[Cookenbacher]

The Adour powers the USN's T-45, so it is plausible that a naval variant of the Jaguar could have been equipped with reliable enough engines for carrier qualification. It would be tempting to try to come up with a larger wing to meet landing speed/bring back requirements.

[Procopius]

I believe the Jaguar has twice the thrust of the T-45, but weighs nearly three times as much, which might be part of the problem.

[Cookenbacher]

Yes, it has a high wing loading for high speed performance at low altitudes which is the opposite of what you want for carrier operations (compare TSR.2 with A-5 Vigilante). Hence the requirement for the larger wing. Of course, a larger wing would then negate the low altitude performance that is the Jaguar's bread and butter.

As an aside the Jag has about three times the thrust of a Goshawk because of reheat.

[JohnT]

To be fair I picked it as the smallest, cheapest fighter I could think of quickly. Javelin was too big, Hunter no all weather radar (though wasn't there one that did?) and the Lightning, well 12 change of underwear trip wouldn't cover it!

Maybe an SR.177 instead?

Was teasing Charlie

Mind you a Frightning off a carrier? The mind boggles!

[charlie_c67]

To solve the take-off and landing issue, might the boundary layer control system from the Buccaneer have been used? Not sure what it would've done to wing size etc, but it seems pretty effective!

[Procopius]

As an aside the Jag has about three times the thrust of a Goshawk because of reheat.

My ignorance exposed!

[Cookenbacher]

In no way am I arguing that the Jaguar was not underpowered compared to its contemporaries, but I think it could have provided the basis of a viable carrier attack aircraft in the A-4/Sea Harrier class, but supersonic.

As for replacing the Phantom and Buccaneer, there may have been a competition between the F-18 and a navalised Tornado. Chewitt has thrown down the gauntlet for his choice of air wing on his brilliant whif here:

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234969760-hms-eagle-what-if-invincible-angled-carrier-1700/

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234943489-hms-eagle-invincible-class-1700-revell-class-what-if/

Although, a Sea Tornado would be pretty formidable in my opinion, and would probably solve the F-18's greatest shortcoming, range.

[JohnT]

[quote name="Cookenbacher" post="1804725" timestamp="1417104518

Although, a Sea Tornado would be pretty formidable in my opinion, and would probably solve the F-18's greatest shortcoming, range.

Might have to fold that fin to get her down in the hanger though

[charlie_c67]

Not up on aerodynamics, but would a twin fin tonka work/help?

[JohnT]

Not up on aerodynamics, but would a twin fin tonka work/help?

Interesting good call

Why is the Tonka fin so massive and not a twin anyway?

[Max Headroom]

Not up on aerodynamics, but would a twin fin tonka work/help?

Heretic! Burn it with fire!!

Thinking this through both for the FAA and RAF, when the WHIF kicks in you are probably talking of fully completed orders (Phantom and Hunter).

In the medium term it would be fulfilment of

cancelled orders (CH-47A, TSR.2 and P.1154).

That takes us to the late 80's/early 90's. Maybe the all British 'tin wing' Harrier v2.0 and a major TSR.2 upgrade.

After that I'm struggling.

Trevor