Alternate history for the RAF & RN

[charlie_c67]

Sea Harrier F/A 3? A GR5/7/9 body with a Blue Vixen or CAPTOR set on board ;-)

[David Womby]

With the big carriers in service, I assume there would be NO Sea Harrier developed.

David

[Breaker]

Well, I would of loved for the Navy to of purchased the F-14 and painted it EDSG over white after retiring the F-4s

[kwaterous]

Looking into a twin fun arrangement in the tornado, it doesn't loot too hard, a couple of spare f-18 or something similar, could be mounted on the sides of the fuselage, forward of the exhausts.

Of course, someone may know of a reason they can't be mounted there, but it would sure look different. A naval scheme would make it even cooler looking.

K

[Devilfish]

My take on all this is....

With the imminent retirement of the RN's carriers, the Admiralty were desperate not to lose their seaborne airpower. Despite the RAF trying to prove that they could cover all maritime forces from anywhere in the world (but only by moving Australia 200 miles East on their maps), the Treasury agreed that aircraft carriers would still be an essential asset. To save time and money, it was decided to buy a pair of ex-USN conventional carriers that were slowly being replaced by nuclear ones.

The two carriers, renamed HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Ark Royal were sailed to Portsmouth in 1974 where they would spend the next 18 months being refitted with British radar and defensive systems.

The question of aircraft was also raised when purchasing the carriers as both existing ships barely carried enough planes to fill one of the new ones. Therefore a deal was struck to buy surplus USN aircraft. A4's and A7's were renovated. F-14's were bought brand new, along with E-2 Hawkeyes and S-3 Vikings

Unfortunately, the A-7s were the A model and they had to be upgraded with Speys before they were fit for use. Along with existing Phantoms, Buccaneers and a few Sea Vixens, they formed a full air wing.

In late 1976, the HMS Queen Elizabeth took over it's duties from the recently retired HMS Eagle, with The Ark taking over it's namesake just 6 months later.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Devilfish

[Devilfish]

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?

The Javelin would never have been in the running anyway...The Navy already had the Sea Vixen and there was no way they would accept an RAF aircraft....

I doubt the Hunter could ever have been made strong enough to survive repeated deck landings?

And no matter what they did to the Lightning I suspect the same would be true....IF you could find someone brave enough to give it a go!

The French Navy trialed the Jaguar M and found it unable to take off with a useful payload and fuel. It was one or the other, which meant instant refueling after take-off. Now, maybe if it was given longer wings?

Looking into a twin fun arrangement in the tornado, it doesn't loot too hard, a couple of spare f-18 or something similar, could be mounted on the sides of the fuselage, forward of the exhausts.

Of course, someone may know of a reason they can't be mounted there, but it would sure look different. A naval scheme would make it even cooler looking.

K

That reason would be the airbrakes? So they would have to be moved (F-18 style?)

[Procopius]

I believe the size of the fin on the GR/IDS is a function of the aircraft's short length, and is to ensure stability. It's not needed on the ADV/F versions, which are closer to the originally desired length, but was retained for reasons of commonality. What I gathered from a few pprune threads, anyhow.

[Cookenbacher]

Great find PC, I was looking all over for that! It makes sense - shorter fuselage means shorter lever arm for the control surfaces. It could have a folding fin like the S-3, or a smaller fin with the F.3 as a base, or twin fins. From what I gather, the main effect of twin fins (besides having to move the airbrakes) is that they improve high angle of attack performance since the fins aren't in the 'shadow' of the fuselage at high AoA.

[charlie_c67]

Simply move them from the edge of the fuselage to the middle, a la F/A-18. Problem solved :-)

[Giorgio N]

May I add my 2 pence worth ?

I believe the main point has already been made: the UK simply had no financial resources to embark on too wild plans so if the state of the economy had remained like that very little would have changed. The US would have never subsidised the UK industry to allow them to build aircrafts, simply because this would have not been approved at home... as it actually happened ! The Hunter and other early european jets benefited a lot from US financial help but at some point it became clear that the American taxpayer would have not supported programs that would have not resulted in the purchase of US types.

So looking at the various programs in detail, I can see:

FAA:

- Navalised Jaguar: this would have never happened. The French trialled this and found that to become a viable carrier type it required a new wing for a starter. The single engine performance was also pretty bad and this was not deemed acceptable. A complete redesign would have been really needed, why spend money on this when it's possible to buy new aircrafts ?

- An FAA Tomcat: the big cat was a terribly expensive aircraft to operate and also needed things like large water cooled deflectors on the carrier and powerful catapults. I can't see how a Tomcat could have operated from anything smaller than a US supercarrier so I'd say an FAA tomcat would have never happened

- Carrier Gnat: come on, the Gnat was not an aircraft that could fulfill the tasks expected from a frontline combat aircraft serving in a major air force or navy...

What after the Phantom ? I say after the Phantom because I believe that the Phantom was the right aircraft. We can discuss if the Spey engined Phantom was the right aircraft though..

In an alternate history where Britain could have built new carriers, it would have made more sense to go for J79 engined aircrafts but in any case the Phantom was a fine aircraft and it would have easily served in the FAA til the mid '80s with some refit. At that point IMHO it would have been time to choose between 2 options:

1) Simply buy the then new F/A-18, an aircraft designed for carrier use that would have replaced the Phantom pretty well

2) Wait for the development of a carrier variant of the various ACA and so on programs that finally led to the Typhoon. Mind, had a navalised Typhoon been requested from the start, maybe France would have kept working with the other parties and maybe the Typhoon would have been more Rafale-ish.

Even if option 2 would have been selected, it's likely that a stop-gap solution would have been required and maybe this would have resulted in the lease of Hornets anyway.

Of course the Sea Harrier would have never existed.

RAF

I believe that the problems of the RAF start much earlier but keeping the thread into the '60s and beyond, my view is that a lot would have depended on what was the impact of a certain mindset within the RAF that had eliminated one type of aircraft: the multirole fighter.

The TSR.2 was in the end the result of the idea that the main job of the RAF was to destroy the enemy on the ground. Had the TSR.2 gone into production the only fighter would have been the Lightning, a type designed to provide short range air defence and nothing else. The TSR.2 would have drained so many resources that no money would have been left available for a multirole fighter even had the mindset changed. Of course with the TSR.2 we'd have seen no Tornado and therefore something would have been needed to replace said TSR.2s at some point. The F-15E would have been a good candidate but another joint program could have been another solution. This assuming that any partner would have been interested...

Had the mindset changed, things could have become interesting and we may have had a Tornado, but a very different one.

The MRCA program was quite strange because most original partners wanted a true multirole aircraft and not a dedicated bomber as the Tornado became. With the TSR.2 in service, assuming that money would have been available, the RAF would have needed a multirole fighter, that is the same type of aircraft most others wanted. Maybe Canada and the Netherlands would have remained in the program and the result would have been a medium size fighter, maybe with Vg wings (like the MRCA-100) or maybe even with fixed wings. At that point the Typhoon program would have started later and maybe we'd now still have the Typhoon as we know it anyway considering the well known issues of the program.

Had the TSR.2 been cancelled, then the RAF would have needed a new attack aircraft. The buccaneer would have made for a very good choice and maybe a Buccaneer S.3 with increased range would have been the best option. This would have been a relatively cheap option that would have made available resources for other programs. Maybe the Jaguar would have not existed and the collaboration with the French would have given a multirole aircraft based on the AFVG program. Or maybe the MRCA-100 would have had another chance. Or maybe the Phantom would have been selected anyway. The AFVG/MRCA route would have brought to types entering service in the early '70s so needing replacement around the time the Typhoon entered service. Of course there would have been no F.3. The Buccaneer S.3 however would have needed a replacement sooner. At that point it may not have been easy to convince other countries to enter an agreement and maybe the replacement would have been a specialised variant of the MRCA/AFVG.... so in a sense the Tornado as we know it re-enters from the window...

[Modelling Mushi]

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

Didn't the RA5 Vigilante have a tall and folding fin? Should not be a problem I'd think.

[Max Headroom]

Didn't the RA5 Vigilante have a tall and folding fin? Should not be a problem I'd think.

and the S-3A.

Trevor

[Cookenbacher]

I have no idea why I continue to defend a navalised Jaguar, especially with two of Britmodeller's more esteemed members arguing against it. But might as well go down swinging.

In the 1970's, it seems there was one carrier capable aircraft in the 'light attack' category: the A-4. It was replaced by the A-7 in the USN and the Harrier in the USMC. The A-7 is not really in the 'light attack' class, but carried on the the general trend of combat aircraft only getting heavier. It just seems to me that the Jaguar would have made a good basis for a carrier based supersonic light attack aircraft. Yes, the wing would need to be bigger (and more powerful engines would definitely not cause complaints), but it would have definitely filled a niche, especially if the Sea Harrier was never developed. As far as it not being worthwhile to make these modifications to a carrier specific aircraft when other models are available, please see Hornet, Super - itself a controversial proposition I suppose.

[charlie_c67]

The other thing is, people are going with countries economic state as it was. I think that a factor in the CVA-01's going ahead would've been the country in a much better shape financially as well as Australia being sited where it should've been...

This would've allowed suitable products to also have been properly funded making the world your oyster

[Devilfish]

. As far as it not being worthwhile to make these modifications to a carrier specific aircraft when other models are available, please see Hornet, Super - itself a controversial proposition I suppose.

Why?

[Cookenbacher]

The Super Hornet was seen as a jack of all trades, master of none - which is sort of what it is I guess, but that's also a compliment. It has basically replaced the Legacy Hornet, A-6 and F-14. That's where it was controversial, there were advanced versions of the A-6 and F-14 that were proposed at the same time, as well as a navalised F-117! All of this was fallout from the failure of the A-12 program. So lots of what-ifs for the US Navy too.

Charley, I just found this one again, Arniec made a Sea Harrier FA3, and it's as awesome as it sounds:

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234927316-148-sea-harrier-fa3-finished-26-12-2012/page-6

[Giorgio N]

I have no idea why I continue to defend a navalised Jaguar, especially with two of Britmodeller's more esteemed members arguing against it. But might as well go down swinging.

In the 1970's, it seems there was one carrier capable aircraft in the 'light attack' category: the A-4. It was replaced by the A-7 in the USN and the Harrier in the USMC. The A-7 is not really in the 'light attack' class, but carried on the the general trend of combat aircraft only getting heavier. It just seems to me that the Jaguar would have made a good basis for a carrier based supersonic light attack aircraft. Yes, the wing would need to be bigger (and more powerful engines would definitely not cause complaints), but it would have definitely filled a niche, especially if the Sea Harrier was never developed. As far as it not being worthwhile to make these modifications to a carrier specific aircraft when other models are available, please see Hornet, Super - itself a controversial proposition I suppose.

The Jaguar and the A-7 were two very different animals: the Jaguar was a fast striker capable of very accurate attacks at low level but with a relatively small payload.The Corsair II on the other hand could carry very heavy loads but was more of an all purpose attack aircraft. The US Navy would have not used the Corsair for the kind of missions the Jaguar performed with the RAF but would have used the heavier Intruder.

The differences above conjure against a possible use of a navalised Jaguar by the FAA: why navalise the Jaguar when there's already a very capable aircraft in service for a similar mission ? I'm of course thinking of the Buccaneer that could do pretty much all the Jaguar could and more

The Phantom/Buccaneer combination was IMHO very good with one aircraft capable of performing both air defence and attack missions (don't forget that the Phantom filled the same role of the Jaguar in its initial days with the RAF) while the other could perform attack, strike and antiship missions.

The French Navy was in a different situation when the Jaguar M was tested as their main attack type was the Etendard, a simple aircraft with very limited avionics and a not impressive warload. The Jaguar M, had it worked, would have been a good step ahead on the older type. In the end the Etendard was replaced with the Super Etendard, a more powerful variant with much better avionics. The Marine Nationale Super Etendards actually performed extremely well when called into action, and this can be seen as demonstration of the good overall design of the type. At the same time however it was not as capable as the Buccaneer

Edited December 8, 2014 by Giorgio N

[Cookenbacher]

A US Navy carrier wing of that era consisted of two fighter squadrons (F-4/F-14), two 'light' attack squadrons (A-4/A-7), and one 'all weather' attack squadron (A-6). It is true that the A-7 and Jaguar were very different aircraft, but the A-4 and Jaguar were very similar aircraft designed for the exact same mission. A navalised Jaguar may actually be have been a more 'natural' replacement for the A-4 than the A-7 was.

A what-if RN large conventional carrier may have had Phantoms in the fighter role and Buccaneers in the 'all weather' attack role, but there is a gap in the 'light attack' role. It could be argued, as you have done, that that role could also have been fulfilled by more Phantoms or more Buccaneers, but it also looks like a nice little niche for a what-if navalised Jaguar.

*edited for terrible grammar (probably still some in there)

Edited December 9, 2014 by Cookenbacher

[Procopius]

I'd think it would have to be a larger carrier than CVA-01 in that case, as she was quite small, about the size of Coral Sea and Midway; I believe that class could only carry about 50 or so aircraft by the '80s.

[Albeback52]

Looking into a twin fun arrangement in the tornado, it doesn't loot too hard, a couple of spare f-18 or something similar, could be mounted on the sides of the fuselage, forward of the exhausts.

Of course, someone may know of a reason they can't be mounted there, but it would sure look different. A naval scheme would make it even cooler looking.

K

Maybe a V-tail like the YF-23? Or, adopt a similar approach to the F-4. If I recall, the main reason for the 23 degree anhedral on the tailplanes was to provide sufficient equivalent area to compensate for reducing the height of the tailfin so that it would fit in to the hanger decks on board a carrier. Alternatively, you could reduce the size of the vertical tail & fit a pair of ventral fins? Either way, it would certainly improve the look of the thing!!! . You could probably get away with using the F-18 landing gear for a naval Tornado?

Allan

Edited December 9, 2014 by Albeback52

[Cookenbacher]

The Coral Sea and Midway carried a full air wing (2 x F-4, 2 x A-7, 1 x A-6), but couldn't operate the F-14. In the 80's the F-4's and A-7's were both replaced with the F-18 and it became 4 x F-18, 1 x A-6.

That being said, if a potential CVA-01 could only carry four squadrons, it would have made sense not bothering to develop a 'light' attack aircraft. So maybe a 3 x Phantom, 1 x Buccaneer with the Phantom squadrons being dual-role.

[Procopius]

In this scenario, would the RN still be retaining their position as ASW experts within NATO? If they were, I could see a two Phantom, one Buccanneer, one...Gannet, I guess, squadron, for more ASW capability.

[trickyrich]

I must keep away from these threads as I just keep adding ideas for future projects........as it is I don't think I have enough time for the projects I want to do....

I think a lot of the "what if" of the 70's & 80's would have had a lot to do with the political climate in the UK at that stage and how cosy the government was with the US. If things were going nicely you would have seen more US designed aircraft in service and if it was really frosty more locally produced stuff. Plus if you add in the French then that changes things around a bit as well.

I actually still think a navalised Jaguar was still a possibility especially on the “not quite so big” carriers. I agree there would have had to be changes but necessity is the invention of design. So if US aircraft had been out of the question then current and future designs would have been looked at more carefully. Improved performance and aerodynamics would have been required but this is just an evolution of the design.

If the Harrier had stayed as an RAF aircraft only and the RN had kept its real carriers (or the two bigger ones planned) then evolution of aircraft in both the RAF and RN may have been a bit different and probably shared more types.

There would I think be a navalised Typhoon without doubt at all, and looking back further......

The Tonka (gee this will stir it up) in its VG form is too heavy for the RN, for all the gains you get with VG there is the big weight penalty with the VG setup. Thumping on and off airfields is ok, but carriers is a different thing altogether, weight is the killer. The tail would have to be folding as we know as it’s too all, the U/C would have to be strengthen even further. I would have like to see this design go to a fixed wing, sort of based on the F-15/18 design (depends on the era you are looking at). A much simpler solution but still with excellent performance without weight/complexity issues. The twin tail is an interesting idea and I don’t know why it wasn’t thought of for the original aircraft (probably because they still had the F-111 design in mind for attack/strike aircraft). If you move the rudder(s) out to the sides of the fuselage then they are less affected by high AOA so you can have two smaller ones instead of a huge single unit (similar aerodynamic area to one big one).

The Phantom I agree would have been progressed further and maybe even the Buccaneer?

The A-7 Corsair would have been a real possibility if the RN had gone for bigger carriers.

The F-18 I think may have been only an interim aircraft until the navalised Typhoon was ready, but wouldn't have been needed if there was a navalised Jaguar or Tonka!

Plus there are a lot of other designs that never got off the drawing boards because of the change of philosophy with carriers.

But in the end Giorgio has answered the question as to why the RN and RAF for that matter are where they are today.....money! But in the world of Whiffy that’s not a big problem so the RAF got it’s TSR 2’s (still have a plan for an evolved one...got all the bits for it as well), the RN got it’s big carriers...navalised TSR 2 anyone?? Surely it’s no bigger than an A-5 Vigilante.... now one of those in FAA colours?

Ok have added my wee bit.....

[Albeback52]

The Tonka (gee this will stir it up) in its VG form is too heavy for the RN, for all the gains you get with VG there is the big weight penalty with the VG setup. Thumping on and off airfields is ok, but carriers is a different thing altogether, weight is the killer. The tail would have to be folding as we know as it’s too all, the U/C would have to be strengthen even further. I would have like to see this design go to a fixed wing, sort of based on the F-15/18 design (depends on the era you are looking at). A much simpler solution but still with excellent performance without weight/complexity issues. The twin tail is an interesting idea and I don’t know why it wasn’t thought of for the original aircraft (probably because they still had the F-111 design in mind for attack/strike aircraft). If you move the rudder(s) out to the sides of the fuselage then they are less affected by high AOA so you can have two smaller ones instead of a huge single unit (similar aerodynamic area to one big one).

The Phantom I agree would have been progressed further and maybe even the Buccaneer?

Ok have added my wee bit.....

Well, how about another wee bit to add to your wee bit? . Tornado F3 fuselage/ with F-18 wings/twin tails/undercarriage/arrester hook. I'd prefer the F3 because it's proportions are better. Fill in the Tornado air brakes & fit the large single F-18 air brake? I'd be inclined to fill in the missile recesses & leave all that space for big whizz bangs! I have a H B Tornado F3 & Revell F-18. That of course leaves the question of what to do with the Tornado wings? Hmmm, methinks a v g TSR 2? 1/48 Tornado wings on a 1/72 TSR 2? Probably scale in nicely.

Allan

[trickyrich]

now you're talking!!

the only change I'd do to that is use F-15 wings, these would offered far superior performance than those on the F-/A-18. I never could understand the compromised why they went that way.

Could always give the Jaguar a big set of wings and VG????