Jump to content

Hornets in British service


Devilfish

Recommended Posts

By the late 70's the Royal Navy was looking at replacing it's aging fleet of Buccaneers, and few remaining Sea Vixens.  It was envisaged the Phantom would need a replacement by the mid 80's too, so the search was on for a modern replacement to fill their new carriers.

It just so happens that around the same time the RAF was in the market for a strike aircraft to complement the longer range Eagle (TSR2), as attempts at a joint European project had failed several times.

Around this time, the US Navy were trialing their new F/A-18 strike fighter, and the RN showed intense interest.  The RAF were told that if they accepted the same aircraft, tailored to their needs, the overall bill would be much less, which appealed.

So, an order was placed for the FRS.1 and FGR.2

 

Kit is the Hobbyboss 1/48 F/A-18

 

46551423655_50c75874e7_k.jpgDSC_0930 by Paul Carter, on Flickr

46743510714_d96ba43be6_k.jpgDSC_0929 by Paul Carter, on Flickr

47413742042_fe66b32e0a_k.jpgDSC_0931 by Paul Carter, on Flickr

40500616763_d98f3b5332_k.jpgDSC_0932 by Paul Carter, on Flickr

46551422235_ae38b56628_k.jpgDSC_0933 by Paul Carter, on Flickr

46551421805_a293e6f9ee_k.jpgDSC_0934 by Paul Carter, on Flickr

 

46755775765_a9b8b6e1e9_k.jpgDSC_1047 by Paul Carter, on Flickr

46755773485_3fac6fb1cf_k.jpgDSC_1049 by Paul Carter, on Flickr

40705243873_f0abe50181_k.jpgDSC_1048 by Paul Carter, on Flickr

32728813587_d9fb3d32b4_k.jpgDSC_1052 by Paul Carter, on Flickr

40705240213_2016943218_k.jpgDSC_1055 by Paul Carter, on Flickr

 

47671543131_f056de6e27_k.jpgDSC_1053 by Paul Carter, on Flickr

32728809247_983604d018_k.jpgDSC_1054 by Paul Carter, on Flickr

 

 

  • Like 44
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very masterfully rendered  Like them both But I think the Royal Navy one would also look smart in the overall grey like the Buccaneers were late in their day, even though your model looks smart.  As for the RAF one I can imagine all the Tornado or Phantom unit markings for it. Nice work!

Quite like the back story even though it smacks of some'back hander' action going on or a supemarket deal like a BOGOFF

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Paul J said:

Very masterfully rendered  Like them both But I think the Royal Navy one would also look smart in the overall grey like the Buccaneers were late in their day, even though your model looks smart.  As for the RAF one I can imagine all the Tornado or Phantom unit markings for it. Nice work!

Quite like the back story even though it smacks of some'back hander' action going on or a supemarket deal like a BOGOFF

I did a Hornet a few years ago in the later light grey with low-viz roundels, but it looked too much like any other F/A-18, so I decided to go with traditional grey/white, as the SHARs were originally, although I agree, all over EDSG would look good.

 

6 hours ago, stevej60 said:

Great idea and beautifully modelled too,I did a similar RN scheme on a whif A4 skyhawk it look's good on a good few aircraft.

 

I have a couple of ideas for an RN Skyhawk. Watch this space....

 

I already have a Tomcat in Falklands scheme (and previously had one in grey/white), a Crusader, Corsair and several others in RN schemes.  A Hawkeye and Viking are waiting to be done too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Excellent creations there. I rebuilt an old Italeri 1/72 Hornet as a Hornet FGR.1 of 899NAS c.1990, on board HMS Invincible (a hyperthetical fixed wing carrier, as opposed to the real vessel). I did mine in overall DSG. Great fun playing with history!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is actually a perfectly plausible scenario. The RAF was offered (if I recall) the F-18 a long time ago as an alternative to the (then) Eurofighter. I thought then that it was a perfectly sensible proposal. Now, using the latest versions of the F-18 we could have actually had a proven and combat tested aircraft which the new  carriers could (and should) have been designed to operate. However, I have my own plans for the F-18 E/F. I will be purchasing the new 1/32 Revell kit and it will proudly bear the Saltire insignia of  the Poblach Neo Eisimileach Feachd an Adhair (Air Force of the Independent Scottish Republic)!. I can get away with this as I have no specific timeline in mind!:whistle::lol:

 

Allan

 

ps -very nicely done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Albeback52 said:

I think this is actually a perfectly plausible scenario. The RAF was offered (if I recall) the F-18 a long time ago as an alternative to the (then) Eurofighter. I thought then that it was a perfectly sensible proposal. Now, using the latest versions of the F-18 we could have actually had a proven and combat tested aircraft which the new  carriers could (and should) have been designed to operate. However, I have my own plans for the F-18 E/F. I will be purchasing the new 1/32 Revell kit and it will proudly bear the Saltire insignia of  the Poblach Neo Eisimileach Feachd an Adhair (Air Force of the Independent Scottish Republic)!. I can get away with this as I have no specific timeline in mind!:whistle::lol:

 

Allan

 

ps -very nicely done.

Have fun with that kit, I hear it's a complete nightmare.

 

I agree that our new carriers should have been conventional, for either F/A-18E or F-35C

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Devilfish said:

Have fun with that kit, I hear it's a complete nightmare.

 

I agree that our new carriers should have been conventional, for either F/A-18E or F-3

  I don't know about "nightmare" . I suspect it's (a) a huge exaggeration and ,(b) is a term largely used by people who are horrified at the prospect of having  to maybe  (pauses for sharp intake of breath!) actually put some work into building a kit instead of merely pouring paint and glue into the box, giving it a shake and then having a complete model drop out!  

I have one F-18 already and, though I have only lovingly caressed the kit parts, it certainly looks good enough for me. But then, every kit I build is done according to the TLAR (That Looks About Right) principles!😂

 

I think the F-35C was the original choice but, I have zero interest in any F-35 as a model subject so, I won't be building one!

 

Allan

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I don't know. I have a friend who has attempted it. He builds a lot of larger scale models, and he reckons the fit is abysmal. Things don't line up. Gaps everywhere. Stuff just doesn't fit. 

I heard a rumour that Revell are recalling stocks? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing how this continues more and more discussion I'm really starting to grow an itch of producing a "what-if" service aircraft. For some reason I have been meaning towards an A-7 with updated avionics, cockpit, ECM, etc, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whiskey said:

Seeing how this continues more and more discussion I'm really starting to grow an itch of producing a "what-if" service aircraft. For some reason I have been meaning towards an A-7 with updated avionics, cockpit, ECM, etc, etc.

I've done a few alternative FAA aircraft...

 

35008043793_c25cc3961d_b.jpgDSCF0350_zpsf53ed7a2 by Paul Carter, on Flickr

 

35006816733_345ed851fe_b.jpg20170413_171856_zpsqzlbj4yi by Paul Carter, on Flickr

 

36821667763_d5041cb51d_b.jpgDSCF0076 by Paul Carter, on Flickr

 

35689912801_d6511f1cf0_b.jpg20160712_190007_zpslvnavuzk by Paul Carter, on Flickr

 

35649597281_206386ee88_z.jpgDSCF1652_zps68fba978 by Paul Carter, on Flickr

 

35761547015_c8d263193d_b.jpg20160502_101839_zpspql4vgaj by Paul Carter, on Flickr

 

34920085624_cf64bfe5f3_b.jpgDSCF0755_zpstwnyvzp1 by Paul Carter, on Flickr

 

35629839011_0641fff959_b.jpgDSCF9309_zps7l1vih7z by Paul Carter, on Flickr

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice models !

I feel that an FAA Hornet is one of the most logical what-if subject. Had Britain retained conventional carriers, at some point the Phantoms would have needed replacing and at that point the Hornet would have been the most logical option, ticking a lot of boxes:

- Designed for carrier operation, hence ready from day 1 to be used by the FAA with no redesign required

- Affordable, not only in terms of cost per unit but also in terms of support costs.

- Suitable for operation on smaller carriers, without needing a Nimitz

- Available around the right time

Of course that would have meant no Sea Harrier, that would have meant quite a few less kits in my stash, but a Hornet or two in FAA colours would have sure been in my collection.

 

14 hours ago, Das Abteilung said:

It does beg the question what aircraft we might have ended up with had the CVA-01 carriers been built. They would have outlived Buccs and Phantoms.

 

Looking at the matter with the benefit of hindsight, I'd say that the Buccaneer and the Phantom would have suited CVA-01 very well ! With a larger carrier, the Phantom could have been a standard J79 powered variant, saving quite a lot of money. The Buccaneer was one of the best low level strike aircraft ever and the Phantom was the best fighter of its era. IMHO none of the various types proposed by the industry in those years would have done as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed so.  But the ships would have been in service for 30+ years, taking them well into the 90's or even the 2000's.  Neither aircraft would have been viable front-line assets by then (F4 fully retired by UK by '92, Bucc by '94). So the question is what would have replaced the Phantom and Bucc from 1990 or so.

 

Unless the SR53/177 or an unlikely carrier version of the P1121 or something entirely new went ahead, the UK would have been looking across the Atlantic for an interceptor and buying the F4 was almost inevitable.  The reasons for fitting the Spey to F4K and M were as much industrial and political as technical, so it might still have happened.  What real choice was there anyway?  Even the French bought a US carrier interceptor, the F8, to partner their Etendards.  The F4 ad the advantage of being truly multi-role, unlike the F8.  It is interesting to wonder if we might also have bought A6 or A7.  As with the USN/MC, the F18 would have been a worthy and obvious F4 replacement had we still had full-size carriers in service come the '90's.  Perhaps the RAF would indeed have bought in too, to replace their F4, Lightnings, Buccs and some Bionic Budgie - as modelled.

 

Apparently when Maggie was told of the Falklands invasion and our apparent impotence to counter it, she immediately asked why we couldn't send the Ark with her Phantoms and Buccs, recalling their success in heading off the Belize crisis with a show of force (notwithstanding cutting the corner of Cuban airspace!).  Only to be told that she had authorised their decommissioning in favour of the Invincibles with Sea Harriers and a huge drop in capability.  I bet that was an uncomfortable conversation for 1SL.................

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2019 at 8:49 PM, Das Abteilung said:

Indeed so.  But the ships would have been in service for 30+ years, taking them well into the 90's or even the 2000's.  Neither aircraft would have been viable front-line assets by then (F4 fully retired by UK by '92, Bucc by '94). So the question is what would have replaced the Phantom and Bucc from 1990 or so.

 

 

 

Think we agree on the same conclusion here: the Hornet would have been the ideal replacement. This type would have been available and mostly debugged exactly at the time the Phantoms and Buccs would have needed replacement and with no other really viable competitor around would have been the most logical choice. And would have still been in service today, although on a newer carrier

 

Regarding a purchase of the A-6 or A-7, guess the former could have been considered only in case the Buccaneer was a failure. With the banana bomber being the success it was, there was no real need for the Intruder.

The A-7 is an interesting subject... an intermediate attack type makes sense but at the same time puts a strain on the logistics and finance. Could the FAA have afforded a third type in between the F-4 and the Buccaneer ? Hard to tell, my feeling is that the answer would have been no.

The Phantom was really a no brainer, best fighter of the era, going for something less capable would have made little sense... unless it was an indigenous design, in that case it could have made at least industrial sense. P.1154 ? Navalised P.1121 ? None ever flew so we don't know how good these could have been

In any case a CVA-01 with a good size airwing consisting of Phantoms and Buccaneers in the late '60s and '70s would have IMHO made for a pretty powerful combination ! Much better than the Etandard/F-8 fleet of the French Navy and only inferior to the USN supercarriers. I know, in terms of what-if may have been less interesting than other more exotic choices...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Is my ageing and feeble brain correct in believing that there was a possibility of a carrier-capable F111 after The Most Monumental Aviation Blunder Of All Time to cancel TSR2 in favour of the never-to-materialise F111K?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Das Abteilung said:

Is my ageing and feeble brain correct in believing that there was a possibility of a carrier-capable F111 after The Most Monumental Aviation Blunder Of All Time to cancel TSR2 in favour of the never-to-materialise F111K?

 

Yes, there was a carrier variant of the F-111, the F-111B developed by Grumman. This never reached production status and only a few were built, with the work done soon used to develop the more successful F-14 Tomcat.

Personally I feel that even had the F-111B entered service, this would have never been of interest to the FAA. The F-111B would have been a very expensive type, like the Tomcat was. It was also a heavy aircraft, and I don't know if CVA-01 would have been capable of operating such a type without major modifications.

The F-111B lends itself well to what-if modelling as in theory a whole lot of US Navy unit markings can be applied to the type, expanding into FAA service would add a few more schemes. There is however a serious problem: while there have been a number of F-111B conversions on the market, none is really easy to find. Revell originally issued their 1/72 F-111 with parts and fictituous decals for the B and this is maybe the easiest way to build one of these. It would not be an accurate model, as the radome in particular is not really well done but many may be happy with it. There's a thread I started a couple weeks ago where the various options are discussed in the Cold War section.

 

Regarding FAA what-ifs, there s actually another type that is related to the history of the F-111B and the Tomcat and that has some British connection...

When it was clear that the F-111B was not going to satisfy the USN requirements, a new request was made by the USN and a few companies proposed designs. The Tomcat was the winning one but among the loser was the LTV V-507. This had been designed in collaboration with Dassault, who were working on their Mirage G series at the time. Dassault had previously of course been part of the AFVG team together with BAC, and in a sense something of the AFVG lived on in the LTV proposal.

Considering that the way Dassault parted way with the AFVG was not well received in the Britain, it's maybe unlikely that anything related to the Mirage G could have been accepted in UK service, but who knows, maybe something else could have come out of the original AFVG project (apart from the Tornado of course...). There's always the matter that it remains to be seen if CVA-01 could have easily operated this class of aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do know that when the eye watering cost of F-35 & HMS QE were looked at in the UK Defence Review of 2010 (the famous decision to scrap the harrier & switch from F-35C to F-35B, the majority in the RN were very serious at looking at the F/A-18E with a cats 'n traps CV. I also heard that when the USMC went for their last "big" order of 100+ MV-22s they made an offer to the UK that only an idiot could refuse with a purchase for a few, with spares & training etc for a fly away price way cheaper than the new buy of chinooks the RAF were about to buy.......but, as usual the idiots in Treasury won the day :(

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2019 at 7:49 PM, Das Abteilung said:

Only to be told that she had authorised their decommissioning in favour of the Invincibles with Sea Harriers and a huge drop in capability.  I bet that was an uncomfortable conversation for 1SL................

 

That'd have been rather difficult given that the Ark went out of service a year before the 1979 election which she won.... 

 

The F/A-18E/F was looked at in 2010, but the UK's position as a Tier 1 (the Tier 1) partner and the industrial advantages of sticking with the F-35 (Boeing wasn't offering that at least 15% of every F/A-18E/F built would be produced in the UK for a start) meant that it was never really an option. Dr Fox was the driving force behind the move to F-35C, which the scrutineers politely suggested was 'lacking in supporting evidence' - i.e. no justification beyond 'the Secretary of State says this is a good idea'.

 

The cost of operating and integrating the MV-22 into the UK ORBAT compared to purchasing more Chinooks made the 'generous offer' rather less generous on closer examination. The same happened with the supposed 'generous' offer of UH-60 some years ago; on closer examination, it pretty much closed down what was then AugustaWestland and the costs of spares, etc, etc made the deal rather less attractive.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...