Joint RN-MN carrier fighter in the 60s?

[groundhogday666]

If a Breguet fighter is in the mix, and personally I think it should be then the Br120 is the one to go for. The Sirocco is too old a design and far too small to meet the British requirement and while the Br121 that was a basis for the Jaguar is much newer it also is way too small. The Br120 is twin Spey powered and weighs 35,000lbs and is 19m long (same and a Phantom) so is as big as the Clems can handle but seems to have a lot of engine for the era, I think it could get away with 25-30,000lbs of thrust.

Fair enough. The DAFNE indeed, is a 1964 design - larger than the Sirocco and much like a Phantom except more modern.

The RN- FAA OR from the early 60's (OR346 ?) were very complicated and heavy things, with lift jets, VG wings, long range and endurance, big radars, missiles, and loitering times... an in-between F-4K and F-111B / F-14, somewhat..

Well, DAFNE was very much a French counterpart. Breguet 1200 then. See attached an excerpt from a very old book.

 

[Riain]

I think we have a winner.

Yes and no, I agree it fits the bill in a technical sense but you can't really have the customer buying 40 taking control of the project over the customer buying 140. The British would need to be the lead in terms of design and development given its buying 3.5 aircraft for every one the French are buying.

 

[groundhogday666]

Your chance here, is Breguet is much easier to deal with than Dassault - as far as binational cooperations go. Of course is Breguet goes under and Dassault buys it (as happened in 1967-71) you are toast...

 

[Riain]

Looking at some of the prototypes floated around by both countries around this time, it's probably possible to design a single-engine swept-wing fighter within those parameters. The Mirage F2 is close to that weight, and while the Hawker P.1103 is a little heavier it could probably be shrunk a little if it doesn't have to carry the gigantic Red Dean missile.

Engine-wise the British have plenty of options - the de Havilland Gyron and the Rolls-Royce RB.106 are under development at this time, and both deliver over 20,000 lbs of thrust, including over 25,000 for the Gyron. Alternatively, an uprated Rolls-Royce Olympus would also be suitable.

The more I think about it the more I think something like the Hawker 1103-1121 family is the most appropriate line of development, mainly because it's the British who are the lead customer rather than the French.

I like the RR medway engine, which perhaps could have also gone into the TSR2 and certainly would have gone into the Saab Viggen.

 

[Riain]

Fair enough. The DAFNE indeed, is a 1964 design - larger than the Sirocco and much like a Phantom except more modern.

The RN- FAA OR from the early 60's (OR346 ?) were very complicated and heavy things, with lift jets, VG wings, long range and endurance, big radars, missiles, and loitering times... an in-between F-4K and F-111B / F-14, somewhat..

Well, DAFNE was very much a French counterpart. Breguet 1200 then. See attached an excerpt from a very old book.

The OR 346 was around in 1959-61 and eventually shoehorned to fit the P1154 alongside a Hunter replacement as a politically driven push for NATO Basic Military Requirement 3 which then become 3a with 3b being a small subsonic aircraft matching the P1127.

In my head the British aren't cracking the whip for supersonic VTOL given everything else going on in the period, so OR356 won't have all the complicating factors. However OR346 will be too big for the French so in order to get the French to pay for ~25% of the development the British are going to have to accept ~25% less plane than their carriers can handle.

This is a huge question, can/should the British live with only 75% of what their carriers can handle? Is the best way to spend ~125 million pounds (development cost of P1154 and Spey Phantom) on a fighter driven by French requirements, or to modify the bigger and more capable Phantom and use the change to buy the 7 optioned aircraft?

 

[naraic]

If the Royal Navy can handle it on their carriers I doubt the Royal Air Force will be interested in using it.

 

[Riain]

If the Royal Navy can handle it on their carriers I doubt the Royal Air Force will be interested in using it.

In my mind the RAF is not in the market for for a fighter in the timeframe, they are using the multi-role developments of the Lightning and the P1127 Kestrel to replace the Hunter. The RAF won't go looking for a tactical fighter until the late 60s for an in-service date of the mid 70s.

 

[CV12Hornet]

The OR 346 was around in 1959-61 and eventually shoehorned to fit the P1154 alongside a Hunter replacement as a politically driven push for NATO Basic Military Requirement 3 which then become 3a with 3b being a small subsonic aircraft matching the P1127.

In my head the British aren't cracking the whip for supersonic VTOL given everything else going on in the period, so OR356 won't have all the complicating factors. However OR346 will be too big for the French so in order to get the French to pay for ~25% of the development the British are going to have to accept ~25% less plane than their carriers can handle.

This is a huge question, can/should the British live with only 75% of what their carriers can handle? Is the best way to spend ~125 million pounds (development cost of P1154 and Spey Phantom) on a fighter driven by French requirements, or to modify the bigger and more capable Phantom and use the change to buy the 7 optioned aircraft?

The Phantom may be bigger and more capable, but a smaller fighter not only allows the Brits to carry more of them, it also means less modification to Hermes and Eagle, which would've been sticking around for a long while in any reasonable "Britain keeps strike carriers" timeline. I honestly don't think Hermes could've handled the F-4K despite Royal Navy insistence on trying, and while Phantomization would've probably been a reasonably painless process on Eagle that's still several million pounds more down the drain they won't need to spend now.

 

[tomo pauk]

I'd say again - navalize the EE Lightning.

 

[CV12Hornet]

I'd say again - navalize the EE Lightning.

Too big - with cannon, ammo, fuel, and two missiles it weighed 41,000 lbs, far too much for the 35,000-lb requirement to operate off Clemenceau and Foch even before navalization adds more weight. It's also not designed to use BVR missiles, which a new plane can be designed to do.

 

[Riain]

The Phantom may be bigger and more capable, but a smaller fighter not only allows the Brits to carry more of them, it also means less modification to Hermes and Eagle, which would've been sticking around for a long while in any reasonable "Britain keeps strike carriers" timeline. I honestly don't think Hermes could've handled the F-4K despite Royal Navy insistence on trying, and while Phantomization would've probably been a reasonably painless process on Eagle that's still several million pounds more down the drain they won't need to spend now.

Eagle is fine, it's Ark Royal than had 32 million spent to make it Phantom compatible.

You raise an interesting point, which is why there are no simple answers to this riddle. I think having the RN keep the Hermes would be a bad step, it would be much better in the RAN, which would address the whole 'the only role for carriers is covering amphibious landings with Allies, in 1966 a lot of British allies had aircraft carriers.I think in the 1966 White paper some rundown of the RN carrier force is inevitable, the schedule in my head is going from 4 to 3 in 1972 with Hermes going to RAN and Vic paying off making their crews available for CVA01, with Ark Royal and Eagle also in service, in 1975 CVA02 would replace the Ark which had the 'austere' Phantom refit leaving CVA01&02 and Eagle in service. However the inevitable mid 70s White Paper or perhaps the 1981 WP will pay off the Eagle without direct replacement.

However as you say if the Hermes can operate the new 35,000lb fighter then the RAN is a likely customer, or it makes the assessment of a used Essex class different because there will be no question about if the cats can launch the supersonic fighter.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Eagle is fine, it's Ark Royal than had 32 million spent to make it Phantom compatible.

You raise an interesting point, which is why there are no simple answers to this riddle. I think having the RN keep the Hermes would be a bad step, it would be much better in the RAN, which would address the whole 'the only role for carriers is covering amphibious landings with Allies, in 1966 a lot of British allies had aircraft carriers.I think in the 1966 White paper some rundown of the RN carrier force is inevitable, the schedule in my head is going from 4 to 3 in 1972 with Hermes going to RAN and Vic paying off making their crews available for CVA01, with Ark Royal and Eagle also in service, in 1975 CVA02 would replace the Ark which had the 'austere' Phantom refit leaving CVA01&02 and Eagle in service. However the inevitable mid 70s White Paper or perhaps the 1981 WP will pay off the Eagle without direct replacement.

However as you say if the Hermes can operate the new 35,000lb fighter then the RAN is a likely customer, or it makes the assessment of a used Essex class different because there will be no question about if the cats can launch the supersonic fighter.

The problem is that Ark Royal is not materially viable past 1972 in the minds of the Royal Navy of 1963, so she'd be the one to be paid off alongside victorious when CVA-01 commissions, and CVA-02 was already dead on arrival by then. Hermes is desperately needed to keep up three carriers; the Brits were very much crossing their fingers and hoping a proper replacement materialized by 1980. This unfortunately torpedoes Hermes being sold to Australia; by the time Hermes is actually available to be sold the Australians have decided on not upgrading their carrier situation.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The problem is that Ark Royal is not materially viable past 1972 in the minds of the Royal Navy of 1963, so she'd be the one to be paid off alongside victorious when CVA-01 commissions, and CVA-02 was already dead on arrival by then. Hermes is desperately needed to keep up three carriers; the Brits were very much crossing their fingers and hoping a proper replacement materialized by 1980. This unfortunately torpedoes Hermes being sold to Australia; by the time Hermes is actually available to be sold the Australians have decided on not upgrading their carrier situation.

So sell the Australians Centaur.

 

[Riain]

The problem is that Ark Royal is not materially viable past 1972 in the minds of the Royal Navy of 1963, so she'd be the one to be paid off alongside victorious when CVA-01 commissions, and CVA-02 was already dead on arrival by then. Hermes is desperately needed to keep up three carriers; the Brits were very much crossing their fingers and hoping a proper replacement materialized by 1980. This unfortunately torpedoes Hermes being sold to Australia; by the time Hermes is actually available to be sold the Australians have decided on not upgrading their carrier situation.

IIUC even back in 1963 the Ark was in the refit schedule for 1967 for an Eagle-style rebuild, after Hermes' finished her big 64-66 refit which installed the BS4A cat.

After the 1966 review, where Britain was to pull out of East of Suez by 1975 the Ark was to get an austere Phantomisation refit in 1967 to last until about 1975 and I believe Eagle was also to be Phantomised in 1969 or so and the Victorious retained until 1972.

In the 1968 review, after devaluation in November 1967, all of that was knocked on the head, Britain was pulling out EoS by 1971. The Vic was withdrawn after a minor fire in refit, the Eagle's Phantom refit was cancelled and her 20 Phantoms delivered to the RAF. The Arks refit was underway and still went forward (in order to retain jobs in Labour seats apparently) but she was expected to serve some ludicrously short amount of time, something like a single 3 year commission. In this period the government authorised 3 'helicopter command cruisers' to lead NATO ASW task forces. In 1970 the incoming Conservative government gave the FAA a reprieve but not enough of one to refit the Eagle because her aircraft had already been transferred to the RAF, I believe the only difference between this reprieve and the 1966 plan for the Ark is she served until 1978 not 1975.

My aim, such as it is, is to have the RN in a better position for the 1966 White Paper and 1967 devaluation.

 

[CV12Hornet]

IIUC even back in 1963 the Ark was in the refit schedule for 1967 for an Eagle-style rebuild, after Hermes' finished her big 64-66 refit which installed the BS4A cat.

That's not what I've read, which is that by spring 1963 CVA-01 was to replace Victorious and an unmodernized Ark Royal in 1972.

On a related note, what that source has to say about the fighter requirements as of 1961 (study started 1959):

(2) AW.406 and OR.356. The naval requirement (AW.406) was for a combined strike and interceptor aircraft with the emphasis on the fighter role as a successor for Sea Vixen for fleet defence from 1969-70. Capable of Mach 2.0, as an interceptor it could carry four Red Top AAM's while in the strike role it could carry up to 8,000lb of bombs or nuclear weapons. Maximum weight was to be 40,000lb without stores, and a two man crew. To AW.406 was often added the RAF requirement OR.356 (first draft issued January 1962) for a Hunter replacement entering service in 1968. OR.356 also replaced the GOR.345 requirement for a short-range V/STOL ground attack recon aircraft for close support in a limited war. The association of OR.356 with AW.406 was another mismatch of requirements.

These could probably be relaxed in exchange for spreading out the development costs with someone else, as was hoped to be the case with P.1154.

 

[Riain]

That's not what I've read, which is that by spring 1963 CVA-01 was to replace Victorious and an unmodernized Ark Royal in 1972.

Fair enough, these plans constantly evolved between 1960 and 1966, even when it was down to CVA01&02 the number of Type 82s went from 8 to 6 and back to 8 again in the space of about 18 months.

These could probably be relaxed in exchange for spreading out the development costs with someone else, as was hoped to be the case with P.1154.

I get the feeling that the NBMR3-P1154 episode might have been the worst possible way to recover from 3 years of 'manned aircraft are obsolete' as government policy.

A more confident British government and aviation industry might well be happy to undertake a joint project with the French if the French cover 25% of the development cost and undertake 25% of the work. However stepping down a 50,000lb aircraft to meet the 35,000lb requirement of the French who are only buying 25% of the production run seems to be to be the tail wagging the dog.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Fair enough, these plans constantly evolved between 1960 and 1966, even when it was down to CVA01&02 the number of Type 82s went from 8 to 6 and back to 8 again in the space of about 18 months.



I get the feeling that the NBMR3-P1154 episode might have been the worst possible way to recover from 3 years of 'manned aircraft are obsolete' as government policy.

A more confident British government and aviation industry might well be happy to undertake a joint project with the French if the French cover 25% of the development cost and undertake 25% of the work. However stepping down a 50,000lb aircraft to meet the 35,000lb requirement of the French who are only buying 25% of the production run seems to be to be the tail wagging the dog.

Well, it all depends on if the scaled-down aircraft can meet the requirements on 35,000 lbs - and that 35,000-lb mark only needs to be for air-to-air loadouts, given French requirements. Given the contemporary Viggen could meet the stated requirements it's probably possible.

Edit: I forgot to mention, but the Hawker P.1103 was itself the smallest of the entries in the competition it was cooked up for by a damn large margin. There's precedent.

 

[tomo pauk]

Too big - with cannon, ammo, fuel, and two missiles it weighed 41,000 lbs, far too much for the 35,000-lb requirement to operate off Clemenceau and Foch even before navalization adds more weight. It's also not designed to use BVR missiles, which a new plane can be designed to do.

What about navalized Draken? It already has the British engine and guns, it is not too heavy, and it Swedish AF was regularly practiced take off and landings from impromptu strips.
But indeed Viggen is a step ahead.

 

[Riain]

Well, it all depends on if the scaled-down aircraft can meet the requirements on 35,000 lbs - and that 35,000-lb mark only needs to be for air-to-air loadouts, given French requirements. Given the contemporary Viggen could meet the stated requirements it's probably possible.

True, but I'm coming to the conclusion that the major (by a long way) partner is making things unnecessarily difficult for themselves to bring a very minor partner on board. If the French would commit to more than 40 aircraft then things might be different, if they were paying for 1/3 rather than 1/4 of the development costs for example.

What about navalized Draken? It already has the British engine and guns, it is not too heavy, and it Swedish AF was regularly practiced take off and landings from impromptu strips.
But indeed Viggen is a step ahead.

Too small.

For example early Drakens carried the Cyrano II radar from the Mirage III, which had a pretty small radar dish, maybe 15' IIRC whereas the AI23 in the Lightning had a 24' dish and the RN wanted a 36' dish for it's 60s fighter to get the power, range and discrimination it needed. It's the difference between a radar with 15 miles range, 30 miles and 100 miles or thereabouts. Another factor would be the heavy AAMs the RN and MN wanted to carry, the RN wanted 4 x Red Tops at 320lbs each and the MN wanted 2 x R530s at 400lbs each whereas a 9B Sidewinder weighed 155lbs and Falcon 120lbs, so a Draken with 4 x AIM 4s or 2-4 x AIM 9s will be quite light and sprightly . But load it up with a pair of R530s it will be much less so and with 4 Red Tops it will be positively sluggish carting 1,300lbs of AAMs around.

Its for these reasons that I keep banging on about going as big and powerful as possible, to maintain performance with powerful radars and loadouts of big AAMs. I don't think the Br120 will be able to carry a 36" radar dish, although it might go bigger than 24", but it will have few problems toting 4 Red Tops or 2 R530s.

 

[CV12Hornet]

True, but I'm coming to the conclusion that the major (by a long way) partner is making things unnecessarily difficult for themselves to bring a very minor partner on board. If the French would commit to more than 40 aircraft then things might be different, if they were paying for 1/3 rather than 1/4 of the development costs for example.

Yeah, I'm noticing that as well. Probably the best way would be to get the Armee de l'air on board, but they're not looking to replace the Mirage IIIC as an interceptor until the mid-60s. And frankly with 256 Mirage F1s bought IOTL they'd end up dominating the conversation anyway to the detriment of the project.