Unfortunatley not, i've only ever seen it (along with the HS STS idea mentioned previously) mentioned in the JBIS papers.
I asked about it on two space forum's i am on along with some other military ones but nothing came back.
A modern day British jet fighter
- Thread starter DMA
- Start date
Unfortunatley not, i've only ever seen it (along with the HS STS idea mentioned previously) mentioned in the JBIS papers.
I asked about it on two space forum's i am on along with some other military ones but nothing came back.
whatisinaname
Donor
First the Hawk, yep I got that in the wrong order, sorry about that. But I do think that the Hawk would still have been developed.
Second I don't know why you are listing the types of "Fact" marking as if I am some sort of fool, I do know the diff types of aircraft and the reason why they where not chosen. I find that quite insulting.
Third the CVF can take cats as the French version of the CVF can I don't know what your source of information on that is but it is very wrong on the ability switch from one to another before it is even built would be very easy indeed.
Fourth you keep referring to the P.1154, but I am talking about somewhere BETWEEN P.1154 and P.1127 WITHOUT PCB would get a much better harrier design along with a more powerful Pegasus engine of some sort.
Fifth if their was no Tornado then the TSR.2 would be an excellent choice as the F111 went so far over budget the only other nation to buy it was Oz and they have had no end of problems.
Sixth the harrier was the choice of the Tri-partite Evaluation Squadron (TES) and was canceled by Germany for political reasons no military ones as you seem to claim. Also Italy has been operating the harrier for quite a while without any complains, so again I don't know where you got this idea that Germany or Italy military was against the harrier idea??
Also finally you really need to read my post before commenting on them as I feel that you have not read them. I will not be continuing to post on this thread for this reason.
Hm, i'm intrigued about p1216. I believe SONICBOY mentioned it a while back. Could such a design really have worked? She'd have been a beautiful plane. But something about her doesn't look quite right... Could be the weapons pods.
Thanks 
I actually found those last night. Oh for what might've been... I have a big picture of a wind tunnel model as my work Desktop already ;D. Just after a bit of handling information now, and maybe I can include them in a story
I actually found those last night. Oh for what might've been... I have a big picture of a wind tunnel model as my work Desktop already ;D. Just after a bit of handling information now, and maybe I can include them in a story
Thanks
I actually found those last night. Oh for what might've been... I have a big picture of a wind tunnel model as my work Desktop already ;D. Just after a bit of handling information now, and maybe I can include them in a story
Have you seen this one?
That's the exact one
But... Could she actually fly? And how would she handle? Any ideas?
But... Could she actually fly? And how would she handle? Any ideas?
CVF can't easily take a catapult - a function of the electric propulsion system. With no steam being created to power the ship, there is no excess to power the catapult - and therefore, any system would either completely redesign the proulsion system of the vessel or bring with it its own steam generation. Hence the 'blue sky' future thinking of electro magnetic cats.
Either of these operations would come at a significantly increased cost and a decrease in the ability of CVF to meet the requirements set down for it - especially aircraft / munitions embarked and whole life costs. Its these costs that are the real stopper to any attempt to place cats on the RN CVF.
whatisinaname
Donor
See link for info - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_French_aircraft_carrier
This is the new French carrier to quote...... "The UK has chosen to continue to use STOVL aircraft for its new carrier; however, the fact that they chose an "adaptable" design which could be reconfigured for future CATOBAR operation means that the design is suitable for the French Navy. The French version is designed to operate the Dassault Rafale, the E-2C Hawkeye and the NH-90. It is a CATOBAR design, and the catapult used will be of the same models as installed on the Nimitz class supercarriers, C13-2 steam catapult, 90m long. The vessels are expected to be capable of carrying over 32 Rafales, three Hawkeye and five NH-90 support/anti-submarine helicopters. The crew will be about 1650, instead of 1950 in the Charles de Gaulle, indicating the high level of automation being integrated into the ships' systems."
I'd heard that too, but also that the ADV avionics suit was far more advanced (when it belatedly entered service), although it lacked Phoenix (although no great problem, given that it was designed to intercept Soviet a/c before they got in range to launch AShM missiles against the carriers, or engage the missiles themselves).
According to a post on Warships1, space and weight are supposed to have been set aside for boilers and from NavyMatters - considered to be very accurate.
It's acknowledged that generating steam aboard an IFEP ship is not ideal, but the consensus is that modern oil-fired auxiliary boilers with an auxiliary steam plant powering two 90m length track C13-2 or C13-3 catapults offers a sound engineering solution - if it comes to the crunch.
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-25.htm
Reply
No insult intended to anyone, but these things crop up all over the place, I blame the general media.
I agree that Hawkers at Kingston kept looking at subsonic, improved VSTOL types, however with Harrier then new in service, try selling that to the Treasury!
Tony Buttler's books are an excellent source for these, as well as much more besides.
The French CVF, will not be very common with the RN's ships, aside from superfically externally.
I guess after the not entirely successful CDG carrier, it saves them from having to completely start afresh?
While CVF/F-35C looks very attractive, and it was seriously considered for a time, the fact is, it would entail more cost and risk in a programme not short of those anyway.
As well as meaning the RN going back to the carrier ops they would not have done for nearly 40 years by then, (F-35C will also be in service, as things stand now, some time after F-35B).
VSTOL at sea for the RN, was one of those happy accidents that worked out, it does have advantages.
Since WW2, only one navy has faced an air attack from an enemy carrier air group, the RN on 2nd May 1982.
With the General Belgrano to the South, their ship, 25th Of May, was the northern half of a pincer attack.
The carrier had been tracked by another RN sub closer to Argentine waters, in shallower waters the nuclear sub was not in an ideal operating enviroment, the carrier has two of the few Argentine escorts with a modern ASW ability, ironically two Type 42 Destroyers with Lynx helicopters!
When the sub raised it's periscope again, thick fog had come down, and the 25th Of May had gone.
So a desperate search for it, as it headed out to attack the Task Force.
But too late, the A-4's were loaded with retard bombs (which would explode) piloted by the few Argentine pilots trained in anti shipping.
They had more fuel reserves compared to land based.
They could attack from several directions at the same time,
But, 2nd May 1982 was clear, calm, no wind, not enough wind over deck to launch a bombed up A-4.
(This plan had also been brought forward due to the Junta being spooked by the previous days Vulcan attack on Port Stanley too).
We know the rest, Belgrano was sunk, the carrier fled, out of the war for good.
My point, VSTOL aircraft did not have had the constraints of wind over deck Deep down, I suspect that this has never been forgotten in the RN, so now in the shape of the F-35B, here is the chance to get a modern, supersonic, Low Observable 'first day of the war' type.
Less range true, but higher sortie rates, no catapult to fail, no 'controlled crashes' as arrested landings.
Or as Falklands war pilot 'Sharky Ward', the man responsible in large part for the success of the Sea Harrier, put it, 'less grey hairs and brown trousers'.
Back to other subsonic Harrier type aircraft, we did miss out on a easy way to improve the basic first generation Harrier, the Sea Harrier really.
It was a sound move to adapt the AV-8B for the RAF, in effect, to make a British version of an American version of a British aircraft!
Since the over 300 to be built for the USMC, made a RAF AV-8B, a more cost viable option for the (intial) RAF buy of 60 aircraft.
BAe had touted a rival, the 'Big Wing' Harrier, the real rival to AV-8B was an all new type with this wing, a Sea Harrier type forward fuselage, modified rear fuselage too.
But, this wing could have been re-fitted to 1st Generation Harriers, like the Sea Harrier, what a pity it was not.
No insult intended to anyone, but these things crop up all over the place, I blame the general media.
I agree that Hawkers at Kingston kept looking at subsonic, improved VSTOL types, however with Harrier then new in service, try selling that to the Treasury!
Tony Buttler's books are an excellent source for these, as well as much more besides.
The French CVF, will not be very common with the RN's ships, aside from superfically externally.
I guess after the not entirely successful CDG carrier, it saves them from having to completely start afresh?
While CVF/F-35C looks very attractive, and it was seriously considered for a time, the fact is, it would entail more cost and risk in a programme not short of those anyway.
As well as meaning the RN going back to the carrier ops they would not have done for nearly 40 years by then, (F-35C will also be in service, as things stand now, some time after F-35B).
VSTOL at sea for the RN, was one of those happy accidents that worked out, it does have advantages.
Since WW2, only one navy has faced an air attack from an enemy carrier air group, the RN on 2nd May 1982.
With the General Belgrano to the South, their ship, 25th Of May, was the northern half of a pincer attack.
The carrier had been tracked by another RN sub closer to Argentine waters, in shallower waters the nuclear sub was not in an ideal operating enviroment, the carrier has two of the few Argentine escorts with a modern ASW ability, ironically two Type 42 Destroyers with Lynx helicopters!
When the sub raised it's periscope again, thick fog had come down, and the 25th Of May had gone.
So a desperate search for it, as it headed out to attack the Task Force.
But too late, the A-4's were loaded with retard bombs (which would explode) piloted by the few Argentine pilots trained in anti shipping.
They had more fuel reserves compared to land based.
They could attack from several directions at the same time,
But, 2nd May 1982 was clear, calm, no wind, not enough wind over deck to launch a bombed up A-4.
(This plan had also been brought forward due to the Junta being spooked by the previous days Vulcan attack on Port Stanley too).
We know the rest, Belgrano was sunk, the carrier fled, out of the war for good.
My point, VSTOL aircraft did not have had the constraints of wind over deck Deep down, I suspect that this has never been forgotten in the RN, so now in the shape of the F-35B, here is the chance to get a modern, supersonic, Low Observable 'first day of the war' type.
Less range true, but higher sortie rates, no catapult to fail, no 'controlled crashes' as arrested landings.
Or as Falklands war pilot 'Sharky Ward', the man responsible in large part for the success of the Sea Harrier, put it, 'less grey hairs and brown trousers'.
Back to other subsonic Harrier type aircraft, we did miss out on a easy way to improve the basic first generation Harrier, the Sea Harrier really.
It was a sound move to adapt the AV-8B for the RAF, in effect, to make a British version of an American version of a British aircraft!
Since the over 300 to be built for the USMC, made a RAF AV-8B, a more cost viable option for the (intial) RAF buy of 60 aircraft.
BAe had touted a rival, the 'Big Wing' Harrier, the real rival to AV-8B was an all new type with this wing, a Sea Harrier type forward fuselage, modified rear fuselage too.
But, this wing could have been re-fitted to 1st Generation Harriers, like the Sea Harrier, what a pity it was not.
Some piccies of the Big Wing Harrier, which incidently was more manoeuvrable than the AV-8B.
Also an AEW Harrier.
The wing was retrofittable but at 32ft it would have been a tight squeeze on the carrier lifts - 54ft 8" x 31ft 8" - and there might have been problems in the hanger - the gas turbine trunking produced a dumb-bell shaped hanger that was said to be bad enough for the standard Harrier even though it was around 40ft wide at this point - one of the reasons for the placing of the gas turbines on CVF where they are I suspect.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1442.0.html
Also an AEW Harrier.
The wing was retrofittable but at 32ft it would have been a tight squeeze on the carrier lifts - 54ft 8" x 31ft 8" - and there might have been problems in the hanger - the gas turbine trunking produced a dumb-bell shaped hanger that was said to be bad enough for the standard Harrier even though it was around 40ft wide at this point - one of the reasons for the placing of the gas turbines on CVF where they are I suspect.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1442.0.html
Space and weight are not the most important thing in procuring new warships. Its all about through life costs - can you afford, across the lifespan of the vessel to maintain it. Those aux boilers don't only take weight and space, but additional man-hours of highly paid sailors to keep going. They use more fuel, and spare parts, and when alongside have to be factored into any dockyard work (yet more cost, what with the denationalisation of the Royal Dockyards).
Now I know that sounds harsh - but at the end of the day, the RN needs two warships they can afford to maintain for forty years, not two, where they (or other, equally important vessels) will be tied up alongside, or unable to perform missions for lack of funds.
SONICBOY- that's exactly right about STOVL, the RN have decided they want it because it's a lot less weather-dependent. Not only does it not need wind-over-deck, but it also works better in heavy weather. If the ship's pitching too much, a catapult takeoff could happen at the wrong moment and result in the aircraft being shot into the face of an oncoming wave. This probablem can be solved (as the USN have done) either by building carriers big enough not to be bothered by much short of a hurricane, or by having aircraft with the range (usually with tankers) to launch from outside the rough weather. The RN can't afford to do either, so ski-jump it is.
Reply
Totally agree, I doubt that the RN were being ironic, in choosing the names for CVF, that were slated for the 1960's CVA-01.
Since that design tried to do too much, on an artificially limited displacement, made worse by 'eccentric' choices as a Sea Dart SAM (whose firing arc was right in line of returning airgroup aircraft, as well as space, weight and manpower issues), a propulsion system that would be non standard with the rest of the fleet not long after they would have been commissioned, manpower demands that even the then 1st Sea Lord admitted would pose serious problems.
We may regret the passing of the RN big carriers then, but not that CVA-01 was cancelled.
The 1957 review that did so much damage, was not really wrong in general, but took some ideas to an extreme.
The minister responsible was likely the key here, Duncan Sands had been a minister in the wartime coalition government.
He was involved in the defence against V1 flying bombs in 1944, that line of AA batteries, clearly influenced him, saying at the time 'this is the future of warfare'.
(But he ignored the contribution of fighter aircraft here).
So clearly, what tipped him over the edge on this issue, must have been what followed, the uninterceptable V-2's.
However, there was another factor too in 1957, the then Tory government was desperate to end conscription, which was both increasingly unpopular, as well as a drain on the nations ability to have enough skilled manpower.
'Never had it so good', well maybe, yes at last with wartime rationing and austerity gone, but compare UK growth, industrial modernisation, with our major, well recovered competitors then.
Even on the Grouse moors popular with much of the cabinet then, this was apparent.
Enter the successful deployment of the UK nuclear deterrent just then, with the NATO 'tripwire' doctrine, the case was made for a radical, cost cutting reform.
The review did not totally rule out manned aircraft, the Navy kept the carriers, as part of the plan to have deployable forces to argument those based 'out of area', Suez be dammed!
A RAF element too here, but the large conventional forces in Europe, were just to be that, a 'tripwire'.
The review was published just before the launch of Sputnik 1, even so, Soviet missiles were to be the main threat to the UK, fighters could not stop them, future advanced SAM's might, but the deterrent force was really seen as the real defence.
Lightning only survived because in words of the review, 'unfortunately it is too advanced in development to cancel'.
But it was an act of stupidity to cancel the potentially P-8 version.
There would however, be no room for another type in same general catergory as that type, so Hawkers P.1121 never really stood a chance.
But P-8, with it's wings free of the main gear retraction, could have done.
So, how to have maintained an exportable, viable combat aircraft industry?
Procure Lightning P-8, later versions adapted as a strike platform.
Force the RAF to accept the Buccaneer S.2 from the start.
Into the 60's, add in the Harrier, an early RAF commitment might just have interested others in NATO, larger production sooner, bringing the price down.
For transports, 30 Belfasts might be too many for the RAF's needs, procure 20, offer the balance to France and/or civil operators.
Buy the proposed BAC 222, a licenced build, Tyne engined, improved short field ability version of the C-130.
Develop and procure the Fairey Rotordyne for service use.
Even then, with the RN dead set on getting the F-4, the RAF would inevitably cast envious looks at this type, so RAF procurement would have gone ahead.
It would supplement the P-8, providing more capabilty too, especially in air defence, as it became clear under the mid 1960's NATO change to 'Flexible Response', that conventional improvements were needed.
As for the rest, as things did turn out in reality, multi national programmes were inevitable.
Also inevitable, was the withdrawl East Of Suez, by the mid 60's it was just too much of a drain on a still underperforming economy, worse, in some cases they were an irritant.
UK forces might have saved Kuwait from an Iraqi invasion in 1961, but the Kuwaitis would not accept a permanent UK presence in country, so they were based in Bahrain.
But, a (peaceful) campaign in Bahrain for the UK forces to leave, was financed by the Kuwaiti government!
Totally agree, I doubt that the RN were being ironic, in choosing the names for CVF, that were slated for the 1960's CVA-01.
Since that design tried to do too much, on an artificially limited displacement, made worse by 'eccentric' choices as a Sea Dart SAM (whose firing arc was right in line of returning airgroup aircraft, as well as space, weight and manpower issues), a propulsion system that would be non standard with the rest of the fleet not long after they would have been commissioned, manpower demands that even the then 1st Sea Lord admitted would pose serious problems.
We may regret the passing of the RN big carriers then, but not that CVA-01 was cancelled.
The 1957 review that did so much damage, was not really wrong in general, but took some ideas to an extreme.
The minister responsible was likely the key here, Duncan Sands had been a minister in the wartime coalition government.
He was involved in the defence against V1 flying bombs in 1944, that line of AA batteries, clearly influenced him, saying at the time 'this is the future of warfare'.
(But he ignored the contribution of fighter aircraft here).
So clearly, what tipped him over the edge on this issue, must have been what followed, the uninterceptable V-2's.
However, there was another factor too in 1957, the then Tory government was desperate to end conscription, which was both increasingly unpopular, as well as a drain on the nations ability to have enough skilled manpower.
'Never had it so good', well maybe, yes at last with wartime rationing and austerity gone, but compare UK growth, industrial modernisation, with our major, well recovered competitors then.
Even on the Grouse moors popular with much of the cabinet then, this was apparent.
Enter the successful deployment of the UK nuclear deterrent just then, with the NATO 'tripwire' doctrine, the case was made for a radical, cost cutting reform.
The review did not totally rule out manned aircraft, the Navy kept the carriers, as part of the plan to have deployable forces to argument those based 'out of area', Suez be dammed!
A RAF element too here, but the large conventional forces in Europe, were just to be that, a 'tripwire'.
The review was published just before the launch of Sputnik 1, even so, Soviet missiles were to be the main threat to the UK, fighters could not stop them, future advanced SAM's might, but the deterrent force was really seen as the real defence.
Lightning only survived because in words of the review, 'unfortunately it is too advanced in development to cancel'.
But it was an act of stupidity to cancel the potentially P-8 version.
There would however, be no room for another type in same general catergory as that type, so Hawkers P.1121 never really stood a chance.
But P-8, with it's wings free of the main gear retraction, could have done.
So, how to have maintained an exportable, viable combat aircraft industry?
Procure Lightning P-8, later versions adapted as a strike platform.
Force the RAF to accept the Buccaneer S.2 from the start.
Into the 60's, add in the Harrier, an early RAF commitment might just have interested others in NATO, larger production sooner, bringing the price down.
For transports, 30 Belfasts might be too many for the RAF's needs, procure 20, offer the balance to France and/or civil operators.
Buy the proposed BAC 222, a licenced build, Tyne engined, improved short field ability version of the C-130.
Develop and procure the Fairey Rotordyne for service use.
Even then, with the RN dead set on getting the F-4, the RAF would inevitably cast envious looks at this type, so RAF procurement would have gone ahead.
It would supplement the P-8, providing more capabilty too, especially in air defence, as it became clear under the mid 1960's NATO change to 'Flexible Response', that conventional improvements were needed.
As for the rest, as things did turn out in reality, multi national programmes were inevitable.
Also inevitable, was the withdrawl East Of Suez, by the mid 60's it was just too much of a drain on a still underperforming economy, worse, in some cases they were an irritant.
UK forces might have saved Kuwait from an Iraqi invasion in 1961, but the Kuwaitis would not accept a permanent UK presence in country, so they were based in Bahrain.
But, a (peaceful) campaign in Bahrain for the UK forces to leave, was financed by the Kuwaiti government!