Alternate Royal Navy 1960's Fighters

[Russell]

It's not often that I actually post threads but the recent flux of post-war British threads has gone me thinking.

By 1958/59 the Royal Navies Fleet Air Arm was aware that it was going to need a new supersonic capable fighter for the 60’s. The DeHavilland Sea Vixen, although just introduced was already essentially obsolete due to its purely subsonic capability when put into contrast against the Soviet MIG 21 and the U.S. F-8 Crusader. Furthermore, what would become the F-4 Phantom also flew in the same year, leaving the FAA even further behind in terms of technology. Ultimately, the FAA decided to look into a number of potential domestically deigned aircraft for service in the 70’s and 80’s while a RR Spey powered F-4 Phantom was procured as an intermediate solution. However, with the cancellation of the CVA-01 in 1966 and the decision to scrap the CTOL carrier fleet in the 70’s the future carrier fighter was cancelled and the F-4 Phantom became the mainstay of the CTOL fleet until it’s scrapping in 1978.

Therefore, the question I am asking is, based upon the assumption the RN intends to continue with CTOL carriers into the future and based upon the assumption that in order to avoid obsolesce in the 1960’s the FAA needs a supersonic (Mach 2?) capable fighter, what would be the best option to serve it until at least the mid to late 70’s? Specifically, what domestically deigned fighters (built or un-built) would be a good choice for the role instead of buying from foreign sources?

Some of the aircraft that appear to best fulfil the role are:

• Supermairne/BAC Type 583: This Variable Geometry fighter was proposed in two versions; a conventional CTOL version and a V/STOL version, intened into two versions, one fighter and one strike. It was the most developed aircraft and was intended to enter service circa 1970. After the 1966 Labour defence cuts it became part of the Anglo-French Variable Geometry project that ultimately evolved into the PAVAVIA Tornado. The Type 583 was a relatively small fighter, designed to be able to fit onto the small British carriers. The VG wings were to allow the fighter good supersonic capabilities but also slow landing speeds, as well as an improved combat radius. Has the advantage of possible Anglo-French co-operation.

However, the VG technology was largely untested and could have proven extremely costly if and when problems arose.

• Supermarine/Vickers Type 576: A supersonic, two man, all weather capable fighter bomber developed from temperamental Supermarine Scimitar. The Scimitar was originally developed as a fighter and many of its flight problems came from the fact that it was hastily re-rolled as a strike fighter while the bulk of the mechanical problems were down to dodgy fuel and hydraulic lines. Most of these were sorted in the aircraft latter years of service and Supermarine eventually perfected blown flap technology that gave it such poor high altitude flight characteristics. Has the major advantage that it is already proven technology and good equivalent in performance and appearance to the U.S. F-4 and could have been in service by 1964.

However, the Scimitar had a bad reputation and I’m unsure how well development would have gone, or how well it would have performed.

• Hawker P.1121: Hawkers supersonic (mach 2) Hunter replacement. Unlike the other two fighters, a prototype was built but never flew. Designed primarily as an interceptor but would have probably been a good fighter bomber (not as capable as the Phantom, which was designed as such). The aircraft would have been a good competitor to the F-4 sand Mirage series. It could probably have been in service by 1963/1964.

However, it does have a number of drawbacks. It only has a single engine – a definite no no with the FAA (and MOD in general) as well as poor viability over the nose, making landings on the small RN carriers particularly hazardous. Furthermore, since it was designed originally as a land based fighter, its high landing speeds would have made landing difficult and would probably require expensive upgrades to the carrier arrestor gear.





Thoughts and opinions?

Russell

 

[abc123]

It's not often that I actually post threads but the recent flux of post-war British threads has gone me thinking.

By 1958/59 the Royal Navies Fleet Air Arm was aware that it was going to need a new supersonic capable fighter for the 60’s. The DeHavilland Sea Vixen, although just introduced was already essentially obsolete due to its purely subsonic capability when put into contrast against the Soviet MIG 21 and the U.S. F-8 Crusader. Furthermore, what would become the F-4 Phantom also flew in the same year, leaving the FAA even further behind in terms of technology. Ultimately, the FAA decided to look into a number of potential domestically deigned aircraft for service in the 70’s and 80’s while a RR Spey powered F-4 Phantom was procured as an intermediate solution. However, with the cancellation of the CVA-01 in 1966 and the decision to scrap the CTOL carrier fleet in the 70’s the future carrier fighter was cancelled and the F-4 Phantom became the mainstay of the CTOL fleet until it’s scrapping in 1978.

Therefore, the question I am asking is, based upon the assumption the RN intends to continue with CTOL carriers into the future and based upon the assumption that in order to avoid obsolesce in the 1960’s the FAA needs a supersonic (Mach 2?) capable fighter, what would be the best option to serve it until at least the mid to late 70’s? Specifically, what domestically deigned fighters (built or un-built) would be a good choice for the role instead of buying from foreign sources?

Some of the aircraft that appear to best fulfil the role are:

• Supermairne/BAC Type 583: This Variable Geometry fighter was proposed in two versions; a conventional CTOL version and a V/STOL version, intened into two versions, one fighter and one strike. It was the most developed aircraft to enter service circa 1970. After the 1966 Labour defence cuts it became part of the Anglo-French Variable Geometry project that ultimately evolved into the PAVAVIA Tornado. The Type 583 was a relatively small fighter, designed to be able to fit onto the small British carriers. The VG wings were to allow the fighter good supersonic capabilities but also slow landing speeds, as well as an improved combat radius. Has the advantage of possible Anglo-French co-operation.

However, the VG technology was largely untested and could have proven extremely costly if and when problems arose.

• Supermarine/Vickers Type 576: A supersonic, two man, all weather capable fighter bomber developed from temperamental Supermarine Scimitar. The Scimitar was originally developed as a fighter and many of its flight problems came from the fact that it was hastily re-rolled as a strike fighter while the bulk of the mechanical problems were down to dodgy fuel and hydraulic lines. Most of these were sorted in the aircraft latter years of service and Supermarine eventually perfected blown flap technology that gave it such poor high altitude flight characteristics. Has the major advantage that it is already proven technology and good equivalent in performance and appearance to the U.S. F-4 and could have been in service by 1964.

However, the Scimitar had a bad reputation and I’m unsure how well development would have gone, or how well it would have performed.

• Hawker P.1121: Hawkers supersonic (mach 2) Hunter replacement. Unlike the other two fighters, a prototype was built but never flew. Designed primarily as an interceptor but would have probably been a good fighter bomber (not as capable as the Phantom, which was designed as such). The aircraft would have been a good competitor to the F-4 sand Mirage series. It could probably have been in service by 1963/1964.

However, it does have a number of drawbacks. It only has a single engine – a definite no no with the FAA (and MOD in general) as well as poor viability over the nose, making landings on the small RN carriers particularly hazardous. Furthermore, since it was designed originally as a land based fighter, its high landing speeds would have made landing difficult and would probably require expensive upgrades to the carrier arrestor gear.





Thoughts and opinions?

Russell

Well, basicly, you said it al by yourself. IMO, best options would have been or Vickers 576 or Hawker 1121.
Yes, they had some bad sides, but until ful production many can be solved.
For VG is IMO little too early in 50s.

 

[Russell]

Well, basicly, you said it al by yourself. IMO, best options would have been or Vickers 576 or Hawker 1121.
Yes, they had some bad sides, but until ful production many can be solved.
For VG is IMO little too early in 50s.

Overall, the P.1121 is more likely to be a last resort - it's single engine makes it rather unattractive as a naval fighter.

VG isn't all that new. Barnes Wallis had been researching it since the 40's and the fighter wasn't slated to begin development until the 60's anyhow, with an in-service date of 1970.

Russell

 

[Winston Smith]

I've always thought that the F-8 Crusader with the Sea Harriers FRS.1 radar would be good for the FAA. You don't need as big a ship after all.

 

[Just Leo]

To presume which existing fighter design might have been developed into a naval fighter is difficult, since the naval fighter niche has always been a small one, compared to RAF requirements, and RAF requirements themselves were largely ignored with the choice of the largely experimental and unsuited EE Lightning only because development was deemed too far along. The fighter aircraft was dead to the government. I can't think of any naval aircraft in the design stage awaiting a government decision, and I think that if the most marvellous fighter had been offered, the government would have killed it for cost reasons.

 

[Russell]

To presume which existing fighter design might have been developed into a naval fighter is difficult ... The fighter aircraft was dead to the government. I can't think of any naval aircraft in the design stage awaiting a government decision, and I think that if the most marvellous fighter had been offered, the government would have killed it for cost reasons.

This thread is entierly speculative - the question posted was worked around politics and was only brought up to discuss the potential fighters which may have been developed, based upon real proposals of the time. Whether the government aproved them or not is not what is being discussed - simply the best potential options.

In OTL, the only fighter given serious thought was the Type 583 which ultimately evolved over two decades into the Tornado.

The fighter aircraft was dead to the government.

And yet within less than five years of the 1957 defence white paper, new manned fighters were already being sought, so it's not relavent.

Russell

I've always thought that the F-8 Crusader with the Sea Harriers FRS.1 radar would be good for the FAA. You don't need as big a ship after all.

True, it could have operated of a small Hermese type carrier at a push, therefore avoiding the CVA-01 debacle. However, it does lack somewhat in a gound attack capacity.

Russell

 

[Just Leo]

The Government, in some time, regarded the Fairey Delta 2 as worthy of development without having to go to France, or Norway, to allow it to be flown. Imparting vestiges of the Douglas F5D Lancer, a superlative aircraft only cancelled due to the Crusader's more advanced state of development, the land-based Fairey Flash became a naval fighter.

 

[CalBear]

This thread is entierly speculative - the question posted was worked around politics and was only brought up to discuss the potential fighters which may have been developed, based upon real proposals of the time. Whether the government aproved them or not is not what is being discussed - simply the best potential options.

In OTL, the only fighter given serious thought was the Type 583 which ultimately evolved over two decades into the Tornado.



And yet within less than five years of the 1957 defence white paper, new manned fighters were already being sought, so it's not relavent.

Russell



True, it could have operated of a small Hermese type carrier at a push, therefore avoiding the CVA-01 debacle. However, it does lack somewhat in a gound attack capacity.

Russell

The F8 only lacks ground attack until you change it to the A-7.

There were plenty of aircraft that could have kept the UK in the carrier business. My understanding is that Parliment didn't want to be in a carrier business (hence the "through deck cruiser").

 

[PhilKearny]

My understanding is that Parliment didn't want to be in a carrier business (hence the "through deck cruiser").

Don't you think that Parliament showed that lack of interest many years previous by funding procurement of the Fairey Albacore and Firefly?

 

[nandalf]

I know i am not british,so, thinking without bias(attachment) about the FAA,i think that the FAA has to use either the same aircraft the RAF use(navalised versions)or of the shelf amercan aircrafts.Why?because the just do not have the numbers to be economical feaseble to develop and buy an aircraft,and FAA numbers of planes would only go down through the years,make the planes cheaper would realy help the FAA in any bid.

 

[abc123]

Overall, the P.1121 is more likely to be a last resort - it's single engine makes it rather unattractive as a naval fighter.

VG isn't all that new. Barnes Wallis had been researching it since the 40's and the fighter wasn't slated to begin development until the 60's anyhow, with an in-service date of 1970.

Russell

Well, single engine fighters were not a rarity in carriers in that time, specially in US Navy, after all A-4 is single engine, and others too, so IMO, no sence in trying to be smarter then Americans and insist on some especially smart solutions that in the end show it self as dumb.

 

[EAF602Whizz]

I agree with ABC123, twin engines weren't as necessary as the FAA claimed. I'd have liked to have seen a 1950s hi lo mix with Sea Vixen entering service much earlier to replace the all weather Sea Venoms (which it could have without the politics) and Sea Hawks replaced by a Sea going and possibly upgraded version of the Hunter.

In the late sixties we either go to the States with our shopping list or develop a new hi lo mix or single type to replace the Sea Hunters and Sea Vixens. P1154/Harrier mix? F8s, F4s or whatever. A swing wing pre tornado type sounds interesting though as does Jaguar M for strike and recce. Buccaneers of course are staying.

The truth is there were umpteen options and the choices made probably weren't the best. In fact could they have been worse without actually commiting treason?

 

[CalBear]

I know i am not british,so, thinking without bias(attachment) about the FAA,i think that the FAA has to use either the same aircraft the RAF use(navalised versions)or of the shelf amercan aircrafts.Why?because the just do not have the numbers to be economical feaseble to develop and buy an aircraft,and FAA numbers of planes would only go down through the years,make the planes cheaper would realy help the FAA in any bid.

The needs of a ground based air force and a navy air force are quite different and aircraft designed for the one will, in general, not work for the other. When they do, it is almost always the case of the naval aircraft being adaptable to air force use and not the other way round.

Carrier borne aircraft tend to be far more robust, especially in the landing gear and rear fuselage in oder to survive catapult launches and the controlled crash that is every single carrier landing. With the exception of the Hurricane & Spitfire I can't really think of any land based fixed wing aircraft that was successfully adapted to carrier use (and even those aircraft were a bit of a stretch) in the monoplane era. The ship to shore conversion has far more examples with the USN having the A1D, A-3 (as the B-66), A-4, F-4, F8, A-7, & F/A-18 that have all had very useful careers as land based aircraft. It is important to note, however, that the land based variants of these aircraft are, in general, no longer carrier capable since the ground based service strip out several hundred pounds of unneeded equipment.

The FAA did use a number of USN designs, starting with the F4F (which the RN called the Marlet) all the way through the Phantom. The RN was also the service that figured out how to successfully bring the F4U into regular carrier service.

 

[Riain]

I'm wary of the napkin-FAA, the FAA only ordered 54 or so FG1 Phantoms and 85 or so Buccaneers, so even if they had a single type they couldn't afford to develop and build it for themselves. If you add in the RAFs fighter needs you might get up to 250 or so which could justify a development and production run, but for a joint plane it would have to be designed around fixed navy requiremnts for deck footprint, approach speeds, structural strength and the like. However the Phantom proved that this needn't be a handicap.