Britain had already had her confidence shattered as Suez in 1956 and destroyer her aviation industry in 1957, cancelled the TSR2 and CVA 01 in 1965, so the PoD would have to be well before 1966.
Different Navy in the 70s
- Thread starter Peg Leg Pom
- Start date
Britain had already had her confidence shattered as Suez in 1956 and destroyer her aviation industry in 1957, cancelled the TSR2 and CVA 01 in 1965, so the PoD would have to be well before 1966.
Well, again, I guess that a different attitude in 1957 will merely postpone painful decisions. The 1950's showed that Britain tried to pursue too many roads of aircraft development with a result that aircraft coming into service were already well on their way to obsolescense. Without 1957 decisions there will be driblets of already obsolete aircraft with cool names entering service during 1960's and 1970's.
Avro 730 - supersonic bomber / SR aircraft in the era of IRBM's and satellites? Yeah right!
SR.53 and SR.177 - mixed power ten years too late
OR F.155 - with specifications like those, why bother with men sitting in the cockpit anyway?
It's hard to see whether there was anything truly useful cancelled anyway. The British OR's led to a number of overspecified aircraft not deemed to be succesful. If the OR's had specified sensible multi-role aircraft there might have been some aircraft worth saving. I think the problem with both RN and RAF was that they took too much time to realize Britain did not have resources of a superpower. If a decision had been made to develop just one or two aircraft of each generation and modify them to whatever roles available there might have been succesful British 1950's fighters (like Draken, Mirage-III etc.) which may well have succeeded in export markets as well.
Last edited:
As my grandfather had a hand in the design I am biased, but the TSR2 was like a better version of the F111. Which hardly fits in with that scathing assessment. I think Duncan Sandys threw the baby and bath out with the bath water. The 1957 defence white paper made a virtue out of a dogma, not a necessity.
Considering that in OTL during 1960's Britain was in OTL only able to purchase very few modern combat aircraft what would the situation have been if all the cool projects had continued? (In OTL: 166 F-4 II in 1964-1965, 60 Harrier GR.1 in 1966, 170 Buccaneer, not counting EE Lightnings, V-bombers etc. which were already in works in 1957 ). All the aircraft cancelled were extremely challenging and it's not hard to see that numbers which would have been purchased would have been much less than those of OTL.
Defense drawdowns are difficult and certainly UK managed it's own better than Russia in 1991-2009. In OTL, during 1960's, RAF and RN got into service three major combat aircrafts which served Britain's air forces very well in their respective roles. I'm not all that sure that British aircraft industry left untampered could have done better.
BAC has the Lightning in early production and is working on the TSR2 and Jaguar.
Hawker Siddeley has the Harrier family and Hawk to work on while producing the Buccaneer.
Westland is the sole domestic helicopter manufacturer. Producing the Wessex under licence from the US and developing the Rotodyne.
The British Hovercraft Corperation have the SR N4 (car ferry) and SR N6 (passenger) to work on. The former will be considered by the RN for an air cushion mine sweeper while the later will be adapted by Bell for the LCAC design for the USN.
The sixties could still have been more ambitious even after the massive mergers of 1958-1960.
About 40,000 tons for 3x CVA-01 is going to be a big climb down from the RN. A radical reduction in frigate numbers from 84 to 50 (74 OTL) will allow cheaper modernisation while showing willing in cutting back. Heading off the spurious attack from the RAF would help too. They moved Australia to prove that the land based bombers could cover the globe. The end result was the loss of TSR2 as well as CVA-01 so they would have been better off closing ranks and offering a united front to the treasury (maybe selling out the BAOR instead carries the same risk). I'd like to see an MoD that favours the RAF and RN (Surface, Nuclear boats, FAA and RM) over continental ground forces (ATL and OTL).
Hawker Siddeley has the Harrier family and Hawk to work on while producing the Buccaneer.
Westland is the sole domestic helicopter manufacturer. Producing the Wessex under licence from the US and developing the Rotodyne.
The British Hovercraft Corperation have the SR N4 (car ferry) and SR N6 (passenger) to work on. The former will be considered by the RN for an air cushion mine sweeper while the later will be adapted by Bell for the LCAC design for the USN.
The sixties could still have been more ambitious even after the massive mergers of 1958-1960.
I think a more lenient '66 DWP combined with a more realistic stance on smaller new aircraft carriers is the way to go.
About 40,000 tons for 3x CVA-01 is going to be a big climb down from the RN. A radical reduction in frigate numbers from 84 to 50 (74 OTL) will allow cheaper modernisation while showing willing in cutting back. Heading off the spurious attack from the RAF would help too. They moved Australia to prove that the land based bombers could cover the globe. The end result was the loss of TSR2 as well as CVA-01 so they would have been better off closing ranks and offering a united front to the treasury (maybe selling out the BAOR instead carries the same risk). I'd like to see an MoD that favours the RAF and RN (Surface, Nuclear boats, FAA and RM) over continental ground forces (ATL and OTL).
Last edited:
Of course Britain was only able to purchase a few combat aircraft, the govt wasted money hand over fist; just one example TSR2 developed and cancelled, F111K cancelled, AFVG cancelled, Phantom/Jaguar/Buccaneer purchased despite unsuitability, Tornado developed through to production of over 300 airframes. The money wasted on the ridiculous P1154 and adapting the F4K and Tornado ADV could have been used to develop a joint all weather fighter with the RAF to replace the Javelin/Lightning/Sea Vixen.
Forcing aviation companies to merge was stupid, this would have happened during the 60s anyway as electronics and long life of types led to a drastic prioritisation.
Declaring manned aircraft obsolete was also stupid, just a knee jerk reaction to Suez which justified ending conscription by a non existant reliance on nuclear weapons. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Forcing aviation companies to merge was stupid, this would have happened during the 60s anyway as electronics and long life of types led to a drastic prioritisation.
Declaring manned aircraft obsolete was also stupid, just a knee jerk reaction to Suez which justified ending conscription by a non existant reliance on nuclear weapons. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
But manned aircraft were becoming obsolete for two primary strategic roles: nuclear strikes on USSR (IRBM's and later on SLBM's for that) and air defence of United Kingdom (impossible with 1960's technology). After all, the cancelled projects were mainly associated for those roles. SR.53, SR.177 or F.155 would not have been any kind of export successes but white elephants instead.
And as for conscription, what purpose would it have served anyway?
Fairey Rotodyne, on the other hand, has surely capabilities to become a game-changer, but we must also remember that large helicopters were also becoming available (CH-47, CH-53, Mi-6). It's more a question of a suitable doctrine, air mobile troops instead of armored fist of BAOR.
The utility of the nuclear gravity bomber was declining true but as a partially penetrating missile carrier the bomber was never obsolete. A turbojet powered Blue Steel could keep the updated Vulcan viable well into the 70s. If the SSBN builds were started in 1970 the money could be available in the 60s for all sorts of other goodies which would serve Britain well for decades.
Those point interceptors weren't much chop but their lives would/should have been limited. If the RN had been allowed to develop a conventional Phantom-esque fighter instead of the P1154 I'm guessing the RAF would jump on board quickly enough.
Those point interceptors weren't much chop but their lives would/should have been limited. If the RN had been allowed to develop a conventional Phantom-esque fighter instead of the P1154 I'm guessing the RAF would jump on board quickly enough.
Archibald
Banned
Dassault had plenty of Mirage prototypes back in the mid-60s which might have made decent naval fighters.
at the time SNECMA chose to cooperate with Pratt & Whitney on the TF-30 turbofan; however the Spey (or Allison TF-41) would have been an excellent alternative.
A SNECMA-RR-Allison Spey.
If the RN adopted Clemenceau carriers, and the french adopted the spey turbofan, this could result in a naval, spey Mirage F1 interceptor.
Dassault had bigger prototypes build around the TF-30. They were the fixed-wing Mirage F2 or its VG variant the Mirage G.
Two seats, single turbofan, STOL.
To fund that you could cancel the Jaguar.
Dassault did propose Spey-engined versions of the Mirage III and IV, as well as a carrier version of the Mirage III.
The real change with suporting the smaller carriers is not making the term Aircraft Carrier politicaly unacceptable. This gives the navy a lot more freedom in thier design. Don't forget that the Invicables were supposedly replacements for the Blake class cruisers. Without the need for this deception they would have been very different ships.
Hull costs are very small - it's the manning, running and equipment that costs - so larger carriers would've been economically feasible for little extra, had the political will been there rather than shelter defence cuts under the NATO commitment umbrella, which didn't require the RN to have a proper carrier force.
I disagree with wrecking the BAOR and RAF and conventional submarine fleet to pay for them, unless you subscribe to the idea that WW3 would start with strategic nuclear weapons.
I disagree with wrecking the BAOR and RAF and conventional submarine fleet to pay for them, unless you subscribe to the idea that WW3 would start with strategic nuclear weapons.
But that should have been already under development in 1957 if it should have entered service around same time as Phantom. After all, Sea Vixen, for example, took about 10 years, or really 15 years (to FAW.2 with true operational capability), from operational requirement to squadron service. AFAIK, there was no such project under way.
The Type-576, a supersonic development of the Scimitar, was proposed in 1958. It would have looked pretty close to, and had performance similar to, the Phantom. In my opinion, shared by many here, the problem with Britains procurement was that they invested a lot of money into projects they later cancelled. Luckily this is easily remedied in AH, you just need to assume that they put money into things that pan out rather than throw it away. So we could have the Supersonic Scimitar taking the place of the Phantom in the FAA and RAF. And it would be homegrown, so that has benefits in that it would fuel further developments, keep more aviation industry at home, and so on. There was also a Supersonic Buccaneer derivative proposed, the P.150, one which neatly filled the TSR.2 requirements. These two would make a formidable air-wing for the CVA-01, though IRL they were only drawing board designs, napkinwaffe.
The best way to make a good TL for the alternate military development of Britain post war would be, pick two or three aircraft companies, and go with thier projected designs. Britain could not support half a dozen different design families, and all the dead-ends this could lead to, like the USA or USSR. That's why we have only one major aircraft development IRL, the Jumpjet. Whereas Britain came up with some seriously good concepts, high-speed bombers, TSR.2 and the Wild Goose/Swallow, the Rotodyne, a design I feel could have given us better than V-22 Osprey performance by the '70s, and the supersonic Scimitar and Buccaneer I mentioned earlier could have led to american teen-fighter equivalents by the '80s.
Definitely, UK airplane industry was fouled up in late 1940's. The key would be to concentrate, concentrate and yet again concentrate on a few multirole designs instead of very specified disasters which surfaced in OTL. It's actually wonder why UK procurement did this, as they had good experience multirole aircrafts in Second World War, namely first Beaufighter and then Mosquito which was available even as a carrier version. Now, if Air Ministry could focus on producing, say, a single day fighter/light attack plane and a single heavy fighter / strike aircraft during early 1950's using the illustrious precedents as a guiding rule...
Would anything be better if a carrier were to have been built? Would that have made the Blessed Isle and the Commonwealth any better than in OTL? Our would it have been just an even more expensive waste of resources on unneeded special interest works? What benefit would accrue?
A proper carrier would have been better for most work the Navy did at the time, as exemplified by the Falklands, as well as an important adjunct to US carrier forces for NATO.
However, it would've doubtless come at a cost to other forces - although with the benefit of hindsight and not really addressing political considerations, could probably have been afforded had R&D and procurement been more streamlined - impacting adversely on the primary NATO role of ASW, modernising air defence of the UK and BAOR.
The money and men would've had to have come from somewhere. Two large carriers for a >10% reduction in hull numbers, when ASW hulls were deemed most important? For a reduced number of nuclear submarines, the most effective long-range ASW asset? Or 3+ smaller carriers ideally suited to ASW operations, retaining fixed-wing naval aviation, exponentially increasing the fleet for every helicopter embarked.
However, it would've doubtless come at a cost to other forces - although with the benefit of hindsight and not really addressing political considerations, could probably have been afforded had R&D and procurement been more streamlined - impacting adversely on the primary NATO role of ASW, modernising air defence of the UK and BAOR.
The money and men would've had to have come from somewhere. Two large carriers for a >10% reduction in hull numbers, when ASW hulls were deemed most important? For a reduced number of nuclear submarines, the most effective long-range ASW asset? Or 3+ smaller carriers ideally suited to ASW operations, retaining fixed-wing naval aviation, exponentially increasing the fleet for every helicopter embarked.
Archibald
Banned
The problem with any Mirage III-M: the delta wing induce horrendous landing speeds, around 325 kph. Way too fast for carriers.
The 2000 had fly By Wire which reduce landing speed to 260 kph.
Btw, there were also a Mirage III K project, with a Spey
Three years ago at the whatif modelers board I imagined an alt history where the Mirage F1 M53 (the one which lost the deal of the century to the F-16 in 1974) become the french standard fighter - just like the Rafale is supposed to be today.
The omniscient F1M53 was later completed by the Mirage 4000.
Maybe I should update this story and extend it to the Brits. With the Spey instead of TF-30 and late M53 (sacrebleu !
)Excellent idea. The old E-1 was small enough to fit on Clemenceau-class carriers.
In fact Argentina S-2 Tracker have landed on the Sao Paulo - ex Foch
If the RN was seeking a mach 2 naval interceptor in the mid-60's, there's a real potential for a join venture with the French, if you kill the Jaguar (which is a bastardized, underpowered design compromised by trainer / attack and french / british conflicting requirements).
Another alternative was the British Crusader - a two-seat, Spey powered F-8U. Like this one very much.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1406.15.html
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1406.0;attach=32748;image
Last edited:
Jukra, it didn't take 12 years (the 1957 DWP to 1969 intro of F4K) to get a fighter into service in the late 50s/early 60s, more like 6 to 8 years. A conventional fighter specified in 1959, like the P1154 was, should have been entering service in 1967. If it was anything like the Phantom it would have a service life of a good 20 years.
As for the value of CVA 01, it would have entered service at a time when the Soviet Navy was expanding dramatically, the Soviet economy was being propped up by high oil prices, the USN was on a post Vietnam drawdown and OTL RN was drawing down too. A TL where Britain is more powerful and as a result has a more powerful navy in the 70s would change the nature of the Cold War at a bad time for NATO.
As for the value of CVA 01, it would have entered service at a time when the Soviet Navy was expanding dramatically, the Soviet economy was being propped up by high oil prices, the USN was on a post Vietnam drawdown and OTL RN was drawing down too. A TL where Britain is more powerful and as a result has a more powerful navy in the 70s would change the nature of the Cold War at a bad time for NATO.
Lessons learned from the Clem might indicate a slightly larger aircraft carrier would be better, but sadly it is too soon to learn those lessons.