Folland Sea Gnat

The RN had already divested itself of small carriers by the time the Sea Gnat would have entered service, Albion and Bulwark were commando carriers by 1961, Centaur lingered only until 1965 and the others were small big carriers operating all-weather air groups. There is no domestic market for the Sea Gnat and the international players are hardly enough to risk building an aircraft for with no orders in the bag.
 
The RN had already divested itself of small carriers by the time the Sea Gnat would have entered service, Albion and Bulwark were commando carriers by 1961, Centaur lingered only until 1965 and the others were small big carriers operating all-weather air groups. There is no domestic market for the Sea Gnat and the international players are hardly enough to risk building an aircraft for with no orders in the bag.

If the decision had been taken in the mid 50s to go light weight, the whole carrier program could have been revised. The Gnat F1 is a 1955 aircraft.
The sea Gnat would have been mostly a potencial export product, to replace the Vampires, Venons, Sea Hawks and other 50s maritime aircraft.

The time for a navalised Gnat would be the second half of the 50. If you move the program to the 60s, it's to late, because by that time smaller navies where going for ASW/attack and a mix of trackers and A4, or giving up carrier aviation, and the RN had gone for the bigger is better Sea Vixen/Buccaneer option.
 
The regular Gnat didn't enter service until 1958, which is after Suez when British confidence in power projection was shaken to the core. It is also after the 1957 Defence White Paper which declared manned aircraft obsolete.

As for export customers, their Sea Venoms etc were virtually new in the late 50s and weren't due to be replaced until the 60s, and Britian wasn't the only player in the naval fighter game so there are no garuntees it would sell.
 
The regular Gnat didn't enter service until 1958, which is after Suez when British confidence in power projection was shaken to the core. It is also after the 1957 Defence White Paper which declared manned aircraft obsolete.

As for export customers, their Sea Venoms etc were virtually new in the late 50s and weren't due to be replaced until the 60s, and Britian wasn't the only player in the naval fighter game so there are no garuntees it would sell.

There is a gap for a lightweight naval fighter with dogfighting potencial.
The SeaHawk is a straight winged attack bird, the sea Venon is a two seater all weather interceptor with attack capability, and lacks sweep wings, etc. Nobody was selling a lightweight carrier MiG17 killer in the 50s and the market could have been there.
Imagine you work for the Australian Navy and are studying air groups for HMAS Sidney and Melbourne. A SeaGnat F2 would make sense.
 
As for export customers, their Sea Venoms etc were virtually new in the late 50s and weren't due to be replaced until the 60s, and Britian wasn't the only player in the naval fighter game so there are no garuntees it would sell.
Additionally, by the time a Sea Gnat becomes a likely proposition RN attention was fixed more on the North Atlantic than elsewhere... the threat there being submarines and long range strike aircraft, not fighters. Thus a highly manouverable dog-fighter is not what's needed... probably a slightly souped up Bucc with air to air radar and half a dozen AIM-7s would be more suitable.
 
Additionally, by the time a Sea Gnat becomes a likely proposition RN attention was fixed more on the North Atlantic than elsewhere... the threat there being submarines and long range strike aircraft, not fighters. Thus a highly manouverable dog-fighter is not what's needed... probably a slightly souped up Bucc with air to air radar and half a dozen AIM-7s would be more suitable.

That air to air Bucc sound a lot like a Spey Phantom...

For the NATO mission, sure, and that's the way the RN went. For power projection missions against non war pact foes in the early 60s what you needed is something that can shoot down MiG17s on day one and perform CAS with guns and rockets for the rest of the war.

The US provided all the carriers NATO needed for artº V missions, and hunting subs is better done with Destroyers (with their own ASW helis) so the other navies only really needed carriers to use in what was once called gunboat diplomacy. The french understood that, and their Carrier AG were based on light attack aircraft (Etendarts) and dogfighters(Crusaders) The RN allways wanted to keep up with the USN and that led them to the point were they couldn't afford their carriers.

Now the natives are flying Flankers, so you need Rafales to project power...
 
Additionally, by the time a Sea Gnat becomes a likely proposition RN attention was fixed more on the North Atlantic than elsewhere... the threat there being submarines and long range strike aircraft, not fighters. Thus a highly manouverable dog-fighter is not what's needed... probably a slightly souped up Bucc with air to air radar and half a dozen AIM-7s would be more suitable.

For the NATO mission, sure, and that's the way the RN went. For power projection missions against non war pact foes in the early 60s what you needed is something that can shoot down MiG17s on day one and perform CAS with guns and rockets for the rest of the war.

The US provided all the carriers NATO needed for artº V missions, and hunting subs is better done with Destroyers (with their own ASW helis) so the other navies only really needed carriers to use in what was once called gunboat diplomacy. The french understood that, and their Carrier AG were based on light attack aircraft (Etendarts) and dogfighters(Crusaders) The RN allways wanted to keep up with the USN and that led them to the point were they couldn't afford their carriers.

Now the natives are flying Flankers, so you need Rafales to project power...
 
Given the small size of weapons being developed for UAVs and modern avionics, might something like a modernised Gnat have a use somewhere? Perhaps in third world countries as a substitute UCAV? Or even in the developed world as an optionally piloted UCAV. Not that I'm highly prejudiced in favour of one of the best looking jets ever built, you understand ;)
 
If I was running the RAN I would look at the Sea Gnat F2 and see a plane that is in service with no other navy that the RAN would only buy about 20 of. I would not want to bear the burden of running the only 20 Sea Gnats in the world when I could get Skyhawks or Crusaders which number in the hundreds.
 
F8s

If I was running the RAN I would look at the Sea Gnat F2 and see a plane that is in service with no other navy that the RAN would only buy about 20 of. I would not want to bear the burden of running the only 20 Sea Gnats in the world when I could get Skyhawks or Crusaders which number in the hundreds.

You can´t operate Crusaders from Majestic class carriers. The French had to modify their F8 with BLC (Later used on upgraded F8) to allow them to operate from Foch, wich is way larger. The whole point of the lightweight multirole fighter was to make use of the small carriers. The market was there, with Australia, the NL, France, Canada Brasil and Argentina operating Collosus/Majestic class carriers in at the end of the 50s.
 
The French bought the Crusader for their Clems and Etenards, so they aren't a customer. The Canadians, Indians and Dutch didn't replace their 50s jets and Brazil never operated jets, so they aren't customers. That leaves Australia which eventually bought 20 A4s in 1967 and 1971 and Argentina which bought 2nd hand A4s in the late 60s. There just isn't the room in the market for the Sea Gnat, sorry.
 
The French bought the Crusader for their Clems and Etenards, so they aren't a customer.

They bought them in the early 1960's, so it might be remotely possible that if there was a suitable alternative floating around in the late 1950's it would get a look-in. In realistic terms, however, I think it would take more than France buying 40 or so to make the production run worthwhile. For most states, I think the A-4 would be a better bet simply due to the number of them out there.
 
They bought them in the early 1960's, so it might be remotely possible that if there was a suitable alternative floating around in the late 1950's it would get a look-in. In realistic terms, however, I think it would take more than France buying 40 or so to make the production run worthwhile. For most states, I think the A-4 would be a better bet simply due to the number of them out there.

And because there was nothing else for the small carriers until the marines bought the AV8 in 71. The early A4s where pure attack aircraft, and lacked the "fighter" glamour. The point is that after having taken over the world naval aviation market in the late 40s, selling CVL to minor navies, the UK just gave up and handed that market to the US. Since the USN liked big carriers and big aircraft the smaller navies were left with a limited choice. It was either A4 or nothing. Canada, Australia and the NL eventually terminated their carrier projects. The current trend for small carriers with their harriers could have been possible in the 50 with light CTOL aircraft. There could have been a trend for 15000 to 20000 affordable carriers that could have served until the current generation of VTOL carriers matured in the 80s/90s
 
Since you mention the Harrier the P1127 was undergoing testing from 1960, not far behind the possible Sea Gnat and more likely just in time to replace planes like Canada Demon, Australia's Sea Venoms and Hollands Sea hawks.
 
Since you mention the Harrier the P1127 was undergoing testing from 1960, not far behind the possible Sea Gnat and more likely just in time to replace planes like Canada Demon, Australia's Sea Venoms and Hollands Sea hawks.

The harrier was not a sure thing until the late 60s, the original had a payload of "a pilot and a pack of cigarretes" and it was clear it was going to be an expensive and complicated aircraft.
The whole point of this thread seems to be that there was a market niche in the late 50s early 60 for a lightweight multirole carrier aircraft, that nobody tried to buid that aircraft, and that left the A4 alone on the market. It need not be a Gnat. (but it could have been, and that would not have been such a strange thing)
 
I don't know what market you are referring to since the only naval operators of the Skyhawk were Australia with 20 and Argentina with 16. Canada and Netherlands opted out of the carrier game and didn't replace their Demons and Sea Hawks, and India stayed with the Sea Hawk until 1981. Are you suggesting that if the supersonic Sea Gnat F2 was around by 1960 or so that Canada, Netherlands, France and Australia would have bought it?
 
I don't know what market you are referring to since the only naval operators of the Skyhawk were Australia with 20 and Argentina with 16. Canada and Netherlands opted out of the carrier game and didn't replace their Demons and Sea Hawks, and India stayed with the Sea Hawk until 1981. Are you suggesting that if the supersonic Sea Gnat F2 was around by 1960 or so that Canada, Netherlands, France and Australia would have bought it?

Have you read my previous posts?
Yes. Lack of lightweight multirole aircraft killed the light carriers.
 
Not in the European theatre it didn't, which is half the market. Once West Papua was gone the Dutch had no need for a carrier, and Canada had little need in the first place. No Sea Gnat squadron is going to be able to take on large numbers of Tu16s in the North Atlantic or North Pacific. It's only in the lower threat areas of the South Pacific, South Atlantic and Indian oceans that the number of Sea Gnats carried by a Majestic class carrier will be considered good enough, and in that scenario a Skyhawk will also be good enough.

Perhaps the PoD could be sending the Centaur class out into the world, the RN could arrange a swap for a Majestic to convert into a Commando carrier. A Centaur could carry maybe 16-20 Sea Gnats and make it worthwhile to delpoy such carriers in high threat environments that NATO operated in.
 
Top