Hawker Harrier?

Can you point out the bit that supports your assertion that the 'Americans' are telling the 'British' what carriers to build because nothing you have presented says that - only that Admiral Sir Alan West's 'oppo' in the US agreed that the RN having them was a good idea.

Um... it's black on white on what i quoted from wikipedia by that Alan West, i quote it again

I have talked with the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) in America. He is very keen for us to get these because he sees us slotting in with his carrier groups. For example, in Afghanistan last year they had to call on the French to bail them out with their carrier. He really wants us to have these, but he wants us to have same sort of clout as one of their carriers, which is this figure at 36. He would find that very useful, and really we would mix and match with that.
So the americans wanted the british to have these carriers and with the same "clout" as one of theirs, which is the 36 aircraft figure the QE was designed around. Meanwhile the powers that be kept changing their minds between VSTOL and CATOBAR then back to VSTOL...

Again, if they really want the damn VSTOLs, at least it would have been cheaper for the country to build the things with the same "clout" as an american LHA and be done with it.

On a more general note, it seems the traditional incompetence, political interference and simply bad choices of FAA just continues to this day, you know the history of the pitiful condition of FAA in 1939, some of the wrong conceptual decisions of the aircraft and ships taken back then, the steady decline after WW2 culminating in the sad story of CVA01 and the abolition of RN true carriers, and now the story of the QE class hermaphrodites, neither fish nor fowl...

As the french has been brought into this, the fact is up to now at least they gealously guarded their technological know-how and tried to maintaining their self-sufficiency, they never gave up on true carriers and true carrier planes (see CdG and Rafale), pity for them they didn't got to build a sisterhip for CdG (i have read some recent news on that, seems the subject is revived?). If the british would have built the CVA01 class, and today there would be a Sea Typhoon to fly off QE, they would have rightly been in the same league as the french, but as it is now... no comment.
 
According to his book "AIRCRAFT CARRIERS of the Royal & Commonwealth Navies", David Hobbs explains how if the "Invincible" class was designed and built from the outset with no SeaDart, used normal side deck lifts, and went for boilers instead of the gas turbines, the ships could have carriesd double the 22/26 aircraft that they normally did.

So lets have all 3 carriers with 36 Harriers FA1/2's, 12 Seaking ASW's plus 4 Seaking AEW's.

Would that meet the Harriers full naval potential?

Regards filers.
Any drawing somewhere of such an alternate Invincible-class? Thanks.
 

plenka

Banned
Nice to see such a discussion. I never knew so much about the Hawker Harrier, and the thought process behing its use, and replacement.
 
It really sucks that the more I learn about air power from a 'whole of airforce' and 'whole of government' perspective the worse the Harrier looks. It was my favorite aircraft as a kid and its like my memories of my youth were all based on bullshit. Maybe I have just become a sellout.
No you're not a sell out it's always easy to find reason why stuff is crap but you ask the guys who were out in Afghan about the Harrier the army loved it and were none too pleased when the Tornado had to take over its duties, we struggled to keep up to our commitments as good as the Tonka is it was not designed as a ground attack aircraft.
The Harrier force was sorely missed trust me.
 
Um... it's black on white on what i quoted from wikipedia by that Alan West, i quote it again


So the americans wanted the british to have these carriers and with the same "clout" as one of theirs, which is the 36 aircraft figure the QE was designed around. Meanwhile the powers that be kept changing their minds between VSTOL and CATOBAR then back to VSTOL...

Nope - he was just pointing out that the US Navy thought it was a good idea. The Royal Navy had wanted proper carriers for decades - but BAOR was more important upto the early 90s. These days it is no longer important to have an Army based in Central Europe - hence suddenly CVs moving up the list of things to have as Britain moves from a Eurocentric force back to a Global force. No where in that quote are the US 'demanding' that the British build a Large CV.

Again, if they really want the damn VSTOLs, at least it would have been cheaper for the country to build the things with the same "clout" as an american LHA and be done with it.

Why not just scrap the entire Navy and replace it with a Coast Guard force? That would be even cheaper. CVHs proved they could get the job done in 1982 - however they did it very poorly and 6 ships were lost and a dozen more damaged (half of which were mission killed and had to return home).

On a more general note, it seems the traditional incompetence, political interference and simply bad choices of FAA just continues to this day, you know the history of the pitiful condition of FAA in 1939, some of the wrong conceptual decisions of the aircraft and ships taken back then, the steady decline after WW2 culminating in the sad story of CVA01 and the abolition of RN true carriers, and now the story of the QE class hermaphrodites, neither fish nor fowl...

With the exception of CVA-01 whose own designer was glad it failed I disagree with everything you just wrote - particulalrly "wrong conceptual decisions of the aircraft and ships" and look forwards to hearing what you thought was bad about them and what should have happened instead?

As the french has been brought into this, the fact is up to now at least they gealously guarded their technological know-how and tried to maintaining their self-sufficiency, they never gave up on true carriers and true carrier planes (see CdG and Rafale), pity for them they didn't got to build a sisterhip for CdG (i have read some recent news on that, seems the subject is revived?). If the british would have built the CVA01 class, and today there would be a Sea Typhoon to fly off QE, they would have rightly been in the same league as the french, but as it is now... no comment.

There are many reasons why CVA-01 was not built - all of them to do with Money and the need to spend it on the Air force and Army for the potential life and death fight with the Warsaw Pact which was a real and obvious threat at the time rather than on large Aircraft carriers.

And for Sea Typhoon to be developed the need for it would have to have been realised early in the Typhoon development. Rafale reached French Navy service several years before it reached the French Airforce and use on board a carrier was known at its conception.

Had the QE been a CATOBAR layout then it would have operated the F35C and not a 20 year old modified Typhoon design.

Regarding PA2 I'd read that they were looking at the Thales "QE" type Design as a long term affordable carrier but as far as I know its been off the table for a few years now - have you heard differently?
 
Exactly. If not F35C, it would have Rafales or Super Hornets, at least at the onset.

Or something else? Rafale came about due to the French pulling out of the "Proto-Eurofighter" group didn't it? If the UK and France are driving for both a normal and Carrier fighter, isn't there a likely chance that "Eurofighter" ends up as something different to what we know?
 
Or something else? Rafale came about due to the French pulling out of the "Proto-Eurofighter" group didn't it? If the UK and France are driving for both a normal and Carrier fighter, isn't there a likely chance that "Eurofighter" ends up as something different to what we know?
I based my suggestion above that the Invincibles were built as STOVL carriers; so there's no other option than carrier aircraft IOTL.
 

Archibald

Banned
The Charles de Gaulle has its origins as a nuclear helicopter carrier (PH-75) to replace, not Foch and Clemenceau, but Jeanne d'Arc and Arromanches. And in the beginning (1970 - 1975) it not even nuclear powered, but had F-67 frigates gas turbine propulsion.
There was perhaps a window opening in 1972 for a joint PH-75 / Invincible ship. Also, at the time Rafale don't exists yet. And the French Navy tested the Harrier: one of them landed on the Jeanne d'Arc helicopter cruiser in 1972, and on the Foch in 1973.
http://www.ffaa.net/ships/helicopter-carrier/ph-75/ph-75_fr.htm

It must be doable to shoehorn a harrier into the French Navy taking the role of the Super Etendard.
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1974/1974 - 0020.PDF

sea_ha10.jpg


More details here
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/france-goes-v-stol-for-carriers-1960s.387474/
 

Archibald

Banned
If the French gets involved in the Harrier through a PH-75 / Invincible merge-up, maybe the French could help the British develop their own second generation Harrier, which would be neither AV-8B nor Sea Harrier but something else.
Maybe SNECMA could learn about PCB (Plenum Combustion Chamber).
The PH-75 / Invincible hybrid could only have Harrier onboard; and maybe the "weight" of the joint ship project could steamroll Dassault unavoidable opposition. A Navy project would not threaten the Mirage 2000, 4000 and Rafale. It would only kill the Super Etendard, which was marginal (80 aircraft build, this is no Mirage worlwide sales).
The major issue would be the French airframe manufacturer. By 1970 Breguet was dead (eaten by Dassault) while the public Aerospatiale was forced by the government into civilian aircrafts and helicopters and forbidden to compete with Dassault about combat aircrafts.
Maybe Dassault could take a minor share into Harrier production.
Then the question is, can a supersonic Harrier be a threat to a Mirage 2000 ? I don't think so. So maybe Dassault could do it.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

Banned
I should try and make a TL out of this. Even with Dassault onboard a second generation Harrier, the main roadblack remains the Rafale / Typhoon conundrum of 1985. Who knows, I could defuse that bomb by having the Mirage 4000 build instead after 1980.
How about a Mirage 4000 / Hawker P.1216 duo instead of Rafale / Typhoon ? it may work...
 
That might work, assuming the French don't just stay involved only long enough to get sufficient development data on the P1216 to be able to go it alone and cut the legs out from underneath B.A.E. There'd need to be iron tight and vicious penalty clauses in the contracts to ensure both nations were committed.
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
Any drawing somewhere of such an alternate Invincible-class? Thanks.

Sorry to disappoint filer.

Although the book has all the ships A to Z wise and has loads of facts and classifications, displacements, lengths, beams, aircraft complements etc etc it unfortunately has not diagrams.

If they did, a possible revised edition . . . I'd be up for buying a copy of that.

Regards filers.
 
Top