HMS EAGLE in the Falklands

[JamesHunter]

I'm just curious do have have a source / reference you can share re the Canadian F18 decision ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_CF-18_Hornet

"Reasons for the selection listed by the Canadian Forces were many of its requested features were included for the U.S. Navy; two engines for reliability (considered essential for conducting Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols), an excellent radar set, while being considerably more affordable than the F-14 and the F-15"

Its cheap and yet has good survivability basically. After all the RCAF spent alot of time hunting TU-95's off the arctic coast. Go down in those waters and your very likely to freeze before rescue reaches you. Hence riding an F-16 that flames out and your dead (either of exposure or because you rode the bird in so it ended quick), with the 18 you can maybe make it back on one engine.

 

[SsgtC]

True but its preferred by Navies (due to offering greater survival options) and Canada bought Hornets due to that need as well. If a second engine can be fitted and if (as with Hornet) the cost be kept under control they might go for a twin engined bird.

Especially if sheer cost still kills off the Raptor sooner rather than later.

Depends on developments, really. ITTL, the need for a true fleet defense interceptor was really driven home by the Falklands campaign. If the Navy decides that they need a top tier interceptor, they may actually develop and field the proposed carrier variant of the F-22 as a replacement for the Tomcat. Though obviously, budgets will be the deciding factor. Maybe ITTL the US doesn't make the absolutely idiotic decision not to sell the Raptor to our allies and that can help ease the developmental and per unit costs?

 

[Blue cat]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_CF-18_Hornet



Its cheap and yet has good survivability basically. After all the RCAF spent alot of time hunting TU-95's off the arctic coast. Go down in those waters and your very likely to freeze before rescue reaches you. Hence riding an F-16 that flames out and your dead (either of exposure or because you rode the bird in so it ended quick), with the 18 you can maybe make it back on one engine.

Interesting thanks... My recollection from readings from years gone by was that the F16 and the F18 were the finalists.

 

[Ato]

True but its preferred by Navies (due to offering greater survival options) and Canada bought Hornets due to that need as well. If a second engine can be fitted and if (as with Hornet) the cost be kept under control they might go for a twin engined bird.

Especially if sheer cost still kills off the Raptor sooner rather than later.

Navies do like twin engines but they are not by any means adverse to singles, see the Panther, Corsair, Crusader, Skyhawk, Skyray, Harrier, Goshawk, Super Entendard and more.

 

[JamesHunter]

Navies do like twin engines but they are not by any means adverse to singles, see the Panther, Corsair, Crusader, Skyhawk, Skyray, Harrier, Goshawk, Super Entendard and more.

I said Preferred, in any case most of those are smaller aircraft or (in the case of harrier or the Lightning) cannot have a second engine due to design needs.

Interesting thanks... My recollection from readings from years gone by was that the F16 and the F18 were the finalists.

If you check the page they were but the extra engine helped swing it for Hornet in the end.

 

[Zheng He]

So for a Harrier replacement type of plane for the Marines and other Harrier operators out there if we are not getting the F-35B ITTL what is it? Will there be enough interest overall to justify an entirely new plane like maybe a less stealthy (and therefore less expensive) F-32 based on the X-32 design? The Marines are only getting 340 F-35Bs and the other customers buying it like the British, Italians, and now the Japanese and maybe the eventually the Spanish and Australians (although neither has signed on) we're still talking about only around 500-600 airframes total. That's not enough planes to justify an entirely separate program with its own production line which means we probably end up with some sort of Super Harrier, maybe along the lines of the Harrier III variant that McDD and BAE looked into in the 1990s.

Note - currently the total F-35B buy looks to be around 600 airframes and that is with the Japanese signing on to the program earlier this year. ITTL, the British will be buying fewer in number because their carriers have cats and traps. That may get offset some by the Australians buying some if they are still in the baby carrier game and maybe the Spanish will eventually sign on too but that will still only be a handful of planes.

Interesting, one of the long term effects of the British making a decision in the early 1980s to stick with CATOBAR carriers is the F-35B never happens. That is some serious butterflies...

 

[Cryhavoc101]

So for a Harrier replacement type of plane for the Marines and other Harrier operators out there if we are not getting the F-35B ITTL what is it? Will there be enough interest overall to justify an entirely new plane like maybe a less stealthy (and therefore less expensive) F-32 based on the X-32 design? The Marines are only getting 340 F-35Bs and the other customers buying it like the British, Italians, and now the Japanese and maybe the eventually the Spanish and Australians (although neither has signed on) we're still talking about only around 500-600 airframes total. That's not enough planes to justify an entirely separate program with its own production line which means we probably end up with some sort of Super Harrier, maybe along the lines of the Harrier III variant that McDD and BAE looked into in the 1990s.

Note - currently the total F-35B buy looks to be around 600 airframes and that is with the Japanese signing on to the program earlier this year. ITTL, the British will be buying fewer in number because their carriers have cats and traps. That may get offset some by the Australians buying some if they are still in the baby carrier game and maybe the Spanish will eventually sign on too but that will still only be a handful of planes.

Interesting, one of the long term effects of the British making a decision in the early 1980s to stick with CATOBAR carriers is the F-35B never happens. That is some serious butterflies...

Maybe the British push ahead with the P.125 (one of the projects that led to the F35) which develops into a dedicated BAe/McDonald Douglas (Later Boeing/BAe) Supersonic Stealth Jump jet initially for use with the RAF and USMC - and ultimately used by other former Harrier Users.

Called the F31 Wildcat II - it is developed during the 90s and early 2000s entering service in the RAF in 2006 and the USMC the same year with former Harrier Users buying the aircraft during the next 10 years as the existing Harrier Air frames and spare parts wear out.

The RAF replaces its Harrier Fleet and Tornado GR4s with this aircraft

F35 project end up being a common air frame/avionics A and C affair (A as a F16 replacement and the C probably a B in this ATL - replacing the F/A 18 Super Hornet)

The RN and RAF end up buying the C (B) variant replacing its F/A 18 Super Hornets and Tornado ADVs

 

[Palantir]

So for a Harrier replacement type of plane for the Marines and other Harrier operators out there if we are not getting the F-35B ITTL what is it? Will there be enough interest overall to justify an entirely new plane like maybe a less stealthy (and therefore less expensive) F-32 based on the X-32 design? The Marines are only getting 340 F-35Bs and the other customers buying it like the British, Italians, and now the Japanese and maybe the eventually the Spanish and Australians (although neither has signed on) we're still talking about only around 500-600 airframes total. That's not enough planes to justify an entirely separate program with its own production line which means we probably end up with some sort of Super Harrier, maybe along the lines of the Harrier III variant that McDD and BAE looked into in the 1990s.

Note - currently the total F-35B buy looks to be around 600 airframes and that is with the Japanese signing on to the program earlier this year. ITTL, the British will be buying fewer in number because their carriers have cats and traps. That may get offset some by the Australians buying some if they are still in the baby carrier game and maybe the Spanish will eventually sign on too but that will still only be a handful of planes.

Interesting, one of the long term effects of the British making a decision in the early 1980s to stick with CATOBAR carriers is the F-35B never happens. That is some serious butterflies...

That, or the JSF program stays close to OTL. After all, merging all 3 branches aircraft programs into one was political. The UK choice of aircraft to replace the Hornet won't play that much into internal US politics.

 

[SsgtC]

That, or the JSF program stays close to OTL. After all, merging all 3 branches aircraft programs into one was political. The UK choice of aircraft to replace the Hornet won't play that much into internal US politics.

Yeah, but the dynamics of TTL have changed enough that I think there would be serious pushback from both the Navy and the Air Force over having to shoehorn in a V/STOL aircraft into their new fighter

 

[Zheng He]

That, or the JSF program stays close to OTL. After all, merging all 3 branches aircraft programs into one was political. The UK choice of aircraft to replace the Hornet won't play that much into internal US politics.

Kind of going off of my fuzzy memory from articles I was reading in the early 2000s, I seem to remember part of the justification for the F-35B was that the British were going to be substantial operators of them as well and were really full blown partners in the program (as opposed to a lot of the other nations involved to a lesser degree). If British interest in the F-35B is significantly reduced or eliminated all together that may be enough to kill the program.

Now I am not sure this is a bad thing, not just for the F-35 program but for those look for a Harrier replacement. Instead of a full blown 5th generation F-35, maybe get a 4.5 generation Harrier Plus that is not only cheaper but also employs a much more diverse suite of munitions because it is not hamstrung by the internal weapons bay and is easier to maintain due to the lack of stealth features. This could also lead to more export interest early on due to the lower cost of the airframe which will further drive costs down.

 

[flasheart]

What a difference a few decades makes.

Grandparents

Parents

And children

 

[JamesHunter]

What a difference a few decades makes.

Grandparents
View attachment 506783 View attachment 506784

Parents
View attachment 506785
View attachment 506786

And children
View attachment 506787

To be fair the Indy's aren't bad ships but they do suffer from the compromises to get them paid for and the very hard limits of what Harrier can do. If a supersonic STVOL had been completed in the 1990's they would have been almost as good as a traditional carrier for a fraction of the costs.

 

[El Pip]

Kind of going off of my fuzzy memory from articles I was reading in the early 2000s, I seem to remember part of the justification for the F-35B was that the British were going to be substantial operators of them as well and were really full blown partners in the program (as opposed to a lot of the other nations involved to a lesser degree). If British interest in the F-35B is significantly reduced or eliminated all together that may be enough to kill the program.

Normally quoted figure is Britain has 15% workshare on every F-35, not counting the engines (actual figures are a mess due to the number of Anglo-American firms with subsidiaries on both sides of the Atlantic). That's a fairly meaty contribution, so while I'm sure US domestic concerns will be paramount if things were close it might be enough to push the decision one way or the other.

 

[Zheng He]

Normally quoted figure is Britain has 15% workshare on every F-35, not counting the engines (actual figures are a mess due to the number of Anglo-American firms with subsidiaries on both sides of the Atlantic). That's a fairly meaty contribution, so while I'm sure US domestic concerns will be paramount if things were close it might be enough to push the decision one way or the other.

That's good stuff, thanks...

 

[USS_Ward]

What a difference a few decades makes.

Grandparents
View attachment 506783 View attachment 506784

Parents
View attachment 506785
View attachment 506786

And children
View attachment 506787

Had the chance of seeing the QE herself in Norfolk from the HRBT back over Thanksgiving break

 

[Simon]

You just raised an interesting point. If the ROyal Navy has stuck with CATOBAR carriers then they will not need a VSTOL 5th Generation fighter. Let's just call that fighter the F-35 for simplicity sake. That means the RN will be joining the USN in the F-35C program. This could endanger the entire F-35B program because initially the USMC will be the only customer for that plane unless other initial export customers can be drummed up for the F-35B.

One scenario might be to split off the B model's capabilities entirely from the F-35. Develop a V/STOL aircraft like the P.1216 as a successor to the Harrier as 4.5th Generation – incorporate diverterless supersonic inlet, radar absorbing material, airframe shaping etc. as much as possible without compromising its capabilities. The P.1216 programme began as a company project in 1980 so perhaps try to position it as a successor to the AV-8B? It's a bit of a tight window but if it's already well enough along it might be able to stop CALF, in modified form, from being merged with JAST.

This could lead to a more capable F-35C and F-35A because there won't be the requirement to shoehorn the entire design into the size limitations of the F-35B.

How much difference is there between the A and C models of the F-35? Standardising on a single general model like the F-4 would seem to offer advantages. Of course that only works if the models aren't too divergent.

 

[SsgtC]

How much difference is there between the A and C models of the F-35? Standardising on a single general model like the F-4 would seem to offer advantages. Of course that only works if the models aren't too divergent.

Less than there is between the Legacy Hornet and the Super Hornet. The F-35A and F-35C have about 20-25% commonality.

 

[Simon]

Less than there is between the Legacy Hornet and the Super Hornet. The F-35A and F-35C have about 20-25% commonality.

That little? Huh.

 

[Dalriadan Archangel 21]

In this TL why not just do away with the A-Model altogether and make all of them C-Models?

 

[Zheng He]

In this TL why not just do away with the A-Model altogether and make all of them C-Models?

The C Model is more expensive and it does suffer in performance because it is heavier and has greater drag. Granted ITTL with no B model you could probably get more commonality between the two.

Keep in my WRT the F-4, that plane was a complete accident. It was designed to be a fleet defense interceptor and nothing else. It turned out to be so versatile that it ended up doing everything else. No one intended for that to happen.