Joint RN-MN carrier fighter in the 60s?

[Riain]

My head juggles a bit now - 1st it carried two, now it carried no missiles?



With Spey, it will be no more a slug than MiG-23 carrying two R-23s and 4 R-60s, let alone more of a slug than Mirage F1 with it's missile arsenal.

What carried 2 then no missiles? The OTL F8 or the proposed Twosader? We're heading down into proposal land, but there is some basis in reality to make judgements.

The F8E had 4 hardpoints for pylons: the fuselage pylons which in the USN carried 2 AIM9s in a 'Y' adapter and in the MN carried a single R530. The F8E also had a single pylon under each wing inboard of the fold, which carried drop tanks and even in USMC service bombs on occasion. However you don't often see pictures of F8s on carriers with drop tanks or bombs, they generally flew with only the fuselage pylons loaded.

A single F8E was modified into a 2 seat trainer, but never put into production. Apparently there was a proposal to fit 2 seater crusader with Speys for the RN, although I don't know how serious this proposal was and when exactly it was made but I'd suggest it was very near the end of the F8s eight year production run. The RN wanted their carrier fighter to have 4 Red Tops, and even the Red Top weighed double what an AIM9 weighed I presume only 1 would be mounted on each fuselage pylon like the French with the R530. The other pair of Red Tops would have to be mounted under the wings, there is no other place for them and being so heavy might overload the aircraft when landing back on with them. (the F14 Tomcat couldn't land on with 6 Phoenix, which is why you see them with Sparrows)

The F8, even with the Spey installed, can't be fairly compared with the Mirage F1. The Crusader was a mid 50s transonic, gun-armed fighter in the class of the F100, Super Mystere and Mig 19, it's top speed (as a marker of performance) was Mach 1.7 or so. Over the years a bigger radar was fitted as were AIM9/R530 missiles, but there is no escaping it's mid 50s transonic gunfighter roots. Lloading it with 4 heavy AAMs as stated by the RN will drastically cut into already substandard for 1964 performance despite the Spey engine. The F1 is some 15 years newer, the benefit of years of mach 2 experience with the Mirage III, IV bomber and 5 and subsequently can do considerably more with considerably less. For example the F1 weighs 1000lbs less empty than the Crusader yet has a MTOW 1000lbs greater and can fly about 15% faster despite having about 15% less power.

 

[CV12Hornet]

A single F8E was modified into a 2 seat trainer, but never put into production. Apparently there was a proposal to fit 2 seater crusader with Speys for the RN, although I don't know how serious this proposal was and when exactly it was made but I'd suggest it was very near the end of the F8s eight year production run. The RN wanted their carrier fighter to have 4 Red Tops, and even the Red Top weighed double what an AIM9 weighed I presume only 1 would be mounted on each fuselage pylon like the French with the R530. The other pair of Red Tops would have to be mounted under the wings, there is no other place for them and being so heavy might overload the aircraft when landing back on with them. (the F14 Tomcat couldn't land on with 6 Phoenix, which is why you see them with Sparrows)

According to the standard aircraft characteristics an F-8E could land on a carrier with 2 2000-lb bombs, so four Red Tops should be doable.

 

[Simon]

Couldn't the requirement be written for a work exchange? Say the Atlantic is licensed to the British instead of them developing the Nimrod...

IIRC part of the reason for the Nimrod, aside from keeping work in the UK, was the size of the waters the British had to patrol so they needed an aircraft with a minimum speed to be able to do so with the number of aircraft they were willing to operate. I'm not a hundred per cent sure that the Atlantic could meet their requirements.

 

[Riain]

According to the standard aircraft characteristics an F-8E could land on a carrier with 2 2000-lb bombs, so four Red Tops should be doable.

Apparently the USN didn't land on Phantoms with unused bombs still attached but the RN wanted to, which is why they needed so much power and bleed air for BLC, a bombed up Phantom lining up the meatball would be very sluggish indeed. I read that British carriers wee designed to carry enough ordnance for their aircraft to do 4 missions in the primary role, so 12 Buccaneers each with say 8 bombs 4 times is less than 400 x 1000lb bombs in the magazine, little wonder they wanted to bring unused ones back on board.

 

[tomo pauk]

What carried 2 then no missiles? The OTL F8 or the proposed Twosader? We're heading down into proposal land, but there is some basis in reality to make judgements.

Twosader carries 2 Red Tops:

The Twosader , even with the Spey, doesn't meet RN requirements. It only carries 2 Red Tops for starters and the radar is very small and therefore short ranged.

Then it carried none:

Twosader carried no Red Top missiles IIRC.

No, it was never a real contender for the RN, the same way the MN looked at the Phantom as a way to apply some due diligence to strike it off the list.

Perhaps it would've indeed be easier if we say: this and this was proposal, instead of referring as proposal as something that really happened?

The F8E had 4 hardpoints for pylons: the fuselage pylons which in the USN carried 2 AIM9s in a 'Y' adapter and in the MN carried a single R530. The F8E also had a single pylon under each wing inboard of the fold, which carried drop tanks and even in USMC service bombs on occasion. However you don't often see pictures of F8s on carriers with drop tanks or bombs, they generally flew with only the fuselage pylons loaded.

Time to install two of the missiles under the wings ASAP, the wing racks were rated for 2000 lb bombs after all. Ought to be easier than to mess with engine swap and fuselage surgery as with the Spey F-4. The F-8 carried a hefty load of fuel, more than 9000 lbs, or 2/3rds of what F-4 carried internally. That, and no support for drop tanks in most (all?) versions, is why there is no pictures of the F-8 with frop tanks.

The F8, even with the Spey installed, can't be fairly compared with the Mirage F1. The Crusader was a mid 50s transonic, gun-armed fighter in the class of the F100, Super Mystere and Mig 19, it's top speed (as a marker of performance) was Mach 1.7 or so. Over the years a bigger radar was fitted as were AIM9/R530 missiles, but there is no escaping it's mid 50s transonic gunfighter roots. Lloading it with 4 heavy AAMs as stated by the RN will drastically cut into already substandard for 1964 performance despite the Spey engine. The F1 is some 15 years newer, the benefit of years of mach 2 experience with the Mirage III, IV bomber and 5 and subsequently can do considerably more with considerably less. For example the F1 weighs 1000lbs less empty than the Crusader yet has a MTOW 1000lbs greater and can fly about 15% faster despite having about 15% less power.

You are selling the F-8 short. F-100D did 1470 km/h clean, the F-8E did 1830 km/h with 4 Sidewinders. How fast was the Mirage F1 with 4 Magics? A good part of reasoning for F1 to be fast with modest power was it's size, the wing was 2/3rds of area of the F-8's wing, ans span was also smalle rat F1.
If F-8 is transonic, so it is the F-18.

 

[Riain]

Perhaps it would've indeed be easier if we say: this and this was proposal, instead of referring as proposal as something that really happened?

Yeah, this happens all the time. My favourite is 'Australia looked at buying a CVA01' and it's good friend 'Australia looked at buying an Essex class'. I reality they wee ideas that were kicked around a bit and rejected, CVA01 very quickly for cost, manpower and availability issues and Essex a bit longer before also being rejected for similar reasons and no proposal was ever put to Cabinet for a decision or a budget drawn up let alone allocated.

I put the French looking at the Phantom and the British looking at the Crusader/Twosader in the same category, ideas kicked around before being quickly rejected at a relatively low level.

Time to install two of the missiles under the wings ASAP, the wing racks were rated for 2000 lb bombs after all. Ought to be easier than to mess with engine swap and fuselage surgery as with the Spey F-4. The F-8 carried a hefty load of fuel, more than 9000 lbs, or 2/3rds of what F-4 carried internally. That, and no support for drop tanks in most (all?) versions, is why there is no pictures of the F-8 with frop tanks.

The ability to carry 4 Rep Tops doesn't solve the problem that the radar is too small and therefore too short ranged. Also fitting a 2nd seat to most other fighters comes at the expense of fuel capacity, so the Twosader might need those drop tanks more than Crusaders did dropping it back to 2 Red Tops.

You are selling the F-8 short. F-100D did 1470 km/h clean, the F-8E did 1830 km/h with 4 Sidewinders. How fast was the Mirage F1 with 4 Magics? A good part of reasoning for F1 to be fast with modest power was it's size, the wing was 2/3rds of area of the F-8's wing, ans span was also smalle rat F1.
If F-8 is transonic, so it is the F-18.

Don't get me wrong, as an aircraft nut I like the Crusader and given the option of it or nothing it is far better than nothing. But as a taxpayer and aircraft nut I know the Phantom is a much better choice if it can be used, it provides better value for money by providing more capability for the money. Aircraft development didn't really slow down until maybe 1965, in the decade before that designers were flat out learning how to do stuff that wasn't even dreamed about at the end of WW2.

Yes the F18 is transonic and the Super Hornet and F35 are slower again, even the F16 barely goes Mach 2 clean. However these aircraft have more more than simple speed on their side to deal with threats; RWHRs, integrated ECM, chaff and flares and even stealth which weren't really options in the early 60s

 

[Palantir]

The MN wanted the AFVG to be carrier capable.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I was wondering when the Sea Tornado idea would be brought up.

 

[tomo pauk]

After all of this back and forth, it seems to me that we're chasing unicorns. One does not get capability of F-82 while paying for price of P-51.

 

[groundhogday666]

After all of this back and forth, it seems to me that we're chasing unicorns. One does not get capability of F-82 while paying for price of P-51.

I second that opinion. With a POD in 1958, the harsh truth is that France will pick Crusaders - which are lightyears from (goddam) AW406.
Uncompatible options, really. which is a shame, but c'est la vie.

Now, with a POD much earlier than 1958 - butterflying AW406 away, perhaps in the days of SR.177 - maybe something could be done...

What is needed (essentially) is
- something larger than the Clemenceaus +40 000 tons (= PA58 Verdun STRAIGHT AHEAD, without the Clemenceaus before it)
- avoid CVA-01 like the plague so earlier British CV projects.

Behold, the "1956 Medium Fleet Carrier" (NOT the 1954 variant, which was too small, while the "1952 carrier" was too big)

There is really a sweet spot circa 1956-1958 when "1956 MFC" and "PA58 Verdun" merges and together, drag French and British carriers toward another sweept spot: 45 000 tons.
- large enough for Phantoms, AW406, and DAFNE (Breguet 1200, here we go again)
- larger than Clemenceaus, enough to get full-length BS-5A
- smaller than the CVA-01 boondoggle
- and a long time enough before the 60's economic crisis that wrecked the British military budget(s)

Problem is that PA54 Clemenceau started in 1953 and was launched in 1957, IOC 1961.

So the trick would be instead to influence PA55 (Foch) and makes it a PA58 Verdun, thanks to British help...

10 years later the Clemenceau, being too small, would replace Arromanches as LPH / training carrier.

At the end of the day, the French would get 2 "join carriers" (OTL PA55 Foch and PA58 Verdun) and the British would get two or three ships according to their finances to replace Ark Royal, first, and then Eagle or Hermes, or both.

 

[groundhogday666]

I put the French looking at the Phantom and the British looking at the Crusader/Twosader in the same category, ideas kicked around before being quickly rejected at a relatively low level.

And you are probably right. The British Twosader was a proposal from Short Brothers - private initiatives like this often don't go very far. Even more with 1960's British aviation, where Ministerial bureaucracy and ORs ruled above all. See the RAF - RN infighting over a) AW406 / RAF requirements merging, McNamara style b) the P.1154 Spey shenigans and c) the F-4K story

French Phantoms are even murkier... looks like an Aéronavale pilot went to the USA, tested both Crusader and Phantom, come back saying only Crusader would fit. So Crusaders it was. THE END.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

POD.
1945 Britain cancels all the Centaur class carriers instead of just the last 4.
1952 Realises the rebuild of Victorious is a waste of money so cancels that and those of the two Indefatigables.
1953 Designs an intermediate sized carrier of around 35,000 tonnes, ordering 3 with the option for a 4th.
1954 Construction begins with completion of the first expected in 1958. Licence for two sold to France,

1959 First Carrier commissions with Scimatars and Sea Vixen. Specification drawn up for Sea Vixen Replacement.
1960 First French carrier commissions and France joins program for next generation fighter,

 

[groundhogday666]

"Amen to that !"

This very one - from "Rebuilding the RN" , 2012. A design that started like a Clemenceau (35 000 tons) and ended like a Verdun (45 000 tons) !

https://books.google.nl/books?id=PyDOAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA56&dq="medium+fleet+carrier+1956&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjalNriiMbtAhWPfH0KHYbHABcQ6AEwAnoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q="medium%20fleet%20carrier%201956&f=false

Frack - a 35 000 tons carrier, started in 1954, laid up in August 1957 ? this. is. freaking. CLEMENCEAU !!!

And this is even better

How the project evolved thereafter is not known but three 45,000—ton aircraft carriers were included in the 1959-60 Long Term Costing.

PA58 Verdun: same tonnage, very same years !

If the French and British carriers programs ever come close from each others before CVF and the 2000's, that was RIGHT THERE - 1956 and 40 000 tons average.

Maybe I should open a whole new thread with that stuff ?

 

[Riain]

In the Cold War era Britain seriously looked at new-build carriers exactly twice: 1952-53 and 1960-65, all the rest of the time there was no serious political support to build a new fleet carrier and all the proposals were merely internal RN/Admiralty thought bubbles with no momentum behind them.

I don't think it's a coincidence that when there is no serious political momentum behind building a new carrier the proposals are for medium sized ships 30-45,000t but as soon as the Government shows some actual interest the RN drops all that and goes for the ~55,000t designs (1952 fleet carrier design and CVA01). They go into great detail how smaller ships cost heaps but don't carry enough aircraft and if you're going to spend the money you better find those few extra quid to get the best value by building the biggest carriers you can. Personally I suspect all these medium carrier studies are bait, to lure politicians into becoming interested in building a new carrier, and once a buyer is interested they start on the up-sell.

As for the RN doing what the NM did in terms of carriers, like the joint fighter that's the tail wagging the dog. France who planned to build a single big (medium big) carrier shouldn't be leading Britain who planned to build at least 2 considerably bigger carriers.

 

[CV12Hornet]

The 1952 design was IMO a real missed opportunity for the Royal Navy. I feel getting one of those instead of Victorious is a much more plausible POD than anything to do with CVA-01, mostly because the expected cost of redoing Victorious' rebuild and of the subsequent Implacable/Indefatigable rebuilds gives the Royal Navy the perfect lever to get a new carrier instead.

 

[Riain]

I don't disagree, not that the RN can't build CVA01 in the 60s but a single 1952 carrier will really take the pressure off as well as create a strong momentum to retain the carrier fleet well into the 70s. It would take a brave politician to disband the carrier fleet with a brand new 55,000t carrier, newly rebuilt Eagle with 15-20 years left in her and the potential to rebuild Ark Royal or a new carrier or two.

The Vic is a real problem as it's cost was because of the double tear down which included a redesign. If she was surveyed properly and it was found her boilers needed replacing i wonder if she would even be rebuilt at all, and if she was it would be a single job to come out as an interim design with a 5 degree angled deck etc in 1955 or so at vastly less cost.