WI Gannet lasts longer?

The RN was early to embrace the big ASW helicopter, and the Whirlwind started displacing the Gannet as the ASW component of RN carriers from 1957 so by the early/mid 60s the fixed wing Gannet AS4 was out of RN service. About 20 minutes later the British govt decided that fixed wing carriers were not needed, especially not in the NATO ASW role.

So WI the RN decided to give the Gannet a major upgrade from the late 50s? The engine from the AEW3 was available to give a good power boost, and the latest ASW gear could be fitted giving it a new lease on life. The advantages over helicopters would be greater endurance, more sensors/weapons and vastly greater servicability.

Would have fixed wing ASW capability throughout the 60s have any bearing on the decision to retain a fixed wing carrier force in the RN?
 
On whif models someone came up with the idea of doing a skyraider on the Gannet using the surplus airframes. Looked rather interesting and it would have kept smaller carriers as usable assets albeit in counter insurgency and commando support roles only. The modeller in question had the Gannet carrying new wing pylons toting rather a lot of iron. Certainly would have done well from Malaya through to Confrontation, Aden, etc although totally had its day facing the Bear.
 
The Spad started out as a strike aircraft that morphed into an AEW etc, so the heavy weapons load was designed in from the beginning. I don't know if its possible to make a portly, underpowered ASW plane into a COIN bomb truck even with the 3800hp engine.
 
The RN was early to embrace the big ASW helicopter, and the Whirlwind started displacing the Gannet as the ASW component of RN carriers from 1957 so by the early/mid 60s the fixed wing Gannet AS4 was out of RN service. About 20 minutes later the British govt decided that fixed wing carriers were not needed, especially not in the NATO ASW role.

So WI the RN decided to give the Gannet a major upgrade from the late 50s? The engine from the AEW3 was available to give a good power boost, and the latest ASW gear could be fitted giving it a new lease on life. The advantages over helicopters would be greater endurance, more sensors/weapons and vastly greater servicability.

Would have fixed wing ASW capability throughout the 60s have any bearing on the decision to retain a fixed wing carrier force in the RN?

IIRC there was a thread on Warships1 about continuing use of the Gannet, did you see that?

edit: I can't find the thread, but IIRC there was a 'what-if'-ish thread about the Gannet some time ago.

An advantage of moving ASW to helo's was that it allowed flying ASW to be moved across the entire fleet.
 
I would have thought any Skyraidering of the Gannet would have needed the removal of the internal weapons bay from the original spec. The weapons bay was limited to what it could carry....couldn't even carry the same companies Green Cheese when it came down to it and did nothing for performance.
 
IIRC there was a thread on Warships1 about continuing use of the Gannet, did you see that?

edit: I can't find the thread, but IIRC there was a 'what-if'-ish thread about the Gannet some time ago.

An advantage of moving ASW to helo's was that it allowed flying ASW to be moved across the entire fleet.

I haven't seen that thread.

Moving flying ASW to the entire fleet allowed the carriers to be considered surplus to requirements. The Gannet doesn't have to last much longer, just be in ASW serrvice when the CVA01 is being decided on to give the carriers another feather in their cap. Once CVA01 is laid down then the RN can move to helo ASW, indeed 1965-70 would probably be a better time to do it with better helicopters.
 
I doubt it, at the end of the day getting rid of the fixed wing carriers came down more to the expense of running them, manpower needed and the cost of replacing them than anything else IIRC. Even if we take the proposition that it was showing that the Gannet and associated carriers could be replaced by helicopters in the Anti-Submarine Warfare role that helped tip the final balance as true, all that means is that instead of being a cause of losing the carriers it's simply an effect of when the other factors combine to push them out the door. I mean it's not as though the various British governments don't have form for investing large amounts of cash into defence programmes only to cancel them whilst two thirds complete or after only 5-10 years service is it? *Mutter grumble*

As FlyingDutchman said the benefits of helicopters are that you can base them on the smaller ships so they don't take up carrier space, gives you ASW capability when a carrier isn't available and emergency inter-ship transport. Also isn't dipping sonar and the ability to hover a large advantage for ASW work, or is that balanced out by the endurance and number of sonar buoys a Gannet could carry? I'd expect that other countries navies would be working on ASW helicopters as well even if the Royal Navy didn't move into them as early as they did or to such an extent the example is still going to be there for some bright spark in the Admiralty or Ministry of Defence to notice and start thinking about them as a Gannet replacement.
 
Fixed wing ASW assets have several advantages over helicopters.

They have greater range and loiter capability for prosecuting and clearing a larger area. You can carry a greater amount of ordinance and also more sophisticated electronics.

In an ideal world once the submarine has been located, then you would also utilise helicopters if you want to prosecute or alter the task force.
 
The big thing with fixed wing ASW is that they land serviceable whereas helo invariably have unserviceabilities after a mission. To me its a bit like fighters with missile only armament, it was done prematurely.

I'm not advocating that the RN doesn't phase out Gannets in favour of ASW helos, just that they do it in 1970 or so, not by 1962 or so. That means that RN carriers have a NATO ASW role as well as an east of Suez role, so when the Labour govt winds down the carrier force because of the east of Suez commitment waning the carriers will still have somethign to do. While a govt can scrap ships based on out of area demands they can't do it so readily with NATO tasked ships.
 
The French Breguet Alize seemed to have served the French with ship-board fixed-wing ASW for decades, without a boost in power. Equipment up-grades as late as 1990 took place. A solid performer, with excellent reliability.
 
Apparently the AS1/4 Gannet was considered underpowered, if you put more ASW gear and weapons in this problem will be more pronounced. But a solution is at hand with the more powerful AEW3 engine.
 
The French Breguet Alize seemed to have served the French with ship-board fixed-wing ASW for decades, without a boost in power. Equipment up-grades as late as 1990 took place. A solid performer, with excellent reliability.

It is indeed.

However for me I always associate the name with a rather cute French singer.
 
Fixed wing ASW assets have several advantages over helicopters.

They have greater range and loiter capability for prosecuting and clearing a larger area. You can carry a greater amount of ordinance and also more sophisticated electronics.

In an ideal world once the submarine has been located, then you would also utilise helicopters if you want to prosecute or alter the task force.
Very hard to do dipping sonar from a fixed wing plane, tho.
 
Fixed wing aircraft use sonobouys and older ones use julie/jezebel active sonobouys. They are plenty good enough.
 
^ More to the point, you could develop sonobuoys with dipping sonars, I would imagine, and get the same result.

Is this meant to figure out a way of keeping the RN in the carrier business, because if so I'm not sure a souped-up Gannet is gonna be of that much help. Yes, it can be used as a longer-legged ASW platform than any helicopter of the time, but that's not gonna be the primary job of any carrier. If you want to do this, you'd be advised to go for the total package and show off just how big of an improvement you can get. In addition, Britain's economic situation has to improve considerably as well.
 
We did invent the dipping sonobouy, its called the Barra.

Hanging the hat on the Gannet isn't going to save the CVA01, but it is going to get a NATO role for the carriers, it is just another feather in the carrier's hat that would have to be justified or replaced and another pillar for the RN to argue with.
 
We did invent the dipping sonobouy, its called the Barra.

Hanging the hat on the Gannet isn't going to save the CVA01, but it is going to get a NATO role for the carriers, it is just another feather in the carrier's hat that would have to be justified or replaced and another pillar for the RN to argue with.

But I don't think even with the usefulness of the carriers in ASW, strike and air defense roles is necessarily enough. The RAF will always claim that they can do the same thing with tankers and do it more quickly, as airplanes fly faster. You need to get Britain's economy in better shape, knock down the costs of the carriers or kill off other expensive programs to be able to make the CVA-01s happen.
 
Top