Alternative to CVA-01 and Tiger class CH??????

[Thorvic]

Ralph

Did the RN actually want the Phantom or rather an Aircraft equal to or better than the Phantom?.

Geoff

[Archibald]

Re-reading the various fascinating threads above, I have another approach that might fit in with these ideas.

In the 50s the UK could have joined in the creation of the European Community and even the proposed European Defence Community. Washington in fact would not have minded this too much as long as the Europeans carried their weight in the confrontation with the USSR.

The creation of a European Navy in the late 50s would have allowed the merging of the skills of the various member nations and changed the projects that emerged as follows:

CVA:   The new EDC would have wanted to contribute at least 2 new carriers  each to the Atlantic and Mediterranean fleets. A joint UK/French design combining the best of the Verdun and CVA 01 designs in the late 50s would have had no difficulty in achieving this.

Escorts:  The Italians had some marvelous design skills with their helicopter ships, while the French produced some nice destroyer escorts. It should have been possible to produce European escort ships of high quality. The Brits produced the best frigates of the period the Type 12s.

Hope this helps

UK 75

Now that's an excellent idea. We discussed the "carrier subject" to death over the years, but this is new and very interesting.

What about an european "Join Naval Interceptor" in the late 50's ?

- It would be a fixed, swept wing aircraft.
- RB-106 engines and probably a british A2A radar.
- AAMs would be R-530, Red Top and later Blue Dolphin.
- Blowned flaps similar to the Bucc.
- No need for strike as the Bucc would fulfill this role (AN-52 / ASMP Buccaneer, now that's an idea!)
A join Breguet-Hawker program would result in an awesome machine...
Or a SO-4060/ P.1121 hybrid...

[Zen]

It all gets problematic over the Phantom.
From my reading the RN was looking rather for something more than the F4, a system able to do F4 and Buccaneer missions. Thus OR.346, which has its roots in the periode after Sandys ideas over missiles where quietly shelved.
P1154 is forced on them, and eventualy their let free of this constraint. F4 is then the prefered option over other less capable machines or paper designs that will take too long to bring into service (they had no idea then about the issues over the Spey F4's problems).

RN preference would be for a fully varied carrier air wing, comprising various types, instead they had to settle for just one or two types that could do all the roles required. In the short term F4 and Buccaneer, in the long term they hoped for a return to OR.346.

The key problem is understanding what was going through the RN's collective mind in the mid-to-late 50's prior to 1957, its all rather too vague save for the FAW Scimitar variant actualy ordered and then cancled and the Saro P.177.

Pulling back a moment, had the large Malta types been begun in WWII, these questions would be moot, as would the likely result by the 1970's, something would've had to give to keep even a single such CV operational by then.
The onus would then be on military drydocks to cope the CVs free from civilian constraints. Ironicaly those drydocks might well be nationalised and one handed over the MoD in the 1970's.
The equations can be solved if we have two Maltas completed post WWII around the mid 50's, and a third new ship of similar size completed by the late 60's. But again the crunch comes in the 1970's and the lower cost of purchasing F4s with J79 engines makes precious little difference, because its operating costs that matter. Its the crew requirements that are costing so much, driven by the size of the ships, number of aircraft onboard and related factors.
Smaller CVs with fewer aircraft might be supportable during this periode.

No we'd have to change the whole thing from the Audacious onwards, scrapping them before their started to focus on the Malta types, then we might manage all four, and no Centaurs for the RN or Victorious modernisation. Even then I can't see this fleet carrying on bar one during the 1970's as the need for a commando CV or two will still be pressing and drain finances.

[Archibald]

a system able to do F4 and Buccaneer missions.

This scream "Blackburn P.141" to me.


(from British Secret projects -bombers-) 

[Lawman]

a system able to do F4 and Buccaneer missions.

This scream "Blackburn P.141" to me.


(from British Secret projects -bombers-) 

Nice Phantom! 

Seriously, though, if this were available in the right timeframe, and could be built for Speys, not just to be able to cope with them, then it could be an excellent performer. The problem with the F-4K/M was always partly the fact that modifications to use the Spey had cost the Earth, and these changes had hurt performance, ironically giving the British Phantoms both the highest cost and the lowest performance.

There is also the possibility of not using turbofans, which were great for low-level, but not as good for higher altitude performance - witness the Tornado IDS vs ADV, where the IDS is generally viewed as an excellent aircraft, and the ADV as a poor-performer (in spite of more powerful engines).

[Archibald]

Well this thing had RB-172 rather similar to Jaguar engines, in fact the adour is a scaled-down variant of it.
Thrust sound a bit weak around 6 tons of thrust each. But they were probably fuel-efficient.
Alas I think that building this machine around spey would make it too big and costly...

Btw it came too late, around 1965...

I like this project because, for me its the perfect "synthesis" of the Jaguar  Phantom and Tornado.
In fact you can consider it as a "modern" Phantom, a non-VG Tornado or a super Jaguar. 

[Lawman]

Well, if we can 'beam' this basic design back to '60 or so, and switch to bigger Speys (ideally c.16,000lb dry 22,000lb thrust) and the same general size as the Phantom, then we have a winner. I say bring it back to '60 or so because this could potentially allow a quick in-service date as early as '65-67, which would at least allow for retirement of the outdated Sea Vixen before too long.

If we assume a proper entry into service of around 1970, then it could carry pretty modern avionics, and excellent weapons, e.g. Sparrow and later Sidewinders. We ideally want to stick very close to the Phantom's weapon load, since it was pretty much the best possible loadout; four Sparrows, four Sidewinders and a load of bombs is frankly amazing for the time (or now for that matter).

[uk 75]

Although Zen answered Thorvic's question spot-on, I think it is worth re-itterating the RN's close links and sharing with the USN of ideas and operations.

The various UK swing-wing proposals to OR 346 arose in the same climate that produced the US TFX and the unsuccessful F111.  Phantom emerged as the most capable actual multi-role supersonic aircraft built in this timeframe. The planned Mirage derivatives and the UK paper projects might have matched it, but we have to speculate.

I am glad there are some takers for the European idea, because it does allow us to look at some serious in-period alternatives for the RN.

UK 75

[Lawman]

I have to say that the idea of a common European military would just have been a non-starter - memories of WW2 were still pretty fresh, and anything more than cooperation wouldn't work. This doesn't mean that there couldn't be a good degree of cooperation, one good candidate would be the Mirage III, combined with an RB.106 Thames (the Mirage III did fly with an Avon, as proposed for Australia, and the Thames was intended as a drop-in replacement for the Avon. If the UK had bought the Mirage III using Thames, it could have helped defence integration/cooperation; there could even have been potential for the Hunter and Canberra as well, with the Thames boosting dry thrust (neither had afterburners) by about 60%! The same would be true of the Saab Draken, which could certainly have benefited from switching to the Thames engine, allowing it more thrust, and it could have ended up much more capable (longer range through less need for afterburner). Again, the Lightning would have benefitted massively from being able to take off in dry thrust alone (the Lightning's Avons only generated about the Thames' dry thrust in full afterburner); this would be similar to the engine switch on the F-14 Tomcat, where an engine switch allowed a massive improvement in performance and range, by allowing manouvres in dry thrust, rather than afterburner.

If we want an interim, of course, the 'thin wing' Sea Vixen, using a pair of Thames engines would probably have been capable of around Mach 1.5, which may not be the best, but would certainly have allowed it to remain 'current' enough for most of the '60s. Switch it to having a more normal side-by-side canopy (perhaps a mirrored version of the existing one-sided cockpit, i.e. bulges on either side); switch the radar to a more modern radar, allowing Sparrows and Sidewinders, and it should be good enough. This would allow a British Phantom equivalent to be produced, hopefully reaching squadron service by around '68 or '69 - this would be a more definite possibility if the Harrier were canned. I know it is sacrilage to suggest canning the Harrier, but it took up a lot of money and effort, and all to produce an aircraft that didn't really do much that a better engined STOL version of the Jaguar couldn't do. The Harriers did briefly try the forward-based operations, operating from muddy clearings, but it was found to be very dangerous, and pretty impractical, since they needed to clear a short runway anyway if they wanted the Harrier to actually carry anything at all. A switch to producing a small lightweight strike fighter, with a single turbofan engine, or possibly just the original version of Archibald's P.141, which should be easily able to carry a pair of Sparrows on the fuselage, plus a pair of wingtip Sidewinders, plus four or six underwing hardpoints and a centreline hardpoint.

[Zen]

The odd thing is the suggested upgrade of the SeaVixen was considered so it seems. Though not with Sparrows and Sidewinders. But it seems favouritism was always with a 'new' machine, from in the mid 50's with the FAW Scimitar variant, the late 50's with the P.177, the early 60's OR.346, P1154RN and then the F4 afterwards. The upgrade of the radar seems to be offered as the AI.25, and may be a PD X-band set, related to early 1960's radar guided AAM efforts. The two, radar and missile seem deeply intertwined, and both are more focused on new aircraft to use them.

But there is perhaps one of our alternatives, a drive to produce our own SARH missile/radar combination, and fly early versions as a upgrade to SeaVixen and some Javelins. This would pull the rug from under a major factor in the F4's favour, if by 1964 we where well along the path to fielding upgraded Seavixens with our own weapon system.

Another thing is Norman Friedmans claim of a twin Medway powered version with a 'jump up missile' in the same timeframe as the Saro P177. But thats the only reference I have, its not mentioned in Tony Butlers books, rather a Thames powered version and a Spey powered version. Indeed the Spey version is mentiond in books on the SeaVixen, but never the Medway.
The phrase may relate to the sort of performance ascribed to Red Hebe, able to intercept aircraft flying faster and higher than the launch aircraft.

So there is scope, indeed it seems from my understanding that a more advanced SeaVixen was being developed for the RN when Sandys review opted to pay for the quickest to service and cheapest option. Instead of taking the delays caused by the crash of the DH110 prototype and using it to push forward a more capable machine.
So perhaps there is the scope for a alternative history, starting around 1954, with a more serious drive for an enhanced SeaVixen OR more effort behind the FAW Scimitar.
Either of which would ease pressure for their successor in the early 1960's.

Lightning might not fit the full RB.106 reheat unit for a twin, and likely remain with the existing units if two RB.106's are used, resulting in only minor increases in thrust from the dry 15,000lb per engine. But this would'nt be much of a problem considering the power and the likely regime where reheat would be used, up high where every ounce of extra thrust could make the difference in interception.
A Thames powered Scimitar FAW would be quite potent if the reheat use is kept to a minimum at high altitude to avoid the worse problems with noise on the rear structure.

Euro-navy. There was perhaps more scope for this prior to the events of Suez and if Suez had gone a different way than after in real history.
To my take it still seems Suez if the crux of where alternative history in this area lies.