US Navy CVN in RN post Falklands

[elmayerle]

A prototype naval version of the Jaguar was produced and underwent carrier trials - maybe this would have been put into production for the loaned carrier.

Yes, but it was a crap and was quickly abandoned http://frenchnavy.free.fr/projects/jaguar/...r/jaguar_fr.htm

From what I can tell and have read, the Jaguar-M would've needed more powerful Adours that were initially available and, really, could've used the avionics fit of the Indian Maritime Strike Jaguars but was not irredeemably flawed, save that Marcel Dassault talked it down continually.

[Archibald]

Marcel Dassault talked it down continually.

That's sure! He had to sold its Mirages... If only Breguet had survived as an independant firm, be sure that its collaboration with the British would have been much more honest (whithout Dassault arrogance).

Sabotaging collaborative efforts with foreign countries is quite an ordinary task for dassault (AFVG, Jaguar, Typhoon...) It ended in a quite expensive way for France (still no export customer for Rafale, when the Typhoon won its first orders).

concerning the Jaguar M, I agree that the French version was and stay underpowered because the mk-102 were maintened. The british more clever (or fortunate?) changed the 102 to 104 then  106, augmenting thrust each time.
Also interesting comparing avionics...
On one hand you have french jaguars which were very raw aircrafts. On the other hand, I heard that british Jaguars were quite up-to-date for their time, nearly the best in cockpit organisation before the glass-cockpit of the F-18 appeared.

aparently in the mid-70's Dassault get ride of the Jaguar, giving it to the British! They had to promote it to foreign markets (and were successfull!)

[elmayerle]

Marcel Dassault talked it down continually.

That's sure! He had to sold its Mirages... If only Breguet had survived as an independant firm, be sure that its collaboration with the British would have been much more honest (whithout Dassault arrogance).

Mirages or, in the case of the Jaguar_M, Super Etendards.  Imagine a developed Jaguar-M with the same avionics fit as the Super Etendard; that's pretty much what I described.

[Archibald]

Anemone, later Agave  radars, Exocet compatible...this mean Jaguar M for Argentina, killing British warships!!!
In every case, for the Aeronavale, much better replacing the obsolete Crusaders and etendards IV by a naval Mirage F1 M53. Weapon system similar to the iraqis EQ , Ie multirole aircraft.

For the fun, I tried to imagine that Breguet stayed independant and, as a consequence, tried to change the Jaguar into a Mirage competitor. This give a lineage of Jag derivative quite similar to those describe in BSP.
- Jaguar C 2*Adour push to 5000 kgp, 2m fuselage plug, longer range.
- Jaguar D 2*Atar 8 (whithout reheat). otherwise similar to the C.
- Jaguar H 1*M-53 10200 kgp, Cyrano IV /RDM, Super 530.
- Jaguar N 2*Atar 9K50, 9m span , similar to the H
- Jaguar P All weather attack variant similar to the P, antilope V radar

always asked if it would have been possible to insert more powerful engines in the jaguar and changing it into a mach-2 interceptor...

[Shasper]

Seeing as we offered the Brits the F-15 and F-14 in the same time period (turned down for the Tornado F.2 and F.3), I'd think the F-14B could've came into service a few yrs ahead of when it did.

Shas B)

[Lawman]

The Hornet probably would have made the most sense - Australia and Canada both buying some, and it would have made for a great Jaguar replacement. If the order were placed in the early to mid '80s, then the RAF would probably receive their first Hornets in the late '80s (the RN would get priority on deliveries). If the Australian and UK orders were rolled into a major joint Canada/UK/Australia purchase, then a lower unit cost would be possible. As already mentioned, the Australians and Canadians could even deploy aboard - especially if the US 'helped' with purchase of a third carrier, on condition it was forward based in the Pacific (it could even deploy regularly with two RN squadrons, and either a Canadian or an Australian squadron). With better tanker support, the Hornet would probably have made for a better fighter than the Tornado F-3s - allowing a frontline RAF fleet of Tornado GR1s, Hornets and Harriers.

I suspect the Tomcat would be a bit too pricey, though all the reports seem to indicate that it was not the cost of the aircraft that deterred the RAF. It was reported that the only factor which ruled out the Tomcat was the sheer price of the Phoenix, compared with the lower cost of the Skyflash - an absurdity, since the Tomcat also used Sparrows, thus could have used Skyflash just as easily. In the end, a Tomcat purchase would probably have cost less than the F-2/3 development.

Perhaps an alternative scenario would have been if the Conservative government in 1970 had lived up to its election pledge to return to a proper carrier fleet!

[Shasper]

My line of thinking is, we offered the Brits  surplus A models (from the order that never made it to Iran following the Revolution) at knocked down prices, they take em then a few yrs down the road they trade up/upgrade to the B.

Shas B)

[XV107]

Whichever carrier was offered, it was definitely not a CVN (my sources being Admiral Sir Henry Leach and Sir John Nott [an interesting seminar...]). The reason the offer was turned down was because the US CV machinery was different to that in RN ships (High pressure steam versus something else, I think), and it would have taken too long to train personnel to operate the carrier.

The air group would have had to be a mix of Sea Harriers (the offer, IIRC, was 'if you lose a carrier, would one of our  CVs be of any use?'), Buccaneers and Phantoms. By the time the RN retired Ark Royal, a large proportion of the air group aircrew came in the form of RAF bods on exchange, and it'd have been the RAF who provided the assets for any operations off the Falklands.

If that had happened, I suspect that the old 'why do we need a Fleet Air Arm to operate fast jets' argument would have been reopened, given that most of the firepower for the CV would have come from the light blue side of the house.

The RAF was interested in the F/A-18 in the early 80s, but the costings for the Tornado programme meant that no cash was available. I suspect that if a UK CTOL carrier had materialised, we might well have seen the RAF being responsible for providing the fixed wing air. Someone would have dug out the quote from Admiral Lambe at some time in the 60s which said in essence (I paraphrase) 'The RN will do the ships and the RAF will do the aeroplanes; we'll both do the helicopters and it'll all be far, far more efficient that way', and the RAF would have been four F/A-18 squadrons to the good.

An alternative might be that as well as the F/A-18, some A-6Es materialised. Don't forget that the Bucc fleet had been reduced after the Red Flag crash, and it wasn't being produced any more. If the decision had been taken to buy two types rather than go multi-role with the Hornet, then the A-6 would have been the obvious choice there.

I can't really see the F-14 being chosen, since it was *far* too expensive to procure and operate for the UK's defence budget; the A-7 wasn't in production; the Phantom was old technology, and nothing else had the necessary capabilities required....

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

It ended in a quite expensive way for France (still no export customer for Rafale, when the Typhoon won its first orders

Well, actually, it costs quite the same price for French Air Force to have 234 Rafale than to Germany to buy 180 Typhoon!!!!
I don't think we chose the expensive way (even if I admit that in a commercial way, it is not the best choice for French industry, for the moment... But while I'm a French tax-payer and not an industrial, I prefer the Rafale!   )



For the British Naval Air Group, I agree with the Buccaneer/Phantom/Sea Harrier Wing for the Falkland war...

After that, if the UK purchase a couple of carrier (maybe with the rent of one or two CV to USA during the construction time of theirown carriers), it sounds logical that the Hornet will be the main fighter-bomber for the RN... But a couple of Tomcat squadron sounds good to me too...
After all, in the 1980's, the soviet bombers are still a great threat... And with 60000 tons or more carriers, the RN became a main target for Soviet Navy, just like the US Navy!!
And well, what could the Hornet do in front of Backfire?

[Matt Wiser]

If the Royal Navy did buy a carrier from the U.S., it would've been one of the Forrestals, most likely IMHO. A mixed air wing of F/A-18, A-6, and S-3 with E-2C would've done OK. As for the lack of F-14s and Phoenix, the AAAM (Phoenix replacement) was also supposed to be compatible with the F/A-18 (4 missiles per bird); this weapon would've had the range and warhead of the Phoenix and agility of the AIM-120. While it was cancelled in 1991, a RN/RAF Hornet buy might buy the program a U.K. coproducer of the weapon and bring it online sooner. Numerical designation according to the Harpoon board/computer game was AIM-155. This weapon would've enabled the Hornets to go along with F-14s to go out and kill the BACKFIREs and BADGERs at long range. And you can bet if the RN had gotten a big-deck carrier post-Falklands and the Hornet along with it, they would've been a buyer of the Super Hornet (both E, F, and G versions).

[Lawman]

Another possibility might have been a merger of the Eurofighter and the Super Hornet programs - a joint RR/GE F-414, using EJ-200 technology, and avionics designed for the Typhoon, and perhaps even canards. That way, a much larger order could have been made:

~500 for the USN (fighters)
~150 for the USN (SEAD aircraft)
~150 for the RN
~300 for the RAF
~200 for the Luftwaffe
~150 for the AMI
~100 for the FAMET

That is assuming that the French go ahead by themselves, otherwise you would probably add another ~300-350 to the total! It could actually have shaped up as a genuine joint strike fighter, but on time and on budget! An order for 1500-1800 aircraft would ensure a much lower unit cost, and probably much better export prospects.

It may sound a little improbable, but a combined program would have made some sense.  

[Archibald]

In 1987, the americans proposed the hornet 2000 (ancestor of the E/F) to France instead of the Rafale M... so this could have a been the basis of what you imagined, Lawman...  

[Lawman]

Thanks Archibald, I new there were proposals about selling France a later block of Hornet (as well as the interim proposal for Hornets to replace the Crusaders), but not about a Super Hornet proposal. I think it could have proven very worthwhile - especially if France could be brought on board, and everyone can play on their strengths. The US could develop the enlarged fuselage, France can develop the canard flight controls, and the UK (in association with GE) the engines. If you imagine a Super Hornet, but with four AMRAAM-type missiles in tandem (Typhoon style), and canards, that is the sort of thing I am meaning. Also, with somewhere around 2000 sales, it would be a lot cheaper - probably at least 1/3 cheaper than the Super Hornet/Rafale/Typhoon.

[jcf]

The RN were offered two Essex class carriers for around $50 million each with the first, USS Shangri-La CV-38, to be delivered in 1970-71 and the second, USS Yorktown CV-10, for delivery in 1974-75.

Source: Air-Britain Aeromilitaria, Vol. 32 Issue 125 Spring 2006.

Cheers, Jon

[Archibald]

Cool!!! British Crusaders (licence build by Short) used it on Falkland war to cripple Argentinians planes...