A dilemma and request for thoughts

[jcf]

Another possibility would be an A-4 or Hawk sized aircraft with a high-lift wing or, more exotic and expensive, a Buccaneer type blown wing. Perhaps something that is essentially a single seat mini-Buccaneer. 
The Blackburn Skua II, but usually referred to as the "Budgie".

[Pellson]

Another possibility would be an A-4 or Hawk sized aircraft with a high-lift wing or, more exotic and expensive, a Buccaneer type blown wing. Perhaps something that is essentially a single seat mini-Buccaneer.
The Blackburn Skua II, but usually referred to as the "Budgie".

That's not a bad idea. A single seat Hawk 200 would fit that bill nicely. As the twoseater was developed into the T-45 Goshawk, carrier capability is a given, and the Hawk could easily become M1,2 capable with a later Adour and a more slick wing profile, should you want that.

Re the question if the Argies would dare, I'd like to point to Mr von Clausewitz who pretty clearly defines defence vs offence as a 1/3 ratio, i.e once you're in possession of an island (in this case) the opposition will need at least three times the resources to oust you. If you stretch your Argentinians to actually base a full sqn of Mirages and some credible AA systems at Port Stanley, then you've evened out the odds significantly.

[PR19_Kit]

...............if one did get behind them they could just accelerate away, supersonic fighters generally having higher power:weight ratios...................

Surely a SHAR had a higher power:weight ratio by definition?

After all it could VTO if need be. A quick thumbnail calculation showed its P/W ratio to be 1.191:1 whereas a Mirage III is a paltry 0.45:1 in burner!

[Weaver]

...............if one did get behind them they could just accelerate away, supersonic fighters generally having higher power:weight ratios...................

Surely a SHAR had a higher power:weight ratio by definition?

After all it could VTO if need be. A quick thumbnail calculation showed its P/W ratio to be 1.191:1 whereas a Mirage III is a paltry 0.45:1 in burner!

Yes, but a Harrier pretty much runs into a drag wall at M=0.9 due to it's large fan and low exhaust velocity, whereas something like a Mirage just keeps accelerating.

[sandiego89]

...............if one did get behind them they could just accelerate away, supersonic fighters generally having higher power:weight ratios...................

Surely a SHAR had a higher power:weight ratio by definition?

After all it could VTO if need be. A quick thumbnail calculation showed its P/W ratio to be 1.191:1 whereas a Mirage III is a paltry 0.45:1 in burner!

I cannot remember where I read it (John Farley's book perhaps?) in explaining the "types" of thrust, but it always stuck with me.  Went something like:

A helicopter moves a tremendous amount of air at a rather modest velocity.

A fighter engine (turbojet or modern turbofan) moves a modest amount of air at a tremendous velocity.

The Pegasus engine on the (Sea) Harrier moved a tremendous amount air at moderate velocity.   

So while the Harrier had a very impressive thrust to weight ratio, it was the "wrong" type of thrust for high-speed flight. 

[Weaver]

Another possibility would be an A-4 or Hawk sized aircraft with a high-lift wing or, more exotic and expensive, a Buccaneer type blown wing. Perhaps something that is essentially a single seat mini-Buccaneer.
The Blackburn Skua II, but usually referred to as the "Budgie".

That's an interesting thought. There were a bunch of Harrier/Jaguar follow-on projects studied in the early 1970s under AST.396, which included STOL and V/STOL options, and their required top speeds were only about M=1.2 at the most, some being firmly subsonic. One V/STOL study had essentially the same twin-boom layout as P.1216 (for similar reasons) but was firmly subsonic.

If the equivalent projects were "live" in my alt-world at the same time the "British" navy was trying to fund it's small-carrier Bear-chaser, you might imagine the government reluctantly funding the latter on condition that it piggy-backed off the air force's "AST.396" project, with changes limited to the addition of AI radar+AAMs. If the air force is sold on a subsonic CAS aircraft, then that's how the navy end up with with a twin-boom "Harrier" or a blown-wing "AMX". Ironically, if the navy had wanted 40* clean-sheet-of-paper light supersonic interceptors with huge export potential, then they'd have had more leverage over the spec than they did when adding 40 airframes to a 300 airframe air force order for a subsonic CAS aircraft...

I think that might be the solution! It smacks of exactly the kind of f-d up "how the hell did we end up here?" procurement story that happens all to often in the real world...


*I've also realised that I got the numbers wrong. My figure of 60 airframes was based on 3 x 12-aircraft air groups. However in the planning stages, the Invincibles were only intended to carry 6 SHARs, so 18 aircraft in the air groups plus the OCU, maintenance reserve & trials aircraft gives a figure more like 40.

[Hobbes]

There's an option for V/STOL aircraft: pick one of the more complicated aircraft (e.g. multiple lift engines), and have the UK struggle with getting them to work. That might make the enemy dismiss those aircraft as a credible threat. Come the war, the kinks get worked out.

[PR19_Kit]

I cannot remember where I read it (John Farley's book perhaps?) in explaining the "types" of thrust, but it always stuck with me.  Went something like:

A helicopter moves a tremendous amount of air at a rather modest velocity.

A fighter engine (turbojet or modern turbofan) moves a modest amount of air at a tremendous velocity.

The Pegasus engine on the (Sea) Harrier moved a tremendous amount air at moderate velocity.   

So while the Harrier had a very impressive thrust to weight ratio, it was the "wrong" type of thrust for high-speed flight.

Exactly, and it was the late, great John Farley, in his wonderful book, 'A view from the hover', well worth a read. 

Did I mention I met him once? Oh right, OK then. 

[Gondor]

Another possibility would be an A-4 or Hawk sized aircraft with a high-lift wing or, more exotic and expensive, a Buccaneer type blown wing. Perhaps something that is essentially a single seat mini-Buccaneer.
The Blackburn Skua II, but usually referred to as the "Budgie".

That's not a bad idea. A single seat Hawk 200 would fit that bill nicely. As the twoseater was developed into the T-45 Goshawk, carrier capability is a given, and the Hawk could easily become M1,2 capable with a later Adour and a more slick wing profile, should you want that.

Re the question if the Argies would dare, I'd like to point to Mr von Clausewitz who pretty clearly defines defence vs offence as a 1/3 ratio, i.e once you're in possession of an island (in this case) the opposition will need at least three times the resources to oust you. If you stretch your Argentinians to actually base a full sqn of Mirages and some credible AA systems at Port Stanley, then you've evened out the odds significantly.

So something like my F/A-45 seen here.

Gondor

[Mossie]

Thinking on the F-5 idea, how about something on the line of the larger Gnat projects?  The RN want something big fast and shiny, but are told they can only have small carriers. So they have the light fighter concept forced upon them and reluctantly decide something is better than nothing.

You might be able to get away with some supersonic capability here, as there would be many detractors of the light fighter idea, many thinking it was to small to carry a decent weapon load, enough fuel or large radar. The 'junta' might well think they've got something a bit pathetic versus their sleek 'Mirages', then get a shock due to the same constraints on it as in OTL and a bit of last minute ingenuity on the 'British' side to eek some more performance out of it.

[Mossie]

In fact Glenn Gilbertson did a profile:
https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=47971.0

You cannot view this attachment.

[jcf]

Of course it's de rigueur that by the time the RN get done precisely tailoring it to their specific requirements, it's no longer of interest to the export market.
🤣

[Pellson]

Another possibility would be an A-4 or Hawk sized aircraft with a high-lift wing or, more exotic and expensive, a Buccaneer type blown wing. Perhaps something that is essentially a single seat mini-Buccaneer.
The Blackburn Skua II, but usually referred to as the "Budgie".

That's not a bad idea. A single seat Hawk 200 would fit that bill nicely. As the twoseater was developed into the T-45 Goshawk, carrier capability is a given, and the Hawk could easily become M1,2 capable with a later Adour and a more slick wing profile, should you want that.

Re the question if the Argies would dare, I'd like to point to Mr von Clausewitz who pretty clearly defines defence vs offence as a 1/3 ratio, i.e once you're in possession of an island (in this case) the opposition will need at least three times the resources to oust you. If you stretch your Argentinians to actually base a full sqn of Mirages and some credible AA systems at Port Stanley, then you've evened out the odds significantly.

So something like my F/A-45 seen here.

Gondor

Very much like that.
Has it possibly had its fullr est by now? 

[McColm]

What about something along the lines of the Yak-38 Forger?

[Gondor]

Another possibility would be an A-4 or Hawk sized aircraft with a high-lift wing or, more exotic and expensive, a Buccaneer type blown wing. Perhaps something that is essentially a single seat mini-Buccaneer.
The Blackburn Skua II, but usually referred to as the "Budgie".

That's not a bad idea. A single seat Hawk 200 would fit that bill nicely. As the twoseater was developed into the T-45 Goshawk, carrier capability is a given, and the Hawk could easily become M1,2 capable with a later Adour and a more slick wing profile, should you want that.

Re the question if the Argies would dare, I'd like to point to Mr von Clausewitz who pretty clearly defines defence vs offence as a 1/3 ratio, i.e once you're in possession of an island (in this case) the opposition will need at least three times the resources to oust you. If you stretch your Argentinians to actually base a full sqn of Mirages and some credible AA systems at Port Stanley, then you've evened out the odds significantly.

So something like my F/A-45 seen here.

Gondor

Very much like that.
Has it possibly had its fullr est by now? 

Unfortunately not, it is in the list of things to be worked on this year though.

Gondor