The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

Interesting info from "Greg Goebel / In The Public Domain"

[1.0] Crusader In Development

The fact that the Crusader made considerable demands on pilot skill for safe operation suggested to some that a conversion trainer might be desireable, and so the 77th production F8U-1 was modified as a tandem two-seat trainer, with a new forward fuselage that lengthened the aircraft by 60 centimeters (2 feet). The rear seat was "stepped up" to give the flight instructor an outstanding forward view.
Two of the cannon were removed, as was the built-in rocket pack, but the ability to launch Sidewinders was retained. Avionics were updated to F-8E standard. As something of an experiment, the conversion was fitted for short-field landings, with low-pressure tires and a drag chute stowed at the base of the tailfin, allowing it to land in half the space of a conventional Crusader. The resulting "F8U-1T Twosader", as it was called, first flew in early 1962.



However, budget cuts in 1964 meant no US production orders for the type, and only one Twosader was ever built. The Twosader was then demonstrated in Europe. The British considered buying the type, with various improvements and equipped with a powerful Rolls-Royce Spey turbojet, with 53.5 kN (5,450 kgp / 12,000 lbf) dry thrust and 89.3 kN (9,100 kgp / 20,000 lbf) afterburning thrust. This would have resulted in significant improvements in performance and range, but the British opted for the Spey-powered Phantom instead.

 

[Seaforth]

And the thing is, the money was there for new ships in the right time frame - the three CVS's were ordered and built with the first one popping out barely six years after Ark was paid off. Both Eagle and Ark could have ran on for a few more years, til their replacement with say, a pair of 40Kt ships instead of the three 22kt ones commissioned. Like yourself, I'm not buying Volkadov's timeline here.

Ian

See my post above, there was not a six year gap from the end of Ark Royal R09 until Invincible.

Ark Royal finished up at the end of 1978, with Invincible's sea trials starting just a few months later, commissioning with Sea Harrier squadron the following year. Plus Illustrious was being launched and the new Ark Royal laid down at the same time.

In addition, Bulwark was specifically reintroduced for a short time to plug the gap.

 

[Volkodav]

For the record I think the F-4 is one of the greats and had the RN managed to get the planned CVA-01s it would definitely have been the way to go for the FAA (preferably the standard F-4J though). However without the right ships to fly them off in reasonable numbers there was no point buying them. On the same tack, without the FAA component the RAF would have been better off going for the F-4E and perhaps the RF-4C and F-4G as well.

My argument is based on platforms, not what should or could have been available but what actually was. At the end of the day had the RN been able to build any of their proposed post war carriers they would not have been in the position they found themselves in the 70s. The Malta class large carriers, the 1000ft design from the mid 50s or the CVA-01, any would have done he job had they been built. Considering the great expense of modernising five carriers from three classes in seven or more different configurations, it just defies comprehension that no one actually managed to get the message across that it would have been more efficient to lay down and complete at least a couple of new ships.

 

[swerve]

Fits perfectly if you assume the government decides not to waste money replacing the Sea Vixen, cancels Arks modernisation and lets the three best carriers continue on with reduced versions existing air groups (i.e. no Bucs) and extra helos into the 70's. The SeaVixens having been retained for anti Bear ops are then replaced by the Sea Harrier in the late 70's early 80's.....

The expectation was that the Bears would be replaced by faster jets, & an admiral who suggested at the beginning of the 1960s that subsonic Sea Vixens would do for intercepting whatever the USSR would be using over the Atlantic in the 1970s would have been risking his career.

 

[Volkodav]

The expectation was that the Bears would be replaced by faster jets, & an admiral who suggested at the beginning of the 1960s that subsonic Sea Vixens would do for intercepting whatever the USSR would be using over the Atlantic in the 1970s would have been risking his career.

Not the early 60's, specifically from 1966 i.e. following the cancellation of CVA-01. The decission had been made by the government clearly demonstrating that what any admiral thought or said (no matter how right) meant nothing.

My arguement is that once the decission was made the Phantom clearly had no long term future in the FAA, there simply was no viable platform for them to operate from for any length of time. At this point, I believe, the best option the FAA had was to find a way to keep as many carriers as possible, even if it meant cancelling their order for Phantoms.

Another thought crossed my mind, the Jaguar M first flew in 1969, imagine replacing the Sea Vixen with a Jaguar M ADV and eventually the Buccaneer with a Jaguar M Strike / Reconnaissance Variant on the existing carriers. It is smaller and lighter than either the Sea Vixen and Buc and with the commonallity beween the two versions of the Jaguar a significantly larger airgroup could be embarked and supported on the existing carriers.

 

[swerve]

By 1966 much of the development money had been spent. IMO, cancelling in favour of retaining Sea Vixen wouldn't have saved any carriers, but led to even earlier scrapping of 'em, on the grounds that with only Sea Vixens they weren't effective, & it was a waste of money keeping them afloat.

The Jaguar would have been poor for ADV. It was designed for nap of the earth flying. The French decided not to pursue a carrier strike version partly for political reasons, but I think more because the airframe just wasn't right. Landing speed too high, needed more power, I think because of the small wing, designed for stable flight at high subsonic speed & very low altitude. The RN didn't even think it worth looking at. . Great aircraft for land-based CAS anywhere that isn't both hot & high (hot at low altitude it seems to cope with fine, but performance suffers badly at altitude), but not for carriers.

You couldn't have flown land versions of Jaguar from carriers.

 

[1805]

Was the F4 such a great aircraft for the RN, even if we had built the CVAs. 382 losses over Vietnam, a bit of a jack of all trades master of none? The experience of combat was to see the US focus on far more agile fighter designs. I also remember reading somewhere (can't reference it sorry) that a Buccaneer at low level could carrier a heavier payload, further and faster than a F4.

The truely outstanding design was the Harrier, this tiny little aircraft saved the RN's bacon when it sent a fleet with neglected air defences to war; it completely liberated the RN from the need for large carriers, at a time when money was tight.. What was really needed was BVR missiles (which FA2 gave it) and just more aircraft. Again it would have been nice if the Invincibles had been a bit bigger, but I would rather have had more airframes, so you could maintain more in combat.

The P1154 was dead by the 1966 review, but with hindsight it offered by far the best capability for the RN, and potential beyond the AV8B. It would have given the UK aircraft industry a booster rather than the kick the purchase of the F4 gave it (true it had many other kicks to deal with).

How the F4 got ordered is very strange, when the original 1966 review was to axe the carriers earlier, I thought it was the Heath government that extended Ark Royal; the F4 should have had an even shorter FAA service?

Hasn't the USN for many years spent more on aircraft than ships, what is the ratio in the RN??

 

[Hambo]

You may have seen it but Empire of the Clouds by James Hamilton-Paterson is a good read from an enthusiastic boy who grew up seeing the creations of the British aircraft industry. he gives an interesting slant on the bloated industry of bosses who sacrificed test pilots for profit, milking the tax payers, with politicians wedded to the same old boy network and unwilling or unable to reform the system.

Anyway several commentators say P1154 was a flawed idea, the idea of heating the front nozzles to 1400.F was always going to be a technical challenge beyond the possible at the time. The author tells of an interview with John Farley, the famed harrier display pilot in 2009, when he comments that the p1154 would have set fire to its own tyres and destroyed the runways, " no we knew at bedford in 1966 that the P1154 was a stupid bloody idea "(P313)

The Navy never really wanted it, it was forced by the air ministry who wanted a joint project, but by trying to make a two seat supersonic interceptor from a ground attack aircraft was a compromise on the wing, engine intakes etc. Not withstanding trying to create a bespoke 37,000 thrust engine in the 1960's would never turn out to be cheap even if the BS100 did work. The project actually progressed quite well when the Navy pulled out, although it was aways far too technologically ambitious and was cancelled by the Govt who were trying desperately to control an industry that spent buckets of taxpayers money then raked off the bulk of any profit it did make.

I think it was quite obvious why the RN wanted the Phantom. it actually worked and could be delivered on time and had far better avionics than anything home grown.

Rather than try the weird and wonderful and over complex its a shame the industry didnt stick to the elements it was good at, and bought in working practices from the US, rationalising the dozens of companies much earlier. The spey engine, the Bucc, Canberra etc , all good, but in avionics and early missile technology, we should have purchased US expertise. Imagine seeing Buccaneer with the avionics of the A6 for instance?

The same book makes a good point, we assume Concorde was a wonderful success, it made zero commercial profit and no sales, but cost £1 billion in the 1960's, so every tax payer in the UK paid £30 each just to subsidise the likes of Mick Jagger to fly to New York in 3 hours. Imagine if they had spent that money on maybe a mass produced subsonic airliner to fly 250 passengers to sunny climes, or maybe a couple of CVA01 carriers? Hmm?

 

[swerve]

Was the F4 such a great aircraft for the RN, even if we had built the CVAs. 382 losses over Vietnam, a bit of a jack of all trades master of none? The experience of combat was to see the US focus on far more agile fighter designs. I also remember reading somewhere (can't reference it sorry) that a Buccaneer at low level could carrier a heavier payload, further and faster than a F4.

The truely outstanding design was the Harrier, this tiny little aircraft saved the RN's bacon when it sent a fleet with neglected air defences to war; it completely liberated the RN from the need for large carriers, at a time when money was tight.. What was really needed was BVR missiles (which FA2 gave it) and just more aircraft. Again it would have been nice if the Invincibles had been a bit bigger, but I would rather have had more airframes, so you could maintain more in combat....

How the F4 got ordered is very strange, when the original 1966 review was to axe the carriers earlier, I thought it was the Heath government that extended Ark Royal; the F4 should have had an even shorter FAA service?

F-4 was ordered for fleet air defence, to replace Sea Vixen. Buccaneer did strike. F-4K wasn't intended to fight MiGs over their own bases, as the US did over N. Vietnam, but to chase Bears & whatever succeeded them over the Atlantic. Big long range fighter with big radar & BVR missiles was perfect for that job.

Of those hundreds of F-4 losses over Indochina, 90% were to ground fire or accidents.

The F-4 was ordered in 1964, after some time spent evaluating options. Sea Harrier wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye back then, & P.1154 was a blue sky future project which would have taken a long time & a great deal of money to make operational - if it could have been. The only other options at the time were F-8, a souped-up Sea Vixen, or giving up. CVA-01 was cancelled by another government, two elections later. SHARs with BVR missiles were 30 years in the future.

Hambo: dead right. The UK in the 50s & 60s was hung up on the weird & wonderful. Even when we did start getting something practical together, we usually blew it. Consider the TSR.2 avionics, which were ditched when the (over-ambitious) aircraft was abandoned. Think of the Buccaneer with them.

 

[riksavage]

Fox has announced post 2015 budget commitments (1% increae on inflation), which impact the Navy as follows:

14 extra Chinook helicopters from 2014 onwards - Should allow for all Merlin airframes to be transferred to RM/RN, leaving the RAF with Chinook/Puma. Hopefully the Chinook will be QE capable (folding rotors etc.).

The Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier conversion to catapult and arrestor gear ('cats & traps') - actual cost still not confirmed?

Initial spending on the new Joint Strike Fighter fast jets (known as Lightning II) delivering Carrier Strike capability from 2020

Development of the Global Combat Ship

Three new Airseeker signals intelligence and surveillance aircraft in 2014 (Tri-service RivetJoint replacing R1), UK crews already embedded with USAF

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Defence Policy and Business | Defence equipment budget rises as Future Force takes shape

I was starting to worry the Chinook order would be scrapped and Merlin confined to the RAF/RN making the Commando helo arm defunct. Merlin will be a major step-up compared to SeaKing. RAF Merlin crews can transfer to Chinook sqn's allowing for the SeaKing crews to move over to Merlin.

All RM units will move to the South West of England, which also makes sense. Close to all the amphib assets and supporting army units.

 

[1805]

F-4 was ordered for fleet air defence, to replace Sea Vixen. Buccaneer did strike. F-4K wasn't intended to fight MiGs over their own bases, as the US did over N. Vietnam, but to chase Bears & whatever succeeded them over the Atlantic. Big long range fighter with big radar & BVR missiles was perfect for that job.

Of those hundreds of F-4 losses over Indochina, 90% were to ground fire or accidents.

The F-4 was ordered in 1964, after some time spent evaluating options. Sea Harrier wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye back then, & P.1154 was a blue sky future project which would have taken a long time & a great deal of money to make operational - if it could have been. The only other options at the time were F-8, a souped-up Sea Vixen, or giving up. CVA-01 was cancelled by another government, two elections later. SHARs with BVR missiles were 30 years in the future.

Hambo: dead right. The UK in the 50s & 60s was hung up on the weird & wonderful. Even when we did start getting something practical together, we usually blew it. Consider the TSR.2 avionics, which were ditched when the (over-ambitious) aircraft was abandoned. Think of the Buccaneer with them.

But there was little point in proceeding with the F4 once the 1966 Defence Review had killed the ships they would fly from. The RN should have cancelled the F4 (transer any that couldn't be direct to the RAF) and ship upgrade, and continued with the Sea Vixen until a Sea Harrier could be introduced. If they had focused on that they should have been able to get Harriers in services nearer to when the RAF did in 1969 instead of a decade later. Even the USMC started to recieve them in the mid 70s.

Had the RN focused on the Harrier earlier then radar/BVR missiles could have been an option. Who knows some bright spark might have suggested a AEW Sea King!

Albion/Bulwark/Hermes with say 60 Harriers (some with radar/Sparrows) and AEW Sea Kings would have been a more formidible force than Ark and a few Phantoms?

 

[StobieWan]

But there was little point in proceeding with the F4 once the 1966 Defence Review had killed the ships they would fly from. The RN should have cancelled the F4 (transer any that couldn't be direct to the RAF) and ship upgrade, and continued with the Sea Vixen until a Sea Harrier could be introduced. If they had focused on that they should have been able to get Harriers in services nearer to when the RAF did in 1969 instead of a decade later. Even the USMC started to recieve them in the mid 70s.

But that's not what happened - CVA was cancelled in 66 but Ark and Eagle were both to be refitted to take Phantoms as a consequence. The carriers that they could fly from didn't go away til much later, 72 and 76 for the Eagle and Ark. If Eagles' refit had been carried out, we'd have had two carriers capable of CATOBAR ops, and we already had the aircraft to do it. Instead, you're suggesting buying an entirely new fleet of aircraft to replace existing ones with low air time on them during the mid 70's.



Ian

 

[1805]

But that's not what happened - CVA was cancelled in 66 but Ark and Eagle were both to be refitted to take Phantoms as a consequence. The carriers that they could fly from didn't go away til much later, 72 and 76 for the Eagle and Ark. If Eagles' refit had been carried out, we'd have had two carriers capable of CATOBAR ops, and we already had the aircraft to do it. Instead, you're suggesting buying an entirely new fleet of aircraft to replace existing ones with low air time on them during the mid 70's.



Ian

No I am saying cancel the F4 and continue with the existing Sea Vixen/Buccaneers until say 1972 when a Sea Harrier could be ready (3 years after RAF service).

Any F4's that could not be cancelled could go to the RAF, replacing their orders. Cancel any refit of the Ark I(I'm not sure when it started but can't have been very advanced in 1966) and just scrap straight away; is had a very heavy crew. Continue with Albion/Bulwark/Hermes replacing each in say: late 70s mid, 80s and late 80s/early 90s with a class of 28,000t/25kt/32 aircraft ships built one after the other creating a drum beat of production over 20 years.

This is little different than what happened, we just spent a lot of money on refitting dead ships, to operate for only c6-7 years, a small number of US built aircraft, at an inflated cost, because we insisted on fitting UK engines, as a sop to UK defence industry.

We could have gone straight to the solution and supported a British industrial success...which the USMC thankfully had more faith in and promoted for us.

 

[swerve]

...The RN should have cancelled the F4 (transer any that couldn't be direct to the RAF) and ship upgrade, and continued with the Sea Vixen until a Sea Harrier could be introduced. If they had focused on that they should have been able to get Harriers in services nearer to when the RAF did in 1969 instead of a decade later. Even the USMC started to recieve them in the mid 70s....

The USMC didn't get radar-equipped Harriers until the 1990s.

We could have gone straight to the solution and supported a British industrial success...which the USMC thankfully had more faith in and promoted for us.

The USMC didn't promote air defence Harriers until the RN had demonstrated their value in the Falklands, & didn't get them into service until a decade later - with secondhand radars.

 

[1805]

The USMC didn't get radar-equipped Harriers until the 1990s.


The USMC didn't promote air defence Harriers until the RN had demonstrated their value in the Falklands, & didn't get them into service until a decade later - with secondhand radars.

I was talking about the USMC's general commitment to the aircraft and the RAFs, verse the RN aircraft of last resort approach....we will hang on to the ridiculous concept of having F4s for a handful of years while burying our heads in the sand.

This refusal to accept reality, until the politicans have to impose, as a worrying trait amongst the RN leadership.

 

[kev 99]

This refusal to accept reality, until the politicans have to impose, as a worrying trait amongst the RN leadership.

The trait exists amongst all services and probably amongst all Government departments as a whole, none of them ever want to accept seeing their budgets cut and are happy to waste money to preserve them.

 

[Hambo]

It was rather easy for the USMC to be committed to Harrier, they had a doctrine of aircraft to move mud in close support of the marines on the ground. The USMC didn't need to see it as a solution for interceptor, anti ship, strike etc as the USN provided something like 13 Carrier battlegroups with all the bells and whistles. I don't think anyone in the USMC would have been seriously proposing the simple radar-less Harrier as an ideal item for fleet defence, they were going to operate them in small numbers from Amphibs to provide close air support or from land bases on the edge of the battle area, totally different concepts to the RN.

1966 Paper actually says in effect , "when the conventional carriers reach the end of their service life, they wont be replaced" rather than, "the carriers and their aircraft are being scrapped now". The Government still had NATO commitments and still saw a real need to continue Naval strike power on for the next decade into the very late 1970s.( especially for lobbing nuclear bombs onto russian ports) The North atlantic continues to be a very dangerous place even after the 1966 Paper so it was not IMO a waste of money, particularly as the alternative was bunging money at sea Vixen and still needing to maintain and repair the carriers, or fund an as yet undeveloped technology, the cost doing that can only be guessed at.

Once the decision is made that large carriers cant be afforded on cost, I very much doubt you will see 28,000 tonne harrier carriers, that would seem to defeat the whole object of the decision to cut the cloth accordingly. if on one hand you say you dont need a moderate size flexible strike package at sea, i cant see how the politicians will allow air power of similar size. Most of the harrier carrier designs were actually smaller than invincible, it was probably fortunate it came out that big. It the treasury was going to allow " a drumbeat " of 28,000 tonne ships from the 1970's, then wouldnt they have just as likely allowed a 30,000 Cat carrier to use the Phantoms and Buccaneers already in service?

 

[Volkodav]

I seriously doubt a 30000t carrier could have successfully operated Phantoms or Buccaneers let alone useful numbers of both.

On the other hand such a ship could have operated 40 or 50 Seaharriers, or Jaguar M. More to the point these aircraft could have operated from the RNs existing carriers in these sort of numbers (less on Hernes of course).

The Jaguar was also more manuvaerable than the Phantom so would have been more useful at low level while Sea Dart was at its best engaging high level targets. Fit an appropriate radar to the Jaguar and Sparrow or Sky Flash would not be out of the question.

 

[StobieWan]

I seriously doubt a 30000t carrier could have successfully operated Phantoms or Buccaneers let alone useful numbers of both.

On the other hand such a ship could have operated 40 or 50 Seaharriers, or Jaguar M. More to the point these aircraft could have operated from the RNs existing carriers in these sort of numbers (less on Hernes of course).

The Jaguar was also more manuvaerable than the Phantom so would have been more useful at low level while Sea Dart was at its best engaging high level targets. Fit an appropriate radar to the Jaguar and Sparrow or Sky Flash would not be out of the question.

Slight issue, the RN already had Buccaneer? Which already carried a decent ground attack radar. Jaguar M isn't an F4 replacement, and if you take a look at the nose, you'll notice it's barely got room for a laser range finder.

Why on earth would you pass over F4 for an imaginary version of the Jaguar with no air to air capability over and above Harrier? It's just another airframe on the carrier deck and brings nothing new to the fray.

Ian

 

[swerve]

Hermes was less than that, & operated Buccaneers successfully. Buccaneer was about the same weight as a Phantom.

The modifications which produced the F-4K enabled it to operate off smaller carriers than the US originals, but I don't know what the smallest ship it could have operated off safely & effectively was. Tonnage isn't the only thing that matters, of course.