The Centaur carrier fleet - a better fate...

[Temeraire]

Centaur-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How would you proceed to get all 4 Centaurs a) to the same standard and b) keeping their catapults ?

The objective is to make them the mainstay of the RN since
- Audacious are too few - Ark Royal is a wreck right from 1963, leaving Eagle alone
- Illustrious and Implacable are hopeless (hint, Victorious)
- CVA-01 is hopeless

Basically from 1960 onwards the objective is to carefully handle Eagle + the Centaur fleet to get 2 or 3 or 4 of them in place of the Invincibles from the 70's, adding catapults and thus CATOBAR to OTL Harrier-only air group.

With perfect hindsight on all GB & RN many troubles from 1963 to 1983 - would it be possible to get modernized Centaurs instead of Invincibles ?

Starting from Eagle + 4 Centaurs, how would you deflate the carrier fleet from 1963 to 1983 ? One crisis, one less carrier, rinse, repeat. CVA-01 still happens, but no Invincibles...

Air group: only Eagle can properly handle Phantoms so if it goes away, the Phantoms go to the RAF. So how do you assume air defense ? Well, Sea Harrier gradually replace Phantom. That's the only way. The trick is to keep the Buccaneers on Centaur decks because as strike aircraft they are massively more powerful than Sea Harriers.

Imagine the Falklands fought with Buccaneers and Gannet AEW adding to the Sea Harriers - flying out of Hermes, Albion, Bulwark. Meanwhile Eagle, retired in the 70's, is being readied back to service...

You’d probably have to have delayed Albion and Bulwark until the late 50s and have them compete to the same design as Hermes did historically. Centaur on the other hand would probably need to be fully rebuilt, and the Victorious shenanigans probably would poison any attempt at that.

 

[Archibald]

So true, alas... as I (probably) said above, Centaur vs Illustrious rebuild can be confusing. As a matter of fact: Centaurs were considered LIGHT carriers (closer from Colossus / Majestic) while the Ilustrious series of six dissimilar carriers were "heavies" so closer from Audacious.
As a result, initial plans in the late 1940's were to rebuild the heavies for naval jets. And Victorious was to be first of its kind. Centaurs in contrast were considerd lighter and much less capable carriers.
What nobody could have guessed, by 1949
- Victorious rebuild horror and misery, cancelling the rebuild of its half-siblings
- Hermes rebuild almost catching up with Victorious in basic capabilities, to the point it remained in service up to 1982 (Falklands) and then three more decades in India.

A salient point I took a long time to understand was that the six Illustrious were absolutely not homogenous class, US carrier style. They were more akin to a 1+3+2 class: with major difference at the armoured hangar level... which, in turn, made rebuild absolute nightmares, as Victorious tragically illustrated.
On top of that in the end even the massively rebuild Victorious, at 33 000 tons ended to a "dead end" similar to the brand new Foch & Clem.
By "dead end" I mean "Crap, just a bit too small to handle Phantoms". The French just picked Crusaders, but British requirements wanted Spey-Phantoms. Except that the bare minimum tonnage to handle that safely was +45 000 tons: hence only Ark Royal and Eagle in the end could handle Phantoms.

Even if all six Illustrious had been magically rebuild into six identical Victorious, they would have had difficulties handling Spey-Phantoms.

This is hopeless...

All said and done, only HMS Eagle in the end could have reasonably handled Spey-Phantoms: all the way from 1945 and a few rebuilds. Ark had the problem of a poor material shape.

And then there is the AC/DC voltage issue.

Sweet geez.

 

[Temeraire]

So true, alas... as I (probably) said above, Centaur vs Illustrious rebuild can be confusing. As a matter of fact: Centaurs were considered LIGHT carriers (closer from Colossus / Majestic) while the Ilustrious series of six dissimilar carriers were "heavies" so closer from Audacious.
As a result, initial plans in the late 1940's were to rebuild the heavies for naval jets. And Victorious was to be first of its kind. Centaurs in contrast were considerd lighter and much less capable carriers.
What nobody could have guessed, by 1949
- Victorious rebuild horror and misery, cancelling the rebuild of its half-siblings
- Hermes rebuild almost catching up with Victorious in basic capabilities, to the point it remained in service up to 1982 (Falklands) and then three more decades in India.

A salient point I took a long time to understand was that the six Illustrious were absolutely not homogenous class, US carrier style. They were more akin to a 1+3+2 class: with major difference at the armoured hangar level... which, in turn, made rebuild absolute nightmares, as Victorious tragically illustrated.
On top of that in the end even the massively rebuild Victorious, at 33 000 tons ended to a "dead end" similar to the brand new Foch & Clem.
By "dead end" I mean "Crap, just a bit too small to handle Phantoms". The French just picked Crusaders, but British requirements wanted Spey-Phantoms. Except that the bare minimum tonnage to handle that safely was +45 000 tons: hence only Ark Royal and Eagle in the end could handle Phantoms.

Even if all six Illustrious had been magically rebuild into six identical Victorious, they would have had difficulties handling Spey-Phantoms.

This is hopeless...

All said and done, only HMS Eagle in the end could have reasonably handled Spey-Phantoms: all the way from 1945 and a few rebuilds. Ark had the problem of a poor material shape.

And then there is the AC/DC voltage issue.

Sweet geez.

Yeah there are only 4 Illustrious class (3 if you count Indomitable as it’s own class) the other two are Implacables. In any case it would have been better to have scrapped all the Illustrious’ and Implacables and completed all three audacious class instead.

 

[BlackBat242]

OK, I should have put this in a while ago, but here goes (this was for an alternate-history Australia, but the RN can do it better and for all 3 (Hermes remains her own self):

RAN Centaur class Modernization​

Purchase CVL Bulwark from the UK (1958), and modernize (1959-62), recommissioning as HMAS Canberra.
1. flight deck enlarged 15’ to port (angle changed from 5.5° to 7.5°) & 10’ to starboard
2. fwd elevator moved 9’ starboard, and replaced with new elevator & machinery (54ft x 44ft & 37,000lb capacity)
3. aft elevator replaced with new aft elevator & machinery (54ft x 44ft & 40,000lb capacity)
4. starboard bow cat removed and 145’ stroke BS4A catapult installed on angle deck
5. new 145’ stroke BS4A catapult installed replacing port bow BH-5 Hydraulic catapult
6. arresting gear replaced & relocated 3’-5’ to port (8-wire 30,000lb replaced by 5-wire 35,000lb)
7. port 15’ of hangar extension refitted into repair shops, arranged as four 13.5' (f-a) x 15' (p-s) x 12’ height shops
8. Hangar 274ft x 62ft x 17.5ft with a 55ft x 47ft x 17.5ft extension forward of the fwd lift
9. boilers & turbines rebuilt, steam electrical generators replaced with diesel and gas turbine generators
10. 220-volt D.C. two wire electrical system replaced with 3-phase three-wire A.C. system operating at 440 volts 60 cycles/second, all lead-sheathed cabling replaced with rubber-insulated neoprene-sheathed cabling
11. new radar & radios


Purchase CVL Albion from UK (1962), and modernize (‘63-‘65) as Bulwark (except 4 Seacat SAM launchers (replacing twin 40mm mounts) {also fitted to Canberra 1966}, recommissioning as HMAS Australia.

HMS Centaur, Albion, & Bulwark as built:
Hangar = 274 x 62 x 17.5ft with a 55ft extension forward of the fwd lift
Lifts = 54ft long x 44ft wide (fwd & aft lift) with a 35,000lb capacity
HMS Centaur 1958 refit:
Lifts = 54ft long x 44ft wide (fwd lift) [37,000lb capacity] & 54ft long x 44ft wide (aft lift) [40,000lb capacity]

Hydraulic catapults

(BH=Mitchell-Brown)
Type Run Length Capacity Classes
BH-5I N/A 151ft 18,500lbs @ 95kts; 30,000lbs @ 82.5kts Albion, Bulwark, Centaur
​

Steam Catapults
(BS=Mitchell-Brown)
Type Run Length Capacity Classes
BS4 104ft 151ft 40,000lb@78kt, 30,000lb@101kt Hermes 1959

BS4C 130ft 165ft 35,000lb@99kt, 30,000lb@110kt Centaur 1958

BS4A 145ft 175ft 50,000lb@87kt, 30,000lb@120kt Hermes (port 1966)


1953 Design
Displacement: 21,100 tons std; 27,000 tons full load
Dimensions: 650 x 90 x 24 feet / 198 x 27.4 x 7.3 meters
Extreme Dimensions: 737 x 116 x 27 feet / 224.5 x 37.4 x 8.2 meters
Propulsion: Steam turbines, 4 boilers, 2 shafts, 76,000 shp, 28 knots
Crew: about 1100 + 300 air group
Armor: 1-2 inch decks
Armament: 2 6-barrel, 8 dual, 4 single 40 mm AA
Aircraft: 26

Modernized Design
Displacement: 22,300 tons std, 28,200 tons full load
Dimensions: 650 x 90 x 25 feet / 198 x 27.4 x 7.6 meters
Flight Deck Dimensions: 733 x 128 feet / 223.3 x 39 meters (93 feet/28.3m axial width)
Extreme Dimensions: 745.5 x 140 x 28 feet / 227.1 x 42.6 x 8.5 meters
Propulsion: Steam turbines, 4 boilers, 2 shafts, 76,000 shp, 28 knots
Crew: about 1100 + 300 air group
Armor: 1-2 inch decks
Armament: 4 SeaCat SAM launchers, 4 single 40 mm AA
Aircraft: 26

Angle-deck total length 536’ @ 7.5°
Angle-deck end to wire #1 - 117’, top of round-down to wire #1 - 102’; wire #1-#5 - 96’; wire #5-angle deck end 323’
[wire #1-#2 - 25.5’, wire #2-#3 - 23.5’, wire #3-#4 - 23.5’, wire #4-#5 - 23.5’, wire #5-barrier - 69.5’]

I did not mention it above, but it is possible that hull bulges might need to be added to preserve stability with the added weight of the expanded flight deck.

First, a general view of Centaur as historic in 1958 and my proposed modernization. Note that this was a preliminary version of the modernization and does not include quite all of the changes:




And the full modernized version - note the outline of the hangar drawn in:

 

[BlackBat242]

Hermes was of course much modified over her three sisters, with an 8% angle deck and her forward elevator located on the port deck-edge, making up the forward-most part of the angle deck. She had two 103 ft BS4 Steam catapults and 35,000lb arrestor wires until her 1964-66 refit, when her port catapult was replaced with the 145 ft version, and the arrestor gear upgraded to handle the Buccaneer.


HMS Hermes
Hangar = 356 x 62 x 17.5ft with a 55ft extension forward of the fwd lift
Lifts = 54ft long x 45ft wide (side lift) & 54ft long x 44ft wide (aft lift) both with a 40,000lb capacity

 

[GK Dundas]

I am about to offend a great many people but here goes. The Harrier was a one trick pony but it was a very good trick.
It could take off and land in sea conditions that would shutdown any other conventional carrier.
It wasn't a great fighter it was quite frankly almost 2nd rate.
However there were several factors that gave the British an advantage.
One and it's one that rarely gets mentioned is that the RN had produced perhaps the best trained and experienced generation of fighter pilots in its history.
As well not only did they use every advantage that both their technological advantages given by weapons and aircraft.
Their training and their experience level was one of the major reasons for the eventual British victory.
They also exploited every weakness that they could. The distance involved worked against the Argentinians. Their fighters would return to their bases practically flying on fumes.
In short that as impressive as both the Buccaneers and the Gannent were. They would have not been as effective due to the incredibly bad sea states the Task Force had to endure.
They would have remained grounded on their carriers. Meanwhile the Argentine Navy and Air forces would have been able grind down those RN operations in and around the Falklands.
The British came far closer to losing that war then a lot of people realize.

 

[GK Dundas]

Hermes was of course much modified over her three sisters, with an 8% angle deck and her forward elevator located on the port deck-edge, making up the forward-most part of the angle deck. She had two 103 ft BS4 Steam catapults and 35,000lb arrestor wires until her 1964-66 refit, when her port catapult was replaced with the 145 ft version, and the arrestor gear upgraded to handle the Buccaneer.


HMS Hermes
Hangar = 356 x 62 x 17.5ft with a 55ft extension forward of the fwd lift
Lifts = 54ft long x 45ft wide (side lift) & 54ft long x 44ft wide (aft lift) both with a 40,000lb capacity



View attachment 707526

Didn't someone on shipbucket produce modified design of for want of a better term the modified Hermes ? The side lift was moved to just in front of the island and the catapult was moved over to the angled deck.
And I seem to recall the deck was also extended slightly.

 

[BlackBat242]

I haven't looked at that, as I rarely even go to the SB site.

 

[Archibald]

In short that as impressive as both the Buccaneers and the Gannent were. They would have not been as effective due to the incredibly bad sea states the Task Force had to endure.
They would have remained grounded on their carriers. Meanwhile the Argentine Navy and Air forces would have been able grind down those RN forces operation in and around the Falklands.

I've heard of that interesting point, but never got a "final word" about it.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

With the greater ranges of Phantom and Buccaneer, Royal Navy Carriers would not be tied closely to the Falklands to support the landings, and would be able to relocate around the poor weather. The greater ranges of Phantom and Buccaneer would also enable sustained offensive counter-air attacks on mainland Argentine airbases.

 

[Archibald]

Yeah but atrocious South Atlantic winter weather would not care about the distance from the Falklands...

 

[H_K]

Yeah but atrocious South Atlantic winter weather would not care about the distance from the Falklands...

When the weather was too bad to fly in it was also too bad to fight in and the Argentinians stayed home. There were plenty of bad weather days with no flying on both sides but the rest of the time CTOL carrier aircraft would have been fine.

 

[EwenS]

A real weather problem in the South Atlantic was not the heavy seas but fog. That would have prevented flying from a conventional carrier unless it moved around looking for fog free areas in which to operate. The RN were able to continue flying because vertical landing Sea Harriers could be guided back to the deck by the carriers leaving a string of flares in their wake as the aircraft approached.

 

[Archibald]

Fog ? now that's interesting. Didn't knew about that side of the argument. Interesting: the helicopter side of a Harrier, although of course it could not hover for a very long time !

 

[zen]

Oh the legend goes one Harrier landed and the deck crew didn't realise due to the fog.
Supposedly the pilot had to get out and find them.

 

[uk 75]

I take a different view of the three plus one carriers (Albion, Bulwark, Centaur plus Hermes).
The Commando Ship concept for Bulwark and Albion should have been extended to Centaur and Hermes as well. As was done with Bulwark and Hermes, ASW Sea Kings could have been embarked on these ships as well as the Wessex troop carriers.
My 1966 review would not have ordered the Invincibles and would have scrapped all three Tiger class. Instead the Centaur and Hermes would have been converted to join
Bwark and A.
With Fearless and Intrepid these ships would have served into the 198/s. My replacement for all six would have been a UK version of the Tarawa class LHA equipped with Seawolf and or Phalanx.

 

[F.L.]

I remember reading that the Bulwark had been proposed to Peru around ~1972, but that after two years of negotiations, the British had withdrawn their offer due to the delay with the Invicibles.
I think it would have been an interesting fate for her to serve with Harriers in the Peruvian Navy.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Pardon me, bingeing the thread again.

I think this depends on when exactly you're looking at building replacements. Anything before about 1980 is 99% certain to use boilers. From 1980 through to about 1990, it's probably 75/25 that it uses boilers, from 1990-2000 it's around 50/50 and from 2000 on, it's probably 75/25 that it uses gas turbines. And even then, gas turbines aren't a deal breaker for steam cats. You need either a small dedicated boiler for them, or use the exhaust gases from the turbines to make enough steam.

Negative, Ghost Rider, the UK says that you need a dedicated boiler. Gas Turbines don't generate enough heat to make enough steam to run catapults.

They likely didn't matter. But my point is, if you're going to carry fighters for self defense and anti snooper work, they better be capable of actually doing the job. Or you'd be better off just leaving them on the dock and using the freed up deck, hanger and stores space for your primary mission of ASW.

This. So much this.

You need enough fighters to have a CAP up 24/7 and those fighters need to be able to do the job. That means 8 birds minimum to keep a CAP of 2 up.

Welll...
Just realised that in early 1972-73 in the Netherlands they're building the first of the SL-7 class .
a commercial hull with a boiler system capable of generating roughly 120,000 hp. Not too mention a hull speed of 33 knots.
Maybe it's time to build the next generation of Carriers based on a commercial hull. It's not like there isn't a precedent.

Terrible idea, commercial hulls cannot take damage.

The answer to the future of fixed wing ASW is the same platform as for AEW and COD.

Arguable, though the S-2 Tracker/E-1 Tracer/C-1 Trader family suggests it can be done. AEW and COD should really be on the same airframe, ASW needs better low altitude performance than AEW/COD.

 

[GK Dundas]

I haven't looked at that, as I rarely even go to the SB site.

I know it popped up on a variety of sites, Navweaps a couple times .I think it was designed for an imaginary island nation.

 

[BlackBat242]

Didn't someone on shipbucket produce modified design of for want of a better term the modified Hermes ? The side lift was moved to just in front of the island and the catapult was moved over to the angled deck.
And I seem to recall the deck was also extended slightly.

I haven't looked at that, as I rarely even go to the SB site.

I know it popped up on a variety of sites, Navweaps a couple times .I think it was designed for an imaginary island nation.

It would have had to be a new ship or an alternate modernization to Hermes' historic one.

That's because the Centaurs had the flight deck as a strength deck, which meant that the hull sides (including the hangar sides) formed part of what was called the "hull box girder" and were essential to hull stiffness. Hermes had a considerable amount of redesign and strengthening of the port hull side in order to allow the lift opening and still maintain hull strength.

To change that to the starboard side after completion would basically require tearing a good part of the starboard hull apart down below the hangar deck in order to strengthen the area.

Then there is the problem that the proposed location is a little closer to the bow than Hermes' port lift was - which would subject the lift to even worse sea interference than historic (due to the fineness of the bow it has a much higher rise & fall than closer to amidship) - here is a comment from a former crewmember of Hermes (hermes82 on Navweaps):

Hermes fwd lift was a deck edge side lift.
It was pretty dangerous in choppy weather nearly got washed over the side on at least 2 occasions, really thought I was a goner.
My mate was the lift driver at flight deck level he got submerged by one wave whilst we stuck a cab on it, you can imagine how wet we were.
The lift acted like a knife blade through the water when it was at hangar level damaged the cab as well.

Note HMAS Melbourne during a passage through the Great Australian Bight south of Australia:

 

[SSgtC]

A real weather problem in the South Atlantic was not the heavy seas but fog. That would have prevented flying from a conventional carrier unless it moved around looking for fog free areas in which to operate. The RN were able to continue flying because vertical landing Sea Harriers could be guided back to the deck by the carriers leaving a string of flares in their wake as the aircraft approached.

Not really. Systems like the Automatic Carrier Landing System had been in use since the 60s. And while it was far from prefect, it was a major increase in capability in allowing all-weather operations.

 

[Temeraire]

And screw the goddam Tigers to save money and free some much needed crews...

Ok considering Hood post maybe the Invincibles are bound to happen.

So
- screw Tigers ASAP
- screw Ark Royal ASAP
- 1966: keep Eagle, Phantomize it
-CVA-01 still fails and remain unaffordable
- Eagle is gone by the early 80's, its Phantoms passed to the RAF
- future belongs to a mixed Centaur / Invincible fleet with Sea Harriers and Buccaneers...
Would two Centaurs and two Invincibles be affordable in the 80's, post Falklands ?

In the scenario that is being proposed here the most likely future carriers are probably similar in size to CDG IOTL

 

[alejandrogrossi]

Hermes was of course much modified over her three sisters, with an 8% angle deck and her forward elevator located on the port deck-edge, making up the forward-most part of the angle deck. She had two 103 ft BS4 Steam catapults and 35,000lb arrestor wires until her 1964-66 refit, when her port catapult was replaced with the 145 ft version, and the arrestor gear upgraded to handle the Buccaneer.


HMS Hermes
Hangar = 356 x 62 x 17.5ft with a 55ft extension forward of the fwd lift
Lifts = 54ft long x 45ft wide (side lift) & 54ft long x 44ft wide (aft lift) both with a 40,000lb capacity



View attachment 707526

BlackBat242
The original R12, could be possible modify with the aft lif to the side.
I put my version

 

[orlovsky]

On top of that in the end even the massively rebuild Victorious, at 33 000 tons ended to a "dead end" similar to the brand new Foch & Clem.
By "dead end" I mean "Crap, just a bit too small to handle Phantoms". The French just picked Crusaders, but British requirements wanted Spey-Phantoms.

Assuming that the RN has 3-4 "Hermes class" ships in service around 1966/67 and a possible replacement in the time frame of the invincible class, the candidate for "what to fly" as a fighter would be AFVG. With a RN requirement for Centaurs, it would probably stay in the 11-12t range (empty) as desired by the French navy and as a VG plane should be able to operate from Hermes and upgraded Centaurs. Which opens a chance that the project does not get canned.

AFVG was planned available by about 1972 I think, so Sea Vixen would just have to soldier on. With the usual delays into the 2nd half of the 1970s.

 

[uk 75]

The UK carrier force by 1965 was seen mainly as a means of deploying airpower East of Suez. The arrival of the Forrestals in US Navy service had made the UK contribution to NATO's Striking Fleet in the Atlantic look less impressive.
Once the UK decides to focus on NATO for budgetary reasons the SSN force becomes our most useful contribution (SSN have added advantage of being deployable worldwide as a big stick).
Getting the Swiftsure and then the Trafalgar class into service means no money for more than retaining Ark Royal.
France by contrast gives carrier aviation priority over its smaller SSN force.

 

[BlackBat242]

BlackBat242
The original R12, could be possible modify with the aft lif to the side.
I put my version

If done while she was building, sure.

However, trying to do that after she completed would require a long drydock period while a large portion of her starboard hull was removed in order to make the structure changes needed to keep up her hull girder strength (see my post #140 for comments on what was required).

Yes, this would be further aft and less vulnerable than her historic deck-edge lift, but it would still require a massive amount of work.

The USN got away with that on the Essex and Midway class modernizations because the hangar deck was the strength deck in USN design, and therefore moving an aircraft lift to deck-edge made little difference to the ship's hull strength.

 

[alejandrogrossi]

If done while she was building, sure.

However, trying to do that after she completed would require a long drydock period while a large portion of her starboard hull was removed in order to make the structure changes needed to keep up her hull girder strength (see my post #140 for comments on what was required).

Yes, this would be further aft and less vulnerable than her historic deck-edge lift, but it would still require a massive amount of work.

The USN got away with that on the Essex and Midway class modernizations because the hangar deck was the strength deck in USN design, and therefore moving an aircraft lift to deck-edge made little difference to the ship's hull strength.

Thanks a lot for your reply

 

[Archibald]

Assuming that the RN has 3-4 "Hermes class" ships in service around 1966/67 and a possible replacement in the time frame of the invincible class, the candidate for "what to fly" as a fighter would be AFVG. With a RN requirement for Centaurs, it would probably stay in the 11-12t range (empty) as desired by the French navy and as a VG plane should be able to operate from Hermes and upgraded Centaurs. Which opens a chance that the project does not get canned.

AFVG was planned available by about 1972 I think, so Sea Vixen would just have to soldier on. With the usual delays into the 2nd half of the 1970s.

Now that's an interesting idea ! Somewhat a mix of Jaguar M and Mirage G. Two engines like the former, but two M-45s rather than two Adours, so much more power. Plus the VG wing (and excellence) of the Mirage G. Could have been a Hornet before the Hornet, although the VG wing might be obsolete sooner or later (albeit the MiG-23 may disagree).

 

[zen]

The options from the UK side might encompass the HSA Brough P.146 and the BAC P.45 studies....post 1965.

The closest to a proto-Hornet might be the fixed wing P.45 or P.141 NGTA. The latter is more comprehensive and much more what was needed for MRI.

Had the UK led on the supersonic trainer this might result. Say had the pairing of Dassault lead on AFVG and HSA with P.1173 or P.146. A good alternative to Breguet and BAC and a better solution than Etendard.

The most compatible with Mirage G is the Type 584 and Type 585.

 

[orlovsky]

Now that's an interesting idea ! Somewhat a mix of Jaguar M and Mirage G. Two engines like the former, but two M-45s rather than two Adours, so much more power. Plus the VG wing (and excellence) of the Mirage G. Could have been a Hornet before the Hornet, although the VG wing might be obsolete sooner or later (albeit the MiG-23 may disagree).

You want a Mirage G with two M-45?

Marcel has you covered...

 

[Archibald]

He he I have my own plan to create a Hornet a decade before the Hornet, and mostly the same way: as an incremental improvement of the extended F-5 family.

1-It happened that, circa 1965 Sud Aviation proposed to take a F-5A licence from Northrop.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/french-ecat-projects.1167/

2- Now when you think about it, the N-156 family would fit ECAT (= pre-Jaguar RFP) like a glove.
3- Indeed ECAT wanted a supersonic trainer that could be turned into a cheap supersonic attack aircraft
4- N-156T could be that ECAT trainer (hello, T-38 Talon)
5- N-156F could be that ECAT combat aircraft (here's to you, F-5A & F-5E)
6- Going a step further: bringing back N-156N, that could be the Jaguar-M
7- But M45, rather than J85
8- So, behold: how about an enlarged F-5 with a pair of medium-size, advanced turbofans
9- Except called M45 rather than YJ101 ?
10- Crap - holly, I invented the P-530 Cobra - an anglo-french one a few years before
11-Wait, aren't The Netherlands interested in that P-530 ?
12-Deal of the century intensifies

Bottom line:
a) N-156 family is ECAT done right (very right: T-38 to Superbug !)
b) A N-156 with two M45s looks like a clone of the P-530 Cobra that started the Hornet extended family, out of the N-156 extended family.

 

[orlovsky]

France by contrast gives carrier aviation priority over its smaller SSN force.

Maybe a bit priority, but more coincidence or just "dumb luck" for the carriers.
If the Clems had been delayed into the CVA-01 timeframe they would probably have been cancelled due to the SSBN program. So French carrier aviation could well have ended with Arromanches.

Maybe a nuclear PH-75 in the 1970s, "classe Invincible"...

French ship Invincible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[F.L.]

If the Clems had been delayed into the CVA-01 timeframe they would probably have been cancelled due to the SSBN program. So French carrier aviation could well have ended with Arromanches.

I'd be really surprised if the French decided to stop having aircraft carriers.
Furthermore, I'd be surprised if the Navy waited so long to build modern aircraft carriers. This might have happened if the British had sold a second Colossus/Warrior to the French.
I rather think that only a Clemenceau-class would have been built, and perhaps the Arromanches would have been modernised to serve longer and become an Etendard & Alizé carrier.
Seeing the Arro used for longer would have been a good thing, in my opinion.

 

[Archibald]

Maybe a bit priority, but more coincidence or just "dumb luck" for the carriers.
If the Clems had been delayed into the CVA-01 timeframe they would probably have been cancelled due to the SSBN program. So French carrier aviation could well have ended with Arromanches.

Maybe a nuclear PH-75 in the 1970s, "classe Invincible"...

French ship Invincible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

See how it happened here. PA28 or Clemenceau, PA54: one carrier would have happened, one way or another. 1952-1959: plenty of time before Force de Frappe eating the budget - after 1960. Now, without Admiral Henri Nomy political skills and acument, PA55 Foch, indeed, could have never happened.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/could-the-uk-have-done-a-better-job-of-maintaining-carrier-based-air-power.32516/page-9#post-639361

 

[zen]

However for France, the RN is divesting itself of Centaur I think 1965.....

 

[zen]

While the option of a twin M.45 Mirage G type design exists.....where is it's brother the twin M.45 Mirage F2 and F3 fixed wing design?
For surely a twin M.45 Mirage F3 would literally be a proto-Hornet a la Dassault.

 

[orlovsky]

See how it happened here. PA28 or Clemenceau, PA54: one carrier would have happened, one way or another. 1952-1959: plenty of time before Force de Frappe eating the budget - after 1960. Now, without Admiral Henri Nomy political skills and acument, PA55 Foch, indeed, could have never happened.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/could-the-uk-have-done-a-better-job-of-maintaining-carrier-based-air-power.32516/page-9#post-639361

True, but the "what if" came with the caveat "If the Clems had been delayed into the CVA-01 timeframe".

How to do that? Simple, Admiralty style: "PA54? We want no PA54. Too small. We want the PA58 or nothing...."

 

[F.L.]

Furthermore, I'd be surprised if the Navy waited so long to build modern aircraft carriers. This might have happened if the British had sold a second Colossus/Warrior to the French.

On reflection, I think that if the Clemenceau class is delayed, a better idea might be a Centaur-class aircraft carrier.

However for France, the RN is divesting itself of Centaur I think 1965.....

You read my mind @zen !!!
Otherwise, the Hermes was declared surplus to the Royal Navy's operational requirements in 1966 and offered to Australia. I think that if France had been in need at the time and had asked for her, the British might have agreed to sell her.

 

[orlovsky]

The solution to the thread title: "Sell'em to France (which has no Clems)!" ?

 

[F.L.]

Perhaps even with the later entry into service of the two "Clemenceau class" aircraft carriers, the French Navy's Hermes or Centaur would have been converted into a VTOL carrier to carry the new Mirage IIIV !
Later, he could even receive a Skijump ! I can even imagine her keeping a catapult to continue operating the Alizé ASW.

The solution to the thread title: "Sell'em to France (which has no Clems)!" ?

This solution leaves me half sad and half happy !
Because at the same time, I love the Clemenceau and on the other hand I think it's a great idea to see the Centaur in French service !

(which has no Clems)

I'm all for it if the Clem's are just delayed and not cancelled.