MOTS Phantom for the RN?

Rule of cool said:
Check out the K vs J acceleration numbers, the K is awesome!
Click to expand...
Gunston: "The slowest, heaviest, most expensive Phantoms..."

According to these figures, the J is ever so slightly heavier, while the K is a mite faster and walks away from the others in terms of time to height and acceleration at altitude.
 
Rule of cool said:
Check out the K vs J acceleration numbers, the K is awesome!
Click to expand...

Impressive, though this is McD's sales pitch. How much this was worth in operations, no idea. Just seems the J had advantages over the K, too:

"The J was powered by General Electric J79-GE-10B engines with quicker reheat response and better altitude performance than the Spey powered Phantom and was well liked by those who flew it." (Caygill, Phantom from the Cockpit)
 
I can't shake the feeling that the Spey was required, that even if Britain made a pile of good procurement decisions this one would have to be made regardless of cost and difficulty. Going with the Spey was the conservative choice, while the J may have been suitable and the K turned out less than imagined in practice it did provide a useful aircraft for the RN while the J may not have panned out in practice.

Oh well, you can't win 'em all.
 
Last edited:
orlovsky said:
Impressive, though this is McD's sales pitch. How much this was worth in operations, no idea. Just seems the J had advantages over the K, too:

"The J was powered by General Electric J79-GE-10B engines with quicker reheat response and better altitude performance than the Spey powered Phantom and was well liked by those who flew it." (Caygill, Phantom from the Cockpit)
Click to expand...

Hang on, so the McD sales pitch had the wrong top speed and altitude and perhaps acceleration? What else might have been wrong; the approach speed, the landing weight?

Just a query on bringing back ordnance, I'm aware that carrying ordnance makes a plane sluggish and the heaver the weight the more sluggish the plane, less responsive to the controls etc. Might what constitutes the landing weight of the K and K be different? Maybe the J's landing weight included more internal fuel while the Ks landing weight included more external bombs? Perhaps the K with BLC and more power at low altitude could trade off internal fuel for external ordnance for carrier landings?
 
Rule of cool said:
I can't shake the feeling that the Spey was required, that even if Britain made a pile of good procurement decisions this one would have to be made regardless of cost and difficulty. Going with the Spey was the conservative choice, while the J may have been suitable and the K turned out less than imagined in practice it did provide a useful aircraft for the RN while the J may not have panned out in practice.

Oh well, you can't win 'em all.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you want Hermes with Phantoms, you get the Spey for simple political reasons. We have this study:
1752064963058.png

Now RR talking to the politician:

Just imagine, HMS Hermes gets into a hot conflict with its F-4Js. They lack endurance from the ship. Might even get sunk by one of those soviet missiles, even when used by a client state. Really ugly.
Then imagine, the press hits this study. Shows it could have been avoided by buying a superior british engine. Will sink your career. Really, really ugly....
 
If the press got this study, the key question would be "why did you buy aircraft that don't meet the requirements?"
 
"No aircraft met the all-singing, all-dancing wonderplane requirement.":confused:
 
'Why keep the Hermes when Ark and Eagle can handle the available aircraft?'

Hang on, that was the premise! Hermes is converted to a Commando Carrier in the early 70s.
 
Rule of cool said:
Just a query on bringing back ordnance, I'm aware that carrying ordnance makes a plane sluggish and the heaver the weight the more sluggish the plane, less responsive to the controls etc. Might what constitutes the landing weight of the K and K be different? Maybe the J's landing weight included more internal fuel while the Ks landing weight included more external bombs? Perhaps the K with BLC and more power at low altitude could trade off internal fuel for external ordnance for carrier landings?
Click to expand...

The F-4K got the F-4J improvements. Spey did not help approach speed, even in the initial McD material they are the same as are the weights:
1755094417457.png

The problem you get with the higher weights, probably more realistic 36k-37k lbs, is with a short arrestor pullout as in the US Mod1 (230ft) or the UK Mk 13 (220 ft) the WOD requirement rises pretty quickly, here theF-4J:
1755094778972.png
Goes above 20kts. Add up to 5 kts for hot temp and ~13 kts for a single engine approach, and you get a much lower landing weight.

The dax2 was designed to cope with heavier weights, but it was still short (250 ft?). So the F-4K was strengthened from 4.2g for the -J to 4.8g, reducing WOD by about 10 kts:
1755095061134.png
 
Strengthening the landing gear to handle 4.8g is another thing moving the RNs Phantoms away from MOTS F4J spec.

This landing gear strengthening doesn't impact the requirement or not for the Spey?
 
Rule of cool said:
I'm putting this here because the premise is alternate reality.

Its a world where the RN focuses on its big carriers, Eagle rebuilt as per normal, Ark Royal getting its 'Phantom' refit starting in 1964 and CVA01 & 02 getting started as soon as the Fearless class are off their slips at JB and H&W. Additionally the RAF went with the Lightning for its 1958 fighter-bomber requirement, so there is no P1154 leaving the RN with a requirement for a Sea Vixen replacement with no convenient British type to do it but no burning desire to Anglicise something foreign.

What is the closest the RN can get to a Military Off The Shelf Phantom buy, starting in about 1963? Without having to worry about the Hermes and Vic does the Spey need to be fitted? IIUC the extended nose oleo and drooping airlerons were McD ideas not adopted for the USN. What about the 'bring back' requirement for ordnance, is the F4Js capability enough for this?
Click to expand...
As various people with far more knowledge concerning the workings of the Phantom and the carriers have already stated, an off the shelf phantom probably would have struggled to fly from the Audacious sisters.

Although I’d like to look at the governmental side of things. If the government is willing to invest in new carriers, surely they’d also be willing to invest in a new fighter aircraft for the Royal Navy.

Maybe the Sea Lightning sees the light of day?

IMG_6689.png
 
While I'm a big believer in getting the most from the Lightning, turning a Mach 1.5 research plane into a Mach 2.2 fighter is about as far as it can practically go. To try to make it a swing-wing, carrier-borne Phantom rival would not be a good use of British taxpayers money.
 
Rule of cool said:
Strengthening the landing gear to handle 4.8g is another thing moving the RNs Phantoms away from MOTS F4J spec.

This landing gear strengthening doesn't impact the requirement or not for the Spey?
Click to expand...
Well, we need the extended nose gear, the 4.8g, and the swinging radar, otherwise things get really marginal. Very minor compared to the speying.

As for the Spey, I have not seen anything where it actually helped with carrier suitability except maybe for endurance. On the contrary, the AB caused a lot of trouble.
 
orlov: did Spey help? Upthread I give:
27/2/64 P.1154B (RN) was cancelled as Ministers accepted overwater need for 2xengines, and that an Anglicised F-4-sort-of-J with reheated Spey would do the job, where J79 could not, due to worse response to slam reheat in the "bolter" case.
New Ministers 27/10/64 also declined Shorts Spey/Crusader; ordered 4xYF-4K, cash; and funded R&D, RB168-22R.
In Washington 7/12/64 UK was offered much, on credit, at fixed prices to DoD-standard.Treasury then, properly, opposed Anglicisation.
MoA briefed Ministers 5/65 that "improvement in certain Naval techniques” (HoC, 5/12/68: reheat into the wire) admitted J79, giving the option of reducing UK-peculiar costs and deferring engine £ cash into distant $ credit.

Ministers 6/7/65 ordered 20xF-4K, 2xYF-4M, (38, to be) 24xF-4M, all Spey, all on $-content credit/fixed prices. CAS had wanted more bog-standard F-4D-ish, but MoA Jenkins 17/2/65 caused P.1127(RAF) R&D instead. 60 ordered 29/12/66, kept HS Group in Aero.

MoD Healey 13/11/65 revisited J79's “£100Mn. saving”, but Jenkins prevailed, that Spey canx would do “harm to RR's intnl. standing” A.S.Bennell,Def.Pol.&RAF,MoDAHB,94,P.69. 26/10/66 all Spey/$-credit (35, to be) 28 more F-4K, (124, to be) 92 more F-4M were ordered.

HSAL enjoyed decades of Sister Firm business; Shorts won outer wing fabrication...but:
the overriding causes for spending so much on Spey (that, by 5/65, neither RAF nor RN wanted/needed), were:
HoC was told 5/12/68 Spey 202 was "to sustain RR as" techno-leader (by then they had RB211/L-1011 and were bidding MRCA); and:
fabrication of UK-peculiar, engine-related structure (aft fuselage/tail/wing parts) kept BAC Preston afloat post RAF Lightnings, so sustaining their credibility, to win 21/12/65 Letter of Intent, 5/5/66 contract (to be £1.5Bn) for Saudi Arabian Air Defence Scheme.
 
Last edited:
Yes, spey was about industrial policy.

Which reminds me, do we have a thread about the atar powered Phantom?
 
Not funny.
Let's cut through

27/2/64 P.1154B (RN) cancelled.
15/10/64 General Election Labour win by 4 seats.

27/10/64 ordered 4xYF-4K, cash; and funded R&D, RB168-22R.
7/12/64 UK was offered, on credit.
?/5/65 MoA briefed (HoC, 5/12/68: reheat into the wire).
6/7/65 ordered 20xF-4K, 2xYF-4M, 24xF-4M, all Spey.
13/11/65 revisit J79's but Jenkins prevailed.
?/2/66 Defence White Paper.
26/10/66 ordered 28 F-4K, 92 F-4M.

5/12/68 Spey 202 was "to sustain RR".
 
If its all about industry, then the scenario doesn't need the Spey as the industry is much healthier due to much better procurement decisions leading up to the RNs requirement.

I'm happy with the J79s bolter performance post 1965 and the 4.8g landing gear, extended nose oleo, dropping airlerons and folding nose are all pretty easy and cheap ways to meet RN particular requirements.

One thing that still bothers me is the bleed air for the BLC. I've read that the Spey provided more bleed air for a more extensive and powerful blown flaps/BLC system, but I can't recall that being addressed, or at least as comprehensively as other issues.
 
Rule of cool said:
I'm happy with the J79s bolter performance post 1965 and the 4.8g landing gear, extended nose oleo, dropping airlerons and folding nose are all pretty easy and cheap ways to meet RN particular requirements.
Click to expand...

Drooped ailerons were standard F-4J and even retrofitted to F-4B. So we need:

4.8g for landing.
Extended nose oleo for launching.
Folding nose to fit on the lifts.

Rule of cool said:
One thing that still bothers me is the bleed air for the BLC. I've read that the Spey provided more bleed air for a more extensive and powerful blown flaps/BLC system, but I can't recall that being addressed, or at least as comprehensively as other issues.
Click to expand...

That should show up in minimum approach speed, but it does not in the McD brochure. In reality, it seems the Spey did not work out as expected there, too:

"The US Navy had also condemned the F-4K’s suitability for carrier operations on two counts, excessive sink on wave-off, the aircraft taking six seconds to establish a positive rate of climb, and excessive ground roll before reaching rotation speed in the case of a bolter, the F-4K taking about 1,000 ft compared with 300 ft for the F-4J. The obvious need for more thrust to address these problems led Rolls-Royce to look towards reducing BLC bleed air flow, subject to flight tests by McDonnell Douglas to determine what reduction could be tolerated without increasing the minimum approach speed."
Caygill, Peter. Phantom from the Cockpit: Flying the Legend (p.47). Pen & Sword Books. Kindle.
 
Last edited:
Well after 12 pages of posts over 16 months I think for the purposes of this AH scenario a J79 powered F4K is a practical solution to the RNs 60s fighter requirements. This frees up money for other things the RN needs in this timeframe.
 
Archibald said:
Can Victorious handle vanilla Phantoms ?
Click to expand...
Victorious is only marginally more capable in this regard than Hermes, so probably not. She trapped and launched a couple USN Phantoms, but presumably at the minimum fuel load to safely get the plane back to an American carrier.
 
Archibald said:
Can Victorious handle vanilla Phantoms ?
Click to expand...

F-4J would need the same adjustments as above, the "non-Spey F-4K" as a minimum.

Data for Victorious is a bit murky. Hobbs has for the catapults: two BS4 "145ft stroke capable of launching 50,000lb at 97 knots end speed." Better than the 151ft bs5 (higher steam pressure with new boilers?), but still 8 kts short of the199 ft waist cat on Ark. So at least one catapult needs to be extended.

Ship speed 3-5 kts (?) better than Hermes.

New arrestor gear as in Ark needed.

So more like a smaller Ark. Ark had 14 Buccaneer, F-4-Hermes was estimated with 7, Victorious would probably be in between.
 
IIUC the Vic had 2 x 151' BS5s, the same as the bow cats on Ark and Eagle. However I've seen old docs refer to Eagle and Ark's cats as primary and secondary, or something to that effect, the 199' BS5A being the primary. Watching YouTube videos of Ark Royal the bow cat launched Buccaneers and waist cat launched Phantoms, suggesting the 199' BS5A was the preferred cat for Phantoms and the great majority of launches used this cat.

Could the Vic operate the Phantom? Probably, but it would be doing so using cats that on other ships are avoided for the majority Phantom launches, which indicates at best a marginal suitability for regular operations.
 
I think in the scenario the RN would need 2 x 18 a/c sqns for CVA01/02 and an equivalent number for a large HQ/OCU sqn and a trials flight. What would it cost to buy ~72 J79 F4Ks and all the gear to stand up a Phantom fleet within the FAA? Buying a minimum change MOTS aircraft would mean the small fleet size wouldn't ruin the RNs budget.
 
Rule of cool said:
I think in the scenario the RN would need 2 x 18 a/c sqns for CVA01/02 and an equivalent number for a large HQ/OCU sqn and a trials flight. What would it cost to buy ~72 J79 F4Ks and all the gear to stand up a Phantom fleet within the FAA? Buying a minimum change MOTS aircraft would mean the small fleet size wouldn't ruin the RNs budget.
Click to expand...

F-4J in the US 1960s budgets was about 3-4 million $. So with devaluation pounds @ 2.4$, 72 would be about 90-120 million £.
Equipment, spares etc for the RAN F-4B plan was about a million $ per copy, so maybe another 30 million £.
Compared to about 3 million £ (unit cost only?) per ~50 actual F-4K ~ 150 million £.
 
orlovsky said:
F-4J in the US 1960s budgets was about 3-4 million $. So with devaluation pounds @ 2.4$, 72 would be about 90-120 million £.
Equipment, spares etc for the RAN F-4B plan was about a million $ per copy, so maybe another 30 million £.
Compared to about 3 million £ (unit cost only?) per ~50 actual F-4K ~ 150 million £.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for that USD $3-4m figure, it seems very high? Good numbers are hard to find, but I thought that 60s Phantoms were about USD $2-2.5m apiece, with prices rising in the inflationary 70s.

Britain would still have to pay for the development and testing of the extended nose oleo, 4.8g landing gear, folding nose and perhaps a portion of the drooping ailerons with the USN.

In any case 72 MOTS more or less F4K looks to be tens of millions cheaper than 48 Spey F4K. Akin to 50% of the price of CVA01.
 
Last edited:
Rule of cool said:
Do you have a source for that USD $3-4m figure, it seems very high? Good numbers are hard to find, but I thought that 60s Phantoms were about USD $2-2.5m apiece, with prices rising in the inflationary 70s.
Click to expand...

F-4B was down to about 2 million $, -J more expensive namely due to electronics. I think it was 2.7-3 million $ mid 60s, by 1970 it was 4-4.5 million (last buy) with support costs. Guess initial spares would be extra. The following is from US budget documents on google books; unfortunately they treated unit costs as classified until about 1970, in a quite erratic way...


1755758486790.png
 
A very quick and dirty alt history conflating several proposals.

Facts:
Australia (well the RAN anyway) wanted a new carrier in the 1960s and proposed an upgraded Essex with Phantoms and Trackers. The proposal in the national archives also mentioned an upgraded Centaur and a new build CVA-01, as well as new build Centaurs and Essex.

Hermes was offered to Australia in the early 60s with a transfer date in the late 60s after the UK decided to draw down its carrier fleet.

At the same time Australia was considering getting out of fixed-wing carrier aviation, increasing the number of surface combatants, acquiring guided missile armed destroyers and converting their Daring and possibly their Battle class destroyers into DDGs (there was even a proposal to convert the cruiser HMAS Hobart into a CG). HMAS Melbourne was meant to be converted into an ASW helicopter carrier, though I haven't seen it stated anywhere, it is logical HMAS Sydney could have been converted as well.

The RAN wanted a cut and bob tied, steam only, Tartar armed, County, with facilities three Wessex helicopters, the RN told them they were being stupid and should wait for the Escort Cruiser.

The RAN selected the US Charles F Adams class DDG instead and considered modifications, including suppressing the aft 5" Gun in favour of helicopter facilities. In part due to risk adversity, in part because speed of delivery and the extra gun was seen as necessary because of Indonesia's growing assertiveness and their Soviet supplied fleet, including a cruiser, destroyers and submarines.

Long story short, Australia ended up with 3 new DDGs, Skyhawks and Trackers for Melbourne, but no FAA Phantoms, no new carrier and no destroyer conversions. Security was outsourced to the US and as a down payment for this, Australia committed to support the US in Vietnam.

So we have, as fact, RAN FAA wants a new carrier with Phantoms and Trackers (and possibly Tracers), and the UK offered Australia Hermes. A helicopter carrier and destroyer conversions were considered, while huge amounts of treasure (not to forget lives) were spent in a war that did not directly impact Australia's security.

Alt part:
Australia buys Hermes, the deal includes F-4Ks when they become available, with an option to buy Victorious. The Darings receive a DDG conversion, and as the Indonesian Confrontation ramps up, Australia buys the Tigers, which also receive a missile conversion (Tartar). All conversion work is done locally and the RAN proceeds with the DDL program. This is paid for by not going to Vietnam other than providing Special Forces, Naval and Air support.

The RN uses these transfers to justify Phantomising Eagle and Victorious as well as Ark. They also proceed with the Escort Cruiser program but at a slower rate.

Australia buys Victorious in the early 70s.

RAAF gets annoyed that the RAN has better jets than they do, so they buy F-14 or F-15 in the late 70s.
 
Thanks @orlovsky .

Other costs I've found are that Spey Phantom development cost was estimated at 80-90m pounds in 1965, and the unit cost was 50% more than US versions. Given the 1969 US F4J cost about $3m that would make the F4K/M about $4.5m, or 1.875m pounds.

Hansard Friday 14 April 1967 says the unit cost of the Spey Phantom was 'about 1 1/4m pounds'. With the $2.80 exchange rate and a US cost of maybe a touch under $3m for a 1967 F4J and a touch under $2m for a 1966 F4B this might be pretty close to the mark. Devaluation occurred in November 1967, which would have added 14% to that price, and inflation started to pick up in the late 60s.

The total programme cost for the 170 Spey Phantoms for the RN and RAF by 1969 was about 500 million pounds, although much of this was borne by the RAF. With a 1969 unit cost of 1.875m pounds 170 aircraft is a fleet cost 318.75m pounds, the development cost of 80-90m pounds gets to about 410m pounds leaving ~90m pounds for initial support costs.
 
The Vic's (and Eagle's) rebuilds were good for about 15 years and was completed in 1958. By the time the Phantom was entering service in 1968 the Vic had about 5 years of comfortable service left in her, so wasn't a good candidate to refit for Phantoms even compared to the less than tip-top Ark Royal.
 
Eagle's was completed in 1964, so 1979.
Taken out of service 1972.
 
Vic could have easily made 20 years of actual service... so ~1980-82 after a 1969-71 Phantomization that made modifications to catapults, arresting gear, support equipment, and a ~1975 overhaul of the boilers' linings etc.
No need to redo everything, as she was in better shape than Ark Royal.

Eagle had just come out of a 5-year rebuild in 1964 and only needed a 12-18 month refit in 1972-73 to update the 3 unmodified arresting engines, add water-cooled JBDs, and support equipment.
Her boilers would need attention in 1978-79, then she could serve until ~1984-85.

Ark badly needed more propulsion plant/auxiliary equipment work than she got, so doing that work in 1980-82 would bring her to the late 1980s or early 1990s.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom