MOTS Phantom for the RN?

[Rule of cool]

Another sparrow/sidewinder arrangement:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/aim-7-sparrow.31904/page-3#post-532813

I think we're looking at 2 distinct configurations, perhaps split along USAF/USN lines. The USAF has an attachment n the inner 'shoulder' of the plyon, leaving the bottom free for other guided weappons. The USN appears to slot it's twin sidewinder rails up into slots in the bottom of the plyon, leaving the bottom of the plyon free for a TER for dumb bombs.

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/314475-ground-attack-loadouts-discussion/page/5/

 

[orlovsky]

Depending on what's behind the conformal stations, it may be possible to replace the 7" arcs with 10.5" arcs to carry 530s.

This is an interesting drawing, supposedly from McD. Seems everything, doors, ducts was fitted around the sparrow. Above the recess I guess wiring and probably some suspension?
So R530 is tricky, even 530F with wings/fins shaped very differently from the sparrow.

https://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2016/03/mr-macs-fantastic-f-4-article.html
forward:

rear:

 

[Rule of cool]

Just another nail in a French Pahntom's coffin. It was too big and heavy for the Clems anyway.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This is an interesting drawing, supposedly from McD. Seems everything, doors, ducts was fitted around the sparrow. Above the recess I guess wiring and probably some suspension?
So R530 is tricky, even 530F with wings/fins shaped very differently from the sparrow.

https://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2016/03/mr-macs-fantastic-f-4-article.html
forward:
View attachment 784653
rear:
View attachment 784654

Well, crud.

Looks like you'd have to stick the 530s onto pylons, then. I mean, I think you could hang 530s onto the outboard pylons, but it sure doesn't look like you could use the Sparrow recesses for anything but Sparrows or things designed to use the recesses (like PAVE SPIKE or the Wild Weasel ECM pod)

 

[orlovsky]

Getting close to real life here, OTS is hardly ever completely off the shelf... yes, guess it's easier to wire the outboard wing pylon for AAM than start playing around with the fuselage. Maybe some weight can be saved by dismantling the recessed fuselage suspension/equipment.
So 4 wing pylons for 4 530s or 2 530s+2or4 sidewinder/magic. More will run into weight and drag problems anyway.

As for the Clems, as said, Phantom is marginal but probably workable with constraints (see Ark Royal). F-8 was likely the better solution in the 60s, but in the late 70s, something better is needed and likely if the Aeronavale has a little more money. Cyrano/530F avionics, or second hand F-4s. Or wait for F-18s.

 

[zen]

F8U-III likely stays inside weight limits better. Fitting the lifts is the main issue there as with the RN's carriers.
Ironically it would seem R530 should fit modified recesses.
Had P.1154 RN entered service, despite the compromises, it fits AN limits better.
And of course.....Mirage G is almost perfect for the period of the 70's.

But within the gamut of F4, it's the early single seater concept that likely stays inside the weight limits better.

 

[orlovsky]

Unfortunately, if the USN doesn't play, no F-8 III.
Mirage G would be perfect, but needs the Armée de l'air to play along.
AFVG too, but needs the RAF to accept weight limits (* - or the MN to send the Clems into refit as for F-4).

(* 40k lbs launch, but landing weight ~33k lbs, close to F-4 weights)

 

[orlovsky]

The UK got one very OTS Phantom variant, the 15 F-4Js bought after the Falklands war. But even here, they were a mix of different production years, 6 came after BuNo 155528 and natops from 1988 still differentiated between them (see below). Did they all get the Shoehorn ECM gear or was it removed from all? Had the Spey Phantoms more than a RWR? I was surprised that it made for a ~1300 lbs weight gain.


F-4J weight:

F-4S weight:

 

[H_K]

in the late 70s, something better is needed and likely if the Aeronavale has a little more money. Cyrano/530F avionics

Yes! That would have been a seemingly easy fix and even worth downsizing the Super Etendard orders a little to pay for it IMHO.

Crusader with Super 530F + Super Etendard with Exocet (+ Magic AAMs for low-altitude CAP) + a few older Etendard IVMs with AS30s for ground attack would have made for a pretty good guided missile capability IMHO.

 

[orlovsky]

Afaik seriously considered around 1990. Seems in the late 70s and 80s, the Aeronavale had simply given up on improved air defense.

 

[orlovsky]

The UK got one very OTS Phantom variant, the 15 F-4Js bought after the Falklands war. But even here, they were a mix of different production years, 6 came after BuNo 155528 and natops from 1988 still differentiated between them (see below). Did they all get the Shoehorn ECM gear or was it removed from all?

Found this on https://www.key.aero/forum/modern-military-aviation/100218-phantom-upgrades?p=2220166&page=4

"F-4J(UK) were delivered Aug 84 to Feb 85. They had AWG-10B radar, ALR-45 RWR. ALR-66 was fitted from 1985. They were also fitted with smokeless engines, TESS and Sky Flash vice AIM-7. ....

ALQ-126 internal jammer, ASW-25 datalink and provision for AVG-8 VTAS HMS were removed before delivery.

Not sure whether they carried decoys."

Would be interested in weight, usually it's just the US F-4J numbers.

 

[orlovsky]

Well, crud.

Looks like you'd have to stick the 530s onto pylons, then. I mean, I think you could hang 530s onto the outboard pylons, but it sure doesn't look like you could use the Sparrow recesses for anything but Sparrows or things designed to use the recesses (like PAVE SPIKE or the Wild Weasel ECM pod)

Just read up: the 530s ignited their engine on the rail like sidewinder and magics. So I assume no close fuselage carry of any kind anyway*. Sparrow, mica, amraam get ejected before ignition, but mica and amraam are very late for F-4s. So it's sparrow, skyflash, aspide for the sparrow wells....

* F-8 carried r530 on the fuselage, but with some distance. Was it on the same pylon as used for the Mirage III?

 

[Rule of cool]

* F-8 carried r530 on the fuselage, but with some distance. Was it on the same pylon as used for the Mirage III?

IIUC the Mirage III had a launcher-adapter to carry the R530 on the pylon, Israel bought 15 R530s and 8 launcher-adapters for their Mirage IIIC fleet.

 

[orlovsky]

How difficult would it be to retrofit the longer nose gear into an ots F-4J? The shrinked long gear looks pretty much like the standard one...

 

[pathology_doc]

Yet again, HMTreasury is the single greatest threat to HM Armed Forces.

Has been since who knows when? But the most egregious example is World War 1.

When you have to fight a continental war, the best time to start building up for that war is as soon as you start realizing you'll have to fight it (and yes, everyone with half a brain could see it coming). Which was probably some time in 1910.

The WORST time to have to build up and expand your army to fight a continental war is after you have started fighting that war, and your elite trained infantry have been wasted to exhaustion. Nobody knowing how to handle anything above an Army Corps because the Army had never been that big before, so everyone was getting promoted above their competence because nobody had a choice. Not enough staff officers even for the Army they went out with, so everyone learned THAT job on the job too (and the PBI suffered horribly when the inevitable mistakes were made). Not enough trained men to leaven the new volunteers (and the later conscripts), not enough artillery, not enough shell production to support the artillery (by orders of magnitude; although nobody on either side realized just how things were going to be, the French and Germans had been building up for a rematch since the late 1800s and were better prepared).

And all because HM Treasury was stingy.

 

[Rule of cool]

Has been since who knows when? But the most egregious example is World War 1.

When you have to fight a continental war, the best time to start building up for that war is as soon as you start realizing you'll have to fight it (and yes, everyone with half a brain could see it coming). Which was probably some time in 1910.

The WORST time to have to build up and expand your army to fight a continental war is after you have started fighting that war, and your elite trained infantry have been wasted to exhaustion. Nobody knowing how to handle anything above an Army Corps because the Army had never been that big before, so everyone was getting promoted above their competence because nobody had a choice. Not enough staff officers even for the Army they went out with, so everyone learned THAT job on the job too (and the PBI suffered horribly when the inevitable mistakes were made). Not enough trained men to leaven the new volunteers (and the later conscripts), not enough artillery, not enough shell production to support the artillery (by orders of magnitude; although nobody on either side realized just how things were going to be, the French and Germans had been building up for a rematch since the late 1800s and were better prepared).

And all because HM Treasury was stingy.

At the risk of taking too great a tangent there was a fear in pre-WW1 Britain that when the British Army was structured like Continental Army it would be used like a Continental Army and therefore limit Britain's freedom of action. Britain was a Naval and Imperial power, that's what made her special and powerful, trying to create a Continental style Army would just make her a medium power.

In any case I started this thread to see if a tiny FAA aircraft fleet doesn't have unbalance the entire defence budget.

 

[pathology_doc]

to see if a tiny FAA aircraft fleet doesn't have to unbalance the entire defence budget.

Unfortunately it does, because even that tiny fleet makes expensive knock-on demands on the size and complexity of their carriers.

 

[Rule of cool]

Unfortunately it does, because even that tiny fleet makes expensive knock-on demands on the size and complexity of their carriers.

Britain already had carriers big enough to handle the Phantom and had proposed the Malta class and 1952-53 design carrier long before the CVA01 was conceived. In the chicken and egg question the RN had and wanted more carriers able to operate Phantoms.

 

[pathology_doc]

Britain already had carriers big enough to handle the Phantom and had proposed the Malta class and 1952-53 design carrier long before the CVA01 was conceived.

Yeah, but all those carriers needed refits before they could switch over to the F-4 if I'm not wrong.

What I'm trying to say is, you can't operate a 1960s air group with a 1945 British CV, even if her flight deck is big enough, and that the smaller wartime carriers which operate piston fighters with no issues eventually become completely unable to support operations with the increasingly larger jets.

And also a major point we've been arguing here is whether you can or cannot operate an off-the-shelf F-4 that is not a K or M from a British carrier in adverse circumstances of takeoff weight, wind speed etc. My understanding is that the answer turned out to be no.

IIRC the whole point of the Essexes and the Midways (technically a wartime design, Midway only just missed WW2) was that they had the extra size that made non-Spey Phantom operations routine instead of a carefully-studied edge case.

 

[Rule of cool]

My understanding of the thread is that a Phantom does not need the Spey to operate from the rebuilt Eagle and refitted Ark Royal. The adaptations it does require; extended nose oleo, dropping ailerons, folding nose are comparatively easy and cheap and will not drive the Phantom's price so high that CVA01 will be cancelled and the aircraft foisted into the RAF in order to spread the development costs.

Of course, the Eagle and Ark required refits, as did the Essex and Midways to operate big, fast, heavy jets.

 

[orlovsky]

We can play around with the available numbers, in the end the spey benefit is a few kts at best. Compared to the cost...

 

[TsrJoe]

... and at the end of the day the RN. went with the Spey powered FG.1 as on paper that was best avaliable option at the time

 

[Rule of cool]

... and at the end of the day the RN. went with the Spey powered FG.1 as on paper that was best avaliable option at the time

I think in the internet age we lack an appreciation for the extreme lack of information that even governments faced in the 60s. Governments relied on publications like Janes etc, intelligence information and hand-typed letters sent snail-mail to foreign governments who then had to go through paper files to find the information, hand-type replies and return via snail-mail. Telegrams existed, but they're basically the equivalent of a text message and long-distance phone calls were a drama.

There was no quick gathering of information and presenting a workable briefing in a few hours like we can do today.

 

[zen]

Also have to appreciate there was genuinely expectation the Spey would form the basis of a wide range of variants. Which it actually did. But back then upto potential supersonic cruising, even near hypersonic capable propulsion systems.
The mixture of ambition and marketing.
Not to dismiss that McDD might have had eyes on a turbofan future for the F4, that did seem to promise greater performance across various measures.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

FWIW it wasn't just the Spey engine (and the modifications to the airframe) that increased the cost of the British Phantoms.

For reasons that were understandable at the time, the production a lot of the airframe and avionics was subcontracted to British firms, which turned out to be more expensive than buying them from the American firms. IIRC that was a combination of loosing the production economies of scale and the Sterling devaluation of November 1967.

 

[zen]

Well it didn't help cutting numbers. The larger the production run, the lower the cost.

 

[Scott Kenny]

FWIW it wasn't just the Spey engine (and the modifications to the airframe) that increased the cost of the British Phantoms.

For reasons that were understandable at the time, the production a lot of the airframe and avionics was subcontracted to British firms, which turned out to be more expensive than buying them from the American firms. IIRC that was a combination of loosing the production economies of scale and the Sterling devaluation of November 1967.

Significantly more expensive than buying from American firms.

 

[pathology_doc]

Of course, the Eagle and Ark required refits, as did the Essex and Midways

And with British technology, too (angled deck, mirror landing, steam cat).

The difference is that the Americans had the money to do all of that and many other things besides.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Well it didn't help cutting numbers. The larger the production run, the lower the cost.

Which cut? AIUI the 209 actually ordered were on a fixed-price contract and it was reduced to 170 in the aftermath of the Sterling in November 1967 because said devaluation increased the price. Which suggests that if it had been a cost-plus contract the number originally ordered would have been delivered.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

FWIW it wasn't just the Spey engine (and the modifications to the airframe) that increased the cost of the British Phantoms.

For reasons that were understandable at the time, the production a lot of the airframe and avionics was subcontracted to British firms, which turned out to be more expensive than buying them from the American firms. IIRC that was a combination of loosing the production economies of scale and the Sterling devaluation of November 1967.

Well it didn't help cutting numbers. The larger the production run, the lower the cost.

Significantly more expensive than buying from American firms.

Which makes me think that building the whole aircraft under licence wouldn't have been more expensive. Most of the JASDF's Phantoms were built under licence by Mitsubishi. Also building them in the UK wouldn't have made them vulnerable to changes in the exchange rate ITTL.

At the very least it would save a lot of scarce Dollars, which could be used to buy something else, like the the F-111Ks or the CH-47A Chinooks which were cancelled after the 1967 Sterling devaluation IOTL.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

On the subject of the number of cancelled Spey-Phantoms, while most books say that 39 Phantoms were cancelled, the British Military Serials books and the Aeromilitaria articles on Post-war British Military Aircraft contracts say 223 were ordered and 53 were cancelled.

For example the latter says:

• 4 ordered on 27.10.64 with the serials XT595 to XT598 - YF-4K and F-4K - all 4 aircraft were for the Ministry of Technology/Ministry of Defence (Procurement Executive).
• 60 ordered on 06.07.65 of which 46 were built and 14 cancelled as follows.
  • 2 YF-4M with the serials XT852 & XT853 for the Ministry of Technology/Ministry of Defence (Procurement Executive).
  • 20 F-4K XT857 to XT876 all of which were delivered.
  • 38 F-4M XT891 to XT928 of which the last 14 XT915 to XT928 were cancelled.
• 159 ordered on 26.10.66 of which 120 were built and 39 cancelled as follows.
  • 35 F-4K with the serials XV565 to XV592 (28) and XV604 to XV610 (7) of which the first 28 were built and the last 7 cancelled.
  • 124 F-4M with the serials XV393 to XV442 (50), XV460 to XV501 (42) and XV520 to XV551 (32) of which the first 92 were built and the last 32 were cancelled.

It's peculiar that XT915 to XT928 from the July 1965 batch were cancelled instead of another 14 from the October 1966 batch. That makes me think that they weren't cancelled at the same time as the 39 aircraft from the October 1966 batch.

 

[zen]

Certainly I think license production could potentially solve multiple issues. But it needs to be justified by larger numbers.
Which is doable....

 

[Rule of cool]

The OP for this thread is for the British to be doing better with regards to procurement, focusing on its big carriers which makes the RN a bigger customer than historically but also removes the RAF as a potential customer. So bigger numbers can mean at least 70 but not the 400 dreamed of at one point, or even the 140 the RN dreamed of in 1964.

 

[orlovsky]

I think in the internet age we lack an appreciation for the extreme lack of information that even governments faced in the 60s. Governments relied on publications like Janes etc, intelligence information and hand-typed letters sent snail-mail to foreign governments who then had to go through paper files to find the information, hand-type replies and return via snail-mail. Telegrams existed, but they're basically the equivalent of a text message and long-distance phone calls were a drama.

There was no quick gathering of information and presenting a workable briefing in a few hours like we can do today.

Good point, but regarding the Spey, the main contractor promised a performance for wod that was 7-10 kts better than the product delivered. The information age would not create a different decision, just a lot of negative press...

 

[Rule of cool]

Good point, but regarding the Spey, the main contractor promised a performance for wod that was 7-10 kts better than the product delivered. The information age would not create a different decision, just a lot of negative press...

That lack of advertised performance is the reason why a MOTS F4J+ is a practical option for the big carriers with hindsight.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Which makes me think that building the whole aircraft under licence wouldn't have been more expensive. Most of the JASDF's Phantoms were built under licence by Mitsubishi. Also building them in the UK wouldn't have made them vulnerable to changes in the exchange rate ITTL.

The F-4EJ was also a simplified aircraft.

At the very least it would save a lot of scarce Dollars, which could be used to buy something else, like the the F-111Ks or the CH-47A Chinooks which were cancelled after the 1967 Sterling devaluation IOTL.

That would be the best reason for licensed production.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The F-4EJ was also a simplified aircraft.

What were the simplifications?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Parts of the OP.

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.

So Ark Royal is Phantomised 1964-67 instead of 1967-70. Is Eagle Phantomised immediately afterwards? Because if so it would be in progress or even nearing completion by the time it was Phantomisation was cancelled IOTL. Also as the POD is about 1963 that might be early enough to have her Phantomised as part of her 1959-64 refit.

Are CVA.01 and CVA.02 replacements for Hermes and Victorious? Or is the Phantomisation of Eagle and Ark Royal as stop-gap measure to make them more effective until their replacements (CVA.01 and CVA.02) are completed in the 1970s.

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?

I've no idea if the F-4J is fit for purpose. But due to the earlier POD and the Spey-Phantom taking longer than planned to put into service, it would enter service with the FAA several years earlier than the Spey-Phantom. The first 800-series squadron should embark on a Ark Royal in 1967 instead of 1970. Or if Eagle is Phantomised as part of her 1959-64 refit ITTL she'd embark her first 800-series Phantom squadron in 1966 or even 1965.

Edit

For clarification. Does the Lightning fighter-bomber initially equip the squadrons that operated the Hunter FGA9 and FR10? And then it equips the ground attack & reconnaissance squadrons in 38 Group and RAF Germany that operated the F-4M Phantom from the late 1960s until the late 1970s when they were replaced by Jaguars. Is that correct?

If it is correct, the displaced F-4Ms replaced the Lightning fighters in all but 2 squadrons of 11 Group of Strike Command IOTL and the 2 Lightning fighter squadrons in Germany. Does this mean that ITTL the RAF's fighter force will continue to be 100% Lightnings until Tornado ADV arrives in the late 1980s?

 

[Rule of cool]

So Ark Royal is Phantomised 1964-67 instead of 1967-70. Is Eagle Phantomised immediately afterwards? Because if so it would be in progress or even nearing completion by the time it was Phantomisation was cancelled IOTL. Also as the POD is about 1963 that might be early enough to have her Phantomised as part of her 1959-64 refit.

Are CVA.01 and CVA.02 replacements for Hermes and Victorious? Or is the Phantomisation of Eagle and Ark Royal as stop-gap measure to make them more effective until their replacements (CVA.01 and CVA.02) are completed in the 1970s.

I haven't thought this schedule through properly. From the perspective of making the best use of the yards which likely makes for the cheapest building of the CVA01 &02 they should be started ASAP after Fearless and Intrepid are launched in Dec 1963 and June 1964 respectively. However I suspect that to make CVA01 & 02 fit the budget they would be built consecutively rather than concurrently, therefore CVA01 replaces Vic and displaces Hermes to the ASW/Commando role and CVA02 replaces Ark so Ark will need her Phantom refit in about 1966-67 to serve until about 1975 when CVA02 needs a crew. Eagle's Phantomisation is relatively simple and is more or less incorporated into a scheduled refit.

I've no idea if the F-4J is fit for purpose. But due to the earlier POD and the Spey-Phantom taking longer than planned to put into service, it would enter service with the FAA several years earlier than the Spey-Phantom. The first 800-series squadron should embark on a Ark Royal in 1967 instead of 1970. Or if Eagle is Phantomised as part of her 1959-64 refit ITTL she'd embark her first 800-series Phantom squadron in 1966 or even 1965.

With a similar start date earlier delivery is likely, which means less chance devaluation impacts their purchase price.

For clarification. Does the Lightning fighter-bomber initially equip the squadrons that operated the Hunter FGA9 and FR10? And then it equips the ground attack & reconnaissance squadrons in 38 Group and RAF Germany that operated the F-4M Phantom from the late 1960s until the late 1970s when they were replaced by Jaguars. Is that correct?

If it is correct, the displaced F-4Ms replaced the Lightning fighters in all but 2 squadrons of 11 Group of Strike Command IOTL and the 2 Lightning fighter squadrons in Germany. Does this mean that ITTL the RAF's fighter force will continue to be 100% Lightnings until Tornado ADV arrives in the late 1980s?

Yes, with luck forcing the Lightning fighter-bomber as the Venom FB and Meteor FR replacement in late 1958 will push the production rate up somewhat.

In my mind with the British having Lightnings as their main fighter and TSR2 and P1127 Harrier in service will be the lead partner in a new fighter development to replace the Lightning fleet of about 16 squadrons from the late 60s.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What were the simplifications?

Wiki says no ground attack capabilities.