MOTS Phantom for the RN?

[Arjen]

From Engineering the F-4 Phantom II - Parts into systems by Glenn E. Bugos, Naval Institute Press 1996:

Given press reports about the Phantom's destructiveness in Vietnam, leftists in the Diet objected that the F-4E was more bomber than interceptor and thus violated Japan's peace constitution. In response, Defense Director Kaneshici Masuda announced plans to remove from the Japanese F-4Es the bomb umbilicals and racks, the in-flight refueling probe (so the jet could not fly far beyond Japanese shores), and some nonintercept avionics, like the rear warning radar. U.S. Air Force jets would still provide the sword or retaliatory strikes, while the Japanese would increasingly provide the shield (The [1966] FX competition [for an intercept fighter] coincided with Japan's decision to manufacture the Nike-Hercules and Hawk air intercept missiles.)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Wiki says no ground attack capabilities.

Therefore, are you suggesting that Hawker Siddeley and BAC couldn't have built a full-spec F-4J because Mitsubishi didn't? Otherwise, I don't see why you would have mention that the F-4EJ was a simplified aircraft.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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

Earlier delivery in nigh on certain, because the reheated Spey engine took longer than expected to develop, which in turn meant the aircraft were delivered later than planned. Keep the J79 engine and said delays are impossible because they can't happen.

IIRC they were paid for over 10 years to the middle 1970s. Therefore, if I have remembered correctly, the 1967 devaluation has an effect on the purchase price and so will when the Pound became a floating currency in 1972. However, as your intention is to keep the aircraft as close to the USN F-4J standard as possible (which includes no British built avionics and airframe sections as well as the engines) it's less expensive in the first place.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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.

So from the early 1960s when the RN had 5 strike carriers.

• Centaur is still paid off in late 1965 and isn't replaced.
• Hermes still pays off in 1970, is still converted to a commando carrier 1971-73 and relieves Albion.
• CVA.01 is completed in the early 1970s and relieves Victorious.
• CVA.02 is completed in the middle 1970s and relieves Ark Royal.
• Eagle is still in service in the middle 1970s as a Phantomised strike carrier. Although you didn't mention a CVA.03, my guess is that she's being built instead of the OTL Invincible to replace Eagle in the late 1970s.

So there are 3 strike carriers in the middle 1970s. Is that correct?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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.

FWIW the RAF received 185 Hunters that were rebuilt to F.6A, FGA.9 and FR.10 standard. As discussed in other threads here and on Alternatehistory.com you'll also need some two-seat trainers.

However, the RAF still needs a weapons trainer to fill the gap left by the FGA.9 until the Hawk T.1 arrives. So more Gnats will have to be purchased or several score of Hunters will still have to be converted to F.6A or FGA.9 standard.

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.

All the money you save on the Spey-Phantom will be spent on the TSR.2. Does full-sale development of the P.1127 Harrier start in 1962 instead of 1965 as there's no P.1154RAF?

Re the the number of squadrons, what happened IOTL was.

The first 2 Hunter FGA squadrons were formed in January 1960 and the first Hunter FR squadron in January 1961. There were 9 squadrons from May 1962. They were disbanded or re-equipped with other aircraft between January 1967 and November 1971.

The first Phantom F-4M ground-attack squadron formed in May 1969 and there were 7 in April 1972. The first squadron converted to Jaguars in April 1974 and the rest converted by April 1977. The first F-4M fighter squadron formed in October 1974 and there were 6 by April 1977.

The first Harrier squadron formed in July 1969 and there were 4 from January 1972 to March 1977 when the 3 squadrons of 12 aircraft in RAF Germany were reorganised into 2 squadrons of 18.

The first Lightning fighter squadron formed in June 1960, but the peak strength of 9 squadrons wasn't reached until May 1967. One squadron was disbanded in September 1971 as part of the withdrawal from Singapore and 6 squadrons converted to the Phantom FGR.2 between October 1974 and April 1977.

 

[Rule of cool]

So from the early 1960s when the RN had 5 strike carriers.

• Centaur is still paid off in late 1965 and isn't replaced.
• Hermes still pays off in 1970, is still converted to a commando carrier 1971-73 and relieves Albion.
• CVA.01 is completed in the early 1970s and relieves Victorious.
• CVA.02 is completed in the middle 1970s and relieves Ark Royal.
• Eagle is still in service in the middle 1970s as a Phantomised strike carrier. Although you didn't mention a CVA.03, my guess is that she's being built instead of the OTL Invincible to replace Eagle in the late 1970s.

So there are 3 strike carriers in the middle 1970s. Is that correct?

Pretty much, I'd say Hermes stays as an attack carrier until about 1972 and is converted then. I don't know about CVA03, Eagle is good until the early 80s and perhaps she and Tiger get replaced by CVA03 or by a pair of Invincibles, or something else.

 

[Rule of cool]

All the money you save on the Spey-Phantom will be spent on the TSR.2. Does full-sale development of the P.1127 Harrier start in 1962 instead of 1965 as there's no P.1154RAF?

Exactly. With the Lightning fighter-bomber there is no need for the P1154RAF to be a supersonic fighter-bomber but there is still a niche for a lightweight VTOL attack aircraft. The P1127 initially equipped 4 sqns, that's a nice niche, useful without distorting the entire RAF force structure. The TSR2 will be developed not only with the Spey Phantom money but also the forward estimates of the P1154 and HS681.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Therefore, are you suggesting that Hawker Siddeley and BAC couldn't have built a full-spec F-4J because Mitsubishi didn't? Otherwise, I don't see why you would have mention that the F-4EJ was a simplified aircraft.

The F-4EJ was cheaper to build in Japan partially due to the removal of said systems.

Could HS/BAC build an F-4J? Certainly. Would building it under license isolate at least the bare airframe from currency fluctuations? Yes. You still be paying dollars for everything else, however.

But would a UK-built F-4J be cheaper than buying one built in the US? Depends entirely on the wages paid to the UK workers.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The F-4EJ was cheaper to build in Japan partially due to the removal of said systems.

Could HS/BAC build an F-4J? Certainly. Would building it under license isolate at least the bare airframe from currency fluctuations? Yes. You still be paying dollars for everything else, however.

But would a UK-built F-4J be cheaper than buying one built in the US? Depends entirely on the wages paid to the UK workers.

FWIW a lot of the avionics for the Spey-Phantom were built in the UK, including the radar. So the rest of the avionics would be built in the UK too if the whole aircraft was built under licence. Furthermore, although I didn't specifically say so, the J79 engines would be built under licence too. E.g. with the Westland Sea King, the avionics were licence built in the UK and the T58 engines were built in the UK as the RR Gnome. Therefore, the only Dollars being paid are the licence fees on the airframe, engines and avionics.

 

[Rule of cool]

Wasn't Hawker Siddeley the main contractor for the UK Phantoms and over 40% of the British Phantoms components were built in the UK?

 

[Arjen]

The F-4EJ was cheaper to build in Japan partially due to the removal of said systems.

I believe the express purpose of multiple Japanese governments was to rebuild its aircraft industry, with Mitsubishi the main contractor for three subsequent JASDF interceptor types:
- 300 licence built F-86F, 180 from US production
- 178 licence built F-104J, with their J79-IHI-11A engines produced by Ishikawajima-Harima - 29 aircraft built in Japan from knock-down kits
- 125 licence built F-4EJ, 11 built in Japan from knock-down kits, engines from the same production line as for the F-104J
Cost savings were a secondary consideration - at best - to delete the ground attack hardware from the F-4EJ. That decision was made to comply with Japan's constitution.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Cost savings were a secondary consideration - at best - to delete the ground attack hardware from the F-4EJ. That decision was made to comply with Japan's constitution.

Not that the Ministry of Finance (along with it's oft partner in crime the MOFA) did not throw the occasional spanner in the works I believe...

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Wasn't Hawker Siddeley the main contractor for the UK Phantoms and over 40% of the British Phantoms components were built in the UK?

Stephen Bridgewater said in his book about British Phantoms.

Other changes included the addition of anti-skid brakes, provision for a centre-line mounted SUU-23 gun pod and a complete revision of its avionics. Combined, these changes meant that 45% of F-4Ms were produced in the UK, compared to 40% of the Navy’s F-4K.

Chapter 10 of Roy Boot's book "From Spitfire to Eurofighter" is about Hawker Siddeley Brough's role as "Sister Design firm for the United Kingdom Phantoms".

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not that the Ministry of Finance (along with it's oft partner in crime the MOFA) did not throw the occasional spanner in the works I believe...

MF is almost as big a threat to JSDF as UK Treasury is to HMArmed Forces.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Pretty much, I'd say Hermes stays as an attack carrier until about 1972 and is converted then. I don't know about CVA03, Eagle is good until the early 80s and perhaps she and Tiger get replaced by CVA03 or by a pair of Invincibles, or something else.

FWIW

Unless you're not cutting the RN's personnel strength the OTL conversions of Blake and Tiger to helicopter cruisers won't happen or if they do the ships will go straight into reserve because their crews will be needed for the extra strike carriers. ITTL you have 3 in 1975 ITTL instead of one IOTL. And that's if one of the 3 strike carriers is in refit/reserve at all times.

And as I've suggested on other threads the Invincible class won't be built in a timeline where the UK has 3 strike carriers from the early 1970s until the end of the Cold War. The money needed to build the Invincible class is needed to build strike carriers. In this case the money spent in Invincible and Illustrious is needed to pay for CVA.03 if as we have previously speculated the building cost of one CVA.01 is equivalent to two Invincibles. And in common with the converted Tiger class they'd immediately go into reserve if they were built as the RN won't have enough men to man both. Furthermore, if the RN did have the men and money my guess is that it would be used to build replacements for the commando carriers, rather than escort cruisers to replace the converted Tigers.

That is, unless this is a timeline where all British Governments from 1964 onwards are prepared to spend more on defence and the voters are prepared to pay the higher taxes or accept the reduced social spending required to pay for a RN that has 3 strike carriers, 3 escort cruisers and 2 or 3 commando carriers. Or the British economy performs better from 1964 onwards so the politicians and voters can "have their cake and eat it" because the "national cake's" larger.

 

[Rule of cool]

I'm inclined to think Blake's conversion still occurs, but not Tiger's as the pressures that caused them to be converted still exist in 1964 and work started when CVA01 was still going ahead to the point where long-lead items had been ordered. At the very least she can be Eagle's escort in the 70s and can save the building of a Type 82 as a result.

I had imagined that the 1981 Defence Review would reduce the RN to CVA01 & 02, but then thought the loss of the Eagle's and Blake's replacement is a huge hole that even aggressive governments wouldn't like to make, so would need something to fill that hole. Perhaps the RN could 'replace' the Eagle and Blake with a batch of Type 43 DLGs, expensive, capable ships with command facilities.

 

[zen]

Perhaps the RN could 'replace' the Eagle and Blake with a batch of Type 43 DLGs, expensive, capable ships with command facilities.

Solid argument there. Especially as they'd intigrate into the Type 22 and Type 42 training and support system. From missiles to ADAWS to the mk8 gun and propulsion. It would all be a step towards commonality compared the elderly Tiger class cruiser and Audacious class carrier.

 

[uk 75]

NATO or to be more precise SACLANT was focussed on the threat posed by missiles and torpedoes launched by Soviet aircraft and submarines
Accordingly it valued highly the UK hunter killer submarine fleet as well as Nimrod and ASW helicopters.
The combination of CVS (Bulwark, Hermes and Invincibles) with T42 and T22 escorts was seen as the most effective surface force we could deploy against the Soviet threat in the North Atlantic.
It is not until 1997 when this threat had been removed that the 1991 Iraq war and the Yugoslav wars allowed the RN to show limited rather than all out (general) war was to be the main role. Until the 2020s and the withdrawal from Afghanistan and Putin's Ukraine war this remained the case.
.
.

 

[Rule of cool]

Almost immediately after this decision was made the Soviet Navy, whose major surface ship power grew rapidly in the 60s, came out to play during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War with surface groups actively marking the 2 USN Carrier Groups in the Med. Going from Strike to ASW carriers diminished the RN.

 

[CV12Hornet]

NATO or to be more precise SACLANT was focussed on the threat posed by missiles and torpedoes launched by Soviet aircraft and submarines
Accordingly it valued highly the UK hunter killer submarine fleet as well as Nimrod and ASW helicopters.
The combination of CVS (Bulwark, Hermes and Invincibles) with T42 and T22 escorts was seen as the most effective surface force we could deploy against the Soviet threat in the North Atlantic.
It is not until 1997 when this threat had been removed that the 1991 Iraq war and the Yugoslav wars allowed the RN to show limited rather than all out (general) war was to be the main role. Until the 2020s and the withdrawal from Afghanistan and Putin's Ukraine war this remained the case.
.
.

It also highly valued British strike carriers. See the recent thread about the US asking if Ark Royal could be kept going longer.

 

[pathology_doc]

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?

I'm going back to the original post on this one, re-reading carefully and asking an obvious question:

Since this is an alternative reality in which CVA-01 and CVA-02 get built, is there actually a need for discussion over performance? Forgive me for relying on a shaky memory, but I thought these ships at least would have been more than big enough to take a US Phantom without changes. Get them onto the CVA-01 and 02 without changes and introduce the extended nosewheel down the line for Ark and Eagle.

 

[Archibald]

Makes sense. CVA-01 would be pretty expensive, so at least design the goddamn thing so that it can handle Phantoms comfortably ! Which will pay handily two decades into that carrier life, as the F-18 by comparison with the Phantom is lighter and easier at every level.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Since this is an alternative reality in which CVA-01 and CVA-02 get built, is there actually a need for discussion over performance?

If the RN is staying in the big carrier business, it's likely that VICTORIOUS and HERMES carry on flying fast(ish) jets beyond 1967 and 1971 respectively until replaced by CVA-01 and CVA-02. If they can't operate Phantoms, then the Sea Vixen needs to soldier on as their fighter until perhaps 1978.

Given delivery timelines, it's likely that the question of flying Phantoms, of any kind, off VICTORIOUS will be avoided. HERMES, though, is fairly likely to pose a problem - and it does seem that HERMES was proposed to be retained longer than ARK ROYAL even with a reduction to three carriers.

 

[pathology_doc]

If they can't operate Phantoms, then the Sea Vixen needs to soldier on as their fighter until perhaps 1978.

I'd like to think that this is a universe in which the Harrier still happens, in which case a navalized version will probably be brought in to replace the Vixens. Maybe not with SARH missiles unless you can force-fit the Crusader set-up, but certainly with the best, most up-to-date IR Sidewinders. In this timeline you won't be building the Invincibles, and a Sea Harrier is the ideal interim fit to go on all the smaller CVs until they retire or until CVA-03 and -04 possibly come in to replace Ark and Eagle.

 

[zen]

If the UK is licensed building AWG.10 sets for F4, then trying to squeeze them into a limited number of Sea Vixen to eek out their lives into the late 70s makes a degree of sense.

 

[Rule of cool]

I'm going back to the original post on this one, re-reading carefully and asking an obvious question:

Since this is an alternative reality in which CVA-01 and CVA-02 get built, is there actually a need for discussion over performance? Forgive me for relying on a shaky memory, but I thought these ships at least would have been more than big enough to take a US Phantom without changes. Get them onto the CVA-01 and 02 without changes and introduce the extended nosewheel down the line for Ark and Eagle.

Firstly, I swing back and forth on when the CVAs get built. When I wrote this OP, I was thinking continuous build for 2 shipyards rather than the more likely continuous build for John Brown building both CVAs in succession, which would have been more likely. This will inform the answer.

Secondly in whatever scenario the Phantoms will enter service from 1968, go to sea on Eagle in 1969 and Ark Royal in 1969-70, years before CVA01 & 02 enter service, 1972-73 for the OP scenario and 1973 & 76 for the more likely scenario. The Ark will retire in 1973 in scenario 1 and 1976 in scenario 2 with the Eagle soldiering on until the early 80s.

As such the British Phantoms will need the performance enhancements, as they will serve the early part of their service lives on Eagle and Ark, and Eagle will continue for about 12-15 years of the Phantom fleet's expected 20–25-year airframe life.

 

[pathology_doc]

As such the British Phantoms will need the performance enhancements, as they will serve the early part of their service lives on Eagle and Ark, and Eagle will continue for about 12-15 years of the Phantom fleet's expected 20–25-year airframe life.

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[pathology_doc]

If the UK is licensed building AWG.10 sets for F4, then trying to squeeze them into a limited number of Sea Vixen to eek out their lives into the late 70s makes a degree of sense.

Will they even fit, though? There are weight, volume and balance issues at hand here, and the latter could significantly affect handling. Unless you want to go all the way and sacrifice the radar operator, but any way you slice it, it's going to require a marked revision of the pilot's cockpit and a bunch of other stuff. And at that point, you really are at the "Well, we only have a few years left to run on this airplane; is developing this completely new mark even worth it?" level.

Trying to fit the F-4's radar set (or something similar) into the Sea Vixen is a decision that needs to be made back in 1956 or so for it to be worthwhile. Let the FAW.1 come out as it is IOTL, then the FAW.2 can come out later with either Sparrow III (i.e. the SARH family) or mixed Sparrow and Red Top if you're keen on a combined radar/SARH fit. But at this point we're bleeding over into a related thread: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...imitars-stay-in-service-into-the-1970s.37794/

 

[zen]

Well the flipside is in the early 60’s GEC had priced up a major upgrade to AI.18 to double ranges and even give look-down/shoot-down capability.

If MOTS F4 saves enough cash, such an upgrade is fairly modest

 

[MadRat]

Being handicapped with Scimitar and Sea Vixen to supplement Phantom was avoidable and solely the result of preplanned drama. Stretching the elevators just two feet meant the RN could have considered augmenting Phantoms with F-8 Crusaders (with AN/AAS-15 Infra-Red Search & Track sets) for scenarios where their longer waist catapults were down on the different carriers. Sure it meant structural changes to complete larger elevators, but they missed multiple opportunities to do exactly that and were stubborn to repeatedly shoehorn themselves into a tight spot. But stretch those elevators a few more feet more and suddenly you can appreciate adding RF-4Bs for reconnaissance. Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm (FAA) assets were notorious for bad reconnaissance. Buccaneer used its bomb bay fitted with reconnaissance pack of up to six F95 cameras which were no better than an RF-8B's capability. But also realize that RF-8B did not have anywhere near the capability of RF-4B. Part of the RF-4B mission equipment were Side-Looking Airborne Radar (SLAR) behind the main camera bay, and the AN/AAS-18 IR set mounted in the lower fuselage between the intake splitter plates. RF-4B had three camera stations:

1. Nose, Station 1: forward looking camera (KA-87), that could be rotated to vertical position
2. Chin, Station 2: low altitude horizon to horizon camera (KA-56)
3. Main Camera Bay, Station 3: KA-55 vertical, two KS-87 looking through the side windows, or a tri-camera KS-87 array

F-8s, like the F-4s, could perform multiple roles. Buccaneer still had its place for long-range strike missions, but the former two (Scimitar and Sea Vixen) were long since obsolete. Getting rid of Sea Vixen would have saved a minimum of about two dozen people, if not more. No more need for Red Top or Firestreak on board, and would allow head-on attack AIM-9C or R.530 options instead. The F-8 and RF-8B would have greatly simplified their airwings and made them more interoperable with other allied assets.

 

[Rule of cool]

When the RN is getting he worlds best fighter why on earth would it want to retain the Sea Vixen? Retaining the Sea Vixen would only soak up funds and other resources that could be used to buy and support more Phantoms.

 

[zen]

When the RN is getting he worlds best fighter why on earth would it want to retain the Sea Vixen? Retaining the Sea Vixen would only soak up funds and other resources that could be used to buy and support more Phantoms.

Because someone asked the appropriate question.

If the RN is staying in the big carrier business, it's likely that VICTORIOUS and HERMES carry on flying fast(ish) jets beyond 1967 and 1971 respectively until replaced by CVA-01 and CVA-02. If they can't operate Phantoms, then the Sea Vixen needs to soldier on

 

[Yellow Palace]

When the RN is getting he worlds best fighter why on earth would it want to retain the Sea Vixen? Retaining the Sea Vixen would only soak up funds and other resources that could be used to buy and support more Phantoms.

Because if it retains carriers that can't operate Phantoms, it either needs to fly Sea Vixens off them until they're decommissioned, or not have fighters on them at all.

Neither of these options is good. But that's life sometimes.

 

[Rule of cool]

Because someone asked the appropriate question.

Fair enough.

That said, once CVA01 and F4K (J79) are ordered the Sea Vixen, Hermes and Vic are lame ducks, limping through to their inevitable replacement by CVA01 and Phantoms. I expect 2 of 4 fighter sqns to convert to Phantoms in 1968-69 and the 3rd and 4th limp on with Sea Vixens until consolidation and conversion in 1970-71 for service on CVA01 in 1973.

Because if it retains carriers that can't operate Phantoms, it either needs to fly Sea Vixens off them until they're decommissioned, or not have fighters on them at all.

Neither of these options is good. But that's life sometimes.

Ninja'd! There will be some overlap, but I suspect that will be minimised and certainly not result in money being spent on the remaining Sea Vixens.

 

[zen]

Well the flipside of running on Sea Vixen is either accelerating DDG with Sea Dart or getting more modern AEW.

Because a more modern AEW can extend the useful life of Sea Vixen by virtue of greater warning time/distance.

While Sea Dart getting to sea in higher numbers greatly hedges the bet between CVA or CVS outcomes.

Intriguing outcomes either way there. Since better AEW might further secure carrier airpower in GIUK Gap defence.
And more Sea Dart might tip the balance on further developments.

 

[Rule of cool]

I do like a good AEW.

The RN can't (or shouldn't) go to the E2 until the Eagle is retired in the early 80s as the Eagle can't operate the E2. I think the P.139 AEW might be the dumbest idea on earth, which leaves the Gannet until the early 80s.

There are options to upgrade the Gannet, scrounging radars and gear from E1 Tracers from the early 70s being my favourite, and likely the cheapest. The USN sold the RAN S2Gs at scrap prices in 1976, so perhaps they could do the same with E1s for the RN.

Apparently, the RAF looked at ex-USN EC121s in 1965 for the EoS role but rejected them because they were piston engined and too slow, not that this helps the FAA, indeed it likely damages it because it gives the RAF the ability to do the Island Bases strategy better.

 

[Archibald]

How about the E-1B with the stupides nickname, ever : Stoof-with-a-roof ? 88 build, they were retired in 1977. Trackers could land on Majestic / Colossus - so Centaur / Illustrious / Audacious are a go. Also Clemenceaus, in passing. I've found on Google books glimpses that France considered AEW Trackers twice: in 1965 and 1985.

If one play smart, E-1B Tracer could be procured for all three major navies - USN, RN and MN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_E-1_Tracer
And one could replace the piston engines with RR Dart turboprops, and perhaps PT-6 later. TurboTrackers did wonders for firefighting for decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAW-121#1970s

By May 1973, most E-1Bs were retired, with only four VAW-121 Tracers based at NAS Norfolk, Virginia, still in service. Unlike its siblings, VAW-121 flew the E-1B Tracer, until the mid-1970s. This was due to the fact there were still carriers in the fleet that were not capable of handling for the larger E-2 Hawkeye, principally USS Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Essex-class carriers.

https://www.google.fr/books/edition...man""WARNING"&pg=RA3-PA38&printsec=frontcover

 

[Rule of cool]

The RN AEW story IIUC is they got 50 Skyraider AEW in 1951 through MAP. They were getting hard and expensive to maintain (using foreign currency reserves) by the late 50s so the Gannet AEW3 was developed and the Skyraider's AN/APS20 radar and operator consoles stripped out and installed into the 44 Gannets from 1960 to 1963. The RN did a fair bit with this WW2 piece of kit; the radar displays were tied into the aircraft Doppler navigation system, a radar amplifier, Doppler MTI and IFF interrogator were installed so the Gannet could track both friendlies and hostiles and direct interceptions.

The E1 entered production service at about the same time as the Gannet, and S2 Tracker production ceased in about 1966, the RAN had to order theirs by 1965 or the line would close. Thus the RN wouldn't buy new E1s as they had their own aircraft in production at the time which would have been much cheaper as they were using the Skyraider radars for free and as a domestic aircraft wouldn't require using foreign currency.

As for the 70s, it's a tossup. The E1's AN/APS-82 radar was superior to the AN/APS-20 and I think it incorporated some technology to filter out clutter although it didn't have a computer to process the signal like the E2. However the aircraft was piston engine, and there would ave been no avgas storage on RN carriers by the 70s, so I think the RN would have to do an expensive turboprop conversion. The they have an out of production and out of service foreign aircraft with no support system to tap into as the USN have scrapped their aircraft. In contrast the Gannet is a domestic aircraft with an established domestic support system, which is why I suggest using scrounged E1 radars etc in the Gannet rather than getting E1s.

 

[Archibald]

About BS.5 catapults on Clemenceau carrier, 171 ft long: check their performance here. 18 tons to 100 kt.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...esigns-and-proposals.35123/page-3#post-878022

 

[Yellow Palace]

In contrast the Gannet is a domestic aircraft with an established domestic support system, which is why I suggest using scrounged E1 radars etc in the Gannet rather than getting E1s.

As much as I like this idea, I'm a little sceptical about the feasibility of strapping a 17.5 foot wide, 4 foot tall APS-82 antenna to a Gannet.

If it does work, though, the Gannet goes from being a strong contender for the title of 'weirdest looking aircraft' to the uncontested winner.