Could the UK have done a better job of maintaining carrier based air power?

[NOMISYRRUC]

. . . changes that require PODs before 1945 shouldn't be allowed.

Talking of shouldn't be allowed.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_DMffILNjI

I've always thought he looked a lot like a young Trevor Eve, but I've been unable to find confirmation that it is him.

Susie Vanner the actress has it on her Facebook page, but she doesn't say who he is. Someone said it was Barrie Rutter in the comments, but I'm not sure that it's him.

I found an Australian version of this on YouTube years ago when I first looked for the British version, but it appears to have been taken down.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And an obvious question. If the USN were developing a slotted tube type using explosive powder, why didn't they think of using steam until it was demonstrated to them on the Perseus?

Possibly due to how little excess steam most USN ships had?

Carriers usually cruise pretty fast, so as to get maximum wind over deck.

 

[zen]

RN could have made the choice in 1947 and started the institutional processes to design a new large carrier taking into account the increasing weights and minimum speeds of future aircraft.
This would roll on through the crisis of 1948 and start setting out decisions on critical elements by 1949, hopefully starting build by then or 1950.
At which point Korea!
Which could either surge the effort or park it for a year or two.
But even with a redesign of the flight deck in 1952-53 the bulk of the ship and long-lead items would be ongoing and likely completion would happen sometime between 1956 to 1958. In place of Victorious.
Between 1953 and 1955 a second and more rapid construction could take place to the same revised design.

 

[Hood]

The flexible deck and angled deck were contemporary projects and were complimentary to some extent - you could have a rubber angled deck and leave the bow cats free for take-offs.
Both were solving different problems - aircraft weight and aircraft size (parking).

 

[uk 75]

Unlike the US Navy which developed its Forrestals to compete with the USAF in nuclear bombing the USSR the Royal Navy were more interested in using its carriers to protect shipping from Soviet submarines.
Development of the Gannet (and the awful Seamew) was matched by the Buccaneer as a Swerdlow cruiser killer.
It would be interesting to see how seriously the RN took its provision of carriers for the NATO Atlantic Striking Fleet.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The flexible deck and angled deck were contemporary projects and were complimentary to some extent - you could have a rubber angled deck and leave the bow cats free for take-offs.
Both were solving different problems - aircraft weight and aircraft size (parking).

As discussed here.

Prior to the angled deck the complementary solutions being considered were nets strung across the deck (there is a huge amount of surviving material about net materials, designs and layouts) to catch aircraft that missed the wires and a large fold down deck edge extension on the side of the carrier for parking. Fold down because carriers (supposedly through agreement with the US) were being designed as Panamax vessels. The angled deck swept all of that away.

 

[Archibald]

I would hazard that the difference between Audacious and Malta is similar to a early Midway and a SCB-125A Essex. What I mean: average Midway vs Essex pushed to its limits. In turn, it makes a significant difference when operating Phantoms.
Audacious were on a knife edge for Phantoms, even with Speys.
Malta could more easily handle Spey-Phantoms - and also handle non-Spey Phantoms.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Unlike the US Navy which developed its Forrestals to compete with the USAF in nuclear bombing the USSR the Royal Navy were more interested in using its carriers to protect shipping from Soviet submarines.
Development of the Gannet (and the awful Seamew) was matched by the Buccaneer as a Swerdlow cruiser killer.
It would be interesting to see how seriously the RN took its provision of carriers for the NATO Atlantic Striking Fleet.

By that token USN rebuilt the Midways 1954-60 in the SCB.110/SCB.110A programme to compete with the USAF in nuclear bombing the USSR.

The USN's interest in using its aircraft carriers to protect shipping from Soviet submarines was equal to competing with the USAF in nuclear bombing. Amongst the evidence for this are the facts that.

• A number of aircraft carriers (initially CVLs & CVEs, later Essex class) were in commission as ASW carriers.
• Dozens of wartime CVEs were kept in reserve (they didn't scrap any between 1947 and 1959) for reactivation as ASW ships in the event of World War III.
• S-2 Trackers were bought by the hundred.
• A lot of effort was put into developing helicopters for ASW.
• I don't know (but I suspect) that one reason for the heavy investment in helicopters for ASW was that they could operate from ships that couldn't use the Tracker. For what it's worth many of the escort carriers had their designation changed in the late 1950s from CVE to CVHE.

Although this was shore based rather than sea based, another piece of evidence that the USN just as interested in trade protection aviation is the large number of LRMP squadrons that were maintained. There were 29 VP squadrons in 1949, which was increased to 34 in 1952 and declined to 30 between 1954 and 1957. A force of 30 VP squadrons was maintained from 1957 to 1967 and 24 were maintained from 1969 to the end of the Cold War.

You may be interpreting the Seamew being designed to operate from ships that couldn't take the Gannet and that the intention was that it would only be built in large numbers if World War III happened as being awful. Although I think the RN should have bought helicopters to work from those ships instead of the Seamew.

 

[EwenS]

You may be interpreting the Seamew being designed to operate from ships that couldn't take the Gannet and that the intention was that it would only be built in large numbers if World War III happened as being awful. Although I think the RN should have bought helicopters to work from those ships instead of the Seamew.

Short Seamew - prototypes ordered April 1952. First flew 23 Aug 1953. Production order Feb 1955. Cancelled 1957.

The problem with helicopters from the 1950s is a lack of lifting capability.

Britain received 25 Sikorsky built S.55 Whirlwind under MDAP in Nov 1952. 10 went to Malaya as HAR.21 and the remaining 15 became HAS.22 which could be fitted with the USN AN/AQS-4 dipping sonar. The problem with these was that they could carry a sonar OR a homing torpedo but not both simultaneosly. Trials followed and 845 squadron was formed in March 1954 to operate 8. Based out of Malta it spent time on various Med Fleet carriers through to 1957.

Westland acquired a licence to produce the Whirlwind in 1951, and flew its first aircraft, a HAR.1, in Aug 1953. It was only with the addition of the more powerful Alvis Leonides engine that it became a useful helicopter with the HAS.7 which first flew in Oct 1956. The RN bought 129 of these, with the first going to 845 squadron in Aug 1957. But they suffered engine problems and had a high loss rate. Some 6 squadrons were equipped with them. But again they could only carry dipping sonar OR a torpedo.

The successor was the Sikorsky S.58. Development started in 1951 but it only reached carrier trials in March 1955 with the USN. Britain chose not to take its MDAP allocation due to its unreliability. Westland got a licence for it in 1955, re-engined it with the Napier Gazelle gas turbine and developed the Wessex HAS.1, trials of which began in mid-1958. It reached the front line in 1960. It could carry out day or night hunter killer operations.

In amongst all this was the Bristol Type 173/191 which came to nothing.

The other problem with these helicopters was their short range, restricting their operations to close in to the carrier or group they were protecting.

The RN was at the forefront of developing the use of the helicopter in the 1950s. But the technology still required to catch up.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The RN was at the forefront of developing the use of the helicopter in the 1950s. But the technology still required to catch up.

Witness Sea King.

But that required the development of 1500hp gas turbines and combining gearboxes in the late 1950s/early 1960s.

So developing Seamew as the super interim, 1950-1960ish only, makes sense there.

 

[Rule of cool]

I've tried glancing back to see if it was covered, but was overwhelmed by 16 pages.

WI instead of trying to swim against the tide and get bigger, better ships the RN maintained its carrier air-power from the late 70s on the 'back end'?

The RN developed the Sea Harrier with 100 gal drop tanks and single sidewinder rails, WI instead during the development process they ended up with the post-Falklands 190 gal drop tanks and twin sidewinder rails from the get-go?

Similarly WI they got the Sea King AEW2 into service as an adjunct to the Sea Harrier soon after the Gannet AEW3 left service? Apparently the concept was floated years before the Falklands, which is why they entered service so quickly.

WI in the absence of greater numbers of Sea Harriers the RN put some effort into RAF Harrier GR3s to reinforce them, including weapons like LGBs and and Shrike ARMs? Maybe the RN could develop the wiring or whatever else is needed and buy a handful of sets for rapid reinforcement.

Imagine the Falklands if the Task Force sailed south not only with 20 longer range, more heavily armed Sea Harriers but also 4 or 5 Sea King AEW2 and 4 or 6 LGB and ARM armed GR3s, with more to come in a few weeks.

 

[zen]

I always feel the lack of ARM and EW let the Harrier down. These capabilities would make life much harder for opposition SHORAD.

Yet both were rapidly bodged during the Falklands War as fitting Shrike and it's systems to a Harrier and Blue Eric, the Skyshadow jammer repackaged into an ADEN gun pod. Though neither got deployed and never made it to service afterwards.

For SHar there was potential in Blue Fox to gain a limited illumination capability if memory serves. But Sparrow weighing over 400lb wasn't ideal an AAM for this.

 

[Hood]

I've tried glancing back to see if it was covered, but was overwhelmed by 16 pages.

I think you'll find every conceivable mix of RN carrier refit, carrier purchase and aircraft purchase has been covered in the many numerous RN carrier AH posts!

RAF Harrier GR3s to reinforce them, including weapons like LGBs and and Shrike ARMs?

LRMTS was useless as a targeting laser for Paveway, they tried it but it was crap.
Not sure there were many podded designator options at the time, the French ATLIS did not become fully operational until 1985 for example.

 

[EwenS]

I think you'll find every conceivable mix of RN carrier refit, carrier purchase and aircraft purchase has been covered in the many numerous RN carrier AH posts!


LRMTS was useless as a targeting laser for Paveway, they tried it but it was crap.
Not sure there were many podded designator options at the time, the French ATLIS did not become fully operational until 1985 for example.

There was the AN/AVQ-23E Pave Spike as used on RAF Buccaneers from about 1979. But that required a backseater to operate it and was good for only daylight visual conditions. So no good on Harrier / Sea Harrier or in dreadful Falklands weather.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There was the AN/AVQ-23E Pave Spike as used on RAF Buccaneers from about 1979. But that required a backseater to operate it and was good for only daylight visual conditions. So no good on Harrier / Sea Harrier or in dreadful Falklands weather.

For what was needed based on Falklands weather, it would have needed Pave Tack aka "Pave Drag." Which was about 1400lbs of barn door that F-4s had to carry on their centerline position. LANTIRN pods weren't available till 1986.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I always feel the lack of ARM and EW let the Harrier down. These capabilities would make life much harder for opposition SHORAD.

I'd have to take a page from the Marines on the ARMs: AGM-122 Sidewinder ARMs, though those weren't developed on the US side till the 1980s out of old AIM-9C SARH missiles.

Sidearms had basically as much range as AGM-45As, ~16km.

Yet both were rapidly bodged during the Falklands War as fitting Shrike and it's systems to a Harrier and Blue Eric, the Skyshadow jammer repackaged into an ADEN gun pod. Though neither got deployed and never made it to service afterwards.

I hadn't heard of that one, I need to pay more attention to UK projects I see...

Sticking an ALQ-119 pod onto the USMC Harriers may have been an option.

For SHar there was potential in Blue Fox to gain a limited illumination capability if memory serves. But Sparrow weighing over 400lb wasn't ideal an AAM for this.

Not like you really have a choice, in terms of BVR missiles you're looking at 350-550lbs per missile. Or you suck it up with mutual kills via AIM-9Ls.

 

[Archibald]

There are plenty of possible scenarios out there, some more realistics than others...
1- Maltas gets built. Very unlikely OTL, would take massive change to late WWII.
2- Four Audacious, carefully managed rebuilts to stretch that fleet into the 1980's;
3- Three Audacious, same as above;
4- Two Audacious : as per OTL, except the fleet is better managed so that Eagle can last into the 1980's
5- The Centaur fleet of four ships is better managed (more of them to Hermes standard ?)
...
6- The Illustrious (3) / Indomitable (1) / Implacable (2) - is there a best case for them somewhere ? they are driving me crazy. They are "heavies" while Centaurs are CVLs just like the Majestics.
So they were the ones to be rebuilts as backup to the Audacious, because heavy attack carriers. In the end however, Hermes was almost as capable as Victorious, both after extensive, ruinous rebuilts.
[what truly drives me crazy with those six are the different hangars, which in turn impact a) the aircraft that can go inside and b) the rebuilts, since armored hangars are at the core of these ships.]

The Illustrious class was a class of aircraft carrier of the Royal Navy that included some of the most important British warships in the Second World War. They were laid down in the late 1930s as part of the rearmament of British forces in response to the emerging threats of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan.

The Illustrious class comprised four vessels: HM Ships Illustrious, Formidable, Victorious and Indomitable. The last of these was built to a modified design with a second, half-length, hangar deck below the main hangar deck. Each of these ships played a prominent part in the battles of the Second World War. Victorious took part in the pursuit of the German battleship Bismarck, Illustrious and Formidable played prominent parts in the battles in the Mediterranean during 1940 and 1941 and all three took part in the large actions of the British Pacific Fleet in 1945.

The later two ships of the Implacable class were also built to modified designs to carry larger air wings. Implacable and Indefatigable both had two hangar levels, albeit with a limited 14-foot (4.3 m) head room.

I think an interesting question might be : [with 100% hindsight related to a) Victorious awful rebuilt and b) F-8 Crusader]

- Was there some kind of less expensive, reasonable rebuilt of, say, the two Implacables; that could make them useful into the 1960's with Crusaders on the decks ? NOT Phantoms, since Victorious could barely make it with its colossal rebuilt and was dropped by 1968 as such.

Asking the questions because of a) SCB-125 Essex, with Crusaders and b) Clems, also with Crusaders.

So how about : reasonable rebuilts of the Implacable twins, for Crusaders in the 1960's - and beyond...

 

[Archibald]

Stupid me, we have a perfectly good thread here. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...-with-implacables-illustrious-carriers.34987/

Which confirms my fears that the 6 armoured carriers were an hopeless mess.

 

[Rule of cool]

LRMTS was useless as a targeting laser for Paveway, they tried it but it was crap.
Not sure there were many podded designator options at the time, the French ATLIS did not become fully operational until 1985 for example.

The SAS/SBS could designate the targets for LGBs, like they did late in the campaign. It would be good if this could have started weeks sooner than it did because it had been prepared for.

 

[Rule of cool]

Blue Eric, the Skyshadow jammer repackaged into an ADEN gun pod. Though neither got deployed and never made it to service afterwards.

This is something that could have been done on a small scale before the Falklands. Even if the RN only had a couple of Blue Eric's in 1982 they could quickly build a few more at very short notice.

Or maybe just get a few sky shadows and sling them on the fuselage plyon.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This is something that could have been done on a small scale before the Falklands. Even if the RN only had a couple of Blue Eric's in 1982 they could quickly build a few more at very short notice.

Or maybe just get a few sky shadows and sling them on the fuselage plyon.

Specifically for the Harrier, I'd prefer the version in the Aden pod. Not sure if the RN could afford one for every SHAR, but that would be my goal.

Because it saves the fuselage pylon for fuel.

 

[Rule of cool]

Specifically for the Harrier, I'd prefer the version in the Aden pod. Not sure if the RN could afford one for every SHAR, but that would be my goal.

Because it saves the fuselage pylon for fuel.

I agree with all that. If the FAA had even a handful of Blue Eric pods in service prior to the Falklands more could be churned out within a short time to equip a large portion of the Sea Harrier fleet.

 

[uk 75]

A new thread on possible Harrier upgrades for the Falklands War might be helpful.
Prior to 1982 the main role of the Sea Harrier on Hermes and the Invincibles was similar to the A4 Skyhawk on US Essex class CVS (which these ships helped SACLANT to replace). Warding off "snooping" Bears and Badgers in the UK-Greenland Gap or in waters off Norway and Denmark for the UK/NL Amphibious Force or UKMF was very different from taking on a well trained opponent with supersonic strike aircraft thousands of miles from the UK.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I've tried glancing back to see if it was covered, but was overwhelmed by 16 pages.

WI instead of trying to swim against the tide and get bigger, better ships the RN maintained its carrier air-power from the late 70s on the 'back end'?

The RN developed the Sea Harrier with 100 gal drop tanks and single sidewinder rails, WI instead during the development process they ended up with the post-Falklands 190 gal drop tanks and twin sidewinder rails from the get-go?

Similarly WI they got the Sea King AEW2 into service as an adjunct to the Sea Harrier soon after the Gannet AEW3 left service? Apparently the concept was floated years before the Falklands, which is why they entered service so quickly.

WI in the absence of greater numbers of Sea Harriers the RN put some effort into RAF Harrier GR3s to reinforce them, including weapons like LGBs and and Shrike ARMs? Maybe the RN could develop the wiring or whatever else is needed and buy a handful of sets for rapid reinforcement.

Imagine the Falklands if the Task Force sailed south not only with 20 longer range, more heavily armed Sea Harriers but also 4 or 5 Sea King AEW2 and 4 or 6 LGB and ARM armed GR3s, with more to come in a few weeks.

I'm doing this from memory, so it may be wrong.

• The Sea Harrier FRS.1s that served in the Falklands could carry a pair of Sidewinders.
• After the war they were modified to carry four Sidewinders.
• My guess is that the extra cost would have been negligible and in the long term "cost neutral" (if that's the right expression) as the extra money spent "up front" would be recouped by not having to modify them later.
• The Sea Harrier FA.2 could carry a pair of AMRAAMs.
• Could the FRS.1 have been built to carry two Skyflash AAMs? And if so, what would the extra cost have been?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Short Seamew - prototypes ordered April 1952. First flew 23 Aug 1953. Production order Feb 1955. Cancelled 1957.

The problem with helicopters from the 1950s is a lack of lifting capability.

Britain received 25 Sikorsky built S.55 Whirlwind under MDAP in Nov 1952. 10 went to Malaya as HAR.21 and the remaining 15 became HAS.22 which could be fitted with the USN AN/AQS-4 dipping sonar. The problem with these was that they could carry a sonar OR a homing torpedo but not both simultaneously. Trials followed and 845 squadron was formed in March 1954 to operate 8. Based out of Malta it spent time on various Med Fleet carriers through to 1957.

Westland acquired a licence to produce the Whirlwind in 1951, and flew its first aircraft, a HAR.1, in Aug 1953. It was only with the addition of the more powerful Alvis Leonides engine that it became a useful helicopter with the HAS.7 which first flew in Oct 1956. The RN bought 129 of these, with the first going to 845 squadron in Aug 1957. But they suffered engine problems and had a high loss rate. Some 6 squadrons were equipped with them. But again they could only carry dipping sonar OR a torpedo.

The successor was the Sikorsky S.58. Development started in 1951 but it only reached carrier trials in March 1955 with the USN. Britain chose not to take its MDAP allocation due to its unreliability. Westland got a licence for it in 1955, re-engined it with the Napier Gazelle gas turbine and developed the Wessex HAS.1, trials of which began in mid-1958. It reached the front line in 1960. It could carry out day or night hunter killer operations.

In amongst all this was the Bristol Type 173/191 which came to nothing.

The other problem with these helicopters was their short range, restricting their operations to close in to the carrier or group they were protecting.

The RN was at the forefront of developing the use of the helicopter in the 1950s. But the technology still required to catch up.

I knew already and despite that thought the RN should have bought more helicopters. I still do.

At most the Seamew should have reached the prototype stage and that some helicopters should have been ordered in February 1955 instead of the production contract.

As you mentioned the B.173/191 that seems to have been the rival to the Seamew because I've read about Coastal Command plans to form 2 inshore ASW flight to be equipped with the B.173 or Seamew.

According to the Putnams on Bristol aircraft the B.173 was to have had a pair of Bristol Janus turboshafts but world had to be abandoned for lack of resources and the 5 aircraft that were built had Alvis Leonides Major engines. I've often thought (probably wishfully) that the availability of a British turboshaft engine in the 1,000shp class in the 1950s would have transformed the performance of British helicopters of the period. For example, the improved the performance of the first B.173 prototypes (which flew before the Seamew) would have made the Admiralty abandon the Seamew and let a production contract for a number of B.173s. Candidates for such an engine are the Janus, a fourth member of the AS Adder/Mamba/Viper family or a modified RR Dart. Whether such an engine could have been developed in time depends upon the firm chosen having enough resources rather than HM Treasury having to find the extra money for the R&D contract. Which is why the Janus was cancelled in the first place IOTL.

I also knew that serials for 50 Sikorsky Whirlwinds were issued. Do you know why only half were delivered? I'm not being rhetorical or sarcastic. I simply don't know.

 

[BlackBat242]

I'm doing this from memory, so it may be wrong.

• The Sea Harrier FRS.1s that served in the Falklands could carry a pair of Sidewinders.
• After the war they were modified to carry four Sidewinders.
• My guess is that the extra cost would have been negligible and in the long term "cost neutral" (if that's the right expression) as the extra money spent "up front" would be recouped by not having to modify them later.
• The Sea Harrier FA.2 could carry a pair of AMRAAMs.
• Could the FRS.1 have been built to carry two Skyflash AAMs? And if so, what would the extra cost have been?

The radar would have to have been designed and built very differently (or replaced with a new one designed to operate with them).

 

[GK Dundas]

A new thread on possible Harrier upgrades for the Falklands War might be helpful.
Prior to 1982 the main role of the Sea Harrier on Hermes and the Invincibles was similar to the A4 Skyhawk on US Essex class CVS (which these ships helped SACLANT to replace). Warding off "snooping" Bears and Badgers in the UK-Greenland Gap or in waters off Norway and Denmark for the UK/NL Amphibious Force or UKMF was very different from taking on a well trained opponent with supersonic strike aircraft thousands of miles from the UK.

Which like the A4 they weren't really the best solution to the Bear/Badger problem until FRS 2 came around.

 

[EwenS]

Operation Corporate saw a lot of work done to improve the Sea Harrier FRS.1 capabilities in a very short space of time. As the TF left the UK the following were still being worked on:-

1. Computer software to allow use of the AIM-9L Sidewinder. The missiles themselves were delivered direct from the USA to Ascension.
2. Computer software to allow loft bombing from an offset initial point.
3. Clearance for use of the RN 2in rocket pods and Lepus flares, and BL755 cluster bombs.

Other improvements that work only started on after war broke out were:-

1. Mounting for the ALE-40 chaff/flare dispenser
2. Twin Sidewinder mount (which required pylon and wiring changes as well as software changes to the Smith's HUDWAC weapons computer because of the back to back arrangement of the missiles' seeker heads).
3. The 190 gal drop tanks (which were produced by removing a section from 230 gal Hunter drop tanks in storage).
4. Blue Eric ECM pod (work on this started on 6 May 1982)

"The production of an ECM pod was another effort to protect the Harrier. The hurried project to build the ECM pod (commonly called Blue Eric) was begun by the Marconi Space and Missile Defense System and RAF electronic warfare experts. In peacetime a project of this magnitude and complexity would have taken at least two years. After only two weeks, nine pods were ready for service.

The project actually began on 6 May, when RAF and Marconi EW experts identified the characteristics of the Argentine radar threat and decided how to counter it. They determined that existing ECM pods were too big and heavy to be used on the Harrier. On the following day, they elected to use one of the two Aden underbelly gun pods for the ECM equipment rather than build a new pylon-mounted pod. BAe was brought into the project to coordinate the interfacing of the pod and the aircraft's electrical system. Within five days, Marconi had completed the design work.

The system's electronic components came either from the Marconi Skyshadow pod, were off-the-shelf items, or were specially manufactured. Rather than use the normal liquid-cooling system, engineers installed ram-air cooling. On 12 May, the prototype pod was complete and ready for ground testing.

Flight testing began on 14 May and included evaluating the pod's performance in place next to the pod of an Aden gun that was actually firing. Also under consideration was whether the electrically fired 30-mm ammunition could be safely exposed to any energy the pod might radiate. No problems were discovered, and the pod was declared ready for operational use. Marconi produced a total of nine Blue Eric pods within four days. Only 15 days elapsed from initial requirement to delivery."

2 & 3 above were made ready in time for 809 squadron to embark on Illustrious on 2 Aug for the journey to the South Atlantic.

An initial update plan for the FRS.1 had been prepared by British Aerospace before the Falklands War but rejected by the MoD as part of the defence cuts of that period. Post Falklands a new study led to the announcement of an MLU and contracts awarded to British Aerospace and Marconi. And so was born the FRS.2/ FA.2. A LOT of modifications had to be made to the airframe (most noticeably the stretched fuselage and less so the modified wing) as well as the avionics to produce the new version. Maiden flight was 19 Sept 1988. They began to reach the front line units in Oct 1994.

Its primary air to air weapon was AMRAAM, with up to 4 capable of being carried (2 in place of the Sidewinders on the outboard wing pylons, and 2 in place of the Aden gun pods under the fuselage).

 

[Archibald]

4 x AMRAAMs ? never knew. The SHAR FA.2 ended as a pretty potent machine.

 

[EwenS]

Don't often see them with all 4 AMRAAM aboard. But here you go.

 

[Rule of cool]

Could the FRS.1 have been built to carry two Skyflash AAMs? And if so, what would the extra cost have been?

I think that would be too hard with the systems available in the late 70s. It really required the newer, much lighter AMRAAM t give a small aircraft like the Harrier BVR capability.

That said the things that the Sea Harrier did get as the immediate result of the Falklands drastically increased it's capability and might be easily justified in the late 70s as they are pretty much makeshifts that can be cobbled together on the cheap.