France buys Phantoms in the 60s

uk 75

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
5,744
Reaction score
5,625
Assuming France had had a more Atlantacist Government in the early 60s... The Phantom was offered to the French in the same way as it was to the British.

A procurement of F4s instead of the F8 Crusader would have depended on their being operable from Clemenceau and Foch. Assuming this was possible, a Phantom buy would have given the Aeronavale a serious air defence capability? Further, France already used the F100 Super Sabre in its tactical air force. Rather like the RAF it wanted to replace these with an exotic supersonic VSTOL (The Mirage IIIV). Phantoms would have been an effective and NATO friendly alternative.
Not sure where that would have left Jaguar?

The Mirage III family might also have found more favour with US clients, Israel would have got its Mirage Vs.

If Britain and France had bought Phantoms in the early 60s (about 1963) Canada might well have followed suit. France or Britain might even have offered a carrier to Canada either as a new build ship or a Hermes upgrade (ASWs and a few Phantoms?).

Just thought that with the French Presidential elections an all....
 
Here's is something close - a Spey Engined variant in French scheme that Richard (or Gekko Graphics fame) did for me a while ago:


ArmeedelAir.jpg



You can see more of his work here


Regards,


Greg
 
The Idea has only one problem: Marcel Dassault and his connection to french politic.

also the Deal French Mirage III for USA
the F-4 Phantom are from McDonnell, It was Boeing who show interest for Mirage "W"
 
Greg

Belated thanks for the artwork on the French Phantom

Michel

I think what I meant was that the US Government would have encouraged France to sell Mirages to certain customers, notably Israel, and might even have adopted the type as an export fighter like the F5/20 family.


Of course in the real world the scenario I put forward could not have happened but that does not make my posting a rant. I always try to be polite and amiable in my posts and offer possible avenues of what-if. The Phantom was one of the major success stories of the West's aircraft industry. It served the RN and RAF very well indeed and given the types used by France could also have served that country well. The F100 Super Sabre was also American and remained in service well into the 70s.
 
I somehow don't see French national pride letting it happen in the absence of a desperate need. And by desperate need, I'm talking about the Mirage III being a complete failure.
 
MDD. did try selling the Phantom to the French Aeronavale, indeed there were even models prepared as part of the sales drive B)
 
French national pride didn't seem to stop them from buying Crusaders and Sentries.
 
True, but those were niche-market things for which France didn't have an equivalent and in which the US was already a step ahead with a ready product. Asking France to buy Phantoms when it already had its own indigenous Mach 2 interceptor for which cash registers either were or soon would be ringing overseas? That's another matter, and it's why I said the Mirage III would have had to fail miserably for some reason for France to consider a Phantom buy.
 
Madurai said:
French national pride didn't seem to stop them from buying Crusaders and Sentries.
Click to expand...

Bad example, the reason was because they could not build indigenous AEW platforms (too complex) nor naval interceptors (42 machines is too small for a production run).

The reason why the Phantom was rejected for the Crusader is rather straightforward. Foch and Clemenceau were just too small - Essex / Hermes size, neither operated Phantoms AFAIK (the Ark Royal, Eagle, and Midways did, but they were bigger).

The Foch / Clem' catapults were not powerful enough, and too short; later it was found that Hornets or Rafales could be launched from the Foch (the Clemenceau was already gone) only in very light A2A configurations.
From memory (feel free to correct these numbers), the best the Clemenceau-class could do was a 15 tons aircraft at 110 kt, or so. Too light and too slow for a Phantom.
Even the Crusaders had to be modified with some wind-blowing system to allow them to take-off from the Clem' class carriers.

And ultimately, the Aeronavale did not cared very much about naval interceptors, for reasons exposed in this thread.
 
Thanks for this comprehensive info on the French scene. My idea sadly knocked well and truly on the head.

I find it interesting that the French do not have the same hang ups about single seater and single engine aircraft as the Brits in this period. The Phantom met both the RAF and RN view of what a fighter attacker should do with its two seat two engine. The Mirage III by contrast would never have been adopted even in its Fairey Delta guise because it lacked these. Interestingly the Germans came to a similar conclusion after their Starfighter experience.
 
Hope I haven(t been too rude ;)

The Mirage IIIE was more inspired by the F-105D than by the Phantom. After some years the AdA recognized that a single pilot doing all weather / night, low-level navigation AND bombing was just a bad idea. That, and the IIIE cockpit interface was not exactly *friendly*. In the end the Mirage III-E was considered a failure in this sense. The Jaguar and Mirage V were single-seaters, but only in clear weather and daylight... no problem there.

From the prototype F2 and G, all future strikers such the Mirage 2000D and -N, and the Rafale B were two seaters.

As for single engine: alas, lack of money, as usual. The G4, G8, ACF and 4000 were never considered affordable (sigh).
 
No probs Archibald. As I say I am not that up on the French scene and I have learnt a lot from this thread.

If France had built a different larger CV design (another thread of course) and stayed more closely in NATO, the Phantom might have been as useful to them as to the RN.

Of course if France had needed a Phantom type aircraft the great Marcel Dassault might have delivered something along those lines earlier, though I am not sure what it would have looked like.

All the best
UK 75
 
My guess? Somewhere between the III and the IV, with engines scaled to match and lots of racks for missiles. But almost certainly a delta, then.
 
pathology_doc said:
My guess? Somewhere between the III and the IV, with engines scaled to match and lots of racks for missiles. But almost certainly a delta, then.
Click to expand...

Not closer to the F2?
 
Very early in its development process (1956-57) the Mirage IV was to be that machine, essentially a heavier Mirage IIIC, with two engines, of a size close from the Rafale.
But there was no money for a heavy fighter, only for a nuclear strike bomber. The rest is history.

The switch from delta to VTOL / swept wing / VG occurred in the 61-62 era. VTOL come first (Balzac, III-V until 1965) then swept wings (F2, 1966) and VG (G, 1967) took over.

A for a two engine F2 - it would have been the ACF a decade earlier, without the M53 of course. Probably with Speys or TF-104 / -106 / -306.
 
uk 75 said:
Assuming France had had a more Atlantacist Government in the early 60s... The Phantom was offered to the French in the same way as it was to the British.

A procurement of F4s instead of the F8 Crusader would have depended on their being operable from Clemenceau and Foch. Assuming this was possible, a Phantom buy would have given the Aeronavale a serious air defence capability? Further, France already used the F100 Super Sabre in its tactical air force. Rather like the RAF it wanted to replace these with an exotic supersonic VSTOL (The Mirage IIIV). Phantoms would have been an effective and NATO friendly alternative.
Not sure where that would have left Jaguar?

The Mirage III family might also have found more favour with US clients, Israel would have got its Mirage Vs.

If Britain and France had bought Phantoms in the early 60s (about 1963) Canada might well have followed suit. France or Britain might even have offered a carrier to Canada either as a new build ship or a Hermes upgrade (ASWs and a few Phantoms?).

Just thought that with the French Presidential elections an all....
Click to expand...
 
The simple solution for a fighter that could’ve done the job of the Voodoo and the Starfighter. And avoided the debacle of the Arrow. But aerospace jobs and national pride led the country down a tortuous path.
 
uk 75 said:
Assuming France had had a more Atlantacist Government in the early 60s... The Phantom was offered to the French in the same way as it was to the British.

A procurement of F4s instead of the F8 Crusader would have depended on their being operable from Clemenceau and Foch. Assuming this was possible, a Phantom buy would have given the Aeronavale a serious air defence capability? Further, France already used the F100 Super Sabre in its tactical air force. Rather like the RAF it wanted to replace these with an exotic supersonic VSTOL (The Mirage IIIV). Phantoms would have been an effective and NATO friendly alternative.
Not sure where that would have left Jaguar?

The Mirage III family might also have found more favour with US clients, Israel would have got its Mirage Vs.

If Britain and France had bought Phantoms in the early 60s (about 1963) Canada might well have followed suit. France or Britain might even have offered a carrier to Canada either as a new build ship or a Hermes upgrade (ASWs and a few Phantoms?).

Just thought that with the French Presidential elections an all....
Click to expand...
problem is the Cem's were designed for 35,000 pound max aircraft. Reinforcement for static load might be possible if you want to haul E1 Tracers etc. But Phantom is going to pound the snot out her
 
Seems the French Navy badly wanted Phantoms and Clemenceaus limits were not considered an issue. It was the cost that drove them toward Crusaders.

Specification of the F-4B Phantom:​


Engines: Two General Electric J79-GE-8A/-8B/-8C turbojets, 10,900 lb.s.t. dry, 17,000 lb.s.t. with afterburner. Performance: Maximum speed 1485 mph at 48,000 feet, 845 mph at sea level. Initial climb rate 28,000 feet per minute. Service ceiling 62,000 feet, combat ceiling 56,850 feet. Combat range 400 miles, maximum range 2300 miles with maximum external fuel. Weights: 28,000 pounds empty, 44,600 pounds gross, 38,500 pounds combat weight, 54,600 pounds maximum takeoff weight. Dimensions: Wingspan 38 feet 5 inches, wing area 530 square feet, length 58 feet 3 3/4 inches, height 16 feet 3 inches.
Click to expand...

38500 pounds = 17464 kg

44600 pounds = 20230 kg

54600 pounds = 24766 kg

Ok so for the sake of comparison, the Clems 171 ft long BS-5 could launch between 15 and 20 mt at 110 kt. I would say that an air-defense Phantom only (strike was for Etendards, after all) could pull it.
 
Archibald said:
Seems the French Navy badly wanted Phantoms and Clemenceaus limits were not considered an issue. It was the cost that drove them toward Crusaders.

Specification of the F-4B Phantom:​


Engines: Two General Electric J79-GE-8A/-8B/-8C turbojets, 10,900 lb.s.t. dry, 17,000 lb.s.t. with afterburner. Performance: Maximum speed 1485 mph at 48,000 feet, 845 mph at sea level. Initial climb rate 28,000 feet per minute. Service ceiling 62,000 feet, combat ceiling 56,850 feet. Combat range 400 miles, maximum range 2300 miles with maximum external fuel. Weights: 28,000 pounds empty, 44,600 pounds gross, 38,500 pounds combat weight, 54,600 pounds maximum takeoff weight. Dimensions: Wingspan 38 feet 5 inches, wing area 530 square feet, length 58 feet 3 3/4 inches, height 16 feet 3 inches.
Click to expand...

38500 pounds = 17464 kg

44600 pounds = 20230 kg

54600 pounds = 24766 kg

Ok so for the sake of comparison, the Clems 171 ft long BS-5 could launch between 15 and 20 mt at 110 kt. I would say that an air-defense Phantom only (strike was for Etendards, after all) could pull it.
Click to expand...
They would have to limit them to NO MORE than 40k max and that would take some reinforcing of the flight deck, no undoable but fairly costly... it always comes down to labor costs and what X hours of dock time buys you: It is best illustrated by the proposed reactivation of Oriskany.. $500 million or about what it would cost to SLEP a KittyHawk or Forrestal. It is a bag for your buck riddle...

To do the reinforcement right they are going to need to pull the flight deck and reinforce the side framing of the ship to handle the weight of the stronger flight deck and beefier cross frames and at that point you just know they are going to think about the catapults and maybe laying them out RN style with a longer one at the waist and a slightly longer one at the bow. Even if they don't do that the reinforcement is going to be a lot of man hours of labor.

Of course you can slap dash things together with the knowledge that ships have a shelf life and sister some reinforcing joists in and double up on cross frames in spots... it will be kind of ugly and won't hold for more than a decade but it might be cheaper.
 
Yes the Clems would have to be upgraded....Phantomised shall we say?
But.....do- able.
Since they could source catapult components from the UK and DAX arrestor gear. Which were being used to upgrade Ark Royal and were intended to be ordered for Eagle too.

Would make an interesting AH scenario if France orders such components before 1966.
Since such an order could trip the circumstances for Eagle to get hers too.
If this came with Spey powered Phantoms, then being in era of AFVG and Anglo-French collaborations.......
 
zen said:
Yes the Clems would have to be upgraded....Phantomised shall we say?
But.....do- able.
Since they could source catapult components from the UK and DAX arrestor gear. Which were being used to upgrade Ark Royal and were intended to be ordered for Eagle too.

Would make an interesting AH scenario if France orders such components before 1966.
Since such an order could trip the circumstances for Eagle to get hers too.
If this came with Spey powered Phantoms, then being in era of AFVG and Anglo-French collaborations.......
Click to expand...

How hard would it be to fit the full length, 199 ft BS-5A on a Clemenceau ? I guess something larger (PA.58) would be necessary...

I have this idea in a corner of my mind, where PA54 / PA55 (Clem & Foch) circa 1955-56 converges with one of the Medium Fleet Carrier late studies - and together they end above 40 000 tons: 42 000 (hello, CdG) or 45 000 tons (PA.58).
It all starts when in 1954 the French go to Britain to shop those BS-5 catapults.

FRENCH "We want BS-5 catapults for our coming new carriers."
BRITISH "Sure, show me the plans. Ah, unfortunately that hull is too small for the 199 ft ones we will use on Ark and Eagle"
FRENCH "Yes, we figured that. The maximum we can fit is 171 ft. So a cut down catapult, please.
BRITISH "Well, that's silly. Why don't you enlarge the ship to get the full length ones ?
FRENCH "Because it makes the ships too big and expensive, 40 000 tons or more...
BRITISH "Unless of course we do it together....
FRENCH "Ah, sure, now you says that we have plans for an enlarged PA54 / 55 for the year 1958, called PA58. 45 000 tons...
BRITISH "Now that's funny we have a Medium Fleet Carrier study of comparable tonnage.
FRENCH "Let's put the plans side by side and... merde alors.
BRITISH "Shit indeed, they evenly match. By pure luck - how about that. Let's make it together and call it CVF. "



PA58 and Medium Fleet Carrier ended uncannily similar in tonnage and dimensions. And that, by pure random luck.
Next the Clems and Audacious ended with the same BS-5 catapults (or close enough).
 
Last edited:
@Archibald I was going to write what the alternative history of Arromanches might have been had she had been a Centaur instead of a Colossus on another thread.

As part of that I was going to suggest that the experience of operating this larger ship led them to make the never built PA28 larger, say something more like PA54 and in turn led to PA54 being larger, say something like PA58. Therefore, Clemenceau and Foch would be PA58s. As their catapults were 50% longer than the PA54s they should be able to launch a Phantom. and perhaps without the modifications required to make them capable of operating from British aircraft carriers.

I was also going to suggest that they'd want to acquire another pair of Centaurs from the RN which would become Bois Belleau and Lafayette instead of the pair of Independence class ships.

I hadn't got as far as working out if the RN would have any available for transfer. I was expecting that 6 of the 16 completed by 1948 would have been transferred to other navies (one France, 2 RAN, 2 RCN and one RNLN) leaving 10 left on the Navy List including 2 aircraft maintenance ships. 6 of the 10 would be operational CVs and I wanted 4 in second-line roles: 2 to replace Implacable & Indefatigable sooner, one as cadet training ship to replace the cruiser serving in that role sooner and one for trials & training or trooping. So its likely that there wouldn't be any ships available for transfer plus Perseus and Pioneer would have to be converted back to aircraft carriers.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom