MOTS Phantom for the RN?

[Rule of cool]

I think the modified J79 F-4J would work from the bow cats. The question is rather, how well - safety margins, weight limitations etc. But that was a problem for the F-4K, too.

How much of a problem in comparison is difficult to say as it's based on 60 year old bits of data and we lack details - eg, the minimum launch speed from the manual is based on how many ft of sink? But I think it is quite plausible that the advantage of the Spey, if any, was 5 kts at best.

I do not think that was critical. Also to consider, the F-4K was 500-1000 lbs heavier, so a part of the advantage would be eaten up by that.

Given the promise of the Spey, it's easy to see why they chose it, the issue is with under-delivering on that promise and the cost. As you say, even with underperformance the Spey still seems to have a few knots advantage over the J79, so the issue becomes one of value for money.

Here's a tangential question, if the Spey did live up to its promise and deliver the full ~12kts among other things, would it have been worth the money?

EDIT: Post #473
Other costs I've found are that Spey Phantom development cost was estimated at 80-90m pounds in 1965, and the unit cost was 50% more than US versions. Given the 1969 US F4J cost about $3m that would make the F4K/M about $4.5m, or 1.875m pounds.

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

The total programme cost for the 170 Spey Phantoms for the RN and RAF by 1969 was about 500 million pounds, although much of this was borne by the RAF. With a 1969 unit cost of 1.875m pounds 170 aircraft is a fleet cost 318.75m pounds, the development cost of 80-90m pounds gets to about 410m pounds leaving ~90m pounds for initial support costs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Hangar decks of Audacious class were both increased to 17ft 6in during the design process to match those of US carriers (Essex & Midway) given that in 1942 the RN expected to be reliant on US aircraft for a few years. Why would you want to reduce that?

Because I didn't remember they were 17'6" (plus however tall the floor beams end up).

I didn't want to reduce the heights.

So, the two hangar decks give you 35ft of free air plus however tall the floor beams are. Just for argument's sake, let's say 5ft for easy numbers. If the hangars weren't so narrow it'd be a lot easier and we wouldn't have to have a 2-level hangar.

The point of this exercise as proposed by @NOMISYRRUC in his last posts was NOT to raze the ship to the lower hangar deck floor but simply to play with the positions of forward lift and catapult.

And we established pretty quickly that it wasn't possible without razing the ship.

Your proposal takes everything to a whole different level, and to a point where there are impracticalities you seem to want to ignore i.e that unit machinery layout with its funnel trunking and freeboard to lower hangar deck level (both hangars are required for the number of aircraft to be carried). The only solution I can see for the first would be a second island and funnel, but that limits the side space for lifts and ignores the freeboard issue.

Because we can't just move the forward lift easily and we have unlimited funds available, I went to try to fix the actual problems.

The freeboard issue was addressed by not having any deck-edge elevator till amidships.

It was only with the Forrestals that the USN moved to making the flight deck the strength deck and that had much to do with their sheer size.

Right, I knew that.

 

[MadRat]

How about skip Spey altogether and add provisions for a pair of Bristol Siddeley BS.605 bottles? I also want to believe Red Top during this period is the heatseeker of choice. And of course you need gun pods using ADEN cannons. SNEB or Matra rocket pods would need similar adoption. Look at early provisions for the Marconi ARI 18228 RWR currently in development at that time; AN/ALR-46 is also a ways off yet. (The 18228 was added into F-4K/M models.). MOTS not COTS, so none of this is OT.

​

 

[Scott Kenny]

How about skip Spey altogether and add provisions for a pair of Bristol Siddeley BS.605 bottles?

The RN would not want to play with HTP.

I also want to believe Red Top during this period is the heatseeker of choice.

Do like the warhead size for busting bombers, but I hate that it's as heavy as a Sparrow and only has the range of a Sidewinder. Having a cooled seeker makes it better than early Sidewinders, but the -D models were available in the mid-late 60s and had similar range/performance if I'm understanding things correctly.

And of course you need gun pods using ADEN cannons. SNEB or Matra rocket pods would need similar adoption. Look at early provisions for the Marconi ARI 18228 RWR currently in development at that time; AN/ALR-46 is also a ways off yet. (The 18228 was added into F-4K/M models.). MOTS not COTS, so none of this is OT.

Kinda surprised that the Brits didn't add any gun pods modified from the Harrier style to their F-4s. Probably could have bolted a pod onto the wing just outboard of the forward Sparrow well, between the inboard wing pylon and the fuselage.

I also thought that the F-4K/Ms had SNEB/Matra rocket compatibility. Not that adding some rocket compatibility would be hard, but it would require finding some volume to put the control box(es).

 

[MadRat]

The RN would not want to play with HTP.

Kerosine and peroxide mixing on a ship sounds exciting, huh?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Kerosine and peroxide mixing on a ship sounds exciting, huh?

I believe the RN would describe the reaction as "brisk".

 

[Rule of cool]

I also want to believe Red Top during this period is the heatseeker of choice.

The RN Phantom-Red Top story is that the RN decided that the Sparrow was to be the primary weapon, but they were looking at Red Top and Sidewinder as secondary weapons. Most of the Red Top's impressive capability came from it being slaved to the fighter radar, which would entail a large cost and duplicate a good deal of what the Sparrow was going to do. Without the radar-slaving the Red Top was considerably less capable. Added to this was the Red Top cost about £18,000, compared to something like £4000 for a Sparrow and £2500 for a Sidewinder. The RN decided to go with the cheapest-by-far option and chose the Sidewinder.

it's as heavy as a Sparrow and only has the range of a Sidewinder. Having a cooled seeker makes it better than early Sidewinders, but the -D models were available in the mid-late 60s and had similar range/performance if I'm understanding things correctly.

This thread illuminated a fair bit about these mid 60s Western AAMs. The 60s 9D&E Sidewinders are not in the class of the Red Top. The D had a long burning motor that would give it ~15% longer engagement range for rear hemisphere attacks, but the E was shorter ranged. The Sidewinder didn't get radar-slaving until the G from 1972, and forward hemisphere engagement capability until the L from 1977. The radar-slaved Red Top could undertake beam and forward hemisphere engagements from 1965, a capability only matched by R530 and Sparrow in the mid 60s.

 

[pathology_doc]

I hate that it's as heavy as a Sparrow

No. 330lb as opposed to 500lb for AIM-7. Even for the lighter versions of Sparrow, the Red Top is still 100lb clear on gross weight.

The only version of Sparrow that I recall coming close is the original beam rider, which IIRC was long out of service by the time even Firestreak turns up

Red Top is, however, of comparable size. And as Rule of Cool has implied, there's going to be money needing to be spent to interface it with the Phantom, both in terms of supplying cooling fluid for the seeker and getting it to talk to the radar. Then there's carriage and release trials to pay for, the fact that you probably can't carry more than one on each wing rack (so centreline fuel tank only if you want to carry four), and at the end of all that it's far easier to say "Sparrow is your front-quarter weapon against incoming Soviet bombers; Sidewinder is for after the merge when you've come around and are angling for the tail shot on anything the Sparrows haven't killed".

If you're going to spend the money on integrating Red Top into the Phantom, why not go ALL the way and give it a seeker tuned to the Phantom's illuminator lamp set? One might also go about investigating whether there isn't a way to adapt the Sparrow bays and carry a mix of IR and SARH Red Tops in case the transatlantic supplies of Sparrow fail.

 

[Rule of cool]

If you're going to spend the money on integrating Red Top into the Phantom, why not go ALL the way and give it a seeker tuned to the Phantom's illuminator lamp set? One might also go about investigating whether there isn't a way to adapt the Sparrow bays and carry a mix of IR and SARH Red Tops in case the transatlantic supplies of Sparrow fail.

Now you're getting into my virtuous circle world, where the MOTS Phantom saves a pile of cash to be spent on other stuff.

There was an on again off again interest in a 'radar Red Top', with either a CW seeker or the pulse doppler from the R530. The RAF didn't like the PD, it was too susceptible to jamming, but the Lightning's radar was too tightly packed to fit a CW illuminator until the 200th production unit and the Government never put any weight behind the Lightning so 200 AI23s never looked likely until too late.

In a different world the British government would back the Lightning after the 57DWP, so the CW radar Red Top gets developed alongside the IR version. This is available when the RN selects the MOTS F4K, so the RN buys British AAMs. The AAM momentum gives impetus to the SRAAM and other missiles.

The rest writes itself.

 

[orlovsky]

Given the promise of the Spey, it's easy to see why they chose it, the issue is with under-delivering on that promise and the cost. As you say, even with underperformance the Spey still seems to have a few knots advantage over the J79, so the issue becomes one of value for money.

Here's a tangential question, if the Spey did live up to its promise and deliver the full ~12kts among other things, would it have been worth the money?

On the bow cat nil wind conditions, it would have been the difference between internal fuel only or an added external tank. That's about 3/4 hours cap station difference.

For the few years of audacious phantom launching, I'd say not worth it. But that is hindsight, expected costs were much lower.

So someone would have to identify the incoming procurement nightmare in 1964, and get the politicians to act accordingly. Pretty much no chance.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The RN Phantom-Red Top story is that the RN decided that the Sparrow was to be the primary weapon, but they were looking at Red Top and Sidewinder as secondary weapons. Most of the Red Top's impressive capability came from it being slaved to the fighter radar, which would entail a large cost and duplicate a good deal of what the Sparrow was going to do. Without the radar-slaving the Red Top was considerably less capable. Added to this was the Red Top cost about £18,000, compared to something like £4000 for a Sparrow and £2500 for a Sidewinder. The RN decided to go with the cheapest-by-far option and chose the Sidewinder.

Yeah, it's really hard to argue with Sidewinder. It's basically APKWS for 5" HVAR.

This thread illuminated a fair bit about these mid 60s Western AAMs. The 60s 9D&E Sidewinders are not in the class of the Red Top. The D had a long burning motor that would give it ~15% longer engagement range for rear hemisphere attacks, but the E was shorter ranged. The Sidewinder didn't get radar-slaving until the G from 1972, and forward hemisphere engagement capability until the L from 1977. The radar-slaved Red Top could undertake beam and forward hemisphere engagements from 1965, a capability only matched by R530 and Sparrow in the mid 60s.

I'm assuming that UK would be buying the USN Sidewinders, because they bought USN-based Phantoms and weren't going to pay for integrating the USAF versions of Sidewinder. So -Ds and then maybe -Gs once the UK Phantoms came into service, -Ls in the 1980s.

In a different world the British government would back the Lightning after the 57DWP, so the CW radar Red Top gets developed alongside the IR version. This is available when the RN selects the MOTS F4K, so the RN buys British AAMs. The AAM momentum gives impetus to the SRAAM and other missiles.

I could see a mixed load of Sparrows and IR Red Tops happening as another option (depends on how well radar Red Top happens).

4x Radar missiles in the conformal slots and 2x IR on the wing pylons.

And once Taildog happens those go on the outer wing pylons.

Question though: Assuming Taildog happens, and you get 4 missiles that have a ~2km NEZ if they lock onto the target it's just dead, "a gun that shoots around corners", would you still keep guns on an airframe?

On the bow cat nil wind conditions, it would have been the difference between internal fuel only or an added external tank. That's about 3/4 hours cap station difference.

Okay, I see why it'd be worth it.

 

[pathology_doc]

Now you're getting into my virtuous circle world

Pretty sure I dipped a toe or two in that thread.

the Lightning's radar was too tightly packed to fit a CW illuminator until the 200th production unit

That always mystified me. If you can do it at unit 200, why can't you do it at unit 1?

In a different world the British government would back the Lightning after the 57DWP

Yeah, I mean... look, I read Project Cancelled before anything else we read here, so I absorbed all of Derek Wood's "we should have built this" angst, and while I'm not as pessimistic as uk75 always seems to be, I can easily find myself being argued these days into a position of "OK, Lightning only, but you have to give it ALLLLLLLLL the gimmicks."

 

[pathology_doc]

Further to the above: failing a desire to order more than 200 Lightnings, the next question I would ask is: "How much work is it to get AIRPASS into the Scimitar?"

 

[pathology_doc]

would you still keep guns on an airframe?

Yes, because (a) you can't strafe with missiles and (b) guns have no minimum distance, and (c) bullets can't be jammed.

 

[MadRat]

I don't think Phantom off RN carriers flew with full loadouts. They only operated FG.1 models off carriers without wiring for many things not added until the FGR.2 model. https://www.britmodeller.com/forums...8-question-royal-navy-fg-1-phantoms-loadouts/

Posted October 20, 2021 (edited)

The Royal Navy used AIM-9Ds which were ordered in 1967.
My understanding is that the first of 1700+ AIM-9Gs were delivered in 1977, personally I suspect that the Navy didn't even get to use the 9Gs.
The mods (656-658) required for the SEAM (the AIM-9G) upgrade, shown in a 1984 mod sheet, indicate that FG.1 (RAF) and FGR.2 only were modified for 9Gs.

This store diagram is useful for load types,
Phantom FG.1 and FGR.2 stores 1977 by James Thomas, on Flickr

It looks like while on a carrier they stuck to mostly just Sparrows for intercept and a light load of rockets and American bombs for ground attack. A 2x2 Siparrow and Red Top load seems perfectly reasonable. 892 Naval Air Squadron (NAS) operated from March 1969 to December 1978 as the only front-line Phantom unit to fly from a British aircraft carrier. While looking for sources I came across this story:

When US Navy F-4J Phantom IIs and Royal Navy F-4K Phantom IIs operated together aboard USS Saratoga

US Navy F-4J Phantom II pilot tells the story of Royal British Navy F-4K Phantom II operations aboard USS Saratoga

theaviationgeekclub.com

Mark Wilson posted on August 25, 2022, that:
"All of the F-4K’s (FG-1) transferred to the Royal Air Force retained the Arrestor Hooks, Catapult Bridle Hooks, double extending Nose legs and the three Landing officer lights on the nose wheel door. The aircraft destined for Royal Navy usage, but transferred directly to the RAF (43 Sqn in 1969) after various Government policy changes and a fire on HMS Eagle, were standard F-4K with all of the above. Over the years we stuck some Radar Warning Antenna on the fin top and subsequently the RAF added Instrument Landing System antennas on the fin just to make things difficult for Fairies. Oh, and we had a Telescope sight, apparently from a Chieftain Main Battle Tank. fitted on the Port side inter cockpit canopy to assist the Navigator’s (WSO) Identification of target aircraft. Happy Days!"
source: https://laststandonzombieisland.com/2020/06/25/the-f-4-phantoms-of-the-colonial-navy/

 

[zen]

Further to the above: failing a desire to order more than 200 Lightnings, the next question I would ask is: "How much work is it to get AIRPASS into the Scimitar?"

Change of nose and alteration to cockpit panel arrangement.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Mark Wilson posted on August 25, 2022, that:
"All of the F-4K’s (FG-1) transferred to the Royal Air Force retained the Arrestor Hooks, Catapult Bridle Hooks, double extending Nose legs and the three Landing officer lights on the nose wheel door. The aircraft destined for Royal Navy usage, but transferred directly to the RAF (43 Sqn in 1969) after various Government policy changes and a fire on HMS Eagle, were standard F-4K with all of the above. Over the years we stuck some Radar Warning Antenna on the fin top and subsequently the RAF added Instrument Landing System antennas on the fin just to make things difficult for Fairies. Oh, and we had a Telescope sight, apparently from a Chieftain Main Battle Tank. fitted on the Port side inter cockpit canopy to assist the Navigator’s (WSO) Identification of target aircraft. Happy Days!"
source: https://laststandonzombieisland.com/2020/06/25/the-f-4-phantoms-of-the-colonial-navy/

What the?!?

 

[orlovsky]

What the?!?

F-4J UK periscope

Hi all, at the expense of sounding like a duffer what was the purpose of the periscope fitted to side of the cockpit canopy on UK F-4J's. Nick

www.britmodeller.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

F-4J UK periscope

Hi all, at the expense of sounding like a duffer what was the purpose of the periscope fitted to side of the cockpit canopy on UK F-4J's. Nick

www.britmodeller.com

Thank you!

 

[orlovsky]

With the Spey F-4 design history, I'm surprised they didn't try a submarine periscope....

 

[orlovsky]

I don't think Phantom off RN carriers flew with full loadouts. They only operated FG.1 models off carriers without wiring for many things not added until the FGR.2 model. https://www.britmodeller.com/forums...8-question-royal-navy-fg-1-phantoms-loadouts/

50k lbs catapult and deck strength limit.

 

[Scott Kenny]

With the Spey F-4 design history, I'm surprised the didn't try a submarine periscope....

Those are too big, and honestly pretty low magnification. 3x and 6x, I think? Maybe 10x?

 

[Rule of cool]

That always mystified me. If you can do it at unit 200, why can't you do it at unit 1?

Technological progress and production experience.

The Blue Parrot development of the AIRPASS for the Buccaneer entered service from 1962, as did the AI23B for the Lightning F.3. The FLR was a fully digital development of the AIRPASS family designed for the TSR2, 10 of which had been built by the time the TSR2 was cancelled in 1965. The AI23B, fitted to about the 120th Lightning from 1962 in more or less the same space, had a ~50% increase in range and an S-band receiver for passive and home on jam tracking. Presumably with more experience and evolving technology a CW emitter could be fitted to an AI23'C' by 1964 or so.

Yeah, I mean... look, I read Project Cancelled before anything else we read here, so I absorbed all of Derek Wood's "we should have built this" angst, and while I'm not as pessimistic as uk75 always seems to be, I can easily find myself being argued these days into a position of "OK, Lightning only, but you have to give it ALLLLLLLLL the gimmicks."

In 1958 the RAF had an urgent requirement to replace 6 sqns of Venom fighter-bombers and 2 sqns of Meteor fighter-Recce in Germany and the Mid & Far East. This is the requirement I'd fill, by hook or by crook, with a Lightning fighter-bomber/recce to give Britain a large fleet of Mach 2 aircraft globally. There's no need to invent scenarios for this and that, the requirement was real as was the Lightning, and it gets rid of the whole Hunter-P1154-Phantom-Jaguar path nightmare. That's why I like it, not because the Lightning a a better fighter-bomber than the Hunter-P1154-Phantom, its a procurement-industry-fleet management thing making the best use of what Britain had.

To bring it back to this thread the MOTS Phantom for the RN would save tens of millions in development costs and another tens of millions in purchase costs for the RAF. If the RAF already had a mach 2 fighter-bomber fleet with ~15 years of life then those funds could be invested elsewhere.

 

[Rule of cool]

Further to the above: failing a desire to order more than 200 Lightnings, the next question I would ask is: "How much work is it to get AIRPASS into the Scimitar?"

Change of nose and alteration to cockpit panel arrangement.

Why would anyone invest money in a dud like the Scimitar? Even with an AI23 it would still be too slow to deal with modern fighters from the early 60s.

 

[Rule of cool]

On the bow cat nil wind conditions, it would have been the difference between internal fuel only or an added external tank. That's about 3/4 hours cap station difference.

For the few years of audacious phantom launching, I'd say not worth it. But that is hindsight, expected costs were much lower.

So someone would have to identify the incoming procurement nightmare in 1964, and get the politicians to act accordingly. Pretty much no chance.

A launch with no tanks would be for DLI, if the RN was stuck with the 'J79 F4K' I'm sure the CAG and Admirals could work around it.

However, you're correct that it would require considerable clairvoyance to choose the J79 over the Spey in 1964. The Spey just appears to provide capability assurance and even falling short of the promise still appears to deliver some assurance over the J79.

 

[Scott Kenny]

However, you're correct that it would require considerable clairvoyance to choose the J79 over the Spey in 1964. The Spey just appears to provide capability assurance and even falling short of the promise still appears to deliver some assurance over the J79.

In addition, the Spey gives (partial) fleet commonality with the Buccaneer. Which is a logistical advantage.

 

[Rule of cool]

In addition, the Spey gives (partial) fleet commonality with the Buccaneer. Which is a logistical advantage.

Paid for in £Stg not $USD, but the extra money still had to be spent which hurts the overall budget position.

 

[MadRat]

In addition, the Spey gives (partial) fleet commonality with the Buccaneer. Which is a logistical advantage.

What would have been more interesting is if the USN decided to go with a licensed Spey (Allison TF41 in common with the contemporary A-7E) to gain low altitude performance and range. The USAF would have had to foot the bill on the J79-GE-10 development. The USN F-4's with the bigger noses could have eventually evolved to become the F-4L, the variant proposed as a Phoenix missile truck.

 

[pathology_doc]

Why would anyone invest money in a dud like the Scimitar? Even with an AI23 it would still be too slow to deal with modern fighters from the early 60s.

Fighters, yes. Bombers and snoopers, no. I'm just asking the feasibility question to see how we can get AIRPASS to the 200-unit mark and Radar Red Top as the chosen missile.

Still, there's no doubt that IF Phantom can be operated off the shelf, then a uniform buy of US-spec Phantoms to the same standard for both RAF and FAA has economies of scale. One can then start thinking about something with a little more grunt that can replace the as-bought J79s down the road on a slide-in, slide-out basis and bring both improved performance and insurance against the worst-case outlier scenarios with heavier loads.

 

[MadRat]

In the timeframe for this MOTS Phantom, if Hughes had come along and demonstrated an AIM-47 - or Bendix demonstrated a working AAM-N-10 - with a conventional option for the F-4, I believe the RAF would have benefitted from such capability. For what the Phantom was used for, to mostly protect the UK isles, Sparrow was an inadequate missile. Clearly the RAF pushed for Skyflash to address the shortcomings of available AIM-7 technologies. But give it literally an affordable 100-mile range missile in 1965 and their defense looks to be in a much stronger position against nuclear attack. Maybe instead of dumping money into Skyflash they simply repurpose the money for other programs. I'm not so sure it makes any impact on the choice of Spey or J79.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In the timeframe for this MOTS Phantom, if Hughes had come along and demonstrated an AIM-47 - or Bendix demonstrated a working AAM-N-10 - with a conventional option for the F-4, I believe the RAF would have benefitted from such capability. For what the Phantom was used for, to mostly protect the UK isles, Sparrow was an inadequate missile. Clearly the RAF pushed for Skyflash to address the shortcomings of available AIM-7 technologies. But give it literally an affordable 100-mile range missile in 1965 and their defense looks to be in a much stronger position against nuclear attack. Maybe instead of dumping money into Skyflash they simply repurpose the money for other programs. I'm not so sure it makes any impact on the choice of Spey or J79.

Phoenix is not exactly affordable. IIRC each missile was north of a million dollars.

 

[zen]

Scimitar FAW Scenario

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/the-scimitar-faw-scenario.28679/

Type 576 particularly could be retro-applied to production Scimitars, prior to new machines.
Notably the thinner outer wing.

 

[Rule of cool]

In any event the Red Top was 230mm diameter compared to the Sparrows' 203mm and had a different fin layout. Even if the radar Red Top was developed by the RAF for a large Lightning fleet it's not a direct fit into a more or less MOTS Phantom, and it's still like 3 or 4 times the cost.

 

[pathology_doc]

Phoenix is not exactly affordable. IIRC each missile was north of a million dollars.

Phoenix is affordable in relation to the threat it was designed to counter. No, you're not going to ripple-fire it against a single target unless that target is an AS-(insert number here) inbound to your CV with a nuclear tip more probably than not.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Phoenix is affordable in relation to the threat it was designed to counter. No, you're not going to ripple-fire it against a single target unless that target is an AS-(insert number here) inbound to your CV with a nuclear tip more probably than not.

200 airframes each with 6 birds means your no-reloads missile buy is 1200.

That's 1.2 billion dollars at a time when a million was a lot of money.

When the UK was looking at patrolling the GIUK Gap, one of their options was Tomcats. The number of AWG-9s alone made the option unaffordable, nevermind actually giving them Phoenix. So instead they got Tornado ADVs.

 

[zen]

165 ADV so at 6 per aircraft 990.

 

[Rule of cool]

Bringing this back to the subject at hand, with +/- MOTS Phantom on CVA01 etc there's no need for the Tornado ADV flying out to cover the GIUK gap as the RNs fleet carriers will be out there.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Bringing this back to the subject at hand, with +/- MOTS Phantom on CVA01 etc there's no need for the Tornado ADV flying out to cover the GIUK gap as the RNs fleet carriers will be out there.

But they'd still be packing AIM-47s or AAM-N-10s and those are bleeping expensive.

 

[Rule of cool]

But they'd still be packing AIM-47s or AAM-N-10s and those are bleeping expensive.

Yeah, its Star Wars/Trek stuff.

 

[Rule of cool]

the bow cat nil wind conditions, it would have been the difference between internal fuel only or an added external tank. That's about 3/4 hours cap station difference.

Just a thought, how often would that occur? Could the RN work out the chances of nil wind bow cat launches and compare that to other things that affect launchrs, such as sea state and decide the trade off?