P1154 scenario

[zen]

So as I've suggested we have two main paths and one sub-path through history for this.
Path 1 is separate aircraft to RN and RAF requirements. Though sharing components.
It's not really ideal to even refer to a P.1154RN here. So maybe we'll just call this Osprey.

In Path 2 we have the RN opt for F4 in some flavour and loose CATOBAR carriers anyway. Leaving a desperate reach for navalised P.1154RAF called Sea Harrier to keep fast jet capability going.

Either way Red Top is going to figure as at least the interim or initial capability for Fighter Operations.
P.1154RAF is using a variant of AI.23/Blue Parrot, and as such Red Top is just additional functionality.
A liquid rocket motor was proposed thst would extend the engagement envelope for this weapon.
And also a Radar Seeker option mated to illuminator functionality on upgraded AI.23.

In the Path 1. Osprey would initially have it's own more Fighter optimised AI.23, likely using a larger dish and having a second seat for radar operator/navigator. This in the late 60's. This might see Red Top MkII already.

In Path 1a. This Osprey would gain a MkII capability with the new AI.24 (Not Foxhunter) in the 70's mated with a new AAM.
In Path 1b. The Osprey never gains that but might still acquire MkII Red Top with a liquid motor and maybe Radar Red Top. As this would be an easier integration with the aircraft than Sparrow.

 

[Hood]

Barr & Stroud proposed a laser for the P.1154 in 1964. The Ferranti radar it ended up with was Blue Fox size so there was probably space.

As JFC Fuller pointed out, something like Ferranti 105 would be fairly compact and given that P.1154 has a radar already, a basic laser rangefinder should be adequate - assuming you just want another another method to verify the slant range to the target.
LRMTS is perhaps the more all-round choice given ground-based FAC designators can be used more effectively.

Buying ATLIS pods though opens the way to purchasing the AS.30L, providing a stand-off weapon suited for tackling hardened targets (though less suited for anti-armour - but assuming P.1154 would get BL.755 and maybe one of the AST.1227 anti-armour weapons later on anyway).

 

[zen]

Further to Path 1.

During tradeoff studies, examination got down to a 15,000ton ship carrying just four P.1154 armed with Anti-ship Missiles, and a number of helicopters for ASW and maybe AEW.
This making P.1154 just an extension of the ship's Missile Systems.
But the RN would prefer the Civil Lord's suggestion of a 40,000ton ship, with the Full flexibility of a fleet carrier and airwing.
The prime debate would encompass the potential option of gass turbine power verses steam. With the RN arguing that steam plant reserves the CATOBAR option, should Osprey fail or be superseded by something more conventional. While modernisers and Treasury would focus on the potential savings and commonality if GT power.

Treasury would obviously focus on arguments for the smallest and cheapest carrier possible. As they would the concept of navalised Sea Harrier instead. Essentially Path 2.

Ministerial intervention might adopt the compromise of a 30,000ton CV, but fund Osprey.

Red Top MkII might see funding since it's potentially an easy upgrade to RAF Lightnings.
But Treasury might baulk at funding Radar Red Top integration and ironically argue for the all new monopolise seeker AAM. Seeing this as worth investment for the future.

Weight limitations being what they are, SRAAM/Tail Dog, might see funding to service. Which has potential dramatic consequences for the future.

I agree AS.30 integration for P.1154RAF 'Harrier' is a strong case and the cluster bomb system is inevitable.

The main argument would be over Anti-ship Missile options for Osprey. Sea Eagle or Exocet?

LRMTS seems a strong case for P.1154RAF.

We can easily see SkyShadow integration later on and maybe ALARM.