P1154 scenario

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.
 
Mike Pryce said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
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.
 
I have been looking at similar forums to these and most people agree that the VSTOL of the P.1154 was not needed for operating from CVA-01 as it would have also had arrestor gear for the carrier anyway.
What if we had an additional alternate timeline, [TL K1], where the P.1154 for the Royal Navy was just redesigned to eventually be a British high wing Phantom.
In [TL K1] I would think that staying with PCB type engines would be better than going with plain reheat because of the higher power even while subsonic which takes up most a planes flight. In the same timeline I would also think the RN would just have 2 CVA-01s rather than 4 for the whole fleet.

I also have a possible way of the P.1154 staying VTOL for the Royal Navy but saw changes to make it a more proper VTOL than the IRL version. The main thing causing a purely VSTOL aircraft would be downsizing of the carriers, maybe to 35,000 tonnes with a ski ramp. I'll call this [TL K2].

Are either of these still good ideas? Britain couldn't (and hasn't) handle loosing the industry to build a domestic aircraft, especially because only some redesign needs to be made to fit RAF and RN requirements for an aircraft that would likely be a better fighter for Britain than the F4
 
Turbofans generally perform less well at higher altitudes compared to turbojets.
Spey was rated as better performing due to it's low bypass ratio and pressure/temp at the compressor
 
Sea Harrier FRS.1 said:
Are either of these still good ideas?
Click to expand...

The VTOL obsession was born out of the brief 'massive retaliation' era rom about 1957 when it was thought that WW3 in Europe would be a nuclear exchange and airfields would be obliterated so nuclear delivery aircraft shouldn't be at airfields. This era ended in about 1968 when it was realised that WW3 might have an extended conventional phase fought from conventional airfields and performance in the air shouldn't be compromised for performance in take-off and landing.

Structuring the bulk of an air force around a VTOL aircraft is not a good idea, no matter how good the aircraft is. It will distort the force structure due to its high cost without providing the performance of something like a Phantom in the air, which is where combat aircraft need to excel.

That said V/STOL is a handy niche capability in an otherwise large-ish conventional air force, the RAF having 4 - 3 sqns of Harriers served it well for decades.

Rant concluded.
 
Rule of cool said:
That said V/STOL is a handy niche capability in an otherwise large-ish conventional air force, the RAF having 4 - 3 sqns of Harriers served it well for decades.
Click to expand...
See also the USMC attempt to be all F-35B and rely on USAF and/or USN for CTOL units.
 
Scott Kenny said:
See also the USMC attempt to be all F-35B and rely on USAF and/or USN for CTOL units.
Click to expand...

Yes, the AV8 was part of a mixed force for decades, even when the USMC went down to the AV8B and F/A18.

IIUC the USN and USMC came to an agreement where the USMC would provide a certain percentage of it's sqns to Carrier Air Wings in like the 2000s. USMC had provided it's sqns to USN CVWs for decades, but IIUC it was on an ad-hoc basis rather than a formal agreed upon commitment. This why the USMC has F35C sqns.
 
Compromise between RAF and RN was driven in order to reduce costs, but the eventual designs had very little commonality between them. If wanting further divergence then I'd just give up entirely on the common airframe approach and only focus on subsystems.
 
red admiral said:
Compromise between RAF and RN was driven in order to reduce costs, but the eventual designs had very little commonality between them. If wanting further divergence then I'd just give up entirely on the common airframe approach and only focus on subsystems.
Click to expand...
Personally I think the FAA sould have gust suked it up and gone with the single engine design. The faa had single engine planes before and would have single engine planes after word. It wouldn't have been ideal but it would have been better then what its intransagens got it anyway (namely much slower harriers).
 
One of Hawkers' options/expectations was for a minimum change naval variant of the land based aircraft, much like Sea Harrier ended up being in reality. This seems pretty credible in hindsight, but RN was allowed to push for their own bespoke aircraft in small numbers leading to programme failure.
 
Rule of cool said:
That said V/STOL is a handy niche capability in an otherwise large-ish conventional air force, the RAF having 4 - 3 sqns of Harriers served it well for decades.
Click to expand...
And the second largish conventional air force to operate STOVL fast jets was... er... huh, maybe not that handy.
red admiral said:
One of Hawkers' options/expectations was for a minimum change naval variant of the land based aircraft, much like Sea Harrier ended up being in reality. This seems pretty credible in hindsight, but RN was allowed to push for their own bespoke aircraft in small numbers leading to programme failure.
Click to expand...
The RN view, of course, being that a minimum change naval variant didn't meet their requirement... which was basically 'we actually want Phantoms, but we'll consider any alternative that's at least as good as a Phantom'.
 
Yellow Palace said:
The RN view, of course, being that a minimum change naval variant didn't meet their requirement... which was basically 'we actually want Phantoms, but we'll consider any alternative that's at least as good as a Phantom'.
Click to expand...
Quite. I would add that they got Phantom for ~8 years, but then had Sea Harrier for 30 years. Or they could have had minimum change P.1154 from the start.

Obviously with hindsight.
 
True but then it was the Labour Party at that time that did in the P-1154 in the first place the same party that stopped the TSR.2 as well.
 
Yellow Palace said:
And the second largish conventional air force to operate STOVL fast jets was... er... huh, maybe not that handy.
Click to expand...

Other large-ish air forces had their own niche capabilities, or had the luxury of acquiring multiple fleets of single role aircraft. Sweden famously operated a dispersed model on short runways and the USAF A10 force was able to operate from dispersed and austere bases.

I think it would be difficult to say that the Harrier didn't serve well in useful roles in the RAF. No other aircraft could have used Sid's Strip in the Falklands and its ability to operate dispersed was put to good use in Belize from 1976.

I think a small P1127 fleet is a good compliment to a Lighting and TSR2 force, but the big P1154 fleet concept is a dud.
 
red admiral said:
One of Hawkers' options/expectations was for a minimum change naval variant of the land based aircraft, much like Sea Harrier ended up being in reality. This seems pretty credible in hindsight, but RN was allowed to push for their own bespoke aircraft in small numbers leading to programme failure.
Click to expand...
Admittedly, the engines of the time were sufficiently unreliable that most navies wanted twin engines.

Except that the STOVL mechanics make twin engines LESS reliable at takeoff or landing, and I don't believe that anyone managed to beat that reality into the Admiralty.
If you lose either engine during vertical operations you lose the aircraft, so the chances of losing the aircraft is doubled, not halved-ish.​
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom