RN FAW machines, what if...?

Zen,

I am not sure that we can say what radar was intended as the armament situation remained so vague throughout the period though I agree that the radar ranging Mk2 is certainly a possibility if guided weapons come to the fore. May I ask where you get your reference for radar being intended for the Type 525? I can not find it in BSP?

A fully reheated Scimitar certainly makes life more interesting, a Mk2 version might take the 40 degree wing sweep and area ruling of the Type 556 and potentially a thinned version of that wing to putting it into a much higher performance category in line with the later variants and potentially above.

The twin engined issue has its roots in the types early conception with the desire being for climb performance resulting in as much power as possible being rammed into the lightest possible airframe. After that each new variant was just a development of the previous and kept the same basic fuselage layout. Apparently a single engined configuration was discussed as a research project only as the required redesign would push the project back 2.5 years. The single engined configuration appears to be based on a desire to reduce costs.
 
Friedmans RN carrier aviation.

Page 319

note 44 in the margin.

Seems they where musing over BlueSky, either four or two.
 
If they were musing over Blue Sky then Radar Ranging Mark 2 is the most likely option. Also Supermarine had experience with this via the Swift F.Mk.7. Friedman suggests Blue Sky was a proposition for later variants rather than the Type 525 itself. However Friedman once again lists the minimum specifications for the type which are far in excess of what both the unreheated Type 525 and the Scimitar ever achieved.

The failure to include a radar and the reheat seems to have scuppered the type as a day fighter and they ultimately just gave up and made it a light strike aircraft. Its a shame really as the Type 556 exercise showed that it could theoretically be a good climber and the later thin winged proposals make it clear that speeds up to about Mach 1.8 were possible.

The Type 556 is a very interesting, it was meant to have had a climb performance that was much better than the Scimitar even on just dry thrust. I suspect this may have had something to do with the greater wing sweep and the area-rule mentioned by Friedman?
 
Last edited:
In all probabilty yes, full area ruling and a proper convergent divergent exhaust nozzle could cover the Type 556's increased performance, despite its greater weight. I think it might also relate to the improvements for the Avon at supersonic speeds they where working on.

You'll note that NA.17 requires some 18,000ft/min climb, while the projected climb for the Type 525 with reheat is 22,000ft/min.

Almost certainly the BlueSky options are for some later Type 525 derivative. AS you said the matter of weaponry is rather fluid in this periode.
 
Zen,

A correction is required, the 556 actually has less wing sweep than the regular Scimitar, 40 degrees compared to 45 degrees, my mistake.

Going through the Scimitar file a range of potential improvements to a reheated Type 525/Scimitar in later marks that provide for an almost viable upgrade path. The addition of the larger wing proposed for the F.Mk2, that could be thinned later on along the lines proposed for the Type 576. The integration of AI.23 could be achieved via the elegant installation proposed for the Type 562. The use of integral fuselage tanks for the Type 565 would have alleviated some of the fuel issues from the wing thinning (an extra 200 gals was possible). The use of fully re-heated RB.146's could have pushed the type to about Mach 1.8, maybe further with the Thames?

However, I question the ability of the Type to make it to Mach 2 and beyond like the Phantom could within this timeframe? Raising the idea that a fully jet powered (with Thames) SR.177 may be a better day fighter for the RN in the 1960s?
 
Granted its rather unlikely to make Mach 2 or above.

Sr.177 is more limited clearly, but might be developable into a mach 2+ machine. Of the two options the SR.177 needs more work from the initial desgins to give it enough jet power and a large enough dish, let alone a second seat to guarentee it performs. Assuming it does'nt fall afoul of its short fat shape in crossing the transonic threshold.

AW.406 requires a certain level of acceleration from loiter to interception, top speed is accepted as limited by materials to an affordable mach 2.3.
Couple this with a preference for machines that could make a 2.5 hour endurance or greater during CAP and it would seem simplest to continue to develope the Scimitar variants we're discussing here. Which should, all things being equal, deliver on time if not perhaps on budget (considering the normal trends in these matters).

Development schedule for the RB.106 seems to suggest had it carried on, it would be available from 1962 or 1963, around the time at which it would easily mate with a quick and dirty decision for upgrading the Scimitar variants instead of buying brand new F4s that might require all sorts of changes to the carriers (from their perspective that is).

Quite whether they could fit a two shock inlet to the Scimitar variants is not clear. It would look like the engine face is too close to the inlet lip for this, but then we know such short lengths where being used for the likes of P1154 variants. If they can then mach 2+ speed is more achiveable.
What is clear is that if the Scimitar variants are deemed "good enough" to maintain carrier airwings into the 1970's, their likely to leave it at that, until the next genertion of machines come along.

Conceptualy, one might see that they'd produce a sort of Scimitar 'son of' type, possibly quite early to use the then improved knowledge about things. Something that might look a lot more like the French SO.4060. But its doubtful they'd fork out for hte development. For them the attractions of VG are very powerful, and the likes the Mirage G rather suggest their correct for the perspective of the times.

Considering the quick and dirty nature of these decisions, one can concieve that the RAF could be foisted with the single seater for their MRI mission, assuming the P1154 is still canceld. Which is not certain, as shorn of the attempt to meet the differing RN needs, this might progress more rapidly to prototype. But likely to founder on the issues of its basing limitations compared to the P1127.
By either option, the Type 556 or single seater could do a lot of the MRI mission, instead of purchase of the F4 and again could be available far more quickly by a continuation of production from Supermarine. Potentialy no Jaguar under these circumstances.
Anglo-French coopperation seems far more likely to proceed if the RN needs a new fighter/attck type, and the RAF needs a longer term MRI machine than trying to mate GOR.339 with French requirements. So consequently Tornado as we know it could never happen. That said these sort of requirements are more in line with a Starfigher replacement for PANNAVIA members.
 
I would never suggest the SR.177 as a FAW, a day fighter only, in which it comes up quite closely to the Vought F.8.

The only other option for a supersonic FAW in the timeframe that was actually proposed is one of the Buccaneer developments, B.112, B.117, B.129, P.140. In terms of timeline the B.112 looks most promising having been proposed in 1958 an coming with a Mach 1.5 speed. However the only information I have on any of these is what is presented in BSP and that is very limited. If anybody has any extra information or images I would love to see them! What engine was proposed for the B.112? I estimate one of three options, re-heated Gyron Juniors, Bristol BE.33, or some form of Avon?

In a very alternative history, Shorts would have been able to produce the PD.10 (Swift with an aero-isoclinic wing') proving the technology and leading to the PD.13 being pursued and evolving into a fighter. However in terms of speed it probably only would have equalled the Buccaneer developments.....perhaps.
 
Except by 1958 things are different, and the fighter element is being wrapped up in OR.346.

That said, it would seem variants of the Buccaneer are in the minds of the RN when they study various CV sizes in 1960, thus the metric of using Buccaneers to measure how many aircraft they can carrry until OR.346.

Of course I'm not sure how well Brough was set to take on the extra task of producing a Fighter variant of the Buccaneer, but while it might not be much better than a Crusader in terms of maximum speed (and likely worse off in terms of acceleration), it should rather outclass even the F4 in terms of endurance. With the right radar/missile combination it could have been a winner.

On the aero-isoclinic wing, I do think its sad not have seen this trialed further as on the PD.10, to really gauge whether it was worth further persuite.
 
sealordlawrence said:
In a very alternative history, Shorts would have been able to produce the PD.10 (Swift with an aero-isoclinic wing') proving the technology and leading to the PD.13 being pursued and evolving into a fighter. However in terms of speed it probably only would have equalled the Buccaneer developments.....perhaps.
Click to expand...

There is a bit of discussion of this in this thread:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3110.15.html

The Shorts PD.13 was actually a lot faster than the Buccaneer (transonic) and it was a wide body bomber design (side by side seating, internal bomb bay). A notional fighter could have had a narrower body and thinner wings for supersonic speed. Of course as you state any Shorts aero-isoclinic family would have needed a lot more risk mitigation before the Buccaneer down select to have been chosen. Other than that it had a range of advantages over its competitors.
 
Abraham,

Thanks for that link. It is odd that the aero-isoclonic wing was not pursued further, I do wonder if there is an RAE paper floating around that may explain that.

Zen,

The issue with OR.346 is that it is about an aircraft for the 1970s and not the 60s. The B.112 has the potential to provide a more credible FAW than either Supermarine Type 556 or the Sea Vixen in the 60s.
 
The issue with OR.346 is that it is about an aircraft for the 1970s and not the 60s. The B.112 has the potential to provide a more credible FAW than either Supermarine Type 556 or the Sea Vixen in the 60s.
Click to expand...

Granted, its clear that persuite of something like the B112 would solve a lot of issues, and retain viability for a long time.

Now I was musing about this last night and if occured to me that if you had something like the Type 556, you could delay the NA.39 ISD back such that something like Shorts PD.13 could be persued.
It also seems to me much harder to fight off the RAF trying to kill NA.39 if you have something like the Type 556, even though it would be inferior for nuclear strike (range) and really needs WE.177 type weapons for safe recovery on deck.
But it also struck me theres potential for a 'grand bargin' here between the RAF and RN.
Assuming the RAF takes an order for Type 556 instead of the Thin Wing Javelin, then the RN could have input on OR.339, and makes something like the Type 751 single engine design a common solution to both services as would some sort of variant of the P1121 designs.
 
Tease! :D

When is that book comming out BTW?
 
Aiming to be done within the next 12 months. I'm now in communication with Barrie Hygate, who has done many excellent drawings on the P.1121 and written some substantial words on the topic.
 
From Roy Boot's 'From Spitfire to Eurofighter',

"...Both unreheated and reheated versions of the Spey
were studied for possible application to B.103 variants...
The engine was quoted with a thrust of 11,000lbs
unreheated and 18,000lbs with reheat.
The B.111 proposal of 1960 was offered to the RAF with
a modified non-folding wing...
together with the new engine installation. The wisdom of
including reheat in this proposal must be open to some
doubt....
The B.112 was simultaneously offered to the RN as a Combat
Air Patrol fighter. Apart from retaining the folding wing, the
proposal was very similar to the B.111. The aircraft remained
suitable for the strike role, but in the fighter role a removable
fuel tank could replace the bomb bay and door...
...with a prdicted top speed in the region of Mach 1.5."


cheers,
Robin.
 

Attachments

  • Blackburn B.112.jpg
    Blackburn B.112.jpg
    128 KB · Views: 386
Reheat would increase the rate of acceleration, it also via the increase in thrust would increase the take off weight for catapult launch. Crucial I'd say for the 151ft stroke unit.

Mach 1.5 is not that bad, and fits into the RNs evaluation of whats needed for defence, albeit its close the the lower limit and might take too long to work up to that speed. But again if you have collision course weaponry, then its not so bad.

But if we're to step back a moment, then this suffers somewhat from the same design feature of the Scimitar. Namely the fusilage extending behind the exhaust nozzles as does the tail.
Worse for the Buccaneer is the inlets, and the huge weapons bay.

Which is why the SO.4060 and the P1125 are better laid out for a carrier fighter.
 
some numbers from the above quoted source, but
they are a bit confusing, at least to me.

B.111, the RAF version, "basic weight increased by
5,000lbs relative to the then naval aircraft ( I assume
this to be the Buccaneer Mk.1), with the takeoff weight
up to 13,000lbs higher."

B.112 naval version, "For deck operation maximum
takeoff weight was restricted to 8-10,000lbs less than
that possible from airfields..."

But again if you have collision course weaponry,
The posted image shows four red tops...

Reading a little further, I find, "The B.117, which followed
later in 1960,had a bigger wing and tailplane, to improve
high-altitude performance and manoeuvrability, at a
1,500 basic weight penalty, and still subject to the same
shipboard takeoff weight restrictions...
Wing area was increased from 508 to 700 sq ft...
Each of these three variants (the B.111, B,112, and B,117),
were offered for in-service 1964/65..."

and,

" The B.129/P.140 was a fighter version with a Mach 1.8-2.0
capability...
With a wing t/c of 6% throughout, redesigned tailplane to take
the supersonic loadings, and reheated Spey engines, was
submitted in to the MoD in 1964.
The reply we received was a ruling,...that there was no operational
requirement. Several months later the order was announced for the
Spey engined Phantom..."


cheers,
Robin.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Well.
The first thing I'll say is that I said "better laid out", is not the same as "precisely fitting the dimensions of RN CV lifts with all revelent clearences".

That said there is some scope on the those CVs without the gallery deck to have further changes to the lift shape and size, albeit at cost to the hanger area and what can actualy be fitted in them in terms of numbers of aircraft.

To fit the existing lifts, the P1121 would require some radical work, though not impossible. But for something like the 1952 CV or presumably the Medium Fleet studies, their longer lifts and their relation to the hanger should make this more achievable.

However the Type 556 is some 58.5ft long and thus already starts some of the lift related problems, though solvable with a nosefold, it does concentrate the minds of the Admiralty on these issues for its successor.
 
This is a fascinating thread and crammed with info.

The main problem it seems to me is the carriers themselves in this period.

The decision at the end of World War 2 to only build Ark Royal and Eagle and
rely for fleet carriers on converting the Illustrious class ships proves to be a
real lemon. Only Victorious emerges from this programme. She does so, far too
late and over budget by a huge sum.

The light carriers on the other hand earn their keep in excellent fashion, initially
as proper carriers and then as Commando Carriers and ASW ships. The A4 Skyhawk allows the
Australian and Argentine Navies to use them as light carriers into the 70s/80s.

By 1960 the RN ends up with a motley and increasingly costly mishmash of ships. Ark Royal
was supposed to be scrapped to keep Eagle going, then for political reasons the reverse happens
and the better Eagle is used to keep the worse Ark going.
Victorious looks impressive for a while and features in a lot of early 60s RN literature with her
big Radar and angle deck (and as an Airfix kit!). However, she is too small for her role and due for
early retirement even without the famous fire.
Hermes is the ugly duckling which initially draws the scorn of the Treasury for its limited Buccaneer carrying capacity (With Eagle and CVA 01 it is the only carrier planned for the 70s after 1964).
With its conversion to Commando and later ASW carrier duties it proves to be the only large platform left in time for 1982 when the old girl becomes a national treasure.
Albion and Bulwark earn their keep as proper carriers until 1960s see their equally useful role as Commando carriers. Centaur is another oddity. She proves most useful as an ersatz Commando ship during a Tanzanian army mutiny, while still carrying fixed wing aircraft, which overfly the mutineers.
Attempts to build new ships are stymied by some serious and to this day hard to overcome problems:

Infrastructure in the UK is inadequate to support large carriers. The shipyards lack some essential metal working and other skills. The dockyards and drydocks for maintenance would have to be built specially for ships larger than Eagle (remember how tight fast jet operations prove on this size of ship)

Carriers require huge amounts of manpower in a period when this is becoming more expensive and
harder to find. They are also need more skilled crews, and are not popular ships to serve in according
to contemporary sources.

Money is budgets is always tight and carriers as a big ticket item are always in the Treasury firing
line. This is not helped by the opposition of the RAF and the RN@s own nuclear submariners.

In retrospect it is remarkable that after the wrong decisions at the end of the war the RN did as well as it did with this fleet!

UK 75
 
UK75, this is a thread about the aircraft and FAW machines NOT a discussion about the CV element.
You want to start a discussion about the CV element go ahead, or if you can find one already resurrect it.
 
Zen

Point taken. I was only giving background for some readers of this thread
who might not have the detailed knowledge of the postwar RN carrier history
that the contributors have. Some of the items on this thread do refer to the
carriers, so I thought it might be helpful to have a potted account of the dilemmas
facing the aircraft and ship builders in this period.

UK 75
 
I have to agree with Zen,

The CV issue is a completely different kettle of fish and whilst your post is interesting it is only your opnions and I would dispute a number of them, but that is not for this thread.
 
Tempting as it is to veer this thread away to correct your statements I shall start another thread instead. But in essence you are wrong, and the limit was roughly the 1952 effort prior to the relaxation of acceptable drydock facilities.
 
Anyone have any info/artwork re the supersonic Type 576 Scimitar? BSP has a bit but I've been unable to find much more.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom