The Centaur carrier fleet - a better fate...

For the Jaguar M those are of course just estimates.

Rereading the ffaa site, another nr and another aspect: "... aurait été de ne pouvoir acheter que 75 Jaguar au lieu des 100 envisagés pour équiper trois flottilles. Ces chiffres incluant dix Jaguar biplaces non-embarquables..."

So 75 including 10 non-carrier-suitable trainers. I think for the SuE some old Etendard were used for training.
 
All of which is entirely French.

In a world of the RN staying onboard Jaguar, the numbers are rather larger.
And if Jaguar M forms the basis of NAST.396 as a solution.....then the RAF is also involved to a degree.
 
Nomisyrruc, what I meant to try to illustrate from the photo's was that the layout proposed by H_K in his earlier posts was that the tightly packed hangar was not how the Royal Navy stowed their aircraft. I attach two additional photo's (one is a repeat). The 1960's picture shows Buccaneers in the lower hangar (if I recall correctly the rear part of the lower hangar was used as workshop space following Eagle's modernisation), and the upper hanger shows Scimitars, Gannets right and left and Wessex helicopters down the centre. The stowage seems to allow for relatively easy movement of any type to the lifts, but it is quite 'snug' all the same. he other photo show's Eagles hanger in about 1956 (I'm guessing about the time of Suez), and shows three lines of aircraft (Firefly's I think), the smaller size of aircraft allowing for three-abreast stowage, though it's still quite 'snug'. It does still mean that aircraft can be moved to lifts. The main fact is that the aircraft are stowed in straight lines not crammed in at various angles.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5826.JPG
    IMG_5826.JPG
    128.2 KB · Views: 30
  • IMG_5824.JPG
    IMG_5824.JPG
    108.2 KB · Views: 35
uk 75 said:
By the 70s the threats were increasing beyond the ability of Sea Vixen.
Click to expand...
I would argue that the Sea Vixen was marginal in the FAD role before it was even introduced into service in 1959. With a top speed of 690 MPH, it was only 40 MPH faster than the TU-16s it was supposed to defend against. And by 1962, less than 3 years after the Sea Vixen entered service, the Soviets began fielding the KH-22 (AS-4 Kitchen) that had an operational range that was longer than the Sea Vixen's combat radius. Not to mention it could do Mach 4.6 on its way to the target.
 
Pirate Pete said:
Nomisyrruc, what I meant to try to illustrate from the photo's was that the layout proposed by H_K in his earlier posts was that the tightly packed hangar was not how the Royal Navy stowed their aircraft. I attach two additional photo's (one is a repeat). The 1960's picture shows Buccaneers in the lower hangar (if I recall correctly the rear part of the lower hangar was used as workshop space following Eagle's modernisation), and the upper hanger shows Scimitars, Gannets right and left and Wessex helicopters down the centre. The stowage seems to allow for relatively easy movement of any type to the lifts, but it is quite 'snug' all the same. he other photo show's Eagles hanger in about 1956 (I'm guessing about the time of Suez), and shows three lines of aircraft (Firefly's I think), the smaller size of aircraft allowing for three-abreast stowage, though it's still quite 'snug'. It does still mean that aircraft can be moved to lifts. The main fact is that the aircraft are stowed in straight lines not crammed in at various angles.
Click to expand...
Second photo shows Firebrands not Fireflies so is no later than 1954 when that type left front line service.
 
EwenS said:
Second photo shows Firebrands not Fireflies so is no later than 1954 when that type left front line service.
Click to expand...
Apologies- image downloaded from Internet and description was HMS Eagle at Suez.
I HATE lazy identification of photos (far too many people/organisations do it and I didn’t take a close look at the picture. Now, seeing that the aircraft have radial engines, the mis-timing is clear!
 
alejandrogrossi said:
I would love to see this draw (superb) but replacing the S-2 by A-4 and GAnnet x S-2E tracker.
That CV fit perfect on the forum "Alternative fighter for Argentine AF & Navy during Falklands war." for our Navy
Click to expand...
Here you go: a Centaur with 24x A-4 Skyhawks (!), 6x S-2E Tracker and 4x Sea Kings.

Probably more realistic for Australia than Argentina, but that’s another story.

Centaur-Mod-1960s-with-S-2s-A-4s.png
 

Attachments

  • Centaur Mod 1960s with S-2s & A-4s.png
    Centaur Mod 1960s with S-2s & A-4s.png
    167.1 KB · Views: 15
Last edited:
H_K said:
Here you go: a Centaur with 24x A-4 Skyhawks (!), 6x S-2E Tracker and 4x Sea Kings.

Probably more realistic for Australia than Argentina, but that’s another story.

Centaur-Mod-1960s-with-S-2s-A-4s.png
Click to expand...
I have long thought the RCN would have been better off with a Modified Centaur then Bonneventure.
She might have had a longer service life then Bonnie as well.
 
I suspect the E-1s would be mandatory. I know the RCN was discussing the purchase of the Tracer.
A Centaur might have allowed you to run either strike or ASW carrier wings.
 
GK Dundas said:
I suspect the E-1s would be mandatory. I know the RCN was discussing the purchase of the Tracer.
A Centaur might have allowed you to run either strike or ASW carrier wings.
Click to expand...
In theory, maybe. In practice though, you'd have to pick one or the other. For a small Navy/Country, they won't be able to afford two complete air groups for one carrier. The only Country in the world that can really afford to do have multiple types of air groups is the United States
 
Well there was discussion of it in the early 1960s about the time the RCN was beginning to realize that the Western North Atlantic was becoming a dangerous place for those without some form of air defence.
 

Attachments

  • E-1B Tracer SAC.pdf
    8.9 MB · Views: 9
  • S-2E Tracker SAC.pdf
    6.1 MB · Views: 10
Last edited:
H_K said:
If S-2 Trackers fit wouldn’t E-1 Tracers fit too? Same basic aircraft.
Click to expand...
Yes, on all accounts I've seen , the E-1Bwas heavier - alas not by much. But when you factor in the size of the Majestic-class carriers dimensions and the mediocre catapult (along with the induced aerodynamic drag of the E-1's radome)....

S-2F
Maximum take off weight: 11,860 kg (26,147 lb)

E-1B
Maximum take off weight: 12,066 kg (26,600 lb)

So perhaps as a consequence, the Bonaventure would have had to be worked harder in terms of speed to achieve a greater wind over deck effect to get the E-1B airborne or it might have necessitated a reduced fuel load on take off (which wouldn't be good for it's on station patrol time)......

Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
Yes, on all accounts I've seen , the E-1Bwas heavier - alas not by much. But when you factor in the size of the Majestic-class carriers dimensions and the mediocre catapult (along with the induced aerodynamic drag of the E-1's radome)....

S-2F
Maximum take off weight: 11,860 kg (26,147 lb)

E-1B
Maximum take off weight: 12,066 kg (26,600 lb)

So perhaps as a consequence, the Bonaventure would have had to be worked harder in terms of speed to achieve a greater wind over deck effect to get the E-1B airborne or it might have necessitated a reduced fuel load on take off (which wouldn't be good for it's on station patrol time)......

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Per the E-1B SAC sheet, at 26,594 pounds (MTOW), the power off stall speed of the Tracer is only 84 knots. And even a 103' BS4 could launch 40,000 pounds at 78 knots. So there's no reason Tracers couldn't have flown from Bonnie
 
SSgtC said:
Per the E-1B SAC sheet, at 26,594 pounds (MTOW), the power off stall speed of the Tracer is only 84 knots. And even a 103' BS4 could launch 40,000 pounds at 78 knots. So there's no reason Tracers couldn't have flown from Bonnie
Click to expand...
Thanks for that information SSgtC. I hadn't seen the fact sheet, until you alluded to them.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Very interesting. I had thought about E-1B for Foch & Clemenceau (because CdG & E-2), but never quite realized it could have been flown from all the smaller carriers.
Naval AEW for everyone !
Oh gosh imagine if Argentina had AEW on 25 de mayo and the RN had none...
 
Archibald said:
Very interesting. I had thought about E-1B for Foch & Clemenceau (because CdG & E-2), but never quite realized it could have been flown from all the smaller carriers.
Naval AEW for everyone !
Oh gosh imagine if Argentina had AEW on 25 de mayo and the RN had none...
Click to expand...
The type had such a low stall speed that the USN would even launch them without using the cats. They'd just go old school with it, put the plane further down the deck, run up the engines, and let it take off under its own power while the carrier zipped along at 30 knots.
 
Always thought that clam-shaped thing was weird, compared to the usual AWACS saucer. Never realized it acted like an anti-gravity device :D
Would have made it an even more perfect match for the Clems carriers. Well and perhaps the Arromanches, all things considered. Alizés could do both, so could the E-1B.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom