The Fleet Air Arm pivots toward Harriers and Escort cruiser - right from 1962

[Archibald]

As said in the tin.
When you think about it, it would avoid an immense amount of suffering and money waste.
Kind of
- screw the Tigers
- screw CVA-01
- screw Spey Phantoms

do we agree all three above were expensive boondoggles ? so good riddance (sorry, that's the radical in me... !)

Also allows a smoother draw down of the large carrier fleet. No Phantomization for either Eagle or Ark Royal.

As soon as the "East of suez" dream is dead and buried, retired these two (1969 ?)

As for the Centaurs: convert them into "interim Escort cruisers" with Harriers on the deck. Perhaps keep only two or three of them.

End result a decade later, circa 1972: the pivot from "East of suez" to "NATO ASW" has been acted. The RN now has a mixed fleet of Centaurs and Escort cruisers with ASW helicopters and Harriers on their decks.
Let's say they build three Escort cruisers (= OTL Invincibles) and keep three out of four Centaurs (Albion / Bulwark / Hermes) in the same role: that's six decks.

Thought ?

 

[zen]

I must have missed this one!

Anyway it doesn't work for the times unless you mean the P1154 Harrier.

Then it makes some logical sense at the time.

It's only logical if the decisions of '66 were being made in '62.

 

[Volkodav]

Light fleet carriers were apparently seen as the post war replacement for cruisers, i.e. a CVL with Sea Furies and Fireflies, escorted by a Daring or even a light cruiser and a couple of fast frigates. Such a group could cover much more territory than a traditional cruiser squadron as well as having much greater versatility and strike potential.

This group could evolve into the 50s with appropriate aircraft being specified to replace the Sea Fury and Firefly, specifically designed to operate from a minimum upgrade of the Colossus and Majestic Class CVLs, with VSTOL / STOVL being the desired endgame. A small carrier of up to Centaur size could even be designed as a successor, or the Centaurs themselves could be redeployed in the role, pending the perfection of VSTOL options. The cruiser / Daring is replaced with a Country DLG and the frigates with Type 12 derivatives.

Once Harrier is on the way the CVL can be replaced with an escort cruiser of sufficient size to operate helos and Harriers, County gives way to Bristol (a smarter one with the RAN configuration Ikara instead of the RN) and the Type 12s to new frigates.

As the Harrier and a helo based AEW is perfected the traditional carriers are retired and the number of escort carrier based groups is increased. Eventually the standard RN group becomes and Escort Cruiser, a DLG and two to four destroyers and frigates.

 

[Archibald]

I must have missed this one!

Anyway it doesn't work for the times unless you mean the P1154 Harrier.

Then it makes some logical sense at the time.

It's only logical if the decisions of '66 were being made in '62.

Could it save P.1154 in passing ? Harrier mk.1 only entered RAF service in 1969 and was no SHAR by any mean for sure.

 

[zen]

I must have missed this one!

Anyway it doesn't work for the times unless you mean the P1154 Harrier.

Then it makes some logical sense at the time.

It's only logical if the decisions of '66 were being made in '62.

Could it save P.1154 in passing ? Harrier mk.1 only entered RAF service in 1969 and was no SHAR by any mean for sure.

If.....if the P1154RN Harrier was just a marinised RAF version. Then not only would it progress further before the change of government in '65.
But it could then be viewed like the Sea Harrier we know, an extension of the Cruiser's offensive power.

 

[uk 75]

P1154RN was like CVA01. It looks impressive in drawings, but would have been a nightmare to get into service.
The closest thing to practical VSTOL combat aircraft in the early 1960s were the P1127 Kestrels operated by the UK/US/German Tripartite evaluation squadron.
The decision to evolve these into the P1127RAF could have been taken in 1962. As a Hunter successor it was far more realistic than the P1154RAF.
To avoid confusion I will call the 1962 P1127RAF Kestrel rather than Harrier (This name was inherited from P1154RAF).
A 1962 decision not to proceed with CVA01 and phase out Ark Royal/Eagle/Victorious might well have come in the maelstrom of Polaris adoption and NATO beginning to question its nuclear-based weapons in favour of "flexible response".
The Escort Cruisers of 1962 were not ordered because of the work required to design Polaris.
The two Commando Carriers (Bulwark and Albion) and the two fixed wing ships (Hermes and Centaur) would provide the RN with a NATO oriented fleet for the late 60s.
The new government in 1964 is able to take advantage of the end of the confrontation with Indonesia to announce a withdrawal from East of Suez by 1969.
The 1966 Fleet Working Group addresses the following:
Replacement of the existing four carriers mentioned above with a class of three to six ships operating P1127 RN (later named Osprey) from 1972 (replacing Sea Vixens on Centaur/Hermes and Buccaneers on Hermes)
New Destroyers (T42) and Frigates (T22)
The introduction of the Seaking for ASW and Commando roles replacing the Wessex.
By 1970 the RN is building the first of its new carriers for service in 1972.
The P1127 Osprey enters service on Hermes replacing Sea Vixens in 1971. Initially it carries two Red Tops or Bullpups but Sea Martel is on development.

 

[pathology_doc]

do we agree all three above were expensive boondoggles ?

The Tigers were a terrible waste of money.

CVA.01 depends on how much your strategic decision makers really want to spend. If the decision of the Navy is that it's going to stay in the first-rate fixed-wing CV game, it needs those ships; it needs to convince the Government to spend the money, and it needs to build them with an eye to being big enough for off-the-shelf Phantom operability if P.1154 fails. Go big or go home.

If you decide you're going to go home, then an early decision needs to be taken to develop Kestrel for sea service on the smaller carriers, to be supplemented and gradually replaced by through-deck cruisers as they wear out. That removes the need for Spey Phantom, and the fleet carriers and their air groups can be withdrawn at that point.

Whatever benefits accrued to the Invincible-class TDCs from the removal of their Sea Dart systems, it can't be denied that having them offered a useful measure of self-defence and meant one less area-defence ship required per CBG. So perhaps if RN Kestrel/Osprey is already there, the TDC's get built bigger in the first place, to be able to operate a sizeable Osprey group and still have room for the missile system. Or it could well be that the smaller carriers with Osprey keep the idea of a Royal Navy carrier fleet fully alive, and the ships that replace them are simply new-build Hermes-sized ships with better as-built systems.

 

[H_K]

Would new build CVLs even be necessary initially? Seems like 2 of the 3 Centaurs available (Centaur/Albion/Bulwark) could be modernized with a ski jump to bring them to Hermes standard, for service into the late 70s/early 80s.

If no new carriers, then the money saved can go into more Sea Dart escorts and helicopter AEW in the 1970s.

VSTOL fighter is a tough one… could the Sea Harrier FRS1 come earlier (in the 1960s), with BVR capability from the get go? (Sparrow or Red Top).

Or keep 2 Centaurs with fixed wing Sea Vixens and Gannets?

 

[Archibald]

Well I have a Centaur thread too.

But that's the idea, yeah. Inspired by the Falklands mixed carrier fleet. Why not pivoting to that 15 years before 1982 ? or 10 years ?

 

[pathology_doc]

Or keep 2 Centaurs with fixed wing Sea Vixens

How long are you going to keep the Sea Vixens hanging around? Long enough and you eventually start thinking about biting the bullet and fitting the smallest, cheapest off-the-shelf radar that can fit in the airplane AND handle Sparrow. However, if it's not much beyond when they left anyway, they might as well keep their Red Tops till the end.

 

[Rule of cool]

As early as January 1961 the Government sought a quote for 100 production standard P1127. So I think going the Harrier/Command Cruiser route from 1962 is plausible enough from a technical standpoint.

The question is if that route was a good decision. Given the RN and successive British governments spent 50 years trying to ameliorate the 1966 decision I'd say it wasn't.

 

[H_K]

How long are you going to keep the Sea Vixens hanging around?

Good question… let’s see:

- Phantom doesn’t get ordered in 1964… no immediate impact until the 1970s really

- 3 most modern carriers likely stay in service in the short term, with Sea Vixens + Buccaneers, as it would be wasteful to retire them (Eagle 1964-72+, Hermes 1960-70+, Victorious 1958-68)

- Ark Royal likely gets canned in 1966, rather than undergoing expensive modernization from 1966-69

- Escort carrier modernizations start with Centaur in 1965-66, recommissioning in 1967 or 68 as a proof of concept. Following successful demonstration of this concept, Albion follows in 1970-72, followed by Hermes 1972-74, leading to 3 modernized escort carriers by 1974. At which point Eagle pays off.

This keeps 3 carriers throughout, until 1980 at least (when new build Invincibles come into the picture as historical), avoiding the cut to 2 carriers in 1966 and 1 carrier in 1972. Sea Vixens would only have to stay on for 2-3 more years than historical.

BUT that means getting a decent VSTOL fighter in service by 1967-68 (with similar avionics to the F-104S perhaps?). Like Sea Harrier FA.2 but 25 years early…

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

BUT that means getting a decent VSTOL fighter in service by 1967-68 (with similar avionics to the F-104S perhaps?). Like Sea Harrier FA.2 but 25 years early…

In many ways Harrier I echoes the Lightning in that it was a concept demonstrator pushed into an operational aircraft. The Advanced Harrier Projects thread is filled with BAe ideas of advanced Harrier developments from before Harrier II. I can fully see the basic Harrier being much more refined into an functional operational type if the RN goes all in on it in the 60s already. Not thinking P.1154 level though. With F-104S level of avionics it would be a decent type too.

What I can see is with the RN all in and with no Spey Phantom sucking money and giving all the capabilty wanted already, perhaps P.1154 makes it to prototype with a less ambitious engine concept by dropping the PCB and evolving from there into an operational type.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You could probably scrounge P1127RN into something broadly comparable to F104S avionics. F104S first flew in 1966 and entered service in 1969, so it'd be possible. Kinda depends on how good your electronics folks are, and would require someone to make them bloody FOCUS for once. "Make this kit WORK, and don't keep bloody tinkering with it to try to make it perfect. Perfect is the enemy of good enough!!!!"

I think the UK would still end up buying Phantom, though. As Lightning and Canberra replacements (so FGR.2s), with P11127RAF replacing Hunters. Sorry, but Phantom is just too good as a plane for 1960s/70s. Too flexible, too big a bombload. With no need to mess with the nose gear for takeoff speed, there's less demand for re-engining with Speys. Costs range at low altitude, but gains you speed up high. But that's strictly RAF business now.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

For the RAF it is hard to get away from the Phantom indeed, only it could cahnge to either a mostly stock F-4J with UK avionics as with FGR.2 or perhaps an F-4E derivative later on.

My post was mostly aimed at the RN now being not burdoned by FG.1 so might focus more on getting a P.1127 type into properly useable operational shape, or even put full focus on either getting P.1154 right of a descoped version thereof.

 

[Scott Kenny]

For the RAF it is hard to get away from the Phantom indeed, only it could cahnge to either a mostly stock F-4J with UK avionics as with FGR.2 or perhaps an F-4E derivative later on.

Or getting F-4Bs early on instead of -J based planes. The IRST would be nice.

My post was mostly aimed at the RN now being not burdoned by FG.1 so might focus more on getting a P.1127 type into properly useable operational shape, or even put full focus on either getting P.1154 right of a descoped version thereof.

I can't see any way to make the P1154 work, not without someone very senior indeed telling RN that they're getting a single engine plane, full stop. Twin engine VSTOL is a death trap!

What'd be interesting is if something like the P1216 came about earlier due to needing to get rear fuselage out of the way for vibration reasons. (I mean that rough planform, not with all the capabilities of the P1216)

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

I can't see any way to make the P1154 work, not without someone very senior indeed telling RN that they're getting a single engine plane, full stop. Twin engine VSTOL is a death trap!

As far as I can gather, the definitive P1154RN would have a single BS100 engine. The twin spey option was studied, but doesn't seemed to have been the referred option. Expected to be more unreliable and it was a heavier aircraft. Dropping PCB would still have been key to getting the design going successfully though I feel. Perhaps if gotten flying in a prototype form without PCB there was more chance of it progressing. Especially with no FG.1 to kill it in '65.

 

[zen]

How many times?

RR twin Spey vectored thrust system based on subsonic Spey not the heavier supersonic stressed version.
This keeps weight down at the cost of supersonic performance.
On government grasping the difference between Speys this option died.
It never left paper, it was RR chancing their arm and playing fast and loose with the figures hoping ministers would back them and they'd either figure out how to square the circle or get ministers to make RN take lower performance for RR.
Ministers didn't buy this.

BS.100 was the only live program for an engine for P.1154.

Why do people keep believing RR propaganda?

 

[Scott Kenny]

How many times?

RR twin Spey vectored thrust system based on subsonic Spey not the heavier supersonic stressed version.
This keeps weight down at the cost of supersonic performance.
On government grasping the difference between Speys this option died.
It never left paper, it was RR chancing their arm and playing fast and loose with the figures hoping ministers would back them and they'd either figure out how to square the circle or get ministers to make RN take lower performance for RR.
Ministers didn't buy this.

BS.100 was the only live program for an engine for P.1154.

Why do people keep believing RR propaganda?

Because you need to beat the Navy unconscious with reliability reports before they want to accept a single engine aircraft?

 

[Purpletrouble]

PCB was a dead end, even 2 decades later in R&D it didn’t work.

Hot Gas Ingestion, Jet Effects both kill it. You just cant operate an aircraft with entirely hot gasses coming out that close to the ground and inlets.

Hence the genius of F-35B with the fan, which also has the engine where it should be, at the back.

A pivot to Sea Harrier is entirely possible as we know the aircraft and ships can work and can be run by the UK and be very successful I’d like the future to have been a CVS of say 2x,000 tons and probably a dual role CVS/LPH design of which 4 would have been ideal, taking over from the Centaur class.

Problem is the RN was absolutely wedded to what it had and CVA/F4 etc. it will only change if given forced to with zero alternative.

 

[Rule of cool]

Like other threads on 60s British gear, it should be acknowledged that the 60s FAA Harrier if it had a radar it would have the AI20 or AI23 and be armed with Firestreaks or Red Tops.

I'm pretty sure a 60s P1127RN couldn't be fitted with either radar even if it could tote the missiles, but a P1150 might be able to.

In any case none of these options are as good as the Phantomised Eagle, Ark and CVA01&02.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Like other threads on 60s British gear, it should be acknowledged that the 60s FAA Harrier if it had a radar it would have the AI20 or AI23 and be armed with Firestreaks or Red Tops.

I'm pretty sure a 60s P1127RN couldn't be fitted with either radar even if it could tote the missiles, but a P1150 might be able to.

In any case none of these options are as good as the Phantomised Eagle, Ark and CVA01&02.

The P1127 should have remained a concept demonstrator. The bigger P.1150 family certainly was the way to go forward albeit PCB less. They are certainly able to be fitted with AI-23 and four Red Tops I would say - the drawings show this for the RN aircraft at least. Considering the size of Red Top, upgrade to Skyflash should be perfectly viable by the 70s. Lightning will of course also benefit from AI-23 radar developments.

But all this requires government buy in to not let the RN go for a UK Phantom which is a difficult case to make I will admit. Especially considering the initial cost estimates for such a UK Phantom while still including a large share of UK work.

 

[H_K]

In any case none of these options are as good as the Phantomised Eagle, Ark and CVA01&02.

But a Phantomised Ark Royal isn’t available until 1970, with limited service life remaining. CVA-01 not available until 1972/73 (most likely) and looking unaffordable. So the premise for an alternative choice in the early 1960s isn’t unreasonable.

The bigger P.1150 family certainly was the way to go forward albeit PCB less.

How do you do a P.1150 without PCB? Where would all the missing thrust for V/STOL come from?

 

[zen]

The choice for a P1127 Kestrel type STOVL aircraft has to be predicated on some drastic changes to the RN perspective of what the future looks like.
Either as per much later, a shift to NATO in-area operations focused on ASW.
Or that something like NIGS obviates the need for supersonic fighters and is paired with nuclear and conventional land attack and Anti-ship Missiles.
And of course the SSN.....

Then anti-fleet shadower and Anti-ship Missile Carrier Aircraft become the remaining tasks.

But the Escort Cruisers is the obvious place to start on what the future ship designs would be. Along with the Type 17 ASW Frigate.

Kestrel sketches with AI.23 and Red Top exist. So we have some idea of what the cheapest option might be.

 

[Scott Kenny]

How do you do a P.1150 without PCB? Where would all the missing thrust for V/STOL come from?

BS100 with a bigger fan, maybe?

Kestrel sketches with AI.23 and Red Top exist. So we have some idea of what the cheapest option might be.

You wouldn't happen to have any, would you? (link to where they are in the general Harrier thread is fine)

 

[Purpletrouble]

The P1127 should have remained a concept demonstrator. The bigger P.1150 family certainly was the way to go forward albeit PCB less. They are certainly able to be fitted with AI-23 and four Red Tops I would say - the drawings show this for the RN aircraft at least. Considering the size of Red Top, upgrade to Skyflash should be perfectly viable by the 70s. Lightning will of course also benefit from AI-23 radar developments.

But all this requires government buy in to not let the RN go for a UK Phantom which is a difficult case to make I will admit. Especially considering the initial cost estimates for such a UK Phantom while still including a large share of UK work.

P1150 was predicated on PCB however surely? Take that off and how does the larger airframe work? You needed to really raise the temp to get the thrust, a bigger fan to raise mass flow instead just makes your aircraft even fatter than it already is, which is already too fat to be suitable for any kind of fast or efficient cruise flight.

All this takes very firm Govt direction that overrules what every sinew of the RN was pushing for.

The choice for a P1127 Kestrel type STOVL aircraft has to be predicated on some drastic changes to the RN perspective of what the future looks like.
Either as per much later, a shift to NATO in-area operations focused on ASW.
Or that something like NIGS obviates the need for supersonic fighters and is paired with nuclear and conventional land attack and Anti-ship Missiles.
And of course the SSN.....

Then anti-fleet shadower and Anti-ship Missile Carrier Aircraft become the remaining tasks.

I think it takes an electric shock therapy as per ‘66 to shift the RN. It certainly won’t do that for any other reason than this is better than nothing. That it turned out to be just what we needed is one of those few cases where things worked out for the RN, in an era where a lot didn’t.

But the Escort Cruisers is the obvious place to start on what the future ship designs would be. Along with the Type 17 ASW Frigate.

I hate the escort cruisers, such a silly idea. Want helos? Put them on the aircraft carrier for numbers/concentration and escorts for dispersion/availability everywhere. Dont be stupid enough to think you might get these cruisers and the rest of the ship types. They were indicative of an RN that had lost the keenness of thought of the early 50s (cruiser destroyer and radical review) and was mired in careerist “but we have cruisers and their command appointments”. It distracted from the far more important DLG missile armed escorts that as we see right through to today are what you need. I see the escort cruisers as reimaginings of the similarly flawed battleship-carrier hybrids. Want an aviation ship, build a carrier. Want missiles, build a DLG. They should have known this by then. I wonder if the Escort Cruiser was just something to sacrifice perhaps. They cant have been serious.

Having ranted that, they were as you suggest a perfect starting point for post carrier Through Deck Command Cruisers aka CAH aka CVSG although hopefully in this circumstance you would be able to optimise them for aviation as CVSs rather than the cruiser pretence which always half hobbled the Invincibles from their maximum potential.

The Type 17 Ikara frigate seems wrong to me, too big and expensive and crucially didnt have better sensors than a Leander/Type12 of a decade earlier (correct?). I think as in reality, waiting and developing the new hull sonars and going to Type 22’s 2050, the towed array and helo delivered weapons is better. Ikara Leanders made good use of those hulls and systems and offered everything a T17 does in the interim. I’d be focussing my new builds on a better DLG incorporating Sea Dart, Ikara and a Sea King so partially obviating a need for T17. And staying well away from T42 which was so bad it was actually dangerous.

Kestrel sketches with AI.23 and Red Top exist. So we have some idea of what the cheapest option might be.

That would be very interesting to see. I dont think Blue Fox was particularly smart or tech dependent so why not something similar a little earlier? And weren’t we getting AIM9s in this timeframe with F4 and 2 of those was the loadout for many years anyway, although 2x RedTop isn’t awful anyway. Then SHAR2 in the 80s…