Why was the FAA such a second-class citizen?

For a Seafire piece OP wants a very brief intro dealing with the obvious Q: “why did RN wait till 1941 before buying a no load, no endurance jouster?” Just to present the Q like this tells the A. Illustrii, very expensively procured in 1936, would go nowhere near land-based, heavy-load, accurate bombers. They would carry 60 aircraft whose job was to scatter the Imperial Japanese Navy. So, Swordfish to deliver our utterly useless aerial torpedo, needimg precise, slow insertion (an autogiro would have been good, but payload was not yet available), protected against Japanese fighters by multi-role combat Barracuda/Skua types to such Specs as 3 seat torpedo-fighter. Their Lordships did not believe that Air could find, then hit, capital ships. It took the loss to Air of much of the Kriegsmarine in Norway, 4/40, for ideas to begin to change. So, Westland+Cunliffe-Owen to do a quick and dirty fold on Spitfire, pending a proper load-carrying fighter to match land-based aggressors.

That RN had to wait until 1969 to get such a thing was a legacy from 1930s, when RN had 1 carrier. Industry did not bother with such uninteresting volume, so proper firms bid to RAF. So RN must settle for second-rate teams like Blackburn.

I stand (or sit) corrected, Still an ugly beast though.

The Seamew was supposed to replace Avenger AS4’s then used by the RNVR. The RNVR was disbanded after only four Seamews were delivered.

Gannets were carrier borne anti submarine aircraft (and later AEWs).

Quite possibly. None of the contenders for that spec were good looking aircraft. Likewise the Seamew as a contender for the same spec as the Gannet is a far more ungainly looking machine. OK I admit I’m biased on that one as I consider the Gannet to be quite a good looking aircraft in its own special way.

I’ve just looked at the competitor to the Barracuda…the Supermarine Type 322. It looks equally ungainly (although of course aesthetics mean little in this discussion) The design appears to be similar to the Barra (for which each landing gear leg needed ten men to lift it). Does this help confirm that the specification resulted in a poor aircraft, I wonder?

i’m an airey fairey/wafu and i dont think im real sailor either!

One of my dads finest moments (apart from diving off the flight deck of the Bulwark into the Med on his way to Suez & breaking his collarbone… for a 10shilling bet) was shooting 4.5in guns at one of those towed targets that look like brightly painted scaffold (somewhere off Portland I think). The first shot hit the shackle that held the hawser & parted it.
Phone rings in turret, dad answers, Officer on the other end says “well done, now what the hell are we supposed to do for the rest of the day?” Dad replies: “We could sink that tug that’s chasing the target, it looks hostile….” 🙂

My dad (retired RN Gunnery Instructor & former Engine Room Tiffy, HMS Troubridge, Bulwark, Hampshire & London) still holds that Airy Fairies are “not proper sailors”

In the history of 1830 RNVR squadron, the author asserts that in the years before the war, the RN was staffed in the upper echelons by gunnery officers whose thought on Naval warfare were alonmg the lines of ‘Nelson didn’t need a Fleet Air Arm, so why do we?’

Also salty old sea-dogs at the Admiralty generally didn’t hold a lot of truck with this new fangled ‘air power’ fad which would quickly go out of fashion – far better to spend the Navy budget on ships – it’s not as if an aeroplane would ever be able to sink a ship, and anyway the RAF were clearly no gentlemen. (there then follows 10 hours of rambling on about tradition, Nelson etc) 😉

My dad (retired RN Gunnery Instructor & former Engine Room Tiffy, HMS Troubridge, Bulwark, Hampshire & London) still holds that Airy Fairies are “not proper sailors”

The Barra really was an abortion of a design ; )

It also should be remembered that the FAA were so desperate for a decent carrier fighter that we put the Corsair into carrier service even though it still had enough problems for the USN not to operate it from carriers !
So we cropped the wingtips so the wings could be folded in our smaller carriers and that was that !
The firefly was certainly not as bad as the Barra and became a very elegant a/c but even at the end of the war we were still trying to make the seafire into a carrier a/c LOL

Yes the US Navy did regard the Corsair as a dangerously flawed design but the USMC showed them that it was actually a very effective machine, after which the USN could not get their hands on them fast enough.

But it wasn’t the FAA that had control of the purse strings nor the design requirements – it was an RAF deal.

BUT…it does seem strange to make a claim that it “doesn’t make a Stringbag a Grumman Avenger or a Nakajima Kate” when they are obviously of an entirely different era, one which does not relate directly to the question originally posed. Had the FAA had those aircraft in 1939 it would not have been regarded at the poor relation: it didn’t, and it was.

The Kate and Avenger were a generation later. But the Swordfish (at least in general configuration and performance) a generation behind the first generation of American torpedo-bomber monoplanes: the Douglas Devastator which ff in 1935 and deployed in 1937.

Swordfish Mk. II
Max speed 139 mph
Cruise speed 104 – 129 mph
Range w/torpedo 546 miles

Douglas Devastator
Max speed 206
Cruise speed 128
Range w/1000lb torpedo 716

Again, it does appear that the FAA were asleep regarding aviation advances.

Maybe I am out of the loop but I thought the Firefly was essentially a successful design, and although there has been a lot said against the ugly Barracuda it might best be described as a ‘Marmite’ aeroplane – pilots either loved it or hated it: although it could be slow when fully loaded in the tropics, it was an admirable dive bomber and apparently very easy to fly and land on a carrier.

The Barra really was an abortion of a design ; )

Winkle Brown – talking about the Mk 2 Barra said…I had flown the Grumman Avenger some 2 weeks previously and had been so favourably impressed that it had left me rather appalled by the equivalent state of the art in the UK.
We had a number of Barra 2’s at farnborough but we were largely preoccupied with the continuingly poor take off characteristics which were causing particular concern in connection with operations from small escort carriers !

It also should be remembered that the FAA were so desperate for a decent carrier fighter that we put the Corsair into carrier service even though it still had enough problems for the USN not to operate it from carriers !
So we cropped the wingtips so the wings could be folded in our smaller carriers and that was that !
The firefly was certainly not as bad as the Barra and became a very elegant a/c but even at the end of the war we were still trying to make the seafire into a carrier a/c LOL

Well, you’re certainly affirming my initial thesis. (At least the thesis I hinted that I was holding to…)

Yes, the Swordfish from a previous era, but that was my point.

And yes, the Seafire was a lovely airplane “until it came to landing it on a carrier.” Which is the opposite end of the spectrum from saying “the F6F was as rectangular and ugly as could be, but it was the perfect airplane for landing on a carrier and fighting a naval air war.”

I believe you miss his point. Because men heroically persevere with inferior equipment does not make that equipment any less obsolete. Credit to the men not the aircraft. While I understand the nostalgia involved, as you say I would think those men would have jumped at the chance for more modern equipment.

Which was why I typed it, although there does need to be an element of gratitude to the aircraft because it made the missions it carried out possible – the crews needed the Swordfish because it was the only one available, at the time, that could do the job.

BUT…it does seem strange to make a claim that it “doesn’t make a Stringbag a Grumman Avenger or a Nakajima Kate” when they are obviously of an entirely different era, one which does not relate directly to the question originally posed. Had the FAA had those aircraft in 1939 it would not have been regarded at the poor relation: it didn’t, and it was.

Of course not – it was merely a statement of fact !!

See above answer, last paragraph.

And even after 1941 it is difficult to think of any WW2 british designed shipboard aircraft that was really ‘fit for purpose’,I know much of this was caused by poor specifications etc,but for various reasons our a/c were pretty appalling (and usually not all that pretty ; ))

The Seafire, whilst essentially being ‘just’ a Spitfire with hacked about wings and a hook, was as neat as any other ‘plane until it came to landing on a carrier. The Sea Hurricane was even more so ‘just’ a Hurricane with a hook, but both were just a wet-footed version of the original design, as was the beauty that was the post war Sea Fury (although the land-based design it was developed from never made it to production).
Maybe I am out of the loop but I thought the Firefly was essentially a successful design, and although there has been a lot said against the ugly Barracuda it might best be described as a ‘Marmite’ aeroplane – pilots either loved it or hated it: although it could be slow when fully loaded in the tropics, it was an admirable dive bomber and apparently very easy to fly and land on a carrier.

To get back to the original thread, it displays a strong touch of hindsight. Back in 1939 – and even more so in 1937 when key decisions were made – it was by no means obvious that the day of the biplane was already over. The USN only had one monoplane type on its carriers (TBD), operating the F3F and SB2C. .

That is true, but the winds of change were beginning to blow across the flight deck.
While a biplane XF4F was ordered in March 1936, Grumman was smart enough to see that its forthcoming biplane could not compete with its competitor, the Brewster Buffalo, and Grumman told the Navy that. So in July, 1936 the monoplane F4F was ordered.
And I’m sure the Bureau of Aeronautics had noticed that the final examples of the last US Army biplane fighter, the Boeing P-12, were ordered in 1932. The first monoplane fighter, the Boeing P-26, first flew in 1932.
The first “modern” US Army monoplane fighters, the Seversky P-35 (the father of the P-47) ff in 1935 while the Curtiss P-36 (the father of the P-40) also flew in 1935 and was ordered in quantity in 1937.

And across the world in Japan, the IJN knew its Aichi D1A2 biplane bomber (which looks very much like a swordfish) would soon be obsolete and in the summer of 1936 issued a specification for a monoplane carrier bomber which became the Aichi D3A, “Val”. Likewise, the IJN issued a specification for an advanced fighter in 1934, it was won by the fixed gear open cockpit monoplane, the Mitsubishi A5M which first flew in 1935.

Given all that, the actions of the FAA seem a bit behind the times.

???
Is that meant as an insult?
..

Of course not – it was merely a statement of fact !!
And even after 1941 it is difficult to think of any WW2 british designed shipboard aircraft that was really ‘fit for purpose’,I know much of this was caused by poor specifications etc,but for various reasons our a/c were pretty appalling (and usually not all that pretty ; ))

Actually I wonder if it was.

I realise that the FAA did get lumbered with fighters that carried passengers when other naval powers with air arms tended to realise that a fighter doesn’t need a passenger, but to be realistic it wasn’t really until December 1941 that the full power of a fast carrier based attack force was demonstrated (the Taranto attack aside). However from then on, as the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway in 1942 demonstrated, the potential of the fast carrier attack force was realised. Later battles would of course make those two encounters seem almost minuscule despite their strategic lessons.

Admittedly the FAA started the war in 1939 with a rather poor assortment of aircraft but three years later it was groping towards some degree of parity with the US and Japanese naval aviation forces. Also while the RN was heavily engaged it was not heavily engaged in the types of sea-borne landing campaigns that the US and the Japanese were undertaking in the Pacific in 1942 which required fighters and attack aircraft of comparable abilities to land based types. In those campaigns passenger carrying fighters were a liability.

From 1939 until the beginning of 1942 the RN and the FAA were most deeply committed to anti-submarine convoy escort and the development of the smaller escort carriers for that role rather dictated a different use of air power. The RN did have large fast carriers but their role was rather limited until later in the war to the Mediterranean where they were easily supported by land based aircraft. In the Pacific when they were involved later the BPF was regarded very much as a unnecessary force by the USN (especially Admiral King) and as US carrier production and naval aircraft production reached the stage where it had outstripped the combat needs of the USN the British contribution was a political rather than a strategic gesture. To put it bluntly, and this is not a criticism of the BPF, US naval power made any British contribution simply redundant. The reason the BPF existed was that the US had made it clear that it was not fighting to restore the British colonies in SE Asia so the British had to be there even though in real terms their contribution was not needed as far as the Americans were concerned. But by then the mix of aircraft the FAA had for its small (by comparison with the US) force was adequately met by a mix of British and US types by the beginning of 1944 and that was when the really big Pacific campaigns got under way, while by then the escort carriers in the North Atlantic working with long range land based aircraft had begun to neutralize the major naval threat which was the U boats.

So on balance I suspect it is unwise to say that the FAA was a poor sister by comparing the FAA of 1939 with the state of carrier aviation in 1942. In 1939 both the US and Japanese had a similar mix of obsolescent or untried types and their naval aviation forces were by 1942 much different things.

???
Is that meant as an insult?
Imagine yourself as a pilot in WWII who arrives at his newly appointed squadron to find he is to fly a disappointing old biplane, held together by little but belief. It has a whiny old radial engine on the front and when the weaponry is attached (be it rockets, depth charges or a torpedo) you doubt it would take off from a runway, let alone a carrier flight deck. But the whole thing flies, with its weapons, and it goes on for hours, in all weathers.
No, it wasn’t an Avenger and I’d imagine that those who flew at Taranto, helped to slow the Bismarck, who died trying to stop the Channel Dash and on all those countless other, more anonymous yet still important, occasions might have been glad to have had an Avenger instead – but they didn’t have the option.

And the Fleet Air Arm had (Ok, French contract) Grumman Martlet’s from October 1940, so must have decided much earlier than 1941 (when their own order started being delivered, in March) that they needed a front line carrier borne fighter, even if they had to order it from America…

I believe you miss his point. Because men heroically persevere with inferior equipment does not make that equipment any less obsolete. Credit to the men not the aircraft. While I understand the nostalgia involved, as you say I would think those men would have jumped at the chance for more modern equipment.

that doesn’t make a Stringbag a Grumman Avenger or a Nakajima Kate.

???
Is that meant as an insult?
Imagine yourself as a pilot in WWII who arrives at his newly appointed squadron to find he is to fly a disappointing old biplane, held together by little but belief. It has a whiny old radial engine on the front and when the weaponry is attached (be it rockets, depth charges or a torpedo) you doubt it would take off from a runway, let alone a carrier flight deck. But the whole thing flies, with its weapons, and it goes on for hours, in all weathers.
No, it wasn’t an Avenger and I’d imagine that those who flew at Taranto, helped to slow the Bismarck, who died trying to stop the Channel Dash and on all those countless other, more anonymous yet still important, occasions might have been glad to have had an Avenger instead – but they didn’t have the option.
The question was about the Fleet Air Arm being regarded as a second class service – maybe if they’d had Avengers from 1939 everything would have been so much better, but they weren’t available then, the Swordfish was and had been for several years. When the option looks flimsy but does its job and does it well, please do not compare it with aeroplanes that might well have been better appointed – and younger, and were monoplanes – but were not in the same league.

And the Fleet Air Arm had (Ok, French contract) Grumman Martlet’s from October 1940, so must have decided much earlier than 1941 (when their own order started being delivered, in March) that they needed a front line carrier borne fighter, even if they had to order it from America…