British catapult questions.

Not in that form, and not at that time.

Remember, they were originally to be helo-only ASW escorts for the CVA-01s… if 3 CVA-01s were built there would be no money for ASW carriers, and CVA-01 would likely carry extra Sea Kings to make up the difference (refueling & rearming from the T-42s & T-22s).

Or, more likely, Albion, Bulwark, & Hermes would be doing “double duty” as commando carriers and ASW carriers, depending on the particular situation at the time.

By the late 1970s there would be a need to replace A/B/H, and you might then see 3 reduced-capability “dual-role” versions built for completion in the mid 1980s (3-5 years after historic)… much like Ocean, but earlier and in a set of 3. You wouldn’t see Sea Dart aboard them, though… and no ski jump or Harriers.

Another interesting possibility………Had Britain gone ahead with the CVA-01 program, would the Invincibles or something like them have been built?

Or if the TSR2 was still axed, would the RAF have actually gotten F-111K?

The decision taken in 1966 concerned the cheapest way to provide British air power East of Suez: 50 F111Ks v 3 new fleet carriers. The F111K option won that battle, only to be cancelled when a financial crisis led to the East of Suez commitment being abandoned in 1968. In that context, even if CVA01 had been given the go ahead in 1966, it still might have been cancelled in 1968. However, that did not mean that the existing carrier force needed to be scrapped prematurely, just as the existing V bombers soldiered on until the 1980s. It was quite within the power of the incoming Conservative government in 1970 to have kept the then existing carriers, Eagle, Ark Royal and Hermes in commission during the 1970s, whilst beginning work on new carriers for the 1980s. They chose not to do this. Like the previous Labour government, they thought Britain was a declining power with no role in the world outside the NATO area, and thus no need to project power any further. People like John Nott still seem to believe this, judging by his comments.

Much of the admiration for the Sea Harrier is that it was subsonic against supersonic Mirages and Daggers. Much faster adversaries could conceiveably control engagements by using their speed to engage/disengage and get into good firing position.

Against the mach 2 Phantom the Mirage/Dagger would have no such advantage, it would be fast against fast.

I did think about the AWE element when I was posting the question, however we hear so much about the good account the Sea Harrier gave of itself during the conflict, I was looking for opinions on how it would match up, ie Sea Harrier v Mirage/ Phantom v Mirage.

I do agree with your point, the whole thing wouldn’t have kicked off at all had Ark Royal still been in service.

I would tend to think they would. Of course I would guess that if UK had CVs that embarked Phantoms there probably would have been no invasion, but thats a different thread. With Phantoms would come an AEW a/c (either Gannet or Hawkeye) which would make the BVR ability of the Phantom a big game changer.

How would the Phantom F4K have fared in the Falklands engagement against the Argentinians Mirages. Would they have had any advantage over the Sea Harrier?

Just a thought, in a world where Britain had CVA01 & 02 would the Tornado exist? It was 42% industrial contribution to the UKVG concept; if Britain had the political ‘minerals’ to build the CVA 01 & 02 then she would most probably have the ‘minerals’ to build the TSR2 or a much greater share of UKVG.

Or if the TSR2 was still axed, would the RAF have actually gotten F-111K?

It is an interesting debate, WVR at medium to low altitude and the Sea Harrier wins the day. BVR at high altitude and I would switch outcomes, for that matter WVR as well.

The thing which is not mentioned about the Sea Harriers success in 1982 is that it was operating to its advantages. Argentine Mirage derivatives had to fly subsonic and come down to the fleet to attack with no spare fuel to mess around. Sea Harriers had plenty of fuel comparatively and medium to low altitude subsonic intercepts is almost perfect for the type. Apparently the types high altitude turn ability with such a small wing is nothing to write home about and it was G limited.

Interesting to note that Australian Mirage III a year after the Falklands had a superior kill ratio over the Sea Harrier in DACT when they stayed high and fast.

A new build Bucc would of been amazing but the line was closed and there was the attraction of a pan European project. We are where we are but back to the original point a Sea Tornado gives me shivers it is such a bad idea! Anyhow no market for it thankfully!

We are in agreement then! I think we should also remember regarding the Shar vs Mirage situation in 82 that the role of the Shars was to defend the fleet, which is obviously at sea level, and they provide their screen from medium level. Therefore they had no need to venture to the higher levels preferred by the Mirages, they could provide all the defensive value required where they were. The Argentine Air Force would have to pass through the medium to lower levels (the Shar’s ‘territory’) in order to attack the fleet, and by extension later on the land forces. They did this later on by coming in at sea level to make their attack runs, at great cost to both sides, but in circumstances which rendered the Mirage unable to fight on it’s own terms or anything approaching them. If we had had AEW in 82 it would of course have been a whole different story…

Just a thought, in a world where Britain had CVA01 & 02 would the Tornado exist? It was 42% industrial contribution to the UKVG concept; if Britain had the political ‘minerals’ to build the CVA 01 & 02 then she would most probably have the ‘minerals’ to build the TSR2 or a much greater share of UKVG.

It is an interesting debate, WVR at medium to low altitude and the Sea Harrier wins the day. BVR at high altitude and I would switch outcomes, for that matter WVR as well.

The thing which is not mentioned about the Sea Harriers success in 1982 is that it was operating to its advantages. Argentine Mirage derivatives had to fly subsonic and come down to the fleet to attack with no spare fuel to mess around. Sea Harriers had plenty of fuel comparatively and medium to low altitude subsonic intercepts is almost perfect for the type. Apparently the types high altitude turn ability with such a small wing is nothing to write home about and it was G limited.

Interesting to note that Australian Mirage III a year after the Falklands had a superior kill ratio over the Sea Harrier in DACT when they stayed high and fast.

A new build Bucc would of been amazing but the line was closed and there was the attraction of a pan European project. We are where we are but back to the original point a Sea Tornado gives me shivers it is such a bad idea! Anyhow no market for it thankfully!

Fedaykin: Should have made myself clear regarding the difference between early F2/F3 and later examples of the type; agree wholeheartedly. It should be remembered that the Tornado F3 was an interceptor designed for long distance patrols over the North Atlantic looking for Bears and Badgers, a task at which it performed excellently. It was though a bomber fitted for air to air, whereas most combat aircraft take the opposite route ie fighters that are adapted as strike aircraft.

My comment regarding the F3 always losing in DACT to Shars comes from a couple of AFM articles published several years ago just prior to the Shar’s demise; aircrew from all three Shar sqns made the assertion that though they practiced DACT with the RAF fairly regularly they had an unblemished record in WVR combat (understandable as the SHAR is a small and highly manouverable dogfighter and the F3 …isn’t). The F3 was superior against the FRS1 at BVR, but the FA2 was better than the early F3 due to the Blue Vixen/AMRAAM fit. The odds were certainly evened when the F3 was upgraded to AMRAAM, but the FA2 retained the edge in WVR.

As for the GR1/Bucc debate, again this comes from the horses mouth. Comparing airframes, I’d still regard the Bucc as being superior to the Tonka in most categories. Put the Tonka’s avionics in a Bucc and the end result arguably is a superior strike aircraft. At least one Bucc was so modified… the existing airframes were shagged by the early 80s but thats not to say a new production run couldn’t have been bought, and would almost certainly have been cheaper than the Tonka.

Agree Obi that a naval Tornado would of been a bad idea disagree with your slating of the type.;)

I think we need to seperate the GR1 from the GR4 and the early F2/F3 from the late F3….they are all rather different beasts and plenty was done to make them effective! I’m afraid my Google-Fu can’t find any evidence of no defeat for the F3 over the Sea Harrier so I bow to your statement except to say I have a hunch it isn’t as clear cut as that. My guess in respect of early engagements vs FRS1 the FAA played to their advantages against a fairly unsorted aircraft and in respect of the FA2 the same thing noting that the F3 didn’t get some of the capabilities the late model Harrier had until her last few years. What we do know in respect of the F3 was in its later years it was surprisingly successful in DACT against other airforces especially the US teen series fighters. This is a quote from an RAF F3 pilot in respect of the F3 in later years:

On a RED FLAG in the mid 90s I was Red Air with the Aggressors in the F3 – they made us fly Soviet tactics simulating AA-10a Alamos and AA-8c; “tethered goat” would be an understatement! However, on the last day the Aggressors told us we could use JTIDS and our normal tactics. I fired out all missiles and bagged 2x F16, 1x F15 and a F4G Wild Weasel (2 shot kills using ACMI missile simulations). The debrief was pretty bloody and the USAF 1-star asked the US to ‘stay behind’ and the Brits are ‘cleared off’ – there were some pretty miserable Eagle drivers on the Las Vegas strip that night! Also, I got a real kill on that day that landed us in some deep poo-poo and a diplomatic tangle – but that’s not for revelation on this forum!

Fast forward to COPE THUNDER in Alaska in the late 90s – Red Air but able to fly our own tactics. Kill ratio average about 6:1 in F3 favour against F14, F15, F16, F18 and F111. All ‘machine kills’ with tapes to verify them.

The F3 was actually pretty rapid according to the pilots and well suited to its assigned task over the North Atlantic.

As for the GR4, in its current guise with all the upgrades I think we are getting pretty good bang for our buck. I understand the comments from ex Bucc guys wanting to keep that type with new avionics but fact is it was out of production and pretty well flogged when it came to FI. There was also plenty of stuff they liked about the Tornado vs the Bucc so it all spins in roundabouts. I can fully understand the arguments between Bucc and GR1 but now we have GR4 it is kind of a different scenario.

To a degree I think it is fashionable to bash Tornado but all things considered it has done us well…so worst fighter since Blenheim? Can’t agree with that 😀

Personally, I think the late 1980s would have seen either development of a navalized Tornado based on the F3 (possibly in a true multi-role version to replace both Phantom and Bucc) or an agreement to purchase F/A-18Cs & F/A-18Ds.

Either way, 1995 would have seen retirement of the RN’s last Phantoms and Buccs.

I would hope to god not! The Tornado as a strike aircraft was inferior to the Bucc even in the land based role, indeed the pilots who flew a trials bucc fitted with the Tornado’s avionics said it would have been better to just build more Buccs with that fit! The F3 Tornado was probably the worst fighter the RAF ever flew since the Blenhiem of early WW2. In DACT, no Tornado ever won against a Sea Harrier (FRS1 or FA2). Honestly we’d have been better off fitting new avionics to the older aircraft and giving them a SLEP overhaul to extend them into the early 21st century than going anywhere near a ‘Sea Tonka’. Just my opinion mind…;)

Alternately going down the Hornet route would have OK, though I suspect there would have been political pressure to overhaul the existing fleet of aircraft (spending the money in the UK) rather than buying foreign (US). I would hope in such case the overhauled F-4s and Buccs would then be replaced in the early 2000s with Super Hornets.

The CVAs were to have been fitted with a pair of 250ft stroke length BS6 catapults each, which according to all the figures I’ve seen would have been on a par with the cats fitted to the US Forrestal/Kitty Hawk classes, which operated F-14s. Wether the political will to release finances to buy them would have been present is another matter, in this scenario the RN would still have a larger fleet of relatively new F-4K Phantoms, so upgrades for them would have been the best the RN could hope for in the 80s. With a decent radar and skyflash (80s) and AMRAAM (90s-) the F-4K would still be a viable fighter into the 21st century. Cross decking US tomcats would have been a regular occurence though, if only to drop hints to the government…;)

Personally, I think the late 1980s would have seen either development of a navalized Tornado based on the F3 (possibly in a true multi-role version to replace both Phantom and Bucc) or an agreement to purchase F/A-18Cs & F/A-18Ds.

Either way, 1995 would have seen retirement of the RN’s last Phantoms and Buccs.

I think TSR2 pushed it out of the British govt mindset that they were capable of developing their own first rate combat aircraft. When the Eurofighter came around I doubt the British could get a naval version developed, they lack the national ‘minerals’.

France was originally part of the Eurofighter consortium, and wanted to include a navalised version. However, they were on their own on this, and eventually pulled out and developed the Rafale. If both Britain and France had wanted a navalised Eurofighter, it would probably have gone ahead, and be flying off the Royal Navy’s carriers now, as well as France’s carrier.

I do not know if this will interest anyboy but…
I recently lookedat a Peter Ricketts interview by the defence commission at french assemblee nationale (he participates to the new whitebook). He stated that cataplts would have cost 2-3 billions and therfore were dropped.

I think TSR2 pushed it out of the British govt mindset that they were capable of developing their own first rate combat aircraft. When the Eurofighter came around I doubt the British could get a naval version developed, they lack the national ‘minerals’.

Would CVA-01 thru 03 have been “Tom Catized”? :p

I very much doubt it. The Conservatiernment of 1970 could, if it had wished, have had two Phantom carriers in Eagle and Ark Royal, which I hope would have been followed by two new CVAs in the 1980s. When the Eurofighter was in the design stage, it would have made sense to navalise it from the start, much as France did with the Rafale (indeed, this might have kept France in the Eurofighter programme). The two CVF carriers would have been equipped with cats and traps from the start to accomodate a Eurofighter air group, and I somehow doubt we would be in the market for F35s, but you never know.

I agree, the RN would have kept the F4K in service until at least the late 80s. If fact I think that if anyone was going to get new fighters it would be the RAF, and some F4M would be re-navalised to top up the FAA fleet.