Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: Volkodav on June 23, 2013, 01:24:00 AM
-
I have always been a fan of the RN FAA schemes from the late 40s through to the late 60s. I also love the look of the British carrier based aircraft themselves but must acknowledge that they, although competitive when first flown, were usually obsolescent by the time they entered service. This idea is that Australia, Canada, India and potentially New Zealand and South Africa, maybe even the UK made extensive use of USN aircraft but used the 1950s RN FAA schemes.
I know Canada had Banshees but I was thinking Panthers, Cougars, Tigers, Crusaders, Skyhawks, Skyrays and of course Furies. Maybe, depending on a new generation of carriers in the late 50s early 60s, Intruders, Vigilantes and Phantoms. Replacing the duck egg blue or white undersides with sea grey or light sea grey, I could even envisage Tomcats, Hornets and Vikings into the 80s and 90s.
Then again a RAN Centaur loaded to the brim with Sea Venoms, Seahawks, Wyverns and Gannets would have looked pretty good.
Maybe an extended US MAP leasing surplus Essex Class carriers and USN style airgroups to allies free of charge with those lucky navies just choosing to use their existing stocks of paint as the aircraft entered deep maintenance. These would serve along side the currently owned UK sourced carriers and airgroups but were primarily intended to slot into USN battle groups during exercises and wartime.
-
Another possibility might be to have the FAA squadrons attached to U.S. Navy Carrier Air Groups/Wings sporting their unique FAA paint schemes with U.S. Navy Air Group/Wing MODEX numbers and letter codes.
-
I like it.
A pool of US supplied Commonwealth manned FAA squadrons deployed as required on domestic, USN and RN carriers in a similar way to how the USMC deploys on USN super carriers. Each squadron maintaining national paint schemes and markings but also with codes appropriate to the carrier they are deployed on. An expanded alliance structure with airgroups mixed and matched in the same way surface combatants have been for years.
The permutations of this expanded alliance are inspiring.
-
I like it.
A pool of US supplied Commonwealth manned FAA squadrons deployed as required on domestic, USN and RN carriers in a similar way to how the USMC deploys on USN super carriers. Each squadron maintaining national paint schemes and markings but also with codes appropriate to the carrier they are deployed on. An expanded alliance structure with airgroups mixed and matched in the same way surface combatants have been for years.
The permutations of this expanded alliance are inspiring.
Cross decking was done in real life but only involving handful of aircraft at a time. Attaching a full squadron to an air wing would be a logical step towards combined operations.
-
Like the possibility of Canadian or Australian Hornets and/or Super Hornets operating from current USN carriers?
-
Like the possibility of Canadian or Australian Hornets and/or Super Hornets operating from current USN carriers?
Sort of what I was thinking, the various R*AFs wouldn't like it but imagine if the majority all of post war Commonwealth tactical airpower was actually carrier capable FAA sqns deployed on domestic and allied carriers as well as land bases as required. There were AF sqns as well but they were also carrier qualified in the same way as the USMC sqns.
I think I can hear the RAAF lynch mob making their way here from RAAF Darwin as I type this.
-
Spooky - I've been thinking about a US-supplied FAA for a few days now and just posted about it on the Shoulda Woulda Coulda GB thread.
If Britain went down that route, I could see them choosing the Panther/Cougar/Tiger/Super Tiger route due to the easy option of fitting them with British-built engines to reduce the industrial and foreign-exchange disadvantages, since they had, respectively, the J-48 (RR Tay), J-65 (AS Sapphire) and J-79 (RR Avon was studied as an alternative).
-
Flipside, how about the USN/USMC using British designs?
Sea Vixen in gull grey over white, anyone? :)
-
Maybe a bit like this:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ALT%20RAN%20FAA/FJ-4FuryGreg01.jpg)
From Southern Sea Eagles - The Alternative RAN FAA (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=66.0)
-
Maybe a bit like this:
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ALT%20RAN%20FAA/FJ-4FuryGreg01.jpg[/url])
From Southern Sea Eagles - The Alternative RAN FAA ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=66.0[/url])
;D exactly what I was thinking still have that 4A in a box somewhere.
-
Giving some more thought to it what we could have is the US specialising in aircraft for large carriers and the UK on aircraft for small carriers. This sees the US retaining their CVLs for ASW and USMC CAS using British aircraft and the RN going for 3 to 5 larger carriers in the 1950s flying US types.
This would give us an evolved Gannet, perhaps a navalised Gnat fighter, further developed Wyvern and Sea Venom, maybe a small carrier optimised Sea Vixen.
-
The best small UK carrier attack aircraft was the Sea Hawk: very comparable to the Grumman Panther, i.e. good for close support as long as it didn't have to tangle with MiG-15s. The Indian Navy did well with them in their two wars with Pakistan, although they did pick their fights carefully.
Another punchy Brit was the Scimitar, but it had trouble with landing speed when operating from small carriers. However, that gives me an idea: the Scimitar evolved from the Type 525 which in turn evolved from the Type 529/508 which had straight wings and a V-tail. If what you want is essentially a jet Skyraider for Marine CAS that can land slowly on small carriers, then the beefed up Scimitar structure with 508-style straight (blown) wings would be a good bet: loads of power (2 x Avons), decent range, 4 x 30mm guns and a heavy warload (I'd bet the straight wing could take 6 pylons).
(http://www.myhobbylinks.com/images/3V-S16-S508.jpg)
(http://www.edcoatescollection.com/ac6/Vickers%20508.jpg)
-
Scimitar with a straight wing and horizontal tail surfaces and swept vertical tail sounds rather aesthetically appealing.
-
Flipside, how about the USN/USMC using British designs?
Sea Vixen in gull grey over white, anyone? :)
Ok just thinking.
The Bearcat and Corsair were being replaced in frontline USN service with jets when Korean War started but these aircraft were still highly effective in providing CAS. To maintain CAS capability the US government decided to retain and upgrade their CVLs to leave the CV decks free for the new jets. Following the conflict there was a new threat to counter, the Soviet Sverdlov Class cruisers and expanded submarine fleet in addition to the proven CAS mission. As a result of this the USN retained / /modernised the CVLs and began looking for replacements for their piston engined air groups. New jets acquired / licensed from the UK need modernised CVLs then a new CVL design which is in turn eventually replaced with a STO/VL SCS and Sea Harriers or even P.1154.
Now this is where the licence production of UK designs comes in. From memory the Panther was unable to operate from Argentina's first Colossus Class but I am not sure about Veinticinco de Mayo; Seahawks were able to fly off Vikrant and Sea Venoms from Melbourne. Now the Banshee was operated from Bonaventure, which is where my idea falls down but the theory is that lacking a suitable domestic aircraft to operate from the CVLs the USN opted to procure license built Sea Hawks and Sea Venom. I am assuming then current USN jets would not have been able to operate from an Independence Class Carrier but could the corresponding British aircraft have been able to? Could an Independence have been modified to operate either RN or USN aircraft?
Anyway this is a WIF site so here it goes.
The UK conducts a critical review into sea power during the late 40s and decides that the most effective way forward is to replace guns with air power. The real power of the carrier is seen to be the aircraft it carries, hence it is determined that the CVLs are more effective and efficient than the Armoured Fleet Carriers which are actually less capable of operating modern aircraft. As such the UK retains the majority of the useful Colossus and Majestic Class CVLs, while designing and building a new class of large strike carrier and disposing of (sale or transfer) instead of modernising existing or in build ships. This turns out to be far cheaper and more timely than what they did in reality. To make it work the RN needs to specify versions of the Sea Hawk and Sea Venom that can be efficiently and effectively operated from the existing unmodernised CVLs in reasonable numbers. The advent of the Sverdlovs leads to anti shipping strike weapons being made available for use by these aircraft. These CVL light strike fighters are licensed to the US for use on their CVLs.
So effective are CVLs operating these aircraft that the RN progressively modernises the carriers and develops a new generation of aircraft to follow on.
I am imagining modified RN FAA aircraft, modernised hurricane bow / steam catapult / angle decked Independence Class CVLs, Centaur / Audacious / Armoured Fleets being transferred / sold to Australia / Canada / France / Netherlands / India / Argentina / Brazil instead of the CVLs they actually received, Commonwealth and NATO operators using USN source aircraft off their larger more capable ships and the RN using USN types off their strike carriers with smaller purpose designed UK aircraft being operated by the RN and USN off successive generations of smaller CVLs.
Needs some more work and am interested in input.
-
What about several CVLs being provided under lend lease near the end of WW2 to support joint operations in the PTO against Japan? These CVLs would have then been already in service with the RN and the air wings established and operational. The same thing could be applied towards CVLs being provided to Australia and New Zealand.
-
What about several CVLs being provided under lend lease near the end of WW2 to support joint operations in the PTO against Japan? These CVLs would have then been already in service with the RN and the air wings established and operational. The same thing could be applied towards CVLs being provided to Australia and New Zealand.
I suppose the only issue with that is there were only 9 Independence Class and 2 Saipan Class CVLs, then again the USN could have transferred them and redeployed crews on the new Essex Class CV as they became available. There were actually more British 1942 CVLs than Independences and they were much better carriers but not available until almost two years later, ironically at about the time the US would have been able to offer CVLs on lend lease.
Post war the US found themselves with an excess of fleet carriers and a shortage of viable light fleet carriers and as such had to employ Essex class carriers as ASW carriers and LPHs. How about a reverse lend lease where the UK transfers either the last four or all eight Centaurs to the USN in exchange for a similar number of Essex to tide them over until their new strike carriers were ready. A win win where the US gets cheaper to operate CVLs for ASW and amphib work until they develop their own purpose designed CVLs instead of upgrading additional Essex carriers and the Uk gets to employ Essex class instead of spending huge sums on upgrading their own large ships.
-
Postwar we had multiple designs for new CVEs, CVLs, and CVSs many with angled decks! They always lost out to the big deck CVs and the SSN/SSBNs though in the postwar power struggle over funding/purpose/etc...
Friedman's CV book has many of the design sketches and associated write-ups. Any one of them would/could have worked for your purposes.
I like this line of thinking, please continue gentlemen :)
-
What about several CVLs being provided under lend lease near the end of WW2 to support joint operations in the PTO against Japan? These CVLs would have then been already in service with the RN and the air wings established and operational. The same thing could be applied towards CVLs being provided to Australia and New Zealand.
I suppose the only issue with that is there were only 9 Independence Class and 2 Saipan Class CVLs, then again the USN could have transferred them and redeployed crews on the new Essex Class CV as they became available. There were actually more British 1942 CVLs than Independences and they were much better carriers but not available until almost two years later, ironically at about the time the US would have been able to offer CVLs on lend lease.
Post war the US found themselves with an excess of fleet carriers and a shortage of viable light fleet carriers and as such had to employ Essex class carriers as ASW carriers and LPHs. How about a reverse lend lease where the UK transfers either the last four or all eight Centaurs to the USN in exchange for a similar number of Essex to tide them over until their new strike carriers were ready. A win win where the US gets cheaper to operate CVLs for ASW and amphib work until they develop their own purpose designed CVLs instead of upgrading additional Essex carriers and the Uk gets to employ Essex class instead of spending huge sums on upgrading their own large ships.
That could work as well with the American CVLs being transferred to serve in a less threatened area such as the role of an aircraft ferry in the transfer of aircraft to the theater of operations. This role was performed on my occasions by the smaller CVE and CVL hulls so it could become a full time mission. Another task would be that of convoy escort, a role already being filled by many American built hulls that due to the increased distances traveled in the PTO might require a larger hull with more endurance for the mission and weathering the storms encountered. Such lend lease hulls would then free up UK built CVL for operations in against the Japanese as British, Australian, or New Zealand naval units.
-
Sees this thread, looks at the very nice Fujimi Cutlass kit, remembers what a retired Cutlass mechanic said about them and what they needed to make them good, says "Hmmmmmmmm........." :) ;D. Looks at schedule and says :icon_crap: :-X :icon_crap: :icon_nif:
-
The US and UK could have come to an arrangement where by the US would design and develop large strike carriers and their air groups while the UK specialized in CVLs and the aircraft more suited to them. USN Gannets flying from a UK designed CVS? There would / could be some variation to this I.e. RN FAA Skyhawk, and that gorgeous USN Bucc photo on another thread.
-
How about the UK provides the US with the Colossus Class Light Fleet Carrier design to mass produce in commercial yards as they had done with the River / Tacoma Class Frigates / PFs leading to a large class of Americanised Light Fleets entering service with the USN, RN and Commonwealth navies during 1944/5.