Among the options that could have been developed had the UK retained their Colossus and Majectics into the 60's

The Gnat Mark 2 would have been capable of Mach 1.28 at altitude and the Air Ministry was interested, with Folland going so far as to build a wing for a prototype. The project went no further, mainly because the RAF still didn't have a requirement for the Gnat, even one that was capable of cracking Mach 1.

Further refinements were considered along this line. The "Gnat Mark 4" had a redesigned 6% wing -- featuring full-span flaps to improve takeoff and landing handling -- and a top speed of Mach 1.5. The "Gnat Mark 5" was a series of designs, ultimately featuring twin afterburning Rolls-Bristol RB.153 engines, improved aerodynamics that resulted in only a general resemblance to the original Gnat, and a top speed of Mach 2.4. Nothing came of these notions.

The final and most spectacular redesign was a Mach 2 variable geometry ("swing wing") machine, the Folland "Fo.148", that was intended as a trainer, air superiority fighter, or light strike aircraft. The wings were to have full-span leading-edge flaps and slotted trailing edge flaps; there would be a single stores pylon on each side of the fuselage. It was to have been fitted with an afterburning RB.153 engine with a thrust reverser. The Fo.148 was said to have been the last aircraft design to bear a Folland designation before the company was absorbed into the Hawker-Siddely group. It was an interesting design and it is a bit of shame it never flew.

 Start climbing the T-28 tech tree for a carrier capable light fighter instead. End up with the Tigershark. I personally don't recommend that, as the GD F-16 of the day was superior, but CAC could build Tweets and evolve them into Tigersharks  independent of  Northrop, using Rolls Royce engines, and British radars. There is nothing in that tech tree to prevent such an Australian  "naval" fighter evolution, and you wind up with a far superior aircraft.to the HAL Ajeet.

 

 

Trojans?
Tweets?

Those would've been major major undertakings to evolve those into anything remotely reminiscient of the F-20 Tigershark

(I don't care how much better overall the F-16 is, the F-20 still screams "sexy" to some of us).

 

The most that would've come from the T-28, I could see a good COIN-looking armed escort for tooled-up A-1 Sandies.

The T/A-37 did show a lot of light attack promise, certainly could be useful for a number of scenarios today (recall past discussions of the unfunded A-37C variant with lots of improvements).

 

Neither of these would've really been much improvement over fresh-out-of-WW2 carrier aviation (into Korean Conflict timeframe aircraft), although points would go to the A-37 for ease of maintenance (no big radials to tear down).

 

But back to seriousness:

I'm sure you meant T-38 and Talon,

and I'll agree it would've been interesting to see where the Australian aviation firms could've taken the design.

 

But then again, they may not have needed to: if they could've convinced to buy the F-11 Tiger, that would've been a good project for them to pursue further: a Spey-equipped Super Tiger could've been an interesting beast,

and certainly had the carriage capacity for anything for air and surface combat,

far more than could be packed into even a late-model Gnat.

From what I've read, the Gnat's two 30mm guns were sorely lacking in ammo capacity (four 20mm's in the Tiger would've been the better option: more rounds per gun = more firing time for more targets);

minimal gun ammo was not a good thing in an era when guided missiles still weren't the reliable killers they are today.

Be curious to see if Australian industry would've opted to give 30mm's to their Super Tiger, 

(just as they mounted a pair of 30's in their Sabres when America's F-86s had finished with four 20's),

with far more rounds per gun than what the Gnat offered.

 

Advantage goes to the F-11 in having more radome up front as well, necessary for capable tube-tech-and-early-transistor radar sets (the last models could've seen Sky Flash or Aspide as superior to Sparrow, might even have been able to adopt the early F-16's AN/APG-66 (1970's tech when it first came out),

even though any F-11 airframes built in the early/mid-1960s would be getting terribly fatigued by that time).

 

Only kicker I see with the F-11, though: even with a Spey, a heavily-laden one might struggle to get off the the comparably shorter flight decks than what they would've had on contemporary US carriers.

Gnat probably could've had a lower landing speed, also.

But again, the Gnat means you lack any sort of medium-range AAM capability (crap that they were back in the day), and reduces carried payloads to target, even if it might have meant you could've carried more aircraft than F-11s.

A late-model Super Tiger could easily be envisioned to carry a single 500-750kg LGB, 

or 500pound triplets (tandem triple 250-lbs might bo doable on the inner hardpoints), 

or single Harpoon on each of 4 wing hardpoints.

Aren't going to do that with a Gnat.

At best, the Gnat was a light raider.

But it wasn't the kind of aircraft you want to depend on to protect your carrier battle group, not from ASM-equipped Badgers.

 

And for the added expense to develop and build a VG-Gnat, it'd probably still have been more cost-effective to further develop the Super Tiger.

With the right wing developments (far more cheaply than designing a VG system),

it probably could've easily handled shorter flight decks at higher weights.

 

 

 

 

I used the Super Gnat as an example of what could have been done were there the need. These projects were real and had the RN retained several of the smaller Light Fleet Carriers into to 60's as had been planned they may have been just the thing to provide the FAA with a light multi role fighter that could operate from the small decks.

 

There was also a proposed version of the Etendard with blown flaps that France marketed to the RAN as well as a proposed Naval variant of the Fiat G91. Most US designs were too large and heavy as their carriers were bigger and could handle them.

 

Had the RN gone for greater numbers of small carriers and developed the aircraft to operate from them they, as well as Australia and Canada could still be in the conventional carrier business.

 

In the early post war years the RN saw small carriers as the replacement for the cruisers they had traditionally used for security and trade protection throughout the Empire /  Commonwealth. Had they maintained this thinking and continued to evolve the light conventional carrier Commonwealth Navies would be very different today.

 

Imagine a small 20000 to 30000 t carrier with two catapults, and an airgroup of 20 to 30 made up of an F-20 / Gripen sized fighter, a couple of AEW (Hawkeye?) and helicopters, with a crew of about 1000. Imagine three or more of these ships operating, not as traditional carriers but cruisers. They would need escorts but a DDG or DLG and a DE each would probably surfice. With three or more of these groups the RAN could replace the rest of their destroyers / frigates with patrol frigates or corvettes......Pre WWII the RAN had two heavy and four light cruisers, five destroyers and 4 sloops. Three, four or even five light carriers each with one large and one small escort should not have proven too great an imposition....

Volkodav,

Yeah, I get your idea.

 

For a light flattop (20,000-30,000 tons), I think that a good later aircraft would've been the joint Italian/Brazilian AMX.

(The Wiki article seems to be in error: it suggests 5 armament hardpoints,

but the specs picture clearly shows 6, as 2 wingtip and 4 underwing.)

Australian industry could've joined that program in the early/mid 1980s and assisted in creating carrier capability in the design.

 

There again, though, consider just how evolved the A-4 Skyhawk became, especially looking at the last of the Super Skyhawks (and some of the suggested upgrades that would've further enhanced it but never made it beyond concept study phase), why fix what ain't broke: equipped with ever-improving Skyhawk models, there wouldn't have been much need for the AMX.

The AMX just seems like it would have the AAM advantage over any Skyhawks (6 versus 4), but the Skyhawks could carry a heavier air-surface payload (strong belly hardpoint).

(An evolved AMX could change that as well.)

 

As to having a platform like a carrier-capable Tigershark or Gripen: if the flattops in question could've handled something the size of an F-11, then either of these two aircraft would be ideal replacements, although the T-Shark was available into the 1980s (could've been developed into that shape prior to the  F404 engine and APG-67 series radar),

the Gripen is the hard part: it couldn't have reached full fleet strength until well into the late 1990s.

 

The other take on that: the YF-17 Cobra may have been able to be designed into a lighter carrier aircraft than what did emerge as the production F/A-18A (maybe not: it obviously took numerous improvements to make the basic design into the carrier aircraft it became, though I can't say for certain how much of that was done out of necessity and how much was US gold-plating or putting it at least on par with the F-4s and A-7s it was intended to replace).

Tigers may have pushed it though, so an aircraft akin to the YF-17 and F/A-18 could've been asking a lot of those smaller decks (reducing number of aircraft carried).

A bigger aircraft may have required something like the F-8 Crusader's variable-incidence wing to lower landing speeds, but that may not work well if we necessitate heavy stores hardpoints under the wings, as well as possible wingtip pylons.

 

I'm sure there were quite a few interesting designs from the late 1950s and into the 1960s that could've created the ideal aircraft for smaller carriers, but unfortunately they all probably never even left the paper and made it into the wind tunnel.

Because few countries of the time could afford the kind of money to develop those projects like the US could do, none of the designs were feasible, as there weren't seen any countries who would've bought such a light carrier-capable aircraft in the numbers worth developing it in the first place: too much of a niche market and not a lot of profit to be made.

 

Still, much like the A-4, such an aircraft may indeed have sold well even to countries without carriers.

 

The other rival that came about at roughly the same time as the AMX would've been the BAE Hawk, which successfully did develop into the carrier-capable T-45.

But again, without further development into "SuperHawk" models, the BAE Hawk airframe just isn't built to carry the large payloads and munitions that are more ideal for naval strike missions and anti-air ops, the same problem that would've left the Gnat out of the picture decades earlier.

 

And except for the 2-engines-equals-more-safety-over-water, the Fiat G.91 didn't bring anything more to the table that couldn't have been achieved with a properly-equipped A-4.

Same can be said for the Etendard family: anything they could've done,

could've been achieved better by properly-kitted A-4s.

Trap run. (arrester cable limits and brake tonnage)

Takeoff run. (catapult shot length and hurl tonnage)

Hardstand space.(how many planes you can park before you foul the flight deck)

Elevators.(how big and heavy a plane you can lift)

Manpower (how many bomb monkeys and how big a purple gang do you have?)

Costs. (How much can you afford?)

 

All of these dictated the SkyHawk. or the Etendard.

 

Let's look at the choices offered  for a Centaur.

 

Gnat. It will take off and land. It carries Sidewinder and can drop iron bombs. Is it capable of using SARH missiles? No.   

F-11 Tiger. It will take off BARELY. The J-65 Sapphire is a weak engine for that aircraft. A J-79 would be better but then the airplane becomes too big and lands too fast. Sidewinders again, but no Sparrows. Wing cannot take a bomb load. Has midair refueling though.

 

Giat G-91, all the virtues of a simple lightweight plane, best suited for CAS and tactical iron free fall bombing. What does it bring to the war at sea? Needs a dual mode radar and needs wiring for an A2A missile and A2G otherwise you have a subsonic day fighter-bomber-mostly bomber.

 

F-5. Base model comes with no radar though space for one. Wired for Sidewinder AND Sparrow from the start. Very short ranged. Needs a dual mode radar, a catapult shoe, arrestor hook, and inflight rtfueling. VERY UNDERPOWERED compared to the other aircraft suggested. At best, CAC better start shipping around for an engine early in the upgrade  in the 50,000 kNewton class. On the other hand a semi-skilled labor based air force could maintain the bird, so a highly skilled one, like the RAAF, would love this bird.

 

The Hawk is outside the time period, so no comment.

 

None of these aircraft is as good as a Skyhawk when you climb the tech tree into the 1970s.

 

You need a  BETTER plane.

.

 

 

. 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the BAE Hawk just didn't have payload (and munition sizes) going in its favor, even with the latest Hawk 60s and 200 types. You barely even had half the payload that a late Skyhawk could handle ( ~9000 pounds).

Skyhawk already had internal guns

(two 20 or 30mm, but a GAU-12 or GAU-22 could've been an interesting fit, even BK27s),

which was only rememdied in the HAWK 200 with its planned installation of 2 of the now-defunct ADEN 25s.

Plus, Skyhawk had much stronger hardpoints, and could carry larger munitions.

Putting a fuel tank on your Hawk's centerline greatly reduces its effective throw weight,

is limited to AIM-9, or better yet, Derbys, as AAMs.

At best though, expect 4 Derbys on your Hawk, whereas the Skyhawk might adapt well enough to a twin carriage on the inner wing pylon, allowing a total of 6, even 8 if the outer pylon can do the same.

There again, if it can haul Derbys, AMRAAMs aren't much a step bigger, but are pointless if your aircraft's radar can't fully exploit AMRAAM's additional range capabilities.

Earlier in the game (1970s, prior to Alto/Derby and AMRAAM), Sweden and some partners were even looking at a roughly 7inch diameter IR missile called the Rb72...

Enough interest could've seen that pursued further as well for possible armament.

 (There also was apparently a related system called the Rb83, which could've been an interesting air to surface armament for these lightweight carrier aircraft...)

At one point it was planned for Hawk to be adapted to the Sea Eagle ASM.

A late-model Skyhawk could carry a pair of Harpoons and a pair of AIM-9s, or 4 Gabriels.

(yeah, I know, Gabriels didn't have the same range and warhead of Sea Eagle,

but did any of your foes need a beast like Sea Eagle to dispatch them?

And did any of your most likely foes (Indos principally?) have the air defense capability to swat down ASM-toting Skyhawks reliably at 50+km? At any useful range?

 

The catch with the Skyhawk is, it just as well could've seen further advancements like a new and improved wing design to match the various avionics and engine upgrades.

If we can further enhance the Gnat or G.91, why not the Skyhawk (akin to the "6-3" wing on some F-86 variants) ?

 

Jaguar?

Yeah, I liked that one, too.

Always amazed me that few aircraft ever adopted overwing pylons for their short range AAMs.

 

About what I said for the Tiger: perhaps too "hot" of an aircraft (higher landing speeds and greater take off requirements) that in its actual form wasn't much of a bomb truck, further evolution of the Super Tiger could've seen it become so (we are talking about making the most of the Australian aerospace industry, not simply having them license-produce someone else's stock model).

 

 

 

 

 

Jaguar is half again the size of the F5, I really like the design but its probably getting a bit big for the smaller light carriers though its fine for the Centaurs.

 

Could you put a radar to control Skyflash in the nose of the Jaguar and wire the underwing hardpoints to launch AAM's such as Sky flash? What i like the most about Jaguar though, is that it was supposed to be an advanced trainer, and ended up being possibly one of the best ground attack aircraft of its generation.

Here's one AI just remembered from a long time ago,

over at SecretProjects,

on where/what the Super Tiger could've evolved into.

Take a close note of Reply #7, (July 14, 2006)

 

Impressive payload potential for an aircraft that started as a 4-guns + 4-AAMs fighter.

 

I can only imgaine what the Jaguar could've matured into, let alone the A-4 and F-5.

Cose examination of Northrop designs shows the clear lineage from the F-5 family into the YF-17 Cobra.

It could've been very interesting to see those mid designs taken up and further worked before the definitive pre-Hornet emerged.

Coupled to a pair of engines in the 9000-12000pounds thrust class (post F-5, pre F-18) could've been an interesting offspring.

 

 

 

To make it brief, I hate the Sidewinders on the aircraft back. There is a reason we try to put those rockets away from the aircraft barrel on the wings. The exhaust from the plume damages the aircraft skin.

 

The engine thrust and the weights still don't add up. That thing intuitively to me looks like it would behave like a Thunderchief in all but maneuverablity with the THUD being BETTER.

 

The radar is a nice touch.  The vertical stabilizer looks too small.

 

All in all the Super Tiger looks botched to me. Need to go back to the drawing board.

 

Herald

Herald what I was suggesting was, as the Majestics become less capable as strike carriers, that they should instead be employed in traditional cruiser roles.

 

Assuming Australia accepted the RN offer for a pair of Colossus CVL's, two new cruisers and six destroyers for no cost during the war, this would have provided, not just a ready made fleet, but what would have been the most powerful fleet in the region into the 50's. This move would have allowed the RAN to retire the last of their pre-war ships in 1945 and delay buying / building new ships until the mid fifties.

A navalised Hawk would fit the late 1970's early-mid 1980's timeline for a replacement to the Skyhawk if there was a need to develop it.