Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Considering that the RN was requesting moneys for carriers, I don't think the second was a problem. The first would be the real problem, especially if Parliament was convinced that "unity of air power" was actually going to save money without loss of effectiveness, instead of being a quasi-religious belief.I think two things would have to give --
1) Parliament -- would have to give money specifically earmarked for expanding FAA.
2) Admiralty -- would have to give further importance to air action in their doctrine.
In other words the eventual 1937 Inskip solution finally implemented in May 1939.I think a couple of hardware limitations would help this scenario: the RN keeps embarked catapult floatplanes and carrier aircraft only; it doesn't get land-based aircraft.
Yes. I think any kind of viable alternative to the RAF getting everything is for the two to have minimal possible overlap in operations.In other words the eventual 1937 Inskip solution finally implemented in May 1939.
That's where I'm hoping we get to. By 1937 the Royal Navy had six active carriers plus five others under construction and more planned. A fleet that size needs more than a thousand aircrew, mechanics and handlers in training and rotation, plus hundreds of aircraft in active service, maintenance, design/development and production. It's a big operation deserving of dedicated assets.the two to have minimal possible overlap in operations.
Nor, if there's a hard separation from the RAF do we see the Seafire or Sea Hurricane.
If the FAA's single seat, retractable undercarriage, monoplane fighter garners some RAF interest I'm sure Messrs. Fairey would sell them some.There's a hard separation between the USAF and USN flight ops, but both branches shared several models of aircraft.
[...] I don't think there are many examples of the USN taking USAAF designs.
But that was wartime when the USAAF wanted every aircraft it could get for roles it thought it should get involved in, like dive bombing. And they had a big fight about who should be responsible for anti-submarine warfare that took some time to resolve to everyone's satisfaction. Even acceptance of the F4 was virtually forced on the USAF by McNamarra wanting standardisation across both services and the impact of the Vietnam War.If the FAA's single seat, retractable undercarriage, monoplane fighter garners some RAF interest I'm sure Messrs. Fairey would sell them some.
Douglas and Curtiss were happy enough to flog their SBD and SB2C as the A-24 and A-25 to the USAAF, the precursor of the USAF. And of course the USAF should be forever grateful for the USN's MD Phantom II. But unlike in the RAF to FAA examples (Seafire, Sea Hurricane, Sea Fury, Sea Hawk, SHAR, etc.), I don't think there are many examples of the USN taking USAAF designs.
USAAF ferry flights of P-40 and 47's aside, it's not that someone didn't think it was worth trying..... likely someone in the dept of accounting and standardization at the Pentagon.That only makes sense, given that beefing the planes up for carrier ops would have a definite negative impact on the airplane's performance.
USAAF ferry flights of P-40 and 47's aside, it's not that someone didn't think it was worth trying..... likely someone in the dept of accounting and standardization at the Pentagon.
View attachment 673777 View attachment 673778
That's right, it was a FAA project initially. The idea of an all-metal, wide track undercarriage, folding wing, long range single seat fighter entering service in 1939 with the Griffon's power does sound exciting. Something like an early Seafang with a Mustang's fuel load.If we follow the OP timeline, possibly the Griffon would have received higher priority
What about an earlier introduction of jet fighters to the fleet?
Interestingly, the 1920s was one of the few times the Royal Navy had a bespoke single seat fighter not based on a RAF design, in the Fairey Flycatcher.Going back to the 1920s, it wasn't too hard for an airforce and carrier aviation to use essentially the same aircraft.