Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Have Rolls Royce produce about 800-1000(?) of a 'derated' version of the 'R'. The Fulmar has a large enough airframe that it could handle the weight and size of the engine, despite the added length of the 'R' engine over the Merlin - CG and w&l could be dealt with fairly easily. On 100 grade fuel it would have a continuous power rating (2850 rpm at +9 lbs) of ~1900 BHP at 9,000 ft. Military (3000 rpm at +9 lbs) would be ~2000 BHP at 10,000 ft. Note that this is for the 'R' with a 7.47 SC gear ratio.
Agreed. I believe the near-vertical windscreen was for enhanced view of the target, but IDK. The Fulmar has two advantages over the Skua, speed and range. If we can put the Merlin onto the Skua and clean up the aerodynamics a little we might exceed the Fulmar's speed. Range will be trickier.And change the Skua's ridiculous cockpit windscreen. I'm no aerodynamicist, but c'mon, that "forward swept" barn door windshield can't possibly help.
Forgive what might seem dumb questions.
It would have been interesting to see the changes in RN and FAA procurement and ops planning had the Japanese carrier fleet been seen as a strong threat. Here's what's building in the UK and Japan through to end 1938, the end of which when Japan is invading China and US and British sanctions are beginning to bite.That the Air Ministry didn't instigate a single-seater is always blamed on the navy, but it wanted them. There was definitely a disconnect between operational experience and what was being decided in the Air Ministry for the FAA in the 1930s, but there was a reason for it. Carrier deck space was limited and in the early 30s, fearing a size and weight increase in modern aircraft decisions were made that meant that dual role aircraft were gonna be incorporated on carriers, so the likes of the Skua and Fulmar were ordered. The other issue was cost versus predicting where the next threat might come from, the former being an ever-present issue in peacetime and the latter in that the British didn't anticipate the Germans would invade Europe again so soon after the Great War. Even before the Skua entered service it was criticised by senior admirals as being inadequate for their needs. The Hurricane was of interest and by the mid-1930s was being discussed as a future carrier single-seat fighter.
It would have been interesting to see the changes in RN and FAA procurement and ops planning had the Japanese carrier fleet been seen as a strong threat. Here's what's building in the UK and Japan through to end 1938, the end of which when Japan is invading China and US and British sanctions are beginning to bite.
HMS Illustrious, laid down Apr 1937
HMS Victorious, laid down May 1937
HMS Formidable, laid down Jun 1937
HMS Indomitable, laid down Nov 1937
HMS Ark Royal, commissioned Dec 1938
IJNS Hiryu, launched Nov 1937
IJNS Shokaku, laid down Dec 1937
IJNS Soryu, commissioned Dec 1937
IJNS Zuikaku, laid down May 1938
IJNS Akagi, reconstruction and comm Aug 1938
Clearly there was something afoot in the PTO that Britain could have paid some attention to, for example, what fighters and strike aircraft is the IJNAS using in this period. Had Britain considered that in addition to facing German and possibly Italian strikes, that it may need to fight the IJN's carrier forces at sea, the FAA, RN and AM might have made different decisions on aircraft.
They weren't great due to slow ROF, but IIRC the Brits had one of the first dedicated AA cruiser escorts in the Dido class.However, getting those planes into the theater would have require at least one more fleet carrier (with adequate escort), don't you think?
My dream team RN CBG for the PTO, three Illustrious class (even with Fulmars, if we must), Hood and two Renowns with much enhanced AA, a half dozen Dido AA cruisers, plus destroyers. And fleet oilers.
Sadly true. Britain should have begun construction of the Illustrious class as soon as the naval treaties allow.You're gonna need a bigger navy.
Clearly there was something afoot in the PTO that Britain could have paid some attention to, for example, what fighters and strike aircraft is the IJNAS using in this period.
Sadly true. Britain should have begun construction of the Illustrious class as soon as the naval treaties allow.
For different reasons, neither the Tories nor Labour were willing to increase defense spending.There's that. But there's in addition to funding those ships (and their escorts) the cost of developing the new FAA fighter itself, while the Army is wanting new tanks and the RAF wants their own new fighter designs, and 4-engined bombers are also being planned but not yet paid-for.
We're gonna need a bigger budget ... in the 30s.
They weren't great due to slow ROF, but IIRC the Brits had one of the first dedicated AA cruiser escorts in the Dido class.
I have also read that as far as funding for naval ship building goes, there was no shortage of funds from about 1936. The problem was actually ship yard building slip availability. Apparently the UK's shipbuilding industry had shrunk so much post-WWI that it was almost impossible for them to build/rebuild/heavily-modify ships any faster.
Good points, though Britain's yards were churning out large ships. No other nation other than the US laid down seven carriers and five battleships from 1937 to 1939. All with UK defence spending up to 1939 staying below 5% of GDP (compared to close to 50% in Japan from 1938).The navy faced this problem prior to the Great War after the completion of the Dreadnought as the rest of the world wanted them but didn't have the facilities to build them, so started from scratch.