If no Sea Gladiator, what replaces the Hawker Nimrod?

[Admiral Beez]

Hawkers are I think going to be too busy to build a Sea Hurricane pre-war. Blackburn certainly knew how to design a folding wing and the Hurricane could have its wings swapped in a matter of hours. Answer Hawker carries on building Hurricanes with no interuption, Blackburn designs and builds the folding wings plus a kit to convert the Hurricane into a naval fighter. Take some Hurricane MkIs from RAF stocks post BoB and it shouldnt take long to have a 100 or so Sea Hurricanes ready for Jan 41.

1941 is too late, our naval aviators can't fly the Nimrod into battle.

But we don't need folding Hurricanes until Ark Royal and the three Illustrious class enter service, so perhaps it's fixed wing Sea Hurricanes in 1938 until your Blackburn op can get underway on the folded variety. That'll work I think.

 

[SaparotRob]

Hawkers are I think going to be too busy to build a Sea Hurricane pre-war. Blackburn certainly knew how to design a folding wing and the Hurricane could have its wings swapped in a matter of hours. Answer Hawker carries on building Hurricanes with no interuption, Blackburn designs and builds the folding wings plus a kit to convert the Hurricane into a naval fighter. Take some Hurricane MkIs from RAF stocks post BoB and it shouldnt take long to have a 100 or so Sea Hurricanes ready for Jan 41.

..and the RN will have more effective air groups sooner.

 

[Admiral Beez]

..and the RN will have more effective air groups sooner.

With real impact.

In Jan 1941, HMS Illustrious' CAP failed to stop successive Stuka and Ju-88 attacks and was hit by over a dozen bombs, putting the ship out of action until Feb 1942 (originally done in Dec 41, but collided with HMS Formidable).

In May 1941, HMS Formidable's CAP failed to stop a Stuka raid that put two bombs into the carrier, putting her out of action, also until Feb 1942.

In July 1942, HMS Indomitable's CAP failed to stop a SM.79 Sparviero that hit the carrier with a torpedo and four Stukas that scored two hits and two damaging close near misses, putting her out of action until July 1944.

If the FAA in 1938-39 has the Sea Hurricane as a high speed eight gun fighter, the RN will likely enter 1941 with a fighter force able to stop these unescorted Stukas, SM.79 and Ju-88 strikes. A dozen Sea Hurricanes on HMS Hermes wouldn't have saved her, but she would have given a good account for herself.

 

[SaparotRob]

BTW when I said "we have this fighter" I never meant to imply "we have a lot of them". If the FAA, however, could get a couple of dozen of these that has to be an improvement. Again I'm very influenced by the F4F-3/-4.
Perfection is the enemy of good.

 

[SaparotRob]

With real impact.

In Jan 1941, HMS Illustrious' CAP failed to stop successive Stuka and Ju-88 attacks and was hit by over a dozen bombs, putting the ship out of action until Feb 1942 (originally done in Dec 41, but collided with HMS Formidable).

In May 1941, HMS Formidable's CAP failed to stop a Stuka raid that put two bombs into the carrier, putting her out of action, also until Feb 1942.

In July 1942, HMS Indomitable's CAP failed to stop a SM.79 Sparviero that hit the carrier with a torpedo and four Stukas that scored two hits and two damaging close near misses, putting her out of action until July 1944.

If the FAA in 1938-39 has the Sea Hurricane as a high speed eight gun fighter, the RN will likely enter 1941 with a fighter force able to stop these unescorted Stukas, SM.79 and Ju-88 strikes. A dozen Sea Hurricanes on HMS Hermes wouldn't have saved her, but she would have given a good account for herself.

I was hoping someone would bring up these specific actions. It would have taken me too long to look them up and get the chronology right. Again, why screw around? Eight Hurricanes (4 down for various reasons ) in any of those situations would have had an impact.

 

[SaparotRob]

.. and it's about time the Hurricane got some love!

 

[Admiral Beez]

.. and it's about time the Hurricane got some love!

I agree.

With a folding wing, wide undercarriage, robust Sea Hurricane in Fleet wide service, do we see the Seafire being developed? The Sea Hurricane could hand off to lend-lease Martlets, Corsairs and Hellcats until Hawker's Sea Fury is ready.

If no Seafire, perhaps there's no Supermarine Seafang, Attacker or Scimitar. Maybe FAA fighters are an all-Hawker and DeHavilland (DH was acquired by Hawker-Siddeley in 1960) affair....the succession being Nimrod, Sea Hurricane, Vampire, Fury, Venom, Seahawk, Vixen, Sea Harrier. Blackburn can still have its postwar Buccaneer.

 

[SaparotRob]

The Seafire will happen. If only because of performance. Spitfire happened after the Hurricane. Rate of climb, maneuverability, speed will always have to improve. I'm only recently aware of the Seafire. As someone posted, it was a good point defense interceptor. Great to have that around the skies off Okinawa. Sorry, got a little ahead there.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Seafire will happen. If only because of performance. Spitfire happened after the Hurricane. Rate of climb, maneuverability, speed will always have to improve. I'm only recently aware of the Seafire. As someone posted, it was a good point defense interceptor. Great to have that around the skies off Okinawa.

IDK, off Okinawa all four of the British carriers present; HMS Formidable, Victorious, Indefatigable and Indomitable were hit by at least one Kamikaze. Indefatigable had at least two squadrons of Seafires, this site suggests she had four. I think the Hellcats and Corsairs of the other three carriers would be more beneficial as they could kill the Kamikazes further out, and their robust construction enabled more aircraft to be available. I'd like to see stats for the Seafire at Okinawa; how many were available vs. broken down, did they shoot down any Kamikazes?

Of course we don't want the Sea Hurricane at Okinawa anymore than Fulmars, so something had better have replaced the Sea Hurricane by now.

 

[glennasher]

Since the FAA used the Corsair early on, maybe they should have kept some of them to replace of the Sea Hurricanes. They already had them, right? Even Hellcats would be better, no? (by 1945, for Okinawa).

 

[RCAFson]

IDK, off Okinawa all four of the British carriers present; HMS Formidable, Victorious, Indefatigable and Indomitable were hit by at least one Kamikaze. Indefatigable had at least two squadrons of Seafires, this site suggests she had four. I think the Hellcats and Corsairs of the other three carriers would be more beneficial as they could kill the Kamikazes further out, and their robust construction enabled more aircraft to be available. I'd like to see stats for the Seafire at Okinawa; how many were available vs. broken down, did they shoot down any Kamikazes?

Of course we don't want the Sea Hurricane at Okinawa anymore than Fulmars, so something had better have replaced the Sea Hurricane by now.

The Seafire was developed prior to the Hellcat and F4U entering service, and it's primary opponent was to be Luftwaffe fighters, especially the FW190.

You can only kill Kamikazes if you can intercept them. Given equal radar GCI, the F6F/F4U probably had a slight edge over the Seafire because of their greater endurance and firing time, but it's not likely to have been a great difference. Kamikazes, were, in general, easy targets for CAP fighters if they could be vectored correctly. The Seafire appears to have suffered more damage in deck landing accidents then the F6F/F4U, but after the introduction of 90IG drop tanks the rate of Seafire unserviceability dropped simply because they didn't have to land to refuel as often. More endurance = fewer deck landings.

An F6F squadron, for example, that has no drop tanks will suffer more landing accidents due to their lesser endurance than the same squadron equipped with drop tanks.

Here's an interesting article on the Seafire. It states that by wars end it achieved a lower loss rate than F4Us flying the same missions:

http://donaldnijboer.com/pdfs/kamakazikiller.pdf

The use of the 90 gal DTs really made the difference as the fighter then had much more endurance and did not have to land so frequently to refuel thus reducing the accident rate.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Since the FAA used the Corsair early on, maybe they should have kept some of them to replace of the Sea Hurricanes. They already had them, right? Even Hellcats would be better, no? (by 1945, for Okinawa).

The British Far East Fleet was a Smörgåsbord of whatever could be thrown together; the six main carriers (all four Illustrious and two Implacable) operated a mix of Seafires, Fireflies, Hellcats, Corsairs, Barracudas and Tarpons. On top of this, the Far East Fleet had eleven CVEs (HMS Ameer, Attacker, Emperor, Empress, Hunter, Khedive, Pursuer, Searcher, Shah, Stalker, and Trouncer) fielding a mix of Hellcats, Martlets, Barracudas and I believe Albacores... maybe a Swordfish or two.

 

[nuuumannn]

With a folding wing, wide undercarriage, robust Sea Hurricane in Fleet wide service, do we see the Seafire being developed?

Developing the Sea Hurricane prior to WW2 is probably the only feasible option, but it is tempered by its crappy wooden prop and fabric covered wings. Only once it gets a VP/CS prop does it make sense. Nevertheless, that would come naturally and it would have been a useful asset sooner than it was, as you guys have stated.

The actual timeline for the Sea Hurricane was commendably brief owing to the needs of the war, which highlights the need for it sooner, but it is only an interim and overall the FAA wanted a higher performing fighter, specifically a navalised Spitfire. That was going to happen regardless of how effective the Hurricane was - it had built-in obsolescence and it was only natural that the Seafire progress beyond the Hurricane.

Sea Hurricane-1

 

[Admiral Beez]

Developing the Sea Hurricane prior to WW2 is probably the only feasible option, but it is tempered by its crappy wooden prop and fabric covered wings. Only once it gets a VP/CS prop does it make sense. Nevertheless, that would come naturally and it would have been a useful asset sooner than it was, as you guys have stated.

The actual timeline for the Sea Hurricane was commendably brief owing to the needs of the war, which highlights the need for it sooner, but it is only an interim and overall the FAA wanted a higher performing fighter, specifically a navalised Spitfire. That was going to happen regardless of how effective the Hurricane was - it had built-in obsolescence and it was only natural that the Seafire progress beyond the Hurricane.

View attachment 601990Sea Hurricane-1

Perhaps an earlier Sea Hurricane will allow the time to perfect the Seafire, launching it from the onset with folding wings and improved, and if possible wider undercarriage.

 

[nuuumannn]

Perhaps an earlier Sea Hurricane will allow the time to perfect the Seafire, launching it from the onset with folding wings and improved, and if possible wider undercarriage.

Yup. Traditionally the Sea Hurri was only intended as an interim at any rate and Hawker's offering to the FAA was not to continue with a Sea Hurricane in future, but to adapt the Typhoon for naval operations as a counter proposal if the Firebrand didn't work (! That it didn't is beside the point at this stage!) The Firebrand was supposed to be the FAA's modern single-seater on which it relied, so lucky the Sea Hurri and the Seafire appeared, that is until Lend Lease kicks in and Hellcats, Corsairs and more Martlets arrive.

 

[Shortround6]

A lot of fuss and bother about very little.

The Sea Gladiator itself was a very temporary expedient. 38 interim Sea Gladiators (which were not catapult capable) were built, and 60 full Sea Gladiators. Some of the 38 interim Sea Gladiators had the hooks taken off and were returned to the RAF when the Sea Gladiator IIs showed up. In any case most histories say that 54 Sea Gladiators were still in service when the War started in Sept of 1939. (12 interim Sea Gladiators and 42 MK IIs?)
Could you have built a better plane than the Sea Gladiator II? Quite possibly, but at what cost and effort in relation to the few planes that actually saw carrier use and the even fewer that saw combat?

In 1938-39 the Admiralty and the air ministry were issuing requirements for and receiving all manner of proposals for turret fighters powered by Griffon's, Sabre's, Vulture's, Exe's, Centaurus's and other engines They were not thinking about Fokker XXIs or other low powered aircraft.

The Fulmar itself was just a temporary fighter to be built and issued fast while the "definitieve" aircraft were worked on. Which wound up being the Firefly and Firebrand.
However by Sept of 1939 Blackburn, Fairey, Gloster, Hawker and Supermarine had all submitted proposals for the two seat fixed gun fighter and the first four also offered up versions using a four gun turret. Westland also joined in. Most of these aircraft were huge and some had rather unrealistic engine proposals. Hawker for instance proposing a 9720lb plane with a 50ft wing span and 365 sq ft of wing for the two seat fixed fighter and powered by an enlarged Napier Dagger engine.

It was not until the 23rd of Dec 1939 that the turret fighter requirement was given up and interest switched to a single seat fighter. But the two seat fixed gun fighter was still wanted.

The title of the thread is
"If no Sea Gladiator, what replaces the Hawker Nimrod?"

Not "what single seat fighter would have been cool to have in 1941-42 on RN carriers?" The Sea Gladiator was long gone from most or all RN carriers by the start of 1941. I believe the Gladiators disappeared from RN flight decks in the summer of 1940.

Unless you can find a pretty much off the shelf aircraft at the end of 1937 or beginning of 1938 it's the Gladiator or nothing. By the time you fit a new wing to the Gladiator, test fly it, tool up and produce even a few dozen aircraft the need for the Gladiator substitute is nearly past, Skuas were being issued during 1939 and the Fulmar started to be delivered in Jan/Feb of 1940.

See Tony Butler's "British Secret Projects 3,: fighters 1935to 1950" for more details on many of the proposed fighters.

 

[nuuumannn]

Unless you can find a pretty much off the shelf aircraft at the end of 1937 or beginning of 1938 it's the Gladiator or nothing.

Yes we know this, but the thread is...

If no Sea Gladiator, what replaces the Hawker Nimrod?

The fact is, the early to mid 30s specifications that produced abominations like the Roc and Defiant just prove that it was going to be difficult to predict just how things might look in the future. it's all very well looking back and saying that these things shouldn't have happened, but there was sound rationale behind some of the decisions being made. Turrets, for example were an unknown quantity in the mid 1930s and they promised accuracy and precision where there was none. In 1936, there was only one in-service aircraft anywhere in the world fitted with power turrets, the Overstrand, the next, the Handley Page Harrow did not enter service until early 1937, so what foreknowledge did these guys have? As for the engines, again, how were AS to know the Tiger, Taurus etc were gonna be dogs? The FAA is happily trundling along believing that the Skua, promised in a few years time will be a thoroughly modern compared to the Nimrod.

Things were happening really fast in terms of aircraft and engine development, not to mention socio-political change in Europe in the aftermath of a devastating world war. So easy with hindsight...

 

[SaparotRob]

What would've been cool was switching to A-4 Skyhawks.

 

[swampyankee]

What would've been cool was switching to A-4 Skyhawks.

Harriers wouldn't need catapults; A-4s would. Of course, the FAA would need an aircraft sometimes before the 1960s, so I think we can eliminate the Harrier

----------------

Keeping it within the realm of something realistically available for service in late 1939 to early 1940 would mean something with a first flight by 1937. The big issue is not the manufacturers, but the civil service and military leadership writing the specifications in the 1930s. The people with operational, military, and engineering expertise weren't talking to each other and none of them were paying attention to what the other two big players in carrier aviation, the IJN and USN, and the most likely continental enemy, Germany, were doing with their aircraft. The British powers-that-were spec'ing carrier aircraft seemed intent on ignoring what everyone else was doing with fighters.

 

[Shortround6]

Keeping it within the realm of something realistically available for service in late 1939 to early 1940,

Well, that was the expected service introduction date for the Fulmar, problem solved

The Sea Gladiator was supposed to serve from 1938 or so until late 1939 to early 1940,
Any substitute for the Sea Gladiator has to be available in numbers at the end of 1938 or the beginning of 1939.