No RAF until after WW2. What do the RNAS and RFC operate?

[Kevin J]

Before WW2, the RNAS primarily operates Sea Gladiators and is in the process of re-equipping with Spitfires for the defence of ports and naval dockyards. The RFC has completed re-equipment with Hurricanes, no more Hawker Furies in service. What happens now? Do Spitfires get sent abroad asap to defend its overseas naval bases at Gibraltar, Malta, Alexandria, Singapore etc., etc? What is the role of the RFC in the defence of the UK? Industrial areas, army bases? Who gets to operate which bombers and why? For instance, does the RNAS operate the Whitley followed by the Lancaster because of their superior range and therefore usefulness for maritime patrol. Is it the float equipped MB 2 that gets to operate from the FCS and CAM ships or perhaps a float equipped Spitfire. Does the Seafire arrive earlier. The RNAS also gets the Hampden for mine laying, torpedo bombing and general reconnaissance. A separate RAF is planned for use as a specialist atomic bombing force, assuming the Americans let us have some of the bombs that we've helped them develop; what plane do they choose. So this is a general who gets what and why. Your thoughts please gentlemen.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Is it the float equipped MB 2 that gets to operate from the FCS and CAM ships

We need to start a drinking game, everytime K Kevin J wants a float equipped MB2.

That's at least four shots and counting, Search results for query: mb2

 

[Kevin J]

We need to start a drinking game, everytime K Kevin J wants a float equipped MB2.

That's at least four shots and counting, Search results for query: mb2

Wow, that many times. I just love my float planes. We should have fought WWII with them then you wouldn't need any runways. LOL.

 

[fastmongrel]

The RNAS during the 1st war were the heavy bomber force. The RNAS has continued to fly the heavy bombers and at the start of the war has several 4 engine bomber designs nearing service. The ultimate RNAS bomber was the Supermarine type 318

WT Live // Image by MiniMeteor

 

[swampyankee]

Wow, that many times. I just love my float planes. We should have fought WWII with them then you wouldn't need any runways. LOL.

Float planes are fun, and neat but the idea of a floatplane fighter was dead well before 1939. The only utility they would have would be as scout/observation aircraft, for SAR in good weather, and maybe for shooting down low-performance maritime aircraft.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The RNAS during the 1st war were the heavy bomber force. The RNAS has continued to fly the heavy bombers and at the start of the war has several 4 engine bomber designs nearing service. The ultimate RNAS bomber was the Supermarine type 318

View attachment 582505

WT Live // Image by MiniMeteor

That would have been a final tribute to RJ Mitchell. It's a testament that the same pen can make this, the Spitfire and Walrus. Three top notch but disparate designs, demonstrative of a leading aeronautical mind. If he can survive or avoid the cancer Mitchell would have made the RN some good jets.

 

[Kevin J]

So for the RFC the single seat fighter progression is Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest. RNAS, (Sea) Gladiator, Spitfire and Seafire. Easy. However, you will notice that neither service has competitive fighters nor suppliers. Which is not good? Even our communist Allies had competitive design bureaus and manufacturers. The Japanese, a smaller industrial power than the UK had more competitive designs in production and operation. We had Fairey, Gloster and Martin Baker even Miles producing fighter prototypes but no production, excluding jets.

 

[nuuumannn]

So, although this is a thread last answered over a year ago by a banned person, I think it has interest.

So for the RFC the single seat fighter progression is Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest. RNAS, (Sea) Gladiator, Spitfire and Seafire.

I don't agree (yes, I know he's been banned, just putting this out there). While it is tempted to accept that the original timeline might have been followed through, if the RNAS and RFC remained separate entities, British carrier decks and military aviation in general might have looked somewhat different between the wars. The RNAs was a world leader in carrier design and technique, but post war that lead was quickly eroded away because the RAF assumed control of all military aviation. The one certainty that would have happened that did not at the outbreak of WW2 would have been a modern single seat aircraft carrier based fighter.

So, Sopwith, as we know was a famous aircraft company from the Great War whose products equipped both the RFC and RNAS, but what is not always recognised is that Tom Sopwith had always been keen to work with the admiralty. Yes, the Sopwith company were chief suppliers of hardware to the navy first and of what's been called the "Holy Trinity" of Sopwith fighters, the Pup, Triplane and Camel, all went to the navy first; the Tripe never saw RFC use.

Sopwith also developed a torpedoplane capable of alighting and landing on aircraft carrier decks and although the firm only built one of them, the Blackburn company undertook the bulk of production of the Cuckoo - this was in line with Robert Blackburn's desire to become a primary supplier of hardware to the navy as well, which during the 20s and early 30s came to pass. This meant that had the RNAS not been absorbed by the RAF, then British naval aviation would have looked quite different.

Navy First; the Nimrod becomes the first British fighter to exceed 200 mph...

0707 Duxford Nimrod

Sopwith, as we know only existed for eight years, after which the firm was dissolved, but it never went away; it lived on, named after Tom Sopwith's great friend and designer/pilot, Harry Hawker, and Sopwith himself sat on the board until the firm was absorbed into the British Aerospace conglomerate in the 1970s. so let's assume that a yound Sid Camm begins work at Hawker and the firm designs its first fighters for the navy, not the RFC, so the Nimrod and Osprey precede the Fury and the Hart into service - that line of beautifully sleek inter-war biplanes continues, but the navy leads their development and use. This, naturally leads to the "Monoplane Fury" becoming the "Monoplane Nimrod", which means that the Hawker Hurricane is a naval fighter first. By 1937 the Royal Navy sees Hurricanes on its carrier decks and the godforsaken fighter/dive bomber Skua is nowhere to be seen and the naval Henley dive bomber enters service on British carriers shortly after the Hurricane.

The Hurricane is the mainstay of the RNAS fighter squadrons in the late 1930s to the early 1940s, when replaced by the formidable Typhoon.

Sea Hurricane-3

Next, of course, the development of Hawker fighters continues through the Tornado, Typhoon, Tempest and Fury, but of course they are developed with a naval angle, and the Typhoon, with extra strengthening in its tail section because it is expected to operate from carriers from the outset is a formidable carrier fighter that enters service in 1942 to replace the Hurricane.

The Fury makes its debut in 1944 aboard British carriers and is an instant success.

Fury static

Another line of development that is often overlooked prior to R.J. Mitchell's most famous product is that Supermarine (see, it's in the name) built watercraft, which means the navy would get the line of flying boats and float planes that the firm constructed, not the RFC which means we could have seen a Hooked Shrew/Spitfire sooner than traditionally.

The Sea Spitfire, whose origins date back to 1938 result in a clean and effective naval point defence interceptor partner to the Hawker naval fighters.

DSC_0688

All of a sudden the FAA is looking a lot healthier. This does mean that Britain's land based fighter arm is a little less numerous at the outbreak of WW2, but with more naval fighters and perhaps greater numbers of carriers, Britain's air defence takes on a new perspective...

 

[southjn1982]

So, although this is a thread last answered over a year ago by a banned person, I think it has interest.




I don't agree (yes, I know he's been banned, just putting this out there). While it is tempted to accept that the original timeline might have been followed through, if the RNAS and RFC remained separate entities, British carrier decks and military aviation in general might have looked somewhat different between the wars. The RNAs was a world leader in carrier design and technique, but post war that lead was quickly eroded away because the RAF assumed control of all military aviation. The one certainty that would have happened that did not at the outbreak of WW2 would have been a modern single seat aircraft carrier based fighter.

So, Sopwith, as we know was a famous aircraft company from the Great War whose products equipped both the RFC and RNAS, but what is not always recognised is that Tom Sopwith had always been keen to work with the admiralty. Yes, the Sopwith company were chief suppliers of hardware to the navy first and of what's been called the "Holy Trinity" of Sopwith fighters, the Pup, Triplane and Camel, all went to the navy first; the Tripe never saw RFC use.

Sopwith also developed a torpedoplane capable of alighting and landing on aircraft carrier decks and although the firm only built one of them, the Blackburn company undertook the bulk of production of the Cuckoo - this was in line with Robert Blackburn's desire to become a primary supplier of hardware to the navy as well, which during the 20s and early 30s came to pass. This meant that had the RNAS not been absorbed by the RAF, then British naval aviation would have looked quite different.

Navy First; the Nimrod becomes the first British fighter to exceed 200 mph...

View attachment 6514920707 Duxford Nimrod

Sopwith, as we know only existed for eight years, after which the firm was dissolved, but it never went away; it lived on, named after Tom Sopwith's great friend and designer/pilot, Harry Hawker, and Sopwith himself sat on the board until the firm was absorbed into the British Aerospace conglomerate in the 1970s. so let's assume that a yound Sid Camm begins work at Hawker and the firm designs its first fighters for the navy, not the RFC, so the Nimrod and Osprey precede the Fury and the Hart into service - that line of beautifully sleek inter-war biplanes continues, but the navy leads their development and use. This, naturally leads to the "Monoplane Fury" becoming the "Monoplane Nimrod", which means that the Hawker Hurricane is a naval fighter first. By 1937 the Royal Navy sees Hurricanes on its carrier decks and the godforsaken fighter/dive bomber Skua is nowhere to be seen and the naval Henley dive bomber enters service on British carriers shortly after the Hurricane.

The Hurricane is the mainstay of the RNAS fighter squadrons in the late 1930s to the early 1940s, when replaced by the formidable Typhoon.

View attachment 651493Sea Hurricane-3

Next, of course, the development of Hawker fighters continues through the Tornado, Typhoon, Tempest and Fury, but of course they are developed with a naval angle, and the Typhoon, with extra strengthening in its tail section because it is expected to operate from carriers from the outset is a formidable carrier fighter that enters service in 1942 to replace the Hurricane.

The Fury makes its debut in 1944 aboard British carriers and is an instant success.

View attachment 651494Fury static

Another line of development that is often overlooked prior to R.J. Mitchell's most famous product is that Supermarine (see, it's in the name) built watercraft, which means the navy would get the line of flying boats and float planes that the firm constructed, not the RFC which means we could have seen a Hooked Shrew/Spitfire sooner than traditionally.

The Sea Spitfire, whose origins date back to 1938 result in a clean and effective naval point defence interceptor partner to the Hawker naval fighters.

View attachment 651495DSC_0688

All of a sudden the FAA is looking a lot healthier. This does mean that Britain's land based fighter arm is a little less numerous at the outbreak of WW2, but with more naval fighters and perhaps greater numbers of carriers, Britain's air defence takes on a new perspective...

I couldn't agree more with your well reasoned and researched analysis. Two companies that have good links with both the Army and Navy and might be interested in creating planes for the RFC are Vickers and Bristol it would be interesting to see what they come up with, Whilst AVRO were also supliers of RFC planes. Gloster were also heavily linked with the RFC so maybe the RFC fly something like the Gloster F5/34

 

[nuuumannn]

Two companies that have good links with both the Army and Navy and might be interested in creating planes for the RFC are Vickers and Bristol it would be interesting to see what they come up with, Whilst AVRO were also supliers of RFC planes. Gloster were also heavily linked with the RFC so maybe the RFC fly something like the Gloster F5/34

Thank you most kindly. Yes, I agree, and I can't see much changing from the RFC point of view, with Trenchard taking up the position he held within the RAF and so the RFC's post-war roles and responsibilities would have been similar to what the RAF's were, with its Colonial policing role and development of army co-operation types, although both the RFC and RNAS would be deploying strategic bombers, whose development in Britain might have been different because of this.

 

[southjn1982]

Thank you most kindly. Yes, I agree, and I can't see much changing from the RFC point of view, with Trenchard taking up the position he held within the RAF and so the RFC's post-war roles and responsibilities would have been similar to what the RAF's were, with its Colonial policing role and development of army co-operation types, although both the RFC and RNAS would be deploying strategic bombers, whose development in Britain might have been different because of this.

One of the things that is overlooked until Trenchard was put incharge of the independent RAF he was a vocal advocate against strategic bombing as was much more in favor of tactical bombing. It was only the inter-service rivalry of the 1920s and the desire to establish the RAF as an equal partner to the Army and the RN that led to Trenchards change in views.

 

[nuuumannn]

It was only the inter-service rivalry of the 1920s and the desire to establish the RAF as an equal partner to the Army and the RN that led to Trenchards change in views.

True, but I'm sure that would probably remain the case as the navy having established both strategic bombing raids from early on in the war, against German airship sheds and the introduction of the HP O/100 would continue their use, but Trenchard in the fight for funding would probably see the value of its continuation, particularly since the debut of the rather impressive V/1500 that was designed to bomb Berlin. That is, of course unless the RNAS take the production aircraft, which were built by Beardmore in Scotland, traditionally suppliers of hardware to the RNAS and the RFC reject strategic bombing altogether... There's an alternative pathway...

 

[southjn1982]

True, but I'm sure that would probably remain the case as the navy having established both strategic bombing raids from early on in the war, against German airship sheds and the introduction of the HP O/100 would continue their use, but Trenchard in the fight for funding would probably see the value of its continuation, particularly since the debut of the rather impressive V/1500 that was designed to bomb Berlin. That is, of course unless the RNAS take the production aircraft, which were built by Beardmore in Scotland, traditionally suppliers of hardware to the RNAS and the RFC reject strategic bombing altogether... There's an alternative pathway...

Maybe the RFC catch the divebombing bug and go all Stuka on every-bodies asses

 

[nuuumannn]

Maybe the RFC catch the divebombing bug and go all Stuka on every-bodies asses

I've never understood why the RAF went all gun shy around the dive bomber idea. the Henley could have been a real effective weapon in the Battle of France, although in this scenario the Henley is being developed for the navy first, of course, but they might give some to the RFC...

 

[GrauGeist]

Great analysis, Grant.

So then, about the Stirling. Since Short was also based in maritime aircraft, it would be safe to assume the Stirling would have been taken in under the auspices of the RN, then?
And if so, would it be possible the Stirling's design wouldn't have suffered from the 100ft. wingspan edict?

 

[buffnut453]

Strategic bombing aside, the one activity that kept the RAF in business between the wars was Empire "policing". RAF senior leadership made a compelling case that maintaining a decently-sized RAF offered greater flexibility in maintaining order in far-flung corners of the world than could be achieved with a much larger, and expensive, standing army.

If the RFC stayed under Army control in the interwar years, then would the RFC be used in the global "policing" role or would the Army double-down on more traditional capabilities and push for a larger standing ground force? If the latter, then the UK would be in a much worse position come 1939 than was the case with an independent RAF. For one thing, the UK wouldn't have established the network of airfields to enable global movement of RAF assets.

 

[fastmongrel]

would it be possible the Stirling's design wouldn't have suffered from the 100ft. wingspan edict?

That was an Air Ministry decision to reduce cost or rather stop cost growth. The Government via the Treasury would still have the same control of the money supply wether it was an RAF or Navy contract.

 

[buffnut453]

I also have to ask whether the RFC or RNAS would have gotten involved in the Schneider Trophy races. The event doesn't align very well with either service, although the RNAS arguably was more closely aligned with the ethos of the race.

Certainly when Government funding was pulled for the 1931 race, would either the Army or the Navy be interested in pursuing it since it really wasn't a core business of either Service?

If there's no UK involvement in the Schneider Trophy in the late 1920s and early 1930s, would the UK lack the knowledge of high speed flight to develop the Spitfire and Merlin? I suspect, at the very least, that development of such capabilities would be somewhat delayed.

 

[swampyankee]

I also have to ask whether the RFC or RNAS would have gotten involved in the Schneider Trophy races. The event doesn't align very well with either service, although the RNAS arguably was more closely aligned with the ethos of the race.

Certainly when Government funding was pulled for the 1931 race, would either the Army or the Navy be interested in pursuing it since it really wasn't a core business of either Service?

If there's no UK involvement in the Schneider Trophy in the late 1920s and early 1930s, would the UK lack the knowledge of high speed flight to develop the Spitfire and Merlin? I suspect, at the very least, that development of such capabilities would be somewhat delayed.

Involvement in the Schneider Trophy doesn't seem to have had a major effect on the air services of the US, France, or Italy, so I suspect there would be little net change in the UK's aviation industry except, perhaps, the Griffon (which was more influenced by the "R" engine than the Merlin) would have been delayed and the Spitfire (which may have had some S5 or S6 DNA) would have developed differently.

One area where I think there may have been significant change would be that the RFC and RNAS would have had to (or been told to) have less overlap in missions, such as only the RFC being involved in strategic bombing, with the RNAS concentrating on maritime activities and developing more effective air-launched anti-submarine weapons pre-WW2.

 

[buffnut453]

Involvement in the Schneider Trophy doesn't seem to have had a major effect on the air services of the US, France, or Italy, so I suspect there would be little net change in the UK's aviation industry except, perhaps, the Griffon (which was more influenced by the "R" engine than the Merlin) would have been delayed and the Spitfire (which may have had some S5 or S6 DNA) would have developed differently.

One area where I think there may have been significant change would be that the RFC and RNAS would have had to (or been told to) have less overlap in missions, such as only the RFC being involved in strategic bombing, with the RNAS concentrating on maritime activities and developing more effective air-launched anti-submarine weapons pre-WW2.

My comment is less about the Schneider trophy directly impacting aircraft design and more about the knowledge gained about high-speed flight. Yes, the R-series engine was more an ancestor of the Griffon than the Merlin. However, if Supermarine doesn't get experience in high-speed flight, would it have the design skillsets to go beyond aircraft like the Walrus?

I think the ties between the Schneider Trophy and capability development may be overstated in the UK (e.g. the Supermarine S.6 directly led to the Spitfire...which it clearly didn't). But there is an argument that knowledge of high-speed flight and high-performance engines helped inform the technical roadmap towards the fighters of 1940. After all, America's Schneider Trophy contribution was built by Curtiss....so is it such a coincidence that Curtiss also made the P-36 and P-40 that were in service in 1940-1941?

Discussion of high-performance aircraft leads to the conversation about air defence. During WW1 it was a shared responsibility between the RFC and RNAS but I suspect, given postwar financial constraints, that the RFC would have primacy. Would the UK then be in the same situation as the USAAF where fighter pilots felt like their careers were going nowhere because the "bomber barons" held sway in the Army's halls of power (e.g. Chennault quitting the USAAF because air defence was being ignored)? I suspect there's a strong possibility of such a chain of events in the UK because, again, air power is not the core function of a ground army. Would the UK have radar and an integrated air defence system in the late 1930s if the Army had still been in charge? I suspect not because the RFC would be even more of a Cinderella force than the RAF was in the interwar period.