An RAF Whiff

[RLBH]

What if the RAF never existed?

By which I mean, the Royal Flying Corps stays to look after the Army's needs, and the Royal Naval Air Service does the Navy's needs.

One oddity is that the RNAS had first responsibility for air defence of the British Isles, as defending them from attack was historically the Navy's job. It also means that the RN gets control over its' own aircraft before WW2, so they might just get what they need. On the other hand, the RFC probably focuses more on direct support of the Army, so the heavy bomber force is not taken up, and lots of things like the Fairey Battle sprout instead. But they might actually get the power they need, being the key to the RFC, so that mightn't be so bad.

Postwar, we can imagine Royal Navy Lightnings, Nimrods, and such things - perhaps the RNAS uses heavy bombers in WW2 to attack ports, and from that, the RN starts flying the Vulcan. Meanwhile, the RFC gets more CAS emphasis, so that Harriers and airlift are the order of the day. I can't see that this environment would be conducive to TSR.2, although an improved Buccaneer is a dead cert. Why wouldn't the Navy refuse to accept a perfectly adequate aircraft because it is a Navy plane?

McNamara jointism shouldn't be a problem, though, if most aircraft are in the Navy. Just build 'em all to carrier standards. Which we all know is the best way to do it, anyway. The Tornado, if it sees the light of day, will probably be navalised. Ditto Typhoon (apparently, it has been designed with a view to navalising - anyone know how true this is?).

This could finish up really rather odd. As if RN Vulcans and Army Harriers weren't odd enough...

[Archibald]

That's just brilliant - and you have to turn some of the aircrafts you mentionned into plastic
This remind me those USAAC Sabres and Valkyrie I saw somewhere on this forum...  

[NARSES2]

Very interesting concept, and one to muse over.

Can definately see any heavy bomber force being part of the RNAS rather then the RFC.  Or would you have got a situation where Trenchard's Independent AF was truely independent ?


Chris

[Tornado]

This is a really good idea to study further.

I would say most WW2 fighters like the Whirlwind, Hurricane would be RNAS, (perhaps no Spitfire at all?), Typhoon and Battles with RFC. Maybe other totally new aircraft that aren't historical (maybe M.B.6 Tankbuster?). Some heavy bombers with RNAS but maybe no bomber offensive, instead maybe the navy would rely on a blockade with more carrier fighters and bombers and more carriers?

[RLBH]

Very interesting concept, and one to muse over.

Can definately see any heavy bomber force being part of the RNAS rather then the RFC.  Or would you have got a situation where Trenchard's Independent AF was truely independent ?

Apparently (well, so Wikipedia says) Trenchard was actually opposed to an independent air force before it happened. His theory at that point was that the RFC should support the Army, and the RNAS the Navy, whilst an air force would do its' own sweet thing.

Which, in due course, he helped it to do. Hmm.

Largely agree with your thinking, Tornado. I think the RFC might operate some fighters for battlefield air superiority, which might creep into offensive fighter sweeps, so they might fly Spitfires, but maybe not. The Tankbuster idea could well see the light of day, for better or worse.

The RNAS would probably prefer the Hurricane. In fact, if they don't split from the RN, then pilots will probably get decent navigation training, like the USN and IJN pilots - meaning no need for those two-seat abominations of naval fighters.

[Archibald]

In fact, if they don't split from the RN, then pilots will probably get decent navigation training, like the USN and IJN pilots - meaning no need for those two-seat abominations of naval fighters.

so THAT  was the reason for the skua, fulmar and firefly ?        

[GeorgeC]

In fact, if they don't split from the RN, then pilots will probably get decent navigation training, like the USN and IJN pilots - meaning no need for those two-seat abominations of naval fighters.

so THAT  was the reason for the skua, fulmar and firefly ?      

This is a cracking thread, I will do some detailed whiffing later this evening.

On this precise point, the 2-seater fighter was an RN obession rather than an RAF one, as they were convinced that one man could not do the job.  In part, it was because the observer (the RN don't have aircrew navigators because they 'steer the boat') was an RN post while the pilots were RAF.  Another driver was the desire to combine the fighter, recce and gunfire spotting requirements, and even the dive bomber in the Skua, in a single airframe to get the most out of the treaty-limited carrier fleet.

The FAA went to full RN control in 37 with the Fulmar (O.8/38) and Firefly (N.5/40) specifications were written after that date.  By comparison, the main fighters in the 20s and early 30s, when development was under Air Ministry control, were the single-seat Fairey Flycatcher and the Hawker Nimrod.  

[Lawman]

One important difference would be the lack of the constant battles between the RAF and RN postwar. Without the RAF constantly undermining the Navy, the carrier fleet might have been far larger. In addition, the Navy might try to make all its fighter fleet carrierborne - thus less of the delays (e.g. Sea Vixen etc all being delayed). Aircraft such as the Hunter would probably still happen, but as carrierborne types. With an all carrierborne fleet, you get massive economies of scale. Going into the '60s, you probably would see the RN getting its CVA-01s (hopefully minus the ridiculous fantail), having a fleet of around four or five large fleet carriers. There might even be a mix of proper fighters and bombers in RN service, but with small agile strike types in AAC service, perhaps a G-91 type, and even armed Hawks like the German Alpha Jets?

[RLBH]

On this precise point, the 2-seater fighter was an RN obession rather than an RAF one, as they were convinced that one man could not do the job. In part, it was because the observer (the RN don't have aircrew navigators because they 'steer the boat') was an RN post while the pilots were RAF.

Maybe having the one man doing just fine for a while in the 1920s will show them the light.  

In addition, the Navy might try to make all its fighter fleet carrierborne - thus less of the delays (e.g. Sea Vixen etc all being delayed). Aircraft such as the Hunter would probably still happen, but as carrierborne types. With an all carrierborne fleet, you get massive economies of scale.

But of course!

There might even be a mix of proper fighters and bombers in RN service, but with small agile strike types in AAC service, perhaps a G-91 type, and even armed Hawks like the German Alpha Jets?

I would expect the RFC will want A-10s, or something of that sort. I can see some arguments over who gets tactical airlift, but it makes more sense as an RFC mission (so the RNAS will probably get it ).

Two other things that have just occurred to me:
1. The US Army might be in a better bargaining position to fly fixed-wing planes if the British Army is still doing so in the Vietnam era.
2. With the Royal Marines part of the Navy, and the Royal Naval Air Service, once the Cold War is over and there is no need to keep the Russians from the Rhine, some bright spark politico will think it makes sense to scrap the Army.

The British Army has always been a bit of a spare part, when it hasn't been fighting, and the Navy has men to do it anyway. If we've got a big fleet, why not go back to Britannia ruling the waves? Now, that is crazy.

[Aircav]

Plus you'd still have RNAS tanks on the battlefield      

[Lawman]

At the risk of angering some in the community, a lot of money might have been saved by not having very expensive programs like the TSR-2 and P-1154 and simply buying the Phantoms the RN wanted. Because of the single service aspect, a much larger fleet of Buccaneers and Phantoms might have been a possibility (with a proper UK license production, more like the Sea King or Wessex programs).

With no RAF ego at play, instead of toying with the F-111, perhaps the Super Buccaneer might have been an option? Enlarged, and carrying a UK equivalent of the AGM-69 SRAM, they would have been a potent striker. Same story with the Tornado - a carrierborne multi-role version (instead of the IDS and later ADV and ECR versions) with more powerful engines could have been a pure UK project. With the RN replacing its Super Buccaneers, Phantoms and other fighters, it could easily have run into hundreds of fighters.

Just think about a Falklands scenario, with the Argentines having to face three or four CVA-01s, each carrying ~40-50 multirole Tornados!  

[Lawman]

Another possibility is the AAC could get a beefed up Hawk. Something resembling the Hawk 200 (four wing stations, plus wingtips and centerline), but powered by a non-afterburning RB-199 (which itself would be more powerful hopefully for its 'better Tornado' role, more like 16,000 dry and 24,000 reheat). It would probably be similar to the AMX, and a lot tougher than the Hawk we all know and love!

[GeorgeC]

There is a real world guide to what the RFC might have looked like in 1938-40.  John Terraine's 'Right of the Line' on the RAF in Europe in WW2 has, in Chapter 12, a snippet on the War Office's view of required air support that we can extrapolate from.  

In 1938 the British Army was composed of Regular and Territorial Army (TA) volunteers and had minor commitment to a continental expeditionary force.  Assuming that funds were diverted from RAF expansion to complete the mechanisation of the Army it might have consisted of

A British Expeditionary Force of an Army HQ

4 Regular Infantry Divisions in I and II Corps
4 TA Infantry Divisions in III and IV Corps
1 Regular & 1 TA Armoured Division in a Mobile Corps

Each Corps would have been supported by 3 Army Co-operation Sqns (1 per div and 1 for corps) - a total of 12.  By analogy with WWI these might have been commanded by 1 (Corps) Brigade RFC.  The Army would have required 2 Long Range Recce sqns, 6 Light Bomber and 6 Fighter Sqns, commanded by 11 (Army) Brigade RFC.  8 (Independent) Brigade could have provided some longer-ranged bombers, perhaps 6 or 8 sqns and a couple of escort fighters - comparable in size to the Independent Force in 1918.

The remaining 8 TA Infantry Infantry Divisions would at had at least one Army Co-op Sqn (TA - 600 series like the RAuxAF) each and perhaps another 4 as corps reserves.  

---------------------RFC-------------------RAF in France in 1940 (real)  
Co-op Sqns--------12------------------------5
Light Bomber-------6-------------------------3
LR Recce------------2-------------------------4  
Fighter---------------8------------------------6
Bomber--------------8-----------------------10

Total-----------------36---------------------31

UK Coop Sqns-----12-----------------------4 (22 Group)      

The key problem here is not the RAF's commitment to Army Cooperation, but the UK's lack of commitment to an army on the European mainland.  Conscription was introduced in Mar 39 and the planned deployable strenght of the Army rose to 32 divisions (2 Regular and 2 TA Armoured, 4 Regular Infantry and 24 TA Infantry).  While the corresponding air component requirement rose to nearly 100 sqns, like the ground divisions it would have taken until 1941 or 42 until they were all ready for combat.    
     
For Home Defence - GOC Air Defence of Great Britain (ADGB) could have had 5 AA Divisions.  Each of these could have had an attached Fighter Brigade of perhaps 6-10 sqns depending on the threat.  These could be Special Reserve Sqns (like the 500 series) comprised of a regular cadre and a reserve augmentation for crisis, and could have totaled 30 or 40 Sqns compared to Fighter Command's 50 or so.      

Aircraft types.  Everyone knows that close support of the Army, especially on the North West Frontier, doesn't need fighters but slower, sturdy aircraft.  The Lysander will be ideal.  For light bombers and recce the Battle would be the first choice, replaced by the superior Blenheim if money can be spared.  A four gun fighter will be suffcient - again funds being limited by artillery and armour prcurement - with the Gladiator being replaced slowly by the Supermarine Spitfire

   
 
With no money spent available to be spent on Merlin engines, 8-gun fighters, 4-engine bombers and RDF, selecting aircraft types after 1940 is easy.  

When the Fuhrer allowed the the National Socialist Republic of Britain to reform its air force in 1956, under strict Lufwaffe control, the first sqns would have flown some of these:

Luft 46 - the aircraft of a UK that lost the Battle of Britain

[RLBH]

Lawman: Agree on improved Buccaneers and the Tornado, but not so sure about the Phantoms. If the RNAS is likely to be ordering ~250 airframes, based on four CVs and historical fighter numbers, all to the same specification and all for the same entity, it doesn't seem unrealistic for them to want their own. IIRC, the FAA decided it wanted Phantoms as soon as it saw that P1154 was headed for a pork farm. Which was much earlier than the Ministry of Supply realised that, hence the mess. A fighter to RNAS specifications alone would be a wholly different animal, and could be any of a number of things. I favour the Blackburn B.123 at the moment, but an offering from Hawker might sell well overseas; that's not to say that Phantoms are a bad idea.

GeorgeC: You sure that the RFC and RNAS would mean a Nazi invasion? In a world where the Army gets the RAF money, maybe, but as you say, they didn't pay much attention to getting involved in Europe. It's at least as likely, IMHO, to throw that money into the RN instead. Maybe France gets itself overrun sooner, but the RNAS should be reasonably able to defend the country.

[GeorgeC]

A glib point on my part ! However, money was tight in the 20s and 30s and even in the rearmament from 36 onward.  Industrial capacity was also limited and had to be rationed, with much of the defence industrial base having whithered away, hence importing armour from the Czechs to build cruisers.  The late re equipment of the Army was largely due to the early priority given to RAF and RN programmes which required longer to deliver new ships and trained squadrons.  

In the real time line, the Army and Navy were not keen to eliminate the RAF in order to spend the limited moeny on more aeroplanes, but to spend more on their core porgrammes of battleships, destroyers, tanks and artillery.  Bomber Command and its predecessors were the obvious symbols of an independent air arm, with the Army and RN unconvinced of the effectiveness of the bomber.  Now they may well have been right that Heyfords, Wellingtons and even Lancasters may not have been the war winners that the Air Staff thought they were.  However, an Army or RN unconvinced of the effectiveness of the bomber would surley have given a low priority to air defence against it.  Why spend very limited money in 1932-34 on death ray research to knock a few Ju52s or Do23s or the specifications that would become the Spitfire and Huricane?

My logic is that the Army would have left all its new tanks and artillery on the beaches at Dunkirk having still been outflanked by the Whermacht.  The UK's air defence forces, without radar, the' Dowding system' of control and perhaps only just receiving its first, hurrily-purchased sqns of Hurricanes and P36s/40s would have been overwhelmed by the Luftwaffe.  The RN would then have been faced with sending all its new KGV and Lion class battleships against the a German invasion fleet operating under near total air supremancy.  No doubt they would have aquitted themselves as bravely and as honourably as at Crete in 41, but with similar losses and, quite likely, the same result.