Fairey Delta 2, not the English Electric Lightning

[zen]

For extended warning sortie, are we assuming internal fuel only or are we allowing external tanks?

I was thinking external drop tanks, jettison after draining in real wartime emergency conditions. Though a belly rank might be acceptable.

Liking the missile armament.

Current thinking....
DeHaviland Jay mk3 and mk4 (Blue Vesta) plus mk5 (later becoming Blue Dolphin).
Fairey 'cleaned up' Fireflash mk2 (integral motor) and mk3 (SARH).
Red Dean mk2 with a lower thrust motor for supersonic launch.

AI.23 or AI.20 makes sense at this time, but hopefully AI.23 is the chosen set, this could be pre-specified I guess.

At the time they were hedging bets, it's not impossible ECKO might derive a enhanced AI.20 version to meet needs.

Are we ruling out rockets, even for RATOG?

Not ruling out RATOG for emergency launch but obviously favouring pure jet power in the air.

I'd probably want to limit the tenders

Not how things went at the time.

I would disagree here. With my rationalisation hat on, this seems wasteful.

Again at the time, logical, but obviously due to constraints. It's likely to be cut to 2 competitors and just funding one due to financial constraints.

I'm pushy, I'm the annoying Air Marshall thumping the table demanding it in service by 1960. That's 6 years from ITP.

I'm not talking their original schedule, which is likely what you indicate, but rather the likely outcome.

AWA AW.58 was killed off in 1950.
Hence AW.65 as a basis. Likely with single reheated Gyron and thinner wings. A bit of a Super Tiger-like concept.
For Bristol their Type 184 maybe more likely inspiration for their solution. Essentially a Mirage III like design, though potentially a synergy with Fairey's design.

EE P.6 definitely.

Saro P.163 very likely, albeit with a P.177 style front end. DH would throw their weight in behind Saro of they look like winning.

Vickers-Supermarine is the most difficult to guesstimate IMO.

 

[Rule of cool]

@zen weren't the mid 50s British radar AAMs too technologically ambitious and therefore dead ends? I'm all for a radar Red Top, even a CW one with an emitter squeezed into the AI23, but I have a vague idea that the 50s electronics were too primitive in Britain to make these missiles work.

 

[zen]

@zen weren't the mid 50s British radar AAMs too technologically ambitious and therefore dead ends? I'm all for a radar Red Top, even a CW one with an emitter squeezed into the AI23, but I have a vague idea that the 50s electronics were too primitive in Britain to make these missiles work.

Red Hawk to Red Dean certainly was until the last radical revision.
But even then the details reveal things be not so simple. Both positive and negative.

But Blue Jay mk5 a.k.a Blue Dolphin was SARH and they'd yet to figure integration of Illuminator function on AI.23 and had some issues with AI.18 in the mid 50's. These were worked out by the early 60's.

Yet we also know the Beam Rider Guidance worked, it's just the limitations of such for aircraft with small radars and beam rider Guidance itself that proved disappointing in that case.
Much as Sparrow mk1 for the US.

 

[uk 75]

Both the Lightning and Fairey Delta are dead ends for UK industry once the F4 and its Sidewinder/Sparrow arrive.
BAC were able in real life to use the Jaguar to get used to making modern aircraft and then move on to Tornado.

 

[Hood]

I was thinking external drop tanks, jettison after draining in real wartime emergency conditions. Though a belly rank might be acceptable.

That seems a good choice, with four AAMs it feels like only a ventral tank/belly pack would be feasible.

DeHaviland Jay mk3 and mk4 (Blue Vesta) plus mk5 (later becoming Blue Dolphin).
Fairey 'cleaned up' Fireflash mk2 (integral motor) and mk3 (SARH).
Red Dean mk2 with a lower thrust motor for supersonic launch.

If we were being forward-thinking we might specify a weapon system concept of aircraft-missile-radar package but I suspect in 1953 we're a bit too early for that. Blue Jay seems to offer the most adaptability and growth. Note sure that Fireflash Mk.2 offers anything better - but it might be a feasible option.
Red Dean Mk.2 is giving me palpitations!

At the time they were hedging bets, it's not impossible ECKO might derive a enhanced AI.20 version to meet needs.

Hedging bets sounds ok, ECKO might be able to eake more out of the AI.20.

Not ruling out RATOG for emergency launch but obviously favouring pure jet power in the air.

Fair. Thinking about fuel packs, could be open to a ventral rocket pack (Screamer/Scorpion?) for climb boost like the early Mirage IIIs had. I'm ok with rocket packs but no "let's stuff a dozen Screamers in the arse-end" stuff.

Again at the time, logical, but obviously due to constraints. It's likely to be cut to 2 competitors and just funding one due to financial constraints.

That feels more sensible.

I'm not talking their original schedule, which is likely what you indicate, but rather the likely outcome.

I'd still hope for better than that, but its realistic I guess.

AWA AW.58 was killed off in 1950.
Hence AW.65 as a basis. Likely with single reheated Gyron and thinner wings. A bit of a Super Tiger-like concept.
For Bristol their Type 184 maybe more likely inspiration for their solution. Essentially a Mirage III like design, though potentially a synergy with Fairey's design.

EE P.6 definitely.

Saro P.163 very likely, albeit with a P.177 style front end. DH would throw their weight in behind Saro of they look like winning.

Vickers-Supermarine is the most difficult to guesstimate IMO.

True, AW.65 is newer design and looks like it could be adapted.
I could see Bristol offering a couple of designs to be honest.
A thinner all-jet P.163 would look better, certainly slimmer.
I'm still leaning towards the 553 for Supermarine which was pitched against the P.6. Feels like it needs a bigger wing but it could be something that's very potent (of course just we post the tenders out it's not long before the Swift becomes a fiasco and Supermarine's Spitfire-era glow finally dims to a low ebb).

 

[zen]

Fair. Thinking about fuel packs, could be open to a ventral rocket pack (Screamer/Scorpion?) for climb boost like the early Mirage IIIs had. I'm ok with rocket packs but no "let's stuff a dozen Screamers in the arse-end" stuff.

Indeed, I think that's also quite a rational approach. As a set of subsystems which together as perhaps a single pack, can be attached for a rocket booster, and removed for either upgrades or for more jet only missions.....possibly replaced by a fuel tank.

True, AW.65 is newer design and looks like it could be adapted.
I could see Bristol offering a couple of designs to be honest.
A thinner all-jet P.163 would look better, certainly slimmer.
I'm still leaning towards the 553 for Supermarine which was pitched against the P.6. Feels like it needs a bigger wing but it could be something that's very potent (of course just we post the tenders out it's not long before the Swift becomes a fiasco and Supermarine's Spitfire-era glow finally dims to a low ebb).

Certainly!
Bristol like a number of others would be likely to proffer several options. As yet in '53 Bristol, like Supermarine, haven't yet failed to deliver. The T.188 has yet to lumber on slowly.
Yet Bristol is doing great things with missiles.

Saro's team was praised on several tenders, it was just that no chiefs were yet prepared to gamble on them. SR.53 was their chance to prove it and led to F.177.

DH was remarkably sensible, but that was just interpreted as overly pessimistic and cautious. But was DH wrong?

If we're really being honest Avro comes across as the big 'what if', rather than Fairey. For a Mirage III to F106 Type design.

 

[uk 75]

Talking of Scimitars

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/designing-a-vickers-scimitar-sized-multi-role-plane-for-the-rn-in-1960.17529/#post-167422

A common RAF/RN fighter project before the F4 and much more practical than P1154.

 

[Rule of cool]

Both the Lightning and Fairey Delta are dead ends for UK industry once the F4 and its Sidewinder/Sparrow arrive.

Do you mean in British service or in general? In any case the Lightning (and FD2 version) window of opportunity is 1960 to 1967 before the F4D became available for export to Iran. In that timeframe it has the best radar and weapons on the market. Of course the enthusiastic support of the British government is a prerequisite for success.

 

[red admiral]

Or EE could have had a more effective bribery operation than Lockheed

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Talking of Scimitars

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/designing-a-vickers-scimitar-sized-multi-role-plane-for-the-rn-in-1960.17529/#post-167422

A common RAF/RN fighter project before the F4 and much more practical than P1154.

I would still have liked to see that being evaluated. That long tail in between the two reheats just looks and sounds like a potential fatigue issue.

 

[Hood]

Or EE could have had a more effective bribery operation than Lockheed

Every Lightning comes with a lifetime supply of Lancashire hotpot and fresh pies.

 

[kaiserd]

Every Lightning comes with a lifetime supply of Lancashire hotpot and fresh pies.

Oh no! All the people we bribed have died or had to retire early! Who could have seen that coming….

 

[Hood]

If we're really being honest Avro comes across as the big 'what if', rather than Fairey. For a Mirage III to F106 Type design.

Avro have zero fighter experience since the 1920s but the 720 was hot stuff, whether it was fundamentally better than Bristol's deltas or Fairey's deltas or anyone else's deltas I don't know. F.124 seems to have gathered a lot of deltas for those rocket fighters and a lot of them look sensible. I suspect the devil is in the details.

If I get a chance I might try and flesh out some of these what-if designs a little more.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Avro have zero fighter experience since the 1920s but the 720 was hot stuff, whether it was fundamentally better than Bristol's deltas or Fairey's deltas or anyone else's deltas I don't know. F.124 seems to have gathered a lot of deltas for those rocket fighters and a lot of them look sensible. I suspect the devil is in the details.

If I get a chance I might try and flesh out some of these what-if designs a little more.

The area ruled Avro 720 concept, ditching the rocket motor and scaled to a Rolls Royce RB.106 Thames, seems superficially attractive. The underslung engine and wing mounted undercarriage is probably good for internal fuel stowage but not great for external hard points, with a bit of work you might get away with a store under the fuselage.

 

[zen]

The Gyron Junior version to F.177 suggests along with the internal views that alterations to incorporate a Avon sized engine is quite possible and if one is trading away volume of the LOx tank and rocket for more fuel. Then a continuous tank along the 'spine' (upper fusilage) is quite plausible.

The inlet has potential for refinement I suspect.

The wing does hold potential for 4 pylons (2 per wing) as if I read the Gyron Junior picture correctly, it seems the main gear has moved to the fusilage?
If not and the main gear is still in the wing as before, this does limit the inboard pylons.

The nose does suggest the extent 21" AI.23 set could be accommodated.

 

[Rule of cool]

The Gyron Junior version to F.177 suggests along with the internal views that alterations to incorporate a Avon sized engine is quite possible and if one is trading away volume of the LOx tank and rocket for more fuel. Then a continuous tank along the 'spine' (upper fusilage) is quite plausible.

The inlet has potential for refinement I suspect.

The wing does hold potential for 4 pylons (2 per wing) as if I read the Gyron Junior picture correctly, it seems the main gear has moved to the fusilage?
If not and the main gear is still in the wing as before, this does limit the inboard pylons.

The nose does suggest the extent 21" AI.23 set could be accommodated.

Why swap the Gyron Jnrr for an Avon when the Buccaneer swapped it for a Spey?

Imagine that, a SR177 with 20,500lb thrust Spey instead of the rocket and Gyron Jnr, a 17-21" AI23 and 4 Red Tops including a pair of CW radar versions on CVA01!

 

[zen]

Why swap the Gyron Jnrr for an Avon when the Buccaneer swapped it for a Spey?

Imagine that, a SR177 with 20,500lb thrust Spey instead of the rocket and Gyron Jnr, a 17-21" AI23 and 4 Red Tops including a pair of CW radar versions on CVA01!

In context from perspective of 1954.
When Medway has yet to exist let alone it's scaled down version the Spey...

Prototype flight with Avon
RR funded by Government developing RB.106 "Thames" two spool turbojet of similar technologies to Orenda Iriquois. Designed as a drop in replacement for Avon...
So production version hopefully gets Thames for 15,000lb dry and 20,750lb reheated.

 

[pathology_doc]

Why swap the Gyron Jnrr for an Avon when the Buccaneer swapped it for a Spey?

Imagine that, a SR177 with 20,500lb thrust Spey instead of the rocket and Gyron Jnr, a 17-21" AI23 and 4 Red Tops including a pair of CW radar versions on CVA01!

The Buccaneer carries its engines external to the fuselage, leading to fewer problems if the engine bays need to be expanded or redesigned to take a bigger engine (in the Bucc's case, the Spey was non-afterburning). An engine swap in SR.177 would probably have been a lot more complicated from the internal-space viewpoint and possibly even structural framing.

 

[uk 75]

Do you mean in British service or in general? In any case the Lightning (and FD2 version) window of opportunity is 1960 to 1967 before the F4D became available for export to Iran. In that timeframe it has the best radar and weapons on the market. Of course the enthusiastic support of the British government is a prerequisite for success.

My point is that BAC or Hawker Siddeley would be locked into a UK design for airframe, radar and missiles.
Like the real life Lightning this would have no scope to give the UK the experience needed to build aircraft for the 70s like Jaguar and Tornado.
It would be the aircraft equivalent of the County class destroyer and its Seaslug anti-aircraft missile.

 

[Rule of cool]

My point is that BAC or Hawker Siddeley would be locked into a UK design for airframe, radar and missiles.
Like the real life Lightning this would have no scope to give the UK the experience needed to build aircraft for the 70s like Jaguar and Tornado.
It would be the aircraft equivalent of the County class destroyer and its Seaslug anti-aircraft missile.

You say that as if it was a bad thing, but it isn't; the AI23 and Red Top were both good pieces of kit. The AI23 in particular was developed into the Buccaneer's Blue Parrot and the TSR2's FLR/TFR.

As for building modern airframes, were the TSR2, Buccaneer, P1127, VC10, BAC1-11 and Trident deficient in the airframe area? In any case I doubt Breguet, MBB and/or Aeritalia had much to teach BAC/BAe in terms of airframe state of the art.

 

[uk 75]

I think the problem the Brits had was putting together a system (radar, weapons etc) rather than airframes (both aircraft and missile).
One of the contributors at the recent Cosford seminar on TSR2 made the point that BAC learnt far more from doing Jaguar.
Working with US and European firms was a bonus not a negative as you seem to think.
As for airliners. We did stick to a national programme to build airliners (BAe 146 and ATP) and did not join Airbus. Very similar to what you want on the military side. You may have noticed the UK no longer builds airliners.

 

[zen]

One of the contributors at the recent Cosford seminar on TSR2 made the point that BAC learnt far more from doing Jaguar.

Learnt what exactly?

Learnt to work with foreign companies perhaps and possibly to grasp the differences in perspective.

 

[Rule of cool]

I think the Jaguar put into practice the negative lessons learnt from the TSR2s big, centralised digital computer system by using small, decentralised computers in the avionics system. This is a good thing, but certainly not worth crippling the British aviation industry and RAF force structure for.

 

[kaiserd]

I think the Jaguar put into practice the negative lessons learnt from the TSR2s big, centralised digital computer system by using small, decentralised computers in the avionics system. This is a good thing, but certainly not worth crippling the British aviation industry and RAF force structure for.

But the actual reality was that the neither the British aviation industry nor the RAF force structure were actually “crippled”.

And even if they had been “crippled”, “crippled” by what?

The UK had got itself into a long list of UK-only miss-conceived aviation projects, over ambitious and/ or miss-directed etc.

Are we talking about the 1957 cancellations? With even just the power of short-retrospection only few if any of those projects were actual major losses for the RAF, though it clearly had a significant impact on industry.

I don’t see what other even vaguely “crippling” event occurred.

Purchasing US equipment (F-4, C-130, more recently the C-17) were successful decisions that brought great service and capability to the RAF.

And cancelling the TSR-2 ultimately saved RAF force structures far more than they damaged them and prevented UK industry being stuck focused on another white-elephant. For all the rose-tinted nostalgia the actual TSR-2 program (rather than the fantasy version of it) was a mistaken disaster. For all the hyperbole (and legitimate fears) at the time cancelling it was not a “crippling” event for the RAF or UK industry, as subsequent events have proven.

And Multi-national co-operation, allowing for some initial miss-steps, enhanced the capabilities fielded by the RAF and ultimately enhanced and saved the UK aviation sector versus where both were heading under a “Uk-only” policy.

 

[uk 75]

As I have written before, I understand the interest in what certain aircraft and missile systems might have looked like if they had been built and entered service.
Such threads on the Lightning FGA and Fairey Delta 2 would be interesting, even to a layman like me.
But to build a fantasy aircraft industry and RAF round them is a step too far.

 

[zen]

UK75 do explain what you mean by "fantasy RAF"?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

For what it's worth the Fairey Delta was at about the same stage of development as what would become the Lightning in the middle of the 1950s.

04/08/1954 and 18/07/1955 - First flights of English Electric P.1A

06/10/1954 and 15/02/1956 - First flights of Fairey Delta 2.​

IOTL the decision to develop the P.1A into an operation fighter must have been taken in 1953 because the orders for the 3 P.1B prototypes was placed a year before the first P.1A flew and the order for the 20 P.1B pre-production aircraft was placed 6 months before the first P.1A flew. See below:

04/08/1953 the 3 P.1B prototypes were ordered.

26/02/1954 the 20 P.1B pre-production Lightnings were ordered.​

The above is nearly verbatim from Post 188 of the alternatehistory.com thread "Fictional Inventory of Modern Air Forces" dated 20.05.19 and written by yours truly.

Fictional inventory of modern airforces

So there are problems with the Fairey Delta II as flown and really one should consider the military developments that centered around the use of a Gyron. Making it more of a British Delta Dart. The key problem is rate of climb with the Avon. Lightning and Gyron powered machines had far higher...

www.alternatehistory.com

I found it when looking for something else.

 

[TsrJoe]

After reading through 7 pages of this one, I have to agree with Ralph.
AH. 'Top Trumps' type threads are all very well, but when drifting off to realms of extrapolated fictional designs no matter how well intentioned, and non actual proposals, methinks the 'Secret Projects' forum isn't the proper place for them ? (any thoughts mods.?)
Perhaps our sister 'What-If Modellers' site possibly being a more suitable venue for such fantasies ?

Fairey's Type V/FD.2 was bullt to specification ER.103/49 for an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft.
From the design specifications and initial brochures NO allowance was proposed for growth into a combat capable aircraft nor was there any need for

Cheers, Joe

Ps. Thread 'Fairey Delta II Scenario' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fariey-delta-ii-scenario.31630/

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

After reading through 7 pages of this one, I have to agree with Ralph.
AH. 'Top Trumps' type threads are all very well, but when drifting off to realms of extrapolated fictional designs no matter how well intentioned, and non actual proposals, methinks the 'Secret Projects' forum isn't the proper place for them ? (any thoughts mods.?)
Perhaps our sister 'What-If Modellers' site possibly being a more suitable venue for such fantasies ?

Cheers, Joe

The debate has been interesting and all members have conducted themselves well through the discussion even if at times things have strayed a bit off topic. There is the ever present problem with alternate history in general that single point decisions can alter things dramatically - especially in the 1950s British Aviation industry! Permutations can be endless but so far I have enjoyed the discussion.

Why the need to query and wanting to lock the thread every couple of pages?

 

[uk 75]

There has been a definite leakage here from alternate history com.
I realise that I have set many what-if hares running myself over too many years. But they usually achieved the aim of teasing out research and knowledge from others. If not they died quickly.
Re-designing the British aircraft industry and RAF to ram in designs that never left the drawing board or gained any support in the RAF is pretty futile, whether you call it fantasy or not.
I urge you to get back to technical aspects of the designs that you can back up from research rather than entirely speculative assessments of their careers

 

[pathology_doc]

There has been a definite leakage here from alternate history com.

Re-designing the British aircraft industry and RAF to ram in designs that never left the drawing board or gained any support in the RAF is pretty futile, whether you call it fantasy or not.

The title of the sub-forum in which this thread lies is "Alternative History and Future Speculation."

If we can't talk about our dream futures here, then WHERE??? Maybe the reason we're arguing it is in the belief that the RAF and the ministers responsible made the wrong call, both for the RAF and for the British aircraft industry as a whole. To argue that this isn't our right is to posit an appeal to authority; that the expert opinion can never be questioned. And that's the most unscientific attitude I can think of.

 

[zen]

The proper place for technical information is in the relevant sections of this forum. Of which there be many.
If posters here in this section add information and you think it relevant to proper history. Then the obvious thing to do is ask said poster to repeat that information in the relevant topic/threads in the relevant section.
It is quite reasonable to quote such in the proper places and equally if a thread doesn't cover the matter.....then start one.

I'm sure others will appreciate such behaviour.
I myself have asked questions and started threads where I feel it's unclear what happened and when.
Such as Seaslug or Sea Wolf and their origins.

 

[uk 75]

But in this case there was no "wrong call" as neither Lightning FGA nor your Fairey Delta 2 variant were ever considered in the first place.
Even without the Sandys 1957 White Paper this was never a real option.
I agree it is reasonable to argue what could have happened if the projects cancelled in 1957 had proceeded, or if Hawkers could have persuaded the RAF to look at P1121.

 

[kaiserd]

The title of the sub-forum in which this thread lies is "Alternative History and Future Speculation."

If we can't talk about our dream futures here, then WHERE??? Maybe the reason we're arguing it is in the belief that the RAF and the ministers responsible made the wrong call, both for the RAF and for the British aircraft industry as a whole. To argue that this isn't our right is to posit an appeal to authority; that the expert opinion can never be questioned. And that's the most unscientific attitude I can think of.

But there is a difference between “dream futures” and reality, and such “dream futures” are increasingly dubious if they require and involve the active falsification of actual history and reality with alternative versions of both with dubious political undercurrents (for example a “stab in the back” myth appears to be being advanced by some in this discussion).

Ironically many of the same posters that object the most to the real world historic context and politics being brought in to these alternative history discussions are the most keen to push their own politics and “debatable” personal versions of history.

There is a significant difference between saying “it would have been cool if they had made/ flown that aircraft, I wonder what it would have been like..” versus “the politicians etc. stabbed us in the back by not building/ buying that aircraft…”.
There are a whole myriad of reasons (some avoidable, many that were not avoidable) why the UK could continue to be a major player in military aviation but couldn’t stay stride-by-stride with genuine superpowers like the US and USSR, and why the UK ended up taking a different route/ model for its aviation industry than, say, France and Sweden.

You can believe what you want to believe and, subject to the rules of the forum and the judgement of the admins you can post what you want to this forum. But why would you expect not to be challenged or extend the same freedom to those that may not entirely agree with you about some aspect of some almost entirely theoretical aircraft?

 

[uk 75]

As someone who has initiated a large number of threads in this part of the site and resisted calls for it to disappear, I have always welcomed all comments and crits of my propositions.
In many cases my thoughts have not survived close examination but the information contained in the posts has been valuable.
The idea that this thread should simply be an unchallenged opportunity for pet projects without any comeback will hasten its demise with serious members.
Reasonable discussion and debate are a positive part of this site.

 

[Rule of cool]

These alternative history threads are good for teasing out the 'why' of what happened in history. Its all pretty easy to find specs and stats, but the why is much harder to come by. Often the why is some arcane but real world technical detail; I learned in this thread that a Mirage IIIE loaded with AAMs and supersonic tanks can only do mach 1.2 and 45,000'. But just as often the why is the personal views or party policy of the decision maker, or budget, or industrial policy or whatever.

Edit: I also learned that the F105 had a 13:1 kill rate against the Mig17. What a beast!

 

[zen]

In the context of a conversation between Hood and myself on this thread, the process is to examine what needed to happen in order for certain alternatives to be pursued. Namely something along the lines of the title of this thread.

Which seems an entirely rational approach. Since we can see how divergent from the real world processes such a scenario has to be.

The context is to grasp the coming developments in technologies and how they will shape the art of the possible. As it is the understanding of the tasks and how best to achieve them.

As one looks at the details of meetings and studies, it's revealed at times figures did grasp where things would go. But for a variety of reasons their views did not shape the processes as one might wish.

But this is Alternative History.

 

[pathology_doc]

These alternative history threads are good for teasing out the 'why' of what happened in history. Its all pretty easy to find specs and stats, but the why is much harder to come by. Often the why is some arcane but real world technical detail; I learned in this thread that a Mirage IIIE loaded with AAMs and supersonic tanks can only do mach 1.2 and 45,000'. But just as often the why is the personal views or party policy of the decision maker, or budget, or industrial policy or whatever.

Edit: I also learned that the F105 had a 13:1 kill rate against the Mig17. What a beast!

David Anderton's "Republic F-105 Thunderchief" (Osprey Air Combat series, published 1983) gives 27 MiG-17 kills plus one shared with an F-4D. However, it does not describe with what weapon the kills were achieved (IIRC the F-105 was Sidewinder-capable). That being said, having a 20mm Gatling gun with a thousand-round ammo drum does help for being able to mash the trigger and keep it mashed.

I'll have to give the book a more in-depth read to see if there are details of the air-air kills.

ETA: Found it. 25 pure gun kills; the remainder involved the use of Sidewinder.

 

[Rule of cool]

Its a good real world example of a capability requirement or the benefits of a certain capability, in this instance gun armament and high turn of speed. Those air to air engagements, or dodging the SAMs, is why air forces demand stuff that seems frivolous much of the time like supersonic speeds.

 

[pathology_doc]

1) But in this case there was no "wrong call" as neither Lightning FGA nor your Fairey Delta 2 variant were ever considered in the first place.
2) Even without the Sandys 1957 White Paper this was never a real option.
3) I agree it is reasonable to argue what could have happened if the projects cancelled in 1957 had proceeded, or if Hawkers could have persuaded the RAF to look at P1121.
4) Noone is closing this discussion down but after seven pages it is clear that you simply like a particular aircraft and bewail the fact that it does not exist.
5) The repeated attempts in several threads to get missiles into reality that were hopelessly dated even when proposed is another fantasy.
Finally, if you really wish to stop people bringing up real history I suggest alternatehistory.com is a better place for this.

I've numbered your paragraphs so I can address them in order.

1 and 2) No, it wasn't considered. And that's what the FD.2 supporters are trying to argue was the wrong call, and that it could (and should) have been called differently. This is our opinion. I would defend it on the basis that a solid-nosed fighter with room for radar development was a superior option to a nose-intake fighter which very quickly ran out of equipment room where developed versions needed it most. It seems that it was Marcel Dassault's opinion too, per his statement (quoted in Project Cancelled) that Britain could have built the Mirage itself but for the way it did things.

3) If it's reasonable to talk about a future for Fairey's Delta 3 or the P.1121, why is it not reasonable to purport a developed Fairey Delta?

4) If Tony Buttler is allowed to state in a published work that he wished the FD3 and the P.1121 could have flown even as prototypes, is he 'bewailing the fact that it does not exist'? If not, why are we not allowed to wish that Fairey had built and flown a Delta fighter?

5) As opposed to the American missiles which, when taken into combat, proved to be the epitome of success? Excuse my sarcasm, but American AAM performance in the school of hard knocks was godawful, particularly the two more sophisticated types (Sparrow III and Falcon). Squadron Leader Poole's extensive criticisms as reported on page 39 of BSP Hypersonics... notwithstanding, all of this appears to have been said before the US missiles met their real-world test.

As things stand, the history of SARH AAMs in British industry is one of repeated cancellations before the problems could be worked out or failure to bring the design to a physical fruition for various reasons (sometimes related to the cancellation of a putative launch aircraft), again denying UK industry the opportunity to bring the weapons' issues to a successful conclusion... until finally GEC is given the opportunity to see it right through to the end as a replacement for Sparrow and produces Skyflash for the MRCA and the Phantom.