British 'virtuous circle' 1957 onwards?

[red admiral]

Once more we descend into anti-history. This is pointless.

 

[zen]

Once more we descend into anti-history. This is pointless.

Anti-history?

 

[Rule of cool]

Anti-history?

You know, where planes that actually flew can't possibly be improved on or built in greater numbers.

 

[zen]

The tactical aircraft that gets developed in the 70s as the Lightning replacement will likey use the data busses and integrated circuits from the TSR2 as well as digital computers with more memory from the start.

Errr....no.

By the 70's we're into new technologies and better computers.
While I have my issues with the doomer negativity. It's not wrong to say Tornado embodied lessons learnt.
What we can say is that more practical lessons would learned had TSR.2 gone into service.
And maybe some of the upgrades and revisions might feed into the next generation.

You know, where planes that actually flew can't possibly be improved on or built in greater numbers.

It is odd that people take umbrage over exploration of Alternative History in a section of the forum labelled Alternative History. Where people come to explore what might have happened differently.
Which is obviously going to have different ideas, different perspectives and differences and even arguments.

Because it would seem some believe that what happened was always the best outcome?
As if different is somehow.....sinful, heretical perhaps....

 

[Rule of cool]

By the 70's we're into new technologies and better computers.
While I have my issues with the doomer negativity. It's not wrong to say Tornado embodied lessons learnt.
What we can say is that more practical lessons would learned had TSR.2 gone into service.
And maybe some of the upgrades and revisions might feed into the next generation.

I've read that the TSR2 showed 2 big centralised digital computers weren't the go, that a lot of small decentralised computers were better. Apparently the rule of thumb was that a digital computer should be smaller and cost no more than the analogue computer it replaced. The TSR2 also had Britain's first integrated circuit and data bus, development of these would be direct benefit.

As you've said the airpass radar development would end with TSR2, the new fighter would have a new radar. It would also have new engines, the Avon-olympus-gyron jr generation is well and truly over and even the Conway-Medway-Spey would be less than whats possible by the 70s.

 

[uk 75]

Oh dear Zen you always mistake my counter comments for negativity.
I try as far as possible to balance the possible with the probable.
I have enjoyed Rule of Cool's alt history and his detailed knowledge and background to it.
Despite (or in fact because of) my comments I like his central theme that Lightning and TSR2 could have been handled differently. As you say it is his Alt. but I think readers welcome background points and challenges.
I am not ashamed to admit my biases and declare them.

 

[Rule of cool]

Admittedly this is a pretty niche scenario being limited to actual flying planes and making them successful. Usually scenarios are to get some other plane, or paper plane into service or whatever.

 

[zen]

Just a word on the New Fighter.

By getting the earlier FMICW set into this, one not only avoids the Foxhunter saga, but increases the realistic understanding of FMICW limitations and capabilities earlier.

Late 60's is when certain sectors of the industry came to the conclusion that VG wasn't worth the results. Brough led HSA towards that.

The set that should have dominated the late 70's was the system that gave 'birth' to Blue Vixen and Captor.

Much as during the 80's AESA research should have set the scene for the 90's and beyond.

The engines would indeed become transformed. RR would burn enormous amounts to master the three shaft system and ultimately this would be applied for military aircraft.

 

[Rule of cool]

Fixed vs swing wing is an interesting question. If the RAF knows the lightning is getting a mid life update then its replacement wouldn't be seriously started until after the swing wing craze was over. That should simplify airframe development.

I have a vague idea of something like Super Hornet is size and engine power, but with fancy inlets to allow for high speeds.

 

[uk 75]

Examples of fixed wing interceptors give you a pretty wide field in the 70s.

USA F15 and F18

Sweden Viggen

France Mirage F1 then Mirage 2000

Italy F104S

USSR Su 15 Tu128

Assuming no RN requirement size can be larger than Tornado with scope for bigger radar and more missiles.

Experience with TSR2 will help with the engines and whether side by side seating is needed.

Wings can either be swept or delta. Mirage 4000 might be an influence.

 

[Hood]

Therefore the problem isn't with the Trident and Pan Am's lack of interest in it, it's individual airline executives having too much power over the MoS and Industry.

That's true, but then all companies, even nationalised corporations, have freedom of action. It's not like the USSR where Aeroflot is told "you must buy Yak-40s and Il-62s that we riffed off Western designs comrade".
There was no legal way to force BEA's selection - the government checked at the time.

At the fundamental level, with no-one else knocking on the door to place orders and BEA and BOAC being your only launch customers you have to listen to them to some extent. BOAC in particular had a track record of saying "we'll take Boeings instead". BEA could have dug its heels in and gone full Vanguard or bought Caravelles instead and left DH holding the bag.

 

[zen]

Fixed vs swing wing is an interesting question. If the RAF knows the lightning is getting a mid life update then its replacement wouldn't be seriously started until after the swing wing craze was over. That should simplify airframe development.

I have a vague idea of something like Super Hornet is size and engine power, but with fancy inlets to allow for high speeds.

Of course the flipside is in Soviet style they might opt for the partial VG Lightning (mooted from Type 588 studies circa 1959).....and then the solid nose option (as per AW.406 tender).

That latter feature could produce the 'mother of all headaches' trying to solve inlet and duct issues.
But if they pull it off, they might have enough room for the new AI set or a reduced size version and with it the new AAM.

 

[TsrJoe]

Although not a fan of ATL. type threads, as i think they proliferate misinformation and 'what-if' fantasies all too quickly, one could have fun looking at what aircraft types came second to the actual winning specification submissions, eg. M148T where Armstrong Whitworth AW.168 placed second to Blackburn B.103 going ahead instead ?

 

[Rule of cool]

That's true, but then all companies, even nationalised corporations, have freedom of action. It's not like the USSR where Aeroflot is told "you must buy Yak-40s and Il-62s that we riffed off Western designs comrade".
There was no legal way to force BEA's selection - the government checked at the time.

At the fundamental level, with no-one else knocking on the door to place orders and BEA and BOAC being your only launch customers you have to listen to them to some extent. BOAC in particular had a track record of saying "we'll take Boeings instead". BEA could have dug its heels in and gone full Vanguard or bought Caravelles instead and left DH holding the bag.

Bear with me on a tangent, I learnt this a couple of years ago and it blew me away as I know have to filter every decision thinking about it. During the war the leaders of the Western Allies and economists like Keynes came to the conclusion that it was unemployment during the Depression that caused people to support the Nazis and Communists. So the Bretton Woods system and Keynesian economics was all about full employment, and many/most governments would intervene in the economy to ensure full employment was reached with things like national airlines and supporting the domestic aviation companies regardless of cost (to a point).

`There's no way BEA would be allowed to buy Caravelles, the 30 million pound Trident buy would provide employment for too many people in Britain to cover whatever marginal benefit the Caravelle might provide. US aircraft as different as they are about 10-15% cheaper per unit.

Funnily enough the BAC 111 which was designed to what BAC thought would sell did have non national airlines knocking on its door. I don't thinks it's a matter of DH and the MoS ignoring BEA, its a matter of their points being accepted, after all BEA was a government owned company which means it at least partly exists to provide a service and employment.

 

[zen]

Assuming VG gets ruled out and RSS CCV concepts dominate by the mid-70's another path forward for the RAF could take them down a route towards ACF, F-15 or Su-27 sized aircraft.
These would meet performance criteria but might be viewed as unlikely to achieve exports.

Leading to a bit of a debate.

That said the potential by the mid-70's for avionics to allow real multirole capability opens up the potential that a single type in variants that could replace both Strike/Attack aircraft and Fighters. This is after all how the F/A-18 came about.

However Anglo-French collaboration might emerge with the ACF.....

 

[uk 75]

I am still keen on the AFVG/UKVG missed opportunity.
By 1966 BAC had learnt its lessons from TSR2 and the VG F111 and Mirage G.
In real life these were applied to Jaguar as AFVG got canned.
It tends to be forgotten that in 1964 it was expected that TSR2 and Buccaneer would need replacing in the 70s by a VG type, which would also then replace Lightning.
As a bigger AFVG (no carrier variant) UKVG is what should replace Canberra, Buccaneer, Lightning and TSR2.

 

[zen]

I am still keen on the AFVG/UKVG missed opportunity.
By 1966 BAC had learnt its lessons from TSR2 and the VG F111 and Mirage G.
In real life these were applied to Jaguar as AFVG got canned.
It tends to be forgotten that in 1964 it was expected that TSR2 and Buccaneer would need replacing in the 70s by a VG type, which would also then replace Lightning.
As a bigger AFVG (no carrier variant) UKVG is what should replace Canberra, Buccaneer, Lightning and TSR2.

It could be. VG persisted into the early to middle 70's as a popular solution. But a bigger AFVG does run counter to French requirements.

You're right that they expected new aircraft to succeed TSR.2 and Lightning into the late 70's.

What might swing this is if the aircraft is GIUK Gap oriented and this would favour a big, heavy and powerful machine. VG would allow both reasonable runway requirements and long endurance in loitering over the sea. That endurance might translate into prodigious range. Which would interest the French.....
More Strategic in nature and making this intermediate between F111 and B1. Which itself would both justify it and compliment US forces in theatre.
That or it might be a Western Mig31 with VG wings.

 

[uk 75]

UKVG does seem to offer a bigger, better Tornado for these requirements.
France had its big Mirage designs but stayed with Mirage 2000 and then Rafale.
I suspect any collaboration would hit similar snags to AFVG and Typhoon.
F15 in its two seater version would be an almost off the shelf solution. It replaced the F111s at Lakenheath so RAF F15EK would be common.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Bear with me on a tangent, I learnt this a couple of years ago and it blew me away as I know have to filter every decision thinking about it. During the war the leaders of the Western Allies and economists like Keynes came to the conclusion that it was unemployment during the Depression that caused people to support the Nazis and Communists. So the Bretton Woods system and Keynesian economics was all about full employment, and many/most governments would intervene in the economy to ensure full employment was reached with things like national airlines and supporting the domestic aviation companies regardless of cost (to a point).

While Keynes wasn't right about a few things, he was right about the idea of keeping everyone employed or close to it (ideal unemployment is about 3-4%, since there's a % of the population that just isn't employable). This means that companies have to offer more pay to get skilled workers instead of "a body to fill the seat", and has a lot of follow-on effects about increasing general prosperity (as measured by GDP).

Sorry, after the military I went to school as an International Business major.

What might swing this is if the aircraft is GIUK Gap oriented and this would favour a big, heavy and powerful machine. VG would allow both reasonable runway requirements and long endurance in loitering over the sea. That endurance might translate into prodigious range. Which would interest the French.....
More Strategic in nature and making this intermediate between F111 and B1. Which itself would both justify it and compliment US forces in theatre.
That or it might be a Western Mig31 with VG wings.

I'm not sure it'd be that big, but I'd fully expect the BARCAP fighter to be big, Su27 to F111 sized, packing a huge radar and enough fuel to keep airborne for ~3-4 hours at the patrol point, and the patrol point is a good 250nmi away from the airbase.

A 2000nmi flight range in high altitude patrol would likely be attractive to the French as a strategic deterrent plane, especially if we're talking turbofans that are also efficient at lower altitudes.

UKVG does seem to offer a bigger, better Tornado for these requirements.
France had its big Mirage designs but stayed with Mirage 2000 and then Rafale.
I suspect any collaboration would hit similar snags to AFVG and Typhoon.
F15 in its two seater version would be an almost off the shelf solution. It replaced the F111s at Lakenheath so RAF F15EK would be common.

Honestly, F-14 is a lot closer to what the UK wanted for the BARCAP fighter. So picking up the Bendix Eagle missiles in the early 1960s would have been a good idea (or developing their own, of course).

 

[Hood]

Bear with me on a tangent, I learnt this a couple of years ago and it blew me away as I know have to filter every decision thinking about it. During the war the leaders of the Western Allies and economists like Keynes came to the conclusion that it was unemployment during the Depression that caused people to support the Nazis and Communists. So the Bretton Woods system and Keynesian economics was all about full employment, and many/most governments would intervene in the economy to ensure full employment was reached with things like national airlines and supporting the domestic aviation companies regardless of cost (to a point).

`There's no way BEA would be allowed to buy Caravelles, the 30 million pound Trident buy would provide employment for too many people in Britain to cover whatever marginal benefit the Caravelle might provide. US aircraft as different as they are about 10-15% cheaper per unit.

Funnily enough the BAC 111 which was designed to what BAC thought would sell did have non national airlines knocking on its door. I don't thinks it's a matter of DH and the MoS ignoring BEA, its a matter of their points being accepted, after all BEA was a government owned company which means it at least partly exists to provide a service and employment.

But by 1957 Macmillan is concerned that heavy military R&D is costing too much and diverting too many resources away from other commercial goods, manpower is finite and with an expanding economy that is clamouring for TVs, radios, coffee machines, scooters, record players, fridges, new homes, motorways, telecommunications etc. on a scale not seen pre-war a decision had to made on how much manpower defence could release.
Mr Ferranti complained how delays to the Bloodhound programme kept a whole line that could have been producing TVs idle for a year, losing him at least a million quid. Full employment is great but you have to maximise the quid per person, someone soldering bits of an AI.23 is producing some useful military contribution but they could be soldering three times as many TV sets earning their company far more profit (and earning the nation more TV licence money).

To an extent your AH of making the most of what exists instead of shiny new stuff would probably please Macmillan a lot, maximising use of Lightning, P1227, Buccaneer, 1-11, Trident and VC-10 would be the best use of resources to avoid some expensive R&D on niche types.

 

[Rule of cool]

Apart from acknowledging the Buccaneer will be in production and maybe get exported more customers I haven't touched on the RN in a virtuous circle.

While a virtuous circle could see SARH missile Lightnings and TSR2s in service I see little alternative to the Phantom for RN carriers, regardless of its cost. When its all said and done by 1964 the Phantom is the minimum requirement for an top tier fighter. There is no way Britain could make it worthwhile to develop its own fighter in that class for 1968 service entry, the production numbers are too low.

A better path might be to not demand quite so much British participation. With big orders of other planes the need might not be so pressing from the industry side, leaving only the capability side to drive British mods.

 

[uk 75]

The RN had a severe blow after WW2 when it had to relinquish the decent US types it had received.
I agree that the F4 is the only aircraft that the RN could get in 1970 that would give it the ability to deal with Soviet strikes.
Building a three carrier fleet by 1980 (the minimum necessary for an effective force) would have hollowed out the RN in the 70s and 80s much as CV(F) has done in this century. France had to make a similar sacrifice to get DeGaulle. I hate the thought of the RN with onky Dreadnought, Valiant, Warspite and the C class boats in 1982.

 

[Rule of cool]

I don't know if there's any virtuous circle with shipbuilding and marine propulsion, but maybe there is with electronics and missiles, which is ~1/4 of a ship's cost in the 60s.

However I don't buy the idea that a pair of CVA01s would hollow out the RN when 3 Invincibles didn't.

 

[uk 75]

Two CVA 01s might have been a feasible alternative to building three Invincibles but by 1980 the Eagle/Ark Royal would have had to leave service in order to crew CVA02.
With only two carriers in service the RN would have found it hard to always have one available.
The other impact would have been pressure on the RAF and RN to adopt a comnon design like AFVG, Rafale or Hornet to replace the Phantoms and Bucs.
But it is possible.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Two CVA 01s might have been a feasible alternative to building three Invincibles but by 1980 the Eagle/Ark Royal would have had to leave service in order to crew CVA02.
With only two carriers in service the RN would have found it hard to always have one available.
The other impact would have been pressure on the RAF and RN to adopt a comnon design like AFVG, Rafale or Hornet to replace the Phantoms and Bucs.
But it is possible.

By 1980 both Eagle and Ark should be retired anyway on hull life grounds.

 

[Rule of cool]

By 1980 both Eagle and Ark should be retired anyway on hull life grounds.

Ark would be gone but Eagle should have lasted until 1984 given her major rebuild 59-64.

 

[zen]

I'm not sure it'd be that big, but I'd fully expect the BARCAP fighter to be big, Su27 to F111 sized, packing a huge radar and enough fuel to keep airborne for ~3-4 hours at the patrol point, and the patrol point is a good 250nmi away from the airbase.

It really does depend on multiple factors.
If we're talking wrapping this around Sea Dart, we need the 'lightweight' 6ft TIR set and internal carriage. Or in other words something like the Soviet Tu-148 concept.
If we're talking a version of the A5 seeker on a different missile (HSA Family?) Then F111/F14 size is reasonable and both BAC snd HSA did do studies for such.
Sadly HSA obsessed with lift jets and switch in thrust deflection. But otherwise one of their studies is vaguely F14 like....

Honestly, F-14 is a lot closer to what the UK wanted for the BARCAP fighter. So picking up the Bendix Eagle missiles in the early 1960s would have been a good idea (or developing their own, of course).

I think Red Barrel is 50's? Essentially a version of Thunderbird and Type 85 Firelight. But that's on a converted airliner or V-Bomber.

a virtuous circle could see SARH missile Lightnings and TSR2s in service I see little alternative to the Phantom for RN carriers, regardless of its cost. When its all said and done by 1964 the Phantom is the minimum requirement for an top tier fighter. There is no way Britain could make it worthwhile to develop its own fighter in that class for 1968 service entry, the production numbers are too low.

As I've suggested, funding Type 588 VG wing on Lightning from '59 would get you a VG Lightning ISD by '65 (bypassing NMBR.3 after the 'joint' win) and essentially plug RN into RAF logistics and training.
F4 Phantom II is not the minimum, even after '63. But it's radar-missile combination on a platform with supersonic performance is.

Having settled to develop Lightning, with radar upgrades and radar guided missiles, this pathway with VG isn't unaffordable and has multiple benefits at moderate compromise.
VG needs a test system anyway.

Which for the RN in the early 60’s doesn't look like compromise at all. Just an logical intermediate step to the wonder weapons of tomorrow.

RAF might suport this path to improve airfield flexibility (particularly EoS) and increase loitering capability on CAP. The latter becoming increasingly necessary.

Again this alleviates pressure on next generation aircraft. VG gets tested, implemented on Lightning production in the 60's and pushes back the new system into the 70's or even early 80's.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't know if there's any virtuous circle with shipbuilding and marine propulsion, but maybe there is with electronics and missiles, which is ~1/4 of a ship's cost in the 60s.

There is a competent industrial policy with shipbuilding.

Look at what Japan does. They design a ship and have a few of that type made (number depending on displacement), with two different shipbuilders alternating production for however many hulls are getting built. As soon as those first contracts are signed, they start designing the follow on class. So basically the two yards always have a ship of whatever type under construction, and are always busy. No lapses in production, no layoffs, no stupidity.

Need 10x ASW frigates? No problem, they'll be built over ~10 years, and by the time the last ASW frigate comes off the slipway the first one can be sold off to another country because their successor class is designed and ready to build.

 

[Pirate Pete]

It really does depend on multiple factors.
If we're talking wrapping this around Sea Dart, we need the 'lightweight' 6ft TIR set and internal carriage. Or in other words something like the Soviet Tu-148 concept.
If we're talking a version of the A5 seeker on a different missile (HSA Family?) Then F111/F14 size is reasonable and both BAC snd HSA did do studies for such.
Sadly HSA obsessed with lift jets and switch in thrust deflection. But otherwise one of their studies is vaguely F14 like....

I think Red Barrel is 50's? Essentially a version of Thunderbird and Type 85 Firelight. But that's on a converted airliner or V-Bomber.

As I've suggested, funding Type 588 VG wing on Lightning from '59 would get you a VG Lightning ISD by '65 (bypassing NMBR.3 after the 'joint' win) and essentially plug RN into RAF logistics and training.
F4 Phantom II is not the minimum, even after '63. But it's radar-missile combination on a platform with supersonic performance is.

Having settled to develop Lightning, with radar upgrades and radar guided missiles, this pathway with VG isn't unaffordable and has multiple benefits at moderate compromise.
VG needs a test system anyway.

Which for the RN in the early 60’s doesn't look like compromise at all. Just an logical intermediate step to the wonder weapons of tomorrow.

RAF might suport this path to improve airfield flexibility (particularly EoS) and increase loitering capability on CAP. The latter becoming increasingly necessary.

Again this alleviates pressure on next generation aircraft. VG gets tested, implemented on Lightning production in the 60's and pushes back the new system into the 70's or even early 80's.

Didn’t the Lightning have a reputation for seeping (LEAKING) fuel?
If that was/is the case, sorry, but with the best will in the world, the Navy is not going to want it’s carrier flight decks or hangar decks ‘awash’ with aviation fuel!

 

[zen]

Didn’t the Lightning have a reputation for seeping (LEAKING) fuel?

I thought that was oil from Scimitars?

 

[Rule of cool]

There is a competent industrial policy with shipbuilding.

Look at what Japan does. They design a ship and have a few of that type made (number depending on displacement), with two different shipbuilders alternating production for however many hulls are getting built. As soon as those first contracts are signed, they start designing the follow on class. So basically the two yards always have a ship of whatever type under construction, and are always busy. No lapses in production, no layoffs, no stupidity.

Need 10x ASW frigates? No problem, they'll be built over ~10 years, and by the time the last ASW frigate comes off the slipway the first one can be sold off to another country because their successor class is designed and ready to build.

Isn't this largely what happened, IIUC only 2 yards built nuclear subs? Sure it mightn't have been the case with surface warships but Britain was building these in pretty large numbers from 57 through the 60s, so how much improvement can be made there?

I think in RN terms a virtuous circle would be Harland & Wolff and John Brown* going straight from building Fearless and Intrepid (as large, complex ships with command facilities) to CVA01 and 02 due to planning for virtually no gap in the work. However I don't know what would then happen at these 2 yards once the CVAs are launched.

*IIUC these were the preferred builders of the CVA01s

Other than that the big ships as the centrepiece of a more powerful RN would likely be a number of individual decisions;

• only Ark and Eagle are big enough to last into the 70s so should be cared for
• use Centaur and/or Hermes to test the command cruiser concept rather than expensive rebuilds of Tiger and Blake
• that sort of thing.

 

[Rule of cool]

As I've suggested, funding Type 588 VG wing on Lightning from '59 would get you a VG Lightning ISD by '65 (bypassing NMBR.3 after the 'joint' win) and essentially plug RN into RAF logistics and training.
F4 Phantom II is not the minimum, even after '63. But it's radar-missile combination on a platform with supersonic performance is.

Having settled to develop Lightning, with radar upgrades and radar guided missiles, this pathway with VG isn't unaffordable and has multiple benefits at moderate compromise.
VG needs a test system anyway.

Which for the RN in the early 60’s doesn't look like compromise at all. Just an logical intermediate step to the wonder weapons of tomorrow.

RAF might suport this path to improve airfield flexibility (particularly EoS) and increase loitering capability on CAP. The latter becoming increasingly necessary.

Again this alleviates pressure on next generation aircraft. VG gets tested, implemented on Lightning production in the 60's and pushes back the new system into the 70's or even early 80's.

The Soviets did it with the Su7-Su17 and Tu22-Tu22M so it must be cheap enough overall, however the VG Lightning must also be navalised at the same time which might stretch the friendship too far.

 

[Rule of cool]

How would the Medway Trident go in the ASW role?

The engine in the tail would preclude a MAD stinger, but perhaps that could be mounted up in the T-tail?

The Spey Trident 3 was enlarged and fitted with a 4th engine, if the Medway Trident was also enlarged due to the development of that engine it could be a candidate for a medium AEW aircraft. Use the radar from the 70s E2 but with 6 consoles in the aircraft rather than 2 and beaming the rest back to the ship.

 

[Yellow Palace]

How would the Medway Trident go in the ASW role?

Very well indeed. The Avro 776 basically reinvented the Medway Trident, and was (AFAIK) the preferred proposal to OR.357 – apart from the fact that the entire requirement was judged too expensive.

 

[zen]

I don't know if there's any virtuous circle with shipbuilding and marine propulsion, but maybe there is with electronics and missiles, which is ~1/4 of a ship's cost in the 60s.

That might be for another thread I think lets keep this one aviation focused.

The Soviets did it with the Su7-Su17 and Tu22-Tu22M so it must be cheap enough overall, however the VG Lightning must also be navalised at the same time which might stretch the friendship too far.

Well the navalised Lightning was proposed to AW.406 in '64 so this was felt somewhat achievable.

Hence why I think funding Type 588 for VG research from '59 first helps this process along and makes navalisation something to add onto the Lightning development programme. I think 1962 is NMBR.3 decision (?), by which time Type 588 has long since flown and validated their modelling of VG effects on performance. So a stronger position to drive this forward.
Navalisation here is strengthening the fusilage and landing gear. Which by this point is just engineering.

Maybe not F4 capability (though F4 capability isn't quite the thing it's cracked up to be). But being costed in Pounds and essentially run off extent production line in the UK, it can access UK manufactured spares, UK trained maintenance and potentially 'joint' RAF training.

The old rule I read on P.1154RN was 1,000lb for navalisation, 1,000lb for wing fold and based on Harrer T.1 some 1,500lb for the second seat.

So I don't think BAC was necessarily wrong on their estimates for the weight. Odd to note their weight estimates for Type 589/590 were very close to this too. But then despite the differences, that was a twin Avon, VG, Twin Seater, with navalisation present.

 

[Rule of cool]

That might be for another thread I think lets keep this one aviation focused.

Well the navalised Lightning was proposed to AW.406 in '64 so this was felt somewhat achievable.

Hence why I think funding Type 588 for VG research from '59 first helps this process along and makes navalisation something to add onto the Lightning development programme. I think 1962 is NMBR.3 decision (?), by which time Type 588 has long since flown and validated their modelling of VG effects on performance. So a stronger position to drive this forward.
Navalisation here is strengthening the fusilage and landing gear. Which by this point is just engineering.

Maybe not F4 capability (though F4 capability isn't quite the thing it's cracked up to be). But being costed in Pounds and essentially run off extent production line in the UK, it can access UK manufactured spares, UK trained maintenance and potentially 'joint' RAF training.

The old rule I read on P.1154RN was 1,000lb for navalisation, 1,000lb for wing fold and based on Harrer T.1 some 1,500lb for the second seat.

So I don't think BAC was necessarily wrong on their estimates for the weight. Odd to note their weight estimates for Type 589/590 were very close to this too. But then despite the differences, that was a twin Avon, VG, Twin Seater, with navalisation present.

Does the RN VG Lightning need 2 seats?

The radar will be the same as the F6 in terms of range etc, but it will have a CW emitter and the collision course guidance system that was developed but not acquired. Further it will operate in the Type 984 (985/988) ADAWS and Gannet AEW environment, and will a mix of CAP/DLI interceptions due to it's endurance.

 

[zen]

Does the RN VG Lightning need 2 seats?

The radar will be the same as the F6 in terms of range etc, but it will have a CW emitter and the collision course guidance system that was developed but not acquired. Further it will operate in the Type 984 (985/988) ADAWS and Gannet AEW environment, and will a mix of CAP/DLI interceptions due to it's endurance.

That's a good question and not so easy to answer.

The Type 984 and CDS resulted in even the day fighter Scimitar proving effective in interceptions.
The system of the CDS was also developed for the RAF, but with different radars.and sits at the heart of much more extensive system tje RAF used.

Though the FAW were all twin seaters and kept workload down. But then they had hopes of much longer detection ranges. Which sadly, while AI.18 did achieve that in development gaining ranges of 45nm against a Canberra. It was never purchased and Sea Vixens lumbered on with the less capable version.

And it would naturally follow that being concerned to cut personnel numbers and rely on technology has already driven the RN down this route. So it's quite a logical move for Fighters.
Essentially this was why F.177 and NA.47 focused on single seater designs. Not just because of DLI, but increasing automation was seen as the way forward. The only way to react fast enough and rapidly retask in the face of large scale offensives.

This is why F8U-III actually fits into RN doctrine and why they investigated it.
A Sea Lightning could potentially fit that as well, if it's fitted with the datalink and Auto-interception system.
Once the RN be onboard Lightning development, the radar guided missiles effort becomes even more driven as would mkII Red Top with the liquid motor.

F8U-III would be inspiring here. Even if it still looses to the more conventional F4 twin seater.

But....this does pile more pressure to get AEW into the digital age and replace Gannet AEW with something better.

Though the twin seater wouldn't be a slouch.

 

[uk 75]

As I asked in another thread it is worth asking why the UK (unlike Sweden for example) only manages to bring one supersonic aircraft into service by 1967?
The Royal Navy has a succession of obsolete fighters post 1945 (US wartime types are given back) and this goes a long way to explaining why it wants Phantom.
If a Crusader variant or F111B had been in service instead I suspect the RN would have wanted it.
The Harrier is only accepted by the RN when the government suggests that RAF ones will fly from the Invincibles (as shown in early artwork)

 

[CV12Hornet]

As I asked in another thread it is worth asking why the UK (unlike Sweden for example) only manages to bring one supersonic aircraft into service by 1967?

AIUI from prior discussions it's a combination of Korea prompting mass production of subsonic designs (precluding anything like the Super Sabre or Super Mystere) and the 1957 decision coming right as new R&D money flowed in to produce supersonic planes.

So the Lightning, comparable in timing capability to the Draken, became the only British supersonic plane in town because it was advanced enough in design and development to be put into service ASAP to cover the expected gap between 1957 and the right SAMs coming into service in 1964. And any British equivalent to the Viggen was either cancelled in 1957 or suffered in development hell as part of the saga that started with the TSR.2 and ended with the Tornado.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Isn't this largely what happened, IIUC only 2 yards built nuclear subs? Sure it mightn't have been the case with surface warships but Britain was building these in pretty large numbers from 57 through the 60s, so how much improvement can be made there?

Make it the case for surface ships as well as submarines. Keep the yards busy, even if it means at relatively low production per yard. Figure out a way to reward the yards for keeping their employment numbers roughly constant, not doing "boom and bust" hiring and firing.

Have both "high margin" highly profitable and "low margin" just-barely-profitable contracts out there, so that the yards are competing to get the high margin contracts but losing one of those won't cause the yard to shut down completely.

I think in RN terms a virtuous circle would be Harland & Wolff and John Brown* going straight from building Fearless and Intrepid (as large, complex ships with command facilities) to CVA01 and 02 due to planning for virtually no gap in the work. However I don't know what would then happen at these 2 yards once the CVAs are launched.

Figure out something relatively large for them to build. LHDs, fast carrier supply ships (ammunition&oilers), maybe some new LSTs, Submarine Repair ships, floating drydocks or heavy lift ships, build some icebreakers for polar research, etc.

Keep telling Treasury that this is a Jobs Program that happens to produce a ship every year or two as a side benefit.