Could TSR2 have been made to work?

[zen]

starviking
Like I said it's all details, details, details.
If one is prepared to completely revise the front section, then adequate room for the 35" set intended for OR.346 is achievable. Literally that is the basis of early Vickers studies towards OR.346.

The more constrained changes see just the dish ahead of the cockpit, so quite a bit of heavy duty cable to pipe the send and recieve signal from and to the radar signal processing elements packaged behind the radar operators seat.

The SLAR set option ate into both fuel and avionics bays. Not ideal. I think it wasn't worth trying to fit this to any fighter....unless we're talking something Red Barrel scale.

Though I feel the whole SLAR AEW system was actually worth more investigation. As this had much more potential than FMICW for the role. Mates more neatly with Marconi's work on STAR later on as I suspect it might with ASWRE's.

Similarly with the wing, which as I said has the modest benefit of being like the Harrier wing, an assembly bolted to the top of the fusilage. So relatively 'easy' to examine alternatives (a wise move by the designers of the time). But devils lurk there!

The missile particulars obviously impact storage both inside a given weapons bay and outside on pylons. What I've seen on TSR.2 diagrams is essentially Red Top, and I think some Falcon derivative (Genie?). Which are bulky and without folding fins.
The OR.346 studies with a very similar weapons bay certainly manage two or four of the John Forbat AAM (which I tend to call Red Card) and similar for certain size/weight of HSA Family missiles.
--------
Now a general point.
By cancelling F.155 and F.177, no matter the logic, it also cut the spreading of development efforts for new supersonic aircraft and avionics.
As it did Hunter and Javelin successors. Which ultimately still needed replacement.
Leaving only the new OR.339.
And everything had to be carried by this program.
This got worse because that effort still needed to happen and soon had to spread to cover NMBR.3 and OR.346. Only now the case for replacement was becoming more pressing.
By '63 Soviet display of new Anti-ship Missiles and aircraft drove a revaluation of defensive requirements. Increasing the urgency of FAA replacement of Sea Vixen and backup upgrade. This was causing a modest storm inside the USN as E2 started to hit problems.

This is why AMTI system is flown on a substantially improved performance AI.18 and priced up by GEC as a fall back option.
And it's why options like Type 583/584/585 are not chosen despite being a perfect match to AW.406.
It why cludged VG Lightning options are thrown at the problem.
And why Shorts hit up on not it's own NMBR.3 offering but a modified licensed F8 two seater.

Also why the RN could successfully argue it cannot wait for P.1154RN, even with improved AI.23 and Red Top MkII.
F4 NOW buys us time to keep ahead of the increasing threat and their eyes are increasingly looking at the USN F111 system.
The basis of the Class II Fighter.
Which our theory and avionics figures will say they can achieve if funded. Confirming the US will likely achieve it.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

You could argue that BAC never totally got over the EE/Vickers split - certainly BAe never got over the Warton Vs Weybridge Vs ex-HSA sites split. Tribalism was rife and remained so for many years.

In our alterative histories the reorganisation of the aircraft industry takes place 10 years earlier. Would that have resulted in a significant reduction in the amount of tribalism in BAC in the first half of the 1960s?

Deliver a working Olympus 22R on schedule and the British Aircraft Corporation will beat a path to your door . . .

I'm presuming that tribalism was rife in BSE too. Have I presumed correctly? If so, would the earlier formation of that firm in our timelines have reduced the amount of tribalism within the firm in the first half of the 1960s?

My personal opinion is that a BSE that had existed for another decade or so would have developed the Olympus for the TSR.2 and Concorde faster (and the BS.100 too if it's still built) but not necessarily at less expense. Firstly, because it would have been better organised. Secondly, because it would have developed more powerful engines over the previous decade than its predecessors, due to concentrating the resources expended by them IOTL on a smaller number of projects ITTL, so the increase performance between the 22R & 593 and the most powerful BSE engine in 1959 wouldn't have been as great.

 

[Rule of cool]

By cancelling F.155 and F.177, no matter the logic, it also cut the spreading of development efforts for new supersonic aircraft and avionics.

This is something I've been thinking about: general industry capability post 57 DWP. If better decisions were made in the 1957-60 timeframe (within the new financial and strategic limits) do these have positive effects on the ability of industry to deliver in the 60s?

I assume that this would need its own thread.

 

[zen]

This is something I've been thinking about: general industry capability post 57 DWP. If better decisions were made in the 1957-60 timeframe (within the new financial and strategic limits) do these have positive effects on the ability of industry to deliver in the 60s?

I assume that this would need its own thread.

It's a good question, and the details of cutting forces X or Y which might have saved a great deal, obscures the consequences of cutting completely the fighter development efforts leaving only Lightning for the future and Sea Vixen and Scimitar as the immediate solutions.

A high speed Fighter aircraft able to handle the high-altitude high-speed missions, would offload that from a Canberra replacement.

 

[uk 75]

I think that TSR2 could have been developed to replace the 48 Vulcans and give the RAF and SACEUR a theatre nuclear force based in the UK and Cyprus.
This removes the need to deploy Buccaneers and later Tornados at Laarbruch in W Germany.
P1154 is trickier. The planned 150 aircraft in UK, RAFG, Gulf and FEAF will give way in the 70s to three squadrons in UK and five in RAFG in the CAS/recce role.
P1127RAF is possible but short legged and not able to carry a good load.
Jaguar or BAC P45 will take until 1974 to get into service.
An off the shelf CAS to enter service in 1968 is needed. Lightning variants have similar issues to P1127RAF and are tied to long runways.
US or European types available include Mirage III, Saab Draken, F4C Phantom.
Reluctantly the P1127RAF is selected. It can incorporate 1154 features and in due course is chosen by the US Marines.
So by 1970 50 austere TSR2s and 150 P1127RAF are entering service.
Lightning will need to be replaced in the mid-70s and some Canberra roles in Europe and overseas need a different aircraft from TSR2 or P1154RAF.
F4 Phantoms are again a possibility but BAC and HS offer variants of TSR2 and 1127RAF.
An order for some 200 of this strike fighter will need to be placed in 1968.
Saab approaches BAC with a version of its new Viggen.

 

[uk 75]

Oh dear I hate these planes as much as Zen loves them.
Had they gone ahead they would have been bigger duds than Swift and Bristol 188.

 

[zen]

Oh dear I hate these planes as much as Zen loves them.

Ok this just goes over the top and is slander.

 

[Rule of cool]

Ok this just goes over the top and is slander.

Sorry mate, I'm with uk 75 on this one, although likely for different reasons.

 

[uk 75]

Sorry Zen I was being funny but you know we disagree on this stuff Which is fine I dont mean I am right and you are wrong. There are a lot of complicated pros and cons

 

[zen]

I work with what existed and what was on order. Like a lot of things in life, perfect is the enemy of good enough.
And in context that was F.155 Fairey Delta III and F.177 Saro P.177. Neither be perfect. But they could have been good enough.

Other solutions would have been preferred, but that's because I actually have an interest in design. Not that most want to go that route, which is more Theory than Alternative History.

 

[Hood]

I don't think that would disagree that OR.339, F.155T and P.177 were all fairly sound concepts when they were created in the late 1950s (whether the requirements were all sound is another matter), but that by the time they would have emerged in the 1960s all would have had some technical issues to contend with and that by the late 1970s they would be fundamentally obsolete in their original guises (TSR.2 would probably have been more adaptable/updatable than the other two).

But that would not worry the Air Staff of 1957 - they looked at replacements every decade on average, they would barely conceive of having Lightings and Canberras in the 1980s still, let alone P.177s and F.155s.
In some ways looking at this generation through the optics of the Tornado/Jaguar era is misleading, just as judging AST.403 based off F-35 and Tempest today would be.

 

[uk 75]

This is also true of the US but somehow their dead ends (F108, B70 or even Missileer) wear better than the UK ones.
The path from F100 Super Sabres via F4 Phantoms to F16 Vipers is not matched by any equivalent UK aircraft in the same timescale.
France also does much better. Mysteres to Mirage III and F1 and then Mirage 2000.
All UK has is Hunter and Lightning plus a slew of hopeless paper planes

 

[CV12Hornet]

This is also true of the US but somehow their dead ends (F108, B70 or even Missileer) wear better than the UK ones.
The path from F100 Super Sabres via F4 Phantoms to F16 Vipers is not matched by any equivalent UK aircraft in the same timescale.
France also does much better. Mysteres to Mirage III and F1 and then Mirage 2000.
All UK has is Hunter and Lightning plus a slew of hopeless paper planes

The French generally had a greater grasp of their means and limitations, IMO. The Mirage F1 was surrounded by a slew of cancelled prototypes, namely the Mirage G, and Mirage F2/F3, and if you look at them you see that the Mirage F1 was smaller, cheaper, and less ambitious.

The US, meanwhile, had and has money and expertise to burn on pushing the envelope.

 

[Hood]

In our alterative histories the reorganisation of the aircraft industry takes place 10 years earlier. Would that have resulted in a significant reduction in the amount of tribalism in BAC in the first half of the 1960s?

Perhaps that's more of a rhetorical question as it's hard to answer. Those with company loyalty ultimately back their local team unless there is a way to forge a strong central identity.
What the HSA folks in BAe didn't like was that the BAC management got all the plum directorships and largely cut out HSA and began transferring work to Preston/Warton/Samlesbury while trimming off the southern factories (some of which were in commuter Metroland and so were untenable anyway in the long-term with the added bonus of high land values for selling).
But then HSA had done a lot of site closures in the 1960s when it was formed, in reality part of the pain of rationalisation. Build more planes = have more factories. Build one type of plane = one factory.

One interesting thought that comes to my mind is, was the British Aircraft Corporation the right name for the company? Did the inclusion of "British" make the management think that they were the de facto 'national' aircraft manufacturer and therefore "number one"?
Should it have been the Bristol-Vickers Aircraft Corporation or Vickers-Bristol Aircraft Corporation? VEBAC? BEVAC?

The British Motor Corporation didn't really gel either, eventually it used marque badges (somewhat randomly) before merging with Leyland to form British Leyland - an altogether odd name for a company that sold cars with no car brand loyalty.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The relevant portions of "Squadron Patterns Plan P" dated 6th March 1964
From National Archives File AIR 20/11708/68770​

Link to Post 152 in which I compared the projected strength for the RAF in March 1975 under Plan P to its actual strength in March 1975.

Link to Post 289 in which TSR.2 isn't cancelled and is paid for by sacrificing other aircraft projects. The relevant projects for this post are the last 46 Buccaneers, Jaguar and the Phantom.

The Royal Air Force on 31st March 1975.

This post compares the Real RAF of 31.03.75 with the RAF of 31.03.75 if TSR.2 hadn't been cancelled and paid for by sacrificing other aircraft projects. (Follow the above link to Post 289 for more details.) The RAF had 33 squadrons on 31.03.75 in both timelines. However, the devil's in the detail.

Fighters

• IOTL there were 9 squadrons (7 in the UK and 2 in Germany).
• ITTL there were 10 squadrons (8 in the UK and 2 in Germany).
  • There was a second maritime fighter squadron ITTL due to the earlier retirement of Ark Royal.
• IOTL there were 6 Lightning squadrons (4 in the UK & 2 in Germany) and 3 Phantom squadrons (all in the UK & including the maritime squadron).
• ITTL there were 8 Lighting squadrons (6 in the UK & 2 in Germany) and 2 TSR.2 ADV squadrons (both in the UK).
• IOTL the F-4M Phantoms being displaced by the Jaguar in the GA & FR squadrons were being transferred to the fighter squadrons and by April 1977 there would be 7 Phantom squadrons (5 UK and 2 in Germany) and 2 Lightning squadrons (both in the UK).
• ITTL there were no F-4M Phantoms and no Jaguars so there would still be 8 Lightning and 2 TSR.2 ADV squadrons in April 1977.

Medium Bombers (Tactical), Ground Attack, Strike and Reconnaissance

• IOTL there were 24 squadrons (2 Canberra, 4 Buccaneer, 4 Harrier, 2 Jaguar, 5 Phantom & 7 Vulcan) serving in those roles.
  • One of the Buccaneer squadrons was a maritime strike squadron.
• ITTL there were 23 squadrons (1 Canberra, 2 Buccaneer, 7 Harrier, 10 TSR.2 & 3 Vulcan) serving in those roles.
  • Both Buccaneer squadrons were maritime strike squadrons due to the earlier retirement of Ark Royal.
• IOTL the 5 Phantom squadrons and one Harrier squadron converted to Jaguars by April 1977 which increased the number of Jaguar squadrons from 2 to 8.
• ITTL one Harrier squadron converted to TSR.2s in 1977 which increased the total number of TSR.2 strike/reconnaissance squadrons from 10 to 11.

Deployment

• RAF Strike Command.
  • No. 1 (Bomber) Group, formerly Bomber Command.
    • IOTL it had 10 squadrons.
      • 6 Vulcan medium bombers (tactical) including 2 recently returned from Cyprus.
        • They became tactical bombers after Polaris became operational in mid-1969.
        • They were replaced by 3 Tornado squadrons in the 1980s.
      • 1 Vulcan strategic reconnaissance squadron.
        • Except it was a Maritime Radar Reconnaissance (MRR) squadron and was part of the TASMO force.
      • 2 Buccaneer strike squadrons.
        • 1 overland strike.
        • 1 maritime strike and part of the TASMO force.
        • Under current plans a second maritime strike squadron was to be formed in 1979 with the Buccaneers from Ark Royal's strike squadron.
        • It was formed, but its existence was short, because it disbanded in 1980, when the number of Buccaneer squadrons was reduced from 5 to 4 due to its metal fatigue problems.
        • It's place was taken buy the overland strike squadron which became a maritime strike squadron in 1982.
      • 1 Canberra tactical reconnaissance squadron.
        • This squadron was eventually replaced by a squadron of Tornados.
        • Eventually, because the Canberra squadron disbanded in 1982 and the Tornado squadron wasn't formed until 1990.
    • ITTL it had 9 squadrons.
      • 3 TSR.2 strike squadrons.
        • They took the place of the Buccaneer overland strike squadron and 4 of the Vulcan squadrons.
      • 2 Vulcan medium bomber (tactical) squadrons recently returned from Cyprus.
      • 1 Vulcan strategic reconnaissance squadron.
        • Except it was a Maritime Radar Reconnaissance (MRR) squadron and was part of the TASMO force.
      • 2 Buccaneer maritime strike squadrons.
        • The earlier retirement of Ark Royal led to the second maritime squadron being formed in 1973 instead of 1979.
      • 1 TSR.2 tactical reconnaissance squadron.
  • No. 11 (Air Defence) Group, formerly Fighter Command.
    • IOTL it had 7 squadrons.
      • 4 Lightning squadrons, including one recently returned from Cyprus.
        • 2 of the above would convert to Phantoms by April 1977.
      • 3 Phantom squadrons.
        • This included one Phantom maritime fighter squadron (formed in 1969 with the F-4Ks ordered for Eagle's Phantom squadron) which was part of the TASMO force.
        • Under current plans a second Phantom maritime squadron was to be formed in 1979 with the F-4Ks in Ark Royal's Phantom squadron.
        • However, it wasn't and instead one of the existing F-4M squadrons was transferred to that role.
    • ITTL it had 8 squadrons.
      • 6 Lightning squadrons, including one recently returned from Cyprus.
        • IOTL 4 of Lightning squadrons were in the process of converting to F-4M Phantoms.
        • ITTL there were no F-4M Phantoms for them to convert to.
      • 2 TSR.2 ADV squadrons, which were assigned to the TASMO force.
  • No. 38 (Tactical) Group.
    • IOTL it had 4 squadrons.
      • 1 Harrier squadron.
      • 2 Jaguar ground attack squadrons, which had recently converted from Phantoms.
      • 1 Phantom fighter reconnaissance squadron, which would convert to Jaguars by April 1977.
    • ITTL it had 4 squadrons.
      • 3 Harrier ground attack squadrons.
      • 1 Harrier reconnaissance squadron.
• RAF Germany.
  • IOTL it had 11 squadrons.
    • 2 Lighting fighter squadrons.
    • 2 Buccaneer strike squadrons.
    • 3 Phantom ground attack squadrons.
    • 1 Phantom reconnaissance squadrons.
    • 3 Harrier ground attack squadrons.
  • ITTL it had 11 squadrons.
    • 2 Lightning fighter squadrons.
    • 5 TSR.2 strike squadrons.
    • 1 TSR.2 reconnaissance squadron.
    • 3 Harrier ground attack squadrons.
  • IOTL the above changed to 2 Phantom, 2 Buccaneer, 5 Jaguar and 2 Harrier squadrons (total still 11) by April 1977 and in the 1980s the 2 Buccaneer & 5 Jaguar squadrons were replaced by 7 Tornado squadrons.
  • ITTL one of the Harrier squadrons converted to TSR.2s in 1977, but there were no Phantoms to replace the Lightnings.
• Near East Air Force.
  • IOTL it had 4 squadrons with (I think) 38 aircraft before the Mason Defence Review.
    • 12 Lightning fighters in one squadron in Cyprus, but this was withdrawn to the UK in January 1975.
    • 16 Vulcan medium bombers in 2 squadrons in Cyprus (which replaced the 4 Canberra squadrons in 1969), but they were withdrawn to the UK at the end of 1974.
    • 10 Canberra tactical reconnaissance aircraft in one squadron in Malta. It was withdrawn in the UK in 1979.
  • ITTL it had 4 squadrons with (I think) 38 aircraft before the Mason Defence Review.
    • 12 Lightning fighters in one squadron in Cyprus, but this was withdrawn to the UK in January 1975.
    • 16 Vulcan medium bombers in 2 squadrons in Cyprus (which replaced the 4 Canberra squadrons in 1969), but they were withdrawn to the UK at the end of 1974.
    • 10 Canberra tactical reconnaissance aircraft in one squadron in Malta. It was withdrawn in the UK in 1979.
  • In both timelines NEAF was disbanded in April 1976 and replaced by AHQ Cyprus, which was part of Strike Command.

Except, that the RAF considered concentrating its TSR.2s in the UK and P.1154s in Germany. Had that been done the number of TSR.2 squadrons in Strike Command would have been increased from 4 to 10 and the number of Harrier squadrons in Germany would have been increased from 3 to 7. This would have changed to 11 TSR.2 squadrons in Strike Command and 6 Harrier squadrons in RAF Germany in 1977 when No. 20 Squadron converted from Harriers to TSR.2s.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

One interesting thought that comes to my mind is, was the British Aircraft Corporation the right name for the company? Did the inclusion of "British" make the management think that they were the de facto 'national' aircraft manufacturer and therefore "number one"?

Should it have been the Bristol-Vickers Aircraft Corporation or Vickers-Bristol Aircraft Corporation? VEBAC? BEVAC?

Bristol and VA had more "brand recognition" as aircraft manufacturers than English Electric, which I'm guessing is why you've not included E.E. in the longhand version of the BAC's alternative name.

I think the shareholding of BAC was originally 20% Bristol, 40% English Electric & 40% Vickers-Armstrong and after Bristol was bought out owned 50:50 by GEC and Vickers, so my guess is it would take its name from its two largest shareholders.

• English Electric-Vickers or E.E.V.?
• English-Vickers?
• Electric-Vickers?
• G.E.C.-Vickers?

They don't roll of the tongue, but I think G.E.C.-Vickers is the best of a bad bunch. Perhaps the people who created BAC couldn't find a satisfactory name based on the the old firm's names either and that's why they invented a completely different name.

 

[uk 75]

I think the original RAF plan with TSR2, 1154Harrier and 681 would have been excellent if the planes had been developed earlier and performed as promised.
TSR2 and 1154Harrier would have been supplemented and eventually replaced by a VG fighter attacker similar to UKVG in the late 70s which would also replace Lightning.

I see no evidence that anyone seriously looked at a TSR2 ADV other than aviation enthusiasts as BAC and RAF were looking at VG replacements for TSR2 before it had even flown.

This is s fan device to increase the number of TSR2 airframes.

My only quarrel with the real RAF plans is that Buccaneer S2s could have been ordered in the Canberra/Hunter replacement instead of Phantom and Jaguar.

Phantoms replace Lightnings in the 70s with the F4E version like the Luftwaffe.

I am agnostic about P1127RAF as it is a useful niche type and three squadrons (1 in UK and 2 in Germany) works.

Buccaneers could also have replaced the 48 Vulcans in the theatre nuclear role from 1975.

Using the money saved I would have built sonething like UKVG rather than the Tornado/MRCA compromise. This would have been closer to F111 in range and also make a better ADV.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Using the money saved I would have built sonething like UKVG rather than the Tornado/MRCA compromise. This would have been closer to F111 in range and also make a better ADV.

Ironically, the F-111B would have been excellent for the UK ADV role...

 

[zen]

There seem two ways forward for Fighter/Strike with VG that don't suffer the F111 effect of bring similar enough to invite F111 purchase instead.
These resolve to Tornado or Flogger/Mirage G/Type 584 size.
Or towards Tu-148 scale, which would actually deliver near V-Bomber capability and approximate to certain earlier US BARCAP 'Fighters'.

 

[Hood]

Bristol and VA had more "brand recognition" as aircraft manufacturers than English Electric

Very true - though Canberra certainly gave EE a boost.

It was apparently Charles Gardner who suggested British Aircraft Corporation - based on the example of the British Motor Corporation - perhaps not very original but the board accepted it (Bristol of course having been the British and Colonial Aeroplane Company pre-1920).

The Saunders-Roe division of Westland Aircraft and Vickers-Armstrong's hovercraft assets were combined in 1966 in the equally imaginatively named British Hovercraft Corporation (by 1970 it was a wholly owned Westland subsidiary).

 

[Yellow Palace]

I think the shareholding of BAC was originally 20% Bristol, 40% English Electric & 40% Vickers-Armstrong and after Bristol was bought out owned 50:50 by GEC and Vickers, so my guess is it would take its name from its two largest shareholders.

• English Electric-Vickers or E.E.V.?
• English-Vickers?
• Electric-Vickers?
• G.E.C.-Vickers?

One could draw upon the history of British Westinghouse to land on Electrovick. Which rolls off the tongue, but also sounds like something you give an unwell dog.

 

[uk 75]

The naming of BAC and the similar British Motor Corporation (BMC) and later British Leyland (BL) reflects a fondness for snappy initials in the 50s and 60s.
Vickers-English Electric gives you VEE which is close to Churchill's wartime V sign.

 

[Hood]

Vickers-English Electric gives you VEE which is close to Churchill's wartime V sign.

That really would make the TSR.2 a VEE-bomber!

 

[Siberia]

The Spey Phantom suffered … a degradation in high end performance. It's hardly a panacea.

I was given to understand however that it led to an improvement in other areas of performance, so swings and roundabouts.

The C-130 worked out well, but more Belfasts and buying into the C-160 Transall project would have worked just as well operationally and probably politically and industrially they would have been better for Britain.

Depends on the timing. It's a bit too much hindsight, given that the UK still had the attitude of designing and building everything domestically, but jumping on the C-130 when it's put into service by arranging a licensed production deal has potential. Whether Germany could be induced to join I don't know as they had their own economic and diplomatic considerations. The timing with other transport aircraft is also tricky.

I am sorry but the Spey Phantom was a sop to British industry.

Could the standard Phantom take off from smaller Royal Navy aircraft carriers with any kind of capability?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Depends on the timing. It's a bit too much hindsight, given that the UK still had the attitude of designing and building everything domestically, but jumping on the C-130 when it's put into service by arranging a licensed production deal has potential. Whether Germany could be induced to join I don't know as they had their own economic and diplomatic considerations. The timing with other transport aircraft is also tricky.

Getting a production and European sales license for Hercules probably would have been good.

Beyond good, given that LockMart is still running that production line today, some 70 years after first flight!

Could the standard Phantom take off from smaller Royal Navy aircraft carriers with any kind of capability?

IIRC, with a light fuel load and only AAMs loaded. So, take off, air refuel, go to the CAP point.

No chance of flying with any kind of strike load. And honestly, afterburning Speys in the Phantoms makes more sense from a supply POV, as more or less the same engines are being used in the Buccs.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Depends on the timing. It's a bit too much hindsight, given that the UK still had the attitude of designing and building everything domestically, but jumping on the C-130 when it's put into service by arranging a licensed production deal has potential. Whether Germany could be induced to join I don't know as they had their own economic and diplomatic considerations. The timing with other transport aircraft is also tricky.

Licence production of the C-130 is entirely reasonable. BAC proposed a Tyne-engined version with BLC to OR.351; descoping the requirement and building regular C-130s (possibly still with Tynes) at Filton is probably more sensible than the HS.681.

 

[alertken]

#344 sib: Spey/F-4B or J: MoA advice to Ministers when RN urged escape from P.1154B (so, 27/2/64) was that J79 slam reheat response, in the bolter case, would not save the a/c, but Spey's half-second would (RN then had no reheat experience: I do not know if RN addressed routine reheat-into-the-wire). So the 1/7/64 order for 2 YF-4K with RB168 Spey 22R was made after scrutiny of RR's chances of producing it inside MacAir's airframe timescale (they were onway to matching p.month the 76 Avon/Scimitars built 1957-61). RR was producing dry Spey for Bucc S.2, but their reheat expertise was confined to Lightning's Avon.

uk75's point, Spey-in=F-4 as a sop to industry, was that F-4D appealed as is, as seen, tried, tested and approved, to RAF: lots please NOW!

It was MoA R.Jenkins who caused fewer F-4Ms to be bought than that money on straight F-4D (IIRC 118: 175). He also secured workshare (Shorts outer wing, BAC/Preston aft fuse/tail/wing parts; Smiths Mk.10A autopilot; Ferranti IN(F-4M)+radar (Westinghouse AN/AWG.10 as AWG.11/F-4K, 12/F-4M), Marconi nav.computer (licensed Bendix ASN-46): 46% of unit price). This “well-meant decision proved extremely costly to the taxpayer” PM H.Wilson Memoirs,P78.

Jenkins was trying to bring a viable UK Aero out of this bonfire of fantasies. RR put in 3 more works of fiction: Spey 36 for F-111D; resurrected 4/61 licensed BAC 222 (Tyne/C-130E); and meddled with Ministers' High Policy by kiting BAC Spey/Mirage IVK.

RN+RAF 4/65 were seeking upto 400xF-4; 50xF-111K were on option: why disrupt production of 800 for100? So forget Spey/F-111K.

When we grasped what SE Asia was doing to US production rates, so penalty on UK if late delivery of our bits disrupted output for DoD, we all forgot Tyne/C-130K too, and no-one fancied licenced C-130E when as is was at tight unit price and on credit: Marshall's was given the well-tried RAF MU Acceptance process {paint job, fit standard inventory kit). All hands on deck to sustain UK deliveries to MacAir.​

 

[Purpletrouble]

Answer to the question: of course it couldbe made to work. There was nothing wrong with it.

What went wrong was lack of political support for the cost.

The problem was that it was just a strike aircraft and would have needed a Mk2 version in the late 70s or 80s (with Tornado avionics) to actually acheive was was wanted.

It also had limited potential for the interceptor role which contrary to ‘57 would be needed.

My personal AH sees a deal with the US whereby it bins troubled F111 to licence build TSR2 and we buy F4, C130 and CH47. US avionics and investment sees the platform acheive its potential. Germany and Australia buy.

UK can then turn attention to a new fighter for the 70s/80s. Likely VG as the fashion and where R&D was, so something that looks like a Tornado ADV but actually optimised for the role, and perhaps a 90s “strike” variant (so matching F15 and later E). The strike would replace remaining Buccs and Jags.

Kind of wipes out EFA and Typhoon however. Perhaps as a single engined type to provide a F16 like “low” end and replace F4s not being replaced by the VG interceptor and for export.