Fairey Delta 2, not the English Electric Lightning

[Rule of cool]

I am not denying Lightning did what the RAF wanted it to do. Its value as an interceptor allowed it to remain in service long after its "replacement" the Phantom entered service.
Unfortunately in common with other UK aircraft of the period it was not suitable to be evolved into a multi role weapons system.

That it didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't and to an extent didn't happen.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

A trait shared by most early supersonic platforms. F-104 also had a very high landing speed too. Lightning as well I believe with the thing high pressure wheels needing replacing after almost single digit landings.

The Lightning low life tyre problems where more a function of stowing the wheel and tyre inside a very thin supersonic wing, thus being both diameter and width constrained. This really kills the ability to grow the aircraft’s mass with each variant. It’s wheel braking that saps tyre life and limits how heavy the aircraft can be due to balance field length.

Mirage got this right with a low wing hence short landing gears with the fat bits (wheels, brakes and tyres) stowed in the wing section under the fuselage. What made the difference with being able to keep stretching the configuration by the addition of leading edge devices, adding FBW without having to significantly change the central fuselage structural architecture….. because the landing gear could expand to take the extra mass.

Dassault was able increase the max take off weight of the Mirage 5 from the 3 by 50 percent within the same architecture… and didn’t end there. Mirage 2000 with the same structural architecture has pretty much doubled it.

 

[Rule of cool]

I think the Phantom throws a spanner in the works of these sorts of discussion. I think that it's success obscures the fact that it is an outlier, a rare example of (almost) everything going right, and is more akin to 3rd generation aircraft than the 2nd generation aircraft that predominate this discussion. Much of it's vaunted multi-role capability is due to the 2nd crew member and great size putting it (almost) in the class of the A5 and Mirage IV than the little Mirage III and F104.

Of the 2nd generation fighters we're discussing here I'd think (on paper of course) only the Lightning could get near the Phantom in air to air, which is unsurprising given it's the biggest with the most power, biggest radar and missiles.

 

[kaiserd]

I'm referencing that the RAF bought Hunter conversions for about half of it's 'fighter' fleet, as an interim aircraft until missiles took over that role. A better path would have been to acknowledge that tactical fighter aircraft had a future and to equip the RAF with a mach 2 tactical fighter capable of fighter-bomber and fighter-recce roles with a 20 year service life.

I don't think I'm the Lone Ranger in thinking this, however where I differ from others is that from a post 57 DWP fleet management perspective the best course of action would be to develop the Lightning for these roles.

That was supposed to be the TSR.2.
When it got canceled it got replaced by a number of different aircraft types that in combination were better at the role than this theoretical supposed Mach 2 fighter bomber would/ could have been.
That supposedly just HAS to enter service at exactly the same time as the F-105 and before the F-4 is in US service.

With respect apart from joining the gaggle of NATO fighter-bombers that weren’t any good at the bomber part apart from when delivering the one tactical nuke not very accurately and which the shift to flexible response rendered almost useless, what does this supposed Mach 2 fighter bomber offer that the Hunter wasn’t probably at least as good at in this period? The Harrier that came after the Hunter had quite similar conventional flight performance after all, and benefited from more advanced systems that the Hunter and any theoretical UK Mach 2 fighter bomber of this period could have had. The likes of an actual P.1121 would likely just been a less useful F-105 with significantly less capability in general but particularly in the conventional (non-nuclear) role. And as discussed in other discussion threads the Lightening was/ would have been a rubbish strike aircraft.

 

[Rule of cool]

That was supposed to be the TSR.2.
When it got canceled it got replaced by a number of different aircraft types that in combination were better at the role than this theoretical supposed Mach 2 fighter bomber would/ could have been.
That supposedly just HAS to enter service at exactly the same time as the F-105 and before the F-4 is in US service.

With respect apart from joining the gaggle of NATO fighter-bombers that weren’t any good at the bomber part apart from when delivering the one tactical nuke not very accurately and which the shift to flexible response rendered almost useless, what does this supposed Mach 2 fighter bomber offer that the Hunter wasn’t probably at least as good at in this period? The Harrier that came after the Hunter had quite similar conventional flight performance after all, and benefited from more advanced systems that the Hunter and any theoretical UK Mach 2 fighter bomber of this period could have had. The likes of an actual P.1121 would likely just been a less useful F-105 with significantly less capability in general but particularly in the conventional (non-nuclear) role. And as discussed in other discussion threads the Lightening was/ would have been a rubbish strike aircraft.

No, the TSR2 originated ostensibly as a Canberra replacement, until Valiants became tactical strike aircraft in 1960, at which point it became a Canberra and V bomber replacement. It was never envisaged as a replacement for Venom fighter-bombers, Meteor fighter-recce or Swift fighter-recce.

Firstly it is not commonly appreciated that the Hunter FGA9 had a significant air to air role East of Suez and it's shortcomings were at least partly covered by redeploying Javelins EoS as Lightnings entered service in Britain. A mach 2, missile-armed fighter, in my mind a developed Lightnings but other people like the FD2 or other aircraft, would be simply better than the Hunter in the air to air role which becomes more and more important with the proliferation of the Mig 21.

Secondly, as the diagrams I posted above show, a developed ground attack Lightning would have avionics like a bendix doppler and ground attack modes for the radar that would make for effective operation in a wider range of circumstances than the clear day only Hunter. In addition the Lightning could carry a greater weight of bombs than the Hunter, the F53 could carry a pair of 1000lb bombs on the wing pylons although the Saudis were happy with a single bomb.

Thirdly as a mach 2 aircraft the Lightning (or other mach 2 fighter) is inherently more upgradeable than the Hunter conversions, indeed the conversion IS the Hunter's mid life update and the F6s would have been retired without it. A GA Lightning could receive an update in the early 70s to keep it effective for another 8-10 years.

 

[uk 75]

The need for a combined fighter and ground attack aircraft to cope with Migs supplied to Egypt or Indonesia was met by P1154 carrying Red Tops.
When P1154 failed in 1964 Phantoms were bought instead. These could cope much better with any local fighters.
After 1967 the need for a close air support aircraft East of Suez vanished allowing Jaguars to replace the Phantoms in the 70s.
As a believer in a STOL 1154 I prefer this aircraft as a Hunter replacement to Lightning or Phantom. But Jaguar is a good option in a NATO setting where fighters are available to cover.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The UK did continue to spend a lot of focus and resources in the military industrial sphere through out this period, it’s that a lot of it was moved away from (seriously flawed) UK-only aviation projects to some purchases of US equipment with a view shifting to multinational aviation projects.
In few (any?) of the procurement decisions made did the UK objectively end up weaker militarily or in a worse position than if the/ an alternative decision had bee made. The UK aviation industry had to evolve to survive, those parts able to do so eventually survived and prospered.

Which are bought in dollars, not sterling.

Which gets you into an ugly balance-of-payments issue and horks up the value of the GBP versus the dollar. (witness what happened to the value of the yen in 2010-2011)

It’s a very particular mindset that resents the RAF having used the F-4 rather than an inferior domestic alternative. It’s a myopic view that negatively obsesses about the UK’s involvement in successful multinational aviation programs but appears little troubled by the earlier far more consequential and significant (and similarly in the round likely correct) decision to hitch the UK’s continuing nuclear deterrent to require ongoing US support (no failure of “will” here, apparently). It’s a very clear set of agendas to visit the “blame” for this onto politicians and “the Elite” that includes people you don’t like but very selectively not those individuals/ sectors/ occupations you do like, and the claimed obediences by those you don’t like to nefarious “external influences”.

It comes from having designed some of the best fighters in the world in 1945 to being 10 years behind in 1955, and 20 years behind in 1965...

 

[uk 75]

I think the UK suffers from being too rigid in its procurement of weapons systems.
The 1965 trio of TSR2, P1154 and HS681 were all feasible if you were prepared to drop requirements that were unnecessary and expensive.
TSR2 did not need to operate from rough fields. Treating it like a V bomber operating from bases in UK, Cyprus and Singapore would have brought cost and complexity down. Its various systems could have been evolved rather than fitted from the start.
P1154 and HS681 could have been recognised as STOL rather than VSTOL types and simplified accordingly.
It did not help that Phantom and Hercules met most of the requirements so well. It is hard to beat the US when its on form.

 

[Rule of cool]

The need for a combined fighter and ground attack aircraft to cope with Migs supplied to Egypt or Indonesia was met by P1154 carrying Red Tops.
When P1154 failed in 1964 Phantoms were bought instead. These could cope much better with any local fighters.
After 1967 the need for a close air support aircraft East of Suez vanished allowing Jaguars to replace the Phantoms in the 70s.
As a believer in a STOL 1154 I prefer this aircraft as a Hunter replacement to Lightning or Phantom. But Jaguar is a good option in a NATO setting where fighters are available to cover.

Given the P1154 wasn't going to enter service until 1969 at its inception and 1971-72 at cancellation that's the acceptance of inferiority (with Hunter FGA and Javelin) while simultaneously being a key member of CENTO and SEATO. Conversely adopting a mach 2 type as the RAF's fighter-bomber and fighter-recce from the 1958 VRET competition would put the RAF ahead of the curve, meaning potential adversaries would be reacting to British power instead of the other way around.

 

[starviking]

Arguably with Gyron, AI.23 and Firestreak/Red Top, such an aircraft undermines the need for F.177 for the RAF before the 1957 cancellation. Making it a possibility F.177 is abandoned earlier for the RAF.

Saro Avro and DH might not be happy, Camm might fume, RN might be in a right tizz but HSA Board still would see profits via Fairey and potentially BAC would have even less until OR.339.

I may be reading this wrong, but Fairey was not a member of the HS Group.

 

[uk 75]

Comes down to how serious the threat from enemy fighters and anti aircraft weapons was in the early 60s
I am sanguine (as was the RAF) that countries like Indonesia and Iraq did not have effective air defences.
A combination of Firestreak equipped Javelins and Sea Vixens was adequate to meet likely opposition until 1966 when Red Top equipped Lightnings and Sea Vixens became available.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

I think the Phantom throws a spanner in the works of these sorts of discussion. I think that it's success obscures the fact that it is an outlier, a rare example of (almost) everything going right, and is more akin to 3rd generation aircraft than the 2nd generation aircraft that predominate this discussion. Much of it's vaunted multi-role capability is due to the 2nd crew member and great size putting it (almost) in the class of the A5 and Mirage IV than the little Mirage III and F104.

Of the 2nd generation fighters we're discussing here I'd think (on paper of course) only the Lightning could get near the Phantom in air to air, which is unsurprising given it's the biggest with the most power, biggest radar and missiles.

I have to agree. When looking at the peer group entering service around 1960 there was no way to know that Phantom and Mirage would turn into the success stories they did. F-105 also benefitted from quite a bit of investment to grow into a few niche fields like the Wild Weasel role.

It does make me wonder though, the Lighting for 20+ was almost always going to be retired in the next few years and had incredibly little spent on improving it. Basically nothing after the F.6 which just added a wing which was available to the early prototypes already. How different would things have looked if it did receive a credible amount of investment over its lifetime? It would easily look very similar to F-104A through S. Being the big aircraft it is, one can easily see it reaching F-104S levels of capability. Quad AIM-9 rails to replace Red Top once Sidewinder catches up in capability substituted by Skyflash with enough AI23 developments or maybe even a diffetent radar set.

Then the here discussion would look quite a bit different but I suspect we would likely be sacrificing a few other RAF types along the way due to funding being directed at Lightning.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

It does make me wonder though, the Lighting for 20+ was almost always going to be retired in the next few years and had incredibly little spent on improving it. Basically nothing after the F.6 which just added a wing which was available to the early prototypes already. How different would things have looked if it did receive a credible amount of investment over its lifetime? It would easily look very similar to F-104A through S. Being the big aircraft it is, one can easily see it reaching F-104S levels of capability. Quad AIM-9 rails to replace Red Top once Sidewinder catches up in capability substituted by Skyflash with enough AI23 developments or maybe even a diffetent radar set.

Then the here discussion would look quite a bit different but I suspect we would likely be sacrificing a few other RAF types along the way due to funding being directed at Lightning.

See my post 166

In essence the Lightning’s basic architecture was unsuitable for developments that increased it’s weight(payload)….. which it what it desperately needed.

 

[zen]

Did Lockheed develop the Starfighter into it's more capable versions purely on it's own company finances as speculative bids to various states?
Or did Lockheed develop various versions because it won orders on the basis of 'paper planes', and was relatively secure in funding?

How much did the US government fund Lockheed's Starfighter?

Who funded US nuclear weapons integration? Bet you it could only be the US Government.

Because Germany paid for Komorran.
Italy the Sparrow capability.
Norway I think Penguin.

Because the more governments wanted and payed for capability. Then obviously Lockheed had to deliver or face the music.

UK government chose not to fund developments of Lightning, chasing dreams of ever more advanced aircraft canceling them and then squandering funds on more of them. When something good enough would do.

They even refused to fund installation of the already funded and actually developed Auto-interception system.
They refused to even fund the installation of a steerable nosewheel, even after funding the prototype.
EE got something out of the Saudis for limited attack capability. Not the UK government.

And to curve this back to the topic.
Fast climbing Mach 2.2 capable FD.II ER103C, would out climb F4 and thanks to Fairey paying attention to windscreen thermal limits, not require a windscreen change after every sortie over Mach 1.8.
True it wouldn't carry the armament of the F4, but would be like Lightning, good enough.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Next AH - how Skiffle won the charts, swept the world and caused the collapse of the USSR.

"Many a true word is spoken in jest."

Although you were joking that's sort of what happened in the "Real World".

According to Wikipedia (again) . . .

A large number of British musicians began their careers playing skiffle in this period, and some became leading figures in their fields. These included leading Northern Irish musician Van Morrison and British blues pioneer Alexis Korner, as well as Ronnie Wood, Alex Harvey and Mick Jagger; folk musicians Martin Carthy, John Renbourn and Ashley Hutchings; rock musicians Roger Daltrey, Jimmy Page, Ritchie Blackmore, Robin Trower and David Gilmour; and popular Beat-music successes Graham Nash and Allan Clarke of the Hollies. Most notably, the Beatles developed from John Lennon's 1957 skiffle group the Quarrymen; Paul McCartney was added after a few months and George Harrison joined in 1958. Similarly, the Bee Gees developed from Barry Gibb's skiffle group The Rattlesnakes.

. . . Skiffle didn't cause the collapse of the USSR, but people that had been in Skiffle groups did win the charts and did sweep the world.

 

[Rule of cool]

Comes down to how serious the threat from enemy fighters and anti aircraft weapons was in the early 60s
I am sanguine (as was the RAF) that countries like Indonesia and Iraq did not have effective air defences.
A combination of Firestreak equipped Javelins and Sea Vixens was adequate to meet likely opposition until 1966 when Red Top equipped Lightnings and Sea Vixens became available.

That attitude is why the Lightning and Buccaneer didn't sell well on the world market.

Britain put itself at the centre of the 3 biggest alliances of the Cold War then provided 2 of them with interim gear that had been declared obsolescent. Why would anyone put any faith in such an ally, especially when it did have good enough gear but didn't support it?

 

[Hood]

Thirdly as a mach 2 aircraft the Lightning (or other mach 2 fighter) is inherently more upgradeable than the Hunter conversions, indeed the conversion IS the Hunter's mid life update and the F6s would have been retired without it. A GA Lightning could receive an update in the early 70s to keep it effective for another 8-10 years.

I'm just not seeing it. Only 47 F.53 were ever built - and Saudi brought them as multi-role aircraft but part of an air defence package that also included Hawk SAMs and they were quickly replaced in the attack role by the F-5E from 1974 (and 109 F-5E's were bought....). So they only operated five years in the ground attack role.
Meanwhile Hawker were buying up every Hunter airframe they could for conversion to GA and they were selling like hot cakes.

Ground attack -beyond lobbing nukes about - doesn't need supersonic performance, most of the time you're at Mach 0.8 or 0.9 at most, and Hunter was ideal for this, relatively economic on fuel and offering a punch with four 30mm cannon and rockets/bombs/napalm etc. Hawk was designed to tap into the market being a trainer and a potential Hunter replacement as a light strike aircraft - it sold well all over the world (the single-seat Hawk 200 was less of a success in trying to match more expensive fighters, but 62 built still outranks the F.53!).

Would a developed FD.2 be any better? Maybe but it needs two things:
Decent avionics - a multi-rode radar or bespoke version with TFR or LRMTS when that comes along. Needs cockpit space for a HUD. Needs decent nav/attack, either with an early INS or room to get one in the 1970s.
It needs hardpoints - that means not pissing about with two wing trip rails and maybe putting a couple of tanks under the wings. Mirage III's wing was adaptable and for a decent GA aircraft you need at least 5 hardpoints.

 

[Hood]

The fighters dreamed up in 1957 were still capable of holding their own 20 years later with reasonable updates.

Two 1957 designs, one 1963 design and one 1969 design.
+6 years and + 11 years made a lot of difference, two of these look like escapees from Thunderbirds, two of them scared the other side's air force and and one of them has a 104 v 0 kill ratio. One of them has 6 engines, one has 4, two have 2. Two of them carry two massive AAMs, one carries 4, the other at least 6. The radar technology also varies widely, AI.18 developments to the multi-mode APG-63.

I could add one of these became a two-seat strike aircraft that only last week several members of this forum argued was superior to the Tornado, designed 15 years after F.155T.

 

[JFC Fuller]

View attachment 724203
Two 1957 designs, one 1963 design and one 1969 design.
+6 years and + 11 years made a lot of difference, two of these look like escapees from Thunderbirds, two of them scared the other side's air force and and one of them has a 104 v 0 kill ratio. One of them has 6 engines, one has 4, two have 2. Two of them carry two massive AAMs, one carries 4, the other at least 6. The radar technology also varies widely, AI.18 developments to the multi-mode APG-63.

I would argue that three of them carried massive missiles, R-40s were beasts too. The odd one out is the F-15, the Mig-25 was very close to the F.155 concept, which is unsurprising as it was designed to do something very similar. It just lacked the rocket motors for that extra bit of altitude performance.

If only for the hilarity, it would have been fun to see a fully developed Saunders Roe P.187, with Rolls Royce RB.128s and titanium wing structure, escorting a Tu-95 over the North Sea.

 

[Hood]

I would argue that three of them carried massive missiles, R-40s were beasts too. The odd one out is the F-15, the Mig-25 was very close to the F.155 concept, which is unsurprising as it was designed to do something very similar. It just lacked the rocket motors for that extra bit of altitude performance.

That's very true, the R-40 was a hefty missile. I guess in terms of direct comparison's the earlier R-4 that entered service in 1965 on the Tu-128 would be the closest match to Red Dean or Red Hebe, but the R-40 built on that and was even longer, though slightly narrower and lighter.
What I like about Soviet AAMs though it that they thought in terms of modular systems and offered radar-homing and IR-seeker options on the same body. Red Top sadly didn't quite manage this, due to the RAF lacking the right radar to pair with Blue Vesta. And RAF thoughts at this time seemed to be Red Dean OR Red Top rather than mixed pairs of guidance, which was limiting, having four missiles would have better than relying on a single pair with the same guidance option.

Of course, when the F-15A entered service the AIM-7 wasn't exactly well thought of after its use in Vietnam.

 

[Rule of cool]

View attachment 724203
Two 1957 designs, one 1963 design and one 1969 design.
+6 years and + 11 years made a lot of difference, two of these look like escapees from Thunderbirds, two of them scared the other side's air force and and one of them has a 104 v 0 kill ratio. One of them has 6 engines, one has 4, two have 2. Two of them carry two massive AAMs, one carries 4, the other at least 6. The radar technology also varies widely, AI.18 developments to the multi-mode APG-63.

I could add one of these became a two-seat strike aircraft that only last week several members of this forum argued was superior to the Tornado, designed 15 years after F.155T.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Mirage III that first flew in November 1956 and the Lightning which was ordered into production the same month, or the F104 or F106 all of which lasted into the 80s with world class air forces.

 

[Hood]

I was thinking more along the lines of the Mirage III that first flew in November 1956 and the Lightning which was ordered into production the same month, or the F104 or F106 all of which lasted into the 80s with world class air forces.

I was having some fun, you have to wonder whether some of the designers were spending too long reading their children's Eagle comics in their spare time! But technology rapidly advanced and some of the concepts were getting outmoded before they could be brought into service (in 1957 the Sea Vixen still wasn't totally perfected and had been designed from 1946, even the V-Bombers had been sketched before 1950 and were still brand new).

It's true that a sound design will have a long life. Sandys, nor the Air Staff, would have expected the Lightning to last beyond 1970 let alone to 1988 and the idea of Mirages still flying today would have seemed equally unlikely when the rule of thumb was replacement every decade.
To me the F-104 is an imposter, had Lockheed not conjured up the F-104G it might have remained a mere footnote of Cold War aviation.
The 1950s deltas did seem to outlast everything else though - F-102, F-106, MiG-21, Su-9, Draken, Vulcan, Mirage III & IVA (had costs not killed B-58 it might have served on into the late 1970s).

 

[MadRat]

Deltas had simpler wingtip to wingtip spars than conventional monoplane-winged fighters. They also tended to be so heavy that their manuevering was less structurally destructive as compared to the latter. Plenty of room for fuel in the wings also gave them great range. But the shear area also made them great radar reflectors in that time period. As radars became more sensitive, and sophisticated with filters, picking up their waveform reflections made them easily detectable at much longer ranges. Soviet 'Balalaika' fighters were no different, as they also relied on deltas.

 

[zen]

Sigh.....allways with the need to drag threads off topic because of wider issues luring people to broaden the topic until it becomes an argument over Lightning and F.155 and Starfighters.

How can we not do this and stick to the topic?

Fairey wanted to do a third research machine with changeable wings to explore different Delta configurations, and had they not been delayed by other factors and a lack of resources. It's likely that would have gone ahead.

Such a machine would have allowed representative scaled testing of various pylon and stores configurations as surely it would different wing designs.

 

[pathology_doc]

See my post 166

In essence the Lightning’s basic architecture was unsuitable for developments that increased it’s weight(payload)….. which it what it desperately needed.

Its other big problem is the radar needing to live in the nose intake centre body and the upper limit it puts on how much radar gear you can stuff in there. It's not just as simple as pulling AI.23 and replacing it with something bigger and better, which is a thing you might be able to get away with in a P.1121 or a development of the FD.2.

 

[pathology_doc]

Of course, when the F-15A entered service the AIM-7 wasn't exactly well thought of after its use in Vietnam.

The AIM-7 was being asked to do something it hadn't been designed for. Of course it was no different in this regard to any of the other first-generation AAMs, but there's something particularly depressing and infuriating about a BVR missile designed to take shots at tens of miles (vs aircraft that can't pull more than a few G without tearing their wings off) being forced to cope with a high-energy, high-G dogfight at hundreds of feet.

In that context, AIM-9B with its uncooled seeker is probably the most flexible of the options. AIM-4D should have been better, but that missile had all the difficulties associated with the way its seeker was cooled and the fact that it had to make a direct hit in order to have any effect at all. (Speaking of which, how do the cooled versions of AIM-9 stay cool, and why do we never hear of them suffering the agonies that Falcon did?)

 

[MadRat]

Was the plan ever to fit a SARH missile on anything in that time period.

Seemed like they were more interested in directing the fighters close to its target proximity from command hubs.

 

[pathology_doc]

Was the plan ever to fit a SARH missile on anything in that time period.

Seemed like they were more interested in directing the fighters close to its target proximity from command hubs.

IIRC Red Hebe was going to be SARH, and there were plans for other missiles that also never came to anything because their carrier aircraft never did either. One of John Forbat's books, TSR2: Precision Attack to Tornado (which sometimes goes by other names in different parts of the world), carries the development history of a high-performance SARH missile he designed for Vickers in the post-Sandys, pre-Phantom era.

In terms of anything that actually got built and put into service, no.

 

[uk 75]

Reading this thread again I can see a need for a twin engined Mach 2 delta wing interceptor with a large weapons bay and room in the nose for future radar developments. Ideally it should fly in around 1959 and enter service in 1962.
A bit like the Canadair Sabre it would get the RAF off a procurement hook.

 

[Rule of cool]

Sigh.....allways with the need to drag threads off topic because of wider issues luring people to broaden the topic until it becomes an argument over Lightning and F.155 and Starfighters.

How can we not do this and stick to the topic?

Fairey wanted to do a third research machine with changeable wings to explore different Delta configurations, and had they not been delayed by other factors and a lack of resources. It's likely that would have gone ahead.

Such a machine would have allowed representative scaled testing of various pylon and stores configurations as surely it would different wing designs.

The original post had the FD2 instead of the Lightning, that's bound to cause the thread to veer off technical issues.

 

[Rule of cool]

Was the plan ever to fit a SARH missile on anything in that time period.

Seemed like they were more interested in directing the fighters close to its target proximity from command hubs.

There was talk of a 'Radar Red Top' in the early 60s. One version was to have a CW seeker, but that would require the AI23 to have a CW emitter installed which wouldn't fit until the set had been advanced enough in production to make the whole thing smaller to fit it. The other version was to use the pulse doppler seeker from the Matra R530k, but the RAF didn't like this as it was prone to ECM jamming.

 

[Rule of cool]

Ground attack -beyond lobbing nukes about - doesn't need supersonic performance, most of the time you're at Mach 0.8 or 0.9 at most, and Hunter was ideal for this, relatively economic on fuel and offering a punch with four 30mm cannon and rockets/bombs/napalm etc. Hawk was designed to tap into the market being a trainer and a potential Hunter replacement as a light strike aircraft - it sold well all over the world (the single-seat Hawk 200 was less of a success in trying to match more expensive fighters, but 62 built still outranks the F.53!).

This is the most limited view of ground attack, at best good for low-intensity, counter-insurgency campaigns against unsupported enemies and quickly diminishing in value as the intensity ratchets up as it’s likely to do if Britain ever got involved in a CENTO or SEATO conflict, let alone a NATO one. Israel for example pushed for the development of the Mirage V, a mach 2 fighter-bomber although primarily for the clear weather Mid-East it would have used its impressive performance for survival in the highly contested airspace. The other path would be the A7 Corsair, while subsonic it had a comparatively huge bombload and was equipped with impressive avionics for highly accurate bombing, while being supported by a carrier air wing that likely had the only AEW, Elint, ECM, SEAD and night strike capabilities in the area it operated. Of course the RAF tried to develop the high capability P1154, got the Phantom and then the Jaguar, and the Jaguar leans more to the fast Mirage V end of the spectrum than the Corsair bomb truck end of the spectrum.



The P1127 fits the light attack bill, but that aircraft is more about VTOL that the payload-range.

 

[uk 75]

After 1956 Britain was much more cautious about its military activities outside the NATO area.
Operations tended to be support for friendly governments (Kuwait, Singapore, Oman, Tanzania). None of these required equipment more sophisticated than the Hunter.
Commitments to CENTO and SEATO were principally nuclear capable aircraft or limited ground attack/recce. The UK expected any confrontation with China or the Soviet Union to go nuclear quickly.

 

[uk 75]

I think there is scope for much tighter thread drafting which limits discussion about paper planes like Fairey Delta 2 and Lightning FGA to the technical aspects of the aircraft.
I understand and appreciate the enthusiasm for these designs from an engineering perspective.

The broader issue of how a particular plane could have come into service with the RAF/RN or overseas forces is prone to lead to wider questions of what an alternative UK might look like in order for your option to happen.

 

[kaiserd]

This is the most limited view of ground attack, at best good for low-intensity, counter-insurgency campaigns against unsupported enemies and quickly diminishing in value as the intensity ratchets up as it’s likely to do if Britain ever got involved in a CENTO or SEATO conflict, let alone a NATO one. Israel for example pushed for the development of the Mirage V, a mach 2 fighter-bomber although primarily for the clear weather Mid-East it would have used its impressive performance for survival in the highly contested airspace. The other path would be the A7 Corsair, while subsonic it had a comparatively huge bombload and was equipped with impressive avionics for highly accurate bombing, while being supported by a carrier air wing that likely had the only AEW, Elint, ECM, SEAD and night strike capabilities in the area it operated. Of course the RAF tried to develop the high capability P1154, got the Phantom and then the Jaguar, and the Jaguar leans more to the fast Mirage V end of the spectrum than the Corsair bomb truck end of the spectrum.



The P1127 fits the light attack bill, but that aircraft is more about VTOL that the payload-range.

And yet the Israeli made great use of the firmly subsonic A-4 Skyhawk, which together with their F-4s was the actual back-bone of their tactical strike capacity rather than their Daggers (Mirage Vs) which saw more use in the fighter role. And as noted above we are talking about a very different theatre with very different weather conditions and targeting challenges.

If the RAF needed/ wanted better strike aircraft with only a slight variation from reality they could have bought more Buccaneers or otherwise varied the mix of aircraft they bought. They had a mix of Hunters, F-4s and Canberras, that ended up being a mix of Jaguars, Harriers and Buccaneers that ended up a mix of Jaguars, Harriers and Tornadoes. All of these mixes are better than some theoretical path-not-taken 1960 supersonic fighter bomber which wouldn’t have been as good at close support as the Hunter and would have an inferior tactical strike aircraft than the F-4 or Bucaneer and whose supersonic performance would have been of zero relevance in these roles.

If fighters were required the RAF had Hunters and Lightenings and then had Phantoms as well if required. And the Phantom was the better fighter and it’s unlikely this theoretical supersonic fighter bomber would have even had any advantage over the Lightening in the fighter role.

I can understand the idea of saying “I wonder what a combat aircraft Fairey Delta would have looked like/ been like” etc.

But much of this discussions has actually involved some trying to duck actual history and actual unavoidable realities (technical, financial and political) while also trying to pretend they are not being deeply political (with a small “p”). An other contributor has suggested a different perspective divided between those with a narrow technical perspective and those taking a wider “political” view. I disagree. The divide appears to be between those that appear to see this particular bit of history as something that was inflicted on/ “done” to “them” which can be “blamed” on others, and those that don’t. From my perspective there’s a palpable sense of grievance in a number of comments that doesn’t appear to really relate to how and why actual history played out as it did.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That attitude is why the Lightning and Buccaneer didn't sell well on the world market.

Britain put itself at the centre of the 3 biggest alliances of the Cold War then provided 2 of them with interim gear that had been declared obsolescent. Why would anyone put any faith in such an ally, especially when it did have good enough gear but didn't support it?

This. So much this.

 

[Rule of cool]

And yet the Israeli made great use of the firmly subsonic A-4 Skyhawk, which together with their F-4s was the actual back-bone of their tactical strike capacity rather than their Daggers (Mirage Vs) which saw more use in the fighter role. And as noted above we are talking about a very different theatre with very different weather conditions and targeting challenges.

If the RAF needed/ wanted better strike aircraft with only a slight variation from reality they could have bought more Buccaneers or otherwise varied the mix of aircraft they bought. They had a mix of Hunters, F-4s and Canberras, that ended up being a mix of Jaguars, Harriers and Buccaneers that ended up a mix of Jaguars, Harriers and Tornadoes. All of these mixes are better than some theoretical path-not-taken 1960 supersonic fighter bomber which wouldn’t have been as good at close support as the Hunter and would have an inferior tactical strike aircraft than the F-4 or Bucaneer and whose supersonic performance would have been of zero relevance in these roles.

If fighters were required the RAF had Hunters and Lightenings and then had Phantoms as well if required. And the Phantom was the better fighter and it’s unlikely this theoretical supersonic fighter bomber would have even had any advantage over the Lightening in the fighter role.

I can understand the idea of saying “I wonder what a combat aircraft Fairey Delta would have looked like/ been like” etc.

But much of this discussions has actually involved some trying to duck actual history and actual unavoidable realities (technical, financial and political) while also trying to pretend they are not being deeply political (with a small “p”). An other contributor has suggested a different perspective divided between those with a narrow technical perspective and those taking a wider “political” view. I disagree. The divide appears to be between those that appear to see this particular bit of history as something that was inflicted on/ “done” to “them” which can be “blamed” on others, and those that don’t. From my perspective there’s a palpable sense of grievance in a number of comments that doesn’t appear to really relate to how and why actual history played out as it did.

I don't know if people are personally aggrieved by British political decisions almost 70 years. However I think the personal angle comes from people having favourite and hated aircraft and wanting to insert these into an extremely complex situation. For mine as much as I bang on about the Lightning I don't really like it as an aircraft, although I do like the AI23 radar and Red Top missiles and I do like the Spey Phantom. However that doesn't mean that the path to the Spey Phantom was the best option for the RAF or the British government, taxpayers and industry overall.

 

[uk 75]

This. So much this.

CENTO and SEATO were pretty much dead by the early 1960s. The botched handling of the Suez crisis by an ailing Eden hastened the decline of British influence in the world. Macmillan drew the right conclusion and hastened the UK's departure from Empire.
The nightmare that was Aden tends to be forgotten as do nasty colonial wars in Kenya and Cyprus.
By 1967 Britain is nearly bankrupt and trying desperately to join the European Economic Cpmmunity (EEC). We can barely sustain our forces in UK and West Germany.

 

[Scott Kenny]

CENTO and SEATO were pretty much dead by the early 1960s. The botched handling of the Suez crisis by an ailing Eden hastened the decline of British influence in the world. Macmillan drew the right conclusion and hastened the UK's departure from Empire.
The nightmare that was Aden tends to be forgotten as do nasty colonial wars in Kenya and Cyprus.
By 1967 Britain is nearly bankrupt and trying desperately to join the European Economic Cpmmunity (EEC). We can barely sustain our forces in UK and West Germany.

And how much of that was from spending millions on some new fancy aircraft before canceling it, instead of upgrading what you had?

 

[uk 75]

Over lavish specifications and under-performing industry were a hallmark of postwar Britain not just in the defence field.
Jaguar cars looked beautiful and cutting edge but were mechanically unreliable and poorly made. The iconic Mini even more so.