P1154 scenario

[Yellow Palace]

NBMR.3 context was the airbase being hit by likely more than one tactical nuke... Hence "don't be there" makes sense. And only generating a single sortie to drop your own nukes also makes sense.

The late 1950s/early 1960s VTOL craze largely overlaps with the ZELL concept, which wasn't that different in practice. In both cases, the idea is to go and hide somewhere until nuclear release, launch from a more-or-less concealed location, drop a bucket of instant sunshine on a designated target, and hope for the best. Any sorties with conventional weapons could be flown by that portion of the force that didn't disperse, until they were reduced to stratospheric ash.

FWIW, discussion of whether aircraft aboard Royal Navy aircraft carriers could suppress Argentine air bases presupposes that they'd be operating under rules of engagement which allowed them to do so. It's entirely possible that they wouldn't be allowed to try, given the UK's concerns in OTL about keeping the conflict constrained to the area immediately around the islands.

 

[alertken]

(YP beating me to: ) US and FRG explored ZELL - rocket-boost off rails dispersed on base-perimeter...where Custodials could comply with AW Release Authorisation. That failed because very visible set-up would be a Provocation for WarPac First Strike.

For Army AW, by 1961 Heidelberg Agreements US Custodials were embedded as fighting soldiers, under Host Command...except for Release Authorisation, so that's how shells, MADM, SSM could be under US Pres' control while operated by Frank, Turk, S.Korea, et al.

No-one found a way to do that at sea or in WARLOC hides, so only French and UK AW could be on non-USN hulls, or spots on motorways or fields. V-, even S-TOL is payload-constrained, so Hi-VALU, so to be assigned only to HI-VALU targets, so AW. CTOL can handle the iron opening scenes. When the decision is taken to escalate to small AW, launch CTOL quick!

When the technology emerged, 1957-ish, to permit V/STO, excited innovators did not link their tech to AW Release Authorisation. Now add the logistics of "generating" assets from unsecured sites, close up to SPETSNAZ (each RAFG "hide" involved many vehicles, many people, much noise). VTOL was a techno solution to No Military Requirement.

Civil V/STOL failed because the cost of serving Downtown STOLPorts required a ticket price higher than Passenger's value of time saved.

 

[Cjc]

Personally I think the RN should have just suck it up and excepted a slitly less then optimal aircraft, especially sense it would have meant a 45,000 carrier would have been also been much more promising with a smaller aircraft. Would have given the RN a much greater long term punch then what they got historically and supported british industry (and I don't think Britain could have competed with the us in military aircraft, so focusing on vitol would be and was a good call).

 

[F.L.]

Why couldn't the P.1154RN have operated from the Invincible class ?
Otherwise, if the P.1154RN had had to enter service, in what year would it have been ?

 

[zen]

Why couldn't the P.1154RN have operated from the Invincible class ?
Otherwise, if the P.1154RN had had to enter service, in what year would it have been ?

In theory yes. But it would use up consumables like fuel at a faster rate.
Depends, but potentially in a interim capability level by 1968. But full AI.24 (not Foxhunter) is after 1972.

 

[JFC Fuller]

P1154RN is never going to happen in any of the forms drawn in real life.

The only way that the P.1154RN, or the Joint Services version, happens is if political will overcomes Naval Air Division's, and therefore the wider Admiralty's, utter hatred of it. Naval Air Division went to war against the P.1154 almost as soon as it was imposed upon them.

The Navy had all but settled on the Vickers Type 581 (or some evolution of it, I am very skeptical of its reliance on trim engines over horizontal tail surfaces) as their next generation aircraft, see here for some discussion on that. It would have come in strike and fighter variants with the mission systems being the determining factor, but the airframe would be common. Then, in December 1961 it was decreed that the Sea Vixen replacement would be merged with the Hunter Replacement.

Naval Air Division started proposing alternatives very quickly, every piece of analysis they undertook showed the P.1154, in any variant, to be deficient. Specifically, they advocated for, or proposed:

• F4H: considered in 1962, obviously the Phantom was ultimately triumphant
• Vickers Type 583: The brochure was sent to Naval Air Division and Eric Brown, then Deputy Director Naval Air Warfare, wrote a memo advocating that the Navy adopt it
• Vickers Type 584: This was the Vickers NBMR.3 submission, a navalised version would have had a second seat accommodated by reducing the number of lift engines, it would also have had blown flaps, and was expected to meet the naval requirement

 

[zen]

Had RN seen the light and the way the wind was blowing.....

Civil Lord gave them the way out and they refused to see it.

Political will never caught on, that it could swing the balance. Almost certainly elements in the FAA would have supported this, as would Construction and Engineering.

P.1154 opened the possibility of a flat top like CV operating supersonic fast jets of good capability. Without CATOBAR , lower ships costs and without high attrition rates.
What P.1127 showes was potential for minimal conversion training allowing RAF to supplement FAA.

Cost savings of P1154 could have been substantial.

 

[uk 75]

The Royal Navy in 1963 could not be expected to know that a Working Group in 1966 would implement a government ban on fixed wing carriers and resurrect the escort cruiser cancelled in 1966 as the navy's only aviation ship using Seaking helicopters. Even then the Sea Harrier did not emerge until the early 1970s.

The RAF P1154 was not a viable VSTOL fighter either but it could have been a useful STOVL ground attack machine if it had flown earlier and entered service in 1968. This machine could not have produced a Sea Harrier version as it was heavier and less VTOL capable than the 1965 P1127RAF which led to Sea Harrier.

AFVG could have delivered the original Vickers 581 fighter attacker in a smaller plane but that would have needed different political decisions.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The discussion about the CVAs striking Argentine bases is still useful, since it's kinda determined the minimum strike package sizes assuming Durandals or dumb bombs.

However, the P1154RAF has a very small bomb load possible, which drives the number of planes per airfield to cut the runways way up. The P1154 might be able to carry 8 total, with no other stores (4x 1000lb rated pylons, Durandals are 450lbs each so you'd need a lightweight dual rack)

And without CVA01 sized air groups, I don't think it'd be possible/practical for an RN carrier strike to cripple the ArgAF bases (regardless of planes destroyed on the ground).

Airbase vulnerability was the key reason behind NBMR3 and the RAF planned to build 1/4-1/3 of its combat force around this requirement.

Yet even a middle income country like Argentina can harden an airbase to the level where it requires a lot of heavy hitters in several waves. If Argentina can do ot then so too can Britain, which they did in Germany IIUC, therefore NBMR3 isn't a good spec to build a major part of the force structure around.

That said I still think there's a place for VTOL, the RAF GR3 Harriers showed that in the Falklands. However this should be a niche capability and money should be spent in proportion.

Here's where I disagree. Having a bunch of specialized jets, each with different electronics fits and different engines, is expensive to support.

Yes, I know that Jaguar evolved out of a training requirement, but I would have placed ALL the subsonic strike aircraft requirements on the VSTOL aircraft, whether P1127RAF or P1154.

So you end up with combat Hawks as an armable trainer (hey, it's basically an A4 Skyhawk anyways...), all the Hunter squadrons now have the VSTOL plane, and then you can choose your interceptor on top of that. Like how the USAF ended up with T38s, F15s and F16s. (and A10s, but USAF won't talk about those)

Yes, this is buying more VSTOL planes than you "need", but it's to cut an entire plane type out of the logistics and ground crew training paths.

 

[uk 75]

The RAF were the only air force in the world to operate a VSTOL combat aircraft.
Early optimism about operating Harriers from hides in forests soon gave way to the reality of large airbases and hardened aircraft shelters.
The RAF should have retired its Jaguars and Harriers in the 80s and gone for an all Tornado force. The three Jaguar squadrons in UK (a legacy of the old 38 Group Hunters) and one Harrier squadron would have been better with Tornados. The cost of buying more Fins would have been compensated for by savings in spares and maintenance. I am sure India and the US Marines would have bought the spare ac.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The RAF were the only air force in the world to operate a VSTOL combat aircraft.
Early optimism about operating Harriers from hides in forests soon gave way to the reality of large airbases and hardened aircraft shelters.
The RAF should have retired its Jaguars and Harriers in the 80s and gone for an all Tornado force. The three Jaguar squadrons in UK (a legacy of the old 38 Group Hunters) and one Harrier squadron would have been better with Tornados. The cost of buying more Fins would have been compensated for by savings in spares and maintenance. I am sure India and the US Marines would have bought the spare ac.

More likely, turn the Harrier IIs over to the RN. Maybe not all of them, but a squadron or two of them. Because the RN still requires VSTOL aircraft.

Following my previous post, I'd actually go so far as to say "buy more Harriers over Tornado IDS" Changed my mind, Tornado has twice the payload of even a GR7/9 and IDS would replace the Phantom FGR2s while ADV replaced FGR1s. I'd thought Tornado was available sooner than 1980s, so what you need is Harriers instead of Jaguars in the 1970s.

 

[Rule of cool]

I read recently that the flyaway cost of a Jaguar was 5/8 that of a Harrier, is that true?

 

[uk 75]

I am baffled why you regard the Harrier with its operating limitations and smaller payload as more useful than Tornado. The RAF clearly did not which is why it chose the Fin in 2010.

Sea Harrier was a useful bonus for the Invincibles in their Cold War role but apart from a brief use in the Yugoslav conflict they did not see much use.

Land based airpower in the two Gulf Wars and in Afghanistan and Syria has proved itself far more decisive than carrier borne strikes.

 

[Rule of cool]

The Harriers great strength isn't in the air, its on the ground, and while this sounds a bit stupid I think its useful in enough circumstances to warrant a small fleet amongst big TSR2 and Lighting fleets. The Falklands is a prime example of its usefulness, Harriers being the only combat aircraft able to use the 4100' Port Stanley airfield as well as being able to use Sids Strip that was built in 2 weeks without any heavy machinery. In addition USMC Harriers operated from a ratty airstrip close to the Kuwaiti border in 1991 that no other jet combat aircraft could use.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I am baffled why you regard the Harrier with its operating limitations and smaller payload as more useful than Tornado. The RAF clearly did not which is why it chose the Fin in 2010.

Because the RN must operate VSTOL aircraft, and operating the smallest number of types is an advantage in long term costs to the government.

More to the point, I'm saying Harrier instead of Jaguar in the 1960s, fit Jaguar electronics into the Harrier for the capabilities. Maybe build a new wing (like the historical AV8B wing) that can carry more bombload in CTOL mode, the plane obviously being thrust limited in VTOL bombload.

Having armable Hawks, Harriers (whether P1127 or P1154), and F-4s in the late 1960s is the cheapest way to have the capabilities needed. 1970s you can figure out what to replace the F-4s with, probably Tornado. Maybe replace Harriers with P1214 or P1216 as well, because they may need a replacement (or a rewing and reengine, as happened historically).

How many RAF F-4s flew as fighter bombers? Looks like maybe half of 118 FGR2s? There were 6 squadrons of FGR2s as dedicated interceptors. They were certainly replaced and augmented by 230 Tornado IDS.

So yes, Tornadoes do probably need to happen after all, looks like I lost track of when Tornado was developed. But Jaguar doesn't need to happen.

Sea Harrier was a useful bonus for the Invincibles in their Cold War role but apart from a brief use in the Yugoslav conflict they did not see much use.

Land based airpower in the two Gulf Wars and in Afghanistan and Syria has proved itself far more decisive than carrier borne strikes.

Because the RN can't launch a strike off a carrier with more than 6 birds! /sarcasm

 

[Hood]

So yes, Tornadoes do probably need to happen after all, looks like I lost track of when Tornado was developed. But Jaguar doesn't need to happen.

When P.1154 was still alive, Jaguar as we know it was not thought of but the requirements were - AST.362 was specially for an advanced trainer capable of supersonic speed and with modern avionics to enable pilots to transition from the Jet Provost to the TSR.2 and P.1154 Operational Conversion Units - there was even talk of adding V/STOL to the trainer requirement for that reason (although a 2-seat P.1154 conversion trainer was later planned).

It's possible had P.1154 materialised that AST.362 might have been met by either the VG-wing BAC P.45 or one of the V/STOL designs cooked up by Hamble and Kingston at Hawker Siddeley. More likely with money going into P.1154 (even assuming TSR.2 dies) that the historical tie up with France goes ahead as spending 50% on the project is more affordable than trying for 100% (the TSR/1154/851 trio blocked all funding attempts for AST.362).
Assuming the Breguet Br.121 is still selected, the RAF is on course to get a large fleet of supersonic trainers for 1972.
Historically the 1966 Defence Review brought the Jaguar S into being and then in 1970 the Air Staff rejected the supersonic trainer as too expensive and the Jaguar S reigned supreme from that point on and entered service in 1974.

So in a world with P.1154 either:
a) the RAF sticks with the Jaguar B trainer and ends up with an expensive fleet of supersonic trainers into the 1980s-90s and there is no Hawk (so no 1980s Hawk sales boom and Alpha Jet cleans up the world trainer market).
b) the RAF buys a smaller number of Jaguar S, perhaps 2-3 squadrons worth to operate alongside P.1154, perhaps for overseas use.
c) the RAF walks away in 1970 and seriously pisses off the French who cut the helicopter deal and possibly Concorde too, leaving all kinds of damage it its wake (no Puma, no Gazelle, Lynx might be scuppered) and likely BAC is pissed off too as they have nothing on the drawing board or on the factory floor in terms of military kit.

Assuming that CVA-01 dies in 1966 to save money for the aircraft, and Ark Royal, Eagle and Hermes get a reprieve until the late 1970s, then the RN has an expensive V/STOL fighter with no ship post-1978 as historical. The RAF might pick them up as additional interceptors. Or it means a larger Invincible is required and re-ignites the carrier arguments in the early 1970s. Would a larger carrier design survive the Mason Review of 1975?

 

[uk 75]

The RAF wanted Phantoms to replace P1154 but got Jaguar as it was cheaper.

P1127RAF was marginal and as argued here probably useful in a few situations.

Compared with P1154 Jaguar was a cheaper Hunter replacement and allowed the RAF to modernise its UK and Germany strike squadrons in the 70s and use its F4s to modernise its fighter squadrons.

An all UK conventional Jaguar alternative might have been even better but apart from the BAC P45 was not on offer.

 

[zen]

All that work to HSA is balanced out by TSR.2, and AFVG and ultimately MRCA Tornado.
So If TSR.2 goes through, then P.1173 is a strong contender and if Anglo-French cooperation is required I'm sure the French have something similar in the works instead of Breguet 121.


But if TSR.2 is cancelled and P1154 continues, then BAC need work and the B.121 Supersonic Trainer goes through, or P.45 in some form.

If P1154 then arguably Invincible grts then, pre-ski-jump. Arguably to no change in displacement as they'd be viewed as an extension of the ships missile systems.

Arguably the Centaurs can be converted to operate them.....

 

[EwenS]

How many RAF F-4s flew as fighter bombers? Looks like maybe half of 118 FGR2s? There were 6 squadrons of FGR2s as dedicated interceptors. They were certainly replaced and augmented by 230 Tornado IDS.

FGR2 was initially a Canberra replacement for UK and RAFG squadrons. Only after the arrival of Jaguar did they begin to move to the air defence squadrons. 111 sqn in 1974 was the first to get them for air defence.

 

[uk 75]

The P1154 RAF could have been introduced as a STOVL replacement for Hunter. The design was sound but the pure VTOL option was too difficult.
The BAC P45 trainer could have been used as a Hunter replacement as well.
The RN optimum aircraft would have been a Vickers 581/583 or AFVG style fighter attacker on CVA01.
There was a paper on a minimum carrier using the P1154RAF. With suitable deck fittings and a ski jump a Centaur sized ship might have been built instead of the Command Cruiser (Invincible).
In some respects the RN got it right.
Ark Royal and her Phantom/Buccaneer airgroup were in service from 1970 to 9.
They handed over to Hermes and Sea Harriers and then Invincibles with SHar.
Had the Cold War continued into the 90s the Sea Harrier would have been developed with McDD using Harrier Gr9 features.

 

[Scott Kenny]

FGR2 was initially a Canberra replacement for UK and RAFG squadrons. Only after the arrival of Jaguar did they begin to move to the air defence squadrons. 111 sqn in 1974 was the first to get them for air defence.

And if you are flying p1154s instead of Jaguars? Fitting the Jaguar strike avionics into the Harrier instead of building Jaguar as a striker.

 

[Rule of cool]

Wasn't the P1154 to have a pretty comprehensive avionics fit, including an appropriately set up version of the AI23?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Wasn't the P1154 to have a pretty comprehensive avionics fit, including an appropriately set up version of the AI23?

Sure, but Jaguar electronics are a decade newer in construction. So they should be lighter, more reliable, physically smaller for everything but the radar transmitter side, and probably a couple more improvements I'm not thinking of right now. Which means that for the same weight and volume, you can add more capabilities. Like say a laser spot seeker in the 1970s and then a built-in laser designator in the 1980s, FLIR and TFR, all the high end all weather ground attack bits like on an F-111 or A-6.

 

[Hood]

I'm not sure whether LRMTS would fit into a P.1154 with a radar, its a hefty bit of kit.
The French ATLIS pod from 1980 would be a strong possibility though, or PAVE SPIKE.

Fitting the Jaguar strike avionics into the Harrier instead of building Jaguar as a striker.

That's what the GR.3 upgrade was (though without a digital INS system).
I don't think that the Jaguar avionics would be ready in time for Harrier GR.1's rollout in any case. (the provision of avionics for Harrier, Phantom and Jaguar was intertwined and led to some changes for Jaguar)

 

[Mike Pryce]

I'm not sure whether LRMTS would fit into a P.1154 with a radar, its a hefty bit of kit.
The French ATLIS pod from 1980 would be a strong possibility though, or PAVE SPIKE.


That's what the GR.3 upgrade was (though without a digital INS system).
I don't think that the Jaguar avionics would be ready in time for Harrier GR.1's rollout in any case. (the provision of avionics for Harrier, Phantom and Jaguar was intertwined and led to some changes for Jaguar)

Barr & Stroud proposed a laser for the P.1154 in 1964. The Ferranti radar it ended up with was Blue Fox size so there was probably space.

 

[zen]

Can we reiterate for those who don't grasp this...
P.1154 is MRI platform.
Medium Range Interdiction

After P.1154 is cancelled this mission set, is passed to F4s until Jaguar reaches IOC.

The justification for Jaguar S is that F4 is an expensive platform to operate and there is more pressing need for them to cover GIUK Gap in the BARCAP mission set.

Jaguar would have died alongside AFVG had P.1154 gone ahead and entered service.

Once in service the inevitable logic favours more P.1154 unless it's operating costs are in the same league as the F4. Only then might Jaguar survive.

 

[Siberia]

… and arguably the decision to power the Fairey FD.2 with Avons rather than Sapphires which significantly delayed its test flying.

What sort of time period are you defining as significant?

The same is true of AW.681 which even with non deflecting jets would have offered advantages of speed and domestic production over the C-130.

Only a couple of years after the AW.681 was cancelled they had the withdrawal from East of Suez, would any speed advantage have been really needed for the remaining duties?

 

[JFC Fuller]

Barr & Stroud proposed a laser for the P.1154 in 1964. The Ferranti radar it ended up with was Blue Fox size so there was probably space.

Thats really interesting, thanks Mike. When you say laser, am I right to think it was a basic laser rangefinder? Barr & Stroud licensed the Hughes Ruby laser in May 1964 and designed a ground based laser rangefinder they called Forward Observer, three units were trialled by the British Army in 1965-66. It was described as being portable by one man and had a minimum range of 300m and a maximum of 10,000m. Perhaps they proposed a version packaged for aircraft installation?

The attached is from the late 1970s and related to the Jaguar but helps illustrate how a laser ranging+ system could be integrated in an airframe alongside a radar (the Thomson/CSF Agave in this case). Some of the P.1179 studies look like they combined a radar with some sort of optical system too, probably LRMTS, e.g. this one.

 

[Rule of cool]

Can we reiterate for those who don't grasp this...
P.1154 is MRI platform.
Medium Range Interdiction

After P.1154 is cancelled this mission set, is passed to F4s until Jaguar reaches IOC.

The justification for Jaguar S is that F4 is an expensive platform to operate and there is more pressing need for them to cover GIUK Gap in the BARCAP mission set.

Jaguar would have died alongside AFVG had P.1154 gone ahead and entered service.

Once in service the inevitable logic favours more P.1154 unless it's operating costs are in the same league as the F4. Only then might Jaguar survive.

This is true, once any British aircraft of the era reaches production, be it P1154 and/or TSR2, it's going to be pursued at the expense of other projects. Maybe the Jaguar will go ahead, but it will not grow into an MRI and maybe the AFVG will go ahead but as a Lightning replacement rather than a baby F111K strike aircraft.

Interesting about the BarCAP, would this requirement exist if CV01 & 02 were built? Or did this only come up after 1966 when it was decided to go to Ark and Eagle until 1975? Or maybe in 1968 when the carrier force was chopped even further, to Ark which was to last only until 1972?

 

[Yellow Palace]

Interesting about the BarCAP, would this requirement exist if CV01 & 02 were built? Or did this only come up after 1966 when it was decided to go to Ark and Eagle until 1975? Or maybe in 1968 when the carrier force was chopped even further, to Ark which was to last only until 1972?

There would have been, in a general sense, a requirement to modernise the UK's air defence fighters. After the withdrawal from East of Suez, that looked like 5 squadrons for the UK, 2 for Germany, and 2 for TASMO, totalling nine - which more or less lasted the whole Cold War, except for when an extra squadron was wanted to cover the Falklands. With big-deck carriers, TASMO isn't needed, so seven instead of nine squadrons, but the mission doesn't include flying circles between the fleet and Murmansk.

There's still a need/desire to replace the Lightning, though, and that was one of the roles that OR.346/AFVG/Phantom was aimed at. You just don't need to push for quite such long legs on Tornado ADV when that comes along, and some of the non-Tornado options for ASR.395 start to look quite interesting.

 

[zen]

maybe the AFVG will go ahead but as a Lightning replacement rather than a baby F111K strike aircraft.

Quite possible since the French were more interested in just that and UK obsession with a Strike platform essentially broke the partnership on this.
Frankly the Mirage G with a Spey, Medway or even an Olympus solves this. Though I have a soft spot for the ACF and the madness of the BARCAP Vulcan....

Interesting about the BarCAP, would this requirement exist if CV01 & 02 were built?

NOMISYRRUC and JFC Fuller go into this rather well and it looks like the answer is yes.
Which means the whole hanging justification for CVA-01 on EoS was not the winning formula and Strike North might have swung things.

But I think it took time to penetrate their minds as carriers progressively retired from service.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Can we reiterate for those who don't grasp this...
P.1154 is MRI platform.
Medium Range Interdiction

After P.1154 is cancelled this mission set, is passed to F4s until Jaguar reaches IOC.

The justification for Jaguar S is that F4 is an expensive platform to operate and there is more pressing need for them to cover GIUK Gap in the BARCAP mission set.

Jaguar would have died alongside AFVG had P.1154 gone ahead and entered service.

Once in service the inevitable logic favours more P.1154 unless it's operating costs are in the same league as the F4. Only then might Jaguar survive.

1154RAF is a striker.
1154RN is an all weather CAP with secondary strike capabilities. (alternatively, like the RN did historically, is 1154RN as CAP and anti ship strike, 1154RAF for ground strike)

 

[Rule of cool]

Was the P1154RN anything more than a paper plane? IIUC the joint spec version was issued in April 1962 and in November 1963 it was announced that the bi-service P1154 had been aborted, only 18 months later. In contrast the RAF version was given design precedence by HSA as early as December 1962, a development contract was let in February 64 and it wasn't cancelled for another year.

When I hear "P1154" I never think of the RN version, it just doesn't seem real to me.

 

[zen]

1154RAF is a striker.
1154RN is an all weather CAP with secondary strike capabilities. (alternatively, like the RN did historically, is 1154RN as CAP and anti ship strike, 1154RAF for ground strike)

Yes and my post is primarily about P.1154RAF.

P.1154RN is a separate issue

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yes and my post is primarily about P.1154RAF.

P.1154RN is a separate issue

I'm honestly assuming that most of the same events happen in the P1154 timeline as happened in the P1127 Harrier timeline. P1154RAF gets built as a striker. RN flies Phantoms for a while but does NOT get their CVA01s, so needs a VSTOL fighter ASAP for their baby carriers, which turns P1154RN into an all weather interceptor first with backup strike capabilities (maybe even a 2-seater for Radar operator, modified from an RAF trainer type P1154).

 

[Cjc]

Honestly looking at the sea vixen, I wonder if they could have ended up with the disine of the p.1216 in order to fix the issues of the p.1154. was the bs. 100 much bigger then the rb. 422?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Honestly looking at the sea vixen, I wonder if they could have ended up with the disine of the p.1216 in order to fix the issues of the p.1154. was the bs. 100 much bigger then the rb. 422?

BS100 is 107" long and 52" in diameter.

 

[Rule of cool]

I'm honestly assuming that most of the same events happen in the P1154 timeline as happened in the P1127 Harrier timeline. P1154RAF gets built as a striker. RN flies Phantoms for a while but does NOT get their CVA01s, so needs a VSTOL fighter ASAP for their baby carriers, which turns P1154RN into an all weather interceptor first with backup strike capabilities (maybe even a 2-seater for Radar operator, modified from an RAF trainer type P1154).

IIUC The P1154RAF was fitted with an AI23 radar and could carry the Red Top, therefore it would only need to be navalised to get it onto the Invincibles.

Is it true that the raf version was to carry Red Top, or was that the RN version only?

 

[uk 75]

I always like to stick with what was planned in real life and work from there.
P1154RAF was originally intended to replace Hunter squadrons in the UK, Germany, The Gulf and Far East. After the initial 150 units to meet these requirements it is likely that further aircraft would have been ordered, though AFVG was also mooted from 1964 to meet similar requirements.
P1154RN was killed by the RN who did not want it. They wanted the Vickers VG fighter-attacker but settled for the F4 Phantom. AFVG would have met the same requirements in the 70s as the Vickers aircraft.
In this alt reality the Escort Cruiser cancelled in 1962 does not get resurrected as the Invincible class and CVA01 and 02 with Hermes operate the Seakings instead. AFVG or a UK VG equivalent would have been able to operate from Hermes.
The Invincible in our time is designed to operate P1127RAF which then yields the Sea Harrier in the 1970s. P1154RN was never intended to operate from anything other than catapult equipped ships.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I always like to stick with what was planned in real life and work from there.
P1154RAF was originally intended to replace Hunter squadrons in the UK, Germany, The Gulf and Far East. After the initial 150 units to meet these requirements it is likely that further aircraft would have been ordered, though AFVG was also mooted from 1964 to meet similar requirements.
P1154RN was killed by the RN who did not want it. They wanted the Vickers VG fighter-attacker but settled for the F4 Phantom. AFVG would have met the same requirements in the 70s as the Vickers aircraft.
In this alt reality the Escort Cruiser cancelled in 1962 does not get resurrected as the Invincible class and CVA01 and 02 with Hermes operate the Seakings instead. AFVG or a UK VG equivalent would have been able to operate from Hermes.
The Invincible in our time is designed to operate P1127RAF which then yields the Sea Harrier in the 1970s. P1154RN was never intended to operate from anything other than catapult equipped ships.

Then we've been talking about two completely different alternate realities this whole time.

IIUC The P1154RAF was fitted with an AI23 radar and could carry the Red Top, therefore it would only need to be navalised to get it onto the Invincibles.

Is it true that the raf version was to carry Red Top, or was that the RN version only?

I was under the impression it Red Top was RN only, but I could be wrong on that.