1960s RAF Phantoms Harriers or Jaguars?

[uk 75]

It is pretty much agreed by everyone that P1154 had to be cancelled in 1965. But what plane or planes should have been ordered to replace it?
By 1975 the RAF had received Spey powered Phantoms and P1127RAF aircraft with Jaguars being ordered in 1970 to allow the Phantoms to replace Lightnings.
If various sources from Defence Secretary Healey to RAF pilots are to be believed what the RAF actually wanted was standard US=engined Phantoms alone. The 1127RAF and Jaguar were forced on to preserve jobs at Hawkers and BAC as well as Rolls Royce for the Phantom.
Many, perhaps most, here would say that this was necessary and saved the UK industry.
Except that West Germany managed to buy US Phantoms and then insist on leading the MRCA programme. BAC might have been able to do so instead if licence built F4s kept it going and the Tornado ADV had been ordered with the IDS earlier. Hawkers could have developed the Hawk earlier perhaps as a programme with Breguet instead of Jaguar. P1127RAF would not have been missed except by the Royal Navy.
Imagine the situation in 1970 with Phantoms replacing Hunters, Canberras and Lightnings and Hawks taking over from Gnat and some Hunters. The UK not Germany has the most MRCA on order. But the RN is about to lose its Sea Vixen equipped carriers after the cancellation of CVA01 and the Spey Phantoms for it and Eagle. The Heath government is elected in June 1970 committed to closer ties with Europe and keeping the RN in the carrier business. Eagle and Hermes need a Sea Vixen replacement and a cheaper carrier design than CVA01 is needed to replace them both in the CTOL and ASW (Seaking or even S3) role.
Heath and Pompidou are very similar men. France needs to replace Foch and Clemenceau late in the decade and the F8 Crusaders they carry. Two carriers each for UK and France by 1980 is soon agreed though the designs will not be completely standard. The RN needs a Sea Vixen replacement off the shelf in the short term and a Sea Vixen/Buccaneer replacement by 1980. BAC proposes a modified MRCA while Dassault looks both at Super Etendard and Mirage variants. The RN short term need is met by leasing ex USN F8s and Sidewinders for Eagle and Hermes. Talks on the future MN/RN carrier combat aircraft are unresolved when the Wilson government takes over in 1974 but the first new carriers have been ordered in 1973.

 

[Apophenia]

... BAC might have been able to do so instead if licence built F4s kept it going ...

Did St. Louis ever actually offering BAC a Phantom license?

 

[uk 75]

It was discussed with Canada but never arose with the UK because of the Spey engine offset. BAC I think did maintenance on the UK aircraft.

 

[zen]

It is pretty much agreed by everyone that P1154 had to be cancelled in 1965. But what plane or planes should have been ordered to replace it?

No it should have been cancelled in '62, when NMBR.3 became a farce of 'joint winners' and no one ordered any of either.
But then equally what should have happened was a parallel STOL design takeover and become the British Vigen.

Except that West Germany managed to buy US Phantoms and then insist on leading the MRCA programme. BAC might have been able to do so instead if licence built F4s kept it going and the Tornado ADV had been ordered with the IDS earlier.

Germany was a special case and their 'leadership' in MRCA was more a combination of their claimed order numbers and their available budget.

F4 ought to have been jumped on back when it was still a J65 (licensed Sapphire) powered aircraft

It would have been simpler to go 50/50 with the French on Mirage G.

 

[Rule of cool]

The problem is that there were numerous conflicting aircraft development threads and timelines, changes of Government policy and Defence strategy that make it difficult to nail down a good procurement decision. For example, the RN appeared to (and probably did) need the Spey Phantom and were committed to it (with high UK content) when the RAF looked at the vanilla F4D and IIUC the Jaguar didn't morph into a sophisticated attack aircraft until about 1969 or so.

No it should have been cancelled in '62, when NMBR.3 became a farce of 'joint winners' and no one ordered any of either.

100%! In 1961 the MoS asked for a quote for 100 production P1127, when the NMBR.3 became a farce in 1963 the British should have re-looked at the 100 x P1127s immediately.

Germany .......... 'leadership' in MRCA was more a combination of their claimed order numbers and their available budget.

West Germany scammed Britain. Britain should have held its ground, questioned German production 'estimates' and included the ADV development in its production numbers to gain design leadership.

 

[uk 75]

I have started this alt in 1965 rather than 1962 so that the three projects get cancelled together.
I think the CVA01 and RN Phantom cancellation in 1966 also made sense as Eagle on its own as a Phantom carrier did not allow the RN to cover the Far East with CVA01. Had Hermes been Phantom capable the carrier programme would still have died in 1967 with the end of East of Suez.
Dassault are determined to stay as prime contractor to the AdeA so I see no basis for BAC to work with them. I like AFVG and wish it could have worked but MD did not.
MRCA is a great aircraft but the West Germans should not have been given leadership. The earlier development.of ADV could also have led to a longer ranged strike version for the RAF.
Land based VSTOL was unnecessary as airbases were so large that aircraft could take off on various hard surfaces.
Have the RN use SACLANT and the Heath government to get 2 Eagle sized carriers instead of 3 Invincibles and leased F8s to cover the gap on Eagle and Hermes then you dont need P1127s.
Buccaneer could have been updated to A6 standard through the life of the carriers up to 1991. I admit the fighter role is harder. France kept the F8 until Rafale. Perhaps something like Rafale could have been bought from France earlier.

 

[uk 75]

Jaguar dies with AFVG and in my variant the RAF use Phantoms and Hawks.
Hawk is what the UK and Hawkers do best a lovely aeroplane like the Hunter and Gnat. Without the distraction of Jaguar and Harrier it becomes the Gnat/Hunter replacement. The three UK based squadrons that used Phantoms then Jaguars get Hawks ( which are somewhat bigger and more capable than the real world Hawks using Aden cannons and rocket pods)

 

[uk 75]

There is no getting round Phantom and MRCA.
A pretty much off the shelf Phantom buy in 1965 for the strike role with further orders for the Interceptor role clears the decks for the VG fighter/attacker BAC already knows how to build.
As I mention above this should have been AFVG but it has to be a collaborative programme to avoid cancellation during the coming locust years.
MRCA was too skewed to the needs of the Germans (though they saw it as being too British).
If you can get it into service before rather than after 1980 so much the better.

 

[uk 75]

Both France and the UK have nuclear bombers that need replacing in the 80s.
They both have SSNs developing for the same timeframe.
A submarine launched cruise missile would have been a way of replacing the bombers and providing some more non-US capabilities.
Probably not feasible but we had Martel and Exocet.

 

[zen]

If...
If UK is in the lead on MRCA, does this mean changes to things like size/fuel/range?

Running ADV parallel may allow the earlier FMICW set, with corresponding earlier IOC but certain limitations compared with Foxhunter.
Resulting in no humiliating Blue Circle...
Could also accelerate Skyflash.

Does this alter the development of RB.199?
RR had scaled up options to replace Spey.....
A larger MRCA, could drive a larger RB.199 and a target set to replacement of the J79 in F4s as well.

Does this earlier ADV win any extra export orders?
IOC would now predate F/A-18.

Navalised MRCA is asking a bit, as it will need a strengthened airframe and bigger wing.

Now if Hawker win Supersonic Trainer with the rather attractive and definitely designed as a Hunter Successor P.1173. Wrapped around a single RB.153 or RB.172 or even RB.199.
Then no Jaguar, but potential Hunter Successor sales around the world.

 

[Scott Kenny]

100%! In 1961 the MoS asked for a quote for 100 production P1127, when the NMBR.3 became a farce in 1963 the British should have re-looked at the 100 x P1127s immediately.

So, ~300 total Jaguars instead of 200 then.

 

[uk 75]

Without the Falklands the UK Harrier programme does not look so worthwhile.
My combo F4 and Hawk could have been later AFVG and simpler Jag or even the actual RAF minus P1127 RAF.

Which leaves the Sea Harrier? Like Sir John Nott I tend to the view that if shipping lines into Argentina were told that the Royal Navy was blockading Argentina and the Falklands with SSNs .and at the same time reviewing NATO bases on UK territory Schulz and Weinberger would have got Reagan to kneecap Galtieri.

But in my preferred scenario the UK has two modern carriers in service by 1982 with.at least F8s and Buccaneers and possibly an MRCA RN.

 

[Rule of cool]

I have started this alt in 1965 rather than 1962 so that the three projects get cancelled together.

Yes, but my point was that by then enough had happened and had yet to happen which drastically limited the procurement options. For example, the British had already committed to the Spey Phantom for the RN which basically eliminates the vanilla F4D as an option for the RAF. Additionally, the 'interim' Hunter fleet needed replacing sooner rather than later which makes waiting for the Jaguar to morph into a NATO standard attack aircraft, which makes it not an option in 1965. Basically, it's Spey Phantoms and Harriers or nothing.

MRCA is a great aircraft but the West Germans should not have been given leadership. The earlier development.of ADV could also have led to a longer ranged strike version for the RAF.

The ADV had 7,270 litres of internal fuel compared to 5,842 litres for the IDS, a handy boost I'd think.

 

[Rule of cool]

Something occurred to me. Is a wholly Spey Phantom force to replace the Hunters 'too much' and the small Harrier force was needed as a 'balancer' to add some flexibility to the Phantom fleet's huge capability?

 

[uk 75]

Something occurred to me. Is a wholly Spey Phantom force to replace the Hunters 'too much' and the small Harrier force was needed as a 'balancer' to add some flexibility to the Phantom fleet's huge capability?

In my variant Hawker gets to build a simpler Jaguar more like the Hawk which equips the three UK based squadrons supporting UKMF.
P1127RAF is then unnecessary to keep Hawker going.

 

[uk 75]

My thesis is that VSTOL has been a dead end starting with Harrier and finishing with F35B.
The UK could and should have built two CTOL carriers in the 70s instead of the Invincibles and again in 2000 instead of CVF.
A Tornado replacement more effective than F35 was well within the capability of the Tornado and Typhoon partners. A carrier version could also have been developed as well as a Sea Typhoon.
India would have welcomed such a programme.

 

[Rule of cool]

While in terms of capability in the air a hotted-up Hawk-Jag is likely similar to a Harrier I think the VSTOL adds a valuable dimension to this limited in-air capability. IIUC a good chunk of Harrier development was paid for by other countries, US with the engine and the US and West Germany with the Kestrel. If the UK is getting a leg up on the VTOL development cost/effort then I think it's a handy feather in the cap of a subsonic light attack aircraft that's worth getting into the bargain. I think where VSTOL falls over is where they try to do too much other stuff, but as a smallish compliment to a larger Mach 2 fighter-bomber force I can see it's value if the costs are contained.

 

[uk 75]

While in terms of capability in the air a hotted-up Hawk-Jag is likely similar to a Harrier I think the VSTOL adds a valuable dimension to this limited in-air capability. IIUC a good chunk of Harrier development was paid for by other countries, US with the engine and the US and West Germany with the Kestrel. If the UK is getting a leg up on the VTOL development cost/effort then I think it's a handy feather in the cap of a subsonic light attack aircraft that's worth getting into the bargain. I think where VSTOL falls over is where they try to do too much other stuff, but as a smallish compliment to a larger Mach 2 fighter-bomber force I can see it's value if the costs are contained.

The RAF didnt want it but Hawkers needed the work and Healey gave in. The early Harriers had so little range and payload they were on a par with the real world Hawks that replaced the TWU Hunters.

 

[Rule of cool]

In my variant Hawker gets to build a simpler Jaguar more like the Hawk which equips the three UK based squadrons supporting UKMF.

Why simpler Hawk-like Jaguar? The leading Air Forces were not trending toward simple combat aircraft during the 60s.

 

[uk 75]

As you mentioned giving the RAF F4s in quantity needs to be matched by a cheaper design in the close air support role. The three UK based squadrons would use this type as they did the Jaguar.

 

[Rule of cool]

As you mentioned giving the RAF F4s in quantity needs to be matched by a cheaper design in the close air support role. The three UK based squadrons would use this type as they did the Jaguar.

I was thinking more about a different suite of capabilities rather than sacrificing capability for the sake of cost. My impression of the RAF Phantom is that it was a heavy hitter, more akin to an interdictor than a CAS and reliant on the biggest and highest quality bases and a huge maintenance tail and therefore lacking in 'handiness' and flexibility. This is where I think the Harrier is a good compliment to the Phantom, it has great flexibility and handiness and within it's overall niche has a very full performance envelope due to it's great VTOL engine power. My personal opinion of simple and cheap aircraft is that they are just cannon fodder yet represent similar expenditure political and procurement capital as more capable, effective and survivable aircraft.

 

[red admiral]

As you mentioned giving the RAF F4s in quantity needs to be matched by a cheaper design in the close air support role. The three UK based squadrons would use this type as they did the Jaguar.

Historically then Jaguar was also "better" for ground attack than Phantom. You also need the nav/attack system if you aren't just going for WW2 style visual acquisition and laydown of bombs/rockets, but just using a jet to do it. Jaguar managed to be "better" and cheaper by being less multi-role.

 

[uk 75]

I am one of the few fans of Jaguar as it got BAC into the right place for Tornado.
And yes although the RAF in Germany missed their Phantoms the Jaguars did a good job. They ended up just equipping what I still call the 38 Group squadrons (6,41 and 54).
I feel very guilty after reading Michael Pryce on the Harrier but looking at it from a collective MOD/Treasury point of view and many in the RAF it was an unwanted extra airframe.
Germany used the Alpha Jet in the CAS role (after trying for its own P1154 types) and in my view RAF TWU Hawks were better than those. How many could we have bought to fly from Autobahns like the Alphas?

 

[Rule of cool]

I like the Jaguar. Its a good looking aircraft, I think effective in it's role and came by that effectiveness very efficiently. How it came to be does my head in though.

 

[zen]

Something like the P.1173 puts aircraft like the F5 in the shade as surely as it does Alphajet.
Not as cheap as a Hawk, due to being supersonic using a bigger engine. But arguably cheaper than Jaguar or Mirage F1.

One can envision the stripped down version for training and various avionics fits for military roles.
From something like Blue Fox for air-to-air to the LMRTS nose for MRI strike.