British 'virtuous circle' 1957 onwards?

[uk 75]

Passenger reaction to the VC10 was generally favourable and BOAC did try to exploit it in their publicity material.

With a four jet rear engine configuration a bit like the buried engines in the wing the UK chose a problematic option for users. The podded engine is much easier to maintain. Twinjet rear engined designs are less of a problem but arguably the Boeing 737 became the standard for this class of aircraft leading to Airbus and 757.
Podded versions of both VC10 and Trident were proposed. I think 211 and 311 were deadends as British Airways showed when it bought a 737/757 fleet to replace Trident instead of Airbuses.

 

[uk 75]

I am sorry but the flaw in your "virtuous circle" theory is that Lightning is as much of a dead end as Hunter since both need replacement in the 70s. Buccaneer is the best bet for a useful aircraft for the RAF, RN and for export.
The reality is that the UK needed a Phantom class aircraft from 1968 or at least 1974. If you don't waste time and effort on TSR2 and P1154 a UK VG looking very much like a larger Tornado or F111 could have been in service by 1977.
Buccaneer in the strike role supported by Lightning in the interceptor role while Hunter does CAS is perfectly viable into the 70s. The alternative is a Phantom buy.

 

[uk 75]

Just as a political point no UK government post 1964 had any intention of committing UK forces against an opponent (Indonesia, Egypt etc) equipped with fast jets. This comes out in the RAF report I posted.
The UK rightly or wrongly decides that any major opposed operation will only happen in cooperation with US or NATO forces.
Outside Europe Hunter proved adequate in Oman and Aden while Buccaneer would have been sufficient until the 80s.

 

[Rule of cool]

Yes, the plane was considered very quiet and quite comfortable for passengers. It'd be a nice marketing point, for certain, but I don't expect it to have a huge sales impact.

Not nearly as much as having 212 seats when the competition has 189. However it might make paying the 10-15% price premium the Plowden report mentioned a bit easier to swallow.

 

[CV12Hornet]

So, I'm liking the VC10's prospects more and more, if the Super 200 can be pushed out, the more I look into this.

I think I might be wrong about the VC10's suitability for re-engining. RAF trials suggested that the VC10 could be re-engined with twin RB211s - a bit of an expensive prospect, but one that might get freight operators to bite for a mid-capacity freighter quieter and more fuel-efficient than surplus 707s and still cheaper to acquire than a new widebody freighter in the late 70s/early 80s. Then toss in a variant considered with a nose door. And given the DC-8 is still in limited service and 200 freighters were flying as late as 2002...

I also just learned the VC10 was almost chosen for the MPA requirement that spawned the Nimrod, and was considered for an AEW&C platform. This in addition to the strategic transport and tanker roles the VC10 played IOTL. The VC10 has some genuinely exciting military possibilities.

 

[Rule of cool]

I am sorry but the flaw in your "virtuous circle" theory is that Lightning is as much of a dead end as Hunter since both need replacement in the 70s. Buccaneer is the best bet for a useful aircraft for the RAF, RN and for export.
The reality is that the UK needed a Phantom class aircraft from 1968 or at least 1974. If you don't waste time and effort on TSR2 and P1154 a UK VG looking very much like a larger Tornado or F111 could have been in service by 1977.
Buccaneer in the strike role supported by Lightning in the interceptor role while Hunter does CAS is perfectly viable into the 70s. The alternative is a Phantom buy.

I hoped to explore the notion that success breeds success; supporting the best aircraft they had from the start would produce positive knock on effects later on rather than just accepting that Britain must have an air force worse than everyone else.

A Hunter fleet needs to go by 1968, 1974 is closer to the mark for a ground attack Lightning fleet but this could be stretched out 5 years with a mid life update using TSR2 components. As you rightly point out by the late 60s a Phantom-esque fighter-bomber is the minimum acceptable standard.

Just as a political point no UK government post 1964 had any intention of committing UK forces against an opponent (Indonesia, Egypt etc) equipped with fast jets. This comes out in the RAF report I posted.
The UK rightly or wrongly decides that any major opposed operation will only happen in cooperation with US or NATO forces.
Outside Europe Hunter proved adequate in Oman and Aden while Buccaneer would have been sufficient until the 80s.

Of course they did, they had a fleet full of duds and nothing remotely competitive in the immediate future until Lightnings get deployed to Cyprus and Singapore in 1967. They aren't going to commit to a conflict they're bound to lose a stack of aircraft in.

My concept puts Mach 2 fighter-bombers in the Middle East and South Seat Asia from 1961, putting Britain ahead of the game.

 

[uk 75]

I can't prove it but as a close air support aircraft Lightning would be too clumsy and thirsty compared with an Aden cannon armed FGA9 Hunter.
CAS aircraft are not expected to mix it with enemy fighters. Depending on the period that would be left to Javelins, Sea Vixens, Lightnings or Phantoms.
The flaw in P1154 which your Lightning variant repeats is trying to combine a CAS aircraft with a fighter at a time when missiles are poor and radars heavy.
Even Phantom does not manage this economically which is why the RAF changed to Jaguars and then Tornados.
As for the politics, I don't recognise any 60s UK government being keen on emulating US involvement in S E Asia.

 

[zen]

Is the SARH missile/seeker the 'radar Red Top' that apparently was mooted as a weapon for the P1154 (I presume the RN version) in about 1962-63? If so could it be carried by the Lightning, perhaps on the outer wing pylons the Saudis had?

Not clear it is, the new missile seeker more likely relates first to upgrades of AI.18 and the new radar.
But we do know of two separate seeker/Illuminator solutions to combine with AI.23. So they did solve the Illuminator injection in theory maybe on breadboard.

It maybe possible to scale the then 12" trials dish down to a 9" seeker dish and find a way to intigrate the Illuminator on AI.23......

Would the AI23 AIRPASS line end with the TSR2 FLR and the tactical aircraft developed from the late 60s to replace the Lightning fleet use a totally new radar development path?

Yes it would end there, with modest upgrades trickling through as per history to the extent fleet of sets. We know this happened to Blue Parrot. The only 70's way forward is the more substantially changed FLR set of the TSR.2 as revised first for AFVG and then for the Tornado package that lost to Texas Instruments license to Germany.

If so does pushing the AIRPASS all the way through to the TSR2 FLR give a good enough launching pad for the new radar?

It means we're talking a decent scale of production (200 for Lightning FGR, 120-150 Buccaneer S3) until the switchover to the MEASL/Ferranti FMICW set in the early 70's. Fitted to a new Fighter.

Which would coincide with recapitalisation of Fighter fleet, phasing out older Lightning F marks.

This all shows that the big failure here goes back to cancellation of the prototype NA.38 Type 556 Scimitar FAW in '55 and muddling through with DH.110 Sea Vixen.

As pushing NA.38 forward with reheat, AI.18 and Red Dean would alleviate a lot of pressure later on.

And of course the Type 576 was the obvious alternative to Lightning. Since it would be close in climb, just not as fast in a straight line.

 

[Hood]

• Lightning (without structural changes)
• P1227 Harrier
• Buccaneer
• BAC 1-11
• HS Trident
• VC10
• TSR2 (because of the completed and flying prototypes at cancellation)

Ok my thoughts:

Lightning: the full automatic intercept capability should have been funded, plus AI.23 development and the basic ground attack optionality EE had offered at that time. That's about as far I as I would take it, make sure its a highly capable interceptor with a modicum of GA in case you need it. It's not that exportable, unless you need a point interceptor - the F-104 is equally unloved until Lockheed splashed some illicit money about to change people's minds. And EE can't really make a claim that it can carry a US nuke because someone Stateside is likely to say "it can't be done" because of "reasons" - i.e. a non-US aircraft. Bribes and nukes makes a good package.
(Reading through an FCO file this morning, it sounds like the Saudis by 1972 were already dissatisfied with their Lightnings and felt it had been foisted on them by the UK and US.)

Harrier: ideally it needed a bigger wing, the P.1127/Kestrel/Harrier did a lot of tinkering in this area. As an operational type coming from a research aircraft it actually turned out pretty good. If there wasn't the distraction with P.1154 (i.e. if the Air Staff didn't become obsessed with supersonics for GA and ignore NMBR.3) then there might have been funds and time to further develop the Harrier airframe. Engine power would always limit the Harrier to some extent and that's unavoidable. A lot of exports pushed, it was fancy, did cool things at airshows but wasn't cool enough to make air forces part with their cash. Sea Harrier proved it could fight but beyond a few naval sales, the Harrier II hardly had air forces knocking the door down to get their own Mirage beaters. Fundamentally it was a niche product.

Buccaneer: a lot could have been done, fund S.2* upgrade, keep it cutting edge. Mountbatten had a point, 200 of these in RAF service in 1967 would have been a fairly potent force with updated avionics.

BAC 1-11: fine as is and did well, the later re-fanned upgrades looked interesting for the 1970s and 1980s.

Trident: DH salesmen should have slapped some sense into their BEA counterparts. Cutting it back was wrong and a serious folly. I don't think that it would necessarily rival the 727, but a decent sized Trident with decent engines would have picked up European sales I'm sure - BEA was the biggest airline in Europe by 1970 in terms of passenger loads, that kind of cachet might have led to sales with a decent aircraft.

VC-10: Vickers salesmen should have slapped some sense into their BOAC counterparts. They wanted the thing, buy it. Re-orient the Super VC-10 to Transatlantic routes, good passenger capacity and passengers liked them. Sure its not a fuel efficient as a 707, nor as discountable on sales price, but someone might buy if the margins look good and nobody is bitching about it in the press. Relying on tiny East African Airlines and Gulf Aviation is not a good move. I'd even back an enlarged Super-200 in collaboration with a European nation.

TSR.2: not much hope here really unless the Bank of England finds a few million quid lost down the back of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's sofa. Again, a very niche product for sales.

 

[red admiral]

@Hood

Difficult to put a bigger wing on Harrier I because extra wing area means more mass and fixed thrust levels need > mass.

I'd still put Harrier in the export success list - the win was in selling it to the US. The other sales are pretty irrelevant. Sold precisely because it was niche.

I don't know whether going STOL instead of VTOL would have been a better choice in the round; better range-payload and manoeuvre, lower costs, but less unique. I think quite possibly a better choice for UK (essentially something mid way between Harrier and Jaguar to instead of both), but I'm not sure for wider.

Your previous post on engines makes me think that actually one of the biggest missed opportunities would be UK aggressively pushing Sapphire/Avon to France to supplant Atar and drive Dassault's aircraft to use British designed engines (likely licence built in France)

 

[pathology_doc]

I've read that Ferranti could fit a CW emitter for SARH missiles from the 200th AI23,

Source? Because this is a game-changer for Lightning.

 

[BlackBat242]

There was a giant gap in British jet airliner development, the Comet first flew in 1949 - the next British jet airliners did not fly until 1962 (Trident January, VC-10 June, 1-11 August 1963) - 13 years of tinkering with getting Comet right and relying on Viscounts.
[for comparison 707-120 Dec 1957, DC-8 May 1958, Convair 880 Jan 1959, 720 Nov 1959, Convair 990 Jan 61, 727 Feb 1963, DC-9 Feb 1965, 737 April 1967, 747 Feb 1969, DC-10 Aug 1970, TriStar Nov 1970.
UK post-1963 managed Concorde March 1969, (Airbus A300 Oct 1972), the next all-UK jet was BAe 146 Sept 1981]

Convair 880 65 built, 110 passengers
Convair 990 37 built, 149 passengers

102 total for the Convair pair - compared to 54 VC-10, 117 Tridents, and 224 111s.

 

[zen]

VC10 for AEWACS and Poffler would alleviate a lot of issues pending Polaris.

Though I'm more tempted by the earlier BEWARE using Britannia. Which could have achieved a lot.
And Canada showed what could be done for MPA.

VC10 made sense since UK didn't need to invest it's money on Colonial airfields. Come independence, we just fly the planes home and someone else can pay for fixed infrastructure.
Similar to the logic of the carriers.

Arguably it's EE's P1B which is the problem and as I've suggested the Fairey and AWA solutions may have been the better long-term choices.

 

[Hood]

Come independence, we just fly the planes home and someone else can pay for fixed infrastructure.

The someone else often being US bank loans in the 1970s. So that probably made it easy to get to good loan terms on Boeings and Douglas to go with the runways (penny wise foolish etc.).

For an interesting Rolls-Royce perspective on Middle East sales in 1975 see FCO 8/2405 here:
https://agda.ae/en/catalogue/tna/fco/8/2405 (from Page 174 onward)

When you look at the commercial sales prospects its tiny, 2 Concordes, a handful of widebodies. It took time for the world airliner market to get going. So to compete you have to have an excellent product.

 

[Rule of cool]

Source? Because this is a game-changer for Lightning.

Sorry no, it likely was an anecdote I came accross looking into the Radar Red Top CW vs Matra R530 seeker. I recall that the British preferred the CW seeker option because its better against ECM, but it needed a CW emitter. The Matra R530 seeker doesn't need an emitter but isn't much good. This is where I read that Ferranti could install a CW emitter from the 200th unit, likely because improvements as production progressed would free up space.

 

[Rule of cool]

TSR.2: not much hope here really unless the Bank of England finds a few million quid lost down the back of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's sofa. Again, a very niche product for sales.

Not even in a virtuous circle environment where the Lightning attack version stimulates the avionics sector and VC10 Trident sales provide foreign exchange and income?

 

[zen]

By the time a virtuous circle gets going and is ready to feed into the next generation. The question has to be asked, why would you try a late 50's solution in the 1970's?

In a world of Buccaneer S3 and Lightning FGR, and P1127 Kestrel with maybe a supersonic trainer. There's little need for it, and Ground Attack Missiles can extend the useful life of extent fleets.

Arguably the failure of Green Cheese Anti-ship Missile is the problem. As having a stand-off missile that could potentially be turned to land Attack would allow a less demanding flight regime for the aircraft.

 

[Rule of cool]

I wouldn't expect a virtuous circle to have a big impact on the TSR2. Maybe some progress would be quicker and cheaper and maybe some of the not very busy people who meddled in the TSR2 would be busy on other things. However I think there could be some detail improvements in the project, maybe to the point where 3 prototypes were flying in early 1965 instead of 1 with a 2nd ready and a 3rd weeks away.

As for why; the conventional wisdom worldwide was thats what was needed, so you have to draw a line somewhere and get to work. No decision is worse than a less than stellar decision carried out with purpose, not that the TSR2 wasn't stellar - it was obviously the Ferrari 330P4 of aircraft.

 

[uk 75]

So at great expense the UK in the 70s will have
a fragile hard to maintain long range TSR2 force which still needs air refueling to get into Russia from UK.
a mediocre fighter cum ground attack Lightning force with small air to air capability and limited range.
A developed Buccaneer which may or may not be better than the S2.
A very short range limited vstol ga aircraft the P1127 which is less effective than a Hunter
now you want to replace the already rubbish Martel with an old paper Green Cheese weapon.
As someone once said "fascinating!"

 

[Rule of cool]

Even with that negative spin it sounds way better that what actually happened.

Of course I'd suggest every point can be contested and/or be put against some other advantage.

The mention of the Martel raises an interesting point. In the original post I quored Zen saying how the selection of the Phantom killed the domestic AAM effort, to which I'd add designating the Lightning as 'interim' weakened it beforehand. If Sandys insisted that the RAF use the Lightning what would the impact on missiles be? I'd hope the CW radar Red Top would be developed, it might even equip RN phantoms if they are acquired? Would a bigger domestic AAM effort bring down prices enough for non Lightning users to adopt Red Top? Would subsequent missile projects like Martel benefit from greater AAM effort, or even perhaps the Red Top could be adapted to air to ground use?

 

[BlackBat242]

Arguably the failure of Green Cheese Anti-ship Missile is the problem.

now you want to replace the already rubbish Martel with an old paper Green Cheese weapon.
As someone once said "fascinating!"

No crackers, Gromit! We've forgotten the crackers!

 

[Scott Kenny]

I've read the rear engine position made the cargo cabin quiet and made the VC10 popular with passengers, is this true? How much of a difference could that have made on sales if the VC10 wasn't mired in controversy before it entered service?

The 727s were definitely quieter than 707s/737s.

Yes, the plane was considered very quiet and quite comfortable for passengers. It'd be a nice marketing point, for certain, but I don't expect it to have a huge sales impact.

"As quiet and comfortable as your living room."

Definitely worth the extra 10% premium price for tickets, IMO. Just need a good marketer.

Difficult to put a bigger wing on Harrier I because extra wing area means more mass and fixed thrust levels need > mass.

What needed to happen was the full composite wing, so you can make it physically larger and stronger, without making it heavier.

I'm not sure the composites knowledge was there before the mid-late 1970s.


As to the TSR2, that needed someone to man up and say, "The desired avionics performance isn't achievable with the technology we have today. So we need to build an interim electronics fit and keep experimenting until we can get the desired performance." Then you have options for the interim electronics fit: A-5, A-6, Buc, F-111, F-105... The desired performance wasn't available until the late 1970s, F-111E/F.

 

[Hood]

Difficult to put a bigger wing on Harrier I because extra wing area means more mass and fixed thrust levels need > mass.

I'd still put Harrier in the export success list - the win was in selling it to the US. The other sales are pretty irrelevant. Sold precisely because it was niche.

Agreed, which is why I added that engine power would always limit the Harrier. There was only so much that could be done until more power could be eeked out of the Pegasus as engine tech improved during the 1970s.

It's a shame that the money wasn't there for the AV-16 in the mid-70s.

Not even in a virtuous circle environment where the Lightning attack version stimulates the avionics sector and VC10 Trident sales provide foreign exchange and income?

I doubt that a GA Lightning would add that much - for example AI.23 was already being developed into Blue Parrot for the Buccaneer. GA Lightning doesn't need inertial navigation (wouldn't have room for it either - or laser rangefinders).
Avionics was already pretty well stoked up, Marconi, Elliott and Smiths had it under control and lots of ideas, more ideas than aircraft to put them on. Just needs the R&D cash.

VC10 and Trident sales might add a bit to the coffers, but even another 100-150 aircraft isn't going to make the government flush and it still has to pay off its investment (launch aid) before it makes a profit. And there is nothing to say that any profit back goes to the MoA directly from the Treasury. They might allocate that cash on a new motorway to Scunthorpe or give it to BMC to fund a decent car or nuclear energy. BAC of course gets a greater share of the money but it could invest it in a dozen ways - further VC10 development, TSR.2, VG wing research, buying up a competitor, buying up a tractor company for diversification (another popular policy of the time).

 

[Hood]

Arguably the failure of Green Cheese Anti-ship Missile is the problem. As having a stand-off missile that could potentially be turned to land Attack would allow a less demanding flight regime for the aircraft.

Green Cheese was too benign - the reason that Buccaneer got Blue Parrot was precisely because it lost Green Cheese and then needed a decent search/attack radar to deliver Red Beard.

 

[Archibald]

Green Cheese was too benign - the reason that Buccaneer got Blue Parrot was precisely because it lost Green Cheese and then needed a decent search/attack radar to deliver Red Beard.

If I wasn't aware of Rainbow codes, I would say that sentence sounds a bit, well... unhinged ? imagine trying to draw it.

A buccaneer with a red beard and a blue parrot on his shoulder walks into a bar, ready to pick a fight. He had ordered green cheese with his rum, but was denied it...

Sounds like a mix of Hector Barbossa and Jack Sparrow having a bad day. YAAAARRR !!!

 

[zen]

If Sandys insisted that the RAF use the Lightning what would the impact on missiles be?

The chief problem was tying Illuminator to AI.18 and AI.23. Of two AI.18 was easier in the late 50's. But by the early 60’s we have two separate seeker options for Red Top. So this was achievable.
RAF would obviously prefer the 'failed' (a little more complicated) P.8 area ruled Lightning with a 27" dish AI.23. Which would alleviate some of the problems with the Lightning (it had side access hatches to the fusilage which would greatly ease maintenance and I suspect longer life mainwheels on a new undercarriage)

I'd hope the CW radar Red Top would be developed, it might even equip RN phantoms if they are acquired?

In place of Sparrow it might have been possible to recess Radar Red Top.

Would a bigger domestic AAM effort bring down prices enough for non Lightning users to adopt Red Top?

Possibly, the increased performance of the mkII motor and a SARH option might and I must stress the uncertainty, might have won Swedish orders and from that maybe Danish. Beyond we have to ask who is buying British in this AH.

Would subsequent missile projects like Martel benefit from greater AAM effort, or even perhaps the Red Top could be adapted to air to ground use?

One might conceive of a TV Red Top, and a ARM Firestreak/Red Top. An early laser seeker might be possible.
Certainly the more of something you do, the more likely you are to get better at it.

Green Cheese was too benign

It's what is available and could have been developed further.

 

[zen]

As to the TSR2, that needed someone to man up and say, "The desired avionics performance isn't achievable with the technology we have today. So we need to build an interim electronics fit and keep experimenting until we can get the desired performance." Then you have options for the interim electronics fit: A-5, A-6, Buc, F-111, F-105... The desired performance wasn't available until the late 1970s, F-111E/F.

Lets go further. This was visible for the Pathfinder Low Level V-Bomber.

Arguably for strategic use this was the better path to grappling with the avionics for such missions.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

As to the TSR2, that needed someone to man up and say, "The desired avionics performance isn't achievable with the technology we have today. So we need to build an interim electronics fit and keep experimenting until we can get the desired performance." Then you have options for the interim electronics fit: A-5, A-6, Buc, F-111, F-105... The desired performance wasn't available until the late 1970s, F-111E/F.

F-111E's avionics were identical to the F-111A's avionics. The FB-111 and F-111F's avionics were arguably less advanced than the F-111D's avionics which are the closest to what the Air Staff wanted for TSR-2, and what they were expecting to have in F-111K (with some UK additions).

 

[Yellow Palace]

Cave paintings, too.

Some say language was invented to facilitate arguments over British aircraft of the 1960s.

Not declaring manned fighters obsolescent in the 1957 DWP, whereby the Lightning isn't seen as interim but rather as a 'take it or leave it' centrepiece of the RAFs tactical force.

If you can get the RAF to get on board with a modern fighter-bomber for limited war, which Sandys was open to, alongside the 'last manned fighter', then production numbers are possible. Whether it's somehow Lightning derived, or based on something else. Lightning isn't terribly well suited to an FGA/FR version, despite what the BAC brochures claimed. The alternatives are to a greater or lesser extent paper planes, and would likely come along rather later.

But if you can pull it off, you have a de facto British Mirage III, with interceptor (IIIC), conversion trainer (IIIB), fighter-bomber (IIIE) and fighter-reconnaissance (IIIR) versions. If it can be navalised - far from given - then even better. The sales prospects aren't great, but they're not zero either, especially if the UK is showing confidence in it.

 

[Archibald]

Dinosaurs were wiped out because they couldn't grasp arguments over British aircraft of the 1960s. ROTFLMAO

 

[Rule of cool]

VC10 and Trident sales might add a bit to the coffers, but even another 100-150 aircraft isn't going to make the government flush and it still has to pay off its investment (launch aid) before it makes a profit. And there is nothing to say that any profit back goes to the MoA directly from the Treasury. They might allocate that cash on a new motorway to Scunthorpe or give it to BMC to fund a decent car or nuclear energy. BAC of course gets a greater share of the money but it could invest it in a dozen ways - further VC10 development, TSR.2, VG wing research, buying up a competitor, buying up a tractor company for diversification (another popular policy of the time).

According to Wiki the VC10 Super 200 was to cost 2.7 million pounds each, selling 50 in the US before devaluation gives US$380,000,000 and another 50 after devaluation gives $324,000,000. This isn't going to solve the national debt or anything, but it would pump up the foreign exchange reserves, and I imagine selling another ~120 Medway Tridents would provide a similar but smaller addition of mostly European foreign exchange.

 

[Rule of cool]

A couple of unrelated things.

IIUC the problem with TSR2 avionics wasn't the kit itself, but rather the ability of the computer to integrate all of the inputs. Doing this took up so much of the available memory there was little left for programming in mission parameters like navigation waypoints and attack profiles. IIUC the solution is more memory space, which the double sided VERDAN that was fitted to HMS Resolution in 1967 or so, would provide, allowing the programming of the full amount of nav waypoints and attack profiles for missions.

The RAAF Mirage force flew 2 separate flying programmes (with overlap) until 1973, because for all the hype the Mirage IIIE isn't a multi-role aircraft. The sqns were paired into wings; one air to air and the other ground attack and each would train in this particular role. My guess would be if the RAF adopted the ground attack Lightning they'd had similar tailored flying programmes, likely the GA sqns wouldn't do any interceptor training and the fighter sqns no GA training.

 

[zen]

If you can get the RAF to get on board with a modern fighter-bomber for limited war, which Sandys was open to, alongside the 'last manned fighter', then production numbers are possible.

There was a 'limited war' aircraft designed and nearly built on Company money.....the HSA Hawkers P.1121.

And if you're looking for something that can take the avionics and the best engines of the time and the weapons that couldhavebeen realised....then that was the P.1121

And it would be easier to maintain than a Lightning. Cheaper in all likelihood too.

 

[Rule of cool]

There was a 'limited war' aircraft designed and nearly built on Company money.....the HSA Hawkers P.1121.

And if you're looking for something that can take the avionics and the best engines of the time and the weapons that couldhavebeen realised....then that was the P.1121

And it would be easier to maintain than a Lightning. Cheaper in all likelihood too.

IIUC the P1121 was built to mockup stage, not prototype, by 1958. To get it into service will require maybe 5 years the RAF doesn't have and tens of millions of pounds during the 5 years when 100 million pounds was cut from the budget.

Other than that I really like it, it'd be the British Phantom analogue.

 

[zen]

IIUC the P1121 was built to mockup stage, not prototype, by 1958.

Prototype was under construction some halfway through at work stop if memory serves. Hawkers was talking of '60.
Had the rate of work not been slowed down by the board after 25 September 1957, then it's quite achievable.

To get it into service will require maybe 5 years the RAF doesn't have and tens of millions of pounds during the 5 years when 100 million pounds was cut from the budget.

5 years is the Stage 2 Interceptor with J-band AI.23 and Fairey OR.1131 AAM.

 

[uk 75]

Oh dear paper plane time. The P1121 was close to the F105 Thunderchief in scope. Trouble is as usual the UK got there too late.

 

[Yellow Palace]

The RAAF Mirage force flew 2 separate flying programmes (with overlap) until 1973, because for all the hype the Mirage IIIE isn't a multi-role aircraft. The sqns were paired into wings; one air to air and the other ground attack and each would train in this particular role. My guess would be if the RAF adopted the ground attack Lightning they'd had similar tailored flying programmes, likely the GA sqns wouldn't do any interceptor training and the fighter sqns no GA training.

There is a reason why I intentionally refer to the IIIE (and other comparable aircraft) as fighter-bombers, rather than multi-role. AFAIK the Australian Mirages did have differences in equipment between the fighter and fighter-bomber aircraft.

Prototype was under construction some halfway through at work stop if memory serves. Hawkers was talking of '60.
Had the rate of work not been slowed down by the board after 25 September 1957, then it's quite achievable.

I don't believe it for one minute. The Lightning prototype was flying in 1957 and it took until 1961 to get into service. Even if you believe Hawker's claim that they could get a prototype P.1121 flying in April 1958 (and I don't!), there's no way it's taking nearly two years less to develop than the Lightning.

The P1121 was close to the F105 Thunderchief in scope.

I think it had the potential to be a better fighter than the F-105 - damning with faint praise, I know. It was at least designed with air-to-air combat as a goal, rather than merely delivering nuclear weapons.

But yes, of the various candidates, the P.1121 is the paperiest of a bunch of paper planes.

 

[Rule of cool]

Oh dear paper plane time. The P1121 was close to the F105 Thunderchief in scope. Trouble is as usual the UK got there too late.

In 1957-59 the P1127, Buccaneer, TSR2, Medway Trident and VC10 Super 200 are enough paper planes to be getting on with. Its why I had Sandys say its Lightning or nothing, he's a politician and won't pay for a new fighter when there's already one in production, arguments about capability sound like lies to them.

 

[Scott Kenny]

F-111E's avionics were identical to the F-111A's avionics. The FB-111 and F-111F's avionics were arguably less advanced than the F-111D's avionics which are the closest to what the Air Staff wanted for TSR-2, and what they were expecting to have in F-111K (with some UK additions).

So which version of the F111 got the "well, the -D avionics were crap, so we need another redesign"?

Because the -Ds avionics had issues.

IIUC the problem with TSR2 avionics wasn't the kit itself, but rather the ability of the computer to integrate all of the inputs. Doing this took up so much of the available memory there was little left for programming in mission parameters like navigation waypoints and attack profiles. IIUC the solution is more memory space, which the double sided VERDAN that was fitted to HMS Resolution in 1967 or so, would provide, allowing the programming of the full amount of nav waypoints and attack profiles for missions.

And the VERDAN would get bumped in low altitude flight and lose where it was...

 

[TsrJoe]

There was NO official sanction for P.1121 to go ahead. Hawker were NOT going to finance it to prototype completion as a venture without an order or at least financial backing from HMG. which was not forthcoming. More wishful thinking and ultimately a type not needed