F 4 Phantom fails in the early 60s- 1154s or Lightnings?

uk 75

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
5,744
Reaction score
5,633
The F4 Phantom might have failed to materialise as the wonderful plane which the RAF and RN used to fill various gaps from the 60s onwards. In a Phantomless world would P1154 have been developed as planned in 1963 for both RAF and RN or would the Lightning have been developed in its swing wing form for both. Or were there better alternatives (BAC 583 comes to mind)?

One for the What-iffers? but it would be interesting to know about possible Lightning versions developed to join the TSR 2 and 1154 or even replace some of them.
 
BAC 583 seems the best choice. Again there are further what-if questions.
If the RN is sticking to Ark Royal/ Eagle until the mid-70s then P.1154 is probably more likely for the FAA due to its thrust-vectoring etc. Whether the RAF and FAA would ever agree to field to widly different variants is open to question. Phantom was such a success because essentially its the same basic airframe whether on land or sea. The RAF is probably going to favour P.1154 anyway for tactical due to V/STOL and all that entails for survibility in the field.

If the RN is getting CVA-01 and CVA-02 then I'd suggest Type 583V as the best ideal, VG wings and some thrust vectoring perhaps to shorten the take-off? However if a catapult length is sufficent to launch a Type 583 without thrust vectoring then a common variant with normal tailpipes and reheat might appeal to both services and both get a two-seat interceptor. This would save development time and a VTOL 583 would be horrendously expensive and complex.

Now would the RAF want P.1154 or Type 583? The first is a tactical strike type for frontline use and the latter an all-weather interceptor. To replace Lightning I'd favour the 583 as a pure interceptor for defending the mainland and it would be possible to make a Tornado-like (but less advanced) strike fighter later on, to remove the need for P.1154. Assuming some kind of economic reality even in whiff-world, the RAF is going to be unable to get 583, 1154 and TSR.2 and choosing a single fighter I think they would have 583 over the P.1154 given its more limited tactical role and the better interception capability of a two-seat Mach 2 fighter. Perhaps they get P.1127 as a cheaper consolation prize instead later on as the Harrier?
The FAA is unlikely to be able to choose its own type so its realistically always going to be tied into what the RAF want/ get. Here 583 is the better choice too but operating from Ark Royal and Eagle would probably impose limitations on operations. The
Lightning hasn't the growth potential in it, even with VG wings, to be a serious contender for future developments.

The one final question though is, what weapons would the Type 583 carry in the fighter role? Firestreak/ Red Top don't offer an all-weather soloution into the longer term so either some kind of serious foray is needed into longer-range missiles or we still have to buy Sparrow (and perhaps end up with Skyflash still).
 
Hood said:
The one final question though is, what weapons would the Type 583 carry in the fighter role? Firestreak/ Red Top don't offer an all-weather soloution into the longer term so either some kind of serious foray is needed into longer-range missiles or we still have to buy Sparrow (and perhaps end up with Skyflash still).
Click to expand...


I should like to think that by the early 60s, the AAM makers could have pulled their fingers out, left the dark days of Red Dean behind them, and been able to put together a reasonable SARH missile that wasn't crippled by ground returns (the way Red Dean etc. were) and wasn't twice as large as a Sparrow for the performance of a Falcon. And if you're not tied to the Lightning, you might have room to add an illuminator to AIRPASS. Somewhere in between 1956 and the early 1970s, the British learned how to make a decent SARH AAM or Sky Flash would never have existed. It would be nice to know what happened during that time. I suspect Chris Gibson's new book will have some of the answers.
 
I'd be interested to see what a Phantomless timeline would produce on the other side of the Atlantic, as well. None of the near-term alternatives seem to measure up.
 
Madurai said:
I'd be interested to see what a Phantomless timeline would produce on the other side of the Atlantic, as well.
Click to expand...


That's a damn good point, well-made. For the Navy, this probably means that Vought's uber-Crusader gets the ticket for the interceptor job. For strike/attack, it's the A-4 through A-6 as appropriate to the task.


The USAF doesn't have as many problems - it already has the F-106 in the interceptor role and the F-105 for conventional bombing, with the -111 coming along later. The need for a decent air-superiority fighter in Vietnam might push the earlier or more enthusiastic development of a gun-armed F-106 and/or F-102, and in that situation I could imagine there being much more of a push to give the AIM-4 a proximity-fuzed warhead for the two deltas and increase its "live on rack" time and percentage of successful launches per trigger pull. So perhaps AIM-4D comes out with a proximity fuze and AIM-4H follows not long afterwards with reliability and functionality upgrades.
 
Could both the FAA and RAF have used the Type 581, since a lot of work had already been done on that design, mostly for the Royal Navy, and it might have taken less time to bring to the hardware stage than the newer Type 583.
 
Grey Havoc said:
a lot of work had already been done on that design, mostly for the Royal Navy
Click to expand...


It does seem more common-sensical, all else being equal, to adapt a carrier-based design to land use than the other way around, given that the operational requirements of the naval aircraft are more exacting to start with and that all the work calculating structural requirements for cat/arrest loads, corrosion-proofing, etc. has already been done.
 
I am fascinated by the whole BAC 581 and 583 saga. We need more material than is available so far in the British Secrets Projects and Project Cancelled. Perhaps there are some good brochures out there for researchers? The models alone are appetite whetters.

On a completely different tack, the interesting account of US options to Phantom above open up alternatives for the UK too.

The Vought super Crusader might have appealed to the RAF and RN if it had been as successful as the F4.

The A4 Skyhawk would have been a lifeline for the smaller UK carriers as it was for those in Australia, Argentina and later in Brazil. If Britain and Canada had chosen to deploy A4s as anti-snooper aircraft with NATO forces (the US did this on its ASW Essexes), Hermes and Victorious could have survived as flatops with a mix of A4s, Bucs and ASW/AEW?
 
uk 75 said:
The F4 Phantom might have failed to materialise as the wonderful plane which the RAF and RN used to fill various gaps from the 60s onwards. In a Phantomless world would P1154 have been developed as planned in 1963 for both RAF and RN or would the Lightning have been developed in its swing wing form for both. Or were there better alternatives (BAC 583 comes to mind)?

One for the What-iffers? but it would be interesting to know about possible Lightning versions developed to join the TSR 2 and 1154 or even replace some of them.
Click to expand...


Well from history I'd say the P1154 would carry on as that was the chosen solution prior to the F4.
RN might well be more interested in the two seater Crusader option of the era. Possible synergy there with the French and if the USN does'nt have the F4 then this might also interest them too.
Depends really on the specifics of how the F4 'fails' in this alternative history. If its early enough, then the F8U-III stands a chance with the USN.


Buccaneer operated reasonably well of Victorious and Hermes, no need there for Skyhawk.


VG Lightning. Curious creature this one, potential to be a relatively easy development, but equally potential to be a nightmare. Just the matter of the solid nose variants inlets is enough to put one off it. Rather needed the solid nose option to have been developed (funded) earlier on. Reason for that is it does need the larger dish scanner for the RN and frankly the space for other kit for the RAF. Theoretically it might have met RAF and RN needs, IF the RAF focus of the 'Kestrel' as well.


Type 583. In theory this is superior to the VG Lightning and was assessed as a better option than the F4. cost is its problem. But its less risky than the VG Lightning, when one looks at the inlets, or the undercarriage.
 
zen said:
Buccaneer operated reasonably well of Victorious and Hermes, no need there for Skyhawk.
Click to expand...


Certainly not in the attack/strike role, but I think the idea here is to use it as a clear-weather fighter to see off shadowing patrol aircraft, given the inbuilt gun armament (which I can see changing to a pair of 30mm Adens without too many problems) and a pair of AIM-9s. Shades of the Blackburn Skua, I suppose!
 
I think the idea of a radarless 'dayfighter' is highly doubtful, simpler to just opt for Crusader and leave the Strike/Attack missions to the ever increasing number of Buccaneers then coming into service.
 
My interest in A4 Skyhawks was initially prompted by the thought that Bulwark and Albion could have kept a catapult for launching these as "anti-snooper" or top cover against third world aircraft. Then I thought that Buccaneers took up so much room on Hermes and Victorious that a multirole A4 would allow more planes per ship.

A multirole A4 might have also found a NATO role on Dutch and Canadian light ASW carriers.
 
uk 75 said:
My interest in A4 Skyhawks was initially prompted by the thought that Bulwark and Albion could have kept a catapult for launching these as "anti-snooper" or top cover against third world aircraft.
Click to expand...

That would parallel neatly with the USN practice of assigning a detachment of Skyhawks to the refit-Essex CVS decks as notional fighter cover.
 
There were some proposals for fighter variants of Buccaneer, which would be more likely than Skyhawk. And more capable.
 
Considering the high wing loading of the Buccaneer, I presume the proposed fighter variants weren't intended to engage in dogfights? Going very quickly when all that's on the altimeter is the makers name AND ACM would seem to me to be a difficult circle to square.
 
I wonder to what extent BLC would assist in dogfighting? (Mind you, remember this was the era in which the gun was dead, dogfighting was a thing of the past, and the Lightning F.3 was manufactured without a gun armament!)
 
Hmmm... 2 good points, there. I suppose the problem with BLC is that it takes power from propulsion. Fine when you're setting up to land on but maybe not what you'd want when in ACM. I suppose one solution would be to provide a surfeit of power such that the % required for BLC wouldn't be missed.

Makes one wonder if this isn't a concept worthy of being revisited because I can see a time when ultra low level attack profiles come back and multi-role is [it would appear] here to stay...
 
If I were shuddering near max AoA and trying to get my nose around that extra degree or so for a Red Top shot, I might momentarily be happier to have my wing BLC'd and effectively unstalled than maintain my airspeed. It might be a fair trade.
 
pathology_doc said:
If I were shuddering near max AoA and trying to get my nose around that extra degree or so for a Red Top shot, I might momentarily be happier to have my wing BLC'd and effectively unstalled than maintain my airspeed. It might be a fair trade.
Click to expand...

Just got a copy of 'From Spitfire to Eurofighter' and whilst not read it properly yet, it would appear to have oodles of Bucc info in it; including a bit on the BLC (which worked on wing AND tailplane and hence would give the effect you require). The more I think about this, the more a 'developed Buccaneer' makes sense.

Which raises another question - If you have proposals / projects like P150 (supersonic Bucc), why does RAF need UKVG / MRCA? (Appologies in advance if I've got my timelines in a twist)
 
I remember something being said along the lines of Buccaneer crews thinking the best replacement was another Buccaneer with updated avionics. So if you can keep the thing in low-level production (to replace hours-expired airframes) and fit a new avionics suite every ten to fifteen years and maybe pick a new engine on one of those replacement cycles, there's no need for MRCA. Ever.


Now, how difficult would it be to put an RB.199 in where a Spey once was?
 
Let's start in late-1957 when MoS is putting together the tender invitation for (to be) TSR.2. Wynn, RAF Strategic Forces, P513/5, has GOR.339 as precisely crafted to disqualify Buccaneer and “the threat of foreign contenders”. Nonetheless Blackburn bid B.108, Bucc-variant. Reasons for rejecting that inc. overstretch - it would not have been credible for Little Boots to do both. And Blackburn declined to team.

So, now, here we are, 6 April,1965, BAC bereft of TSR.2. HSAL, by now proud owners of Blackburn and fixing Bucc as S.2, saw a business chance to knock out BAC, whose order book was between little and less - Concorde a business nonsense. Buccaneer 2* was pitched strenuously - "proven" RN Mk.2 plus elements of TSR.2 avionics suite.
So: Q: why instead did Defence Minister Denis Healey sign up for AFVG, with Jaguar as the poison pill entry ticket? A: to stroke le Grand Charles to let us into his Euro-Club.

So, now, here we are, 29/6/67 after Marcel has sucked any techno-wit out of BAC and caused AFVG to be dumped. Healey held BAC's team sort-of-intact with a paper UKVG; CDG said Non! again, 27/11/67. Again, HSAL pitched Bucc derivatives, but...16/1/68, broke again, UK quit East of Suez and chopped F-111K. Our only Task was on the N.German Plain and F-4M will do nicely, thank you.

So, why then on 17/7/68 did Healey join 5 other Nations in the Definition Phase of (to be Tornado)? Because 4 of them, tender and warm towards UK, might outvote CDG. He bought 26 new S.2(RAF), 12/7/68, but as is, no clever kit, because he was culpable in sending Canberra B(I)6/8 on kamikaze missions and needed something in 2ATAF NOW!

So, why did UK not do an S.2 Mid-Life Update around about 1976-ish? Because US had not abandoned its efforts to sink Tornado, with lustrous lures to FRG and Italy, and F-15 licence/work-share notions for UK. Labour had got back in, 4/3/74 with a platform inc. Aero nationalisation. No Tornado, no industry. After HSAL/Blackburn was subsumed into BAe., 29/4/77, Bucc had no champion.
 
Many thanks for that - clear now.

One can look at the engineering side of a situation and maybe things make sense but one forgets the political dimension at one's peril...
 
Alertken and JFCF

You chaps really have this period taped for detail of political and economic as well as project related events. Your contributions are very helpful to anyone using this site to study the period.

As a result of your and other contributions this site is a valuable resource even for those with access to Grove, Friedman etc.

Can I summarise what seems to be the answer to my what-if?

1154 is a non starter however you play the tape. It is too impractical.

Lightning F6 probably is about all a realistic RAF budget can afford.

The RN would have saved itself some time and effort as the carriers with Sea Vixen FAW 2 would have gone out of service with Eagle and Hermes (no Phantom means no CVA 01 and no Ark Royal conversion to replace it).

Collaboration with Europe was driven by both financial and political considerations. Until 1967 Germany is preoccupied with its own VSTOL pipedreams. Without the shadow of Phantom France would have found us more pro-European.

All this leaves some unanswered questions?

How do we replace RAF Hunters? (presumably they run on until Jaguar and 1127RAF are available)

What comes along to replace the Lightning? (The AFVG was intended to be the RAF's fighter striker(a Phantom for the 80s!)
 
uk 75 said:
How do we replace RAF Hunters? (presumably they run on until Jaguar and 1127RAF are available)

What comes along to replace the Lightning? (The AFVG was intended to be the RAF's fighter striker(a Phantom for the 80s!)
Click to expand...


IMO this is the damage Sandys did with the White Paper. The loss is not so much in the cancellation of the projects but in the effacement of a complete design-test-fly cycle across the industry. The aircraft that served the United States into the mid-nineties in some cases were designed, built and flown, and the experience they brought was incorporated into the next generation (on which note it's a shame the F-14 missed combat in Vietnam, the war which I'm sure benefited its design); the aircraft that should have served the United Kingdom into the same timespan were designed, half-built and scrapped.


Thus the industry never got to find out just how well (or badly) its early-mid-fifties design cycle translated into hardware, and that in turn had flow-on effects on TSR.2. Yes, they had the Lightning; but the Lightning was never designed as an integrated weapon system; the next generation would have been, and its failure to hatch meant that the generation which followed - TSR.2 - had no practical experience on which to draw, only the experience of getting halfway there.


IMO one, at least, of the lost designs from that period should have been allowed to go through, simply so that the industry and the Services maintained continuity of experience. I would have chosen either the thin-wing Javelin or the SR.177 since both were already at production status, with multiple examples in jigs and partially complete (and there was foreign interest in the 177). Yes, I know, Sandys foresaw a push-button war in which manned interceptors were futile, but his mistake was to imagine that nothing else could possibly eventuate.
 
uk 75 said:
How do we replace RAF Hunters? (presumably they run on until Jaguar and 1127RAF are available)
Click to expand...

I would suggest that by the time the P.1154 was cancelled the Hunter FGA.9/FR.10 replacement was so imperative, and the Phantom so demonstrably outstanding, that the Phantom would have been chosen under any circumstance and irrespective of the RN- quite possibly in the same near perfect (from the point of view of a tactical strike fighter in Europe rather than an AD interceptor) configuration the F-4M was ordered in anyway.

What comes along to replace the Lightning? (The AFVG was intended to be the RAF's fighter striker(a Phantom for the 80s!)
Click to expand...

Up to the mid-60s everything was running along just fine with the RAF pursuing 3 main types. The first complication comes when the P.1154 is cancelled and the P.1127 is forced onto the RAF (despite the F-4M being the P.1154 replacement) in order to keep the technology and HSA alive, this introduces a fourth type but only as a small fleet. The original idea was for the Lightning to be replaced from 1970 with a swing-wing type, this is what AFVG started out as for the British. It was only with the halving of the F-111K order (110 to 50; thus splitting the original TSR-2 requirement over two platforms) that the AFVG also took on a strike role (to replace Vulcan B.2s now performing the theatre role after being relieved from the strategic mission by Polaris). When the F-111K was cancelled the Buccaneer was drafted in as its replacement (only 4 front-line squadrons, only replaces 50 F-111K). When AFVG was cancelled Vulcan was extended until MRCA (Tornado), Phantom became a Lightning replacement (except for 2 squadrons) and Jaguar (formerly a supersonic trainer to the RAF) was pulled in to replace the Phantoms in the tactical role in Germany. This left a gap in training aircraft that was filled by the Hawk....every cloud.

In summary, what replaces Lightning really depends on how you write the story; AFVG, Phantom, UKVG, Tornado are all options though UK Air Defence would be looking feeble by the late 70s if it was still reliant on Lightnings (should be noted that the Nott review cancelled plans to raise a third Lightning squadron out of surplus airframes).

Re. Tornado, the UK ordered 434 in total (33 were part of the cancelled production batch 8 so only 401 were actually delivered), no other aircraft after the early 50s (Hunter and Canberra) was even considered in such large numbers let alone ordered and it equipped 18 out of 30 front-line squadrons at its peak.
 
Last edited:
JFCF

Thanks again for the excellent detail. Just one point, I had set the parameters of the whatif by saying that the Phantom had failed to materialise as the successful aircraft it was, shades of JSF.

With no Phantom available, what about the Hunter issue again?

UK 75
 
uk 75 said:
With no Phantom available, what about the Hunter issue again?

UK 75
Click to expand...

The best scenario for this is that the XF8U-3 wins the 1957 competition and the Phantom goes by the wayside. From the perspective of Hunter replacements that leaves the F-105 (which without the Phantom may have remained in production for longer), the A6 Intruder (not really ideal) and my personal favourite, the USN VAX programme ultimately resulting in the A-7 Corsair II almost perfectly fits the timeline, it also has the advantage of RR involvement in the TF-41.

For something from UK industry the only options seem like the Lightning with some of the proposed A2G configurations (combat pack and recce fits etc) or an evolved Folland Gnat.
 
JFCF


Thanks for the comeback. I had forgotten about the Vought Super Crusader. I wonder if this would have been a better fit than the Phantom on UK carriers.

My favourite candidate for the Hunter replacement is something from the Hawker stable that resembles the Jaguar, I have forgotten the designation, its one of the planes in British Secret Projects and I think there is an article about it on Whatifmodelers. BAC P45 with its swing wings might have been too complicated but is another possibility.

We did sell the Lightning FMk 53 to Kuwait with ground attack capability.

Of course we were lucky to have the Phantom, as was the West in general. Tornado also is a pretty remarkable aircraft. TSR2 tended to grab the affection but taking a look at Tornado and how it practically became a one plane RAF...
 
uk 75 said:
My favourite candidate for the Hunter replacement is something from the Hawker stable that resembles the Jaguar
Click to expand...


Derek Wood in Project Cancelled was very keen on the P.1121 as a Phantom competitor. Sure, it doesn't meet the rigorous spec that TSR2 was designed to, but that was probably a bridge too far anyway.


The work was already done; the drawings (hopefully) still existed; restarting prototype development and subsequent production would have been easier and faster than a clean sheet.


What say all of us?
 
Let's start with why Phantom happened. 1953, Korean War experience of tangling with the Sovs (System and proxies). $ were thrown at Dassault Mystere IV, (F.F. then to Super Mystere B.4), "Super" Swift, Hunter, and Javelin - schemed for nuclear strike, and the Century Series through F-108. Some failed early; some were deferred so their teams could make the simpler machines actually work. What emerged for many NATO Arms was F-100C, flying in 4ATAF to mid-1970s and humiliating Canberra B(I)6/8, and 2ATAF Javelins trying to find them.

After 4/57 UK decided that close support Venoms would be replaced by something cheap, expendable even, hence Gnat. Outcome was to re-role surplus Hunter F.6s just delivered, whose Task had been disappeared. That's why Hawker's wooden mock-up P.1121 found no favour, and it's why Camm failed (maybe never tried) to extract flight demo £ from his Board and from DH's (Gyron). Kingston/Dunsfold/Bitteswell were full, thank you, and remained so into mid-1970s retreading even GIA Hunter F.4.

DoD ran a competition to replace F-100C. Quite properly, favour was giving to re-role something proven. So: Q No.1 should be: what if USN had chosen not-McDonnell in 1954 (after all, Demon was no confidence-inspirer). Super Tiger, then? Land-based derivatives thereof were peddled by Grumman to FRG into late-1960s. Q No.2: what if F-110 Phantom had not won USAF, but A.N.Other Century, or Crusader, or Vigilante-variant.

Well, by 1964 UK would have taken that. Remember what we chose to define as the Task. Venoms were in practice not replaced - we had bought hundreds and ordered even more. We chose to do modest iron and move pronto to mushroom. But we became hugely confused and defined TSR.2 as able, after deleting Moscow, to take out a tank or two on way home. The Hunter FGA.9/FR.10/Sea Vixen FAW.2 replacement selected by Thorneycroft, 1963, was to disrupt fleet-sized incursion, land or sea, with a modestly Big Bang...and then to take out a tank or two...Just to say it shows the illogicality, thus basis for Healey to chop it all. There is no sortie both vertical and supersonic. Quite why we're contemplating doing it again with F-35B is baffling: the only reason that has not been chopped is myopia/vacillation in US Pols: Bush Jr. approaching his 2004 re-Election wondered aloud why US needed oodles of enhanced F-16, F-15 and A/F-18, plus F-22, plus F-35...but failed to do much about it.

So. A to OP Q: for mud-moving, never a Lightning. Readiness, impossibility of. Instead:
-if, late-1963, lumbered and trying to dodge inoperable, single-engine P.1154(RN), RN had no F-4 option, they would have championed an F-8K;
-if, early-1965, parrying new Ministers trying to chop a lot, RAF had no F-4 option, they would have taken whatever was being deployed in 4ATAF vice (F-110) F-4C. Whatever it was - maybe by Grumman, by Vought, by Republic. Because DoD offered highly attractive price/payment/offset terms. Not, as the myth has it, to boot out strong Brit competitors (who, what, where?), but for Force inter-operability.
 
I know resurrecting old threads is frowned upon, but a number of books have been published since 2012 and the Phantom has been the elephant in the room in various threads since.
The discussion in these old posts is well worth reading for newer members, not least because it stayed sensible and fact based, with none of the off topic rants that plague many threads.
 
pathology_doc said:
Madurai said:
I'd be interested to see what a Phantomless timeline would produce on the other side of the Atlantic, as well.
Click to expand...


That's a damn good point, well-made. For the Navy, this probably means that Vought's uber-Crusader gets the ticket for the interceptor job. For strike/attack, it's the A-4 through A-6 as appropriate to the task.


The USAF doesn't have as many problems - it already has the F-106 in the interceptor role and the F-105 for conventional bombing, with the -111 coming along later. The need for a decent air-superiority fighter in Vietnam might push the earlier or more enthusiastic development of a gun-armed F-106 and/or F-102, and in that situation I could imagine there being much more of a push to give the AIM-4 a proximity-fuzed warhead for the two deltas and increase its "live on rack" time and percentage of successful launches per trigger pull. So perhaps AIM-4D comes out with a proximity fuze and AIM-4H follows not long afterwards with reliability and functionality upgrades.
Click to expand...
Supertiger... 200 existing airframes that can be rapidly converted using recycled APG-50's from retired F4D's
 
Ok resurrection then.

IF...F4 fails USN, THEN F8UIII Super Crusader for USN.
THEREFORE Super Crusader option for RN post P1154 "Harrier" cancellation.
Possible twin seater funded.
Probability high of Olympus engine swapped in for UK content.
Possibility of further purchase to replace Lightning.
Vague potential for Strike derivative as was studied.

IF P1154 Harrier not cancelled THEN P1154 Sea Harrier. CVA-01 becomes Civil Lord of Admiralty scheme (40Kton ship), cancellation less likely.
RAF about 200 mk1 and T1 tasked for MRI.
FAA 60-120

Lightning replacement is contentious, but potential for UK AI radar and AAM progress offsets performance concerns. AI.24 (not Foxhunter but earlier FMICW set) and either BAC or HSA AAM result.
No Skyflash, but domestic SARH AAM, possible impetus for Taildog/SRAAM too.
Cost savings compared with F4K, and less impetus for Tornado ADV.

Possible consequence Swedish Viggen could fall to license.
 
P.1154: "a technological and economic impossibility” S.Zuckerman, UK MoD Chief Scientific Adviser,Memoirs,P.383. He asked Air Staff a very simple question: what is the (Land-based) sortie requiring VTO+supersonic?. There is of course none (maybe F-35B fans have an answer today? Doubt it though.) So UK chopped it 2/65. US/FRG too did ditto 2/68, AVS.

Everybody else abandoned VTOL at the same time: payload/range low, or less, cost high. Except for RAFG. Nobody writing about all this - "shameful" UK Minister of Defence Healey - has focussed on why. Not why was P.1154 chopped, but why has RAFG been the sole User of land-based combat VTOL?
The A is precision delivery of small AW on armour. Red tanks had 25 km. range: kill the front rank, kill the milch-cow bowsers, and their crews walk home. So: Gutersloh+nearby dispersals give access to block the Magdeburg autobahn. Even the rubbish payload/range of Harrier GR.1, 1968 could do that. So we bought a Wing, 1965.

But...we never did hang AW on them. Belatedly, Harrier order safely in work, WE177A "shape" trialled on prototype, we grasped that 400 vehicles and many RAFRegiment soldiers supporting dispersal from Gutersloh were loudly telling Spetsnaz where their targets were. So we never risked AW so close to the border: Harriers were enhanced for iron/recce. work. Everybody else did the same, hanging AW on better payload/range types (e.g.: F-4s) from more defensible bases.

So Q: why did we all, NATO+WarPac, happily presume continued availability of long runways after the balloon went up?

A: we all decided to assume an iron interlude before recourse to AW, delivered by SSM and/or remote Air. The logic was that the only other Option would be non-flexible response - one opportunistic foray over the Inner German border, and basta! Armaggeddon. So, for a few days, maybe, iron sorties by bomb-trucks, off long pistes. No need for V/STOL.
 
S.Zuckerman wrong, PCB works.....really well in fact. Test rig had huge amounts of water chucked in to put out flame and failed.
Hence why they kept coming back to the system for decades.
PCB results 100% temp/pressure rise = thrust increase.
HGR a problem yes, only practical solution is 'rolling' V/STOL....rapidly will shift to STOVL or just STOL.

Pre-67 EoS rough field operation of concern. IF P1154 survives '64/65 cull, then TFGC too far gone to cancel by '67.

Practical is continue with plan, no F4 option, supersonic trainer or AFVG only alternatives and both further out for 1970's ISD. Come '66 AFVG dead, supersonic trainer only alternative.

Conventional means to shut airfield abound post Israelis shot up Egyptian AF on the ground. Hence major Quick Reaction light SAM systems abound.
 
Did anything ever fly, let alone enter service, with PCB?
 
kaiserd said:
Did anything ever fly, let alone enter service, with PCB?
Click to expand...
What are the alternatives for UK Gov?
It's the start of 1965 make a decision.
1. F105 Thunderchief.
2. F100 derivative
3. Mirage III derivative
4. Mirage F2 or F1
5. Viggen
6. F8U-III derivative
7. AF Supersonic Trainer
8. More Buccaneers
9. ? Brough NGTA
10. Type 583 or Type 584/585
11. Mirage G
12?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom