Fairey Delta 2, not the English Electric Lightning

[Rule of cool]

I was about to leap to the defense of my first car, a 1976 Leyland Mini Clubman. Then I remember it never had any brakes and burnt down on my way to work and almost causeda grass fire.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

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

It is the realistic outlook. The real world use of supersonic speeds are incredibly limited in reality if ever. The SAAF used M2.1 capable Mirage F1AZs in the strike role only they never went supersonic once during the run in and escape... Besides the fact that going supersonic uses an enourmous amount of fuel all the external fuel tanks and bomb racks/pylons not to mention the bombs themselves add a huge amount of drag requiring even more fuel to overcome. Mirage V was not even designed strictly for ground attack. The IAF wanted a simpler Mirage III that stripped out the complex and at the time unreliable all weather avionics as they didn't need them.

In reality the strictly subsonic Buccaneer maxing out at M0.8 odd was for the SAAF a far better strike platform. Lots of reasons behind that yes, but it comes down to M.2.0+ capability being mostly useless in reality. Lightning FGA, and any potential FD.2 derivative would face similar restrictions so for strike at least Hunter was a better starting point.

 

[Rule of cool]

Going supersonic in the attack role is much like going mach 1.6 in an air to air engagement, its rare but when a pilot needs to its a life saver or engagement winner. Of course planners plan missions to maximize the advantages of the attackers and try to avoid situations that require blowing the tanks or jettisoning the bombs and running for life. Howver it does happen, I think a few hundred times in tens of thousands of sorties the U.S. flew over North Vietnam for example. It's thus edge of the envelope performance that wins wars, unless that isn't the aim.

 

[kaiserd]

Going supersonic in the attack role is much like going mach 1.6 in an air to air engagement, its rare but when a pilot needs to its a life saver or engagement winner. Of course planners plan missions to maximize the advantages of the attackers and try to avoid situations that require blowing the tanks or jettisoning the bombs and running for life. Howver it does happen, I think a few hundred times in tens of thousands of sorties the U.S. flew over North Vietnam for example. It's thus edge of the envelope performance that wins wars, unless that isn't the aim.

1. Please cite your source for those figures (fighter-bombers/ strike aircraft going supersonic while on ground attack sorties over Vietnam - hundreds of times?)
Given mostly operating at relatively low altitude and if needing to run away almost certainly operating relatively deep in North Vietnam then emphasis is on avoiding rather than outrunning MIG and SAM threats (plus likely need to carefully watch fuel load/ use).

2. I fear I may have some bad news for you re: the outcome of the Vietnam conflict…..

 

[Rule of cool]

1. Please cite your source for those figures (fighter-bombers/ strike aircraft going supersonic while on ground attack sorties over Vietnam - hundreds of times?)
Given mostly operating at relatively low altitude and if needing to run away almost certainly operating relatively deep in North Vietnam then emphasis is on avoiding rather than outrunning MIG and SAM threats (plus likely need to carefully watch fuel load/ use).

2. I fear I may have some bad news for you re: the outcome of the Vietnam conflict…..

Did i say that attack aircraft went supersonic hundreds of times over Vietnam? Or did I say that attack aircraft had to jettison their bombs hundreds of times over tens of thousands of sorties? Whether they went supersonic or not I don't know, however I imagine an F105 or F4 that has jettisoned its bombs isn't goung to tool around saving fuel. In any case the reference was Lon O Nordeen Air Warfare in the Missile Age, the updated edition iirc.

Was Vietnam lost because of supersonic speeds?

 

[kaiserd]

Did i say that attack aircraft went supersonic hundreds of times over Vietnam? Or did I say that attack aircraft had to jettison their bombs hundreds of times over tens of thousands of sorties? Whether they went supersonic or not I don't know, however I imagine an F105 or F4 that has jettisoned its bombs isn't goung to tool around saving fuel. In any case the reference was Lon O Nordeen Air Warfare in the Missile Age, the updated edition iirc.

Was Vietnam lost because of supersonic speeds?

Would theoretical supersonic capacity have somehow precluded the need to dump bombs & fuel tanks in that type of scenario?
How is a theoretical supersonic capacity even relevant to this particular scenario?

And just to add I also could see a theoretical advantage in such a capacity but at the time of the Lightening/ theoretical in-service FD.2 and Vietnam such a capacity was largely not really available (how many of these aircraft were even theoretically supersonic in ideal conditions at low altitude?) and far too expensively “bought” at the cost of overall mission effectiveness in the strike role (as well as cost effectiveness). Of these aircraft and their time we are at least a couple of generations away from technological advantages that really changes this calculus.

 

[Pirate Pete]

I think what might be becoming ‘lost’ in this discussion are some very important points…
Firstly - Supersonic Speeds for aircraft became de rigeur Worldwide in the 1950’s/early 60’s. Almost everyone was obsessed with the fact that if an aircraft was subsonic it was ‘dead meat’.
Secondly - Combat aircraft actually spend very little time ‘flat-out’ - allowing for the basic Interceptor role…
How many occasions does actual combat involve supersonic speeds? The only time I see is, IF an attack formation gets ‘jumped’, they jettison bombs and or tanks and Bug Out.
Thirdly (in reference to Vietnam) - didn’t the USAF find that they had to re-learn one-on-one fighter tactics (with guns!) when they found high speeds and missiles were not the great panacea that they had thought?

 

[Rule of cool]

Would theoretical supersonic capacity have somehow precluded the need to dump bombs & fuel tanks in that type of scenario?
How is a theoretical supersonic capacity even relevant to this particular scenario?

And just to add I also could see a theoretical advantage in such a capacity but at the time of the Lightening/ theoretical in-service FD.2 and Vietnam such a capacity was largely not really available (how many of these aircraft were even theoretically supersonic in ideal conditions at low altitude?) and far too expensively “bought” at the cost of overall mission effectiveness in the strike role (as well as cost effectiveness). Of these aircraft and their time we are at least a couple of generations away from technological advantages that really changes this calculus.

Just to be clear, my position is that the RAF should have acquired a fighter-bomber/recce Lightning (or FD2 in this scenario) instead of converting Hunters. One of the reasons for this is the superior performance of these mach 2 types, although there is a list of other factors that make this a better path.

Supersonic speed is as much a marker of overall performance as the ideal speed at which a plane stands X% of outlasting a SAM, crossing too fast for a AAA gun to slew, approaching too fast for a radar system to detect in time to react or to turn to face or escape from a fighter. However a mach 2 will survive or win in a wider range of adverse events than a subsonic plane like a Hunter, which is why air forces bought mach 2 aircraft when theybecame available.

 

[zen]

Technical view here
Mach 0.9 is sufficiently fast enough that the costs of going at Mach 1.2 are deeply questionable.

Remember Mach 1.2 is about the reasonable engineering limit for sea level to 200ft speed. Going faster imposes a lot of problems.

Even getting to that speed imposes the need of a high wingloading to reduce vibrational buffeting. To much vibration of too great a severity could detach the pilots retinas.....

As was Lightning suffered over Mach 1 at low level. Mostly due to wing loading. This was exposed by one acting as chase aircraft to TSR.2 flights.

Flipside is escape speed and climb and agility. A more fighter-like capability increases the chances of survival. Especially once enemy aircraft attempt to engage.

TSR.2 focused on climb and acceleration.
Buccaneer had to utilise maneuvering at low level. Where it's smoother flight characteristics told against theoretically more agile fighters that suffered too much from buffeting and ironically drag.
Hence stories of F15s hitting bingo fuel trying to chase Buccaneers in Red Flag exercises.
Presumably attempting to close for Sidewinder or gun shots as look-down shoot-down efforts would be difficult and low probability of success, when the target has to "climb to 20ft to reduce kicking up the desert dust"

Hunters had a lower wingloading so while cheap and cheerful, they were not ideal. Swift ironically proved tough and effective at low level.

 

[pathology_doc]

I don't know if people are personally aggrieved by British political decisions almost 70 years. However I think the personal angle comes from people having favourite and hated aircraft and wanting to insert these into an extremely complex situation.

I think a big part of it is seeing technically promising aircraft cancelled partway completed so they never got to prove themselves (sometimes with a production line ready to go), or in flight test. Examples of the former include thin-wing Javelin and SR.177; examples of the latter include TSR.2 and the CF-105 Arrow.

Most of the rest of it is the stupid "no more manned fighters" rule that no other major Western nation nor the Soviets would even have considered (not even Canada, which went on to buy fighters even if it didn't build them any more), which meant that British fighter development missed the most important generation (and the opportunity to design a supersonic fighter from a clean sheet of paper, rather than as an offshoot of a research project). The only good thing about it was that the stars aligned to give us the Harrier, Hawker's last fighter.

On the contrary, far more of the American might-have-beens actually got built in steel, but got nixed because they lost fly-offs against better airplanes or because flight testing showed up their inadequacies. They were SHOWN to be inadequate, and fewer enthusiasts mourn their passing.

 

[Rule of cool]

Technical view here
Mach 0.9 is sufficiently fast enough that the costs of going at Mach 1.2 are deeply questionable.

Remember Mach 1.2 is about the reasonable engineering limit for sea level to 200ft speed. Going faster imposes a lot of problems.

I wouldn't suggest specifically developing a plane from scratch in the mid-late 50s for supersonic speeds at low level in the fighter-bomber/recce role. However such speeds come as part of the package when adapting an ER103/C or Lightning for this role, which is a good thing.

Also I'd point out that its not the 'routine' attack or CAP missions that you spec a plane for., the ones where AAA is light and no fighters turn up. As is often said, any old clunker can so this stuff. You spec a fighter for when other fighters are around, or an attack plane for defended targets, to do any less is a tacit admission of ceding the initiative to your rivals and an invitation for them to roughshod over your interests.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I wouldn't suggest specifically developing a plane from scratch in the mid-late 50s for supersonic speeds at low level in the fighter-bomber/recce role. However such speeds come as part of the package when adapting an ER103/C or Lightning for this role, which is a good thing.

Also I'd point out that its not the 'routine' attack or CAP missions that you spec a plane for., the ones where AAA is light and no fighters turn up. As is often said, any old clunker can so this stuff. You spec a fighter for when other fighters are around, or an attack plane for defended targets, to do any less is a tacit admission of ceding the initiative to your rivals and an invitation for them to roughshod over your interests.

Could the Lightning FGA break mach 1 down low when loaded with bombs and rocket pods?

 

[Rule of cool]

Could the Lightning FGA break mach 1 down low when loaded with bombs and rocket pods?

Dunno, maybe not but would likely have a good chance on the egress. In any case I think to focus on a speed marker removes focus on what are really operational questions and minimises the risks and rewards.

For example: how long would it take a Mig 21 to get into a firing position against a Lightning vs a Hunter? Or how much speed/altitude does a Lightning lose vs a Hunter when manoeuvring to avoid a SAM? Or if a SAM battery has a reaction time of 20 seconds and a minimum engagement range how long is a Lightning exposed vs a Hunter? Or if a target needs 20 x 1,000lb bombs to get destroyed how many aircraft would be needed Lightning vs Hunter?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Dunno, maybe not but would likely have a good chance on the egress. In any case I think to focus on a speed marker removes focus on what are really operational questions and minimises the risks and rewards.

For example: how long would it take a Mig 21 to get into a firing position against a Lightning vs a Hunter? Or how much speed/altitude does a Lightning lose vs a Hunter when manoeuvring to avoid a SAM? Or if a SAM battery has a reaction time of 20 seconds and a minimum engagement range how long is a Lightning exposed vs a Hunter? Or if a target needs 20 x 1,000lb bombs to get destroyed how many aircraft would be needed Lightning vs Hunter?

F-105s didn't do so well against MiG21s.

 

[Rule of cool]

F-105s didn't do so well against MiG21s.

It's a great example.

F015s flew over 20,000 sorties, 17 were shot down, 15 by mig 21, 2 by mig 17 in air to air but F105s shot down 27 mig 17s in return. Another ~280 were lost to SAMs and AAA, but F105s were employed on SEAD so would have gotten some of their own back. I don't know if it was part of or in addition to these losses bombs were jettisoned on several hundred occasions.

So if we say every loss and bomb jettison was a mission failure for that sortie maybe 800 sorties out of 20,000 were failures. In return I'd think its fair to say even the sluggish but fast Thud had it all over the Mig 17 and the mig 21 was perhaps manageable given the amount of shoot down and bomb jettisons. A loss rate of 2% and overall failure rate of 4%.

How would a subsonic aircraft fare in similar situations? Would it be able to get a 13:1 kill rate against the mig17?

 

[uk 75]

Unfortunately the technical arguments in favour of adding more Lightnings to the RAF inventory to be used for ground attack/recce in place of the Hunter FGA9 are secondary to the practical difficulties.

Finding a budget for them is the main Whitehall obstacle. The RAF did not get all the Lightning interceptors it wanted and the modifications to the type took the whole of the 1960s to work through into RAF service. Javelins served longer than was ideal and never receivec Red Tops (unlike RN Sea Vixen FAW2).

Adopting a Lightning FGA would have allowed the Treasury to prevent the RAF pursuing P1154 or even P1127 as it did when F4 Phantoms were selected as the RN and then RAF interceptor from 1968.

Worse still, with a Lightning FGA in service there would be no pressure to replace them with Jaguars in the 1970s. Without Jaguar in development and production BAC would not be so well placed to develop MRCA Tornado.

Hawker Siddeley would go out of business as a military aircraft manufacturer with no Hunter FGA9 or Harriers (P1154 or P1127) and Hawk would probably be a BAC product (more likely a Jet Provost variant).

Worse still, TSR2 would have been hard to cancel. Even if BAC had been allowed to manufacture 150 TSR2 strike aircraft pressure in the 1970s to replace the Lightnings with a modern multi role aircraft would have led to an F4 Phantom buy (as the West Germans would never have paid for TSR2 as they did MRCA Tornado). Unlike Tornado ADV a TSR2 ADV would have been a wholly UK taxpayer funded plane. But with no F4 buy in 1968 there would be no Sparrow derived Skyflash for it to carry. The poor performance of Martel (the only 60s Air missile design in the UK as Red Top was a Firestreak mod) suggests a UK missile would have had issues.

 

[red admiral]

How would a subsonic aircraft fare in similar situations? Would it be able to get a 13:1 kill rate against the mig17?

A-4, A-7, and A-6 did fine against air threats in Vietnam and the Middle East. It wasn't some sort of turkey shoot for the MiG 21s.

Supersonic performance at low altitude appeared to offer no effectiveness advantage, for massive cost increase. It's really in other missions e.g. bomber intercept that the extra performance makes any impact - if you also invest in a bunch of other early warning and fighter controller systems.

Key survivability aspects were much more small size, low altitude flying practice, terrain following radar, and then increasingly EW for minimising the main threats of AAA and increasingly SAMs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

How would a subsonic aircraft fare in similar situations? Would it be able to get a 13:1 kill rate against the mig17?

A-6 didn't have a way to fight back, but A-7s did (pair of Sidewinders and over 1000rds of 20mm). And I suspect that A-7s did at least as well as the F-105 did against Migs. I don't have any detailed references to compare, though.

 

[Hood]

JFC Fuller's post here and the discussion of the changes needed to make a fighter out of the FD.2 makes me think that both the P.1A and FD.2 should have been kept purely as research aircraft and then a new specification issued for a Mach 2 fighter.
Trouble is time!
P.1 and FD.2 took several years from design to flight in 1954.
Any competitive fly off would not occur much before late 1955 or 1956.

F.155 is issued in January 1955.
SR.177 development was ordered in September 1955 but the SR.53 itself did not fly until 1957.
So is the best choice:
a) issue a spec in 1953 or 1954 for a single-seat Mach 2 fighter and open it to new tenders, hoping EE and Fairey offer refined/improved designs (P.6/ER.103C types), Hawker likely to tender something approaching P.1121.
b) specifically tender EE and Fairey in 1953 or 1954 for fighter versions.
c) wait until P.1 and FD.2 fly off and choose a winner in 1956-57 and risk losing time.

 

[Archibald]

Hawker likely to tender something approaching P.1121.

Cleaned up Hawker list, from Tony Buttler BSP 1950. Pick your choice...

 

[Rule of cool]

Unfortunately the technical arguments in favour of adding more Lightnings to the RAF inventory to be used for ground attack/recce in place of the Hunter FGA9 are secondary to the practical difficulties.

Finding a budget for them is the main Whitehall obstacle. The RAF did not get all the Lightning interceptors it wanted and the modifications to the type took the whole of the 1960s to work through into RAF service. Javelins served longer than was ideal and never receivec Red Tops (unlike RN Sea Vixen FAW2).

Adopting a Lightning FGA would have allowed the Treasury to prevent the RAF pursuing P1154 or even P1127 as it did when F4 Phantoms were selected as the RN and then RAF interceptor from 1968.

Worse still, with a Lightning FGA in service there would be no pressure to replace them with Jaguars in the 1970s. Without Jaguar in development and production BAC would not be so well placed to develop MRCA Tornado.

Hawker Siddeley would go out of business as a military aircraft manufacturer with no Hunter FGA9 or Harriers (P1154 or P1127) and Hawk would probably be a BAC product (more likely a Jet Provost variant).

Worse still, TSR2 would have been hard to cancel. Even if BAC had been allowed to manufacture 150 TSR2 strike aircraft pressure in the 1970s to replace the Lightnings with a modern multi role aircraft would have led to an F4 Phantom buy (as the West Germans would never have paid for TSR2 as they did MRCA Tornado). Unlike Tornado ADV a TSR2 ADV would have been a wholly UK taxpayer funded plane. But with no F4 buy in 1968 there would be no Sparrow derived Skyflash for it to carry. The poor performance of Martel (the only 60s Air missile design in the UK as Red Top was a Firestreak mod) suggests a UK missile would have had issues.

You've basically described most of the advantages that would come out of supporting the Lightning during Sandys tenure.

 

[pathology_doc]

JFC Fuller's post here and the discussion of the changes needed to make a fighter out of the FD.2 makes me think that both the P.1A and FD.2 should have been kept purely as research aircraft and then a new specification issued for a Mach 2 fighter.

My impression was always that an FD.2 fighter would have been a clean sheet of paper, perhaps taking nothing from the record-breaker but the general shape of the wings and tail (and even those would have tip rails for Blue Jay). That famous silhouette pic (in Project Cancelled) of the FD.2 overlaid on the Mirage says it all.

 

[kaiserd]

The reality is that as far as I know the RAF never really contemplated the Lightening in the strike role (certainly not pre- the 1957 mass cancellations).

When contemplating an interim Canberra replacement the RAF looked at and had a real interest in the thin-wing Javelin (this is probably the closest the RAF came to fielding the 1-nuke-only-focused only strike fighter seen in contemporary USAF service). The Lightening never had anywhere near the low altitude range and endurance required for that role.

In that context I think it needs to be emphasised that relatively few fighter bombers of this period were really fighter bombers in the late WW2 or current understanding of the role.

1 scenario had them tending to be former interceptors retasked, which tended to lack range/ endurance/ payload, where essentially targeting using the Mark-1 eyeball, and whose suitability for the switch of role tended to be tied up with questions of handling characteristics and how how extreme they been tailored to their original interceptor role. Their “fighter” functionality was a bonus but wasn’t any longer the focus of their role and given they had been superseded by other fighter designs in the fighter role they would likely not compare especially well to an opponent’s latest fighters 1-on1.

The 2nd scenario had the fighter bomber essentially intended as a strike aircraft with very much secondary fighter capability. These tended to be more tailored to the strike role, better range/ endurance/ payload and often (if not always) more of an eye to the low altitude environment. These tended to have some fighter capability and self-defense functionality but they were generally not all that great fighters and would struggle against an opponents latest (or not even necessarily their latest) fighters. But they were better strike aircraft.

Both the Hunter and the Lightening sit in the 1st scenario but in comparative terms the Lightening was more extreme an interceptor and more compromised re: a strike role. Throw in the massive difference in procurement and operational costs (converting existing Hunters versus new Lightening airframes) then the theoretical decision isn’t even remotely close (to the degree that the pre- 1957 RAF never really contemplated using the Lightening in that role).

This is a bit of continuum with specific designs sitting at different places along it.

To emphasise - there weren’t any real multi-role/ switch role fighter bombers in this period of time - even the F-4 (the first modern combat jet to arguably so qualify) couldn’t really be a strike aircraft and an air superiority aircraft at the same time or just readily switch mid mission from one to another, at least not until upgrades decades later. The Israeli use of the F-4 may come closer to this multi-role paradigm.

Hence fighter-bomber Lightenings or FD.2s, likely representing more interceptor dedicated airframes then the Mirage III ended up being, probably inevitably end up representing poor compromises, too much interceptors to ever be good strike aircraft while compromised enough by their strike role to not be especially good fighters/ interceptors anymore. They are not proto-modern air superiority or multi-role aircraft that “could” have happened earlier.

 

[Pirate Pete]

I know the development of the FD.2 into a fighting Military machine is (UK.75...) very much a PAPER Project, but, and firstly my thanks to a reminder about Dan Sharp's RAF, Secret Jets of Cold War Britain by JFC Fuller in the discussion on the Lightning with side-by-side engines. I forgot I had an electronic version of the excellent and informative publication.
Within it is a section on Fairey's proposed development of the Delta 2: Screen grabs attached:
So, while, YES, it was a PAPER plane, it seems that it was a more advanced concept than the classic 'back of a cigarette packet' scribblings.
Apologies to Mr Sharp if I have encroached on Copyright.

 

[uk 75]

I think we have a Marmite point on this one. I look at the artwork above and see a typical fifties Dan Dare style aircraft, especially the Mosquito style cockpit canopy. But then as a 60s kid I am not into anything from the 50 (I was four in 1960)..

Lighting in its F6 form with Red Top I can live with. It is a decent point protection aircraft working with Bloodhounds and later Rapiers and Phantoms to defend UK and US bases in Eastern England mainly plus parts of Scotland.

But ground attack is as described by Kaiserd above.

 

[kaiserd]

I am more than willing to concede that the actual proposed FD development above (the “lightweight” proposal to the RAF for F.155T, which knowingly didn’t meet that requirement) could potentially have been a better interceptor than the actual Lightening. However it’s very like the Lightening in being very tailored to the interceptor role (and likely equally not well suited to a fighter bomber/ strike role) and is much larger and heavier (and invariably much more expensive) than the Mirage III.
Hence clearly does not represent some great potential export success missed out on.

 

[Rule of cool]

The reality is that as far as I know the RAF never really contemplated the Lightening in the strike role (certainly not pre- the 1957 mass cancellations).

I've found almost nothing on what would replace the dozens of fighter-bomber sqns in RAFG and around the world prior to the 1958 competition. About the only thing is that some Hunter F6s in RAFG might do some ground attack. There doesn't seem to have been any paper planes that were dreamt up for this role, which is why by 1958 the Venom replacement had become urgent.

The 57 DWP is a watershed moment, virtually all the thinking up to that point had to be reassessed, and that includes a lack of fighter-bomber replacement. Of course by then the days of the manned fighter were considered to be numbered, so good decisions were not made snd the cheap, short-term path with the Hunter was taken. IIUC EE didn't start suggesting ground attack options for the Lightning until 1958-59 or so, which fits with the change of circumstances arising from the 57 DWP.

 

[red admiral]

Has the RAF ever designed and bought a fighter bomber? The approach was very much a case of hanging bombs off existing/older/failed fighters, for which Hunter FGA.9 fits in well.

This got more challenging as the increasing performance and cost of interceptors made them increasingly unsuitable and expensive in the ground attack role.

makes me think that both the P.1A and FD.2 should have been kept purely as research aircraft and then a new specification issued for a Mach 2 fighter.

I agree

We should also bear in mind that P.1, FD.2 and SR.53 are all really "failures" as research aircraft. They were too late to actually learn from and feed this into the follow on fighters.

I think the opportunity is really for a more "sensible" F.155 requirement. Might end up being a year or two later than Lightning F.1 into service but potentially much longer lived and adaptable. There's other options for gap filling e.g. F-101/104s, Nikes etc. in much the same way as the RAF Sabres and Thors

 

[zen]

a) issue a spec in 1953 or 1954 for a single-seat Mach 2 fighter and open it to new tenders, hoping EE and Fairey offer refined/improved designs (P.6/ER.103C types), Hawker likely to tender something approaching P.1121.
b) specifically tender EE and Fairey in 1953 or 1954 for fighter versions.
c) wait until P.1 and FD.2 fly off and choose a winner in 1956-57 and risk losing time.

So let's write that speculative requirement....

a) spec _____late 1953?
Level flight to Mach 2+ above 10,000ft?
Acceleration from cruise below Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 in X minutes?
Climb to 60,000ft in 4 minutes?
Radius of Action: Normal Waring Sortie 125nm?
Extended Waring Sortie....?
CAP endurance Minimum 2 hours at 100nm distance from base inclusive of 5 minutes combat.

Armament options:-
Minimum of 2 by 30mm ADEN cannons
Minimum of 2 by Firestreak IR AAMs
Minimum of 2 by radar guided AAMs
Equipment to include AI.23 or AI.20 Fighter Radar.
IFF
Radios
Radio homer
Use of single engined designs prefered. But flexible on specific engine.

Tendering companies likely designs:-
Avro Type 720 derived Delta winged design
AWA Delta (AW.58), swept wing (AW.165) and straight wing designs
Blackburn crescent/cranked leading edge swept wing.
Bolton Paul
Bristol Delta or 188 type wing.
DeHaviland DH.116 derived design
English Electrics P.1 type swept wing
Fairey ER103 type tailless Delta wing and tailed swept wing
Folland Gnat MkV derivative
Gloster Javelin derived design.
Hadleigh Page crescent wing or canard Delta.
Hawkers P.1103 Type modest swept wing or blended tailless Delta wing.
Saro P.53 to P.177 type modest Delta with tail.
Shorts ?
Supermarine radical canard option, crescent and plain swept wing options.
Westland variant of W.37 or N/A.39 designs

Downselect Middle of 1954 to assessment of refined designs. Admiralty express interest in writing parallel specification.

Avro
DeHaviland & Saro joint design
EE
Fairey
Hawkers
Late 1954 ordering three prototypes, one from each of the three best designs.
Avro
EE
DH & Saro

Flying by 1958 With assessment that year.
Choice by early 1959
IOC 1962
FOC by '65
-----

I think the opportunity is really for a more "sensible" F.155 requirement. Might end up being a year or two later than Lightning F.1 into service but potentially much longer lived and adaptable.

By '55 they had studies suggesting a Mach 2 jet only fighter could do the job if warning (AWACS) was developed. Arguably then the chief failure here is not funding that properly first. Such as BEWARE.
But worse is revealed in the meetings.

By 1950 the potential of reheat was clear that a single engined fighter could meet then requirements and RAE was asking this be prioritised.

DH's DH.116 in '52 was thus like similar from Hawkers a product of that. Single engined with reheat.
And do did Westland.

But the carriage of a nuclear bomb favoured the twin engined concepts. Hence Supermarine's kludge and a longer term N/A.39 solution. Meanwhile reheat was proving harder to handle on tight development budgets.

Though you'll note Fairey gave an alternative option of a single Avon on their design to N/A.39......instead of the twin Gyron Juniors.

Hawkers P.1103 began around the new successor Avon/Sapphire jet developments. Realising Hunter had hit it's limits as a fighter.

By the time F.155 was about to be cancelled RR and Fairey were asking the RAF if they could drop the rocket motors as RR's RB.128 offered enough power through the speed altitude range that rocket motors and the HTP wasn't necessary.
Strictly speaking that ought up be visible by '55 when RB.122 as scaled up RB.106 was schemed by RR.

Ministery could have asked assessment of scaling turbojets and the results on design performance in '55 and concluded jet only was the way to go again. Frankly they should have asked that question in '54!

So AH is asking in '54 concluding no need for diversion in rockets if IOC is after 1960. Jet only the way forward from '55.
Results in F.177 and F.155 revised to jet only solutions.

 

[uk 75]

While the UK messes around with crazy looking paper planes the US got on and built one of the answers to an RAF interceptor.

McDonnell F-101 Voodoo - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

or another real interceptor

Convair F-102 Delta Dagger - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Rule of cool]

Has the RAF ever designed and bought a fighter bomber? The approach was very much a case of hanging bombs off existing/older/failed fighters, for which Hunter FGA.9 fits in well.

This got more challenging as the increasing performance and cost of interceptors made them increasingly unsuitable and expensive in the ground attack role.

The 'fighter' in fighter-bomber would suggest at the the ability to undertake fighter missions. As opposed to an attack aircraft which may be able to defend itself in a pinch but certainly not load up with AAMs and conduct a CAP. As such hanging bombs off a fighter is entirely appropriate, indeed going any other way is a severe limitation on the roles such an aircraft could undertake.

As for cost, sure a more sophisticated and capable aircraft costs more per unit, but air forces don't price capability in costs per unit for individual aircraft. Having to deploy a single sqn of Lightning fighter-bombers is cheaper than having to deploy a sqn of Lightning fighters to cover the sqn of Hunter FGA/FRs.

 

[uk 75]

I am not sure Whitehall would share your idea that spending more on developing Lightning FGA would pay for itself in reduced deployment costs.
The capital procurement costs of the Hunter were already over and the FGA conversion was a cheap means of using existing airframes.
RAF Fighter Command was not responsible for providing ground attack aircraft to support the army. It would see no advantage in losing valuable new aircraft to this role. This would have applied to Fairey Deltas or whatever did the interceptor job.
You will recall that P1154s were to be allocated to RAF Germany, Air Forces Gulf and Far East Air Force as well as 38 Group of Transport (later Air Support) Command. Fighter Command would not have received P1154.
Phantoms when they arrived in the late 60s went to 38 Group and RAF Germany. Fighter Command only got one squadron of ex FAA aircraft.

 

[Scott Kenny]

RAF Fighter Command was not responsible for providing ground attack aircraft to support the army.

So who was?

 

[Yellow Palace]

So who was?

In the relevant era, it was RAF Germany, Air Forces Gulf, Far East Air Force, and later Air Support Command.

Fighter Command was really a UK air defence organisation. It might be helpful to think of Fighter Command as ADC, and Bomber Command as SAC. There wasn't a UK organisation directly equivalent to the USAF's TAC.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In the relevant era, it was RAF Germany, Air Forces Gulf, Far East Air Force, and later Air Support Command.

Fighter Command was really a UK air defence organisation. It might be helpful to think of Fighter Command as ADC, and Bomber Command as SAC.

That makes a lot more sense.

There wasn't a UK organisation directly equivalent to the USAF's TAC.

And what a glaring organizational hole...

 

[Yellow Palace]

And what a glaring organizational hole...

It's the kind of organisational hole you get when your attitude is that you get a tactical air support capability by strapping some bombs or rockets to an interceptor. After all, the ground is always down, and doesn't manoeuvre, so it can't be that hard to hit.

The various Air Forces (2 Tactical, Near/Middle East, and Far East) were nominally equivalent in status to the UK-based Commands, but don't seem to have had the same influence.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It's the kind of organisational hole you get when your attitude is that you get a tactical air support capability by strapping some bombs or rockets to an interceptor. After all, the ground is always down, and doesn't manoeuvre, so it can't be that hard to hit.

The various Air Forces (2 Tactical, Near/Middle East, and Far East) were nominally equivalent in status to the UK-based Commands, but don't seem to have had the same influence.

Getting those 4 Air Forces to agree on an aircraft type (range requirements set by FEAF, probably, and electronics fit by RAFG) might have worked, but it doesn't appear anyone ever tried to organize them.

 

[Rule of cool]

I am not sure Whitehall would share your idea that spending more on developing Lightning FGA would pay for itself in reduced deployment costs.
The capital procurement costs of the Hunter were already over and the FGA conversion was a cheap means of using existing airframes.
RAF Fighter Command was not responsible for providing ground attack aircraft to support the army. It would see no advantage in losing valuable new aircraft to this role. This would have applied to Fairey Deltas or whatever did the interceptor job.
You will recall that P1154s were to be allocated to RAF Germany, Air Forces Gulf and Far East Air Force as well as 38 Group of Transport (later Air Support) Command. Fighter Command would not have received P1154.
Phantoms when they arrived in the late 60s went to 38 Group and RAF Germany. Fighter Command only got one squadron of ex FAA aircraft.

Fighter Command was responsible for reinforcing the other Commands in a crisis, however I'm not talking about denying FC of fighters, the FGA/FR are in addition to those fighters in use by FC. For example RAFG would have a pair of Lightning FR sqns as well as the F2s it actually got. Speaking for the F2, 50 were ordered in late 1959, 44 were delivered but only 2 sqns were equipped with the type rather than 3 like the 49 F1 and F1A. There were at least enough to equip a small fighter-recce sqn.

 

[Hood]

When contemplating an interim Canberra replacement the RAF looked at and had a real interest in the thin-wing Javelin (this is probably the closest the RAF came to fielding the 1-nuke-only-focused only strike fighter seen in contemporary USAF service). The Lightening never had anywhere near the low altitude range and endurance required for that role.

There was brief interest in an Escort Fighter version of the DH.110 too at the start of the Vixen programme and both it, Javelin and Canberra were looked at as 'interdictors' - the WW2 concept of roving offensive night fighter attackers. It's not impossible to imagine Vixen Vs Javelin Round 2 for a fast nuclear fighter-bomber with a single Red Beard and possibly as a medium-range photo-recon type. As you say, historically Thin-Wing Javelin was of interest but was laid aside in favour of OR.339.
Another point of departure could be to make F.155 dual-role and abandon OR.339. But I stress, this would be a nuclear fighter-bomber, not a mudmover.

Has the RAF ever designed and bought a fighter bomber? The approach was very much a case of hanging bombs off existing/older/failed fighters, for which Hunter FGA.9 fits in well.

No I don't think so. I have a snippet from a file which I need to find which deals with this subject, the gist of it was that the RAF just wasn't interested in them - they were an afterthought, as you say simply adding bomb racks and rocket rails.

We should also bear in mind that P.1, FD.2 and SR.53 are all really "failures" as research aircraft. They were too late to actually learn from and feed this into the follow on fighters.

I would agree. FD.2 had the virtue of being a high-speed delta, so had some research value. P.1 less so other than proving it could fly fast, especially since it needed the SB.5 as another research aircraft to prove it's low-speed characteristics. SR.53 wasn't really necessary at all, except for the fact that rockets were briefly in vogue as reheat was an alien concept in the early 1950s. By 1957 it wasn't and rockets were old hat.
Saying that the RAE had some peculiar ideas - pushing the Mach 2 layout of nacelled engines and long fuselage that led to Bristol 188 and ended up in AW's fighter submissions.

Time as always is the killer - had P.1A and FD.2 flown in 1951-52 they would have been useful, but its all too late. That's why it seems to me to make more sense to realise this in 1953-54 and say "we're not waiting, design us something better as a proper equipped fighter".

So, while, YES, it was a PAPER plane, it seems that it was a more advanced concept than the classic 'back of a cigarette packet' scribblings.

Still worries me that Fairey might have persisted with the drooping nose instead of refining the cockpit away from being a glasshouse. That would have been heavy, clunky, a pain to maintain and unlikely to attract sales from overseas.

 

[Hood]

a) spec _____late 1953?
Level flight to Mach 2+ above 10,000ft?
Acceleration from cruise below Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 in X minutes?
Climb to 60,000ft in 4 minutes?
Radius of Action: Normal Waring Sortie 125nm?
Extended Waring Sortie....?
CAP endurance Minimum 2 hours at 100nm distance from base inclusive of 5 minutes combat.

Speed seems fair, as long as its over Mach 2 it should be fine. Climb seems fair (Fighter Command wanted 3 minutes for F.155 but that was not feasible and settled for 6 as a compromise. So 4 seems fair given we've a lighter aircraft.
For extended warning sortie, are we assuming internal fuel only or are we allowing external tanks?
Late 1953 seems ok, gives time to mull over Korean War experiences.

Minimum of 2 by 30mm ADEN cannons
Minimum of 2 by Firestreak IR AAMs
Minimum of 2 by radar guided AAMs
Equipment to include AI.23 or AI.20 Fighter Radar.
IFF
Radios
Radio homer
Use of single engined designs prefered. But flexible on specific engine.

Liking the missile armament.
AI.23 or AI.20 makes sense at this time, but hopefully AI.23 is the chosen set, this could be pre-specified I guess.
On engines, flexibility might be a good idea - I'm assuming Olympus, Gyron, RB.106 are most likely choices with Avon third as we're still fairly early into Avon development. Are we ruling out rockets, even for RATO? (I don't like em' but some designers might try to shoehorn them in).

Avro Type 720 derived Delta winged design
AWA Delta (AW.58), swept wing (AW.165) and straight wing designs
Blackburn crescent/cranked leading edge swept wing.
Bolton Paul
Bristol Delta or 188 type wing.
DeHaviland DH.116 derived design
English Electrics P.1 type swept wing
Fairey ER103 type tailless Delta wing and tailed swept wing
Folland Gnat MkV derivative
Gloster Javelin derived design.
Hadleigh Page crescent wing or canard Delta.
Hawkers P.1103 Type modest swept wing or blended tailless Delta wing.
Saro P.53 to P.177 type modest Delta with tail.
Shorts ?
Supermarine radical canard option, crescent and plain swept wing options.
Westland variant of W.37 or N/A.39 designs

I'd probably want to limit the tenders, especially since F.155 is in the pipeline for the year after. Both are big jobs. Historically F.155 invitations were AWA, DH, EE, Gloster, Hawker, Saro, Vickers-Supermarine and Westland. Then Westland was swapped for Fairey as Westland was felt to have done badly in NA.39. The 'B List' who got copies for information were Blackburn, Bristol, HP, Avro and Short.

So for this I'd suggest an 'A List' of: Avro, AWA, Bristol, DH, EE, Fairey, Gloster, Hawker, Vickers-Supermarine. 'B List': Blackburn, Boulton Paul, Westland. I don't think Folland is big or strong enough for this job, Short has no fighter experience and I'd see them as a sub-contractor perhaps for production. I don't really have faith in the 'B List' but they might offer something decent.

Admiralty express interest in writing parallel specification.

Good idea. Might impose some weight restrictions but might be worthwhile, also might open up possibilities of blown flaps etc.

Late 1954 ordering three prototypes, one from each of the three best designs.

I would disagree here. With my rationalisation hat on, this seems wasteful. To my eyes, if someone submits 'Dan Dare' designs then they are no good, a fighter should be fundamentally basic and any unique odds and sods can be booted out. Ideally we want only one single-seater and one two-seater (and looking ahead one tactical bomber - so 3 firms occupied). I'd only waiver on that if the Admiralty found a different design was suitable for carrier use and the others couldn't be easily adapted.

Flying by 1958 With assessment that year.
Choice by early 1959
IOC 1962
FOC by '65

I'm pushy, I'm the annoying Air Marshall thumping the table demanding it in service by 1960. That's 6 years from ITP.

Tendering companies likely designs:-
Avro Type 720 derived Delta winged design
AWA Delta (AW.58), swept wing (AW.165) and straight wing designs
Blackburn crescent/cranked leading edge swept wing.
Bolton Paul
Bristol Delta or 188 type wing.
DeHaviland DH.116 derived design
English Electrics P.1 type swept wing
Fairey ER103 type tailless Delta wing and tailed swept wing
Folland Gnat MkV derivative
Gloster Javelin derived design.
Hadleigh Page crescent wing or canard Delta.
Hawkers P.1103 Type modest swept wing or blended tailless Delta wing.
Saro P.53 to P.177 type modest Delta with tail.
Shorts ?
Supermarine radical canard option, crescent and plain swept wing options.
Westland variant of W.37 or N/A.39 designs

Avro - yes this seems likely. 725 had a ventral intake, 726 lateral intakes.
AWA - would be in good standing with work taking AW.58 to the next step. Presuming a nose intake with bullet.
Blackburn - not sure if they would attempt this or not, the B.97 rocket fighter to F.124 was pretty basic.
Boulton Paul - maybe a single-engined version of the P.121 with the fixed swept wing, the P.122 for F.124 was basically a Venom, not sure they really have the skills for this, though they have P.111 delta experience.
Bristol - I reckon they would enter something developed from the 178 submitted to F.124 - in effect a British F-104!
DH - are falling behind, like the DH.117 I feel it would be a conservative design, DH.116 would need a lot of work.
EE - probably the P.6.
Fairey - probably would offer cranked deltas and swept wing versions.
Gloster - they toyed with single Gyron-powered fighters in 1951 and in 1953 sketched P.362 developed from Javelin for ER.134. Whatever they offer is likely to be a Javelin development.
Hawker - so many choices! P.1096, P.1097, or the unsubmitted PO/108 shown in BSP:1 seem most likely. Even a jet-powered P.1089 (a mini Mirage!).
Saro - not invited in my list but assuming they offer anyway, P.154 to F.124 was fairly sleek, imagining it with wing root intakes or perhaps a single-engine P.163.
Short - PD.701 with a single engine perhaps.
V-Supermarine - super 545? There is the 553 too with nose intake, RB.106 and swept wings.
Westland - not hopeful given their odd entries to F.124

My shortlist likely to be: Avro, EE, Bristol, Fairey, Hawker, Supermarine.
So 3 deltas, 3 swept, at least 3 of them with RB.106. Not sure who yet I would chose as a winner.