Getting a British Phantom

Bristol did move on from M45 to more potent designs. Ultimately they fed into what became the RB.199.
So an AH scenario for P.141 is likely to conclude with variants of RB.199 powering it.
Arguably Bristol-SNECMA would evolve something similar.
 
Archibald said:
Why not ? indeed Breguet competed in the Mirage G but lost.
My memory of Jean Cuny's Breguet monography is the Breguet Br.1200 were an entire family of VG projects from Mig-23 to F-111 size... including a Mirage G competitor.
Would have need much more agressive management after Louis Breguet death in May 1955. Henri Potez would have been a perfect "anti-Dassault".

Whatever, Breguet had its own Mirage G lookalike at the right moment to screw both Dassault and... Jaguar.

OTL Mirage G touched down at 108 kt and weighed 15 tonnes. Good for Centaurs Clems Victorious and Audacious indeed.

Grant SNECMA a Spey license in 1959 or 1963... the company slept with Pratt for TF30, BS for Concorde's Olympus, and G.E for CFM56 later.
Click to expand...
I thought you'd like that.

I was going to suggest that Hawker Siddeley developed a twin-Spey heavy fighter from 1962 instead of the P.1154 and Spey-Phantom as part of your Anglo-French RR Spey timeline. The aircraft would have been intended to replace first the Sea Vixen in the FAA and then the Lightning in the RAF.

I thought you'd started an Anti-Dassault thread where Henri Potez buys Breguet in the 1950s, but when I looked for it I couldn't find it. I thought that a twin-Spey naval fighter developed by Breguet and Hawker Siddeley in place of Mirage G, the P.1154RN and Spey-Phantom would be perfect for it.
 
zen said:
I've tried on the basis of certain figures to estimate a Spey powered solution to AW.406.
But the truth is the engine is too big, too low a thrust-to-weight-ratio and too high on s.f.c figures to produce such a solution.
Not without novel elements that impose high risk.

It's easier to use a single larger engine. Such as Olympus, Medway, Conway, Gyron or RB.122.
Click to expand...

For a single-engine solution to AW.406 I would look at Dassault’s studies for inspiration and use a Medway instead of a TF-306E (which had 23,000lbs thrust).

I believe the design requirements for a balanced interceptor / low altitude strike aircraft were not that far off… more detail in the attached paper below.

Below is how Dassault viewed the options as of 1966/67… the variable geometry Mirage G was the clear winner vs. the Mirage F2/F3 and delta or VTOL options.

Variable geometry interceptor/strike aircraft
(Mirage G, 1x TF-306 23,000lbf thrust, 9t empty weight)

Interceptor mission (with guns + 1 AAM):
Climb to M2.2/50,000ft: <5min
CAP time: 2.7hrs, with fuel for M2.2 intercept at 50,000ft and 10% reserves
Dash speed: M2.5

Strike mission (with 1 nuclear bomb):
Penetration range: 390NM LO-LO with 80nm dash at 600kts / M0.9, 5min time on target, and 10% reserves

90191AD1-AAAB-4EDA-AFD1-BC9557370C2A.jpeg 53D35EF6-F196-4890-8929-C4D92D7E4902.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • Dassault Four Aircraft Concepts.pdf
    3.2 MB · Views: 21
Last edited:
That is excellent stuff H_K!

Pretty much confirms what I've read and calculated.
 
What size radar could the P.141 have used compared to the F-4?
 
PMN1 said:
What size radar could the P.141 have used compared to the F-4?
Click to expand...
Probably whatever size wanted considering the design.
F4 I think ended up with a 32" dish.
The size of the electronics matter.
 
Another bit of thread bumping but the discussions here are relevant to recent threads about the British aircraft industry.

In sum, how could the UK have avoided having to buy the F4 Phantom for the RN and RAF in the 1960s?

On paper the UK had all the skills necessary to produce something as good as the Phantom.
 
uk 75 said:
Another bit of thread bumping but the discussions here are relevant to recent threads about the British aircraft industry.

In sum, how could the UK have avoided having to buy the F4 Phantom for the RN and RAF in the 1960s?

On paper the UK had all the skills necessary to produce something as good as the Phantom.
Click to expand...
I think part of it would have required a very different response to Sandys.

"Okay, the long range SAM has made the fast-climbing interceptor obsolete. You still need a patrolling fighter and very long range air search radars." Whether those very long range radars are on the ground or AEW is a different discussion, what matters is that Treasury understands that the long range SAMs require an early warning radar to give them time to warm up and be ready to launch. As well as having fighters that can fly in the ~200nmi from base area to thin down the incoming.

And from that, I would have pushed the Hawker P1121 (or earlier designs) as that patrolling fighter. Go ahead and give it two seats, having a Radar Operator in back will make using SARH missiles much easier. Also make it able to fly low and fast as a striker, whether nuclear or conventional (see F-105). Same airframe whether fighter or striker, difference would be electronics fit. Unless all the features could be packed into one system, which would reduce costs due to commonality.

The range requirement would likely require a turbofan engine, not a turbojet. As a fun side note, fans have a much bigger thrust increase due to afterburner than jets.


Derfel Cadarn said:
My first choice would be a pair of CVA-01s with full air groups. F-4K then F-14 (just).

If it has to be land based then I’m afraid I always thought a Vulcan F.3 or Victor F.2 with big dish AWG-9 and 12 x Phoenix internally would be good.

If agile fighter opposition is zero why not go meaty early? If the big threat is cruise missiles and Blinder / Backfire sky flash might not cut it.

Two pilots for endurance, two RIOs for looking and listening and a little bunk somewhere for downtime. Talk about loiter.

Then you got that great big wing on Vulcan and all manner of speedy lines on Victor to keep things active.

Tornado ADV needed those great big hindenburg externals to meet the range requirements making it less agile than either of the V-bombers. Instead we got Victors passing fuel and Vulcans sweeping the sea with nav radar.

After that? F-14D? If it had to be locally produced then a Concorde development?

TSR2 wouldn’t have had space for a big enough radar, F-111 would have.
Click to expand...
Ironically, the UK might have been the use case for the F-111B with AWG-9 and Phoenix missiles. Flying BARCAP over the GIUK gap, where there's no way for any Soviet fighters to get out there to dogfight with.
 
The CAP Fighter is essentially what emerges after Sandys kills off the DLI F.177 aircraft.
This becomes OR.346.
4 hours CAP with new radar and missiles.
And in turn this is why the new AI radar effort continued.

The problem there is TFX style merger of next generation strike and fighter and RAF and FAA combined solution.

For the RAF the other way forward would have been 'Red Barrel', using something like a Vulcan.
 
Why not extend the Buccaneer design instead? An internal bay would have been handy for a future attack version. BAC TSR-2 had ended proposals to upgrade Buccaneer into a supersonic interdictor carrying nuclear weapons and powered with re-heated Rolls-Royce RB.168 Spey turbofans. When TSR.2 was cancelled roll plans back to Buccaneer FG/FGR. Stick to eventually use the front end of a Phantom M. Recoup investments sunk into the larger Phantom intakes by reusing them. Buccaneer FG.1 could then share the AN/AWG-11 with the hinged radome, and later the fixed nose AN/AWG-12 for Buccaneer FGR.1 production. Maybe stick with the original wing initially with pylons suited for interception with a follow-on optimal design for attack to feature more optimal placement of slats and flaps for supersonic interdiction. Basically relish technology gleamed with Phantom to throw a lifeline to UK manufacturing.
 
P.1121: The One That Got Away...a fishy tale.
#47: a Br Phantom.

Camm extracted HS PV £ to scheme P.1121 to mock-up, then pausing for Sandys, 4/57. Many have criticised him for throttling UK's Phantom. But no-one enquires why he declined to buy it. Big Cheeses are seldom crooked or mad; the sole resignations through '50s/'60s demolition of Br Aero Leadership were 2 Naval Folk over CVA-01: but they were out-of-order: Ministers decide what they want our military to do; Officers/Officials tell them what that will cost: so, Blue Water Navy: too expensive said Ministers, so we will reduce commitments. So RN got on with it.

Q: Why did no Airship resign when P.1121 was declined? Why did not HS Group fund a PV prototype to prove its Close Air Support value?
A: £ priority for Medium Bombers, then Interdictors, then Base Defence interceptors; also-ran: Army Co-operation: that was by Venoms, part-DoD-funded, thank you. Even on 4/57 we were embarrassed by continued delivery of part-DoD funded Hunter F.6s for a job we had decided to abandon - to joust Bombers by Day over our cities. Sandys cancelled 150, gave 15 to Iraq, DoD recovered 14 to give to Jordan and Lebanon ...leaving many to be stored by 1961 as Squadrons disbanded or (a few) moved to Lightning.

1958 Aden Army Co-Op fly-before-buy trial of Gnat, Jet Provost, Hunter F.6 was a formality - though Finland, India took Gnat, and some took (eventual) BAC 167 Strikemaster. None of those Users had flocks of low-time Hunters ready for a kit, installed by MUs as well as Return-to-Works, to turn them into FGA.9/FR.10. No brainer. Hawker Bitteswell/Dunsfold/Kingston lived for years on re-treading Hunters. That would have been cannibalised by P.1121, which is why HS Grp did not invest in it.
 
Last edited:
It's a pity they couldn't derivate a Mach 1.5+ fighter out of the Hunter: the next step after P.1083... provided P.1083 wasn't canned in the first place.
Do we have a P.1083 thread ?
 
Archibald said:
It's a pity they couldn't derivate a Mach 1.5+ fighter out of the Hunter: the next step after P.1083... provided P.1083 wasn't canned in the first place.
Do we have a P.1083 thread ?
Click to expand...
They chose the Crescent Winged Swift Type 545 instead and it was nearly completed before cancellation.
 
zen said:
They chose the Crescent Winged Swift Type 545 instead and it was nearly completed before cancellation.
Click to expand...
Which was utterly stupid as the Hunter (and P.1083) had a nose for a radar with side intakes... unlike the 545 and its SMB-2 like frontal intake.
Even if I love the look of the Type 545.
 
Archibald said:
It's a pity they couldn't derivate a Mach 1.5+ fighter out of the Hunter: the next step after P.1083... provided P.1083 wasn't canned in the first place.
Do we have a P.1083 thread ?
Click to expand...
P.1090/1100/1109 etc. are what you're looking for

But this is still way more expensive than remanufacturing existing F.6s into FGA.9s for export

For the UK, it's an evolutionary path not taken; but in my mind it more leads to a Mirage III / Draken equivalent rather than Phantom; i.e. similar functionality but smaller and cheaper and a bit worse in some areas
 
red admiral said:
For the UK, it's an evolutionary path not taken; but in my mind it more leads to a Mirage III / Draken equivalent rather than Phantom; i.e. similar functionality but smaller and cheaper and a bit worse in some areas
Click to expand...
I think that's acceptable. You don't need a heavy fighterbomber that can carry 15klbs of bombs on top of the 4+4 AAMs.

You do need an A6 or A7 and an F14, though.
 
tp #36 redesigns EE Lightning. So, me DOR or Tech boss at MoS c.1958:. No! Too hard to generate at short notice. Mtce nightmare.

Data points, 1957-ish.
* all USAFE Fighter Day/Interceptor Sqns had become Tactical Fighter/or FBomber Sqns. More folk than Sandys were abandoning the Mission of tangling with Sov Bomber swarms over mere land, occupied merely by people, not Military Assets.
* NATO 6/59 set up the Co-production Prog that would install the Nike Hawk belt on the Central Front; RAF's Bloodhound Ring of Steel would assert operational status 11/60, NATO Hawk Belt progressively from 7/61. So interceptors solely v. probers/snoopers, so:
* RAFG 1/6/57 had 9 Day, 4 All Weather fighter Sqns; 1/1/65: 2 All Weather.
* US defined its AW dual-key Release Authorisation process during 1958, to include (shock! horror!) FRG, who redefined their 1960s' need as for a multi-role combat a/c, Day/Night fighter, recce, iron GA, tactical nuclear strike, anti-ship in the Baltic.
* US settled with FRG an Offset scheme to ease the DM drain, especially of military personnel dependents, as US planned to move towards an All Regular Force.
* RAF was near-all Regular with much pain to staff Lectronics Trades: BMEWS/Fylingdales to be up in 1963 must be civil-heavy in mtce.

That other Missile with a Man in It, aka F-104A, was being redefined as F-104G to do all that Lufwaffe/Marineflieger wanted - trust me. So, clearly, EE could have put camera, iron, US AW stores on Lightning. Or drop tanks. Or defensive kit. Or a second seat. But not 2 of these.

The weight of FRG's commitment to offset $ expense made any Brit/French Multi-role Combat A/c improbable - other Assets would need to be near-totally-$. So we waste our breath talking FRG Mirages, SR.177, Buccaneer...Lightning. And what FRG chooses will be acceptable to such other Arms as may believe themselves able to operate such complex kit, using conscript and/or First Tour personnel.

Lockheed wasted more than their breath by buying influence via a Prince Consort, a coalition Premier, a coalition Defence Minister (Neths/ Japan/FRG). US did not/does not understand Other People's Democracies, where expensive decisions are made in Committees owned by no-One. Maybe US Aero firms found it helpful to have a local Agent to (understand what's being said on the other side of the table and) insert plausible denial of the nature of local expenses built into prices. I doubt those expenses secured a single sale.
 
Last edited:
That would have been pretty interesting to see Lightning F.8 as a Phantom alternative. It had the motors to be equivalent, and a further extension of Lightning just begged for Speys. A short fuselage extension adds room for a larger all-moving tail. Getting the Phantom's AN/AWG-11 into its nose probably requires a nose extension and perhaps a scoop intake under the radar, like the American XF8U-3. Maybe even side intakes but I'm sure the preference was for none. Front landing gear probably needs to turn around to rotate from the back. Lightning's wing was proven and if you changed anything here it was redesign to use modern technology to strengthen and lighten it. Jaguar's tapered box design for the bottom of the fuselage could have been used to minimally widen the rear to mid body of the fuselage while giving space for landing gear to shift rearwards and out of the wing. Getting landing gear out of the wing gives you pylon space you never had before. But the tapered box also gives you room to widen the fuselage from nose to tail without becoming overly wide. More internal volume for equipment and fuel. Surface space for adding sensors and transmitters without doing design gymnastics. Retains general rugged look of the original Lightning but grows internal volume to compete with any Phantom design. It also gives you the natural box-corner extensions from the fuselage for an internal gun or two like on Jaguar or Tornado.

I liked the 'tall' layout of the Lightning. It certainly was the equivalent of a Phantom before there ever was a Phantom. I just think its design got held back. It easily could have been the heavy multi-role of Europe aircraft with some more good ole British out of the box thinking. They certainly had the engineering to build their own carrier version. Perhaps your rudder has to fit into a shorter hangar so the all-moving tail and tall rudder gets replaced with an H-tail.
 
Last edited:
So if you change virtually everything about a Lightening to make it more like a Phantom, with a lot of vague unrealistic hand waving about actual details and changes, it could have been more like a Phantom.

Very deserving of a slow hand clap.
More constructively I’d suggest reading through other discussions relating to this topic.
 
Can't help wondering about the Hunter relatives, P.1083 vs P.1099, the later better known as Hunter Mk.6 : a good bargain for Hawker and their exports orders.
And I also wonder about the Supermarine Type 545.

What do you think about the following scenario ?

1- Hawker is told to drop P.1083 for P.1099 as an "interim Hunter" (as per OTL)

2 Supermarine is allowed to fly the first Type 545 in mid-1956

3- A choice will be made between the three as a low-end to the English Electric P.1

4-In the end the RAF decides to go with a mix of P.1099 Hunter Mk.6 and Type 545, for ground attack, day fighter, and missile carrier backup to the English Electric P.1

5- If the Type 545 flies in 1956, any chance it escapes the Sandys axe of April 1957 ?
 
MadRat said:
That would have been pretty interesting to see Lightning F.8 as a Phantom alternative. It had the motors to be equivalent, and a further extension of Lightning just begged for Speys. A short fuselage extension adds room for a larger all-moving tail. Getting the Phantom's AN/AWG-11 into its nose probably requires a nose extension and perhaps a scoop intake under the radar, like the American XF8U-3. Maybe even side intakes but I'm sure the preference was for none. Front landing gear probably needs to turn around to rotate from the back. Lightning's wing was proven and if you changed anything here it was redesign to use modern technology to strengthen and lighten it. Jaguar's tapered box design for the bottom of the fuselage could have been used to minimally widen the rear to mid body of the fuselage while giving space for landing gear to shift rearwards and out of the wing. Getting landing gear out of the wing gives you pylon space you never had before. But the tapered box also gives you room to widen the fuselage from nose to tail without becoming overly wide. More internal volume for equipment and fuel. Surface space for adding sensors and transmitters without doing design gymnastics. Retains general rugged look of the original Lightning but grows internal volume to compete with any Phantom design. It also gives you the natural box-corner extensions from the fuselage for an internal gun or two like on Jaguar or Tornado.

I liked the 'tall' layout of the Lightning. It certainly was the equivalent of a Phantom before there ever was a Phantom. I just think its design got held back. It easily could have been the heavy multi-role of Europe aircraft with some more good ole British out of the box thinking. They certainly had the engineering to build their own carrier version. Perhaps your rudder has to fit into a shorter hangar so the all-moving tail and tall rudder gets replaced with an H-tail.
Click to expand...

Might as well start from scratch......
 
English Electric P.8 : now that was one Lightning without the flaws. Imagine, if they had picked that one for F.155T and then made it the next thing after the Lightning F.3... instead of the F.6.

Do you think the P.8 could survive the Sandystorm with the argument "it's just an evolution of the P.1 / P.1B / Lightning" ?
 
Archibald said:
English Electric P.8 : now that was one Lightning without the flaws. Imagine, if they had picked that one for F.155T and then made it the next thing after the Lightning F.3... instead of the F.6.

Do you think the P.8 could survive the Sandystorm with the argument "it's just an evolution of the P.1 / P.1B / Lightning" ?
Click to expand...
It's ironic that the Air Ministry recognised the people who were actually building decent fighters were saying that F.155T wasn't a credible requirement and bid something else (EE P.8 and Hawker 1103), but the Ministry of Supply insisted that their proposals didn't comply with the Dan Dare specification so had to be disqualified.

A couple more trips around the requirements buoy before going out to tender might have been a good idea!
 
RAF actually stated P.8 was the quickest option and most logical development of existing concepts.

But they went on to state it was out of date being based on the P.1B Lightning.

This probably was the best option to affordably develop and might actually have set the RAF on a more Virtuous Cycle had they done so.
As only this stood any chance of getting past D.Sandys.
 
Archibald said:
5- If the Type 545 flies in 1956, any chance it escapes the Sandys axe of April 1957 ?
Click to expand...
P.1 is still probably the one most under threat; 57 was about cancelling future interceptor fighters until Bloodhound came in (and fighter command i.e. homeland defence) - not about cancelling all aircraft. So the likes of a day only air superiority and ground attack/recce fighter can be sold as "not an interceptor"

Pretty unclear whether Type 545 would have been a "good" aircraft though given Supermarine's experience with everything else postwar
 
It is worth pointing out that Phantom started life (like Buccaneer) as a carrierborne aircraft.
The USAF equivalent of the Lightning is the F102 Dagger/F106 Dart which takes on air defence duties over the same period as the Lightning.
The Royal Navy unlike the US Navy fails to evolve a decent supersonic shipborne fighter, being stuck with the Sea Vixen as its last homegrown aircraft.
Lightning is the only UK supersonic aircraft to enter
service. Its successors are all collaborations whether US aircraft with UK engines or multi-national programmes.
One has to ask why the British are so behind the state of the art in the late 50s?
 
uk 75 said:
One has to ask why the British are so behind the state of the art in the late 50s?
Click to expand...
Well we have two factors.
1. The ten year rule in '45
2. Korea Superpriority

And the view 1957 is The Year of Maximum Danger.

So we have inadequate funding for quite obvious reasons, followed by inadequate development in the Korea scramble to get aircraft into production.
And to cap it off even after Korea the view is if it's not entering service by '55 it's never going to be available in time or sufficient numbers when WWIII kicks off.

Then we lurch into not thinking things through and Suez and then just cancelling everything that cannot be put into production in '57.

Into all this the F4 analogue... is the Type 556 ordered in '54, cancelled in '55. The next time we come to anything F4-like it's investigation of F8U-III and writing OR.346....which is more A5 Vigilante and TFX than F4.

What was needed was either a better solution to NA.38 and just stick with it, or writing AW.406 but in '57.
 
uk 75 said:
One has to ask why the British are so behind the state of the art in the late 50s?
Click to expand...
A significant contributor to the problem is having to replace the entire RAF and RNAS, times the rate of advance in capabilities from 1945-1960.

They got stuck into having to replace everything in the same year, instead of being able to set up some rotations and stretching some aircraft a bit longer than originally desired.
 
This is evident from the adoption of the Canadair Sabre to update the RAF frontline in the absence of suitable British types.
I would argue that a British and Canadian Phantom buy should have happened in 1962 allowing the P1154 to be cancelled in favour of P1127 as part of a hi-lo Hunter, Javelin, Sea Vixen replacement package.
This would have allowed Lightning to continue to be an interceptor as it did on our time while TSR2 could have taken longer to get in to service as the Phantoms would take on some Canberra roles as could Buccaneers.
By delaying TSR2 service entry until 1970 (after Polaris takes over from the V Force) the Vulcans could leave service as TSR2 takes over with Victors retaining a freefall bombing role.
 
I did not realized that Supermarine got frustrated of yet another prototype. Derived not from the Swift but from the Scimitar: the Type 556. One ordered by the RN, only to be canned because Sea Vixen FAW.
 
Archibald said:
I did not realized that Supermarine got frustrated of yet another prototype. Derived not from the Swift but from the Scimitar: the Type 556. One ordered by the RN, only to be canned because Sea Vixen FAW.
Click to expand...
Seems they cancelled because Sea Vixen could be brought to service much earlier and piling all that weight on Scimitar made the potential failure of increased blow over the wing and tail a potential disaster for navalisation.

Meanwhile by '55 we're into F.155, F.177 and NA.47. All seem superlative in performance compared to Type 556 and projected ISD only a few years after Type 556. So they must've thought "what's the point, it'll be out of date by 1962".
 
Archibald said:
I did not realized that Supermarine got frustrated of yet another prototype. Derived not from the Swift but from the Scimitar: the Type 556. One ordered by the RN, only to be canned because Sea Vixen FAW.
Click to expand...
Sea Vixen was the ultimate oddity. So ugly it was beautiful I guess.

Scimitar and Buccaneer definitely were similar evolutions. That internal bay of the Buccaneer was always under-appreciated imho. To think it was a feature fighters dropped from 2/3 generation but revived in this modern age. McDonnell engineers probably drew some inspiration from Swift/Scimitar for the Demon. F-101 had a similar character to Buccaneer only focused on the escort role rather than bomb carrying.
 
Also Scimitar had the wrong shape to go supersonic, even in a steep dive. I suppose Type 556 was no better...
 
Archibald said:
Also Scimitar had the wrong shape to go supersonic, even in a steep dive. I suppose Type 556 was no better...
Click to expand...
Area rule wasn't properly applied so it stayed stubbornly subsonic.

Type 556 ironically might conform to the Area Rule better.
MadRat said:
Sea Vixen was the ultimate oddity.
Click to expand...
It was a development of a 1948 design and should have entered service by 1954. By 1964 it ought to have been leaving service.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom