Getting a British Phantom

[uk 75]

France and Sweden seem to me to be good examples of what the UK should have done.
France was able to deploy a nuclear deterrent force by careful steps beginning with the Mirage IV. Compare this with the saga of Sperrin Valiant Vulcan and Victor not to mention Avro 730 and TSR2.
While Britain squandered money on Blue Streak and Skybolt France developed its own land based missile and also a tactical missile like the ill fated Blue Water
France went on to be the core of the European Space Launcher programme.
Concorde only survived because France knows how to draw up agreements with hapless Brits.
Compare Draken and Viggen with Sea Vixen Scimitar and Lightning.
We Brits need to learn rather than daydream. But we did hence Typhoon and Tempest

 

[red admiral]

Oh yes, I'd forgotten that Olympus only got really powerful with Concorde. Still, having a potentially supercruising fighter would have been great fun and a very interesting capability.

Fairly Delta III was estimated to supercruise at about Mach 1.8 but this doesn't mean it was a useful capability - it was all about minimising time to height and distance. Fuel fraction and range is still low etc. etc.

 

[TorpedoJ]

Fairly Delta III was estimated to supercruise at about Mach 1.8 but this doesn't mean it was a useful capability - it was all about minimising time to height and distance. Fuel fraction and range is still low etc. etc.

Thanks for the pointer, I've had a look at that and some of the other concepts.
The image in my head was something in concept a little like a single-engined Tornado ADV; if you could design an Olympus into a similarly sized fuselage it would have the same dry thrust as two RB199s on reheat, and have if my Google searches are correct about the same fuel consumption as two RB199s dry.
Just for those looooong range GIUK interceptions.

 

[Rule of cool]

France and Sweden seem to me to be good examples of what the UK should have done.
France was able to deploy a nuclear deterrent force by careful steps beginning with the Mirage IV. Compare this with the saga of Sperrin Valiant Vulcan and Victor not to mention Avro 730 and TSR2.
While Britain squandered money on Blue Streak and Skybolt France developed its own land based missile and also a tactical missile like the ill fated Blue Water
France went on to be the core of the European Space Launcher programme.
Concorde only survived because France knows how to draw up agreements with hapless Brits.
Compare Draken and Viggen with Sea Vixen Scimitar and Lightning.
We Brits need to learn rather than daydream. But we did hence Typhoon and Tempest

What France did was back their mid-late 50s Mach 2 fighter type, unapologetically buying it in large numbers, developing it and pushing it on the export market. France had it's share of wishy-washy decision making and prototypes that went nowhere, reading the F2-F3-G-G4-G8 saga alone would make your head spin, let alone all the other proposals and failed projects. However, by procuring over 470 Mirage IIIs France showed the world it was a reliable country with whom to partner on a major strategic project like buying a fleet of fighters.

Sweden also backed it's mid-late 50s mach 2 fighter type, rather than make all sorts of stupid, destructive decisions about the capability. Indeed Sweden came up with it's own innovative solution to the nuclear missile threat that so crippled British decision making, with the Bas 60 airbase system.

You can disparage the Lightning all day, but it existed and unlike the Mirage III and Draken was not supported by it's own Government.

 

[pathology_doc]

While Britain squandered money on Blue Streak and Skybolt

But Skybolt was a collaborative project with a senior partner, the sort of project YOU think the hapless Brits should have been involved in.

How much blame are you going to put on Britain for the Americans cancelling Skybolt apparently (IIRC) on the brink of getting it working?

Compare Draken and Viggen with Sea Vixen Scimitar and Lightning.

Sweden is an interesting case because SAAB is the only game in town. There are no flyoffs, there are no competitions, there is no Ministry hand-wringing over which firm to give the contract to, because there are no alternatives. There is no artificial rationalization of the industry because SAAB is the industry. The only pressure it's under is the pressure to get it right the first time, and it's given the time and money to do that. The interceptor that is developed, once authorized, is taken to its limits (something EE/BAC was never allowed to do with the Lightning).

It's also serving only one customer, and a land-based customer at that, and doesn't suffer from the distraction of having to consider navalised versions.

 

[uk 75]

Why did it take the UK so long to develop its own supersonic military aircraft?
Compare the Super Sabre, Draken and Super Mystere with the Swift and Hunter.

 

[Rule of cool]

Why did it take the UK so long to develop its own supersonic military aircraft?
Compare the Super Sabre, Draken and Super Mystere with the Swift and Hunter.

Sweden's hardly an exemplar of getting supersonic aircraft into service early, the Lansen was no faster than the Hunter and the Draken entered service at he same time as the Lightning.

As for why the supersonic Hunter didn't enter service, it was because of scope creep. The P.1087 would have been comparable to the Super Mystere but the RAF then decided they wanted a radar and the the aircraft was not suitable for both transonic performance and radar.

In any case it is perfectly legitimate for a country to weigh up the advantages of going directly from subsonic to Mach 2 in a single step, especially if you're Mach 2 aircraft is going to enter squadron service in 1959 like Britain and Sweden rather than 1961 like France.

 

[uk 75]

In another thread I invited people to look at what the RAF would have done if Phantom had not been available.
BAC were certainly capable of producing something along the lines of the Mig 23/27.
Lightning like the Su20 could have been given a VG lease of life and solved the RN Sea Vixen replacement.
Unfortunately Phantom did exist.

 

[red admiral]

You can disparage the Lightning all day, but it existed and unlike the Mirage III and Draken was not supported by it's own Government.

Not at all supported...despite the massive amounts of money, people, infrastructure spent on it

Yawn

 

[Rule of cool]

Not at all supported...despite the massive amounts of money, people, infrastructure spent on it

I know, right!

France bought 424 Mirages for itself, including keeping Israeli Mirage Vs for itself rather than trying to flog them off, and developed recce and fighter-bomber versions of what was originally a short-range, rocket-assisted interceptor.

Britain bought 258 Lightnings for itself, each in small batches and in a hostile political environment and didn't build any recce or fighter-bomber variants. So all of the overhead but only ~60% of the production numbers.

 

[red admiral]

Because they were much more expensive and a niche design unable to fulfill other roles. Maybe these factors are related?

 

[zen]

Expensive....
So it's a matter of cost?
If an alternative had been funded and cost less, it would have been adapted for various other roles?

 

[Archibald]

reading the F2-F3-G-G4-G8 saga alone

Dassault developed his own methods to survive and thrieve against an AdA that often got their wishes wrong - or unaffordable.
1-Read the AdA RFP
2-Build a couple of prototypes according to the AdA (flawed) wish list
3-Build a couple of Plan B, private prototypes "just in case" or "for exportation, mostly"
4-Wait for the AdA to run into the unaffordability wall (less often: technology)
5-Propose the private prototype as a reasonable alternative
6-Win
Mirage III vs flawed NATO LWFs
Mirage F1 vs overcomplicated VSTOL / VG
Mirage 2000 vs the unaffordable twin-jets.

 

[uk 75]

I have some sympathy with the Lightning fans. Like the V bombers it was a feature of Battle of Britain displays when I was a boy in the 60s
I have various Lightning models in my collection.
The UK had a range of companies that appeared to be world leading in a way only matched by the US.
Lightning was ordered for short range defence of V Bomber bases along with Bloodhound SAMs. It also proved useful in W Germany in a similar role. Outside NATO it could defend V Bomber bases on Cyprus and in Singapore.
The RAF and RN were (like BEA and BOAC) bad customers in that their requirements were at once too UK specific and too complicated to make good export machines. Hunter and Hawk were the exceptions as the qualities of the plane were more important to customers than its weaponry.
If all had gone as the RAF wanted in 1975 its front line would have been made up of TSR2 and 1154Harrier with some Victors in the freefall bombing role. it would then replace Lightning. Exports would have been difficult.
But as I have also argued the vision was compelling. TSR2 squadrons based in the UK could both support NATO and deploy to Cyprus and Singapore (ironically 48 Vulcans did the same until 1982). 1154 would like later Harrier marks have in fact been STOL rather than VSTOL. Resembling the later Jaguar it would have had similar roles and capabilities. 681 would have been similar in service to the bigger Il76. Italy transformed its G222 from a VSTOL toy into an effective light transport. 681 would have had deflected Medways but not VSTOL pods. It might then have had simpler turbofans


Instead it unravelled and the RAF ended up with Buccaneers and Jaguars plus C130s while Phantom replaced the Lightning.

The RAF looked at Phantoms as a possible Lightning replacement almost as soon as it could. This is why it never supported developing the Lightning.

 

[uk 75]

Dassault developed his own methods to survive and thrieve against an AdA that often got their wishes wrong - or unaffordable.
1-Read the AdA RFP
2-Build a couple of prototypes according to the AdA (flawed) wish list
3-Build a couple of Plan B, private prototypes "just in case" or "for exportation, mostly"
4-Wait for the AdA to run into the unaffordability wall (less often: technology)
5-Propose the private prototype as a reasonable alternative
6-Win
Mirage III vs flawed NATO LWFs
Mirage F1 vs overcomplicated VSTOL / VG
Mirage 2000 vs the unaffordable twin-jets.

Camm tried this approach with 1121 and it failed. Whitehall always used the US option to force British companies to go along with its flawed requirements.
Harrier came close to death in 1966. It might then have ended up as a US product for the Marines.

 

[uk 75]

The tantalising drawings of Vickers BAC VG fighter attackers and the various Hawker VSTOL designs based on P1127 are a hint of what a British Phantom might have been.
The Rolls Royce P1154RN is pretty much a British Phantom. The BAC 583 like the later AFVG could have made a Phantom buy unnecessary.
Jaguar looks very like a hybrid between 1154 and Phantom. A bigger Spey powered Jaguar two seater could have been designed in 1964 and been in RAF and RN service by 1971 replacing Hunters and Sea Vixens.

 

[red admiral]

Expensive....
So it's a matter of cost?
If an alternative had been funded and cost less, it would have been adapted for various other roles?

It was pretty normal for RAF to adapt its interceptors to other roles e.g. Hunter to Recce and Ground Attack

Technical feasibility also matters as in this period we see a move away from visual nav and laid weapons. But these newer systems also have to be integrated onto an airframe.

 

[pathology_doc]

The P.1087 would have been comparable to the Super Mystere but the RAF then decided they wanted a radar

AND four Fireflash or Firestreak missiles.

At which point you have not only the radar but also the missile handling equipment to fit into the airplane, and all those bulky electronics have to go somewhere. At that point, putting them in would have involved a redesign of certain parts of (if not all of) the airframe, and IIRC the delays and cost overruns that would have entailed killed it.

I can't remember the exact timeline, but IIRC Sidewinder does exist at this point and is a good-enough interim solution to putting missiles on a transonic Hunter with almost zero effort. Build that for the RAF and let Hawker start work on a developed version with the radar and Blue Jay (Firestreak family) missiles integrated.

As I've said elsewhere - the best became the enemy of good enough until the cost became the enemy of the best.

 

[uk 75]

It is worth pointing out that the threat to bases in the UK shifts from Tu4 bombers to SS4 and SS5 missiles in the late 1950s.
The Il28 and Tu16 became the main Soviet Bombers threatening W Europe and no supersonic bomber emerged except the limited capability Tu22 Blinder which was focussed on naval targets.
Not until the Su24 arrives in the 70s does the Soviet Air Force have an effective conventional strike aircraft against bases in UK.
Warding off Badgers and Bears became the Lightning's most visible duty. Less well was its role in patroling W German airspace and if needed the Berlin Air Corridor.o

 

[Rule of cool]

I think it's technically possible for the British to build an aircraft similar to the Phantom that could enter service before 1965. The AIRPASS radar is pretty capable and has development potential, the 300 series Avon can make similar power to the J79 and by the late 50s the British could design a Mach 2 air-frame with good endurance. However I cannot conceive of a realistic path to get this hypothetical aircraft specified by the British Government.

 

[Rule of cool]

It is worth pointing out that the threat to bases in the UK shifts from Tu4 bombers to SS4 and SS5 missiles in the late 1950s.
The Il28 and Tu16 became the main Soviet Bombers threatening W Europe and no supersonic bomber emerged except the limited capability Tu22 Blinder which was focussed on naval targets.
Not until the Su24 arrives in the 70s does the Soviet Air Force have an effective conventional strike aircraft against bases in UK.
Warding off Badgers and Bears became the Lightning's most visible duty. Less well was its role in patroling W German airspace and if needed the Berlin Air Corridor.o

This is the most infuriating thing about this period, trying to match the ~25 year development-production-service life cycle of the initial 'Mach 2' generation of fighters to the 3 fundamentally different security environments. Aircraft specified and developed during the 'WW2 with nukes' era were produced in the 'massive retaliation' era but served most of their lives in the 'flexible response' era. I think that eras 1 and 3 are compatible, but I think massive retaliation is likely required to get to flexible response and it had it's own unique requirements.

 

[zen]

Well this rolls around and again it seems that Supermarine is a key factor, along with government in why something approximate to a British Phantom never emerges.

Because had Supermarine got this right, then just such a system emerges in evolution.

Money was thrown at the twin Avon Fighter and much expectation of future twin seater FAW with Radar guided AAMs.
Much hope for multirole capability.

But Supermarine couldn't deliver the Scimitar they needed to and Vickers had to step in.
It was Vickers involvement that gave credence to the Type 571 tender to OR.339 and basis of the fusilage for the TSR.2.
So an AH in which Vickers steps in much earlier might have moved the dial.
Or just had Supermarine got lucky again.

Our other serious player was DH, and sadly stretched in resources, beset with changes by the customer. There was little hope of refocusing on a new design at the crucial time.
Had DH concieved and produced variant studies of the DH.117 back in '52......

 

[uk 75]

The F4 ended up being the Lightning successor in the 70s after replacing Canberras in RAF Germany and Hunters in 38 Group when TSR2 and 1154 are axed.
It never became the full frontline combat aircraft it could have been because Jaguar was cheaper and MRCA promised to deliver some TSR2 capability at an affordable price.
It is quite likely that if TSR2 and 1154 had been introduced into service the RAF would have come under pressure to use one or both of them as Lightning replacements in the 70s and the RAF would never have got F4s.
The RN would have lost its carriers as Mountbatten left the MOD and a variant of 1154 would have been offered to the RN in the 70s to go on an ASW carrier. The UK could not afford carriers AND TSR2.

 

[Rule of cool]

The F4 ended up being the Lightning successor in the 70s after replacing Canberras in RAF Germany and Hunters in 38 Group when TSR2 and 1154 are axed.
It never became the full frontline combat aircraft it could have been because Jaguar was cheaper and MRCA promised to deliver some TSR2 capability at an affordable price.
It is quite likely that if TSR2 and 1154 had been introduced into service the RAF would have come under pressure to use one or both of them as Lightning replacements in the 70s and the RAF would never have got F4s.
The RN would have lost its carriers as Mountbatten left the MOD and a variant of 1154 would have been offered to the RN in the 70s to go on an ASW carrier. The UK could not afford carriers AND TSR2.

All of this flows from the decisions of 1957 & 58, that manned fighters were obsolescent and the Lightning and Hunter conversions were interim solutions. Personally, I'd like to shortcut all of the Hunter-P1154-F4-Jagaar saga with different 1957 & 58 decisions.

 

[uk 75]

It comes down to whether the UK had any programmes worth saving in 1957. I make no secret of my dislike of them.
In essence Sandys was right to emphasise missiles over aircraft except in the ground attack close air support roles.
The combination of Lightning and Bloodhound lasted almost to the end of the Cold War. Bloodhound Mk2 was more effective than Nike Hercules and compares favourably in range with Patriot.
Blue Streak was as much of a folly as the Avro 730 would have been. The problems associated with developing Blue Steel for the V Force showed how weak the UK was in missile technology. The answer eventually would be Polaris vindicating the move from a bomber to a missile.
TSR2 was the victim of a failure to define its role and capabilities. A Valiant/Canberra replacement to deliver a nuclear weapon should have been kept that simple. It did not need rough field capability nor the high speed except in the final dash to target. Simplify the requirement and TSR2 could have flown in 1962 and entered service in the mid 60s.
P1154 with only STOL could have still used the BS100 engine with nozzles and served to replace the Hunters. Either Red Top or Sidewinders could have been fitted for self defence as happened with Jaguar.
Both Whitehall and Industry share the blame for inflating the requirements.and specifications of projects.

 

[Rule of cool]

In essence Sandys was right to emphasise missiles over aircraft except in the ground attack close air support roles.

No, he wasn't. Indeed, the very lesson he taught the world is that SAMs don't replace fighters, they complement them. This is especially important in advanced countries with a large depth of human talent that is able to recruit pilots and have them fly enough hours to reach and maintain a high standard of proficiency.

It comes down to whether the UK had any programmes worth saving in 1957. I make no secret of my dislike of them.

Blue Streak was as much of a folly as the Avro 730 would have been.

I agree, F.155 deserved to be cancelled, as did the Arvo 730 and Blue Streak and the MoD did need to save £100m and shrink the services to deal with the new threats of thermonuclear weapons.

TSR2 was the victim of a failure to define its role and capabilities.

The solution to that isn't to cancel it and buy US, it's to define the roles and responsibilities.

It did not need rough field capability nor the high speed except in the final dash to target.

These things weren't really obvious until later, after the specification had been finalised.

P1154 with only STOL could have still used the BS100 engine with nozzles and served to replace the Hunters. Either Red Top or Sidewinders could have been fitted for self defence as happened with Jaguar.

The P1154 should never have been thought of, that it was is the failure of earlier procurement policy decisions.

 

[Hood]

None of the mid-50s 'hyper-interceptors' around the world got built, excepting the Tu-128 Fiddler due to its rather unique long-range role.
The late-50s 'super-hypers' didn't get far either, YF-12 prototypes and only the MiG-25 entered service.

Dedicated interceptors largely disappeared from 1957 onwards - from then on fighters had to be multi-role (i.e. chucking nukes about) and by the late-1960s had to be able to mix it in dogfights too. So the White Paper made sense - against the likely nuclear threat only a SAM was more effective against stand-off bombers (therefore cancelling Blue Envoy made much less sense) and logically an ABM system would be needed to deal with ICBMs.

And the White Paper did not say that all manned fighters were obsolete - it only mentioned Fighter Command specifically and air defence of the UK. It did not mention all fighters or mud movers. That didn't matter as the RAF hardly ever wrote bespoke specs for those roles and they were not multi-million pound budget gobblers (well not until TSR came along....).
(Why people still can't understand the nuances of the White Paper after 68 years baffles me.)

 

[Rule of cool]

And the White Paper did not say that all manned fighters were obsolete - it only mentioned Fighter Command specifically and air defence of the UK. It did not mention all fighters or mud movers. That didn't matter as the RAF hardly ever wrote bespoke specs for those roles and they were not multi-million pound budget gobblers (well not until TSR came along....).
(Why people still can't understand the nuances of the White Paper after 68 years baffles me.)

The 57 DWP isn't a procurement plan, it's a Policy document from which a Strategy is formulated, and procurement is then undertaken in pursuit of that Strategy, so of course the DWP only mentioned fighters in the context of defence of the UK. However, MoD Sandys did say in Parliament on 16 April 1957:
"We are unquestionably moving towards a time when fighter aircraft will be increasingly replaced by guided missiles and V-bombers by ballistic rockets, but all that will not happen overnight. The introduction of these new weapons will be a gradual process, extending over a good number of years, and even then, there will still remain a very wide variety of roles for which manned aircraft will continue to be needed."
The 57 DWP does mention transport aircraft for the RAF and those being supported by civil aircraft, which presumably is what Sandys was referring to.

Looking at the aircraft procurements/reassignments in the Sandys era will illustrate the intent of the 57 DWP. Canberra interdictors replaced fighter-bombers in Germany and the Mid & Far East, home based Valiants replaced Canberras as SACEUR bombers, Hunters conversion were chosen over new build Gnats and Jet Provosts as fighters and fighter-recce for (ostensibly) EoS 'fighter' roles (ie those not undertaken by Canberra interdictors).
Although they were likely approved during his tenure, 50 Lightning F2s were not ordered until Sandys had left the MoD, and the TSR2 development project was started. These are the only 2 RAF combat aircraft procurements/projects of what can be considered long-term, although the Lightning was specifically acquired to cover the gap until the Red Duster SAM entered service in sufficient numbers. Everything else conforms to Sandys' statement in Parliament that replacement of manned combat aircraft will be a gradual (but definate) process.

 

[zen]

The F.177 was, of the two fighter programs cut in the '57 DWP, the one that was obviously intended to perform other roles.
See the relevent thread and brochure

This is presumably, along with being the FAA's only then projected supersonic fighter, the reason why it carried on briefly after the RAF order was cancelled.
Which is why Saro was still offering Germany such a variant more configured for such roles. Mainly by a change of engine to the RB.133 Avon variant and an improved wing.

Now we can debate till the cows come home on whether it would work as expected or be successfully adapted for such multirole operations. Or indeed remain viable as a jet only variation.
But this is the only other 'then' in-development at the time, option domestically.
It is the most likely, to be available for service by the early 60's of any new design.

Thus your options domestically in immediate shift to multirole (inclusive of Attack and possibly nuclear delivery) is the Lightning OR the F.177 in some variation.

Yes it is not the F4 and no one is saying it is.

To get closer to a F4, we'd have to discuss those last minute offerings from Saro (either a big single engine or two medium engines) and DH (which I don’t have any information on)

 

[uk 75]

I am content to let the F177 discussion lie. It is a classic Marmite plane. I will always hate it and prefer the Lightning and.P1154. But others see it as a viable programme.
As I have consistently argued Lightning and P1154 were reasonable answers to the roles needed by the RAF in the late 1960s and early 70s.
Using the BS100 in STOL mode rather than VSTOL would have given the RAF a plane as good as and possibly better than Jaguar.
That said by 1966 there is a good case for giving the RAF Phantoms in both roles. But AFVG offers a national or at least European solution which I would have pressed ahead with

 

[uk 75]

Bloodhound 2 is as good as Nike Hercules and a lot easier to deploy. There should have been more of them with improvements made similar to those with Nike and Hawk.
Blue Envoy takes you into Nike Zeus territory. It could have been built but how many could have been deployed in service?

 

[Rule of cool]

I am content to let the F177 discussion lie. It is a classic Marmite plane. I will always hate it....

Nice!

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think it's technically possible for the British to build an aircraft similar to the Phantom that could enter service before 1965. The AIRPASS radar is pretty capable and has development potential, the 300 series Avon can make similar power to the J79 and by the late 50s the British could design a Mach 2 air-frame with good endurance. However I cannot conceive of a realistic path to get this hypothetical aircraft specified by the British Government.

And therein lies the rub.

British procurement politics is a particularly nasty mess.

 

[uk 75]

As so many members here are engineers or have worked in the aerospace industry it is natural for them to blame the politicians but I think as a former civil servant that industry and the users (RAF and RN) must also take a share of the responsibility.
In sum the users demanded too much from a single aircraft or weapon. Industry claimed it could meet their needs at a low price and then failed to deliver. Government failed to sort this mess out and then axed programmes rather than sort them out.
Despite this the V bombers and the Lightning did provide real metal into the 80s. Jaguar and Tornado then took up the job. Buccaneer was a lucky stroke for the RN who otherwise were pretty poorly served by Scimitar and Sea Vixen. Harrier probably should have been cancelled and more Jaguars deployed but then Sea Harrier would never have been.
Phantom was not necessary in UK service. Buccaneer and Jaguar had the strike and close air support roles covered plus Hawk could have been added. Lightning could have served alone into the 80s in UK and Germany and been replaced by Tornado (AFVG could have been a 70s Tornado if the Phantom had not been bought).

 

[Archibald]

Thinking about it, the twin-Spey P.1154 proposal was close from a Phantom.

 

[Rule of cool]

And therein lies the rub.

British procurement politics is a particularly nasty mess.

Britain also didn't have the luxury of their own family of X-planes, he cancellation of the Miles M.52 was a great loss to Britain. As the P1 was exceeding Mach 1 in level flight in the US the X2 was approaching Mach 3.

 

[Rule of cool]

Phantom was not necessary in UK service.

Not in the RAF, the RN needed it to replace the Sea Vixen with the cancellation of the SR.177. However, the big problem there was the promises of the Spey of 6-7kts better low speed performance didn't pan out in practice.

 

[uk 75]

I think Phantom was not the answer for the RN nor was CVA01. AFVG could have been with US supplied Crusaders filling the gap until these could enter service
More likely was a decision to go for ASW carriers in the 70s with a variant of 1154.

 

[pathology_doc]

AFVG could have been

Ah, yes,
AFVG
Anglo-FRENCH Variable Geometry.

Remind us of why that fell through.

 

[uk 75]

I always use AFVG to show how far BAC had come with its designs for the VG Fighter Striker.
I dont blame France for (quoting Monty Python and the Holy Grail) saying its very nice but we already got one (Mirage G).
But we screwed them back by forcing them to have their simple trainer upgraded into virtually a CTOL P1154 and then selling it to India instead of the Mirage F1. Oh and they then got lumbered with the Alpha Jet which the Germans turned into a replacement for VAK 191 and G91. Meanwhile we went back to what Hawker do best, simple well designed airframes and got the wonderful Hawk as sold to the US Navy and others.
But strip out the politics and AFVG is a lighter better Phantom able to operate from Clemenceau and Hermes. Well of course this is another paper plane but close enough to Mirage G and MRCA to be a practical proposition.
Of course had the RN not got us into a Phantom buy and P1154 was well underway for the RAF France might have also seen the merit of AFVG and got the ECAT they wanted in return with Jaguar.
I will never agree with those here who love the 50s Dan Dare planes but then I am also biased in favour of the swinging 60s.