Late 1950s UK Tactical Fighter

uk 75

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
5,744
Reaction score
5,639
Encouraged by the excellent threads on Tornado II and a Fantasy Lightning I am going to start one on a Tactical Fighter for the RAF in the late 1950s.
No politics, just a Schneider Trophy style competition with no holes barred and a juicy Spitfire style winner.
My own preference is for something based on the P1121. Hawkers are far and away the most successful airframe designer this country had in the postwar period (Hunter, Harrier, Hawk).
Systems can be fitted to beef it up and there is room under the wings and fuselage for decent armament.
In comparison Lightning is difficult to fit with weapons and radar as well as thirsty and difficult to maintain.
Delta wing aircraft may make good fighters or bombers but the swept wing has a number of advantages for tactical fighters (VG is too complicated at this stage).
Well I have set up the sketchpad ..
 
Interesting to see where this Late 1950's UK Tactical Fighter goes UK 75.

As much as you give your preference something based on the Hawker P1121, IMO, the P1121's size, weight and the all important then psychological obsession with the need and want for supersonic speed seems to have obviously pre-empted complexity = a costly design in terms of research, development and operating if it enters operational service. Hence these attributes realistically contributed to so so many of these British programs to be cancelled, let alone exportability potential.

Saying this, I'm hoping for some consideration to a design that might just exceed Mach 1 vs something in the park of trying to push Mach 2 capability. After all from all I've read, the obsession with the supposed need and want of Mach 2-like speed parameters was realistically unattainable and seldom used for the vast majority of the said Mach 2 designs - especially when the realities of aerial warfare quickly culminated on not dropping/delivering a single nuclear bomb, but multiple conventional bombs, rockets and missiles, usually over a greater distance, requiring external drop tanks to achieve the desired range or to compensate for the high drag of multiple bombs, rickets and missiles.

Hence I'm probably thinking along the lines of a more aerodynamic Blackburn Buccaneer-like design or a more aerodynamic Sud-Ouest Aviation (SNCASO) S.O. 4050 Vautour II-like design.....

Anyhow, just my thoughts and good luck with a good and productive thread mate.

Regards
Pioneer
 
The main requirement is to provide a platform for a cannon, rocket pods, various bombs to support ground forces anywhere in the world, but with West Germany as the main theatre.
To be a strike fighter, the aircraft will also need to have radar and a range of AAMs suitable to allow some aircraft in a flight to tackle fighters while the others attack.
 
uk 75 said:
The main requirement is to provide a platform for a cannon, rocket pods, various bombs to support ground forces anywhere in the world, but with West Germany as the main theatre.
To be a strike fighter, the aircraft will also need to have radar and a range of AAMs suitable to allow some aircraft in a flight to tackle fighters while the others attack.
Click to expand...
In which case, I'm thinking a two-engine design, what with the reliability concerns of the earlier turbojets and battlefield redundancy....

Regards
Pioneer
 
P1154 without the VSTOL was the correct choice for the Hunter replacement. But if an engine (Medway, Spey) could be found for the P1121 it can do much of the P1154 requirement.
There is inevitably some overlap between a Hunter and a Canberra replacement. P1154 was originally supposed to carry US nukes in W Germany.
What you might call a high end tactical fighter is closer to Buccaneer+/F105 Thunderchief than P1154/1121.
I tend toward the 1121 end but am influenced by the unhappy TSR2/P1154 saga.
 
What's your date for this? Design in the late 50s rather than in service then?

So a bit earlier than1154 and VSTOL
 
I am happy to look at a range of options:

Either in service like the Lightning

Or in service early 60s

The idea is to allow competition between both actual designs that were considered but also imaginary ones like the Tornado II thread

I have kept the requirements loose to focus on ideas and schemes rather than get bogged down in how many ac, which squadrons etc
 
Wasn't the light low to medium level attack aircraft competition won by Fiat?
And Etendard had it's genesis in this too?

On a UK technical sense, the answer before 1957 was very likely the F.177 and briefly after as that program stuttered on until it too was scrapped.
 
Last edited:
uk75#6. US nukes on P.1154: R.Moore,Nuc Illusion, Nuc Reality,P.219: (Plan,7/11/62): "A bewildering number of WE177 delivery options"(inc.OR.356 to be P.1154/RAF). The US Custodials issue prevented dispersal off-Main Base, hence F-104G ZELL dispersed on perimeter.

What UK actually did to avoid spending $ and jobs on F-100, F-4 was to upgrade capital-subsidised Hunters and Canberras to bridge to a supersonic multirole type, so complex that few would be ready for iron Sortie No.1, rather fewer for AW No.2. Sir Sydney Camm's A to your Q, was to mourn P.1121, after 4/57 rejection, as “the lost UK Phantom”. He could have tried to do as Northrop did when they knew better than DoD what USAF wanted: built a couple PV. Instead he did a very sensible thing and addressed a niche neglected by DoD: subsonic, V/STOL, and buzzed USAFE bases, snowbound, winter '61/62, to tease with what they lacked.

It was Release Authority in dispersal that dished AW V/STOL and confined low payload-range Land Harrier to a niche RAF function. So...more grunt, sooner please, than GR9, opnl 9/06.

HSAL 20/11/61assembled a Team to build P.1154 bid 15/11/61 for NBMR.3:Bréguet/Fokker/Focke-Wulf/Av.Fairey/SABCA/Republic. UK had secured 50% DoD contribution (6/61-12/63) to Plenum Chamber Burning for BS.100, to address the payload/ range issue. (Bristol Aero-Engines had secured 75% DoD contribution 20/6/58 for (to be) Pegasus for P.1127).

NBMR.3, supersonic, fell apart with 2 "winners", P.1154 and Mirage IIIV, so was split, early-62: NBMR.3b subsonic, HS+Focke-Wulf bidding P.1163/HS1170 (P.1127variant) as VAK191A. That too, collapsed, FRG+Italy going alone, awhile, on VFW/FIAT VAK191B.

USArmy interest in P.1127 (they would be in Kestrel Tripartite Evaluation Sqn, 15/11/64-11/65), led to Northrop P.1127D licence 1/63: that lapsed as USAF kept Army boots firmly under rotors.

So, there is your A to UK's lost Tactical Fighter opportunity: 20,000lb Pegasus in 1965 P.1170, iron stores, with some of the kit that did drift onto Harriers as their grunt grew.
 
Last edited:
Getting some interesting ideas and info.
One reason I started this thread was to look at the purely technical options for planes like Avro 720 and F177.
Same is true for the unbuilt UK missiles to arm them.
With the politics removed let's look at the up and down sides of the technology.
But also like Alertken some alternatives to P1154.
 
I think there is quite some difference between 300nm and 1,000nm and between using dumb rockets, bombs and cannon, and the use of guided missiles.
In much the same way as there is by traditional navigation and flight against the use of complex avionics.
 
Like I said, I am open to looking at all options.
It is in the nature of the problem that we have every solution from re-tread Hunters to Fairey Deltas of varying sizes.
If you think a high end spec is a good answer for the late 50s early 60s this thread is intended to look at them and justify them.
 
There's a conundrum!

At the time ever more complicated solutions were felt to be the answer if facing substantial modern defences.
An example is supersonic speed, since as aircraft pushed upto the transonic regime AAA and the firing solution computers simply couldn't deal with the targets.

Frankly 600kts put RN Gunnery out of business in some embarrassing exercises against Buccaneers during the 60's. Which considering this had already been extensively debated in the RN during the 50's and concluded missiles were needed only made it more embarrassing.
 
Depending on the height and terrain I suspect agility and smaller size can become an advantage over speed.
Low level missiles do not emerge in quantity until the late 60s so various guns are the issue in ground attack.

Apart from US and industrial western nations I am not sure how good fighter pilots were in 1962 even if given shiny new jets.
 
I think it's why the Gnat was chosen by some and why Yugoslavia and Romania developed the Orao.

That said the SAAF used Buccaneers very effectively in their wars and Pilots again felt a desire for some cannon. Not exactly a small plane....
 
India actually used its Gnats in combat too
 
Okay, what should a tactical fighter be able to do in the late 1950s? My thinking, in rough order of priority for the RAF, is:
  1. Interception - armament of at least four modern all-aspect missiles, an all-weather fire control system, and Mach 2 speed.
  2. Medium-range nuclear strike - carry a Red Beard or equivalent to a range of several hundred miles.
  3. Tactical reconnaissance - night and day photoreconnaissance, possibly side-looking radar and/or IR depending on capability.
  4. Ground attack - high explosive bombs and rockets for low-intensity conflict, primarily East of Suez. Four 1,000-lb bombs minimum, six desirable, or equivalent rockets. Cannon a nice-to-have.
  5. Air superiority - decent manoeuvrability, armament (missiles or cannon) capable of engaging enemy fighters.
Ideally, this would be a common aircraft for the RAF and the FAA. For the latter, the priorities are probably 1, 5, 4, in that order.

The gold plated combination of features would probably resemble an RAF Phantom, armed with Red Top/Blue Dolphin (minimum four, ideally six) and a pair of 30mm ADENs. Fire control is likely a big-dish AI.23 with CW illumination, with a back-seater for true all-weather capability. Power is probably two Avons, though a single big engine (Olympus/Gyron) might do the job. I suspect that reconnaissance will be a dedicated Mark at this point.

Ideally, I'd like this to be entering service on the Lightning timeline, - either procured in place of, or running alongside. This really needs the project to go out to tender in 1953 or so. The easiest route is to issue a new requirement for a Mach 2 all-weather fighter in place of F.23/49 Issue 2, and put it to competitive tender. That matches both the Lightning and the F-4 timelines, and is likely to give a first flight prior to the 1957 Defence White Paper.

I'd expect the tenders to include
  • Something from English Electric drawing on the P.1. The big dish probably pushes it to side intakes.
  • Something from Hawker that will look a bit like a P.1121 if you squint.
  • Some kind of evolved Scimitar from Vickers Supermarine.
And probably others. It's likely that most of them will have all the aesthetic charms of a brick with the corners smoothed off. There will be a planning figure of up to 500 to equip the RAF and FAA. The real figure will certainly be a lot lower - possibly as low as 200, between high cost and evolving requirements. Export sales will be disappointing to non-existent.
 
Tactical is a pretty loose term and covers a wide spectrum.

Arguably a twin seater radar with long-range AAMs equipped fighter is more an Area Defence System.

So let's park that to one side for the moment....

While a true Tactical Fighter is something able to rapidly support the Army with bombs, rockets and cannon. Spending a lot of time circling around at low level identify and prosecute targets to attack.

It's chief risk is enemy fighters coming in to swat them and so cannon and short-range AAMs is all it needs, coupled with a modest radar.

So beyond the Hunter we're talking acceleration, turning ability, visibility out the cockpit would all be critical features.
A burst of supersonic speed especially for nuclear weapon delivery, would be ideal.

This would be relatively cheap and cheerful. Arguably good rough/short field operations.

Arguably Brough produced as a backup to P.1127 just such a design in the late 60's.
But earlier we're lacking this outside of the various Gnat mk2 mk4 and mk5 studies.
Avro did try to interest the RAF in something similar....
 
zen said:
Arguably a twin seater radar with long-range AAMs equipped fighter is more an Area Defence System.
Click to expand...
Yep, and that's how the RAF would view it, which is why such an aircraft couldn't be procured by the UK in this timeframe. There's also the fundamental lack of clarity about what a 'tactical fighter' is. Anything from an F-111 down to a Gnat can have that name attached to it.
 
Which is why it's better to divide by terminology of
BAI (Battlefield Air Interdiction)
CAS (Combat Air Support)
MRI (Medium Range Interdiction) LRI (Long Range Interdiction)

So BAI/CAS favours rapid response close to the Forward Area of Battle, such as figures of 60nm. Which is inside the range of tactical ballistic missiles.
But at 600kts your response by BAI/CAS aircraft is 10 minutes away.
MRI is between 200nm to 300nm, or say 30 minutes away.
LRI is 600nm to 900nm, so an hour to hour and a half away.
 
If money is not a problem (say, Americans are willing to bankroll it), I'd suggest the "British F-105".
If money is a point of concern, something like the shape and size of Jaguar, but with one Avon instead of two smaller turbofans.
 
Two engined plane designed by Hawker you say?
What about a spin-off of the 1121, the 1129. The ultimate version of the 1103-1121 evolution.
No cannon, but it could carry a pod on one of the hardpoints.
It can carry a nuclear bomb on the central hardpoint.
It also features a refueling probe.
 

Attachments

  • render_1129_007.jpg
    render_1129_007.jpg
    166.5 KB · Views: 20
  • render_1129_008.jpg
    render_1129_008.jpg
    136.5 KB · Views: 20
  • render_1129_009.jpg
    render_1129_009.jpg
    153.3 KB · Views: 20
uk 75 said:
Getting some interesting ideas and info.
One reason I started this thread was to look at the purely technical options for planes like Avro 720 and F177.
Same is true for the unbuilt UK missiles to arm them.
With the politics removed let's look at the up and down sides of the technology.
But also like Alertken some alternatives to P1154.
Click to expand...
I can well imagine that in the early 1960s people didn't think very complicated things and perhaps only thought of a fast jet plane with one or two machine guns. Such as the ADEN Mk.4 (30 mm). Since guided missiles were still in development. This means that the ADEN Mk.4 could become part of the specification for your aircraft.
 
Pioneer said:
In which case, I'm thinking a two-engine design, what with the reliability concerns of the earlier turbojets and battlefield redundancy....
Click to expand...
The F105 didn't have many issues with the engines.


======


Part of the problem is a structural one in the RAF. Bomber Command has nukes. Fighter Command is interceptors to protect the UK and the bombers (or vice-versa). Nobody is coordinating the various air forces needs for air support and interdiction to support the Army.
  • RAFG needs a plane that can carry instant sunshine in any weather.
  • NEAF needs a plane that is fast down on the deck, there's nothing to hide behind in the desert and the Soviets are starting to send out all their SPAAGs. Speed may help with this, to get in and out of AAA range sooner.
  • FEAF also needs all-weather delivery, and probably needs the largest payload weight/volume of conventional bombs.
  • (I thought there was a 4th air force, what was it? Overseas AF?)
And we want it to be able to fight MiG17/19/21s (MiG21 first flight was in 1955, introduced in 1959).

So, this plane will be somewhat complex due to the radars needed for all weather operation.
It will be somewhat big due to the bombload.
And it needs to be either high subsonic on the deck or ~M1.2. Maybe Mach 2 at altitude, but if all we get is M1.8 clean I'm not going to complain.
Two seats to run the radars.
4 missiles and gun(s).
~10,000lbs boom.

That's what I see the actual operational needs as being.
 
Scott Kenny said:
(I thought there was a 4th air force, what was it? Overseas AF?)
Click to expand...
Before 1961, there's Middle East Air Force. After 1961, there's Near East Air Force in Cyprus, and Middle East Command in Aden and the Persian Gulf. More or less. I think

One of the things I've been thinking might have made sense, probably as part of the 1957 White Paper, is reorganising the RAF into
  • Strategic Command, since the bombers are going to be replaced by missiles
  • Air Defence Command, since the fighters are going to be replaced by missiles
  • Tactical Command, since 2 TAF, NEAF, and FEAF are really operational headquarters that don't have the pull of a Command.
  • Maritime Command, since it's leaving the coast a long way behind. Maybe transfer it to the Navy; that was considered at the time. The RAF fought it on what amounted to the usual 'unity of air power' grounds.
Scott Kenny said:
That's what I see the actual operational needs as being.
Click to expand...
Which is more or less what I specified upthread; the key difficulty is, it needs to be ordered early enough to (a) be in service early enough and (b) not get cancelled in 1957. It'll be seen as too big and expensive for a Venom replacement, too short-ranged for a Canberra replacement, and not high enough performance as an interceptor.

Yes, we look at it and see a Phantom, which the RAF and FAA were falling over themselves to order in the 1960s, but there's no way to get the UK to build one itself in the 1950s.
 
Yellow Palace said:
Before 1961, there's Middle East Air Force. After 1961, there's Near East Air Force in Cyprus, and Middle East Command in Aden and the Persian Gulf. More or less. I think
Click to expand...
Thank you!



Yellow Palace said:
One of the things I've been thinking might have made sense, probably as part of the 1957 White Paper, is reorganising the RAF into
  • Strategic Command, since the bombers are going to be replaced by missiles
  • Air Defence Command, since the fighters are going to be replaced by missiles
  • Tactical Command, since 2 TAF, NEAF, and FEAF are really operational headquarters that don't have the pull of a Command.
  • Maritime Command, since it's leaving the coast a long way behind. Maybe transfer it to the Navy; that was considered at the time. The RAF fought it on what amounted to the usual 'unity of air power' grounds.
Click to expand...
Exactly the issue I'm seeing. Not enough pull to get a plane chosen for their needs.



Yellow Palace said:
Yes, we look at it and see a Phantom, which the RAF and FAA were falling over themselves to order in the 1960s, but there's no way to get the UK to build one itself in the 1950s.
Click to expand...
I'm seeing more F-105 than Phantom. Swipe the bombing systems from Buccaneer, add an air search radar to get pointed in the right direction for the (IR) AAMs. Yes, I'd like a SARH AAM but the UK wasn't really able to make one. At least not one you could carry with a fighter.
 
Is this why certain factions inside the RAF were talking to Camm about P.1121?
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm seeing more F-105 than Phantom. Swipe the bombing systems from Buccaneer, add an air search radar to get pointed in the right direction for the (IR) AAMs. Yes, I'd like a SARH AAM but the UK wasn't really able to make one. At least not one you could carry with a fighter.
Click to expand...
Somewhere between the two, I should think. Two crew, radar, and four big AAMs is getting on for Phantom sized, even if not quite Phantom capability.
 
Yellow Palace said:
Somewhere between the two, I should think. Two crew, radar, and four big AAMs is getting on for Phantom sized, even if not quite Phantom capability.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's got more AA capability than the F105, but not as much as Phantom. But in terms of overall size and capabilities, it's closer to F105 than it is to Phantom.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes, it's got more AA capability than the F105, but not as much as Phantom. But in terms of overall size and capabilities, it's closer to F105 than it is to Phantom.
Click to expand...
TBH there's a lot less size difference, in real terms, between an F-105 and a Phantom. The Lightning is in the same class - a bit shorter because of the nose intake, but otherwise surprisingly similar size to the Phantom and heavier than the F-105.

The difference, of course, is technology and design emphasis.
 
Yellow Palace said:
TBH there's a lot less size difference, in real terms, between an F-105 and a Phantom. The Lightning is in the same class - a bit shorter because of the nose intake, but otherwise surprisingly similar size to the Phantom and heavier than the F-105.

The difference, of course, is technology and design emphasis.
Click to expand...
Right. I'm thinking more "F105 with 4x Sparrows" than "F4 without Sidewinders"
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom