NATO VSTOL in the 60s

[uk 75]

Anyone, like me, interested in the saga of NATO vstol fighter-bomber projects in the 60s should get a copy of Chris Gibson's Typhoon to Typhoon. In fact anyone interested in our stuff should get this book.
It clears up a number of issues which had always puzzled me.

The Germans were keen to build a VSTOL replacement for the F104 Starfighter in its nuclear strike role and started with the VJ101C, a tilt engine jet similar to the Bell XF109. This then morphed into a jet lift version without tilt engines called VJ101D, that then vanishes in about 1964, turns into the VJ101E with lift engines and then is gone.

Thanks to Chris's book it is clear that the Germans and the French were trying to agree on a joint design, but as ever the might Dassault wanted it all his own way. So the Germans, having been told by the UK that we already have the P1154 which is just fine, turn to the US and embark on the super weird AVS/A400 with Boeing and then Fairchild Republic. By 1968 the UK and FRG have got over their fantasies (TSR2, P1154, AFVG, UKFVG, AVS, A400, NKF) and MRCA is born.

The Germans despite having been part of the Tripartite squadron with P1127 Kestrels seem believe that their solution to a light ground attack VSTOL fighter must have a lift jet as well as vectored thrust, so any joint RAF/Luftwaffe P1127 is a non starter. The Luftwaffe finally go for the cheapo option of replacing the G91 with a very similar conventional light fighter bomber in the Alpha Jet.

Meanwhile the Belgians and the Dutch were hoping that the Brits would produce another Hunter, only to find that P1154 was not likely to be in service till 1969/70.

Chris's book only deals in history and not what-ifs but a number of alternate historys present themselves.

If the RAF had recognised that what it needed to replace the Hunter was something more like Jaguar than P1154, perhaps by 1970, the Belgians, Germans, Dutch, and others plus the Germans might have been flying a Jaguar style aircraft.

Alternatively, P1154 could have survived if NATO had not (after the Cuban Missile Crisis) moved to Flexible Response. A flying P1154 in 1966 would have shown its advantages over the Mirage IIIV and VJ101. A European, possibly even US buy of this aircraft would have replaced the F104, F100 and Hunter/Canberra with NATO

 

[Archibald]

Ah sure the Mirage III-V and its nine freakkin' engines... it was a monstrosity.

 

[zen]

So for the P1154 "Harrier" this was certainly going to be flying by '66 had it continued. A prototype was in the jigs by end of '64 early '65.
Had the project not been delayed by conflicting demands of the RAF and RN, then this might have been further along....

As for alternatives I think we've been over them repeatedly.

 

[uk 75]

Zen Agree with your point about the alternatives (and in fact CG's book does mention a lot of them!) I was mainly interested in flagging up his interesting info on the VSTOL stuff.

 

[zen]

The critic of the P1127 was it's poor load/range when operating in VTOL mode.
Germany was literally the frontline of a potential WWIII and as such it's airfields would be subjected to the most heavy assault to close off defending airpower and counterstrike forces.

This is why Germany got so obsessed with VTOL, it was necessity!

I'd say the Alphajet was not so much a chosen system for Attack or Strike, as a Trainer that might suppliment real combat airpower.

 

[Archibald]

An often forgotten tidbit is that one of the Harrier fathers was Michel Wibault, and he tried to enlist his country circa 1956 57... before going British: he was binational. Had Breguet been in a better shape they could have joined the Harrier bandwagon and France along them. Dassault would be busy elsewhere and the III-V monstrosity wouldn't exist nor be missed...

 

[uk 75]

The Jaguar might instead have been an Anglo French vstol with BAC and no P1127/P1154 for Hawkers. Hawkers could have developed a two engined two seater derivative of P1121 to replace Javelins

 

[JohnR]

The Jaguar might instead have been an Anglo French vstol with BAC and no P1127/P1154 for Hawkers. Hawkers could have developed a two engined two seater derivative of P1121 to replace Javelins

P1129?

 

[uk 75]

Another old thread which new members might find amusing.

 

[Rule of cool]

VTOL is a bit of a moveable feast, the type of aircraft that is appropriate for a handful of sqns based in Europe as part of a much larger force is not appropriate to be the only sqn in a large VTOL fleet based somewhere like Africa for the Persian Gulf.

If the VTOL aircraft is going to be the/a centerpiece of the force structure like the P.1154 was planned to be then the demanding performance requirements, advanced avionics etc are a must so it doesn't get chopped up in the air. No point in surviving attacks on the ground only to be shot down after take off.

 

[Lascaris]

To turn the thread a bit on its head, how do you kill the requirement in its birth?

 

[Rule of cool]

To turn the thread a bit on its head, how do you kill the requirement in its birth?

Easy; decide to and start to equip the RAF with a CTOL fleet of high performance fighter-bombers with a planned fleet life of ~25 years in the 1957-59 time-frame, before the VTOL mania starts in about 1961.

 

[zen]

Well considering how the RAF tried to kill off the Buccaneer with talk about Scimitars being cheaper to develop....

Considering Scimitar was cleared for Red Beard TMB.

Considering that blow did deliver lower TO&L speeds....And more could be added to the design.

Considering that a prototype Type 556 was ordered in '54 to NA.38....

And considering that various 556 based twin seaters were offered....

And considering that supersonic Type 576 was applicable to extent production line...

The answer has always been right there. If you need MRI Strike delivery to 300nm.

 

[Lascaris]

Well considering how the RAF tried to kill off the Buccaneer with talk about Scimitars being cheaper to develop....

Considering Scimitar was cleared for Red Beard TMB.

Considering that blow did deliver lower TO&L speeds....And more could be added to the design.

Considering that a prototype Type 556 was ordered in '54 to NA.38....

And considering that various 556 based twin seaters were offered....

And considering that supersonic Type 576 was applicable to extent production line...

The answer has always been right there. If you need MRI Strike delivery to 300nm.

And all of that kill the NATO requirement exactly how? If NBMR-3 comes around, Britain and everyone else is all too likely to try to meet it.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Easy; decide to and start to equip the RAF with a CTOL fleet of high performance fighter-bombers with a planned fleet life of ~25 years in the 1957-59 time-frame, before the VTOL mania starts in about 1961.

This is definitely the sensible approach, IMO. I know you advocate the Lightning for this role; despite the assurances of English Electric, I'm sceptical that it was particularly viable. The PL1 multirole Lightning could carry three bombs, or two rocket pods - hardly the same league as the Venom it would replace, or the Hunter FGA.9 that filled the role IOTL.

Obvious alternatives are:

• A Fairey Delta 2 derivative, evolved into a kind of British Mirage, which was never seriously on the cards but is an idea with plenty of enthusiasts.
• A Saunders-Roe SR.177 derivative, if that can somehow be got past the 1957 Defence White Paper - the German interest in a strike fighter helps here
• Work some kind of miracle to turn the Scimitar into a high-performance fighter-bomber. I reckon there's one hiding in there somewhere, but that's just me.
• The Hawker P.1121, if one puts any faith in the June 1956 brochure's estimates that a prototype could fly in April 1958 and the first aircraft be delivered to the RAF in December 1958.

Any way you cut it, you're trying to make the best of a bad bunch.

I'm partial to the P.1121 myself; it's easy to see an interceptor version in place of the Lightning, a fighter-bomber in place of the FGA.9, and a fighter-reconnaissance version in place of the FR.10. That really requires someone to make a call in early-to-mid 1956 that the Lightning has limited growth potential, the Hunter none at all, and that a more capable aircraft is needed. Although per the Hunter replacement thread, it's entirely possible that Sandys would have gone along with that.

It does also need someone to be willing to pay to pave the runways at Riyadh and Masirah. Probably get the same team to extend the runways in East Africa for airliners. That way the RAF can have sensible fighters, and BOAC can have sensible airliners.

 

[Yellow Palace]

And all of that kill the NATO requirement exactly how? If NBMR-3 comes around, Britain and everyone else is all too likely to try to meet it.

It doesn't kill the NATO requirement, but it does massively reduce its significance. Everyone else with an aviation industry messed around with NBMR.3, but wound up not doing anything with it. The UK made a large part of its future combat aircraft fleet dependent on the P.1154 project, so when it didn't work out they were scrambling for a solution.

If the NATO V/STOL strike fighter remains a novelty, its failure to go anywhere doesn't really cause anyone any difficulties.

 

[uk 75]

The great fear in the late 50s and 60s was the growing range of Soviet missiles aimed at airbases in Western Europe.
The response was tactical fighters armed with US supplied nukes (or British ones for the RAF) that could launch before they were taken out from dispersed sites. France got in on the act too.
By the mid 60s it was clear that "flexible response" would allow some days of conventional war in which airfields could still function. The Israeli attack in Egypt and Syria in 1967 led to hardened aircraft shelters.
Apart from the RAF Harriers and Germany"s G91 and Alpha Jet Autobahn tac fighters everything else went back to CTOL.
Changing the NATO NMBR on VSTOL would need Berlin and Cuba crises in 1957 or so rather than 1961/2.

 

[uk 75]

P1154 is a bit like the VC10. As you say once you build decent runways 707s and Phantoms make a lot more sense.
Reminds me of the story about the Russian response to the NASA pen that could write in zero G.

 

[zen]

And all of that kill the NATO requirement exactly how? If NBMR-3 comes around, Britain and everyone else is all too likely to try to meet it.

1.It can predate NMBR.3 to obviate any need unless persuaded, that a winning system is indeed purchased by NATO members.
Meanwhile the tactical development of MRI for such machines can be developed with a conventional system.

2. It allows an affordable solution once NMBR.3 has 'joint' winners and proves a pointless exercise.
3. It allows a more leisurely pace for something like P.1154, which would obviously focus on proving the PCB reheat system.
As this increasingly proves more demanding of both TO&L and landing surfaces, either it would be dropped or more achievable requirements written.

some kind of miracle to turn the Scimitar into a high-performance fighter-bomber.

As is, Scimitar could tote some 10,000lb of bombs if operated from airfields. Certainly 500lb, 1,000lb and potentially 2,000lb bombs.
Carried four 30mm ADEN cannon.
Rocket pods.
Cleared for Red Beard.
Integrated Bulpup ASM.
Integrated Sidewinder.
It could certainly do 650kts at Sea level with weapons.

A more developed existing airframe FG(A) mkII might tote Firestreak/Red Top, AS.30 and WE.177

Type 556 and various other side-by-side seater options, could potentially fulfill a lot of N/A.39 (as the RAF was so keen to point out).
Could intigrate SARH AAMs
Could Integrate AS.37 Martel

Type 576 hits Mach 1.6 to 1.8, a climb rate similar to the F4 and more potential to take SARH AAMs than Lightning.
Including the supposedly vaunted Sparrow III....

The Hawker P.1121, if one puts any faith in the June 1956 brochure's estimates that a prototype could fly in April 1958 and the first aircraft be delivered to the RAF in December 1958.

I'd prefer to fund P.1103 from '55 and push this instead of Thin Wing Javelin. Push for IOC in '58 and tack on various G(A)R capability instead of pointless late production Hunters.

 

[Rule of cool]

I still like the P1127 for the RAF (and USMC), but as a low-cost(ish), low-impact, niche aircraft in ~4sqns to compliment the ~16 sqns of Lightning fighters and fighter-bombers and ~10 sqns of TSR2. It still gives the RAF that STOVL and dedicated ground attack capability but without the excessive cost of ~8 sqns P1154 and the dominance of the force structure and budget it would have created.

 

[red admiral]

The Hawker P.1121, if one puts any faith in the June 1956 brochure's estimates that a prototype could fly in April 1958 and the first aircraft be delivered to the RAF in December 1958.

So in service before the Lightning F.1. Feels pretty optimistic. Easy to add another year or two onto that, but still pretty limited difference to Lightning coming into service.

I'm partial to the P.1121 myself; it's easy to see an interceptor version in place of the Lightning, a fighter-bomber in place of the FGA.9, and a fighter-reconnaissance version in place of the FR.10. That really requires someone to make a call in early-to-mid 1956 that the Lightning has limited growth potential, the Hunter none at all, and that a more capable aircraft is needed. Although per the Hunter replacement thread, it's entirely possible that Sandys would have gone along with that.

I think for me it's more the force size / structure impact from being able to afford to buy and operate more aircraft that are good enough, and flexible enough, across multiple roles, and have longer term development potential.

Another option would be going down the Hunter development route earlier in the 60s to the likes of P.1100, P.1109 etc. and have these instead of the FGA.9s, where they're still fairly cheap but would offer more in the tactical fighter bomber space in the 60s and 70s.

To turn the thread a bit on its head, how do you kill the requirement in its birth?

Being runway independent is a "good idea" so there will always be interest. I'd probably use the technical viability axis to kill off e.g. no Bristol Orpheus means no Pegasus. If it was a bit heavier or lower thrust then the margin evaporates and people put less money and effort into it

 

[Scott Kenny]

It does also need someone to be willing to pay to pave the runways at Riyadh and Masirah. Probably get the same team to extend the runways in East Africa for airliners. That way the RAF can have sensible fighters, and BOAC can have sensible airliners.

"Hey, we need to do some major training exercises for the Royal Engineers. USA? We challenge your Seabees to a series of runway build-offs. Parallel runways to be installed at the following locations: Riyadh, Masirah, Kenya, (etc)"

 

[Yellow Palace]

"Hey, we need to do some major training exercises for the Royal Engineers. USA? We challenge your Seabees to a series of runway build-offs. Parallel runways to be installed at the following locations: Riyadh, Masirah, Kenya, (etc)"

Oddly enough, in the time period in question (pre-1966) it would probably have been the RAF Airfield Construction Branch. The setup seems to have been that the RAF built the runways, taxiways, etc., and the Royal Engineers built roadways, accommodation blocks, and other non-aviation infrastructure.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Oddly enough, in the time period in question (pre-1966) it would probably have been the RAF Airfield Construction Branch. The setup seems to have been that the RAF built the runways, taxiways, etc., and the Royal Engineers built roadways, accommodation blocks, and other non-aviation infrastructure.

I'm really surprised that the RAF had their own engineer branch like that.

 

[Rule of cool]

Even the RAAF has Airfield Construction units in the Cold War. 5th Airfield Construction Squadron was very busy in the Cold War, building the 13,000' runway and base at Darwin, 9,000' runway and base at Tindal (far enough inland to be immune from Cyclones) as well as RAAF facilities in Malaysia, Thailand and South Vietnam. RAAF aircraft were attacked destroyed on the ground in Vietnam, this is where even simple oil drums full of dirt are handy.

To bring this back to VTOL, the alternative was to build HAS at NATO airbases from 1968 and the USAF undertook a progamme to arrange companion airfields in Europe, to double those it could operate from.