Making the aircraft smaller would not have changed things too much. The UK just didn't have the budget to pay for development and production of a new generation of gear across all the force element groups. Something had to give and in the case of the 1960s it was aircraft development and carrier production programs.uk 75 said:One of the things that comes out clearly from this thread and others is that the UK was far too
ambitious with its limited resources in the period 1960 to 1970.
Full area ruling, new wing, undercarriage retracting into fuselage allowing for wing fuel tanks and much more fuel. It would also of had a larger radar scanner (27 instead of 24 inches). Wing tip missile pylons.Hammer Birchgrove said:What are the differences between EE P.8 and Lightning?
Merge the two sentences together and you've hit the nail on the head! The TSR.2/P1154/HS681 all to a greater or lesser extent required the invention of new technology, particularly in avionics and propulsion and manufacturing methods. The government defined requirements that necessitated technology that did not exist (even in the USA and USSR) and then didn't have the money to pay for the research and development. There are lots of incidents and anecdotes of poor projecft management and the iniability to get a broad base of military and politcal support behind projects, but these are a side show to the goivernemnt wantint the moon on a stick!!sealordlawrence said:There are a multitude of problems that undermine the UK procurement programme, over-ambition being just one of them.
Even trying to pin the problems with TSR-2 to anyone area is impossible.
That's true, it did leave the ground under it's own power, but was not able to achieve it's operational mission. The navigation computer was years away from working. The working mockup of the Elliots/Verdun system was too big to fit in a plane, and if used, every time the plane would have passed a waypoint the system would have gone blank for several seconds (several miles at supersonic speeds) whilst the next leg was loaded.)royabulgaf said:but the TSR.2 was flying,
And there come Great Britain old nemesis - France !What emerges is that a straightforward Jaguar sized aircraft to replace a variety of aircraft in RAF and RN service from about 1968 would have been a better bet than the over elaborate HS 1154 and the various BAC/Vickers swing wing designs. One could argue that even the 1127 RAF was a dead end as it took up valuable resources which could have been used to procure more tactical strike or close air support aircraft with better payload and other capabilities.
Nope they wanted a valid fighter for defence of the Fleet, after the Soviets show new anti-ship missiles, circa 1963. Range and speed of the weapons make SeaVixen far too marginal even with AEW. Upgrades might have changed that, but the basic platform was too slow.RN wanted real F-4K, not paper swingers.
What were they going to wait for? After P.1154 the only things that were going to be in service before 1970 were a Crusader or a Phantom- swing-wing Vickers designs look great as line drawings but in 1964 (when the Phantom FG1 was ordered), even if they had been funded were probably still ten years away from flying in anything near an operation configuration. As for Phantom cost overruns, sure it went over estimate- do you really think Vickers swing-wing would not have?zen said:Nope they wanted a valid fighter for defence of the Fleet, after the Soviets show new anti-ship missiles, circa 1963. Range and speed of the weapons make SeaVixen far too marginal even with AEW. Upgrades might have changed that, but the basic platform was too slow.
Hence they look at Crusader but prefer Phantom (two engines, better Attack capability) and why they don't wait for anything else.
P1154 would look like an expensive Crusader. They had it forced on them.
F4K is sold as quick and cheap. They had no idea of the delays and peformance drop that could occure, though on straight line speed, the cockpit transparency is thermaly limited such as Mach 2 flight requires the piece to be replaced. That comes from an USN F4 pilot, they were'nt permitted to go over Mach 1.8 unless it was either time to get a new windscreen anyway or they where in a hot war.
Spey was necessary for the Ark Royal and Eagle, USN F4s did cross deck but where highly weight limited, especialy for launch. CVA-01 with longer stroke catapults would've not needed them and could manage with J79 powered versions.
Do remeber how much the costs of F4K increased from sales blurb, to final product.
Suddenly your calling them competant?What were they going to wait for?
Where did I say it would be any cheaper?As for Phantom cost overruns, sure it went over estimate- do you really think Vickers swing-wing would not have?
Forced as in circumstances, not government meddling as with P1154.The Phantom was not "forced" on the RN, it was simply the best option available. Unless you have a source saying it was forced?
In selecting the F-4, most certainly.zen said:Suddenly your calling them competant?
A warm drink and an early night may be appropriate.On this thread perhaps? If its here quote me.
By which definition every aircraft ever procured was forced, aircraft are not designed or acquired in vacuums, they are the product of circumstance- just with variances in weightings to particular circumstances.Forced as in circumstances, not government meddling as with P1154.
Well for the RN it may well have made sense, but then the requirements to operate it helped to end the FAA's possesion of it as it did the RN of its CATOBAR carrier fleet.In selecting the F-4, most certainly.
I looked for where on this thread I might have suggested any of the VG 'paper planes' (since we're now using derogatory language towards the UK aviation firms and their efforts) and strangely enough I can't find an instance of it.A warm drink and an early night may be appropriate.
I fail to see why we're going over this ground again sealordlawrence. The facts are the Soviets display new anti-ship missiles in 1963 and the conclusion is that Vixen won't 'cut it'. RN have no time to wait for 'paper planes', even if they had the money (which they did'nt). So they have to choose between the F8 and F4. They choose the F4 and price and capability is why.By which definition every aircraft ever procured was forced, aircraft are not designed or acquired in vacuums, they are the product of circumstance- just with variances in weightings to particular circumstances.
No more so than any other factor. Th RN would have lost its CATOBAR fleet with or without the F-4.zen said:Well for the RN it may well have made sense, but then the requirements to operate it helped to end the FAA's possesion of it as it did the RN of its CATOBAR carrier fleet.
Only if one is remarkably easily offended.Rather insulting to come up with such a glib remark, sealordlawrence,
And? How does this make it any more or less forced than any other aircraft ever acquired by the RN/RAF?I fail to see why we're going over this ground again sealordlawrence. The facts are the Soviets display new anti-ship missiles in 1963 and the conclusion is that Vixen won't 'cut it'. RN have no time to wait for 'paper planes', even if they had the money (which they did'nt). So they have to choose between the F8 and F4. They choose the F4 and price and capability is why.
That it turns out late and overbudget is also fact, and from a rough figure of 1.2 million per plane at the start, they end up paying about 3 million per plane. Had they known that and the eventual cost to the CV fleet, they might have chosen the F8
P1154 was not what the RN wanted, especialy if it detracted from what they thought they ought to be focusing on.
What about this do you so disagree with?
Do you now have perhaps, records from the periode that contradict this?
In a similar timeframe, the RAN are looking at F4s from a modernised Essex and the French are selecting the F8. If memory serves the RCN drop the fighters from Bonnie in this periode too.
Nobody is denying anything was a factor- but the carriers would have gone whether they were flying Phantoms or not.zen said:Its a factor, just one of many. Denying its a factor is no better than overblowing its importance.
Neither.Your still insulting, is it deliberate, or are you just blundering on?
Right here:Where did I say the RN did'nt want the F4?
I seem to recall seeing in the P.1154 files at Kew mention of a possible Spey F-8 to meet 'bolter' needs. I doubt it went far (and only one engine vs. two, so RR would prefer the Spey F-4!).Standard F-8, presumably, was assumed to have practical issues (yes, I know FN resolved that, but somewhat later). So it was F-4K or nothing.
To qoute yourself "Nope", but based on your rather detailed self justification I would suggest that you are. Perhaps ken should also have stated that the RN did not want the Phantom in 1940? or 2010? or 1805?zen said:sealordlawrence your rather reading a lot into a snappy retort to a sloppy statement.