RAF without Jaguar

[1635yankee]

"More Buccaneers" is probably a good answer to "we need attack aircraft but don't want Jaguars"; the question may well be "the Treasury won't let us buy Jaguars; what can we get that's cheaper and, preferably, domestic?"

Buccaneers may be the best answer, but the Treasury's answer might be "Strikemaster," which would be horrible.

 

[GTX]

Northrup F5 of any flavour isn't upto it.

And yet a quick side-by-side comparison would imply otherwise:

	Sepecat Jaguar	Northrop F-5E
Powerplant	2 x RR-Turbomeca Adour Mk.102 giving total thrust of 10,220 ibf (dry)/14,600 lbf (afterburner)	2 x J85-GE-21 giving total thrust of 7000 lbf (dry)/10,000 lby (afterburner)
Gross weight	10,954kg	7,142 kg
Max Speed @ altitude	1,669 km/hr (Mach 1.6) at 36,000ft	1,741 km/hr (Mach 1.63) at 36,000ft
Thrust/Weight	0.422	0.4
Service Ceiling	46,000 ft	51,800 ft
Ferry Range	3,524 km (with full internal/external tanks)	3,720 km
Combat Radius with typical weapons load	908 km	1055 km
Take off Run	580 m	610 m
Sensors	Generally laser ranger/marked target seeker	A2A Radar later upgradeable
Weapons	2 x 30mm cannon 4500kg bombs/missiles	2 x 20mm cannon 3200 kg bombs/missiles

Now, I am not saying that the F-5 would be exactly equal to the Jaguar but it is remarkable how close they are and, as I said earlier, if the British and French went with the original requirement of the advanced trainer (field by T-38) with light attack capability (satisfied by F-5 for commonality), one could easily see this happen.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Was it actually feasible to fit updated avionics in Buccaneer without massively expensive rebuilds? There was very little space in the nose or rear fuselage avionic compartments. Wasn't this one of the reasons why all those Buccaneer developments had 1ft or more fuselage stretches? The Buccaneer testbeds with Tornado radars had the bomb bay entirely full with their avionics. So when you've then added ECM pod and chaff/flare pod under wing, you're then left with two external pylons for either fuel tanks or weapons.

Depends on just how much smaller the newer electronics were.

Testbeds are going to use a very large/space inefficient packaging for the system, always.

 

[zen]

Northrup F5 of any flavour isn't upto it.

And yet a quick side-by-side comparison would imply otherwise:

	Sepecat Jaguar	Northrop F-5E
Powerplant	2 x RR-Turbomeca Adour Mk.102 giving total thrust of 10,220 ibf (dry)/14,600 lbf (afterburner)	2 x J85-GE-21 giving total thrust of 7000 lbf (dry)/10,000 lby (afterburner)
Gross weight	10,954kg	7,142 kg
Max Speed @ altitude	1,669 km/hr (Mach 1.6) at 36,000ft	1,741 km/hr (Mach 1.63) at 36,000ft
Thrust/Weight	0.422	0.4
Service Ceiling	46,000 ft	51,800 ft
Ferry Range	3,524 km (with full internal/external tanks)	3,720 km
Combat Radius with typical weapons load	908 km	1055 km
Take off Run	580 m	610 m
Sensors	Generally laser ranger/marked target seeker	A2A Radar later upgradeable
Weapons	2 x 30mm cannon 4500kg bombs/missiles	2 x 20mm cannon 3200 kg bombs/missiles

Now, I am not saying that the F-5 would be exactly equal to the Jaguar but it is remarkable how close they are and, as I said earlier, if the British and French went with the original requirement of the advanced trainer (field by T-38) with light attack capability (satisfied by F-5 for commonality), one could easily see this happen.

What is "typical weapons load" for each aircraft?

 

[zen]

"More Buccaneers" is probably a good answer to "we need attack aircraft but don't want Jaguars"; the question may well be "the Treasury won't let us buy Jaguars; what can we get that's cheaper and, preferably, domestic?"

Buccaneers may be the best answer, but the Treasury's answer might be "Strikemaster," which would be horrible.

No I don't see Strikemaster getting Jaguar avionics and being cleared for WE.177 release.

Whereas Buccaneer is already cleared.

 

[GTX]

What is "typical weapons load" for each aircraft?

For F-5E: 2 x AIM-9 - minimal but what I could find
For Jaguar: Unknown.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Jaguar has better payload/range capability than F-5E, and an even larger margin over the F-5A. It helped the UK out with a decent strike capability before MRCA came along.

T-38 + F-5 is probably a better answer to the original requirement however.

 

[kaiserbill]

Was it actually feasible to fit updated avionics in Buccaneer without massively expensive rebuilds? There was very little space in the nose or rear fuselage avionic compartments. Wasn't this one of the reasons why all those Buccaneer developments had 1ft or more fuselage stretches? The Buccaneer testbeds with Tornado radars had the bomb bay entirely full with their avionics. So when you've then added ECM pod and chaff/flare pod under wing, you're then left with two external pylons for either fuel tanks or weapons.

Depends on just how much smaller the newer electronics were.

Testbeds are going to use a very large/space inefficient packaging for the system, always.

Exactly.
Testbeds also have testing avionics and electronics needed to record and validate what is being tested.
The Buccaneer was a natural platform to this with the Tornado avionics, as it's internal bomb bay would provide the space needed.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What is "typical weapons load" for each aircraft?

F-5E: 2x 20x102mm M39A1 with 280rds/gun, AIM-9s on the wingtips, 570/1040L drop tank on the centerline, and 4x 1500lb ish rated pylons under wing. The inner wing pylons were also plumbed for fuel tanks if you needed the ferry range or loiter time. Thai AF even put 2x GPU-5A 30mm gun pods on theirs. Total payload of 7klbs.

Jaguar: 2x 30x113mm ADEN or DEFA with 150rds/gun, drop tank or ECM or targeting pod on centerline, 4x under wing pylons. Total payload of 10klbs. (the overwing pylons weren't added until the 1990s)

Hrm. Jaguar has better guns, but loses 4000lbs of payload to carry any sidewinders for self protection, and another 2000lbs for a centerline drop tank. Jaguar's typical bomb load would be about 4000lbs, while the F-5E's is more like 6000lbs. Difference being that the Jaguar could carry 2000lb bombs while the F-5E could only carry 1000lbers.

 

[EwenS]

Jaguar could be fitted with overwing pylons to carry Sidewinder or Matra 550 AAM. The RAF adopted it after Gulf War I but IIRC it had been available on Jaguar International for quite some time before that.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

What is "typical weapons load" for each aircraft?

F-5E: 2x 20x102mm M39A1 with 280rds/gun, AIM-9s on the wingtips, 570/1040L drop tank on the centerline, and 4x 1500lb ish rated pylons under wing. The inner wing pylons were also plumbed for fuel tanks if you needed the ferry range or loiter time. Thai AF even put 2x GPU-5A 30mm gun pods on theirs. Total payload of 7klbs.

Jaguar: 2x 30x113mm ADEN or DEFA with 150rds/gun, drop tank or ECM or targeting pod on centerline, 4x under wing pylons. Total payload of 10klbs. (the overwing pylons weren't added until the 1990s)

Hrm. Jaguar has better guns, but loses 4000lbs of payload to carry any sidewinders for self protection, and another 2000lbs for a centerline drop tank. Jaguar's typical bomb load would be about 4000lbs, while the F-5E's is more like 6000lbs. Difference being that the Jaguar could carry 2000lb bombs while the F-5E could only carry 1000lbers.

In the real world, the F-5E max payload is 7000lb, the 275 gallon / 1040L drop tank weighs about 2000lb for pylon, tank and fuel, so a 6000lb bomb load is not achievable with Sidewinders and a decent sized drop tank. 2000-3500lb is more realistic, and more often at the lower end if you want to fly a reasonable distance.

The wingtip Sidewinder pylons are useful, however, hence the overwing Sidewinder pylons fitted to the Jaguar from 1990.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What is "typical weapons load" for each aircraft?

F-5E: 2x 20x102mm M39A1 with 280rds/gun, AIM-9s on the wingtips, 570/1040L drop tank on the centerline, and 4x 1500lb ish rated pylons under wing. The inner wing pylons were also plumbed for fuel tanks if you needed the ferry range or loiter time. Thai AF even put 2x GPU-5A 30mm gun pods on theirs. Total payload of 7klbs.

Jaguar: 2x 30x113mm ADEN or DEFA with 150rds/gun, drop tank or ECM or targeting pod on centerline, 4x under wing pylons. Total payload of 10klbs. (the overwing pylons weren't added until the 1990s)

Hrm. Jaguar has better guns, but loses 4000lbs of payload to carry any sidewinders for self protection, and another 2000lbs for a centerline drop tank. Jaguar's typical bomb load would be about 4000lbs, while the F-5E's is more like 6000lbs. Difference being that the Jaguar could carry 2000lb bombs while the F-5E could only carry 1000lbers.

In the real world, the F-5E max payload is 7000lb, the 275 gallon / 1040L drop tank weighs about 2000lb for pylon, tank and fuel, so a 6000lb bomb load is not achievable with Sidewinders and a decent sized drop tank. 2000-3500lb is more realistic, and more often at the lower end if you want to fly a reasonable distance.

The wingtip Sidewinder pylons are useful, however, hence the overwing Sidewinder pylons fitted to the Jaguar from 1990.

I was thinking the smaller fuel tank for most bombing runs, 570L, which would be roughly 1000lbs, but point taken. The two are much closer than it first appears, and if the Jaguar gets the overwing pylons I'd say it has the advantage due to higher bombload. Before the overwing pylons, though, I'm still giving the advantage to the F-5E.

 

[Hood]

Well the T-38 was the template for AST.362, the Air Staff wanted something like it - but with VG wings (and possibly with V/STOL too just in case it wasn't ambitious enough).
The F-5 itself was of no interest it seems; it doesn't crop up in the files as an inspiration like the T-38 does.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

What is "typical weapons load" for each aircraft?

F-5E: 2x 20x102mm M39A1 with 280rds/gun, AIM-9s on the wingtips, 570/1040L drop tank on the centerline, and 4x 1500lb ish rated pylons under wing. The inner wing pylons were also plumbed for fuel tanks if you needed the ferry range or loiter time. Thai AF even put 2x GPU-5A 30mm gun pods on theirs. Total payload of 7klbs.

Jaguar: 2x 30x113mm ADEN or DEFA with 150rds/gun, drop tank or ECM or targeting pod on centerline, 4x under wing pylons. Total payload of 10klbs. (the overwing pylons weren't added until the 1990s)

Hrm. Jaguar has better guns, but loses 4000lbs of payload to carry any sidewinders for self protection, and another 2000lbs for a centerline drop tank. Jaguar's typical bomb load would be about 4000lbs, while the F-5E's is more like 6000lbs. Difference being that the Jaguar could carry 2000lb bombs while the F-5E could only carry 1000lbers.

In the real world, the F-5E max payload is 7000lb, the 275 gallon / 1040L drop tank weighs about 2000lb for pylon, tank and fuel, so a 6000lb bomb load is not achievable with Sidewinders and a decent sized drop tank. 2000-3500lb is more realistic, and more often at the lower end if you want to fly a reasonable distance.

The wingtip Sidewinder pylons are useful, however, hence the overwing Sidewinder pylons fitted to the Jaguar from 1990.

I was thinking the smaller fuel tank for most bombing runs, 570L, which would be roughly 1000lbs, but point taken. The two are much closer than it first appears, and if the Jaguar gets the overwing pylons I'd say it has the advantage due to higher bombload. Before the overwing pylons, though, I'm still giving the advantage to the F-5E.

The lo-lo-lo combat radius of the Jaguar with a typical load is about double the F-5E (based on the USAF SAC data). So its not exactly equivalent capability. That's leaving the avionics to one side - British Jaguar has the advantage there in purely air/ground missions.

 

[alertken]

Buccaneer thwarted by RAF Not Invented Here politics. Caution before swallow. F-4 was Navy too...not even our Navy, and RAF liked that.

MoS ran TSR.2 competition, 1957-59 with 2 political imperatives: to replace Canberra, and to cause a measure of coalescence in industry structure, sought by MoS since...about 8/45 (Hoods Teach for the Sky has (remind me, >20) bids for (to be) Provost. Silly).

Blackburn had won NA.39 7/55. We now know what in 1958 Air Ministry might have guessed: that Victorious/801NAS would pass Operational Readiness Inspection, Buc S.1/Red Beard kT Bomb, 14/8/63: fraught weapon, under-powered airframe (AAR Scimitars to give any payload/range).

Blackburn bid B.108 RAF Buc for TSR.2 and were deleted for the same reason HP was discouraged from bidding, and Avro, Bristol and DH bids were soon eliminated. Not to do with tech-innovation, more to do with...if Bristol can't do a couple of stainless steel proof vehicles inside a decade, how on earth can we entrust them with large quantities of complex combat kit to be delivered this century? DH was struggling to understand Weapon System on (to be) Sea Vixen; Avro was utterly consumed on Mk.2 Vulcan, of the highest priority.

Little Blackburn would need some form of partnership to deliver Buccs concurrently to RN/RAF. Counter to that, though, was 5 years' gestation was behind, not all ahead, as with wholly-new designs. RN would not have welcomed such a diversion of their Sverdlov-killer.

So, no chance for RAF/Bucc in 1959. Now: 4/65, TSR.2 dead: HS Group onway to making Brough its Structures Centre of Excellence, Bucc S.2 onway to operational, 28/7/66...but RR onway to trying to cascade Speys to match McDonnell F-4M production rate. F-4M had a 10 year payment lull, and then was on instalments. Much better to do AFVG (no RR distraction - Bristol engine) - good Euro-politics, bridged by F-4M, not Buccs.

When AFVG died RAF was very happy to take HS rapid-build, as-is Bucc S.2. No value in re-doing the avionics and so further delaying Canberra Out-of-Service. Leave sexy black boxes for whatever follows AFVG.

​

 

[zen]

So if Bristol had an alternative to the Spey that fits through the 'o' rings in the main spar......
Buccaneer production could increase without bottleneck of RR Spey production?

Could come down to dimensions of a M.45 variant or similar Bristol only turbofan.

 

[alertken]

In 1964 Spey was on many schemes, so that gap in their range was envied by Bristol 2-4/65 when they lost BOl.320 (TSR.2) and BS.100 (P.1154). It was the business benefit of F-4/Spey that enabled RR to buy BSEL, 10/66 and so close down UK-in-JT9D. Losing Medway/TSR.2, (1/59) and DH.121 (8/59) emerged as a well-disguised blessing: through 1960-64, before reheated Spey on F-4K (1/7/64), RR was parlous.

 

[zen]

So BSEL knocking up alternative to Spey '60-'65 is market competition and national security redundancy insurance against military Spey issues.
BSEL could rightly confront Government over loss of BOl.320 and BS.100 work and at least some inside UK Gov would think it politic to keep options open instead of M.45 and vicarious RR schemes.

Of course all moot had BE.30 or BE.33 been funded earlier.

Equally BS.58 variant for Viggen opens another alternative.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Could a straight-through variant of the BS.100 be designed?

Given it was a competitor for the Medway on the HS.681, surely it could have replaced the Medway originally intended for the Viggen?

 

[Scott Kenny]

What is "typical weapons load" for each aircraft?

F-5E: 2x 20x102mm M39A1 with 280rds/gun, AIM-9s on the wingtips, 570/1040L drop tank on the centerline, and 4x 1500lb ish rated pylons under wing. The inner wing pylons were also plumbed for fuel tanks if you needed the ferry range or loiter time. Thai AF even put 2x GPU-5A 30mm gun pods on theirs. Total payload of 7klbs.

Jaguar: 2x 30x113mm ADEN or DEFA with 150rds/gun, drop tank or ECM or targeting pod on centerline, 4x under wing pylons. Total payload of 10klbs. (the overwing pylons weren't added until the 1990s)

Hrm. Jaguar has better guns, but loses 4000lbs of payload to carry any sidewinders for self protection, and another 2000lbs for a centerline drop tank. Jaguar's typical bomb load would be about 4000lbs, while the F-5E's is more like 6000lbs. Difference being that the Jaguar could carry 2000lb bombs while the F-5E could only carry 1000lbers.

In the real world, the F-5E max payload is 7000lb, the 275 gallon / 1040L drop tank weighs about 2000lb for pylon, tank and fuel, so a 6000lb bomb load is not achievable with Sidewinders and a decent sized drop tank. 2000-3500lb is more realistic, and more often at the lower end if you want to fly a reasonable distance.

The wingtip Sidewinder pylons are useful, however, hence the overwing Sidewinder pylons fitted to the Jaguar from 1990.

I was thinking the smaller fuel tank for most bombing runs, 570L, which would be roughly 1000lbs, but point taken. The two are much closer than it first appears, and if the Jaguar gets the overwing pylons I'd say it has the advantage due to higher bombload. Before the overwing pylons, though, I'm still giving the advantage to the F-5E.

The lo-lo-lo combat radius of the Jaguar with a typical load is about double the F-5E (based on the USAF SAC data). So its not exactly equivalent capability. That's leaving the avionics to one side - British Jaguar has the advantage there in purely air/ground missions.

I concede.

Jaguar > F-5E for strike fighter work. (as it should!)

But T-38s or F-5F two seaters would definitely be better for the original plan of the aircraft.

 

[Archibald]

I concede.

Jaguar > F-5E for strike fighter work. (as it should!)

But T-38s or F-5F two seaters would definitely be better for the original plan of the aircraft.

And guess what ? this is the very "mission creep" that affected the Jaguar. At the beginning it was to be a strike trainer, very ironically like the German Alphajets or... the Hawk 200. Except with a supersonic dash capability. Nowadays, South Korea A/T-50 nailed it. Back in the day, so did Northrop with the N-156. But Jaguar got some serious RFP / mission creep, direction MRI, to the point that the final Jaguar E (the two seater) could no longer be a T-38.

Typing this, I wonder if the N-156 escaped that fate because the J85s had limited power. The aircraft couldn't be made too heavy for strike, and this probably saved Northrop and the F-5A/E. It remained light and agile enough for air combat, but let's face it: the F-5 sucks for strike: not enough bomb, not enough range (if any range at all).

Northrop did a better job that SEPECAT. Working from the same basic requirement (T-38: supersonic trainer) they kept the "combat aircraft" away from strike: only dogfight.

Where it gets really interesting is: whatif Sud Aviation had won ECAT with a N-156 licence from Northrop ?
"There is your ECAT. Can do supersonic training, can do air combat, but only limited strike."

Somewhere on this forum are Sud Aviation F-5s lookalike, 1965...

How about a Sud Aviation enlarged N-156 with a pair of Adours ? Somebody should really kitbash a Jaguar / T-38 hybrid...

 

[Archibald]

Hey folks, remember "Bruce almighty" ? They're a new breed. Cross-pollination between tulips and daisies. I call them... tudaisies.

This is a new breed of aircraft. Hybrid between a Tiger and a Jaguar. I call it... a Tiguar

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

How about a licence built F-5 powered by a single Spey engine? If it was feasible would that produce a F-5 aircraft in the F-20 class 15 years early? Would it be an improvement on the F-5s used by the RCAF/Air Command and RNLAF?

 

[1635yankee]

How about a licence built F-5 powered by a single Spey engine? If it was feasible would that produce a F-5 aircraft in the F-20 class 15 years early? Would it be an improvement on the F-5s used by the RCAF/Air Command and RNLAF?

That's not a variant; it's a new aircraft.

Considering that the one Spey will have about three times the thrust of both J85s, one would think that there would be somewhat improvement.

If you're going down that route, I'll offer the Lockheed Lancer.

 

[kaiserbill]

How about a licence built F-5 powered by a single Spey engine? If it was feasible would that produce a F-5 aircraft in the F-20 class 15 years early? Would it be an improvement on the F-5s used by the RCAF/Air Command and RNLAF?

I assume you mean an afterburning Spey as found in the Phantom?

It's too big.
It's almost 1,5 meters longer, 0.2 meters wider, and 800kg heavier than the F404 engine used in the Tigershark.
Apart from its physical dimensions, the Speys Air Mass Flow is approaching 50% more than the F404's, with all that entails for the intakes, trunking, etc.

The F5 is a small, slender airframe, and the F404 was a big engine in that (F20) airframe.

The Turbo Union RB 199 as used in the Tornado is a far better fit, being more compact than the F404, albeit with a little bit less dry thrust.

If using a single afterburning Spey, you would really need a new, purpose designed aircraft.
If using a non afterburning Spey, you end up with something akin to the AMX.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

How about a licence built F-5 powered by a single Spey engine? If it was feasible would that produce a F-5 aircraft in the F-20 class 15 years early? Would it be an improvement on the F-5s used by the RCAF/Air Command and RNLAF?

That's not a variant; it's a new aircraft.

Considering that the one Spey will have about three times the thrust of both J85s, one would think that there would be somewhat improvement.

If you're going down that route, I'll offer the Lockheed Lancer.

Fair enough.

However, if it is a new aircraft, it might be better to build one of the single-Spey aircraft proposed by BAC or Hawker Siddeley than a foreign design like the Lockheed Lancer.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

How about a licence built F-5 powered by a single Spey engine? If it was feasible would that produce a F-5 aircraft in the F-20 class 15 years early? Would it be an improvement on the F-5s used by the RCAF/Air Command and RNLAF?

I assume you mean an afterburning Spey as found in the Phantom?

You assumed correctly, because yes I was.

It's too big.
It's almost 1,5 meters longer, 0.2 meters wider, and 800kg heavier than the F404 engine used in the Tigershark.
Apart from its physical dimensions, the Speys Air Mass Flow is approaching 50% more than the F404's, with all that entails for the intakes, trunking, etc.

The F5 is a small, slender airframe, and the F404 was a big engine in that (F20) airframe.

The Turbo Union RB 199 as used in the Tornado is a far better fit, being more compact than the F404, albeit with a little bit less dry thrust.

If using a single afterburning Spey, you would really need a new, purpose designed aircraft.
If using a non afterburning Spey, you end up with something akin to the AMX.

Fair enough.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I concede.

Jaguar > F-5E for strike fighter work. (as it should!)

But T-38s or F-5F two seaters would definitely be better for the original plan of the aircraft.

And guess what ? this is the very "mission creep" that affected the Jaguar. At the beginning it was to be a strike trainer, very ironically like the German Alphajets or... the Hawk 200. Except with a supersonic dash capability. Nowadays, South Korea A/T-50 nailed it. Back in the day, so did Northrop with the N-156. But Jaguar got some serious RFP / mission creep, direction MRI, to the point that the final Jaguar E (the two seater) could no longer be a T-38.

Typing this, I wonder if the N-156 escaped that fate because the J85s had limited power. The aircraft couldn't be made too heavy for strike, and this probably saved Northrop and the F-5A/E. It remained light and agile enough for air combat, but let's face it: the F-5 sucks for strike: not enough bomb, not enough range (if any range at all).

Might have been an idea to start with the N-156 but add more internal fuel, maybe a bigger hump behind the cockpit?

Yes, it would have needed a larger wing to lift the extra weight, but a day fighter with a 500mile ferry range is pretty pathetic. And there are versions of the J85 that have more thrust than what the N-156 ran with. T-38 has J85-5As with 2000/2900lbs thrust, F-5E has J85-21s with 3000/5000lbs thrust.

Besides, a bigger wing is part of what makes the F-15 so scary.

 

[Archibald]

I knew I had this elsewhere.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sud-aviation-ecat-french-t-38s-and-f-5a.38264/

What's the point in inventing ECAT when
a) Northrop already made it with N-156 ?
b) Sud Aviation is willing to take a licence and improve the design ?

And, on top this... what is an enlarged F-5 with a pair of Adour engines ? or a single M-45 ? Answer: a proto-F-18 and a proto F-20... unbelievable !

Just think about it. By adopting Northrop N-156 for ECAT (via Sud-Aviation, later Aérospatiale) the anglo-french ends, not with a half-failed Jaguar, but F-18 and F-20 look alikes... by the beginning of the 1970's !

Well maybe I went a bit too far talking about P-530 / F-17 / F-18. Ching-kuo might be a better comparison: those F-125s are similar enough to the Adour, India considered swapping them in their Jaguars...

AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So we have
- an anglo-french Ching-kuo look alike a few decades ahead
- a proto- F-20, that is: a much improved F-5 with just a single turbofan... and yes, a M-45 could do the job.

 

[alertken]

To amplify why reheated Spey was so significant for RR's business. 338 Lightnings required engine deliveries at the rate of 1 p wk, 4/57-9/69; 170 Spey/F-4s 2 p wk, 6/66-10/69, so Q:
Why was that increase so important when dry Avons were being delivered in greater volume for all those Hunter/Canberras, 1952-57?

A: multiple sources for dry Avons; reheated Avon, if late. simply made the Man from the Ministry irate and grumpy. If a single delivery to St.Louis had been delinquent, cost consequences for MoD would have been eye-watering. But they were not: RR delivered, so establishing the credibility to take on the debt that enabled them to buy BSEL with MoD's blessing in creating a monopoly..

 

[GTX]

Hey folks, remember "Bruce almighty" ? They're a new breed. Cross-pollination between tulips and daisies. I call them... tudaisies.

This is a new breed of aircraft. Hybrid between a Tiger and a Jaguar. I call it... a Tiguar

Something similar I did years ago - mine is much more subtle though:

 

[GTX]

Of course the Big Wing F-5 shown here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/big-wing-f-5s-and-f-5g-f-20-alternative-designs.4513/ could have proved an interesting development in this scenario:

 

[GTX]

And just a little something to imagine what might have been:

 

[GTX]

And

 

[Scott Kenny]

Hey folks, remember "Bruce almighty" ? They're a new breed. Cross-pollination between tulips and daisies. I call them... tudaisies.

This is a new breed of aircraft. Hybrid between a Tiger and a Jaguar. I call it... a Tiguar

View attachment 703066

Tiguar looks a lot like the Japanese F-1...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Of course the Big Wing F-5 shown here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/big-wing-f-5s-and-f-5g-f-20-alternative-designs.4513/ could have proved an interesting development in this scenario:

View attachment 703126
View attachment 703127

Oh, that is sexy!

And apparently loaded for bear, with 18x500lb bombs, or 12x500lb and 6x1000lb, plus two Bullpups!

 

[uk 75]

An alternative route that might have been taken is suggested by the equipment of the RAF No 1 Tactical Weapons Unit at Brawdy. Hunter FGA9s served with the the TWU until 1978 when they were replaced with Hawks.

The three RAF squadrons in the UK with Jaguars might well have taken the same route. The Hunters and Hawks would have been adequate for their roles reinforcing Norway and Denmark alongside Canadian CF5s and German G91/Alpha Jets.

The squadrons in Germany that got Jaguars in the 70s could either have carried on with their Phantoms until Tornado arrived in the 80s or received Buccaneer S2s like the Laarbruch wing.

Given the poor state of the British economy in the period this seemd more likely than developing new aircraft or buying them from abroad.

Jaguar was a damn good replacement for P1154.

 

[zen]

Was Hawk cleared for WE.177?

Not sure on the figures for Hawk with a useful load. Remind us.

An F5 that has new engines, new wings, UK avionics and UK weaponry sounds like a new airplane. Without the benefit of being new, or British.

Arguably a falling out in '67 means BAC is holding a prototype with some French content.....
The next move is obvious.

 

[_Del_]

I wonder if NBMR-3 or a quick follow-on could have worked if it emphasized a reasonable STOL capability instead of VTOL. Then you probably have a UK powerplant, and whatever workshare was divided among participants.

 

[uk 75]

RAF Harriers usually took off and landed conventionally. I suspect that P1154 would have done the same.