Yankee_Aviator

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
28
Reaction score
28
I just want to know why the British insisted on multinational collaboration rather than pursuing the UKVG as a purely indigenous British aircraft. I've heard from some places that the British government had mandated that they would only procure multinational planes in the future, but I have not been able to verify this. If it's true I would like to know what their reasoning was. I've always been all about country of origin of aircraft, I just don't see the merits of multinational aircraft. Different requirements between different countries and political disagreements lead to delays and cost overruns which negate any advantage in shared development costs, plus it takes away from the national pride that developing an advanced military aircraft brings. Morale is important. Last part is just my two cents, if anyone has any info on the British government requiring multinational collaboration, please share.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,325
Reaction score
6,321
I just want to know why the British insisted on multinational collaboration rather than pursuing the UKVG as a purely indigenous British aircraft. I've heard from some places that the British government had mandated that they would only procure multinational planes in the future, but I have not been able to verify this. If it's true I would like to know what their reasoning was. I've always been all about country of origin of aircraft, I just don't see the merits of multinational aircraft. Different requirements between different countries and political disagreements lead to delays and cost overruns which negate any advantage in shared development costs, plus it takes away from the national pride that developing an advanced military aircraft brings. Morale is important. Last part is just my two cents, if anyone has any info on the British government requiring multinational collaboration, please share.

TSR-2 & P.1154 - they had been badly burned twice earlier in the decade. Also GB economy going down the drain on a crazy train, money had to be found elsewhere.

Also (ask NASA) involving international partners helps making large and expensive projects cancellation-proof. Concorde was the most extreme end of this: the French had conveniently omitted any escape clause back in November 1962; the British ended with their backs against a wall.

Space station Freedom-Alpha-ISS is another startling example. As soon as Canada, Japan and Europe were tied to it (1988) that thing could never, ever be cancelled.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,688
Reaction score
3,243
Collaboration with foreign partners on all major aerospace projects was one of the recommendations from the Committee of Inquiry into the Aircraft Industry, 1964-1965 (the Plowden Committee).

It was however advocating something that the Ministry of Aviation had already been doing since at least 1958 and which was becoming quite widespread among the European aircraft manufacturers by this period as a means to share R&D risk and costs, boost order books to reach break-even points sooner and ensure factories were kept open with work (building a bit of something being better for local unemployment than building nothing). It was also a means to reshape the aviation industries of Europe as fewer centres of production were required.

The US of course viewed this differently but they had selective tendering and large corporations tended to merge over time into larger conglomerates to achieve the same end.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,273

Attachments

  • AFVG-05.png
    AFVG-05.png
    344.3 KB · Views: 95
  • AFVG-06.png
    AFVG-06.png
    627.4 KB · Views: 95
  • AFVG-97.png
    AFVG-97.png
    935.1 KB · Views: 94
  • AFVG-99.png
    AFVG-99.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 95
  • TSR2 AND AFVG SAME SCALE.JPG
    TSR2 AND AFVG SAME SCALE.JPG
    120.3 KB · Views: 102
  • AFVG-09.jpg
    AFVG-09.jpg
    295.1 KB · Views: 100
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,325
Reaction score
6,321
In a saner world, Dassault would have been more honest on the AFVG (no G / G4 / G8 unuseful diversions) while SNECMA would have bet on the M45s as a logical Atar successor; instead of TF306 and M53.
The M45 nearly had enough thrust to replace the older Atar 9 variants at 6 tons of thrust; growing up to 7 tons or 9 tons, and into the Mirage F1... and a second batch of Mirage IV post 1968. It would have done wonders to their respective ranges.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,273
I have never seen an official detailed drawing of beautiful AFVG. What a pity. Untouchable information?
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,273

Yankee_Aviator

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
28
Reaction score
28
From "Meilensteine der Luftfahrt: Die deutschen Senkrechtstarter", DaimlerChrysler Aerospace:
An artist impression of the NKF and a 3-view of the Panavia 100, the single seat version of
the MRCA Tornado.
Is there any additional information specifically about the NKF? I've tried to research this aircraft (want to get an idea of how much Germany actually contributed to the final production model design of the Tornado) but there's nothing about it online, if anyone has any background on the NKF I would love to read about it.
 
Top