UK Industry Rationalisation 1945

[NOMISYRRUC]

In the thread "Could the UK have done a better job of maintaining carrier based air power?" I've suggested that doing a better job of managing the British aerospace industry is closely related to the UK doing a better job of maintaining carrier based air power. The first step to that is rationalising the industry as soon as possible after VJ Day. I want it started in 1945 and completed by 1948. The "Year of Maximum Danger" is closer than you think and something unexpected might happen in the meantime. The thread "Could the UK have done a better job of maintaining an independent strategic nuclear deterrent?" exists in this fictional universe.

I'm doing this as a separately form @Hood's UK Industry Rationalisation thread because his thread starts at 1950, it's his thread not mine and it would be confusing having two discussions in the same thread. Any similarity to what @Pirate Pete wrote in Post 2 of that thread is entirely coincidental because I was thinking along those lines before he uploaded it. I want to keep things as close as possible to the "Real World" for the sake of simplicity.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Airframe Groups
From Appendix 1 of Project Cancelled
Main Aircraft Manufacturing Companies 1946-79​

Hawker Siddleley created 1947-48 ITTL

• The Original Hawker Siddeley
  • A.V. Roe
  • Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft
  • Gloster Aircraft
  • Hawker Aircraft
• Plus
  • Airspeed (IOTL merged with De Havilland in 1951)
  • De Havilland Aircraft
  • Blackburn Aircraft (IOTL Blackburn & General Aircraft from 1949)
  • General Aircraft (IOTL became part of Blackburn in 1949)
  • Folland Aircraft

British Aircraft Corporation created 1948 ITTL

• Bristol Aeroplane Company
  • Including the Helicopter Division which IOTL became part of Westland.
• English Electric
• Percival Aircraft (IOTL Hunting Percival from 1954)
• Vickers Armstrong Aircraft (Weybridge & Supermarine)

Westland Aircraft created 1947-48 ITTL

• Cierva Autogiro Co. (IOTL became part of Saunders-Roe Helicopter Division in 1950)
• Fairey Aviation
• Saunders-Roe (IOTL it acquired Cierva Autogiro in 1950. See above.)
• Westland Aircraft

Independents in 1948 ITTL

• Auster Aircraft (IOTL the Firm & F.G. Miles (founded 1951) became part of Beagle in 1962 which in 1969 called in the Receiver & closed in 1970).
• Boulton Paul Aircraft (IOTL ceased own aircraft design in late 1950s & became part of Dowty Group in 1961)
• Handley Page (IOTL went into liquidation 1970)
• Miles Aircraft (IOTL went into liquidation 1947 and assets acquired by Handley Page - became H.P. Reading)
• Scottish Aviation (IOTL was nationalised in 1977 and became part of British Aerospace)
• Short Brothers (state owned since 1943 & IOTL merged with Short & Harland in 1948 to become Short Brothers & Harland)

IOTL = In our timeline or what I usually call the "Real World"
ITTL = In this timeline or what I usually call this "Version of History"

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Engine Groups
From Appendix 2 of Project Cancelled
Main Engine Manufacturing Companies 1946-74​

Bristol Siddeley Engines created 1946-49 ITTL

• Armstrong Siddeley Motors.
• Bristol Aeroplane Company (IOTL became Bristol Aero Engines in 1956).
• Blackburn Aircraft (Cirrus).
• De Havilland Engine Company.
• Metropolitan Vickers (IOTL its aero-engine interests were taken over by Armstrong Siddeley in 1949).

Rolls Royce purchased Napier Aero Engines in 1949 ITTL

• D. Napier & Son (IOTL Napier Aero Engines was taken over by Rolls-Royce in 1961).
• Rolls-Royce (IOTL bought BSE in 1966 and went into liquidation in 1971).

Independents at 1949 ITTL

• Alvis (IOTL).
  • Aero-engine development ceased late 1950s.
  • Alvis was taken over by Rover in 1965 and Rover in turn became part of BLMC.
  • Rover Gas Turbine Aviation activities were taken over by Alvis in 1968.
  • Rover's aero gas turbine activities were acquired by Lucas in 1973).
• Powerjets (R&D) (IOTL ceased engine design and development 1946).

IOTL = In our timeline or what I usually call the "Real World"
ITTL = In this timeline or what I usually call this "Version of History"

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

What to do with the independent airframe firms

In 1948 ITTL they were.

• Auster Aircraft (IOTL the Firm & F.G. Miles (founded 1951) became part of Beagle in 1962 which in 1969 called in the Receiver & closed in 1970).
• Boulton Paul Aircraft (IOTL ceased own aircraft design in late 1950 & became part of Dowty Group in 1961)
• Handley Page (IOTL went into liquidation 1970)
• Miles Aircraft (IOTL went into liquidation 1947 and assets acquired by Handley Page - became H.P. Reading)
• Scottish Aviation (IOTL was nationalised in 1977 and became part of British Aerospace)
• Short Brothers (state owned since 1943 & IOTL merged with Short & Harland in 1948 to become Short Brothers & Harland)

Miles has the M.52 which isn't cancelled ITTL and Wood had it taken over by one of the new groups on the condition that it retained its identity as a division of the firm. As I'm following Wood's Scenario 1945 we also have the German team, which ultimately absorbs into one of the new unified industry groups. So does Miles join BAC and the German team join HS or does the German team join BAC and Miles join HS? BAC is probably the firm that builds the Spectre ITTL as its built to an alternative version of Spec. F.23/49 and IOTL English Electric built the Lightning to it. Is Miles or the German team the one that would have been of the greatest help in producing that.

Auster made light aircraft, Boulton Paul's main aircraft was the Balliol trainer and Scottish Aviation made light aircraft, trainers and small twin engine aircraft. Maybe these firms should be encouraged to merge.

As far as I know Handley Page tried to join Hawker Siddeley in 1963, but they couldn't agree terms. As the Vulcan was developed by a firm that became part of Hawker Siddeley and HP did the Victor the logical thing to me is for it to join BAC in 1948 ITTL.

That leaves Short Brothers & Harland. An alternative to having Hawker Siddeley join BAC is to have it join Short Brothers. How well did Frederick Handley Page get on with Oswald Short? Both firms built Canberras, a medium bomber and transport aircraft in the 1950s & 1960s. Maybe there's some synergy to be had.

 

[zen]

In relation to Spec. F.23/49.
The winners were EE P.1 and AWA's AW.58 which would correspond to your BAC and HSA.

Of the two, it's AW.58 that meets the criteria for a potential basis to develop a Phantom analogue.
It's also AWA and Blackburn that apply the concept of blown wings and tail to reduce TO&L speeds.
EE's P.1 has too high TO&L speeds.

Fairey's Delta II could in theory be altered along the lines of certain US delta winged carrier aircraft designs. But none of those made it against the Crusader.

AWA came a close second to several crucial requirements.
NR/A.39
The supersonic soaking research aircraft win by Bristol's T.188
F.155

So while it might fit ideas of parallel to OTL to have the same firms succeed only better.
It's actually the other group HSA that's got the potential to actually achieve it within the corpus of extent designs.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

From the other thread.

If I can offer some advice: if you want to trim and agglomerate companies, best way is to specialize some of them on peculiar aerospace innovations.

That's what Westland did IOTL by giving up fixed-wing aircraft and building Sikorsky helicopters under licence and continuing with the ballistic missiles and hovercraft that it inherited from Saunders Roe.

All other things being equal it would have dabbled in fighters in the 1950s because it would have got the contracts for the TTL equivalents of the Fairey Deltas and Saros 53 & 177. Except that the Government asks the Firm to design a ballistic research rocket instead of the Saro fighters and the contract for the delta research aircraft goes to BAC or HS. As noted elsewhere there isn't a Westland Princess in place of the Saro Princess because the Firm is asked to concentrate on its ballistic research rockets instead.

The Fairey Gannet probably survives. However, ITTL it might look like the S-2 Tracker, but with two turboprops instead of 2 piston engines. That's so the ASW, AEW, COD & EW versions have more spacious fuselages and so that the TTL Gannet AEW.3 can have a bigger radar so it's more like the E-1 Tracer or even the E-2 Hawkeye.

 

[zen]

The Fairey Gannet probably survives. However, ITTL it might look like the S-2 Tracker, but with two turboprops instead of 2 piston engines. That's so the ASW, AEW, COD & EW versions have more spacious fuselages and so that the TTL Gannet AEW.3 can have a bigger radar so it's more like the E-1 Tracer or even the E-2 Hawkeye

It was very nearly the Blackburn submission.
And certainly Blackburn hit the nail later on starting with a unnumbered design that's very much like a scaled Vought V404 (a serious competitor to the G123 that became Hawkeye). But that's around 1960.

Avro 768 was a serious AEW effort but hit size problems.

Shorts Sturgeon was the interim system but suffered delays due to the move to Belfast and stability problems.
However the Sturgeon fits the concept better so perhaps there's a more modern twin study in that company's corpus?

 

[Hood]

A few questions/points.

How are you attempting these mergers/creation of groups? Are you relying on private capital or is the Ministry of Supply offering incentives/demands (carrots and sticks)?

I would tend to work the other way around - not putting the cart in front of the horse - by assessing what work is in train in 1945-48 and what was projected for future projects and then cutting the cloth accordingly. There is no point judging what you might create in 1948 for aircraft not designed until half a decade or a decade later.

 

[Hood]

In the Wesworld naval role-playing game/forum, I came up with a rationalised industry in the 1930s-40s. I don't offer this as a complete solution (because that setting had a ITTL beginning in 1917) but as where my thoughts were on this subject a decade ago and which are applicable to this scenario in terms of scale of workload and possible trends.

I made three main 'conglomerates' and some smaller groups as follows.

Hawker Siddeley Group
Since its formation in September 1935 the Hawker Siddeley Group has been the largest and of the “Big Three” conglomerates in the British aeronautical industry. It controls the interests of four aircraft manufacturers and one aero engine manufacturer and owns a large portion of the nation’s aviation private R&D facilities. Since 1935 centralisation has been increasing, this year (1949) the Hawker Siddeley Group has been reorganised.
Hawker Siddeley Group Ltd. is the main company overseeing the Group.
Hawker Siddeley Aviation Ltd. has been created from the assets of Gloster Aircraft Ltd. and Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft Ltd. and will focus on aircraft manufacture and component work, repair work and development of guided weapons and other aviation-related items.
A.V. Roe Aviation Ltd. is responsible for all civilian and heavy military aircraft design and their construction at Chadderton and Woodford.
Hawker Aviation Ltd. is responsible for military aircraft design (fighters, trainers etc.) and their construction at Kingston-on Thames and Dunsfold.
Saunders-Roe Ltd. (Saro) at East Cowes has become the naval aircraft design specialist as well as some advanced project work. Saro is also responsible for the helicopter design team at Weston-Super-Mare.
Avro Canada is now a direct subsidiary company rather than managed by A.V.Roe. Armstrong Siddeley Motors Ltd. and Air Service Training Ltd. remain unchanged.

British Combined Aircraft Corporation (BCAC)
Originally formed in March 1943 as the Bristol Vickers Aircraft Company with the merger of Vickers-Supermarine and Bristol (including Bristol engines). In 1944 Westland joined and the current name was adopted. Vickers-Armstrongs is the majority shareholder, while other major shareholders are John Brown & Co. Ltd. and Associated Electrical Industry Ltd. In March 1948 Percival Aircraft Ltd. was acquired from the Hunting Group Limited (the holding company of Hunting & Son Ltd.) in return for a 10% share in BCAC. There has been consolidation of design teams and production facilities, Weybridge is the main design centre, Filton handling rotary-wing work and Yeovil maintains a design team under W.E.W. Petter. All Bristol designed commercial aircraft are marketed under the ‘BC’ label and Vickers commercial aircraft ‘VC’. Percival types will retain their original designations for the time being but commercial types will be marketed under the ‘PC’ label. The titles BCAC (Vickers-Supermarine), BCAC (Bristol) and BCAC (Westland) are still in use for some marketing products.

AIRCO
AIRCO, the third conglomerate in the industry formed on March 6 1938 when Handley Page Ltd. merged with de Havilland and in August 1941 Fairey Aviation Co. Ltd. joined. Each company trades individually but there is close co-operation between design and sales teams and joint use of research resources. AIRCO controls; Handley Page Aircraft Ltd, de Havilland Company Ltd., de Havilland Australia Pty Ltd., de Havilland Canada Ltd., de Havilland Forge Ltd., de Havilland Engine Co. Ltd., AIRCO-Reed Propellers Ltd. (merger of de Havilland Propellers Ltd. and Fairey-Reed Ltd.), Hearle-Whitley Engineering Co. Ltd., Airspeed Aviation Ltd. (now de Havilland’s Christchurch Division), Fairey Aviation Co. Ltd, and Avions Fairey in Belgium.

National Electronic Engineering Limited (NEE)
Formed in 1940 by the merger of English Electric, Napier & Son, Napier-Paxman and Paxman. In 1944 it acquired Alvis Car and Engineering Company Ltd. and in 1945 acquired the Marconi Company to become the biggest electrical engineering, industrial engineering and electronics manufacturer in Britain.
[Note in this scenario English Electric did not build aircraft but this company covers Alvis and Napier aero-engines.]

Blackburn & Boulton Paul Group
In March 1949 Boulton Paul Aircraft Ltd. merged with the Blackburn Group (which includes Blackburn Engines Ltd.) to form a wide-ranging group covering several aspects of aviation engineering. The Dumbarton works is run jointly with William Denny & Bros. Ltd.
Boulton Paul owns a majority 51% stake in Martin-Baker Company Ltd.

General Aviation (UK) Ltd.
Formed in early 1944 by the pooling of the aviation interests of Parnall Aircraft Ltd., which owned the patents, patent rights and designs of Nash & Thompson Ltd. and the Hendy Aircraft Co., with those of Portsmouth Aviation. In March 1947 the Navarro Aircraft Construction Company also merged with the company to secure capital and construction facilities for the Tribian Sponson.
Maintenance and repair services at Portsmouth, includes contract with Portsmouth, Southsea & Isle of Wight Aviation.
Design and manufacture of powered-gun turrets for aircraft by Nash & Thompson Ltd. at Yate.

Independent Companies

Aero Engines Ltd.
Builders of 23hp Sprite and 50hp Pixie.

F.M. Aspin & Company Ltd. Ltd.
Development and manufacture of auxiliary power-units for large aircraft.
Manufacture of engines and gearboxes for the automotive industry.

Auster Aircraft Ltd.

Chilton Aircraft Ltd.
Including Owns Carden Aero Engines Co., building engines for ultralight aircraft based on the Ford Ten car engine and Chilton Electronics Ltd., founded in 1946, parent company of the Chilton group, manufactures the Chilton shaver socket and circuit breakers.

Dart Aircraft Ltd.
(premises shared with Hawkridge Aircraft Company).

Hawkridge Aircraft Company
(premises shared with Dart Aircraft Ltd.).
Manufacture, maintenance and repair of gliders.

Heston Aircraft Company Ltd.
Other Work:
Sub-contract work for de Havilland for structural elements and components for NEE aero engines.

Jameson Aero Engines Ltd.
Jameson 1, 100hp, 4-cyl four-stroke piston engine, certificated 1945.

Martin-Baker Company Ltd.
Boulton Paul owns a majority 51% stake in the company. Undertakes research, development and manufacture of ejection-seats for aircraft and other life-saving devices for pilots.

Miles Aircraft Ltd.

Other Work:
Operation of the Aeronautical Technical School in Reading.
Other business interests include Philidas Ltd. producing locking nuts, Copycat Ltd. manufacturing photocopiers and the Miles Martin Pen Co. Ltd.

Reid and Sigrist Ltd.
Other Work:
Manufacture of precision aircraft instrumentation, notably turn and slip indicators invented by George Reid, the Gyorizon (combined turn indicator and artificial) and 3-axis gyroscopes at New Malden.
Operation of a civilian flying training school at Desford.
Repair contracts with the RAF, work undertaken at Desford.

Rolls-Royce Ltd.
Works: Derby, Derbyshire; Glasgow, Lanarkshire and Barnoldswick, Lancashire. (The factory at Crewe, Cheshire is now totally dedicated to motor car production.)
Rolls-Royce has a 50% stake in Rotol Airscrews Ltd. along with the Bristol Aero-Engine Company Ltd.

Scottish Aviation Ltd.
Other Work:
Flying school and maintenance contract work at Prestwick.
Operates Scottish Airlines (Prestwick) Ltd., the airline undertakes worldwide passenger and cargo charter flights to destinations all over Europe, Africa, the Middle East, India, Canada and the United States from its base at Prestwick.

Short Brothers (Rochester & Bedford) Ltd. and Short & Harland Ltd.
Short & Harland Ltd. at Belfast undertakes a wide range of other aviation and non-aviation related engineering work.
Subsidiary Pobjoy-Short at Hooton Park, Cheshire, designs and manufacturers auxiliary accessory gearboxes and auxiliary power units in co-operation with Rotol Airscrews Ltd.

Slingsby Sailplanes Ltd.

Tipsy Aircraft Company Ltd.
Tipsy Junior, single-seat light aircraft, Belgian prototype OO-TIT first flown 30 June 1946, licence-production began September 1947.

 

[Pirate Pete]

What to do with the independent airframe firms

In 1948 ITTL they were.

• Auster Aircraft (IOTL the Firm & F.G. Miles (founded 1951) became part of Beagle in 1962 which in 1969 called in the Receiver & closed in 1970).
• Boulton Paul Aircraft (IOTL ceased own aircraft design in late 1950 & became part of Dowty Group in 1961)
• Handley Page (IOTL went into liquidation 1970)
• Miles Aircraft (IOTL went into liquidation 1947 and assets acquired by Handley Page - became H.P. Reading)
• Scottish Aviation (IOTL was nationalised in 1977 and became part of British Aerospace)
• Short Brothers (state owned since 1943 & IOTL merged with Short & Harland in 1948 to become Short Brothers & Harland)

Miles has the M.52 which isn't cancelled ITTL and Wood had it taken over by one of the new groups on the condition that it retained its identity as a division of the firm. As I'm following Wood's Scenario 1945 we also have the German team, which ultimately absorbs into one of the new unified industry groups. So does Miles join BAC and the German team join HS or does the German team join BAC and Miles join HS? BAC is probably the firm that builds the Spectre ITTL as its built to an alternative version of Spec. F.23/49 and IOTL English Electric built the Lightning to it. Is Miles or the German team the one that would have been of the greatest help in producing that.

Auster made light aircraft, Boulton Paul's main aircraft was the Balliol trainer and Scottish Aviation made light aircraft, trainers and small twin engine aircraft. Maybe these firms should be encouraged to merge.

As far as I know Handley Page tried to join Hawker Siddeley in 1963, but they couldn't agree terms. As the Vulcan was developed by a firm that became part of Hawker Siddeley and HP did the Victor the logical thing to me is for it to join BAC in 1948 ITTL.

That leaves Short Brothers & Harland. An alternative to having Hawker Siddeley join BAC is to have it join Short Brothers. How well did Frederick Handley Page get on with Oswald Short? Both firms built Canberras, a medium bomber and transport aircraft in the 1950s & 1960s. Maybe there's some synergy to be had.

You beat me to it with the quotes from Woods' Project Cancelled - I have images of the pages (I also have the engine manufacturers table and the additional tables regarding when certain aircraft projects completed compared to the U.S.A. etc.

I agree - I think Handley Page should go into BAC - they did do collaborative work with the group/companies within the group so to me it seems a good fit.
Originally I had thought of H.P. merging with the other 'spare' companies to form a third group, but, even allowing for some amazing financial miracle post-war, I think in reality this would be, if not a non-starter, they would have had to merge with one of the 'Big Two'.

Somewhere, I have an article about De Havilland and their 'near' merging with BAC - now THAT would have been an interesting twist to the dynamic!

Lastly (for now) and I apologise for rambling....I think there should be TWO engine suppliers. I HATE the idea of everything being under the Rolls-Royce banner. If nothing else, by keeping Bristol-Siddeley engines as a separate entity and merging with other firms, we should get a better selection of engines and not dependent upon a single supplier.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Lastly (for now) and I apologise for rambling....I think there should be TWO engine suppliers. I HATE the idea of everything being under the Rolls-Royce banner. If nothing else, by keeping Bristol-Siddeley engines as a separate entity and merging with other firms, we should get a better selection of engines and not dependent upon a single supplier.

For what it's worth so do I and for all 3 sentences.

As I understand it Armstrong-Siddeley, Bristol and De Havilland designed competing engines in every power class (if that's the right expression) in the period 1948-60. If that's correct the earlier created Bristol Siddeley Engines can put three times the effort into one engine in each power class 1948-60.

I want one of the results to be a turboshaft engine for helicopters in the same class as the GE T58 to become available in time to be fitted to all helicopters that used the Alvis Leonidas IOTL. (Note that's what I want to happen ITTL, not what may happen ITTL.) As I understand it Bristol wanted the Type 173 to have a pair of Janus turboshafts. However, development was halted because the Firm didn't have the staff to do Janus, Olympus & Proteus and Janus drew the short straw. In the late 1950s Bristol Helicopters wanted to fit AS P.181 turboshafts to Types 203 & 214. However, the engines were cancelled by BSE in favour of the DH Gnome based on the GE T58 and the helicopters were cancelled when Bristol Helicopters became part of Westland because the latter had the Whirlwind Series 3 and Wessex HC.2 which used the Gnome.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

A few questions/points.

How are you attempting these mergers/creation of groups? Are you relying on private capital or is the Ministry of Supply offering incentives/demands (carrots and sticks)?

I would tend to work the other way around - not putting the cart in front of the horse - by assessing what work is in train in 1945-48 and what was projected for future projects and then cutting the cloth accordingly. There is no point judging what you might create in 1948 for aircraft not designed until half a decade or a decade later.

To be honest I'd not given how it happened any thought. As my mergers are the real mergers brought forward 10-15 years the best I can say is that they were done in the same fashion as the real mergers, but as already written, sooner.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Tipsy Aircraft Company Ltd.

Tipsy Junior, single-seat light aircraft, Belgian prototype OO-TIT first flown 30 June 1946, licence-production began September 1947.

To paraphrase what was once said about Richard Nixon, "Would you buy an aeroplane from someone who was slightly drunk?"

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

National Electronic Engineering Limited (NEE)

Formed in 1940 by the merger of English Electric, Napier & Son, Napier-Paxman and Paxman. In 1944 it acquired Alvis Car and Engineering Company Ltd. and in 1945 acquired the Marconi Company to become the biggest electrical engineering, industrial engineering and electronics manufacturer in Britain.
[Note in this scenario English Electric did not build aircraft but this company covers Alvis and Napier aero-engines.]

If I remember my Correlli Barnett correctly, electronics was yet another sector of British industry that he claimed was organised into a large number of small firms that couldn't compete with Germany, Japan and the USA. Was he correct? If he was correct would a complimentary reorganisation of the British electronics industry be justified? If it was justified, what benefits can HM Forces expect? Do we get better radars, sonars and guided missiles of all types?

 

[Pirate Pete]

Found the article about De Havilland and BAC....
From Journal of Aeronautical History...Section 4 on page 5.....

 

[Pirate Pete]

Regrettably I do not recall (did not make a note of) from where I downloaded this but it is a schematic of the amalgamation of British Aircraft Manufacturers as happens (Before BAe/British Aerospace).

 

[Hood]

For what it's worth so do I and for all 3 sentences.

As I understand it Armstrong-Siddeley, Bristol and De Havilland designed competing engines in every power class (if that's the right expression) in the period 1948-60. If that's correct the earlier created Bristol Siddeley Engines can put three times the effort into one engine in each power class 1948-60.

I want one of the results to be a turboshaft engine for helicopters in the same class as the GE T58 to become available in time to be fitted to all helicopters that used the Alvis Leonidas IOTL. (Note that's what I want to happen ITTL, not what may happen ITTL.) As I understand it Bristol wanted the Type 173 to have a pair of Janus turboshafts. However, development was halted because the Firm didn't have the staff to do Janus, Olympus & Proteus and Janus drew the short straw. In the late 1950s Bristol Helicopters wanted to fit AS P.181 turboshafts to Types 203 & 214. However, the engines were cancelled by BSE in favour of the DH Gnome based on the GE T58 and the helicopters were cancelled when Bristol Helicopters became part of Westland because the latter had the Whirlwind Series 3 and Wessex HC.2 which used the Gnome.

The were competitors, but again with mixed success and mixed background when it came to jet propulsion.

Armstrong Siddeley was arguably irrelevant by 1945 and only Avro Anson production really kept it going with the production of Cheetahs (so many that the RAF had a glut of them stashed post-war they tried to find uses for). Then it began work on the ASX in 1943 followed by the Mamba, Python and Adder and acquired the Vickers Metropolitan F.9 Sapphire when Metrovick decided to cut its losses and get out of the game in 1948 (thankfully saving us from another company in this scenario to worry about!).
de Havilland was reliant on Frank Halford's genius and had the Ghost and Goblin along with plans for a 500shp H.3 turboprop which never got off the drawing board. Halford's H.7 gas generator became the Napier Oryx. Proposed for fitting to Bristol's Type 173, it instead languished in the laughable Percival P.74 and then vanished without trace - the MoS funded at least 5 variants of 850-900shp - but the more powerful 1,100-920shp Gazelle appeared off the back of that.
Bristol had a whole raft of designs.

Even in 1948 there is fat to be trimmed. Even if we accept the Air Staff's highly optimistic forecasts in 1945 that piston power will be gone within a decade, there were too many irons in the fire - Britain had arguably got through WW2 with just 6 major engines, yet in the jet age in 1948 we have: Derwent, Nene, Tay, Tweed, Clyde, Dart, Avon, Ghost, Goblin, Sapphire, Phoebus, Olympus, Theseus, Proteus, ASX, Adder, Mamba, Python.
Some of these died natural deaths, others flopped and others became world beaters. In 1948 its probably too early to tell who are the winners but there were multiples in every class.

Janus was originally a 1,000shp turbine but the MoS trimmed it to 500shp to avoid competition with other projects - presumably Dart and Python. There wasn't much in this class, Halford's H.3 having not materialised. But I reckon if de Havilland engines are left alone to do the job with Halford, uniting work on H.3 and H.7 would get you a decent T58-class turboshaft by 1956.

 

[Hood]

To be honest I'd not given how it happened any thought. As my mergers are the real mergers brought forward 10-15 years the best I can say is that they were done in the same fashion as the real mergers, but as already written, sooner.

This could be tricky given the lack of cash in 1945-48, lack of orders and the over-abundance of shopfloor capacity.
It might - indeed as in my 1950 scenario - require MoS financial lubrication or pressure.

If I remember my Correlli Barnett correctly, electronics was yet another sector of British industry that he claimed was organised into a large number of small firms that couldn't compete with Germany, Japan and the USA. Was he correct? If he was correct would a complimentary reorganisation of the British electronics industry be justified? If it was justified, what benefits can HM Forces expect? Do we get better radars, sonars and guided missiles of all types?

Britain arguably was never 'weak' in this area from the 1930s onwards, perhaps with less R&D resources, but not massively inferior. Competing with the USA is a non-starter really given the larger industrial base there. But yes, there was a case for some rationalisation and enlarging of facilities, especially in the military sphere. The 1950s saw newcomers like ECKO making a bigger name for themselves.

My National Electronic Engineering Ltd is a bit of a monster, easily matching GEC in this period. There is a strong overlap in locomotive production, diesels (Napier and Paxman combined - in my AH both cooperated on diesel aero engines in the 1930s) to combine the Deltic with Paxman's series of diesels, nearly all British marine diesels would be from NEE. There is a huge chunk of electronics and industrial electronics in there, Marconi adds radios and military kit too, radars etc. Alvis brings not only automotive engines and chassis (cars, lorries, armoured vehicles) but allows Alvis and Napier to combine their Leonides, Sabre, Nomad lines into one development team. In theory you could build a gas turbine team here, but honestly I'd rather not. Arguably this company is something like BAE Systems is today - except with cars and trains instead of fighters and shipbuilding.

I suspect in my alt-world Elliotts and Ferranti would tie-up sooner to counteract Marconi in this huge NEE. I might even be tempted to chuck in ECKO - ELFK?

Missiles is tricky, I need to give this much more thought given how spread around this work was.

I agree - I think Handley Page should go into BAC - they did do collaborative work with the group/companies within the group so to me it seems a good fit.
Originally I had thought of H.P. merging with the other 'spare' companies to form a third group, but, even allowing for some amazing financial miracle post-war, I think in reality this would be, if not a non-starter, they would have had to merge with one of the 'Big Two'.

I have always had a soft spot for Handley Page. Arguably, apart from picking up bankrupt Miles in 1947, HP did not move fast enough in the corporate world to build a group. Blackburn for example was relatively close by. But for me, in this period a HP-DH tie up seems the most logical. DH had more experience of smaller aircraft, HP with larger aircraft. They could combine a civil line up from trainers and feederliners to jetliners and cargo lifters quite easily and would be therefore perhaps less reliant on military orders. Imagine HP's potential input into the Comet or Victor tech feeding into later Comet variants.

I think there should be TWO engine suppliers. I HATE the idea of everything being under the Rolls-Royce banner. If nothing else, by keeping Bristol-Siddeley engines as a separate entity and merging with other firms, we should get a better selection of engines and not dependent upon a single supplier.

Agreed.
In my view two threes are preferable. If rationalisation had been carried out early enough, I think that there would have been ample work for 3 airframe groups and 3 engine groups and a couple of large independent airframe companies, more than enough to give the RAF/RN/BOAC/BEA design choices and yet not too many to suck out R&D funds.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This could be tricky given the lack of cash in 1945-48, lack of orders and the over-abundance of shopfloor capacity. It might - indeed as in my 1950 scenario - require MoS financial lubrication or pressure.

Wood suggested "carrot and stick" tactics too. I think he said something like "merge or no Government contracts".

Britain arguably was never 'weak' in this area from the 1930s onwards, perhaps with less R&D resources, but not massively inferior. Competing with the USA is a non-starter really given the larger industrial base there. But yes, there was a case for some rationalisation and enlarging of facilities, especially in the military sphere. The 1950s saw newcomers like ECKO making a bigger name for themselves.

Another story I heard was that a British engineer proposed the silicone chip 4 years before the American engineer who invented it did. However, the British Government and none of the British electronic firms was prepared to take the financial risk. Is that true too? Even if it is true they might take more than 4 years developing it and putting it into production.

My National Electronic Engineering Ltd is a bit of a monster, easily matching GEC in this period. There is a strong overlap in locomotive production, diesels (Napier and Paxman combined - in my AH both cooperated on diesel aero engines in the 1930s) to combine the Deltic with Paxman's series of diesels, nearly all British marine diesels would be from NEE. There is a huge chunk of electronics and industrial electronics in there, Marconi adds radios and military kit too, radars etc. Alvis brings not only automotive engines and chassis (cars, lorries, armoured vehicles) but allows Alvis and Napier to combine their Leonides, Sabre, Nomad lines into one development team. In theory you could build a gas turbine team here, but honestly I'd rather not. Arguably this company is something like BAE Systems is today - except with cars and trains instead of fighters and shipbuilding.

Re trains, that might help with British Railways' dash for diesel under it's Modernisation Plan. More standardisation through having fewer firms to share the orders among. As I understand it the English Electric designs were amongst the few that worked first time. And possibly fewer teething problems and outright failures due to having to buy more of their locomotives by default.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Armstrong Siddeley was arguably irrelevant by 1945 and only Avro Anson production really kept it going with the production of Cheetahs (so many that the RAF had a glut of them stashed post-war they tried to find uses for). Then it began work on the ASX in 1943 followed by the Mamba, Python and Adder and acquired the Vickers Metropolitan F.9 Sapphire when Metrovick decided to cut its losses and get out of the game in 1948 (thankfully saving us from another company in this scenario to worry about!).

You mentioned two members of the Adder-Mamba-Viper family in that paragraph. Could there have been a turboshaft member of the family? I've suggested Anaconda previously. The Mamba competed against the RR Dart. Would a turboshaft version of that engine have been feasible? Would it have been advisable?

 

[Hood]

Another story I heard was that a British engineer proposed the silicone chip 4 years before the American engineer who invented it did. However, the British Government and none of the British electronic firms was prepared to take the financial risk. Is that true too? Even if it is true they might take more than 4 years developing it and putting it into production.

I'd have to look up the silicone chip claim.
As to putting money where their mouth is - hell even Lyon's Corner Houses built their own computer!

LEO (computer) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ironically for this thread, LEO later merged with English Electric! Becoming English Electric Leo Marconi in 1964.

Could there have been a turboshaft member of the family? I've suggested Anaconda previously. The Mamba competed against the RR Dart. Would a turboshaft version of that engine have been feasible? Would it have been advisable?

Yes I think it could be, wouldn't be that difficult - turboprops and turboshafts are essentially the same thing just with the shafting and gearing being different. Actually the specs based off the standard ASMa.6 Mamba look almost identical to those of the NGa.2(R) Gazelle. Might be ready a year or so sooner.

Now we mention this - just realised from my mega list of early jet project that I missed off the Napier Naiad and Eland! The Eland was built in a helicopter turboshaft application, giving 2,920shp for the Westland Westminster. A bit too much grunt for smaller choppers but another engine that had few chances to shine despite the gold lavished on it.

 

[Siberia]

If I remember my Correlli Barnett correctly…

Eh, I'd take some of Barnett's work with a pinch of salt. Whilst very popular in his day it has, as is inevitable with history, had reassessment.

As to putting money where their mouth is - hell even Lyon's Corner Houses built their own computer! Ironically for this thread, LEO later merged with English Electric! Becoming English Electric Leo Marconi in 1964.

That one is always a good quiz question, "Which company designed and built the first business computer?" The vast majority of time people will just guess IBM.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Eh, I'd take some of Barnett's work with a pinch of salt. Whilst very popular in his day it has, as is inevitable with history, had reassessment.

Eh! If you'd quoted more of that post.

If I remember my Correlli Barnett correctly, electronics was yet another sector of British industry that he claimed was organised into a large number of small firms that couldn't compete with Germany, Japan and the USA. Was he correct?

While I didn't agree with him 100% at the time (and agree even less now) he may have had a point because there was a belated consolidation of the British computer industry IOTL.

International Computers Limited (ICL) was created in 1968 by merging International Computers and Tabulators (ICT) with English Electric Computers. The latter was the result of recent merger of Elliott Automation with English Electric Leo Marconi computers, which itself had been a merger of the computer divisions of English Electric, LEO and Marconi.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Whilst very popular in his day it has, as is inevitable with history, had reassessment.

I think historians follow the advice Deep Thought gave to Majikthise and Vroomfondel.

"Disagree with each other violently and you'll be on the gravy train for life!"​

 

[Scott Kenny]

I would want to keep two separate companies building helicopters. Competition is good.

Need to keep at least 2 engine companies for the same reason. Just don't have a clue who the second one should be, Rolls is the given.

I'd also want some dedicated rocket/guided missile engineering teams, in addition to the aircraft engineering teams. These may end up in 3 further sub-specialties: big ballistics, aircraft weapons, and SAMs.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Lastly (for now) and I apologise for rambling....I think there should be TWO engine suppliers. I HATE the idea of everything being under the Rolls-Royce banner. If nothing else, by keeping Bristol-Siddeley engines as a separate entity and merging with other firms, we should get a better selection of engines and not dependent upon a single supplier.

Need to keep at least 2 engine companies for the same reason. Just don't have a clue who the second one should be, Rolls is the given.

Phil Oakey was being boiled and I'm being blond. Again. I created two engine companies in the late 1940s in Post 3. I don't know if you're agreeing with me or didn't notice and are suggesting it.

To keep it simple the two firms are Rolls-Royce plus Napier and the the Real-Bristol Siddeley Engines created a decade-and-a-bit sooner. All other things being equal BSE remains independent until 1966 which was when RR bought it IOTL.

In Post 3 Alvis and Power Jets as independent companies. At present the latter is still nationalised in 1946 to become the National Gas Turbine Establishment (NGTE). Aero engine development at Alvis ceased in the late 1950s IOTL and ITTL it ends by the early 1950s as it looses most of its Leonides sales to the turboshaft engines in the 500-1,000shp class that RR & BSE develop ITTL. The Firm was purchased by Rover in 1965 IOTL and ITTL it might be purchased by Rover in the early 1950s to match the earlier formation of BSE and Greater Rolls-Royce. An alternative is that it joins BSE in the late 1940s with the aero engine side becoming part of the BSE Small Engines Division and the motor vehicle side becoming part of BSE's Motor Vehicle Division which also had the cars business of Armstrong-Siddeley Motors and Bristol Cars.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I would want to keep two separate companies building helicopters. Competition is good.

Once again I'm a blond because there are two separate companies building helicopters in my timeline because Bristol Helicopters Division becomes part of BAC in the 1945-48 period instead of joining Greater Westland which is what happened circa 1960 IOTL. I wrote as much in Post 2.

Greater Westland is the OTL Westland of 1960-ish less Bristol Helicopters, so it sill includes Cierva-Weir, Fairey and Saunders Roe as well as Westland itself. However, having thought about it more Greater Westland may be too large and BAC Helicopters' Division (formerly Bristol Helicopters) may be too small. I definitely want Fairey & Saunders Roe to be part of Greater Westland so that leaves Cierva-Weir to become part of BAC Helicopters' Division.

I'd also want some dedicated rocket/guided missile engineering teams, in addition to the aircraft engineering teams. These may end up in 3 further sub-specialties: big ballistics, aircraft weapons, and SAMs.

I can't remember if I've written it yet in this thread, but Greater Westland is told to stop designing fixed wing aircraft and concentrate on ballistic missiles and helicopters. Therefore, no Fairey Deltas (1 & 2), the SR/A.1 is abandoned in the late 1940s instead of the early 1950s, no Princess, no SR.53, no SR.177 and possibly no Fairey Gannet and if there is one it's ALT-Gannet which is a conventional twin-turboprop aircraft like the Grumman Tracker and its derivatives. The ballistic missile is an earlier Black Knight which like the real one was intended to be a test vehicle from which the technology required for an operational ballistic missile could be developed.

Fairey becoming part of Westland sooner means its work on tip jets is ended in the late 1940s, so no Gyrodyne, Rotodyne and Ultra Light Helicopter. Instead efforts are concentrated on building something better than the Skeeter (preferably something like the Scout/Wasp) and the Westland Westminster. IOTL one Rotodyne was built out of 2 planned and 2 Westminster prototypes were built. Therefore, at least 4 Westminster prototypes were built ITTL.

There won't be any specialised rocket/missile teams. However, BAC, HS, Greater Short & Harland and Greater Westland will have Dynamics Divisions which comprised the rocket/missile teams that its constituent companies had in the 1950s IOTL.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Post 2, which was the airframe groups created 1945-48 ITTL Mark One.​

British Aircraft Corporation created 1945-1948 ITTL

• Bristol Aeroplane Company.
• English Electric.
• Handley Page (IOTL went into liquidation 1970).
• Miles Aircraft (IOTL went into liquidation 1947 and assets acquired by Handley Page - became H.P. Reading).
• Percival Aircraft (IOTL Hunting Percival from 1954).
• Vickers Armstrong Aircraft (Weybridge & Supermarine).
• BAC Helicopters' Division.
  • Bristol Helicopters' Division.
  • Cierva-Weir.

The changes from Post 2 are.

• Handley Page joins BAC ITTL because it has to build a medium bomber to Spec. B.35/46 ITTL. H.P. built the Victor IOTL and the Victor is still built ITTL. Meanwhile, the Avro Vulcan is still built ITTL and that firm's part of Greater Hawker Siddeley ITTL. Therefore, H.P. joins BAC ITTL by default.
• Miles Aircraft joins BAC because Wood wanted it to become a division of one of the new industry groups. It could just as easily have become part of Greater Hawker Siddeley and the only reason why it doesn't is because Miles was purchased by H.P. IOTL and H.P. became part of BAC ITTL.
• Cierva-Weir joins BAC to create a stronger Helicopters' Division instead of Greater Westland.

Greater Hawker Siddleley created 1945-48 ITTL

• The Original Hawker Siddeley.
  • A.V. Roe.
  • Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft.
  • Gloster Aircraft.
  • Hawker Aircraft.
• Plus
  • Airspeed (IOTL merged with De Havilland in 1951).
  • De Havilland Aircraft.
  • Blackburn Aircraft (IOTL Blackburn & General Aircraft from 1949).
  • General Aircraft (IOTL became part of Blackburn in 1949).
  • Folland Aircraft.
  • The German Design Team created in Wood's Scenario 1945.

The difference is that Wood wanted the German Design Team to become part of one of the new industry groups. The other high speed design team (Miles) became part of BAC ITTL so the German Design Team became part of Greater Hawker Siddeley by default.

Greater Westland Aircraft created 1945-48 ITTL

• Fairey Aviation.
• Saunders-Roe.
• Westland Aircraft.

As above Cierva-Weir joined BAC instead of Westland and is combined with Bristol Helicopters' Division to create a stronger BAC Helicopters' Division.

Independents in 1948 ITTL

• Auster Aircraft (IOTL the Firm & F.G. Miles (founded 1951) became part of Beagle in 1962 which in 1969 called in the Receiver & closed in 1970).
• Boulton Paul Aircraft (IOTL ceased own aircraft design in late 1950s & became part of Dowty Group in 1961)
• Scottish Aviation (IOTL was nationalised in 1977 and became part of British Aerospace)
• Short Brothers (state owned since 1943 & IOTL merged with Short & Harland in 1948 to become Short Brothers & Harland)

IOTL = In our timeline or what I usually call the "Real World"
ITTL = In this timeline or what I usually call this "Version of History"

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Post 4, which was what to do with the independent airframe firms Mark One.

In 1948 ITTL they were.

• Auster Aircraft (IOTL the Firm & F.G. Miles (founded 1951) became part of Beagle in 1962 which in 1969 called in the Receiver & closed in 1970).
• Boulton Paul Aircraft (IOTL ceased own aircraft design in late 1950 & became part of Dowty Group in 1961).
• Scottish Aviation (IOTL was nationalised in 1977 and became part of British Aerospace).
• Short Brothers (state owned since 1943 & IOTL merged with Short & Harland in 1948 to become Short Brothers & Harland).

The difference between the Post 4 is that it doesn't include Handley Page and Miles because I've decided that they join BAC by 1948. (See Post 28 for why.) Auster made light aircraft, Boulton Paul's main aircraft was the Balliol trainer and Scottish Aviation made light aircraft, trainers and small twin engine aircraft. In Post 4 I suggested that the three firms should be encouraged to merge.

What to do with Auster

IOTL one of Auster's biggest sellers was the A.O.P. 9 light aircraft for the RAF/Army Air Corps. ITTL a light helicopter built by BAC Helicopters' or Greater Westland might be built instead and loosing that contract may drive Auster out of business in the 1950s.

Furthermore, there isn't an F.G. Miles for Auster to merge with in 1962 ITTL. The M.52 isn't cancelled ITTL, then it builds a Mach 2 research aircraft for the RAE and therefore doesn't go bust because it doesn't design the Marathon. Plus it became part of BAC anyway. So the short answer is no F.G. Miles ITTL.

Therefore, I'm letting Auster die early ITTL.

What do do with Scottish Aviation

IOTL Scottish Aviation built 59 Pioneers (including 40 for the RAF) and 87 Twin Pioneers (including 39 for the RAF). ITTL the RAF might buy 40 single-turboshaft helicopters instead of the Pioneers & 39 twin-turboshaft helicopters designed by BAC Helicopters' or Greater Westland. That might drive Scottish Aviation out of business in the 1950s ITTL.

If the Company did survive the loss of that business, it can't take the Bulldog over from Beagle ITTL because there isn't a Beagle ITTL and it can't take the Jetstream over from Handley Page because that's a BAC product ITTL.

Therefore, either Scottish Aviation dies in the 1950s or it joins BAC where it becomes part of its Small Aircraft Division in 1948 so it builds whatever's built instead of the Bulldog ITTL and still builds the Jetstream ITTL.

Greater Short Brothers & Harland

Boulton Paul was taken over by the above because I want it to strengthen its design team.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I'd also want some dedicated rocket/guided missile engineering teams, in addition to the aircraft engineering teams. These may end up in 3 further sub-specialties: big ballistics, aircraft weapons, and SAMs.

Over time BAC & Greater Hawker Siddeley will form specialist divisions. I mentioned the Dynamics Divisions & BAC Helicopter's in my previous reply.

It's probable that they'd form at least one Civil Aircraft and one Military Aircraft Division. At least one because initially there'd be a Bombers' Division & a Fighters' Division and divisions for different types of civil aircraft e.g. airliners & light aircraft. Rather than form them from scratch they might say "Firm A becomes the Fighters' Division, Firm B becomes the Bombers' Division, Firm C becomes the Light Aircraft Division" and so on.

That's along the lines of what Hawker Siddeley did IOTL. Blackburn, Folland & Hawker concentrated on military aircraft. Armstrong-Whitworth, Avro & Gloster became the Avro-Whitworth Division which did airliners, maritime patrol aircraft & military transports and De Havilland concentrated on business jets and airliners.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Post 3, which was the engine groups created 1945-48 ITTL Mark One.​

Bristol Siddeley Engines created 1946-49 ITTL

• Alvis (IOTL).
  • Aero-engine development ceased late 1950s.
  • Alvis was taken over by Rover in 1965 and Rover in turn became part of BLMC.
  • Rover Gas Turbine Aviation activities were taken over by Alvis in 1968.
  • Rover's aero gas turbine activities were acquired by Lucas in 1973).
• Armstrong Siddeley Motors
• Bristol Aeroplane Company (IOTL became Bristol Aero Engines in 1956).
• Blackburn Aircraft (Cirrus).
• De Havilland Engine Company.
• Metropolitan Vickers (IOTL its aero-engine interests were taken over by Armstrong Siddeley in 1949)

Greater Rolls Royce purchased Napier Aero Engines in 1949 ITTL

• D. Napier & Son (IOTL Napier Aero Engines was taken over by Rolls-Royce in 1961).
• Rolls-Royce (IOTL bought BSE in 1966 and went into liquidation in 1971).

Powerjets (R&D)

• IOTL engine design and development ceased in 1946 because it was nationalised and became the National Gas Turbine Establishment (NGTE).
• It's still nationalised to become the NGTE ITTL.

The only change from Mark One is that Alvis joins BSE between 1946 & 1949. The Firm's aero engine business became part of BSE's Small Engine Division and the motor vehicle business became part of BSE Motor Vehicles Division, which also had the cars side of Armstrong-Siddeley Motors and Bristol Cars.

IOTL = In our timeline or what I usually call the "Real World"
ITTL = In this timeline or what I usually call this "Version of History"

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't know if you're agreeing with me or didn't notice and are suggesting it.

Probably didn't notice and was suggesting it. I'm utter rubbish at knowing what British companies did what, so I'm more likely to state a requirement ("Need to keep two separate engine makers" "need to have two separate helicopter makers") than name names as to which companies are getting the work.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Probably didn't notice and was suggesting it. I'm utter rubbish at knowing what British companies did what, so I'm more likely to state a requirement ("Need to keep two separate engine makers" "need to have two separate helicopter makers") than name names as to which companies are getting the work.

For what it's worth my current rationalised aero engine firms are in Post 31. It consists of two firms. Greater Rolls-Royce which is Rolls Royce plus Napier and everything else becomes part of Bristol Siddeley Engines.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

These are the gas turbines produced by the predecessors of Bristol Siddeley Engines
from Bill Gunston's World Encyclopaedia of Aero Engines

How would you rationalise it?
Are there any gaps in the market that should be covered?
The POD is 1st January 1948​

Armstrong Siddeley Motors

ASX turbojet​

Python turboprop​

Mamba turboprop​

Adder turbojet​

Viper turbojet​

Sapphire turbojet​

P.181 turboprop & turboshaft​

Blackburn

Nimbus turboshaft developed from Turbomeca Artouste​

Bristol Aero Engines

Theseus turboprop​

Proteus turboprop​

Janus turboshaft​

BE.10 Olympus turbojet​

BE.17 turbojet​

BE.22 Saturn turbojet​

BE.25 Orion turbprop​

BE.26 Orpheus turbojet​

BE.47 turbojet​

De Havilland Engines

H.1 Goblin turbojet​

H.2 Ghost turbojet​

H.3 centrifugal turboprop of 500shp​

H.4 Gyron turbojet​

H.5 not built​

H.6 Gyron Junior turbojet​

H.7 basis of the Napier Oryx gas generator​

Licence on the General Electric T58 turboshaft which became the Gnome.​

Licence on the General Electric T64 turboshaft which wasn't taken up.​

​

Clarification 18.01.24

ITTL Bristol Siddeley Engines is created between VE-Day and the end of 1947.

• Therefore, if you were the Chairman of BSE's Board on 01.01.48 and looked at the gas turbines under development.
  • What would you cancel?
    • And.
  • What would you retain?
• And of the projects that were started 1948-60 by the predecessors of BSE IOTL.
  • What would you have rejected for development?
  • What would you have approved for development?
    • And.
  • If what you had approved for development left gaps in the market, would you have approved the development of new engines to fill them?

Use as much hindsight as you like. It's the point of alternative history after all. I'll decide if it's a reasonable or unreasonable amount of hindsight.

 

[zen]

If we're starting from '45, then keep RO Wescott and rockets 'in house', fund Brakemine to limited service trials and then drive the mobility effort on Sea Slug for land use.
No Thunderbird or more accurately Thunderbird is Seaslug for land use.

Brakemine system can always develop revised missile for higher performance and is a better basis for close defence than Seacat.

Then just ramp up production.
Arguably focus on the ambition for Small Seaslug/Thunderbird.
Arguably Small Seaslug allows a lighter launcher system for ships.

Meanwhile peel off advanced SAM for VL and CG with SARH terminal homing.

Meanwhile RO effort on solid fuel for rockets and missiles.

Tactical rockets effort worth it for a stepping stone to longer ranges. Army in the driving seat.

Arguably within government circles of secrecy it's theoretically easier to have RO-IRBM effort talk to AW Aldermaston.

 

[uk 75]

Although the Conservatives were in power for most of the period you cover, the opposition Labour Party's commitment to nationalisation and the hidebound nature of both management and trades unions are constant features of the industrial landscape.
The comedy film "I'm alright Jack" captures the flavour of those times.

I'm All Right Jack - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Imagine dealing with these characters when re-organising your companies.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Although the Conservatives were in power for most of the period you cover, the opposition Labour Party's commitment to nationalisation and the hidebound nature of both management and trades unions are constant features of the industrial landscape.
The comedy film "I'm alright Jack" captures the flavour of those times.

I'm All Right Jack - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Imagine dealing with these characters when re-organising your companies.

Here we go again.

For what it's worth I've seen that film and its prequel "Private's Progress" several times.

That film was made in 1959, when the real rationalisation of the British aircraft industry was in progress. Therefore, imagining dealing with those characters when reorganising my companies is unnecessary because we know how they behaved when it actually happened.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

If we're starting from '45, then keep RO Wescott and rockets 'in house', fund Brakemine to limited service trials and then drive the mobility effort on Sea Slug for land use.
No Thunderbird or more accurately Thunderbird is Seaslug for land use.

Brakemine system can always develop revised missile for higher performance and is a better basis for close defence than Seacat.

Then just ramp up production.
Arguably focus on the ambition for Small Seaslug/Thunderbird.
Arguably Small Seaslug allows a lighter launcher system for ships.

Meanwhile peel off advanced SAM for VL and CG with SARH terminal homing.

Meanwhile RO effort on solid fuel for rockets and missiles.

Tactical rockets effort worth it for a stepping stone to longer ranges. Army in the driving seat.

Arguably within government circles of secrecy it's theoretically easier to have RO-IRBM effort talk to AW Aldermaston.

I may start a separate thread about guides missiles.

 

[alertken]

zen #35: NOM will have more trouble trying to rationalise GW because the tube, assigned in UK to airframers, because the product flew, was simply that: a container for propulsion, guidance, control and warhead, all made by others, managed and paid for by...others.

You and others here can happily romp from GW tubes to vacuum tubes to artillery tubes to sailors' tubes. I get lost on the London Underground tube.