UK Tactical Strike System, not Semi-strategic.

[zen]

what if.....in a side AH to the central one of Submarine Launched Missile Deterrent, the next generation aircraft requirement is not the 1,000nm ROA low level strike, but kept down to the 600nm ROA strike?

In this the Canberra Successor is no longer trying to be a mini-V-Bomber and replace the Valiants. For simplicity sake let's define this as the AH TSR.2.

Does it keep the full multi-role OR.339 save for the radius of action distances?
Or in the presence of the missile effort sucking up finance and capacity, does the OR get de-specified down to less demanding performance all round?
In the light of pursuit of the Lightweight nuclear warhead, possibly paralleling the OTL WE.177, does the requirement drop from one 2,000lb Red Beard to a 1,200lb weapon?
Who would win thus AH contest, and why?

In the possible light of NMBR.3 still producing the joint win between Dassault and Hawkers, does the OR.356 go ahead or is it just rolled up by the earlier and much more near production AH TSR.2 ?

Or.. .does the whole thing get dumped by 1959 in light of the costs and resources needed for the Submarine Launched Missile Programme and a licensed US or French design purchased?

Or....maybe since NA.39 Buccaneer is....actually does that survive? Sat it does, then does the RAF have to take it?
Or say NA.39 is cut and developed Scimitar is the result, knowing the new tactical laydown nuclear store is recoverable on a pylon? Being less sensitive a weapon than Red Beard.
In which case is this imposed on the RAF instead of a dedicated new Strike System?
Or...maybe the multi-role variants of the Lightning win out, after all it's already entering service....?

Or....in a effort to ingratiate with the French, Mirages are ordered.....?

 

[Fluff]

what if.....in a side AH to the central one of Submarine Launched Missile Deterrent, the next generation aircraft requirement is not the 1,000nm ROA low level strike, but kept down to the 600nm ROA strike?

In this the Canberra Successor is no longer trying to be a mini-V-Bomber and replace the Valiants. For simplicity sake let's define this as the AH TSR.2.

Does it keep the full multi-role OR.339 save for the radius of action distances?
Or in the presence of the missile effort sucking up finance and capacity, does the OR get de-specified down to less demanding performance all round?
In the light of pursuit of the Lightweight nuclear warhead, possibly paralleling the OTL WE.177, does the requirement drop from one 2,000lb Red Beard to a 1,200lb weapon?
Who would win thus AH contest, and why?

In the possible light of NMBR.3 still producing the joint win between Dassault and Hawkers, does the OR.356 go ahead or is it just rolled up by the earlier and much more near production AH TSR.2 ?

Or.. .does the whole thing get dumped by 1959 in light of the costs and resources needed for the Submarine Launched Missile Programme and a licensed US or French design purchased?

Or....maybe since NA.39 Buccaneer is....actually does that survive? Sat it does, then does the RAF have to take it?
Or say NA.39 is cut and developed Scimitar is the result, knowing the new tactical laydown nuclear store is recoverable on a pylon? Being less sensitive a weapon than Red Beard.
In which case is this imposed on the RAF instead of a dedicated new Strike System?
Or...maybe the multi-role variants of the Lightning win out, after all it's already entering service....?

Or....in a effort to ingratiate with the French, Mirages are ordered.....?

Where are you putting the bomb, on the lightning? I recall the only pylons being on top of the wings? Maybe saw a pic with sneb pods? But surely you would need these for fuel? ditch the guns and have a custom 'pod'?

 

[TsrJoe]

there were proposals for EE. Lightning carrying a tactical weapon on underwing pylon or semi recessed (P.18)

 

[zen]

Probably a recession in a modified belly tank would be preferred. Leaving the wings for fuel and conventional weapons.

 

[JFC Fuller]

what if.....in a side AH to the central one of Submarine Launched Missile Deterrent, the next generation aircraft requirement is not the 1,000nm ROA low level strike, but kept down to the 600nm ROA strike?

In this the Canberra Successor is no longer trying to be a mini-V-Bomber and replace the Valiants. For simplicity sake let's define this as the AH TSR.2.

V-Bombers had, notionally, a 2500nm ROA. The SACEUR assigned Valiants were medium bombers moonlighting as light bombers because they had an all-weather capability that the Canberra lacked and could be traded, 2 for 1, for Canberras due to their dual carriage capability. The switch also offered an opportunity to salami-slice off a bit of the SACEUR commitment by not replacing all of the Canberras.

OR.339 had a 1,000nm ROA and thus was not an attempt at a mini-V-bomber, its range specification pre-dating the allocation of the Valiant to the SACEUR role. The range driver was probably the CENTO/SEATO missions though 1,000nm was also the USAF/NATO definition of a light bomber in the 1950s.

Your scenario is interesting though as the requirement you have outlined, 600nm with a lightweight weapon, was essentially that of AFVG with external fuel and weapons carriage.

 

[zen]

what if.....in a side AH to the central one of Submarine Launched Missile Deterrent, the next generation aircraft requirement is not the 1,000nm ROA low level strike, but kept down to the 600nm ROA strike?

In this the Canberra Successor is no longer trying to be a mini-V-Bomber and replace the Valiants. For simplicity sake let's define this as the AH TSR.2.

V-Bombers had, notionally, a 2500nm ROA. The SACEUR assigned Valiants were medium bombers moonlighting as light bombers because they had an all-weather capability that the Canberra lacked and could be traded, 2 for 1, for Canberras due to dual carriage capability. The switch also offered an opportunity to salami slice off a bit of the SACEUR commitment by not replacing all of the Canberras.

OR.339 had a 1,000nm ROA and thus was not an attempt at a mini-V-bomber, its range specification pre-dating the allocation of the Valiant to the SACEUR role. The range driver was probably the CENTO/SEATO missions though 1,000nm is also the USAF/NATO definition of a light bomber in the 1950s.

Your scenario is interesting though as the requirement you have outlined, 600nm with a lightweight weapon, was essentially that of AFVG with external fuel and weapons carriage.

Well thank you for the correction.
Though it seems that Medium Bomber crept into thinking on TSR.2 after the Valiants are declared to SACEUR.

Certainly this scenario seems to take the wind out of NMBR.3 after the 'joint' win. Arguably P1154 wouldn't receive funding and the mission and numbers would be fulfilled by this AH TSR.2.

Assuming it survives the '65 cull.....
Which if that was the case there'd be precious little scope for AFVG, but the supersonic trainer and Concord presumably survive.

Arguably the Buccaneer delivers a reliable and affordable platform for SEATO.....

Of course if SEATO was really dominant and operations with the RAAF were utmost in thoughts of the time, asking for the Vigilante would resolve this. That was the preferred system by Australia and interoperable with the USN.....

 

[alertken]

(Only the very old will remember how the 1963/64 Macmillan/14th.Earl Conservative Govts. attracted widespread disdain as out-of-touch and past their time.)
But 10/64 Election was very nearly held by them - 4 seats adrift in (660). So...would they have dumped East of Suez?

India PM Shastri visited 12/64 to ask for a UK AW Guarantee v. PRC (1st. Bang, 10/64) and Pakistan (he also asked USSR and US, brushed off by all, so started on doing his own thing). PM Wilson waffled about enhancing UK-in-Akrotiri/Tengah and maybe putting SSBN No.5 in Indian O. Shastri was not convinced. Economics then forced the Labour Govt. to devalue (again), scrap SSBN #5, and quit EoS. So we did not need the range of TSR.2/F-111K.

Chancellor Maudling told his successor “Sorry...to leave it in this shape". If...Tories were in >10/64...it is highly unlikely that the 9/64 Defence Programme would have survived. Not less than one would have gone from the Commitments, so procurement. We would, I submit, have started earlier on role-sharing, so no NATO Member except US would continue to spend to try to do everything, everywhere.

Somewhere in: - UK: France for EEC,
- US trying to cease being Gendarme of the World, while sinking into Viet morass,
- sharing the dying with an Atlantic and/or Multi-National/-Lateral Nuclear Force,
- FRG bothered about Bombs bouncing all over the Luneberger Heide, with or not VTOL,
NATO would have worked out flexible and appropriate response; CENTO/SEATO would have extracted more/earlier sharing from emerging Tiger Economies.

UK might have resiled from the absurdity of bankruptcy from defending people entirely capable of defending themselves. McNamara throught he was going to litter the world with 3,000 F-111s ashore and afloat. Maybe UK would do SACLANT and North Grp., Central Front. With F-4s and Project E Bombs - period.

 

[zen]

11 Sept 1960 Sir Solly Zuckerman compared TSR.2 to Buccaneer.
Noting full spec performance would only be available from 1968.
But concluded Mach 1.2 confered no greater protection than the Buccaneer's Mach 0.9.

He noted if OR is relaxed then Buccaneer can meet needs and save money.

 

[Fluff]

11 Sept 1960 Sir Solly Zuckerman compared TSR.2 to Buccaneer.
Noting full spec performance would only be available from 1968.
But concluded Mach 1.2 confered no greater protection than the Buccaneer's Mach 0.9.

He noted if OR is relaxed then Buccaneer can meet needs and save money.

Yes, but nuke armed Mach 2 Lightning Fighters sound a bit more like a deterrent?

Zoom in at mach 2, nuke your capital, and then decimate your defense fighters on the way home, for tea and crumpet.

 

[CNH]

(Only the very old will remember how the 1963/64 Macmillan/14th.Earl Conservative Govts. attracted widespread disdain as out-of-touch and past their time.)
But 10/64 Election was very nearly held by them - 4 seats adrift in (660). So...would they have dumped East of Suez?

India PM Shastri visited 12/64 to ask for a UK AW Guarantee v. PRC (1st. Bang, 10/64) and Pakistan (he also asked USSR and US, brushed off by all, so started on doing his own thing). PM Wilson waffled about enhancing UK-in-Akrotiri/Tengah and maybe putting SSBN No.5 in Indian O. Shastri was not convinced. Economics then forced the Labour Govt. to devalue (again), scrap SSBN #5, and quit EoS. So we did not need the range of TSR.2/F-111K.

Chancellor Maudling told his successor “Sorry...to leave it in this shape". If...Tories were in >10/64...it is highly unlikely that the 9/64 Defence Programme would have survived. Not less than one would have gone from the Commitments, so procurement. We would, I submit, have started earlier on role-sharing, so no NATO Member except US would continue to spend to try to do everything, everywhere.

Somewhere in: - UK: France for EEC,
- US trying to cease being Gendarme of the World, while sinking into Viet morass,
- sharing the dying with an Atlantic and/or Multi-National/-Lateral Nuclear Force,
- FRG bothered about Bombs bouncing all over the Luneberger Heide, with or not VTOL,
NATO would have worked out flexible and appropriate response; CENTO/SEATO would have extracted more/earlier sharing from emerging Tiger Economies.

UK might have resiled from the absurdity of bankruptcy from defending people entirely capable of defending themselves. McNamara throught he was going to litter the world with 3,000 F-111s ashore and afloat. Maybe UK would do SACLANT and North Grp., Central Front. With F-4s and Project E Bombs - period.

If you really want to do alternative history, imagine the 64 election taken after Khrushchev's downfall and the Chinese A bomb.
Sir Alec succeeds.
What then for defence policy and expenditure?

 

[zen]

11 Sept 1960 Sir Solly Zuckerman compared TSR.2 to Buccaneer.
Noting full spec performance would only be available from 1968.
But concluded Mach 1.2 confered no greater protection than the Buccaneer's Mach 0.9.

He noted if OR is relaxed then Buccaneer can meet needs and save money.

Yes, but nuke armed Mach 2 Lightning Fighters sound a bit more like a deterrent?

Zoom in at mach 2, nuke your capital, and then decimate your defense fighters on the way home, for tea and crumpet.

Well no...
And costwise the Bucc delivers more in Strike and Attack.
The Lightning would be confined to only slightly faster than a Buccaneer thanks to the low level regime, and definitely shorter ranged.

 

[zen]

(Only the very old will remember how the 1963/64 Macmillan/14th.Earl Conservative Govts. attracted widespread disdain as out-of-touch and past their time.)
But 10/64 Election was very nearly held by them - 4 seats adrift in (660). So...would they have dumped East of Suez?

India PM Shastri visited 12/64 to ask for a UK AW Guarantee v. PRC (1st. Bang, 10/64) and Pakistan (he also asked USSR and US, brushed off by all, so started on doing his own thing). PM Wilson waffled about enhancing UK-in-Akrotiri/Tengah and maybe putting SSBN No.5 in Indian O. Shastri was not convinced. Economics then forced the Labour Govt. to devalue (again), scrap SSBN #5, and quit EoS. So we did not need the range of TSR.2/F-111K.

Chancellor Maudling told his successor “Sorry...to leave it in this shape". If...Tories were in >10/64...it is highly unlikely that the 9/64 Defence Programme would have survived. Not less than one would have gone from the Commitments, so procurement. We would, I submit, have started earlier on role-sharing, so no NATO Member except US would continue to spend to try to do everything, everywhere.

Somewhere in: - UK: France for EEC,
- US trying to cease being Gendarme of the World, while sinking into Viet morass,
- sharing the dying with an Atlantic and/or Multi-National/-Lateral Nuclear Force,
- FRG bothered about Bombs bouncing all over the Luneberger Heide, with or not VTOL,
NATO would have worked out flexible and appropriate response; CENTO/SEATO would have extracted more/earlier sharing from emerging Tiger Economies.

UK might have resiled from the absurdity of bankruptcy from defending people entirely capable of defending themselves. McNamara throught he was going to litter the world with 3,000 F-111s ashore and afloat. Maybe UK would do SACLANT and North Grp., Central Front. With F-4s and Project E Bombs - period.

If you really want to do alternative history, imagine the 64 election taken after Khrushchev's downfall and the Chinese A bomb.
Sir Alec succeeds.
What then for defence policy and expenditure?

Start your own thread.

 

[Fluff]

11 Sept 1960 Sir Solly Zuckerman compared TSR.2 to Buccaneer.
Noting full spec performance would only be available from 1968.
But concluded Mach 1.2 confered no greater protection than the Buccaneer's Mach 0.9.

He noted if OR is relaxed then Buccaneer can meet needs and save money.

Yes, but nuke armed Mach 2 Lightning Fighters sound a bit more like a deterrent?

Zoom in at mach 2, nuke your capital, and then decimate your defense fighters on the way home, for tea and crumpet.

Well no...
And costwise the Bucc delivers more in Strike and Attack.
The Lightning would be confined to only slightly faster than a Buccaneer thanks to the low level regime, and definitely shorter ranged.

I know........

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

11 Sept 1960 Sir Solly Zuckerman compared TSR.2 to Buccaneer.
Noting full spec performance would only be available from 1968.
But concluded Mach 1.2 confered no greater protection than the Buccaneer's Mach 0.9.

He noted if OR is relaxed then Buccaneer can meet needs and save money.

And then in 1980 we got Mach 2.2 capable Tornado GR1 only to see the RAF quietly downspec it to Mach 1.2 within a few years of service;- by initially freezing the upper intake door actuators and eventually replacing them with fixed struts. So I guess it fair to say Mach 2.2 was no better than Mach 1.

History proved a Buccaneer GR1 (range extended and Automatic TFR) would have satisfied all of the RAF requirements 1975-2015.

 

[zen]

And if we look at the USN we see the subsonic Intruder outlives the supersonic Vigilante, and is succeeded by a firmly subsonic when loaded F/A-18E/F. In the aftermath of the equally subsonic Avenger fiasco.

 

[zen]

Of course the flipside on this scenario is the missile technology permits a 600nm Tactical system. Possibly paralleling Pershing.
Obviating Tactical strike save to NMBR.3 style 300nm or less.
Leaving 600nm figure for recce, EW lead, and iron.
Implying a rather different solution in requirements.

 

[GK Dundas]

As I recall Lockheed in the very early ( Yeah ,I'm old.)eighties offered up a system they called AXE.
Based on a Trident upper stage and a cluster munition warhead
It was designed as a counter air weapon aimed at airfields.

 

[zen]

As I recall Lockheed in the very early ( Yeah ,I'm old.)eighties offered up a system they called AXE.
Based on a Trident upper stage and a cluster munition warhead
It was designed as a counter air weapon aimed at airfields.

Submarine Launched Missile System is a 1950s concept, OR.339 is late 50's, NMBR.3 and P1154 is an early 60’s effort.
I don't think they'd manage a 1980's concept in this era.
This thread is to explore a less demanding requirements and solution to OR.339 that in OTL led to the TSR.2.

 

[Siberia]

If you really want to do alternative history, imagine the '64 election taken after Khrushchev's downfall and the Chinese A bomb. Sir Alec succeeds. What then for defence policy and expenditure?

A poster with the user name Marky Bunny over at the Alternate History forums looked at the 1964 general election and worked out that apparently if 8,655 voters had changed their minds in 20 marginal constituencies Labour's majority of 5 would have become a Conservative majority of 17. Khrushchev being ousted and a successful Chinese nuclear test would likely be enough to do this I think. Even without these going from memory of reading D. R. Thorpe's biography of Alec Douglas-Home there were several other domestic factors which might have helped make the election closer.

 

[uk 75]

NATO Saceur solved the problem. Realising the UK could not field an adequate theatre operational strike force he got USAF to do it, first with a wing of F111s at Upper Heyford and later with another wing of F111s at Lakenheath (replacing the ancient RAF Vulcans). Later still Tomahawk Cruise missiles at Greenham and Molesworth join in.
The Far East role against Indonesia or whatever was assumed eventually by the RAAF F111s.
The RAF was refocussed with tactical Jaguars (replacing 1154s) and Buccaneers in Germany giving way to equally tactical Tornados.
Another pointless what if thread.

 

[zen]

NATO Saceur solved the problem. Realising the UK could not field an adequate theatre operational strike force he got USAF to do it, first with a wing of F111s at Upper Heyford and later with another wing of F111s at Lakenheath (replacing the ancient RAF Vulcans). Later still Tomahawk Cruise missiles at Greenham and Molesworth join in.
The Far East role against Indonesia or whatever was assumed eventually by the RAAF F111s.
The RAF was refocussed with tactical Jaguars (replacing 1154s) and Buccaneers in Germany giving way to equally tactical Tornados.
Another pointless what if thread.

Seems like you don't get the point of the thread. Doesn't look like you've read it.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

How much of the TSR-2s cost was taken up by avionics? DIANE was responsible for 43% of the cost of the A-6, but TSR-2's higher performance and more adventurous choice of materials (such the X2020 Aluminium-Lithium Alloy) may mean that Airframe cost is considerably higher, and therefore makes up a higher proportion of the total aircraft cost.

A 600nm ROA AFVG-sized aircraft will still have much of the avionics of TSR-2, including TFR, possibly a separate Attack Radar like F-111 and Tornado, may have SLRs for taking Navigation fixes and Reconaissance, along with the associated INS, Attack Computer and Automatic Flight Control System. It would also likely still have two (although slightly smaller) engines, and two crew, which I assume would mean the life-cycle costs would similar with exception of expenditure on fuel.