WI more Canberra's replaced by Valiants?

[Rule of cool]

In 1960 some 64 Canberra B2 & B6 in 4 sqns based in Britain and assigned to SACEUR were replaced by 24 Valiants in 3 sqns. Despite the significant decrease in numbers this was considered a net benefit because of the Valiant's all weather capabilities. By 1964 the RAF still had 9 sqns of Canberra B6, B8, B15, B16 in service:

• 4 - RAFG.
• 4 - NEAF.
• 1 - FEAF.

WI the RAF also replaced other Canberras with a smaller number of Valiants in the early 60s? I'd think the best candidates would be the 4 sqns in the NEAF, maybe going from 32 Canberras in 4 sqns to ~20 Valiants in 2 sqns.

How would this affect the Valiant fatigue repair programme that had started by 1964? How would this affect the TSR2 project? If the Valiants were still in service by 1967 would their presence in Cyprus have any impact on the 6 Day War?

 

[alertken]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/replacing-saceurs-raf-valiants.31273/

(This post is Hist, not AH, to explain why Valiant was not/could not be the prime Canberra replacement).

Bombs.

Ike was incandescent that UK/France had used his kit (e.g.: ex-USS Langley), intended to deal with Reds, to invade Egypt, 11/56. He also had a Trumpian need to reduce $ spend in Defence of Europe, by encouraging us all to deploy more liveware.

So, UK Mutual Defence Agreement ("Bermuda"), 27/3/57: Project E loan Bombs/Thor IRBM/etc; extended 16/12/57 by the offer of a NATO Common Stockpile (Italy first, 1/3/59, Honest John SSM). This would reach 7,000 warheads, non-US Forces on dual key schemes.

From 2/7/59 48 would be Mk.7 in 9 & 12 Sqns/Coningsby (LABS-qualified) and 139 Sqn/Upwood Canberra B.6 (gravity delivered, Bombs loaded at Coningsby). (The 64 number incs 35 Sqn, Canberra B.2, along for the ride as decoy, no sting, HE only).

1/7/61: the 48 SACEUR targets were covered by 3x8 Valiants, each 2xMk.28. 15/9/60 RAFG Canberra B(I)6/8 had 4x16 Mk.7: 64, to rise 8/66 to 128, 4x16x2xB-43 to 12/69.

That permitted UK AW industry to do Big Bangs for Skybolt, then Polaris. Production of fission Red Beard and fusion Yellow Sun Mk.1, both, ah, fraught, could be reduced to (RN CVs and) NEAF(32 Bombs)/FEAF (8 Bombs) (US' Custodials issue made deployment at sea and in sandpits and jungle too hard). So, why 1961/62 did we modify Canberra B.6 - B.15/16, not Valiants, which we put to K, ECM, PR?

OP suggests NBS made Valiant more effective than Canberra's Mk.1 eyeball. More range too, though probably not needed: a pprune poster had FEAF targets as cross-paths in the jungle. But...5 crew, plus painful Engineering...Canberra cheaper in every way, for brief use before TSR.2 was to arrive from 1967-ish. Until 12/62 we thought we would need all RAF's brightest and best for Skybolt Vulcans.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to the Opening Post.

FWIW (1) A Valiant carried 2 atom bombs and a Canberra could carry one so therefore the number of targets was that could be attacked was theoretically reduced from 64 to 48. That's according to Wynn in "RAF Nuclear Deterrent Forces" who (as you wrote in the OP) said the Valiants had all-weather capability, the Canberras didn't and that was the reason for the change.

FWIW (2) The peak strength of the Valiant Force was a UE of 72 in 9 squadrons of 8 aircraft (7 medium bomber, one LRPR & one ECM squadron). This was reduced to 6 squadrons (3 TBF, 2 tanker & one LRPR) between 1960 and 1963. Therefore, you could keep the 3 squadrons that were disbanded (two in 1962 & one in 1963) and have them replace some of the Canberra light bombers.

FWIW (3) According to Wynn in "RAF Nuclear Deterrent Forces" the running cost of one Valiant was equal to the running cost of 3 Canberras. 64 ÷ 3 = 21 which because Valiant squadrons had a UE of 8 aircraft was rounded up to 24. The 4 Canberra squadrons in RAFG had a UE of 12 aircraft each and the rest had a UE of 8 which made a total UE of 88. Using Wynn's formula the 24 aircraft in 3 squadrons disbanded 1962-63 IOTL could replace 72 of the 88 Canberras.

FWIW (4) Except the 32 Canberra light bombers (in 4 squadrons of 8) of the Akrotiri Strike wing were replaced by 16 Vulcan B.2s (in 2 squadrons of 8) in 1969 IOTL. That's a one-for-two substitution rather than one-for three. Therefore, the 2 Valiant medium bomber squadrons that disbanded in 1962 IOTL could have instead been transferred to Cyprus to re-equip the Akrotiri Strike Wing and they would in turn be replaced by the Vulcan B.2s in 1969. Except, if the Valiants were still withdrawn in 1965 they'd be replaced by redundant Vulcan B.1s until they could be replaced by Vulcan B.2s. IOTL replacing the Valiants in the TBF with redundant Vulcan B.1s was considered and the money was available, but IIRC from Wynn it was decided that the money would be better spent elsewhere.

FWIW (5) That leaves the 8 ECM Valiants in No. 18 squadron that IOTL was disbanded on 31.03.63 and I can think of the following alternatives.

1. Convert it to a TBF squadron in Bomber Command so 32 Valiants (each carrying two bombs) replace 64 Canberras (each carrying one bomb). So the number of targets that can be attacked is still 64. Or at least it is a one-for-one replacement in theory.
2. Make it a medium bomber squadron and transfer it to Akrotiri to reinforce the 2 Valiant squadrons that in FWIW (4) were sent to Cyprus in 1962.
3. Make it a medium bomber squadron and transfer it to FEAF to replace its Canberra light bomber squadron. In addition to being a more capable nuclear bomber he hot war role (all-weather, greater range & two bombs so (in theory) double the number of targets). It would be more useful in the warm & cold war roles too because it could carry 21,000lb of HE instead of 6,000lb of HE and AFAIK could loiter for longer.
4. Convert it to a tanker squadron to reinforce the 2 Valiant medium bomber squadrons which became tanker squadrons on 01.04.62.

Of the four options I prefer converting it into a tanker squadron, with a fourth TBF squadron being my second choice, sending it to FEAF is my third choice and sending it to NEAF is my fourth.

 

[Rule of cool]

Except the 32 Canberra light bombers (in 4 squadrons of 8) of the Akrotiri Strike wing were replaced by 16 Vulcan B.2s (in 2 squadrons of 8) in 1969 IOTL. That's a one-for-two substitution rather than one-for three. Therefore, the 2 Valiant medium bomber squadrons that disbanded in 1962 IOTL could have instead been transferred to Cyprus to re-equip the Akrotiri Strike Wing and they would in turn be replaced by the Vulcan B.2s in 1969. Except, if the Valiants were still withdrawn in 1965 they'd be replaced by redundant Vulcan B.1s until they could be replaced by Vulcan B.2s. IOTL replacing the Valiants in the TBF with redundant Vulcan B.1s was considered and the money was available, but IIRC from Wynn it was decided that the money would be better spent elsewhere.

This sounds like what I was thinking.

Valiants wouldn't totally replace Canberra, there's too much in Canberra favour to make that happen. Displacement of a few is a different matter and could ease the transition to the TSR2.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This sounds like what I was thinking.

What would you do with No. 18 Squadron?

• My first choice is still to make it the third tanker squadron.
• My second choice is still to transfer it from the MBF to the TBF so there's a (theoretical) one-for-one replacement of the Canberra light bombers in the UK.

In either case they could be sent to reinforce NEAF/CENTO or FEAF/SEATO if required.

Valiants wouldn't totally replace Canberra, there's too much in Canberra favour to make that happen. Displacement of a few is a different matter and could ease the transition to the TSR2.

Correct. There are also the scores of PR Canberras which you didn't mention in the OP. However, I think you should make this a TL where the RAF is forced to buy Buccaneers (with better avionics) instead of TSR.2s from the word go.

 

[Rule of cool]

While my nebulous thinking is heading towards a more successful Buccaneer the RAF really does need a state of the art tactical/theatre strike aircraft, which means either TSR2 or F111. I have a feeling that if it was acknowledged early on that the TSR2 would be replacing Valiants at half the locations the increasing costs would be understood. Further with less Canberras to replace and more V bombers consolation prizes like Phantom, AFVG and Buccaneers wouldn't be seen as acceptable.

I don't know about the spare Valiant sqn, some TSR2 sqns would be tasked with recce, and presumably the TSR2 would have ECM capability, so if it isn't made into tankers then it might fade away.

 

[Rule of cool]

I’ve had a bit of an epiphany on this in the last few days, as I’ve looked into the details of later model Canberra’s for the first time.

IIUC by 1961 the non-recce Canberra’s left in RAF service were B(I).6 /8 in RAFG and B.15/16 in NEAF/FEAF. Unlike earlier B.2 and B.6 these were not strictly bombers, the B(I)s could be fitted with a 4 x 20mm gun pack for strafing and the B.15/16 with rocket pods (and later AS30) which are suitable for attacking CAS-style targets, as well as nuclear and conventional bombs. Thus it appears that with these new weapons the Canberra force took on some of the tasks formerly done by fighter-bombers.

As such it is inappropriate to simply replace the NEAF Canberra B.15/16s with Valiants, as they cannot be used against the sort of targets requiring a mix of rockets (or AS30) and bombs. Not that was suggested, but it would be similarly inappropriate to replace RAFG B(I).6/8 with Valiants as they are not suitable for cannon strafing.

Of course this raises more questions than it answers.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

For what it's worth there's nothing (apart from the cost) to stop more Canberras from being replaced by Victor & Vuclan Mk 1s as they were displaced by Victor & Vulcan Mk 2s in the Medium Bomber Force. 50 Victor B.1s were built and 4 squadrons were formed while 45 Victor B.1s were built and 3 squadrons were formed. IOTL the 3 Valiant TBF squadrons were to have been replaced by the 3 Vulcan B.1 squadrons, but in the end the MoD (RAF) decided that the money was better spent elsewhere.

However, no Victor Mk 1s would have been available for conversion to takers. That may be a blessing in disguise for you as it may mean that 30 VC.10 tankers were built in the second half of the 1960s. That would have increased the number built from 54 to 84. IOTL China wanted to buy some VC.10s after production had ceased and the offer was so lucrative that BAC thought about restarting production. The VC.10 might still have been in production when China made the offer ITTL.

 

[Rule of cool]

It's not the lack V bombers that I'm questioning, but if the Canberra should have been replaced by a fighter-bomber rather than the TSR2. 4 x 20mm cannon and 5 x 1000lb bombs, or 2 x rocket pods and 6 x 1000lb bombs or 8 x 1000lb bombs or 2 x AS30 and 6 x 1000lb bombs sounds a lot like a Phantom, Thud or P1121 warload.

 

[TsrJoe]

And once again we come full circle, the types we see actually entering service IRL. are really the only viable and sensible options
(the P.1121 was NOT a British F-105 and was NOT a design pursued by the RAF.)

 

[Rule of cool]

And once again we come full circle, the types we see actually entering service IRL. are really the only viable and sensible options
(the P.1121 was NOT a British F-105 and was NOT a design pursued by the RAF.)

Yes, I'm having an existential crisis over it.

I bring up the P1121 because its about the only British concept-mockup that might replace what the RAF needs replacing in the 2nd half of the 60s; Javelins, CAS/PR Canberras and Hunter FGA/FRs.

 

[Rule of cool]

I think I've figured it out; the issue is timing and the change in the Defence policy/strategy combined with the availability of nuclear weapons.

The Interdictor Canberra were conceived in the early 50s, the prototype converted B.5 flying in 1954, the Interim B(I).6s being delivered in 1955 and the definitive B(I).8s in 1956-57. The was before Britain had any nuclear weapons for them and WW2 was expected to be a lot like WW2 but with some nukes. This is why these aircraft were armed with guns and conventional bombs.

In 1957 the DWP changed British defence policy to one of conventional tripwire and nuclear massive retaliation, and at the same time the US agreed to supply the RAF with Mk7 nuclear bombs. After this point nuclear strike became the RAFG Canberra force's main role. It was during this time period that the TSR2 was developed and it appears appropriate that it replace RAFG night-capable Canberra Interdictors in the conventional tripwire and nuclear strike role.

The NEAF/FEAF B.15 and B.16 were converted from B.6 and B.6(BS) and entered service in 1961, well and truly during the conventional tripwire - massive nuclear retaliation era. These aircraft carried the newly introduced British Red Beard nuke as well as conventional bombs and rockets pods and later AS30 missiles. The fitment of rocket pods was a deliberate choice in the massive retaliation era, whereas the B(I)'s guns could be seen as a holdover from the previous era. However rockets/missiles on the wings don't reduce the conventional bombload like the 4 x 20mm guns in the bomb bays of B(I)s did, so they were still heavy hitters when doing a bit of CAS and TSR2 is still an appropriate replacement.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

It's not the lack V bombers that I'm questioning, but if the Canberra should have been replaced by a fighter-bomber rather than the TSR2. 4 x 20mm cannon and 5 x 1000lb bombs, or 2 x rocket pods and 6 x 1000lb bombs or 8 x 1000lb bombs or 2 x AS30 and 6 x 1000lb bombs sounds a lot like a Phantom, Thud or P1121 warload.

For what it's worth what I wrote in Post 8 wasn't in reply to what you wrote in Post 7. It was merely to say that other V-bombers could have been used too.

 

[Rule of cool]

For what it's worth what I wrote in Post 8 wasn't in reply to what you wrote in Post 7. It was merely to say that other V-bombers could have been used too.

You wouldn't believe the info rabbit warren I've gone done down in the last week, all because I looked at what the British might send to the Vietnam War, ie Canberra B.15/16.

Perhaps the most surprising was that the change from massive retaliation to flexible response was driven by the emerging anti-tank effectiveness of helicopters from the mid 60s. This hinted that the conventional war might last more than a couple of days, indeed it might be somewhat prolonged. This then spun off into how the massive retaliation era 'air defence' of the UK, actually the total lack thereof, was totally inappropriate and the UK actually needed air defence.

At the end, bombs and AS30 carried by Canberra B.15s are exactly what the TSR2 needed going forward in the flexible response era, and Vbombers aren't appropriate for the NEAF.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And once again we come full circle, the types we see actually entering service IRL. are really the only viable and sensible options
(the P.1121 was NOT a British F-105 and was NOT a design pursued by the RAF.)

Yet the role the RAF was looking for was largely that of an F105, with a need for interceptors as well.

The P1121 could have filled both roles, with a setup rather like the F101 with separate strike and interceptor airframes because the avionics was too big to put all of it into a single plane.

 

[Hood]

Had the planned long-range fighter version of the DH.110 Vixen had gone ahead for the RAF, its possible that the RAF would have got a fairly meaty fighter-bomber, at least 4x ADEN and at least 4x 1,000lb bombs, possibly more if ventral hardpoints were added. Add in things like Bullpup and AS.30 and you have a pretty potent attacker.

The RAF put far more thought into interdictors in the 1950s than fighter-bombers - they weren't thinking of CAS but more in terms of tactical strike against airfields and railheads - a true Mossie successor.

 

[Rule of cool]

The RAF put far more thought into interdictors in the 1950s than fighter-bombers - they weren't thinking of CAS but more in terms of tactical strike against airfields and railheads - a true Mossie successor.

This looks like the case, and therefore it looks appropriate to combine the Canberra and Vbomber replacement rather than combine the Canberra replacement with a fighter-bomber.

 

[Rule of cool]

The P1121 could have filled both roles, with a setup rather like the F101 with separate strike and interceptor airframes because the avionics was too big to put all of it into a single plane.

That changed at some point in the 60s, maybe 1965?

We've previously talked about the RAAF Mirage III programme, with the 48 'Interceptors' being built 1963-65 and the 52 'attack' with the Cyrano IIB and radar altimeter built 1966-68 and the 'interceptors' retro-fitted with the IIB and RA by 1969. The fact of the matter is the 'attack' versions could conduct interception just as well as the 'interceptors' but the 2 sqns were on an 'attack' flying-training programme until 1973.

I suspect that by the time a P.1121 entered service it would be as multi-role as the RAAF Mirages.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I suspect that by the time a P.1121 entered service it would be as multi-role as the RAAF Mirages.

That would certainly be the goal. The trick is to get the RAF etc thinking about one airframe that could do both jobs, because it'd let you buy more planes. Same engine, same airframe.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

You wouldn't believe the info rabbit warren I've gone done down in the last week, all because I looked at what the British might send to the Vietnam War, ie Canberra B.15/16.

Perhaps the most surprising was that the change from massive retaliation to flexible response was driven by the emerging anti-tank effectiveness of helicopters from the mid 60s. This hinted that the conventional war might last more than a couple of days, indeed it might be somewhat prolonged. This then spun off into how the massive retaliation era 'air defence' of the UK, actually the total lack thereof, was totally inappropriate and the UK actually needed air defence.

At the end, bombs and AS30 carried by Canberra B.15s are exactly what the TSR2 needed going forward in the flexible response era, and Vbombers aren't appropriate for the NEAF.

For what it's worth the 4 Canberra bomber squadrons in NEAF and the single Canberra bomber squadron in FEAF operated Venom fighter-bombers before they converted to Canberras.

 

[Rule of cool]

For what it's worth the 4 Canberra bomber squadrons in NEAF and the single Canberra bomber squadron in FEAF operated Venom fighter-bombers before they converted to Canberras.

That would support my thinking that the Canberra took over at least some of the fighter-bomber role, which is why there was no serious fighter-bomber development proposals in the mid-late 50s.

Venom FB to Canberra B.15-16 is a pretty hefty jump in capability, even leaving aside the Red Beard nukes the Canberra B.15-16 had much more range, much greater payload and night bombing capability.

 

[uk 75]

The impact of the NATO move away from Massive to Flexible Response is increased by the growing West German influence. This calls for NATO to defend as much German soil as possible (Forward Defence) and at the same time delay the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

RAF Germany reflects this change by introducing Phantoms and then Jaguars. Unlike the P1154 these are tasked with conventional bombing in both the close air support and interdiction roles. Some aircraft are retained for the nuclear role. This now focuses on targets in Poland and East Germany (interdiction of bridges etc) rather than Soviet forces attacking in W Germany.

Tornado is developed as a Phantom/Jaguar rather than Canberra replacement. Its small size and large range of weapons shows how much has changed since TSR2.

48 Vulcans replace the Valiants once Polaris enters service. The US add the Lakenheath F111 wing to the Heyford one which coincides neatly with the Vulcans retiring.

A UK purchase of GLCM would have been the real Valiant successor but the US (as with Thor) does the job. But the Tomahawks at Greenham are USAF not RAF crewed. Their role is to demonstrate that Europe will not be left in the wet if Soviet SS20d are used.

Perhaps if the Berlin and Cuba crises had not shown the White House the limitations of Massive Response and West Germany less successful economically then the sort of RAF yearned for by some here might have happened.

 

[Rule of cool]

Massive Retaliation was quite damaging to British Home and European defence. I was particularly surprised to see that the whole Fighter Command edifice to 1957 was replaced with 3 big radars plus BMEWS and a comprehensive system had to be rebuilt from the late 60s to actually fight WW3

That said I think a narrow focus on Massive Retaliation misses out on the other aspect of Defence Policy/Strategy of the era; fighting limited wars 'Out of Area'. For example 5 sqns of TSR2 and (most?) of 7 fighter/fighter-bombers in the NEAF/AFME/FEAF could be put to good use in NATO in the 70s when the EoS commitment gets reduced to something akin to a Persian Gulf patrol and other cats and dogs. Similarly CVA01&02, Spey Phantoms and Buccaneers, as well as escorting Type 82 DLGs would be put to good use in NATO Strike Fleet as Strike Group 2 and whatever else might be needed to support ACE Mobile Force or RM deployments to Norway.

 

[red admiral]

At the same point, then the NATO strategy worked in deterring WW3. Maybe a too narrow focus on this, but this was very much the primary threat vs much more optional "policing" operations elsewhere.

 

[Rule of cool]

At the same point, then the NATO strategy worked in deterring WW3. Maybe a too narrow focus on this, but this was very much the primary threat vs much more optional "policing" operations elsewhere.

I think to use the term 'policing', onto which 'colonial' is often attached, is used to downplay the importance of this Cold War role. During the early Cold War in particular is was understandably thought that the Soviets or Communists or whatever you call them could be deterred from conquering Western Europe but still gain global dominance by gaining Allies and Clients all over the world. It was not seen as 'optional', Britain, with US support, argued with it's NATO allies that it's SEATO and CENTO obligations were part of the global competition with Communism/Soviets and if they got too much power and influence they'd be stronger agsainst NATO.

All in all I think Britain did reasonably well with what they had up to the 57 DWP. Partially replacing Venom fighter-bombers with Canberra interdictors which themselves were displaced by Vbombers is a 'think outside the box' move; the British had no suitable aircraft to make into a competitive fighter-bomber so got around the problem by being able to operate at long range at night with a heavy bomb-load. Using Valiants in this role is not appropriate.

Post 57 DWP a much shrunken RAF even in the best guise I can conceive still won't have a suitable fighter-bomber so the TSR2 is the best replacement for these Canberra interdictors and bundling them up with the UK based Valiant wing is a good procurement decision. It's just the execution that was lacking.

 

[uk 75]

IF the three RAF types in 1965 (TSR2, 1154Harrier, and 681) had been developed with less political interference, clearer and less fanciful ORs, and better managed and organised industry it would still have left the RAF much smaller than what was cobbled together from 1965 to 1985 (the likely service lives of the three basic versions).

TSR2 would have given the RAF similar capabilities to the US F111 and been a step change in capabilities that was not achieved until Tornado arrived in the 80s.

1154 would have been closer to Jaguar in the way in which it was used than to the 1127 RAF. Numbers were similar too.

681 would have been interesting to compare with Hercules and Transall for performance and costs. Mid way between the Kawasaki C1 and the Il76 or C141 it might not have been as versatile or rugged as the RAF C130s.

The big gap would have been something like Phantom and then Tornado which could be genuinely multi-role than single-role. Plans called for something like Phantom (a UK VG design) to replace Lightning but also do some TSR2 and 1154 work.
.
The RAF and RN (unlike enthusiasts here) were willing to look at all the options and came up with the Lightning to Phantom to Jaguar to Tornado path. It is hard to argue with the long service lives of all four aircraft.
.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The big gap would have been something like Phantom and then Tornado which could be genuinely multi-role than single-role. Plans called for something like Phantom (a UK VG design) to replace Lightning but also do some TSR2 and 1154 work.

Phantom or UKVG would be adequate if you don't mind the reduced range compared to TSR2.

The RAF and RN (unlike enthusiasts here) were willing to look at all the options and came up with the Lightning to Phantom to Jaguar to Tornado path. It is hard to argue with the long service lives of all four aircraft.

No, it is very easy to argue with the long service life of the Lightning. Lightning should have been replaced in the 1960s at the latest. Whether by a Century Series (F101B, F106, F104) or a UK design. At the very least, it needed weapons upgrades to something newer than a first-generation AAM (more significant changes than what it actually got).

The RN was kinda screwed due to their carrier's small size and weak catapults. They could buy A4s in the 1950s or A7s in the 1970s, but they'd have to get either Phantom or a home-grown design for a fighter or fighter-bomber. And Phantom needed a LOT of changes to play nice with the UK carriers. Theoretically, UKVG might have been able to work here.

 

[Rule of cool]

IF the three RAF types in 1965 (TSR2, 1154Harrier, and 681) had been developed with less political interference, clearer and less fanciful ORs, and better managed and organised industry it would still have left the RAF much smaller than what was cobbled together from 1965 to 1985 (the likely service lives of the three basic versions).

Of the 3 only the TSR2 has a clear line of ancestry though the Sandys era as an interdictor and theatre strike to replace the UK based Valiants and RAFG/NEAF/FEAF Canberra. The P1154 and HS681 'came to the rescue' of the deployed/deployable fighter-bomber force after the 5 year gap caused by Sandys declaring all other fighters obsolescent, which is why they were so ill-conceived and doomed from the start. My interest is not in making a good 'rescue plan' but to avoid the need for a rescue plan in the first place, my own preference is to have the Lightning be the 1958 fighter-bomber rather than the Hunter conversions.

To address this same problem someone (I can't recall who) suggested developing something akin to the P1121/Phantom and replacing the ~4 Javelin sqns (instead of the Lightning) and 9 Hunter conversion sqns, which also strikes me as the germ of a workable plan. The reason I revived this thread is because I mistakenly thought for a while that the 9 sqn Canberra replacement could have been lumped together with this ~13 sqn Javelin-Hunter replacement to result in a really big 22 sqn procurement.

However it appears I was working under false assumptions. The later Canberras were not doing simple CAS like day-fighter-bombers but difficult interdiction, often at night and with nuclear weapons at the forefront of their role. While it is likely that a P1121/Phantom-esque aircraft entering service in the late 60s could do this the RAF would still need to buy the F111 to replace the V-bombers. What's more a Phantom class aircraft would not be a major capability increase over the Canberra interdictors that a TSR2 class aircraft would be.

 

[Rule of cool]

The RN was kinda screwed due to their carrier's small size and weak catapults.

This isn't really a problem for Eagle and Ark Royal, the Ark did and the Eagle could have operated Phantoms and Buccaneers just fine. It wouldn't have been a problem for the CVA class at all. The RN needs to avoid the huge gap between the end of WW2 and CVA01, perhaps if the 1952 carrier designed had been built instead of other stuff?

FWIW I mentioned in the previous post that someone (I might have been you) suggested cutting short the Lightning and replacing the Javelins and Hunter conversions with something like the P1121. If that route was chosen then why not make it carrier capable and replace the Sea Vixen as well? 13 RAF and 4 RN sqns plus cats and dogs makes for a pretty big production run.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This isn't really a problem for Eagle and Ark Royal, the Ark did and the Eagle could have operated Phantoms and Buccaneers just fine. It wouldn't have been a problem for the CVA class at all.

The UK Phantom had a whole slew of modifications to be able to fly off RN carriers. Buccs also had blown flaps.

The RN needs to avoid the huge gap between the end of WW2 and CVA01, perhaps if the 1952 carrier designed had been built instead of other stuff?

Very much agreed, but how?

FWIW I mentioned in the previous post that someone (I might have been you) suggested cutting short the Lightning and replacing the Javelins and Hunter conversions with something like the P1121. If that route was chosen then why not make it carrier capable and replace the Sea Vixen as well? 13 RAF and 4 RN sqns plus cats and dogs makes for a pretty big production run.

Not sure the P1121 design could land slow enough, but yes that'd work conceptually.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The UK Phantom had a whole slew of modifications to be able to fly off RN carriers. Buccs also had blown flaps.

Yes and that doesn't alter what @Rule of cool wrote, i.e. "This isn't really a problem for Eagle and Ark Royal, the Ark did and the Eagle could have operated Phantoms and Buccaneers just fine. It wouldn't have been a problem for the CVA class at all."

Very much agreed, but how?

I suggested cancelling the Audacious, Centaur & Tiger classes on VJ-Day, abandoning plans to rebuild the Illustrious class by 1948 (so no "great rebuild" of Victorious) and build six 1952 Carriers or at least as many 1952 Carriers as possible with the money saved.

Not sure the P1121 design could land slow enough, but yes that'd work conceptually.

Unfortunately, the P.1121 was over 65ft long and the fuselage couldn't be folded to fit the 54ft lifts of Ark Royal & Eagle.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

IF the three RAF types in 1965 (TSR2, 1154Harrier, and 681) had been developed with less political interference, clearer and less fanciful ORs, and better managed and organised industry it would still have left the RAF much smaller than what was cobbled together from 1965 to 1985 (the likely service lives of the three basic versions).

At 31.03.74 IOTL *

48 Vulcan B.2 - 6 squadrons​

24 Buccaneer S.2 - 2 squadrons​

48 Harrier GR.3 - 4 squadrons​

84 Phantom FGR.2 - 7 squadrons​

​

Total 204 strike & reconnaissance aircraft in 19 squadrons.​

In 1964 the RAF planned to have a front-line of 106 TSR.2s in 11 squadrons and 96 P.1154s in 8 squadrons by the middle of the 1970s, which makes a total of 202 aircraft in 19 squadrons.

There were also 96 Lightning F.2A & F.6s in 8 squadrons and the RAF's TASMO force of 4 squadrons (2 Buccaneer S.2 maritime strike, one Phantom FG.1 maritime fighter & one Vulcan SR.2 MRR) IOTL both of which would have been the same ITTL.

Therefore, the state of play is only 2 aircraft less than IOTL. Plus the TSR.2s would have been organised into 9 squadrons of 12 aircraft instead of 11 squadrons of 8-to-12 aircraft for a total UE of 108 instead of 106 so the number of aircraft at 31.03.84 ITTL would have been exactly the same as 31.03.84 IOTL.

So the RAF wouldn't have been much smaller than what was cobbled together IOTL.

* I chose 31.03.74 rather than 31.03.75 because that's the end of the financial year before the Mason defence review, it's the month before the first Jaguar squadron became operational and it's about 6 months before the first Lightning squadron converted to the Phantom FGR.2.

TSR2 would have given the RAF similar capabilities to the US F111 and been a step change in capabilities that was not achieved until Tornado arrived in the 80s.

I don't dispute any of that.

1154 would have been closer to Jaguar in the way in which it was used than to the 1127 RAF. Numbers were similar too.

FWIW the peak Jaguar strength was 96 aircraft in 8 squadrons between April 1977 and May 1984. So exactly the same.

681 would have been interesting to compare with Hercules and Transall for performance and costs. Mid way between the Kawasaki C1 and the Il76 or C141 it might not have been as versatile or rugged as the RAF C130s.

It did have the advantage of a higher and (IIRC) wider cargo hold, but we don't know if the fuselage could have been stretched to increase its carrying capacity like the Hercules was.

The big gap would have been something like Phantom and then Tornado which could be genuinely multi-role than single-role. Plans called for something like Phantom (a UK VG design) to replace Lightning but also do some TSR2 and 1154 work.

In 1964 the RAF assumed that the Lightnings would be replaced by a derivative of the P.1154. My guess is that's what would have happened. IOTL 6 of the 8 Lightning squadrons converted to the Phantom FGR.2 between October 1974 & April 1977 and the other 2 squadrons continued operating the type until the end of 1987. For all we know all 8 Lightning squadrons would have converted to the P.1154 ADV in the second half of the 1970s ITTL.

My guess is that some of the money spent on Jaguar & Tornado IDS IOTL would have used to modernise the P.1154s & TSR.2s, buy attrition batches of those aircraft to maintain the strike & reconnaissance squadrons at full strength and possibly buy some TSR.2s to replace the Buccaneers in the TASMO force.

An aircraft like the Tornado ADV may not be needed ITTL as the P.1154 ADVs were about 5 years younger than the Phantoms.

The RAF and RN (unlike enthusiasts here) were willing to look at all the options and came up with the Lightning to Phantom to Jaguar to Tornado path. It is hard to argue with the long service lives of all four aircraft.

For all we know the HS.681, TSR.2 and P.1154 would have had equally long service lives as those aircraft.

IF the three RAF types in 1965 (TSR2, 1154Harrier, and 681) had been developed with less political interference, clearer and less fanciful ORs, and better managed and organised industry it would still have left the RAF much smaller than what was cobbled together from 1965 to 1985 (the likely service lives of the three basic versions).

At 31.03.85 IOTL

48 Harrier GR.3 in 3 squadrons (one with 12 UE and 2 with 18 UE).​

60 Jaguar GR.1 in 5 squadrons​

96 Tornado GR.1 in 8 squadrons​

​

Total 204 strike & reconnaissance aircraft in 16 squadrons, the same number of aircraft as at 31.03.74.​

In 1964 the RAF planned to have a front-line of 106 TSR.2s in 11 squadrons and 96 P.1154s in 8 squadrons by the middle of the 1970s, which makes a total of 202 aircraft in 19 squadrons. This would have been the front line at 31.03.85 too.

​

The number of aircraft & squadrons in the fighter and TASMO forces would have been exactly the same, but the types of aircraft would have been different. That is . . .

• The 2 maritime strike squadrons might have been operating TSR.2s instead of Buccaneer S.2s.
• Both maritime fighter squadrons would have been operating Phantom FG.1s. IOTL one had FG.1s and the other had FGR.2s.
• The other 8 fighter squadrons would have been operating P.1154 ADVs. IOTL 2 had Lightning F.6s, one had Phantom FG.1s, 4 had Phantom FGR.2s and one had F-4J (UK) Phantoms.

Therefore, at 31.03.85 the RAF has only 2 first-line aircraft less ITTL than it did IOTL. Plus the TSR.2s would have been organised into 9 squadrons of 12 aircraft instead of 11 squadrons of 8-to-12 aircraft for a total UE of 108 instead of 106 so the number of aircraft at 31.03.85 ITTL would have been exactly the same as 31.03.85 IOTL.

So the RAF wouldn't have been much smaller than what was cobbled together IOTL.

 

[red admiral]

Sounds a lot like the road to actual Phantom / pseudo Phantom is inescapable...

So the RAF wouldn't have been much smaller than what was cobbled together IOTL.

Money?

 

[Rule of cool]

I'd point out that I've only been counting Canberra bomber sqns in my sqn totals while counting TSR2 recce sqns in that total. However, in addition to 9 interdictor sqns there were 7 Canberra recce sqns and 4 of the 11 TSR2 sqns would be dedicated recce. So the TSR2 force is replacing a huge force of 19 sqns of Valiants and Canberras (interdictor & recce), and therefore it is difficult to overstate how important the programme is.

I'd also clarify that I'm using the P.1121 as an example of a Mach 2, 50,000lb class radar equipped, AAM and other missile carrying multi-role fighter that could be in service by the mid 60s. The Phantom is the other, benchmark, example but if the political will/money was there I'm confident the British could design a fighter to replace the Sea Vixen, Javelin and Hunter conversions that had the required combat performance as well as all the other stuff.

 

[uk 75]

I am puzzled. What is a P1154 ADV? Rather like the TSR2 ADV this is a fanwork with no basis in planned reality.
Eleven TSR2 squadrons seems on the high side. Before cancellation planning assumed aircraft would all be based in the UK with detachments to Cyprus and Tengah.
1154s were to be 2 sqns in UK, 2 in RAFG and one each in NEAF and FEAF.

 

[uk 75]

As usual we end up with paper aircraft (1154 being the closest to actual hardware) versus real and successful designs (Phantom, Jaguar and Tornado).
Though TSR2 did fly it was nothing like a production machine unlike F111 at the same stage in its programme.
681 was designed around engines which had never flown at cancellation.

 

[Rule of cool]

Very much agreed, but how?

I can't give you anything other than a plan made with the benefit of hindsight that you'd hope the relevant minister/s would fluke it.

However I would point out that by about 1970 with the Phantomised Ark Royal and the RAF TACSMO there were 2 Phantom and 3 Buccaneer sqns allocated to naval tasks in the North Atlantic. What's more there was a Victor/Vulcan sqn allocated to TACSMO as well, which might be a stand in for the Gannets the carriers had.

 

[Rule of cool]

Sounds a lot like the road to actual Phantom / pseudo Phantom is inescapable...

In virtually all of my fevered mental scenarios I cannot see a viable alternative to the Phantom for the RN. Not that that is a problem, it's better to have a version of the world's best fighter than some other dud.

However it's easy for the RAF to dodge it, indeed I think that is the path of least resistance to a decent capability outcome.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

What's more there was a Victor/Vulcan sqn allocated to TACSMO as well, which might be a stand in for the Gannets the carriers had.

For what it's worth the 12 Shackleton AEW.2s in No. 8 Squadron stood in for the Gannets.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

As usual we end up with paper aircraft (1154 being the closest to actual hardware) versus real and successful designs (Phantom, Jaguar and Tornado).
Though TSR2 did fly it was nothing like a production machine unlike F111 at the same stage in its programme.
681 was designed around engines which had never flown at cancellation.

For all we know the paper aircraft would have become real designs that were just as successful as Phantom, Jaguar and Tornado.