Writing a book on the cold war turning hot (with paper planes)

I've made a decision, primary role is ground attack, but they have a secondary role of interceptor.
 
Sealord

I think you did not read the accompanying blurb with Lord Melchett's model which explained that the "alt" single seater was avionic fitted. It was this variant that I was referring to in the sentence you quoted.

The real world P1154 RAF was downgraded considerably to try and keep its costs down. It lost various weapons fit options etc. In its initial form it would have been very similar in capability to the Jaguar. Thus its Red Tops would have been mainly for self-defence or clear visibility air patrols against a low end threat. However, had it entered service in the early 70s as planned, various options would have become available.
In my Alt UK 75 the Phantom order is cancelled and the RN has to soldier on initially with Sea Vixens (CVA 01 does not enter service until 1974 or so). This allows the Royal Navy to take another look at P1154 and accept a single seater modified version like Melchett's. Of course the RN eye Tomcat but with the huge cost of the carrier programme even in an alt universe they have to accept BAC 583. Germany joins in 583, but France as ever refuses. Because I like vstol stuff, France has managed to make a limited number of Mirage III Vs for its tactical nuclear force but goes on to develop the Mirage G family as its tactical aircraft for the 70s.
The P45 emerges as a low end tactical support and training aircraft. I am not sure whether in its vg or fixed wing iteration. It fulfils the roles met by Hawk in the real 70s RAF.
Finally, the beauty of what-if and XR226 clearly agrees is that you can have whatever permutation of stuff you want. So I am not too worried if you don't like my options.

UK 75
 
The Blackburn Skua was never primarily a fighter either, but wouldn't you put them up if you needed every available multi-gun airplane to beat off an attack? The F-105 was never really a fighter either in practical terms, despite its designation, but that didn't stop it killing 27 enemy aircraft in Vietnam and sharing a 28th.
 
Am I being a bit dim, but isnt the term "Fighter Bomber" or Fighter Ground Attack (FGA) clear enough.
I agree with Pathology Doc. Until the advent of the F16, all Fighter Bomber aircraft were interchangeable. And of course the F16 had to become a Fighter Bomber in due course.
I think Sealord is just wrong on this one.

UK 75
 
uk 75 said:
Until the advent of the F16, all Fighter Bomber aircraft were interchangeable.
Click to expand...

Pace W.E. Johns, who even hung a 230lb bomb under Biggles's Sopwith Camel at one point, cleverly offset to balance the torque from the rotary engine (Bigglesworth thought the handling was much improved IIRC). I don't know whether such a thing ever got done in real life, but I'd be surprised if the Camel hadn't carried, say, 20-pounders at some point (perhaps starting on March 21, 1918 if not earlier).

It's not just the F-16 either - look at what the "not a pound for air to ground" F-15 got turned into!!
 
A Fighter (my personal opinion) is something like the F-15 Eagle, its good at dogfighting and intercepting 'enemy' aircraft before they get too close to friendly territory.
There are many Fighter/Bomber's, take the P-47 Thunderbolt, or the Hawker Typhoon.

I've started on the story proper now, but it will take a long time before it gets finished (say three to four years).
 
This old thread brought back happy memories of playing with projects and describing what might have happened.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom