UK/RAF buys British-only after the AFVG cancellation?

nuuumannn · Oct 20, 2021

A.G. Williams said:
One of the problems is that the user keeps wanting to fiddle with the design (e.g. Spey Phantom, and British-engined AH-64) which sends the price through the roof.

Yup, very much so.

Problem with the F-4 in UK service was that the type wasn't best suited for British carriers, so it had to be made suitable, which entailed quite a lot of changes to the basic design, some of which McDD eventually incorporated into the type anyway. The Spey engined Phantom was proposed by McDD as early as 1962 as a possible entry to the TFX programme with an eye on foreign sales to the RN. I'm not saying the British Phantom was not expensive and didn't have poorer performance compared to US models, because it did, but in order to get it to work on British carriers, a lot had to be done to it, but McDD was on board right from the start; for them the benefit was potential orders from nations that operated British carriers, such as Australia, Canada, Argentina, Brazil etc...

The British Phantom was initially as much a McDD proposal at any rate, with the election of a new Labour government in 1964 the aim in defence spending was cost cutting and as mentioned earlier, the Minister of Aviation and a British delegation went to the USA with an eye to saving money by buying US stuff but with British industry involvement, the Americans pulled out the red carpet, spun stories and did the very utmost they could to placate the British and win orders and the Phantom replacing the P.1154, the C-130 replacing the HS.681 and the F-111 replacing the TSR.2 began to take shape, helped a little with some good ole' US hospitality thrown in...

McDD and the Brits had investigated the F-4B for Britain back in 1960, with a number of research projects launched to ascertain its viability, but again, the unsuitability for British carriers was a bit of a headache. It wasn't the best fit to be honest, but both countries' industries made it work, at great expense and modification, with the commensurate loss in performance, of course...

Perhaps the Brits could or should have come up with a collab with France for a marine aircraft? Say, like the Jaguar M? This did prove superior in many ways to the Etendard IV...

tomo pauk · Oct 24, 2021

Some possible aircraft:
- a 'non-Jaguar', ie. aircraft that has wings developed for Jaguar (as-is, wings were developed in the UK), and it is powered by Pegasus engine derivative; licence produced in India, too
- a 'non-Tornado' - aircraft that looks like a big Jaguar (or a high-wing Phantom), powered by the twin-spool afterburning turbofan that is a further development of the Pegasus, but with smaller diameter; two-seater, outfitted with a terrain-following radar at 1st, later with the air-intercepting radar, Skyflash missiles and other fighter electronics; also in service in Saudi Arabia and Jordan
- the 'British J-10' - canard-delta 1-engined fighter-bomber, turbo-fan engine of 130 kN initially, in service from 1989

nuuumannn · Oct 25, 2021

Right you are there, Tomo. Essentially the RAF wanted and needed a next gen strike aircraft to compensate for the loss of TSR.2 and a close support type, which the P.1127 derivative Harrier was developed for. That it didn't get an equivalent capability meant it bought Buccaneers and Phantom FG.1s, squeezed the ECAT aircraft until it got what it wanted for that and worked with the Panavia consortium, which came from the surviving UKVG group and produced the MRCA, which everybody knew at the time stood for Must Refurbish the Canberra Again...

wingnuts · Oct 25, 2021

nuuumannn said:
It's worth noting that BAe did a vast amount of research into combat aircraft in the 1970s independent to European collaboration, many designs of which were ordered but were later cancelled in defence reviews, such as AST.403, which was described as an Offensive Aircraft to Replace Harrier and Jaguar, but was cancelled in 1981. This was replaced by the ACA, which was a joint project based on independent research done by BAe as mentioned above, which became hardware in the form of the BAe EAP, which was a test bed for the EF2000 project and was jointly developed with Aeritalia assistance, the Germans, in the form of MBB pulling from the project. This led to a peculiarity in that Aeritalia's left hand wing and the BAe right hand wing were built to different CAD programmes! The EAP at the RAF Museum, Cosford, which also has a Kestrel developed from the P.1127 V/STOL research aircraft.

View attachment 645369 DSC_0311

The Harrier underwent a lot of configurations throughout its research career, some of which were quite exotic in design, and were done completely independent to European collaboration. Some of these followed from the P.1127 V/STOL testbed, such as the Kestrel and Harrier and some from the original P.1154 supersonic Harrier cancelled by both the Royal Navy and RAF. This is a wind tunnel model of the HS.1179, which was a single seat strike aircraft dated from 1968 incorporating advances from the P.1154 programme, although there was a two-seat variant proposed.

View attachment 645370 HS.1179L

This is an odd one, the P.1216, which was developed at Kingston as a supersonic V/STOL project in the late 1970s and early 1980s and powered by a PCB vectored thrust engine much like the BS.100 fitted to the P.1154.

View attachment 645371 NAM 82

The BS.100 engine at the FAA Museum at Yeovilton equipped with PCB for the P.1154.

View attachment 645372 BS100 i

A model of the P.1154 single-seat variant in navy colours, although the navy variant was a two-seater. The P.1154 was cancelled at the same time as the TSR.2 in early 1965.

View attachment 645373 P.1154

There's quite a lot of research info on Harrier development projects out there on the net, as well as BAe combat aircraft studies, including this oddity for a potential stealth fighter.

View attachment 645374 NAM 63

I was an apprentice at Blackburn Aircraft (Hawker Siddeley-Blackburn Division) at Brough, E Yorks in the early 60s, we were doing wind tunnel tests on the 1154.

wingnuts · Oct 25, 2021

nuuumannn said:
The thing is, these aircraft were derived from British research projects anyway, so they quite probably would have evolved if there was no European participation. Following TSR.2 cancellation, European collaboration was a big thing in the UK for the simple fact that it saved money. The expense in these projects was R & D, but share production costs and the budget goes down, the cost of R&D offset by joint production. Following TSR.2 I can't see Britain not collaborating with Europe. BAe was certainly active but as has been proven, collaboration was the way ahead, with the USA if not Europe with the F-111K, F-4K/M, the Harrier II...

I was working at RAE Bedford in 1976 doing development work on the MRCA (Mother Rileys Cardboard Aeroplane) which eventually became the Tornado. We were doing "free flight model drops" from helicopters at Larkhill on Salisbury Plain, all the drawings we received were from MBB, so we naturally assumed the RAF would, at last, be flying Messerschmitts.

wingnuts · Oct 25, 2021

nuuumannn said:
Oh okay then...sigh...

The UKVG project without German or Italian collaboration, but this depends entirely on whether or not we allow US collabs or not, because, as I mentioned, once the TSR.2 was cancelled the F-111K was ordered and if that goes ahead, UKVG probably doesn't evolve as a strike aircraft and remains a trainer derivative of the P.45 and other company VG projects. The Brits canned the VG element for its trainer derivative of its light strike fighter in 1965.

Here's another collab the Brits invited into the fold, the Aussies via the CAC were developing an advanced supersonic VG strike trainer and jointly with BAC at Warton created a project called the AA.107 (for Anglo-Australian - see what I mean about collaboration...), but again, this amounted to nothing, largely because of the Jaguar.

You gotta go a long way to avoid collaboration following the cancellation of TSR.2...

I was working at CAC in the early 80s and continued after being taken over by HdeH, I did some voluntary work for the HdeH Historical Society and remember seeing photos of the AA-107 mock-up, which is now at the Ballarat Aviation Museum. https://aeropedia.com.au/content/cac-aa-107/

wingnuts · Oct 26, 2021

nuuumannn said:
Two British 1970s success stories that were not collaborations were the BAe Hawk trainer and the Harrier, the latter of which we've discussed at length here, but the Hawk began as a private venture trainer by Hawker Siddeley and has become one of the most successful fast jet trainers, seeing service around the world and undertaking licence production in India by Hindustan Aviation Limited and in the USA as the T-45 Goshawk. The Hawk is still being built and offered to foreign countries nearly fifty years after its first flight, with more than 1,000 of the type having been built and exported to 18 countries - and design wise not a foreign collab in sight...

RAAF Hawk 127.

View attachment 645441 DSC_4117

When working at Tenix I often looked after visiting RAAF Hawk 127s when they flew into Melbourne, cute little things compared to the F/A18As.

nuuumannn · Oct 26, 2021

wingnuts said:
When working at Tenix I often looked after visiting RAAF Hawk 127s when they flew into Melbourne, cute little things compared to the F/A18As.

You've had a fascinating career, Wingnuts.

wingnuts · Oct 27, 2021

nuuumannn said:
You've had a fascinating career, Wingnuts.

Thank you, 55 years in the aviation industry in three countries..... I miss the smell of Jet A1.... and AvGas

buffnut453 · Oct 28, 2021

nuuumannn said:
You've had a fascinating career, Wingnuts.

Between the pair of you, you've been to some interesting places and worked on some fascinating projects. Have to say I'm rather jealous!

GrauGeist · Oct 28, 2021

Hey now, don't go chasing the Yanks away!

They did like the Harrier enough, that they adopted it for the Marines.

Admiral Beez · Oct 28, 2021

nuuumannn said:
Why no Tornado or Eurofighter?

They'll still exist in some form as a collaboration of the Euros, just not with British design or manufacturing. We may also not see the EH-101 as a joint project of Britain's Westland and Italy's Agusta.

Britain's military aerospace would end up more like Sweden's, where a small nation builds their own bespoke fighter and strike aircraft. Given its economic size compared to Sweden we should expect that Britain's effort would be equal to or larger than SAAB.

It is a shame that outside of the EE Lightning Britain never operated a wholly British-designed and made supersonic fighter.

nuuumannn · Oct 28, 2021

GrauGeist said:
Hey now, don't go chasing the Yanks away!

They did like the Harrier enough, that they adopted it for the Marines.

Never, my friend. That "Special Relationship" will last through lots of pitfalls...

After all, 35 percent of the F-35 is British. And let's not forget the Canberra and the Hawk, other British types acquired by the US.

nuuumannn · Oct 28, 2021

Admiral Beez said:
It is a shame that outside of the EE Lightning Britain never operated a wholly British-designed and made supersonic fighter.

It is a peculiar thing, and it's not like there weren't enough designs to make it happen, the Sandys Defence White Paper took care of most of them, the P.1121, the thin wing Javelin, the Supermarine 545, the F.155T interceptor to which even the Canadian CF-105 Arrow was not considered capable enough to fulfil.

The thing is the British/Europeans need a fast responsive interceptor. It kind'a makes sense for both parties to consolidate their efforts.

nuuumannn · Oct 28, 2021

buffnut453 said:
Between the pair of you, you've been to some interesting places and worked on some fascinating projects.

No need to be Mark, let's not diminish your sizeable input and wise counsel.

Admiral Beez · Oct 29, 2021

nuuumannn said:
It is a peculiar thing, and it's not like there weren't enough designs to make it happen, the Sandys Defence White Paper took care of most of them, the P.1121, the thin wing Javelin, the Supermarine 545, the F.155T interceptor to which even the Canadian CF-105 Arrow was not considered capable enough to fulfil.

Don't get me started on the Arrow. A wholly owned subsidiary of Britain's Hawker-Siddeley designs one of the best combat aircraft and the UK says, no thanks, not interested.

RAF Avro Arrows: The Story of British CF-105 All-Weather Fighters that Never Were - The Aviation Geek Club

RAF Avro Arrows: The Story of British CF-105 All-Weather Fighters that Never Were

theaviationgeekclub.com

nuuumannn · Oct 29, 2021

Admiral Beez said:
Don't get me started on the Arrow. A wholly owned subsidiary of Britain's Hawker-Siddeley designs one of the best combat aircraft and the UK says, no thanks, not interested.

That's a terrible illustration. why are the bombs at the back? they'd get scraped off the pylons on rotation and the perspective of the stores on the far wing is all wrong, the bombs and rocket pod are too small - the Arrow wasn't that big. The lighting and shadows is slightly off as well...

Anyhoo, the F.155T specification, which the Arrow was dumped because of was quite demanding and the Fairey Delta III, which was proposed to it was going to have better performance than the Arrow, which is why the Brits rejected it. The possibility of purchasing the Arrow came about from the 'Thin Wing Javelin', a supersonic derivative of the Gloster Flat Iron, and the Arrow engineered in Britain effectively killed the supersonic Javelin programme. This link gives some natty profiles of aircraft proposed to the specification, but the inclusion of the Arrow at the bottom states that had the Arrow been chosen to replace the Javelin, perhaps F.155T might not have gone ahead, but F.155T requested even better performance and capability than what the Arrow could have offered.

F155T Design Submissions

Monograph page on F155T designs

rp-one.net

It's worth mentioning that this was a time when it seems anything was possible, but the harsh realities of post-war finances hadn't hit Britain, as the Marshall Plan and its almost freedom to expand military agendas tended to buffer the recovering world from its realities. Sandy's Defence white paper put paid to these ambitious and in some cases promising designs, of course.

Admiral Beez · Nov 3, 2021

nuuumannn said:
That's a terrible illustration. why are the bombs at the back? they'd get scraped off the pylons on rotation and the perspective of the stores on the far wing is all wrong, the bombs and rocket pod are too small - the Arrow wasn't that big. The lighting and shadows is slightly off as well...

It's just someone's attempt at a bit of fun. The Arrow may not be as big as portrayed, but it was big... longer than a North American A-5 Vigilante, General Dynamics F-111 or MiG-31.

At 26.1m, the Arrow nearly as long as a Bombardier CRJ-200 jetliner (26.7m).

UK/RAF buys British-only after the AFVG cancellation?

Major

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Attachments

Major

Airman 1st Class

Captain

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major

Major

Major

Major

Major

Major

Major

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads