Where could European aviation be today had political agendas not prevented such an aviation industry arising in the 60's

[Jagdflieger]

Until today the US aviation industry is producing the best military aircraft's on this planet.

Numbers in demand by all countries off course are the key to costs in regards to research and development of such aircraft's. The European market for military aircraft's was massive
in the 60's/70's and still is impressive and especially the world market in view of developing countries. Airbus industries is a great example as to where a joint European effort did lead
to in view of civilian aircraft's.

Two European aircraft's in view of the 60's, always struck me in regards to their demonstrated technical and tactical ability.
One being the British BAC (English Electric) TSR.2 and the Swedish Saab S37 Viggen.

Leaving aside national hegemony/corruption/etc. What would/could Europe's military aviation look like today if it's key countries - such as Britain, France, Sweden, Germany, Italy and adding Spain, Holland and Belgium had formed a solid common aerospace group of interest in the 60's?

Taking into account that thousands of aircraft's such as F-104, F-4, F-16, F-18 including all those independent European developments could have been replaced by a TSR.2 or/and a Saab S37 Viggen. Thus stashing the European air-industries pockets with huge funds and technological know-how gained via such a common enterprise, therefore enabling far more advanced developments from the 80's onward.

So which one would have made more sense or held more promise? a continued common European development of the TSR.2, or all these above mentioned countries combining onto
the Saab S37 Viggen?

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[special ed]

The Avro Arrow would have been better than both.

 

[Jagdflieger]

The Avro Arrow would have been better than both.

I don't think that at the time anyone from Europe (besides maybe the UK) would have entered an enterprise with a Canadian aviation company.
Even though the aircraft had some striking attributes - I think it wouldn't have been a very suitable aircraft for Europe - that is one of the reasons why I had placed
the thread into the 60's. - thus eliminating it from the contest with the other two aircraft's.

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Avro Arrow would have been better than both.

In what capacity? The Arrow was an interceptor, was not intended to be a strike aircraft. The TSR.2 was a reconnaissance/ strike aircraft - totally different roles. The S37 was a great aircraft in the role deployed. It didn't have long legs with regards to it's internal fuel capacity and was a bit slower when compared to some of it's peers, despite this it served well.

Now as European Nations joining forces to produce combat aircraft, wasn't that already done starting with the Harrier (although the US was part of the development team), the SEPECAT Jaguar, the Eurofighter, and the Panavia Tornado? Despite the availability of US products, it seems there was the potential of a joint European effort to produce their own.

 

[Jagdflieger]

In what capacity? The Arrow was an interceptor, was not intended to be a strike aircraft. The TSR.2 was a reconnaissance/ strike aircraft - totally different roles. The S37 was a great aircraft in the role deployed. It didn't have long legs with regards to it's internal fuel capacity and was a bit slower when compared to some of it's peers, despite this it served well.

Now as European Nations joining forces to produce combat aircraft, wasn't that already done starting with the Harrier (although the US was part of the development team), the SEPECAT Jaguar, the Eurofighter, and the Panavia Tornado? Despite the availability of US products, it seems there was the potential of a joint European effort to produce their own.

The Germans had pulled out of the Harrier project due to tactical requirements and embarked onto their own VTOL aircraft's (4 types) - basically just blowing away money

The 60's would have provided a great basis for a European cooperation - since aircraft were in great demand.
The only functional multi-role aircraft and adopted at least by some European countries was the Tornado in the 80's, as such already having lost 20 years of money making and
technical evolution for aircraft's. Maybe I am wrong but I don't really see what a Tornado could do better overall then an F-4 not to mention an F-15.

The only two aircraft's I can see from 1960 onward being able to provide a multi-task role were only the TSR.2. and Saab 37.

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[Shortround6]

The only two aircraft's I can see from 1960 onward being able to provide a multi-task role were only the TSR.2. and Saab 37

Somehow I am not seeing a 80,000-103,000lb aircraft and a 37,000-43,000lb aircraft performing the same roles?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The only two aircraft's I can see from 1960 onward being able to provide a multi-task role were only the TSR.2. and Saab 37.

Regards
Jagdflieger

Agree to a point, but a few things to be considered -

The TSR.2 "would have" been way better than the ill suited F-104 in the low level nuclear strike role, but with that said, there would have had to be some US involvement as, if I'm not mistaken, the nuclear weapon was produced and controlled by the US.

As far as the Viggen - although Sweden did offer the aircraft for foreign sales, how much of its indigenous technology was neutral Sweden willing to "share" with the rest of "NATO Europe?" Additionally, there was a considerable amount of US technology used in the Viggen, (it's engine was a license-built variant of the Pratt & Whitney JT8D) enough for the US to stop a sale to India in 1978. How that would have played into this situation is anyone's guess.

Operationally I think the Viggen's short range would have been a bit of a handicap unless it flew longer range missions with a centerline tank.

 

[Jagdflieger]

Agree to a point, but a few things to be considered -

The TSR.2 "would have" been way better than the ill suited F-104 in the low level nuclear strike role, but with that said, there would have had to be some US involvement as, if I'm not mistaken, the nuclear weapon was produced and controlled by the US.

Agree - but let us assume that either the Brits or French might have given access to nuke weaponry or even the USA upon recogniing an "independent" European aviation industry

As far as the Viggen - although Sweden did offer the aircraft for foreign sales, how much of its indigenous technology was neutral Sweden willing to "share" with the rest of "NATO Europe?" Additionally, there was a considerable amount of US technology used in the Viggen, (it's engine was a license-built variant of the Pratt & Whitney JT8D) enough for the US to stop a sale to India in 1978. How that would have played into this situation is anyone's guess.

Reading up upon the Saab 37 - the Swedes did engineer a lot of high tech stuff on their own - IIRC even the engines were manufactured by them - A Volvo Turbofan Flygmotor RM8B, so I am a bit surprised about the Indian issue. Even if it was maybe a license built engine, the Brits had their own to contribute into a common enterprise.

Operationally I think the Viggen's short range would have been a bit of a handicap unless it flew longer range missions with a centerline tank.

Yes - a center-line tank would certainly help.

The Saab 37 probably wasn't the perfect aircraft in 1965 nor might the TSR.2 have been one, but the S37 was the most advanced fighter jet in Europe until the introduction of the Panavia Tornado - however due to drastically dropping development costs the next generation might have been far more capable then a Tornado or the vastly improved Saab 37 in the 80's. Making it feasible that in the 90's onward a F-22/F-35 worthy (maybe even better) aircraft could have been developed and built - so the question to me would be which of the two candidates would have been the right aircraft to achieve such a goal.

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Reading up upon the Saab 37 - the Swedes did engineer a lot of high tech stuff on their own - IIRC even the engines were manufactured by them - A Volvo Turbofan Flygmotor RM8B, so I am a bit surprised about the Indian issue. Even if it was maybe a license built engine, the Brits had their own to contribute into a common enterprise.

The Brits could have contributed to an alternate engine source and despite Volvo manufacturing the engine, it was still licensed produced.

 

[Jagdflieger]

Somehow I am not seeing a 80,000-103,000lb aircraft and a 37,000-43,000lb aircraft performing the same roles?

Yes you got a point there, but the Brits IIRC made overall use of the Tornado in their own further developed interdiction version - rather then in the strike role. As such the British
could have saved a lot of money by not going into the Tornado project, just as Germany and Italy but e.g. opting for the Saab 37, already 20 years before. - and a Saab 37 able to carry a 6000kg weaponload wouldn't be far away from a Tornado - just a thought.

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[Jagdflieger]

The Brits could have contributed to an alternate engine source and despite Volvo manufacturing the engine, it was still licensed produced.

Yep, you are right it just the afterburner that was a Swedish development.
But taking into account the Swedes overall ability and ingenuity - a common European engine development or via a British engine could have overcome that issue by 1965.
Thus even enhancing the European aviation industry even more.

BTW; ...with the routine of the American SR 71 Blackbird path known, the Viggen was able to get radar-lock on the SR71 despite the jamming measures of the reconnaissance plane and thanks to coordination with ground-based radars. It is the only aircraft that managed to lock onto the SR 71. - just shows that these Swedes had a hell of good knowledge/still have in regards to building great aircraft's and the electronic suite.

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[FLYBOYJ]

BTW; ...with the routine of the American SR 71 Blackbird path known, the Viggen was able to get radar-lock on the SR71 despite the jamming measures of the reconnaissance plane and thanks to coordination with ground-based radars. It is the only aircraft that managed to lock onto the SR 71. - just shows that these Swedes had a hell of good knowledge/still have in regards to building great aircraft's and the electronic suite.

Yes this is true BUT - do you not think the USAF did not know what was being attempted? Additionally the SR-71, when flying over the Norwegian Sea during that period, was flying a routine course, so this did help the Swedes in achieving this. Lastly, there were several times when an an SR-71 had an IFE and was allowed to land in Sweden, so I think there was an element of cooperation there

 

[tomo pauk]

Yes this is true BUT - do you not think the USAF did not know what was being attempted? Additionally the SR-71, when flying over the Norwegian Sea during that period, was flying a routine course, so this did help the Swedes in achieving this. Lastly, there were several times when an an SR-71 had an IFE and was allowed to land in Sweden, so I think there was an element of cooperation there

From what I've gathered, US were helping the Swedes develop the AJ-37, in return for a silent help vs. the Warsaw pact.

Wrt. the Viggen for other countries - in one hand, it would've been just fine for the European NATO members, OTOH it would've meant closing of design shops in many companies. The Eurofighter for 1980s/90s might've looked much like the the Chinese J-10.

 

[Glider]

I think we can all agree that if they had been able to swallow their national pride, France, Sweden and the UK had the potential to develop something special. The Draken, Viggen, Buccaneer, Lightning, Mirage, Tornado, Harrier, Jaguar and others all had their strengths and weaknesses, but show the potential.

Even in world of civil aviation the same applies. When you look at how Airbus has developed into a commercial force to be reckoned with, this could easily have been replicated in the military world.

 

[Jagdflieger]

Well Airbus industries showed successfully that such a profit-making enterprise was indeed achievable.
Furthermore the core of a European military aircraft enterprise would have encouraged an extended cooperation towards all the other "small" aircraft's e. eg, Fiat 91, Hawk, Alpha-jet, Saab 105, Aermacchi, etc. right down to transporters, helicopters and trainer aircraft's.
Which in total numbers not even taking the overseas-markets into account would have been on par with the US aviation industry. maybe even surpassed the US by the 90's.

In the 80's Germany being a late-starter in regards to other European aircraft manufacturers (almost 15 years) and with extremely limited funds had developed a scale model with successful wind-tunnel tests, the MBB Lampyridae - a future could be rival to the F-117. As such developing, working already at a technology that surpasses the Eurofighter 90 aka Typhoon which had its maiden flight 15 years later.

Now taking the access in available technology and funds via a European aircraft consortium into account that had already existed since the 60's - that project could have gotten underway at least at the same time as the F-117 if not even before. Thus concentrating not onto a Eurofighter 90 in the next step but already onto a F-22 equivalent.

Furthermore one would need to take into account that the US aircraft industry would have missed out on billion's of $$ worth of business - due to the Europeans taking the $$.
which in turn would have had a significant negative impact towards the US capability towards financing/developing it's own 4th and 5th generation aircraft's.

So to me still the question which of the two European contestants would have been more suitable.
The S37 yes a great aircraft but did it offer the future outlook of the TSR.2 ? The latter had two very distinctive features - a low terrain following flight system (later implemented
into the MRCA Tornado) and an internal weapon-bay (the prerequisite towards stealth) with the option of additional wing-pylons.
Now add stealth technology and an advanced avionics/antenna suite - and one would/could have had an F-35/F-22 already by 1980/85 - feasible?

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Now add stealth technology and an advanced avionics/antenna suite - and one would/could have had an F-35/F-22 already by 1980/85 - feasible?

Regards
Jagdflieger

The computers of that era would not have been able to do what the on-board systems of the -22 and -35 can do nowadays, with modern chipsets and our better understanding of programming and data integration/data-links.

I don't think our understanding of stealth concepts was nearly as refined, either. Remember, it took ten years to get the F-22 into service, and even longer for the -35.

That said, while the European fighter industry seems kinda sleepy throughout the 60s, I'm sure they were not only harvesting ideas from the American aircraft they were flying, but the French in particular put up really, really good fighters that found international markets.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The computers of that era would not have been able to do what the on-board systems of the -22 and -35 can do nowadays, with modern chipsets and our better understanding of programming and data integration/data-links.

I don't think our understanding of stealth concepts was nearly as refined, either. Remember, it took ten years to get the F-22 into service, and even longer for the -35.

That said, while the European fighter industry seems kinda sleepy throughout the 60s, I'm sure they were not only harvesting ideas from the American aircraft they were flying, but the French in particular put up really, really good fighters that found international markets.

Also I highly doubt the actual technology/"stuff" that makes the 22 stealth was available in 1980-1985. Could be wrong though.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also I highly doubt the actual technology/"stuff" that makes the 22 stealth was available in 1980-1985. Could be wrong though.

Have Blue was already flying and the general principles were already understood, but being 1st-gen stealth, it was somewhat clumsy in execution. RAM was already understood (though a bit more fragile at the time), as was saw-toothing and shielding engine fanblades, etc.

I'm sure you're right that the actual stuff used to build the -22 is much more advanced in pursuit of stealth than was the stuff used on the -117 -- and how much more so the -35?

... and yeah, I know this is stuff you already know.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Have Blue was already flying and the general principles were already understood, but being 1st-gen stealth, it was somewhat clumsy in execution. RAM was already understood (though a bit more fragile at the time), as was saw-toothing and shielding engine fanblades, etc.

I'm sure you're right that the actual stuff used to build the -22 is much more advanced in pursuit of stealth than was the stuff used on the -117 -- and how much more so the -35?

... and yeah, I know this is stuff you already know.

It's not all about shape. There is a lot more to it. I know stealth technology was known, but the stuff learned from the early projects you describe is what lead to the 22.

An F-22/F-35 by anyone in the world was not going to happen in 1980-1985.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"Stealth technology does not involve a single technical approach, but rather a complex synthesis of many."

William Perry, former undersecretary of defense for research and engineering