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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right, the materials tech simply wasn't there -- never mind the data-processing the modern jets use as a massive force-multiplier.

Fun fact: Pa Thump, after we got back from Iran, took on a job mating the radar version of the Maverick AGM to multiple airframes, usually working on the test range at Ft Hunter-Liggett and other bases in the area. In 1981 this included a two-month stint at Tonopah NV mating it to the earliest F-117s. Of course he didn't say anything at the time, but after I'd enlisted and learned a little I asked him about it, and got no answer ... which is the right answer.
 
I don't see any Mirage type build from the 60's onward to the Mirage 2000 being better or more advanced then a Saab 37.

The principals for stealth were known since the early 70's - however no one except the US aircraft industry had the $ to progress in that matter, whilst Europe was busy building
and developing aircraft's to compete with US 4th generation aircraft's - not being able to look and research ahead. It took the US almost 10 years to get the F-117 going and another 15 years for the F-22.
The nimble mock-up of a MBB Lampyridae (financed/backed with a laughable mini budget) was unveiled in 1986 to a US delegation - that was extremely surprised about what these handful of Germans had been able to come up with and unveiled their progress in regards to the F-117. In 1987 the project was stopped/no more funds by the German government!!.?
However the stealth theme continued to be funded privately by MBB and in a next step in 1989 the RaSigma1 RCS test-facility was setup (again not funded by the government). By 1993
the RaSigma2 went into action. And RAM material as well as antenna measurement processes went into the program - towards the Tornado. and so on....

Now taking into account the same massive funding that the US government and the US aircraft industry provided (was able) towards the F-117 and the F-22 based on previous 4th generation know-how and researching onto stealth - it could have been done in the same way by a European aircraft consortium.

As for who copies from whom - well that has been ongoing on all common projects. E.g. the M1 and the Leopard 2 were the results of a joint US-German cooperation.
The same applies for avionics and thrust-vectoring tech in regards to the US-German project themed Rockwell X-31 and shortly after by NASA/USAF the F-15 ACTIVE - both contributing
towards the F-22's thrust-vectoring capability.

Why I favor the TSR.2? as a basic start-off for a European enterprise? because I don't see any US aircraft from 1960-1975 that would have been more advanced. Neither in design nor in avionics and computer tech. The Vigilante was in concept quite close but far to big, too expensive and not multi-role capable.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Last edited:
Okay one mans opinion - but I wouldn't disagree onto the issue that the TSR.2 wasn't perfect. It needed further development and cooperation of other aircraft makers know-how
to make a perfect aircraft - e.g. the Tornado was a result of such a cooperation, using the TSR.2 lessons and developments 18 years later.

E.g. the North American YF-107A might be considered to be a ridiculous aircraft - but its sophisticated flight control system, it's J75-P-9 turbojet and further evaluation by NASA
did certainly contribute the further USAF sponsored developments.
As such certain design changes to the TSR.2. and it would have been able to compete easily with the F-105 right down to an F-111. (aside range maybe)
I am not seeing the TSR.2. as a final product, but as a platform to enhance European technology onto a future Multi-role capable aircraft - basically emerging 10 years ahead of a Tornado. But again maybe the Saab37 would have been more promising into that direction - I wouldn't know., it's what I am trying to find out.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
The stealth technologies of the 1970s are not the same technologies used on the F-22 and the F-35. No one in the world (including the US) was going to have an F-22 or F-35 in 1980-1985.

I'm not saying Europe could not develop a stealth aircraft in the 80s, just that it would be an early generation example, not a 5th Gen type like the 22 and 35.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
The stealth technologies of the 1970s are not the same technologies used on the F-22 and the F-35. No one in the world (including the US) was going to have an F-22 or F-35 in 1980-1985.
Click to expand...
okay - not in 1985 but from the mid 90's onward
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I'm not saying Europe could not develop a stealth aircraft in the 80s, just that it would be an early generation example, not a 5th Gen type like the 22 and 35.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and such a European prototype or development of the 80's would have rendered a Euro-fighter project as an aircraft of the past - and freed resources and provided essential
know-how to actually get a European F-22/F-35 going - before the USA or at minimum at the same time.

Rendering the US aircraft industry from making extra billions of $$ would have IMO automatically prolonged the development of a F-22/F-35. for many years.

But again which of the two (TSR.2 or Saab37) - due to what features - would/could have ensured most likely such a path?

Regards
Jagdflieger
 

I don't think you are going to get one before the US. Such a scenario is only possible if the United States decides to sit on its ass and not develop its technological know how and advanced systems. The Cold War and the need to stsy ahead of the Soviet threat ensured that would not happen.

I don't think the TSR.2 or Saab37 would have or could have ensured that path. Even early generation US stealth aircraft were entirely different and went down their own development paths from US contemporary fighters of the time.

The F-22/F-35 development would not have been prolonged by and European development or the purchasing of European built aircraft over US aircraft. The defense budget would have been written as such.
 
Last edited:
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
....The F-22/F-35 development would not have been prolonged by and European development or the purchasing of European built aircraft over US aircraft. The defense budget would have been written as such.....
Click to expand...
Taxpayers money comes from revenue (including Lookheed etc. and all the sub-supplier industry) - and if the US revenue is missing billions of $ due to Europe and other countries purchasing European aircraft's over a period of 40 years the US budget for defense would have automatically been far less. Furthermore producing thousand of aircraft less would automatically have had an additional impact on gaining technology within the US aircraft industry.

In reverse, this is exactly what happened to the European aerospace industry - no $$ no striking developments.

The US nominal GDP figure in 2021 was $22,996, Billion, the EU $23,481 USD - now play in 60 years of aerospace industry and all it's sub-suppliers missing out in the USA
and the EU gaining those revenues.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Jagdflieger said:
Now taking into account the same massive funding that the US government and the US aircraft industry provided (was able) towards the F-117
Click to expand...
The front end of the F-117A development (Have Blue) WAS NOT funded by the US government - it started out with private funds from Lockheed and eventually they sold the concept to the USAF when the technology was shown to work, this well documented in Ben Rich's book "Skunk Works."

"Allegedly" funds from the B-1A cancellation (as well as other unused "black project" funds) were made available for the covert development and production of the F-117A
 
That is a debatable assumption. 3.2% of the US GNP is from arm sales. Although its a big chunk of change for the common man, it's a drop in the bucket in the bigger picture.

Defense outlays and forecast as share of GDP U.S. 2034| Statista

The statistic represents the U.S.
www.statista.com

Jagdflieger said:
Furthermore producing thousand of aircraft less would automatically have had an additional impact on gaining technology within the US aircraft industry.
Click to expand...
Again, that's an assumption - I think you heard of DARPA? Development would still continue, foreign sales would be a secondary consideration
As mentioned, a big "what if" with many assumptions.
 

And US politics would not have allowed that.
 
GrauGeist said:
How many European nations need a multi-role combat aircraft that's carrier capable/qualified?

Was the TSR.2 or J-35 carrier capable?

Could they perform the in the spectrum that the F-35 does?
Click to expand...
I am not proficient enough to answer that as a certainty - so I will just take a guess
Saab 37 - carrier capable - probably not difficult to fix that
FGR.2. - with numerous changes (probably not worthwhile) maybe (see Vigilante)

But aside from the USA and a handful of other countries I don't see any nation giving a priority towards a carrier capable aircraft. (and as for the latter ones those numbers would not have been attractive enough to develop a VTOL F-35. The USA also need so save money, besides the F-4, I think the F-35 is only the second aircraft that was designed/developed to meet the demands/requirements by all branches.

Aside from being stealthy - which mission is it that a Saab 37 couldn't perform such as an F-35? But again I never suggested that a FGR.2 or Saab 37 was to replace an F-35.
But to be the core of a European aerospace industry providing aircraft's from the 60's to the early 90's onto which common developments and research could have been concentrated upon. Making the development of a Tornado and Eurofighter needless - but getting instead onto a F-22/F-35 equivalent.

Regards
jagdflieger
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
And US politics would not have allowed that.
Click to expand...
Off course they did not allow this to happen - but that is why I had included in my Thread headline (had political agendas not prevented.....)

I don't want this thread to turn into a political discussion - but to find out which aircraft would have been the more suitable of the two.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Well there is "funding" and there is "funding".

NAVY PAYS $660 APIECE FOR TWO ASHTRAYS (Published 1985)

www.nytimes.com
 

I get that, but any decision made by Europe is going to change US policies.

You cannot answer your question without addressing policy.

And I already answered that I don't think either of aircraft would have offered a technological advantage to change anything.
 

The F-22/F-35 were developed independently from early aircraft. There was not conventional non-stealth aircraft that evolved into them.

The Saab or TSR.2 would not develop into an F-35 type aircraft.

Its a materials thing…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Where could Universal Carriers make an impact?
Replies
4
Views
1K
Warspite63
Cold war European combat aircraft alternatives?
2
Replies
25
Views
941
bf109xxl
An even greater inter-Allied cooperation on the technical & tactical matter?
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
4K
Barrett
B
German answer to the WAllies introducing the P-47 + DTs and Mustang Mk.X in June of 1943?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
SaparotRob
Biplanes for ww2: where could've these still mattered?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
11K
The Stannum Liberator
Menu
Log in
Register