A better Javelin....

Z

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Joined
15 July 2007
Messages
4,580
Reaction score
4,002
It struck me recently why we haven't examined what might have happened if Gloster's Javelin had been a better aircraft.
Of all the twin engined fighters for the RAF, the Javelin was produced in the largest quantity and of all of them was the most heavily armed.

But ultimately let down by too conservative a design.

Could it have been possible to produce a better Javelin?
What happens if it is?

For example.
We now know that FIAT nearly opted for licence build of this aircraft.

We know 'as is' in real life a higher performance Red Dean (later Red Hebe) equipped Javelin was in the works.
 
zen said:
But ultimately let down by too conservative a design.
Click to expand...
I agree, but say starting from a high subsonic design and moving to Mach 2 feels a bit of a step too far. I don't think anyone else managed that.

I often overlook the Javelin; it's easy to forget a few hundred got built.

Smaller wing, shrink wrapped fuselage, semicircular Vs circular intakes. All trying to reduce wetted area and cross sectional area and mass. At least from the spec, I'm not sure there were any hard performance points that were driving these features Vs the design heritage from Meteor
 
red admiral said:
I agree, but say starting from a high subsonic design and moving to Mach 2 feels a bit of a step too far. I don't think anyone else managed that.
Click to expand...
I don't think I've said that, but one could imagine getting a better version into the supersonic regime....
 
Thin wing Javelin. That was the plan. Just like Supermarine 545 was "super Swift" and Hawker P.1083 was "super Hunter" (and there was also a "super DH.110" except I can't remember the name).

The final Thin Wing Javelin as described in Tony Butler book would have been a monster (think it was called P.376) with two Olympus turbojets, no less. Tons and tons of thrust. Was to be an interim F.155T type - just like the CF-105 Arrow... which slained it, for nothing. F-155T didn't needed interim types... and then F.155T was canned after the Sandys storm.

Started as P.356 that wasn't really much an improvement over standard Javelin: still subsonic at a time when F-102, F-106 and CF-105 showed what was a supersonic delta interceptor was to be. But P.376 would have been a beast. Also Red Deans. Unfortunately the prototype that was started (and scrapped) was the P.356, so it wasn't much of a loss.

 
Last edited:
Yes but what if Gloster had come up with P.356 and built that for flight in early 50's and service by '56?

As for monsters....
In 1949 they came up with the P.293 of 67ft 10" span (20.67m) by a length of 106.5ft (32.45m), weighing in at 47,000lb as a Fighter (68,000lb as a bomber) and it's 'smaller' fighter version P.291
 
I think the prerequisite for a better Javelin (Hunter, Sea Vixen, Scimitar and Victor for that matter) is the Miles M.52. A big fat supersonic data file from the late 40s would have all sorts of positive knock on effects by the mid 50s. The Javelin would be specc'd with a thin wing from the start.
 
zen said:
For example.
We now know that FIAT nearly opted for licence build of this aircraft.
Click to expand...
Wow zen, would you be so kind to direct me more on the Italian's interest in license-production of the Javelin please?

Regards
Pioneer
 
As Archibald mentioned, see Tony Butler's book "British Jet Bombers since 1949" where you will find the Gloster P.386 and P.384. As fighter versions they would have been impressive long range interceptors.
 
We have to remember that the design work started in 1946, so its no wonder that the design was conservative. Saying that, given how many variations were designed (single-seaters, two-seaters, larger, smaller etc.) it is surprising that the design was not refined further with a thinner wing and better intakes.

I don't think that the M.52 would have added much in terms of theory, but the contemporary DH.108 with its thinner swept wings might have shown the way - although the leading edge structure as used in the Vampire/Venom series failed with disastrous consequences on the Vixen so being cautious might not have been a bad idea after all...
 
I don't get the impression that the Javelin was a bad aircraft. It was satisfactory in service for a long time. It just wasn't great.

To make it better, ease up on the short runway requirement. That lets you have a thinner wing without the T-tail, giving less drag and better handling. And from the back-seater's point of view, improve AI.17 with a PPI display and improved detection range. It is supposed to be a night/all weather fighter, after all.
 
As a platform Javelin was a bit like the Tornado ADV. If you give it a decent missile armanent and radar it is useful for hacking down Soviet bombers.
Trouble is that there are no good alternatives to the four Firestreaks in the real world until you get Phantoms with Sidewinders and Sparrows.
Early Sidewinders, Falcons and Genies might be better than Firestreaks but not much.
Sorry I know you want those paper British missiles but they were never going to happen.
 
I think they screwed up getting rid of their iconic tail and going with ugly.

The Meteor was aesthetically pleasing to look at. The Javelin is ugly.

Edit: spellung
 
Last edited:
So now UK75, you're saying Sidewinder and Falcon are 'better than Firestreak?

And you are saying that no UK missile development could be as good as Sparrow?

And in turn you're also saying yhe big Falcons for F108 Rapier and A12 are not good enough?

And you're saying the 1965 F4 is superior to a 1956 Javelin.....?
 
uk 75 said:
Trouble is that there are no good alternatives to the four Firestreaks in the real world until you get Phantoms with Sidewinders and Sparrows.
Click to expand...
You could do worse than put Red Top on it, and Blue Dolphin isn't that much of a pipe dream. But neither is anything to get excited about.

Fundamentally, I think the best thing you can do for the Javelin is to get it replaced with a supersonic all-weather fighter a bit earlier. Could be worse, the Sea Vixen was bid to the same spec, and soldiered on until 1972!
 
Yellow Palace said:
You could do worse than put Red Top on it, and Blue Dolphin isn't that much of a pipe dream. But neither is anything to get excited about.

Fundamentally, I think the best thing you can do for the Javelin is to get it replaced with a supersonic all-weather fighter a bit earlier. Could be worse, the Sea Vixen was bid to the same spec, and soldiered on until 1972!
Click to expand...

The Javelin's replacement was the Lightning, but the British Government didn't order any Lightning fighters between Nov 56 and Dec 59 while they argued about the size of fighter command and the role of manned aircraft.

If the 50 x F.2s were ordered in 1957 instead of 1959 the whole Javelin replacement wouldn't have been so drawn out.
 
It has to be remembered that the role of Fighter Command was no longer to defend British cities but to defend Bomber Command airbases.
If those bases were going to be replaced by hard silos or later with submarines at sea what was the role of Lightning and Bloodhound. Skybolt blurred the issue by offering the V force a stay of execution but then it goes.
Things change again in the 1970s with the emergence of longer ranged Soviet strike aircraft able to reach British bases during the conventional phase of a war.
This made the replacement of Lightnings by Phantoms more urgent so in 1970 Jaguars are ordered to free them up.
 
By about 1963 the role of fighter command was to see off snoopers and jamming aircraft and a reserve of fighters to deploy overseas, about 7 sqns.
 
zen said:
And you're saying the 1965 F4 is superior to a 1956 Javelin.....?
Click to expand...

It was 1956 because the ministry only initially order two prototypes;- it needed ten straight off the bat. Gloster’s were as much to blame as the AM.

Gloster’s were to complacent with their technology choices and development timelines…. But there again DH military and Vickers Supermarine weren’t much better.

In about the same timeframe Gloster’s made a rather temperamental, thick wing subsonic delta, a tiny bit better than Meteor, while down the road, Bristol’s made a Mach 2.0 pilotless, self guided aeroplane, powered by an engine type that didn’t exist in the U.K. when they started;- ie the Bloodhound. In 1949 Bristol’s we’re on the ropes just about dead, whereas Gloster’s were top of the world;- why did they need to try hard and take risks?

Necessity’s the mother of invention.
 
Last edited:
Zoo Tycoon said:
In about the same timeframe Gloster’s made a rather temperamental, thick wing subsonic delta, down the road, Bristol’s made a Mach 2.0 pilotless, self guided aeroplane, powered by an engine type that didn’t exist in the U.K. when they started;- ie the Bloodhound. In 1949 Bristol’s we’re on the ropes just about dead, whereas Gloster’s were top of the world;- why did they need to try hard and take risks?
Click to expand...
This is a good point!
Rather like failures and getting stuck in technical problems. Companies and individuals need to learn and be driven to succeed.
 
By the time the Javelin was making it into squadron service, it was up against aircraft like the F-101 Voodo, F-104 Starfighter, MiG 19 and 21, even the Swedish J 35 Draken. The Javelin was, to put it mildly, was a plough horse competing with thoroughbreds. Britain's air ministry took a decade too long to bring it to fruition, being generous.
 
Honestly, they could have added swept wings to Meteor and called it a day.
 
Rather change to underslung Avons and lengthened nose for AI radar.

But do you want such widely spaced engines?
 
The problem is that noone had decent fighters until the 70s. All early missile systems were pretty useless.
No British pilots took part in air to air combat missions between Korea and the Falklands.
There was no likelihood of a British Vietnam given the cautiousness of British politicians. Suez and Kuwait took place against poorly trained opponents. Indonesia had no will to fight a war with Britain.
In Europe both sides would use fighters to try and down incoming bombers and tactical fighters. A dogfight between Firestreak equipped Javelins/Lightnings and Sovbloc Atoll equipped Migs might have happened in 1961 or 2 with similar results to those over Vietnam.
 
zen said:
Rather change to underslung Avons and lengthened nose for AI radar.

But do you want such widely spaced engines?
Click to expand...

Interestingly, BSP has two drawings of designs before what became the Meteor and both look to have engines closer to the fuselage than the Meteor did in the end.
 
Last edited:
Going off at something of a tangent, mention was made of a 'Sea Javelin' - I found this image which I think originates from elsewhere on this board although it's original provenance I cannot recall...
How the (Sea) Javelin’s/Javelins stall/approach speeds compare as well as low-speed handling characteristics were in actuality could obviously be the decider on a marinised version, one of the early models/prototypes was lost in an unretrievable stall due to the large area of the delta wing obstruction airflow over the tail - it was at angles above 45 degrees though…
 

Attachments

  • RN SEA JAVELIN FAW113_zpscd23d5fe.jpg
    RN SEA JAVELIN FAW113_zpscd23d5fe.jpg
    68.8 KB · Views: 50
Last edited:
uk 75 said:
All early missile systems were pretty useless.
Click to expand...

I once saw an alternative assessment of early missiles.

The thrust of the argument was that nobody expected all or even most cannon rounds to hit the target, let alone shoot it down, and nobody says cannon are useless because of it. When used correctly even the Aim9B allowed engagement at greater range than cannon (double or triple) and allowed attacks at minor off-boresight angles, so was a step forward even with a 1 in 5 chance of a single shot getting a kill.

The issue with early missiles was one of perception, that they were a miracle weapon, rather than an incremental step forward that should be backed by guns and needed training to be used effectively.
 
Which UK missiles reached service by 1958?
 
Exactly. Compare with the range of missiles in service with US forces
 
Because we ended up using US missiles not French or Soviet ones.
Sidewinders should have been evolved in partnership with the US. Sparrow became the RAF bomber killer.
A UK platform with US missiles might have worked. Javelins with Genies and Falcons like US Daggers and Darts.
 
Was Firestreak inferior to Sidewinder and Falcon?

Was the mk1 Sparrow, being a beam rider superior to Fireflash?

The latter probably.
But the fomer?
 
When did Falcon and Genie equipped F106 leave US service?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom