A better V/STOL outcome than P.1127

[zen]

Arguably the whole focus on VTOL and dispersed atomic weapons was always headed to be crushed by security concerns and this ultimately did for NMBR.3 and P.1154 to GOR.345 along with the costs of going supersonic.

But had a greater focus on the STOVL and STOL side of the equation alongside a resistance to impose the dramatic cost increases of supersonic flight been taken. Then a more practical and affordable platform could emerge.

Such studies did happen, only it seems later on by '65. But it would have helped if such studies had simply been a few years earlier.

Most notably is a '65 subsonic STOL version building on lengthening the P.1127 and applying area ruling.
While this is a heavier design than iterations of the basic P.1127 (because of greater fusilage and wing) and lifts less in VTO&VL due to that weight increase, it actually ports more weight in STOL and ironically flies faster.

 

[Archibald]

I often wonder whether a larger Harrier could have carried a Phantom radar and Sparrows. Somewhat like the SHAR FA.2 with its Blue Vixen and AMRAAMs in the 1990's.

 

[Rule of cool]

Apparently Hawker thought the Mach 1.3 P1150 was as far as the Harrier concept would go given 1960 technolog and the P1154 pushed the concept further than was practical.

Funnily enough the P1154 was developed under the Massive Retaliation doctrine and cancelled in 1965 but in 1966 exercise Hell Tank that hinted at the new Flexible Response doctrine where dispersed operations with conventional weapons became a thing.

 

[Archibald]

Did P.1150 used PCBs ?

 

[uk 75]

VSTOL is pointless for land based aircraft as the large amount of support equipment even Harriers require gives the location away. In most countries airfields and or motorway dispersal are better. Neither Sweden nor Switzerland who could both afford it went for VSTOL solutions.

So we get to two old friends of the Harrier: The US Marines and the 1982 Falklands War.
We all know how the Marines adopted Harrier and made it their own. Without the US Marines there would be no F35B.

So for Brits its back to the subject of numerous threads here already. Could the RN have got a better Sea Harrier earlier and what would it look like.

Well not P1154 that is for sure. As long as F4 Phantoms had anything in the RN able to deploy them VSTOL was no wanted.

P1127 was not wanted by the RAF (yes more F4s please). Nor by the RN who saw it as too short ranged and unable to carry anything worthwhile.

That Sea Harrier emerged at all from the grotty world of early 70s Britain is itself nothing short of a miracle. Getting something better needs a once in a lifetime event.

 

[Rule of cool]

Did P.1150 used PCBs ?

Yes.

Just guessing, but maybe it was easier to make the PCB engine work in the smaller P1150.

 

[zen]

Did P.1150 used PCBs ?

Yes on a Pegasus, and P.1150 extracted the best reasonable performance from this for the time. All building on the P.1127 effort and Bristol's engine.

But then along came NMBR.3 and demands for higher speeds amongst other things. Result was a need for a better engine for supersonic speeds and give the heavier airframe the range/payload desired. Bristol took supersonic Orpheus effort and mated it to Olympus front. BS.100 resulted and the PCB concept applied.

 

[zen]

Arguably the subsonic...well actually transonic and clean above 30,000ft supersonic platform could potentially deliver most of GOR.345 or even stripped of supersonic performance the NMBR.3.
Resulteling in order for 175 single seater and 25 twin seater trainers.

Not cancelled in '65, but entering service well before Jaguar if not actually piping F4K to the post. Which I think it will as this absorbs the finances of P.1154 "Harrier", P.1127 "Harrier" and much of "Jaguar" if not F4M.
Meaning no interim use of 70 F4 for MRI until cheaper Jaguar arrives.

Let's call this Falcon GR.1

And crucially never in with a chance on meeting AW.406 to replace Sea Vixen. Leaving the RN free to pursue F4K....
In fact Leaving RAF Fighter future to also pursue F4. No P.1154 to muddy the waters.

Meaning supersonic trainer never gets the MRI makeover and either dies with the AFVG (Hawk much more practical)or actually becomes the Anglo-French T38/F5 analogue. Killing Hawk subsonic trainer, but possibly scooping up overseas sales....

Come '66 death of CVA-01 and long-term planned end of CV force. The rise of through-deck cruiser to addition of 'fast jet as extension of missile systems'. Make navalised Sea Falcon increasingly the way forward.
FRS.1 Sea Falcon results.

What could shift this game is if this platform gained AI.23 Blue Parot for TFR capability. Porting over the work on HSA Buccaneer and giving it a more all-weather capability.
In fact the Ferranti set intended for P.1154 perhaps. In other words the full P.1154 avionics on a subsonic platform.

 

[Rule of cool]

VSTOL is pointless for land based aircraft as the large amount of support equipment even Harriers require gives the location away. In most countries airfields and or motorway dispersal are better.

I agree, although STOVL does open up the options for dispersal basing to virtually every civilian general-aviation airport with a paved runway in Western Europe. There must be hundreds of these.

A big difference between the P1154 and P1127 that eventually entered service is their importance in the RAF's Order of Battle. The P1154 was to equip half of the RAFs 'tactical fighter' force, ~9 of ~18 sqns, whereas the P1127 Harrier only equipped 4 sqns, reducing to 3 after a few years.

I think the VTOL P1154 is a stupid way to get hundreds of supersonic fighter-bombers into RAF service; it distorts the entire force structure, is very expensive and doesn't have the flight performance of much cheaper and more numerous rivals. In contrast the P1127 is a good way to give the RAF dozens of niche CAS aircraft; it's much cheaper, complements the larger force of Mach 2 fighters/fighter-bombers and brings with it several handy capabilities that the large force of Mach 2 aircraft cannot do such as extreme basing dispersal.

 

[Rule of cool]

Arguably the subsonic...well actually transonic and clean above 30,000ft supersonic platform could potentially deliver most of GOR.345 or even stripped of supersonic performance the NMBR.3.
Resulteling in order for 175 single seater and 25 twin seater trainers.

Would the transonic P1150 be given such a prominent place on the RAFs force structure, like the P1154? Or would it be scaled back, more akin to the P1127 Harriers 4 sqns to provide space for more conventional Mach 2 tactical aircraft?

 

[zen]

Would the transonic P1150 be given such a prominent place on the RAFs force structure, like the P1154? Or would it be scaled back, more akin to the P1127 Harriers 4 sqns to provide space for more conventional Mach 2 tactical aircraft?

Plausible.
But it depends.
P.1154 was continued as both a 'joint' platform and the expectation of NATO sales.
Exit from VTOL NMBR.3 in '62 and there would be a desire to fund some domestic system with potential for export. Which would eat the lot and leave nothing but at best P.1127.and maybe not even that.

Ironically Daasault Mirage F2 looks like the ideal there.....which is a completely different scenario. But a good one.

And SAAB Vigen the other.

 

[uk 75]

Slightly diverging from this thread I have long maintained that the closest thing to the P1154 in RAF service was the Jaguar which ended up as the replacement for 38 Group's Hunters.
I am not sure the RAF really knew what it wanted a Hunter replacement to be. Some Hunters ended up being replaced by Tornado (those in RAFG) others in the TWU by Hawk.
With a massive benefit of hindsight what the UK needed by 1970 was a Hawker designed Jaguarlike aircraft to replace its Hunters and a BAC designed Tornadolike aircraft to replace its Canberras and V bombers.