Different NBMR-3?

[Lascaris]

As known this was the NATO requirement for a V/STOL fighter bomber both supersonic and subsonic that led to something between one and two dozen designs being submitted depending on how you count variants from 6 different nations. Of which after much effort only Harrier actually made it to service.

The supposed logic was that you needed that to operate after air bases were gone. But there is an alternative method to accomplish this, namely have a STOL aircraft capable of operating from roads and rough fields as the Swedes did at that time with Draken and then Viggen and Gripen. Which is technically less complicated and as seen by the Swedish designs actually feasible.

So how likely would it be for NATO to come up with a different requirement, taking a page from Sweden and requesting only STOL from rough fields and roads? And how does that in turn affects the aircraft submitted and how many of them actually ending up as working prototypes or in service?

 

[TsrJoe]

The various designs submitted to NBMR.3 were already projects being studied before being added to the pot. I'm not aware of any being actually drawn up specifically for the specification other than tweaks for the brochures ?

 

[alertken]

2 issues sank NBMR-all. Intent was to avoid division of labour, USSR's secret weapon: see Fairchild C-119: Nord Noratlas. Failed because:
1) US, as de facto arsenal-for-everything, enjoyed scale, so price/schedule advantage; and:
2) Big Boys perceived my standards as better than yours. So: UK's 1949 War Minister went to US to pitch our new rifle/calibre; took time out to judge a swimwear beauty contest, so was seen to prefer arms to legs. US said our way or no way.
I believe none of 49 NBMRs led to a NATO-Standard anything.

The 1960 Committees coming up with NBMR-3 and 4 (transport) worked to then-wisdom that runways would not be available, so V as key to survival. Already then USN had rejected the idea and dumped Bell D-188 (swivel pods) and let FRG play with 70xVJ101 schemes to 4/64, then joining US (to be) AVS to 1/68, then (to be) Very Long-TOL Tornado. Staffs preferred useful payload/range off runways/catapults.

If runways are available, awhile, then the same issue of payload/range affects tundra/autobahn operation. Stores/fuel, site protection, canteen, sleep, minor repairs...only Sweden and Switzerland (?Israel) have bases-in-bunkers-by roads, and then for only one sortie.
If we intend AW on tactical fighters, then dispersal far from Munitions Custodials is a no-no: SPETSNAZ and rogue, one-man Release.

 

[zen]

Special weapons logic tenders to favour rapid transport from Secure to Forward Base in JIT manner for Tactical Platform to deliver.
But this invokes the question "is it not as a System cheaper to just give Tactical Strike platform longer legs?"

The answer appears to be yes.

Cheaper and uses less resources and more Secure.

So the logical answer to Tactical is to fund something like a Tactical Strike and Reconasense aircraft. With say a RoA of 600nm carrying a Tactical Nuclear Weapon.......
Which would place the airfield far enough away from the battle and Tactical Ballistic Missiles to supply the support needed.