F 4 Phantom fails in the early 60s- 1154s or Lightnings?

[Hood]

Alertken hits the nail on the head. Was a VTOL type, either P.1127 or P.1154 ever really necessary?
Nobody has ever really asked the question why the RAF was the only land-based VTOL fighter operator in the world. Sure it was technically feasible but that doesn't mean that it was operationally practical.

Some would argue the RAF held the monopoly of wisdom, just like British Airways and Air France had the monopoly of wisdom on supersonic airliners... oh, ok and Aeroflot too, but even the Soviet Air Force despite its 'it must fly from a scorched irradiated potato field with one Vodka-drunk tractor mechanic for support' doctrine ever seriously entertained a tactical VTOL fighter.

If Phantom fails, the MoD gets BAC and HSA down to Whitehall and tells them to go away and design us a swing-role fighter/bomber type. I suspect the result would be (as I posted in 2012 in this thread) a BAC Type 583 or something very similar, a British MiG-23. Or maybe just more Jaguars and perhaps fitting some with radar rather than LRMTS?

 

[zen]

Alertken hits the nail on the head. Was a VTOL type, either P.1127 or P.1154 ever really necessary?
Nobody has ever really asked the question why the RAF was the only land-based VTOL fighter operator in the world. Sure it was technically feasible but that doesn't mean that it was operationally practical.

Some would argue the RAF held the monopoly of wisdom, just like British Airways and Air France had the monopoly of wisdom on supersonic airliners... oh, ok and Aeroflot too, but even the Soviet Air Force despite its 'it must fly from a scorched irradiated potato field with one Vodka-drunk tractor mechanic for support' doctrine ever seriously entertained a tactical VTOL fighter.

If Phantom fails, the MoD gets BAC and HSA down to Whitehall and tells them to go away and design us a swing-role fighter/bomber type. I suspect the result would be (as I posted in 2012 in this thread) a BAC Type 583 or something very similar, a British MiG-23. Or maybe just more Jaguars and perhaps fitting some with radar rather than LRMTS?

UK Gov does that as is Brough did put forward NGTA fixed wing, twin M45, like a scaled F4 with high wing.
BAC did propose Type 583/584/585 series.

Both in '65.

Type 583 was twice proposed.
Type 584/585 was aimed directly at NMBR.3
These Vickers Supermarine options can have lift jet removed for greater internal volume for other stuff.
Type 584 was assessed as excellent but too costly.
Remove lift jet remove clang box thrust diverter result A Very British Flogger.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/a-very-british-flogger-type-584-585.30765/

 

[kaiserd]

Did anything ever fly, let alone enter service, with PCB?

What are the alternatives for UK Gov?
It's the start of 1965 make a decision.
1. F105 Thunderchief.
2. F100 derivative
3. Mirage III derivative
4. Mirage F2 or F1
5. Viggen
6. F8U-III derivative
7. AF Supersonic Trainer
8. More Buccaneers
9. ? Brough NGTA
10. Type 583 or Type 584/585
11. Mirage G
12?

Underlines how "lucky" the RAF and Western airforces (and navies) were that the F4 didn't fail; few half-realistic options and any of the realistic ones not as good as the F4.
RAF Phantoms first flew in 1966 and entered service 68'/69'.
1. F105 Thunderchief - not especially appealing or nearly as flexible as F-4 but at least available in timescale (well, last one produced 65' but if no F-4 production still going). No naval version so would have to be RAF only. Potential "interim" solution.
2. F100 derivative - essentially a non-runner - production ended in 59' so would have to be ex - USAF airframes (somewhat busy in South-East Asia). Better 1 NW strike-fighter than the Hunter but very much yesterdays news.
3. Mirage III derivative - a possible runner (with Rolls-Royce engine to appease national sentiment). May unfairly be see as "re-inventing" something akin to a Lightening. No naval version so would have to be RAF only which may be a decider against (no RN pro-party, likely anti-French head-wind).
4. Mirage F2 or F1 - too late to be real candidates - F1 didn't enter service until 1974.
5. Viggen - marginally more realistic timescale wise (entered service 71') but no great constituency pushing for it (no Naval version so no RN pro-party, etc.) so hard to see it being picked.
6. F8U-III derivative - likely to be pushed for by RN if F-4 not around, otherwise hard to see RAF going for it (developed versions maybe more of an interest as Lightening replacement later on).
7. AF Supersonic Trainer - what became the Jaguar - well in a way it was (replaced F4s in ground attack and they then replaced early Lightening marks) but too late as a direct replacement (entered service 74').
8. More Buccaneers - timescale at least makes sense (entered RAF service 1969) and probably having some more of them is a more realistic partial interim move than, say, a interim F-105 buy. However infamously RAF hated the Buccaneer right until they were forced to have it so may need more sensible heads than were actually there at the time.
9. ? Brough NGTA - not sure what this is? Bucaneer development? if it's one of those paper-only British planes of this period then never had any realistic prospect of being built - F4 or no F-4.
10. Type 583 or Type 584/585 - See comments above re: paper-only British planes of this period. Throw in extra weight, complexity, cost and technical risk of swing-wings (and of STOVL) and this is a unrealistic proposition.
11. Mirage G - combination of comments above re: the other Mirages and comments above extra weight, complexity, cost and technical risk of swing-wings (only ordered in 65' so yet to fly) - again a unrealistic proposition.
12? Even longer shots like F-104 or F-5 variants?
So realistically the most likely scenario would be RN wanting and potentially getting the F8U-III, RAF getting some more "interim" Buccaneers and subsonic-only Kestrels/ Harriers or forcing through an "interim" F-105 purchase due to their Buccaneer aversion.

 

[uk 75]

Fascinating replies, especially on the vstol "dead end".
Two possibilities occur to me:

Lightning two seaters derived from T5

Hawker design a Jaguar style Hunter replacement rather than P1127/54

further ahead

Come up with Tornado earlier instead of AVS and AFVG
A Euro Viggen programme

 

[JFC Fuller]

9. ? Brough NGTA - not sure what this is? Bucaneer development? if it's one of those paper-only British planes of this period then never had any realistic prospect of being built - F4 or no F-4.
10. Type 583 or Type 584/585 - See comments above re: paper-only British planes of this period. Throw in extra weight, complexity, cost and technical risk of swing-wings (and of STOVL) and this is a unrealistic proposition.

This is silly, you claim that the Brough design was unrealistic yet admit to not even knowing what it is. You also fail to identify any credible reason why the Type 583 was unrealistic. The F-111, F-14A, Mirage G, Tornado and multiple Soviet types were all realistic yet an all British VG proposal is apparently unrealistic? Seems completely incoherent.

As stated elsewhere on this forum, replace P.1154 with one of the Vickers VG designs, properly coalesce a joint requirement between the RN and the RAF and such a programme is perfectly viable. All the technical pieces were in place, the engines were designed and built anyway and radar and avionics were in development for other types. Given that British industry could produce the Buccaneer, the Hawk, multiple civil types an be heavily involved in Jaguar, not to mention getting TSR-2 to flight in this timeframe it seems mad to suggest that a programme could not be run to produce a twin engine VG aircraft with Phantomesque performance in the UK.

 

[zen]

So for completeness sake.

Considering F4 origin is later 50's, other options carried through.

A) Scimitar variants. A host of these. Type 556 FAW twin seater reheated Avons basis of new trainer and Strike variants. Ideal as true Javelin successor.
Inferior to F4 but equally superior to F8, though not F8U-III.

B) F.177 variants as of interest to Heinkel and FRG.

C) Lightning variants.
AH path C1 The Other Lightning.
AH path C2 single large engine Lightning.

D) TSR.2 variants
D1 Vickers Supermarine Type 571 Single Engine.
Most viable.
Basis of later early OR.346 fixed wing proposals.
A sort of British Viggen/Thunderchief cross.

D2 DH Christchurch VI wing solution. But clunky but fast and navalise-able.

E) OR.346 variants
E1 Brough B123 single Medway for reduced (still superlative) performance mostly range and payload (that is less than 1000nm ROA and less than 6,000lb for that TSR.2-like mission).

E2 DH127 most viable to prototype and most viable to remove STOL features. Significant excess performance in speed, range, and payload available.

E3 HS1152 remove liftjets and clang box diverter, result a British Super
Crusader without the scary chin inlet.

F) P1121 variants fund as Javelin successor for Twin Seater FAW (60 instead of Lightning marks), go from there.

Practical case for IF F.177 goes ahead Attack variants for RAF and FAA, licensed to Heinkel and Japanese firm.

Strongest AH cases are The Other Lightning and Scimitar FAW Type 556 developments.

 

[kaiserd]

9. ? Brough NGTA - not sure what this is? Bucaneer development? if it's one of those paper-only British planes of this period then never had any realistic prospect of being built - F4 or no F-4.
10. Type 583 or Type 584/585 - See comments above re: paper-only British planes of this period. Throw in extra weight, complexity, cost and technical risk of swing-wings (and of STOVL) and this is a unrealistic proposition.

This is silly, you claim that the Brough design was unrealistic yet admit to not even knowing what it is. You also fail to identify any credible reason why the Type 583 was unrealistic. The F-111, F-14A, Mirage G, Tornado and multiple Soviet types were all realistic yet an all British VG proposal is apparently unrealistic? Seems completely incoherent.

As stated elsewhere on this forum, replace P.1154 with one of the Vickers VG designs, properly coalesce a joint requirement between the RN and the RAF and such a programme is perfectly viable. All the technical pieces were in place, the engines were designed and built anyway and radar and avionics were in development for other types. Given that British industry could produce the Buccaneer, the Hawk, multiple civil types an be heavily involved in Jaguar, not to mention getting TSR-2 to flight in this timeframe it seems mad to suggest that a programme could not be run to produce a twin engine VG aircraft with Phantomesque performance in the UK.

And yet the UK didn’t.
They had to wait until the Tornado, with Germany and Italy, for that VG twin engined aircraft.
And the Jaguar was with France.
And the Harrier became an effective joint project with the US (with the UK the junior partners for the Harrier II).
And onto the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Tempest is jointly with Italy and any other partners you can manage to get.
The UK couldn’t and can’t afford to go it alone given what else had to be spent on defence (the deterrent, etc.) and other spending priorities.
And you are minimising the technical and other risks related to paper-only proposed UK-only designs, and (especially) their radar and other avionics and systems.

 

[JFC Fuller]

And yet the UK didn’t.
The had to wait until the Tornado, with Germany and Italy, for that VG twin engines aircraft.
And the Jaguar was with France.
And the Harrier became an effective joint project with the US (with the UK the junior partners for the Harrier II).
And onto the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Tempest is jointly with Italy and any other partners you can manage to get.
The UK couldn’t and can’t afford to go it alone given what else had to be spent on defence (the deterrent, etc.) and other spending priorities.
And you are radically minimising the technical and other risks related to paper-only proposed UK-only designs, and (especially) their radar and other avionics and systems.
Rose- or Union-Jack- tinged glasses (or vulnerability to “us-as-victims” narratives of history) shouldn’t mislead contributors of the reality of circumstances when judging what is or is not realistic.

You may have noticed the "Alternative History" element of this thread. Anyway, if you want to claim the UK couldn't afford to go it alone you might want to explain the Buccaneer, or the Hawk. Your confusion comes from assuming a choice is the product of destiny, France chose to go it alone, the UK did not. Nobody is minimising technical risk, merely pointing out that much of the work was done anyway as a even a minimal knowledge of UK R&D in this period would tell you.

Also, you are the only person who has used the word victim in this thread though your obsession with this narrative ("Union-Jack- tinged glasses") is a little weird.

 

[kaiserd]

And yet the UK didn’t.
The had to wait until the Tornado, with Germany and Italy, for that VG twin engines aircraft.
And the Jaguar was with France.
And the Harrier became an effective joint project with the US (with the UK the junior partners for the Harrier II).
And onto the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Tempest is jointly with Italy and any other partners you can manage to get.
The UK couldn’t and can’t afford to go it alone given what else had to be spent on defence (the deterrent, etc.) and other spending priorities.
And you are radically minimising the technical and other risks related to paper-only proposed UK-only designs, and (especially) their radar and other avionics and systems.
Rose- or Union-Jack- tinged glasses (or vulnerability to “us-as-victims” narratives of history) shouldn’t mislead contributors of the reality of circumstances when judging what is or is not realistic.

You may have noticed the "Alternative History" element of this thread. Anyway, if you want to claim the UK couldn't afford to go it alone you might want to explain the Buccaneer, or the Hawk. Your confusion comes from assuming a choice is the product of destiny, France chose to go it alone, the UK did not. Nobody is minimising technical risk, merely pointing out that much of the work was done anyway as a even a minimal knowledge of UK R&D in this period would tell you.

Also, you are the only person who has used the word victim in this thread though your obsession with this narrative ("Union-Jack- tinged glasses") is a little weird.

The “work was done anyway” is a poor (and inaccurate) argument poorly made (as are references to the Buccaneer and Hawk).
You appear to be confusing a revisionist- fantasy as a real realistic choice available at the time.
And you are massively understating the associated technical and associated risks - for example France flew prototype Mirage VG aircraft but didn’t field them. And the Tornado was almost a decade down the road and that was developed and paid for in concert with Germany and Italy.

 

[zen]

The very basis of this thread is predominantly looking at what the UK would do if the F4 fails.

As for technology.
Funded Olympus for TSR.2, Medway for transport then junior Medway a.k.a Spey.

AI.23B funded.
Q-band option for TFR funded.
TSR.2 funded to multiple prototype development aircraft.
Verdant computer for TSR.2 program (virtual memory arrgghhh!!!!)
INS funded.
Moving map system funded.
LMRTS funded.
FMCW funded then shifts to FMICW. Flown on Canberra. First for OR.346, then P1154, then AFVG, chopped 66-67 resurrected to assist MRCA ADV option.
A4 missile seeker funded
Sea Dart seeker funded.
Sea Dart funded.
Monopulse missile seeker development funded.
Fully automatic interception system for Lightning funded.
Steerable nosewheel for Lightning funded.

Just off the top of my head that list.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The “work was done anyway” is a poor (and inaccurate) argument poorly made (as are references to the Buccaneer and Hawk).
You appear to be confusing a revisionist- fantasy as a real realistic choice available at the time.
And you are massively understating the associated technical and associated risks - for example France flew prototype Mirage VG aircraft but didn’t field them. And the Tornado was almost a decade down the road and that was developed and paid for in concert with Germany and Italy.

No, the points are well made, which is why you are unable to refute them with any detail - just broad assertions and accusations of fantasy. You continue to assume that because something was not done that it could not have been done.

 

[kaiserd]

The “work was done anyway” is a poor (and inaccurate) argument poorly made (as are references to the Buccaneer and Hawk).
You appear to be confusing a revisionist- fantasy as a real realistic choice available at the time.
And you are massively understating the associated technical and associated risks - for example France flew prototype Mirage VG aircraft but didn’t field them. And the Tornado was almost a decade down the road and that was developed and paid for in concert with Germany and Italy.

No, the points are well made, which is why you are unable to refute them with any detail - just broad assertions and accusations of fantasy. You continue to assume that because something was not done that it could not have been done.

How can I or anyone else refute an argument that isn’t an argument?
And yet what you are proposing was not done (or ever came particularly close to being considered yet alone actually done) suggesting the decision makers at the time (and well, actual reality) doesn’t agree with you.

 

[zen]

This is a Alternative History thread in the Alternative History and Future Speculation section.

So it is obviously going to be an exploration of alternatives not as is history.
History is dealt with in other sections.

 

[kaiserd]

This is a Alternative History thread in the Alternative History and Future Speculation section.

So it is obviously going to be an exploration of alternatives not as is history.
History is dealt with in other sections.

It’s entirely up to you how fantastical and untethered to reality you want your alternative history to be. But others shouldn’t be required to pretend that it isn’t fantastical or untethered to reality because some prefer to do do.

 

[JFC Fuller]

How can I or anyone else refute an argument that isn’t an argument?
And yet what you are proposing was not done (or ever came particularly close to being considered yet alone actually done) suggesting the decision makers at the time (and well, actual reality) doesn’t agree with you.

This is a fantastic example of you not really knowing the history you are making proclamations about whilst still not understanding the alternative history component of this sub-forum. The Royal Navy, prior to being told to adopt the P.1154 as a common aircraft with the RAF, was very interested in a VG solution to meet its future fighter requirement and undertook a series of studies looking at armament and radar. Early stage R&D was funded and Vickers proposed building a research aircraft. As this is an alternative history sub-forum, we can suggest that decision making could have favoured VG over V/STOL whilst the desire for jointness would have been retained. Thus, a VG aircraft would have been pursued instead of the P.1154. Such an aircraft may have been palatable to both the RN and the RAF in the same way the F-4 turned out to be, so making it less likely to be cancelled. And there we have it, alternative history rooted in actual design and study work and built on actual events. It didn't happen, but that is the entire point of alternative history.

 

[uk 75]

I see a new/old topic here and am starting a new thread

 

[kaiserd]

How can I or anyone else refute an argument that isn’t an argument?
And yet what you are proposing was not done (or ever came particularly close to being considered yet alone actually done) suggesting the decision makers at the time (and well, actual reality) doesn’t agree with you.

This is a fantastic example of you not really knowing the history you are making proclamations about whilst still not understanding the alternative history component of this sub-forum. The Royal Navy, prior to being told to adopt the P.1154 as a common aircraft with the RAF, was very interested in a VG solution to meet its future fighter requirement and undertook a series of studies looking at armament and radar. Early stage R&D was funded and Vickers proposed building a research aircraft. As this is an alternative history sub-forum, we can suggest that decision making could have favoured VG over V/STOL whilst the desire for jointness would have been retained. Thus, a VG aircraft would have been pursued instead of the P.1154. Such an aircraft may have been palatable to both the RN and the RAF in the same way the F-4 turned out to be, so making it less likely to be cancelled. And there we have it, alternative history rooted in actual design and study work and built on actual events. It didn't happen, but that is the entire point of alternative history.

I am VERY aware of the general and aviation-specific history of this era and I am massive fan of the Tony Butler and Chris Gibson’s books about the aircraft projects of this period.
Yes they looked at these Vickers projects, but was any of them (with particular focus on the non-STOVL VG version) ever particularly close to being a service type?
I am not looking to denigrate unbuilt designs but there is a massive gap between paper and actual proven hardware which you are clearly minimising (and attacking me for pointing to?) due to your own pet-agendas.
I am not expecting us to agree on these points and in all honesty I think your inability to accept that anyone has views that don’t match your own have derailed Zen’s alternative thread quite enough (sorry Zen for my own role in that - I didn’t pick this particular fight but I probably have helped prolonged it).

 

[JFC Fuller]

The derailment of Zen's thread began here, when you claimed that designs you weren't even aware of were not realistic prospects.

The vast majority of designs discussed across this forum were never particularly close to being service types, thats the point of the forum, because they were not chosen for full development. Again, the point of alternative history is that people can explore what might have been had they been chosen for development. In the case of my previous post the suggestion being that the UK pursues VG instead of STOVL resulting in a Vickers VG design being taken forward over the Hawker Siddeley P.1154. Given the known interest the RN had in VG solutions to it's Sea Vixen replacement that is hardly an absurd suggestion.

 

[zen]

Apology accepted.

Closest to service......Mirage F2 and F3 bung in UK engine instead of flawed US and then UK avionics. Voila! C'est un avion perfectement pour la Entente.

Much better than Jaguar
Much cheaper than Lightning development
Frankly better than Starfighter.
Large orders both sides of Channel. Sucking in other European states in the process.
Export Middle East.
License India Germany and Italy.
Potential to kill Viggen too.

 

[uk 75]

The Mirage F could have emerged earlier if VG and VSTOL had not been so fashionable. A twin seater twin engined version might have been a Europhantom

 

[zen]

The Mirage F could have emerged earlier if VG and VSTOL had not been so fashionable. A twin seater twin engined version might have been a Europhantom

F2 flew around the mid 60's, cut because of engine troubles and cost.
F3 was nearly ready.
Dassault recovered with private venture scaled around Atar, this became F1.

 

[uk 75]

This old thread was made very British by me. Very silly and some of you did widen it to include all F4 users, especially in the USA.

As the Jaguar thread has gone well and the F4 is such an iconic ( sorry) aircraft. It is worth revisiting.

To start with I am not even sure how to kill the F4 off. I assumed initially for the UK at least it had not been a success with the USN but to get an interesting thread we could go further back and kill it at birth.

 

[CV12Hornet]

There are three points where you can strangle the F-4 in the cradle. The third, already sort of identified, is the flyoff with the Super Crusader.

The second is the mid-1954 BuAer request for an all-weather supersonic fighter that would settle into the Phantom's requirements. Grumman and North American were also allegedly in on this competition; I'm 95% sure Grumman's entry was the Model 110 series, but I've turned up nothing on what North American's proposal might have looked like. Of note for this exercise is that a license-built Olympus turbojet was considered in this design series.

The first one is the original rejection of the F3H-G in favor of the Crusader. However, the Navy encouraged McDonnell to keep working on the concept.

At all points it's easy to see why the Phantom kept chugging along. The F3H-G clearly had potential in 1953; by mid-1954 McDonnell was further along than Grumman and North American in getting an actual fighter built; and of course in 1958 the two-seat configuration won out.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This old thread was made very British by me. Very silly and some of you did widen it to include all F4 users, especially in the USA.

As the Jaguar thread has gone well and the F4 is such an iconic ( sorry) aircraft. It is worth revisiting.

To start with I am not even sure how to kill the F4 off. I assumed initially for the UK at least it had not been a success with the USN but to get an interesting thread we could go further back and kill it at birth.

The only reasonable way would have been for the F8U-3 to have blown the F4H prototype out of the water at the fly-off. I think to do that would have required a 2-seat build, as well as at least provisions for extra pylons on the wing for extra fuel for range, or and/or bombs.

But if the Super Crusader's wing was strong enough to hold the 15,000lbs bombload of the A-7, that would have done the job.

 

[uk 75]

Recent threads trying to get a non Sandys British aircraft industry or do stuff with the Lightning prompts me to bring back this old thread which removes the F4.
P1154 seems still to me the only British alternative to F4. As long as it is accepted as a STOVL rather than VTOL aircraft.
A US alternative (Supertiger, SuperCrusader, Superskyraider, Batplane) would probably have killed off P1154 as the F4 did by seeming to do everything both the RN and RAF needed.
Dassault might also have come up with something.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Recent threads trying to get a non Sandys British aircraft industry or do stuff with the Lightning prompts me to bring back this old thread which removes the F4.
P1154 seems still to me the only British alternative to F4. As long as it is accepted as a STOVL rather than VTOL aircraft.
A US alternative (Supertiger, SuperCrusader, Superskyraider, Batplane) would probably have killed off P1154 as the F4 did by seeming to do everything both the RN and RAF needed.
Dassault might also have come up with something.

I think I'd put odds on Dassault coming up with something before the P1154 STOVL took off.

 

[zen]

It would take off....conventionally first and land conventionally.

But come the day they try VL..... or VTO....

 

[uk 75]

If you look at how and where the RAF intendec to use its P1154s around the world it was pretty much STOL with V being nice to have if it could be made to work.
There was nothing much wrong with P1154 in this mode, but it had the misfortune to get tangled up with the TSR2 saga and the machinations of the Royal Navy trying to get next generation airpower.
Ironically late mark RAF Harriers have been operated pretty much as was planned for P1154.
Given tbat Harrier owes jts basic design to a French person perhaps Dassault should have made his .Mirage along similar lines rather than the bedstead IIIV?

 

[red admiral]

As long as it is accepted as a STOVL rather than VTOL aircraft.

Do you actually mean STOL instead of STOVL?

I'm thinking of something with similarly good thrust/weight ratio, but with a bigger wing and likely blown surfaces for lift enhancement. Not like really STOL but likely 3-4,000ft

It's probably quite a different airframe, but with the same systems onboard with the same sort of capability but longer range.

But this still needs building on further to be really competitive e.g. radar guided AAMs

 

[okakac]

A lot decisions by the Eisenhower Administration. But first requiring a nicer LeMay. That will concentrate nuclear missions to heavy bombers, Naval Patrol squadrons using Air Force models. To faciliate smaller carriers. That wouldn't be able to operate A-5 which doesn't happen in this timeline. A-4 for attack, turbofan A-4 for 160s attack. This way you don't have a carrier that can operate a Phantom. Which will encourage people to challenge RAF that kept a leash on the Harrier. Strangely stung that efforts to produce a viable VTOL jet combat aircraft could not succeed past a design that seemed custom made for USMC.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Strangely stung that efforts to produce a viable VTOL jet combat aircraft could not succeed past a design that seemed custom made for USMC.

Read NATO Basic Military Requirement #3. The assumption was that airfields would be nuked early on in any conflict, so that continuing to fight would require an aircraft that could operate from whatever non-irradiated postage stamps of concrete you could find.

And between power to weight ratios and the size of bombs in play, you end up with a Harrier.

 

[okakac]

Skimming through the posts, l noticed people were having trouble finding a reason why Phantom should fail. Gave them one.

Yet it could be done in a simpler way. One sentence; three words; nine letters. Though with the effort it would take to justify it, l could also make this forum believe that Nazis are out there in the stars. That would be somewhat more legendary.

As for NATO requirements l feel reading them would be dreary and hard going. I would rather read Bill Gunston and follow what he wouldn't say. If airfields are gone in nuclear attacks it is clearly possible not to have airfields in that sense and use surface to surface missiles with nuclear warheads. Oh, right, he was also mentioning Europe could be defended with SAMs alone if NATO was really defensive in nature. One clearly notices that there would no need for Air Forces and perhaps lesser sales for quite a few companies in such a decision. That's Flexible Response.

If it is an Harrier you end up with, you change the rules. It is a continuation of 1957, rationalizing the industry.