Fairey Delta 2, not the English Electric Lightning

[Archibald]

It took a long time, to mature the Mirage III...
-Mirage I (failed)
-Mirage II (failed, except for the wings which went to the III-01)
-Mirage III-01 (demonstrator)
-Mirage IIIA (pre-serie of 10)
-Mirage IIIC
-Mirage IIIE

The III-E really was the most mature variant. The Mirage V sprung from it, then the 50. Together they got much more export orders than the IIIC.
Also the Mirage V loaned its fuselage to the Mirage F1, at least partially.

 

[kaiserd]

As discussed above the reality is that the FD2 itself was not a combat aircraft prototype but a research aircraft, so any combat aircraft that could/ would emerge would evolve out of the FD2 but not actually be the FD2.

But before advocates/ fans of this scenario get too excited I would flag a few underlying issues:

- The Lightening has a not unsimilar research aircraft to combat aircraft evolution but was considerably further along in its evolution/ development in this regard. The Lightening has to disappear for some reason for a relatively straightforward combat evolution of the FD2 to become plausible. No realistic scenario in which combat versions of both can co-exist.

- As noted by other contributors above Fairey was a small-ish manufacturer, there is a resource/ credibility issue if suddenly they are to be relied on for the future of UK military aviation.

- Given RAF requirements and priorities at the time it is quite likely that a combat aircraft derived from the FD2 is pushed in the direction of being a Lightening facsimile with emphasis on speed, climb at the expense of other aspects like range, payload, avionics etc. (in a way even “more” of a dedicated interceptor because playing with less payload potential due to just having the one engine). It’s not a given that whatever emerges is actually any better a basis for more flexible multi role/ tactical fighter bomber roles than the Lightening. Indeed it’s quite possible that you could trade one set of issues for another; instead of being too expensive and too much of an aircraft to do roles to which the airframe fundamentally isn’t going to be well matched for (Lightening) you could end up with a cheaper but even less well matched airframe to these roles (this theoretical interceptor focused FD2 derivative). The Mirage came very close to a version of this faith and escaping it had its fair share of luck as well as judgment, given the equivalent UK context a FD2 derivative may not have been as lucky.

I think assuming that a theoretical FD2 combat derivative optimally threads the needle in this regard is a big questionable assumption and speaks more of what some contributors want to have happened (working back from a desired outcome and forcing the context to bend to fit that outcome) rather than what is likely to have actually happened had actual events worked out differently (looked at possible points of divergence and likely paths of evolution from there).

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

- low-set wing, a simple and sturdy tip-to-tip structure / tank that provides a large flat belly/underwing surface for hard-points

The Mirage wing is not a tip-to-tip structure but consists of two seperate wings which bolt to the fuselage frames who have to support the load around the engine.

Not quite sure how the Mirage V fuselage relates to that of the F1 though... The two are totally different but that is way off topic.

Others made good comments about the basic Fairy concept. I will however maintain a supersonic Hunter derivative is a cheaper more realistic path with more potential success albeit less pure performance than Lightning.

 

[zen]

Hawkers themselves produced a very attractive delta winged design that could have formed the basis of an HSA wide effort.
Almost a British Draken.

So maybe we should really be asking for this wider AH?

 

[Rule of cool]

The Lightening has to disappear for some reason for a relatively straightforward combat evolution of the FD2 to become plausible. No realistic scenario in which combat versions of both can co-exist.

This is true, from 1957 the number of 'fighter' sqns in the RAF fell to ~20 with the Lightning equipping about half of them. Developing a second mach 2 aircraft to fill the 9 sqns that the Hunter conversions filled in real life is very poor procurement policy indeed.

 

[uk 75]

I think the gap that comes about in Alt projects is between the engineering side, who just want to explore the technical options and the historical side who like to see if different paths could have been taken.
I admit to being slow (in the latter group) to appreciate that my friends on the engineering team dont want to get bogged down in Whitehall stuff. Please make it clear when you just want to talk nuts and widgets.

 

[Siberia]

Much like the P.1 to Lightning, there's going to be some changes in design between FD.2 research aircraft and a fighter version…

This is an image from Derek Wood's book Project Cancelled comparing the Delta II and Mirage III that's been posted to the forum previously.

​

Its been quite some time since I read it but IIRC it stated that when Fairey were trying to drum up interest for developing it into an operational type the two main changes mentioned were replacing the droop-nose with a larger regular one to fit radar and enlarging the air intakes.

 

[Rule of cool]

This is an image from Derek Wood's book Project Cancelled comparing the Delta II and Mirage III that's been posted to the forum previously.

View attachment 723503​

Its been quite some time since I read it but IIRC it stated that when Fairey were trying to drum up interest for developing it into an operational type the two main changes mentioned were replacing the droop-nose with a larger regular one to fit radar and enlarging the air intakes.

I think people see this picture and reason that given the FD2 is about the same size as the Mirage III if it was put into production it would be about as successful. After all it was a speed record holder and the Lightning didn't sell well so it must be a dud.

 

[red admiral]

Maybe take a few historical Mirage III sales (Australia?) but feels pretty unlikely to be all of them (e.g. not Israel)

 

[Rule of cool]

I think this thread has shown that the plane in that picture isn't going to be made into a combat aircraft. Instead something quite a bit bigger was proposed as the FD2 derived fighter.

 

[red admiral]

I think this thread has shown that the plane in that picture isn't going to be made into a combat aircraft. Instead something quite a bit bigger was proposed as the FD2 derived fighter.

I don't understand you still pushing this line

The FD.2. As built is basically the same size as MIII or Draken. It doesn't need to be "quite a bit bigger" to be a combat aircraft. What it does need is re-design into an actual combat aircraft (e.g. as per MIII-001) as covered across previous posts, but this doesn't make it bigger.

Trying to meet F.155 requirements requires a larger aircraft, but thats not necessary to still produce an acceptable 1960s fighter.

 

[uk 75]

I think these threads reflect Brit disappointment that we never managed to build and get into service a homegrown multi role fighter like Draken, Mirage, Phantom or Viggen.
No amount of wishful thinking can alter this reality.

 

[zen]

If you want Lightning-like performance, then Fairey correctly concluded that scaling up around the DH Gyron was the fastest solution available. Despite some claims here, there would be a modest purchase saving compared to two Avons and more substantial maintenance saving over time.

For Fairey to actually achieve success it would somehow have to both get the Research Aircraft flying according to the original schedule (not delayed) AND get HSA Board to fund the bigger machine instead of the P.1121.

Would this sell abroad instead of Mirage III.......?
Probably not much unless it won over Germany and even then it wouldn't directly compete with the Mirage III.

Timing and allocation of resources count here, and for a multiple of detailed factors, it just didn't come together enough to achieve that.

 

[MadRat]

Coolest part of their design was the four petal speed brakes.

 

[Siberia]

I think people see this picture and reason that given the FD2 is about the same size as the Mirage III if it was put into production it would be about as successful. After all it was a speed record holder and the Lightning didn't sell well so it must be a dud.

Yeah. They only way I can see the Delta II ever being progressed further is by bringing its, and by extension its forebear the Delta, development forward so that it's breaking records in the early 1950s. Early enough that the UK hasn't yet fully gone down the path of more high-tech aircraft, and potentially some funding sources.

No amount of wishful thinking can alter this reality.

Something of a rather odd position to take considering half of the forum topic is alternate history.

 

[uk 75]

Alternate History: Wishful Thinking: Dreams

Reality: most other bits of this site.

or Yes, I like dreams too but they are not real

 

[Rule of cool]

I think these threads reflect Brit disappointment that we never managed to build and get into service a homegrown multi role fighter like Draken, Mirage, Phantom or Viggen.
No amount of wishful thinking can alter this reality.

To that I'd add 'despite the potential'.

 

[Rule of cool]

If you want Lightning-like performance, then Fairey correctly concluded that scaling up around the DH Gyron was the fastest solution available. Despite some claims here, there would be a modest purchase saving compared to two Avons and more substantial maintenance saving over time.

For Fairey to actually achieve success it would somehow have to both get the Research Aircraft flying according to the original schedule (not delayed) AND get HSA Board to fund the bigger machine instead of the P.1121.

Would this sell abroad instead of Mirage III.......?
Probably not much unless it won over Germany and even then it wouldn't directly compete with the Mirage III.

Timing and allocation of resources count here, and for a multiple of detailed factors, it just didn't come together enough to achieve that.

The thing that's really stuck with me from this thread is learning that RAAF Mirage IIIEs loaded with 2 x AIM9, 1 x R530k and 2 x 500l fuel tanks can only reach Mach 1.2 and 45,000'.

There's a major difference between the brochure and reality, and while the Mirage III and Lightning look pretty similar on paper the Lightning had it all over the Mirage when weighted down with fuel and weapons. 'Lightning-like performance' isn't something that can be ignored, it's very important in the real world against the threats Britain was looking at. It's little wonder the ER103 grew to the ER103/C to be a combat aircraft.

 

[red admiral]

But that is a single data point that you can't take a general point from

Look at say F-104 SACs and you'll see that this is much less impacted by fuel and weapons. Even less so than Lightning when you compare charts.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

The thing that's really stuck with me from this thread is learning that RAAF Mirage IIIEs loaded with 2 x AIM9, 1 x R530k and 2 x 500l fuel tanks can only reach Mach 1.2 and 45,000'.

There's a major difference between the brochure and reality, and while the Mirage III and Lightning look pretty similar on paper the Lightning had it all over the Mirage when weighted down with fuel and weapons. 'Lightning-like performance' isn't something that can be ignored, it's very important in the real world against the threats Britain was looking at. It's little wonder the ER103 grew to the ER103/C to be a combat aircraft.

This thread is starting to go circular, but half the argument in this thread is about "Lightning-like performance" - which far exceeded any of its peers despite them being born out of similar basic requirements for bomber interception and destruction - and if it was really needed when so many others looked at the same requirements and decided somewhat lesser performance would do and enjoyed far more succesful designs as a result.

I would caution sticking to one loadout and calling it a failure based on not reaching Mach 2.2 loaded such... Very very few aircraft actually reach their brocure speeds. Most only reach that in a clean configuration under ideal conditions. Pilots notes for pre F.3 Lightnings list max speed as M1.7 and M2.0 for later marks. I assume these have missiles fitted too. Not really that much more impressive over the fully loaded Mirage (in my opinion overloaded too with the R530 in that configuration. An RP825 belly tank would have been a better choice.)

 

[Rule of cool]

But that is a single data point that you can't take a general point from

Look at say F-104 SACs and you'll see that this is much less impacted by fuel and weapons. Even less so than Lightning when you compare charts.

IIUC the F104 carried a pair of Aim9Bs, which weigh 155lb each or about half of the 300lb Firestreak, unless you know of 4 x Aim9 loadouts being common in the early 60s.

This is why I mentioned the 3 AAM load for the Mirage as it weighs ~700-750lbs, compared to the ~600lbs of a pair of Firestreaks which is what any British fighter of the early 60s would be armed with.

 

[zen]

Do we really want to go as deep as a full spectrum analysis of contestants?
Mirage III with UK systems never existed beyond Dassault's IIIO Avon, which actually flew (totaly undermining the Avon Saber comparison), but it never had AI.23 and Firestreak or Red Top.

We know an Avon Starfighter was at least examined.

But Lightning like performance, requires we look at climb and altitude over top speed. Because climb mattered more than absolute speed.
Mirage or Starfighter climb rate?
Time to 45,000ft?
Why did UK value EE P.1?
Because warning times were based on transonic bombers above 40,000ft being at best detected at 250nm.
At 250kts that's 60 minutes
At 500kts, that's 30 minutes to cover the distance.
At 750kts that's 18 minutes
At 1,000kts 15 minutes

So getting up and close is vital, because at 1600kts Bloodhound will cover 75nm in 3 minutes.

 

[Rule of cool]

This thread is starting to go circular, but half the argument in this thread is about "Lightning-like performance" - which far exceeded any of its peers despite them being born out of similar basic requirements for bomber interception and destruction - and if it was really needed when so many others looked at the same requirements and decided somewhat lesser performance would do and enjoyed far more succesful designs as a result.

I would caution sticking to one loadout and calling it a failure based on not reaching Mach 2.2 loaded such... Very very few aircraft actually reach their brocure speeds. Most only reach that in a clean configuration under ideal conditions. Pilots notes for pre F.3 Lightnings list max speed as M1.7 and M2.0 for later marks. I assume these have missiles fitted too. Not really that much more impressive over the fully loaded Mirage (in my opinion overloaded too with the R530 in that configuration. An RP825 belly tank would have been a better choice.)

I think things are circular because this is fundamentally a technical 'solution' to political problem.

The Lightning didn't 'fail' because it was was technically bad and therefore the FD2 will 'succeed' because it was like the Mirage III which was successful. The Lightning 'failed' because the British government declared manned fighters obsolescent in April 1957 and retained the Lightning begrudgingly as an interim until missiles were ready, because 20 development batch and 50 operational fighters had been ordered before the 57 DWP.

If for whatever reason the FD2 was in the Lightning's place then it too would suffer the consequences of an unchanged 57 DWP and likely be considered a failure.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

IIUC the F104 carried a pair of Aim9Bs, which weigh 155lb each or about half of the 300lb Firestreak, unless you know of 4 x Aim9 loadouts being common in the early 60s.

This is why I mentioned the 3 AAM load for the Mirage as it weighs ~700-750lbs, compared to the ~600lbs of a pair of Firestreaks which is what any British fighter of the early 60s would be armed with.

Mass is one thing, but you really ought to be looking at aerodynamic drag. At those speeds it will be by far the most dominating force the missile exertes on the aircraft which will actually reduce the max possible speed. Mass just means its acceleration is affected but on an intercept mission most of the "heavy lifting" is done on the runway.

 

[red admiral]

But Lightning wasn't a "failure". It met the RAF need in the early 60s.

It just wasn't a massive export success like MIII, I think largely due to the significantly greater costs for marginal performance benefits that other air forces didn't valur as much.

I think the biggest impact with Lightning was that the uncompeted P.1 research contract set the UK on an irreversible course towards Warton as a monopoly supplier. I think that continued competition for longer would have been better - alternative choices in the 50s have far reaching consequences.

 

[Rule of cool]

Mass is one thing, but you really ought to be looking at aerodynamic drag. At those speeds it will be by far the most dominating force the missile exertes on the aircraft which will actually reduce the max possible speed. Mass just means its acceleration is affected but on an intercept mission most of the "heavy lifting" is done on the runway.

I imagine that 2 small and 1 big AAM would generate similar or more drag than 2 big AAMs.

Also drag can be overcome with power, to an extent of course.

 

[Yellow Palace]

It just wasn't a massive export success like MIII, I think largely due to the significantly greater costs for marginal performance benefits that other air forces didn't valur as much.

'Our government thinks this is a dead end, but you're welcome to pay development costs for a more capable version' isn't exactly a compelling sales pitch, when the nice gentleman from Dassault is offering an aircraft that already does what you want, and is fully supported by the French government. As well as being cheaper. And the gentleman from Lockheed, well, he isn't nice, but his car certainly is...

 

[MadRat]

The thing about Starfighter is its low fuel fraction and extreme wing loading was less than useful for anything save for hot scrambling. So you identify a 500 knot bogey at 250nm. Starfighter rushes there in 15 minutes. Its got to dump and return home almost immediately. But your Soviet-era Blackjack starts at 500knots and accelerates to 1,000knots, while staying near the 250nm line from the shore. Your Starfighter never even gets a visual in the clouds before he is forced to RTB. You weren't doing that to a Tornado.

 

[zen]

To be fair, it's more plausible as Sandys prohibition is quietly shelved that further improvements may be more achievable with a Delta II variant like ER103C. Simply by virtue of the greater volume in the nose for expanded capability AI.23.

Delta II ER103C may not be ideal for low level and navalisation, but is likely to remain more viable a platform for the RAF for QRA and Fighter duties.

Arguably with Gyron, AI.23 and Firestreak/Red Top, such an aircraft undermines the need for F.177 for the RAF before the 1957 cancellation. Making it a possibility F.177 is abandoned earlier for the RAF.

Saro Avro and DH might not be happy, Camm might fume, RN might be in a right tizz but HSA Board still would see profits via Fairey and potentially BAC would have even less until OR.339.

Perhaps one might also compare to a notional P.6 single engined Lightning type using a similar engine to Gyron.
In fact one could conjure comparisons to include the Saro P.163 and P.1103.

Then one would use the same engine in all and compare relative merits of each layout.

 

[red admiral]

@Yellow Palace
Quite; but the main objective is to develop and procure the equipment that the RAF thinks it wants, whilst minimising cost. It isn't to make Industry more profits by subsidising exports.

Exports alone isn't really a measure of success

 

[zen]

The thing about Starfighter is its low fuel fraction and extreme wing loading was less than useful for anything save for hot scrambling. So you identify a 500 knot bogey at 250nm. Starfighter rushes there in 15 minutes. Its got to dump and return home almost immediately. But your Soviet-era Blackjack starts at 500knots and accelerates to 1,000knots, while staying near the 250nm line from the shore. Your Starfighter never even gets a visual in the clouds before he is forced to RTB. You weren't doing that to a Tornado.

Doesn't make sense, since we're talking about 1950s looking towards 60's. Not a '70's conceived BARCAP system achieved in the 80's.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Quite; but the main objective is to develop and procure the equipment that the RAF thinks it wants, whilst minimising cost. It isn't to make Industry more profits by subsidising exports.

In general terms, I'd agree - though I'd suggest that the objective of the procurement system should be to develop and procure the equipment that the Services need. Which isn't necessarily what they think they want. (1) But still at minimum cost.

From a Treasury viewpoint, the aircraft better suited to export requirements might result in more jobs (postwar consensus at work!) and help with the balance of payments. And will probably be cheaper, which the Treasury always likes. It also makes the Foreign Office feel warm and fuzzy to see other people flying British aeroplanes instead of French ones.

None of these views is necessarily wrong. Service, Procurement (what we'd call DE&S today!), and Central Government all have different priorities. Some posters pick one lens to look through. Others are just contrarians and enjoy an argument.

From the boardroom at Warton, of course, the objective is very much to maximise profits!

(1) This is usually portrayed as civil servants and/or consultants stopping the RAF from having hypersonic lasers and forcing it to polish up something old-fashioned, or insisting that it needs hypersonic lasers instead of improving something proven. Sometimes both at the same time. For the same requirement.

 

[pathology_doc]

Simply by virtue of the greater volume in the nose for expanded capability AI.23.

By which I assume you mean "Able to designate for SARH missiles"?

 

[zen]

By which I assume you mean "Able to designate for SARH missiles"?

A fair assumption I think, though other options might be available.

Just having volume/weight margins for Illuminator functionality on AI.23, would allow a radar guided missile and increase engagement distance/envelope.

 

[Rule of cool]

'Our government thinks this is a dead end, but you're welcome to pay development costs for a more capable version' isn't exactly a compelling sales pitch, when the nice gentleman from Dassault is offering an aircraft that already does what you want, and is fully supported by the French government. As well as being cheaper. And the gentleman from Lockheed, well, he isn't nice, but his car certainly is...

This is pretty much hitting the nail on the head, for both the Lightning and the hypothetical FD2 combat aircraft.

Apparently British government officials were telling the West German government not to buy the Lightning when EE was trying to sell it in the wake of the SR177 cancellation.

If, for whatever reason, an FD2 was in the position of the Lightning as the sole fighter surviving the 57 DWP and kept under sufferance as an interim to missiles it's going to suffer a similar fate regardless of it's possible price advantage.

 

[Rule of cool]

@Yellow Palace
Quite; but the main objective is to develop and procure the equipment that the RAF thinks it wants, whilst minimising cost. It isn't to make Industry more profits by subsidising exports.

Exports alone isn't really a measure of success

Then we get back to what the RAF wants combined with what's on the menu and the budget from April 1957. (Again )

• Requirements;
  • 1957 Interceptor for 20 sqns to defend V bombers
  • 1958 Fighter-bomber, fighter-recce for O/S 8-9 sqns
  • 1959 Interceptor-fighter for 11-12 sqns to defend Britain from intruders etc and O/S in conjunction with 9 sqns of F-B-R (replacing the 1957 requirement)
• Budget;
  • 100 million pounds less than the 1956 budget until 1962
• Menu (actual after 57 DWP);
  • Lightning
  • SR177 (until Dec 57 cancellation)
  • Folland Gnat
  • Jet Provost Mk 5
  • Hunter F 6 conversions

Unfortunately aircraft like the FD2-3 and P1121 lost official backing from April 1957. Apparently Sandys was keen on the RAF getting a 'Limited War' fighter which perhaps the Lightning or SR177 development could have fill but was filled by the Hunter F6 conversions.

 

[zen]

In limited war, a Delta II ER103C type ought to be reasonably able lug a number of bombs and appropriately equipped with the right avionics, deliver them with reasonable accuracy. But this is more in the realm of medium to high altitude offensive capability. In this like with Mirage III and F106, low level was not the realm they were designed for.

It would require substantial redesign and strengthening to become a low altitude bomber and strike system.
Frankly not worth it. Which is why France went down the F2 route, and compromised on F1.

Better to fund a Reconasense version.

 

[Rule of cool]

According to the RAAF the Mirage IIIE carried 4 x 500lb bombs to a radius of 300mn in benign conditions but more realistically 150-200nm. In 1982 Argentine Daggers, which had more fuel than Mirage III, carried 4 x 500lb bombs out to ~400 miles with such a limited flight path that Sea Harriers could wait on it and shoot them down.

I don't think the low level thing is a big deal, it's not as if the Lightning/Mirage III/FD2-ER103C will be doing long penetrations through enemy territory. Rather they'd be doing low level for the ~50 miles closest to the target of a 200 mile radius attack. If any more is required special efforts will be laid on.

 

[zen]

According to the RAAF the Mirage IIIE carried 4 x 500lb bombs to a radius of 300mn in benign conditions but more realistically 150-200nm. In 1982 Argentine Daggers, which had more fuel than Mirage III, carried 4 x 500lb bombs out to ~400 miles with such a limited flight path that Sea Harriers could wait on it and shoot them down.

I don't think the low level thing is a big deal, it's not as if the Lightning/Mirage III/FD2-ER103C will be doing long penetrations through enemy territory. Rather they'd be doing low level for the ~50 miles closest to the target of a 200 mile radius attack. If any more is required special efforts will be laid on.

I don't disagree.
If anything this is more likely to be doing a high altitude and high speed run, considering the Gyron would confer a reasonable mach cruise speed in dry thrust.

Fairey did propose a more multirole Delta III with a massive belly tank and Olympus Ol.21R engines.

Arguably they'd make a similar offer with this and that might be preferred by the HSA Board.....and might actually win RAF orders. As it might more interest Germany.

 

[Rule of cool]

I think the biggest impact with Lightning was that the uncompeted P.1 research contract set the UK on an irreversible course towards Warton as a monopoly supplier. I think that continued competition for longer would have been better - alternative choices in the 50s have far reaching consequences.

I've been thinking about this and think probably it's true, but it came true due to a number of circumstances that couldn't be foreseen back when these decisions were made. When the Lightning survived the 57 DWP Britain was building the SR177 prototype and flying the FD2 and SR53, so there were options until the axe fell. For example the US weapons funding ended in 1956, Suez was a kick in the wallet and face, ballistic missile proliferation was a novel problem and thermonuclear weapons changed all perspectives.

I think a better political response to these problems would be a better option than having a better choice of fighters to hate.