Franco-British aircraft, from 1959

[Archibald]

As said in the title.
http://spotaero.blogspot.com/2013/05/la-genese-du-dassault-mirage-iv.html

The Mirage IV-01 and Mirage IV-A were powered by Atar turbojets, and needed C-135 tanker to strike anywhere in the Soviet Union (bar one-way trips to Moscow)

This was considered too small so late 1958 a scaled-up Mirage IV-B was requested: it grew in size to B-58. A 4-atar was rejected as too different, so it would be a twin jet, but SNECMA was unable to pull a viable engine. so France turned abroad, and considered four engines
- PS-13 Iroquois
- RB.142R Medway
- Olympus
- J-75

IOTL they went with the J-75, and SNECMA traded 10% of its shares for a licence. Soon De Gaulle realized that american engines meant the bombers could be grounded by lack of spares, so the partially build IV-B was scrapped, in favor of an aerial refueling IV-A. Tankers considered were others Mirages, Vautours, and finally, C-135FR.

Whatif SNECMA went for the Olympus or Medway, that is, the British way - Rolls Royce or Bristol ?

Both options have quite fantastic whatif potential
- Olympus of course screams CONCOOORDE and surely enough, the Mirage IV-B would be a 1/3 subscale Concorde, and a very useful testbed.
- such machine could butterfly the TSR-2 and replace the V-bombers. With TSR-2 avionics it would be one hell of a world better: a Franco-British Tu-26 Backfire a decade before the Tu-26.
- Medway screams... VIGGEEN, since the Swedes badly wanted it for SAAB new fighter. If the french rescue it for their own bomber, we will get happy Swedish and perhaps a different aircraft.

Mirage IV* is different: it is the Mirage IV-A with Spey, in 1965-66, long after that POD. Astonishingly enough, both airframe and engine are... a subscale Mirage IVB, and subscale Medway ! How about that.

 

[Archibald]

In this scenario, one can kiss the Jaguar goodbye, and it will be hardly a loss. Harrier and Mirage V would take his role on both sides of the channel.

Other areas of cooperation are aircraft carrier. How about basing CVA-01, not on the Clemenceaus - too small - but on their bigger brother, the 45 000 tons PA-58 Verdun ? (essentially a 1960 Charles de Gaulle minus the nuclear machinery) With a little help from the British it could grow to 50 000 - 55 000 tons but no further, as it would strain both countries resources.

If CVA-01 is unstoppable and happens as OTL, the Invincible can be of interest to the French Navy to replace the old Arromanches in 1974. Harriers could also replace the Etendard IV, providing the French Invincible with limited air cover when the Crusaders (and their carriers) are not available. the great thing with the Harrier is that it can do attack missions from the Clemenceaus, or air cover from an Invincible. The French navy would really appreciate that flexibility, and the lower cost of an Invincible.

Buying an Invincible would butterfly PH-75, hence the Charles de Gaulle might not be build, or build differently. Sea Harrier FA-2, even subsonic, would be far, far better than the cranky Crusaders.
Even more importantly, they would not use the Clemenceaus catapults which by the 90's, were really worned out. Since there would be no Super Etendard either, the catapults would end as unuseful, and perhaps this would help Foch to get a longer life, to 2004 and beyond.
Next step, of course, is CVF / Queen Elizabeth.

 

[Michel Van]

Interesting topic,

On Harrier, Dassault wanted its own version with Bristol: the MD-610 Cavalier.

i can imagine that RAF and RN would goes for Mirage III Fighters with British engine. (bye bye Jaguar)
Special if a part of Mirage III are build in England

Also other collaboration program like Concorde and "Anglo-french-Variable geometry Aircraft".
or join-venture in research on Hypersonic aircraft or spaceflight program.

But Politic is biggest problem in this scenario special the era Harold Wilson
you need a event were France and Britain a forced to work together.

There several options like Suez crisis.
i made Timeline for Alternatehistory.Com about 1960s French British jion venture
as in 1960 french air-force shot down by mistake, A soviet aircraft with Leonid Brezhnev onboard
This almost happen on February 9, 1961 in Algerian Airspace...

 

[Lascaris]

Ok lets put POD at 1958 and the US failing to sign a nuclear agreement with Britain. This in turn tips Britain towards closer cooperation with France and Snecma next year cooperates with Bristol for Olympus. Come 1960 France detonates its French bomb and Britain and France as a means of cutting down costs start cooperating further on nuclear technology. In the meantime as a way of cutting down costs the French side PA58 becomes the third CVA01 but with a twist, it's an outgrouth of the 42,000t design in 1960. France goes forth with Mirage IVB, or not.

Fast forward to 1962. The US cancells Skybolt and US-British relations were ust that bit cooler since 1958 that the Polaris agreemnt falls through. The British are back pissed off and with a serious problem in what to do with their detterent. Well there is an obvious solution. The French are ahead on a viable SLBM, Britain has a naval nuclear reactor of its own in the form of Rolls Royce PWR. Share the two and you can get an SSBN at a lower total development cost for both France and Britain. Strike two at the British-French cooperation.

The next few years are somewhat anti-climatic from the British point of view. TSR-2, P.1154 go down the drain. The smaller, France involving CVA-01 survives. Barely. And Britain needs to replace TSR.2 with something and said something is not going to be F-111 given what took place already. It's a Mirage IV variant either Mirage IVB or Mirage IV* along with development of AFVG. And this time AFVG is not someting you can cancel so easily. Not when it puts in jeopardy half a bilion dollars of Mirage IV orders and the other cooperation programs. France and Dassault have to stick to it. At the same time NKF is developing separately by Germany, Italy and the Netherlands as a variable wing, single engine aircraft. Dassault of course presses on with Mirage F1 for all it's worth and sells Mirage F1E with Bristol-Snecma M53 (about 10-15% stronger) and British radar to Belgium in 1974 (Netherlands is out of the OTL consortium thanks to NKF), Greece and Spain following and the French air force switching to the newer model. In the meantime as development continues it starts to become pretty clear AFVG may be a great strike platform but not so much of an air superiority one. Thus in late 1975 he sells the idea of *Mirage 4000 (with heavy British input) to RAF (165 airframes) and AdA (75 nuclear strike and 100 air superiority).

Which just brought us to the early 1980s and... do the Eurocanards have a reason to exist in this TL? For France Jaguar is non existent, its carriers have Mirage F1M and AFVG and the air force a mix of AFVG, Mirage F1E and Mirage 4000, any need for the 1990s can be covered by upgraded Mirage 4000s, lets call it Mirage 4000-5. For Britain it's the same, Mirage 4000 can replace F-4K/M without undue trouble. Germany is making NKF, probably in place of F-4F as well, ditto for Italy. So what are the Eurocanards supposed to be replacing? The next logical development program seems to me to be a replacement for AFVG/NKF/Mirage. But this puts us to the late 1980s/ early 1990s and a 5th generation design...

 

[Michel Van]

At the same time NKF is developing separately by Germany, Italy and the Netherlands as a variable wing, single engine aircraft.
Dassault of course presses on with Mirage F1 for all it's worth and sells Mirage F1E with Bristol-Snecma M53 (about 10-15% stronger) and British radar to Belgium in 1974 (Netherlands is out of the OTL consortium thanks to NKF),

Lascaris, what stands the acronym NKF for ?, is that the Early Tornado study ?

 

[Lascaris]

At the same time NKF is developing separately by Germany, Italy and the Netherlands as a variable wing, single engine aircraft.
Dassault of course presses on with Mirage F1 for all it's worth and sells Mirage F1E with Bristol-Snecma M53 (about 10-15% stronger) and British radar to Belgium in 1974 (Netherlands is out of the OTL consortium thanks to NKF),

Lascaris, what stands the acronym NKF for ?, is that the Early Tornado study ?

Yes, Neues Kampfflugzeug. Eventually it would turn to Tornado. Without British involvement it probably is much closer to the original German concept I'd think, which in turn keeps the Dutch and possibly the Canadians onboard.

 

[Archibald]

Ok lets put POD at 1958 and the US failing to sign a nuclear agreement with Britain. This in turn tips Britain towards closer cooperation with France and Snecma next year cooperates with Bristol for Olympus. Come 1960 France detonates its French bomb and Britain and France as a means of cutting down costs start cooperating further on nuclear technology. In the meantime as a way of cutting down costs the French side PA58 becomes the third CVA01 but with a twist, it's an outgrouth of the 42,000t design in 1960. France goes forth with Mirage IVB, or not.

Fast forward to 1962. The US cancells Skybolt and US-British relations were ust that bit cooler since 1958 that the Polaris agreemnt falls through. The British are back pissed off and with a serious problem in what to do with their detterent. Well there is an obvious solution. The French are ahead on a viable SLBM, Britain has a naval nuclear reactor of its own in the form of Rolls Royce PWR. Share the two and you can get an SSBN at a lower total development cost for both France and Britain. Strike two at the British-French cooperation.

The next few years are somewhat anti-climatic from the British point of view. TSR-2, P.1154 go down the drain. The smaller, France involving CVA-01 survives. Barely. And Britain needs to replace TSR.2 with something and said something is not going to be F-111 given what took place already. It's a Mirage IV variant either Mirage IVB or Mirage IV* along with development of AFVG. And this time AFVG is not someting you can cancel so easily. Not when it puts in jeopardy half a bilion dollars of Mirage IV orders and the other cooperation programs. France and Dassault have to stick to it. At the same time NKF is developing separately by Germany, Italy and the Netherlands as a variable wing, single engine aircraft. Dassault of course presses on with Mirage F1 for all it's worth and sells Mirage F1E with Bristol-Snecma M53 (about 10-15% stronger) and British radar to Belgium in 1974 (Netherlands is out of the OTL consortium thanks to NKF), Greece and Spain following and the French air force switching to the newer model. In the meantime as development continues it starts to become pretty clear AFVG may be a great strike platform but not so much of an air superiority one. Thus in late 1975 he sells the idea of *Mirage 4000 (with heavy British input) to RAF (165 airframes) and AdA (75 nuclear strike and 100 air superiority).

Which just brought us to the early 1980s and... do the Eurocanards have a reason to exist in this TL? For France Jaguar is non existent, its carriers have Mirage F1M and AFVG and the air force a mix of AFVG, Mirage F1E and Mirage 4000, any need for the 1990s can be covered by upgraded Mirage 4000s, lets call it Mirage 4000-5. For Britain it's the same, Mirage 4000 can replace F-4K/M without undue trouble. Germany is making NKF, probably in place of F-4F as well, ditto for Italy. So what are the Eurocanards supposed to be replacing? The next logical development program seems to me to be a replacement for AFVG/NKF/Mirage. But this puts us to the late 1980s/ early 1990s and a 5th generation design...

Pretty good ! AFVG would soon find itself in a strange situation. When compared to OTL Jaguar, and IOTL Mirage IV-B, it is good for nothing. Too small for the strategic bombing role, too expensive to be another Jaguar.

The sheer expense of the large Mirage IV-B will weigh heavily on the armée de l'air. I'm not even sure they can build 62 airframes as per OTL. With the british engines, it might get more pressure on the TSR-2 as a joint program. I'm quite sure Great Britain might let the French assume the large cost of the Mirage IV-B airframe and provide the engines, plus some advanced avionics. In turn, this would mean no AFVG.
Heck, it might even mean, no Concorde - yes, I know, HERESY, BURN THE WITCH (she turned me into a newt !)

Removing the Jaguar would free a lot of money spent on that aircraft between 1967 and 1973, money that could not go to an air superioty fighter to replace the Mirage IIIC - the F1 was a low cost stopgap... that lasted forever (just like so many other stopgaps, hint: the AH-1 Cobra).

As for the Mirage F1, it might not exist at all: the Mirage F3 (a 110% upscaled F1 with a turbofan in place of the Atar) or Mirage G or Mirage F2 or plenty other designs (see Michel Liébert book).
The Mirage G with a British engine would make a perfect naval fighter, although not very manoeuverable: somewhat the bastard child of a Tomcat and a MiG-23.

best bet would be the Mirage F3, including naval variants. No VG for this one, once again, right between the F1 (too small, underpowered) and the G (VG is too heavy).

whatever the naval fighter to replace the Crusader, it removes a major roadblock that led to the Rafale / Typhoon split in 1985...

 

[Michel Van]

Yes, Neues Kampfflugzeug. Eventually it would turn to Tornado. Without British involvement it probably is much closer to the original German concept I'd think, which in turn keeps the Dutch and possibly the Canadians onboard.

Oh that Proto Tornado study, i think earlier 1967
It was about to replace the F-104 in Air-force. Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Canada
but that was called Multi-Role Aircraft 75 – MRA-75
in mean time the RAF lost the TSR.2 and focus on AFVG and F-111K
but do era Harold Wilson the French say in June 1967 ADIEU to AFVG and six months later F-111K was of table also.

1968 Britan join MRA-75 group and program became Multi-Role-Combat-Aircraft
British and Germans starte do changes in specifications
while MRA-75 was single engine Fighter like a F-104, MRCA was Twin Jet Engine aircraft in size of a F-15A or F-14
Netherlands, Belgium and Canada left the MRCA Program they wanted smaller Aircraft

1969 MRCA was Two version Aircraft: one Bomber for British and a long-range Fighter/interceptor the Germans wanted.
both based on main fuselage but different weapons and crew, the Bomber two, the Fighter one.
in end it became Multi-role Combat Aircraft with two pilots and Germans buy F-4 Phantoms als long-range Fighter/interceptor.

in mean time Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and other members of NATO still looking for F-104 replacement.
what became the Air Combat Fighter competition proposed were:
Dassault Mirage F1M-53
SEPECAT Jaguar
Saab 37E "Eurofighter"
Northrop P-530 Cobra
General Dynamics F-16 Falcon

The winner was F-16 because lower maintain cost, longer range and maneuver performance.
Thanks to the Pratt & Whitney F100 turbofan engine used in F-16 and F-15.

i think with better British engine in Mirage F1M-53 it could have won this competition

 

[zen]

For the MRI mission either a F2 derivative or Mirage G solve the problem. No Jaguars, no F1.
But......
AFVG is problematic.
58 raises the SO design, which if powered by Avon or Spey is a potential F4 alternative. Though a scaled up to Medway version starts to look a bit like HSA's TSR 2 offering.......

Equally an actual Mirage F4 design with two engines and a F1 style wing is possible. Circa early 60's.

1960 42,000ton CVA study is potentially a way forward. Followed by a PAH 75 mini-CVN.

Sea Dart for AAW ships. System C for ASW ships.
Tripartite deal possible with Dutch.
If 58 might even persuade RN for a 105mm version of French 100mm gun.

 

[Archibald]

Whatever the scenario, minus for the Tornado, AFVG mostly sounds a lost cause. The engine itself, the M45, was pretty controversial. I did check the specs, it was extremely small and compact (close enough from a M-88 or EJ-200 !), but somewhat lacked thrust.

While the Mirage IV* was proposed in 1965-1966 AHEAD of the AVFG, the military M45 seems to have vanished into a blackhole after the AFVG cancellation in June 1967. It was completely outclassed by the M53 and RB-199.

Recently I had some fun imagining a Mirage IV powered, not by the *usual suspects* - Spey or M53 - but M45. They are slightly less powerful than the original Atars (not that much, 5800 kg thrust vs 6700), but barely 1/2 the size and weight, and turbofans with extremely low specific consumption. This result in vastly extended range.

In fact I'm searching for the exact specifications of the AFVG M45 engines - diameter, weight, specific consumption, thrust. I combed the web and found only very fractional results. Any help would be very welcome.

 

[Michel Van]

That make sense Archibald, that AFVG simply dies in this TL do Mirage IV*

but there is project we over looked, the next generation of french hypersonic Interceptors and Fighters
(better known as Mirage Mach +3 project.)

on British side were also Study for hypersonic Aircraft like Airliner, Military transporter or Rocket launch.
of course those project went nowhere, but it could result in series of Franco-British hypersonic Test aircraft !

And what about Space flight, what if The French and British came to agremment
to put a downsize Emeraude Rocket on top of a Blue Streak, creating a European version of Atlas-Agena ?

 

[zen]

Hmmm. ...

A Mirage F1 type with twin M45s....

 

[Michel Van]

Hmmm. ...

A Mirage F1 type with twin M45s....

Feasible to make, but practicable ?
The F-16 was popular because it is easy to maintain do it Single engine
This why the Northrop P-530 Cobra / YF-17 was rejected in Air Combat Fighter competition and Lightweight Fighter program
because of its twin engine

(F/A-18 do no count here this is not a Lightweight Fighter, but F-14 replacement)

 

[Archibald]

As for civilian rocketry, best bet would be a 100% Franco-British effort (NO OTHER COUNTRY, no freakkin' ELDO) to put a LOX/LH2 stage ontop of Blue Streak as soon as possible. France had the HM- series and Great Britain had the RZ-20, so merge the two and goes all out on this one and only project. End result would be 2/3 capability of an Atlas-Centaur, enough to start a serious space program. Limited growth with small solid strapons borrowed from the Force de frappe missiles.
France did tried that with ELDO-B, but ELDO was hopeless.

 

[Michel Van]

what About this Timeline ?

1961 French-British agreement about space Join-Venture
Blue Streak and Modified French Emeraude DP L-8 stage (Atlas-Agena)
(it Mass and length reduced by half - Code DP stands for french „Demi-portion“ or „Half-Portion“ in englisch.)
After series of failures, the six test launch is successful, bringing a British test satellite in Low polar orbit in November 15, 1966.

begin of launching series Research Satellite

1971 New Version of Blue Streak Mk II and new French stage Améthyste DP L-8 als replacement for older Emeraude DP.
also testing the Améthyste L-17 as Booster for Blue Streak Mk II
use of Guiana Space Center (GSC) in addition to Woomera
launching Experimental communications Satellite and first military payload

1975 New Version of Blue Streak Mk III with H-20 hydrolox stage with two RZ-20 (Atlas-Centaur)
use Modified Blue streak as booster for new rocket (Falcon Heavy)
launching communication Satellite und deep space probes and heavy reconnaissance Satellite.

1980s
Study for Space Station french SOLARIS and Manned Capsule like the Multi-Role Capsule.

 

[Lascaris]

Whatever the scenario, minus for the Tornado, AFVG mostly sounds a lost cause. The engine itself, the M45, was pretty controversial. I did check the specs, it was extremely small and compact (close enough from a M-88 or EJ-200 !), but somewhat lacked thrust.

While the Mirage IV* was proposed in 1965-1966 AHEAD of the AVFG, the military M45 seems to have vanished into a blackhole after the AFVG cancellation in June 1967. It was completely outclassed by the M53 and RB-199.

Recently I had some fun imagining a Mirage IV powered, not by the *usual suspects* - Spey or M53 - but M45. They are slightly less powerful than the original Atars (not that much, 5800 kg thrust vs 6700), but barely 1/2 the size and weight, and turbofans with extremely low specific consumption. This result in vastly extended range.

In fact I'm searching for the exact specifications of the AFVG M45 engines - diameter, weight, specific consumption, thrust. I combed the web and found only very fractional results. Any help would be very welcome.

I'm very leery at letting AFVG go. First the British pretty clearly wanted something like it. Designs were around since BAC 583 and they kept pushing on it till it became Tornado. I don't really see this changing because RAF is getting 110 Mirage IV* in the best case scenario. Soo... there is a need to save AFVG or for the British to cancel it but to avoid at all costs France leaving it first. Because in that case Anglo-French cooperation sours and you are just back to OTL. The British get Tornadoes and France ends with Mirage 2000 and that's about it. Soo how you convince BRITAIN to cancel it with France happily following so that other projects (call me Mirage 4000) go on unhindered?

On technical grounds each M45 is 12600 lbf so the thrust to weight ratio on afterburner at 50,000 pounds weight is about 0.5. That's no different than Tornado really. So AFVG is essentially a somewhat lighter Tornado that can fly off carriers. If not cancelled it can fill the Jaguar role along Mirage F1E and then in the 1980s have a modernization version in place of Mirage 2000D.

 

[Hood]

This has been an interesting thread, with Anglo-French co-operation being looked at from a French perspective with so far little input from our British members.
The interesting thing is the focus on French airframes with Britain being a useful parts supplier. This pretty much sums up the experience of the collaborative programmes that occurred.

The French had an honest opinion that whatever was built it should be a French airframe to preserve their industry. This is true to almost all collaborations and international requirements France undertook from the NBMR requirements, Jaguar, Puma, Gazelle, Alpha Jet etc. The only outliers are Concorde and the Westland Lynx which the French didn't really get behind.
This made any true collaboration trickier and makes this scenario somewhat optimistic.

From the 1959 point-of-view, a series of tie-ups does nothing for the British airframe industry. Rationalisation is in full swing by this time and the groups were beginning to coalesce around the Bristol 200, DH.121 and TSR.2. Westland was buying up its rotary-wing competitors. The R&D costs were still high but the government was hoping rationalisation and a smaller military wish-list post-Sandys would make useful savings and allow some redistribution of resources into the civil sector.
I'm not sure that IV-A or IV-B was really a good fit for the TSR.2 requirements and as a stop-gap after the TSR.2 cancellation it was probably right for Britain to go on and explore the smaller AFVG. It reset its expectations and Tornado has vindicated the design shift away from a 'bomber' to what effectively was a heavy strike-fighter. AVFG might not have been the best option but it was the starting point, the Mirage G could have been a contender as well with suitable engines and avionics.
Jaguar was mixed too, Britain originally wanted a supersonic trainer but then saw a cheap Hunter replacement in it. Arguably it eventually meant more to the RAF than the AdA in that regard. Had it been cancelled or never developed, then its possible that the government would have persisted with P.1154, but that would probably have been a mistake given the limits of the technology and I doubt it could ever have been as successful or usable as Harrier in the field.

Another topic, connected in part with AFVG vs. Tornado, is that by the late 1960s the opportunities for European collaboration were ripe. It wasn't really until the early 70s that they took off with Tornado and the various helicopter programmes but a binary Anglo-French cooperation by 1970 could have been a bit tame given the strong US influence at that time and the opportunities to bring Germany, at least, on board.

On the engine I agree that a SNECMA-Bristol Siddeley partnership on Olympus earlier would have been beneficial for France. As has been pointed out, whether France could have afforded a fleet of IV-Bs is open to question. Personally I feel that the Medway was a serious loss, worse than the RB.106 Thames, in terms of the potential it had for a whole range of civil and military designs, although it must be said that the resulting Spey family was reasonably successful. It may be in having Medway that the Spey might have been sacrificed.

It is a pity that ELDO did not go further, a successor rocket with British and French experience might have been as successful as Ariane. Britain was probably too keen to save money and cut its ties to quickly in what was a short-sighted move.

Nuclear co-operation is trickier. Britain wants the bomb in its hands but wants US R&D support and possibly their delivery systems too (Thor was a useful step in that direction). Operation Grapple on Christmas Island successfully convinces the US that Britain has the H-bomb and opens the door to co-operation (probably as much self-interest from the Americans to control British technology). Macmillan and his government probably still trust the US more at this stage than France if they have to share nuclear strategic power. Remember this is still a few years before Kennedy's MLF ideas which the British strongly resisted. They wanted their own controls even if they relied on American support. France too (De Gaulle) is suspicious of American control and this is what the MLF would have amounted too. Britain securing US cooperation in 1958 only reinforces his suspicions of an Anglo-American alliance. What could France have offered Britain between 1955 and 1958 to secure British co-operation? They had no working warhead or delivery system to woo the Brits, America had lots of shiny toys to offer. Politically it was almost impossible for France to woo Britain away from seeking American acceptance. France leaving NATO in 1966 probably only illustrates the wisdom of that. Had Britain had Anglo-French nuclear missile systems it might have been very politically awkward and would probably have removed any possibility of buying Trident in the 1980s, thus locking Britain with France.

 

[Lascaris]

Nuclear co-operation is trickier. Britain wants the bomb in its hands but wants US R&D support and possibly their delivery systems too (Thor was a useful step in that direction). Operation Grapple on Christmas Island successfully convinces the US that Britain has the H-bomb and opens the door to co-operation (probably as much self-interest from the Americans to control British technology). Macmillan and his government probably still trust the US more at this stage than France if they have to share nuclear strategic power. Remember this is still a few years before Kennedy's MLF ideas which the British strongly resisted. They wanted their own controls even if they relied on American support. France too (De Gaulle) is suspicious of American control and this is what the MLF would have amounted too. Britain securing US cooperation in 1958 only reinforces his suspicions of an Anglo-American alliance. What could France have offered Britain between 1955 and 1958 to secure British co-operation? They had no working warhead or delivery system to woo the Brits, America had lots of shiny toys to offer. Politically it was almost impossible for France to woo Britain away from seeking American acceptance. France leaving NATO in 1966 probably only illustrates the wisdom of that. Had Britain had Anglo-French nuclear missile systems it might have been very politically awkward and would probably have removed any possibility of buying Trident in the 1980s, thus locking Britain with France.

I'll just note this is why I put my point of divergence exactly at the 1958 agreement failing to happen and then the Polaris agreement not happening either. B)

 

[zen]

There are a number of uk designes that ought to have been considered by the French.
The TSR.2 being on of them.
NMBR.3 suggests the P1154 as well as the other contenders.
Earlier we can see Fairey's Delta II offering outclasses the Mirage III.
There was ample scope for a deal, but it only really makes sense in terms of the USA not being willing to change it's mind after Suez.

 

[Archibald]

I prefer not to start a Mirage IV-A vs TSR-2 debate - too much passion involved on both sides of the Channel. Let's just say that, for once in history, it was France that was on the pragmatic and rational side (and boring, ok), while Great Britain got carried away by passion. Pride and Prejudice - as would said Jane Austen. B)

 

[Hood]

I don't want to debate TSR.2 Vs. IV-A. I don't think there is anything to debate because the two are so different in concept and role.
The TSR.2 was a tactical aircraft, designed for operation in rough fields and for lobbing a couple of WE.177s onto deeper targets and offering support to BAOR with conventional weapons and providing a reconnaissance capability. It was designed for terrain-hugging operations in contested airspace.
The IV-A was built as a supersonic nuclear bomber, in effect a short-range strategic bomber (the original spec called for 1,500km (930 miles) range). It didn't even have a stand-off weapon when introduced.
This is not to say the IV-A wasn't good, or that it could not have been improved with more advanced avionics and engines to have been even better. I just think it wasn't really ticking all the boxes for the RAF. It had good speed performance and with Speys would have been even better, but i'm not sure it offered the multi-role capability they were looking for and the avionics for TSR.2 were still works in progress when the programme was cancelled. Sticking them into the IV-A with new engines might not really have ended up that cheap. Before the demise of TSR.2 the chiefs had a long wishlist which not even TSR, let alone IV-A could really fulfill. On the converse, I'm not sure the TSR.2 was really what the French required given their need to build up the Force de Frappe and make a credible airborne deterrent.

 

[zen]

From a strategic Bomber POV the uk had 3 designes in operation, so on that front it's France that ought to have chosen a uk product.
Furthermore we got as far as a prototype low level Valient.

 

[alertken]

Actual sequence of events:
3/60, CDG approved Mirage IV production, his A-Bomb underway;
30/3/60: UK/US Atomic collaboration MoU - became Skybolt; subsequent UK AW drew (heavily) on US designs;
7/60 UK PM Macmillan discovers France: UK “wants to join the European concern, France (to join Anglos’ A-Team.) Can terms be arranged?” UK should “support (France) in their (sceptical) attitude (to) NATO, give them the Bomb, perhaps some V-bombers (and) support (a) confederation of Europe instead of a Federation.” (CDG: " l'Europe des Patries") “no question of providing either warheads (or) design (data).” JFK later would remind Mac “not all (UK AW) secrets were his to pass on.” “impossible (to) say what (data) elements (had) been obtained by (UK’s) own efforts(, what by US')” “closely enmeshed (blocking French access to) designs” 3/10/63 , SofS/For.Aff.D-Home, R.Lamb: The Macmillan Years, J.Murray, 1995, P376. Avro was authorised to scheme W.130/Z.61 ASM for Mirage IV;
6/10/60: Approval, 9 Development Batch TSR.2 - a Canberra replacement with tactical AW;
10/8/61 UK Application to join EEC;
13/8/61 Berlin Wall Crisis;
28/11/61 France/UK MoU to be civil Concorde (though both Nations assumed military potential);
22/11/61 BAC/AMD Agreement to bid NBMR.3 as Mirage IIIV/P.39/Spey;
1965/66 BAC/AMD pimp Mirage IVS/Spey vice F-111K.

So efforts were made for an Anglo-French Independent AW Strike Force. Neither, as it transpired, was ever wholly-techno-solo: 10/62: “US agreed to sell a nuclear sub. (=PWR reactor) to France”, I.N.S, tools to build solid rocket motors, C-135F to enhance Mirage IVA. I.Clark, Nuclear Diplomacy & the Special Relationship,OUP,94,P.405. So why did not TSR.2/F-111K lapse for Super-Mirage IV and on?

There were personality issues between (any/all) UK Ministers and CDG...but sense and money could have overcome those: no-one enthused over LBJ and Vietnam but we all did business with him. I suggest it was simply that CDG was willing to spend for an apparently solo Force de Frappe, where UK preferred to assert Independence but to buy Interdependence. CDG could obscure that his reach was extended by Boeing; UK could hardly have attempted to hang UK/US AW on a Mirage (France operated US AW, 7/61-9/66, but in F-100D at Lahr/Bremgarten, Nike-Hercules SAM, Honest John SSM).

 

[Archibald]

France surely got its share of U.S NATO aircrafts, the F-100s remained in service until 1978 in Djibouti (so loooong after 1966 NATO withdrawal !) and were appreciated as they could aerial refueling at a time when only the Mirage IV could do that (Jaguar and Mirage F1 could aerial refueling, no French Mirage III or Mirage V ever could).
Also Honest Johns, replaced later by Plutons tactical missiles that were quite similar in design.
And of course the C-135FR. Still in service nowadays

De Gaulle reasonning was that, if the tankers were grounded, the Mirage IV could still fly a one-way trip to Moscow - although in a straight line crossing the entire air defence network of the Warsaw Pact. That was the gamble ! The tankers gave the Mirage IVs far more flexibility, through Murmansk or the Mediterranean. Also, before buying the tankers, Vautours and... Mirage IV were considered, as was a Caravelle tanker.

As you said, CdG didn't really wanted any compromise over the Force de Frappe, it was to be full-blown indepdant otherwise it didn't made any sense. There is that excruciating scenario where Soviet armored spearheads reach the Rhine after breaking through NATO, and then France face an invasion for the fourth time in a century, and there is no other option than to nuke the bridgehead...

 

[uk 75]

This has been a fascinating thread.
If we take 1958 as the starting point, the UK only has one main strike aircraft programme. The TSR2 was intended specifically to replace the Canberra in the nuclear strike role. Its other capabilities were secondary as can be seen from its bomb bay and wing store points show.
The HS 1154 emerges as a Hunter and Sea Vixen replacement, then only a Hunter replacement.
Enter the F4 Phantom which increasingly offers a way of meeting all these roles in one aircraft.
Left to their own devices the RAF and RN would have asked for US engined and systemed F4s and nothing else, no Harriers, Jaguars, AFVGs. Once Buccaneer S2 cured the S1's awful performance, the Buccaneer was able fill the Canberra role perfectly.
Sorry, job done until the 70s. The Tornado was as close to an updated Phantom as the RAF and Luftwaffe could get. The various versions of Mirage just did not appeal.

 

[uk 75]

Apologies for the poor wording above. I am doing this on a phone with fat fingers.
Two points on the nuclear programme.
The US were really keen to help France stay in the NATO nuclear framework, and even afterwards provided considerable behind the scenes help.
The UK reliance on the US was driven by budgets. It was the cheapest way of keeping nuclear weapons. It also kept the UK on the inside of US nuclear technology and planning. France could not compete.
On Space, the UK sensibly realised that building satellites was more lucrative than building launchers.
These were readily available from the US and later ESA.

 

[Archibald]

A path not taken would be a kind of hybrid of Vautour and Buccaneer. Common Spey turbofan, for a start. Then throw the Israelis into the lot: by 1965 they were completely in love with their Vautours and requested Sud Aviation for a massive update of the type. This was called the Tsyklon and went nowhere because Dassault killed it, and so did De Gaulle who want Dassault and only Dassault for combat aircrafts, and public companies for everything else.

A Tsyklon with Buccaneer S-2 avionics would be a world beater.

(see the document linked)

 

[uk 75]

It is interesting to see how both France and Britain in this period wanted to reduce the number of small companies in the aerospace field to compete more effectively with the big US firms. The US companies were also consolidating into bigger groups.
By the end of the 60s BAC and Dassault were the go to firms for big military programmes.
If the F4 Phantom had been less successful, I am sure both Dassault and BAC would have filled the gap. Whether together or separately would have depended on politics rather than military need.

 

[Archibald]

As you say. They started from similar number of companies by 1935 - at least 15 aircraft makers. And it took the two countries many decades to slim down that number and create larger conglomerates.
What is even more interesting in that both process were equally atrocious. Creation of BAC in the 60's was hardly better than what Le Front Populaire did in 1936.
On the French side, the air Ministry bureaucrats took a map of France, a rule, and draw lines according to geography. They essentially sliced France aircraft industry like a freakkin' pizza. No kidding. They created SNCA (think SNCF, but for aircrafts) then they grouped the aircraft plants according not to their owner but to their geographic area. One in the North, one in the "center", and three for the South: South-West, South-Center, South-East. Breguet plants had to work with Bloch or Amiot or Potez.
It was completely insane. It created absolute mayhem and years of delays.

And you thought the Air Ministry was nut ? The French one was hardly better.

 

[zen]

A path not taken would be a kind of hybrid of Vautour and Buccaneer. Common Spey turbofan, for a start. Then throw the Israelis into the lot: by 1965 they were completely in love with their Vautours and requested Sud Aviation for a massive update of the type. This was called the Tsyklon and went nowhere because Dassault killed it, and so did De Gaulle who want Dassault and only Dassault for combat aircrafts, and public companies for everything else.

A Tsyklon with Buccaneer S-2 avionics would be a world beater.

(see the document linked)

I have to admit to a soft spot for this design.
Shades of AWA's design style. Which would make a natural pairing.

 

[Wondera1234]

Whatever the scenario, minus for the Tornado, AFVG mostly sounds a lost cause. The engine itself, the M45, was pretty controversial. I did check the specs, it was extremely small and compact (close enough from a M-88 or EJ-200 !), but somewhat lacked thrust.

While the Mirage IV* was proposed in 1965-1966 AHEAD of the AVFG, the military M45 seems to have vanished into a blackhole after the AFVG cancellation in June 1967. It was completely outclassed by the M53 and RB-199.

Recently I had some fun imagining a Mirage IV powered, not by the *usual suspects* - Spey or M53 - but M45. They are slightly less powerful than the original Atars (not that much, 5800 kg thrust vs 6700), but barely 1/2 the size and weight, and turbofans with extremely low specific consumption. This result in vastly extended range.

In fact I'm searching for the exact specifications of the AFVG M45 engines - diameter, weight, specific consumption, thrust. I combed the web and found only very fractional results. Any help would be very welcome.

I can't find much on the M45G either.

 

[uk 75]

AFVG could have been a win/win programme for both France and the UK replacing Mirage IIIs, Jaguars, F4s and even Mirage IVs and Vulcans/Buccaneers as well as F8s, Etendards and Sea Vixens. Instead of Tornado and Mirage 2000. All that was needed were some different personalities and policies in London and Paris. A Mirage 4000/P110 hybrid might then have been the Rafale/Typhoon of the 90s.

 

[JohnR]

What is the Tsyklon, I tried looking it up on line but get either a Russian Rocket Launchers and Dassault Tsyklon it brought me back to this thread.

Regards.

 

[Apophenia]

What is the Tsyklon, I tried looking it up on line but get either a Russian Rocket Launchers and Dassault Tsyklon it brought me back to this thread.

Some kind of transliteration problem? Циклон (Tsyklon) is Russian for 'Cyclone'. The unbuilt Vautour upgrade/replacement (SO4060M?) was dubbed Cyclône (although I believe that the circumflex has since disappeared in the French spelling).

 

[Archibald]

I've seen this name written in many different (and wrong) ways. Including "Tsikklon".

It was a massive update of the Vautour France had dumped on the Israelis... who loved it. Sud Aviation wanted to return to combat aircraft but De Gaulle and Dassault thwarthed their hopes. IDF AF was proposed instead Mirage IV then F2 but finally went for Phantoms to replace the Vautours in the long range strike role.

 

[uk 75]

AI Dassault Mirage IV - Royal AF IVK/S (MPAI) - Military AI Works

Royal Air Force Dassault Mirage IVK/S. I present a comprehensive AI traffic model package for Marcel Dassault's follow-on to the immensely successful Mirage ...

militaryaiworks.com

includes IDF version