Getting a British Phantom

[zen]

That depends on what and how far along it already is when the decision to accelerate it into service is taken.

For that one has to ask what is being developed from 1957 onwards?

 

[red admiral]

Given all the posts on Spey Phantom costs in the MOTS Phantom thread, how much would a British Phantom analogue to enter service by about 1965 cost?

P.1154 is the closest analogue in size, capability but still not quite representative given smaller size, lack of SARH radar and missiles etc.

So for P.1154 ~£150m R&D + £180m for <200 aircraft production at project start gives an idea of scale of costs. Maybe there would have been similar cost growth to TSR2 (10-20x !!!) for the R&D phase

So "at least twice the projected cost of Spey Phantom" seems a reasonable statement

 

[zen]

So...
1. No one likes it, but had Saro F.177 carried on, this provides the basis of something adaptable into an low supersonic Fighter Attack machine.
Which is essentially where it was heading in trying to satisfy the Germans anyway.
It's my suspicion the RAF had this penciled in as the Venom/Vampire successor.
But this is more Etendard/Crusader territory.
This was becoming a very Saro-DH partnership.

2. Lightning obviously. But for carriers and short field operations, it needs the VG effort....which could suffer delays.

3. P.1121 could have been flying by the early 60's.But it's too long for RN Carrier lifts.

Arguably had Hawkers thrown their effort into P.1125 instead. Which at least had the merit of using extent Avon or Sapphire engines and a fairly plausible move to Spey. Still a bit long .....

4. Buccaneer could be adapted for fighter missions. This was actually proposed from the brochure to N/A.39 (M.148T) back in '54 and had the development of Gyron Junior gone ahead.....
Though later Avon powered offerings were suggested.
Essentially wings optimised for fighter operations, bigger AI.23 and reheated Avons.

Had Shorts PD.13 won instead, then this would be the contender. Using Avons the potential for a fighter was always there.

5. P.1154.
Has the alternative options of either Type 584 or P.56 the former is almost ideal when stripped of VTOL elements. The latter, however, is much worse.

6. Stalking horse for Buccaneer and Sea Vixen was Vickers Supermarine twin seater Scimitar developments with radar.
But......
Type 576 (circa 1958) could be applied to the production line of extent Scimitars building and a retrofit was offered to existing aircraft.

Of these the Scimitar is the most achievable under Vickers management and frankly far superior to the Hunter for example.

7. The other way forward is for Vickers Supermarine Type 571 Single Engine to win OR.339 and this could be adapted for Fighter missions. From the begining it was realised this might be adaptable for carriers operations and if two smaller engines replaced the Medway this would get us closer to the theoretical ideal.

8. Or....completely left field. Have DH Christchurch win OR.339.

 

[uk 75]

A worthy attempt to field a UK alternative to the F4, which highlights how far designs 1 to 8 listed by Zen are from matching the F4, even hobbled by Spey engines.
The US had the resources and then the expertise that came from operating a large fleet of modern carriers.
The UK did, however have the Buccaneer. This was able to operate from Hermes (though not Centaur). But unlike the A6 Intruder it was not a weapons system just a brilliant airframe able to lob Red Beard Nukes.

 

[Rule of cool]

Personally I like the the Hawker P.1121 for a British Phantom analogue, but as others have noted it's too long for the RN's carrier lifts.

Personally I don't like trying to squeeze and modify existing aircraft into the Phantom mould, eg the SR.177 is to small, the Lightning fundamentally carries too little fuel and others are too slow. A phantom analogue would have to be a new design, incorporating the latest late 50s aerodynamic knowledge with it's maturity of Mach 2 speeds.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

These drawings by Barrie Hygate are somewhat speculative as they are based on a single original Hawker 3 view (so inboard view is speculation in the nose area) but it seems the length with nose folded was around 50ft. Wing fold is also interesting.

 

[Rule of cool]

That's a pretty serious nose fold, right at the pilot's feet!

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Yes, it isn't clear that the original drawing was even intended to fit UK carriers (it was drawn up a few days after a visit to Hawker from a US Navy attache, so it might have been aimed at a US Navy requirement). 60ft would be okay there potentially.

 

[zen]

Wow thanks for sharing Overscan!

The only need to fold down to 52ft to meet AW.406.

And like with F8U-III, the side-by-side seating keeps overall length down.

Starting to look compatible.

Relevent thread AH.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/the-p-1121-scenario.43139/

 

[JFC Fuller]

Yes, it isn't clear that the original drawing was even intended to fit UK carriers (it was drawn up a few days after a visit to Hawker from a US Navy attache, so it might have been aimed at a US Navy requirement). 60ft would be okay there potentially.

I think it was designed for Royal Navy carriers. The folded length, approximately 51ft, puts it at the length generally included in requirements for Royal Navy aircraft - see Buccaneer and SR.177. Every other dimension given also makes it compatible with RN carriers.

The timing is also close to when the Royal Navy first started talking to industry about its need for a next generation combat aircraft. The dates aren't perfect as industry wasn't formerly approached until a few months after this was drawn (I'll check the dates at some point this week) but I suspect that Hawker could have got early warning through more casual routes such as its ongoing relationship through the Sea Hawk.

Hawker ultimately responded to the initial engagement with details of the P.1127, I note that on pg.40 of British Secret Projects: Hypersonics, Ramjets & Missiles there is a drawing of a P.1127 with AI.23 and a pair of Red Top. The drawing is undated but I have wondered if it could have been related to the response to the Royal Navy.

 

[H_K]

Starting to look compatible.

That Hawker design looks awful… no area ruling, thick wing profile… more early Century series technology (F-100/F-101/F-102) than something that would rival a state of the art design like the F-4 or Crusader III.

I can’t see how it would meet the very ambitious performance requirements of the time, even assuming an excellent R-R engine.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

That Hawker design looks awful… no area ruling, thick wing profile… more early Century series technology (F-100/F-101/F-102) than something that would rival a state of the art design like the F-4 or Crusader III.

It is area ruled, and the wing is thin enough for Mach 2.0 (I think 5% at root? Would need to check brochure)

I would put it more as F-105 than Phantom though.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

even assuming an excellent R-R engine.

Prototype would use de Havilland Gyron, production probably Bristol Olympus 21/22R (ancestor to the Concorde's engine) or maybe an afterburning Conway.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I would put it more as F-105 than Phantom though.

Yes, the P1121 is much more F-105 than Phantom.

But you can get the good range and radar on it.

 

[Rule of cool]

Yes, the P1121 is much more F-105 than Phantom.

But you can get the good range and radar on it.

You could probably increase wing area, within limits of the basic design, to make it a bit more agile.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It is area ruled, and the wing is thin enough for Mach 2.0 (I think 5% at root? Would need to check brochure)

I would put it more as F-105 than Phantom though.

Wing is 5.1% at root, 3.8% at tip. Pretty similar to, say, the very low speed F-15.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the P.1121 is great as a Phantom alternative, but these criticisms aren't really very valid.

 

[zen]

It's a curious solution to the wing fold.
I'd have thought HSA would have used the podded main gear from P.1123.

 

[red admiral]

I would put it more as F-105 than Phantom though.

An F-105 with reduced payload-range (e.g. hardpoints), worse avionics for air to surface, no ECM etc.

But a bit better thrust/weight and wing loading for within visual range fighting... but no gun and 2 x Firestreak Vs 4 x Sidewinder

At the same time it got to proper hardware and has an airframe configuration and sufficient size that it's suitable for some through life upgrades

It's a curious solution to the wing fold.

From a structures side it's probably a lot less work than anything else for little mass penalty. There's some big bolts holding the wing onto the fuselage ring frames already (e.g. see L-L). Here you're adding in a hinge to actuate on the ground but still using the same bolted arrangement to transmit the flight loads. Not as space efficient when folded as a more conventional fold though.

 

[starviking]

5. P.1154.
Has the alternative options of either Type 584 or P.56 the former is almost ideal when stripped of VTOL elements. The latter, however, is much worse.

Are we talking Shorts PD56 here?

 

[zen]

Are we talking Shorts PD56 here?

Yes which is worse than the other options.

 

[zen]

An F-105 with reduced payload-range (e.g. hardpoints), worse avionics for air to surface, no ECM etc.

But a bit better thrust/weight and wing loading for within visual range fighting... but no gun and 2 x Firestreak Vs 4 x Sidewinder

This is basically a set of assumptions, with precious little evidence to support it or refute it.

We can say variants of P.1121 were offered with various avionics and various weaponry.
Nothing came of these brochures and it's definitely AH territory to explore that.

 

[red admiral]

@zen

As a paper plane then lots could be changed for P.1121, but only up to a point, and not necessarily concurrently. Notional carrier variant above being an excellent case in point. e.g.

• Hardpoints - simply not going to fit one or two MERs under the fuselage. Main wing hardpoints will be for external fuel tanks almost all the time. Maybe rework the wing for extra hardpoints? As per the Stage B with 4 fuel pylons
• Guns - maybe scab on pods on the fuselage side in exchange for the rocket trays like P.1116
• Nav/Attack system compared to Thunderstick II? Best system on some of the GOR.339 offerings but things like SLAR on forward fuselage aren't compatible with other options like Guns
• ECM - no plans for this unlike F-105D. Historically then UK driven towards pod solutions which take up available pylon space
• Missiles - had already looked at Sparrow integration at least

 

[zen]

Maybe rework the wing for extra hardpoints?

Certainly possible, as is a return to wingtip mounts of it's P.1103 origins.

Nav/Attack system compared to Thunderstick II? Best system on some of the GOR.339 offerings but things like SLAR on forward fuselage aren't compatible with other options like Guns

Depending.
It could mount the full P.1154 avionics.
One option had avionics for GOR.339.
As for guns. Plenty of options if the will and finances be there. But the times were against guns.

ECM - no plans for this unlike F-105D. Historically then UK driven towards pod solutions which take up available pylon space

Certainly was. But again it all depends on what happening.

If P.1121 in variants takes the roles of P.1154 we're talking an original plan of 600 aircraft, 400 RAF, 200 RN.
Within that an initial 70 need be tasked with MRI using basic weapons and Red Beard. Followed by WE.177.
This could be done quickly using either Thunderchief's avionics set under license or the systems from mkII Buccaneer.
The latter being cheaper and in service anyway.
A later run of 140 to 174 could take full P.1154 avionics set.
The GOR.339 to AFVG to MRCA avionics set us also an option. Arguably some 230 aircraft for that.

RN Can port lightning AI.23 (with a bigger dish) and Buccaneer-Sea Vixen avionics immediately which leaves navalised airframe the main risk. So it's the long-term that is in contest.
However the P.1103 heritage could allow immediate AI.18 with the enhanced capability as a viable alternative. Actual look-down and shoot-down capability.

Again leaving next generation avionics to a major upgrade or replacement.

 

[uk 75]

It is a very pretty aeroplane. The P1121 shows how attractive Hawker airframes were.
But, and I am sorry to repeat this moan, it is light years from being a weapon system. Perhaps 50s Britain still lived on memories of Sea Hurricanes relying on guns and brave pilots.
A single Firestreak is really going to frighten those Badgers, Beagles and Bears.

 

[red admiral]

It is a very pretty aeroplane. The P1121 shows how attractive Hawker airframes were.
But, and I am sorry to repeat this moan, it is light years from being a weapon system.

But like much F-105* then there's at least space and place to add significant avionics. Maybe that's the best that can be hoped for, and is "good enough"

* e.g. there's quite some difference between F-105A/B and the later F/G

 

[JFC Fuller]

I think it was designed for Royal Navy carriers. The folded length, approximately 51ft, puts it at the length generally included in requirements for Royal Navy aircraft - see Buccaneer and SR.177. Every other dimension given also makes it compatible with RN carriers.

The timing is also close to when the Royal Navy first started talking to industry about its need for a next generation combat aircraft. The dates aren't perfect as industry wasn't formerly approached until a few months after this was drawn (I'll check the dates at some point this week) but I suspect that Hawker could have got early warning through more casual routes such as its ongoing relationship through the Sea Hawk.

Hawker ultimately responded to the initial engagement with details of the P.1127, I note that on pg.40 of British Secret Projects: Hypersonics, Ramjets & Missiles there is a drawing of a P.1127 with AI.23 and a pair of Red Top. The drawing is undated but I have wondered if it could have been related to the response to the Royal Navy.

@overscan (PaulMM) , does the original drawing show Red Top and the under fuselage bomb?

To add the detail I promised. Following the cancellation of Blue Envoy and the P.177, the two components that were intended to provide long-range air defence for the Royal Navy in the 1960s, a review of the report that had settled on that system was undertaken. This was being circulated through early 1958. It essentially concluded that the fleet was incapable of defending itself against foreseen aircraft threats as a consequence of the cancellations. One of the proposed solutions was a long-range/long endurance fighter. From an archive perspective things then go quiet for six months until October 1958 when DAW circulated a paper proposing to combine future naval strike and fighter aircraft into a single common airframe. Later that month letters were sent to Blackburn, de Havilland, Vickers and Hawker. Vickers sent a brochure for the Type 576 and Hawker for the P.1127, the companies were told that the intention was to combine the roles - hence my speculation on the AI.23/Red Top equipped P.1127 being associated with this. There is no evidence of responses from Blackburn or de Havilland.

I don't know what happened in that six month gap, or when DAW first started combining fighter and strike roles into a common airframe, but it overlaps with the generation of the navalised P.1121 drawing. In short, Hawker could have found out that the RN was eggining to think about a new aircraft and that DAW was thinking of a common airframe.

 

[zen]

1958.....
Blackburn B.112 CAP fighter proposal. Maximum speed Mach 1.65

DH examined their GOR.339 for carrier suitability and as a Fighter....in 1958.

Vickers in May '58 brochure on naval strike fighter variant offered Single Engine (or two small engines) Type 571.
a stepping stone to later OR.346 fixed wing studies a year later.....

So arguably we have the contenders and of them Blackburn is busy amd any Fighter variant would draw staff away from Buccaneer.

DH might have staff but the MRBM is military priority. With airliners sucking up staff.
Having ditched F.177 might have seemed a blessed relief on DH staffing.

Vickers was on the 'GOR.339 Bus' with EE and Supermarine was barely existing....And tarred with Swift failure.

But then....if we don't have Sandys dogma, and we make EE actually turn P.17 into TSR.2. Not try to merge with Vickers....
Then...
Vickers is available to turn Type 571 variants into reality.

In fact Vickers Type 571 solves GOR.339 (if anything can) , and in variants delivers a Fighter.
More Thunderchief meets Mirage F2 than F4.....to maybe more an early fixed wing Tornado.

In fact is this the answer?
EE crash and burn in the fires of "GOR.339 in one plane" impossibility.

Ministers back off and accept 571 with swappable packs for missions despecced to get early production versions.
Naval and fighter versions developed
Vickers Tornado......

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

@overscan (PaulMM) , does the original drawing show Red Top and the under fuselage bomb?

From memory, no stores on the drawing, can check tonight.

 

[uk 75]

Given that the UK is not able to develop its own 2 Sidewinder 4 Sparrow and associated radar in time to enter service by 1970 the best we can do is four Red Tops on a Sea Vixen and Javelin replacement.
The only aircraft that might materialise in this space is the VG Lightning.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/english-electric-lightning-projects.10357/

Russia did manage to get good use out of its VG Su11 developments.

Lightning FRS1 would not be a true F4 alternative but it would allow the Hermes and Eagle to survive into the 70s.

 

[starviking]

Yes which is worse than the other options.

True, though to be honest the Type 584 isn’t that great, being festooned with lift jets too.

I just sought clarification on the designation as P.56 wasn’t bringing anything up on the Internet.

 

[zen]

True, though to be honest the Type 584 isn’t that great, being festooned with lift jets too.

I just sought clarification on the designation as P.56 wasn’t bringing anything up on the Internet.

It's a early Spey Mirage III type design with liftjets. So similar to the French bid to NMBR.3.
But to be fair, strip out the liftjets and you've got a British Mirage III.

 

[zen]

Given that the UK is not able to develop its own 2 Sidewinder 4 Sparrow and associated radar in time to enter service by 1970 the best we can do is four Red Tops on a Sea Vixen and Javelin replacement.

Not actually true.
Given the consistent drive a consistent platform and consistent funding, the radar and missiles would have resulted.
But stop start, chop, and change. Constant doubt if any platform would remain in plans before yet again being cancelled meant a patchy progress barely funded at all.

 

[uk 75]

"the radar and missiles would have resulted".
Where from and how? What missile do you have in mind?

 

[Rule of cool]

For starters AIRPASS was the world's first airborne monopulse radar system and fed data to the world's first head-up display. Later models added additional small antennas for S-band reception of signals from ground-based radars, allowing the aircraft to seek out targets with its own radar transmitter turned off. A continuous wave emitter to guide SARH missiles wasn't fitted to the Lightning due to a lack of space to fit it, but this may have been fixed in a developed Lighting and certainly would have been fitted to a Phantom analogue. The AIRPASS in the Lightning had 100kW but the bigger unit in the Buccaneer had 250kW so a Phantom analogue could have a more powerful emitter than the Lightning.

As for missiles, in the early-mid 60s there was some interest in a radar Red Top. It had a different nose cone shape for slightly longer range and the seeker choices were the pulse doppler seeker from the Matra R530 and a continuous wave seeker. The RAF wanted the CW seeker as it was more resistant to jamming but the Lightning couldn't fit a CW emitter as yet.

 

[zen]

Early 60's is when illumination into the monopulse AI.23 is solved, and two seeker concepts for a radar guided Red Top variant is proffered.
Along with liquid motor upgrade.

This is also OR.346 missile system territory that led to A5 seeker flight on Canberra.

 

[zen]

In fact Vickers Type 571 solves GOR.339 (if anything can) , and in variants delivers a Fighter.
More Thunderchief meets Mirage F2 than F4.....to maybe more an early fixed wing Tornado.

Quoting myself such narcissism!

Cut RoA to 500nm land
Push interim AW.406 earlier 1958 for push back OR.346 to 1970s.

Choose Type 571 as FAA and RAF fighter.
------
Radar two options near-term.
Ferranti AI.23 (possibly designated E)
J-band development with CW illuminator
Improvements for look-down and shoot-down capability.

G.E.C AI.24 successor to AI.18 NOT FOXHUNTER!
NOT FMICW or even FMCW!!!

New radar based on Ferranti J-band magnetron.
Likely messed with work on early AMTI for Look-down and Shoot-down.
In June 1957 service entry was believed possible in 1962-1963, though this seems
optimistic. Push IOC to 1964-64.

? AI.25 ambitious CW radar proposal from late 1950s / early 1960s

Missile
Fairey’s SAGW either J-band or I-band seeker.
AS.30, Bulpup, 2.75" rockets, 500lb, 1,000lb and 2,000lb bombs. Plus single TMB Red Beard.

Ferranti auto intercept system.

Ferranti Miniture Platform INAS IOC 1965 to '66. Type 100 or 200 might be earlier.

Moving map display a.k.a TMD Topographical Map Display possible IOC 1963.

Blue Study radio guidance (Gee like system) Already in use by '59 on Canberra.

Engines
Single large Engines
Medway
Olympus
Conway
Gyron

Smaller for twin engined solution
RB.153

ITP 1958
Prototype 1961-62
Production start 1965-66.
IOC 1966-68

 

[Archibald]

Let me try it differently. To get a British Phantom you need to work your way from the few twin jets outside the Lightning. Which are: Javelin, Scimitar and Sea Vixen.
Javelin is a drag queen, atempts to make it largely supersonic resulted in the P.356 to P.376 bloated monsters.
Sea Vixen is doomed by its twin tails that don't like afterburning vibrations.
Which leave us with the Scimitar and its ultimate derivative: the Type 576. And this thread... https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/the-scimitar-faw-scenario.28679/

 

[Rule of cool]

I can't imagine any 50s British design being reworked enough to approach the outlier Phantom. The Phantom was such an outlier that only the latest late 50s supersonic/Mach 2 aerodynamics will suffice.

The suggestions like the thin wing Javelin remind me of the saying; 'You can't polish excrement, but you can roll it in glitter.'

 

[uk 75]

I would go so far as to say that buying the F4 introduced the RAF and BAC to the weapons system approach.
AFVG reflected this as of course did UKVG and Tornado.
Hawker S sensibly stuck to what they were good at, making pretty airframes and gave us the Hawk. It replaced both the Gnat but also Hunters in the no radar single engined combat aircraft slot.
In fact the F4 saved the British Aircraft Industry from its string of albatross.

 

[Rule of cool]

I would go so far as to say that buying the F4 introduced the RAF and BAC to the weapons system approach.
AFVG reflected this as of course did UKVG and Tornado.
Hawker S sensibly stuck to what they were good at, making pretty airframes and gave us the Hawk. It replaced both the Gnat but also Hunters in the no radar single engined combat aircraft slot.
In fact the F4 saved the British Aircraft Industry from its string of albatross.

The TSR2 might have done that if things were different.