Getting a British Phantom

[uk 75]

The TSR2 might have done that if things were different.

The TSR2 was an object lesson in how not to do it That is how the RAF ended uo with a shorter ranged replacement called Tornado.

 

[Rule of cool]

The TSR2 was an object lesson in how not to do it That is how the RAF ended uo with a shorter ranged replacement called Tornado.

As you know we see the failure of the TSR2 differently. I see many of the TSR2's issues as external to the project itself and could have been ameliorated by better procurement policy decisions.

 

[uk 75]

Possibly, but in the real world TSR2 unlike F4 could not be delivered as a working weapon system to a realistic price.
After we bought F4, all involved learnt the lessons and we got Jaguar and Tornado.

 

[Rule of cool]

Possibly, but in the real world TSR2 unlike F4 could not be delivered as a working weapon system to a realistic price.
After we bought F4, all involved learnt the lessons and we got Jaguar and Tornado.

The TSR2 price wasn't unrealistic, it was the British politicians expectation of how much a threate nuclear strike aircraft would cost that was unrealistic.

 

[red admiral]

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.

They also made money from it! Shock, horror. From a fixed price contract! Even more horror.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The TSR2 might have done that if things were different.

Disagree.

The TSR2 price wasn't unrealistic, it was the British politicians expectation of how much a threate nuclear strike aircraft would cost that was unrealistic.

Dude, BAC could not give any estimate of how much it would cost to develop the TSR2 to completion.

That is not an unrealistic-Politician problem, that is an absolute failure of project management problem!

 

[zen]

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 OR.339 submissions be Mach 2+ aircraft, that includes Type 571 single engine.
P.1121 and it's earlier P.1103 be Mach 2+ designs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The OR.339 submissions be Mach 2+ aircraft, that includes Type 571 single engine.
P.1121 and it's earlier P.1103 be Mach 2+ designs.

Those were all good airframes, but not a weapons system with integrated radar and missile systems like the F-4.

 

[Rule of cool]

Disagree.



Dude, BAC could not give any estimate of how much it would cost to develop the TSR2 to completion.

That is not an unrealistic-Politician problem, that is an absolute failure of project management problem!

That was virtually standard in the era of switching to Mach 2 and digital avionics, the F4 had analogue computers IIUC. The F111 development was exceedingly troublesome which is why it was built in small-ish batches, cost a fortune and the RAAF's were delivered 6 years after being built. The fixed price contract for the F14 almost bankrupted Grumman and the F15 was so expensive that they invented the Light Weight Fighter to make up the numbers. The TSR2 fit more or less in with those state of the art development programmes.

I'm aware that there were significant project management problems, however Britain firms had recently successfully project managed 3 V bombers and project management practice was something that could be studied elsewhere and new practices incorporated.

The fact of the matter is that developing state of the art combat aircraft to demanding specs in the 60s was expensive, but the newly elected Labour government wasn't keen on spending the money. However they did spend the money, they had to, there is no cheap way to field a modern, competitive military.

 

[Rule of cool]

?

The OR.339 submissions be Mach 2+ aircraft, that includes Type 571 single engine.
P.1121 and it's earlier P.1103 be Mach 2+ designs.

Thin wing Javelins and other such 50s subsonic aircraft might be able to massaged into supersonic, but they'll never make a Phantom.

You need the likes of the Type 571 or P.1121 to really match the Phantom.

 

[zen]

You need the likes of the Type 571 or P.1121 to really match the Phantom.

Yes we agree

 

[zen]

Those were all good airframes, but not a weapons system with integrated radar and missile systems like the F-4.

The F4 is just an airframe.
The avionics forced changes as much as any engines.

 

[zen]

Stepping back for a moment and examine a big picture view.
To parallel the F4 we'd have to have a firm start such studies in 1952, when we lagged in supersonic and reheat behind the US.
By late '53 to early '54 said firm would have to approach government with a design worth development.
At this stage primarily an Attack machine.
But with government support, shifting into a All Weather Fighter-Bomber by late '54 early '55.
Then in mid-55 transition to Fleet Air Defence with 2 prototypes ordered.
These would fly in 1958.....
Conduct carrier suitability trials in '59 and enter service in '61.

Had Sea Vixen entered production by '54 as per the early plans......RN would have set that ball rolling for it's successor. Which could have followed such a path.....

In history the closest thing here is the N/A.39 (M.148T), which ironically Blackburn did propose just such a Fighter version. Though this depended on higher thrust engines like BE.33 or getting Gyron Junior to similar output.

 

[Rule of cool]

Stepping back for a moment and examine a big picture view.
To parallel the F4 we'd have to have a firm start such studies in 1952, when we lagged in supersonic and reheat behind the US.
By late '53 to early '54 said firm would have to approach government with a design worth development.
At this stage primarily an Attack machine.
But with government support, shifting into a All Weather Fighter-Bomber by late '54 early '55.
Then in mid-55 transition to Fleet Air Defence with 2 prototypes ordered.
These would fly in 1958.....
Conduct carrier suitability trials in '59 and enter service in '61.

Had Sea Vixen entered production by '54 as per the early plans......RN would have set that ball rolling for it's successor. Which could have followed such a path.....

In history the closest thing here is the N/A.39 (M.148T), which ironically Blackburn did propose just such a Fighter version. Though this depended on higher thrust engines like BE.33 or getting Gyron Junior to similar output.

To do that you probably need the Miles M.52 to not be cancelled. Going supersonic via the EE P1 from 1949 gets you the Lightning rather than the Phantom. Also, the RAF was using later model Canberras in the all weather, medium-long range attack role from the mid 50s, which creates a lot of momentum of its own.

That said, I still believe there is no technical impediment to the British building something akin to the Phantom in the early 60s. It's just hammering the history to make it happen that's the hard part.

 

[zen]

So to follow on from my last post.

And then there was Westland W.37

A fighter-striker proposed against N.114T in April 1950 and assessed in committee in '51.

The W.37/2 stowed center line heavy weapons externally.

What this has is moderate sweepback, reheat, boundary layer control through blow, and outside of the classic wingroot inlets the design is both competent and has significant potential.

Westland nearly won this. It was in fact looking that way, but the Admiralty cut the process over weight (thinking on then limits of most of the carrier fleets) of all proposals.
N.114T.2 was issued on jet deflection and then N.131T written around DeHaviland's DH.116 design.

But what's missing is a larger twin engined version....

Arguably this is where a British F4 could emerge.

We could have had several such proposals if DH had the resources.
Blackburn B.102 which is on the way to B.103, was a twin reheated Orpheus mixed powerplant All Weather Fighter in 1952.

The more one digs, the more the fulcrum point comes back to a similar time to the initation of what became the F4.

 

[uk 75]

In 1966 the UK were on the verge of ordering a UK Phantom equivalent for the RAF and RN in the form of AFVG.
Unlike the early 1960s VG designs, many encumbered with VSTOL or the P1154RN the AFVG took the best features of the F4 and mated them to a compact VG airframe.
Such was the parlous state of the UK economy this could only work if wealthy partners like W Germany and Italy contributed to finance and manufacture.
Could the UK have got to this point earlier:

If the Economy and Industry had been more robust

If the RAF and RN could have agreed to the F4 requirement earlier

then something like F4 or AFVG could have entered service in 1968 manufactured by BAC.

 

[Rule of cool]

1967 is when the F14 Tomcat was started, with the F15 in 1969. I'd think an F4 analogue would have to enter service by the early 60s to be comparable, which is why it's difficult and why the F4 is so amazing.

 

[zen]

Could the UK have got to this point earlier:

It's possible.
Arguably AFVG is the outcome of the development of VG, the revolution in avionics matched up with the revolution in engines (turbofans) and the abandonment of the 1,000nm RoA for EoS missions.
This could have all lined up in the early 60's, with OR.346 but keeping RoA and CAP endurance down to reasonable figures.

BAC Type 583 hits this squarely on the head, and the development of later VG platform designs.....is very close to this early 60's design.
AFVG only about 4 years earlier.
Most of the avionics is rooted in TSR.2 or P.1154. The former ultimately led to the failed bid for MRCA avionics and the latter succeeded on Harrier and Jaguar. Bar the radar.