Which makes for it's own AH scenario.Alternatively a more correct assessment of the actual threat could have resulted in a less ambitious set of requirements.
Which makes for it's own AH scenario.Alternatively a more correct assessment of the actual threat could have resulted in a less ambitious set of requirements.
Alternatively a more correct assessment of the actual threat could have resulted in a less ambitious set of requirements.
This comes back to why the RAF bought/buys aircraft, and its something that often gets lost. It's easiest to understand in the terms of interceptors and F.155T is a great example. The requirement was based around meeting the perceived threat, a supersonic bomber carrying a stand-off missile. That drove a host of sub requirements from the interceptor system; the warhead requirements for the missile, which drove the size of the missile, the speed and range requirements for the aircraft, the detection and engagement range of the radar etc., etc. Mixed with the technology of the time it soon drives the design process towards something as massive as the Fairey Delta III. This seems exorbitant when viewed in a vacuum but to the decision makers it was binary, analysis was telling them what the threat was and anything that couldn't meet that threat was pointless. That we now know the analysis of the threat was wrong does not change the fact that it was perceived to be right at the time. The quote from DCAS Tuttle that Paul posted outlines this in blunt terms, in the mid-late 1950s there were two big aircraft requirements, OR.329 and GOR.339, both of these were derived from analysis of perceived need and the P.1121 could meet neither.
From an Alternative History perspective the options are therefore an OR to a different requirement; my suggestion being the Venom Fighter-Bomber replacement, or a radical re-writing of the two OR's mentioned above. My reasoning for the Venom replacement being that I suspect the P.1121 could have met all the range, speed, payload and nav-attack system requirements of the later Hunter FGA.9/FR.10 replacement, although it obviously wouldn't have provided the STOVL element. Equally, the timeframes can be made to work by making the Venom replacement programme a better funded project that is initiated earlier, around 1956, but with a similar in-service date (1960/61).
To be fair to decision makers this was also a period of rapid technological developments.Has anyone written anything on UK air intelligence in this period? It seems to be the key to understanding the thrashing about by decision makers.
Sandys could, at least, make a decision. Seems no one could really say it was the right one or not.
Has anyone written anything on UK air intelligence in this period? It seems to be the key to understanding the thrashing about by decision makers.
Sandys could, at least, make a decision. Seems no one could really say it was the right one or not.
Prior to the U-2 overflights, ignorance about what the Soviets were up to was near total in both the US and the UK. A CIA document on Soviet Bloc Capabilities published in June 1953 indicates there is no evidence the Soviets are working on a thermonuclear device and it was very unlikely they could build one before mid 1954. Two months later....
The sum total of information on aircraft was largely confined to interpretation of photographs taken by military attaches at the annual Tushino air shows or grainy snaps from NATO encounters over the Baltic etc.
I think this is the difference with France - right there. To be brutally honest... the fundamental difference is that the Armée de l'Air was not FIXED on the Operational Requirements / according threat.
There were threats and OR to counter them... and then, there was the harsh reality of FUNDING. In the end, the main priority was not meeting the OR / threat objective, but rather, getting an aircraft that worked and could be build at a reasonable price.
Basically GB tried to be the third superpower in Cold War just like they had been the third big power in WWII.
Hence if the USA had F-106 and USSR had Su-9 / Su-15 / Tu-128, then GB would have F-155T.
In all three case: specialized interceptor, top speed, top radar, top missile.
Either a variant of the Mirage III would be enough, or not - and in the second case, well, we don't care.
Because what we need is an aircraft that works, that can be build in numbers large enough at a reasonable cost.
The Mirage III was no F-155T by any mean but it was declined in -B, -E, -R and -V variants: twin-seat, all weather attack, reconnaissance, and clear weather attack without radar. And the AdA took 473 of them.
I think this is the difference with France - right there. To be brutally honest... the fundamental difference is that the Armée de l'Air was not FIXED on the Operational Requirements / according threat.
There were threats and OR to counter them... and then, there was the harsh reality of FUNDING. In the end, the main priority was not meeting the OR / threat objective, but rather, getting an aircraft that worked and could be build at a reasonable price.
Basically GB tried to be the third superpower in Cold War just like they had been the third big power in WWII.
Hence if the USA had F-106 and USSR had Su-9 / Su-15 / Tu-128, then GB would have F-155T.
In all three case: specialized interceptor, top speed, top radar, top missile.
Either a variant of the Mirage III would be enough, or not - and in the second case, well, we don't care.
Because what we need is an aircraft that works, that can be build in numbers large enough at a reasonable cost.
The Mirage III was no F-155T by any mean but it was declined in -B, -E, -R and -V variants: twin-seat, all weather attack, reconnaissance, and clear weather attack without radar. And the AdA took 473 of them.
I don't think this was the case. The Mirage IIIC fulfilled the same role as the Lightning, the IIIE and IIIR a similar role to the Hunter FGA.9 and FR.10 respectively (and very similar to what I propose for the P.1121). Throw in the two RAF requirements (Lightnings + Hunter FGA.9/10) and one gets to a very similar volume requirement (circa 460).
But the French Air Force also pursued
- mixed power interceptors (SNASCO Trident, roughly analogous to the SR.177) (Trident > canned in 1958)
- strategic bombers (Mirage IVA, scaled down from the IVB) (good point, but funded as top priority by the nuclear deterrent)
- land based ballistic missiles (SSBS series, very roughly analogous to Blue Streak in concept) (much later, in the 60's)
- and multiple proposed Super Vautour variants were two-seat all weather interceptors so at least someone in France was thinking along similar lines to F155T. (canned in 1958, crushed by the Mirage IV)
And there were a host of other cancelled projects.
The Mirage III was superb, a wonderful achievement, but it was only part of a massive French R&D programme that was clearly aimed at meeting a series of operational requirements which were themselves derived from the perceived roles of the French Air Force and the threat they would face whilst conducting them.
This comes back to why the RAF bought/buys aircraft, and its something that often gets lost.
Sir Thomas Pike ( Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief RAF Fighter Comand) was strongly supportive of the 'multirole fighter/bomber for limited wars' concept, and in general the senior RAF officers were more supportive of Camm and the P.1121 than the younger staff of Operational Requirements, steeped in the latest technologies and buzzwords and at times contemptuously dismissive of the P.1121.
True and yet here we are today with 7 sqns of superlative air to air fighters that form nearly 90% of combat air.This comes back to why the RAF bought/buys aircraft, and its something that often gets lost.
To sustain jobs in Preston / Belfast?
The discussion on overestimating the threat aircraft is interesting, but oveelooks that the real threat was actually even higher performance - ballistic missiles. Hence no interceptor aircraft required: answer is UK's own credible detterent.
the real threat was actually even higher performance - ballistic missiles. Hence no interceptor aircraft required
Diefenbaker and Sandys did a lot of damage, sure on April 4, 1957 and February 20, 1959.
Britain was stronger in that respect and could weather the storm, but bear in mind that even here the industry was savaged. The only all-British combat aircraft to enter production since 1957 that weren't in development when the Sandys axe came down are the Nimrod, Harrier and Hawk, and the Lightning only just made it.
The UK military aerospace industry exists to supply the UK military's needs.
All the more reason for the UK Government not to impose an arbitrary status of arrested development on it.
Which wasn't a given.All the more reason for the UK Government not to impose an arbitrary status of arrested development on it.
But it got the aircraft it needed without writing industry a blank cheque
Which wasn't a given.
Frankly you don't always have the luxury of buying foreign for less than domestic.
But it got the aircraft it needed without writing industry a blank cheque
Definitely agree this helped make TSR2 look so bad, and the same thing happened with Typhoon and F35.Britain was stronger in that respect and could weather the storm, but bear in mind that even here the industry was savaged. The only all-British combat aircraft to enter production since 1957 that weren't in development when the Sandys axe came down are the Nimrod, Harrier and Hawk, and the Lightning only just made it.
This isn't actually true though. There was a RAES historical conference recently that revisited this. In the UK employment in the sector didn't really change. People just moved around. This likely had knock on impact on making TSR2 so expensive by lumping on lots of extra stuff and people. But it would have been far more expensive to continue to fund multiple programmes.
The UK military aerospace industry exists to supply the UK military's needs. Not the UK government exists to fund the UK aerospace industry.
Not the UK government exists to fund the UK aerospace industry.
I love the saying:This comes back to why the RAF bought/buys aircraft, and its something that often gets lost. It's easiest to understand in the terms of interceptors and F.155T is a great example. The requirement was based around meeting the perceived threat, a supersonic bomber carrying a stand-off missile. That drove a host of sub requirements from the interceptor system; the warhead requirements for the missile, which drove the size of the missile, the speed and range requirements for the aircraft, the detection and engagement range of the radar etc., etc. Mixed with the technology of the time it soon drives the design process towards something as massive as the Fairey Delta III. This seems exorbitant when viewed in a vacuum but to the decision makers it was binary, analysis was telling them what the threat was and anything that couldn't meet that threat was pointless. That we now know the analysis of the threat was wrong does not change the fact that it was perceived to be right at the time. The quote from DCAS Tuttle that Paul posted outlines this in blunt terms, in the mid-late 1950s there were two big aircraft requirements, OR.329 and GOR.339, both of these were derived from analysis of perceived need and the P.1121 could meet neither.
From an Alternative History perspective the options are therefore an OR to a different requirement; my suggestion being the Venom Fighter-Bomber replacement, or a radical re-writing of the two OR's mentioned above. My reasoning for the Venom replacement being that I suspect the P.1121 could have met all the range, speed, payload and nav-attack system requirements of the later Hunter FGA.9/FR.10 replacement, although it obviously wouldn't have provided the STOVL element. Equally, the timeframes can be made to work by making the Venom replacement programme a better funded project that is initiated earlier, around 1956, but with a similar in-service date (1960/61).
I think this is the difference with France - right there. To be brutally honest... the fundamental difference is that the Armée de l'Air was not FIXED on the Operational Requirements / according threat.
There were threats and OR to counter them... and then, there was the harsh reality of FUNDING. In the end, the main priority was not meeting the OR / threat objective, but rather, getting an aircraft that worked and could be build at a reasonable price.
I think it might be a difference in attitude related to WWII.
Basically GB tried to be the third superpower in Cold War just like they had been the third big power in WWII.
Hence if the USA had F-106 and USSR had Su-9 / Su-15 / Tu-128, then GB would have F-155T.
In all three case: specialized interceptor, top speed, top radar, top missile.
France by contrast did not even tried. WWII had already screwed any hopes of post-war superpower continuity (thanks Gamelin and 1940 for that - yet no thanks for what followed, Vichy...)
Either a variant of the Mirage III would be enough, or not - and in the second case, well, we don't care.
Because what we need is an aircraft that works, that can be build in numbers large enough at a reasonable cost.
The Mirage III was no F-155T by any mean but it was declined in -B, -E, -R and -V variants: twin-seat, all weather attack, reconnaissance, and clear weather attack without radar. And the AdA took 473 of them.
Another case that would be made was that France avionics industry lagged behind until the 80's. Yet somewhat paradoxically, such was the expense of radars and missiles, ballooning very fast from 1955 - maybe it was better to stay below the curve rather than finding itself in the CF-105 Arrow situation (hint: Sparrow II).
The Mirage III radar and missiles were average at best because the French avionics industry was pretty average, too. But somewhat paradoxically, it made the Mirage III cheaper and less risky. Since, from the 50's onwards, the big expense and risk were no longer in airframe or engines, but certainly in the avionics, radar, missiles...
Yeah, how about that. The good thing with having a passable radar industry - at least, no chance in hell to get tangled in a "pie in the sky" missile like Sparrow II or Red Dean / Red Hebe.
Making R.530 work well enough, with Cyrano II, is already such a difficult endeavour and tedious affair - no chance Thomson CSF try hitting above their weight... "look, we need fire and forget" or "we need AIM-47 level of performance". Even if they dare trying, funding realities quickly ensure it is shot and burn at paper study level. And the nice thing with paper studies, they are not very expensive.
Brutal realism... Dassault trademark.
I often think that all that fuss about all-weather, precision attacks by F-105 to F-111 to TSR-2 to Mirage III-E was mostly bollocks - until LGBs and GPS changed the game in the 80's. Vietnam was definitively a mixed bag, despite colossal amount of air power by US forces.