If you were Sandys or Mcnamara?

MadRat said:
Deck launched intercepts are primarily a fleet specific defensive role, and doesn't so much pertain to the RAF procurement.
Click to expand...
It's still got the same timing issues between detection and getting into position as an RAF interceptor.

Same functional role, different details.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I suspect that was the Army HQ not thinking about what throwing nukes around would mean
Click to expand...

I think the Army thought it could still fight even with the odd nuke being thrown around. After all the Soviet Union and Germany lost tens of millions of people in WW2 and kept fighting.
 
Rule of cool said:
I think the Army thought it could still fight even with the odd nuke being thrown around. After all the Soviet Union and Germany lost tens of millions of people in WW2 and kept fighting.
Click to expand...
But not in one battle with all their equipment.
 
Rule of cool said:
I think the Army thought it could still fight even with the odd nuke being thrown around. After all the Soviet Union and Germany lost tens of millions of people in WW2 and kept fighting.
Click to expand...
I think the (British) Army just went “phew, thank fk thats over. Back to proper soldiering where they’ve only got sharp bits of fruit”. That (well actually some quite demanding colonial minor wars) and an increasingly comfy garrison life in BAOR plus trying to manage peacetime national service pretty much occupied it fully.

I find it amazing how little the British Army modernised its armoured/mechanised forces (thinking armoured infantry vehicles and orbat, less so tanks) between 1945 and the 1960s yet had copious evidence its tactics and organisational structures even in 45 were at best sub par. In contrast the RN and RAF poured vast effort into shaping their 1950s forces to be much better at refighting WW2 and recognised when nukes meant that wasnt the best idea (RN by 54 radical review, RAF perhaps had it imposed in 57).
 
i just realized these past weeks a lot of various things regarding the defense situation of Italy in the 50s and 60s, arguably the big necessity for survival in that time is efficiency over "fancy stuff" F-11F-1F would be the godsend the AF needs for the "low" component of the Hi-Low strategy but unfortunately due to likely political shenanigans that are 100% bound to happen the High component would be either significantly reduced or scrapped entirely, the AF could use Super Tigers like the F-104 and the end result is an F-11F-1F ASA in the late 90s and maybe it would be kept around and sold also to Turkey untill the 2000s, the High component could lead to political suicide and relying too much on planes like the F-4 would lead to massive issues later down the line, development of a national fighter could result in a competitive plane but then you would find yourself with Aeritalia trying to sell it to a lot of people that would probably use it aggressively (look at the MB-339 and it's operators), development of further planes would lead to likely clashes with the Brits and Germans when making Tornado and Typhoon down the line and if everything goes south we would find ourselves forced to make a plane on our own or at least collaborating with the French. so the AF would also be even more annoying than in the OTL when it comes to certain opinions (ie Italy has an AF lobby that belives most of the funding would have to go to them, they were the premier complainers of the F-35 procurement), opponent wise the candidates are either Lybia or Yugoslavia so this F-11 would have access to Aspide and BVR capabilities because after it's procurement i fully expect the AF to treat it like the F-104 in the OTL but that would also mean that pilots would die less often due to this plane being well, better designed and made than a Starfighter and if push comes to shove Italy may even be tempted to buy Hornets if Grumman plays their cards right.
Army wise they could also try to revive the italian missile program (SAMs) but the results would lead to issues later down the line as in the MiC becoming way too powerful, ADS would be relegated to a Skyguard system and also to an OTOMATIC with added missiles, the goal of that would be a system that would have to deal with missiles, planes and self defense if cought in encirclements by invading forces (due to the idea of the Fanteria d'Arresto or Stoppage Infantry units) the idea is that the OTOMATIC of this timeline would have to hold the line untill the army would arrive in force, the vehicle would be essentially irreplacable even after the cold war due to the versatility it offers and with clever marketing i am sure OTO would sell even just the turret system to ex-Soviet clients as un upgrade, i wouldn't be surprised to see a Greek and Turkish version of it, this would lead to even more interest in infrastructure of the country and traveling of troops, likely forcing the civilian government to continue advancement in train stuff, but i digress...
the navy part will come later due to it needing a full article alone. the continuation of Army stuff will also be there, later
 
I'll play...

A competent alternative to MacNamara would have spiked F-111 development very early, before contract award. The USAF gets A-6s for the medium strike mission. USAF requirements are rolled into a USN-led A-6 successor program, which fields an aircraft around 1975. This is part of a much larger effort that puts the Navy in charge of tactical aircraft development. The F-14 gets built, but the A model is rapidly replaced by the B with upgraded engines (possibly RR Speys), and a C with digital flight controls that make it MUCH better mannered in the air.

For the UK? The problem is that the UK was badly lagging the United States in radar development. British engines were excellent, the airframes were OK, and the radars were underwhelming. With the increasing emphasis on avionics with the third generation jets, that was crippling. The best bet might have been to partner with American firms, persuade the USAF and USN to adopt joint US/UK requirements.
 
Justo Miranda said:
The Americans made their second biggest mistake after Korea, they expelled their allies from the Middle East to replace them with Israel, then they continued to make mistakes in Cuba, in Vietnam, in Cambodia, in Afghanistan, in Libya... it's not easy to be the world's policeman, they should have hired Columbo instead of Kissinger.:)
Click to expand...

Kissinger was former OSS. A global intelligence organization. They ignored Presidents starting with Truman, then Eisenhower, and then Kennedy. As the OSS, they killed people and blew up things. After the war, they would just keep going to fight the Soviet threat.
 
Mike OTDP said:
For the UK? The problem is that the UK was badly lagging the United States in radar development. British engines were excellent, the airframes were OK, and the radars were underwhelming. With the increasing emphasis on avionics with the third generation jets, that was crippling. The best bet might have been to partner with American firms, persuade the USAF and USN to adopt joint US/UK requirements.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with the AI23? It was the worlds first monopulse radar in 1959 and far better than the French Cyrano II. Even the fallback AI20 found useful service as the Red Steer tail warning radar in the V bombers?

If the AI23 had a 'problem' it was lack of British government support on the scale of the French government with the Mirage III family.
 
Rule of cool said:
Leaving aside all the problems that the RoE and basic design and technology caused there's really little excuse for the Aim9d breaking up on launch or Aim7e2 detonation at 1000' from launch and all the other reliability problems.
Click to expand...
So initiate Blue-Ribbon Committee earlier than later. Although this would require the Pentagon to be far more honest and critical of the Sparrow and Sidewinder poor performance earlier......


Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
edwest4 said:
Kissinger was former OSS. A global intelligence organization. They ignored Presidents starting with Truman, then Eisenhower, and then Kennedy. As the OSS, they killed people and blew up things. After the war, they would just keep going to fight the Soviet threat.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, all the misfortunes that are happening to Trump are a consequence of having hired Kissinger as an adviser. This man may have had good intentions, but those who hired him were very unlucky.:(
 
I think the A6 would be a hard pill for the USAF to swallow when the F105 and the B58 are in service. A more acceptable Navy aircraft would be the A5, like the RAAF Hancock mission recommended to the Australian government in November 1963.

Or more appropriately Mac should have halted production of the F111A, got the problems sorted out then restarted production of the F111F spec aircraft. This would have avoided the problems that arose from building 4 different versions in ~100 strong batches and instead seen greater numbers overall built.
 
A5 is a legacy mostly manually controlled aircraft from the start. In contrast, the A-6 was a pretty advanced machine throughout its service.
 
MadRat said:
A5 is a legacy mostly manually controlled aircraft from the start. In contrast, the A-6 was a pretty advanced machine throughout its service.
Click to expand...

The F111 was the benchmark for tactical strike in the late 60s, the A6 is so far behind it that the RAF and RAAF never even looked at it.
 
Rule of cool said:
The F111 was the benchmark for tactical strike in the late 60s, the A6 is so far behind it that the RAF and RAAF never even looked at it.
Click to expand...
The TFX/F-111 was irrufutably the benchmark for tactical strike in the 1960's Rule for cool, but you'd undoubtedly appreciate that it was also extremely technically advanced and immature. An issue not many air force could afford, let alone maintain and operate the F-111 effectively.
I've read that the Israeli Air Force lobbied for the A-6 Intruder after France shafted them, but instead got the supplementary offer of the A-4 Skyhawk by the United States.
I would find it extremely interesting to know how many maintenance man hours went into maintain the A-5B (or even better, the A-5C) and the F-111A/C?

P.S. I'm only guessing, but would the A-6 Intruder's radar have performed somewhat better over water - against shipping better than the original F-111A/C's radar?

Regards
Pioneer
 
The F111 had a few avionics fits, IIUC the A/C/E was the simplest and most reliable, the FB and D the most complex and difficult and the F sorted out the problems with the D. In any case the A6 avionics suite was also extremely complex and so integral to the aircraft that an usserviceability in the avionics meant an unservicable aircraft. In both cases the answer isn't to throw these aircraft away and get some worse but more reliable aircraft, rather its to work on fixing these problems and getting the inherent capability.
 
From what I understand, the A-6 was actually a very maintenance-friendly design with large access hatches and the big hinged nose. An engine that, although a turbojet, was economy and cost friendly. A-6 would have been a modders dream. F-111, not so much.

Nothing built within the next two decades really featured details like that until Northrop's F-20A innovations from the experience with the F-17 and F-18 programs. The F-20A was quietly a masterclass in implementation of creature comforts that small air forces would have benefitted from. It was designed with future modifications in mind. We are spoiled today because most 4th generation programs have focused on maintenance friendly layouts.

A part of me wishes the USAF had opted for an F-110 program to upgrade the F-111 tactical fleet. That, and give them the APG-71s off the retired Tomcats. The FB-111 fleet was long since turned into a jamming capability earmarked for obsolescence, so no real path existed to re-engine or upgrade them any more than they had. If you could have saved the best parts of the Raven with a refit back to a strike capability then it had potential. But the Raven program pretty much permanently killed the FB airframe's future off.
 
Its not small hatches and hard to access bits that are the problem, it's the transition from analogue to digital computers at a time when solid state electronics, integrated circuits and data buses were in their infancy. This is why the 1970 A6E was the definitive model, not the 1963 A6A who's sophisticated avionics took years to become reliable enough.

Another example of this is when the British went looking for a ruggedised digital computer for the TSR2 there was only 1 available in the world; the VERDAN, which was so limited that they needed 2 in the TSR2 to get the job(s) done. This is typical of the era.
 
For me the crux of the manned aircraft issue is whether any British company could or would have produced an F4 Phantom able to enter service in 1965.

I look at Lightning and the various planes beloved of posters here (SR177, P1121 etc) and reckon the answer is no.

So all the Sandys hating is just compensating for not having a decent aircraft industry.
 
uk 75 said:
For me the crux of the manned aircraft issue is whether any British company could or would have produced an F4 Phantom able to enter service in 1965.

I look at Lightning and the various planes beloved of posters here (SR177, P1121 etc) and reckon the answer is no.
Click to expand...
While the P1121 would not have made a good Phantom, it would have made a pretty decent F105.
 
Assuming that the money and political will is there I don't see why not. British engines were world class, 60s aircraft like the Buccaneers and Harrier airframes were useful and innovative enough and the Airpass radar family was competitive at the time. The phantom waa good design and engineering, not magic.
 
Rule of cool said:
Assuming that the money and political will is there I don't see why not. British engines were world class, 60s aircraft like the Buccaneers and Harrier airframes were useful and innovative enough and the Airpass radar family was competitive at the time. The phantom waa good design and engineering, not magic.
Click to expand...
Aided and abetted by a very large purchase run from the USN and USAF which brought down unit costs to a minimum for such a complex aircraft.

uk 75 said:
For me the crux of the manned aircraft issue is whether any British company could or would have produced an F4 Phantom able to enter service in 1965.

I look at Lightning and the various planes beloved of posters here (SR177, P1121 etc) and reckon the answer is no.
Click to expand...
Oh, in addition to making a decent F105, the P1121 probably would have made a decent F101: one dedicated striker airframe, one dedicated interceptor airframe, one dedicated recon airframe.
 
uk 75 said:
For me the crux of the manned aircraft issue is whether any British company could or would have produced an F4 Phantom able to enter service in 1965.

I look at Lightning and the various planes beloved of posters here (SR177, P1121 etc) and reckon the answer is no.

So all the Sandys hating is just compensating for not having a decent aircraft industry.
Click to expand...
Cough, cough:
p150-gif.8068


p-135-jpg.4622

 
I think the big problem for the UK compared with other European countries was that we tried to do too many things in smallish quantities.
The other end of the scale was Sweden, who, first with Viggen, and then with Gripen, decided they could only afford one fast jet programme and made it as versatile and effective as possible.
It did not help that most of the resulting UK hardware was late, badly built, expensive and usually of not much interest to other NATO forces.
Of five V bombers (Sperrin, Valiant, Vulcan, Victor and TSR2) none could be produced in the same numbers as the B47, B52, B58 or FB111. All had shortcomings which made it necessary to have the others as options.
Buccaneer like Hunter and Hawk benefitted from a clear role for its airframe and not needing much in the way of systems design until it entered service.
Lightning was a very expensive way of carrying two heat seeking missiles a short distance. Fortunately its acceleration and the availability of flight refueling made it ideal for fast scramble to tag Russian bombers.
Without the US Marines and McDD the Harrier might well have been canned by the RAF in favour of more Jaguars or Phantoms.
Its naval version is one of those typical British lash ups which come good despite defying reason.
Nott was right to say that more SSNs, T22s and Helos were more crucial than Invincible and her Sea Harriers since it was Soviet submarines that menaced NATO's US and Canadian reinforcements not the Belgrano.
Canadair Sabres, McDD Phantoms, Breguet Jaguars and MBB/Aeritalia Tornados all rescued the UK from endless paper planes and gave us Typhoons, F35 and Tempest.
 
Rule of cool said:
This is true, but what can be done about it?
Click to expand...
Collaboration certainly helped. Tornado, Typhoon, F35 and now Tempest.

France offers the alternative model. Perhaps if there had been a British De Gaulle or Marcel Dassault?
 
uk 75 said:
I think the big problem for the UK compared with other European countries was that we tried to do too many things in smallish quantities.
The other end of the scale was Sweden, who, first with Viggen, and then with Gripen, decided they could only afford one fast jet programme and made it as versatile and effective as possible.
Click to expand...
A problem is that early on, the aircraft were not capable of doing multiple roles. The mission systems were too bulky. So at best you could have one airframe with multiple different permanent equipment fits.
Example, F-101 (F-101A fighter-bomber, F-101B interceptor, RF-101 photo recon). Also the Viggen (AJ37 fighter-bomber, SF37 photo recon, SH37 maritime patrol, SK37 2-seat trainer, JA37 interceptor).​

A related problem is that there was no high level individual or command in charge of close air support type missions. All the air staff thought about was interceptors and strategic bombers. Fighter Command and Bomber Command, no "Army support command" or whatever you want to call it. To use the American names, the UK had Air Defense Command and Strategic Air Command, but not Tactical Air Command. The various Air Forces (RAFG, NEAF, FEAF, etc) didn't have anyone making sure they had the right types of aircraft that they'd need for Limited Wars or close air support of the BAOR.

Then comes Sandys and the 1957 DWP. Now, the point defense interceptor is dead. Replaced by surface to air missiles.

Fighter Command loses their minds, because all they've ever thought about was point defense interceptors. They don't see the different kind of interceptor you need to address bombers carrying cruise missiles, a mission profile the USN and RN have been particularly aware of for a while and call BARCAP. Barrier Combat Air Patrol. This mission requires really long flying range, because you want to be able to shoot down the bomber carrying the cruise missiles before the cruise missiles are launched and so your multiple hour patrol is going to be a couple hundred miles away from the UK. It also requires long range radar and missiles. It also effectively requires airborne early warning radars due to the curvature of the earth, until people figure out over-the-horizon radars.
 
Two very separate issues:

UK Air Defence

Until Tu26 Backfire and Su19/24 Fencer arrive in the 1970s the main threat to V bomber bases and other military targets is the Soviet Medium Range Ballistic Missile (SS4 and 5). Tu16 and Il28 bombers with free fall bombs (nuclear and conventional) were within the scope of Lightning/Javelin and Bloodhound.

The RAF had plans to replace Lightning with a VG interceptor in the 70s which led to AFVG then Tornado.

Tactical airpower

Nuclear tactical free fall bombs were delivered by Canberra and Valiant The UK had no equivalent of the F100 or F104.

Close air support with cannon, microcell rockets and bombs was allocated to the Hunter. Arguably Hunters were better for this role than anything in the USAF, hence Skyraiders and then A10.

The UK recognises the need for a supersonic tactical aircraft like the F100 and F104G able to carry a US nuclear bomb and operate from roads or rough strips. Its answer is P1154. But F4 later Jaguar proves cheaper.
 
uk 75 said:
France offers the alternative model. Perhaps if there had been a British De Gaulle or Marcel Dassault?
Click to expand...
What is the "French model"? Some overarching thoughts below
  • Rapid Industry consolidation around a single company / design team focused on a single sector
  • Remaining single company / design team is competent
  • Largely avoiding foreign aircraft in this sector (where possible)
  • Generally being less ambitious / more realistic about what is deliverable (to performance, time cost)
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Fighter Command loses their minds, because all they've ever thought about was point defense interceptors. They don't see the different kind of interceptor you need to address bombers carrying cruise missiles, a mission profile the USN and RN have been particularly aware of for a while and call BARCAP. Barrier Combat Air Patrol. This mission requires really long flying range, because you want to be able to shoot down the bomber carrying the cruise missiles before the cruise missiles are launched and so your multiple hour patrol is going to be a couple hundred miles away from the UK. It also requires long range radar and missiles. It also effectively requires airborne early warning radars due to the curvature of the earth, until people figure out over-the-horizon radars.
Click to expand...

Is BARCAP technically practical during Sandys 1957-59 tenure? In 1959 the USN put out a requirement for long loiter at long distance from the carrier to fire long-range missiles and the result was the F6D Missileer, which I doubt anyone would believe it a good result, the USN certainly didn't. The USN tried again with the F111B, which likely would have worked from land bases but it wasn't until the F14 entered service from 1973 that I think BARCAP became practical.

I think the F4 operated as a DLI fighter most the time, although I think it was capable of longer CAPs with IFR and good planning.

I also doubt the effectiveness of early AEW for BARCAP in the 50s-60s. The RAF trialed AEW using Neptunes which were equipped with the APS20 radar with Vanguard flight in the mid 50s and gave it away. The APS was bottom mounted, although apparently low flying EC 121s could bounce their radars off the water to get medium altitude coverage, and the big APS20E had a range of 115nm which is why it only flew at about 10,000'. However this doesn't provide the comprehensive surveillance over large areas that BARCAP would require.
 
Last edited:
A lot of ideas being thrown around, but nothing to really address the central quadlemma facing British in the Sandys era.
  • Limited development money, Britain can't afford to develop multiple state of the art aircraft at once
  • Limited production/sustainment money, multiple small fleets is inefficient despite it being nice to have specialised types
  • No transonic fighter fleet, Britain needs supersonic aircraft ASAP, not in 5+ years.
  • Multiple and competing requirements pulling decision makers multiple ways,
    • difficult decisions need to be made and followed through with vigour.
 
Build 5,000 Gnats - cheap, supersonic, can strafe and bomb and fight, cheap, saves on expensive avionics (they won't fit), saves on AAMs (they won't fit, well Sidewinder might), Vulcans can carry them as nuclear bombers, one massive fleet.

Job done, me and Dunc off down the pub now...

PS. Macnamara loves idea so much he gets General Dynamics to build 10,000 F-112 Gnats for the USAF.
 
Rule of cool said:
Is BARCAP technically practical during Sandys 1957-59 tenure? In 1959 the USN put out a requirement for long loiter at long distance from the carrier to fire long-range missiles and the result was the F6D Missileer, which I doubt anyone would believe it a good result, the USN certainly didn't. The USN tried again with the F111B, which likely would have worked from land bases but it wasn't until the F14 entered service from 1973 that I think BARCAP became practical.
Click to expand...
It's certainly something you can request during that timeframe. Though given the size of the early LRAAMs (~1000-1500lbs) you may end up with a proposal for an air to air Vulcan.
 
Hood said:
Build 5,000 Gnats - cheap, supersonic, can strafe and bomb and fight, cheap, saves on expensive avionics (they won't fit), saves on AAMs (they won't fit, well Sidewinder might), Vulcans can carry them as nuclear bombers, one massive fleet.

Job done, me and Dunc off down the pub now...

PS. Macnamara loves idea so much he gets General Dynamics to build 10,000 F-112 Gnats for the USAF.
Click to expand...
Get a curry while you're at it, India gave a home to the Gnat and it fought in two wars Maybe not thousands but they did build a couple of hundred.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom