If you were Sandys or Mcnamara?

[Rule of cool]

If someone sends a P1127 to the US to show off, the Marines will buy it because it lets them put an A4 equivalent attack plane onto their LHAs and not depend on having a carrier close by.

I think the USMC Harrier buy was also heavily influenced by the Chu Lai SATS airbase in Vietnam. Marines and SeeBees landed near Da Nang on 7 May 1965, constructed a 1200m aluminum runway, a catapult and arresting gear, that had its first A4 combat mission on 1 July 1965, using RATO rockets. Work continued and by mid October some 80 A4s were operating there. An F4 capable runway was not completed until September 1966, some 17 months after the Marines hit the beach.

I suspect that the Marines looked at that and thought they could do better with Harriers. Certainly the British flew from San Carlos with a 260m strip and no arrester gear, catapults or RATO. The SeeBees could probably knock up 260m in days rather than weeks.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think the USMC Harrier buy was also heavily influenced by the Chu Lai SATS airbase in Vietnam. Marines and SeeBees landed near Da Nang on 7 May 1965, constructed a 1200m aluminum runway, a catapult and arresting gear, that had its first A4 combat mission on 1 July 1965, using RATO rockets. Work continued and by mid October some 80 A4s were operating there. An F4 capable runway was not completed until September 1966, some 17 months after the Marines hit the beach.

I suspect that the Marines looked at that and thought they could do better with Harriers. Certainly the British flew from San Carlos with a 260m strip and no arrester gear, catapults or RATO. The SeeBees could probably knock up 260m in days rather than weeks.

Crud, I'd bet first flights in 24hrs, if pressed planking is acceptable. Tell the Seabees they get to use all the demo they want as long as they don't blast any deep craters removing stumps...

 

[zen]

The Gnat, with it's low ground clearance, blasted the surface of Riyan so I imagine the AW681 (and P1154) would have totally destroyed it.

That's not a given, if they be flying CTOL.

 

[zen]

The P1121 would have to be developed from 1957-58, by the mid 60s it would be behind the state of the art.

If the Lightning was considered a failure because 337 were built the P1121 would be worse because it wouldn't get to 337.

It's easier to package the avionics of the time in something like P.1121 than the Lightning

 

[Hood]

Re transports:
From my reading of On Atlas' Shoulders it seems that the RAF was never satisfied with the Argosy's cargo hold. They had specified 10x10ft cross section, AW.660 was only 8.8ft high at the rear and just 6ft 2in at the front end, width was 8ft 8in, but they eventually settled for the Argosy off the shelf to save money and it was only really a stopgap. The RAF complained that the Beverley had a larger hold for example.

OR.351 was raised even as the Argosy entered service - 2,000nm range with 35,000lb payload, radius of action 1,200nm with 35,000lb, hold 43ft long, 9ft 6in wide and 9ft 9in high. Plus it needed STOL performance.
52 OR.351 aircraft would replace 32 Beverleys and 48 Hastings (50 Argosies being interim and replaced later by Andovers).
AWA tried to enlarge the Argosy as the Series 3 but it couldn't meet the STOL requirements, adding Tynes and VTOL lift pods didn't help either.
Bristol's Tyne BAC.222 Super Hercules didn't meet OR.351 as specified either, but the C-130E was the only obvious off-the-shelf solution as the money became tight, even if it couldn't meet the OR.351 STOL requirements.

The Argosy was at best an off-the-shelf purchase of a civil design that filled a gap - something akin to a Nordatlas or C-160 Transall really - it was not in the C-130 class in terms of payload and performance. At the very least AWA would have had to rebuild the entire fuselage (and probably the centre wing) for a 9 x 9ft fuselage at the very least, then once you add Tynes etc. you're effectively building a new aircraft. Plus using Shackleton outer wings was seen as sub-optimal.

Tactical Belfast might have worked perhaps, but that's a big if, and still pricey to achieve.

 

[zen]

Belfast was built in such small numbers it's obviously going to have a high unit price.

Build more and the cost comes down.

 

[Rule of cool]

The Belfast break even point was 30 units.

 

[Pirate Pete]

Belfast was built in such small numbers it's obviously going to have a high unit price.

Build more and the cost comes down.

Agreed.
Seem to recall Shorts saying that a minimum of 30 was needed to make any sort of economic sense production costs wise.

However, the Belfast was agonisingly slow and it's service ceiling left something to be desired (at least as far as any rabid thoughts of using it as a Skybolt carrier was concerned).
I also seem to recall (from, On Atlas’s Shoulders) that it was NOT the aircraft that the RAF wanted anyway!

 

[uk 75]

The Russians had the aircraft that the RAF should have built instead of Bedlfast and AW681. The Ilyushin il76 has the right fuselage size for the stuff the UK needed to lift whether in NATO or out of area.
The Mig 23/27 family of VG fighters and strike aircraft look like something Vickers should have built for the RN and RAF.
Finally, the Su24 looks like the UKVG and today is even schlepping Storm Shadows around.
Missilewise the Sam 8 Gecko system looks like PT428 drawings while Sam 4 Ganef could be a pair of Bloodhounds or Thunderbirds on a tracked launcher.
Perhaps instead of looking to the US and France we should have gone very Russian.

If you modify the above Soviet designs with Brit features (sorry I cant draw) you get some nifty bits of kit.

The Sovs even did the VG Su11 version while we just talked about it for Lightning.

As for warships I hanker after the Italian Navy.

 

[pathology_doc]

Perhaps instead of looking to the US and France we should have gone very Russian.

An interesting set of comparisons. Have you considered the flipside, that Russian espionage caused the Soviets to go very British, except they actually BUILT the stuff instead of scrapping halfway through development?

I very much doubt the Soviet Union would have sold its best gear to the British at that point in history, if that's what you were implying.

 

[red admiral]

Much more potential for upgrading P.1121 though so would expect to be longer lived / used in wider variety of roles. e.g. bigger radar, more pylons for more/bigger stores, alternative engines etc. More potential, but still worse than a Phantom and overtaken by the new generation in the mid 70s.

Lightning wasn't a failure. It helped fill the perceived gap until Bloodhound. It was just very limited and expensive. But it looked cool and made lots of noise.

 

[uk 75]

An interesting set of comparisons. Have you considered the flipside, that Russian espionage caused the Soviets to go very British, except they actually BUILT the stuff instead of scrapping halfway through development?

I very much doubt the Soviet Union would have sold its best gear to the British at that point in history, if that's what you were implying

You are of course right. But as this and other alt hists tend to want Brit stuff I thought I would just admit to liking Sov planes/missiles, Italian warships and W German ground kit.

 

[Siberia]

The Ilyushin Il-76 has the right fuselage size for the stuff the UK needed to lift whether in NATO or out of area.

Did the UK actually have a pressing need for major air transport capacity? Once East of Suez is gone you're mainly left with Europe, and there most of your stuff is already deployed where you're going to be fighting. For the bits you do need does the speed increase from jet engines bring enough benefit to outweigh advantages of turboprops?

 

[Rule of cool]

The real question is does EoS have to go entirely, or in the way it did? From 1980 the RN stationed 2-3 warships in the Persian Gulf for decades, as well as maintaining the position in Cyprus. The Labour government wished to keep the EoS commitment going indefinitely, and in 1966 changed that to a 1975 withdrawal. It was only after the November 1967 devaluation of the pound, which they'd spent years trying to avoid, that they went to cut and run by 71.

I don't think its difficult to imagine a path where the government doesn't have to cut and run by 71, but can withdraw to a smaller position in the Persian Gulf by the mid 70s.

 

[zen]

Probably keep a more substantial presence in Singapore.

 

[Rule of cool]

Probably keep a more substantial presence in Singapore.

Yes. The RAAF kept Mirages in Butterworth Malaysia until 1988 and an infantry company even after the Cold War.

The idea was floated in the mid 60s that Britain could redeploy the forces in South East Asia (equivalent to a division) to Australia as the situation changed. However it was thought such large forces would politically overwhelm Australian forces, and not be palatable when Australians were fighting in Vietnam but the British weren't. Perhaps a smaller version of this idea could be implemented, with some units coming to Australia as part of a wind down in the 70s.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Can we skip the Tyne Belfast entirely and go straight for the SC.5/45 with Conway's rated at 25,000lbst instead of RB.178s? Build 24 of them instead of the 10 Belfast C.1s and 14 VC.10 C.1s. Then if money permits at least 15 more to replace the Britannia in place of the planned purchase of 15 C-5A Galaxies.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The real question is does EoS have to go entirely, or in the way it did? From 1980 the RN stationed 2-3 warships in the Persian Gulf for decades, as well as maintaining the position in Cyprus. The Labour government wished to keep the EoS commitment going indefinitely, and in 1966 changed that to a 1975 withdrawal. It was only after the November 1967 devaluation of the pound, which they'd spent years trying to avoid, that they went to cut and run by 71.

I don't think its difficult to imagine a path where the government doesn't have to cut and run by 71, but can withdraw to a smaller position in the Persian Gulf by the mid 70s.

East of Suez didn't really end until 1975. This is the text of a post I made into the Britain in Vietnam thread in 2022.

****** ****** ****** ****** ******​

Part of Post 56

... (1975 review that binned a lot of the transport fleet).

To reinforce what you wrote...

More than half of it in fact. The brunt was borne by the Strategic Transport Force.

At that time the RAF had 12 transport squadrons. That is one squadron of VC.10s, one squadron of Belfasts, two squadrons of Britannias, one squadron of Comets, six squadrons of Hercules and one squadron of Andovers. This was cut to 5 squadrons made up of the VC.10 squadron and four Hercules squadrons.

Furthermore:

• The number of tanker squadrons was cut from three to two.
• The number of Nimrod squadrons was cut from the equivalent of six (four in the UK, one Malta, a detachment at Gibraltar and a detachment at Singapore) to the equivalent of four-and-a-half (four in the UK and the detachment at Gibraltar).

The Mason Review was the end of "East of Suez".

Although most of Britain's forces "East of Suez" were withdrawn by the end of 1971 most of the Strategic Reserve (the Army's 3rd Division & 16th Airborne Brigade and the RAF's 38 Group) remained. Although reinforcing NATO's flanks was added to it's responsibilities reinforcing Britain's allies "East of Suez" was still part of its job description and was tested in one major deployment to Malaysia in the first half of the 1970s that I know of and I'm sure that we'll be told if there were others. Although the Eastern Fleet was disbanded at the end of the 1971 there were regular visits by Royal Navy squadrons to the Far East that included a Tiger class cruiser or County class destroyer and a SSN.

Roy Mason decided to concentrate on the Central Front & Eastlant at the expense of the Mediterranean & most of what was left outside the NATO area. In his defence the UK was in the middle of what (at the time) was the worst economic recession Britain had gone through since the 1930s.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Did the UK actually have a pressing need for major air transport capacity? Once East of Suez is gone you're mainly left with Europe, and there most of your stuff is already deployed where you're going to be fighting. For the bits you do need does the speed increase from jet engines bring enough benefit to outweigh advantages of turboprops?

Most of the RAF's air transport capacity was dispensed with once East of Suez went. Please see my previous post.

 

[Rule of cool]

Firstly, now I hate the Argosy and am embarrassed for considering it. However that doesn’t mean the alternative is the C130, instead I’d get in with the Transall C160.



For starters is has British built 6,100hp Tynes with 18’ propellers, which would make a nice upgrade from the Belfast’s 5,700hp/16’ engine/prop combo, indeed I recall reading once that it was proposed to fit 19’ props to the Belfast. It also has a more capacious hold than the C130, similar in cross-section to the Belfast. Furthermore it would get Britain in with the Europeans, which would be good politically. I think a C160 and more powerful Belfast fleet would give the RAF a powerful, capable and well-balanced cargo carrying capability, and it would not leave the Belfast vulnerable to disbandment as an ‘orphan fleet’.



Secondly, there’s a difference between being able to quickly deploy forces to EoS and having them permanently stationed there. I think the Far East is probably a stretch for Britain and her interests in the 70s but certainly the Persian Gulf was not and could easily be the basis for a continued presence EoS for a few warships and a token Army and RAF presence based in the Trucial States. After all this actually occured from 1980 onwards.

 

[Hood]

I hadn't realised that the Transall was so big!
It does seem an oversight that the RAF never considered it, it's hold dimensions were exactly what the RAF wanted. The only minus points I can think of are lack of range, it's slow and its STOL performance probably can't match the C-130E (I need to dig out some data).

Now - giving free reign to the British for always overcomplicating everything and gold plating and make-work to keep folks in jobs - how about the UK joins Transall but Shorts develops a new larger-span four-engine wing with four Tynes on it? I reckon France with its commitments in Africa might jump at that and pay some of the costs too.

Four Tynes might be a bit overkill but it would make a good load lifter
C160 carried 35,000lb on 11,340hp - 12,200hp
C-130H 42,000lb on 18,360hp
Belfast 78,000lb on 22,920hp
A400M 81,600lb on 44,000hp

So a C160-4 could have anything from 22-680-22,920hp depending on the mark of Tyne used (the 6,100shp Mk 20 not needed), it would certainly equal the C-130 in terms of payload with a beefier structure and offer the same range or better.

 

[uk 75]

Excellent idea. France indeed did buy some C130s later than the UK.
A four engined Transall could have given the C130 some stiff competition.

 

[MadRat]

Transall C.160 was to be Europe's C-130, but it was too underpowered.

Blatant knock off of the Herk.

 

[uk 75]

An alternative RAF for 1968 is starting to shape up nicely.
Lightning and Bloodhound as in our day.
HS1121 (still a Harrier?) replacing Venoms, then with Red Tops and new radar replacing Javelins.
TSR2 (Vindicator?) replacing Valiants and Canberras, then Vulcans.
Victors in PR role and free fall bombing. VC10s as tankers and transports.
Transall C160-4 replace Beverley, Hastings then Argosy. 66 initially but more later.
I suppose we are stuck with ten Belfast. C141 and C5 are not very suitable for the RAF and a Jet Belfast would be too expensive and have no export potential. C17 is the eventual answer but decades away.
The Royal Navy is harder to sort out.
If Vickers could turn the Scimitar into a decent fighter with Red Tops and even Sparrows the carrier force might survive. CVA01 needs to be steam and gas turbine like the Countys and T82. The Dutch radar as fitted on Tromp seems sensible. No need for Seadart. The four T82 to escort seem sensible. T42 and T22 still seem reasonable. T21 and Leanders need sorting out.
Five rather than four Polaris should have gone ahead. Sir Alec needed for this one.
Looking into the 70s the UKVG rather than Tornado gives you the range and payload for both air defence and strike roles.
Collaboration could be avoided except perhaps on helicopters where Italy rather than France seems to me a better partner as they are also working with Boeing Vertol and Sikorsky.

 

[zen]

If Vickers could turn the Scimitar into a decent fighter with Red Tops and even Sparrows the carrier force might survive.

We went over this in detail elsewhere, but it is possible if Vickers be told to.
Arguably such Scimitar developments obviate the need for P.1121 in most roles.

Flipside is Hawkers being told to do the twin Avon version P1125. This would develop into roughly a F4 analogue

 

[Rule of cool]

I hadn't realised that the Transall was so big!
It does seem an oversight that the RAF never considered it, it's hold dimensions were exactly what the RAF wanted. The only minus points I can think of are lack of range, it's slow and its STOL performance probably can't match the C-130E (I need to dig out some data).

Now - giving free reign to the British for always overcomplicating everything and gold plating and make-work to keep folks in jobs - how about the UK joins Transall but Shorts develops a new larger-span four-engine wing with four Tynes on it? I reckon France with its commitments in Africa might jump at that and pay some of the costs too.

Four Tynes might be a bit overkill but it would make a good load lifter
C160 carried 35,000lb on 11,340hp - 12,200hp
C-130H 42,000lb on 18,360hp
Belfast 78,000lb on 22,920hp
A400M 81,600lb on 44,000hp

So a C160-4 could have anything from 22-680-22,920hp depending on the mark of Tyne used (the 6,100shp Mk 20 not needed), it would certainly equal the C-130 in terms of payload with a beefier structure and offer the same range or better.

Yeah, it took for me to see a side by side picture to realise how similar in size it was to the Hercules.

However one does not simply make an aircraft designed for 2 engines into a 4 engine, the whole aircraft is designed around the stresses 2 engines will make. The Hercules has not had an increase in power since the 60s because the engine nacelles and wing overall can only handle 4500shp.

If the RAF gets the C160 it will be as-is, however the Belfast can provide the big, long range, capacious aircraft for the RAF by using the 6,100hp/18' engine/prop combo of the C160. This would improve it's air and field performance considerably, to the point where it wasn't an issue.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Was the Transall called the C.160 because the plan was to build 160 consisting of 50 for France and 110 for Germany?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Yeah, it took for me to see a side by side picture to realise how similar in size it was to the Hercules.

However one does not simply make an aircraft designed for 2 engines into a 4 engine, the whole aircraft is designed around the stresses 2 engines will make. The Hercules has not had an increase in power since the 60s because the engine nacelles and wing overall can only handle 4500shp.

If the RAF gets the C160 it will be as-is, however the Belfast can provide the big, long range, capacious aircraft for the RAF by using the 6,100hp/18' engine/prop combo of the C160. This would improve it's air and field performance considerably, to the point where it wasn't an issue.

If the UK joined Transall early enough could it have been designed to have 4 Tyne engines from the start?

 

[Rule of cool]

Firstly, correct me if I'm wrong but the BAC 222 version of the Hercules competing against the AW681 was powered by Tynes and not the standard T56 E/H model which was nowhere near able to meet the (ridiculous) STOL requirement. The standard C130E was chosen after the STOL requirement was dropped, so presumably the C160

As for the C160-4 idea, Britain seemed to have 4 transport aircraft requirements in the era; 1955 that lead to the Argosy, 1959 that led to the Belfast, 1962 that lead to the AW681 and 1966 post cancellation that lead to the C130K. The Transall began development in 1959, so Britain's tactical transport requirements are not well timed to get in early and have a say. In any case there is already a 4 Tyne transport in the works, the Belfast, which could be improved by harmonizing engines and props with the C160 fleet.

 

[Rule of cool]

HS1121 (still a Harrier?) replacing Venoms, then with Red Tops and new radar replacing Javelins.

Equipping 13 rather than 9 sqns and capping the Lightning at 5 sqns would certainly make the P1154 more viable, but the Hunter conversions would still have to occur because the P1154 won't be ready in 1960-61. In addition it would be developed from 1958 so would compete for development funding with the TSR2, although it would be a few years ahead so this might be manageable.

13 sqns with 12 aircraft U/E = 156, a couple of OCU with another ~24 = 180 plus attrition spares and reserves would be maybe 250 aircraft. Much better than the 168 P1154s that were planned but not as good as the 420 Mirage IIIs that the French bought or the 750 F104s that the LW bought.

 

[Hood]

However one does not simply make an aircraft designed for 2 engines into a 4 engine, the whole aircraft is designed around the stresses 2 engines will make. The Hercules has not had an increase in power since the 60s because the engine nacelles and wing overall can only handle 4500shp.

I know it would be a time-consuming job and would require a lot of redesign - but let's not kid ourselves that crazy schemes like this haven't been enacted!
But yes, its unlikely for 2 reasons - Belfast could be adapted to fulfill the same role (either more power or chopped fuselage) and with the C-130 already existing there is no way the Treasury or Air Ministry will waste money re-creating what already exists.

Transall was always a Franco-German collaborative project intended to foster links between both industries. Italy was involved at the start but drifted off to their own, smaller, G.222. I suspect politically Transall would not have let UK industry in, and in 1959 there is probably an assumption that one of Britain's companies can easily design a new transport. By 1965 its clear Britain can't afford to do it alone and without a partner there is no choice but to settle for C-130.

A stock Transall might work for a post-66 RAF focused on European needs, but timing is key here and I still think that range is the clincher given EoS doesn't go away fully until 1975.

 

[Rule of cool]

But yes, its unlikely for 2 reasons - Belfast could be adapted to fulfill the same role (either more power or chopped fuselage) and with the C-130 already existing there is no way the Treasury or Air Ministry will waste money re-creating what already exists.

Apparently the idea was 3 turbocompressors in a detachable hump in the fuselage. This was going to power a boundary layer control system for the wings, flaps and tailplane, I suspect something comprehensive like the Buccaneer.

 

[Anderman]

Was the Transall called the C.160 because the plan was to build 160 consisting of 50 for France and 110 for Germany?

German Wikipedia states the designation stand for the 160 square meter of wing area.

 

[uk 75]

I hate to say it but Lightning is the problem.
It is a fine experimental supersonic jet (50s Brit industry loved building nice experimental airframes) but it is not a good weapon in the way that Mirage and Draken were.
I don't know how you get Brit industry to build a decent supersonic combat aircraft without collaboration. BAC had to learn with Jaguar before they could learn again with Tornado and Typhoon.
Even Sea Harrier cant be done without Phantom and Jaguar.
I know this goes completely against the Alt History wishlist.
Hawk shows what we are really good at. Cute airframe with no weapons or radar to worry about.

 

[Rule of cool]

I'd characterise the Lightning as the issue rather than the problem.

The problems are that in 1957 the RAF needs a mach 2 combat aircraft immediately, to be successful in the 60s such an aircraft needs to be built in large numbers and the Lightning is the only aircraft available. It'd be great if something better was flying in April 1957, maybe the FD2 ER103/C, but it wasn't and the British are stuck with the Lightning.

British industry's 'decent supersonic aircraft' would be the TSR2 and I'd say it's more important to get that aircraft right than it is to get the '1959-61 tactical fighter' right. The Lightning can cover the tactical fighter role for long enough to have a viable 20 year service life but the TSR2 will last for 30+ years and has to be great rather than good.
.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Can we skip the Tyne Belfast entirely and go straight for the SC.5/45 with Conway's rated at 25,000lbst instead of RB.178s? Build 24 of them instead of the 10 Belfast C.1s and 14 VC.10 C.1s. Then if money permits at least 15 more to replace the Britannia in place of the planned purchase of 15 C-5A Galaxies.

For those unfamiliar with the Jet Belfast:

(h/t Triton and Jemiba)

On another note, regarding proposed alternate Skybolt platforms for the RAF:

It was suggested at the time of the Blue Streak cancellation that the Short Britannic was to be used as a launch platform for Sky Bolt has any one details please?

Took a long time to answer, but Shorts proposed a /30 variant with eight Skybolts on wing pylons plus their "launch control equipment". Alternatively, loading fewer missiles would enable 24-hour missions ( Flight, Sep 1963 ).

EDIT: Here's an image of the baseline Shorts Britannic (h/t Stargazer):

 

[Scott Kenny]

For those unfamiliar with the Jet Belfast:

(h/t Triton and Jemiba)

Looks a lot like a C141A! (Okay, not like there's a whole lot of options for cargo plane layouts, but still...)

 

[Rule of cool]

Imagine the UK with a fleet of those bad boys!

 

[uk 75]

The other elephant in the room is "East of Suez". Faced with the economic success of its neighbours in W Europe it is hard to see the UK not shifting its focus in the 60s and 70s away from the comparatively small markets outside Europe to W Europe.
The threat from the Soviet Union will require the UK to focus on air defence of GB, ASW in the N Atlantic, defending W Germany and maintaining the nuclear deterrent.
TSR2 and 1121 still have a role in this but the RN may not be able to afford both SSN/T22 and CVA01.

 

[Apophenia]

Looks a lot like a C141A! (Okay, not like there's a whole lot of options for cargo plane layouts, but still...)

As the link shows, it was the C-141 wings and tailplane applied to the Short Belfast fuselage.