If you were Sandys or Mcnamara?

[Rule of cool]

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.

I don't think EoS is the big deal it's made out to be, most of the 'problems' were either policy positions or mistakes made arising from policy positions. The Labour Government wanted to reduce defence spending and do EoS on the cheap, they did this by cancelling AW681, P1154 and TSR2 to buy American kit. When devaluation was forced upon the Government the earlier decision to buy US left them highly vulnerable, leading to the cancellation of the F111K, the reduction in Phantom numbers and the need for drastic and unplanned changes to defence policy.

If Sandys acted differently with the 57 DWP, be that your cutting short Lightning and going with the P1121 or my going hard with the Lightning, the Labour government wouldn't have had to make the decision to buy US in 1965. They still likely want to cut the defence budget, but with fleets of British aircraft in or entering service the devaluation in late 1967 won't have such a massive impact on procurement of US kit.

All of this assumes that Sandys having a better ongoing impact wouldn't give the Tories those 900 votes in 8 seats to win them the 64 election.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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.

Yes. According to Page 200 of my copy of "On Atlas' Shoulders" it was to have four R.Ty.20-15 Tynes rated at 5,665shp.

And according to the illustration and text on Page 201 it was also to have had a fuselage plug just aft the of wing that added 40 inches to the cabin length and a longitudinal insert to add 11 inches to the fuselage depth.

These modifications produced a freight hold 10ft (3.04m) high, 10ft 3in (3.12m) wide, narrowing to 10ft (3.04m) at the undercarriage sponsons, and 44ft 3in (13.5m) long.

This was to meet the hold dimensions specified in OR.351.

The BAC.222 was to carry the 35,000lb (15,873kg) load specified in OR.352, but could also be fitted out to carry 73 passengers, 64 paratroops or 74 stretchers with six attendants. In the cargo role the BAC.222 was to be equipped with roller conveyors and side guides.

 

[pathology_doc]

I don't know how you get Brit industry to build a decent supersonic combat aircraft without collaboration.

You let it finish developing that aircraft, rather than taking the ideological position that it's obsolete to start with.

 

[pathology_doc]

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.

Roy Chadwick and Ernst Heinkel both want a word with you about that.

 

[red admiral]

You let it finish developing that aircraft, rather than taking the ideological position that it's obsolete to start with.

Sure, if it wanted to spend any of its own money on it

 

[Rule of cool]

Sure, if it wanted to spend any of its own money on it

It would rather spend it's own money in the US and France for no result and finally spend it in Germany and Italy to get a result a decade later?

 

[Rule of cool]

Roy Chadwick and Ernst Heinkel both want a word with you about that.

The Manchester-Lincoln is the exception that proves the rule; the Lincoln didn't get 4 x 1800hp Vulture it got considerably less powerful Merlin.

What Heinkel went form 2 to 4 engines?

 

[Rule of cool]

I'm starting to form the opinion that one of the most impactful things Sandys could have done by not declaring manned combat aircraft obsolescent and supporting the development of a mach 2 fighter during his tenure is dodge the VTOL/STOL mania of the 1962-66 period.

 

[uk 75]

I'm starting to form the opinion that one of the most impactful things Sandys could have done by not declaring manned combat aircraft obsolescent and supporting the development of a mach 2 fighter during his tenure is dodge the VTOL/STOL mania of the 1962-66 period.

Building obsolete before they fly Mach2 designs with enormous obsolete missiles attached while everyone else buys Mirages and Phantoms would certainly do that.
Then in 1966 a Labour Governnent cancels the Gloster Oink, the Sanders Roe Turkey and the Fairey Buzzard and lets the RAF have Phantoms.

 

[Rule of cool]

Building obsolete before they fly Mach2 designs with enormous obsolete missiles attached while everyone else buys Mirages and Phantoms would certainly do that.
Then in 1966 a Labour Governnent cancels the Gloster Oink, the Sanders Roe Turkey and the Fairey Buzzard and lets the RAF have Phantoms.

Not declaring manned combat aircraft obsolescent doesn't mean supporting F155, Red Dean and other things cancelled in the 57 DWP. They have to go, and the Firestreak and Red Top are reasonable weapons to be going on with in the period.

The path that led to the Phantom is the problem: interim fighters/fighter-bombers 1957- 62, P1154 with linked AW681 until 1965 then Spey Phantoms and C130 from 1965. That is what Sandys could and should have changed by his actions.

 

[uk 75]

Not declaring manned combat aircraft obsolescent doesn't mean supporting F155, Red Dean and other things cancelled in the 57 DWP. They have to go, and the Firestreak and Red Top are reasonable weapons to be going on with in the period.

The path that led to the Phantom is the problem: interim fighters/fighter-bombers 1957- 62, P1154 with linked AW681 until 1965 then Spey Phantoms and C130 from 1965. That is what Sandys could and should have changed by his actions.

Trouble is there was not even the glimmer of something that could become a Phantom.
Only English Electric and perhaps Vickers could have designed and built it, but to do that you would need to have restructured the aircraft industry much earlier, certainly by 1953.
That requires too much altering of Britain as it was, and sadly still is, a country of short term private sector greed and public sector incompetence.

 

[Rule of cool]

Trouble is there was not even the glimmer of something that could become a Phantom.
Only English Electric and perhaps Vickers could have designed and built it, but to do that you would need to have restructured the aircraft industry much earlier, certainly by 1953.
That requires too much altering of Britain as it was, and sadly still is, a country of short term private sector greed and public sector incompetence.

Yep, there is no neat trick to get Britain/RAF through the predicament it found itself in 1957 and come out smelling like roses.

Come and join me on the Dark Side, embrace the Lightning as the least objectionable option!

 

[Arjen]

What Heinkel went form 2 to 4 engines?

He 177 to He 274.

 

[Rule of cool]

He 177 to He 274.

The He177 had 4 engines, just coupled together in pairs and geared to a single prop, so the air-frame structure and wing roots were designed for the power of 2 engines per wing. Additionally only 2 He274 prototypes were built so it's difficult to assess how this uncoupling of engines would have worked in practice.

In any these 2 cases reinforce rather than disprove the general rule that one does not simply fit 4 engines to a 2 engined aircraft.

 

[Arjen]

The Manchester-Lincoln is the exception that proves the rule; the Lincoln didn't get 4 x 1800hp Vulture it got considerably less powerful Merlin.

To be even more off topic, the Lincoln I (successor to the Lancaster) was powered by 4 x 1750hp Merlin 85.
New topic?

 

[pathology_doc]

Yep, there is no neat trick to get Britain/RAF through the predicament it found itself in 1957 and come out smelling like roses.

Come and join me on the Dark Side, embrace the Lightning as the least objectionable option!

The only thing that even comes close is P.1121, built from the ground up as a fighter/strike aircraft rather than being developed out of an aircraft that's volume-critical to start with (especially where the avionics are concerned), but Hawker is going to be pushing s**t uphill trying to get that into service so long as the Sandys doctrine is in place. Saunders-Roe got closer to getting something into the air (their scaled-down technology demonstrator at least flew); but even if the SR.177 had got off the ground and into production, I suspect its successor would have been a twin-jet. I wonder how an SR.177 with Red Tops would square up against a MiG-25R; the rocket at least gives her the altitude performance, and the Red Tops would have plenty to home in on.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

In any these 2 cases reinforce rather than disprove the general rule that one does not simply fit 4 engines to a 2 engined aircraft.

For what it's worth and to support your argument.

Airspeed designed variants of the Ambassador with a pairs of Theseus or Proteus turboprops and with quartets of Darts or Mamba turboprops in place of the pair of Centaurus piston engines.

And the other way round, the H.P. Herald originally had 4 Alvis Leonides Major and was redesigned to take a pair of Darts, which unlike the Ambassador proposals actually flew and went into production.

Interestingly the Herald and its rival the Fokker F.27 flew in the same year (1955) but (according to Wikipedia) Fokker built 592 F.27s & Fairchild built another 207 under licence, while Handley Page only built 50 Heralds. Maybe Handley Page would have sold more if they'd designed it around 2 Darts to begin with.

 

[Arjen]

I would like to return to the point whether a 4-engined Transall would have been economically feasible. I think the Manchester-to-Lancaster case shows this should not be dismissed out of hand, even though reworking the Manchester wing to the Lancaster wing was not a trivial task. The later Lincoln shows there was merit to the concept, especially considering the longevity of the 4 x 2450hp R-R Griffon Shackleton with its Lincoln-wing.
Given the scarcity of other succesful 2- to 4-engine adaptations, I expect a clean-sheet design is the better course. Manchester-to-Lancaster might simply have come about because wartime haste precluded a clean-sheet design, with a remarkably succesful Lancaster as the result.
I repeat, back to the fifties and sixties?

 

[uk 75]

As my nick suggests (UK75) just as Rule likes the Lightning I am futilely loyal to the 60s.Mobile RAF

TSR2 without the Mach 2 dash and rough field capability could have been in service by 1969.
1154 with the BS100 but only rolling take offs could have been in service by 1970.
681 with ordinary fans but a heaviily flapped wing could have joined the Belfast by 1970.
Lightning would be upgraded to F2A/F6 and serve until a multi role UKVG enters service in 1975-8

Had 1154 and 681 been simplified they might well have got some customers. TSR2 is too specialised, though had we built them my way the RAAF might have looked at again when F111C had problems.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Come and join me on the Dark Side, embrace the Lightning as the least objectionable option!

Brothers, fetch the flamer. The heavy flamer.

 

[1635yankee]

As my nick suggests (UK75) just as Rule likes the Lightning I am futilely loyal to the 60s.Mobile RAF

TSR2 without the Mach 2 dash and rough field capability could have been in service by 1969.
1154 with the BS100 but only rolling take offs could have been in service by 1970.
681 with ordinary fans but a heaviily flapped wing could have joined the Belfast by 1970.
Lightning would be upgraded to F2A/F6 and serve until a multi role UKVG enters service in 1975-8

Had 1154 and 681 been simplified they might well have got some customers. TSR2 is too specialised, though had we built them my way the RAAF might have looked at again when F111C had problems.

TSR.2 without the supersonic low-level capability would be a much, much simpler aircraft, and probably at least a third smaller. It might not have looked like something from some sf fanboi's wet dream, but it may actually be affordable

 

[pathology_doc]

TSR.2 without the supersonic low-level capability would be a much, much simpler aircraft, and probably at least a third smaller.

Doesn't that basically amount to the airplane English Electric wanted to build in the first place?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Personally, I think the UK would have been better off with one of the many Tyne powered tactical transports that were proposed IOTL rather than joining the Transall consortium.

• I suspect that a modified C-160 with four Tyne engines would have been as expensive as an all-British design with four Tyne engines after it had been redesigned to suit the RAF's requirements.
  • That is the cost of the redesign might approach the cost of designing a new aircraft. Look at the cost of developing the Spey-Phantom (airframe and engine).
  • Plus it may produce a non-standard aircraft, which would cost more to build than the two-engine C-160 (after allowing for the cost of the two additional Tyne engines) due to having several or many different components. Look at how that increased the production cost of the Spey-Phantom.
  • Admittedly, much of the high R&D and production cost of the Spey-Phantom was due to having the Spey instead of the J79 while the Transalls built for the RAF will have the same engine (i.e. the Tyne) as the Transalls built for the AA, Luftwaffe & SAAF.
  • However, the R&D and production cost of a Tyne engine fitted to one of the British designs ITTL would have been exactly the same as the R&D and production cost of a Tyne engine fitted to a Transall.
  • And in defence of the "Super Transall" it's cost wouldn't have been increased by the Sterling devaluation of 1967 as AFAIK the Pound wasn't devalued against the French Franc and Deutsche Mark.
• The aircraft built for the RAF would have been assembled in a British factory. The reduction in the unit costs of the C-160's components that should accrue by increasing the initial production run from 169 aircraft IOTL to 235 ITTL may have been offset by the cost of setting up a UK assembly line for the production of only 66 aircraft.
  • That is if 66 C-160-4s were substituted for the 66 C-130Ks purchased IOTL.
  • The unit cost of UK assembled aircraft would decrease if more aircraft than 66 aircraft were built.
    • E.g. if 31 two-engine Transalls were built for the RAF ITTL instead of the 31 Andover C.1s built for the RAF IOTL.
    • The agreement with France & West Germany might have been that all aircraft built for export were to be assembled in the UK. AFIAK (1) that was the case with Jaguar and AFAIK (2) under the Anglo-French helicopter agreement the Lynxes built for export were assembled in the UK while the Gazelles & Pumas built for export were assembled in France.
    • IOTL the only aircraft exported IOTL were the 9 C.160Zs built for the SAAF, but ITTL the two-engine version might take orders from countries that bought DHC-4 Caribous, DHC-5 Buffaloes and G.222s IOTL.
    • The four-engine version might win some export orders too. E.g. from countries that the USA wouldn't sell the Hercules to. OTL C-130 operators that had the twin-engine Transall might buy the four-engine Transall instead of the Hercules in the interest of standardisation. One might be the AA which IIRC bought some C-130Hs during the production run of the OTL C-160NG. Another might be the RAAF which might buy as many as 30 two-engine C.160s in place of the 30 Caribous that it ordered IOTL and 24 four-engine versions in place of the 12 C-130Es purchased in the 1960s and the 12 C-130Hs that IIRC were purchased in the 1970s to replace the 12 C-130As bought in the 1950s.
  • Although, if only 66 aircraft were built on the British assembly line their assembly cost might still be less than the 56 built by Nord, 57 built by VFW and 56 built by HFB/MBB which is how Wikipedia says how the initial production run of 169 aircraft was split IOTL.

I got the impression from reading "On Atlas' Shoulders" that the Air Staff's favourite designs were the twin & quadruple Tyne designs produced by Blackburn.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

TSR.2 without the supersonic low-level capability would be a much, much simpler aircraft, and probably at least a third smaller. It might not have looked like something from some sf fanboi's wet dream, but it may actually be affordable

Doesn't that basically amount to the airplane English Electric wanted to build in the first place?

It may also amount to the Spey-Buccaneer as built for the RAF IOTL or the Spey-Buccaneer with better (but more expensive) avionics than IOTL.

Would the R&D and production costs of TSR.2 and HS.681 been reduced significantly if the specifications had allowed them to use longer runways?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

As my nick suggests (UK75) just as Rule likes the Lightning I am futilely loyal to the 60s.Mobile RAF

TSR2 without the Mach 2 dash and rough field capability could have been in service by 1969.
1154 with the BS100 but only rolling take offs could have been in service by 1970.
681 with ordinary fans but a heaviily flapped wing could have joined the Belfast by 1970.
Lightning would be upgraded to F2A/F6 and serve until a multi role UKVG enters service in 1975-8

Had 1154 and 681 been simplified they might well have got some customers. TSR2 is too specialised, though had we built them my way the RAAF might have looked at again when F111C had problems.

Did the TSR.2 really need the rough field capability? Would hardened hangars on air bases with long runways (as was done with the Buccaneer and Tornado anyway) been good enough and made the TSR.2 somewhat cheaper?

Similarly, for the HS.681. Would it have been good enough (and a lot cheaper) if the specification had called for an aircraft with similar take off & landing characteristics as the C-130K and with Conways or Medways instead of BS.100s.

Instead of the P.1154 go straight to the developed P.1127 (OTL Harrier GR.1) and a Jaguar-class aircraft.

Also build the Spey-Phantom under licence in the UK. The R&D cost would be exactly the same. The production cost is likely to have been the same too due to the Spey-Phantom being a non-standard aircraft and having a large proportion of British built components (in addition to the engines) anyway. Plus the production cost won't be increased by the devaluation of Sterling in 1967.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Brothers, fetch the flamer. The heavy flamer.

Would a Lightning's pair of reheated Avon engines meet your specification?

 

[Rule of cool]

The only thing that even comes close is P.1121, built from the ground up as a fighter/strike aircraft rather than being developed out of an aircraft that's volume-critical to start with (especially where the avionics are concerned), but Hawker is going to be pushing s**t uphill trying to get that into service so long as the Sandys doctrine is in place. Saunders-Roe got closer to getting something into the air (their scaled-down technology demonstrator at least flew); but even if the SR.177 had got off the ground and into production, I suspect its successor would have been a twin-jet. I wonder how an SR.177 with Red Tops would square up against a MiG-25R; the rocket at least gives her the altitude performance, and the Red Tops would have plenty to home in on.

For mine even if Sandys' doctrine was changed the problem becomes the timing of the requirement, the cost of development and ending up with 2 small fleets because the RAF got 9 Lightning sqns for 216 aircraft and 9 Hunter conversion sqns of 161 aircraft. Assuming the Lightning still gets built a 2nd type will enter service later than the Hunter did and Lightning could, cost more than the Lightning could and Hunter did and have a too small production size to reduce fleet and unit costs like the Lightning could.

 

[Rule of cool]

Did the TSR.2 really need the rough field capability? Would hardened hangars on air bases with long runways (as was done with the Buccaneer and Tornado anyway) been good enough and made the TSR.2 somewhat cheaper?

Similarly, for the HS.681. Would it have been good enough (and a lot cheaper) if the specification had called for an aircraft with similar take off & landing characteristics as the C-130K and with Conways or Medways instead of BS.100s.

Instead of the P.1154 go straight to the developed P.1127 (OTL Harrier GR.1) and a Jaguar-class aircraft.

Also build the Spey-Phantom under licence in the UK. The R&D cost would be exactly the same. The production cost is likely to have been the same too due to the Spey-Phantom being a non-standard aircraft and having a large proportion of British built components (in addition to the engines) anyway. Plus the production cost won't be increased by the devaluation of Sterling in 1967.

The RAAF wishlist for the fighter competition that ended up with the Mirage III was for a fighter that could use the dozens of 6,000' runways that were built in WW2. In the event neither Mirage nor F104 could meet this requirement, but the Mirage had better field performance than the F104 which was important in the S.E.A. theatre.

I think the field requirement of the TSR2 and tactical transport should be looked at in this context. For example, currently there are 23 airports in the UK with 9,000'+ runways, but if 6,000' runways are added the total rises to 60 which would obviously be much harder for an enemy to deny the RAF airfields in wartime. So its quire reasonable to insist that the TSR2 be widely deployable to shorter airfields without high load classification, but 3,000' is pushing the requirement too far in my opinion. 5-6,000' and low pavement strength would have given the TSR2 fleet plenty of survival options in anything other than the sort of nuclear strike that would devastate the UK anyway, and lead to a full Vbomber/Polaris counterstrike.

FWIW the Port Stanley airfield was 4,100' and could handle C130 and Harriers but had to be lengthened to 6,000' and fitted with arresting gear for Phantoms.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The RAAF wishlist for the fighter competition that ended up with the Mirage III was for a fighter that could use the dozens of 6,000' runways that were built in WW2. In the event neither Mirage nor F104 could meet this requirement, but the Mirage had better field performance than the F104 which was important in the S.E.A. theatre.

Out of curiosity did the Mirage III with an Avon engine that the RAAF thought of buying (but didn't because of the extra cost) meet the 6,000ft runway requirement? And were some of the 6,000ft runways extended so Mirage IIIs could operate from them?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I think the field requirement of the TSR2 and tactical transport should be looked at in this context. For example, currently there are 23 airports in the UK with 9,000'+ runways, but if 6,000' runways are added the total rises to 60 which would obviously be much harder for an enemy to deny the RAF airfields in wartime. So its quire reasonable to insist that the TSR2 be widely deployable to shorter airfields without high load classification, but 3,000' is pushing the requirement too far in my opinion. 5-6,000' and low pavement strength would have given the TSR2 fleet plenty of survival options in anything other than the sort of nuclear strike that would devastate the UK anyway, and lead to a full Vbomber/Polaris counterstrike.

Again, out of curiosity do you know if the Buccaneer with either engine could have operated from runways that were 5,000 to 6,000ft long? That's with and without rocket assisted take-off.

 

[Rule of cool]

Out of curiosity did the Mirage III with an Avon engine that the RAAF thought of buying (but didn't because of the extra cost) meet the 6,000ft runway requirement? And were some of the 6,000ft runways extended so Mirage IIIs could operate from them?

I don't think so, it was pushed on the RAAF by RR lobbying the government and in the end had very little if any advantage over the Atar9C.

RAAF Tindal was extended to 9000' in the mid 60s and RAAF Learmonth was extended to 10000' in the early 70s, but I don't think these were specifically for the Mirage. Learmonth in particular was to expand the F111s ability to bomb Jakarta.

I think, don't quote me, that the Mirage could operate well from 8000' runways that weren't perfect and the F104 needed more length and a better surface. That limited the F104 to a handful of bases in S.E.A and the Mirage to 2 handfuls, which was enough to get it over the line.

 

[Rule of cool]

Again, out of curiosity do you know if the Buccaneer with either engine could have operated from runways that were 5,000 to 6,000ft long? That's with and without rocket assisted take-off.

I don't know, but the Buccaneer's problem wasn't on the ground but in the air. It simply lacked the performance required by the mid 60s, performance of the A5, F4, Mirage IV and F111.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Buccaneer and would like it to have achieved greater success, but it isn't in the league of the TSR2.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This may be sacrilege but here goes.

Instead of ordering 59 Victor Mk 2 of which 34 were actually built & 89 Vulcan Mk 2 as IOTL reverse that and order 89 Victor Mk 2 & 59 Vulcan Mk 2. Don't cancel any Victors ITTL.

As far as I can see the only significant advantage that the Vulcan had over the Victor was that it was easier to hang Skybolt missiles below the wings. However, if I'm wrong please tell me.

The Victor carried a larger weight of bombs and more big bombs than the Vulcan which made it more useful in cold & hot wars and its lifting capability meant it made a better tanker than the Vulcan.

Still buy 6 squadrons worth of Blue Steel Mk 1 stand-off bombs, but fit all of them to the Vulcans as the 59 built ITTL are enough to form 6 squadrons. Then all the Victor squadrons can be sent to the Middle & Far East if required.

As IOTL the plan was to form 14 Medium Bomber squadrons and one Long Range Photographic Reconnaissance squadron (total 120 UE) in Bomber Command from the 148 Victor & Vulcan Mk 2s, but by 1964 this would have been reduced to 11 MB squadrons & one LRPR squadron (total 96 UE). The surplus aircraft may have replaced the Canberras in Cyprus in the middle 1960s instead of 1969.

IOTL the number of Vulcan B.2 squadrons was reduced from 9 to 7 in 1969, then from 7 to 6 in 1972. The redundant aircraft were used to form a Vulcan SR.2 squadron in 1973. The force was maintained at 6 B.2 & one SR.2 squadrons until late 1981 but all but one disbanded by the end of 1982. The survivor became a tanker squadron in June 1982. It survived in that role until March 1984 when it disbanded and it's place was taken by VC.10 tanker squadron that formed in May 1984.

Meanwhile, the 2 Victor B.2 squadrons were disbanded in 1968 & the sole Victor SR.2 squadron was disbanded in 1974 so the 29 surviving aircraft could be converted to Victor K.2s to replace the Victor Mk 1s in the 3 tanker squadrons & the tanker training flight. However, the Mason Defence Review resulted in the number being cut from 29 to (IIRC) 21 which were used to re-equip 2 Victor K.1 squadrons and the TTF with the third Victor K.1 squadron disbanding in January 1977. One of the Victor K.2 squadrons disbanded in 1986 and the other survived until 1993.

ITTL there were enough Victor Mk 2s to maintain a force of 9 squadrons until the early 1980s, which would have consisted of 6 B.2, 2 K.2 and one SR.2 squadrons. I thought about forming a third K.2 squadron ITTL as was planned IOTL, but a B.2 squadron had to be sacrificed to provide the aircraft. Therefore, the K.1 squadron that disbanded in 1977 IOTL is kept until the early 1980s possibly by rotating the survivors of the 30-odd B.1s that were converted to tankers IOTL.

In common with the Vulcans IOTL 6 out of 7 Victor B.2 & SR.2 squadrons would be disbanded 1981-82 and the seventh would become a Victor K.2 squadron in the summer of 1982 and may continue beyond March 1984. The redundant aircraft from the other 6 squadrons wouldn't be scrapped straight away. Instead were retained for possible conversion to tankers and as a source of spare parts for the Victor K.2s.

The point of this is that I think the Victor B.2 was a better conventional bomber than the Vulcan B.2. So the question dear reader is would the Victor B.2 have performed better than the Vulcan B.2 in the Falklands War? Would the 35 x 1,000lb bombs it could carry do more damage to Port Stanley airport than the 21 x 1,000lb bombs the Vulcan B.2 carry. Or would another 14,000lb of fuel be more useful than 14,000lbs of extra bombs? I.e. would it allow two aircraft to attack at a time instead of one at a time? Sending 2 at a time may also be possible because the number of Victor tankers is increased by 50%. Although the extra aircraft were K.1s rather than K.2s.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The point of this is that I think the Victor B.2 was a better conventional bomber than the Vulcan B.2. So the question dear reader is would the Victor B.2 have performed better than the Vulcan B.2 in the Falklands War? Would the 35 x 1,000lb bombs it could carry do more damage to Port Stanley airport than the 21 x 1,000lb bombs the Vulcan B.2 carry. Or would another 14,000lb of fuel be more useful than 14,000lbs of extra bombs? I.e. would it allow two aircraft to attack at a time instead of one at a time? Sending 2 at a time may also be possible because the number of Victor tankers is increased by 50%. Although the extra aircraft were K.1s rather than K.2s.

I suspect the extra fuel would have been worth more in the specific case of the Falklands.

In just about any other scenario, I'd prefer the extra bombs.

 

[Yellow Palace]

For mine even if Sandys' doctrine was changed the problem becomes the timing of the requirement, the cost of development and ending up with 2 small fleets because the RAF got 9 Lightning sqns for 216 aircraft and 9 Hunter conversion sqns of 161 aircraft. Assuming the Lightning still gets built a 2nd type will enter service later than the Hunter did and Lightning could, cost more than the Lightning could and Hunter did and have a too small production size to reduce fleet and unit costs like the Lightning could.

My scepticism about the Lightning's suitability as a tactical fighter is recorded, but I don't see a realistic UK domestic alternative in a comparable timeframe.

On paper, the P.1121 is more suitable. But it can't show up until two or three years later, and that's assuming that (a) Hawker manage a very tight development timeline, and (b) the UK government ditches Lightning and puts all its effort into P.1121. Neither of those things seem terribly realistic.

I think the field requirement of the TSR2 and tactical transport should be looked at in this context. For example, currently there are 23 airports in the UK with 9,000'+ runways, but if 6,000' runways are added the total rises to 60 which would obviously be much harder for an enemy to deny the RAF airfields in wartime. So its quire reasonable to insist that the TSR2 be widely deployable to shorter airfields without high load classification, but 3,000' is pushing the requirement too far in my opinion. 5-6,000' and low pavement strength would have given the TSR2 fleet plenty of survival options in anything other than the sort of nuclear strike that would devastate the UK anyway, and lead to a full Vbomber/Polaris counterstrike.

AFAIK that's pretty much exactly the logic. Even the 'rough field' requirement seems to have been intended to allow TSR.2 operations from disused WW2 airfields with runways not meeting modern requirements, rather than flying thermonuclear bombs at Mach 2 from a cowfield.

The point of this is that I think the Victor B.2 was a better conventional bomber than the Vulcan B.2. So the question dear reader is would the Victor B.2 have performed better than the Vulcan B.2 in the Falklands War? Would the 35 x 1,000lb bombs it could carry do more damage to Port Stanley airport than the 21 x 1,000lb bombs the Vulcan B.2 carry. Or would another 14,000lb of fuel be more useful than 14,000lbs of extra bombs? I.e. would it allow two aircraft to attack at a time instead of one at a time? Sending 2 at a time may also be possible because the number of Victor tankers is increased by 50%. Although the extra aircraft were K.1s rather than K.2s.

I suspect that you'd need the extra fuel. The Victor wasn't a significantly bigger or longer ranged aircraft than the Vulcan. So, carrying 14,000lb more bombs on leaving Ascension would mean carrying 14,000lb less fuel than the Vulcan, and therefore requiring proportionately more tanker support.

Since the level of tanker support required for BLACK BUCK exceeded 100% of the available tanker force, taking less fuel definitely isn't a viable option.

 

[Rule of cool]

A few things I've picked up on the Victor, I don't know what impact it would have.

The Victor was a very aerodynamically clean aircraft, apparently it could go supersonic in a dive. However it's engines were less powerful than the Vulcan's and I don't think the more powerful Conways fitted to the VC10 couldn't fit into the wing root mountings.

The reason why the Victor wasn't favoured at low level was because it's wings flexed too much. There was a plan to clip the wings to reduce the flex at low level but this wasn't taken up, however when converted to tankers the wingtip flex was moving the drogue around too much, so they wingtips were clipped! The Vulcan was limited to 2g moves, so it's speed at low level was 350 knots, perhaps with clipped wingtips the Victor could have done a reasonable speed at low level.

 

[ArtosStark]

The reason why the Victor wasn't favoured at low level was because it's wings flexed too much. There was a plan to clip the wings to reduce the flex at low level but this wasn't taken up, however when converted to tankers the wingtip flex was moving the drogue around too much, so they wingtips were clipped! The Vulcan was limited to 2g moves, so it's speed at low level was 350 knots, perhaps with clipped wingtips the Victor could have done a reasonable speed at low level.

There was a thread on shipbucket that doesn’t want to come up for me now that laid out the whole family of HP Heavieshttp://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=8737&start=220 be aware it has been a bit finicky for me, sometimes not coming up)

According to it HP considered clipping the wings but came to the conclusion that adding wingtip tanks to the ends of the wings did a better job at extending wing life and also added range. It also mentions that though larger engines could not be added the plan was to add thrust supplying smaller engines to the planned Kuchemann carrots.

I can’t speak to the accuracy or the provenance of the information, but there you go.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

A few things I've picked up on the Victor, I don't know what impact it would have.

The Victor was a very aerodynamically clean aircraft, apparently it could go supersonic in a dive. However it's engines were less powerful than the Vulcan's and I don't think the more powerful Conways fitted to the VC10 couldn't fit into the wing root mountings.

The reason why the Victor wasn't favoured at low level was because it's wings flexed too much. There was a plan to clip the wings to reduce the flex at low level but this wasn't taken up, however when converted to tankers the wingtip flex was moving the drogue around too much, so they wingtips were clipped! The Vulcan was limited to 2g moves, so it's speed at low level was 350 knots, perhaps with clipped wingtips the Victor could have done a reasonable speed at low level.

For what it's worth these are the thrust ratings for the VC.10, Victor Mk 2 and Vulcan Mk 2 according to the Putnams on RAF aircraft since 1918.

VC.10 C Mk 1

22,500lbst RR Conway Mk 301 turbofans​

VC.10 K Mk 2 & K Mk 3 - The book didn't say. However, the Putnams on Vickers Aircraft said.

21,000lbst RR Conway R.Co.42 on the Standard VC.10​

22,500lbst RR Conway R.Co.43 on the Super VC.10​

22,500lbst RC Conway R.Co.43 on the VC.10 C Mk 1​

The VC.10 C Mk 1 was the the Standard VC.10 fuselage with the Super VC.10 engines.​

Victor Mk 2

19,750lbst RR Conway Mk 201 turbofans​

Vulcan Mk 2

17,000lbst BS Olympus 201 turbojets​

or​

20,000lbst BS Olympus 301 turbojets​

Which if correct means the Conway Mk 201 engines on the Victor Mk 2 were a whopping 0.0125% less powerful than the Olympus 301 engines on the Vulcan Mk 2. The Olympus was a turbojet and the Conway was a low-bypass turbofan. Does that mean the latter had better fuel consumption?

 

[Yellow Palace]

The Victor was a very aerodynamically clean aircraft, apparently it could go supersonic in a dive. However it's engines were less powerful than the Vulcan's and I don't think the more powerful Conways fitted to the VC10 couldn't fit into the wing root mountings.

Reportedly, given the same engines, the Victor could go faster, higher and further than the Vulcan. But the Vulcan always had better engines.

AFAIK the engine bays on both Mark 2 V-bombers were dimensionally compatible with both engines, though mounts and installation details would be specific to the engine.

Which if correct means the Conway Mk 201 engines on the Victor Mk 2 were a whopping 0.0125% less powerful than the Olympus 301 engines on the Vulcan Mk 2. The Olympus was a turbojet and the Conway was a low-bypass turbofan. Does that mean the latter had better fuel consumption?

Remember that those are zero speed/zero altitude figures. You'd expect the Olympus to be putting out more thrust at 500 knots and 50,000 feet. You'd expect better fuel consumption from the Conway on the bench, but at speed and altitude the Olympus might be better - that would depend on the specific characteristics of the engines.

 

[Rule of cool]

IIUC the Conway in the Victor had a bypass ratio of 30% but freed of the diameter constraints of the wing root mounting the Conway in the VC10 had a bypass ratio of 80%. I think the bypass ratio of the later JT8 was 140%.

The Victor was a heavier aircraft than the Vulcan, so the same thrust had to work a bit harder.

I like the Victor, I think its underrated, but I don't think the path taken by the V bombers was so wildly wrong that there are big gains to be made by changing them.