Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
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.
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.
