MOTS Phantom for the RN?

[zen]

Now my memory is a bit iffy but Bill Gunston had it at £3.55 million if I reccal correctly. Whether that's F4K or F4M or the average of the lot I'm not sure.

This he contrasts with £1.2 million quoted, and P.1154 of £1.5 million

 

[Rule of cool]

The F-4M did receive extra development on top of that received by the F-4K, but not because of what you were quoting. It's because of these paragraphs from Post 352.
How much did that cost and whether it's included in the £100 million. I haven't the foggiest.

That sentence doesn't make sense. Do you mean?
If you do. No.

IIUC most of the ~100m development cost of the Spey Phantom was driven by the RNs demands to have a Spey and the other carrier stuff, the RAFs gadgets would have added a few million on top of that. Maybe an 80-20 or 90-10 split, so without the RAF buying any the RN would still be up for an 80-90m GBP development bill.

These are ballpark figures of course, when I say 80-90m I mean not 30m, 50m or 120m. If its 78m or 93m that's close enough given the lack of detailed info.

It says on Page 255 of the Putnams on English Electric aircraft that the 14 Lightings sold to Kuwait in December 1966 cost £20 million and the total value of Lightning exports to about £85 million. Saudi Arabia bought 40 new and 7 second hand Lightnings which added to the 14 that were sold to Kuwait makes a total of 61.

• £20 million ÷ 14 = £1.4 million.
  • And.
• £85 million ÷ 61 = £1.4 million.
  • Both are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand Pounds.
  • In fact there's only £35,128 difference between the two calculations - £1,428,571 v £1,393,443.
• £1.4 million x 180 Lightning fighter-bombers for the RAF = £252 million.
  • I presume that's in addition to the 258 production Lightning fighters and trainers built for the RAF IOTL.

Half that cost would be setup and support (which the RAF already has), the unit cost would be closer to 700k. That's the late 60s price, the early 60s price from a larger production run would be lower again, maybe 650k? 180 Lightning fighter-bombers should cost closer to 117,000,000GBP. IIUC this is vastly less than what the RAF spent on Hunter conversions and particular F4M development and F4M production.

• £3.0 million x 110 F-4Ks for the FAA = £330 million.
  • That's based on Derek Wood's cost of well over £3 million each for a Spey-Phantom (regardless of whether it was a F-4K or a F-4M) which may or may not include a proportion of the R&D cost.
• £252 million + £330 million = £582 million.

Using Derek Wood's figure of £3 million a copy 170 F-4Ks cost £510 million, which would have paid for 510 MOTS Phantoms and my estimate of £582 million for 180 fighter-bomber Lightnings and 110 F-4Ks would have paid for 582 MOTS Phantoms.

So no it wouldn't have been vastly cheaper. It would help if Wood and the other source had said how much more than £3 million a Spey-Phantom cost.

Now my memory is a bit iffy but Bill Gunston had it at £3.55 million if I reccal correctly. Whether that's F4K or F4M or the average of the lot I'm not sure.

This he contrasts with £1.2 million quoted, and P.1154 of £1.5 million

~3m GBP at a $2.40 exchange rate makes these planes USD$7.2m apiece. I can't help but think that the 100mGBP development cost is being tacked on to a ~2mGBP unit price.

 

[uk 75]

I seriously question whether a Lightning Mk53 RAF would have made a better ground attack aircraft than the cheaper, simpler Hunter FGA9 or the Phantom FGR2 with its greater range and payload.

 

[zen]

The Hunter doesn't cut it.

To make it do so means adding the avionics planned for P.1154.
Even the radarless Jaguar and Harrier had the avionics fit of the P.1154.
And F4M gained a similar avionics addition.

You'd be better referencing the later Brazilian-Italian AMX....which also toted a superior avionics fit to any mark of Hunter.

Hunter was cheap and nasty and never cleared WE.177...or Martel. Did it even get Bulpup?

Scimitar at least got Bulpup and was cleared for Red Beard.

Sea Vixen actually cleared Martel, and WE.177.

 

[Rule of cool]

I seriously question whether a Lightning Mk53 RAF would have made a better ground attack aircraft than the cheaper, simpler Hunter FGA9 or the Phantom FGR2 with its greater range and payload.

I seriously question the Hunter FGA9 being a good ground attack aircraft for the 1960s Cold War environment. A 1960 ground attack Lightning would have a greater bombload, better avionics to operate in a wider range of more adverse conditions and far more survivable in higher threat scenarios.

Of course a Lightning fighter-bomber is not as good as a Spey Phantom, it's a decade older and costs a mere fraction of the Phantoms price.

Ninja'd by @zen .

 

[uk 75]

I dont think Close Air Support needed missiles. Jaguars only used a couple of older Sidewinders for self defence.
F53 and Hunters would both use bombs and rocket pods. But Hunter is nimbler, easier to fly and operate.
We will have to agree to disagree on what makes a good CAS aircraft as opposed to an Interdict/Strike plane like Canberra and Tornado.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

@NOMISYRRUC
Is it clear when those costs are listed then what they actually are?

That sentence doesn't make sense.

My understanding was one driver was trying to minimise dollar costs. So whilst it may be "three times the cost" in dollars compared to a standard US aircraft from the line, then the 40% expenditure in pounds for UK work has quite a large impact on "cost to UK government"

I'm unable to respond to that because my brain's fried.

 

[Rule of cool]

FWIW these are the criteria against which the Hunter, Gnat and Jet Provost (+ extant Venom) were evaluated in August 1958.

• general performance
• ferry and strike range
• weapons capabilities
• take-off and landing distances on the surfaced runway at RAF Khormaksar and an unprepared airstrip at Riyan
• cockpit environment
• ability to defend itself after interception
• vulnerability to ground fire

Hunter FGA.9

 

[_Del_]

I seriously question the Hunter FGA9 being a good ground attack aircraft for the 1960s Cold War environment. A 1960 ground attack Lightning would have a greater bombload, better avionics to operate in a wider range of more adverse conditions and far more survivable in higher threat scenarios.

It would arguably make a better strike aircraft, except it has half the range of the Hunter, though twice as fast. Drawing little circles on the map in Egypt or the Arabian peninsula or the Pacific/Far East shows how poor it would be for what they wanted. Can you even fly a Lightning to somewhere in the Far East even in ferry mode? Are there enough fields close enough together over that distance, never mind the number of stops? You'd probably have to crate them long distance.
Hunter was more than adequate for CAS/COIN. Lightning was far more expensive to operate, as the Kuwaitis and Saudis learned.
If you're talking about a Jaguar-like role, the Hunter still wins, but only because the Lightning can't reach anything important, and you'll never get a Lightning into an unimproved field like a Hunter or Jag possibly could. For avionics, it's just a matter of cost. If you can stick it in a Lightning, you can find room in the Hunter. Missiles, probably not, though a few export users equipped them with Sidewinders. Singapore kept theirs seemingly forever.
Also worth noting they weren't completely useless sharing air with more modern aircraft which outclassed them, as the Israelis found out.
If you need something more capable than that, you're better off waiting and spending for the Jag than repurposing the Lightning for anything other than point air defence. Hunter was far from perfect, but the main gripe (range/endurance) is far superior to the Lightning. It'd be a step backwards. Saudis dumped the Lightning for ground attack as soon as it got F-5's.

You're comparing a F-104 to an A-4. There's a reason the A-4 stuck around, too. Or all the other similar subsonic CAS/COIN attack aircraft since. SLUF, A-10, AMX, Harrier, Su-25, early MiG's, etc all stuck around or started beyond the "1960s Cold War environment."

I'm not even a big fan of the Hunter. More like a begrudged respect. Every time this topic comes up it seems crazy to me. If you want a strike aircraft in this period, they could design and develop one (as they later did with the Jag) or you can look at the Hunters you already have lying around and say, I think that'd probably do for now. I don't see how the expensive to operate, short-leg, high speed dash Lightning even enters the conversation.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Now my memory is a bit iffy but Bill Gunston had it at £3.55 million if I recall correctly. Whether that's F4K or F4M or the average of the lot I'm not sure.

This he contrasts with £1.2 million quoted, and P.1154 of £1.5 million

Do you remember the book in which he wrote it? According to the internet search I did he wrote two books about the Phantom, "Modern Combat Aircraft: 1 Phantom" which is on Internet Archive and "RAF Aircraft Today: 1 Phantom" which I haven't found on the internet. "Modern Combat Aircraft: 1 Phantom" has no information on the costs of the Phantoms purchased by the UK.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Could they have done an "F-20" and shoved the engine further out the back? Or, would that mean in the aircraft behind in the take off queue?

With as much weight as would be coming off, it'd be close to the next aircraft behind in the queue.

(The most likely solution would be a combination of pushing the engines aft and adding ballast)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Post 362 which disputed the estimated costs for a F-4K & Lightning purchase that I proposed in Post 360.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree. The problem we have is that we (and mainly me) are using costs from books written for enthusiasts which don't quote their sources. If they did and I could afford a week's accommodation in London I'd go to the National Archives and see if the source documents told us how the prices were calculated so we could make accurate like-for-like comparisons.

And how does a mix of F-4Ks and Lightnings get us to the thread's objective of MOTS Phantoms for HM Forces instead of Spey-Phantoms?

 

[red admiral]

I seriously question the Hunter FGA9 being a good ground attack aircraft for the 1960s Cold War environment. A 1960 ground attack Lightning would have a greater bombload, better avionics to operate in a wider range of more adverse conditions and far more survivable in higher threat scenarios.

As gone in in previous threads then there's plenty that was historically done to Hunter to keep it viable way up to the 90s for end of Cold War. Guided weapons, RWR etc. that Lightning never got. As an airframe its like Harrier performance. Subsonic aircraft like Harrier, Corsair, Skyhawk, AMX etc. were / are still very viable for this sort of tactical fighter usage.

I'm unable to respond to that because my brain's fried

Some of the contracts will be in £ and some will be in $. Exchange rate varies. Exchange rate of £ vs other currencies also varies with how much $ spent. Its a non trivial job to add these together so I expect people have previously just taken a lazy but wrong approach to get a final £ or $ number.

 

[zen]

Do you remember the book in which he wrote it? According to the internet search I did he wrote two books about the Phantom, "Modern Combat Aircraft: 1 Phantom" which is on Internet Archive and "RAF Aircraft Today: 1 Phantom" which I haven't found on the internet. "Modern Combat Aircraft: 1 Phantom" has no information on the costs of the Phantoms purchased by the UK.

I think it's "Plane Speaking" but My memory is hazy and it's probably gone from my library as I read it decades ago.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I think it's "Plane Speaking" but My memory is hazy and it's probably gone from my library as I read it decades ago.

I found it on Internet Archive.

Near the bottom of Page 177 it says the following.

So instead they bought the nice cheap Phantom at about £1 million, except that by 1966 it had become £1.15 million, by 1967 £1.25 million, in 1968 £1.4 million in January 1969 £2.05 millions and in the 1970s, when everything had to leak out, it was found that the actual unit price was almost exactly £3 million, or just double the estimate for the cancelled British aircraft.

The cancelled aircraft being the P.1154RN which was estimated to cost £1.5 million at the time of its cancellation. Gunston claims that the P.1154RAF was cancelled in favour of the Phantom because it would be in service sooner, not because the Phantom was (expected to be) cheaper.

It’s in a chapter called “More Poke, Less Speed” about putting the Nene into the Vampire, Avon into the Australian built Sabres and Speys into the Phantom.

 

[Archibald]

As gone in in previous threads then there's plenty that was historically done to Hunter to keep it viable way up to the 90s for end of Cold War. Guided weapons, RWR etc. that Lightning never got. As an airframe its like Harrier performance. Subsonic aircraft like Harrier, Corsair, Skyhawk, AMX etc. were / are still very viable for this sort of tactical fighter usage.

Didn't the Swiss bought moar, refurbished Hunters by 1973 - after a murderous fight between A-7 and Milan-Mirage ? And those Hunters remained in service beyond the end of Cold War if not the turn of the century.

 

[zen]

Gunston claims that the P.1154RAF was cancelled in favour of the Phantom because it would be in service sooner, not because the Phantom was (expected to be) cheaper.

Yes, that is backed up from other sources that Soviet Air Display in '63 had NATO analysts in a tizz over the Anti-ship missiles carried by bombers. The threat had increased and the likes of Sea Vixen was felt inadequate to defend against it.
Made worse by the AEW then in service.

This actually matches the then funding AMTI circuits on AI.18 for look-down and potential shoot-down capability as well as it's use in research for future AEW.

F4K schedule in brochures was very quick based on an assumption Spey and other modifications would be fairly simple.

 

[Rule of cool]

And how does a mix of F-4Ks and Lightnings get us to the thread's objective of MOTS Phantoms for HM Forces instead of Spey-Phantoms?

The objective of the thread was find if a MOTS Phantom could operate from RN carriers, or if the whole Spey saga was necessary. The Spey was a requirement because of the bow cats on Ark and Eagle.

As for the Lightning, if the RAF adopts an FGA/FR version instead of the Hunter conversion there will be no RAF Phantom requirement that could piggyback on the RN programme.

 

[uk 75]

The objective of the thread was find if a MOTS Phantom could operate from RN carriers, or if the whole Spey saga was necessary. The Spey was a requirement because of the bow cats on Ark and Eagle.

As for the Lightning, if the RAF adopts an FGA/FR version instead of the Hunter conversion there will be no RAF Phantom requirement that could piggyback on the RN programme.

Resounding no on both counts:

F4B cannot operate from UK carriers

Lightning not a viable Hunter replacement

But carry on flogging defenceless horses if you must. But this is now boring.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The objective of the thread was find if a MOTS Phantom could operate from RN carriers, or if the whole Spey saga was necessary. The Spey was a requirement because of the bow cats on Ark and Eagle.

So if we can get a point of departure farther back in history for the UK to build Malta-class (or some other Midway-sized carriers), MOTS Phantom can fly. Otherwise we're stuck with Spey Phantoms or buying something different.

 

[Rule of cool]

So if we can get a point of departure farther back in history for the UK to build Malta-class (or some other Midway-sized carriers), MOTS Phantom can fly. Otherwise we're stuck with Spey Phantoms or buying something different.

If Malta's or the 1952 carriers have 151' BS5 catapults they will also need Spey Phantoms or be refitted with 199' BS5A catapults. I'd guess these bigger ship would be easier to refit with all BS5As though.

 

[Scott Kenny]

If Malta's or the 1952 carriers have 151' BS5 catapults they will also need Spey Phantoms or be refitted with 199' BS5A catapults. I'd guess these bigger ship would be easier to refit with all BS5As though.

refitting the longer BS5As or maybe even fitting them originally would hopefully be enough.

Because the UKRN lost so much capability when they gave up carriers with catapults. No chance of E1 or E2 AEW (or whatever the French were using), no chance of S2 or S3 ASW.

 

[BlackBat242]

refitting the longer BS5As or maybe even fitting them originally would hopefully be enough.

Because the UKRN lost so much capability when they gave up carriers with catapults. No chance of E1 or E2 AEW (or whatever the French were using), no chance of S2 or S3 ASW.

The French first used Grumman TBM-3 AEW aircraft, but developed the Breguet BR.1050 Alizé in the 1950s.

This was primarily an ASW aircraft, but I have read that the French were using the sea search radar of the Alizé for air search, similar to how the APS-20 started as a surface-search radar [and was so used on the P-2 Neptune] but was found to be capable of air search as well.

The difference was that the APS-20 was modified to be a better AEW radar, but the Alizé's radar was never developed into a separate AEW model, and was just used in an improvised manner.

It was not until CdG was commissioned and equipped with the E-2 Hawkeye that the MN once again had a purpose-built AEW carrier-based aircraft.

 

[Rule of cool]

refitting the longer BS5As or maybe even fitting them originally would hopefully be enough.

I'd think that even with the 199' BS5As a Malta would still need the F4J not B and need the extended nosewheel oleo and drooping ailerons. But that's nothing compared to fitting the Spey.

 

[Archibald]

Thomson CSF Iguane was common to the Atlantique 2 and upgraded Alizés, after 1981. As you said @BlackBat242 it was used as a makeshift AEW.
France could have bought refurbished E-1B Tracers, and in fact (according to some research I did on Google books) almost did it twice; at both ends of the Clemenceau class lives: in the 1960's and in the 1980's.
-ARA Argentina Trackers did land on the Sao Paulo, ex Foch, in the 2000's.
-And the French flying firemen (La Sécurité Civile) used turboprop Tracker water bombers for a very long time. Synergies for maintenance would be easy to implement, for example the Aéronavale Nimes-Garon base was often used by the Sécurité Civile.

Ideally, France would have bought second-hand E-1Bs in the 1960's and later put turboprops on them... Turbotracer !

We should explore E-1B operations out of Hermes and Victorious. Should be pretty doable, if Clems did it.

My dream Aéronavale air group for Clems features
-Mirage F1M : larger wing, M53 turbofan
-A-7E Corsair II, built by SNIAS Aérospatiale in Toulouse under a Vought licence;
-E-1C TurboTracer
-Breguet 941 Carrier Onboard Delivery

An even more ambitious story would have a Vought - Dassault - SNIAS - Pratt - SNECMA partnership (broadly similar to the May 17th 1965 anglo-french agreement : AFVG, Jaguar, helicopters) France would bargain A-7E for Mirage G (as VFAX-1), all of them with TF306E with/without afterburner.

 

[zen]

The '52 CV was settling down on two 151ft and one 199ft. But arguments for 177ft (Fighter) and 211ft (zero WOD Strike) were strong. It would certainly have future proofed the design.
The pressures were to be higher and greater steam generated than necessary for propulsion.

But we can also say DAW wanted 200ft bow catapults, but a 870ft deck constrained them below that figure. Even as DNC pushed back the 'landing on' spot, which worried everyone.

In the end two 211ft would be pretty good if possible.

 

[Hood]

On costs, I have some early figures.

Jan 1964 McDonnell quoted a unit cost of $2.204mil based on R&D amortisation over 325 aircraft or $2.42mil over 150 aircraft. Stock F-4J was $1.8mil.

Jan 1964
MoD estimated 130 F-4 costing £1mil each = £130mil, or 130 P.1154B £180mil (production cost only)
MoA estimated 130 F-4 costing £1.2mil each = £156mil, or 130 P.1154B £180mil (production cost only)
Or just buying 22 extra Sea Vixens to tide over into the mid-70s would cost £16mil

Feb 1964 estimated costs:
Unit cost £850,000 - 140 would cost £119mil
Spey installation R&D £25-30mil
Support/spares costs £25-30mil
Deliveries to begin early 1968. Need to order by mid-64 to get "full benefit of sharing production with the U.S. Navy."
Extra cost to Defence Vote - estimated around £130mil

Feb 1964
Another estimate:
Engine R&D £15mil
Airframe £15mil
140 aircraft £119mil
Support/spares £30mil
Total £179mil

Or stock J79 powered F-4J
140 aircraft £91mil
Support/spares £25mil
Total £116mil

In addition, Red Top cost £14,000 each, Sparrow only £8,500, making the Sparrow package (1,000 missiles) £10mil including support costs.

 

[Rule of cool]

The '52 CV was settling down on two 151ft and one 199ft. But arguments for 177ft (Fighter) and 211ft (zero WOD Strike) were strong. It would certainly have future proofed the design.
The pressures were to be higher and greater steam generated than necessary for propulsion.

But we can also say DAW wanted 200ft bow catapults, but a 870ft deck constrained them below that figure. Even as DNC pushed back the 'landing on' spot, which worried everyone.

In the end two 211ft would be pretty good if possible.

Interesting, without a refit to give the ship at least 2 199' BS5As even the 52 carrier would need Speys? Perhaps if that ship or a Malta was built the BS5 might have gotten different catapult lengths, like the 177' and 211'.

Of course neither of these ships came close to being built.

 

[alertken]

Why was MOTS “F-4UK”/J79 repeatedly rejected, 2/64-11/65?

Actual: 18/2/63 P.1154A/RAF, B/RN R&D ITP; deflected thrust reheated Twin Spey rejected;
BS.100+PCB ITP: 25/3/63 (to run, dry, 30/10/64).

Then: RR+McAir explore reheated Spey/F-4B for RN, all “knowing” J79 won't do for Ark Small.

27/2/64: RN persuades Ministers that single engine overwater is bad, so escapes P.1154B.
MoA trickles (to be Spey 202) Study. By Summer that is Ministers' intent; DoD cash Offer at standard USN price to USN standards, price for UK “peculiars” (inc engine/fit) to be agreed. Suspended for General Election, won by the other lot 16/10/64.

27/10/64: UK/DoD contract, 4x(Y)F-4K; MoA/RR ITP (cost plus) Spey 202 R&D. Quantity to be defined before 1/7/65 to catch last DoD orders. Labour inherits 3xCV+Design work for CVA-01.

7/12/64: LBJ offers PM Wilson on credit F-4/RAF (to be defined), C-130E/H-ish, F-111A, all priced to DoD standards, prices for UK peculiars to be agreed.

2/2/65: P.1154A canx; 17/2/65 RAF wants many F-4UK NOW!

5/65:RAF and RN now “would accept” J79 at F-4J upgrade, “certain Naval techniques improved” (this is in 5/12/68 Commons debate, Public Accounts Committee, 4/11/68: ?reheat onto the wire removes 1964's key Spey slam reheat/bolter advantage.

Ministers were briefed “additional cost to put Spey in Phantom”: £80-90Mn.(? R&D only, as PAC also had Unit price doubled by c.£1.5Mn.) Ministers paid for “superior performance, devt. potential, technical & industrial advantages”.
6/7/65: MoA/DoD order: 2 YF-4M, 20 F-4K, 38 F-4M.

13/11/65: Healey revisits J79 “£100Mn. saving”, but MoA R.Jenkins prevailed, that Spey canx would do “harm to RR's intnl. Standing” A.S.Bennell,Def.Pol.&RAF, MoD AHB,94,P.69.

17/11/65: RR commitment public: Daily Express reports 300 F-4s, 800 engines at £175K ea.

14/11/67: HoC: 170 F-4s ordered, >40% (by value) in UK for £80Mn.

So: WhifPoD: Q: what does it take for Ministers to take the J79 saving, at least on F4M?

A: None. Null. Nix. Forget it. You heard it here first:

Negotiations begun 1963 were moving towards 21/12/65 Letter of Intent, largest-ever UK export contract (for anything: talk of £1.5Bn): Saudi Arabian Air Defence Scheme. Prospects prejudiced by workload gap at BAC/RR after last RAF Lightning F.6. Bridged with many Spey 202 and with UK-peculiar F-4 structure from BAC/Preston.

 

[Rule of cool]

5/65:RAF and RN now “would accept” J79 at F-4J upgrade, “certain Naval techniques improved” (this is in 5/12/68 Commons debate, Public Accounts Committee, 4/11/68: ?reheat onto the wire removes 1964's key Spey slam reheat/bolter advantage.

Does this mean the F4J could operate from Ark and Eagle?

 

[TsrJoe]

HMS. Hermes, Eagle, Ark Royal ...

 

[TsrJoe]

cross decking on USS. Independence ... https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BV7n2LHVT/

 

[Rule of cool]

cross decking on USS. Independence ... https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BV7n2LHVT/View attachment 757022

Are there photos of Buccaneers or Gannets on USN carriers?

 

[TsrJoe]

Fairey Gannet, 849 NAS. on USS. Forrestal, 1962, USS. Randolph, 1966, Buccaneer was regularly cross decked with USN. indeed carrier suitability trials took place on the wooden decked USS. Lexington.
I will add a few more to the FB. compilation album liked above

 

[alertken]

$Offset. There is 1 PoD to admit MOTS F-4UK: that Lightning loses Saudi before 6/7/65.
Upthread Q asks if SAADS "counted" in F-111K Offset.

SAADS was not a sale of aeroplanes: it was Air Defence, Contractorised: everything, bricks and bogs, bar only aircrew. No single Brit entity knew how to do that - forget any form of pricing, even SWAG (Sheer Wild Ass Guess). Airwork Services had done oddjobs in sandpits so BAC roped them onboard when the Scheme notion arose in '63. Northrop was learning (to be Sustainment) fast, totally supporting IIAF F-5A/B wef 2/65 with NWASI (N. World-Wide Aircraft Services Intnl), starting a process that would build Iran A/c Industries as military maintainer; Lockheed had wide involvement in keeping F-104s alive, supported RSaAF C-130E, and was pitching for Management of EW radars and AD comms., aided by presence of US Army Corps of Engineers. RSaAF would buy F-5s. Brits had no chance.

Offset had not been sought for F-4K, 10/64, nor for 1/65 package, C-130, F-4M: credit sufficed, OK.
With 6/4/65 F-111K Option UK secured SecDef's intent to Offset $400Mn. Did this include AnySaudiThing?

State Dept, Office of the Historian, 8/11/65: 239. Embtel 344.2 Saudi Air Defense:
“2. We do not believe we would have great difficulty in equalling UK credit terms for our portion of combined package. Suggest you so inform Sultan jointly with UK reps on Wednesday when they expected present their credit offer. (UK MinAv official Christie suggested this.)

3.Providing Lightning a/c, ground radars and Hawk system radars use Mark 10 IFF interrogator/transponder eqpt and manual command control is used, the proposed joint US-UK air defense package (of) Lightnings, 3-D radars, Hawks and comm. systems does appear to constitute a viable AD system. Categoric assurance can only be given after US and UK technical experts discuss detailed composition of UK package elements. Discussion expected within next two weeks.”

“We could not have made the offer, never mind won (without US help)” Healey: R.W.Howe,Weapons,Sphere,80,P687.


​

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I thought @Archibald had written a post saying that the 3 ways to get a MOTS Phantom were:

1. Have 3 Maltas laid down instead of the 3 OTL Audacious class and have all 3 completed in the 1950s.
2. Have a number of 1952 Fleet Aircraft Carriers built in the 1950s.
3. Have the CVA.01 class built earlier so that at least 2 were in service by 1970 with at least one more following by 1975.

However, when I looked through the thread I couldn't find it. Although with my luck, it is there and I didn't go far enough back in the thread.

This non-post by @Archiballd ninja'd a post that I had abandoned before uploading which did the 3 options above in more detail and an Option 4 which only @uk 75 will like, which is . . . the Government decides to leave the Strike Carrier business early enough for MOTS Phantoms to be purchased because there were no CATOBAR aircraft carriers for the Spey-Phantom to operate from. The POD for that might be the Sandys Defence Review as IIRC he wanted to abandon carrier based air power there and then, but on that occasion the Admiralty defeated him. There wasn't an Admiralty in 1966 because it became the the Ministry of Defence (Navy) in 1964.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I thought @Archibald had written a post saying that the 3 ways to get a MOTS Phantom were:

1. Have 3 Maltas laid down instead of the 3 OTL Audacious class and have all 3 completed in the 1950s.
2. Have a number of 1952 Fleet Aircraft Carriers built in the 1950s.
3. Have the CVA.01 class built earlier so that at least 2 were in service by 1970 with at least one more following by 1975.

However, when I looked through the thread I couldn't find it. Although with my luck, it is there and I didn't go far enough back in the thread.

Is it maybe in the British Phantom thread?

This non-post by @Archiballd ninja'd a post on a post that I had abandoned before uploading which did the 3 options above in more detail and an Option 4 which only @uk 75 will like, which is . . . the Government decides to leave the Strike Carrier business early enough for MOTS Phantoms to be purchased because there were no CATOBAR aircraft carriers for the Spey-Phantom to operate from. The POD for that might be the Sandys Defence Review as IIRC he wanted to abandon carrier based air power there and then, but on that occasion the Admiralty defeated him. There wasn't an Admiralty in 1966 because it became the the Ministry of Defence (Navy) in 1964.

Yes, that'd work, but wasn't the RN 2/3rds of the Phantom buy?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Yes, that'd work, but wasn't the RN 2/3rds of the Phantom buy?

I don't see why that's relevant to Option 4, but no it wasn't.

• Originally it was 100% of the Phantom buy. That is 140 F-4K for the RN (and none for the RAF) out of 140 Phantoms when the P.1154RN was cancelled.
• It was briefly 43% (2/5ths) of the Phantom buy. That 140 F-4K for the RN (and 182 F-4M for the RAF) out of 322 Phantoms when the P.1154RAF was cancelled.
• It was actually 31% (1/3rd) of the Phantom buy. That is 52 F-4K for the RN (and 118 F-4M for the RAF) out of 170 Phanoms that were actually built.
• However, 20 of the F-4Ks were delivered to the RAF, which means the RN only received 32 of the 170 Phantoms that were actually built, which is 19% (1/5th).
• And the survivors of the 32 F-4Ks delivered to the RN were transferred to the RAF when 767NAS (the RN's Phantom training squadron) and 892NAS (Ark Royal's Phantom squadron) were disbanded. (Or as the were RN squadrons were they decommissioned rather than disbanded?)

I know that some people will say that the RN received 28 F-4Ks. I'm saying 32 because I'm including the 2 YF-4Ks and 2 F-4Ks built for the Ministry of Aviation/Ministry of Technology/Ministry of Defence (Procurement Executive) in the total received by the RN.

 

[Rule of cool]

IIRC the RN lost 8 Phantoms during their FAA service

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

There's also an Option 5.

Make the TTL MOTS Phantom the Spey-Phantom. Ideally, it would be built for the US Armed Forces instead of the F-4B and F-4C onwards, but it's more likely to be from the F-4D and F-4J onwards. One of the OTL F-4L proposals was for a Spey-powered aircraft that could operate safely from the Essex class.

There are several precedents for British aero engines being built under licence (and in quantity) in the USA for American military aircraft. Obviously, there's the 1,440 non-afterburning AR.168/TF41 Speys built by Allison for the A-7D Corsair II onwards. There's the Nene and Tay which were built under licence by P&W as the J42 (1,139 built) and J48 (4,108 built). Wright built 10,023 Sapphires under licence as the J52.

Ideally, the A-7A-to-D would have had non-afterburning TF41s instead of their OTL TF30s, with bonus points for the F-111 and F-14 built with afterburning TF41s instead of TF30s too. More bonus points would be for the USN to have the J79s on its A-5s replaced by afterburning TF41s in the interest of standardisation.

I also looked into the TF41 supplanting the J79 on the Starfighter from the F-104G onwards, but it looks like the best that could be done is for Aeritalia to build the F-104S with RR-built Speys for which there's a "subsequent" as the AMX had a non-afterburning Spey. The IAI Kifir had a licence-built J79 engine which ITTL might be a licence-built TF41 to standardise with the TF41-engined Phantoms they had ITTL.