MOTS Phantom for the RN?

[zen]

As an aside....
Imagine for a moment that the UK had built 600 fast jet Fighter/Attack platforms as planned in '63, and achieved it by '69.

Irrespective of what that platform was, it would alter subsequent decisions and exports significantly.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Which makes a total of 322.

You can add a hypothetical 175 to 200 airframes as RAF all-weather interceptors, bringing the total to about 500 in an optimistic scenario.

To get to 600, you probably need the Royal Navy to plan on putting five air wings to sea, justifying 200 aircraft for them. A slightly larger RAF short-range interdiction force gets 200. And 200 more for the high-end F(AW) requirement.

 

[uk 75]

P1154 was the UK's attempt at a multi role combat aircraft for the 1960s and 70s.
It has all the hallmarks of UK overambition and poor decisionmaking.
VTOL seemed in 1960 to be the wave of the future (like nuclear powered ships and hovercraft). It appeared to allow survivable airstrips and simpler aircraft carriers.
It was to take another half century of progress and technology not available in 1960 to get the RAF and RN a P1154- the F35B.
Ditch the VTOL requirement and P1154 becomes a Jaguar sized aircraft with the capability of the F4.
Let us call this aircraft the P1960.
In RAF service it would replace Hunters and some Canberras.
Once a suitable radar and missile armament were available it would replace Sea Vixen on about 4 aircraft carriers and then the RAF's Lightnings.
It might have looked like AFVG if BAC had been chosen or like a smaller F4 if Hawkers had.

 

[Archibald]

Of course a left field option might be to go the other way an try to use a pair of RB.153 variants.
Although of lower thrust, their lower weight and fuel economy might actually translate into a more RN carrier friendly version of the F4.

This sort of option was set out for the Lightning, and give the same performance but with more modern engines of easier maintain-ability.

At least one version cranked up projected thrust to over 17,000lb in reheat. Weighing in rather less than an Avon.

Blackburn P.141, cough.

 

[zen]

Ditch the VTOL requirement and P1154 becomes a Jaguar sized aircraft with the capability of the F4.

I think something like that is possible.
Such my thread on the Brough Option.

 

[uk 75]

I think something like that is possible.
Such my thread on the Brough Option.

All discussed in detail here

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/getting-a-british-phantom.37094/#post-495208

 

[starviking]

Which is a long-winded way of saying that Ark Royal, Hermes & Eagle will have to make do with their Sea Vixens until the early 1970s when they're replaced (in that order) by CVA.01, CVA.02 and CVA.03.

For the sake of argument CVA.03 is completed in 1975 and Eagle pays off earlier in that year to provide her crew. Therefore, the British taxpayer gets 11 years of service out of the £31 million spent on her 1959-64 refit, which is three years more than they got IOTL because she was paid off early in 1972 which was eight years after her 1959-64 refit was completed.

That situation lends itself well to a Sea Vixen/Lightning/Phantom-competitor programme for the 70s - à la AFVG. The UK could avoid Spey Phantoms altogether, and possibly start an international programme.

Skyflash could be a casualty though.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

That situation lends itself well to a Sea Vixen/Lightning/Phantom-competitor programme for the 70s - à la AFVG. The UK could avoid Spey Phantoms altogether, and possibly start an international programme.

Avoiding Spey Phantoms altogether is the objective of the thread.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Blackburn P.141, cough.

The following is the text of Post 39 in the thread "Getting a British Phantom" dated 31st October 2021 to which you gave "A Love".

Link to Post 39 of the thread "Getting a British Phandom".

I looked the P.141 up in my copy of Roy Boot's From Spitfire to Eurofighter. According to him (and he should know)...

In 1965, as the brainchild of Rod Melling, came the last of our attack projects, the P.141. This was offered as an alternative concept to the MRCA (later Tornado). The approach was to avoid the size and complexity incurred by having an airframe with the capability of fulfilling a number of roles by a modular approach, where role-related major components could be attached, on the assembly line, to a common core, thereby producing a smaller and cheaper product.

The next paragraph said that the characteristics of the aircraft were...

• Two Bristol Siddeley/SNECMA M45G turbofans of 7,460lb dry thrust and 13,000lb with reheat.
• Wing area 400sqft.
• Span 35ft.
• Length 56ft.
• Basic weight 23,000lb.
• Normal take-off weight 38,000lb.
• Maximum speed about Mach 2.
• Radius of action up to 1,000 miles.
• A good short-field performance was also a feature of the design.

How do they compare to the characteristics quoted in the brochure that you mentioned?

It's in the section on possible Buccaneer successors which also includes the B.123 and P.135 which were to have had reheated Spey engines. Which suggests to me that the P.141 wasn't really a British equivalent to the Phantom. However, the brochure that you are using as your source suggests otherwise.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 323.

Ditch the VTOL requirement and P1154 becomes a Jaguar sized aircraft with the capability of the F4.

This is the January 1964 version of the VTOL P.1154RN with vectored thrust Spey engines.

It had virtually the same length and wingspan as the F-4K Phantom but considerably less wing area - 350sqft v 530sqft.

My guess is that the CTOL version with "ordinary" non-vectored-thrust Speys (or one non-vectored-thrust BS.100) could have the main landing gear in the fuselage which would allow a narrower folded wingspan.

 

[zen]

Wingloading matters for things like coefficient of lift.

So P.1154 with twin Speys vectoring thrust with PCB reheat allows a machine with a 350sqft wing area of that weight to operate safely from a carrier.

The two Speys would weigh over 8,000lb with reheat chambers like those used on the F4K.
On a P1154 the engines alone would force increases in fusilage structure adding more weight....at least 1,000lb more.

So pretty soon in redesign you'd get to needing a 500sqft wing.

This led RR to remove heavy supersonic components from the twin Spey P.1154's engines (making them more like those used in the buccaneer) and when that was discovered their bid was dropped immediately.

 

[Rule of cool]

As an aside....
Imagine for a moment that the UK had built 600 fast jet Fighter/Attack platforms as planned in '63, and achieved it by '69.

Irrespective of what that platform was, it would alter subsequent decisions and exports significantly.

It's what I imagine could happen with the Lightning if it was developed into an FGA/FR instead of the Hunter conversions from 1958. Adding ~180 FGA/FR with maybe 20 2-seaters gets RAF Lightning production up to almost 500. Add in ~80 P1127 and the RAF has almost 600 fast jets in the 60s even without the TSR2 or counting the ~180 RN Buccaneer in that total.

Numbers, numbers, numbers. All my torturous reasoning is about getting those production numbers up.

 

[Rule of cool]

@NOMISYRRUC thanks for all that info.

All I can say is if British Cabinet Ministers changed their undies as much as they changed their Defence procurement plans, they'd be the cleanest dudes on earth.

 

[Rule of cool]

There seems to have been a sense of unreality - on the one hand doing everything to reduce capability to reduce cost but yet underestimating that cost and ending up with fewer less-capable than planned ships at highly-inflated prices

I agree.

I can't help but think a bit of effort into simplifying the overall plan and biting the bullet that these things are required and are expensive would have got them better results from a capability and value for money perspective.

 

[zen]

A brief aside on Lightning.

I think the problem with this is the running costs of a highly specialised development of a research machine.

Brakes and wheels don't just cost money. they need to be available where the aircraft is and that means stocks of them there and a logistics pipeline constantly feeding more from the factory.

The logistics is as much as maintenance time or purchase costs a significant factor.

But once you start tinkering with the design to insert longer life wheels of different form, longer life brakes, easier access etc....your designing a new plane.

 

[Rule of cool]

A brief aside on Lightning.

I think the problem with this is the running costs of a highly specialised development of a research machine.

Brakes and wheels don't just cost money. they need to be available where the aircraft is and that means stocks of them there and a logistics pipeline constantly feeding more from the factory.

The logistics is as much as maintenance time or purchase costs a significant factor.

But once you start tinkering with the design to insert longer life wheels of different form, longer life brakes, easier access etc....your designing a new plane.

Sure, but the P1B was already redesigned from the P1A Mach 1.5 research aircraft to make it into an operational fighter. The P1A was designed to pull 7g and had provision for guns and needed a redesign with an inlet shock cone to go to Mach 2 anyway, so the leap wasn't too outlandish, perhaps akin to the move from F102 to F106.

In any case the Lightning, for better or worse, was the only fighter to survive the 57 DWP and produced for the RAF to the tune of ~280 units, making it the only practical candidate to reach those 450+ production numbers.

To bring this back to the OP; I think to maximise the benefit to the RAF of Lightning and P1127 production, to get the TSR2 over the line and equip the RN with Buccaneer something's got to give and that something is the RNs 60s fighter.

 

[zen]

No to get MOTS F4, you really need to get CVA-01 going. Ideally by just committing to laying a new carrier down in the early 60's.

 

[Rule of cool]

No to get MOTS F4, you really need to get CVA-01 going. Ideally by just committing to laying a new carrier down in the early 60's.

True, the MOTS Phantom is not practical, the Spey Phantom has to happen. I still think it's a better option than a domestic fighter, given the RAF is already taken care of.

 

[uk 75]

As with all the 60s UK threads it comes down to trying to do too much with too little.
Mesmorised by the US, the only Western nation senior Brits respected, the UK tries to set up its own Strategic Air Command (managed to up to 1968), its own nuclear missiles (failed but we get Polaris then Trident on good terms), its own carrier fleet (collapses in 1966 and dies in 1978) and so on and so forth.
The British political and military establishment has to go through the shock of massive devaluation of the Pound and the retreat from Empire in the 60s before it starts to focus on NATO and working with European partners.
Jaguar and then MRCA only become possible once the RAF and British industry has seen for itself what a weapons system (F4) looks like as opposed to a Pilots' Prototype (Lightning and TSR2)
It is no accident that the real heir to the Hunter is the Hawk not the P1154 or Jaguar.
Single engine pilot's aeroplane with no nasty "systems" to worry about.

 

[zen]

True, the MOTS Phantom is not practical, the Spey Phantom has to happen. I still think it's a better option than a domestic fighter, given the RAF is already taken care of.

Actually no.
In fact what could have happened is Sapphire F4 earlier and AS development of said or Avon F4 and RR development of.

What is needed is something better than the J79 of the time and Spey happened to be available in production and RR pitched a supersonic stressed version with the Medway reheat chamber.

But like I said the Anglo-German RB.153 is an alternative and it will fit a standard F4.

But equally the brochure Spey F4 isn't the actual Spey F4 as we've been informed on this forum.

MOTS F4 is possible.....just not the F4B.

 

[Rule of cool]

As with all the 60s UK threads it comes down to trying to do too much with too little.
Mesmorised by the US, the only Western nation senior Brits respected, the UK tries to set up its own Strategic Air Command (managed to up to 1968), its own nuclear missiles (failed but we get Polaris then Trident on good terms), its own carrier fleet (collapses in 1966 and dies in 1978) and so on and so forth.
The British political and military establishment has to go through the shock of massive devaluation of the Pound and the retreat from Empire in the 60s before it starts to focus on NATO and working with European partners.
...........

There's not much wrong there, however I would argue that the British establishment didn't do themselves any favours during this process.

Weight of numbers is something that made the US and USSR superpowers, it also paid off for the French Mirage III, but Britain didn't push to maximise production numbers of its own aircraft. Rather it tried to get bespoke solutions for specific requirements that ended up in small and expensive fleets.

 

[Rule of cool]

Actually no.
In fact what could have happened is Sapphire F4 earlier and AS development of said or Avon F4 and RR development of.

What is needed is something better than the J79 of the time and Spey happened to be available in production and RR pitched a supersonic stressed version with the Medway reheat chamber.

But like I said the Anglo-German RB.153 is an alternative and it will fit a standard F4.

But equally the brochure Spey F4 isn't the actual Spey F4 as we've been informed on this forum.

MOTS F4 is possible.....just not the F4B.

Are you referring to the Rolls-Royce/MAN Turbo RB.153 with 6,850 pounds dry thrust? That's a touch over half the thrust of a Spey or J79, a long way from where it needs to be for the Phantom.

IIUC from the technical discussion earlier in this thread that not even an F4J with the extended nose oleo and drooping airlerons are suitable for the BS151' bow catapults of the Eagle and Ark; particularly in 'coffin corner' of bombers inbound with an unserviceable BS5A cat, low wind, dirty-bottom-slow in hot weather.

 

[zen]

Are you referring to the Rolls-Royce/MAN Turbo RB.153 with 6,850 pounds dry thrust? That's a touch over half the thrust of a Spey or J79, a long way from where it needs to be for the Phantom.

What matters is thrust-to-weight ratio and s.f.c
RB.153 was offered to fit in place of Avons on the Lightning.
Despite it's lower thrust figures it's effect, due to much lower engine weight and thus higher Thrust-to-weight ratio, was to deliver the same performance in the airframe and improved endurance.

Variants of the RB.153 were offered, notably at the time a reheated thrust of 11,750lb but later offerings reached 17,000lb.

 

[Rule of cool]

For what they're worth these are the notes about the cost of the Spey-Phantom. They were handwritten many years ago from books about the Phantom that I found at Northallerton and York libraries. There are three pages and unfortunately I didn't write down the name & author of the book on two out of the three pages and I didn't write the page references for any of them. So they can't be checked.

Don't panic, I trust you!

Sifting through the info you've provided its sort of possible to filter out the 'more real' from the 'less than real' numbers. For example, ~400 units are all well and good but at most the RN needed 4 embarked sqns, a HQ sqn and trials flight and the RAF ostensibly needed to match the proposed P1154 buy of ~168 to replace the Hunter fleet. This means that 140 RN and 182 RAF is a 'real' number while 400 is not.

Similarly, the pre 'project' development cost estimate of 25m became 45m after 11 months of actual 'project' work, yet HMG kept on with the project. I'd point out that not all cost escalations are equal, cost escalations in USD are more consequential than those in Sterling and presumably the money spent on developing the afterburning Spey improved the breed overall, which may have paid off elsewhere.

 

[Rule of cool]

What matters is thrust-to-weight ratio and s.f.c
RB.153 was offered to fit in place of Avons on the Lightning.
Despite it's lower thrust figures it's effect, due to much lower engine weight and thus higher Thrust-to-weight ratio, was to deliver the same performance in the airframe and improved endurance.

Variants of the RB.153 were offered, notably at the time a reheated thrust of 11,750lb but later offerings reached 17,000lb.

Is that realistic for the timeframe?

The fully developed and in production Spey entered service on the Trident and BAC111 in April 1964. Whereas the RB.154 was first run in January 1963, it would need some years' worth of development before entering production, let alone to a point where it could offer 17,000lbs thrust wet.

 

[uk 75]

However you cut it once MDAP dries up the UK is left trying to develop a whole range of new equipment from Chieftain tanks to CVA01 in the late 50s and early 60s.
Fortunately the crazier stuff (SR177, Avro 730, Blue Streak even Blue Water) gets canned but money is still wasted.
Lightning in its fighter role is one of the better buys. For all its faults it can do the job even into the 80s in some cases.
Hunters did not need replacing as quickly as feared. In the Close Air Support role they could count on Lightnings to cover them if needed.
TSR2 suffers from confusion as to its specification. A supersonic Canberra/Valiant replacement to carry mainly nuclear free fall bombs is a very narrow requirement with no export prospects. That the US does the same thing with F111 and gets Australia to buy it is the same bad luck as the 707 making Comet 4 obsolete and VC10 too expensive.
Buccaneer should have been the Canberra replacement. Except in the early 60s it did not seem to offer much better capabilities.
If you look forward from 1960 rather than back to 1960 the UK seems to have cutting edge programmes.
TSR2 has the potential not just to replace Canberra but some of the V bombers too.
P1154 offers Phantomlike capabilities from unprepared strips..
AW681 is a fast jet powered lifter able to get into the front line.

It is only with hindsight in 1966 that these seem like follies and the US alternatives have to be grabbed. Unlike Australia we cannot afford F111s so the Buccaneer and Vulcan have to make do for an extra decade.

No amount of hindsight tinkering can dodge these bullets.

 

[starviking]

What matters is thrust-to-weight ratio and s.f.c
RB.153 was offered to fit in place of Avons on the Lightning.
Despite it's lower thrust figures it's effect, due to much lower engine weight and thus higher Thrust-to-weight ratio, was to deliver the same performance in the airframe and improved endurance.

Variants of the RB.153 were offered, notably at the time a reheated thrust of 11,750lb but later offerings reached 17,000lb.

But that would entail a lot of rebalancing of the aircraft, and who knows how successful, or costly that would be.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Imagine for a moment that the UK had built 600 fast jet Fighter/Attack platforms as planned in '63, and achieved it by '69.

Irrespective of what that platform was, it would alter subsequent decisions and exports significantly.

Agreed, getting a run of 600 airframes of a single type would have greatly helped the UK.

There's not much wrong there, however I would argue that the British establishment didn't do themselves any favours during this process.

Weight of numbers is something that made the US and USSR superpowers, it also paid off for the French Mirage III, but Britain didn't push to maximise production numbers of its own aircraft. Rather it tried to get bespoke solutions for specific requirements that ended up in small and expensive fleets.

Exactly.

The perfect bespoke solution is the enemy of something that can do multiple jobs almost as well for a lot less money because it's got a production run of 10x the bespoke solution.

And the perfect bespoke solution wasn't just a military problem, it also hit the civil aviation side.

But that would entail a lot of rebalancing of the aircraft, and who knows how successful, or costly that would be.

Worse, that's weight coming out of the tail, which makes the aircraft nose-heavy and not want to leave the ground!