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.