Replacing the Andover

[uk 75]

I used to love the Andover when it delivered land rovers and guns during the Battle of Britain days at Benson or Abingdon in the 1960s.
The Dornier Do31 lookalike DH129 would have made an interesting replacement. As it was the Andover left service in the 70s leaving the Hercules to be used instead.
The Breguet 941 could have been a suitable substitute or the Fiat G222.

 

[Pirate Pete]

Don’t forget that the R.A.F. Actually preferred the Handley Page HP.124 and they were overruled by one of the Government Ministry’s.

 

[red admiral]

Chinook hasn't done bad as a replacement

Same load delivered, not as far, but directly to where wanted

 

[ArtosStark]

Don’t forget that the R.A.F. Actually preferred the Handley Page HP.124 and they were overruled by one of the Government Ministry’s.

Wasn’t the original driver for the aircraft from the Army? IIUC Army interest drove the RAF to put out the tender. I believe the Army actually originally wanted (or at least based their desire for a light hauler on) the DHC-4 Caribou:

de Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

If you are looking for an Andover replacement and are willing to buy outside of the UK (always a difficult question) then the Caribou might be a good option?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I used to love the Andover when it delivered land rovers and guns during the Battle of Britain days at Benson or Abingdon in the 1960s.
The Dornier Do31 lookalike DH129 would have made an interesting replacement. As it was the Andover left service in the 70s leaving the Hercules to be used instead.
The Breguet 941 could have been a suitable substitute or the Fiat G222.

Does this include replacing the Andovers used in the calibration and communications/VIP roles?

 

[uk 75]

No as these did not require STOL cargo lift capability

 

[Pirate Pete]

Bearing in mind what was RAF Transport Command/Air Support Command was decimated when the contraction of Far East basing occurred - vast numbers of transport types were struck from the RAF inventory this is going to be yet another ‘what-if’ scenario…
Let us presume that things play out differently…whilst not going so far as the actual total abandonment of the the ‘East of Suez’ policy, but more of a reduction, there will still be a requirement for transport aircraft of all types (cf Chris Gibson’s ‘On Atlas’s Shoulders’. COULD a candidate for an Andover replacement be in the form of the BAe 146…
It was greatly delayed in coming into production due to postponement and changing Government priorities as regards aircraft production.
it did operate as a replacement for Andovers in the Queens/Royal (or whatever nonsensical name it now has) flight as VIP transports and there was a transport version proposed…
an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the 146 is below:

BAe 146STA​

BAe 146 STA demonstrator
Throughout the production life of the BAe 146, British Aerospace proposed a number of specialised military versions, including side- and rear-loading transports, an airborne tanker version,[60] and a carrier onboard delivery version.[61] Out of these proposals came the BAe 146STA (Sideloading Tactical Airlifter), based on the BAe 146QT cargo aircraft and sharing its cargo door on the left side of the rear fuselage. This military-transport version has a refuelling probe protruding from the nose; a demonstrator, fitted with a dummy refuelling probe and an air-openable paratroop door, was displayed at the 1989 Paris Air Showand carried out extensive demonstration tours, but no orders resulted.

Just a thought….

 

[Rule of cool]

Chinook hasn't done bad as a replacement

Same load delivered, not as far, but directly to where wanted

I read not too long ago that during the recent wars on terror in the Middle East that STOL aircraft from the Vietnam era like the OV10 Bronco, DHC4 Caribou and DHC5 Buffalo could have done 90% of the missions of utility and cargo helicopters at something like 1/5 of the cost. Most of these helicopter missions were to places like fire-bases where a STOL airstrip could have been easily carved out, and in fact virtually was.

That's not to play down the awesome CH47, I'm a bandit for being prepared for the worst case scenario where only the chook will do, so they have to be in the force structure. However it's a pretty expensive way to do milk runs the rest of the time.

 

[red admiral]

I'm a bandit for being prepared for the worst case scenario where only the chook will do, so they have to be in the force structure. However it's a pretty expensive way to do milk runs the rest of the time.

Or if you've already paid for them and paid for Operations and Support for a number of flight hours per year, then using them is "free" apart from the small portion of O&S that goes on consumables like fuel, oil, and usage-related maintenance.

In small force structures its difficult for more nice / less flexible systems to buy their way in. Probably a key driver for fixed wing STOL light transports is needing substantially longer range than helicopters can provide e.g between islands

 

[riggerrob]

Also consider the budget of a small, third-world Air Force when trying to chose between heavy helicopters (e.g. CH-47 Chinook) and medium STOL airplanes like Shorts Skyvan and DHC-?.
The Sultan of Oman chose Skyvans to support his fight against mountain tribes. STOL airplanes operate for 1/10 the cost of helicopters. Note also that most 1960s vintage helicopters struggled to hover above 5,000 feet.

Helicopters do have an advantage when disgruntled locals scatter land mines on landing strips.

Finally consider the dilemma of the USAF/CIA/DEA in equipping third-world countries that they might have to re-invade in a few more years. The last thing the USAF wants is a third-world Air Force equipped with the latest in F-35s armed with the latest fashion in air-to-air missiles. Far better to give them Cessna 208 Caravans armed with Hellfire missiles. Send them a Hellfire variant with a short shelf life.

 

[Apophenia]

I'm a bit confused by the title and original post. Does "Replacing"/"replacement" infer that the old Andover C.1 needed to be retired and replaced by 'x'? Or does it mean that the HS 780 should never have been procured and, instead, 'x' should have been adopted for service?

If the latter, the historical preference was the ramped Dart-Herald. Should that option be unavailable (or unaffordable), I would suggest the Dart-powered DHC-5 as proposed to the Indian Air Force. For the Andover E.3 alternative, I would recommend an HS 748 variant.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Bearing in mind what was RAF Transport Command/Air Support Command was decimated when the contraction of Far East basing occurred - vast numbers of transport types were struck from the RAF inventory this is going to be yet another ‘what-if’ scenario…
Let us presume that things play out differently…whilst not going so far as the actual total abandonment of the the ‘East of Suez’ policy, but more of a reduction, there will still be a requirement for transport aircraft of all types (cf Chris Gibson’s ‘On Atlas’s Shoulders’. COULD a candidate for an Andover replacement be in the form of the BAe 146…
It was greatly delayed in coming into production due to postponement and changing Government priorities as regards aircraft production.
it did operate as a replacement for Andovers in the Queens/Royal (or whatever nonsensical name it now has) flight as VIP transports and there was a transport version proposed…

The side-loading BAe146s are a non-starter. Side loading cargo is the slowest way. A rear ramp means a very different rear structure (compare C130 and P3, or 747 and C5)

Side-loading cargo works acceptably for most civilian air cargo haulers (DHL, FedEx, UPS etc) because they're refueling the plane at the destination. The military is assuming no refueling and potentially people shooting at the plane while it's on the ground, so the plane needs to be able to empty the cargo as quickly as possible.

 

[Hood]

The side-loading BAe146s are a non-starter. Side loading cargo is the slowest way. A rear ramp means a very different rear structure (compare C130 and P3, or 747 and C5)

My theory is that given the Andover did not sell on the export market and that most air forces brought the standard 748 with side-doors, that BAe may not have been too worried about the lack of a ramp on the 146 for the military 748 replacement market.

That the Andover didn't sell on the export market is puzzling though, given the 748 did well and the DHC-5 picked up some modest sales. Perhaps it was just a little too big with the Shorts Skyvan being perceived as more compact and handy for rough and ready areas?

 

[CJGibson]

My theory is that given the Andover did not sell on the export market and that most air forces brought the standard 748 with side-doors, that BAe may not have been too worried about the lack of a ramp for the military 748 market.

That the Andover didn't sell on the export market is puzzling though, given the 748 did well and the DHC-5 picked up some modest sales. Perhaps it was just a little too big with the Shorts Skyvan being perceived as more compact and handy for rough and ready areas?

I seem to recall the Air Staff preferred the HP.124 but the Andover won on crockery storage. Small matter of pushing loads uphill on the Andover and when kneeled it might as well be a tail dragger. HP.124 had truckbed loading and simpler undercarriage. Handley Page politics again.

Chris

 

[Hood]

I seem to recall the Air Staff preferred the HP.124 but the Andover won on crockery storage. Small matter of pushing loads uphill on the Andover and when kneeled it might as well be a tail dragger. HP.124 had truckbed loading and simpler undercarriage. Handley Page politics again.

Chris

Yes, that is very true. The Air Staff wanted the HP.124 and felt it was the better design. The Army wanted Caribous. Everyone lobbying hard but Canadian dollars (and uranium) and Sir HP holding out for high share prices couldn't counteract the pull towards the 748.*

*My research into this hints at other financial skulduggery going on at the MoA.

Some of the bigger 748 developments like the 758 looked better, but cost more.

 

[riggerrob]

Yes, that is very true. The Air Staff wanted the HP.124 and felt it was the better design. The Army wanted Caribous. Everyone lobbying hard but Canadian dollars (and uranium) ….

It was more like trading guns for butter. British guns and ships were traded for Canadian butter. Remember that Ritalin was bankrupted by the high cost of World War 2 and she lost her trading advantages with her more profitable colonies. Food was still rationed in Britain well into the 1950s. Well into the 1950s the Royal Canadian Navy traded butter for ships (aircraft carriers like HMCS Bonaventure) and airplanes (Hawker Sea Furies).
In my alternate history “RCAF ‘46” Canada takes over administering several British colonies in the Caribbean, turning a profit by shipping Jamaican bauxite to Canadian smelters, etc.
The RCN retains a few troop ships while the RCAF expands its transport fleet with dozens more Canadair Yukons (aka Bristol Britannia). Due to a disagreement with the USA over landing rights, RCAF transports need longer ranges that allow them to refuel in Bermuda or Mexico before continuing on to Carribean Islands.
The need for faster over-flights drives Avro Canada to manufacture dozens of Jetliners to replace the handful of dH Comets purchased in the original timeline.

 

[Hood]

It was more like trading guns for butter. British guns and ships were traded for Canadian butter. Remember that Ritalin was bankrupted by the high cost of World War 2 and she lost her trading advantages with her more profitable colonies. Food was still rationed in Britain well into the 1950s. Well into the 1950s the Royal Canadian Navy traded butter for ships (aircraft carriers like HMCS Bonaventure) and airplanes (Hawker Sea Furies).

We're talking 1962-63 here, not the early 1950s.

You would not believe the scale of lobbying on this deal - its just crazy; Sir T.O.M. Sopwith, Mountbatten, Lords, Sir HP, Roy Dobson, politicians, the PM, Air Marshals, Canadian politicians, Indianpoliticians, Scottish politicians, Northern Irish politicians, banks, the Army, uranium requests, Treasury officials, unions.
Other interests: Sabres, uranium, Dakotas, Comets, Rotodyne, grouse shooting, mud, navigator training, supersonic bombers, redundancy payments, balance of payments, Dollars.
Locations: Cyprus, Oman, Ottowa, Suffolk, Prestwick, gentleman's clubs, private estates, Whitehall.

Shoot a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Martlesham Heath with all that stuff.

 

[alertken]

CJG would be forgiven for grumpiness (he has shown none): his crockery comment can only be understood by reading Chapter 9 of his On Atlas' Shoulders. Our problem is that new input here must enhance a relevant Hikoki SP volume, but that oeuvre is expensive. He displays reasons that the Martlesham Heath fly-off, 7/61, HS748 v Herald, was, ah, moot, and HS won with Andover C.1, 13/2/62. He misses only that MoA had inspired 1959/60 Industry mergers by committing to favour merged Groups for future business: so:

Q: why chop Victor B.2 order 7/60, so draining HP's dowry?
A: Skybolt.

Mk. 2 Victor and Vulcan were R&D funded 31/5/56 to carry Blue Steel stand-off Bomb: orders by 6/57 (when neither had flown) were for 57/Victor, 89/Vulcan, both equal candidates for any of Avro/HP schemes for longer range Steels. But 13/4/60 UK announced intent to buy Skybolt, and signed the Memo. of Understanding, 6/6/60. MoA appointed Avro/Weapons Research Div as Skybolt UK Sister Firm, who advised MoA of difficulty of hanging Skybolt on Victor wing: HP promptly contradicted, but that was advice MoA wanted to hear, to confine Skybolt Installation R&D to one platform from a firm dutiful in coalescing.

HP set about scheming a Military Herald, to compete with HSAL's 748, first flight 24/6/60, which had won a Hindustan licence for IAF, 7/59. If...Sir F.HP had instead offered to terminate Herald and collaborate on 748...to pave way for terms for co-operation, maybe later merger, ..his Estate (he died 21/4/62) might have higher yield than from eventual liquidation, 8/8/69.

 

[zen]

Research Div as Skybolt UK Sister Firm, who advised MoA of difficulty of hanging Skybolt on Victor wing: HP promptly contradicted, but that was advice MoA wanted to hear, to confine Skybolt Installation R&D to one platform from a firm dutiful in coalescing.

Critical point bolded.
Hanging missiles of Victor wing was just engineering and aerodynamics. Fairly trivial and HP knew it as did every other V-Bomber firm.
HP was scheduled for demolition irrespective of 'facts'.
Serious question is was the Victor's builder doomed entirely for domestic reasons or for other actors?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

For what it's worth these the the RAF's plans for it's Short Range Transport Force in January 1964 according to National Archives Document AIR 20/11465/68706 called "The Future Size and Shape of the Royal Air Force", which I think is also known as the Spotswood Report after its author Air Vice-Marshall D.F. Spotswood.

The Short Range Transport Force

The currently planned SRT force, based upon approved inter-Service criteria for troop-lift and logistic support, will consist of a troop-lift helicopter component and a composite helicopter and STOL fixed-wing light cargo force, deployed as follows:-

	(a)	Troop-Lift Helicopters
		U.K.	27​	Whirlwind
		Germany	13​	Wessex
		FEAF	14​	Wessex
	(b)	Light Cargo Force
		Location		Helicopters		Fixed-Wing
		U.K.	2​	Belvederes (training)	8​	HS 748/MF
		AFME	8​	Belvederes	8​	HS 748/MF
		FEAF	7​	Belvederes	8​	HS 748/MF

Future SRT Force. The SRT Force will begin to need replacement in the early Seventies. It is generally accepted that a helicopter component will still be needed, and that the type required must be small enough to fly tactically in the battlefield area. Such a helicopter will not have enough ferry-range for inter-theatre reinforcement. To meet the tactical requirements while retaining the flexibility essential if the total front line is to be economically feasible, the solution appears to be a combination of fixed-wing VTOL aircraft with inter-theatre ferry range, and helicopters readily portable in other transport aircraft. The fixed-requirement might be met by a type such as the Do.31, a jet VTOL project with Rolls Royce lift engines, in which the Germans, Italians, and M.O.A. are currently interested. Such an aircraft would have economic advantages and an interdependence project. (In this and other comparable connections, it is well to bear in mind the considerable production capacity, built up on the Continent as a result of the F-104G Consortium, which should become available for interdependence (or national) projects by about 1970.) The helicopter requirement might be met by a type such as the SA.330, which with very little dismantling would be transportable in the HS.681. This aircraft, in which Westland’s have an interest, is already being developed to meet the French army, and therefore hold out economic advantages. The Army have made recent new proposals (CDC/G(63)17 pf 22 Nov. 63) for their short range lift requirements. Operationally these appear to be met by the Do.31 and SA.330 proposals, except for crane lift, for which (if accepted) a small number (perhaps 8) of a larger helicopter would be required. In terms of numbers, the Army's proposals (which have not yet been considered by the Joint Warfare Committee) include two very large tasks involving simultaneous lifts, one of which would require 65-75 Do.31s and the other 135-200 SA.330s. These figures are clearly impracticable and a more realistic figure, obtained by spreading the lifts over a number of sorties and relying on inter-theatre support, would amount to 36 Do.31s and 36 SA.330s. This would also meet all other tasks postulated, including the logistic support task.

The Long-Term SRT Force. The long-term SRT Force, which would be capable of inter-theatre redeployment and reinforcement, would therefore be: -

		36​	Do.31 type	deployed similarly to the MRT Force.
		36​	SA.330 type
		8​	large helicopters
		80​

 

[Hood]

HP set about scheming a Military Herald, to compete with HSAL's 748, first flight 24/6/60, which had won a Hindustan licence for IAF, 7/59. If...Sir F.HP had instead offered to terminate Herald and collaborate on 748...to pave way for terms for co-operation, maybe later merger, ..his Estate (he died 21/4/62) might have higher yield than from eventual liquidation, 8/8/69.

Ah, but, Macmillan himself (the arch penny pincher behind Sandys) gave both Avro and HP financial support for the civil 748 and Dart Herald (HP getting a lukewarm BEA Scottish route proving trial) as both wanted to win the Indian order and the government couldn't decide which horse to back - made worse by promising India that they would fully support whichever aircraft they chose. Plus they felt two aircraft meant more chance of picking of sales for either and that meant more cash. Fast forward 4 years and the government is clearly not giving 50/50 support and trying to stamp out HP's individualism.

Had the Indians chose the Dart Herald over the 748, then the UK government would have been in a real pickle (the Indian promise was one justification used why they had to pick the Andover).
Had Macmillian said "merge or die old boy" in 1955 and the Dart Herald been stifled at birth, then the whole issue would have been academic.

I don't think that Sir HP was against merging, he even offered to let BAC build the HP.124. I think he would have merged with HSA, but he saw that HSA was closing Broughton, Christchurch and other sites and knew Radlett wouldn't last long before the 'For Sale' boards went up and his workforce out of a job. So its only fair he wanted a fair price - HSA seemed unwilling to offer a decent shareprice and thought it was a buyer's market, perhaps they had inside tip-offs from the MoA? It's easy to slip into Sir HP's paranoia and see conspiracy theories but there were some fishy things going on.

 

[Archibald]

Replacing the hangover ? how about aspirin ?
...
(I'll get my coat and run for cover)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

31 Andover C.1s (XS594-613 & XS637-647) were ordered on 14.01.63 to Contract Number KU/11/02 (of KU/11/03), Specification C.219D&P and Air Staff Requirement 373. The first flight was on 09.07.65 and the aircraft were delivered between January 1967 & February 1968.

They equipped 3 squadrons as follows.

• No. 46 in Transport Command/Air Support Command/Strike Command reformed on 01.02.66 and disbanded on 31.08.75 .
• No. 52 in Far East Air Force reformed on 01.12.66 and disbanded on 31.12.69.
• No. 84 in Air Forces Gulf converted from Beverleys to Andovers in August 1968 and disbanded on 01.10.71.

Instead of the UE of 24 in 3 squadrons of 8 aircraft in the Spottswood Report, Squadron Patterns Plan Q of late 1967 has a UE of 22 aircraft in 3 squadrons with the UK based squadron having 10 aircraft and the 2 overseas squadrons 6 aircraft each.

No. 46 Squadron was disbanded as part of the Mason Defence Review of 1974-75. At that time it was part of the air element of the United Kingdom Mobile Force (UKMF). The rest of the air element (3 Phantom squadrons (which were converting to Jaguars) and 3 helicopter squadrons (with Pumas & Wessexes)) survived the review.

The 6 Andover CC.2 (XS789-794) were ordered to Contract Number KU/11/015, Specification C.237D&P and Air Staff Requirement 377. The Aeromilitaria article doesn't give the date but the contract before was dated 09.08.63 and the one after was dated 03.10.63. They were delivered between July 1964 & September 1965 and withdrawn in the middle 1990s.

 

[uk 75]

Post in thread 'Hawker Siddley HS-129 and Handley Page HP.135' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...s-129-and-handley-page-hp-135.634/post-135978
This is what the HS129 might have been.

 

[Yellow Palace]

The fixed-requirement might be met by a type such as the Do.31, a jet VTOL project with Rolls Royce lift engines, in which the Germans, Italians, and M.O.A. are currently interested.

It does seem obvious to suggest that if the Do.31 was of interest, any of the other NBMR.4 types is worth a look as well. Notably the Caribou, which has been mentioned above as what the Army actually wanted. But the Breguet 941 (in perhaps a continued spirit of entente), the LTV XC-142 (in presumably a state of confusion), and the Aeritalia G.222 may also be worthwhile considerations.

Alongside, of course, the more sensible options of what the RAF wanted, or what could be provided by British industry quickly and cheaply.