Replacing the Hunter

[Rule of cool]

The time of acquisition seems to be overlooked when comparing the Lightning/Hunter and Phantom/Jaguar. The RAF had an urgent requirement in 1958 to replace elderly Venom fighter bombers. The Lightning/Hunter can be ordered in 1959 for service entry in 1960-61, whereas the Phantom/Jaguar were ordered into development in 1965 for service entry in 1968 and 1974.

Sure, the Phantom and Jaguar are better than the attack Lightning, but with 8 and 14 years more development they'd want to be and niether can address the urgent 1958 requirement.

 

[uk 75]

Problem is that in 1958 there is no urgent CAS requirement.
Until NATO adopts flexible response in the mid 60s anything that can fly is given a nuclear weapon and sent eastwards.
P1154 is like an F104 or F100 in that it all it is designed to do is lug a nuke as fast as possible (like France's Mirage IIIV and W Germany's VJ101D).
As I wrote above the Lightnings are needed as fighters leaving the old Hunters to become FGA9s.

 

[Rule of cool]

Just to be clear, I think that in order to displace much or most of the real life Hunter buy extra lightning would need to be ordered, not those built as fighters being given the multi role treatment.

I'm not blind to the benefit of converting almost new Hunters to extend their lives. My issue is that their replacement will compete for development funds and effort from the TSR2, which saw the P1154, AW681 and TSR2 cancelled. From a whole force structure perspective there is no British alternative to the TSR2 to replace the tactical Valiants and Canberra, whereas the Lightning provides a more than adequate British alternative to the Hunter to replace the Venom.

 

[red admiral]

There's a few different lines if thought here; e.g. more Lightning's, and more multi-role but then stop developing or buying any other combat aircraft. I don't see that one being overly realistic for the Industrial implications.

Spending lots of money in the late 50s on more multi role Lightnings to free up money down the road for TSR2 development and acquisition in the mid/late 60s (Vs Phantom, Jaguar, Tornado) seems also odd to me.

For ground attack in the time frame then guns, rockets and bombs from really cheap Hunters in small numbers is basically what's needed. If you want more boom then fit Red Beard as studied. If you want more fighter/interceptor performance then go towards the likes of P.1109 with radar and Firestreak, or P.1100 with reheat and thin wing...

All are more money in the late 50s, for a variety of improvements. Into the 60s then Industry still needs something to design and build.

Which cycles back to the likes of Harrier, Jaguar, or some mash up between them (e.g. big wing, single engine, STOL)

 

[zen]

Which cycles back to the likes of Harrier, Jaguar, or some mash up between them (e.g. big wing, single engine, STOL)

Ok how about....
The Brough Option.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/the-brough-solution.33831/

 

[H_K]

For ground attack in the time frame then guns, rockets and bombs from really cheap Hunters in small numbers is basically what's needed

Would a Spey Hunter fit the bill? Say coming into service in 1964 like the Buccaneer S.2? Initially with a 11,000lb Spey then upgraded to a 12,000lb+ dry thrust engine. For low altitude fighter work that should have been quite good.

(My personal Hunter-like favorite would have been a Spey Etendard IV, as that would offer slightly better fighter performance in a transonic airframe, but an upgraded Spey Hunter makes more sense in the context of this thread for the RAF)

 

[Rule of cool]

Over-reliance on the Hunter beyond what's needed for rough filed operations in the Mid East and rapid conversion of Venom sqns also mean acceptance of the strategic risk of relying on less than state of the art aircraft, something Britain did far too much of in the late 50s, early 60s.

Britain stuck it's head into some potentially nasty situations, Iraq in 1961 had a sqn of Venoms, Hunter, Mig 17 and Il28s in service with a sqn of Mi9 19s forming up. HMS Victorious had a sqn of Sea Vixens and Scimitars and I think there was a sqn of Hunters nearby. In 1964 Indonesia had Tu16, Il28, Mig 21/19/17, RAFG was equipped with Javelins and was to be reinforced with Hunters and the US tried to get the British into Vietnam where planes as advanced as the F105 and F4 struggled so the Hunter would be a liability like RAAF Sabres were.

In the event the British got by, but being underinsured is a risk that can go horribly wrong.

 

[red admiral]

Would a Spey Hunter fit the bill?

From an airframe perspective look no further than the much later AMX. Basically a Hunter with a small wing (and a bunch more modern aspects e.g. number of hardpoints, integrated EW). For say a more specific ground attack variant (FGA.14?) then your Spey re-engine seems reasonable. But in the time period we're really talking about minimum cost and hence the likes of 2nd hand airframes.

the US tried to get the British into Vietnam where planes as advanced as the F105 and F4 struggled so the Hunter would be a liability like RAAF Sabres were.

I don't see how Lightnings would be any better? Vs AAA and SAMs then the solution is more EW and Stand-Off weapons rather than a different airframe. For air-to-air vs MiG-17s and 21s then I don't see much difference. A developed Hunter would still be very lethal in it's area of the flight envelope up till the 80s when 4th gen fighters become more prevalent (much like Harrier was) - not that this is really desirable. A new airframe design with more space for nav, EW and weapon hardpoints, while still being low cost is attainable in the mid 60s and would last (over multiple versions) till the 2010s.

In the event the British got by, but being underinsured is a risk that can go horribly wrong.

Good job we bought Phantoms and AIM-9s

Ok how about....
The Brough Option.

I think there's multiple potential options; it sort of just depends on what capability in what timeframe you're after, and how much hindsight to apply. e.g. you're leaning more towards a Phantom-lite

 

[zen]

I think there's multiple potential options; it sort of just depends on what capability in what timeframe you're after, and how much hindsight to apply. e.g. you're leaning more towards a Phantom-lite

Oh certainly, but really we should say P.1154 without the V/STOL or lift jets or VG wings.
Just solid reliable blown wings and tail.

On Etendard....
I'd rather fit the RB.153 or original RB.172 (not the scaled down engine that we know as Adour) or a higher thrust M.45 Mars.

 

[red admiral]

Oh certainly, but really we should say P.1154 without the V/STOL or lift jets or VG wings.
Just solid reliable blown wings and tail.

Basically yes. I keep meaning to sketch such a concept.

 

[Rule of cool]

I don't see how Lightnings would be any better? Vs AAA and SAMs then the solution is more EW and Stand-Off weapons rather than a different airframe. For air-to-air vs MiG-17s and 21s then I don't see much difference. A developed Hunter would still be very lethal in it's area of the flight envelope up till the 80s when 4th gen fighters become more prevalent (much like Harrier was) - not that this is really desirable. A new airframe design with more space for nav, EW and weapon hardpoints, while still being low cost is attainable in the mid 60s and would last (over multiple versions) till the 2010s.

Good job we bought Phantoms and AIM-9s

Just to clarify, the Hunter I'm talking about are the FGA.9/FR.10 that were actually built, rather than unbuilt proposals with different engines and other developments. Similarly the Lightnings are the minimum change proposals of 1960 or so like the attachment rather than the likes of the P.6 and P.8.

Stand off weapons were rare in 1960, but the Lightning proposals were mocked up with Bullpup missiles by 1963 and AS.30 were also suggested. I doubt Bullpups were possible for the Hunter FGA.9/FR.10.

The Hunter had a mixed record in air to air combat in the mid-late 60s. Single Pakistani pilots seemed to get great success on a few occasions in the Mid East, but by the same token Pakistani pilots in late model Sabres handled Indian Hunters well enough. In any case having a plane so far behind the performance standard is not a recipe for victory, whereas a Lightning will be a match for the Mig 21 and far superior to everything older.

The Spey Phantom is a great plane, but it didn't enter RAF service in the FGR role until 1969, so that accepts the Hunter will be in service in numbers for a decade.

* I don't know where I got that attachment, it's been on my laptop for years.

 

[uk 75]

The problem is the cost of new airframes versus using Hunters already built and only needing modest conversions.

RAF Germany would be the obvious place for new close air support squadrons. But we are only talking two squadrons of Hunters/P1154. In real life Phantoms and P1127RAF provided new CAS capability (though with no air to ground missiles).

Lightnings were in service in Germany. with 19 and 92 Sqns well into the 80.
Additional Lightnings instead of Phantoms/Harriers for the CAS role could have joined them instead of the two planned P1154 squadrons.

Lightnings instead of P1154 or running on Hunters do buy you about four years of better capability-more if you do not replace them until 1975 with Jaguar or similar. They could then re-role to give UK based fighter squadrons additional aircraft.

Technically I can see this working. Politically I cannot see it dislodging P1154 given the rough field requirement (not achieved by P1154 but that comes later and leads to P1127RAF).

The Phantoms that arrive in RAF service in 1969 replace both Canberras and Hunters.

 

[Hood]

Part of the problem was that the Air Ministry just did not "do" fighter-bombers. During the Hawker P.1121 saga one of the Air Staff officers who went to Kingston said "we've never specified a fighter-bomber before". It seems to have been an alien concept for the OR staff - they usually just specified an air combat fighter and if it later lugged bombs and rockets then so be it. Plus the whole issue of the Canberra replacement was clouding the issue, growing out of a two-seat fighter into something much larger.

There is perhaps one alternate turning point - when the Air Staff (and Hawker) realised that the standard of Pegasus that they had then would not allow an operational P.1127 to meet OR.285 that the Air Staff instead thinks "nah this VTOL thing will never take off" and instead goes for a light conventional fighter instead of thinking "hey let's put a bigger engine in it that will go like stonk and give us supersonics!" which led to P.1150 and then P.1154 via the NBMR.3.

Even if the Treasury still blackmail the RAF and RN to use a common aircraft, the RN didn't need or care about V/STOL so a conventional aircraft is onto a winner. Ironically I reckon an 1960-62 start to an Anglo-French fighter on these lines would be highly likely - a Jaguar designed as a high-subsonic attacker, perhaps more like an A-7 if you like.

Lightning could probably fulfill the 1950s/early 60s concept of a fighter-bomber, i.e. delivering a tactical nuke via a toss maneouvre using LABS. Though range wouldn't be great for this.
But as a mud mover plinking tanks or close-support tasks, probably less so. It might not be agile enough, visibility from the cockpit might not be good enough either. Again range is an issue and those ventral belly tanks invite even AK-47 rounds to do serious damage.
It could be done - it wouldn't be optimal but no worse in that regard than using F-104s for example.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The problem is the cost of new airframes versus using Hunters already built and only needing modest conversions.

When in the timeline did the equipment put in the airframe exceed the cost of the airframe?

Part of the problem was that the Air Ministry just did not "do" fighter-bombers. During the Hawker P.1121 saga one of the Air Staff officers who went to Kingston said "we've never specified a fighter-bomber before". It seems to have been an alien concept for the OR staff - they usually just specified an air combat fighter and if it later lugged bombs and rockets then so be it.

Uhm, Hawker Typhoon of WW2?

 

[zen]

On a purely 'lugging bombs and cannon' the RAF actually had an interest in this late 50's to early 60’s period in the Scimitar.
The assessment was from land airfields some 10,000lb of bombs was achievable.

And of course cleared for Red Beard.

So essentially cram in the TFR set and you have low level Attack/Strike sorted.

And no slouch in subsonic fighter operation under 50,000ft.

 

[Hood]

Uhm, Hawker Typhoon of WW2?

Had to go low as it was rubbish at altitude, lucky the fighter-bomber concept rescued it from being a second-rate fighter.

On a purely 'lugging bombs and cannon' the RAF actually had an interest in this late 50's to early 60’s period in the Scimitar.
The assessment was from land airfields some 10,000lb of bombs was achievable.

And of course cleared for Red Beard.

So essentially cram in the TFR set and you have low level Attack/Strike sorted.

True, the Scimitar could have been a potent striker for the RAF - better than the B(I).8 Canberra.

 

[H_K]

really we should say P.1154 without the V/STOL or lift jets or VG wings.

I'm not sure I understand the logic of P.1154 without V/STOL. The entire fuselage and wing were optimized for that mission. Turning P.1154 into a CTOL fighter-bomber would require changing the fuselage to reduce drag, putting in a bigger wing for more lift and maneuverability at combat speeds... at that point what's left apart from the Olympus engine?

If the idea is to build a new fighter-bomber around Olympus (MK 301 with reheat added or similar), I can see the value. Wouldn't look like P.1154 though... given the state of the art in the early 60s, it might look like a scaled-up F11F Tiger or F-8 Crusader (i.e. with a high lift transonic wing).

Also I still think Spey would be a better bet than Olympus, as that would align better with a smaller/cheaper fighter-bomber and roughly fits the J79/Avon/Atar fighter designs of the time. Either without reheat (think Spey Etendard lookalike) if focused on low-altitude work or with reheat if focused on more fighter performance (i.e. Spey Crusader or Spey F11F equivalent).

 

[zen]

I'm not sure I understand the logic of P.1154 without V/STOL.

It's not the P1154. Don't get hung up on the specific design.

If the idea is to build a new fighter-bomber around Olympus (MK 301 with reheat added or similar), I can see the value.

This, run concurrent with NMBR.3 as a STOL 'back up' that's more affordable. When NMBR.3 falls to 'joint (none) winners', abandon expensive V/STOL and focus on back up design for RAF and impose on RN for AW.406

Also I still think Spey would be a better bet than Olympus, as that would align better with a smaller/cheaper fighter-bomber and roughly fits the J79/Avon/Atar fighter designs of the time.

Brough did produce just such a design as a back up to P.1127 'Harrier' as a more conventional solution.

My AH just gets HSA to hand Brough that job in the early 60’s as a backup to P.1154.

 

[_Del_]

A straight through Pegasus probably makes a decent start to design a fighter-bomber around. Spey works if the decision is made later.

Scimitar mentioned above was a worthy mention as well.

 

[red admiral]

In any case having a plane so far behind the performance standard is not a recipe for victory, whereas a Lightning will be a match for the Mig 21 and far superior to everything older.

I would remain to be convinced that Lightning is far superior for fighter-fighter combat. Definitely better for intercepting supersonic bombers, but for fighter-fighter combat then you're guns only and visual acquisition and tracking. Which makes it really hard to use the higher speed apart from to extend and end the engagement.

There seems to be many stories of Hunters holding their own vs faster opponents, and same even for Harrier up into the 90s (e.g. SHARs Vs Mirages)

Pilot training, effective rear sector and then all aspect IR missiles vs fighters to me makes far more impact. Firestreak and Red Top Vs fighters aren't useless but they're hardly designed for it (e.g. time limited cooling). Bolting AIM-9s onto Hunters feels more than good enough for a few decades.

Part of the problem was that the Air Ministry just did not "do" fighter-bombers.

Which is really odd as the RAF spent most time bombing. Actually trying to procure something they actually needed Vs thought they needed would be quite different. You can see quite a few potential PODs e.g. this VTOL stuff is really difficult but STOL gives many of the benefits and is a better match for the RN (rather than the eventual Cat launch and semi-jetborne arrested recovery of 1154RN...)

 

[Rule of cool]

By 1964, when the decisions of 1957-59 play out the RAF 'fighter' force of Javelins, Lightnings and Hunter FGA9/FR10 sqns were deployed as follows::
UK: 2 Javelin, 5 Lightning in Fighter command, 2 Hunter in Transport command
RAFG: 2 Javelin, 2 Hunter FR (Lightning to replace Javelin in 1965)
NEAF: 1 Javelin
AFME: 3 Hunter
FEAF: 2 Hunter, 1 Javelin

Of those I'd think only the RAFG FR sqns and 2 of the MEAF sqns need to be replaced with VSTOL fighters, which incidentally is the RAFs initial number of Harrier sqns.

 

[zen]

Lightning pilots were quite capable of using their machines in air-to-air combat and did so into the 80's.

There was testimony I've read of one going up against F16 and giving a good show of it. Especially in the climb of course, which shook up the US pilot who wasn't expecting that


So I'd say against MiG21 in the 70's, Lightning isn't that bad.

 

[red admiral]

So I'd say against MiG21 in the 70's, Lightning isn't that bad.

Nicer with a quadruple AIM-9 rack similar to F8U

But then much like the point about fighter bombers, the RAF also lost interest in fighter Vs fighter combat for a long while between the mid 50s and mid 70s. It only seems to really come back in a bit after AST.396 with the realisation that there's probably a lot of red air over the FEBA and you might need sufficient close combat performance (and missiles) to do something about it.

 

[Rule of cool]

I can't provide specifics as to why the Lightning is a better air to air fighter than the Hunter off the top of my head, only make a general observation. After all the air to air combat of the 60s no Air Force ditched mach 2, radar equipped, all weather, missile armed fighters in favour of clear weather, subsonic, gun only fighters.

Going hard with the Lightning from 1957 puts Britain in the forefront of this transition, going hard with the Hunter puts them behind when all sorts of countries are picking up Mig 21, Su 7, F104 and Mirage III.

 

[red admiral]

I'm not sure any country was really trying for an air superiority fighter at this point? Not until the F-15/16 later on in the late 60s. It's very much interceptors to shoot down bombers and then pressed into other roles e.g. nuclear strike, recce

The UK's balanced approach of Lightnings for interceptors, Bloodhound SAMs, Red Beard for Canberras and V Bombers, and use cheap second hand Hunters for ground attack in other wars, seems pretty reasonable.

I wouldn't say replace the above with all Hunters, but they could have been kept effective for ground attack and low altitude fighter-fighter combat for a long time

 

[H_K]

After all the air to air combat of the 60s no Air Force ditched mach 2, radar equipped, all weather, missile armed fighters in favour of clear weather, subsonic, gun only fighters.

The focus did shift slightly though, from supersonic straight line performance with SARH missiles to energy fighting with high thrust/weight for good climb rates, high lift for good instantaneous/sustained maneuverability, and shorter-ranged IR-homing missiles.

Older fighters like the Lightning, F-104 and F-4 were still effective as they could use their high energy and climb rates to control the engagement against more maneuverable Mig-17 or Hunter-style fighters (« boom and zoom »). But the Mach 2 and high altitude interceptor performance itself was not that important.

 

[Rule of cool]

I think that for late 50s fighters the state of the art was simply getting to Mach 2 with radar and missiles, fancy-pants stuff like turning would have to wait another decade.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The focus did shift slightly though, from supersonic straight line performance with SARH missiles to energy fighting with high thrust/weight for good climb rates, high lift for good instantaneous/sustained maneuverability, and shorter-ranged IR-homing missiles.

Older fighters like the Lightning, F-104 and F-4 were still effective as they could use their high energy and climb rates to control the engagement against more maneuverable Mig-17 or Hunter-style fighters (« boom and zoom »). But the Mach 2 and high altitude interceptor performance itself was not that important.

There's no evidence that the Soviets ever bought into Energy-Maneuver Theory like the West did. A lot of the design work and training time (such that the pilots got) for even MiG-29 and Su-27s was for extreme low speed nose pointing, like Pugachev's Cobra.

Yes, a lightly fueled Su-27 can fight very well with a Western trained pilot. It's got big wings and a T:W>1 at about 50% fuel. But it seems like those are accidents of design from other requirements, not deliberately designing for EMT like the Eagle or Falcon.

 

[Pioneer]

My $0 20 worth, if I may, the EE Lightning was a compromise from the getgo, the fact that the RAF was able to squeeze what it did with the design should be fully appreciated. But that fact of this and the limitations of the basic design should have been learnt and acted upon by British politicians/governments/RAF alike.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Scott Kenny]

There's no evidence that the Soviets ever bought into Energy-Maneuver Theory like the West did. A lot of the design work and training time (such that the pilots got) for even MiG-29 and Su-27s was for extreme low speed nose pointing, like Pugachev's Cobra.

Yes, a lightly fueled Su-27 can fight very well with a Western trained pilot. It's got big wings and a T:W>1 at about 50% fuel. But it seems like those are accidents of design from other requirements, not deliberately designing for EMT like the Eagle or Falcon.

I want to say that this is a result of Soviet lessons learned from WW2, Korea, and Vietnam, where any dogfights very quickly ran out of speed so by about the 3-5 turn point you were risking falling out of the sky.

And what EM theory ends up doing is making the fight take longer to slow down, plus often turning tighter than the opponent to make the vast majority of fights 1-2 turns.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Hawker Hunter in service with Swiss Air Force - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hunters were sought out fairly recently for use in dissimilar combat training. As I recall it, even African sources with airframes unsed for decades were considered.

No, no source, just memory.

 

[zen]

Just to iterate Lightning with Firestreak had to turn onto the targets tail, and with Red Top had this relaxed to beam (side) engagement and a limited head on against supersonic targets.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Hawker P.1121 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Scott Kenny]

Just to iterate Lightning with Firestreak had to turn onto the targets tail, and with Red Top had this relaxed to beam (side) engagement and a limited head on against supersonic targets.

Not like any other IR missiles were all-aspect capable till the late 1970s.

 

[Hood]

The RAF considered that the AIM-9G lacked a head-on capability so didn't bother fitting them to their GA fleets until the events of 1982... and it seems it took some time for the AIM-9Ls to get around to all units.

 

[Rule of cool]

Just to iterate Lightning with Firestreak had to turn onto the targets tail, and with Red Top had this relaxed to beam (side) engagement and a limited head on against supersonic targets.

That wide engagement envelope, plus the all round great performance of the Red Top and it's big warhead makes me think it would be a good weapon in air superiority type air to air combat in the mid-late 60s.

 

[Rule of cool]

My $0 20 worth, if I may, the EE Lightning was a compromise from the getgo, the fact that the RAF was able to squeeze what it did with the design should be fully appreciated. But that fact of this and the limitations of the basic design should have been learnt and acted upon by British politicians/governments/RAF alike.

Regards
Pioneer

The problem the RAF and politicians have is that they have an urgent fighter-bomber requirement in 1958 and the need to save 100 million pounds from the budget. The British have to use what's in production, which is basically the Scimitar, Hunter and Lightning, and the former 2 were replaced in regular service by the late 60s whereas the Lightning lasted until the late 70s and a pair of F6 sqns until the late 80s.

 

[Rule of cool]

Technically I can see this working. Politically I cannot see it dislodging P1154 given the rough field requirement (not achieved by P1154 but that comes later and leads to P1127RAF).

Is this the correct thread to pull this apart, or should it go in other VTOL threads?

I'm a big believer in linking planes to their requirements, budgets and places in the force structure (hence the Lightning GR talk) but the whole VTOL thing is it's own rabbit hole.

 

[uk 75]

I am content to discuss Harrier (both P1154 and P1127RAF) here since it was the aircraft intended to replace Hunters in 38 Group, RAF Germany, Air Forces Gulf and FEAF.
I think Jaguar proved to be a better aircraft for this role.
P1154 would have had to operate off concrete unlike P1127 so you might as well have Jaguar.
West Germany reached the same conclusion with its Fiat G91s. After flirting with the VAK191 it opted for the Alpha Jet with cannon and bombs.
This got me thinking that Hunter and Hawk were easily as good as the Alpha.
Save money and get AFVG into service instead of Jaguar and Tornado. Hunters and then Hawks take care of the same CAS as Alphas.
Lightnings might be an alternative but Hunters and Hawks seem to me better.

 

[Rule of cool]

Firstly the 1958 Venom replacement rough field requirement wasn’t about surviving attacks on airfields but rather operating from a compacted sand runway at Riyah and unpaved (until 64) runway at Masirah in the Mid-East.



Secondly when you cut away all the focus on VTOL the RAF wanted a supersonic, radar equipped, Red Top (and AS-30?) plus A2G ordnance armed tactical fighter that wasn’t vulnerable to being destroyed on the ground in air attacks. Given the P.1127 was on offer all the way back in 1961, before the P.1154 was even thought of, but not taken up leads me to believe that the in-air performance was more important that the VTOL capability.



Thirdly knocking out an airfield is hard, for example during the Falklands the Argentines were able to use the Port Stanley airstrip despite it being attacked with 3 Vulcans and 9 multi-plane Harrier attacks releasing ~200 iron bombs, many
cluster bombs and rockets as well as some 1,000 rounds of naval gunfire. The dispersed operations that VTOL (STOVL) allows are only one way to protect aircraft from attack, abd dispersed operation and which brings its own difficulties including considerably lower sortie rate and vulnerabilities to logistics, support equipment and personnel. In the relevant time period Hunters and Beverlys at Khormakasar were parked between stacked 44 gallon drums filled with sand and gravel as a cheap form of protection and even these were still lined up neatly for ease of movement rather than dispersed for greater protection.



Fourthly the British were the only country where the VTOL mania of the 60s ruined the Air Force and aviation industry, which I believe is because far too much commitment was given to it. The French were happily building Mirage IIIs and IVs while experimenting with the VTOL Mirage IIIV, whereas the British begrudged every penny spent on the Lightning while spending 25 million pounds on the P.1154 up to cancellation then spending 75 million pounds (I think?) on the Spey Phantom development, whatever millions (not too much?) on finishing P.1127 development and whatever tens of millions on the Jaguar and Hawk. I’d like to see a procurement path where the quest the ultimately unobtainable in the 60s supersonic VTOL aircraft doesn’t cripple everything else around it.