Replacing the Hunter

[uk 75]

No problem with taking the P1154 or even the P1127RAF out of the plan.

Where I differ is in the Lightning. Sooner or later it needs to be replaced by the F4 but if you can get AFVG into service by 1974 the F2a and F3 are fine until then.

Close air support for me is Hunter and then Hawk. Rugged cheap and cheerful.

If you have AFVG you dont need Jaguar or Tornado. AFVG also saves you buying the F4 as it replaces Lightning as well as Canberra.

For the Vulcan B2 (48 for theatre nuclear strike) I would buy off the shelf FB111s with SRAM or if I am as cheapskate as the UK normally is, let the US base their own in the UK.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

For what it's worth this is a thread on alternatehistory.com where more Lightnings were built instead of the Hunter FGA.9/FR.10. @Riain who wrote it also thought of the ALT-CVA.01 with GT engines instead of steam turbines.

Link to the Opening Post of the thread, "A series of assumptions: a Britwank on a budget?"

 

[red admiral]

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.

I haven't really seen anything to suggest that Red Top or Firestreak had much if any capability against manoeuvring fighter type targets. Almost all the performance data is vs non manouevring targets. There's a bit vs targets doing 2g manoeuvres but this massively shrinks the firing envelope to rear 20deg (ish) sector only. The big warhead isn't necessarily an advantage if you have higher miss distances from worse guidance/fuses (definitely one reason why Red Dean and Hebe were so ginormous).

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.

I don't think that is the case in this time period. There was a need for an interceptor (Lightning) to help, protect the V bomber bases before Bloodhound came in. Then there was a separate need for a tactical bomber (and recce) to reliably survivably deliver Red Beard - this meant a better nav system, low and fast, terrain following, and then VTOL to survive on the ground. My understanding is that there no requirement for air-to-air combat, or even supersonic peformance - the supersonic performance was simply a fall out of the high Mach low altitude requirement. It was the RN that wanted an air-to-air fighter at this point to replace Sea Vixen.

Then there was a separate need for small numbers of aircraft to deliver conventional weapons in lower threat environments in other conflicts. Existing airframes with minimal mods for bomb/rocket carriage and drag chutes were the cheapest way of doing this.

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.

I don't really understand this comment. VTOL was very much a secondary activity compared to the main aircraft programmes. HSA / UK Industry did very well out of the Harrier compared to almost every other programme - this circles back to the first post of Harrier being one of very few export "successes".

I don't see how eliminating some of the programmes you're on about really changes things:

TSR2 is still pretty doomed from financial and organisational mismanagement, technical feasibility, and being too early for miniaturised avionics. Even if it enters service the world changes to flexible response and the RAF needs more tactical strike aircraft (Harrier, Jaguar, Tornado)

The RN still needs a Sea Vixen replacement

The RAF still needs a Lightning replacement in time

There still need to be trainer aircraft

With hindsight we could definitely spend less money on programmes that failed, but I can't see how the small amount spent on VTOL ruined everything else. Or how a more multi-role Lightning really changes any of the above.

The likes of P.1121, a "STOL 1154", or AFVG, or "some pre F.155 more multi-role fighter" do a better job of addressing these issues for me.

Close air support for me is Hunter and then Hawk. Rugged cheap and cheerful.

And Strikemaster which everyone forgets

 

[Rule of cool]

No problem with taking the P1154 or even the P1127RAF out of the plan.

Where I differ is in the Lightning. Sooner or later it needs to be replaced by the F4 but if you can get AFVG into service by 1974 the F2a and F3 are fine until then.

Close air support for me is Hunter and then Hawk. Rugged cheap and cheerful.

If you have AFVG you dont need Jaguar or Tornado. AFVG also saves you buying the F4 as it replaces Lightning as well as Canberra.

For the Vulcan B2 (48 for theatre nuclear strike) I would buy off the shelf FB111s with SRAM or if I am as cheapskate as the UK normally is, let the US base their own in the UK.

I don't mind the P.1127 for the niche role given it was pretty cheap (for VTOL) and simple and at least some of the development costs were borne by the US and West Germany and of course it was a childhood favorite. That said as I get older and wiser I turn more and more against the Harrier.

IIUC the original 1965 role of the AFVG was for a Lightning replacement, it didn't start to evolve toward the Tornado until after the TSR2 was cancelled. In my mind if the UK went all in on the Lightning the AFVG or whatever analogue would replace it from 1975 and that aircraft would cover the Jaguar buy and Phantom re-role.

Given RAAF F111C fleet went from ~$150 million quoted in 1964 to $350 by time of delivery in 1973 I'd be persevering with the TSR2 and using the lessons in the AFVG analogue and other aircraft developments.

 

[Rule of cool]

I haven't really seen anything to suggest that Red Top or Firestreak had much if any capability against manoeuvring fighter type targets. Almost all the performance data is vs non manouevring targets. There's a bit vs targets doing 2g manoeuvres but this massively shrinks the firing envelope to rear 20deg (ish) sector only. The big warhead isn't necessarily an advantage if you have higher miss distances from worse guidance/fuses (definitely one reason why Red Dean and Hebe were so ginormous).



I don't think that is the case in this time period. There was a need for an interceptor (Lightning) to help, protect the V bomber bases before Bloodhound came in. Then there was a separate need for a tactical bomber (and recce) to reliably survivably deliver Red Beard - this meant a better nav system, low and fast, terrain following, and then VTOL to survive on the ground. My understanding is that there no requirement for air-to-air combat, or even supersonic peformance - the supersonic performance was simply a fall out of the high Mach low altitude requirement. It was the RN that wanted an air-to-air fighter at this point to replace Sea Vixen.

Then there was a separate need for small numbers of aircraft to deliver conventional weapons in lower threat environments in other conflicts. Existing airframes with minimal mods for bomb/rocket carriage and drag chutes were the cheapest way of doing this.



I don't really understand this comment. VTOL was very much a secondary activity compared to the main aircraft programmes. HSA / UK Industry did very well out of the Harrier compared to almost every other programme - this circles back to the first post of Harrier being one of very few export "successes".

I don't see how eliminating some of the programmes you're on about really changes things:

TSR2 is still pretty doomed from financial and organisational mismanagement, technical feasibility, and being too early for miniaturised avionics. Even if it enters service the world changes to flexible response and the RAF needs more tactical strike aircraft (Harrier, Jaguar, Tornado)

The RN still needs a Sea Vixen replacement

The RAF still needs a Lightning replacement in time

There still need to be trainer aircraft

With hindsight we could definitely spend less money on programmes that failed, but I can't see how the small amount spent on VTOL ruined everything else. Or how a more multi-role Lightning really changes any of the above.

The likes of P.1121, a "STOL 1154", or AFVG, or "some pre F.155 more multi-role fighter" do a better job of addressing these issues for me.


And Strikemaster which everyone forgets

A bit to unpack here.

The Red Top had a a larger instantaneous field of view than the Aim9D as well as a wider field of view overall, higher speed, longer range and was slaved to the Lightning radar. This doesn't make it a 'dogfight missile' however it does mean it can be launched with an expectation of success in a wide variety of circumstances, compared with other missiles of the mid-late 60s.

The Lightning requirement arose in the mid 50s when it appeared the F155 wouldn't be in service until the early-mid 60s. This then morphed into an interim fighter until the Bloodhound entered service, and then the interim was dropped but this was late into the Lightning's production run..

The TSR2 requirement arose from the need for a Canberra replacement from 1957, but this also morphed over the years as V bombers took on a tactical role. This requirement never really went away and eventually resulted in the Tornado.

The Hunter requirement was from 1958 to ostensibly to replace the 6 sqns of Venoms deployed in the NEAF and eastwards. While everyone focuses on the close support role, high altitude air to air combat was part of the test and it was noted the Gnat outperformed the Hunter at 40,000'+. This requirement also changed, with FR Hunters going to Germany to replace other fighter-recce aircraft, FGA Hunters being with Transport Command as well as going east.

The VTOL requirement didn;t arise until 1961 and solidify in 1962, years after the Lighting and TSR2 and in response to the idea that tactical aircraft had a future so the Hunter would be replaced. Supersonic performance was important to the RAF, they rejected both the P.1127 and P.1150 for the bigger, faster, more complex P.1154 that matched the NBMR3 spec. The P.1154 was indeed supposed to carry Red Tops and there was even a 'radar Red Top' mooted in 1963 or so for the P.1154, this was part of the 'island strategy' where the RAF could give ground units air cover.

P.1121, Phantom and AFVG are all better than the GR Lightning, however none of them are available in 1960 and all would cost a lot of money to develop when Sandys had to save 100 million per year for the next 5 years. The choice is go Hunter and replace almost the entire RAF in 1968-70 or go Lightning and only replace the bombers.

 

[zen]

The irony is what would have been available if not cancelled was the F.177 mixed powerplant fighter and as such fairly easy to adapt to Attack and Reconasense roles.

As 150 were planned it's quite reasonable to imagine production shifting to a more multirole (Attack, Recce and Strike) by 1962. If not earlier in fact and certainly by 1965.

Once WE.177 comes on stream, the Strike capability for such is adequate for 'interim' use until the wonderweapons like a supersonic V/STOL aircraft.....which would ironically die off as impractical.

That would obviate the pressing need for MRI platform, and then as a jet-only variation deliver reasonably affordable capability into the 70's.

 

[Kiltonge]

This requirement also changed, with FR Hunters going to Germany to replace other fighter-recce aircraft,

Currently reading memoirs of the FR pilots. They were fairly confident that they had superior self-defence compared to the Swift, but the sheer density of aircraft, AAA and SAMs meant that even at 600kts and 50ft their chances of survival were slight. They had no EW or self-protection consumables, no radar and no missiles.

 

[PMN1]

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.

Very true....

 

[uk 75]

Zen I admit that the 50s are not my period but I have never understood the attractions of the SR177. The SR53 experimental seems to have been a bit of a dud.
I am happy to be enlightened but if I were using a 50s paper plane to replace the Hunters the P1121 seems a better bet.
The Lightning F53 has the virtue of existing.

My preference remains Hunter then Hawk with AFVG instead of F4 and perhaps earlier if we scrap TSR2 in 1962 along with Blue Water and go for AFVG sooner for service by 1970.

An alternative which also appeals to me is an off the shelf F4B or C buy to replace Javelin. At the same time I would go for Buccaneer S2 to replace RAFG strike aircraft until AFVG is ready.

TSR2 only makes sense as a replacement for the Marham Valiant wing instead of Vulcan B2 with detachments to Cyprus. This would allow a relaxing of the rough field take off and some avionics. Its job would be to lob WE177s. Still think FB111 and SRAM better and probably cheaper in this role.

 

[Rule of cool]

The irony is what would have been available if not cancelled was the F.177 mixed powerplant fighter and as such fairly easy to adapt to Attack and Reconasense roles.

As 150 were planned it's quite reasonable to imagine production shifting to a more multirole (Attack, Recce and Strike) by 1962. If not earlier in fact and certainly by 1965.

Once WE.177 comes on stream, the Strike capability for such is adequate for 'interim' use until the wonderweapons like a supersonic V/STOL aircraft.....which would ironically die off as impractical.

That would obviate the pressing need for MRI platform, and then as a jet-only variation deliver reasonably affordable capability into the 70's.

I don't think the SR.177 was viable without RN and West German participation. Aircraft development cost was soaring by the late 50s to the point where a production run of ~150 isn't enough to amortise the development cost, although the (partial?) payoff is that these new aircraft have individual lives of 15-20 years and a fleet life of 20+ years. The RAF was the first to drop the SR.177 after the 57 DWP, presumably because Fighter Command was dropping from 33 sqns to something below 20 then to nothing.

 

[zen]

I don't think the SR.177 was viable without RN

RN was onboard this, didn't you know?

and West German participation

Heinkel was in the works for licence production. Saro was talking up a stronger wing and RB.133 alternative.
Japan also interested in licensing.

a production run of ~150 isn't enough to amortise the development cost

150 for the RN, 150 for the RAF,dso 300 UK planned.

Zen I admit that the 50s are not my period but I have never understood the attractions of the SR177.

It was potentially available by "60 to '62 if not cancelled in '57.
Clearly planned as Venom/Vampire successor.
Fairly easy to alter for Attack and Reconasense missions.

It's not ideal. Nothing is.
But it's good enough.

 

[uk 75]

There is a good thread on SR 177

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saunders-roe-p-177-sr-177.1186/page-6

Another aircraft that warrants a mention is the Fairey Delta research aircraft which always invites comparison with the Dassault Mirage.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fariey-delta-ii-scenario.31630/#post-360225

 

[zen]

Or we could look into that AH....

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saro-p-177-scenario-s.35980/

 

[_Del_]

I was just thinking about the Fairey Delta, @uk 75 . Was hoping to dig a little deeper and flesh something out timeline first, but since we're brainstorming:

If a decision was made earlier to go with both a Mirage-size FD2 outgrowth and the heavier FD3 interceptor, the two sizes and perhaps later variants grown out of them might replace Hunters, Lightnings (never built, in favour of the FD3), Jag development. Maybe even Canberras and TSR-2 development if you turned the large twin-engine FD3 into a Mirage IV-style strike aircraft.
FD3 would be a slightly smaller Avro Arrow interceptor. FD2-based Mirage equivalent. Maybe nuclear strike aircraft as well.
There's a market for the export of a British Mirage, too, and slightly ahead of Dassault.

 

[red admiral]

This kinda comes back to keeping the P.1 as a research aircraft, and actually trying a build a fighter from scratch in the mid 50s. To then go SR.177, FD2 derivative, or something else to get a Mirage III, Draken, F-104, F8U etc. analogue.

But it's difficult to point to even a UK concept and say "that's the one"; SR.177 is closest but you've still got the rocket and the engine is in the wrong place etc.

 

[zen]

? Jet engine is just fine, easy removal downwards. Inlet was good.

Rocket could do with being ditched for an APU, which would help cut deployment supporting systems.

Huge amount of volume for fuel.

 

[Rule of cool]

The FD2 and SR.53 illustrate the blind luck and/or great foresight of EE to design their Mach 2 research aircraft to be as close to a fighter as possible. When the hammer came down the SR.53 and FD2 research aircraft needed to be made into the larger SR.177 and FD3 to become fighters, at the cost of money that didn't exist and time that Britain didn't have.

 

[uk 75]

Until the F4 Phantom arrives in the 60s the choices on offer from the US are not very helpful to improving the RAF front line.

The Convair F102 and F106 are built around the Falcon and Genie AAMs. The RAF did consider Genie for use on Lightning.

The F104 is adopted by a slew of NATO countries as both an interceptor and a nuclear strike aircraft. It is hard to see it adding much to the RAF frontline.

The F100 is an effective ground attack fighter and serves Denmark, France and Turkey to good effect. If we did not have all those Hunters it might have been useful.

The F105 was offered to the RAF as a possible Canberra replacement. Assuming no TSR2 it might have challenged the Buccaneer S2 in the role. Though as the US used up their Thuds in SE Asia we might have sent them some Bucs.

The F4 is the game changer. The West Germans made no secret of the fact that they would have been happier with an all F4 Luftwaffe than with MRCA Tornado.

 

[Rule of cool]

RN was onboard this, didn't you know?

Heinkel was in the works for licence production. Saro was talking up a stronger wing and RB.133 alternative.
Japan also interested in licensing.

150 for the RN, 150 for the RAF,dso 300 UK planned.

The 300 for Britain and 200 for West Germany were prior to Suez when the RN planned to have ~6 carriers and Fighter Command 33 fighter sqns. 4 months later FC was instantly dropped to 20 sqns then progressively argued down to about 12 by 1959 while the RN went to 4 carriers from 1957 as Albion and Bulwark were converted to Commando carriers.

The requirement was a 3 legged stool, even if the RAF wanted 150 they couldn't get them if the RN or WG pulled out.

 

[zen]

The FD2 and SR.53 illustrate the blind luck and/or great foresight of EE to design their Mach 2 research aircraft to be as close to a fighter as possible. When the hammer came down the SR.53 and FD2 research aircraft needed to be made into the larger SR.177 and FD3 to become fighters, at the cost of money that didn't exist and time that Britain didn't have.

Well this is where things get worse when you find the early SR.53 design had the jet under the rocket like the later P.177. Which would've made the change into P.177 a lot simpler.

To poor salt on the wound Avro's alternative.....

And similar Fairey offered FDII variants with bigger engines that would've given EE's P1 a run for it's money. Cheaper to run and maintain I suspect.

No even worse Camm had a variant of the P.1103 to P.1121 wrapped around a single Avon or Sapphire.....

No even worse still, EE's P.6 and yes even worse than that a solid nose side inlets version tested in the tunnel.....
No it gets really annoying when you realise P.1 could have been wrapped around an Olympus.

Just roll those dice differently and one of these could have taken the prize.

 

[_Del_]

Until the F4 Phantom arrives in the 60s the choices on offer from the US are not very helpful to improving the RAF front line.

Honestly, the Voodoo would be pretty well fitted. It doesn't meet the arbitrary Mach 2+ number that was in vogue, but it would be supersonic even with weapons in the bay/conformal. More importantly for the UK, it's got range and endurance to spare.
It took on strike, interceptor, and recce roles. The A model has LABS and is nuclear cleared, though they may prefer their own avionics.

Sort of figured we would be looking to local designs due to industrial concerns, but it's interesting. If you buy them when Canada does maybe there's a discount, and the B models are equipped for ADC integration.

 

[uk 75]

Aha I forgot the Voodoo (and our Canadian connection). I think some USAF ones were based in the UK too.

Yes it would be a lot better than Javelins and Hunters. Sadly it comes after MDAP finishes so would need us to spend scarce Dollars.

 

[red admiral]

The FD2 and SR.53 illustrate the blind luck and/or great foresight of EE to design their Mach 2 research aircraft to be as close to a fighter as possible.

But it was nothing like a fighter besides having provision for ADENs? Everything else was not really suitable and had to be significantly modified, and there were big limitations which prevented further development. e.g. small radar dish, lack of fuel capacity, lack of external carriage capacity, poor directional stability, fire risk from stacked engines etc. It was very much a "how can we bodge this high performance* research aircraft into an interceptor quickly"; whereas FD.3 and SR.177 were start from scratch to a requirement from purposefully smaller, cheaper research aircraft .

I think the main factor vs the smaller FD2 derivatives (earlier than the F.155 designs) was simply the two engines gave greater climb rate - but also added cost and ate internal volume.

Then you realise that the F-4 entered service only a year later than the Lightning F.1

Many roads not taken if there had been a less niche (and extreme) spec than F.155 in the mid 50s

 

[Rule of cool]

But it was nothing like a fighter besides having provision for ADENs? Everything else was not really suitable and had to be significantly modified, and there were big limitations which prevented further development. e.g. small radar dish, lack of fuel capacity, lack of external carriage capacity, poor directional stability, fire risk from stacked engines etc. It was very much a "how can we bodge this high performance* research aircraft into an interceptor quickly"; whereas FD.3 and SR.177 were start from scratch to a requirement from purposefully smaller, cheaper research aircraft .

I think the main factor vs the smaller FD2 derivatives (earlier than the F.155 designs) was simply the two engines gave greater climb rate - but also added cost and ate internal volume.

Then you realise that the F-4 entered service only a year later than the Lightning F.1

Many roads not taken if there had been a less niche (and extreme) spec than F.155 in the mid 50s

You're right about the hodging the research aircraft into an interceptor quickly, but left out the obvious justifications that it already has room for a radar, is fully aerobatic etc.

In fairness if you're going to compare the 1960 Lightning F1 with the 1961 Phantom then you should acknowledge that it's the F4A which was hardly a world beater, the F4B entered sqn service in 1962. The Lightning is better compared to the 1959 F106.

A word on radars; the AI23 had a 21" dish and a range of 70km, the Cyrano II in the Mirage III and Drakken had a 15" dish with a range of 40km and the AI32B in the F3-6 had a range of 110km.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You're right about the hodging the research aircraft into an interceptor quickly, but left out the obvious justifications that it already has room for a radar, is fully aerobatic etc.

In fairness if you're going to compare the 1960 Lightning F1 with the 1961 Phantom then you should acknowledge that it's the F4A which was hardly a world beater, the F4B entered sqn service in 1962. The Lightning is better compared to the 1959 F106.

A word on radars; the AI23 had a 21" dish and a range of 70km, the Cyrano II in the Mirage III and Drakken had a 15" dish with a range of 40km and the AI32B in the F3-6 had a range of 110km.

Right, but the Lightning was very short on growth capability. Particularly compared to the F-4, but even the F106 had more growth space than the Lightning.

 

[zen]

The 300 for Britain and 200 for West Germany were prior to Suez when the RN planned to have ~6 carriers and Fighter Command 33 fighter sqns. 4 months later FC was instantly dropped to 20 sqns then progressively argued down to about 12 by 1959 while the RN went to 4 carriers from 1957 as Albion and Bulwark were converted to Commando carriers.

The requirement was a 3 legged stool, even if the RAF wanted 150 they couldn't get them if the RN or WG pulled out.

150 is the total, 50% stored, cycling in and out to even out airframe life.

75 then and 15 if them for OEU and OCU.
Then 60 which is assuming 12 per Squadron. So just 5 Squadrons.
Or assuming 10 per Squadron then 6.

RN 6 Carrier fleet reduced in planning to 5 post 1957, cut to 4 in 1960 and 3 by '66.

So 300 such machines is a good number and meets post '57 requirements. Remember 150 required for Vampire/Venom replacement, late 175 MRI Strikes and 15 two seaters, which carried on to Jaguar numbers. Note the 70 F4 tasked with MRI Strike until Jaguar relieved them.
That's the actual operational numbers.

 

[uk 75]

Trouble is that the UK does not design sensible aircraft (no VSTOL, no Rocket engines) and does not develop weapons systems until AFVG and Tornado. Hence we have foreign designed Phantoms and Jaguars.
The best replacements for the Hunters would have been Mirage III/V, F104s or Migs as other nations chose.

 

[zen]

Trouble is that the UK does not design sensible aircraft (no VSTOL, no Rocket engines) and does not develop weapons systems until AFVG and Tornado. Hence we have foreign designed Phantoms and Jaguars.
The best replacements for the Hunters would have been Mirage III/V, F104s or Migs as other nations chose.

Not actually true.
But what we can say is by the time the realisation was hitting that you didn't need rocket engines, Sandys axe fell and killed that process.

This I state because Saro, DH and Fairey all were revising their submissions and offering to ditch the rocket engines for funding the new supersonic turbojets. As surely as they were all asking "do you really need these requirements".

The answer was clearly no, a relaxed set of requirements would do. But rather than compromise, cancelled everything.

Beyond the V/STOL factor, NMBR.3 was mostly a low supersonic burst capable Attack machine with a nuclear delivery component. The Fighter elements were quite modest.

The suspicion I'm getting of RAF involvement in OR.346, is mostly to find a way to get a better Fighter than the Lightning. Heresy for 1960, just three years after Sandys.

It was the RN, who having compromised on N/A.47 to accept F.177, had the rug pulled on them. Didn't compromise on OR.346 and even after they did with AW.406 they were effectively forced to take NMBR.3. Which they promptly piled on Fighter requirements.and it obviously sank under the weight.

 

[Rule of cool]

Prior to the 57 DWP what was on the drawing board to equip the fighter-bomber and fighter-recce sqns in Germany and around the world? I've seen the slightest suggestion that Hunter F.6s would assume some attack duties in Germany, replacing the existing Vampires but that's only a short term thing rather than long term like the F155 requirement which was to equip fighter command.

The Hunter was chosen over the Gnat and 'Strikemaster' in 1958 to meet an urgent requirement, but why had it become urgent?

 

[zen]

The Hunter was chosen over the Gnat and 'Strikemaster' in 1958 to meet an urgent requirement, but why had it become urgent?

Good question.
What happened in 1958?

Berlin Crisis.

 

[Rule of cool]

Good question.
What happened in 1958?

Berlin Crisis.

I don't know about any world event, rather the Vampires (and photo Meteors) were obsolete and needed to be replaced and even Sandys admitted the RAF would need aircraft for a while to fight limited wars.

But that was after the 57 DWP, surely the RAF was aware in 1956 that these aircraft were aging out and needed a long term fix. Then again the RAF seemed to be leaning into a 'bomber heavy' force, perhaps the Canberras were going to be the replacement with a few fighters to protect their bases.

 

[uk 75]

The RAF have a poor reputation with the Army for providing close air support. Rightly or wrongly they think the RAF is only interested in hot shot fighters and big show off bombers.
But seriously, it is only when the Soviet Union started providing Migs to countries which Britain might take "policing action" against that the practice of using obsolete aircraft to support the Army was questioned in the late 50s.
Blue Water was the Army's answer to potential nuclear powers outside Europe as well as allowing Rhine Army to shrink with the end of conscription. I suspect they hoped it would be accurate enough to go non nuclear too but have no evidence for that.

 

[Rule of cool]

The RAF have a poor reputation with the Army for providing close air support. Rightly or wrongly they think the RAF is only interested in hot shot fighters and big show off bombers.
But seriously, it is only when the Soviet Union started providing Migs to countries which Britain might take "policing action" against that the practice of using obsolete aircraft to support the Army was questioned in the late 50s.
Blue Water was the Army's answer to potential nuclear powers outside Europe as well as allowing Rhine Army to shrink with the end of conscription. I suspect they hoped it would be accurate enough to go non nuclear too but have no evidence for that.

Yes, IIUC in 1955 the Egyptians went to the US and UK to buy jet fighters but were presented with too many strings attached so went to the Soviet Union, and even they provided Mig15s via Czechoslovakia rather than directly. I think this was the first Soviet entry into the Med East arms market. Iraq had a coup in 1958 and had an anti-Western government until another coup in 1962 or so, so there was another market for the Soviets.

Maybe there wasn't an aircraft replacement prior to Suez.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Trouble is that the UK does not design sensible aircraft (no VSTOL, no Rocket engines) and does not develop weapons systems until AFVG and Tornado. Hence we have foreign designed Phantoms and Jaguars.
The best replacements for the Hunters would have been Mirage III/V, F104s or Migs as other nations chose.

The F-104 is a terrible airframe to do low level high speed nuclear strike with, and not any better for conventional strikes without using FAE or cluster bombs.

I still think the best option for the Hunter was to add IR AAM capabilities, then hang on until AFVG/Jaguar/Tornado.

 

[Rule of cool]

Holding onto the Hunter beyond the early 60s is to risk losing the wars/crises etc that Britain had or was likely to have. Iraq in 61 and Aden in 63-67 were within the Hunter's capabilities, although it would be nice for a great power to really have the capability edge. Indonesia from 63, NATO, Vietnam and the Mid East are flashpoints where the Hunter is decidedly behind the capability curve and diminished Britains foreign policy options.

That said perhaps the Venom replacement requirement did appear relatively quickly without the luxury of taking a big picture look at the RAFs 'fighter' requirement.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Holding onto the Hunter beyond the early 60s is to risk losing the wars/crises etc that Britain had or was likely to have. Iraq in 61 and Aden in 63-67 were within the Hunter's capabilities, although it would be nice for a great power to really have the capability edge. Indonesia from 63, NATO, Vietnam and the Mid East are flashpoints where the Hunter is decidedly behind the capability curve and diminished Britains foreign policy options.

That said perhaps the Venom replacement requirement did appear relatively quickly without the luxury of taking a big picture look at the RAFs 'fighter' requirement.

I mean, the Jaguar was flying by 1968 and in UK service by 1975, so it's not a critical issue for Hunter to hold on till then... Plus it's probably possible to bump that up a bit, alternating French and UK squadrons so that the UK can get planes in '73 or early '74, though it'd cost more to change assembly line configurations like that. Running all the French Jags and then the UK Jags (or Vice versa) is a cheaper option.

AFVG/UKVG/Tornado took till 1979 to be delivered, and that really is too long for a second generation jet to hold on.

 

[Rule of cool]

Britain is a great power, and great powers don't remain that way by short sighted decisions and keeping obsolete aircraft in their force structure even though it's physically possible to do so. I see going big with the Hunter as a strategic risk, and the advancement of Britain's strategic position is why the RAF exists.

As I've said, the Hunter got by in Iraq 61, Aden 63 and Indonesia 64 but the latter in particular was a considerable strategic risk against an adversary equipped with Tu16s-AS1, Mig 21 and Mig 19/17/15. If Britain had decided to join Vietnam or wanted to intervene in the Arab-Israeli wars from 1964-69 or India-Pakistan 1965 & 71 relying on Hunters is a recipe for disaster. Indeed to assist the Saudis in 1966 against the Egyptians the British sent Lightnings and Hunters and the Saudis then bought a fleet of Lightnings while donating the handful of Hunters to Jordan in 1968.

 

[zen]

Again?
Venom/Vampire was to be replaced by intermediate use of Hunters while NMBR.3/P1154 was brought into service. Expected to complete delivery by '68.

Upon cancellation in '65 the F4 was stood in ...late delivery in '68 until Jaguar entered service '75.

Had any MRI platform arrived into service by '68 on time. It would save the country a great deal.

Scimitar could have delivered before '64. Obviating the need for Hunter completely and remaining relevent in developments until '75 or even later.

 

[uk 75]

I think there is a confusion between the role of UK close air support squadrons caused by the equipping of P1154 with Red Tops.
Hunter squadrons (and later Harrier or Jaguar squadrons) were armed with cannon and bombs not AAMs. They would be supported by RAF, RN and/or Allied fighters like Lightnings and Phantoms. Sidewinders did appear on Bucs and Jags as a self defence measure with ECM.
AFVG could and should have been in service around 1972. MRCA took so long because of the need to compromise with Germany and Italy (which at least ensured it survived the crises of the 70s).

 

[_Del_]

Hunter squadrons (and later Harrier or Jaguar squadrons) were armed with cannon and bombs not AAMs.

Correct. By that late in their careers, you're basically looking at using them like an A-4. Maybe with sidewinders for self-defence. They aren't going to be used hunting MiG-21's.