The plane Hawker Siddeley should have designed

[Hood]

I've always been against the MRCA for naval use scenario for many reasons, it just simply wasn't designed for naval use and modifying it would have been problematic once the design was finalised.

I strongly believe based off the long RAF service, that the RN would have kept its Phantoms and Buccaneers until the early 1990s. At that point the choice is a naval EFA (which bring prospect of keeping France onboard) or buying the F/A-18, which could well have killed EFA in its tracks had the RAF got on board with that.
The other thing to bare in mind is that CVA-01 would have been due for replacement in the late 1990s so its possible that the STOVL solution in the JSF might still have been preferred.

 

[zen]

It's a side issue, central premise of this thread is a HSA fixed wing Fighter/Attack type.
Which Brough office (formerly Blackburn) produced just such designs.

Though Hawkers. Itself could have produced a scaled P1103-1121 design.
Actually did trot out a Starfighter-like design wrapped around a RB.106 to the supersonic research requirement. Though they favoured a Hunter derivative and a near fully delta wing design.

 

[Purpletrouble]

I’ve thought FA18 also in the past, but an upgrade to Phantom (think SHAR2) and Bucc (Tonka avionics) seems most likely with EFA-N replacing both ala Rafale with FN. The UK clearly wasn’t going to walk away from a home design ability so I think life extensions and EFA-N is overwhelmingly more likely.

That as EFA did would slip to 2000s but F35C, the logical replacement is still paper then.

A Hornet purchase could be considered as an interim one bridging the 90s until EFA-N can replace, or until F35C is available.

The bigger question seems carrier replacement, assuming 2-3 CVA completed in the 70s I don’t think replacement would be needed until more like the 2000/2010s. That also keeps that out of Peace Dividend cuts and dovetails with SDR98 and CVF. Post Cold war would have seen lower utilisation and the Invicibles, although broadly 10years later than the CVAs, were hardly in need of urgent replacement for condition other than their caapbility - so I suspect something CVF like on a similar CVF timescale.

 

[zen]

So veering off topic a mo'.....

IF by some miracle CVA-01, and CVA-02 had been built, then we have to assume certain infrastructure investment as well.
All that being done it's certainly easier to carry on and this makes a successor design possible.

We would also assume Hawkeye purchased at some point, likely using funds squandered on AEW Nimrod in real history.

 

[Purpletrouble]

Hawkeye seems a stretch assumption given we could have bought E3 but opted to support home industry and based on perceived failings of the E3 system that the new tech would be better at. Something we do all the time, usually negated by ongoing or later improvements in the off-the-shelf option that we can’t then match by sustaining development of our own. As we did with E3 but seem to be learning from viz F35/RivetJoint/P8.

Unlike uk75 I’m in a depressed mood so I suspect we’d just have sqaundered a fortune on some new thing with Nimrod AEW system in it before giving up and buying E2. Yes an airframe and systems but we seem incapable of taking the easy option! Wedgetail is shaping up for a mess also.

Doctrinally CVAs is harder to justify pure NATO post EoS - could it have stood up in the Striking Fleet? Presume less RAF ADV sqns and all maritime attack either carrier or Nimrod.

 

[nuuumannn]

What if instead of VSTOL, Hawker had worked on a genuine two engined single seat ground attack fighter?

Sounds intriguing... How about building it to GOR.339? The original Canberra replacement specification was not intended to be the bloated monstrosity that eventually emerged to OR.343 and had it been pressed ahead with, the RAF could have had a 'Tornado lite' in the mid 60s.

 

[Hood]

If you want a better Hawker Siddeley solution to the Jaguar then the timing is very tight, certainly after P.1154 dies and before the RAF get excited about supersonic trainers. Probably a short 1 year gap at the very most, more likely 6 months or so. That's the gap to post the brochure and get down to South Thames House and get everybody wowed with your new private venture.
The HS.1170B was one attempt and that fell flat too.

Anyway, the title of this thread is "The Plane Hawker Siddeley Should have Designed" not "The Fighter Hawker Siddeley Should have Designed". For me the Hawk was the right choice and they were completed vindicated to do so. The fighter market was just too crowded, every nation wanted its own fighters and every nation is its own fixations with VG or VSTOL or both and it made things far to complicated to get an agreed programme or enough interested export nations other than Sheikhs and Latin American despots who could pick up refurbed Hunters at cheap prices.

 

[zen]

What if instead of VSTOL, Hawker had worked on a genuine two engined single seat ground attack fighter?

Sounds intriguing... How about building it to GOR.339? The original Canberra replacement specification was not intended to be the bloated monstrosity that eventually emerged to OR.343 and had it been pressed ahead with, the RAF could have had a 'Tornado lite' in the mid 60s.

And that is where we get to an interesting aside. That the original OR. Included two Radius Of Action figures.
600nm
And 1,000nm

The former for operations from FRG, up close and ideally via STOL or even VTOL.

While the latter was from strips in France (then still in NATO).

So if we spool back and have a bout of reasonable thinking, the answer is the lower ROA figure.
To which all the proper tenders would meet......
Including the 'interim' options of:-
Scimitar variants
Stretched Sea Vixen
Buccaneer with minor changes
P1121

And of which the Type 571 single engine would not just meet the OR but potentially be navalise-able. Being based on a fire hose catapult for STO and using a high degree of blow over wing and tail.

So a host of reasonable options to choose from.

 

[zen]

IF.....if say Hawkers had funded the Avon/Sapphire powered scaled P1103 to P1121 as a natural Hunter successor.....perhaps expecting the RB.106 or BE.30 funded.......

Would it have gotten further under private funding than the Gyron version?

Would potential customers have been more interested in it?
Would the RAF have opted for this over continuation of the Hunter?

Certainly it wouldn't make for a GOR.339 option.

Though it might make for Attack type and maybe MRI nuclear strike prior to VTOL becoming the obsession.....

And it might have still had enough room in the nose to add an illuminator into AI.23.....

But it won't be ideal for navalising.

And it won't be V/STOL.

And it will look dated to their eyes by '65.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Given that the Buccaneer took a lot of runway to take off, it's not a direct correlation between thrust and TO&L speeds.
Rather the specifics of the wing, it's shape, loading etc along the rest of the aircraft's shape, weight etc... That determines it's performance.

So a navalised Tornado is in fact quite feasible. Though there would be a price in terms of payload and weight.

Wing loading is the key here as it directly relates to lift. VG birds make my brain hurt when I look up wing loading on wiki: At what sweep is it figured on?

Tornado has a wing load of 157 and a listed wing area of 286 sqft.. listed on wiki.. and that seems to me at least a wee bit high for any kind of "smallish" carrier. You are going to want a steam cat capable of tossing 40k pounds at 140 knots in zero wind at the low end I would think

 

[zen]

Given that the Buccaneer took a lot of runway to take off, it's not a direct correlation between thrust and TO&L speeds.
Rather the specifics of the wing, it's shape, loading etc along the rest of the aircraft's shape, weight etc... That determines it's performance.

So a navalised Tornado is in fact quite feasible. Though there would be a price in terms of payload and weight.

Wing loading is the key here as it directly relates to lift. VG birds make my brain hurt when I look up wing loading on wiki: At what sweep is it figured on?

Tornado has a wing load of 157 and a listed wing area of 286 sqft.. listed on wiki.. and that seems to me at least a wee bit high for any kind of "smallish" carrier. You are going to want a steam cat capable of tossing 40k pounds at 140 knots in zero wind at the low end I would think

The sum of jet lift and wing lift equals weight where the latter is estimated for the speed at launch and an effective take-off lift coefficient.
Thrust line angle.
Bleed air.
Ambient conditions.

But you're likely right if the wing area is below 300sqft, and the dead weight of the aircraft is over 20,000lb
As once you factor in additional load and the thrust. The results would be quite poor.

Yes I dig out my notes.
Yes I forgot the wing area of a Tornado.

What it needs is a wing area over 400sqft, which would overcome the low thrust to weight ratio of a Tornado.

What this sort of view bears out is the marginal performance of the F4 using mk4 catapult of 151ft stroke length.

Hence why the catapult was modified, the F4k had nose leg extension for take off increasing the thrust line angle.
And the increase in thrust from both Spey with reheat AND water injection
And then increasing the blow over the wing.....

While if the RN had been strict on mk4 catapult and mk13 arrested gear.
Then something quite different is needed.

 

[nuuumannn]

The former for operations from FRG, up close and ideally via STOL or even VTOL.

Hm, in essense I agree with what you are saying Zen, but for deep penetration nuclear or even conventional strike against important targets, V/STOL isn't the answer, neither is forward operating bases. Close air support maybe, as the traditional role of the Harriers, but long range strike, equipped with terrain following radar, you're biting off more than you can chew regarding range, payload etc. It'd be sensible to get rid of that requirement.

 

[zen]

The former for operations from FRG, up close and ideally via STOL or even VTOL.

Hm, in essense I agree with what you are saying Zen, but for deep penetration nuclear or even conventional strike against important targets, V/STOL isn't the answer, neither is forward operating bases. Close air support maybe, as the traditional role of the Harriers, but long range strike, equipped with terrain following radar, you're biting off more than you can chew regarding range, payload etc. It'd be sensible to get rid of that requirement.

Not my requirements.
RAF drew up OR.339.

 

[nuuumannn]

Not my requirements.

Yes, I know this. I was commenting generally.

 

[zen]

It's worse than that as a senior industry figure said to the minister at the time.
"Why 1,000nm ROA? You do realise you will pay about 1 million per mile for last 100 miles?"

Strictly a STOL Meduim range strike with a single 2,000lb store to 600nm ROA is quite reasonable and achievable.
And highly potent for closer ranges with larger conventional loads. Such as say doing things faster out to 300nm (NMBR.3 type distance).
Or toting some 8,000lb or more of conventional stores.
Or say fighter missions.
But the problem with 1,000nm is it's not enough for Moscow or the Urals.
Hence V-bomber requirements out to 2,000nm or more.

 

[Purpletrouble]

Wasnt there an aspect of one-way though? But yes TSR2 was over spec’d and the 1000mile range was a core part of that.

Problem is with almost everything else cancelled, it now had to do everything and carry the full burden of sustaining industry. MRCA / F35 / Typhoon getting similar burden and flak. For Tempest it is notable that Combat Air Project has split a lot of that out and Tempest is “just” a platform - yet capital for infra even then isn’t being split as perhaps it was in the distant past. We understand it now but TSR2 was the first time this happened after the hey dey of the 50s.

One reason I left the industry was realisation I’d spend my entire life on one project - and the great people I respected of history and the elder ones around me were great partly because of the exposure to so many different projects and parts of the lifecycle (even in 70/80/90s), which I’d not get.

 

[zen]

No the still air ranges were from 3,000nm for the low level target market to 4,000nm for Vulcan and 7,000nm for Victor.
So a rough halving gives us radius figures
And in this TSR.2 doesn't cut it.
Even today the RAND study that justified the JSF 600nm ROA stated the next goal was 1,250nm ROA.

So in this light TSR.2 falls between two logical radius of action figures.

 

[Archibald]

Interestingly enough, one of the reason given for cancelling the CF-105 Arrow was lack of range. I have to recognize the F-101 range was pretty amazing.

 

[fdb-1]

Roy Braybrook, who worked at Hawker, said in his opinion what they should have built was a single-Avon-engined equivalent to the J-35 as a fighter-bomber. Kind of a true successor to the Hunter, which could have gone up against F-104 and Mirage III in the export market. The Swedes made a damn fine fighter around a single Avon.

I once read an article in Air International which summed up a discussion of Braybrook with a Northrop designer where there was a discussion concerning twin vs single engines, tail placement and wing sweep. I wish I could remember the name of that American designer. He said, amongst other things, that twins had a more “straight through” engine aiflow.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Roy Braybrook, who worked at Hawker, said in his opinion what they should have built was a single-Avon-engined equivalent to the J-35 as a fighter-bomber. Kind of a true successor to the Hunter, which could have gone up against F-104 and Mirage III in the export market. The Swedes made a damn fine fighter around a single Avon.

I once read an article in Air International which summed up a discussion of Braybrook with a Northrop designer where there was a discussion concerning twin vs single engines, tail placement and wing sweep. I wish I could remember the name of that American designer. He said, amongst other things, that twins had a more “straight through” engine aiflow.

Lee Begin.

 

[fdb-1]

Great! Thank you!

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

If you want a better Hawker Siddeley solution to the Jaguar then the timing is very tight, certainly after P.1154 dies and before the RAF get excited about supersonic trainers. Probably a short 1 year gap at the very most, more likely 6 months or so. That's the gap to post the brochure and get down to South Thames House and get everybody wowed with your new private venture.
The HS.1170B was one attempt and that fell flat too.

Anyway, the title of this thread is "The Plane Hawker Siddeley Should have Designed" not "The Fighter Hawker Siddeley Should have Designed". For me the Hawk was the right choice and they were completed vindicated to do so. The fighter market was just too crowded, every nation wanted its own fighters and every nation is its own fixations with VG or VSTOL or both and it made things far to complicated to get an agreed programme or enough interested export nations other than Sheikhs and Latin American despots who could pick up refurbished Hunters at cheap prices.

For what they're worth my figures are that Hawker rebuilt a total of 444 Hunters to FGA.9/FR.10 standard. That is 161 for the RAF and 283 for export. At least 51 of the RAF aircraft were exported which increases the total to 334.

It also exported 63 single-seat Hunters that were rebuilt as two-seaters.