What if the British P.1083 entered service?

[Rule of cool]

IIUC the P1083 was a Hunter with a thinner 50 degrees swept wing and an afterburner, giving it mach 1.1 performance like the Super Mystere. When it was almost ready to fly in early 1953 the RAF decided it wanted it to have a radar and AAMs, these proved to be too hard to incorporate and the type was cancelled in mid 53. Some of the mods were used on the Hunter F6.

What if the RAF decided to buy the P1083 in its early 53 spec as a gun armed, transonic day fighter? Maybe instead of the ~360 Hunter F6s.

The thing that springs to my mind is it will give the RAF a few more years to go Mach 2, rather than making the jump from subsonic in one go by 1960.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Beauty

 

[Rule of cool]

Would a trans-sonic Hunter put the Lightning at risk in the 57 DWP?

 

[Justo Miranda]

Would a trans-sonic Hunter put the Lightning at risk in the 57 DWP?

No

 

[pathology_doc]

P.1083 put into service would bear the same relationship to the Hunter as the Spitfire 21 did to the Merlin models. Redesigned wing, bigger beefier engine... Whether it would still be called Hunter as the F.21 was still called Spitfire (it almost wasn't), who knows?

It could have kept the Hunter lineage relevant for a few more years, especially if it were eventually fitted with Sidewinder (a far easier "ask" than the much heavier Firestreak with all the gear it needed), but at the end of the day the RAF would still have wanted and would have got its Mach 2, missile-armed interceptor, even if - as in the OTL - it was only the Lightning.

 

[Rule of cool]

I don't have the spreadsheet on my phone, but I think there must be a very small gap between the cancellation of the P1083 ( due to the inability to fit radar and AAMs?) and the order of 20 'development batch' P1B, which was really when it was decided that the Lightning would be an RAF interceptor-fighter. Mid 1953 to some time in 1954?

 

[red admiral]

I don't know what radar or AAMs it wasn't possible to fit onto P.1083

Hunters carried Fireflash and Firestreak and radar, whereas this is too early for Red Top / Blue Jay. Maybe Red Hawk / Red Dean - but these didn't really fit on anything below Javelin/Canberra size. Maybe just an unrealistic ask?

I don't think P.1083 stays in service any longer than Hunter; it's still relevant for battlefield roles (i.e. not an interceptor) up to the 90s (with weapons, DAS upgrades) and then just runs out of airframe life. A bit better air vehicle performance doesn't change that. Arguably the airframe life side might have been worse for P.1083 given the greater stresses from the higher wing sweep.

Maybe a P.1083/1109 mashup (i.e. AI + Firestreak + better climb rate than standard Hunter with reheat) would have pushed back the need for a better interceptor by a year or two? Just in time to be replaced by Bloodhound instead

 

[Yellow Palace]

I don't think P.1083 stays in service any longer than Hunter; it's still relevant for battlefield roles (i.e. not an interceptor) up to the 90s (with weapons, DAS upgrades) and then just runs out of airframe life. A bit better air vehicle performance doesn't change that. Arguably the airframe life side might have been worse for P.1083 given the greater stresses from the higher wing sweep.

Yeah, I think the main difference is that the FGA.9 and FR.10 are based on the P.1083 airframe (which will be TTL's F.6) giving them slightly better performance and seeming slightly less obsolete. It's therefore slightly less embarrasing how long it takes the RAF to replace them.

Export sales, I'm guessing the P.1083 is a bit more expensive to buy and operate, but also more appealling by being 'supersonic'. If only just. Some of the less-well-off customers probably go elsewhere (Sabres or MiGs?). Maybe it poaches the Danish F-100 order - but you probably can't hang an American nuclear weapon under it, so maybe not.

 

[Rule of cool]

Hunters carried Fireflash and Firestreak and radar,

What version of the Hunter had these things? Even the late FGA9 were armed with guns and had no radar.

 

[zen]

You don't actually need a radar to mount Firestreak. But it doesn't allow you fully exploit the missiles capability.

Fireflash needed just a variant of the gun ranging radars.

 

[Rule of cool]

Presumably a mach 1.1 plane becomes much less so with a radar and early AAMs.

 

[Archibald]

There was a pair of Hunters once, with a big radar nose. Think it was the P.1109 (I'll check).

 

[red admiral]

What version of the Hunter had these things? Even the late FGA9 were armed with guns and had no radar.

P.1109 as an F.6 derivative; slightly lengthened nose and 2 fewer guns. Bit better speed/altitude/turn performance (clean one assumes).

AI.20 radar in nose (backup to AI.23 designed for Lighting installation). Unclear whether same dish size on Hunter. Unclear whether AI.23 could be fitted instead on Hunter.

 

[pathology_doc]

Hunters carried Fireflash and Firestreak and radar, whereas this is too early for Red Top / Blue Jay. Maybe Red Hawk / Red Dean - but these didn't really fit on anything below Javelin/Canberra size. Maybe just an unrealistic ask?

Only in experimental form, never in squadron service.

Red Top didn't come until the mid 60s, when Hunter is long out of service as a front-line interceptor fighter. Red Dean is probably too big for Hunter in terms of ground-clearance on the underwing racks, although there are pictures of the Folland version on the wingtips of Meteors.

You don't actually need a radar to mount Firestreak. But it doesn't allow you fully exploit the missiles capability.

You do need space for all the support equipment, e.g. piped nitrogen for the seekers. Between that eating into the volume for fuel and the weight and drag of four 300lb missiles that aren't that much smaller than Sparrow, it's no wonder that performance was rather adversely affected.

 

[Rule of cool]

So if there wasn't a desperate need for supersonic fighters in 1957 would Britain have spent the time and money developing something better than the P1B Lightning? Even if it was only the P6 or P8 variants, let alone a different type?

 

[Scott Kenny]

So if there wasn't a desperate need for supersonic fighters in 1957 would Britain have spent the time and money developing something better than the P1B Lightning? Even if it was only the P6 or P8 variants, let alone a different type?

Maybe? It's not like any of the Mach 2 demonstrators would make decent fighters. Lightning had a limited radar size and very limited internal volume for electronics, not to forget the maintenance challenges of the stacked engines. Fairey Delta 2 was too small to fit radar in, it needed to be the Delta 3 (which is basically a Mirage)

 

[Rule of cool]

I'm coming to the conclusion that if the transonic Hunter entered service there wouldn't be fundamental changes to the RAF or the 57 DWP. However a transonic Hunter FGA9/FR10 would have been better than the subsonic version which might have some effect on various crises involving Britain in the 60s.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Maybe? It's not like any of the Mach 2 demonstrators would make decent fighters. Lightning had a limited radar size and very limited internal volume for electronics, not to forget the maintenance challenges of the stacked engines. Fairey Delta 2 was too small to fit radar in, it needed to be the Delta 3 (which is basically a Mirage)

Delta 3 is a Mirage IV sized monster and not a Mirage III sized aircraft... Not sure that was the way to go either.

I'm coming to the conclusion that if the transonic Hunter entered service there wouldn't be fundamental changes to the RAF or the 57 DWP. However a transonic Hunter FGA9/FR10 would have been better than the subsonic version which might have some effect on various crises involving Britain in the 60s.

We discussed it in the Lightning vs FD2 thread and it is very difficult to see the RAF not opting for a M2+ interceptor. They could have done it better, but you will mostlikely end up with a Lightning like interceptor.

What P.1083 offers is much more practical aircraft more or less direct competition to the Mirage III once you hang Sidewinders on it. With time you can even evolve the P.1109 out of it much sooner had it gone into service.

 

[Rule of cool]

We discussed it in the Lightning vs FD2 thread and it is very difficult to see the RAF not opting for a M2+ interceptor. They could have done it better, but you will mostlikely end up with a Lightning like interceptor.

What P.1083 offers is much more practical aircraft more or less direct competition to the Mirage III once you hang Sidewinders on it. With time you can even evolve the P.1109 out of it much sooner had it gone into service.

The mach 1.1 P1083 isn't a competitor to the mach 2+ Mirage III, it's a competitor with mach 1.1 Super Mystere.

The RAF will go with a mach 2 type, however with no transonic type in service they needed to there sooner rather than later, which basically makes their chouce Lightning or nothing. With a transonic type they will have another couple of years grace, enough time to develop a better type than the Lightning.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Mirage III was only M2.0+ when clean and flew a specific flight profile. Considering we are evaluating a very early P.1083 here with three years between it and the first Mirage 111 prototype flight you cannot say how it could not have evolved. Even the Mirage III evolved quite a bit over the years before finally entering squadron service in 1961. P.1083 has a head start on Mirage and would have gained performance as RR got more out of the Avon. Again, with P.1083 in service there is more incentive for it. First to market with very similar performance by the time both are operational.

I agree that it would buyed more time for their ultimate interceptor programs.

 

[red admiral]

Its difficult to see the presence of P.1083 having much impact on F.155T or the DWP given what was desired was such a leap ahead in performance (climb rate, acceleration). I think the reheat on P.1083 is probably one of the main impacts from providing ~20% more thrust and able to grow to 50-60% more with the later Avons. This'll have a big impact on getting up to altitude in less time; the little extra speed gives a bit more ability to chase down Bears/Badgers but I think its the climb rate that's the main impact. But I think its difficult to argue that it gives you much capability vs the projected M1.3 - M2.0 bomber threats in F.155T. But then P.1/Lightning would also struggle vs these.

The biggest unknown is around how the aircraft would have actually flown e.g. handling qualities, drag etc. There's plenty of extra thrust potential in reheated Avon developments, but unknown whether you'd be able to get much faster (e.g.out to M1.3+) or whether this is just going into extra climb rate and acceleration.

Very much an F-100 / MiG-19 analogue rather than anything else.

I'm not convinced that there's any more export sales to be had when you look at F-100 and Super Mystere operators; it's difficult to compete against "free" F-100s from the US.

 

[Rule of cool]

Exports are an interesting issue. A lot of Hunter exports were F6s converted to FGA9 spec. If the F6 is a transonic P1083 then quite few countries that had subsonic Hunters will have transonic Hunters, which might effect some conflicts around the world. For example Jordan and Iraq had Hunters in the 1967 6 Day War, maybe if these were more capable they could have had a greater impact.

 

[Archibald]

Very much an F-100 / MiG-19 analogue rather than anything else.

Reminds me of the SMB-2 turned SMB-4: with the Atar 9 and Mach 1.2 velocity. Still no radar and never was a threat to Mirage III, which actually swept it away (as it swept the last planned batch of SMB-2s, curtailing production to 180 airframes).

 

[Scott Kenny]

Exports are an interesting issue. A lot of Hunter exports were F6s converted to FGA9 spec. If the F6 is a transonic P1083 then quite few countries that had subsonic Hunters will have transonic Hunters, which might effect some conflicts around the world. For example Jordan and Iraq had Hunters in the 1967 6 Day War, maybe if these were more capable they could have had a greater impact.

While possible, I doubt it. You need competently trained pilots, I'm not sure a 50% faster Hunter would make a difference in the hands of marginally-competent pilots.

 

[F.L.]

While possible, I doubt it. You need competently trained pilots, I'm not sure a 50% faster Hunter would make a difference in the hands of marginally-competent pilots.

Jordanian pilots were reputed to be highly competent, during 1967 War.

 

[Rule of cool]

IIUC a Pakistani pilot shot down 4 Israeli aircraft in Hunters in 1967, 1 in Jordan and the other 3 in Iraq.

India was a pretty big Hunter user, and fought a couple of big wars with Pakistan in 1965 and 71.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Jordanian pilots were reputed to be highly competent, during 1967 War.

I might believe that. Isn't the King of Jordan and much of his Air Force trained by the UK? Even back then?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

FWIW (1) according to Wood in Project Cancelled . . .

With the subsequent trials of the Hunter with Fireflash and Firestreak air-to-air missiles and airborne radar, and the development of the Hunter two-seater and ground-attack variants almost any task could have been undertaken. Once the basic fuselage with an afterburning engine had been established the wing could have been further refined to allow for even higher speeds. In May 1954, in fact, the Hawker design team started work on a thin-wing Hunter variant, designated P.1102, but this, like P.1083, was still born.

FWIW (2) I once suggested (in a thread that @Archibald started on Alternatehistory.com) that the P.1083 could have been built instead of the P.1099 Hunter F.6 and the P.1102 could have been built instead of Hunters FGA.9 & FR.10.

 

[pathology_doc]

FWIW (1) according to Wood in Project Cancelled

I think Wood might have missed the point, or might not have been aware of the fact, that the reason why it was cancelled is that fitting said missiles and their associated support gear crippled the performance and the fuel load (within the existing volume bounds), and that the Powers that be (a) weren't prepared to sanction it without the missiles and (b) weren't prepared to pay for the complete redesign which would have been needed to accommodate them.

Fireflash was slightly heavier* than Firestreak and extremely draggy, and four Firestreaks as a drag penalty probably isn't much less than four Sparrows.

* Source: Short Range Guided Weapons by J Clemow, Temple Press Ltd. 1961. Table 2.2, p28. Firestreak, 310lb; Fireflash 320lb.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Fireflash was slightly heavier* than Firestreak and extremely draggy, and four Firestreaks as a drag penalty probably isn't much less than four Sparrows.

I wouldn't be surprised if Firestreak is more draggy than Sparrow...

 

[pathology_doc]

I wouldn't be surprised if Firestreak is more draggy than Sparrow...

I wouldn't be completely surprised either, but I don't have drag figures for Firestreak and the drag coefficient for Sparrow given by Fleeman in Tactical Missile Design 2nd Ed is probably only broadly representative. Sparrow III is slightly larger and significantly heavier, with large main wings and tail as opposed to large main wings and small tail actuators, so my guess is they're probably about even.

Firestreak on the Lightning was positioned in such a way as to actually improve the area ruling of the fuselage, smoothing out a small discontinuity near the fore-end. On Hunters, it would probably make it much worse.

 

[Rule of cool]

FWIW the 20 development batch P1B Lightnings were ordered in February 1954, about 8 months after the P.1083 was cancelled. That's how early the British government was ready to commit to the Mach 2, radar-equipped, missile-armed Lightning. This is why I think the RAF has accept the gun version of the P.1083 or miss out on a transonic fighter.

I'm personally comfortable with the initial choice to go with the Mach 2 type, but the follow through was botched.

 

[MadRat]

Heavier fighters are generally better buys. If the OP is suggesting a lighter fighter where does the savings go?

 

[Rule of cool]

I'm not suggesting that the RAF doesn't buy a biggish mach 2 fighter. I'm suggesting that the RAF isn't necessarily stuck with the Lightning because the transonic Hunter will give it a couple of years breathing space. However the factors for the Lightning are pretty strong, even overwhelming given the financial aspects.

 

[Hood]

I don't think that you'd need to worry about AAMs and radar too much.
Presuming the prototype flies in late 1953, given the development snags with the Hunter F.1 to F.4 series, Hawker might be somewhat preoccupied but the P.1083 should probably enter service in 1956 or early 57 at the very latest. Hawker P.1109 didn't really get going until 1956 with testing into 1957. So its potentially behind the curve for a Super Hunter F.6. Being an all-cannon fighter wouldn't put it out of line with the other fighters of that generation.

There might be scope for a Super Hunter F.8 with a pair of Firestreaks and AI.20 or something for 1959-60 as an interim stand-in, but by then the time gap to Lightning is pretty small to make it worth it.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Perhaps the optimum British 1950s single-seat fighter lineage, interestingly all Hawker, runs as follows:

P.1081: First flight 19th June 1950 (a full 13 months prior to the IRL Hunter)
P.1083: First flight est. July 1953 (or a few months later)
P.1121: First flight est. April 1958 (based on the brochure)

Possibly followed by a P.1121 Mk.II with the Olympus B.OI.22R from TSR.2 in the early 1960s.

That would give 37 months between the P.1081 and P.1083, possibly making the latter more viable from the perspective of Hawker's resources. The P.1081 actually flew, the P.1083 prototype got to 80% completion prior to cancellation and we know how far the P.1121 got. The RAF gets a home-grown swept-wing type earlier (with an increased possibility of securing an Australian sale), a truly transonic type and a superior mach-2 aircraft to the Lightning. I don't see the P.1 programme being avoided but in an alternative universe, could the RAF take a liking to the P.1121 brochure they saw in June 1956 and choose not to proceed with the November 1956 order for 50 production Lightning F.1s and adopt the P.1121 in its place?

 

[Rule of cool]

Perhaps with the P1083 in service the Lightning could be a real interim aircraft, the P1121 (with a lighter wing loading) could be ordered instead of the Hunter FGA9 in 1958 and the Lightning F2/3/6 onward from 1959. Then you'd have a fleet big enough to justify the expense while still getting the mach 2 interceptor the RAF needed in 1960.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I think Wood might have missed the point, or might not have been aware of the fact, that the reason why it was cancelled is that fitting said missiles and their associated support gear crippled the performance and the fuel load (within the existing volume bounds), and that the Powers that be (a) weren't prepared to sanction it without the missiles and (b) weren't prepared to pay for the complete redesign which would have been needed to accommodate them.

Fireflash was slightly heavier* than Firestreak and extremely draggy, and four Firestreaks as a drag penalty probably isn't much less than four Sparrows.

* Source: Short Range Guided Weapons by J Clemow, Temple Press Ltd. 1961. Table 2.2, p28. Firestreak, 310lb; Fireflash 320lb.

I'm being blond again. Which Hawker P.1??? are you referring to? Is it the P.1083, the P.1102 or the P.1109?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 36.

P.1081: First flight 19th June 1950 (a full 13 months prior to the IRL Hunter).

The first Hunter F.1 squadron formed in December 1953. Therefore, does that mean that the first P.1081 squadron would have been formed in November 1952? That's 4 months before the first 800-series Sea Hawk squadron commissioned (806 in March 1953) so the RN might have bought the P.1081 instead.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Another Part of Post 36.

P.1121: First flight est. April 1958 (based on the brochure)

Possibly followed by a P.1121 Mk.II with the Olympus B.OI.22R from TSR.2 in the early 1960s.

If the P.1121 had the Olympus B.Ol.22R, does that mean the P.1121 Mk I would have had the the Olympus B.Ol.21R?

Because in your timeline I can see the P.1121 Mk I (or a similar Hawker designed aircraft) being built to Specification F.153 instead of the B.Ol.21R powered Javelin of OTL. Unlike the Gloster aircraft it wouldn't be cancelled and instead be ordered into production for the RAF instead of the Lightning, which ITTL would have been cancelled when the Olympus powered Javelin was cancelled IOTL. Which produces the same result as what you wrote in the last sentence of Post 36.

I don't see the P.1 programme being avoided but in an alternative universe, could the RAF take a liking to the P.1121 brochure they saw in June 1956 and choose not to proceed with the November 1956 order for 50 production Lightning F.1s and adopt the P.1121 in its place?