What if the British P.1083 entered service?

[NOMISYRRUC]

447 of the 1,870 single-seat Hunters built IOTL were built under licence in Belgian and Dutch factories. They consisted of 210 F.4s and 237 F.6s of which 257 (113 F.4s & 144 F.6s) were for the RBAF and 190 (97 F.4s and 93 F.6s) for the RNLAF. The Belgians then bought 113 Starfighters and 106 Mirage 5s and the Dutch bought 138 Starfighters & 105 Freedom Fighters.

ITTL the 237 F.6s would have been licence-built P.1083s instead of P.1099s. Had the P.1083 been succeeded by a third-generation Hunter (using the same Avon engines as the Lightning and was capable of Mach 2) would Belgium and the Netherlands have bought 462 of them instead of the Starfighters, Mirages and Freedom Fighters? Especially if they could have been built on the same production lines as the first and second-generation Hunters?

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

ITTL the 237 F.6s would have been licence-built P.1083s instead of P.1099s. Had the P.1083 been succeeded by a third-generation Hunter (using the same Avon engines as the Lightning and was capable of Mach 2) would Belgium and the Netherlands have bought 462 of them it instead of the Starfighters, Mirages and Freedom Fighters? Especially if they could have been built on the same production lines as the first and second-generation Hunters?

This is my interest in the type. The P.1083 has potential to grow and evolve quite significantly thanks to Avon growth alone. It will not replace Lightning but offers a very credible alternative to the Mirage III in this evolved state. Entering service as a gun fighter and evolving to add radar and missiles as with P.1109 sounds like an aircraft with very good export potantial. Plus, it offers more time to make a useful M2.0+ aircraft instead of a straight P.1 derivative.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This is my interest in the type. The P.1083 has potential to grow and evolve quite significantly thanks to Avon growth alone. It will not replace Lightning but offers a very credible alternative to the Mirage III in this evolved state. Entering service as a gun fighter and evolving to add radar and missiles as with P.1109 sounds like an aircraft with very good export potential. Plus, it offers more time to make a useful M2.0+ aircraft instead of a straight P.1 derivative.

For what it's worth I want the third-generation Hunter to compliment the Lightning rather than be a substitute for it. This aircraft (possibly a hybrid of the OTL P.1102 & P.1109) would equip the FGA & FR squadrons instead of the Hunter FGA.9 and FR.10 while the Lightning still replaces the Hunter & Javelin in the interceptor squadrons.

The next stage would be a fourth-generation Hunter with the Avon replaced by the reheated Spey developed for the F-4K Phantom to compete against the Mirage F-1 and Tiger II.

Switzerland bought 160 Hunters IOTL which included 152 single-seaters (100 F.6s & 52 FGA.9s) which ITTL would have been P.1083s instead of P.1099s so I think it's probable that they'd have bought the third-generation Hunter instead of the Mirage III and possible that they'd have bought the fourth-generation Hunter instead of the Tiger IIs it bought IOTL.

Some questions for @Rule of cool. Do you think the RAAF would have bought the third-generation Hunter instead of the Mirage III? Would it help that unlike the Mirage IIIs bought IOTL the engines as well as the airframes would have been built in Australia?

 

[Rule of cool]

I don't believe a '3rd generation, mach 2, Hunter' is possible. The Hunter is a Korean war era subsonic fighter and the P1083 is a Korea war era subsonic fighter hotted up to go from Mach .9 to Mach 1.1 with something like 50% more power. There isn't enough power in Christendom to make this plane go twice as fast and just because it has wing-root intakes doesn't make it able to be made into a Mirage III. It's for this reason that the P1, FD2 and SR53 existed; going Mach 2 in the 50s and 60s was difficult and led to all sorts of compromises like the F104's razor-thin, tiny wing, or the Mirage/F106 delta with it's high induced drag in turns or the vertical stack engines in the Lightning.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Ironically the Mirage III and F-102/6 delta wings were such a compromise that nearly every fighter in the world today is using them...

P.1083 was designed when supersonic aerodynamics and the understanding thereof was fast growing. Why is it so impossible to see the basic P.1083 as would have entered service intially not be able to have its air intakes, forward fuselage/radome area etc be evolved for decreased drag and increased supersonic performance? The basic Hunter was always subsonic and bar one speed record attempt so no little was done to squeeze significantly more speed out of it so it had very little change in the basic OML over the years as it didn't need it. Not the case with a supersonic version if there is the will. I am just trying to understand this extreme attitude of P.1083 or evolution thereof is totally impossible and even realistic solutions which would likely be on the table between 1954 and 1960 are shot down.

 

[pathology_doc]

Which Hawker P.1??? are you referring to?

P.1083, the supersonic Hunter.

 

[pathology_doc]

Why is it so impossible to see the basic P.1083 as would have entered service intially not be able to have its air intakes, forward fuselage/radome area etc be evolved for decreased drag and increased supersonic performance?

Because by the time you've done all that reshaping, what you have is so different from the original Hunter that you might as well design a new airplane from the ground up. The basic subsonic Hunter was up for tweaking to just over Mach 1 when you put an afterburner on it and alter the curves a little, but Mach 2 needs a shape which is so different that it's less trouble to design and build a new airplane, especially when you're talking about adding missiles, all their support gear, and a radar good enough to justify the inclusion. This is one of the reasons the Aussies didn't go for Firestreak on the Sabre; even if you put a bulge on it for all the Firestreak handling gear (cooling bottles, warmup electronics etc.), the missile is so sophisticated that you really want a proper radar to go with it and that was too many changes to justify, so they went with AIM-9B instead.

 

[Archibald]

Thinking about it: closest thing from a P.1083 I can think off are a) SMB-4 b) FJ-4 and c) MiG-19. All three really were "dead ends": older designs pushed to their limits: respectively: the Ouragan-Mystère, the Sabre and the MiG-15 / MiG-17 extended families.

Where it gets interesting is that all three could do a grand maximum of Mach 1.3 in a dive and on a good day: Mach 1.4 absolute maximum.
Compared to them the Hunter has one major advantage: no intake in the nose. Albeit those wing root intakes might be difficult to enlarge for bigger engines.

The point I'm trying to make: wih enough Avon power (RB.146 ?) I can see a P.1083 hitting Mach 1.3, grand maximum. Early on, only in a steep dive: eventually in horizontal flight, albeit very clean.

 

[red admiral]

I also don't see a realistic progression to Mach 2(ish) with the same airframe. From my understanding then P.1083 was basically a standard Hunter fuselage with a new wing; maybe with some additional strengthening of the wing/fuselage frames. Whereas Mach 2 is a new airframe.

But I think there's still potential for a further evolutionary development for Mach 2 (ish) single Avon with radar and Firestreak; it just wouldn't have much structurally in common with Hunter. Plenty of options to choose from, maybe something like:

• Avon 200 and then 300 series with more thrust
• More pointed forward fuselage with radar like P.1109 or 1100
• Further thinning of the P.1083 wings
• Wing mounted Firestreak like P.1109
• Extended intakes like P.1090 and potential for variable ramps/lips
• P.1103 style slab tailplane

So ends up something like a slightly smaller version of the P.1103 proto designs because it's built around an Avon instead of Gyron

Relative to P.1 / Lightning, then maybe the biggest impact is in RAF confidence in Hawker's ability to deliver if F.4 to P.1083 development goes smoothly? Which then might give a point of departure for continuing to pursue a Hawkers evolution line as well as/rather than single source P.1 into Lightning

 

[MadRat]

Thinking about it: closest thing from a P.1083 I can think off are a) SMB-4 b) FJ-4 and c) MiG-19. All three really were "dead ends": older designs pushed to their limits: respectively: the Ouragan-Mystère, the Sabre and the MiG-15 / MiG-17 extended families.

Where it gets interesting is that all three could do a grand maximum of Mach 1.3 in a dive and on a good day: Mach 1.4 absolute maximum.
Compared to them the Hunter has one major advantage: no intake in the nose. Albeit those wing root intakes might be difficult to enlarge for bigger engines.

The point I'm trying to make: wih enough Avon power (RB.146 ?) I can see a P.1083 hitting Mach 1.3, grand maximum. Early on, only in a steep dive: eventually in horizontal flight, albeit very clean.

Shaping wasn't the limitation for these aircraft. They were limited by exhaust velocity. A whole lot of improvement happened with exhaust velicities.

 

[Archibald]

I also don't see a realistic progression to Mach 2(ish) with the same airframe. From my understanding then P.1083 was basically a standard Hunter fuselage with a new wing; maybe with some additional strengthening of the wing/fuselage frames. Whereas Mach 2 is a new airframe.

But I think there's still potential for a further evolutionary development for Mach 2 (ish) single Avon with radar and Firestreak; it just wouldn't have much structurally in common with Hunter. Plenty of options to choose from, maybe something like:

• Avon 200 and then 300 series with more thrust
• More pointed forward fuselage with radar like P.1109 or 1100
• Further thinning of the P.1083 wings
• Wing mounted Firestreak like P.1109
• Extended intakes like P.1090 and potential for variable ramps/lips
• P.1103 style slab tailplane

So ends up something like a slightly smaller version of the P.1103 proto designs because it's built around an Avon instead of Gyron

Relative to P.1 / Lightning, then maybe the biggest impact is in RAF confidence in Hawker's ability to deliver if F.4 to P.1083 development goes smoothly? Which then might give a point of departure for continuing to pursue a Hawkers evolution line as well as/rather than single source P.1 into Lightning

This. Tony Buttler BSP 1945: fighters has a full and entire list of Hawker jet designs from P.1000 to P.1250. Somewhere after 1083 and before 1121 are a few supersonic Hunter designs.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

The F-105 is a type brought up in many other threads. It had to go through a significant redesign to include area ruling in the fuselage and emerged a very succesful type. The P.1083 is a bit early for that but why could later versions not build on that?

The question in this thread is what if P.1083 enters service. I see no reason why it entering service could not spark an evolution around the airframe to chase increased performance and add capability. As mentioned by others too, the greater experience in designing and building an supersonic type by Hawker would no doubt feed into other projects too perhaps even swinging in their favour instead of others.

 

[Rule of cool]

Ironically the Mirage III and F-102/6 delta wings were such a compromise that nearly every fighter in the world today is using them...

The modern delta has a lot of help that wasn't available in 1960: unstable airframes, fly by wire, canards, 50 years of materials science development and more engine power than Marcel Dassault would have thought possible in 1960.

The question in this thread is what if P.1083 enters service. I see no reason why it entering service could not spark an evolution around the airframe to chase increased performance and add capability.

Because there are better ways to get to the desired result. Eg the P1 was designed from the outset to go Mach 2 and the FD2 and SR 53 were also design from the outset to be high supersonic making them inherently better to make into Mach 2 fighters.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Because there are better ways to get to the desired result. Eg the P1 was designed from the outset to go Mach 2 and the FD2 and SR 53 were also design from the outset to be high supersonic making them inherently better to make into Mach 2 fighters.

Only issue is these are research types and apart from P.1 their operational derivatives are wildly impractical* unlike P.1083 or evolution of that type eventually feeding into P.1121 or similar. Those first MD550s were not Mach 2 types either and needed two reheated engines to get to M1.3 around the time Hawker would be getting opertional knowledge from the RAF hypothetical P.1083 fleet. Seeing as Mirage III evolved from them I don't see the adoption of P.1083 as having a poor legacy at all.

Atleast P.1 did evolve into a somewhat useful type although still carrying many of the compromises needed to get performance from that first P.1 research aircraft and thereby limiting its potential.
I do agree that earlier adoption of a transonic type by the RAF would also buy them some time, so maybe their ultimate interceptor requirement has time to mature and become more realistic.

*Not that F.155T was a very sound requirement spec to begin with...

 

[Rule of cool]

MD550 reached mach 1.6 with rockets, showing the high speed potential of the concept. This shouldn't be a surprise, the delta had a 60 degree leading edge sweep compared to the P1083s 50 degrees, and a 5% thickness ratio compared to the P1083s 7.5%.

This is what you're up against, its like trying to get the Shelby Cobra going fast enough for Le Mans, a 390 was tried but wasn't nearly as fast as the totally different aerodynamic body of the Daytona. At some point the RAF and HMG have to acknowledge that the basic Hunter platform has too many limits and go with a modern design.

 

[Hood]

Plenty of options to choose from, maybe something like:

Plus it would need additional fuel so already it needs a bigger fuselage or double-wall tanks around the jetpipes perhaps.

The two-seat Hunter canopy had aerodynamic issues that took time to sort out. We must remember that Hawker is very much a manual old-school design team, Camm doesn't believe in wind tunnels and claims that he can "see" airflow, they don't even have a lofting facility. So for them to refine a Hunter from transonic to supersonic is a big ask. 'Suck it an see' development could be time consuming and expensive as they fiddle about. Convair messed up the F-102 but pulled it back with blisters etc. to 'coke bottle' curve it. Hawker/MoS/RAF/Treasury might not have the patience or cash to keep messing around with the Hunter to get it to Super Hunter status if problems crop up.
Even the 1120 series were evolutionary rather than radical.

 

[zen]

Camm concluded by 1954 there wasn't scope for continued Hunter evolution based on developing weaponry, engines and electronics.

This is why P.1103 was begun on a clean sheet.

So the chief failing is not funding a version of P.1103.

 

[Siberia]

However a transonic Hunter FGA.9/FR.10 would have been better than the subsonic version which might have some effect on various crises involving Britain in the '60s.

Which crises were you thinking of?

 

[Rule of cool]

Which crises were you thinking of?

Indonesian confrontation, I think Sukarno could be brave knowing he's confronting such a poorly equipped adversary. However in the 60s Britain was a world power and potentially any crisis could be interfered with.

 

[royabulgaf]

This whole discussion reminds me of a Roy Braybrook quote to the effect that anyone who gets teary-eyed over the P1083 should check out a Northrop F-5 to see what a real transonic fighter looks like. I can see Hawker going down the same slippery slope as Supermarine with slow careful mix and match steps. How did that work out for them?

 

[Rule of cool]

The F5 is a good transonic fighter because it entered service in 1964, a good 5 years after Mach 2 performance was the benchmark for new fighters. The P1083 should enter service about 7 years before the F5.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I think the RAF of the 1960s needed a supersonic multi-role fighter powered by one Avon engine to equip its FGA & FR squadrons instead of the Hunter FGA.9 & FR.10. My aircraft of choice are the Fairey Delta 2 and a development of the P.1083. As written earlier in the thread this aircraft would compliment the twin-Avon Lightning which would still equip the interceptor squadrons.

However, the Fairey Delta 2 couldn't be turned into a British analogue to the Mirage III (according to the latest Fairey Delta thread) and according to this thread the Hunter couldn't be made to go any faster than the OTL P.1083.

Can anyone suggest an alternative?

 

[TsrJoe]

'needed' ?
As with most ATL. musings reality does say something rather different.
The RAF. utilised the Hunter quite successfully in the various 'little wars' it was involved with. the Lightning proved a useful type in its designed role as short range interceptor being replaced with other types as they became avaliable, Hunter being replaced by Jaguar (by this time the UK. had no longer the commitments EoS. and was concentrating on NATO. and RAFG. The Lightning being replaced by Phantom then Tornado in turn, all quite suitable aircraft for the role requirements

 

[starviking]

'needed' ?
As with most ATL. musings reality does say something rather different.
The RAF. utilised the Hunter quite successfully in the various 'little wars' it was involved with. the Lightning proved a useful type in its designed role as short range interceptor being replaced with other types as they became avaliable, Hunter being replaced by Jaguar (by this time the UK. had no longer the commitments EoS. and was concentrating on NATO. and RAFG. The Lightning being replaced by Phantom then Tornado in turn, all quite suitable aircraft for the role requirements

I’d like to bounce of this post with an observation on the industrial side of things: whilst the RAF got by OK with the aircraft they received in real life, the lag in hitting technical achievements - and not even keeping up with peers - must have had an effect on how the UK’s industrial expertise and competence was viewed.

An operational P.1183 might not achieve massive export orders, but it would signal that the UK is still in the game of producing modern fighter planes. That would certainly have an effect both on future overseas procurement, possibly beyond aerospace.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

I’d like to bounce of this post with an observation on the industrial side of things: whilst the RAF got by OK with the aircraft they received in real life, the lag in hitting technical achievements - and not even keeping up with peers - must have had an effect on how the UK’s industrial expertise and competence was viewed.

An operational P.1183 might not achieve massive export orders, but it would signal that the UK is still in the game of producing modern fighter planes. That would certainly have an effect both on future overseas procurement, possibly beyond aerospace.

I do agree. The US was thundering ahead in the supersonic age making huge leaps. The Brits on the otherhand were dreaming up extreme fighter requirements but ignoring less capable but more realistic projects (advanced Hunters) or wasting money on incompetant design houses to figure things out (Swift). Things like the DH.116 remain paper projects despite being realistic ootions inline with what was emerging in the US design wise. The P.1083 is atleast a step in the right direction and early enough to still be in common with its peers and offer an road ahead/suitable delay for other houses to spend more time getting it right so to say.

Now the UK was never going to be able to spend and match the US in this time but chosing smaller, simpler instead of giant interceptors or stupid calls re aircraft development which meant unsuited research aircraft get forced to become operational types and one keeps wondering how different it could have turned out.

 

[uk 75]

This is another thread where "alt history" is used to get an unbuilt aircraft into service with the UK.
Real world Britain had a deployable force of Lightning/Javelin/Sea Vixen with Firestreaks up to 1968 in support of cheap, cheerful Hunters for close air support and Vulcans, Victors or Canberras for heavier strikes.
No opponent in this period other than the USSR had superior fighters with pilots able to fly them. Mig 21s were supplied but as the 1967 Arab/Israel war showed they were no match for a well trained air force.
By 1970 the UK had Phantoms and as exercises showed could deploy RAF planes with Victor tankers at short notice.
Some here will continue to believe a British Phantom was possible. Fine, that is what what-if threads are for.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

This is another thread where "alt history" is used to get an unbuilt aircraft into service with the UK.
Real world Britain had a deployable force of Lightning/Javelin/Sea Vixen with Firestreaks up to 1968 in support of cheap, cheerful Hunters for close air support and Vulcans, Victors or Canberras for heavier strikes.
No opponent in this period other than the USSR had superior fighters with pilots able to fly them. Mig 21s were supplied but as the 1967 Arab/Israel war showed they were no match for a well trained air force.
By 1970 the UK had Phantoms and as exercises showed could deploy RAF planes with Victor tankers at short notice.
Some here will continue to believe a British Phantom was possible. Fine, that is what what-if threads are for.

Javelin and Sea Vixen should have been retired by the start of the 60s. Both should have entered service in the first half of the 50s. Lightning was an experimental demonstrator turned oprational. It had awesome performance, bit was mostly a dead end development wise.
Vulcan and Victor on the contrary were very capable but under invested over the years.

The six-day war had skilled pilots, but also one of the best dogfighters of the era in the Mirage IIIC. Not sure I would put Javelin and Sea Vixen there. Lightning did very well though. Point being the UK had so many great potential designs but thanks to severe developmental delays ended up have a 50s era airforce in the 60s and was behind the US and even the Soviets in certain aspects.

 

[uk 75]

The UK tried to do too much with too little.
France by contrast made difficult choices.
The French made use of US MDAP supplied aircraft and used the F100 Super Sabre into the 70s.
The French Navy operated carriers and nuclear submarines but had fewer and less capable escort ships than the RN.
French ground forces used thinner armoured tanks (AMX30 and M47) than BAOR.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

'needed' ?
As with most ATL. musings reality does say something rather different.
The RAF. utilised the Hunter quite successfully in the various 'little wars' it was involved with. the Lightning proved a useful type in its designed role as short range interceptor being replaced with other types as they became available, Hunter being replaced by Jaguar (by this time the UK. had no longer the commitments EoS. and was concentrating on NATO. and RAFG. The Lightning being replaced by Phantom then Tornado in turn, all quite suitable aircraft for the role requirements

Sorry I wrote.

 

[Rule of cool]

Firstly, my conclusion from this thread is that the P1083 would be valuable for the RAF but not world altering. The 57 DWP would still happen, the Lightning would still be the RAF's only Mach 2 option from April 57 but the RAF would be a bit more powerful if Sandys did the same thing if it had a fleet of transonic Hunters and Britain would be a bit more 'alliance worthy' as a result.

France did well because they supported the Mirage III by buying ~430 of them with the intention of keeping them for a full life of type, presumably 15+ years. In contrast Britain is considered a disappointment and bought 258 Lightnings and 151 Hunter FGA/FR conversions, both as interim aircraft. My take on the best course of action for Britain is to do with the Lightning what France did with the Mirage III; develop it, buy it in numbers and push it hard on the world market.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Another Part of Post 36.

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?

In 1956 only Gyron was going to be flight ready any time soon. Olympus B.Ol.21R was a paper engine.

 

[_Del_]

Can anyone suggest an alternative?

I still vote this every time. Partly for giggles. Partly because I'd be curious to see where it goes and what happens afterwards (can it be effective enough long enough to push Jaguar, Hawk into smaller programs or kill them in the cradle, etc).

Honestly, I think the Fairy Delta development was the route to go. The "problem" is that a fighter would be essentially a redesign based on the principles of the Delta II while the RAF wants something quickly pressed into service. It's not that you can't make a delta aircraft, it's just the cost/time of designing and building one after the Delta II research program. Lightning made for an easier development into an operational fighter.

So it depends on what has changed in this alternative world. The Lightning, for all it's flaws, is the only answer for a supersonic interceptor if the requirement is still on speed of deployment. If it's not time-critical, maybe they can wait on a Delta III or Delta II+ development. If it's just a Hunter replacement as a ground attack aircraft, maybe the delta-Hunter works.

 

[pathology_doc]

This is another thread where "alt history" is used to get an unbuilt aircraft into service with the UK.

That's because this is the alt history subforum.

However, the Fairey Delta 2 couldn't be turned into a British analogue to the Mirage III (according to the latest Fairey Delta thread) and according to this thread the Hunter couldn't be made to go any faster than the OTL P.1083.

Developing a proper fighter (probably built around a developed AI.23 and Blue Jay) from the FD.2 was certainly technically possible, but neither the money nor the will was there.

P.1083 isn't going any further than just over Mach 1 on the level because to area-rule the airplane properly for higher speeds amounts to so much of a redesign that it means a new airplane, and do you want to spend the money on that when "supersonic on the level" is already in the bag with the OTL design and the Mach 2 fighter is in development?

can it be effective enough long enough to push Jaguar, Hawk into smaller programs or kill them in the cradle

Hawk comes so much later that I doubt the two come close to overlapping. With a delta Hunter, you may or may not have a need for the Jaguar, but it comes down to Delta Hunter hitting the sweet spot as far as flyability, carrying weapon loads and being a trainee-friendly aircraft is concerned. Development has to go just right or it's going to end up in the same hole as F.155T. To put it bluntly, Hawker are not a delta company; Fairey, Gloster and Avro are - but Avro are a bomber firm with their own problems to worry about, especially if we end up in a timeline where a couple of 730s make it to prototype stage.

 

[Scott Kenny]

447 of the 1,870 single-seat Hunters built IOTL were built under licence in Belgian and Dutch factories. They consisted of 210 F.4s and 237 F.6s of which 257 (113 F.4s & 144 F.6s) were for the RBAF and 190 (97 F.4s and 93 F.6s) for the RNLAF. The Belgians then bought 113 Starfighters and 106 Mirage 5s and the Dutch bought 138 Starfighters & 105 Freedom Fighters.

ITTL the 237 F.6s would have been licence-built P.1083s instead of P.1099s. Had the P.1083 been succeeded by a third-generation Hunter (using the same Avon engines as the Lightning and was capable of Mach 2) would Belgium and the Netherlands have bought 462 of them instead of the Starfighters, Mirages and Freedom Fighters? Especially if they could have been built on the same production lines as the first and second-generation Hunters?

You're competing against Lockheed's massive bribery and US Military Assistance dollars for the F5s.

Not to mention F5s being a really good day fighter.

Because by the time you've done all that reshaping, what you have is so different from the original Hunter that you might as well design a new airplane from the ground up. The basic subsonic Hunter was up for tweaking to just over Mach 1 when you put an afterburner on it and alter the curves a little, but Mach 2 needs a shape which is so different that it's less trouble to design and build a new airplane, especially when you're talking about adding missiles, all their support gear, and a radar good enough to justify the inclusion.

F102B was renamed F106, but it's still an F102 in the guts.

 

[TsrJoe]

Hawker P.1091 had an Avro type 'thick' delta wing and most likely subsonic/transonic at best, in reality probably of less use than actual P.1067 Hunter development
The later designs such as P.1092 might have been worthwhile with thinner wings, AI radar etc. but with Lightning entering service the RAF. had no outstanding requirements to fulfil for such.
UK. companies were/are reticent to self fund major programmes, and even development for export would never have been seriously considered (even today no export country would seriously be expected to foot the R&D and development costs)

I find ATL. 'what-if' quite fun but again looking at the way things panned out, what actually happened does seem sensible even in hindsight (yip, even the 1957 rationalisations) the old phrase 'cutting one's cloth ...'

 

[alertken]

Joe above, zen, uk75 elsewhere have all suggested no especial military value in a spot more straight & level oomph. We oldies paid £0.25p for the new Observers' annual, to see who was now fastest. We did not know that none of US sexy Century Series would ever ingress, loaded, supersonically. Payload/range is the supreme attribute. Then: availability/readiness/serviceability. Boring, uncomprehended.

Korea being dress rehearsal for WW3, $ cascaded, '52-54, to Mystere IVA, F-86s, (R)F-84s, Venoms, Hunter, Swift, off-the-shelf and licensed, for interception and for ground attack/recce. We were trying to stop hordes of Sov armour thrusting, under air cover, to the N.Sea, We would use HE, because "tactical" AW was neither available nor desired, nor was GW yet a factor.

P.1083 was UK-funded 12/12/51, UK cancelled 8/10/54, work-in-progress moved to accelerate P.1099, flown 22/1/54, operational 11/56.
I have P.1083 cancellation as £0.14Mn: so low, that can only be because much work, inc metal, was renamed P.1099, for which I have US MSWP 100% payment of £1.4Mn "Advanced design", plus 75% of production cost. Incredibly, US sustained those payments while £0.96Mn for P.371 Thin Wing Javelin and 75% of lots of Swifts was not (all) spent. Like us, DoD hoped something might work.

By mid-55 $ dried; 3xP.1109(Blue Jay, aka Firestreak) were UK-financed, then UK canx 5/56 (though Hawker found a way to cover the cost of flying one, 12/9/56).Avon 203 at last worked, multiple sites were building P.1099 Hunter F.6...just about when we decided we did not need/could not fund a Fighter Command from Leuchars to Tangmere, 5 bases around London, or replace RAFG FB Venoms with something not $-Aided.

UK Aero could not have delivered the Programme inherited by new PM Mac, 1/57, after a Suez escapade that deeply dismayed: Hunter F.5 from Nicosia with maybe 10 minutes overhead, Valiants with awful serviceability...Any delta Hawker or other fancy would have gone the way of Avro 730, Fairey F.155T, SR177. Cut your coat...

 

[Hood]

Could P.1091 have been a British Skyray?

 

[pathology_doc]

F102B was renamed F106, but it's still an F102 in the guts.

The F-102 does Mach 1.2 on a good day; the F-106 does Mach 2 easy. Different fire control system, different engine IIRC, different intake profile, different layout for the two-seater... a very different beast in every possible way. A logical evolution but with so many changes that they ended up being unable to designate it as the same airplane.

 

[Rule of cool]

UK Aero could not have delivered the Programme inherited by new PM Mac, 1/57,

Do you mean they couldn't afford it (with US MAP money gone) or that industry couldn't have built the aircraft on time and budget (assuming the budget was available)?

 

[uk 75]

Do you mean they couldn't afford it (with US MAP money gone) or that industry couldn't have built the aircraft on time and budget (assuming the budget was available)?

both