What if the British P.1083 entered service?

[Nik]

If the Lightning as-is was considered a sub-scale 'proof of concept', akin to the delta that paved way for Vulcans,...

How big would you need for 'adequate' range, payload, radar etc ??
Horror of horrors, a sorta-B_58 ??

 

[Scott Kenny]

If the Lightning as-is was considered a sub-scale 'proof of concept', akin to the delta that paved way for Vulcans,...

How big would you need for 'adequate' range, payload, radar etc ??
Horror of horrors, a sorta-B_58 ??

Probably 25% longer/wider/taller, so 2x the gross weight.

 

[Archibald]

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.

By 1959 France had to fund a) reconstruction b) Algerian war c) NATO committments and d) the coming Force de Frappe.
De Gaulle had to sort priorities which, as far as aircraft were concerned, boiled down to procurements of Mirage IIIs vs Mirage IVs vs... T-28s & Skyraiders - the latter for CAS in Algeria.

 

[TsrJoe]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ANufwUPFm8

 

[Scott Kenny]

By 1959 France had to fund a) reconstruction b) Algerian war c) NATO committments and d) the coming Force de Frappe.
De Gaulle had to sort priorities which, as far as aircraft were concerned, boiled down to procurements of Mirage IIIs vs Mirage IVs vs... T-28s & Skyraiders - the latter for CAS in Algeria.

The advantage is that the US would give a decent price for T28s and Skyraiders. Maybe even write it as Foreign Military Assistance, so extra cheap with the US footing a big chunk of the bill.

 

[Rule of cool]

The thing is you can use a Mirage III for CAS in Algeria but you can't use a Skyraider to intercept nuclear bombers.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The thing is you can use a Mirage III for CAS in Algeria

Not very well... while Mirage III can carry 8800lbs of boom, it's only got 5 hardpoints. Put a couple of Sidewinder-equivalents on it and you're down to 3 usable pylons and the centerline is likely packing a fuel tank. So maybe 2x triple ejector racks with 3x 500lb bombs each. The likely best loadout is 9x500lb bombs plus 2x19 SNEB rockets, assuming that there's space for the triple racks on the centerline. And it can't loiter.

For actual close air support and not interdiction, you need loiter time!

 

[Archibald]

The thing is you can use a Mirage III for CAS in Algeria but you can't use a Skyraider to intercept nuclear bombers.

TBH, top priority was the IIIC interceptor. The IIIE strike variant only flew by 1961, way too late for Algeria. Plus what @Scott Kenny said about CAS. (I should say however that the Israeli did turn their IIIC into bomb trucks, with stupendous results.)

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Not very well... while Mirage III can carry 8800lbs of boom, it's only got 5 hardpoints. Put a couple of Sidewinder-equivalents on it and you're down to 3 usable pylons and the centerline is likely packing a fuel tank. So maybe 2x triple ejector racks with 3x 500lb bombs each. The likely best loadout is 9x500lb bombs plus 2x19 SNEB rockets, assuming that there's space for the triple racks on the centerline. And it can't loiter.

For actual close air support and not interdiction,
You need loiter time!

SAAF Mirage IIICZ typically could carry 6 x Mk.82 250kg/500lb bombs. 2 on the centreline and 2 each on 500lt RPK bomb + carrier tanks. The SAAF used israeli designed tanks with only two hardpoints but I believe there are such tank designs with four hardpoints on them.

The outer stations are missiles only and cannot carry bombs.

Most upgrade programs introduced extra hard points on the Mirage fuselage for more bombs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

SAAF Mirage IIICZ typically could carry 6 x Mk.82 250kg/500lb bombs. 2 on the centreline and 2 each on 500lt RPK bomb + carrier tanks. The SAAF used israeli designed tanks with only two hardpoints but I believe there are such tank designs with four hardpoints on them.

The outer stations are missiles only and cannot carry bombs.

Most upgrade programs introduced extra hard points on the Mirage fuselage for more bombs.

Oof, even "worse".

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Oof, even "worse".

It depends. It was good enough in the strike role. SAAF Mirage F1AZs mostly carried 6 x Mk82 max with 4 x being the more common load thanks to the extreme ranges often involved.

Once the Mirage IIIs were upgraded to Cheetah standard with extra hardpoints fitted 8 x Mk82 was the max but by now you were running out of thrust especially in hot and high conditions and range was not great either thanks to the extra drag.

CAS was often supplied by smaller and simpler Impala Mk2 (MB326K) aircraft. Think armed Fouga Magistar for the French. You don't need Skyraider, but certainly an nice to have.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It depends. It was good enough in the strike role. SAAF Mirage F1AZs mostly carried 6 x Mk82 max with 4 x being the more common load thanks to the extreme ranges often involved.

Once the Mirage IIIs were upgraded to Cheetah standard with extra hardpoints fitted 8 x Mk82 was the max but by now you were running out of thrust especially in hot and high conditions and range was not great either thanks to the extra drag.

CAS was often supplied by smaller and simpler Impala Mk2 (MB326K) aircraft. Think armed Fouga Magistar for the French. You don't need Skyraider, but certainly an nice to have.

And the US is practically giving them away...

 

[Rule of cool]

Given the existential threat is WW3 not Algeria and funds are not unlimited it's better to have Mirages to fight WW3 and make do with them in Algeria, than to be overrun by the Red Army or destroyed nuclear strikes but have a great fleet of COIN aircraft.

This is a common choice, Australia fought COIN wars in South East Asia with Lincoln and Canberra bombers and never bought a COIN aircraft in 20 years of this sort of war.

 

[uk 75]

Nothing in any of the what-if threads has convinced me that the RAF real world pairibg of Lightning (then Phantom) and Hunter(then Jaguar) was not the best answer to close air support with fighter cover either in Germany or East of Suez.

Trying to combine the roles in P1154 and then with Phantoms (1968 to 74) resulted in
expensive and not always suitable aircraft.
This would have been true of P1083 or Lightning FGA.

 

[Rule of cool]

Nothing in any of the what-if threads has convinced me that the RAF real world pairibg of Lightning (then Phantom) and Hunter(then Jaguar) was not the best answer to close air support with fighter cover either in Germany or East of Suez.

I can appreciate this from a capability perspective and to an extent a financial perspective. The Hunter was cheap and available even if it lacked a measure of capability, and the strategic capability risk wasn't realised.

Trying to combine the roles in P1154 and then with Phantoms (1968 to 74) resulted in
expensive and not always suitable aircraft.
This would have been true of P1083 or Lightning FGA.

Herein lies what I believe to be the crux of the problem. By committing to the Hunter FGA conversion as an interim solution the RAF is virtually locked into the P1154/Phantom debacle or something like it, although a P1083 FGA conversion would give a little bit of grace.

 

[alertken]

My input often notes managerial/economic reasons that a pet project did not/could/should not have happened. That may seem like a declinist, negative stance. That's not where I am.

In 1935 Avro was Ragwing City and the rag was a Fokker wing licence. Then they did Lancaster.
Supermarine whittled wondrous wooden hulls. Then they did Spitfire.
Gloster was sold because their lean-to shed in a meadow had no work. Then they cascaded Hurricane and Typhoon.
et cetera.

From near-nothing we delivered Heavies, by the hour, 1942-45.

And again, we delivered good Heavies en masse, 1954-62. Here's a number:

Victor 1st.delivery 28/11/57 was 10 years+9 days from ITP: HP had 150 “engineers” in a payroll of 6,000; 5,500 Boeing “engineers” took 5 yrs. to 1st. B-47B (4/46-6/51), 9 (28/6/46 -29/6/55) 1st. B-52B. Not bad, HP. Even glorious.

Resources consumed, say in the nav/bombing system, could not do V-Bombers and more fighters, such as P.1083. We might call it a Hawker a/c. Tony Buttler would no doubt say HDA had a part to play. Undercarriage. et cetera. Coat..cut...priorities.​

 

[MadRat]

Stuff getting built in the UK is usually tied to workshares between lords and ministers. They had to get paid to play along. Thats how the post-monarchy functioned. The origins of wealth in that part of the world is less fundementally tied to cleverness and has everything to do with old money and power. It explains the compartmentalization of their aviation industry and why old names could easily be reborn like a proverbial pheonix. The ideas were somewhat lacking because of a lack of winning collaboration.