WI West Germany buys British?

[PMN1]

Not very useful to cover the Hunter's air to ground missions.

Well, they can do it once....

 

[Rule of cool]

There's an entire chapter on it in Gibson's Typhoon to Typhoon. Arguably the same approach taken today with Typhoon FGR4.

Easy response is to ask what dedicated "fighter-bomber" did the RAF ever develop? Answer: none.

Er no. The gap was in interceptors, where the Lightning was the interim until Bloodhound came into service. And it did, and then the capability was significantly increased with Mk II.

As covered before in previous threads, Hunter was ok as a fighter-bomber up till the 90s when double-digit SAMs started appearing. But I'd still prefer a Jaguar (when available) in the strike role for the better nav suite and low level performance.

And I don't expect them to develop one in this scenario, but to adapt their existing and more importantly paid for, Mach 2 interceptor into a fighter-bomber the way the US did for the F104 and the French did for the Mirage III.

Post 57 DWP the RAF had a requirement to replace various Meteor, Swift and Venom fighter-bomber/fighter-recce sqns mostly stationed in the Middle and Far East, but by 1960 including 2 sqns in RAFG and 2 sqns in Transport Command for rapid deployment to Germany and out of area. This requirement had a significant air to air role, not just for its own sake in the Mid and Far East but also for self defence in the NATO role.

The British government chose not to utilise their Mach 2 fighter and adapt it for the role, but because the requirement was considered interim to go the 'cheap and nasty' route by trialing the Jet Provost and the Gnat. Hawker lobbied to get the Hunter included in the trials and it won because of it's better ground clearance and range over the otherwise fancied Gnat. Of course it became apparent almost immediately that the Hunter wasn't up to the air to air task and had to be co-located with Javelins to cover that gap somewhat. Further, as soon as Sandys left office it became apparent that the fighter-bomber role would be ongoing, so the task of replacing the interim Hunter began.

This of course put Britain out of step with every other significant military power, who didn't base their future security plans around a tarted up obsolete day fighter.

 

[Rule of cool]

If Germany buys British what happens to all the other F104G customers? IIUC the big German buy kicked off the cascade of sales, but the F104 is still a competitive fighter in the period so it should find a lot of users.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And I don't expect them to develop one in this scenario, but to adapt their existing and more importantly paid for, Mach 2 interceptor into a fighter-bomber the way the US did for the F104 and the French did for the Mirage III.

All Mach 2 interceptors are terrible fighter-bombers.

Germany wanted an all-in-one when no planes were anywhere near sufficiently multirole. The best option they really had was F101s. F101As as fighter bombers, F101Bs as interceptors.

 

[uk 75]

I think there is a major difference between NATO strike aircraft before and after the early 60s.
In the era when the F104G was developed its strike role was simply to carry a single US supplied freefall bomb on a fuselage pylon. It was only after NATO adopted "flexible response" that convention munitions were developed and multi-role fighter bombers like F4 came into their own.
The UK was completely in step with this process. Canberras in RAFG would be replaced by TSR2 and P1154 in the nuclear role.
Unlike W Germany the UK had out of NATO area responsibilities. It was this conventional role which used retread fighters. P1154 was a perfectly reasonable Hunter replacement if its development had not been slowed by trying to get the RN to use it. It was a STOVL not VTOL like the German jets or the P1127.
Lightning did not need to be developed as a fighter bomber because P1154 then Jaguar were much more suitable.
If the Germans had been less fixated on VTOL then P1154 could have met their pre and post flexible response needs.
Buccaneer might have been a better aircraft for the German Maritime role but they wanted (and got) a single type in the fighter, strike, recce and maritime roles. They tried to do the same with MRCA Tornado but the F4 was better in the fighter role. The single seater MRCA100 was the German preference.

 

[Rule of cool]

All Mach 2 interceptors are terrible fighter-bombers.

Germany wanted an all-in-one when no planes were anywhere near sufficiently multirole. The best option they really had was F101s. F101As as fighter bombers, F101Bs as interceptors.

I don't deny that the F105 for example is a far better attack aircraft than any adapted Mach 2 interceptor, but that's purely in a technical sense. From fleet management, value for money, whole of government perspectives in the late 50s/early 60s they are the best choice for countries other than the 2 superpowers. It took until 3rd gen fighters for fighter-bombers to be good, but until then countries have to make do with what's available.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't deny that the F105 for example is a far better attack aircraft than any adapted Mach 2 interceptor, but that's purely in a technical sense. From fleet management, value for money, whole of government perspectives in the late 50s/early 60s they are the best choice for countries other than the 2 superpowers. It took until 3rd gen fighters for fighter-bombers to be good, but until then countries have to make do with what's available.

That's why I suggested F-101s. It's not multirole, but it's a single airframe that can do one of two roles depending on how equipped. F-101As for the strike role, F-101Bs as the interceptors. And RF-101s for the recon role.

It's more capable in either role than the F-104 except in sheer climb performance.

 

[BlackBat242]

On the other side of the equation the RAF lost 50 of 280 Lightnings, 18% compared to 32% of F104s lost by Germany so presumably there will be a slightly lower need to attrition aircraft in later order batches.

What % of the RAF flying of those Lightnings was "fast & low" - the way the Luftwaffe flew their F-104Gs?

Try evaluating Lightnings under German flight norms, not British.

I can easily see Luftwaffe Lightnings reaching above 30% losses flying "the German Way".

 

[Rule of cool]

I'm aware that the main cause of the high losses was a poor skills base flying a tricky aircraft in poor conditions. But there were enough engine problems leading to crashes that the 2nd engine should have helped reduce losses somewhat.

 

[uk 75]

I am no expert but the flight profile of UK based Lightnings operating mainly in the anti-bomber role over the North Sea was very different from the German Starfighter's wartime role of delivering nukes low level or hacking down incoming strike aircraft with a pair of Sidewinders.
Much more comparable were the two RAFG Lightning squadrons trying to do the same thing with Firestreak then Red Tops.. Do we know their losses?

 

[Rule of cool]

That's why I suggested F-101s. It's not multirole, but it's a single airframe that can do one of two roles depending on how equipped. F-101As for the strike role, F-101Bs as the interceptors. And RF-101s for the recon role.

It's more capable in either role than the F-104 except in sheer climb performance.

Did Germans even evaluate the F101, IIUC it didn't make it to the final 'round'? Would the US and other NATO Allies (but former enemies) want Germany to have such a long range nuclear strike aircraft in the late 50s? Would the lower performance but longer range/endurance be suitable for the battle on the central front in WW3?

 

[Rule of cool]

I am no expert but the flight profile of UK based Lightnings operating mainly in the anti-bomber role over the North Sea was very different from the German Starfighter's wartime role of delivering nukes low level or hacking down incoming strike aircraft with a pair of Sidewinders.
Much more comparable were the two RAFG Lightning squadrons trying to do the same thing with Firestreak then Red Tops.. Do we know their losses?

Here are some anecdotes from Wiki, obviously the basis from which to make vast generalisations which can be defended with psychotic vigour.

Erich Hartmann, .......... deemed the F-104 to be an unsafe aircraft with poor handling characteristics for aerial combat. Hartmann judged the fighter unfit for Luftwaffe use even before its introduction.

Eric Brown described the Starfighter as a hot ship, that "has to be flown every inch of the way". The USAF required pilots to have 1500 hour before flying the F104, Luftwaffe pilots had 400 hours. Brown recommended the Blackburn Buccaneer instead.

Roland Beamont, who also flew most of the "Century Series" US aircraft, stated his opinion that nothing at that time had the inherent stability, control, and docile handling characteristics of the Lightning throughout the full flight envelope.

I've also attached the list of German crashes from 916 Starfighter.

In reality i won't make any sweeping generalisations and make up crash stats. However if these legendary pilots are to be believed going with twin engine British types with docile handling might reduce the attrition of the fleet, making smaller numbers of these more expensive aircraft a viable pathway. After all the budget required to by 746 ~$1.4m F104s will only buy you 580 ~$1.8m Lightnings. Only crashing 100 instead of 125 by 1973 takes $45m out of the procurement budget.

 

[TsrJoe]

Don't forget R.P. Beamont was the company test pilot, in public statements he would be trying to 'sell' the aircraft too

 

[Rule of cool]

Don't forget R.P. Beamont was the company test pilot, in public statements he would be trying to 'sell' the aircraft too

Yes, that's why I put in the caveat about believing them. However that doesn't invalidate Winkle and Bubi's negative opinion of the F104s ease of operation.

I wouldn't consider any of these early supersonic fighters 'safe', getting to mach 2 in the era was HARD, and these aircraft all had serious design compromises to get there. However 2 engines are inherently safer than one and 'unsafe' is a spectrum whereby one crashy aircraft might be 20% less so than the next and still be considered an improvement. I certainly don't expect miracles, just moving the needle a bit.

 

[uk 75]

Timing is everything.
Lightning and Buccaneer like all postwar British military aircraft were several years behind where they would have been if they had been devloped in the US.
If instead of the hopeless Javelin and Scimitar they had entered service in the second half of the 50s then they would have been of real interest to W Germany.
The RAF might well have been less hostile to Buccaneer if it had been in service before the whole TSR2 saga started
Being.able to deliver Lightning F53 and Buccaneer S50 in the same timescale as F104G might have been a game changer.
With RAF Germany operating Lightnings and Bucs by 1960 W Germany would have found them much more attractive.

 

[Rule of cool]

I agree, but think that months matter in this situation and years aren't strictly necessary.

It took 3 years 8 months from order to first flight for the first P1B prototype, yet 4 years 2 months from order to first flight for the first of 20 development batch P1Bs. It was then 2 years 11 months from advance instruction to first flight of the first production Lightning F1, if you take it from the order date it was 2 years and 8 months.

If the development batch aircraft were completed as quickly as the prototypes the first would be flying in January 1958 and if it was exceeded the first flight would be in 1957. These development batch aircraft would be flying in ever greater numbers while the German evaluation in 1958. If this was accompanied by support for exports and for the fighter-bomber options for the VRET the Germans would have much more confidence in the type.

 

[red admiral]

And I don't expect them to develop one in this scenario, but to adapt their existing and more importantly paid for, Mach 2 interceptor into a fighter-bomber the way the US did for the F104 and the French did for the Mirage III.

If continuing the historical trend then we would have seen the RAF develop a "Lightning FG.7" conversion in 1965-70 as replacement types came into service (e.g. F.155 or Bloodhound Mk 2), rather than 5-8 years earlier when the F.1 is barely in service and needs fixing.

I think it's quite telling that very little effort was put into trying to make such a fighter bomber conversion - because Lightning was both expensive and unsuited for this role. The likes of P.1154 and Jaguar are far more suitable.

It took 3 years 8 months from order to first flight for the first P1B prototype, yet 4 years 2 months from order to first flight for the first of 20 development batch P1Bs

This is a symptom of trying to convert a research aircraft into a combat suitable "weapon system". It might look similar, but really you're having to redesign a lot.

 

[Rule of cool]

I think it's quite telling that very little effort was put into trying to make such a fighter bomber conversion - because Lightning was both expensive and unsuited for this role. The likes of P.1154 and Jaguar are far more suitable.

I doubt the Lightning is any more unsuited to the role of fighter-bomber as the F104 was, and it sold by the thousands, Germany alone bought 916 of them. Cost is altered by production volume, while the twin engine Lightning will never be as cheap as the single engine F104 or Mirage III if the RAF had bought ~450+ and the LW ~650+ the price would drop.

The British requirement was in 1958 for an in-service date of 1960, the P1154 wasn't even conceived until 1962 and by 1965 was expected to enter service by 1972. The Jaguar slowly morphed from its 1965 genesis as an advanced trainer for an in service date of 1974 as a sophisticated attack aircraft. So as suitable as these aircraft were they weren't options in 1958-60 whereas a developed Lightning could have been.

 

[red admiral]

So as suitable as these aircraft were they weren't options in 1958-60 whereas a developed Lightning could have been.

No, that's about 5 years too early for a Lightning variant. In reality then it's just the first F.1s coming into service then as little more than prototypes which required further development and fixing to get a basic interceptor version that worked.

 

[Hood]

Accident rates are tricky to predict.
Some of it will come down to engine reliability - how likely a turbine disc is likely to shed a blade, how difficult restarting might be, reheat relight failure, fuel leaks, does the control layout risk inadvertent shut down of the wrong engine?
Then you have low level flying hazards - bird strikes (do they leave big holes in your windscreen), bird ingestion, have you the visibility to see those power lines ahead.

Looking at Jaguar - birds downed far more aircraft than missiles in active combat zones! They caused far more airframe damage than AAA!

 

[Rule of cool]

No, that's about 5 years too early for a Lightning variant. In reality then it's just the first F.1s coming into service then as little more than prototypes which required further development and fixing to get a basic interceptor version that worked.

The Lightning F1 entered service with 79 sqn in June 1960 and by the end of the year was flying 100 hours per aircraft per month.

The Hunter FGA9 conversions also entered sqn service in 1960, 36 were ordered in the first batch after being chosen as the winner of the VRET held in August 1958.

 

[red admiral]

Yes, and Lightning F.1 can't do ground attack... and those airframes and squadrons are needed to give an interim UK interceptor capability until Bloodhound comes into service

 

[Anderman]

What´s the change the Germany buys british Helicopters Lynx instead of the UH-1D etc ?

 

[TsrJoe]

26 ordered later for Marinflieger use ...

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

What´s the change the Germany buys british Helicopters Lynx instead of the UH-1D etc ?

Basically impossible, the Germans started license producing their UH-1s before the WG.13 was even designed.

 

[Rule of cool]

Yes, and Lightning F.1 can't do ground attack... and those airframes and squadrons are needed to give an interim UK interceptor capability until Bloodhound comes into service

The ground attack options for the Lightning started to be developed from 1959, the basis of this scenario is that these were developed from 1957 for RAF and LW use.

In the attachments below note that these are bomb pylons attached to the big belly fuel tanks that were fitted to F6s and F2AAs.

 

[Rule of cool]

What´s the change the Germany buys british Helicopters Lynx instead of the UH-1D etc ?

The wholly British helicopters were few and far between, the Wessex and Sea King were improved US designs and the Lynx and Puma were Anglo-French projects.

As noted the Germans bought the Lynx, maybe they could have bought the Puma instead of the UH1, but there's no British alternative to the CH53.

 

[Rule of cool]

The question about helicopters does raise an interesting point. What happens after the Germans choose the Lightning and Buccaneer, and the related question of the RAF choosing the Lightning over Hunter conversions?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Accident rates are tricky to predict.
Some of it will come down to engine reliability - how likely a turbine disc is likely to shed a blade, how difficult restarting might be, reheat relight failure, fuel leaks, does the control layout risk inadvertent shut down of the wrong engine?
Then you have low level flying hazards - bird strikes (do they leave big holes in your windscreen), bird ingestion, have you the visibility to see those power lines ahead.

While the early J79s had some issues, I suspect that the overwhelming supermajority of F104G losses were due to low level flying hazards. Bird strikes, wire strikes, CFIT...

The F104 canopy does not have good forward visibility compared to an F4 or F8, for example.

Looking at Jaguar - birds downed far more aircraft than missiles in active combat zones! They caused far more airframe damage than AAA!

Also, look at the differences between the wings of the AV8B and GR7. Due to the bird strike protections, the GR7 wing had all titanium leading edges, while the AV8B wing was pure composite.

 

[Rule of cool]

In the spreadsheet of crashes I posted earlier there are 12 nozzle failures and 25 compressor stalls. There are 72 engine failures all up, 18 of them are FOD. My guess is that the twin engine lightning would have survived at least some if not many or most of these.

FWIW there are 25 ground contact losses.

 

[red admiral]

The ground attack options for the Lightning started to be developed from 1959, the basis of this scenario is that these were developed from 1957 for RAF and LW use.

But how? More design and test effort on these aspects then delays other aspects of the programme e.g. getting a flyable, working F.1

If we're just going to hand wave real issues away then we might as well just have EE develop an F-16C in the mid 50s instead