Let's build! A 1950's British fighter.

[Gunnarnz]

Firepower is a rather complex question at the time.

Thanks for that, it was very interesting and sheds some light on what the realities were at the time. I was expecting that guns would be the main armament for a fighter at this time, but I hadn't realised quite how much early missiles demanded in terms of mass and volume.
IIRC the Aden gun pack allows for 150 rounds per gun, which doesn't seem like much. Especially if each gun has a rate of fire of 1500rpm! Is there any advantage to increasing the ammunition allocation, perhaps at the expense of 1 or 2 guns?
And Just Leo mentioned issues with gun gasses and shell ejection. I'm imagining a quad-Aden installation behind the pilot with the barrels under the cockpit to leave the nose free for radar. In a fairly big twin-engine fighter, something like the P.1129 above, that would still put the muzzles ahead of the intakes though. How big a problem was that?

 

[Gunnarnz]

I guess another issue is that gun armament demands manoeuvrability in order to bring them to bear. The Phantom did okay with it's gun over Vietnam, but I don't get the feeling it was ideal in that role. Better tactics and pilot training play a role, but does a heavy fighter imply missiles or can it be made agile enough to handle MiG-17s etc?

 

[pdf27]

Thanks for that, it was very interesting and sheds some light on what the realities were at the time. I was expecting that guns would be the main armament for a fighter at this time, but I hadn't realised quite how much early missiles demanded in terms of mass and volume.
IIRC the Aden gun pack allows for 150 rounds per gun, which doesn't seem like much. Especially if each gun has a rate of fire of 1500rpm! Is there any advantage to increasing the ammunition allocation, perhaps at the expense of 1 or 2 guns?

The Hunter Aden pack at least allowed you to fire either 2 or 4 guns at once to address exactly this issue. I think you'd need to keep all 4 guns on board however - there will be occasions where you're only going to get a single shot at the incoming bomber and really need to get as many rounds on target as you can in that time. Similar in concept to the Mighty Mouse/FFAR rocket: you don't get long to engage, so pack as much firepower into that brief moment as you can.

And Just Leo mentioned issues with gun gasses and shell ejection. I'm imagining a quad-Aden installation behind the pilot with the barrels under the cockpit to leave the nose free for radar. In a fairly big twin-engine fighter, something like the P.1129 above, that would still put the muzzles ahead of the intakes though. How big a problem was that?

That seems to have depended a lot on the engine as much as the guns - the Sapphire powered Hunters didn't really suffer from this, but it got so bad on the early Avon-powered marks that they essentially couldn't fire their guns in anything but an emergency. My understanding is that a lot of the problem was with the air inlets - early jet engines had major problems with stall/surge and in the Hunter the inlet design made this a lot worse. That's why the Sapphire had fewer issues - as a system it was just that bit less sensitive and so could cope better with gas ingestion. Another aircraft would have had a different inlet design and so might not have had the same problems.

I guess another issue is that gun armament demands manoeuvrability in order to bring them to bear. The Phantom did okay with it's gun over Vietnam, but I don't get the feeling it was ideal in that role. Better tactics and pilot training play a role, but does a heavy fighter imply missiles or can it be made agile enough to handle MiG-17s etc?

Ummm... a MiG-17 has a range at cruise speed with drop tanks and not making any turns of 600 miles from base. Once you start actually fighting then it can maybe reach East Anglia from bases about an inch behind the Iron Curtain. The Hunter was rated to go 25% further with external fuel, and still only had a combat range of less than 400 miles. Realistically a MiG-17 would only be a threat trying to escort incoming bombers over the North See, or for RAF Germany.
The whole point of heavy fighters - and this includes the Phantom as originally conceived - is as bomber destroyers rather than for dogfighting (the USN had the Crusader for that job). Instead you want something to take out the Badgers and Bisons before they drop their weapons on you - the spec which ultimately led to the Lightning.

 

[Just Leo]

I guess another issue is that gun armament demands manoeuvrability in order to bring them to bear. The Phantom did okay with it's gun over Vietnam, but I don't get the feeling it was ideal in that role. Better tactics and pilot training play a role, but does a heavy fighter imply missiles or can it be made agile enough to handle MiG-17s etc?

I guess there are more issues than you think. The Folland Gnat carried its twin ADENs athwart the jet intakes without any problems, and was a fine dog-fighter, but would be useless trying to intercept Bears over the North Sea, or catching another fighter going Mach 2. We aren't ready to build a 1950s British fighter until we have a specification, something better than "multi-role fighter". We might end up with something like the Supermarine Swift, a no-role fighter.

 

[Gunnarnz]

I guess there are more issues than you think. The Folland Gnat carried its twin ADENs athwart the jet intakes without any problems, and was a fine dog-fighter, but would be useless trying to intercept Bears over the North Sea, or catching another fighter going Mach 2. We aren't ready to build a 1950s British fighter until we have a specification, something better than "multi-role fighter". We might end up with something like the Supermarine Swift, a no-role fighter.

Ok. I was originally hoping to end up with something that really could do everything, even if that ended up happening 20 or 30 years into it's service life, but I don't feel that's going to be realistic so let's look at two cases.

First: Long-range interceptor. This means chasing Bears over the North Sea. If the same airframe turns out to be useful for other things too (like the Phantom proved to be) then so much the better, but at least initially it's intended to handle air-defence of the UK. Maybe something like a supersonic Buccaneer?

Second: Air-superiority fighter. This is what goes to Germany to battle the MiG hordes and generally make itself useful. It's probably smaller and cheaper than the other one, and so gets used in more places. Something like an area-ruled Hunter might be close for this.

It would be good if both had some sort of ground attack capability, even if it arrives later, and it would be really good if they were competitive enough to be attractive for foreign customers (such as Commonwealth nations). Bonus points if the FAA or other small-carrier navies can operate them as well. Is that enough to be going on with?

 

[Don Quijote]

I guess there are more issues than you think. The Folland Gnat carried its twin ADENs athwart the jet intakes without any problems, and was a fine dog-fighter, but would be useless trying to intercept Bears over the North Sea, or catching another fighter going Mach 2. We aren't ready to build a 1950s British fighter until we have a specification, something better than "multi-role fighter". We might end up with something like the Supermarine Swift, a no-role fighter.

The Swift FR.5 was a good aircraft, and won the 'Royal Flush' low level recce exercises a couple of times. It was engine problems which killed it as a general interceptor, as the reheat didn't work above 20,000 feet, as well as the issues with the wing, which took too long to sort out. The Hunter had issues too, but they were dealt with a lot quicker.

 

[Don Quijote]

Bonus points if the FAA or other small-carrier navies can operate them as well. Is that enough to be going on with?

There were plans fore a navalised Gnat, but I don't know if it was to be supersonic or not.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

What does it give you that you don't have somewhat earlier from the Lightning?

A tough rugged airframe that doesn't need miles of perfect runway to take off and land on, or refueling almost as soon as it reaches operational altitudes. It's also much more likely ably to be converted to carrier use than the Lightning, which would have needed an as yet untried (and as yet purely a theoretical idea) swing wing for carrier use.

 

[pdf27]

A tough rugged airframe that doesn't need miles of perfect runway to take off and land on, or refueling almost as soon as it reaches operational altitudes. It's also much more likely ably to be converted to carrier use than the Lightning, which would have needed an as yet untried (and as yet purely a theoretical idea) swing wing for carrier use.

1. The belief at the time was that any bombs hitting airfields would be of the nuclear variety, which implies that the runway is either going to remain perfect or the whole airfield will be gone.
2. Range isn't as good, but that's a function of power to weight ratio more than anything else - and if you want to deal with incoming bombers with very little warning then you need stellar time-to-height performance.
3. Telling their Airships that a particular aircraft can easily be converted to carrier use is a good way of getting them to hate it!

 

[Tovarich]

A license built F-86 Sabre?

Why not buy the Mig15 instead?

UK already has the engines

 

[CarribeanViking]

We have all been far too sensible. What about the money no object, difficulties bedamned, last of the great Victorian eccentrics, completely batshit insane option?

The natural successor to the Lightning- the English Electric P.10, naming suggestion Longbow ? http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234937581-english-electric-p10-sr2/

Say these words carefully. Wing burning- chamber ramjet biplane. Mach 2.5 sustained, 3+ dash. Twenty- five hundred mile radius. Huge equipment and weapon bays.

Extreme speed. Reconnaissance bomber role, originally, but adaptable as a heavy interceptor/ penetration fighter. Thrust deflector vanes in the wings and you could get the turn radius down to single digit miles at speed, or out- turn propeller biplanes at low speed.

Hell, if we're dreaming, why not dream big?

 

[Archibald]

The great missed opportunity was an operational variant of the Fairey Delta - it could have bet the crap out of a Mirage III (and I'm a frenchman, go figure )
Fairey did propose a single-engine interceptor Delta-derivative for F-155T but they scrapped it in favor of the twin-engine monster that ultimately won the competition, only to be scrapped by goddam Sandys.

A Fairey Delta interceptor could have followed the path of the Mirage III - IIIC, then IIIE, then IIIR. Overall the British had better engines than the Atar, and their radar and missiles were better (to Dassault despair, the radar - Thomson CSF - and engine industry - SNECMA - lagged far behind them)

 

[Archibald]

We have all been far too sensible. What about the money no object, difficulties bedamned, last of the great Victorian eccentrics, completely batshit insane option?

The natural successor to the Lightning- the English Electric P.10, naming suggestion Longbow ? http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234937581-english-electric-p10-sr2/

Say these words carefully. Wing burning- chamber ramjet biplane. Mach 2.5 sustained, 3+ dash. Twenty- five hundred mile radius. Huge equipment and weapon bays.

Extreme speed. Reconnaissance bomber role, originally, but adaptable as a heavy interceptor/ penetration fighter. Thrust deflector vanes in the wings and you could get the turn radius down to single digit miles at speed, or out- turn propeller biplanes at low speed.

Hell, if we're dreaming, why not dream big?

First - KUDOS to the modeller, because this is certainly one hell of a difficult build.

Second thought - only brilliantly excentric British brains could ever imagine such a strange flying machine. It beat the pants of a SR-71 and it is even sexier (which says a lot)

Third thought - seriously, swept wing canards with a straight wing - part of which can be dropped in flight ?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

1. The belief at the time was that any bombs hitting airfields would be of the nuclear variety, which implies that the runway is either going to remain perfect or the whole airfield will be gone.
2. Range isn't as good, but that's a function of power to weight ratio more than anything else - and if you want to deal with incoming bombers with very little warning then you need stellar time-to-height performance.
3. Telling their Airships that a particular aircraft can easily be converted to carrier use is a good way of getting them to hate it!

Draken was designed to operate from rough country roads after the airfields were knocked out.

The follies of the various defence procurement bodies were indeed incredible, the Admiralty was just as prone to them as the Air Ministry. The Canberra and Carrier replacement programs show that all too well. A mass sacking of those unable or unwilling to face the fact that Britain could not afford to match the US was called for. Having to fund in effect two large expensive armies didn't help things either. (1 Large highly mechanised force in Germany that would likely be incinerated within hours of the balloon going up. 1 large counter insurgency force spread all over the Indian Ocean fighting bushfire wars.)

 

[pdf27]

Draken was designed to operate from rough country roads after the airfields were knocked out.

For a tactical aircraft, that makes a lot of sense (far more than Harrier ever did, frankly). For an interceptor, not so much - you're heavily reliant on outside radar data to be cued onto targets, and the radars which provide it are going to be even higher up the target list than your airfields.

 

[Just Leo]

The great missed opportunity was an operational variant of the Fairey Delta - it could have bet the crap out of a Mirage III (and I'm a frenchman, go figure )
Fairey did propose a single-engine interceptor Delta-derivative for F-155T but they scrapped it in favor of the twin-engine monster that ultimately won the competition, only to be scrapped by goddam Sandys.

A Fairey Delta interceptor could have followed the path of the Mirage III - IIIC, then IIIE, then IIIR. Overall the British had better engines than the Atar, and their radar and missiles were better (to Dassault despair, the radar - Thomson CSF - and engine industry - SNECMA - lagged far behind them)

I, too, am a fan of the AH possibilities of the FDII, but only following the general style of the Mirage and Draken. Fairey only had future plans for it with dream engines, which never fulfilled their promise. The FDIII featured 2 of the same dream engines, which would have come to the same end as the Avro Arrow, and the Arrow seems to have been a much better design. Bean counters would not have gone for, and never did go for such massive machines on price alone.

You're being a little harsh evaluating French equipment. Opinions vary, and some poor French radars were vastly superior to British cement. You failed to degrade Matra missiles. On purpose?

 

[Archibald]

Maybe I was a little harsh on Thomson, but not on SNECMA. Dassault was really on their backs for more powerful, better engines - only the M-88 truly satisfied the company. Atar and M53 lacked performance.

MATRA missiles by contrast were not too bad - Magic matched Sidewinders, while R-530 and Super 530 matched the Sparrows, including abysmal performance in the early generations.

A Mirage F1 pilot once told the harrowing story of a defective R-530 barreling around its aircraft after launch.

 

[Just Leo]

Just some possible Cuda Beans.

 

[Gunnarnz]

We have all been far too sensible. What about the money no object, difficulties bedamned, last of the great Victorian eccentrics, completely batshit insane option?

The natural successor to the Lightning- the English Electric P.10, naming suggestion Longbow ? http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234937581-english-electric-p10-sr2/

Say these words carefully. Wing burning- chamber ramjet biplane. Mach 2.5 sustained, 3+ dash. Twenty- five hundred mile radius. Huge equipment and weapon bays.

Extreme speed. Reconnaissance bomber role, originally, but adaptable as a heavy interceptor/ penetration fighter. Thrust deflector vanes in the wings and you could get the turn radius down to single digit miles at speed, or out- turn propeller biplanes at low speed.

Hell, if we're dreaming, why not dream big?

I... I don't know what to say. Its magnificent, wildly impractical, and in the end too pure for this fallen world. It looks like something from a Thunderbirds episode (probably because it too is a model ). All it needs is to be nuclear-powered, and then you'd have everything!
I agree with Archibald completely. Sadly, I have a sneaking suspicion it wouldn't get built in this or any other timeline.

 

[fastmongrel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_545