The Need for Speed: Technology Thread

[Delta Force]

Why was Rickover opposed to transferring nuclear technology to allies? And the rafting technology as well?

Seeing as we gave the United Kingdom the right to use American nuclear weapon designs, purchase nuclear weapons components and raw materials, and access to Nevada Test Site under the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defense Agreement, it is unusual how secretive Naval Reactors was. Rickover refused to approve export of submarine naval nuclear reactor to the United Kingdom until the mid-1950s, and even then he only wanted to provide an assembled third generation S3W reactor. Lord Mountbatten was able to acquire a single fifth generation S5W reactor for HMS Dreadnought, but ever since then the Royal Navy has used British designed and built nuclear reactors.

As strict as he was with the British, that incident isn't really that unusual relative to Rickover's other practices. Rickover personally interviewed every applicant to the naval reactor program, and they were all trained in house by Naval Reactors. It was also against regulation to do any work on a nuclear submarine without someone from Naval Reactors to monitor all work, even at United States Navy shipyards. Rickover served an unsurpassed 63 years (1918-1982) in the USN, retiring at the age of 82. He was head of Naval Reactors for 33 of those (1949 to 1982).

 

[Delta Force]

What the heck is the xb72? When i google it, i mostly get xb70 valkyrie hits.

The XB-70 was the Valkyrie and the XB-71 was a proposed SR-71 variant. Before the 1962 tri-service designation system the next available number in the USAF bomber sequence was 72. There never was a XB-72 or B-72 in real life. There weren't atomic powered aircraft either, but there were aircraft that flew with reactors on board in both the US and USSR to test the concept. The system closest in designation to B-72 was the GAM-72 (later ADM-20) Quail decoy cruise missile, a penetration aid for the B-52, but it was never known as the B-72 during its career. Some missiles did receive bomber designations though. The Atlas missile was known as the XB-65 before becoming the SM-65 (strategic missile 65), eventually ending up as the CGM-16 under the 1962 tri-service missile and drone designation system.

McNamara doesn't become secretary of defense in this timeline, but to help everything out I'm going to use the 1962 system when applicable. He pushed for the system because every service had their own equipment designations, even for variants of the same hardware, and he thought that was just too confusing and repetitive. We'll just assume it happens in 1962 for the same reasons in this timeline, as coming up with designations would just be a timeline in its own right and confuse people. The F-23 might not be the same aircraft in this timeline, but it gives you an idea where it falls in the aircraft designation sequence and is a lot easier than having F-124s flying around. For USAF aircraft it is just nice, for the USN you need an index just to understand the sequence, and the numbers themselves tell you nothing. The Grumman F4F, Vought F4U, and McDonnell F4H probably mean nothing to the average person. The sequence doesn't tell you they are from different eras (pre-World War II, World War II, and the late 1950s), and people probably don't know of too many USN fighters by their designation (unlike the USAF aircraft or 1962 system). You probably know of them by their names though: the F4F is the Wildcat, the F4U is the Corsair (probably the most famous naval designation), and the F4H is the Phantom II. Oh, and the USAF operated the Phantom II as well, but under its system it was the F-110 Spectre.

Out of all McNamara's changes at the DoD, I think we can all agree the tri-service designation system might be one of his better ones.

 

[Just Leo]

Your clarification lacks clarity, since the B-52, in all guises, is either the unofficial BUFF, or B-52, and its official name is largely ignored, as is that of the subsequent F-111 fighter-bomber, the F-111B fighter or the FB-111 strategic bomber, or the numerically non-sequential B-1B and B-2. Trying to clarify nomenclature is best left to Bletchley Park. Using number systems with 3 digits wasn't a problem with the Me-262, and using the name Corsair does not specify whether you refer to the F-4U-1D, FG-1D, F-4U4 etc or AU-1 for that matter. McNamara might understand his system, but it isn't better than anything that existed before, and could have been misunderstood during the interim period in some cases. I sincerely doubt this clarifies anything, but that's the name game, and probably partially explains the adoption of alternate names of convenience.

 

[Delta Force]

Your clarification lacks clarity, since the B-52, in all guises, is either the unofficial BUFF, or B-52, and its official name is largely ignored, as is that of the subsequent F-111 fighter-bomber, the F-111B fighter or the FB-111 strategic bomber, or the numerically non-sequential B-1B and B-2. Trying to clarify nomenclature is best left to Bletchley Park. Using number systems with 3 digits wasn't a problem with the Me-262, and using the name Corsair does not specify whether you refer to the F-4U-1D, FG-1D, F-4U4 etc or AU-1 for that matter. McNamara might understand his system, but it isn't better than anything that existed before, and could have been misunderstood during the interim period in some cases. I sincerely doubt this clarifies anything, but that's the name game, and probably partially explains the adoption of alternate names of convenience.

What I meant is that the tri-service 1962 system that was developed at McNamara's insistence made distinguishing aircraft types easier. Three digits isn't the problem, that's entirely manageable. The issue was how the Army, Navy, and Air Force all had their own separate designation systems and would give similar equipment different designations, ones with different formats and in which the components of those formulas didn't always even have the same meaning.

Under the 1922 United States Navy aircraft designation system, a designation had at least three parts:
-- Mission designation
-- Design number: design 1 from manufacturer X was 1, the second from the same company was 2, etc.
-- Manufacturer code
-- Subtype number: optional, numbers with a similar role to the letters of the USAAF/USAF and tri-service 1962 systems.
-- Special modifications: optional, letters used similarly to the block numbers of the USAAF/USAF and tri-service 1962 systems.

The USN reused the manufacturer codes, so things could get confusing. McDonnell was assigned H for its manufacturer code, previously assigned to Hall. That restarted the sequence, so there were actually two FH fighters, the one from Hall and the one from McDonnell, the Phantom I. Under this system the Phantom II was McDonnell's fourth fighter design, so it was F4H. As mentioned, the manufacturer code is recycled in this so you have to look it up (H otherwise has nothing to do with McDonnell, and there's no way to know that) and the series numbers also reset.

The 1924 United States Army Air Service system was much more simple, with no recycling. It would go this way:
-- Status modifier: optional, applied only to individual aircraft, not types.
-- Mission modifier prefix: for models doing a different role than the original role, a WB is a weather monitoring variant of a bomber, an RF is a reconnaissance variant of a fighter, EF is an electronic warfare fighter, etc.
-- Mission letter: A for attack, B for bomber, C for cargo, F for fighter, etc.
-- Model number: 1 is the first of that type from all companies, 2 is the 2nd of that type from all companies, etc.
-- An optional subtype designator: an A subtype aircraft is the first modification, the B is the second, etc.
-- An optional block number: distinguishes production changes within subtypes. Rarely noted, but the F-16 blocks are a prominent modern user of this.

Something similar to the USAAF/USAF system was adopted for the tri-service 1962 system. F-110 tells you that the aircraft is a fighter, and the 110th design of that type. The F-106 is the 106th fighter design. What's an EF-105? That's an electronic warfare variant of the 105th fighter design (the F-105).

The model names aren't part of the name and are totally optional. The F-111 flew its entire career without a name, only officially becoming the Aardvark at its retirement ceremony. Sometimes different subtypes have a different name. The "classic" air supremacy F-15s (subtypes A, B, C, D) are known as Eagles. The fighter-bomber F-15Es are known as Strike Eagles. Boeing is proposing the F-15SE Silent Eagle. SE isn't a sequential subtype designation, but there isn't a rule saying they have to be. Usually Israel gets subtypes starting with I, Japan gets ones starting with J, Saudi Arabia gets ones starting with S, the RoK gets ones starting with K, etc. The Ks used to be for the UK, but they don't buy as many US aircraft as they used to and the subtypes don't have to be assigned in a particular manner.

Now, here's why the tri-service 1962 system is so nice. Take the F-35 family. It's the 35th fighter design under the unified series, and we just use the subtype designator to distinguish between models. Because of subtype flexibility this is actually a bit clever. The USAF land based subtype gets A (you can think of it as A for Air Force). The USMC VTOL model gets B. The USN carrier based model gets C (think of it as C for carrier). That's a really nice and easy way of letting us know they are part of the same family, but a bit different.

Under the pre-1962 systems, they would be FV in USN service (F for fighter, no number because the first plane from a company didn't get one, and V for Lockheed). In USAF service it would be something like the F-146. In fact, with the development of VTOL aircraft this is really confusing because Lockheed's manufacturer code in the USN was V, and V is the same symbol the USAF uses for VTOL aircraft. Either Lockheed would need a new code or you'd have to keep in mind that it's a manufacturer code, not a role code.

 

[Just Leo]

The system isn't that nice. The F-35 is not the 35th example but rather something like the 24th. The F-35 is derived from perhaps X-35, or perhaps a whim, but not because it is the 35th fighter, because it isn't. There is no indication that the F-35 is multi-role, as in F/A-18, nor is there an indication that the F-35B is VTOL capable. Lockheed/Martin was never designated by the Navy as a V, but maybe could be VM or something else again. Logically, I think the F/A-18E/F could have earned a completely new type designation, but someone pulled a fast one. The F-19 is a plastic model, and the F-21A doesn't have a non-A model. They're not much for hard rules. Was the SR-71 the 71th anything? No. Nobody argues with Lemay.

 

[Delta Force]

The system isn't that nice.

It's certainly more clear and less repetitive than the old system.

The F-35 is not the 35th example but rather something like the 24th. The F-35 is derived from perhaps X-35, or perhaps a whim, but not because it is the 35th fighter, because it isn't.

I recall reading that a large chunk of missing numbers were reserved foreign aircraft in US service, mostly captured/procured aircraft of Soviet origin.

There is no indication that the F-35 is multi-role, as in F/A-18, nor is there an indication that the F-35B is VTOL capable.

If you want to maintain stealth it's not really multirole. They really need to work on stealthy munitions pods for the F-35.

Lockheed/Martin was never designated by the Navy as a V, but maybe could be VM or something else again.

V was the old Lockheed designation under the pre-1962 designation. It's really anyone's guess what they would have done with designations for companies that merged.

Logically, I think the F/A-18E/F could have earned a completely new type designation, but someone pulled a fast one.

It certainly could have used a new designation. It was easier for the USN and McDonnell Douglas to sell the Super Hornet to Congress if they emphasized its similarity to the older models.

The F-19 is a plastic model, and the F-21A doesn't have a non-A model. They're not much for hard rules. Was the SR-71 the 71th anything? No. Nobody argues with Lemay.

No one knows what the F-19 was, and usually they start with the A model.

 

[Just Leo]

As far as I know, captured MiG-17s were called MiG-17s. One borrowed MiG-21F gained the moniker YF-110, but this could be confused with the unused number given the F-4. Who saves that many numbers for "captured" fighter aircraft? Since they would be utilized for ACM, it's probably better for them to be recognized for what they in fact are. The Kfir was called the F-21A but the F-20 was called that. There would be no new letter designations for the Kfir, but were they prescient when they designated the F-20 Tigershark? The F-19 can be googled, and probably bought on EBay. It is a plastic model, and only a plastic model. Put that in your McNamara.

It isn't really a better system. It's just the new system, with warts and inconsistencies.

 

[Delta Force]

Royal Birds

A Black Brant rocket is prepared for launch at Churchill Research Range. Photo Credit.

The Canadian space program can trace its origins to the 1950s and CARDE's attempt to develop a high performance aerospace defense missile. This effort required the development of several technologies: advanced aerospace detection and tracking systems, materials suitable for hypersonic flight, high atmosphere research, and the development of advanced rocket fuels. As storable liquid propellents had not yet been perfected, and a missile defense system would require constant readiness, CARDE chose to focus on the development of advanced solid fuels. Although Canada's ABM program ultimately failed to produce a feasible system after almost a decade of research, it was highly successful in achieving its research and technological goals. High speed flight data gathered during the program aided the development of the Avro Arrow and other Canadian aircraft projects. Although an ABM was never produced, solid rocket fuels for the program have seen use worldwide, even flying into space. Although originally developed as a test platform for new solid rocket fuels, the Black Brant rocket eventually evolved into one of the world's most popular sounding rocket families. Hundreds of rockets have flown since its first flight in 1959, and it remains the standard sounding rocket of both the Commonwealth and American space programs.

The Black Prince rocket system. It consisted of the de Havilland Propellers and
Hawker Siddeley Blue Streak first stage, Saunders-Roe Black Arrow second stage,
and Avro Canada Arrowhead third stage. Photo Credit.

While contributing greatly to aerospace development, Canada's space program did not attract the attention of the general public until the start of the Black Prince program. The United Kingdom had spent hundreds of millions of pounds developing the Blue Streak intermediate range ballistic missile before deciding to adopt less vulnerable air and sea based nuclear weapon platforms in the 1957 Defense White Paper. Nothing that "for a fraction of the cost of developing a new rocket, the United Kingdom can challenge American dominance of the commercial space industry with a domestic alternative", the Royal Aircraft Establishment proposed completing the Blue Streak as a space launch vehicle for military and commercial payloads. After consultations with various Commonwealth and European governments and corporations throughout 1958, sufficient interest was found to proceed with development of a space launch vehicle: the Black Prince. Although proposed as a British project, it was decided to expand participation to the Commonwealth and European nations to incentivize its use. The first stage consisted of a modified Blue Streak missile produced by de Havilland Propellers and Hawker Siddeley. The upper two stages consisted of the Saunders-Roe Black Arrow (a Black Knight development) and the Avro Canada Arrowhead. When the Blue Streak's additional lifting capacity was not required, the Black Arrow/Arrowhead system could independently lift smaller payloads into orbit. Dutch and French companies provided several electronic and radio components, while Belgian, Italian, and West German firms were given other production contracts.

A Black Arrow/Arrowhead test rocket lifts off from Woomera. Photo Credit.

Australia agreed to finance the cost of expanding Woomera Test Range and Pacific tracking stations, allowing tests of the Black Arrow/Arrowhead to begin in early 1962. A similar facility was to be built in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, to accommodate satellites requiring polar orbits. In order to save weight and allow greater commonality, the British rockets were designed to use thrust vectoring instead of control fins, with the engines themselves capable of moving several degrees to adjust the rocket's trajectory. Unfortunately, as the rocket's weight and center of mass shifted throughout flight while thrust output remained constant, instability consistently developed before staging, causing loss of control. After an engineer at Avro Canada proposed using the company's fly-by-wire technology on the rockets, vehicle oscillations were finally brought under control. With no additional problems encountered in subsequent Black Arrow/Arrowhead tests, and the Blue Streak having proven itself to be highly reliable, the first full launch of Black Prince could finally take place. On February 8, 1963, Canada's Alouette 1 became the first satellite outside America and the Soviet Union to enter orbit. Remarkably among the satellites of its era, Alouette remained continued to monitor the ionosphere well into the late 1970s, even surviving several nuclear tests. Alongside the Vanguard satellites, it is the only satellite from the early era of space exploration that remains in orbit, with decay not expected for several hundred more years.

-----

This was quite the update. It is rather difficult to find information on the British space program, so I had less historical information to base things on than usual. Several people also helped with determining where the spaceports of a Commonwealth space program would likely go. That discussion can be seen here.

Links of Interest:

Black Prince (rocket)
Alouette/ISIS: How it all Began

 

[Shevek23]

As I commented in the launch site discussion thread (just now) provided that distance really isn't a big factor (something I don't think is actually proven but points have been made on that side) then Woomera is a great site. It's fine for later East Asian powers to launch from even if distance proves to be costly for the British, and there are some nice inherent advantages to a desert launch site over nearly uninhabited land, a site hosted in a developed nation with social and political ties to Europe, that can outweigh some of the distance. So it's nice to see Woomera operating in this way.

I couldn't come up with a lot of novel ideas for you, and the ones I have are a bit dubious:

1) might not the Soviets be attracted to developing a low-latitude site in Cuba? They need it a lot more than the Americans or even European powers do.
*Looking at Google maps a bit it seems there is no way to launch from Cuba without going over some islands or other, if not Hispaniola than the Bahamas... And those islands are pretty small to put a rocket base on. Same goes for Puerto Rico--the Virgin Islands are in the way and they seem too small. The best bet for a Caribbean island launch site seems to me to be somewhere in the chain from Guadeloupe to Barbadoes; the ocean is clear to the east and one could launch straight north from most of them. None of these do the Russians any particular good, but I suppose we might imagine an eventual private spaceport somewhere in there.

2) what about east Africa? From Tanzania to Somalia, the East African coast offers clear shots over the nearly empty Indian ocean from tropical sites. The problem is politics, stability and access to developed infrastructure, of course. But you know your ATL's east African politics better than I do--Kenya seems like the best bet for European sponsored projects, but other power blocs might find good opportunities in Somalia (if it develops much better than OTL) or Tanzania. Or Kenya itself of course.

3) the Japanese, if they want a more equatorial launch site, might do well to partner with the Philippines for an eastern Mindanao site (depending on how bad Mindanao separatism might be in the ATL)

 

[Delta Force]

As I commented in the launch site discussion thread (just now) provided that distance really isn't a big factor (something I don't think is actually proven but points have been made on that side) then Woomera is a great site. It's fine for later East Asian powers to launch from even if distance proves to be costly for the British, and there are some nice inherent advantages to a desert launch site over nearly uninhabited land, a site hosted in a developed nation with social and political ties to Europe, that can outweigh some of the distance. So it's nice to see Woomera operating in this way.

In real life, Woomera was almost like a Commonwealth version of White Sands and Nevada Test Site. It was used for covert testing of British aerospace projects and nuclear weapons. Since so much can be done overland, it's ideal for Commonwealth defense projects. It's basically impossible for the Soviets and (later) PRC to spy on anything going on there, as it would require dedicated space surveillance missions (nothing else of strategic importance is that far south) and there would be nothing for trawler to observe or recover.

Cape Breton is a better location for some payloads, given that they be easily flown/shipped across the ocean by aircraft, loaded on their rocket, and sent into space. Working together, they can cover most orbital types and are close to the Asian and North American/European markets, respectively.

I couldn't come up with a lot of novel ideas for you, and the ones I have are a bit dubious:

1) might not the Soviets be attracted to developing a low-latitude site in Cuba? They need it a lot more than the Americans or even European powers do.
*Looking at Google maps a bit it seems there is no way to launch from Cuba without going over some islands or other, if not Hispaniola than the Bahamas... And those islands are pretty small to put a rocket base on. Same goes for Puerto Rico--the Virgin Islands are in the way and they seem too small. The best bet for a Caribbean island launch site seems to me to be somewhere in the chain from Guadeloupe to Barbadoes; the ocean is clear to the east and one could launch straight north from most of them. None of these do the Russians any particular good, but I suppose we might imagine an eventual private spaceport somewhere in there.

The main issue with the Caribbean is how many islands there are that rockets must overfly or even drop stages on. The United States will also rather wary of Soviet rockets flying alongside the East Coast, or even flying right over it.

2) what about east Africa? From Tanzania to Somalia, the East African coast offers clear shots over the nearly empty Indian ocean from tropical sites. The problem is politics, stability and access to developed infrastructure, of course. But you know your ATL's east African politics better than I do--Kenya seems like the best bet for European sponsored projects, but other power blocs might find good opportunities in Somalia (if it develops much better than OTL) or Tanzania. Or Kenya itself of course.

Somalia and Kenya are rather interesting options. Mogadishu is closer to the equator than any location used in real life, and it was home a major Soviet naval base. Kenya might be of interest to private firms, especially around Mombasa.

3) the Japanese, if they want a more equatorial launch site, might do well to partner with the Philippines for an eastern Mindanao site (depending on how bad Mindanao separatism might be in the ATL)

I haven't decided how the Second Korean War will go, but if Japan itself comes under direct attack during it and chooses to build a full fledged military, other Asian nations might not take too kindly to hosting Japanese rocket bases.

 

[Delta Force]

The STAR Cannon

Churchill Research Range in the mid-1960s. The Hudson Bay is visible in the upper
part of the photograph. Photo Credit.

While Churchill Research Range was the site of many of Canada's early rocket launches, its cold weather and remote location made year-round operations and the launch of larger rockets difficult. However, its remote location and proximately to the Hudson Bay made it an attractive location for more secretive projects. As larger and more prestigious Commonwealth space program projects shifted elsewhere throughout the early 1960s, United States Army operations at the facility increased. The Army ballistic missile program had seen its funding drastically cut over the past several years, especially after the USN's Vanguard program beat the Army's Explorer program to put the first satellite into orbit. When Canadian scientist Dr. Gerald Bull proposed an artillery based system capable of firing sounding shots - even placing satellites into orbit - they jumped at the chance, establishing the High Altitude Research Program to research advanced artillery technologies.

Dr. Gerald Bull supervises preparations for a Project HARP test launch. Photo Credit.

Although smaller cannons were used in early development, 16" diameter cannons were soon determined to be the smallest effective caliber. With the Army's 16"/50 M1919 coastal artillery long since scrapped, they were forced to acquire cannons from the Navy. The desired 16"/50 Mark 7 cannons were not available, being earmarked for the Iowa class guided missile battleship program, but 16"/45 Mark 6 cannons were in abundant supply from scrapped treaty battleships. Rebored into 16.4" smoothbores and lengthened with additional barrel segments, these old naval cannons became the centerpiece of the Army's space program. On July 1, 1963 - the 97th anniversary of Canadian Confederation - a Marlet 4 projectile successfully entered orbit, only a few months after Canada's first satellite, Alouette 1, did so on a rocket.

The Martlet 4 was adopted by the United States Army as the STAR shell, fired by the
M100 Space Cannon. Photo Credit.

Shortly after this test, the United States Army adopted the Space Transmission and Reception "STAR" shell, an Army adoption of the Marlet 4 research vehicle, along with the M100 Space Cannon. This system was adopted to provide the United States Army with its own emergency communications system independent of either the Air Force or Navy. Although it was proposed as a low cost replacement for Strategic Air Command's Emergency Rocket Communications System in the late 1960s, the Space Cannon system was rejected for taking an hour to prepare for launch, despite being capable of being left loaded and trained for launch. This rejection was a harbinger of things to come. With the Space Cannon allowing for only a small payload diameter. and the USAF consolidating its control of Department of Defense launches, the pioneering technology was relegated to its emergency communications role, forbidden from launching even the smallest Army payloads. With the end of Project HARP, Dr. Gerald Bull ended his work at CARDE and established Space Research Corporation to further develop the Space Cannon and other artillery technologies.

-----

Links of Interest:
A Brief History of the HARP Project

 

[Delta Force]

Any comments and/or questions? There have a few hundred views for this update and nothing yet.

Also, I encourage you to read the political thread that goes along with this technology thread. It covers some of the major political events that are shaping the world of The Need for Speed.

 

[CrazyGeorge]

Great update.

 

[Vonar Roberts]

Looking good so far.

Some notes however Cape Breton is rather far north to be launching rockets on a regular basis, it also has relatively limited rail infrastructure so it would be harder to pull a Soviet system and ship the assembled rocket several thousand kilometers via rail from Canada's industrial heartland to the launch site. Your also going to loose 20%-30% of your payload potential every launch if you expect the vehicle to go in a equatorial orbit just from the cost of the Delta-V plane change that is required. Churchill being a higher latitude will also suffer from a much greater payload penalty due to the additional delta-v required for a plane change.

The European Union's space agency eventually settled on a launch site in French Guiana largely due to its proximity to the equator. Perhaps a British Guiana launch site would be a appropriate Site B launch location for this timeline?

 

[Delta Force]

Sweden of the Southern Hemisphere

The Fábrica Argentina de Aviones aircraft factory in the late 1940s. Photo Credit.

While Argentina had a long history of producing military equipment, they tended to be licensed foreign designs. With the rise of the Peronist Party and its emphasis on neutrality, significant political and economic resources were dedicated to expanding the capabilities of the domestic defense industry. Domestic purchases also helped ease the outflow of foreign currency, which remained an issue for the Argentinean economy throughout the 1950s. Although more complicated components such as engines and aircraft avionics continued to be imported from abroad, foreign content steadily decreased. In addition to spurring the growth of industry, armament production at the state-owned factories eventually became a major Argentinian export, and a significant source of foreign currency.

The FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II prototype. Its four 20mm cannons are visible near the
front wheel well. Photo Credit.

One of the most high profile projects of the defense industry was the Pulqui series of fighter aircraft. While the Pulqui I made Argentina the first nation in Latin America to fly a jet aircraft, and only the fifth country in the world, it was the more advanced Pulqui II that was adopted for service in the Argentine Air Force. Designed by famed German engineer Kurt Tank and powered by an imported Rolls-Royce Nene engine, the aircraft had performance on par with American and European aircraft. However, due to the underdeveloped state of the Argentinean aviation sector, it took until the mid-1950s for the aircraft to enter widespread service.

A FMA IAe 43 Pulqui III model undergoes wind tunnel tests. Photo Credit.

While the Argentine aviation sector and Air Force learned how to build and operate jet aircraft, Kurt Tank's team started work on the Pulqui III. Powered by two license produced Atar afterburning engines, the aircraft resembled a Mach 2 version of the Hawker Hunter and was similarly armed, mounting four 30mm cannons and capable of carrying several thousand pounds of bombs, air-to-air missiles, and other ordnance. The aircraft also had some unusual features. While hydraulic flight controls and even fly-by-wire were becoming increasingly popular, the Pulqui III's control surfaces were able to be manually operated in the event of hydraulic failure. The solid design of the aircraft helped it to sell in many Latin American nations. Egypt was a major operator of the type, placing a large order for the type as it rebuilt its military following the disastrous Suez War.

-----

The Pulqui III entered service in real life as the Hindustan HF-24 Marut. Kurt Tank had mostly completed the blueprints for aircraft, but left Argentina for India after the 1955 coup overthrew Juan Perón. India chose to develop the design, but after the Orpheus engine they planned to use lost British government funding India chose not to give Bristol a contract to complete its development. Instead, they chose to use a variant with half the thrust.

Links of Interest:
Hindustan Fighter: HF-24 Marut

 

[Delta Force]

Bumpity bump.

 

[Just Leo]

I was wondering if, since the Pulqui II has entered widespread service, perhaps Willi Messerschmitt's Helwan fighter might also be destined for production status, albeit with alternate engine. It's always troublesome for countries without indigenous engine manufacturers to establish fighter programs.

 

[Delta Force]

I was wondering if, since the Pulqui II has entered widespread service, perhaps Willi Messerschmitt's Helwan fighter might also be destined for production status, albeit with alternate engine. It's always troublesome for countries without indigenous engine manufacturers to establish fighter programs.

Sorry for the late reply. I'm not sure about the Helwan yet. Historically, India was linked to several projects proposed by German designers. Without the Marut, the Helwan is something they might take up. At the same time, the light fighter market develops earlier in this timeline. In addition to the historical Northrop F-5/T-38 family, the Folland Mosquito II/Fly family exists in this timeline. With that kind of market saturation and India's historical heavy use and license production of the Folland Gnat, they might simply go with Mosquitoes, especially once further developments of those aircraft and a few new ones start entering production in the 1970s.

 

[Just Leo]

I had something a little more Egyptian in mind. They changed their mind in only six days, but it could have been something. Indian interest is only in the proposed engine, one prolonged interest.

 

[Delta Force]

I had something a little more Egyptian in mind. They changed their mind in only six days, but it could have been something. Indian interest is only in the proposed engine, one prolonged interest.

Egypt might order them, but given their defeat in the Suez War the project is likely to be developed by another nation. The financing and resources to carry out such a project will be in short supply.