A modern day British jet fighter
- Thread starter DMA
- Start date
We couldn't any more. We don't have the manufacturing capacity to manufacture a complete aircraft and neither can we finance the development of one.
The last military aircraft designed, developed and manufactured in the UK was the Harrier in 1966 unless you count the Hawk trainer, used by the Red Arrows, in 1974.
We are no longer a "contender".
The last military aircraft designed, developed and manufactured in the UK was the Harrier in 1966 unless you count the Hawk trainer, used by the Red Arrows, in 1974.
We are no longer a "contender".
Are you saying that the French are better than the British?
Guess so, look at their TGV trains. We can't make our own we buy ours from Italy, also there is no British motor manufacturer at all and the latest Cunard cruise ship was made in Germany.
So all in all the UK manufactures, well, MDF flat-pack furniture that falls apart after assembly and I suppose a few chemical products. Still Viagra makes a few bucks across the world.
It should be possible: I mean, Sweden made a jet fighter towards the end of 80s, and is still developing it further.
True, it should have been. Unfortunately we have been out of the game since the late 1960s. With the cancellation of the TSR 2 and the Hawker P-1154 in 1964 the UK effectively withdrew from military aircraft manufacturing.
Incidentally if both of those machines had been produced and developed they would have been far better than anything that substituted for them, still in service today and setting the standard for their replacements.
Last edited:
whatisinaname
Donor
Probably something on the lines of the Harrier (based on Hawker P.1154 idea)
Stats I don’t know what a 21st century supersonic harrier would be, but the provisional stats for the Hawker P.1154 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_P.1154 copied from Wiki are as follows (as of October 1964) =
Crew: one, pilot
Length: 57 ft 6 in (17.53 m)
Wingspan: 28 ft 4 in (8.64 m)
Height: 12 ft 6 in (3.81 m)
Wing area: 269 ft² (25 m²)
Empty weight: 20,100 lb (9,136 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 40,050 lb (18,204 kg)
Power plant: 1× Bristol Siddeley BS100/8 Phase II vectored-thrust turbofan engine with PCB
Dry thrust: 26,200 lbf (117 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 33,900 lbf (151 kN)
* Internal fuel: 1,300 Imperial gallons (5,910 letres)
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.13 at sea level / Mach 1.7 at altitude (860-1,294 mph / 1,384-2,082 km/h)
Range: 420 to 560 nm depending on speed and load (483-644 miles / 778-1,037 km)
Armament
Each wing: two pylons, (2,000 lb (909 kg) inboard, 1,000 lb (454 kg) outboard)
Fuselage: single centre line pylon (2,000 lb) or 2 pylons at 1,000 lb each
Weapons: Mix of Matra SNEB rockets, anti-radar AJ.168 missile, Red Top missiles, 2-inch rockets, 30 mm ADEN cannon.
These stats would change as the harrier design evolved overtime, so a 21st century supersonic harrier would be much more faster (mach 2.5) and carry a wider range of weapons etc, also having some sort of limited stealth capability.
Thats my thought on this......
Stats I don’t know what a 21st century supersonic harrier would be, but the provisional stats for the Hawker P.1154 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_P.1154 copied from Wiki are as follows (as of October 1964) =
Crew: one, pilot
Length: 57 ft 6 in (17.53 m)
Wingspan: 28 ft 4 in (8.64 m)
Height: 12 ft 6 in (3.81 m)
Wing area: 269 ft² (25 m²)
Empty weight: 20,100 lb (9,136 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 40,050 lb (18,204 kg)
Power plant: 1× Bristol Siddeley BS100/8 Phase II vectored-thrust turbofan engine with PCB
Dry thrust: 26,200 lbf (117 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 33,900 lbf (151 kN)
* Internal fuel: 1,300 Imperial gallons (5,910 letres)
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.13 at sea level / Mach 1.7 at altitude (860-1,294 mph / 1,384-2,082 km/h)
Range: 420 to 560 nm depending on speed and load (483-644 miles / 778-1,037 km)
Armament
Each wing: two pylons, (2,000 lb (909 kg) inboard, 1,000 lb (454 kg) outboard)
Fuselage: single centre line pylon (2,000 lb) or 2 pylons at 1,000 lb each
Weapons: Mix of Matra SNEB rockets, anti-radar AJ.168 missile, Red Top missiles, 2-inch rockets, 30 mm ADEN cannon.
These stats would change as the harrier design evolved overtime, so a 21st century supersonic harrier would be much more faster (mach 2.5) and carry a wider range of weapons etc, also having some sort of limited stealth capability.
Thats my thought on this......
Last edited:
Hendryk
Banned
That's because Sweden, which as a neutral country cultivated its domestic military manufacturing capability during the Cold War, has the Saab company. They have been producing first-rate jet aircraft since the days of the Tunnan.
Likewise what capabilities France yet has in this sector are due to the government support certain strategic companies such as Dassault have benefited from. But once that kind of know-how is lost, it takes decades to build it back up.
We could have made it then and it would have had a similar performance to the F-35 Lightening II JSF today.
We couldn't make it today, we threw away the opportunity.
I'm sure that BAe Systems, Europe's largest defence company, could easily design and build a cutting-edge replacement for the Tornado or Harrier. The problem would lie with the British government who would proably order around 240 and then half the order at the last minute. Even with the world's second largest defence budget, the chancellor would somehow decide that Britain can't afford more than 100 or so. Most likely scenario is that BAe sells most of its new planes to the Americans, the Saudis and the Indians.
Why is it that as Britain's defence budget grows, its armed forces shrink? That doesn't seem to make any sense at all.
Why is it that as Britain's defence budget grows, its armed forces shrink? That doesn't seem to make any sense at all.
MrP
Banned
Well, atm they're trying to pay peacetime maintenance cash to a force heavily engaged with thousands of troops in peace-keeping all over the globe. So the cash that's sufficient for peacetime consumption is insufficient to maintain the military at that level when it's actually fighting.
Deployability and sustainability. Having lots of men and equipment who sit in barracks doing nothing is quite cheap. Having men and equipment deployed and used, and trained to operate effectively, thousands of miles away is very, very, expensive.
The expense is enormous with aircraft and although BAe might have the skills the UK cannot afford it. I actually doubt they have the skills to go it alone as Hendryk says
BAe only has a 37% share of the manufacturing of Eurofighter and Rolls Royce Engines only a 33% share in the manufacture of the Eurojet 200. Neither would have the resources to manufacture the complete product as the French are with the Rafale.
Last edited:
Dean: BAe could have had more of a share in making the Eurofighter if not for politics- the same politics that have different countries making each wing of the plane! In fact, I think they probably could have built the whole thing- the EJ200s were based on a Rolls-Royce design after all. The CAPTOR radar is based on the Blue Vixen (made by BAe), and the British had a major part of the design of the rest of the aircraft (more than France).
What I don't see is why the British would pull out. The French did so because they wanted carrier capability- maybe the British want a more air-to-ground biased plane.
The new plane would be almost as capable as the Typhoon, but more tailored to RAF requirements (if such a thing is possible). It would sell to Saudi Arabia unless it proved to be a complete dog. It might not have a gun (the guns on the RAF's Typhoons are deactivated), and it could well include more air-to-ground capability.
For the differences, you'd have to find out:
What can Aeritalia or EADS build that BAe can't (not much I think)
What do the RAF need that the Luftwaffe or the Spanish/Italian air forces don't? This is trickier- perhaps more ability to operate in poor conditions (South Atlantic or desert) or a longer range (the RAF have to do overwater interceptions). Short-takeoff capability might help as well...
What I don't see is why the British would pull out. The French did so because they wanted carrier capability- maybe the British want a more air-to-ground biased plane.
The new plane would be almost as capable as the Typhoon, but more tailored to RAF requirements (if such a thing is possible). It would sell to Saudi Arabia unless it proved to be a complete dog. It might not have a gun (the guns on the RAF's Typhoons are deactivated), and it could well include more air-to-ground capability.
For the differences, you'd have to find out:
What can Aeritalia or EADS build that BAe can't (not much I think)
What do the RAF need that the Luftwaffe or the Spanish/Italian air forces don't? This is trickier- perhaps more ability to operate in poor conditions (South Atlantic or desert) or a longer range (the RAF have to do overwater interceptions). Short-takeoff capability might help as well...
Last edited:
67th Tigers
Banned
Yes we are, no one else in Europe (France included) can build a modern fighter without resorting to off the shelf imported components (France tried to retroengineer the RR XG40 turbojet, and the M88 is a really bad copy of it).
Britain can build the whole Typhoon if necessary, the only partner nation that can......