A modern day British jet fighter

[SONICBOY]

P.1154

While PCB might not have been so bad from (Ski Jump) equipped carriers (which would have to be larger than the Invincibles), you are still left with operating from land.
It is very hard to see P.1154's deploying off base, as RAF Harriers trained for.
So we have an aircraft still tied to airbases, one that is markedly more expensive than comparable conventional types - what's the point of that?
With 'special surfaces' too!?

Not just PCB either, the P.1154's BS.100 engine - an impressive design technically, would still, due to it's sheer power, throw up many serious hot gas re-ingestion issues.
Something not unknown on the far more modest Harrier/RR Pegasus combination.

With PCB employed, it would take more than just adding some titainium or stainless steel around the nozzles, acoustic damage would have been an issue too.
Due to the layout of the four poster VSTOL, on an aircraft like P.1154, an order of magnitude more complex than Harrier, much of the (mid 1960's) avionics would be housed in the rear fuselage, right where this issue with PCB would be.

It is just so hard to see a workable P.1154 in service, the Harrier was not easy to get into service as it was.

The reason P.1154 happened at all was due to a NATO requirement of the early 60's, NMBR.3, with called for a standard VSTOL type.
P.1154, an outgrowth of the P.1150, was more credible than others, like a Mirage IIIV with lift jets and all sorts of other exotica, but that is not saying much.

Anyway, as before, with G.91 and the Atlantique patrol aircraft, 'NATO Standard' designs were not mass adopted across the alliance.
Domestic/industrial considerations came into play.

P.1154 grew as a design out of the wreckage of the '57 review, when it was realised that new aircraft were needed.
So an exercise in trying to combine the RAF's need for a low level strike aircraft, small TFR radar included, with the RN's Sea Vixen replacement-requiring bigger wings and a large Air Intercept radar, was forced on the services.
RN P.1154 was to be catapult launched too, off the planned CVA-01 carriers, operating alongside Buccaneers, so major changes to the undercarriage layout compared to RAF P.1154.

The RN decided they needed a twin engined plane, so R/R, miffed at losing out to Bristol Siddeley with the P.1154's engine, suggested a VSTOL adapted twin Spey, with a complex series of valves/pipes, to maintain a balance of thrust if one engine was out.
Trouble is, this would not have given real 'twin engined' safety, rather a better glide down to ditching.
(R/R were really out to kill the P.1154RN and get Speys on the F-4 for the Navy, quite rightly this aircraft was want the RN really wanted anyway).

If one service backed out of P.1154, it became financially unviable for the other, so when the RN brought F-4K's in 1964, the rest was inevitable.
(The only real reason the RAF wanted P.1154, was for their 'Island Base' concept, a way of killing off the RN carrier fleet by claiming they could provide air cover 'East Of Suez').

We did, remarkably, export the original Harrier to the USMC, only the US Marines with their political clout could have brought a foreign jet combat then (or now even).
They had to fight hard for it though, the limited, subsonic Harrier helped by not being seen as a real threat to US machines export wise.
They liked the simplicity of the Harrier-even so, the AV-8A had a simplified avionic suite compared to the RAF GR.1's.
They wanted a nice simple aircraft, doing ground support from their helicopter assault ships, then quickly deploying to hastily made up bases ashore, like the RAF trained for in Germany.

None of this would have happened if the 'Harrier' had been the P.1154, too expensive, too complex, the USMC would have quickly seen that they might as well stick to (cheaper) conventional aircraft.
They only just got the simple Harrier past Congress too.

Aside from that deal, the Harrier was not really very exportable, even it was relatively expensive, so what chance P.1154?

The X-35 JSF concept aircraft, proved that modern technology, can now make a workable supersonic VSTOL, hopefully!
(We await the F-35B prototype with interest).
A major reason it won, was that the Boeing X-32 rival, with a modernised 4 poster concept, but still well advanced from P.1154, was shown to have issues still that were foresen for P.1154, this on a concept with 40 years of material, engine, computer technology from P.1154.

However, it took British technology for the new F-35B concept to work, it is, in a sense, the lessons of P.1154 well learned.

I regard the Harrier as a wonderful thing, I see it versus the P.1154, as akin to Concorde vs the B2707.
Both were pioneering, both were expensive, both had limited markets, but only one was a really practical proposition for service.
Which is what happened.

P.1154, had it carried on, would have been a disaster for British industry.

 

[whatisinaname]

The F35B does not work ATM as it was suppost to as the F35B cannot carry a full weapons load as orginally intended and the F35B is having the same sort of problems that the SU encountered with the Yakovlev Yak-141 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141 that looks and operates almost like the F35B!!!

I don't think that the P.1154 would have been a "disaster for British industry" as the PCB system may have been able to be refinded or replaced with a Dry thrust engine that could run without the PCB "afterburner" similar to the F22 "super cruse".

With the right developemt I think that the P.1154 or and of shoot of P.1154 would have worked very well for the UK along side the TSR.2 etc.

 

[PMN1]

British Secret Projects: Hypersonics, Ramjets and Missiles

In his unpublished memoir on ramjet development at Bristol Aero Engines and BSEL, John Lane describes a series of papers he wrote with Robin Jamieson on air-breathing high-speed propulsion systems. Lane makes a very interesting statement: “The papers caused quite a stir when they came out and were ahead of the field. The work was trotted around the US by the author for Rolls Royce in the 1980’s. The author found that the US had not recorded their own work and had forgotten most of it.’

By 1p85 the US had embarked on the Copper canyon hypersonic studies and the National Aerospace Plane and by 1989 rumours were rife of a hypersonic aircraft operating in the western US. Perhaps like the cavity magnetron, the atomic bomb and that unsung hero of WW2, the strain gauge, Britain’s high-speed propulsion research went across the Atlantic, to live on and even reach the hardware stage.
​

 

[SONICBOY]

F-35B

Well X-35B demonstrated supersonic VSTOL, even a vertical take off to supersonic flight!
It won over the X-32 for good reason.
F-35B was indeed getting flak for weight etc, but LM have done a weight shedding exercise and there is more to come post the development aircraft soon to fly.
They had a great incentive, fix it or this version gets canned.
This is far from unusual, in fact it's normal.

Now, F-35B is expected to meet the original performance specs, yes it will have less range/payload than the conventional F-35A and C versions, but this gap is a tiny fraction of the one between Harrier and conventional aircraft of roughly the same size and weight.

As ever, I'm afraid that defence/aerospace reporting in the general press is poor, old issues, even when resolved, are alluded to well past their sell by date.
(Example - a few years ago, at long last, the MoD turned the unrealiable SA80A1 rifle, via a development/re-build programme by Heckler and Koch, into a much more reliable weapon. If it still was as bad as the A1, with the UK having the most intense combat since Korea, we'd know about it. In fact, it's rated as better in it's A2 form as the US M4. This has been unreported in the general press.
Also Typhoon, you still get the old 'it's only for air to air, Cold War relic' etc, even supposed Military Historians like Max Hastings still trots out this line. It's not true, never was. Indeed, Rafale entered service in only a basic air to air mode, other roles being added in the software driven way modern aircraft are, ditto for F-22
And ditto for the idea that F-35B is bound to be a lame duck, old news).

YAK 141 was a failure, never entered service, the USSR even botched their Harrier-ski, the simpler YAK 38.
British members of this board should be proud that only the UK ever made a workable first generation VSTOL type, the US had failures like the Rockwell XFV-12 too.
So they developed further the basic Harrier.
Showing that the simpler, practical, not too ambitious approach of the P.1127/Harrier, was the way to go.
This aircraft was everything the P.1154 was not.

Who would have brought P.1154?
Well who brought the Harrier?
USMC, as discussed, only just got permission to buy the basic Harrier, which happened to be what they wanted.
P.1154 would never have been looked at, much less approved.
Spain got some spare AV-8A's, moving to the AV-8B, their carrier would never have taken P.1154's.
Italy's navy had to fight hard to operate fixed wing, again, their carrier could only take such a type, they'd not have got a bigger vessel built anyway.
India brought Sea Harriers to operate from a small ex RN light carrier, later the ex HMS Hermes.
All in very small numbers, apart from the USMC.

No land based service brought the Harrier, save for the RAF.
The idea that the vastly more expensive, difficult, not even suitable for off base deployment P-1154 would have found customers is frankly, laughable.

Project Cancelled is a interesting book, I brought it years ago, but in many cases, it's a rant.
Projects that were over ambitious, ill thought out, get plaudits alongside the ones that should have been built.

'Should have been built' from Project Cancelled include;
The P.1081 - A swept wing Sea Hawk.
The Thin Wing, supersonic Hunter.
The P.8, a BAC Lightning version with the gear reatracting into an area ruled rear fuselage, thus leaving the wings free for much more fuel, as well as several external stores pylons.
Even TSR.2 should never have been started, or cancelled much sooner, when the Buccaneer S.2 could do pretty much the same job, as the RAF found eventually.
Had the RAF brought Buccaneer much sooner, others might have too, like the W.German Navy, the Indian AF, to name two.
What is the similarity between all these?
They are sensible, incremental, developments of proven types. They had export potential, so making them more affordable for the UK services too.

How do you think France got such a big fighter export market?
Not by wasting time on huge projected fighters carrying just 2 big AAM's, but by making aircraft like the Mirage.
Which in the shape of the Fairey Delta, the UK could have had too.
But, like the thin wing Hunter, the Air Staffs did not want to know, they wanted gold plating, usually ended up with nothing.

It's almost a knee jerk to blame the politicians, but this lets successive Air Staffs off the hook, they set the often bizzare requirements after all.

Back to the P.1154, how to explain how it would have been a practical propsition, when the X-32 using the same basic, but much modernised layout, hit some of the problems expected of the Hawker type?
With much better, lighter, engines, systems, airframes, materials, computer aided design to boot?

X-35B won because it looked more likely to work, and within the evaluation programme, proved it.
Lift jets were a poor idea in the 60's, but the modern technology lift fan (not the same thing) is not.
Here, the advances in technology over nearly 40 years, worked in X-35B's favour.

The failure of X-32B to win the JSF evaluation, should be the last nail in the coffin of the idea that P.1154 would have been a practical aircraft.

 

[The Dean]

Hey a really nice evaluation SONICBOY, nice to see somebody else who thinks the Lightening should have been developed.

Did you see the proposals for a swing-wing Lightening for the FAA?

Do you thing a supersonic Buccaneer could have been developed? It would have been wonderful to see a plane from an old company like Blackburn making it in the first division.

 

[SONICBOY]

VG Lightning

Yes, I've seen pics of VG Lightning proposals, from the basic version, retaining the nose inlet/radar housing cone.
To the 'ultimate' one, with a solid nose and intakes to the side, forward fuselage.
Myself, I see these as, assuming a mid 60's go ahead, a bit late in the day, with likely service entry in the very early 70's.
Taking resources from the MRCA (later Tornado), the underrated Jaguar too.

The latter looked to be worth doing, with a larger radar fitment possible, but it would have lost wing pylon space, an important gain from the Lightnings that were built.
But they looked practical enough, however, for the air defence of the UK, the F-4/AWG-10 airframe radar combination was very hard to beat.

These VG lightnings were mainly aimed at the RN, again, here F-4 is hard to beat.
And the size and weight of the Lightning, was not much less than F-4, (Neither was the Buccaneer but that was designed for smaller carrier use from the start, unlike F-4, then the unhappy history of adapting land based types for carrier use, even with the WW2 Supermarine Seafire).

Whereas P.8 could have been in service in 1964, it would have been built instead of Lightning F.3 onwards.
Aside from air defence, a TFR radar equipped, strengthened airframe version of P.8, could have replaced obselete strike Canberras, from the mid 60's.
Sort of a UK Sukoui SU-7, but much better.

I've also seen drawings of supersonic Buccaneers, my view is here, 'whats the point?'
More cost for little real operational gain.
The basic Buccaneer had good enough low level performance anyway, I see the supersonic Buccaneer proposals as a way of getting a RAF order, besotted as they were with TSR-2, then F-111, when they soon found out that Buccaneer S.2 was plenty good enough, all it needed, but never got, for overland at least, a modern TFR/Nav-attack avionic package.
(The Blue Parrot radar in the standard version, was plenty good enough for martime attack).

The proof of how good the standard Buccaneer performed at low level, was in it's performance in the highly realistic 'Red Flag' exercises in the US, with few limitations on low level (unlike in crowded Europe), even with captured Soviet radar systems.
They shocked the 'opposition', including the then latest US fighters.

 

[The Dean]

The proof of how good the standard Buccaneer performed at low level, was in it's performance in the highly realistic 'Red Flag' exercises in the US, with few limitations on low level (unlike in crowded Europe), even with captured Soviet radar systems.
They shocked the 'opposition', including the then latest US fighters.

Yes I've seen the footage the Americans took of that. They could only track the Buccaneers by following their dust tracks!

 

[Riain]

I don't think anyone doubts that the Bucc was a great plane, but it was hardly cutting edge in 1970. Much higher performance was well and truly achieveable, and that's what the TSR2 and F111 were going for. I don't think anyone would suggest that the USAF should have abandoned the F111 and bought the A6, yet suggestions are made all the time that the TSR2 should have not been even looked at becuase the Bucc was available. I think that without cancellation the TSR2 would have been in service by 1970 and would have had a superb career.

 

[SONICBOY]

TSR-2

Unlike the US, who in the Cold War, could well afford to develop seperate types for the Navy and USAF, the UK could not, but until the early 60's, they still thought they could.

F-111 and A-6 were separated by years, to different requirements, A-6 would operate in concert with other types on a carrier deck, such as A-4, later A-7, for light attack, the impressive Vigilante for nuke attack-but in fact only used for long range recce.
A-6, unlike F-111, was not optimised for low level attack as a design, though it could do it.

Buccaneer S.2 could have been in RAF service in 1965, later adding overland optimised avionics.
(In 1963, one far sighted senior officer proposed 'Joint Force Buccaneer', with RAF and RN joint procurement and operations).

Wonderful aircraft as it was, TSR-2 suffered from the spec starting out as Canberra replacement, then becoming a sub strategic platform eating away at the lower end of the V-Bomber role.
Had it not been started, money might have been available for Lightning P.8, or P.1121, with the early Buccaneer RAF procurement too.

From the RAF F-111 order, we can see that the RAF would not have got many more than 50 TSR-2's, with little export prospects, (after Mountbatten worked hard to discourage any Australian interest).
Compare than to over 220 Tornado IDS airframes.
Which was the better prospect for UK industry?

Even without any supersonic Buccaneer proposals being built, the basic Buccaneer S.2 had plenty of development potential, not just avionic either, but including re-designed undercarriage for land based operation, extra weapon pylons to name two.

This is the real bugbear of post war UK aircraft, not being developed to full potential.
Like the lack of a supersonic Hunter, the Lightning P.8 and VG versions, even that swept wing version of the Sea Hawk. The Fairey Delta staying just a demonstrator-to the great surprise of a certain Marcel Dassault across the channel.

In large part, the specs from the Air Staffs were to blame, made worse by having way too many companies bidding for a piece of a shrinking procurement pie.
This was not seriously tackled until the early 1960's.

(The same was true was civil aircraft, mostly due to odd ideas by BEA and BOAC. The BAC 1-11 never was developed like the DC-9 or later 737 was, losing the Medway engine to enable this was a factor, losing the Medway was due to BEA shrinking the HS Trident design due to slightly lower traffic figures in one winter season, dooming that potentionally successful export type, which was for a time, ahead of the Boeing 727. BOAC ordering VC-10, then cancelling many, the 'Super' version ending up smaller than originally planned, with a planned 'Super Conway' powerplant, a counterpart to the DC-8 'super' 60 series could have been built).

But, eventually, like military programmes, the inevitable endgame for civil UK industry, was in major projects, being a major part of usually, but not always, European collaborative programmes.
Today, even the mighty Boeing, has subcontracted out major parts of the new 787, including the wings to Japan and major parts of the fuselage to Italy, not quite the same as Airbus, (where the major partners remain design houses as well as manufacturers), but heading that way.
In a similar vein, F-35 is not like Eurofighter, but the UK contribution, not just in the VSTOL versions powerplant, is a step change from being a basic metal bashing subcontractor, also at a level considerably above other F-35 subcontactors outside of the US. Nothing like this has happened on any previous US military aircraft project.

 

[whatisinaname]

Well X-35B demonstrated supersonic VSTOL, even a vertical take off to supersonic flight!
It won over the X-32 for good reason.
F-35B was indeed getting flak for weight etc, but LM have done a weight shedding exercise and there is more to come post the development aircraft soon to fly.
They had a great incentive, fix it or this version gets canned.
This is far from unusual, in fact it's normal.

Now, F-35B is expected to meet the original performance specs, yes it will have less range/payload than the conventional F-35A and C versions, but this gap is a tiny fraction of the one between Harrier and conventional aircraft of roughly the same size and weight.

As ever, I'm afraid that defence/aerospace reporting in the general press is poor, old issues, even when resolved, are alluded to well past their sell by date.
(Example - a few years ago, at long last, the MoD turned the unrealiable SA80A1 rifle, via a development/re-build programme by Heckler and Koch, into a much more reliable weapon. If it still was as bad as the A1, with the UK having the most intense combat since Korea, we'd know about it. In fact, it's rated as better in it's A2 form as the US M4. This has been unreported in the general press.
Also Typhoon, you still get the old 'it's only for air to air, Cold War relic' etc, even supposed Military Historians like Max Hastings still trots out this line. It's not true, never was. Indeed, Rafale entered service in only a basic air to air mode, other roles being added in the software driven way modern aircraft are, ditto for F-22
And ditto for the idea that F-35B is bound to be a lame duck, old news).

YAK 141 was a failure, never entered service, the USSR even botched their Harrier-ski, the simpler YAK 38.
British members of this board should be proud that only the UK ever made a workable first generation VSTOL type, the US had failures like the Rockwell XFV-12 too.
So they developed further the basic Harrier.
Showing that the simpler, practical, not too ambitious approach of the P.1127/Harrier, was the way to go.
This aircraft was everything the P.1154 was not.

Who would have brought P.1154?
Well who brought the Harrier?
USMC, as discussed, only just got permission to buy the basic Harrier, which happened to be what they wanted.
P.1154 would never have been looked at, much less approved.
Spain got some spare AV-8A's, moving to the AV-8B, their carrier would never have taken P.1154's.
Italy's navy had to fight hard to operate fixed wing, again, their carrier could only take such a type, they'd not have got a bigger vessel built anyway.
India brought Sea Harriers to operate from a small ex RN light carrier, later the ex HMS Hermes.
All in very small numbers, apart from the USMC.

No land based service brought the Harrier, save for the RAF.
The idea that the vastly more expensive, difficult, not even suitable for off base deployment P-1154 would have found customers is frankly, laughable.

Project Cancelled is a interesting book, I brought it years ago, but in many cases, it's a rant.
Projects that were over ambitious, ill thought out, get plaudits alongside the ones that should have been built.

'Should have been built' from Project Cancelled include;
The P.1081 - A swept wing Sea Hawk.
The Thin Wing, supersonic Hunter.
The P.8, a BAC Lightning version with the gear reatracting into an area ruled rear fuselage, thus leaving the wings free for much more fuel, as well as several external stores pylons.
Even TSR.2 should never have been started, or cancelled much sooner, when the Buccaneer S.2 could do pretty much the same job, as the RAF found eventually.
Had the RAF brought Buccaneer much sooner, others might have too, like the W.German Navy, the Indian AF, to name two.
What is the similarity between all these?
They are sensible, incremental, developments of proven types. They had export potential, so making them more affordable for the UK services too.

How do you think France got such a big fighter export market?
Not by wasting time on huge projected fighters carrying just 2 big AAM's, but by making aircraft like the Mirage.
Which in the shape of the Fairey Delta, the UK could have had too.
But, like the thin wing Hunter, the Air Staffs did not want to know, they wanted gold plating, usually ended up with nothing.

It's almost a knee jerk to blame the politicians, but this lets successive Air Staffs off the hook, they set the often bizzare requirements after all.

Back to the P.1154, how to explain how it would have been a practical propsition, when the X-32 using the same basic, but much modernised layout, hit some of the problems expected of the Hawker type?
With much better, lighter, engines, systems, airframes, materials, computer aided design to boot?

X-35B won because it looked more likely to work, and within the evaluation programme, proved it.
Lift jets were a poor idea in the 60's, but the modern technology lift fan (not the same thing) is not.
Here, the advances in technology over nearly 40 years, worked in X-35B's favour.

The failure of X-32B to win the JSF evaluation, should be the last nail in the coffin of the idea that P.1154 would have been a practical aircraft.

The PCB on the Land would be the same answer as the carriers, as afterburner has been used for a long time on runways with no problems (as a point, Concorde used Heathrow runway with full afterburner with no problems) I don’t see why a PCB or variant would cause problems? Please could you provide a source or sources for this?

I never said that the PCB engine would be used a said that an offshoot of this maybe used one that may be dry thrust only (possibly a cross between P.1154 and P.1127 designs). The Sea Harrier FRS.1 with two AAM, two drop tanks and two 30mm cannons at full power in a shallow dive could go past mach 1.1 with ease (admittedly for only short periods), but with more power and aerodynamic improvement a hybrid of P.1127 and P.1154 could go subsonic with a more powerful Pegasus engine.

Exports – The sub sonic Harrier (P.1127) would be exported e.g. US, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and India. The GR version would make a good Jaguar alternative for India for example.

A super sonic Sea Harrier (cross between P.1154 and P.1127 as above) would have a very limited market as very few countries operate carriers. If the CVA-01 and 02 where built then they would need at least 100 harriers to equip these two carriers (each carrier 36 harriers times two total 72 harrier the remaining would be for training and attrition replacement etc).

Possible Variants –

Air Defence – UK 200 in lue of the Tornado ADV as in this TL there would probably be no Panavia Tornado consorioum. This would be a modifed suber sonic vaiant with 4 medium range AAM and 4 short range AAM’s.

Strike version – E.G. similar to the GR’s.

This would be from the 1960’s onwards.

After these aircraft start coming into service I doubt that Mountbatten would have opposed aircraft like the TSR.2. If the UK bought the TSR.2 I doubt it would be just 50 aircraft (I don’t know were you got that figure from!!)

The RAF would prob use the TRS.2 like the Tornado therefore purchase a similar number (228) out of a total Tornado orders of 992. It is also likely that the TSR.2 would have been adopted by those countries that where part of the Panavia Tornado consorium as I doubt the Panavia Tornado would have gone though without the UK.

E.g. TSR.2 = Tornado GR

F35B

The F35B does have a lot of problems, but the main problem compare to the harrier is that in level flight the lift fan is dead weight, the harrier does not have this problem!

The UK government may not purchase the F35B as of 2007 the UK government has only purchased two F35B’s for testing and has not signed on the dotted line yet. This is also due to the US government not allowing the UK access to the aircrafts software, even though the UK and US governments signed an understanding to allow the UK access this has yet to be done!

The UK is looking at plan “B” if this cannot be solved along with the other technical issues e.g. the F35B to operate the Meteor AAM that is not compatible with the F35B, several other countries are also showing signs that some of their equipment will not work with the F35 range!

I do think the F35 is interesting from a technical point of view, but I think that a little more thought should have been given to overseas customers (and their equipment needs) if the F35 range is to be a success (or not)!!

The X32B was a bad design from the start and to compare it to the Harrier is very silly!!!


To sum up I think that if the right amount of government support could have been forthcoming the harrier would look very different than it does today.

 

[SONICBOY]

Reply

The issue with PCB and hot gas re-ingestion, were separate (assuming, and I'm not sure on this, PCB would not be used on take off).

The sheer output of the BS.100 through those 4 nozzles, bunched not very far apart, would have thrown up the issues of off base deployment.
We can say this because it has happened at times with the far more modest Peguasus.
P.1154 was much larger, more complex than the Harrier, operating off base would have been very problematic.
And if this was the case, what is the point of a land based VSTOL, considerably more expensive than other types in the same role?

PCB is not like conventional reheat, (which I had some experience of on Concorde at BA).
That very hot exhaust is not well clear of the airframe, on a PCB 4 poster layout.
It is on normal re-heated types. Even on the old F-4, compared to P.1154.
Hence the worries of airframe heat and ascoustic damage, right where much of P.1154's early transistor technology avionics would be.

To attempt to go to something like P.1154, without operational experience of a more practical VSTOL type-Harrier, would have been like the US sending men to Mars before reaching the Moon first.
Even Harrier was expensive, you have to shudder when thinking of how much P.1154 would have cost.

The RN wrecked P.1154, since they did not have a crystal ball, thinking a new class of highly expensive, difficult to man conventional carriers were a certainty, even when it was becoming clear that the economically restricted UK was turning away from it's 'East Of Suez' role, the whole point of those ships.

Now, a P.1154RN single engined, VSTOL, operating off decks of something rather larger than what would be later built in reality, might have made more sense.
But, this would have been a small production run, (probably not much more than what happened eventually, the Sea Harrier).
The RAF, even fought against the modest Sea Harrier a decade later, fearing it would lead to a cut in their new air defence fighter.

I can recommend Tony Buttler's excellent 'Secret Projects' books, the ones covering post war UK fighters and the other volume covering bombers. Buttler, with a background in the industry, is also pessimistic about PCB. Even in the 1980's, BAe's P.1216, an aircraft whose bizzare shape was to try and and counter the concerns that had emerged around P.1154, (BAe were looking at 2 or 3 poster PCB here, to keep those nozzles as far away from the fuselage as practicable).

The UK has ordered those 2 F-35B's, as evaluation aircraft, not as the main order that will be some time away.

Though the lift fan is dead weight in conventional flight, it is not like the old lift jet concept, a lot lighter, with an exhaust of cold, unburned air.
With obvious advantages with ground effect/hot gas issues, it also allows a much more stable downward thrust, spread over the aircraft far wider than on Harrier/P.1154, even X-32B, since at the other end of the aircraft, the downward tilting main engine nozzle as well as bleed air from wing tip nozzles, makes the whole hovering exercise much safer, with that large amount of cold air from the lift fan helping with the hot gas issue.

All aircraft are compromises, F-35B still looks a lot more practical as a VSTOL type though.
Unlike the rival, it allowed a generally conventional internal layout, important for both equipment placing and C of G in supersonic flight.

Frankly, even though long lead items have been brought for CVF, a F-35B cancellation would be a mortal blow, since a conventional catapult layout would be more expensive, more manpower intensive, and the UK CVF has no provision for a steam plant to power catapults, (the French CVF will differ considerably rearwards from the bow).
And Electromagnetic cats are some way off, the USN will no doubt prove that technology.
CVF will have space provision for this sort of catapult, but this is about the planned 40-50 year projected lift of the vessels. Future proofing.

P.1154 looked attractive, I can well understand why many are still angry that it was axed.
Even so, my contention remains, not adopting Buccaneer for the RAF sooner, not building Lightning P.8 and possibly more advanced VG versions, not having a large combat aircraft export market anymore, not only caused a block obselesence of much of the RAF front line fleet by the mid 60's, but harmed UK industry.
The last thing both needed was more over ambitious, export phobic projects.

On balance, buying the Harrier, the F-4, but starting what would become the Jaguar, then the Tornado, as well as the spec for what would be a real best seller to this day-The BAe Hawk, (without the adour engine from the Jaguar, the new trainer would likely have another souped up old Viper engine, so a much less attractive aircraft with much less development potential), was the best option at the time.

The procurement of TSR-2, P.1154, would have meant great expense for short production runs, the net effect of this would have been an industry limited to licence building US types, by the mid/late 1970s.
No Tornado, no Typhoon, no real technology base to allow a high level of involvement in F-35.
Probably a much less capable, less successful Hawk as well.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

Off on a tangent, but perhaps one of your airforce bods could answer it:

Why did the RAF ever have the Tornado ADV developed, even though the Eurofighter was in development (or at least projected) and, were it not for the end of the Cold War, the extant RAF Phantoms would've remained in service into the 21st century?

The Tornado ADV was never really a fighter, and, although doubtless far better than the F4 in its intended role as an offshore anti-bomber weapon, AFAIK hardly a quantum leap over its predecessor in terms of airframe, endurance and manoeuvrability, and verging on obsolescence by the early 21st C.

Furthermore, I can't really see they thought they'd export many Tornado ADVs, save to cash-rich nations with very specific needs (i.e. very long range interception) who, for some reason, didn't plump for the more versatile F15.

Surely they could've stayed with Phantoms and eventually added the Foxhunter etc. to them, especially buying new(ish) airframes straight from the USA - as they did to replace those posted to the Falklands post-1982 - whose armament was already anglicised with Skyflash AAMs etc.?

Just something I've never got a decent answer for. Unless it was politics, obviously.

 

[whatisinaname]

The issue with PCB and hot gas re-ingestion, were separate (assuming, and I'm not sure on this, PCB would not be used on take off).

The sheer output of the BS.100 through those 4 nozzles, bunched not very far apart, would have thrown up the issues of off base deployment.
We can say this because it has happened at times with the far more modest Peguasus.
P.1154 was much larger, more complex than the Harrier, operating off base would have been very problematic.
And if this was the case, what is the point of a land based VSTOL, considerably more expensive than other types in the same role?

PCB is not like conventional reheat, (which I had some experience of on Concorde at BA).
That very hot exhaust is not well clear of the airframe, on a PCB 4 poster layout.
It is on normal re-heated types. Even on the old F-4, compared to P.1154.
Hence the worries of airframe heat and ascoustic damage, right where much of P.1154's early transistor technology avionics would be.

To attempt to go to something like P.1154, without operational experience of a more practical VSTOL type-Harrier, would have been like the US sending men to Mars before reaching the Moon first.
Even Harrier was expensive, you have to shudder when thinking of how much P.1154 would have cost.

The RN wrecked P.1154, since they did not have a crystal ball, thinking a new class of highly expensive, difficult to man conventional carriers were a certainty, even when it was becoming clear that the economically restricted UK was turning away from it's 'East Of Suez' role, the whole point of those ships.

Now, a P.1154RN single engined, VSTOL, operating off decks of something rather larger than what would be later built in reality, might have made more sense.
But, this would have been a small production run, (probably not much more than what happened eventually, the Sea Harrier).
The RAF, even fought against the modest Sea Harrier a decade later, fearing it would lead to a cut in their new air defence fighter.

I can recommend Tony Buttler's excellent 'Secret Projects' books, the ones covering post war UK fighters and the other volume covering bombers. Buttler, with a background in the industry, is also pessimistic about PCB. Even in the 1980's, BAe's P.1216, an aircraft whose bizzare shape was to try and and counter the concerns that had emerged around P.1154, (BAe were looking at 2 or 3 poster PCB here, to keep those nozzles as far away from the fuselage as practicable).

The UK has ordered those 2 F-35B's, as evaluation aircraft, not as the main order that will be some time away.

Though the lift fan is dead weight in conventional flight, it is not like the old lift jet concept, a lot lighter, with an exhaust of cold, unburned air.
With obvious advantages with ground effect/hot gas issues, it also allows a much more stable downward thrust, spread over the aircraft far wider than on Harrier/P.1154, even X-32B, since at the other end of the aircraft, the downward tilting main engine nozzle as well as bleed air from wing tip nozzles, makes the whole hovering exercise much safer, with that large amount of cold air from the lift fan helping with the hot gas issue.

All aircraft are compromises, F-35B still looks a lot more practical as a VSTOL type though.
Unlike the rival, it allowed a generally conventional internal layout, important for both equipment placing and C of G in supersonic flight.

Frankly, even though long lead items have been brought for CVF, a F-35B cancellation would be a mortal blow, since a conventional catapult layout would be more expensive, more manpower intensive, and the UK CVF has no provision for a steam plant to power catapults, (the French CVF will differ considerably rearwards from the bow).
And Electromagnetic cats are some way off, the USN will no doubt prove that technology.
CVF will have space provision for this sort of catapult, but this is about the planned 40-50 year projected lift of the vessels. Future proofing.

P.1154 looked attractive, I can well understand why many are still angry that it was axed.
Even so, my contention remains, not adopting Buccaneer for the RAF sooner, not building Lightning P.8 and possibly more advanced VG versions, not having a large combat aircraft export market anymore, not only caused a block obselesence of much of the RAF front line fleet by the mid 60's, but harmed UK industry.
The last thing both needed was more over ambitious, export phobic projects.

On balance, buying the Harrier, the F-4, but starting what would become the Jaguar, then the Tornado, as well as the spec for what would be a real best seller to this day-The BAe Hawk, (without the adour engine from the Jaguar, the new trainer would likely have another souped up old Viper engine, so a much less attractive aircraft with much less development potential), was the best option at the time.

The procurement of TSR-2, P.1154, would have meant great expense for short production runs, the net effect of this would have been an industry limited to licence building US types, by the mid/late 1970s.
No Tornado, no Typhoon, no real technology base to allow a high level of involvement in F-35.
Probably a much less capable, less successful Hawk as well.

You have missed my points completely I would suggest you re read them.

1. If a version of the harrier where built it would be somewhere BETWEEN P.1154 and P.1127 WITHOUT PCB would get a much better harrier design along with a more powerful Pegasus engine of some sort.

2. If there were no Tornado it is likely the Italy and Germany etc would purchase TSR-2 and the Harrier, so there would be the orders for them! The same for the Typhoon these would be replaced by much more advanced versions of the harrier and the TSR.2 and thus have no need for the F35. This would also help with cost etc and lead to long production runs of several decades and also improved versions of these aircraft, unlike the limited versions we have today of the harrier.

3. The RAF has always had the mentality of everything that fly belongs to the RAF they have never liked the Royal Navy having an FAA and would try to kill any project, even if it was a good project! If is even trying to control the CVF project to make if a mobile base for RAF planes (the RAF won’t get that).

4. I find your responses to the Royal Navy CVF project just daft, as the CVF can easily be converted to catapult aircraft, as this was part of the specification in the first place.

5. The Hawk was in development before the Jaguar so I don’t see how you would get a less developed Hawk jet trainer!

6. The F35 weapons types is very limited compared to the Harrier GR9 and GR9A versions and they are mostly US systems and the F35 would need a lot of (expensive) work to allow the F35 to carry European weapons. Even the Israelis and worried that the F35 will not be able to carry their own AAM’s as the F35’s software would need to be extensively modified to make them work!

I think if the Harrier were developed properly then the UK would have had an export success along with aircraft like the Hawk.

Also your responses sound like a F35 sales pitch, do you work for Lockheed Martin at the moment or in the past?

 

[Alexius]

Frankly, even though long lead items have been brought for CVF, a F-35B cancellation would be a mortal blow, since a conventional catapult layout would be more expensive, more manpower intensive, and the UK CVF has no provision for a steam plant to power catapults, (the French CVF will differ considerably rearwards from the bow).
And Electromagnetic cats are some way off, the USN will no doubt prove that technology.
CVF will have space provision for this sort of catapult, but this is about the planned 40-50 year projected lift of the vessels. Future proofing.

Although you probably know more about this than me, I always thought that "plan B" in case of an F-35B cancellation or refusal to transfer technology was a navalised Typhoon, which could take off without a catapult- arrestor wires would still be needed, but they don't require steam power.
Also, as far as I know, EMALS is no further off than CVF is- it will be fitted to the Gerald Ford, which will launch in 2013.

 

[The Dean]

Also your responses sound like a F35 sales pitch, do you work for Lockheed Martin at the moment or in the past?

I don't think SONICBOY has pressed the case for the F-35, rather he has critisised it. Anyway he has already said he has worked with BA on Concorde, not Lockheed-Martin.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

Although you probably know more about this than me, I always thought that "plan B" in case of an F-35B cancellation or refusal to transfer technology was a navalised Typhoon

Probably have leased Super Hornets pending something else - probably development of a navalised Typhoon if left in the lurch at the last minute - but that problem's been sorted, although I'd have thought the F35C from the outset would've been better if your fall-back position is CTOL. (The transfer issue was ridiculous, pure politics, given the level of UK funding and involvement in F35).

 

[alt_historian]

Talking of UK aerospace



In Volume 59 Supplement 2, 2006 of BIS’s Space Chronicles – UK Spaceplanes


Based on studies of manned Blue Steel to do the same research as the X-15

The Vulcan Orbiter Z 124

By October 1962 ambitions had increased to the extent of considering a brand new rocket vehicle completely different in principal from Blue Steel. The concept began with the recognition that the Vulcan, because of its delta wing, had very tall undercarriage. This would permit the installation of a large ballistic multi-stage rocket weighing up to 40,000lb (the drawing shows the missile hanging outside the bomb bay which appears to have had the doors removed). This would be carried and air launched much as was Blue Steel, from a height of about 50,000ft, but the trajectory would be more akin to that of the ballistic Skybolt as the obiter was wing-less. It was calculated that this three-stage vehicle could place a 650lb payload into a low earth orbit. Although less design detailing was done on the obiter than on the manned Blue Steel its potential was recognised. Here was a revolutionary way of placing application satellites (for communications, meteorology, survey, navigation etc) in orbit launched from a mobile platform. Two advantages sprang from this: firstly the Vulcan could fly to any base in Europe, collect its rocket and launch into a variety of orbital planes; secondly, with flight refuelling, the craft could be placed in an equatorial orbit. In this way Europe could have had its very own launching system, quite different from that of the USA, which was totally expendable.

This project was announced at a lecture and received a lot of publicity. Whether it was ever considered seriously by HMG is doubted but it could have given the RAF an opportunity to take a bold step, into spaceflight.
​

Oooh, that looks fun.

There any web references?

 

[SONICBOY]

Reply

No, I do not work for LM.
I am involved in aircraft engineering though.
What I said was based in fact, based on what actually happened in the X-32/X-35 evaluation involving real aircraft, not perhaps on out of date and/or inaccurate news reports.

I'm afraid it is incorrect to say Hawk's engine came before Jaguar, it did not, since that engine was developed for the Anglo French aircraft, then, in a non re-heated version, adapted for what became the Hawk.
Hawk also came from the realisation that the Twin seat Jaguar, was too much aircraft for the general and advanced training role, which had been the original plan.

Italy and Germany buying TSR-2 and/or P.1154?
Come off it!
No they would not have done, when did they ever have any interest in counterparts like F-111 for example?
They did not, Tornado worked for them, since it was affordable.
They even with being partners in MRCA as it was then, scaled back the original spec from keeping it from 'growing' too much.
So hardly prospective customers for something a step up in costs, in many respects capability, like F-111/TSR-2.

And they have, for their land based airforces, never shown any interest in VSTOL, let alone something like the P.1154.
Italy would do what they really did, develop the F-104 into their 'S' version, Germany would still buy the F-4.

Fact - A Naval Typhoon was comprehensively rejected for CVF, much as I like the Typhoon, adapting land based types for carrier is never a happy event. Such a thing would mean major software changes, major changes in the low speed attitude and handling of the aircraft, major undercarriage changes, likely a thicker wing as well as the usual naval mods like arrestor hooks and corrosion protection, all for a small production run.
Fact - The F-18E/F was never even in the running.
Fact - F-35C was rejected in favour in F-35B, as far back as late 2001, once X-35B had won the fly off with X-32B.
Fact - It has been made clear from official statements that provision for cats on CVF, is a long term option, over a 40-50 year life, for possible electromagnetic cats if/when they arrive, please explain how a ship with no ability to operate currently available catapults could just get them fitted and off we go?

It has to be F-35B for the simple reason that it is what the MoD call it, a Joint Combat Aircraft.
In other words, the RAF want it too, they will be pleased that a real Harrier replacement is coming too.
This has the happy effect of blunting any RAF objections to CVF, if CVF goes, F-35B does too.

Why Tornado ADV?
Firstly, it was never intended as a fighter, it was always to be essentially a 'bomber swatter'.
Remember, this was the Cold War, in the early 70's the RAF realised that the USSR had and was improving an ability for major air attacks on the UK, not just nuclear either.
The UK was vital for NATO, an unsinkable aircraft carrier, major naval bases, a jumping off point to re-inforce Europe.
What the RAF needed was a modern aircraft, with new radars, AAM's, the ability to operate in all weathers, with long endurance, to track and destroy in a lookdown/shootdown mode, targets even in a heavy electronic countermeasures soaked enviroment.
As well as the UK, playing a part in air defence of the Eastern Atlantic Approaches. This was a very large operating area, largely overwater.
The F-4 could only do some of these, it was the best choice at the time by far, but it would be aging by the 1980's too.
With Tornado to be in service in it's strike aircraft version, it was clearly the basis for such a loitering interceptor.
And lets face it, an affordable solution too.

Not a 'sexy' high energy fighter then, but that was not what the requirement called for, apart from just two fighter squadrons in Germany, (that's just 30 aircraft).
Tornado F-3 has been around for over 20 years with the RAF, so apart from requirements changing post Cold War, they need replacement.
They probably never expected to export any ADV version Tornados, so the Saudi order in 1985 for 24, on top of the larger IDS version order, was a bonus.
Since this version of Tornado was developed for the particular RAF requirements listed above, not for the other Tornado partner nations.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

Why Tornado ADV?
Firstly, it was never intended as a fighter, it was always to be essentially a 'bomber swatter'.
Remember, this was the Cold War, in the early 70's the RAF realised that the USSR had and was improving an ability for major air attacks on the UK, not just nuclear either.
The UK was vital for NATO, an unsinkable aircraft carrier, major naval bases, a jumping off point to re-inforce Europe.
What the RAF needed was a modern aircraft, with new radars, AAM's, the ability to operate in all weathers, with long endurance, to track and destroy in a lookdown/shootdown mode, targets even in a heavy electronic countermeasures soaked enviroment.
As well as the UK, playing a part in air defence of the Eastern Atlantic Approaches. This was a very large operating area, largely overwater.
The F-4 could only do some of these, it was the best choice at the time by far, but it would be aging by the 1980's too.
With Tornado to be in service in it's strike aircraft version, it was clearly the basis for such a loitering interceptor.
And lets face it, an affordable solution too.

Not a 'sexy' high energy fighter then, but that was not what the requirement called for, apart from just two fighter squadrons in Germany, (that's just 30 aircraft).
Tornado F-3 has been around for over 20 years with the RAF, so apart from requirements changing post Cold War, they need replacement.
They probably never expected to export any ADV version Tornados, so the Saudi order in 1985 for 24, on top of the larger IDS version order, was a bonus.
Since this version of Tornado was developed for the particular RAF requirements listed above, not for the other Tornado partner nations.

Okay, thanks for the information.

 

[PMN1]

Why Tornado ADV?
Firstly, it was never intended as a fighter, it was always to be essentially a 'bomber swatter'.
Remember, this was the Cold War, in the early 70's the RAF realised that the USSR had and was improving an ability for major air attacks on the UK, not just nuclear either.
The UK was vital for NATO, an unsinkable aircraft carrier, major naval bases, a jumping off point to re-inforce Europe.
What the RAF needed was a modern aircraft, with new radars, AAM's, the ability to operate in all weathers, with long endurance, to track and destroy in a lookdown/shootdown mode, targets even in a heavy electronic countermeasures soaked enviroment.
As well as the UK, playing a part in air defence of the Eastern Atlantic Approaches. This was a very large operating area, largely overwater.
The F-4 could only do some of these, it was the best choice at the time by far, but it would be aging by the 1980's too.
With Tornado to be in service in it's strike aircraft version, it was clearly the basis for such a loitering interceptor.
And lets face it, an affordable solution too.

Not a 'sexy' high energy fighter then, but that was not what the requirement called for, apart from just two fighter squadrons in Germany, (that's just 30 aircraft).
Tornado F-3 has been around for over 20 years with the RAF, so apart from requirements changing post Cold War, they need replacement.
They probably never expected to export any ADV version Tornados, so the Saudi order in 1985 for 24, on top of the larger IDS version order, was a bonus.
Since this version of Tornado was developed for the particular RAF requirements listed above, not for the other Tornado partner nations.

At one time it was said the F14 was in the running for this.

Interestingly some of them are now EF.3's as they have a SEAD role with ALARM.