A series of assumptions: a Britwank on a budget?

[Riain]

As I've written a few times before... Your thread. Your choice.

Thunder and Fairey Delta Twos isn't as snappy a title for a well-known children's book and or name of an aviation website than Thunder and Lightnings.

Yeah, I know. But another thing I wanted to achieve was as much realism as possible, the Budget was as important as the Britwank, otherwise it becomes Star Trek. For better or worse EE struck gold when they designed the P1 to be as close to a fighter as possible starting back in 1949, both the SR.53 and FD2 required a lot of work to make into fighters. Of the 3 fighter prototypes flying on 4 April the FD2 was the least developed and therefore the most vulnerable to cancellation regardless of it's suitability or otherwise for the RAF of the 60s.

 

[Bougnas]

"The establishment was pushing RR to develop new engines, a Wankel derivative to about 1974 (though work seems to have been all but stopped by 1972) and then the CV12 family. The CV8 came first and was a "private" venture whereas the CV12 was built in a government funded factory. CV12 was just a design in September 1974 but was running within about 18 months (and was available to Iran in 1977), a V12 was first proposed by the MVEE in 1968 and a V8 was planned for Chieftain prior to the multi-fuel decision."

From here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/uk-and-frg-cooperation-not-the-mbt-80-challenger-etc.13781/

This gives even more credence to the idea of not going for FMBT-70 at all and instead continuing FV 4211 but in the "desirable" version.

The minimum spec for FV 4211 is essentially what was built as a prototype in 1971-72, a tank with an aluminium base and Burlington composites with most components still coming from Chieftain. The "desirable" specs called for a greater power to weight ratio of 20 which inevitably meant a more powerful engine, greater protection, a 120 or 110mm gun with ability to be removed from the front, more ammunition, further improved FCS and what not.

Considering the inevitably poor mobility of the minimum spec FV 4211, everything pointed to integrating a CV series engine (preferably the 1200hp CV12), hydrogas, a stabilized panoramic sight (as seen on FMBT-70 conventionnal MLC 60 proposals), the 110mm gun (as powerful as the L11 but lighter, more compact, with smaller ammo, easier to load) and IFCS. Those components were in development and envisionned in FMBT-70.

Even if the tank had come later, between 1977 and 1979 instead of late 1976, the result would functionnally have been a better Challenger 1, very suited for export to Iran yet designed FOR the British Army, with potentially decent export chances at the time. Unlike the MBT-80 it would have come in time. Had development of a V12 started in 1968 as proposed by the MVEE the engine would have been available even sooner.

 

[Riain]

ITTL the CV8 Chieftain was in the prime of it's life in 1977. Britain needs a tank in 1985 when the first chieftains are 20 years and approaching the life of type, in 1977 they were only 12 years old and had at least another decade in them.

 

[Bougnas]

ITTL the CV8 Chieftain was in the prime of it's life in 1977. Britain needs a tank in 1985 when the first chieftains are 20 years and approaching the life of type, in 1977 they were only 12 years old and had at least another decade in them.

While the tanks themselves can indeed last a pretty huge amount of time, it wasn't desirable to keep a tank in service this long when technology was quickly changing. The Chieftain couldn't really take a modern armor package and mobility improvements would have required extensive modifications. At this point a new tank is worth more. In fact the entire reason the British started Chieftain Mk 5/2 was because they thought that if they didn't introduce Burlington quickly it would have been countered by soviet advancements. This motivated an earlier tank.

Similarly the Americans wanted to replace the M60A1 in production about 13 years after it first entered service, although this tank was felt somewhat already outdated when it was deployed. The Germans similarly wanted to replace their M48s about 15 years after their introduction. Canada wanted a new tank a decade or more after the Centurion was introduced.

The issue wasn't so much lifetime of the vehicle itself, but the ability to remain viable in the face of latest enemy developments.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Yeah, I know. But another thing I wanted to achieve was as much realism as possible, the Budget was as important as the Britwank, otherwise it becomes Star Trek. For better or worse EE struck gold when they designed the P1 to be as close to a fighter as possible starting back in 1949, both the SR.53 and FD2 required a lot of work to make into fighters. Of the 3 fighter prototypes flying on 4 April the FD2 was the least developed and therefore the most vulnerable to cancellation regardless of it's suitability or otherwise for the RAF of the 60s.

FWIW Thunder and Lightnings was a Jackanory story in May 1976 that I remember watching. Though I didn't remember that the reader was Jeremy Kemp who was also in The Blue Max.

For the benefit of members of the site that don't know, Jackanory was a BBCTV children's programme that ran from the 1965 to the 1996. It was a simple, but extremely effective format, which was to have a well known actor read a children's story. They included Patrick Stewart, Dudley Moore and Judi Dench.

 

[Mike D]

They've still got the same format now, as Bedtime Stories on CBBC. A lot of girls I know got very excited about the Tom Hardy episodes...

 

[Riain]

While the tanks themselves can indeed last a pretty huge amount of time, it wasn't desirable to keep a tank in service this long when technology was quickly changing. The Chieftain couldn't really take a modern armor package and mobility improvements would have required extensive modifications. At this point a new tank is worth more. In fact the entire reason the British started Chieftain Mk 5/2 was because they thought that if they didn't introduce Burlington quickly it would have been countered by soviet advancements. This motivated an earlier tank.

Similarly the Americans wanted to replace the M60A1 in production about 13 years after it first entered service, although this tank was felt somewhat already outdated when it was deployed. The Germans similarly wanted to replace their M48s about 15 years after their introduction. Canada wanted a new tank a decade or more after the Centurion was introduced.

The issue wasn't so much lifetime of the vehicle itself, but the ability to remain viable in the face of latest enemy developments.

ITTL the Chieftain fleet got the fully automatic TN12 transmission once the Iranians paid for it, and the Stillbrew armour package as per OTL.

'The British' covers a wide range of interested parties, not least the Cabinet and Treasury., who wouldn't be keen on replacing a tank too early. The MBT80 wasn't expected to enter service until 1990 and the earlier Anglo-German FMBT not a lot earlier than that. ITTL that the British are getting the FV4030/3 Shir2/Challenger 1 before 1985 is a significant acceleration of OTL programmes.

 

[Bougnas]

BAC proposed a SACLOS version of the Vigilant with the guidance unit of the Rapier and an extended wire and fuel capacity to get a 2km range. There was a SACLOS Swingfire that was cancelled in 1967, as well as various other new missiles and improved versions.

The MOD refused all of them because "manual is good enough!" and by the time it realized its error it was too late and the British had to buy TOW and MILAN which inundated the market. It's absolutely baffling how this assassination was allowed.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

As I've written a few times before... Your thread. Your choice.

Thunder and Fairey Delta Twos isn't as snappy a title for a well-known children's book and the name of an aviation website than Thunder and Lightnings.

Yeah, I know. But another thing I wanted to achieve was as much realism as possible, the Budget was as important as the Britwank, otherwise it becomes Star Trek. For better or worse EE struck gold when they designed the P1 to be as close to a fighter as possible starting back in 1949, both the SR.53 and FD2 required a lot of work to make into fighters. Of the 3 fighter prototypes flying on 4 April the FD2 was the least developed and therefore the most vulnerable to cancellation regardless of it's suitability or otherwise for the RAF of the 60s.

Want to fly a Lightning and take your own thunder with you?

Public Information Films - The National Archives

For the first time on The National Archives’ website you can view complete public information films from 1945 -2006. Joining with the Central Office of Information (COI) to celebrate their 60th Anniversary. This film collection can be used to provide social, economic, and political context for...

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

 

[Riain]

Want to fly a Lightning and take your own thunder with you?

Looks like an F2 with the small belly tank.

See how dodgy the missile loading was? The Ault Report said that there was no standard equipment to load Sparrows onto Phantoms so each carrier did it differently, not surprisingly getting different outcomes. Maybe all Firestreaks were loaded that way, but it looks pretty haphazard.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Looks like an F2 with the small belly tank.

The National Archives website says the film's release date was 1962 and the first Lightning Mk 3 didn't fly until 16th June 1962 so it was probably a Mk 1 or a Mk 2.

See how dodgy the missile loading was? The Ault Report said that there was no standard equipment to load Sparrows onto Phantoms so each carrier did it differently, not surprisingly getting different outcomes. Maybe all Firestreaks were loaded that way, but it looks pretty haphazard.

Yes I did.

Other than that did you like the film?

 

[Riain]

The National Archives website says the film's release date was 1962 and the first Lightning Mk 3 didn't fly until 16th June 1962 so it was probably a Mk 1 or a Mk 2.

Yes I did.

Other than that did you like the film?

Yes, have you seen the training film Dr FOD and the wayward body? It uses a Lightning.

 

[fasquardon]

See how dodgy the missile loading was?

Hah! I actually cringed when I saw the missiles being unloaded.

Still, if I'd been a teenager back in the 60s, I sure would have been impressed by the plane.

fasquardon

 

[Paul_Sussex]

Want to fly a Lightning and take your own thunder with you?

If you live in the south of England, get along to Tangmere (a great little museum) and you can have a go in this - https://www.tangmere-museum.org.uk/flight-simulators/lightning-simulator - once it is open for business. It certainly makes you wonder about keeping your kneecaps intact!

 

[Cryhavoc101]

If you live in the south of England, get along to Tangmere (a great little museum) and you can have a go in this - https://www.tangmere-museum.org.uk/flight-simulators/lightning-simulator - once it is open for business. It certainly makes you wonder about keeping your kneecaps intact!

Seconded - was actually mentored by a friends dad (who volunteers at the Museum) on that sim a couple of years back.

Well worth a visit

 

[Voltzz]

Very interesting Tl
I dont realy understand the OTL Iranian Chieftain stuff and how that interacted with the British tank programm. Can someone explain that to me?
Did i understand correctly that the MBT-80 was a exclusively British programm and that it was cancelled after the Iranian Revolution?
Are there differences between the Shir 2 and the Challenger?
Was there supposed to be a Shir 3?

 

[Riain]

Very interesting Tl
I dont realy understand the OTL Iranian Chieftain stuff and how that interacted with the British tank programm. Can someone explain that to me?
Did i understand correctly that the MBT-80 was a exclusively British programm and that it was cancelled after the Iranian Revolution?
Are there differences between the Shir 2 and the Challenger?
Was there supposed to be a Shir 3?

Thanks, it's due for a rewrite, I've made a couple of mistakes with decision points and have learned a bit about certain things in the last 6 months.

IOTL the Iranian tank programme didn't really interact with the British programme apart from Iranian orders keeping the Chieftain in production and slightly improving so Britain could undertake 'get well' programmes with engine and transmission using components in production due to Iranian orders like the Mk8A version of the L60 engine.

Britain wanted to replace their Chieftains initially with the Anglo-German MBT, then with the British only MBT-80. Simultaneously Iran paid to have the rear of the Chieftain modified to accept the 1200hp RR V12and TN37 transmission in place of the 750hp Leyland L60 TN12, this was the Shir 1. Once this rear end was ready the Iranians added a new Chobham Armour front end and turret and hydrogas suspension to this rear hull/engine/transmission and this became the Shir2.

When the Iranian Revolution hit some 125 Shir 1 were on the production lines and production of 250 Shir 2 (against a requirement of 1,200) had been authorised, this being the bulk of the ROF leeds' future work given MBT 80 didn't expect to begin production until 1990. Unsuprisingly this caused a crisis in Britain, but it was solved by selling the Shir1s to Jordan who ordered another 149 and the British taking on 243 of the Shir2s as the Challenger 1. When the Revolution hit the Shir2 was still in development so I've never heard of any Shir3 which I assume wouldn't be needed until maybe the late 80s.

In TTL the Chieftain is better executed by using the 24 litre RR diesel V8, so doesn't need 2 decades of 'get well' programmes and given the British ended up with teh Challenger anyway I just cut out the middle man A-G MBT and MBT 80 projects and had the British hook in with the Iranians.

 

[Bougnas]

Once this rear end was ready the Iranians added a new Chobham Armour front end and turret and hydrogas suspension to this rear hull/engine/transmission and this became the Shir2.

IIRC hydrogas was an addition by the Brits when modding the FV 4030/3 to the FV 4030/4 (CR1) standard that better met British Army requirements.

The Shir 2 had Horstmann or an obscure Super Horstmann suspension and as such weighed 63 metric tonnes instead of between 59.4 and 62 metric tonnes for CR1 depending on the sources. Shir 2 also lacked TOGS and its barbette, had a different smoke discharger arrangement but might have got a different FCS, an ESR barrel and a panoramic sight like the Shir 1/Khalid.

 

[Voltzz]

Thanks
I get confused very quickly with all the abreviations

 

[amirtaheri]

Join the Civil Service... it is full of acronyms. The Ministry of Defence has a document containing 402 pages listing all abbreviations and acronyms they use... Makes me wonder whether just writing it all out would be faster and clearer for readers