A series of assumptions: a Britwank on a budget?

End of an era

Riain

Banned
1972 saw the final retirement of those icons of British aviation, the V Bombers, although by then the last survivors, originally built as Victor B1s were relegated to the unglamorous but crucial inflight refueling tanker role. The nuclear deterrence role had been relinquished to the RN way back in 1967(1) and the TSR2 had taken on the theatre-strategic role leading to the retirement for the B2 Vulcans and Victors.(2) However it was the transfer of ex-BOAC VC10s and their cnversion into tankers rather than the Victor B2s that was the final nail in the coffin.(3) The early VC10 K2 were proving so successful that it was decided that the 14 C1s should receive a limited tanker conversion(4), fitting HDUs to the wingtips but foregoing the High-flow Mk17 HDU and fuselage fuel tanks of the K2, these tanker transports would be known a C1K.(5)
Vulcan_low_level_hillside_Gary_Eason_xgaplus.jpg

The discreet reorientation of the RNs more powerful units away from the Far East and leaving that theatre with whatever was left did not lead to the negative diplomatic consequences Britain feared. This was not a result of effective British action, rather the war between Pakistan and India had shown the two alliance systems that Britain was a key member of East of Suez to be worthless. Pakistan had sought CENTO and SEATO assistance and not received it, leading to the loss of East Pakistan in December 1971 and Pakistan’s withdrawal from SEATO in 1972. The war in Vietnam that was partly fought under SEATO auspices was finding down with troop withdrawals by SEATO members USA and Australia, although the ferocious bombing campaign continued apace. In this chaotic environment nobody really noticed that for much of the time Britain’s naval presence in the Far East was headed by a single helicopter-command cruiser and that the Commando carrier Albion’s main role appeared to be moving men and equipment out of the area.

Despite Britain wishing to withdraw from her world role events kept pulling her back in. The ongoing tensions between Britain and Guatemala over the looming independence of British Honduras flared up into the threat of invasion again, provoking a British response. The carrier Ark Royal was ordered to head towards the Caribbean and ‘show the flag’ with a demonstration of force and after a rapid transit toward the area four Buccaneer were launched, a pair of Maxi tankers and a pair to fly over Belmopan. After a long flight which included a brush with NORAD F102s near Florida, the Buccaneers undertook several low passes over the city making a clear message before heading home to ‘mother’.

While the TSR2 production line wound down the first Jaguar prototype took to the air. The need for this aircraft was becoming acute, in recent years RAF Germany had closed two bases and 3 of the 4 remaining were in the far west of the country. With the short range of both the Harrier and Lightning RAF Gutersloh was packed to capacity while the location of the remaining bases would mean the Lightning operating at the limits of it’s range in the event of a Soviet attack. The range of the Jaguar would mean a major reorientation of RAF Germany to the 3 westernmost bases, drastically reducing vulnerability while increasing operational effectiveness.
  1. IOTL this was relinquished in 1969
  2. ITOL the Vulcan remained in service until replaced by the Tornado in the early 80s
  3. IOTL Victor 24 B2 were converted to K2 with the first entering service in March 1972
  4. IOTL only 13 of 14 VC10 C1 were converted, in the 80s
  5. IOTL 5 VC10 and 4 Super VC10 were converted to 3 point tankers with main deck tanks, another 5 Super combis were converted to 3 point but no main deck tanks, in the 80s
 
Last edited:
  1. IOTL 5 VC10 and 4 Super VC10 were converted to 3 point tankers with main deck tanks, another 5 Super combis were converted to 3 point but no main deck tanks, in the 80s

Question on this, has anyone seen any suggestions to have the fuel in tanks under the main deck as in the US KC-135 rather than on the main deck?
 

Riain

Banned
Question on this, has anyone seen any suggestions to have the fuel in tanks under the main deck as in the US KC-135 rather than on the main deck?


IIRC the KC135 doesn't have fuel tanks on the main deck, unlike the VC10. I think originally it's because the turbojet engines couldn't lift anything other than the below deck fuel, whereas the VC10 was specifically designed to sacrifice space and economic operation to take off on short runways in hot and high places giving it more ability to life than the old KC135. In practice while the VC10 have big cargo deck fuel tanks they often don't get filled to the brim because the fuel weight is too much.
KC-135E_Stratotanker_cargo_deck.jpgVC10-Tanker.jpg
 

Riain

Banned
I've fucked up the nuclear bomb/warhead production numbers, I'm going to have to go back and untangle them or the next update won't make sense. :'(

EDIT; surprise surprise British nuclear weapons development of the 60s is looking to be just as convoluted and full of political missteps as the tactical aircraft, strike aircraft, airliners, strategic deterrent etc etc etc. Bloody hell, I know Defence politics is full of tough choices and all countries make mistakes but its is amazing how much personal preferences and opinions come into this.
 
Last edited:
1972 saw the final retirement of those icons of British aviation, the V Bombers, although by then the last survivors, originally built as Victor B1s were relegated to the unglamorous but crucial inflight refueling tanker role. The nuclear deterrence role had been relinquished to the RN way back in 1967(1) and the TSR2 had taken on the theatre-strategic role leading to the retirement for the B2 Vulcans and Victors.(2) However it was the transfer of ex-BOAC VC10s and their cnversion into tankers rather than the Victor B2s that was the final nail in the coffin.(3) The early VC10 K2 were proving so successful that it was decided that the 14 C1s should receive a limited tanker conversion(4), fitting HDUs to the wingtips but foregoing the High-flow Mk17 HDU and fuselage fuel tanks of the K2, these tanker transports would be known a C1K.(5)
View attachment 612400
The discreet reorientation of the RNs more powerful units away from the Far East and leaving that theatre with whatever was left did not lead to the negative diplomatic consequences Britain feared. This was not a result of effective British action, rather the war between Pakistan and India had shown the two alliance systems that Britain was a key member of East of Suez to be worthless. Pakistan had sought CENTO and SEATO assistance and not received it, leading to the loss of East Pakistan in December 1971 and Pakistan’s withdrawal from SEATO in 1972. The war in Vietnam that was partly fought under SEATO auspices was finding down with troop withdrawals by SEATO members USA and Australia, although the ferocious bombing campaign continued apace. In this chaotic environment nobody really noticed that for much of the time Britain’s naval presence in the Far East was headed by a single helicopter-command cruiser and that the Commando carrier Albion’s main role appeared to be moving men and equipment out of the area.

While the TSR2 production line wound down the first Jaguar prototype took to the air. The need for this aircraft was becoming acute, in recent years RAF Germany had closed two bases and 3 of the 4 remaining were in the far west of the country. With the short range of both the Harrier and Lightning RAF Gutersloh was packed to capacity while the location of the remaining bases would mean the Lightning operating at the limits of it’s range in the event of a Soviet attack. The range of the Jaguar would mean a major reorientation of RAF Germany to the 3 westernmost bases, drastically reducing vulnerability while increasing operational effectiveness.
  1. IOTL this was relinquished in 1969
  2. ITOL the Vulcan remained in service until replaced by the Tornado in the early 80s
  3. IOTL Victor 24 B2 were converted to K2 with the first entering service in March 1972
  4. IOTL only 13 of 14 VC10 C1 were converted, in the 80s
  5. IOTL 5 VC10 and 4 Super VC10 were converted to 3 point tankers with main deck tanks, another 5 Super combis were converted to 3 point but no main deck tanks, in the 80s
Vietnam was not fought under SEATO auspices, except in the imaginations of the Hawks downunder. SEATO specifically excluded Indochina, except as "an area of special interest". No indochinese nation (Laos, Cambodia, South Vietnam) was a member of SEATO. The French, which had just finished fighting in Indochina and no desire to be sucked back into that maelstrom. The UK wasn't interested in it either. As they were two of the three main signatories of the treaty, what they wanted or didn't want, went. Only the US wanted it included and so it became an "area of special interest". No SEATO forces fought there. Downunder, the DLP (Democratic Labour Party which was an anti-Communist splinter group from the ALP [Australian Labor Party]) and the Liberal/Country Parties (in coalition) wanted to justify their intervention there and painted it up as being undertaken as part of the SEATO commitment. It didn't fool anyone.
 

McPherson

Banned
I've fucked up the nuclear bomb/warhead production numbers, I'm going to have to go back and untangle them or the next update won't make sense. :'(

EDIT; surprise surprise British nuclear weapons development of the 60s is looking to be just as convoluted and full of political missteps as the tactical aircraft, strike aircraft, airliners, strategic deterrent etc etc etc. Bloody hell, I know Defence politics is full of tough choices and all countries make mistakes but its is amazing how much personal preferences and opinions come into this.

After all I've written about how FUCKED UP US procurement was (torpedoes, machine guns, aircraft, tanks, AAA systems. etc., etc,, etc...)
, due to personalities, and pre-conceived notions, (Robert McNamara, anybody? Or how about the The 1957 Defence White Paper The Cancelled Projects... for the British...), this is a surprise?
 

Riain

Banned
Vietnam was not fought under SEATO auspices, except in the imaginations of the Hawks downunder. SEATO specifically excluded Indochina, except as "an area of special interest". No indochinese nation (Laos, Cambodia, South Vietnam) was a member of SEATO. The French, which had just finished fighting in Indochina and no desire to be sucked back into that maelstrom. The UK wasn't interested in it either. As they were two of the three main signatories of the treaty, what they wanted or didn't want, went. Only the US wanted it included and so it became an "area of special interest". No SEATO forces fought there. Downunder, the DLP (Democratic Labour Party which was an anti-Communist splinter group from the ALP [Australian Labor Party]) and the Liberal/Country Parties (in coalition) wanted to justify their intervention there and painted it up as being undertaken as part of the SEATO commitment. It didn't fool anyone.

It's in the minds of hawks that I'm talking about, hawks vote, especially in parliaments where that vote matters. Vietnam wasn't a SEATO war per se but when casting around for excuses SEATO was regularly used as one.
 

Riain

Banned
After all I've written about how FUCKED UP US procurement was (torpedoes, machine guns, aircraft, tanks, AAA systems. etc., etc,, etc...)
, due to personalities, and pre-conceived notions, (Robert McNamara, anybody? Or how about the The 1957 Defence White Paper The Cancelled Projects... for the British...), this is a surprise?

Of course, at times its difficult to see an array of dates and events laid out in a book as reflecting the biases of people who shape those events.
Ministers, who knew nothing about weapons effects and target hardness thought 10kt was enough, so that was that. Except for the exception that occured 6 months later and when the whole thing was dropped in about 1968.
 

McPherson

Banned
Of course, at times its difficult to see an array of dates and events laid out in a book as reflecting the biases of people who shape those events.
Ministers, who knew nothing about weapons effects and target hardness thought 10kt was enough, so that was that. Except for the exception that occurred 6 months later and when the whole thing was dropped in about 1968.
Quite right... that. :p
 
It's in the minds of hawks that I'm talking about, hawks vote, especially in parliaments where that vote matters. Vietnam wasn't a SEATO war per se but when casting around for excuses SEATO was regularly used as one.
The Hawks were less than about 45% of the population. Vietnam was a great divider downunder. Eventually the Doves won and the Hawks were ousted from Government. What they believed was proved to be useless and false. SEATO hardly got a mention at the time. Australia was a member and Canberra was looking for excuses for it's commitment. SEATO was seized upon as convenient.
 

Riain

Banned
I panicked and I shouldn't have. I was wrong only in small details, however given this wank is on a budget and Britain's nuclear capability is both extremely finite and important I have gone back and changed posts 29. 34. 35, 39, 52 and 68. All I've really done is fix up a few numbers, but in the process I've learned more about the specific details of some weapons, in particular the RE.179 tht was to arm the Skybolt but was then used in the WE.177B and downsized for the ET.317 in the Polaris.

Here's a table so you don't have to go back and read these pedantic changes.

Year of orderOur TLThis TL
196253 RE.176 - 1Mt (Polaris A2)
1963~150 ET.317 200kt (Polaris A3TK)102 WE.177B 190kt (TSR2 et.al)
53 WE.177B 450kt (V bombers)
196643 WE.177A 0.5 & 10kt (RN Buccaneer & DCs)63 WE.177A 0.5 & 10kt (RN Buccaneer & DCs)
1968102 WE.177B 190kt (TSR2 et.al)
197064 WE.177A 10kt (RAF Buccaneer)

Now I can move on.
 
Last edited:

Riain

Banned
The Hawks were less than about 45% of the population. Vietnam was a great divider downunder. Eventually the Doves won and the Hawks were ousted from Government. What they believed was proved to be useless and false. SEATO hardly got a mention at the time. Australia was a member and Canberra was looking for excuses for it's commitment. SEATO was seized upon as convenient.

The doves won eventually but Holt won in November 66 in a landslide, we lagged behind the US in withdrawing and the Coalition didn't get the arse until 1972.

In any case there are 24,000 words in the TL at this point, I'm not going to die in a ditch over some of the least important among them.
 
The doves won eventually but Holt won in November 66 in a landslide, we lagged behind the US in withdrawing and the Coalition didn't get the arse until 1972.

In any case there are 24,000 words in the TL at this point, I'm not going to die in a ditch over some of the least important among them.
Yes, it took some time for the lies to be demonstrated as lies. Vietnam was always popular with the public, it was conscription that wasn't. Harking back to the sentiments prevalent during WWI, most people didn't mind people volunteering to fight overseas, they just didn't like the idea of them being compelled to. I am not asking you to die in a ditch, I am merely asking you correct what is an obvious misconception over the Vietnam conflict.
 
When there is no choice at all... really.

Riain

Banned
All the talk around the decision between Polaris A3 and Poseidon was really no decision at all, the fact of the matter was by the time any project was begun the Polaris A3 would be out of production and in the process of being replaced by the USN by 1980. This left the Poseidon, which entered US service the previous year as the only choice, however this led to a whole new set of problems particular to the British situation.

Throughout the 60s Britain had constructed less than 300(1) new nuclear weapons of two basic types; the strategic RE.179 and the tactical WE.177A & B. With 14 warheads on each Poseidon a single SSBN would carry 224, even at the lower end of 10 warheads per missile adopting the US version of Poseidon would require at least 480 new warheads to be constructed for a fleet that currently had about 50. Leaving aside the massive cost of such an undertaking it appeared to be beyond Britain’s reach in terms of fissile material and industrial capacity to produce. In typical British fashion they worked backwards so the suit was cut to fit the cloth.
images.jpg

Since 1960 British nuclear warheads had been an an evolutionary development path. After testing in Nevada in 1962 the Cleo primary design was improved into the Jennie used in the RE.179 and WE.177, while the W59 derived Simon secondary used in the RE.179 had been downsized to the Reggie and used in the WE.177B.(2) Any new British warhead would be a development of these components and the total number must use less than the 500kg of plutonium produced under the last Government authorization in 1967. This placed the number of warheads the British could produce at between 200 and 250, although these would be considerably larger and more powerful than the W68 of the US Poseidon. Four or five, albeit large, warheads on a Poseidon would leave a considerable amount of throw-weight that could be utilised for either increased range or payload. In the end it was decided to extend the range as far as the guidance system would allow and remain accurate and then load the bus with as many decoys as could be accommodated. This was the recommendation put forward to the Heath Government for a decision.
  1. IOTL Britain built ~160 WE.177 A & B and at least 144 ET.317 200kt warhead for their 48 in commission Polaris A3TK, probably closer to 150 with spares between 1963 and 1970
  2. IOTL the Simon was used in the WE.177B and the Reggie in the ET.317 initially
 
Go Bokke!

Riain

Banned
By 1973 it was obvious that Kuwait’s efforts to operate the Lightning had been a failure, without the comprehensive maintenance that Air Service provided Saudi Arabia these 14 aircraft were effectively grounded. In South Africa the voluntary arms embargo of 1964 had been strengthened in 1970 and it appeared that the next step would be a mandatory embargo. The number of countries able to supply new military equipment to South Africa that were also willing to defy the voluntary had dwindled to France, the old ally Britain even refused to replace a Buccaneer that had crashed on the delivery flight in 1965. South Africa approached Kuwait with an offer to buy her Lightnings and all associated equipment, and offer which Kuwait was willing to accept. As the Kuwaiti and South African Lightnings were both definitive Mk3 versions South Africa would have little trouble integrating these into her existing fleet. However Kuwait was not insensitive to the political pressure of the voluntary arms embargo and wished to avoid a very public ferry flight that would pass through many African countries hostile to the apartheid regime.
1612-4.jpg

A compromise was reached and a small team of South Africans began putting together a ‘crew’ in the grand tradition of heist movies. A disassembly team made up of aircraft technicians from all over the world including ex RAF and BAC personnel began breaking the Lightnings down to major components in plain sight over a period of weeks and months. What was not conducted in plain sight was the careful packing of these components for transport so they could be discretely spirited away. Some were flown out of Kuwait through circuitous routes to South Africa while others flew more directly. The fuselages were loaded onto 3 different ships at night and taken to South Africa by sea while other components were taken by land to neighboring countries and transported to South Africa from there.
1959534212_G-AXEE1.jpg.32d912a21c241e2a288d27f6741e22a0.jpg

The ruse was maintained when these components arrived in South Africa. They were taken to Port Elizabeth where they are reassembled and flown to AFB Makhado to join the other Lightnings. Only the most dedicated local plane spotters noticed that as the year wound down there appeared to be more Lightnings on the base that previously. The only official acknowledgement that South Africa had acquired more Lightnings and a discreet government announcement that the SAAF had stood up a wing of Lightnings consisting of two fighting squadrons and an operational conversion unit flight. It was left up to others to figure out what this meant and how it occurred.
 
Goodbye V-bombers, and thanks for all the fish.
So no Black Buck ITTL - for many different reasons.
It was a truly desperate move
- led by the RAF finding itself perfectly unuseful in the Falklands conflict
- partially justified by the RN lack of heavy firepower to wreck Port Stanely airfield

ITTL either Argentina won't dare to attack a much stronger GB, or even if they tried, the alt-CVA-01 will curbstomp them within the blink of an eye. Be it in 1982, or in 1977... and hopefully Nott will be run over by a TSR-2...
 

Riain

Banned
hopefully Nott will be run over by a TSR-2

Unfortunately no, he will try to cut expenditure but I have no idea how that will happen given it's pretty had to turn the RN into a North Atlantic ASW force when you have 2 new attack carriers. Even the Mason review of 1975 is looking difficult, I have a few sacred cows I want to preserve.
 

McPherson

Banned
it's pretty had to turn the RN into a North Atlantic ASW force when you have 2 new attack carriers.
About that one...


The thing is... lessons learned in a PoD are important. In this context of a wank, the British needed to remember that aspect of WW II warfare much better as part of NTF operations, or Murphy could have bit them. They were lucky the Argentine submariners were NTG and using German gear in one instance and misused their GUPPY boat in the other circumstance. I mean REALLY lucky
 
Unfortunately no, he will try to cut expenditure but I have no idea how that will happen given it's pretty had to turn the RN into a North Atlantic ASW force when you have 2 new attack carriers. Even the Mason review of 1975 is looking difficult, I have a few sacred cows I want to preserve.

Makes sense. Great Britain economic hardships won't change compared to OTL - the difference is, the British military is in far better position to tell the bean counters
"Fuck you very much, we are strong and safe, go cut something else..." (it also applies to NASA versus Mondale - Proxmire - Karth in any non-shuttle TL...)
 
Thicc is desirable these days

Riain

Banned
The new year also saw the unveiling of BACs new big airliner, the BAC 311(1). This aircraft was the culmination of more than a decade of political wrangling, indeed it’s roots could be said to stretch all the way back to 1958 with the industry consolidation report and the genesis of the ‘class of 64’ BAC111, Trident and VC10. Soon after their initial introductions all three of these airliners offered significant stretches of their original aircraft,the first being the BAC VC10 Super 200 going from 151 to 212 seats. As a 4 engine aircraft the VC10 was not limited by the distance to diversion airfields like 3 and 2 engine aircraft and as it carried 23 more people than the 707 and DC8 was selling quite well. The BAC111-500 going from 89 to 119 seats from 1967 moved moving it into Trident territory. However in the same year the Trident 3 was introduced with a capacity of 180 seats and increased range which meant that it was not in the BAC111-500 class any longer.
146028-5864dfb77ef0378592a549360397e4bb.jpg

That these three aircraft were not in competition with each other was increasingly being seen within industry, airline and government circles as beneficial. As far back as 1965, a British government study known as the Plowden Report, had found British aircraft production costs to be between 10% and 20% higher than American counterparts due to shorter production runs, which was in part due to the fractured European market. To overcome this factor, the report recommended the pursuit of multinational collaborative projects between the region's leading aircraft manufacturers. Within Britain the introduction of the Trident 3 in 1967 put paid to proposed 190 seat BAC 211, an entirely new aircraft despite the nomenclature, as it would only interfere with the steady if unspectacular selling Trident. Given that the only possible expansion of BAC’s big VC10 was to introduce a lower deck with an additional 40-80 seats it was decided to design a new big aircraft. The result was a widebody, 8 abreast airliner powered by a pair of RR RB.211 engines, with 220-260 seats. HSA, who had been developing their own HDN 100 260 seat widebody proposal with Nord and Breguet was instead invited to participate with BAC, an offer which they accepted.(2)

The BAC 311 was the first widebody twin onto the market,(3) following the 4 engine Boeing 747 and the trijet Douglas DC10 and Lockheed Tristar, but before the forthcoming Franco-German Airbus A300. As had occurred in the recent past being first paid off with the BAC311 quickly winning sales in the short-medium haul market that was uneconomical for the bigger American trijets.
  1. IOTL the BAC311 was expected to receive type certification in 1974
  2. ITOL HSA and the HDN 100 was involved with the genesis of Airbus with Government support from 1967 to 1969
  3. IOTL the 1970 Conservative government did not support the BAC311 and it foundered
 
Top