AHC: an 1-engined Mach-2 fighter for the RAF

... basically, I'm looking to outfit the RAF with something not worse and not later than Mirage III, Drakken, MiG-21 or F-8 Crusader.
Why 1-engine? To help sell it abroad, of course, thus the UK government can also buy plenty of them, should also help the industry because of a more numerous production numbers.
Extra points if it can be easily navalized for FAA 'classic' carriers (= no STOL).
 
... basically, I'm looking to outfit the RAF with something not worse and not later than Mirage III, Drakken, MiG-21 or F-8 Crusader.
Why 1-engine? To help sell it abroad, of course, thus the UK government can also buy plenty of them, should also help the industry because of a more numerous production numbers.
Extra points if it can be easily navalized for FAA 'classic' carriers (= no STOL).

So why not the Mach 1.8 Crusader built under license ?
 
So why not the Mach 1.8 Crusader built under license ?

I can't see that UK will be exporting many of those. Plus it means closing a design office or two, hence no homegrown aircraft in near future - and I'm trying to keep the British companies in the game beter than it was the case in OTL from early 1960s on.
 
So far, I'd go with a Hawker Hunter-lookalike, but obviously with wings et al tailored for much higher speeds.
 
I can't see that UK will be exporting many of those. Plus it means closing a design office or two, hence no homegrown aircraft in near future - and I'm trying to keep the British companies in the game beter than it was the case in OTL from early 1960s on.

Well, there is this beast, the Hawker P.1103
640px-Hawker_P.1103_model.JPG

That pretty much was a British F-101 Voodoo with half the internal fuel and one engine
 
IIRC Hawker P.1083 and Supermarine Type 545 were intended to do Mach 1.3. Could either of them have gone faster with more powerful engines?
 
091014 206.png


One of several from my file, it wasn't purple until I uploaded it. Variations on the FD2, a road not taken due to white paper. Not strictly Mach 2 with this variant. Avon powered.
 
The problem is that the RAF has no requirement for a small fighter in the 60s. The p1103 and p1121 are big aircraft along the lines of the Lightning, F106 Delta Dart and F105 Thunderchief, of which only the Lightning gained any exports.
 
The problem is that the RAF has no requirement for a small fighter in the 60s. The p1103 and p1121 are big aircraft along the lines of the Lightning, F106 Delta Dart and F105 Thunderchief, of which only the Lightning gained any exports.

Small Mach 2 fighters gives you a tiny range, see F-104.

There's a point that nobody else needed a long range Mach 2 tac nuke delivery system like the F-105, and only Canada could use something like the F-106, since nowhere else had a need for a long range SAGE network link interceptor
 
Small Mach 2 fighters gives you a tiny range, see F-104.

There's a point that nobody else needed a long range Mach 2 tac nuke delivery system like the F-105, and only Canada could use something like the F-106, since nowhere else had a need for a long range SAGE network link interceptor

There was the Mirage IV and then there is the Buccaneer in RAF service both of which were long range tactical nuke carriers.
 
There was the Mirage IV and then there is the Buccaneer in RAF service both of which were long range tactical nuke carriers.
Mirage IV, only 50 or so were made, and they weren't looking for more, and even if they were, sure as shit DeGaulle wouldn't be looking to 'Buy American', and the Buccaneer spent its time in the air, subsonic. I don't think it could bust Mach 1 clean, in a dive
 
P.1121 was initially intended for the DH Gyron but the engine was prone to surging when run with a mock up intake. The BS Olympus worked fine and that's what production aircraft would have got.

Single engine, mach 2? EE P.6. Essentially a P1B Lightning with a single RR RB106 Thames. Alternatively, Fairey's ER.103C development of their FD.2

FaireyDeltaIIER-103C01.jpg
 
The problem is that the RAF has no requirement for a small fighter in the 60s. The p1103 and p1121 are big aircraft along the lines of the Lightning, F106 Delta Dart and F105 Thunderchief, of which only the Lightning gained any exports.
There was and it was met by rebuilding Hunter F Mk 6 airframes to FGA Mk 9 and FR Mk 10 standard. According to my Hunter production spreadsheet 444 aircraft (out of the 1,972 Hunters that were built) were rebuilt to this standard including 161 for the RAF and 283 for export.

ITTL what if the requirement was filled by one of the following: an improved Hawker P.1083; the Fairey Delta 2; the SR.177; or a supersonic development of the Gnat?
 
Had the Hawker P.1083 not been cancelled, would it have been ready to put into production instead of the Hunter F. Mk 6?

According to my Hunter production spreadsheet, the Belgians built 257 Hunter in their own factories (113 F Mk 4 and 144 F Mk 6) and the Netherlands 190 (97 F Mk 4 and 93 F Mk 6).

If a Mach 2 development of the Hunter was possible, what are the chances of the Belgians and Dutch building it in their own factories instead of the F-5s, Mirage 5s and Starfighters that they built IOTL?
 
There was the Mirage IV and then there is the Buccaneer in RAF service both of which were long range tactical nuke carriers.

Mirage IV was a strategic bomber. For tactical requirements the Jaguar A, Mirage III, Etendard etc were nuclear capable.
 
Top