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

Wimble Toot

Banned
By your reasoning the F-14 should not have entered service because one of its prototypes crashed

The F-14 had four things the Sea Vixen did not.

1) Missiles that did NOT require a stern attack on attacking aircraft.
2) An ability to land safely on a sufficiently large aircraft carrier
3) An export customer
4) A record of shooting down hostile aircraft
 
And ended up with an aircraft that was too large to operate from most their carriers and even after significant modifications to but it and the carrier was marginal at best for the clapped out Ark Royal.

The environment in which the Phantom was selected and development was vastly different from the one it was procured in. In the early 60s British defense policy was to have a carrier on station in the Far East and another at Home, which with refits meant a force of 4-5 carriers. Thus initial plans were for 140 Phantom for eventually 5 CVA01s.

The RN selection of the Phantom was done according to the plans in existence at the time, it was the plan that changed rather than the merits of the aircraft.
 
I'm sure those Kuwaiti dinars and South Africa rands were welcomed by the Bank of England.

The only currency that mattered ($) was extracted by the AV-8A. And the Canberra. Considering the amount of Sterling flowing in the other direction, I suspect nobody even noticed.

Pooh poo the money if you like (although I doubt the companies and their employees felt the same way) but what about the other 2 factors?
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
Pooh poo the money if you like

The Lightnings exported were just 15 percent of the production run. I know people who were kept in work by the Saudi Lightning purchase, however. The Saudis really wanted F-4s, and found that much cheaper F-5s could perform the same role much better.

I doubt the Saudi experience with Lightnings massively influenced Al Yamamah I and II

Kuwait never bought another British combat aircraft*, replacing its Lightnings in 1977 with....Mirage F1s

*The EF2000 tranche 3 isn't a British combat aircraft, in case you were wondering, and the Hawk and Tucano aren't combat aircraft
 
A nosewheel collapse in 2012 isn't a crash (heaven forbid) , and a complete hydraulic failure and belly-landing after an overhaul is just normal operating procedure, and a lucky escape as far Sea Vixen crew were concerned.

Neither was a crash as the term is used by those who who deal with them (and I checked with someone who did, just to be sure). Both were systems failures, and not indicative of inherent problems with the aircraft (apart from those associated with operating types long out of production and service, which applies to many more types than the Sea Vixen).

The company that owned her unsurprisingly went bankrupt, and she was sold to the Royal Navy Historic Flight for £1.

After appearing at ONE airshow, she bellied in at Yeovilton in May 2017, and without at least a million pounds of someone else's money, it will never fly again.

Not an indictment against the aircraft (the airshow seasons flying in Red Bull colours spring to mind). More like 2 or 3 mill, but so what? It's not relevant, although XH558 flying with a lot more "other people's money" didn't seem to bother many people.

The scrapman's torch awaits.

Doubtful
 
The F-14 had four things the Sea Vixen did not.

1) Missiles that did NOT require a stern attack on attacking aircraft.
2) An ability to land safely on a sufficiently large aircraft carrier
3) An export customer
4) A record of shooting down hostile aircraft

1) Not true. Red Top was capable of all aspect attacks
2) Not relevant given the much bigger decks operated by the USN
3) Not in 1970 when the prototype crashed due to hydraulic failure
4) See 3

Your main argument against the Sea Vixen seems to be that it crashed sometimes (like all the fast jets of it's era) and isn't an F-4 or F-14, neither of which were available to meet the RN requirement that the Sea Vixen met.
 
As I understand it, it was a difference between Australian and British pounds that when discovered lowered the price. I can't nail down the story though, so it might be bullshit.

Edit: the Aus pound was pegged at .8 of the British pound, but I don't know how that explains the mixup.

Yeah, I had it mixed up. According to my copy of Stewart Wilson's "Meteor, Sabre and Mirage in Australian Service" which I just dug up, (in turn quoting somebody else) SNECMA (who understandably preferred the Atar installation) quoted their price in Australian pounds believing they were identical to Sterling, and thus underquoted themselves by 20 odd percent. Along with price the issues with the Avon Sabre installation were apparently a factor in the Avon Mirage not happening despite the better performance on offer. According to the same source Dassault were apparently keen on offering the Avon-Mirage as a standard export model with a Ferranti radar (as in the Lightning) had the Australians selected it.
 
Last edited:
The Saudis really wanted F-4s, and found that much cheaper F-5s could perform the same role much better.

The F5 displaced the Lightning in the attack role but the Lightnings still served as fighter/interceptors until their retirement.

I doubt the Saudi experience with Lightnings massively influenced Al Yamamah I and II

Really, given that part of the deal was the trade-in of 22 Lightnings?
The Saudis signed an MoU with Britain in 1965 for Lightning, Strikemasters and Thunderbird SAMs, in the event they were also rushed some ex-RAF Lightnings and Hunters. Not only that, Airwork Services undertook training and servicing until 1973 when the Saudis engaged BAC as their sole British industry partner, giving Britain a presence in Saudi Arabia right up until Al Yamamah I.

Kuwait never bought another British combat aircraft*, replacing its Lightnings in 1977 with....Mirage F1s

Kuwait didn't do what the Saudis did and engage the British for ongoing support, thus they had a bad experience with the Lightnings. In effect they duded themselves, it wasn't the fault of the aircraft.
 

Archibald

Banned
Are all four of these not significantly bigger and more powerful aircraft? I cant see them being replaced by a Mirage III unless you accept big reductions in ability. The Canberra is also 10 years earlier than Mirage III and 12 of your MK2.

It was a general post, there are so many different aircrafts in the RAF I sometime lose the count.

That's why I added aerial refueling. Lot of it. Also admitted France had no such aircrafts, albeit it could have been developped from the Mirage IV. It also helped France never got V-bombers, there was no "need" to replace a non existing capability.
The main difference in the end is that RAF had a s trategic / long range strike capability the AdA never really had, it was a true tactical air force.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
1Your main argument against the Sea Vixen seems to be that it crashed sometimes

It was a fundamentally unsafe aircraft. It's odd that the F-104G gets a reputation as a widow-maker but Sea Vixen doesn't

Rose-tinted de Havilland spectacles? It's not the first jet aircraft they built that was a death trap, after all.

My opinion on the Sea Vixen is neither here nor there with regards to the OP, to whom I provided a solution to on page 2
 
The F-14 had four things the Sea Vixen did not.

1) Missiles that did NOT require a stern attack on attacking aircraft.
2) An ability to land safely on a sufficiently large aircraft carrier
3) An export customer
4) A record of shooting down hostile aircraft
Sea Vixen was retired in the 70s, about the same time the F-14 was introduced yet you compare the two? When did the Sea Vixen actually face a combat situation? Quite hard to shoot down hostile aircraft if you aren’t at war, unless you want to start one. You’re just not arguing in good faith any more, if you ever were to start with. You’ve also stated that this has nothing to do with the OP, so can you please just drop it and stop derailing the thread?
 
Back to the topic :)
Something along the lines of the Grumman Super Tiger seems like it could fit the bill, obviously the afterburning Avon is the engine choice here.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
As the British are more likely to buy a US design than a French one, that would a great choice

The Grumman G98J was a beautiful Aeroplane, and carrier capable too! It could replace the ..... (no, I'm not going there)
 
The OP wanted the RAF/FAA to have a single engine fighter so it could be exported, which is understandable. Buying a single engine fighter from the US or France is both the opposite of what the OP wanted in terms of exports and gives the RAF/FAA aircraft that don't meet their requirements, the worst of both worlds.
 

Archibald

Banned
Nah, too big and thirsty. You need a RR Avon to get costs and size down. That's how the Mirage become a world beater. If you need more power later, the Spey is the way to go.
 
Top