Alternative single fighter for UK in 1960s

Well yes the US had a lot of cash but a large amount of that went into a host of projects that went nowhere.
Isn't that that somewhat like the future is a highway with an infinite number of lanes? Each lane represents a different future. You can change lanes as many times as you like, but you can't see far enough ahead to view the destination.

Or in this case each lane represents a different weapons system, but you can't see far enough ahead to know if the result will be useful.

The difference between the US and the UK is that US could afford to drive down more lanes, knowing in advance that some of them would be dead ends but didn't know which would be the dead ends when it started.
 
...where the US had a real advantage was they invented modern project management and also didn't suffer from "mission creep" disease to the extent the UK did.
I think all the other advantages were real too. That is the sense that they existed and in the sense that they were important.

Having written that I agree that their project management techniques were an advantage. Though (only half flippantly) the Americans could manage their projects for longer than the British because they weren't cancelled so soon after being started.
 
The good thing about P.1121 is that the prototype was a company funded private venture - the UK taxpayer didn't pay a penny for the waste.

Either it was a serious waste of company money, HS being lured into this by elements of the RAF. Or it was a sound move they couldn't complete in the face of government hostility.

The P1121 only got to the mockup stage, not a prototype.

e0b6db9fbc02b0ee69c543caec8353a8.jpg


C7tX7bMWkAAMk7o.jpg
 

Zen9

Banned
The P1121 only got to the mockup stage, not a prototype.

e0b6db9fbc02b0ee69c543caec8353a8.jpg


C7tX7bMWkAAMk7o.jpg
No the prototype was roughly half complete at cancellation. There are pictures of the components easy to find on Google and they still exist a museum.
 
Not only was aviation design advancing very rapidly in the 50s but Defence policy, which is why these planes are built in the first place, was also advancing rapidly. In the late 40s it was assumed that WW3 would be much like WW2 but with a few kt range nukes thrown in, the policy was to fight this war but that it would not occur until 1957. The Korean War showed that limited war was a possibility, which lead to the panic in Britain and the crash development of a bunch of shitty combat aircraft. About this time nuke began to proliferate and grow from kt to mt range in power. In policy terms the British published an excellent Global Strategy Paper in 1954 or so and after the Suez fiasco hammered home the limited war lesson of Korea the 1957 defence policy became that WW3 would be nuclear so the posture should be minimum conventional and nuclear deterrence against WW3 while preparing to fight Limited Wars.

So instead of 1957 being the year of maximum danger it instead became the year that it was decided that WW3 would likely not be fought and Britain should prepare to fight the likes of Suez, Korea, Malayan Emergency. The aircraft planned to discharge the former policy were not fit to discharge the latter, the F155 aircraft wouldn't be much chop against Indonesia in the Confrontation.
 
No the prototype was roughly half complete at cancellation. There are pictures of the components easy to find on Google and they still exist a museum.

So no prototype completed.

What museum? I'm going to England in 7 weeks and have a few days yet to be allocated.
 
So no prototype completed.

What museum? I'm going to England in 7 weeks and have a few days yet to be allocated.

Royal Air Force Museum, RAF Cosford, Shropshire. You won't get to see it though - it's in store & has never been on public display (although they've run the occasional 'store tour' over the years).

Well worth a visit anyway.
 

Zen9

Banned
So no prototype completed.

What museum? I'm going to England in 7 weeks and have a few days yet to be allocated.

Cosford I think but in deep storage.
Someone took some photos a while back but couldn't get up close.
 
Royal Air Force Museum, RAF Cosford, Shropshire. You won't get to see it though - it's in store & has never been on public display (although they've run the occasional 'store tour' over the years).

Well worth a visit anyway.
Cosford I think but in deep storage.
Someone took some photos a while back but couldn't get up close.

A touch far north for the time I have available.

Will someone just tell him he’s right FFS?

There's a big difference between a flying prototype like the TSR2 or P1127 and a mockup and assembled components for a flying prototype. The P1121 was not one step away from flight, it was a long way away from flight despite being in development for 4 years over 2 iterations.
 

Zen9

Banned
Had the prototype flown and had it proven a decent flying aircraft......and had this been achieved by 1959-60....
Then it's vaguely possible a limited number could be ordered as FAW instead of more Lightning....abut 70 of which were ordered around then.

The logic of this case is it makes a better FAW machine thanks to a larger AI dish and a wing that could take four AAMs. This centers on the twin seater obviously. A more rational successor to the Javelin.

From such a position further development could deliver the MRI mission in Conventional TO and L.

The case is somewhat strengthened by use of things like AI.23 (in varying forms) other avionics and possibly ending up with the same engine as the TSR.2.

A knock on effect of all this is that the Swedes were looking at this Olympus for what became the Viggen.
 
Last edited:
Had the prototype flown and had it proven a decent flying aircraft......and had this been achieved by 1959-60....
Then it's vaguely possible a limited number could be ordered as FAW instead of more Lightning....abut 70 of which were ordered around then.

It strikes me as a good multi-role type for the 'Limited War' scenarios that Britain planned for from 1957 to 1968, akin to how the USAF/N/MC used the Phantom in Vietnam; everything from ground attack in permissive environments to ambushing Mig 21s over the North.

However, and this is a big thing, the reason the P1154, AW681 and TSR2 were cancelled was because the British couldn't afford to develop 3 cutting edge types. With the Lightning taking care of the air to air role until the early 70s Britain need to focus its development money on the other roles, CA and Interdiction/Strike. Developing the P1121 alongside the TSR2 to undertake what the Lightning already does s a recipe for cancellation unfortunately.
 

Zen9

Banned
It strikes me as a good multi-role type for the 'Limited War' scenarios that Britain planned for from 1957 to 1968, akin to how the USAF/N/MC used the Phantom in Vietnam; everything from ground attack in permissive environments to ambushing Mig 21s over the North.

However, and this is a big thing, the reason the P1154, AW681 and TSR2 were cancelled was because the British couldn't afford to develop 3 cutting edge types. With the Lightning taking care of the air to air role until the early 70s Britain need to focus its development money on the other roles, CA and Interdiction/Strike. Developing the P1121 alongside the TSR2 to undertake what the Lightning already does s a recipe for cancellation unfortunately.
Which takes us to only two alternatives.
The Other Lightning as I've described.
Or handing Shorts the NA.39 and developing the PD.13.

Of the two it's the Other Lightning (side-by-side engines) that can deliver FAW with a solid nose (SoNoLi) and MRI even without a solid nose. With or without the use of any partial VG wing.
With VG it delivers this to the RN and expands endurance CAP and range as well at better short field performance.
 
Which takes us to only two alternatives.
The Other Lightning as I've described.
Or handing Shorts the NA.39 and developing the PD.13.

Of the two it's the Other Lightning (side-by-side engines) that can deliver FAW with a solid nose (SoNoLi) and MRI even without a solid nose. With or without the use of any partial VG wing.
With VG it delivers this to the RN and expands endurance CAP and range as well at better short field performance.

The carrier capable VG Lightning is virtually a new aircraft, with attendant costs and risks which put it firmly in the 'too expensive - cancel it' basket.

For better or worse in 1960 Britain is stuck with its decisions of the 40s and 50s which makes the Sea Vixen and Lightning Britain's fighters for the 60s. However neither of these is a massive problem in 1960; in limited war East of Suez the Sea Vixen is reasonably competitive and the Lightning basic designs development potential and performance makes it competitive well into the 70s. Spending money on re/displacing a new and highly competitive fighter in the early 60s when the Hunter and Canberra are higher priority is a waste of money.
 
So it comes down to looking for a naval all weather fighter that won't break the bank and can serve with the RAF. If Britain isn't going to buy American then it looks like the only option would be to take Blackburn's Supersonic Buccaneer proposal and make an Air Defence Variant.
 
So it comes down to looking for a naval all weather fighter that won't break the bank and can serve with the RAF.

That's what I think. You can't shorehorn a carrier-capable, all-weather mach2 interceptor into a small to medium, transonic land-based ground attack aircraft. But you can use a carrier-capable, all-weather mach2 interceptor on land to replace the Lightning.

If Britain isn't going to buy American then it looks like the only option would be to take Blackburn's Supersonic Buccaneer proposal and make an Air Defence Variant.

Is making a firmly subsonic bomber into a mach 2 interceptor simpler and cheaper than putting Speys into a Phantom?
 

Zen9

Banned
If Shorts had won with the PD.13 I'd say this is a better shot at something that could be developed into a FAW. As it's much more agile and the addition of reheat is relatively simple and should get it up to Mach 1.8 or so without expensive improvements to the inlet.

As is Blackburn did propose various B.103 developments/variants for fighter and multirole capabilities. Including a CAP fighter....
The initial proposition centered around the alternative powerplant of the Bristol BE.33.

Had the AAM effort gone further then they have some merit.

Post '63 such an option would depend on advancement in AI and AAMs to remain valid despite what would be at best mach 1.6 speed.
In fact such advancement was happening.

While not the performance of the much vaulted F4 it's good enough .

However if the answer is always McDonnell Douglas F4 then it is the US aircraft and there is no point to this thread.
As even proposing anything but the F4 is shot down by sometimes unreasonable conditions. Good enough is good enough.

One gets the feeling one could propose a clean sheet pure AH aircraft. ....say Airspeed 1000 (pure fiction) have it meet requirements, and still be shot down as not the F4. Even if it was the equal or superior.
 
Is making a firmly subsonic bomber into a mach 2 interceptor simpler and cheaper than putting Speys into a Phantom?
Blackburn seemed confident they could build a supersonic Buccaneer. As for having an ADV it's (vastly oversimplifying) just a matter of adding radars and appropriate Air to Air Missiles.
 

Zen9

Banned
Blackburn seemed confident they could build a supersonic Buccaneer. As for having an ADV it's (vastly oversimplifying) just a matter of adding radars and appropriate Air to Air Missiles.
Certainly possible.
Blue Parrot is based on AI.23 so additional electronics would enhance functionality.
There is scope to enlarge the nose for a larger dish. Or Lengthen it or both.
Wing can be refined especially outside the fold.
Bomb bay is tradable for fuel or avionics or whatever, including scooping out some volume/cross sectional area underneath.

By the early 60's illuminator function for AI.23 monopulse is essentially solved. So a radar Red Top is very achievable as the interim solution.
Equally Red Hebe is not impossible or it's scaled version VSW or the Fairey offering.

It's not the F4 so I imagine this will be shot down despite potential commonality and future multirole developments.
 
Top