Alternative single fighter for UK in 1960s

Zen9

Banned
Another thought. ...

Had the RN pursued a fighter Buccaneer with Avons or the PD.13 ....then there is a case for continued funding of the RB.106.
An engine that singularly was expected to produce 1000lb more static thrust than two Gyron Juniors together.....

By the same inference, either completion of Red Dean or Red Hebe or the VSW or Fairey SAGW is logical and in turn of interest to the RAF. ....
 
I once suggested in another thread that Rolls Royce should have been given the Barnoldswick jet engine factory from the start because I thought that it would result in British jet engines going into production a year or two earlier than OTL. I also thought that more powerful jet engines like the Derwent and Nene would be available sooner and that the Clyde gas turbine would be available a year or two sooner as well.

@Just Leo poured scorn over the idea as only he could.

Two of the reasons why I suggested doing so were that I thought that Specifications F.1/43 and F.2/43 would have produced aircraft similar to the Attacker and Sea Hawk instead of the OTL Spifeful/Seafang and Sea Fury.

The next step would be swept-wing versions, equivalent to the OTL Supermarine Type 510 and Hawker P.1081, which would go into service in place of the OTL Attacker and Sea Hawk.
 

Zen9

Banned
Time to raise Westland bid to N.9/47 and NR/A.19
April 1950.
W.37 Fighter-Striker
Mainly single seater.
Two versions, W.37/1 with internal carriage of weapons upto air dropped torpedo.
Other W.37/2 with external carriage of weapons upto air dropped torpedo. This had less drag without weapons but more with.

Single Sapphire for 6,000lb but structure able to take 10,000lb class engine. Space for reheat.
ROA as fighter W.37/1 = 460nm
W.37/2 = 475nm.

Potential for further developments.
Thiner wings.
Higher sweep back or compound sweep.
Engine power obviously to further development of Avon or Sapphire and logically beyond to RB.106 or Spey.
Blow for reduced TO &L speeds or higher weights.
Nose clearly able to be modified for different radars.
Internal bay could be modified for Red Beard.
A Westland want perhaps and yet perhaps not that extreme.
If anything the basic design is more in tune with later developments than most offerings of this period.
 
Last edited:
This line of reasoning can stretch back to well before the war and cause so many butterflies as to make the question as asked meaningless.
 

Zen9

Banned
The ideal aircraft folds to less than 52ft long and less than 22ft wide.
Should nose not be folded it must be below 56ft length.
Thus ideally three aircraft wide in the hanger of 65ft width.
It will use two turbojets or later turbofans of 6,000lb + and reheated thrust of 11,000lb + s.f.c should support the desired CAP and engine performance support both rapid throttle changes and level flight above 50,000ft and speeds above mach 2.
It's All-up Weight is below 35,000lb and it's Fighter weight is below 38,000lb. Strike with 4,000lb of stores will be below 40,000lb.
It's initial rate of climb is above 40,000ft/min.
Ceiling of over 60,000ft
Maximum speed at the tropopause is mach 2+ and above mach 1.1 at sea level.
CAP endurance of 2 hours plus normal reserves for combat and recovery.
ROA lo-lo-lo over 200nm with a tactical nuclear weapon.
ROA hi-lo-hi over 400nm.
It will be stressed to take 8g in air-to-air combat.

With appropriate spool attachements and tail hook for catapult launch and arrestor recovery. It should be operable at the required weights from the 151ft stroke catapult and recovery at 120kts or less at weights below 30,000lb.
It will be available in twin seater though a single seater for fighter only under GCI of CCI/AEWC is acceptable if highly compatible with twin for strike.
Aircraft will have AI set compatible with SARH guided and IR guided AAMs. Data link for auto-intercept.
Ideally it will also support low level flight and LABS delivery. As well as sea search functionality.
INS.
TACAN
UHF
VHF
Mk10 IFF.
Radar altimeter operable land and sea.
Nuclear weapon systems.
Additional space for further electronics for air-to-surface guided missiles. ECM and or EW equipment.
A photo reconasense pack should be available.
30mm ADEN cannon should be available.

Within these requirements a degree of flexibility ought to be accepted in one or more areas.
Such as:-
A single large engine.
Maximum speed down to mach 1.8
Max weights to 50,000lb.
Accepting WOD + ship speed is necessary to launch and recover. Alternatively increasing catapult stroke length to 177ft and arrestor recovery limit to 35,000lb
G limits to 7g as a fighter and lower for strike.
Folded span to 28ft. (Two per 62ft wide hanger).
Ceiling to 58,000ft
CAP with one or more drop tanks of upto 300 gal.

I have not finished writing this specification. But you get the gist I hope.
 
Last edited:
This line of reasoning can stretch back to well before the war and cause so many butterflies as to make the question as asked meaningless.
Yes, we need a POD.

All the aircraft in service on 1st January 1960 IOTL were the result of specification issued in the second half of the 1940s. Therefore, I think the POD should be VJ Day.
 

Zen9

Banned
Hypothetical evolutions.

Hawker could have proposed a twin engined version of the P1103. Using the wing, tail and nose of the P1103 but with a 1125-type fusilage as an alternative to F.155T . Rocket motor could thus be located in the tail and only the propellant held in drop tank(s).

Westland N114T proposal had potential for further evolution.

DH110 large body for the 40" dish would answer RAF concerns for FAW.

AWA.165 with a single reheated Gyron or large Olympus would potentially deliver the more desired performance. But too large for the RN.
....more later.
 
Yes, we need a POD.

All the aircraft in service on 1st January 1960 IOTL were the result of specification issued in the second half of the 1940s. Therefore, I think the POD should be VJ Day.

The Meteors sent to the continent in 1945 are slaughtered by ME 262s?
 

MatthewB

Banned
How about F101 voodoo
Interceptor + recon + strike esp nuclear
Maybe it will not work on aircraft carriers but as a land based interceptor fighter strike it is phenomenal
FAA just switch to shore based fixed wing fighter bombers?
I think we can get a VooDoo to carrier capability. But really, if we’re going American, why aren’t we choosing the Phantom?

How about Britain license builds the F3 Demon?
 

SsgtC

Banned
I think we can get a VooDoo to carrier capability. But really, if we’re going American, why aren’t we choosing the Phantom?

How about Britain license builds the F3 Demon?
The Demon was garbage. I know a former F3H pilot. The plane was nothing more than a missile bus. A-4 Skyhawks could outperform it. And did, regularly. My friend told me about a time he was flying into Atsugi NAS in his Demon and he got bounced by two Skyhawks. Literally nothing could get them off his tail. And there's also the fact that the engine in the Demon was extremely unreliable.
 

MatthewB

Banned
The Demon was garbage. I know a former F3H pilot. The plane was nothing more than a missile bus. A-4 Skyhawks could outperform it. And did, regularly. My friend told me about a time he was flying into Atsugi NAS in his Demon and he got bounced by two Skyhawks. Literally nothing could get them off his tail. And there's also the fact that the engine in the Demon was extremely unreliable.
Fair enough. What’s your suggestion?
 

MatthewB

Banned
Buying American? F-8 Crusaders. Buy some in the 50s, then flesh out the FAA and RAF with Phantoms starting in 1962, phasing out the Crusaders by the early 70s.
Can F-8 Crusaders meet this thread’s requirement for fighter bomber?
 

MatthewB

Banned
Any chance we can have this fighter also replace the RCN’s Banshees? It’ll need to be both supersonic and small. Perhaps the Grumman F11F Super Tiger?
 

SsgtC

Banned
Can F-8 Crusaders meet this thread’s requirement for fighter bomber?
Marginally, but yes. There F-8 was able to operate in the ground attack role, including the use of early PGMs. However, it is payload limited, only able to carry about 4,000 pounds of ground attack munitions.

Any chance we can have this fighter also replace the RCN’s Banshees? It’ll need to be both supersonic and small. Perhaps the Grumman F11F Super Tiger?
No, the F11F is an orphan as the USN is retiring them as fast as they can. The Super Tiger even moreso as no one ever bought any.
 

MatthewB

Banned
My thinking is the British buy the design and make their own Super Tiger. It’ll need air intercept radar for starters.
 

SsgtC

Banned
My thinking is the British buy the design and make their own Super Tiger. It’ll need air intercept radar for starters.
The nose isn't big enough for a decent A2A radar. It's one of the reasons it was shelved in favor of the Crusader. The F-8 was capable of all weather interception beginning in 1960 with the F-8D. I don't believe the F11F was ever even considered for an air to air radar set.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
I think we can get a VooDoo to carrier capability. But really, if we’re going American, why aren’t we choosing the Phantom?

How about Britain license builds the F3 Demon?
But guys for a moment if we Assume that the Royal Air Force decided on the F101 in the early 60s ,
what kind of modifications you think would be necessary ?
I mean f101 was still way better than lightning and javelin right ?
 

MatthewB

Banned
But guys for a moment if we Assume that the Royal Air Force decided on the F101 in the early 60s ,
what kind of modifications you think would be necessary ?
I mean f101 was still way better than lightning and javelin right ?
How does the Voodoo operate at slow speeds? Can it be fitted with a naval spec arrestor hook? Can it be modified for folding onto carrier lifts? Can we strengthen the undercarriage and fit catapult hooks?

Address these four at we're set. The Voodoo already has a land spec arrest hook, so we can start by strengthening that.
 
Last edited:
Top