Alternative single fighter for UK in 1960s

Khanzeer

Banned
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.
I meant for RAF , for FAA I think a lot more modifications will be needed
 
My thinking is the British buy the design and make their own Super Tiger. It’ll need air intercept radar for starters.

If Lockheed get caught out doing their bribery games earlier, Japan will most likely go back to their original plan of acquiring the Super Tiger, so it might not be an orphan.
 

MatthewB

Banned
I meant for RAF , for FAA I think a lot more modifications will be needed
For the RAF the VooDoo is fine. It’s fast, long-ranged enough for the RCAF’s distant intercepts so sufficient for North Sea, good enough intercept radar to support Sparrow AAMs. Just need to fit regular bombs to the rotating weapons bay or under the wings.

But the point of this thread is to arrive at a universal FAA/RAF strike fighter. Finding a type for the RAF is easy.

upload_2019-7-21_21-35-30.jpeg


upload_2019-7-21_21-35-46.jpeg


upload_2019-7-21_21-37-20.jpeg


upload_2019-7-21_21-37-35.jpeg


Courtesy of https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/f-101-voodoo-armament-continued-t112177.html
 
With a persistent balance of payments problem and some 1% of the British working population involved in the aircraft industry in the 60s the Voodoo would provide little benefit to the RAF to outweigh its huge fleet-ownership drawbacks.
 

Zen9

Banned
Can F-8 Crusaders meet this thread’s requirement for fighter bomber?
Well there was a J65 powered version and frankly the UK's Sapphire are better than the licensed US engine.
Furthermore switching to Avon is possible.
Switch to 30mm ADEN and fit a few other UK components and it might work if chosen earlier than the 60's offering.
However for the nuclear strike role there was a F8U-III variant offered later.

F8U-III is much more a rational option and Vought did have twin seater options.

A F8U-III but with two smaller engines instead of one big engine might solve a lot. Though the UK had some potent big engines in the pipeline.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Well there was a J65 powered version and frankly the UK's Sapphire are better than the licensed US engine.
Furthermore switching to Avon is possible.
Switch to 30mm ADEN and fit a few other UK components and it might work if chosen earlier than the 60's offering.
However for the nuclear strike role there was a F8U-III variant offered later.

F8U-III is much more a rational option and Vought did have twin seater options.

A F8U-III but with two smaller engines instead of one big engine might solve a lot. Though the UK had some potent big engines in the pipeline.
The F8U3 never advanced past prototype stage. It was also never offered in a two seat design. That offering was a standard F-8E with a backseater added in. Likewise, going to twin engines instead of a single would entail such a massive redesign that the resulting aircraft wouldn't even be considered an F-8.
 

MatthewB

Banned
With a persistent balance of payments problem and some 1% of the British working population involved in the aircraft industry in the 60s the Voodoo would provide little benefit to the RAF to outweigh its huge fleet-ownership drawbacks.
The bigger issue is FAA compatibility. That’s the point of the thread, finding a joint service fighter bomber.

My vote is to fix area rule and reliability on the Scimitar, plus add a seat and intercept radar.
 
Last edited:

Zen9

Banned
The F8U3 never advanced past prototype stage. It was also never offered in a two seat design. That offering was a standard F-8E with a backseater added in. Likewise, going to twin engines instead of a single would entail such a massive redesign that the resulting aircraft wouldn't even be considered an F-8.
Well somewhere over on Secret Projects I'm sure I saw sketch for a two seater.

And as to twin engines. ...well I never said life was easy.
 

Zen9

Banned
The bigger issue is FAA compatibility. That’s the point of the thread, finding a joint service fighter bomber.

My vote is to fix area rule and reliability on the Scimitar.
Which is do-able.
And whether we talk of the 556 or the 576 the result is not F4-levels of capability, but is reasonable enough to be justified.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Well somewhere over on Secret Projects I'm sure I saw sketch for a two seater.

And as to twin engines. ...well I never said life was easy.
There was a proposed two seat Crusader offered to the FAA. But it was an F-8E with a second seat added in.
 

Zen9

Banned
There was a proposed two seat Crusader offered to the FAA. But it was an F-8E with a second seat added in.
Yes that was the Shorts bid to AW.406 I think. Costed at 0.5 million per plane. Approximately a third of P1154 projected costs and under half that of the F4K estimate was wrong by about 200%.
 

MatthewB

Banned
I'd like to see the RAF/FAA move/stay away from US designs. There's too many restrictions on the technology, such that SAAB couldn't sell its fighters to hardly anyone.

There is plenty of design expertise in the UK. Just have the Air Ministry call for a Specification for a two-seat supersonic, small-medium sized carrier-capable fighter with competitive performance at both HA and LA, that has a intercept radar, capable of radar-guided and IFR AAMs and bombs with sufficient range for distant North Sea and fleet air defence roles.
 
The bigger issue is FAA compatibility. That’s the point of the thread, finding a joint service fighter bomber.

My vote is to fix area rule and reliability on the Scimitar, plus add a seat and intercept radar.

By this point I don't think Supermarine could fix a tap let alone the underlying issues that affected their designs. Why try to polish a turd, the rational thing to do is to just flush it.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I'd like to see the RAF/FAA move/stay away from US designs. There's too many restrictions on the technology, such that SAAB couldn't sell its fighters to hardly anyone.

There is plenty of design expertise in the UK. Just have the Air Ministry call for a Specification for a two-seat supersonic, small-medium sized carrier-capable fighter with competitive performance at both HA and LA, that has a intercept radar, capable of radar-guided and IFR AAMs and bombs with sufficient range for distant North Sea and fleet air defence roles.
That's the problem. When you put all that together, you've basically just exactly described the F-4. And the Treasury will then ask why they should fund a new design when there's already an off the shelf design not only ready, but in service?
 

Zen9

Banned
That's the problem. When you put all that together, you've basically just exactly described the F-4. And the Treasury will then ask why they should fund a new design when there's already an off the shelf design not only ready, but in service?
That argument didn't hold sway with the hundreds of Javelins, Hunters, Swifts, Sea Vixens, Lightnings and Canberras.
 
That's the problem. When you put all that together, you've basically just exactly described the F-4. And the Treasury will then ask why they should fund a new design when there's already an off the shelf design not only ready, but in service?
Because the money invested feeds the British economy rather than the US, and doesn't deplete the foreign currency reserves.
 
That argument didn't hold sway with the hundreds of Javelins, Hunters, Swifts, Sea Vixens, Lightnings and Canberras.
Unfortunately, that was in the 1950s when the UK was spending about 10% of GNP on Defence, compared to 7% in the 1960s.

They were also cheaper to develop and cheaper to build than the generation of aircraft that replaced them.

I've also got it in my head that the USA paid for some of them through MDAP. Can anyone confirm that?

You didn't mention the V-bombers, but I think the USA paid for some of them either directly or indirectly.

Also the UK was desperately short of Dollars after World War II. Hence Austerity and the Export Drive. The Treasury didn't have the Dollars to pay for American aircraft even if they were better and cheaper than what the British aircraft industry could make.

And before anyone says, "Then why did they buy 52 Lockheed Neptunes?" The answer is that they were provided via MDAP and IIRC ordered in the first place because Avro couldn't build Shackletons fast enough.

Although they were built in Canada, rather than the USA, I think that the 400+ Canadair Sabres were paid for through MDAP. Can anyone confirm that?
 
Top