Alternative single fighter for UK in 1960s

I just don’t understand the logic of those arguing against a home-build aircraft. This thread clearly outlines that whatever fighter we’re producing will be in place of the Javelin, Lightning, Vixen, etc. So, we have no, can I make that clearer, no shortage of funds.

Take what was spent to make the half dozen RAF and FAA fighters of the late 1950s and early 1960s and surely we have sufficient coin to meet the needs outsider in the OP.

You've lumped 3 planes together that span 20 years and two generations, indeed the Lightning replaced the Javelin, without reference to their Life of Types.
 
p150.jpg


Around this time the TSR2 project to specification GOR.339 (an attack aircraft that could have been described as a 'Super-Buccaneer') was coming under attack from many sides, and the Admiralty played their part in its downfall by pushing for the Buccaneer as a near-ideal aircraft to satisfy the requirement, yet costing far less than the increasingly expensive TSR2. Strangely, Blackburn did not take full advantage of this. In any case, the RAF were extremely hostile to the idea of operating an aircraft designed for the Navy, and it found no favour with them at all. While Blackburn produced a brochure for the Ministry of Supply on the Buccaneer, they did not produce designs for a truly upgraded Buccaneer until after the TSR2 had already been cancelled. Among designs that included a fighter variant (the P.140) and a more versatile strike variant (the P.145), the P.150 stood out as the most advanced. This would have been a supersonic (mach 1.8) Buccaneer with extended fuselage and new wings for the long-range strike role (i.e. the TSR2's role, later to be fulfilled by the MRCA, or Tornado). However, this never left the drawing board.

from. https://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/buccaneer/history.php
 
Last edited:
Why is the Meteor being slaughtered by the Me262? The latter didn’t slaughter Tempests or other fast piston fighters. Why is the Meteor so ill matched?
ME262 was faster, more heavily armed and better designed to handle high subsonic speeds. They have the ability to control any engagement with the Meteor. Where piston engine fighters brought down 262's it was usually while they were on approach to land, and the slow response of early jets made it difficult to accelerate to combat speed and get out of the way.
 

MatthewB

Banned
ME262 was faster, more heavily armed and better designed to handle high subsonic speeds. They have the ability to control any engagement with the Meteor. Where piston engine fighters brought down 262's it was usually while they were on approach to land, and the slow response of early jets made it difficult to accelerate to combat speed and get out of the way.
Does that apply to the Meteor F.3 of 1945? I thought the F.3 was a quick bird.
 
No I didn’t. The OP did.

My bad.

In any case the Lightning replaced both the Javelin and Hunter in the fighter roles from 1959, so that requirement is taken care of until about 1970.

So, we have no, can I make that clearer, no shortage of funds.

As much as I'm a fan of Britain buying British, in fact I'm obsessed by arcane shit like cost of ownership and fleet sustainability, there are limits on what Britain can afford to develop in the 60s.

Sorry if this is teaching you to suck eggs.

ukgs_line.php


Here is Britain's overall defence spending in the 60s, and the split was about 55% Army, 25% RAF and 20% RN. Forces spend 25-40% of their budget on capability acquisition (not sustainment with fuel, parts etc), lower end for the Army and higher end for the Navy and Air Force. So in 1962 the RAF got about 500 million and would have spent 200 million on new acquisition, and over the decade perhaps 2-2.5 billion on development and procurement. Developing and procuring the TSR2 fleet was estimated to be going to cost 780 million pounds or about 1/3 of the RAF procurement budget for the entire decade! Adding another high end aircraft, a fighter for example, with a similar development and procurement bill will leave the RAF very short on budget for every other acquisition programme in the decade. This is why I detest the AW681 and think the P1127 should have been the Hunter replacement while the RN should have gone with the Spey Phantom early on and the RAF jumped on to replace the Lightning, to take out much of the development costs.
 

Zen9

Banned
Someone mentioned a Fighter Buc, how would that look or would it just be some twin Spey fighter?
There are several proposals of fighter variants of B103.
Including the B.103 with the BE.33 engines .
B112 was the CAP fighter
Essentially bigger exit pipes for reheated engines.
There was an offering to Canada but it had a very long nose and tail section.
Others I've read about but not seen anything .
Until we get to already described late 60's offering.
 
Last edited:

Zen9

Banned
It's entirely possible to develop and purchase in quantity a successor to the Hunter.
And the same stands for the FAW types.

But getting a single type to succeed both is no mean feat.

It is do-able if you compromise on something.
Performance
Engine
Numbers
Operating limitations.

The strongest case is what I call the SLEFAT Single Large Engine Fighter Attack Type.
Almost everything can be achieved in such a machine. Centered around something like the Olympus (turbojet) or Medway (turbofan).
Options being:-

Blown wing = proven technology
VG wing = unproven technology (fashionable)
Canard = unproven technology (unfashionable)
Left jet (s) = unproven technology (VTOL obsession)
PCB = unproven technology (rolling VTOL or STOL)
 
Last edited:
Does that apply to the Meteor F.3 of 1945? I thought the F.3 was a quick bird.

It was the engine nacelles, the short nacelles of the early versions limited the mach number. Late production F3s had long nacelles which raised the mach limit, so it went from about 480mph to 580mph with no other changes. I don't think any were delivered before VE day and long nacelles were retrofitted to early batches of F3s.
 
It was the engine nacelles, the short nacelles of the early versions limited the mach number. Late production F3s had long nacelles which raised the mach limit, so it went from about 480mph to 580mph with no other changes. I don't think any were delivered before VE day and long nacelles were retrofitted to early batches of F3s.
The F3 had some changes to the canopy, fuel system and nacelles, they started in production in mid 1944 and went to Europe.
 
One thing I'd like to see is the Red Top being used as Britain's AA missile on the late 60s generation of aircraft: TSR2, Harrier and Phantom.
 

Zen9

Banned
One thing I'd like to see is the Red Top being used as Britain's AA missile on the late 60s generation of aircraft: TSR2, Harrier and Phantom.
If it came with further improvements yes. As I once mentioned elsewhere.
It would be nice to have the SARH option too.
Delivers a nice big warhead.
 
If it came with further improvements yes. As I once mentioned elsewhere.
It would be nice to have the SARH option too.
Delivers a nice big warhead.

When it was introduced in 1965 it was a beast; fast, long-ranged with a big, sensitive seeker able to lock onto airframe heating. Its only in the 70s with no follow-on development does it start to slip.
 

Zen9

Banned
When it was introduced in 1965 it was a beast; fast, long-ranged with a big, sensitive seeker able to lock onto airframe heating. Its only in the 70s with no follow-on development does it start to slip.
True but they did try to go smaller with Taildog and SRAAM.
But considering the potentially greater range they could squeeze out of something the size of Red Top and the fire-and-forget capability it offered. It does seem like a waste not to take this further.
 
Can the RAf and FAA standardize on a single multirole fighter-bomber in the early 60s?
Rather than Lightning, Javelins, Sea Vixen, Hunter, Scimitar, Supermarine Swift etc.
Some background information.

These were the FAA's 10 fighter squadrons at 31st December 1959.
3 Scimitar squadrons (Nos. 800, 803 & 807)
2 Sea Hawk squadrons (Nos. 801 & 806)
3 Sea Venom squadrons (Nos. 891, 893 & 894)
1 Sea Venom-ECM squadron (No. 831)
1 Sea Vixen squadron (No. 892)
At this time the naval air service of the Royal Netherlands Navy also had No. 860 Squadron equipped with Sea Hawks. Meanwhile the Australian FAA had No. 805 Squadron equipped with Sea Venoms. Finally VF-871 of the Royal Canadian Navy was equipped with the McDonnell Banshee.

I had to do it at those dates before the POD because my FAA squadrons spreadsheet has the squadrons in existence at the end of the month, not the beginning of the month.

At 31st March 1962 there were 8 squadrons as follows:
3 Scimitar squadrons (Nos. 800, 803 & 807)
1 Sea Venom-ECM squadron (No. 831)
4 Sea Vixen squadrons (Nos. 890, 892, 893 and 899)
The 4 operational aircraft carriers at this date were Ark Royal, Centaur, Hermes and Victorious. I think that Centaur was only operating one squadron of Sea Vixens in 1962, while the other 3 had one Scimitar and one Sea Vixen squadron. AFAIK the squadrons on Ark Royal, Centaur and Victorious had 12 aircraft each, but the squadrons on Hermes had 8 aircraft each. Therefore, Centaur was operating 12 fighters in one squadron while Hermes was operating 16 aircraft in two squadrons and the other two ships were operating 24 fighters in 2 squadrons.

No. 805 Squadron in the RAN was still operating Sea Venoms, but would disband at the end of June 1963.
No. 860 Squadron in the RNLN was still operating Sea Hawks, but would disband on 31st October 1964.
VF-871 in the RCN was still operating Banshees, but would disband on 7th September 1962.
 
Top