Unless Shorts negotiate a production licence. Then it becomes a British built aircraft designed in the US.The Crusader III would be a British only plane made in the USA, not ideal from the fleet ownership perspective.
Unless Shorts negotiate a production licence. Then it becomes a British built aircraft designed in the US.The Crusader III would be a British only plane made in the USA, not ideal from the fleet ownership perspective.
Unless Shorts negotiate a production licence. Then it becomes a British built aircraft designed in the US.
The US/UK might team up to sell both the Short/Spey Crusader and Crusader III to 3d nations. Sales might be helped because you'd might have the UK and US governments pushing the sales. Certainly, the Crusader III wouldn't be any harder to sell than the EE Lightning.The Spey Twosader would have been able to tap into the big US and small French Crusader support systems. The Crusader III would be a British only plane made in the USA, not ideal from the fleet ownership perspective.
"Just"The design's already mostly done so it saves time and development costs. It just needs adapting to British needs.
The F-11 Super Tiger is one of my favourite What'If carrier fighters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F11F-1F_Super_TigerLicence-build the Grumman F-11F Tiger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-11_Tiger.
Handicapped by its weak Wright J-65 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_J65 in version bought by the US Navy, Britain has the advantage of the vastly superior original version of the end the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Siddeley_Sapphire.
You then trade in 10500 lbs thrust for 12390 lbs thrust and likely Mach 2 performance.
Compact enough to fit on British carriers(might sell some to the French too) and useful to the RAF as well.
Sparrow capability might be more viable on the 2-seat variant however. More variants!The F-11 Super Tiger is one of my favourite What'If carrier fighters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F11F-1F_Super_Tiger
Add radar and Sparrows and you've got a compact, supersonic fleet defence fighter.
Not suitable for carrier operations in the slightestguys what about the F-101 voodoo ? it was a decent fighter/nuclear strike for the 60s and could be license produced in the UK
Well the obvious choice would seem to be F-4 since it served with both of them and IIRC, excluding the Hunter in its training role, replaced most of them in their duties. That would of course do rather a number on the UK aviation industry's capabilities plus make something of a dent in the balance of payments even with licensed production.Can the RAF and FAA standardise on a single multi-role fighter-bomber in the early 1960s? Rather than Lightning, Javelins, Sea Vixen, Hunter, Scimitar, Swift etc.
Several of the books I've read on it seemed to place it closer to the F-105 than the F-4.P.1121 would have been a British F-4 in the right timeframe.
Didn't Rolls-Royce have an unbuilt proposal for a turbofan Avon replacement, can't remember if it was a clean sheet development or evolution, that had roughly the same dimensions so that it could drop in? I'd have to dig up the specifications to see how it compares to the Avon and both of them to the Spey as when it comes to interceptors and carrier aircraft that's fairly vital.The Avon should be an easy replacement for the J-57 (Avon has a marginally smaller diameter so you shouldn't have the problem you had with the Spey in the F-4).
I can remember seeing plans for a later development of the Scimitar which had twin seating that looked incredibly similar to the Phantom, not wholly surprising since physics operates the same in both sides of the Atlantic. I can't say whether it was a genuine Supermarine proposal of a modern aviation enthusiast one, and am currently posting via mobile do can't go searching.However it is within the capability of the British aviation industry to build something akin to the Phantom in the 1960s...
Well the first A does stand for Aeronautics, it having previously been the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), so I'm guessing it was for research purposes.Whatever for? It's not like the North Vietnamese MiGs weren't doing that on a daily basis.
I was sarcastically asking why the USN had NASA stop their people bouncing them.Well the first A does stand for Aeronautics, it having previously been the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), so I'm guessing it was for research purposes.
guys what about the F-101 voodoo ? it was a decent fighter/nuclear strike for the 60s and could be license produced in the UK
Several of the books I've read on it seemed to place it closer to the F-105 than the F-4.
You might be thinking of the Supermarine Type 556.I can remember seeing plans for a later development of the Scimitar which had twin seating that looked incredibly similar to the Phantom, not wholly surprising since physics operates the same in both sides of the Atlantic. I can't say whether it was a genuine Supermarine proposal of a modern aviation enthusiast one, and am currently posting via mobile do can't go searching.
Very little of the Spey Phantom could be supported by the Phantom support network. That was the problem with reengining it and the structural problems that entailed.That's interesting but not surprising, RAAF Mirages were built for the Avon and when they reverted to Atar nothing lined up leading to a lot of skinned knuckles. What about the wings, forward fuselage etc?
In any event the Phantom was a widely used aircraft with a huge global support network. The Spey Twosader would have been able to tap into the big US and small French Crusader support systems. The Crusader III would be a British only plane made in the USA, not ideal from the fleet ownership perspective.
F11F was never an all weather fighter. It was a day fighter and not good as an attack plane so you don't even have that as a secondary mission. It was being replaced by the F-8 by the time this timeline is interested in. Seems to me that the Scimitar is closer to the F11F. Tiger was a little faster but it woould probably be faster and easier to tune the Scimitar than introduce a new type.Licence-build the Grumman F-11F Tiger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-11_Tiger.
Handicapped by its weak Wright J-65 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_J65 in version bought by the US Navy, Britain has the advantage of the vastly superior original version of the end the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Siddeley_Sapphire.
You then trade in 10500 lbs thrust for 12390 lbs thrust and likely Mach 2 performance.
Compact enough to fit on British carriers(might sell some to the French too) and useful to the RAF as well.
Hawker P.1121. Once modified for the fleet ops, it can do both FAA and RAF roles.Can the RAf and FAA standardize on a single multirole fighter-bomber in the early 60s ?
Rather than lightning , javelins , sea vixen, hunter, scimitar, sup swift etc
The P1121 was a single seat. I don't think we can realistically have a single seat all weather fighter in that era. That was the big complaint about the Crusader III, that the pilot workload was too heavy with the beam riding radar missiles of the time. The Javelin and the Sea Vixen were both two seat aircraft.Hawker P.1121. Once modified for the fleet ops, it can do both FAA and RAF roles.
![]()