Alternative single fighter for UK in 1960s

Cheap! The CF-104s were second hand, and given cheap.
No they weren't.
They were built by Canadair in Cartierville under a government purchase order. Orenda in Downsview built the OEL-7 that powered the aircraft. Most of the avionics were built by Canadian firms under license.
But I'm guessing that was a typo? And you meant CF-101?
The two batches of CF-101's we operated were never owned by Canada. Many of the "facts and ($) figures" of this arrangement remain classified, 35 years after we quit operating the type. The custody deal was based on something similar to the "Lend-lease" agreements from WWII. This was intertwined with arrangements with respect to the AIR-2 capability.
They remained USAF property until they were retired. Once this happened in 1984, the US "signed off" on a bunch of the airframes we had in our custody (with the obvious provision that they be "de-militarized") and these are the "gate guardians" that we now "own".
 

SsgtC

Banned
Unfortunately no important part of that aircraft worked. The FMICW radar was taken up by the Nimrod and found to be no good and replaced by doppler radar. The FASS was also tried with the Nimrod and they could never get it to sychronise, they kept losing tracks etc.
That's true, but there's no real reason why they couldn't do that for this design either. Especially as it never advanced off the drawing board.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
The F-101A was designed to be a long range escort fighter with 4 20mm cannon but that mission disappeared almost as soon as the plane was designed. In the RCAF I believe it was only used as an area defense fighter. The B model was equipped with the AIM-4 as a secondary weapon and the AIR2 Genie nuclear rocket as the primary weapon. I never saw them at Red Flag but did see them regularly at Langley as they stopped on the way to Tyndall AFB FL to do weapons training. We would usually see 4 at a time on a weekend with another 4 stopping a couple hours later, I believe headed in the other direction. there were still a few ANG/AFRes units equipped with them in the mid 70s and we would have them show up at Langley occasionally (Including one time a reserve colonel flew in for a conference at TAC HQ and had his golf clubs and luggage in the Weapons bay. Somehow the door jammed and would not open. It took all night for our technicians to figure out how to open it!)
Why did they not modify the f101 as a strike fighter later in life ? I'm sure it could carry conventionalA2G weapons if modified atleast externally and given its long range would be rather useful to countries like Australia, Canada.
Maybe better than F104G ?
 
Why did they not modify the f101 as a strike fighter later in life ? I'm sure it could carry conventionalA2G weapons if modified atleast externally and given its long range would be rather useful to countries like Australia, Canada.
Maybe better than F104G ?
Because they were worn out and there weren't enough airframes to fill the need. Also the design was old already. The Canadians were still using the F-101 when we were fielding the F-15and F-16.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Because they were worn out and there weren't enough airframes to fill the need. Also the design was old already. The Canadians were still using the F-101 when we were fielding the F-15and F-16.
But if this strike fighter conversion done in late 60s and 70s , could it be a cheaper alternative to F105?
 
Since people mentioned the Supermarine Scimitar earlier how much of an embuggerance was converting the original undercarriage-less design to a standard one? I was more wondering if it had continuing knock-on effects or if once the changes had been made that was it. It got me wondering how much sooner you might be able to see the Scimitar or a similar aircraft enter into service if the powers that be hadn't been messing around with rubber decks.



When you write 'than the AW.681' do you mean to completion and introduction into service or until cancellation as in our timeline? I'm assuming the former rather than the latter but it pays to double-check. :)

The Scimitar was a terrible aircraft with one of the highest maintenance/flying hours of any aircraft in FAA service. The last descent aircraft Supermarine built was the Spitfire.
 
But if this strike fighter conversion done in late 60s and 70s , could it be a cheaper alternative to F105?
By the late 60s both the F-101 and the F-105 were long out of production. The F-105 was being used up in Vietnam and starting to be replaced by the F-4. You need to go back to the late 50s. Even then the F-105 was half a generation newer than the F-101. The F-111 was the 'new' penetration fighter of the early '60s
 

Khanzeer

Banned
The Scimitar was a terrible aircraft with one of the highest maintenance/flying hours of any aircraft in FAA service. The last descent aircraft Supermarine built was the Spitfire.
I've only Seen pictures of scimitar with bull pup and Iron bombs was it supposed to carry any other conventional ordinance?
Was It designed to have an air-to-air role
 

Khanzeer

Banned
By the late 60s both the F-101 and the F-105 were long out of production. The F-105 was being used up in Vietnam and starting to be replaced by the F-4. You need to go back to the late 50s. Even then the F-105 was half a generation newer than the F-101. The F-111 was the 'new' penetration fighter of the early '60s
I guess the voodoo was conceived at just the wrong time in history
Too bad As I feel like it was such a beautiful warplane , it would have been so nice to see it exported to other countries and used in a variety of roles
 
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.

Two seat variants - tandem and twin seat - were drawn up under various guises. The book I recommended earlier has much of the info, plus earlier and later developments.

Camm.jpg
 
I guess the voodoo was conceived at just the wrong time in history
Too bad As I feel like it was such a beautiful warplane , it would have been so nice to see it exported to other countries and used in a variety of roles
No plane is conceived at the wrong time in history. They are all the products of the time they were designed in. The F-101 was refined over time and begat the F-4 Phantom
 

SsgtC

Banned
I guess the voodoo was conceived at just the wrong time in history
Too bad As I feel like it was such a beautiful warplane , it would have been so nice to see it exported to other countries and used in a variety of roles
True multirole aircraft weren't really viable until the F-16/18 time frame. Before that, aircraft tended to be designed for specific roles. If they could do other jobs too, that was more happy accident than intentional design choice. And the aircraft that were modified to do other jobs post design or production (looking at you F-104) tended to suck ass in that role.
 
True multirole aircraft weren't really viable until the F-16/18 time frame. Before that, aircraft tended to be designed for specific roles. If they could do other jobs too, that was more happy accident than intentional design choice. And the aircraft that were modified to do other jobs post design or production (looking at you F-104) tended to suck ass in that role.
The F-04G was a complete redesign to meet the NATO requirement for a tactical strike aircraft. It did a good job at it. The reputation came from the Germans expecting to be able to go straight from subsonic aircraft like the F-84 and Seahawk to a complex low level Mach 2 strike aircraft. Their pilots weren't ready for it and paid dearly.

The F-4 was always considered a multrole aircraft. It started out as a heavy attack design. That project got cancelled so it morphed into a fleet defense fighter but retained its strike capability
 

MatthewB

Banned
Two seat variants - tandem and twin seat - were drawn up under various guises. The book I recommended earlier has much of the info, plus earlier and later developments.

Camm.jpg
I’ve always felt a little sad for Hawker. Everything they produced was just slightly behind the times. Hurricane in the Spitfire era, finally get the Typhoon/Tempest right as the Meteor is entering service. Sea Fury and Sea Hawk in era of supersonic migs. And worst of all, they never made anything supersonic that made it to market.
 
When you write 'than the AW.681' do you mean to completion and introduction into service or until cancellation as in our timeline? I'm assuming the former rather than the latter but it pays to double-check. :)
I meant, would the £21 million spent on AW.681 to its cancellation in February 1965 (when one prototype and 6 production aircraft were on order) been enough to get the BAC-222 into service at the same time as the C-130K or earlier? Which I think is the former.
 
Since people mentioned the Supermarine Scimitar earlier how much of an embuggerance was converting the original undercarriage-less design to a standard one? I was more wondering if it had continuing knock-on effects or if once the changes had been made that was it. It got me wondering how much sooner you might be able to see the Scimitar or a similar aircraft enter into service if the powers that be hadn't been messing around with rubber decks.
AFAIK the first aircraft carrier that was capable of operating the Scimitar was Ark Royal, completed in 1955, so in practical terms no earlier than that.

The next ships were Centaur after she had steam catapults fitted in her 1956-58 refit, Victorious after what was effectively a modern version of an age-of-sail "Great Rebuild" was completed in 1958 and Hermes after she was completed in 1959. Eagle couldn't operate Scimitars until after her 1959-64 refit.

IIRC from Friedman, when the prototypes of what became the Sea Vixen and Scimitar were ordered in the late 1940s, service entry was intended for 1953 and 1954 respectively. However, if these dates had been met they would have had less powerful Avon engines, less sophisticated avionics and the 1953 Sea Vixen would not have had Firestreak missiles.
 
Last edited:
Since people mentioned the Supermarine Scimitar earlier how much of an embuggerance was converting the original undercarriage-less design to a standard one? I was more wondering if it had continuing knock-on effects or if once the changes had been made that was it. It got me wondering how much sooner you might be able to see the Scimitar or a similar aircraft enter into service if the powers that be hadn't been messing around with rubber decks.
There was "method in the madness" of the rubber deck, i.e. early jets had very high fuel consumption so no undercarriage would make space for more fuel.

However, it would have helped a lot if the angled flight deck had been thought of 4-5 years earlier instead of as you wrote, "messing around with rubber decks."

It would also have helped a lot if the development of the steam catapult could have been speeded up so that Eagle could have been the first ship completed with them instead of Ark Royal 4 years later. However, AFAIK there isn't an easy (and inexpensive) way to do that.
 
Last edited:
Define cheaper. Yes, you're basically taking someone else's design, giving it new engines and building it yourself, keeping the manufacturing capability but lose the design capacity at the same time. Designing, developing and building in house is more expensive, yes, but you keep your designers and engineers in work and paying taxes, keeping your design and manufacturing skills honed. Why do you think US industry aggressively markets abroad? Every single nation that's gone down the route of buying in rather than building in house has had their aircraft industry wiped out. I know which I'd prefer and it isn't sucking US corporate cock to save a measly few quid, because in the long term you're fucked.
Building Sikorsky helicopters under licence was a "nice little earner" for Westland for many years. The firm has had it's ups and downs, but it's still here.

The AW.681/C-130K story the former cancelled, the factory closed, the design team going to work for British Rail, and the UK bought an American aircraft built in an American factory. If the BAC-222 route had been taken there would have been an American aircraft with British engines, built in a British factory.

Westland's licencing agreement with Sikorsky included the right to export the aircraft to certain territories. The licencing agreement between BAC and Lockheed might have been the same.
 
I've only Seen pictures of scimitar with bull pup and Iron bombs was it supposed to carry any other conventional ordinance?
Was It designed to have an air-to-air role

It was but by the time it entered service the Sea Vixen had the interceptor role so despite its “F” designation, the Scimitar served in the strike role.

AFAIK the only other weapon it was cleared to carry apart from Bullpup and iron bombs was the Red Beard tactical nuke.
 
Building Sikorsky helicopters under licence was a "nice little earner" for Westland for many years. The firm has had it's ups and downs, but it's still here.

The AW.681/C-130K story the former cancelled, the factory closed, the design team going to work for British Rail, and the UK bought an American aircraft built in an American factory. If the BAC-222 route had been taken there would have been an American aircraft with British engines, built in a British factory.

Westland's licencing agreement with Sikorsky included the right to export the aircraft to certain territories. The licencing agreement between BAC and Lockheed might have been the same.

I've always wondered why the Shorts Belfast wasn't more successful, what would have been required to make it a viable alternative to the C-130.

Giving away domestic design capability and sending money offshore for no reason is just silly.
 
Top