Alternative single fighter for UK in 1960s

[Zen9]

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

Can they ?
Maybe
Would it require the RAF and FAA to be more reasonable in their requirements? yes
But could they realise that at the time........no things were changing too fast for institutional inertia to catch up.

I can dig out all sorts of designs, but it changes nothing even if one is funded to prototype.

There is one certain AH pathway to a nearly single solution, the Other Lightning. That requires a very minor change at the start in the early 1950's.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-other-lightning-ee-wank.467133/

Which is somewhat incremental and a bit Soviet in approach, but gets you most of the way there.
That kills Thin Wing Javelin, wins ER.134T, wins F.155T, kills NMBR.3/AW.406/OR.356.
Vicariously variants fullfill QRA interceptor needs 120-ish, FAW needs 150-ish (SoNoLi), MRI (Jaguar) needs 150-200-ish, VG gets the FAA in( 60-140) and replaces earlier FAW in the RAF (160-ish).

If I look elsewhere earlier.... I'd say the failure to get the Supermarine Type 525 with reheated engines and an AI set is the alternative great lost opportunity.

If I dig in then the Shorts PD.13 comes closest to another alternative if opted for over Blackburns B.103 (Buccaneer). That really needs the RN/FAA to realise they can get one type properly funded and that FAW and F types are going to be either American, a compromise with the RAF or variants of the NA.39 winner.
PD.13 has the agility, and can take more power with reheat or larger engines. Enough room in nose, space internal for weapons or fuel. Already good for mach 1+ at altitude.

A good 'nearly ran' option is Vickers Supermarine Single Engine Type 571 built in variants for various roles. Vickers felt the smaller single engine design was actually more affordable, logical and easier to achieve by not trying to make a single machine 'all singing and dancing' (to use a phrase from the times). Instead different packs would be fitted for different roles.
It met the STOL requirements by (and this is pertinent for the naval issue) use of landbased catapult for TO and arrestor wire and parachute deceleration at L.
That would make conversion to a naval type a easier process.
Wing being single piece bolted to the top of the fusilage makes changes and fitting a folding wing a easier proposition.
This doesn't change earlier history, but isn't likely to be killed by the Labour government winning in late '64 and cancelling things in '65.
Variants mean there is no Tornado or Jaguar, and the likelyhood is no F4K either. Later runs of Bucccaneer are also likely to be killed off in it's favour.

 

[Crowbar Six]

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.

It was too big and too slow - hence the Belslow nickname in RAF service. The aircraft was designed as a Strategic heavy airlifter, there wasn't that much commercial demand for such big airlifters, Lockheed did design a civilian version of the C5 but got no takers.

 

[Simon]

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.

Hhmm. My general thoughts were trying to see if an earlier Scimitar might have allowed for an evolution to something like the Type 576, similar to how McDonnell Douglas did with the F-4 from the F3H, but the timing looks a bit tight.

 

[Zen9]

Hhmm. My general thoughts were trying to see if an earlier Scimitar might have allowed for an evolution to something like the Type 576, similar to how McDonnell Douglas did with the F-4 from the F3H, but the timing looks a bit tight.

If.....
If the Type 525 had received reheated engines and a AI set......it was intended to.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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

With apologies to @Zen9, standardisation on one aircraft, no. Reduce the number of types, possibly.

Here are two possibilities that aren't suggested so often.

Going back to the late 1940s... what became the De Havilland Sea Vixen and Gloster Javelin were built to the same specifications. It may be possible to have a land based DH110 built in place of the Javelin. I'm not qualified to comment on whether that would be better for the RAF from an operational point of view. There might be some R&D saving, but probably no production economies of scale because I think that the RAF DH.110s would still be built by Armstrong Whitworth and Gloster.

It might be possible to have a Sea Hunter instead of the Scimitar. However, I think the FAA would want a twin engine aircraft for safety reasons and it might not have the same range and payload. However, in common with the Sea Hawk, it might have smaller folded wingspan than the Scimitar. A starting point might be that IOTL the FAA ordered 20 Swifts with hooks for familiarisation trials with swept wing aircraft, but the order was cancelled. Therefore, ITTL the POD might be that the FAA orders 20 Hunters with hooks.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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.

Could development of the Scimitar have been speeded up if Joe Smith and his team hadn't been working on the Swift at the same time.

A possible POD is that be that the powers that be decide to order more Hunters in 1950-51 instead of trying to turn the swept-wing attacker into the Swift?

 

[Zen9]

With apologies to @Zen9, standardisation on one aircraft, no. Reduce the number of types, possibly.

Hey no worries. I think you're right.

Could development of the Scimitar have been speeded up if Joe Smith and his team hadn't been working on the Swift at the same time.

A possibl

That's a properly good question. I did have a book on Supermarine aircraft somewhere. Must dig that out!

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

With apologies to @Zen9, standardisation on one aircraft, no. Reduce the number of types, possibly.

The single attack type is obvious. It has to be the Buccaneer. If you must have a light strike aircraft then the Strikemaster is the one.

 

[The Wooksta!]

It might be possible to have a Sea Hunter instead of the Scimitar. However, I think the FAA would want a twin engine aircraft for safety reasons and it might not have the same range and payload. However, in common with the Sea Hawk, it might have smaller folded wingspan than the Scimitar. A starting point might be that IOTL the FAA ordered 20 Swifts with hooks for familiarisation trials with swept wing aircraft, but the order was cancelled. Therefore, ITTL the POD might be that the FAA orders 20 Hunters with hooks.

The Navy could have had the swept all through P.1081 Sea Hawk by 51 if it wasn't for fish headed admirals and Labour parsimony (although to be fair, we were skint and the US was bleeding us white). I've seen drawings of Hunter and similar Hawker developments with arrestor hooks, so a navalised Hunter isn't such a stretch. Ditto the Swift. The latter may have been better as a carrier strike aircraft as it was pretty solid when flown in the FR role and it was very solidly built.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The Hawker 1052 swept wing Sea Hawk landing on HMS Eagle in 1952. Could it have kept the Centaurs and Light Fleets viable longer?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The single attack type is obvious. It has to be the Buccaneer.

I could not agree more.

Unfortunately, IOTL, it was obvious to everyone except the RAF.

 

[Riain]

I could not agree more.

Unfortunately, IOTL, it obvious to everyone except the RAF.

The Buccaneer was not in consideration for the RAAF in late 1963 either. The RAAF specified supersonic speed at low level and mach 2 at altitude, which is well within the state of the art in the mid 60s. To accept the Buccaneer in the 60s means that the RAF is accepting less than the best.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

It was too big and too slow - hence the Belslow nickname in RAF service. The aircraft was designed as a Strategic heavy airlifter, there wasn't that much commercial demand for such big airlifters, Lockheed did design a civilian version of the C5 but got no takers.

I looked the Belfast up and it didn't seem to be significantly slower than contemporary propeller driven transport aircraft. How did it acquire its reputation for being slow?

It's really a topic for another thread, but I think British industry and the RAF aught to have had transport aircraft that were considerably better than the ones they had in the 1950s and 1960s IOTL. The reason for this opinion is the turboprop engines that were available at the time.

E.g. the Beverley. Why not a transport aircraft with four RR Clydes or 4 Proteus turboprops instead of four Centaurus piston engines? The RAF could have had an aircraft with better performance than the C-130A Hercules. A Mk 2 version with four Bristol Orions or 4 RR Tynes could have been built instead of the Argossy. Then there would have been a Mk 3 in place of the AW.681 and C-130K.

I also think that a British equivalent to the C-141 Starlifter with four Conways could have been developed in time to be built instead of the 5 Comet C.4s, 14 VC.10s and 10 Belfasts that the RAF operated. (I know about the Short SC.5/45 development of the Belfast with four RB.178s. However, the RAF wanted to buy 15 C-5A Galaxies, according to documents that I have seen at the National Archives.)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Buccaneer was not in consideration for the RAAF in late 1963 either. The RAAF specified supersonic speed at low level and mach 2 at altitude, which is well within the state of the art in the mid 60s. To accept the Buccaneer in the 60s means that the RAF is accepting less than the best.

I don't disagree, but there is a proverb that is something like, the best is the enemy of will do.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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.

Originally DH.110 was to be a night fighter and Scimitar the day fighter (hence no radar), but according to Friedman by the time they entered service the roles had become Sea Vixen high-level fighter and Scimitar low-level fighter and strike. The Scimitar got the low-level job because of it had the stronger airframe.

When it entered service the Scimitar seems to have been a half-decent aircraft. The newly rebuilt Victorious took part in an exercise with the USN and her Scimitars shot down something like 19 out of 20 attacking aircraft and drove off the 20th (I don't remember the exact numbers). However, that also had a lot to do with Victorious having the Type 984 radar and Comprehensive Display System.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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.

There was the SC.5/21 a derivative of the Belfast that was submitted to OR.351.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The Buccaneer was not in consideration for the RAAF in late 1963 either. The RAAF specified supersonic speed at low level and mach 2 at altitude, which is well within the state of the art in the mid 60s. To accept the Buccaneer in the 60s means that the RAF is accepting less than the best.

And like the RAF the RAAF ended up being sold a pup in the form of the F111. Fortunately for the RAF HM Treasury baulked at the ever rising price and had the order cancelled.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Here's another one that's not mentioned very often.

Back in the late 1940s Supermarine proposed a two-seat version of what would become the Scimitar with AI radar to Specification F.4/48, which the DH.110 and Gloster Javelin were designed to meet.

What if ITTL the RAF orders 4 prototypes of Supermarine's aircraft instead of the Gloster G.A.5?

In 1950-51 the Scimitar night fighter is ordered into production for the RAF as a super-priority programme instead of the Javelin. Supermarine doesn't have the resources to do this and the Swift so the RAF orders circa 500 extra Hunters from Armstrong-Whitworth, Gloster and Shorts in place of the 500 Swifts ordered from Supermarine and Shorts IOTL.

The Royal Navy buys a navalised Scimitar night fighter (effectively the Supermarine Type 556 of OTL) in place of the OTL Scimitar and Sea Vixen.

There would probably be a thin-wing Scimitar project taking the place of the thin-wing Javelin, but that would be cancelled.

The two-seat Scimitar would take the place of three types operated in the 1960s IOTL, i.e. the Javelin, Sea Vixen and single-seat Scimitar.

 

[Riain]

And like the RAF the RAAF ended up being sold a pup in the form of the F111. Fortunately for the RAF HM Treasury baulked at the ever rising price and had the order cancelled.

The F111 was an awesome plane that served Australia brilliantly for 37 years. If only the RAF had been so unlucky!

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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.

Scimitar and Sea Vixen could only be operated by "Standard C" or better aircraft carriers. Buccaneer could only be operated by "Standard B" aircraft carriers or better.

OTL

Eagle completed 1951 to Standard D - refitted to Standard A 1959-64
Centaur completed 1953 to Standard D - refitted to Standard C 1956-58
Albion and Bulwark completed 1954 to Standard D
Ark Royal completed 1955 to Standard C - refitted to Standard B 1967-70, i.e. her "Phantomisation" refit
Victorious rebuilt 1950-58 to Standard A
Hermes completed 1959 to Standard A-Star, but could not operate Buccaneers until after her 1964-66 refit

However, if we could have someone think of the angled flight deck 4-5 years earlier (i.e. instead of the flexible deck) and accelerate the development of the steam catapult. Then ITTL...

Eagle completed 1951 to Standard C - refitted to Standard A 1959-64
Ark Royal completed 1952 to Standard C - refitted to Standard A 1960-65
Centaur, Albion, Bulwark and Hermes completed 1953-55 to Standard B-Star - Centaur refitted to Standard A-Star 1956-58.

The other Eagle wasn't cancelled in 1946. Instead enough work was done to allow it to be launched (as HMS Audacious) so that the slipway could be cleared. She was resumed in 1952 to be completed in 1955 to Standard B. However, she was eventually completed in 1959 to Standard A.

Plans to rebuild the 6 earlier armoured carriers had been abandoned by 1950 in favour of new ships of 53,000 tons, but the Treasury said that 35,000 tons was the biggest that it could pay for. One ship named Argus was laid down in 1950 for completion in 1954 to Standard B, but in the event she didn't join the fleet until 1958 as a Standard A ship. Two sister ships were planned, but they were cancelled in 1954 before they were ordered.