Alternative single fighter for UK in 1960s

[Zen9]

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.

This could work.

And it would still open up the potential 'interim' strike option in '54. Though Supermarine might be overloaded trying to roll out the first orders.
I agree that Swift is a potential casualty here.
That does leave me wondering if the popular solution of the times, the 'crescent wing' (mostly compound sweep) might in turn be offered on a Scimitar variant.
DH would have staff free for other projects if the DH110 is bypassed into obscurity.....this might result in moving forward on the DH116.

Hawkers winning more orders and naval ones as well would certainly increase the need to complete some with reheat.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

DH would have staff free for other projects if the DH110 is bypassed into obscurity.....this might result in moving forward on the DH116.

IOTL 3 Supermarine Type 508 Prototypes were ordered to Specification N.9/47, 4 Gloster G.A.5 prototypes were ordered to Spec. F.4/48 and 13 D.H.110 prototypes were ordered initially. However, the Gloster and DH orders were soon reduced to 2 of each.

ITTL I was thinking of 3 Supermarine Type 508s with swept wings and conventional undercarriages from the start to N.9/47 and 4 land-based night-fighter prototypes to F.4/48 in place of the G.A.5 order. There would still be 13 D.H.110s. Then in 1949 the contracts would be cut to 5 Supermarine and 2 De Havilland prototypes.

I think the D.H.110 wouldn't disappear until 1952 which IIRC is when the first production RAF Scimitars would be ordered in place of the first production contract for Javelins. IIRC 1952 was when the 100 Scimitars were ordered to Specification N.113P.

I think we need an earlier POD to get the DH.116 built in place of the DH.112 Venom and Sea Venom. I think the earliest possible POD is 1949. That is have the DH110 cancelled outright and keep all 4 of the Supermarine F.4/48 prototypes.

 

[Zen9]

Point on the Swift.
Development and assessment work was incomplete at the time the design was fixed for production.
Too few prototypes.

Korea had the Air Council worried.
So worried they were refurbishing Spitfires!
In this light a second string to the day fighter bow become highly logical. Hence the order for 150 Swifts.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Point on the Swift.
Development and assessment work was incomplete at the time the design was fixed for production.
Too few prototypes.

Korea had the Air Council worried.
So worried they were refurbishing Spitfires!
In this light a second string to the day fighter bow become highly logical. Hence the order for 150 Swifts.

It was a lot more than 150.

About 525 Swifts were ordered including 146 to be built by Short & Harland and 20 Swifts with Hooks for the FAA.

I would give more details, but I have some important RL to do.

 

[Riain]

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

To not try to get aircraft better than the Buccaneer (which incidently I like, as a carrier strike aircraft) isn't the best thing for the RAF to do. If the RAF was able to get the TSR2 or F111K Into service nobody would be saying that the RAF should not have bought them and gotten the Buccaneer instead. It was a stopgap, consolation prize bought about by a vortex of bad political decisions, that it was successful speaks well of the Buccaneer.

 

[StevoJH]

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

Very late though, with huge delays before entry to service. And also completely obsolete and an orphan platform by the time it was removed from service. It really should have been replaced during the 1990's.

Interestingly, the F4's that were leased as an interim aircraft while waiting for the F-111C were a more capable air-to-air platform then the RAAF's current (for the time) interceptor fleet, and it wouldn't be until the F-18's arrived in the late 1980's that they would be matched. Not getting more F-4's and retaining the leased aircraft was a mistake in my opinion, considering that we were relying on Mirage III's with by comparison very limited capability.

 

[Riain]

Very late though, with huge delays before entry to service. And also completely obsolete and an orphan platform by the time it was removed from service. It really should have been replaced during the 1990's.

Yes, delivered into storage for 7 years. it wasn't obsolete in 2010, it was plenty viable on a regional stage although wouldn't have lasted until 2020.

Interestingly, the F4's that were leased as an interim aircraft while waiting for the F-111C were a more capable air-to-air platform then the RAAF's current (for the time) interceptor fleet, and it wouldn't be until the F-18's arrived in the late 1980's that they would be matched. Not getting more F-4's and retaining the leased aircraft was a mistake in my opinion, considering that we were relying on Mirage III's with by comparison very limited capability

The reason why the RAAF didn't keep the leased F4Es was because it would have dragged the Mirage replacement out to the 90s. That said the Mirage IIIO would have been a tough ask for an F4E to beat in the air, the Phantom crews would have to be on their toes in order to win.

 

[MatthewB]

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,

Address the area rule that made the Scimitar fly slow (same as Corvair F-102 vs. F-106) and it could be a winner. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_rule

But escape thrust is needed for carrier ops. The below incident should never have cost the pilot.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Address the area rule that made the Scimitar fly slow (same as Corvair F-102 vs. F-106) and it could be a winner. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_rule

But escape thrust is needed for carrier ops. The below incident should never have cost the pilot.

FWIW I used to work with someone who was an electrician in the atom bomb section on Victorious. He told me that the aircraft crashed because the arrester gear was set for the wrong type of aircraft. He also told me that the diver on the plane guard helicopter went into the sea and tried to open the canopy.

 

[MatthewB]

FWIW I used to work with someone who was an electrician in the atom bomb section on Victorious. He told me that the aircraft crashed because the arrester gear was set for the wrong type of aircraft. He also told me that the diver on the plane guard helicopter went into the sea and tried to open the canopy.

There should have been a failsafe means of opening the canopy from the inside. Here’s the USAF’s canopy breaker from the same era.

Carrier aircraft have been ditching on attempted arrestor landings since CVs were invented. Why wasn’t this accounted for? https://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-575046.html

What’s the point of the ejector seat if the canopy is fixed in place?

 

[bsmart]

Carrier aircraft have been ditching on attempted arrestor landings since CVs were invented. Why wasn’t this accounted for? https://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-575046.html
What’s the point of the ejector seat if the canopy is fixed in place?

Back then Ejection seats were not zero-zero so the seat wasn't the problem. The fact the canopy would not open was the problem. Funny thing - it said they held an enquiry into the arrestor cable. What about the canopy not being able to be opened or jettisoned. That is what I would want to know if I flew that model plane.

 

[MatthewB]

Back then Ejection seats were not zero-zero so the seat wasn't the problem. The fact the canopy would not open was the problem. Funny thing - it said they held an enquiry into the arrestor cable. What about the canopy not being able to be opened or jettisoned. That is what I would want to know if I flew that model plane.

I’d be taking out my service revolver. Five shots into the canopy, one for myself.

 

[Simon]

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.

Possible, although British development times seem to have been rather glacial in general. From first flight to introduction was five years for the Attacker, five-and-a-half years for the Sea Hawk, five years for the Swift, four-and-a-bit years for the Javelin, nearly eight years for the Sea Vixen etc. with the Scimitar by contrast being relatively quick. I get that this was a new field they were venturing into but those times suggest either a lack of resources, no real sense of urgency, or both.

 

[MatthewB]

Possible, although British development times seem to have been rather glacial in general. From first flight to introduction was five years for the Attacker, five-and-a-half years for the Sea Hawk, five years for the Swift, four-and-a-bit years for the Javelin, nearly eight years for the Sea Vixen etc. with the Scimitar by contrast being relatively quick. I get that this was a new field they were venturing into but those times suggest either a lack of resources, no real sense of urgency, or both.

I wonder what R.J. Mitchell would have come up with.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Possible, although British development times seem to have been rather glacial in general. From first flight to introduction was five years for the Attacker, five-and-a-half years for the Sea Hawk, five years for the Swift, four-and-a-bit years for the Javelin, nearly eight years for the Sea Vixen etc. with the Scimitar by contrast being relatively quick. I get that this was a new field they were venturing into but those times suggest either a lack of resources, no real sense of urgency, or both.

In the period 1945-50 there was certainly no sense of urgency and lack of resources, with the latter being the denominating issue.

The UK was broke and the available resources had to be allocated: 1) to the export drive; 2) setting up the Welfare State; 3) modernising the armed forces, and in that order.

There was even a second version of the Ten Year Rule. Except, that ITTL it was thought that it was very likely that another world war would break out in 10 years time and it was never put back from 1957, "The Year of Maximum Danger." If anything the Top Brass and the Cabinet would have liked to put it forward from 1957 to 1954 in 1949 due to the USSR detonating its first atom bomb 3 years earlier than expected.

The Top Brass of the armed forces decided that the UK could only afford to rearm once and therefore to concentrate on putting the best weapons that could be put into service in 1957.

As they thought that it takes 10 years from issuing the specification to formation of the first squadron when developing a new aircraft it makes sense that the specifications of what became the Hunter, Javelin, Sea Vixen, Scimitar, Victor and Vulcan were all issued in 1947 (give or take a year).

Then Kim Il Sung ruined everything by invading South Korea in 1950...

 

[Zen9]

There should have been a failsafe means of opening the canopy from the inside. Carrier aircraft have been ditching on attempted arrestor landings since CVs were invented. What’s the point of the ejector seat if the canopy is fixed in place?

They certainly did on the Buccaneer, but that is a bit later.
If I recall correctly, there was a incident that lead to several crew drowning.
Possibly this event was one of several.
From this the explosive cord was implanted in the canopy to shatter it as on the Buccaneer and later aircraft.
I also reccal the Gannet was equipped to eject safely from underwater.

 

[Zen9]

Certainly the RAF wandering off from the DH110 undermined it's progress. That and the very public breakup after supersonic dives.
Also finances don't seem to be released for purchases until '57.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The Farnborough disaster certainly wont have helped matters as I assume the DH110's were grounded during the investigation.

 

[Anderman]

Hitting Sidney Camm with club until he understands that swept wings are future would be good start. So Hawker builds the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_P.1052 instead of the Sea Hawk. That should speed the development of the Hunter a bit and so on.....

 

[Simon]

Hitting Sidney Camm with club until he understands that swept wings are future would be good start.

IIRC he got burnt by RAE giving him incorrect data which led to the the sub-optimal wing design on one of his aircraft, I forget which. That combined with his natural inclinations meant he was less than receptive later on.