Would Britain be able to design and build a counter to the mig 15 in the Korean war in stead of the f86A sabre?
British counters to the mig 15
- Thread starter HMS Audacious
- Start date
Not without a radical culture change in both the Air Ministry and the manufacturers to deal with the inherent conservatism, political meddling, and utter slowness that plagued the British aircraft industry postwar.
The RAF actually wound up operating F-86's as interims while the problems with their homegrown equivalents (Swift and Hunter) were sorted out. It's also worth noting that the F-86 predated the Korean War - it wasn't built as a result of encountering the MiG-15.
An easier alternative to save both the British and US the trouble is to not give the Nene jet engine to the Soviets.
The RAF actually wound up operating F-86's as interims while the problems with their homegrown equivalents (Swift and Hunter) were sorted out. It's also worth noting that the F-86 predated the Korean War - it wasn't built as a result of encountering the MiG-15.
An easier alternative to save both the British and US the trouble is to not give the Nene jet engine to the Soviets.
We did have a counter to the MiG 15 - the Hawker P.1052 swept wing development of the P.1040 Sea Hawk which first flew in 1948. Greater will and more importantly cash could have seen the type in servive in 1950.
The P.1081, a redesign of the 1052 to incorporate an afterburning RR Tay to an Australian requirement, first flew in 1950 and would have been even better.
The P.1081, a redesign of the 1052 to incorporate an afterburning RR Tay to an Australian requirement, first flew in 1950 and would have been even better.
Riain
Banned
Technically of course, the problem was a political decision in the late 40s that 1957 was the year of maximum danger so they should work to be ready with heaps of the best stuff then. Korea frightened the bejesus out of Britain and led to the crash and therefore crap development of fighters from 1950.
If they had adopted a more linear approch to fighter development they would have had a mig 15 competitor ready in 1951.
If they had adopted a more linear approch to fighter development they would have had a mig 15 competitor ready in 1951.
It was a sale not a gift. They were sold for good foreign currency which Britain desperately needed in the absence of solid loans at that point in time. It was sold by Rolls Royce as part of a normal process of marketing it's aero engines. All the government did was allow it. This was in 1946 when the Soviet Union was still supposed to be an ally only 13 months after the end of the war and the British civilian food ration had dropped below the wartime levels. Foreign currency was needed to buy food abroad for one thing.
Riain
Banned
Just as a matter of interest, Britian didn't send a fighter squadron to Korea, the RAAF had a sqn of Mustangs that converted to Meteors in 1951, the SAAF had a sqn of Mustangs that converted to Sabres in 1953, the Canadaisns sent a stack of pilots to fly Sabres with the USAF. the RN RAN both sent carriers flying Sea Furys, which got a couple of kills against the mig 15.
In combat the RAAF Meteor was misused early on in the high altitude fighter and got roughly handled by mig 15s, leading to a negative 1:3 kill ratio. But after changing to the ground attack role and only fighting migs in self defence in the meteors preferred performance envelope the got a 1:1 kill ratio.
If the RAF wanted they could have sent a squadron of Venoms to Korea in 1952 which if properly used would likely get a 1:1 or even 2:1 kill ratio against the mig.
In combat the RAAF Meteor was misused early on in the high altitude fighter and got roughly handled by mig 15s, leading to a negative 1:3 kill ratio. But after changing to the ground attack role and only fighting migs in self defence in the meteors preferred performance envelope the got a 1:1 kill ratio.
If the RAF wanted they could have sent a squadron of Venoms to Korea in 1952 which if properly used would likely get a 1:1 or even 2:1 kill ratio against the mig.
I don’t have the source to hand but sure I have read that while the Meteor was put to use as an interceptor and the Vampire in the fighter bomber role they’d have been more effective the other way round.
Would they be the same Venom FB.1's that had big orange bands painted on the wings to remind the pilots not to fly too fast or pull too much G?
I like the Venom, but even once the wing problems above were sorted (in-service, not at the test flying stage where they should have been rectified, see my first post above etc) I'm not sure it's in the same class as the MiG-15.
Riain
Banned
Would they be the same Venom FB.1's that had big orange bands painted on the wings to remind the pilots not to fly too fast or pull too much G?
I like the Venom, but even once the wing problems above were sorted (in-service, not at the test flying stage where they should have been rectified, see my first post above etc) I'm not sure it's in the same class as the MiG-15.
The Venom is certainly not a match for the Mig 15. However neither was the Meteor and after some early misuse it where it was flogged it managed to hold its own when used to its advantage. Given the Venom has generally higher performance than the meteor I'd guess that used correctly it could do a bit better than just hold its own, it might generate a slightly positive kill ratio.
With hindsight could the Hunter have been able to see service in the Korean War ?
thorr97
Banned
How about if Gloster had carried through with its CXP-1001 program?
https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=46574.0
https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=46574.0
Not unless some way was found of massively accelerating development and testing, while at the same time avoiding the not insignificant problems that plagued the Hunter in it's early service life. IOTL the Hunter didn't fly until 1951, entered service in 1954, and arguably wasn't truly combat capable until 1956 or so.
Last edited:
Get the Teddy Petter designed Folland Gnat light weight fighter bomber/trainier concept up and running in the late 40s
Then get Sir Stanley Hooker to start earlier on the Bristol Siddeley Orpheus
Might reach Squadron service by the end of the war and more than capable of out dancing the Mig 15bis
Then get Sir Stanley Hooker to start earlier on the Bristol Siddeley Orpheus
Might reach Squadron service by the end of the war and more than capable of out dancing the Mig 15bis
No but one of the precursor prototypes like the P1052 might just have been ready. Not sure how effective it would have been though.
I thought I had a while ago was what if the Supermarine Attacker was built with a swept wing instead of trying to recoup the development costs from the spiteful's wing and reusing it.
To visualize this I made an FD scale imagne of an Attacker with the swift's wings and empennage, and a single nose intake as well. I think it looks quite good.
To visualize this I made an FD scale imagne of an Attacker with the swift's wings and empennage, and a single nose intake as well. I think it looks quite good.
The Gloster CP-1001 certainly appears to be a capable aircraft, if a bit late. As I recall, the first two MiG-15s to be shot down in air combat (November 9 & 10, 1950) fell to Lockheed P-80C and Grumman F9F, both straight wing aircraft. Much later it was reported that early MiG operations were conducted by Soviet WW2 "volunteer" pilots so skill was probably not a factor.
Dynasoar
Dynasoar