Century series fighters for the RAF?

Following on from Duncan Sandys much lamented 1957 white paper on defence in which fighters would be replaced by guided missiles, would it not have made sense to fill the resulting gap in technology with American century series fighters?

The Lightning gave the RAF a good point defence interceptor but what about all the other fighter roles which had to be covered by earlier generation Hunters? Don't get me wrong the Hunter is one of my all time favourites, but with the emergence of 2nd generation types like the MiG19 and the Super Mystere UK policies had left the RAF lagging a little by the mid 1960s.

The F100 for example would have made a good supersonic fighter bomber for RAF squadrons in West Germany during the 1960s and the F105 would have been a long range strike fighter with nuclear capability, perhaps making the RAF acquisition of the Buccaneer unnecessary. Another type that might have been useful would be the RF101 Voodoo, an extremely fast reconnaissance fighter which could have replaced the Hunters in that role too. Would the F106 Delta Dart have made sense as a javelin replacement, operating alongside the short range Lightning or is that going too far?
 
If fighters are obsolete and missiles are in, you don't buy fighters. What missiles did Sandys propose to buy, anyway? Canada got Bomarcs without warheads when fighters became obsolete.
 
Missiles were obviously far from being a practical air defence solution at that time, even missiles launched from fighters, so modern combat aircraft had to be procured. I think the American century series fighters would have been the next best solution to the RAFs equipment problems in the 1960s since our own advanced fighter designs had been killed off apart from the Lightning.

Alternatives might be a collaboration with Dassault on the Mirage series as nearly happened with the Mirage G. The Fairey engineers expertise in high speed deltas would have been useful in that case. Alternatively work with Sweden in developing the Avon engined Draken for the RAF. But I can still see the F105 as a bomb truck.
 
Prior to the 1957 defence review, which badly damamged the aviation industry, the British industry could turn out virtually any aircraft the RAF needed. The Lightning is better than the century series fighters, why not just buy more of those?
 
Alternatives might be a collaboration with Dassault on the Mirage series as nearly happened with the Mirage G. The Fairey engineers expertise in high speed deltas would have been useful in that case. Alternatively work with Sweden in developing the Avon engined Draken for the RAF. But I can still see the F105 as a bomb truck.

Draken used Avon, although in licensed and slightly modified form. How about scrapping Lightning and using Draken as a multi-purpose plane? Attack, after all, in this time meant primarily lobbing a nuclear bomb so payload is not that important. A specified attack variant could take roles of RAF Harriers (thanks to Draken's abilities for dispersion, although not naturally on level of Harrier), SEPECAT Jaquar. As an interceptor Draken was also pretty good. Updated Draken would also well suit RAF's Phantom duties (which were primarily air defense duties). With just one Avon instead of two Avons or Speys I'd imagine the running cost being significantly lower than those of Phantom and Lightning.
 
Prior to the 1957 defence review, which badly damamged the aviation industry, the British industry could turn out virtually any aircraft the RAF needed. The Lightning is better than the century series fighters, why not just buy more of those?

Lighting was a very limited single role interceptor. One cannot compare it to F-106 which was entering service at same time for interceptor tasks, or to F-104 which proved to adatable for multiple tasks. Although 1957 Defence Review has been gutted by plane fanatics we must also take a look at the historical record of British aircraft industry post-war. Supermarine Swift wasn't that great, Hunter was beautiful but might be considered obsolete as it entered service, same for FAA's Sea Vixen etc. British aircraft industry was trying to achieve far too much with overspecified aircraft. RAF's and FAA's attack and fighter tasks for 1960's could have well been fulfilled with two, perhaps even one, airframe. Buccaneer and some kind of British F-8, British Draken or British Mirage-III anyone?

EDIT:

And naturally the plane which actually should have entered RAF service in 1950's should have been A-1 Skyraider. British military was involved in multiple low-intensity conflicts around the world at that time while RAF and FAA spent all their money on fast jets not capable of helping very much. Even small number, say 50-100, of A-1 Skyraiders or some other suitable type (would there be a good British candidate?) would have been actually very worthwhile in fighting the wars Britain was actually involved in.
 
Last edited:
The British aviation industry was getting back into stride in the mid-late 50s after a bit of a slump in the late 40s early 50s. The Fairey Delta 2 broke the F100 speed record by 300mph, and the performance of the Lightning was unmatched in practical terms for many years. The rug was pulled before much good stuff could get into service, but British industry in the late 50s was capable of producing world class aircraft if the orders were there.
 
Agree with a lot of what you say Jukra, except that the Hunter was a good, world class fighter when it entered service and like the MiG 17 remained a useful fighter ground attack type right through the 1970s, especially in 3rd world air forces. The problem was the way British fighter projects seemed to be dragged out for far too long before entering service. The Sea Hawk would have been great in the late 40's, early 50's but it only just made it into service in time for Suez. The Hunter and the Swift were also victims of protracted development and should have been in service IMO some years earlier than they were. A P1052 based Hunter could have been around in time for sorties over the Yalu. The DH110/Sea Vixen was too long in the development phase and should probably have been axed before it entered service with possibly the Crusader or even the Grumman Tiger filling the gap.

Still think the F100/F105/RF101 would have been great buys for the RAF if they bought them early. Love the idea of an Anglo-Swedish Draken or Mirage. How might UK involvement have influenced the export of these fighters I wonder? And might they have developed in different ways from OTL? A Sea Dragon for example?

Also speaking of the F4, the F4E/RF4E would have been better bought straight of the shelf rather than being re-engined with Speys. We could have bought a lot more of them or spent the money on other things. F4J for the FAA for the same reasons with some UK mods.
 
Agree with a lot of what you say Jukra, except that the Hunter was a good, world class fighter when it entered service and like the MiG 17 remained a useful fighter ground attack type right through the 1970s, especially in 3rd world air forces. The problem was the way British fighter projects seemed to be dragged out for far too long before entering service. The Sea Hawk would have been great in the late 40's, early 50's but it only just made it into service in time for Suez. The Hunter and the Swift were also victims of protracted development and should have been in service IMO some years earlier than they were. A P1052 based Hunter could have been around in time for sorties over the Yalu. The DH110/Sea Vixen was too long in the development phase and should probably have been axed before it entered service with possibly the Crusader or even the Grumman Tiger filling the gap.

Still think the F100/F105/RF101 would have been great buys for the RAF if they bought them early. Love the idea of an Anglo-Swedish Draken or Mirage. How might UK involvement have influenced the export of these fighters I wonder? And might they have developed in different ways from OTL? A Sea Dragon for example?

Also speaking of the F4, the F4E/RF4E would have been better bought straight of the shelf rather than being re-engined with Speys. We could have bought a lot more of them or spent the money on other things. F4J for the FAA for the same reasons with some UK mods.

The Spey has a bit more power.
When the Americans tested their Phantoms on a British carrier they found out they could only operate at reduced fuel and weapons load.

However costly and wrong the Spey conversion was for the Phantom, it was pretty much unavoidable, at least for the FAA.
 
I see. I knew the Spey was a more powerful engine for the F4K but didn't the airframe modifications offset the advantages of the engines? What about an alternative then to the F4 for Britain? F8 for the FAA and RAF? F106 for the RAF? I can't think of any single type other than the F4 that would meet the needs of both services so perhaps a seperate aircraft type for the navy would have been necessary. Discounting types like the Mirage G that were never developed that is. (On the other hand I still fancy the idea of the SAAB/BAe Sea Draken).
 
The RN Phantoms had other mods, primarily they were strengthened throughout to allow them to land on carriers with bombs, instead of dropping them onto the sea which was USN practice at the time. Whats more the Spey had considerable unrealised development potential. The TF41 Spey in the A7D/E had 15,000lb thrust compared to 11,000lb of the Buccaneer and 12,000lb dry thrust of the Phantom, and RR had an afterburning Spey version with 26,000lb 'wet' thrust. A Phantom with these engines would have world beating performance.

The F8 is a short range day fighter, in contrast with the Phantom with is a long range all-weather fighter, therefore is unsuitable for RN needs.
 
If fighters are obsolete and missiles are in, you don't buy fighters. What missiles did Sandys propose to buy, anyway? Canada got Bomarcs without warheads when fighters became obsolete.
"Blue Envoy", or later, Bloodhound III Sam's armed with 10kt Indigo Hammer warheads...
(Indigo Hammer was cancelled after it was found that Britian at the time, could not process/produce enough weapons grade fissile material for both defensive & offensive use at the same time).
Bomarc was considered, but rejected, as it was felt that it's Pulse Radar guidance system, was at the time, far too vunerable to Soviet ECM technology...
 
I rather like the F-106, but I feel it would NOT have been a good aircraft for the RAF in its existing operational form. It is a LARGE fighter - I walked around one on display at the AMC Museum at Dover AFB - may have been difficult to work with on UK bases. Also, I seem to remember that it had a long take-off run - would UK runways have been long enough? And, most importantly, it was part of a SYSTEM. Without the proper ground control support, it would not have been worth much. Now, with all that said & done, a "simplified" version may have worked out. In its defense, it had a longer loiter time, carried a larger weapon load and was fast as all get out. On a tangent, can anyone imagine a two seat F-106 with the missile bay converted to ALCM capability?

Just some random thoughts after 11:30 PM. . .

Bobindelaware
 
Top