Could aviation `save` Britain?

Riain, on the one hand you "asked" "to see if it's possible" (that Britain can be "saved", whatever that means). On the other hand you are already very certain that Britain was so "stupid for prematurely abandoning its own capabilities", meaning that you think you already know what it would have taken to "save" Britain. Nothing unusual for alternate history, which has often to do with wish fulfillment, but not exactly logical.

Now what exactly do you mean by "client"? "Client" can be just another word for "customer". But the words "client state" mean something entirely different, a state that is de facto, but in most cases not officially, ruled by another state, as the wikipedia article mentioned explained. Typical examples are Egypt and Iraq after 1922 as British client states, or the princely states in India. East Germany might also be called a Soviet client state.

Now what do you mean by Britain "to become a client/partner itself" ?
Do you mean that British individuals, British firms and the British government are clients in the meaning of "customers" of foreign firms? Well, individuals, firms and governments in every country of the globe buy from foreign firms, and if there are any exceptions to this statement at all, they must referr to the very poorest countries on earth.

Or do you think that Britain has become a client state of the USA? I very much doubt that it is, but if you think this is true, because Britain is less powerful than the USA, well then, all other countries are client states of the USA, and this state of affairs will only change if some other country replaces the USA as the most powerful nation.
Now what is it?

I think it Britain was stupid to lose such an advanced industry when they had the leading edge over the compatitors with the new wave of propulsion. However even if the British aviation industry goes from strength to strength the other industries could go down the shitter. My first and second cars were Minis, which was an awesome design in 1959 and throughout the 60s but by 1974 and 1976 they were long in the tooth and in particular their engine design was shit. I thought that maybe if advanced engineering and the like was as common as muck in Britian due to their world leading aerospace industry maybe the 1974 Mini could have a canted-valve alloy head and roller valve-gear or something.

I deliberately use the term client state because buying advanced military hardware is a result of a relationship, which is why Australia buys so much stuff from the US, but still goes to Europe for stuff and never to Russia. A sale of British fighters is just as likely to lead to the sale of British transport aircraft, helicopters, tanks, APC, warships and the setting up of British facilities in the host country to maintain all this shit and lead to port and airfield access agreements and the like. So by selling the transonic Hunter in the Mid East Britain is likely to sell all sorts of crap and get other benefits, just like the USA does all over the world.
 
I think it Britain was stupid to lose such an advanced industry when they had the leading edge over the compatitors with the new wave of propulsion. However even if the British aviation industry goes from strength to strength the other industries could go down the shitter. My first and second cars were Minis, which was an awesome design in 1959 and throughout the 60s but by 1974 and 1976 they were long in the tooth and in particular their engine design was shit. I thought that maybe if advanced engineering and the like was as common as muck in Britian due to their world leading aerospace industry maybe the 1974 Mini could have a canted-valve alloy head and roller valve-gear or something.

A likely possibility, but remember that said high-flying aviation industry still has to deal with hostile unions, balance of payments problems and the resulting stagflation from them, energy crises in 1956 and 1973 and the general malaise of Britain in the 1970s. You are correct that the cars themselves could have been more advanced (see my comments with The Oncoming Storm about BMH and subsequently BL's long list of screwups and awful cars) but a highly-advanced aviation industry, while it was beneficial to them after the war in some regards (Land Rovers had aluminum bodies originally because aluminum from the aerospace industry was easy to get after the war, whereas steel was in short supply when the Land Rover was being developed), it wasn't gonna save Britain's industry. Only real work across several sectors, of which aviation is one, will do that.

I deliberately use the term client state because buying advanced military hardware is a result of a relationship, which is why Australia buys so much stuff from the US, but still goes to Europe for stuff and never to Russia. A sale of British fighters is just as likely to lead to the sale of British transport aircraft, helicopters, tanks, APC, warships and the setting up of British facilities in the host country to maintain all this shit and lead to port and airfield access agreements and the like. So by selling the transonic Hunter in the Mid East Britain is likely to sell all sorts of crap and get other benefits, just like the USA does all over the world.

You have a point there, but it doesn't always work out that way, and while Britain had a fair bit of success in the Middle East in that regard (British-built warships served or still serve the navies of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran and the UAE, Saudi bought the English Electric Lightning, Iran bought 700+ Chieftain tanks, nearly every military in the region used Land Rovers), they would inevitably ending up dealing with the complicated politics of the region, and they will be competing with the Europeans, the Americans and the Soviets, all of whom wanted the same sales. Not easy to compete there, is it? IMO, Britain might be best served in its aviation industry in making sure its products can work with the other NATO nations and trying to find markets that are not already filled up. For example, if Britain can get India well on its side as an ally (Having the US toss Pakistan to the wind might be a good place to start - Pakistan then will turn to the USSR, and if the US and Britain are working with Iran, India and Afghanistan, that problem is pretty much solved), then they can work within efforts to build an armed force from the NATO nations. Britain could also achieve this with Canada, Australia, Japan, South Africa (until sanction against apartheid start making this hard), Israel, South Korea and others. Looking for markets where the US does not have a clear advantage here works, and working with the former colonies might be good here as well.
 
The mid east and other parts are lousy with Mirages, F5s and Mig 21s. Against that 66 Lightnings and 15 Buccaneers don`t add up to much in my mind. Not when compared to the hundreds of Hunters that were exported.
 
The mid east and other parts are lousy with Mirages, F5s and Mig 21s. Against that 66 Lightnings and 15 Buccaneers don`t add up to much in my mind. Not when compared to the hundreds of Hunters that were exported.

True, but that was because Britain didn't really create a rival to any of those in the 1960s. The Lightning was expensive, and while having truly awesome aerodynamic performance its electronics were antiquated from the start, and as a result it was antiquated from the get-go. If Britain's aviation industry can get good aircraft for the times in the late 1950s and into the 1960s, I imagine that they would add to that total.
 
The Lightning was sadly only seen as an interim aircraft before all the shiny new SAM's that Sandys envisioned came into service. Therefore it nevergot the development needed to fully exploit it's potential and address it's shortcomings such as it's avionics and it's cripplingly short range. Apparently English Electric had a multi-role variable geometry version on the drawing board but like so many other British aviation projects it got no further.
 
The Lightning was sadly only seen as an interim aircraft before all the shiny new SAM's that Sandys envisioned came into service. Therefore it nevergot the development needed to fully exploit it's potential and address it's shortcomings such as it's avionics and it's cripplingly short range. Apparently English Electric had a multi-role variable geometry version on the drawing board but like so many other British aviation projects it got no further.

Hell, you don't need to go that far. Fixing the problem with fuel consumption is easy - trade the Avons for Conways (engine is only ten inches longer and 1.5 inches bigger in diameter) for better fuel consumption and range (maybe a hull stretch for better range, if needed) and better avionics, as well as more under-wing hardpoints for carrying more missiles or bombs. In this form, the Lightning would get more sales.

Later variants in the 1970s are upgraded with the Foxhunter Radar and Skyflash missiles, allowing them to stay in service on the front line well into the 1980s.
 
Hell, you don't need to go that far. Fixing the problem with fuel consumption is easy - trade the Avons for Conways (engine is only ten inches longer and 1.5 inches bigger in diameter) for better fuel consumption and range (maybe a hull stretch for better range, if needed) and better avionics, as well as more under-wing hardpoints for carrying more missiles or bombs. In this form, the Lightning would get more sales.

Later variants in the 1970s are upgraded with the Foxhunter Radar and Skyflash missiles, allowing them to stay in service on the front line well into the 1980s.

The length and diameter differences translate into a new airframe. The weight difference is substantial as well. The undercarriage consumes the underwing stores area and eliminates the wing as a fuel storage area. The aircraft was designed to minimize wetted area, and this coincidentally eliminated fuel storage volume. It was the first aircraft I know to use the vertical fin for fuel. It was also noted for running out of fuel before reaching it's maximum speed.(In later models)
 
The Lightning didn`t have Olympus, it had Avons, and I don`t think it`s avionics were obsolete in the early 60s but by they were by the 70s.

In my mind if the changes were made early enough, in things like the Brabazon Commitee and the M52 and other supersonic programmes, the Lightning would not have existed at all.
 
As I have said before, I think that some form of centralised strategic planning is a must in order to solve the infrastrucuture issues. The "Green and pleasant land" will ave to be concreted over in order to build up an infrastructrure able to meet the needs of an expanding economic power.
This means a much larger motorway network than OTL possibly tolled to finance it, a better airport for London (Cublington or greater Heathrow), new containers harbors, electrified railways and no green belts (they pushed land prices up).

The airport is sue has always interested me. I’ve never been a fan of Heathrow; even back in the 1940’s when it was being built there were concerns about long term expansion as London continued to grow. An earlier estuary airport has always seemed like a decent idea, although I don’t like the current plans to build it way out on the Isle of Grain. Personally, Cliffe always seemed like a better option – only about 15 minutes away by rail and has much greater potential to build it into a large container port, better sheltered from the sea than at Grain.

Russell
 
The airport is sue has always interested me. I’ve never been a fan of Heathrow; even back in the 1940’s when it was being built there were concerns about long term expansion as London continued to grow. An earlier estuary airport has always seemed like a decent idea, although I don’t like the current plans to build it way out on the Isle of Grain. Personally, Cliffe always seemed like a better option – only about 15 minutes away by rail and has much greater potential to build it into a large container port, better sheltered from the sea than at Grain.

Russell

The Thames Estuary is not a good place where to build an airport, for the very simple reason that its catchment area is piss poor (there are additional issues with birds too).

Draw a circle of 50km radius around Cliffe or Maplin. You will get East London, parts of Essex, Sussex and Kent.

Draw a circle of 50km radius around Heathrow and you get the entire Greater London conurbation, Reading, Slough, Basingstoke, High Wycombe and a lot of the commuter belt.

Draw a circle of 50km radius around Cublington and you get Milton Keynes, Oxford, Reading huge swathes of the northern home countries and parts of the West Midlands and Greater London.

Cublington would have been a far better strategic choice than Stansted airport wise, especially as it could have allowd the closure of Luton airport.

Regarding Heathrow, a guy has recently created a wikipedia article (backed up by multiple references) called the history of Heathrow and it makes interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_London_Heathrow_Airport

10 January 1946: The British Cabinet agreed Stage 3 of the airport, which was an extension north of the Bath Road, with a large triangle of 3 runways, obliterating Sipson and most of Harlington (Harlington church would have survived on a small spur of land with airport near on three sides), and diverting the Bath Road.[18]

Both Sipson and Harlington are still standing, but due to the destroyed to make way for the third runway. I can't believe that they wanted to do it already back in the forties ...

If the airport perimeter is expanded north of Bath road and perhaps a little bit to the west and southeast. There wil be enough space for at least four runways and three terminal complexes. It would therefore be easy to accomodate over a hundred million passengers every year.
 
An earlier estuary airport has always seemed like a decent idea, although I don’t like the current plans to build it way out on the Isle of Grain. Personally, Cliffe always seemed like a better option – only about 15 minutes away by rail and has much greater potential to build it into a large container port, better sheltered from the sea than at Grain.
Of course Cliffe airport is also slap bang in the middle of pretty much every environmental protection it is possible to have. SSSI, SPA, ASP and probably a dozen other acronyms to boot protect the area and the wildlife there.

Even if you are prepared to ignore the protections, risk breaking the law, certainly be dragged through the courts and suffer the inevitable protests and swampy style disruptions, at the end of it you end up with an airport slap back in the middle of a massive bird habitat. But I suppose if your prepared to build there in the first place you'll probably have no problem with ordering a massive cull of the nearby birds. Not sure it's a vote winner though....
 
Top