Fairey FD2/Mirage Replacing the Lightning?

[Simon]

Well this is slowly morphing into my general enquiries about and thoughts on British aerospace history, mainly since I can't be bothered to start another thread or want to clutter up the forum with multiple fairly similar ones. Turning towards the naval end of things and trying to get a handle on how it evolved with regards to the Fleet Air Arm. The of the largest missed opportunities seems to have been the de Havilland Sea Vixen - the project started in 1947, first flew in late 1951 yet didn't enter service until mid-1959. Whilst we're used to long development processes nowadays 8 years from first flight to introduction seems excessive, if you count the full development period 12 years even more so. Which is a shame as the Sea Vixen would have probably compared fairly well against other competitors if only it had been introduced much earlier in the decade, by the time it finally turned it was already becoming obsolete.

So does anyone know what went wrong? The Royal Navy deciding to go with the Sea Venom as a simpler option in 1949 forcing de Havilland to continue it as a private venture can't have been helpful. The faulty outer spar design that caused the very public crash at the Farnborough Airshow in 1952 and necessitating a re-design likewise, but even that took the best part of two years to see the new prototype flying and then another year before the navalised prototype was produced. So was it just a combination of having to concentrate on the Sea Venom until 1956, it not being an official programme until 1954 and resultant lack of resources put into it, some other factor? If the Royal Navy decided to go with the Sea Vixen over the Sea Venom how much if any time do people think could it allow them to shave off the delivery date? I've got some books on order but won't be able to get them until Monday at the earliest so any help would be appreciated, thanks.

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

I think it was that the Venom was cheaper and would have been in service much earlier so it was chosen and De Havilland had to pursue the 110 as a private venture. Had the Vixen got the nod then certainly I think it would have seen combat at Suez.

 

[Lindseyman]

It would probably helped if the DH110 had been chosen instead of the Javelin (presumably it would have been named the Vixen)

 

[Riain]

Yes, that would be a good one, it would be built in big numbers for starters.

I'm also a bit dubious about the constant claims of the Lightning being particularly short ranged, nobody seems to level this charge at the Mirage despite them having similar ranges.

 

[Delta Force]

I'm also a bit dubious about the constant claims of the Lightning being particularly short ranged, nobody seems to level this charge at the Mirage despite them having similar ranges.

The Mirage has twice as much range as the Lightning. When doing a supersonic interception (the whole point of the design) the Lightning has a shorter radius than some SAMs. The Mirage is a multirole aircraft and can carry a heavier mixed payload a longer distance.

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

The Lightning's limited endurance was all too real, a consequence of it being seen as an interim aircraft until Sandys' vaunted new SAM's arrived, it was originally intended as a point defence fighter to protect the V-Bomber bases a role to which it was well suited. It was when it was made to take on the interceptor role that its shortcomings became apparent. As with so many other British aircraft it was never developed to its full potential, EE had a variable geometry, multi-role variant on the drawing board but it never got any further.

 

[Simon]

Random question but what was the state of airborne interception radar in the early 50s? A quick check suggest that it was still fairly basic technologically, so that you would need a second person to operate and that the image brightness wasn't all that great - this being one of the reasons for the 'coal-hole' design on the Canberra and Sea Vixen. If that's correct then two-man aircraft look like the only real option, which rules out my idea of enlarging the nose of the early Sea Hawk/P.1052 to fit a radar. You could try fitting a tandem side-by-side two man cockpit like the Hunter's trainer version but at that point it's a fair amount of work and you're back to the Sea Venom as the low development work/low cost option.

The other question I have is does anyone have any solid information on the de Havilland DH.116 'Super Venom' development of the two-seat Venom? Apparently de Havilland proposed it along with the Sea Vixen but then had to plead off due to their saying they didn't have enough technical or design staff to continue both it and the Sea Vixen so it was dropped. I've read Tony Buttler's two British Secret Projects books but am having trouble finding other sources.

It would probably helped if the DH.110 had been chosen instead of the Javelin (presumably it would have been named the Vixen).

Hhmm, now that's an idea. Having both services choose it, and a little earlier than our timeline, could see more resources poured into it and hopefully it coming into service in the first half of the decade. Sea Venom provides the early interim, Sea Vixen comes in as the main all weather fighter and then as we enter the 60s it's in turn replaced by the F-4 or Supermarine Type 576. Had been trying to avoid the Sea Venom altogether but looks as though there's few other options for an all weather fighter of the time. Where would this leave aircraft like the Sea Hawk and Scimitar? IIRC the Sea Vixen replaced them as it was the better aircraft and actually had a radar. Would we possibly end up seeing the Fleet Air Arm switching over wholly to the Sea Vixen for both fighter and strike duties until F-4/Type 576 and Buccaneer in the 60s? Unlike the US Navy the Royal Navy has never had the luxury of carrying four or five specialised aircraft for one specific task but had to accept more generalist aircraft.

The Mirage has twice as much range as the Lightning. When doing a supersonic interception (the whole point of the design) the Lightning has a shorter radius than some SAMs. The Mirage is a multirole aircraft and can carry a heavier mixed payload a longer distance.

Which version of the Mirage though? I'll have to dig out the site again but at unadjusted speeds, not taking supersonic into account, I could have sworn that the early Mirage and Lightning had almost exactly the same range.

 

[KillerT]

Just throwing a spanner into the works with the Folland Gnat. Proposed developments included a thin wing, bigger fuselage aircraft that would have been quite something indeed. Unfortunately poor old Gnat didn't get the development it deserved as it had the potential to beat the F5 and A4. Only way I can see it getting developed including maybe the naval variant would be for the RAuxAF and RNR Air Branch to have continued on into the sixties. Oh naval Gnat would have been ideal for the Dutch, Canadians, Aussies and so on flying off the smaller carriers. Capable in the developed versions of toting a couple sidewinders plus bombs and Aden gun pack.

 

[Lindseyman]

1. If the Sea Vixen in service when it should have been no need for Scimitar as built but would there not be a developed version of Sea Vixen rather than buy overengineered Phantoms(only overengineered due to replacement of engines by RR Speys nothing wrong with either plane or engine but I sometimes think that Harold Wilson's Government wanted to finish the hatchet job on British Plane industry that the Conservatives had started)
2. Love the idea of a developed Gnat but we Brits only buy over heavy,overengineered,over budget crap preferably American. How else to explain the lack of British development of the Harrier (the Shar being an honourable exception)
I stand by that comment even though the Tornado and Typhoon are European, they fit 3 of the 4 above criteria

 

[Simon]

Just throwing a spanner into the works with the Folland Gnat. Proposed developments included a thin wing, bigger fuselage aircraft that would have been quite something indeed. Unfortunately poor old Gnat didn't get the development it deserved as it had the potential to beat the F5 and A4. Only way I can see it getting developed including maybe the naval variant would be for the RAuxAF and RNR Air Branch to have continued on into the sixties. Oh naval Gnat would have been ideal for the Dutch, Canadians, Aussies and so on flying off the smaller carriers. Capable in the developed versions of toting a couple sidewinders plus bombs and Aden gun pack.

The only problem with the Gnat was the small size of it, I can remember hearing stories about the RAF having to sort their pilots for those over a certain height as they were too tall to fit in and operate them. The RAuxAF RNR Air Branch probably won't be possible as they likely cost too much, they were starting to phase out National Service by 1957 with the last intake in 1960. I suppose you could make some changes but at that point you're moving away from the whole concept that Petter was wedded to. There's the 1953 NATO competition for a light weight strike fighter which could have provided impetus and funding to develop it further but the final testing and announcement of the winner didn't happen until 1957 which is a bit later, and then the various countries mostly just ignored the results and went with their own domestic designs.

If the Sea Vixen in service when it should have been no need for Scimitar as built but would there not be a developed version of Sea Vixen rather than buy over-engineered Phantoms...

Yeah that was my general train of thought, Sea Vixen does more than adequately for most of the 50s and gives companies breathing room to develop better aircraft like Buccaneer and Type 576 or buying in the F-4 for the 60s.

Love the idea of a developed Gnat but we Brits only buy over heavy, over-engineered, over budget crap preferably American.

The RAF certainly seems to have gone down the heavier/high-tech route on the thinking that it provides the best bang for your buck when operating as a smaller air force as technology advanced, earlier on though they seem to have been more than happy with the aircraft like the Hawker Hunter and others. As for buying American 'crap' off the top of my head the four main aircraft we've bought from them have been the F-4, the C-130, the Chinook and the C-17, all of which seem to have been loved by the people that use or have used them and performed excellently in service. The only reason they became much more expensive than they needed to be or turned into fiascos was because we demanded our own alterations and systems installed often without thinking it through or how we decided to pay for/fund them. Could probably come up with more examples but am currently in the bath.

 

[Lindseyman]

True all the above mentioned are fine aircraft, even with the modifications we required, however the F35? The over budget bit still applies!

 

[Simon]

From what I remember reading aside from the financial aspect which is indeed somewhat of a cause for possible concern the F-35 has been pretty much on track for the technical development side of things under the current time schedule. I'm holding off on judging it until we actually see the finished aircraft.

 

[Lindseyman]

Getting back to what we are supposed to be talking about, and not ranting at British purchasing policy, Sea Vixen in service by 1954? Quite possibly the Vixen bought instead of the Javelin. Sea Venoms last stand is at Suez but Sea Vixens there as well. (Is the Sud Aviation Aquillon now the Sea Vixen rather than the Sea Venom?). Buccaneer introduced as in OTL (preferably straight to a Spey engine). Do we still buy Phantoms for the Ark, can J79 engined ones land on the Ark? If so buy Ds or preferably Js straight off the shelf; if not why are we considering buying it?

 

[Just Leo]

Random question but what was the state of airborne interception radar in the early 50s? A quick check suggest that it was still fairly basic technologically, so that you would need a second person to operate and that the image brightness wasn't all that great - this being one of the reasons for the 'coal-hole' design on the Canberra and Sea Vixen. If that's correct then two-man aircraft look like the only real option,

The radar situation in Britain in the '50s was quite poor. The Javelin used an American set, and carried the new ADEN cannons, in the voluminous wings. For all its flaws, it had equipment. The Sea Vixen carried British AI.18, which may or may not have guided whatever early AA missiles of the era, if they launched. The R/O sat in front of a small hooded display with 2 small round CRTs. Sea Vixen did not have cannon armament fitted. Sea Venom carried HS Mk V cannons, a definite advantage during the period when missiles didn't work. However, IMHO, the twin-boom concept, which had been developed to maintain a short jet-pipe on a centrifugal turbo-jet powering a sub-sonic aircraft, was already obsolete when the Sea Vixen was built, giving rise to the now-conventional config of the proposed DH118 Super Vixen. DH didn't have the engineering staff to develop it. Could an AH WI premise alter this situation? I don't even know if it should, but they should have, if they could have, but they said they couldn't, and they didn't.

The Folland Gnat would have been a good thing. (I may be a fan)

Of course, the Buccaneer should have started with the Spey engine.

 

[Simon]

Getting back to what we are supposed to be talking about, and not ranting at British purchasing policy, Sea Vixen in service by 1954? Quite possibly the Vixen bought instead of the Javelin. Sea Venoms last stand is at Suez but Sea Vixens there as well. (Is the Sud Aviation Aquillon now the Sea Vixen rather than the Sea Venom?). Buccaneer introduced as in OTL (preferably straight to a Spey engine). Do we still buy Phantoms for the Ark, can J79 engined ones land on the Ark? If so buy Ds or preferably Js straight off the shelf; if not why are we considering buying it?

To use your suggested in service date of 1954 for the Sea Vixen I'd still expect to see the French manufacturing the Aquilon, North Wind in English which was their name for the Sea Venom, via Sud-Est since I don't believe they had anything else to choose from domestically or would want to wait another two years whilst persevering with non-jet powered naval aircraft. Whether they decide to then switch to a licence-built Sea Vixen is debatable, I think they probably would since it was a definite step up in capability. After that they pretty go their own way as in our timeline.

However, IMHO, the twin-boom concept, which had been developed to maintain a short jet-pipe on a centrifugal turbo-jet powering a sub-sonic aircraft, was already obsolete when the Sea Vixen was built, giving rise to the now-conventional config of the proposed DH118 Super Vixen. DH didn't have the engineering staff to develop it. Could an AH WI premise alter this situation? I don't even know if it should, but they should have, if they could have, but they said they couldn't, and they didn't.

DH.118? As far as I'm aware that was a commercial passenger liner. Did you mean the DH.116 'Super Venom' or did they recycle the designation and there's another aircraft I unaware of?

 

[Riain]

Getting back to what we are supposed to be talking about, and not ranting at British purchasing policy, Sea Vixen in service by 1954? Quite possibly the Vixen bought instead of the Javelin. Sea Venoms last stand is at Suez but Sea Vixens there as well. (Is the Sud Aviation Aquillon now the Sea Vixen rather than the Sea Venom?). Buccaneer introduced as in OTL (preferably straight to a Spey engine). Do we still buy Phantoms for the Ark, can J79 engined ones land on the Ark? If so buy Ds or preferably Js straight off the shelf; if not why are we considering buying it?

This is a USN F4 on Arks waist cat, note that the under fuselage tank is the only thing it carries. The extra grunt of the Speys was needed to carry weapons.

 

[Lindseyman]

So putting in Speys actually had a purpose other than to placate people with the idea that at least it would have British Engines even though they double the price and require quite extensive reengineering?
So why buy the Phantom? It may have been the best available naval fighter by a country mile but it doesn't work on the Ark. Assuming that the Crusader is out of the question because it's too old(?) and anyway the French have bought it what else is there? Apart from keeping the Sea Vixens going with new radar for another 10 years or so and making damn sure that the P1154 works?

 

[Simon]

So putting in Speys actually had a purpose other than to placate people with the idea that at least it would have British Engines even though they double the price and require quite extensive reengineering?

I'm sure that it didn't hurt, but if you wanted to take off from a Royal Navy carrier with a full fuel load and weapons you needed the extra thrust from the Spey engines to do so. From what I've read it was a combination of shorter length ship so less take-off room, shorter catapult length because of that, and the ships only being able to get up to IIRC 25 knots for short periods whilst running the catapults so not being able to add as much speed to the aircraft. In contrast the American carriers were larger, had longer and more powerful catapults, and could get up to and sustain speeds of around 30 knots when launching their aircraft.

So why buy the Phantom? It may have been the best available naval fighter by a country mile but it doesn't work on the Ark. Assuming that the Crusader is out of the question because it's too old(?) and anyway the French have bought it what else is there? Apart from keeping the Sea Vixens going with new radar for another 10 years or so and making damn sure that the P1154 works?

Because even though having to fit the Spey engines in, which actually gave them better range and speed at low to mid-level altitude, was an expensive pain in the arse they really were just that much better and more advanced than the alternatives and what the RAF and Royal Navy had been using since then. That was the other main advantage - by going with the F-4K for the carriers it also allowed them to purchase F-4M variants of it for the RAF to take over the tactical strike and reconnaissance roles of the Canberra and TSR-2 with both fleets having a high degree of commonality. SEPECAT Jaguar and Blackburn Buccaneer then allowed them to be re-roled for air defence to take over from the Lightning which was really starting to show its age at that point.

The P.1154 was a nice idea in theory but thanks to its use of plenum chamber burning it had the rather annoying habit of starting to melt the metal deck of any ship it would have tried to vertically land or take off from and do even worse things to unprepared landing sites, which is a bit of a problem since it kind of negates the whole concept for them. It would also mean soldiering on for another decade with ever more aging and growingly obsolete aircraft on the hope that in the intervening time that something better would come along. Which is a rather large gamble when you consider the various outcomes when they tried to do just that and jump a whole generation because of falling behind when designing a new aircraft in our timeline. The results weren't exactly good.

 

[Lindseyman]

So no alternative then! Unless some clever chaps at De Havilland/Hawker /Supermarine had been planning a Sea Vixen replacement but that takes us back to another POD in the early to mid fifties.

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

So no alternative then! Unless some clever chaps at De Havilland/Hawker /Supermarine had been planning a Sea Vixen replacement but that takes us back to another POD in the early to mid fifties.

Supermarine Type 583, proposed in the early 60's as a Sea Vixen replacement, probably the only serious indigenous alternative to the Phantom