Fictional inventory of modern airforces

NOMISYRRUC

Zen9 said:
So there are problems with the Fairey Delta II as flown and really one should consider the military developments that centered around the use of a Gyron. Making it more of a British Delta Dart.

The key problem is rate of climb with the Avon.
Lightning and Gyron powered machines had far higher rates of climb. Critical for Interceptions.

This is were a future could be developed. Funding the bigger machine which has the spare space and weight capacity for the military equipment needed.
This would have notable effects on radar and missile efforts.
But....it won't solve MRI or LRI mission requirements
Click to expand...
I was thinking of the Fairey Delta 2 becoming a rival to the Starfighter, Freedom Fighter, Tiger II, Mirage III, Mirage 5 and Mirage F-1.

That's why it equips the RAF's ground attack and fighter reconnaissance squadrons in the 1960s instead of the Hunter FGA9 and FR10.

AFAIK RR Avon engines of the 1960s were more powerful than contemporary versions of the SNECMA Atar. In my post the 200 Fairey Delta 2s built for the RAF had the same type of Avon as the Lightning Mks 1, 1A, 2 and 4. However, Hawker Siddeley would be offering to deliver Fairey Delta 2s with the same Avon as the Lightning Mks 3, 5 and 6 from 1962. And in the second half of the 1960s it could sell Fairey Delta 2s with the same Spey engines as the Spey Phantom.
 

Zen9

Banned
Had 'Superpriority' for the Gannet not delayed Fairey, the Delta II would have flown earlier. Earlier flight might well have shifted events significantly and resulted in the military versions getting ordered.

It's important to remember that the future of jet engines by '54 is centered around the supersonic bomber propulsion (options from RR, DH and AW) and the two Fighter engine efforts from RR and Bristol.

These military options are all based on the larger engines.

However in the late 50's there was an international effort involving RR, using their Spey. Dassault, and Germany....and Belgium.
Dassault making the wings, Fairey the fusilage. Potentially a Transmanche effort.
Lost to the Starfighter sadly.

Now had RR got further along with reheat perhaps the Avon might have been an option. Sweden developed their own reheat for the Avon, having wonderful facility to test the set up at supersonic airspeed.
Hence why the Draken's reheat is higher than most production Avons.

I did attempt this scenario over on Secret Projects.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fariey-delta-ii-scenario.31630/
 
Last edited:

Riain

Banned
Something I'd like is after the RAF trialed Neptunes for AEW in 1954 the RAF buys a squardron of Shackleton AEWs at the end of the MR production run in 1958.
 

Cryptic

The Polish air force takes a hard look at the Gripen- and likes everything they see:

- It is relatively low cost for a modern western fighter
- Gotta love its modular design that is available in several different models of varying capability and easy to upgrade. There is even a two seat version for training and complex missions.
- The aircraft is light and emphasizes ease of maintenance.
- An uhmm...."un specified" nation in the east blitzes Polish airfields? No problem, the Gripen was designed with highways in mind.

Poland then drops the F-16 possibility and joins the global Gripen club with an order for 48 aircraft in various configurations.

The wise Polish leadership also realizes that it is never a good idea to stiff the United States- especially when the un specified threat in the east is restless. Poland then announces that the venerable Hind-24 Ds will be replaced by Apaches. The thrifty Poles even have the option of used air frames refurbished to 'zero air hours' or going new built.
 
Last edited:

Riain

Banned
Continuing the AEW theme, the USN disposed of about 100 EC121 in the mid 60s. These could have been pushed out to US allies like Japan, Sth Korea, Canada, Australia, NATO, Britain et al for cents on the dollar.
 

NOMISYRRUC

Zen9 said:
Had 'Superpriority' for the Gannet not delayed Fairey, the Delta II would have flown earlier. Earlier flight might well have shifted events significantly and resulted in the military versions getting ordered.
Click to expand...
That would have helped. However, IOTL the Fairey Delta was at about the same stage of development as what would become the Lightning in the middle of the 1950s.

04/08/1954 and 18/07/1955 - First flights of English Electric P.1A

06/10/1954 and 15/02/1956 - First flights of Fairey Delta 2.​

IOTL the decision to develop the P.1A into an operation fighter must have been taken in 1953 because the orders for the 3 P.1B prototypes was placed a year before the first P.1A flew and the order for the 20 P.1B pre-production aircraft was placed 6 months before the first P.1A flew. See below:

04/08/1953 the 3 P.1B prototypes were ordered.

26/02/1954 the 20 P.1B pre-production Lightnings were ordered.​
 

NOMISYRRUC

Zen9 said:
Now had RR got further along with reheat perhaps the Avon might have been an option. Sweden developed their own reheat for the Avon, having wonderful facility to test the set up at supersonic airspeed.
Click to expand...
Not cancelling the Hawker P.1083 might have helped.

However, if it hadn't been cancelled its likely that the P.1083 would have gone into service with the RAF instead of the Hunter F. Mk 6.

Furthermore, if the P.1083 hadn't been cancelled its even likelier that the RAF would have re-equipped its ground attack and fighter reconnaissance squadrons with the P.1102 thin-wing Hunter instead of Hunter F. Mk 6 aircraft rebuilt to FGA Mk 9 and FR Mk 10 standard.

And when I was looking up the project number of the thin-wing Hunter I saw that the P.1083 was cancelled in July 1953 and in his Scenario 1952 "what if" it flies in the autumn of 1953, which is only a year before the P.1A and Fairey Delta 2 flew. So not cancelling the P.1083 might not help Rolls Royce with the Avon in the short term anyway.

Edit

For clarification I meant help in the sense of speeding up the development of the reheated Avon so the Fairey Delta 2 prototypes would fly sooner and possibly have more powerful versions of the engine too.

That wouldn't have helped the P.1A prototypes, because IIRC they had Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire engines.
 
Last edited:

Barry Bull

Donor
Riain said:
Continuing the AEW theme, the USN disposed of about 100 EC121 in the mid 60s. These could have been pushed out to US allies like Japan, Sth Korea, Canada, Australia, NATO, Britain et al for cents on the dollar.
Click to expand...

What about operating costs? Also, the ROKAF probably did not has the sophisation to operate AEWs at that point in time.
 
Simon

Simon

Pretaporter said:
Not always the case, such as with the Hawk. That may be rubbish at its ground attack role, for all I know, but the trainer must be absolutely outstanding for the US to drop their NMH rule and buy a load.
Click to expand...
As I understand things whilst the Hawk is a half-decent ground-attack aircraft it was very much designed as a trainer with ground-attack as a secondary role to help with sales, unlike the Jaguar which was envisioned as being able to do both equally. The extra performance needed for the ground-attack role being excessive for the training role leading to the Jaguar mostly being used for operational conversion rather than pilot training IIRC.
 

Peg Leg Pom

An alternative to the Fleet Air Arm's Fairey Flycatcher. The Handley Page naval fighter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Type_S

upload_2019-5-21_18-0-16.png
 

iron

Khanzeer said:
Can the F102 be more an export success ?

Maybe to RAF , luftwaffe , Italy, Spain, Iran, and other close allies
Click to expand...
The F-102 was a pig and completely unsuitable as a multi-role platform.
For that matter, it barely managed to meet it's primary role with ADC in NORAD (for which it was designed) and quickly disappeared from the frontline ADC units as McDonnell's F-101B and the much refined version of the F-102 (the F-106A) started coming available.
A better machine (IMO) which could actually do both "strike" (Tactical Nuke delivery) and rapid response interceptor roles is the F-101A/B/C.
Pure Delta's at high transonic speeds down low do not fare well in terms of the "quality of the ride". It's been described as strapping yourself on the back of granny's "mix-master" and hanging on for dear life, while you get pummeled with brain-rattling aerodynamic effects. Read up on the high speed/low altitude tests done with the B-58 "Hustler", which was basically a scaled up version of the F-102/106 air frame.
From a similar (aerodynamic) perspective I also question the suitability of the Fairey Delta in this role.
While pure Delta's did not suffer to the same extent from the negative effects ("pitch up") seen with the "T"-tails (101, Javelin, & 104), the "ride" at low level (and it's effect on the pilot's ability to complete his mission) was certainly a limiting factor.
The F-100 (which served with a number of NATO countries via MAP) had an atrocious accident record, one which makes the whole F-104="widow maker" look ridiculous in comparison.
Again, "unknowns" in aerodynamics are largely to blame.

I don't see the F-104 as the "best possible" solution for the NATO purchase. What I do see is that if you need ONE machine to fill this diverse set of roles and you look at what is actually available off the shelf (i.e. developed and ready for mass production), then the 104 was certainly the best option for Nations on a budget, facing a VERY real threat.
The "best possible" solution required that further knowledge be gained in the science of aerodynamics.

Given the fact that this time period is now universally acknowledged as the most radical explosion of this science and there was really nothing better to go 600KTAS @ 100' AGL carrying external stores (and also go from the button of the runway to 50+K ft in two and a half minutes) I think Kelly Johnson got it right.

McDonnell's F-101 was a much more complex aircraft and considerably more expensive in terms of "life-cycle" costs (a phenomena which was only just beginning to appear on the radar) and this made it an outsider for consideration in any NATO calculus. The Lightning was a one trick pony. The SR177 was not ready for service and would be questionable (aerodynamically) at low altitudes. The F-11-F1 "Super Tiger" was similarly not (by any means) ready for full scale production in it's proposed configuration (J-79 engine).
Given the "vibes" coming from DeGaulle's France in the period, nobody in NATO is going to buy a significant amount of French hardware.
Canada (RCAF) had a big hard-on for the F-11-F1 initially but quickly realized that it was not going to be an immediate option, this due to the developmental issues.
Had Grumman been a little better prepared (18 months ahead of the curve) this aircraft had promise.
Still would not have been as "sweet" flying nap of the earth over Eastern Europe as was the CF-104, but it had it's merits.

It's so tough to sit back and second guess this stuff even 50+ years after the fact.
There are still mountains of data/reports/minutes/briefings that remain under lock and key.

Food for thought (I hope?)

Ron
 

Zen9

Banned
If one wants a dedicated low level strike attack platform then the Buccaneer is as good as it gets for the era bar some particulars of avionics. Which would be available by the mid 60's.
 

AdA

Khanzeer said:
Why did the luftwaffe not had a decent interceptor ? Even their F4F were w/o bvr weapons was this deliberate attempt to keep them subservient to RAF and USAF?
Click to expand...
They could rely on the RAF and USAF to go for the Soviet fighters and try to make Ace. Their priority was to make sure that the job of supporting the German ground forces defending German land would get done, regardless of cost.
 

Rufus Shinra

iron said:
I don't see the F-104 as the "best possible" solution for the NATO purchase. What I do see is that if you need ONE machine to fill this diverse set of roles and you look at what is actually available off the shelf (i.e. developed and ready for mass production), then the 104 was certainly the best option for Nations on a budget, facing a VERY real threat.
Click to expand...
The 'on a budget' part was important (Mirage III was indeed more expensive), but just as importantly if not more, the numerous bribes that ensured the commercial success even though it operationally was a pretty ineffective plane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top