Great Britain missed aerospace opportunities

[Archibald]

As title says. Like many other people I have long been stricken by the way British aerospace industry was carefully destroyed after 1945.
There was a host of miscalculated, silly decisions that piled up onto each others until, in the 80's, not many things were left.

I tried to list all that siliness and correct it.

I did this list nearly 10 years ago - one of my first forays into alternative history, so don't be too harsh with me. I've cleaned it somewhat before posting.

Let's start from 1945...

1- The agreement with the USA over transport aircrafts is denounced in 1944. Avro York is produced in large numbers.

2- The Malta class carriers are build from 1946, modernised in 1957-59 to serve up to the 80’s. Most others carriers are withdrawn, scrapped, or rebuild as helicopter carrier / ASW ships.

3 - Tigers and Vanguard cruisers and battleship are scrapped, not build or rebuild.

4- Miles M52 is not cancelled and reach mach 1 in 1949.

5- Great Britain numerous, small, scattered and inefficient aircraft companies are slowly integrated into a single, large group* (kind of British Aerospatiale)

6- Hawker P.1052 is build as an interim, swept wing fighter for both RN and RAF perform well in Korea…

7- The Hunter replace it as the RAF main day fighter.

8- DH-110 Vixen is the only all weather, night interceptor (for both RN and RAF). No Gloster Javelin drag queen

9- The Victor is the only V-bomber.

10- Avon, Conway, Medway/Spey are the way to go (they receive priority over the others, so only the most interesting such as the Pegasus are developped.) Only RR and HS remain as engine makers.

11- After 1958 : The Buccaneer is RAF low level bomber (no TSR-2, AFVG, F-111K and Tornado) replacing the Canberra.

12- The Victor receive the Blue Steel (later mk2) becoming a standoff missile carrier to complete the Buccaneer for nuclear deterrent.

13- Hawker P.1121 become RAF main all weather fighter, and fighter bomber - eventually a navalized variant is build for the RN modernized Maltas. It is modernized again and again, like the Phantom. No Lightning, no F-4K.

13- After Valiant cancellation (the plane was unuseful due to the Victor) the Vickers VC-7 is funded by the RAF as transport (and later tanker).
A civiliant variant is a success, kicking the ass of Boeing 707.

14- The Rotodyne is developed into a powerful tactical transport for the Army, RN... and BEA.

15- More Short Belfast are ordered.

16- The Trident keeps 121 passenger seatings and not more -flying with RB-141 Medways.

17- Development of the Blue Dolphin SARH.

18- no Jaguar - rather a subsonic, tri-service trainer (Alpha-Hawk, France/ GB/ Germany)

19 - no CVA-01 fiasco. The RN build a 50 000 tons carrier derived from the French Pa-58 Verdun, itself a much heavier derivative of the Clemenceau class.

20- The Nimrod AEW 3 is based, not on a Comet but on a much larger VC-7 airframe.

Feel free to "correct" others silly decisions- provided we stay in the aerospace domain at large (and Great Britain - sorry for the Avro Arrow fans !)

*nota bene: before 1936 France, too, had dozens of aircraft companies, small, scattered and inefficient. A wide restructuration process was started in 1936 and ended in 1970 with the creation of Aerospatiale. Aerospatiale concentrated all French airframe manufacturers with a notable exception: Dassault (which had just swallowed Breguet, the only other aircraft company that had escaped Aerospatiale buildup)

 

[Mike D]

Develop the BAE EAP into the Typhoon alone, rather than in consortium with Spain/Germany/Italy. The aircraft will probably still sell to those nations (and be built under licence by those nations too, if they wish) but the UK keeps sole control over Typhoon development and export, losing the dead weight of Germany on both.

 

[jsb]

Just my take

1 - If you start pre VJ day you can do to much to bother trying why not start winding down post VE day (or even D day it will not change anything USA/USSR will win war) and just send a token force east.

2 - Maybe but I think the 1950s designs are better than Malta's as they can be designed with all the wars lessons properly understood.

3 - agree especially Tigers (and later rebuilds)

4 - Yay

5 - or even why not just into a few companies properly integrated (ie not Vickers owning other but all running separately as OTL)

6 - would help especially with cash or dollar flow

9 - How do you cope with early 'gap' and if it fails ? I think a few other prototypes would be understandable.

11 - yes early on but it isn't really as good as any of the later (TSR2/F111 especially) in speed etc is it sufficiently good ?

12 - Bucc I just tactical bomber, yes the Victor will work carrying missiles but it will need to be replaced with ICBMs (land or Sub based) soon.

13 - Maybe but phantom was a very good airframe/electronic system mixed.

13 B - ok but USA will still make a load of 707s so you can compete but cant knock them out of the completion.

14 - Not sure is the noise problem solvable ?

15 - ok and keep them rather than rent them back at more cost

18 - makes sense especially with more Buccs

19 - Why not just build/buy a USN super carrier (or cut down version?)

Other things,

- No export of RR jet engines to USSR
- Early Type 175 Britannia rather than try Brabazon
- Fairy dart II fighter for export
- the Comet airliner is built with round windows and takes over the world
- Cut concord and build more Airbus
- sort out the missile development just like the aircraft
- to many to name.........

 

[jsb]

Develop the BAE EAP into the Typhoon alone, rather than in consortium with Spain/Germany/Italy. The aircraft will probably still sell to those nations (and be built under licence by those nations too, if they wish) but the UK keeps sole control over Typhoon development and export, losing the dead weight of Germany on both.

Would with the end of the cold war may of them buy many fewer and cheaper aircraft ? (so landing more of the cost of a smaller build on the UK)

Both the Saab JAS 39 Gripen or Dassault Rafale or just US F15/16/18s?

 

[Mike D]

Would with the end of the cold war may of them buy many fewer and cheaper aircraft ? (so landing more of the cost of a smaller build on the UK)

Both the Saab JAS 39 Gripen or Dassault Rafale or just US F15/16/18s?

They may have, but on the other hand with (probable) quicker development and a single nation doing the developing and exporting instead of the cluster-f*ck that runs the Typhoon programme now, we can probably expect it into service in the mid/late-90s, making it competitive in a number of export competitions that otherwise went to French/US/Russian aircraft.

I'm not saying it would have won the them all but it would certainly be a competitor for enough export orders to make up for the probable cut in German orders (I don't think Spain or Italy have cut their orders, have they?).

 

[Mike D]

11- After 1958 : The Buccaneer is RAF low level bomber (no TSR-2, AFVG, F-111K and Tornado) replacing the Canberra.

On this one, I think the Tornado (certainly the GR version, maybe not so much the F) is the right aircraft to be the replacement for the Bucc in the 1980s. It's not perfect but it's shown itself to be a very useful aircraft over the last 30 years. I'm not sure the Bucc could have lasted as a survivable front line aircraft for 60+ years.

 

[MernStahl]

On the Rotodyne - this article looks at it and notes the noise problem could have been solved. Such a shame, I would have liked such an aircraft in service.

http://h2g2.com/approved_entry/A34788667

 

[Just Leo]

When many small, scattered and inefficient companies are merged into a single large, scattered inefficient company, the result is to engulf any brilliance in a sea of mediocrity.

The Miles Company didn't merge, and didn't want to merge because they had ideas. When the Gummint can control the business, by cancelling contracts for not only military and civil projects, but research as well, a company can and did fold away.

The Handley Page Victor contract was the bait with which the Gummint effectively destroyed Handley Page.

The Hawker 1052 was a research vehicle which would have led to the 1081. Trying to develop the 1052 into an armed combat aircraft would have protracted its development beyond the Korean War. Sir Sydney was quite reluctant to use German data. That's why the RAF flew Sabres.

The agreement with the US over transport aircraft wouldn't change anything. It was a statement of the way things were. Building more Yorks serves what purpose? It only carries more uncomfortable passengers than the Lancastrian.

 

[sts-200]

I'd add one and delete one from your list.

-Don't bother with Blue Steel at all, it was obsolete before it flew. A later, shorter range missile like Blue Water would be (almost) as effective and potentially more reliable. If you want a big cruise missile, work out how to fit Hound Dog to a V-bomber.

-Build the BAC-311, even if its under an international consortium.

And, the somewhat sillier suggestion (which I feel obliged to add, given the story I'm writing and you do say aerospace, not just aircraft).

-Put a 54" Black Knight on Blue Streak. Europa, but without the European bit...

 

[tofer]

No p.1127/1154?

 

[Lascaris]

Okay let's get... creative.

For a start Labour wins the 1951 election. Since even in OTL it won the popular vote, this doesn't need extremely huge changes to achieve. First result without Winston, a common NATO rifle calibre doesn't come to being. The US still goes for M-14 but Britain instead sticks to EM2 and the Belgians produce FAL at 7x43. Later in the same year Britain and Australia go forth with Hawker Thunderbolt (P.1081) as a counter to MiG-15. About 600 are built for the RAF, 200 more for Australia and yet more for other export customers.

1953. The Korean war is over and the Labour government faced with the need for serious defence cuts. Hence the infamous white paper of the same year. Victor or Vulcan gets cancelled. Supermarine Swift is cancelled. Hawker P.1067 production is cancelled and Thunderbolt's production continued instead. The aircraft companies are told to merge or die. Between modernization of existing carriers and building the new 1952 design, the second is chosen, in part as it would support the shipyards, whose unions support the party.

1955. Hawker Lightning (P.1083) enters service with the RAF, replacing Thunderbolt in production. First flight of Vickers VC7. Aircraft companies are largely consolidating into Hawker and BAC (Vickers). New Labour electoral victory.

1956. Suez crisis. No intervention but London takes note of the lack of US support.

1957. CF-105 with Olympus chosen as an all weather interceptor with Hawker Lancer (P.1121) for point defence/ground support. BAC Rapier (Type 576) chosen as the next carrier aircraft.

1958-63 Development programs for TSR2, AW.681, P.1154. No US-British nuclear cooperation.

1964. Conservatives back to power. TSR2, AW.681 cancelled. P.1154 survives as it was RAF ground attack only. Anglo-French cooperation treaty. Engine development, Mirage IVK and AFVG agreed upon.

1967. France is persuaded to stick to AFVG on threat of Mirage IVK and Concorde cancellation. SNECMA starts development of new M53 engine in cooperation with Rolls Royce.

1969. Britain joins on Dassault ACF programme for a future interceptor aircraft. Both air forces are supposed to operate a mix of ACF and AFVG aircraft by the 1980s. Canada, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands finite agreement on F-104 replacement. Avro Canada and MR lead design.

1974. Mirage F-1E with M53 engine and British derived avionics gains Belgian contract. France switches F1 orders to newer variant. Greek and Spanish orders for the same. Supersonic Harrier in service with RAF, USMC.

1980. Defence review leaves RN with only two 1952 carriers. Centaur class commando carrier replacement cut to two units with the third becoming HMAS Australia. Harrier sales for small Australian, Spanish and Italian carriers over the decade.

1985. Future NATO fighter aircraft collapses. Britain and France go their way with a lighter two engined aircraft that can be used from carriers. Canada, Germany and Italy go their own way effectively reproducing the split from the 1970s.

And thus in 2000 Britain is flying not quite Rafales with not quite EJ200, 7x43 is the standard NATO rifle, the Canucks still build fighters and the Aussies have a carrier. All more or less plausibly. So there!

 

[SactoMan101]

Alas, in this timeline, the Vicker VC-7--while it enjoys early success--is still overtaken by the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 because by using podded engines, there is more growth potential because more powerful engines can be installed, unlike the VC-7's wing root-mounted engines. Indeed, both the 707 and DC-8 enjoy service extensions when the CFM56 engine becomes available in 1976 to retrofit to 707's and DC-8's.

 

[Dayton Kitchens]

All this and no one mentions the TSR2?

 

[Mumbles]

12- The Victor receive the Blue Steel (later mk2) becoming a standoff missile carrier to complete the Buccaneer for nuclear deterrent.

This actually happened IOTL. The Victor B.2 was equipped with Blue Steel in the 1960's.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Handley-Page-HP-80/1208999/L/

 

[SactoMan101]

All this and no one mentions the TSR2?

As mentioned at the very beginning of this message thread, the RAF standardizes on the Buccaneer as its low-level attack platform--the TSR.2 was never developed to prototype form. In short, the Buccaneer probably stays in service until the early 1980's , when the AFVG co-developed with the French does become operational, becoming the main interdiction platform for the RAF from 1980 on as they replace the Buccaneer.

 

[Riain]

Some stuff like blue steel and hunter just need to be delivered on time/ earlier to be considered successful, the blue steel started development in 1954.

I'd have the lightning developed to the f6 standard or even the Saudi Arabia standard early on, simply by commitment to the design.

I also would have the TSR2.

 

[pdf27]

1- The agreement with the USA over transport aircrafts is denounced in 1944. Avro York is produced in large numbers.

It pretty much was anyway, the Brabazon committee was looking at exactly this from mid-war onwards. Problem is that the British really didn't have any transport aircraft that could compete with a DC-4 or Constellation: Yorks and Lancastrians are uncomfortable and expensive by comparison.

2- The Malta class carriers are build from 1946, modernised in 1957-59 to serve up to the 80’s. Most others carriers are withdrawn, scrapped, or rebuild as helicopter carrier / ASW ships.

Where does the money come from? The Malta class are a bad choice anyway - they're perfect for re-fighting the Pacific war in WW2, but actually pretty poor for a postwar world. The 1952 Fleet Carrier would have been a far better choice, particularly as that is when some money started to become available.

3 - Tigers and Vanguard cruisers and battleship are scrapped, not build or rebuild.

Doesn't save much, the battleships were in a pretty poor state anyway with little money spent on them (Vanguard mostly worked as a royal yacht). The Tigers would be a useful saving though, perhaps if you get better information on the Sverdlovs earlier?

4- Miles M52 is not cancelled and reach mach 1 in 1949.

Plausible, and a big psychological boost, but doesn't actually help the industry as much as you'd think.

5- Great Britain numerous, small, scattered and inefficient aircraft companies are slowly integrated into a single, large group* (kind of British Aerospatiale)

Good luck with that. However it happens, it will be very painful...

6- Hawker P.1052 is build as an interim, swept wing fighter for both RN and RAF perform well in Korea…

7- The Hunter replace it as the RAF main day fighter.

Bit of a contradiction here - if you're getting the P.1052 up to a good standard, the Hunter will be delayed (and from memory the introduction into service was quite difficult, so you might even kill it). It also makes the Hunter more vulnerable, so you might jump from P.1052 to Lightning!

8- DH-110 Vixen is the only all weather, night interceptor (for both RN and RAF). No Gloster Javelin drag queen

Meh, neither of them was very impressive. Now if the Vulcan is cancelled (point 9), how about introducing the Avro 710 for the requirement? Bags of performance and payload, and available several years earlier...

9- The Victor is the only V-bomber.

As should probably have happened. Problem is, it was seen as the most technically risky of the lot, and when the stakes are your survival as a nation then that's a gamble they won't take. The Valiant is the absolute minimum backup you'll get away with, and that's only because it could be in service several years earlier which takes some of the risk away.

10- Avon, Conway, Medway/Spey are the way to go (they receive priority over the others, so only the most interesting such as the Pegasus are developped.) Only RR and HS remain as engine makers.

Olympus? Sapphire? In the very long run that's a good thing, but in the 1950s you're crippling the RAF.

11- After 1958 : The Buccaneer is RAF low level bomber (no TSR-2, AFVG, F-111K and Tornado) replacing the Canberra.

Not impossible, but it does mean handing over a very large set of targets to allied air forces because the Bucc simply doesn't have the legs of TSR-2.

12- The Victor receive the Blue Steel (later mk2) becoming a standoff missile carrier to complete the Buccaneer for nuclear deterrent.

Probably only good for an interim solution - Blue Steel really doesn't have the range and capability needed. Skybolt was vastly more capable.

13- Hawker P.1121 become RAF main all weather fighter, and fighter bomber - eventually a navalized variant is build for the RN modernized Maltas. It is modernized again and again, like the Phantom. No Lightning, no F-4K.

Unlikely to work well - it's a bit like the Lightning in that the available internal volume is just too small for the electronics needed. The RAF seem to have been pretty uncomplimentary about it too - to slow and with insufficient acceleration for an interceptor, too short a range for a strike aircraft.

13- After Valiant cancellation (the plane was unuseful due to the Victor) the Vickers VC-7 is funded by the RAF as transport (and later tanker).
A civiliant variant is a success, kicking the ass of Boeing 707.

Actually, I think you have the right answer but the wrong route to it here - it'll probably never beat the 707 due to the size of the US domestic market, but it might well have been a success. To do that, you need the RAF to order it in large markets, primarily as a tanker to support the V-force on worldwide deployments. Sandystorm also talks about shifting troops around the world rapidly to deal with threats instead of keeping large garrisons - in OTL Mountbatten played this side of things very well and secured a major role for the Navy, if the RAF had worried less about the tactical role of air power they could well have got a large VC.7 order out of it to shift troops around the world at short notice.

14- The Rotodyne is developed into a powerful tactical transport for the Army, RN... and BEA.

Airliners and tactical transports are a bad mix (big targets), and an antisubmarine helicopter for use on Frigates is a third completely different requirement. If they'd started with a much smaller aircraft - roughly the size of a Wessex - and forgotten about trying to be an airliner then I think it would be much more successful.

15- More Short Belfast are ordered.

What for? If you have the VC-7, you can do anything except the outsize load requirement very comfortably. The UK isn't really in that business (it was originally ordered for sending rockets to Woomera), and it can't really do the tactical transport job of the Hercules very well either. Cancel it and save the money.

16- The Trident keeps 121 passenger seatings and not more -flying with RB-141 Medways.

Possibly. Alternatively, buy Caravelles and sell the French something else (VC-7 or successor?). Problem is the short-haul market flying out of the UK really isn't all that big, certainly nothing compared to the US domestic market, and there really isn't a military use for the Trident. That makes selling lots overseas hard.

17- Development of the Blue Dolphin SARH.

Having the Avro 710 in service would help here, as any missile like this is going to be a very big and heavy beast!

18- no Jaguar - rather a subsonic, tri-service trainer (Alpha-Hawk, France/ GB/ Germany)

Or just cancel it entirely and buy a few more Buccaneers!

19 - no CVA-01 fiasco. The RN build a 50 000 tons carrier derived from the French Pa-58 Verdun, itself a much heavier derivative of the Clemenceau class.

Gah - looks a lot worse than the 1952 fleet carrier design they've already got.

20- The Nimrod AEW 3 is based, not on a Comet but on a much larger VC-7 airframe.

Helps a lot, but if they keep to the FASS radar they're going to have problems. The computers of the time just aren't up to handling it, even if you deal with the heat problem.

Alas, in this timeline, the Vicker VC-7--while it enjoys early success--is still overtaken by the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 because by using podded engines, there is more growth potential because more powerful engines can be installed, unlike the VC-7's wing root-mounted engines. Indeed, both the 707 and DC-8 enjoy service extensions when the CFM56 engine becomes available in 1976 to retrofit to 707's and DC-8's.

There were several OTL designs by Vickers showing podded engines, it really isn't all that hard a modification. Given the technology of the time, wing root engines were probably preferable, it's only really when you start going to bypass ratios much above that for a Conway (which the 707 never did - the DC-8 Super 70 series did, as did the KC-135 variants: much good it did Douglas!)

 

[Simon]

1. The agreement with the USA over transport aircrafts is denounced in 1944. Avro York is produced in large numbers.

Denounced? That's an interesting choice of words to use. Considering the fact that IIRC thanks to Lend Lease any transport aircraft the UK received they didn't have to pay for until after the war had ended and even then only what they had lost/decided to keep and at a 90% discount it hardly seems like an onerous deal. As to the idea of the Avro York, was it really all that good an aircraft? If the UK is deciding to start looking at civil aircraft production in 1944 I would suggest that the Fairey FC1 and Short S.32 represent larger missed opportunities. Both came out of specifications issued 1938 due to the Air Ministry feeling industry was slipping behind their foreign competitors but then the war interrupted things, from what I've seen of photographs the prototypes were some way along and expected to be flying in 1940. Looking at the two the FC1 looks somewhat similar to the Lockheed Constellation and the S.32 the Douglas DC-4 but both a little smaller. If the government were to perhaps restart these two projects as interim aircraft until the various Brabazon Committee aircraft came into service they could perhaps develop into something similar to their American rivals, alternatively the programmes could also be messed up and they end up not being very competitive.

2. The Malta-class carriers are build from 1946, modernised in 1957-59 to serve up to the 80’s. Most others carriers are withdrawn, scrapped, or rebuild as helicopter carrier/ASW ships.

I've never particularly been a fan of the Malta-class to be honest, the designs were too compromised by political interference and some of the features that were included like the Alaskan taxiway seem more like solutions in search of a problem. I've always been much more of a fan of the 1952 Carrier proposals as they were more conventionally designed and would have provided more hangar space and fuel capacity. Assuming there were a couple more years development that would allow you to start the first couple in the mid- to late-1950s in the early 1960s, you can then start a third or fourth in the early 1960s depending on how many you want which would see you far enough along before the defence spending crunch, when a number of large projects came due at the same time, of the 1960s occurred. Since the UK has generally run their carriers and large ships for about 25 years that would take you to the mid-1980s before the earliest starts to run out of life, and if there's been a Falklands Conflict that pretty much guarantees replacements.

3. Tigers and Vanguard cruisers and battleship are scrapped, not build or rebuild.

I'd say instinctively to keep both of them, but I could be convinced otherwise. I do however agree that the conversion programme for the Tiger-class cruisers should be avoided at all costs.

4. Miles M52 is not cancelled and reach Mach 1 in 1949.

Makes sense. They were already so far along when it was cancelled that it didn't save all that much money, then when they switched to scale model tests - which completely vindicated the design - they ended up spending more money on the rockets than completing the original programme was forecasted to cost. Yet again the marvels of British defence spending.

5. Great Britain numerous, small, scattered and inefficient aircraft companies are slowly integrated into a single, large group* (kind of British Aerospatiale).

Agreed. The problem was that there was very little appetite on either side of the political spectrum to see the names of famous companies who only a few years before had been supplying aircraft during the war disappear, even Labour for all that nationalising zeal shied away from that for the aviation industry. Although that could have been argued because the amount of control the government exercised either directly or in-directly meant it was already privatised but I digress. I think the best you could likely do would be to take it in steps - use the large club of government funding to force groups to join together into two or three industrial groups like Hawker Siddeley where they still got to keep their individual identities, over time encourage them to only put forward one design from each group for a specific Air Ministry specification, and then eventually merge them into just one company.

6. Hawker P.1052 is build as an interim, swept wing fighter for both RN and RAF perform well in Korea…

If you can convince Camm to use swept wings then a swept, all-moving?, tailplane for an aircraft half way between the P.1052 and the P.1081, a P.1066 if you will, isn't much of a stretch. As I said in one of the other threads from there you can develop it with a straight-through tailpipe as engine power increases to become the P.1081 design.

7.The Hunter replace it as the RAF main day fighter.

Suggest adding reheat as well as area ruling when moving from the P.1081 design to make it supersonic. Assuming that the P.1052/'P.1066' design is early enough to be available for Korea and that the P.1081 and Hunter then turn up a bit earlier as a result that would make it a decent competitor for some of the US' Century Series aircraft.

8. Vixen is the only all weather, night interceptor (for both RN and RAF). No Gloster Javelin drag queen.

The Javelin was no great shakes being adequate at best, but was de Havilland's Sea Vixen all that great an improvement? For talk of it being a drag queen IIRC the later models of the Javelin were slightly faster and higher flying than the Sea Vixen, plus being in service three and a half years earlier.

9. The Victor is the only V-bomber.

No Avro Vulcan?!? Burn the heretic! Slightly more seriously would they be willing to risk the delivery of the nuclear deterrent on just one design? All it takes is one design flaw or major delay any you're left with a nuclear bomb that you have no way of testing or using outside of sticking on the back of a Bedford lorry and driving it at the 3rd Shock Army. Getting rid of the Vickers Valiant I could see but the Vulcan as well might be a bit tricky without hindsight.

11- After 1958 : The Buccaneer is RAF low level bomber (no TSR-2, AFVG, F-111K and Tornado) replacing the Canberra.

As a Buccaneer fan I like this. Provided it's the supersonic version we're talking about here.

13. Hawker P.1121 become RAF main all weather fighter, and fighter bomber - eventually a navalised variant is build for the RN modernized Maltas. It is modernized again and again, like the Phantom. No Lightning, no F-4K.

How amenable was the P.1121 to be adapted for carrier operation? Camm liked to build them solid and heavy so I do have to wonder how much work would have been required, past a certain point things almost become a new aircraft as it were. If looking for a British F-4 then Supermarine's Type 576 'Super Scimitar' at least from what I've seen looks incredibly similar in a case of form following function.

13. After Valiant cancellation (the plane was unuseful due to the Victor) the Vickers VC-7 is funded by the RAF as transport (and later tanker). A civilian variant is a success, kicking the ass of Boeing 707.

An addendum to this would be to have the Air Ministry knock some heads over at the RAF so that they stop asking for features that made it harder to design and impacted potential civilian versions, IIRC at one point they were demanding complicated freight lifts or similar. That actually goes for most projects - make sure that an eye is kept on export potentials so that specifications aren't specialised to the RAF/Royal Navy to such an extent that they won't be suitable for anyone else. I'm not sure that it would '[kick] the ass of Boeing 707' as you put it but if it was introduced at the same time or even slightly earlier I think it would have had the potential to be a good competitor to Boeing's offerings, at the end of the day they would still have home field advantage and much more commercial freedom of operation.

15. More Short Belfast are ordered.

Was there a need for more of them? They seem to have muddled through well enough with the numbers they had, although I don't know enough about the period to say for certain.

16. The Trident keeps 121 passenger seatings and not more -flying with RB-141 Medways.

Agreed, getting the Air Ministry to slap British European Airways (BEA) around the face a couple of times and tell them to stop panicking over a slight blip in passenger could do nothing but good. It would also keep open the option of developing it into the Hawker Siddeley HS.134 'Airbus' when BEA issued a specification for a larger aircraft several years later, a process that almost exactly mirrored Boeing's development of their 757 from the 727 15 years later.

20. The Nimrod AEW 3 is based, not on a Comet but on a much larger VC-7 airframe.

Should make things easier since IIRC it was limited space and heat/air conditioning issues that were the major problems on the project. Give them more space and power to work with and hopefully those problems go away.

Feel free to "correct" others silly decisions- provided we stay in the aerospace domain at large (and Great Britain - sorry for the Avro Arrow fans!)

The other major mistake for me has to be the Fairey Delta 2. This is an aircraft that apparently handled beautifully, was stunning to look at, yet the government refused to support to the extent that Fairey were forced to fund their attempt to break air speed record themselves - which it did, reaching Mach 1.73 in level flight and smashing the then record by more than 300 mph. Even after this the government still dismissed it and due to noise regulations Fairey were forced to carry out their research and developments in France. Dassault by contrast had a similar development programme that resulted in the Mirage - and before anyone jumps in no the French did not copy the FD2, at least other than validating the general idea, they had started development of what would become the Mirage well before the FD2 went to France with similarities being a case of form following function - which sold massively abroad. One solution would have been to approach the French government with an offer of a joint development programme, run it as a joint company with airframe construction in France and a choice of British or French engines and electronics depending on customer choice. Goes to show that they're being 'good Europeans', you'll actually get a fully developed aircraft out of it for the same amount of money as they spent in our timeline, fifty per cent of whatever profits they make is better than a hundred per cent of nothing, it opens up the prospect of sales in former French colonies and other countries where they still retain influence that no British company would be able to make deals in.

The Armstrong-Whitworth AW.681 is another interesting project. Now the idea of a vertical take-off and landing jet transport was sheer insanity so inject a bit of common sense and modify the specification early on to make it a regular jet aircraft. Even then it's probably somewhat on the small side but developing it into a larger aircraft like the size of the Ilyushin Il-76 later on could be possible.

There's also the Canadair CP-107 Argus which was a Canadian development of the Bristol Britannia as a maritime patrol aircraft. The UK could have replaced their Avro Shackleton's which had already been in service for nine years with the Argus powered by either turboprops or their own turbo-compound engine the Napier Nomad since they cancelled development of it after investing £5.1 million on it. The Argus looks to have had the superior performance figures, as well as not inducing high-tone deafness in its crews, so would have nicely seen them through until the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod entered service nine years later.

Speaking of the Nimrod that's the other major lost British aviation opportunity the de Havilland Comet. The tragic thing is that if it had actually been built as designed it would have been fine, but because de Havilland wanted to use their own engines which weren't powerful enough to meet the specification they used a thinner gauge skin and other construction techniques that resulted in the famous tragedies. The obvious solution is for the customer British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) to get wind of this, the prototype's cockpit floor by the door to the cabin apparently flexed if you turned above a certain rate and the nose skin flexed/banged loudly whenever you passed a certain air speed, and put their foot down demanding it be built as originally agreed. That would probably require using Rolls-Royce engines and delay things by about a year but better that than planes falling out of the sky and the bad reputation it brings, growing passenger numbers in the meantime could also potentially see BOAC ask for a slightly larger passenger capacity seeing the larger Comet 2 of our timeline being built as the Comet 1.

 

[jsb]

I think one major think would be to split the companies into a few larger ones in separate categories airframe, systems/parts and engines. (maybe 3/lots/2)

This would stop them trying to use the same companies engines/airframe combination that caused problems on many occasions.

 

[Sior]

what if