No rapid proliferation of jet engines

Khanzeer

Banned
WI the major victorious powers agreed to keep knowledge of jet engine and jet aviation to their closest allies i.e NATO and Warsaw pact and not sell these advanced aircraft to third world and nonaligned countries for decades afterwards?
 
Non aligned and third worlds countries were flying piston engine fighters well into the 1960's as it was. Any longer and the airframes would have been time expired.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Non aligned and third worlds countries were flying piston engine fighters well into the 1960's as it was. Any longer and the airframes would have been time expired.
True but many such nations got mach capable jets by early 60s
Furthermore there were quite a few postwar piston engined designs that missed ww2 but could have soldiered on into the 70s e.g bearcat, twin mustang, tempest II , fury, IL-10 , La -7 etc
 
By the 1970s or so one of the more advanced 3rd world countries would figure out how jet engines work. Also, why would the WTO and NATO come up with such an agreement? Jets aren't nukes and both sides knew they would be ahead of the Third World in jets for the foreseeable future and could win brownie points with Third World countries by sharing the tech.
 
Who can make a jet engine right now? In a real sense the non-aligned and 3rd world countries only have access to jet engines and jet aviation at the whims of their sponsor nations. Cut the supply of parts and you have Iran flying F14s.
 
You might have poor jets but you would have jets. They might be little better than British Meteors to start out with but eventually, you would wind up with at least 1970s era jets by today I would think.
 
You might have poor jets but you would have jets. They might be little better than British Meteors to start out with but eventually, you would wind up with at least 1970s era jets by today I would think.
I would say, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel, Argentina, Brazil at a minimum would be able to produce jet engines by the 60's or 70's. And better than Meteors.
 
I would say, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel, Argentina, Brazil at a minimum would be able to produce jet engines by the 60's or 70's. And better than Meteors.

And only then if they get boot strapped by a major player ie HAL in India building the Kurt Tank designed Murat fighter bombers in the 60s relied on British built Jet engines which once the supply of which was cut (due to anti nuclear proliferation sanctions after India tested their bomb) pretty much ended the life of that aircraft. Or the Folland Gnat built under license by HAL again with many of the parts built overseas (in this case again by the UK).

Jet engines are hard!
 
As with every cartel, at some point one company is going to break the agreement and sell, especially if said company is otherwise faced with a hostile takeover or a bankruptcy. Especially a manufacturer like Dassault, for whom exports to non-aligned countries made up an essential proportion of total production figures and thus their break-even will be tempted to do so. And let's not forget that after WW2 there are unemployed German aircraft engineers who'd be more than willing to sell their expertise to aircraft companies in non-aligned countries like SAAB in Sweden. It's also important to understand that the willingness of the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and France to allow the aircraft and jet engine manufacturers in their countries to sell whole jet planes, engines or components to non-aligned countries did stifle the development of aerospace industry in said countries.
 
As with every cartel, at some point one company is going to break the agreement and sell, especially if said company is otherwise faced with a hostile takeover or a bankruptcy. Especially a manufacturer like Dassault, for whom exports to non-aligned countries made up an essential proportion of total production figures and thus their break-even will be tempted to do so. And let's not forget that after WW2 there are unemployed German aircraft engineers who'd be more than willing to sell their expertise to aircraft companies in non-aligned countries like SAAB in Sweden. It's also important to understand that the willingness of the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and France to allow the aircraft and jet engine manufacturers in their countries to sell whole jet planes, engines or components to non-aligned countries did stifle the development of aerospace industry in said countries.

That's a good point

So as per the OP had Jet engines and the aircraft themselves been restricted to those few jet making nations then developing nations would have had to have done more to develop their own rather than buying of the shelf as it were.
 
And only then if they get boot strapped by a major player ie HAL in India building the Kurt Tank designed Murat fighter bombers in the 60s relied on British built Jet engines which once the supply of which was cut (due to anti nuclear proliferation sanctions after India tested their bomb) pretty much ended the life of that aircraft. Or the Folland Gnat built under license by HAL again with many of the parts built overseas (in this case again by the UK).

Jet engines are hard!

It is a whole lot easier to build a jet engine than a nuclear weapon, just saying.
 
And only then if they get boot strapped by a major player ie HAL in India building the Kurt Tank designed Murat fighter bombers in the 60s relied on British built Jet engines which once the supply of which was cut (due to anti nuclear proliferation sanctions after India tested their bomb) pretty much ended the life of that aircraft. Or the Folland Gnat built under license by HAL again with many of the parts built overseas (in this case again by the UK).

Jet engines are hard!
Nuclear weapons and missiles/rockets are harder and those countries managed them.
You are missing the fact that economic and political incentives and support would be much higher. Like in the aforementioned programmes.
In OTL, Governments cut down on domestic projects since had better choices available from foreign sources and or they could go half way and do a license production.

In a case where there is no access? Oh yeah, there will be a lot of support to domestic industry, they will accept that domestic industry making more expensive and less capable products initially is just the price of such programmes, rather than considering them a waste of money. And the gap will close, since people in those countries aren’t fundamentally stupid.
 
I would say, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel, Argentina, Brazil at a minimum would be able to produce jet engines by the 60's or 70's. And better than Meteors.

I was being cautious in my estimate, and I did say to start. Like everything else you start at the bottom and work up. The first prototypes probably wouldn't be that much better than Meteors but that would change.
 
It is a whole lot easier to build a jet engine than a nuclear weapon, just saying.

Nuclear weapons and missiles/rockets are harder and those countries managed them.
You are missing the fact that economic and political incentives and support would be much higher. Like in the aforementioned programmes.
In OTL, Governments cut down on domestic projects since had better choices available from foreign sources and or they could go half way and do a license production.

In a case where there is no access? Oh yeah, there will be a lot of support to domestic industry, they will accept that domestic industry making more expensive and less capable products initially is just the price of such programmes, rather than considering them a waste of money. And the gap will close, since people in those countries aren’t fundamentally stupid.

You both make very good points.

As JanWellem pointed out above OTL they did not have to make their own jet engines so no burning need to make them but nuclear weapons were not readily available forcing them to expend 'treasure' in the form of hard cash, 'native' or hired expertise (that in both cases might have been used on other things) and of course the loss of international political status (for want of a term) as the international community strove to keep them from developing such weapons.

I agree that developing their own jet engine program would be several orders of magnitudes 'easier' by pretty much any benchmark we wish to use.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
I would say, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel, Argentina, Brazil at a minimum would be able to produce jet engines by the 60's or 70's. And better than Meteors.
How so ? Almost All their local programs were started with foreign assistance
And even if they do they would be far behind what the superpowers are producing
 
Argentina is the most likely to get a jet into production first, perhaps by the early 50's. Why? Because they imported a large number of German aircraft engineers to boost their infant aviation industry in the late 40's and invested a serious amount of money in the project. I'd expect an ME 262 or TA 183 equivalent by no later than 1952.
 
Last edited:
How so ? Almost All their local programs were started with foreign assistance
And even if they do they would be far behind what the superpowers are producing
Yes. And it took multiple decades to make systems which started approaching the super powers in capability, for the nuclear and missile programmes. Same here, they would make stuff of lower quality originally

I was being cautious in my estimate, and I did say to start. Like everything else you start at the bottom and work up. The first prototypes probably wouldn't be that much better than Meteors but that would change.
True, but they would be able to take advantage of technological developments which had occurred in the meantime. Like better material sciences.
 
I remember when cell phones first started to take off and they had a story on tv about places in Africa putting up cell towers and not running wire phone systems. People here could not understand that you did not have to have a wired system first. If you can afford the tech, people, money, time invested, means you can jump ahead.
 
Top