UK/RAF from 1965 and on: future is 1-engined, we carry on by ourselves where possible

[tomo pauk]

So after the TSR-2 cancellation (from Wikipedia: "However, at two Cabinet meetings held on 1 April 1965, it was decided to cancel the TSR-2 on the grounds of projected cost, and instead to obtain an option agreement to acquire up to 110 F-111 aircraft with no immediate commitment to buy."), Government decides that breaking the bank is not that funny, and that affordable aircraft are much easier to export than the expensive ones. Sharing the pie with other countries will cost the jobs in the UK.
Thus the RAF is presented with request to procure their next high-speed strike aircraft without delaying it much, using bits and pieces manufactured in the UK where possible, and to keep the design affordable and exportable. RAF takes a good, hard look around, and specifies a F-105-lookalike.
BAC replied with two suggestions, one a 'big F-105E' (= 2-seater) in appearance powered by the Olympus engine, and another, the 'small F-105D' (1-seater) powered by Spey engine...

 

[I lurk therefore I am]

So after the TSR-2 cancellation (from Wikipedia: "However, at two Cabinet meetings held on 1 April 1965, it was decided to cancel the TSR-2 on the grounds of projected cost, and instead to obtain an option agreement to acquire up to 110 F-111 aircraft with no immediate commitment to buy."), Government decides that breaking the bank is not that funny, and that affordable aircraft are much easier to export than the expensive ones. Sharing the pie with other countries will cost the jobs in the UK.
Thus the RAF is presented with request to procure their next high-speed strike aircraft without delaying it much, using bits and pieces manufactured in the UK where possible, and to keep the design affordable and exportable. RAF takes a good, hard look around, and specifies a F-105-lookalike.
BAC replied with two suggestions, one a 'big F-105E' (= 2-seater) in appearance powered by the Olympus engine, and another, the 'small F-105D' (1-seater) powered by Spey engine...

Isn't that just the Hawker p.1121?

As an alternative, instead of going with a single engine, use twin Spey P.1121 derivative.

Combine that with the proposed supersonic version of the already in production Banana Jet, which was to be lengthened to fit the TSR2s avionics. Then all of your front line fleet use the same engine, which will save money.

Bonus points if you can navalise the P.1121, so RAF and RN use the same aircraft so a common pool.

That leaves the possibility of a single Spey powered Fairey Delta 2 derivative for a low cost day fighter/bomber - leaving you with a Mirage 3/5 export competitor as well.

 

[tomo pauk]

Isn't that just the Hawker p.1121?

It is not.

As an alternative, instead of going with a single engine, use twin Spey P.1121 derivative.

Just one engine, as noted in the title.

Bonus points if you can navalise the P.1121, so RAF and RN use the same aircraft so a common pool.

That leaves the possibility of a single Spey powered Fairey Delta 2 derivative for a low cost day fighter/bomber - leaving you with a Mirage 3/5 export competitor as well.

F. Delta looks part.
So does the P.1121, just not for the task noted in the 1st post.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Problem is, you’re not meeting the RAF’s range requirements on a single engine. The F-105 had only 2/3 the range of even the Tornado, to say nothing of the TSR.2.

 

[tomo pauk]

Problem is, you’re not meeting the RAF’s range requirements on a single engine. The F-105 had only 2/3 the range of even the Tornado, to say nothing of the TSR.2.

Two things, at least:
- F-105 is an inspiration, not just 'lets copy it'
- note the "..." ending of the 1st post

 

[CV12Hornet]

Two things, at least:
- F-105 is an inspiration, not just 'lets copy it'
- note the "..." ending of the 1st post

The F-105 is IMO representative of what can be done with a large, single-engine turbojet strike aircraft in this time period. It’s got excellent range for a single-engine aircraft, better than any but the F-35 in fact, but it’s still just a single-engine aircraft. And while the Olympus is more powerful than the J75 and allows for more fuel to be carried it also has higher fuel consumption which offsets the additional fuel.

As for a single Spey, well, same problem but worse. The twin-Spey, subsonic Buccaneer S.2 also doesn’t match the Tornado and TSR.2 in range; a single-Spey striker would have less space for fuel and being supersonic would necessarily be less aerodynamically efficient.

I have no idea what you mean by that ellipsis.

 

[tomo pauk]

I have no idea what you mean by that ellipsis.

Three dots means that thread has just started.

As for a single Spey, well, same problem but worse. The twin-Spey, subsonic Buccaneer S.2 also doesn’t match the Tornado and TSR.2 in range; a single-Spey striker would have less space for fuel and being supersonic would necessarily be less aerodynamically efficient.

Tornado and TSR are not in teh same range bracket.
A supersonic aircraft should be more aerodynamically effect than a subsonic.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Tornado and TSR are not in teh same range bracket.
A supersonic aircraft should be more aerodynamically effect than a subsonic.

No, and your proposed aircraft aren’t in the same range bracket of even the Tornado.

Given subsonic strike aircraft tend to have more range than supersonic at the same size and tech level, something’s going on there.

 

[I lurk therefore I am]

The F-105 is IMO representative of what can be done with a large, single-engine turbojet strike aircraft in this time period. It’s got excellent range for a single-engine aircraft, better than any but the F-35 in fact, but it’s still just a single-engine aircraft. And while the Olympus is more powerful than the J75 and allows for more fuel to be carried it also has higher fuel consumption which offsets the additional fuel.

As for a single Spey, well, same problem but worse. The twin-Spey, subsonic Buccaneer S.2 also doesn’t match the Tornado and TSR.2 in range; a single-Spey striker would have less space for fuel and being supersonic would necessarily be less aerodynamically efficient.

I have no idea what you mean by that ellipsis.

I was under the impression that the Bucc had a range than a par with a tornado?

I read an account ages ago that, when the Tornado first entered service, they did a demonstration raid from the UK on Cyprus to show off their capabilities. The Tornadoes doing the demonstration were accompanied there and back by Buccaneers fitted with buddy refuelling tanks...

Can't remember the source sadly, so could be wrong on that.

 

[CV12Hornet]

I was under the impression that the Bucc had a range than a par with a tornado?

I read an account ages ago that, when the Tornado first entered service, they did a demonstration raid from the UK on Cyprus to show off their capabilities. The Tornadoes doing the demonstration were accompanied there and back by Buccaneers fitted with buddy refuelling tanks...

Can't remember the source sadly, so could be wrong on that.

The Bucc had excellent ferry range, thanks to being able to fit a fuel tank into the bomb bay. In normal combat operations its range was rather less - I've found 800nm at high altitude and 400nm at low altitude combat radius. At low altitude the Tornado hit 600 or 650nm with 4000 lbs of bombs and two fuel tanks.

 

[Riain]

A single engine attack aircraft could be instead of the Jaguar, which starting in 1965 morphed from an advanced trainer to a quite sophisticated medium attack aircraft. However the RAF would still need the Tornado.

 

[tomo pauk]

... Air Ministry reviewed the designs offered, and was not favoring either of them.
The Olympus-powered big A/C needed prodigious fuel tankage to cater for the thirsty engine; that, combined with Olympus itself being one big and heavy engine was feared to spiral-out the weight and size, reducing the required range and needing either long runaways (not very acceptable) or introduction of high-lift devices and/or systems. Crew of two was a plus.

Spey-powered version was deemed as too small.

So the AM made the request for big A/C to be proceeded with, but to be powered by an engine what they described as a 'big Spey'. RR moved quickly towards that goal, since they were already in talks with Allison for the TF-41. The new engine, christened 'RB.162-62', shared most of it's internals with the TF-41, making 14300 lb dry, 23500 in afterburner, and 25000 lbs with water injection for take off and combat emergencies; dry weight of circa 4500 lb. Until the new engine is available, water injection system will be outfitted to the regular Spey so the work with new aircraft can be done without waiting for the -62.

Independently from this, the discussion with the French was going on about the joint project - a trainer aircraft capable for ground attack, possessing high performance...

 

[CV12Hornet]

Hmm, now we might be getting somewhere. Between the Spey's better fuel consumption, and the fact that even this version weighs a good 1400 lbs less than the J75, you could probably get this plane up to around Tornado ranges, though you'd probably have to give up some performance over the Thunderchief to do so as even this super-Spey has a bit less thrust than a J75. Not to mention the bomb bay doesn't need to be as big, since WE.177 is a fair bit smaller than the B.28 and B.43 bombs the Thunderchief's bay was rated for.

The end result is likely to be slower at altitude than the Tornado and be able to carry fewer munitions in total, but have the range and low-altitude performance to get the job done.

And that's before we add any sort of aerodynamic refinements over the Thunderchief, which I'm basing this off of.

 

[marathag]

Problem is, you’re not meeting the RAF’s range requirements on a single engine. The F-105 had only 2/3 the range of even the Tornado, to say nothing of the TSR.2.

Tornado F Mk 2 Internal, 1922 gallons 793 external in two tanks, 2785 gallons total
MTO 61700 pounds
F-105 770-1160 gallons internal, 390 gallons in bomb bay, and 1500 external in three tanks, 2810-3050 gallons total.
MTO 54,027 pounds

That with the Tornado not even being a napkin sketch yet for almost ten years, while Thud had been flying since 1959, and production line open thru 1964, there is time for changed for future F-105 built for RAF strike role with the TSR.2 spiked

EDIT: want more range from a mid '60s Thud?
Drop a higher rated T33 turbofan in it, same family as the J75. P&W had that engine on the drawing board, but never continued.
Flight magazine, Oct 30 1959

Largest of the new Pratt & Whitney fans is the TF75 (commercial designation JT4D), which is a straight conversion of the J75/JT4A, following the formula proven with the J57/JT3. The company have no contract for this work and are unlikely to take it to the hardware stage without military backing or assurance of substantial civil sales. The simplest conversion is the addition of the front fan of the JT3D-1 on to a basic J75 or JT4A-9. This is rendered possible since the hub diameter of the two compressors is essentially the same. Compared with the JT4A-9 this somewhat compromised turbofan will have 8 per cent better s.f.c. It is designated JT4D-3 and would be rated at 22,500 lb. The optimum JT4D-1 would have a new ad hoc fan of appreciably greater diameter. The sea-level rating would be 25,000 lb, and cruise s.f.c. would be approximately 15 per cent better than that of the straight turbojet.

The military TF75-P-1, corresponding to the JT4D-1, is the engine specified by Douglas for the larger of their two CX military freight aircraft, in which four of these big engines would be installed in twin pods. In their submission to the U.S.A.F. for this aircraft last August, Douglas said: "The turbofan power system was chosen for the future cargo airplane because it provided the most favourable balance between speed, productivity and direct operating cost for the design cargo/range mission. A truboprop propulsion system would have provided more range or more cargo and better take-off performance. The turbofan provided greater speed, and takeoff performance comparable to current jet aircraft.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
The long-range strike aircraft gained the shape, and a name: Rapier.
A mid-wing design, wings of 350 sq ft provided with boundary layer control system that much improved take-off abilities under the heavy load (designers took note from the systems used on the TSR-2 and Buccaneer), both flaps and ailerons being drooped during the take off and landing. Crew of two, electronics that, among other things, allowed for low-altitude target approach and bombing. Bomb bay is there, so is the landing parachute. No fixed cannon installed.
To improve chances on the foreign markets, as well as avoiding the security limitations on the new tech, the simplified attacker was being developed. It featured a new nose with a simple radar or no radar at all, and was to be powered by the water-injected Spey instead of the RB.162-62; pilot-only. Container for the Aden 30mm cannon is also developed.
RAF will be buying the full-spec attacker, the simplified A/C was too late for the Belgians and Israel (Mirage V was chosen there).
RAF will also be buying the Jaguars, despite the people in the know asking how actually it is good to shell the money on three new strike aircraft in the same time. Granted, the capabilities of a LR high-speed attacker and a STOL short-ranged slow attacker were not overlapping.
...

 

[tomo pauk]

...
In the meantime, other NATO members were discussing the next-gen combat aircraft, with emphasis on ground attack capabilities. Disagreements between the countries about the desired abilities, complexity and price saw Canada and Netherlands leaving the talks by 1969 - not a good sign for Germany and Italy after Belgium went their own way. UK jumped to the opportunity, offering a deal for the Dutch for an aircraft named as Merlin [1]. The deal included Fokker making the wings and empenage, Phillips and British supplying the electronics, and British supplying engine, fuselage and U/C. Final assembly will be done in the Netherlands. Total of 100 aircraft is ordered in early 1971.

--------
[1] The simpler, lighter and more affordable sibling to the Rapier as noted at the above chapter, powered by the Spey, and also carries less fuel. Dutch version will feature a radar (but not the full-blown system the Rapier has) with basic support for air combat via AIM-9 and Aden. Two-seater combat trainer version has one fuel tank less.

 

[The History Man]

An interesting possibility might have been either BAC or Hawker Siddeley building the Mirage III under licence for the RAF. The UK would have had some bragging rights over France as the Fairey Delta was tested at the Cazaux site and Dassault used data from the Delta to develop the Mirage III. A favourable deal could have been negotiated.

The most likely power plant would have been the Rolls-Royce Avon or Spey. I understand that Australia used the Avon in the Mirages they built for the RAAF under licence.

 

[Monk78]

Obviously not possible politically but I always thought the su-15 flagon ( with western AAM) license built in UK would be a great replacement for gloster javelin and possibly a better interceptors in some ways than EE lightning.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Is this a TL or a discussion thread, I honestly can't tell.

 

[tomo pauk]

Is this a TL or a discussion thread, I honestly can't tell.

Seems like it gains the shape of a TL - my 1st here
I'm okay with people discussing, and suggesting, especially how to out-smart Dassault...

Obviously not possible politically but I always thought the su-15 flagon ( with western AAM) license built in UK would be a great replacement for gloster javelin and possibly a better interceptors in some ways than EE lightning.

Su-15 kinda goes again the main premise of the thread: keep it 1-engined where possible, UK-only or UK-led, designed within a few years rather than within a decade or more, simple (but not too simple), affordable, suitable for export. Of course, it needs to be able to meet the RAF's requirements.