WI: Saunders-Roe Gets The Fighter Contract

Zen9

Banned
So my figures are from ....Saro Aircraft from (I forget when to I forgot when) and I have the relevant pages photocopied somewhere. .....

Likely this is in view of the future carriers which I think was still a projected fleet of 5 each with at least one squadron of 12 aircraft. Presumably this covered reserves on a 50/50 basis and also OCU, OEU etc...
At this time they still worked on 50% being stored and cycled with service aircraft.
A sign of the times that they thought they'd have time to bring this into service with trained up personnel in time for WWIII.
RAF at the time felt this was more the way to go than the 'interim' Lightning (to replaced in a few years). Things would change of course.

Yes the initial preproduction order was something like 20 which soon contracted and contracted. 9 sounds about right.

As does DH's involvement, after all Christchurch airfield was to be used by Saro for the prototype's flights. Just over the water from Wight.

It's pretty clear though that had it gone ahead, an Attack variant was pretty certain to be forthcoming. As long as they could strengthen the wing pylons it's possible the likes of WE.177 counterbalanced by a drop tank would fullfill MRI strike.
Certainly such was looked at during the whole post Sandys development of OR.339 and NMBR.3.
As it was the Germans changed the goalposts with more emphasis on Attack. Though Saro's offering of the RB.133 is odd considering this was an Avon variant focused on high altitude operation.

That said MRI numbers are likely to match P1154 and later Jaguar numbers. Which stayed fairly consistent and is about twice the 70 F4 tasked as an interim measure.
That being about 175 single seaters and 25 two seater trainers.
 

Zen9

Banned
Oh and years ago I did sketch a twin Gyron Junior enlarged version but as with my maps.... Once photobucket turned greedy I couldn't even insert pictures uploaded to their server. All you'd get is demands to pay up.

So til the day I can organise picture hosting somewhere. It's all verbal.
 
Are you able to quote a source for that?

150 seems like too many for the RN. AFAIK only Ark Royal, Eagle and Victorious were to operate the SR.177 with a total of 32 in 3 squadrons (12 Ark Royal, 12 Eagle and 8 Victorious). 118 "backing" aircraft seems like too many for trials, training, maintenance and an attrition reserve. That is unless the Royal Navy was expecting a very high attrition rate.

AFAIK only 27 SR.177s were ordered.

"The formal contract for twenty-seven aircraft was issued on 4th September 1956, and it covered four batches of fiver, four, four and 14 aircraft, although the last 18 were for planning purposes only."

Source: Page 49 of Project Cancelled by Derek Wood.

I also know that only 9 SR.177s got as far as receiving British military serial numbers.

Wood also wrote...

"At this point De Havilland and Saunders-Roe became associated through the purchase by the former of 33⅓ percent share holding in Saunders Roe. De Havilland was responsible for both engines on the SR.53 and P.177 and the arrangement was seen to strengthen the Saunders Roe position in a highly competitive market."

"By January 1957, design of main component jigs were nearly 50 percent complete and a metal installation jig, or mock-up had been decided upon. At this stage a quantity production batch was in view which was most likely to be manufactured by a different company in order to spread work across industry and save an overload at Cowes. Armstrong-Whitworth, who had taken over basic wing design for 177, were selected as the second production outlet."
This is the section on the SR.177 from Wood's Scenario 1957.

Negations with the federal German Republic (begun in 1956) are completed for the joint development and production of the SR.177 rocket-plus-turbojet interceptor. As Armstrong Whitworth is to be the main UK production centre, the aircraft side of Saunders Roe is taken over by Hawker Siddeley and the de Havilland Engine company.

Two variants of the SR.177 are agreed upon:
  • The basic mixed power, rapid-reaction, high altitude interceptor for air force/naval use, and;
  • A medium to low altitude strike/fighter variant with turbojet only, rocket fuel tankage being used for kerosene and a four per cent thickness wing being employed.
German pressure leads to the adoption of a Rolls Royce turbojet in place of the Gyron Junior. The MoD agrees to three RAF squadrons in Germany being equipped with SR.177’s, while the type becomes the standard FAA fighter. Both the Luftwaffe and the German Navy adopt the SR.177 a standard and the joint production programme becomes the largest in Europe. The Lockheed bid with the F-104 Starfighter comes to nothing.
 
Here's one that I made for another thread.

These are the dimensions of the RN version of SR.177 (according to Derek Wood in Project cancelled) and the dimensions of the other fixed wing aircraft operated by the Royal Navy in the 1960s and 1970s. The dimensions of the other aircraft come from Jane's All The World's Aircraft.

Wood did not give a folded wingspan for the SR.177 and AFAIK the SR.177s wings did not fold. I don't know the folded lengths of the Scimitar and F-4K, but they had to fold to less than 54 feet to fit the lifts of British aircraft carriers.

It seems that the Royal Navy planned to operate the SR.177 and Sea Vixen alongside each other if Friedman's planned air group for Eagle in 1963 is correct. (In 1956 her big refit was to have been 1959-62. In the event it lasted from 1959 to 1964.)

Air Groups of Eagle.png
 
Likely this is in view of the future carriers which I think was still a projected fleet of 5 each with at least one squadron of 12 aircraft. Presumably this covered reserves on a 50/50 basis and also OCU, OEU etc...
At this time they still worked on 50% being stored and cycled with service aircraft.
A sign of the times that they thought they'd have time to bring this into service with trained up personnel in time for WWIII.
In 1951 the plan was for 12 aircraft carriers in 1957 as follows:
6 Fleet (Ark Royal, Eagle, Implacable, Indefatigable, Indomitable and Victorious)
6 Light Fleet (Albion, Bulwark, Centaur, Hermes, Vengeance and Warrior)​

In 1954 the aircraft carrier force was cut to 6 ships as follows:
3 Fleet (Ark Royal, Eagle and Victorious)
3 Light Fleet (Albion, Bulwark and Centaur with Hermes replacing Bulwark on completion)​

The 1957 Defence Review cut this to 5 fixed wing aircraft carriers (Ark Royal, Centaur, Eagle, Hermes and Victorious) which were now called strike carriers to conform to the new "East of Suez" strategy. Albion and Bulwark were to be converted to commando carriers. The Royal Navy had wanted to keep 6 strike carriers so that 4 would be available at all times, but it was only allowed 5 of which 3 would be available at all times.

At the time you say the order for 150 SR.177s was being planned (which would have been the second half of 1956) the RN was still planning to have 6 aircraft carriers made up of 3 fleet and 3 light fleet carriers.

I intend to write another post to show that the RN's plan in 1956 was for each of the 3 fleet carriers to have 2 fighter squadrons and that each of the 3 light fleet carriers would have one fighter squadron. That is that each of the 3 fleet carriers would have one squadron of Sea Vixens and one of SR.177s, while each of the 3 light fleet carriers would have one squadron of Sea Vixens.
 
I intend to write another post to show that the RN's plan in 1956 was for each of the 3 fleet carriers to have 2 fighter squadrons and that each of the 3 light fleet carriers would have one fighter squadron. That is that each of the 3 fleet carriers would have one squadron of Sea Vixens and one of SR.177s, while each of the 3 light fleet carriers would have one squadron of Sea Vixens.
And here it is:

Aircraft Carrier Air Groups 1963 as planned in 1956.png

These are the air groups for Centaur, Eagle, Hermes and Victorious in the early 1960s as they were planned in 1956. The source is Friedman, who gives the dates for Eagle and Victorious as October 1956 and the dates for Centaur and Hermes simply as 1956.

In 1956 the plan was still to pay off Bulwark when Hermes was completed and to fit Albion with steam catapults. This would have brought Albion up to the same standard as Centaur after her 1956-58 refit so her early 1960s air group would have been the same as Centaurs.

Friedman did not give a projected air group for Ark Royal in 1963. This could be because at that time it was still planned to refit Ark Royal to have a big refit after Eagle's (which at that time was still planned for 1959-62 IIRC) so there might not be one for Ark Royal because it was expected that she would be refitting in 1963. However, I think that Ark Royal's 1963 air group would have been similar to the projected air group for Eagle in 1963. That is Ark Royal would have had a squadron of 12 Scimitars instead of a squadron of 12 Buccaneers because she couldn't operate Buccaneers until her 1967-70 refit. Similarly Hermes could not operate Buccaneers until her 1964-66 refit.
 

Zen9

Banned
So firstly I agree that Ark Royal would likely get the same sort of numbers as Eagle.
Secondly I'd point out that on Victorious and Eagle the Scimitars are replaced by F.177 aircraft. Logic dictates that if the Hermes and Ark Royal continue they would also receive this change.

Requirements for folded Span tend to prefer a limit of 22ft or less. I seem to recall that the Scimitar had that. Though that is from memory.
In hangers 67ft wide logic dictates folded span of 21ft or less to achieve three abreast and still be able to manoeuvre around the plane to maintain it and to manoeuvre the plane inside the hanger.
Victorious had 65ft wide hanger and the Colossus/Majestic types had 54ft width.

I would council against fancy schemes to densely pack aircraft in the hanger as this prevents ease of movement and can make moving a specific aircraft to and from the lifts or specific engineering spaces quite a complex and time consuming puzzle.

Consider all this and hanger Length it's fairly clear that the first fold on the F.177 would be the nose reducing it from 50ft to approximately 45ft.
Your Span figure is for the aircraft with missiles and missile shoes loaded on the wing tips. Without the Span is something around 28ft.
The only logical location for a wing fold is at the junction of the different trailing edge devices. This matches with keeping the main pylons well inside the fold on the fixed portion of the wing. Thus the drop tanks don't extend the folded dimensions and are structurally easier to handle on the wing being close to the main weight of the fusilage.
I forget my measurements from drawings but it's a fairly simple task to perform. Something like 18ft if I barely recall....
Which would be ideal. Which means you can fit three abreast in a 62ft wide hanger....if memory serves that of the Centaurs including Hermes.

The move to turbojet power only if taken prior to '57 could ensure RR continues with the RB.106, this being the future of medium jet engines at the time but intensely linked to fighters. Having already received some funding prior to '57.
At 15,000lb dry static sea level thrust, this out performs Gyron Junior and Avon. And with 20,750lb with reheat will certainly drive F.177 to Mach 2+.

Consequences of that would impact OR.346 and AW.406.

Such a change would ensure the flexibility of the aircraft in fighter and attack roles. It also make the change to the scaled Medway a.k.a as the Spey a much simpler tasks.due to them using the same Diameter of reheat chamber.

A consequence of this is having RB.106 might be the further development of a maritime GT variant. Which should outperform the Spey in horsepower terms.
 
Consider all this and hanger Length it's fairly clear that the first fold on the F.177 would be the nose reducing it from 50ft to approximately 45ft.
I'm not sure that there would be any attempt to reduce the length of the SR.177 because it was already short enough to fit the lifts on the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers. Furthermore it was already as short as if not shorter than the folded lengths of the Buccaneer, Phantom, Scimitar and Sea Vixen. See Post 24.
 
Secondly I'd point out that on Victorious and Eagle the Scimitars are replaced by F.177 aircraft. Logic dictates that if the Hermes and Ark Royal continue they would also receive this change.
No they aren't. Therefore, not it doesn't.

This is because Buccaneer replaces Scimitar. The SR.177 squadron on Eagle is a third squadron in addition to the Sea Vixen and Buccaneer squadrons. It's more convoluted with Victorious because the Scimitar squadron of 12 aircraft was to be replaced by 8-aircraft squadrons of Buccaneers and Scimitars.

These are the planned air groups for Victorious at October 1956
1959
12 Scimitar
12 Sea Venom
8 Gannet ASW
4 Skyraider AEW
2 SAR helicopters

38 Total

1961-62
12 Scimitar
10 Sea Vixen
8 Gannet ASW
4 Gannet AEW
2 SAR helicopters

36 Total

1963
8 SR.177
8 Buccaneer
10 Sea Vixen
8 ASW helicopters
4 Gannet AEW
2 SAR helicopters​

40 Total​

IOTL the Scimitar squadron on Hermes was replaced by a Buccaneer squadron after her 1964-66 refit and the Scimitar squadron on Ark Royal was replaced by a Buccaneer squadron after her 1967-70 refit.
 
Secondly I'd point out that on Victorious and Eagle the Scimitars are replaced by F.177 aircraft. Logic dictates that if the Hermes and Ark Royal continue they would also receive this change.
As I pointed out Scimitar was replaced by Buccaneer and the SR.177s were to be in addition to the aircraft those ships carried IOTL.

If SR.177 is going to replace anything it will be the other fighter under development for the FAA in 1957, the De Havilland Sea Vixen.

The first 78 Sea Vixens (which included 21 pre-production) aircraft were ordered to Specification P.139P in January 1955. The 21 pre-production aircraft were flew between March 1957 and April 1959 and were delivered between June 1957 and May 1959. The first 57 production aircraft were delivered between June 1959 and January 1961. Another 70 production aircraft were delivered between March 1961 and March 1966.

1957 is probably too late to cancel the Sea Vixen altogether. However, the programme could be terminated at the 78th aircraft and the money spent IOTL on the 79th to 148th aircraft spent on SR.177s ITTL.

Then the money spent on the P.1154 and Spey Phantom IOTL could be spent on a Spey powered SR.177. It wouldn't be as good as the Spey Phantom, but it would probably have been cheaper and it would have been able to operate from Victorious and possibly Hermes. That might make it possible to delay the need to build new aircraft carriers or at least spread their construction over a greater number of years to make it more affordable.
 

Zen9

Banned
So in pieces.
Scimitar is primarily an interceptor, and secondarily a interim anti-ship strike capability.
Strictly it is a day fighter.
This is why the numbers split into F.177 and NA.39 as these are more dedicated weapon systems. One for Strike duties, the other for Interception.
However there is no reduction in FAW numbers.
This is because even by '49 DAW was concluding that the Day Fighter would need AI radar to compensate for limited direction capability of small carriers.
And this is why the F.177 has just an 18" AI.23 set.
This is the same as the improved Type 545 with a 18" dish and revised intake. Adding modest radar to Day Fighters.

So any replacement for the FAW role is certainly going to need a bigger dish and two seats.
Hence why to defer that, the effort on AAMs. What was called a "Jump up missile".

Hence also why the Type 556 developed from the Scimitar. With reheated Avons, initially AI.18 lwith a 30" dish and facility for Firestreak or Red Dean.

Strictly the Scimitar is a evolution of the earlier straight wing flexible-deck day fighter Type 505, that underwent quite some iterations before it became the Type 544.

Specification N.9/47 was met by Type 508 (a Type 505 with proper undercarriage and a bigger wing), which became Type 525. All revised to N.113.

But irony is Westland's W.37 was a far better design.

Back to the plot.
Why would you fold the nose of F.177?
Answer because if you can easily do so, the benefits of reduced length in the hanger improve handling and storage there.
Where would you fold it?
Answer take a look at the cross section and see you can fold ahead of the radar dish, improving access to said dish and giving you a reduction of about 5ft.
Similarly why would you fold the wing? Well it improves handling and storage, though this time at a cost of roughly 1,000lb increase in weight.
So it's arguable as to whether they would, considering time and cost, instead just dismounting the missiles from the wingtips and you get a reduction of something like 2ft.

That said without a new FAW on the horizon once Type 556 prototype is cancelled, F.177 is 'it', posing some serious questions about what to do.
The future looked like OR.346, but these are all big machines.
Either evolve the design into a 30" dish equipped twin seater, or learn to live with what you're getting and fund better AEW and the Type 984 and CDS succcessors.
Briefly the latter looked like the plan.
Then P.177 effort collapsed, first for the RAF, then for the RN.
Then the debate on the Type 984 successor fell into NIGS and never recovered until buying into the Dutch effort.
Meanwhile the AEW effort spiralled away into unsustainably small numbers of bespoke aircraft. Collapsing with the end of the future of carriers in '66.

So keeping the F.177 alive for the RAF and RN, suggests either the numbers of aircraft per carrier are going to be revised downwards, or they fund the wingfold.
Because the hangers on all the RN's carriers are pretty tight spaces as is.
And keeping it going is ironically not beyond the scope of reality for the RN, since by '57 Controller specifically rules out switching DLI for SAMs. Contradicting what will follow and is likely driven by necessity of government politics, rather than sober military assessments.
 
Last edited:
Back to the plot.
Why would you fold the nose of F.177?
Answer because if you can easily do so, the benefits of reduced length in the hanger improve handling and storage there.
Where would you fold it?
Answer take a look at the cross section and see you can fold ahead of the radar dish, improving access to said dish and giving you a reduction of about 5ft.
Similarly why would you fold the wing? Well it improves handling and storage, though this time at a cost of roughly 1,000lb increase in weight.
So it's arguable as to whether they would, considering time and cost, instead just dismounting the missiles from the wingtips and you get a reduction of something like 2ft.
I don't disagree with your argument.

Where I do disagree is:
  1. Whether the Admiralty would want to reduce the length of the SR.177, because it was short enough to fit the lifts of the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers without folding and because it was already as short or shorter than the Buccaneer, Scimitar and Sea Vixen when these aircraft were folded. However, I repeat that I agree that folding the radar dish back would make it easier to move the aircraft around the hangar (and for that matter the flight deck).
  2. That the wings on the SR.177 could have been folded. However, I repeat that I agree that folding the wings would make it easier to mover around the hangar (and for that matter the flight deck).
I have done some calculations using the drawings on Page 47 of Project Cancelled and the Basic Data chart on Page 54 of Project Cancelled.

The length of the naval version is given as 50.5 feet (or 50 feet 6 inches). My guess from measuring the drawings is that folding back the radar dish would reduce that by exactly 5 feet to 45.5 feet (45 feet 6 inches), which is the same as your guess in Post 33.

The wing span (with, as you wrote, wingtip mounted Firestreak missiles) is 30.437 feet (or 30 feet 5 inches). From the line drawing there are two places where the wings might be folded.
  1. Where the ailerons meet the flaps. That would produce a folded wingspan of 16.2 feet (or 16 feet 2 inches).
  2. At the wing roots. Then the folded wingspan would be less than the span of the tail plane, which from my measurement of the drawings is 12.7639 feet (or 12 feet 9 inches).
If the folded wingspan was 16 feet 2 inches that would allow the SR.177 to be stowed three abreast in the hangars of the Ark Royal, Centaur, Eagle, Hermes and Victorious, which were 62 to 67 feet wide (although sources vary on the width of Ark Royal and Eagle's hangars, i.e. 62 feet or 67 feet). Meanwhile, two could be stored abreast in the 52 feet wide hangars of the Colossus and Majestic class ships. This is important because the A-4 Skyhawk had a wingspan of 27 feet 6 inches so one aircraft took up half the width of the hangar.

If the folded wingspan was 12 feet 9 inches that would allow the SR.177 to be stowed four abreast in the hangars of the Ark Royal, Centaur, Eagle, Hermes and Victorious with ease. It would also allow three abreast stowage in the Colossus and Majestic class ships.
 
So in pieces.
Scimitar is primarily an interceptor, and secondarily a interim anti-ship strike capability.
Strictly it is a day fighter.
This is why the numbers split into F.177 and NA.39 as these are more dedicated weapon systems. One for Strike duties, the other for Interception.
However there is no reduction in FAW numbers.
This is because even by '49 DAW was concluding that the Day Fighter would need AI radar to compensate for limited direction capability of small carriers.
And this is why the F.177 has just an 18" AI.23 set.
This is the same as the improved Type 545 with a 18" dish and revised intake. Adding modest radar to Day Fighters.


So any replacement for the FAW role is certainly going to need a bigger dish and two seats.
Hence why to defer that, the effort on AAMs. What was called a "Jump up missile".

Hence also why the Type 556 developed from the Scimitar. With reheated Avons, initially AI.18 lwith a 30" dish and facility for Firestreak or Red Dean.

Strictly the Scimitar is a evolution of the earlier straight wing flexible-deck day fighter Type 505, that underwent quite some iterations before it became the Type 544.

Specification N.9/47 was met by Type 508 (a Type 505 with proper undercarriage and a bigger wing), which became Type 525. All revised to N.113.

But irony is Westland's W.37 was a far better design.
I don't disagree with any of that either.

However, instead of writing...
Secondly I'd point out that on Victorious and Eagle the Scimitars are replaced by F.177 aircraft. Logic dictates that if the Hermes and Ark Royal continue they would also receive this change.
In Post 27 it would have been clearer if you had written...
Secondly I'd point out that on Victorious and Eagle the Scimitars are replaced by F.177 and Buccaneer aircraft. Logic dictates that if the Hermes and Ark Royal continue they would also receive this change.
However, I feel skeptical that Hermes was large enough to take a squadron of 8 SR.177s as well as 8 Buccaneers and 8 Sea Vixens or that Centaur could operate a squadron of SR.177s in addition to her squadron of Sea Vixens.

Although I suggested terminating the Sea Vixen at 78 aircraft and taking it out of service sooner so that Centaur and Hermes could have a squadron of SR.177s in place of their Sea Vixens I agree that its a bad idea because the SR.177 and Sea Vixen did different jobs.
 

Zen9

Banned
I don't disagree that the Saro Fighter will fit down the lifts comfortably. What I'm saying the benefits of a nose fold are manifold and the costs are minor.
In fact the ability to access to the dish is necessary so this is just an improved version of the sort of nose hinged access that was used on any number of very landbased aircraft and continues to be used.

And 5ft is not to be sniffed at. If your hanger is say 500ft long for example, and assuming a 2ft gap between aircraft, that means you cannot fit 10 aircraft in a line in that hanger, you need it to be less than 48ft long.

Yes your right it's 50.5ft, and the fold ought to give a reduction to 45.5ft.

In span, the precise figure without missiles and including missile shoes is 27ft 1inch.
Yes I dug out my photocopied pages of the book Saro Aircraft. 30 minutes of trawling though all sorts of goodies that can only rarely be done thesedays.

I admit I hadn't thought of a complete wing fold at the junction, but I'd say this could run afoul of the height limitations in the hanger. I'd have to measure things again.....someday.
Also with drop tanks affixed, that folded span figure will be higher.
Further the RN became very convinced that it's next generation aircraft needed to be folded to less than 30ft, hence why CVA-01 had quite narrow lifts of (I seem to recall and cannot find a hard figure of) something like 70ft long by 32ft wide lifts. Though I think earlier in '60 the studies had lifts of 40ft width adn some of 90ft length!

It's an odd thing that Saro pumped out all sorts of designs in the period, yet never produced a twin Gyron Junior or Twin Avon version with a 30" dish of this......Yet they did produce to F.155T the enormous twin Gryon (and four Spectre rocket motors) monster P.187.
Curious little addition Saro had been refused permission to submit a alternative design at the last moment a reason used to rule out De Havilands alternative last minuite submission.
We also know Saro had said that if the RAF relaxed the armament and equipment conditions, they could prepare an alternative smaller design using a single Gyon or a pair of Gyron Juniors.
So we know they stood ready to knock out just such designs, which could be much more carrier compatible.

So.....getting deeper into 'what if territory' here.....what if Saro had been allowed that last minute submission?
Either big single or smaller twin engined type is likely to follow the SR.53-SR.163-SR.177 design philosophy.
The single big Gyron would logically build on the earlier P.163 but with the P.177 inlet beneath the nose, and likely wingtip Red Hebe or VSW (vickers Scaled radar guided Weapon, a scaled down Red Hebe)....
The twin is likely to match a certain sketch of mine, though it could resemble a scaled down P.187 instead. This time with a variety of missile options and locations for their mounting.
Maybe they offer both...no 3!
After all part of their grip is that if they were allowed to use Blue Vesta (what became Red Top) and with that no need for a second crewman.
So we have first the two twin seaters, with various radar guided missile options.
Twin Gyron Junior or Avon or RB.106 later on the Spey
Single Gyron later RB.122 or Olympus, or Medway, or even Conway.
Then we have....
Improved P.177...likely the RB.106 or RB.123 and a higher thrust rocket motor.

Success with the Saro P.177, would cause a unknown series of knock on effects. It might embolden them to propose various designs to later requirements.
Logically they would still be capable of this for OR.346 and AW.406 (Or.356). Even NMBR.3 and the supersonic trainer.

Geographically, assuming a DH/Airspeed Christchurch deepening of connections within HSA, they are well placed to gain good contacts with the RN at Portsmouth, Portland and Yeovliton.
They are close to Supermarine and also Cobham Group, especially Flight Refuelling.
A sort of Greater Solent Cabal, or the Wessex branch of HSA.

Another thought, had the Heinkel license gone through, it's possible the Germans would later investigate the RB.153 which was a joint RR MTU venture engine.
Although lower thrust than a Spey, it's smaller than an Avon, more efficent/lower s.f.c and much lighter in weight. Ideal for a more Attack oriented version.
If the French have bought some instead of Crusader......they would prefer some variant of the M.45 family of engines, jointly worked on by Bristol and SNECMA.

I will also agree that it would be a squeeze on the Centaurs and Hermes to get these numbers onboard and operational.

Another thought, one could argue even post '66 cancellations, that the Saro Fighter delivers the best means of Anti-Fleet Shadower capability, and far better than the P1127. It will certainly get upto Bear height and run them down, making their threat to Soviet forces tasked to hunt large surface forces all the more difficult.
 
Last edited:
This the Plan for Fighter Command for the period to 31st March 1963 at 27th September 1957 - That is AFTER the 1957 Defence Review.

It seems that the Air Ministry and Treasury cut Fighter Command back even further than Duncan Sandys planned because the actual position at 31st March 1963 was less than planned in September 1957.

Plan L 27.09.57 P03 Fighter Command.png


Plan L 27.09.57 P04 Fighter Command.png
 

Zen9

Banned
If I read that correctly (which on a phone is no mean feat), then this seems to boil down to 156 interceptors and 120 FAW by March '63 for the RAF.

Interesting numbers for the SAM systems.
 
If I read that correctly (which on a phone is no mean feat), then this seems to boil down to 156 interceptors and 120 FAW by March '63 for the RAF.
Nearly:
124 Javelin FAW in 8 squadrons (that is one squadron of 12 and 7 squadrons of 16)
156 Lighting Short Range Day Fighters in 12 squadrons (that is 9 squadrons of 12 and 3 squadrons of 16)

280 Total Front-Line Aircraft in 20 squadrons (that is 10 squadrons of 12 and 10 squadrons of 12)​

And it's the total for Fighter Command only. Not the whole of the RAF.

The version of Plan L dated 30th January 1957 also reduced Fighter Command to 280 first-line aircraft in 20 squadrons by 31st March 1963. However, there were to be:
160 Javelin FAW in 10 squadrons of 16, and
120 Lightnings in 10 squadrons of 12​

The actual strength of RAF Fighter Command on 31st March 1963 was considerably less than planned in 1957. Instead of the 20 squadrons there were only 9 as follows:
4 Javelin squadrons (Nos. 23, 41, 60 and 85)
4 Lighting squadrons (Nos. 19, 56, 74 and 111)
1 Hunter F Mk 6 squadron (No. 92) - this was the last Hunter F Mk 6 squadron in the RAF and would convert to Lightnings in April 1963.​

9 squadrons, total, but I don't know the numbers of aircraft per squadron.​

However, I do know the numbers of aircraft per squadron in March 1964. This information comes from the Plan P squadron patterns dated March 1964, which covered the period to March 1975. In that the strength of Fighter Command at 31st March 1964 was:
28 Javelin FAW Mk 9 in 2 squadrons of 14 (Nos. 23 and 64 - Nos. 41 and 85 had been disbanded)
60 Lighting in 5 squadrons of 12 as follows:
12 F Mk 1 in one squadron (No. 74)
24 F Mk 2 in 2 squadrons (Nos. 56 and 111)
24 F Mk 3 in 2 squadrons (Nos. 19 and 92)​
88 Total First-Line Aircraft in 7 squadrons (that is 2 squadrons of 14 and 5 squadrons of 12)​
 
Last edited:
Top