Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
V Force bombers
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Sunday, 21st May 2006
What was the 3rd V bomber? I know that there was the Electric Canberra, Avro Vulcan and....
Also, when were the Vulcans and the...... retired? And why also?
Is there any need for a strategic bomber in the RAF today? -
Message 2
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 21st May 2006
The Canberra wasn't a "V" Bomber, they were the Victor, Vulcan and Valiant (at least that's the three I know).
Not sure when the Vulcan (the most successful variant) was retired or why.
There is no need for a strategic bomber in the RAF today. Times have moved on.
Cheers AA. -
Message 3
Posted by DocMike15 (U3167117) on Sunday, 21st May 2006
But being british, the Air Ministry also signed up for a back up - the Sperrin, and I seem to remeber that there was also an incredibly ugly testbed/insurance type, the name of which escpaes me, but i think started with W..
-
Message 4
Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Sunday, 21st May 2006
Canberra, a highly successful type widely exported (even built under license in the US as the Martin B-57), was a much smaller, tactical aircraft, pre-dating the V bombers.
First was the Vickers Valiant, state of the art when designed, though soon overtaken, but it offered a quick and low risk bomber. In service in 1955/6.
Once later V-Bombers were in service, Valiant took up roles such as in flight refuelling, recce, and replacing Canberra's in the UK based, low level bombers, nuclear armed but declared to NATO rather than a UK deterrence asset.
That was it's downfall, Valiant was not suited for low level, a series of near accidents, showed up wing structure fatique, all but one was scrapped after sudden withdrawl in 1965.
Valiant saw action dropping conventional bombs in Suez in 1956, dropped the UK's first operational nuclear, then Hydrogen bombs in tests.
The famous Vulcan was next, the early B.1 in service in 1958, followed a few years later by the definative B.2, with different wing planform, better engines, extensive and effective (against the US Air Defence Network on exercises at least!) jamming system.
Vulcan carried the tricky, tempramental 'Blue Steel' stand off, rocket propelled, guided bomb, with a nuclear warhead, on the later machines.
Which also had wing strengthning and pylons for the replacement weapon, the US Douglas Skybolt, a 1000 mile range, air launched ballistic missile. but JFK cancelled Skybolt, offering the UK Polaris instead.
Unlike Valiant, Vulcan took the switch to low level (in the face of rapidly improving Soviet air defences), in it's stride.
After Polaris, most Vulcans were retained in the NATO declared nuclear strike role, with free fall weapons and a basic terrain avoidance radar, well as a unit for maritime radar recce.
By the time of the famous use of Vulcan in the Falklands, phasing out of Vulcan was well under way.
The last bombers went in late 1982, six converted to tankers to help with the massive increase in RAF tanker tasking during and after the conflict, went in early 1984. The RAF maintaining a flying Vulcan for airshows for another 9 nine years.
The most advanced, the crescent winged Victor, entered service in the late 1950's/early 1960's.
Highest flying, biggest payload, fastest V-Bomber.
Also just able to carry an underfuselage Blue Steel, Victor had a relatively short bomber career.
First the unexpected and sudden retirement of the Valiant speeded up early B.1 Victors into the tanker role.
Victor, not suited for the airframe bashing rigours of low level flight, luckily spent little time doing this.
Polaris allowed them to be converted to tankers, in the early 70's, though some had the long range recce, atmospheric sampling role, before a need for more B.2 Victors for tanker conversion, had them replaced by Vulcan, which in this particular role, was not as well equipped for.
The tanker Victors became a RAF mainstay, in 1982, it was the only RAF tanker available, so the 24 aircraft fleet was worked very hard.
This speeded up retirement, (as apart from the VC-10 tanker conversion programme already underway in 1982, ex BA Tristar 500's would in time be converted too).
However, one unit was still operational in 1991, serving with distinction in the 1991 Gulf War, the type finally leaving RAF service in 1993.
Each V Bomber was, in the original role of long range, high altitude bombing, a technological improvement on the previos one.
But there was almost a 4th.
The straight winged Short Sperrin, the safeguard for any problems, delays, with the Valiant.
But the Valiant programme went well so Sperrin never entered production.
Seems over the top now, all those types, for one role.
But, in the late 1940's, the requirement to carry, when it was ready, the British bomb to the USSR was seen as urgent.
At the time, Lincolns (an improved Lancaster), and more advanced but still WW2, Washingtons (the RAF name for B-29's supplied under US Military aid), were seen as rapidly becoming obselete.
Hope this helps, any omissions/errors are due to it being off the top of my head.
Google should reveal much more.
As for today, no.
RN Subs can and have, fired Tomahawk cruise missiles.
The new Nimrod MRA.4 (a re-engined, totally new avionics, new everything apart from the fuselage pressure shell), could potentially carry a decent number of Storm Shadow, stealthy, long range, cruise missiles, a long way.
This Anglo-French weapon was used by RAF Tornados in Iraq in 2003, successfully, before official service clearance.
But this programme is still being 'sorted out' but looks MORE on track again now.
(These upgraded Nimrods have no much that is new build, they have new serial numbers replacing the old ones). -
Message 5
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Sunday, 21st May 2006
OH
Further to AA's comprehensive post.
It was standard practice in the RAF up to the '60s to order two types for each major combat role.
Thus the Avro (as in Lancaster) Vulcan and Handley Page (as in Halifax)Victor were intended to be the backbone of the strategic bomber force.
The Vickers Valiant was intended to be the "interim" V-Bomber and the Sperrin, which was along more conventional lines, the back-up initial type, but as AA says, wasn't needed.
The B-29s supplied, known as Washingtons in RAF service, were not capable of carrying atomic weapons, but were useful in training future V-Force crews in long-range missions. -
Message 6
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Sunday, 21st May 2006
AArgh
I meant SonicBoomer's post (not that there's anything wrong with AA's). This is not my night. Think I'll go and read a book.
Apologies
C3 -
Message 7
Posted by DocMike15 (U3167117) on Monday, 22nd May 2006
Although the idea of two main types, plus a backup might have made sense (God knows what the Sperrin was supposed to be), the fact is that it took a vast amount of resources to produce three aircraft all broadly doing the same job. The Washingtons (were they B29's or B50's?)were supplied during the Korean War when it was realised that the RAF had no modern (in even the vaguest sense) bombers capable of carrying a nuclear weapon over a long distance. Perhaps bombers are like buses - you what for one for ages, and then three all turn up at once..
-
Message 8
Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Monday, 22nd May 2006
It was a phased programme, one early type, less ambitious, to get to service within a reasonable time, Valiant worked so no Sperrin.
Then two more advanced types, Vulcan and Victor.
Vulcan had fighter like performance, was in service before Victor (in those days of 5-10 year combat aircraft service lives, the times between each times was seen as substantial).
Victor flew higher, further, faster (easily supersonic in a dive), had a larger payload, 35,000lb compared to Vulcan's 21,000lb.
As things turned out, Vulcan as a bomber was more durable than Victor, could take long term low level operations.
The last batch of Victor B.2's were cancelled, since the builder, Handley-Page, refused to join with either Hawker Siddeley or BAC, the companies formed as the result of a long needed consolidation of aircraft companies.
This would have an effect a decade later, since sufficient numbers of B.2s for tanker conversion took away 543 Sqn's highly effective SR.2 recce type.
Since the earlier B.1 Victors had limitations as tankers,
But a decade after that, the Victor in the recce role made a brief comback.
Prior to the main RN Task Force reaching the Falklands area, a tanker Victor K.2, had it's radar tweaked back up to SR.2 standard (though as a tanker it could not have the SR.2's battery of bomb bay cameras).
After several refuellings from other Victors, the lone aircraft made a long radar sweep of the whole Total Exclustion Zone.
No enemy ships showed up on the radar, the way was clear.
A fascinating sounding new book, about the rapid, improvised work and training for the Vulcans, for the Falklands Black Buck missions, is now published;
Vulcan 607 by Rowland White, Bantam Press. -
Message 9
Posted by WeeOzzee (U4054575) on Monday, 22nd May 2006
Good stuff Boomer. The Victor was always my favourite, there was something so elegant about that shape....the 50s and 60s were really the time of the most wonderful aircraft in the RAF; especially to me the Victor, Vulcan, Canberra, Javelin and the Hunter, and to prove I'm not at all biased for jets the Shackleton and the Chipmunk!! Later aircraft may have been more effective (maybe..) but didn't capture my imagination, even though I was born in 66 and in Australia so never saw them fly...except the Canberra as we used them quite a bit.
One of my freinds fathers' was a bombardier? in (I think) Vulcans at the height of the V-Bomber Force. I bet he would have some stories to tell! -
Message 10
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Monday, 22nd May 2006
Vulcan, Vigilant and the Victor
-
Message 11
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Monday, 22nd May 2006
sonic's posts are fantastic
there is no need for a standard RAF nuclear role as a sub can get closer to a target without being seen and launch ICBM's before the defence forces know whats hit them.
Considering that the UK would have a one shot deal trying to launch land based missiles or aircraft deployed ones is not cost effective. A sub is.
IIRC Blue Streak was obsolete before it was completed, pretty much the same story for the V force, but the V force was deployed for national pride and swaggers stake.
Remember seeing a Vulcan fly at a St Athan Airday. Fantastic when it did a low level fly over and pull up. WIsh they still did air days down there, always a good day out -
Message 12
Posted by petes (U3344676) on Tuesday, 23rd May 2006
No mention of the TR-2?
-
Message 13
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Tuesday, 23rd May 2006
as an addition to the point about the V Force, their initial weapon was the Blue Steel Missile that they carried. Its effective range was 100 miles from target. Can't imagine many crews getting home again after launching one of those
you've got me on the TR-2 however. Something deep inside my head says that I recognise the designation. It is ringing alarm bells, but I just can't for the life of me get it. Please put me out of my misery -
Message 14
Posted by DocMike15 (U3167117) on Tuesday, 23rd May 2006
Perhasp I was unfair to the V-force, you are quite right about the need for transitional types. But it characteristic of British air policy during this time that you could have three types all due to enter service within about 5 years of each other.
As for TRS 2 - I think that is the key exhibit in the case against British air policy during the 1950's and 60's! -
Message 15
Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Tuesday, 23rd May 2006
Personally, I regard the V Force as a stunning achievement, all the more when you consider the early years of the programme was against a backdrop of wartime exhaustion, bankruptcy, with a scattered and worn out industrial infrastructure.
We cannot compare the timescales of service entry with each aircraft by today's standards.
5 years was a long time in service back then.
It was such a project of national importance, hence the range of designs, to guard against one type filing.
As to the question of how long they were effective, at first the high level attack mode was effective, Blue Steel increased this.
They had more and better countermeasures, were much faster than, say a U-2, despite a lower altitude.
Exercises against the extensive US air defence system seemed to bear this out.
However, by the mid 60's, the improvements of the Soviet IA-PVO network of radar, interceptors, missiles and guns, forced the switch to low level.
We now know the IA-PVO did not have effective aircraft radars with lookdown/shootdown ability until the mid 70's, when the Mig-23S was fielded in quantities.
Later aircraft such as the Mig-31 and Mig-29 would greatly increase this but not until well into the 1980's.
(Remember that German student flying a Cessna right into Red Square in 1987?)
So in the Vulcan era, there was reason to think low level would afford a good degree of protection.
SU-9, SU-11, SU-15, YAK-28, TU-28, Mig-25, Mig-21, none could detect and engage aircraft at low level.
It also meant only tactical SAM's, could likely engage.
SAM-6 would have been deadly, but by the time that was in service, Vulcan was out of the deterrent role, to a more tactical one.
There lies the reason for switching to Polaris, aside from the 1000 mile range US Skybolt being cancelled, intended for Vulcans, (which would have included bigger winged versions carrying up to 6 Skybolts on airborne alert, extending Vulcan production beyond the actual last delivery of a B.2 in 1964).
Polaris satisfied the UK deterrent policy of the 'Moscow Criterion', shorthand for a certain ability to hit major Soviet population centres.
It is a shame an improved Blue Steel, as mooted by Avro, did not emerge. Not the 600 mile range Mk.3, with extra external ramjets (making installation difficult on Vulcan, impossible on Victor).
But rather the Mk.2 version changing the tricky rocket motor, with the highly volatile fuel serviced by crews in michelin-man style protective clothing, to one with the Viper turbojet engine.
Very widely used, on a wide range of drones, aircraft (to this day, including Italian MB-339 trainers), Viper would have allowed a big range increase over the baseline 100 miles, with a low level mode, needed for a now subsonic missile (but as stated, able at low level to pentrate defences).
Such a weapon could, in a conventionally armed version, been in service on Vulcan after leaving the deterrent role, would have made putting holes in Port Stanley runway easier.
As it was, Vulcan only got minimal updates, it was always close to being phased out, so major investment was ruled out.
It did get a terrain avoidence radar, then radar warning equpment.
TSR-2, (Tactical Strike And Recon 2 - the -1 being, believe it or not, the Fairey Swordfish), was a Canberra replacement, but one which could have replaced V bombers like Vulcan, in the tactical role but still with a 'sub-strategic' capability.
Brilliant airframe, innovative avionics (which would have been much delayed and difficult to get working), but a badly managed programme.
It had enemies, in 1963, Chief Of Defence Staff, Lord Mountbatten, went ot Australia to put them off taking a stake in TSR-2, and buying for the RAAF.
(The RAAF would go on to buy F-111's, as late and overprice as TSR-2 would have been).
Mountbatten wanted the RAF to adopt the Buccaneer, in public he would have 5 pictures of Buccaneers, and an artists impression of TSR-2, pointing out the cost would be the same for 5 Buccaneers to 1 TSR-2.
Though his agenda was to preserve the RN's large carriers and replace them, by getting TSR-2 axed, he was right.
The Mk.2 Buccaneer could do most of what TSR-2 could, it was subsonic, but at low level this was of little importance, it was in service, proven, highly potent.
(And getting exports, beyond the semi embargoed South African order, was hard for Buccanners, the German Navy were keen, potentially the AF too, India was keen as were others, but always the question 'if it's so good why haven't the RAF brought it?)
It would need overland optimised avionics for the RAF role, ideally, but TSR-2 could at least provide the basis for this.
It was perverse that in the mid 60's, the front line RAF in Germany, was still using Canberras in the strike role (at night), whilst the navy were getting aircraft much more capable.
I used to work with people who were on the TSR-2 project, 35 years later they were still angry.
The nature of the cancellation seemed stupid and almost vindictive, now it is suspected that economic pressure from the LBJ administration (F-111 was built on LBJ's home turf), to UK requests to shore up the Β£, was used to get a range of advanced UK projects cancelled.
Concorde escaped due to the treaties we had signed with France,
P.1154 the supersonic, much larger Harrier, was already in trouble, was way too ambitious and already rejected by the Navy.
TSR.2 was a visible target, with some of the defence community long against it.
F-111 was ordered in it's place, but cancelled after further economic problems and delays.
50 were on order, so we can assume the same number roughly would have been built had TSR.2 survived, not the original 150.
I think it was a tragic waste, but one that should not have been started, Buccanner should have been brought for the RAF from the start.
Which after F-111 was cancelled, it finally was, a mix of new build and ex Navy-the new carrier programme had also imploded.
It never got a full avionic kit for overland strike, but the RAF soon grew to love the Buccaneer, three years after a combat swansong in the 1991 Gulf War, they retired.
The reason the RAF never did large scale updates on either Buccaneer or Vulcan, was the MRCA, later named Tornado.
This programme emerged from the TSR-2/F-111 wreckage, the multi national European effort delivering a highly capable and affordable strike aircraft, the RAF alone brought 229 strike versions, four times any likely TSR-2 buy.
It showed the way to the future, multi national collboration saved the UK combat aircraft industry.
The long list of cancelled projects of the 50's and 60's demonstrates this.
Had we brought 50 or so TSR-2's it would have been a case of 'that's nice, now what?'
The answer, aside from the Anglo-French Jaguar, the UK Hawk trainer, would have been licenced build (maybe) of US designs.
998 Tornados were built in the UK, Germany and Italy, until the last left Warton in the UK in 1998.
The UK built all the export ones for Saudi (who brought 96 IDS and 24 ADV versions).
Can we say the same would have happened with TSR-2? -
Message 16
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 23rd May 2006
If you've got access to a good library, Humphrey Wynn's "RAF Nuclear Deterrent Forces 1946-49" (HMSO 1994)is worth a look - it goes through the whole life cycle of the V-Bombers, and the Thor missiles.
As for TSR 2, nice airframe, shame about the avionics. Comparing it to the Bucc isn't quite fair - it was a Canberra/V-Bomber replacement, akin to the F-111 (McDonnell-douglas definitely saw it as a rival). Tornado should have been the answer, if it hadn't had its legs (range) cut off at the knees.
TSR 2 might not have sold quite as many units as Tornado, but probably several hundred - that what McD worried about, although in th end, they were only allowed one export customer themselves. -
Message 17
Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Tuesday, 23rd May 2006
But who else would have brought TSR.2?
Australia was out.
So who else within NATO? Where there was a concentration of airforces that could potentially afford it.
I suspect the same as brought the F-111, that is none beyond the home nation.
It would, at best, be out of production by the mid 70's.
Tornado was not quite in the F-111/TSR-2 class, but it was not far off, was more advanced, was affordable in numbers way beyond either F-111 or TRSR-2.
For it's size Tornado IDS has impressive range and payload.
Since the RAF would be a mainly tactical NATO assigned airforce, under the new 'Flexible Response' idea, in the late 60's MRCA-later Tornado, made a lot of sense.
Rather than a nuclear strike design adapted to a more conventional role.
Tornado was never a 'sexy' aircraft, but it was, is, workmanlike and effective in it's designed roles. -
Message 18
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 23rd May 2006
Sonic
I think the "Fin" does its job very well, but it lacks range compared with the aircraft (particularly Canberra and Bucc) it replaced, which didn't matter so much in the Central Front context.
On TSR 2, in the context of the time it was conceived and devloped, the target market was the Commonwealth, plus Latin America. It was a rival to the F111 for Australia (they bought F111s after TSR2 was cancelled, and in a changing political climate), a Canberra replacement for NZ and South Africa. Canada wasn't a market - they weren't in the bomber game any more. Then you have the other Canberra operators.
Would agree that not all Canberra operators would have bought TSR2.
Within NATO, Germany and Italy. Germany's political decision not to acquire an aircraft that could reach Russia, which affected MRCA's range, wasn't obvious when TSR2 was being designed.
With 20/20 hindsight, the markets turned out not to be there - but, then, the F111 didn't sell, either. -
Message 19
Posted by petes (U3344676) on Wednesday, 24th May 2006
Thanks for all the info on the TSR-2, especially Sonic - I remember it was a very advanced (too advanced, too ambitious?) aircraft at the time and the cancellation caused much consternation within the industry. Was it the swansong of an independent UK military aircraft/avionics industry?
I seem to recall the cancellation was put down to quite a degree of spite by the then Labour government along with pressure from the USA who viewed it as a serious threat. I seem to remember also that all prototypes were ordered to be completely destroyed (but weren't), I never did figure that one out.
Had it been successful maybe our aircraft industry would be on a par with that of France's now. -
Message 20
Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Wednesday, 24th May 2006
TSR-2, perhaps due to the fact one flew and whole affair was very public, is seen as a turning point in the UK's ability to produce combat aircraft.
Highly specialised types perhaps, but I do not see it as the major damaging cancellation.
Start with the Miles M.52, a jet powered research type, which had it not been cancelled, could well have exceeded Mach 1 before the Bell X-1, under it's own power at all flight phases, not by dropping from a B-50 and firing a rocket motor.
Capt Eric Brown RN, might well have become a famous name.
Technical aspects of the M-52 were provided to the US, areodynamically they were not that different.
In the 1950's, the RN operated a straight winged type called the Sea Hawk, popular but overtaken.
But the swept wing version, the P,1081, had already flown well before, why was this not adopted? For the RAF too, in service well before Hunter, no need for interim Sabres either.
Over the Yalu River in Korea, P.1081's could well have been another 'Mig Master', providing much info for the services and industry.
After the successful Hawker Hunter, a 'thin winged' version capable of Mach 1.3, could well have been in service alongside USAF F-100's, also repeating the Hunter's successful exports.
Why were the Air Staff not interested?
The 1957 Defence White Paper, is well known as being the policy that cancelled most UK military aircraft programmes, in favour of missiles.
But this was in the context of NATO 'Tripwire' policy then, the paper did not touch the Fleet Air Arm, even left a 'Canberra Replacement' project, which became TSR-2.
I think the real losses from the 57 paper, were the P.8 version of the BAC Lightning. This had a modified rear fuselage allowing undercarriage retraction there, leaving the wings free for more fuel, more potential weapons hardpoints.
Thus overcoming the Lightning's shortcomings.
For a time, combined Jet/Rocket propulsion was in vogue, for very fast interceptions, with big new jet engines.
The SR.177, an otherwise practical looking machine, was almost a shoo-in for a large West German order. As well as for the RAF in Germany and the Fleet Air Arm.
The White Paper killed that dead, eventually leaving the way for the F-104.
50 years ago this year, several speed records were smashed by the Fairey Delta.
Surely the baseline for a UK 'Mirage'?
Dassault said as much himself, 'if not for the way you do things in England, you could have had the Mirage for yourselves'.
Even after that, Dassault urged Fairey to work with them to develop what became the all French Mirage, to contest the big European order that would be won, in the end, by the F-104.
They admired the design, they admired UK engines even more.
But the only Fairey Delta version the Air Staff were interested in, was a much larger, twin engined, side by side twin crewed, interceptor, carrying two huge air to air missiles and nothing else.
Typical of the 'gold plating' and over specialisation that did the real damage over the years.
But the 57 paper killed it anyway.
Even after the White Paper, Hawkers kept on working on the P.1121.
Image an aircraft around the size for the US F-105, or around F-4 size.
With an F-16 style intake, in fact quite like the F-16 in general layout.
To be very strongly built, two versions were planned, one with radar and air to air weapons, the others with ground attack systems.
With one large engine, an Olympus or perhaps a Gyron.
Still a 'Tripwire' type, the P.1121 could easily be made more flexible, replacing the fuselage retractable rocket pods with cannon, increasing the wing pylons to 3 per wing from one.
(The ground attack version was to, originally ,carry one nuke and one external drop tank).
This would have near to a 'British Phantom', though not designed for carrier use.
Clearly it could have equipped much of RAF Germany, and other deployments areas. Leaving Lightning P.8's for air defence of the UK.
As well as a major export prospect.
But in the end, service interest was just not there.
After the above, a buy of F-4's became inevitable, if the RAF of the mid 60's to to be modernised after so many false starts.
Who can blame them for wanting state of the art equipment at last, wherever it came from?
France did not make these mistakes, the French AF accepted aircraft not maybe as big or specialised as they might have really wanted.
But they got them in numbers, export appeal made them cheaper, kept design teams busy.
There was no such 'joined up thinking' in the UK, quite the opposite.
However, today France has no great advantage over the UK.
More Mirage 2000's were sold than Tornado, as you'd expect.
But the Rafale, though a fine aircraft, has so far been an export failure.
Thus raising costs, cutting back French service production.
On the other hand, the often ignorantly maligned Typhoon has the customer spread of 4 airforces, plus exports to Austria, Saudi (a long standing and vital Rafale target), Greece might well re sign after suspending to pay for the 2004 Olympics.
Though a multinational effort, at heart Typhoon is a BAe design.
German influence moved the intakes from the fuselage sides to below, as in earlier BAe concepts such as P.110.
An all UK Typhoon might well have been in service sooner (German mucking around in 1992 lost two years for a start), with lower costs.
But, it still would have been expensive, in the hard recession of the early 1990's, just after the USSR imploded, who really thinks an all UK programme would have survived, I doubt it would have got to first flight.
The all UK Hawk trainer still sells, where is the Franco German Alpha jet now?
The UK was a leader in the new Meteor advanced long range air to air missile, Sweden was another, France has joined too, but not as a leading partner, they cannot afford to go alone an another generation of pure french systems.
On the other hand, the UK has adopted, modified, built under licence, a French long range stealthy cruise missile for air launch.
As the Storm Shadow, it was used in combat in the 2003 Iraq war, entering service with the RAF before the French got theirs!
So I would put the UK and French industries as roughly equal, each having their own strengths and compentancies.
France won't do another all French combat aircraft again.
Nor will Sweden. -
Message 21
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 24th May 2006
Sonic
Interesting ideas. Wings Clipped and Cancelled?
On the Miles M52, I think the real reason was money - the RAF was concentrating on building up the bomber fleet, so the decision was taken to "skip" a fighter generation and keep Meteor and Vampire in service until Hunter and Swift were ready. Sea Hawk was proven technology, and small enough for the restricted space in RN carriers.
Of course, the Cold War threatening to go hot in the early '50s meant the emergency buy of Sabres, which not only meant extra expenditure but also expenditure of precious foreign exchange. I have heard it suggested that it was this that cost John Slessor, Chief of Air Staff 50-53, his peerage (as a WWII C-in-C as well as CAS, it would have been reasonable to expect him to get one). -
Message 22
Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Thursday, 25th May 2006
I certaintly did get some examples from Derek Wood's 1975 book, 'Project Cancelled', however for al the info within, it is often contradictory, saying in one chapter how good a project would have been, the opposite later on.
Certainly true much was wasted by not rationalising the large number of aircraft companies sooner than the early 1960's.
For me, the ones that should have happened, mostly covered in my previous post, were likely to be affordable, with export potential and not over ambitious.
Many see the big, supersonic, VSTOL P.1154 as a loss.
But it would have required special surfaces to operate from (such was the heat of the exhausts), which rather missed the point of VSTOL in the first place.
It would almost certainly would have had major development problems.
It might have been better at sea, with a specially designed ship, but at the time the RN were set on large conventional carriers.
Had they known what was coming, they might have tried to keep P.1154 going, from a news class of carriers larger than the Invincible class, but still with much lower manpower costs and more general affordability than a conventional carrier.
Even so, the US Marines would never have been allowed to buy P.1154, they had to struggle enough to get Harriers, assuming a much bigger and complex beast as P.1154 would have been of interest in the first place, which is very doubtful. -
Message 23
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Thursday, 25th May 2006
Sonic
Only just got in. P.1154 is interesting. -
Message 24
Posted by MB (U177470) on Saturday, 27th May 2006
What angered people about the cancellation of TSR-2 by the Labour government (Healey?) was that they not only scrapped the prototypes but also had all the jigs destroyed so it would be impossible to put the aircraft back into production.
Wasn't there a story about an elderly Victor on a visit to the USA being admired by USAF pilots who thought it was a new prototype aircraft on trials?
MB -
Message 25
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Sunday, 28th May 2006
JMB
The version of the Victor story I heard was that it was USAF personnel in Saudi, in the run-up to DESERT STORM, admiring on of 55 Sqn's machines. Stll a tribute to the type's design, of course.
The jig destruction trick was played with Nimrod, as well. -
Message 26
Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Sunday, 28th May 2006
The manner of the TSR.2 cancellation was unusual, including the hasty axing of production gear, unusual enough that there was maybe extra pressure to demonstrate it was really axed.
Who pays the piper calls the tune-or in this case, bolsters the Β£.
But a moot point in any case, the Opposition at the time mentioned they'd re-start TSR.2 if elected, they would also reverse the plans to end the RN's large carrier fleet-they could have done the latter when in power in 1970, they did not, if anything they accelerated the process. They would not have re-started TSR.2 even with production gear stored not scrapped.
Are we sure Nimrod production gear was scrapped, or all of it.
Because the MRA.4 rebuilds are effectively new aircraft, (with new serials uniquely), only the fuselage pressure shell is original.
BAe did offer new build Nimrod MRA.4s too, not much chance of that but they made the offer.
But to me, Mountbatten is still the biggest villian of the piece with TSR.2, he as a very senior service chief undermined it, in public, scuppering the potential Australian AF/industrial participation deal, made eventual cancellation probably inevitable.
He was right about Buccaneer, it should have been the RAF strike aircraft much sooner, but in 1964/5 it wasn't and he should have kept his nose out
It is ironic that though Mountbatten won with TSR.2 cancellation, he lost as the reason he did it, to make new large RN carriers more likely, did not happen.
Aside from the RAF, the other services were against TSR.2, the Chief Science Advisor to the MoD, Solly Zuckerman, was as well.
It would have been a very brave Defence Minister, to go against all that, never mind the Treasury as well.
Against the back drop of an increasingly obselete RAF fleet, the result of over a decade of gold plating, over ambitious, always cancelled projects, the whole 1957 review and it's aftermath and rapidly worsening economic conditions.
The RAF needed new equipment ASAP, the government who cancelled TSR.2, procured F-4's, Buccaneers, C-130's, Harriers, Nimrods, started the Jaguar, MRCA and what would become the Hawk, programmes.
Even Sir Sidney Camm, not long before his death in 1966, whose own Hawkers had lost out with P.1154 and HS.681 projects being axed in early 1965, nevertheless called the predcessor government 'twerps', for their drift, confusion and '57 review.
That was when the industry did NOT, despite what the then PM said, 'have it so good'.
They created the conditions where the RAF had to go to the US for some new equipment, they made the UK's early move towards international collaboration inevitable. -
Message 27
Posted by SONICBOOMER (U3688838) on Sunday, 28th May 2006
Even if some TSR.2's had been built and put in service, in the conditions of the late 60's, I still think the move to collaboration in future projects would have happened.
Something along Tornado lines would have appeared, maybe not so much a strike orientated swing wing aircraft, maybe a bit later, one of the designs for Air Staff Target 403, might have formed the basis for a collaborative venture.
Like the P.96, a cross between F-18 and F-16, twin engines in the RB.199 size range, a large fixed win with prominent Leading Edge Root Extensions.
In a launch in the mid 70's, service entry in early/mid 80's senario, to replace RAF Jaguars, Lightnings, Phantoms, (The Tornado replaced the RAF Germany Jaguar force).
Replacing German F-104's and F-4s, Italian F-104's.
This would have been a better export prospect than Tornado, future performance as well as system upgrades more likely, upgrading like the F-18C was to the F-18E even.
But this is all speculation and the real story could have been less benign. For both industry and air forces.
Another easier alternative, might have been to swap the VG wing for later Tornado's, for the RAF AD role, with something like the P-96's wing planform. Much more agile, much lighter, more fuel, more wing hardpoints.
Since the Tornado version for the UK Air Defence mission, was not finalised until 1976, within the P-96 design timeframe, this would have been possible.
Allowing what would now be a non VG wing Tornado F-3, to also replace RAF F-4's in RAF Germany, adding agility to the already met requirements for long endurance, all weather, heavily armed, air defence of the UK in heavy ECM conditions.
As well as a path to upgraded future multi role versions, taking advantage of improved avionics for a 'all in one' multi role Tornado, perhaps adding the low observable forward fuselage mooted for the 1990 'Tornado 2000' VG strike version.
But still a new generation, very agile, state of the art from the ground up aircraft, in other words, the Typhoon.
To replace Tornado as the major European combat aircraft project. Just as today. -
Message 28
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Thursday, 1st June 2006
Bring back the SE5A, that's what I say.
Well, Hawker have the best track record. -
Message 29
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Thursday, 1st June 2006
I'm glad that I've managed to stimulate so much debate from my rather badly worded question. Thanks for the replies and the info provided. I have to say, after finding the Victor's photograph, that that was one beautiful plane.
-
Message 30
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Thursday, 1st June 2006
No, there were a couple of hundred of them
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.