22 ideas (and missed opportunities)

[Archibald]

1- Vickers type C heavy bomber is developped .(later variant with Proteus, interim type waiting  THE v-bomber
2- building the gibraltar carriers in 1945
3- Merge the 14 different aircraft makers  in 3 groups right from 1948
4- Make the hunter the ONLY day fighter
5- Make the vixen the only  FAW (both RN and RAF)
6- Make the victor the only V-bomber
7- Avon, Conway, Medway/Spey are the way to go (NO other military engines)
8- After 1958 : The Bucc is the low level bomber (no TSR-2, sorry!)
9- The Victor receive the Blue Steel (later mk2)  becoming a standoff missile carrier to complete the bucc for nuclear deterrent.
10- OR-330 scrapped, OR-336 (= EE P.10) are for recon only (British Blackbird!)
11- ER-103C (AkA the fighter variant of the Fairey Delta II) replace the Hunter
12- Vickers VC-7 is funded by the RAF as transport (and later tanker). Civil variant is a success, smashing the 707.
13- Rotodyne developed into a powerful tactical transport for the Army, RN...
14- More Short Belfast are ordered.
15- HS-681 also become operational (along the Belfast and Rotodyne)
16- To replace the Gibraltar, Eagle and Ark Royal, CVA-01 become a cooperative program with France
17- Bombcorde replace the Victor as stand-off missile platform
18- Blackburn P.141 complete the ER-103C as long range interceptor in the 70's
19- Development of the Blue Dolphin SARH to arm them.
20- The Space program keep on after 1969 (later merged into Arianespace)
21- Hawker P.1216 replace the Harrier GR.3 in 1986.
22- The Hawk become a tri-service aircraft (GB+France+Germany)

(Harrier, Tornado, Typhoon programs are unchanged )

[B777LR]

23 boeing wins JSF
24 F-23 wins ADF
25 Airbus goes bankrupt
26 a second soviet naval GB

[Archibald]

25 Airbus goes bankrupt

Don't worry for airbus!!!  

[P1127]

Not to argue, but:

2- building the gibraltar carriers in 1945

With what ?- Post-war no money left (we only finished paying our war debts to the US this year!

3- Merge the 14 different aircraft makers  in 3 groups right from 1948

Then we may have stifled or lost the talents of certain ones (Petter for example)

4- Make the hunter the ONLY day fighter

Except as Swift was the first choice, and Hunter the back up, we would have been stuck with Swifts.....

5- Make the vixen the only  FAW (both RN and RAF)

I can possibly agree with that!!

6- Make the victor the only V-bomber

Not Vulcan? Could Victor have carried two or more Skybolts?

7- Avon, Conway, Medway/Spey are the way to go (NO other military engines)

No Olympus, Viper or Pegasus?

8- After 1958 : The Bucc is the low level bomber (no TSR-2, sorry!)

Do I detect a fishhead bias here? :-)

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

Vulcan had better ground clearance.....

17- Bombcorde replace the Victor as stand-off missile platform

In spite of the fanciful RAFYB drawings, Concorde's airframe would have needed massive re-design to be a bomber

[Archibald]

Not to argue, but:

2- building the gibraltar carriers in 1945

With what ?- Post-war no money left (we only finished paying our war debts to the US this year!

3- Merge the 14 different aircraft makers  in 3 groups right from 1948

Then we may have stifled or lost the talents of certain ones (Petter for example)

4- Make the hunter the ONLY day fighter

Except as Swift was the first choice, and Hunter the back up, we would have been stuck with Swifts.....

5- Make the vixen the only  FAW (both RN and RAF)

I can possibly agree with that!!

6- Make the victor the only V-bomber

Not Vulcan? Could Victor have carried two or more Skybolts?

7- Avon, Conway, Medway/Spey are the way to go (NO other military engines)

No Olympus, Viper or Pegasus?

8- After 1958 : The Bucc is the low level bomber (no TSR-2, sorry!)

Do I detect a fishhead bias here? :-)

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

Vulcan had better ground clearance.....

17- Bombcorde replace the Victor as stand-off missile platform

In spite of the fanciful RAFYB drawings, Concorde's airframe would have needed massive re-design to be a bomber

Here we go for the answers

First, I understand there was no money available, but we are in whatif world. GB really needed the Gibraltar, they were bigger, more recent (angled deck retrofitted just like the Essex and Midway ). And why not a Midway-like carier, lasting until the 90's ?

Concerning the merging... it an awful task I agree. But you can't stand 14 firms in the jet age.
I'm open to all suggestion in this subject, I honestly can't imagine what british firm would have been merged with another. But I think that small firms such as SARO, Gloster, Supermarine and some others must have stopped making aircraft, and become sub contractors (I know, that's cruel!!! But this happened to Bleriot, Farman and many others in France...)

Didn't know for the Swift. But you must recognize that the Swift was crap, when the Hunter was a marvel...

I'm a Vulcan fan, but aparently  the Victor was superior in key areas, for example range and weapon load... This despite a more conventional form...

Hmm concerning the engines, my idea was for the 50's. I mean, you have the Conway, Olympus, Gyron... if you look at the Hawker P.1121 (vast family) for example, the plane had versions with the three engines!!!
Same thing for the Avon and Saphire...
I have no grief against the viper
And of course we still need the Pegasus (it was a derivative of the Orpheus no ? Or am I totally wrong ?)

And Buccs for the RAF 10 years before would have avoided much pain...

As all airliners!!! They have the same range/ load/ height as bombers, but this is not sufficient. digging a bomb bay into an iarliner is a bad idea. But I just love the idea of a concorde bomber...  

[rallymodeller]

First, I understand there was no money available, but we are in whatif world. GB really needed the Gibraltar, they were bigger, more recent (angled deck retrofitted just like the Essex and Midway ). And why not a Midway-like carier, lasting until the 90's ?

Minor technical point: The angled-deck was a British invention -- the Americans copied the idea for the Essex and Midway carriers. The RN was the first navy to fit an angled-deck to a carrier.

4- Make the hunter the ONLY day fighter

And STILL not as good as a Sabre Mk 6! <ducks>

[Archibald]

Yep, perfectly right. Good article in Le Fana, january 2000.
Aparently the RN was reluctant to the idea, so the -desperate- technicians asked help to the USN which... painted an angled deck on the Essex carrier Antietam. Later another Essex was modified with an angled fligt deck... before the Ark Royal.
I have to check the article for the exact story...

This thread was an atempt to sumarize some scattered ideas we talked about over the weeks... had all of these been achieved in real-world, RN RAF and British aerospace industry would have been in abetter shape than today...  

[RLBH]

I'm a Vulcan fan, but aparently the Victor was superior in key areas, for example range and weapon load... This despite a more conventional form...

IIRC, one of the Handley Page staff (designer? test pilot?) said that, with the same thrust, the Victor was better performing than the Vulcan, but Avro cheated because the Vulcan always had more powerful engines.

[Shasper]

Victor B.2 had Blue Steele capability, with the missile mounted semi recessed into the weaps bay (with a folded fin IIRC), Reason the Vic was killed off was it couldnt carry the Skybolt ALBM in sufficient numbers (this is debatible as HP had designs for a 4-6 skybolt slingin' Vic).


Shas B)

[mrdj]

I'll have a go. I love a thread that makes one think, and dig in the library. Some really though-provoking ideas in this one. Thank you.

As was mentioned, finances would be an issue. I don't think you would get the whole list.

1. Turboprop development was slow, and probably would have dragged out long enough that service entry would be the same as the V-bobmers. A waste of time, money and effort.

2. Financially demanding, but a good investment in the future.

3. In my opinion, the British Industry was held back by the various governments, and meddling politicians  with pet projects and ideas created a negative impact on the industry that is still being felt. Unsuccessful firms will fold or be absorbed, don't force it, let it run the course.

4. I agree with the concept. A competition to select a single type is a better way to go. Whether or not it would be the Hunter..... Hunter F.1s were plagued by problems (range, engines cutting out when the guns fired) The Swift may well have taken it.

5. All behind this one.

6. See #4

7. Why stifle an industry? Especially one as innovative as British gas turbines.

8. Sadly, I can support it.


10. Still like the Avro 730. Recce would be a more lasting role, picking out targets for the Blue Streak.

11. P.1154. I could also see a  P.1121.


13. ...and BEA

14.  

15. I don't see the point here. It fits between the Belfast and Rotodyne, but is less efficient than either. I'd skip it

16. Even better if it is delayed until the '70s. The Gibralters can carry on a few years longer than the Audacious class.

17. Don't know about that one

18. If the Fairey Delta III is introduced, you could hold off replacements untill the Tornado. (or whatever the industry comes up with after much more experience)

21. The P.1154 probably wouldn't need replacing for a few years. The P.1216 would probably be even better with the knowledge gained from RAF and RN service.

22. The Hawk seems fine just the way it is. Getting more people involved in a project slows it down, and dilutes the effectiveness for the customers, if it os completed. (death by comittee)


Where do you see the Lightning in all this?

[Howard of Effingham]

6- Make the victor the only V-bomber

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

hmm, excellent ideas!  

mind you the victor B2 was a blue steel carrier eventually, sure you don't mean
the type being a blue steel mk2 carrier?

trevor

[Archibald]

I re-print my list (not easy to switch to the beginning of the thread to check the numbers)
Glad you enjoy this thread!!!
1- Vickers type C heavy bomber is developped .(later variant with Proteus, interim type waiting THE v-bomber
2- building the gibraltar carriers in 1945
3- Merge the 14 different aircraft makers in 3 groups right from 1948
4- Make the hunter the ONLY day fighter
5- Make the vixen the only FAW (both RN and RAF)
6- Make the victor the only V-bomber
7- Avon, Conway, Medway/Spey are the way to go (NO other military engines)
8- After 1958 : The Bucc is the low level bomber (no TSR-2, sorry!)
9- The Victor receive the Blue Steel (later mk2) becoming a standoff missile carrier to complete the bucc for nuclear deterrent.
10- OR-330 scrapped, OR-336 (= EE P.10) are for recon only (British Blackbird!)
11- ER-103C (AkA the fighter variant of the Fairey Delta II) replace the Hunter
12- Vickers VC-7 is funded by the RAF as transport (and later tanker). Civil variant is a success, smashing the 707.
13- Rotodyne developed into a powerful tactical transport for the Army, RN...
14- More Short Belfast are ordered.
15- HS-681 also become operational (along the Belfast and Rotodyne)
16- To replace the Gibraltar, Eagle and Ark Royal, CVA-01 become a cooperative program with France
17- Bombcorde replace the Victor as stand-off missile platform
18- Blackburn P.141 complete the ER-103C as long range interceptor in the 70's
19- Development of the Blue Dolphin SARH to arm them.
20- The Space program keep on after 1969 (later merged into Arianespace)
21- Hawker P.1216 replace the Harrier GR.3 in 1986.
22- The Hawk become a tri-service aircraft (GB+France+Germany)

VICTOR
it seem the Victor was better than the vulcan. So it become the only V-bomber.
Phase 1 = Blue Danube / Yellow Sun free fall bombs.
Phase 2 = Blue Steel mk1 (as in real world, in 39 sq if I remember well,, but also plenty others)
Phase 3 = Blue Steel mk2

Well that how I'll see the V-bomber force (more rational : the best performing aircraft of the three, with a long range stand off cruise missile)

AVRO 730
OR-330 and OR-336 : why the P.10 instead of the 730 ? simply because of the
SR-71!  We all know that the nuclear bombing mission ended with the ICBM circa 1960. But speed and heigt were still useful for recon... if you can survive the Soviets SAMs!
Aparently, a mach3+ speed and 75000 ft+ ceiling allowed an aircraft to dodge SAMs (4000 SAMs were fired against SR-71s...).
Well among all the OR-330 projects, the P.10 has the closest performances towards the SR-71. Had the 730 beeing changed into a recon aircraft, its Mach 2.5 and 70 000 ft ceiling would have been too close to SAMs...
The P.10 had much better performances because, as the SR-71 it used ramjet technology (not pure turbojet like the 730 or...B-70)

ENGINES
Considering the gas turbine industry, I just think that their was too much engines (but this debatable) projects, development and constructors.

MACH2 FIGHTERS
No use for the Lightning (too short range, too specialised),
the P.1121 is a brand new machine maybe too expensive and too long to develop. what I like in the
ER-103C is it similarity to the Mirage III (not french narrow minded, just consider it export success) combined with the superiority  of British weapon systems,AAM and engines toward the french one (SNECMA and Thompson products were crap at the time)
The Delta III would have been an incredible machine (just ask Zen) but it would have been very expensive to develop, with reduced export orders... just like the TSR-2 after him. But your idea is interesting, the plane had so much power that it could have fulfill plenties of roles... something to dig! But I really prefer ER-103C
No P.1154! This would have been a maintenance and operational nightmare (hot gases circulation at take off would have been a problem, as vibrations (fatigue structure would have been a problem because of high vibrations due to the PCBs, that's why the P.1216 was a twin-boom aircraft).

15 HS-681 coud have been useful, carrying heavy loads to advanced airfields were the Belfast could have not landed.

16 Your idea is ok, and if we start in the 70's, we can have the CDG much earlier (PH-75 was the first draft project leading to the french carrier we know today, so why not ? France would have two identical carriers, and they would be similar to GB. Five carriers for Europe! ^_^  )

17 I dream of heavy bombers to replace the V-force (but also for France). No other country in europe can afford heavy bombers... but concorde is a cooperative program between France and GB. Very tempting to change it into a kind of European B-1 in the 70's.



17

[seavixen]

5- Make the vixen the only  FAW (both RN and RAF)

6- Make the victor the only V-bomber

5. Hell yes!!

6. No way, the Vulcan has to be the sole V bomber!

[Archibald]

I think that the debate Victor Vs Vulcan is going to be hot...

Reading BSP again, the story of the Sea Vixen is really an incredible  waste of time! If I understand well, the RN went totally nut with its naval FAW program     :dum:

- In 1947, the RAF and RN both ask three prototypes of the DH-110 (after a fierce competition with Fairey for the RN a,d gloster for the RAF). Very well!!!
- BUT in late 1949, the RN switch to Fairey for technicals reasons. Nope, the RAF still love the Vixen. BUT...
- Farnborough (september 1952) awful crash disgust the RAF of the DH-110! Gloster is back with the Javelin...
- Fairey has now to produce the naval FAW.
- BUT After many iterations (1 or 2 engines ?) the RN cancell the program!!!! Fairey is furious (for 18 month, they followed the advices of the RN... for nothing!!!)and warn that a new competition (N-114T) would end in disaster. No one listen them...
- N-114 T is launched and end in disaster... all projects are too heavy and underpowered.  :dum:
- The Sea Venom is declared interim (and urgent) replacement of the obsolete Sea Hornets.
- now, what replacement for the Sea Venom ? Eeerh the DH-116, a Venom cockpit with a conventional fuselage.
- De Havilland acept but recognize quickly  that they had too much workload...
- So the DH-110 is back!
- But the sole prototype flying is not a naval aircraft (hell, it was the former RAF prototype... cancelled in favor of the Javelin   ... naval prototypes to be built in 1947 had been cancelled by the RN in 1949 in favor of fairey!!! )
- A third, naval prototype fly in 1955...
- but it is not the operational variant, which fly only in march 1957...
- ... and enter service in 1959.

End of the game... but the plane was now obsolete!!!  :dum: They've lost 6 years

[mrdj]

AVRO 730
OR-330 and OR-336 : why the P.10 instead of the 730 ? simply because of the
SR-71! We all know that the nuclear bombing mission ended with the ICBM circa 1960. But speed and heigt were still useful for recon... if you can survive the Soviets SAMs!
Aparently, a mach3+ speed and 75000 ft+ ceiling allowed an aircraft to dodge SAMs (4000 SAMs were fired against SR-71s...).
Well among all the OR-330 projects, the P.10 has the closest performances towards the SR-71. Had the 730 beeing changed into a recon aircraft, its Mach 2.5 and 70 000 ft ceiling would have been too close to SAMs...
The P.10 had much better performances because, as the SR-71 it used ramjet technology (not pure turbojet like the 730 or...B-70)

The 730 is more likely to develop into an working aircraft. While the P.10 may have had better performance in theory, a lot of the technology was un proven. As radical looking as the 730 was, it was going to get into service far sooner than an aircraft with ramjet wings and flick-out extensions.

No P.1154! This would have been a maintenance and operational nightmare (hot gases circulation at take off would have been a problem, as vibrations (fatigue structure would have been a problem because of high vibrations due to the PCBs, that's why the P.1216 was a twin-boom aircraft).

The P.1154 was the biggest missed opportunity in the postwar. Other projects had similar projects in other countries, but the stovl developments in the UK in the early 60's were well ahead of everyone. They had a chance to set the standard, but passed it over. Consider the sucess of the Harrier I.(RAF, RN, India, Spain USMC, Thailand)  Had HS been selling a supersonic version with better load and range, fighter operations would have been very different today, in most countries.

If you want a new bomber for the 60's, beef ups the TSR.2. (SSR.2?)


I still don't like the 681. Maybye as a STOL tactical transport, but the VTOL aspect is a waste of time, especially with a fleet of rotodynes.