22 ideas (and missed opportunities)

[Zen]

Lets have a look.
1 fine.
2 No money, however a third Audacious class CV (the orriginal Eagle) was 27% completed when she too was scapped, much scope for a three CV fleet based on these ships.
3 Good idea.
4 OK though the Swift was an execellent low level machine
5 very good idea
6 No the Valient as Victor was the last V-bomber to enter service, simpler to just develope Vickers Valient instead and its quicker into service.
7 Nope, make it two engine manufacturers, I'd opt for Armstrong Whitworth and RR.
8 good idea. Shame the RAF opposed it at every opportunity
9 Valient variant.
10 Possible
11 I'd prefer a variant of the SR177, jet only powered by the RB.106 "Thames"
12 Agreed
13 too noisy
14 definately, transport, civil, tanker maybe and AEW.
15 as a CTOL machine
16 Too big, stick to a 45,000ton Cv instead closer to the PA.58 "Verdun" class planned in France.
17 No real need, EE P10 can perform some bombing.
18 yes
19 perfer the scaled Red Hebe
20 not easy
21 PCB is too problematic
22 difficult

[Archibald]

Considering the point 22 (Hawk) I think about that because of the Jaguar (which was to be an anglo-french supersonic trainer).
Here's my plan : no jaguar at all (no use, the Harrier is already a good CAS platform).
France, GB and Germany agree on a subsonic trainer. Was the number of engines a problem ? I mean, the fact that the Jag had two engines was aparently not a problem... but  the Hawk has a single engine when the Alpha Jet has two...  
After all, why not trying a tri service trainer ? But I agree, cooperation would have been very, very difficult...

Carriers really rose many problems. Audacious ? Malta ? CVA-01 ? cooperation with France (or not ?)

VSTOL Hawkers...

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.

The P.1154 was too early, there's nothing to regret. Fundamentaly, the idea of PCB (or supersonic VSTOL using this technology) was not so bad, but the technology was not mature.
A subsonic machine was of course limited to ground attack (albeit the Sea Harrier performed quite well in the A2A role) but it was much more reasonable for a first operational experience of VSTOL aircraft.
20 more years were necessary to mature this technology  and this led to the Hawker P.1216...
Mind you, the P.1216 is a derivative of the P.1205 project, which was more or less an upgraded P.1154 (circa 1978 or so).
But they found that the basic configuration (four nozzles ala Harrier + PCB+ conventional layout Ie single fuselage/ tail) was not well adopted (too much noise and vibrations cracking the metal at long term).
That's why they went for this peculiar twin-boom layout... waiting 20 more years would have allowed the P.1216 having a turbofan instead of the
turbojet BS-100, reducing fuel consumption...
No, the missed oportunity was really the P.1216, particularly at the light of this damned JSF... Lockheed has managed the perfect holdup on Harrier replacement, and I think its really a pity for GB which opened the way with the Harrier...

[mrdj]

and I think its really a pity for GB which opened the way with the Harrier...

Here we agree, the British had a substantial lead, and slowly gave it up.

Most Whiff concepts are based on an instant in time. Once you start down an alternate path, the possibilities become infinite.

Starting with the P.1127, the UK was out in front, but it was just a test article. The P.1154 was the practical application of the technology. When P.1154 was cancelled, the Harrier was developed from Kestrel, into a simplified war machine. Had p.1154 been developed, the ammount of knowledge and experience gained from the program (good and bad) would lead to a new generation of STOVL in the 70's and 80's that would be as advanced as any concepts dreamed up during the 80's, and the concepts even more advanced still.


Even in limited service, the P.1154 would have catapulted the UK industry so far ahead in STOVL, they would have been able to alter air warfare concepts (and civillian) dramatically.


As for the Hawk, if other nations wanted to buy or liscence it, great. But the Hawk is a fantastic sucess just as it is. Adding Dassault and MBB design criterea to it could do very little good. (much less what two more boards of directors and two extra governments would do)

[Archibald]

this is another way of making whatif  I understand you mean that the P.1154 could have been a techlogical locomotive for GB...
Guys, here's the 23rd missed opportunity  ^_^ : the Miles M52 (I know there has been an hot debate recently on the subject)

What about the Nimrod AEW ? how did it ended in failure ? technical, political, or financial reasons ?

[jcf]

Here we agree, the British had a substantial lead, and slowly gave it up.

To whom? Aside from the Harrier/Harrier II and the Yaks nobody has bothered much with STOVL...if it was the s**t-hot idea you think it was then we'd have been inundated with aircraft across the full spectrum of possible types. Its nice in specialized cases, but in general it is a concept of limited utility that requires far too many design compromises.

Cheers, Jon

[mrdj]

The Harrier and Yak-38 were the only successful STOVL aircraft. The list of Failures covers most countries.

VAK-191       Germany
F-109            USA
FV-12A          USA
Balzac           France
VJ-101C        Germany
Avrocar         Canada
zero length launches of US and Soviet fighters.
etc...
Many other countries worked on projects that never flew

Numerous high performance helicopters like the Cheyenne and Ka-50 have tried to move past traditional helicopter performance, and keep VTOL

Various projects such as Jaguar and Viggen also tried to remove dependance on runways.

Current projects like the X-50 and JSF are still moving in this direction.

It is a good idea that gives a air arm flexibility in how to deploy assets. Many airforces have sought VTOL capabilities.

Just because the British and Soviets were the ones to make it practical, doesn't mean everyone else didn't want it, and try to get it.  

[GTX]

Wasn't the X-50 recently cancelled?

Regards,

Greg

[jcf]

The Harrier and Yak-38 were the only successful STOVL aircraft. The list of Failures covers most countries.

VAK-191       Germany
F-109            USA
FV-12A          USA
Balzac           France
VJ-101C        Germany
Avrocar         Canada
zero length launches of US and Soviet fighters.
etc...
Many other countries worked on projects that never flew

Numerous high performance helicopters like the Cheyenne and Ka-50 have tried to move past traditional helicopter performance, and keep VTOL

Various projects such as Jaguar and Viggen also tried to remove dependance on runways.

Current projects like the X-50 and JSF are still moving in this direction.

It is a good idea that gives a air arm flexibility in how to deploy assets. Many airforces have sought VTOL capabilities.

Just because the British and Soviets were the ones to make it practical, doesn't mean everyone else didn't want it, and try to get it.

I'm well aware of the multiplicity of projects...its a subject of particular personal interest, and the list of dead-ends makes my point.

The airfield indepence reasoning is a left-over from Cold War planning for a European land war...didn't happen and if it had, having STOVL/VTOL aircraft would have made little difference.

The X-50 program has been terminated due to control problems...both prototypes crashed.

As to "practicality" you're stretching the definition by including the Yak-38.

[Archibald]

This is NOT the VTOL thread debate here guys!  

Do you see other missed opportunities ?

The Space program is another waste... it worked well, prospero was launched correctly, but program ended the same week...  :dum:
As France, GB could not have kept on alone (that why arianespace was created after the Europa disastrous program). But well Ariane become available only in the early 80's, so national launchers could have survived until the mid-70's or so (see Diamant in France, last lauch circa 1975).

[Captain Canada]

Where's the Arrow ?

 

[Archibald]

And the Mirage 4000 ?

[RLBH]

What about the Nimrod AEW ? how did it ended in failure ? technical, political, or financial reasons ?

A bit of everything, really. The radar concept had been produced for the RN to use on a carrierborne AEW 'plane, which got cancelled due to the lack of carriers. When the RAF started looking to get AEW aircraft, someone or other decided that it was a better idea to use an unproven, innovative British radar than to fit the E-2C radar system to a Nimrod. Yes, this was proposed.

However, the development of the radar proved more difficult than expected, and it became very difficult - and of course expensive - to get it all working, and then get it all into the relatively small Nimrod. In the end, the entire bomb bay was filled with oil coolers, and the fuel tanks had to be used as heat sinks to prevent the electronics overheating and doing unpleasant things. This meant that the radars wouldn't work if there was less than a certain amount of fuel on board, which of course did Bad Things for the mission endurance. Even when they were working, performance wasn't quite what they'd wanted from it, because of the efforts to cram it all into too small a space.

IMHO, what they needed was a bigger airframe to mount it all on - I like the VC7 for this job. Incidentally, you can't use the radar system developed for the Nimrod AEW on a propellor-driven aircraft; apparently, the reflections off the props cause interesting interference patterns...

[XV107]

2- building the gibraltar carriers in 1945

Financially difficult - but not impossible if the Audacious class (i..e Ark & Eagle) are cancelled instead, with the Gib class (doubtless renamed) entering service at the same time as the actual Ark & Eagle did. Or, abandon all plans for modernisation of Victorious et al, and build three (or even four) Gib class ships with service entry staggered between 1950 and 1955.


4- Make the hunter the ONLY day fighter

Swift's poor performance as a fighter wasn't predictable, and given the desire to get swept wing fighters into service, having two was understandable. However, in my warped little whif world, the first RAF swept wing fighter is the Sabre F1 of 1950, followed by the Hunter F1 in 1953. (Supermarine's design expertise being put into creating a large swept wing naval fighter bomber for service entry to coincide with the new carriers in (2) above). End result of the xv107 scheme is an RAF with Hunters and F-86H by the end of the 1950s.


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

Again, not impossible. The RAF's fixation with supersonic speed is an issue, of course, but it isn't entirely implausible to imagine that the ideas floating around that 'the RN does the ships, the RAF does the aircraft' that some RN types had at the time appeal to the RAF, which engineers the aqcuisition of the FAA under RAF control, taking the Bucc with it. The perceived advantages to the RAF of regaining control of all maritime air assets would outweigh the speed of the TSR 2. However, initiating a TSR2 like development programme (slower time, reduced costs) in the mid-60s might be on if this happens (but TSR2 enters service in mid 1970s)


14- More Short Belfast are ordered.

... reaching their destinations just before the crew succumbs to scurvy. I think 'RAF buys C-141 so journey time measured without aid of calandar' is more likely...

16- To replace the Gibraltar, Eagle and Ark Royal, CVA-01 become a cooperative program with France

Given the size of the Gib class, CVA01 wouldn't have been required when it was envisaged. Whether the end of the East of Suez commitment means nothing at all, or whether or not the fact that there's no expensive carrier programme (nor, adding point ( above to this, an expensive TSR programme either) means that the pressure on defence spending means that East of Suez via maritime power projection (carriers instead of bases in Singapore, etc) is on is an interesting thought.

[Archibald]

What about the Nimrod AEW ? how did it ended in failure ? technical, political, or financial reasons ?

A bit of everything, really. The radar concept had been produced for the RN to use on a carrierborne AEW 'plane, which got cancelled due to the lack of carriers. When the RAF started looking to get AEW aircraft, someone or other decided that it was a better idea to use an unproven, innovative British radar than to fit the E-2C radar system to a Nimrod. Yes, this was proposed.

However, the development of the radar proved more difficult than expected, and it became very difficult - and of course expensive - to get it all working, and then get it all into the relatively small Nimrod. In the end, the entire bomb bay was filled with oil coolers, and the fuel tanks had to be used as heat sinks to prevent the electronics overheating and doing unpleasant things. This meant that the radars wouldn't work if there was less than a certain amount of fuel on board, which of course did Bad Things for the mission endurance. Even when they were working, performance wasn't quite what they'd wanted from it, because of the efforts to cram it all into too small a space.

IMHO, what they needed was a bigger airframe to mount it all on - I like the VC7 for this job. Incidentally, you can't use the radar system developed for the Nimrod AEW on a propellor-driven aircraft; apparently, the reflections off the props cause interesting interference patterns...

So that's now 24 ideas instead of 22... add the Miles M52 at 4- and the Nimrod AEW circa 23...
Just after posting the question on the Nimrod I browsed it on google. Exactly what you described, the airframe was too little and old. That why I thought about the VC-10, too (more bigger and recent). But of course, in our scenario here, it is not the VC-10 but the VC-7  ^_^

Hmm the VC-7 was basically a VC-10 with Comet-like mounted engines (on the wing roots). Just imagine a VC-7 with the enormous bulbous of the Nimrod AEW...

2- building the gibraltar carriers in 1945

Financially difficult - but not impossible if the Audacious class (i..e Ark & Eagle) are cancelled instead, with the Gib class (doubtless renamed) entering service at the same time as the actual Ark & Eagle did. Or, abandon all plans for modernisation of Victorious et al, and build three (or even four) Gib class ships with service entry staggered between 1950 and 1955.

Here's an alternate scenario... the Ark Royal had been started early in the war at a time when raw materials where missing or bad qualities. That's why the ship was in poor shape very quickly... now the Eagle was in better shape.
So
scrap the  Ark Royal and the older carriers (salvo the best Victorious as interim ship) ,build the Eagle. you have a two carrier navy (Eagle+ one of the victorious).  
Then build  two Gibraltar, when they enter service scrap the last victorious and modernise the Eagle. This gave three modern carriers in the mid-50's (with angled and the like... )

I like your Hunter-sabre scebario. No need for the Swift in this case... the interim fighter pending the Hunter arrival is the Sabre (and GB has only one day fighter).

14- More Short Belfast are ordered.

... reaching their destinations just before the crew succumbs to scurvy. I think 'RAF buys C-141 so journey time measured without aid of calandar' is more likely...

Scurvy ? file-404 on this word... French air force still use Transall and Hercules for long range cargo, despite these aircrafts beeing tactical, turboprops transports. The Belfast was bigger and quicker than these two, so what the problem ?
Well, if you need to go quicker, you have the VC-7s... no need for the C-141!!!

[Zen]

Malta was doomed from the start. To many changes, open hanger to enclosed, then 50ft cut off, then dropped with a big sigh because it was simpler to start with a clean sheet of paper.

The next big carrier is the '1952' CV dropped in '54, then the most likely to have been built was the 'Medium Fleet CV' but its ordering date was set for 1957, after Suez.


Nimrod AEW biggest problem was not the engineering or electronics. It was the management, and requirements. They where too open ended, leading the project away from achievable and affordable goals.

Hawkers had a neat reheated fighter derived from the SeaHawk on offer that should have been explored IMO.

Black Prince was the follow on idea for a launcher, marrying stages from Blue Steak with other rockets.