Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had

[PR19_Kit]

Fairey Battle, Fulmar etc ? Rather unfair to judge them with hindsight in my opinion. You need to try and put your self into the minds of the people at the time. What were the expected requirements, what were the planned operational procedures/tactics, what were the opposition expected to do ; indeed who were they expected to be ?

Very, very few things survive the first shock of war. Then the problem is that you haven't the time and/or resources to sort out those failures which could be sorted out with a little bit of development.

It's all to easy to condemn from a safe distance

But we're doing ALL this thread with hindsight.

And that hindsight shows us that the Battle wasn't the ideal aircraft for the tasks it was given. OK, so the primary problem was with their Air Lordships for sending them, but there were better aircraft available.

[NARSES2]

People are very, very entitled to their opinions mate. I just feel that sometimes we (me included  ) should take a short time to consider before hitting the keyboard  

For those interested in this subject I can thoroughly recommend "Back to the Drawing Board - aircraft that flew but never took off" by Bill Gunston.

There are some superb examples of Aviation's epic failures in there from the beginning through to the Rockwell XFV-12

[NARSES2]

Fairey Battle, Fulmar etc ? Rather unfair to judge them with hindsight in my opinion. You need to try and put your self into the minds of the people at the time. What were the expected requirements, what were the planned operational procedures/tactics, what were the opposition expected to do ; indeed who were they expected to be ?

Very, very few things survive the first shock of war. Then the problem is that you haven't the time and/or resources to sort out those failures which could be sorted out with a little bit of development.

It's all to easy to condemn from a safe distance

But we're doing ALL this thread with hindsight.

And that hindsight shows us that the Battle wasn't the ideal aircraft for the tasks it was given. OK, so the primary problem was with their Air Lordships for sending them, but there were better aircraft available.

I don't disagree Kit as long as it's hindsight with aforethought it's just to easy to pull a name out of the hat so to speak. Someone has to defend the poor things 

The Battle was a reasonable Hart replacement and would have done a good job keeping the native's heads down on the NW Frontier or in Iraq. Unfortunately when it came to Northern France it wasn't up to it. Nor was much else be it due to poor design/development or procedures/tactics.

I've often wondered how the Hawker Henley would have performed in the Battle's role during 1940 ? A better aircraft ? Almost certainly but the tactics, enforced to some extent, and lack of air cover would have still seen it shot out of the sky.

[The Wooksta!]

The GD(your choice as to the meaning of that) F111

We never got it anyway - doesn't count.

[DarrenP]

wooksta
I think we should have kept the phantom or bought more J's as opposed to getting Tornado F3

[Martin H]

TSR.2

very dangerous ground there Mossie 

you might fine one of these  handy when you are around some members of the SIG

There, I've said it.  It shouldn't have been built in the first place, but once it was we should have followed it through.

Although there is a fair bit of merit with your last sentence.

[pyro-manic]

This might be a touch controversial, but at least one of the V-bombers. Three different aircraft for the same role could be seen as rather wasteful, and a poor use of limited resources. Not to mention running the Sperrin development programme on top. Cut one of them out, and you free up a lot of budget for other projects - perhaps more timely Sea Vixen deployment, and subsequent developments (Lightning replacement, or a British carrier fighter instead of the Phantom)?

I'm not too bothered about the Tornado F.3 - sure, it was dull and uninteresting, but it did the job. It was never meant to be a fighter, and it wasn't. But as an interceptor it did just fine.

If the Phantoms had been looked after properly they would have lasted much longer.

Moving right up to date, the F-35. Too big to fail, and all that, but the whole project is ridiculous. Heads should have rolled and contracts been cancelled years ago.

[jcf]

The big problem regarding Peregrine and Vulture was less technical than logistical, more types
were using the Merlin therefore more production capacity was required to produce Merlins. If there
had been a critical requirement for either Peregrine or Vulture, then a solution would have
been found, as it was neither engine type was critical. The decision to drop both was sound, especially
as Peregrine was the end product of an older design - the 'F'/Kestrel, Vulture was overly complex,
and Griffon was already in the offing, and it was a much simpler path to a 2,000hp engine.

[sandiego89]

I'll throw one more out for consideration- Jaguar.  Did the UK really need both Jaguar AND Harrier?  Similar capability.

Mentioning the the Phantom and TSR2 on here?  Brave men indeed     

[DarrenP]

Similar capability but slightly different concepts of operations.
Would rather have had jaguar in ground attack role than Tornado attempting to do it.

[DarrenP]

Argosy C1
Belvedere Helicopter

[kitbasher]

Okay.....

So yes there's nothing but 'benefit of hindsight' going on in this thread, but that is inescapable.  And on that basis here is the vote of the Kitbasher jury:

TSR.2 - contentious indeed and I will go as far as to suggest that, yes it could have been procured but frankly I'm convinced it would not have been the wonderplane everyone reckons it would have been.  Also I think in-service operating and support costs would have been so high that it would have been a very easy target for the traditionally parsimonious MOD during successive defence reductions.

Very handsome machine (and an example of the British early 60s 'white heat of technology'); don't get me wrong, but with the benefit of hindsight (even 60's hindsight) their Airships were as blinkered by the sexiness of supersonics as their USAF cousins.  Had they not been then the RAF's natural Canberra replacement in the mid-60s would have been the Buccaneer.

Economies of scale, development potential, etc, could have resulted in the Bucc seeing wider service than was actually the case.

Oh, and in the end the Bucc did replace the Canberra in the RAF, just 10 or so years too late!

So the RAF should have joined in with the RN, ditched the TSR.2 early in its development and gone, as suggested, with the Buccaneer.  In terms of any defence project/procurement, there's a national industrial/employment/trade aspect that procurement of the Buccaneer would have additionally satisfied these UK plc interests. Would the TSR.2 have done so to the same extent? We'll never know, of course.

[royabulgaf]

Interesting idea, Kitbasher.  The B-58 and F-111 were broadly similar designs to the TSR2, and had protracted development or were hangar queens.  An earlier RAF Buccaneer could have lead to perhaps, a thin wing second generation Buc, or maybe the Jaguar as a serious two service attack craft, with no real pretense as a transonic trainer. 

[PR19_Kit]

The whole point about the Buccs thick wings were that it could handle the heavy gust issues at ultra-low levels that it operated at. If they were thinner it'd have had to fly higher thus losing it's major advantage over the more conventional opposition.

Check with Red Flag F-15 pilots on the latter subject....... 

[kitbasher]

Ah the Jaguar. In my alternative RAF I feel a license-built A-7 Corsair would have been the RAF's bomb truck instead of the Jaguar.  I think there's an inevitability about the Jaguar given the political/industrial climate of the 60s. It wasn't a bad aircraft - maybe just developed to its full potential.  At the end of its RAF life it got the uprated Adours it'd so needed for so long and a big-wing version (as touted in the 80s I recall) would have provided the extra stores pylons it needed.

Ideally then the Corsair IHMO but the Jaguar was always going to happen, I'd suggest.

Mind you, Corsair in the RAF and not in the FAA (because the Bucc was in service)? Maybe that alone would have been enough to guarantee the Jaguar!