Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had

chiglet · July 20, 2014, 04:33:14 PM

Hoo dear, can of worms here,
Tornado. Didn't need it. Bucc carried more, further and cheaper.
Phantom. F4e was the "realistic" choice... re engine F4B/Ds were wot we got
Harrier/Jag subtle difference in spec
EE Lightning, a "victim" of Polotic [ian] s It was more advanced than the TSR2, but didn't get any "serious" funding
Hunter/Swift debacle... obvious follow on was the f100
V Bombers. ALL the prototypes were research tools. the jet engine was yet to be proved, same with swept wings..
Ain't hind sight wunnerfull

PR19_Kit · July 20, 2014, 05:05:25 PM

This is trending more and more toward the 'Why didn't we buy US aircraft?' direction....

Because we're BRITISH, that's why!

rickshaw · July 20, 2014, 05:27:41 PM

Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 20, 2014, 05:05:25 PM
This is trending more and more toward the 'Why didn't we buy US aircraft?' direction....

Because we're BRITISH, that's why!

And you wanted to keep British pounds sterling in the UK paying British workers' wages?

Nothing wrong with that. I think the best thing the RAF could have done would have been to blow up Whitehall and the House of Commons. It would have stopped the Politicians interfering!

More seriously though, a single cohesive defence strategy backed by both major parties would have removed a lot of uncertainty from the whole issue.

jcf · July 20, 2014, 06:43:57 PM

Quote from: rickshaw on July 20, 2014, 05:27:41 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 20, 2014, 05:05:25 PM
This is trending more and more toward the 'Why didn't we buy US aircraft?' direction....

Because we're BRITISH, that's why!

And you wanted to keep British pounds sterling in the UK paying British workers' wages?

Nothing wrong with that. I think the best thing the RAF could have done would have been to blow up Whitehall and the House of Commons. It would have stopped the Politicians interfering!

More seriously though, a single cohesive defence strategy backed by both major parties would have removed a lot of uncertainty from the whole issue.

... and an industry that didn't have its thumbs up its backside. The politicians and MoD were not
solely responsible for the mess that was the British aerospace industry.

PR19_Kit · July 21, 2014, 12:20:36 AM

Quote from: rickshaw on July 20, 2014, 05:27:41 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 20, 2014, 05:05:25 PM
This is trending more and more toward the 'Why didn't we buy US aircraft?' direction....

Because we're BRITISH, that's why!

And you wanted to keep British pounds sterling in the UK paying British workers' wages?

Precisely, why should we pay American aerospace worker's salaries?

Hobbes · July 21, 2014, 01:53:19 AM

Quote from: chiglet on July 20, 2014, 04:33:14 PM

EE Lightning, a "victim" of Polotic [ian] s It was more advanced than the TSR2, but didn't get any "serious" funding

uh, what? The Lightning was very fast, but its avionics were basic. Limited to simple IR air-air missiles and dumb bombs, no terrain following, little to no ECM. It also had terrible (lack of) endurance.

DarrenP · July 21, 2014, 02:00:48 AM

the F4K bought for the royal navy had to get over the size of carrier issue and the need for a faster reacting engine than the J79 which the spey did.

DarrenP · July 21, 2014, 02:03:26 AM

Quote from: Flyer on July 20, 2014, 07:42:25 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on July 20, 2014, 07:57:37 AM
Argosy C1
Belvedere Helicopter
Why not the Argosy?

Because the Hercules was a much better platform and we wasted resources buying 2 aircraft to do the same role

DarrenP · July 21, 2014, 02:05:03 AM

Quote from: Hobbes on July 21, 2014, 01:53:19 AM
Quote from: chiglet on July 20, 2014, 04:33:14 PM

EE Lightning, a "victim" of Polotic [ian] s It was more advanced than the TSR2, but didn't get any "serious" funding

uh, what? The Lightning was very fast, but its avionics were basic. Limited to simple IR air-air missiles and dumb bombs, no terrain following, little to no ECM. It also had terrible (lack of) endurance.

should have kept to the original F4K buy and replaced the lightning with phantom FG1 from the outset as well as equipping FAA with it. Like they did with 111 and 43 sqn

DarrenP · July 21, 2014, 02:16:12 AM

Quote from: chiglet on July 20, 2014, 04:33:14 PM
Hoo dear, can of worms here,
Tornado. Didn't need it. Bucc carried more, further and cheaper.
Phantom. F4e was the "realistic" choice... re engine F4B/Ds were wot we got
Harrier/Jag subtle difference in spec
EE Lightning, a "victim" of Polotic [ian] s It was more advanced than the TSR2, but didn't get any "serious" funding
Hunter/Swift debacle... obvious follow on was the f100
V Bombers. ALL the prototypes were research tools. the jet engine was yet to be proved, same with swept wings..
Ain't hind sight wunnerfull

I agree with you tornado buccaneer should have been the Interdictor.
F4E would have been a better choice for the Airforce instead of the K
Lightning Like I said we should have extended the F4K buy and replaced Lightning
would Hunter have kept going till Phantom?

PR19_Kit · July 21, 2014, 04:46:11 AM

Quote from: Flyer on July 21, 2014, 03:10:53 AM
Quote from: DarrenP on July 21, 2014, 02:03:26 AM
Quote from: Flyer on July 20, 2014, 07:42:25 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on July 20, 2014, 07:57:37 AM
Argosy C1
Belvedere Helicopter
Why not the Argosy?

Because the Hercules was a much better platform and we wasted resources buying 2 aircraft to do the same role

Forgive me if I'm wrong as I'm not British and far from full of historical knowledge but didn't think the Herc was available at the time, I thought the Argosy came first and was replaced by the Herc at a later date...

I would have thought the Beverly would have been closer to Argosy era...

The Argosy was five years ahead of the Hercules in RAF service, it joined up in 1962.

rickshaw · July 21, 2014, 05:08:02 AM

Quote from: Flyer on July 20, 2014, 07:42:25 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on July 20, 2014, 07:57:37 AM
Argosy C1
Belvedere Helicopter
Why not the Argosy?

'cause it couldn't fly very far, very fast or very high. It was a dog's breakfast by all accounts. I used to see IPEC's two which were based in Adelaide in the 1970s. Very noisy as well.

JayBee · July 21, 2014, 05:12:52 AM

As far as I remember the Argosy could carry big loads and fly long distances,...............BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME!
It used to be said that the Argosy could carry a bag of crisps (potato chips to our American brothers) for thousands of miles, but a decent load for only a couple of hundred at best.

kitbasher · July 21, 2014, 05:29:19 AM

Far less controversial (maybe) - the Shorts Belfast. Great concept (simple on paper and ticked all the political and industrial boxes) dismal execution.

The 'Belslow'. Worked them when they were with Heavylift. Remember reading somewhere that Shorts proposed a version that would have had a C-141 wing and engines (maybe not the engines, possibly something else. Now THAT would have been good.

PR19_Kit · July 21, 2014, 05:57:31 AM

Quote from: kitbasher on July 21, 2014, 05:29:19 AM
Far less controversial (maybe) - the Shorts Belfast. Great concept (simple on paper and ticked all the political and industrial boxes) dismal execution.

The 'Belslow'. Worked them when they were with Heavylift. Remember reading somewhere that Shorts proposed a version that would have had a C-141 wing and engines (maybe not the engines, possibly something else. Now THAT would have been good.

They called the early Belfasts 'Dragmasters' as they were so slow, but when the strakes were added either side of the ramp it improved them no end and then they called them 'Fastbacks'.

Nevertheless they were the RAF's largest freighters until the C-17s came along, they'd have made a heck a difference to the Falklands affair.