F-105 in RAF service mid 1960's

[chrisonord]

Why change the engines? The Orenda Iroquois was an advanced, and powerful design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orenda_Iroquois

Everyone knows that John, but we are talking about the British powers that be here, as we all know they are good at buying something out of the box right, and fiddling with it and ruining it. 
Chris

[PR19_Kit]

I'd only heard about the RB106 in passing, but looking it up on Wiki is an eye opener.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RB.106

That ruddy '57 Defence White Paper has a lot to answer for, as the damn thing would have fitted in the same space an Avon and yet would have produced TWICE the thrust! 

[jcf]

The '57 White Paper doesn't say what a lot people think it does, very little mention is made
of aircraft, and then only in the context of protecting the nuclear deterrent,
and no timeline is established for replacement:

Defence of the Deterrent
16.  Since peace so largely depends upon the deterrent fear of nuclear retaliation, it is essential that a
would-be aggressor should not be allowed to think he could readily knock out the bomber bases in Britain
before their aircraft could take off from them. The defence of the bomber airfields or rocket launching
sites is therefore an essential part of the deterrent and is, we believe, a feasible task. A manned fighter
force for this purpose will be maintained and will progressively be equipped with air-to-air
guided missiles. These fighter aircraft will in due course be replaced by a ground-to-air guided
missile system.

17.  The possibility is not being overlooked that scientific progress may eventually make it possible to devise
a means of defence even against bombardment by ballistic rockets. Research on this problem, in collaboration
with the United States, is being intensified.

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/small/cab-129-86-c-57-84-34.pdf

[Weaver]

Thanks for the info Mossie, I shall look in to that as an alternative power plant for sure. I think the aircraft will need a very British name whilst in RAF service, and also be license built by one of the aircraft establishments still around at the end of the 50's early 60's. Fairey ,Armstrong whitworth, possibly Saunders Roe, but leaning towards Fairey
Chris.

As an Avro Canada product, I'd imagine that Avro UK would be the front-runner to licence-build it here, possibly with help from the rest of the Hawker-Siddeley group. Arrow couldn't be a more British name, given our long association with longbows: it just becomes the 'Avro Arrow F.1' instead of the 'Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow'. Alternatively, how about 'Archer'?

[kitnut617]

NIHS.

Also, if the RAF had gone with the Arrow (and the '57 white paper not happened), the RB.106 would have likely been the chosen engine for the CF.105 and the Orenda wouldn't have been developed.

Actually Simon it was the other way around, the Iroquois was proposed for the TSR2 so I don't see why it wouldn't have remained as the engine for an RAF Arrow

The Arrow and TSR2 were in the design/development stage within a couple of years of each other.

Thanks for the info Mossie, I shall look in to that as an alternative power plant for sure. I think the aircraft will need a very British name whilst in RAF service, and also be license built by one of the aircraft establishments still around at the end of the 50's early 60's. Fairey ,Armstrong whitworth, possibly Saunders Roe, but leaning towards Fairey
Chris.

As an Avro Canada product, I'd imagine that Avro UK would be the front-runner to licence-build it here, possibly with help from the rest of the Hawker-Siddeley group. Arrow couldn't be a more British name, given our long association with longbows: it just becomes the 'Avro Arrow F.1' instead of the 'Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow'. Alternatively, how about 'Archer'?

Avro Canada was always a Hawker-Siddeley company, HS bought Vistory Aircraft outright from the Canadian Government even before WWII had ended. When the Arrow was cancelled, Avro Canada didn't just disappear off the map, it was still around in 2012

[chrisonord]

Avro archer does have a certain ring to it. I need to do some more homework on avro in the uk, as they  closed down round about the 60's didn't they? I will look into it as it would be more than an obvious choice if the company still existed
Chris

[kitnut617]

Don't think it was closed down Chris, just renamed. Harold (weaver) would know as he worked there --

[chrisonord]

Just had a look now, the name became defunct in 1963 according to wiki, when it was taken over by Hawker Sidley. So technically speaking it could have been built at Woodford then,which is good for me,and still be called an Avro until 1963 at least. Nice one. It shall be a northern interceptor too. Wonder if I can get some decals made of winged black puddings?
Chris

[Weaver]

Potted history of Avro:

1920 : A.V.Roe sold 2/3 of his aircraft company to Crossley Motors.

1928 : Crossley sold AVRO to Armstrong Siddeley. A.V.Roe resigned and left to co-found Saunders-Roe.

1935 : Hawker Group merged with Armstrong Siddeley, acquiring AVRO in the process.

1963 : Hawker Siddeley consolidated all it's various companies into Hawker Siddeley Aviation and stopped using the AVRO name, however the factories at Woodford and Chadderton continued and HSA retained the rights to the AVRO brand. The name was resurrected when the upgraded BAe 146 was renamed the Avro RJ and would have continued in use had the RJX gone into production.

So Avro were already part of the big Hawker Siddeley Group when they were making the Lancaster, Vulcan and 748 under their own name. Had they had another high-profile military project, such as the Arrow, to follow the Vulcan, then HSA might well have decided to keep the AVRO name on it, particularly since it was an Avro-Canada design. If that caused a capacity crisis at Woodford, then it was normal HSA practice for other group members to help out. For instance, Armstrong-Whitworth produced a lot of the 'Hawker' Sea Hawks and the 'Gloster' Meteor night-fighters.

Speaking from personal experience, Woodford was full of AVRO branding and I heard the name pretty much every day for 10 years.

On the subject of ther engines, my understanding is that the a lot of Rb.106 technology 'found it's way' into the Iroquois, so if the UK had been a firm customer from early in the program, it might have been a formal joint development.

[PR19_Kit]

A manned fighter force for this purpose will be maintained and will progressively be equipped with air-to-air
guided missiles. These fighter aircraft will in due course be replaced by a ground-to-air guided
missile system.

Those three lines on their own was enough to kibosh many of the projects then under way, especially the last sentence.

[jcf]

[quote author=Weaver link=topic=44614.msg791826#msg791826 date=1512864188
On the subject of ther engines, my understanding is that the a lot of Rb.106 technology 'found it's way' into the Iroquois, so if the UK had been a firm customer from early in the program, it might have been a formal joint development.
[/quote]

Yes and no, similar layout, however the details were very different, the Iroquois was more powerful and
pioneered the use of titanium in turbo-jets.

[chrisonord]

This build is going to be the centre piece of a three aircraft build, same squadron three different aircraft from3 different eras. The earliest being a Gloucester  meteor I have in the stash, a very old airfix kit not sure what mark it is because I can't get to it as yet. The middle aircraft is going to be the Avro Archer F.1, and the last one a BAe Typhoon painted in retro 1960's scheme and markings of the same squadron.
Should keep me quiet for a while
Chris

[PR19_Kit]

The old Airfix Meteor is an F3, with the short engines IIRC.

Not a bad kit but pretty vintage by today's standards of course.

Sounds like a good plan, looking forward to seeing it come to fruition.

[JayBee]

Should keep me quiet for a while
Chris

HA!

[jcf]

A manned fighter force for this purpose will be maintained and will progressively be equipped with air-to-air
guided missiles. These fighter aircraft will in due course be replaced by a ground-to-air guided
missile system.

Those three lines on their own was enough to kibosh many of the projects then under way, especially the last sentence.

I'd say the paragraphs that had the most effect are 5, 6, and 64 as they dealt with the economic realities
and assignment of resources. The messy, and largely self-inflicted, state of the aerospace industry in the
period was also a major factor, in short, too many eggs in too small a basket, something was going
to have to give.

Demands on Economic Resources
5. Britain's influence in the world depends first and foremost on the health of her internal economy and 
the success of her export trade. Without these, military power cannot in the long run be supported nor 
can Communist economic infiltration into the under-developed areas of the world be effectively countered. 
It is therefore in the true interests of defence that the claims of military expenditure should be weighed 
against the need for maintaining the country's financial and economic strength.

6. Over the last five years defence has taken 10 per cent, of Britain's gross national income. Some 7 per 
cent, of the working population are either in the Services or supporting them. One-eighth of the metal-using 
industries, upon which the export trade so largely depends, are engaged on defence production. About 
two-thirds of this country's expenditure on research and development, and a large proportion of its highly 
qualified scientists and engineers engaged on this work, are employed on defence projects. In addition, 
the retention of such large forces abroad gives rise to heavy charges which place a severe strain upon the 
balance of payments.

Switch of Resources
62. This new plan involves the biggest change in defence policy ever made in normal times. In carrying it 
through a certain amount of disturbance is unavoidable.

63. The large reduction in the size of the forces will inevitably create some surplus of officers and N.C.Os. 
It will take a little time to assess the numbers precisely. The proportion will differ for each Service and for 
the various ranks and branches. Those whose careers have to be prematurely terminated will be given fair 
compensation and will be helped in every way possible to find suitable employment in civil life.

64. Similarly, the volume of defence work of many kinds will be curtailed, and some establishments will 
have to be closed. The manpower and industrial resources released must be absorbed into productive 
use as quickly as possible. The Government Departments concerned will do all they can to secure that 
this switch is effected smoothly.