A What-If too far?

[itsafokker]

What about a ‘What-If’ based on what the current RAF/Fleet Air Arm would be flying if the following were true:

• All UK Governments/Politicians were honest.
  
• MOD Procurement was efficient and unbiased.
  
• The UK aviation industry was still made up of more than one company and they had the daring to believe in British design and engineering skills. (Plus we still trained people in aviation and not just Media Studies!)
  
• Governments listened to those who understand strategy and the threats this country may face in the future.
  
• We didn’t ignore the lessons of history in that we cannot win ground wars in the middle east, despite the skills and sacrifice of our troops.
  
• The RAF/FAA was structured to defend this country and its European allies and not for raising the profile of successive Prime Ministers as they are sent all over the world to do more with less.
  

No, you are right, this is just too unrealistic even for a ‘What-If’!

(But a rant does you good!)

David

[DaveJL]

What about a ‘What-If’ based on what the current RAF/Fleet Air Arm would be flying if the following were true:

• All UK Governments/Politicians were honest.
  
• MOD Procurement was efficient and unbiased.
  
• The UK aviation industry was still made up of more than one company and they had the daring to believe in British design and engineering skills. (Plus we still trained people in aviation and not just Media Studies!)
  
• Governments listened to those who understand strategy and the threats this country may face in the future.
  
• We didn’t ignore the lessons of history in that we cannot win ground wars in the middle east, despite the skills and sacrifice of our troops.
  
• The RAF/FAA was structured to defend this country and its European allies and not for raising the profile of successive Prime Ministers as they are sent all over the world to do more with less.
  

No, you are right, this is just too unrealistic even for a ‘What-If’!

(But a rant does you good!)

David

F/A-18E/F would be my suggestions. (scrap the F-35 idea and buy these and more Typhoons!)

Dave

[daz greenwood]

Hmmmmmmmmmm I could be up for a Navalised Typhoon

[jimbuna]

Bring the forces personnel home and concentrate on home and allied defence.

[pte1643]

Bring the forces personnel home and concentrate on home and allied defence.

Agreed.

[Paul J]

Yes, do away with F-35, keep the uk armed forces within Europe, Buy Gripens with BAe building them ( seeing as they have a tie in with SAAB) bring back British industries from o/seas. re invigorate aviation awareness and .....

[Andrew Jones]

Surely if this was the case , the RAF would still be flying TSR2 in the strike role, and the FAA would be flying a supersonic Harrier /P1154 derivative from our carriers.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Andrew Jones

[mrvr6]

Surely if this was the case , the RAF would still be flying TSR2 in the strike role, and the FAA would be flying a supersonic Harrier /P1154 derivative from our carriers.

Hell yeah

[Séan Pádraig]

The problem is if all the above condition were in place then actually we would have some aircraft that never made it out of the mind of the creators... so we have little idea of what would be in service today... Just think of what a UK skunk works would have produced...

[Giorgio N]

I'm with Sean on this one, had Britain kept developing certain types right after the war, the history of British aviation would have been totally different: types that were never proposed could have been built while types we all know and love could have never existed.

However I can give it a try looking at the events with he totally objective eye of someone from abroad: assuming that the above conditions had happened, the RAF would be probably flying two combat types: an air defence fighter with secondary attack capability and a pure strike aircraft.

Considering that none of the conditions listed above would have made much difference in the global wealth of the country, these would have most probably been types co-developed with other countries. As to what countries, it would have depended from factors like foreign policy or industrial collaborations agreements.

So the air defence fighter would have probably been either the typhoon or the rafale, or something along the same lines. Alternatively, a US type could have been selected earlier, with the F-15 the most likely. This would still be operational today.

The strike plane would have been the Tornado or one of the projects that brought to it. In case the TSR.2 (unlikely even under these assumptions) or the F-111K (only slightly more likely) had entered service, these would have reached the end of their career by now, and the most likely replacement would have been the F-15E.

Regarding the RN, if Britain had decided to focus on home defence and not care about wars far away, the answer would be simple enough: no fixed wing plane would be required today! If succesful, the P.1154 would have been the last fixed wing plane. If unsuccesful, maybe this honour would have gone to a J-79 engined Phantom. The type chosen could have soldiered on until the end of the '80s. At that point probably nothing would have been ordered as a replacement. Had Britain decided to keep the carriers even after the end of the cold war, there would have been two options: stay with France during the development of the air defence fighter, and in this case the FAA could be flying the result of this development, that is a rafale/typhoon style plane. Or chose something on the market, and in this case the first generation Hornets could have been bought before the retirement of the phantoms/P.1154. The first option however requires some kind of stop gap, as the Raphoon would have not entered service in time. The lease of USN Hornets would have been the only solution available, unless the industry decided to develop a version of the Harrier... and the Sea Harrier would be back in the story.

[hythe]

It's a delicious thought, isn't it...

Sadly, if anyone ever does begin to think about invading us, and manages to take out the runways at just a half dozen airfields first, we'll be able to send up... er... a couple of Apaches, maybe?

[Giorgio N]

It's a delicious thought, isn't it...

Sadly, if anyone ever does begin to think about invading us, and manages to take out the runways at just a half dozen airfields first, we'll be able to send up... er... a couple of Apaches, maybe?

History of the latest conflicts has shown that a cratered runway can be repaired very quickly using totally unskilled personnel. That's why western air forces have switched a long ago to the destruction of planes inside their shelters as the most effective way to destroy an air force and most runway cratering weapons have been retired.

Having VTOL planes would not make any difference, as these can still be destroyed on the ground as the other ones. Besides, any potential enemy capable of mounting an operation to invade Britain, would easily sweep away every VTOL plane ever built.

If anyone thinks about invading you, you have far better weapons to make this enemy change his mind: attack submarines capable of sinking his ships for example and, if anything else fails, the threat of a number of Trident SLBMs capable of reducing a good number of his cities to ashes.

[Andrew Jones]

Having VTOL planes would not make any difference, as these can still be destroyed on the ground as the other ones. Besides, any potential enemy capable of mounting an operation to invade Britain, would easily sweep away every VTOL plane ever built.

This is absolute nonsense, with VTOL aircraft ,the aircraft are not tied to fixed airbases and can be deployed to sites anywhere ,with the minimum of preparation. This would mean that whilst not impossible to destroy , it would make the task a lot harder for any aggressor. Any airforce deploying a VTOL force would be in a much better position to survive an attack than one having conventional aircraft.

[Devilfish]

What about a ‘What-If’ based on what the current RAF/Fleet Air Arm would be flying if the following were true:

[*]The UK aviation industry was still made up of more than one company and they had the daring to believe in British design and engineering skills. (Plus we still trained people in aviation and not just Media Studies!)

I think this point is being overlooked. At one point we had an aviation industry second to none, with the best engineers and designers in the world! If we had managed to keep that, as David states, instead of letting the politicians destroy it (for whatever reason they'd like to give), then I believe we'd still have the best air force in the world.

We'd have been first thru the sound barrier, with the Miles M.52, months before the Americans!

With honest (German) politicians, the whole "Starfighter as a NATO fighter" incident wouldn't have happened and the SR177 would most likely have taken it's place.

The P1154 and TSR2 would have made it into service and their replacements would have entered service in recent years. (both of British design)

I don't believe, had David's scenario taken place, we would be in need, or even want, any US built aircraft. We were, and could be, given the backing, a country capable of designing and building anything that caould match and better what the Americans have to offer....

Edited March 31, 2011 by Devilfish

[Giorgio N]

This is absolute nonsense, with VTOL aircraft ,the aircraft are not tied to fixed airbases and can be deployed to sites anywhere ,with the minimum of preparation. This would mean that whilst not impossible to destroy , it would make the task a lot harder for any aggressor. Any airforce deploying a VTOL force would be in a much better position to survive an attack than one having conventional aircraft.

Poblem is that the forward operating bases can not guarantee the same type of support of conventional airbases, therefore even if the planes survive a first strike, they will not be capable of providing continuous operations in the same way as those operating from proper airbases. If a forwad operating base is made capable of providing all The support required, it then starts to look as a standard base, with depots and so on... all stuff that can be destroied.

Switzerland, as a country that is almost paranoid about the survivability of its forces, looked with interest at the Harrier in the early '70s, however in the end they decided that the use of airbases dug in the mountains was much more effective than the concept of having forward operating sites: the airbases allowed a much better support and the use of planes that had much higher performances.

Other countries came to similar conclusions when evaluating the Harrier. There's a reason why most customers for the Harrier chose it to use it from ships and only the USMC kind of uses it from FOBs... I say kind of because the USMC idea of a FOB is a bit different from what the RAF did in Germany.

[Giorgio N]

With honest (German) politicians, the whole "Starfighter as a NATO fighter" incident wouldn't have happened and the SR177 would most likely have taken it's place.

Sorry folks, the fact that the SR177 was not chosen by Germany because of the F-104 bribes is a myth ! Germany didn't select the SR.177 because they felt that without having Britan buying them, all the fixed costs wold have fallen on German shoulders and the government could not afford it. This is the main reason why the SR.177 was cancelled.

The F-104 was then selected (yes, also thanks to bribes) among a number of other proposals, and the SR.177 was not among these anymore.

I agree with you that the cancellation of the Miles M.52 was a big mistake. I personally believe that it was a worse mistake than other cancellations !

Not probably the worst though: the worst mistake IMHO was not pursuing the Fairey Delta 2 design and try to develop a fighter out of the expereriences gained with it. A relatively simple single engined delta wing interceptor, with a decent radar and an afertburning Avon would have been a great commercial success. Instead Fairey started developing complicated and big interceptors armed with huge missiles, dynosaurs that had no chance of success.

There's one thing however that must be remembered: it's not the brilliance of the engineers or the aviation industry that allows the development of indigenous designs. It's the availability of cash to throw behind these designs that matter ! The USA has had plenty of money for all their projects, the UK hasn't.

The Tornado is a typical example: yes it was built by 3 countries, but honestly it is a British designed plane, Germany and Italy had a small part in it. And Britain could have easily designed it all alone. What forced Britain to be part of a consortium was the possibility of saving money by involving other partners. It was the same for every collaboration. The brilliance of the British aerospace engineers is something that can be seen every day by a number of achievements and can't be discussed. It's the availability of cash that prevents them to design full indigenous planes.

So if you want to have only British designe planes in this decade, you need to add another if to the scenario: if the politicians and the industry had managed to increase the overall wealth of the country.

[itsafokker]

I think this point is being overlooked. At one point we had an aviation industry second to none, with the best engineers and designers in the world! If we had managed to keep that, as David states, instead of letting the politicians destroy it (for whatever reason they'd like to give), then I believe we'd still have the best air force in the world.

We'd have been first thru the sound barrier, with the Miles M.52, months before the Americans!

With honest (German) politicians, the whole "Starfighter as a NATO fighter" incident wouldn't have happened and the SR177 would most likely have taken it's place.

The P1154 and TSR2 would have made it into service and their replacements would have entered service in recent years. (both of British design)

I don't believe, had David's scenario taken place, we would be in need, or even want, any US built aircraft. We were, and could be, given the backing, a country capable of designing and building anything that caould match and better what the Americans have to offer....

Here, here! That's the point my initial post was about.

If Brazil, Sweden and India can build modern, and very good, aircraft then so should we be able to. All we need to do is invest in good engineers, designers, management and leadership. Instead we are buying F-35 that carries half the weapon load for twice the price with the lame excuse is that it's "Stealthy" which it is, providing your enemy is considerate enough to only look for it from a frontal aspect.

[Devilfish]

Sorry folks, the fact that the SR177 was not chosen by Germany because of the F-104 bribes is a myth ! Germany didn't select the SR.177 because they felt that without having Britan buying them, all the fixed costs wold have fallen on German shoulders and the government could not afford it. This is the main reason why the SR.177 was cancelled.

The F-104 was then selected (yes, also thanks to bribes) among a number of other proposals, and the SR.177 was not among these anymore.

However, in the scenario David propses, the SR.177 UK order probably wouldn't have been cancelled and therefore still been in the running and cash would have been generated from foreign sales...

There's one thing however that must be remembered: it's not the brilliance of the engineers or the aviation industry that allows the development of indigenous designs. It's the availability of cash to throw behind these designs that matter ! The USA has had plenty of money for all their projects, the UK hasn't.

The Tornado is a typical example: yes it was built by 3 countries, but honestly it is a British designed plane, Germany and Italy had a small part in it. And Britain could have easily designed it all alone. What forced Britain to be part of a consortium was the possibility of saving money by involving other partners. It was the same for every collaboration. The brilliance of the British aerospace engineers is something that can be seen every day by a number of achievements and can't be discussed. It's the availability of cash that prevents them to design full indigenous planes.

So if you want to have only British designe planes in this decade, you need to add another if to the scenario: if the politicians and the industry had managed to increase the overall wealth of the country.

I agree that collaboration works when money is tight. The UK was broke after WW2 and the USA rich from all the sales it had made to "help us out", but I honestly believe that if things had been handled properly and investment had been made in the British aircraft industry all those years ago, then foreign orders would have brought costs down, as they do with collaborations.

Things would have to have changed though. There was too much in-fighting amongst divisions of the same company, as well as the specifications issued by the different branches of the services, and not least by certain people in power, who shall not be mentioned (but sounds like Ford Countlatten) who went out of their way to railroad any sales we could have got...

[Giorgio N]

I agree that collaboration works when money is tight. The UK was broke after WW2 and the USA rich from all the sales it had made to "help us out", but I honestly believe that if things had been handled properly and investment had been made in the British aircraft industry all those years ago, then foreign orders would have brought costs down, as they do with collaborations.

Things would have to have changed though. There was too much in-fighting amongst divisions of the same company, as well as the specifications issued by the different branches of the services, and not least by certain people in power, who shall not be mentioned (but sounds like Ford Countlatten) who went out of their way to railroad any sales we could have got...

You're hitting the right nail there IMHO ! That's the approach that has made France capable of making their own planes: every project is expected to sell abroad, so repaying part of the develoment costs. Has not worked for the Rafale yet, did work well for the previous fighters. That's why I always insist on the FD.2: it could have been developed into something very similar in concept to the Mirage III, and this would have sold a lot ! Think of all the Hunters that could have been replaced !

I believe that the British industries shot themselves in the foot from this point of view. An example is De Havilland: DH had a very good collaboration in Italy and other countries and the Vampire was the first jet fighter for many air forces in Europe (and not only). DH had the Vampire built in Italy under license and there were plans to keep the collaboration going, with Italy receiving a couple of Venoms to start preparing the tooling for further production. DH believed that the Venom would have followed in the Vampire steps and in the meanwhile they were developing something bigger and more powerful, the DH.110. This would have been offered as a more sophisticated fighter a few years later.

What DH however did not forecast was that the pace of technology in the US was such that by the time the Venom was offered for license production, the US could offer significantly better planes. And who would have chosen a Venom instead of a Sabre ? As a result only Switzerland in Europe bought the Venom as a ground attack fighter. DH had made the big mistake of expecting the need for an intermediate generation of straight wing fighters between the early jets and the first swept wing ones. This didn't really happen and most air forces went from the vampire to the sabre or the hunter (although the F-84 was used for ground attack).

Gloster did a similar mistake with the Meteor: the Meatbox sold relatively well, but no proper development was made in something to replace it. The Javelin was offered to some countries, but could never really be a serious contender. The F-86K was enough for most European countries, it was immediately available and had a very good reputation.