It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The RAF that might have been

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I know one or two people object to things like this but the forum is called 'aircraft projects' not 'new US aircraft projects' so here goes.

The first picture shows a 'might have been' scene from around 1960 and shows a pair of 41 Sqn Hawker P1081 ground attack aircraft being overflown by a pair of 111 Sqn Saro P177 interceptors.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

the Hawker P1081 was an all swept development of the Sea Hawk family and was hotly favoured by Australia to meet its new fighter requirement in 1950 with the RAF also showing interest in this very manoeverable fighter that was also almost 100 mph faster than its current front line fighters the Meteor and Vampire. One of Britains almost endless list of short sighted cancellations, the death of this project led to the RAF and RAAF being forced into operating the F-86 to bridge the capability gap.

The Saro P.177 was a remarkable programme to produce a very fast and high altitude interceptor because it was to have been powered by a mixed 'rocket plus jet' combination, featuring a Gyron Jnr turbojet for cruise mounted below a Spectre rocket motor which would augment it on take off and for acceleration at high altitudes. This fighter was being produced for the RAF, Royal Navy and Luftwaffe and its cancellation led to the RAF depending on the BAC Lightning and the Luftwaffe buying the F-104G.

In fact both of these alternatives were very capable in their specific roles and the rocket plus jet combination has never been used operationally as a primary fighter powerplant thanks to the capability of afterburners and so the only real losers here were Saro, who ended up making polistyrene mushroom trays, and the RN, who had to wait another ten years for the F-4 Phantom in order to go supersonic.

The second picture depicts a 'might have been' 1970, here a TSR 2 of an indeterminate squadron is escorted by a Hawker P1121 of 74Sqn.



Plenty has been written about the TSR 2 on here so I will leave it except to say that if this were a genuine picture it would be showing the aircraft having just entered service as 1970 would have been the realistic in service date.

the P1121 however represents on of our biggest missed opportunities ever. This fairly large aircraft was powered by a single Gyron Junior and was to have had the performance to match or beat the F-4 Phantom and when it was cancelled in 1957 the prototype was 90% complete, Hawkers pleas to be allowed to fly the prototype (upon the demonstration of which they were convinced the decision would be reversed) were refused as it was said that no new manned fighters would be required beyond the Lightning, which would itself have been scrapped had it not already progressed too far. This insane pronouncement also spelled the end for the P.177 above as well as several other promising fighter and bomber projects. A quick glance reveals a layout that somewhat foreshadows the F-16 of twenty years later and such was its awesome potential that Sidney Camm (designer of all Hawker fighters including the Hurricane and the Harrier) said it was the stupidest decision he had ever encountered - of course TSR 2 was still in the future at this point
- The P1121 was to have entered service around 1962-64 and its absence meant that Britain lost its most loyal export customers to the US, and particularly to the F-4.

So there ladies and gentlemen is part of how the UK threw away its ability to compete with America in the aircraft market. The fact that this is only a small part of the story shows just how much we blew it! in 1947 there were 28 UK aircraft companies, while this number was never sustainable it is remarkable that just fifteen years later there were just TWO! HSA and BAC. There were also people like Scottish Aviation and Beagle , who only built light aircraft, and of course Handley Page, who the government vowed would never get another defence contract and forced out of business in 1970, but from 28 major companies to just two is an implosion of calamitous proportions.




posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Apologies for the mess up with the pictures, I don't know how it happened but I will fix it when I do know.



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 07:17 PM
link   
One little fact I didn't know about the Saro SR177 was that it was a victim of the Lockheed/Nixon scandels.

This excellent aircraft was set to be ordered in numbers by the Germans (regular airforce and navy) but certain senior German politicians were bribed by Lockheed with the Nixon administration's knowledge, approval and assistance. These facts came out during the Watergate trials.

Considering Lockheed went on to 'sell' over 2000 of these aircraft across Europe (a plane the USAF didn't even want) and that they were grossly unsuited to the tasks required - even if later 'workarounds' and intensive training stopped them being such 'widow makers' - it is pause for thought just where the UK and European aero-industry might have been today had those sales gone to the - by far - most suited plane, the SR177.



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 08:14 PM
link   
This is true, similarly with the TSR 2 as we have said before, but also, as well as the SR 177 German sales of the Lightning and Buccaneer went the same way.

It was a remarkable project but I think the powertrain was too limited, as a result I don't think that, long term, the loss of SR177 did as much damage as the losses of the P1121 and TSR 2. Although it has to be said that if they hadn't had the P1121 cancelled Hawker might have been too busy to develop their V/STOL programme, and then where would we be?



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Having tried to edit the post and inserting the pictures I find that it deletes all the text and only allows one image anyway, I don't unsderstand this so I'm posting the images to the above article here.

Hawker P.1081 & Saro P.177 (also known as SR177)





Hawker P1121 & BAC TSR.2





posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 05:15 AM
link   
You know, the more I learn about the practices of American manufacturers and their government, the more I wonder why we need friends like that.

You can understand the Gaulist stance, not that I'd trust them either.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 07:18 AM
link   

You know, the more I learn about the practices of American manufacturers and their government, the more I wonder why we need friends like that.


You need US because we saved your arse from Hitler and we protected your butts for 40+ from the Soviets. Most importantly the way British forces are shrinking left and right you need a strong ally.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Actually Westpoint you could argue that WE saved YOUR arse from Hitler but, much as it hurts, your final sentence is spot on.

[edit on 12-8-2004 by waynos]



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bravon03
You know, the more I learn about the practices of American manufacturers and their government, the more I wonder why we need friends like that.

You can understand the Gaulist stance, not that I'd trust them either.


Haha ask European manufacturers about the bribing scandal in UAE some years ago.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23


You need US because we saved your arse from Hitler and we protected your butts for 40+ from the Soviets. Most importantly the way British forces are shrinking left and right you need a strong ally.

yes of course the commies where going to pour over the german border and take europe keep thinking that propaganda west point.
also that bit about hitler you only saved us because u got attacked first.
hell if we didnt ally with u, you could not have attacked germany plain and simple.
also we aint shrinking left and right, we just lost some troops to make the other troops better. at least ours are trained.
and we dont need your help.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

You know, the more I learn about the practices of American manufacturers and their government, the more I wonder why we need friends like that.


You need US because we saved your arse from Hitler and we protected your butts for 40+ from the Soviets. Most importantly the way British forces are shrinking left and right you need a strong ally.


I hope you're joking... if it weren't for Britain, you better hope those half-assed Shermans would have destroyed the Hitler's Panzer army. It was Britain's radar that saved the Allies to begin with. America had no AF, Germany would have obtained air superiority and swallowed America as the Luftwaffe was the most powerful AF at the time. Britain could not have beaten Germany on land, but after their radars wiped out the majority of the Luftwaffe aircraft Britain had air superiority and were able to bomb Germany's ground forces (specifically their tanks, which were superior at the time).

America, on the other hand, were driving half-assed tanks and had no AF. Had Hitler set his eyes on America, America would be the size of Hawaii if they got lucky.

You're right about the Soviets though...

Anyway back to the subject. Yes, the TSR 2 is one nice plane there. Had the TSR 2 entered service, I bet aerospace technology would be beyond the Raptor today. Unfortunately, the TSR 2 was too expensive for deployment but it was unmatched at the time.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Bomber Command wasn't to be left out either as the plan was to replace the Vulcan and Victor with a new eight engined Mach 2.5+ strategic bomber and recce aircraft, foreshadowing the higher peformance US Blackbird and B-70 programmes this aircraft was to be operational by 1962, until Duncan Sandys murdered the UK aircraft industry, this was yet another of the advanced projects killed by the 1957 Defence White Paper.











RAB

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 04:50 AM
link   
The UK need's the US and the US need's the UK,
We bring stuff to the party and the US brings stuff to the party!
JOB Done,

The Avro company had some really cool stuff the 730 were cool also love the TSR2 a friend of mine has a scale tsr2 in ti!.

I still think that the UK needs a long range bomber, I bet the next war that we and the US fight will be in africa or south america.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 06:45 AM
link   

you only saved us because u got attacked first


We go attacked by Japan and we could have fought just them. We didn't have to fight Germany, they didn't attack us but we came to help your but out anyway.


also we aint shrinking left and right, we just lost some troops to make the other troops better. at least ours are trained.
and we dont need your help.


Really? how many troops has Britain cut in the last 5years? How many ships has Britain decommissioned in the last 5 years. And you bought jets without cannons to save money for god sakes. And most importantly ho many troops doest Britain have?
Answer those questions and you will see Britain is shrinking and without the Tech, money and firepower of the US they would not last long in a major conflict. Our troops are trained too, so I don't know what your trying to say.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

We go attacked by Japan and we could have fought just them. We didn't have to fight Germany, they didn't attack us but we came to help your but out anyway.



No actually, you did have to fight Germany and Italy as well as those three countries were allied together and the Japanese were already on the march Westwards to encircle Russia with the Germans invading from the Western side, ergo if you were fighting the Japs you had to take on their mates as well. Without the US Britain may have been forced to surrender after 1941, or at least faced an ongoing stalemate with Germany BUT if Britain had fallen in 1940, Germany would have invaded Russia sooner and probably won and then the Germans Japanese and Italians would have had only the US to defeat with the resources of the whole world at their disposal including all the British tech that instead went to the USA. The US would have faced the same stalemate as Britain with an inevitable invasion to follow. Back in the 1930's and early 40's the US was not the domionant power it is today, it actually lagged behind Britain Germany Japan and Russia in many areas.

It is true to say that World War Two made America what it is today, your remoteness from the front line allowed your economy and industry to prosper while those of the other combatant nations were decimated.

Also the aid that Britain recieved was not free, it was paid for in full with the final monetary instalment being paid in 1999 so get off your high horse Westpoint.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
waynos wrote


Also the aid that Britain recieved was not free, it was paid for in full with the final monetary instalment being paid in 1999 so get off your high horse Westpoint.


Apparently in the April 2003 UK Govt budget you will see a line item that
$160million remains outstanding and will be repaid in full with
interest by June 30, 2005.

And Westpoint should get off his high horse; here's why.

Harold Wilson's memoirs contain the following:

"Lend-Lease also involved Britain's surrender of her rights and royalties in a series of British technological achievements. Although the British performance in industrial techniques in the inter-war years had been marked by a period of more general decline, the achievements of our scientists and technologists had equalled the most remarkable eras of British inventive greatness. Radar, antibiotics, jet aircraft and British advances in nuclear research had created an industrial revolution all over the developed world.

Under Lend-Lease, these inventions were surrendered as part of the inter-Allied war effort, free of any royalty or other payments from the United States.

Had Churchill been able to insist on adequate royalties for these inventions, both our wartime and our post-war balance of payments would have been very different".

Not to mention that by suddenly cancelling the Lend Lease arrangement with no warning in 1945, the US effectively bankrupted the UK which enabled the US dollar to become the dominant international currency, replacing the UK Pound. The lend lease arrangement was a very astute deal struck by the US when the UK could least afford to object to the terms.

As for the RAF that could have been, have a look at the Nuclear planes thread....I've just posted information about a PRO document that deals with RAF research in this area. The document seems to be well worth examining.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


zero lift



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23


We go attacked by Japan and we could have fought just them. We didn't have to fight Germany, they didn't attack us but we came to help your but out anyway.

actually as many people have said you got attacked by japan then germany and italy declared war on you.





Really? how many troops has Britain cut in the last 5years? How many ships has Britain decommissioned in the last 5 years. And you bought jets without cannons to save money for god sakes. And most importantly ho many troops doest Britain have?
Answer those questions and you will see Britain is shrinking and without the Tech, money and firepower of the US they would not last long in a major conflict. Our troops are trained too, so I don't know what your trying to say.

and we cut troops ? we cut ships.BIG DEAL. also the cannon is there it just doesnt have a fireing mechanizm which can be added easilly. we can work around these things. we dont need over a million troops. also we have tech dont dare tell me we dont have tech,money or firepower cause frankly we done a damm fine job in iraq hell a better job than your lot. atleast we dont shoot our own troops. also we dont get into major conflicts cause we dont like or want wars, we mostly do small wars because of humanitarian things and such or varios other UN things. your troops are trained just not good enough your lot need to up your training.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Devilwasp, Britain has cut too many troops for its own good, they have cut ships that are not even 10 years old they have their “primer” jet without a working cannon why? To save money. Their military budget is shrinking each year. Their tech is not as advanced as the US, they do not have the same amount of "firepower" and they don't have as much money as the US. All that I said are facts. In Iraq British troops have to just look out for one city OMFG big deal one city. The US has to look out for the remaining 95 % of Iraq and we have done a good job so far of that.

When Germany declare war on us they could not reach the US with their bombers. By the time they would have taken Russia and Britain the US would have nuclear weapons and we would have begun bombing Germany and Japan with nukes in 1945. It would have been at least a year or two before Germany could developed its own nukes and 2 years of drooping nukes will pretty much finish any country.


[edit on 16-8-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Devilwasp, Britain has cut too many troops for its own good,


- and why's that then Westy?

The funny thing is we keep having review after review and not one of them has called for a meaningful military expansion for almost the whole of the previous 50yrs.

.....so where would the 'good' be in unnecessarily over-sized armed forces wasting tax-payers money?

What is it that really upsets you Americans about Europe now refusing to play the 'military wang size' game? Too few orders for your 'defence' industries?


they have cut ships that are not even 10 years old


- Well the newer ones that have been 'cut' are stored in 'mothballs' rather than scrapped completely.....but again, if we don't 'need' them what do we want them for....showing off to the neighbours?


they have their “primer” jet without a working cannon why?


- Oh pack it in. The Eurofighter hasn't even arrived in service properly yet anyway.

...and so what?

The first Tornado F2's flew with a concrete weight in the nose because the radar wasn't ready (and that was in cold war time).


To save money.


- Excellent. That is to be commended then. Why shouldn't the military act in ways that save the tax-payer money?

If pulling the guns out of planes saves weight and therefore fuel and therefore money why not?

It's not like they're going to be suddenly used fighting in a war, is it?


Their military budget is shrinking each year.


- We believe our military budget adequate for the demands placed upon our military and any realistic possible future scenario. That is surely what every sane government does, or should be doing?



Their tech is not as advanced as the US


- Again, our 'tech' is more than sufficient to meet our needs or any feasible possible 'need'.

We don't go in for waving expensive 'badges' just to impress people.


they do not have the same amount of "firepower" and they don't have as much money as the US.


- We have no need to match US 'firepower'; what the hell would we want to waste our resources doing that for?

Are you completely nuts?

Naturally a country of just under 60million does not have the size of budget the 270million populace of the USA does. So what? This is a perfectly normal situation. Open your eyes.


All that I said are facts.


- maybe but they are pretty meaningless and irrelevant 'facts' just the same.


In Iraq British troops have to just look out for one city OMFG big deal one city. The US has to look out for the remaining 95 % of Iraq and we have done a good job so far of that.


- The difference between the situation in the Brit part of Iraq and the US could not be more stark.

If your military thinks (and is telling folks back home) that having their guys drive about in their Hum-Vees making announcements with very loud 'PA' systems in arabic outside Mosques (whilst services are going on) and then playing loud American rock when the announcement is finished (whilst still outside the Mosque) is "a good job"!? Talk about making a bad situation worse.

It's not a good job Westy. Wise up.



When Germany declare war on us they could not reach the US with their bombers.


- True, but in the suggested scenario who said it would have happened as before?


By the time they would have taken Russia and Britain the US would have nuclear weapons and we would have begun bombing Germany and Japan with nukes in 1945.


- Where do you get this tosh from Westy?

America got the A - bomb because of the european scientists that were expelled from Europe and those subsequently evacuated from Britian and the British scientists involved.

The A - bomb was not a home-grown product.

It was the product of scientists like Einstein, Fermi, Teller, Bethe, Ulam, Szilard, Wignar, Frisch, Bloch, Fuchs, Serge, Chadwick.....go look up the big names involved, they're emigre europeans almost to a man.

Without them no A - bomb. Certainly not in 1945.


It would have been at least a year or two before Germany could developed its own nukes and 2 years of drooping nukes will pretty much finish any country.


- Yeah but in the most plausible scenario for this.....with America not likely to have even gotten started..... had Germany gotten the bomb America would indeed have been finished.

....and the RAF that might have been would probably have been called the Luftwaffe along with the USAF and sporting some funny black crosses......until the inevitable collapse of that idiot idea 'nazism' at least.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Devilwasp, Britain has cut too many troops for its own good, they have cut ships that are not even 10 years old they have their “primer” jet without a working cannon why? To save money. Their military budget is shrinking each year. Their tech is not as advanced as the US, they do not have the same amount of "firepower" and they don't have as much money as the US. All that I said are facts. In Iraq British troops have to just look out for one city OMFG big deal one city. The US has to look out for the remaining 95 % of Iraq and we have done a good job so far of that.

too many troops for its own good? and what is its own good. let me ask you what is the purpose of the armed forces?to protect thier country and its assets thats it not international self apointed policemen of the world. also so what we cut new ships BIG deal we dont care we still get the job done good.so what it was taken out. frankly its an annoyance but we can manage.
and as i said our tech is as adavanced. the eurofighter, first production jet to have supercruise.Chobham armour ,best armour availiable and its given to the US.harrier jump jet, first VSTOL jet ever made.spearfish torpedo ,fastest torp in service.
same firepower? dude we are like a 5th the size of your country in landmass and population is way less than yours there is no way we can match you but we can have enough to do the job needed.
also you know why you have to look out for the rest ? cause you have a bigger force,thats it.
good job? you call extreme friendly fire as a good job? you call bombing civies a good job?


When Germany declare war on us they could not reach the US with their bombers. By the time they would have taken Russia and Britain the US would have nuclear weapons and we would have begun bombing Germany and Japan with nukes in 1945. It would have been at least a year or two before Germany could developed its own nukes and 2 years of drooping nukes will pretty much finish any country.
[edit on 16-8-2004 by WestPoint23]

yes but nethier could u west.
also not really. we had airsuperiority and we had a good defensive position. also american nukes wouldnt have been made as sminkeypinkey has pointed out.
also i doubt u could have struck far enough in to hurt them. you might nuke france or britain but not germany its too far away. hell thier jets would have killed your bombers.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join