Which aircraft did the RAF have to buy, at Government insistence? [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Which aircraft did the RAF have to buy, at Government insistence?

India Four Two

3rd Oct 2019, 20:25

chevvron

3rd Oct 2019, 21:21

Super VC10s
Belfast

kenparry

4th Oct 2019, 10:11

Britannia...………………..

Bulldog was not bought by the RAF, but by the Department for Trade & Industry (or whatever it was called that week) using their funds, to prop up Scottish Aviation.

Mechta

4th Oct 2019, 11:22

Comet C2
Tucano
Swift

possel

4th Oct 2019, 13:07

Reading the current thread about the Hermes, where the Hastings was mentioned, reminded me of a question I've been meaning to ask.

Post WWII, which aircraft did the Government require the RAF to buy, to support British industry? I wondered about the Hastings but I see that was built to an Air Staff specification.

Here is my list of potential candidates:

Pioneer
Twin Pioneer
Belvedere
Basset
Andover
Argosy
Jetstream
Bulldog
There is surely a difference between the RAF being made to accept an aircraft (regardless of which govt dept actually paid) to support industry, and the RAF being made to accept a particular aircraft in preference to any other (usually to support British industry, but sometimes due to UK politics). So the first category includes the Basset, but others are definitely in the second category such as Bulldog, Andover and even the Jetstream - the RAF did need transports, a primary trainer and a multi-engine trainer. The Argosy was in fact not forced upon the RAF but was derived from the civil version in response to the Air Ministry.

The other important point is that the existence of a Specification does not necessarily mean that it wasn't forced on them - Specifications were often written after the design was proposed, in order to make the Specification into a contractual document.

Another post above mentions Tucano - this was a political choice (in preference to the Pilatus/BAe offering) but both proposals were presented in response to an Operational Requirement which became an Air Staff Requirement (ASR412 in this case, IIRC). The Brittania was also ordered to fulfil a need (replacement of Hastings etc) rather than being forced upon them.

I would suggest that the forcing was done in the 1940s and 50s, and involved the state airlines as well - Avro Tudor was a major example for instance, and the Brittania and VC10 were forced upon BOAC - they were quite disgraceful in some of their actions and showed continued antipathy for the British types even when they were in service and proving themselves. Then the govt forced Trident 3 on BEA who wanted the 727 - however, it was BEA who had insisted on downsizing the originally proposed Trident which was why they subsequently wanted the larger 727!

Quemerford

4th Oct 2019, 13:21

Marathon would be one of the more notorious!

pr00ne

4th Oct 2019, 13:23

possel,

BOAC/BEA were not "quite disgraceful in their actions" in their choice of aircraft types, they simply didn't want the totally uneconomic British types, which makes sense as they had a commitment to turn a profit. They had to be either subsidised or compensated by the Government to buy Super VC10's, Tridents and BAC111's when they would have preferred to have bought Boeing 707's, 727 and 737's.
The VC10 was a delightful looking aircraft but was an economic disaster built for a requirement that didn't exist.

Mechta

4th Oct 2019, 14:20

possel,
The VC10 was a delightful looking aircraft but was an economic disaster built for a requirement that didn't exist.

But who wrote that non-existant requirement? From what I've read, BOAC asked for an aeroplane which could cope with runways that were short, hot and high; and that's what Vickers built them. The fact that those runways which were short were subsequently extended to accommodate the more economic American designs, was hardly the fault of Vickers.

old,not bold

4th Oct 2019, 16:32

BOAC asked for an aeroplane which could cope with runways that were short, hot and high; and that's what Vickers built them. Precisely.

possel

4th Oct 2019, 17:00

Thank you Mechta and old,not bold for your greement!

BOAC/BEA were not "quite disgraceful in their actions" in their choice of aircraft types, they simply didn't want the totally uneconomic British types, which makes sense as they had a commitment to turn a profit. They had to be either subsidised or compensated by the Government to buy Super VC10's, Tridents and BAC111's when they would have preferred to have bought Boeing 707's, 727 and 737's.
The VC10 was a delightful looking aircraft but was an economic disaster built for a requirement that didn't exist.

I stand by my "disgraceful" comment, and take issue with your comments about economies. Giles Guthrie was chairman of BOAC in the early 60s, and seemed to take delight in rubbishing the VC-10 publicly, whereas in fact it was profitable on the North Atlantic routes because it achieved a higher load factor than 707s - remember BOAC's "VC-10derness" adverts? Guthrie ignored the fact that the VC-10 was designed specifically for BOAC's African routes at BOAC's specific request. The fact that life moved on was hardly Vickers' fault! Guthrie seemed to take his cue from his predecessor Gerard d'Elanger (who had found extra fault with the Brittania, delaying it by another 18-24 months after a very long development). All this was well-publicized at the time and has been well documented.

As I posted earlier, BEA mucked up the Trident by insisting on a smaller aircraft that the one DH proposed, and which then proved to be too small (as DH knew well it would). This also is well documented. So between the two airlines they really screwed the British aircraft industry at a critical time, which is basically why we are where we are now.

If only Peter Masefield had gone to BOAC as chairman, rather than Bristol's...

Cornish Jack

4th Oct 2019, 20:07

Quemerford - Spot on!! My VERY short association was when they were still being used , as Nav trainers, at Thorney. Did a couple of working trips to experience the .'untrim-outable'. nose-up cruise. M Plt 'Horse' Adams took me up to demo engine(s)-out 'performance' (non-existant) Still have the mental image of 'Horse' holding full aileron, wing still dropping and going downhill quite rapidly! Even with bags of sand under the pilots' seats, it was still prudent to get on board one at a time going fully forward before allowing anyone else on board! Its one saving grace was the proximity and similarity to each other of gear and flap levers - it helped to reduce the numbers in service! :D

PAXboy

6th Oct 2019, 03:58

I recall reading many years ago, that the USA govt paid for numerous runways to be lengthend to 707 requirements as 'international foreign aid' Whereupon the grateful nations duly bought 707s. Simples!

pr00ne

6th Oct 2019, 10:51

possel,

You are right about the early Trident debacle, but the VC10 was a commercial disaster from the start. It was built for use on "Empire routes" to hot and high airfields with short runways, something that disappeared before it was in service as everyone lengthened runways for Comets, B 707's and DC-8's, and the "Empire" routes were not the cash cows that an airline needed to make money, and they went the way of the Empire anyway. As a result the VC10 was hugely uneconomical compared to the Boeing 707 and DC-8 on routes that really made the money for the airlines. Yes they were popular with passengers, and of course BOAC were going to mount a campaign to get folk to fly them after the Government insisted they operate them, but they were not as economical as the competition both external to BOAC and internal with the Boeing 707. The ultimate judge was the market, and Boeing sold 865 707's to airlines, Douglas sold 556 DC-8's while Vickers managed to sell a paltry 40 to airlines, most of which were not wanted by the airline that bought them.

And as for building for one airline and to their requirements, why was it always the British airlines and airliner manufacturers that got it so wrong? Why on earth didn't Vickers build for THE one market that mattered, the North Atlantic?

CNH

6th Oct 2019, 11:14

" Why on earth didn't Vickers build for THE one market that mattered, the North Atlantic? "

Because, at the time, no one realised that this was the market that mattered.

Icare9

6th Oct 2019, 22:14

I'm an "old fart" who feels that the British aircraft industry was fatally damaged by not only Government, but by the various bodies charged with "development" actually causing the exact opposite.
I still feel that the Comet, which due to the square windows was flawed, took too long to redesign and allowed the Americans (who we'd given the green light for transport aircraft development) to come up with the 707. We were still producing beautiful looking but totally unsuitable aircraft such as the Brabazon and could have competed fairly with Viscount and developments (not necessarily Vanguard) Britannia Trident and VC10.
I'm not au fait with why some say it was an economic disaster, but overlong development times meant that the conditions an aircraft was designed for no longer applied by the time it entered service.
And I guess that takes us back to the OP question - aircraft foisted when the requirement no longer existed.

But isn't that what the military always complain of, being given equipment designed to win the PREVIOUS War, not the CURRENT one?

Allan Lupton

7th Oct 2019, 07:50

As this thread has diverted from the RAF and military aircraft to BEA/BOAC and civil aeroplanes, perhaps I can offer our younger contributors a sight of the dilemma we British manufacturers had in the 1960s. If we designed and built what our market research thought suitable, and BEA/BOAC disagreed, our international customers would complain that "it can't be any good as even BEA/BOAC won't buy it."
If we built to BEA's specification we could (and did) find ourselves with what one of our senior engineers has described as "an internationally unwanted aeroplane."
Happily when we and our partners were scheming what became Airbus (aeroplane and company) we were able to offer an aeroplane that we and the customers found worth buying.
Icare9's belief that we took too long to redesign the Comet should also be thought of with regard to the magnitude of the task. The Comet 1 accidents were in early 1954 and the Comet 4, essentially a totally different aeroplane, was designed and built in such numbers that BOAC could offer a transatlantic service from September 1958.

dook

7th Oct 2019, 13:27

Back to the original question.

I am not aware that the RAF has ever bought any aircraft.

The AvgasDinosaur

7th Oct 2019, 20:23

F-111K ————F-4—————Buccaneer to replace the TSR-2
Be lucky
David

India Four Two

7th Oct 2019, 22:47

dook,

Thanks for redirecting things back to my question. One type in particular intrigues me. Surely the V-force did not want the Basset. I presume there were plenty of Pembrokes, Devons and even Varsities around that could have ferried bomber crews as required. Could a bomber crew actually fit in a Basset? What was the politics of that acquisition?

kenparry

8th Oct 2019, 10:31

Could a bomber crew actually fit in a Basset?

I was not involved, but understand the answer to be "it depends". AFAIK the Basset could take 5 pax, but was told that the V-force needed an aircraft to hold the 5 aircrew plus a crew-chief - one too many for the Basset. Pembrokes were out of fatigue life by about 1968, so of scrap value only.

JENKINS

8th Oct 2019, 10:42

pax britanica

8th Oct 2019, 12:32

While almost no one involved in UK aviation management and strategic decision making can claim much credit the truth is surely that by the end of W2 the Americans were so much further ahead than us, except in Jet engines which was surely just matter of time that we had no real prospects of catching up because the airframe technology and mass production engineering skills were all in the USA, we were still including wood and fabric and tail wheels while US was all metal tricycle gear and long ranges and ruggedness necessary in their domestic market which far far better replicates a global market than any thing anyone in UK could conceive of.

i dont mean this as a criticism but just the outcome of WW2 and our small size as a country and actually we did some remarkable things Comet and Viscount and Hunter but big usually trumps better and when better is limited to a small proportion of output well theres only one outcome

sandiego89

8th Oct 2019, 14:16

possel

8th Oct 2019, 17:01

Could a bomber crew actually fit in a Basset? What was the politics of that acquisition?

That question is comprehensively covered in Tom Wenham's book "False Dawn - The Beagle Aircraft Story" (published by Air-Britain) which I recommend despite the price. Sadly it is not well covered in "Flight Path", the biography of Peter Masefield, who was the driving force behind Beagle in its early days.

chevvron

9th Oct 2019, 07:36

No experience of RAF Basset, but while serving I accumulated enough hours on Beagle 206, both normally aspirated and boosted, to appreciate the aircraft in those wonderful days of relatively simple General Aviation. Single pilot, decent avionics, good vision, and in my estimation much nicer than the PA31-310 which I also flew at the same time. I pitched up at Northolt on one occasion and my chums there came over to take a shufti. The Royal Air Force at the time did not appreciate that a navigator was no longer necessary, and neither was the hefty door fitted to their Bassets. Shame, a nice machine spoiled.

I believe that redundant aircraft became popular for one-run drug operations in certain parts of the world.
Never got to fly in a Basset but I had several friends working for Shorts who were contracted to provide ground services at Bovingdon. They told me the rumour was that Bassets were 'chosen' from the '206 production line by selecting those aircraft which had had to be partly re-built due to some sort of problem.
Whether this was true I don't know but in any case, they found that on Bovingdon's 'undulating' main runway, heavy braking would cause the prop tips to touch the surface so the blades had to be shortened.
As regards carrying a navigator; this extended to the '80s and later when MOD(PE) bought PA31s for the comms flights at Farnborough and Boscombe Down. Until the Farnborough 'Transport Flight' was disbanded by DRA just before MOD flying moved out, ('we are in the business of aviation research, not running an airline') the PA31s always carried a navigator and in fact Boscombe may still operate this system..

tornadoken

15th Oct 2019, 09:52

The actual Answer is...all, then again...none.
Director, Operational Requirements turns Defence Policy into aspirational inventory. So: when close-up to Army was an RAF Task, he specified Observation Posts and assault gliders; after 1957, Army Air Corps., he did not.
His Shopping List must then find its way into Long Term Defence Costings, which must first be Approved by Heads Army+Navy, before they all try to get politicians to extract funds from Treasury.
Surmounting all that a Tender Specification is prepared to go out to industry. Which? Who? Where? Bespoke or Commercial Off the Shelf? Seldom is RAF's need truly unique, so often someone's imminent kit would meet a high % of the Spec.
So, politics: Protect domestic jobs...by taking on a development schedule which may not run smoothly? Or fork out hard cash to export jobs, import (?proven?) kit? Ah.

Before 1949, when Alliances were erratic, consensus was to try for self-sufficiency. After NATO became effective, inter-/cross-operation became an Aim. That would lead in logic to 100% US inventory, not due to quality, but to scale of US own demand.
So: to simplify: end-User Commands would he very happy to operate the same kit as US, accessing parts, tools, manuals. Treasury would like that too, as US can be, ah, flexible, on price/payment. But local employment would be good. So: offset.

In modern times: Belfast, Belvedere, Argosy, Puma, Gazelle, Jaguar, Harrier, were imposed by politicians to meet ORs which RAF would have preferred to be met by: leased C-133, more S.58 (preferably from Sikorsky), C-130, USArmy solution, US Army solution, F-4C, F-4D.
User logic would have been same as RAAF taking F-111C, not TSR.2: if US is churning out (F-4s: 75 a month!) and deploying them on stores/training/repair facilities world-wide...what's not to love?

India Four Two

15th Oct 2019, 17:00

Fareastdriver

16th Oct 2019, 09:11

more S.58 (preferably from Sikorsky),

It is just as well the RAF had to buy the Puma. It was streets ahead of the Wessex.

chevvron

16th Oct 2019, 14:07

Thanks Ken, that was most informative.

75 F-4s a month. I had no idea! Three years ago, I was lucky enough to be at Oshkosh and saw the last two airworthy QF-4s. Wonderful sight. The noise was even better.

You want wonderful noise, we had a couple of civilian operated F100s at Farnborough in the mid '90s.
I was the only controller who was aware of the loud (and I do mean LOUD) bang when the 'burner lit so it wasn't unknown for the tower controller to press the crash button when this occured.

India Four Two

16th Oct 2019, 17:24

we had a couple of civilian operated F100s ...

"civilian" civilian or military pretending to be civilian?

chevvron

16th Oct 2019, 22:42

Civilian; on contract to Flight Refuelling for use as target aircraft.
Originally based at Hurn but after an overrun mishap, re-located to Farnborough 'cos we still had arrestor barriers (cables too) even though MOD flying had moved out.

treadigraph

16th Oct 2019, 23:15

I think the same outfit has several civilian A-4s operating Germany providing targets for the military.

Mechta

23rd Oct 2019, 19:49

... allowed the Americans (who we'd given the green light for transport aircraft development) to come up with the 707. We were still producing beautiful looking but totally unsuitable aircraft such as the Brabazon and could have competed fairly with Viscount and developments (not necessarily Vanguard) Britannia Trident and VC10.
I'm not au fait with why some say it was an economic disaster, but overlong development times meant that the conditions an aircraft was designed for no longer applied by the time it entered service.
And I guess that takes us back to the OP question - aircraft foisted when the requirement no longer existed.

But isn't that what the military always complain of, being given equipment designed to win the PREVIOUS War, not the CURRENT one?

The people in Britain who made the decisions were blinkered enough to only permit the manufacture of designs to meet the existing requirement (or market), whereas the Americans (possibly) had the foresight to see that the right designs would generate their own markets.