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

[JENKINS]

Beagle Basset

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.

[pax britanica]

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]

Originally Posted by PAXboy

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!

I imagine some of those runways also proved useful for KC-135's and B-52's...

[possel]

Originally Posted by India Four Two

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]

Originally Posted by JENKINS

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]

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]

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.

[Fareastdriver]

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]

Originally Posted by India Four Two

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]

we had a couple of civilian operated F100s ...

"civilian" civilian or military pretending to be civilian?

[chevvron]

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]

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

[Mechta]

Originally Posted by Icare9

... 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.