1968...what would you do differently?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it's about aeroplanes...
...the wrong decision you guys made in the late 60s was the one about leaving the British Commonwealth to join the European Economic Zone, or was it the Common Market (
what did you call it before this more modern pseudo-federation?) That single mistake pretty much changed the course of history from one where Britain was at the middle of everything with friends all over the world, to one where it has become a small group of islands off the west coast of a mainland populated by reformed enemies.
...the wrong decision you guys made in the late 60s was the one about leaving the British Commonwealth to join the European Economic Zone, or was it the Common Market (
what did you call it before this more modern pseudo-federation?) That single mistake pretty much changed the course of history from one where Britain was at the middle of everything with friends all over the world, to one where it has become a small group of islands off the west coast of a mainland populated by reformed enemies.
Last edited by DBTW; 28th Dec 2012 at 03:18.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am always surprised at the lack of appreciation of what great opportunity was lost then. No, not TSR2, but RAF not getting F-111. That to me was the real opportunity lost.
Last edited by rjtjrt; 28th Dec 2012 at 09:11.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Back to the 1968 shopping/wish list ... I'd have put down an order for 500 or so Northrop T-38 Talon's and set in motion the remuster of the VR ... probably of not much strategic use ... but great fun 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
4Greens - # 25...
The Spey was ordered to provide jobs in the UK. The spams had been flying off carriers for years, using GE engines.
The carrier version of the Spey only differed from the RAF version in that it had a catalytic (e.g. faster light up) igniter in the re-heat system and some differences in the rigging.
Rgds SOS
The Spey was ordered to provide jobs in the UK. The spams had been flying off carriers for years, using GE engines.
The carrier version of the Spey only differed from the RAF version in that it had a catalytic (e.g. faster light up) igniter in the re-heat system and some differences in the rigging.
Rgds SOS
Last edited by SOSL; 28th Dec 2012 at 15:22.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle (others may find the detail that follows a little tiresome)
Interesting comment - which may say more about the holiday you are having than the actual aeroplane.
The very first GR1s that entered service in April 1969 had a spec requirement for an unrefuelled ferry range of 2000nm. This was demonstrated. When it came to delivering prod aircraft to Gutersloh from Dunsfold in the early 70s with the original engine I used to go from a VTO for no better reason than one could. BTW at that time HSA were paid £750k per copy. Remarkable really when you think it was also the first RAF aircraft with an INAS, moving map and HUD.
The wing gave us trouble in that the spec called for 6g at 10,000ft 16,800lb and 400kt. We could only manage 5 unless we put the nozzles down when it was easy to reach the 6. However the Dunsfold pilots ever thinking of their mates said that was cheating, So they insisted the wing was dressed and modded to achieve the extra g. Which was done.
Since over the years more than 800 airframes were delivered to 6 countries and 7 air arms I guess some people checked the facts. When it came to the final big donk which was flat rated to an OAT of 50degC (!) I simply could not believe the changes from the 1964 low thrust 1hr life (nozzles down) 25hr life (nozzles aft) engine that I had started on.
As it happens some recent Flight International correspondence refers to Harrier myths that would not go away despite being quite incorrect.
As would, perhaps, be the usefulness of a little short range V/STOL jet capable of flying not very far carrying not very much?
The very first GR1s that entered service in April 1969 had a spec requirement for an unrefuelled ferry range of 2000nm. This was demonstrated. When it came to delivering prod aircraft to Gutersloh from Dunsfold in the early 70s with the original engine I used to go from a VTO for no better reason than one could. BTW at that time HSA were paid £750k per copy. Remarkable really when you think it was also the first RAF aircraft with an INAS, moving map and HUD.
The wing gave us trouble in that the spec called for 6g at 10,000ft 16,800lb and 400kt. We could only manage 5 unless we put the nozzles down when it was easy to reach the 6. However the Dunsfold pilots ever thinking of their mates said that was cheating, So they insisted the wing was dressed and modded to achieve the extra g. Which was done.
Since over the years more than 800 airframes were delivered to 6 countries and 7 air arms I guess some people checked the facts. When it came to the final big donk which was flat rated to an OAT of 50degC (!) I simply could not believe the changes from the 1964 low thrust 1hr life (nozzles down) 25hr life (nozzles aft) engine that I had started on.
As it happens some recent Flight International correspondence refers to Harrier myths that would not go away despite being quite incorrect.
The Spey was ordered to provide jobs in the UK.
The carrier connection was that the Speys were supposed to help cope with our (relatively) small carriers...the US ones were a wee bit larger !
Last edited by longer ron; 28th Dec 2012 at 15:32.
Pittsextra, Post #31
"One wonders how far requirements changed or indeed if at that time anyone thought that they even might?"
When we get tired of this thread re 1968 how about re-mustering it for 1986, the first time I saw mention in the press about a new Eurofighter thingy?
In light of world events since the late 80s, what would we have done differently then? (Probably most of the above comments would suffice).
"One wonders how far requirements changed or indeed if at that time anyone thought that they even might?"
When we get tired of this thread re 1968 how about re-mustering it for 1986, the first time I saw mention in the press about a new Eurofighter thingy?
In light of world events since the late 80s, what would we have done differently then? (Probably most of the above comments would suffice).
I simply could not believe the changes from the 1964 low thrust 1hr life (nozzles down) 25hr life (nozzles aft) engine that I had started on.
Sorry for having been being rather intemperate in some earlier posts, but myths about many cancelled UK aircraft programmes cannot be left unchallenged.
And for the record, I consider the UK's premature scrapping of the Harrier GR9A and particularly the Sea Harrier F/A2 (with AIM-120 and Link16) to have been scandalous.
"One wonders how far requirements changed or indeed if at that time anyone thought that they even might?"
When we get tired of this thread re 1968 how about re-mustering it for 1986, the first time I saw mention in the press about a new Eurofighter thingy?
In light of world events since the late 80s, what would we have done differently then? (Probably most of the above comments would suffice).
When we get tired of this thread re 1968 how about re-mustering it for 1986, the first time I saw mention in the press about a new Eurofighter thingy?
In light of world events since the late 80s, what would we have done differently then? (Probably most of the above comments would suffice).
Cutting a long story short it was a concept that was borne out of an anti-submarine requirement in the 1970's, a threat which had arguably passed by its inception. That and the rapid rate of development in electronics and you have things that are a little long in the tooth before they are ever brought into service.
Upon reflection one wonders if that may have been the case with TSR2, given the all things to all men type role - although it is 1968 and I imagine unable to be rekindled by this time?
edited to add quote
Last edited by Pittsextra; 28th Dec 2012 at 16:23.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Good point Lron,
Ark Royal (No. 4) was about 300 ft shorter than Nimitz, say, but Ark Royal was constructed with an angled flight deck before the spams caught on.
Nonetheless the Spey in the F4 was still ordered to provide jobs in the UK.
That's not to detract from the performance of the Spey in other aircraft types and in its marine version. It was a ground breaking engine and still a workhorse around the globe.
Rgds SOS
Ark Royal (No. 4) was about 300 ft shorter than Nimitz, say, but Ark Royal was constructed with an angled flight deck before the spams caught on.
Nonetheless the Spey in the F4 was still ordered to provide jobs in the UK.
That's not to detract from the performance of the Spey in other aircraft types and in its marine version. It was a ground breaking engine and still a workhorse around the globe.
Rgds SOS
Last edited by SOSL; 28th Dec 2012 at 16:30.
Hi SOSL
Yes I agree it was jobs for the boys to a certain extent,and I have often wondered if an american phantom would have been able to launch/bolter from our carriers...any comment from the boys in dark blue ??
You only have to look at the land on footage/bolters from the 'sailor' series to see how tiny our flight deck was
Yes I agree it was jobs for the boys to a certain extent,and I have often wondered if an american phantom would have been able to launch/bolter from our carriers...any comment from the boys in dark blue ??
You only have to look at the land on footage/bolters from the 'sailor' series to see how tiny our flight deck was
Although the MRCA was later than the TSR2, and somewhat shorter legged, the overall result (IMO) was an excellent all weather tactical Strike/Attack platform, that has (several) war credentials to show for it. The decade or so delay from TSR2 allowed the Tornado to be a multinational project that benefited greatly from the dawn of the digital age and became an almost unimaginable step forward in IMC Strike/Attack capability. The answer to the question is, most things worked out well till 1990. The Tornado will go down in history as a great workhorse that we almost got by default.
OAP
OAP
Last edited by Onceapilot; 28th Dec 2012 at 20:34.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give HMS Eagle the same "Phantomisation" refit as HMS Ark Royal and restart the CVA01 project so both ships can be replaced with conventional carriers in the early eighties. No through deck cruisers.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gravesend
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LR - John Eacott has posted pics before, they cross decked from the USS Kennedy:
Photos from Ark Royal (F4, Sea Vixen etc) - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums
Photos from Ark Royal (F4, Sea Vixen etc) - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Taif-Saudi Arabia
Age: 64
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have ensured that Flt Lt Alan Pollocks Hunter was armed so instead of 3 protest circles of Parliament he could have just got shot of the Wilson politbureau with a couple of 500 pounders!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: moraira,spain-Norfolk, UK
Age: 82
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timewarp...
So, if you could could get hold of a 1968's time frame carrier,
say Ark Royal and some Phantoms & Bucaneers would they be (have been) any use in the recent Libya, Gulf1&2 or Falklands
conflicts (peacekeeping?). Of course not to forget the good old (new when I knew them) Gannet. Regards for the new year,John.
say Ark Royal and some Phantoms & Bucaneers would they be (have been) any use in the recent Libya, Gulf1&2 or Falklands
conflicts (peacekeeping?). Of course not to forget the good old (new when I knew them) Gannet. Regards for the new year,John.
