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.:hmm:

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.

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 :ok:

:-)
 

With 2500 hours on the Bucc, what's to change?

Bloggs

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

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.

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 !

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).

Indeed, it's amazing how things developed over almost 50 years! Perhaps TSR2 and Rotodyne would have seen equally significant development given the benefit of time?

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.

Well maybe except that the Eurofighter is at least home grown and i'm not sure we scrapped an alternative Brit type in order to get it.... So aside from all that... Actually that question of mind came from a royal aeronautical society lecture by David Gibbings who - amoungst other things - was reflecting upon the EH101 helicopter project.

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

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

Pittsextra
 

Eurofighter - homegrown?

Rgds SOS

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 :)

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

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.

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

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!

DBTW
rjtrt

One of the main reasons for the scrapping of TSR2 was the fact that Oz cancelled their order for the aircraft.

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.