I’m not sure whether this belongs here or in the Modern military aviation forum, but this is my first thread here and I’m sure if there’s any problems the moderators will move it where it belongs.
Anyway I’m very interested in British Miltary aviation from say 1955-80, particularly the Fleet Air Arm, though I’m also interested in the RAF. Whenever I read books/watch documentaries on the subject I frequently come away feeling frustrated and angry over what could and should have been equipment-wise within the forces. I recently watched a DVD on TSR2 and that was the catalyst for seeking out this message board so I could swap thoughts and ideas on this subject with others with an interest in the subject.
The crux of things is this, it occurs to me that the RAF and FAA came very close in the mid 60s to having a very economical to run, yet potent and effective force if not for a combination of inter-service rivalry, political shortsightedness and incompetence (by BOTH parties) and economic crisis’. The principal example is the P1154 which I believe was to have been called Harrier (before that name was adopted by the present-day family of VSTOL machines). Following the US lead, the Government wanted to get the two fast-jet services flying the same planes. The Buccaneer was put forward for the RAF as well as the FAA and to their credit the RAF seriously considered it.
But the principal example is the supersonic Harrier. The FAA wanted an Anglicised Phantom, the RAF wanted P1154. In the end the FAA went along with P1154, though they clearly wanted Phantom. So they set to work. As I understand it the FAA wanted a two-seat aircraft with high-altitude supersonic capability whilst the RAF wanted a single-seater with supersonic dash. Ironically the two-seat P1154 looks like a cross between a Phantom and Harrier from models and artists renderings. Because of the disagreements the FAA walked away and got the Phantom. The project was cancelled and in the end the RAF got Phantoms (and transonic Harriers and the Anglo-French Jaguar become more than an advanced jest trainer).
But just think, the rug could have been pulled from under the FAA if the RAF had been persuaded to take the two-seat P1154 AS WELL AS the single-seater as a replacement for its Lightnings. This would have eliminated much of the arguing between the services. The FAA could then have gone with a smaller/simpler (and by extension) cheaper Carrier design than CVA-01 and the RAF wouldn’t have had to go for not one but three alternatives to the P1154. The composition of the RAF from about 1970 onwards could have been:-
P1154 (2 seat) in place of Phantom and more recently Tornado F3.
P1154 (1 seat) in place of Jaguar and transonic Harrier.
TSR2 in place of Buccaneer S2/Canberra PR9 and more recently Tornado GR1/4.
In other words the RAF could have fielded two and a half types of fast jet (half of course meaning two variants of the same plane) instead of five! And the FAA could have sported bigger, better Carriers and faster more capable jets than the Invincible/Sea Harrier combination.
Thoughts anyone?
By: Eric Mc - 2nd May 2005 at 10:19
The P1154 was looked on as the operational development of the P1127. Although touted for the Royal Navy, the Admirals were not enthusiastic about it, mainly because they could foresee their beloved big carriers being reduced in size to suit the aircraft’s V/STOL capabilities. The RAF were not to keen on it either as they cpould see the fact that the exploitation of V/STOL resulted in loss of capability in other areas (range, payload, equipment etc). The P1154 therefore had few friends where it mattered and it was no surprise that it was eventually cancelled. However, in the meantime the joint UK/US/West German Tripartite Squadron had been test flying a development of the P1127 , the Kestrel, in operational conditions and were discovering how useful V/STOL could really be in the field. In particular, the US Marines saw great potential in a fully operation V/STOL aircraft. As a result, the Kestrel was further developed into the AV-8A/Harrier GR1 and ended up with the “super” Harriers in service today.
Ironically, eventually the Royal Navy DID lose its big carriers and had to make do with the Invincible class “Through Deck Cruisers” kitted out with air defence versions of the V/STOL Harrier.
By: F-18RN - 2nd May 2005 at 09:54
I think these are pictures are pretty good. And the website below should also be helpful.
http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/history_p1154.htm
Please not the similarity between the cockpit/intake arrangement of the Phantom and that of the two-seat P-1154.
By: dhfan - 2nd May 2005 at 09:14
I’ll have to refer to a couple of books for more detail but it was basically a supersonic development of the P1127. The artists impressions looked very nice. Very similar to the P1127/Kestrel/Harrier but longer which improved the looks. The engine was the BS.100 which, had it been built, was a derivative of the Pegasus using plenum chamber burning. I believe that involved burning fuel at the front of the engine so the front nozzles were hot as well as the rear.
Further details can follow if nobody else does it first.
By: Moggy C - 2nd May 2005 at 07:13
I was around at the time and always assumed that the P1154 was merely a pre-production Harrier.
Would anybody like to explain / illustrate the differences please?
Moggy
By: Snapper - 1st May 2005 at 23:19
Good topic, and one I haven’t seen before.
I’d take it back furtehr to the immediate aftermath. When they scrapped so much,why didn’t they ratinalise what they had, mothball t, and keep the varios leaders in their field? And what were they?
Sign In
May 1, 2005 at 9:29 pm