Of what doctrine do you speak?

Sometimes the narrow question can help clarify the broad, I didn’t mean to imply the Q should be considered in isolation.

The RAF doctrine was three fold, first an most obviously was the air defence of Britain against Soviet Bombers, a threat which never really materialised to the extent that was expected and was partially neutralised by the existence of Norway.

The next, and arguably its favorite, was Nuclear detterence. This involved theartre bombers such as the Canberra and later the TSR-2 blasting holes in the Soviet AD network in central Europe then V-Bombers pouring through the gap and heading of to their targets. The problem here was the cancellation of the TSR-2 and the Avro-730 made the survivability of this force look very bleak. Note the sheer expense of both those types and their single role nature.

Then there was the tactical support role, this was largely performed by hunters and was the role the P.1154 was intended to fill. As you can see, we already have a three tier strike force, Tactical, Theatre, Strategic. Add to this that there was supposed to be a global capability as well and again that all three types were single role airframes as concieved.

The problem of V/STOL, it can take of vertically, well whoop-di-doo. Just imagine the support train that is going to be required to operate a Mach-2 strike aircraft away from a fixed base. For years I lived with the idea that the Harrier would be great for operating from damaged air bases until one day I mentioned it to a far more qualified friend than I who simply laughed, basically in a WW3 scenario (and this is what was being planned for) any airbase that was bombed would have been nuked, ie everyone outside atom proof bunkers incinerated. If by the grace of god your P.1154 had survived this and you managed to role it out of the hangar and get it off the ground for its single sortie it would likely not have much left to support on its bombing mission. Of course the other great problem in V-STOL land is that all V/STOL types make a performance sacrifice compared to their coventional siblings which thus requires the use of said siblings to makeup for the performance sacrifice. V/STOL has worked properly in only two scenarios, one is baby carriers for those who wont pay for real ones and in expeditionary warfare where aircraft can be operated from a site whilst it is turned into a fixed base, at the same time when said base is not at risk from attack.

To conclude, you cant have V/STOL without conventional aircraft if you want to win, and the actual benefits are very limited.

Exactly, SLL.

No reason to suppose P.1154 would have failed technically. PCB (by-pass reheat – so, hot front nozzles) was on 1945’s W2/700. BS.100 was not only 1965’s biggest UK engine,but was to be our dearest in R&D: much BSEL flair (and c.10% RR-share) were to be poured in. If FAA had stayed in, power would have been deflected Twin Spey. With neither engine would it have found export customers: the price of verticality exceeded its benefit. Unit production price would have exceeded F-4D/E, so USMC and Harrier’s Naval Users would have put A-4S/F-8N on catapults. Dead-end P.1154 run: 60(RAF), Gutersloh Wing (not Harrier GR.1), plus 52 if (RN) stayed in (not F-4K). RAF would have got the 175 F-4D they wanted for 38 Gp and the rest of RAFG.

Instead of P.1154, HSAL probably sold more man-years as Sister Firm/making chunks for F-4K/M. “Best use” of metals industry and engineers was part of Wilson’s lot’s pitch to get (re-)elected. He used “white heat of the scientific revolution”: today it’s “knowledge”, but the issue is constant: how to feed 60Mn. Brits faced with diligent, efficient Asians whose end-prices are unattainable here.

So: what should RAF have had – implicitly, as well as what was actually deployed.

Some assert the Kaiser, Hitler, Tojo, USSR fell to “the 4th. Arm of Defence” -money, by trying to do guns and butter. UK twice very nearly did the same – Wilson resigned from Attlee’s Cabinet over an unaffordable Korean arms budget; Macmillan in 1957 – petrol rationing, deep pain – instructed Sandys to pare. He did so by dumping local Reds and Blues and Yellows to licence US nukes. If he had taken the logical step, after resiling from strategic “independence”, of letting Mk.1 V-Force gently expire, to give RAFG something fitter than Swift FR.5 and Canberra B(I)8 (P.1121 if you like), we could have been into all-arms 40 years ago. Wilson tried in 1965 to fund all RAF’s roles despite “stunned horror” at Treasury’s reception brief. Outgoing Chancellor Maudling “put his head round (Callaghan’s) door (and said cheerfully) good luck old ****. Sorry to leave it in such a mess.” P.83,D.Sandbrook,White Heat, Little,Brown,2006.

Very well said. I would just add that from the doctrinal perspective it took the RAF until Tornado to finally get the right balance in their strike aircraft, it has taken until now for them to get a truly dual role aircraft in the form of Typhoon (yes I know the Phantom could do both) and it has still yet to learn the lesson about V/STOL.

Without re reading the thread, what is PCB?

Sealordlawrence, ‘the disaster in the mid ’60s’ is a matter of opinion. How can you say the procurement of the Harrier, Buccaneer, Jaguar, Phantom and Nimrod was a disaster?
Also I really dont think that putting faith in two types, the TSR 2 and the P.1154, the forces would have done anywhere aswel as the previously named types in the real conflicts of this country.

I was reffering to the British aerospace industry not the RAF. If you had properly read my posts you would have realised that and that I was pointing out that one of the flaws was an RAF doctrine which required multiple single role types as opposed to one or two multi-role types.

So let me reconstrue my question,

What are people’s opinions of the likely outcome of the UK pursuing the P.1154 with PCB? A successful aircraft or a failure? Could both RAF and RN aircraft have been a success? Just one of them?

Forgive me if I sound like a cracked record but there are so many very knowledgable people here and I have no idea what the answer to this question is.

The RN version got canned, by the RN who got the aircraft they wanted, the phantom (I mean in terms of concept not neccesarily aircraft). Sure they both could have worked but not really of the same airframe due to the vastly different roles that they were intended to fill. Remember that the BS.100 engine was succesfully test run. Had the RAF version been pursued to fruition we would probably be in the same place as we are today only the Harriers would have been supersonic. The problem is that the V/STOL concept only works as part of a much wider doctrine, and the RAF could not afford that doctrine.

I should also say that the Question that you are asking is a very narrow one, as I have said sure it could work in technical terms, but there is a much wider picture, involving economy, politics and doctrine. It is a simplistic blinkered technical approach that leads many to regard the cancellation of TSR-2 as a crime against humanity.

The Singapore F 15 (BTW this version is called F 15T not SG) will have the V 4 (that’s the same V3 antena, but with the Power PC processors of the APG 79)

Nope. At least in the 170 F 15 C of the USAF the wirings are new, thanks to the APG 63 (V)1 upgrade; I can’t tell about the F 15 in the ANG with older APG 63/70. And the new antenna is light enough to get rid of tail balast.

I was under the impression that the T designation got revised to SG on the request of Singapore?

Thanks for the info about the radars.;)

It should also be pointed out that the early problem with the P.1154 project was the utterly incompatible nature of the RAF and RN requirement, the RN wanted a two seat all weather heavy interceptor, the RAF wanted a tactical strike/CAS aircraft (something else that smears excrement over the ‘Tactical’ part of Tactical Strike and Reconnaisance). Once the RN was dropped from the project it moved along smoothly, until it was cancelled for budgetary reasons and the technology demonstrator P.1127 was turned into a production aircraft.

That might hold true for the PLAAF after 1989, but I’m sure France would have been only too happy to sell Micas to India. Recently, Israeli missiles have become available to the IAF and yet there is no sign of them replacing the R-27 or R-77 in the MiG-29 MLU (they will however form part of the Mirage2000 upgrade and are being integrated onto the SeaHarrier) or the Su-30 fleet.

Could it be that the R-27 isn’t quite so bad afterall, making its long range a worthwhile addition to the Su-35’s arsenal? Going by the achievements of even the most recent Sparrow versions, nobody should expect stellar performance from a SARH missile of course, but I see no reason for the R-27 to be significantly worse.

In the African combat operation, I was always under the impression that it was the pilots who were mercenaries in some cases. That begs the question if the missile’s disappointing performance could be attributed to the targets being flown by crews who were intimately familiar with its strengths and weaknesses, knowing exceptionally well how to defeat it.

Add to that that Israeli and French military technology has a fairly consistent habit of ending up in China too.;)