Precisely… from ~1940 on, there were few barriers between R&D establishments in the “western allies”… and this continued through at least the end of the 1950s, including former enemies/NATO countries such as West Germany and Italy.

I agree… CZ R57….

First, the “fold-down” wingtips on the Valkyrie were for three specific aerodynamic reasons (as described here: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1975316&postcount=3 ).

1. increase lateral directional stability at high altitudes (thin air).
Your design does seem to have a slightly small vertical stabilizer area, but increasing that through folding ventral strakes like the XF8U-3 would work better, as you won’t have that extreme wing-span causing ground-handling, parking, and hangaring problems. Or you could just increase the height of your vertical stabilizer and eliminate complex folding surfaces completely.

2. prevent the aft-shift of the center-of-lift at high speed that is characteristic of delta wings.
As you have a conventional “center-mounted main wing/tail-mounted horizontal control surfaces”, this is not a problem.

3. help trap the chock-wave air under the wing to increase “compression lift”.
Your wing & fuselage shapes are totally wrong for “compression lift”.

Since only one of these applies to your aircraft, and that issue is better addressed in other ways, you really need to remove those folding wingtips completely!.

The other problem I see is the relative lack of internal volume for fuel to power those engines.

Where the English Electric Lightning was well-known for having a very short range in order to fit its two Avons into its small fuselage, you have twice as many engines and no more internal volume… your aircraft would literally run out of fuel just after reaching interception height!

You would be far better adopting the propulsion plan of the Saunders-Roe SR.177… replace two of those engines with solid-fuel rocket motors for initial take-off & climb boost. When they are exhausted the aircraft is lighter, and the remaining two engines will be plenty to maintain speed, and you will have a much longer range, as all the internal fuel will feed just two engines.

Yes, I read that elsewhere.

A well-written response, although I personally believe the current President and most of his people would prefer to dissolve NASA completely, turning the aeronautical part over to the FAA and eliminating all manned spaceflight in favor of increased social vote-buying… excuse me, essential social services.

Thanks Daniel, interesting reading. Unfotunate that the Australians were so quick to discount the Mirage IV ( on cost grounds ) and Vigilante ( based on some misunderstanding of its supersonic strike range ).

Hancock’s report rejected the Mirage IV and F-4C as not meeting the required specifications in range, low-level performance or reconnaissance capability…. and low-altitude entry & exit from the target zone was the preferred mission profile for the evaluation.

The documents I have digital copies of show that the RAAF firmly recommended the purchase of the Vigilante as their first choice… it was the politicians who over-rode them and bought the F-111.

A letter from the PM specifically says that the belief that buying the F-111 would create a more favorable political atmosphere and generate more US support for Australia (especially in regards to possibly getting nuclear weapons for deployment from the F-111s) was the main reason he decided on the F-111!

However, it is interesting to note the internal Australian political maneuvering noted in the book, and the effect that had on the decision.

I still think Australia would have done better to go ahead with the Vigilante, and then looked to buy FB-111As in the mid-1970s.

I wonder about something else… at the bottom of the left column on page 30 it claims “The arrangements also included the purchase of three frigates for the Navy”.

I don’t have time to read the whole thing right now, is there ever clarification of this? It could not possibly be referring to the 3 Perth-class DDGs, as the first two had been ordered on 6 January 1962 and the third on 22 January 1963.

The “arrangements” had been made in October 1963, so what ships could the PM have been referring to in the 22 October* 1963 Cabinet meeting?

* The text says “November”, but the preceding and following sentences & paragraphs show that it was actually in October.

The detailed quote from the thread above is here:

First, it is not an adaption of a (much smaller) Spitfire hood. They are totally different airplanes, with different dimensions and cross sections. The blown hood was merely inspired by that produced for the Spitfire. RAF test records indicate that the engineering work for the blown Mustang hood was done in the UK by North American Aviation engineers (i.e., it was an NAA engineered design, not a British one, thus factory approved and “official” as opposed to some cobbled up field mod.) Once a prototype was tested (on a Mustang I), production was turned over to Malcolm Ltd. to refine it for production, and produce the kits. The engineering required a lot of internal airframe modifications, and the stresses and aerodynamics were all considered.

So having seen the Spitfire “blown hood” and decided it was great, NAA developed the shape needed, and made a test article… but then turned it over to Malcolm Ltd. for refinement of the design and for production, as Malcolm were the experts in actually mass-producing them.

They would also have the best equiped navy in the region. Wonder if they would have gone for the Tornado?

Yep— 4x AAW Spruance class DDGs with Standard SM-1MR, as well as other new ships.

Also, with no Iranian support for HAMAS/Hezbollah, less violence in the middle east, a functioning moderate Palestinian government leading to a more fully-resolved peace and more autonomous Gaza/West Bank government with fewer/smaller intrusive Israeli settlements.

A less-divisive internal situation in Lebanon, with a more functional government.