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 ).

One “gotcha” of which I wasn’t previously aware was that whilst the individual unit cost of the F-111Cs was capped, other project costs were still charged to the Australians. Such as $2.5 million for rewriting the technical manuals! The author states that the advertised capped unit cost was $5.95 million but in fact was $13.52 million when project charges were allocated. ouch!

Also depressing that the F-111K saga cost the UK $279 million. Unbelievable sum when the government had been whinging about TSR.2 costing $1 million per week…

Where is your evidence for the Sea Harrier & Invincible orders? I’ve never heard of this. I don’t recall any mention of it at time.

One of the key justifications for launching the Sea Harrier programme was Iranian discussions with HS for several squadrons to equip three carriers. Not sure about Invincibles, thought it was Harrier Carriers.

I’m sure Hansard for that time has some reference, it was bandied-about at the time as explaining how the UK could afford to proceed with an otherwise limited-export-potential development.

Update: here we go, 1976 in Flight. Seems that Peru wanted Shars as well ( if you follow the story back a few pages )!

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1976/1976%20-%200954.html

For the younger viewers, “ASW Cruisers” was the euphemism for what became the Invincibles.

OK now I’m confused… from the colour scheme and and Technical Order rendering of Royal Air Force, I would have said that this is a USAF 135W being leased to the RAF.

But elsewhere it is stated that KC-135Rs are being converted for the RAF, so why apply FS paint colours ( that the RAF doesn’t stock ) and incorrect lettering? Why not barley grey like the rest of the RAF ISAR fleet?

Never mind why we’re taking a non-standard airframe anyway. *sigh*

However, I doubt that few non-jet aircraft could beat the Mosquito as far as getting to a distant point and getting there very quickly.

True in peacetime, though I think the DC-7 could put up a good challenge.

But in the last years of the war the PR Mossies operating from Italy had to be escorted over Austria and Germany by P-51s and P-38s, which somewhat diminished the straight-line speed potential. The escorts could have kept-up with the Mossie at full chat but not for the endurance.

The Russian copy, the Il-62, used to have a prop under the tail when it was parked.

Interestingly if you overlay a plan view of the Il-62 and VC-10, and align from the tail cone forward, the ’62’s wing is mounted about half of a chord farther forward.

This gives a longer moment arm aft of the main gear, so the same load in the aft seats of a 62 would generate more of a down force than in the VC-10. Hence, presumably, the pogo tail wheel.

Oddly this layout should mean that the tail can be much smaller to provide the same aerodynamic force, but the fin and rudder are about the same area as the ’10. Possibly because the forward fuselage of the ’62 is much longer.

So… I didn’t really clarify anything there!

A Congolese B-26K

Intriguing; from the right in the background ( on the apron ) there is a single-engined trainer ( T-6? ), a pair of H-21s, something that looks like a Cessna Bobcat ( silver ) and then is that a Helio Twin-Courier on the left in line with the end of the hangar?!

From that eclectic mix ( and the fact that the H-21s were based with Pacific-side Army squadrons ) I would have placed that photo in SE Asia.

Thoughts?

Fascinating photo.

4. £15bn costs over 30 years not upfront.

That’s just the capital cost.

The operations costs will also have to be deducted from the Royal Navy Command and the Defence Equipment allocations ( currently about 2.2 and 16.5bn annually ).

Actual ops costs are difficult to ascertain as they also cover running establishments such as AWE but MoD states that they are in excess of 1.5bn annually.

So over 30 years that’s at least 60bn, not 15bn.