Shipbucket

Transports is one of the more interesting, but largely overlooked area and one I've touched on in my recent research.

STOL Tactical Transport: The DHC Caribou for a long time was the RAF's favoured choice due to costs and some operational trials were flown in Aden. The Avro 748M (later Andover) and Handley Page Herald were the two main 'political' contenders as British designs with export potential. Of them the Herald probably had the lead but Handley Page was rejecting the government's nationalisation policy and that company therefore forfeited any state support and ultimately was forced out of business. I've no personal preference but if this was my AU I'd back Sir Page.

STOL Transport: The AW.681 was actually quite ideal for the job, if technically complex due to the STOL needs. The most vital consideration for the RAF is range and ferry range. The East of Suez reinforcement mission was the key driving force behind the requirement that lead to the aircraft. Political studies were made of likely available Western and Eastern routes to Singapore and its no coincidence that the AW.681's ferry range matches the longest feasible route over politically friendly territory. Whether the numbers required justified the costs is open to question, certainly the C-130 was cost effective. I've always been intrigued by BAC's Tyne-powered boundary-control layer C-130 proposal but it was inferior to the AW.681. The Medways would be brilliant to have, however for that engine to exist better stick it into the TSR.2 and DH Trident too and make three world-beating aircraft!

Strategic Transport: The RAF's choice was always the Handley Page HP.111C based on the Victor. That was the aircraft they wanted. The political need to keep the workers at Shorts in Belfast in employment (the company was nationalised in 1943) meant their Belfast was the political choice forced upon the RAF by the Prime Minister. The RAF was not happy about it and hated the aircraft, I've seen the official documents were the RAF was prepared to fight any further Belfast orders (the total of 30 you mention). The Jet-Belfast was a competitor against the AW.681 for the tactical role, not a strategic lifter. The RAF did everything to scupper it and keep the AW.681, they'd even have the C-130 over the Belfast.

I love the idea of the VC-10 tanker fleet, in my ideal AU I'd buy the first dozen trooping C.1 VC.10 and then 24 tanker K.2 VC.10s based on the Super VC.10. Even the military VC.10 had huge political and cost implications with fine toothcomb analysis of the increased costs the RAF were paying over the civil version, especially the extraordinarily high costs of the new flight manuals costing thousands per aircraft! If anything transport aircraft reveals more about the politics of the era than the TSR.2!

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Even if the Belfast was not built, Shorts could manufacture parts for other aircrafts (as they did with the Fokker 100, perhaps with other Fokker as well). They had also their own designs, suc has the Skyvan and the 330.

I thought the Andover for transport everything it can hold internal in United Kingdom and the 681 for strategic lift. The C-130 is one of the best transport planes ever built, but AS designed from Lockheed. Personally I doudt if the Tyne-C130 was better, judging from the Spey-Phantom. The fighters is another large chapter to discuss.

My VC10 AEW is based on the Standard airframe and has the equipment from the E-3 Sentry. The Nimrod AEW swallowed 1m English pounds and was a dead end, this I suggest previously would be more cost effective.I also agree to that you wrote about RAF VC.10, perhaps some more converted later.

The DH Trident with Medways was the Avro 776?

That Hood wrote about Handley Page reminds me histories I read about the closure of some OKBs in Soviet Union during Stalin era.
However, the Herald is equivalent with the Fokker F27 in range, the Andover has much short legs but a rear door similar with C-130, so it could be loaded more easily. Perhaps a Herald with rear door similar with Andover is perhaps a good solution.

Supposed the HP.111 was ordered and built, would it be efficient?

Americans in NATO want the market for themshelves only, but this would led to an agreement to let United Kingdom sell in Commowealth countries and to any other country want English weapons. In other words, US let UK to compete in national contests for military equipment. But this is political question, here we examine aircrafts mostly from technical side.

P.S Some days ago I searched for information about the Avro Atlantic, some guys built an what if military Atlantic, http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/inde ... tic-cmk-2/, is there any role this aircraft would fulfill or just leave it? As a passenger aircraft had the same problem with Comet, inside noise due to engines position.

My collection of AU VC.10 for RAF:



The shorter ones supposed to be Standard.

We can say 12 VC.10 C1 cargo/troop carriers, 24 VC.10 K1/K2 Tankers (difference is the extra internal fuel tanks-K1 no tanks , K2 yes), 6 VC10 AEW.2 (AWACS) , 4 VC10 R.2 (something between US Rivet Joint and J-Stars with British electronics) and some more ex-commercial airframes were also converted to tankers as K.3, while the K.4 is the latest version of VC.10 tankers in 1990's (all modernized from previous versions,some retired for spares after the end of the Cold War).

In my scenario the VC.10 tanker fleet is enough to keep the Victor B.2 in service as bomber during Cold War. A squadron of Victors took part in both Iraqi Wars and Afghanistan together with USAF B-52, while the Vulcan was phased out in late 1980's.

Why would UK need to ask USA for permission to compete in any such contest anywhere in the world (leaving aside situtions where a product would consist large amount of US equipment which would be subject to US export limitations)? Is UK losing is sovereignity to the USA in this AU scenario?
Same applies to other NATO countries - that US would like to be their only arms supplier is one thing, but these countries don't necessarily need to want to have US as their only arms supplier. Did they lost their sovereignity to the USA - and their domestic arms manufacturing capacity - too?
Certainly, USA would like to have all the weapons market for itself, but that's just their own wish nobody needs to care about. ;P
Actually, even in Soviet Union in Warsaw Pact didn't grab all the market for itself.

Nice work on VC.10's.
Btw. I'm wondering why all SB-scale VC.10's have this "trim" to the nose? Am I right to think they were based on drawings that show them "standing on the ground"? (where they indeed have nose pointing slightly down)

Britain had some designs which was better than its US (at paper at least), while on the other hand USA had very aggressive politics in weapons sales, sometimes they tried to eliminate opponents. The politics would be discussed at the end of this thread. An British aircraft designer said (I think Sir Camm ) that "An aircraft has four dimensions, length, span, height and politics", this says it all. Is also true for everything in the world we live.

This thread is not actually a real AU, just a collection of what aircraft UK would have manufactured in Cold War and later, inspired from the "What-if British Aircrafts" thread from Hood. These VC.10 are of the few designs I did modify, beside my AU export TSR.2's (I have one more to do and then posted).

I use these SB-scale VC.10 "as found" (if I remember correctly were designed by Timothy Cizaldo). I changed color from a green-red to all variations I needed. They have several other flaws (I discovered wrong windows number also).

What about rest comments before that "agreement"? And the P.S about the Atlantic.

When it comes to the Herald, I've always believed that aircraft deserved more success than it had. Operators seemed to like it and the airframe did seem rather capable. If I remember right it still some somewhat short legs but other than that it would be pretty good to operate alongside the Caribou. The RAAF made good use of those until only a few years ago after all.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

Odysseus, just a heads-up - I'm working on fixing the VC.10s using Eswube's FD scale ones as a base.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

I have read about the RAAF Caribou. The Herald was the British equivalent of the Fokker F27.

Thanks TJ, then I will redone all my variants.

"The Medways would be brilliant to have, however for that engine to exist better stick it into the TSR.2 and DH Trident too and make three world-beating aircraft" said Hood above.

The Medway had enough power for the AW.681 and for the Super Trident, but it could be powerful enough for the TSR.2 or the Olympus was the perfect choice for the TSR?