Armstrong Whitworth Argosy

Given that the emphasis for our bomber units at the time was tactical and strategic nuclear delivery, they probably thought it is was inefficient and wasteful to re-task these units for a short duration conventional anti-terrorist role. This was probably a proposal based on the idea of making the best use of available resources.

Given the wide knowledge of "enemy" , ie russian, transports of the time with "bomb aimers" windows, eg AN-10, AN-12 and some Tupolev and Illyushin transports, and with the availabliity of the window in the front lower fuselage of the Argosy, this probaly was not such as an outlandish step as you might think

canberra wrote:

Im wondering if some thought may have been given to replacing the Shackleton with the Argosy?

Did it have the range (at low level) that a Shackleton had?

The Shackleton might have the nickname of a 10,000 rivets flying in formation but it did look like a proper aircraft whilst the Argosy looked like a box with wings bolted on.

A recurring theme since the end of the war has been the contraction of the RAF, its funding, manpower and equipment, the reduction in its commitments both of capability and reach (location) and the increasing adoption of equipment that has multi role capabilities.

To simply blame the Hercules is a gross over-simplification

canberra wrote:

IIRC the Argosy made its maiden flight AFTER the Hercules maiden flight, I wonder if the RAF were told you will buy the Argosy whether you like it or not. Much in the same way that the RAF were told they were having the AEW Nimrod.

I suspect this was partly to do with propping up the cash strapped aviation industry in the post war era.

Back then aircraft were produced in response to an Air ministry requirement or specification

I doubt that the Americans were aware of it, let alone interested in tendering