What if

Hot Research Topics => Aircraft, Armor, Weapons and Ships by Topic => Topic started by: DarrenP on July 17, 2014, 01:50:41 PM

Title: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 17, 2014, 01:50:41 PM
we have a thread aircraft the the UK should have had now what shouldn't they have bought?

Let me open with Tornado F3
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: maxmwill on July 17, 2014, 03:06:45 PM
The GD(your choice as to the meaning of that) F111
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 17, 2014, 03:39:24 PM
The Rivet Joints, Nimrod R4s would have done the job and cost us, the taxpayers, less.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: The Wooksta! on July 17, 2014, 04:15:02 PM
Spey engined Phantoms.  Or indeed ANY Phantom.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Old Wombat on July 17, 2014, 11:49:26 PM
Quote from: The Wooksta! on July 17, 2014, 04:15:02 PM
Spey engined Phantoms.  Or indeed ANY Phantom.

:o Everybody needs Phantoms! 'Coz ... 'coz, well ... well, they're just so big, brutish & outright cool! :bow:
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 18, 2014, 12:04:03 AM
In the same era you'd probably have to add the Battle too, seriously underpowered and underarmed for the role it was pushed into.

Mind you, apart from moving Hampdens and Whitleys across to France I'm not sure what else could have been used.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Old Wombat on July 18, 2014, 12:22:11 AM
If you want shouldn't haves, let's try the Fairey Battle & Fulmar, & the Blackburn Roc & Skua.









Late to the party, again! that's what happens when you do too many things at once! :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Dizzyfugu on July 18, 2014, 12:33:11 AM
The Westland Whirlwind - at least with its crappy original engines.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: andrewj on July 18, 2014, 03:34:21 AM
Quote from: Dizzyfugu on July 18, 2014, 12:33:11 AM
The Westland Whirlwind - at least with its crappy original engines.

But , the piots who flew them, loved them .

Andrew
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Librarian on July 18, 2014, 05:53:07 AM
Quote from: Flyer on July 18, 2014, 05:44:43 AM
Quote from: Dizzyfugu on July 18, 2014, 12:33:11 AM
The Westland Whirlwind - at least with its crappy original engines.
I love the look of the Whirlwind, but you said at least with its crappy original engines, did they try other engines?

Huge fan of the Whirlwind but the problematic engines destroyed its career (and I vaguely remember some hostility from on high). Always wondered what could have been achieved with Merlins/Griffons.

Wasn't the Manchester ruined by poor engines too?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: JayBee on July 18, 2014, 06:52:42 AM
Ah yes the wonderful Botha.
I remember reading that the official test report stated that "Entrance to this aircraft is difficult, it should be made impossible."  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitnut617 on July 18, 2014, 07:05:21 AM
Quote from: Librarian on July 18, 2014, 05:53:07 AM
Huge fan of the Whirlwind but the problematic engines destroyed its career (and I vaguely remember some hostility from on high). Always wondered what could have been achieved with Merlins/Griffons.


Rolls Royce had a development plan for the Whirlwinds engines, but because they were instructed to concentrate on the Merlin, that development had to be canned.   Up until the Westland Welkin got it's official name, it was called the Whirlwind Development Aircraft.  The Welkin had Merlins ---- so now you know what could have been achieved.  The downfall of the Welkin though was it's wing, no matter how much power the engines could produce, the wing had a maximum speed, anything over that speed, the wing shock stalled.  Westlands answer to that was to increase the chord length by 20% but by then the Air Ministry had lost interest in it, that and the fact the expected German high altitude attack didn't materialize ---

One of my projects in the works is to modify one of the Welkins I have, with this 20% increased wing, plus shortening the wing to make it into a heavy fighter --  I could see it as a pretty good 'Pacific' escort fighter as it could carry (and was tested with) a pair of 200 Gal drop tanks. If you know what the 200 Gal. tank looked like that the Beaufighter used, the Welkin carried two of them.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Mossie on July 18, 2014, 07:11:06 AM
TSR.2

There, I've said it.  It shouldn't have been built in the first place, but once it was we should have followed it through.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitnut617 on July 18, 2014, 07:16:01 AM
Quote from: Flyer on July 18, 2014, 06:05:28 AM
Quote from: Librarian on July 18, 2014, 05:53:07 AM
Wasn't the Manchester ruined by poor engines too?
just looked it up and it used unreliable Rolls-Royce Vulture's, I alway's thought it used Merlin's...

also found:
Manchester II Projected version re-engined with a pair of Napier Sabre or Bristol Centaurus engines. None built.

unfortunate that version was never built, sounds like a great idea.

The idea of the Manchester was to be powered by two 2000+ hp engines, any of the engines you mention fall into that category.  One of the reasons the Manchester had such tall u/c was because it was supposed to swing a 16 foot diameter prop.  But the Vulture was only developed so far so by the time it was cancelled, it used a smaller diameter one.  Once again, the Vulture fell victim of the urgent requirement for Merlins.  I've read that the problems could have been fixed, incidentally, when the Vulture was installed in the Hawker Tornado, they didn't experience any problems with it.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: NARSES2 on July 18, 2014, 07:16:50 AM
Kitnut beat me to the point re the Peregrine engine. In my world RR sort the problems out and the Whirwind sees much more extensive service.

As for the Welkin. The CM kit is in the pile of "next starts" as the resin part of the stash's contribution  ;D

Fairey Battle, Fulmar etc ? Rather unfair to judge them with hindsight in my opinion. You need to try and put your self into the minds of the people at the time. What were the expected requirements, what were the planned operational procedures/tactics, what were the opposition expected to do ; indeed who were they expected to be ?

Very, very few things survive the first shock of war. Then the problem is that you haven't the time and/or resources to sort out those failures which could be sorted out with a little bit of development.

It's all to easy to condemn from a safe distance
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 18, 2014, 07:29:15 AM
Quote from: NARSES2 on July 18, 2014, 07:16:50 AM
Fairey Battle, Fulmar etc ? Rather unfair to judge them with hindsight in my opinion. You need to try and put your self into the minds of the people at the time. What were the expected requirements, what were the planned operational procedures/tactics, what were the opposition expected to do ; indeed who were they expected to be ?

Very, very few things survive the first shock of war. Then the problem is that you haven't the time and/or resources to sort out those failures which could be sorted out with a little bit of development.

It's all to easy to condemn from a safe distance

But we're doing ALL this thread with hindsight.

And that hindsight shows us that the Battle wasn't the ideal aircraft for the tasks it was given. OK, so the primary problem was with their Air Lordships for sending them, but there were better aircraft available.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: NARSES2 on July 18, 2014, 07:31:15 AM
People are very, very entitled to their opinions mate. I just feel that sometimes we (me included  :banghead:) should take a short time to consider before hitting the keyboard  ;D

For those interested in this subject I can thoroughly recommend "Back to the Drawing Board - aircraft that flew but never took off" by Bill Gunston.

There are some superb examples of Aviation's epic failures in there from the beginning through to the Rockwell XFV-12
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: NARSES2 on July 18, 2014, 07:40:09 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 18, 2014, 07:29:15 AM
Quote from: NARSES2 on July 18, 2014, 07:16:50 AM
Fairey Battle, Fulmar etc ? Rather unfair to judge them with hindsight in my opinion. You need to try and put your self into the minds of the people at the time. What were the expected requirements, what were the planned operational procedures/tactics, what were the opposition expected to do ; indeed who were they expected to be ?

Very, very few things survive the first shock of war. Then the problem is that you haven't the time and/or resources to sort out those failures which could be sorted out with a little bit of development.

It's all to easy to condemn from a safe distance

But we're doing ALL this thread with hindsight.

And that hindsight shows us that the Battle wasn't the ideal aircraft for the tasks it was given. OK, so the primary problem was with their Air Lordships for sending them, but there were better aircraft available.

I don't disagree Kit as long as it's hindsight with aforethought it's just to easy to pull a name out of the hat so to speak. Someone has to defend the poor things  :rolleyes:

The Battle was a reasonable Hart replacement and would have done a good job keeping the native's heads down on the NW Frontier or in Iraq. Unfortunately when it came to Northern France it wasn't up to it. Nor was much else be it due to poor design/development or procedures/tactics.

I've often wondered how the Hawker Henley would have performed in the Battle's role during 1940 ? A better aircraft ? Almost certainly but the tactics, enforced to some extent, and lack of air cover would have still seen it shot out of the sky.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: The Wooksta! on July 18, 2014, 07:57:06 AM
Quote from: maxmwill on July 17, 2014, 03:06:45 PM
The GD(your choice as to the meaning of that) F111

We never got it anyway - doesn't count.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 18, 2014, 09:15:44 AM
wooksta
I think we should have kept the phantom or bought more J's as opposed to getting Tornado F3
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Martin H on July 18, 2014, 09:41:11 AM
Quote from: Mossie on July 18, 2014, 07:11:06 AM
TSR.2

very dangerous ground there Mossie  ;)

you might fine one of these  :tank: handy when you are around some members of the SIG

Quote from: Mossie on July 18, 2014, 07:11:06 AM
There, I've said it.  It shouldn't have been built in the first place, but once it was we should have followed it through.
Although there is a fair bit of merit with your last sentence.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: pyro-manic on July 18, 2014, 10:31:08 AM
This might be a touch controversial, but at least one of the V-bombers. Three different aircraft for the same role could be seen as rather wasteful, and a poor use of limited resources. Not to mention running the Sperrin development programme on top. Cut one of them out, and you free up a lot of budget for other projects - perhaps more timely Sea Vixen deployment, and subsequent developments (Lightning replacement, or a British carrier fighter instead of the Phantom)?

I'm not too bothered about the Tornado F.3 - sure, it was dull and uninteresting, but it did the job. It was never meant to be a fighter, and it wasn't. But as an interceptor it did just fine.

If the Phantoms had been looked after properly they would have lasted much longer.

Moving right up to date, the F-35. Too big to fail, and all that, but the whole project is ridiculous. Heads should have rolled and contracts been cancelled years ago.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: jcf on July 18, 2014, 12:19:25 PM
The big problem regarding Peregrine and Vulture was less technical than logistical, more types
were using the Merlin therefore more production capacity was required to produce Merlins. If there
had been a critical requirement for either Peregrine or Vulture, then a solution would have
been found, as it was neither engine type was critical. The decision to drop both was sound, especially
as Peregrine was the end product of an older design - the 'F'/Kestrel, Vulture was overly complex,
and Griffon was already in the offing, and it was a much simpler path to a 2,000hp engine.



Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: sandiego89 on July 18, 2014, 12:53:06 PM
I'll throw one more out for consideration- Jaguar.  Did the UK really need both Jaguar AND Harrier?  Similar capability.

Mentioning the the Phantom and TSR2 on here?  Brave men indeed  :o   
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 18, 2014, 01:45:26 PM
Similar capability but slightly different concepts of operations.
Would rather have had jaguar in ground attack role than Tornado attempting to do it.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 20, 2014, 07:57:37 AM
Argosy C1
Belvedere Helicopter
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitbasher on July 20, 2014, 11:35:36 AM
Okay.....

So yes there's nothing but 'benefit of hindsight' going on in this thread, but that is inescapable.  And on that basis here is the vote of the Kitbasher jury:

TSR.2 - contentious indeed and I will go as far as to suggest that, yes it could have been procured but frankly I'm convinced it would not have been the wonderplane everyone reckons it would have been.  Also I think in-service operating and support costs would have been so high that it would have been a very easy target for the traditionally parsimonious MOD during successive defence reductions.

Very handsome machine (and an example of the British early 60s 'white heat of technology'); don't get me wrong, but with the benefit of hindsight (even 60's hindsight) their Airships were as blinkered by the sexiness of supersonics as their USAF cousins.  Had they not been then the RAF's natural Canberra replacement in the mid-60s would have been the Buccaneer.

Economies of scale, development potential, etc, could have resulted in the Bucc seeing wider service than was actually the case.

Oh, and in the end the Bucc did replace the Canberra in the RAF, just 10 or so years too late!

So the RAF should have joined in with the RN, ditched the TSR.2 early in its development and gone, as suggested, with the Buccaneer.  In terms of any defence project/procurement, there's a national industrial/employment/trade aspect that procurement of the Buccaneer would have additionally satisfied these UK plc interests. Would the TSR.2 have done so to the same extent? We'll never know, of course.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: royabulgaf on July 20, 2014, 01:13:09 PM
Interesting idea, Kitbasher.  The B-58 and F-111 were broadly similar designs to the TSR2, and had protracted development or were hangar queens.  An earlier RAF Buccaneer could have lead to perhaps, a thin wing second generation Buc, or maybe the Jaguar as a serious two service attack craft, with no real pretense as a transonic trainer. 
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 20, 2014, 03:18:07 PM
The whole point about the Buccs thick wings were that it could handle the heavy gust issues at ultra-low levels that it operated at. If they were thinner it'd have had to fly higher thus losing it's major advantage over the more conventional opposition.

Check with Red Flag F-15 pilots on the latter subject.......  ;D
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitbasher on July 20, 2014, 03:20:00 PM
Ah the Jaguar. In my alternative RAF I feel a license-built A-7 Corsair would have been the RAF's bomb truck instead of the Jaguar.  I think there's an inevitability about the Jaguar given the political/industrial climate of the 60s. It wasn't a bad aircraft - maybe just developed to its full potential.  At the end of its RAF life it got the uprated Adours it'd so needed for so long and a big-wing version (as touted in the 80s I recall) would have provided the extra stores pylons it needed.

Ideally then the Corsair IHMO but the Jaguar was always going to happen, I'd suggest.

Mind you, Corsair in the RAF and not in the FAA (because the Bucc was in service)? Maybe that alone would have been enough to guarantee the Jaguar!
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: chiglet on July 20, 2014, 04:33:14 PM
Hoo dear, can of worms here,
Tornado. Didn't need it. Bucc carried more, further and cheaper.
Phantom. F4e was the "realistic" choice... re engine F4B/Ds were wot we got
Harrier/Jag subtle difference in spec
EE Lightning, a "victim" of Polotic [ian] s It was more advanced than the TSR2, but didn't get any "serious" funding
Hunter/Swift debacle... obvious follow on was the f100
V Bombers. ALL the prototypes were research tools. the jet engine was yet to be proved, same with swept wings..
Ain't hind sight wunnerfull
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 20, 2014, 05:05:25 PM
This is trending more and more toward the 'Why didn't we buy US aircraft?' direction....

Because we're BRITISH, that's why!
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: rickshaw on July 20, 2014, 05:27:41 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 20, 2014, 05:05:25 PM
This is trending more and more toward the 'Why didn't we buy US aircraft?' direction....

Because we're BRITISH, that's why!

And you wanted to keep British pounds sterling in the UK paying British workers' wages?

Nothing wrong with that.  I think the best thing the RAF could have done would have been to blow up Whitehall and the House of Commons.  It would have stopped the Politicians interfering!

More seriously though, a single cohesive defence strategy backed by both major parties would have removed a lot of uncertainty from the whole issue.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: jcf on July 20, 2014, 06:43:57 PM
Quote from: rickshaw on July 20, 2014, 05:27:41 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 20, 2014, 05:05:25 PM
This is trending more and more toward the 'Why didn't we buy US aircraft?' direction....

Because we're BRITISH, that's why!

And you wanted to keep British pounds sterling in the UK paying British workers' wages?

Nothing wrong with that.  I think the best thing the RAF could have done would have been to blow up Whitehall and the House of Commons.  It would have stopped the Politicians interfering!

More seriously though, a single cohesive defence strategy backed by both major parties would have removed a lot of uncertainty from the whole issue.

... and an industry that didn't have its thumbs up its backside. The politicians and MoD were not
solely responsible for the mess that was the British aerospace industry.

Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 21, 2014, 12:20:36 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on July 20, 2014, 05:27:41 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 20, 2014, 05:05:25 PM
This is trending more and more toward the 'Why didn't we buy US aircraft?' direction....

Because we're BRITISH, that's why!

And you wanted to keep British pounds sterling in the UK paying British workers' wages?


Precisely, why should we pay American aerospace worker's salaries?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Hobbes on July 21, 2014, 01:53:19 AM
Quote from: chiglet on July 20, 2014, 04:33:14 PM

EE Lightning, a "victim" of Polotic [ian] s It was more advanced than the TSR2, but didn't get any "serious" funding


uh, what? The Lightning was very fast, but its avionics were basic. Limited to simple IR air-air missiles and dumb bombs, no terrain following, little to no ECM. It also had terrible (lack of) endurance.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 21, 2014, 02:00:48 AM
the F4K bought for the royal navy had to get over the size of carrier issue and the need for a faster reacting engine than the J79 which the spey did.

Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 21, 2014, 02:03:26 AM
Quote from: Flyer on July 20, 2014, 07:42:25 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on July 20, 2014, 07:57:37 AM
Argosy C1
Belvedere Helicopter
Why not the Argosy?

Because the Hercules was a much better platform and we wasted resources buying 2 aircraft to do the same role
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 21, 2014, 02:05:03 AM
Quote from: Hobbes on July 21, 2014, 01:53:19 AM
Quote from: chiglet on July 20, 2014, 04:33:14 PM

EE Lightning, a "victim" of Polotic [ian] s It was more advanced than the TSR2, but didn't get any "serious" funding


uh, what? The Lightning was very fast, but its avionics were basic. Limited to simple IR air-air missiles and dumb bombs, no terrain following, little to no ECM. It also had terrible (lack of) endurance.

should have kept to the original F4K buy and replaced the lightning with phantom FG1 from the outset as well as equipping FAA with it. Like they did with 111 and 43 sqn
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 21, 2014, 02:16:12 AM
Quote from: chiglet on July 20, 2014, 04:33:14 PM
Hoo dear, can of worms here,
Tornado. Didn't need it. Bucc carried more, further and cheaper.
Phantom. F4e was the "realistic" choice... re engine F4B/Ds were wot we got
Harrier/Jag subtle difference in spec
EE Lightning, a "victim" of Polotic [ian] s It was more advanced than the TSR2, but didn't get any "serious" funding
Hunter/Swift debacle... obvious follow on was the f100
V Bombers. ALL the prototypes were research tools. the jet engine was yet to be proved, same with swept wings..
Ain't hind sight wunnerfull

I agree with you tornado buccaneer should have been the Interdictor.
F4E would have been a better choice for the Airforce instead of the K
Lightning Like I said we should have extended the F4K buy and replaced Lightning
would Hunter have kept going till Phantom?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 21, 2014, 04:46:11 AM
Quote from: Flyer on July 21, 2014, 03:10:53 AM
Quote from: DarrenP on July 21, 2014, 02:03:26 AM
Quote from: Flyer on July 20, 2014, 07:42:25 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on July 20, 2014, 07:57:37 AM
Argosy C1
Belvedere Helicopter
Why not the Argosy?

Because the Hercules was a much better platform and we wasted resources buying 2 aircraft to do the same role

Forgive me if I'm wrong as I'm not British and far from full of historical knowledge but didn't think the Herc was available at the time, I thought the Argosy came first and was replaced by the Herc at a later date...

I would have thought the Beverly would have been closer to Argosy era...

The Argosy was five years ahead of the Hercules in RAF service, it joined up in 1962.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: rickshaw on July 21, 2014, 05:08:02 AM
Quote from: Flyer on July 20, 2014, 07:42:25 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on July 20, 2014, 07:57:37 AM
Argosy C1
Belvedere Helicopter
Why not the Argosy?

'cause it couldn't fly very far, very fast or very high.  It was a dog's breakfast by all accounts.  I used to see IPEC's two which were based in Adelaide in the 1970s.  Very noisy as well.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: JayBee on July 21, 2014, 05:12:52 AM
As far as I remember the Argosy could carry big loads and fly long distances,...............BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME!
It used to be said that the Argosy could carry a bag of crisps (potato chips to our American brothers) for thousands of miles, but a decent load for only a couple of hundred at best.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitbasher on July 21, 2014, 05:29:19 AM
Far less controversial (maybe) - the Shorts Belfast. Great concept (simple on paper and ticked all the political and industrial boxes) dismal execution.

The 'Belslow'.  Worked them when they were with Heavylift.  Remember reading somewhere that Shorts proposed a version that would have had a C-141 wing and engines (maybe not the engines, possibly something else.  Now THAT would have been good.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 21, 2014, 05:57:31 AM
Quote from: kitbasher on July 21, 2014, 05:29:19 AM
Far less controversial (maybe) - the Shorts Belfast. Great concept (simple on paper and ticked all the political and industrial boxes) dismal execution.

The 'Belslow'.  Worked them when they were with Heavylift.  Remember reading somewhere that Shorts proposed a version that would have had a C-141 wing and engines (maybe not the engines, possibly something else.  Now THAT would have been good.

They called the early Belfasts 'Dragmasters' as they were so slow, but when the strakes were added either side of the ramp it improved them no end and then they called them 'Fastbacks'.  ;D

Nevertheless they were the RAF's largest freighters until the C-17s came along, they'd have made a heck a difference to the Falklands affair.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitbasher on July 21, 2014, 06:55:41 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 21, 2014, 05:57:31 AM
Nevertheless they were the RAF's largest freighters until the C-17s came along, they'd have made a heck a difference to the Falklands affair.

IIRC they did - under Heavylift contract to the MOD.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitnut617 on July 21, 2014, 07:31:46 AM
To be fair with the Argosy, it was only designed to meet the "medium" range requirement, and to replace the Hastings.  Also expecting the Dart engines to do anything other than what they did is stretching it a bit.  If it had been Tyne engined, it might have made quite a bit of difference.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Thorvic on July 21, 2014, 07:40:27 AM
Quote from: kitbasher on July 21, 2014, 05:29:19 AM
Far less controversial (maybe) - the Shorts Belfast. Great concept (simple on paper and ticked all the political and industrial boxes) dismal execution.

The 'Belslow'.  Worked them when they were with Heavylift.  Remember reading somewhere that Shorts proposed a version that would have had a C-141 wing and engines (maybe not the engines, possibly something else.  Now THAT would have been good.

Technically they should have chosen the HP-111 a freighter version of the Victor, but went with the Short Belfast using the Britannia wing to keep Shorts going rather than fulfilling the RAF requirement. The Belfast really is one we Shouldn't have had as it was a political concession to a failing region.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitnut617 on July 21, 2014, 10:04:14 AM
Quote from: Thorvic on July 21, 2014, 07:40:27 AM
Quote from: kitbasher on July 21, 2014, 05:29:19 AM
Far less controversial (maybe) - the Shorts Belfast. Great concept (simple on paper and ticked all the political and industrial boxes) dismal execution.

The 'Belslow'.  Worked them when they were with Heavylift.  Remember reading somewhere that Shorts proposed a version that would have had a C-141 wing and engines (maybe not the engines, possibly something else.  Now THAT would have been good.

Technically they should have chosen the HP-111 a freighter version of the Victor, but went with the Short Belfast using the Britannia wing to keep Shorts going rather than fulfilling the RAF requirement. The Belfast really is one we Shouldn't have had as it was a political concession to a failing region.


As much as I like the HP-111 IMO, it's not ideal.  The low wing and spar running right through the cargo hold really restricts it's capability. I've been rummaging through the stash to see what could be used as a donor kit to build one but finding a fuselage with 15'-6" diameter is challenging.  Although a C-133 comes close at 16'-0", although a 1/16" difference would be hard to spot in 1/72 scale
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: jcf on July 21, 2014, 10:45:23 AM
The C-130 actually predates the Argosy; C-130 first flight 1954, Argosy 100 1959, Argosy C Mk. 1 1961.

Turning the Civil Series 100 freighter into a military freighter increased the empty weight by 10,000 lbs.,
loaded weight increased by 9,000lbs, but payload only increased by 1,000 lbs and available engine power
only went up by 1800hp. The Series 100 cruised at 280mph, the C Mk.1 at 253mph. The eternal joy of
engineering trade-offs.

-A-W Aircraft since 1913, Oliver Tapper, Putnam 1988 ed.

Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Logan Hartke on July 21, 2014, 11:09:59 AM
The Beverly's one I've had a hard time wrapping my head around, too. It was slower than a Gloster Gladiator. I know it was a transport aircraft, but c'mon. Compare it to a C-124 Globemaster II of the same era and it really looks sad. Heck, the C-124 production line was shutting down as the Beverly was just entering service.

As a huge fan of the V-bombers, I likewise agree that 3 production aircraft was 1 or 2 too many. Sadly, it's probably the Valiant that shouldn't have been produced, but possibly one of the others, as well.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 21, 2014, 02:43:31 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 21, 2014, 05:57:31 AM
Quote from: kitbasher on July 21, 2014, 05:29:19 AM
Far less controversial (maybe) - the Shorts Belfast. Great concept (simple on paper and ticked all the political and industrial boxes) dismal execution.

The 'Belslow'.  Worked them when they were with Heavylift.  Remember reading somewhere that Shorts proposed a version that would have had a C-141 wing and engines (maybe not the engines, possibly something else.  Now THAT would have been good.

They called the early Belfasts 'Dragmasters' as they were so slow, but when the strakes were added either side of the ramp it improved them no end and then they called them 'Fastbacks'.  ;D

Nevertheless they were the RAF's largest freighters until the C-17s came along, they'd have made a heck a difference to the Falklands affair.

they did Leased from Heavylift Air cargo I heard the Belfasts were leased every year from Heavy lift till the Antonov An124 came into service
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 21, 2014, 02:48:26 PM
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on July 21, 2014, 10:45:23 AM
The C-130 actually predates the Argosy; C-130 first flight 1954, Argosy 100 1959, Argosy C Mk. 1 1961.

I didn't say it did.

I said the Argosy entered RAF service 5 years before the Herk did............
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitbasher on July 21, 2014, 03:01:27 PM
The Beverly. Essentially a poweeed derivative of a glider design IIRC. Think Me 323 Gigant with only 4 engines.  The story goes that crews navigate their way back to base after longish overwater routes by following the oil slick they left behind on the way out.

To me the fixed u/c was an anachronism, and the aircraft was underpowered, but it did its job in rough short field conditions.

Like a lot of 50s British aircraft to me it seems underdeveloped. Not a bad aircraft, just not as good as it could have been, especially transports.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: royabulgaf on July 21, 2014, 04:32:50 PM
This is going in an interesting way.  Perhaps a C-130 vs the other RAF transports thread should be started?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 22, 2014, 07:52:52 AM
I like the Andover but wonder if buying Canadian Caribou or Buffalos might not have been a better option?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Logan Hartke on July 22, 2014, 07:54:57 AM
Quote from: royabulgaf on July 21, 2014, 04:32:50 PM
This is going in an interesting way.  Perhaps a C-130 vs the other RAF transports thread should be started?

It's probably not very fair. C-130 vs almost any similarly sized transport from that era is a pretty one-sided matchup.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: sandiego89 on July 22, 2014, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: Logan Hartke on July 21, 2014, 11:09:59 AM
The Beverly's one I've had a hard time wrapping my head around.....Compare it to a C-124 Globemaster II of the same era and it really looks sad.

I think a Beverly to C-124 comparisome is going to be tough.  Quite a bit of difference in the two: "old Shakey" was really a strategic lift asset (if that term had been in use then), Beverly was really more for in theatre/tactical lift, and had good STOL.  Empty weight of the C-123 nearly 25% larger.   

I do agree the C-130 set a really high standard.  Starting with a clean airlifter design (not dervied from a civil aircraft) helped get it right.  50 years of production say a lot.     
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 22, 2014, 10:47:14 AM
Quote from: Logan Hartke on July 21, 2014, 11:09:59 AM
The Beverly's one I've had a hard time wrapping my head around, too. It was slower than a Gloster Gladiator. I know it was a transport aircraft, but c'mon. Compare it to a C-124 Globemaster II of the same era and it really looks sad. Heck, the C-124 production line was shutting down as the Beverly was just entering service.

So that's a vaild reason for the RAF buying C-124s?

1) The C-124 couldn't air drop the loads that the Beverley could (and I've DONE that a couple of times in my life!)

2) The UK wouldn't have been able to afford the dollars to buy C-124s back then anyway as we still owed you guys a small fortune from WWII!

3) The UK aviation industry was quite capable of designing and buidling an aircraft THAT THE RAF WANTED AT THE TIME!

Like I said earlier, this thread seems to be degenerating into another 'Why doesn't the rest of the World all buy US aircraft?' thread.  :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: sandiego89 on July 22, 2014, 11:28:30 AM
Agree kit.  And not all US trash haulers were world beaters or met the requirements of other air forces.  The C-119, 123, 124, 133, 141, 5, all had limitations or problems sometime during their career, or would be too expensive/unavailable for export.   The USA, UK, France, USSR (and others like Canada and Japan etc. for specialized transports) were all capable of building the transports they needed and did so.  Many later bought the C-130 as it fit the bill quite nicely.     
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: jcf on July 22, 2014, 12:09:16 PM
The RAF may have been better off just buying (or leasing? Not common in period but it is
something to play with) stock Argosy 100, and later 220, and using them for transport
duties rather than spending the money that was expended to give the C Mk.1 aircraft tactical
capabilities, changes that increased weight and reduced overall performance.

Use the funds saved to procure or develop an aircraft that had all the military specific bells
and whistles. A larger number of stock Argosy may have had a positive knock-on effect in
the commercial freight industry.

Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitnut617 on July 22, 2014, 12:27:05 PM
Reading a number of publications concerning British developments over the last few years, I've learnt that most were very expensive to procure.  This was mainly because the RAF's requirements were quite specific in what they wanted and most times or not, didn't fit in with any other countries requirements.  But the RAF only wanted a small quantity of each type which led to very expensive aircraft.  Most times the few required wouldn't even pay for the design and development of said aircraft.  The USAF on the other hand, always wanted whatever they wanted in the hundreds --- making a unit price very attractive to other countries who didn't have the resources to do their own.

But despite that, the Air Ministry (or whatever they got called) tried to buy 'domestic' products just so the country kept their experienced designers/engineers "in country".  It's interesting to note that the very well regarded Harrier, nearly went the way of the TSR2 even before it got to the ""Harrier"" stage of it's development but was 'saved' because of a large order from the USMC.  What I've read is that the development cost in those days money (50's) was reaching epic proportions somewhat similar in equivalent to the F-35 of today. Imagine if Britain was doing that on their lonesome now ---
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: sandiego89 on July 22, 2014, 12:43:42 PM
Quote from: kitnut617 on July 22, 2014, 12:27:05 PM
the RAF's requirements were quite specific in what they wanted and most times or not, didn't fit in with any other countries requirements....

I think the Chinook Mk3 was among the worst RAF examples of "requirements" messing things up.  IIRC correctly, and depending on whom you listen to, the concerns were perhaps trivial, but impossible to certify- so they sat for years- until they were gutted and refitted with an updated cockpit at a huge expense. Sometimes trying to do something on the cheap bites you in the long run.  Not the first or last example of "simples, we'll just plug our fancy new sytem into the airframe...."       
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Logan Hartke on July 22, 2014, 01:08:10 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 22, 2014, 10:47:14 AM
So that's a vaild reason for the RAF buying C-124s?

Like I said earlier, this thread seems to be degenerating into another 'Why doesn't the rest of the World all buy US aircraft?' thread.  :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I never said that the RAF should've bought the C-124. As you and others have pointed out, though, Britain was developing very niche transport aircraft that it had a hard time selling to others. I agree that they should've used their own aircraft industry, but they were trying to keep too many companies afloat with orders that were too small building aircraft that were too specialized.

Aircraft like the Hunter, Canberra, and Harrier are prime examples of what Britain's postwar aviation industry could do when they set their minds to it. I just think that aircraft like the Beverly are examples of using that industrial base ineffectively. The C-124 merely serves as a point of comparison to show what the rest of the world was doing (and what Britain was perfectly capable of).

As you pointed out earlier, this is all speculation benefiting from hindsight. In hindsight, though, the British aerospace industry suffered from the strategy they did pursue, to the point where comparatively few of the RAF's current and planned types are indigenously designed and produced.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 22, 2014, 11:40:39 PM
one of the issues that the UK had was a very diverse aviation industry and the government trying to preserve all of it instead of allowing natural selection to take place.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Librarian on July 23, 2014, 03:18:40 AM
I'm absolutely no expert on this but didn't something similar happen with our airliners.....BOAC/BEA all powerful dictating specs etc. Trident, VC-10 and others. Superb machines all but created to the rivet for British airlines and as a result not fully sellable elsewhere (or something like that).
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 23, 2014, 05:37:18 AM
Quote from: Librarian on July 23, 2014, 03:18:40 AM
I'm absolutely no expert on this but didn't something similar happen with our airliners.....BOAC/BEA all powerful dictating specs etc. Trident, VC-10 and others. Superb machines all but created to the rivet for British airlines and as a result not fully sellable elsewhere (or something like that).

Absolutely correct! BOAC in particular seemed to almost enjoy producing an impossible spec for an airliner and then changing it numerous times while it was being built, or even afterward. And despite being a Nationally owned company at the time you'd imagine that the directors held shares in Boeing.

BEA specified so many variants of the Trident to de Havilland that it was amazing the aircraft was ever produced, and it only suited BEA's somewhat specific demands, the rest of the world buying the 727. Needless to say the original spec. of the Trident was almost exactly the same as the 727 tuned out to be.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Mossie on July 23, 2014, 08:20:03 AM
I sometimes wonder if part of the reason Rotodyne was cancelled was constantly shifting goalposts from BEA.  The original BEAline Bus spec called for a 30 seater, increased to 40 seats then to a 70 seat maximum.  The Rotodyne Z/FA.1 had to be enlarged to cope which was beyond the available engine technology at that time and extra gas generators had to be added, which effectively became lift engines.  It certainly didn't kill it on it's own, but it all added to the technological problems and delays.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Captain Canada on July 23, 2014, 08:40:50 AM
Are they planning on releasing the Rotodyne again ? GB !!!

Would love to see what it would have become by now.

:cheers:
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Mossie on July 23, 2014, 09:01:11 AM
There is one!  Got to admit, it hasn't been very successful and I haven't followed it through, despite pushing for it... :-\
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitbasher on July 23, 2014, 09:09:52 AM
I think projected costs helped kill off the Rotodyne. Noise certainly did IIRC.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: jcf on July 23, 2014, 10:33:20 AM
 In many ways Rotodyne was a solution looking for a problem.  :-\
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 23, 2014, 01:19:22 PM
Quote from: kitbasher on July 23, 2014, 09:09:52 AM
I think projected costs helped kill off the Rotodyne. Noise certainly did IIRC.

Despite my hatred of the 'Dyne due to its noisy tests at RAF Benson when I was there, it seems they'd sorted the noise problem by the time it was cancelled. The definitive book on trhe 'Dyne lists some sound level readings they took on its test flights into Battersea Heliport and some piston engined helicopters were noisier.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitbasher on July 23, 2014, 03:08:34 PM
The Andover C1.
Strutted its stuff well enough but had politics not intervened then the militarised version of the HP Herald would (OK should) would have been in RAF service.
And would it have beaten the Fokker F.27M and the DHC Caribou and Buffalo in world sales? We'll never know.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: scooter on July 23, 2014, 03:41:28 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 23, 2014, 01:19:22 PM
Quote from: kitbasher on July 23, 2014, 09:09:52 AM
I think projected costs helped kill off the Rotodyne. Noise certainly did IIRC.

Despite my hatred of the 'Dyne due to its noisy tests at RAF Benson when I was there, it seems they'd sorted the noise problem by the time it was cancelled. The definitive book on trhe 'Dyne lists some sound level readings they took on its test flights into Battersea Heliport and some piston engined helicopters were noisier.

Analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Rotodyne#Analysis)
QuoteThere was a noise-reduction programme in process which had managed to reduce the noise level from 113dB to the desired level of 96 dB from 600 ft (180 m) away, less than the noise made by a London Underground train, and at the time of cancellation, silencers were under development, which would have reduced the noise even further — with 95 dB at 200 ft "foreseen",[19] the limitation being the noise created by the rotor itself.[20] This effort, however, was insufficient for BEA who, as expressed by Chairman Sholto Douglas, "would not purchase an aircraft that could not be operated due to noise", and the airline refused to order the Rotodyne, which in turn led to the collapse of the project.

19-  "Requiem for the Rotodyne - An Account of Unusual Problems Met and Solved." Flight International, 9 August 1962, pp. 200-203, see page 202.
20-  Who believes in Helicopters Flight p380

Of course, I wouldn't put it past Douglas, since he and Leigh Mallory were probably behind Keith Park's "transfer" from 11 Group after the Battle Of Britain, through Parliamentary politics.  I'll go hide in my tank now  :tank:
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: rickshaw on July 23, 2014, 06:24:00 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 23, 2014, 01:19:22 PM
Quote from: kitbasher on July 23, 2014, 09:09:52 AM
I think projected costs helped kill off the Rotodyne. Noise certainly did IIRC.

Despite my hatred of the 'Dyne due to its noisy tests at RAF Benson when I was there, it seems they'd sorted the noise problem by the time it was cancelled. The definitive book on trhe 'Dyne lists some sound level readings they took on its test flights into Battersea Heliport and some piston engined helicopters were noisier.

What is ironic is that the V-22 is noisier, now than the Rotodyne was when development was cancelled.  They are proposing civilian tiltrotors which will be just as bad as the V-22.   The Rotodyne was a long way ahead of it's time IMHO.  As Mossie suggests, if they'd have more powerful engines, the later versions would have given the military capabilities they are only just now getting...   :banghead:
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 24, 2014, 02:37:58 AM
All the more reason for builidng more Whiffed 'Dynes then.  ;D

I've yet to hear a V-22 at close range, I'd like to compare that with my 58 year old memory of the 'Dyne.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: albeback on July 24, 2014, 04:20:33 AM
F-35 surely ;)
H P Victor. Good though it was, did we REALLY need THREE V-bombers?. Granted, the Valiant was, if I understand it more of an interim type pending the more advanced replacements. Perhaps someone can correct me here but, was it true that the reason the Vulcan AND Victor were both ordered into production was because politicians (as usual) were completely incapable of making their minds up which to choose?

Allan
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: albeback on July 24, 2014, 04:31:25 AM
Quote from: pyro-manic on July 18, 2014, 10:31:08 AM


Moving right up to date, the F-35. Too big to fail, and all that, but the whole project is ridiculous. Heads should have rolled and contracts been cancelled years ago.

I don't think any project is too big to fail. What about TSR 2? (Yes, I know the total mismanagement and other factors DIDN'T help!!) Was the C-17 programme not also in danger of failing at one point?  The F-35 could still turn out to be a complete & utter clunker in service and then we really WOULD be stuck with a failure.

Other than that,I completely agree with your comment. Personally, I think the carriers should have been cancelled along with the F-35s!!

Allan
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitnut617 on July 24, 2014, 05:33:41 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on July 23, 2014, 06:24:00 PM

What is ironic is that the V-22 is noisier, now than the Rotodyne was when development was cancelled.  They are proposing civilian tiltrotors which will be just as bad as the V-22. 

Have you ever heard a real Rotodyne Brian, or are you basing your comments on some film clips of the time.


Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 24, 2014, 02:37:58 AM
All the more reason for builidng more Whiffed 'Dynes then.  ;D

I've yet to hear a V-22 at close range, I'd like to compare that with my 58 year old memory of the 'Dyne.

Having been in close proximity of a hovering V-22 just last year, I can tell you they're not very loud, different sound but no louder than a big helicopter.  But then I've never heard a Rotordyne to compare ----

(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FYuma%2520Airshow%25202013%2FYuma2013072_zps16524604.jpg&hash=114f298d64edecd8cc31b92c89110b515221c433) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Yuma%20Airshow%202013/Yuma2013072_zps16524604.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitnut617 on July 24, 2014, 05:41:58 AM
Quote from: albeback on July 24, 2014, 04:20:33 AM
Perhaps someone can correct me here but, was it true that the reason the Vulcan AND Victor were both ordered into production was because politicians (as usual) were completely incapable of making their minds up which to choose?

Allan

From what I've read from various sources , with the wing concept designs being so new and radical it was decided to build both just in case one was a flop. The Valiant was the insurance if both of the others failed to deliver.  Which was why they even produced 'scaled' versions of the wing and fitted them to existing fighter fuselages to test. 
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 24, 2014, 06:50:44 AM
Quote from: kitnut617 on July 24, 2014, 05:33:41 AM
Having been in close proximity of a hovering V-22 just last year, I can tell you they're not very loud, different sound but no louder than a big helicopter.  But then I've never heard a Rotordyne to compare ----

I'd imagine the V-22 sound must have a lower frequency than the 'Dyne did, with those big, slow turning blades compared to the 'Dyne's long thin ones and those SCREAMING tip jets.

When I was watching and listening to the 'Dyne at Benson it was notable that it was almost inaudible on the approach until they lit off the tip jets. Then it became DIABOLICAL! When they started up on the ground the rotor was sped up just on compressed air from the Elands to start with, and they fired up the tip jets at some particular rpm I gather. Until then it was just a big helicopter.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitnut617 on July 24, 2014, 07:23:04 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 24, 2014, 06:50:44 AM
I'd imagine the V-22 sound must have a lower frequency than the 'Dyne did, with those big, slow turning blades compared to the 'Dyne's long thin ones and those SCREAMING tip jets.


How was it compared to a Harrier in the hover Kit ?  The rotor sound the V-22 gives off is similar to any of those MBB rescue types you see and hear buzzing around, and it drowns out the jet noise quite a bit from what I experienced.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 24, 2014, 10:50:07 AM
I'd say the 'Dyne was louder than a Harrier in the hover.

But the tip jets gave a much higher pitched sound than a Harrier, and had a 'roaring' overlay as well. That, with the 'Whump Whump' as each blade passsed the listener, made for a unique and pretty overwhelming racket.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitnut617 on July 24, 2014, 11:24:00 AM
Well right after the V-22 did it's display flight, an AV-8B Plus did one.  The Harrier was at least four times louder than the V-22
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitbasher on July 24, 2014, 03:34:35 PM
F-35. Best thing about it is that it's not as ugly as that bloody Boeing thing that looked like a Baleen whale!
UK would be better off with the USN version not what's on order, and taken up the traps n cats options for the QE and eventually the POW. Affords tons of interoperability (with other naval types) that politicos and the military keep banging on about when talking about coalition ops. Also greater payload capacity.
Ultimately junk and F-18Es a better solution?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Weaver on July 24, 2014, 04:33:24 PM
Blackburn Firebrand anyone? I cannot for the life of me see why that thing wasn't cancelled before the end of the war and certainly immediately after it.

Shorts Seamew?

I'm another non-fan of the TSR.2. What really strikes me is how far the avionics were into the bleeding edge of the possible. It was over-ambitious for both industrial, political and inter-service reasons that had nothing to do with what we actually needed. The RAF were offered any number of developed, tailored Buccaneer versions from the late 1950s onwards and if it hadn't been for their blinkered anti-RN, supersonics-are-sexy nonsense, they could have had a highly capable strike aircraft 10 to 15 years before the Tornado.

Speaking of the Tornado, I don't really agree with it's detractors. It was a product of NATO compromise between the German and Italian desire for a shorter-range single seater and the RAF desire for a big Buccaneer replacement. The RAF ended up getting most of it's own way, and honestly, had it been any bigger and more expensive, could we have afforded nearly so many? It ended up being near perfectly tailored for WWIII in Europe, which is what the requirement was in the early 1980s when it entered service. Likewise, the F.3: it was the correct aircraft for the UK air defence requirement as defined in 1975 when the decision had to be made. If you'd told anybody back then that it might be faced with Iraqi or Serbian MiG-29s operating near to their bases, they'd have laughed in your face.

Both Jaguar and Harrier were good at the CAS/BAI mission in thier own way, and it's often forgotten just how "deployable" the Jag was, due to it's short take off, low ground equipment requirement and easy servicing. Jags were the first RAF aircraft into Saudi in 1991 and the French repeatedly used them for rapid deployments to Africa for much the same reasons (Dassault may not have been a fan of the Jaguar, but the AdA liked it just fine). The RAF should probably have bought either the Harrier or the Jaguar but not both, however this was another example of politics at it's finest. The supersonic trainer requirement went away due to cost, Flexible Response meant that far more CAS/BAI aircraft would be needed, and it was easier to convert the Jag trainer orders into strike versions that to incure the political hassle of cancelling an international programme.

For the UK to have a sensible and sustainable aircraft industry and military air capability, three things would have needed to happen from the mid-1950s at the latest:

1. Politicians would need to reach a cross-party consensus on defence/industrial policy and stopped using it as a football,

2. The industry would need to take a long, hard look across the Atlantic and realise that their lunch was going to be stolen if they didn't co-operate to share and protect it,

3. The armed services (the RAF in particular) would need to remember that they are all actually supposed to be on the same side.

Sadly, I can't evisage any of the those really happening. There was no political consensus about what Britain could or should be doing in the world, the industry was atomised into fiercely independent companies, often still run by pioneers who's dogged self-belief had become obstructive egos, and in the absence of a major war, generals, admirals and air-vice-marshals had only budgets to compare each other with..... :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: rickshaw on July 24, 2014, 05:18:28 PM
Quote from: kitnut617 on July 24, 2014, 05:33:41 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on July 23, 2014, 06:24:00 PM

What is ironic is that the V-22 is noisier, now than the Rotodyne was when development was cancelled.  They are proposing civilian tiltrotors which will be just as bad as the V-22. 

Have you ever heard a real Rotodyne Brian, or are you basing your comments on some film clips of the time.

I'm basing my comments on the decibel noise levels recorded for the two aircraft.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: rickshaw on July 24, 2014, 05:24:16 PM
Quote from: kitbasher on July 24, 2014, 03:34:35 PM
F-35. Best thing about it is that it's not as ugly as that bloody Boeing thing that looked like a Baleen whale!
UK would be better off with the USN version not what's on order, and taken up the traps n cats options for the QE and eventually the POW. Affords tons of interoperability (with other naval types) that politicos and the military keep banging on about when talking about coalition ops. Also greater payload capacity.
Ultimately junk and F-18Es a better solution?

Except F-18Es aren't as stealthy, aren't as well equipped electronically and would be limited purely to land operations.  The reality is that the QE and the PoW (perhaps soon to be renamed Ark Royal) aren't equipped for catapult ops and can't be without massive rebuilding.  That means you're limited to the F-35 for those carriers.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: jcf on July 24, 2014, 09:07:43 PM
Quote from: rickshaw on July 24, 2014, 05:18:28 PM
Quote from: kitnut617 on July 24, 2014, 05:33:41 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on July 23, 2014, 06:24:00 PM

What is ironic is that the V-22 is noisier, now than the Rotodyne was when development was cancelled.  They are proposing civilian tiltrotors which will be just as bad as the V-22. 

Have you ever heard a real Rotodyne Brian, or are you basing your comments on some film clips of the time.

I'm basing my comments on the decibel noise levels recorded for the two aircraft.


Which is largely meaningless without flightpath and noise duration comparisons. The peak noise
of the tilt-rotor in normal operation is of very short duration. Look it up, there are papers out there
dealing with the subject from extensive tests with the XV-15 looking directly at issues applicable
to civil tilt-rotor operation. Noise standards and FAA certification regulations have also already been
written and published.

BTW, based on decibel levels, the V-22 is quieter than the C-130H or CH-46.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Logan Hartke on July 24, 2014, 09:55:20 PM
That sounds about right to me, no pun intended. I have no idea what the V-22 is like in the hover (I imagine it's quite loud), but I've had V-22s fly over my office and they seem to be quieter than the P-3s, C-130s, and CH-53Es that have flown by. In fact, because of their speed, they are also less disturbing than even the Seahawks and Blackhawks that fly by since they fly so much higher and are gone in a flash. The only odd thing is that my window panes start vibrating before you even hear them, kind of disconcerting when you notice it.

From my airshow experience, the Harrier doing a vertical take off is one of the loudest things I've ever heard. Absolutely deafening. The only thing that really comes close is a B-1B with full afterburners. Super Hornets and Phantoms with afterburners are normally the loudest things at an airshow along with those silly jet trucks, but B-1B with afterburners and Harriers in hover will put those to shame on the rare occasions that they make an appearance.

Also, I've heard that the F-35s are silly loud, but have no first hand experience up close, yet. I have seen them flying around Eglin, but too far away to hear.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 24, 2014, 10:09:27 PM
Weaver
I Agree with your contention about the anti RN stance of the RAF especially after the sulk in the loss of the strategic deterrent to a more capable platform. Also the RAF's attitude to many aircraft being interim solutions denied development to many platforms the Jaguar GR3 is a good example of what modest investments could achieve. How ever the Tornado should have been withdrawn from service in 79 it was and is a mediocre platform the Jaguar was a better ground attack platform and recce platform, Buccaneer was a better interdictor and strike aircraft and Phantom was a better air defence platform. If the money wasted (and still being wasted) on tornado had been invested in those platforms and then into the F18 and F15 as replacements the RAF would have had Much better platforms. The money should now be invested in Typhoon as it will be the backbone of the RAF for many years to come. The Harrier I agree did split the CAS budget and was less capable and was more dependant than Jaguar however that VTOL did give allot of advantages when you deployed it closer to the FEBA.

With the interservice rivalry the treasury have allot to blame for that and the civil service played the services against one another to slash budgets. Add in incredibly short sighted analysis of future needs and trends from the scientific and diplomatic community. The Armed services did struggle to redefine their role in the post colonial era.

@Rickshaw
The obsession with stealth in the F35 will be its undoing its stealthy with a war load of 1000lbs and 2 AMRAAM hardly a credible payload of an interdictor. It will be interesting when it starts doing ACM against anything and its short coming's will become very clear. Has the US industry developed its 2nd Turkey? of the 21stC. The RAF needs to concentrate on Typhoon.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Thorvic on July 25, 2014, 01:18:43 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on July 24, 2014, 05:24:16 PM
Quote from: kitbasher on July 24, 2014, 03:34:35 PM
F-35. Best thing about it is that it's not as ugly as that bloody Boeing thing that looked like a Baleen whale!
UK would be better off with the USN version not what's on order, and taken up the traps n cats options for the QE and eventually the POW. Affords tons of interoperability (with other naval types) that politicos and the military keep banging on about when talking about coalition ops. Also greater payload capacity.
Ultimately junk and F-18Es a better solution?

Except F-18Es aren't as stealthy, aren't as well equipped electronically and would be limited purely to land operations.  The reality is that the QE and the PoW (perhaps soon to be renamed Ark Royal) aren't equipped for catapult ops and can't be without massive rebuilding.  That means you're limited to the F-35 for those carriers.

No the 2nd QEC is named HMS Prince of Wales, the Ark Royal story was something idiotic the press dreamed up, changing the name now is bad luck, the third CVS was changed to Ark Royal, but she hadn't been formally allocated an official name when ordered, where as HMS Prince of Wales like HMS Queen Elizabeth was allocated when they were ordered (and as such made it much harder to cancel or discard as a result  :thumbsup: )
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: rickshaw on July 25, 2014, 04:52:59 AM
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on July 24, 2014, 09:07:43 PM
Quote from: rickshaw on July 24, 2014, 05:18:28 PM
Quote from: kitnut617 on July 24, 2014, 05:33:41 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on July 23, 2014, 06:24:00 PM

What is ironic is that the V-22 is noisier, now than the Rotodyne was when development was cancelled.  They are proposing civilian tiltrotors which will be just as bad as the V-22. 

Have you ever heard a real Rotodyne Brian, or are you basing your comments on some film clips of the time.

I'm basing my comments on the decibel noise levels recorded for the two aircraft.


Which is largely meaningless without flightpath and noise duration comparisons.

Fair enough, however we have the peak noise levels for the two aircraft, which are in the public domain and they are comparable, which is what I based my comment on.  I've been unable to find any indepth analysis of the either aircraft's noise level online.

Oh, and is the XV-15 really comparable to the V-22?  The V-22 is a much larger aircraft with larger rotors and more powerful engines.

The Rotodyne is dead and buried, it won't be coming back.  Unsure why people are so frightened by comparisons between it and the V-22.   :banghead:
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: rickshaw on July 25, 2014, 04:58:21 AM
Quote from: Thorvic on July 25, 2014, 01:18:43 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on July 24, 2014, 05:24:16 PM
Quote from: kitbasher on July 24, 2014, 03:34:35 PM
F-35. Best thing about it is that it's not as ugly as that bloody Boeing thing that looked like a Baleen whale!
UK would be better off with the USN version not what's on order, and taken up the traps n cats options for the QE and eventually the POW. Affords tons of interoperability (with other naval types) that politicos and the military keep banging on about when talking about coalition ops. Also greater payload capacity.
Ultimately junk and F-18Es a better solution?

Except F-18Es aren't as stealthy, aren't as well equipped electronically and would be limited purely to land operations.  The reality is that the QE and the PoW (perhaps soon to be renamed Ark Royal) aren't equipped for catapult ops and can't be without massive rebuilding.  That means you're limited to the F-35 for those carriers.

No the 2nd QEC is named HMS Prince of Wales, the Ark Royal story was something idiotic the press dreamed up, changing the name now is bad luck, the third CVS was changed to Ark Royal, but she hadn't been formally allocated an official name when ordered, where as HMS Prince of Wales like HMS Queen Elizabeth was allocated when they were ordered (and as such made it much harder to cancel or discard as a result  :thumbsup: )

I agree with most of what you say but I wonder about the dangers of cancellation.  I really do.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Librarian on July 25, 2014, 05:41:34 AM
There are two points very rarely mentioned yet both are high on my list of worries. Would it be right to say that operating from forward bases/carriers using fuel burning VTOL the B variant is very heavily reliant on in-flight refuelling being available. In a full blown conventional war (it could happen) this would rely on air superiority. In Vietnam the F-105 and F-4 fleets could not have operated North without it and the Tankers were very wary of straying out of the South.

The other worry is the lack of an internal gun. I know the Hawks will claim that no fighter will get within dogfight range etc, an argument we've heard before, but a gun will have to be carried externally...like the Harrier.

Please keep this thread going, I'm very interested in what everyone has to say.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 25, 2014, 09:01:24 AM
IIRC the QE Class carriers are being built with the necesarry hardware under the deck and ski-jump to fit an electro-magnectic catapult but without the cat itself. Sure it'll need some effort to fit but they put some thought into doing it beforehand.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitnut617 on July 25, 2014, 09:08:13 AM
I would have to agree with Kit, I find it absolutely ludicrous that a whacking great big carrier like those doesn't (or can't) have the capability.  Even arrester wires should have been installed from the get-go.  Having something that big and going to be used alongside allies carriers in future conflicts and not being able to recover another nations aircraft if they were in desperate need is short-sightedness beyond belief --
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitbasher on July 25, 2014, 09:17:00 AM
Quote from: kitnut617 on July 25, 2014, 09:08:13 AM
I would have to agree with Kit, I find it absolutely ludicrous that a whacking great big carrier like those doesn't (or can't) have the capability.  Even arrester wires should have been installed from the get-go.  Having something that big and going to be used alongside allies carriers in future conflicts and not being able to recover another nations aircraft if they were in desperate need is short-sightedness beyond belief --

Back to my point about interoperability and coalition ops.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitnut617 on July 25, 2014, 09:37:36 AM
The other thing I just don't understand about this design, is why it doesn't have an angled landing area.  IIRC, it was the RN that came up with the idea because it solved a lot of problems with aircraft jumping the wires and crashing into previously landed aircraft.  Why have they gone back to this old design ?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: andrewj on July 25, 2014, 09:45:37 AM
Quote from: kitnut617 on July 25, 2014, 09:37:36 AM
The other thing I just don't understand about this design, is why it doesn't have an angled landing area.  IIRC, it was the RN that came up with the idea because it solved a lot of problems with aircraft jumping the wires and crashing into previously landed aircraft.  Why have they gone back to this old design ?

Presumably, since there are no cats or traps the aircraft are expected to recover vertically , so no need for the angled flight deck.

Andrew
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitnut617 on July 25, 2014, 10:36:18 AM
Well in a scenario of maybe the swiveling gear of the exhaust nozzle doesn't work and it had to recover, what would the pilot do ? just jump out of a half a billion dollar aircraft because he/she can't land the thing ?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: McColm on July 25, 2014, 10:44:19 AM
Avro Shackleton, the RAF should have stuck to the Lockheed Neptune. Would have saved thousands of aircrews' hearing.
C-130, again the RAF should have bought the Transall C-160. The Brits even applied to build there version under license. No doubt a four engine version would have been developed as a rival to the C-130.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Weaver on July 25, 2014, 11:05:07 AM
Quote from: DarrenP on July 24, 2014, 10:09:27 PM
Weaver
I Agree with your contention about the anti RN stance of the RAF especially after the sulk in the loss of the strategic deterrent to a more capable platform. Also the RAF's attitude to many aircraft being interim solutions denied development to many platforms the Jaguar GR3 is a good example of what modest investments could achieve. How ever the Tornado should have been withdrawn from service in 79 it was and is a mediocre platform the Jaguar was a better ground attack platform and recce platform, Buccaneer was a better interdictor and strike aircraft and Phantom was a better air defence platform.

I don't understand your attitude to the Tornado, which, by the way, wasn't even in full service in 1979 (deliveries started in '79 but it was '81ish before they were declared operational). It has far more range and payload than the Jaguar and is far more electronically sophisticated than the Buccaneer, having automatic all-weather terrain- following and blind first-pass attack capability. A Bucc updated with Tornado-style systems might have been very tasty, but then remember that the Bucc were grounded with fatigue problems in the early '80s, so with hindsight that might have left a nasty gap in capability.

The Tonka could certainly have used more range, but you have to remember the political aspects of the programme. If the UK had pushed for a bigger aircraft, the Germans and Italians would probably walked away, leaving the UK to buy a MUCH smaller number of aircraft with a MUCH higher unit price, which in turn might have lead to it being cancelled altogether. By forging a workable compromise between the three air forces' needs, NATO got nearly 1000 highly capable strike aircraft in service at the right time for a tolerable cost.

The Tornado ADV was compared to a range of options in the mid-'70s, including a purchase of more Phantoms, and the Phantoms were found to be a worse option. In the UK air defence mission as defined at the time, loiter time was critical in order to keep as many potential kills in the air for the longest possible time, since the principle threat was seen to be regimental-strength "swamping" attacks by Backfires coming in from the North. The ADV's fuel efficiency and VG wing made it much better in this respect. An equivalent force of F-4s, F-14s or F-15 would have either had many fewer aircraft on-station at any given time, or would have needed a much larger force of expensive tankers to maintain the same number of aircraft on-station.


QuoteThe Harrier I agree did split the CAS budget and was less capable and was more dependant than Jaguar however that VTOL did give allot of advantages when you deployed it closer to the FEBA.

It wasn't so much that the Harrier "split" the CAS budget, as that the CAS requirement expanded after the initial Harrier orders had been placed (Harrier was about five years ahead of Jaguar in timescale), and that expanded requirement offered the possibility of saving the Anglo-French Jaguar programme which was more politically desirable than the Anglo-American Harrier.

QuoteWith the interservice rivalry the treasury have allot to blame for that and the civil service played the services against one another to slash budgets.

Weeell, yes and no. You're right, but the armed forces didn't have to play along with it to the extent they did. If the RAF had really had the country's best interest at heart, it would have conceded the blindingly obvious fact that the Polaris submarines were a much better platform for the strategic deterrent than any kind of bomber. It might then have wrtten a more realistic GOR.339 requirement that could have been met by a developed Buccaneer.

Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Hobbes on July 25, 2014, 11:21:51 AM
Quote from: kitnut617 on July 25, 2014, 10:36:18 AM
Well in a scenario of maybe the swiveling gear of the exhaust nozzle doesn't work and it had to recover, what would the pilot do ? just jump out of a half a billion dollar aircraft because he/she can't land the thing ?

Same as with the Harrier on the Invincible class.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 25, 2014, 11:32:06 AM
Exactly weaver it should never have entered service. the Buccaneer was starved of funds as it was an "interim solution" and there was a huge degree of snobbery because it was designed for the Navy but it was still a better aircraft than Tornado and Gulf war 1 proved that. Its Low level performance it had better range and better weapon loads. GW1 also proved it was superior.Yes it had fatigue problems but how much of that was due to major refurbishment not happening. As you say the RAF shouldn't have been allowed to go down the TSR2 route they should have had Buccaneer from the outset.
F4/F14 & F15 were better options than tornado. The Germans upgraded F4F was replaced by Typhoons says allot about the phantom and the F3's we loaned the Italians they got shot of asap. Tornado F3 never delivered the much vaunted ability to carry amraam was a major embarrassment as the Navy Sea Harrier had full AMRAAM capability and the principle air defence fighter had limited capability. I know the Phantom FGR2 were knackered because of their days as low level ground attack days.

To be honest keeping Buccaneer, Phantom and Jaguar to the mid to late 80's then replacing the whole lot with F18 would have been good idea. However then we wouldn't be getting Typhoon which I think is being sold very short and I have already seen commentators describe it as an "Interim" solution till the F35 is developed.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 25, 2014, 11:38:53 AM
McColm I disagree about the C130 vs C160 I think the Hercules was one of the RAF's better decisions and they should have bought more and earlier instead of the Argosy. I also would like to have seen the Belfast better developed and possibly dusted off as a rival to the A400m.

Maritime patrol Nimrod was probably the best and New builds would have been better than the hash they made in the recent debacle.

Helicopters Whirlwind HAR 10 I would say the Iorquois would have been a better option and the Wessex HC2 with 72sqn should have been replaced by Pumas earlier
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: The Wooksta! on July 25, 2014, 11:46:04 AM
Quote from: McColm on July 25, 2014, 10:44:19 AM
Avro Shackleton, the RAF should have stuck to the Lockheed Neptune. Would have saved thousands of aircrews' hearing.

Rot!  The Shackleton was ordered, designed, bought and paid for before we got Neptunes - they were a short term measure.  And the Shackleton was loved by most of it's crews.

You know, I'm sick and tired of people bleating about how we should buy this and that US "wonderplane".  No we shouldn't.  Why?  Because for starters, building our own keeps British people in jobs and not either emigrating or drawing dole.  Buying British keeps currency in the country, boosting our economy.  Buying British ensures we retain the design and manufacturing base to look after ourselves.  And finally, buying British ensures that we're not at the whim of whichever muppet is in the Whitehouse.  If the RAF has only US aircraft, we have to source the spares from the US.  Go against what the State Department want?  No spares and the aircraft are grounded.  Won't happen?  Look at what happened to Indonesia, or Iran to name but two.

And anyone who argues otherwise is selling his own country short.

Rant over.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: pyro-manic on July 25, 2014, 11:49:13 AM
DarrenP, the F.3 did carry AMRAAM, and did just fine in it's role.

Re. the QE's deck - it's laid out for vertical recoveries, operating the same way the Invincible class did with Harriers. There is no risk of overcooking it and crashing into the bow deck park area because the aircraft is not moving forward when landing.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 25, 2014, 11:53:37 AM
Unfortunatley Wooksta it is usually the case with some noticible exceptions that American''s have produced better products F4/F14/F15/F16 & F18 were all superior to what UK industry was producing. Britain did produce aircraft that were better than the American products Buccaneer/Harrier/Hawk/Nimrod spring instantly to mind.
I suspect Typhoon will prove to be better than the F35 and F22
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitbasher on July 25, 2014, 11:54:53 AM
The Shackleton: I know it probably wouldn't have happened because of when it was designed (i.e. prevailing economic and political conditions) but I wonder whether the Shack would have attracted more foreign sales had it been designed with a tricycle u/c from the off (so the GR.1/MR.1 looked more like the MR.3), and so looked more modern?

Looks aren't everything of course, but if the Hunter had looked more like the Swift would it be loved as much as it is?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 25, 2014, 11:55:07 AM
Quote from: pyro-manic on July 25, 2014, 11:49:13 AM
DarrenP, the F.3 did carry AMRAAM, and did just fine in it's role.

But it was never fully integrated unlike the Sea Harrier and Typhoon
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: pyro-manic on July 25, 2014, 12:56:20 PM
Yes it was. It took a long time, but it was eventually integrated under the FSP programme.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: McColm on July 25, 2014, 01:03:16 PM
I'm not disputing that the Shackleton was loved by its crews or that the C-130 is better value for money. The question was raised and I gave my opinion. The Buccaneer boys hated the Tonka at first but learned to live with it. They really wanted the F3 with the GR1 nose. Just as they would have wanted the CP-140 over the P-3 Orion, as the kit is much better.
Likewise the USNavy would have bought the Nimrod if they had the chance,they loved it. On the exchange tours.
Even Lockheed held talks with the Brits in license building the C-130K. The parts would have been built in the UK, shipped over to the USA. Assembled and flown back to the UK.
The only gripes,
I had was if flown to a hot country the condensation built up and where ever I sat I got drenched when it landed . Then the noise of the engines and toilet facilities for the passengers.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Mr.Creak on July 25, 2014, 01:46:33 PM
Quote from: pyro-manic on July 25, 2014, 12:56:20 PM
Yes it was. It took a long time, but it was eventually integrated under the FSP programme.
Not quite.
FSP gave Tornado the ability to use AMRAAM, but (according to the RAF) that still meant it was "partially integrated onto the Tornado F3".
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/amraam.cfm
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: jcf on July 25, 2014, 03:05:18 PM
Quote from: rickshaw on July 25, 2014, 04:52:59 AM
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on July 24, 2014, 09:07:43 PM
Quote from: rickshaw on July 24, 2014, 05:18:28 PM
Quote from: kitnut617 on July 24, 2014, 05:33:41 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on July 23, 2014, 06:24:00 PM

What is ironic is that the V-22 is noisier, now than the Rotodyne was when development was cancelled.  They are proposing civilian tiltrotors which will be just as bad as the V-22. 

Have you ever heard a real Rotodyne Brian, or are you basing your comments on some film clips of the time.

I'm basing my comments on the decibel noise levels recorded for the two aircraft.


Which is largely meaningless without flightpath and noise duration comparisons.

Fair enough, however we have the peak noise levels for the two aircraft, which are in the public domain and they are comparable, which is what I based my comment on.  I've been unable to find any indepth analysis of the either aircraft's noise level online.

Oh, and is the XV-15 really comparable to the V-22?  The V-22 is a much larger aircraft with larger rotors and more powerful engines.

The Rotodyne is dead and buried, it won't be coming back.  Unsure why people are so frightened by comparisons between it and the V-22.   :banghead:

I was adressing your statement about 'proposed civil tilt-rotors' and your presumption of excessive noise.
The AW609, which is in flight-test, is similar in size to the XV-15.

No one is 'afraid' of the V-22 vs. Rotodyne comparison.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Weaver on July 25, 2014, 03:56:22 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on July 25, 2014, 11:32:06 AM
Exactly weaver it should never have entered service. the Buccaneer was starved of funds as it was an "interim solution" and there was a huge degree of snobbery because it was designed for the Navy but it was still a better aircraft than Tornado and Gulf war 1 proved that. Its Low level performance it had better range and better weapon loads. GW1 also proved it was superior.Yes it had fatigue problems but how much of that was due to major refurbishment not happening. As you say the RAF shouldn't have been allowed to go down the TSR2 route they should have had Buccaneer from the outset.

You're completely ignoring the issue of avionics. The Tornado could navigate to a land target, in the dark, in the rain, and hit it on the first pass, something the Bucc could never have done without as much money spending on it's avionics as was spent on the Tonka's. Gulf War 1 proved nothing: the Bucc could only have flown the low-level anti-runway missions that the Tornado did in the early days in daylight and clear weather, and it wouldn't have been doing it any faster (the Tornado is damn near supersonic at TFR height, the Bucc does M=0.8). The only reason the Buccs went at all was that they had Pave Spike integrated onto them so they could laser designate, while the Tornados were still waiting for TIALD.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the Bucc, but it was a 1950s aircraft. If the RAF had been forced to buy them against GOR.339, they'd have been in service by '65 and needed replacing by '85 so the Tornado or something like it would still have been needed, just a few years later. The only reason the RAF was able to afford anything like the 365 Tornados they got was because the three-nation production total was 900-odd, thus bringing the unit price down. Would the RAF have been better off with a longer-ranged Tornado if only we bought it and we could only afford 120?

Quote
F4/F14 & F15 were better options than tornado.

You have to look at the context in which the decision was made and what the mission was. A decision on the ADV had to be made in 1975 for an in-service date of 1985. Whatever was chosen couldn't be afforded until then due to the cost of the IDS procurement. At the time, it was expected that the F-4 would go out of production in 1979, so the UK would either have to pay to keep the line open or buy the tooling, both of which were expensive "dead-end" options since there was no export market for the UK version. The future of both the F-14 and the F-15 were also in doubt at the time, the F-14 due to it's humungous price tag and the F-15 due to the F-16 (had the fighter mafia had their way, the former would have been cancelled in favour of the latter).

The F-14 would not only cost a fortune to buy but also to run due to the price of it's Phoenix missiles: RAF training standards were that each crew should fire one live missile per year. Without the Pheonix, it was an over-sized, over-spec platform for four Sparrows and four Sidewinders, i.e. exactly the same loadout as all the other contenders. The F-15 was single-seater so the RAF would have required a custom variant of the -B model to meet their requirement for a two-seater aircraft, thus incurring development costs. You can argue the 1 vs 2 seat thing back and forth, but the RAF's point was that the single-seat F-15 was intended to fight Soviet tactial aircraft with limited electronic warfare capabiltiy over the Central Front. The UK air defence aircraft however, would have to fight Backfires over the North Sea which had much more powerful and sophisticated ECM and deidcated crewmen to run it. Under those circumstances, they felt that a back-seater to run the interceptor's radar full-time was a must, and I agree with them: I've read any number of accounts of F-15 pilots under-performing because they either didn't use their radar to the full or they did, but then got bounced visually because they had their head down in the cockpit.

As previously explained, if any of the American options had been chosen, the UK would have also had to invest serious money in a much bigger tanker force, since their higher fuel consumption would mean fewer aircraft on BARCAP other wise. This means that something like 1/10th the price of a tanker needs to be added to the unit price of every F-4/14/15 when comparing them for this mission.

The Tornado ADV was ideally suited to the mission for which it was designed and bought. It always got slagged off because it wasn't an agile dogfighter, but it was never intended to be. Criticising it on those grounds is like slagging off a 747 for it's lack of VTOL capability.


Quote
The Germans upgraded F4F was replaced by Typhoons says allot about the phantom

No, it says a lot about the delays in the Eurofighter program and the German's desparate measures to keep their F-4s flying and barely credible (remember the F-4F had no Sparrow capability in the quest for lightness....). The Italians replaced F-104s with Typhoons: is that a tribute to what a wonderful aircraft the Starfighter was?


Quoteand the F3's we loaned the Italians they got shot of asap.

No they didn't: they leased them for ten years starting in 1993 and gave the last one back in 2004, so in fact, they kept them as long as they could. The reasons why they didn't extend the lease to cover the continued non-appearance of the Typhoon were:

1. The RAF was upgrading it's fleet to the CSP standard (AMRAAM capability), so the Italians would either have to pay to do the same or have a non-standard "orphan" fleet,

2. The F-16 was felt to be a better introduction to the Typhoon for pilots since it was a single-seater.

So they leased F-16s from the US in 2004. The last of those was handed back in 2012, which means that actually, they kept the F-16s for less time than they did the Tornados......


Quote
Tornado F3 never delivered the much vaunted ability to carry amraam was a major embarrassment as the Navy Sea Harrier had full AMRAAM capability and the principle air defence fighter had limited capability.

The only reason for that was that the government initially went for a limited upgrade in 1996 in the belief that the Typhoons would be along in a few years. They then went for a further upgrade in 2001, giving complete AMRAAM capability. Had they been willing to spend the money, the full upgrade could have been done in the first place.

Quote
To be honest keeping Buccaneer, Phantom and Jaguar to the mid to late 80's then replacing the whole lot with F18 would have been good idea. However then we wouldn't be getting Typhoon which I think is being sold very short and I have already seen commentators describe it as an "Interim" solution till the F35 is developed.

It would have been a terrible idea: the F-18 is notoriously short-legged which would be a major handicap in both the Bucc/Tonka role and the air defence role. It would have been even more compromised in the latter by it's lack of missile warload: only two Sparrows in low-drag carriage. For any kind of low-level strike mission in a European war, it would have need serious avionics changes/upgrades to do the job.

Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 25, 2014, 06:15:23 PM
Quote from: The Wooksta! on July 25, 2014, 11:46:04 AM
You know, I'm sick and tired of people bleating about how we should buy this and that US "wonderplane".  No we shouldn't.  Why?  Because for starters, building our own keeps British people in jobs and not either emigrating or drawing dole.  Buying British keeps currency in the country, boosting our economy.  Buying British ensures we retain the design and manufacturing base to look after ourselves.  And finally, buying British ensures that we're not at the whim of whichever muppet is in the Whitehouse.  If the RAF has only US aircraft, we have to source the spares from the US.  Go against what the State Department want?  No spares and the aircraft are grounded.  Won't happen?  Look at what happened to Indonesia, or Iran to name but two.

And anyone who argues otherwise is selling his own country short.

Rant over.

PRECISELY!
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: jcf on July 25, 2014, 09:14:55 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 25, 2014, 06:15:23 PM
Quote from: The Wooksta! on July 25, 2014, 11:46:04 AM
You know, I'm sick and tired of people bleating about how we should buy this and that US "wonderplane".  No we shouldn't.  Why?  Because for starters, building our own keeps British people in jobs and not either emigrating or drawing dole.  Buying British keeps currency in the country, boosting our economy.  Buying British ensures we retain the design and manufacturing base to look after ourselves.  And finally, buying British ensures that we're not at the whim of whichever muppet is in the Whitehouse.  If the RAF has only US aircraft, we have to source the spares from the US.  Go against what the State Department want?  No spares and the aircraft are grounded.  Won't happen?  Look at what happened to Indonesia, or Iran to name but two.

And anyone who argues otherwise is selling his own country short.

Rant over.

PRECISELY!

Remember that when folks are preaching why the Yanks should've bought British or Euro instead of ______. ;) :wacko:
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: McColm on July 25, 2014, 09:19:25 PM
That would be a great topic to start. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: jcf on July 25, 2014, 09:41:38 PM
Quote from: McColm on July 25, 2014, 09:19:25 PM
That would be a great topic to start. :thumbsup:

So what're ye waitin' fer boy?  ;D
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: MAD on July 26, 2014, 12:10:53 AM
Quote from: Old Wombat on July 18, 2014, 12:22:11 AM
If you want shouldn't haves, let's try the Fairey Battle & Fulmar, & the Blackburn Roc & Skua.









Late to the party, again! that's what happens when you do too many things at once! :rolleyes:

Agree!!!!!!!

M.A.D
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 26, 2014, 01:23:04 AM
One thing to remember about Granby where Tornado faced a modern airdefence system for real for the first time and failed its whole concept of low level strike was blown out of the sky literally and the RAF had to go to medium altitude attacks. The RAF had buried their heads in the sand for years. Low and Fast yes made It more difficult for fighter-fighter but it exposed the aircraft to AAA something the RAF seamed to have forgotten or chosen to ignore. I would suspect had Tornado had to do what it was designed for on the german plain the RAF strike force would have ceased to exist on day1.
Hence the medium level attacks with PGM and need for designation capable aircraft.

Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 26, 2014, 01:36:03 AM
The issue of thirsty American jets and the need for more tankers. Well events made the RAF have to increase its tanker force anyway hence the tristar.
Isn't the F15B fully mission capable and the rear cockpit has full displays etc So buying a Fleet of F15B was feasible.
I agree with the Buying British argument and there were more than 1 british built platform that was outstanding. Buccaneer,Hawk,Harrier,Nimrod,strikemaster,Hunter,Canberra,Sea Hawk to name a few.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 26, 2014, 01:46:20 AM
Quote from: MAD on July 26, 2014, 12:10:53 AM
Quote from: Old Wombat on July 18, 2014, 12:22:11 AM
If you want shouldn't haves, let's try the Fairey Battle & Fulmar, & the Blackburn Roc & Skua.


Given the service politics of the 30's and the starvation of funds for Carrier aircraft the Navy was in a very poor position.

Fulmar: what was the alternate Hurricane or Spitfire: The RAF would have screamed blue murder had any airframes been diverted to the navy or had money been spent developing them for naval use. Though using the production facilities for sea hurricane or seafire TBH would have been a better idea but I suspect the RAF would have taken their output and left the fleet with Sea Gladiator.

SKUA: fighter/dive bomber, should it have been just a pure dive bomber? again lack of "Modern" fighters

ROC: Flawed concept but on reading the description of it cutting a JU88 in half over Dunkirk ( impressive)

Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 26, 2014, 01:49:33 AM
Quote from: Flyer on July 18, 2014, 05:44:43 AM
Quote from: Dizzyfugu on July 18, 2014, 12:33:11 AM
The Westland Whirlwind - at least with its crappy original engines.
I love the look of the Whirlwind, but you said at least with its crappy original engines, did they try other engines?

Yeap went from Radial engines to RR Gnome on the HAR 10 but would UH-1 Iorquois been a better choice than the HAR10 or would the RAF have been better buying Wessex earlier.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 26, 2014, 03:18:51 AM
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on July 25, 2014, 09:14:55 PM
Remember that when folks are preaching why the Yanks should've bought British or Euro instead of ______. ;) :wacko:

The point we're making Jon is that the US aviation industry seems to think that it has the God given right to sell its stuff to the entire world and yet non-US countries are not allowed to do the opposite.

Yes, I KNOW about Canberras and Harriers and C-27s etc. but it's the attitude of the US industry, and Government, that sticks in our craw.

There, I've said it now...............
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: rickshaw on July 26, 2014, 03:56:47 AM
Quote from: kitnut617 on July 25, 2014, 10:36:18 AM
Well in a scenario of maybe the swiveling gear of the exhaust nozzle doesn't work and it had to recover, what would the pilot do ? just jump out of a half a billion dollar aircraft because he/she can't land the thing ?

He'll either fly to a friendly land base or he will, indeed eject and they'll write off an expensive but ultimately expendable asset.   The Board of Survey post such an incident will be interesting.  I wonder who'll have the necessary level of responsibility to write the asset off the books?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: scooter on July 26, 2014, 05:10:51 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 26, 2014, 03:18:51 AM
Yes, I KNOW about Canberras and Harriers and C-27s etc. but it's the attitude of the US industry, and Government, that sticks in our craw.

IMHO, Kit, I think its the Industry over the Government.  They'll do *anything* now to keep earning their billions of defense dollars, like having their lobbyists go straight to Congress for appropriations instead of waiting for the next DoD procurement schedule- look at the 400 million dollars worth of brand new M1Ax that the US Army was recently forced to buy even though they didn't need them, or why brand new C-130s are rolling off the assembly lines heading to the boneyards.  And why, again IMHO, they're not getting hammered by DoD, MoD, etc. for cost overruns, production delays, etc. 

Of course, now that the "sleek, pointy nosed _____-getter" Mafia has decided that the A-10 is going to soldier on, why can't they get M7 Aerospace to reopen the production line?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: NARSES2 on July 26, 2014, 05:24:30 AM
Right now what I was frightened about in the beginning over these type of threads is coming into play.

SO BEHAVE AND DO NOT GET INTO POLITICS AND KEEP THE NATIONALIST (ALL COUNTRIES) CHAUVANISM OUT OF IT. WE ARE ALL PROUD OF WHICHEVER COUNTRY WE WERE BORN TO/LIVE IN (take your pick) AND THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO GET INTO SQUABBLES OVER WHO HAS THE BIGGEST TOYSHOP

Stick to discussing the merits or otherwise of the aircraft

Chris
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Old Wombat on July 26, 2014, 05:34:09 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 25, 2014, 06:15:23 PM
Quote from: The Wooksta! on July 25, 2014, 11:46:04 AM
You know, I'm sick and tired of people bleating about how we should buy this and that US "wonderplane".  No we shouldn't.  Why?  Because for starters, building our own keeps British people in jobs and not either emigrating or drawing dole.  Buying British keeps currency in the country, boosting our economy.  Buying British ensures we retain the design and manufacturing base to look after ourselves.  And finally, buying British ensures that we're not at the whim of whichever muppet is in the Whitehouse.  If the RAF has only US aircraft, we have to source the spares from the US.  Go against what the State Department want?  No spares and the aircraft are grounded.  Won't happen?  Look at what happened to Indonesia, or Iran to name but two.

And anyone who argues otherwise is selling his own country short.

Rant over.

PRECISELY!

Have to agree with this one!

The UK's biggest screw-up was trying to keep too many companies alive. I think amalgamating them all down into 2 (to add an element of competition) larger corporations in, say, the late-60's or even early-50's would have been the best move that could have been made for the British Aerospace industry.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Old Wombat on July 26, 2014, 05:47:04 AM
Oops! :-\




However, I think that one of the things that needs to be taken out of the equation is what was intended by the acquisition of the aircraft.


As the saying goes, "The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions!"


What needs to be considered, with the full force of the gift of hindsight, is the result of the decision.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: NARSES2 on July 26, 2014, 07:18:05 AM
Quote from: Old Wombat on July 26, 2014, 05:47:04 AM

As the saying goes, "The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions!"


What needs to be considered, with the full force of the gift of hindsight, is the result of the decision.

Absolutely agree with first statement, can't help thinking that you should also try and put yourselves into the shoes of the guys who made the original decision however. It can be a very salutary lesson but can also be very, very difficult to do. We did it at some management seminars very, very long ago and it can be extremely educational.

Chris
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Thorvic on July 26, 2014, 07:36:22 AM
Quote from: Old Wombat on July 26, 2014, 05:34:09 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 25, 2014, 06:15:23 PM
Quote from: The Wooksta! on July 25, 2014, 11:46:04 AM
You know, I'm sick and tired of people bleating about how we should buy this and that US "wonderplane".  No we shouldn't.  Why?  Because for starters, building our own keeps British people in jobs and not either emigrating or drawing dole.  Buying British keeps currency in the country, boosting our economy.  Buying British ensures we retain the design and manufacturing base to look after ourselves.  And finally, buying British ensures that we're not at the whim of whichever muppet is in the Whitehouse.  If the RAF has only US aircraft, we have to source the spares from the US.  Go against what the State Department want?  No spares and the aircraft are grounded.  Won't happen?  Look at what happened to Indonesia, or Iran to name but two.

And anyone who argues otherwise is selling his own country short.

Rant over.

PRECISELY!

Have to agree with this one!

The UK's biggest screw-up was trying to keep too many companies alive. I think amalgamating them all down into 2 (to add an element of competition) larger corporations in, say, the late-60's or even early-50's would have been the best move that could have been made for the British Aerospace industry.

Trouble is we have one now and its a corporate moron  more interested in systems and take overs then developing new products  :banghead:
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Old Wombat on July 26, 2014, 07:59:08 AM
Which is why TWO back then would have been of value - even now.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 26, 2014, 08:32:39 AM
Quote from: NARSES2 on July 26, 2014, 05:24:30 AM
Right now what I was frightened about in the beginning over these type of threads is coming into play.

SO BEHAVE AND DO NOT GET INTO POLITICS AND KEEP THE NATIONALIST (ALL COUNTRIES) CHAUVANISM OUT OF IT. WE ARE ALL PROUD OF WHICHEVER COUNTRY WE WERE BORN TO/LIVE IN (take your pick) AND THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO GET INTO SQUABBLES OVER WHO HAS THE BIGGEST TOYSHOP

Stick to discussing the merits or otherwise of the aircraft

Chris

The problem is that some people keep on suggesting non-British alternatives, after telling us what we shouldn't have had...........
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Logan Hartke on July 26, 2014, 09:28:55 AM
Sorry, kit, but why did you post in the thread if the very premise found in the title gets your blood up?

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 26, 2014, 12:03:52 PM
Quote from: Logan Hartke on July 26, 2014, 09:28:55 AM
Sorry, kit, but why did you post in the thread if the very premise found in the title gets your blood up?

Cheers,

Logan

The premise found in the title of the thread says nothing about replacing any RAF or FAA aircraft, it's about aircraft that we shouldn't have had for various reasons. There are plenty of those to chose from without filling in the gaps created with other aircraft that we shouldn't have had.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Logan Hartke on July 26, 2014, 12:44:37 PM
Ah, it was your underlining of "shouldn't" that I thought you had the issue with.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: andrewj on July 26, 2014, 01:24:22 PM
I can't think of any aircraft that we really shouldn't have had, they all fulfilled a need at some point and even some we consider to be failures either served a need at the time or pointed the way for more succesful aircraft that replaced them. ie without the Manchester we wouldn't have got the Lancaster.  Some really awful aircraft served to prove they were awful and weren't taken up , but were replaced by much better planes, so were needed in their own way.

Andrew
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on July 26, 2014, 03:37:14 PM
true but did the spreading of research effort to widely prolong the agony of some of the aircraft?
but I also suspect we would have lost some classics like Hunter given its teething problems.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: MAD on July 26, 2014, 07:14:25 PM
- The Supermarine Swift

- I think the British Government & RAF wasted far to much money on the baby-step/duplication of it's V-Bomber force - eg. how many bomber designs did it really need to gain and maintain its nuclear deterrent? Vickers Valiant (first flew 1951, entered service 1955), Avro Vulcan (first flew 1952, in service 1956) and Handley Page Victor (first flew 1952, in service 1958)(to say nothing of the time and money spent on the Short SA.4 Sperrin (first flew in 1951). Talk about duplication!!
I understand that Britain was wanting to stay on the cutting edge of technology. But doesn't the effectiveness and longevity of the Boeing B-52 prove my point  :rolleyes:

M.A.D   
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 27, 2014, 02:10:35 AM
The B-52 first flew in 1952 and entered service in 1956. That's almost exactly the same gestation period as the three V bombers. And the B-52, just like the V bombers, went through a long development period during its life, the B-52H bearing very little resemblance to the B-52A, just like a late Vulcan B2 doesn't look the same as a B1.

The RAF were lucky there WERE three different types available as the requirement for in flight refuelling meant they had a ready supply of types that could be converted to tankers. In doing so the V bombers effectively became different types, bombers and tankers.

The USAF did the back-up thing with the B-52 programme too. They built two Convair YB-60s to backup the B-52, just as there were two Sperrins...........
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: andrewj on July 27, 2014, 02:38:55 AM
Quote from: MAD on July 26, 2014, 07:14:25 PM
- The Supermarine Swift



M.A.D   

Although the fighter versions of the Swift were dissapointing the FR5 gave the RAF a low level recconassance aircraft that was unrivalled in its time , indeed it was probably better in this role than the Hunter FR10's that replaced it.
The F7 version of the Swift was an aircraft Britain should definatively have had, the Aircraft/missile conbination were probably the finest in the world at that time , just a pity the powers that be didn't realise and only considered them experimental.

Andrew
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Weaver on July 27, 2014, 05:01:40 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 27, 2014, 02:10:35 AM
The B-52 first flew in 1952 and entered service in 1956. That's almost exactly the same gestation period as the three V bombers. And the B-52, just like the V bombers, went through a long development period during its life, the B-52H bearing very little resemblance to the B-52A, just like a late Vulcan B2 doesn't look the same as a B1.

The RAF were lucky there WERE three different types available as the requirement for in flight refuelling meant they had a ready supply of types that could be converted to tankers. In doing so the V bombers effectively became different types, bombers and tankers.

The USAF did the back-up thing with the B-52 programme too. They built two Convair YB-60s to backup the B-52, just as there were two Sperrins...........

And it's also worth pointing out that the B-52 built on technology pioneered with the B-47, whereas the V-bombers had to go from concept to hardwear in one step.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Hobbes on July 27, 2014, 07:27:51 AM
I have to agree with MAD here; 4 heavy bombers was just too much. Having one backup design would have been prudent, but they ended up with three. It was sort of convenient to have the Victors around when they needed tankers, but they could have bought VC-10s instead and have double the fuel load of the Victor K.2 available per airframe.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 27, 2014, 12:19:27 PM
But they needed the Victor tankers RIGHT NOW when the Valiants were deemed un-flightworthy.

That occured in December 1964 and the first Victor K1 tanker conversion flew in April 1965, an amazing job considering what was required. At that time Vickers had finished building the Standard VC10s yet hadn't started making the Supers, so there was no way that a VC10 tanker could have been produced 'at the rush'. The Victor was the only game in town at the time.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Weaver on July 27, 2014, 12:24:49 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on July 26, 2014, 01:23:04 AM
One thing to remember about Granby where Tornado faced a modern airdefence system for real for the first time and failed its whole concept of low level strike was blown out of the sky literally and the RAF had to go to medium altitude attacks.

Speaking of things we're sick of hearing, I'm sick of hearing this media-driven tale for the last 20 years... :banghead:

The RAF Tornados did NOT switch to medium altitude ops because the low-level tactics failed. They switched because air superiority had been achieved which made medium level ops possible, and one of the factors in achieving that air superiority was the low-level attacks that Tornados made on Iraqi air bases and facilities  in the first week of the war. In other words, they didn't switch to medium altitude because low-level failed, they switched because low-level succeed.

In WWIII in Europe, it would be highly unlikely that air superiority would be achienved at all, and even if it was, it would be a matter of weeks. That would simply be too late: the Soviets would have been on the French border in a couple of weeks. Low-level ops to suppress Soviet airfields, transport and C4I assets were the ONLY option on Day 1 and were likely to remain the only option for the duration of the war. Projected RAF casualties for Tornado ops in WWIII were about 40% per week, so the 10% (60 sent, 6 lost) achieved in GW1 was anything but a disaster.


Quote
The RAF had buried their heads in the sand for years. Low and Fast yes made It more difficult for fighter-fighter but it exposed the aircraft to AAA something the RAF seamed to have forgotten or chosen to ignore. I would suspect had Tornado had to do what it was designed for on the german plain the RAF strike force would have ceased to exist on day1.
Hence the medium level attacks with PGM and need for designation capable aircraft.

Low and Fast also makes it difficult for medium and high-level SAMs and in European terrain, it also cuts down the warning time available to MANPADS and AAA due to terrain masking. The problem in GW1 was that southern Iraq is like a billard table with nothing to hide in or behind, so it exaggerated the effectiveness of AAA.

Simple question: if low-level is dead and buried, then why are the RAF and the USAF still practicing it? (Go look for any number of youtube videos of aircraft in the "Mach Loop").

The bottom line is that you adjust your tactics to suite the situation. If the enemy only has (or only has left) light AAA and MANPADS with a ceiling of 10,000ft, then of course you use PGMs from 20,000ft: it'd be madness not to. But if you have to attack an integrated air-defence system with interceptors and SAMs that can go up to 90,000ft, then low and fast is the least-worst option because it negates the use of the big SAMs and reduces the effectiveness of everything else. No, it's never going to be cost-free, but the expectation of zero-casualty conflict is another media-driven myth that needs quashing.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Weaver on July 27, 2014, 12:41:34 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on July 26, 2014, 01:36:03 AM
The issue of thirsty American jets and the need for more tankers. Well events made the RAF have to increase its tanker force anyway hence the tristar.
Isn't the F15B fully mission capable and the rear cockpit has full displays etc So buying a Fleet of F15B was feasible.

As far as I know, the F-15B rear cockpit is just a duplicate of the front, so it doesn't provide any more radar functionality than the front. That isn't what the RAF wanted: if you look at the rear cockpit of a Tornado ADV, it's very different to front, with more displays and controls that allow the back-seater to use the radar and ESM/ESM system in more sophisiticated ways than the pilot.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: MikeD on July 27, 2014, 01:00:45 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on July 26, 2014, 01:23:04 AM
One thing to remember about Granby where Tornado faced a modern airdefence system for real for the first time and failed its whole concept of low level strike was blown out of the sky literally and the RAF had to go to medium altitude attacks.

Weren't the majority of Tonkas lost on Granby shot down at medium/high level?

From memory there was only one shot down while carrying out a low level anti-runway attack wasn't there?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitnut617 on July 27, 2014, 01:09:39 PM
Quote from: Weaver on July 27, 2014, 12:41:34 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on July 26, 2014, 01:36:03 AM
The issue of thirsty American jets and the need for more tankers. Well events made the RAF have to increase its tanker force anyway hence the tristar.
Isn't the F15B fully mission capable and the rear cockpit has full displays etc So buying a Fleet of F15B was feasible.

As far as I know, the F-15B rear cockpit is just a duplicate of the front, so it doesn't provide any more radar functionality than the front. That isn't what the RAF wanted: if you look at the rear cockpit of a Tornado ADV, it's very different to front, with more displays and controls that allow the back-seater to use the radar and ESM/ESM system in more sophisiticated ways than the pilot.

The 'B' yes, but the 'E' could've done as it does have a different rear cockpit, and the first one of those appeared a couple of years later but well before the ""requirement"" date the RAF wanted the new aircraft to go into service. Plus the CFT's were developed by then too --- so the fuel 'problem' wasn't one --
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Weaver on July 27, 2014, 04:55:33 PM
Quote from: MikeD on July 27, 2014, 01:00:45 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on July 26, 2014, 01:23:04 AM
One thing to remember about Granby where Tornado faced a modern airdefence system for real for the first time and failed its whole concept of low level strike was blown out of the sky literally and the RAF had to go to medium altitude attacks.

Weren't the majority of Tonkas lost on Granby shot down at medium/high level?

From memory there was only one shot down while carrying out a low level anti-runway attack wasn't there?


Four shot down during low-level toss-bombing attacks, one shot down during a JP.233 run and one hit while laser-bombing, presumably from medium altitude.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Weaver on July 27, 2014, 05:04:28 PM
Quote from: kitnut617 on July 27, 2014, 01:09:39 PM
Quote from: Weaver on July 27, 2014, 12:41:34 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on July 26, 2014, 01:36:03 AM
The issue of thirsty American jets and the need for more tankers. Well events made the RAF have to increase its tanker force anyway hence the tristar.
Isn't the F15B fully mission capable and the rear cockpit has full displays etc So buying a Fleet of F15B was feasible.

As far as I know, the F-15B rear cockpit is just a duplicate of the front, so it doesn't provide any more radar functionality than the front. That isn't what the RAF wanted: if you look at the rear cockpit of a Tornado ADV, it's very different to front, with more displays and controls that allow the back-seater to use the radar and ESM/ESM system in more sophisiticated ways than the pilot.

The 'B' yes, but the 'E' could've done as it does have a different rear cockpit, and the first one of those appeared a couple of years later but well before the ""requirement"" date the RAF wanted the new aircraft to go into service. Plus the CFT's were developed by then too --- so the fuel 'problem' wasn't one --

It wasn't a couple of years later, the first F-15E flew in 1986 and it entered service in 1988. The decision about the UK fighter had to be made in 1975 and the F-15E didn't exist as anything more than vague intentions at that time. I've got a book about the F-15 written in 1981 and there's no mention of the term "F-15E" in it at all, just generic ideas about what they might do with the back cockpit of the FAST packs.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: scooter on July 27, 2014, 05:45:31 PM
Quote from: Weaver on July 27, 2014, 05:04:28 PM

It wasn't a couple of years later, the first F-15E flew in 1986 and it entered service in 1988. The decision about the UK fighter had to be made in 1975 and the F-15E didn't exist as anything more than vague intentions at that time. I've got a book about the F-15 written in 1981 and there's no mention of the term "F-15E" in it at all, just generic ideas about what they might do with the back cockpit of the FAST packs.

As I recall, and I wish I remember where I'd heard/read this, but MDD initial didn't *want* A/G capabilities on the Eagle- in fact, their motto was "Not A Pound for Ground".  It was a couple of enterprising Air Force test pilot types to look over a B and go "Hey, we could put bombs and a WSO in back."
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 28, 2014, 03:13:37 AM
Quote from: scooter on July 27, 2014, 05:45:31 PM
As I recall, and I wish I remember where I'd heard/read this, but MDD initial didn't *want* A/G capabilities on the Eagle- in fact, their motto was "Not A Pound for Ground".  It was a couple of enterprising Air Force test pilot types to look over a B and go "Hey, we could put bombs and a WSO in back."

Yes, I've read that "Not A Pound for Air to Ground" business somewhere before too.

But almost every fighter goes the same route, they start off as a pur sang interceptor and are then found to be short on range, so they add external tanks on reinforced wing hardpoints. Once you've done that it's the start of a slippery slope and before long the previous slick wing is festooned with hardpoints and big drag producing stores and your pur sang interceptor is no more.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Weaver on July 28, 2014, 03:52:22 AM
Quote from: scooter on July 27, 2014, 05:45:31 PM
Quote from: Weaver on July 27, 2014, 05:04:28 PM

It wasn't a couple of years later, the first F-15E flew in 1986 and it entered service in 1988. The decision about the UK fighter had to be made in 1975 and the F-15E didn't exist as anything more than vague intentions at that time. I've got a book about the F-15 written in 1981 and there's no mention of the term "F-15E" in it at all, just generic ideas about what they might do with the back cockpit of the FAST packs.

As I recall, and I wish I remember where I'd heard/read this, but MDD initial didn't *want* A/G capabilities on the Eagle- in fact, their motto was "Not A Pound for Ground".  It was a couple of enterprising Air Force test pilot types to look over a B and go "Hey, we could put bombs and a WSO in back."

Not really: MDD wanted to sell aircraft, so they set about clearing the F-15A for every weapon they could think of in the normal manner. It was the Air Force who called a halt to this because they wanted it to be a "pure fighter" for political reasons. The standard F-15A/B/C/D actually has a perfectly decent, if basic, ground attack capability, with air-to-ground radar/WAC/nav modesin the avionics.

The F-15E came about because the USAF put out a requirement for a strike fighter derived from an existing type. MDD used the F-15D airframe because it was the only suitable thing they had. GD offered the F-16XL, but that was such a change from the standard airframe that it would have needed years of basic development flying and the electonic fit was purely paper. Because the F-15E airframe was already a proven flying machine, MDD could get straight into the avionics and weapons work, which made it a much more attractive proposal.

Off topic, but while I can understand the logic behind the choice of the F-15E, it's a real shame the USAF couldn't find a role for the F-16XL, given it's breathtaking performance. I suspect that political considerations meant that the air force felt it had to insist that anything F-16-based had to be a b-grade, quantity-not-quality type.... :banghead:
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Thorvic on July 28, 2014, 04:35:08 AM
Well the F-15 might have been better in the strike role if they had resolved the issue with the outer wing pylons as that left them two hardpoints down. :banghead:
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: scooter on July 28, 2014, 04:36:58 AM
Quote from: Weaver on July 28, 2014, 03:52:22 AM
Off topic, but while I can understand the logic behind the choice of the F-15E, it's a real shame the USAF couldn't find a role for the F-16XL, given it's breathtaking performance. I suspect that political considerations meant that the air force felt it had to insist that anything F-16-based had to be a b-grade, quantity-not-quality type.... :banghead:

This is why, Weaver, that IHMO, flag officers of any service become like ferrets or magpies when presented with "shiny objects".

Quote from: Thorvic on July 28, 2014, 04:35:08 AM
Well the F-15 might have been better in the strike role if they had resolved the issue with the outer wing pylons as that left them two hardpoints down. :banghead:

Agreed.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Weaver on July 28, 2014, 06:02:05 AM
Quote from: Thorvic on July 28, 2014, 04:35:08 AM
Well the F-15 might have been better in the strike role if they had resolved the issue with the outer wing pylons as that left them two hardpoints down. :banghead:

What exactly was the issue with the outer pylons? My 1981 book lists them as being rated to 1300lb, but doesn't explain why they arn't used.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitnut617 on July 28, 2014, 06:47:06 AM
Quote from: Weaver on July 27, 2014, 05:04:28 PM
Quote from: kitnut617 on July 27, 2014, 01:09:39 PM
Quote from: Weaver on July 27, 2014, 12:41:34 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on July 26, 2014, 01:36:03 AM
The issue of thirsty American jets and the need for more tankers. Well events made the RAF have to increase its tanker force anyway hence the tristar.
Isn't the F15B fully mission capable and the rear cockpit has full displays etc So buying a Fleet of F15B was feasible.

As far as I know, the F-15B rear cockpit is just a duplicate of the front, so it doesn't provide any more radar functionality than the front. That isn't what the RAF wanted: if you look at the rear cockpit of a Tornado ADV, it's very different to front, with more displays and controls that allow the back-seater to use the radar and ESM/ESM system in more sophisiticated ways than the pilot.

The 'B' yes, but the 'E' could've done as it does have a different rear cockpit, and the first one of those appeared a couple of years later but well before the ""requirement"" date the RAF wanted the new aircraft to go into service. Plus the CFT's were developed by then too --- so the fuel 'problem' wasn't one --

It wasn't a couple of years later, the first F-15E flew in 1986 and it entered service in 1988. The decision about the UK fighter had to be made in 1975 and the F-15E didn't exist as anything more than vague intentions at that time. I've got a book about the F-15 written in 1981 and there's no mention of the term "F-15E" in it at all, just generic ideas about what they might do with the back cockpit of the FAST packs.

Actually, the F-15E concept was started in 1979 and the second TF-15A (which had been used to test the new CFT's) was converted as a demonstrator and first flew in 1980 in it's F-15E guise. The lengthy gestation time was because it was a project looking for somewhere to go.  If there had been interest from other parties (or even the USAF itself earlier than it did) it could have quite easily been available much earlier.  Incidentally, all the 1/72 kits of an F-15E are all based on this demonstrator (so I've been told anyway)

Quote from: Weaver on July 28, 2014, 06:02:05 AM
Quote from: Thorvic on July 28, 2014, 04:35:08 AM
Well the F-15 might have been better in the strike role if they had resolved the issue with the outer wing pylons as that left them two hardpoints down. :banghead:

What exactly was the issue with the outer pylons? My 1981 book lists them as being rated to 1300lb, but doesn't explain why they arn't used.

Evan has said that there was a cg problem, or something like that. It's interesting to note that the new Silent Eagle has them
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Mr.Creak on July 28, 2014, 07:16:35 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 28, 2014, 03:13:37 AMYes, I've read that "Not A Pound for Air to Ground" business somewhere before too.
At a guess it was Brab in Air Enthusiast (as Air International was called back then).
Possibly issue 2 or thereabouts, almost certainly in the single-digit issues if not No.2.
IIRC he did a 3(?)-part "series" covering planned designs.
Way back when F-15 and F-14 were just concept sketches to the public.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Weaver on July 28, 2014, 08:27:57 PM
Quote from: kitnut617 on July 28, 2014, 06:47:06 AM
Quote from: Weaver on July 27, 2014, 05:04:28 PM
Quote from: kitnut617 on July 27, 2014, 01:09:39 PM
Quote from: Weaver on July 27, 2014, 12:41:34 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on July 26, 2014, 01:36:03 AM
The issue of thirsty American jets and the need for more tankers. Well events made the RAF have to increase its tanker force anyway hence the tristar.
Isn't the F15B fully mission capable and the rear cockpit has full displays etc So buying a Fleet of F15B was feasible.

As far as I know, the F-15B rear cockpit is just a duplicate of the front, so it doesn't provide any more radar functionality than the front. That isn't what the RAF wanted: if you look at the rear cockpit of a Tornado ADV, it's very different to front, with more displays and controls that allow the back-seater to use the radar and ESM/ESM system in more sophisiticated ways than the pilot.

The 'B' yes, but the 'E' could've done as it does have a different rear cockpit, and the first one of those appeared a couple of years later but well before the ""requirement"" date the RAF wanted the new aircraft to go into service. Plus the CFT's were developed by then too --- so the fuel 'problem' wasn't one --

It wasn't a couple of years later, the first F-15E flew in 1986 and it entered service in 1988. The decision about the UK fighter had to be made in 1975 and the F-15E didn't exist as anything more than vague intentions at that time. I've got a book about the F-15 written in 1981 and there's no mention of the term "F-15E" in it at all, just generic ideas about what they might do with the back cockpit of the FAST packs.

Actually, the F-15E concept was started in 1979 and the second TF-15A (which had been used to test the new CFT's) was converted as a demonstrator and first flew in 1980 in it's F-15E guise. The lengthy gestation time was because it was a project looking for somewhere to go.  If there had been interest from other parties (or even the USAF itself earlier than it did) it could have quite easily been available much earlier.  Incidentally, all the 1/72 kits of an F-15E are all based on this demonstrator (so I've been told anyway)

Quote from: Weaver on July 28, 2014, 06:02:05 AM
Quote from: Thorvic on July 28, 2014, 04:35:08 AM
Well the F-15 might have been better in the strike role if they had resolved the issue with the outer wing pylons as that left them two hardpoints down. :banghead:

What exactly was the issue with the outer pylons? My 1981 book lists them as being rated to 1300lb, but doesn't explain why they arn't used.

Evan has said that there was a cg problem, or something like that. It's interesting to note that the new Silent Eagle has them

I've read that the latest F-15s for Saudi Arabia have them too. There's some mention of flutter being the original problem: maybe later aircraft have stronger wings, but just havn't used them until now because it's become a convention.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: XV107 on October 21, 2014, 05:07:16 PM
The Saudi F-15s with the outer pylons has a new FCS and has had to be recertified:

This  (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-and-usaf-will-have-to-recertificate-entire-f-15sa-flight-384156/) offers some detail.

With apologies for getting into this thread rather late, and without wishing to be rude, there are some er... rather alternative perspectives on the Tornado in some earlier posts which are difficult to align with what actually happened/reality....

Six were lost on operational sorties during Granby, and as noted, only one was carrying JP233 (it went down coming off target and may, in fact, have been CFIT rather than the result of enemy action). The USAF went in low level as well. B-52s conducted low-level attacks, as did F-111 (a friend from his exchange tour to Staff College in 2000 used to recount of attacking an IRG formation at 150ft. At over M1.1 IAS...) while Donnie Holland and Tom Koritz were lost in their F-15E on 18 Jan 91 on a sortie which ingressed using TFR for a loft attack.

The idea that the RAF was flying at low level while the rest of the coalition and its own Jag force were doing everything at medium altitude is just plain wrong. The issue was that without readily available self-designation capability, the TGR force couldn't deliver ordnance accurately from medium level because of the way in which the weapons system was optimised. On top of that, the RAF's low flying abilities and possession of JP233 was regarded, at the start, with considerable favour by the JFACC (Horner) since the perception of how the Iraq AF was going to be taken out involved shutting Iraqi airfields (with revisits to keep them shut or generating far fewer sorties).

The idea that the Jaguar was a better attack platform - and I speak as a confirmed Oncaphile - than the TGR1 (never mind the GR4) is incredible. The idea that a Jaguar formation could tool about in the current environment with a mixed load of up to six PGMs (3x PWIV and 3x Brimstone), or up to 9 Brimstone and a pod,  a targeting pod, a gun, two ASRAAM, plus pods for addressing IR and RF threats from ground defences is.... interesting. Not least since to get that warload to the target [Cliché] you'd only get over the target by taxying over it[/Cliché]. What Tornado, Jaguar and Harrier brought were useful complementary features and a degree of flexibility. Chuck in the RAPTOR pod complemented by the DJRP (on GR4) and the ability to carry an air-ground load and compare that with the Jag and... sorry, you go with the GR4, even if it does come with a nav system that often smells slightly of wee and has to be rebooted by sitting it in the corner of the crewroom with a cuppa and a sudoko book once it reaches a certain number of flying hours...

In reality, a two-ship of Jags would get over a target with at most three Paveways and a pod between them (one with two underwing PGM + centreline fuel tank, the second with a single PGM, TIALD pod and a tank, a fit which was cleared for a couple of different carriage configurations).  And that would be pushing it - I have seen two-ships mustering one bomb and one pod between them.

As for the F3, we finally turned it into the interceptor that it should've been some 10-12 years later after we could've done. Whereupon, we retired it... With AIM-120, ASRAAM, JTIDS/Link 16 and old age and cunning, it caused all sorts of bother for F-15s, F-16s and Mirage 2000s amongst others on Ex. Again, I have to support the point - and Chris Gibson's research bears this out - the Tornado ADV was the right choice when the selection was made.

In terms of aircraft we shouldn't have had (and didn't get, but spent a lot of cash on) - Nimrod AEW and MRA4, perhaps?  I may have an advantage given my job at the time of SDSR, but upon reading the suggestion that a Nimrod R5 could've done the Rivet Joint's job more cheaply and more effectively, I nearly spat the Cheddar biscuit and chunk of cheese I was eating for supper across the room... 

AEW might have worked, but the project management was a disaster waiting to happen and when this was rectified, it was way too late.; MRA4, for various reasons, was always going to be a rather dodgy prospect which might have been made to work, but post the Haddon Cave report concerns over certification and the cost of the beast meant that it was always at risk.

And nice aircraft that it was/is, the Basset was a bad idea, while the Belvedere wasn't the greatest procurement choice either.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on October 21, 2014, 05:57:34 PM
Quote from: XV107 on October 21, 2014, 05:07:16 PM
I may have an advantage given my job at the time of SDSR, but upon reading the suggestion that a Nimrod R5 could've done the Rivet Joint's job more cheaply and more effectively, I nearly spat the Cheddar biscuit and chunk of cheese I was eating for supper across the room... 

Could you explain that please?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Captain Canada on October 21, 2014, 07:53:50 PM
That was an interesting report ! Kinda opened my eyes about the jaguar retirement. I always thought the F.3 left too soon, and I really wish the Nimrod ( in any and all forms ) was still flying !

:tornado:
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: rickshaw on October 22, 2014, 04:59:00 AM
Quote from: XV107 on October 21, 2014, 05:07:16 PM
as a confirmed Oncaphile

"Oncaphile"?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: XV107 on October 22, 2014, 05:24:22 AM
Rickshaw - Jaguar (the beast) is of the genus Panthera, and is Panthera Onca, thus a lover of Jaguars is...

PR19 - at the tome of SDSR, because of what I was doing at the time, I was party to some basic information in which the pros and cons of  of RJ or 'Nimrod R5' were aired. RJ came out on top quite significantly in the comparison, not least in terms of operating costs. Apologies for the lack of clarity.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on October 22, 2014, 05:59:26 AM
OK, thanks for the clarification.

I'm surprised that an almost new build aircraft with state of the art engines should cost so much more to operate than a relatively ancient airframe with not quite so state of the art engines. As I understand it the equipment fit would have been similar so that shouldn't be a factor.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on October 23, 2014, 06:03:51 AM
Xv107

to get Tornado to the point it is now has taken billions of pounds poured down the drain trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. When it entered service the funding for refurbishment of other aircraft was turned of to release funds to try and make tornado work. It took the 1st Gulf war and Bosnia to force the MoD's hand into giving Jaguar an update because they realised they needed the capability the jaguar had to provide close air support. Buccaneer with no update still out performed tornado it was unfortunate time caught up with them. If the same principle had been applied I would contend Typhoon would be in a much better place as a close air support platform.
As to nimrod the MRA 4 project should never have started the initial concept of recycling the airframes was always going to lead to costs escalating I wonder if a new airframe would have actually been cheaper and worked.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: McColm on October 23, 2014, 06:13:52 AM
Without going into too much detail, the Nimrod used the best technology taken from around the world and installed it on one aircraft. Sometimes the computers would talk to each other and perform 100% and the odd day they wouldn't. Once the glitches were sorted out the Nimrod Mk 2's were the best in the world for maritime patrol, ASW and SAR. Can't speak for the R1.
Yes it wasn't wide enough, so is the P-3 Orion. But the transit speed was impressive.
Should have kept a reduced flight until the Mk4 entered service.
Having flown on the CP-140 and P-3C the Canadian version for me was the better aircraft, the Atlantic was wider , two engines and dipping radar. Each aircraft having advantages and disadvantages over the others. Now if they could have combined all three into one then the Mk4 might have entered service or the RAF could have leased a few P-3 Orions.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on October 23, 2014, 06:47:09 AM
would it have been cheaper to build a new airframe based on what you say and add in off the shelf or recycled systems
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: XV107 on October 23, 2014, 04:23:10 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on October 23, 2014, 06:03:51 AM
Xv107

to get Tornado to the point it is now has taken billions of pounds poured down the drain trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. When it entered service the funding for refurbishment of other aircraft was turned of to release funds to try and make tornado work. It took the 1st Gulf war and Bosnia to force the MoD's hand into giving Jaguar an update because they realised they needed the capability the jaguar had to provide close air support. Buccaneer with no update still out performed tornado it was unfortunate time caught up with them. If the same principle had been applied I would contend Typhoon would be in a much better place as a close air support platform.
As to nimrod the MRA 4 project should never have started the initial concept of recycling the airframes was always going to lead to costs escalating I wonder if a new airframe would have actually been cheaper and worked.

Please explain how/why the Tornado (presumably you're referring to the GR1/GR4) was/is a "sow's ear" ?

Jaguar was upgraded with TIALD and subsequent modifications because of the need for additional designation capability; it was not a 'failing' with Tornado but with Harrier that saw the upgrade commence, and the aircraft was tasked with battlefield interdiction and CAS (and damned good at both) before the  GR1B and GR3 upgrades kicked in.

The Bucc did indeed outperform the Tornado in a number of important respects (range, number of Sea Eagles carried, for instance) - but not across the board.

I appreciate that you are unshakable in your view that the RAF should not have bought the Tornado because it has always, in your eyes, been rubbish. But I respectfully disagree, not least because the GR1 and GR4, when their operations are considered properly have been a critical element in the RAF's work for a quarter of a century.

The MRA4 new wings/old fuselage idea was utterly mad and various warnings to this effect were given. And ignored. The most sensible (if wildly improbable) course of action, given the involvement of Boeing in the integration of mission systems, etc, would've been to have persuaded Boeing to come in on a joint venture to provide new-build MRA4 airframes as both Nimrod MR2 and USN P-3 replacements. McColm is spot on about the retention of MR2s, but politics after the loss of XV230 got in the way of that, IMO.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on October 24, 2014, 03:08:50 AM
Quote from: XV107 on October 23, 2014, 04:23:10 PM
The MRA4 new wings/old fuselage idea was utterly mad and various warnings to this effect were given. And ignored. The most sensible (if wildly improbable) course of action, given the involvement of Boeing in the integration of mission systems, etc, would've been to have persuaded Boeing to come in on a joint venture to provide new-build MRA4 airframes as both Nimrod MR2 and USN P-3 replacements. McColm is spot on about the retention of MR2s, but politics after the loss of XV230 got in the way of that, IMO.

Oh yes, I can just see Boeing agreeing to that! NOT!

The US Standard 'Not Invented Here' rule would have been invoked, especially when some of the design dated back to the period when the Nimrod's predecessor beat them to the pinch in inaugurating trans-Atlantic jet services.

Changing tack slightly, what would the RAF have used for the task if we hadn't have designed, built and flown the Tornado?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: scooter on October 24, 2014, 03:49:57 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 24, 2014, 03:08:50 AM

Changing tack slightly, what would the RAF have used for the task if we hadn't have designed, built and flown the Tornado?

Another refurbishment of Canberra, Kit? ;D
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Thorvic on October 24, 2014, 04:39:53 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 24, 2014, 03:08:50 AM
Quote from: XV107 on October 23, 2014, 04:23:10 PM
The MRA4 new wings/old fuselage idea was utterly mad and various warnings to this effect were given. And ignored. The most sensible (if wildly improbable) course of action, given the involvement of Boeing in the integration of mission systems, etc, would've been to have persuaded Boeing to come in on a joint venture to provide new-build MRA4 airframes as both Nimrod MR2 and USN P-3 replacements. McColm is spot on about the retention of MR2s, but politics after the loss of XV230 got in the way of that, IMO.

Oh yes, I can just see Boeing agreeing to that! NOT!

The US Standard 'Not Invented Here' rule would have been invoked, especially when some of the design dated back to the period when the Nimrod's predecessor beat them to the pinch in inaugurating trans-Atlantic jet services.

Changing tack slightly, what would the RAF have used for the task if we hadn't have designed, built and flown the Tornado?

Actually Kit at that point in time BAE systems was trying to dispose of its Airbus holdings and actively trying to merge with Boeing. I wouldn't be surprised if Poseidon was actually originally drawn up for and Anglo/US MPA programme
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on October 24, 2014, 05:05:34 AM
I can't think of anything worse than a BAe merged with Boeing! Thank goodness it didn't happen.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitnut617 on October 24, 2014, 06:05:53 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 24, 2014, 03:08:50 AM

Changing tack slightly, what would the RAF have used for the task if we hadn't have designed, built and flown the Tornado?

A two-seater F-15 was banded with Brit equipment before Tornado even got going.  It was proposed that a production line be set up in Europe with the hope other countries would jump on board. It had the benefit of having the F-15B already flying in service so all that would have needed testing was the equipment installed. The shortage of fuel in the F-15K variant had already been addressed with the conformal tanks being tested on a F-15B.

I've got a build going where I've switched the nose cone to a Tornado F.3 one, also switched the engines too.

(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FMDD%2520Eagle%2520F1%2FMDDEagleF1009_zps339dbe97.jpg&hash=210e52713312b6a3e3acd136280d88720888f8d8) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/MDD%20Eagle%20F1/MDDEagleF1009_zps339dbe97.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: scooter on October 24, 2014, 06:26:11 AM
Quote from: kitnut617 on October 24, 2014, 06:05:53 AM
A two-seater F-15 was banded with Brit equipment before Tornado even got going.  It was proposed that a production line be set up in Europe with the hope other countries would jump on board. It had the benefit of having the F-15B already flying in service so all that would have needed testing was the equipment installed. The shortage of fuel in the F-15K variant had already been addressed with the conformal tanks being tested on a F-15B.

I've got a build going where I've switched the nose cone to a Tornado F.3 one, also switched the engines too.

(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FMDD%2520Eagle%2520F1%2FMDDEagleF1009_zps339dbe97.jpg&hash=210e52713312b6a3e3acd136280d88720888f8d8) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/MDD%20Eagle%20F1/MDDEagleF1009_zps339dbe97.jpg.html)


So would it have been multi-role like Phantom and later Strike Eagle, or a single role platform?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: sandiego89 on October 24, 2014, 06:29:35 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 24, 2014, 05:05:34 AM
I can't think of anything worse than a BAe merged with Boeing!

Perhaps BAe/Lockheed could be even worse :banghead:

BAe seems to take perfectly functional stuff and over complicate it (yes often due to poor customer requirments).  Lockheed seems to reel the customer in with shiny promises and then just kill them with the support and upgrade work as the customer is now over the barrel: ohhh you can't touch that, only we can do that cause of proprietery stuff/we own the source code....Ohh you want full functionality?- that will only cost another $xxxxx.    
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitnut617 on October 24, 2014, 06:30:15 AM
Quote from: scooter on October 24, 2014, 06:26:11 AM
Quote from: kitnut617 on October 24, 2014, 06:05:53 AM
A two-seater F-15 was banded with Brit equipment before Tornado even got going.  It was proposed that a production line be set up in Europe with the hope other countries would jump on board. It had the benefit of having the F-15B already flying in service so all that would have needed testing was the equipment installed. The shortage of fuel in the F-15K variant had already been addressed with the conformal tanks being tested on a F-15B.

I've got a build going where I've switched the nose cone to a Tornado F.3 one, also switched the engines too.


So would it have been multi-role like Phantom and later Strike Eagle, or a single role platform?

Just like the Tornado F.3  is/was, would have had Skyflash (already in use on F.4's) and the AMRRAM, I'm just taking it further by putting a big long range missile on it, based on a Martel/Sea Eagle airframe.  Evan has said it probably would have got some sort of RR engine or an engine from a European consortium so even though I've switched the engines to F110 ones, the turkey feathers are similar to an Atar engines
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: sandiego89 on October 24, 2014, 06:38:17 AM
Quote from: kitnut617 on October 24, 2014, 06:30:15 AM
Quote from: scooter on October 24, 2014, 06:26:11 AM
Quote from: kitnut617 on October 24, 2014, 06:05:53 AM
A two-seater F-15 was banded with Brit equipment before Tornado even got going.  It was proposed that a production line be set up in Europe with the hope other countries would jump on board. It had the benefit of having the F-15B already flying in service so all that would have needed testing was the equipment installed. The shortage of fuel in the F-15K variant had already been addressed with the conformal tanks being tested on a F-15B.

I've got a build going where I've switched the nose cone to a Tornado F.3 one, also switched the engines too.



So would it have been multi-role like Phantom and later Strike Eagle, or a single role platform?

Just like the Tornado F.3, would have had Skyflash (already in use on F.4's) and the AMRRAM, I'm just taking it further by putting a big long range missile on it, based on a Martel/Sea Eagle airframe.  Evan has said it probably would have got some sort of RR engine or an engine from a European consortium

Ohh, as for a MRCA/Tornado alternative- dust off the F-111 purchace for the UK!  By the mid 1970's most of the kinks had been worked out and it was an effective penetrator. 

It could have even had an interceptor role like the later Tornado F.3, remember it was designed for the Fleet Air Intercept role as the F-111B. Put an air interceptor radar back on and hang some missile on it...   
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Rheged on October 24, 2014, 07:06:29 AM
Quote from: scooter on October 24, 2014, 03:49:57 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 24, 2014, 03:08:50 AM

Changing tack slightly, what would the RAF have used for the task if we hadn't have designed, built and flown the Tornado?

Another refurbishment of Canberra, Kit? ;D

Doesn't MRCA  stand for Must Refurbish Canberra Again?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on October 24, 2014, 09:10:10 AM
Quote from: Rheged on October 24, 2014, 07:06:29 AM
Quote from: scooter on October 24, 2014, 03:49:57 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 24, 2014, 03:08:50 AM

Changing tack slightly, what would the RAF have used for the task if we hadn't have designed, built and flown the Tornado?

Another refurbishment of Canberra, Kit? ;D

Doesn't MRCA  stand for Must Refurbish Canberra Again?

It does, or did anyway, when there were enough Cranberries around to re-furbish.

Why does every 'Alternate RAF' aircraft have to be American? Yes, I know I make models of just that genre, but some people think that's the way it should have gone in the RW too.

At least the Tornado was European, and a lot of it was British. Indeed I did some of the work that produced it myself and I'm both pleased AND proud of that.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitnut617 on October 24, 2014, 09:24:47 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 24, 2014, 09:10:10 AM

Why does every 'Alternate RAF' aircraft have to be American? Yes, I know I make models of just that genre, but some people think that's the way it should have gone in the RW too.


At the time, the F-15 option was cheaper because the aircraft was already well tested and flying in service (single seaters and two seaters)

Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 24, 2014, 09:10:10 AM

At least the Tornado was European, and a lot of it was British.

That was the reason it was built, to keep skilled designers and engineers in the UK, and keep a domestic workforce capable of building a modern aircraft.  Even though it was more expensive by doing that ---
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: sandiego89 on October 24, 2014, 09:35:26 AM
OK, OK, to keep it UK orgin, scrap the MRCA and dust of the plans for the P.1154. Use the two seat version from the FAA, but adopted to RAF use with a nav in back.   Low level penetrator, supersonic dash, easy to disperse....

(yes I know the 1154 had some "issues")
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on October 24, 2014, 09:48:50 AM
Quote from: kitnut617 on October 24, 2014, 09:24:47 AM
That was the reason it was built, to keep skilled designers and engineers in the UK, and keep a domestic workforce capable of building a modern aircraft.  Even though it was more expensive by doing that ---

But that's exactly the point!

What's wrong with keeping a nation's skills where they originated and where they were paid for in the first place? Being beholden to the political whims of another nation does not make good sense, no matter how 'Special' the 'Relationship'.

Viz today's Euro-debacle over the EU's 'Instant Tax' on the UK's attempts to drag ourselves out of recession. It's hardly surprising that nationalism is on the rise.......
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: kitnut617 on October 24, 2014, 02:11:33 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 24, 2014, 09:48:50 AM

What's wrong with keeping a nation's skills where they originated and where they were paid for in the first place?

There's nothing wrong with that Kit, it just that at the time there was a particular government who wanted everything on the cheap and so bought what was cheap.  I can still hear my old Dad ranting and raving  ----
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on October 25, 2014, 02:25:24 AM
Quote from: XV107 on October 23, 2014, 04:23:10 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on October 23, 2014, 06:03:51 AM
Xv107



Jaguar was upgraded with TIALD and subsequent modifications because of the need for additional designation capability; it was not a 'failing' with Tornado but with Harrier that saw the upgrade commence, and the aircraft was tasked with battlefield interdiction and CAS (and damned good at both) before the  GR1B and GR3 upgrades kicked in.



I seam to remember that capability was added for Northern watch post gulf 1 and Bosnia where Jaguar was operating over Northern Iraq and over FRY. yes it was a failing of harrier but interesting Jaguar force performed so well over Northern Iraq and Bosnia but all the publicity was Harrier/Tornado.

I seam to remember Buccaneer could also self designate for Paveway , had a similar conventional bomb load to tornado which it could carry further lower and faster. It had TV guided missiles and ARM capability something it took tornado years to get  with an updated radar and avionics who knows but it was better than Tornado.  Unfortunately they were knackered.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on October 25, 2014, 02:35:12 AM
Quote from: XV107 on October 23, 2014, 04:23:10 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on October 23, 2014, 06:03:51 AM
Xv107




I appreciate that you are unshakable in your view that the RAF should not have bought the Tornado because it has always, in your eyes, been rubbish. But I respectfully disagree, not least because the GR1 and GR4, when their operations are considered properly have been a critical element in the RAF's work for a quarter of a century.



The Tornado has effectively been all the RAF have had in recent years due to the lack of or begrudging investment in other platforms or interservice politics. its been the "blue eyed boy" because most of the RAF hierarchy have come from Tornado. There were better aircraft on the market when tornado came into service that would have been more flexible and suited the operations that were actually needed. The Low level strike concept was shown to be flawed as early as the 1960's and had we fought the Russians on the german plain I doubt Tornado would have survived long enough to carry out IDS missions.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on October 25, 2014, 03:29:25 AM
Quote from: DarrenP on October 25, 2014, 02:35:12 AM
The Low level strike concept was shown to be flawed as early as the 1960's .........

Could you expand on that please?

That's certainly not the story that mere mortals were being told, both then and for many years afterward. What was the alternative method of getting HE on the target?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: pyro-manic on October 25, 2014, 05:22:22 AM
What would have been better then, DarrenP? Tornado has done the job, and done it well. It was never a perfect design, but then such a design would never have been built! Germany wanted a simpler, cheaper, less capable design, Britain wanted a bigger, more capable one. Tornado ended up in the middle. The same thing happened with Typhoon, funnily enough...
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: andrewj on October 25, 2014, 05:59:59 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 25, 2014, 03:29:25 AM
Quote from: DarrenP on October 25, 2014, 02:35:12 AM
The Low level strike concept was shown to be flawed as early as the 1960's .........

Could you expand on that please?

That's certainly not the story that mere mortals were being told, both then and for many years afterward. What was the alternative method of getting HE on the target?


I'll second that Kit , during the first Gulf war the Tornados spearheaded the allied strikes , they didn't switch to higher level attacks until after the Iraqi air defences had been suppressed. similar tactics would have been used during any conflict in Europe since Iraqi air defences were based on Soviet practises.
Contrary to what some areas of the press would have you believe the Tornados switched to high level attacks because it was safe to do so , not for any other reason.

Andrew
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on October 25, 2014, 02:20:37 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 25, 2014, 03:29:25 AM
Quote from: DarrenP on October 25, 2014, 02:35:12 AM
The Low level strike concept was shown to be flawed as early as the 1960's .........

Could you expand on that please?

That's certainly not the story that mere mortals were being told, both then and for many years afterward. What was the alternative method of getting HE on the target?

the Americans figured that out in Vietnam being low unless heavily armoured wasn't a good place to be
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on October 25, 2014, 02:23:05 PM
Quote from: andrewj on October 25, 2014, 05:59:59 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 25, 2014, 03:29:25 AM
Quote from: DarrenP on October 25, 2014, 02:35:12 AM
The Low level strike concept was shown to be flawed as early as the 1960's .........

Could you expand on that please?

That's certainly not the story that mere mortals were being told, both then and for many years afterward. What was the alternative method of getting HE on the target?


I'll second that Kit , during the first Gulf war the Tornados spearheaded the allied strikes , they didn't switch to higher level attacks until after the Iraqi air defences had been suppressed. similar tactics would have been used during any conflict in Europe since Iraqi air defences were based on Soviet practises.
Contrary to what some areas of the press would have you believe the Tornados switched to high level attacks because it was safe to do so , not for any other reason.

Andrew

which includes pointing your small arms up in the air and firing 7.62x39 & 7.62x54 do make a mess of fast jets.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on October 25, 2014, 02:43:54 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on October 25, 2014, 02:20:37 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 25, 2014, 03:29:25 AM
Quote from: DarrenP on October 25, 2014, 02:35:12 AM
The Low level strike concept was shown to be flawed as early as the 1960's .........

Could you expand on that please?

That's certainly not the story that mere mortals were being told, both then and for many years afterward. What was the alternative method of getting HE on the target?

the Americans figured that out in Vietnam being low unless heavily armoured wasn't a good place to be

But then neither was flying at medium altitudes, or it wouldn't have been in Europe as the potential SAM environment there would have been far worse than Vietnam. The N Vietnamese only had SAM-2s, but the Soviet Bloc had far more advanced missiles in service.

As I said, what was the alternative?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: XV107 on October 25, 2014, 05:02:56 PM
Kit - forgive me; I should've added the critical point that Thorvic added about BAE's aspirations at the time, giving them a window of opportunity for touting the Nimrod as a P-3 replacement...

Darren - sorry to come back against this, but.

1. The Jag upgrade was for Bosnia and the need to provide a designation capability for the RAF aircraft in theatre; the Tornado fleet was taking its turn on the Iraqi No Fly Zones, which meant that the RAF's force for Bosnia didn't have pods; the ROE in place meant that there was a real danger of British aircraft playing a minimal role in events, hence the Jags getting TIALD. TIALD was not the easiest thing to handle in a single-seat aircraft, and this led to some of the other upgrades, including the splendidly named TITS (TIALD Instrumented Training System), designed by a gaming company.

2. Buccaneer could self-designate; indeed, it was able to do so before the Tornado was in service. The reason Tornado couldn't self-designate in 1991 was down to funding; there were plans (how far they got, I forget) to put Pave Spike - as seen on the Bucc - onto the TGR1, but these never came to fruition. As I recall, it was thought that adding a relatively limited pod to the Tornado wasn't cost effective, given that a pod (TIALD) was to be developed for it. Remember that Pave Spike was day-only. The concept of operations for the RAF and presence of other types meant that it was thought that it would be safe to leave designation in the hands of the Bucc force (remember that we didn't have that many pods, either), with Buccs, Jags and Tornados delivering Paveways as appropriate - with the Tornados probably being less likely to do this given their envisaged role if the 3rd Shock Army came calling. Yes, the Buccaneer had an ARM capability and a TV guided missile capability, but the latter was for anti-shipping rather than land attack (I've no doubt that the Bucc could've done land attack with Martel had it been called upon), while the ARM was overwhelmingly for shutting down radar on Soviet surface warfare units. The Buccs were not tasked to deliver dedicated SEAD against Soviet assets at land since the overland attack units had other tasks, which matters because...

3. ...To operate at medium altitude, you require dedicated SEAD. Lots of it. The USAF, thanks to its Vietnam experience, had it (I'm talking about at the time of service entry for the Tornado) in the form of the F-4G plus the ANG units with the last of the F-105Gs (which went within 12 months of 9 Squadron forming). They had a number of aircraft capable of carrying Shrike as well. But the RAF did not have anything like that capability; indeed, I could've deleted the 'like that capability' from the first part of the sentence...

There is a popular assumption that the USAF abandoned low-level for medium-altitude while the RAF bumbled on, but this is a gross caricature. It is more accurate to say that the USAF had the option of operating at medium altitude and would do so when circumstances permitted. A further point here is that if medium altitude was the preferred MO for the USAF, why on earth were F-16s scattering dumb bombs around Iraq in 1991? It wasn't because their crews were hopeless (they most assuredly weren't), it was because they lacked the means of precisely delivering weapons from that altitude band. Likewise, if you'd gone to Upper Heyford or Lakenheath and told F-111 crews that their airframes were a testament to an out-of-date way of thinking about attack profiles, they'd have looked at you slightly askance.

Low level in Europe was not at all silly - going in at about 400+ knots (sometimes more) at low level against the target sets presented by the Soviets was credible. You've got aircraft which are difficult to acquire because of their speed and jamming of your radars, plus visual acquisition is hard - daylight because of speed and poor weather, night because...well, it's night. You also have the fact that it takes an awful lot of metal to be put into the air to actually get a hit on an aircraft travelling at some speed. Now, the predicted loss rates at low level on the Central Front were... sobering, but far less worrying that medium level. Iraq in 1991 was not, despite what we often read, a mirror image of the Central Front. The Tornados went in against large expanses of real estate - some airfields were/are bigger than Heathrow - with a huge array of AAA systems better suited for low level; the problem, of course, was that to deliver JP233, the low-level attack profile was the only one available, while as noted earlier, because of the validity of low-level in Europe, the weapons system on the Tornado was optimised for that, hence the iron bombs being delivered from that altitude as well. This meant that they went into the teeth of the Iraqi defences and there was sufficient metal flying about for losses to be taken.

4. You criticise the Tornado vs the Buccaneer in a slightly Top Trumps manner, notably the similar warload carried over greater range. Let's just look at that for a moment. Tornado would carry 8 iron bombs (or BL755) plus two tanks, two AIM-9 and two defensive aid pods (Sky Shadow & BOZ). It also had 2 x 27mm.

The Bucc, because tandem beams were not introduced - not as the result of the Tornado being procured, let's be clear - could manage 4 bombs internally and four under the wings. That means no defensive aids, no AIM-9 and no tanks (although the latter were, of course, less of an essential item).

5. Yes, the Bucc had the ARM, guided missile and Pave Spike/Paveway capabilities when Tornado entered service, but this is basing criticism upon comparing a mature airframe which had been in service for over a two decades (one in RAF colours) with a brand new one. The RAF Buccaneer got Martel in 1974, Pave Spike in 1979. Tornado got its ARM in 1990 - yes, in trials fit - and TIALD in 1991 - again in trials fit form - which even allowing for the full service entry for both systems was in truth a couple of years later, compares well enough with the Bucc. That, though, can't be the sole measure, because you also have to factor other things.

First, weapons are often integrated on a timescale which is dependent upon when other airframes with that capability go out of service. As but one example, the Tornado only got the Sea Eagle because the retirement of the Bucc necessitated it.

Second, do you integrate an extant weapon or piece of kit if it is a 'nice-to-have' extra not essential for the key role of the aircraft? Finances usually dictate that you do no not.

Third, if the extant piece of kit does not deliver the capability you want - because, say, it is a day-only laser designator, or because it is barely up to the job, do you put the money towards integrating it for a short time, or towards the better bit of kit, or somewhere else where the need is more urgent? If you look at Tornado, we don't integrate the Martel because its not being there doesn't degrade the Tornado's capabilities (and in the air defence environment we've discussed, it isn't necessarily going to deliver anyway by the mid-80s); we decide to go for a more effective ARM than AS37 Martel or AGM-45 (choosing ALARM over HARM in about 1983) because neither of the older systems really deliver the effect we want.

My apologies for the length of this post, but the objections you raise to Tornado don't take account of an awful lot of the factors relevant to the reasons it was procured, the choices made about weapons systems/avionics or the way in which it was intended to be used or was used.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: XV107 on October 25, 2014, 05:27:23 PM
As a follow-up, the question of alternatives has rightly been asked.

What was there?

F-15 was too expensive, and involved funding someone else's aircraft industry when you wanted the tax returns, etc, to come into the British exchequer, and we'd have been launch customer for the Strike Eagle.

F-14 - we'd have been launch customer for a variant of an already expensive aeroplane not cleared for the weapons we wanted and almost certainly unsuited to the low-level attack role in the way we envisaged it.


Buying more Buccaneers wasn't seen as a viable option at the time MRCA was embarked upon - with hindsight, we can say that this was a questionable view, but at the time the idea that you'd be facing the Warsaw Pact in the late 80s/early 90s with an aircraft designed in the 1950s would have got you laughed at. We now know that it wasn't such a daft idea, but it didn't seem like that at the time.

Jaguar didn't meet the requirements

F-111 - what the RAF wanted, but had been cancelled. Had it been purchased, no MRCA, thus no Tornado. But it had been cancelled, a new aircraft was needed for the RAF, AFVG failed and MRCA  was the answer. By the time we might have decided that F-111 was the answer after all, it would have been a political disaster to have gone for it, and we'd have done so in the mid-70s - when money was extremely tight and chopping MRCA would've almost certainly meant no new aircraft at all.

F-16 - non-starter, doesn't do the job required

F-18 (as it was at the time) - non-starter, doesn't meet the spec.

Mirage F1 - doesn't meet the spec

Mirage 4000 - too expensive and after AFVG a non-starter, even if it met the spec, which it probably wouldn't have done.

On closer examination, none of the alternatives available in the 1968-77 timeframe (I choose the latter date as it might have been possible to get an alternative into RAF service by 1982 had the cancellation of Tornado occurred no later than 1977) actually did the job apart from the one we'd set out to buy in 1965, but then cancelled because we couldn't afford it. And let's not forget that the last F-111 to come off the production line did so in 1976, so we'd have needed to have got our order in before that, otherwise its 'and the cost of restarting production is...' time.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on October 26, 2014, 04:03:28 AM
so the only horse in town scenario left us with a mediocre platform.
Hence one of the Major reasons we should never have bought tornado.

and at least the end is in sight they just need to stop tinkering with it shut the funding off for any more "Updates" and invest the money in Typhoon as I suspect we'll be needing them fully ground attack capable very shortly.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on October 26, 2014, 04:17:12 AM
XV107

Totally agree with your analysis on PGM and ARM/SEAD personally I think that the RAF hierarchy buried their heads in the sand over these capabilities throughout the 60's, 70's and 80's. And I don't think its fully was down to cost I think there was a huge element of lack of vision. systems like shrike and maverick could and should have been in service with RAFG on the F4M and the Jaguar fleets.
That lack of vision it would appears to continue with the discarding of ALARM a system that should have been integrated into more platforms.

Buccaneer deployed with paveway in 82/83 to Cyprus to support the army in Lebanon.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on October 26, 2014, 06:47:15 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11186470/MoD-to-speed-up-Typhoon-upgrade-for-Iraq-campaign.html
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Captain Canada on October 26, 2014, 07:22:48 AM
Hard to believe the Brimstone isn't available.

:banghead:
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on October 26, 2014, 09:40:36 AM
Quote from: Captain Canada on October 26, 2014, 07:22:48 AM
Hard to believe the Brimstone isn't available.

:banghead:

yeap it is but there hasn't been the funds to invest.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: The Wooksta! on October 26, 2014, 11:15:19 AM
Quote from: DarrenP on October 26, 2014, 09:40:36 AM
Quote from: Captain Canada on October 26, 2014, 07:22:48 AM
Hard to believe the Brimstone isn't available.

:banghead:

yeap it is but there hasn't been the funds to invest.

What would you rather have?  Expensive whooshy things to kill foreign civilians or a functioning UK health service that keeps Aunty Gladys alive?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: scooter on October 26, 2014, 12:15:53 PM
Quote from: The Wooksta! on October 26, 2014, 11:15:19 AM
Quote from: DarrenP on October 26, 2014, 09:40:36 AM
Quote from: Captain Canada on October 26, 2014, 07:22:48 AM
Hard to believe the Brimstone isn't available.

:banghead:

yeap it is but there hasn't been the funds to invest.

What would you rather have?  Expensive whooshy things to kill foreign civilians or a functioning UK health service that keeps Aunty Gladys alive?

As a combat vet, give me functioning health care over expensive whooshy things any day of the week.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: pyro-manic on October 26, 2014, 01:03:20 PM
Quote from: The Wooksta! on October 26, 2014, 11:15:19 AM
What would you rather have?  Expensive whooshy things to kill foreign civilians or a functioning UK health service that keeps Aunty Gladys alive?

On recent form, it seems politicians want Britain to have neither... :banghead:
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: XV107 on October 26, 2014, 03:56:50 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on October 26, 2014, 04:03:28 AM
so the only horse in town scenario left us with a mediocre platform.
Hence one of the Major reasons we should never have bought tornado.

and at least the end is in sight they just need to stop tinkering with it shut the funding off for any more "Updates" and invest the money in Typhoon as I suspect we'll be needing them fully ground attack capable very shortly.

Forgive me, but I still can't understand your specific reasons for saying that Tornado is 'a mediocre platform'. It might not have been a TSR2/F-111/F-15E, but look at what else there was out there in the early 1970s at time of project definition and what there was available in 1982 when it entered front line service; heck, look at what was available in 1991 for Op Granby...

Yes, yes, Buccaneer, but it wasn't seen as a credible choice at the critical moment, and while offering advantages over the Tornado GR1 that aren't just down to it being a mature platform in some respects, it wasn't in others (for instance, if charging about at 100ft at 0200 on a rubbishy night with 3rd Shock Army in front of me, I'd take the Tornado, much as I respect and admire the Bucc...) .

Nothing that the Tornado GR has done, at least as far as I can see, makes it an aircraft we shouldn't have had. There wasn't a credible alternative to it at the time it was ordered, and there wasn't a credible alternative until the F-15E, which was coming into widespread US use as the Tornado headed towards ten years in service. In all honesty, I simply can't see how the RAF could've made the contribution it has to a whole host of operations since 1990 (and to NATO during the Cold War) with the alternatives that would have had to be employed had the Tornado been cancelled. We needed the Buccs, Jags, Harriers and Tornados to do what was required at the start of that period, and arguably still need the Jags, Harriers and Tornados (but don't have them) to do what our government (term used generically rather than a specific administration) wishes to be done. But we don't have all three, and if two of the three had to go, we kept the right one because of what it does. It isn't perfect, but to consign it to the mediocre category seems far, far too harsh.

Tornado an aircraft we shouldn't have had? Sorry, can't see it myself.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on October 27, 2014, 01:34:57 AM
Quote from: The Wooksta! on October 26, 2014, 11:15:19 AM
Quote from: DarrenP on October 26, 2014, 09:40:36 AM
Quote from: Captain Canada on October 26, 2014, 07:22:48 AM
Hard to believe the Brimstone isn't available.

:banghead:

yeap it is but there hasn't been the funds to invest.

What would you rather have?  Expensive whooshy things to kill foreign civilians or a functioning UK health service that keeps Aunty Gladys alive?

nah the funding should have been diverted away from tornado as soon as typhoon entered service
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on October 27, 2014, 01:40:27 AM
early 70's F111 & F4 still in production
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: Thorvic on October 27, 2014, 05:29:52 AM
Quote from: DarrenP on October 27, 2014, 01:34:57 AM
Quote from: The Wooksta! on October 26, 2014, 11:15:19 AM
Quote from: DarrenP on October 26, 2014, 09:40:36 AM
Quote from: Captain Canada on October 26, 2014, 07:22:48 AM
Hard to believe the Brimstone isn't available.

:banghead:

yeap it is but there hasn't been the funds to invest.

Ah but that's the problem Typhoon just isn't up to speed to take up Tornado's duties, Tornado replacement funding was bundled into the Carrier Strike program, so that will be the end of the decade before Typhoon can use Brimstone and Stormshadow, and it will be the middle of the next decade before the F-35B can with its block IV or V software.

What would you rather have?  Expensive whooshy things to kill foreign civilians or a functioning UK health service that keeps Aunty Gladys alive?

nah the funding should have been diverted away from tornado as soon as typhoon entered service
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: NARSES2 on October 27, 2014, 08:56:38 AM
Please remember the NO POLITICS rule
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on October 27, 2014, 03:07:45 PM
It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to cover this particular subject without including politics.

Sir George Edwards said of the TSR2 'All aircraft have four dimensions, length, width, height and politics. The TSR2 only got the first three correct'................
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: pyro-manic on October 27, 2014, 03:19:59 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on October 27, 2014, 01:40:27 AM
early 70's F111 & F4 still in production

But the Pig was a political non-starter, as has already been said. And the Phantom is as old as the Buccaneer! No chance of getting that approved. Furthermore, both are American, and not really plausible given the financial state of the country at the time.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: XV107 on October 27, 2014, 03:28:25 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on October 27, 2014, 01:40:27 AM
early 70's F111 & F4 still in production

If that's in response to the query about alternatives.

The F-111K had been cancelled once. There was no way that the government, even a Heath government, was going to revisit that. The fact that to do so would involve abandoning the MRCA project, complete with the effect upon the British aviation industry and jobs that'd have had (even had licence production been arranged) meant that once cancelled, it wouldn't come back.

And the F-4 couldn't deliver against the requirement for the strike/attack aircraft to penetrate enemy air defences at 100ft AGL and to deliver weapons accurately without a major [read very, very expensive] upgrade. The Tornado was the first RAF aircraft which could, in fact, meet its operational declaration day or night and in all weathers.

So again, when measured against a host of historical, anecdotal and documentary evidence which suggests otherwise, I can't quite see how the charge of mediocrity stacks up. :unsure:
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: scooter on October 27, 2014, 03:34:20 PM
Quote from: pyro-manic on October 27, 2014, 03:19:59 PM
Quote from: DarrenP on October 27, 2014, 01:40:27 AM
early 70's F111 & F4 still in production

But the Pig was a political non-starter, as has already been said. And the Phantom is as old as the Buccaneer! No chance of getting that approved. Furthermore, both are American, and not really plausible given the financial state of the country at the time.

Nor, do I think, the US Navy was going to sell Britain A-6Es.  Hell, AFAIK, the Intruder was never sold to anyone
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: DarrenP on October 27, 2014, 03:56:59 PM
F4 J would have been a better replacement for the lightning
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on October 28, 2014, 03:01:46 AM
Quote from: DarrenP on October 27, 2014, 03:56:59 PM
F4 J would have been a better replacement for the lightning

74 Sqdn would agree with you, because that's EXACTLY what they did.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: NARSES2 on October 28, 2014, 08:31:20 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 27, 2014, 03:07:45 PM
It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to cover this particular subject without including politics.


I appreciate that Kit but we had started to move away from the politics of procurement into some more comparative areas which could have opened an entirely new can of worms.

Chris
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: martinbayer on October 28, 2014, 01:07:17 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 27, 2014, 03:07:45 PM
Sir George Edwards said of the TSR2 'All aircraft have four dimensions, length, width, height and politics. The TSR2 only got the first three correct'................

Wasn't that Sir Sidney Camm?

Martin
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on October 28, 2014, 02:13:20 PM
I don't think so, Sir George was the Chairman of BAC who built it, so he'd be more likely to have said it than a competing chairman.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: martinbayer on October 28, 2014, 02:57:36 PM
Hmm - every single reference I found, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Camm, claims it was Camm...

Martin
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: PR19_Kit on October 29, 2014, 02:09:18 AM
Whatever, it's the thought behind it that I was trying to emphasise.
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: McColm on October 29, 2014, 02:40:51 AM
Didn't Maggie have a go and get the TSR2 project into production?
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: XV107 on October 29, 2014, 03:41:02 AM
Not quite - a chap called de Vere, who was involved with (owned?) an aviation company, put forward this idea in the late 70s. Long story short - this was eventually run in Air Pictorial in 1981, but with unspecified MPs asking Mrs T to restore the aircraft. It 's covered in detail (not that there's much of that about the idea to be working with£ in Damian Burke's book which gives, IMHO, the best account of the suggested reappearance of a very expensive aeroplane (in the midst of a financial crisis and the Nott defence review...)
Title: Re: Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had
Post by: McColm on October 29, 2014, 10:35:45 AM
Thanks for clearing that up.