Could the RAF resume the nuclear deterrent as a cheaper alternative to Trident?
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm also curious as to how we'd build a plane designed using 1950s kit, technology and so on when all of this has been replaced by vastly more capable kit and technology. Presumably you'd want the upgraded version in service, so we get to build a 1950s plane and put 2015 technology in it, that it wasnt actually designed to carry or use?
Bluntly, your idea of new build victor / buccanneer is utter madness.
Bluntly, your idea of new build victor / buccanneer is utter madness.
And you don't think that such new kit and technology wouldn't significantly improve the capabilities of said airframes?
And you don't think modern materials and manufacturing wouldn't improve said airframes when new built?
Designing a completely new airframe other than when you need bleeding edge performance is what constitutes utter madness!
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jimlad, our cousins have done exactly that with the B52.
Shoe horning New kit in is not the problem. The problem is adding the balancing weights.
The NBS weighed in at around 1600lbs. I could probably carry the computer and fixing system in my shirt pocket.
Shoe horning New kit in is not the problem. The problem is adding the balancing weights.
The NBS weighed in at around 1600lbs. I could probably carry the computer and fixing system in my shirt pocket.
of a target. Cruise missiles are comparatively easy, as targets.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Malcrf, the Vulcan, with a teeny seen t was able to add two drum tanks to Iranian bay.
Strip out the NBS and ECM and make the bays wet, pod weapons and ECM under the wings like the B58, put an extra tank in the bomb bay and you have a serious amount of extra fuel.
Then replace 4 oil burners with two reheated burners and you would have a much greater unrefuelled endurance.
Strip out the NBS and ECM and make the bays wet, pod weapons and ECM under the wings like the B58, put an extra tank in the bomb bay and you have a serious amount of extra fuel.
Then replace 4 oil burners with two reheated burners and you would have a much greater unrefuelled endurance.
Now I'm confused - are we calling for the original 1950s design victor and bucanneer airframe to be produced as designed?
Are we calling for 1950s design built using 2015 technology? Are we using the 1950s design but modified to the design as it stood in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s?
Are we calling for 1950s design, using 2015 technology and incorporating modern advances and thus making it an entirely new design?
Its really easy to say 'build an old plane now as that must be cheaper' right up to the point where you realise that to do so means basically building a new airplane, and then you realise its still cheaper to replace Trident with a new SSBN than it is to go down that route.
Are we calling for 1950s design built using 2015 technology? Are we using the 1950s design but modified to the design as it stood in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s?
Are we calling for 1950s design, using 2015 technology and incorporating modern advances and thus making it an entirely new design?
Its really easy to say 'build an old plane now as that must be cheaper' right up to the point where you realise that to do so means basically building a new airplane, and then you realise its still cheaper to replace Trident with a new SSBN than it is to go down that route.
The answer to most of the "could we" "can we" questions is probably "Yes". If there were the will. The real question is "Do we really want to?"
To mind mind, "No". Because there is neither the will nor the need. As the UK is at a position where could build an entire new system it was a good time to raise the issue. It will now be for the Government to cost the options and decide the capability (and its inherent security) that wants to own and to pay for. An expensive ballistic option with a small fleet of submarines and all the support, storage and maintenance issues (especially if Scotland keeps being pissy) or a smaller, less cryptic, airborne option.
I wonder if there will be anything about it in the SDSR. There ought to be. Or will there be an MPs' rebellion that decides they don't want any of it?
To mind mind, "No". Because there is neither the will nor the need. As the UK is at a position where could build an entire new system it was a good time to raise the issue. It will now be for the Government to cost the options and decide the capability (and its inherent security) that wants to own and to pay for. An expensive ballistic option with a small fleet of submarines and all the support, storage and maintenance issues (especially if Scotland keeps being pissy) or a smaller, less cryptic, airborne option.
I wonder if there will be anything about it in the SDSR. There ought to be. Or will there be an MPs' rebellion that decides they don't want any of it?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
CM, and of course there is a hidden advantage in a single mission force. They can't be redeployed to a different mission (possibly their secondary role of ASW
) unlike the pressure Harold Wilson came under when he deployed just 4 Vulcans out of area. When he permitted the deployment of two whole sqns that involved a lot of shuffling of plans.
) unlike the pressure Harold Wilson came under when he deployed just 4 Vulcans out of area. When he permitted the deployment of two whole sqns that involved a lot of shuffling of plans.
The UK has always designed and maintained it's own.
Trident may share it's technology and "blunt end" with it's US brethren, but the bit at the pointy end is designed and built at that place in Berkshire.
Trident may share it's technology and "blunt end" with it's US brethren, but the bit at the pointy end is designed and built at that place in Berkshire.
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Malcrf, the Vulcan, with a teeny seen t was able to add two drum tanks to Iranian bay.
Strip out the NBS and ECM and make the bays wet, pod weapons and ECM under the wings like the B58, put an extra tank in the bomb bay and you have a serious amount of extra fuel.
Then replace 4 oil burners with two reheated burners and you would have a much greater unrefuelled endurance.
Strip out the NBS and ECM and make the bays wet, pod weapons and ECM under the wings like the B58, put an extra tank in the bomb bay and you have a serious amount of extra fuel.
Then replace 4 oil burners with two reheated burners and you would have a much greater unrefuelled endurance.
I do like it, just always found the Victor more aesthetically pleasing than the Vulcan!
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its really easy to say 'build an old plane now as that must be cheaper' right up to the point where you realise that to do so means basically building a new airplane, and then you realise its still cheaper to replace Trident with a new SSBN than it is to go down that route.
Surely the main saving is the development costs for a brand new airframe?
So I'm not sure I agree that it's basically building a "brand new airplane"
This reminds me a little of the debate often had about common hull forms for ships. The argument basically goes "build every type of similar ship using the same hullform - it will be oodles cheaper and everything" - even if the hullform in question is a couple of decades old. A variation on the theme is "why not just build "new" Type 23s, instead of spending all that money on a Type 26?"
While ships and aircraft are (obviously) very different, a couple of things have parallels.
1. The external shape of the ship or aircraft is important to performance, but is only one part of the design. Internal weight distribution, component loading, system functions are equally, if not more important.
2. The actual ship or aircraft is manufactured from literally hundreds of thousands of design drawings, detailing components, assembly etc.
What I think Jim is trying to demonstrate (and I agree) is that it's not just a question of picking up a set of drawings (assuming a complete set even exists) and programming them into some super whizzy computer thing that will magically churn them out in the blink of an eye and for the price of a pint. In the interval, many things change, which may not be apparent. I have little or no knowledge of aircraft design regs, but would have expected that there are many changes in what you can and can't do with materials from a design, manufacture and assembly PoV compared to previous practice, say thirty years ago. I would also expect design performance standards to have changed as well. On a ship for example, one of the reasons that T45 and T26 are so much bigger than their predecessors has very little to do with big radars at height and everything to do with regulations on accommodation standards, escape and evacuation routes, fire protection, damaged stability, etc etc.
A long list of changes, against which some may say "good enough for my day, good enough for now". Maybe, maybe not. Accommodation standards don't have a direct parallel with aircraft per se, but safety does - particularly since the decision to forego Crown Immunity. All of those things dictate that every system in a ship or an aircraft must be assessed for safety against current regulations which in many cases means starting from scratch and going down to component level. It is these sorts of design exercise that may not have ever been considered in great detail in previous ships or aircraft and the cause of much angst in the "airworthiness" argument. Just determining which organisation would be the design authority (and whether they would accept that responsibility!) would be a major exercise - look at what VTTST have had to do for XH558 just to fly a constrained envelope for civvy displays.
Just one other aspect is the availability of equivalent components, which is one of the arguments against building a "new" batch of T23 for example - I'd bet good money that one would have to go through the materials list of pretty much every drawing and change the requisition number of the majority of component parts - simply because you can no longer buy them new. That takes a phenomenal amount of design effort and cost as well - and that's before you consider the cost of translating paper-based drawings into contemporary CADAM format that can be used on modern computer systems.
There are many other examples, but conscious I've written an essay, I'll leave it there and hope it demonstrates why a new-build V-bomber is not easy or cheap. What should be absolutely clear is that it ain't survivable and it's unlikely to be certain, unless you build either an LO version (even more different design requirements) or hundreds of them (costly to build and man). For a deterrent survivability and certainty are essential for credibility.
While ships and aircraft are (obviously) very different, a couple of things have parallels.
1. The external shape of the ship or aircraft is important to performance, but is only one part of the design. Internal weight distribution, component loading, system functions are equally, if not more important.
2. The actual ship or aircraft is manufactured from literally hundreds of thousands of design drawings, detailing components, assembly etc.
What I think Jim is trying to demonstrate (and I agree) is that it's not just a question of picking up a set of drawings (assuming a complete set even exists) and programming them into some super whizzy computer thing that will magically churn them out in the blink of an eye and for the price of a pint. In the interval, many things change, which may not be apparent. I have little or no knowledge of aircraft design regs, but would have expected that there are many changes in what you can and can't do with materials from a design, manufacture and assembly PoV compared to previous practice, say thirty years ago. I would also expect design performance standards to have changed as well. On a ship for example, one of the reasons that T45 and T26 are so much bigger than their predecessors has very little to do with big radars at height and everything to do with regulations on accommodation standards, escape and evacuation routes, fire protection, damaged stability, etc etc.
A long list of changes, against which some may say "good enough for my day, good enough for now". Maybe, maybe not. Accommodation standards don't have a direct parallel with aircraft per se, but safety does - particularly since the decision to forego Crown Immunity. All of those things dictate that every system in a ship or an aircraft must be assessed for safety against current regulations which in many cases means starting from scratch and going down to component level. It is these sorts of design exercise that may not have ever been considered in great detail in previous ships or aircraft and the cause of much angst in the "airworthiness" argument. Just determining which organisation would be the design authority (and whether they would accept that responsibility!) would be a major exercise - look at what VTTST have had to do for XH558 just to fly a constrained envelope for civvy displays.
Just one other aspect is the availability of equivalent components, which is one of the arguments against building a "new" batch of T23 for example - I'd bet good money that one would have to go through the materials list of pretty much every drawing and change the requisition number of the majority of component parts - simply because you can no longer buy them new. That takes a phenomenal amount of design effort and cost as well - and that's before you consider the cost of translating paper-based drawings into contemporary CADAM format that can be used on modern computer systems.
There are many other examples, but conscious I've written an essay, I'll leave it there and hope it demonstrates why a new-build V-bomber is not easy or cheap. What should be absolutely clear is that it ain't survivable and it's unlikely to be certain, unless you build either an LO version (even more different design requirements) or hundreds of them (costly to build and man). For a deterrent survivability and certainty are essential for credibility.
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, in a nutshell, designing a new medium or long range bomber from scratch is as cheap as new building an existing design?
So we may as well start from scratch even when the old design gave acceptable performance characteristics?
So the Americans with the B52s and the Russians with their Bears have got it all wrong? And haven't the Russians just committed to new build Blackjacks?
Jeez I've completely missed the point!
So we may as well start from scratch even when the old design gave acceptable performance characteristics?
So the Americans with the B52s and the Russians with their Bears have got it all wrong? And haven't the Russians just committed to new build Blackjacks?
Jeez I've completely missed the point!
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not_a_boffin
I actually don't completely disagree, and I do accept that it is far from easy or cheap, but I must admit I don't completely get the desire for new designs when the new airframe doesn't seem to add a lot over existing designs......................and I think a lot of people felt that a Buccaneer with the Tonka's kit would have been the better aircraft.
I guess I made the contribution to this debate for two reasons.............a) could we find a cheaper acceptable alternative to Trident given its impact on a very stretched defence budget, so could we put together a launch platform for a long-range air launched cruise missile for example?, and b) with reference to Typhoon (another topic I know), I don't get why we already seem to be consigning this plane to the history books when we could be planning on continual refinement of the design over the next twenty or more years.
I actually don't completely disagree, and I do accept that it is far from easy or cheap, but I must admit I don't completely get the desire for new designs when the new airframe doesn't seem to add a lot over existing designs......................and I think a lot of people felt that a Buccaneer with the Tonka's kit would have been the better aircraft.
I guess I made the contribution to this debate for two reasons.............a) could we find a cheaper acceptable alternative to Trident given its impact on a very stretched defence budget, so could we put together a launch platform for a long-range air launched cruise missile for example?, and b) with reference to Typhoon (another topic I know), I don't get why we already seem to be consigning this plane to the history books when we could be planning on continual refinement of the design over the next twenty or more years.
I haven't heard the "resurrect TSR2" idea yet.
There were some wonderful old designs that could be re-engineered, but don't you think we could do better today? Or have design, materials engineering and aerodynamics stood still for the past 40 years?
Anyway, we'll have fully operational F-35s in a couple of weeks so we won't need anything else.
EDIT: Malcrf, just seen your post. Yes, the UK could find a cheaper alternative (as you say) and, yes, Typhoon has a long way to go.
There were some wonderful old designs that could be re-engineered, but don't you think we could do better today? Or have design, materials engineering and aerodynamics stood still for the past 40 years?
Anyway, we'll have fully operational F-35s in a couple of weeks so we won't need anything else.
EDIT: Malcrf, just seen your post. Yes, the UK could find a cheaper alternative (as you say) and, yes, Typhoon has a long way to go.
About the only way we could find for the RAF to deliver a nuclear weapon to other places would be:
a. Put a load of nuclear boffins in a room and get them to design a teeny-weeny little bomb that would go in a suitcase, then build a load of these.
b. Give (issue?) them to all the holding aircrew and send them civ-air to wherever the bomb is required and tell them to light the blue touch paper and run (fairly quickly) into wind!
Unfortunately, as I'm sure many of you have seen, there are a few snags to this:
Firstly handbrake house would want the appropriate authority to issue air warrants (and would still try to use alternative travel methods).
Then they would go for the cheapest travel option (Squeezyjet or similar) and refuse to pay for hold baggage - so back to the design team to make it fit in a rucksack!
Take it through 'security' - they probably won't see the bomb (unless you write BOMB on it) but will confiscate the matches for lighting the fuse.
Assuming you get to board the aircraft all the overhead lockers will be full so you will spend the flight with it on your lap or kicking it under the seat in front.
And when you finally arrive you will find you're 70 odd miles from you destination (target), it's midnight and there is no transport.
As for any allowances - ...........
But still. I'm sure it will be cheaper than a few subs with missiles.
a. Put a load of nuclear boffins in a room and get them to design a teeny-weeny little bomb that would go in a suitcase, then build a load of these.
b. Give (issue?) them to all the holding aircrew and send them civ-air to wherever the bomb is required and tell them to light the blue touch paper and run (fairly quickly) into wind!
Unfortunately, as I'm sure many of you have seen, there are a few snags to this:
Firstly handbrake house would want the appropriate authority to issue air warrants (and would still try to use alternative travel methods).
Then they would go for the cheapest travel option (Squeezyjet or similar) and refuse to pay for hold baggage - so back to the design team to make it fit in a rucksack!
Take it through 'security' - they probably won't see the bomb (unless you write BOMB on it) but will confiscate the matches for lighting the fuse.
Assuming you get to board the aircraft all the overhead lockers will be full so you will spend the flight with it on your lap or kicking it under the seat in front.
And when you finally arrive you will find you're 70 odd miles from you destination (target), it's midnight and there is no transport.
As for any allowances - ...........
But still. I'm sure it will be cheaper than a few subs with missiles.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I accept that there will still be a lot of work to re-do an old design, but there would obviously be some savings/lower risks compared to a totally new design.
For example, we KNOW that if you build a new Buccaneer with the same weight and external dimensions, the hook will work for deck landings. (See F35)
We know how it will handle, what its foibles are etc.
We KNOW that we can make engines that will give more power, better reliability and lower fuel consumption.
We KNOW that all the various events like airborne refuelling work without altering the configuration.
etc etc etc.
The airframe will produce no unpleasant surprises.
We also know that there is enough space on board for a vast amount of shiny modern toys and still have a baggage compartment big enough for 8 crates of beer.
For example, we KNOW that if you build a new Buccaneer with the same weight and external dimensions, the hook will work for deck landings. (See F35)
We know how it will handle, what its foibles are etc.
We KNOW that we can make engines that will give more power, better reliability and lower fuel consumption.
We KNOW that all the various events like airborne refuelling work without altering the configuration.
etc etc etc.
The airframe will produce no unpleasant surprises.
We also know that there is enough space on board for a vast amount of shiny modern toys and still have a baggage compartment big enough for 8 crates of beer.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the debate here not getting down to one that could be transferred to the the car world?
Yes the world beating BMC Mini 850, with transmission in the sump etc was reliable, fun to drive, handled well and was economical on 3 star leaded petrol as well as being easy(ish) to work on.
Take your BMW built Mini, a completely different beast, far closer tolerances in all the manufacturing processes, as well as being a far more capable car all round.
Not sure that we want buckets of sunshine being carried by aircraft designed at the same time as a BMC Mini...
Yes the world beating BMC Mini 850, with transmission in the sump etc was reliable, fun to drive, handled well and was economical on 3 star leaded petrol as well as being easy(ish) to work on.
Take your BMW built Mini, a completely different beast, far closer tolerances in all the manufacturing processes, as well as being a far more capable car all round.
Not sure that we want buckets of sunshine being carried by aircraft designed at the same time as a BMC Mini...
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But which mini would you try to win a rally championship in...?
I know which I would choose, and it is not the fat one.
I know which I would choose, and it is not the fat one.