Leon,
The tragic crash last year (RIP, gentlemen) was one in a long line of Canberra training crashes (see the thread(s)), but this does not talk to the capability of the aircraft - just that it needs a better desinged training regime / and trainer.
PR9 remains a fantastic capability, and from the (very jealous) outside, 39 looks like a wonderful place to be. Alas, even if it runs on "for some time", I doubt that I'll get a chance to join in the fun on the ground. (Even if I ask nicely, 39?)
It cannot, currently, be replaced by a UAV - those who need to know, know why. Global Hawk is incredible yes - but there are still thing it cannot do (or isn't allowed to). Would I like to see a WB-57F / PR9 new-build project with modern engines and avionics? Yes, of course.
Will it happen? No - as Navaleye has put in his link on the Sea Jet / CVF thread, the Equipment Programme is £18bn+ over budget (
) and we're not going to order 10+ and get the Americans in for 40+ -- irrespective of whether or not it is a (very) sensible call - unless we're prepared to bin something else (less) useful.
So, what would we swop from the future programme or get rid of now to fund new Canberras? I'd bin Trident (really really useless in the real world, esp. against AQ) and probably Tranche 3 Typhoon (if we can) and use the money for CTOL CVF with F-35C replacing the STOVL order, and the rest on some real C4ISTAR assets - like new Canberra, if it was affordable. (Pls note, light blue supporting dk blue here, WEBF!)
(Oh, and before anyone starts, I'm not a secret unilateralist; it's just that I can't see the point in a single use platform when we could better use the money for something else. If you wanted to stay in the nuclear club - a different argument - then you could always stick some sunshine ina cruise missile. Like CASOM before it became "conventional", no?!
Or if you still want it on a boat, even like Tomahawk!
)
S41