Just using this to demonstrate some of the issues, rather than "having a go"...
Originally Posted by
Tourist
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.
Maybe, not certain. Depends on stuff below.
For example, we KNOW that if you build a new Buccaneer with the same weight
and distribution and external dimensions, the hook will work for deck landings. (See F35 -
no argument from me there! )
We know how it will handle, what its foibles are etc.
Assuming weight dist is the same and that the FCS is the same
We KNOW that we can make engines that will give more power, better reliability and lower fuel consumption.
Definitely, but see below
We KNOW that all the various events like airborne refuelling work without altering the configuration.
Assuming FCS behaves the same etc
etc etc etc.
The airframe will produce no unpleasant surprises.
Assuming we know that any startling fatigue issues have been permanently dealt with / will not occur later in the FI.
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.
Massive plus point!
BUT - it will still have an RCS the size of a house relative to an LO cab and therefore be more vulnerable to a range of modern threats, most of the time.
Fixing that would mean changing the airframe (and engine intakes / tailpipes) which may affect controllability and flight envelope.
Would you choose to manufacture a jet milled from solid metal again, with hydraulic FCS. Is it the most cost-effective to build and/or maintain? Is the fatigue design index the same?
Not in anyway knocking the Bucc - can you imagine a Bucc with A6E avionics on UK and US decks in the 80s/90s? Same goes for the Buff - but notice that the yanks aren't trying to build new ones, they're just trying to keep the remaining (reducing) fleet relevant, supportable and survivable, because they know they can't afford a replacement (see B1 and B2 for details).
The Russ are trying to refurbish Blackjacks and Backfires simply because they have no money (and possibly remaining expertise) to do anything else. The "new-build" Blackjack project appears to have gone quietly right since the initial announcement. How much is down to that nice Mr Putin waving his genitalia remains to be seen.
Aircraft-based deterrents
might be cheaper, but definitely far from survivable, which ultimately means cheaper but not credible....