What Military Aircraft Would You Bring Back To Service?

[Boeing Jet]

Just passing the time away for fun, if possible what aircraft would you bring back to service mine would be the Vulcan!!

[c52]

VC-10 without a doubt - well, maybe quite a lot of doubt.

[Miles Magister]

Hawker Hunter. Good cheap combat aircraft which I would love to have flown but just missed.

MM

[Lima Juliet]

Tornado EF3 - plenty of need for a dedicated electronic attack aircraft in a more contested environment. It’s been a gaping hole in our inventory for a while now (the GR1/GR4 with ALARM was always a lash-up role for that aircraft - without any emitter location or stand-off jamming capability).


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1600x1149/d36f2294_c9bd_4ee3_8f2b_d4ec30f87894_531f6f157f945a3901938e3 ba7086620e988286c.jpeg

[reds & greens]

The wonderful Nimrod.
simple.

[charliegolf]

The Puma. Oh, wait...:E

CG

[aw ditor]

Piston Provost with modern instrumentation. They' spoiled it putting in a Viper'.

[ShyTorque]

I hate to say it, but the Harrier!

[Arfur Dent]

I hate to say it, but the Harrier!
Harrier GR9 for sure

[Bksmithca]

Avro Arrow with updated electronic. Killed off by a stupid political discussion.

[pontifex]

I had the most satisfaction flying the Harvard. (and I have flown rather a lot)

[unmanned_droid]

I would like to have seen what we would have done with the TSR2 and the changes that would have resulted.

If I could bring back in to service any aircraft, it would be the Buccaneer.

[spitfirek5054]

The Wessex HC 2,spent 7 1/2 years working on them.

[Stu666]

SR-71 - willing to bet it could still do an exceptional job even today.

[cafesolo]

BALLIOL. More horse power than the first Spitfire, and a go-around that you'll never forget, if you're careless.

[capngrog]

Canadair CL-13 (CF-86) Sabre, Mk 6.

Cheers,
Grog

[ShyTorque]

BALLIOL. More horse power than the first Spitfire, and a go-around that you'll never forget, if you're careless.

I was told by one of our Squadron “Navs” how he had withdrawn himself from pilot training after his Balliol torque rolled him through 720 degrees, at very low level over the runway, one dark night after he gave it too much throttle from a low speed go-around.

[Cpt_Pugwash]

I'm in agreement with unmanned-droid. It would have to be a re-engined Buccaneer, should have been plenty of BR710s available after the Nimrod cancellation. With a glass cockpit and modern avionic systems, would have been a winner.

[LOMCEVAK]

Well, as this is for fun I would certainly relish the opportunity to fly the Buccaneer again. However, as this venture could give me an opportunity to fly an aircraft that I have not flown but wish I had it would have to be the De Havilland Hornet. Allegedly it was one of the nicest aircraft to fly ever built.

[NutLoose]

And there is a Hornet build in the wings I believe, all be it static.

[NutLoose]

Someone has to say it..... TSR2

A modernised Rotodyne, Chinook capability with tilt rotor performance.

[Mortmeister]

I’m torn between the Vulcan or SR-71....
The sweetest noise of any aircraft ever was a Vulcan in that iconic slow roll, but no reason other than that.
I once watched an SR-71 display from Mildenhall, it left me speechless, just awesome raw power! To be honest it could still do a worthy job today, just letting the opposition know you are always watching.

[Green Flash]

Chipmunk. Put a silly grin on my face.

[pulse1]

How about T21 and T31 gliders? Let's get the kids all over the country flying solo again.

[Rigga]

Bucc...with new spars.

[treadigraph]

Well, as this is for fun I would certainly relish the opportunity to fly the Buccaneer again. However, as this venture could give me an opportunity to fly an aircraft that I have not flown but wish I had it would have to be the De Havilland Hornet. Allegedly it was one of the nicest aircraft to fly ever built.

With a Hornet being resurrected in New Zealand, you might get an opportunity!

I'll go for the B-36 - I've never even seen one but I'd love to see and hear one in the air...

[Tashengurt]

Chipmunk. Put a silly grin on my face.

^^This^^, for smiles per miles it must surely be unbeaten?!

[Captain Radar....]

Mosquito.......

[OldLurker]

I know this is the military forum but - forgive me, I'm a civilian - what for?

For sheer elegance:
Concorde
Vulcan
Mosquito (thanks, Captain)

As a passenger:
A380 (though as derjodel says, it's still in service)
747-400 upper deck business class
Short Empire (even I am not old enough to have flown in one, but the idea of having time to take ten leisurely days to fly to Australia, stopping overnight in exotic places, is surely attractive).

As a pilot:
I was only a humble PPL, but for sheer fun, the best flying I had was in STOL aircraft like the Helio Courier, in and out of back-country airstrips around the world, often excitingly short and in really interesting places.

[Tashengurt]

Would the Sea Harrier be a credible resurrection?

[sharpend]

A re-engined refurbished VC10. Fast, the right size to take an army company somewhere and a great tanker (3 hoses). A SA Bulldog as a cheap basic starter trainer. Strong, capable, easy to fly, A much modified Canberra/B57 as a cheap attack aeroplane. Did more than some of it successors. The B57G was a star in Vietnam.

[Herod]

If it was possible to bring back the era as well, the Handley-Page HP 42. All day, almost all VFR, no radio/nav aids/ controlled airspace to speak of. Lots of nightstops with interesting passengers. Probably the best airline job ever.

[Compass Call]

I would bring back the Hawker Typhoon fitted with modern rockets & engine :-)

[WB627]

Come on chaps & chapesses, we all know what we realy need ........ Kirby Cadet MkIII :)

[4runner]

F-111. Long range(by tactical standards)tactical bomber and EW platform.

[spitfirek5054]

A Spiteful or a Seafang

[langleybaston]

Harrier GR9 for sure

Amen.

What a loss, what sh1t decisions.

[Una Due Tfc]

The XB-70 Valkyrie. What it could have achieved we'll never know.

[NutLoose]

Agree re-engined VC10! With a pair of Trents on the back, great at freight, VIP, pax or fuelling.

[AusCaptain]

F-111 For sure!

[JustinHeywood]

If it was possible to bring back the era as well, the Handley-Page HP 42...42

If we’re talking eras, surely the Connies and Super Connies were the epitome of glamour. The shape was almost Art Deco, with steam-driven everything, flying to what was then exotic destinations and a frisson of danger as well!

[laardvark]

mk 2 carbon concorde .

[MENELAUS]

Bristol frightener

[catseye]

F111 with updated ECM. Was bought for a reason

[msbbarratt]

I’ve done only a little piloting myself, so I’m going to defer to Eric Winkle Brown. His favourites were the Sabre and DH Sea Hornet. The Sabre is still extant here and there, in private hands. So for me it’s got to be the Hornet that’s brought back.

As a passenger (though I imagine a fair number of pilots would fancy it too) it’d have to be Concorde.

As an engineer, it’s a close run between SR71 and F117. There are reports that the latter is still occasionally in the skies, so the SR71 gets that vote. They’re my favourite engineering examples, because they’re both extreme illustrations of what happens when engineers are let off the leash and left to get on with it. The SR71 simply because it was so fast, and the F117 simply because it was barely an aeroplane but still flew, was also stealthy, and was also so incredibly cheap (I’m not talking sticker price). $30million for two flying prototypes, even in late 70’s money, was very cheap indeed.

[Krystal n chips]

The Sunderland.......on the basis there was plenty of room to walk about / space to sleep in, and, by far the most essential item....had a very well equipped galley.

It's all about priorities and creature comforts you understand

[Brian Pern]

I would go for the MiG-25 Foxbat.
Yes it was built as well as a BL car, yes it was crude and yes it was Soviet. But it was stupidly fast 2.8M climbed like a fallen Angel, looked evil.
I am a bit biased, I had a back seat ride in one 15 years or so ago thanks to a broker and lots of my childrens inheritance.
But by God it was just bloody awesome, then again when you drive a Boeing for work, I suppose any fast jet is!

[Pugilistic Animus]

SR71 BlackBird, F14 Tomcat, Harrier

[NIREP reader]

I’m stuck in the 70’s & 80’s so if I could pause time, all of them.

[ACW599]

Come on chaps & chapesses, we all know what we realy need ........ Kirby Cadet MkIII :)

No, no, no. We need the mighty Vigilant, with a glass cockpit and re-engined with a Rotax...er...

[Willard Whyte]

C-130K. Preferably at Lyneham, or better still Thorney Island!

[Fonsini]

DeHavilland Venom, specifically the FB4.

We all have our quirks.

[chevvron]

VC-10 without a doubt - well, maybe quite a lot of doubt.
For long range maybe, but for short range (domestic) flights it has to be the Trident; equally fast if not faster.
Both aircraft were faster than modern day airliners.

[chevvron]

A re-engined refurbished VC10. Fast, the right size to take an army company somewhere and a great tanker (3 hoses).
In the mid '70s, the Chinese wanted 'em re-engined with a pair of RB211s having seen the RB211 testbed.

[chevvron]

How about T21 and T31 gliders? Let's get the kids all over the country flying solo again.
I'll drink to that; already suggested in the 2 Air Cadet gliding threads.
I spent many hours flying both types and introducing younger cadets to flying.

[dead_pan]

Can't believe no-one has mentioned the Wiggins Aerodyne yet...

[ShyTorque]

For long range maybe, but for short range (domestic) flights it has to be the Trident; equally fast if not faster.
Both aircraft were faster than modern day airliners.

That's "progress"!

[cattletruck]

Grumman F2F - just a big radial engine with fins.

[Four Turbo]

My vote goes with a PR Mosquito. Cheap, fast at low level, very small radar signature. Flying PR Canberras in early 60s Germany we reckoned that a Mossy could do all that we could - and come back several times.

[NutLoose]

I’m stuck in the 70’s & 80’s so if I could pause time, all of them.

You fool... Not everything in the 70's was great......... flares, kipper ties and Jaguar.. :E

[Pugilistic Animus]

No, no, no. We need the mighty Vigilant, with a glass cockpit and re-engined with a Rotax...er...

No glass cockpit because I like to fly I can watch TV at home :}

[Icare9]

My vote goes to the Gnat.
We have to think of small, cheap and PLENTIFUL aircraft so we can maintain a command of the skies over the UK......
With missile technology being so dominant, all you need is a delivery system loaded with missiles and the agility to out perform any opposition.
Stuff a Pegasus in and you've virtually created a small Harrier - best of both worlds, no runways, fast and nimble and jink out of the way of any incoming...

It IS a dream, innit?

[Nige321]

And there is a Hornet build in the wings I believe, all be it static.
Just a small point, the Sea Hornet being rebuilt will be a flyer...

[NutLoose]

Just an even smaller point....did I mention Sea? ;)

https://en-gb.facebook.com/dehavilland.hornet.F1/


:E (https://en-gb.facebook.com/dehavilland.hornet.F1/)

[Pugilistic Animus]

With a Hornet being resurrected in New Zealand, you might get an opportunity!

I'll go for the B-36 - I've never even seen one but I'd love to see and hear one in the air...
A long way back I was holding short on a taxiway waiting for the runway and there was a B36 right in front of me now that's luck! Although, I certainly couldn't hear the engines because of my engine and because of my noise cancelling headset. I was really hoping to watch her take off but alas she was just taxiing around that morning not taking off.

PS at least I think it was a B36

[sandiego89]

Lots of nostalgia here, but if I may nominate a type that might actually be useful today it would be the S-3 Viking.

90+ airframes sent to the desert with plenty of fatigue life, and a much better tanker than the E/F Super Hornet with the buddy store, and a useful MPA. Save the wear and tear on the Super Hornets and sheds loads more gas to give.

[Nige321]

Just an even smaller point....did I mention Sea? ;)

https://en-gb.facebook.com/dehavilland.hornet.F1/


:E (https://en-gb.facebook.com/dehavilland.hornet.F1/)
Beers are on me then. Will be nice to see a flying Sea Hornet though...

[Boeing Jet]

Phantom F-4!

[Asturias56]

Lots of nostalgia here, but if I may nominate a type that might actually be useful today it would be the S-3 Viking.

90+ airframes sent to the desert with plenty of fatigue life, and a much better tanker than the E/F Super Hornet with the buddy store, and a useful MPA. Save the wear and tear on the Super Hornets and sheds loads more gas to give.


I think its a good choice - it worked, it could still work and it would really extend current capabilities

[Sneezy24]

Nimrod, Harrier, Hunter....

But most all all, DH Mosquito FB.VI!!!!!! ('cos Dad was a navigator in them!)

[dctyke]

Maybe the harrier gr5/7/9. Even with my rose tinted glasses I still recall clocking on at 1600 and working through to 0700 shift change the next morning on many of those Cold War mean machines.

[pasta]

Chipmunk. Put a silly grin on my face.
There are still quite a few around; I had a tow from one yesterday.

My vote would be for the Lightning, I'd love to see one in the air again. You couldn't do anything useful with it, mind you...

[biscuit74]

Harrier GR9 for sure

That and the Sea Harrier.

If a further choice was available of course the mighty Buccaneer.

[Quietplease]

As a twenty year old you couldn’t have more fun (in the air) than a Meteor 8.

[chevvron]

As a twenty year old you couldn’t have more fun (in the air) than a Meteor 8.
Even more 'fun' when you lose an engine.

[unmanned_droid]

I think its a good choice - it worked, it could still work and it would really extend current capabilities

I think the only reason this hasn't happened through a private entity is that the USN are holding on to them 'just in case'.

[chevvron]

With a Hornet being resurrected in New Zealand, you might get an opportunity!

I'll go for the B-36 - I've never even seen one but I'd love to see and hear one in the air...

In the '50s, we lived near Bovingdon so were used to different types flying over.
One day when I was about 5, I saw a 'big'' plane' with '6 engines pointing backwards'.
I ran indoors and told my brother, who was almost old enough to join the ATC.
He hit me saying I was lying; there was no such thing.
(I don't think it landed at Bovingdon)

[frieghtdog2000]

L1011-500 before BA sold the family silver to the RAF.
OK - I'll get my coat.

[Flickhammer]

How about the mighty Blanik, towed aloft by the Supermunk. Oh, RAFGSA how I need you now.

[Thrust Augmentation]

Vigilante & Hustler. Not that they were in service, but the Mirage 4000 & XB-70 would also be nice

Anything supersonic with 2 or more engines come to think about it!

[Bill Macgillivray]

Let's have a proper Canberra again! Maybe a PR 19++? Or a Hunter Mk ?? Or a Lightning Mk10 ? Or just a PP, Mosquito, Vampire or maybe(?) an up to date Swift?
Bill

[pasta]

Plenty of Blaniks still around, including several for sale if you're keen to scratch that itch; the going rate for airworthy examples seems to be between 15,000-30,000 Euros.

Roll rate still measured in degrees per minute...

[Vzlet]

As perhaps the only Warsaw-Pact-produced aircraft to be operated by several NATO air forces during the Cold War, the Blanik makes a good trivia question.




(Italy, U.S., Spain)

[Pugilistic Animus]

I did wrong...I just looked it up... no I've never seen a B36 a B something but definitely not a B 36
I'm adorned in ashes and sack cloth Lol

[West Coast]

Lots of nostalgia here, but if I may nominate a type that might actually be useful today it would be the S-3 Viking.

90+ airframes sent to the desert with plenty of fatigue life, and a much better tanker than the E/F Super Hornet with the buddy store, and a useful MPA. Save the wear and tear on the Super Hornets and sheds loads more gas to give.

Wasn’t there an aborted effort to do this 3-4 years ago?

[chevvron]

Anything supersonic with 2 or more engines come to think about it!
Victor then.

[treadigraph]

I did wrong...I just looked it up... no I've never seen a B36 a B something but definitely not a B 36
I'm adorned in ashes and sack cloth Lol

If it was in the US, B-17, B-24, B-29?

[vascodegama]

SAAB Viggen instead of Jaguar and replace Lightning with same ac.

Touch paper light!

KC10 instead of Victor K2 .

[Fareastdriver]

KC10 instead of Victor K2

When I did my flight refuelling course at Marham in 1962 the school already had classroom boards made up with the VC10's fuel distribution system.

[brakedwell]

Avro Anson, very under rated, but lovely to fly and very reliable!

[ehwatezedoing]

I did wrong...I just looked it up... no I've never seen a B36 a B something but definitely not a B 36
I'm adorned in ashes and sack cloth Lol
I was going to ask as you mentioned your noise cancelling headset and B-36 in the same sentence (Noise cancelling wasn't around in that time period)

The XB-70 was quite the beast, not sure Greta would prove it's come back though.... :p

[Null Orifice]

Shackleton MR 2 - with the pre-tailpipe exhaust stubs.

I'd just love to get covered in that wonderfully odorous water-methanol slime just one more time while clearing out the water-meth tanks. Red face
This thrill was almost equalled by the feeling of sheer joy experienced when chiselling off the exhaust stub nuts on a wet and windy Gib dispersal, a regular event for an engines bod carrying out an after flight servicing when the old grey lady returned without her full complement of stubs.
But it was worth it just to hear the magnificent growl of the four Griffons as she flew past at low level.

[Krystal n chips]

Plenty of Blaniks still around, including several for sale if you're keen to scratch that itch; the going rate for airworthy examples seems to be between 15,000-30,000 Euros.

Roll rate still measured in degrees per minute...

Cruel. very cruel ! .....but true...;).:D...however, it was great for loops, and stuff, as you just pointed down, , hoiked back and up and over she went

[PoacherNowGamekeeper]

Civil - VC-10 (or DC-10 tough choice for me)

Mil - Vulcan

[Fonsini]

Well if we are allowed to get fanciful...

Single seat Strikemaster with a Mk16 seat, Williams FJ44-4 blower, HUD, inboard drops, outers stressed for 600 pounds, wired for wingtip 9 Lima, and a single BK27 with ammo on the other side via a crossfeed.

A bit silly perhaps but if you could make it for the same price as a Super Tucano.....who knows.

[Impress to inflate]

I can't believe NONE of you have said Spitfire !! I'm disappointed in you all. All go away and think of your actions pls.

[treadigraph]

I can't believe NONE of you have said Spitfire !! I'm disappointed in you all. All go away and think of your actions pls.

Oh, I took the Spitfire for granted. XIV, cut down rear fuselage and unclipped...

[canard68]

The A1D SkyRaider I remember one pilot telling me "it carried so much you could start your own war"

[TLDNMCL]

Transport - VC10
AAR - Victor
Fighter / GA and sheer beauty - Hunter
Specialist capability - Harrier
Rotary - Wessex (later marks)
Trainer - JP5
For fun? The Shackleton, just to watch it "landing" ten feet off the ground for about half of the runway length.

[NutLoose]

Originally Posted by pasta View Post (https://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=10912406#post10912406)
Plenty of Blaniks still around, including several for sale if you're keen to scratch that itch; the going rate for airworthy examples seems to be between 15,000-30,000 Euros.
Cruel. very cruel ! .....but true...;).:D...however, it was great for loops, and stuff, as you just pointed down, , hoiked back and up and over she went

And plenty of room up top

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x400/1603815663_5f5ea30b868f65b93d2d0d94ca2bfb0f36f64ccd.jpeg



https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x400/1603815550_be183dedc1f84e838edb89543f34c859fc1d2aff.jpeg

[unmanned_droid]

Gonna be greedy and say Martin Baker MB5 too.

And I would love to have seen the BAC.221 fly.

[brakedwell]

And plenty of room up top

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x400/1603815663_5f5ea30b868f65b93d2d0d94ca2bfb0f36f64ccd.jpeg



https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x400/1603815550_be183dedc1f84e838edb89543f34c859fc1d2aff.jpeg

When were these things ever in RAF Service?

[NutLoose]

Here

https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1722728

https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1062314/

https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1063386/


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/764x487/1062314_large_21c412350079d4c030ab8281ab37890127ad07e4.jpg

[Beamr]

The A1D SkyRaider I remember one pilot telling me "it carried so much you could start your own war"
Would love any of the Skyraiders. I'm in the understanding that it coped a lot of beating too (only by what I've read of the subject).

[brakedwell]

Not exactly Royal Air Force, Nutloose.

[Mechta]

Hawker Fury biplane

Supermarine Nighthawk. Someone's going to have to catch that pigeon.

[typerated]

SAAB Viggen instead of Jaguar and replace Lightning with same ac.

Touch paper light!

KC10 instead of Victor K2 .


Could not agree more about the Viggen. First flew in 1967 (before the Jaguar).
and (at the real risk of lighting blue touch paper) was a much more realistic answer to NATO's vulnerable airfields than Harrier ever could be.
You would have hole a lot of concrete to stop Viggens flying from an airfield!

In many ways the Draken was even more ahead of it's time- compare performance and range with the Lightning and consider it was running on just one Avon

[4runner]

Wasn’t there an aborted effort to do this 3-4 years ago?

yes. Supposedly they were to be used as tankers. Even the engines are same same as a CRJ-100. Now the hornets tank each other off the boat and they are running out of airframe time. The A-3 was another one that should be brought back. It could tank AND electronic warfare. It would top off the strike aircraft whilst simultaneously jamming.

[autoflight]

One of the most amazing aircraft

[Asturias56]

One going spare on Loch Ness.............

[Krystal n chips]

Not exactly Royal Air Force, Nutloose.

Priceless ! at last, the urban myth that has been around since 1949 has finally been debunked !..Who would have thunked prefacing GSA with RAF ( and some roundels here and there ) had nothing to do with the RAF ! ....:D

[treadigraph]

One going spare by Loch Ness.............

Fixed that for you! :p

[jmmoric]

F104 Starfigther :cool:

[possel]

Gonna be greedy and say Martin Baker MB5 too.

And I would love to have seen the BAC.221 fly.
I never saw the BAC.221 fly, but I did see it trying to fly at Farnborough in 1964 when it aborted its take-off on the Saturday!

Edit: (and of course that aircraft was never in RAF service either)

[Hoddy]

LOMCEVAK - need a back seater?

[Two's in]

Not exactly Royal Air Force, Nutloose.

My first piloting experience was in a Blanik at RAF Odiham with an RAF instructor. Of course it was in RAF service. Did some really good engine off landings as well...

[dogle]

No doubt all of us who knew what really happened have seen fit to draw a respectful veil of silence over dead_pan’s earlier mention of the highly secret Wiggins Aerodyne development, which was so tragically terminated.

That said, were I forced to pick a winner from all the splendid and much-loved aircraft thus far suggested, it would land - by a very short head indeed! - with Nutty’s offer of the (similarly named, but totally different) Fairey Rotodyne.

Oh, what a sad setback to military aviation was the political squashing of the Rotodyne project (and to civil for that matter - but for being a bit noisy, which wasn’t seen to be too big a problem back then) ... and, like so many others, to the once-proud UK aircraft industry.

[ACW599]

No doubt all of us who knew what really happened have seen fit to draw a respectful veil of silence over dead_pan’s earlier mention of the highly secret Wiggins Aerodyne development, which was so tragically terminated

Er, Beadwindow please. It isn't generally known that the Wiggins Aerodyne was "tragically terminated". In any event there was rather more to it than that.

[SUPER JOLLY GREEN]

Two aircraft that, in my opinion, epitomized brute force, purposeful menace and raw power:

The Douglas A-1 Skyraider (especially in "Sandy" RESCORT/CSAR mode)

The Sikorsky MH-53M Pave Low (a thoroughbred beast of a Helicopter)

[VX275]

How about T21 and T31 gliders? Let's get the kids all over the country flying solo again.

Better still bring back the GAL Hotspur Mk III - Train 1 Cadet and give another 6 cadets gliding experience all on the same flight.

[Jackonicko]

There are a few that might actually offer useful capabilities:

Canberra PR9, Nimrod R1 and looking ahead - how about Sentinel?

[blimey]

.......a much more realistic answer to NATO's vulnerable airfields than Harrier ever could be.
You would have hole a lot of concrete to stop Viggens flying from an airfield!
You wouldn't be able to stop Harriers flying - tarmac, tin, grass, ships.

[ShyTorque]

My first piloting experience was in a Blanik at RAF Odiham with an RAF instructor. Of course it was in RAF service. Did some really good engine off landings as well...

I reckon ALL Blanik landings were engines off...

[12in95]

Fully agree with JACKONICKO on PR9. No real knowledge of Sentinel, but always thought PR9 (and guessing Sentinel) could be outperformed in peacetime/pseudo-peacetime roles, by later models of Gulfstream - further and faster and as high as you'd need for most purposes.

[tigerfish]

For me it would have to be a Hawker Hunter TMk8. The first aircraft of any type that I ever flew in. From RNAS Yeovilton in 1977. Pilot Brian Grant. From Yeovilton over Devon and Cornwall and the Scillies to RV with the Cruiser HMS Blake in the Western approaches. She was just out of refit, - to assist in Radar calibration. That was a hell of a first flight!

TF

[LOMCEVAK]

LOMCEVAK - need a back seater?
Hoddy, you are definitely in! That really would be winding the clocks back!

[typerated]

You wouldn't be able to stop Harriers flying - tarmac, tin, grass, ships.

Yes you would!

Do you know how many vehicles were required to support the Germany Sqn's operating off base?

We could not afford the logistical tail

[Buster Hyman]

F-111 for sure, but I'd like to have seen the CAC CA-15 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_CA-15) in operational service.

[Haraka]

Yes you would!

Do you know how many vehicles were required to support the Germany Sqn's operating off base?

We could not afford the logistical tail

I remember my Flt Sgt's comment on watching the convoy packets streamimg out of the gate en route to the fiield from Gutersloh.

"Where's the piano ?"

[DCThumb]

Sentinel most definitely not out performed by (comparable) Gulfstreams....can't answer for PR9.

But Sentinel has been a sad tale of lack of investment and slow decline since SDSR 2010. Such a waste of a useful asset.

[esa-aardvark]

What about the B-58, with modern engines.
Saw one at an air display once, rolled straight after
take off and then left in a noisy hurry.

[chevvron]

I never saw the BAC.221 fly, but I did see it trying to fly at Farnborough in 1964 when it aborted its take-off on the Saturday!

Obviously ran short of fuel.
When being ferried between Bedford and Farnborough, Benson had to be alerted in case it got short of fuel and needed to divert.

[kiwibrit]

Just passing the time away for fun, if possible what aircraft would you bring back to service mine would be the Vulcan!!

I am proud to have worked on the Vulcan, an experience I shall remember for the rest of my life. Glorious, and impressive at public displays. No way I would bring it back - incredibly labour intensive to maintain by today's standards, not to mention needing 5 aircrew to operate. But I am so glad to have been a little part of its life.

[Timmy Tomkins]

Amen.

What a loss, what sh1t decisions.

Agreed. A unique and wonderful bit of kit and we gave it away.

[Hoddy]

Correct, last trip 2 Jan 1980!!

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

I'm going to take 2 bites of the cherry here; one really vintage one veteren:

Originally I was with Capt Radar with the Mosquito - but then reflected, 'it did have a few foibles' so I reasoned: Take a Mosquito, put it on a severe diet, nearly double the horsepower but give it handed engines to make it go in straight line on take-off and landing and improve handling even more, plus a minor restyle to make it look even more rakish and - Voila - you have a Hornet. What's not to like?

For the newer one - I opine XT272; the Buccaneer fitted with the Tornado GR1 nose and avionics. You know, the one that was an embarrassment to the Fin's programme and, once the test flying was complete, had to be cut and destroyed to remove the evidence........

[brakedwell]

As a twenty year old you couldn’t have more fun (in the air) than a Meteor 8.


I agree to that, especially roaring around in the Troodos Mountains, trying to unsettle the EOKA members living there..i

[NutLoose]

I'm going to take 2 bites of the cherry here; one really vintage one veteren:

Originally I was with Capt Radar with the Mosquito - but then reflected, 'it did have a few foibles' so I reasoned: Take a Mosquito, put it on a severe diet, nearly double the horsepower but give it handed engines to make it go in straight line on take-off and landing and improve handling even more, plus a minor restyle to make it look even more rakish and - Voila - you have a Hornet. What's not to like?

For the newer one - I opine XT272; the Buccaneer fitted with the Tornado GR1 nose and avionics. You know, the one that was an embarrassment to the Fin's programme and, once the test flying was complete, had to be cut and destroyed to remove the evidence........

Instead of wood if you went the Mossie route, use carbon fibre and a couple of Turboprops, , you would struggle to double the HP unless you nailed some Griffons in and that wold screw up the C of G

[brakedwell]

Instead of wood if you went the Mossie route, use carbon fibre and a couple of Turboprops, , you would struggle to double the HP unless you nailed some Griffons in and that wold screw up the C of G

I agree, there were a couple of Hornets wrecks lying in Changi, almost completely delaminated due to the climate.

[layman]

If I remember correctly, Winkle Brown described the Hornet as “overpowered perfection”

Just need to rectify the delamination issues experienced in the tropics

[NutLoose]

Harrier with a skyhook, then you could outfit the fleet and ditch the carriers ;)

[bridgets boy]

Sea Fury - although I have family loyalty to the Seafire and Mossie.

My favourite display aircraft (to watch!) in the 1970s was the Sea Fury - did the best manoeuvres, had a good noise, and just looked like a complete brute!

[BEagle]

When I was first on the VC10, one of the simulator instructors was an ex-Hornet pilot. He told a tale once of spotting a flight of RAAF Sabres below him. So he dived down on them at a prodigious rate of knots, feathered one engine and then went past them rolling as he did so....

[oldpax]

Would love to see one in the air!Probably no one left to talk about the experience !pity they never got the Merlins they wanted.

[minigundiplomat]

Vulcan
F14
Lightning

[Fareastdriver]

When I was first on the VC10, one of the simulator instructors was an ex-Hornet pilot. He told a tale once of spotting a flight of RAAF Sabres below him. So he dived down on them at a prodigious rate of knots, feathered one engine and then went past them rolling as he did so.

From Wiki:

In 1951, considerable numbers of Hornets were redeployed from Fighter Command to the squadrons of the Far East Air Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_East_Air_Force_(Royal_Air_Force)) (FEAF).[29] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Hornet#cite_note-birtles_5-32) Along with 45 Sqn, 33 and 80 squadrons participated in combat operations during the Malayan Emergency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency)
On 21 May 1955, the last operational Hornet sortie was flown;[31] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Hornet#cite_note-34) by mid-1956, all Hornets had been recorded as having been withdrawn from operational service.

The RAAF operated the CA-27 from 1954 to 1971. The Aircraft Research and Development Unit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Research_and_Development_Unit) (AFDU) received the first example in August 1954; re-delivered to No. 2 (Fighter) Operational Training Unit (2 OTU) in November.
From 1958 to 1960, CAC Sabres of No. 78 Wing RAAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._78_Wing_RAAF) (78 Wing), comprising 3 Sqn and 77 Sqn, undertook several ground attack sorties against communist insurgents in the Federation of Malaya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Malaya), during the Malayan Emergency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency).

[Pugilistic Animus]

If it was in the US, B-17, B-24, B-29?

I think it was the B29 ... I'm not the greatest with identifying military aircraft of that era, except P51s and Spitfires.

Thanks!

[Anilv]

F-14 Tomcat

[chevvron]

L1011-500 before BA sold the family silver to the RAF.
OK - I'll get my coat.
First one for the RAF came to Farnborough from Heathrow where the 'boffins' wanted to plot its IR signature before it went to Marshalls.
I'm sure the (BA) crew had fun doing multiple runs at 200ft along the runway at 'high' speed!

[Less Hair]

I would bring back small liaison aircraft. Many of them. Cub, L-19-style or Helio Courier/Fieseler Storch style. STOL. Powered by kerosene burning piston engines. If you look at how simple, easy maintenance and low cost they were and compare this to today's drone infrastructure, these flying Jeeps would be good for many uses. Low technology and cheap compared to anything new. No datalinks, no jamming, no big radar return.

[Boeing Jet]

The F-111 another aircraft I would bring back to service. Would like to have seen them in service with the RAF rather than the Tornado!

[etudiant]

I would bring back small liaison aircraft. Many of them. Cub, L-19-style or Helio Courier/Fieseler Storch style. STOL. Powered by kerosene burning piston engines. If you look at how simple, easy maintenance and low cost they were and compare this to today's drone infrastructure, these flying Jeeps would be good for many uses. Low technology and cheap compared to anything new. No datalinks, no jamming, no big radar return.

Think the military have been persuaded that getting rid of the crew is more effective.
The ability to lose things without needing to mount an expensive and often hazardous rescue operation is very attractive. Plus the full cost of a crew is astronomical, at least in the US, as it entails pensions and health care for the dependents.

[Flickhammer]

The Blanik needed a fair bit of ground handling. So I am going to that RJ Mitchell masterpiece..........., the Walrus. I live in Dartmouth (UK) and it would be dead handy for a trip out to the Scilly Isles for a picnic (saves all that sailing). RAF colours of course.

[vmcdemo]

English Electric Lightning and DeHavilland Chipmunk

[langleybaston]

If I may humbly add the maligned and unsuccessful Westland Wyvern. I stood 100 yds from it at Farnborough as it ran up the power, Beautiful beyond belief, powerful, ejector seat .....let's go

[BEagle]

Wyvern? Absolutely NOT! Childhood memories of those things droning around RAF Merryfield on Westlands' tests, often followed by silence when the Python decided not to play, much to the chagrin of Harald Penrose!

[FullOppositeRudder]

F-111 - there's a few buried around the place in Australia; shouldn't be too hard to dig up, check the tyres, charge the batteries, fill the tanks, hop in and light the fuse!

Avro Vulcan - fortunately I'm old enough to have just seen one in the air very briefly at the time of the Maralinga test program - low and loud!

B-36 - now that would be something to stand in awe of (or horror). Six turning and four burning! Only seen in the film Strategic Air Command, and in a Youtube clip out there somewhere ....

Alas all nothing but memories now - we shall not see the likes of them again.

[Haraka]

Agree with you BEags
. Harald found himself flicked inverted on finals with a dead engine,. In recalling this incident , he explained that he had considered himself dead , decided to continue the roll anyway, and deadsticked in short but the right way up.
It was not a popular aeroplane in FAA service either.

[fly the ball]

Tomcat
I flew Intruders and Hornets on Exchange with the US Navy, always liked the mighty Tomcat coming aboard!

[langleybaston]

Told you so! Maligned and unsuccessful, Remember you read it here first.

[fly the ball]

FW 190 "Langnase"
Tomcat- On Exchange Tour with the US Navy ,flying Intruders later Hornets, I always liked the Tomcat coming on board, especially at night!

[draglift]

Not to bring back into service but I would really like it if they could get a Vickers Wellington flying again. Not the recovered one from Loch Ness at Brooklands but the one at Hendon that also featured in the Dambusters film when they first tested the bouncing bomb. It always seemed in very good condition.

[BVRAAM]

Tornado F.3.


Coolest jet the RAF has ever operated, and the fastest...

[Less Hair]

Wouldn't the EE Lightning have been faster at Mach 2 however not for long?

[Boeing Jet]

The Jaguar is another favourite of mine, but never took to the Tornado!

[BVRAAM]

Wouldn't the EE Lightning have been faster at Mach 2 however not for long?

Probably not at low level.

[Pugilistic Animus]

SR-71 - willing to bet it could still do an exceptional job even today.
From what I know there's a few of them hidden that are airworthy. I bought the POH for the BlackBird and it's really interesting, very complex airplane. There is still some pages classified. And also the actual flight envelope is likewise, classified. my guess is FL 90 and M 3.6

[ZH875]

Fighter: Sopwith Camel
Bomber: Fairey Fox
Trainer: Avro 504K
Transport: Dakota

That's about all we can afford from next year.

[Vulcan Passenger]

It's still in great condition. well looked after, hangared, and loved by thousands . Just do it.

[BVRAAM]

It's still in great condition. well looked after, hangared, and loved by thousands . Just do it.

It's really not in good condition, and neither is it in a hangar and hasn't been for three years! It's been exposed to the elements, constantly. As for whether it's well looked after, that's debatable.

[salad-dodger]

Oh BVRAAM, great to have you back. Have you been on a school trip for the last 6 months?

[Mortmeister]

Tornado F.3.


Coolest jet the RAF has ever operated, and the fastest...

You are so right. Pleasing to look at and in the later guises a very capable interceptor (in the right hands).

[NutLoose]

It's really not in good condition, and neither is it in a hangar and hasn't been for three years! It's been exposed to the elements, constantly. As for whether it's well looked after, that's debatable.

Agreed, they let the engineers go and ran it shortly afterwards and thus it’s no longer inhibited I believe, it is or was dumped outside next to the poo farm.

Even worse is the Canberra they bought to restore to fly, an odd choice I thought at the time as the Kemble? ones were for sale and airworthy, it was stripped down for rebuild then had the openings taped over and dumped outside near one of the crash gates, in effect open to the elements.

Once it ceased flying, the cash cow that was 558 died a death, as it would, and so much for the promises made to the Lottery re housing it for education etc.... it should never have gone to Doncaster, airside access was always going to put an end to runs etc that generated income.

Such a shame, but the writing was on the wall when she was grounded, she just became another Cold War relic slowly rotting away on an old airfield.

[BVRAAM]

Agreed, they let the engineers go and ran it shortly afterwards and thus it’s no longer inhibited I believe, it is or was dumped outside next to the poo farm.

Even worse is the Canberra they bought to restore to fly, an odd choice I thought at the time as the Kemble? ones were for sale and airworthy, it was stripped down for rebuild then had the openings taped over and dumped outside near one of the crash gates, in effect open to the elements.

Once it ceased flying, the cash cow that was 558 died a death, as it would, and so much for the promises made to the Lottery re housing it for education etc.... it should never have gone to Doncaster, airside access was always going to put an end to runs etc that generated income.

Such a shame, but the writing was on the wall when she was grounded, she just became another Cold War relic slowly rotting away on an old airfield.

Every so often, they take the covers off and spool the engines up.

I can't see why they bother to be honest.
She'll never fly again. Regular airside access is virtually impossible to make regular runs viable.

It's time to either contemplate moving it to a museum where it will be properly looked after, or, I reckon I could make good use out of its recycled aluminium every morning after a shower.

[Herod]

just became another Cold War relic slowly rotting away on an old airfield.

I volunteer at Cosford museum. This sounds like a job description. ;)

[NWSRG]

F14 Tomcat. IIRC, Capitol Hill politics favoured the F/A-18E/F over the Tomcat 21. The refreshed Tomcat had a lot going for it, and would have given the fleet greater reach than it has today.

[ex-fast-jets]

Kevin the Carrot seems to be having fun this year.

Perhaps we should ask him/her??

[PaulH1]

Hunter F6. Did that thing shift!

[KiloB]

Then there was the Rhodesian version with the Caravelle motor!

[4runner]

F14 Tomcat. IIRC, Capitol Hill politics favoured the F/A-18E/F over the Tomcat 21. The refreshed Tomcat had a lot going for it, and would have given the fleet greater reach than it has today.

the super tomcat. I fly with ex tomcat and aardvark pilots. Evidently, Dick Cheney hated the CEO of Grumman. Also, everyone that I know who flew either of these aircraft says that towards the end, their mx requirements were well over 15:1 mx hour per flight. There’s a lot of moving parts and hydraulics in these planes. The F-18 is an 80% airplane. It does the job 80% as well as a dedicated attack or dedicated fighter aircraft. It would be nice to have a long range, tip of the carrier air group spear though...

[andytug]

Ignoring all the crazy logistical issues for most of these:
B1-B
Vulcan, Victor and Valiant
Harrier
Buccanneer (for the low passes in ground effect :) )
And for complete lunacy, fit a Concorde with a couple of 303s in the wings and call it military!:)

[Herod]

And for complete lunacy, fit a Concorde with a couple of 303s in the wings and call it military!https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Or fit the bomb-bay

[fitliker]

Westland Lysander , with a quieter exhaust :)

[msbbarratt]

From what I know there's a few of them hidden that are airworthy. I bought the POH for the BlackBird and it's really interesting, very complex airplane. There is still some pages classified. And also the actual flight envelope is likewise, classified. my guess is FL 90 and M 3.6

I recall ages ago reading some work someone had done to calculate the top speed, came out at M3.4 so far as I can recall. The limiting factor is the compressor inlet air temperature, which increases with speed. Any faster than that and the air temperature profile throughout the compressor results in the latter stages getting hot enough to melt.

Of course, Reaction Engines’ helium cooled heat exchanger on their Sabre concept overcomes that general limitation. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if that pitches up in something hypersonic in the US.

[ppet123]

The Harrier gr9. Lightning. f4 phantom. vulcan. f14 tomcat. Mosquito.

[Rocket2]

Wasn't there a design for the Vickers Funbus as a bomber (& indeed a maritime patrol aircraft) both fitted with a bomb bay & disposable pods under the wings? If I recall in the bomber role it could have carried 40,000lb worth (or maybe more) of bombs. Get's my vote!

[RVF750]

I hate to say it, and sorry to be controversial, but none of the RAF's retired types were really world beating either by the time they were retired or even when introduced. The Eurofighter Typhoon is OK, as was the Lightning. Tornado, adequate. We'd have bene far better to buy a half dozen squadrons of F/A18s and upgraded to E/F models really. Could have deployed them on a carrier, and on land. A truly versatile aircraft. F15s are still better than the Eurofighter and they're 40 years old.

The Harrier was different, unique and specialised like nothing before or since. The Harrier II was a fine aircraft, once the wiring fires were sorted. But other than cost, we could have bought some A10s and had a far more potent beast.

Hate to say it, and credit where it's due, but the UK military industry really hasn't done something world leading since the Spitfire. Hope BAe's new baby kicks ass though!

[BVRAAM]

I hate to say it, and sorry to be controversial, but none of the RAF's retired types were really world beating either by the time they were retired or even when introduced. The Eurofighter Typhoon is OK, as was the Lightning. Tornado, adequate. We'd have bene far better to buy a half dozen squadrons of F/A18s and upgraded to E/F models really. Could have deployed them on a carrier, and on land. A truly versatile aircraft. F15s are still better than the Eurofighter and they're 40 years old.

The Harrier was different, unique and specialised like nothing before or since. The Harrier II was a fine aircraft, once the wiring fires were sorted. But other than cost, we could have bought some A10s and had a far more potent beast.

Hate to say it, and credit where it's due, but the UK military industry really hasn't done something world leading since the Spitfire. Hope BAe's new baby kicks ass though!

Could you have written a more poorly balanced post?

When you say, "as was the Lightning," I presume you refer to the English Electric Lightning.

At the risk of every WIWOL on the forum hating me forever, no, it really wasn't 'ok' when put into historical context. It was neglected by the political class, and as a consequence it was out-classed by fighters capable of delivering RH weapons.
It had the potential, it just didn't have the investment and its IR weapons were old and dated - the later models of the AIM-9 in those days were a quantum leap in technology.

Maybe in the 60's, the Lightning really was top dog. When RH technology really started to pick up, anything that wasn't providing a similar capability was left behind.

Oh, and let's not even go there with regards to fuel...

[Lyneham Lad]

Hate to say it, and credit where it's due, but the UK military industry really hasn't done something world leading since the Spitfire.

Canberra...

[GeeRam]

Canberra...

Quite.

And in its original carrier borne, strike role, Buccaneer.

[Tashengurt]

I hate to say it, and sorry to be controversial, but none of the RAF's retired types were really world beating either by the time they were retired or even when introduced. The Eurofighter Typhoon is OK, as was the Lightning. Tornado, adequate. We'd have bene far better to buy a half dozen squadrons of F/A18s and upgraded to E/F models really. Could have deployed them on a carrier, and on land. A truly versatile aircraft. F15s are still better than the Eurofighter and they're 40 years old.

The Harrier was different, unique and specialised like nothing before or since. The Harrier II was a fine aircraft, once the wiring fires were sorted. But other than cost, we could have bought some A10s and had a far more potent beast.

Hate to say it, and credit where it's due, but the UK military industry really hasn't done something world leading since the Spitfire. Hope BAe's new baby kicks ass though!

Let's face it, the title of this thread might as well be " What age would you like to be again?"

[H Peacock]

I hate to say it, and sorry to be controversial, but none of the RAF's retired types were really world beating either by the time they were retired or even when introduced. The Eurofighter Typhoon is OK, as was the Lightning. Tornado, adequate. We'd have bene far better to buy a half dozen squadrons of F/A18s and upgraded to E/F models really.

I beg to disagree! The Canberra was outstanding throughout its RAF service, and the PR9 better than many platforms in the specialised role of high altitude reconnaissance,.

[autoflight]

Mig 21would be a nice aircraft to return to service

[Pugilistic Animus]

I recall ages ago reading some work someone had done to calculate the top speed, came out at M3.4 so far as I can recall. The limiting factor is the compressor inlet air temperature, which increases with speed. Any faster than that and the air temperature profile throughout the compressor results in the latter stages getting hot enough to melt.

Of course, Reaction Engines’ helium cooled heat exchanger on their Sabre concept overcomes that general limitation. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if that pitches up in something hypersonic in the US.
In my adoration for Her I neglected any Ram rise...3.4 is still excellent
Thanks

[4runner]

Could you have written a more poorly balanced post?

When you say, "as was the Lightning," I presume you refer to the English Electric Lightning.

At the risk of every WIWOL on the forum hating me forever, no, it really wasn't 'ok' when put into historical context. It was neglected by the political class, and as a consequence it was out-classed by fighters capable of delivering RH weapons.
It had the potential, it just didn't have the investment and its IR weapons were old and dated - the later models of the AIM-9 in those days were a quantum leap in technology.

Maybe in the 60's, the Lightning really was top dog. When RH technology really started to pick up, anything that wasn't providing a similar capability was left behind.

Oh, and let's not even go there with regards to fuel...

just because you don’t like what he said, doesn’t make it “unbalanced”. There’s a reason that no one bought the Lightning. There was an F-104 and the dispatch reliability of the Lightning was less than 70% at any given time.

[BVRAAM]

just because you don’t like what he said, doesn’t make it “unbalanced”. There’s a reason that no one bought the Lightning. There was an F-104 and the dispatch reliability of the Lightning was less than 70% at any given time.


I'm kind of glad the political class neglected it, to be honest.

The Phantom was a wonderful aeroplane and I don't think the Lightning, even if given all the money in the world, could have been close to being as capable and it would have undermined the case to buy the F-4.

[Video Mixdown]

Let's face it, the title of this thread might as well be " What age would you like to be again?"
So true.
What Military Aircraft Would You Bring Back To Service?
None of them. They’re obsolete.

[BVRAAM]

So true.
What Military Aircraft Would You Bring Back To Service?
None of them. They’re obsolete.

Meh... Tornado GR4 is still relevant and would easily fit back in for the next few years in that hypothetical situation.

It wasn't that long ago that it was delivering good news to vile people.

[ivor toolbox]

Priceless ! at last, the urban myth that has been around since 1949 has finally been debunked !..Who would have thunked prefacing GSA with RAF ( and some roundels here and there ) had nothing to do with the RAF ! ....:D

I seem to recall we had one at Halton, @1979 , they were also maintained at Syerston along with Air Cadets Barges and Kirby Cadets and the like.

Ttfn

[Asturias56]

what's interesting is how many of the suggestions want to add/change things to the light of their life - armament, engines, electronics

[TEEEJ]

There’s a reason that no one bought the Lightning.

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait also operated the Lightning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#Saudi_Arabia_and_Kuwait

[SLXOwft]

As the OP's intent was a bit of idle fun.

The Wasp (and the Scout) - might remind the moaners how far things have come.

I am suprised no one who operated it has stood up for the Tornado GR.4 or is it too recently out of service?

Phantom FG.1 plus catapults for the QEs to make lookers' lives more fun.

Should have developed an AV8-B plus based SHar FA3

However, I would have loved to have seen one or all of the Hawker P.1121 (single and twin seat versions), P.1125 or P.1129 in service. For those that don't know the P.1121 was intended to be a Mach 2.5 replacement for the Hunter in both A2A and GA roles. The 1129 was Hawker's answer to GOR.339 that led to the TSR2. It would have been much better looking IMHO.

[havick]

Bring back the sycamore

[bsae1mba]

F-105....both the Thud and the Wild Weasel. Loved the coke bottle fuselage design and the sharp intakes when viewed from underneath...

[sycamore]

havick, Thank you,I`m still here...!

I should add ,had a new air-filter installed, not permitted to do running take-offs,new windscreens fitted,oleos need pumping up,and C of G has moved....fwd,
frequent injections of 40% additive in the fuel always helps...need a good body refurbish...but the maintenance maid says I don`t pay enough.....

[zetec2]

Has nobody mentioned the Wessex ?

[Herod]

Has nobody mentioned the Wessex ?

Yes, way back in post #13. If we are talking about the HC2, count me in. An old friend who operated the Wessex and the Puma, said the Puma's biggest problem was that it wasn't soldier-proof.

[Fareastdriver]

An old friend who operated the Wessex and the Puma, said the Puma's biggest problem was that it wasn't soldier-proof.

Back in 1971 when I was on 33 Sqn. when the Pumas started flying we were subjected to this non stop mockery from 72 Wessex Sqn. of how our Pumas would fall apart once the Army started jumping in and out. The first aircraft, XW204, arrived at the end of April and is still in service with the same squadron; nearly fifty years later.

Soldier proof. How long was the Wessex in front line service?

[Herod]

'62 to '03 I believe. 41 years. I'll give the Puma that..

[WB627]

And for complete lunacy, fit a Concorde with a couple of 303s in the wings and call it military!:)

I'll see your two 303's and raise you 3x Blue Steel :E

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x265/concorde_376de1bb9b08977428cc96d8462d3702ebbf93f9.jpg

[Jackonicko]

F15s are still better than the Eurofighter and they're 40 years old.

You're talking utter bollocks

[4runner]

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait also operated the Lightning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#Saudi_Arabia_and_Kuwait

briefly and only after some diplomatic persuasion and showmanship. This was documented in a magazine article as a matter of fact. The test pilot was briefed not to use reheat(afterburner) on the ground. They saw limited action along the Yemeni border skirmish.

[Fareastdriver]

The test pilot was briefed not to use reheat(afterburner) on the ground.

I was part of the group of tankers that ferried 56 Sqn to Cyprus. We then ferried two to Bahrain where one was used by the demonstration pilot and flown to Saudi and back.

It certainly used afterburner to take off from Bahrain and I am sure that it would have had to use afterburner to get airborne on its demonstration flight.

[Jolley Roger]

F86. Because

[spekesoftly]

The test pilot was briefed not to use reheat(afterburner) on the ground.

May I ask why?

[SLXOwft]

I'll see your two 303's and raise you 3x Blue Steel :E

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x265/concorde_376de1bb9b08977428cc96d8462d3702ebbf93f9.jpg

I love "relatively inexpensive deterrent" - I suppose certainly cheaper than Polaris and subs. An RAF buy would have brought down the unit price I suppose and made Concorde more attractive to paying airlines. Of course these days they would be leased from AirBomber under a PFI contract with the surge capacity leased out to billionaires/oligarchs as the ultimate in bling. Oh and one would be suitably painted for BoJo.

[Asturias56]

what was the range of Blue Steel? 500-600 miles?

Does anyone think that any aeroplane would get within 600 miles of say Moscow cruising at 60,000 ft in the mid-70's - late 90's???

[kenparry]

The Blue Steel that entered service had a range of around 120 nm. Proposed developments that never happened could have improved that to about 500 or so.

[Shaft109]

There's plenty out on the secondhand market, Just need a re-engine with a more modern supportable unit. And possibly an updated glass cockpit.

They could be issued to units that would be staffed by Volunteers around the UK to fly Air Cadets under the guidance / parented by the RAF system to solo standard and beyond.

Relatively cheaply too.

Oh hang on....

[WB627]

what was the range of Blue Steel? 500-600 miles?

Does anyone think that any aeroplane would get within 600 miles of say Moscow cruising at 60,000 ft in the mid-70's - late 90's???

The drawing appeared in the 1968 50th Anniversary RAF Year Book. I think it was just wishful thinking. However, how close would a Vulcan or Victor have got to Moscow even at low level? I think that might have been wishful thinking as well, despite the skill and determination of the crews that would have flown them.

[Asturias56]

Which is why they were replaced as the main part of the deterrent in '68 I guess

[Barksdale Boy]

1) It was 1969
2) I don't remember a plan to attack The Soviet capital at low level

In short, you're talking nonsense.

[63000 Triple Zilch]

Mathias Rust, I think, managed it in a single engined Cessna landing in Red Square in the late 70s early 80s. Red faces in the Soviet military all round

[4runner]

I was part of the group of tankers that ferried 56 Sqn to Cyprus. We then ferried two to Bahrain where one was used by the demonstration pilot and flown to Saudi and back.

It certainly used afterburner to take off from Bahrain and I am sure that it would have had to use afterburner to get airborne on its demonstration flight.

the FOREIGN test pilot was briefed.

[4runner]

May I ask why?

the magazine article said that it would break the sound barrier or overspeed the gear.

[NutLoose]

Back in 1971 when I was on 33 Sqn. when the Pumas started flying we were subjected to this non stop mockery from 72 Wessex Sqn. of how our Pumas would fall apart once the Army started jumping in and out. The first aircraft, XW204, arrived at the end of April and is still in service with the same squadron; nearly fifty years later.

Soldier proof. How long was the Wessex in front line service?

True, but then they did totally rebuild them with new engines and rotors, the Wessex simply plodded on as delivered. It would have been nice to see the Westminster developed, which was in a way a big Wessex with the engines and cockpit placement swopped. It might even have negated the need for the Sea King.

[Fareastdriver]

True, but then they did totally rebuild them with new engines and rotors, the Wessex simply plodded on as delivered.

No it didn't. Wastelands replaced the piston engine with a single turbine, it was then installed with two turbines connected to the main gearbox via a combining gearbox at the original angle.with the engines positioned as ideal vacuum cleaners.

The Puma's 'rebuild' consisted of replacing the engines via the quick release system, the gearbox and head the same way and rebuilding the inside of the cockpit to accept the Super Puma's control systems.
The blades came with the head.

Why they didn't they install the 900 ft/min impact single wheel undercarriage of the Super Puma is something I cannot fathom.

[NutLoose]

Not true FarEastDriver

The RAF never operated the piston version, they operated the Gnome HC2 from day one, the conversion having been carried out prior to RAF service and the HC2 served as was throughout its career, we also operated the HC4 and latterly the HU5 as well.

As for the Puma, you also missed out a completely new digital cockpit, new autopilot system, totally rewired throughout and an increased fuel capacity. I can’t fathom out why they never just binned them and replaced with new, either Puma or Blackhawk.
After all, all that was really left was a 40 year old shell.


..

[BEagle]

I'd vote for the Jet Provost T Mk 5A with a more fuel efficient engine and updated avionics.

Plus the training system which went with it - for ALL aspirant RAF pilots! Including the QFIs and aerodromes.....

[NutLoose]

I'd vote for the Jet Provost T Mk 5A with a more fuel efficient engine and updated avionics.

Plus the training system which went with it - for ALL aspirant RAF pilots! Including the QFIs and aerodromes.....

I’d stick a williams F44 in it, dimensions and weight about the same for a reduced fuel burn and a couple of hundred pounds more thrust.

[Fareastdriver]

I can’t fathom out why they never just binned them and replaced with new, either Puma or Blackhawk.

At least we agree on that point.

[Farrell]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1592x984/b3151876de3a415dcf28af4deaea3ed4_20457b47ee80c80ea850bb52fd3 4ea9d200c1462.jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1429/f50f8b9bd33cb09b2e25f396f1a73db3_ef91dc6f45d76bb991bb29e5745 0d976d1eca301.jpg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x480/5af111655336a542b12552b86cd194f5_db341a99d432b8d900bab1ab4e1 0c0259bc52f50.jpg

[TLDNMCL]

My vote goes to the Gnat.
We have to think of small, cheap and PLENTIFUL aircraft so we can maintain a command of the skies over the UK......
With missile technology being so dominant, all you need is a delivery system loaded with missiles and the agility to out perform any opposition.
Stuff a Pegasus in and you've virtually created a small Harrier - best of both worlds, no runways, fast and nimble and jink out of the way of any incoming...

It IS a dream, innit?
😊That would have to be renamed "Fat Gnat" with a Peg in there😂

[Bob Viking]

Once again the ‘quantity vs quality’ argument raises its head. If ever it were to find a spiritual home this thread would be it.

I know I’m wasting my time but I’ll highlight a couple of points.

You’re correct that missile technology is a key factor nowadays. If (big if) you can guarantee a ‘bigger stick’ than the opposition then you are kind of correct that the delivery platform doesn’t matter so much.

The launch conditions of your missile are quite important though. The higher and faster you are at launch, the better the range of your missile.

Launching a missile from a Gnat (I’m sorry to say this but I would never be able to take that suggestion seriously, maybe because of the Hot Shots movie) would severely limit your missile range.

Secondly you mentioned having the agility to out-manoeuvre the opposition. Exactly what opposition do you imagine you could outperform in a Gnat? Even one with an engine bigger than the aeroplane itself?!

Finally you must consider what you want to do with your ‘Super Gnat’. If it is for UK defence and the missile is all you need then build a SAM system. If you want that platform to cross a border into somewhere with SAMs and fighters of it’s own then good luck finding the volunteers to go to war in Topper Harley’s finest.

Instead of wistfully remembering the days when we had thousands of aircraft and thinking how that would be great nowadays you must consider what you want to do with them.

As much as you may love Spitfires/Meteors/Hunters/Gnats they would be utterly useless in a modern conflict or defence of the UK in virtually any sensible scenario.

It’s not that those aircraft weren’t great in their day but, as we upgraded and embraced newer technologies, so did everyone else.

If we really thought the Russians were going to send an airborne armada of Mig 15s our way then maybe we would need more aircraft. I still wouldn’t want that to be Gnats though. Or Hunters. Or...

BV

I just thought that maybe I should answer the question before I go.

If you want to know which aircraft I would like to see fly again purely for sentimental reasons then it shouldn’t surprise you to know it’d be the Jaguar.

If you want to know which aircraft I would bring back for operational reasons then I’d say none of them. They have all been superseded. That’s called progress.

[brakedwell]

I am afraid I have to agree with you BV. Having flown Vampires and Meteors a long time age, i would not rate them highly against more modern fighters.

[Fareastdriver]

I wouldn't have rated them against modern fighters of their day when they were in service.

[typerated]

I'm sure I'm not alone and maybe it is just a getting older male thing - but my wife is frustrated that I'm always appalled by the cost of things.
she is always telling me "but that is what things cost these days"
My reaction is " I'm not paying it!"

$200 for a pair of shoes - I'm not paying that!
$XXX.XXXX for a house - it's not worth that - etc etc.

To a degree I can get my head round Fast Jets at over $100M a pop.
But I struggle with utility helicopters such as the new Lynx being not to far short of that.

I'd wonder if there is a economic argument to bring back something like a Turbo Beaver/ PC-6 etc to compliment the helicopters.
if you are transporting a few bods (or some odds and sods) from one field to another at around 100 Knots it would do it at a tiny fraction of the cost (buy price and operating cost)

[etudiant]

I'm sure I'm not alone and maybe it is just a getting older male thing - but my wife is frustrated that I'm always appalled by the cost of things.
she is always telling me "but that is what things cost these days"
My reaction is " I'm not paying it!"

$200 for a pair of shoes - I'm not paying that!
$XXX.XXXX for a house - it's not worth that - etc etc.

To a degree I can get my head round Fast Jets at over $100M a pop.
But I struggle with utility helicopters such as the new Lynx being not to far short of that.

I'd wonder if there is a economic argument to bring back something like a Turbo Beaver/ PC-6 etc to compliment the helicopters.
if you are transporting a few bods (or some odds and sods) from one field to another at around 100 Knots it would do it at a tiny fraction of the cost (buy price and operating cost)

Just divide everything by 10 or by 100, the sums will feel much more comfortable.

[ShyTorque]

As for the Puma, you also missed out a completely new digital cockpit, new autopilot system, totally rewired throughout and an increased fuel capacity. I can’t fathom out why they never just binned them and replaced with new, either Puma or Blackhawk.
After all, all that was really left was a 40 year old shell.

And with the arrival of the HC2 the RAF finally got the aircraft it needed in 1971. I joined the Puma force in 1979 and there was much discussion at the upper echelons about the replacement for the HC1 even then. The first time I sat in a Blackhawk, not long afterwards, I realised how far behind our aircraft were. What a shame we never bought the RTM322 powered version.

[rcsa]

Ok, so in a light-hearted (though heart-felt!) thread, here's a serious question. Watching the annihilation of Armenian armour and ground systems by Turkish/Azeri Bayraktar UAVs in the Nagorno Karabagh war over the past couple of months, I wonder, is there an aircraft that could be used to shoot down UAVs in this kind of conflict?

I'm thinking it needs to be light and manouverable, armed with canon; low heat signature (there are plenty of MANPADS in theatre of the SAM7/10 type, not to mention more sophisticated AA and AAA systems); easy to fly, maintain and operate; service ceiling of 25-30,000 ft; cheap; STOL or short field capable; and, crucially, easily available or easily modifiable from an existing platform.

As an informed amateur it seems to me that, given the lamentable shortage of Spitfires or Mustangs, an obvious choice would be something like an Air Tractor AT-802. But how 'hot' is a PT6? Is there a way of cooling the heat signature? Or is there a market for interceptor UAVs - designed to loiter at altitude and shoot down enemy UAVs, armed with A2A missiles, perhaps?

[Momoe]

Bayraktar operates at low-medium level at a cruise speed of 70 knots, even if you're not flying in contested airspace which would be suicidal at slow speeds with modern AA/SAM's, this would be a challenging target.

Another UAV might work but then you've got to integrate with the big picture to take out multiple threats, using something like the Peregrine or smaller, anything larger is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

[etudiant]

Bayraktar operates at low-medium level at a cruise speed of 70 knots, even if you're not flying in contested airspace which would be suicidal at slow speeds with modern AA/SAM's, this would be a challenging target.

Another UAV might work but then you've got to integrate with the big picture to take out multiple threats, using something like the Peregrine or smaller, anything larger is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

You've hit on the key issue, these UAVs are really cheap, they can be deployed in large numbers.
Current air defense systems use sophisticated and consequently expensive missiles to shoot down even more expensive aircraft. They are at best wasted on cheap drones, even if there are enough of them.
Imho, the combination of cheap sensors, pretty decent image recognition software and reasonably capable autonomously operating air, land and sea vehicles is transformative for warfare.
The Turks proved that just recently in Nagorno Karabakh, the USAF had it demonstrated to them in DARPA exercises and the US Navy was shown it in a war game twenty years ago, well before the USS Cole.
We don't call the military 'slow learners', we call them 'obstinate learners'. I think it will take an experience such as the Dutch had in Taiwan back in the early 1600s, when they were totally defeated by the Chinese, before they become receptive to the modern day realities.

[Asturias56]

they're a few million dollars a pop - using any modern air asset against them is a terrible waste of cash - simple man-pads, AA cannon seem the most cost effective ways of dealing with them

[etudiant]

they're a few million dollars a pop - using any modern air asset against them is a terrible waste of cash - simple man-pads, AA cannon seem the most cost effective ways of dealing with them
Sounds good, but I'm not confident current day man-pads are even capable of acquiring a drone, nor that current day AA cannon would work against small (less than Heron size) drones.
Guess that means there is a business opportunity....

[RAFEngO74to09]

Off-topic but continuing the discussion above.

The US Army is considering lasers mounted on armored vehicles for counter drone defense. There are 2 x different power variants undergoing more testing in 2021. 2 Cavalry Regiment already have a number of early Stryker mounted vehicles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohfif5AB97M

[ciderman]

Building a model as we speak. Anything that needed strakes on the horizontal stabiliser looks dodgy to me and it needed rocket assisted take offs!

[etudiant]

Off-topic but continuing the discussion above.

The US Army is considering lasers mounted on armored vehicles for counter drone defense. There are 2 x different power variants undergoing more testing in 2021. 2 Cavalry Regiment already have a number of early Stryker mounted vehicles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohfif5AB97M

That actually makes a lot of sense. A powerful laser will reliably damage the sensors of a drone, even if it fails to destroy the vehicle. Blinding the drone is as effective as a hard kill in most instances.

[Momoe]

Sprat to catch a mackerel scenario.

If your drone is blinded by a laser, then it stands to reason that said laser is probably protecting assets in the vicinity. Lasers need a finite amount of time to lock on and damage sensors, sufficient for a fire and forget weapon to make this a no win situation.
A few more (cheap) drones to bait and/or get intel and the threat from your anti-drone laser force is nullified.

[etudiant]

Sprat to catch a mackerel scenario.

If your drone is blinded by a laser, then it stands to reason that said laser is probably protecting assets in the vicinity. Lasers need a finite amount of time to lock on and damage sensors, sufficient for a fire and forget weapon to make this a no win situation.
A few more (cheap) drones to bait and/or get intel and the threat from your anti-drone laser force is nullified.
Cannot speak to the power levels needed or the lock on times, but even a 'fire and forget' weapon is reliant on sensors that are readily dazzled by a good burst of laser light.
Of course, quantity has a quality all its own, so a few dozen decoy drones will be the next step, just as you suggest.

[sycamore]

20/30mm cannon linked to lazer should sort it...