Canberra Swansong
Beagle,
According to the warrant officer i/c of maintenance the cracks are appearing all over the airframe with such severity that they simply can't fix them safely. I didn't get into all the ins and outs with him, but he was quite adamant about it. I think the engines are also a cause for real concern.
The number of aircraft on strength at 39 Sqn is unclass (I checked), but thanks for the reminder.
According to the warrant officer i/c of maintenance the cracks are appearing all over the airframe with such severity that they simply can't fix them safely. I didn't get into all the ins and outs with him, but he was quite adamant about it. I think the engines are also a cause for real concern.
The number of aircraft on strength at 39 Sqn is unclass (I checked), but thanks for the reminder.
What a pity that when 39 reduced from a full squadron to a flight so many low-houred PR9s were disposed of, so quickly, and with so little thought for the future. Aircraft with long fatigue lives were given to Chile, put on gates or in museums, or summarily scrapped. Had they been slapped straight into store, we'd be able to run on the fleet for decades.
Ewan,
I didn't mean rebuilding. I meant building new ones!
J
BEagle,
Most spotters could give you the serials, not just the total number!
J
Ewan,
I didn't mean rebuilding. I meant building new ones!
J
BEagle,
Most spotters could give you the serials, not just the total number!
J
I have to say I am with JN on this one. The Canberra is arguably one of the best recce platforms currently in service (just look at the number of requests for support received from, and in particular, the US of A). The issue of a replacement is very difficult. Despite the trend towards UAVs these systems are incredibly expensive, not necessarily for the UAV itself but for the infrastucture to support the UAV whilst on station - perhaps this has something to do with the demise of the FOAS project?
A biz jet probably has the range and possibly even the altitude, except there are issues with performance on ASTOR, but can it outturn the average fighter at 50000' (can the average fighter reach and maintain 50000'?).
Can the biz jet reach/stay at that altitude when fitted out with all the systems that a Canberra can carry? 
The Canberra is a good design - NB its longevity so far! Perhaps what we need are new build Canberras with more modern engines (and a bigger rudder?) think of the increased on station time of the Canberra with more fuel efficient engines. After all the airframe would appear to have proven itself! Just because something is new doesn't necessarily mean better....Dinosaur Check!
A biz jet probably has the range and possibly even the altitude, except there are issues with performance on ASTOR, but can it outturn the average fighter at 50000' (can the average fighter reach and maintain 50000'?).
Can the biz jet reach/stay at that altitude when fitted out with all the systems that a Canberra can carry? The Canberra is a good design - NB its longevity so far! Perhaps what we need are new build Canberras with more modern engines (and a bigger rudder?) think of the increased on station time of the Canberra with more fuel efficient engines. After all the airframe would appear to have proven itself! Just because something is new doesn't necessarily mean better....Dinosaur Check!
I'll bet the USAF would take a few new-build WB-57Fs. And NASA.
And India, and virtually every air arm that has taken a special missions Gulfstream or Embraer.
With ten or so for the RAF, I'd guess that they could sell 50-60 without breaking sweat. And that should be enough to make production worthwhile.
And India, and virtually every air arm that has taken a special missions Gulfstream or Embraer.
With ten or so for the RAF, I'd guess that they could sell 50-60 without breaking sweat. And that should be enough to make production worthwhile.
Suspicion breeds confidence
OK in the air, but an expensive pain to operate. Someone has to drive behind it on landing to tell the pilot where the ground is. It's no spring chicken itself!
Hold on a sec, just 11 months ago we were all berating the Canberra as being a widow-maker (following the sad loss of 2 pilots in Sep 04). Now we want to save it?? Let her retire gracefully and bring on the Predator and Global Hawk - now that really is a recce capability.
LJ
LJ
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact the U-2 needs a mobile makes it stupidly expensive? Hasn't stopped the US operating it for 50 years now and even Global Hawk uses a chase car. That's what we need, wait for the block 20 Global Hawk and you've got a winner.
A very limited (in terms of where it may operate) 'winner'....
The beancounters are in a mistakenly back-slapping frenzy over the cost-cutting they think that UAVs will give them. But the reality is that UAVs would (not 'will') only provide a fraction of the capability of the PR9. And UAV operators will, for example, need Instrument Ratings to fly their little toys in Regulated Air Space.
Rental Air Farce or Royal Aeromodel Farce - if you want to play the big boys' game, you have to pay the big boys' rates!
The beancounters are in a mistakenly back-slapping frenzy over the cost-cutting they think that UAVs will give them. But the reality is that UAVs would (not 'will') only provide a fraction of the capability of the PR9. And UAV operators will, for example, need Instrument Ratings to fly their little toys in Regulated Air Space.
Rental Air Farce or Royal Aeromodel Farce - if you want to play the big boys' game, you have to pay the big boys' rates!
Thread Starter
If the Canberra was a world beater, just imagine what it could be if it was built with modern technology.......
CAD/CAM, new engines, glass cockpit, state of the art avionics, AAR capability etc.
CAD/CAM, new engines, glass cockpit, state of the art avionics, AAR capability etc.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Years of delays, parts that didn't work together, materials that weren't suited for the job, the wrong design requirements...although the capability of aircraft designed today might be better the capability the aviation industry had around the 1960s will never be beaten.
LJ & RJ
Sadly the oldest air force in the world is highly unlikely ever to be able to afford to own and operate Predator and Global Hawk as an independant force. We CANNOT afford the infrastructure required to support these systems on our own.
However if and it is a big IF BWoS have learned the lessons of MRA4 then re-engining a new build Canberra, fitting it out with modern avionics and AAR, and obviously a bigger fin shouldn't be difficult. It has to be cheaper, and provide more capability than a few, currently unaffordable, UAVs. After all there must, surely, be a good reason that the MOD have ditched FOAS/FOAC!
Sadly the oldest air force in the world is highly unlikely ever to be able to afford to own and operate Predator and Global Hawk as an independant force. We CANNOT afford the infrastructure required to support these systems on our own.
However if and it is a big IF BWoS have learned the lessons of MRA4 then re-engining a new build Canberra, fitting it out with modern avionics and AAR, and obviously a bigger fin shouldn't be difficult. It has to be cheaper, and provide more capability than a few, currently unaffordable, UAVs. After all there must, surely, be a good reason that the MOD have ditched FOAS/FOAC!
"IF BWoS have learned the lessons....."
"...a good reason that the MOD..."
BWOS learning a lesson and a good reason at MoD, Roly? You'll be telling us that there IS a Father Christmas next
"...a good reason that the MOD..."
BWOS learning a lesson and a good reason at MoD, Roly? You'll be telling us that there IS a Father Christmas next
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a silly question, but dont the Americans have a habit of storing old aircraft in the desert rather than sending them to the scrappie as we do? If so, is it still likely they'll have some surplus B57's available?
I guess it may be a bit late due to the length of time they've been out of service, and I'm sure if they did have sufficient numbers in storage, they'd be pressed back into service (seeing as the USA is one of the countries asking for the capability), but I thought it was worth asking the question on here...
I guess it may be a bit late due to the length of time they've been out of service, and I'm sure if they did have sufficient numbers in storage, they'd be pressed back into service (seeing as the USA is one of the countries asking for the capability), but I thought it was worth asking the question on here...
Up until about 18 months ago, the inventory at AMARC was available to see on their website, and I seem to recall there was only a few RB-57's left in store, may have even only been the one left in their 'museum' section...?
Alas, they have now withdrawn the online listings for security reasons.....
Alas, they have now withdrawn the online listings for security reasons.....
What...like a RAPTOR pod??
I found this on a spotter\'s site - now we know why the \'berra is going...
The British armed forces have not exactly had much success with UAV’s – to date the only UAV to enter operational service has been the ill-fated Phoenix. However, the inability of this poorly designed, unreliable and ill-equipped UAV to undertake operations in the high summer temperatures of Iraq led to MOD to approach the US about the possibility of operating the General Atomics Predator A.
The approach was obviously successful because, with almost no publicity, the RAF began to actually operate the Predator A. Early in 2004 the RAF formed 1115 Flight, also based at ISAFAF, Nevada, as part of a subordinate unit to the US Air Force’s 15th Reconnaissance Squadron. The exactly compliment of 1115 Flt is unknown, but if it follows US Air Force practice, the Predators will be flown by a GD pilot, supported by a WSO sensor operator (believed to be ex-Tornado crews) - interpretation of the data will be undertaken by various intelligence specialists in the US and UK. Individuals from 1115 Flt are operating the Predator in Iraq, as part of a 44 strong US/UK Combined Joint Predator Task Force, in support of UK forces operating around the Basra area.
A report in the Sunday Times on 3 Oct 04 suggested that personnel from 1115 Flt were operating from two sites, Balad, near Baghdad and Nellis AFB, Nevada – which I suspect is actually ISAFAF which is near Nellis. At Balad they were reported to be part of the teams responsible for take-off and recovery, whilst in flight the Predators were being controlled remotely from Nellis, via satellite link. Nevertheless, although the Predator detachment at Balad are undoubtably quite capable of controlling the aircraft throughout their mission, current practice appears to favour the actual control of the 18hr+ missions being conducted from ISAFAF, which has the benefit of cutting down the number of staff in theatre.
Further info from Flight International...
UK details recent Predator UAV operations
The UK Royal Air Force has provided further details of its use of US Air Force-owned General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Predator unmanned air vehicles in Iraq. Flown under a three-year urgent operational requirement deal contracted last year, UK-controlled Predators are required to provide persistent wide-area surveillance for 12h a day over Iraqi cities such as Basra and Fallujah, controlled by pilots and sensor operators based at Nellis AFB, Nevada.
The UK Ministry of Defence approved the deal due to the operational limitations of the British Army’s current BAE Systems Phoenix intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance UAVs in Iraq’s demanding environmental conditions, and to reign in the overland surveillance demands placed on the RAF’s BAE Nimrod MR2 maritime patrol fleet.
Predator Joint Task Force operations by the RAF’s 1115 Flight currently represent one system orbit in Iraq, with this equating to around 18% of the total Predator coverage supplied by the USAF’s R/MQ-1 air vehicles, says Gp Capt Andy Fryer from the RAF’s Headquarters 3 Group.
A 44-strong detachment supports the deployment, including eight pilots and seven sensor operators, plus intelligence, administration, meteorological and operations staff, including non-air force personnel.
Operations take place in concert with ground forces, with streaming video acquired by the Predator relayed to forward air controllers equipped with Rover terminals over a line-of-sight distance of up to 200km (110nm).
Future expansion to the UK’s capabilities could include the ability to use the Predator to support urban close-air support and combat search and rescue missions, Fryer told RUSI’s Unmanned Vehicle Systems conference in London on 12 July. However, there is currently no training in place to support such a development, he says.
I found this on a spotter\'s site - now we know why the \'berra is going...
The British armed forces have not exactly had much success with UAV’s – to date the only UAV to enter operational service has been the ill-fated Phoenix. However, the inability of this poorly designed, unreliable and ill-equipped UAV to undertake operations in the high summer temperatures of Iraq led to MOD to approach the US about the possibility of operating the General Atomics Predator A.
The approach was obviously successful because, with almost no publicity, the RAF began to actually operate the Predator A. Early in 2004 the RAF formed 1115 Flight, also based at ISAFAF, Nevada, as part of a subordinate unit to the US Air Force’s 15th Reconnaissance Squadron. The exactly compliment of 1115 Flt is unknown, but if it follows US Air Force practice, the Predators will be flown by a GD pilot, supported by a WSO sensor operator (believed to be ex-Tornado crews) - interpretation of the data will be undertaken by various intelligence specialists in the US and UK. Individuals from 1115 Flt are operating the Predator in Iraq, as part of a 44 strong US/UK Combined Joint Predator Task Force, in support of UK forces operating around the Basra area.
A report in the Sunday Times on 3 Oct 04 suggested that personnel from 1115 Flt were operating from two sites, Balad, near Baghdad and Nellis AFB, Nevada – which I suspect is actually ISAFAF which is near Nellis. At Balad they were reported to be part of the teams responsible for take-off and recovery, whilst in flight the Predators were being controlled remotely from Nellis, via satellite link. Nevertheless, although the Predator detachment at Balad are undoubtably quite capable of controlling the aircraft throughout their mission, current practice appears to favour the actual control of the 18hr+ missions being conducted from ISAFAF, which has the benefit of cutting down the number of staff in theatre.
Further info from Flight International...
UK details recent Predator UAV operations
The UK Royal Air Force has provided further details of its use of US Air Force-owned General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Predator unmanned air vehicles in Iraq. Flown under a three-year urgent operational requirement deal contracted last year, UK-controlled Predators are required to provide persistent wide-area surveillance for 12h a day over Iraqi cities such as Basra and Fallujah, controlled by pilots and sensor operators based at Nellis AFB, Nevada.
The UK Ministry of Defence approved the deal due to the operational limitations of the British Army’s current BAE Systems Phoenix intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance UAVs in Iraq’s demanding environmental conditions, and to reign in the overland surveillance demands placed on the RAF’s BAE Nimrod MR2 maritime patrol fleet.
Predator Joint Task Force operations by the RAF’s 1115 Flight currently represent one system orbit in Iraq, with this equating to around 18% of the total Predator coverage supplied by the USAF’s R/MQ-1 air vehicles, says Gp Capt Andy Fryer from the RAF’s Headquarters 3 Group.
A 44-strong detachment supports the deployment, including eight pilots and seven sensor operators, plus intelligence, administration, meteorological and operations staff, including non-air force personnel.
Operations take place in concert with ground forces, with streaming video acquired by the Predator relayed to forward air controllers equipped with Rover terminals over a line-of-sight distance of up to 200km (110nm).
Future expansion to the UK’s capabilities could include the ability to use the Predator to support urban close-air support and combat search and rescue missions, Fryer told RUSI’s Unmanned Vehicle Systems conference in London on 12 July. However, there is currently no training in place to support such a development, he says.
The NASA RB-57Fs may soon gain ex-C-141 Starlifter engines and an F-15 landing gear. They already have a glass cockpit and moving map. They routinely operate at 61-65,000 ft depending on payload (about three times that of a U-2) and carry a dedicated sensor operator. There are five airframes at MASDC, but these have been cannibalised.
One may soon be operating on this side of the Atlantic.
One may soon be operating on this side of the Atlantic.