Tornado ADV
Suspicion breeds confidence
Now you couldn't say that about the Sea Harrier could you Navaleye
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Worm bitten
I think you will find that the ADV has a lot less than 30yrs service, if the Frightning was chopped in '88, that makes around 18 years maximum for the ADV.
And please remember that the ADV is not a fighter, unlike the SHAR, it is a long range standoff missile carrying platform.
Now as for its replacement, as long as it flies very fast, and is very agile, who cares if it can actually shoot down anything.
The basic design of an RAF fighter is fun first, fun second and fun third.
I think you will find that the ADV has a lot less than 30yrs service, if the Frightning was chopped in '88, that makes around 18 years maximum for the ADV.
And please remember that the ADV is not a fighter, unlike the SHAR, it is a long range standoff missile carrying platform.
Now as for its replacement, as long as it flies very fast, and is very agile, who cares if it can actually shoot down anything.
The basic design of an RAF fighter is fun first, fun second and fun third.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under the tailcone of the Vulcan is the chemtrail dispersal system....
Well, no. Actually 'tis a Vulcan tanker (note the 50 sqn 'shagging rats' on the fin!) - and the object is the MFI wardrobe which housed the HDU. There are very few photos of the Vulcan tanker around - let alone near a Bear!
Can't really see that clearly, but isn't it a Bear C?
Aarrgh - Scroggs beat me to it! A good refuelling platform, the Vulcan. Much easier to prod than the Victor.
Well, no. Actually 'tis a Vulcan tanker (note the 50 sqn 'shagging rats' on the fin!) - and the object is the MFI wardrobe which housed the HDU. There are very few photos of the Vulcan tanker around - let alone near a Bear!
Can't really see that clearly, but isn't it a Bear C?
Aarrgh - Scroggs beat me to it! A good refuelling platform, the Vulcan. Much easier to prod than the Victor.
IIRC the F3 was designed to take down the bad guys at long range with missiles, and not actually get into the fast manoeuvering end game, thus being a stand off missile launching aeroplane.
From the Leuchars Website "Based around the Tornado GR1 airframe, the F3 was developed for the RAF as a long-range interceptor"
Probably the last real fighter we had was the Lightning.
From the Leuchars Website "Based around the Tornado GR1 airframe, the F3 was developed for the RAF as a long-range interceptor"
Probably the last real fighter we had was the Lightning.
Ok, SHAR is not a fighter, it is a museum piece.
Maybe, it was a fighter type aircraft with missiles and guns and shot down some Argie aircraft, but it is still more of a fighter than the Tonka will ever be.
Maybe, it was a fighter type aircraft with missiles and guns and shot down some Argie aircraft, but it is still more of a fighter than the Tonka will ever be.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The Vulcan 1 tanker was supposed to suffer from intense downward turbulence but of course that was compared with a Valiant. Then of course the Vulcan 1 would have had a bombbay HDU and no sting in the tail. Th ereceiver would have been much further forward.
As for the F3, quite right, push through and MRMs, turning round and becoming embedded in the grain of the raid for SRM attacks both brought you into gun range and also running at your own interceptors and SAM.
As for the F3, quite right, push through and MRMs, turning round and becoming embedded in the grain of the raid for SRM attacks both brought you into gun range and also running at your own interceptors and SAM.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius N
You did mean the Victor 1 tanker? Can't find any Vulcan 1s even trialled as tankers.
My memory from Annual Camp at Marham, AUG 68, was that the Victor 1s (ah, the sound of Saphires) were 3 pointers as per the later 2s.
You did mean the Victor 1 tanker? Can't find any Vulcan 1s even trialled as tankers.
My memory from Annual Camp at Marham, AUG 68, was that the Victor 1s (ah, the sound of Saphires) were 3 pointers as per the later 2s.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
No, I did mean Vulcan 1.
I agree the basis for this, which I will relate, is tenuous.
In 1967 the Recognition Journal mentioned the Vulcan BPK1. When I challenged this I was told that there had been a tanker variant.
Now this might have been a plan that was not proceded with or it might have been a formation trial to test fesibility or whatever. If they were looking at a tanker similar to the Valiant it would have been a bomb fuel pack, single hose etc and clearly much further forward.
The tanker plan may have been associated with the Airborne QRA trial which was also abandoned as we simply had insufficient assets compared with SAC.
Maybe one of the really senior V-force crew may wish to add something.
I agree the basis for this, which I will relate, is tenuous.
In 1967 the Recognition Journal mentioned the Vulcan BPK1. When I challenged this I was told that there had been a tanker variant.
Now this might have been a plan that was not proceded with or it might have been a formation trial to test fesibility or whatever. If they were looking at a tanker similar to the Valiant it would have been a bomb fuel pack, single hose etc and clearly much further forward.
The tanker plan may have been associated with the Airborne QRA trial which was also abandoned as we simply had insufficient assets compared with SAC.
Maybe one of the really senior V-force crew may wish to add something.
There was supposed to be a Mk1 Vulcan tanker, as PN describes. I've seen reference to this in a file somewhere, but can't for the life of me recall where...
Kev Darling's recent book on the Vulcan (Crowood Press, 2005) refers to the tanker/recce capability on p.68.
Whether any Mk1s were fitted with the tanker or the photo-recce capability, I have no idea, but someone on Pprune may well do? Milt, perhaps?
Kev Darling's recent book on the Vulcan (Crowood Press, 2005) refers to the tanker/recce capability on p.68.
Another modification proposed for the Vulcan B1 was that of air-refuelling tanker <snip> With the appearance of the Valiant and Victor tankers, this requirement was dropped, the already manufactured fittings being scrapped under Modification 996
The original specification for the aircraft had also called for a reconnaissance capability, complete with a photoflash compartment, but other aircraft joining the RAF took up the slack [Victor? Canberra PR9?] and these modificatgions were deleted by Modifications 12 and 98
The original specification for the aircraft had also called for a reconnaissance capability, complete with a photoflash compartment, but other aircraft joining the RAF took up the slack [Victor? Canberra PR9?] and these modificatgions were deleted by Modifications 12 and 98
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all about what you do with it (so someone told me once)! I've lost count the number of times I've used an F3 to issue the smack-down to a vastly more manoeuvrable foe in visual DACT. How can that make it anything other than a fighter?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure there was never a Mk1 Vulcan tanker. Trial 448, which ran for two weeks in July of 1962, used Valiant Tankers to refuel Vulcan Mk1s attempting to maintain an airborne QRA. Because of the relatively small number of tankers and receiver qualified Vulcan pilots I think we just about made it but any thoughts of a long term airborne QRA using the Vulcan were shown to be out of the question. The only other Vulcan Mk1 AAR was a run to Australia in July 1963 in an attempt to sell Vulcans to the Aussies.
