Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

best machine the RAF never had

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

best machine the RAF never had

Old 14th Mar 2020, 20:45
  #201 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 13,697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why not go the whole hog and replace the Tornado (both marks ) with F15E.
Hmmm, because we haven’t got any left in service?
ORAC is online now  
Old 14th Mar 2020, 21:56
  #202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
Hmmm, because we havenít got any left in service?
Read the original point and you will see that the point was being made in the past tense (as the whole thread was intended) !
vascodegama is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2020, 00:13
  #203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 4,147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by dagenham View Post
???


I must say that the Mig 21U looks quite the picture....

The RAF should have bought B-52's by the way...
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2020, 02:06
  #204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by TBM-Legend View Post
I must say that the Mig 21U looks quite the picture....

The RAF should have bought B-52's by the way...
The preferred MiG aircraft would have been the MiG-25, better legs, better radar and better armament. I wonder whether it was ever offered during the Yeltsin era?
etudiant is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2020, 09:38
  #205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was in MOD 1989 to 1994 in a couple of posts seeing circulation papers when the RAF was offered the F-15E at a preferential price to extend production for a lot less than Harrier GR5 was costing at the time. Given that the main raison d'etre for Harrier GR5 and later models - forward field operations in Germany - had gone by then, there is no doubt in my mind which the better bang for the buck would have been in the long term.
That would have made 't Bungling Baron Waste O'Space spit his dummy!

Back in the early '80s, the RAF acquired the F-4J for 74 Sqn. Allegedly there was astonished amazement over at North Island and Miramar: "Those old things which were bouncing around in carriers in the South China Sea before being retired to the desert? Surely you mean the F-14?" But no, the old jets were salvaged from the desert, given a quick repaint and flown over to the UK on 5 separate Tiger Trail trips... Which was great for the VC10K tanker crews; back then the pods hadn't been cleared for JP-4, so after uploading USN fuel at Miramar, we came back via civil airports rather than USAF bases.

The RAF should have bought B-52's by the way...
Good grief no! We should have persisted with Vulcan + Skybolt as the deterrent until TSR-2 was ready and let the fish heads carry on with their global cockers P warfare!
BEagle is online now  
Old 15th Mar 2020, 11:03
  #206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The non fantasy "what happened was" posts on this thread are simply too depressing.
Minnie Burner is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2020, 06:08
  #207 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Maybe not for the RAF but the AAC would have got some use out of these.

Maybe might have meant Lynx was still born?



typerated is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2020, 12:20
  #208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The preferred MiG aircraft would have been the MiG-25, better legs, better radar and better armament. I wonder whether it was ever offered during the Yeltsin era?
Offered to who? The RAF? Why on earth would the Russians have considered offering the MiG-25 to the UK, and why would the RAF have considered buying an already 30-year old design at the time Yeltsin came into power that was intended for one purpose - to bring down the SR-71 - for which it had already proven itself to be wholly inadequate and which was a mission the RAF clearly had no need of? So many questions...
Mil-26Man is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2020, 13:22
  #209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Starring at an Airfield Near you
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Always thought that when the Cousins prematurely retired these in 1969/70:



They could have chucked 'em in our direction. If the Vulcan was considered operationally viable from 1970 to 1982 then, presumably, the B-58 would have been equally - if not more, so.
Downwind.Maddl-Land is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2020, 13:30
  #210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 5,073
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by TBM-Legend View Post
I must say that the Mig 21U looks quite the picture....

The RAF should have bought B-52's by the way...

looks fabulous!!
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2020, 13:30
  #211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 5,073
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Downwind.Maddl-Land View Post
Always thought that when the Cousins prematurely retired these in 1969/70:



They could have chucked 'em in our direction. If the Vulcan was considered operationally viable from 1970 to 1982 then, presumably, the B-58 would have been equally - if not more, so.
Hellishly expensive to operate, limited range and very dependent on tanker support
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2020, 13:59
  #212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Southwater
Age: 72
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
Hellishly expensive to operate, limited range and very dependent on tanker support

​​​​​I was going to say that there was a reason that the cousins got shot of these maintenance-heavy fuel drinkers but you beat me to it.
RedhillPhil is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2020, 14:04
  #213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 5,073
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From Wiki:-Through FY 1961, the total cost of the B-58 program was $3 billion ($20 billion in 2018 dollars).=10.8333px A highly complex aircraft, it also required considerable maintenance, much of which required specialized equipment and ground personnel. For comparison, the average maintenance cost per flying hour for the B-47 was $361, for the B-52 it was $1,025 and for the B-58 it was $1,440. The B-58 cost three times as much to operate as the B-52.=10.8333px

The cost of maintaining and operating the two operational B-58 wings (39 aircraft per wing) equaled that of six wings of B-52s (only 15 aircraft per wing). Because of the support costs of six wings vs only two wings, the actual cost per aircraft of the B-52s were $1.42 million per year vs $1.21 million per year for the B-58 (This figure included special detailed maintenance for the nose landing gear, which retracted in a complex fashion to avoid the center payload).

Compounding these exorbitant costs, the B-58 had a high accident rate: 26 B-58 aircraft were lost in accidents, 22.4% of total production, more than half of the losses occurred during flight tests. The SAC senior leadership had been doubtful about the aircraft type from the beginning, although its crews eventually became enthusiastic about the aircraft. General Curtis LeMay was never satisfied with the bomber, and after a flight in one declared that it was too small, far too expensive to maintain in combat readiness and required an excessive number of aerial refuelings to complete a mission.] Although the high altitude ferry range of the B-58 was better than that of the B-47's, the lack of forward basing resulted in a requirement for more KC-135 tanker support.

Asturias56 is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2020, 14:04
  #214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hellishly expensive to operate, limited range and very dependent on tanker support
But enough about the Vulcan, what about the B-58?
Mil-26Man is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2020, 14:08
  #215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Starring at an Airfield Near you
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Hellishly expensive to operate, limited range and very dependent on tanker support"

Operational capability always comes at a price; un-refuelled range - not much less than a Vulcan following the same (Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi) profile - therefore no more limited in capability when operating from a Western European base and only very dependent on tanker support when operating in the SAC regime from USA bases. And at least it would have been tanker compatible (albeit from cooperative USAFE assets), whereas the Vulcan (in the timeframe under discussion) wasn't AAR current/capable. (moreover, all the crew had escape facilities!!!!)

Last edited by Downwind.Maddl-Land; 16th Mar 2020 at 15:15.
Downwind.Maddl-Land is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2020, 10:59
  #216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 5,073
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
After Skybolt was cancelled the UK had Polaris - they sure as hell weren't in the market for a new supersonic bomber............ we forget the Vulcan requirement dated back to January 1947.............
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2020, 07:45
  #217 (permalink)  

Evertonian
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Posts: 11,661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
Hellishly expensive to operate, limited range and very dependent on tanker support
Nah
, it had that massive Auxiliary fuel tank underneath...oh wait...
Buster Hyman is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2020, 13:01
  #218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 5,073
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I always wondered what it would be like to have one of those "mission Pods" land in a populated area..................
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2020, 15:44
  #219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Asturia56,

Isn't that what they were designed to do?

Only someone else's populated area.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2020, 15:48
  #220 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: East Anglia
Age: 76
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wasn't the almost impossible handling with the loss of an outboard engine, especially in reheat, also a reason for its premature demise? Just looking at it shows a palpable assymmetric handling issue.
nipva is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.