best machine the RAF never had
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.
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...
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?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Starring at an Airfield Near you
Posts: 371
Received 15 Likes
on
7 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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Starring at an Airfield Near you
Posts: 371
Received 15 Likes
on
7 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!!!!)
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 14:15.
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.............
Evertonian
I always wondered what it would be like to have one of those "mission Pods" land in a populated area..................
Asturia56,
Isn't that what they were designed to do?
Only someone else's populated area.
Isn't that what they were designed to do?
Only someone else's populated area.
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.