Reconnaissance after the Canberra
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like Mach the Knife, I took an F3 to FL490 and rolled inverted to recover, whereupon the RH engine locked in surge and would not auto-sort itself.
The engine was trashed, but that's not the point - an F3 could never get up there in the 'vaulted halls' or whatever the poem said.
We need a Canberra to replace the Canberra.
The engine was trashed, but that's not the point - an F3 could never get up there in the 'vaulted halls' or whatever the poem said.
We need a Canberra to replace the Canberra.
Thread Starter
About a million years ago, in 1995 (or '96 maybe) I was a student at my local college of further education and spent quite a bit of time in the local public libary. One of the periodicals they had in those days was Flight International.
One day I read an article that claimed that there was a possibility of the RAF obtaining some U2 high altitude aircraft.
How would that compare (in terms of capability, cost, flexability, real time data etc) with either keeping the Canberra PR9 in service or getting more Global Hawks?
One day I read an article that claimed that there was a possibility of the RAF obtaining some U2 high altitude aircraft.
How would that compare (in terms of capability, cost, flexability, real time data etc) with either keeping the Canberra PR9 in service or getting more Global Hawks?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 11th Jul 2002 at 16:09.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
WEBF, you are suffering under a misapprehension. We are not, at the moment (at least publically), buying Gloabal Hawks. The Global Hawk is a UAV:
What we are buying, in ASTOR, is a militarised version of the Bombardier Global Express, which is a manned executive jet:
As to a comparison in performance of the U2S v Global Express:
U2S:
Crew Pilot: 1, Mission Crew: 0
MTOW 41,000lb
Speed .58M
Ceiling 70K
Range 7,000 miles
Endurance 10 hours
AAR No
Pri Sensor ASAR-2
Airframe $53 million
Global Express:
Crew Pilot: 2, Mission Crew: 3
MTOW 95,000lb
Speed .88M
Ceiling 50K
Range 6,500 miles (Unrefuelled)
Endurance 14 hours
AAR Yes
Pri Sensor ASAR-2
Airframe $43 million
What we are buying, in ASTOR, is a militarised version of the Bombardier Global Express, which is a manned executive jet:
As to a comparison in performance of the U2S v Global Express:
U2S:
Crew Pilot: 1, Mission Crew: 0
MTOW 41,000lb
Speed .58M
Ceiling 70K
Range 7,000 miles
Endurance 10 hours
AAR No
Pri Sensor ASAR-2
Airframe $53 million
Global Express:
Crew Pilot: 2, Mission Crew: 3
MTOW 95,000lb
Speed .88M
Ceiling 50K
Range 6,500 miles (Unrefuelled)
Endurance 14 hours
AAR Yes
Pri Sensor ASAR-2
Airframe $43 million
Really - comparing an F3 with the 'Berra ..... you are kidding aren't you?! The solution you are proposing already exists in the guise of the GR4A and that has (almost) the same performance as the F3. Sorry, chum there isn't a viable alternative for the time being....
Last edited by The Scarlet Pimpernel; 13th Apr 2002 at 01:11.
Plus with all the external equipment, ASTOR will be unlikely to fly as high as Global Express. It will not, I understand, be fitted with an AAR probe as the lateral stability is already degraded by the large external fittings and a probe would have pushed it outside the limit (I guess the nose mounted probe shown in the photograph is an instrumentation boom?). Perhaps an AAR slipway so that if could use the boom technique?
8 hours crammed into a bizjet would be bad enough - the prospect of extending beyond that time with AAR would be beyond the endurance of the sensor operators, I would imagine!
8 hours crammed into a bizjet would be bad enough - the prospect of extending beyond that time with AAR would be beyond the endurance of the sensor operators, I would imagine!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Quite right, the boom shown on the demonstrator's nose is an instrumentation boom. The production aircraft are supposed to have an AAR probe on the right side of the SATCOM fairing, as shown below.
Or are you saying it has been dropped from the specification?
"The platform for Raytheon’s ASTOR is the Bombardier-Shorts Global Express business jet. Capable of flying up to 50,000 feet, its endurance is 14 hours, although an in-flight refueling capability allows much longer flights, limited only by engine oil use and crew fatigue".
"Each ASTOR aircraft will be able to operate at altitudes of 15,250 meters (50,000 feet) or higher for 13 hours, and will have inflight refueling capability to extend endurance. ASTOR will two pilots and three electronics system officers, and will have have additional seats and bunks for relief crews. Raytheon selected the Bombardier Global Express over the comparable Gulfstream V, since the Global Express had greater cabin volume and electrical power capability".
(Standard operating altitude around 47,000 Ft)
ps. Nice cockpit. I'm sure the RAF will clutter it up with Saturn radios and the like. Which seat does the army get?
Or are you saying it has been dropped from the specification?
"The platform for Raytheon’s ASTOR is the Bombardier-Shorts Global Express business jet. Capable of flying up to 50,000 feet, its endurance is 14 hours, although an in-flight refueling capability allows much longer flights, limited only by engine oil use and crew fatigue".
"Each ASTOR aircraft will be able to operate at altitudes of 15,250 meters (50,000 feet) or higher for 13 hours, and will have inflight refueling capability to extend endurance. ASTOR will two pilots and three electronics system officers, and will have have additional seats and bunks for relief crews. Raytheon selected the Bombardier Global Express over the comparable Gulfstream V, since the Global Express had greater cabin volume and electrical power capability".
(Standard operating altitude around 47,000 Ft)
ps. Nice cockpit. I'm sure the RAF will clutter it up with Saturn radios and the like. Which seat does the army get?
Last edited by ORAC; 13th Apr 2002 at 19:45.
The army still apparently thinks that it can partly crew ASTOR.
But as a senior officer said to me last year,"How does the army think that someone trained to Gazelle PPL standard will be able to cope with this aeroplane??"
I suppose that they could put a few signallers in the back though?
But as a senior officer said to me last year,"How does the army think that someone trained to Gazelle PPL standard will be able to cope with this aeroplane??"
I suppose that they could put a few signallers in the back though?
Thread Starter
Perhaps what the Army really mean is have a SNCO/Officer in the rear for "liason", the argument being that the AAC are soldiers and will therefore have a greater understanding of the tactical situation, and what different vehicles etc are.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Of course the Army will put an Occifer in the back!
The front is just where the NCO driver (airframe) chappie sits!!
(Wouldn't put it past em to send NCOs either, just as a wind up).
The front is just where the NCO driver (airframe) chappie sits!!
(Wouldn't put it past em to send NCOs either, just as a wind up).
Certainly the analysts should include army personnel who will probably have a better understanding of their requirements and the implications of the surface picture on the forces on the ground.
No doubt an army pilot, given the appropriate training, could fly the ASTOR. However, it seems that the training envisaged is merely the manufacturer's type conversion course, the entry standard for which assumes that the pilot is already trained to at least CPL/IR standard...........
No doubt an army pilot, given the appropriate training, could fly the ASTOR. However, it seems that the training envisaged is merely the manufacturer's type conversion course, the entry standard for which assumes that the pilot is already trained to at least CPL/IR standard...........
Thread Starter
On that topic BEagle, why don't the Nimrod crews contain a member of the RN? Seems to me that that would haelp solve a LOT of problems with misinterpretation etc.
Or would that be the wrong sort of jointery?
Or would that be the wrong sort of jointery?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I don't see why anyone from the RN should be part of a standard nimrod crew. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the RAF crews know what they are doing 
. I could understand RN peeps being carried on specialist missions, but not all the time?
It does make me think of another question though. Is there any/much opportunity for exchange postings between the RAF and RN (nav/obs or even snco aircrew)? It might provide an opportunity for a bit more diversity in peoples careers, or just an escape route from Kinloss.
. I could understand RN peeps being carried on specialist missions, but not all the time?It does make me think of another question though. Is there any/much opportunity for exchange postings between the RAF and RN (nav/obs or even snco aircrew)? It might provide an opportunity for a bit more diversity in peoples careers, or just an escape route from Kinloss
.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any of your RAF or Army Photo Interpreters/Imagery Analysts log any time as observers in any of your current platforms?
Seems that they would be the guys/gals with the training to pick out what's on the ground if the sensor feed is displayed in the cabin. Or maybe have the sensor pic datalinked to a ground station so only mission essential pers are onboard...thinking out loud here.
Shame about the PR9...darn good platform...want some RF-111's? lol. Whoever mentioned the idea about getting the Indians to make some new Canberras for you might have a solution...Bit off the subject but read today in Defense News that the Ruskies are offering the Indians their MiG-21 factory to buy and relocate because of the hassles the Indians have had with parts etc. Apparently they have lost 220 MiG-21's in crashes which leaves them with 700ish.. faark.. lot of Acft.
What other platform could be easily adapted to carry the PR9 sensors and still have some semblance of being a military aircraft, as opposed to a modded bizjet? And offer comparable performance (FL500 etc)
Seems that they would be the guys/gals with the training to pick out what's on the ground if the sensor feed is displayed in the cabin. Or maybe have the sensor pic datalinked to a ground station so only mission essential pers are onboard...thinking out loud here.
Shame about the PR9...darn good platform...want some RF-111's? lol. Whoever mentioned the idea about getting the Indians to make some new Canberras for you might have a solution...Bit off the subject but read today in Defense News that the Ruskies are offering the Indians their MiG-21 factory to buy and relocate because of the hassles the Indians have had with parts etc. Apparently they have lost 220 MiG-21's in crashes which leaves them with 700ish.. faark.. lot of Acft.
What other platform could be easily adapted to carry the PR9 sensors and still have some semblance of being a military aircraft, as opposed to a modded bizjet? And offer comparable performance (FL500 etc)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: scotland
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really dont think that a 17 year old school leaver has more knowledge on battlefield equiptment than an officer. comon speak sense
Last edited by biggles819; 15th Apr 2002 at 21:02.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: scotland
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Timc, I would like to remind you, that when a Sea Harrier Pilot comes to terms with landing a multi million pound aircraft on a couple of hundred feet of concrete in the middle of the North Atlantic during the night, they wouldnt really want to:
(have you tried to land a Nimrod?!?)
a:Sit in the rear of a Nimrod
or
b:be associated with a the so called 'Mighty Hunter' or even any other blind organisation that cannot understand the need for Naval Air Operations.
Lets face it when was the last time the RAF shot anything down, if i recall correctly it was one of her own Jaguars!
(have you tried to land a Nimrod?!?)
a:Sit in the rear of a Nimrod
or
b:be associated with a the so called 'Mighty Hunter' or even any other blind organisation that cannot understand the need for Naval Air Operations.
Lets face it when was the last time the RAF shot anything down, if i recall correctly it was one of her own Jaguars!