Could the RAF resume the nuclear deterrent as a cheaper alternative to Trident?
Just using this to demonstrate some of the issues, rather than "having a go"...
BUT - it will still have an RCS the size of a house relative to an LO cab and therefore be more vulnerable to a range of modern threats, most of the time.
Fixing that would mean changing the airframe (and engine intakes / tailpipes) which may affect controllability and flight envelope.
Would you choose to manufacture a jet milled from solid metal again, with hydraulic FCS. Is it the most cost-effective to build and/or maintain? Is the fatigue design index the same?
Not in anyway knocking the Bucc - can you imagine a Bucc with A6E avionics on UK and US decks in the 80s/90s? Same goes for the Buff - but notice that the yanks aren't trying to build new ones, they're just trying to keep the remaining (reducing) fleet relevant, supportable and survivable, because they know they can't afford a replacement (see B1 and B2 for details).
The Russ are trying to refurbish Blackjacks and Backfires simply because they have no money (and possibly remaining expertise) to do anything else. The "new-build" Blackjack project appears to have gone quietly right since the initial announcement. How much is down to that nice Mr Putin waving his genitalia remains to be seen.
Aircraft-based deterrents might be cheaper, but definitely far from survivable, which ultimately means cheaper but not credible....
I accept that there will still be a lot of work to re-do an old design, but there would obviously be some savings/lower risks compared to a totally new design. Maybe, not certain. Depends on stuff below.
For example, we KNOW that if you build a new Buccaneer with the same weight and distribution and external dimensions, the hook will work for deck landings. (See F35 - no argument from me there! )
We know how it will handle, what its foibles are etc. Assuming weight dist is the same and that the FCS is the same
We KNOW that we can make engines that will give more power, better reliability and lower fuel consumption. Definitely, but see below
We KNOW that all the various events like airborne refuelling work without altering the configuration. Assuming FCS behaves the same etc
etc etc etc.
The airframe will produce no unpleasant surprises. Assuming we know that any startling fatigue issues have been permanently dealt with / will not occur later in the FI.
We also know that there is enough space on board for a vast amount of shiny modern toys and still have a baggage compartment big enough for 8 crates of beer.
Massive plus point!
For example, we KNOW that if you build a new Buccaneer with the same weight and distribution and external dimensions, the hook will work for deck landings. (See F35 - no argument from me there! )
We know how it will handle, what its foibles are etc. Assuming weight dist is the same and that the FCS is the same
We KNOW that we can make engines that will give more power, better reliability and lower fuel consumption. Definitely, but see below
We KNOW that all the various events like airborne refuelling work without altering the configuration. Assuming FCS behaves the same etc
etc etc etc.
The airframe will produce no unpleasant surprises. Assuming we know that any startling fatigue issues have been permanently dealt with / will not occur later in the FI.
We also know that there is enough space on board for a vast amount of shiny modern toys and still have a baggage compartment big enough for 8 crates of beer.
Massive plus point!Fixing that would mean changing the airframe (and engine intakes / tailpipes) which may affect controllability and flight envelope.
Would you choose to manufacture a jet milled from solid metal again, with hydraulic FCS. Is it the most cost-effective to build and/or maintain? Is the fatigue design index the same?
Not in anyway knocking the Bucc - can you imagine a Bucc with A6E avionics on UK and US decks in the 80s/90s? Same goes for the Buff - but notice that the yanks aren't trying to build new ones, they're just trying to keep the remaining (reducing) fleet relevant, supportable and survivable, because they know they can't afford a replacement (see B1 and B2 for details).
The Russ are trying to refurbish Blackjacks and Backfires simply because they have no money (and possibly remaining expertise) to do anything else. The "new-build" Blackjack project appears to have gone quietly right since the initial announcement. How much is down to that nice Mr Putin waving his genitalia remains to be seen.
Aircraft-based deterrents might be cheaper, but definitely far from survivable, which ultimately means cheaper but not credible....
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 11th Aug 2015 at 12:19.
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist,
I think you've captured what I've been trying to say..................we know what existing designs offer in terms of flying characteristics, and we know we can a) stuff more shiny new kit in them and b) extract better performance from new engines etc......................if your not looking for bleeding edge performance why take the risk on a blank sheet design?
I think you've captured what I've been trying to say..................we know what existing designs offer in terms of flying characteristics, and we know we can a) stuff more shiny new kit in them and b) extract better performance from new engines etc......................if your not looking for bleeding edge performance why take the risk on a blank sheet design?
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUT - it will still have an RCS the size of a house relative to an LO cab and therefore be more vulnerable to a range of modern threats, most of the time.
If the premise is a platform for launching long range cruise missiles, where does the LO come into it?
And to be frank I think we're going to find the F35's a) stealth a bit of a myth and b) lack of range distinctly inhibiting!
Great plane if we want to stealthily bomb the French!
If rebuilding an old aircraft design 60 years later is such a good idea, perhaps you could explain why this has never ever happened in the history of any airforce or commercial airline?
Its not a conspiracy, its because it genuinely does not make any sense. We may have a fond hankering for what looks good or sounds good, but that doesnt mean it makes the slightest bit of operational or financial sense.
Sorry to sound blunt but it really isnt a non starter for a long list of exceptionally good reasons.
Its not a conspiracy, its because it genuinely does not make any sense. We may have a fond hankering for what looks good or sounds good, but that doesnt mean it makes the slightest bit of operational or financial sense.
Sorry to sound blunt but it really isnt a non starter for a long list of exceptionally good reasons.
'
If the premise is a platform for launching long range cruise missiles, where does the LO come into it?
And to be frank I think we're going to find the F35's a) stealth a bit of a myth and b) lack of range distinctly inhibiting!
Great plane if we want to stealthily bomb the French!
If the premise is a platform for launching long range cruise missiles, where does the LO come into it?
And to be frank I think we're going to find the F35's a) stealth a bit of a myth and b) lack of range distinctly inhibiting!
Great plane if we want to stealthily bomb the French!
Personally I'd rather colonise than bomb France. Oh, wait, we already are......
* Although destroying the launch base is the obviously the absolute best option......
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps if we had a 2~3,000 Km range cruise missile the LO wouldn't such a factor (evidently the Iranians have one), then maybe we could also submarine and ground-launch them.................and keep the Buccs for bombing ISIS!
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: South Coast, UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Resurrecting an older type ?
A possible high cost item in the way of resurrecting an older type and fitting it with new kit, is that of fastener thread standards. Yes, I know it sounds trivial, but back in the day my tool boxes had Whitworth, Unified, and Metric gear. Imagine the cost of changing all the drawings and related design details to suit present day commercially available materials or parts.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Another feature of old versus new is in aerodynamic fashion.
Swept wing replaced straight.
Delta was tried over swept B58, F102/106,A4
Then variable geometry replacing delta. Fitter C, Fencer
Then canard and delta replacing VG, Flanker, Fulcrum
I suppose they are all attempt to minimise the disadvantages or earlier designs.
Swept wing replaced straight.
Delta was tried over swept B58, F102/106,A4
Then variable geometry replacing delta. Fitter C, Fencer
Then canard and delta replacing VG, Flanker, Fulcrum
I suppose they are all attempt to minimise the disadvantages or earlier designs.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then canard and delta replacing VG, Flanker, Fulcrum
Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, and J-10 have a delta wing with canard configuration. Su-35 has canards, but no delta wing.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps if we had a 2~3,000 Km range cruise missile the LO wouldn't such a factor (evidently the Iranians have one),
Do they really...........fuelled with unobtanium I suppose?
Earlier this year Iran revealed a "2,000 km" ground launched cruise missile named Soumar.
Nuclear Threat Initiative: Iran
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another feature of old versus new is in aerodynamic fashion...
...I suppose they are all attempt to minimise the disadvantages or earlier designs.
...I suppose they are all attempt to minimise the disadvantages or earlier designs.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The French
Thinking of Courtney's friends the French, how many aircraft do they have on nuclear alert at any one time? Both actually ready to go in minutes and dedicated to the task?
Thinking that this resource, to deliver a supersonic cruise missile with a nuclear tip is above and beyond the MAD solution guaranteed by the submarines of the MN.
Might give a very low baseline for what sort of resources, delivery aircraft, tankers, etc that would be needed, if it was thought to an appropriate route to follow, that personally I don't see, if the RAF was to take over the role.
Thinking that this resource, to deliver a supersonic cruise missile with a nuclear tip is above and beyond the MAD solution guaranteed by the submarines of the MN.
Might give a very low baseline for what sort of resources, delivery aircraft, tankers, etc that would be needed, if it was thought to an appropriate route to follow, that personally I don't see, if the RAF was to take over the role.
Well, they are developing Meshkat, and even if they struggled during sanctions that may accelerate now they are being lifted 'All' they have to do is copy the dozen ~2,500 km range Kh-55s they got from Ukraine.
Earlier this year Iran revealed a "2,000 km" ground launched cruise missile named Soumar.
Nuclear Threat Initiative: Iran
Earlier this year Iran revealed a "2,000 km" ground launched cruise missile named Soumar.
Nuclear Threat Initiative: Iran
More to the point, 2000+km at 400kts gives you the best part of three hours flight time to either intercept the inbounds (not easy@300ft but do-able) and more importantly relocate the leadership (those that you really want to deter).
Deterrence is about certainty, the certainty that you can't stop a significant proportion of what will be coming your way (personally) if you don't behave yourself. For a variety of reasons, a cruise-based deterrent can never give you that at an affordable scale.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the premise is a platform for launching long range cruise missiles, where does the LO come into it?
Separately, Tomahawk is nuke capable and fairly long range. And it can be launched by UK's submarines. Submarines armed with cruise missiles are arguably much more survivable than bombers with cruise missiles. So if a long range cruise missile is the best weapon (and there are many arguments why it is not), then a submarine may again be the best launch platform for that weapon. In addition, Type 45 destroyers are reportedly Tomahawk capable. What all this means is that there are already multiple cruise missile launch platforms in the UK inventory. So it would appear that an expensive development program can be avoided.
Last edited by KenV; 11th Aug 2015 at 15:07.
And Ken, as has already been pointed out, if you launch a Cruise Missile how does the potential adversary know whether its conventional or nuclear armed. What is their response likely to be?
They may assume worst case and go nuclear themselves, even if you have only launched a conventional TLAM.
Not so much deterrence, but certainly MAD.
Not much use as a deterrent weapon.
They may assume worst case and go nuclear themselves, even if you have only launched a conventional TLAM.
Not so much deterrence, but certainly MAD.
Not much use as a deterrent weapon.
