Flying a less capable fighter ?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
I think the Russians are largely in a similar situation with many older assets with questionable serviceability.
What they do have, is a larger pool of assets to draw from. Which means they can nearly always put up an airframe to fulfill the task. We on the other hand, have no spare capability, so when something goes U/S the game is up.
I do wonder if the Russians decided to do a multiple points attack concurrently, whether we would actually be able to cover them all.................
Arc
I think the Russians are largely in a similar situation with many older assets with questionable serviceability.
What they do have, is a larger pool of assets to draw from. Which means they can nearly always put up an airframe to fulfill the task. We on the other hand, have no spare capability, so when something goes U/S the game is up.
I do wonder if the Russians decided to do a multiple points attack concurrently, whether we would actually be able to cover them all.................
Arc
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thought..............
Actually what is the USAF commitment to UKADR ?? - are the F15's at Lakenheath committed in any way to interceptions ?? - or is it just down to the RAF ?
Arc
Actually what is the USAF commitment to UKADR ?? - are the F15's at Lakenheath committed in any way to interceptions ?? - or is it just down to the RAF ?
Arc
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Arclite, we more of less agree, I would say evenly matched. Add General Winter and the SU27s affinity to each other 
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Yes but, short of going nuclear, they would still need boots on the ground, and a lot of them. When God (or whatever you believe in) created the North Sea, he knew what he was doing.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im sure the "less busy civil airports" will be grateful to you, C195 for your scheme to bring them new business. Unfortunately even the less busy civil airports have more movements than many RAF bases these days.
And (yawn!) yet another tale of how we'd last two minutes against the terrible Russian bear. NATO has enormous superiority over Russia and we're fully paid-up members. Why the constant scaremongering?
And (yawn!) yet another tale of how we'd last two minutes against the terrible Russian bear. NATO has enormous superiority over Russia and we're fully paid-up members. Why the constant scaremongering?
Last edited by ShotOne; 14th Feb 2017 at 16:24.
God may have given you the North Sea but the Parliament dis-armed the Home Guard!
Pikes look cool but against AK-47's....they are very range limited!
Pikes look cool but against AK-47's....they are very range limited!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,912 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
..what does BVR stand for?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,912 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
It is not like the RAF and RN will have a hope in Hell in defeating the Russians.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Another thought..............
Actually what is the USAF commitment to UKADR ?? - are the F15's at Lakenheath committed in any way to interceptions ?? - or is it just down to the RAF ?
Actually what is the USAF commitment to UKADR ?? - are the F15's at Lakenheath committed in any way to interceptions ?? - or is it just down to the RAF ?
NATO commitment is elsewhere.
Call me stupid but when was the last serious dogfight?
Korean war perhaps?
So- why not have a non state of the art médium to large aircraft - equipped with state of the art air to air missiles and control with the ability to loiter for long periods?
Surely this would provide maximum defence for mimimum cost?
Korean war perhaps?
So- why not have a non state of the art médium to large aircraft - equipped with state of the art air to air missiles and control with the ability to loiter for long periods?
Surely this would provide maximum defence for mimimum cost?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
MB, we did. We opted for an interceptor over a fighter 30 years ago, then we opted for a multi-role fighter.
Q. Is our 11g (sorry 4g ) supersonic Typhoon able to evade a well aimed modern missile?
I was thinking of a less agile missile platform - perhaps the good old B747 Jumbo - there must be hundreds lying around the 'boneyards' !!
In the meantime why not strap a few missiles on our Sentry , Rivet Joints and P8s ?
Back in the 70s I remember some of us questioned Vectacs where a Nimrod MR would detect and shadow enemy shipping for hours ( days ) before Vectoring a pair of Buccs - who probably needed AAR out and back - in for the the kill.
Why not fit a few missiles to the Nimrod and press a few switches?
We were laughed at by the 'experts' but low and behold shortly later the Falklands conflict saw Nimrod crews rushing around practice bombing - missiles - albeit rearward facing Sidewinders were fitted post haste!
( I am sure PN will furnish the details or denials ! )
War is the mother of invention but would we have time?
Realise that positive i/d would be a problem but when the balloon goes up every potential threat should be taken out at say 150 miles before it is too late!
I was thinking of a less agile missile platform - perhaps the good old B747 Jumbo - there must be hundreds lying around the 'boneyards' !!
In the meantime why not strap a few missiles on our Sentry , Rivet Joints and P8s ?
Back in the 70s I remember some of us questioned Vectacs where a Nimrod MR would detect and shadow enemy shipping for hours ( days ) before Vectoring a pair of Buccs - who probably needed AAR out and back - in for the the kill.
Why not fit a few missiles to the Nimrod and press a few switches?
We were laughed at by the 'experts' but low and behold shortly later the Falklands conflict saw Nimrod crews rushing around practice bombing - missiles - albeit rearward facing Sidewinders were fitted post haste!
( I am sure PN will furnish the details or denials ! )
War is the mother of invention but would we have time?
Realise that positive i/d would be a problem but when the balloon goes up every potential threat should be taken out at say 150 miles before it is too late!
This is the flawed "aerial battleship" concept which has been floated [sorry!] several times over the last hundred years, most notably by Seversky and Disney in the film "Victory through Air Power" (1943). It is flawed because it overlooks the detail that when the "battleship" has missile range on the fighters, the fighters also have missile range on the battleship. And the fighters are far more able to evade than the aerial dreadnought.
The idea worked with ships (for a while) because it was technically possible to armour ships so that they could survive incoming fire. It isn't technically possible to equip a large aircraft with missile-resistance armour or fit it with any anti-missile systems that can't also be fitted to the smaller, more agile fighters.
But this idea started from the premise that the RAF needed something to reduce costs. I struggle to see how operating a fleet of post-life 747s is ever going to be a low-cost solution, and also struggle to see how the integration and clearance of BVR missile systems onto such airframes (together with the required sensors and systems) is going to be "cheap".
Yes, studies have been done (usually on a UOR basis) for fitting short-range dogfight missiles onto aircraft like Nimrods, but this was solely for last-ditch self-defence where these aircraft might need to operate inside hostile air cover and well beyond the range of any potential fighter escort.
IIRC the nimrod bombing studies in 1982 were simply a matter of the RAF looking at all the possible aircraft they might be able to place over the Falklands (or even Argentina itself) that had a bomb bay. This ultimately led to the Black Buck missions, although the Nimrod fraternity remained sore that they weren't allowed to have a go as well...
PDR
The idea worked with ships (for a while) because it was technically possible to armour ships so that they could survive incoming fire. It isn't technically possible to equip a large aircraft with missile-resistance armour or fit it with any anti-missile systems that can't also be fitted to the smaller, more agile fighters.
But this idea started from the premise that the RAF needed something to reduce costs. I struggle to see how operating a fleet of post-life 747s is ever going to be a low-cost solution, and also struggle to see how the integration and clearance of BVR missile systems onto such airframes (together with the required sensors and systems) is going to be "cheap".
Yes, studies have been done (usually on a UOR basis) for fitting short-range dogfight missiles onto aircraft like Nimrods, but this was solely for last-ditch self-defence where these aircraft might need to operate inside hostile air cover and well beyond the range of any potential fighter escort.
IIRC the nimrod bombing studies in 1982 were simply a matter of the RAF looking at all the possible aircraft they might be able to place over the Falklands (or even Argentina itself) that had a bomb bay. This ultimately led to the Black Buck missions, although the Nimrod fraternity remained sore that they weren't allowed to have a go as well...
PDR
Bob, I think you misunderstand how AAMs and the aircraft bolted to them work. The ability to give your missile energy and open-up its effective envelope whilst being able to manoeuvre and reduce or defeat the missiles from the opposing aircraft are pillars of BVR air combat.
Large slow aircraft do not manoeuvre well and do not fire missiles particularly far. BVR capable fighters wear the opponent's missile engagement envelope around them. Their goal is to make this as small as possible and keep the opposing force out of this bubble, hopefully whilst bringing their weapon system to bear. This is not benign flying from a missile truck.
Large slow aircraft do not manoeuvre well and do not fire missiles particularly far. BVR capable fighters wear the opponent's missile engagement envelope around them. Their goal is to make this as small as possible and keep the opposing force out of this bubble, hopefully whilst bringing their weapon system to bear. This is not benign flying from a missile truck.