What Military Aircraft Would You Bring Back To Service?

[havick]

Bring back the sycamore

[bsae1mba]

F-105....both the Thud and the Wild Weasel. Loved the coke bottle fuselage design and the sharp intakes when viewed from underneath...

[sycamore]

havick, Thank you,I`m still here...!

I should add ,had a new air-filter installed, not permitted to do running take-offs,new windscreens fitted,oleos need pumping up,and C of G has moved....fwd,
frequent injections of 40% additive in the fuel always helps...need a good body refurbish...but the maintenance maid says I don`t pay enough.....

[zetec2]

Has nobody mentioned the Wessex ?

[Herod]

Has nobody mentioned the Wessex ?

Yes, way back in post #13. If we are talking about the HC2, count me in. An old friend who operated the Wessex and the Puma, said the Puma's biggest problem was that it wasn't soldier-proof.

[Fareastdriver]

An old friend who operated the Wessex and the Puma, said the Puma's biggest problem was that it wasn't soldier-proof.

Back in 1971 when I was on 33 Sqn. when the Pumas started flying we were subjected to this non stop mockery from 72 Wessex Sqn. of how our Pumas would fall apart once the Army started jumping in and out. The first aircraft, XW204, arrived at the end of April and is still in service with the same squadron; nearly fifty years later.

Soldier proof. How long was the Wessex in front line service?

[Herod]

'62 to '03 I believe. 41 years. I'll give the Puma that..

[WB627]

Originally Posted by andytug

And for complete lunacy, fit a Concorde with a couple of 303s in the wings and call it military!

I'll see your two 303's and raise you 3x Blue Steel

[Jackonicko]

Originally Posted by RVF750

F15s are still better than the Eurofighter and they're 40 years old.

You're talking utter bollocks

[4runner]

Originally Posted by TEEEJ

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait also operated the Lightning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englis...bia_and_Kuwait

briefly and only after some diplomatic persuasion and showmanship. This was documented in a magazine article as a matter of fact. The test pilot was briefed not to use reheat(afterburner) on the ground. They saw limited action along the Yemeni border skirmish.

[Fareastdriver]

The test pilot was briefed not to use reheat(afterburner) on the ground.

I was part of the group of tankers that ferried 56 Sqn to Cyprus. We then ferried two to Bahrain where one was used by the demonstration pilot and flown to Saudi and back.

It certainly used afterburner to take off from Bahrain and I am sure that it would have had to use afterburner to get airborne on its demonstration flight.

[Jolley Roger]

F86. Because

[spekesoftly]

Originally Posted by 4runner

The test pilot was briefed not to use reheat(afterburner) on the ground.

May I ask why?

[SLXOwft]

Originally Posted by WB627

I'll see your two 303's and raise you 3x Blue Steel

I love "relatively inexpensive deterrent" - I suppose certainly cheaper than Polaris and subs. An RAF buy would have brought down the unit price I suppose and made Concorde more attractive to paying airlines. Of course these days they would be leased from AirBomber under a PFI contract with the surge capacity leased out to billionaires/oligarchs as the ultimate in bling. Oh and one would be suitably painted for BoJo.

[Asturias56]

what was the range of Blue Steel? 500-600 miles?

Does anyone think that any aeroplane would get within 600 miles of say Moscow cruising at 60,000 ft in the mid-70's - late 90's???

[kenparry]

The Blue Steel that entered service had a range of around 120 nm. Proposed developments that never happened could have improved that to about 500 or so.

[Shaft109]

Grob G109b / Vigilant

There's plenty out on the secondhand market, Just need a re-engine with a more modern supportable unit. And possibly an updated glass cockpit.

They could be issued to units that would be staffed by Volunteers around the UK to fly Air Cadets under the guidance / parented by the RAF system to solo standard and beyond.

Relatively cheaply too.

Oh hang on....

[WB627]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

what was the range of Blue Steel? 500-600 miles?

Does anyone think that any aeroplane would get within 600 miles of say Moscow cruising at 60,000 ft in the mid-70's - late 90's???

The drawing appeared in the 1968 50th Anniversary RAF Year Book. I think it was just wishful thinking. However, how close would a Vulcan or Victor have got to Moscow even at low level? I think that might have been wishful thinking as well, despite the skill and determination of the crews that would have flown them.

[Asturias56]

Which is why they were replaced as the main part of the deterrent in '68 I guess

[Barksdale Boy]

1) It was 1969
2) I don't remember a plan to attack The Soviet capital at low level

In short, you're talking nonsense.