Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

What Military Aircraft Would You Bring Back To Service?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

What Military Aircraft Would You Bring Back To Service?

Old 4th Nov 2020, 20:24
  #201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 2,277
Originally Posted by 4runner View Post
There’s a reason that no one bought the Lightning.
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait also operated the Lightning.

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


TEEEJ is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2020, 20:29
  #202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 388
As the OP's intent was a bit of idle fun.

The Wasp (and the Scout) - might remind the moaners how far things have come.

I am suprised no one who operated it has stood up for the Tornado GR.4 or is it too recently out of service?

Phantom FG.1 plus catapults for the QEs to make lookers' lives more fun.

Should have developed an AV8-B plus based SHar FA3

However, I would have loved to have seen one or all of the Hawker P.1121 (single and twin seat versions), P.1125 or P.1129 in service. For those that don't know the P.1121 was intended to be a Mach 2.5 replacement for the Hunter in both A2A and GA roles. The 1129 was Hawker's answer to GOR.339 that led to the TSR2. It would have been much better looking IMHO.
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2020, 04:30
  #203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 284
Bring back the sycamore
havick is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2020, 05:34
  #204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 109
F-105....both the Thud and the Wild Weasel. Loved the coke bottle fuselage design and the sharp intakes when viewed from underneath...
bsae1mba is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2020, 12:06
  #205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 3,997
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.....

Last edited by sycamore; 5th Nov 2020 at 12:37. Reason: added bits
sycamore is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2020, 12:18
  #206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Just over the road from Bicester airfield
Age: 78
Posts: 436
Has nobody mentioned the Wessex ?
zetec2 is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2020, 12:27
  #207 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 74
Posts: 3,529
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.
Herod is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2020, 16:57
  #208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,221
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?
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2020, 17:05
  #209 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 74
Posts: 3,529
'62 to '03 I believe. 41 years. I'll give the Puma that..
Herod is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2020, 18:01
  #210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by andytug View Post
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



WB627 is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2020, 21:32
  #211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,126
Originally Posted by RVF750 View Post
F15s are still better than the Eurofighter and they're 40 years old.
You're talking utter bollocks
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2020, 03:23
  #212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 622
Originally Posted by TEEEJ View Post
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.
4runner is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2020, 09:43
  #213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,221
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.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2020, 11:22
  #214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 4
F86. Because
Jolley Roger is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2020, 11:53
  #215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,870
Originally Posted by 4runner View Post
The test pilot was briefed not to use reheat(afterburner) on the ground.
May I ask why?
spekesoftly is online now  
Old 6th Nov 2020, 16:19
  #216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 388
Originally Posted by WB627 View Post
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.
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2020, 16:47
  #217 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 3,709
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???
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2020, 17:50
  #218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 841
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.
kenparry is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2020, 19:52
  #219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Uranus
Posts: 334
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....

Shaft109 is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2020, 22:58
  #220 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
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.
WB627 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.