Pretty much, something along the lines of the SSN's getting at least some Tomahawk capability would probably be the best trade off and most sustainable.
After Falklands War the Brits get new Long-range Bomber
- Thread starter Michel Van
- Start date
Pretty much, something along the lines of the SSN's getting at least some Tomahawk capability would probably be the best trade off and most sustainable.
NothingNow
Banned
No it wasn't. Flying from the UK to Akotiri and back isn't that far. It's 3300 to maybe 3800 miles round trip going over the alps (and I've found nothing about the test anywhere, much less anything to counter the idea that it's anything but a mostly direct flight.)
For operations in the South Atlantic or pretty much anywhere in the Pacific or Indian oceans that's a fairly average flight.
It's still not enough to cover some of the longer missions that can be reasonably expected in Europe and the North Atlantic (like anti-shipping operations in the Norwegian and Barents seas,) much less something like the Black Buck raids.
Which requires twice as many tankers.
They're bombs, as long as they can detonate when required to they're fine.
However, that means more drag, along with more fuel consumption, and also increases the visibility of the strike aircraft on radar.
amphibulous
Banned
As far as WHAT??? You didn't say. "Long range" was left unspecified; the Falklands bombing was a freak most carried out for PR reasons.
Yep. That's long range.
And you still haven't shown that the Tornado does have such a limit, still less that it can't be improved with modification.
Who cares? People don't invest in strategic bomber fleets on a whim; the UK has no sane reason to create bomber fleets to operate in these regions.
Okay...
Civilian aircraft are just that, made for civilian use. Military aircraft are very different. Even civilian airframes that are used by the military in support roles (such as the E-3x AWACS and JSTAR) have extensive modification to allow for the vastly more stressful life they lead. Trying to use a civilian airliner as a bomber is an excellent way to lose both the aircraft and crew. By the time you make the necessary modifications to allow the addition of a bomb bay and the strengthening needed to make the airframe survivable you will have spent sev eral time what it would have cost to license build a modern aircraft and probably close to the same amount as it would cost to start with a blank sheet of paper.
Heavy manned bombers are a real specialty item. Realistically the only country that can afford a true heavy force is the U.S., and even then its a stretch. The B-52 isn't really a bomber anymore, at least not in an environment where there is the slightest chance of running into fighter opposition. The B-1, while a spectacular aircraft in many ways is also mind-numbingly expensive to operate, to the point that the USAF has moved a lot of the fleet into storage. The B-2, well, $2 BILLION a copy.
The best alternative, from a cost/benefit perspective, would be a couple conventional powered, full deck carriers. Even with the airwing (most of which the RN either had on hand like the F4 or could get cheap from USN surplus like the A4 and S-2) a couple battle groups (CV, 2-3 DDG, 2-3FFG, oiler/stores ship) would be cheaper than a squadron of Heavy Bombers and the logistical tail they would require. The CV would also actually be usable in more than a couple extremely rare scenarios.
I have no idea where the money for either alternative would come from, even going lowball (like getting a couple lower mileage Essex from USN reserve or one of the early Forrestal hulls for the carrier option or 12 B-1B plus parts) would be the better part of $2 Billion 1980 dollars, just for initial acquisition.
Civilian aircraft are just that, made for civilian use. Military aircraft are very different. Even civilian airframes that are used by the military in support roles (such as the E-3x AWACS and JSTAR) have extensive modification to allow for the vastly more stressful life they lead. Trying to use a civilian airliner as a bomber is an excellent way to lose both the aircraft and crew. By the time you make the necessary modifications to allow the addition of a bomb bay and the strengthening needed to make the airframe survivable you will have spent sev eral time what it would have cost to license build a modern aircraft and probably close to the same amount as it would cost to start with a blank sheet of paper.
Heavy manned bombers are a real specialty item. Realistically the only country that can afford a true heavy force is the U.S., and even then its a stretch. The B-52 isn't really a bomber anymore, at least not in an environment where there is the slightest chance of running into fighter opposition. The B-1, while a spectacular aircraft in many ways is also mind-numbingly expensive to operate, to the point that the USAF has moved a lot of the fleet into storage. The B-2, well, $2 BILLION a copy.
The best alternative, from a cost/benefit perspective, would be a couple conventional powered, full deck carriers. Even with the airwing (most of which the RN either had on hand like the F4 or could get cheap from USN surplus like the A4 and S-2) a couple battle groups (CV, 2-3 DDG, 2-3FFG, oiler/stores ship) would be cheaper than a squadron of Heavy Bombers and the logistical tail they would require. The CV would also actually be usable in more than a couple extremely rare scenarios.
I have no idea where the money for either alternative would come from, even going lowball (like getting a couple lower mileage Essex from USN reserve or one of the early Forrestal hulls for the carrier option or 12 B-1B plus parts) would be the better part of $2 Billion 1980 dollars, just for initial acquisition.
Cook
Banned
It was most certainly not carried out for PR reasons. The attack on the runway at Stanley was conducted to prevent its use by Argentine attack aircraft, specifically their Mirage III and Super Etendards. Had the Etendards been able to operate from Stanley they’d have been able to strike at the Task Force well before it got within range of the islands. Fast movers operating from Stanley would have been pivotal to the war.
Why not just update the Vulcan like the US has done with the B-52. They could be updated to the B.3 standard with uprated Spey's to replace the Olympus turbojets in the 1960's. This would keep them into service into the 1980's where they could get another avionics update to last into the 2000's. A Vulcan B.3 with Spey's, a glass cockpit, modern EW suite with a digital data bus, fully data-linked, LDP and modern weapons (GBU series, JDAM's, Storm Shadows, Harpoons etc.) would be quite formidable
Or the UK could have built a longer range Tornado by adding several fuselage plugs and FAST tanks. You'd end up with something longer than a Tornado F3 with a longer nose too perhaps and maybe slightly longer wings too. However also rather expensive. Best bet? Stick Tomahawks on SSNs....oops.
A Nimrod variant, or more correctly Comet variant, was one of the options considered (and taken seriously) for the V bombers back in the 50s.
dam if that true we can forget the Nimrod, What about the remaining Vulcan fleet ?
amphibulous
Banned
There have been excellent discussions here in the past about the impossibility of converting airliners to bombers.
This is possibly saner; after all the B52 is still flying. But did the airframes have enough fatigue life left in them??? Presumably, as they were considered for tanker conversions.
If they did, then they get turbofans and airframes are strengthened against fatigue. Maybe the crew is cut to 2 when more modern electronics are fitted, which is nice because this way everyone gets to have an ejection seat.
You would not believe, what i have seen on Secret project forum:
Boeing proposal of 747 as Flying aircraft carrier or as cruise missile Launch Platform.
Lockheed C-5 as ICBM or cruise missile Launch Platform. (even proposed the L-1011-500 TriStar for that)
if the rumors are true even EADS prosed Airbus 340 "Bomber" Airliner conversion
update the Avro Vulcan ?
for Operation Black buck the RAF went for hell of a challenge
they had raid museums piece, display aircraft on RAF base, even crash wreckage were search and dismantled for parts like Tank probes.
the needed Inertial navigation system were lent from British Airways boeings 747's.
on update the Avro vulcan
it needed a Inertial navigation system, better flight computer using GPS
it could reduce the Crew from five to two, exactly the number of ejection seat on that beast...
the Engine is bigger problem they use 4 × Bristol Olympus turbojet, thrust 49 kN each.
there position in middle of fuselage, connected with long tube from Air intake to the rear.
the problem is not only to replace the Olympus turbojet with turbofan jet-engine,
but one with thrust of 49 kN and lower fuel consumption, that fit in that volume !
Not to mention the bomber versions of the VC-10 able to carry 8 pods each with 8 x 1,000lb bombs.
Back to Nimrod
there was real proposal for Nimrod AEW3 as cruise missile Launch Platform with six P4T in the bomb bay.
source:
Vulcan's Hammer: V-force Aircraft & Weapons Projects Since 1945
by chris Gibson
there was real proposal for Nimrod AEW3 as cruise missile Launch Platform with six P4T in the bomb bay.
source:
Vulcan's Hammer: V-force Aircraft & Weapons Projects Since 1945
by chris Gibson
amphibulous
Banned
Sure. I've seen these myself. Aerospace companies, etc, do concept studies for all sorts of insane things - it doesn't mean that they are feasible. An extreme example of this would be the version of Dynosaur that was supposed to airbrake with a (live!) Mercury stage attached.... And lets not even mention SDI.
In the case of the airliners-as-bombers, there were almost equally good reasons why the proposals were laughed out of Washington:
For the British, the problem would be vastly worse, because the enormous development costs would amortised over a smaller number of aircraft. Pencil in about a billion dollars a bird for capability they absolutely do not need.
Yes: it would be a stupid thing to do (except possibly compared to the other even stupider options, especially converting airliners) and not worth the fuss. The British simply don't need a longer range bomber than the Tornado.
http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/Pages1_files/Replacement_Index.html
And finally:
In 1983 a marketing exercise took place where a Tornado did a non-stop sortie to Cyprus and back. It was accompanied by a Victor and Buccaneer tanker. When the Victor dropped into Italy to refuel, the Buccaneer was left to give fuel to the Tornado to get it down the Mediterranean to Akrotiri, Cyprus and back to Italy. The Buccaneer had to slow down for the Tornado! If the Tornado had cruised at the normal speed of the Buccaneer it would have run out of fuel. At Akrotiri spare Buccaneer tankers were on standby, just in case of problems. When the Tornado overflew Akrotiri all it's stations carried fuel tanks. The Buccaneer still had spare wing stations. The RAF Personel had been instructed not to tell anyone of the purpose of the Detachment. (However the day after the flight there was a photo and article in the Daily Telegraph about how far the Tornado had flown in a single sortie - luckily for the Government the true logistical facts were never admitted at the time!).
If this is the test flight/public relations op I'm thinking of it was done as a non-stop trip there and back to show off its effective range. I can't remember whether it was done as roughly a straight line trip going via Italy and Greece, but since this was still the bad old days Yugoslavia and Albania had to be avoided so there was a slight curve, or if they did it all over sea via Gibraltar and down along the Mediterranean. It was escorted via Victor tanker to handle the air-to-air refuelling plus a Buccaneer as a partner that could also provide buddy fuelling just in case. Victor refuelled it on the way down then dropped into Italy to refill and be ready for the return leg and local planes topped them over Cyprus before they turned around. Funny thing was that apparently the escort Buccaneer didn't need to refuel near as much as the Tornado, whilst the Tornado needed to utilise all its stations for fuel tanks. Not really surprising since although the Tornado had something like three times the maximum top speed it had shorter legs, and that's not counting external tanks or the internal ones the Buccaneers could use in the bomb bay.
Considering that the Tornado's engines and electronic were all tested on Buccaneers I still say that a better alternative could of been to take all the shiny new stuff and put it in the Buccaneer airframe. Sure the Bucs were pretty much starting to get shagged out by this point but if you're going to be buying brand new planes then new build Buccaneers shouldn't be a problem. Take the opportunity to improve some of its systems, and possibly look at the supersonic P.150 version if you're feeling adventurous, and you're good to go. But then I am somewhat biased towards the old Banana Jet.
Edit: Bugger, looks as though I somehow managed to miss PMN1's post before I did mine.
You and me both! Rather than bother with Tornado a far better solution for the UK would have been a new generation Bucaneer. More UK content, potentially greater sales, stronger airframe and in service at least 5 years ahead of the Tonka (maybe even 15 years ahead if it had been decided on instead of the EE TSR solution and P150 becomes TSr2 instead). Supersonic Buc would also have done fighter mission.
Hi, new here!
A new bomber for the RAF? I think that if not the Vulcan, then the F-111 or Nimrod is the best choice. The B-1B would be massively expensive. The USAF would not want to spare any as any surplus airframes become useful as a source for spares.
The F-111 (esp in it's FB version) was designed with strategic missions in mind. Perhaps some surplus F-111A's were available? The Nimrod had even better range although much, much lower speed. As smart and stand off weapons were in their infancy with the RAF in the 80's, the F-111 with hits higher speed would have been a much better option to undertake bomb runs than the Nimrod. Of course, Nimrod could make a very fine stand off missile carrier.
One issue of course is that smaller types such as the tornado is limited by not only a small fuel load, but a very limited amount of lubrication oil for its engines. Would this not cause issues for an 8,000 mile round trip? I'd hate to think how knackered a Tornado crew would be after such a flight! I read that F-111F crews had to be physically lifted out of their cockpits after completing the 6,000 mile round trip for the mission Operation El Dorado Canyon aka the 1986 airstrikes on Libya.
A new bomber for the RAF? I think that if not the Vulcan, then the F-111 or Nimrod is the best choice. The B-1B would be massively expensive. The USAF would not want to spare any as any surplus airframes become useful as a source for spares.
The F-111 (esp in it's FB version) was designed with strategic missions in mind. Perhaps some surplus F-111A's were available? The Nimrod had even better range although much, much lower speed. As smart and stand off weapons were in their infancy with the RAF in the 80's, the F-111 with hits higher speed would have been a much better option to undertake bomb runs than the Nimrod. Of course, Nimrod could make a very fine stand off missile carrier.
One issue of course is that smaller types such as the tornado is limited by not only a small fuel load, but a very limited amount of lubrication oil for its engines. Would this not cause issues for an 8,000 mile round trip? I'd hate to think how knackered a Tornado crew would be after such a flight! I read that F-111F crews had to be physically lifted out of their cockpits after completing the 6,000 mile round trip for the mission Operation El Dorado Canyon aka the 1986 airstrikes on Libya.
Re-sparring the wings would seem to be the main job with regards to fatigue and remaining flying hours. Considering how long the B-52s have been in business like you mentioned as long as you don't leave it to late and are willing to spend enough to give them a proper life extension programme I don't think it would be an insurmountable problem.
There was an ejector system designed for the rear crew, by Martin-Baker IIRC, that was tested and shown to work every time. It apparently used a common hatch with the three rear seats being on rails so that when it was bye-bye time they were launched in sequence, which is better than nothing I suppose. With a normal crew complement of pilot, co-pilot, navigator radar, navigator plotter and air electronics officer considering what two-seater aircraft were able to do with modern system I definitely think there's scope to reduce the numbers. You could easily combine the navigator radar and navigator plotter roles, even better would be to perhaps roll them into the co-pilot role. I'd suggest keeping the ECM guy in the back since on a bomber that size it's a pretty important job, all of this has the added bonus of getting the crew down to just three guys so a simplified ejector system could be implemented.
Here's a what if thread from over on the warships1 forums about the possibility of updating the Vulcan bombers in the late 70s/early 80s. The main suggestions seem to be,
- Re-spar the wings and zero hour the fuselage
- Either replace the engines with new turbofans or get Rolls-Royce to look at improving the design of the current models for increased efficiency
- Buy new off the shelf electronics from the American A6-E Intruder
- Bring back the ability to use the Skybolt pylons to carry large amounts of external bombs/equipment
- Whilst re-sparring rip out and replace the 1960s wiring to update and save weight, also take advantage to look at possibly more external hardpoints on the wings
- Cut down on crew numbers and fit the rear ejector seat
- Update the ECM systems again using off the shelf stuff from the EA-6 Prowler
- Add a TRAM (Target Recognition and Attack Multi-S) turret from the A6-E Intruder so can self-designate for dropping smart bombs
- Fit the Searchwater radar so it can carry out maritime role, Skybolt pylons would allow it to carry a fair few anti-ship missiles
- Look at adding some sort of removable re-fuelling system in the bomb bay like the Buccaneer had, useful for Black Buck type missions but at the expense of external stores only, but if you're using smart munitions possibly balanced out