Isn't it far more likely that they (a) fortify the islands, so as not to lose them a second time, and (b) buy Tomahawks for their nuclear subs.
Which of course is what they did.
Other operators of the B-1
- Thread starter Pangur
- Start date
Isn't it far more likely that they (a) fortify the islands, so as not to lose them a second time, and (b) buy Tomahawks for their nuclear subs.
Which of course is what they did.
I would think so, even by the end of the Falklands, weren't most of the Vulcan squadrons decommissioned? With that and the fact that the RN had one the Nuke argument then I can't see the UK having both the political will and money to stand up a squadron or more of B1's.
Another question I have is that the US B1's were designed as Nuke bombers, would the UK have to pay to outfit them with dual role capabilities from the start? The US spent 3 billion refitting them didn't they, would the UK pay however much a squadron's worth would be either at the start or post cold war.
Also if they miss Gulf War 1 like the US ones did could they suffer from the peace dividend?
The notion of Canada buying the B1 is interesting (but very unlikely in practice IMHO). A much more hawkish Canada might have seen the B1 as a usefull asset for anti shipping work, or conceviably being able to strike Soviet arctic air bases with conventional weapons in a WW3 setting. Soviet bomber strikes against North America would have relied heavily on a few arctic air bases to stage their shorter ranged bombers from. I suppose a much more hawkish Canada might have been interested in being able to attack them in the event of a protracted conventional WW3.
Pangur
Donor
Granted the RAAF are the process of taking delivery of the KC30A however one issue I can see is that if they go on a strike mission with the F-35`s then some of them one, two perhaps will have to escort them. To my mind unrefueled range is surely a huge issue for an Aussie strike aircraft
The difference?
Night & Day.
Even the U.S. military, where money apparently really does grow on trees, could only afford 100 B-1B. The aircraft runs $300 million (adjusted for inflation) per airframe, more once you figure in the on-going need to update the avionics. As a comparison, the entire F-111C program set the Australian government back ~$650 Million (adjusted for inflation).
Why would the RAAF need a combat aircraft with a combat radius of 5,500 KM (I'll admit it would have been handy to have had a bomber that could hit Tokyo from Darwin in 1942, on internal fuel, but today... not so much)? What the RAAF needs is a top edge strike aircraft with a internal fuel combat radius of around 1,000 KM. Unfortunately the Super-bug isn't what they need, that would be the F-15E (or one of its cousins, like the "I", "K" "S" or "SG" export versions).
Cook
Banned
No, the derailment was when John Gorton was replaced by Billy McMahon in 1971; Gorton axed the program. Construction had already commenced on a 600 MW Heavy Water Reactor at Jarvis Bay in NSW that would provide the necessary plutonium for Australian build bombs. Presumably a Canberra bomber or F-111 would have been used to deliver them.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/20050822_nuclear/nuclear-chronology.htm
Note Gorton's refusal to sign the NPT.
4 Corners did an episode on it but I can't track it down, that link's all I can find.
It's interesting to speculate what a Witlam government would have done if the secret nuclear weapons program had still been continuing when they were elected, but that'd be best dealt with in a different thread.
Last edited:
Not the F-35? Risking opening can o' worms...
The F35 is the only 5th gen fighter on the world market today (or next week if you will), everything else other than F22 will be in a support role once it enters service. The RAAF has decided to convert half of the super hornet fleet into ECM growlers in recognnition of this.
As for the Su30MKI. No thanks, someone else can have it, everyone else can have a big Su30KMI cakewalk right through the middle of Tienamin square if they want. My air force doesn't want it, mainly because it's shit.
You're being about as objective as a Barcelona fan when asked about Real Madrid
I could spell it out for you if you want, but I'll put this to you first. After 20 years of operation the RAAF and RCAF decided that in order to increase the service life of their Hornets they would replace the fuselage centre barrels. So these barrels were purchased new from the US and the RAAF and RCAF rebuilt their Hornets. Do you think that anyone would decide that after 20 years of operating Mig 29s or Su 27s they would want to replace the large part of the fuselage in order to get another 15 years life, or more to the point have they? And even if they did would the Russians be able to efficiently assist in this process?
MiG 21 LanceR
MiG29SMT
Su27SM
...
The MiG21 must be the most upgradable aircraft since the Canberra. The MiG29 upgrade market is very active, and the Su27 is extremely upgradable. Angolan MiG23MLD were upgraded to become quite efective interceptors. It will be interesting to see how the venuzuelan Flanker fleet evolves, at a time when US pressure is making their F16 fleet inoperative.
Note than buying the F35 means that you won't be able to adjust cockpit airconditioning temperatures without a software tech comming from the States with the relevante line code
. OK, its not that bad, but not by much... Remember the iranian F14s. They were expcted to get an engine upgrade as part of a MLU at some point. Good luck with that. Cooperating with the US industry is easy only when they want it to be.
Try using the F35 in the event of your frienship with the US turning sour...
The Super Hornet was also available almost immediately, with the plan originally to operate the aircraft for 10 years then re-equip the squadron(s) with F-35A and sell or hand back the SH's to the USN.
The Super Bug is slightly less observable, mainly directly from the nose and tail but it also has less than half the combat radius and only about 75% of the war load of the Strike Eagle.
While the RAAF doesn't have the OPFOR threat potential that the USAF is designed around (although the reality is that both forces actually are likely to face what is much more of a "B" team military) The slight advantage in stealth does not, IMO, make up for the considerably lower capacities in range and combat power.
von hitchofen
Banned
"The final flight of the three remaining Royal Australian Air Force B-1Bs took place today. The controversial aircraft, dubbed `Bob Hawke's Boomerang`, after the cost of procuring the supersonic jet bomber brought down his government. Twelve aircraft were purchased, but cost issues forced the rationalisation of the fleet to the three aircraft shown here.
These aircraft were only used in combat twice, in the 1991 Gulf War, and Operation Desert Fox.
Veterans of these missions have condemned the fact no aircraft will be preserved in Australian museum, due to the US government's insistence that they should be returned to the US to be scrapped"
These aircraft were only used in combat twice, in the 1991 Gulf War, and Operation Desert Fox.
Veterans of these missions have condemned the fact no aircraft will be preserved in Australian museum, due to the US government's insistence that they should be returned to the US to be scrapped"
MiG 21 LanceR
MiG29SMT
Su27SM
...
The MiG21 must be the most upgradable aircraft since the Canberra. The MiG29 upgrade market is very active, and the Su27 is extremely upgradable. Angolan MiG23MLD were upgraded to become quite efective interceptors. It will be interesting to see how the venuzuelan Flanker fleet evolves, at a time when US pressure is making their F16 fleet inoperative.
Note than buying the F35 means that you won't be able to adjust cockpit airconditioning temperatures without a software tech comming from the States with the relevante line code
Cooperating with the US industry is easy only when they want it to be.
Try using the F35 in the event of your frienship with the US turning sour...
The RAAF and most other Hornet operators in the Hornet Users Group, and most other high end operators of advanced US and European combat aircraft do the sort of upgrades you have listed for Russian aircraft as standard procedure. Indeed the centre barrel replacement was part of the Hornet Up-Grade (HUG) project which installed among other things an APG73 radar. We just called it the HUG project rather than some sexy re-designation.
I have heard anecdotally that to replace the centre barrel in a Russian aircraft is the better part of impossible due to the way they are built. This is on top of things like lower serviceability rates than western aircraft. It take more than a fancy plane to build a national capability.
When you have a captive audience you don't have to try very hard. But some of their aircraft were designed to be upgradable. See the Tu95, Tu16, etc. In a centralised economy you have to rely on yearly orders to keep factories running to capacity, so why upgrade when you're going to be issued with new machines anyway. And our machines get so much TLC that they live long enough to make upgrading worth while. If you pile up all the money you paid for those F18s, all the money you've spend on maintenance and the money for the uggrades and you could have bought MiG23MLD back then, thrown them away, and buy Su30MKA now...
A Su-30MKA in RAAF colors would be sexy, but imagine Kopp's reaction. He'd probably have an orgasm.
NothingNow
Banned
Fuck, like with F-111s, you could use them for long range interceptors, armed with tons of Sparrows and Phoenixes, or even a Talos derivative in the case of the B-1. Obviously they'd be useless outside of being flying missile batteries, but could go way out, stay on station a lot longer, and scare the fuck out of the Soviets, as the B-1 wing orbiting Ellesmere island could have ALCMs, or just fucktons of AAMs flying patrol. But that'd take different wiring and radars etc.