MOST COST EFFECTIVE MULTI-ROLE JET AIRCRAFT

Any more to add from the new folk’s about here now?

For me it is a hard choice between the Hunter and the Canberra.

Look at the pictures of the NASA Canberra operating in the U.K and it pretty much says it all! .

Not to take away anything from the Canberra, but….
The fact NASA still uses a WB-57F says as much about the General Dynamics modifications as it does the original EE design.

Not to mention the cost of a suitable replacement (U-2 or something similar) is probably higher than the planes max. altitude!!

. . . Maintenance and training must be a problem to some degree.

Not the point. True, the cranberry is coming to the end of its life but since 1949 (1951 with the RAF) it has carried out a multitude of tasks world-wide as well if not better than a lot of other frames. And maintenance was never a “cost” problem – it was a non-complex kite, completely suited to being “fixed” anywhere in the world over its time (and often was). 😎

As for being currently cost effective . . .that’s for the bean counters to say, but it still earns revenue for the MoD else it would be long gone. It is also salutory to reflect on the fact that there is no platform that can or will replace it in the future. It’s essentially the yanks that want to keep it flying doing strat reccon, and the 9’s will do that until around this time next year.

Unforgiving? Yes. Dangerous? Yes, in complacent hands of both air and ground crew. But the Canberra in all its roles more than satisfies the thread’s original question. You can argue that it couldn’t operate from a carrier, well, OK, I’ll give you that. :rolleyes: But that doesn’t detract in any way from the fact that the Canberra, designed as a medium bomber, went on with hardly any design changes to fulfill the task requirements of just about everybody, including foreign air forces and the civilian aerospace industry. In fact, two examples are currently in revenue earning service in the states.

Look at the pictures of the NASA Canberra operating in the U.K and it pretty much says it all! Cost effective means how much you paid for it and the return on that investment – when your talking aircraft that are in some cases fifty years old your going to struggle to find anything to get even close to English Electric’s design.

The Canberra is a great aircraft, but is it really that cost effective to keep small numbers of old, non-front line aircraft in service doing the odd jobs?

Maintenance and training must be a problem to some degree.

Look at the pictures of the NASA Canberra operating in the U.K and it pretty much says it all! Cost effective means how much you paid for it and the return on that investment – when your talking aircraft that are in some cases fifty years old your going to struggle to find anything to get even close to English Electric’s design.

Doe’s she really belong HERE now, funny question yes, but as there IS a overlap from one forum to the other a LOT of the time, and it’s getting weirder.

I suppose it is a little soon to count the SHAR as a historic aircraft, but in early 2006 the FAA retires the last examples 🙁 so I’m only a few months out as far as the UK is concerned. I hope India gets a few more years out of the SHAR though.

I’d say that the F-4 Phantom deserves a mention, it roles included fighter, bomber, SEAD, recon, target drone and it operated from both carriers and land.

Thinking about it, the Phantom is probably front runner for the title of most cost effective multi-role historical jet aircraft.

I still prefer the Sea Harrier though 🙂

What else could be in the race, but I do like Moggy’s point!!

Nice point MDF 😀 ,

Could we include :rolleyes: , say the Mighty Russian bear in this 😮 , no of course, BUT what an awesome plane aswell :p ,

Yep the Herc sure has done a bunch of thing’s, and is still here.

I keep scanning the book’s over(looking at), to find, other’s in the race, But the Skyhawk, and the Canberaz, seem the stand out in this.

One more bit on the Can(not loo :p ).

English Electric Canberra.

Britain was very slow, in building Jet Bomber’s :rolleyes: .

When the first did finally appear it was most unimpressive: Small, Straight-Winged and not in the same class as the the B-47, with it’s six podded jet’s hung under a swept wing.

Not many 1949 observer’s could suspect that the little Canberra :confused: .

Would become one of the truly great aircraft of all time 😀 .

And now for the Harrier’s Ancestor, and a UGLY Yank Cuz(moon stuff I think)

And Steve-o, That HARD bank Harrier by it self, Make’s one Mean desk top mate!! 😎

CYA 😉

Well thinking laterally I’d have to say the Hercules as it has 4 gas turbine engines! and is a gunship, weather research, combat rescue, transport, SIGINT, medevac etc aircraft.

They are nice shot’s Steve-o.

I very rarely drop down to Mod stuff or the crazy other lot’s of mug’s, more then us on
ere, sure on THAT(LoL)

I still get book’s on them all to keep up with what’s happining, with the Mod’s, BUT I still really do love the old’s, which as the brand NEW build 262’s are NEW and Modern as such.

Doe’s she really belong HERE now, funny question yes, but as there IS a overlap from one forum to the other a LOT of the time, and it’s getting weirder.

BUT if it’s MAN or Woman made, and it fly’s, I will most probably like it! not matter what it IS!

Ciao, back soonish, with some ” thing ” for ere.

Top stuff Steve-o mate!

That one fantastic shot of the old bedstead jump jet, that why I hinted at the Harrier, as I know it doe’s have a lot of different role’s, then the early day’s, but I had not the ball’s to sugest it straight out like yourself mate, GOODONE!

🙂 here’s some more.

Yep, I know Web, BUT I still love that old BUFF TOO!!

Seen some Can’s fly here in Oz, smooth as silk!!.

Very interesting stuff too everyone!!!

Rollon!!

Top stuff Steve-o mate!

That one fantastic shot of the old bedstead jump jet, that why I hinted at the Harrier, as I know it doe’s have a lot of different role’s, then the early day’s, but I had not the ball’s to sugest it straight out like yourself mate, GOODONE!.

I had a bit of a giggle once, reading about the Yank’s playing with their version’s early on, with some of the safety gear not connected, or not yet installed.

And seeing just what could be done in one, concerning VIFFING and so forth, Seem to remember a pilot.

Smashing himself in to the canopy very hard(bet he had different coloured jock’s when he got back too!!), the plane did come out alright I think.

And the pilot was knocked about some, musted had some head ache. don’t know if any one else had a go at trying it, did any Pom pilot’s ever give it a try!

But I guess someone had to fool with the control’s at some point, trust the Yank’s,

H’mm I wonder what happen’s if I just do this H’mmm.

As the Bird’s doing what 600 mph atleast, sea level, THEN put straight in to reverse basically.

Must ave been real fun, DOH DOH DOH, let me tell ya sam, I won’t be do in that again real fast again now boy!

It sort of belong’s here too, because of her ancestry,

And on the Canberaz, WHO THE BLOODY HELL NAMED THE THING, sound’s like it was quiet an occasion, and where was it,

first clue, Malan, Sec, CLUE, PIG IRON!!!!.JAP’S!!!!!

How the hell did that Buggger get involved in that!!!

And that record of 70,000 plus, I think alt record was not bad when you look at it, for it’s time, and I think that was with the rocket thing in the tail, like the Lightning was to get in it’s bumm too!!

Not sure!! did it!.

Reading more about them, they set lot’s of record’s, 22 for speed and Alt, not sure maybe more, like 23 hour’s or something, from old blighty, Downunder to N.Z., MAN that must have been some tail wind.!!

And yes, said in lot’s of book’s to have almost fighter like handling, strong enough for heavy G stuff, and at certain alt’s fighter’s had a very hard time to get them in game’s between Squadron’s, even when making clearly visable contrail’s.

You could pick up a ” Good As new ” one, in the 1960’s for about 500,000 pound’s.

Seen the lot go at Essendon Drome for Quid’s, remember Ross cutting a tail off on one, in a certain way, for someone to display, sad stuff, the so called sale of them never happened in the end,, just scraped I think the lot!!.

Chief test pilot R.P. ‘Bee’ beamont flew the first prototype on Friday, 13th May 1949, and at the SBAC show four month’s later staggered the crowd’s, with a display of sheer agility that could never have been matched even by the lightly loaded biplane bomber’s of an earlier era.

Question, Almost the only dangerous feature was horizon error after sustained acceleration on overshoot!!

Some like fun, what was it, a Gimble off track sort of thing or what!!

The trainer did not get built till 1954, and is said it would have been great if they had had it much early then that.

” Bee demo’s did sell it to us ere, and the Yank’s!!.

Nearly all of it was WW2 in techno design!!!

H’mm Meteor, yep a lot of role’s, can not say I remember how the handling really was as a fighter?.

Another side of the coin is, Soviet aircraft, with the old system they had, It did not seem what it was like or cost to run, the cost was just absorbed by the system.

Pitty we cannot get some sort of comparision’s happening, with western design’s as well, BUT I think it’s a bit of a hard one.

NOW after all that, I have just been sprung again, so I must Buggger off to bed!!!

” Gut Nacht ” all !!!

I have to say, I kind of struggle to see the B52 as truly “multi role”. Dropping bombs, dropping missiles, dropping research aircraft and….erm….

The Canberra gets my vote as the most versatile warplane ever.

Steve – In fairness the Sea Harrier ‘made the difference’ in the Falklands War because the fleet didn’t have anything else they could send ! Ask any FAA guys and I am sure they would have loved to have had the kit of the old Ark! For instance with the AEW Gannet ,Phantom and Buccaneer I feel that the odds would have been decidedly in our favour!

That’s true, but the old Ark and it’s airgroup wasn’t an option.

The RN brought the Sea Harrier because it was a choice between something or nothing, that something turned out to be a very useful and cost effective capability.

Certainly the Sea Harrier did a good job but it isn’t truelly multi role – it was designed for fighter reconnaisance and largely did that. It didn’t have a capability for LGB designating and was therefore fairly limited from that point of view.

The Sea Harrier is truly multi-role!

Lack of laser designation capability doesn’t mean an aircraft isn’t multi-role. The SHAR can launch missiles at aircraft and ships, drop bombs and fire rockets at ground targets and fire it’s cannon at all of them, or take photos, that’s multi-role in my book 🙂

Has to be the Canberra, but I also put in a bod for the Meteor;

Day fighter, ground attack, night fighter, photo-reconaissance (both armed and unarmed), target tug, trainer, and….just a lovely aeroplane!

Steve – In fairness the Sea Harrier ‘made the difference’ in the Falklands War because the fleet didn’t have anything else they could send ! Ask any FAA guys and I am sure
they would have loved to have had the kit of the old Ark! For instance with the AEW
Gannet ,Phantom and Buccaneer I feel that the odds would have been decidedly in our favour! Certainly the Sea Harrier did a good job but it isn’t truelly multi role – it was designed for fighter reconnaisance and largely did that. It didn’t have a capability for
LGB designating and was therefore fairly limited from that point of view.
As for the meaning of ‘multi role’ – well if you use the exact definition you will
find hardly any aircraft are initially single role. The Canberra was always intended for
more than one role hence why B.2’s were used for PR when the PR.3 was delayed.

APC104, I believe there was a proposal developed from Canberra (EE P12??) which would have served as a high altitude interceptor/loiterer with 2 bloody huge wingtip mounted Red Deans. It was said that nothing flying prior to the late sixties would have bested this beastie in her (somewhat limited) role.

Sadly, remains unbuilt and unflown

Horrido!
Frank

APC104

Matters not that Canberras were splashed by Harriers, the question posed was “Most Cost Effective Multi-Role Jet Aircraft”. In answer to this question the Canberra surely has no equal.

.

SteveO has beaten me to it! My original post wasn’t specific enough as the RAF harriers also flew during Operation Corporate.

Sea Harrier… developed from an exisiting design…. shot down cerca 20 aircraft during the Falklands conflict ( yes, the updated missiles from the US helped), operated in a multi-role format over the Balkans and provided recon and even straffing of targets in Sierra Leone. Don’t know what the cost of development was, but I’m sure that neither BAe or Rolls Royce had to start from scratch. The avionics suite was possibly one area where the cost may have an issue ( Ferranti Radar, etc) however, the kit worked. Recommend reading the Sharky Ward book for an insight into how good it was on an air-toair basis.

On the subject… was the Canberra ever designed to be an air superiority aircraft… I always thought it to be a bomber first and foremost.. and therefore not ‘multirole’ as per the original question.

MOST COST EFFECTIVE MULTI-ROLE JET AIRCRAFT

It has to be the Sea Harrier 🙂

Although it’s performance was limited, the SHAR provided defensive and offensive airpower from small carriers and made the difference in the Falklands war.