Please Please Try Reading What You Have Hotlinked Too

In reply to your question, instead of blindly linking to various websites, try reading the information contained there in, the link to missile designations, states that the SRAM was retired in the early 90’s , why would it still be in service?

The article you linked to regarding EMP, am I right in thinking that you believe its possible for a F35 to fire a ASAT weapon into low orbit and magically wipe out an enemies electrical systems? Its in a word poppy-****, EMP effects are overated in the media, if they were that dangerous to electronics then dont you think it would cause the F35 to fall out of the sky as well? because although you can get an ASAT to low eath orbit the F35 would need to be below the detonation to get the greatest spread of EMP.

Also EMP is no repector of sides , ie it will blind freindly systems as well as enemy

:rolleyes:

The Best Coin AC

My vote without a doubt goes to the skyraider. but as has been mentioned the A10 and the OV 10 rank a close second and third.

I to am curious about the ventura, as I did a bit of digging and it appears to be a patrol bomber,anti shipping type rather than a traditional COIN type.

Being A Bore

Sorry to interrupt the debate here ladies and gents, but does just about every thread here have to degenerate into a debate about how many F22s/F35s the US forces will buy? As in many cases regardless of subject we seem to slide back to that very topic. Cant we have a sticky for the that very subject?

I wait to incurr your wrath

QRA

Hi

As far as I recall (I did a study as a air cadet into providing a small european country a low to medium tech air arm),the Hawk could fly a Hi-Lo-Hi strike profile with a 4000lb warload 675Nm, given that this was in a fuel consuming lo portion of the flight included ,an Hawk T1A with a pair of winders and three long range fuel tanks could probably eek that out to nearer 850nm I apprecite that this would effectively have 3 legs intercept, the escort and the return phase, this isnt as nearly as short initally expected. The Hawks lack of radar is a pain , but as part of the NATO Mixed Fighter Force concept, Tornados and Eagles would use there radars to guide in the radarless Hawks to the remenants of soviet air raids that had survived penetrating the tornado/Eagle BARCAPs. I think this was the role of the Hawk if the balloon had gone up as opposed to true point defence fighters, apparently the accepted whisdom is that theses are an expensive luxury most air forces cannot afford in wartime.

I had a good look at the Typhoon pic of the training QRA scramble with live weapons, its common if say a QRA jet is to be swapped over for maintainance ,for the one jet to be scrambled , the replacement jet to be towed to the QRA sheds , and the aircraft to recover to the squadron dispersal/HAS sight for downloading. Its even usual for junior pilots to come over from the squadrons to carry this out and give them practice before being QRA qualified.

Ladies and gents IMHO we are straying slightly off topic although as always its been an enjoyable insight, at the end of the day if the Russians want to podge of 100-300 cruise missiles at the UK, then article 5 of the NATO treaty would be invoked causing a state of war to exist between NATO and Russia. Will 8, 10 or 20 QRA jets stop a cruise missile attack? No even in war time I doubt the UK could far less in peacetime prevent such a strike, and QRA is a peacetime NATO commitment, 36 hours after commencement of hostilites then the QRA force would be re-absorbed into normal squadron ops. Of course if the ICBMs had been cut loose then it would be purely acedemic.

Lebanon Airport

As far as Im aware the airport in beiruit was struck GBU-24 LGBs from medium altitude, I also remeber watching released footage from the Israeli Air Force showing the impacts at the Runway/Taxiway intersections. The concept of low level runway cratering sorties was a product of the cold war, they were to be honest a stepping stone to more advanced stand of dispenser that would not have placed the delivering aircraft within the range of the airfields terminal air defences (MGM-109/ The Tauraus Munition to name but two) with these weapons systems being so very very specialised they fared badly when having to change to a new operating enviroment and as such are little used AFAIK in modern operations, they to my mind are as un-predictable as a dumb munitions, there delivery altitude impinge a higher work load on the aircrew and place the aircraft in the heart of terminal air defences. Consider this with the latest laser and GPS guided munitions, which can accurately be placed on a runway from tens of kms away , in the releatively safe medium altitude enviroment, these systems can also deliver a higher amount of destructive force to the runway than say a load of Durundrals from low altitude. If I was an air commander I know what one I would choose!

QRA

I read with interest the intercept of 8 Russian bears and the questions raised about the nature of RAF QRA duties, QRA holds 2 Tornados or Typhoons at a northern airfield and 2 Tornados or Typhoons at a southern airfield, these were on constant 15 mins readiniess (the QRA scrambles I have seen never take more than 5) as for there being more jets , it isnt as easy as that, the RAF doesnt always have every aircraft QRA capable, theres a standard fit in-terms of radios , radar , weapons ect that are laid down by the RAF in conjuction with NATO, but it is a comprehensive list, on the weekend there is a spare QRA jet that is kept in case one of the two QRA jets scramble and comes back unserviceable, they jets are swapped over and on the Monday , its returned to the squadon training plan. I have a strong suspicion that a if required ala a british september 11th, then the engineering rule book would get binned and the RAF would generate aircraft somehow , even if they could only arm the gun, IMHO the critical factor would be a lack of tanker support. in the old old days as soon as the QRA alarm went off tanker had to be in the air within 15mins also, where is the RAF gona find 3 or 4 tankers to dedicate to a tanker QRA? even with 2250ltr tanks tornados are limited to 3.5 hour sorties. Its unfortunate that Leuchars runwayis out of commision at the minute , as Leuchars is so very well placed run intercepts up the north sea to Norway.

Personally I fear nothing from these sorties, it posturing , as for the calls made by people to down these, and we should do the same around the Barents, newsflash we do and have done since the end of the cold war, RC135, EP3E Atlantiques and Nimrods have all flown “Sneaky Beaky” sorties around about Murmansk ect

Trident Replacement

Thanks Edlaw that was the point I was trying to make, yes bombers take longer but they can strike targets globally , however do we need a expensive single purpose system instantly capable of striking at a seconds notice? I for one dont think so, the bomber arm isnt in my opion as SSBN proponents make out , as vunerable as ismade out bear in mind the fleet can be dispersed in times of high tension and to add to the enemy targeteers problems you have to factorin all the tankers disperesal bases also, if the RN wish to maintain a leg of the detterent that further complicates the the targateers problems , more aim points ect ect

regards butch

Actually the SSBN solution is currently the most versatile, Strategic Bombers lack the anywhere in the world ability and are far more vulnerable than submarines and ballistic missiles.
All the reports I have read say that the missile will be upgraded jointly with the US, so they will remain in the same pool.

Yes but sealord my point is a strategic bomber would be able to perform other missions, ie CAS , long range conventional interdiction ect ect, the SSBN doesnt provide that capabilty, it seems in a MoD where the conventional forces have been told that assetts must be multi-role ,there is a paradox that british nuclear forces have been stuck in a cold war time warp, how many times have the SSBNs carried out more conventional missions?. The bomber can deploy anywhere in the world with AAR, indeed the B52 has un refuelled radius of 4400 nm (this roughly equates to a point North of the Barrents Sea, South:South Africa, East: Northen India and West: Los Angles ) the trident D5 has a range of 7000nm yes a extra 3000nm however the SSBN has a maximum of 192 warheads on 16 missiles each, on three boats, the 20 Ac sqn I think we require would be capable of carrying 400 warheads to targets , which would be the greater threat, if we indeed we required a maximum effort stike, however I at present do not forsee the detterent being operating in a cold war style, I believe that the detterent would be used in a rather limited regional conflict, with a relatively small number of nuclear weapons being expended.Yes the manned aircraft is more vunerable on the ground than the SSBN.