EdLawActually, the Tomcat was specifically designed as an interceptor, though with manouvreability as an important requirement too. The raison d’etre of the Tomcat was to carry Phoenix missiles out to intercept hoardes of Tu-22M Backfire bombers. This is very much interception!
The definition of interceptor that is used by pretty much everyone is that an interceptor must have a good radar, good missiles, and ideally a good range. During the cold war, there were generally two types of interceptor; those designed to race up to over Mach 2, but with short ranges, as point interceptors; and those designed to fly long distances with missiles, generally at subsonic speeds most of the way. The ultimate example of this was of course the Douglas F-6D Missileer, which was very much subsonic! This was cancelled, and the F-111 was designed, again as a long range missile carrying interceptor. The Tomcat then took over when they realised the F-111B wasn’t going to be very carrier-friendly.
As Sferrin rightly points out, by that definition, only a handful of types would be considered interceptors! As for F-16s for CAS, this is actually a dangerous analogy, since the fighter mafia actually insisted that the F-16 not be given A2A as its initial tasking, hence in the early ’80s, most F-16s were toting cluster bombs and multiple Mk82s…. :diablo:
EdLawDon’t quote me on this, but I have a feeling I’d read something about 1.2 being redlined, and 1.4 being Vne. As I say, this is just a vague memory from years ago, so don’t shoot the messenger if he’s wrong! 😉
EdLawI was kidding actually, hence the “:diablo: “! I wasn’t actually suggesting just blasting anything suspicious out of the sky, I’m not Dr Strangelove! :diablo:
Basically, if an interception is needed, then the only option may be a cheap fighter, but going for a huge expensive Flanker is overkill. The best bet is probably still going to be an F-16 or possibly ex-RCAF F/A-18 (since they’ve got a load going spare!). An F-16 may only have one engine, but it’s a reliable one, so I wouldn’t be that worried about flying over water in it. If the two services (Air Force and Navy) would co-operate, perhaps they could strike a suitable deal for a batch of ex-USAF F-16s, maybe 30 or so, 20 for the FAM, and 10 for the ARM. This would be enough to replace most of everyone’s fleets, and give them good aircraft at a low price.
EdLawI would agree if it were CAP we were talking of, but with QRA, the aircraft are not normally sortied much. Even in times of heightened airspace intrusions, e.g. Op Allied Force, the overall number of QRA intercepts is not all that high. The requirement is basically to ensure that three of the 15 aircraft are always sitting flight-ready, and preferably have at least five or six aircraft sitting flight ready. This should not be impossible, it just means that training and other sorties have to work around the requirement.
As for the L-159s, it might be a good way to at least boost the air fleet, and you should be able to dual-qualify pilots, making things a little easier. The pilots could fly, say, 120 hours on the L-159s, and 120 hours on the Typhoons. It may not be great, but if it needs to be done, it needs to be done! 🙁
EdLawThe point of making up for the lack of available hours training by buying time elsewhere is not about cost savings. It is about making do with what you have. If you only have 15 aircraft, you must do everything you can to make sure you get the maximum possible from them. Yes, it would be nicer to have 24 or more aircraft, but that simply is not the case. However, it is enough to maintain one full strength fighter squadron at one base.
I understand a large part of the rationale behind the original 24 aircraft was to maintain a QRA at each of two bases. With the reduced numbers, it should still be possible to keep a few aircraft available 24/7. The other possibility might be to do what the Czech Republic did, and get a cheap trainer type (like the L-159As) to supplement the high end fighters. They would be more than capable of dealing with most of the slower intruders, e.g. helos and light aircraft.
EdLawAs far as I know, there would be no integration problems on F-16s, or any other NATO types. The real problem is that if the US tries to block F-16 customers from using the equipment they want, then it does not hold well for the future of the F-35. Remember, these countries will not appreciate being effectively blackmailed into buying what the US tells them to (it is blackmail to force them to only buy what the US lets them buy). If this happens, then these countries would certainly think twice before buying F-35s, and may switch to buying Rafales or Typhoons, and probably stealthy UCAVs as well.
Basically, if the US tries to force its customers and allies to only use what it lets them, then it makes buying American equipment unsavoury for many. This is one of the biggest reasons why the UK was (and to an extent still is) unwilling to simply buy on the US’ terms. If the US tries to push its luck, it may find itself losing a lot of customers!
EdLawPerhaps the simplest solution would be to simply rely on patrol aircraft and surface to air missiles? If they spot a drug smuggling aircraft, fire off an SM-2 or S-300 missile! :diablo:
EdLawSorry Bring it on, but I disagree – the Meteor will have a sufficient edge over the -C model that the -D model will need to be cleared for export. The US will not willingly give up on the export market by refusing to compete. As such, the -D and Meteor will effectively be competitors. In fact, it would be a surprise if the US did refuse export clearance, it may take a while, but it will happen!
As for the Standard, it was mostly due to the massive range, which would be well beyond that of any of the normal AAMs. The ability to engage targets at 100nm+ would be useful sometimes, even if it’s not needed all the time. Lots of people complained about the Tomcat/Phoenix retirement, but with an air launched SM-6 ERAM, the Super Hornet would certainly be a capable interceptor!!
EdLawIf you reduce the pilot pool down to 18, the numbers just about work out. This should be enough to fully staff a single squadron, with a dozen active aircraft out of 15 assigned. If they add in the latest simulators, then the pilots should be able to maintain a good skill level. One other option might be to buy a couple of Pilatus PC-21s to help the pilots out a bit, giving them some cheap extra flight hours. The other possibility might be to buy hours on, say, T-38s in the US, to give the pilots some more flight hours, and good experience. Give each pilot a month in the US, flying air combat against each other (and US units even), and the pilots would probably be a bit happier!
Basically, fifteen aircraft is not much, but it should be enough to allow a round the clock QRA, as long as the pilots stay happy! The main problem is going to be maintaining adequate flight hours for the pilots – training on someone else’s aircraft would really help things! Perhaps they could simply buy extra hours on German and Swiss air force aircraft (okay, it would be Swiss Hornets, but its still a modern fighter – hours are hours!).
EdLawTo be honest, I would love to see an air-launched SM-2 Standard missile, but with the AMRAAM seeker (i.e. the SM-6 ERAM). I always loved the idea of using an active seeker equipped Standard, since it was effectively cleared for carriage on a number of aircraft in AGM-78 form. It could perhaps even have been an alternative to the AIM-54 Phoenix. With engagement ranges probably out beyong 100nm, it would certainly be a capable missile. Even though you couldn’t carry a booster-equipped version, air launch could still give even basic SM-2MR (non-booster equipped) missiles a 90+nm range. Since the SM-2MR launches from the ship without a booster, and yet still gets up to 90nm range, it is probably fair to expect at least 110nm?
As for AIM-120D, I do think the Meteor probably has the advantage in pure missile terms, though obviously launch platforms bestow advantages too. A Meteor with -120D seeker would be pretty unbeatable though!
EdLawI have to say, the best platform is a very subjective choice. Arguably, a bizjet with fighter radar would be best for tracking. As for actual engagement, you need good loiter time, preferably two engines, and maybe supersonic dash, so arguably an F-5 would actually be a viable choice. Maybe the Air Force should give the Navy a few of its F-5s, and get some F-16s for itself! :diablo:
EdLawYeah, that’s internally, though it was very much a theoretical if memory serves. Basically, the bay could physically hold them, but the aircraft would be too heavy then. I suspect a new built B.3 with the better Conways would have worked, and might even have given the aircraft its full capacity. The problem of course was that there simply wasn’t a perceived need for it, especially after Polaris came on the scene.
As for Skybolt, it was actually surprisingly large (more particularly, long!). It was lighter, obviosly, but even the Polaris A3 is only around 35,000lbs, i.e. the bombload of the Victor! This, in theory, would mean that the Victor could have been adapted to carry a single Polaris…
EdLawThe funny thing being that it could physically take 48 x 1000lb bombs, but not without exceeding max weight. It may have been possible to improve this situation by improving the engines – e.g. better Conways or similar. If newer Victors had been built in the ’60s, they could have been very useful.
As for weapons, how about an internally carried Polaris? :diablo:
EdLawIf memory serves, the whole thing had become a bit too complicated, due in part to a lack of money. The problem was that they decided they wanted a ‘fast jet’ to help patrol duties, and many seemed to think an upgraded L-39 was a likely choice. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, they started talking about actually buying a proper fighter, with used Flankers being suggested. This did seem rather odd, since the Mexican Air Force relies on old F-5E Tigers, so the Navy getting Flankers was certainly interesting! :diablo:
Basically, it would seem that sense has finally prevailed, and they have been forced to back away from the purchase…
EdLawSorry Jonesy, forgot Denmark in particular (and Norway to a slightly lesser extent), D’Oh! Mind you, I think their biggest targets were really the coastal types, more than Krivaks or Kirovs, hence they were happy with small(er) subsonic missile types, like the Harpoon and Penguin.
Sign In
