EdLawIt strikes me that the D-21 drone could have had potential, with major upgrades of course, as a sort of SR-71 replacement. With upgraded avionics and controls, it could have been put into service again, to replace it’s more expensive cousin. Though satellites were the de facto replacements for the Blackbirds role, they lacked some of it’s capabilities, especially regarding time sensitive recon. The D-21 was capable of launch from B-52 pylons, so there might have been potential for continued operations.
I know it would be expensive, and perhaps of dubious benefit, but I do feel that it could have been useful.
EdLawCorrect me if I’m wrong, but I believe that the two X-45B Pegasus, while having weapons bays, will not (like Taranis unless things have changed in a year) do any actual bombing tests with the testing focusing on the technologies, carrier landings and aerial refuelling. It has not been named something else like UAS-Carrier demonstrator because it won’t drop live bombs. It is also a UCAV (or UCAS in American terminology) demonstrator (UCAS-D).
Sort of… The X-45s were not proceeded with, the USN preferring the Northrop Grumman X-47. The X-47B has been ordered; two will be built, in order to conduct carrier testing, and basically prove that the UCAV has a place in the US Navy. If the tests are successful, it is quite probable that the X-47 could become the AQ-47 or whatever they decide to call it. The X-47B will almost certainly drop live bombs, though not in anger (since it is relatively unusual for the military to deploy an ‘experimental’ type to a combat zone).
EdLawThis is ridiculous, the statements are perfectly clear, the Taranis is both a UCAV technology demonstrator and a UCAV demonstrator. It has weapons bays already integrated, and if the demonstration programme is successful, the Taranis has the potential to become a UCAV. The same is true of the X-47B – it is a technology demonstrator, intended to ensure that a follow-on version could enter service. Lord Assap clearly has an axe to grind, and is attempting to draw a distinction where there is none. A UCAV technology demonstrator can be a UCAV demonstrator, since in many cases the two are the same thing.
The initial versions will focus on flight parameters, as all initial versions of aircraft do. It is only once all the flight characteristics have been worked out, that you can move onto weapons separation trials. Once the basic separation characteristics are worked out, you can move onto true weapons drops (as opposed to dropping dummies to ascertain the impact of change in airflow and centre of gravity).
It is quite possible that the current form of Taranis may never enter true operational service. This is not at all unusual – many types have undergone pretty major changes before a derivative enters service (e.g. the X-35, or going back a bit more, the YB-52s…). The Taranis may end up enlarged, e.g. swapping the single RR Adour engine for a dry-thrust EJ200, or switching to twin Adour engines.
None of this takes away from the fact that the Taranis is a demonstrator not only for the technology of UCAVs (as Super Nimrod rightly points out, much of that work has been done in the preceding few decades!), but for an actual UCAV. It is designed with the necessary features to allow it to turn into an operational UCAV, if the decision is taken.
EdLawSlippery Sam brings up an excellent point – the runways you expect to use! The B-47 and B-52 required pretty long takeoff runs, hence the tales of it relying on the curvature of the Earth to get off the ground!
If you want to operate from bare bases up in the North of Australia, then Vulcan might make sense. If we entertain the possibility of something smaller, then a lot of possibilities present themselves – F-105s or Mirage IVs (possibly Avon engined, alongside Avon-engined Mirage IIIs, which were tested, but not opted for). The smaller types do make sense if you are looking at a nuclear strike type first and foremost, since you don’t require much payload for the nuclear mission. If the conventional bombing role is the main requirement, then the Vulcan might make sense. The Victor might still be worth a look, especially a combined bomber-tanker, like the B.1A, which was a two-point tanker, but retained full bombing capability.
I would also aim to beef up recon capability – e.g. rebuild (or order new) some of the Canberras to high-altitude recon aircraft. Essentially, they would become equivalent to the RB-57F, perhaps re-engined with the Olympus (the Olympus was tested on the Canberra, and improved performance a lot). Even a single squadron of these would boost Australia’s recon capability massively.
EdLawSlippery Sam brings up an excellent point – the runways you expect to use! The B-47 and B-52 required pretty long takeoff runs, hence the tales of it relying on the curvature of the Earth to get off the ground!
If you want to operate from bare bases up in the North of Australia, then Vulcan might make sense. If we entertain the possibility of something smaller, then a lot of possibilities present themselves – F-105s or Mirage IVs (possibly Avon engined, alongside Avon-engined Mirage IIIs, which were tested, but not opted for). The smaller types do make sense if you are looking at a nuclear strike type first and foremost, since you don’t require much payload for the nuclear mission. If the conventional bombing role is the main requirement, then the Vulcan might make sense. The Victor might still be worth a look, especially a combined bomber-tanker, like the B.1A, which was a two-point tanker, but retained full bombing capability.
I would also aim to beef up recon capability – e.g. rebuild (or order new) some of the Canberras to high-altitude recon aircraft. Essentially, they would become equivalent to the RB-57F, perhaps re-engined with the Olympus (the Olympus was tested on the Canberra, and improved performance a lot). Even a single squadron of these would boost Australia’s recon capability massively.
EdLawI would generally favour the Vulcan over the B-47, though the Americans might make a better offer. One issue is the envisaged role – if your main aim is to have conventional bombers, for use against Indonesia (Konfrontasi…), then either may be an option, but the Vulcan probably has an edge on survivability.
I would certainly stress the need for proper support, so there are more issues to consider; especially the need for air to air refuelling. The Vulcan or Victor both ended up acting as tankers as needed; whereas the B-47 option probably requires a proper tanker, e.g. KC-135.
If the Americans make a good offer, e.g. buying one squadron of early model B-52s ((B-52Ds hopefully), and getting a squadron of KC-135s included in the deal. Even one squadron of B-52s or Vulcans would be a pretty big statement. If the Aussies had turned to American supply earlier, then it presents a number of possibilities, outside of the bomber issue.
EdLawI would generally favour the Vulcan over the B-47, though the Americans might make a better offer. One issue is the envisaged role – if your main aim is to have conventional bombers, for use against Indonesia (Konfrontasi…), then either may be an option, but the Vulcan probably has an edge on survivability.
I would certainly stress the need for proper support, so there are more issues to consider; especially the need for air to air refuelling. The Vulcan or Victor both ended up acting as tankers as needed; whereas the B-47 option probably requires a proper tanker, e.g. KC-135.
If the Americans make a good offer, e.g. buying one squadron of early model B-52s ((B-52Ds hopefully), and getting a squadron of KC-135s included in the deal. Even one squadron of B-52s or Vulcans would be a pretty big statement. If the Aussies had turned to American supply earlier, then it presents a number of possibilities, outside of the bomber issue.
EdLawNot so sure about the idea of taking on the USS FDR, partly due to the problems experienced by the USN with the ships of the Midway class. I would argue that the main window of opportunity for continuing CTOL ops in the RN was the late fifties. In that time, the RN had the benefit of having Mountbatten on side, and though money was short, there was still potential for renewal.
The problem, as usual for that period, was the insistence for bleeding-edge technology. A prime example of this can be seen in the RAF’s programmes (no, I’m not picking on the RAF, just using them as an example). The VTOL projects, such as the P1154 and AW/HS.681, and of course the TSR-2 are the best examples. These expensive bleeding edge technologies cost a lot more than less ambitious, but arguably more practical, alternatives. In place of the P1154, a conventional twin seat, twin engined, carrier capable alternative could have been ordered, and had more chance of succeeding. Instead of the HS.681, a conventional STOL type could have been successful; a four Spey/Medway engined transport, with, say, a thirty ton payload could have been ordered.
Basically, my argument is that, by aiming a little lower, things might have worked out quite differently. For the RN, a rearranged equivalent of the Clemenceau, or even a newbuild based on the rough design of Victorious, might have been the best bet. Two or three modestly sized carriers ordered in the fifties might have allowed a continuation of carrier ops. Two (or even three) medium fleet carriers, plus two (or three) commando carriers of the Centaur class would have maintained the RN’s strike power, without pushing too far. Of course, the same can be said for the RAF, aiming a little lower might have helped it maintain force structure, and even helped exports.
EdLawOn another note I was never happy with the chosen CVF names felt like a political choice to me. Queen Elizabeth II and Prince of Wales? We have far better historical carrier names. I would of preferred the first of class being called Hermes and the second in class Ark Royal to ensure the name is kept in the fleet in time for the current Arks out of service with any Ocean replacement being called either Eagle or Invincible again to keep that name in the fleet.
The problem is that it is part of the naming convention – the first major capital ship ordered during the Queen/King’s reign is named after them. Hence ships such as HMS King George V… Since carriers are the modern equivalents of battleships, there was little choice in naming. Also note that the same held true for the CVA-01, planned to be called HMS Q.E. and HMS Duke of Edinburgh…
EdLawI was not aware that you are a moderator?:rolleyes:
I have never implied I am a moderator, but the fact remains that your posts on this thread have been quite hostile. You can roll your eyes as much as you like, but you do not have a right to make rude comments about other posters. If you disagree, that is your right, but this forum is intended for friendly discussion, and your replies are very far from friendly.
EdLawSealord: Calm down, your replies to OWR et al have been quite inappropriate, and should cease.
OWR: The option of an Essex has merit, though personally I doubt the switch to an Essex would be the best option. As you rightly say, buying Hermes would have been a more likely option. Aircraft-wise, I would say that the Skyhawk makes sense, regardless of which carrier is chosen. It had a pretty good payload, and especially in the better J52 engined versions, reasonable capability. Hermes, in CTOL form, should have been plenty big enough to embark a good sized airwing, including proper complements of Skyhawks, Trackers, Wessex/Sea Kings etc…
EdLawOn the issue of the Absalon, however, I do agree, the Danes have done a heck of a job, producing ships that pack a lot of punch, yet at a reasonable price. On the issue of their usefullness in the Baltic, it is worth bearing in mind that the main focus of the Danish Navy in future may well be very far from the Baltic… The potential hotspot of sorts may well be Greenland, and the ‘North-West passage’, plus the associated islands nearby. Denmark needs the ability to send a ship up there, loaded with some troops and vehicles, supported by some helos; by using an Absalon in place of a traditional icebreaker (or ice-rated ship anyway), you can keep them relatively safe.
As for the F125, I’m not so keen; they appear to be little more than a large coast guard ship, yet at a much higher price. A modest size amphib might have been a better bet, or even just a licence-built Absalon?
EdLawYeah those VLS cells, really inflexible only being able to carry ASTER-15, ASTER-30, VL-MICA, VT-1, Scalp, damn really inflexible.
Of course it is late, it is a bespoke solution. but the slashing of the order has as much to do with the shift in defence priorities as it does with cost overruns. As an example of a modern design the type is very near the zenith. The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate the point of striking the right balance between technological advancement and cost and the T45 does that.
Sorry Sealord, I have to disagree. The Sylver models, with the exception of only the (not in service) A70, cannot carry anything other than SAMs. The range of weapons available is limited, and, frankly, with regards to the Aster 15, a bit daft! Because of the way it was designed, the Aster 15 takes up the same space as the -30 version; same sort of range (actually a tad shorter if anything) as the ESSM. A slimline booster would have made life so much easier! The VL-MICA and VT-1 options aren’t proving all that popular; they will likely sell, but there is unlikely to be much crossover – large ships will only carry Aster, and small ships will only carry MICA/VT-1.
In comparison (I know, we’ve all discussed this matter ad nauseam), the Mk41 offers a lot more scope. The basic version of the Mk41, the tac-length version, you get such options as SM-2MR, VL-ASROC and ESSM, and potentially Harpoon (it seems to have been designed, but frankly, nobody really needs it yet, since most current types stick with the angled launchers). The strike length version offers all of the above options, plus SM-2ER, SM-3, SM-6 (ERAM) and Tomahawk, plus anything else anyone adds.
My suspicion is that the UK would have been better opting for it’s own equivalent of the APAR-equipped De Zeven Provincien. In place of Aster 15/30, we could have seen the UK pushing forward active-seeker versions of the SM-2 (basically SM-6 ERAM) and ESSM. That way, the UK gets relatively straightforward access to an existing range of weapons, including short/medium/long-range SAMs, SSMs and even an ABM. As it is, we will probably never see the much mooted Aster 45, or even proper ABM capabilities for the Aster 30.
EdLawPerhaps a better option would have been a new-built A-4 Skyhawk, built from scratch to the more advanced A-4SU Super Skyhawk specs. With the non-afterburning F404 engine, and either APG-65 or APG-66 (a la A-4KU Kiwi Kahus) radar, it would have been an excellent aircraft. With the robust airframe of the A-4, but with modern engine and avionics, it could have had some success on the export market. It might have been possible to add wingtip rails for Sidewinder, to free up the wings for air-to-ground weapons.
EdLawI like the AMX. I think it’s a underestimated aircraft, I simply have two complains/questions aboout it:
-I have often heard that the Spey engine had been the source of many troubles, would a remplacement by a more modern engine (like the SNECMA M-88) be an advantage ? And would this operation be possible ?
-I believe that, had the AMX been supersonic-capable it would have been a neat successor for the F-5 Tiger II or other “light fighters” (Mig-21…) Am I right or wrong to assume that ?
On the first of your points, I seem to remember that there was a proposal to switch to using a modified EJ200 turbofan, in place of the Spey. This was, presumably, due to the Italians operating Typhoons, therefore a common engine would help keep the AMX viable.
There were actually a number of proposals for AMX upgrades, but to me, the most interesting was an Italian proposal/project to produce a SEAD-optimised AMX, a la EA-6B Prowler. It was to carry either a semi-conformal pod on the centreline plus wingtip pods, or carry a podded system on the wings. The conformal option seemed to be the most sensible, since it left the four wing hardpoints clear. This should have allowed it to carry a pair of AGM-88s or similar, or possibly, with the benefit of a twin-missile rail, a pair of smaller anti-radar missiles, plus a pair of self defence AIM-9s or similar. I seem to remember that the aim was to maintain the AMX for jamming and close support, with the Tornados for strike, and Typhoons for air cover. Not a bad mix, though I suspect they realised the limited range of the AMX might have been a problem…
As for the light fighter role, it would likely have been too dangerous to push for a lightweight fighter, when you’re already trying to push for the Typhoon! Since the Typhoon was, fundamentally, meant to be an F-104S replacement, a lightweight fighter might have killed the Italian Typhoon purchase!
Sign In
