I’m sure the RAF are very defensive of the GR4’s capabilities. The simple fact is though that the operations you list saw Mirages, Jaguars, F-18’s, F-16’s etc deployed that contributed fully despite not being possessed of GR4’s range. The Tornado was conceived for a purpose and has on occasion proven useful for its weapon carry and range, but, often enough to require a manned replacement?. Nope. Going forward pursuing manned deep strike is begging for obsolescence.
As you say above a shorter ranged light striker can have its range extended by AAR or, if STOL, by the simple expedient of basing closer to the operational theatre. You cant take such steps to mitigate the costs of a big twin and if the runway is too short to deploy heavy fastjets to then you are faced with extending it or finding somewhere else to fly from…however much time that plugs into your localise-to-hit operational cycle.
…and its the last point thats key. Afghan and Libya have proved that a ready-responder capability is essential to exploit theatre surveillance as it can be provided now. However impressive the range of your heavy twin interdictor there is always the issue that, bombed-up, you are subsonic and, if you need to use the long range, you are looking at an hour lag in weapon delivery. A long-legged jet can loiter, but, only in a permissive environment and at the cost of airframe flight hours, weapon carriage hours and increased maintenance to regenerate. Fleets are smaller now so there isnt the same ability to spread airframe wear fleet wide…likewise pgm stocks are smaller so burning through airframe carry lives uselessly tooling round on cab-rank waiting for a tasking call is less than efficient.
Again citing Libya French Rafale-M’s were 200nm offshore and delivering effects 20 minutes from the launch – the advantage there is obvious. The closer the ability to base the better – enabling that and the faster response time is now more useful than raw range performance.
Jonesy
An USAF F-16 Block 50/52 or a US Navy F-18 ladden with external fuel has the range of the Tornado, an Harrier or Jaguar doesnt. A classical Hornet carries the same amount of internal fuel that does a Tornado while weighting two tons less.
Today´s F-16 is an aircraft weighting from 8,5 ton to 10 ton clean, a Jaguar or a Gripen weights 7 ton´s, a Jump Jet GR9 weights 5,7 ton.
You can substitute a Tornado with a RAFALE, a Block 60 Viper, a JSF, a Super Hornet or a Typhoon, you cant do it with a “light” VSTOL fighter (Gripen?).
And AAR is fine and dandy, unless you have to fly the refuelers over contested airspace.
When i said that the Harriers (or Jaguars) had to tag along refuelers over Yugoslavia and Iraq it was literaly so, the refuelers were flying over enemy airspace. If there werent F-15´s, Tornados F3, Tornados GR4, F117, Strike Eagles, Vipers,Hornets to clear the way, the Harriers and jag´s would be flying to the edges of the combat zone, because the Refuelers couldnt follow.
Quite contrary to your belief, far from being obsolescent, subsonic range and ATG capability are all the rage now, every single combat aircraft on the market (with the exception of the Gripen and the FC17) have an equivalent range to the Tornado GR4. Subsonic ATG (backed up by eight tons of internal fuel) is the primary mission of Dave A, the aircraft that is suposed to be the “future of Western Air power”.
Yes a light multi role aircraft could be a good adition for the RAF, IF the Tonka mission was carried by another platform (the Typhoon with bigger external fuel tanks, JCA or both), and dont get it wrong, long range air strike, was, is, and will be essential in any armed conflict.
And if your answer is “unmanned”, well, lovely idea and concept, on theory i would agree completely, now were are the extra 15+ billion pounds to develop and acquire 150 platform´s (never mind the satelite network)?
Sign In
