arter

Rafale – great aircraft
– but “too French” including weapons integrated
– but could UK integrate further weapons?

F/A-18 – great aircraft
– comprehensive range of weapons already integrated
– but long in the tooth
– but could UK integrate further weapons?

Using those arguments, is the Rafale not longer in the tooth than Super Hornet?

RE: Hot_Charlie – I understood form what I have read and been told that the STOL issue was more about the ease of moving between carrier ops and land based ops, I admit I emphasised the austere airfield issue as if you believe that the future is mostly going to be counter-insurgency operations against lightly armed irregular forces in countries lacking vital infrastructure then the ability to operate from austere airfields seems like a good idea.

If you mean austere as in a lack of facilities, then one could say a purely conventional aircraft is a better bet than an overcomplicated 5th generation fighter with both an engine and a lift fan. As long as you have a runway, which aren’t in short supply anymore, then I don’t think it really matters.

STOL was a nicety 40 years ago, but now, apart from the ability to use small, not cat equipped carriers, it’s a bit of a non requirement.

Have you ever seen a fulyl loaded A340-300 take-off. It takes ages.

This is also true of just about every other big airliner in that size and weight class though. Think of if this way. If you want shorter field performance, then simply reduce the amount of gas onboard, and you probably have equal if not better take-off performance with the A340. You still have a lot of fuel onboard and if need be, you can go back and fully load the airplane when you can operate out of a larger runway and thus have even more gas to give than an A330-based tanker would allow. My thoughts anyways…

I think the argument is that given any runway, you will get better performance from a twin versus a four jet due to the necessary engine-out performance requirements.

I can’t help but wonder if the RAF wouldn’t be better served by going with an A340 derivative were it on offer (it’s not so I suppose it’s a moot point).

Why pay for the servicing and upkeep of “56” engines, when the job can be done just as well with “28”.

but none the less good enough for on scene comms and coordination. Just use these and only deploy large a/c on large ops.

Aye, I was more pointing at a potential lack of range (seeing as C130J SAROPS can potentially also be supported by AAR) and loiter ability.:)

Considering you have pretty much assured access to US and NATO tanker assets, why not?

Pretty much maybe in theatre, but in no way assured out of theatre and protecting our own sovereign territory (ie, Falklands – and anyone who says we can manage without an AAR asset there need only look at last month’s press to see what an error that could be). As the majority of the cost of the VC10 has been paid up to the OSD (last majors done on the airframes etc), there’d be little gain from retiring it before it planned OSD, which is only 3 years away.:)

In recent wars, RAF tankers have been used by the USN & USMC, because of the US shortage of hose-equipped tankers.

Yep. We’re far more used to operating them too.

The idiotic fool who made this stupid decision, should be sacked.

Sadly there are a lot of these idiotic fools around who will give benefits to those of questionable merit/society’s spongers (of whom, regrettably, there will always be some), yet find it beyond there means to give things such as disability benefit and disabled car passes to those who genuinely need them.

Double the Falklands flight with four Tornado bombers

Surely that would only serve to aggravate further relations between the UK and Argentina (and her sympathetic South American neighbours), and would be an unnecessary further expense.

immediate definate bins
-Puma, 32 sqn, Hercules K, VC10s

With the Tristar being maxed out supporting the air bridge to the ‘Stan, would you really want to lose our only AAR capability (which is currently far more valuable than would seem at face value), seeing as it’s active in theatre and the only realistic way we have of deploying fast jet assets overseas?