Cherry RipeI don’t want to sound insensitive but why is this in the Historic?? there is already a thread in the modern military.
Well to take a tangent, the Air Staff Target eventually fulfilled by the Hawk was issued in 1968, so it’s not exactly a spring chicken!
Amazing that BAE are still adding strakes and fins and other appendages to the basic design, 40-odd years later. What are they going to do when they run out of tweaks?
Cherry RipeGenuine question for pro-carrier correspondents; why is it asserted that the UK needs a carrier capability when maritime nations such as Australia, Canada and the Netherlands all surrendered such platforms at the height of the Cold War?
Particularly the example of Australia; that nation is so remote that the only way to project air power in a timely manner to any likely theatre of operation is by means of a carrier.
So, why does the UK “need” carriers but Australia can do without? Shouldn’t we be more aligned with the regional stablisation outlook of Australia than the global aspirations of the USA?
Thanks,
Andrew
Cherry RipeEr.. no… a boiler plate is a bit of metal used as a door on a boiler.
Nearly there… boilerplate is a plate of mild steel of standardised dimensions suitable for use in, logically enough, boiler repairs. It has to be cut and formed to correspond to the area requiring repairs, hence it has entered general usage as a term for something generic that can be customised to suit circumstances.
For example, a “boilerplate” legal document will have to be tailored to the specific scenario.
Cherry RipeReturn to the grass-roots
Goodness, that was a lot of words on one subject. I did read every word of every posting as this is something close to my heart.
It looks like the “air show” has come full circle now, starting from the days of titillating barn-storming and tied-aerobatics. Similarly to those days each show consists of the same familiar “acts” which tramp around the air show “circuit” each year.
I think that the future for enthusiasts will be a return to small societies organising focused micro-shows like the Bruntingthorpe runs or Old Warden. Minimal publicity, a simple agenda and no commentators. Just enthusiasts and aeroplanes. If it’d bore the kids, leave them at home.
( Though, of course, it helps if those are at least accessible to the people who are interested in attending, rather than hidden away on former prison sites. )
So to the OP: a “mass-market” event featuring some aeroplanes might well break even, but don’t expect any enthusiasts to attend or care. I haven’t been to a big show since the final Great Warbirds.
Cherry RipeNO
I’d give them all to SOCOM and Air Force CSAR and equip the Marines with UH-60 Battlehawk and CH-53K.
The standard Marine infantry squad of thirteen will not fit in a UH-60.
The UH-60 is now a sound, reliable platform but was designed to a specific Army requirement ( squad of 11 ). Even now there are problems with the increasing amount of kit carried by infantry; some units have been chastised for removing seats but that was the only way they could fit a squad in the cabin.
One cannot just take it and make it fit into another force structure.
The EC725, S-92 or EH101 would be more suitable for USMC use when viewed on the basis of capacity.
Cherry RipeBTW the lower speed of the GR4 compared to previous versions leads me to believe that it has fixed intakes? Or is it due to engine changes to get more range?
The figures for the GR.1 were published prior to the addition of the LRMTS blister; it creates buffet and the window has temperature limits.
The intake ramps were locked-out back in the GR.1 days.
IIRC each GR.4 was taken to M1.4 during pre-delivery trials. That is effectively the Vmax for the GR.1s during most of their life too.
Cherry RipeSurvability. Difficult to say. The tornado has 2 engines that can save the plane if hit by a manpad but the mirage is smaller (raw size and RCS) and much more agile.
Now for the real-world!
Tornado engines are closely-spaced and there is no fragmentation-protection armour between them. A hit on one engine may cause fratricide to the other.
The fact that the 2000 is 9g-capable isn’t particularly useful in the face of AAA and 40g SAMs. Instantaneous turn rates are markedly different but again neither would be able to out-jink a radar-laid barrage of AAA. If it’s for you it won’t go past you…
And neither aircraft will be able to perform anywhere near its design load factor when loaded as we see on these missions.
Structurally both airframes are so densely packed with equipment and fuel that I doubt any conclusions can be drawn about survivability other than “being hit is bad”.
Cherry RipeDoes anyone know where I can buy the T-Shirts that aircrew where under their flight suits?.
If they’re anything like squadron patches, they are likely to be ordered ad hoc in small batches from embroidery specialists such as Stewart Aviation.
Unfortunately I doubt that you can just buy them retail. A polite approach to the aircraft operators might produce a response though.
Cherry RipeCheaper and faster than a driving a Sub driving 1500 miles to launch 7 missiles and not do much else!!
The sub can perform the strike role as a diversion to its assigned mission and resume patrol afterwards.
Plus the crew can enjoy dinner and a pee whilst en route!
Abusing a Tornado as a cruise-missile launch platform, burning fuel at 60 kg / min, plus the cost of operating the AAR relay, to me really harks back to the 1970s RAF protestations that they could deliver global strike instead of relying on the RN carriers.
Back then they fiddled the World map to make their argument, now they put their aircrew through the equivalent of a UK-Chicago flight to score points over the RN.
Cherry RipeTornado GR4 jets flew from RAF Marham in Norfolk on strike missions against bunkers in the Sabha area of the desert in southern Libya in the early hours of the morning. The planes used Storm Shadow missiles to destroy the bunkers…
That must be one of the most inefficient cruise missile launch profiles imaginable; a 3,000 mile round-trip with regular AAR using aircraft that weren’t designed for mid-altitude cruising flight, just to launch two missiles per aircraft. Never mind the discomfort to the aircrew.
It would almost be quicker and cheaper to clear the VC-10 to carry Strom Shadows, like those 1960s Skybolt proposals! Or integrate BROACH with Tomahawk and cede the missile strike role to the RN…
Cherry RipeSo much for statement of “complete air superiority”.
Err, its the exact definition of air superiority. The opposing aircraft was unable to fulfill its mission.
Perhaps you were thinking of “air supremacy”? I don’t know if that has ever actually been achieved in practice ( against a A2A-capable opponent, that is ).
Cherry RipeIt seems the Israeli were satisfied 😉 They’re probably the only operator to use the A-Ds in the A/G role in a serious way.
They were also quite satisfied to have lobbied successfully to prevent the delivery of racks for the Saudi F-15s until the early 1990s.
The RSAF did want to use the Eagle for air-to-ground and USAF had studies had recommended the type as the most appropriate dual-role solution for the Saudis, so it wasn’t that they had deliberately ignored the capability.
Cherry RipeThe tornado F-3. Did exactly what it said on the Tin, long range interceptions of soviet bombers over the north sea, but still talked about badly.
Little wonder it is talked about in negative terms; for example, having to engage light augmentation to keep up with a Bear! That is, once it had been vectored onto the bogey by something with a radar ( unfair Blue Circle joke, sorry ).
I was always perplexed about the reasons given for not procuring the F-14 ( “Phoenix is too expensive”: then just use Sparrow ) or the F-15 ( “single-crew is not adequate for the EW environment”: then buy the F-15B ) for the mission ultimately partly-filled by the F.3. Rather shallow and inadequate excuses rather than explanations.
Cherry RipeI’m glad these brought back memories, of people and events, for some of you. I had a good rummage this morning but this seems to have been the only timetable that survived the Great Clear-Out of a few years back, when I gave most of the airline memorabilia that I had unconsciously accumulated to a “collector”.
I’m sure he got a pretty penny for all those old timetables, though I had expected him to scan them and post them online first. Bah.
Does anyone remember those fabulous BA World Timetables that were issued in the 1980s and early 1990s? I spent hours looking though those, imagining connections from Dakar to Nairobi and onwards. At the back they had cabin layouts for the entire fleet and subfleets. Cracking stuff.
Cherry RipeThis both saved money and allowed military personnel to be kept at the front so to speak.
Most of the post are essential and to remove civil servants will require their replacement by a similar workforce.
Again, all I am asking for is enumeration of the civilian agencies, their budget and what “essential” tasks they are doing.
I don’t think that the DVA is a function military people should be doing, I have no problem with it being staffed by civil servants. There is the MoD Police, again doing a pseudo-civvie job. All very commendable. But I only know of those agencies through direct contact.
My gripe is that there are another 80,000 civilian staff doing something. What, where, why and how much? And why does the MoD go to great lengths to keep this information opaque? That is what arouses my suspicion.
Sign In
