MadRat asked

Which version of Tornado?

Reasonable question. IDS would be my answer. Firstly coz none of the other versions would fit the timeframe (the F2 might squeak into early 80s but it’s now an open secret that it didn’t actually work). Secondly, if I have the mighty F15 for Air Superiority then that role is covered.

During this timeframe low level all weather is where it’s at for ground attack. I know that experience in the Gulf put this doctrine into question, but I’m not convinced that medium level with ECM would have been any use over the Fulda Gap.

Eventually I’d like a DEAD and SEAD capability. In this theoretical case I’ll take whichever comes first Wild Weasel F15 or ECR Tornado (coz you see with my extra F15s it suddenly becomes financially viable to do a Wild Weasel F15 which it wasn’t with the tiny orders from USAF, JASDF and IAF)

PhantomII said

After all these years, I still have the uncanny ability to kill a thread by asking a question……….

I thought that was only me who could do that.

My Gran always said take everything as a complement: so just assume that you have issued a rebuttal so devastating and intellectually sound that there can be no response, or a question so penetrating that nobody has the information to hand with which to reply.

St John

Clean, there would be a few fighter in with a shot, but the F-111 could carry two 2,000lb bombs internally and a shed load of fuel.

F111s internal fuel fraction is outstanding. Similar to Su27. Both sets of designers made what I think is the correct call. Hold the fuel internally in a larger airframe and avoid the need for big, draggy wetbags. I know that hydrodynamics (including aerodynamics) is a complicated discipline with many contributing factors but it must be true to state that (a fraction) of the extra fuel in droptanks is burnt overcoming the drag of the drop tank, and it just is not possible to streamline a wetbag and its interactions with pylon, wing and fueslage as efficiently as the whole airframe can be finessed.

I don’t think that the F111 carried 2000lb bombs internally, but happy to be corrected.

Sintra said

That plan looks suspiciously close to the likes of what the Americans were doing in “Torch”, not too dissimilar to what the South Vietnamese did in the last year of fighting, the Poles in 39 and a few other examples in wich airpower was subordinated to land commanders, all of the examples that i am aware ended in shambles.

Even a cursory look at those three is interesting. And I definitely need to read more widely and deeply before I respond properly.

My kneejerk response is that the USMC, Operation Corporate (Light Blue and small) and tactical WWII all seemed to work well (but like I say kneejerk not considered)

roberto asks

What about this…?

If I had to choose one fighter for my naval air arm in the sixties.

Absolutely.

Spey-engined (obviously)
Two-seater
CW illuminator in the pointy end of a drop tank to allow for Sparrow (and then Skyflash)

1) What a beautiful looking plane
2) Clearly this will not happen
3) If it did Australia would be foolish not to join
4) But it will not happen
5) But it does look lovely
6) If re-design could be kept to ways to make it lighter, more efficient and cheaper to make rather than just adding more toys
7) It still won’t happen

Perfectly sensible. And exactly what I suggested previously.

Sir Sidney Cam’s famous four dimension of an aircraft.

Sadly the actual plane which fits Canadian requirements perfectly does not exist, and all of the ‘least worst’ fits all come with unpalatable political baggage. This buys time as well as airframes.