Another attack from the PC brigade?

[Rich_P]

Oh deary me (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=460054&in_page_id=1770), it looks like MOD officials are interested more in the slight chance of upsetting someone rather than moral and other far more important details... :(

[theoldtrout]

Good grief, what is the matter with these people. It's ART for goodness sake!
Offensive to me - no! If women in the RAF are upset by these images then how are they going to feel when the enemy starts shooting at them?

Angela

[justMike]

nose art might cause offence... but dropping free fall 2000kg bombs is fine..???

somethin wrong with that picture...????

[scruffytruck]

nose art might cause offence... but dropping free fall 2000kg bombs is fine..???

somethin wrong with that picture...????

i kinda wondered that when i heard this on the radio tonight.....

won't be long 'til we start writing on the bombs themselves "caution this bomb may cause injury if you are near it when it explodes"

[Rich_P]

won't be long 'til we start writing on the bombs themselves "caution this bomb may cause injury if you are near it when it explodes"

When we already have "Warning, this product contains/may contain nuts." when the product is actually a packet of nuts, it would come as no surprise!

[Roger Whittle]

Heaven forfend that milliseconds before Taliban screwballs are cut to bloody tatters by a cluster bomb, we are careless enough to insult their Muslim sensibilities with salacious nose art on the aeroplane that killed them. :eek: I wouldn't want that on my conscience. :o


Henceforth, all armour piercing ordnance will have polythene bubble wrap around it, so it won't hurt so much and all air dropped weapons will be clearly marked with an apology in English and Farsi. :rolleyes:


Roger.

[Mud-Bud]

As the Taliban can so obvious see the noseart of whatever is screaming past them as they are bombed to bu66ery?

There weren't any issues from Muslim people during the second world war, and this is such a deep-routed tradition:(

[Deliverer]

Heaven forfend that milliseconds before Taliban screwballs are cut to bloody tatters by a cluster bomb, we are careless enough to insult their Muslim sensibilities with salacious nose art on the aeroplane that killed them. :eek: I wouldn't want that on my conscience. :o

is it not our serving women and islamic men and women in uniform they are on about which is probably fair enough.

[Dave Sumner]

That's the sort of sanctinoniious crap we get in MOD these days ( I work for them)

We have all had to do equality and diversity training-waste of money IMHO.

Note the the article said-none of the RAF servicewomen have objected. So who cares? I expect the taliban will complain!!! (Sod em!)

Perhaps we should start an anti-PC movement.:eek:

I am sure this will do wonders for the morale of our overstretched servive personnel trying to keep old aircraft flying.

I hope they have put a health and safety warning on the bombs in arabic-"warning this bomb can really ruin your day!":D

[Mud-Bud]

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=278870

[Backs4more]

won't be long 'til we start writing on the bombs themselves "caution this bomb may cause injury if you are near it when it explodes"

To late, some already do!!!! certainly American ordanance carries this warning! :rolleyes:

[Backs4more]

I served alongside females, muslims and a Sikh..and they all gave as good as they got and were all part of the team. Infact, if any one wanted a "Jazz Mag" it was one of the Muslim chaps you went to see...he could get anything!..lol

The nose art is exactly that..ART! A cartoon characterisation of a woman...big deal...you see worse in Immac adverst on the side of a bus!!!

[Satancom]

Pitiful!

[MrsDave]

It's just stupid... Do they really not have anything more important to worry about?

[Mud-Bud]

No, as they seem to have sidestepped issues of equipment funding etc, and decided to spend loads of money on some crappy new corporate logo, which has now been plastered on the sides of VC-10s and tri-Stars, and soon to be on all multi-engine. They are getting rid of the painters as well, contracting out aircraft spraying instead. Sad times:(

[Rich_P]

The joys of the Lean-Effect. :rolleyes:

It's so nice to know that in the report they were going on about Muslim locals. Does that mean that anybody who isn't even on the airbase can be 'offended' by such things that they can't even see? :banghead2

From what I know, it looks like those in the RAF are getting shafted hugely in comparison to what USAF personal get.

It's taking a very long time for the Nimrod MRA4 to enter service too, possibly too long considering how the ground crew are doing what they can to keep the existing Nimrod fleet operational. Unfortunately without the spares and parts, they can't keep the fleet flying as they're having to rob half the fleet to keep the other half flying.

[baldy1926]

its not just the nimrods,all the fleet have a spares shortage-most of our stuff is so old its not that easy getting spares.also no reserve stocks are kept to save money.i remember going to lynham years ago and seeing all the hercs lined up then you looked close they were all missing bits.the nose art is an important tradition and should be kept and should not be down to some mod clerk who proberly has no idea about the real world

[Snagger]

It's a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the fact that the government is killing it's own servicemen by providing faulty or obsolete equipment, or none at all.

If I were a female RAF pilot going to war in a Tornado adourned with that sort of nose art, I'd be upset too. The Tornado is NATO's biggest radar reflector, with a radar signature larger than a B747. It also has the world's longest afterburner flame, making it one of the biggest IR targets too. It has no endurance, payload or maneouverability, and is incapable of climbing above the SAM threat altitude with a weapon load. The nose art is the only redeeming feature of an otherwise attrocious combat aircraft.

[Rich_P]

It's a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the fact that the government is killing it's own servicemen by providing faulty or obsolete equipment, or none at all.
I'm not sure how that can be. If anything, it appears to be drawing attention to the forces and bringing up questions as to why the MOD is spending their time about trivial matters like this.


If I were a female RAF pilot going to war in a Tornado adourned with that sort of nose art, I'd be upset too.
So you would be the only one to file a complaint? :D There's no mention of any complaints taking place.


It also has the world's longest afterburner flame, making it one of the biggest IR targets too.

Is that with the Rolls-Royce RB199 Mk104?

[Snagger]

So you would be the only one to file a complaint? :D There's no mention of any complaints taking place.
Re-read my post, Rich.:banghead2

[Rich_P]

So you would be upset but not make a complaint...

Do you think this is a good move by the MOD then?

[Snagger]

So you would be upset but not make a complaint...

Do you think this is a good move by the MOD then?No, Rich - I'd be upset at flying such a heap of sh1t as a Tornado in a combat theatre, not the nose art.:banghead:

[PORK_PIE]

Perhaps we should start an anti-PC movement.:eek:



perhaps one of the most common sense,widely thought of things i have heard for a long time:D every body seems to think it, why does it not happen???

[Snagger]

Is that with the Rolls-Royce RB199 Mk104?
The nose art pictured is on GR4s (the paint and IR/LRMTS pods being the giveaways, plus the fact that an F3 is not likely to have so many bombing mission counters). 103s are on the GR1/GR4, 104s are on the F3. The main difference is the length of the afterburner pipe. Take a look at the exhaust position relative to the fin and elevons on both aircraft types.

I was refering to the length of the flame, not the metalwork.

[Rich_P]

I too was referring to the flame. The reason why I asked is that the Luftwaffe ECR Tornados had the RB199 Mk.105 that allegedly had a greater output of thrust over the other engine variants. I do not know what the effect this would of had on the afterburner length.

[Snagger]

I too was referring to the flame. The reason why I asked is that the Luftwaffe ECR Tornados had the RB199 Mk.105 that allegedly had a greater output of thrust over the other engine variants. I do not know what the effect this would of had on the afterburner length.
The 105 has single crystal rotors in the main engine, allowing higher temperatures, rpm and airflow, increasing the dry thrust of the engine. I think the afterburner and nozzle is the same as the 103. There was talk of upgrading the RAF fleet during the early stages of Granby. I know a lot of mods were made, most of which came staright back off when they returned, but I can't remember if the engines were done - it was certainly proposed.

[justMike]

The Tornado is NATO's biggest radar reflector, with a radar signature larger than a B747. It also has the world's longest afterburner flame, making it one of the biggest IR targets too. It has no endurance, payload or maneouverability, and is incapable of climbing above the SAM threat altitude with a weapon load. The nose art is the only redeeming feature of an otherwise attrocious combat aircraft.

I'm no ex-spurt in aviation.. but from my understandaing of how RADAR works, the maximum size of signature that any "target" can reflect is directly proportional to its physical size and amount of reflective surfaces. For an F3 to have a bigger signature than a 747 it'd need to have a ton of electronic signature enhancements.

It's IR signature is of no consequence... typically the afterburners are only used during take off or during escape / evasion... the cascade of magnesium flares being deployed paint a far more attractive IR fingerprint than anything that a gas turbine can generate.

As for endurence... they;re in-flight refuel capable giving them all the necessary endurance they need... the limiting factor being the amount of engine lubricant they can carry... It has a 9000 KG weapons payload; more than the combined bombload of 2 B-17's. Advances in precision weapon guidance systems means that you don't NEED to have B-52 capacities to achieve the same end.

As for flying above the effective ceiling of a SAM defence network... such policies were abandoned by the RAF in the 50's... penetrating hostile airspace being achieved by flying beneath RADAR ever since... F-3's typically do that at around 50ft above the deck. Try doing that without impressive manuverability.

I seriously doubt the Saudi's would have placed orders for F-3's rather than anything that the murricans have to offer if the F-3 didn't have some serious advantages over the F-15, F-16 and F-18. If you can find one, try asking F-117 and B-2 pilots about the capabilities of the F-3's Foxhunter RADAR...

[theoldtrout]

Perhaps we should start an anti-PC movement.:eek:
:D

Have a look here http://www.capc.co.uk/

Angela

[TEMPL4R]

There was also concern that they could cause offence in a muslim country


So, the MOD aren't worried about dropping bombs on the Muslims which would most likely offend them, just about a few pictures they won't see as the plane flies X thousand feet above them and kills all their family..

I think I'm missing something....

Chris

[nobber]

fair play i say , its sexist male bollox and should be removed from planes.
how come , if women pilot these planes also , there are no naked men with big organs painted on them?
as for muslims , i doubt it would offend any of them. this is just another media attack on muslims designed to bring forth hatred towords them simply to sell news papers.
'bloomin muslims , they will be wanting the moon switched off after bed time next' etc etc etc. no where in that report does it actually say anything spacific about any muslim people being offended.

'There was also concern that they could cause offence in a muslim country where until 2001 all women were forced to wear the head-to-toe burkha in public'

i dont see this as being a problem with muslims , i see this as being a problem with the press and the reporters who have nothing better to do.

who are the p.c brigade anyways?

[Rich_P]

fair play i say , its sexist male bollox and should be removed from planes.
Sexist? Okay then. Shall we stop referring to vehicles as "She", shall we no longer call ships as "She"? Because that's why we had those pinups on the aircraft, it was imagery that was supposed to represent the aircraft... at least that is how I view it.


how come , if women pilot these planes also , there are no naked men with big organs painted on them?
Because it was a tradition set by men. Furthermore, you don't exactly refer to vehicles as "he" either.

[Roger Whittle]

There was an item in the newspaper today that said we were not to refer to any number of young men in hoodies, behaving badly and intimidating others as; 'A gang' as it might offend them. Something to do with lowering their already low self esteem. :eek:

I resign - have I said that today? :(

Roger.

[Cannonball Bob]

how come , if women pilot these planes also , there are no naked men with big organs painted on them?

Because this would never fit on the side of an F3....

[Rich_P]

There was an item in the newspaper today that said we were not to refer to any number of young men in hoodies, behaving badly and intimidating others as; 'A gang' as it might offend them.

Bloody right it should offend them, because they're scum. "Gang" is too good for them. ;)

[nobber]

Sexist? Okay then. Shall we stop referring to vehicles as "She", shall we no longer call ships as "She"? Because that's why we had those pinups on the aircraft, it was imagery that was supposed to represent the aircraft... at least that is how I view it.

Because it was a tradition set by men. Furthermore, you don't exactly refer to vehicles as "he" either.

of course its sexist Rich, its esxist because you dont see any big titted men dressed as tarts painted on the side of planes.



Because this would never fit on the side of an F3....
i dont like to brag but nor would my organ Bob.:)

[Rich_P]

of course its sexist Rich, its esxist because you dont see any big titted men dressed as tarts painted on the side of planes.

Do you want us to stop calling the vehicles as "She" too? :rolleyes:

[Cannonball Bob]

So does that mean the classic Snoopy Airways is "catist" based on the premise there are no similar pictures based on, dare I say it....pussies?

[Snagger]

I'm no ex-spurt in aviation.. but from my understandaing of how RADAR works, the maximum size of signature that any "target" can reflect is directly proportional to its physical size and amount of reflective surfaces. For an F3 to have a bigger signature than a 747 it'd need to have a ton of electronic signature enhancements.

It's IR signature is of no consequence... typically the afterburners are only used during take off or during escape / evasion... the cascade of magnesium flares being deployed paint a far more attractive IR fingerprint than anything that a gas turbine can generate.

As for endurence... they;re in-flight refuel capable giving them all the necessary endurance they need... the limiting factor being the amount of engine lubricant they can carry... It has a 9000 KG weapons payload; more than the combined bombload of 2 B-17's. Advances in precision weapon guidance systems means that you don't NEED to have B-52 capacities to achieve the same end.

As for flying above the effective ceiling of a SAM defence network... such policies were abandoned by the RAF in the 50's... penetrating hostile airspace being achieved by flying beneath RADAR ever since... F-3's typically do that at around 50ft above the deck. Try doing that without impressive manuverability.

I seriously doubt the Saudi's would have placed orders for F-3's rather than anything that the murricans have to offer if the F-3 didn't have some serious advantages over the F-15, F-16 and F-18. If you can find one, try asking F-117 and B-2 pilots about the capabilities of the F-3's Foxhunter RADAR...

The physical size of the target has little bearing on radar reflectivity. It's the shape and materials that matter. Every angle on a Tornado 90o, so it sends a full strength radar reflection straight back to the transmitter, whatever it's relative bearing or elevation. It's the very opposite of stealth aircraft with blended curves or multi faceted airframes. A B747 has few 90o angles, so has a smaller radar signature. This is confifmed by an ex E3D Fighter Contoller instructor friend of mine, who used to solidly track Tornados at 400 miles at low level.


The TRornado is so underpowered and has such a small wing area that any significant maneouver at high altitude will need the use of the burners, making it a great IR threat. Furthermore, having such a big visual and IR signature in a fight is not a good thing. Modern IR missiles can distinguish between flares and aircraft easily.

Relying on AAR to extend the range of an aircraft is poor thinking. It ties up valuable assets, and puts the tanker on the edge of or into the FEBA - a massive risk that I'd not be at all keen on as a tanker pilot. Further, since the RAF has retired its VC10K tankers, and is about to do the same with the Tristars, their plan for future AAR is to have a contract with a civilian company flying Airbus tankers. This company is French, and so will be able and likely to curtail any RAF combat deployment by refusing to tank the aeroplanes.


Flying at medium altitude is the new doctrine. Low level penetration was the old Cold War tactic, and was eventually abandoned half way through the first Gulf War when more losses were experience through flying into the terrain than through enemy fire. This was after a huge amount of pleading by the crews and local commanders to an inflexible and bull headed MoD. This is because radio altimeters and terrain following radar (that emit detectable signals, further enhancing the Tornado's electronic signature) don't work properly on sand, snow or smooth water, leading to erroneous indications (over-reading) or system drop-outs.

Flying at low altitude requires a small amount of agility, but not the sort required of a fighter. The F3 was meant to be a interceptor, but has been deployed as a fighter/interceptor, which caused premature fatitigue index consumption on the wing spars and centre box, requiring a reinforcement package. I was at St Athan when Airworks screwed up the fitting of these kits, requiring the wings and centre boxes to be replaced with those of 18 od the F2s in storage, rendering them scrap. The 18 F3s were off the line for a long time while they were completely rebuilt.

As for why the Saudis bought Tornados instead of F15s and F16s - well, they have more of those than they do Tornados, and you haven't been keeping abreast of current affairs, have you?;)

[justMike]

This is confifmed by an ex E3D Fighter Contoller instructor friend of mine, who used to solidly track Tornados at 400 miles at low level.



given that being able to track all aircraft in theatre is a minimal requirement for such an exensive asset used exclusivly for theatre situational awareness, a 400 mile tracking range is hardly something to boast about from a dedicated digital "look down" radar.



The TRornado is so underpowered and has such a small wing area that any significant maneouver at high altitude will need the use of the burners, making it a great IR threat. Furthermore, having such a big visual and IR signature in a fight is not a good thing. Modern IR missiles can distinguish between flares and aircraft easily.


If, as yhou say, the Tornado is so under-powered, it's co-efficient of drag must be a sight to see given its Mach 2.34 capability. Last I heard it took a serious amount of welly to get to Mach 2, much less pass it. As for the small wing, Tornado's "job description" by defination meant that compromises had to be made. Ultra high altitude requires both a huge lifting area and a serious amount of thrust, hense the F-3's comparable servise ceiling with its peers. Given that it's ability to haul ordinance puts both the F-15 and F-16 to shame, it's understandable if that comes at a modest trade off in performance.



Relying on AAR to extend the range of an aircraft is poor thinking. It ties up valuable assets, and puts the tanker on the edge of or into the FEBA - a massive risk that I'd not be at all keen on as a tanker pilot.


Every long range strike involves compromises... no exceptions... going back to the days when aircraft had the ability to strike a target and return without refueling would involve going back to aircraft on the scale of the Victor and Vulcan... bigger airframe needs bigger engines with a larger RADAR and IR fingerprint... which is better?? Modern strike aircraft have evolved to their current form through a long process of trial and error. Nobody is saying the current generation is perfect, but at the same time, only a fool would claim that the current generation has capabilities that previous generations could only dream about or read in science fiction comics...



Further, since the RAF has retired its VC10K tankers, and is about to do the same with the Tristars, their plan for future AAR is to have a contract with a civilian company flying Airbus tankers. This company is French, and so will be able and likely to curtail any RAF combat deployment by refusing to tank the aeroplanes.



Now that, I'll freely admit is news to me... not that the VC10's and L1011's are being phased out, but that we're putting a strategic enabler into the control of the private sector... Although I'm both sickened and disapointed, I can't genuinely say I'm entirely surprised. I've believed since the days when I gave up the short hair cuts and snappy salutes that the MoD should simply be given a budget... left to its own devices how it spends it...



This is because radio altimeters and terrain following radar (that emit detectable signals, further enhancing the Tornado's electronic signature) don't work properly on sand, snow or smooth water, leading to erroneous indications (over-reading) or system drop-outs.



Both systems can simply be switched off; the aircraft guidance given over to INS and GPS, both of which have enhansed their accuracy and reliability in leaps and bounds over the last 15 years if my own personal experience is anything to go by. Advances in 3 asis ring laser INS systems and DGPS enable my company to deploy a system to any location on the sea bed with an accuracy measured in milimetres. Not bad when you're working 3000 metres below the surface with zero vis and a 4 knot current.


and you haven't been keeping abreast of current affairs, have you?;)

well no, but then when yer workin 12 hour days and 7 days weeks (without the 2 on 2 off enjoyed by offshore crews) and trying to revamp a Series 3 in what little spare time I have... something has to give...

Up to speed with my history though... manage to take care of that...

:p

[mazzyjane]

Going off at a tangent I know but I recently heard on the radio that Children in the classroom are soon to be prevented from answering questions in the traditional " I know I know " kid puts his/her hand up manner. Instead the whole class is to be given 15 seconds to formulate an answer all be it individually. Then, once the 15 seconds is up they will all be told its ok to now put your hands up if you know the answer! The logic behind this is apparently designed to prevent the less quick or shyer pupils from feeling intimidated by the speed or confidence of the quicker kids?

All different all the same face.

Mazzyjanes husband Dave.

[Mud-Bud]

As for why the Saudis bought Tornados instead of F15s and F16s - well, they have more of those than they do Tornados, and you haven't been keeping abreast of current affairs, have you?;)

Are you on about the 72 Typhoons the Saudi's have bought for £6bn?

Oli

[Keg]

Nobber, you have had me in pieces, does a wurlitzer organ look good on a tail fin?, i assume as we are all politically correct that's what we are talking about?. LMAO:D .

If you fancy a good read, there is a new book out all about the way the MOD works ( or doesn't). it covers procurement, why we get BAE to make stuff when we can by better and cheaper of the shelf.

If half of it is true then it's worrying.

To put this in perpective, when the welfare was created it was 1/12 the budget of the navy, now the WHOLE armed forces budget is 1/12 of teh welfare state budget and a convicted prisoner gets a longer free phone call home than a serving squaddie.

If you want to be very un-pc look up Splash clothing on line, it's where i got my "******** to Blair " T & rugby shirt from!

[Satancom]

Interesting story about saudi! http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/08/bae_uk_saudi/

[Mud-Bud]

I have a few saudi mates, and they are just so funny:D All of the middle eastern mates i have for that matter just expect things to be done. Today, one was carrying hiw cricket kit through town and was moaning like a biatch all the way:D

They never see anything as a problem either, which is a good thing to have around you in my opinion, they just drive like they are still in dubai or lahore:confused:

[Cannonball Bob]

being able to track all aircraft in theatre is a minimal requirement for such an exensive asset used exclusivly for theatre situational awareness
I'd say being able to track all aircraft in theatre was pretty essential to maintaining good SA.


Given that it's ability to haul ordinance puts both the F-15 and F-16 to shame, it's understandable if that comes at a modest trade off in performance.
You are joking right? A Tonka only carries around a tonne extra, which is hardly worth it against the F15's phenominal rate of climb.




only a fool would claim that the current generation has capabilities that previous generations could only dream about or read in science fiction comics...
So when 617 trashed the Mohner Dam in '43 they didn't dream that one day it'd be done by one bloke at 20,000' dropping laser-guided penetrating munitions whilst strapped to a zero/zero ejection seat in a supersonic platform with GPS-assisted nav and encrypted comms?



Now that, I'll freely admit is news to me... not that the VC10's and L1011's are being phased out, but that we're putting a strategic enabler into the control of the private sector...
It's been on the cards for the last decade.


Both systems can simply be switched off; the aircraft guidance given over to INS and GPS, both of which have enhansed their accuracy and reliability in leaps and bounds over the last 15 years if my own personal experience is anything to go by. Advances in 3 asis ring laser INS systems and DGPS enable my company to deploy a system to any location on the sea bed with an accuracy measured in milimetres. Not bad when you're working 3000 metres below the surface with zero vis and a 4 knot current.
4 knots in sea water ? Try 600+knots in hostile airspace. INS and GPS are still only aids to navigation, not the means to navigate.

[Deliverer]

So when 617 trashed the Mohner Dam in '43 they didn't dream that one day it'd be done by one bloke at 20,000' dropping laser-guided penetrating munitions whilst strapped to a zero/zero ejection seat in a supersonic platform with GPS-assisted nav and encrypted comms?

What :eek: I must of missed the news about the Möhne been bombed by jets, someone should really tell these fly boys that the Germans are on our side now.

[Cannonball Bob]

Gee, you real funny guy, you make me laugh lots.......so I kill you last.
What I meant is that in 1943, the crews who flew Op Chastise could only dream about things that today's crews employ on every mssion.
Geddit? :rolleyes:

[nobber]

Nobber, you have had me in pieces, does a Wurlitzer organ look good on a tail fin?, i assume as we are all politically correct that's what we are talking about?. LMAO:D .


nope , I'm talking specifically about reproductive organs my friend.
thats organs of the reproductive kind to you and me.:)

[Deliverer]

Gee, you real funny guy, you make me laugh lots.......so I kill you last.
What I meant is that in 1943, the crews who flew Op Chastise could only dream about things that today's crews employ on every mssion.
Geddit? :rolleyes:

wasn't really worth explaining it twice m8 :D

Todays bloke at 20,000' dropping laser-guided penetrating munitions whilst strapped to a zero/zero ejection seat in a supersonic platform with GPS-assisted nav and encrypted comms can only dream of a future where he is sitting at home in a hot tub whilst using his digital watch to navigate a fleet of graviton powered nano missiles to the planet zog to eradicate the 9 foot purple ball of slime called Trevor that insulted his mother last week.

Obvious really.

[Cannonball Bob]

So you're agreeing with me then?

[Deliverer]

So you're agreeing with me then? Yes I must be :(, but only because its Friday and I am not 100% sure I get the jist of the original comment by justmike without further explanation.

[justMike]

4 knots in sea water ? Try 600+knots in hostile airspace. INS and GPS are still only aids to navigation, not the means to navigate.

try doing anything, much less something meaningfull when subjected to 4280 psi of crush force on every part of your vehicle...

As for navigation... I kinda took it as read that something as basic as a map would be a basic (read essential) item. DGPS can accurately plot your position along 3 axis in space to within a couple of feet on a bad day; once it's been calibrated, INS can calculate rates of turn and acceleration in all 3 axis. When you know exactly where you are, where you're pointing and how fast you're moving in any given vector, navigation is easy provided your maps are accurate. My point re GPS and INS is that both systems are passive... zero detectable emissions from either system.

[justMike]

and I am not 100% sure I get the jist of the original comment by justmike without further explanation.

after re-reading it myself, I'm not sure that I get what I said either.. :eek: the dangers of posting at 3am...

what I was trying to get at...

back in 39 our much vaulted bomber force (reputed to be a war winner all on its ownsome) is being blasted from the skies in daylight raids... we rapidly switch to night-time ops, and that's where things start to get interesting... every crew flying as an individual, navigation by star charts, compass and sextant... bomb damage assessment reckons that maybe 5% of all bombs dropped get within maybe 5 miles of the aiming point. Remember that we're trying to strike using the same guidelines that are in force today... legitimate targets only while minimising civilian damage / losses.

by 43 both navigation and target location have been transformed. H2S enable crews to navigate with a degree of accuracy that a mere 4 years ago was unheard of. "Gee" enables a master bomber to get within a hundred yards of the target prompting locals to think that spies are at work in aiding the bomber stream in target aquisition.
that same year sees the first use of "window" as radar counter-measures.

Just a year later, 617 get 4 hits at 15000 feet with free-fall tallboy bombs on Tirpitz; the little known secret of this success was the use of an improved bomb sight that took atmospheric variables into consideration for calculating rates of deflection.

A year later sees the introduction of the gas turbine in front line fighter aircraft. Finally, in the space of 6 hectic years of development, all the fledgling technologies are present (though yet to be intigrated into a single package). Everything that makes the modern strike aircraft such a potent weapons platform has evolved from the technology developed between 39 and 45.

back then, when these technologies were in their infancy and only just starting to show their potential (and their succeptability to counter measures), no way could their creators have forseen how their systems would evolve into what is commonplace today.

[Roger Whittle]

The physical size of the target has little bearing on radar reflectivity. It's the shape and materials that matter. Every angle on a Tornado 90o, so it sends a full strength radar reflection straight back to the transmitter, whatever it's relative bearing or elevation. It's the very opposite of stealth aircraft with blended curves or multi faceted airframes. A B747 has few 90o angles, so has a smaller radar signature. This is confifmed by an ex E3D Fighter Contoller instructor friend of mine, who used to solidly track Tornados at 400 miles at low level.

.................................................. ...............................

Relying on AAR to extend the range of an aircraft is poor thinking. It ties up valuable assets, and puts the tanker on the edge of or into the FEBA - a massive risk that I'd not be at all keen on as a tanker pilot. Further, since the RAF has retired its VC10K tankers, and is about to do the same with the Tristars, their plan for future AAR is to have a contract with a civilian company flying Airbus tankers. This company is French, and so will be able and likely to curtail any RAF combat deployment by refusing to tank the aeroplanes.
.................................................. ....................

As for why the Saudis bought Tornados instead of F15s and F16s - well, they have more of those than they do Tornados, and you haven't been keeping abreast of current affairs, have you?;)


....................................What I meant is that in 1943, the crews who flew Op Chastise could only dream about things that today's crews employ on every mssion.
................................. :rolleyes:


.............................................As for navigation... I kinda took it as read that something as basic as a map would be a basic (read essential) item. DGPS can accurately plot your position along 3 axis in space to within a couple of feet on a bad day; once it's been calibrated, INS can calculate rates of turn and acceleration in all 3 axis. When you know exactly where you are, where you're pointing and how fast you're moving in any given vector, navigation is easy provided your maps are accurate. My point re GPS and INS is that both systems are passive... zero detectable emissions from either system.

Snagger and CannonballBob are the experts on this sort of thing Mike, but even as 'a bloke with an interest', I knew that a B747 could have a smaller radar crass section than a Tornado, for the reasons Nick states; slab sides and 90 degree angles. I understand Bob's Wokka is likely to have a radar signature like HMS Belfast, because of the effects of the rotors.

While not getting in to the rights and almost certain wrongs of bombing Libya in the 90's, can you imagine a French subcontractor agreeing to tank our aeroplanes on that mission? The French would have near total control of our foriegn policy.

As for keeping up with events, I note that on the R4 news this evening, they were quoting the Saudi Tornado contract as being some £40Bn. So, the Saudi defense procurement Prince getting a whole billion for his beer fund was a f**king huuuge proportion of the total contract. If I was trousering one ten thousanth of that on a contract, I would expect to spend a considerable amount of time at Her Majesty's pleasure. Who and how can that be justified?

That nice Mr. Blair says we - the aerospace industry - would have lost; 'thousands, thousands of jobs'. But he's not bothered when every word he and other politicians spout on the subject of 4x4s, might add up to all those blokes (and women) in Solihull loosing theirs.

Back on the flying element of the thread, Bob's right about the kit a modern jet jockey has, but never mind the TIALD and Paveway and all the other pronouncable acronymns. My dad, as explained elsewhere, was a navigator, a very good navigator in WWII and he could never quite get over the novelty of a digital watch I once had. It had a calculator built in to it and kept time to within a half a gnats heartbeat every other year. He always reckoned he could have been significantly more accurate if he'd had such a watch in 1943.

Although I agree with much that Snagger and CB Bob have said, I tend to agree with you Mike, on the subject of ring laser gyros, INS and GPS. They are now developed to the point where it is now realistically and financially possible to have such equipment in a Cessna 152. Indeed Nick (Snagger) should know that an enormous amount of work is going on to replace the VOR/DME navigation system with a GPS (and mode C is it?)based system, where curving, multi start point approaches could be flown onto the runway.

Roger.

PS: Its good to hear you haven't forgotten your Series in all of this. :)

[Keg]

I did gather that Nobber:D , woudln't it be great if someon did paint an organ on a tail fin of something big and slow, say a Herc, and fly it past 10 Downing Street tariling a banner saying " This one's for you lot"!!.

[nobber]

i think downing street have enough big organs of their own to contend with.:)

[justMike]

PS: Its good to hear you haven't forgotten your Series in all of this.


with the amount of "calling cards" I've aquired over the past few days i's kinda hard to forget about the Series even if I wanted to. Come Monday I'll prolly have to explain to my supervisor why I'm wearin 5 bandaids over what's left of my fingertips, and assure him it wasn't caused by anything work related... one must aboit the accident paperwork at all costs...

what is it with klankies n friggin grinders anyway... none of e ever learn how to deburr an edge??? Sheesh...

[Snagger]

given that being able to track all aircraft in theatre is a minimal requirement for such an exensive asset used exclusivly for theatre situational awareness, a 400 mile tracking range is hardly something to boast about from a dedicated digital "look down" radar.



If, as yhou say, the Tornado is so under-powered, it's co-efficient of drag must be a sight to see given its Mach 2.34 capability. Last I heard it took a serious amount of welly to get to Mach 2, much less pass it. As for the small wing, Tornado's "job description" by defination meant that compromises had to be made. Ultra high altitude requires both a huge lifting area and a serious amount of thrust, hense the F-3's comparable servise ceiling with its peers. Given that it's ability to haul ordinance puts both the F-15 and F-16 to shame, it's understandable if that comes at a modest trade off in performance.



Every long range strike involves compromises... no exceptions... going back to the days when aircraft had the ability to strike a target and return without refueling would involve going back to aircraft on the scale of the Victor and Vulcan... bigger airframe needs bigger engines with a larger RADAR and IR fingerprint... which is better?? Modern strike aircraft have evolved to their current form through a long process of trial and error. Nobody is saying the current generation is perfect, but at the same time, only a fool would claim that the current generation has capabilities that previous generations could only dream about or read in science fiction comics...



Now that, I'll freely admit is news to me... not that the VC10's and L1011's are being phased out, but that we're putting a strategic enabler into the control of the private sector... Although I'm both sickened and disapointed, I can't genuinely say I'm entirely surprised. I've believed since the days when I gave up the short hair cuts and snappy salutes that the MoD should simply be given a budget... left to its own devices how it spends it...



Both systems can simply be switched off; the aircraft guidance given over to INS and GPS, both of which have enhansed their accuracy and reliability in leaps and bounds over the last 15 years if my own personal experience is anything to go by. Advances in 3 asis ring laser INS systems and DGPS enable my company to deploy a system to any location on the sea bed with an accuracy measured in milimetres. Not bad when you're working 3000 metres below the surface with zero vis and a 4 knot current.



well no, but then when yer workin 12 hour days and 7 days weeks (without the 2 on 2 off enjoyed by offshore crews) and trying to revamp a Series 3 in what little spare time I have... something has to give...

Up to speed with my history though... manage to take care of that...

:pMike, the F15E carries twice as much ordanance as a GR1/4, has better air combat capability than an F3, and better range, endurance and altitude than both. The F16 goes higher, but has comparable range and payload. It was, however, only designed to be a fighter, and is still capable of other things. Tornado has extremely accurate weapon systems, but is otherwise inept.

Every aircraft has to have certain compromises, but Tornado is heavily compromised in every area. As for being able to simply turn off the radalt and TFR, that's no good for you when you're flying low level at night or in poor weather, so it point at the inappropriateness of the low level doctrine - Tornado is screwed whether it's at low or medium level.
Inertial or GPS nav are accurate, but without an equally accurate 3D terrain database, the aircraft can't fly blind at low level.

For an E3 to pick up any low level aircraft at 400nm+ is bad news, but to solidly track them is apalling. Yes, as you said, that's the point of AEW aircraft. However, it's also the point of attack aircraft to get into the target area undetected, and Tornado is especially incapable of this.

Any way you cut it, Tornado is a piece of rubbish. It's the result of too many compromises by too large a commitee of designers and customers. That it can work at all is testament to the enormous skill of its operators.


My comments about current affairs was to point out why The Saudis bought such a piece of crap (in addition to F15s and F16s, not instead of) - it's the whole bribery issue. I'm not referring to any regional history.

[Snagger]

Although I agree with much that Snagger and CB Bob have said, I tend to agree with you Mike, on the subject of ring laser gyros, INS and GPS. They are now developed to the point where it is now realistically and financially possible to have such equipment in a Cessna 152. Indeed Nick (Snagger) should know that an enormous amount of work is going on to replace the VOR/DME navigation system with a GPS (and mode C is it?)based system, where curving, multi start point approaches could be flown onto the runway.

The most accurate approach is still ILS, and will continue to be so. GPS based approaches are possible, but heavily restricted. There are too many issues with accuracy and interrupted coverage, especially in mountainous areas, and the US military has control of the "off" switch, so it could all get shut down with no warning if they felt the need. The most accurate nav positioning of airliners is not GPS but triangulation by the use of multiple Distance Measuring Equipment beacons, usually associated with ILS or VOR transmitters. The least accurate system, by a long way, is the Inertial Reference system, despite the masive improvements that laser ring gyros and solid state tech has brought.

[Cannonball Bob]

Nick, the US DoD have had to give assurances at Congressional level that the GPS system will remained unfettled from now on (assuming you can trust anything the American military say)

[Snagger]

Nick, the US DoD have had to give assurances at Congressional level that the GPS system will remained unfettled from now on (assuming you can trust anything the American military say)I know they have made that promise, but there has, throughout history, been one reason or justification for reneging on such agreements. Even if they don't switch it off, they can set the secondary system's accuracy to very inaccurate settings, leaving the encrypted US-military only system on the current hyper-accurate settings. It can be done easily and instantly, and would be done if they had intelligence on any kind of enemy attack reliant on navigation, like a home-made cruise misile (could be done with an autopilot equipped aeroplane, laptop and GPS).

[justMike]

Any way you cut it, Tornado is a piece of rubbish. It's the result of too many compromises by too large a commitee of designers and customers. That it can work at all is testament to the enormous skill of its operators.



soooooooo... if we had an idea world and freedom to choose, what qualities and performance would your "ideal" tactical strike aircraft have, what compromises would it need and what would it cost..??

says he playing devil's advocate...

[Roger Whittle]

As a matter rof interest Nick, is the Typhoon II any good? It too was designed by committee so, in theory, it will be a camel. :eek:

It has taken an awful long time to still not be in front line operation and unless it is absolutely the dog's bo**ocks, you'd have to consider it a waste of space.

Roger.

[AnalogKid]

Out of interest, there was a bloke in north-west Auckland who likes to make his own jets. He set up a web site with details of his latest pet project, a DIY cruise missile for US$5000. It used one of his own pulse jets and a few odds and ends you might find lying around, and commercially available, hand-held GPS kit. All of a sudden he found himself bankrupt when the IRD wanted paying instantly, despite an existing agreement for staged payments of monies owed. The bloke swore blind that the US leant on the NZ IRS to shut him down. This is exactly the sort of thing which congress would be happy to revoke the uninterupted service agreement for.

[cadfael]

Bloody Hell Andy, I was watching a video of that engine just a few days ago!!
It uses the "Coanda Effect"...a five bob cruise missile that anyone could build...scary stuff indeed:eek::eek:
Mike.

[Deliverer]

I know they have made that promise, but there has, throughout history, been one reason or justification for reneging on such agreements. Even if they don't switch it off, they can set the secondary system's accuracy to very inaccurate settings, leaving the encrypted US-military only system on the current hyper-accurate settings. It can be done easily and instantly

For the very reason why Europe is putting up it's own compatible (Galileo) GPS birds outside of US military control. Wiki has a digestible page up for the project, interesting to note the 3 different classes of GPS "SERVICES (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_positioning_system)" it will provide.

[Snagger]

The ideal attack system is a fast cruise missile - small and nimble so it's very hard to detect, and no aircrew at risk. They're also cheaper than aeroplanes. Of course, you can only use them once, so deliver a large tonneage of warheads becomes extremely expensive when compared to unguided free fall bombs dropped from a reuseable aircraft.

Strike is now redundant in the British Forces - it's the nuclear option we no longer have. The F15E is a pretty good conventional ground attack aircraft. The F18E does a fairly good job for a carrier borne multi role aircraft. Both carry reasonably good payloads at a defensible altitude, and are both good in a fight if they get bounced. Of course, aircraft like the B2 and F117A are the best attack aircraft as they can hit the target with relative impunity. Some radars may get a glimpse of them, but that wouldn't enable a missile lock, so the aircaft can loiter over targets to deliver weapons extremely accurately, conduct initial damage assesment, and decide whether to reattack or move onto a secondary target.

The best solution for the RAF would have been to refurbish the Buccaneer airframes, and update their electronics with those from the Tornado. It was a capable aircraft during Granby, and embarassed the Tornado. Even during the initial development of Tornado, the test pilots flying the Buccnado - a Buccaneer test bed aircraft fitted with Tornado avionics - said that they should scrap the Tornado airframe and just build squadrons of Buccnados.

Roger - EFA would be a great aircraft, but it has been well over 20 years in coming. The airframe is already obsolete. It is not low observable, so suffers to some extent the visibility of the Tornado. While it is an airshow head-turner, it can't match the SU27 derivatives in agility or raw power. The biggest problem is that the avionics that made EFA a great project have been omitted - the Defensive Aids Sub System (automatic air and surface threat warning, display and prioritisation, jamming and decoy deployment, including a towed decoy), the Infra Red Search and Track (the eyeball infront of the cockpit that allows passive night/poor weather flight at low level and air/surface target aquisition, tracking and identification at up to 30 miles), Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (a secure tactical data link), the engines' thrust vectoring nozzles, ASRAAM (IR guided missile) are all missing. The ECR 90 radar has been downgraded, and the engined have been derated by 10%. They even tried to ditch the gun. The full package is promised from tranche 3 of production, but Tornado was promised to enter service with TIALD, but didn't even get a prototype for a decade after. On paper, EFA is great, but it's already been robbed and downgraded beyond usefulness in a war against any competent enemy. It's fine for bombing a defenceless nation, but would suffer if we have to fight a modern country. BAe should have gone it alone after flying the EAP demonstrator, which was a purely British research aircraft of almost indestinguishable airframe - almost all the avionics and advanced components ar UK designed, and have been given to Europeans to build in order to satisfy politicians' work share schemes, with a resulting 15 delay on service entry.

[Cannonball Bob]

soooooooo... if we had an idea world and freedom to choose, what qualities and performance would your "ideal" tactical strike aircraft have, what compromises would it need and what would it cost..??
Lots more Hell-fire equipped Predator, more Chinook and at least one Apache per new Chinny. :D
Mind you, by the time that's all been bought, the threat will have shifted......again.

[Dave78]

Roger - EFA would be a great aircraft, but it has been well over 20 years in coming. The airframe is already obsolete. It is not low observable, so suffers to some extent the visibility of the Tornado. While it is an airshow head-turner, it can't match the SU27 derivatives in agility or raw power. The biggest problem is that the avionics that made EFA a great project have been omitted - the Defensive Aids Sub System (automatic air and surface threat warning, display and prioritisation, jamming and decoy deployment, including a towed decoy), the Infra Red Search and Track (the eyeball infront of the cockpit that allows passive night/poor weather flight at low level and air/surface target aquisition, tracking and identification at up to 30 miles), Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (a secure tactical data link), the engines' thrust vectoring nozzles, ASRAAM (IR guided missile) are all missing. The ECR 90 radar has been downgraded, and the engined have been derated by 10%. They even tried to ditch the gun. The full package is promised from tranche 3 of production, but Tornado was promised to enter service with TIALD, but didn't even get a prototype for a decade after. On paper, EFA is great, but it's already been robbed and downgraded beyond usefulness in a war against any competent enemy. It's fine for bombing a defenceless nation, but would suffer if we have to fight a modern country. BAe should have gone it alone after flying the EAP demonstrator, which was a purely British research aircraft of almost indestinguishable airframe - almost all the avionics and advanced components ar UK designed, and have been given to Europeans to build in order to satisfy politicians' work share schemes, with a resulting 15 delay on service entry.

Worked on some of it years ago - each country wanted something different - then part way through the project the cold war ended (so we were told) - so the requirements changed again. Looking back on it I'm supprised it hasn't taken longer.

The trouble with most large military projects (IMHO) seems to be there are too many people (mostly those with no first hand experince of what is needed) want to have their say. And then keep changing their mind through-out the project - unfortunatley at somepoint you have to say stop - this is what we want - then let the deisgners/engineers get on with the job. Oh hum - lets not talk about Nimrod 2000!!

[Roger Whittle]

Still more depressing news Nick and I had an awful presentiment that you were going to say what you did. :( And I take it the people who are responsible for getting it into use and making it an effective aeroplane are aware of this? So, are they powerless to do anything about it or do they not care? Jobsworth? Or do I detect the dead hand of politicians here?

Roger.

[Snagger]

What happened to EFA was basically the same as Tornado. A group of European nations who have hundreds of years of history of squabbling, bickering, deceiving and undermining eachother - that's when they're not actually fighting - got together to build one aircraft. The trouble is, they all wanted something different.

In the case of Tornado, the RAF wanted an all weather long range nuclear strike aircraft (they actually wanted the F111, but it wasn't allowed), the Germans wanted a single-seat lighweight fighter, and the Italians probably just wanted something that could run away from the enemy fast:p! The result was MRCA. It's no fighter, and it's no long range strike aircraft. It doesn't fit what anyone wanted.

EFA is slighlt close to the mark. The agreement from the start was to build a fighter. Much of the airframe and control system was based on BAE's Experimental Aircraft Programme, but it would all heve to be redone in the interest of European politics. The programme listed in the doldrums for years while beaureaucrats thrashed out agreements on who would build what bits (not necessarily the parts they designed) in order to prop up individual nations' companies. Agreements would be reached, orders placed, then a government would throw it all out and the process would all start again. That accounts for about 15 years of the aircraft's history, and that is no exaggeration.

During that time, much of the technology has become obsolete and the cold war ended. That created the much vaunted "peace dividend" - a short sighted opportunity to dash defence expenditure. The various governments tried to reduce their orders or lower the cost of the aircraft, changing its spec downwards again and again. The worst offender by far was Germany, who nearly cause the complete collapse of the project on several occasions. This required more negotiations and delays. Due to the international nature of the programme and the initial contracts, a continuation following any nation's withdrawl was prohibited.

The secondary effect of the end of the cold war is that the NATO Forces now act as world police and peace keepers, with tasks like the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sierr Leone and so on. The RAF had to replace its ageing Jaguars which had been pressed into a ground attack role, having been designed only as an advanced training aircraft (the role currently held by the Hawk, which in turn was supposed to be the RAF's basic trained, currently tasked to the Tucano, which is an absolute disaster - see a trend here?). The Jaguar was desperately underpowered and its wing was too small - it struggled airborne, had a poor climd out and just wouldn't turn corners, even in the thick air of low level. The wing spars weren't up to all that use with heavy stores attached, since it was only meant to be a trainer.

This left the RAF with a void in its attack fleet, and an incoming new air defence aircraft with no large Russian airfoce facing it. So Whitehall did what it has always done, and applied a new asset to completely the wrong role. EFA has now been *******ised into a ground attack aircraft, something it will never do with excellence because it is exactly the role it was born to counter. The obsolecence and degradation of key systems to penny pinch is just a guarantee that this aircraft, which could have and should have been a wonderful fighting machine, will be another lesson in how not to manage a military or technological programme, but the lesson will not be learnt by the politicians and beaureaucrats, just like with Tornado, because they never see beyond their back handers, buffets and expenses accounts.

[Roger Whittle]

Perhaps we should ditch it and licence build Raffale? :D





I'll get me coat.


Roger.

[conkers]

Perhaps we should ditch it and licence build Raffale? :D





I'll get me coat.


Roger.
Whats good for the goose!

[Snagger]

Perhaps we should ditch it and licence build Raffale? :D





I'll get me coat.


Roger.EFA is much better than Rafale, or at least will be when all the bits are fitted. Where Rafale was better is in how it was much cheaper, safeguarded its nation's aerospace jobs and technological know-how, and entered service on time.

[Keg]

Silly question, but if we want a ground attack aircraft, why can't we buy A10 Hogs?.

There is an old saying that nothing designed by a committee ever worked, but i have to agree with Snagger:-

The whole of Europe up to 1945 were scrapping constantly, now we are all big buddies in the EU.....not, no one country obeys all the rules and ( i digress here), no auditor has ever signed off the EU accounts.

I rest my case M'lud

[Rich_P]

Because that's one the current roles of the Tornado GR4.

[Roger Whittle]

Silly question, but if we want a ground attack aircraft, why can't we buy A10 Hogs?


Dozens of reasons. Great idea and really rather well executed as an aeroplane; agile, powerful, bomb proof and capable of running a small war on its own. But .... single seat - work load too high; no radar or sophisticated navigation kit so, day time and good weather only.

It works well in the desert with loads of top cover, but we have seen the tragic results of letting single seaters loose in a battle area with friends on the ground. :(

Lastly, I think they've stopped making them. :rolleyes:

Roger.

[AnalogKid]

Just thinking, what Snagger was saying about a refitted super Buccaneer being the kit to do the job, and how Tornado was a designed-by-commitee compromise, used by the RAF to fill the whole made by the F-111 they weren't allowed to buy...

...this all goes back to TSR-2, another disaster caused by design-by-committee, interfered with by too many politicians and basically a potentially world-beating aircraft went so far beyond budget and schedule it was scrapped.

And the alternative at the time would have been for the RAF to buy Buccaneers, maybe with an engine upgrade (re-heat to allow supersonic dashes in enemy airspace perhaps).

And don't get me started how the Germans were more or less forced into buying F-104 Starfighters (which i presume Typhoon is supposed to be replacing from a German standpoint) instead of taking the more suitable and much safer Lightning.

No wonder Roger is somewhat down on the state of the British aero industry. Through no fault of its own it is lagging well behind where it ought to be on a global scale.

[Snagger]

The GR4 Tornado is the UK's main attack aircraft, though EFA will undertake a lot of the role. The GR4 is essentially an avionics update of the GR1 - the airframe and engines are unchanged, but some of the sensors, weapons management, comms, defensive aids and instrumentation have been modernised. They even replaced the main computer that handles all those tasks - the old one had 64k of memory, and the new super-computer is in line with the F3's massive 124k. Yep, the Tornado's fly-by-wire, weapons and nav were all controlled by a computer no more capable than a Commodore 64. Now they have a computer about a quarter as powerful as a 1990 off-the-shelf Commodore Amiga. As to what I was saying about the Tornado's medium to high altitude disability (and let's face it, 40,000' is airliner territory, not spy plane and rocket ship stuff) - take a look at this link, and read the F3 pilot's comments near the bottom of the article (in a nutshell, the F3 struggles to intercept an airliner).:(

As for the A10; that's a ground support aircraft for use in the FEBA (ground forces front line). It's meant for attacking enemy armour, artillery and vehicles, but is no good at all for long range, poor weather or night like Rog said. It's role has been superceded by attack helicopters like the AH64 and AH1. The A10's advantage over these is it's much greater payload, incredible ruggedness (flyable with half a wing, one engine and a whole stab/rudder shot away, all together), and a gun so big and powerful that it could never be fitted to a helicopter. The helicopters can hover or land and hide behid terrain, but the A10 has to rely on agility to keep moving whilst using terrain to mask its presence until the last possible second. This makes attacks difficult. The RAF and US Marines use the Harrier in this capacity. The Harrier is a slow, relatively low range/ordanance aircraft with limited sensors, but has certain characteristics that make it a capable ground support aircraft. Its Achilles heel is its single engine - if it gets damaged by enemy fire, there isn't another to limp home on.

[Snagger]

...this all goes back to TSR-2, another disaster caused by design-by-committee, interfered with by too many politicians and basically a potentially world-beating aircraft went so far beyond budget and schedule it was scrapped.

And the alternative at the time would have been for the RAF to buy Buccaneers, maybe with an engine upgrade (re-heat to allow supersonic dashes in enemy airspace perhaps).

TSR2 was politically killed by the then Labour government - a party always happy to destroy our own forces and manufacturing industry. It suffered some of the same problems as Tornado and Nimrod (2000 and AEW) - initial underfunding resulting in a stretched work time line, which then gave the government to opportunity to start redefining its requirements and spec. Once the goal posts start moving like that, a project is doomed. It was an enormously capable machine - its autopilot could fly at low altitude and it had such good terrain mapping that it could detect power lines and decide whether or not to fly underneath them. However, it was a project that should never have been - the RN were after new carriers, but there was only enough money in the kitty for the carriers OR TSR2, not both. The RAF argued that TSR2 was a faster deployment option and could strike any part of the Earth's surface, where as a a carrier was slow and incapable of attacking a land locked country. The RAF did have to move Australia over 2000 miles on a map to get this bluff to work, but they conned the politicians and got the budget. That's why the RN has these ridiculous Invincible class "through-deck cruisers" instead of proper carriers with more capable conventional aircraft.

The Buccaneer, even without reheat, could outrun every other NATO aircraft at low altitude. It had area ruling on its airframe design that resulted in very low drag. Combined with its internal revolving weapons bay, it was a slipper airframe indeed, which gave it speed and range. The airframes were very old when they retired, and the carrier landings in its RN career had taken their toll on the structure. There was a lot of fatigue cracking, particularly on the wing spar, but the machine used to break them up broke half way through crushing the first aircraft, it was that tough.

[AnalogKid]

I know the TSR2 debacle was more political than anything, but I heard that every aspect of it was designed by committee, including the instrument panel layout. There were endless meeting conducted to discuss egonomics, aesthetics etc, instead of getting a handful representitives of operational aircrew and engineers together to decide was was needed and what could be done. ljunacy.

It seems to me that the airframe/propullsion developement of aircraft reached a peak in the late 60s/early 70s with the lkes of the F15, Mig25 and Buccaneer. If it wasn't for the relativley new requirement for passie stealth, surely alot of these older designs could be remanufactured with the latest and greatest in avionics and weapons systems, saving a few aircraft carriers worth of cash in the process.

[Cannonball Bob]

I know the TSR2 debacle was more political than anything......There were endless meeting conducted to discuss egonomics

Freudian slip or what?!

[AnalogKid]

Freudian slip or what?!


...what could be done. ljunacy.

It seems to me ...

Freud, he was Austrian wasn't he? I wonder if he knows this here ljunacy bloke, sounds a bit Serbian perhaps?