What if the RAF/RN threw out EF 2000 and JSF?

[uk 75]

Watching the antics of the Defence Secretary on TV last week I decided that in line with the new way of solving all the nation's problems, a decision on Eurofighter and JSF could be taken by a phone in to "Richard and Judy" or similar...

So, we all get to have our say in the modern way.  I am going to set the thing off by suggesting that as both Eurofighter and JSF are some of the ugliest aircraft ever, my first stop will be Tony Buttler's books for some inspiration.

To me the Harrier still looks just right.  Its vstol system is still the only reliable one. Its small size is also sensible (fuel in flight is not a prob these days).  So, take the Harrier and sort out the wings, engines and avionics.   The result would be the same size as JSF and curvier.  Missiles not a problem.  As for Stealth, after seeing the wreckage of an F117 in Serbia and hearing the Czechs tracked the B2 at UK airshows, and noticing that the Russians and Chinese have not bothered with it...

Something for a quiet Sunday...

UK 75

[lancer]

Missiles not a problem.  As for Stealth, after seeing the wreckage of an F117 in Serbia and hearing the Czechs tracked the B2 at UK airshows, and noticing that the Russians and Chinese have not bothered with it...

Something for a quiet Sunday...

UK 75

Never has a truer word been spoken about the B2. My brother in law works for DERA and is based at Farnborough , or whatever they are called these days, and was at the Farnborough airshow when the B2 made its first public apperance there -flyby only then- and told me later that he and a couple of his work mates tracked the B2 through it's entire apperance with a new IR system that they were working on at the time (didn't tell me any more than that it was all hush hush). Well, they printed out the scans and tracking data, some lovely IR pics of the B2 according to him, and took it over to the Northrop enclosure to show them what thier new toy looked like. The Northrop guy's were appoplectic and insisted that the stealth system was turned 'off' (that excuse had Craig howling on the floor BTW) as well as a number of other excuses to boot. Suffice to say, that Craig and his mates went back to thier office looking like the cats who got the cream.

I also remember reading a story in the aviation press, can't remember what publication, that said the B2 could only deploy to dry almost arrid areas as it sort of melted when it got wet!!!! I couldn't believe what I was reading.

As for the F117 down in Serbia, it might have just fell outta the sky, these things had a nasty habit of doing that, especially at air shows.  

[Ollie]

The B-2 is visible to radar when it flies in rain, the radar can see the droplets splatter on the aircraft's skin.

As for the -117, I know the clever Serbs had the most brilliand idea of hooking an old Soviet weather radar up with a remote control post, so that the crew would be far from it in case it got bombed.  Well, that old thing was so nasty and primitive, it found the F-117 which is made to fool good radars and also, when NATO tried to fire HARMs or ALARMS at it, that old piece of junk had a 1 cubic kilometer electromagnetic bubble around it, frying the missiles' circuits and forcing NATO to use dumb bombs.

All read in "Air International"!

 B)  

[retro_seventies]

No eurofighter and no JSF.

you say that as though its not going to happen anyway....with labour's defence spending being what it is, i'm suprised that we are even still entertaining thoughts of buying the typhoon in the numbers suggested, and we all know that we aren't going to buy the jsf for our carriers because they ARE GOING TO BE CANCELLED.

bah.

which will leave us 50 year old tornados then.

unless we buy something more modern (like, something developed after the 80s) - which leaves us looking at what?

nothing any good, that's what.

hornet? bunch of arse - aging short legged junk

viper? getting old - its not like its any newer than the tornado anyway

eagle? ditto...why replace a dual purpose 70's design with....the same thing.

russians? please - i know this is what if, but you all know we won't.

raptor? cha-ching - eleventy billion dollars each, and we are very mean with our money alas.

f-23?  we would all love it, but if the raptor is eleventy billion dollars, this won't be far off.

rafale? great little plane, but its french....enough said there i believe.

maybe if i declare the manned aircraft obsolete and insist that we replace them with missiles  then i won't have to worry about it.  

oh no wait, Duncan beat me to that one....

[Aircav]

I know my camara's len on auto uses IR and it focused on the F-117 at Fairford but not the B-2.

[elmayerle]

I also remember reading a story in the aviation press, can't remember what publication, that said the B2 could only deploy to dry almost arrid areas as it sort of melted when it got wet!!!! I couldn't believe what I was reading.

Well, the original coating had some problems with rain erosion, but that's been replace by a much more durable one.  I suspect a sufficiently sensitive IR camera would catch the B-2; the reason is obvious if you think about some of the things they've had to do to reduce RCS.

[Gary]

Some years ago I was speaking to an Airforce F-111 pilot and asked him how come people are allowed to get inside some of these fighters and such when they are supposed to be secret. The 117 was at this particular show and it's what prompted my question. His response could have been a bunch of bunk, but what he said is that airplanes that go on the airshow circuit are usually pared down verisions of front liners. Some of the wizzo gadgets that are combat critical but not flight critical are removed for both weight benefit (added ferry distance) and if something bad happened (a crash or breach in security) then less would be lost.

A few years later I asked the exact same question of a USAF ground crew cheif allowing people into their F-16 when the Dutch guys wouldn't let you into theirs. His reply was almost exactly the same.

While I have no experience with the Russians, I have heard it said that they never ever send a fully complete frontline ready to go aircraft to the airshows. They send their export versions only, dressed in Russian clothing. This way the customers see what they can really get and it keeps the West guessing.

Lastly, putting the B-2 in low level airshow manouvers is putting it out of it's operational environment and most certainly, zipping over crowds is not the place you'd even need to turn on any active countermeasures.  

[Matt_S]

Watching the antics of the Defence Secretary on TV last week I decided that in line with the new way of solving all the nation's problems, a decision on Eurofighter and JSF could be taken by a phone in to "Richard and Judy" or similar...

So, we all get to have our say in the modern way.  I am going to set the thing off by suggesting that as both Eurofighter and JSF are some of the ugliest aircraft ever, my first stop will be Tony Buttler's books for some inspiration.

To me the Harrier still looks just right.  Its vstol system is still the only reliable one. Its small size is also sensible (fuel in flight is not a prob these days).  So, take the Harrier and sort out the wings, engines and avionics.   The result would be the same size as JSF and curvier.  Missiles not a problem.  As for Stealth, after seeing the wreckage of an F117 in Serbia and hearing the Czechs tracked the B2 at UK airshows, and noticing that the Russians and Chinese have not bothered with it...

Something for a quiet Sunday...

UK 75

How about a RAF Flanker?


Matt B)  

[lancer]

Watching the antics of the Defence Secretary on TV last week I decided that in line with the new way of solving all the nation's problems, a decision on Eurofighter and JSF could be taken by a phone in to "Richard and Judy" or similar...

So, we all get to have our say in the modern way.  I am going to set the thing off by suggesting that as both Eurofighter and JSF are some of the ugliest aircraft ever, my first stop will be Tony Buttler's books for some inspiration.

To me the Harrier still looks just right.  Its vstol system is still the only reliable one. Its small size is also sensible (fuel in flight is not a prob these days).  So, take the Harrier and sort out the wings, engines and avionics.   The result would be the same size as JSF and curvier.  Missiles not a problem.  As for Stealth, after seeing the wreckage of an F117 in Serbia and hearing the Czechs tracked the B2 at UK airshows, and noticing that the Russians and Chinese have not bothered with it...

Something for a quiet Sunday...

UK 75

How about a RAF Flanker?


Matt B)

Got one of those built Matt, just got to re do the pics and stuff before I post 'em* on the site

[Hobbes]

To me the Harrier still looks just right.  Its vstol system is still the only reliable one. Its small size is also sensible (fuel in flight is not a prob these days).  So, take the Harrier and sort out the wings, engines and avionics.

Hah.
Engine: Replace the two aft nozzles with a nozzle like on the Yak-141, which would be much more efficient when it's horizontal. Add an afterburner. Develop the engine some more, to 120 kN static thrust and 160 kN with afterburner. That should sort out the payload problems.
Then you need AEW for your carriers. Replace the E-2's turboprops with two Pegasus and the E-2 can be operated from today's carriers. Tankers can be based on the same airframe.

(Damn. So much to build, so little time) :dum:  

[Davey B]

Dig out some of the old BAe designes, namely the EAP and the P.1216 (Hawker super-Harrier thingie that looked like the fuzzy bunny offspring of a Yak-141 and F-16 for the unititiated).

Order some Hawk 200s to bolster defences.

Put the Vulcan back into production!!!!!            

[nev]

When they get cancelled.  When not if, we will be going towards armed UAVs.  The USAF has already started, and I read somewhere that in 10 years time they expect 1/3 of their combat power to be UAVs...

I believe the F-117 shot down was on a clear, moonless night, flying the same ingress for the 3rd straight night & operating without Prowler support (which is apparantly normal for it, but not available this night, and not a widely publicised fact).  And one shoot-down does not a failed design make.

As for the B-2, tracking it on a low-level flyby at an airshow when you know when and where it is coming from is, I would imagine, a bit easier than tracking it at 40,000 feet when you don't know when and where its coming from.

No-one (exept poorly informed idiots, such as journalists) has ever tried to say that stealth planes are invisble, just harder to see.

[elmayerle]

Then you need AEW for your carriers. Replace the E-2's turboprops with two Pegasus and the E-2 can be operated from today's carriers. Tankers can be based on the same airframe.

Well, more like do a similar conversion for new-build C-2 airframes.  E-2's ahve to be the most cramped multi-crew aircraft I've ever seen; even more cramped than a fully crewed EP-3E.