Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had

[jcf]

That would be a great topic to start.

So what're ye waitin' fer boy? 

[MAD]

If you want shouldn't haves, let's try the Fairey Battle & Fulmar, & the Blackburn Roc & Skua.









Late to the party, again! that's what happens when you do too many things at once!

Agree!!!!!!!

M.A.D

[DarrenP]

One thing to remember about Granby where Tornado faced a modern airdefence system for real for the first time and failed its whole concept of low level strike was blown out of the sky literally and the RAF had to go to medium altitude attacks. The RAF had buried their heads in the sand for years. Low and Fast yes made It more difficult for fighter-fighter but it exposed the aircraft to AAA something the RAF seamed to have forgotten or chosen to ignore. I would suspect had Tornado had to do what it was designed for on the german plain the RAF strike force would have ceased to exist on day1.
Hence the medium level attacks with PGM and need for designation capable aircraft.

[DarrenP]

The issue of thirsty American jets and the need for more tankers. Well events made the RAF have to increase its tanker force anyway hence the tristar.
Isn't the F15B fully mission capable and the rear cockpit has full displays etc So buying a Fleet of F15B was feasible.
I agree with the Buying British argument and there were more than 1 british built platform that was outstanding. Buccaneer,Hawk,Harrier,Nimrod,strikemaster,Hunter,Canberra,Sea Hawk to name a few.

[DarrenP]

If you want shouldn't haves, let's try the Fairey Battle & Fulmar, & the Blackburn Roc & Skua.


Given the service politics of the 30's and the starvation of funds for Carrier aircraft the Navy was in a very poor position.

Fulmar: what was the alternate Hurricane or Spitfire: The RAF would have screamed blue murder had any airframes been diverted to the navy or had money been spent developing them for naval use. Though using the production facilities for sea hurricane or seafire TBH would have been a better idea but I suspect the RAF would have taken their output and left the fleet with Sea Gladiator.

SKUA: fighter/dive bomber, should it have been just a pure dive bomber? again lack of "Modern" fighters

ROC: Flawed concept but on reading the description of it cutting a JU88 in half over Dunkirk ( impressive)

[DarrenP]

The Westland Whirlwind - at least with its crappy original engines.

I love the look of the Whirlwind, but you said at least with its crappy original engines, did they try other engines?

Yeap went from Radial engines to RR Gnome on the HAR 10 but would UH-1 Iorquois been a better choice than the HAR10 or would the RAF have been better buying Wessex earlier.

[PR19_Kit]

Remember that when folks are preaching why the Yanks should've bought British or Euro instead of ______.

The point we're making Jon is that the US aviation industry seems to think that it has the God given right to sell its stuff to the entire world and yet non-US countries are not allowed to do the opposite.

Yes, I KNOW about Canberras and Harriers and C-27s etc. but it's the attitude of the US industry, and Government, that sticks in our craw.

There, I've said it now...............

[rickshaw]

Well in a scenario of maybe the swiveling gear of the exhaust nozzle doesn't work and it had to recover, what would the pilot do ? just jump out of a half a billion dollar aircraft because he/she can't land the thing ?

He'll either fly to a friendly land base or he will, indeed eject and they'll write off an expensive but ultimately expendable asset.   The Board of Survey post such an incident will be interesting.  I wonder who'll have the necessary level of responsibility to write the asset off the books?

[scooter]

Yes, I KNOW about Canberras and Harriers and C-27s etc. but it's the attitude of the US industry, and Government, that sticks in our craw.

IMHO, Kit, I think its the Industry over the Government.  They'll do *anything* now to keep earning their billions of defense dollars, like having their lobbyists go straight to Congress for appropriations instead of waiting for the next DoD procurement schedule- look at the 400 million dollars worth of brand new M1Ax that the US Army was recently forced to buy even though they didn't need them, or why brand new C-130s are rolling off the assembly lines heading to the boneyards.  And why, again IMHO, they're not getting hammered by DoD, MoD, etc. for cost overruns, production delays, etc. 

Of course, now that the "sleek, pointy nosed _____-getter" Mafia has decided that the A-10 is going to soldier on, why can't they get M7 Aerospace to reopen the production line?

[NARSES2]

Right now what I was frightened about in the beginning over these type of threads is coming into play.

SO BEHAVE AND DO NOT GET INTO POLITICS AND KEEP THE NATIONALIST (ALL COUNTRIES) CHAUVANISM OUT OF IT. WE ARE ALL PROUD OF WHICHEVER COUNTRY WE WERE BORN TO/LIVE IN (take your pick) AND THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO GET INTO SQUABBLES OVER WHO HAS THE BIGGEST TOYSHOP

Stick to discussing the merits or otherwise of the aircraft

Chris

[Old Wombat]

You know, I'm sick and tired of people bleating about how we should buy this and that US "wonderplane".  No we shouldn't.  Why?  Because for starters, building our own keeps British people in jobs and not either emigrating or drawing dole.  Buying British keeps currency in the country, boosting our economy.  Buying British ensures we retain the design and manufacturing base to look after ourselves.  And finally, buying British ensures that we're not at the whim of whichever muppet is in the Whitehouse.  If the RAF has only US aircraft, we have to source the spares from the US.  Go against what the State Department want?  No spares and the aircraft are grounded.  Won't happen?  Look at what happened to Indonesia, or Iran to name but two.

And anyone who argues otherwise is selling his own country short.

Rant over.

PRECISELY!

Have to agree with this one!

The UK's biggest screw-up was trying to keep too many companies alive. I think amalgamating them all down into 2 (to add an element of competition) larger corporations in, say, the late-60's or even early-50's would have been the best move that could have been made for the British Aerospace industry.

[Old Wombat]

Oops!




However, I think that one of the things that needs to be taken out of the equation is what was intended by the acquisition of the aircraft.


As the saying goes, "The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions!"


What needs to be considered, with the full force of the gift of hindsight, is the result of the decision.

[NARSES2]

As the saying goes, "The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions!"


What needs to be considered, with the full force of the gift of hindsight, is the result of the decision.

Absolutely agree with first statement, can't help thinking that you should also try and put yourselves into the shoes of the guys who made the original decision however. It can be a very salutary lesson but can also be very, very difficult to do. We did it at some management seminars very, very long ago and it can be extremely educational.

Chris

[Thorvic]

You know, I'm sick and tired of people bleating about how we should buy this and that US "wonderplane".  No we shouldn't.  Why?  Because for starters, building our own keeps British people in jobs and not either emigrating or drawing dole.  Buying British keeps currency in the country, boosting our economy.  Buying British ensures we retain the design and manufacturing base to look after ourselves.  And finally, buying British ensures that we're not at the whim of whichever muppet is in the Whitehouse.  If the RAF has only US aircraft, we have to source the spares from the US.  Go against what the State Department want?  No spares and the aircraft are grounded.  Won't happen?  Look at what happened to Indonesia, or Iran to name but two.

And anyone who argues otherwise is selling his own country short.

Rant over.

PRECISELY!

Have to agree with this one!

The UK's biggest screw-up was trying to keep too many companies alive. I think amalgamating them all down into 2 (to add an element of competition) larger corporations in, say, the late-60's or even early-50's would have been the best move that could have been made for the British Aerospace industry.

Trouble is we have one now and its a corporate moron  more interested in systems and take overs then developing new products 

[Old Wombat]

Which is why TWO back then would have been of value - even now.