Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had

[PR19_Kit]

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

The problem is that some people keep on suggesting non-British alternatives, after telling us what we shouldn't have had...........

[Logan Hartke]

Sorry, kit, but why did you post in the thread if the very premise found in the title gets your blood up?

Cheers,

Logan

[PR19_Kit]

Sorry, kit, but why did you post in the thread if the very premise found in the title gets your blood up?

Cheers,

Logan

The premise found in the title of the thread says nothing about replacing any RAF or FAA aircraft, it's about aircraft that we shouldn't have had for various reasons. There are plenty of those to chose from without filling in the gaps created with other aircraft that we shouldn't have had.

[Logan Hartke]

Ah, it was your underlining of "shouldn't" that I thought you had the issue with.

Cheers,

Logan

[andrewj]

I can't think of any aircraft that we really shouldn't have had, they all fulfilled a need at some point and even some we consider to be failures either served a need at the time or pointed the way for more succesful aircraft that replaced them. ie without the Manchester we wouldn't have got the Lancaster.  Some really awful aircraft served to prove they were awful and weren't taken up , but were replaced by much better planes, so were needed in their own way.

Andrew

[DarrenP]

true but did the spreading of research effort to widely prolong the agony of some of the aircraft?
but I also suspect we would have lost some classics like Hunter given its teething problems.

[MAD]

- The Supermarine Swift

- I think the British Government & RAF wasted far to much money on the baby-step/duplication of it's V-Bomber force - eg. how many bomber designs did it really need to gain and maintain its nuclear deterrent? Vickers Valiant (first flew 1951, entered service 1955), Avro Vulcan (first flew 1952, in service 1956) and Handley Page Victor (first flew 1952, in service 1958)(to say nothing of the time and money spent on the Short SA.4 Sperrin (first flew in 1951). Talk about duplication!!
I understand that Britain was wanting to stay on the cutting edge of technology. But doesn't the effectiveness and longevity of the Boeing B-52 prove my point 

M.A.D   

[PR19_Kit]

The B-52 first flew in 1952 and entered service in 1956. That's almost exactly the same gestation period as the three V bombers. And the B-52, just like the V bombers, went through a long development period during its life, the B-52H bearing very little resemblance to the B-52A, just like a late Vulcan B2 doesn't look the same as a B1.

The RAF were lucky there WERE three different types available as the requirement for in flight refuelling meant they had a ready supply of types that could be converted to tankers. In doing so the V bombers effectively became different types, bombers and tankers.

The USAF did the back-up thing with the B-52 programme too. They built two Convair YB-60s to backup the B-52, just as there were two Sperrins...........

[andrewj]

- The Supermarine Swift



M.A.D   

Although the fighter versions of the Swift were dissapointing the FR5 gave the RAF a low level recconassance aircraft that was unrivalled in its time , indeed it was probably better in this role than the Hunter FR10's that replaced it.
The F7 version of the Swift was an aircraft Britain should definatively have had, the Aircraft/missile conbination were probably the finest in the world at that time , just a pity the powers that be didn't realise and only considered them experimental.

Andrew

[Weaver]

The B-52 first flew in 1952 and entered service in 1956. That's almost exactly the same gestation period as the three V bombers. And the B-52, just like the V bombers, went through a long development period during its life, the B-52H bearing very little resemblance to the B-52A, just like a late Vulcan B2 doesn't look the same as a B1.

The RAF were lucky there WERE three different types available as the requirement for in flight refuelling meant they had a ready supply of types that could be converted to tankers. In doing so the V bombers effectively became different types, bombers and tankers.

The USAF did the back-up thing with the B-52 programme too. They built two Convair YB-60s to backup the B-52, just as there were two Sperrins...........

And it's also worth pointing out that the B-52 built on technology pioneered with the B-47, whereas the V-bombers had to go from concept to hardwear in one step.

[Hobbes]

I have to agree with MAD here; 4 heavy bombers was just too much. Having one backup design would have been prudent, but they ended up with three. It was sort of convenient to have the Victors around when they needed tankers, but they could have bought VC-10s instead and have double the fuel load of the Victor K.2 available per airframe.

[PR19_Kit]

But they needed the Victor tankers RIGHT NOW when the Valiants were deemed un-flightworthy.

That occured in December 1964 and the first Victor K1 tanker conversion flew in April 1965, an amazing job considering what was required. At that time Vickers had finished building the Standard VC10s yet hadn't started making the Supers, so there was no way that a VC10 tanker could have been produced 'at the rush'. The Victor was the only game in town at the time.

[Weaver]

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.

Speaking of things we're sick of hearing, I'm sick of hearing this media-driven tale for the last 20 years...

The RAF Tornados did NOT switch to medium altitude ops because the low-level tactics failed. They switched because air superiority had been achieved which made medium level ops possible, and one of the factors in achieving that air superiority was the low-level attacks that Tornados made on Iraqi air bases and facilities  in the first week of the war. In other words, they didn't switch to medium altitude because low-level failed, they switched because low-level succeed.

In WWIII in Europe, it would be highly unlikely that air superiority would be achienved at all, and even if it was, it would be a matter of weeks. That would simply be too late: the Soviets would have been on the French border in a couple of weeks. Low-level ops to suppress Soviet airfields, transport and C4I assets were the ONLY option on Day 1 and were likely to remain the only option for the duration of the war. Projected RAF casualties for Tornado ops in WWIII were about 40% per week, so the 10% (60 sent, 6 lost) achieved in GW1 was anything but a disaster.

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.

Low and Fast also makes it difficult for medium and high-level SAMs and in European terrain, it also cuts down the warning time available to MANPADS and AAA due to terrain masking. The problem in GW1 was that southern Iraq is like a billard table with nothing to hide in or behind, so it exaggerated the effectiveness of AAA.

Simple question: if low-level is dead and buried, then why are the RAF and the USAF still practicing it? (Go look for any number of youtube videos of aircraft in the "Mach Loop").

The bottom line is that you adjust your tactics to suite the situation. If the enemy only has (or only has left) light AAA and MANPADS with a ceiling of 10,000ft, then of course you use PGMs from 20,000ft: it'd be madness not to. But if you have to attack an integrated air-defence system with interceptors and SAMs that can go up to 90,000ft, then low and fast is the least-worst option because it negates the use of the big SAMs and reduces the effectiveness of everything else. No, it's never going to be cost-free, but the expectation of zero-casualty conflict is another media-driven myth that needs quashing.

[Weaver]

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.

As far as I know, the F-15B rear cockpit is just a duplicate of the front, so it doesn't provide any more radar functionality than the front. That isn't what the RAF wanted: if you look at the rear cockpit of a Tornado ADV, it's very different to front, with more displays and controls that allow the back-seater to use the radar and ESM/ESM system in more sophisiticated ways than the pilot.

[MikeD]

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.

Weren't the majority of Tonkas lost on Granby shot down at medium/high level?

From memory there was only one shot down while carrying out a low level anti-runway attack wasn't there?