Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had

[sandiego89]

A two-seater F-15 was banded with Brit equipment before Tornado even got going.  It was proposed that a production line be set up in Europe with the hope other countries would jump on board. It had the benefit of having the F-15B already flying in service so all that would have needed testing was the equipment installed. The shortage of fuel in the F-15K variant had already been addressed with the conformal tanks being tested on a F-15B.

I've got a build going where I've switched the nose cone to a Tornado F.3 one, also switched the engines too.

So would it have been multi-role like Phantom and later Strike Eagle, or a single role platform?

Just like the Tornado F.3, would have had Skyflash (already in use on F.4's) and the AMRRAM, I'm just taking it further by putting a big long range missile on it, based on a Martel/Sea Eagle airframe.  Evan has said it probably would have got some sort of RR engine or an engine from a European consortium

Ohh, as for a MRCA/Tornado alternative- dust off the F-111 purchace for the UK!  By the mid 1970's most of the kinks had been worked out and it was an effective penetrator. 

It could have even had an interceptor role like the later Tornado F.3, remember it was designed for the Fleet Air Intercept role as the F-111B. Put an air interceptor radar back on and hang some missile on it...   

[Rheged]

Changing tack slightly, what would the RAF have used for the task if we hadn't have designed, built and flown the Tornado?

Another refurbishment of Canberra, Kit?

Doesn't MRCA  stand for Must Refurbish Canberra Again?

[PR19_Kit]

Changing tack slightly, what would the RAF have used for the task if we hadn't have designed, built and flown the Tornado?

Another refurbishment of Canberra, Kit?

Doesn't MRCA  stand for Must Refurbish Canberra Again?

It does, or did anyway, when there were enough Cranberries around to re-furbish.

Why does every 'Alternate RAF' aircraft have to be American? Yes, I know I make models of just that genre, but some people think that's the way it should have gone in the RW too.

At least the Tornado was European, and a lot of it was British. Indeed I did some of the work that produced it myself and I'm both pleased AND proud of that.

[kitnut617]

Why does every 'Alternate RAF' aircraft have to be American? Yes, I know I make models of just that genre, but some people think that's the way it should have gone in the RW too.

At the time, the F-15 option was cheaper because the aircraft was already well tested and flying in service (single seaters and two seaters)

At least the Tornado was European, and a lot of it was British.

That was the reason it was built, to keep skilled designers and engineers in the UK, and keep a domestic workforce capable of building a modern aircraft.  Even though it was more expensive by doing that ---

[sandiego89]

OK, OK, to keep it UK orgin, scrap the MRCA and dust of the plans for the P.1154. Use the two seat version from the FAA, but adopted to RAF use with a nav in back.   Low level penetrator, supersonic dash, easy to disperse....

(yes I know the 1154 had some "issues")

[PR19_Kit]

That was the reason it was built, to keep skilled designers and engineers in the UK, and keep a domestic workforce capable of building a modern aircraft.  Even though it was more expensive by doing that ---

But that's exactly the point!

What's wrong with keeping a nation's skills where they originated and where they were paid for in the first place? Being beholden to the political whims of another nation does not make good sense, no matter how 'Special' the 'Relationship'.

Viz today's Euro-debacle over the EU's 'Instant Tax' on the UK's attempts to drag ourselves out of recession. It's hardly surprising that nationalism is on the rise.......

[kitnut617]

What's wrong with keeping a nation's skills where they originated and where they were paid for in the first place?

There's nothing wrong with that Kit, it just that at the time there was a particular government who wanted everything on the cheap and so bought what was cheap.  I can still hear my old Dad ranting and raving  ----

[DarrenP]

Xv107



Jaguar was upgraded with TIALD and subsequent modifications because of the need for additional designation capability; it was not a 'failing' with Tornado but with Harrier that saw the upgrade commence, and the aircraft was tasked with battlefield interdiction and CAS (and damned good at both) before the  GR1B and GR3 upgrades kicked in.

I seam to remember that capability was added for Northern watch post gulf 1 and Bosnia where Jaguar was operating over Northern Iraq and over FRY. yes it was a failing of harrier but interesting Jaguar force performed so well over Northern Iraq and Bosnia but all the publicity was Harrier/Tornado.

I seam to remember Buccaneer could also self designate for Paveway , had a similar conventional bomb load to tornado which it could carry further lower and faster. It had TV guided missiles and ARM capability something it took tornado years to get  with an updated radar and avionics who knows but it was better than Tornado.  Unfortunately they were knackered.

[DarrenP]

Xv107




I appreciate that you are unshakable in your view that the RAF should not have bought the Tornado because it has always, in your eyes, been rubbish. But I respectfully disagree, not least because the GR1 and GR4, when their operations are considered properly have been a critical element in the RAF's work for a quarter of a century.

The Tornado has effectively been all the RAF have had in recent years due to the lack of or begrudging investment in other platforms or interservice politics. its been the "blue eyed boy" because most of the RAF hierarchy have come from Tornado. There were better aircraft on the market when tornado came into service that would have been more flexible and suited the operations that were actually needed. The Low level strike concept was shown to be flawed as early as the 1960's and had we fought the Russians on the german plain I doubt Tornado would have survived long enough to carry out IDS missions.

[PR19_Kit]

The Low level strike concept was shown to be flawed as early as the 1960's .........

Could you expand on that please?

That's certainly not the story that mere mortals were being told, both then and for many years afterward. What was the alternative method of getting HE on the target?

[pyro-manic]

What would have been better then, DarrenP? Tornado has done the job, and done it well. It was never a perfect design, but then such a design would never have been built! Germany wanted a simpler, cheaper, less capable design, Britain wanted a bigger, more capable one. Tornado ended up in the middle. The same thing happened with Typhoon, funnily enough...

[andrewj]

The Low level strike concept was shown to be flawed as early as the 1960's .........

Could you expand on that please?

That's certainly not the story that mere mortals were being told, both then and for many years afterward. What was the alternative method of getting HE on the target?

I'll second that Kit , during the first Gulf war the Tornados spearheaded the allied strikes , they didn't switch to higher level attacks until after the Iraqi air defences had been suppressed. similar tactics would have been used during any conflict in Europe since Iraqi air defences were based on Soviet practises.
Contrary to what some areas of the press would have you believe the Tornados switched to high level attacks because it was safe to do so , not for any other reason.

Andrew

[DarrenP]

The Low level strike concept was shown to be flawed as early as the 1960's .........

Could you expand on that please?

That's certainly not the story that mere mortals were being told, both then and for many years afterward. What was the alternative method of getting HE on the target?

the Americans figured that out in Vietnam being low unless heavily armoured wasn't a good place to be

[DarrenP]

The Low level strike concept was shown to be flawed as early as the 1960's .........

Could you expand on that please?

That's certainly not the story that mere mortals were being told, both then and for many years afterward. What was the alternative method of getting HE on the target?

I'll second that Kit , during the first Gulf war the Tornados spearheaded the allied strikes , they didn't switch to higher level attacks until after the Iraqi air defences had been suppressed. similar tactics would have been used during any conflict in Europe since Iraqi air defences were based on Soviet practises.
Contrary to what some areas of the press would have you believe the Tornados switched to high level attacks because it was safe to do so , not for any other reason.

Andrew

which includes pointing your small arms up in the air and firing 7.62x39 & 7.62x54 do make a mess of fast jets.

[PR19_Kit]

The Low level strike concept was shown to be flawed as early as the 1960's .........

Could you expand on that please?

That's certainly not the story that mere mortals were being told, both then and for many years afterward. What was the alternative method of getting HE on the target?

the Americans figured that out in Vietnam being low unless heavily armoured wasn't a good place to be

But then neither was flying at medium altitudes, or it wouldn't have been in Europe as the potential SAM environment there would have been far worse than Vietnam. The N Vietnamese only had SAM-2s, but the Soviet Bloc had far more advanced missiles in service.

As I said, what was the alternative?