CVF and Carrier Strike thread

They should use this as a new recruiting advert. A patriotic song together with Brenda's newest and biggest war canoe hopefully going or returning from giving some Johnny Foreigner a good shoeing.

It would get them flocking in, forget all that 'this is belonging' nonsence from the army recruitment adverts.

What a awful voice.
 
They should use this as a new recruiting advert. A patriotic song together with Brenda's newest and biggest war canoe hopefully going or returning from giving some Johnny Foreigner a good shoeing.

It would get them flocking in, forget all that 'this is belonging' nonsence from the army recruitment adverts.

My incisors and molars are positively itching now;. I've seen some utter sh1te before now, but even by RN standards that is quite special.
 
My incisors and molars are positively itching now;. I've seen some utter sh1te before now, but even by RN standards that is quite special.
Oh I don't know, I thought it was pretty good by today's standards, especially compared to the Army ones.

You have to remember that it is aimed at young people (remember those) not some crusty old RAF officer who started off flying Tiger Moths, finished on Hawker Hunter's and is on his second bottle of whisky.
 
Afterwards, one of the intrepid writers rang the RAF's PR people and asked, if the Bucc had better legs, why hadn't we bought new Buccs with the Tornado avionics?
What was the maintenance burden and reliability / availability rate for Buccaneers? More to the point, if the Tornado was only flying from (say) a hundred km behind the FEBA, to fifty km beyond it, isn't it a bit of a waste carrying around all that extra fuel? (See also "why couldn't the Spitfire escort bombers all the way to Berlin")

The Tornado was about 27 maintenance hours per flying hour, but most of the Buccaneer's generation of aircraft were twice that or more (Lightning, etc, etc); while current types like Typhoon run at 9 to 10 hours per flying hour. The costs involved in running/maintaining an aircraft, dwarf those of building them - wasn't that the conclusion of one recent Canadian study on the costs of combat aircraft - that purchase price might only be a sixth of the whole-life cost?

The answer might be "we can only afford this many maintainers across the RAF... which type gets the chop so we can keep flying a fleet of Buccaneers?"
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
What was the maintenance burden and reliability / availability rate for Buccaneers? More to the point, if the Tornado was only flying from (say) a hundred km behind the FEBA, to fifty km beyond it, isn't it a bit of a waste carrying around all that extra fuel? (See also "why couldn't the Spitfire escort bombers all the way to Berlin")

The Tornado was about 27 maintenance hours per flying hour, but most of the Buccaneer's generation of aircraft were twice that or more (Lightning, etc, etc); while current types like Typhoon run at 9 to 10 hours per flying hour. The costs involved in running/maintaining an aircraft, dwarf those of building them - wasn't that the conclusion of one recent Canadian study on the costs of combat aircraft - that purchase price might only be a sixth of the whole-life cost?

The answer might be "we can only afford this many maintainers across the RAF... which type gets the chop so we can keep flying a fleet of Buccaneers?"
See F-14 versus -18...
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
What was the maintenance burden and reliability / availability rate for Buccaneers? More to the point, if the Tornado was only flying from (say) a hundred km behind the FEBA, to fifty km beyond it, isn't it a bit of a waste carrying around all that extra fuel? (See also "why couldn't the Spitfire escort bombers all the way to Berlin")

The Tornado was about 27 maintenance hours per flying hour, but most of the Buccaneer's generation of aircraft were twice that or more (Lightning, etc, etc); while current types like Typhoon run at 9 to 10 hours per flying hour. The costs involved in running/maintaining an aircraft, dwarf those of building them - wasn't that the conclusion of one recent Canadian study on the costs of combat aircraft - that purchase price might only be a sixth of the whole-life cost?

The answer might be "we can only afford this many maintainers across the RAF... which type gets the chop so we can keep flying a fleet of Buccaneers?"
Moot point but how much/many of those maintenance hours would have disappeared with newer-generation avionics?
 
Moot point but how much/many of those maintenance hours would have disappeared with newer-generation avionics?
I'm not sure - it's not as if first-generation digital avionics were a huge leap over final-generation analogue electronics. We used to have a Blue Parrot (Buccaneer radar) and an Airpass (Lightning radar) in the hallway outside our lab; quite compact items of kit. I saw Tornado radar in the flesh as a new graduate, and it was a much bigger and more complicated beast.

And I suppose the system to swing wings around has as much to go wrong as the fun pneumatics that Buccaneer carried in its boundary layer control; but AIUI the Tornado fleet never suffered crashes / got grounded because of fatigue issues.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I'm not sure - it's not as if first-generation digital avionics were a huge leap over final-generation analogue electronics. We used to have a Blue Parrot (Buccaneer radar) and an Airpass (Lightning radar) in the hallway outside our lab; quite compact items of kit. I saw Tornado radar in the flesh as a new graduate, and it was a much bigger and more complicated beast.

And I suppose the system to swing wings around has as much to go wrong as the fun pneumatics that Buccaneer carried in its boundary layer control; but AIUI the Tornado fleet never suffered crashes / got grounded because of fatigue issues.
As I say, it's a moot point. As good Europeans we were getting Tornado.

Also, the Buccaneers had been/were used hard by guys who delighted in using them hard. Habitually spooling along, sometimes at not much more than a dozen feet, was always going to have an effect - and the reason we were getting Tornados was, ultimately, as replacements.

I just wonder, as probably do some others whether new-build Buccaneers with new avionics would have achieved the same if not more than new Tornados (which, in the end, gave us very, very good service to the last knockings).

Hey, we can all dream.
 
As I say, it's a moot point. As good Europeans we were getting Tornado.

Also, the Buccaneers had been/were used hard by guys who delighted in using them hard. Habitually spooling along, sometimes at not much more than a dozen feet, was always going to have an effect - and the reason we were getting Tornados was, ultimately, as replacements.

I just wonder, as probably do some others whether new-build Buccaneers with new avionics would have achieved the same if not more than new Tornados (which, in the end, gave us very, very good service to the last knockings).

Hey, we can all dream.

I posted the following in a different thread, but relevant here too:

Late 70s, HQSTC . Visiting Yank was heard to comment on the MRCA/Tornado - "a swing-wing Buccaneer which don't go so far."
 
As I say, it's a moot point. As good Europeans we were getting Tornado.
And always remember that as good Europeans with a decent track record in collaborative projects, we got to design Typhoon. Its airframe, FCS, radar, engines, all had UK primes; and the design expertise and continuity of experience which that provided and maintained, is making Tempest possible/credible.

It's a variation on "No Bucks, no Buck Rogers" - doing a decent job on a major airframe is beyond the financial reach of a single nation. If you have to soak the entire development cost across a single nation's fleet, you can't afford much else (ending up with less-frequent upgrades, systems that become obsolescent quickly, and a longer gap before replacement). Aircraft arrive from an ecosystem that involves training pipelines for designers and manufacturers, not just aircrew and maintainers; and the development cycles are decades in the making.

As an example of the impact of "can't afford right now, competing demands" see the E-3D fleet, the Voyager fleet... and for the impact of "fail to maintain expertise" see Astute, Challenger 2...

And as a "I wonder", what if Tornado was the only affordable way to maintain UK design currency in fighter aircraft? No way you're going to build a Buccaneer ADV, so it's F-15A and no chance of Typhoon. A generation after that, and our choices are a) buy French or b) buy American, because no UK capability remains.
 
Last edited:
Well the so called e-Series of jets may overcome that making smaller runs of disposable aircraft that are continuously updated.

I struggle to get my head around it fully but the B-21 raider is pretty much going straight into production I think.

Probably more for the Tempest thread though?
 

QRK2

LE
They should use this as a new recruiting advert. A patriotic song together with Brenda's newest and biggest war canoe hopefully going or returning from giving some Johnny Foreigner a good shoeing.

It would get them flocking in, forget all that 'this is belonging' nonsence from the army recruitment adverts.


I don't know if the RMBS have a Master Tailor, but if they do they need to find a new one.
 
...

And as a "I wonder", what if Tornado was the only affordable way to maintain UK design currency in fighter aircraft? No way you're going to build a Buccaneer ADV, so it's F-15A and no chance of Typhoon. A generation after that, and our choices are a) buy French or b) buy American, because no UK capability remains.
Good post, common sense, but some might counter, that advances in EW and AI driven 5th/6th gen unmanned weapon platforms, might well suit both our pockets, capabilities and force multiply what we have got.

Just as the F-35 force multiplies the present 4th/5th gen assets we do have, so loyal wingman and AI will force-multiply the F-35’s we presently have.
 
Good post, common sense, but some might counter, that advances in EW and AI driven 5th/6th gen unmanned weapon platforms, might well suit both our pockets, capabilities and force multiply what we have got.

Just as the F-35 force multiplies the present 4th/5th gen assets we do have, so loyal wingman and AI will force-multiply the F-35’s we presently have.
Ahhh, but would we have access to the source code that actually allows the tightest integration of aircraft and "loyal wingman"? Because the engineers who I knew that did joint projects with the US, described it as nearly impossible - and that even where contractually obligated and agreed by security, the US firms were far from compliant (not helped when compliant Congressmen can jam the works up). See McMahon Bill, AMRAAM/ASRAAM, integration of AMRAAM onto Gripen, selection of Boeing for KC-X, etc, etc.

Boeing or Lockheed are hardly going to make it easy for BAe to build a competing product, are they...
 
Last edited:
Ahhh, but would we have access to the source code that actually allows the tightest integration of aircraft and "loyal wingman"? Because the engineers who I knew that did joint projects with the US, described it as nearly impossible - and that even where contractually obligated and agreed by security, the US firms were far from compliant (not helped when compliant Congressmen can jam the works up). See McMahon Bill, AMRAAM/ASRAAM, integration of AMRAAM onto Gripen, selection of Boeing for KC-X, etc, etc.

Boeing or Lockheed are hardly going to make it easy for BAe to build a competing product, are they...
"Aaah but"...Do it ourselves!!!

We do have the capability.
 

Latest Threads

Top