Cheap and plentiful?
Discussion
I was thinking the other day that we really do not have very many aircraft in the RAF now. Certainly not the large number that would be required for domestic air defence if things got a bit snooty with Vladimir any time soon.
Yes, we have F35s for carrying bombs stealthily to where we want to deliver them (but not enough F35s really) and we have Typhoons which are super agile and now seem to be able to carry A2G as well as A2A weapons - but even here we don't have a huge number and in any event both the F35 and Typhoon are very expensive.
Years ago I read that the intention was to use the Hawks as close in air defence, but even here we don't have that many now!
So, why not dust off an old, proven, design, modernise it a bit and build lots of them cheaply for UK air defence. After all, we don't need them to be stealthy or capable of delivering lost of varied munitions, just a few A2A missiles and a cannon or two!
How about an update of a Hunter (but supersonic) or even a modern version of the EE Lightning (but with decent range) for just this purpose?
Both were very agile and capable, so with some modern updates they could surely make up the backbone of a modern domestic fighter defence force - plus they shouldn't be too expensive to build!
Yes, we have F35s for carrying bombs stealthily to where we want to deliver them (but not enough F35s really) and we have Typhoons which are super agile and now seem to be able to carry A2G as well as A2A weapons - but even here we don't have a huge number and in any event both the F35 and Typhoon are very expensive.
Years ago I read that the intention was to use the Hawks as close in air defence, but even here we don't have that many now!
So, why not dust off an old, proven, design, modernise it a bit and build lots of them cheaply for UK air defence. After all, we don't need them to be stealthy or capable of delivering lost of varied munitions, just a few A2A missiles and a cannon or two!
How about an update of a Hunter (but supersonic) or even a modern version of the EE Lightning (but with decent range) for just this purpose?
Both were very agile and capable, so with some modern updates they could surely make up the backbone of a modern domestic fighter defence force - plus they shouldn't be too expensive to build!
No need to resurrect obsolete designs. Indeed, resurrecting an old and ancient technology can work out very expensive.
You might as well come up with a modern design but exclude much of the systems. In fact, even a simplified version of a current design might be the best option. Much of the cost of a modern aircraft is not the airframe or even the engines but the integrated and complex aviopnics contained within the airframe.
You might as well come up with a modern design but exclude much of the systems. In fact, even a simplified version of a current design might be the best option. Much of the cost of a modern aircraft is not the airframe or even the engines but the integrated and complex aviopnics contained within the airframe.
andymadmak said:
I was thinking the other day that we really do not have very many aircraft in the RAF now. Certainly not the large number that would be required for domestic air defence if things got a bit snooty with Vladimir any time soon.
Yes, we have F35s for carrying bombs stealthily to where we want to deliver them (but not enough F35s really) and we have Typhoons which are super agile and now seem to be able to carry A2G as well as A2A weapons - but even here we don't have a huge number and in any event both the F35 and Typhoon are very expensive.
Years ago I read that the intention was to use the Hawks as close in air defence, but even here we don't have that many now!
So, why not dust off an old, proven, design, modernise it a bit and build lots of them cheaply for UK air defence. After all, we don't need them to be stealthy or capable of delivering lost of varied munitions, just a few A2A missiles and a cannon or two!
How about an update of a Hunter (but supersonic) or even a modern version of the EE Lightning (but with decent range) for just this purpose?
Both were very agile and capable, so with some modern updates they could surely make up the backbone of a modern domestic fighter defence force - plus they shouldn't be too expensive to build!
I don't think the UK expects or plans for a scenario in which plentiful cheap and cheery aircraft are required. I think the threat of Trident actually makes that a very unlikely scenario. On the other hand, if they did see a need for such aircraft they would probably just buy f16's or similar (probably contract manufactured by BAe at huge cost)...Yes, we have F35s for carrying bombs stealthily to where we want to deliver them (but not enough F35s really) and we have Typhoons which are super agile and now seem to be able to carry A2G as well as A2A weapons - but even here we don't have a huge number and in any event both the F35 and Typhoon are very expensive.
Years ago I read that the intention was to use the Hawks as close in air defence, but even here we don't have that many now!
So, why not dust off an old, proven, design, modernise it a bit and build lots of them cheaply for UK air defence. After all, we don't need them to be stealthy or capable of delivering lost of varied munitions, just a few A2A missiles and a cannon or two!
How about an update of a Hunter (but supersonic) or even a modern version of the EE Lightning (but with decent range) for just this purpose?
Both were very agile and capable, so with some modern updates they could surely make up the backbone of a modern domestic fighter defence force - plus they shouldn't be too expensive to build!
Eric Mc said:
No need to resurrect obsolete designs. Indeed, resurrecting an old and ancient technology can work out very expensive.
You might as well come up with a modern design but exclude much of the systems. In fact, even a simplified version of a current design might be the best option. Much of the cost of a modern aircraft is not the airframe or even the engines but the integrated and complex aviopnics contained within the airframe.
OK, I was just thinking that perhaps it might be cheaper to build a faster version of single engined type, or a type that didn't require lots of specialised materials in the airframe or supercomputers to keep it in the air such as the Typhoon has. You might as well come up with a modern design but exclude much of the systems. In fact, even a simplified version of a current design might be the best option. Much of the cost of a modern aircraft is not the airframe or even the engines but the integrated and complex aviopnics contained within the airframe.
F16 is a good shout, (point noted about BAE though) but is there nothing in our back catalogue that could do an as good or better job? What about a faster Hawk? Would it be as agile as an F16?
There was a Bae proposal some years back for a cheaper alternative to Typhoon, a sort of UK Gripen, but it would have cost nearly as much as Typhoon and been equivalent to F18 in capability.
Part of the problem is that once you've trained and paid crews, including ground crews, and bought fuel and ammunition, the cost over 20 or 30 years means any difference in original sticker price is relatively insignificant.
Having said that, the RAF would like some F35As, so they could be an option. Either that or the Gripen. If the money was available if course, which it wouldn't be.
Part of the problem is that once you've trained and paid crews, including ground crews, and bought fuel and ammunition, the cost over 20 or 30 years means any difference in original sticker price is relatively insignificant.
Having said that, the RAF would like some F35As, so they could be an option. Either that or the Gripen. If the money was available if course, which it wouldn't be.
Edited by Dr Jekyll on Wednesday 8th February 18:14
andymadmak said:
OK, I was just thinking that perhaps it might be cheaper to build a faster version of single engined type, or a type that didn't require lots of specialised materials in the airframe or supercomputers to keep it in the air such as the Typhoon has.
F16 is a good shout, (point noted about BAE though) but is there nothing in our back catalogue that could do an as good or better job? What about a faster Hawk? Would it be as agile as an F16?
How and why would you make a Hawk go faster?F16 is a good shout, (point noted about BAE though) but is there nothing in our back catalogue that could do an as good or better job? What about a faster Hawk? Would it be as agile as an F16?
Eric Mc said:
andymadmak said:
OK, I was just thinking that perhaps it might be cheaper to build a faster version of single engined type, or a type that didn't require lots of specialised materials in the airframe or supercomputers to keep it in the air such as the Typhoon has.
F16 is a good shout, (point noted about BAE though) but is there nothing in our back catalogue that could do an as good or better job? What about a faster Hawk? Would it be as agile as an F16?
How and why would you make a Hawk go faster?F16 is a good shout, (point noted about BAE though) but is there nothing in our back catalogue that could do an as good or better job? What about a faster Hawk? Would it be as agile as an F16?
JuniorD said:
The RAF aren't able to muster up enough fighter pilot training slots as it is so I don't know who will fly these cheap and plentiful aircraft.
In any event, if Russia were to engage in an air war with Britain I'd say the RAF would have them completely wiped out in a long weekend.
You think the RAF could wipe out the Russian airforce with the limited number of assets it (the RAF) currently has? In any event, if Russia were to engage in an air war with Britain I'd say the RAF would have them completely wiped out in a long weekend.
Ironically, given the OP's mention of the Lightning - it was the cost and complexity of the Lightning that inspired Teddy Petter to design what became the Folland Gnat. Teddy's concern, casting his mind back to WW2, was that in a large-scale war it would be impossible to build things like Lightnings in the numbers and at the pace needed to sustain a viable air force. The Gnat was simple and cheap, with the concept being that for the cost of a Lightning you could build between three and five Gnats, which could 'swarm' enemy formations and counter superior performance of opposing fighters with sheer numbers.
While the Gnat sold very well as a trainer and light attack aircraft, the case for the original concept never stacked up - however many Gnats you have, if it physically can't perform at the level of the opposition then it can't dictate some aspects of the engagement and a sufficiently advanced foe can just stand off and pick off the Gnat swarm one by one, at a kill ratio that equalises (or out-does) the 5-to-1 numerical superiority of the basic fighter. So the air forces interested in the Gnat felt they had to have at least a few units fielding a 'first rate' fighter, and then the case for the Gnat immediately evaporates.
While the Gnat sold very well as a trainer and light attack aircraft, the case for the original concept never stacked up - however many Gnats you have, if it physically can't perform at the level of the opposition then it can't dictate some aspects of the engagement and a sufficiently advanced foe can just stand off and pick off the Gnat swarm one by one, at a kill ratio that equalises (or out-does) the 5-to-1 numerical superiority of the basic fighter. So the air forces interested in the Gnat felt they had to have at least a few units fielding a 'first rate' fighter, and then the case for the Gnat immediately evaporates.
Is there any particular reason that you want to give the opposing force more targets? Earlier there is the mention of tanks. Russia's last generation of tanks are being destroyed at a huge rate. What effect is this having on the morale of the tank crews and anyone even remotely near them?
The obvious answer is probably drones, the swarm approach has some real benefits there in terms of overwhelming targeting systems - until they get close and meet a wall of depleted uranium shells.
I would agree that the military are pretty poor at seeing what the next conflict would look like - but cheap throwaway fighters? Remember the last gasps of the 3rd Reich and efforts like the Volksjager?
The obvious answer is probably drones, the swarm approach has some real benefits there in terms of overwhelming targeting systems - until they get close and meet a wall of depleted uranium shells.
I would agree that the military are pretty poor at seeing what the next conflict would look like - but cheap throwaway fighters? Remember the last gasps of the 3rd Reich and efforts like the Volksjager?
JuniorD said:
In any event, if Russia were to engage in an air war with Britain I'd say the RAF would have them completely wiped out in a long weekend.
That's what Goering said of Lufwaffe vs RAF in 1940. Didn't work out as planned.Anyway, Ukraine is now asking us to send fighters over. I wonder if we could do lease-lend, in return for free grain or some other useful resource when it's all over?
Simpo Two said:
JuniorD said:
In any event, if Russia were to engage in an air war with Britain I'd say the RAF would have them completely wiped out in a long weekend.
That's what Goering said of Lufwaffe vs RAF in 1940. Didn't work out as planned.Anyway, Ukraine is now asking us to send fighters over. I wonder if we could do lease-lend, in return for free grain or some other useful resource when it's all over?
andymadmak said:
Eric Mc said:
No need to resurrect obsolete designs. Indeed, resurrecting an old and ancient technology can work out very expensive.
You might as well come up with a modern design but exclude much of the systems. In fact, even a simplified version of a current design might be the best option. Much of the cost of a modern aircraft is not the airframe or even the engines but the integrated and complex aviopnics contained within the airframe.
OK, I was just thinking that perhaps it might be cheaper to build a faster version of single engined type, or a type that didn't require lots of specialised materials in the airframe or supercomputers to keep it in the air such as the Typhoon has. You might as well come up with a modern design but exclude much of the systems. In fact, even a simplified version of a current design might be the best option. Much of the cost of a modern aircraft is not the airframe or even the engines but the integrated and complex aviopnics contained within the airframe.
F16 is a good shout, (point noted about BAE though) but is there nothing in our back catalogue that could do an as good or better job? What about a faster Hawk? Would it be as agile as an F16?
eccles said:
andymadmak said:
Eric Mc said:
No need to resurrect obsolete designs. Indeed, resurrecting an old and ancient technology can work out very expensive.
You might as well come up with a modern design but exclude much of the systems. In fact, even a simplified version of a current design might be the best option. Much of the cost of a modern aircraft is not the airframe or even the engines but the integrated and complex aviopnics contained within the airframe.
OK, I was just thinking that perhaps it might be cheaper to build a faster version of single engined type, or a type that didn't require lots of specialised materials in the airframe or supercomputers to keep it in the air such as the Typhoon has. You might as well come up with a modern design but exclude much of the systems. In fact, even a simplified version of a current design might be the best option. Much of the cost of a modern aircraft is not the airframe or even the engines but the integrated and complex aviopnics contained within the airframe.
F16 is a good shout, (point noted about BAE though) but is there nothing in our back catalogue that could do an as good or better job? What about a faster Hawk? Would it be as agile as an F16?
I was just speculating as to whether there could be some merit in the idea of having something simple, cheap(er) and plentiful for UK airspace defence. My start point was reusing something we already know how to build, but that seems to have been a silly idea. I'm not talking about something that so simplified as to be an instant pilot death trap when facing a half competent foe in a reasonably modern fighter - rather I am thinking that the complexities and costs associated with making everything 'multirole and stealthy' could be avoided if the aircraft was simply a super agile interceptor. I suppose I am a bit sceptical that 130 ish Typhoons and 30 F35s (assuming 100% availability of both types) would keep back the hoards, but others seem confident!
808 Estate said:
Gripen would be a good choice. Would also make good sense for use on the carriers to compliment the F35 once the naval version is ready for service.
Which would mean revisiting the catapult conversion saga, the last quote for that was about as much as building another carrier.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff