Obsolete but still good
Discussion
What retired military aircraft could still be useful today? Assuming an opponent without the latest tech and that spares and fatigue life weren't a problem.
My suggestions.
Buccaneer.
Hunter.
Nimrod.
F117.
F111.
Trying to keep vaguely realistic so no AWACS Hindenburgs or drone Sopwith Camels.
My suggestions.
Buccaneer.
Hunter.
Nimrod.
F117.
F111.
Trying to keep vaguely realistic so no AWACS Hindenburgs or drone Sopwith Camels.
Evanivitch said:
Avro Vulcan.
But purely as a bomb truck and occasional show of force. 10t of smart munitions onboard with air/ground asset doing the target identification, long endurance and Air to Air refueling.
New avionics and maybe it could operate with two crews in rotation.
Or a Victor, even better.But purely as a bomb truck and occasional show of force. 10t of smart munitions onboard with air/ground asset doing the target identification, long endurance and Air to Air refueling.
New avionics and maybe it could operate with two crews in rotation.
Lost ranger said:
Evanivitch said:
Avro Vulcan.
But purely as a bomb truck and occasional show of force. 10t of smart munitions onboard with air/ground asset doing the target identification, long endurance and Air to Air refueling.
New avionics and maybe it could operate with two crews in rotation.
Or a Victor, even better.But purely as a bomb truck and occasional show of force. 10t of smart munitions onboard with air/ground asset doing the target identification, long endurance and Air to Air refueling.
New avionics and maybe it could operate with two crews in rotation.
Simpo Two said:
Evanivitch said:
New avionics and maybe it could operate with two crews in rotation.
The crews can shimmy up and down the refuelling hose at changeover time 
Super Sonic said:
SR71 aka blackbird aka habu
Mach 3.2 +! Actual top speed classified, but romour has it ,you hit the throttle at any speed and it accelerates hard, until it's going so fast it feels like it's gonna disintegrate. Apparently no one actually knows it's too speed.
I love it when people say that.Mach 3.2 +! Actual top speed classified, but romour has it ,you hit the throttle at any speed and it accelerates hard, until it's going so fast it feels like it's gonna disintegrate. Apparently no one actually knows it's too speed.
We have scientists, engineers, aerodynamicists etc etc.
Any aircraft has known lift, weight, thrust, drag. We know exactly how shockwaves form and behave. We have huge number crunching available in ‘putas. We know how the shape of an aircraft affects speed.
As with the Lightning, we can know EXACTLY what the top speed of the Blackbird would have been.
But, top speed is meaningless for most aircraft, because you just can’t maintain it for very long.
The Bucc (I worked on them) would be pointless now, even with modern avionics. Nobody flies at low level like they were designed for. In Gulf Bunfight One they didn’t fly low. Hell, even the Tornados didn’t fly low once they really didn’t have to. As much as I loved the Bucc, it quickly became an ancient relic after about 1990. (A nice stable platform for laser designating targets for Tornados though, from 30,000ft lol.
Evanivitch said:
Avro Vulcan.
But purely as a bomb truck and occasional show of force. 10t of smart munitions onboard with air/ground asset doing the target identification, long endurance and Air to Air refueling.
New avionics and maybe it could operate with two crews in rotation.
What exactly do you mean by “two crews in rotation”?But purely as a bomb truck and occasional show of force. 10t of smart munitions onboard with air/ground asset doing the target identification, long endurance and Air to Air refueling.
New avionics and maybe it could operate with two crews in rotation.
Tony1963 said:
Super Sonic said:
SR71 aka blackbird aka habu
Mach 3.2 +! Actual top speed classified, but romour has it ,you hit the throttle at any speed and it accelerates hard, until it's going so fast it feels like it's gonna disintegrate. Apparently no one actually knows it's too speed.
I love it when people say that.Mach 3.2 +! Actual top speed classified, but romour has it ,you hit the throttle at any speed and it accelerates hard, until it's going so fast it feels like it's gonna disintegrate. Apparently no one actually knows it's too speed.
We have scientists, engineers, aerodynamicists etc etc.
Any aircraft has known lift, weight, thrust, drag. We know exactly how shockwaves form and behave. We have huge number crunching available in ‘putas. We know how the shape of an aircraft affects speed.
As with the Lightning, we can know EXACTLY what the top speed of the Blackbird would have been.
But, top speed is meaningless for most aircraft, because you just can’t maintain it for very long.
And now me on a more positive footing…
The Hunter shape, but: modern materials and construction methods. That’ll cut a huge amount of weight from it. Then a modern engine with built in starter. Modern avionics/glass cockpit. Modern armament.
The Hunter has an excellent shape for subsonic performance. That saves fuel and adds reliability. No need for supersonic unless you’re an interceptor going somewhere in a hurry.
But… I’d still want the blue note
The Hunter shape, but: modern materials and construction methods. That’ll cut a huge amount of weight from it. Then a modern engine with built in starter. Modern avionics/glass cockpit. Modern armament.
The Hunter has an excellent shape for subsonic performance. That saves fuel and adds reliability. No need for supersonic unless you’re an interceptor going somewhere in a hurry.
But… I’d still want the blue note
Tony1963 said:
And now me on a more positive footing…
The Hunter shape, but: modern materials and construction methods. That’ll cut a huge amount of weight from it. Then a modern engine with built in starter. Modern avionics/glass cockpit. Modern armament.
The Hunter has an excellent shape for subsonic performance. That saves fuel and adds reliability. No need for supersonic unless you’re an interceptor going somewhere in a hurry.
But… I’d still want the blue note
How would that compare with a Hawk 200?The Hunter shape, but: modern materials and construction methods. That’ll cut a huge amount of weight from it. Then a modern engine with built in starter. Modern avionics/glass cockpit. Modern armament.
The Hunter has an excellent shape for subsonic performance. That saves fuel and adds reliability. No need for supersonic unless you’re an interceptor going somewhere in a hurry.
But… I’d still want the blue note
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff