What should UK have bought?

[Austin Prefect]

We are all familiar with the 'might have beens' of the UK aircraft industry. But what about the 'shouldn't have beens'? Cases where the foreign option might have made more sense.

EG F14 or F15 instead of Tornado ADV.
C141 Starlifter instead of Belfast.
A4 Skyhawk instead of Scimitar.
Sea Knight or early Chinook instead of Belvedere.

Heresy I know but F106 or Mirage instead of Lightning? No better overall but probably cheaper.

[bergclimber34]

Some of those examples are the tail of the post war aircraft industry when governments were balancing our leadership in aircraft development with post war financial issues.

It came to a head in the 60s with the Labour party basically dropping everything in favour of Yank money, the F111, the F4 the buck 30 and a few choppers.

I have no issue with Tornado, the threat was real when it was developed, and the attack version was very good at its job, less favourable on the ADV.

Awacs was common sense after Nimrod was utterly destroyed. Lynx was perfectly decent, as were Puma and some others.

I never understood buying foreign trainers like Tucano, but maybe that's all there was.

As for transport, there was nothing wrong with the Herc, a lot of forces still use it.

Maybe we could have hone yank with tankers but we had surplus low mile VC, Victor and Tristars, so why not

When you think how hampered our air force was for decades, they did remarkably well, look at what Jag, Bucc, tankers, transports did in the gulf, Afghan, Yugo did, we consistently punch well above our weight with often old, bodged equipment.

Perfect example, Sea Harrier in the Falklands.

Edited by bergclimber34 on Tuesday 15th September 13:18

[carl_w]

Cats and traps for the QE-class.

[Castrol for a knave]

I always thought we should have got into the Gripen programme, to run alongside the Eurofighter. It could replace the Harrier as a low level attack aircraft but importantly, it has lower operational and maintenance costs and is designed to operate forward of its base, against a Russian threat.

It would fill in the gap left by the Harrier as a low level infantry close support aircraft - close support, reccy and ground attack/ anti-armour.

The Typhoon is probably better for air superiority, but with the Gripen able to operate more as a multiplatform offering, easier to maintain in the field and with a decent electronic suite, it would also replace the gap left by the Tornado. The F35 can do what it is designed for, which is drain the RAF resources and be an unnecessary diversion (I might be wrong about this bit but I'm coming at it from a King Tiger vs 25 T34 or 15 Fireflies reasoning...).

[LotusOmega375D]

Most of these suggestions imply ditching the UK (co-)produced option and buying from America. Surprised nobody has had a go at the A400M yet…

[WH16]

carl_w said:

Cats and traps for the QE-class.

With Cs instead of the short-legged Bs

[Castrol for a knave]

LotusOmega375D said:

Most of these suggestions imply ditching the UK (co-)produced option and buying from America. Surprised nobody has had a go at the A400M yet

The A400 is a cracking aircraft.

I regret not doing a jump from it - lads who did said it was much more "user friendly", than bouncing of the oppo side man, air stealing and generally getting a face full of prop blast in the Herc.

Positively enjoyable.

[wisbech]

DC9 rather than BAC1-11

[otolith]

LotusOmega375D said:

Most of these suggestions imply ditching the UK (co-)produced option and buying from America.

Maybe would have been a more attractive option back when it was clear that the US was a trustworthy ally.

[RizzoTheRat]

LotusOmega375D said:

Most of these suggestions imply ditching the UK (co-)produced option and buying from America.

This is the big one, even if it costs more, surely there's a benefit in keeping money within our own economy than giving it away. Assembling the Apache's at Yeovil worked out more expensive than buying them complete from the US, but it paid staff who spent thier money locally and kept a pool of people who knew how helicopters worked. I believe the plan for the Hawk replacement is similar with assembly in the UK.

F-35B has some similar value as a lot more of it (lift fan assembly) is made in the UK than the C, but the C is more capable and longer range so I can see the benefits either way on that one.

P-8 was the right choice given how many other countries use it. Wedgetail a bit more controversial for the same reason.

Austin Prefect said:

EG F14 or F15 instead of Tornado ADV.

Wasn't the Tornado ADV always intended as a long range missile truck to take down bombers rather than a fighter? In which case it met the brief well and kept a lot of parts and maintenance commonality to keep the costs down

Edited by RizzoTheRat on Tuesday 15th September 14:17

[Yertis]

bergclimber34 said:

When you think how hampered our air force was for decades, they did remarkably well, look at what Jag, Bucc, tankers, transports did in the gulf, Afghan, Yugo did, we consistently punch well above our weight with often old, bodged equipment.

Perfect example, Sea Harrier in the Falklands.

With respect that’s a rubbish example - in 1982 the Sea Harrier was fresh out the box with highly advanced radar. If anything the Argentinians were flying old bodged equipment.

[Yertis]

Austin Prefect said:

Heresy I know but F106 or Mirage instead of Lightning? No better overall but probably cheaper.

Or Saab Draken, arguably better than any of those, and also has a Brit engine (RR Avon)

[Jim H]

RizzoTheRat said:

LotusOmega375D said:

Most of these suggestions imply ditching the UK (co-)produced option and buying from America.

This is the big one, even if it costs more, surely there's a benefit in keeping money within our own economy than giving it away. Assembling the Apache's at Yeovil worked out more expensive than buying them complete from the US, but it paid staff who spent thier money locally and kept a pool of people who knew how helicopters worked. I believe the plan for the Hawk replacement is similar with assembly in the UK.

F-35B has some similar value as a lot more of it (lift fan assembly) is made in the UK than the C, but the C is more capable and longer range so I can see the benefits either way on that one.

P-8 was the right choice given how many other countries use it. Wedgetail a bit more controversial for the same reason.

Austin Prefect said:

EG F14 or F15 instead of Tornado ADV.

Wasn't the Tornado ADV always intended as a long range missile truck to take down bombers rather than a fighter? In which case it met the brief well and kept a lot of parts and maintenance commonality to keep the costs down

Edited by RizzoTheRat on Tuesday 15th September 14:17

A few weeks ago I was talking to an ex RAF fighter pilot who flew the Tornado in action.

I have no shame in admitting I was rather star-struck. As someone (myself) who’d had a poster of a Tornado on my bedroom wall. I asked: “the Tornado must have been the best?”

He replied it was a bit of a ‘truck’ to fly. Reheat every take off, just to get it off the deck. Fully laden, weighing ~ 27 tonnes.

Not very manoeuvrable, and always a worry the wings would swing back for landing configuration.

No, his favourite was flying the Hawk, just like a sports car of the sky.

The Tornado, definitely a bomber not a fighter.

[Austin Prefect]

RizzoTheRat said:

Wasn't the Tornado ADV always intended as a long range missile truck to take down bombers rather than a fighter? In which case it met the brief well and kept a lot of parts and maintenance commonality to keep the costs down

So was the F14, which is why it was considered as an alternative. Tornado ADV was certainly cheaper than a new aircraft but probably more than off the shelf F14s. Except that the government would have insisted on British engines and avionics on whatever was bought.

[magpie215]

bergclimber34 said:

I never understood buying foreign trainers like Tucano, but maybe that's all there was.

Edited by bergclimber34 on Tuesday 15th September 13:18

Mainly jobs...they were licence built by Shorts in N. Ireland

[aeropilot]

Austin Prefect said:

RizzoTheRat said:

Wasn't the Tornado ADV always intended as a long range missile truck to take down bombers rather than a fighter? In which case it met the brief well and kept a lot of parts and maintenance commonality to keep the costs down

So was the F14, which is why it was considered as an alternative. Tornado ADV was certainly cheaper than a new aircraft but probably more than off the shelf F14s. Except that the government would have insisted on British engines and avionics on whatever was bought.

Most probably.
But, a F14 buy was actually closer to happening than many realise, which was a bloody shame, as while it was a bloody expensive aircraft to operate, it wouldn't have needed to use reheat when AAR'ing from UK tankers

[808 Estate]

Castrol for a knave said:

I always thought we should have got into the Gripen programme, to run alongside the Eurofighter. It could replace the Harrier as a low level attack aircraft but importantly, it has lower operational and maintenance costs and is designed to operate forward of its base, against a Russian threat.

It would fill in the gap left by the Harrier as a low level infantry close support aircraft - close support, reccy and ground attack/ anti-armour.

The Typhoon is probably better for air superiority, but with the Gripen able to operate more as a multiplatform offering, easier to maintain in the field and with a decent electronic suite, it would also replace the gap left by the Tornado.

My thoughts exactly. Also pretty sure Saab would grant a licence to allow UK production which would be good for UK economy and workforce.

[Austin Prefect]

808 Estate said:

Castrol for a knave said:

I always thought we should have got into the Gripen programme, to run alongside the Eurofighter. It could replace the Harrier as a low level attack aircraft but importantly, it has lower operational and maintenance costs and is designed to operate forward of its base, against a Russian threat.

It would fill in the gap left by the Harrier as a low level infantry close support aircraft - close support, reccy and ground attack/ anti-armour.

The Typhoon is probably better for air superiority, but with the Gripen able to operate more as a multiplatform offering, easier to maintain in the field and with a decent electronic suite, it would also replace the gap left by the Tornado.

My thoughts exactly. Also pretty sure Saab would grant a licence to allow UK production which would be good for UK economy and workforce.

BAE was involved in Gripen, but it was in the area of jointly developing and marketing export versions. I think the theory was Hawk customers would be open to Gripen purchases and vice versa.

[Castrol for a knave]

808 Estate said:

Castrol for a knave said:

I always thought we should have got into the Gripen programme, to run alongside the Eurofighter. It could replace the Harrier as a low level attack aircraft but importantly, it has lower operational and maintenance costs and is designed to operate forward of its base, against a Russian threat.

It would fill in the gap left by the Harrier as a low level infantry close support aircraft - close support, reccy and ground attack/ anti-armour.

The Typhoon is probably better for air superiority, but with the Gripen able to operate more as a multiplatform offering, easier to maintain in the field and with a decent electronic suite, it would also replace the gap left by the Tornado.

My thoughts exactly. Also pretty sure Saab would grant a licence to allow UK production which would be good for UK economy and workforce.

I believe one of the reasons Gripen was not ordered and thus used as widely as it should, was limited production capacity. Built under licence here sounds a solution.

[UK_Scat_Pack]

Blackhawk. Twice the RAF and British Army have fought to have the Blackhawk selected and despite being the favourite both times, it lost out. The replacement has nowhere near the capacity as the Puma it has replaced, or the Blackhawk.