Libyan crisis - would the government bring back Ark Royal & Harriers?

[Countdown]

In that case perhaps we should be preparing for attack from militant chickens

Eric - I have to disagree. It may appear that way because the probable threats have been contained as a result of good planning.

[Eric Mc]

And you therefore keep a contingency plan (with relevant assets) for the improbable events.

Or else you decide that world policing is something we shouldn't be doing anyway and just give up everything apart from what is needed for homeland defence.

[Simpo Two]

Mojocvh said:

To put things into perspective,

3X B2's have effectively wiped out the Libyan Air Force overnight (48 shelters targeted with 2000lb JDAM's) unseen and undetected.
Mission flown from/to continental US.

GR4 pictured taking off loaded with targeting pod, 1x PW4 and 3 Brimstone, CAS load. Mission flown from the UK.

'nuff said.

Bye bye carriers and F35.

What about targets further away from the UK? Single-seat airplanes and in-flight refuelling only work so far. There is also the case of 'projection of power' to consider. Otherwise you could argue that the US should scrap all its a carriers too. Park the Nimitz offshore some troublespot and it tends to focus minds.

[aeropilot]

Countdown said:

aeropilot said:

Which is all fine and dandy for 1st/2nd night initial strikes......and as we arn't putting boots on ground, it's not a big deal in THIS scenario.

What happens after 2 or 3 weeks...?

Or we were looking at a boots on ground situation?

We would either use a friendly neighbouring country's airbases or alternatively we wouldn't go to war.

We cannot afford to have a military that covers all possible eventualities. Hopefully the one we have covers most of the probable ones.

You can't guarantee being able to use friendly neighbouring bases.... as this little escapade has proved.
Malta have said no, Italy have agreed, but with some reluctance given their colonial past with Libya, so it's not ever a given. If Italy had said no to using bases, things would have been a lot harder, and if Greece (Crete) had said no... well.

And as to your last point.....

[Countdown]

Eric Mc said:

And you therefore keep a contingency plan (with relevant assets) for the improbable events.

At what level of improbability would you stop your defence planning?

Eric Mc said:

Or else you decide that world policing is something we shouldn't be doing anyway and just give up everything apart from what is needed for homeland defence.

Agreed. Nobody made us the world police. There may be humanitarian reasons for this intervention but other parties need to start doing their fair share.

[SplatSpeed]

they don't like it up em!

[H100S]

Forgive me but why can a Typhoon not do what a Tornado can? Genuine question I dont know enougth about them just curious to know. As a total plane and weapons novice they to me are bothsimply fighter planes, one is considerably newer than the other.

[Lurking Lawyer]

The Tornado came in two variants - the F version which was an air defence interceptor and the GR version which is the ground attack/recon variant.

The F version has been largely (completely?) retired and replaced by the Typhoon. The GR version is still in service and is the RAF's only real attack aircraft now Harrier has been retired.

The Typhoon does gave an FGR ground attack variant, but there is apparently a shortage of pilots trained to use it so there isn't much prospect of seeing it in the air-to-ground role any time soon.....

[H100S]

Lurking Lawyer said:

The Tornado came in two variants - the F version which was an air defence interceptor and the GR version which is the ground attack/recon variant.

The F version has been largely (completely?) retired and replaced by the Typhoon. The GR version is still in service and is the RAF's only real attack aircraft now Harrier has been retired.

The Typhoon does gave an FGR ground attack variant, but there is apparently a shortage of pilots trained to use it so there isn't much prospect of seeing it in the air-to-ground role any time soon.....

Thanks for that, i understand now but what makes them so different?(Tornado F v's GR)

[anonymous-user]

The F3 finally retired from RAF Service today.

[Mr Dave]

H100S said:

Lurking Lawyer said:

The Tornado came in two variants - the F version which was an air defence interceptor and the GR version which is the ground attack/recon variant.

The F version has been largely (completely?) retired and replaced by the Typhoon. The GR version is still in service and is the RAF's only real attack aircraft now Harrier has been retired.

The Typhoon does gave an FGR ground attack variant, but there is apparently a shortage of pilots trained to use it so there isn't much prospect of seeing it in the air-to-ground role any time soon.....

Thanks for that, i understand now but what makes them so different?(Tornado F v's GR)

Tornado F3 has a few differences to the GR4.

Different fueselage, lengthened to carry more fuel and to carry 4 skylfash/amraam missiles.

Different nose, to hold the different radar.

Different engines, optimised for high altutide rather than low level.

Different avionics.

It has one gun instead of two.

The non-sweepy bits of the wings have a different shape.

Im sure theres more but in essence they are longer and pointier.

[H100S]

Mr Dave said:

Tornado F3 has a few differences to the GR4.

Different fueselage, lengthened to carry more fuel and to carry 4 skylfash/amraam missiles.

Different nose, to hold the different radar.

Different engines, optimised for high altutide rather than low level.

Different avionics.

It has one gun instead of two.

The non-sweepy bits of the wings have a different shape.

Im sure theres more but in essence they are longer and pointier.

Understood. Cheers

[H100S]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Were these the ones at Leuchars?

[Mr Dave]

H100S said:

Mr Dave said:

Tornado F3 has a few differences to the GR4.

Different fueselage, lengthened to carry more fuel and to carry 4 skylfash/amraam missiles.

Different nose, to hold the different radar.

Different engines, optimised for high altutide rather than low level.

Different avionics.

It has one gun instead of two.

The non-sweepy bits of the wings have a different shape.

Im sure theres more but in essence they are longer and pointier.

Understood. Cheers

As you can see they are still obviously both the same aircraft but the nose is pointier on the F3.

[aeropilot]

Mr Dave said:

Different engines, optimised for slightlyhigher altitude rather than low level.

EFA

[Mr Dave]

aeropilot said:

Mr Dave said:

Different engines, optimised for slightlyhigher altitude rather than low level.

EFA

Aye it was those fancy variable noise constant thrust engines they had fitted wasnt it?

[Talksteer]

aeropilot said:

Mr Dave said:

Different engines, optimised for slightlyhigher altitude rather than low level.

EFA

Someone care to explain that one.

The RB199 has a higher bypass ratio than the types most often used in fighter jets. As such this should result in it having a higher thrust lapse rate and thus lower thrust at higher velocities. However as evidenced by the Tornado's high top speed and very high rated indicated airspeed limit this was more than offset by the aircraft's very low drag with the wings pulled back.

As far as I can see the principle issue with the aircraft would simply be that it has a rather poor thrust to weight for a fighter aircraft particularly when in dry thrust. Again because the engine has a higher bypass ratio and therefore mass flow the afterburner gives you a bigger proportional increase in thrust. The RB199 has substantially less dry thrust than say an F404 in the F18 which has a similar after-burning thrust.

[anonymous-user]

I seem to remember reading that the F3 could out accelerate an F-15 in level flght.

In answer to one of the previous posts, it was 111 Sqn at Leuchars that retired the type, I believe today.

[Mr Dave]

Talksteer said:

aeropilot said:

Mr Dave said:

Different engines, optimised for slightlyhigher altitude rather than low level.

EFA

Someone care to explain that one.

The RB199 has a higher bypass ratio than the types most often used in fighter jets. As such this should result in it having a higher thrust lapse rate and thus lower thrust at higher velocities. However as evidenced by the Tornado's high top speed and very high rated indicated airspeed limit this was more than offset by the aircraft's very low drag with the wings pulled back.

As far as I can see the principle issue with the aircraft would simply be that it has a rather poor thrust to weight for a fighter aircraft particularly when in dry thrust. Again because the engine has a higher bypass ratio and therefore mass flow the afterburner gives you a bigger proportional increase in thrust. The RB199 has substantially less dry thrust than say an F404 in the F18 which has a similar after-burning thrust.

Another side effect of the bigger bypass ratio and mass flow is higher consumption of fuel in reheat I gather? The F404 is a lot thirstier when in dry power though from what I can make out as well? (I dont exactly know much about these sorts of things)

If thats the case then the RB makes sense in the Tornado for either of its two roles, for long distance subsonic flight with a supersonic dash to the target for its old cold war bombing mission and for loitering about over the north sea for a few hours as the F3, both tasks where good fuel economy matter.

[H100S]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That's sad. I was at the base week before christmas, my brother in law works there. He took me around the airfield whilst the pilots got there hours in and there was constant air traffic tornados and typhoons. The tornados are much louder than the typhoons when taking off i could have stayed all day! The typhoons did some QRA simulations where they go pretty much vertical from take off now that was impressive!