WWII warplanes vs combat sim realism

Right, instead of forking out billions upon billions for a force of
capable strike fighters, I suggest the RAF has a look at what it's
been doing for the past 20 years plus, and accepts that there is a
role for a cheap strategic bomber. Yes, that's right: strategic
bombing on the cheap. Do not adjust your newsreader.

The role: All we want is a fantastically long range aircraft, with an
excellent sub-sonic economic cruise, extensive ECM and ECCM fit,
shedloads of decoys and suchlike, and a good PGM fit to allow an
enormous bombload to be carried and dropped on distant people of whom
we know little with great accuracy.

Let's face it, it's never going to operate against anybody with
substantive air defences or if it does the RAF will almost certainly
be operating with the USAAF who can handle all the glamour work. We
can even have a Eurofighter force for some token in-house air-to-air
capacity. But what we really need is something to lug large
quantities of PGMs to distant battlefields, and to do so more cheaply
than a carrier can in the majority of cases, and without all that
annoying diplomacy required to allow the use of local bases.

The solution: something that can be built relatively cheaply by BAe
Systems in the UK. Relatively low-tech in terms of airframe, with no
pretensions to any kind of multi-role or air-to-air performance
capability. This means lower chances of budgetary overruns, and
higher chances of maximising the pork-barrel job creation factor.
Only one service customer to confuse the issue with random spec
changes, only one defence beaurocracy to beat into submission, and
the admittedly minute production run offset against low airframe cost.

Or shall we just re-engine and re-fit the Vulcans?

Quick, before the men in white coats come to take me away!

Gavin Bailey


--

"Will Boogie Down For Food".- Sign held by Disco Stu outside the unemployment office.

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" wrote in
message ...
Right, instead of forking out billions upon billions for a force of
capable strike fighters, I suggest the RAF has a look at what it's
been doing for the past 20 years plus, and accepts that there is a
role for a cheap strategic bomber. Yes, that's right: strategic
bombing on the cheap. Do not adjust your newsreader.

The role: All we want is a fantastically long range aircraft, with an
excellent sub-sonic economic cruise, extensive ECM and ECCM fit,
shedloads of decoys and suchlike, and a good PGM fit to allow an
enormous bombload to be carried and dropped on distant people of whom
we know little with great accuracy.

Let's face it, it's never going to operate against anybody with
substantive air defences or if it does the RAF will almost certainly
be operating with the USAAF who can handle all the glamour work. We
can even have a Eurofighter force for some token in-house air-to-air
capacity. But what we really need is something to lug large
quantities of PGMs to distant battlefields, and to do so more cheaply
than a carrier can in the majority of cases, and without all that
annoying diplomacy required to allow the use of local bases.

The solution: something that can be built relatively cheaply by BAe
Systems in the UK. Relatively low-tech in terms of airframe, with no
pretensions to any kind of multi-role or air-to-air performance
capability. This means lower chances of budgetary overruns, and
higher chances of maximising the pork-barrel job creation factor.
Only one service customer to confuse the issue with random spec
changes, only one defence beaurocracy to beat into submission, and
the admittedly minute production run offset against low airframe cost.


I suggest that this is one role that is right for a pilotless vehicle.
If all you intend to do is fly to a map reference point and
drop a shedload of guided or unguided HE on it why do you
need a pilot ?


Or shall we just re-engine and re-fit the Vulcans?


Most of them have been turned into double glazing.

Keith

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:39:41 GMT, (The Revolution
Will Not Be Televised) wrote:



Or shall we just re-engine and re-fit the Vulcans?

Quick, before the men in white coats come to take me away!


A reengined victor would be superior to the vulcan in all aspects of what
you propose IMHO.

Carrying 50% more bombload, higher and faster.


greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:39:41 GMT, (The Revolution
Will Not Be Televised) wrote:



Or shall we just re-engine and re-fit the Vulcans?

Quick, before the men in white coats come to take me away!


A reengined victor would be superior to the vulcan in all aspects of what
you propose IMHO.

Carrying 50% more bombload, higher and faster.



Until the wings fell off, they all used their airframe hours
many moons ago.

Keith

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:05:11 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:



A reengined victor would be superior to the vulcan in all aspects of what
you propose IMHO.

Carrying 50% more bombload, higher and faster.



Until the wings fell off, they all used their airframe hours
many moons ago.

Keith


Quite true.


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:22:55 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

I suggest that this is one role that is right for a pilotless vehicle.
If all you intend to do is fly to a map reference point and
drop a shedload of guided or unguided HE on it why do you
need a pilot ?

I forgot the real reason: we have to sell it to a service full of
ex-pilots.

Gavin Bailey

--

"Will Boogie Down For Food".- Sign held by Disco Stu outside the unemployment office.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:53:55 +0000, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

A reengined victor would be superior to the vulcan in all aspects of what
you propose IMHO.

Carrying 50% more bombload, higher and faster.

Yeah, but let's face it, all the old V-force are shagged, and in any
case wouldn't have the same pork-barrel job-creation dynamic as a new
aircraft. Think modern cheapskate version of the B-52 or something
similar - I doubt they'd go for embedded engines again.

Gavin Bailey

--

"Will Boogie Down For Food".- Sign held by Disco Stu outside the unemployment office.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:30:19 GMT, (The Revolution
Will Not Be Televised) wrote:

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:53:55 +0000, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

A reengined victor would be superior to the vulcan in all aspects of what
you propose IMHO.

Carrying 50% more bombload, higher and faster.

Yeah, but let's face it, all the old V-force are shagged, and in any
case wouldn't have the same pork-barrel job-creation dynamic as a new
aircraft.

Quite. The unnecessary selection and production of 3 aircraft was an act of
political stupidity. Nonsense about it being 'insurance' should have been
sorted at the trial stage.


Think modern cheapskate version of the B-52 or something
similar

Yes, airbus will suggest using the wings and engines of the A-400M on a new
slender fuselage and call it the A-95M Ursa, The maritime variant, A-142M
would be an ideal nimrod replacement.

Think of all the french aerospace workers we can featherbed.

- I doubt they'd go for embedded engines again.

Yes, with a modern high bypass turbofan, it would lead to some interesting
levels of wing root thickness.


greg




Gavin Bailey

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

(ArtKramr) wrote:

I've got a sound effect on my website of an R-2800 winding up. That's the
same
engine that was on the P-47. You might want to contact Bob McKellar and see if
he will let you use it. If that is a problem I think I may have some R-2800
sound effects around somewhere. Nothing sounds quiet like an R-2800. (grin)

I hadn't noticed that sound link before, it sounds great!

At Duxford they had a huge grass field and took off 8 abreast. I can overlay 8
tracks with slightly different start times for the 8 planes and another 8 for
the next group, etc. I need to find a full takeoff power pass from about
halfway down the field, or I should say from a point where a fully loaded P-47
would be about 25 to 50 feet off the ground.

If I can add some in-the-cockpit engine sound for the ACM I will be about done.

-- Charlie Springer

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:38:24 +0000, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

Quite. The unnecessary selection and production of 3 aircraft was an act of
political stupidity. Nonsense about it being 'insurance' should have been
sorted at the trial stage.

I dunno, at least the Valiant came in on time and almost to budget.
which is impressive if we ignore the fatigue situation for a minute.
They really should have made a choice between the Vulcan and the
Victor, though, and probably in favour of the latter. Having said
that, there was a time constraint at the time coupled with the
necessity to produce a successful type which doesn't exist now.

Think modern cheapskate version of the B-52 or something
similar

Yes, airbus will suggest using the wings and engines of the A-400M on a new
slender fuselage and call it the A-95M Ursa, The maritime variant, A-142M
would be an ideal nimrod replacement.

Think of all the french aerospace workers we can featherbed.

No, this is not a collaborative effort. They can work for certain
flagship programs at the political level, but one financial quagmire
at a time until the Eurofighter procurement and the A-whatever
(ex-FLA) contract is complete. This is a UK-led supplier effort.

- I doubt they'd go for embedded engines again.

Yes, with a modern high bypass turbofan, it would lead to some interesting
levels of wing root thickness.

Dig those old Short Sperrin airframes out of storage now!

Gavin Bailey

--

"Will Boogie Down For Food".- Sign held by Disco Stu outside the unemployment office.