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.