RN/RAN capabilities + RAN procurement

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
and previously when it was discussed I was told (almost paraphrasing) "nobody cares about that crazy stuff" in relation to range, fuel capacity and internal weapons space.
That is so full of crap and a complete and utter manipulation of what was stated. I said - and this is the third time I've corrected this - that claims that the F-35 did not have enough range and weapons were "crazy". Not that needing range and weapons were crazy. If you can’t get this you’re just a troll and a pretty dumb one at that.

I also pointed out that compared to the F-111 the F-35 can actually fly further in a high survivability profile and destroy more targets than an F-111 in its initial configuration. It does this because by using stealth it can fly high to and from the target and be harder to detect and therefore engage than an F-111 flying a lo-lo-lo profile. Said F-111 loaded with 12 or more 500 lb bombs has a less than 600 NM radius flying lo-lo-lo. Said F-111 can only drop its spread of bombs on a single target to achieve far less lethality than a F-35 precisely hitting two targets with JDAMs or eight targets with SDBs. Even when you give the F-111 precision weapons it needs something like the Raptor stand-off bomb to hit the target with any kind of survivability which means the same number of engagements as the F-35. Just because the F-111 can fly over 2,000 NM on a tank of gas and carry 24,000 lbs of bombs does not mean it can actually outrange and outhit a F-35. That is of course if you know anything about how they are actually used in combat.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
A good percentage of the fuel used by a fighter is consumed taking off and reaching cruising altitude. If a fighter refueled from a tanker when it reaches cruising altitude not far from the home base, a fighter will have considerably greater range. Therefore, please take the numbers from various web sites on a fighter's range with a grain of salt. In the real world they don't have much merit outside comparing range without refueling. In the real world fighters refuel before undertaking long range missions. Sometimes more than once...

Don't end up being a fool drawing circles around bases with a compass. If that were the case the F-111s would have never bombed Libya when they had to fly around the Iberian peninsula, nor would the Vulcan have bombed Stanley Airport.

Air Forces don't race fighters. Lighting up a jet's afterburners is a very quick way to run out of fuel very quickly. The same applies to naval ships too. While some ships can reach a flank speed of 30+ knots, most of the time they sail at less than 20 knots conserving fuel.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eox5ePddzyQ"]Vulcan Black Buck bombing raid Falklands Conflict 1982 - YouTube[/nomedia]

Wiki says the range of a Vulcan is 2,607 mi (4,171 km)
Ascension Island to Stanley is 3900 miles, or 7800 miles roundtrip. That is three times the Vulcan's ferry range.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Don't end up being a fool drawing circles around bases with a compass. If that were the case the F-111s would have never bombed Libya when they had to fly around the Iberian peninsula, nor would the Vulcan have bombed Stanley Airport.
BLACK BUCK and EL DORADO CANYON are hardly typical strike missions. Both were completely pointless as they were only air force efforts to be invovled in a navy mission. Both burned a huge amount of fuel and airframe hours just so their air forces could say they were invovled. On hand naval aviation forces were more than capable of achieving the results of BLACK BUCK and EL DORADO CANYON.

Typical in flight refuelling is at 50% fuel and in the case of radius extension rarely adds more than 50% to radius in a conventional out and back type mission.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
BLACK BUCK and EL DORADO CANYON are hardly typical strike missions. Both were completely pointless as they were only air force efforts to be invovled in a navy mission. Both burned a huge amount of fuel and airframe hours just so their air forces could say they were invovled. On hand naval aviation forces were more than capable of achieving the results of BLACK BUCK and EL DORADO CANYON.

Typical in flight refuelling is at 50% fuel and in the case of radius extension rarely adds more than 50% to radius in a conventional out and back type mission.
While its true most missions don't involve such long distances, and only increase the range say 50 percent with refueling close to the base, its also true long distance missions are possible. If an air force wishes to bomb a target, they can arrange refuelings when required. Therefore those who bank on listed range from different web sites aren't in the real world.

These two missions may have been just one mission, but the British were willing to do so again and again until they eventually bombed the runway. When it comes to hitting strategic military targets, money doesn't enter into the picture.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
While its true most missions don't involve such long distances, and only increase the range say 50 percent with refueling close to the base, its also true long distance missions are possible. If an air force wishes to bomb a target, they can arrange refuelings when required. Therefore those who bank on listed range from different web sites aren't in the real world.
The only missions that involve tanking close to the air base are heavy bombers (that burn heaps to get airborne overloaded with bombs) who usually take on further fuel down the range. As I said before IFR rarely takes place before the aircraft is down to 50% fuel and if the tanking safe line isn’t an issue this can be at the extend of the aircraft’s internal fuel radius. Giving it a rough 50% radius extension.

These two missions may have been just one mission, but the British were willing to do so again and again until they eventually bombed the runway. When it comes to hitting strategic military targets, money doesn't enter into the picture.
BLACK BUCK was entirely a RAF effort to claim some kind of role in the war. It achieved nothing that local Sea Harriers couldn’t and didn’t. These missions never closed the runway and had no positive effect on the outcome of the war. Rather the diversion of tanking assets from flying Hercs down to the task group where they sea dropped various stores probably held back the British campaign.
 
Last edited:

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
These two missions may have been just one mission, but the British were willing to do so again and again until they eventually bombed the runway. When it comes to hitting strategic military targets, money doesn't enter into the picture.
They chose the most difficult and impractical way they could think of to do that job. They should have sent a Harrier in to do the job from one of the carriers.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
They chose the most difficult and impractical way they could think of to do that job. They should have sent a Harrier in to do the job from one of the carriers.
If the British had lost one carrier, they would have had to withdraw. Vulcans were expendable, the carriers weren't. Better to hit the runway with an air force bomber without risking the carriers. Once the runway was put out of action for fighter aircraft, the Harriers and the carriers were risked. Why take risks when you don't have to?
 

Vanguard

New Member
To be honest if it was a choice of; sending an aging about to be retired bomber to break a world record (obvious bragging rights) and achieve the target or risking one of your highly valuable Harrier Jump-Jets on a not so essential mission I would have done the prior too.

Perhaps we are looking too far back though, what about the recent record breaking run from Norfolk to Libya by the RAF's Tornadoes, was that right to do? Was the extra fuel a cheaper option than sending out more and more ground crews to Italy.

Edit: Sorry for doubling up on points didn't refresh before posting to see Sea_Toby's reply.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
If the British had lost one carrier, they would have had to withdraw. Vulcans were expendable, the carriers weren't. Better to hit the runway with an air force bomber without risking the carriers. Once the runway was put out of action for fighter aircraft, the Harriers and the carriers were risked. Why take risks when you don't have to?
Ahhh what do you think escorted the Vulcan in? What do you think hit the Stanley airfield the next morning? What do you think dropped bombs on the Stanley runway every flying day of the campaign? (A: Sea Harriers)

The runway was never put out of action for fighter aircraft. The Vulcan bombing had no effect on the airfield's operations. Along with the myth that the Argies withdrew their Mirages to defend BA after BLACK BUCK these were just lies made up by the British press and RAF PR team.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
To be honest if it was a choice of; sending an aging about to be retired bomber to break a world record (obvious bragging rights) and achieve the target or risking one of your highly valuable Harrier Jump-Jets on a not so essential mission I would have done the prior too.
Yeah airframes are all important. No one in the British forces cares about the lives of five aircrew...

Anyway the Vulcan was under no threat. It was escorted by a Sea Harrier and flew above the range of any Argie GBAD. The biggest danger it was in was having to carry out a heap of IFRs. Which almost resulted in the loss of one aircraft which just made it into Rio with a broken nose.

The Sea Harriers could have done the bombing far more accurately and with less risk. They lost a few fighters to GBAD but that is because of an unauthorised second attack and one pilot falling asleep at the wheel. Got a Roland wake up call...
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Yeah airframes are all important. No one in the British forces cares about the lives of five aircrew...

Anyway the Vulcan was under no threat. It was escorted by a Sea Harrier and flew above the range of any Argie GBAD. The biggest danger it was in was having to carry out a heap of IFRs. Which almost resulted in the loss of one aircraft which just made it into Rio with a broken nose.

The Sea Harriers could have done the bombing far more accurately and with less risk. They lost a few fighters to GBAD but that is because of an unauthorised second attack and one pilot falling asleep at the wheel. Got a Roland wake up call...
There were five Blackbuck raids out of a planned seven. The Harriers don't shoot Shrike missiles. Not only the runway but the radar had to be taken out as well. A mission the Harriers couldn't do...

Why do people tend to rewrite history? The Blackbuck missions were vital. Sadly, many of you are fully aware the first targets in an air war is the enemy's radar grid.

Operation Black Buck - Vulcan bomber raids during the Falklands War
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
There were five Blackbuck raids out of a planned seven. The Harriers don't shoot Shrike missiles. Not only the runway but the radar had to be taken out as well. A mission the Harriers couldn't do...

Why do people tend to rewrite history? The Blackbuck missions were vital. Sadly, many of you are fully aware the first targets in an air war is the enemy's radar grid.

Operation Black Buck - Vulcan bomber raids during the Falklands War
LOL. Re write history? Indeed like suggesting that the Vulcan Shrike strikes were the first targets! LOL. The Shrike strikes happened a full MONTH (that's 31 days) after the start of the campaign. And their effectiveness was like the airfield denial: completely zero.

After weeks of air fighting the RN wanted the Tipsy warning and fighter control radar taken out because it was probably the most important system in the Argie's arsenal. Yet the Shrike failed to do anything other than turn the Tipsy off for a few minutes. They did engage a single Skyguard AA FCS but this didn't deny the Argies anything as they had quite a few AA FCS. So many the best of them entered RAF Regt service after the war. Cosidering the one mission in which a Vulcan did anything (destroy a Skyguard FCS) resulted in the huge risk and political expense of the emergency diversion to Rio even if one only counts effects rather than the huge logistic cost BLACK BUCK was a complete and utter failure.
 

Vanguard

New Member
Not wanting to weigh in on the full military/tactical benefits of the Black Buck raids it is needless to say that they did have some benefit in morale terms of the troops on the ground. I know there were many other factors that caused the primarily conscript soldiers to be down but having their territory bombed regularly is sure to be somewhat of a contributing factor, especially when men were being killed on the ground. Not to mention the fact that it proved it was possible was a major morale boost for the British and did reflect that they had the means to strike targets at such a distance, including Argentina itself.
 

south

Well-Known Member
Typical in flight refuelling is at 50% fuel and in the case of radius extension rarely adds more than 50% to radius in a conventional out and back type mission. As I said before IFR rarely takes place before the aircraft is down to 50% fuel and if the tanking safe line isn’t an issue this can be at the extend of the aircraft’s internal fuel radius. Giving it a rough 50% radius extension.
IFR takes place whenever As required. It certainly is not unusual for an aircraft to top up with only 3-4000lbs fuel which most certainly is not 50%. If you wait for 50% you are setting yourself up for a fail.

Ahhh what do you think escorted the Vulcan in? What do you think hit the Stanley airfield the next morning? What do you think dropped bombs on the Stanley runway every flying day of the campaign? (A: Sea Harriers)
Thats great but what actual measurable effect did they have with their dumb bombs on the airfield infrastructure. I assure you that for weapons effects against hard targets that dumb bomb attacks from low level are unrewarding. Couple this with the fact that their high level - level deliveries (once again with dumb bombs and radar mapping) that their chances of actually destroying anything was so low that it is pretty much a nuisance attack...

The runway was never put out of action for fighter aircraft.
The runway was never in action for fighter aircraft... it was 4000ft long. I can guarantee you that a mirage III/V driver is not happy with 4000ft of strip.... It did have potential if it was lengthened with PSP and perhaps had a cable put down that maybe their A-4's could have utilised the strip..

The Vulcan bombing had no effect on the airfield's operations.
Apart from the fact that there was a crater in the middle of the runway? No lasting effect - I agree. Even if the runway crater was repaired quickly and efficiently the blackbuck raids still demonstrated capability and intent It could be argued that the blackbuck raids put paid to any thoughts of expanding the strip...

Along with the myth that the Argies withdrew their Mirages to defend BA after BLACK BUCK these were just lies made up by the British press and RAF PR team.
.
Sounds like you have read to much of Sharky ward.... :rel
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
IFR takes place whenever As required. It certainly is not unusual for an aircraft to top up with only 3-4000lbs fuel which most certainly is not 50%. If you wait for 50% you are setting yourself up for a fail.
I’m talking about in the context of mission radius and typical missions rather than sustaining aircraft in orbits.

Thats great but what actual measurable effect did they have with their dumb bombs on the airfield infrastructure. I assure you that for weapons effects against hard targets that dumb bomb attacks from low level are unrewarding. Couple this with the fact that their high level - level deliveries (once again with dumb bombs and radar mapping) that their chances of actually destroying anything was so low that it is pretty much a nuisance attack...
Sure, same as the Vulcans.

The runway was never in action for fighter aircraft... it was 4000ft long. I can guarantee you that a mirage III/V driver is not happy with 4000ft of strip.... It did have potential if it was lengthened with PSP and perhaps had a cable put down that maybe their A-4's could have utilised the strip..
Sure but they never planned to or did operate supersonic fighters from Stanley but before and after the Vulcans they flew their light strike and airlifters in and out of the field.

Apart from the fact that there was a crater in the middle of the runway? No lasting effect - I agree. Even if the runway crater was repaired quickly and efficiently the blackbuck raids still demonstrated capability and intent It could be argued that the blackbuck raids put paid to any thoughts of expanding the strip...
They fixed the crater straight away and never had any logistical possibility of expanding the strip. The Sea Harriers which pounded the airfield the morning after the Vulcan strike with VT toss bombs and Clusters could have hit it with more 1,000 lbers onto the airfield than the single bomb the Vulcan managed. There may have been psychological and political issues associated with the Vulcan but they were mostly internal on the British back in the UK and the morale of the RAF.

Sounds like you have read to much of Sharky ward.... :rel
Nope Middlebrook.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/ARGENTINE-FIGHT-FALKLANDS-Military-Classics/dp/0850529786"]Amazon.com: ARGENTINE FIGHT FOR THE FALKLANDS (Pen & Sword Military Classics (Series)) (9780850529784): Martin Middlebrook: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21m842loO0L.@@AMEPARAM@@21m842loO0L[/ame]

The Argies were just as angry as Ward over the media manipulations of the RAF and British press. And despite his current craziness I’m yet to see him refuted for his claims about the Falklands conflict. Besides the logic, or lack thereof, of the BLACK BUCK raids are apparent to any critical mind. LINEBACKER they were not.
 

south

Well-Known Member
I’m talking about in the context of mission radius and typical missions rather than sustaining aircraft in orbits.
So am I, and I can assure you that you don't drop to 50% fuel before you top up, and the further away you go the more often you take fuel and the less you take.

The Sea Harriers which pounded the airfield the morning after the Vulcan strike with VT toss bombs and Clusters could have hit it with more 1,000 lbers onto the airfield than the single bomb the Vulcan managed.
Dont really understand this statement? Could have hit the runway - doubt it - if so why didnt they? Could have cut it to prevent pucaras and hercs getting in there... .. If it was so easy they probably would have done so rather than just wanging some shrapnel and CB's around the place. - VT dumb bombs on a toss attack - wow it sounds good but really...

The difference lies between dropping a stick of bombs on a calculated aimpoint vice dropping a single bomb on a toss attack. The vulcan has a far higher likelyhood of creating the required level of damage.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Dont really understand this statement? Could have hit the runway - doubt it - if so why didnt they? Could have cut it to prevent pucaras and hercs getting in there... .. If it was so easy they probably would have done so rather than just wanging some shrapnel and CB's around the place. - VT dumb bombs on a toss attack - wow it sounds good but really...
They flew the mission they were tasked to do. Ward goes to some great length complaining that the SHARs weren’t tasked to cut the runway even though they had proven they could do it at night with their radar-nav system. Which wasn’t a toss bomb attack. The CBU SHARs flew straight down the runway, I also think their might have been a rocket arrack on the control tower in this strike.

The difference lies between dropping a stick of bombs on a calculated aimpoint vice dropping a single bomb on a toss attack. The vulcan has a far higher likelyhood of creating the required level of damage.
The SHARs had proven the capability to hit a runway sized target with low level bombing. With only three bombs rather than 21. Same type of bomb. The RAF attacks were at right angle to th e runway so they were never going to get more than one bomb onto it.

The problem was the RAF wanted in on the show even if it meant using 12+ tankers to get a single 1,000 lb bomb onto the runway (and in their second strike they didn’t even achieve that). The Hermes SHAR squadron never got their avionics working so the flag on Hermes didn’t believe the SHAR could do those kinds of missions even though the Invincible squadron were demonstrating it. The rest is all the subsequent spin and exaggeration courtesy of the media and PR ops.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Interesting debate that brings to mind something a lecturer of mine (retired RN SSBN marine engineer) told the class. The RAF has always specialised in staff work with the specific aim of ensuring the public and their elected representatives are fully aware of the need for a powerful independent air force, even at the expense of the capability of other services. To this end they are experts in PR and marketing, getting their version of the story across and excluding all other versions.

Black Buck is but one example of this, others that come to mind are the 1000 bomber raids launch against Germany that suffered horrendous losses at a time where one more or one less squadron of the same aircraft types assigned to the battle of the Atlantic could have meant the difference between victory and starvation. The Battle of Britain and the claim that fighter command (the few) saved the day all on their own. The 1000 Nm range specified for the TSR2 not because it was needed but because it sounded good.

I am sure others could easily come up with more examples of sexed up PR operations by the RAF designed to steal glory and credit from the other services.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The Ascension based RAF squadrons (Vulcan, Victor and Nimord) received four decorations for Falklands operations for flying only 481 missions none of which only five released weapons onto a target. The RN Sea Harrier squadrons flew 1435 missions including all of the air to air combat (20+3 kills) and many strike missions losing six aircraft and 3 KIA and only received six decorations (one to a RAF pilot). The RAF Harrier squadron received two decorations. So eight RAF fixed wing pilots received decorations compared to five Navy despite the later bearing the brunt of operations. Go figure.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The Ascension based RAF squadrons (Vulcan, Victor and Nimord) received four decorations for Falklands operations for flying only 481 missions none of which only five released weapons onto a target. The RN Sea Harrier squadrons flew 1435 missions including all of the air to air combat (20+3 kills) and many strike missions losing six aircraft and 3 KIA and only received six decorations (one to a RAF pilot). The RAF Harrier squadron received two decorations. So eight RAF fixed wing pilots received decorations compared to five Navy despite the later bearing the brunt of operations. Go figure.
Look at the majority of work places, who gets the bonus/pay rise/promotion? Is it the guy who gets the job done without a fuss, overcomes adversity and puts in what ever is needed to get across the line? Or is it the well presented, well spoken guy who socialises with the boss and pisses in his pocket while hinting at how the other guy is cruising and probably doesn't need the level of resources they have been assigned?

Very simplistic but it fits.
 
Top