RAF strategic bomber

[Lopex]

We haven't had one for 25 years since the Vulcan was retired and we rely on the USAF if we need heavy support with a B-1B or B-52.

Without one we have no long range heavy hitting assets. The Tomahawk cruise missile can be used for high priority targets and the GR4 for Interdiction but I really think we need a heavy bomber.

If they decide to give the MRA4 (if its ever built) the ability to drop the storm shadow or LGBs that would give us a decent long range option but it would hardly be its main tasking.

Does anyone think the RAF needs a long range strategic bomber? What are the options or alternatives?

 

[Firehorse]

If I were trying to find out an answer, I would research the UK military doctrine, defense posture, and contact RAF officials, both retired and current, for their opinions. Does the UK has the $ for them? Even France relies on tactical nukes in her AF and SSBNs for deterrance.

 

[ASFC]

Look at the RAFs doctrine-when AA Defences became heavily developed in the USSR, we moved away from high-level bombing, to low level bombing. That why the Tornado replaced the Vulcan in the Nuclear Strike role. With the end of the Cold War, we retired all our Air dropped Nuclear Weapons, meaning we don't need a Nuclear bomber. If we want our Tridents can (and I believe are) loaded so that some carry tactical nukes.

So, the need for a large strategc bomber does not exist in the RAF. What about a bomb truck? Well no, firstly because we haven't got the money, and secondly because the current Govt prefers the Tomahawk/CVF solution to projecting our Foreign policy abroad.

 

[winnyfield]

The definition of strategic has changed somewhat in the last ~10yrs. The MQ9 Reaper UAVs (not sure what they're called with the RAF) can be used as a bomber if the need arises.

Tomahawks, Tridents and multirole (A2G capable) jets is quite an arsenal, particularly over Europe.

 

[Lopex]

I ask the question because I have been reading the book Apache and in the OP Glacier phase the British had to call on the Lancer to drop the large amounts of bombs needed to take out a Taliban compound.
Also if another Falklands ever happened then we could manage to bomb targets that were not in reach of a GR4 from land even with storm shadow and quicker than a carrier could steam to the area.
The only tomahawk platform we have is on submarines and again would take time to reach the area and its not like they have hundreds of tomahawks to fire off.
I think we should build a few more Nimrods that are A-4s and carry large numbers of storm shadow or LGBs. Four would be plenty.

 

[Systems Adict]

Mmmm...

Nice thought. Lets build 4 new MR4A's, just for bombing...

NOT GONNA HAPPEN !

The MR4A's we have are revamped 50 year old airframes.

Yes, they are about 80 - 95% "New", but they really are what was the comet commercial aircraft from the 1950's.

The cost of building x4 additional aircraft would be prohibitive. In addition, the characteristics (usage, weight carrying capability, flight pattern/flying style required for bombing, maximum speed & number of hours flight life), would mean that although it seems like a good idea, the aircraft where never designed for this role & wouldn't real last that long.

Yes the MR2 / MR4A's have a bomb bay, but the full flight weight carrying capability is limited & is probably about the same as the maximum bomb load of 1 or 2 Tornado's.


For more info look here...

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/nimrodmra4.cfm

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/nimrodmr2.cfm

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/nimrodr1.cfm

...& of course...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Nimrod

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet



All that said, the comments already posted here pretty much elude to how the top brass see things. The US is there as an ally, to call on if we get involved in something large.

If we need to get something done by ourselves, it's probably gonna be small scale & could / will be covered by the Tornados & / or TLAM from subs.

The best aircraft we had in our arsenal is now gone. The Jaguar. Our American cousins relied heavily on us using it in the Gulf wars, as it's so different from most A/C they have & was so excellent for the role it filled.

Fighting tactics have evolved over the last 60 years (since WW II), we moved on from the carpet bombing style, as it's just not effective enough.

Wiping out a 1/2 km square of land / town / village, just to get at one factory / gun emplacement / army barracks, using 12 A/C with x10 - 2,000lb bombs isn't cost effective on resources of the airforce, especially when it can now be done with x1 A/C with x1 or x2 LGB's.

Society doesn't like the human costs either, never mind the financial / infrastructure / commercial costs to businesses that would be attacked / destroyed.

So take your pick. Stick with what we have, or get the Govt to modify an existing A/C that's not really up to the role, or fork out to design & build a brand new A/C for an almost outmoded form of warfare.

 

[Lopex]

"The best aircraft we had in our arsenal is now gone. The Jaguar. Our American cousins relied heavily on us using it in the Gulf wars, as it's so different from most A/C they have & was so excellent for the role it filled."

Really? What was so good about it apart from being cheap?

 

[winnyfield]

"The best aircraft we had in our arsenal is now gone. The Jaguar. Our American cousins relied heavily on us using it in the Gulf wars, as it's so different from most A/C they have & was so excellent for the role it filled."

Really? What was so good about it apart from being cheap?

Also, how different was it compared to A10s, A6s, F/A-18, F-111, AV8s?

Anyways instead of strategic, maybe think regional bomber? Typhoon with conformal tanks (Tranche 3) IMO would do fine however there some concern about the size of the RAFs future tanker fleet.

 

[StevoJH]

"The best aircraft we had in our arsenal is now gone. The Jaguar. Our American cousins relied heavily on us using it in the Gulf wars, as it's so different from most A/C they have & was so excellent for the role it filled."

Really? What was so good about it apart from being cheap?

As it doesn't have the swing wings of the Tornado's it would most likely be a lot easier to maintain, with a corresponding increase in availability for combat operations.