It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canberra Replacement? The options?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Greetings,

To be honest, I feel that based on the current level of technology, that the days of manned recon and elint work are coming to an end, with the introduction of UAVs and the newer UCAVs, that can litterly orbit a battlefield for nearly 4 hours + not to mention the added benefits of the aircraft employing stealth with a VERY small craft. With that the benefit of being "loaned" out to battlefield commanders for tasking or strike missions from his or her laptop in the field.

There will always be a need for a manned recon aircraft, at least for the next 10 years after that, I feel that the robots will be firmly rooted in the role.

- Phil

[edit on 1-7-2005 by gooseuk]




posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
Good for them, Pakistan will be shaking already.

They sure are. they were since the time the deal was signed.
Check out this : www.pakalert.net...


Then again, big bombers are still VERY vunerable to everything. If they had bought Su-34s instead, they might be more useful.

I guess you are right, but India alredy have upgraded their Jaguars and moreover the scale of operations of the Su-34 and the M3 are totally different


Btw, the pics you posted, are that of the Tu-22. The Tu-22M is a very different aircraft.


Check this out :

Tupolev TU-22 Blinder


Origin: USSR
Type: supersonic stand-off missile carrier
Max Speed: 802 kt / 924 mph
Max Range 3100 km / 1,926 miles
Dimensions: span 23.75 m / 77 ft 11 in
length 40.53 m / 132 ft 11.7 in
height 10.67 m / 35 ft 0 in
Weight: empty 40,000 kg / 88,185 lb
max. take-off 84,000 kg /
185,188 lb
Powerplant: two 16000-kg (35,273-lb) afterburning thrust Koliesov VD-7M turbojets
Armament: one 23-mm NR-23 cannon in radar-controlled tail turret, plus one AS-4 'Kitchen' stand-off missile recessed into the weapons bay
Operators: Iraq, Libya, Ukraine

Tupolev TU-22M Backfire



Origin: USSR
Type: medium strategic bomber and maritime reconnaissance/attack aircraft
Max Speed: 1,147 kt / 1,321 mph
Max Range 4,000 km / 2,485 miles
Dimensions: span 34.30 m / 112 ft 6.5 in
length 39.60 m / 129 ft 11 in
height 10.80 m / 35 ft 5.25 in
Weight: max. take-off 130,000 kg / 286,596 lb
Powerplant: two 20000-kg (44,092-lb) afterburning thrust turbofans of unknown designation
Armament: two 23-mm GSh-23 two-barrel cannon in a radar-controlled tail barbette; provision for 12000 kg (26,455 Ib) of disposable stores, including nuclear weapons and free-fall bombs carried internally, or two AS-4 'Kitchen' missiles carried under the wings, or one AS-4 'Kitchen' missile carried semi-recessed into the lower fuselage, or up to three AS-6
Operators: India, Russia, Ukraine

--from combataircrafts.com

The pics posted me are of the right aircraft.

The Indian one is an exclusive variant and custom fitted as per India's asking and are the most advanced Backfires in the world.


And, lease orders are as good as buying. How long are the Indians going to lease them?


India have leased them and not bought them 'cause there are clauses in NPT treaties(which Russia is a signatory of) prohibiting the sale of such long range nuclear bombers, so the sale has been dubbed lease and been executed. So effectively the lease is as good as a buy.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 05:51 AM
link   
is russia withholding the weapons like those crusie missiles.

whats the point of having big bombers if you dont have any good weapons for them



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Whoops, I must have been wrong. I thought the pic you posted was that of a Tu-22 and not a M3.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Back to the original thread! Back in the good old days when the tornado was under developement it was known as the MRCA or "Multi Role Combat Aircraft". However to the rest of the Airforce and the Canberra boys it was known as the "Must Refurbish Canberra Again"

Having worked on both types in my career in the Raf the GR1A has all the bells and whistles but still cannot do some of the tasks that the Canberra can and still does and nothing makes you jump like a twin cartridge start.........!

Ahh!!!!! Swing that sandbag!!!!!!!!!!

Sv out!



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   
There was a guy that used to come through Hickam with a B-57 he had refurbished and was flying around. He'd go down every couple of years to Australia for air shows, until a few years ago when he finally retired it. He let us up into it the first time it was here. Good lord, I don't see how they could fly that thing. It was so cramped in there. I used to love watching that cartridge start though. The first time I saw it, it scared me because it looks like the engines caught fire..



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   
.. wonder why Iraq needed those Tu-22 bombers!! And Libya??!!..



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   
About the replacement for the Canberra. A british version of the Global Hawk will do just fine. It is cheap and realiable plus you don't need to invest in it's development. I saw an European version of it made by EADS.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Britian had a replacement for the Canberra. Even 40 years later, the TSR.2 would be far more capable than the Tornado. (another meaning for MRCA, in relation to the history of the role: Must Replace Canberra Again) I like the fact that numerous times the TSR.2, long after its cancellation, had it's design was used by aeronautical students, who were told to update and improve the design. However, in the end, their designs had no real improvement on performance and more weaknesses overall than the original. Surprisingly, in the early 1980's the British government actually thought about placing the TSR.2 in production, using XR220 and XR222 as prototypes. But maybe they were embaressed, having to admit they had the perfect design so early and threw it away. Even in this age of stealth, the TSR.2 would be a vast improvement over the Tornado. Forget the Tornados, Typhoons, Tu's and UCAVs. If Britian wants a future combat weapon system, it needs to look at a couple of old birds sitting at Cosford and Duxford, just waiting for the chance to finally prove that the British aerospace industry can make combat aircraft that demand and earn respect.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Is it true that this bird was used for recon by Britain over the Soviet Union during the cold war ??



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Not that they'll ever admit it.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
For some time I've been trying to research the overflights conducted by RAF Canberra's in the early 1950's, particularly the alledged overflight of Kapustin Yar. However, the official UK position is that both this flight and the others, together with the two RAF pilots who flew U-2s over Russia, simply didn't happen.

You won't find much on the web, but I have found some articles in the Operations section of www.spyflight.co.uk

HyperSoar



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
seems logically very possible...because in the 50's the canberra's flight celing was ~50,000 + feet and sure no soviet air defence could rech that high...i mean SAM misslie tech was at its infancy and the only interceptors they had were Mig-15's with Rolls Royce engines (?)



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Not sure about overflights of the USSR itself but the RAF regularly flew into 'enemy' airspace whilst pretending aircraft had got lost and mistakenly wandered out of the Berlin air corridor, not that the Russians were fooled.

Not just with Canberra's either, several BOAC piston passenger planes (Stratoliner, HermesIV, Argonaut etc) regularly attracted the interest of defending MiG 15's and in one incident an RAF Lincoln bomber, supposedly on a training flight, was actually intercepted and shot down with the loss of the crew.

Another regular spyplane was the B-45 Tornado which flew in RAF markings but manned by USAF crews.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
There was a great book written about the overflights of the USSR by American and Britsh planes. I can't remember what the title is right off the top of my head though. I have a copy of it somewhere, I'll have to dig it up. VERY interesting book.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Is it 'Aerial Espionage' by (wild guess) either Bill Gunston or Robert Jackson? It had a picture of a U-2 on the front cover.

[edit on 15-7-2005 by waynos]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   
'Spy Flights of the Cold War' by Paul Lashmar (maker of the TV documentary 'Spies in the Sky', apparantly) on Sutton books (ISBN 0 7509 1183 2) is a superb resource for a lot of went on back then.

(and how much disaster it almost brought us as that war-perv looper LeMay set about trying to provoke WW3 to 'get it over with').



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Shadow Flights by Curtis Peebles. It talked mostly about the US overflights during the cold war, but it touched on the British involvement as well. VERY interesting reading. Had some INCREDIBLE pictures in it, including a C-130A taken from the gun camera of a MiG as it was being shot down.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join