UK strike

I sometimes think that the UK needs a long range strike capability, for fast response to international problems that we seem to enjoy getting involved in.
The Tornado GR4 good lack of range, Subs (Tomahawks) good but take long to to make it to the target area. Triden D4/5 pointless.

Question could the Uk use a long range strike capability?

You're not alone in thinking this, one of the requirements withing the wide ranging FOAS project is a long range strike/bomber capability such as that which the RAF gave up when the Vulcan was retired. The unanswered question is how we are going to achieve this in a way we can afford. One option, which will not form the Tornado replacement element, so don't worry , is the carriage of ALCM's aboard C-17 or A-400 type aircraft to give us an affordable rapid response long range strike capability. The part of the project which is looking for a Tornado replacement is investigating the possibility of a mixed force of stealth aircraft and UCAV's.

Why can the RAF just build a long range stealth bomber like the US instead of complicating solutions. It�s would be better IMO to have a long range strike aircraft than just having missiles, and the drones or ucavs there is a limit to how far they can go and how much they can carry due to their size.

because the MOD is a bit strappet for cash.

Originally posted by devilwasp
because the MOD is a bit strappet for cash.

Common misconception.

The MOD is administered by people who think they are strapped for cash.

They get 35+ Billion a year and have nothing major to show for it in favour of penny pinching measures and force restructuring.

Originally posted by Nerdling


Common misconception.

The MOD is administered by people who think they are strapped for cash.

They get 35+ Billion a year and have nothing major to show for it in favour of penny pinching measures and force restructuring.

u serios? wow
ah must be those new navy programs there on. its like 262 million for 3 subs to be upgraded

We are just another part of US forces. Sometime in the last 10 years we cemented an already long term relationship with the US. Someone asked recently what the best special forces unit was for the US its the SAS/SBS the US military can order strikes using said as part of our special relationship, but we can do the same if required. Why spend billions when the tools are already there. THINK about it!!!! We are the 51st State. Im out for a mcdonalds

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
We are the 51st State. Im out for a mcdonalds

OMG! I nearly split my sides laughing at that.........

But come to think of it, when sh*t hits the fan, there is no one else I would prefer alongside the US than the UK.

Thats true....

But as for a long range strike capability.. The Navy has ordered 2 super carriers, which will enable us to project power (although they are still quibling over design technicalitys), these are due to enter service in about 2010-2012.

Future carrier Based Fighters

Future Carriers

Also, check out my thread on Britains Stealth project

UK Stealth Fighter/Bomber

groovy eh??

Originally posted by stumason
Thats true....

But as for a long range strike capability.. The Navy has ordered 2 super carriers, which will enable us to project power (although they are still quibling over design technicalitys), these are due to enter service in about 2010-2012.

Future carrier Based Fighters

Future Carriers

Also, check out my thread on Britains Stealth project

UK Stealth Fighter/Bomber

groovy eh??

We will tag along beside our buddies and help out when asked sure we are upgrading but can you be serious in saying we can project power? The real matter will arise when we have to decide on a EU army instead of NATO thats when we will find out whats wot and where our loyalties are.
Anyway on the original meaning of the thread why dont we just buy american proven ready made cant go wrong

bad for the economy....besides, American goods might be big on the technology, but have a tendency to break (F-14, F-117, Windows)

A little known fact is that the M1 Abrams uses a gun made by Royal Ordnance, optical sighting made by Pilkington Glass, and Chobham armour is a British invention. And we gave them an awful lot of of tech in the 50's and 60's (stealth, rockets, jet engines) as we couldnt afford to develop them ourselves. So things are not all they appear to be!

Originally posted by stumason
we gave them an awful lot of of tech in the 50's and 60's (stealth, rockets, jet engines) as we couldnt afford to develop them ourselves. So things are not all they appear to be!

Did we ask for payment?

There is a big picture here. Anyway enough said, regards

Dunno, doubt it, but you never know, we do get stuff in return (Intel, support, MacDonalds etc etc)

Originally posted by stumason
bad for the economy....besides, American goods might be big on the technology, but have a tendency to break (F-14, F-117, Windows)

A little known fact is that the M1 Abrams uses a gun made by Royal Ordnance, optical sighting made by Pilkington Glass, and Chobham armour is a British invention. And we gave them an awful lot of of tech in the 50's and 60's (stealth, rockets, jet engines) as we couldnt afford to develop them ourselves. So things are not all they appear to be!

no, rocket technology came from german scientists who came to america, jet engines were developed in germany, USA and the UK the same time independant of eachother, the UK didnt invent it alone and stealth was created by a soviet scientist theory..

The first jet engine was designed and tested in the UK in 1930, just the RAF didnt think it would be much use. The germans did it almost the same time, and had the first flyable plane....The Americans where nowhere to be seen....

inventors.about.com...

Rocketry is different, in fact the Chinese where the first to develop rockets a thousand years ago. What I meant (with regards to the rockets)was we passed over what we did with Rockets to the Americans, as we scrapped our Space program in the 50's.

[edit on 17-9-2004 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
The germans did it almost the same time, and had the first flyable plane....The Americans where nowhere to be seen....

[edit on 17-9-2004 by stumason]

Why do you think we had "Operation Paperclip?"

We took all of those "aryan-nut-job-brainiacs" home and gave them carte blanche with regards to the jet-fighter-rocket program. Without Werner, we would have not made it to the moon. And without Robert Goddard, (you do know who he is, don't you?), there would have been no Werner.

I could not give a damn who had the very first jet. We are allies. Remember?

[edit on 18-9-2004 by Facefirst]

Wow, this thread took off while I was abed

I will answer the different questions raised in order if I may, and if I can,

Wespoint;

Why can the RAF just build a long range stealth bomber like the US instead of complicating solutions. It�s would be better IMO to have a long range strike aircraft than just having missiles, and the drones or ucavs there is a limit to how far they can go and how much they can carry due to their size.

Building a long range stealth bomber, or even buying the B.2 if we were allowed to, is out of the question because of cost. the transport launched ALCM method is a cost effective one because the aircraft are relatively cheap and low tech and could remain out of harms way to9 launch their weapons. Indeed this was a solution the USAF considered as a B-52 replacement but it was cheaper to keep the B-52, the UK has nothing to keep because we scrapped the Vulcan (which in upgraded form would have been ideal) twenty years ago.

The Tornado replacement part is, at present, intended to be a stealth strike aircraft, maybe a 2 seat version of the F-35, flying with UCAV's as wingmen, with the 2nd crewman on the manned aircraft acting as controller for the UCAV's carrying out the attack. There is still much work to be done to prove this concept however.

Stumason

But as for a long range strike capability.. The Navy has ordered 2 super carriers, which will enable us to project power (although they are still quibling over design technicalitys), these are due to enter service in about 2010-2012.

This is correct, but carriers take several days to get where they are needed, what we are looking at is something that can react within hours if need be.

Munro_Dreadgod

Anyway on the original meaning of the thread why dont we just buy american proven ready made cant go wrong

If the system is adopted, nothing has been decided yet, then one of the aircraft being considered is the C-17, whatever aircraft is chosen the missiles it carries will almost certainly have a high, if not 100% US content.

The strike element has a long way to go but US involvement (especially if F-35 based) is a possibility.

Changing the subject here but I wasn't the first

Namehere;

jet engines were developed in germany, USA and the UK the same time independant of eachother, the UK didnt invent it alone

"Britain" didn't invent the jet engine but Frank Whittle, a British RAF officer did, patented in 1930.

Completely separarately Hans von Ohain invented the Jet in Germany a few years later, it was patented in 1936, and Germany had the first flying jet, the He 178, in 1939.

Stung into action Britain flew the Gloster Pioneer in 1941 and these British Whittle engines were crated up and sent to the USA where they powered the first P-59A and P-80 prototypes, which is how America got the jet. Up until the mid '50's a lot of US jet fighters were powered by license built British engines such as the Nene, Avon and especially Sapphire which was very popular in the USA where it was known as the Wright J-65. This was probably the one area of technology where Britain maintained its technological lead for many years and UK jet engine technology today is equal to anywhere else in the world, USA included.

and lastly Facefirst.

I could not give a damn who had the very first jet. We are allies. Remember?

Yes we are allies but why do you not care? If it was an American discovery I reckon you would care very much

Originally posted by namehere
no, rocket technology came from german scientists who came to america, jet engines were developed in germany, USA and the UK the same time independant of eachother, the UK didnt invent it alone and stealth was created by a soviet scientist theory..

Everything the Germans knew about rocketry, they learned from Robert Goddard, who is the real reason Roswell should be famous:

[...]

Rebuffed by the Army, Goddard spent World War II on sabbatical from rocketry, designing experimental airplane engines for the Navy. When the war ended, he quickly returned to his preferred work. As his first order of business, he hoped to get his hands on a captured V-2. From what he had heard, the missiles sounded disturbingly like his more peaceable Nells.

Goddard's trusting exchanges with German scientists had given Berlin at least a glimpse into what he was designing. What's more, by 1945 he had filed more than 200 patents, all of which were available for inspection. When a captured German scientist was asked about the origin of the V-2, he was said to have responded, "Why don't you ask your own Dr. Goddard? He knows better than any of us." When some V-2s finally made their way to the U.S. and Goddard had a chance to autopsy one, he instantly recognized his own handiwork. "Isn't this your rocket?" an assistant asked as they poked around its innards. "It seems to be," Goddard replied flatly.

Goddard accepted paternity of his bastard V-2, and that, as it turned out, was the last rocket he fathered while alive. In 1945 he was found to have throat cancer, and before the year was out, he was dead. His technological spawn, however, did not stop. American scientists worked alongside emigre German scientists to incorporate Goddard's innovations into the V-2, turning the killer missile into the Redstone, which put the first Americans into space. The Redstone led directly to the Saturn moon rockets, and indirectly to virtually every other rocket the U.S. has ever flown.

Though Goddard never saw a bit of it, credit would be given him, and � more important to a man who so disdained the press � amends would be made. After Apollo 11 lifted off en route to humanity's first moon landing, The New York Times took a bemused backward glance at a tart little editorial it had published 49 years before. "Further investigation and experimentation," said the paper in 1969, "have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th century, and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error." The grim Professor Goddard might not have appreciated the humor, but he would almost certainly have accepted the apology.
www.time.com...

www.clarku.edu...

www.clarku.edu...

www.dself.dsl.pipex.com...

pages.prodigy.net...

www.roswellcvb.com...

www.time.com...

www.centennialofflight.gov...

www.google.com...

Originally posted by waynos
Munro_Dreadgod

Anyway on the original meaning of the thread why dont we just buy american proven ready made cant go wrong

If the system is adopted, nothing has been decided yet, then one of the aircraft being considered is the C-17, whatever aircraft is chosen the missiles it carries will almost certainly have a high, if not 100% US content.

The strike element has a long way to go but US involvement (especially if F-35 based) is a possibility.

- Of course I agree the F35 is coming (provided it doesn't end up cancelled by everyone due to it's technical difficulties) so maybe as far as it's place in this goes.

But the F35 seems pretty lightly loaded for what is being discussed.

If something like the transport cruise missile carrier/launched happens why the hell should it be a US plane!

Given the nature of the mission I cannot see why a (slightly) modified wing design (skewed to the military mission) couldn't be fitted to an A340 or A380 and an ultra long - range multi-mission capable aircraft be 'born'.

(....hell, given the mission envisaged and nature of the non-existant 'treat' and consequent conditions the military transport wing was designed to cope with why even bother with that nowadays?)

Slap on an inflight refueling probe and prepare to fill it full of as much electronics as possible.

(and if you want to go really cheap a fleet of low-miles A300's are sitting parked up as we speak)

I could not give a damn who had the very first jet. We are allies. Remember?

Yes we are allies but why do you not care? If it was an American discovery I reckon you would care very much

- Yeah, that's about right.

Radar is much the same story too.....some of them (that 'certain type' of US folks) think we switched off of doing anything interesting with all that stuff too. Very foolish.

They seem to think physics can belong to any (their) particular nation.

[edit on 18-9-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Sminkey, as you said;

If something like the transport cruise missile carrier/launched happens why the hell should it be a US plane!

There's no reason why, the C-17 is just one option. Most likely the type selection will come down to availability and price. I'm not sure whether a converted airliner is being considered or not. I am under the impression that the long range strike capability will actually come as a 'weapons pack' (my description), a sort of modular unit that can be carried by existing RAF transport aircraft, ie the Airbus A400M or Hercules too. Whether any additional dedicated aircraft are acquired for the role remains to be seen, but then whod have thought we'd ever commission a 'proper' aircraft carrier after 1978?