Which would THEY want?

[rivetjoint]

Quite a few topics here in the past have suggested that "their" kit would be better than British kit when it comes to bombing, low level, cleaning the sink etc.

So how about this one as a chance to fly the flag a bit higher :

Which RAF type would "they" most want that they don't have already?

[TC27]

How about the TSR 2?? Ohh opps never mind.

http://www.aemann.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/aircraft/virtraf/images/tsr2takeoff600.jpg

[BEagle]

BBMF, perhaps?











..

[rivetjoint]

Out of interest which Nimrod variant?


It only let me put 5 options in so I had to bunch up on the Tornados and Nimrod and had to leave out things like the Jaguar and Merlin and friends I'm afraid.

[Beeayeate]

It's got to be the Canberra (PR.9).

"They" consistantly ask for it not only in times of conflict but also when the requirement is for any reccon that needs nigh-on moment-to-moment re-tasking. Its ability to stand-off, loiter and fly higher are all attributes that are invaluable and especially cost-effective. The current data-linking capability and sensor suites make the RAF's Canberra PR.9's the "1st Choice" in their field.

As for the other kites on the list, well, I reckon "they" have more gooder choices.

[NotWithoutMyGPS]

I'll have a TR7 please, Bob. Goes like a bomb after 1hr idle on the HOBS. Or was that a rumour?

Sorry.

[Lowkey]

Lets be honest. The only aircraft that has not only been consistently used but on many occasions requested by them is the AAR Tristar . It may only have 1 hose but still goes further, carries more and is infinitely more flexible than their options as well as our own aged and 'broken most of the time' VC10:D

[katpad]

A brain to share between them.

[ORAC]

Why would they want the Tristar when they've the KC-10 which is dual boom/hose equipped on the centreline? And they can take 2 wing mounted hose units as well - they've already equipped 15 aircraft.

[Lowkey]

Only 1 reply to the above.

They are inflexible. The crews will only give you what you were tasked for and not what you need!

[ORAC]

You think they'd be different if they were flying in KC-1011? :D

[L J R]

aah a trip down memory lane.


I didn't know that they were on the market.

[Jackonicko]

I understand that the PR9 is regularly requested by the 'Friends' for all the reasons referred to by B(I)8 above, and where CAT might threaten U-2S ops. That's why dear old Senator Nunn provided the new EO LOROP kit for the PR9.

I'm also informed that the Nimrod Rs capabilities (which reportedly rely heavily on vast operator experience, manual tuning and onboard analysis) provide a very useful complement to anything offered by Rivet Joint and ARIES II.

The US Navy seem to be very keen on the RAF's tankers, too.

The US Army like the Chinook HC3 so much they've stolen them back....

[ORAC]

Speaking of the USN, interesting snippet in Flight this week about the fate of their Vikings. Now, if the new CVs were to be fitted with catapults straight off this could offer an AAR or COD capability; and enough airframes could be bought to support a 20-30 year life fleet. Retirement time is about right as well.

Otherwise, can anyone think of a reason why the UK might have expressed an interest?

"The US Navy has approved a plan to begin retiring the Lockheed Martin S-3B Viking from its carrier air groups (CAG) in 2004, despite a recent structural assessment showing half the aircraft's fatigue life is still unused..........The S-3B fleet on average has clocked up between 8,000h and 9,000h, whereas a recently completed USN-funded full-scale fatigue test showed airframe life expectancy of 17,500h.

Among those interested in the S-3B is Venezuela, which has a need for six to eight aircraft for anti-drug patrols. Brazil, the United Arab Emirates and the UK have also asked some initial questions......The first two Viking squadrons stand down in 2004 and remaining eight by 2009".

[mutleyfour]

I cant believe that nobody has mentioned the obvious yet!





A British Army Gazelle - complete with AAC crew of course.

:) :D :)