Is It Time to Bring Back the Medium Bomber?
Share by EmailI am going to start this post with a story about screwing!
A friend of mine is a joiner and of course takes his tools very seriously. Whereas your average DIY enthusiast might buy a cordless drill that doubles as a screwdriver a professional, whose livelihood depends on completing the job quickly and effectively, will invest in separate tools, because it is efficient to do so. It won’t simply be two cordless drills either, one will be a drill and the other an impact driver, whilst he might buy both from the same manufacturer to maximise on commonality in subsystems like batteries the fact is they will be different.
I asked my friend why he didn’t just buy one, or two drills, because to a layman, they superficially look the same.
His answer…
“One Job One Tool”
So what has this got to do with military equipment?
In our drive to relentlessly push down costs, rationalise on training, spares and maintenance etc we are moving to fewer types.
We no longer have one job one tool, but multiple jobs, one tool.
No longer do we have strike aircraft, ISTAR aircraft, air superiority aircraft and close air support aircraft. Instead of a Harrier, Buccaneer, Canberra, Jaguar, Tornado mix we are moving to a Typhoon and F35 fleet and in reality, it is possible that Typhoon might be the only fast jet aircraft in service doing the job of all these.
Ruthless commonality personified and it would ordinarily get my whole hearted support.
Whilst this might be good news on one side of the cost equation it might not be as good news on another. Tornado for example, has a shorter range than the aircraft it replaced.
The question we should ask is has this finance driven ruthless commonality gone too far, are these cost savings illusory because we are moving towards a load of cordless drills, that do the screwing thing OK but not brilliantly, instead of a drill and a screwdriver.
The Tornado is a good case in point; it was designed to be a single minded, low level, penetrating strike and interdiction aircraft and at that, it has no peers and never has. Over the years, as this mission became less and less needed we have adapted it to other roles, the F3 Air Defence variant and now, it is being used for close air support in Afghanistan. What we have done is maximised our use of a single aircraft type but you do have to wonder if it is the best tool for the job. I don’t want this to descend into a Harrier is better than the Tornado argument because that’s not what I am driving at.
In an ideal world, we would have retained both.
If you look at the most common missions that the RAF/FAA have been involved in recently it has been in an environment where the need to penetrate defended airspace is not top of the list. The pattern seems to be that air defences are degraded by submarine, ship and air launched cruise missiles of various sorts and then strike and CAS has been carried out in a semi permissive environment.
I am not saying we do not need a penetrating strike aircraft at all; we just need it less and less.
We had an interesting discussion on the Jaguar 2 post from TMM about sub standard aircraft getting pilots killed and in this context the general opinion seemed to be that when you need to have a stand up fight you don’t want it to be fair, so every last drop of performance is worth the cost, any cost.
Whilst this is very true for those instances when you need that last drop of performance the reality is these instances are becoming less and less and whilst we might reap the commonality rewards of using the high end kit for low end jobs the funding reality of a finite budget means we suffer from reduced quantities, the so called procurement death spiral where increasingly expensive kit can only be obtained in increasingly small quantities, which makes the unit cost go up and, you get the picture.
There comes a tipping point where ruthless commonality actually starts costing you real money because you are, to coin a phrase, doing your weekly shopping the Ferrari.
Which leads me to the medium bomber.
There must surely come a point where the cost of using a range of equipment, even taking into account the penalty of developing and maintaining such a capability, is cheaper than using a a single swing role type.
I don’t know where this point would be and make no mistake, bringing a new design aircraft into service is pant wettingly expensive, but is it worth taking a serious look, I think so.
Speed; is never a bad thing, it allows you to react to calls for close air support, get out of threat envelopes and generally manage more tasks over a wider area but it does have a rather large penalty and that is fuel burn. To go fast needs lots of fuel and it is not a linear relationship, to achieve range and/or persistence needs lots of fuel and this means tanker support in many scenarios, which of course also need fuel and adds cost and complexity. The lack of speed is one of the principle disadvantages to using turboprop aircraft like the Super Tucano or AT-6, you can compensate with more aircraft but this just pushes costs into aircrew, ramp space provision and many other areas. Supercruise designs like the Typhoon can go supersonic without reheat and are therefore very efficient but the fuel burn rate is still significant.
However, in many scenarios very high speed is simply not used most of the time so by having a capability and not needing it there is a penalty.
Speed also pushes up design and integration costs but there is a happy medium, faster than a turboprop but slower than supersonic, i.e. Harrier speed.
Range and Persistence; like speed, never a bad thing but adding more fuel means smaller payload and less speed. Instead of carrying out a mission with 2 or 3 refuels we need an aircraft that can complete an average strike or CAS mission without refuelling.
Payload; to make aircraft aerodynamically efficient, to achieve high speed, they have to, in general, be thin and pointy. This reduces volume for fuel, mission systems and weapons. To compensate modern strike aircraft have external hardpoints from which we hang extra fuel, weapons, ECM and sensors equipment, this of course increases drag which increases fuel burn and reduces payload and range, it’s enough to make your head spin!
We have sacrificed much on the altar of speed
The same way that the Jaguar 2 post was a thought exercise on warming over an old design, I thought it would be interesting to have a go with another oldie, the Buccaneer. Whilst the Jaguar was positively a size 0 supermodel, the Buccaneer was a fat lass.
On the old carriers, space was at a premium and the Buccaneer needed wings, airbrake and nose folded in order to fit on the lifts but CVF is much larger.
The Buccaneer saw service in a number of operations but its highly successful swan song was in the Gulf in 1991, click here for a great account.
You see clips on the internet of showboating low level flypast but for RAF and especially FAA crews this was a normal day in the office, sustained high subsonic at 20ft, no problem
Instead of thinking small, sleek and fast, I am thinking slow and hefty; a transit van instead of a Ferarri. It might not be possible to fit the requirements into a Buccaneer sized airframe but that is the benchmark we should aim for or at least mimic the basic configuration.
A Few Design Considerations
Basic design; three tubes, Buccaneer style, middle one for stuff, outer two for engines, you get the picture!
Another way of looking at it is a much smaller, two seat and twin engined MRA4, with folding wings.
This presents a large front aspect cross section so not very stealthy but in the words of Katherine Tate, ‘am a bovvered’
If you look at the original Buccaneer, the bomb bay was actually quite modest in dimensions, comfortable for four thousand pounders but the basic configuration should be retained, just larger in size if needed.
This is not a version of the so called transport bomber but would be a dedicated design.
Payload; in order to reduce drag the payload, as far as possible, should be carried in an internal bay. Maximum payload should be in the region of 6 to 8 tonnes at full fuel with all the additional systems fitted. Instead of pure weight the driver now is number of weapons. As weapon precision improves, so the need for so many to achieve a given effect is reduced. The need to reduce civilian casualties has also resulted in a trend to smaller weapons but there are targets where a big bang is still needed and smaller weapons of course, means more weapons, although volume limitations might kick in before weight.
Wing tip stations should be able to carry defensive aids and self defence missiles. These are generally low drag and need to be immediately available so external mounting is the sensible option. These would be for self defence only. ASRAAM would be the obvious choice and to provide some commonality with other aircraft, the same defensive pods pods. In service in the Gulf, Buccaneers were initially armed with Sidewinders for self defence but when the threat reduced they were dispensed with.
Like the Buccaneer, an incredibly useful capability would be the ability to act as a buddy tanker although the Buccaneer used a wing mounted pod and this restricted manoeuvrability.
The Buccaneer had an innovative rotary bomb bay door which made opening at speed much easier than with conventional doors and later models had a bulge fitted that incorporated a fuel tank. This configuration might be just as useful on a modern version and would also make loading and unloading much easier.
The payload bay should be the very model of modular flexibility, with multiple clip-in locations for cargo/fuel pods or weapon carriage racks.
The clip in racks could carry combinations of weapons depending on size and release restrictions. Because weapons would be dropped from the centreline, more or less, it would make release configuration a simpler proposition than asymmetric release of heavy weapons from wing pylons.
It might even be possible to carry 3 or 4 large weapons like Storm Shadow, either by vertical stacking or some form of rotary launcher, these would be detailed design issues of course and I don’t know whether it would be possible, especially vertical stacking, but the tantalising prospect of carrying 4 Storm Shadow or a possible future buy of the NSM is very interesting is it not?
With smaller weapons like Brimstone or Paveway IV is it really too ambitious to want to carry 16 or 8 respectively?
If this were achievable then one of these could displace 2 or more Tornados and in many missions, forgo the cost of tanker support as well.
Into the future the large bay might even allow directed energy weapons to be carried, sharks optional, freed from external pod constraints these possibilities are not as outrageous as might be thought.
Although the emitters of a large ECM system would need to be outside, the processing and power management could easily be mounted internally.
There are many payload possibilities.
Sensors; to the front and rear of the payload bay would be a protected equipment bay into which could be rack mounted the various processing, power conditioning and communications equipment modules needed. I am not advocating a walk in data centre but by upsizing the airframe access becomes less constricted, heat dissipation and power management become slightly easier and some growth space for future systems is assured.
Targeting pods are the size and shape they are, not because they need to be, but because they need to be to be carried externally. The active components, the imaging sensor for example, are relatively compact and could be fitted into a fairing to the front or rear of the payload bays with the processing equipment rack mounted in the avionics bays.
A basic off the shelf radar, communications and avionics fit could be incorporated.
Range/Endurance; optimised for medium altitude, out of the AAA threat envelope, it should be capable of at least 3,000 miles range and at shorter distances, an endurance of at least 4 to 5 hours. These could be extended with airborne refuelling and drop/internal tanks but in order to avoid compromising range it would be preferable to operate the aircraft in a clean wing configuration, only the self defence pods and AA missiles being carried externally. Drop tanks would enable greater range for self deployment or circumstances where the extra range is worth compromising payload for and a payload bay option should be a long range tank.
This long range tank could be fitted in a split configuration to provide flexibility, 2 for the long range or 1 for ‘additional range’ and reduced weapons carriage.
3,000 miles is purely a nominal target figure but as an illustration of a 1,500 mile round trip the map below shows some interesting possibilities.
Its not as simple as just flying 1,500 miles out and 1,500 miles back so the map is highly simplistic but add a thin skin on those circles for Storm Shadow. They also make the assumption that there is no air threat and that defences have been degraded. Another flaw is that it also assumes that fighters could tag along if needed which means loads of tanker support anyway but try the same thing from a carrier or CAS mission from an air head in theatre for an extra twist.
Remember, these are unrefuelled distances.
Long range or higher endurance adds many deployment possibilities.
If an aircraft that first few in 1958 can fly just under 2,000 miles with a 4 to 5 tonne payload surely an aircraft design that benefits from 50 years of engine and airframe advances can push that out by a third, is that such an ambitious target?
Maintainabilty and Deployability; near the top of the list should be simplicity of maintenance, designed in from the start. Spares packs, wherever possible, should be designed to fit in standard ISO containers and major systems changes should be designed to be rapid and possible without huge infrastructure support. With its long range it would be able to self deploy to most locations but a crucial capability would be the ability to operate from CVF so this means sturdy undercarriage, folding wings and other features. These features also provide benefits in land basing and although 99% of the time it would operate from an established air head, semi austere basing might provide extra flexibility.
Spares packs, consumables, tools, manuals, diagnostics and other ancillary equipment might also be carried in the bomb bay in specially designed containers for self deployment.
Engines; having paid for marinisation development of the Rolls Royce BR710, the engine fitted to the Nimrod MRA4 and Sentinel, it would seem an ideal candidate. Because the engine has its roots in the long range business jet market the BR710 has comparatively good fuel consumption and low operating costs.
The Buccaneer had a pair of Speys that each developed 11,000 pound thrust so the BR710 at 15,000 pounds combined with the judicious use of composites and modern alloys should hopefully see the payload and range targets met. Whether that engine would be suitable is another matter but it is the obvious choice.
[adrotate group="1"]
Summary
In the CAS role, this aircraft could carry out a single ‘on call’ mission of 3 to 4 hours without refuelling, have the speed the speed to react to troops in contact in a reasonable time and carry enough payload to provide a range of munitions to the forward air controller that suit the requirement.
In the strike role, in permissive or semi permissive air environment, operating at a medium altitude it should also be able to either operate at significant range against pre planned targets or at a shorter range/with AAR, against targets of opportunity.
The ultra demanding roles of early theatre entry, destruction of enemy air defences (without standoff cruise missiles) and air dominance would still be carried out by the racing thoroughbreds of course.
The viability of this hair brain scheme would of course, be cost driven.
The question pivots an answering this question…
Would the cost of introducing and operating such an aircraft be greater or less than chewing through precious airframe hours using Typhoon, Tornado and F35 for destroying targets that effectively have no defence i.e. the majority of missions we are/will be using them for.
Whilst we are all snorting at the cost, have a think on the number of aircraft, air crew, ground crew, support contracts, spares and tanker support (with its associated support and personnel cost) , currently supporting the pointy fast jet force that one of these would displace.
Then factor into that the likely costs of a future UCAV.
Now I know we are not comparing drills and screwdrivers, but what if all we actually need are screwdrivers?
I don’t have the answer and to be honest, wrote this with my tongue firmly in cheek, but it’s an interesting thought exercise and as for ruthless commonality, surely one is allowed to change one’s mind!
PS, did anyone notice the ISO container reference J
Category: Thoughts on the Future
About the Author (Author Profile)
Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
When you said “joiner” and “medium bomber” I was expecting a treatise on bringing back the Mosquitoe.
Interesting stuff TD but I suspect far too sensible to ever see the light of day.
Putting the important stuff aside for a moment can I ask why the thumbnail for this article was a Captain Jack Sparrow impersonator, perhaps I’m missing something but I don’t see the link to a medium bomber?
@ Foxbat
Buccaneer. Jack Sparrow. Get it now?
“The Buccaneer had an innovative rotary bomb bay door which made opening at speed much easier than with conventional doors” – This throws up the interesting question of why the new range of stealth aircraft don’t have these? Surely that provides quicker release of internally stored munitions?
@Chris.B.
That noise you hear? That’s the sound of my head hitting the desk in front of me. How did I not see that?
@ TD – bomb bay of the Bucc was used to carry spares and personal items (like Golf clubs etc.). One story I read in a book I own involved a pilot who was about to go on leave placing a large stuffed toy for his child in the bomb bay and preceded to forget about it. However, they then got a call to demonstrate toss bombing to some visiting VIP’s. The VIP’s were to witness a Teddy Bear going near supersonic in a ballistic arc. The VIP’s were amused, the Top Brass less so…
Given the cost needed to bring any modern military aircraft into production, I’d pony up the extra cash for an all-aspects stealth design.
Maybe something like Carlo Kopp’s RFX.
http://www.ausairpower.net/rfx.pdf
Having longer bays that could accommodate 5000lb bunker busters would be nice.
OTOH, if you really just want a cheap CAS bomber, why not develop an aircraft based on a long-range bizjet? Maybe use components from the Dassault Falcon 7X?
Wow that was an interesting read on the way home….
So firstly my Grandad who was a Gunner / Radio Op on Swordfish who had two carrier sunk from under him but survived to work for Blackburn Aircraft during the fifties would be very pleased with all this talk of Bucanneers! By the way I am old enough to have looked down on one from the signal deck of a Leander – 20ft of the waves indeed
Back on track – 4 to 6 Storm Shadow? Seriously – you know how big they are right? Not to mention how much they weigh! Which leads me to the next point do I read you right in that you want this to be a carrier capable aircraft?
As you know that’s adding a lot of structural complexity and therefore cost to your requirement – would it not be cheaper in the long run to fly F18E on medium altitude subsonic mission profile with conformal tanks, 4 drop tanks and some bombs in the new streamlined under fuselage pod – just saying, you know………
If there is no carrier borne requirement, then your ideal “patrol bomber” exists in the bone yard – Lockheed has proved the S3 Viking has plenty of fatigue hours left if its not on cats and traps ops. Perhaps a post on that, although I have written about it before on another thread.
As to converting regional jets, how about the A319 MPA variant, I think it has a pretty big bomb bay??? Problem with a conversion of a long range type such as the Sentinel’s underlying Bombardier CRJ is that the wing fuselage interface gets in the way of your desired big bomb bay. Of course the Avro RJ with its high wing does possibly have the space for a big old rotary bomb bay, but it does not have the desired range – so how much extra fuel could you stuff in their while keeping your required disposable payload.
So all being said, if we are determined to resurect 70,s classics, its an upgraded super Viking for me!
You wouldn’t necessarily have to build a bomb bay. You could do conformal mounts along the lower fuselage like the F-15E or F-16XL. If you line them up, each has far less drag than the one in front. Or you could develop a conformal bay if you really want to limit drag.
Combined with wing hard points, such an aircraft could carry a respectable load.
Perhaps it could be optionally manned…
TD great idea and for lots of reasons. Not only would it increase the range of the CVF ‘punch’ itself, but could it not also be used as a buddy tanker for the F35. Also, it could give a significant anti-ship (and sub?) capability. Perhaps 6 alongside the 12 JSF standard CVF inventory…
TD
Yes I go for that. Sub sonic definitely with the range suggested I’d forgo making it carrier capable and instead not use a buccaneer but build a new Canberra.
1995 concept vs. today’s flying prototype:
The referred RFX (by C. Kopp) would have had
a nominal combat radius of 1,200 NM with
6,000 lb of internal weapon load (and two pilots!)with an MTOW in the vicinity of 65,000lb. The aircraft has a span just over 72 ft
The corresponding characteristics of the X-47B (as per Wiki):
Wingspan: 62.1 ft (30.9 ft folded)
Max takeoff weight: 44,567 lb
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F100-220U turbofan
Performance
Maximum speed: “high subsonic”
Cruise speed: 0.45 mach
Range: 2,100+ NM (3,889+ km)
2 weapon bays (Provisions for 4,500 lb (2,000 kg) of ordnance)
X-47C
Proposed larger version with a payload of 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) and a wingspan of 172 ft
So, if you take size (as approximated by wing span) to facilitate payload and the obvious trade-off between fuel and weapons carried (to achieve required range), all the three are on the same curve.
How many years (and bn’s) in between? I would wait for the carrier landings in 2014 and then evaluate the mix of these and F-35s in the 2015 Defence Review, before placing any orders.
- quite a nice “fake” video where the footage for carrier deck handling trials (no launch) has been mixed with computer animation http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3838219/video/36658375-x-47b-pegasus
Easiest solution. Join USAF regional bomber program. Better aircraft. Unit price higher, but more capable & the Americans pay most of the R&D.
We should aim for a 10% stake as we have on the F-35.
If we did go it alone, the RR BR725 engine from the Gulfstream G650 would be the better engine (16150 lb to 17000 lbf).
I’m afraid I disagree.
Much of what we use CAS for today, doesnt need CAS. It just doesnt.
120mm mortars or 105mm light guns with terminal laser guidance, and infantry with laser designators would do much of the job.
Throw in a proliferation of UAVs with their own designators and their own ordnance and CAS needs are much reduced.
A UAV can remain on station for 24 hours and a 105 gun indefinatly.
Better and cheaper than the Buccaneer MkII
For Warm and Hot Wars, I dont think the Buccaneer is big enough.
“Medium” always worries me, because its code for “compromised”.
The A400M is para capable, so I see little reason we cant lob missiles out the back instead of paras.
To double the range of your medium bomber, it can carry 20 Cruise Missiles, not 6, or 30 to the same range. And we already own the blasted things, so theres little procurement trouble.
I know SS has a “range” of 150km, but given its size, I’m convinced thats merely its low level flight range. Even if it is so limited, theres little reason we cant buy one of the many pre existing longer ranged weapons.
Ok, its not carrier capable, not everything has to be carrier capable.
With 1500km ranged missiles, it could lob 20 at the Falklands from Ascension per flight, unrefueled.
Black Buck? Yeah Right.
And thats without me checking what the C17 would do…..
@TD
Would not be better as far as possible to stick to the original design?
Sure it might be hard to squeeze in the avionics and therefore you might get a slight lengthening in the plane which turn might mean an off the shelf Spey might not cut it and you need a bigger engine, but the more you change the original airframe the more expensive the development would be. The only other changes I might make is to add a spine down the back for the counter-measures (like the later F-16′s do), add a fifth hard point under the nose of the targeting pod and plumb the new design for conformal tanks, but even then the only essential one is the targeting pod and this is a really cost sensitive design – if you have to spend billions developing it them it might be better to just buy F/A-18 F’s.
This would give a plane capable of carrying around 5 tonnes of ordnance, but without drop tanks we are talking the ability to carry 4 Enhanced Paveway II’s internally plus fit either 2 ASRAAM and 2 AMRAAM or 2 ASRAAM and 2 counter-measure pods and I cannot see it needing more than that. What sort of radar where thinking of fitting, a straight port of the radar from the tornado as it retires?
My only question is do we need to lengthen the bomb bay to accommodate Enhanced Paveway II’s? I know it could carry four 1,000 lb’s but obviously Enhanced Paveway III’s are longer than the original iron bombs it would have carried, and if we have to lengthen the bomb bay it would be expensive. This is also the reason why I would avoid changes to the bomb bay beyond the development of rails to allow internal carriage of different ordnance, for example Mavericks (if intend to buy any), small clusters of Brimstone (I think you could fit 2 or 3 per section of the bay), and maybe even internally carried A2A missiles to reduce the Buccaneers RCS (though to do this properly this takes expensive changes to the intakes and add the reflective film on the cockpit).
Realise I have been sucked into making suggestions for changes that would be so expensive that the design would kill off the plan. Since my boss is looking over my shoulder I need to post this and start work
Anyone would think I am paid to work or something!
Hi JH,
RE “Easiest solution. Join USAF regional bomber program. Better aircraft. Unit price higher, but more capable & the Americans pay most of the R&D”
- I still don’t know much about this aircraft (except that ISD has slipped by 7 yrs and numbers have been cut by a third)
- with the carrier-launched aspect, weight would be interesting as EMALS can do better than steam
- our EMALS make is still to be chosen, but the one that exists (the American alternative) can launch 35t from a Ford and 20t from the size of deck of the amphib’s (the latter is not an existing design, just an extrapolation)
So, we need to know if the QEs’ size compromises the 35t in any way, what the Regional Bomber’s MTOW is to be… before we even could put it on the list
Acc
Cruise speed needs to be high subsonic and bomb load higher than 2 thousand pounders x-47b is not up to it.
John
The new ge techx maybe the best engine or a derivative of the ej200
Dom
So every time we need to enforce a no fly like Iraq or libya we need significant people on the ground then. As for transport that’s a very expensive option a c17 costs 170m pounds each and are expensive to maintain. A400m costs 110m pounds.
Hi DJ,
RE “The A400M is para capable, so I see little reason we cant lob missiles out the back instead of paras”
- all serious transport bomber studies (that I know of have been re: jets). The challenge is to get the ALCM into stable flight (and away from the plane) so that its propulsion can take over
- with those huge propeller blades, I would imagine there would be more challenge in achieving this than with jets (don’t know, just speculating)
Mark
Not always.
Enforcing a no fly zone can be done by blowing up runways in response to violations of said no fly zone.
I dont see how a buccaneer is a better NFZ policer than an A400M
ACC
Hmmm, does it have to be horizontal level flight?
Could it be vertical? Via a parachute?
Hi Mark,
Agreed RE “Cruise speed needs to be high subsonic and bomb load higher than 2 thousand pounders x-47b is not up to it”
That’s why I quoted all three (the 4th was on the video, a full-scale mock-up for deck handling trials).
The “moral” of the story was 16 years from concept to first flight, and over 20 to service. Wing span from 72 to 172 to achieve realistic performance (10 of thousand pounders, instead of the two on the prototype, just as illustrative placeholders for SDBs & the like that would actually be carried).
- cfr. regional bomber, 7 years late even when its main virtue propagated is being based on proven, rather than new, technologies (its original name was 2018 bomber)
The problem is numbers. The development costs of a brand-new combat aircraft are colossal these days, so you really need to amortise them over – at least – several hundred planes, preferably thousands. I’ll bet we could only justify a few dozen, which would make the unit cost (including development share) completely frightening.
These considerations are of course what has driven international cooperation over aircraft projects, which even the USA has had to look to for the F-35.
Acc
I accept that was a bit abrupt. But it’s 16 years from concept to proof of concept demonstrator first flight this isn’t even a test vehicle.
Tony your absolutley right it’s why f35 was first considered it’s now the only game in town like it or not
stuff the americans fly in the face of tradition and buy russian, get the su-34, already flying and pilots sit side by side 1 flying set of instruments,(even has a loo) carries a shedload and has a tasty cannon at the front. I’m sure you could do a deal which “westernizies” the avionics,work to be carried out in the UK (woodford now has the space and workforce skills required) and then if required (if not too expensive) look at banging in RR engines.
I know understand this is pure fantasy but maybe the actual concept of the plane could be looked at, to be honest anything the septics build will be gold plated and v.expensive plus no doubt they will have software/servicing rights etc etc.
link here for the fine details,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su_34
If there can be 2 or 3 X47b/UCAV/whatevers to every F35/whatevers does the bomb load matter then?
I think the medium bomber role would be better filled by a UAV, and as much as I like the Buccaneer I think any large subsonic bomber really needs to have stealthy characteristics.
‘Bomber’ is a little narrow minded too. Such a type of high endurance aircraft should be considered for forward a2a refueling and as an ISTAR platform, as well as strike.
I also think that not a single one of the suggested new Buccaneers would find a foreign buyer when competing in a market place against similar sized magic stealth bombers, and that has to be a consideration too.
I rather like the X47B, it would be a good complement to other carrier aircraft. It can also be used as a carrier borne tanker, stealthy, has a reasonable range too, and one engine is cheaper than two. And if it shared a high level of commonality with the X47C, that could perhaps be an affordable pairing for the FAA and RAF.
The thing I don’t like is the limited payload. A single Stormshadow wouldn’t squeeze in a X47B by a long way. But then, if we want something that fits our desires perfectly we should perhaps have seen a British, or Anglo-French prototype by now.
Both the UK and France want to operate aircraft carriers. So basically, my thoughts are that if the we and the Frenchies could poop out essentially an X47B that could carry Stormshadow, then I’d be sold.
And so for those reasons, TD, I will not be investing in your new build Buccaneer – I’m out!
(I do like the picture of you in your pirate garb though, TD)
Carrier-capable, long-range, big payload, subsonic: sounds like another role for the Hercules. Sacrifice a bit of that 33 tonne payload to bump the range up and there you go – you’ll still have north of 20 tonnes to carry hardware. Slower than you’d like, but you can’t have everything, and it would at least mean you wouldn’t have to develop a new airframe from scratch.
You could call it the Lancastules…
Hi BB,
Yep “rather like the X47B, it would be a good complement to other carrier aircraft”
- the “C” is the (intended)production “strength” model; compare to the cancelled A-12 and it is the same medicine, but without pilots and with much better range/ endurance
@Gareth, cracking story about the bears
@Smitty, the problem with developing a military aircraft from a biz jet, especially if you want a large bay, is you more or less have to redesign the fuselage so at that point, you might as well have started from scratch and had all the benefits of doing so
@Jed, depending on whether you could vertically stack and safely release, you would need a bay to be about 2m deep and 6m long. That is not ridiculously large. Carrier ops does not add structural complexity if you design in from the start, yes it adds weight but that’s a penalty worth paying. Not sure I agree with you about an F18 version, the whole point of the idea is go supersize and go clean wing, a big payload bay gives you flexibility
@Dominic, agree to a point but there are pros and cons to all so I don’t see the need for CAS going away any time soon. Medium is of course a compromise, isn’t everything, but it is for a good reason
@Tubby, I used Buccaneer as an example to illustrate the general idea and performance but we should start from scratch
@JohnH, the US regional bomber is fair enough but it will be over engineered, super stealthy and extremely expensive. The design is this proposal is simple, sub sonic, with limited ambition
@ACC, the X47 or whatever we come up with is going to be limited because of the insistence on stealth and being unmanned, this is designed to do a different role, stand off cruise missiles, CAS and strike in a permissive air environment.
@Mark, we have paid for the BR710′s marinisation so it was the obvious choice
@Tony, you are right about development costs but that is because we are always pushing the boundaries of the impossible. this is non stealthy, sub sonic, stable and would use existing sub systems. How much did NG pay for the Firebird, how much did GA invest in Predator. We make things far too complicated for ourselves and this is killing innovation, forcing us to have one tool and a hundred jobs and despite my desire to see commonality, it only makes sense so far
@x, the point about numbers is a valid one, if we want 8 thousand pounders why not have 4 X47 instead of one of these but look at the costs in that scenario.
How many X-47B’s are we likely to buy?
Probably less than a squadrons worth?
I’m only going by how many Reapers we have bought, so far No.39 Squadron have 5 aircraft of their own, with other personnel attached to 2 USAF Units.
Considering the cost of a new aircraft, also the fact that the RAF have basing rights all over the place, i’d say we don’t really need an aircraft with huge range.
To operate from land bases and the carriers i think i’d be inclined to go for Jed’s idea of the HAL Tejas or just go and buy 24/30 F-18E’s, use them for bombing and for CAS and use the F-35′s for ISTAR, SEAD, High Value/Heavily Defended targets and A/D.
I wonder how many Storm Shadows a Tejas or an F-18E could carry depending on the distance to the target, maybe one or two? I think that’s enough and i know it seems as though i’m just arguing for a replacement for the Tornado but i am arguing for a carrier capable replacement wich would cost less than to design and manufacture an updated version of an older aircraft.
And here’s me talking about eh Buccanneer in the Jaguar 2 thread…. Did you know about the P150 Supersonic Buccanneer that was planned once upon a time? http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/buccaneer/history.php
To keep it simple though, might be better just taking the original blueprints and put new avionics in it – Buccs were used as test beds for the Tornado’s radar in the past. Maybe see if the EJ engines will fit.
I previously posted that the RAF should be an all Typhoon force – T1s for AD and T3bs for Swing role, but buy the full amount . The FAA can have Rafales.
But if we could get a good CHEAPish CAS (half the price of a Typhoon?) or bomber it might be worth having. I’d love to see what the cost of a HAL built Jaguar compared to the cost of a Gripen is.
I just don’t think a brandnew Bucc type aircraft is going to happen. There would be more logic in a Harrier III as there will be an export market for that.
Paul G – I too have a soft spot for the Su34. It would certainly do the job for the RAF of a canberra/Bucc/Tornado replacement. Shame about the politics.
How about doing a rebuild/life-extension job on those surplus Aussie F-111?
@TD
I am not sure how cheap your cheap bomber would be if it is a completely new design. I was with you for bringing back the Buccaneer as is with minimal design changes for all those bombing missions where you need persistent bomb truck with limited self-defence capabilities, and not for the first time I wished I was a multi-billionaire so I could invest in one of the ideas posted here and build a demonstrator.
TD,
I agree that if you want a large, internal bay, you would have to significantly redesign a bizjet. I think you could add conformal hardpoints for a lot less though.
Maybe start with the Bombardier Global Express and use a canoe-shaped conformal bay of similar size and shape to the one used on Sentinel/ASTOR. It looks to be about 12m long. If you stretched it a bit, it might be able to carry 3 Paveway IIIs, or more numerous, smaller munitions. Add four underwing hardpoints for additional munitions or Storm Shadows.
Another option is to build palletized, side-firing gun mounts for the A400M, allowing them to be quickly converted from cargo carrier to gunship. Four or six underwing hardpoints could carry larger munitions.
Can Brimstone and Paveway be launched from an internal bay, or do they need to see the target first to be reliable?
How often do you have to trap to keep qualified, and how many traps do you have to do to requalify? I was just thinking that if we only have one carrier and it is out of range of the UK would we be able to keep enough pilots qualified to justify having carrier qualified planes/crew that spent most of the time at home?
Re internal targetting pods. Wouldnt it be better to have conformal hardpoints for them? Draggy I know but much easier to pick and choose as better ones become available/funded.
I sit just me, or does anyone else see “regional bomber”, plus our impending need for Maritime Patrol aircraft and our growing need for more/better ISTAR and say to themselves “PC-3 Orion?”
It can carry/launch torpedoes, sea mines, anti-shipping missiles such as harpoon, anti-tank weapons and bombs. One of them wasn’t even involved in the recent Libya clashes, firing a maverick at a Libyan coast guard vessel and forcing it to beach. Can use land attack version of harpoon, so probably could be rigged to use Storm Shadow.
Useful Pyaload; nearly 58,000lbs
Top Speed; 411 Knots
Cruise Speed; 328 knots
Ceiling; 28,000 feet
Range (ferry); 4,830 nautical miles
Although part of me has always wanted to see the RAF regenerate a medium bomber platform especially when given the missions that sometimes need done Libya being an example I don’t think it’s worth it. Sure if the RAF was still the size it was a few decades ago then it would fit nicely but the fact that we will be dropping down to maybe 120 fast jet fighter attack platforms then I don’t think there is much point. I do however think we need to get a few dozen X-47B after the Americans have got the UCAV doing carrier trials and generally up to a much higher level of maturity where it should also be lower risk. As nobody really knows the performance of the X-47B since it is a prototype we should wait and see as it may turn out to be an ideal medium platform for the UK we could even try and get more involved. Sure the payload might not be as high as some would like but as part of wider picture I don’t see that as a problem at all especially when there are basically no other or limited alternatives.
I would still like to see the UK and France develop a similar platform maybe a bit bigger for the additional desired payload and the option to export or use the technology without US interference. Ideally taking the sensible route of maximum use of existing technologies in European aerospace companies rather than trying to match US systems with all singing all dancing warfighting capability or new technology. However I really do wonder like Lewis Page etc if the effort would be worth it to develop something we could buy from the American military hardware shelf for lower cost, more capability and the operational through life benefits of using what the US also use.
P.S. The BANAna jet truly was a great aircraft, I remember stories of maintenance guys pulling barbed wire from the aircraft after exercises in Nevada where the RAF just had to show the Yanks how to play their own games.
Tony,
Being the sole operators of a bunch of old airframes is an expensive proposition (that goes for the S-3 as well). Especially those that you’ve never operated before.
B.Smitty – yes, I know. But probably more practical than reviving the Bucc!
Seeing as there are no Buc’s to bring back from the dead, developing a new aircraft will cost a fortune and radically modernizing a Biz jet will also cost a fortune, then while Smitty is right about the S3 Viking, it may still be the only cheap AND cost effective option for this type of requirement.
With an assessed 11,000 hours of fatigue life left if flown from land, all you have to do is decided how much you want to spend on upgrading it (because to Smitty’s point you WILL have to spend on introducing it into service):
Options are:
1. Pretty much as is – which means using weapons already integrated, e.g. Maverick and SLAM/ER, with maybe some money spent on integrating SDB and Viper Strike into the bomb bay. Could fly with rear seats empty, and if you just want to flog them to death, can fly from the carriers.
2. Relatively Simple Upgrade. Take out rear seats, use COTS/MOTS to upgrade cockpit. Retain radar, ESM etc but replace MAD boom with ALE50 towed decoy. Integrate triple Brimstone launcher with the underwing pylons. Upgrade the internal (retractable) EO ball. Upgrade the engines using latest civvy variants of CFM34
3. Relatively Complex Upgrade. Replace rear seats with modular avionics bay. Replace ASW sono-bouy launchers with fuel tanks. Build new outer wing (from the wing fold out) to include more internal fuel plus mid wing hard point (rated for say 500lb guided bomb) and outer wing hard point (rated for ASRAAM / AMRAAM). Integrate Storm Shadow on the existing inner wing pylon. Upgrade or replace all avionics and major systems. No wing fold anymore, so it ain’t fitting your carriers lifts…
4. Seriously Complex Upgrade – completely destroying TD’s initial “one tool, one job” mantra ! New wing and engines as above, plus fit the avionics and EW (DASS)systems of the Typhoon, including due to the shape of the nose / radome a bigger AESA antenna (more radiated power) giving the “patrol bomber” an electonic attack and SEAD role in less permissive environments. Obviously this will not qualify as cheap anymore – but cheap does not mean the same thing as “cost effective”.
My main point being, these airframes actually exist, have years of life left in them, and depending on the options you choose could actually replace the Tornado as cheaper to operate capability running alongside the Typhoon within 5 years or so, unlike the fantasy of bringing back Super Buc, Super Jag or building a “Euro Regional Bomber”
@Jed
If we had the money i’d go for your Option 2 and add integrate Storm Shadow from your Option 3 to that.
They wouldn’t need to carry Brimstone and Storm Shadow type weapons at the same time would they?
I can’t find out how big the internal bomb bay is, i wonder is it’s big enough for the Paveway III & IV?
If it is then that would give you a very useful mix of weapons types or extra fuel for longer ranged precision strikes.
I don’t think i’d really want to do anything more complex than that (Option 2), as it would just escalate the costs.
I also think the S-3 would be cheaper than going for a small number of aircraft that are already in production such as the Tejas or F-18E, which is what i’d favoured.
Hi Jed,
Stumbled on a photo of EW-3 on the net today, totally by chance.
As Wiki does not know of such version, it may have been this one “Outlaw Viking
One S-3B fitted with Over-the-horizon Airborne Sensor Information System (OASIS III), returned to regular S-3B in 1998″ – but unlikely as in http://i5.tinypic.com/20k29za.jpg the photo is dated April 2006 and relating to HAF Procurement Program.
You can stuff them full of anything (starting from the normal max takeoff weight: 52,539 lb (23,831 kg)) and EMALS can still handle them at take-off
ACC – I know an AEW version of the S3 was researched, but I think the photo is a mock up ? Not sure it actually flew (but maybe it did).
Michael – Wiki says bomb bay had four hard points (two each side) – this picture shows a single torpedo in the port side bay: http://www.midwaysaircraft.org/images/IMG_4136.JPG
So I think at least 4 x 250Lb Small Diameter bomb internally, or maybe two Paveway. I understand TD’s point about clean wings and things, but it’s way easier to integrate fuel tanks into an aircraft fuselage than it is to build in a bomb bay. As for the weapons pylons, no I was not suggesting a mission where Storm Shadow and Brimstone would be carried at the same time. To return to TD’s points about aero-dynamics, 3 x Brimstone on a multi-adapter-carrier produces more drag than a single Storm Shadow, but Vikings have the wing hard points already, so I don’t see it as a problem. Also unlike a modified civvy Bizjet the S3 already has a working in-flight refueling probe too, should you need to carry a heavy and draggy load…..
Hi Jed,
As we need this function off the carriers anyway ” an AEW version of the S3 was researched”, then if the research showed it viable, using the same airframe for other things supports “your cause”
How about taking the Eurofighter Typhoon and making something akin to a mini-Vulcan out of it.(Or more accurately, a modern Avro 707)
Something that can carry more and stay in the air for longer with a lower top speed and less agile but retaining a high commonality with the Typhoon to get better economies of scale.
Why do people think a UCAV like x47 will be cheap. They arent expected to be cheap indeed from everything ive seen suggests theyll cost as much if not more than any current manned fighter bar F22. Theyre fielding is over a decade away in US service and many tech challenges need overcome before then. The advantage they have is that less off them will be bought but well be back to the 2 places at once problem.
Dom
We have a CAS tornado in afghan. If we secure a single airbase it can be anywhere within 140 miles of that base within 20mins that a hell of a big area of coverage. How many artillery batteries need deployed and secured or UAVs in the air to offer the same coverage. Neither of the latter options can show non kinetic shows of force. That will also be done at half the price of using a a400m.
ChrisB
I take your P3C and raise you a P8.
Hi Jed.
Thanks for that pic.
What i was really thinking was that instead of your more complex redesign in Option 3 with a new wing, just modify it enough to carry Storm Shadow/Harpoon/Paveway III/IV /Brimstone etc on the wing pylon and use the internal bay for whatever we can. I was wrong to think of Paveway as it has to “see” to be able to hit.
That way we could keep the costs down.
Could you live with your Option 2 and Storm Shadow?
Can I ask a question – how much does it cost to develop new civilian aircraft, so a new regional biz jet? The reason I ask is that new Buccaneer would be based on an aerodynamically stable design, which could be manufactured without composites using off the shelf FBW system rather the going with a design like the Typhoon which is dynamically unstable and you very much need a bespoke FBW system to fly the plane. Is seems to me that we look at the costs for new planes based on designing cutting edge aircraft where nearly every system is new, needs developing, testing, certifying and thousand of lines of code written, something which I would imagine is the complete opposite of how new bizjets are developed for the most part. Maybe we need to apply commercial building practices to the Buccaneer 2?
@Jed
Am I right you are suggesting dropping carrier interoperability and just trading on the long legs of the S-3 to land base it? Rather get a carrier jet, but sounds fine by me, I would take every single S-3 (and likely every A-6 Intruder in the bone yard) refurbish them in the states, stick in off the shelf avionics fit so they are all of the same standard, and if possible share as many systems between the two platforms as possible and off the shelf engine which require minimal changes, and operate both forces from land bases using what weapons in our inventory that they can work with and not worry about Brimstone (or possibly even Stormshadow) as we can always UOR them if needed. If we need more bang for our buck we can always buy new air launched Harpoon’s and new Maverick’s from the states. I reckon if we did all the refurbishment work in the states using 90% US companies we would get the planes for free.
@Everyone
Finally I feel that as someone who is always advocating using old designs I should justify my stance. I first got interested in aviation in 1985 and for me the 80′s are the period where I really enjoyed aviation. I pretty much ignored aviation and defence matters until about 2 years ago and was horrified at what I saw.
One of the worst offenders was the F-35 programme (and the bloated nature of the Typhoon programme is not far behind) – surely anyone with a brain could see that the words cutting edge, stealth and cheap does not belong in the same sentence unless it is cutting edge stealth aircraft will not be cheap.
Then on top of this the military seems to have a weird obsession with stealth which I cannot see warranted. Before I am flamed I would respectfully point out that one of the truths of the 21st century is that every-time you turn around the processing power of a computer seems to have doubled, are we seriously believing that in five years time all the major countries will not have developed processors for their radars which will be able to see VLO aircraft in the noise, and that another 5 years after that we will have missiles that can do the same, so the question becomes why we spending some much money on a stealthy F-35, would it not have been better to spend it a non-stealthy aircraft with lots of growth capacity and developing next-generation ECM systems instead?
Which brings me back to cheap aircraft, surely the best policy is maximise the potential of the Typhoon, integrate the best ECM system money can buy and improved missiles and skip the whole stealth debate, and concentrate on a second aircraft type to operate along side the Typhoon which is a hell of a lot cheaper the Typhoon but is just a cheap dedicated striker that turns up to do the job after Typhoon has kicked the door down
Mark,
I see your P8 and raise you the prospect that the PC-3 is cheaper and can do the job satisfactorly that’s being asked. The P-8 is an unknown right now.
But I could be persuaded.
One Sqn (617?) of USAF regional bombers for the RAF, is probably cheaper , more capable & more realistic than most of the other options.