Keeping the Hunter and Canberra longer

alertken said:
f: it was 7/2006 for the PR9s. For the Hunter-in-UK...it's...not yet, as they are in Red Flag games, civilian-operated. These 1946/47 designs, last build 1960, have done us proud: yet longer use could only have been by cutting the identity number off and pasting it on to new metal (UK-folk: Trigger's broom).

UK Treasury has at last learned that retread may not save a dime. UK examples are: Nimrod MR2-MRA4, Lynx-Wildcat, Apache AH-64D-AH64E. Savings...nix.
(I once tried to save money...taking a surplus Buccaneer S.1, chopping off the front end to be the visible shell for S.2 simulator. Bright idea of mine? No).
Click to expand...
There were a few problems over the years. Nimrod, I cant see where they thought there would be a saving, I mean new wings and engines, and all new sensors, so you were going to save just the fuselage, no one would do that to a car.
 
Reading through Black box Canberras and all the various mods tried out on them, you can see there were a number of upgrades or new-build changes that could have been made (rotating bomb bay doors, engine upgrades, avionics upgrades). Would that have been cost effective? Probably not but there might have been a bit of life eaked out in a 'Super Canberra' to cover the gap until Tornado.
Hunter is timeless, still proving cheaper than modern jet trainers to operate and still able to do certain tasks better than they can for adversary training. In some ways those old pre-gas-guzzling supersonic era fighters were never bettered. Plus they are so old their original costs have long been written down and the spares hordes are relatively low-price compared to modern engines. I reckon a few Hunter airframes will get to 100 years.

As for Trigger's broom, we could say the same about 80% of the airworthy warbirds, most are a data plate with a new aircraft built around them. Some have a smattering of original parts, but they are still essentially reproductions.
 
Hood said:
As for Trigger's broom, we could say the same about 80% of the airworthy warbirds, most are a data plate with a new aircraft built around them. Some have a smattering of original parts, but they are still essentially reproductions.
Click to expand...
The same applies to USS Constitution. The current estimate is that she has maybe 5% original timber left. All of it in the keel
 
Hood said:
Reading through Black box Canberras and all the various mods tried out on them, you can see there were a number of upgrades or new-build changes that could have been made (rotating bomb bay doors, engine upgrades, avionics upgrades). Would that have been cost effective? Probably not but there might have been a bit of life eaked out in a 'Super Canberra' to cover the gap until Tornado.
Hunter is timeless, still proving cheaper than modern jet trainers to operate and still able to do certain tasks better than they can for adversary training. In some ways those old pre-gas-guzzling supersonic era fighters were never bettered. Plus they are so old their original costs have long been written down and the spares hordes are relatively low-price compared to modern engines. I reckon a few Hunter airframes will get to 100 years.

As for Trigger's broom, we could say the same about 80% of the airworthy warbirds, most are a data plate with a new aircraft built around them. Some have a smattering of original parts, but they are still essentially reproductions.
Click to expand...

Oh gosh, I had forgotten, the adversary Hunters. In france there is a company like that, or even two - ATAC aviation and Apache aviation.
Both found that Hunter still kicked arses. For the record, they are flying DACT against Rafale F3s. And also, cruise missile roles against ASTER missile systems.
 
It makes perfect sense for the RAF to shuffle old pilots and old Canberras into semi-retirement with Air Reserve Squadrons. That way, airline pilots can fly familiar old airplanes during weekends. When war returns, they are current and only need minor upgrade training to fight again. Some of those Air Reserve Squadrons will become gentlemens' flying clubs financed by the public purse.

Would re-engined Canberras get T33 engines like the USAF RB-57D?
Would wing re-design replace the ring spars with simpler straight spars?
Would they end up with forward/under-slung CFM engines like Boeing 737?
 
alertken said:
f: it was 7/2006 for the PR9s. For the Hunter-in-UK...it's...not yet, as they are in Red Flag games, civilian-operated. These 1946/47 designs, last build 1960, have done us proud: yet longer use could only have been by cutting the identity number off and pasting it on to new metal (UK-folk: Trigger's broom).

UK Treasury has at last learned that retread may not save a dime. UK examples are: Nimrod MR2-MRA4, Lynx-Wildcat, Apache AH-64D-AH64E. Savings...nix.
(I once tried to save money...taking a surplus Buccaneer S.1, chopping off the front end to be the visible shell for S.2 simulator. Bright idea of mine? No).
Click to expand...
I thought the Apache E's were new build not refurbished from the D's?
 
Yes dear JohnR,
During the Gulf and Afghan Wars, the US Armed Services soon timed-out their original helicopters, so they cycled their "timed-out' helicopter airframes through overhauls that up-dated them to the latest standard. The Regular Army "borrowed" so many helicopters from Reserve and National Guard units, that reservists were running out of airframes to train for their next over-seas deployment. Some Reserve and National Guard squadrons were assigned specific training roles active-duty crews destined for Afghanistan. The Colorado National Guard taught mountain-flying skills to CH-47 crews destined for Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
SSgtC said:
Archibald said:
SSgtC said:
apparition13 said:
I think Canberra would be just about the perfect COIN asset. Upgrade to turbofans for additional range and loiter time, add Sniper-like pods and ISR systems to them, load JDAMs and LGBs, and sail them around at 40k feet doing the loitering CAS mission the US has been using strategic bombers for. They'd be a lot cheaper to operate, wouldn't use up bomber airframes, and if necessary could go low level to do CAS with guns or Mavericks as well.
Click to expand...
But how do you get an aircraft that first flew in 1949 to remain in front line bomber service until at least 2015?
Click to expand...

B-52 first flight in 1952, cough, cough
Click to expand...
Except the Canberra was retired from bomber service by 1972. And to be fair, not only does the B-52 carry almost nine times the bomb load of the Canberra, it has over 5 times the combat range. Not to mention, the US has tried to kill the B-52. Multiple times. It's replacement kept getting killed.
Click to expand...
Missed this earlier (see post 30 as well).

Canberras* could be based in country. You wouldn't have long deployment flights and multiple refuellings, which would save a lot of fuel and cost. Since they are based right there, you could have anywhere from a couple to a couple squadrons constantly sailing around at high altitude, depending on what is happening on the ground. If one happens to use up it's entire bomb load, shuttle another of the on station aircraft over and send up another one (or more if necessary) as needed. They could be on station in minutes to up to an hour, though I'd anticipate more like half an hour depending on what alert condition they are in.

*The only modern aircraft I suspect could do this kind of based locally high altitude persistent/loitering CAS is the Textron-AirLand Scorpion. It doesn't have the range or bomb-load of a Canberra, but SDBs would allow it to attack multiple targets on one sortie and it's a lot closer to being in production that new Canberras are. :)

*They could do SOCOMs persistent overwatch mission as well, at least in those circumstances where something on the close-by on a rough field wouldn't make more sense.
 
Volkodav said:
There was the Hunters modified for trialing the Blue Flash and Blue Jay development programs. I recall reading somewhere that it was suggested that the AI 20 radar installation used in the Blue Jay testing could have formed the basis of a AI 20 Firestreak F6 retrofit program, I have not seen any source material on this so don't know if it was a real proposal, wishful thinking, or fantasy.
Click to expand...
Depending on exactly when you're planning to do the refit, it might just be easier to use later models of Sidewinder (i.e. something better than AIM-9B), as I think several other nations did. IIRC the Australians rejected Firestreak for the Avon Sabre because the only space left for the missile support systems was in the gun bays, and losing the guns was unacceptable.

I'm not sure what the Hunters had to lose, but something which would be acceptable in a trials aircraft would not so much be so for a combat variant. Then again, the Swiss adapted Maverick to theirs, but the support electronics were probably a lot more compact by that time.
 
alertken said:
f: it was 7/2006 for the PR9s. For the Hunter-in-UK...it's...not yet, as they are in Red Flag games, civilian-operated. These 1946/47 designs, last build 1960, have done us proud: yet longer use could only have been by cutting the identity number off and pasting it on to new metal (UK-folk: Trigger's broom).

UK Treasury has at last learned that retread may not save a dime. UK examples are: Nimrod MR2-MRA4, Lynx-Wildcat, Apache AH-64D-AH64E. Savings...nix.
(I once tried to save money...taking a surplus Buccaneer S.1, chopping off the front end to be the visible shell for S.2 simulator. Bright idea of mine? No).
Click to expand...
Sometimes upgrades are more expensive than new production.
BUT it all depends upon which shoe-box the funds come from.
For example, it is notoriously difficult to convince the Canadian Parliament and Treasury Board to fund new military airplanes for the RCAF, however it is easy to find funds for avionics upgrades, new fuselage center barrels, new weapons, mid-life refits, etc. for CF-18 fighter jets. The RCAF just announced a multi-billion dollar upgrade program for CF-18s even as they were negotiating to buy 80-ish new F-35s.

From a Canadian politician's perspective, the most important thing is which constituency gets the dollars for upgrades. Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal?
 
One of the consequences of keeping TSR2 as the RAF Vulcan replacement in the 1970s would have been the demise of any new combat aircraft programmes except perhaps the P1127RAF and the Hawk trainer.

The RAF would have needed to continue to use the Hunter in the close air support role.
By 1975 this would have meant three squadrons in the UK (instead of Jaguar) and two in West Germany(instead of Harrier).

The Hawk might have been developed in this role for service in the late 70s.

The RAF in 1984 would have been much smaller than its real life equivalent.

The six Tornado squadrons in UK and W Germany would have been replaced by three TSR2 squadrons in UK.

The other aircraft that would have had to run on would have been the Lightning.

BAe in 1975 would have had to improve Hunter, Canberra and Lightning. Only the Hawk and P1127RAF might have been new types.

By 1985 the RAF would have had to look at what would replace this line up in the 90s.

The Tomahawk on RN SSNs would have been the TSR2 replacement in part.

Without the progression of collaborative programmes from Jaguar via Tornado to Typhoon, BAe's only experience of state of the art combat aircraft would have been working with McDD on P1127 mods.

Assuming the Thatcher government is in power as in our timeline, the RAF is likely to follow Australia and Canada in buying F18s.

By 2020 these aircraft would be the RAF's only frontline combat aircraft. Their replacement would be the F35A.

On the debit side there would have been fewer jobs and technology centres in UK. On the positive side the RAF would have been leaner and cheaper over time. There would also have been no dependence on Saudi orders.
 
An RAF buying TSR2 is still going through meant a Hunter replacement (ie something like Jaguar) and will still want an interceptor for UK Air Defence (ie Phantom). The existence of TSR2 does not make these requirements disappear, and given much of the money that could have been spent on TSR2 was spent on the likes of Phantoms in the strike role based in Germany, AFVG, F-111K, Buccaneer and Tornado, all of which was spent in addition the likes of Jaguar etc I don't see why the money cannot be found for a smaller number of Phantoms for the RAF to defend Britain, and for something like Jaguar. If anything TSR2 entering service will probably strengthen the case for something like the Plowden Report, as TSR2s entry into service is likely to be fairly traumatic given the various avionics and manufacturing problems.

TSR2 also means a point of departure before Thatcher, so she may never enter government, and I don't think F-18 would have been bought anyway, if we were going to go American (which I doubt would happen), it would be F-15.
 
Modernized Swiss Hunters have been already mentioned but here is another example of a Hunter operator that opted for a major upgrade of their fleet back in the 70s namely the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF). The details of the upgrade:

51863453070_8a59798d0d_b.jpg

51861832352_91d3b679f5_b.jpg


The RSAF flew those upgraded Hunters until 1992. Just goes to show that there was still life in the old girl yet.
 
My comments were based on the recent Cosford Conference and an earlier RAF seminar which both made the point that TSR2 would have been so costly in the 1965 to 1975 period that no other new combat aircraft could have been afforded.
The P1127 RAF benefitted from US support and Hawk was a modest cost programme to replace the Gnat.. I assumed that P1154 and HS681 were too impractical and costly.
Only Japan, Saudi Arabia and Israel purchased the F15 whereas Australia, Canada and Spain operated F18s. I tend to the view that UK budgets made it an easier fit, not least because it would replace both Hunters/Hawks and Ligbtnings.
The reorganisation of BAC and HS into BAe would have happened whoever was in power.
 
UK Cold War budgets are larger than those of Canada and Australia, and the F-15 is probably closer to RAF requirements than F-18, with the exception of the lack of a second seat and WSO equipment (hence why Tornado ADV was developed). I agree with you on P.1154 and HS.681, TSR2 had by far the best chance of surviving as it was the only one which existed with multiple airframes.

Money that could be spent on TSR2 was spent of Buccaneer, Phantoms in the strike role, F-111K, AFVG and Tornado, TSR2 entering service means that money can be spent elsewhere (mostly on TSR2). That still means there is some budget available for a strike-trainer, likely to be Jaguar to spread development and procurement costs with France, and a twin-seat, twin engined Lightning replacement (and if Britain is going to purchase American then it's for this role, in the short term (60s to 70s) then Phantoms make the most sense, especially if the RN purchase of F-4Ks is still going through, and it's for this role that the US offered F-15s in the early 1980s).
 
It's hard to cost up the TSR.2 post 1966 into the 1970s. A lot in conjecture about how much the avionics might have cost. It's possible for example that the nav/attack system might have been ripped out, certainly off the shelf kit like NAVWASS might have been leveraged from Jaguar - additional cost for sure but probably not crippling costs. All the trials would have cost a pretty penny for sure. Even Jaguar took a lot of fettling 1968-78 before it was ready. Certainly TSR.2 would have been in A&AEE hands well into 1975-76.

From my reading of the 1966 era files a new VG wing fighter to replace Lightning in 1975+ seems to have been the next aircraft on the Air Staff's agenda. AST.396 for a Harrier/Jaguar replacement began as early as 1972 for service in 1985 and the fighter died off (reincarnated soon after as ADV, again with a late 80s ISD).

Jaguar might have fallen out of contention, I suspect some kind of 'boy racer' Hawk might have been acquired to fill the gap - though after the 1971 collapse of East of Suez duties they might not have bothered and just brought a couple of extra squadrons of Harriers.
 
I'm definitely too used to the WB-57s, short wing Canberras look so weird to me!

SSgtC said:
How do you convince the RAF though? It's one thing for 2nd/3rd world countries to hang on to an obsolete type as the best option available to them. It's another to convince a global power to do the same. So how do you get the RAF to keep it in service as a bomber when they're replacing it enmasse with V-bombers?
Click to expand...
SEAD and EW work, maybe COIN if you fit it with LLLTV etc. You're rolling the Canberra out of strategic missions and moving it into support missions that the Canberra can still do, that need done.

I'd use a turbofan engine common with many other aircraft, probably that of the VC-10 if the US TF33 isn't an option.
 
One thing not mentioned so far regarding Canberra is what they made it out of, Aluminium Alloy DTD683 (7079). While this was fine when it left the factory, with a bit of use in damp weather (U.K. climate anyone?) it rapidly turns into something with the structural properties of crumbly cheese. This is environmental stress corrosion cracking which scraped of most of the U.K. fleet (not to mention the Valiants). However those operators in dryer environments were not so afflicted. I once looked inside the wheel bay of one of the last flying RAF Canberra’s and was a little shocked by the structural modification applied to deal with the problem;- large chucks of aluminium robustly bolted along the primary load paths…… made me think of the engineering in the Flintstones.

Of course the American’s just saw this as an opportunity with their Canberra’s. When the wings in the RB57 D crumbled, they just contracted General Dynamics to design and build a better longer wing with more engines, the wonderful RB57F … oh god bless em. What a successful re-winging project….but how on earth did the new wings fit the old fuselage?
 
Last edited:
Zoo Tycoon said:
Of course the American’s just saw this as an opportunity with their Canberra’s. When the wings in the RB57 D crumbled, they just contracted General Dynamics to design and build a better longer wing with more engines, the wonderful RB57F … oh god bless em. What a successful re-winging project….but how on earth did the new wings fit the old fuselage?
Click to expand...
Well... the B-57B (and later variants) fuselages were made to US production-line standards, so a wing could come off and fit right onto a different same-model fuselage.

So it was easy to take the manufacturing drawings and design a wing that would fit right up.
Probably did a bit of section replacement in the fuselage frame as well, just to make sure the body didn't fall apart.
 
ST21 said:
The details of the upgrade:
Click to expand...
Now imagine the planned (and cancelled) supersonic, afterburning P.1083 Super Hunter being given this upgrade. P.1083 was cancelled because it was found difficult to fit all the missile handling gear inside the fuselage and keep a decent fuel load, plus four 330lb missiles each nearly as big as a Sparrow did unfortunate things to the performance. But four late-model AIM-9's? That's another matter.
 
Archibald said:
(quick check of Google)



Don't blame me, blame the thread O.P.

Reminds me of an old joke... in an insane asylum, one of the patient is asked to draw a knife. He instead shows a blank sheet of paper.
"Are you kidding me ?"
"Why ? It is really a knife. It just doesn't have a handle, and the blade is missing. And by the way, you are handling my picture upside down."

Another patient from the same asylum is found hanging to the ceiling.
"Get down you !"
"No, I'm a lightbulb !"
"Please, assistant, get this idiot down."
"Ok boss, but then, if we remove him, the room will be dark."

And yet another patient is seen pushing a wheelbarrow, except it is upside down.
"Why are you doing this, you fool ?"
"Well, I'm not fool. Yesterday I pushed that same wheelbarrow the right way, and some asshole put a heavy load of concrete inside."

Another patient "Eureka ! I'm not a corn seed !"
"What ? we have been telling you this for 25 years ! Well, you are cured, congrats. You can get out.
"I won't. I'm scared to death. I mean, whatif I come across a hen of a duck ? they will eat me !"
"What, no, you KNOW you are not a corn seed, you just told us."
"You are right, but how will hens and ducks will know it ? will they realize ?"

Another patient

"I'm a bird. I'm convinced I can fly."
"You are not, I guarantee you."
"Well, screw you, I'm going away" and the guy get out by the window, flying.

And then - Hitler is coming to the asylum. I mean, the real one. At the end of the visit, the asylum director says, proudly
"And now, the grand finale. Mein fuhrer, all the insane here..." he opens the door. Hitlers wanabees everywhere: moustache, voice, impeccable clones of the real one. "They all believe they are YOU !"
Alas, all of sudden all the whackos start shouting "An IMPOSTOR ! Size him !" and they all jumped on Hitler. And of course the REAL Hitler is impossible to find.
Very annoyed the asylum director shout "WHO IS THE REAL HITLER ?"
"ME ! ME ! I'm the real one !"

Very annoyed, the director takes a decision: he randomly picks one of the whackies, hopping it is the real Hitler... or that nobody will see the difference.

The next day, the idiot starts WWII.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of a story I have heard a couple times:

A psychologist is visiting an insane asylum. At a table he finds a man wearing a Bicorn hat with feather and looking quite superior. The psychologist sits down and asks the man for his name.

The patient, looking slightly offended, draws himself up and says “Sir, I am Napoleon Bonaparte!”

The psychologist answers “ You are? Well how do you know you are Napoleon Bonaparte? Who told you?”

The man replies “God told me!”

At this the man’s neighbour at the table speaks up, quite indignantly “I did not!”
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom