Libya Ops Show Need For Lower-Cost Strike.

[ddodd000]

Libya Ops Show Need For Lower-Cost Strike - Aviation Week by Robert Wall 10 Nov 2011
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... t%20Strike" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe Harriers operating from a Carrier......

[Bucky P]

We also have Hawks that are low cost and are available as an attack platform with a multitude of smaller weaponry available, I'm sure a couple of Hawk fighter sqn's would be valuable in a situation like this!

[LightningGoose]

Yes, but Harriers on carriers would have been ideal I think. Hawk strike sqns would be good as well.

[steve149c]

Problem with hawks - no air to air refuelling. T2 with centre line tank and under wing pylons doesnt have much range! As much as I love hawks, this is their downside

[quid21]

Just mod the Hawks like they did to the Nimrod, Hercules and I believe Vulcan at the time of the Flaklands.....they could soon have a probe!

[Bucky P]

I believe some of the export models have probes, if not I'm sure it would not be a major mod to get them fitted, the AMX's are a similar size and also have probes.

[wokka]

If there's a problem with range for Hawks, how about a conversion to a shipborne light attack aircraft?

[RichC]

The Nimrod would have been the answer. One Nimrod could have done the job of several jets. It could have flown down, conducted strikes with Storm Shadow or Paveways and gone home. Wouldn't need another aircraft targetting as it could have had a Sniper pod itself.

1. It had a strategic range
2. It could air refuel if needed
3. It had a bomb bay and hardpoints to enable multiple weapon loads and paveway could have been carried with a little modifying. Internally and externally.
4. Sniper pod could have been carried on a hardpoint or modified fuselage position (like the B1B does now for Close air support)
5. Onboard ISTAR to help troops on the ground if needed and reconnaissance. (saves other types doing it)

One Nimrod with a full battlestaff crew could do several missions in one.... from medium to high altitude. Would enable a mission to be conducted by saving multiple types (recce, strike, recce).

Oh wait...............

[Davef68]

Problem with hawks - no air to air refuelling. T2 with centre line tank and under wing pylons doesnt have much range! As much as I love hawks, this is their downside

I beleive the T2s can be equipped with refuelling probes. They just don't have the ability to drop bombs.....

[TS010]

If there's a problem with range for Hawks, how about a conversion to a shipborne light attack aircraft?

A development of the T-45 Goshawk perhaps?

[Tooks]

The Nimrod would have been the answer. One Nimrod could have done the job of several jets. It could have flown down, conducted strikes with Storm Shadow or Paveways and gone home. Wouldn't need another aircraft targetting as it could have had a Sniper pod itself.

1. It had a strategic range
2. It could air refuel if needed
3. It had a bomb bay and hardpoints to enable multiple weapon loads and paveway could have been carried with a little modifying. Internally and externally.
4. Sniper pod could have been carried on a hardpoint or modified fuselage position (like the B1B does now for Close air support)
5. Onboard ISTAR to help troops on the ground if needed and reconnaissance. (saves other types doing it)

One Nimrod with a full battlestaff crew could do several missions in one.... from medium to high altitude. Would enable a mission to be conducted by saving multiple types (recce, strike, recce).

Oh wait...............

Sounds perfect, except for the low cost bit.

Why it ended up so expensive though, I'm not sure, but there are lessons in there somewhere.

[RichC]

But surely one or two Nimrods (even flying from the UK and back) would be a lot more cheaper than flying a squadron of Tornados back and forth with VC-10 support let alone deploying them to another country as well as that.
I know the Nimrod was expensive (and i don't know why either) but a few modifications here and there would pay for itself in unit cost when they are deployed for theatre saving lots in the long run.

The US are using B-1Bs and B-52s in the Close Air Support role in Afghanistan which are taking over the job of "many" attack aircraft. They circle the battlefield for hours on end waiting for the call for support. Using the same kit as a fighter would only more of it and on station for many hours at a time.

Anyway, we have been down this road before. We as a country, even after 2015 will not get something as capable and modifiable as the Nimrod.

[hertsman]

I don't find this report surprising. It's a hobby-horse of mine that putting all your eggs in one very complex and expensive basket can result in a mismatch of the requirement and resource. The US has been actively considering simpler and cheaper aircraft to do some of the dirty-work roles, eg Super Tucano, Texans and even a modified crop-duster turned counter insurgency fighter. I'm not sure if they have committed to this course or any particular platform yet though.

But when I've raised this subject on here before regarding the UK, I've been reminded that this is not RAF doctrine, where finances dictate the use of a very few sophisticated fighters to carry out all tasks (basically evolving into Typhoon and F35, period). When you need a clever system, this works, when you don't it's a waste of money and a risk of losing a crew and expensive asset to a lucky shot.

So, while I appreciate the efficiencies of operating fewer types than in the past, I still see a flaw in operating types which are geared only to the complex and sophisticated end of the operations range. But, to answer my own question, I guess it's pie in the sky right now, as current finances are having to stretch to keep what we've got, let alone add to the inventory, even at the bargain basement level.

hertsman

[quid21]

Hell, why not just use XH558 to do bombing missions!!