RAF to revert to Prop engine aircraft for ground attack role!

[Torplexed]

Everything old is new again. Might be time to dust off some of those Vietnam vintage Skyraiders.

[XabbaRus]

Ah now while I agree that for COIN work props are a much better asset to have than fast jets. Just look at the OV-10 Bronco, IMHO one of the most suited planes to COIN if you want to build a new one, but this has come at the request of the army.

Now he would like to see the RAF reduced to an airline and the navy reduced to coastal protection. He seems to forget how without the navy his army would effectively be able to get anywhere and also that there are more than a few occasions you want a fast jet.

Typhoon has pretty much been paid for. To cut back now would be stupid. They say we always equip ourselves to fight the last war not the current or future war, however I feel in the future we will see a return to state vs state wars as resources dwindle so we could end up with a scenario where we need tosend out a good strike force and have nothing but a few rowing boats and prop planes and an army stuck in blighty.

Also £67 million for a Typhoon but £60 million for an F-35? I think that is just a bit wrong. The JSF is way over price now. Personally if they need to save money scrap the JSF, buy Rafale or Super Hornet and have two seat Typhoons for your Tornado replacement.

As a SDR is coming up each force is trying to set out its stall. I personally fear that the Army will win over at the expense however of the Navy. The RAF this time round can take it. It is easier to reactivate mothballed Typhoons stored in a hangar than it is to restart a ship that has been tied up at dock for 6 months.

[bookworm_020]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Everything old is new again. Might be time to dust off some of those Vietnam vintage Skyraiders.

You beat me to it!


If you had a squadran or two of light attack aircraft that can double as trainers and gerneral purpose aircraft, it may be cost effective. How many wars or peace keeping missions would they suit?

If you had a squadran or two of light attack aircraft that can double as trainers and gerneral purpose aircraft, it may be cost effective.

The RAF used Hawks like that for many years in many roles, many countries still have them as front line combat aircraft.
What is the issue that some find objectionable?
Is it that it has a propeller?

[DeerHunter UK]

The Tucano's payload is poor at best, the RAF should be looking at A-10s as a cost effective weapon. I like the idea of using Skyraiders though, wonder if there's any left in a serviceable condition?

[TarJak]

Only two airworthy exmaples left in the US. The UK decommissioned it's RNFAR Skyraiders in 1962. Unlikely they would look to a 60 odd year old design that's no longer in production anywhere in the world.

The 1.5 ton payload isn't insignificant given the advances in even iron bomb technology since the Skyraider left service.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by DeerHunter UK

The Tucano's payload is poor at best.

How much payload do you need to take out some insurgents? I think small cheap propeller planes might be an alternative for the jets in the close support role in Afghanistan and other countries like that. Sure they aren't that useful against a modern army (actually they are pretty much completely useless against them) but for now they could give a hand in the deserts of this world at an unbeatable cost/efficiency ratio. Imagine, just cut down your Typhoon orders by one plane and buy ten close support prop planes.
Sure the Typhoons, Tornadoes etc. can't be replaced by those aircraft and have to be available in case that the big sh*t hits the fan. But for now those planes could help in easing the financial burdens of the military.