FDR Supporting Articles – UK Tactical Air Power
THINK DEFENCE: As you know we operate an open door policy, this is a post from one of our regular contributors, Jed…
I started writing this article during my lunch hours after the ThinkDefence guys posted their article “FDR – the RAF and Airpower, Introduction”.
However they beat me to and posted their uncannily similar artilce, “FDR – Air (Fast Jets)” , so as our articles are not entirely identical, I provide this as a supporting article if the team decide to post it.
My possibly controversial hypothesis in this piece is based on an attempted balance between future capability and the reality of the defence budget. Anyone who works in the corporate world will probably be sick of hearing “do more with less” – but this is a real concept as far the British armed forces are concerned. The focus of the piece is the fast jet force, but as this does not exist in isolation, it does touch on other capabilities.
A single fast jet type for RAF
The basis of my suggested future for the RAF is that it should consolidate on a single type of fast jet combat aircraft as soon as is operationally possible. This single type, should of course, be the Typhoon. Before examining the why’s and wherefore’s of this suggestion, let us take a quick look at some historical figures. These figures are from open sources and one should take into account the difference between the amount of aircraft purchased and the amount available to the front line fleet, the UK seems to put about 25% of any type to one side for inclusion in the long term maintenance cycle and as attrition replacements. So for example if we bought 100 aircraft, 72 would be in 6 x 12 aircraft squadrons, with 2 or 3 trials aircraft and the rest in the maintenance reserve.
The 1998 SDR fleet numbers – 36 front line squadrons of:
Tornado Air Defence variant – 120
Tornado GR4 – 142 (142 modified to GR4/4A out of an original purchase of 228)
Jaguar GR1 – 75 (from an originally purchase of 202)
Harrier GR5 – 62 (plus 13 T10 trainers)
Total: approx 399
To this total, in 1998 we could add approx. 50 Sea Harrier F/A2 of the Fleet Air Arm.
According to Wikipedia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_Kingdom_military_aircraft), now in 2009 the numbers are:
Tornado GR4 – 136
Tornado F3 – 59
Harrier GR9 – 40
Typhoon – 58 (delivered so far)
Total: approx 293
So we already have a large reduction in fast jet numbers over the last ten years of approx. 100 aircraft, or a quarter of the fleet.
The current plans for Typhoon would seem to suggest ending procurement after Tranche 3A giving a full fleet strength of 162 aircraft (some Tranche 2 having been transferred to Saudi Arabia), down from an original total of over 232. Current plans also discuss the requirement for 150 Joint Combat Aircraft in the form of the Lockheed Martin F35. So 232 Typhoons plus 150 F35 would have given a full up 2 type fleet of 382 aircraft, almost back to 1998 numbers, and unfortunately probably un-affordable and unrealistic in the current budgetary environment.
Therefore I independently come to the same conclusion as a previous posting by the authors / editors of ThinkDefence – a ‘single type’ fleet for RAF fast jet combat aircraft, composed entirely of Typhoons.
Just like the previous post, I would advocate levering the investment already made in what is a maturing platform with plenty of capability growth options. In fact if industrial participation allows I would suggest a ramp up of production for the Typhoon and an earlier draw down and retirement of both Harrier GR9 and the Tornado GR4/4A fleets.
For the exact same reasons also already stated in their previous post I would withdraw any commitment to purchase the F35 as the JCA. It may well turn out to be a marvellous aircraft, but is currently late, over budget, and definitely will not be delivered at the originally projected unit cost (the cost per individual aircraft). Indeed the F35 is intrinsically linked to the RN’s new big deck carriers (CVF) but that does not have to be, and more on that later.
So if we do not purchase the F35 to fulfill the JCA requirement and can show some real savings from early retirement, rationalisation of logistics support and training etc I would also advocate the return to committing to the full original total of 232 Typhoons including replacements for the aircraft transferred to the Saudi’s and what’s more I would add an additional 90 aircraft as the Tornado replacement. This would give an overall Typhoon procurement structure that looks something like this:
Tranche 1 – 53
Tranche 2 – 67
Tranche 3A – 40
Tranche 3B – 48
Total – 298
Levering that investment in the Typhoon would also includes, as suggested by the guys in their earlier posting “investing to save” – some investment in enhanced capabilities that would allow the RAF to go to this single type fleet and yet keep the capability for long range strike, or battlefield interdiction and close air support. Principally there are a number of already existing programmes that could / should be speed up to see the capabilities fielded earlier:
· Full helmet mounted site capability
· Meteor missile (including an DEAD variant).
· Conformal fuel tanks
· Thrust vectoring nozzles for EJ200
· Additional weapons integration (Storm Shadow and dual mode Brimstone)
· Swashplate type AESA radar
It might be that for the Tornado replacement all the Tranche 4 aircraft would be 2 seaters, with the conformal fuel tanks making up for the loss in internal volume. Or it maybe that with the modern avionics two crew are not needed for the long range strike mission (delivery of Storm Shadow). However instead 2 crew members might well be more useful in the close air support / non-traditional ISR role (i.e. armed recce in an Afghanistan scenario) or acting as an air-borne JTAC (or Airborne Forward Air Controller to use the old terminology) – so perhaps the 48 Tranche 3B would be two seaters instead ?
Another question that arises is that over the future of the Tranche 1 aircraft. Even upgraded to full Block 15 state, these aircraft have some major difference to their later siblings, including electronic engine control computers and the lack of an ability to carry the Meteor AAM. Again, although it would require expenditure, I would suggest it is worth upgrading these aircraft to the full Tranche 3 standard in order to have a single standard across the fleet.
On the subject of the Meteor, although it is a little behind schedule, I would invest in a passive homing, multi-role variant that would combine the imaging IR sensor of the AIM132 ASRAAM and the passive radition homing sensor of the ALARM. Keeping the Meteors two-way datalink, long range and Mach 4 plus capability, this investment in an existing weapon programme would provide an excellent SEAD / DEAD weapon which would even potentially have air to air and anti-ship capability. As we won’t have stealthy F35 “first day of the war” strike capability, what we might bring to any coalition air ops would be this long legged and high spec replacement for ALARM and HARM.
So in summary, the biggest difference between what I had written here, and that which was posted earlier by the ThinkDefence team is that I think it is not unreasonable to not only fulfill the original project order for Typhoon, but to add some additional aircraft as Tornado replacements, although far less than on a one for one basis. Spend a little now, to save a lot in the future………
Of course the final question is, if we retire the Harrier and ditch any commitment to the JCA, what will we fly from our spanking shiny new carriers ?
This one will be discussed further in another article.
11 comments
Post your own
Having got that off my chest, I’d like to say something about the HMS Cornwall incident. That was a failure of political will. God knows what Nelson would have thought. According to Patrick O’Brien, Nelson’s approach was that if you saw the enemy, you should go for them. Didn’t they shoot Admiral Byng for not doing that?
One thing I learn’t in 13 years in various MOD & RAF intelligence posts, was that the operational fraternity don’t like good news! So the puddings of potential opponents are always over-egged.
I would support the idea of buying more Typhoons and having a long term policy of developing the aircraft and its weapon systems. In which case, we should consolidate its production in the UK.
Hi Michael
You are most welcome to be as outspoken as you like :D
Look at the aim of the site, to get people talking.
Air power is an essential pre requisite of almost any operation. Even if one looks at the loads carried by aircraft in Afghanistan you will find air to air missiles because if the threat from Iran (think sailors and ipods)
Effective fighter designs are proliferating so the threat might be a bit less easier to define than in the Cold War but it is still out there.
As a newcomer to this forum, I hesitate to be too outspoken; but here goes.
The idea that by fighting them there we avoid fighting them here is a favourite of our current leader. Of course, the threat here is an internal security problem made worse by this policy.
Before an aircraft is purchased, a threat statement is concocted by the DIS. I was part of this process for Typhoon when it was called something else. All I am asking is – what is the threat now? The same as it was in 1981 when FIFA was growing into shape?
Hi Michael
Aircraft such as these don’t only deal with threats in the traditional sense but also allow us to project power and influence, in an expeditionary sense this keeps the fighting away from our back door
OK, tell me the threat (s) these aircraft are intended to deal with?
I agree with what Jed has proposed within his article as it would allow savings from a common fleet to be realised as well as allowing for continued investment in the Eurofighter fleet. I would also strongly peruse maintaining a common standard across the whole fleet by incorporating upgrades to all aircraft including the Tranche 1 airframes. The main problem I can see with this path is the lack of a specialisation the phrase ‘Jack of all trades, master of none’ seems to be pretty relevant in this instance. Any savings should be ploughed into fielding a specialist long range strike UCAV as soon as possible, I would advocate aggressively pursuing this objective with increased funding and resources directed towards this goal. BAE should be able to meet this objective given that they have already managed to develop within a very short time scale various UAV systems and should have an incentive of export potential should they manage to do an efficient job. Ideally this UCAV should also be carrier capable but this could limit the size of the aircraft.
The X47B is along the same lines as what I think we should aim to develop and produce although with a larger internal weapons load and for a land based version a longer range. Furthermore it should be capable of using a wide variety of weapons as well as using modular systems such as jamming pods and ISTAR pods. These should all be able to fit within bomb bays to ensure the low radar signature is maintained however external stores pylons should be easily added. Some may suggest buying the X-47B UCAV or joining the program but I would only think this wise if we are given full Transfer of Technology which I doubt would be granted. Therefore developing a UCAV within the UK would be the best way forward and would leverage the knowledge developed by BAE and the skills of UK companies. France could be a possible partner but they would no doubt cause the usual problems and are already invested in other programs so would unlikely to be interested.
Admin asks “is it affordable” – well as a new commentator on a recent post complained, we can’t really do the math as we dont have all the numbers, but I would have thought that:
1. Retiring Harrier early
2. Retiring Tornado early
3. Withdrawing from JCA / JSF / F35
Would save quite a bit of cash, plus the logistical, training and support benefits of a single type fleet – so maybe if we had the numbers it really would be affordable ???
300 Typhoons, sounds like a plan I can get behind.
In reality, its a big cut in all costs, both capital and ongoing compared to whats still the official plan (SDR) and the offical plan (what the MoD said most recently)
Although we lose some stealth and poor base capability, stealth is nice, but hardly essential, especialy if we have a decent S/DEAD platform, which if I understood Jed correctly, Meteor will have a 5 minute loiter, go a kilometer a second and 11 of them could be carried by a single Typhoon.
As for poor basing, well, tough, use a runway like normal plane, the UK has thousands of the things, if all the RAF ones are bombed, the ground staff will have to comandeer a few trucks and move to Top Gear Studios.
If your a foreigner and might want our help in the future, keep in mind it will require a proper strip of tarmac.
I like the idea Jed but is this affordable. Our thinking was to consolidate on the Typhoon with an early withdrawal of Harrier and Tornado combined with a modest increase in numbers to sustain the fleet.
So a real decrease in numbers and capability with the money used for logistics, ISR and an accelerated UAV programme.
Thanks guys :-)