Announced today is the deployment of an extra pair of Tornado’s to Afghanistan to join the 8 that are already there.
Using the latest figures from the UK Defence Statistics the RAF has 106 GR4′s in the Forward Available Fleet.
So with ten in theatre, that is less than 10% of the available fleet and if one included the Typhoons, Harriers of JFH and (rather unfairly) the Tornado F3′s that is less than 5% of the available fast jet fleet.
This isn’t an RAF bashing exercise and there are very good reasons, as we all know, why the f3 is not suitable, why most of the Typhoons aren’t suitable, what other contributions the RAF makes, what other duties the aircraft are needed for (QRA, FI etc) and available infrastructure in theatre but in an enduring operation like Afghanistan is deploying 5% of your combat power acceptable.
In the SDSR should we be aiming to improve the RAF’s deployability
Thats a bit of a cheap shot isnt it?
Its not the RAF who makes these decisions.
We cant kick up a fuss when Dr Fox says “tanks are no use in Afghanistan” but then nod sagely when the exact same arguement is levelled against the RAF.
There arent 30 Ground Attack Tornadoes in Afghansitan because the government wont pay for them to be there.
Out of curiosity, why can’t Typhoon be deployed?
It is a cheap shot – but raises an important point around numbers of RAF aircraft versus deployability….
There are currently 7*12 Tornado GR4 deployable squadrons; 3*12 Harrier GR9 deployable squadrons and 2*12 Typhoon F2/FGR1 squadrons (I’m leaving out the Tornado F3s as being limited to home defence)
So approximately 12 deployable squadrons, and yet a demand for less than 1 on ongoing operations…. Compare that to the demand versus availability of Transport, ISTAR and Support Helo assets and it is rather telling I would suggest…..
As an aside, it would not be possible for the RAF to maintain 30 Tornados in theatre for much more than 12 months without shattering their deployment guidelines (30 aircraft would require 3 squadrons, each with 3 month tours, means that almost half the personnel would be deploying twice yearly to the theatre…..)
Jimmy
We only have two squadrons of them at the moment, and deploying them would involve setting up another logistics tail for them.
Although to be honest, I was sure one had been over at least.
Nigel
I’m not sure if I’m understanding you correctly, but here goes.
Although theres only one deployed, thats a treasurey rather than MoD decision, I dont think anyones saying we have too much air support in theatre.
Should we have prioritised logistics over teeth?
Well, for Afghanistan, yes, if Russia marches West, no.
MMMmmmm’ RAF culture too I think is part of the problem. 3 month tours ? How come the standard ‘deployment’ for the navy is 6 months and 9 months (with a week home in the middle) is my personal longest.
How long does an army battalion do in Afghanistan ? I think its 6 months too, but whatever its going to be longer than 3 for sure.
So is RAF morale so bad they can’t stand being away from the Mrs (or Mr) and local pub / night club for more than 3 months ? How long is a tour for the RAF Regiment types on force protection, is that longer?
I have a friend who is ex Cold War “Harrier Mafia” who told me that in the days of the GR3 squadrons, the airmen considered themselves as an elite, because they would deploy into the field, “living in tents, more like pongo’s than the real RAF”……
So is this at least a little bit cultural rather than 100% budget related ??? Just asking……..
I’m not sure that I’d be shouting about deploying *2* extra aircraft, I’m sure Joe Public will think the extra numbers are a bit pathetic . . .
So, what does a Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft actually *do* in Afganistan? Can’t be many hardened, high value targets left can there? No runways for JP233′s to deny, no hardened bunkers for Stormshadow to bust, not even any armoured formations for Brimstone to destroy. Are we seriously using them for CAS, with 500lb Paveways?
Actually the GR4 is quite a good CAS platform with Paveway IV and enhanced BRimstone and finally its 27mm Cannon. With the new targeting pods and RAPTOR it ia also a very versatile asset wnd had enough engine power to carry credible weapon loads anywhere, anytime, anyweather.
By the way the JP223s went along time ago as part of the anti-personnel mine ban.
Turning to numbers what the published numbers do not show is how many platforms are actually servicable given that it is now standard practice in the RAF to rob airframes to keep other flying. Remember it took the resources of nearly the whole Harrier force to maintain the detachment in Afghanistan, then 3 squadrons OCU.
With the way things are going the RAF in futures will only be able to maintain one fast jet squadron on extended deployment anyhow with one short tern reinforcement and the same will probably the case for the RN with the new CVFs. If you look at the current assumptions of that RAF platforms should be available against different sizes of operation you will find them to be totally unrealistic and out of date.
The point about not being deployed because of the cost and the MoD not wanting to fund them is well made.
But isnt one of the reasons a cost argument is used against deploying more because the cost of deployment is sky high, thats what I meant with my question about making the RAF more deployable, basically making it cheaper to deploy them!
There might only be a need for 10 as well of course but I would imagine what has prompted this is the success of the RAPTOR pod which only the Tornado can carry I think
I’m not sure “more deployable” is going to work, without turbo props.
At the end of the day, Jet Fuel is bulky, and fast jets burn through it is prodigious quantities.
Not a problem at an airport with a pipeline to a refinery, annoying at an airport without said pipeline, impossible if you dont have the pipeline and your’re surrounded by the enemy.
I noticed this little snippet of information as well and yes although it is a cheap shot at the RAF to some it’s also a bit shot by the RAF and MOD to defend their fast jets. As for making them more deployable other commenters have mentioned I suspect it is the mentality that is the sticking point and of course the money available.
I would however ask this why do we need more Tonka Toys in Afghanistan when theoretically things should be getting quieter over there or is it because of other nations withdrawing assets?
To be honest I can’t be arsed to go back and read the press release, but aren’t they being “surged” (don’t all laugh too much) to cover some elections? I beleive the are to be used with Lightning and RAPTOR pods for ISTAR / anti-EOD surv. as much as for dropping ordnance.
Taking MOD numbers as a guide, we will then see 10 GR4 in theatre flying about 600 hours a month. That is 60 hours per month for each aircraft or …. about 2 hours a day. I’m guessing a sortie will probably log about that, so the aircraft could be delivering one sortie per day each.
Now either the aircraft are not being ‘worked’ that hard – these are in-theatre deployed aircraft – or there are already hangar queens in theatre which would see higher rates on a smaller group of aircraft on this operation.
I’d be interested to know how may crew are deployed and remain in theatre for months etc?
If 8 aircraft cannot deliver what is needed, what will two more add that upping the existing flying rate (if that is possible). What is the desired tasking rate?
My own experience is that enhancing the stores and supply first delivers the best results and that more airframes means more people and yet more support in theatre.
I notice that it has been suggested that squadron roulement is 3 month… which seems generous in the light of the tours others in theatre experience.
Hi,
Found this site tonight for the first time via ARRSE.
The deployment of 2 extra airframes seems a bit of an easy opportunity to attack the RAF, but you have to bear in mind the wider picture of what can be done.
Firstly, we need to look at the ability of Kandahar to sustain extra airframes – its a busy base and space is limited. There is unlikely to be physically room for large numbers of extra frames.
Secondly we have the issue of fatigue life – we could deploy 30 tornados, but we’d then commit most of the fleet to rotating through to ensure that they could return for deep servicing. This would place a heavy burden on the RAF and remove our ability to generate more Tornadoes eleswhere. It would also drastically reduce fleet fatigue life, and mean we’re faced with a major capability gap sooner than planned.
We have a head count issue too – the UK has a mandated ceiling of 9500 personnel – deploying too many Tornadoes means we’d have to reduce personnel elsewhere. It also reduces Tornado personnel at home (not just pilots but ground crews as well). This places extra pressure on people, and could increase PVR rates.
Ultimately though the question is more, what effect do we want the Tornado to have out in Afghanistan? Its a very accurate piece of kit, with good capability and able to do stuff that would have taken 3-4 individual aircraft only a few years ago. This deployment needs to be looked at in more than just numeric terms – ultimately its about ensuring we’ve got sufficient assets to do the job asked of them, and with the accuracy of the Tornado at present, 10 is clearly sufficient to maintain the task lines needed.
I’m still puzzled what two more GR4′s can deliver. If my sums are right, two ships come with about 130 hours each per month, or 65 hours each or, 1 sortie per day each. Two hours flying per aircraft per day is not a lot.
The question is whether the serviceability of the existing 8 aircraft is inadequate to squeeze another two sorties per day out of 8 airframes.
Aircraft based forward generate all the issues that have been alluded to including manning (ground crew) and logistics, before we mention the crew.
Aircraft operating in-theatre may be fitted with limited availability theatre kit which is not readily switched from aircraft to aircraft. This would make aircraft roulement back to the UK difficult for servicing/repair as intensive mod/demod activity would be inevitable.
If 130 hours per month is a 25% increase on service delivery, the original 8 aircraft have been yielding 520 hours per month or 65 hours each or about 1 sortie per day. Two more airframes will give the possibility of two more task lines (one task-ish per day) but the question I ask is why not push the existing assets just a little harder.
I’m probably missing some operational nuance here. The troops on the ground need air support all the time and when it is needed it is needed quickly… In a 30 day month there are just over 720 hours (24/7), so in very crude terms the extra and existing airframes do ‘generate’ 650 hours which on the face of it means there is a Tornado hour available 90% of the time….. but this could be met by simply flying the existing aircraft more.
And before I get asked, I have been on the end of a very very long pipeline which for two out of five months was actually not available to me. Over a five month period, three complex aircraft were sustained to peace-time standards in a very isolated location delivering 1000 hours while delivering 24/7 all weather capability. That was in 1982…. On return to the UK, the aircraft were completely deployable. In those days my dream was to have a more resilient spares pipeline and the space for extra aircraft was simply unavailable and as the engineer I would not have wanted them if they had been available.
I really wish we get to learn the rationale for the current increase….. but I suspect we never will.
Jim30 and JohnO, welcome to Think Defence
The Tornado is a maintenance hog so maybe we can’t improve utilisation and have to add airframes.
To restate, I am not attacking the RAF and fully understand the reasons why both more than 10 might not be needed or able to be accommodated in theatre but I would ask these questions
1.
Why is it acceptable that the majority of CAS for UK forces is not provided by the RAF. Would US forces find this acceptable
2.
Are we at war or not, in 1940 did we not deploy spitfires in case they exceeded their hours. Perhaps a tad ridiculous as an analogy but the underlying point is valid
My point was about improving deployability not having a ho. If we cannot generate significant combat power because of cost, personnel, airframe hours or other issues then is this a subject we need to address in the future
Bye the way Jim, you might like the following
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/10/shiny-arse-civil-servants/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/11/the-civil-service-bonus-story/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/11/mainstream-media-medals-for-pen-pushers/
1. Because no one ever thought to inform the RAF that they would be required to provide CAS to platoon houses in Afghanistan for a decade, on the cheap.
They were told they would be operating from proper airfields for short spaces of time, against conventional opponants, and thats the kit they maintained/ordered.
2. Well thats just a funding issue.
The Government wont pay for spares and maintenance to operate a Tornado for more thsn 2 hours a day.
“1. Because no one ever thought to inform the RAF that they would be required to provide CAS to platoon houses in Afghanistan for a decade, on the cheap.
They were told they would be operating from proper airfields for short spaces of time, against conventional opponants, and thats the kit they maintained/ordered.”
Is that really true? Or is it that the RAF don’t really want to do expeditionary CAS they’d just rather preserve numbers of their fast Jets. In which case maybe CAS should be provided by someone else.
“2. Well thats just a funding issue.
The Government wont pay for spares and maintenance to operate a Tornado for more thsn 2 hours a day.”
Don’t we have a contract for availability with BAE?
The best way to describe current CAS efforts is that NATO operates a ‘taxi rank’ system out here. In other words, the aircraft go up from KAF, and wait out for the call from whichever area needs them. Its entirely possible for an aircraft to operate nationwide in the space of a single mission.
I think the idea that the RAF should be providing the sole CAS for the UK forces alone is misleading at best. If we do that, then we leave a lot of other nations who rely on us to provide them with CAS (including the US) to find more aircraft to help them out. This wouldn’t help ISAF unity and could end up getting troops killed if we start being precious about who provides what cover under which circumstances.
The UK is providing a fairly significant contribution to the CAS effort, especially compared to most other nations. Rather than berating our own RAF and lords / masters for not providing CAS, we should be looking at our own lobbying efforts to persuade other nations with large CAS fleets to stick them in Afghanistan and start pulling their weight.
As for funding -all ops in afghanistan are covered under the conflict prevention fund. Essentially flying hours out here arent limited in the same way as in the UK. If it needs to fly to ensure we keep a task line available, then that will happen.
I wasnt thinking about making the RAF responsible for supporting UK forces to the exclusion of others and I think we all appreciate the multinational aspect of the operation, how CAS is delivered as so on but the fact remains, our deployed strength is small and to repeat myself, is this because of poor deployability where deployability includes availability rates, support infrastructure requirements and personnel.
A more deployable RAF means fewer barriers to getting them out there.
THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM OF THE RAF
This reminds me of the weasel words about helicopters, we have enough but more would be nice. If more would be nice then if we actually want to be successful they are not nice but essential.
Admin
I’m not an expert on Tornado servicability back home, however I would suggest that the relatively small size owes to a couple of factors (in no particular order).
Firstly – Infrastructure – as touched on, Kandahar has only got finite space, and there is an upper limit to the number of aircraft and supporting equipment, accommodation, work areas and so on out there. We are limited by the real estate we’ve got to work on in this case.
Personnel – To keep a permanent squadron deployed, you’ll need regular rotation of personnel through – working on roughly 3:1 average -1 in, 1 preparing,1 back – this is the bare minimum and breaks all harmony time requirements. The size of the deployment is limited by its enduring nature – the RAF will cycle most of the support force through KAF in due course to ensure support staff are available. If we up the size, we start to reduce our longer term ability to put people into theatre and support the deployment. By contrast, we can do quick surges – e.g. RAF deployed roughly 60 combat aircraft for TELIC, but long term deployments have a much reduced size.
Spares / Airframes – similar to the point on people – if you put a plane into theatre, it will only stay in for a finite amount of time prior to needing deep servicing. Again, working on basis of roughly 3:1 – that means we need nearly 30 modified tornados to keep 10 continuously in the front line. To increase this in size (e.g. to the mooted 30) would need 90 tornados to ensure we can keep the aircraft present.
So the answer is that for an enduring campaign where we know we’re going to be here for years, the Tornado fleet is probably starting to reach the limits of its capacity for a long term (multi-year) enduring operation. Once you remove the 30 odd airframes allocated for HERRICK, and the similar number in the OCU for training and currency, you’re only left with 40 other GR4s out there for all contingent and other national/NATO tasks.
As I said, we could ramp up the size, but to do so would not be sustainable and have major long term implications.
Thanks Jim
All this reinforces my point about deployability, if we are short on space, a dpeloyable infrastructure capability means we build more, like the US forces at Bastion. If we cant maintain airframes in theatre with anything less than a 3:1 ratio then we need more serviceable airframes etc etc.
Its a sad day when out of the nearly 200 off combat aircraft the RAF has we can only maintain 10 in theatre on an ongoing basis and the same goes for helicopters, except we have an even bigger problem
Good job there isnt a war on
To be fair, a 3:1 ratio is about the norm for military planning for force generation for routine tasks. To deep service a jet means taking it back to the UK – you need at least 1 available to replace it at any time. You assume 1 in service, 1 getting ready to go into service or coming out of servicing and 1 in theatre. Its a conveyor belt really, but ultimately one that can’t be skimped on in times of emergency or surge operations – and then it takes a long time to get things back to normal.
The RN is similar, it maintains a roughly 3:1 ratio of force levels verus deployed forces for the same reason – to keep something permanently on station means having more than one available to take over from it.
Jimmy, Despite being decalred multi-role and indeed capable of delivering ground attack weapons…it as of yet cant carry the Paveway IV – a 500/250 lbs mode GPS/INS and laser guided bomb…weapon of choice because of its accuracy, small warhead which avoid collateral damage and other aspects… at the moment the software is having problems recognising the weapon.
Mike,
Can’t they just use Brimstone instead? I’m sure the GR.4′s are cleared for that. Just as accurate and a similar profile collateral damage wise.
Presumably it costs more.
The Afghan and Iraq wars have cost around £19bn is military spending so far, over and above what would have been spent in peace time.
Thats a lot spent on munitions that could have spent on Capex.
Mike, is that the case. I am sure I have seen multiple pictures on the MoD’s Flickr stream of Tornado’s airborne with a mixed load of PW IV and Dual Mode Brimstone
Just a few comments,
Jed “MMMmmmm’ RAF culture too I think is part of the problem. 3 month tours ? How come the standard ‘deployment’ for the navy is 6 months and 9 months (with a week home in the middle) is my personal longest.”
That information is incorrect, the RAF does deploy for 6 months on a standard tour, longer for some individuals, also don’t forget that RAF personnel are also responsible for defending UK airspace from those troublesome Russian aircraft that stray too close.
Army troops deploy as a formed unit, Navy ships deploy as a formed unit but RAF personnel deploy in formed units but also have a large unformed amount of personnel who are taken from different units in the support role.
As for the amount of aircraft in theatre, there is only so much space at Kandahar which is used by a large multitude of nations, having been there on several occasions I can state that it is incredibly busy so aircraft parking/maintenance areas are in short supply.
Dear RAF Arm – I am more than happy to be corrected by a Plumber, the majority of my bessie oppos from my time as Cosford were in your trade (I am making the big presumption that Arm = Armourer of course !). So welcome to TD – your arrival is timely as I think Admin plans articles on the post-SDSR some time in the future.
Taking all you say about ramp space etc into account, would you comment further on RAF culture ? Do you think constant deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have made the RAF more expeditionary in nature (not just “deployments” per se)? I admit when I was doing 9 month deployments, the RAF were still largely in RAFG / taceval mode. Do you think this has truly changed ?
RAF culture has changed dramatically in the previous 5-10 years, a percentage of the junior airmen that join the RAF now seem to do so as “its just a job” and fail to take into account that they may be away from home/girlfriend/PS3 for a period of time, having said that, some of them are incredibly hard workers – if a little ill prepared for working in the desert.
The RAF has become more expeditionary, I believe its had to, as the manpower levels have dropped to minimal levels – as opposed to being deployed in formed units, you’re more likely to work alongside people from other stations to “fill the gaps.”
Richard,
(as lifted from Wikipedia)
The weapon is a guidance kit based on the existing Enhanced Paveway II Enhanced Computer Control Group (ECCG) added to a modified Mk 82 general-purpose bomb with increased penetration performance. The new ECCG contains a Height of Burst (HOB) sensor enabling air burst fusing options.
So it can be dropped as airburst/impact/post impact detonation,
Brimstone however
(again lifted from Wikipedia)
Brimstone has a Tandem Shaped Charge (TSC) warhead that employs a smaller initial charge, designed to initiate reactive armor, followed by a larger, more destructive charge, designed to penetrate and defeat the base armour.
good against tanks, not so against soft targets!!
The Brimstone may have been designed to kill AFVs but it is still a pretty big warhead but offers lees colloteral damage then a 500Lb. In its dual mode form it is very effective and remember the Army are lobbing Javalin ATGWs at anything that moves.