The most common accusation made against the RAF is that it has favoured those glamorous pointy fast jets above all others. Given the shortage of almost everything else except fast jets it’s hard not to have some sympathy with that perspective but considering the enormous lead times of modern aircraft and ‘cold war’ missions that formed their requirements we must be careful of being smart with the benefit of hindsight.
Once again, we must differentiate between sovereign operations and those we undertake in a coalition. Sovereign operations will be at a small scale and anything above is likely to be in a coalition, a coalition that will also have its own air assets. Our goal should be retain the full spectrum of sovereign capabilities at this small scale whilst making a decisive contribution in select areas to achieve influence in the conduct of the operation. It is also essential that we draw a distinction between obligations in the UK, overseas territories and on expeditionary operations.
Recognising this, I think the RAF needs to concentrate more on air transport, ISTAR, supporting special-forces and less on eye wateringly expensive fast jets.
It is not sensible to divide missions up into those which are fulfilled by fast jets because in reality all aircraft are interconnected, air defence might depend on the E3 Sentry or close air support might be cued from a Reaper UAV. It is all about effects rather than platforms so the saying goes, but for the convenience of making a manageable post I am going to go all retro and look at platforms as well.
Control of the air is a vital pre-requisite for most, although not all, military operations either in the UK, overseas or at sea. Control of the air is a complex challenge and will be dependent on the operational context, the threat, the size of the area of operations and might encompass Quick Reaction Alert, suppression/destruction of enemy air defences, interdiction or destruction of enemy ground based facilities or the aircraft themselves. It might even mean denying airspace to enemy UAV’s, deterring potential enemy incursions or controlling multiple aircraft in a complex air defence environment. It should also be noted that control of the air can be augmented or perhaps wholly achieved with land or sea based defence systems.
Contents
UK Air Defence
Although there is a distinction between air defence and providing QRA it is worth for the purpose of simplicity to group them together. As the Tornado F3 is withdrawn UK air defence will be the sole preserve of the Typhoon, operating in two QRA locations, North and South. The Typhoon is a powerful air defence fighter, armed with the latest ASRAAM and soon to be in service Meteor missile, backed up with ground based radar and the E3 Sentry (on a needs basis).
Is this overkill, what are the threats?
We need to be pragmatic here and ask if we can accept a greater impact against a lower likelihood
Although the Russian air force still likes to probe with their Bear’s is this really anything more than a nuisance or provocation to lets us know they are still there. What about terrorists taking over a scheduled or private jet; is this actually a credible threat or has that boat sailed?
There is always the counter argument of being able to rebuild in time against a rapidly realised threat and of course the unknown unknowables but how far do we go.
I am not being complacent but questioning the need to maintain such a high readiness force structure at massive cost against a high impact but low likelihood threat. A recent Parliamentary question and answer revealed that the RAF has launched a QRA response at a rate of just over 1 a month for the last 5 years and for this we maintain 2 squadrons per QRA region, each with between 15 and 19 aircraft. Whilst the improved availability rates of the Typhoon versus the Tornado F3 might be able to reduce the actual aircraft strength it is still a lot of capability. I accept the argument that QRA is not air defence and that those aircraft and personnel are not solely dedicated to QRA but it still seems like a lot.
There are a number of issues I think we should explore;
- Given greatly enhanced airline security is the threat of a hijack in the style of 9/11 a credible threat.
- Does a greater threat come from a chartered (not hijacked) private jets, given the continuing use of Northolt and City airports by such, would we even be able to react in time anyway?
- If we did face multiple threats that might potentially overwhelm existing QRA capability would it be feasible to rely on French, Dutch and Belgian forces?
- Accepting that for commonality reasons the Typhoon is the preferred aircraft, could we cover the QRA task from a single location (with backup of course). The two locations, Conningsby in Lincolnshire and Leuchars in Fife are ideally placed for the northern and southern tasks but separated by only 250 miles, or about a quarter of an hour in the racing snake that is the Typhoon and that is at roughly half speed. Or, would the loss of resilience be too great a risk to take?
- Is the Typhoon too much aircraft for the risk and likely threats, are there cheaper alternatives. I am pretty loathe to accept the idea that introducing a new type is a good idea but surely it is worth asking the question. We have just accepted into service a number of Hawk 128’s with the latest digital avionics and Adour 951 engine, the same engine that powers the Taranis. The Malaysian Hawk 209 single seat light fighters have an in-flight refuelling probe and a military off the shelf multimode radar. Would a handful of them offer a practical alternative or would their lack of supersonic speed, high altitude and shorter range mean it was completely impractical?
- If the two location QRA is the best option do we really need 5 squadrons of Typhoon to cover it on an enduring basis, can we challenge some of the assumptions on which this number is arrived at. 5 squadrons of 15 aircraft plus OCU/OEU does seem rather heavy for 1 or 2 responses per month
Defence of Overseas Territories
By this I of course mean the Falkland Islands which are currently benefiting from Typhoon. It is fair to say that their primary role is that of deterrence and to be effective in this we cannot afford to think the role can be fulfilled by anything second best; especially given the distances it needs to cover.
Expeditionary Operations
Control of the air on expeditionary operations is vital so this needs the full spectrum of air to air, battle space management and supplementary capabilities like strike an SEAD/DEAD. This mission is where the double act of Typhoon and F35C will be particularly effective.
Although many consider the F35 to be inferior to Typhoon in the air to air role I suspect when it comes into service the F35 will surprise many with it capabilities in this area, much like the Typhoon has and will continue to prove its effectiveness outside the anti air role. If we can ensure that all weapons are integrated onto both airframes we will have an overlapping set of complimentary capabilities.
If we make a judgement that the threat to UK and Overseas Territories is unlikely to include the latest double digit surface to air missiles and fifth generation aircraft the same cannot be said for expeditionary operations. Russian and Chinese designs are formidable and will only improve, both nations have shown that they are willing to export and/or use them as a bargaining chip.
Modern air combat is wholly different from old images of close in dog fighting and modern beyond visual range missiles gain enormously from being lofted from a position of speed and altitude. The Typhoon is ideally suited to this and in an expeditionary context might be used to achieve air control in the early stages and then switch to close air support or interdiction as the operation progresses. The multi role capabilities of the later Typhoon tranches allow us to achieve maximum benefit from a single type.
Expeditionary capabilities should support both surge (usually for initial operations) and sustained operations, at a lower level. It is likely that these initial operations, perhaps to eliminate the air threat, will need a combination of Typhoon and F35. The F35 also of course, provides an ability to operate from CVF, should that be the optimal solution.
We can’t predict the nature of a future conflict but having the overlapping and complimentary capabilities of the Typhoon and F35 will provide the UK with a powerful and effective force. The question then boils down to quantities, systems and cash.
The Tornado Question
I don’t want to exhaust the already exhausted arguments about Harrier v Tornado but in the context of providing combat ISR and Close Air Support for Afghanistan whilst multi role Typhoon numbers are building the decision is logical.
The failure to bring Typhoon into service has nothing to do with RAF foot dragging but selling 72 Typhoon to Saudi Arabia out from under RAF delivery slots and it is a result of this decision that we have had to make the difficult decision between the Tornado and Harrier. The potential for short and medium term cost savings as a result of completely withdrawing Tornado is significant but they will not be realised because of nothing more than timing and poor decisions.
Current plans call for a force element at readiness figure of 18 aircraft from about 2015 with total fleet size scaled from that. The ratio of fleet readiness to total fleet size seems to be between 4 and 5 to 1 so that would indicate a total number somewhere in the region of 90 aircraft.
Given the projected withdrawal from Afghanistan and the coalition nature of the operation one wonders if we might rely on our allies for close air support whilst supplementing some of the combat ISTAR with the increasing number of UAV’s. This would be a pretty radical step but taking some of those savings and ploughing them into accelerating the introduction of the multi role Typhoon might compress the capability holiday.
The Joint Combat Aircraft and Carrier Aviation
It seems no other aircraft has had more written about it than the F35 Joint Strike Fighter, or the aircraft intended to fulfil the UK Joint Combat Aircraft requirement.
I mention the term JCA early on because it is important to understand that it is a ‘requirement’ that could have been fulfilled by a number of aircraft. JCA has yet to achieve Main Gate so although the F35 is the preferred aircraft to meet the JCA requirement the fat lady hasn’t quite finished warbling.
The SDSR changed the F35 buy from the STOCL B model to the CATOBAR C model.
I think this is a poor decision; the B model met all JCA requirements and offered the most cost effective route to maintaining the aircraft over the longer period. Going to cats and traps gets a modest performance improvement and a lower capital cost but the additional costs of maintaining carrier qualification and extra personnel used for deck operations/maintenance will soon make those lower capital costs seem like small beer. It is clear that the MoD has very little or no data on which this decision has been made, citing the word ‘estimates’ in answer to several questions in the house on the cost differential. When the MoD starts estimating about future costs am I the only one that starts to get nervous and to base such a huge decision on the back of a fag packet seems rather unwise.
There is also the cost of delay, we complained about the last government introducing a delay to CVF in order to push costs out to the future but adding significantly to the overall cost, yet when it is to get the FAA’s beloved cats and traps that will add about a billion pounds, the sound of silence is deafening.
I will explain why I think the decision was taken in the next section.
Discounting the aircraft it is looking like the CVF project will cost the UK in excess of £6billion for which we will likely get one operational vessel with another as a spare or likely sold off.
With a small number of F35 I cannot see any financial sense in maintaining two distinct fast jet forces, however joint, however much common training we do. I have been accused of not wanting to look at sacred cows because I think the business of flying should be done by a force that doesn’t do anything else.
How is this for a sacred cow cull!
Rather than stringing out the FAA career structure for the next ten years, trying to maintain some shoestring capability against all financial and operational logic we should simply disband the fixed wing elements of the Fleet Air Arm and put the F35 (and other aircraft) into a single RAF force structure. When the F35 is needed for carrier operations, it will embark on CVF, when it makes sense to be land based, it will operate from land bases.
We need to think less about aircraft as possessions of a single service and more about where it makes most sense. We make decisions on a joint basis so the notion that the two services will have different objectives and priorities, the RAF leaving the fleet undefended for example, is simply out of tune with the realities of today.
The Boys from Brazil (and France as well)
I maintain that the choice to switch from the STOVL F35B to the CATBOAR F35C was based on politics and backroom deals. The Brazilian F-X2 competition short listed the F18, Rafale and Gripen NG and from the various Wiki Leaks releases it would seem that the widely accepted favourite, the Dassault Rafale, has yet to make the finish line. It is no secret that Dassault badly needs an export success for the Rafale and with the UK only having a marginal interest it shouldn’t make any difference to us who wins. All the arms manufacturing nations are tripping over themselves to be Brazil and India’s newest BFF (best friend forever) and given we are out of the aircraft race, what else could we offer up?
How about a nice shiny new aircraft carrier, surplus to requirement and only one careful owner?
The Brazilian’s have already chosen the EADS Cougar as their medium lift helicopter and have a number of agreements in place with the UK and French for other equipment. Their ex 60 year old, French, Sao Paulo aircraft carrier has recently been upgraded, as have a number of their A4 Skyhawks but in the medium term these will need replacing.
If the F-X2 programme is not cancelled by the incoming President (Dilma Rousseff) it would make sense to have a single aircraft for both land and sea based operation and given the finalists that means a CATOBAR launch and recovery system. Despite muttering about a Chinese/Brazilian aircraft carrier I can’t see that happening.
CVF as planned was of course going to be STOVL so that removes the most likely overseas buyer for our second carrier.
Alternatively
The parlous state and huge running costs of the Charles de Gaulle make the Port Avions 2 (PA2) aircraft carrier a pressing need. Instead of operating both it would make a lot of sense to push forward to PA2 and withdraw CdG.
The UK and France could then operate a joint European carrier group using a design that is apart from some minor details, identical. The carrier/s would anchor a future EU Naval Force yet still have some sovereign autonomy for national operations, operational training could be consolidated and support costs shared.
This would of course leave both nations reliant on each other for sovereign operations when the primary carrier was in refit or out of action for whatever reason. The Falkland Islands is often used as a potential fly in the ointment, why would France sail south with a Royal Navy task force should circumstances conspire to put the UK’s carrier into dock and the Falklands under threat?
Could we have some arrangement that would allow the Royal Navy to borrow PA2 for a bit, putting it into harms way?
Quite clearly this is a tough sell and Liam Fox has continually stated that there is no possibility of a joint UK/French carrier but where did listening to politicians make emphatic statements get the students exactly?
Sticking with F35B makes either of these options a complete non starter.
The cost and capability differences between the B and C are mere window dressing for a politically driven decision.
Juggling the Balls
It is looking likely that all 55 Tranche 1 Typhoons will go in the next few years as it has been stated that upgrading them to Tranche 2 would be too expensive. Can we question the basis on which this decision has been made; I think we should at least think twice before tossing aside 55 extremely expensive aircraft because we cannot afford to bring them up to a common standard, with all the ruthless commonality benefits that this would deliver? If the upgrade is too expensive and expected export orders to Oman kick in then the RAF may be forced to retain the T1 aircraft longer than expected anyway. Some of the T1 aircraft have already been upgraded to the latest revision T1 revision (Block 5 P1E I think) and if a full upgrade is not possible then it does not mean they suddenly become useless.
One gets the impression that the RAF views the Typhoon as yesterday’s news and are already frothing about the benefits of the F35, preferring to spend money on new equipment than to maximise the usefulness of what has already been very expensively bought and paid for.
Hang on a minute there chaps.
There are many plates to be juggled with Typhoon numbers and tranches but the likely outcome is between 90 and 110 modified tranche 2/tranche 3 depending on export orders, disposal of tranche 1 and whether replacements for export orders would be obtained.
On a ratio of 5 to 1 (total fleet/ready) that means the UK will be able to muster about 20 aircraft available for task. If we can increase availability, reduce training requirements and replace export orders then we might be able to both improve the ratio and increase total fleet numbers. The rapidly advancing capabilities of synthetic training may allow a reduction in the training airframe count for both Typhoon and JCA so overall numbers might be decreased for the same effect.
The programme has cost the UK taxpayer roughly £20billion and whilst it may be a cheap shot, that’s about a billion pounds for each available Typhoon!
The accepted F35 order seems to be around 40 aircraft initially, forming a single large squadron. More orders would follow as funds permitted with the latest duty rumour being that the total F35 buy from 2020 onwards would be in the ballpark of 100 plus.
Trying to work out numbers required is pretty difficult because availability rates differ between aircraft, whether they are on operations or not, unpredictable attrition rates and many other factors.
From the suggestions above I think it is reasonable in the context of other priorities to challenge the assumptions on which QRA/AD is scaled. I do not think we can justify 5 squadrons worth of £70m aircraft standing guard against UFO’s, terrorist aircraft and Russian Bear’s whilst we are desperately short of expeditionary assets.
So I am just putting this suggestion ‘out there’ as a lower capability, higher risk solution. Prioritising expeditionary operations over UK defence, especially as the National Security Strategy and SDSR explicitly recognise the low threat we face from air attack.
UK Air Defence/QRA: 1 enlarged squadron of 20 aircraft per QRA region able to provide 2 aircraft on standby and on an enduring basis, including in squadron high readiness reserve.
Falkland Islands Air Defence/QRA: 1 enlarged squadron of 20 aircraft, with a 4 aircraft flight on task, 1 non standby and 1 on high readiness.
When not on alert the crews would be training, on leave or at lower readiness for re-tasking etc. Aircraft would be used for training, in maintenance or rotated to manage airframe hours.
This results in an airframe requirement of about 60, not including any OCE/OEU/Attrition aircraft
One Shot Expeditionary: Not all future operations will be against the Taleban or COIN in nature so we still need to retain the ability to strike distant targets against a competent enemy. This will be resourced in the future by a mix of Storm Shadow missiles, submarine launched Tomahawk missiles and the F35C. In due course, the UCAV may also supplement these platforms. Initial expeditionary operations will be of both a different nature and different scale to those carried out on an enduring basis. Expeditionary is therefore seen as sustained +1. The F35 is ideally suited to deep strike so would be used as a ‘golden bullet’ one shot capability. It is unlikely that we would conduct sustained operations from CVF but for the initial stages, it could be the only platform available and in line with the more likely multi-purpose role of CVF, 12-15 F35 would be the routine deployment.
40 F35C provides a single enlarged squadron of about 20 aircraft, plus OEU/OCU and attrition spares (carrier aircraft traditionally suffer higher accident and wear rates than land based aircraft). It is not the intention to resource an enduring commitment with F35 and this should conserve their airframe hours, as above, using them a deep strike force to penetrate contested air space from either land or sea. From this pool of 40 aircraft we would be able to surge beyond the normal 12-15 aircraft deployment for CVF on a national emergency basis.
This results in an airframe requirement of about 40, including OCE/OEU/Attrition aircraft
Sustained Expeditionary: formed into a single expeditionary air wing (as currently) the RAF should be able to sustain a single deployment of fast jets on an enduring basis, supporting an Army Multi Role Brigade, whilst still having the ‘one shot expeditionary’ and UK/FI QRA operating as normal. This enduring basis might be for air defence (in a manner similar to the Iraq no fly zones) but would normally consist of combat ISR and Close Air Support.
Squadron size would be 12 for a total aircraft requirement of between 48 and 60 depending on the deployed/non deployed ratio achievable. I think 4 should be a target, not 5, the Royal Navy manage it with ships and although the new multi role brigade structure is working on a 5 to 1 ratio I think it would be unfair to compare the two.
I want to work on the assumption that we go to a Typhoon fleet of about 160; that is, not trashing the T1’s and replacing any export orders with T3’s
This produces an aircraft requirement of approximately 50 not including OCE/OEU/Attrition
Totals
F35C = 40
Typhoon = 110 plus 50 (split between OCU/OEU and attrition/spares) for a total of about 160 aircraft
Squadron disposition would be as follows (although their sizes would differ)
UK QRA/AD, QTY 3
FI QRA/AD, QTY 1
Expeditionary Strike/CVF/Strategic Reserve, QTY 1
Sustained Expeditionary, QTY 4
TOTAL POST 2020 Squadrons Count = 9
Capabilities
Trying to understand the capabilities of the Typhoon is difficult because of the differing Tranches, Batches and Blocks and this is compounded by the need to obtain agreement from all Typhoon partner nations for any deviation. Given the long term role of Typhoon in UK service we should investigate the options for developing our own technology roadmap.
For a comprehensive rundown of the various flavours, click here
The F35C is of course ‘capability unknown’ but it is safe to assume that we will be happy with whatever comes off the LM production line.
I will look at air delivered weapons in a separate post.
Summary
I started this post with a comment that the RAF needs to change slightly its priorities and devote more resource to air transport, ISR, building regional security and special-forces support.
To ‘pay’ for this change in priorities I propose to raid the fast jet piggy bank, especially the F35. With all the ‘future of’ posts I am attempting to stay within existing funding rather than indulging in fantasy fleets of 138 F35’s and hordes of UCAV’s. The recent ‘6 Squadron’ story was based on a transition up to 2020 and did not seem to take into account quantities beyond that. Although squadrons are used as a basic unit of measure we should not forget the definition of a squadron can change, it is a loose organisational construct rather than a force size set in stone. What is more important is equipment at readiness and available for deployment, but squadrons are a handy reference.
We should maximise on our significant investment in Typhoon rather than casting our eyes on the shiny new baubles of the F35. Beyond UK air defence/QRA the most likely task for the RAF fast jets will be Close Air Support, a task that the Typhoon is actually supremely suited for. It is this we should be concentrating on not deep strikes against double digit SAM’s and T50’s. Reducing the reserve and may shorten the service life of the Typhoon fleet but things have changed since the assumptions that formed the initial Typhoon requirement.
Post 2020 this is simply a suggestion;
- 2 enlarged squadrons for UK AD/QRA recognising a reduced risk (Typhoon)
- 1 Squadron for Falkland Islands AD/QRA (Typhoon)
- 4
- reduced size Squadrons for Sustained Expeditionary Operations (Typhoon)
- 1 enlarged Squadron for CVF/Deep Strike (F35C)
## Other posts in this series ##
The Future of the RAF 01 – Introduction
The Future of the RAF 02 – Tasks and Trends
The Future of the RAF 03 – A Takeover Bid
The Future of the RAF 04 – Fast Jets
The Future of the RAF 05 – A Bargain Basement
The Future of the RAF 06 – A Reverse Takeover Bid
The Future of the RAF 07 – ISTAR #01
The Future of the RAF 08 – ISTAR #02 (DABINETT)
The Future of the RAF 09 – ISTAR #03 (SIGINT)
The Future of the RAF 10 – ISTAR #04 (Watchkeeper and Scavenger)
The Future of the RAF 11 – ISTAR #05 (Manned Airborne ISTAR)
The Future of the RAF 12 – ISTAR #06 (High Altitude Platforms)
The Future of the RAF 13 – ISTAR #07 (Maritime)
The Future of the RAF 14 – Strategic Transport and Refuelling
The Future of the RAF 15 – Tactical Transport
The Future of the RAF 16 – Vertical Lift #01 (Introduction)
The Future of the RAF 17 – Vertical Lift #02 (Basic Requirements)
The Future of the RAF 18 – Vertical Lift #03 (A Sensible Future)
The Future of the RAF 19 – Vertical Lift #04 (A Radical Future)
The Future of the RAF 20 – Building Regional Security
The Future of the RAF 21 – Summary
Under your scheme will Typhoon get a gun?
Just throwing this out there. The UK has high level discussions with the US, and US is planning to cut $12 billion from the military budget in 2012. Could we have changed the requirement from F-35B to F-35C because the Government knows something we do not? I know the popular theory is that we know that the F-35B is going to be cancelled, but could it be because we are thinking that the F-35C is going to be cancelled? I know it sounds crazy, but are we looking at a stealthy way of switching to a cheaper fast jet like the Super Bug while trying to maintain the industrial participation?
x, it does have a gun, the ammo, thats another issue!
Hi TD,
RE “Given the shortage of almost everything else except fast jets” there wasn’t any mention of trade-off’s, but we’ll get to them later? I guess we can only go cheaper (in fast jets) in two ways:
- swap F-35 for Rafale (M), and take a mainly naval & expeditionary angle to the use of the aircraft (we come to my “swap” calculation: How many Rafales in consideration for the second carrier)
- go lower with Typhoon numbers.
Re: the latter point, export deliveries are worded in the intro as being a really bad and threatening “thing”. In reality, considering that there is a programme commitment to a fixed number of Typhoons, some slots going for export would offer the most realistic – even quickest, without conversion needs coming thick&fast – way to get to the right mix between models optimised for air-to-air and models that are truly multi-role.
Hi Tubby,
RE “while trying to maintain the industrial participation?” funnily enough – or should I say, for once! – there is no tie up between BAE’s 18% programme share and the number of units eventually bought by HMG.
I thought we had opted out of the smoke pole on cost grounds?
What do you mean about the ammunition?
RE: ArmChairCivvy,
Sorry I have dragged an old discussion in from another forum, and assumed that my point would be instantly understandable. I am aware that the government to government MOU is about UK sharing development costs and influencing the F-35B to meet UK requirements and not about work shares, but LM has already all but said that if customers demand industrial participation as a condition of sales and a current partner does not make a commitment to buy then their work share could be effected. Presumable all LM would do is terminate the current contract and award a new one. While they would struggle with cancelling the RR contract for the tilt fan, I imagine the contract for the tail section (I think that is the bit that BAE is building) could be cancelled quite easily if the UK did not commit to any F-35 purchases.
“In May 2000 the British MoD announced that Tranche-2 and 3 Eurofighter’s in RAF service will not be fitted with any cannon whatsoever, while Tranche-1 cannons would not be utilised. The recommendation for this was made by the Equipment Capability Organisation (ECO) which was tasked with finding the most appropriate mix of weaponry for combat systems. The official Government line is that the capability offered by ASRAAM equipped Eurofighter’s leads to the cannon becoming operationaly and economically unviable. However, the British MoD has so far spent £90M on the BK-27 while annual savings from not using it are put at a mere £2.5M (the costs of removing it are put at £32M). This casts some doubt on the economic merits of cancelling the weapon.”
Wonderful. How the f*** can it cost £32M to remove it? That’s enough to give every Daring a RAM.
Crackers……….
Hi Everyone,
As i said in a reply to mark, i dont know much about the RAF. So what im about to sugest might be a bit simplistic, it does sort of follow along TD’s idea’s. So here it goes:
No. 1 Goup, would have 3 wings each with 3 squadrons of 12 planes:
-The 1st wing (typhoons) would be dedicated to Air Defence, 1 squadron for each QRA and one in reserve.
-The 2nd wing (typhons) would be for expeditionary AD with a secondary role of strike. 1 ready to deploy, 1 in training, 1 “Off Duty”.
-The 3rd wing would be made up of a cheap CAS aircraft with a secondary role of AD. I was thinking of a modern Jaguar (BAE or somebody must have the plans). If we bought 65 of them we could form 3 squadrons (same as 2nd wing) of 12 and an OCU/OEU of 14 aircraft with some as spairs.
The 40 F-35c bought would be given to the FAA and increased to 65 which would allow 4 squadrons of 8 aircraft (as per my future navy post), a 14 OCU/OEU unit and spairs. This to me makes more sense as the F-35c’s Unique Selling Point is its LO, therefor flying in from the ocean to stike targets makes the most sense?
I would use the T1 typhoons for OCU/training squadron to ease the burden on the T2/T3′s.
Like i said, im a chemistry undergrad student, and i dont know much about the RAF workings. So what do you guys think?
TD
I agree there should be more investment within the strategic capabilities of the RAF. I do not accepted however that we should be aiming just for small scale operations it should be full capabilities for a one off medium scale operation or it’s not worth doing.
In relation to UK air defence it is not the number of jets assigned to each QRA but the number of pilots it requires. In reality like the falklands you only need 4 jets at each location to provide minimum coverage. The problem you have with all terrorism is they only have to get through once I would be more worried about them heading for nuclear reactors than London. You cannot rely on any allies to do this job if god forbid you have to shoot down a uk passenger/private jet over UK soil it better be an order from a UK PM to a UK plane or its change of government time.
To me 2 locations is the least you can get away with but how about to reduce cost we borrow a idea from are US cousins and use reserve forces to man the QRA in rotation with their regular counterparts in the way the Nation Guard do in the states. As for the aircraft it has to be typhoon, hawk will not cut it. It may require a long shadow of an aircraft 4-6 hrs hawk does not have that endurance or the ability to AAR also there is a concern about single engine operation over water though to be fair its a risk were willing to take on JSF.
I agree I would increase typhoon to the full 160 aircraft with full multi role capability as quickly as possible to retire tornado. I would also reduce the F35 it will be a supremely capable aircraft but it main purpose is first night strike capability therefore it would be an incredible waist to use this on any enduring operation. So i would reduce this to a force of 50-60 aircraft similar to the harrier it replaced this should allow them to deploy 18-22 for a large scale operation like the harrier did in telic. I agree they should be used from either carrier or land but still with mixed navy raf pilot force.
The Typhoon T1 maybe a problem they can be updated to T2 capability but not T3 as they cant accept conformal fuel tanks ect. Is this a huge problem? Maybe not as they consist mostly of training aircraft and the others could stand QRA. The problem could come from airframe hours. I don’t what the fleet leader is at but they have been worked hard due to the extended small size of the force. To extend the fleets hours it needs to be done by test on the iron bird. I would not rule out replacing them until that analysis is done but carbon fibre will most likely be more difficult to life extend than metal.
With the introduction of the advanced hawk more of the OCU work could be transferred to them also sims may reduce it some more but nothing is quite like doing it for real so it’s a fine balance.
I would suggest 10 sqn is about right with 2-3 jsf and 7 typhoon allow a deployed force of about 18 jsf and 30 typhoon for major operations. With the QRA cover done by reservist aircrew during the major operation.
@ Mark
You are the expert. Why would it take that much to remove the gun? Is it plated in or something?
X
The Gun decision was absolutely stupid even for mod. As far as I am aware the gun is now fitted to all aircraft and in use. I dont like the term expert but rather some increased knowledge your always learning and never have all the answers
. From what I read in the specialist press I believe the problem lay more with the weight imbalance it caused in certain flight configurations and as such the need to write new flight software which would have cost you a bit.
Thanks spurt!
I think I would have cast some concrete to the same weight. But I am bit simple like that….
“How about a nice shiny new aircraft carrier, surplus to requirement and only one careful owner?”
Bad idea, if a capability this expensive is deemed a strategic asset then the capability should be maintained year round with two carriers.
If they can remain on station for eight months apiece then this allows six months as the duty carrier with two months work-up for training.
Frankly, i don’t really care what they fly off them or who flies them but there should always be a duty squadron of twelve JCA running off the duty carrier, and sufficient spare for other RAF/training/mission duties.
If we are aiming for c.200 airframes across the typhoon/F35 fleet then I would be much more comfortable with a 2:1 split of 140:70 than a 4:1 split of 160:40, and if 210 fast-jet frames is too many then I would be happier to see the typhoon numbers slide than the F35.
If we really want to save money lets just admit that the F35 is a gold plated pig we can’t afford; I would go further than that and question the need for it at all.
We have had this discussion on here, last year I think, well before SDSR. I would reduce the RAF fast jet fleet to a single type – Typhoon.
It has the capacity to mature into an excellent multi-role aircraft. Yes we may have an element of the “fleet inside fleet” problem, as Mark noted. If we are not throwing money down the hole that is F35, then we can upgrade Tranche 1 to Tranche 2 and use as air defence focused airframes. Tranche 2 are your basic swing role and can be updated to Tranche 3A capabilities. Lets order the full original numbers of Tranch 3 B as all two seaters with conformal tanks etc. Integrate CAPTOR, Storm Shadow blah blah blah, with the cash saved from not buying F35′s. Invest a little on a multi-role version of Meteor (AIM132 ASRAAM Imaging IR seeker, plus ALARM passive radiation homing, and standard Meteor data-link, in one body ? Anti-ship, SEAD, etc) and Bob’s yer impoverished uncle……
Carrier aviation – either do it properly, 3 carriers and 100 F18E/F/G or sell the carriers and don’t do it at all !
However an RAF fast jet fleet of 186 Tr1 / Tr2 / Tr3A / Tr3B gives potential logistics savings ranging from only training for one type for pilots and maintainers and a simplified spare parts situation.
If we really feel we want stealthy strike, lets be trend setters and develop the Taranis !
Hi JBF,
Absolutely agreed “happier to see the typhoon numbers slide than the F35.”
- if you have much less than 36-40, then it is a show piece, not an operational type
We are actually better off (relative terms) than the US, because the remaining lives of their main types are more “bunched up”, This Tom Andersen quoted is the Director for Requirements, Air Combat: ” 2030 is about the time you get a sixth gen fighter on the line,” Andersen say. “That’s about the time all the F-15s, F-15Es, F-16s and A-10s are programmed to be out of the inventory. At that point all you have is the F-35.”
Hear Hear JED.
Drop f35, concentrate on typhoon.
Stick F3 radar in a dassault 9000 and use it for long range bear chasing, the fuel economy alone, would make it worth while.
1 Billion per deployed plane!
What a bang up job the RAF are doing.
I suggest instead of stelth etc our next enemy immobolises the RAF by hanging up pictures of star wars X fighters shouting
‘look at the shiney shiney’ they will be hypnotised and he can then sneak past.
Yes, the BK 27 gun is fitted to all RAF Typhoons and there is no problem with ammo that I’m aware of (it uses the same 27x145B fodder as the Tornado). The guns are currently only qualified for ground attack, I believe.
Why the hell didn’t they simply fit 2 fast firing guns?
Balance problems wouldn’t even come into it !
The stupidity of the people who come up with the requirements never ceases to amaze me. Think about it, what the hell are they supposed to do when they run out of fancy missiles?
High tail it back to base to re-arm ?
Reminds me of the Navy with the Batch 1 & 2 Type 22′s.
On the numbers & versions issue, why not either keep the Tranche 1 for QRA/AD or get a newer, stripped down, version with newer equipment & some added numbers for an OEU/OCU?
Why not 3 Squardons, 1 a bit further North than at present & 1 South with 1 in reserve, with enough aircraft to guarantee at least 16 aircraft available for the on alert Squadrons with 2/4 on QRA each?
Am i asking too much to ask people to be on call for 9 months at a time, not a rhetorical question, really am asking?
Should something like that be 3 months at a time, to give people a break ?
Anyone see anything wrong with the reserve Squadron going into intensive training for Air to Air when they are in reserve. I mean QRA/AD isn’t that busy is it, so would 3 months intensive training every 3 months be enough to keep their skills up?
Have i got it right when i’m thinking that would be about 80 aircraft in total, 20 per Sqdrn, with 20 for an OEU/OCU?
If my numbers look ok, i’d then count the reserve Sqdrn for attrition too, as i can’t see a hoard of missile armed bombers escorted by fighters in bound to the UK anytime soon.
Call me old fashioned but i think QRA/AD should be the job for a pure fighter/interceptor type aircraft.
I think the so called Fighter Mafia in the USAF, had the right idea from the start!
Not a pound for air to ground is a good motto!
I do not think it should be a swing-role aircraft in any sense at all. I think these guys/girls should be concentrating on Air Supremacy only.
I understand why they want a newer version of the Typhoon with all the added-extra’s but i would like the RAF to get a pure, stripped down, fighter version.
Any other version in however many numbers can then be sent abroard as part of an Air Expeditionary Force for either NATO ops, or for a Solo operation. If it instead gets tense here, then you can use the Expeditionary Force’s aircraft, or other NATO aircraft to bolster local AD.
If you can’t what’s the point of NATO or an Expeditionary Force?
What’s wrong with 8 in total on QRA with another 24 that can be sent however fast they can be made ready?
Speaking of which, how long does it take to get two Fighter’s ready to go, from not armed & fueled to fully ready at the end of the runway?
How long would it take to equip a number of them (say 8?), with 4 missiles, ammo for the gun & get them fully fueled, if they were need in a quick & dirty fashion?
If you think 32 out of 40 aircraft aren’t enough to prevent someone giving us a nasty suprise, how many would it take to overcome the failure of MI6/MI5, the Foreign Office & our Allies to give us strategic warning that someone doesn’t like us very much?
I am in full agreement that the RAF should concentrate on the Typhoon as its key platform, even forgoing the F-35 to free up funds to allow all the planned enhancements to be incorporated. Whilst the programme has been severely mismanaged the actual plane is an exceptional platform and will serve the UK well for many years to come.
I cannot see any problem retaining two QRAs (North and South) as there are going to have to be 2 stations operating the type and I cannot see any major saving in this area.
What are the airframe hours like on the T1 Typhoons? IF they have suficient to last until 20205 and beyond then I would be madness to not bring them up to T2 standard. Even if thier A2G capabilities is limited to Paveway IV, CVR-7 and Gun they would still be viable in many operational senarios whilst being retained mainly for AD work.
Next, do we need the Tornados in Afghanistan? Surely the Coalition has sufficient assets in theatre that their with drawl would not have a major impact? Yes they have some unique capabilities with RAPTOR but the level of US ISTAR assets means they fall under the nice to have catagory. If we are bitng brutal I would withdraw the Tornado Now together with the Harrier and use the money as a down payment on T3B Typhoon and the enhancement programme.
The more I look into it the whole CVF programme is looking like what the US call a Cluster F@#%. It has become the worst of both worlds. Having a platform that size but operating only 12-15 Fast Jets is a bad joke. It is too little to provide meaningful support/defence, yet will have to be seen to be used for political face saving inflicting huge operating costs on the MoD’s budget when the operating costs of it and its escorts/support units are accrues. Again being brutal I would scrap the F-35 buy and sell both CVFs say to France and Brazil. IF we conduct a low level solo operation in future air supprt can come from embarked Apaches and Wildcats or land based FJ if a friendly staging area is in range.
So this leaves the RAF with a single type, the Typhoon. With T3 we could have 7 frontline plus an OCU and OEU with the latter together with 2 Sqn at Conningsby, 2 Sqn at Leuchars and a further 3 Sqn at say Marham. The Marham wing would be where the main expeditionary detachments would be pooled from with Conningsby and Leuchars sharing the Falklands committment. Post 2020 if the X-47 delivers on what it has promised the RAF should be able to purchase a sufficient number to allow a detachment to be deployed along side the Typhoon and this would be a powerful pairing especially if the 2 seat T3 platforms would be linked to the UCAV.
So to sum up;
- RAF retains and purchased sufficient Typhoons to maintain 7 frontline and 2 Reserve squadrons
- The F-35C purchase shoulld be cancelled and the CVFs sold
- The Tornado should be withdrawn by 2015 at he latest, ideally sooner rather than later.
- Consideration should be given to purchasing 30-40 MQ-47B form the US or a similar number of Taranis UCAVs if the programme is affordable possibly with co-operation with others.
RE “what the hell are they supposed to do when they run out of fancy missiles?
High tail it back to base to re-arm ?
Reminds me of”…
-the Americans over N. Vietnam, long ago (no dog fights in the future, hence no guns)
@ Jed – “Carrier aviation – either do it properly, 3 carriers and 100 F18E/F/G or sell the carriers and don’t do it at all!”
I very much agree with the principle.
One carrier and 40 F35 is daft beyond all redemption.
Take both carriers into service and buy a [minimum] fleet of 70 F35………………
Or don’t bother at all!
Hi LJ @7:09,
I would hazard a guess that too much haste in switching from older types would give
- a hump in the training, pushing costs up
- accelerated retirement of fully trained pilots (the last figure I saw for “rolling them off the production line” was £2m a piece, but that must be age old and well under the true costing)
- tooling up of production line that would only pay back assuming a huge export success in the future?
On the X-47B I have always assumed that it may have been the reason to cut the UK order for F-35s to the minimum number that can give an operational capability. With a high strategic priority (driven by the Pacific Theatre requirements)an in-service date of 2018 might well slot it between the C and B versions of F-35. For the latter the order book consists of Italy and USMC only, and even the former has created a stir as to the funding for sufficient numbers of carrier aircraft (US again) over their life. There are as many obsolescent AF-18s kept flying as there are Super Hornets, just stringing it out while waiting for the replacement that price and time-wise is more and more like a mirage over the horizon.
I going to be repeating a comment I made earlier, so apologies for sounding like a fanboi crossed with a stuck record.
RE: TMM
“…would be made up of a cheap CAS aircraft with a secondary role of AD. I was thinking of a modern Jaguar (BAE or somebody must have the plans).”
+1, if they took the Jaguar plans, and applied the 96 and 97 upgrades, and engine upgrade to Ardour 108, they would have a good aircraft. If they took it a step further, and added current off the shelf components (like a Selex AESA radar, a more modern helmet mounted sight) then they would have an excellent CAS platform, especially as CAS is moving from bomb trucks dropping 500 or 1,000 lb bombs where the requirement was for a higher payload than the Jaguar to dropping light weight precision weapons.
RE: CVF is a joke comments -
Adding to my previous mention of the Jaguar, the French had two prototypes for the Jaguar set up for Cat and Traps – Jaguar (M), if we bring back a modern Jaguar (aka Jaguar II), then we could fill the rest of QE and PoW with Jaguar’s giving a force of F-35C’s, Son of Taranis and Jaguar II (M)’s. They could use the F-35C for strike or long range CAP, and use the Jaguar’s for CAS or the inner layer of CAP.
So my ideal force would end up being around 105 Typhoons all to at least T2 standard, 40 F-35 forming a single deep strike squadron, 20 navalised variants of the Reaper, 6 navalised Son of Taranis, plus 80 Jaguar II (M) split between RAF and FAA, with an agreement that the active duty carrier will have at least 2 squadrons of either F-35 + Jaguar II (M) or Jaguar II (M) embarked at all times.
Lord Jim and JDBT
I hope others in power see the light about HMS Nosferatou, and HMS Dracula. This is a debate about The RAF look how their existence is warping considerations and sucking up budgets here. If we did not have them, we would not be buying f35 and spending billions on it.
M(C) and ACC
Guns is one of the repeating examples about techno airheads, and the cries of ‘Its different this time because..’ (Once refered to as the most expensive phrase in the english language). And why airpower though dominant, is not as dominant as some of its fans would have us believe.
Simple q which i know cannot be answered, how many ato a missiles does the RAF have available per opperational plane, I bet it is in single figures.
For the advocates of technologicaly sophisticated air power consider the fact that like the RN we have reduced our forces in terms of numbers to a pittence. We are discussing where we put a total of about 100 combat planes with perhaps 20 in flying condition.
That is just unbelievable as with T45, I don’t care how whizz bang they are, that cannot be enough.
@ Ixion – “I hope others in power see the light about HMS Nosferatou, and HMS Dracula. This is a debate about The RAF look how their existence is warping considerations and sucking up budgets here.”
I think you misunderstand me. I have no problem with carriers/jca sucking up oxygen from other worthwhile capabilities, because I believe them to be eminently worthwhile as part of a broader strategic function.
What I object to is keeping a part-time carrier capability with a minimum number of F35, it is ridiculous.
Either bin the lot or back it to the hilt, i would prefer the latter but will settle for the former in preference to some daft compromise.
Personally, i think there is a very good chance that come 2015 we’ll decide to take PoW into full service, even if we run them so there is only twelve duty months from them per year rather than the sixteen-eighteen possible.
This would be a good result provided we get a minimum buy of seventy F35, and preferably closer to one hundred.
TD I must take issue with your view of the F35B. This aircraft gas serious issues, the heat and blast from the engines will damage and destroy all existing surfaces. It can only land on specially modified surfaces. That is a major problem that I can see it resulting in severe limitations of operational capability if not cancellation. For that reason alone, forgetting the reduced size of internal bomb bay, range etc. The F35C was the better choice if the two. Now is that the right aircraft for the FAA? That is another question.
X as has been stated by others the cannon removal was very quickly reversed and the cannon is now to be fully utilised. Common sense prevailed… A first for the MoD ! N
JDBT
I am in agreement 2 with full compliment of planes justifiable.
Anything else waste of money, and unit cost of f35 will be staggering.
@X, I was joking about the ammo but as others and you have mentioned, there was talk of deleting the cannon but sanity prevailed, against the odds of course
@ACC, the trade off, will be discussing these in future posts but in order to pay for them I have indicated limiting the F35 buy to 40 odd rather than the 138 which seems the current rumour. Against all the odds the RAF and RN are expecting close to this or about 6 squadrons worth plus extras. Personally I think they are living in a dreamland and seem to be quite happy to stick to this but let the other important thinks go an hang. Much like the T26 was my cash cow in the RN posts the F35 is the same in this series.
@Tubby, I cant see the F35B being cancelled but you never know and I definitely can’t see the C being binned either. One, its too big to fail and two, the USMC has a long history of getting what it wants against all odds and logic
@Mintcake, a modernised Jaguar is an intriguing idea, like a Harrier III. Might do a post on them but I think costs would go against the idea
@Mark, I think with my configuration we could easily manage a one off medium scale. The configuration I came up with was designed to mimic in some ways the Army Multi Role Brigade idea of sustaining an enduring presence without blasting through harmony guidelines or trashing the kit. There is enough capacity to mount an operation for a short duration if we raid the sustained and QRA force. I think the affect of the QRA on terrorist is actually minimal because I can’t see them being able or even bothering to try and hijack a scheduled airliner. This is why I think we can resource it with less. Like the reserve idea, in general I think we can make more of various types of reserve forces. I agree on the Hawk and why I only made a tentative suggestion but the latest export Hawks can do AAR and with a drop tank could actually have a reasonable endurance.
@Jedibeeftrix, I agree it would be a bad idea to flog off the second carrier but I was suggesting this was the actual reason behind the very expensive switch to CATOBAR. On the duty squadron for the carrier, why? CVF is a strike platform but strike does not always have to be delivered from a carrier. It might be the only and/or best means of delivering it depending on the scenario, but then again it might not. What matters is the delivered effect, not where that effect is delivered from. I was aiming for 200 odd aircraft but trying to avoid adding cost so the Typhoon becomes the dominant aircraft because we have already sunk £20 odd billion and so far, nowhere near that into the F35, bird in the bush and all that!
@Jed, I do agree to some extent about going to a single type but what makes me baulk at such a radical proposal is the need for sovereign capabilities, even at a small scale, plus the capabilities the F35 offers, your proposal is tempting though!
@ACC, 40 aircraft is not a showpiece, it is a useful/essential capability for limited circumstances and at a modest scale. Given the advances in sensor fusion, stealth and weapons even a small number will be extremely potent. That’s what I want them for, as a scalpel.
@Jedibeeftrix, one CVF and 40 F35′c is not at all daft beyond redemption, it provides the UK with a useful if modest strike capability and the ability to surge beyond the normal 12-15 for one off’s, I reckon we could probably muster about 30 as long as we had the crews for an emergency. It is the reality of how the UK would use naval fast jet aviation, i.e. CVF becomes simply an alternative launch platform in the absence of land bases. It is entirely common sense and although I agree it is not ideal, it is pragmatic and allows funds to be allocated elsewhere, provides a hedge against emergent strategic threats and something to build upon if we win the lottery. The do it properly or don’t bother argument seems a bit like a child having a temper tantrum because they can’t have all the sweets in the shop!! If we did do it properly, 2 full time CVF and 70 plus F35, then what would you be willing to sacrifice to pay for it and what do you think it would actually deliver beyond looking nice on Navy Day. It would result in us having not enough ISR, AT and SH, which happens to be the most useful things we have and which is in short supply. All I am suggesting is a pragmatic compromise that shifts the funding slider more to other more relevant and needed capabilities away from Fast Jet. This has consequences, it might be obvious but that means fewer fast jets
@Phil, I think the whole jetblast thing is a bit overblown (sorry about the pun).
TD
Jet blast Thinh (Te he).
It is not overblown, you are looking a jets at the metling point of steel, (and way beyond the point the it becomes plastic), as I posted before RR did work on this in 80′s and came to the cnclusion water cooled/ or ceramic surfaces needed. Inany event the allready out of control f35 budget is completly out of control ont he B variant.
The do it properly or not at all argument is simply pragmatic, realisation that either you have real usable sustainable capability, or you do not, if you do not then you are into hoping that when you need it it will be avaialble and our enimes cooperate, (Rather like someone posted elswhere about RAF, by not doing anything so damned un english as atacking at weekends or after 5,oclock.
Or not when POW is in refit, or when one squadron is working up it;s carrier capability etc.
Q If we did not have the carriers would you still want the F35 within the next decade and is so why? (As opposed to waiting for the yanks to work out all the kinks and buy of the shelf later if neccessary).
TD I wouldnt have much of a problem if your idea is what actually happen. I do find it strange the armed forces as a whole don’t utilised reserve forces much more if I’d want to learn anything from the US it would be that. Id would like JSF numbers closer to 60 than 40 though. I agree with all the comments about typhoon it should be our no. 1 priority in the next few years and we need all 160 aircraft.
F35 is a very divisive issue people either love it or heat it I would say the same was said about Typhoon when it was in development and people have changed their mind now its service. I would cut our buy in half as I see no need to have a whole Air Force of LO aircraft but we do need some. There is a lot of politics at play in the US there main problem is it won’t be as cheap as the F16 was, fair enough it does more than F16. As for its staggering unit cost no one outside the contract people can know that yet. LRIP IV cost are now available I would compare them to Typhoon or Rafale initial prices. Lockheed have stated that as the total numbers on order double the price reduced by 25% they’ve gone fixed price so that’s the best we have. Its experiencing the same development problems as every aircraft ever made does that’s what the test phase is for. Should we go for F18 well only if you find several billion in the next 2 years as the production line will close in 2014 without a new order, the aussies paid 4.6 billion US for 24 aircraft and 10 years support so not a much cheaper option. A cheap CAS aircraft with rugged capability I would just buy Gripen is an excellent plane not design a new one.
As for Reaper its great at what it does but post afghan what will we do with it? It can’t self deploy, it cant operate in civil airspace and it can’t survive in a hostile environment. Yes its great in support to army at a tactical level it maybe should have been an army asset but they went for Watchkeeper and now they want to arm it, so there will be a lot of cross over. We are in process of giving up a large number of strategic manned ISTAR asset which we can currently send anywhere we like to be replaced with UAVs which we can’t. Manned ISTAR would be were id spend any spare money saved from the Fast Jet fleet or if it has to be UAV then global hawk but you add a nought on to the end of the reaper price for it.
I’m not going to let this one past. I don’t know a great deal about aircraft but I know some:
———————
/Why the hell didn’t they simply fit 2 fast firing guns?
/
/Balance problems wouldn’t even come into it !
———————
It already has one fast-firing gun (1700 rpm is pretty quick) and the space for a second can be more usefully filled. The problem is with longitudinal balance – if you remove a gun you have to either replace it with something qualified for the environment (loads, temperatures, vibration etc. ad nauseum) or re-write the flight control software and re-qualify that.
—————
/The stupidity of the people who come up with the requirements never /ceases to amaze me. Think about it, what the hell are they supposed to /do when they run out of fancy missiles?
/
/High tail it back to base to re-arm ?
————————————-
Well, yes. That’s the fundamental behaviour of any real life (as opposed to video-game) fighter aircraft. The gun is supplied with 150 rounds. Slightly less than five and a half seconds. Normal missile loadout is 6 (4 medium-to-long, 2 short) but can be eight easily or potentially more. The gun is a (sensible) backup. Missiles are the primary weapon. Once those are expended then that aircraft will “high-tail it back to base” as it has used its entire offensive capability. Staying to try and use the gun is a substantial risk to a high-value platform, especially if the enemy do have missiles left. A gun on an aircraft is like a bayonet. Still useful, but you wouldn’t march into battle with an empty magazine.
Mark, agree on manned v unmanned ISR. Look at the quite success of Shadow and the DA42′s. Will be looking at ISR in a forthcoming post
TD said: “plus the capabilities the F35 offers”
What unique capabilities does the F35 bring ?
A limited radar stealth airframe that can be overcome by various ground based radar technologies. It is not stealthy in the IR spectrum.
Great communications, datalinks and and of course the much discussed spherical coverage advanced IR suite – all of which could be fitted to other platforms !
The F35 is compromised, it is not big enough and does not carry enough gas to be a true stealthy attack aircraft, which is what the USN wanted to replace the A12. The USAF requirements to replace everything from the F16 to the A10 and USMC (and UK originally) requirement for “Supersonic Harrier” have made it a jack of all trades and master of non which has been heavily compromised by sizing it for the STOVL requirement, and shaping it for internal weapons bays and stealth.
Don’t get me wrong, it could out to be a wonderful aircraft eventually, but it will always be a heavily compromised design AND the real killer for the UK is price and value for money.
For carrier aviation – and yes to whomever mentioned it, this is a debate thread on the future of the RAF, but the RAF does not operate in an air power vacuum – if we had the much much cheaper F18, and integrated Storm Shadow, that might give us 75% capability at less than half price. IF we also bought F18G Growlers this would give us a huge niche electronic attack capability that would make us an extremely valuable ally to either the US or any other NATO / non-NATO coalition.
@TD
“a modernised Jaguar is an intriguing idea, like a Harrier III. Might do a post on them but I think costs would go against the idea”
That would be an interesting post, especially if you were able to get a good handle on costs compared to say a Gripen. Personally I think that an Anglo-Brazilian project (possibly with French participation) to build Jaguar II (M)’s would be great, RR to build the engines, with Selex radar, assembled in Brazil with tech transfer to allow Brazil to export it. But then I also think that PoW should be a 40,000 tonne single deck CATOBAR carrier as close as to what Brazil might plan to build in the future, as I think the number one priority of our defence spending should be about exportability and export sales, and securing the Brazilian ship building projects would be great for the UK.
Jed
I agree with you in respect to growler and if you want to go super hornet we should have bought it 10 years ago and delivered the carriers to there origin timetable but not now its almost out of production.
There is now doubt its a compromised design but its far from a master of none.
We dont know what the price of production jsf will be. We do know what the price of super hornet is we can use the Australian contract as there the only overseas customer. And even using them against the JSF LRIP prices we do know doesn’t produce a 50% saving.
Mark – USN has just inked a multi-year fixed price contract for 200-ish Super Bugs – so its hardly “nearly out of production” and yes I admit USN unit price does not cover spares and support which the Aussie one does, but still WAY cheaper than F35……
Tubby – why on earth would you anyone resurrect a 1960′s design when they could just save all the development money and buy Gripen NG ?
Mr Fred – ref guns, very true. Though I am no professional fighter pilot, there is in my city a little emporium which has four fixed base CF18 simulators (and the full ‘Top Gun’ mission briefing suite etc). Although I have managed to score on much more experienced “pilots” (including a real Canadian Forces one) with Sidewinders, I have never ever managed to hit anything with the gun
RE: Jed
If I seriously thought we could get Gripe NG then I would be a happy man – reasonable to buy, cheap to operate, excellent sensor fusion and possibly the best data linking going. If it is not on the cards, I still see the need for a cheaper aircraft for expeditionary ops and given that the Jaguar was still doing sterling service a decade ago and with an update it would still be a good mud mover then I have no problem with suggesting resurrecting the Jaguar (well actually I would hope they move the pylons for the ASRAAM from above the wing to the wing tips, and use composites so that weight penalties of navalising it as per the original Jaguar M is countered by the composites). The question comes down does a Gripen NG or Sea Gripen cost a lot more than a resurrected Jaguar II or Jaguar II (M)? If the costs are close then the Gripen is a better design but if the difference is say 25% or more than it might make more sense to resurrect the Jaguar. That’s why I would like TD to do a post on resurrecting the Jaguar, the Harrier and use the Gripen as bench mark.
Jed
The US navy order was for 124 aircraft to be delivered over the next 4 years if they do not receive another order from someone in the next 2-3 years it will close on completion of that order.
Tubby
The cost of developing a new design would be not be able to compete with Gripen of the shelf cost. The thru live costs would higher to for jaguar II as its got 2 engines as well.
I really don’t know why the european F16 operators havent been falling over themselves to buy gripen its not like they need first night LO capability.
Typhoon is a very expensive bird to fly. According to German gov sources a flight hour costs 50% more than a Tornado, an expensive bird in itself. So I would not propose a single-type fleet around it.
So, if Gripen NG
… including AESA and CFT is in development
… it’s airframe is a very sturdy one due to it’s strict short-take-off-requirement (and therefore quite easy to navalize)
… is available at a quite low procurement and very low operational cost
… is fully integrated with most weapons, including Meteor, a Typhoon can handle
… may take an uprated Eurojet 200, which in turn would give commonality of spares with the Typhoon
The Dutch received an offer for €4.8b for 85 aircraft, while Canada get’s 65 F-35 for $16b. The current danish and durch governments are leaning strongly towards cancelling the F-35 altogether. Even Norway will review it’s decision.
Why not Gripen/Griffin FA.1?
@TD
As far as I can see, the SEAD-capabilities of the F-35 will not be a leap, especially in UK-service. It simply cannot stowe ALARM internally, so it’s stealth goes down the toilet. In theory, LO is vital in a SEAD mission, but even Gripen should in that area be a vast improvement over the current Tornado. In my view, F-35 is another 150% solution to a 100% problem.
From 2020 on btw ther is time to start thinking about a Typhoon replacement. Maybe here is, where a Anglo-Franc-Brazilian cooperation would make sense.
Anyone noticed the Chengdu J-20 news today?
@Mark
“I really don’t know why the european F16 operators havent been falling over themselves to buy gripen its not like they need first night LO capability.”
Read the cables at wikileaks. Norway required AESA, Saab asked the US to permit use of a APG-79 derivate in the Gripen NG.
Clearance came three days after the F-35-deal was inked.
TD and co;
It was my thinking that the F35B STOVL was actually LESS capable than the C varient; due to the lift fan taking up room and the susequent modifications; meaning less range and weapons capacity than the C or A varients?
The the long tail of training… though I think the B would be superior in training costs than the C, since for Harrier pilots they only had to train hover and landings…whereas the US navy/USMC pilots have to religeously train cat and trap landings, maybe to mitigate that we could take a leaf from the russian navy’s book of having a carrier landing sim airfield…
Genrally
Whereas there has been a lively debate about the Navy issues, particulary the innovative futre ships ideas recently, and lots of posts re this series of RAF threads, it does seem that so far the sacred cows are free to roam. Very much of the let us make the best of what we’ve got. All very sensible but, (is that not tactical rather than strategic thinking)?
Typhoon = best plane ever = we must have more/ updated ones.
f35= Next to be best plane ever seems we must have the for the carriers.
I assume I have lost the argument about abolishing RAF so leaving that to one side. TD’s proposed deployments seem to make much sence.
However the sums involved in the Typhoon scam, seem staggering, Tranche 1 only been in service less than 10 years but seem to allready be reaching end of usefull life WTF! Becuse the cannpot be upgraded to T2 can T2 be upgraded to T3?
Do we actaully need fast jet cover of UK seeing as how for forceable future no ones going to be coming over in SU35s or whatever.
As some one suggested, Could we not keep T1′s and use an ANG type soultion of air territorials to man the round the clock?
Likewise for the long range cover of the northern area BiZjets have speed and range for it, no one seems to want to bite on tht idea maybe not ‘shiney shiney’ enough.
What F35 brings to party not entirely sure people seem to assert it is just ‘better’ than upgrade typhoon. But in terms of facts and figures I do not see it.
Just bought a 50 inch plasma TV; as I told the wife, it was just 18 ‘better’ than the 32 it replaced, still same crap on the telly though.
Wheras the strategic RN idea of forwrd based sgadrons seems really though through (so did the comments those i agreed with and those i did not), so far this thread seems to be very much about moving a few planes about shutting few bases, and carrying on pretty musch as is.
Talkinag about struggling to equip and maintain a full squadron in theatre for any future deployment. Tha bodes well for 24/7 52 availability of CAS -Not.
PS is it really true about Typhoons not beimg able to stand the heat? Not as stupid as it sounds WW2 Mosy had same problem!
I thought I mentioned business jets?
“Like a G6″ as the “song” goes!
And I also said that the biggest air threat to the UK was cruise missiles and that the RAF doesn’t seem to be able to counter these in any way.
For most Eurofighter is the only game in town. Eurofighter is the RAF. And it seems even here suggesting that the RAF has lived past its usefulness is a sacred cow too far. If you complain about the RN losing something its emotional or unreasoned. Yet say similar about the RAF and it is verging on sacrilegious.
(Said tongue in cheek. And with a lot more humour than it might read.)
New generation Jaguar?? No.
Just buy some AMX’s from the Brasilians!
@Mcz, good point about the EJ200 going into the gripen (which was developed for the F18) quick wikki check to see if this had grounding. gripen engine (volvo rm12) is 154 inches long with a 35 inch diameter and the EJ200 is 157 inches long with a 29 inch diameter. i’m no expert but that seems do-able!
to tie this in with the thread would be possible to have the FAA having “X” ammount of 35c for day 1 strikes backed up by sea gripen for CAS which could also if it was deemed necessary land at FOB’s ie roads which the gripen was designed for. This could be duplicated in the RAF with a typhoon/ gripen NG structure which opens up joint ops possibilities. As stated earlier costs of 35c not set but it must be close (ish) to 1×35 to 2xgripen, which as mcz points out can have the asea radar