One of the recurring themes across all military forces is the escalating costs of their basic equipment. Of course these equipments are better than what went before but the question is, how much better. Compounding the problem is the difficulty of working out actual costs; commercial confidentiality, confusion about what is included in announced contract costs and any meaningful comparison of capabilities in the public domain all conspire to make any analysis nothing more than educated guesswork.
With increasing personnel costs and a fully understandable casualty aversion every technical means possible of achieving superiority over the neighbours continues to be very expensively applied. In the same way naval forces apply the ‘does it work in a hot war’ test, so does the RAF.
This is the ‘hi-lo’ argument we have rehearsed many times in the naval subject area.
If we make the assumption that the majority (not all) combat missions the RAF will be involved in will be in a moderate to low air threat environment then do we actually need the world’s first or second best multi role strike fighter?
The operation after Afghanistan might not look anything like Afghanistan so we should make sure we retain the ‘high’ whilst thinking about the ‘low’ but could we supplement Typhoon with something cheaper and/or more numerous for those missions where close air support and ISR are the predominant type.
The cheapest type of aircraft is usually the one you have paid for and in the last few years we have divested ourselves of several Jaguars, Harriers and Tornados. The real costs, however, are those that you incur every day, crew, fuel, training, spares and maintenance etc. If the aircraft you have are expensive to operate then the keep or ditch calculation is not as simple as it might seem.
The key question is;
Would a cheaper to buy and operate aircraft that could carry out the most likely tasks the RAF needs to cover, be so cheap that it overcomes the cost penalty of having an extra type in service.
The cost of maintaining numerous types of aircraft that do similar things should not be underestimated and it is the RAF’s stated objective to move to as few types as possible but are there any candidates that would allow the Typhoon/F35 thoroughbreds be used less and therefore retained in service longer, there has to be a cost pay off or it’s not worth doing.
Are we missing the Jaguar, a cheap to operate, rugged and simple fast jet able to provide limited strike, close air support and ISR in low to medium threat environments.
There have been persistent attempts to breathe life into a Harrier III but the development costs would be very high.
There are many options including new builds, trainer derivatives and modernising existing types so rather than try and list all the options here are a few interesting options;
Gripen NG; The Gripen is the most capable of this group, a proper modern fighter! The NG has been designed to operate from austere locations with low costs but has a full range of modern systems and a very high performance for a single engine aircraft. It also has the same BK27 cannon as the Typhoon. A Sea Gripen has also been proposed that would provide CVF compatibility.
BAe Hawk ; arguably the easiest option, we have plenty of surplus and a new build would be a UK product. The T.Mk2 or Hawk 128 is the latest version with the Adour 951 engine and modern avionics and although this is highly optimised for the training role the basic Hawk design has proven adaptable and versatile. The Malaysian and Indonesian (Hawk 208/209) exports were multi role light fighters, fitted with a lightweight multi-purpose radar, in flight refuelling probe and an external payload of about 3,500 kg.
KAI FA-50; a derivative of the supersonic T-50 Golden Eagle trainer, its maximum speed is in the order of Mach 1.4 with a operating ceiling of nearly 15,000m and maximum payload of 4,600 tonnes. In addition to modern avionics it has full set of defensive aids and data links to support advanced weapon carriage and all weather/night operations. The radar is Israeli but the Selex Vixen 500E which is a modern AESA system designed for light fighters, an also be fitted. The T-50 from which this more aggressive model is derived reportedly costs in excess of $20 million with estimates for the FA-50 at around $25-30 million. It uses the same GE F404 engine as the Gripen and F18. For an even cheaper option, A-50 sits somewhere in between the trainer and light multi role FA-50. Crucially, given its export oriented design, its operating costs are said to be very low. Click here and here for more information.
AMX; If we were interested in a joint development with Brazil we might consider the AMX, an Embraer and Alenia joint venture. It’s quite an old design but there have been a number of proposals for updates including one with the EJ200 engine and the Brazilians are currently updating a number in conjunction with Elbit. High subsonic with a payload of about 4,000kg on 5 external hard points, it also has wingtip rails for AA missiles. More information here
It is worth considering the performance figures of these light fighters when compared to Typhoon, payload, range and endurance are of particular importance, especially in Close Air Support where endurance and the ability to carry multiple munitions to suit the target and a targeting pod. For example, an AMX has 5 hard points; by the time two drop tanks and a targeting pod have been added there are only 2 left for munitions. Even with multi weapon pylons this is a limitation and there range and endurance limitations would mean more required in the air to cover a given area with a greater number of tanker sorties.
My gut feeling is that the cost penalties of introducing and maintaining a new type, especially after getting rid of a couple already, would be prohibitive. It would be worth a serious study though, as a means of keeping our racing thoroughbreds in service longer.
## 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
Hi TD.
“My gut feeling is that the cost penalties of introducing and maintaining a new type… would be prohibitive”
- mine, too
- but Hawk is not a new type! (we had quite a good discussion on the previous thread about the plusses backing this option)
Tongue in the cheek:
- let the Brazilians co-design the Gripen NG for carrier use
- hop on the bandwagon
- ask for a good number of normal Gripens on the deal as the Swedish air force is cutting numbers; make them CAS platforms, and by 2015 just about all fast jet pilots would have been converted, with some front line experience… discard when airframes have run up the hours
The Gripen combines low costs, especially to operate with a lot of cutting edge features, the only thing it really lacks is VLO. I would be happy if they brought the Gripen for expeditionary operations, and if they could afford both the cost and the risk of developing the Sea Gripen we could operate it from the carriers (estimated to cost 2 billion Swedish Kroner = £200 million). To be honest the Gripen would be better at filling the requirements for the JCA than the F-35C will.
In total fanboi mode the Gripen NG will feature the Cobra helmet mounted display which shows both A2A and A2G symbology plus basic flight data, an more advanced version of EWS39-3 EW systems which is considered one of the best in the world and will feature both MAWS and DFRM, along with usual optical systems and laser targeting systems. The Gripen NG will have some of the best data linking going, featuring both Link 16 and a more advanced system TIDLAS which can allow for passive launch of missiles guided by another aircraft or for mid-course updates by another aircraft, along with an additional data link for linking video to ground stations. The NG will also feature Sat Comms, and the Selex Galileo ES-05 Raven AESA radar, and have a better performance and range than the Gripen C/D. The Sea Gripen will not have the range or payload of the Gripen NG due to being about 400 kg heavier, with the payload of fuel and weapons being about 9,000 kg for the NG compared to 8,500 kg to the Sea Gripen, with the bring back of around 3,500 kg for the Sea Gripen, which may or may not be enough to bring your entire strike package back to the carrier. Finally the Gripen already incorporates many of the currently in service weapons used by the RAF, http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/56CA9928-D8A1-4AFC-A89D-B971CE7E8AC0/8463/Whatever_weaponboard.pdf – ASRAAM, AMRAAM, Meteor, Paveway II, Paveway III, Brimstone, Maverick (if we still use it) and Litening III, so the only weapons we would have to integrate would be Paveway IV and Storm Shadow. (sources Combat Aircraft Monthly, Vol 11. No 12, http://www.stratpost.com/saab-offers-naval-gripen-to-india & http://www.gripen.com/en/index.htm)
You are forgetting that USN already operates Hawk for carrier training.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_T-45_Goshawk
I must admit I cannot see the RAF going for a another platform. If it has any sense it will for go the F-35C entirely. Although unproven the next generations of UAV/UCAV is probably the way to go. This is more so as human life is going to become more and more an issue in future conflicts. We already have issues with British troops not being allowed to close with the enemy in Afghanistan for fear of additional casualties. In my view the F-35 is simply a level too far for the resources we have. The FAA needs to look at what platform it needs and whether a legacy platform would do the job and then operating a joint UCAV with the RAF at a later date.
I forgot we are talking about the RAF. Whoops!
X, I don’t think that is an oops. Filling out the CVF airwing with Hawks might be a viable option and the RAF might ought to think about providing the assets unless they want a revival of FAA fast jets, not to mention it would be possible to have Hawks with tail hooks ready to operate off the CVFs as soon as they are finished.
Equipping all their new aircraft for carrier operation, using electro-magnetic launch and arrested landing might provide some options for operating from austere sites that might otherwise be unusable as forward operating bases.
I am trying to cast out images of the Red Arrows and world tours now…….
This is getting silly chaps.
We are now down to Hawks on carriers to stop a revival of FAA fast jets. Agreed an updated Hawk = good cheapish CAS/COIN platform whether land or sea based. As some previous posters have said lets do it properley or not at all as regards CVF.
2 X CVF/100 F/A18 E/F/G, 10-12 Hawkeye and various helos (Merlin/Apache/Wildcat?).
Sorry just replying to previous post, not RAF bargain basement at all.
@ KP
I think it would be silly too. As I said a forgot about the RAF and just thought TD has missed the Goshawk.
I am certain that the Hawk can out fly anything in the Taliban’s or Somalia air forces.
Oooh…you can’t dodge the big news across the Pacific … what’s Think Defence’s take on the J-20??
And why in God’s name would you be talking about a bargain basement fighter/CAS when the Chinese are heading toward a heavy wt Stealth Strike/Fighter plane?
Do you think it will go as well the Chinese SSNs or the Chinese copies of Soviet era AAW systems?
Happy New Year everyone
Have had a few cheeky vimtos so should really hold off posting comments but…
The J-20, possibly important development, shows progress, shows ambition
but
Control of the air is about much more than a single fighter, it’s a team game where each of the players provide complimentary skills sets, I don’t see China in the top division just yet.
Typhoon high, Predator/warrior/corvax low
Hi guys,
Just to throw fuel on the Jaguar II fire. If the numbers on wiki are to be believe, then the average cost of a Gripen is $50m with out VAT. If we convert this with VAT into pound Sterling it comes to approx £38m.
Now if BAE dusted off the Jaguar plans, moved the over wing pylons to the wing tips and gave the Jag modern avionics,then we have a good solid CAS aircraft. If they used the Adour Mk 951, used in the hawk and taranis (which is based on the Mk 106) and fitted it with a reheat unit, we could expect thrust to be somewhere between 75kN to 80kN. (Grippen at the moment is about 80kN). I am also a firm believer that 2 engines are safer and better than 1.
Now if BAE could privately fund the R&D, and assuming it costs £2bn in total. BAE could sell 75 aircraft to the RAF at £30m and still make £250m profit, not to mention the profits on maintenance contracts and possible overseas sales. (malaysia bought 8 several heavilly modified hawks.
Just thought i’d play Devils Advocate
Playing fantasy fleets (naval or air) is fun, but if we’re talking about serious proposals a few points need to be borne in mind:
1. There will be no more money.
2. There will, in fact, probably be even less money (news this week – MoD to find a further 2 billion in cuts).
3. Restarting a production line for an obsolete aircraft like the AMX or Jaguar is non-trivial, to put it mildly. It would be very expensive, and you’d end up with an obsolete aircraft. Unles you were to bring it up to date, which would then make it even more expensive.
4. Gripen costs are not the same as Gripen NG, which are not the same as Gripen NG Naval. This is not a cheap option once the very large fixed costs of introducing, running a maintaining a new type of combat aircraft are added in (although it should be cheaper than the F-35 – but then, so’s everything).
5. The only way to get a “bargain basement” plane is to buy one from a current production line, and one which is very substantially cheaper than Typhoon to buy and operate, or it wouldn’t be worth it.
I’m not at all convinced that we should be buying another manned combat plane anyway, but if we do then the only really cheap option is a Hawk variant – it’s already in service, and the fixed costs are already being met. That gives it a huge advantage over any other cheap jet.
Having said that, I quite like the idea of acquiring some of the carrier Hawks, they would be useful for training and could indeed have a light CAS role.
Don’t go anyway near the Adour Mk106 as a possible powerplant, it was an unreliable piece of junk!IF you want to tuse the adour use the 821 which is going into India’s upgrades platforms.
If anf it ia a huge if the MoD decided to purchase a low end COIN platform to suppliment the Typhoon the a tooled up version of the Hawk Mk128 to allow it to carry the types of ordonnance required fo rthe mission.
One area of weaponry the MoD seems to be avoiding is the guided rolding fin rocket. Numerous porgammes are in place around the world developing this idea and given to modular nature of the CVR-7, surely this is an area where a little money would go along way and save all those expensive Brimstone and Hellfire. Could even a ground based version be developed to supplimant the javelin. Just an idea
Over the last few days i have tried to read much of what’s been said & have tried to absorb it.
Alex in particular had a good point, he said:
“when has a cheaply equiped airforce won a war?”
ACC found one example, one! I did no better with my own searches.
Think about that point ladies & gents.
Having thought about it myself, cause it’s a damm good point, i wanted to ask a question.
If TD, you are serious about limiting the buy of the F-35C’s to 40, i can’t see it myself though……..would it be possible, seeing as Tornado is going to be withdrawn, to buy enough F-22 Raptors to form 2 Squadrons & an OEU/OCU?
The USAF would not spend so much money on such an aircraft if they did not think it would do exactly what it says on the wrapper. Think about the F-15, it’s been around for ages, it’s still awesome for whatever you need it for.
Now i know i was talking about a simple, cheap’ish fast jet for CAS & to supplement the Typhoon for QRA, however, if you lose in the air nowadays, it pretty much over isn’t it, for a first or second world country, at least in economic & infrastructure terms!
Why not restrict the F-35C buy to exactly 50 inc. for attrition, cause lets face it, 40 is not going to cut it (not in the this world anyway), if they are used in all the way’s they are mean’t to be used?
Then really go for it, as we are thinking about the future after all, not the next 5 years & not Afghanistan or Iraq & buy 72 F-22 Raptors for use in an expeditionary role along with the Tranche 3 Typhoon?
I do mean 72 in total, enough for 2 Squadron’s of 20 each, with 20 for an OEU/OCU & 12 airframes in reserve, not a single aircraft more. None.
Northrope binned the only cheap’ish aircraft i would seriously consider to augment the Typhoon’s either at home or away.
It wouldn’t have been that cheap really but it was an evolution of an existing aircraft, in other words a battle proven design, the F-20 Tigershark.
That however would only have been really useful & cost effective in the past decade, not the next 10-15 years…..so now i’m thinking that the RAF really needs something exceptional for the future.
We can’t buy Su-30 Flankers, so why not go for it’s arch rival instead?
Think how effective Typhoons & Raptors would be over the next 10-15 years time. I discount the F-35′s as many of them may be at sea, half way around the world from where they are needed.
Also, i have read Alexander’s post’s on TPTT & i don’t really agree with his ideas about the doctrine of Carrier Strike. I understand why he prefers it but i can’t find a seriously dispassionate comparison about the cost’s inc. the logistic’s of keeping a Carrier group supplied at sea verses the costs of using Raf aircraft from bases nearby, inc. the cost of tanker aircraft too. However, the Navy would also need to use tankers, so i’m not sure why people include that cost only with the Raf’s cost’s.
Also, to my way of thinking Naval Air Power has only 2 real uses ( in the context of the UK):
1. Protection of the Fleet from long range Air & Surface attack.
2.To enable the Royal Marines & the Army to either arrive, leave or fight under, at the very least, a neutral sky.
The RAF is a deployable force, within limit’s & i think they may need to finally get a, for real, all-rounder. The F-35C is an unknown, with all that that entails, the F-22 (i think), would be a better option for the RAF as they would be working & fighting alongside the USAF in any serious conflict.
This would be good for logistic’s & commonality with our major ally, let alone what the Raf could think to do with such an aircraft.
Just one other thing, i am not that convinced that UCAV’s are the way to go. If anyone were to figure out a way to create an EMP without a nuclear explosion, what would happen to the UCAV force? I know it sounds utterly unlikely…..but did anyone predict the rise of the Blackberry, the Mobile phone or the satalite guided bomb?
Skynet 5 only consists of a four satalites (atm), however you can bet people are thinking up ways to disable it. If things get serious they will have to anyway, as it is a serious force multiplier.
Michael,
The USA is not selling the F-22 Raptor to anyone (they have rejected expressions of interest from other allies), and is closing the production line.
Even if it were available, the cost of your proposals would be far higher than anything the RAF was contemplating even before the SDSR cuts – not exactly realistic!
Hi LJ @ 5:33, furtheron each of your three paragraphs
1. As long as it is a turbofan (popular in biz jets and trainers for cheap operation and giving longer endurance)
2. Isn’t it the 200 series for improved low-level manoeuvrability, in-flight refuelling and a meaningful weapon load (with cheap and miniaturised electronics to go with them)
- still 80% component commonality with the trainer Hawk
3. About the rockets and their accuracy with assisted lasing or self-designation of target, there is a video URL on the Panzers to A-stan thread. Funnily enough the idea was floated to increase the organic fire power of US air-portable units (ie, vehicle-launched, can easily be added to the sides of turrets).Much, much cheaper, as you say
Hi Michael (Civ.),
Network invasion is a hot research topic (figuring out which frequencies could be useful; the frequencies to communicate through without losing your stealth as well as the frequencies for radars to detect planes made of stealthy materials have already been figured out).
As I don’t understand any of that stuff, I was going to ask your question ” If anyone were to figure out a way to create an EMP without a nuclear explosion” but there were no physics researchers in last nights party, so still none the wiser.
Hi ACC
I ranted on regarding the Adour 106 as I worked on the programme from start to finish and it never properly worked or got full clearance.
I concentrated on the Hawk 128 as it could also have a inflight refueling probe fitted with little difficulty and the space where the second seat is could be used for additional avionics etc whilst retaining maximum commonality with the T2. Also the 100 series is still in production and evolving whist the 200 has been out od production for some time.
Returning to the IFR Probe, the RAF might be convinced to fit the T2 as well to allow training before going to OCUs.
Turning to EMP, this threat is well known and most military hardware is hardened aginst it to a certain level. It is possible to creat an EMP without using a nuke but I do not know if it has been weaponised yet or how portable it would be bu tthe level of techncal knowhow would be equal to if not higher than that for a nuke so I cannot see it being a widespread threat for the foreseeable future.
However having said all of the above the RAF is really going to have to concentrate on and fight for the maximum number of Typhoons it can get and ensure they are up to spec. The purchase of the F-35C should also be questioned if it has a major negative impact on this. I still think a buy of 40-60 F-18F would be a better option, with delivery earlier to allow units to form and gain carrier experience before the CVFs are delivered. Whilst a limited amout of Uk ordonnance would have to be cleared, by utilising US item such as the successor to HARM and the SDB and clearing them for the Typhoon we would have better commonality with our allies and probably have better tools ofr the job. Though many disagree I am against retaining a Defence Industry if it means we pay more for equipment than buying from other nations.
So with a front line force of 7 Typhoon and 3 F-18F the RAF and RN could carry out is missions without resorting to the purchase of a low end platform to maintain numbers in my opinion with out trying to fill the basket with over priced high end toys that are unproven and over priced. If we sold the carriers on completion it would make things even easier.
If Afghanistan is an example of a typical ’Lo’ end operation then there isn’t likely to be a supporting argument for adding a Lo end fleet to an existing Hi end fleet. It’s in the numbers: I’m not sure of what it is costing to maintain 12 Tornado’s in Afghanistan but I’d think it’s very doubtful that if these were 12 Gripen’s instead, that the saving in operating 12 Gripen instead of 12 Tornado, for the duration of the deployment, was enough to make a financial case for adding a whole new type to the RAF.
As you say, the cheapest aircraft is the ones you have already paid for. On the face of it there shouldn’t be a problem. The RAF has or will have 160 Typhoon and something in the order of 100 Tornado in its inventory. That should be enough to make a decent air force without having to buy anything else (the UK’s carrier aviation problems aside).
The issues for the RAF are:
- Increasing the availability of operable jets. Only having one out of, say, five jets operable is pathetic, as was the statement from some RAF type recently to the effect that the RAF is only just managing to keep up with its current tasking! Where would commercial airlines be if on a given day they could only manage that sort of availability?
- Developing the aircraft with new weapons and systems – which adds capability in much the same order as whole new aircraft. Actually the RAF is quite good at this and at reasonable levels of cost.
- The life of the aircraft. Not a problem at this point in time. The Tornado was intended to be in service to 2025 and the Typhoon would last a decade longer than that. There isn’t a Cold War going on – there is no reason to suppose that we are in imminent danger of a military failure now or even in ten years time if we haven’t bought the very newest jets in planning. What the RAF needs to do is break the habit of a lifetime and not buy the newest jet simply because it’s there, and instead get the maximum use out of what it already owns before saddling the taxpayer with the bill for its replacement.
A real bargain basement, from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_DA42
Depending on version:
- is diesel powered and can deliver 75% power with 51 l/ hr
- can stay up for 28 hrs
- can do away with pilot, so either no one onboard (just sensors), or two analysts/ TACs
- two already used by the RAF
Hi Richard W,
I don’t think there is any Gripen discussion without the carrier angle, RE “very doubtful that if these were 12 Gripen’s instead, that the saving in operating 12 Gripen instead of 12 Tornado, for the duration of the deployment, was enough to make a financial case for adding a whole new type to the RAF”
The “magic” Tornado number is 96, which is down to some already planned/ budgeted upgrades. I wonder what these are; as you say they (most?) would have a life to 2025 without (or not?)
As there will be no operational stealth in the inventory for many years to come, with present planes it would take about 4 Tornados to babysit a strike Typhoon through a SAM belt to its objective. If we have about 60 Typhoons by April, that would split the fleet down along the middle: 24 in strike role, 24 in AtoA role and 20% (is this aspirational?) not immediately available
- this is all theory, as the GA fit is not there (yet) for the Typhoons
- even as their numbers keep going up, the Typhoon Tranche limitations as for capability will be with us for many years, effectively at least to the retirement of Tornados
Against these numbers the at-the-ready expeditionary wing (of 12) on the carrier suddenly seems like a big number
- regardless of what it turns out to fly
CAS…? Nothing left for it, except helos, under this sort of earmarking
Based on what everyone says, the problem for RAF’s future seems to be F-35C.
It would appear most people who have posted do not think that the RAF can support a third type of fast jet, so it comes down finding the political will to pull of the F-35 programme, and buy a cheaper second fast jet type which can replace the Tornado in RAF service and fly of carriers.
Realistically the options are:
1) F/A-18 International – which is the Super Hornet design with integrated IRST, spherical MAWS, conformal tanks, and the weapon pod for further reduction of the RCS.
Pro – dedicated strike platform and guarantee of support until 2025 at least, and there is talk of keeping the F/A-18 until 2030 or even 2035. Some political capital for still buying American.
Con – few of our current weapons are integrated.
2) Sea Gripen, as per my earlier post.
Pro’s – cheap to buy, cheaper to operate, future proofed and cleared to use most of our current weapons and has some links to BAE’s so might be more acceptable to the Treasury.
Con’s – SAAB estimate of the development costs is unrealistic, and there is some risk in developing the Sea Gripen, and the two export markets for it (India and Brazil) will make their choices before we make a choice, leaving it too late for us to influence the outcomes or share development costs.
3) Rafale M -
Pro’s – it looks pretty, never paid enough attention to it to know if it has any other advantages, beyond allowing for a joint OCU with the French.
Con’s – very expensive compared to the F/A-18 International or the Sea Gripen.
All the other options simply lack the payload to replace the Tornado, even if they would be cheap. This includes my favourites the Jaguar II and AMX.
To me CV is best for theatre entry operation so adding you best theatre entry jet F35 with 60 jets total buys makes real sense. I agree typhoon with maximum capability around 160 jet gives us all the capability we need. The 5 to 1 deploy ability is same as the army and is for sustained operation so can do more than that for short periods.
As for the need for a low end CAS unless you mean as an increase on the numbers of high end jet we currently have then no. Hawk as CAS jet? only if your prepared to at least double your AAR aircraft or base them in country and be prepared to have a dramatically reduced payload. Great for Afghanistan but this is post 2015 and were not going to be invading countries any time soon imho.
As CAS aircraft TMM us cost are off I would suggest your £2billion would be about right for everything up to production eg test design tooling ect but then you need money to actually produce the jet so say double that you really 60 mill for your jet. Also 2 engines significantly increase you thru life support costs.
For me if you want to go for this type of aircraft it has to be sub sonic, metallic and no radar like GR9 in fact I would go and get some new build A10s or re-wing some of the stock at davis mountain. But for me the low end stuff should be reaper/watchkeeper and Apache.
As for diamond could it be manned and unmanned eg manned to deploy to theatre the used as uav once there?
I think this is a crucial debate: do we need cheaper kit to eke out the budget, or can we not afford anything that couldn’t “stand the line of battle”? Afghanistan is now a commitment that has a fixed end date so we probably shouldn’t pile up more stuff only useful there.
For example, I’m sure we’d all agree that had we expected to be in Helmand in force in 2006-2015, a couple of squadrons of DA42 with the fancy sensor pod and a couple of Brimstone and/or a big gun would have been near ideal. However we’d have had to get cracking in 2003-2004 to field them. If we were to do this now, we might get a year or so’s service before everybody but the BATT and SAS Sqn go home, and then end up with some aircraft with fancy and expensive mission kit that can’t be used outside a fairly permissive air environment. Of course, in the event of a remaining low-profile commitment they might well be handy.
Tubby
Another con for FA18 it will not be in production by 2015 unless they get a new order in the next couple of years. Also if we bin F35 now and the US don’t there will be huge industrial implications.
Hi Mark,
The likelihood is that the USN will keep the line open until 2018 or so, if the F-35 slips any further, plus the rumour mill has F/A-18 International as the winner in India.
While I have posted that it would be a simple case for LM to terminate BAE contracts and re-tender it is by no means certain that we would loose BAE’s contract and it is impossible for them to pull the RR contract. I believe there are also a few other small contracts in the UK using unique UK products where the intellectual property belongs to the company.
Of course this year is the crunch year, as I expect Gates to be the grim reaper and kill of programmes left, right and centre if they are sucking money and failing to deliver. My money is on the F-35A being the only survivor from the JSF programme.
The only that happens is the US navy order more aircraft but Gates may reduce the number of us aircraft carriers. But I agree India is the big unknown. LM doesn’t need to cancel BAE contracts just needs to apply enough pressure for them to move there production to a different site maybe one of BAEs in the US. The threat has already been made and be sure the UKs current work load will be offered up as offsets to any country that want to buy F35. Once you lose the capability to manufacture/design high end aircraft you don’t get it back.
I’ll have to look for someone else, then, re: this bet “My money is on the F-35A being the only survivor from the JSF programme” as we are on the same side
The idea of a high/low mix makes especially sense if you’re considering that even your “high tech” aircraft is usually obsolete against at least some OPFOR systems.
The proven historical approach to hi/lo was mostly to keep old jets in service as low end (see Mirage F.1C in French service alongside Mirage 2000C), the dedicated development of cheap combat aircraft such as G.91Y and AMX was rather rare and not very satisfactory.
A hi/lo mix with few high-end systems could be a very economical approach to the maintenance and development of skills. There would be a base of competent personnel who do their routine duty with low-end systems and could quickly (few months) be re-trained for NEW high-end systems (full exploitation of the new hardware would be possible after about two years).
The few high-end systems would meanwhile ensure that the service as a whole stays in touch with modern air war technology.
Such a force could quickly purchase NEW high-end systems (new and least obsolete design) to replace the low-end systems in order to get ready for major conflict in about three years. It would be better off after two years in comparison to a more expensive force which attempts to stay high-tech all the time, for decades.
You may agree or disagree about whether we would have two to three years warning time (official figure circulated in NATO is six years afaik) – I tend to assume that we would have two years warning before a major conflict (Great War). The arms race before WWI lasted from 1912-1914 and followed increased tensions since 1908.
The arms race before WW2 lasted from 1938-1939 and followed obvious indications and tensions since 1935.
@Richard W “What the RAF needs to do is break the habit of a lifetime and not buy the newest jet simply because it’s there, and instead get the maximum use out of what it already owns before saddling the taxpayer with the bill for its replacement.” Er, Lightning, Phantom, Jaguar, Tornado stayed stayed around for longer than the bargain Challenger I or the Invincible (in refit) class carriers.
My suggested asymmetric warfare aircraft is a variant of the Beechcraft King Air beefed up to carry SDBs and a ventral 30 mm cannon pack. Bolt a Wescam underneath and Bob’s your multi-role aircraft. Commonality with the already used Shadow R1 and King Air 200.
Hi Brian,
Your comment ” Er, Lightning, Phantom, Jaguar, Tornado stayed stayed around for longer than the bargain Challenger I or the Invincible (in refit) class carriers” is absolutely valid.
Could it be, however, that F-35 parallel is more with (V) Valiant and TSR2?
- the former performed to spec, but with a changed threat environment could not adapt to it (airframe was not for low-level operation) and had to be replaced (scrapped) after a very short service
- TSR2 flew well (according to test pilots) but even before entering production the evolving counter-measures had made it obsolescent, and not value for the very considerable money
Hi ArmChairCivvy,
Since we cannot bet that by the end of the year the F-35A will be the only part of the JSF programme that survives, do you want to bet on what will replace the USMC’s Harriers? I think the options are either – 1) nothing, they will end up having to build escort carriers to provide cover to their LHD’s and operate Super Hornet’s off their escort carriers or 2) that they will end up procuring a new STOL aircraft, possibly an extension of the Harrier.
While I like to bet that it is the former, as it makes the most sense, I am putting my money on the latter, new STOL aircraft, with a side bet that it suffers specification creep and ends ups costing a small fortune for mediocre performance.
Hi Tubby,
I think it will be this one ” 1) nothing, they will end up having to build escort carriers to provide cover to their LHD’s and operate Super Hornet’s off their escort carriers ”
- but in a more drastic form
- the Cobra life extensions have been probably the second most successful pursuit after B-52s (which will go out after 80 years of service), but there is an end to everything
- the failure of J-35B will dramatically reduce the utility of America class, and will lead to a more traditional design (and smaller size?)
- duplication between USN and USMC aviation will be reduced (Super Hornets can’t e easily forward based) with the rationale that smaller self-contained USMC units will get the fixed wing support from Army/ Navy (V-22 does not count as fixed wing)
Just my guess
@ Brian
err..No!! Armed King Air is a bad idea, Ok for Medium/High Attitude Recon out of range of gunfire/Manpads. I think the RAF would demand ejection seats as a minimum requirement for a combat aircraft so a ISTAR Supertucano,Texan AT-6 or my fav the OV-10X would be the best way to go.
How about Super Tucano at the low end?
Payload is only about 1500kg, but there are five hard points and Predator has shown what can be done with a few Hellfire. Low cost to buy and operate and up to seven hours endurance with extra fuel tank behind the pilot.
Afghanistan seems more like a COIN operation and this type of robust, lower speed aircraft seems to fit the requirements more than Typhoon and Tornado.
Earlier in the year TD posted about the viability of using a turbo prop such as the Super Tucano. The basic conclusion was that the savings made on getting a cheaper airframe like this were counteracted by the costs of another different aircraft in service and the quantities required to fill the gap of a jet. However, this was before the defence review.
Do we really need another jet? With the war against insurgency unlikely to completely disappear in the near future a fleet of relatively cheap turbo-props to replace the Tornado’s could make sense alongside the F-35s and Typhoons.
What do you guys think? Also, can super tucanos be operated from a carrier?
Hi Alex,
re operating Super Tucanos off a carrier,
you do not really want to convert any aircraft to operate from a carrier. Look at the time and cost of turning Hawk into T-45 Goshawk. For carriers, buy off the shelf proven naval aircraft.
Tucanos (or other cheap turboprops) could self deploy, with extra fuel tanks these turboprops should have pretty good range.
They all look pormising as ideas for a low intensity/medium intensity platform, especially the AMX, long in the tooth it may be, but I am curious as to why it has not been deployed as regularly to Afghanistan by the italians. The Italians mostly provided recon/ISTAR with their Tornadoes, but why hasen’t the AMX been deployed there as regularly if its a good option for afghan style ops? I remember reading that there were and are problems with the AMX, but what exactly escapes me!
Then again the simple answer may be because they dont want to get too involved.
Alex
I dont think we do need another jet. UAVs and indeed apache are excelling in afghan at the minute there are issues with uavs to iron out but to me they offer the cheapest way to provide this type of capability this is were the money needs spending not some high end UCAV. How much we spend to my mind depends on how similar future wars will be like afghan and should not be at the expensive on manned ISTAR assets.
As for carriers to me the greatest benefit for there aircraft is range and that is why for me F35C is the best optional available there.
Hi ACC,
I agree with your points about the Valiant and TSR2. It’s a pity that common sense didn’t prevail and the low level Valiant B2 ordered as the standard production variant to offer a real alternative to the Vulcan and Victor. As for TSR2, the engines would have caused no end of development problems and then there was the rest of the aircraft… In fact why wasn’t a licence to adapt and build the NAA Vigilante acquired? Or the RAF ordered to spec an afterburning non blown surface Buccaneer instead?
Hi IanB, aside from the cannon, wouldn’t an attack King Air be able to drop its bombs from medium altitude (or low with countermeasures)? And isn’t it faster than an Apache?
Hi Brian,
When you look at both, the design cues adopted for TSR2 were obvious (and free)
“licence to adapt and build the NAA Vigilante”
Hi ArmChairCivvy,
If the F-35B gets cancelled then I see several problems for the USMC. If they decide to go with escort carriers, which would be a reinstatement of policy of WWII then they likely will face resistance from the USN who would not like anyone risking future CVN replacements (i.e. if the USMC gets escort carriers there is less reason to replace CVN’s), while if they end up dependent upon CVN for air cover then they will find it increasingly difficult to get the air cover when they want it.
This is of course why the USMC are pushing for F-35B and will still want a supersonic STOL carrier.
PS Apologies to anyone else hoping for more discussion on the topic of if the RAF should get a bargain basement fighter, to bring it back on topic: I bet that most countries could buy a Chinese QW-1 or Russian Ingla MANPAD for a fraction of the cost of a Super Tucano or any other turbo-prop COIN aircraft, therefore COIN aircraft are no longer really valid as they cannot outrun a MANPAD and not optimised for operating outside the range of anti-aircraft guns. If we want a cheap fighter design for CAS/strike aircraft then we want one which can outrun a MANPAD, carry decent countermeasures, and whose optimum operating height is above the “trashfire” and who can carry a decent payload, ideally 1 Litening III pod, 2 drop tanks, 16 Brimstone and a pair of ASRAAM.
Sorry I realised in the last post I was talking nonsense, ignore the bit that says will still want a supersonic STOL Carrier, I mean that they will still want a supersonic STOL fighter if the F-35B is cancelled.
We cant afford it, and the requirement is dubious – in glorious full technicolour hindsight if the MOD / Treasury idiots were not idiots they would be kicking themselves for forcing the RAF brass to retire the Jaguar fleet early…..
No need for another jet, or Super Tucano. More helo’s would be a more flexible asset – armed AW149 for example, or perhaps reverse the idiocy of the Nimrod decision; how many SDB / Viper Strike could you cram into that bomb bay, with a massive endurance / time on station, great radar and built in EO/IR without recourse to a “pod” – but then again it could carry a pod too – my goodness, they could look in multiple directions at once…..
“Would a cheaper to buy and operate aircraft that could carry out the most likely tasks the RAF needs to cover, be so cheap that it overcomes the cost penalty of having an extra type in service.”
At this point it seems appropriate to quote a second world war US air-force general (?) who stated the following:
“that the only thing more expensive than having the worlds best airforce was having the worlds second best airforce!”
That said, in principle I have nothing against a Sea-Grippen or a Hawk 128 as a light CAS jet.
Jed and Jedibeeftrix,
While I have been singing the praises of cheap CAS aircraft I realised at end of this discussion that for future CAS you need an aircraft with at least 8 hard points and able to haul at least 4,000 kg of ordnance, possibly more. This means even a Sea Gripen (which might well work out as the cheapest carrier aircraft to operate) is only just cutting it, and brings us back firmly into the territory of F/A-18 International, Rafale and F-35C. Personally I still go with the Sea Gripen as it best meets the requirements of the JCA, but there is the problem of the risk of turning the Gripen NG into a carrier aircraft as I am not convinced that SAAB have really got a handle on them.
Tubby
I don’t think anything can actually “out run” a MANPADS depending on the targets position in the firing envelope there is usually a “cannot evade” zone. So the question is, could a Super Tucano or a Hawk be fitted with an active missile approach warner and a directed (laser) infra-red countermeasures set, the same equipment that is required to protect helicopters !