The Future of the RAF 20 – Building Regional Security
Share by EmailThis is the last post in the Future of the RAF Series and let’s be honest, it has been a bit fragmented and troublesome!
In addition, my mammoth detour into the history of air operations in the last 60 odd years in response to the PTT absorbed a lot of time but given the nature of the current debate I think it was worth it, I certainly learned a lot and if anything, it made be a more enthusiastic supporter of organic maritime fast jet aviation, but that aside, it’s time to push on.
When I started the Navy series the underlying principle that guided my rambling was the need to be more forward deployed, having a presence, investing in regional security, integrating overseas aid, building local relationships, generating quality intelligence to reduce the need to intervene.
Some might call this meddling and the money to do it would undoubtedly need a rethink in force composition and equipment plans and despite the thousands of words written I still think this is a sensible approach for the UK. A hard as coffin nails, full spectrum, core, surrounded by a few specialist capabilities that provide influence in a coalition (the most likely nature of operations) and a greater emphasis on development.
So where does this leave the air component?
So far the general thrust of this series (air) has been to reduce the fast jet component and change priorities to ISR, Support Helicopters, training and logistics. Although not specifically linked to the overall TD position it is still applicable to whichever road we travel.
Just as I proposed the forward presence squadron concept in the Navy series I think the RAF should do similar, and in fact, integrate with those Forward Presence Squadrons. Just to recap, the FPS was not really about ships or locations, it was a concept that saw a forward deployed, multi agency capability and there is no reason at all why this cannot also include an air component.
So this proposal suggests an RAF capability that combines training, intelligence and operational support for those forward presence squadrons with the obvious exception of being less tied to the sea.
The three military academies and various training schools (including the Empire Test Pilot School) already cater for this, many personnel from foreign forces have been trained in the UK. Of course this is sometimes not a good thing but on balance, it is hugely beneficial and should continue as if, in fact, if not more so.
This proposal would see this UK training remain, with no change.
The problem, if it could be described as a problem, is that the numbers are relatively small and the students are out of their normal environment. It also means that because the trainers are out of the students normal environment any relationship building and intelligence value derived from those relationships will be minimal.
One is not better than the other but they are different and I want the benefit of both.
The Regional Assistance and Development Squadrons (RADS)
Like the maritime FPS, RADS is designed to help developing nations develop their own security instead of us having to get involved at a later stage with the obvious benefits of enhancing intelligence gathering and horizon scanning for emergent threats.
Whilst it is possible to generate a reasonable capability for modest cost in the maritime domain the, and therefore obtained in quantity, the same cannot be said for aviation, where onboard toilet seats cost £10k so we have to have sensible limits.
We already have elements of this capability, the ex Bulgarian Mil 17’s being used to train Afghan pilots is a great example but the RADS would be a formal and permanently established organisation but with a flexible composition.
RADS would comprise three broad areas;
- Aviation Operations
- Fixed Wing
- Rotary
Aviation Operations would cover the ‘back office’ areas like logistics, air traffic control, intelligence, planning, facility design and construction, engineering maintenance and the management of personnel. Fixed and rotary are of course self explanatory but specialist areas, like maritime rotary for example, would be dealt with on a needs basis.
This would not be one or two advisors in a multinational group but something with scale that could act as ‘consultants’ to assess the training needs and deploy a tailored training programme on an ongoing basis until that emerging air force had achieved critical mass to stand on its own two feet. The non flying elements are equipment independent but if the supported nation has a predominantly Russian equipment base then there should be no reason why the RADS could not employ other nation’s instructors, either on a contract basis or as a formal relationship between the three nations.
It might also be an opportunity to utilise sponsored reserves and provide service personnel with a career transition from service life to an arrangement that sees them employed on a civil service basis.
Employment and manning flexibility is the key attribute.
Most nations will of course want to have modern jets, when the US tried to offer the emerging Iraqi airforce some old kit they said no thanks, can we have some F16’s please but they had to walk before they could run and made great use of simple equipment like Cessna Combat Caravans and Seabird Seekers.
Equipment and Resources
When it comes to equipment and fixed infrastructure resources we should adopt a similarly flexible approach, especially when it comes to funding.
Apart from fighter jets and attack helicopters, most equipment in a developing nation’s air force will have a dual use and therefore a creative use of development aid to support the funding stream should not be something to be somehow embarrassed about.
A typical example would be surveillance and patrol aircraft, in addition to military and paramilitary roles they might also be used for fisheries protection, monitoring crops and soil condition, geospatial mapping or aeromedical evacuation from remote areas.
By breaking down the barriers between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence there could be a truly joined up approach. Of course Guardian readers would be crying into their latte’s about development money being used to fund military or paramilitary equipment but the purpose of development aid is to deliver security for the UK by providing economic security for the host nation, a fisheries protection capability, for example, is core to this goal.
Let’s not be squeamish or embarrassed, this is the UK’s money after all.
If we use UK designers and fund local contractors to build a runway, how is that a bad thing to do?
Flying and support equipment would go the same route, if we need to put our hands in DFiD’s pockets to provide the Sierra Leone defence force with 3 or 4 Britten Norman Defenders for offshore patrol, let’s just crack on and do it.
Supported nations do not always need the very latest equipment so going into the value range of equipment need not create such a cost overhead as to be unsustainable and we should always consider that long term, the equipment needs to be supported.
In some instances there will be no need for any equipment and if they do need equipment of a more military nature, might have the funds to obtain it themselves. In this instance it would be expertise, mentoring and training that would form the core of the RADS mission.
In others, we might be starting from scratch with modest aims, developing the Afghan air force would be very different to developing the Sierra Leone ‘air force’ and as different again to assisting Singapore.
RADS should have a tailored package to suit all.
To the sweet shop, post haste.
Apart from the usual Here are a few suggestions for the type of basic equipment we might gift to our regional partners if we were starting from the bottom rung.
A Defender 4000 would be the obvious candidate, cheap, tough and with tiny running costs they also have the added benefits of coming from the UK and being in service with UK forces.
Or how about the new Twin Otter
Viking of Canada recently resurrected production of the venerable DHC Twin Otter and have been getting some serious orders from customers as diverse as the Vietnamese Navy and Zimex Aviation in Switzerland
The Series 400 has many improvements over the old model and its versatility is obvious; wheels floats or skis and the environmental hardening to operate in these diverse environments mean its legendary toughness has been retained.
Performance highlights are as follows;
STOL Takeoff and Landing Distance: 1200 ft (366m) (Takeoff distance to 50 ft)
Maximum Cruise Speeds: TAS Sea Level: 170 kt, 5,000 ft: 181 kt, 10,000 ft: 182 kt
Payload for 100 nautical mile (185km) range: 4280 lb (1941 kg), 400 nautical mile (741 km) range: 3250 lb (1474 kg)
Maximum Endurance with Standard Tankage (2583 lb (1172 kg) fuel): 7 hr 10 min, with Long Range Tankage (3190 lb (1447 kg) fuel): 9 hr
Viking have also introduced the Guardian 400 specifically for the surveillance, security, sovereignty and search and rescue market that has an extended range fuel tank (10 hour operations) and an electro-optical and infrared imaging turret which can be displayed on either the flight deck Honeywell Primus Apex Multi Function Display, or on a separate cabin console.
Other features might a include spotter camera, laser range finder, laser illuminator a light weight, 360 degree digital color radar system with Track-While-Scan capability, including long range navigation position update, target positions transmission, location latitude and longitude, target heading and velocity. The Guardian 400 will be equipped with 4 crew observation stations, rescue equipment drop hatch, air operable cargo door, search light, and a galley with adjacent lavatory and not forgetting, 4 wing hard points for additional stores.
The basic model is as cheap as chips.
The Vietnamese Navy order works out at about $5 million Canadian each and that includes initial training and logistics. The target airframe cost is less than $4 million Canadian.
Strap a couple of Hellfire missiles to the wing hardpoints, like the Iraqi’s did with their Combat Caravans and you have a basic strike/CAS capability. Of course it’s not a GR9 but then it doesn’t need to be.
There are a myriad of other options as well and just to show how much capability you can get for chicken feed have a look at the Seabird Seeker from the joint Australian/Jordanian company, Seabird Aviation.
The Seabird Seeker would seem to have inherited the mantle of the Edgeley Optica in being a very low cost fixed wing helicopter alternative.
The Seeker SB7L-360 aerial surveillance platform is simple, easy to handle aircraft with a 5 hour duration and although it is slow it remains incredibly cheap.
It has even been trialled with the same iMaster SAR as on Watchkeeper
[scribd id=55498514 key=key-13s4c4zntyq071f7ufj1 mode=list]
[scribd id=55498540 key=key-bwchnerp4m8eq7hz633 mode=list]
The basic model comes in at $250,000 and even with all the extras like an Wescam EO turret, video downlink, communications and survivability enhancements is still well short of a million dollars.
Running costs are equally tiny and yet what it provides is an aerial observation platform that can act as a huge force multiplier for operational areas that are large and remote.
A few more videos here
## 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
Category: Thoughts on the Future
About the Author (Author Profile)
Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Forward Presence, RN or RAF – Meh…..
I really don’t see which countries we are going to engage with to improve our own security by improving theirs; I am very happy to be enlightened by the Geo-political experts or security studies students though….
I’m a big supporter of using Aid money for security-related activities.
What bemuses me is thinking about what Guardian readers would think of Italy if they knew that, here, programmes such as the F35 gets billions in funding from the Economic Development Ministry because of their effect on the national industry base, and ships such as the Cavour and amphibs of the navy have been co-financed by MOD and Aid Ministry, since both kind of vessels (Cavour went to Haiti after the earthquake) are well suited for the delivery of disaster-relief.
That’s why a defence ministy such as the italian one, which officially has not a so-big budget, manages to place orders for 116 NH90 helicopters or gets the only F35 assembly factory outside the US.
The UK is too politically correct.
The minimum that the Aid Ministry could do was to “adopt” Largs Bay under the same (perfectly acceptable) justification. After all, they were all too happy to use Largs to go to Haiti.
Wouldnt fancy being in that Seabird thing when the bad guys start shooting back…..
So the point of the naval articles was to emphasize forward presence rather than fleet power, and the point of the air force articles is more forward presence and fewer fast jets. Instead of how to water down capability, which indded might be necessary in financially difficult times, I’d love to see an article here on what the MOD could to do, given its budget, to maximize its power. There was an article some months ago on the aptly named Fantasy Fleet blog on how the UK could maximize its influence by concentrating on its tremendous advantage in naval technology. The article is here: http://fantasyfleet.blogspot.com/2010/10/towards-maritime-doctrine-super-power.html
A bit off topic, but is the cockpit glazing on the Seabird identical to the Gazelle’s or is it just me?
Despite everything I’ve said about cheap stuff over the last few days….
I really like both the Twin Otter and the Seabird! I think they’re cool bits of kit for what they are, just as long as we don’t try taking on anything too tough with them.
I definitely support the use of military aid/training overseas to allow us to get into the pockets of certain nations.
Africa has a fair amount of potential for growth, and the Chinese are already exploiting this in Angola. We need to get in there as well.
It also helps to build up a “global basing” strategy. With ports and airfields across the world open for the RAF and RN to visit, that gives you some serious reach.
Like it.
Africa is going to be a bigger market than Asia, it has a rapidly growing middle class and eventually, significant mobile phone penetration and other growth indicators, economics will take over from tribalism and civil war in the next 20 to 30 years
Africa will also continue to be a key source of food and other natural resources, why do you think the Chinese are giving Sierra Leone patrol vessels for example.
It gets them into the governments and civil service organisations at a level that will make sense for them, they don’t worry to much about wimins diversity workshops or contraception clinics but go straight for trade and infrastructure that enables trade. They don’t put conditions on the aid they provide, they just crack on with building economies
Who do you think has it right, us, or China
This is the point of the forward presence idea, to get us under the skin of these emerging markets and it is this that will provide economic benefit to the UK, with economic benefit comes security benefit.
There is also the intelligence spin off
Lets concentrate less on kit and more on actual long term security
On the Seabird Seeker, of course its not a combat aircraft but at half a million quid all in, its great for security, as opposed to combat and I used it as an example, there are hundreds more of varying capabilities.
There was a great show about the Chinese influence in various countries. The guy showed how they were helping Angola to build large, american style malls, using chinese labour. They’re investing heavily in the railroads as well, to help move natural resources (which they have all the mining contracts for) to the coast, where they’re also investing in ports. And naturally they’re getting large oil imports from Angola, diversifying their base of resource collection.
They’re also making large inroads in Brazil, identifying the clear development of that country and the possibilities that exist.
Say what you want about the Chinese and their economic boom, they’re going about it really smartly and our planning for the future. Very clever, more so than us and the US.
Wasn’t there a British aircraft that looked similar to the Seeker way back in 1970s?
I have been enjoying that Flying Wild Alaska programme on Discovery. It is amazing where they land some of the ‘planes; not just small ones either but 8 or 9 seaters capable of carrying a ton or two. I don’t think “elf and safety” would let armed forces even attempt some of the day to day stuff those Alaskan pilots do day in and day out.
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/flying-wild-alaska/
@ Chris B re China
The West could have done the same in Africa back in the 1970s when Europe pulled out. But business and human rights aren’t always compatible. The Chinese give the African elites what they want and do “business.” The West tries social engineering, hamstrings its own companies, and falls behind. Not saying that is good or bad. Of course the only reason why China is where it is now is because “we” wanted ever cheaper and cheaper stuff. They have generated so much cash now the West is a secondary (still sizeable) market.
The Chinese are also allowing ever greater sums of inward investment from foreign companies, very similar to when the likes of Toyota and Honda penetrated the US market. They’re mostly making sure that these companies form subsidaries in which China can keep a hand, but it shows a very smart and forward thinking policy is at work here. I’m not sure where they got their economists from, but they’re making our shower of shit politicians look like amateurs.
Communism anyone?
Well it is difficult to compete with a state who’s economic plans stretch for decades. We will swap governments several times in that time. Has true Communism ever be extant?
Erm, no. I don’t think it legitimately has.
Whatever solution is discussed, it is worth remembering that land-based aircraft cannot be sea based, whereas sea based aircraft can be operated just as well from land bases. If you’re spending loads of taxpayers cash on a new aircraft, don’t buy two types buy one and ensure it can operate from a deck.
Welcome to TD John, thems are wise words!
The only trouble with that argument John (hello by the way) is that to qualify a plane has to be usable from a ship deck in the first place. So Hercules for example is out of the question.
I can also see the merits in using aircraft like the Twin Otter and the Seabird Seeker. They’re not carrier capable, but then they don’t really need to be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfwJJD5jGXk
x, that would need some wing folding
TD
That why it did not get any further – even on a US Super carrier there was no where to put it!
That wasn’t a CVN it was a Forrestal; give or take an inch or 2 the same size as CVF.
Perhaps we need to keep some C130s after all?
I stand corrected.
@ Chris B
One does try one’s best.
How the bloody hell do they get that thing airborne again?
Chris: lots of throttle… no JATO or catapult required, apparently.
You couldn’t house a Herc on a carrier, but you could certainly fly one off it. This is what I was hinting at by suggesting a Hercules-based bomber (Hercaster?) for the carrier-capable medium bomber on the other thread. You park HMS Brenda (CVF-01) off the coast of Libya (or wherever) and then you fly your Hercasters on via Sigonella, and they fuel up, bomb up, and take off again for their missions. Every ten sorties or so they divert back to Sigonella for a quick overhaul and refit. End of campaign, HMS Brenda sails for home and the Hercs fly off and back home separately.
I bet you could put a Twin Otter down on a carrier no problems. They are incredibly robust – they have to be given where Loganair, etc land them. And with their short landing and takeoff rolls you probably wouldn’t need cats and traps, so no tailhook.