Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Miramar_14_MV-22_1965a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_0358a.JPG

Miramar_14_GR4_1646a.JPG

Miramar_14_LF_0221a.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Royal Air Force [RAF] discussions and updates

This is a discussion on Royal Air Force [RAF] discussions and updates within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; i couldnt find a general thread on the raf.. is there one? my apologies if there is.. with most people ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 3.00 average.
Old October 14th, 2007   #1
Junior Member
Private First Class
neil's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 91
Threads:
Royal Air Force [RAF] discussions and updates

i couldnt find a general thread on the raf.. is there one? my apologies if there is..

with most people discussing the world super power usaf so much.. some very interesting developments in the rest of the worlds air forces are often missed.. and so is the place of the raf in all this..

the major air forces of europe are all so close in strength.. with some just a little better balanced than others.. with italy moving towards a fighter force of some 200 planes by around 2020.. germany to around 285.. and france to around 300.. the raf seems to be hanging in space with the possibillity of landing somewhere in between them as far as fighter numbers are concerned..

with a current front line of 8 squadrons of tornado gr4.. 3 of tornado f3.. 2 of harrier gr9.. 2 of typhoon.. thats 15 fighter squadrons total..
the raf is looking at a reduction in fighter strength..

however even with a reduction in numbers.. the future fighter force will be extremely well balanced and completely multi role capable with f35 and typhoon..

these aircraft will be available in numbers large enough to do what is asked of the fighter force.. although it will continue to require a high operational tempo.. (although a problem is looming when it comes to providing an air group for the future royal navy carriers)

the raf should still be able to provide a strike force of a size similar to the one it provided in operation granby in the 1991 gulf war.. with the added bonus of weapons like storm shadow.. paveway IV.. and brimstone.. and of course the capability of the well trained professional raf aircrew..

with significant ISTAR capability to back up this force.. sentry.. sentinel.. nimrod mra4..nimrod R1..(if they are still around in 2020) plus significant uav capability.. predator.. watchkeeper.. and the secritive BAE UCAV lurking in the background..

all this translates to huge firepower inteligence and presicion capabilities.. if funded properly and it is not allowed to become a bit of a paper tiger..

looking at supporting assets the lease deal on 14 airbus tankers might be a bit hard pressed to support all the shiny new fighter planes..

the transport fleet will recieve a significant boost with arrival of more c17 and A400M.. however industry delays might cause slow replacement of old air frames causing difficulties as pressure on the transport fleet is only likely to increase with the war on terror..

another very interesting development to watch will be uk military flying training system.. contracted out to industry with all the potensial problems this may bring..

all in all things are looking good for the raf.. and i know i painted a picture here as seen through the rosy glasses of a wanna be optimist.. but feel free to add or detract from my optimism..

and hey.. if storm shadow or paveway IV is integrated on nimrod MRA4.. we might even see the return of the RAF big wing bomber!!!
neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2007   #2
Junior Member
Private First Class
neil's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 91
Threads:
o.. and i didn't forget the support helicopter force.. but there is already a thread on active uk helicopter strength..
neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2007   #3
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,615
Threads:
The C-130J will be good for many years to come, & the A400M will replace the old C-130s at more than 1:1, & each can carry twice the payload, further & faster. That's a big increase in capability.

14 A330MRTT isn't enough, agreed. Although it'll increase the average capacity of each tanker considerably, it'll be a big cut in hoses in the air. But I think we'd be better off with more smaller aircraft to supplement the A330s, rather than more A330s. Hose kits for a substantial number of the A400M - at least 10 - would be a a good idea (IIRC the A400M comes ready plumbed), though that runs the risk of cutting into the airlift. Perhaps a few more A400M, to make up for it.

Or (heretical as this may be), some A310MRTT conversions ASAP, as an interim measure to enable us to retire some of the most clapped-out current tankers, & later, supplement the bigger A330s.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2007   #4
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,915
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
Hose kits for a substantial number of the A400M - at least 10 - would be a a good idea (IIRC the A400M comes ready plumbed)
Not just plumbed for it: according to the Airbus page on the A400M, you simply slap a pair of pods onto the wing pylons, push two fuel tanks in the cargo bay (for an extra 12 tons pushing em to 58 tons fuel) and hook them up - and done.
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2007   #5
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
Truculent's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 110
Threads:
A few comments on the above posts:
Will an A400M be able to tank at a reasonable speed/altitude or will it have to do it whilst descending?
There are very few available/suitable A310s and they are costly to support.A lot of their avionics is becoming outdated and the A300/310 family do not age well.
An A330 can hold 112 tonnes of fuel in its tanks-this is twice the fuel capacity of a 310.It can achieve an altitude of 35000 feet and a speed of up to 0.86 with this fuel load.A 310 will be altitude limited and can only do a max of 0.81.
The 330 is a far superior aircraft and would be my choice.
________________
Member of:Naval Review,USNI,USSL,NDA
Truculent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2007   #6
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,615
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truculent View Post
A few comments on the above posts:
Will an A400M be able to tank at a reasonable speed/altitude or will it have to do it whilst descending?
There are very few available/suitable A310s and they are costly to support.A lot of their avionics is becoming outdated and the A300/310 family do not age well.
An A330 can hold 112 tonnes of fuel in its tanks-this is twice the fuel capacity of a 310.It can achieve an altitude of 35000 feet and a speed of up to 0.86 with this fuel load.A 310 will be altitude limited and can only do a max of 0.81.
The 330 is a far superior aircraft and would be my choice.
Yes, it's a far superior aircraft. But with AAR, the capacity of individual aircraft is far from the only factor. A larger number of aircraft will have a higher cycle rate. No point having the best tanker in the world, if by the time your strike group has all tanked up, it's time for the first one to refuel again. The number of hoses in the air counts.

There is also delivery time to take into account. I've read reports that some of our tankers are in very poor condition, due to their sheer age, & there are real worries that we'll face a shortfall because of forced retirement before the A330s can be delivered. A310 conversions could be available much sooner - or even A300 conversions (more available secondhand) - the A310 conversion should carry over with little modification.

Even the most heavily used tanker has a low usage rate compared to what airlines put their aircraft through. A secondhand airliner would have many years life as a tanker. The Chilean air force estimates 20 years for theirs. Spares are plentiful & will remain so for many years. And as for aging badly & dated avionics - well, maybe so, but compared to a VC10?

Remember, this isn't instead of the A330s, but to tide us over (if that's needed) until they're in service, & then as a supplement.

The A400M will be able to refuel helicopters, which is a capability we could do with. As for tanking fighters - well, the good old KC-130H can do it, & isn't any faster - (scroll down for picture)
http://force.navair.navy.mil/c130_projects.htm
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2007   #7
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
Truculent's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 110
Threads:
I have flown the A300/310 family and the A330.
The 300/310 line is now closed.I suppose if you compare them to a vc-10 they are modern,but the 310 and 300-600 family were used to prove a lot of the systems for the A320.Once Airbus had proved the technology they lost interest in the 300 family.The ecam is still the same as it was in 1988 and it means that you have a very large QRH to sort any technical problems out.They are also prone to electronic interference.
When the RAF took delivery of the L1011 they were autoland capable.I know a chap who was a TP at Boscombe Down when they did the trials on it.With all the kit the RAF put in it they did not have the time or money to prove that none of it wouldn't interfere with the autoland system so the capability was lost.The 300 is a largely analogue aircraft with some digital bits grafted on, and again this is a weakness of the design.I am sure that trying to modify it to mil standards would be very difficult.
I currently operate the 300 and trying to keep it serviceable is very challenging.If the RAF did buy some I would suggest a large purchase of hydraulic fluid as they leak very badly.The wing is optimised for short flights and the aircraft doesn't fly very high or fast.Loading the thing to mtow is a very black art and Airbus themselves had one sit on its tail a number of years ago.
All I can say about the 330 is that it is the best aircraft I have ever flown.Stunning performance and very easy to operate.
I suppose if you want to refuel helicopters then a turbo prop is the way to go.I am sure that for political reasons we will end up with some A400s. When the 787 appears in a few years time there should be some 330s around.I am surprised that BAs 767 fleet has not been mentioned as a source of aircraft as they must be coming up for replacement soon and would be a good choice.BA will not get a lot of money for them as they are almost unique because they have RR engines.
________________
Member of:Naval Review,USNI,USSL,NDA

Last edited by Truculent; October 15th, 2007 at 09:31 AM.
Truculent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2007   #8
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,615
Threads:
Truculent,

thanks for the insights into A300 - though note that the Luftwaffe & Canadian Air Force have A310 in service as tankers, & aren't the systems on A300 & A310 very similar? If not, I'd be grateful if you could let me know.

As for the A400M - it's not a question of "for political reasons we will end up with some A400s" - we have 25 on order, & everything I hear suggests we need them. To meet transport needs, we have to have something bigger than a C-130, but the C-17 is expensive, & bigger than necessary for many loads. We're currently using C-17s to carry loads which are too big for a C-130, but which we don't really need a C-17 for. The A400M will fit in very nicely, freeing up the C-17s to do what only they can do, & costing far less than the number of C-17s we'd otherwise need.

The BA 767 idea is potentially good, but I'm not sure about the timescales. They may start retiring rather late for a quick fix for a short-term RAF tanker deficit.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2007   #9
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
Truculent's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 110
Threads:
You have to look at why the Germans and Canadians have these aircraft.
The German 310s belonged to Interflug the East German state carrier.After reunification they belonged to the German government so they probably cost the Luftwaffe nothing.
The Canadian ones belonged to Wardair ,a Canadian company.Wardair merged with a few other airlines to become Canadian Airlines,which was primarily a Boeing operator.The Airbuses were sidelined and eventually bought by the Canadian government.
Systems wise the 300/310 are almost identical.The other problem with them is simulators.They are starting to become quite rare and my company has to travel to Germany or the UAE from the UK to use one.The German one is shortly going to be modernised as its owner has decided to modenise its A300 fleet.
Airbus may still have one but it was in very poor condition last time I flew it.
________________
Member of:Naval Review,USNI,USSL,NDA
Truculent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2007   #10
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
Truculent's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 110
Threads:
A production list of the 310 can be found here:
http://www.plane-spotters.net/Produc...310/index.html
The majority of the active fleet is owned by FEDEX.The -200 is not really worth looking at due to its reduced fuel capacity.A Bangladesh 310 was written off this year in Dubai and the insurers gave the company $22 million for it.
A comparison between the -200/300 can be found here:
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...fications.html
________________
Member of:Naval Review,USNI,USSL,NDA
Truculent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2007   #11
Junior Member
Private First Class
neil's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 91
Threads:
whilst i whole heartedly agree that a purchase/lease of second hand airframes is the way to go to plug the impending capability gap.. the fact is i believe a company did propose exactly that in the run up to the selection of the airtanker private finance initiative bid..

however the ministry rejected it after concideration so i fear.. its not gonna happen..

on the bright side.. even with just 14 A330's the raf would still posses the second most capable air to air refueling fleet outside of the u.s. with the french coming in third..

i suppose all would be allocated to a single squadron.. here's an interesting question..suppose the raf had just 14 A330's today.. nothing else.. would that be enough to sustain current commitments? (one or two operational deployments plus normal training activities.. taking maintainance downtime into account)

p.s. i believe the airtanker deal calls for only 9 A330's to be available full time to the raf.. with the raf having first use of the other 5.. (does this mean the ministry of defence believes 9 airframes to be sufficient for peace time commitments?
neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2007   #12
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,915
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truculent View Post
The German 310s belonged to Interflug the East German state carrier.After reunification they belonged to the German government so they probably cost the Luftwaffe nothing.
Sorry, but you got the wrong A310.

The three A310 taken over from Interflug still fly in "passenger configuration" - one as passenger jet with original seating configuration (in particular flying troops in/out of deployments), two as VIP jets for the government with internal rebuilds. BW serials are 10+21 (VIP), 10+22 (VIP), 10+23 (passenger).
The three aircraft - bought new by Interflug in 1989 - were bought by the government for 25% of their original order cost, after Interflug was taken over by Lufthansa.

The four A310 that were modified into A310MRT were used aircraft (Airbus A310-304, all ex-Lufthansa) bought for the purpose, and were ordered straight along with the reconfiguration (carried out by Lufthansa Technik and Airbus). BW Serials are 10+24, 10+25, 10+26, 10+27. None of them ever flew for Interflug, they were Lufthansa machines.
These four aircraft were bought to replace retired Boeing 707s, first two in 1996, third in 1998, fourth in 1999. Between 2002 and 2004, these were rebuilt into MRTT.
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2007   #13
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
Truculent's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 110
Threads:
The Luftwaffe aircraft were all unwanted airliners regardless of which side of the wall they came from,and I am not sure what this sort of aircraft spotting nitpicking has to add to any debate about a purchase by the RAF.
________________
Member of:Naval Review,USNI,USSL,NDA

Last edited by Truculent; October 15th, 2007 at 05:22 PM.
Truculent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2007   #14
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,915
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truculent View Post
The Luftwaffe aircraft were all unwanted airliners regardless of which side of the wall they came from
Not really. Lufthansa operated 25 A310, bought between 1982 and 1991. Which were generally sold after around 10-15 years in service, or leased in and out around the international market (as usual), the last of them only sold in 2004 finally. Common business. It was a well-liked aircraft with state-of-the-art technology of the 80s.

The Luftwaffe was looking for a straight replacement of its elderly Boeing 707-307C fleet bought in 1968. The A310 MRT was available relatively cheap and perfectly fit the bill, size- and capacity-wise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truculent View Post
and I am not sure what this has to do with a purchase by the RAF.
Well, you said "consider where the German A310 come from"...
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16th, 2007   #15
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
Truculent's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 110
Threads:
Kato thank you for the history lesson on German commercial aviation of the last twenty years.
A list of available A310 can be seen here:
http://www.planemart.com/FAA/Listings.asp

and B767-300er can be seen here:
http://www.planemart.com/FAA/Listings.asp
________________
Member of:Naval Review,USNI,USSL,NDA
Truculent is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:48 AM.