Royal Air Force (RAF) discussions and updates

[neil]

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]

o.. and i didn't forget the support helicopter force.. but there is already a thread on active uk helicopter strength.. :)

[swerve]

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.

[kato]

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.

[Truculent]

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.

[swerve]

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

[Truculent]

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.

[swerve]

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.

[Truculent]

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.

[Truculent]

A production list of the 310 can be found here:
http://www.plane-spotters.net/Production_List/Airbus/A310/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/aircraftfamilies/a300a310/a310/specifications.html

[neil]

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?

[kato]

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.

[Truculent]

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.

[kato]

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.

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"...

[Truculent]

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

[Truculent]

It would appear that the A400M may be behind schedule:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7048103.stm

[neil]

yes indeed..

this announcement could not have come at a worse time with current raf transport assets stretched as they are..

the old C130K's may just have to serve a while longer yet..

one wonders what impact these delays will have on countries in the future selecting as yet unbuilt aircraft as replacements for old planes that HAVE to be retired..

or perhaps defence planners should stop this practice of starting replacement programmes too late, since in the todays high tech world delays in programmes are inevitable..

[neil]

Just read an interesting article in the Ocober edition of Air Forces Monthly.

Some very negative comments are made by serving RAF pilots. Apparantly there is some unhappiness amongst the ranks, with members feeling the top brass is letting them down when it comes to speaking out against cuts to force structure etc. with Army and Navy chiefs being much more vocal in their opposition to cuts.

Further more, according to the article, there is also a negative feeling about the practice of removing squadron markings from individual Tornado GR4 aircraft as they are increasingly operated in a 'pool' of aircraft resembling two super squadrons at the two main operating bases(RAF Marham and RAF Lossiemouth) within the expiditionary air wing concept.

I suppose these are the kind of problems being experienced world wide by air forces with tight purse strings.

However to take a positive from all this.. I believe the fact that in spite of these issues, the RAF continues to perform exeptionally well is a tribute to the professionalism of its members.

According to another article in the same issue, it is rumoured that no 78 Squadron, when taking the new Merlin HC3A to Afghanistan next year, will be operating in the special forces support role since the 7 Squadron Chinooks currently performing this role, are so stretched that civilian Mi - 8 's have to help.

[Truculent]

I came across this Q+A on the FSTA in the RAF:
http://www.freewebs.com/ministryofdements/index.htm

[Truculent]

Air Tanker the company whom are meant to be supplying a PFI solution to the RAF are having a few difficulties:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article2602476.ece

[swerve]

Air Tanker the company whom are meant to be supplying a PFI solution to the RAF are having a few difficulties:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article2602476.ece

A bit out of date. Latest reports suggest that potential lenders have woken up to it being a government deal, & effectively government-guaranteed, & they now have credit offered at about 50 basis points over LIBOR.

[Truculent]

A bit out of date. Latest reports suggest that potential lenders have woken up to it being a government deal, & effectively government-guaranteed, & they now have credit offered at about 50 basis points over LIBOR.
Latest reports?Please provide details.

[swerve]

Latest reports?Please provide details.

Sorry, I don't take notes of all the print media I read. Can't remember if it was in the FT or JDW. Read it in the last couple of days.

[Truculent]

It is very easy to discredit a post with a sweeping statement,but it should be supported with evidence.I have looked myself and cannot find any for your statement Swerve.

[swerve]

It is very easy to discredit a post with a sweeping statement,but it should be supported with evidence.I have looked myself and cannot find any for your statement Swerve.

JDW, online article dated 31-10-2007. I read it in the print edition. I don't have a subscription.

Since that took me two minutes to find, in one of the two places I said I thought I'd read it, you can't have looked very hard.

[neil]

I cannot believe that the UK government would allow this deal to fall through. After all the controversy they had during the selection proccess, they wouldn't want to look foolish especially after PFI proposals have been rejected in other RAF programmes, such as the support helicopter replacement.

Anyway, good news that they got the credit in the end.

[Truculent]

It was not in the FT and as I do not have a subscription to JDW,,then I will have to take your word for it.Funny that none of the financial press have mentioned it.

[swerve]

I cannot believe that the UK government would allow this deal to fall through. After all the controversy they had during the selection proccess, they wouldn't want to look foolish especially after PFI proposals have been rejected in other RAF programmes, such as the support helicopter replacement.

Anyway, good news that they got the credit in the end.

IIRC (this is from memory) it didn't say they have the credit signed sealed & delivered, but that the hiccup when credit dried up everywhere was over, & negotiations were proceeding on the basis of more favourable terms than before the credit crunch. Lenders seem to have decided that it's a safe haven for their money. Fair enough, given the state backing.

Still a bloody stupid deal. We should buy the damn things outright, & if we have spare capacity (unlikely unless we buy more), make a deal with a firm with suitable skills to operate any spare aircraft, wet-leasing them to whoever might want 'em - e.g. some of our allies.

[Truculent]

IIRC (this is from memory) it didn't say they have the credit signed sealed & delivered, but that the hiccup when credit dried up everywhere was over, & negotiations were proceeding on the basis of more favourable terms than before the credit crunch. Lenders seem to have decided that it's a safe haven for their money. Fair enough, given the state backing.

Still a bloody stupid deal. We should buy the damn things outright, & if we have spare capacity (unlikely unless we buy more), make a deal with a firm with suitable skills to operate any spare aircraft, wet-leasing them to whoever might want 'em - e.g. some of our allies.

From The Daily Telegraph:
£13bn RAF tanker deal is ready for lift-off


By Sylvia Pfeifer
Last Updated: 10:36pm GMT 10/11/2007


Britain's biggest private finance initiative, the long-delayed £13bn deal to supply the Royal Air Force with a vital new fleet of tanker aircraft, is ready for lift-off.
AirTanker, the consortium backing the project which is led by Airbus's parent company EADS, launched a competition to raise £2.5bn of financing earlier this year. Although the credit crunch has increased the cost of the fund-raising, the consortium insists that things are on track.
Anthony Forshaw, managing director at Deutsche Bank, the consortium's financial adviser, said: "We do have options, despite the credit crunch. We had extraordinarily aggressive pitches from the banks of around 50-70 basis points over Libor. But the credit crisis has moved the cost of bank finance up by between 10-20 basis points to about 70-80 basis points."
advertisement


According to Forshaw, even after the credit crunch, the terms offered by the banks support allocating some 25 per cent of the debt funding to banks. The remainder will now be raised via a bond issue, which would be the largest PFI bond ever issued.
"The rest is expected to be raised in the wrapped bond market. However flexibility is being maintained to vary each debt component, depending on the market," said Forshaw.
The consortium is in the process of finalising an agreement with Ambac, the world's second largest municipal bond insurer, and with HBOS on the bank debt side, but expects to bring other institutions into the deal before it closes.
Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland and RBC are arranging the wrapped bonds. The financing structure has also received preliminary investment grade indications from both Moody's and S&P.
"The bulk of the controversial documentation is in an agreed form and we will be disappointed not to be going to market early next year," added Forshaw.
The consortium includes VT, Rolls-Royce, Cobham and Thales. Under the terms of the 27-year deal, AirTanker will provide a fleet of Airbus A330 tankers to replace the RAF's old tanker fleet.

[swerve]

Shows the problems of trying to remember something hastily skimmed . . . Right numbers, wrong way round. :o

[Pingu]

The Tornado GR4 was originally to be replaced by a project known as the FOAC, which AFAIK was cancelled in 2005 and is now known as FCAC.

Numerous options are being examined as a replacement to the GR4, including:

-UCAVs
-Upgraded models of current aircraft (JSF, Typhoon etc)
-A completely new design of aircraft (Perhaps a heavy bomber)
-Adapting non-specialised aircraft (A400M etc) to carry cruise missles.

I thought I'd start this thread as nowadays you don't hear much about it.

A "Force-mix" proposal which incorporated a combination of the above, has for most of the time been seen as favorite.

I assumed that this would largely be based around later models of Typhoons and JSFs but current and projected UK orders for JSF and Typhoon do not suggest this.

A BAE Systems project known as Taranis will see a UCAV demonstrator and this seems quite serious but there is no indication of how large a part this will play in the FCAC "Force-mix".

In my opinion, the best solution would have been a heavy bomber. It is a shame that the UK will have no heavy bomber in the foreseeable future. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown the importance of having heavy bombers with high indurance being able to loiter in the air, waiting for a call. The benefits in range would also allow the UK to reach its enemy without having to rely on local basing.

I very much doubt a heavy bomber will be developed as there is not the time, nor the money for the UK to develop a new bomber on their own. The idea of modifying non-specialised aircraft is an interesting idea which would be a cost-effective way of acquiring some of the benefits of the heavy bomber's range and endurance. If this were to be carried out though, I think it would be better to see a new cruise missile (perhaps co-operating with America on a Hypersonic missile) to be developed, rather than just using Storm Shadows.

Storm Shadows brings me onto another point. One of the requirements of the FOAC (as it was then known) was the internal carriage of two 2000lbs Bombs/Storm Shadows. I am confident that the JSF/Typhoon/Taranis will all be incapable of achieving this: JSFs bays are too small, the Typhoon cannot carry internally, and the Taranis will be of similar size to a Hawk trainer.

I wonder if the orders of 232 Typhoons and 138 JSFs are essentially replacements of the Tornado (along with the F3, GR3A, Harrier and Sea Harrier) without directly replacing it, by effectively creating a smaller, yet more multi-role frontline force of fast jets, which will be supplemented by a new UCAV (Taranis).

Thoughts?

[swerve]

AFAIK, GR4 is expected to be replaced by F-35 & UCAVs.

There should be new weapons available by the time Taranis, or whatever is derived from it, enters service, which may fit in the bays of an F-35B. I wonder if the the FOAS Storm Shadow internal carriage requirement has been dropped in the hope of something new turning up?

[neil]

the raf currently operates a little more than 300 combat aircraft. i cannot see in this era of shrinking frontlines and budgets.. a future force larger than the current one..

therefore i beleive there is little chance that 232 typhoons and 138 F35B will enter service.. the only question is.. how many planes can be cut within the F35B order and still have enough to fill out a carrier air group? ..and how many typhoons can be cut within tranche 3 without incurring too many penalties..

i believe that the above mentioned two aircraft types will indeed be the major part of the GR4 replacement.. remeber now that the current GR4 out of service date is somewhere in the early 2020's.. by that time all the typhoons will have long been delivered and the last F35's just about.. so i believe its going to be a matter of phasing in the new types as you phase out the old.. and with still new rumours of more cuts to the raf frontline following the comprehensive spending review by the uk government.. specificly cuts to the GR4 force..(as reported by janes).. i cannot see a new combat jet being taken into service other than taranis.. F35B.. or typhoon..

if successful(wich is nowhere near guaranteed).. i believe taranis will defenitely pick up some of the slack left by the tornado GR4.. UCAVs seems to be the way to go these days..

plus with senior raf officers (and u.s. officers) singing the praises of the nimrod in the overland recon role.. it might not be too far fetched to see a nimrod MRA4 with integrated storm shadow or even paveway IV operating in the war on terror..

with taranis being a real and funded project.. and with arming nimrod not costing too much.. i think that might be what we'll see..

p.s. doesnt anyone think this thread should be merged with the general 'RAF news and discussions thread'?

[swerve]

the raf currently operates a little more than 300 combat aircraft. i cannot see in this era of shrinking frontlines and budgets.. a future force larger than the current one..

therefore i beleive there is little chance that 232 typhoons and 138 F35B will enter service.. ...

p.s. doesnt anyone think this thread should be merged with the general 'RAF news and discussions thread'?

1) There's a big difference between "operates" and "owns", & one has to allow for time. 370 combat aircraft purchased over a 20 year time span does not give a larger force than we now have, but a smaller one. The oldest Typhoons will be over 20 years old by the time the last F-35 enters service. In that time, there will have been attrition, and some aircraft will be in reserve, as now. I doubt if the operational force will reach 250, even if we buy the full number.

2) Yes. I'll do it.

[Pingu]

AFAIK, GR4 is expected to be replaced by F-35 & UCAVs.

Do you expect this to be covered with additional F-35s to the 138 already ordered? If not then this would suggest that it has been blended in with the JCA program, which is what I suspect is the case.


There should be new weapons available by the time Taranis, or whatever is derived from it, enters service, which may fit in the bays of an F-35B. I wonder if the the FOAS Storm Shadow internal carriage requirement has been dropped in the hope of something new turning up?

I agree. I imagine that the Storm Shadow requirement has been dropped. I believe the storm shadow in its current form would be rather out-dated by the 2020 timeframe anyway and I thought that this requirement was a rather unusual one all along. In another thread, I mentioned my concern about internal cruise missiles for aircraft such as the F-35 and somebody suggested that a missile from Norway is being considered (I can't remember exactly, but it may have been swerve who mentioned, and the country may not be Norway).

I believe that MBDA should start to look more seriously at growth of the Storm Shadow. Versions such as an internal carriage version, a sea-launched version as a potential Tomahawk replacment, as well as improved range and various warhead variations.

I still see Dual 2000lbs carriage as important though. Although smaller smart weapons are being developed, it would be handy to be able to carry more of them (to take advantage of long-indurance) and there are still missions which require a larger weapon such as the penetrating PW3 (hence the RAF have not decided to phase PW3 out upon receiving PW4). I wonder whether there are any bomb requirements beyond PW4 which will arm the FCAC. I have always believed that the UK should consider the SDB but I don't know how happy the US is to export it.

I agree with swerve that the aircraft numbers won't become that low. There is argument over whether 138 F-35s and 144 Typhoons (if third tranche were cut) is a sufficient enough number to replace Jags, Harriers, Sea Harriers and the F3s. This excludes the need to replace 140 or so GR4s. To cut the Typhoon and F-35 orders without having a seperate replacement for the GR4 would be crazy. I think that if the current orders were intended as GR4 replacements as well as the rest of the fast-jet force, then they would have to be no further cuts to the numbers and if anything, more would need to be added.

As for the Nimrod MRA4, I have thought for a while that to modify it for ground attack would be a great idea and would be better than weaponising an A400M. However, the MRA4 force has already been cut and I wonder whether they will ever become available for ground attack given that they are likely to be stuggling enough with their primary role of maritime defense, considering low aircraft numbers.

If this were the case, then I see the A400M option as a good idea. I think a good amount of money should be invested in the A400M as the weaponised versions could be used for transport when required. Aerial refueling versions should also be considered for helicopters. The Merlin HC3 has the ability to refuel and so far, it is useless if we have nothing to refuel it with. The FRC-H (Future Rotorcraft Capability-Heavy) is likely to have a refueling ability too, as well as a special forces helicopter (If one is to be procured in the absence of the Chinook HC3). I think the europeans have turned out quite lucky with the A400M given that programs such as FCS and FRES have failed to fit into C-130s and the C-17 is likely to close.

The Taranis does seem like an excellent choice to replace the GR4 but I feel it would have to be part of a very good C4I network which I worry the UK wont be able to achieve. It is easier to encorporate stealth features and extra fuel with the UCAVs due to the absense of the cockpit. I think that a large weapons carriage is a must though.

[swerve]

Pingu,

I think it was me who mentioned the Norwegian missile - called the NSM. Fits in the bay of an F-35A or C, but I don't know about the F-35B. The NSM is smaller and shorter-range than Storm Shadow, & primarily intended as an anti-ship missile, AFAIK, though also with a land-attack role.

Agree about Storm Shadow growth & variants. There is, of course, Scalp Naval already under development, but I think other variants could be worthwhile. The proposed Taurus variants give an indication of what's possible.

http://www.taurus-systems.de/html/missilesystem.html
http://defence-data.com/paris2005/pagep175.htm

BTW, I think the weaponised A400M proposal doesn't require permanent modification. The missiles would be palletised, & the other necessary equipment would be plug-in.

[neil]

i stand corrected.. a force of 370 new aircraft purchased would indeed mean a smaller operational force than the one the RAF has now..

if memory serves me correctly i believe the RAF is planning on an operational fleet of 140 typhoons over the aircraft lifespan.. with 232 bought..

it stands to reason then that if 138 F35B are bought.. there should be about 80 operational airframes.. giving a total of 220 - 250 fighters..
nothing is this simple however and there are many variables.. so it is,essentially, a guessing game..

i stand by my other point however that either typhoon tranche 3.. or the F35B purchase(or both).. might be reduced..

i agree that it makes no sense to do so.. but this is the world we live in.. plus other european countries seem to be following the same route.. and the americans too(they are looking at a 25% reduction in their fighter fleet in the medium to long term)

i mean look at other uk platforms..

hawk - down from 70 odd to 34
AAC lynx - down from 100 to 40
tankers - down from 22 odd to 14
nimrod - down from 22 to 12

big fleet reductions is nothing new..

however it isnt all gloom and doom.. as was mentioned above the new fighter fleet will be fully multi role and more versatile than ever..

[Pingu]

Pingu,

I think it was me who mentioned the Norwegian missile - called the NSM. Fits in the bay of an F-35A or C, but I don't know about the F-35B. The NSM is smaller and shorter-range than Storm Shadow, & primarily intended as an anti-ship missile, AFAIK, though also with a land-attack role.

Do you know if the US or UK has shown any interest in this weapon. I'd prefer to see a Storm Shadow derivative but this seems to be a good option if nothing else is developed. I wonder how much it will cost to integrate certain UK weapons onto the F-35. Do you think additonal funding will be needed or is all projected weapons integration included in the contract with LM. Of particular interest is integration of PW4, the Norwegian missile you speak of and minaturised Storm Shadow and Meteor.


BTW, I think the weaponised A400M proposal doesn't require permanent modification. The missiles would be palletised, & the other necessary equipment would be plug-in.

This concept seems rather simple and cheap. However, I wonder why it has never been adopted in the past. I fit can work, then I definitely think it should form part of the future force.

[Mercurius]

Pingu wrote: “I believe that MBDA should start to look more seriously at growth of the Storm Shadow. Versions such as an internal carriage version, a sea-launched version as a potential Tomahawk replacment, as well as improved range and various warhead variations.”

“As for the Nimrod MRA4, I have thought for a while that to modify it for ground attack would be a great idea”.


Development of a mid-life upgrade for Storm Shadow was expected to begin around 2005. Over a three-year period, MBDA planned to investigate potential improvements in areas such as guidance, propulsion efficiency and stealth. France plans a similar mid-life upgrade for the SCALP EG.

At that time MBDA envisaged a three-stage approach.

Epoch 1 – to enter service around 2010, introducing on-aircraft retargeting and battle-damage indication via a 150 km-range datalink.

Epoch 2, planned for beyond 2015, would introduce retargeting in flight and alternative warheads able to provide additional lethality.

Epoch 3 was intended for service from about 2020 onwards. It would cover future deep-strike systems including long-range weapons able to orbit over the target area for 10, 15 or even 24 hours.

Studies were planned for integration on new platforms such as Typhoon, the F-35, and large non-penetrating aircraft such as the A400. MBDA has looked at the possible use of converted civil aircraft as cruise-missile launchers but concluded that installation of weapons bays into the airframe of an airliner involves such drastic modifications as to be unaffordable.



Speaking at the Cranfield University Deep Attack Symposium hosted in the summer of 2006, the Team Leader of the UK Defence Procurement Agency's Conventionally Armed Stand-Off Missile Integrated Project Team, said a range of potential Storm Shadow improvements were being developed under two contracts awarded to prime contractor MBDA earlier in 2006, with a view to initial service introduction from 2010-11.

These upgrades include a battle-damage indication capability and the ability to retarget the missile while the parent aircraft is en-route to the missile-launch point. Also planned is an upgraded warhead using smarter fuzing and an enhanced follow-through bomb intended to achieve double the penetration of the existing BROACH warhead.

For the longer term, other improvements being studied include a new engine running on JP10 fuel rather than JP5, and an all-new warhead with five times the current target-defeat capability.


When the go-ahead UK to provide 12 Nimrod MRA.4 was announced in 2006, a UK Defence Procurement Agency official told Jane’s that the aircraft would incorporate the wiring and other hardware changes needed for the carriage of Storm Shadow or GPS-guided bombs.

Speaking at a 2003 conference in London, an MoD official stated that staging through one of six "readily accessible bases" spread out across the globe, MRA.4s fitted with Storm Shadow would be able to carry out a strike "pretty much worldwide" with just a single in-flight refuelling.

"Carrying two Storm Shadows under the wings would mean a small fatigue penalty, but we would only fly with the missiles in anger”, he stated. “We think that we can cope with the fatigue problem."

Other air-to-surface missiles being considered for carriage on the MRA.4 included Harpoon II, Maverick, and ALARM, plus ASRAAM for self-protection.


Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

[Pingu]

AAC lynx - down from 100 to 40

I made that point until I considered the Apache. A force of 40 Future Lynxs and 67 Apaches will be replacing 100 or so lynx AH7/9s. The UK will have more capable helicopters, more readily available due to their better engine power and reliability.

[Pingu]

I believe re-targeting abilities are majorly important and if possible, the ability to re-target the missile during its own flight should be sought. I think this ought to be combined with a programable fuse that can be programmed from the aircraft in-flight. The BROACH warhead is very capable for hardened targets but believe that a standard non-penetrating (cheaper) warhead ought to be developed for targets which do not require penetration.

A data-link would be a great developement as it facilitate improvements in ISR and BDA and would work in synergy with a re-targeting ability.

I have never seen the importance of a loitering cruise missile. I believe it would be very expensive to develop and better ISR from other platforms could negate the need for a loitering missile.

For the longer term, other improvements being studied include a new engine running on JP10 fuel rather than JP5, and an all-new warhead with five times the current target-defeat capability.

How capable is the current BROACH warhead (e.g. compared to the brute force of the RAF's 2000lb PW3)? I wonder why a 5x increase in "target-defeat ability" is needed and what targets these improved warheads would be intended for. Will the change to JP-10 fuel have any effect on the missiles range?

Speaking at a 2003 conference in London, an MoD official stated that staging through one of six "readily accessible bases" spread out across the globe, MRA.4s fitted with Storm Shadow would be able to carry out a strike "pretty much worldwide" with just a single in-flight refuelling.

"Carrying two Storm Shadows under the wings would mean a small fatigue penalty, but we would only fly with the missiles in anger”, he stated. “We think that we can cope with the fatigue problem."

Other air-to-surface missiles being considered for carriage on the MRA.4 included Harpoon II, Maverick, and ALARM, plus ASRAAM for self-protection.

I am not sure that 12 MRA4s are enough to achieve this given that they would already be tied down with surveilance tasks and at such few aircraft, they will be extremely busy.

Could the Storm Shadows not be carried internally? If they were minaturised, this would suit the needs of both the F-35 and the MRA4. Alternatively, The NSM could replace both the Storm Shadow and the Harpoon. The NSM would provide the UK with a single weapon capable of striking both land and sea targets while being carried internally by the MRA4 and F-35.

I do not really see the need for the Maverick to be installed onto the the Nimrod as its limited range would put the large MRA4 at risk and also, the presence of Brimestone, makes the Maverick obsolete anyway.

ALARM would be worthwhile integrating, especially with its indirect loitering kill ability. However, I have heard that the ALARM is soon to be phased out and I am not sure if a replacement is being sought.

ASRAAM ought only be installed if a LOAL off-boresight ability is developed for the MRA4.

[swerve]

...
Could the Storm Shadows not be carried internally? If they were minaturised, this would suit the needs of both the F-35 and the MRA4. ...

A miniaturised Storm Shadow would no longer be a Storm Shadow, but a new missile. Reduce the size very much, & you'd have to replace everything except the seeker.

[Pingu]

I guess that a Storm Shadow will never become small enough to fit internally into the bays of an F-35. I guess that the UK should definitely look at the NSM to equip both the MRA.4 and the F-35. Is the NSM a duel anti-ship/ground attack missile or is it a ground attack missile derived from an anti-ship?

Further to the discussion about numbers of Typhoons and F-35s, I wonder if the RAF will order any F-35As in addition to the F-35Bs already ordered to satisfy the FCAC requirement. The F-35A would provide better performance, range, payload etc that would better suit the FCAC.

If more F-35Bs were ordered, this could be seen as combining the FCAC with the JCA and would have some benifits of its own. It would provide a common pool of aircraft that can be operated from many types of bases (carriers, semi-prepared runways etc).

[Todjaeger]

I guess that a Storm Shadow will never become small enough to fit internally into the bays of an F-35. I guess that the UK should definitely look at the NSM to equip both the MRA.4 and the F-35. Is the NSM a duel anti-ship/ground attack missile or is it a ground attack missile derived from an anti-ship?

Further to the discussion about numbers of Typhoons and F-35s, I wonder if the RAF will order any F-35As in addition to the F-35Bs already ordered to satisfy the FCAC requirement. The F-35A would provide better performance, range, payload etc that would better suit the FCAC.

If more F-35Bs were ordered, this could be seen as combining the FCAC with the JCA and would have some benifits of its own. It would provide a common pool of aircraft that can be operated from many types of bases (carriers, semi-prepared runways etc).

Regarding the NSM, the acronym stands for Naval Strike Missile and is an anti-shipping missile. AFAIK versions of it are under development which will allow it to conduct land attack missions and the anticipated name for that missile is the JSM or Joint Strike Missile. At present it is an open quesition on whether the internal bays of the -B version would be able to take the NSM/JSM.

As for the value of carrying such a missile internally on a Nimrod... That I am unsure of. Given the value of a Nimrod as an ISR platform and what features are needed to make the best use of it (namely high loiter/persistance time) mounting weapons on it becomes less important IMV. Far better to have the Nimrod vector strike assets than to be used as a strike asset itself. Having said that, carrying some armament could make sense. The determination would then need to be made as to what level should be carried. Given a choice between Harpoon and NSM, it would depend on what is most likely to be engaged. Give that the Harpoon warhead is larger (twice the size?) and IIRC Block 2+ has something like 50% more range than the smaller NSM, if only a few are likely to be used, then external Harpoons might be just the thing.

-Cheers

[swerve]

...
As for the value of carrying such a missile internally on a Nimrod... That I am unsure of. Given the value of a Nimrod as an ISR platform and what features are needed to make the best use of it (namely high loiter/persistance time) mounting weapons on it becomes less important IMV. Far better to have the Nimrod vector strike assets than to be used as a strike asset itself. ...

-Cheers

Having thought a little more on it, I think the value of a Nimrod as a strike asset is in cases where nothing else can reach. We can't expect to have a carrier or a friendly airbase within Typhoon, F-35 (or until they retire) Tornado range, or an SSN within cruise missile range, of every possible target, all the time.

In this case, I'd say missile range is crucial, & while I think NSM could be useful in general, I'd rather our handful of Nimrod MRA4 kept further away from nasty people than the range of an NSM, if possible. Storm Shadow, or even better, an extended-range version, would be preferable.

There we have it: not a routine thing, but an occasional use for high value (I take it for granted we wouldn't waste such rare & expensive aircraft on low-value targets), time-critical (can't wait for an SSN or carrier to get there, or they'll be busy elsewhere until too late) targets. Not cases where there'd be any point skimping on the missile.

[Todjaeger]

Having thought a little more on it, I think the value of a Nimrod as a strike asset is in cases where nothing else can reach. We can't expect to have a carrier or a friendly airbase within Typhoon, F-35 (or until they retire) Tornado range, or an SSN within cruise missile range, of every possible target, all the time.

In this case, I'd say missile range is crucial, & while I think NSM could be useful in general, I'd rather our handful of Nimrod MRA4 kept further away from nasty people than the range of an NSM, if possible. Storm Shadow, or even better, an extended-range version, would be preferable.

There we have it: not a routine thing, but an occasional use for high value (I take it for granted we wouldn't waste such rare & expensive aircraft on low-value targets), time-critical (can't wait for an SSN or carrier to get there, or they'll be busy elsewhere until too late) targets. Not cases where there'd be any point skimping on the missile.

I agree completely. There is value in having something like the Nimrod, or in the case of other nations the Orion or upcoming Poisedon able to not only detect a target, but also strike it. My point regarding internal carriage of the NSM was that the strike mission aspect is of less (much less IMV) importance than the ISR aspect.

Now if a Nimrod or one of the other, similar type aircraft could be equipped with an internal weapons bay so that there was in improvement in aerodynamic performance that would be good. By this I mean improvements in range/loiter time and speed due to reduced drag, etc over a system using external hardpoints. At the same time though, it would likely be better to have a larger AShM for use from Nimrods and similar for the reasons Swerve mentioned. Such aircraft are valueable and limited in number, as such they should not be exposed to unnecessary risk by closing to a target. Given that there are other missiles available with greater range (and larger warheads) those would seem to make more sense for the limited occasions when such aircraft would make a warshot. I do not know if the various versions of Nimrod are set to take Storm Shadow, or if they are still using Harpoon, but those would seem to be better candidates (or at least Harpoon Block II+).

-Cheers

[swerve]

...
Now if a Nimrod or one of the other, similar type aircraft could be equipped with an internal weapons bay so that there was in improvement in aerodynamic performance that would be good. ...

-Cheers

Nimrod has an internal weapons bay, capable of carrying Stingray lightweight torpedoes, sonobuoys, etc. or additional fuel tanks for extended rang. I think there's a good chance NSM would fit in it. But Harpoon doesn't fit, & Storm Shadow is bigger than Harpoon.

A weapons bay is standard for MPAs in this class, e.g. P-3, P-8, the proposed A320 MPA all have one.

[Mercurius]

How capable is the current BROACH warhead (e.g. compared to the brute force of the RAF's 2000lb PW3)?

BROACH has at least double the performance of a general-purpose bomb of the same weight class. A BROACH based on a 245kg main charge can penetrate more than 2m of concrete.


Will the change to JP-10 fuel have any effect on the missiles range?

JP10 has a higher density than JP5, a valuable feature given that a cruise missile such as Storm Shadow has only a limited amount of space within the fuselage to carry fuel. Switching from JP5 to JP10 while leaving than tank size unchanged would give a range improvement of about 15%.


Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

[riksavage]

Quote taken from the RAF site today:

"The RAF’s ability to transport heavy equipment and supplies to troops in theatre was significantly enhanced with the purchase of a sixth C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft. The purchase of the aircraft, through a £130 million contract with the Boeing Company, was announced today by Baroness Taylor."

Out of the doom and gloom surounding the RN and UK Army procurement programs this is the one piece of good news. I also understand the RAF have also just received two Reapers and Hermes UAV's for use in Afghanistan.

[PeterCrisp]

Hello everyone this is my first post here so I opologise in advance if its less than great.

I have been interested in the Eurofighter for a long time now but it seems that while its among the best aircraft on Earth it isn't actually doing an awful lot. I fully admit that not being in the armed forces myself I could be way off the mark here (and if I am I'm sorry) but considering the UK is involved in 2 major conflicts I would have thought the Eurofighter would be sped into service to lend a hand.

All they ever seem to be doing is upgrading the aircraft (now that Tranch 2 is on the way and fast approaching they will be upgraded to that standard as well) and flying them at airshows with the only actual usage being QRA status to protect the UK (which while useful is not helping the troops doing an extremely hard job abroad).

So is the Eurofighter underutilised or am I just woefully under informed?

[Todjaeger]

Hello everyone this is my first post here so I opologise in advance if its less than great.

I have been interested in the Eurofighter for a long time now but it seems that while its among the best aircraft on Earth it isn't actually doing an awful lot. I fully admit that not being in the armed forces myself I could be way off the mark here (and if I am I'm sorry) but considering the UK is involved in 2 major conflicts I would have thought the Eurofighter would be sped into service to lend a hand.

All they ever seem to be doing is upgrading the aircraft (now that Tranch 2 is on the way and fast approaching they will be upgraded to that standard as well) and flying them at airshows with the only actual usage being QRA status to protect the UK (which while useful is not helping the troops doing an extremely hard job abroad).

So is the Eurofighter underutilised or am I just woefully under informed?

With respect to the Typhoon being underutilized at present, I would say not currently. IMV there are a few things that need to be kept in mind. When originally designed, the Typhoon was to be an air superiority fighter, as such most development done for was in the air to air combat arena, being a late Cold War-era design.

Given the practical experiences of the last decade or two, the apparent need for dedicated air superiority fighters is much reduced from what had been anticipated during the 80's and earlier. Instead, what seems to be of greater relavance to curent air forces would be multi-role fighters. Taking the examples offered by the various air campaigns from the Gulf War (Episode I), Kosovo, Afghanistan and Gulf War (Episode II) the Western air forces quickly established air dominance in the opening days of the campaigns. Having achieved air superiority/dominance against hostile aircraft (the role of an air superiority fighter) there was no further need for that role during the campaign.

Given the experiences gathered, IIRC decisions were made to being developing the Typhoon into a more multi-role aircraft than had originally been envisioned. Once the multi-role Typhoons enter service, I would expect to see them widely deployed. Until such development is completed though, there is not much operational work requiring an air superiority fighter compared to that of bomb trucks.

-Cheers

[Firehorse]

The Nimrod was due to have been retired some years ago and a £2.2bn contract was agreed in 1996 to upgrade 21 Nimrod MR2 aircraft to Maritime Reconnaissance Attack 4 (MRA4) standard.

The programme involved the complete replacement of the aircraft's systems and more than 80% of its airframe, creating a virtually new aircraft.

However, rising costs and long delays have meant that the Nimrod MR2 will remain in service until at least mid-2010.

"The replacement Nimrod was originally called Nimrod 2000 - that tells you something," said Sean Maffett, an aviation commentator.

"All 21 MRA4s had been due to be in service by last year. Now the RAF is going to get 12 starting in 2010.

"There has just been one problem after another. It has been deeply disappointing and it has caused these old MR2 aircraft to be soldiering on much longer than they should have been."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7128054.stm


I'm surprised that they didn't pick another airframe instead of putting all eggs in one basket. Maybe they could order some new MPAs from Japan (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6898)!

[perfectgeneral]

I wish we had bought some japanese MPAs. That would make a good bargaining chip for selling Typhoons to Japan.

[swerve]

I wish we had bought some japanese MPAs. That would make a good bargaining chip for selling Typhoons to Japan.

Since 1) it's only just started flight trials, & is therefore much further away from being operational than Nimrod MRA4, & 2) asking the Japanese to sell us a weapon :shudder would give the Diet a fit of conniptions, I think it's a bit of a non-starter.

[riksavage]

Looks like the UK is going to buy ten additional Reaper's and five ground units bringing the total inventory to twelve (link below). I'm very surprised this 1- billion USD plus order has passed muster with the Treasury considering the pressure on the UK defense budget. If true very good news, the Reapers do represent the top of the food chain in current UAV technology, particularly the armed variants.

With the UK now introducing additional Reapers and Hermes 450s to the field I cannot see the Watchkeeper program surviving in it's current guise. Then again Watchkeeper was to be an Army asset (artillery), Reaper comes under the RAF, so maybe they will be drawn from separate budgets!

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3286749&C=europe

[Alpha Epsilon]

The Hermes 450s are just an interim lease deal and will go out of service when Watchkeeper comes into service.

Also Reaper is a completely different class of UAV to the Watchkeeper.

[swerve]

...
With the UK now introducing additional Reapers and Hermes 450s to the field I cannot see the Watchkeeper program surviving in it's current guise. Then again Watchkeeper was to be an Army asset (artillery), Reaper comes under the RAF, so maybe they will be drawn from separate budgets!

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3286749&C=europe

As Alpha Epsilon says, Reaper & Watchkeeper are different classes of UAV. They're complementary, not in competition. Also, Watchkeeper is more than just the air vehicles. It's a complete ground infrastructure as well.

[riksavage]

As reported by Industry Daily:

"10 MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) aircraft, 5 Ground Control Stations, 9 Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems (MTS-B/AAS-52), 9 AN/APY-8 Lynx Synthetic Aperture Radar/Ground Moving Target Indicator (SAR/GMTI) systems, 3 Satellite Earth Terminal Sub Stations (SETSS), 30 H764 Embedded Global Positioning System Inertial Navigation Systems, Lynx SAR and MTS-B spares, engineering support, test equipment, ground support, operational flight test support, communications equipment, technical assistance, personnel training/equipment, spare and repair parts, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $1.071 billion."

The UK are looking at the MQ-9 only as a high-end surveillance drone to complement their mid-range Watchkeeper Mk450 UAVs and short-range Deseert Hawk and RQ-11 Raven UAVs.

With the introduction of ASTAR, Reaper and Watchkeeper (2010) the UK will end up with an extremely capable surveillance umbrella covering the complete spectrum of requirements – good news for once. The question is which program will suffer - the Government will always steal from Pete to pay Paul!

[neil]

Yes good news indeed about the Reaper purchase.

When the Candberra PR9's were retired a couple of years ago without replacement, there were only three of them left. Still they were sorely needed on the frontlines and they flew operational missions in Afghanistan and Iraq right up to their retirement.

Many people were rightly upset at the lack of replacement, but as pointed out above, with No39 Squadron now operating a mixture of +- 13 Reapers and some Predator A's, the RAF has a better persistant reconaissance capability than it had with the Canberra's. Definitely a step up.

This is also very good news in the light of persistant rumours of further cuts to the front line, concerning the closing down of two Tornado GR.4 squadrons.
(One from each main operating base)

[Alpha Epsilon]

This is also very good news in the light of persistant rumours of further cuts to the front line, concerning the closing down of two Tornado GR.4 squadrons.

This has explicity been denied by a junior minister in parliarment iirc.

[Super Nimrod]

13 is no small number and can't be too disimilar to the number currently operated by the USA, Clearly early experience is showing it to be a force mutiplier (or perhaps it just saves some money) :rolleyes:

Regardless, getting in on the ground floor with this sort of capability will give the RAF a headstart and lots of experience in UAV's when the more capable and offensive stuff such as Taranis comes along in the next 5 years.

[harryriedl]

13 is no small number and can't be too disimilar to the number currently operated by the USA, Clearly early experience is showing it to be a force mutiplier (or perhaps it just saves some money) :rolleyes:

Regardless, getting in on the ground floor with this sort of capability will give the RAF a headstart and lots of experience in UAV's when the more capable and offensive stuff such as Taranis comes along in the next 5 years.
and can be weponised by strapping hellfire &1000 pounds bombs very easily:D.

[neil]

This is also very good news in the light of persistant rumours of further cuts to the front line, concerning the closing down of two Tornado GR.4 squadrons.
(One from each main operating base)

This has explicity been denied by a junior minister in parliarment iirc

Good to hear!!

[Navor86]

JCA Delivery Schedule
A US DOD planning document dated November 2001 showed year by year how the UK F-35 aircraft would be delivered (orders would need to be placed approximately two years earlier), divided into 4 categories of test, training, operations and attrition.
The document also said that the UK will have 4 operational squadrons of 12 aircraft with 18 pilots each plus a training squadron of 16 aircraft. Attrition aircraft would replace those lost in squadron service and any excess would go into long term storage. Squadron aircraft would be cycled through storage to ensure the fleet accumulated hours evenly across airframes.

from Navy Matters

Can someone explain to me why the UK will just have 4 Combat Sqn+1Training Sqn and after that 84 JSF just sitting in Depots?I mean does the RAF count to loose so damn many Aircraft. I mean with 150 Aircarft they could easyli field 8 Sqn a 12 JSF + Test/training Sqn and still have 30 JSF spare

[Super Nimrod]

Air Refuelling tanker announcement tomorrow according to the Times

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article3621599.ece

About time

[swerve]

Air Refuelling tanker announcement tomorrow according to the Times

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article3621599.ece

About time

Correctly predicted. Official announcement (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/13BillionDealForNewTankerAircraftSigned.htm) now on MoD website.

[riksavage]

Formal announcement.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/13BillionDealForNewTankerAircraftSigned.htm

The recent successful trip by Sarkosy to the UK and subsequent joint UK/France statements reference strengthening defense ties, I think the French should join the UK tanker program, order additional airframes and then pool their collective resources. Heavy participation by EADS will certainly please the Franch.

[swerve]

Formal announcement.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/13BillionDealForNewTankerAircraftSigned.htm

The recent successful trip by Sarkosy to the UK and subsequent joint UK/France statements reference strengthening defense ties, I think the French should join the UK tanker program, order additional airframes and then pool their collective resources. Heavy participation by EADS will certainly please the Franch.

The French have already selected A330MRTT and are in negotiations. From what I've read, they're talking about 15 or 16 (at least, that's what the AdlA wants), & maybe a PFI deal, though that may be combined with outright purchase of a few for urgent needs first, because of the delays arranging a PFI contract will cause.

[outsider]

Is anyone else here dubious about the value for money represented by the £13 Billion PFI contract for just 14 A330MRTT. Ok the contract runs for 30 years and AirTanker Ltd are responsable for operating and maintaining the aircraft, but the KC45 the US version of the A330MRTT is priced at 160 million usd each.

Doing the math, that works out at £928 million per aircraft over the lifetime of the contract. Seems a bit steep to me.

[swerve]

Is anyone else here dubious about the value for money represented by the £13 Billion PFI contract for just 14 A330MRTT. Ok the contract runs for 30 years and AirTanker Ltd are responsable for operating and maintaining the aircraft, but the KC45 the US version of the A330MRTT is priced at 160 million usd each.

Doing the math, that works out at £928 million per aircraft over the lifetime of the contract. Seems a bit steep to me.

I don't know what the operating cost of a tanker (including crew) should be per year, but deducting £80 million for the aircraft & dividing by 30 makes that £28.3 million per year. One should also deduct a bit for buildings & so on which are included in the contract.

Anyone know whether £25 million or so per year is in line with expected tanker operating costs?

[PeterCrisp]

Does the contract also cover the costs of any and all spare parts for damaged airframes as it would be rather hard to say just how damaged they will get over the course of 25 years?

[Highwayman]

LONDON (Reuters) - The Ministry of Defence must decide whether it should "cut its losses" and abandon the Nimrod programme after a delay of some eight years and a near billion-pound overspend, a group of MPs said on Thursday.
The Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft, which has been blighted by development problems, will have racked up a further overrun of 100 million pounds in 2007/8, bringing the total over-budget figure to 800 million pounds.
The aircraft was originally announced in 1992 as a replacement for the Nimrod MR2, but has suffered technical problems.
The Commons Defence Committee said the MoD must "carefully examine whether it should cut its losses and withdraw from this sorry saga".
"The committee calls on the minister for defence equipment and support to assess whether the programme will ever deliver the capability required within the timescale needed and, if not, to withdraw from it," it added in a report.
Nimrod is one of a number of projects criticised by the MPs for overrunning on budget or deadline.
The committee reflected how "disappointing" it was that the first of the Navy's two new aircraft carriers will be without the new Joint Strike Fighter aircraft when they are expected to enter service in 2014 because of delays.
The A400M transport aircraft is also expected to enter service two years late.
The MoD's equipment programme was "unaffordable" and sacrifices needed to be made as part of the Planning Round, the MPs said.
Originally 21 aircraft, then 18, then 12 and now 0?
What is the alternative carry flying the MR2 until Poseidon is available?
2nd hand Orions are there any available especially as the US has had to ground 39 aircraft due wing problems?
Develop a MR version of the A320 with France - would take 10 - 15 years?
Buy a MR version of the ERJ145 which maybe available relatively quickly - lacking the capabilites required
All go down the Dutch route and lose a MR/ASW capability and rely on off the shelf aircraft to perform some of the less military duties such as SAR.
Carry with Nimrod MR4 and hope for the best
The MoD could buy all the preserved Shackleton aircraft and get them flying again - maybe simpler and quicker!
What ever happens the RAF loses out thanks to the ineptitude of politicians and BAe.

What ever happens the RAF loses out

[Sea Toby]

I would think if the British bought the P-8 Poseidon, the US Navy will find a way to let the British get some of the earlier aircraft. I don't think the British could go wrong with Boeing 737s. There are many nations thinking about the P-8s, as most of the P-3 Orions are dated and worn out.

[Alpha Epsilon]

Happy 90th birthday Royal Air Force. :)

[robsta83]

Airborne Sniper Squad Targets Iraqi Militia

(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued April 14, 2008)
Defense aerospace Article (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=93288&session=dae.35857138.1208391328.h9x8gX8AAAEAABEqO5 gAAAAP&modele=jdc_1)

In the skies over Basra, a crack squad of highly trained RAF Regiment snipers have been hard at work supporting ground troops and Immediate Response Teams (IRT) under fire from Iraqi militia.

Flying with RAF Merlin and Lynx crews, the heavily armed heli-snipers can be mobilised at short notice to locate and eliminate enemy positions, reducing the threat to Army ground troops and medical units on the ground.

So far the heli-snipers have been deployed to give force protection for Lynx immediate response teams, scrambled to evacuate casualties, fire support for deliberate operations, rapid route clearance for convoys, and to counter the threat from militia preparing crude explosive devices.

Using IRT for the role gives the heli-snipers the ability to respond quickly. Travelling by air also gives them an improved field of vision, allowing them to relay vital surveillance to commanders on the ground.

Cpl Sean McKinnel of the RAF Regiment's 2 Squadron explained the heli-sniper's role: "We act as top cover to provide protection during many tasks. The tasks since deploying to Op TELIC have included covering US BLACKHAWKS as they evacuate casualties from Basra Palace, covering UK MERLIN helicopters inserting troops. We have also been employed in covering urban areas likely to be used to launch rockets against the COB.

"Operating from the helicopters offers us great observation and a different perspective to that on the ground. We are able to assist in securing areas rapidly and are able to engage targets at greater ranges."

Fellow 2 Sqn sniper SAC Gambling said: "The great thing about the heli-sniping tasks are that you never know what you are going to get on your next shout. Every call-out is different."

Tasks such as fence-line checks which can take ground patrols hours to complete can be accomplished in minutes. Armed with advanced rifles, equipped with laser-marking capability, the RAF sniper teams have already proved effective in combat.

As well as a range of cutting edge thermal imagers, the teams have been issued with laser target designators, range finders and a suite of VHF radios for maintaining air to ground communications, allowing them to counter the threat from vehicle borne suicide attacks by calling in air strikes.

Each field squadron within the RAF Regiment has a section of sniper-qualified riflemen who provide the surveillance and target acquisition capability for the squadron.

The section has a heli-sniper team on standby around the clock to respond to specific incidents. The team work on a rotational basis, with the heli-snipers carrying out ground sniping and surveillance duties when not on standby.

In order to operate the cutting edge battlefield technology, heli-snipers are put through a tough nine-week training course at Honington, covering all the essential elements of sniping and surveillance, including specialist marksmanship skills such as angular shooting and advanced correction for wind. 2 Sqn RAF Regiment sniper Cpl Ian McClive said:

"As this is a new skill to all the lads, we had to conduct a number of range sessions aboard the helicopters to see the effects on our shooting. Now after a little practise all of the lads are confident at engaging targets on the move from a helicopter."

Once qualified as snipers, specialists can go on to command a sniper section, but continual training is required for Service personnel to hone their shooting skills to deal with continually changing combat environments.


Great article, good to see some positive media, and dang what a really really sweet job.

[Pro'forma]

Is it upgrade few predator competence, line composition ?

Upheaval and squad base regroup, rejoining active tech and if not
misinterpretting, minor and possible program expansion for RAF, coming in sight.

[neil]

Airborne Sniper Squad Targets Iraqi Militia

(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued April 14, 2008)
Defense aerospace Article (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=93288&session=dae.35857138.1208391328.h9x8gX8AAAEAABEqO5 gAAAAP&modele=jdc_1)

In the skies over Basra, a crack squad of highly trained RAF Regiment snipers have been hard at work supporting ground troops and Immediate Response Teams (IRT) under fire from Iraqi militia.

Flying with RAF Merlin and Lynx crews, the heavily armed heli-snipers can be mobilised at short notice to locate and eliminate enemy positions, reducing the threat to Army ground troops and medical units on the ground.

So far the heli-snipers have been deployed to give force protection for Lynx immediate response teams, scrambled to evacuate casualties, fire support for deliberate operations, rapid route clearance for convoys, and to counter the threat from militia preparing crude explosive devices.

Using IRT for the role gives the heli-snipers the ability to respond quickly. Travelling by air also gives them an improved field of vision, allowing them to relay vital surveillance to commanders on the ground.

Cpl Sean McKinnel of the RAF Regiment's 2 Squadron explained the heli-sniper's role: "We act as top cover to provide protection during many tasks. The tasks since deploying to Op TELIC have included covering US BLACKHAWKS as they evacuate casualties from Basra Palace, covering UK MERLIN helicopters inserting troops. We have also been employed in covering urban areas likely to be used to launch rockets against the COB.

"Operating from the helicopters offers us great observation and a different perspective to that on the ground. We are able to assist in securing areas rapidly and are able to engage targets at greater ranges."

Fellow 2 Sqn sniper SAC Gambling said: "The great thing about the heli-sniping tasks are that you never know what you are going to get on your next shout. Every call-out is different."

Tasks such as fence-line checks which can take ground patrols hours to complete can be accomplished in minutes. Armed with advanced rifles, equipped with laser-marking capability, the RAF sniper teams have already proved effective in combat.

As well as a range of cutting edge thermal imagers, the teams have been issued with laser target designators, range finders and a suite of VHF radios for maintaining air to ground communications, allowing them to counter the threat from vehicle borne suicide attacks by calling in air strikes.

Each field squadron within the RAF Regiment has a section of sniper-qualified riflemen who provide the surveillance and target acquisition capability for the squadron.

The section has a heli-sniper team on standby around the clock to respond to specific incidents. The team work on a rotational basis, with the heli-snipers carrying out ground sniping and surveillance duties when not on standby.

In order to operate the cutting edge battlefield technology, heli-snipers are put through a tough nine-week training course at Honington, covering all the essential elements of sniping and surveillance, including specialist marksmanship skills such as angular shooting and advanced correction for wind. 2 Sqn RAF Regiment sniper Cpl Ian McClive said:

"As this is a new skill to all the lads, we had to conduct a number of range sessions aboard the helicopters to see the effects on our shooting. Now after a little practise all of the lads are confident at engaging targets on the move from a helicopter."

Once qualified as snipers, specialists can go on to command a sniper section, but continual training is required for Service personnel to hone their shooting skills to deal with continually changing combat environments.


Great article, good to see some positive media, and dang what a really really sweet job.

Yes great to hear. Airborne snipers can be extremely effective as the recent French operation to capture Somali pirates have shown.

A minor problem with the article. The RAF does not operate Lynx helicopters. They probably will have some RAF pilots flying them for the Army Air Corps within Joint Helicopter Command, though.

Is it upgrade few predator competence, line composition ?

Upheaval and squad base regroup, rejoining active tech and if not
misinterpretting, minor and possible program expansion for RAF, coming in sight.

Proforma obviously you aren't an English speaker, I will however attempt to add to what you said.

The RAF is anxious to expand its Predator and Reaper operations(These are currently being conducted jointly with the USAF, even though 39 Squadron RAF has been reformed for this purpose). However there are significant budgetary hurdles. So much so that the recent RAF foreign military sales request for 10 additional Reapers is in jeopardy.

There is an increasing trend to operate ISTAR assets jointly in a 'pool' of aircraft with the USAF. A recent article in the magazine Air Forces Monthly, indicated that the UK Ministry of Defence was concidering leasing two 'Rivet Joint' ISTAR aircraft from the USAF, to be operated in a similar manner to the current 'pool' of RAF\USAF Predators and Reapers. These aircraft would act as a replacement for the current 51 Squadron Nimrod R.1's.

Is this trend a good thing? I think not.

[Actual]

There is an increasing trend to operate ISTAR assets jointly in a 'pool' of aircraft with the USAF. A recent article in the magazine Air Forces Monthly, indicated that the UK Ministry of Defence was concidering leasing two 'Rivet Joint' ISTAR aircraft from the USAF, to be operated in a similar manner to the current 'pool' of RAFUSAF Predators and Reapers. These aircraft would act as a replacement for the current 51 Squadron Nimrod R.1's.

Is this trend a good thing? I think not.

You're right, the failiure to modernise the Nimrod R.1 and the leasing of Rivet Joint is yet another example of Whitehall's short-sightedness. As the AFM article describes, the loss of R.1 would remove a critical UK independent SIGINT asset that is more in tune with RAF doctrine than Rivet Joint. Indeed, I wonder how old the Rivet Joint's we lease would be and would the US place restrictions on their use??

The effectiveness of the R.1 platform has been consistently proven time and again, I fear however the RAF brass will roll-over and accept the decision. As per their usual SOP at the moment.

[Pro'forma]

Quote:Neil

Yes, you moderators are saying line after another line, please do not repeat
and repeat already expressed opinions and comments, so pardon when
beg to differ as a columnist.

23801 lines written; " I do think this is not considerable sell-off year 2001
tyre-parts" is looking not yet desirable for us all.

And this time your choice to give one of us a point(s) to consider.

A minor point already written previously, quoting predator
exercise multinationally with (not hoping sadly) predator/reaper/etc.,
jointly and severally; good or not and when the costs are asking attention
what can you say ? Not one joyless mission reduction again in sight.

Thank You for valuation.

[ASFC]

As far as I am aware the RAF does not 'pool' its Reapers with the USAF. I have always been led to believe that we base our operators in Nevada because it is cheaper to than to set up the facilities in the UK to run what is currently a fairly small force. (We own three outright.)

BTW, do we have a link that states the UK buy is in danger from budget cuts, or are we just speculating based on the fact that the military is at the moment working under the fear of Whitehall induced cuts across all three services?

I suspect the leasing of River Joint (is it still going ahead?) would be short term, and that once the budget is better, we will probably build replacements for the R1 fleet.

Edit: just delving into the realms of politics quickly. RAF Brass do not roll over. However, as they are supposed to be apolitical, you will never find any of the Armed Forces top brass having a major public argument with the Govt in the UK papers (although retired ones do). No doubt behind the scenes you will find them working hard to stop any cuts.

[Pro'forma]

Nothing new info until this minute.
But where is today latest predator news forum ?

[neil]

Quote:Neil

Yes, you moderators are saying line after another line, please do not repeat
and repeat already expressed opinions and comments, so pardon when
beg to differ as a columnist.

23801 lines written; " I do think this is not considerable sell-off year 2001
tyre-parts" is looking not yet desirable for us all.

And this time your choice to give one of us a point(s) to consider.

A minor point already written previously, quoting predator
exercise multinationally with (not hoping sadly) predator/reaper/etc.,
jointly and severally; good or not and when the costs are asking attention
what can you say ? Not one joyless mission reduction again in sight.

Thank You for valuation.

What??!? :confused:

Never mind.

ASFC wrote:
As far as I am aware the RAF does not 'pool' its Reapers with the USAF. I have always been led to believe that we base our operators in Nevada because it is cheaper to than to set up the facilities in the UK to run what is currently a fairly small force. (We own three outright.)

BTW, do we have a link that states the UK buy is in danger from budget cuts, or are we just speculating based on the fact that the military is at the moment working under the fear of Whitehall induced cuts across all three services?

I suspect the leasing of River Joint (is it still going ahead?) would be short term, and that once the budget is better, we will probably build replacements for the R1 fleet.

Edit: just delving into the realms of politics quickly. RAF Brass do not roll over. However, as they are supposed to be apolitical, you will never find any of the Armed Forces top brass having a major public argument with the Govt in the UK papers (although retired ones do). No doubt behind the scenes you will find them working hard to stop any cuts.
16 Hours Ago 10:51 PM


There is indeed a link that states the RAF Reaper request was in some doubt due to budget cuts. Perhaps I shouldn't have brought it up since I don't have the link any more.(Can't remember what site it was on.)

As for the credibility of that particular fear, we'll have to wait and see. The MoD says it is wrapping up the next planning round, so maybe all will be revealed soon.

As for the report on the RAF leasing the Rivet Joint, that was from a respected UK aviation magazine. No official word regarding this has been released from the MoD as far as I know.

There seems to be a geniune effort to by the UK to increase its ISTAR capabilities in spite of huge budget difficulties. (ASTOR,Watchkeeper,Reaper,Predator..)

[ASFC]

http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3487241&c=MID&s=AIR

Woops :shudder

Although the crash itself will probably turn out to be insignificant inthe grand scheme of things, I'm interested to know whether the '4-6 Reapers' the MOD was looking at buying before the crash is on top of the first request of 10 or was part of a plan to get around the budget shortfall by buying the UAV's in batches. It also looks like an MOD 'source' has confirmed that the UK is arming its Reapers in the 'near future'.

[neil]

It seems more problems are brewing...... :unknown

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/frontline/1925255/Cracks-found-in-Hercules-wings-threaten-to-scupper-vital-military-training-exercises.html

[ASFC]

Yep, for Airbus. Although the article did not state which C-130s, i presume they meant the older C1,2&3 variants. As their continued use is down to A-400 delays, if there are more delays, I see Airbus losing the contract and Britain runing back to the US for more C-130's or C17's.

[swerve]

Yep, for Airbus. Although the article did not state which C-130s, i presume they meant the older C1,2&3 variants. As their continued use is down to A-400 delays, if there are more delays, I see Airbus losing the contract and Britain runing back to the US for more C-130's or C17's.

Naah. The RAF would just ask for, and get, the extra couple of C-17s it wants anyway, to tide it over until the A400M start arriving. Cancelling the A400M order would probably cost the RAF money, but it gets compensation from Airbus for delays.

[Super Nimrod]

Agree with Swerve, various sources have suggested that they wanted 8 C-17's all along so they would order a couple more to fill the gap. They are proving so useful I don't see them selling them once the A400 gets into service either.

[ASFC]

Originally, they were stop gaps. However the need to have more (in the 8-12 region) came about because they proved their usefulnes and the RAF and MOD saw it as an opportunity to replace a long lost capability by buying the at the end of the lease regardless of the A-400's progress. If they were going to dispose of them when the A-400 came on line, they would have just continued the lease rather than buy them.

[swerve]

Originally, they were stop gaps. However the need to have more (in the 8-12 region) came about because they proved their usefulnes and the RAF and MOD saw it as an opportunity to replace a long lost capability by buying the at the end of the lease regardless of the A-400's progress. If they were going to dispose of them when the A-400 came on line, they would have just continued the lease rather than buy them.

Agreed, entirely. I see now that when I said "tide it over", it could have been interpreted as a temporary acquisition, but that isn't what I meant.

[Pingu]

Can someone clarify the UK Predator and Reaper procurement for me, please?

How many Reapers and Predators does the RAF operate and are they actual property of the RAF? I can't tell whether the RAF purchased the UAVs or are just operating US owned UAVs.

Wasn't the Nimrod R.1 supposed to be undergoing an upgrade program called "Project Helix"? I heard that the Nimrod R.1 was supposed to be an excellent asset that was superior in some ways to US equivalent (RC-135s if i'm right). I don't understand why the MoD hasn't decided remanufacture the R.1s in a parellel program to the MRA4. It makes no sense to update the R.1 if the airframe is coming to the end of its days.

I also wonder what will fill the boots of the now retired Canberra PR9. IMINT has lately been carried out by the Nimrod MR2 but what about the future when the smaller MRA4 fleet will no doubt be tied up with Maritime survelience commitments?

I wonder if the Predator and Reaper are essentially going to be seen as a replacement to the Canberra or whether the UK may look into buying Global Hawks. I also wonder whether the UK may decide to go a for something developed from the CORAX with a large wing as a Canberra replacement and alternative to the Global Hawk.

[ASFC]

The Predators will be owned by the RAF. As to where the personal will be based, I have no idea.

Originally we bought 3 Predators, and 1 Crashed, and we have requested 10 more to buy. Providing no more crash we will have 12 based on current orders (unless we buy a replacement for the crashed one).

[swerve]

...
Wasn't the Nimrod R.1 supposed to be undergoing an upgrade program called "Project Helix"? I heard that the Nimrod R.1 was supposed to be an excellent asset that was superior in some ways to US equivalent (RC-135s if i'm right). I don't understand why the MoD hasn't decided remanufacture the R.1s in a parellel program to the MRA4. It makes no sense to update the R.1 if the airframe is coming to the end of its days.....

Yes, but AFAIK that's purely a systems upgrade. Given the state of the airframes, it would appear to make sense to add a few MRA4 airframes to the build programme & install the kit from the Helix upgraded R.1s, but I fear it will fall foul of funding.

[Super Nimrod]

From what I have read it is still the intention to upgrade the R1's eventually, but they are at the end of the queue until all the MRA4's are done. However, the UK government may also have half an eye on the progress of UAV technology to see it the really do need a manned platform rather than a stealthy unmanned one with remote sensors. Regardless a decision is probably 8-10 years away so don't bet on anything soon, indeed don't bet on any announcement at all as it will all be done in secret just like the original development of the R1

[ASFC]

The problem when asking about the R1 is that large parts of it are secret due to the jobs that it is expected to do. What I do know from a source within the RAF is that the Airframes will be replaced, not tagged on to the end of the MRA4 program, but what they replace it I have no idea (apart from those reports on the Joint Rivet lease thing). You will hear very little about the systems they use onboard any replacement either.

[neil]

I think we will have a better idea of what to expect when the MoD's planning round 08 is done. Since funding from the comprehensive spending review has been released earlier to enable the procurement of the new Royal Navy carriers, it remains unclear what effect this will have on other equipment programmes. (Future Lynx, Typhoon, Nimrod R.1 replacement etc.) It is clear however, that something will have to go.

Hopefully the MoD will realise the importance of having an independant ISTAR capability and will somehow make it happen.

On a different subject.. it's going to be really interesting seeing what the RAF decides to do about its combat forces Afghanistan.

Some reports say they are concidering a joint Tornado GR.4\Typhoon FGR.4 deployment to replace Joint Force Harrier in theatre, using Typhoons as bomb trucks, with the Tornado's 'spiking' targets for them.

[harryriedl]

I think we will have a better idea of what to expect when the MoD's planning round 08 is done. Since funding from the comprehensive spending review has been released earlier to enable the procurement of the new Royal Navy carriers, it remains unclear what effect this will have on other equipment programmes. (Future Lynx, Typhoon, Nimrod R.1 replacement etc.) It is clear however, that something will have to go.

Hopefully the MoD will realise the importance of having an independant ISTAR capability and will somehow make it happen.

On a different subject.. it's going to be really interesting seeing what the RAF decides to do about its combat forces Afghanistan.

Some reports say they are concidering a joint Tornado GR.4Typhoon FGR.4 deployment to replace Joint Force Harrier in theatre, using Typhoons as bomb trucks, with the Tornado's 'spiking' targets for them.
according to DID the FLynx is entering full scale production http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/britains-billionpound-future-lynx-helicopter-program-02384/
'The latest developments include the beginning of full airframe production, following a successful design-to-cost program that had better than expected result' so the FLynx is safe

[windscorpion]

Thats excellent news, the reports earlier in the year about FutureLynx possibly being for the chop were very worrying considering it's potential.

[riksavage]

A couple of 'good news' milestones have just been reached, which brings or will bring much improved capabilities to the RAF, firstly the UK Reaper UAV used its weapons system for the first time in A-Stan rather than restricting activity to purely surveillance operations, and secondly Typhoons from XI Squadron dropped Paveway 2 munitions and fired their cannons during exercise Green Flag in the US resulting in them being declared combat ready for the target date of 1 July 2008. Thank god the UK finally fronted-up and purchased ammo for the cannons!!!!

Lets Hope the GR9's can now be replaced in A-Stan and be seen gracing the decks of the carriers once more. Hopefully more Reapers will also be purchased on a UOR basis, another eight at least.

[harryriedl]

A couple of 'good news' milestones have just been reached, which brings or will bring much improved capabilities to the RAF, firstly the UK Reaper UAV used its weapons system for the first time in A-Stan rather than restricting activity to purely surveillance operations, and secondly Typhoons from XI Squadron dropped Paveway 2 munitions and fired their cannons during exercise Green Flag in the US resulting in them being declared combat ready for the target date of 1 July 2008. Thank god the UK finally fronted-up and purchased ammo for the cannons!!!!

Lets Hope the GR9's can now be replaced in A-Stan and be seen gracing the decks of the carriers once more. Hopefully more Reapers will also be purchased on a UOR basis, another eight at least.
although GR-9 are much better supporting troops in A-Stan than looking good on ships [whats the point in having a capability which your not going to use it]. would be nice to see the Tiffy in A-Stan

[swerve]

although GR-9 are much better supporting troops in A-Stan than looking good on ships [whats the point in having a capability which your not going to use it]. ...

Trouble with that is that they're rapidly using up airframe hours, on a very small fleet. We risk not having enough serviceable GR9s if we ever do need them on the carriers.

Meanwhile, it's hard to see what most of the Tornado fleet is doing. Looking good on airbases in the UK?