Royal Air Force [RAF] discussions and updates

A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
swerve said:
Yes, not so much for fighters because the rate at which relatively small aircraft such as fighters can accept fuel is limited, & in many (most? all?) cases booms can transfer it faster than they can take it. I think that the fastest hoses (some are much slower) can deliver as fast as yer average fighter can take it nowadays.

Both hoses & booms are much faster than when the US SAC wanted booms to get fuel into its bombers at a good rate.

Dual mode has obvious advantages, but cost/benefit? Takes space (OK on big aircraft) & adds weight & complexity.
Click to expand...
Booms on the KC-30A for example flow at about 4500l per minute whereas the Cobham refuelling pods flow at arounf 1450l per minute. Modern-ish fighters like the F-16 for example struggle due to pressure disconnect issues if the refueller tries to pump to much at once (generally only one pump used at a time for fighters) but can still in general (and entirely dependent on plumbing of course) receive faster from booms than the modern hose and drogue pods can deliver the fuel.

Aircraft wih internal tanks only are of course a different matter altogether and fill significantly faster than those with drop tanks.

Oh, and of course in bumpy weather boom refuellers also flow infinitely faster than hose and drogue...
 
S

south

Well-Known Member
There is some merit to the RAF having a split buy of JSF. The A obviously will have longer range, larger weapons bay, and in theatre will have longer time on station due to the fuel available. Whether that is enough to get a split buy across the line is unknown. From my observations the UK armed forces are financially cut to the bone - the fact that the A is cheaper than the B by a reasonable margin could get a split buy across the line.

The argument of common type/training is not enough to prevent this from getting up.. The A model will require less extensive training to land, as there is only one way to do it, and for all extents and purposes is a Simpler B model due to the removal of the lift fan and all of the moving flappy bits for STOVL. Where the RN may have a sound argument is in terms of numbers to stack both carriers in a contingency.

In terms of AAR my understanding was that the space for the probe is still there on the A model but integration is unfunded. I would suggest that if the A model was procured that the Brits would get booms added to some, but probably not all of their voyager fleet (£££££), as there has been some talk of doing this anyway. It was a short sighted non-joint non-interoperable decision not to get booms in the first place IMO.

As mentioned fuel flow rates for fighters on the boom aren't that high, certainly not as high as heavies. By the time you have 2x fighters refuelling hose and drogue it is generally at least as quick to probe refuel a pair or four ship because of the combined flow rate. I'm not sure if AD is serious in his last statement about turbulent conditions making it quicker for boom - but it is a definite consideration, not because anything changes with the aircraft, but if you cannot get into the basket because it is moving around, you can't take gas full stop. It is less of a problem with boom because it is a heavy flying rigid boom bolted into to the tankers fuselage, rather than a light aerodynamic basket, essentially on the end of a whip(hose), which is getting cracked by longer, more flexible wings.
 
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
south said:
There is some merit to the RAF having a split buy of JSF. The A obviously will have longer range, larger weapons bay, and in theatre will have longer time on station due to the fuel available. Whether that is enough to get a split buy across the line is unknown. From my observations the UK armed forces are financially cut to the bone - the fact that the A is cheaper than the B by a reasonable margin could get a split buy across the line.

The argument of common type/training is not enough to prevent this from getting up.. The A model will require less extensive training to land, as there is only one way to do it, and for all extents and purposes is a Simpler B model due to the removal of the lift fan and all of the moving flappy bits for STOVL. Where the RN may have a sound argument is in terms of numbers to stack both carriers in a contingency.

In terms of AAR my understanding was that the space for the probe is still there on the A model but integration is unfunded. I would suggest that if the A model was procured that the Brits would get booms added to some, but probably not all of their voyager fleet (£££££), as there has been some talk of doing this anyway. It was a short sighted non-joint non-interoperable decision not to get booms in the first place IMO.

As mentioned fuel flow rates for fighters on the boom aren't that high, certainly not as high as heavies. By the time you have 2x fighters refuelling hose and drogue it is generally at least as quick to probe refuel a pair or four ship because of the combined flow rate. I'm not sure if AD is serious in his last statement about turbulent conditions making it quicker for boom - but it is a definite consideration, not because anything changes with the aircraft, but if you cannot get into the basket because it is moving around, you can't take gas full stop. It is less of a problem with boom because it is a heavy flying rigid boom bolted into to the tankers fuselage, rather than a light aerodynamic basket, essentially on the end of a whip(hose), which is getting cracked by longer, more flexible wings.
Click to expand...
Anecdotally I've read and discussed with USAF refuelling staff (on KC-10's) that their booms are typically able to fill (their usual customers) F-16 fighters up to 4x faster than their hose and drogue equipped Navy and Marine fighter counterparts and can even get 4x F-16's filled up quicker than 4x Hornets when they have the two wing mounted pods attached.
 
Vulcan

Vulcan

Member
The pedant in me notices it's 16 + 10 options, lets see if it's another promise of capability to go unfulfilled (WRT the 20+ number from SDSR15)

Interesting to see the Lynx kits there, i'm guessing that might be where the Sentinel replacement will come in from then.
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
That's a real shame but fairly typical of an enduring attitude from the British services and public ( certainly evident from my three years on course and exchange with the RN), that British designed and built systems are the "best in the world" and most everything else is inferior. (See comments re T45 v ABs)
Back in the 70s I certainly didn't subscribe to that, just about all systems, communications, sensors, weapons I used in the RN were decades behind my experience with RAN DDGs and on my reading of today's technology this is still, generally, true. R&D budgets produce the goods.

Better get my flak jacket:grab
 
Vulcan

Vulcan

Member
ASSAIL said:
R&D budgets produce the goods.
Click to expand...
The times, they are a changin'

Working with the US in certain areas isn't a slam-dunk decision to make, the more interesting sections of any proposed agreements aren't something we're likely to see.
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Just crate the engines up and ship 'em stateside - I'm sure someone has done the basic due diligence.
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A4kscooter said:
Jets flown by RAF Red Arrows could be built OVERSEAS | Daily Mail Online

A letter signed by 120 MPs has been sent to Teresa May asking her to order replacement aircraft for the Red Arrows because if the MoD waits until their current out of service date of 2030 the replacements will most likely be foreign built and more BAe jobs could be lost.
Click to expand...
I would have thought the most important consideration would be to order suitable fast jet trainers when needed and the Red Arrows would use whatever aircraft is chosen.
It just shows the ignorance of politicians when they think a publicity fluff exercise has greater priority than training future combat pilots.
 
T

the concerned

Active Member
The best option would be to downsize the reds to say 6 aircraft and maybe look into typhoons as we use the reds as a marketing tool asweĺl as pleaseing crowds
 
S

south

Well-Known Member
This highlights how to a much greater extent than in Aus the UK military is in intertwined with industry. The fact is that the pollies only really care about jobs, rather than capabilities.

The reds though are an interesting case. As the concerned highlighted they are much more than just the recruitment/PR tool that the roulettes are for the RAAF. The recent international tour they completed encompassed Greece, Qatar, Jordan, Saudi, Oman and I think the UAE as well. All countries that BAE and UKMOD would love to sell some/more Hawk and Typhoon too. The reds have a much more global/defence engagement role as well.

There is no way known that the UK can afford to run Typhoon for the reds.

What is the best solution - it is to be fair likely more Hawk T2. But the RAF will not like the cost of 9 new red jets... Given what BAE get out of the reds they may be asked to stump up some of the ££££.
 
Vulcan

Vulcan

Member
Fed up of reading how 9 Hawk is supposed to "save" Brough and the like, it's 9 damn jets for goodness sake.

It's kicking the can down the road, it's not saving anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top