Royal Air Force [RAF] discussions and updates

riksavage

Banned Member
Riksvage,

I would hardly call Puma's the backbone of the RAF's transport fleet. They have exactly 1 more Puma then they do of Merlins, and giving a lot less lift then the Merlins. They have 17 less Puma's in operation then they do Chinooks at the moment.

Hopefully the RAF AAC and FAA will end up with a fleet consisting of:
1) Apache
2) Wildcat
3) Merlin
4) Chinook
5) [Insert Training Helicopter Here]
Will revise - Puma represents the backbone of much of the militaries UK training/home base requirements. With Merlin being considered the best operational medium lift platform (hot & high capability and numbers of troops carried) for A-Stan, Pumas will (poor hot and high capabilities) remain in the UK supporting land forces and pre-deployment training.

Pumas should be phased out and replaced by the new batch of Chinook, or a mix of Chinook and Merlin. With the arrival of Wildcat, and the fact that the UK operates the most powerful Apache version, the hot and high issues should no longer be an issue.
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
More C17's for the RAF

Britain In Talks With Boeing For Another C-17 - Defense News

Britain In Talks With Boeing For Another C-17
By andrew chuter
Published: 27 Nov 2009 07:48
Print Print | Print Email

Britain is negotiating the purchase of another Boeing C-17 airlifter to boost the Royal Air Force's ability to supply troops fighting the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. If the procurement gets the go-ahead, the Ministry of Defence here said it hopes to complete contract negotiations by the end of the year.

Approval of the purchase would see the RAF's fleet of C-17s grow to seven aircraft. An MoD spokesman confirmed negotiations were underway but said no deal had yet been done to acquire the aircraft.
Related Topics

* Europe
* Americas
* Air Warfare

"The U.K. has engaged in exploratory discussions with the U.S. Air Force and Boeing regarding the feasibility of procuring a seventh C-17 aircraft for the U.K. No commitments have been made, and no decisions have been taken," he said.

"If the department decides to purchase a new C-17, then we plan to be on contract with Boeing by the end of December 2009, with a view to delivery in December 2010 and an in-service date of March 2011," said the spokesman.

The rapid in-service date suggests the British will be given an early delivery slot earmarked for the U.S. Air Force.

The C-17 has been the backbone of an RAF's airbridge operation, which has been severely stretched supporting Britain's growing military presence in Afghanistan.

The British have been operating C-17s since 2001, when they leased four aircraft. The airlifters were eventually purchased by the RAF and the fleet has grown to the point where the British took delivery of two aircraft last year and are now poised to acquire their seventh aircraft, subject to final government approval.

Analysts think the RAF has hopes to acquire at least one more aircraft before the Boeing C-17 production line closes. Funding is likely to be an issue for the cash-strapped MoD.

The MoD here is estimating line closure in 2011. However, a Boeing spokesman said there was currently no cut-off point and the production line was good until at least 2012.

A Boeing spokesman in the U.S. declined to discuss the possible deal with the British beyond saying, "We continue to see strong international interest in C-17s. Our customers, however, prefer to announce their intentions on their own timetable. The question is best addressed by the U.K.'s MoD."

The British said the purchase of the additional aircraft was not directly connected with delays to the Airbus A400M airlifter program.

"A400M is the replacement capability for the Hercules C-130K tactical transporter. We have looked carefully at the intra-theater operational requirement after the C130-K goes out of service in 2012. Although a C-17 can be employed in a tactical role and will help to mitigate against operational losses of C-130J, analysis suggests that the current fleet of 24 C-130J can sustain anticipated intra-theatre airlift tasking on current operations until A400M comes into service."

The first flight of the A400M is expected in the next few days. The partner nations in the program are still trying to hammer out a deal with Airbus parent EADS on the revised timing and cost of the program, which is currently three years late and hugely over cost.

French media earlier this month said Britain is expected to cut the number of aircraft it will buy from 25 to 19 aircraft in order to stay within funding availability. One British industry executive said earlier this week he thought the number the RAF get could be even less.

Asked if the C-17 buy could have an impact on A400M numbers, the spokesman said, "We keep our operational requirements under constant review, and we will look hard at the implications of the acquisition of any enduring capability. We continue to work with OCCAR [the European program office] and partner nations to find a way forward on the A400M program. It would be inappropriate to comment on these discussions at this time," he said.

Haven't seen this up anywhere else presume this the first post on this seems the inevitable happing of a fleet of 8+ aircraft as envisaged.
All in all good news also in the article of interstest is the believe that the UK will cut the A-400 order
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
I would like to get the expert's opinons on the recent US decision to not share the F-35 source code with the UK -- personally I am not very surprised by this, I am actually surprised that it seems that the US accepted to enter an agreement some time ago to share the F-35 source code with the UK.

I am also surprised that the UK actually believed they would get the source code -- contributing just a tiny bit of the total development budget.

So, will this have a significant impact? Pulling out of the collaboration is simply too late for the UK now -- and I guess this was not a legally binding agreement in the first place so I cannot see that UK can do anything about it.

For the UK I guess it simply means that they will have to do like all the other F-35 partners; work with LM to do the weapons integration, upgrades, etc.
 

kev 99

Member
I would like to get the expert's opinons on the recent US decision to not share the F-35 source code with the UK -- personally I am not very surprised by this, I am actually surprised that it seems that the US accepted to enter an agreement some time ago to share the F-35 source code with the UK.

I am also surprised that the UK actually believed they would get the source code -- contributing just a tiny bit of the total development budget.
Tiny bit?

Look up the proportion of development money the UK has stumped up and the proportion of the planned total that they are expected to buy, still sound like a tiny amount?
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Tiny bit?

Look up the proportion of development money the UK has stumped up and the proportion of the planned total that they are expected to buy, still sound like a tiny amount?
Well, AFAIK the UK is paying 2.5billion USD; IF the total development budget ends up at 40 billion then that's 6.251%. However if the budget increases above and beyond that (say, to 55 billion) then we're talking less than 5% of the total development budget.

The expression "tiny bit" was perhaps not the best in this context however in percentage it seems not very much.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I am also surprised that the UK actually believed they would get the source code -- contributing just a tiny bit of the total development budget..
The belief was founded on an agreement that the USA would release them to the UK, not on any sense of entitlement based on the UK share of development costs.

I get pretty sick of this argument. As far as I'm concerned, there is only one legitimate argument here, & that is whether you believe that when a British government minister said, in answer to a specific question, that yes, the agreement that he had just signed )on 12th December 2006) included British access to source code, he was telling the truth or a lie. The US government declined to comment on any of the terms of the agreement. The exact text is, unfortunately, secret.

A mistake is unlikely: he'd spent months negotiating to get exactly that point agreed (despite it supposedly having already been agreed, by the previous administration :( ), & was well-qualified to know what source code meant.
 

1805

New Member
With money being tight, the Chinook represents the best compromise 'bang for buck' option, particularly if Osprey is ruled out. Range, load carrying capacity and speed is outstanding. It already forms the backbone of the SF rotary flight and is deemed absolutely essential for long-range missions requiring the insertion of troops, kit and wheeled vehicles. The UK has already zero-houred older versions to extend their life-span, the knowledge and infrastructure is already in place to absorb more units so to me it would make complete sense. Plus cost savings will be made by reducing the need to absorb a brand-new airframe training programme.

The AW149 has been pushed before as a cheap solution, though smaller than the Merlin and larger than the Wildcat (AW159), it does not offer a capability jump or fill a much needed requirement gap, it certainly doesn't compare with what an extra couple of Chinook sqn's brings to the table. Wildcat will also take up the liaison / armed-recce role currently enjoyed by army Lynx/Gazelle's to compliment the Apache, thus negating the need for a AW149 sized airframe or more AW159's.

Puma currently forms the backbone of the RAF'S battlefield taxis. I'm sure battlegroup commanders would much prefer to have the added capability of Chinook on call, after all Pumas can't lift vehicles, 105mm's + ammo, sustain a full trauma medical team and still have room for casualties.

The current Chinook crew of three operates a machine, which carries so much more than a medium lift helo, so adding capacity without increasing crew numbers with all associated knock-on financial implications makes sense. Merlin can provide the much needed support for RM operations, it has a much greater capacity than the SeaKing, Blackhawk (being forced to crouch down is right royal pain) or NH90 and comes with a very useful rear-ramp.

The new QE class lifts will be large enough to take the Chinook (QE could host 25 according to press reports?), and I'm sure any Ocean replacement will do the same. I'm also convinced the UK will be smart enough to specify folding rotors as they did with Apache (the only nation operating the machine to do so thus far).
Doesn't the Merlin seem a bad buy for both the RN & RAF, it seems to be to small to be really useful like the Chinnok and yet to big to be attractive/flexible for exports in other roles. We seem to have backed the wrong horse that has taken our Helicopter industrial capability down. I doubt when production is done it will top 150?? And yet every man and his dog seem to be buying the NH90, the one Euro project we don't join and they have orders of c700 already! If we had joined we would probably have brought c100-120 and have a production line and export potential, well at lease it's an Italian problem now
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Doesn't the Merlin seem a bad buy for both the RN & RAF, it seems to be to small to be really useful like the Chinnok and yet to big to be attractive/flexible for exports in other roles. We seem to have backed the wrong horse that has taken our Helicopter industrial capability down. I doubt when production is done it will top 150??
Over 170 had been sold before the recent Algerian decision to buy more, which should take production over 200. As well as the UK & Italy, it's sold to Canada, Japan, Algeria, Portugal, Saudi Arabia & Denmark, been selected by India, & if it wasn't for a procurement screw-up in the USA which had nothing to do with either the helicopter or Agusta Westland, would have sold more than two there.

It's getting new orders.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Doesn't the Merlin seem a bad buy for both the RN & RAF, it seems to be to small to be really useful like the Chinnok and yet to big to be attractive/flexible for exports in other roles. We seem to have backed the wrong horse that has taken our Helicopter industrial capability down. I doubt when production is done it will top 150?? And yet every man and his dog seem to be buying the NH90, the one Euro project we don't join and they have orders of c700 already! If we had joined we would probably have brought c100-120 and have a production line and export potential, well at lease it's an Italian problem now
Give me a Merlin over NH90 anyday of the week, it's carrying capacity and rear ramp bring much to the table, particualry in the CASEVAC role. Plus for SF and FOB support use you can load the rear with Quads and drive them right out the back. Merlin can land on any maritme platform a NH90 can, so what's not to like? The three engine configeration builds in redundency and a great deal of power - great for hot and high locations. The real issue is cost, a Merlin is more expensive than a NH90. If MASC migrates to Merlin, then you will have a tidy platform big enough and with the range to keep it in the air for extended periods. Also with the Chinook purchase approved, the MK3 Merlin can replace SK and take up the role of supporting 3 Commando, the airframe can fit in and on Ocean, QE & PW. Chinook can only lillypad on Ocean, we need an airframe which can be maintained below decks. I would be very happy as a comander with Wildcat, Merlin and Chinook at my disposal supported by Apache.
 

1805

New Member
I like the Merlin but I was focusing on the need or not to support a UK defence industry. I guess sometimes that means compromises and accepting 2nd best. I like the Typhoon but in hindsight would I have built them no? I would probably have been cheaper to have brought a few F22 (I know the USA is not selling these at present but everything is up for sale eventually...Aegis...Trident). I would probably have pushed for more Merlins and not brought the Chinnok (not that I don't think they are a great buy) to keep the UK position in the helicopter market. Mind I don't know how the Merlin/Chinnok compare on price (please don't respond telling me the Chinnok is better than the Merlin at logistic, I know). But if you could get 30 for the price of 22 Chinnoks I would probably have done that.
 

jaffo4011

New Member
why should we give up on a successful helicopter and aerospace industry just to buy cheaper from the u.s?
the merlin and typhoon are selling well on the export market and bring in valuable cash to our industries and employment market which you will never get back if those industries fail....and without competition everybody is poorer.......

i dont mean blindly buy british if the stuff isnt up to par but in these cases they are.the merlin is a just about the best medium helicopter around and the typhoon more than stands comparison(and thats being modest)against the f22 (and its for sale unlike the f22):confused:

i am fed up to the back teeth with this spineless'best value'culture in this country.

we value nothing we exceed at whilst the french and americans stand proud of the industries,traditions and achievements....and what good does our attitude do us?......

answer;we become ever more a nation of shopkeepers and less the major,innovitive power we deserve to be......
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
why should we give up on a successful helicopter and aerospace industry just to buy cheaper from the u.s?
the merlin and typhoon are selling well on the export market and bring in valuable cash to our industries and employment market which you will never get back if those industries fail....and without competition everybody is poorer.......

i dont mean blindly buy british if the stuff isnt up to par but in these cases they are.the merlin is a just about the best medium helicopter around and the typhoon more than stands comparison(and thats being modest)against the f22 (and its for sale unlike the f22):confused:

i am fed up to the back teeth with this spineless'best value'culture in this country.

we value nothing we exceed at whilst the french and americans stand proud of the industries,traditions and achievements....and what good does our attitude do us?......

answer;we become ever more a nation of shopkeepers and less the major,innovitive power we deserve to be......
Their in lies the problem with that stance is that the army wants as many wokkas as possible and the RAF loves the C17 so their the services are dictating what they want. Would you want to go against the establishment to get UK kit. As for the C17 their is no UK or Euro equivalent unless we asked the russiks or the Ukraninans if they let us have 7 Antonov 124 with trents.

of course more merlin's and typhoons sold is excellent and much should be done to assist in that but if the mil is asking for certain bits of forgine equimpent.
 

kev 99

Member
Their in lies the problem with that stance is that the army wants as many wokkas as possible and the RAF loves the C17 so their the services are dictating what they want. Would you want to go against the establishment to get UK kit. As for the C17 their is no UK or Euro equivalent unless we asked the russiks or the Ukraninans if they let us have 7 Antonov 124 with trents.

of course more merlin's and typhoons sold is excellent and much should be done to assist in that but if the mil is asking for certain bits of forgine equimpent.
Its just a case of balancing what we develop and what we don't, I firmly believe the C17 and Chinook are the perfect choice for what the RAF should become, there aren't really much in the way of decent alternatives for either and we already operate them anyway so its a very rational decision to buy more of them.

Moving the Merlins HC3s to the RN is also a very sensible decision, but we probably do need a further buy to pad out numbers.

But I do agree that just bashing the UK produced goods for the sake of slightly higher unit costs is a pretty crap argument especially when the products are actually good.
 

ASFC

New Member
A 400

The 31st has been and gone (at least here in the UK) is there any news expected as to the future of this project? Particularly with the RAFs ever growing shortfall of Hercs, as the C1-C3s retire??
 

MrQuintus

New Member
Essentially AIrbus is being offered 2 billion euros, which they say isn't enough, a large loan has been suggested by France and germany, which would be paid back by accepting lower per plane payments year on year, but apparently we brits aren't keen
 

ASFC

New Member
Essentially AIrbus is being offered 2 billion euros, which they say isn't enough, a large loan has been suggested by France and germany, which would be paid back by accepting lower per plane payments year on year, but apparently we brits aren't keen
No we aren't. Frankly EADS should have put a bit more forethought into it before entering a fixed price contract!!
 

cpt007

Banned Member
If the RAF is planning only on having 109 typhoons in the long term according to this link
House of Commons - Management of the Typhoon Project - Public Accounts Committee

below is the short summary of 109 typhoons over the long term:

The Department originally planned to buy 232 aircraft. However, in light of changed operational requirements and significant funding constraints arising from the pressures of the defence budget, it is now ordering 160 aircraft and will retire the 53 oldest aircraft by 2019, leaving a long-term fleet of 107 aircraft. It is unclear as to whether the acquisition of the third phase in this contract, for the last 16 aircraft, was driven by contractual obligations or by operational need.

what will be the total number of aircraft in the long term including typhoon and F-35?
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Is that 107 issued to Squadrons or 107 total? Big difference.

Edit: The 53 are Tranche 1, I assume they'll work them hard and run out the airframe life so the rest of the fleet will last longer.
 
Top