Royal Air Force [RAF] discussions and updates

SteveR

Active Member
Do you have a source for the UK component?
The phrase 'equivalent Allied capability' I used refers to the UK integration into NATO intelligence staff and command structure that I was once briefed on by the RAF. Just as UK is warned by the NATO combined air picture of TU-95 flights rounding North Cape for the Atlantic so AGS derived ground picture will also be shared as it affects UK in the NATO area of operations.
It appears from the only source that I can find for AGS membership (Wikipedia):
that UK is not a partner in this program so will not have AGS tasking rights. But in this post-COVID19 world nations have to makes sensible fiscal choices of what sovereign capabilities they need to retain and those they can share with their allies. UK still has the Protector program to provide a measure of the same capabilities as Sentinel and may choose to buy a share of NATO AGS if it wants tasking rights.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
@SteveR Using "... sensible fiscal choices of what sovereign capabilities they need to retain and those they can share with their allies" and UK in the same context is somewhat of an oxymoron. I really can't see them doing that because they have the tendency to make short sighted decisions that end up costing them more money down the track.
 

OldTex

Well-Known Member
Politicians waste money with penny-wise, pound-foolish decisions such as stringing out projects to push spending into the future, forcing painful decisions when that money finally has to be spent, & stop-start funding which starves industry of money thus forcing capacity cuts (e.g. layoffs of skilled workers) & thus start-up costs when the money finally arrives & work resumes.
The issue is one of differing timeframes. For defence capabilities the LoT of any capability is usually between 15 and 30 years, with a mid-life upgrade occuring for long LoT capabilities. There is also the possibility of LoTE to drag perhaps 5 -10 more years of use from the capability. For politicians the timeframe is only 3-4 years (depending on the country), being getting through the next election. The public servants don't care at all so long as they continue to be paid, so they are not invested in the capability as the uniformed services are. Politicians and public servants will always find a reason why something cannot or should not be done, rather than finding a way to make it happen.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
But isn't that the story of pommy defence in the last 30 years? It just seems to go from one clusterf⁸* to another, costing them significant more treasure in the end. Agree totally about the E-7A and if they follow the RAAF lead, methodology and stay in lockstep, then they will have one immense capability. However I can't see the mandarins in the MOD following that path because they'll see it as losing control.

Recently, slightly better batting average I'd say - the AH-64E purchase - straight off the shelf instead of a repeat of the bespoke Westland-Augusta thing first time around, P8 and E7 plus getting back into Boxer - those all look like sensible decisions to get us back into a situation where we're buying more in line with what the big dog in the yard has and getting us into a refresh cycle that shares support burdens with other users.

I'm not claiming instant perfection here, just that it's at least a bit encouraging. If we'd gone with the Voyager/Saab proposal for E3 replacement for instance, I'd be frothing at the mouth.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Recently, slightly better batting average I'd say - the AH-64E purchase - straight off the shelf instead of a repeat of the bespoke Westland-Augusta thing first time around, P8 and E7 plus getting back into Boxer - those all look like sensible decisions to get us back into a situation where we're buying more in line with what the big dog in the yard has and getting us into a refresh cycle that shares support burdens with other users.

I'm not claiming instant perfection here, just that it's at least a bit encouraging. If we'd gone with the Voyager/Saab proposal for E3 replacement for instance, I'd be frothing at the mouth.
Unlike with the A330MRTT acquisition, in a cost cutting measure, the RAF variant is sans boom, which means that it cannot refuel the E-7A and P-8A, nor any USAF aircraft, which makes it rather less useful in the long term. However if they buy something without trying to UKize it then they seem to get it right more by accident than design.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Unlike with the A330MRTT acquisition, in a cost cutting measure, the RAF variant is sans boom, which means that it cannot refuel the E-7A and P-8A, nor any USAF aircraft, which makes it rather less useful in the long term. However if they buy something without trying to UKize it then they seem to get it right more by accident than design.

That's a bit of an older deal - the whole tanker routine is a bit of a mess as it's a PFI deal - a process which has now been entirely discredited as not offering best value for money for the tax payers. AirTanker have already offered to fit booms to the Voyagers as they as a business would get more value return on their fleet if they could refuel everything. Voyager was pre MRTT I believe and the requirement simply didn't exist - the only thing that tanked by boom was the E3. Obviously, if we'd known we'd be buying P8 and E7 to follow, might have been more of a priority but reasonably, why specify a capability you're not going to likely use ?

Mainly, the curse of UK Def Pro has definitely, just as you say, the constant attempts to include UK elements. I need only point to theF4 purchase, adding Spey engines to a perfectly serviceable jet, and in the process, adding enough drag with the enlarged inlets to off set the additional thrust..Wups...

We'll see - I suspect more stuff like the B where we'd be bidding for component manufacture etc will be closer to the norm.

That does leave the Tempest program however.

We'll see I guess.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
The Speys were partly for industrial reasons, but also because it made it a damn sight easier to get a Phantom off a rather small RN carrier. IIRC the Spey-engined Phantoms were slower high up, but performed better at low altitude.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Speys were partly for industrial reasons, but also because it made it a damn sight easier to get a Phantom off a rather small RN carrier. IIRC the Spey-engined Phantoms were slower high up, but performed better at low altitude.
IIRC the Speys had more thrust. Nice bird the Phantom.
 

pussertas

Active Member
The RAF are said to be retiring thier fleet of 5 Sentinal, Aircraft

1590798596542.png
Make a good buy for a 2nd tier airforce who are willing to refurbish the electronics?
 
Last edited:

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
IIRC the Speys had more thrust. Nice bird the Phantom.

They had quite a bit more thrust than the standard J79's and were cleaner at altitude - they weren't as smokey as the standard USAF/USN jets - it's the usual compromise between stuff and uh..stuff and ..oh, other stuff...

The RN birds had more thrust at carrier deck altitude and at low alt , but that was to compensate for the short flight deck of the carrer.
 

Shanesworld

Well-Known Member
They had quite a bit more thrust than the standard J79's and were cleaner at altitude - they weren't as smokey as the standard USAF/USN jets - it's the usual compromise between stuff and uh..stuff and ..oh, other stuff...

The RN birds had more thrust at carrier deck altitude and at low alt , but that was to compensate for the short flight deck of the carrer.
I have heard via podcast that they lost some of the throttle responsiveness which made recovery more difficult which contributed to the FAA having less proportionately night landing qualified pilots.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
I have heard via podcast that they lost some of the throttle responsiveness which made recovery more difficult which contributed to the FAA having less proportionately night landing qualified pilots.

I've got about three books with quotes regarding the reheat kick-in as being an event timed in ice ages.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I've got about three books with quotes regarding the reheat kick-in as being an event timed in ice ages.
So I take it that we are talking in 10x5 years at least. So the little ice age doesn't qualify. I suppose it's one way for the aircrews to check out the current status of their sphincter muscles.

Back in the mid 1960s the CAS RNZAF formally submitted to Cabinet, through the Air Ministry that the F-4 Phantom was the ideal replacement for the RNZAF Canberra and Vampire fleets. The Cabinet had a collective intake of breathe and said no. He was retired a whiles later. Something to do with the collective Cabinet apoplexy at the sticker schock. It probably would've eaten into their collective perks.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The RAF are said to be retiring thier fleet of 5 Sentinal, Aircraft

View attachment 47404
Make a good buy for a 2nd tier airforce who are willing to refurbish the electronics?
They would've been thrashed by the poms and it'd be an expensive undertaking upgrading them. The real point is what would you want them for? Chasing religious nutters in the sandpit? Or chasing the heathen PLA & its CCP masters and high priests around the world?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I was thinking more along the line of an airforce with previous form on buying clapped out hand me downs, that force has a leaf on its roundels ;)
Ahhh they also have a habit of pouring lots of good money after bad as well. Definitely well sprung Assail.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
They were on loan until the F-111 turned up, because of delays to the F-111 program.
 
Top