FedaykinYet another reason why the UK needs to buy A-330 MRTTs to the same sort of spec as the Aussie ones, i.e. boom equipped. If the UK just bought (i.e. no ridiculous PFI lease deal) 20 plus A-330 MRTTs, then it would make a lot of sense.
As for a long range non-stealthy bomber, the only real possibility for the UK would be the Nimrod. Given the current concerns about the existing Nimrod fleet, it might be best to build new airframes, ideally stretched, with stronger wing hardpoints. The MRA-4 can currently carry 16 x 500lb JDAMs internally (according to AFM article), and could potentially be adapted to carry another 24 externally, with six bombs on each of the four hardpoints. This would give the UK a similar capability to the B-52, with the ability to carry up to 40 JDAMs, or perhaps as many as eight cruise missiles (four externally, and four internally).
I doubt the RAF will get any more Nimrod then those ordered but it is by far best suited for the mission. The MRA-4 is already wired to take a range of weapons, the avionics and databus with some software changes can talk to Smart munitions, the radar fitted has a ground synthetic aperture mode and it even has an optronics pod with laser marker for LGB. With tanking the modern turbo fans can get it anywhere in the world and using a combination of Storm Shadow and GPS bombs (maybe even ALARM) it is certainly an interesting prospect.
FedaykinIt is not a matter of preference, but of offloading speed. The boom was designed to offload large quantities of fuel in the shortest amount of time possible. SAC (then the owner of virtually all tanker aircraft) operated the big ones, such as strategic bombers and cargo aircraft. KC-135s have 5 different speeds to offload their cargo, with (IIRC) speed #5 for bombers and C-5s (and since its introduction the E-3) and speed #2 for fighters such as F-16s (and if fitted with a dogue USN aircraft). If you would offload the fuel to a Sentry with a drogue it would take forever, as the speed would be equal to the settings used for fighters: drogues cannot offload any faster than that.
(this according to a boom-operator of the Hawaii ANG I flew with out of Geilenkirchen years ago)
Preference does play a part in this I’m afraid, the E3D is a very big heavy aircraft. Its easier to park the Sentry behind a boom equipped tanker and allow the boom operator do the job of plugging into the refueling rececticle then the pilot of the Sentry trying to drive into a trailing refueling hose. The extra fuel offload rate is a nice bonus but for the Sentry pilots its far easier and safer to tank off a boom tanker.
FedaykinActually most RAF types can tank off a flying boom, providing there is a drogue attatchment on the boom.
Pedantic but true:rolleyes:
On the other hand if you want to use the boom as God and Boeing intended then you need to have boom recepticles.
FedaykinFor a modern day strike on Port Stanley the weapon of first choice would be sub launched Tomahawks.
If you were desperate to get really deep holes in the runway and the high level air defence was as non existence as it was then, I think 4-5 JDAMS pushed off of the ramp of a C17 at 30000 ft wound be pretty effective. You would probably only need 1 or 2 Tristars to get them there and back to boot.
Considering that the Tristar is a hose only tanker and the C17 uses a boom socket (which are not maintained by the RAF) it would be a bit difficult. The only RAF type that can tank off boom equipped tankers is the E3D Sentry (apparently RAF Sentry crews prefer tanking off American tankers using the boom).
In the future the most logical platform for a long range strike like that will be the Nimrod MR4. It has the wiring already for smart munitions like LGBs, GPS bombs and Storm Shadow. The main requirement for integration being sofware changes. I have heard that this has been considered by the RAF as a future role for the Nimrod.
FedaykinNo exaust vents to indicate if it’s a hot launch system?
Thats because it uses a cold launch system.
FedaykinI would say that four capable ships should be enough to properly defend a battlegroup – it is, as mentioned before, pretty much the same as the US does.
As for missiles, I disagree with the suggestion that the RAM is in the same class as the Aster 15 – the RAM is really a short range defence system. They do overlap, but that is never a bad thing! I would certainly hope to replace the Phalanx units with SeaRAM, and give the new carriers some. In addition, I would aim to replace the existing light cannon (the Oerlikon types) with the 35mm Millenium gun or similar.
Eight full T-45s, and eight more cheaper T-45s (perhaps lacking the more expensive AAW systems, in favour of ASW equipment), plus sixteen enlarged Austal LCS, would make a good mix. The LCS vessels would use a modular approach, like the Standard Flex and Meko types. This would allow sixteen identical hulls to be bought, but only eight full weapons and sensor fitouts.
One thing worth noting is that the Meteor missile is of a smaller diameter than the ESSM, so it may be possible to quad-pack them. I am not sure if this would work with the Sylver launchers, but it should work with the Mk41. It may well work with the Sylver though, which could make it an attractive option for France, the UK, and potentially a variety of other countries.
I had to check my original post:D
I never said that RIM116 was in the same class as ASTER15 only that there was an overlap in their respective performance. Whilst there is a chance of some Phalanx mounts to Sea Ram for certain platforms I think the RN would probably rather spend their money on other systems. The type 45 already have a good gun missile combination and I think the RN would rather have the wider engagement envolope of the ASTER15 for future frigate purchases as well as the reduced infrastructure burden.
Considering that ASTER and Sylver are made in France and are already a preferred solution for the French navy the chance of them buying MK41 and ESSM is zero.
I highly doubt that MBDA and Raytheon would want to work together integrating the Meteor seeker on the ESSM considering that:
As I said before when it comes to the crunch the money needs to be spent on introducing new replenishment ships.
FedaykinI would hope that the UK would switch to the Mk41 VLS, and move from the Aster 15 to the ESSM, but with the active seeker from the Meteor. The ESSM could be quad-packed, and with the seeker from the Meteor, it would have an excellent capability. The Type 45 would have ability to carry 40 Aster 30 missiles, and a further 32 active-ESSM, and that is assuming it sticks to 48 cells. I have no problem with the Aster 30, only a problem with the Aster 15, since it takes up the same space. If the UK were to adopt the ESSM with a Meteor seeker, and hopefully the RIM-116 RAM, then the UK ships would be very well protected.
In terms of the LCS, an eight cell VLS, combined with the RAM, would give an excellent defence for the ships. For land attack though, I would choose a derivative of the GMLRS (or Lockheeds smaller P44), since the ship is big enough to house an MLRS launcher in the hangar, and hundreds of rockets internally.
I don’t see the RN going through the process of introducing ESSM in to the inventory. There is little sense in spending money on the infrastructure when they are already inducting a very capable system in the form of ASTER.
The introduction of RIM116 is possible but its performance does overlap with ASTER15 so I doubt you will see it on the Type 45 which will also benefit from retaining the Phalanx capability. Any escort class frigates built in the future will probably get ASTER15 to retain the infrastructure comonality with the Type45. I think the RN will find other things to spend its money on when it comes to upgrading Phalanx mounts to Sea RAM launchers, the only platform I see it having a chance of being retrofitted to is the CVF as the RN will probably outfit it with weapons from the present inventory and Sea RAM is a logical upgrade for the platform. Then again the French might make a very attractive financial case for retaining comonality with PA2 and fitting them with ASTER15 anyway.
The problem is money or lack of as always! Say the RN gets eight Type45’s, two CVF and the (6 – 8 ?)Astutes from the current procurement round there are just more pressing issues then buying lots of extra warships like LPH’S or extra weapon systems. The remaining type23’s will now be operated far beyond their out of service date and Ocean along will Ark Royal face a far longer period of service then intended (If the money was spare a second updated Ocean hull with better fast diesels would be a good idea).
The most pressing procurement issue is the replenishment ships, they don’t meet regulations and they are getting old fast. Even the newer Fort class don’t meet shipping regulations when it comes to their single skinned hulls. Any spare money after the major procurement programs will need to go to renewing RAS capabilities. RFA Diligence also needs replacing (she only just finished one of the longest deployments ever and she is quite irriplaceable) and a suitable replacement for RFA Argus really needs to be found (in the case of RFA Diligence a commercial oil industry support design would do).
After the support ships helicopters are the next major issue, the remaining Sea Kings and commandos (I can’t remember the RN designation – HAS4 I think?) really need replacing. Instead they are getting another life extension and a far reduced future procurement of an advanced Lynx which is all very well for the HAS8 replacement but isn’t suitable as a replacement for bigger types and isn’t being procured in large enough numbers. The RN could buy more Merlins but it is a big expensive type and I see any procurement as a distant prospect.
Due to the unholy mess with the major procurement programs vital bread and butter procurement programs have been allowed to slip. What ships we have left can’t go to sea without the RFA ships and sundry capabilities which have been skimped on.
FedaykinNote the size differences, you would never get even a 3000ton SSK as capable as an Astute.;)
True but I would argue for a fairly large SSK.
FedaykinNow that fuel cell technology has reached an acceptable level of maturity I think it would be a good idea for the RN to look at a mix force of SSK and SSN.
My preferance would be an off the shelf design like the Scorpene or U212/214 class built at a UK yard with a suitable insertion of technlogy (Sonar, combat systems and optronics masts) from the Astute program to allow commonality with the SSN boats.
We would then get much the capability of the SSN boats but with reduced endurance and maybe a greater chance of exports.
FedaykinDammit! You are absolutely, completely, 100% right. The only reason for the PFI farce is to keep the cost off the government spending books in the short term. Longer term, it’ll cost more. I sometimes wonder if the delays have been down to Gordie holding up the money so the chickens’ll come home to roost on someone elses watch.
What? Cynical? Moi? Naaah – a realist. 😡
I bet RAF tanker crews watching the Australian a330 MRTT / KC30 being delivered are feeling frustrated envy especially as they were ordered after the UK MOD selected the type as the prefered solution.
FedaykinI agree, though I am beginning to come round to the idea of buying more A-400Ms to serve as tankers, as well as their role as transports. It would seem that the A-400M is similar in tanker capability to the VC-10, so increasing the orders to ~64 would make a lot of sense. In particular, that would hopefully allow the C-130Js to be re-rolled as intra-theatre transports, and possibly even have some converted to gunships. A fleet of 16 A-330s, 64 A-400Ms, 8 C-17s, 16 C-130Js and 8 AC-130Js would be ideal!
It might be smart to simply do a deal with British Airways (or similar) to buy either A-330s or 777s as part of their fleet renewal – they simply negotiate a larger purchase. This would have the advantage of getting a lower unit cost, and also brings the possibility that they could provide support as well. Since BA or other airlines often will be buying 40+ A-330s or 777s, simply adding 15-20 more would allow a much more attractive unit cost. Once the airframes are bought, they can simply be sent over to Marshalls to be tanker converted.
In terms of the VIP type, an A321 would be similar in size to Air Force Two, i.e. the C-32 (757), and the pre-747 Air Force One. It would easily accomodate enough people, and have enough presence. The amusing thing is when there is a meeting of the G-8 or similar, and everyone else flies in in a government owned widebody, France with A-340s, the US with VC-25s, Canada with A-310s, etc, and then Britain sends its delegation on a British Airways flight… “Sorry Mr Prime Minister, we were delayed offloading the 1330 from Malaga…” :diablo:
Yeah the nice thing about the A400M is it comes off the shelf plumbed for tanking, all they would need to do is purchase some refueling pods to hang off the wings.
FedaykinPerhaps they ought to switch the A-330 MRTT deal to a purchase, and then try to get an A-321 VVIP thrown in as offsets? It is not uncommon for a larger purchase to involve an offset in the form of a smaller aircraft thrown in free – look at the Greek Erieye purchase from Embraer, where they got a Legacy thrown in! With a proper order for ~16 A-330s, as an outright purchase, then Airbus should throw in one or two A-321s, and perhaps a pair of Dassault Falcon 900s?
We can only dream Ed!:(
The a330 MRTT deal is an utter farce! We should be puchasing the tankers outright but instead we have a never ending series of PFI negotiations.
What makes me really sick is the Australians actually decided to purchase the a330 MRTT / KC30 after the UK decided on the type but there airforce is actually taking delivery of real aircraft now whilst the RAF has to soldier on with a geriatric fleet of VC10 and rapidly aging Tristar.
FedaykinTime to dig up an old thread!
I noticed in the times today a report about the future VIP transport. Apparently the government would like to purchase an a320 and a 15 seat biz jet which will be crewed by the RAF.
Whilst it has already been stated that this type of aircraft mix was desired originally the favored larger choice was the Boeing 737 that would be leased and operated by the DFT.
The report vaguely said the main government advisor has stated that a purchase would be the most cost effective option rather then a lease. The report then contradicts itself and talks about a 10 year contract.
So is this all inaccurate reporting by the Times or has there been a change in policy?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1826731.ece
FedaykinThe problem I have with SOC’s article is the JF-17 is just too new! Its not even out of flight testing yet and it doesn’t have a full avionic suite.
Unless SOC has some kind of secret access to the test program and is speaking with some kind of inside knowledge I won’t pass judgement yet on the aircrafts qualities.
What we have seen is surprising considering how backward the Chinese aerospace sector was even a decade ago! It has fly by wire and modern avionics. Lets wait and see before we call it a pile of junk!
FedaykinAhhh thanks guys! People do love me really (even if Star49 missed the point of my argument – oh and I do know how to use quote I wanted to post my reply in that way).
I very much agree with PLA-MKII about the high low mix issue, Pakistan is going for an overlap of capability rather than high low. Far more flexible I think, each type can drop bombs and fire missiles. The main delay for J-10 (or FC-20 as Pakistan call it) is all about the engine, whilst Pakistan is now going to get JF-17 with Russian engines its very sensible for them to wait for Chinese engines in the case of J-10. Anyway they are going to have their hands full inducting new F16 and JF-17.
Sign In
