LordJimI would be surprised if the RAF ends up with less than 6 frontline Typhoon squadrons plus the OCU and OEU. The number of stored airframes will be reduced though as having such a large reserve pool is a luxury the RAF cannot afford. This will mean that the operational airframes will use their hours up faster but that will be someone elses problem!
As for the JSF, well 2 squadrons will probable be allocated to the FAA for routine deployment on the Carriers (30 AC) with the 2 or 3 RAF squadrons available to deploy if a surge is required. their will also surely be a joint OCU and 3-4 airframes allocated to the Joint OEU. again lack of reserve airframes will me increased usage of hours.
So that takes care of replacing the Tornado F3s, Jaguar GR3s and the Harriers, what is to replace the 8 Tornado GR4 squadrons in the future RAF or are we goint to be left with 10 or 11 fast jet squadrons? I believe the MoDs current plans call for 84 fast jets to be available for operations, can this be met by so few squadrons? Without having to deploy dedicated Air Defence assets as both the Typhoon and JST are swing role the number could be reduced to around 70 though.
Mind you compared to other European Airforces, 10 to 11 frontline fast jet squadrons is still a sizeable force. Both France and Germany have drastically reduced their Airforces with only Greece and Turkey maintaining or increasing theirs.
Unless the UK goes to war with Russia or Chine by itself, though I weep for the future size of the RAF/FAA, 10 to 11 squadrons of 4.5 and 5th Generation aircraft may actually be enough to get the job done as long as there are sufficient Tankers, ISTAR platforms etc to support them.
LordJimPersonally I would like to see the RAF buy a number of AC-130U Gunships to work with UAVs as the USAF do.
Back to the original question the Tornado and Jaguar had different roles (Excluding 41 sqn and the 2 GR1A recce units) With the right tactics both were very survivable in most situations.
For CAS the Jaguar wins hands down day or night with NVGs, HMD, IDM together with ease of maintenance/low support foot print. Yes it was underpowered (They never did get the 106 to work) but it would still get the job done.
For strike and interdiction the Tonado is the champ, especially in GR4 guise. I just wish we had joined the SDB programme as the Tornado could carry up to 12 under the main body leaving wing hardpoints for fuel and ECM etc.
LordJimTo replace the Puma and Sea King I would like to see between 24 and 36 Merlins bought to equip 3 RN Squadrons and bring both RAF squadrons up to full strength. I would like to see the AW149 as well but given to the Army to replace the Lynx AH9 so around 32 for 2 Regiments each of 2 AW149 Squadrons and 1 Wildcat squadron. 1 Squadron of Wildcats would go the the RM.
Maybe a wish list but surely someone has got to finally see the light in HMG and/or the MoD!
By the way what if any are the plans for armament on the Wildcats?
LordJimWhen I suggested Aster for the C1, I was implying that it would act as an additional magazine for the T45s, like the USN looked at for the Spruance VLS upgrade working with Aegis equipped vessels. Obviously when not with a T45 alternate stores could be loaded into said launchers.
I still think a modular approach to the 2nd tier C2/C3 is a viable route to follow. It would provide greater flexibility for a smaller fleet especially with prepositioned mission modules. It would also allow for future technology to be easily adopted and be more cost effective. Trying to fit out a GP frigate with everything needed is going to lead to creap in size, cost and complexity as seems to happen with all projects like this.
LordJimHas anyone got any drawings of what the T23 was to be before it was amended to reduce costs. I am no expert on naval matters but would people agree that the T23 is a sound design. Would a stretched version fill any of the C1/C2 requirements?
Also I think we need to look at how the French have organised their navy over the past decades. They have run a two tier fleet with small frigates/corvettes for patrol/overseas station work and high end units for medium/high threat conflicts.
I would like to see a two tier solution to the RN issues rather than the C1/C2/C3 idea. I would have between 8 to 12 High end units together with 12 to 18 Low end. I am a fan of the Danish modular system and I believe it would suit the low end unit design. Their basic fit would be 57/76mm gun and flight deck hanger for lynx size helicopter. Modules containing MCM, AAW, ASW, ASuW accommodation for combat troop and transports (rigid Raider type) would be available. Module could be prepositioned to allow rapid role change and these ships would also have a useful Medium/High threat role working with High end units if and when required. Obviously cost would prohibit each hull having a full suite of modules allocated.
I see the high end units (T24) being based on the T45 hull but with a more GP weapons fit. I would like them to retain aster but have the ability to be networked to the T45s with the later controlling/giuding missiles in high threat situation. I would also see the T45s missile capacity increased so both vessels have 60 launch cells with a mix of Aster/CAMM/SCALP N with the T45s being biased towards Aster and the T24 with 36 SCALP N, 16 Aster and 24 CAMM. If possible I would like the T24 to be able to operate 2 Merlin size Helicopters.
As I said I am no expert but what do people think?
LordJimA note on TSR2 engines. Remember these were basically the same engines that ended up in Concorde ie Olympus in afterburning Mk320 form.
The F-111K has a greater weapon load and a slight range advantage of around 250 Miles but the TSR-2 was lighter with more powerful engines
TF-30 Dry: 17,900lbs Reheat: 21,500lbs Power/Weight Ratio: 0.61
Mk320 Dry: 19,610lbs Reheat ;30.610lbs Power/Weight Ratio: 0.77
Also in the TSR-2s favour and one of the reasons the costs were so high is the avionics package which in addition to TFR had side looking radar and for the time a very comprehensive ECM package.
As the TSR-2 never got beyond the prototype stage what variety of weapons it could carry is mainly guess work though any weapon used by the RAF up to the 1st Gulf War would be a fair bet along with a self designation capability.
IT would have been the equal of the F-111 and I am sure would have served the RAF well during its service.
As a side note my Uncle was earmarked as one of the RAF Test Pilots due to fly the TAR-2 at Boscombe Down during its evaluation. To say he was dissapointed when it was cancelled is an understatement!
LordJimGiven that BAe carried out the overhaul work for UK based USAF F-111 I agree that if accepted into service additional F-111Ks would have been purchased. This may have led to the F-111K being developed into a similar platform to the USAF versions and growth curve.
If the UK had bought the F-111K who else may have bought it? would the UK have also bought the EF-111 or developed a similar platform. Would it have developed a Recce and Anti-Ship capabilities like the RAAF?
If this had happened there would have been no need for the Tornado which means no Panavia consortium. This may have meant that Anglo/French co-operation could have continued with the Rafale or its equivilent being developed to replace the Jaguars, F-111K and existing Air Defence Fighters. Maybe the Mirage 4000 would have been developed into a production platform?
Speaking of Air Defence fighters with no Tornado what would have replaced the Lightning and Phantom? Would we have bought the F/A18A or Mirage 2000?
Real food for thought!
LordJimI think the F35 should not be part of this debate as given to amount likely to be bought, these will be almost exclusively be allocated to the FAA to support the new carriers if the size of air group is as advertised.
My vote for step change would go the the Canberra. Like the Mosquito it replaced it provided such a leap in capability and performance that even the USAF bought it in large numbers in the form of the B57. Finally if you look at the PR9 variant nothing in RAF service could or will equal its performance or abilities.
LordJimWhen did the Joint Harrier Force last conduct strike missions from a Carrier. I know the SHAR flew over Bosnia but have the GR7/9s ever. IT truely seems that they are deployed now only if the RAF sanctions it and then only for brief times. I know the need of Afganistan were the major priority but surely with 3 frontline and a OCU it would be possible to deploy more than 8 or so platforms operationally. I am aware of the upgrade programme at Cottesmore but the idea of that was to speed up both depth maintainance and the upgrade.
Given the RAF is likely to have at most 12 fast jet squadrons in the future, shouldn’t the RAF stick to the Typhoon and leave the JSF to the RN. Make the Typhoons of Tranche 3 two seaters with conformal fuel tanks allowing them to be used in a similar capacity as the US F-15E, and taking over the roles of the Tornado fleets.
I am eagerly awaiting the results of the ongoing review. There are so many programmes stuck in the Assessment and developement stages of the vaunted CADMID cycle within the MOD what funding there is becomes too diluted! Hard choices will have to be made by all three services.
Maybe the Harrier force will have to go or be strunk to a size for deployment on the carriers only of say on operational squadron and one OCU. The Tornado force could be trimmed removing at least two squadrons, one from each wing. I think the F3s are going to go ASAP or as soon as No6 Squadron is operational. Rationalise the transport fleet on C-130s and C-17s by pulling out of the A400 and mayby allow some of the C-130s to be used as tankers, they have the plumbing for it. Purchase additional Merlin HC3s to allow two full squadrons and marinise both. Scrap the Nimrod MR4 and see what Posidon bring to the table.
Failing all of the above should we just rent our Armed forces to the US, NATO or EU as some sort of Foreign Legion.
LordJimCan the F-35 pull 9g when supersonic as the Typhoon can? and for how long. This is one of the main performance marker for the typhoon and the reason for the new G Suit.
I know I am late into this tread but I do believe that the F-35 is too much of a compromise in order to gain its stealth characteristics. It is too advanced and costly for low intensity conflicts and to limited for High intensity. Yes its electronics will be amazing but its payload is too small especially the STOVL variant. With hard points it loses stealth. What will it possible face in the 2020’s
Stealthy UCAVs are a better bet for day one operations supported by platforms such as the F/A-18E, Typhoon or Rafale.
Hope I haven’t repeated previous statements.
LordJimNot being an expert on this topic I was wondering if I might join the fight. I agree that the TU-22M is probably the most potent threat to a CBG, especially if equipped with supersonic ASMs. But it would only be so as either part of a co-ordinated attack with SSNs and SSGNs. The Russian Surface units would have a hard time getting close enough to a CBG. Also the USN is not going to sail a CBG close to the shore before it has dealt with immediate blue water threats.
I understand it is a piece of wishfully fiction, but the initial soviet attack on USN CBG in “Red Storm Rising” gives an idea of how it could have been done.
But how many TU-22Ms does Russia have, and out of those how many are serviceable? Can other Russian aircraft reach out into the Atlantic/Pacific and how many of these are available. Could any of these sortie totally undetected, together with the required tankers etc.
IF you give command of a CBG to a total idiot and order hin to sail near the coast at DEFCOM 5 yes Russia would be able to take it out in all probability but that simply isn’t going to happen (Watch this space). If the Iranians sortied their SS into the gulf, It would cause the USN to pull back until they were located and given a real close escort.
Even todays reduced strength CBG is formidable, with little or very few real threats. Looking at what the UKs future CBG may comprise of (1x T-45, 1x FFG, 1 x SSN), I would be a very worried sailor if I was on one in a medium to high threat environment.
LordJimWhy don’t they try to obtain 24 batch 2 Eurofighters from the RAF. The RAF cannot afford to operate them anyway and would appreciate the savings in not having to pay for them now if the are leased by another airforce first then pay for and put them into service when the lease is up.
I know the Typhoon hasn’t the range of the F-111 but using the new Airbus MRTT they have purchased its range would be useful
LordJimHas anyone any photos of the Russian hovercraft purchased by Greece a while back? How are thery being used? and what does the Greek Navy think of them?
LordJimGiven that the MOD is supposed to be looking for ways to streamline support costs etc, especially for its fixed and rotary wing assets, I think they are missing an opportunity here. IF a Sea Typhoon was developed for the Navy and a twin stick variant for the RAF (to replace the GR4) the UK could have a single platform fleet. I know some people dislike this idea as if a fault is found and the fleet is grounded you have nothing left but the chances must be small of this ever happening.
The JSF is not the platform the UK needs in my opinion. Yes STOVL has its uses, but the compromises it makes and above all its cost are too great. The vast amounts of money invested in the Typhoon, and the fact that it is entering service, future developements are already in the pipeline, great growth potential, mean it would meet all the UKs requirements for decades to come and the extra capabilities would make it a very serious contender to the JSF.
Finally going down the route of using a Sea Typhoon for the new carriers would solve the problem of what AEW&C platform to use, as with catapults etc the Hawkeye 2000 is in the shops now. The use of catapults also opens the possibility of using the naval UCAVs underdevelopement in the US. These would provide any first strike capability required and increase the size of the CAW. Also twin stick Sea Typhoons could be used as motherships/controllers for UCAV missions.
The CAW for the Carriers could look like this;
24 Single seat Sea Typhoon – Air Defence, Attack, Reconnaissance
12 Twin Stick Typhoon FGR6 – Air Defence, Attack, Reconnaissance, UCAV C3
12 UCAV – Attack, Reconnaissance
3 Hawkeye 2000 – AEW&C
4 Merlin ASW, SAR
LordJimI strong believe that the RN will get its two CVFs, but in doing so will have had to sacrifice the rest of the fleet. I can see the numbers of DDGs and FFGs dropping below 25 over the next decade, with ships being mothballed to keep the reduced number at sea. Any replacement for the T-22 Batch 3 and the T-23s will be a long time in coming
The is happening to the RAF. It has lost 50% of its fast jet squadrons since 1990 in order to safeguard the Typhoon and still cannot find the funds to replace the PR9 Canberra or Puma. The army is in a similar situation losing units left right and center yet it cannot proceed with many of its priority programmes such as FRES due to lack of money. Instead these programmes are in a holding pattern before Main Gate.
Our levels of defence spending in this country a criminal. We are fighting two wars on a value for money basis, yet new kit is being brought for the front lines but only as UORs, with no proper support, in insufficient numbers and at inflated prices. Is it going to take a massacre of 18 year soldiers to make prople wake up
Sign In
