EdLawAs far as I can remember, it was mostly the basic weapons fit already mentioned, i.e. AIM-9 and AGM-65, with guns, rockets and bombs, plus cluster bombs. I think the bombs were most likely French or Swiss in origin, though I am sure I’ve seen some photos of them carrying what looked like normal British 1000lb bombs.
So:
AIM-9
AGM-65
30mm Aden
250kg / 550lb bombs (I’m guessing)
1000lb bombs (I’m pretty sure I’ve seen them carrying UK 1000lb bombs)
BL-755 cluster bombs
Rocket pods – not so sure about this, but I’m sure I’ve seen references to them carrying rocket pods…
As for which pylons, I am pretty sure it was only the outboard pylons that were certified for the complex weapons, with the inner pair normally carrying drop tanks.
EdLawPerhaps they could agree with Israel to deal with Hamas and Hezbollah, and get some of the ex-Israeli A-4 Skyhawk/Ahits? :diablo:
EdLawIt may be the unfortunate angle, but that really looks like an ugly aircraft! It seems to be very ‘fat’ up top, unlike a lot of the UCAVs on the market (Barracuda, Taranis, X-45 and X-47). It does of course remain to be seen if this is another ‘look what we could do if we were given the money to do it’ exercises, or if this is a genuine project. A few years back, I remember AFM showed pictures from an airshow, it may have been MAKS (though I can’t quite recall), of two ‘new Russian UAVs’, and they were basically just carbon copies of Predator and Global Hawk.
EdLawWhile adding a RAAF Hornet or Super Hornet Squadron within a American Carrier Battle Group could have its benefits to the USN. What good would it do for Australia??? Especially, considering the limited number of aircraft that they operate……:o
It’s more that it would give them the ability to have a presence across the Pacific, more than just the Oceania part of it. It’s just an option, but in particular it would give Australia the ability to send a squadron to ops in Afghanistan, from the safety of a USN carrier. As it was, they sent a Hornet unit to Diego Garcia, but that was just to provide some theoretical air protection to the base there. I say theoretical since there wasn’t really any air threat, so the aircraft, as far as I know, didn’t venture anywhere near hostile skies.
Basically, it gives Australia the ability to sabre rattle a little louder, and further out than just Indonesia – perhaps Australia can join the long list of nations claiming the Spratly Islands! :diablo:
EdLawAnother thing to add to the RN’s ships would be a proper anti-mine system, as the USN have been toying with for the Arleigh Burke class. The USN has begun deploying the AN/WLD-1 Remote Minehunting System, which gives a normal destroyer or frigate a minehunting capability. This is not so much to turn a billion dollar destroyer into a minehunter (which would be somewhat nuts!), but rather to give them the ability to protect themselves. In GW1, the USN found at least one of their ships was sitting in a minefield, which is not a good place to be! If each ship can carry at least a basic mine hunting kit, they can at least get their way out of the minefield, albeit slowly.
As for Unmanned Little Bird, I agree, it is a little big, but I don’t think its all that much bigger than the Firescout, but I think the really impressive one remains the A-160 Hummingbird. The Hummingbird offers great endurance, and can carry a very respectable payload – potentially an air surveillance radar, which would of course boost warning time for incoming missiles. If the Type 45s could carry a couple of A-160s, each with a Searchwater type radar, they could provide much better AAW coverage! Even if this means losing the manned helicopter, this might well be worth it for the destroyers, as long as they’re acting as part of a taskforce.
On UAVs, I think the best bet is to push for UK construction, and increased UK content – why buy a lower quality UAV just because it’s British? The other thing is to stop this nonsense about expecting UAVs to last the same way that manned fighters last! UAV technology advances very quickly, especially at the moment, and trying to use an outdated UAV is what has left us in this mess. Phoenix was an okay UAV when it entered service, but while everyone else started using newer, better UAVs like Sperwer, Shadow, Predator, Hunter etc, the UK stuck with Phoenix. We need to accept that UAVs will only stay current for about ten years, after which, they will generally be far behind current technology.
I would immediately switch from the Watchkeeper 450 to the Hermes 900, which has high commonality, and can use the same equipment. It has better endurance, better range, and better payload, and would give the Army a rough equivalent of the Predator, probably at a lower cost. In addition, I would immediately order a UK-built Scan Eagle, to be deployed by all the battalion sized units at least. Add in platoon or company level Raven or Desert Hawk to be fielded by all the units, and we would have excellent SA. This would give us unprecedented UAV capability, and combined with better artillery (155mm/52cal AS90s, using PGK equipped rounds, and GMLRS), would give us round the clock strike capability.
So, the priority is basically to boost current plans a bit, bring the budget up to where it should be (considering we’re at war!), and buy what is needed, not what is cheap. Lots of UAVs for the Army and possibly RAF (Reaper especially), and Scan Eagles and Hummingbirds for the Royal Navy!
EdLawIt’s actually a really good idea, and would give Australia a greater presence on overseas missions. Ideally, I would love to see Australia dual-qualifying Hornet pilots, enabling the Rhino unit to always be fully crewed, with pilots rotating. This could potentially allow a full squadron to be maintained most of the time, perhaps aboard the Kitty Hawk! A full time presence on board either Kitty Hawk or whichever carrier is in WestPac would give Australia a massive boost in capability… :diablo:
EdLawI really doubt they’re concerned about the Israeli overflights, I think the real problem they’re dealing with is with all the Hamas-linked groups in Palestinian camps. Any operation of the Hunters is likely to be concerned with ground attack within Lebanon itself, in support of Lebanese security forces. Any thoughts of using the aircraft against Israel would elicit more than a few laughs from the Israeli Air Force. Lebanon has so many problems at the moment, they really need to be given as much assistance as possible in dealing with them. I just hope they can actually make a difference, and keep things from getting out of control.
If a few old Hunters help, then that’s really good news – and really good news for all us aviation enthusiasts, to see the old warrior taking to the skies again! 🙂
EdLawHow about the Scan Eagle for the Navy? It has certainly been tested on the Duke class, and if memory serves, it was quite successful. It may not have the capabilities of the helicopter type UARs (helo UAVs), but it would be a fraction of the cost, and be very fast to field. It also has the benefit of being much smaller, so could certainly be carried by the Type 22s, and probably the Type 23s as well.
In the longer term, there are a few good options, such as the Firescout, and smaller ones too, but I think there’s a lot to be said for Boeing’s unmanned Little Bird. It has the benefit of optional manning, good payload, and the potential to be used for SAR, and potentially CSAR too I suppose.
EdLawExcellent list Swerve!
But… (there’s always a but!) :diablo:
I’d be tempted to add a few more A-400Ms (even though I’m not a fan of it!), simply because it would be able to replace the VC-10s one for one. The problem at the moment is that the A-330s are only going to be able to replace the current tanker fleet on a one-for two basis. This means fewer hoses in the air, fewer tankers, and generally lower availability, simply due to less aircraft. The A-400M (according to AFM) has a similar tanker capability to the VC-10s, so would be able to supplement the A-330s in the tanker role, while still helping the normal transport capacity at the same time.
I would aim to increase the A-400M order back to its original target of around 50, with half of them having tanker kits. This, combined with keeping the C-130Js would boost both tactical tanker capability and transport capability, albeit perhaps not at the same time. If the C-17 fleet is increased by another two, to eight, and the A-330 fleet is boosted by two to sixteen, then the force would be well rounded.
Not sure I agree about the F-35B, simply because the carriers are big enough to take F-35Cs, which are more capable. It also would allow the carriers to be purely CTOL, with the ability to cross-deck with the Americans and French. In addition, it makes adding UAVs and UCAVs much easier if the carriers are catapult equipped. I’ve never been a great believer in STOVL, and in this case, I don’t think we need a direct replacement for the Harrier, but rather an aircraft to do its job, i.e. close support and recon. I would hope to see the JSF order increased a little, to 200 total, split 50/50 between the RAF and RN. This would allow the RN to give both carriers a full airwing of 32 JSFs at all times, without borrowing RAF aircraft. If UCAVs become available, then it would allow the carrier airwings to be slightly bigger, again without the problems of inter-service borrowing!
I agree wholeheartedly about the Nimrod, but I would abandon the rebuild strategy entirely, simply because it is needlessly complex. New build airframes would be faster, since the MRA-4 is mostly new stuff anyway, and only really keeps odd little bits. With the Nimrods newfound role as a long range high endurance bomber, surveillance plane etc, it would make sense to get a few more of them. There may be less of a submarine threat, but since the Nimrods do so much more than hunt the seas for absent Russian subs, its no argument for not buying enough of them! :diablo:
For the smaller bomb capability, I suspect the combination of the Small Diameter Bomb and the Brimstone missile would be hard to beat. Possibly add in the APKWS (or whatever its called this week), which is just a guided 70mm rocket! Its cheap enough, light enough, so it would make a good choice – strike aircraft could carry 18 round pods easily enough, like the old SNEB pods.
For the Army, I would be tempted to go for the Scan Eagle UAV, which is cheap and effective, and would make a good Battalion level UAV. Supplement this with either the planned Watchkeeper 450, or even switch up to a diesel engined version of the slightly bigger Hermes 900. This would be a slightly better fit as a brigade level asset, and has the potential to carry a couple of Brimstone missiles as well! I would certainly want to boost the RAF’s order for Reaper UAVs though, which would enable round the clock air support, without the problems of supporting large numbers of fast jets!
As for helicopters, boost the Apache fleet a bit, since they’ve really proven themselves in Afghanistan. I would abandon the Lynx though, and look towards buying something more like an up-engined AW-149, but using the RTM-322 engines (as used on the NH90 and EH-101). This would be a little bigger than Lynx, and with the new engines, have better hot and high capability!
The only other thing would be to get General Atomics to speed up development of the Predator C, which is supposed to be pretty close to Global Hawk in capability, at a fraction of the cost!
EdLawFor Australia, the best bet for an F-111 replacement (excluding Russian options) would probably have been F-15s, or possibly UCAVs. The F-15s would give decent medium range strike, and be able to self escort to an extent. The UCAV option could be an alternative, though it would bring up issues of escort-ability – their range is probably greater than most fighters. The real issue is what are the range and payload requirements. Perhaps the best bet would have been to get a batch of 50 or so F-15s, and reduce the F-35 orders to 50 or so, and perhaps get 50 UCAVs. A mix of capable aircraft might be better than going over to a single type, which would be more vulnerable to groundings following any incidents.
EdLawI agree, it would be a nightmare to man (though if just a simple LHD type, the crew may be relatively small), and provide airgroups for. It is more the idea of actually having a proper RN back, with a capability lost since the ’60s!
I was really envisaging something more along the lines of the Spanish Juan Carlos LHD, rather than the Italian Cavour. Think more in terms of a super-sized HMS Ocean!
The airwing would actually be quite modest, probably a single oversized squadron per ship at most. A total procurement of about 150 JSFs would probably be enough to provide five oversized squadrons. A small carrier with 20 or so JSFs would be more than enough for most duties, and it might even be possible to add in a small detachment of Predator UAVs, to help provide some air support. It would not be too much harder to crew these airwings than to provide the pair of larger airwings on the CVFs.
The big problem would obviously be in providing all the escorts – twice as many carriers half the size still need twice as many escorts. Sadly! I have to say, though, that the idea of Britain having four or five carriers is very tempting!
EdLawWait, the Navy are those guys with the carriers, right? A carrier can take 80 .. let’s say 90 aircraft, deducting auxiliary aircraft like AEW, helis and ASW aircraft, normal US carrier houses about 70 strike aircraft. Were to put all those aircraft? Oh, I forget:
An F-18F with more powerful engines? I would suggest to add the obscenely big external drop tanks, too.
Seriously, you don’t have much idea about military aviation, do you?
Ignoring the offensive tone of your comments, and the fact that you pretended to quote something I didn’t actually say at all, you should try understanding the way US procurement works.
The numbers of aircraft I quoted are within the existing procurement plans – e.g. 1500 F-16s would be bought instead of a similar number of F-35s, which would be much more expensive. As for the Navy’s aircraft, only a portion of their total aircraft numbers are actually deployed on board the carrier. The carrier air wing I would envisage would have been three US Navy Rhino squadrons, one Marine Rhino squadron, a Growler squadron, and the usual Hawkeye and Seahawk detachments. This would be a total of 60 fast jets, and four Hawkeyes and four to six Seahawks. Since the S-3 Vikings are gone, this is a perfectly reasonable airwing, and less than was carried in the ’80s. Add in a detachment of UCAVs, and you still have fewer aircraft than were carried in the ’80s.
So before you start making offensive comments about my suggestions, perhaps you ought to look at how US procurement works. The total number procured is nothing like the number in service, it includes testing aircraft, spare aircraft, and attrition replacement. A total procurement of 3000 jets, i.e. 1500 F-16s, 500 F-15Es, 500 F-22s and 500 A-10s, would be entirely within existing capabilities. The result would be a total available force of less than 1800 aircraft in combat capable squadrons. Since the plan until recently was to have ~350 F-22s, ~350 F-15Es, and ~2000+ F-35s, this would be very plausible.
As for carrier capacities, it would be worth noting that there are plenty of non carrier deployed units. So, despite your snide remarks, and faked quotes, there would be no need for increased carrier numbers, and no bigger carriers – if anything, I would be in favour of maintaining a force of 10 carriers. UCAVs would normally sit on land bases, with small detachments as necessary. No more than 60 or so fast jets attached. Given accident rates, a thousand Rhinos would only yield three or so squadrons per carrier airwing.
As for better engines, I am actually referring to the engine improvements already to be implemented in the Block III Rhino, and they have already looked at thrust vectoring, but funding was too tight to allow it. In my plan, there would be no JSF, so a lot of development funds would be freed up.
So next time, perhaps it might be an idea to show some respect, and not jump to ridiculous responses. All of what I suggested is entirely affordable within existing procurement budgets, it would just require a re-prioritisation, and in particular, cancellation of certain over budget projects. And yes, actually, I do know a reasonable amount about military aviation, but I doubt you know anything about manners!
EdLawAn interesting possibility might have been more ships – perhaps a cheaper LHD type ship, but three or four of them? Certainly a 30 or even 40,000 ton LHD type would have been quite cheap, and each could have still carried a good number of F-35Bs, possibly as many as 24 in the larger design. Four 40,000 ton LHDs, each escorted by a pair of T-45s, and a pair of T-23s would have been interesting! They could of course have operated as amphibs as well, with the ability to have one or two of them embarking a Marine commando unit, and their associated helicopters. They could even have been used as casualty treatment ships, and even been used for aviation training. This would have allowed them to replace Argus as well. In this case, four or five could even have been a possibility, allowing two at sea at any one time, and a third ready for sea, one in maintenance, and a final one in overhaul. All this for the approximate cost of the two CVFs!
Ahh the possibilities!
EdLawFor the US, I would aim relatively low:
500 F-22 – with JSF cancelled, you need more stealthy fighters, but not thousands.
500 F-15E – new build, or just upgraded, with F110-GE-132 engines, and an AESA.
1500 F-16E/F – new build, to maintain force strength. With the same engines as the F-15E fleet, for maintenance purposes.
500 A-10 – new built or just refurbished, to provide for CAS. New glass cockpit, probably based on the F-16 one; radar podded on the wing, as was proposed for the A-10B night intruder.
1000 UCAV – to provide the stealthy strike capability, in place of the JSFs. It frees up the F-22s to provide air superiority, and can help free up the bombers from having to loiter as bomb trucks over ‘Stan and Iraq.
2000 Reaper UAVs – bringing back the WW2 concept of always having strike aircraft in the air, at a few minutes notice. It would allow the Air Force to maintain aircraft in the air at all times over places like Iraq, always sitting ready to drop a JDAM or fire a Hellfire. Better than waiting half an hour for an F-16 to get there…
For the US Navy:
1000 F/A-18F – with thrust vectoring and new AESA, with the more powerful engines planned. Provides the Navy with a reasonably good air superiority aircraft, and with the upgrades, can hold its own against pretty much anyone, even if it doesn’t have much of an edge.
250 EA-18G – enough for a full squadron in each airwing, allowing much more jamming capability, and also extra tankers when needed.
500 UCAV – enough for at least one or even two squadrons per airwing, giving stealthy strike capability.
For the US Marines:
500 F/A-18Fs – replacing all the legacy Hornets and Harriers.
500 Reaper UAVs – providing round the clock air support for deployed Marine units.
500 AH-1Z – to make up for not having the Harriers on the amphibs. The extra Cobras would be able to provide close support and helicopter escort.
1000 CH-71 – the EH-101, in place of the 360 V-22s. Cheaper, more reliable, more rugged, what more can a Marine ask for?
US Army:
1000 CH-47F – more Chinooks, especially for hot and high operations like Afghanistan.
3000 UH-60 – allowing all the units to have a full complement of Blackhawks, and allowing more units to be moved tactically by air.
1000 AH-64D – giving all units their full complement of Apaches.
2000 MH-6 – in place of the ARH-70, capable of anti-tank ops, light gunship ops, and light troop movement, and casevac.
1000 Reaper UAVs – to provide round the clock air support, and surveillance.
1000 Warrior UAVs – to provide round the clock surveillance.
100 AC-27J gunships – again, to give the Army its own gunships, not just for special forces.
EdLawFor Sri Lanka, the most important things in a jet are endurance and capability. The latter does not demand a high performance jet, just good weapons and systems, and the former favours slower types. It might be more worthwhile looking at IAR-99 Soims, or L-159s, which would be able to carry a laser designator pod, and a pair of LGBs. For the non precision work, the best bet would still be attack helicopters, probably a mix of Mi-24s and even Mi-17s.
I would, however, put a lot more emphasis on UAVs, since they could designate targets for the AF, and simply have cheap jets carrying LGBs. It might not be too insane to actually look at using a suitable maritime patrol aircraft or even a bizjet as a bomber. Dassualt certainly offered the Falcon 20 with hardpoints, and with its superior endurance, it could make an excellent bomber! :diablo:
Sign In
