EdLawThe sad thing being that the USAF canned the J-UCAS project, leaving the Navy to run the show. The systems are not all that far off being ready now, and it would make a lot more sense for the USAF to embrace it. The problem being that if the UCAVs prove themselves capable enough, people will question the wisdom of using large numbers of JSFs to do the same job…..
EdLawThe problem with the Jaguar was that it was a cheap and effective strike platform, not a complex strike fighter. Its value was in its cheapness and simplicity – in some ways, it was everything the Harrier wasn’t (easy to maintain, simple, cheap to operate). This doesn’t make it a good candidate for SEAD though, it would require too much work. The Tornado had the necessary complex systems and avionics to make it a good candidate for the SEAD role.
Perhaps in an ideal world the UK would have not bothered with the Harrier at all, and used a pure mix of Tornado fighters and strike aircraft, and Jaguars for close support. Even better would have been if the UK had used the F-3 airframe for its strike aircraft, i.e. the stretched fuselage etc… More powerful engines would even have allowed a single Tornado type for all roles, as had originally been intended. The UK would then operate wings of three or four squadrons each, with a specialisation, e.g. fighter, strike, recon/sead and so on. With no expensive Harrier program, more Jaguars could have been built, perhaps with a better wing, allowing more hardpoints.
For now, the UK could field Tornado F-3s for the SEAD role if needed – it has been demonstrated, and could be fielded if needed. As it is, the Typhoon is taking over the air to air role, and so the general situation is looking pretty good. The main thing now would be to increase the JSF order, and ideally field more Reaper UAVs, and perhaps a UCAV derived from the Taranis.
The future for SEAD is likely to be with UCAVs, and networked sensors – an aircraft picks up a threat, refers it to a command center, perhaps ASTOR, isolate the target, and get a UCAV to hit it. It is going to be a matter of compressing the detection-to-destruction timeframe now!
EdLawThat does sort of ignore the fact that the shorter range ballistic missiles are easier to intercept with other missiles. In particular, the PAC-3, and probably SM-2s, would be used against such targets. It is not very accurate to say that this is a flaw of the SM-3 – that’s like saying that the AMRAAM is flawed because its not very effective at gun range… Different horses for different courses! :diablo:
EdLawPart of the point of the ballistic missile defence capability is that it form part of a wider system. In this case, the destroyers would not be expected to face down the entire Chinese missile force, but rather to improve targetting, for the overall defence of Taiwan. Land based PAC-3s, possibly land based SM-3s, and sea based SM-3s would all be used, along with anything else Taiwan can get its hands on. Every single missile stopped is one less to cripple Taiwanese forces – perhaps they can’t stop all of them, but the more they get, the better. Other obvious options would be the new NCADE missile, which would perhaps stop a few more missiles.
Basically, these ships would have a ballistic missile defence role whether or not they have ABM missiles.
EdLawThe first of the two photos is the previously discussed twin tailed F-5, which appears to be no more than a twin tail conversion. The second one is more of a change, with the mid mounted wing, and LERXs. If we are generous, however, we could assume one of two things:
– The two designs may be merged, creating a twin tailed, mid winged fighter. This, with better engines, could be a good fighter, at least by ’70s technology standards!
– The two are technology demonstrators, to prove technology for a new design, even if it is based on F-5 technology. Maybe even a single J-79 engined F-5 derivative, a la F-20 (which of course used the F-404, but the Iranians don’t have them…). An F-5 derivative with a J79 would have a lot more thrust, and with a bigger wing, root extensions, and better man machine interface, along with a new radar, would be an excellent little fighter.
However, whatever you do with a basic F-5, it will always be a lightweight fighter, which is no bad thing, but it isn’t going to be a world beater!
EdLawIt might not have been a bad option, if it had been announced earlier, to do a tie-in with Australia directly, on the Arleigh Burke derived AWD design. A combined purchase would lower unit costs, since each nation could buy four ships each.
An alternative option, depending on Aussie-Taiwan relations, would be to simply offer them the CEAFAR radar, which would not be too far off Aegis. The Aussies could integrate the radar on a suitable size ship, possibly even just a new build Cheng Kung frigate (Perry class frigates). They would be big enough to carry the system, and suitable command and control facilities, and the necessary weapons. Taiwan certainly has enough experience with the design, and it would be a relatively straightforward project. They should be able to fit a 48 cell VLS fore, and probably a 16 cell amidships, which would be more than enough for the mission.
Okay, it’s maybe not exactly what they want, but the CEAFAR-Cheng Kung option certainly would be doable, and not have the political repurcusions of Aegis. Even better, as part of the deal, perhaps they could even buy some Collins class subs, giving them an excellent capability boost. Four Collins class subs, and four air defence destroyers would be better than they seem to be heading for!
EdLawThe main changes to make to the F-5s basic design would be:
– Bigger engines. This is the greatest priority, since it would have the greatest benefit. It shouldn’t be too difficult to improve the J-85 engines, boosting thrust levels, and improving efficiency. A somewhat ambitious change might actually be to use the Williams FJ-44, with an afterburner, since it is pretty much the same size as the J-85.
– Add LERXs, which would help with lift, and generally improve handling.
– Use a slightly bigger wing, with stronger hardpoints, but more importantly, hold more fuel. The more fuel that can be carried internally, the less the need for drop tanks, so more weapons. It might not be too much of a stretch to even add conformal fuel tanks.
– Perhaps add height to the landing gear, and in particular, add a nosewheel oleo to improve takeoff performance (by changing angle of attack). A double extension for the main gear would improve wing clearance, speeding up re-arming etc…
All these changes are relatively simple, but would improve the basic design dramatically. Add in things like better radar (again, not too complex, since it has long been offered as an upgrade by various companies), new cockpit displays, a Russian helmet mounted sight, and you have a good fighter. It is not going to be a world beater, but it would at least give a reasonably good performing fighter. As part of a high-low mix with Mig-29s, and Su-24s and Su-25s for ground attack, it would give a good fighter fleet.
EdLawGood call, it certainly bears a very close resemblance to the SMX-23, more so that to the Dolphin.
EdLawThe UK has two different ways of going about SEAD. During the Cold War, the UK didn’t believe in having a few individual dedicated SEAD aircraft, protecting hoardes of almost unprotected strike aircraft. Instead, the UK fitted most (if not all) its Tornado GR-1 (now GR4) fleet to carry ALARM missiles while carrying out their strike missions. It would be routine, therefore, for the RAF Tornado aircraft to carry a normal warload, plus a couple of ALARM missiles.
Secondly, the RAF’s Tornado F-3s actually had a very capable system fitted, presumably for detecting airborne radars, which lent itself well to the SEAD role. To this end, in the last few years, the RAF actually trialled operational fighter units as SEAD aircraft, with the F-3s carrying ALARM missiles. Not much has been said of this since about 2004 or so, and the units are now getting Typhoons anyway, which will give them multirole ability anyway…
Basically, the UK decided against having a modest number of very capable aircraft, in favour of giving the majority of the strike fleet a self defence capability. The other obvious reason was simple: cost! :diablo:
EdLawIt certainly bears a resemblance, but that may not mean much, since a lot of the German subs have that general look. It may be an old model of it, before some design changes, or it may be a new model for the new AIP versions. It is difficult to know without more detail! 🙁
EdLawI think it depends on the total number of VLS cells, if there are only 48 cells, then it is unlikely that Tomahawk would be included. If there are more cells, then it would not be too much of a surprise to see a small number of Tomahawks included. A typical loadout for 48 cells could be 32 SM-2, 32 ESSM, and eight SM-3s (for ABM), with the loadout for 64 cells being the same, but with 16 Tomahawks. Including the Tomahawks makes some sense, since it gives long range strike capability, though it is obviously debatable whether this is really needed. To be honest, the strike capability may be better served by jets carrying SLAM-ERs (since the JASSM is not in great shape at the moment), or JSOW-ERs.
I would also look seriously at adding SEA-RAM though, to improve the defences against supersonic anti-shipping missiles. Though none of Australia’s neighbours are very well equipped, they do have modest numbers of Flankers, and even a single Flanker carrying Kh-31s would be a major threat. Similarly, I would look seriously at the Millenium gun, i.e. the 35mm Oerlikon cannon, which has very good capabilities.
EdLawBy the looks of it, the missiles are: ESSM, SM-2, SM-3 (or possibly just SM-2ER), and Tomahawk, with Harpoon amidships. It might not be a great surprise to see Harpoon giving way to the NSM, since Australia seems to have been eyeing it up. It would be able to be used by surface ships, helicopters and jets (and the AP-3s). The only downsides are the shorter range than latest Harpoon/Exocet types, and the lack of a sub-launched version.
EdLawEspecially with the BAE deals being scrutinised, they really need something big to get the US to stop the investigation. In particular, with Iran’s growing influence within the region, Saudi needs to ensure it is not only seen as ‘strong’, but more importantly, has the support of the ‘big players’.
EdLawAt a rough guess, I would guess:
– F-15C/D and -S upgrades, with a common GE engine, and perhaps a common AESA radar?
– AWACS upgrades, new consoles, better ESM and ECM gear etc…
– JDAMs, possibly JSOWs, Sidewinders and AMRAAMs?
Possibly add in some transports, renewing their C-130 fleet, if I remember correctly, they were looking at buying some new C-130Js.
Basically, although it may have an impressive price tag, I doubt there are any big surprises in there, and not much to write home about. I am almost surprised they haven’t looked at buying some F-16s to finally replace their F-5s.
As it stands, they are probably going to be looking at a force of Typhoons, Tornado GR-4s, F-15C/D and F-15S’, and possibly some Rafales. This makes for an excellent fighter force, at least in terms of equipment!
EdLawThe suggestion I heard was that they were holding off on aiming for CATOBAR in its current form, not totally. This was basically because they are aiming for the EMALS, i.e. electromagnetic catapult – which will not need things like a steam generator. If it comes to nothing, they keep the carriers STOVL, but if it is available, they switch to EMALS. This is arguably quite sensible, rather than modifying the design to use a steam catapult, then have to rip it out to install the EMALS system.
Overall, it is excellent news though, and all we can hope now is that they increase the number of surface combattants. The first step in this line would be to built the final pair of Type 45s (7&8), and keep the four T-22s, and at least twelve of the T-23s. The other thing would be to replace or supplement the mine warfare fleet with a GD LCS type vessel, which would hopefully be able to take some of the strain off the current frigate fleet. This is particularly important in terms of duties like HMS Cornwall was performing in the Gulf, where the water depth restricted its operations.
Sign In
