EdLawIn general, the west has not had many ship targets, unlike the Russians. One of the biggest missions for the Russians was always to disable NATO warships, especially the American carriers, and this demanded high performance missiles. In contrast, the west never really considered sinking Russian surface shipping high on the priority list, and thus cheaper subsonic missiles made much more sense. Also, as people have mentioned, there were already supersonic missiles which could be used against ships, notably the Standard missiles, and air-launched HARMs etc…
Basically, the west (rightly) placed far less emphasis on anti-shipping, since the primary threat was from aircraft and submarines. The Russians, in contrast, placed great emphasis on anti-shipping, since that was their biggest threat. The result has been that the Russians fielded a wide range of different missile types, whereas the west generally fielded only one or two missile types, generally of differing sizes. For example: Sea Skua and Sea Eagle for the UK, AS-15 and Exocet for France etc…. It is not a lack of capability at all, the west could field supersonic anti-ship missiles very quickly if it wanted to, but the truth is that there is no perceived need to do so.
EdLawIf memory serves, the Finnish AF used a mix, and had hardpoints for this sort of purpose. Fundamentally, it’s not all that complicated, just not something everyone needs.
EdLawI actually feel the KC-30 is the better aircraft, but obviously the KC-767 will win, unless they pull a surprise out of their hat! Personally, I would much prefer to see the briefly considered KC-777, which would have been much more capable, and take some of the transport burden off other types.
As I mentioned much earlier in this never ending thread, I like the idea of a mix of KC-777s and A-400Ms, with the smaller Airbus providing a ‘low’ for the high low mix. As for costs, as someone mentioned (but I was a bit busy to respond quickly), the approximate costs are just estimates from public domain stuff. The A-400M goes for somewhere around €100m, which is more like $125m, but in series production for a large order, this could come down to around the $100m mark. As for the -767, the figures quoted for the tanker cost tend to be somewhere around $175-225m, though this is very variable. The -777 would be more like $275-300m, based on the production and conversion costs. The A-400M is built with tanker capability built in anyway, hence the only cost for ‘conversion’ is actually buying the physical hose and drogue pods. The only major problem would be the lack of boom refuelling, but for tactical refuelling the USAF could adapt very easily (especially with the ARTS air refuelling tank system, basically a drop tank with a probe attached).
EdLawI agree that DEWs will take on an increased role, in particular, I would not be too surprised if we start seeing more aircraft like the Airborne Laser 747. If the system matures sufficiently, allowing rapid firing at air targets (including enemy fighters), then it could turn into a true air dominance weapon. The ability to target enemy fighters from a few hundred miles, and even shoot down air to air missiles (the ABL’s predecessor, the ALL demonstrated the ability to shoot down Sidewinders back in the ’80s), would lead to total air dominance. Once you are able to target any enemy aircraft as soon as they move, even on the ground, then it becomes very one sided. A lot of enemies will probably switch to trying to use cheap expendable UAVs, since they can be concealed, and yet still carry out attacks, and would be harder to target. This may create a need for a smaller airborne laser, probably on C-130s or similar, to fly close to the battlespace, probably near the edge of cities etc…
Basically, there will probably be a switch towards total air dominance, and persistent air support. We may see even see mini-gunship UAVs, e.g. a Predator armed with a 30mm turreted cannon, like on the Apache, allowing precision fire support from beyond the range of AAA and shoulder launched missiles. The use of cheaper fire support, that is on call 24/7 will change the nature of ground warfare, not because it will remove the need for ground troops, but because it will give allied ground forces overwhelming firepower superiority. This will require a massive effort in terms of networking, much of which is in current planning. The satellite network could become one of the Air Force’s biggest contributions, as important as its aircraft!
EdLawI agree with Sealord’s somewhat brief statement.
The reality is that the Air Force does more than provide close air support to the Army, and so a separate force does make sense. I would like to see a split though, perhaps something along the lines of SAC and TAC, with a large force dedicated to close support, a la US Marine air. One of the problems in the AF at the moment, and for many many years, has been the leadership being too interested in bombers and air superiority, at the expense of close support. I would advocate a SAC with bombers and air superiority fighters, a TAC with cheaper multi-role types, and probably a Support Air Command with tankers, transports and ISTAR types. In any case, the addition of UCAVs does not fundamentally change this, since for many years, there will still be mission control by guys on the ground. If anything, there may be an increase in aircraft numbers overall, to provide genuine round-the-clock firepower. As a result, it is likely that there will be even more need for genuine Air Force units.
Anyway, even if we tried to return to an ‘Army Air Force’, will still have a totally different ethos to the regular Army. Unless this USAAF changes into being modelled closely on the Marine’s air units, it would still be a totally different force, with very different command units, so would effectively just be a massively expensive re-branding effort, for questionable benefits!
EdLawI agree, the GR-5/7 airframe would have made much more sense, and probably eased the logistical burden of joint carrier ops. It might have been possible to use squadrons of either eight GR-7 or eight F/A-7 (i.e. a radar equipped GR-7), and a pair of trainers. The RN would get three of each type of squadron, to allow each carrier a complete airwing, and the RAF could get three of each type of squadron as well. Even these numbers would have only required an operational fleet of 48 radar equipped versions, and 48 non radar versions, plus 24 trainers. This should have been a reasonable proposal, and would have allowed the RAF to deploy complete mini airgroups for operations, with air defence and ground attack Harriers. These would then be supplemented by Tornado and Jaguar units as needed.
EdLawEasyJet is not famous for aviation engineering, like Boeing will not start running an airline.
Not a good example, look at United Airlines, which used to be part of Boeing! :diablo:
EdLawIf they could afford to actually refurbish the Sao Paulo, then Hornets could be an option (the French looked at them in the ’80s, as an interim option pending Rafale). A purchase of ex-Canadian F/A-18s might work – eight for the Brazilian Navy, and twenty-four for the Brazilian Air Force, as a replacement for the F-XBR (or whatever it’s called!) contest. An airwing of eight Hornets, and ideally eight Skyhawks, would be a very good capability…
EdLawso you would argue that they should just get the C-130J instead and forget about the not-as-reliable, not-as-capable C-27J?
(see how easy that was to turn around)
No, that is specious reasoning. The reality is that the need was for an aircraft capable of performing a mission that the C-23 could not do, and without recourse to C-130s. This meant that the requirement was for something in the class of either the C-295 or C-27J, not something in the C-130 class. Given the choice, either the C-295 or C-27J, they chose the better aircraft.
As for treating EADS’ brochures as gospel truth, it is always important to recognise that the seller wishes to make their product’s advantages clear. What they do not want to make anything of is the fact that their platform is not as good in other areas, so they show off how it can do A, B, D and F, and conveniently leave out references to C and E. This is not dishonesty, it is salesmanship. The EADS offering was a good aircraft, but it was not chosen, learn to live with it, or not, the choice is yours.
As a side note, I would love to see the USAF actually buying A-400Ms or a similar type, not just as a C-130 replacement, but also as a KC-135 replacement. It would be a good transport, but more importantly, given the need to replace the -135s, a good tanker. Most importantly, however, is the price – a unit cost somewhere around 1/2 that of the KC-767, meaning that instead of replacing, say, 180 KC-135s, they could replace as many as 360. For tactical refuelling of fighters, the A-400M would be sufficient, and would be an affordable way to renew the fleet. It would not be a perfect replacement, indeed it would be desirable to buy something in the 777 class as well, as a high-low mix. In place of 180 KC-767s, it might be possible to buy 180 A-400Ms, and 60 KC-777s (using approximate costs of $100m for the A-400M, $200m for the KC-767, and $300m for the KC-777).
EdLawThe simply irrefutable fact is that the C-27J can do the job it needs to, and is safer than its rival. This is undeniable. The C-295 can be argued to do a similar job, but is not quite as safe, not quite as capable, and overall doesn’t do the job as well. It is, however, a bit cheaper, but not by a massive margin – I choose not to believe the marketing hype of EADS. It was a good result, some may not like it, but the reality is that this is a positive step forward.
As for why the USAF wanted the aircraft, the rumour has always been that it was to slow the Army’s procurement down. The Army would have held the competition probably two years ago, and be receiving their first aircraft by now. As it is, the Air Force can certainly use the aircraft, but the Army’s need is much higher. This is especially true in Afghanistan, where they will ease the burden on the Chinook fleet – they can carry out a lot of the missions, especially forward base resupply.
EdLawThe sad thing being that if they had been able to afford to get them radar-equipped, they could have used Derby or similar missiles, giving them at least some BVR capability. A suitable Israeli upgrade, with EL/M-2032 radar, a glass ‘pit, and helmet mounted sight, and they would be excellent little fighters. Even better, a twin-store for AAMs on each outboard pylon would be a great addition, perhaps allowing an A2A load of four missiles, a pair of drop tanks, and perhaps an ECM pod. Even without this, they could carry four AAMs and a centreline drop tank.
The problem of course being that none of this will happen now! The more worrying thing being the possibility of another Falklands conflict, with the Argentines conveniently purchasing the Sao Paulo immediately before…
EdLawThe problem being that any carrier from Spain would have been even more unaffordable. A mini carrier from Spain, a la Chakri Naruebet or Principe de Asturias would be cheap to buy, but Harriers would not be. A conventional carrier would have been far more expensive (even the cheap ones discussed on this forum a while back), and the aircraft would be just as unaffordable. The real question is why Brazil wants to operate a carrier, but is unwilling to commit to the costs involved, i.e. aircraft to operate from her, and the running of such a ship.
It is a sad affair – the Skyhawks had so much potential when they were bought. I remember the stories of how they were going to be fitted with radars, and get new weapons etc, and how they would be able to keep over a dozen available… They also wanted to operate S-2 Trackers with AEW sensors, and as a whole, it all looked so promising – an airwing of, say, 16 Skyhawks, 4 S-2AEWs and 4 Sea Kings for ASW. Unfortunately, this would appear to be no more than a distant dream…
EdLawA good start, though another seven are needed, minimum, preferably another eleven boats, to maintain a force level of twelve boats.
EdLawThe point was actually more to allow more of the larger types to switch to boom refuelling. For tanker-to-tanker refuelling it would be particularly important, and it would be useful for the E-3Ds, C-17s, and potentially the A-400Ms and Nimrods as well! Basically, it would cost more, but it would be a sensible idea for the larger types.
EdLawYet 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).
Sign In
