Long Range Strike Capability

[contedicavour]

AFAIK FREMM has 32 Sylver cell + with 16 as an upgrade... Need room for the Aster 15's... But fair enough.

Depending on the opposition, the bomber would need a fighter sweep/escort. However, the FREMM would need escorts too, either AAW vessels or fighters. So if they operate in the same area, they could use the same cover..(?)

Yep right let's share the costs of the fighter escort

Do you seriously think Europe could afford such a bomber, even if it comes down to a kit that can be integrated onto transport A400M ?
When I look at acquisition numbers for standoff weapons such as Storm Shadow that our Air Force has acquired for Tornado and Typhoon, I see tens, not hundreds of missiles. That's enough to equip a first wave of fighter-bombers, but would be used entirely by 2 or 3 big bombers.
What I mean is that European countries should seriously boost the number of standoff missiles in inventory before thinking of a platform that could shoot 20 at a go. That makes me sceptical.

cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

Yep right let's share the costs of the fighter escort

Do you seriously think Europe could afford such a bomber, even if it comes down to a kit that can be integrated onto transport A400M ?
When I look at acquisition numbers for standoff weapons such as Storm Shadow that our Air Force has acquired for Tornado and Typhoon, I see tens, not hundreds of missiles. That's enough to equip a first wave of fighter-bombers, but would be used entirely by 2 or 3 big bombers.
What I mean is that European countries should seriously boost the number of standoff missiles in inventory before thinking of a platform that could shoot 20 at a go. That makes me sceptical.

cheers

IIRC Europe has a couple of thousand stand off missiles already delivered or on firm order. Storm Shadow/Scalp + Taurus + Apache.

Have to go.


Cheers.

 

[swerve]

IIRC Europe has a couple of thousand stand off missiles already delivered or on firm order. Storm Shadow/Scalp + Taurus + Apache.

Have to go.


Cheers.

KEPD-350
Germany - 614
Spain - 43

Total 657

Storm Shadow/Scalp
UK - 900 (30 used in Iraq)
France - 500
Italy - 200
Greece - 56

Total 1656

Apache (shorter range)
France - 100 delivered

Total 2413 ordered

Scalp Naval
France - 250 required

 

[contedicavour]

KEPD-350
Germany - 614
Spain - 43

Total 657

Storm Shadow/Scalp
UK - 900 (30 used in Iraq)
France - 500
Italy - 200
Greece - 56

Total 1656

Apache (shorter range)
France - 100 delivered

Total 2413 ordered

Scalp Naval
France - 250 required

Wow huge thanks I wouldn't have thought that such numbers were so accessible ! Ok then with such inventory levels it may after all make sense to deploy this "bomber kit" to A400Ms.

cheers

 

[fylr71]

The A400 would need fighter escort and would be a great target for long range missiles. That is assuming the the conflict was against an enemy that had a decently sophisticated SAM network and a few modern fighters. In the case of a less sophisticated enemy then the A400 would be perfect. Otherwise, a stealth platform would be needed, something which the Europeans could not afford.

 

[Waylander]

Or you do it old style by using...

... MRTT tankers for the range.
... EFs for cover.
... Tornado ECR to clear a corridor through the SAMs.
... Tornado IDS/GR.4 for the attack.

IMHO would make much more sense than putting millions into a A400M "last chance" bomber which is going to be a sitting duck against every oposition which is more potent than A-Stan.

 

[contedicavour]

Or you do it old style by using...

... MRTT tankers for the range.
... EFs for cover.
... Tornado ECR to clear a corridor through the SAMs.
... Tornado IDS/GR.4 for the attack.

IMHO would make much more sense than putting millions into a A400M "last chance" bomber which is going to be a sitting duck against every oposition which is more potent than A-Stan.

It's true that our good old Tornado was built to fly hundreds of km behind Warsaw Pact lines at < 50 meters altitude to deliver all sorts of payload (even nuclear). I wonder however what range a Storm Shadow standoff missile would have if launched from low altitude ?

The other point is that not all European countries have such dedicated fighter-bombers (instead of multi-purpose F16s for example). Though at the same time, not all European countries are participating to the A400 programme...

cheers

 

[aaaditya]

KEPD-350
Germany - 614
Spain - 43

Total 657

Storm Shadow/Scalp
UK - 900 (30 used in Iraq)
France - 500
Italy - 200
Greece - 56

Total 1656

Apache (shorter range)
France - 100 delivered

Total 2413 ordered

Scalp Naval
France - 250 required

what about other french missiles such as asmp,asura etc are they still in service and under production ?

 

[Grand Danois]

I think the vulnerability of the A400M as a stand off platform is overemphasised.

• The A400M enters the battle at a time and place of its choosing.
  
  
• Missiles are delivered at stand off ranges.
  
  
• Enemy response will have to be done under attack, at extended range, in contested airspace. The A400M bomber is part of a mix.

This means the enemy has very little time to respond before the A400M is long gone. This is a form operational stealth, as it achieves the same effect as signature stealth ie reduces the enemys time to react.

As for SU-30 pushing the transport/bomber around... Well, how is an AWACS defended this very day? The AWACS have to stay in the battle, wheras the transport/bomber can leave, when the missiles have been offloaded.

Admitted, it is not a true strategic stealth bomber capability, but it is an enabler for critical mass to an air attack.

Bring the firepower to the enemy, not your expensive delivery platforms.

 

[swerve]

what about other french missiles such as asmp,asura etc are they still in service and under production ?

ASMP is nuclear only. The original ASMP from the 1980s has been (is being?) replaced by the longer-range ASMP-A, but it's stil lnuclear only. AFAIK, the Asura or ASMP-C was a proposed conventional version, but the Scalp EG was bought instead.

 

[Waylander]

I say again that putting the money into better maintenance status, training, etc. for the normal fighters/bombers would be better.

What if the area around a target is patroled by fighters. Maybe the A400M is able to deliver its stand-off weapons but if this is detected by a MiG or Su it is easy prey.

 

[Grand Danois]

I say again that putting the money into better maintenance status, training, etc. for the normal fighters/bombers would be better.

What if the area around a target is patroled by fighters. Maybe the A400M is able to deliver its stand-off weapons but if this is detected by a MiG or Su it is easy prey.

I would think a conversion kit would be cheaper than a fighter...

I do grasp some of your worries, but I think a fighter screen should be able to handle it, as the A400M would be a harder target than eg an AWACS.

Could you provide a scenario? I imagine them employed as a part of a mix consisting of CAP, strike packages, ISR, etc.

 

[Waylander]

Aaaah, you want to integrate them into normal striek packages.

I thought one of the reasons to use this baby is its range. But this good range makes it difficult to give them a good fighter screen.

 

[Grand Danois]

Aaaah, you want to integrate them into normal striek packages.

I thought one of the reasons to use this baby is its range. But this good range makes it difficult to give them a good fighter screen.

That is why they are only pseudo strategic bombers. I would use them to augment the traditional air campaign. Though, they could be used independently if the opposition warrants.

It is a much cheaper way to deliver the firepower than an expensive fighter toting two missiles.

 

[rjmaz1]

I think the A400M bomber is the worst idea.

The A400M would require twice as many fighter escorts as it is so vulnerable compared to a tornado. The whole point of the A400M is to give an airforce more fire power yet as your need twice as many escorts this cancels out any benifits.

The A400M would leave so slow that the fighter aircraft would have to stick around longer to cover it. This means the fighters have to fly for longer using more fuel reducing their range even further. So the A400M would reduce your range of the targets that you can destroy.

Also the fighters have now increased the risk of having to engage enemy fighters, its never going to happen.

Inflight refueling of the current tornado's and eurofighters give more than enough range and weapon loads. These aircraft could atleast sprint at Mach 2 for a few minutes helping them escape any enemy aircraft.

A tornado could easily carry two long range stand off missions on each wing, once fired the aircraft regains full performance.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I think the RAF has the the Nimrod MR4 to act as a long range strike platform in conjunction with the Storm Shadow, which would not be an insignificant capability IMO.

Into a highly contested environment at long range with a air defence network, then it really comes back to the B1s and B2s and the B52s and into the future the use of UCAVs.

However with multiple routes of attack and a standoff range of 400km + then there are not to many air defence networks in the world that will be able to counter such threats IMO.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think the A400M bomber is the worst idea.

The A400M would require twice as many fighter escorts as it is so vulnerable compared to a tornado. The whole point of the A400M is to give an airforce more fire power yet as your need twice as many escorts this cancels out any benifits.

The A400M would leave so slow that the fighter aircraft would have to stick around longer to cover it. This means the fighters have to fly for longer using more fuel reducing their range even further. So the A400M would reduce your range of the targets that you can destroy.

Also the fighters have now increased the risk of having to engage enemy fighters, its never going to happen.

Inflight refueling of the current tornado's and eurofighters give more than enough range and weapon loads. These aircraft could atleast sprint at Mach 2 for a few minutes helping them escape any enemy aircraft.

A tornado could easily carry two long range stand off missions on each wing, once fired the aircraft regains full performance.

The GR-4A's pictured in GW2 with Storm Shadow actually had 2 of them mounted on the fuselage with the wing still available for drop tanks, WVR missiles etc. IF needed I don't doubt the GR-4 could carry 4x Storm Shadow's which would represent a potent capability...

 

[Waylander]

Normally the Tornado uses drop tanks, ECM and chaff/flare containers under its wings.
Putting weapons under its Wings is just for extreme situations.