Royal Air Force (RAF-UK) Discussions and Updates

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Harrier was a straight up choice; Harrier or Tornado. There was never going to be a replacement on tap for either, it was a savings initiative.

As for the rest, loss of MPA agreed. But don't go overboard just yet, we ARE getting Airseeker & Sentinels future looks more secure now after Mali
 

swerve

Super Moderator
And Libya.

Late 2010:
"We won't have any use for Sentinel after withdrawing from Afghanistan, so we'll retire it".

2011 - March: starts several months use in Libya
2012 - February: offered as the UK contribution to NATO AGS
2013 - January: deployed to Mali

At that rate, they're going to continue to be busy
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
I completely forgot about Sentinel deploying to Libya.

But yeah, even after comments about the system not having any use they've been arguably our most useful assets.

EDIT: Yeah, we've got 3 Voyagers now I think
 
What is the future of the Shadow R1 as I thought I read they were to retired post Afghanistan?
We will never have large fleets of combat again but with Airseeker, Sentinel, Shadow, Reaper and hopefully a Nimrod replacement the RAF compared with the majority of our NATO partners looks quite a credible force.
 
Last edited:

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
In terms of ISTAR, the UK is pretty much up there in the top tier- the European countries have plenty of fighter and strike aircraft, not so much in terms of AAR, and perhaps a bit less in terms of strategic lift - we've got a solid balance of AAR, lift and ISTAR. No MPA however.

I'd like to see the MPA gap filled in but having read about MRA4 and the um..challenges involved in a pile of airframes that were almost entirely hand built...I can't find so much fault with killing that project.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Agreed about ISTAR, it's such a force multiplier. I still was surprised when the RAF offered up a pair of C-17s, I'm crossing my fingers about the rumours of another airframe, that'd be crackin'.

My understanding about MRA4 was that *if we went ahead with it*, we would have had an extremely capable platform. But really it's just before my time (in terms of interest in defence) so don't really know a whole lot about it.

I have to say, I've been rather fond of Lockheed Martin's SC-130J concept being thrown around considering we're ditching some >20 airframes a fair while before their sell by IIRC. That being said, still reckon the P-8 would represent the best value for money though, would like to see them re-engined with Rolls Royce engines to get a bit more value for British companies.
 

Lindermyer

New Member
My understanding about MRA4 was that *if we went ahead with it* said:
extremely[/I] capable platform. But really it's just before my time (in terms of interest in defence) so don't really know a whole lot about it.

.
MRA4 in service would undoubtedly have been a fantastic aircraft, the mission systems pretty much whats now in the P8 IIRC.

The problems are
1) As Stobie 1 rightly pointed out we had a selection of hand built airframes not condusive to a major modification.

2) Inherent problems with the nimrod still required resolving

3) small increasingly unsuporable numbers

All this added up to a late and over budget project that required more money more time and had no clear in service date.
MR4 should have been killed years before.

Now personally I am relieved it was killed because in 5 or 10 years when MR4 needed an upgrade the high cost and small number of airframes would lead to a further reduction in numbers.
We would have been operating a small and unique fleet for spares and training.


How different might things have been if MR4 was a new build airframe (Nimrod) or even a Limpet derirative.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...That being said, still reckon the P-8 would represent the best value for money though, would like to see them re-engined with Rolls Royce engines to get a bit more value for British companies.
Not worth re-engining an airliner for a handful of airframes. It'd add a lot to the cost, maybe meaning fewer aircraft or something else having to be given up.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
True, true. We haven't done it for the Sentry I think, nor the Airseekers so not any P-8s either. Was just in the back of my mind :)

But the more Iook at the P-8 the more sense it makes, the idea that it can take SLAM-ER is quite interesting. Would be cool to see some Storm Shadows hanging off a future P-8K.

I've heard people on other forums talking about possibly procuring the P-8 like how we procured the C-17 in smaller batches spread out than one massive buy, the production line for the P-8's open for something like a decade I think.
 
The only RR engine comparable to the CFM56 on the P8 is the IAE V2500 which has a larger diameter which to be accomodated on the P8 would require the aircraft to have longer undercarriage and all the associated issues increasing the purchase price considerably.
Also the CFM56 is already used by the RAF on the Sentry and Airseeker aircraft
 
Last edited:
The only issue with the P8 is its lack of range compared with the Nimrod which may need to be addressed but I'd imagine the Australians and other potential operators will also have this issue if it is to be P3 replacement
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Well, if we'd put booms on our A330 MRTTs, or were prepared to fund probes for the P-8 (& while we're at it, the C-17 & A330 MRTT), then we could do something about that.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
The whole AAR situation bugs me somewhat, more so for an MPA.

But anyway, Reaper drones have been operated from the UK for the first time this week by No 13 Squadron based at RAF Waddington. No 39 Squadron currently based at Creech AFB are expected back in the UK sometime this year operating out of RAF Waddington, repatriating our armed drone capability.

Armed drones in Afghanistan flown from UK for first time - Telegraph

The Ministry of Defence began remotely operating its Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles in Afghanistan from RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire this week.

Anti-war protesters are expected to gather outside the base to voice their opposition to the use of the drones.

Previously the remotely controlled aircraft have been operated from a United States Air Force base in Nevada to support coalition ground forces in Afghanistan.

In a statement issued on Thursday, the RAF said it had commenced supporting the International Security Assistance Force and Afghan ground troops with "armed intelligence and surveillance missions" remotely piloted from RAF Waddington.

It would not comment on exactly what individual missions had been flown in the past week by drones piloted from the UK.

The use of drones is controversial as protesters say drone pilots are unable to make the same level of judgements about situations as those in manned aircraft on the front line and claim the use of drones have increased civilian casualties.

Organisers of the protest march and rally at RAF Waddington have are calling on the Government to abandon the use of drones.

Rafeef Ziadah, senior campaigns officer at War on Want, said: "Drones, controlled far away from conflict zones, ease politicians' decisions to launch military strikes and order extrajudicial assassinations, without democratic oversight or accountability to the public.

"Now is the time to ban killer drones – before it is too late."

Chris Nineham, vice-chairman of the Stop the War Coalition, claimed drones were being used to continue the "deeply unpopular War on Terror" with no public scrutiny.

Calling for armed drones to be banned, Mr Nineham said: "They're using them to fight wars behind our backs."

Until now, the drones have been operated by RAF pilots based in the USA Creech Air Force Base in Nevada.

They have flown some 45,000 hours in Afghanistan in the last six years and fired around 350 weapons.

In 2011, four Afghan civilians died when a missile from a Reaper drone killed two insurgents and blew up the trucks they were travelling in.

Last year the MoD announced that the UK was doubling the number of armed RAF drones in Afghanistan to 10 with the five new aircraft to be operated remotely from RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire.

The new aircraft, known as 13 Squadron, which were officially "stood up" in October, started flying missions over Afghanistan this week.

The drones are primarily used to gather intelligence on enemy activity on the ground, but they also carry 500lb bombs and Hellfire missiles for precision strikes on insurgents.

The Waddington-based squadron numbers around 100 personnel who are specifically trained to fly the aircraft.

The drones take off and land under the guidance of pilots on the ground in Afghanistan but the pilots in Lincolnshire take over once they’ve reached a suitable height.

They normally fly at between 15,000 to 20,000 feet.

The Ministry of Defence has defended its use of drones in Afghanistan, which it says have saved the lives of countless military personnel and civilians.

An MoD spokesman said: "UK Reaper aircraft are piloted by highly trained professional military pilots who adhere strictly to the same laws of armed conflict and are bound by the same clearly defined rules of engagement which apply to traditionally manned RAF aircraft."
Usual bit about protesters and all that, but the comment about the UK now deploying 10 Reapers to Afghan is interesting because that's our entire fleet now deployed.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Interesting news coming out of the US about the possibility of purchasing Brimstone missiles for their Reaper UAS.

Sources: US Wants to Buy Brimstones for Reapers | Defense News | defensenews.com

The US Air Force is looking at equipping its Reaper unmanned aircraft with a British-developed, man-in-the-loop missile better able to reduce collateral damage than the current weapons carried by the machine, according to sources.

Britain’s dual-mode Brimstone missile is being evaluated by the Air Force’s secretive Big Safari Group, British defense procurement minister Philip Dunne revealed in a speech at the offices of Washington law firm McKenna, Long and Aldridge on April 23.

“We are currently working together through the Big Safari Group in rapid-prototyping a UK weapon, Brimstone, on a US platform,” Dunne told the audience of senior executives and government officials.

The 645th Aeronautical Systems Group, better known as “Big Safari,” is a rapid acquisition office based at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. The group is known for its work on unmanned and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) systems, and is widely credited with the decision to arm Predator drones for use in Afghanistan.

Dunne, on his first trip to the US as procurement minister, didn’t mention the platform the weapon was under consideration to equip, but a number of sources have confirmed that the Reaper is the focus of attention.

The General Atomics-built UAV is widely used by the US Air Force, the CIA and other special operations units for surveillance and strike missions.

Its use in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere to take out high-value Taliban and al-Qaida leaders has caused controversy, especially since the drone strikes often kill civilians, as well.

MBDA, Brimstone’s maker, declined to comment, referring all questions to the UK Defence Ministry. The US Air Force said it was unable to respond in time.

Doug Barrie, the senior air analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said that having struggled to come up with a weapon of their own in this class, the US Air Force’s purchase of Brimstone would be an effective tool.

“Brimstone on Reaper, with its option for man-in-the-loop guidance, would give you all the benefits the weapon gives fixed-wing strike aircraft crews,” he said. “It would be an effective quick fix, able to give Reaper users the added security of a dual-mode system that they don’t get on some other weapons. If the deal goes ahead, I wouldn’t be surprised if the [British Royal Air Force’s] Reaper force ends up being similarly equipped.”

A US purchase would see the wheel come full circle for MBDA. Brimstone was originally developed based on the US-made Hellfire missile that it would replace.

Brimstone is in service aboard Royal Air Force Tornado strike jets, and is expected to be integrated onto the Eurofighter Typhoon combat jet at some point.

The missile is effective against static and moving targets, and MBDA is developing an improved version known as Brimstone 2, as well as working on a maritime variant able to take out small fast-patrol craft.

The weapon came to prominence during the Libya campaign in 2011, when it was used to destroy targets hiding among houses without damaging the dwellings. It also has been successfully used for several years against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Royal Air Force chiefs revealed during the height of the Libyan campaign that the US and France had expressed an interest in Brimstone.

“Brimstone was used incredibly successfully during the Libya campaign,” Dunne said. “No one else has managed to develop a fast jet precision weapon system that can be effectively used in such a complex environment as was present in Libya. Deploying it from a US asset will further demonstrate its US-UK utility.”

The weapon originally entered service in 2005 in anti-tank duties, but it was updated in 2008 with a semi-active laser in response to an urgent operational requirement from the Royal Air Force. ■
Unsurprisingly it appears that Libya has been a pretty good indicator on how effective the missile is. Hopefully a sale does occur, a joint program between the US/UK about integrating Brimstone onto their respective Reaper fleets would then be cheaper. Could perhaps accelerate the UK's removal of Hellfire from it's inventory entirely if they decide to advance the integration onto Apache too.
 
Philip Hammond Unsure About F-35 Order 3rd May 2013 Sky News

Philip Hammond Unsure About F-35 Order | LBC

"...Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has given the clearest indication yet that the UK may not now buy all the jets it had planned.

Speaking exclusively to Sky News, Mr Hammond pledged that the first 48 aircraft on order at a cost of around £100m each would be bought to service the new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers from 2020.

But he would not commit to a further 90 planes, which had originally been proposed.

He said: "It's dependent on politics, money and the state of the world, but it's also dependent on what is not yet clearly known, what the mix between manned fighter jets and unmanned aircraft is going to be."

Mr Hammond said there were two trains of thought, one suggesting an 80/20 split of manned to unmanned aircraft in future, the other suggesting the exact opposite.

He said the final decision would determine how many manned F-35s the UK could buy....
...it will be another five years before the first squadron, based at RAF Marham, is set up on UK soil.

In the meantime 17 squadron will be the first UK unit to fly the F-35B out of Edwards Air Force base in California from next year...."

I doubt any of us thought 138 would be purchased but if only 48 aircraft are bought the aircraft carriers are turning in to an very expensive folly when it was originally planned that one carrier would carry 36 aircraft.

Money is always an issue but using the "state of the world" is a dangerous excuse as we live in a very volatile world and it is impossible to predict what will happen tomorrow.
 
Last edited:

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
I doubt any of us thought 138 would be purchased but if only 48 aircraft are bought the aircraft carriers are turning in to an very expensive folly when it was originally planned that one carrier would carry 36 aircraft.
Why ? It was never intended to use both carriers in fixed wing operations at the same time. And no-one's suggesting we're only going to buy 48 - Hammond clearly signalled there'd be *more* F35, but declined to commit to how many. Given that the decision will be outside the life of the current parliament, that's reasonable.

I dunno, it's like a non stop sound track of doom and gloom over these carriers, starting with "they'll never be built" then "they'll be sold/scrapped/cancelled", then "F35 sucks/will be cancelled/will never be bought" and now "we'll never have any/enough aircraft"

Both carriers are proceeding through build very nicely, F35B is off probation and looking pretty healthy, weapons integration looks good, we're getting enough to stand up a squadron just a bit before QE starts to work up.

I'm not suggesting we crack open the champagne just yet but I'd certainly want to start easing back on the doom and gloom.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
The UK will not just purchase 48 aircraft, those 48 will be the fixed wing component for carrier strike, minus testing fleet + OCU. But this isn't the right thread for that.

To be honest, there hasn't been much *new* in this article with regards to the F35 order. 48 B's as expected + undisclosed amount of more aircraft, good to hear that the model could potentially change as I thought the plan was just an urban legend

I found it most interesting the comment that some people were advocating 80/20 split for unmanned/manned aircraft.
 

colay

New Member
I found it most interesting the comment that some people were advocating 80/20 split for unmanned/manned aircraft.
Yeah, was wondering the same thing. Maybe they envision fleets of Predators or perhaps a Taranis offshoot.. UAVs are niche players and I don't see anything on the horizon that indicates that they will come anywhere close to matching what the F-35 brings to the table. Hollywood is the exception, of course.:)
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Absolutely, right now it's all a bit confused as *technically* the Future Offensive Air System programme (replacement of Tornado) is cancelled and in the short to medium term is expected to be picked up by the F35 and Typhoon.

But development of Taranis is still ongoing, with test flights supposed to be sheduled "early 2013" at Woomera test range in South Australia, presumably because UK airspace is congested enough as it is and for a LO UCAV? Probably don't want to be near any large population centres for several reasons IMO.

If they even fly the damn thing, it's been postponed since 2011 with continuous ground testing instead.
 

colay

New Member
Seriously, replacing an actual platform already in production with a technology vision? What happens when they learn that going UAV doesn't mean cheap and trouble-free to develop, own and operate?


Unmanned Taranis could succeed troubled F-35 | Canada | News | Toronto Sun

UNMANNED TARANIS COULD SUCCEED TROUBLED F-35

Course: check. Direction: check. Speed: check. Pilot: redundant.

Welcome to the robotic arms race.

As Canada resumes the seemingly endless debate about whether the RCAF’s next combat fighter will be the troubled F-35 Lightning II or something else, Britain has moved on...
 
Top