Royal Air Force (RAF-UK) Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Jambo_100
- Start date
A4kscooter
Member
This again highlights what a poor decision purchasing these A330 via PFI was because if the UK did have A400 with an AAR capability it may have given the RAF the ability to refuel helicopters if required.
How much will it cost to give the Tornado Brimstone 2 capability given it is to be withdrawn in 2019 or with current events maybe we may be forced for the Tornado to carry on for
a few more years?
That's my understanding too Stobie, but there's one caveat which is mildly interesting which i've read about (but could 100% be false).
AirTanker is contracted to supply probe-and-drogue services and that if UK aircraft get probe-and-drogue services from any other source, then the UK Govt have to compensate AirTanker, sort of like a 'loss of business' thing I suppose.
Then the UK Govt secured a contract with the US for access to US tankers if we require boom services (like our E-3D's, they were mentioned specifically) and this does not require compensation to AirTanker because in their configuration AirTanker cannot provide that service, so there's no 'loss of business' happening.
A400M can do boom refuelling if fitted with its centre-line refuelling unit IIRC, so technically they could do boom refuelling without paying AirTanker for the privilege because of what I described earlier. But that's a big configuration change.
The whole "AirTanker" SNAFU was Gordon Brown trying to do clever accounting and taking AAR off the books, IIRC. I think it's BS.
AirTanker is contracted to supply probe-and-drogue services and that if UK aircraft get probe-and-drogue services from any other source, then the UK Govt have to compensate AirTanker, sort of like a 'loss of business' thing I suppose.
Then the UK Govt secured a contract with the US for access to US tankers if we require boom services (like our E-3D's, they were mentioned specifically) and this does not require compensation to AirTanker because in their configuration AirTanker cannot provide that service, so there's no 'loss of business' happening.
A400M can do boom refuelling if fitted with its centre-line refuelling unit IIRC, so technically they could do boom refuelling without paying AirTanker for the privilege because of what I described earlier. But that's a big configuration change.
The whole "AirTanker" SNAFU was Gordon Brown trying to do clever accounting and taking AAR off the books, IIRC. I think it's BS.
If you think that PFI was a bad move, wait til you clock the nuclear power generation deal (I think the company get a shed load of change even if they suck their teeth, shake their heads and walk away)
Brimstone 2 isn't a big deal to integrate given the missile is externally either very similar or identical, and all the processing is done on the launch rail so you just need a big f*ck of switch with "DIE" written on it in the cockpit - which they already have.
If we go to past performance, they'll start the upgrades, then trash the fleet, possibly with an upgrade technician frantically stuffing bits of wiring into the last ones as they're hauled away to the boneyard.
I jest. Can't see Tornado being carried on beyond their 2019 OSD unless Putin does something extraordinarily silly or China kicks off - it'll leave the RAF light in frames as we'll be dropping the Tornado fleet vs an intake of a half dozen F35B at that point, leaving Tiffy as the mainstream RAF type to cover the whole gamut of strike, intercept etc.
all contracts must run out so surely by end of the contract HUD can be on the A400M day the contract runs out. A stupid deal the these PFI's
Contracts can be renegotiated, & the main members of the AirTanker consortium could make money out of the RAF using A400M for tanking. Cobham makes the HDUs, Airbus makes the aircraft & supplies support, Thales makes kit that goes on it, simulators, & provides training - more of which would be needed for tanking. And so on.
If it means more tanking, the AirTanker members would all stand to profit, so would probably be happy to renegotiate.
If it means more tanking, the AirTanker members would all stand to profit, so would probably be happy to renegotiate.
A few days ago Japan approved the initiative to joint develop Meteor with MBDA and Mitsubishi, specifically using Japanese seeker technology.
On the flip-side, could make Japan a Meteor customer. Meteor can fit in the internal bays of the F-35 while Japans indigenous missile (AAM-4B) cannot, apparently.
Japan, Britain To Collaborate On Meteor Guidance | AWIN ONLY content from Aviation Week
Japan approves Meteor research JV between MBDA, Mitsubishi - IHS Jane's 360
In a recent interview, a Japanese Defence Ministry official suggested that the UK could buy the P-1 for our MPA requirement
Japan’s Defense Ministry Broadens Arms-Export Ambitions - Japan Real Time - WSJ
On the flip-side, could make Japan a Meteor customer. Meteor can fit in the internal bays of the F-35 while Japans indigenous missile (AAM-4B) cannot, apparently.
Japan, Britain To Collaborate On Meteor Guidance | AWIN ONLY content from Aviation Week
Japan approves Meteor research JV between MBDA, Mitsubishi - IHS Jane's 360
In a recent interview, a Japanese Defence Ministry official suggested that the UK could buy the P-1 for our MPA requirement
Japan’s Defense Ministry Broadens Arms-Export Ambitions - Japan Real Time - WSJ
I personal prefer the p8 because of how many have been purchased and ubiquity of 737 worldwide and the fact boeing seem quite keen to do a similar lease arrangement as they did with the C17s which seemed to work very well.
The P1 is part of a rather ambitious program along with their transport aircraft but if the price is right and its not development money the RAF are paying but for a good squadrons worth of craft with quick delivery its as good a possibility as any other option.
I could see the Japanese selling at loss to get a customer and tying it into trade or technology development or offering something that the P8s wouldn't be willing to do such as greater UK equipment integration. (depends really how desperately they want the export)
More importantly in UK eyes, will the P1 offer the same capability as the P8? That is the question. Whizz bang and snoopiness for pounds my Lords.
difficult to say as such a wide variety of craft are nominally in the frame from P8 to bombardier biz jets, to turboprop small airliners all have said that HMG have had an interest for the maritime work. P1 has the interest (though not as great as the P8) as its a Japanese program which makes it interesting by its very nature.
the concerned
Active Member
Its a shame the Japanese p-1 wasn't on offer when we where trying to sell the Japanese typhoon's then I'm sure a real good deal could have been arranged between both governments.
spsun100001
New Member
RAF training aircraft inventory
I was looking on Wiki at the numbers of training aircraft in service with the RAF and comparing that to the Israeli Air Force (which has a similar number of personnel) and the French Air Force plus the Luftwaffe (which have a similar number of aircraft). The numbers are so astonishing I wonder if the source is incorrect.
The RAF have around 232 front line fighters and 156 jet trainers plus 276 non-jet trainers.
The French have around 221 front line fighters and 86 jet trainers plus 95 non-jet trainers.
The Israeli's have 420 front line fighters plus 20 jet trainers and 46 non-jet trainers.
The Luftwaffe have 232 front line fighters plus 35 jet trainers and 75 non-jet trainers
My question is whether these numbers are completely wrong and if not why on earth the RAF needs so many more training aircraft as a ratio to front line aircraft than comparable air forces?
I was looking on Wiki at the numbers of training aircraft in service with the RAF and comparing that to the Israeli Air Force (which has a similar number of personnel) and the French Air Force plus the Luftwaffe (which have a similar number of aircraft). The numbers are so astonishing I wonder if the source is incorrect.
The RAF have around 232 front line fighters and 156 jet trainers plus 276 non-jet trainers.
The French have around 221 front line fighters and 86 jet trainers plus 95 non-jet trainers.
The Israeli's have 420 front line fighters plus 20 jet trainers and 46 non-jet trainers.
The Luftwaffe have 232 front line fighters plus 35 jet trainers and 75 non-jet trainers
My question is whether these numbers are completely wrong and if not why on earth the RAF needs so many more training aircraft as a ratio to front line aircraft than comparable air forces?
Those are not all front line aircraft. The RAF jet trainer total, for example, is from a parliamentary answer in 2013, listing aircraft on the asset register as of 4th July 2013. That includes reserves, stored aircraft, etc.
The Luftwaffe numbers are also not a "real number" due to the multinational ENJJPT training program, with those 110 aircraft forming part of a joint pool with 242 trainer aircraft. The 110 are the buy-in for the flight hours in the joint pool though, so they roughly reflect how many aircraft are actually being used.
The French only use about half of their 71 LIFT Alpha Jets actively for training (don't really need twice as many aircraft for 30-35 concurrent pilot trainees...), bringing them close to the same as the Luftwaffe.
Israel has a highly simulator-based flight training program these days, also transitioning the pilots to combat aircraft relatively quickly - no idea how many flight hours they still do, but what I read about it doesn't sound like 200+ on trainers and 100+ in simulators before switching over to combat aircraft like ENJJPT entails.
RAF fighter pilots do in fact have rather lengthy training in comparison, with 180+ hours spent in props and 120+ hours in Hawks (plus 60+ in simulators). Offhand, they have something like 50-60 Hawks and 80 Tucanos operational, which when you put it down to pilot flight hours isn't that much more.
Offhand I think other countries tend to stream pilots and WSOs to "operational conversion" faster, while the RAF does far more extensive initial air combat training for both in particular on Tucanos.
The French only use about half of their 71 LIFT Alpha Jets actively for training (don't really need twice as many aircraft for 30-35 concurrent pilot trainees...), bringing them close to the same as the Luftwaffe.
Israel has a highly simulator-based flight training program these days, also transitioning the pilots to combat aircraft relatively quickly - no idea how many flight hours they still do, but what I read about it doesn't sound like 200+ on trainers and 100+ in simulators before switching over to combat aircraft like ENJJPT entails.
RAF fighter pilots do in fact have rather lengthy training in comparison, with 180+ hours spent in props and 120+ hours in Hawks (plus 60+ in simulators). Offhand, they have something like 50-60 Hawks and 80 Tucanos operational, which when you put it down to pilot flight hours isn't that much more.
Offhand I think other countries tend to stream pilots and WSOs to "operational conversion" faster, while the RAF does far more extensive initial air combat training for both in particular on Tucanos.
Some things are beautiful some things are exquisite, this is beyond sheer beauty.
Vulcan XH558 Air To Air Video It is a pity that the old girl will soon cease to fly and howl no more
Vulcan XH558 Air To Air Video It is a pity that the old girl will soon cease to fly and howl no more