Royal Air Force (RAF-UK) Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

In decreasing order of probability, some being pretty much zero -
4. Buy C-2 from Japan or build it under licence.
5. Americanise An-70 & build it in the USA.
6. Revive C-15 (note that your 2 is reversing the process which led from YC-15 to C-17).

I've discounted KC-390 as its only a very little bit bigger than C-130.

Well there was the C-17B proposal with more powerful engines, strengthened structure and an extra main gear bogie in the fuselage between the existing gear units, engineered specifically for short, rough field performance.

Then again they could always revisit the YC-15. The original design is way too old now but it is the concept that led to the C-17, I wonder how long it would take to develop an A400 sized aircraft with the same configuration as the C-17.

How about the KC-390?

 

[John Fedup]

Well there was the C-17B proposal with more powerful engines, strengthened structure and an extra main gear bogie in the fuselage between the existing gear units, engineered specifically for short, rough field performance.

Then again they could always revisit the YC-15. The original design is way too old now but it is the concept that led to the C-17, I wonder how long it would take to develop an A400 sized aircraft with the same configuration as the C-17.

How about the KC-390?

Yes, the C-17B would have been nice. With armored kit getting so heavy the C-130 and even the A400M come up short and something like the C-17B is needed. I don't the USAF has the money for any new transport anytime soon given all the other programs underway or planned (e.g. F-35, new LR bomber and various helicopter replacements).

The KC390 has no lift advantage over a C-130, just more speed.

 

[swerve]

It lifts a bit more, & can take slightly larger individual objects (cargo box is slightly higher & wider), so it does have a lift advantage - but only a small one.

 

[John Fedup]

It lifts a bit more, & can take slightly larger individual objects (cargo box is slightly higher & wider), so it does have a lift advantage - but only a small one.

The KC390 could be a very good choice for many air forces if Embraer gets it right. Can't see it being an option for the USAF though. This type of product might have been a better option for Bombardier instead of treading on the A320/B737 market with their C-Series. I guess we will find out shortly.

 

[ngatimozart]

Doesn't the USAF have some plan that the C130 replacement is intended to be either VTOL or STOVL? That's what I read somewhere last year and had a chuckle given the issues that they have had with the F35 over the years. They are trying to fund the B1B, B2 and B52 replacement plus at some stage new land based ICBMs, plus the USN is looking at new SSBN and CVN types in the near to medium future. That's a lot of money that has to be found, and a VTOL and / or STOVL transport in the C130 / A400M class will be a very expensive program.

 

[swerve]

Back in the 1970s, the plan was for a STOL transport bigger than C-130 (because the limitations of its cargo box & maximum lift were already pinching) to replace it. Aircraft were developed & tested - then the whole thing was dropped, & more C-130s ordered.

There's a habit over there of being very ambitious, which sometimes results in the whole thing being canned.

 

[rjtjrt]

I guess a local manufactured A400 with PW180 re-engine is possible - wouldn't that be an interesting blast from the past!

 

[StingrayOZ]

Back in the 1970s, the plan was for a STOL transport bigger than C-130 (because the limitations of its cargo box & maximum lift were already pinching) to replace it. Aircraft were developed & tested - then the whole thing was dropped, & more C-130s ordered.

There's a habit over there of being very ambitious, which sometimes results in the whole thing being canned.

The concept isn't quite dead.

Look up Joint Future Theater Lift image search on google.

 

[Volkodav]

Back in the 1970s, the plan was for a STOL transport bigger than C-130 (because the limitations of its cargo box & maximum lift were already pinching) to replace it. Aircraft were developed & tested - then the whole thing was dropped, & more C-130s ordered.

There's a habit over there of being very ambitious, which sometimes results in the whole thing being canned.

True, remember the SST program? Concorde was mach 2 so they wanted mach 3, in the end it became so hideously expensive and challenging they cancelled it and promptly banned supersonics commercial operations over continental US.

All this talk on US A400s, YC14 /15 C-17 etc. reminded me of the early four jet concepts that led to the A400, they sort of looked like a wide body, tactical Starlifter.

 

[RobWilliams]

Continuing the trend of the RAF towards lower yield weapons, the MOD have awarded a 3 year contract to Raytheon for the development, qualification and manufacturing of a 'Tactical Penetrator Warhead' for the Paveway IV.

Paveway IV Tactical Penetrator Contract - Think Defence

This represents the SPEAR capability 1 of the 'SPEAR' family. The RAF is doing away with 1000lber and 2000lber bombs and our only hardened target penetrator is Storm Shadow, so this represents a lower yield weapon with less risk of collateral damage.

 

[RobWilliams]

AirTanker touts boom for Voyager to expand aerial refuelling provision - IHS Jane's 360

AirTanker spotting a new business opportunity, currently the UK aims to have 14 MRTT however this is to be split 9/5 in core/non-core. Basically the RAF always has access to 9 and brings in the 5 in when needed. One is currently with Thomas Cook I think.

But I prefer AirTankers solution (on the face of it). They propose fitting a boom to those 5 extra aircraft and use them to make up the missing capacity in Europe for AAR. Plus when required the UK has access to national probe tanker assets. While AirTanker have said they would cover the cost of fitting, certification etc, where would these AAR operators over NATO come from? The UK MOD won't directly benefit from money earned by AirTanker.

The issue with using RAF personnel is that while it would mean the UK has the trained crews for UK operations for C-17, RC-135 etc then AirTanker would be happy. AirTanker uses civilian pilots and aircrew for non-core flights, so would they only really need a couple of RAF crew for the actual tanker mission?

I like the idea, but I'd like To see more.

 

[RobWilliams]

Lots of RAF news coming out recently.

RAF to take early delivery of UK's second Rivet Joint - 7/21/2015 - Flight Global

First, the RAF is to get their second of three RC-135 7 months early (apparently) and is expected to be deployable within weeks of delivery.The UK's current RC-135 being deployed in support of Op Shader over Iraq.

Indian Su-30s start joint exercise with RAF Typhoons - 7/22/2015 - Flight Global

4 Indian Su-30s have deployed to RAF Coningsby to exercise with RAF Typhoons, should provide some valuable lessons.

Eurofighter: Typhoon To Be More Agile, Deadly

In terms of Typhoon enhancements, Airbus have been trialing new aerodynamic improvements on instrumented aircraft IPA7 in Germany. The improvements based around additional fuselage strakes and leading edge root extension kits. Those plus some other minor alterations reportedly improved lift, angle of attack and roll rate compared to other production aircraft. This enhancements could be retrofitted to existing aircraft.

RIAT: Eurofighter set for weapons testing, but production questions remain - 7/22/2015 - Flight Global

Other upgrades for Typhoon are ongoing, BAE are to perform more Meteor live firings in August and are to fly a developmental AESA radar on an aircraft during the third quarter. Alenia Aermacchi are to perform Storm Shadow separation trials in September.

No word yet on Brimstone 2, but considering it's a UK weapon it'll be done by UK companies I guess because unlike Storm Shadow there's no similar European equivalent (like Germany and Taurus for example). But that, Storm Shadow and Meteor are to become available in 2018 as part of P2E enhancements.

The article further goes on to explain that there's talk of slowing down Typhoon production to maintain the possibility of further orders from Saudi Arabia, the UAE or Qatar. Current orders and production means the end of the line is late 2017/early 2018.

 

[StobieWan]

If they're willing to fit the booms then I'd rip their arms off. We have a few A/C in service that have boom adapter AAR requirements. Plus, if they'd accept the exra business as offsets against their minimum levels of business and get happy about buddy buddy refuelling for F35B for instance...

 

[swerve]

A few medium to smaller NATO members (Poland, Netherlands, Norway - maybe one or two more) have a requirement for tankers, & have decided the A330 MRTT is their preferred aircraft. They've set up a consortium to negotiate a joint purchase or lease from Airbus. From what I've read, 5 would be more than their initial requirement, but buying time on 5 RAF non-core tankers might fit in with their plans.

But the tankers must have booms.They're all F-16 operators & either buying or considering F-35A.

This could explain the AirTanker proposal.

 

[RobWilliams]

Interesting things moving with respect to the Raptor recce pod.

UTAS sets sights on Raptor integration with Typhoon - 7/28/2015 - Flight Global

Currently it can't fit on Typhoon and it's not funded, but the RAF have said there'll be no capability gaps when Tornado leaves service, but we've not got a system which Typhoon can carry like that.

Looks like UTAS are preempting that, they've got a design for the same systems on a smaller pod which fits on Typhoon. They're also working with Selex ES to integrate a SAR into the smaller pod design.

Probably hear about the future path in the SDSR, there was a big push for ISTAR investment.

 

[rnrp]

Interesting things moving with respect to the Raptor recce pod.

UTAS sets sights on Raptor integration with Typhoon - 7/28/2015 - Flight Global

Currently it can't fit on Typhoon and it's not funded, but the RAF have said there'll be no capability gaps when Tornado leaves service, but we've not got a system which Typhoon can carry like that.

Looks like UTAS are preempting that, they've got a design for the same systems on a smaller pod which fits on Typhoon. They're also working with Selex ES to integrate a SAR into the smaller pod design.

Probably hear about the future pat

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/375/...4085_7964ece7-9d9f-4f6e-a648-c4189250e1a2.jpg
Looks like to keep up meagre sortie rates 12 Sqn get reprieved again!

 

[RobWilliams]

Yup, 12 Squadron has another reprieve and will disband in March 2017 rather than March 2016.

Islamic State crisis: UK to extend air strikes over Iraq - BBC News

They were meant to be reformed as a Typhoon squadron, so presumably that'll be postponed otherwise there'd be a small jump in squadron numbers under a different Squadron (which would be great)

 

[dumpster4]

Yup, 12 Squadron has another reprieve and will disband in March 2017 rather than March 2016.

They were meant to be reformed as a Typhoon squadron, so presumably that'll be postponed otherwise there'd be a small jump in squadron numbers under a different Squadron (which would be great)

According to the BBC:

"Compared with the Typhoon, which entered service with the RAF as recently as
2007, the much older Tornado is less manoeuvrable, having been primarily
designed to fly quickly in straight lines at a low level.

But the GR4 has a major advantage over the newer model, says Nick de
Larrinaga, Europe editor of IHS Jane's Defence Weekly: "They can carry the
Brimstone air-to-surface missile which the RAF has found very useful." These are
designed to minimise collateral damage and are capable of hitting moving targets.

Because the Tornado is a relatively large aircraft, it can carry a lot of these - 12 in
four sets of three. As yet, the Typhoons are not equipped to carry them. Until
Brimstone can be integrated with the newer jet, the GR4 has an advantage."

Note: Can't post links yet, otherwise I'd link to the above article.

 

[StobieWan]

Integration for Brimstone is on the way:


https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mod-announces-200m-typhoon-capability-upgrade-for-the-raf

 

[fbi098]

I'd hardly contact Puma's your backbone of the RAF's carry fleet. They've got exactly 1 more Puma then they do associated with Merlins, and giving way less lift then your Merlins. They get 17 a lesser amount of Puma's functioning then that they do Chinooks presently.