Royal Air Force (RAF-UK) Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

Had Boeing doubled or tripled the whitetail production run, I wonder how many pending A400M orders would be at risk of being cancelled? As Boeing had to be aware of some of the problems, IMHO, they pulled the plug a little early.

Not many, I think. The biggest customers specified exactly what they wanted in terms of performance, & the A400M matches what they asked for. The French, for example, pointed out that in Mali, they could have delivered troops & their equipment to where they'd fight, while C-17s had to land several hundred km away, & a lot of equipment had to be moved overland from there because it wouldn't fit in a Transall or C-130.

I don't see them discarding that - what they wanted & asked for - because of a fixable technical problem.

Also, there's the little point about where A400M is built: the jobs are in the main customer countries. The politics of dumping it are poisonous.

 

[KiwiRob]

I believe there is still a single whitetail left without a home, nobody appears to have put there hands up for it, which suggests Boeing where right to close down the line.

 

[John Fedup]

I believe there is still a single whitetail left without a home, nobody appears to have put there hands up for it, which suggests Boeing where right to close down the line.

I believe it belongs to Qatar and is in Texas waiting final preparation. If it isn't, the RCAF should buy it immediately.

 

[ngatimozart]

I believe there is still a single whitetail left without a home, nobody appears to have put there hands up for it, which suggests Boeing where right to close down the line.

I am not sure whether it is homeless or not, but I agree Boeing were right in closing the line. They were originally going to do 13 whitetails, but used the last three for spares, so if there was such a demand they would have built whitetails 11 - 13.

 

[swerve]

Yes. The cost of keeping the line open but idle, ready for more orders, would have meant putting the price up considerably for any more aircraft ordered, which would have put more orders at risk. You can't rely on India deciding to put in an order after the line's closed.

 

[Vulcan]

Big financial risk for Boeing if they kept the line active with nobody looking to buy. My guess is they had negotiations far enough under way for the so-called 'white tails' that from a commercial perspective they were effectively bought already.

 

[ngatimozart]

Apparently the 'maingate' final approval decision for the acquisition of nine Boeing P8 MPA is imminent. I thought that the decision had already been made, but apparently not.

 

[40 deg south]

Apparently the 'maingate' final approval decision for the acquisition of nine Boeing P8 MPA is imminent. I thought that the decision had already been made, but apparently not.

British Officials Trumpet Apache, P-8 Deals Amid Post-Brexit Fears

It has now!

 

[ngatimozart]

British Officials Trumpet Apache, P-8 Deals Amid Post-Brexit Fears

It has now!

Thanks. Just caught up. Related to the RAF P8 acquisition, there are apparently 11 RAF Seedcorn personnel currently serving at USN NAS Jacksonville learning to operate the P8.

There is also talk of the RAF and RN pooling some F35 weapons with the USMC, subject to sensitivities on some weapons in national inventories.

British officials are mulling over the idea of operating a mixed F35A/B fleet.

“What we will do as we go forward into the next SDSR is look at the force mix,” said Air Commodore Linc Taylor, the Royal Air Force officer responsible for delivery of the British F-35 program. ... “There is an absolute benefit to maximizing combat air power with interoperability with Typhoon and the capability from the [aircraft] carrier. We will look at all of those options as we go forward into the next SDSR,” Taylor said to reporters at RIAT. ... “The F-35A offers you a greater range and greater payload. There may be space for an 'A' variant so we will look at 'A' and 'B's in the future, but not the 'C's,” Taylor said. “The F-35 and Typhoon have complimentary qualities but the Typhoon is not low-observable, it can’t get to where the F-35 can get to."

 

[StobieWan]

That's good news all around, 9 P8 plus a solid decision on Apache (there were ruminations about re-using the WAH-64's but that would put us into another orphan platform which we don't need.)

 

[swerve]

...
British officials are mulling over the idea of operating a mixed F35A/B fleet.

RAF officers . . . think of this as someone from a particular interest group saying what they'd like. The RN will respond with reminders about the logistical & training advantages of a single type, the flexibility of every aircraft being available for both land-based & carrier operations, & might drop hints about it being silly to spend billions on two great big carriers if we're not going to make sure that we have enough aircraft to fill 'em both to the brim in an emergency..

 

[Sellers]

Hi all,

I wondered what people thoughts were of the RAFs deployment to FPDA exercises, japan and s korea.

A peace time force of x4 typhoon, supported by c17, voyager etc seems a decent effort to me when concurrent ops such as the below are considered.

Shader x8 tornado, x6 typhoon, sentinel, sentry, voyager, airseeker.
Falklands x4 typhoon, voyager
Uk defence x8 typhoon, voyager

Especially with another deployment to eastern europe coming up in Romania, with defence cuts in mind the RAF seems in reasonable health.

Clearly, were not a major player in the far east but the continued ability to be active out of areas is a huge asset for the uk, and is demostrative to our allies and enemies.

Cheers Sellers

 

[t68]

RAF officers . . . think of this as someone from a particular interest group saying what they'd like. The RN will respond with reminders about the logistical & training advantages of a single type, the flexibility of every aircraft being available for both land-based & carrier operations, & might drop hints about it being silly to spend billions on two great big carriers if we're not going to make sure that we have enough aircraft to fill 'em both to the brim in an emergency..

Was just thinking that, if an A variant gets the go ahead would that then be the push to get the boom on the tanker aircraft?

 

[John Fedup]

Was just thinking that, if an A variant gets the go ahead would that then be the push to get the boom on the tanker aircraft?

IIRC, the boom refueling provides a faster fuel transfer which is clearly an advantage for refueling larger aircraft like P-8s or C-17s not not so much for fighters. As for going with two JSF variants, I don't think the extra range of the "A" offsets the advantages of maximizing the commonalities of the fleet not to mention having RAF fighters that can be deployed to the QEs if need be. I would like to think there is a future upgrade to allow the boom refueling system for the "B" at some point or better yet a dual mode.

 

[swerve]

Yes, not so much for fighters because the rate at which relatively small aircraft such as fighters can accept fuel is limited, & in many (most? all?) cases booms can transfer it faster than they can take it. I think that the fastest hoses (some are much slower) can deliver as fast as yer average fighter can take it nowadays.

Both hoses & booms are much faster than when the US SAC wanted booms to get fuel into its bombers at a good rate.

Dual mode has obvious advantages, but cost/benefit? Takes space (OK on big aircraft) & adds weight & complexity.

 

[t68]

But would the "A" be a replacement for Tornado or tranche 1 Typhoons eventually say a mix of 96 "B" and 42 "A"

 

[ADMk2]

Yes, not so much for fighters because the rate at which relatively small aircraft such as fighters can accept fuel is limited, & in many (most? all?) cases booms can transfer it faster than they can take it. I think that the fastest hoses (some are much slower) can deliver as fast as yer average fighter can take it nowadays.

Both hoses & booms are much faster than when the US SAC wanted booms to get fuel into its bombers at a good rate.

Dual mode has obvious advantages, but cost/benefit? Takes space (OK on big aircraft) & adds weight & complexity.

Booms on the KC-30A for example flow at about 4500l per minute whereas the Cobham refuelling pods flow at arounf 1450l per minute. Modern-ish fighters like the F-16 for example struggle due to pressure disconnect issues if the refueller tries to pump to much at once (generally only one pump used at a time for fighters) but can still in general (and entirely dependent on plumbing of course) receive faster from booms than the modern hose and drogue pods can deliver the fuel.

Aircraft wih internal tanks only are of course a different matter altogether and fill significantly faster than those with drop tanks.

Oh, and of course in bumpy weather boom refuellers also flow infinitely faster than hose and drogue...

 

[south]

There is some merit to the RAF having a split buy of JSF. The A obviously will have longer range, larger weapons bay, and in theatre will have longer time on station due to the fuel available. Whether that is enough to get a split buy across the line is unknown. From my observations the UK armed forces are financially cut to the bone - the fact that the A is cheaper than the B by a reasonable margin could get a split buy across the line.

The argument of common type/training is not enough to prevent this from getting up.. The A model will require less extensive training to land, as there is only one way to do it, and for all extents and purposes is a Simpler B model due to the removal of the lift fan and all of the moving flappy bits for STOVL. Where the RN may have a sound argument is in terms of numbers to stack both carriers in a contingency.

In terms of AAR my understanding was that the space for the probe is still there on the A model but integration is unfunded. I would suggest that if the A model was procured that the Brits would get booms added to some, but probably not all of their voyager fleet (£££££), as there has been some talk of doing this anyway. It was a short sighted non-joint non-interoperable decision not to get booms in the first place IMO.

As mentioned fuel flow rates for fighters on the boom aren't that high, certainly not as high as heavies. By the time you have 2x fighters refuelling hose and drogue it is generally at least as quick to probe refuel a pair or four ship because of the combined flow rate. I'm not sure if AD is serious in his last statement about turbulent conditions making it quicker for boom - but it is a definite consideration, not because anything changes with the aircraft, but if you cannot get into the basket because it is moving around, you can't take gas full stop. It is less of a problem with boom because it is a heavy flying rigid boom bolted into to the tankers fuselage, rather than a light aerodynamic basket, essentially on the end of a whip(hose), which is getting cracked by longer, more flexible wings.

 

[ADMk2]

There is some merit to the RAF having a split buy of JSF. The A obviously will have longer range, larger weapons bay, and in theatre will have longer time on station due to the fuel available. Whether that is enough to get a split buy across the line is unknown. From my observations the UK armed forces are financially cut to the bone - the fact that the A is cheaper than the B by a reasonable margin could get a split buy across the line.

The argument of common type/training is not enough to prevent this from getting up.. The A model will require less extensive training to land, as there is only one way to do it, and for all extents and purposes is a Simpler B model due to the removal of the lift fan and all of the moving flappy bits for STOVL. Where the RN may have a sound argument is in terms of numbers to stack both carriers in a contingency.

In terms of AAR my understanding was that the space for the probe is still there on the A model but integration is unfunded. I would suggest that if the A model was procured that the Brits would get booms added to some, but probably not all of their voyager fleet (£££££), as there has been some talk of doing this anyway. It was a short sighted non-joint non-interoperable decision not to get booms in the first place IMO.

As mentioned fuel flow rates for fighters on the boom aren't that high, certainly not as high as heavies. By the time you have 2x fighters refuelling hose and drogue it is generally at least as quick to probe refuel a pair or four ship because of the combined flow rate. I'm not sure if AD is serious in his last statement about turbulent conditions making it quicker for boom - but it is a definite consideration, not because anything changes with the aircraft, but if you cannot get into the basket because it is moving around, you can't take gas full stop. It is less of a problem with boom because it is a heavy flying rigid boom bolted into to the tankers fuselage, rather than a light aerodynamic basket, essentially on the end of a whip(hose), which is getting cracked by longer, more flexible wings.

Anecdotally I've read and discussed with USAF refuelling staff (on KC-10's) that their booms are typically able to fill (their usual customers) F-16 fighters up to 4x faster than their hose and drogue equipped Navy and Marine fighter counterparts and can even get 4x F-16's filled up quicker than 4x Hornets when they have the two wing mounted pods attached.

 

[ADMk2]

In other news the Royal Airforce has requested up to 26x Predator B aircraft...

They will come with Multi-Spectral sensor kits and Lynx SAR radar systems.

United Kingdom – Certifiable Predator B Remotely Piloted Aircraft | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency