Royal Air Force (RAF-UK) Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

Recently, slightly better batting average I'd say - the AH-64E purchase - straight off the shelf instead of a repeat of the bespoke Westland-Augusta thing first time around, P8 and E7 plus getting back into Boxer - those all look like sensible decisions to get us back into a situation where we're buying more in line with what the big dog in the yard has and getting us into a refresh cycle that shares support burdens with other users.

I'm not claiming instant perfection here, just that it's at least a bit encouraging. If we'd gone with the Voyager/Saab proposal for E3 replacement for instance, I'd be frothing at the mouth.

Unlike with the A330MRTT acquisition, in a cost cutting measure, the RAF variant is sans boom, which means that it cannot refuel the E-7A and P-8A, nor any USAF aircraft, which makes it rather less useful in the long term. However if they buy something without trying to UKize it then they seem to get it right more by accident than design.

 

[StobieWan]

Unlike with the A330MRTT acquisition, in a cost cutting measure, the RAF variant is sans boom, which means that it cannot refuel the E-7A and P-8A, nor any USAF aircraft, which makes it rather less useful in the long term. However if they buy something without trying to UKize it then they seem to get it right more by accident than design.

That's a bit of an older deal - the whole tanker routine is a bit of a mess as it's a PFI deal - a process which has now been entirely discredited as not offering best value for money for the tax payers. AirTanker have already offered to fit booms to the Voyagers as they as a business would get more value return on their fleet if they could refuel everything. Voyager was pre MRTT I believe and the requirement simply didn't exist - the only thing that tanked by boom was the E3. Obviously, if we'd known we'd be buying P8 and E7 to follow, might have been more of a priority but reasonably, why specify a capability you're not going to likely use ?

Mainly, the curse of UK Def Pro has definitely, just as you say, the constant attempts to include UK elements. I need only point to theF4 purchase, adding Spey engines to a perfectly serviceable jet, and in the process, adding enough drag with the enlarged inlets to off set the additional thrust..Wups...

We'll see - I suspect more stuff like the B where we'd be bidding for component manufacture etc will be closer to the norm.

That does leave the Tempest program however.

We'll see I guess.

 

[swerve]

The Speys were partly for industrial reasons, but also because it made it a damn sight easier to get a Phantom off a rather small RN carrier. IIRC the Spey-engined Phantoms were slower high up, but performed better at low altitude.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Speys were partly for industrial reasons, but also because it made it a damn sight easier to get a Phantom off a rather small RN carrier. IIRC the Spey-engined Phantoms were slower high up, but performed better at low altitude.

IIRC the Speys had more thrust. Nice bird the Phantom.

 

[pussertas]

The RAF are said to be retiring thier fleet of 5 Sentinal, Aircraft


Make a good buy for a 2nd tier airforce who are willing to refurbish the electronics?

 

[StobieWan]

IIRC the Speys had more thrust. Nice bird the Phantom.

They had quite a bit more thrust than the standard J79's and were cleaner at altitude - they weren't as smokey as the standard USAF/USN jets - it's the usual compromise between stuff and uh..stuff and ..oh, other stuff...

The RN birds had more thrust at carrier deck altitude and at low alt , but that was to compensate for the short flight deck of the carrer.

 

[Shanesworld]

They had quite a bit more thrust than the standard J79's and were cleaner at altitude - they weren't as smokey as the standard USAF/USN jets - it's the usual compromise between stuff and uh..stuff and ..oh, other stuff...

The RN birds had more thrust at carrier deck altitude and at low alt , but that was to compensate for the short flight deck of the carrer.

I have heard via podcast that they lost some of the throttle responsiveness which made recovery more difficult which contributed to the FAA having less proportionately night landing qualified pilots.

 

[StobieWan]

I have heard via podcast that they lost some of the throttle responsiveness which made recovery more difficult which contributed to the FAA having less proportionately night landing qualified pilots.

I've got about three books with quotes regarding the reheat kick-in as being an event timed in ice ages.

 

[Shanesworld]

I've got about three books with quotes regarding the reheat kick-in as being an event timed in ice ages.

Was it a multi stage reheat like modern fighters have?

 

[Redlands18]

The RAF are said to be retiring thier fleet of 5 Sentinal, Aircraft

View attachment 47404
Make a good buy for a 2nd tier airforce who are willing to refurbish the electronics?

Your not actually suggesting that they would look good with Roundels that have Animals that Jump on them are you?

 

[ngatimozart]

I've got about three books with quotes regarding the reheat kick-in as being an event timed in ice ages.

So I take it that we are talking in 10x5 years at least. So the little ice age doesn't qualify. I suppose it's one way for the aircrews to check out the current status of their sphincter muscles.

Back in the mid 1960s the CAS RNZAF formally submitted to Cabinet, through the Air Ministry that the F-4 Phantom was the ideal replacement for the RNZAF Canberra and Vampire fleets. The Cabinet had a collective intake of breathe and said no. He was retired a whiles later. Something to do with the collective Cabinet apoplexy at the sticker schock. It probably would've eaten into their collective perks.

 

[ngatimozart]

The RAF are said to be retiring thier fleet of 5 Sentinal, Aircraft

View attachment 47404
Make a good buy for a 2nd tier airforce who are willing to refurbish the electronics?

They would've been thrashed by the poms and it'd be an expensive undertaking upgrading them. The real point is what would you want them for? Chasing religious nutters in the sandpit? Or chasing the heathen PLA & its CCP masters and high priests around the world?

 

[ASSAIL]

Your not actually suggesting that they would look good with Roundels that have Animals that Jump on them are you?

I was thinking more along the line of an airforce with previous form on buying clapped out hand me downs, that force has a leaf on its roundels

 

[ngatimozart]

I was thinking more along the line of an airforce with previous form on buying clapped out hand me downs, that force has a leaf on its roundels

Ahhh they also have a habit of pouring lots of good money after bad as well. Definitely well sprung Assail.

 

[Milne Bay]

Your not actually suggesting that they would look good with Roundels that have Animals that Jump on them are you?

Well, actually......

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/RAAF_Phantom_Finney.jpg

 

[ngatimozart]

They were on loan until the F-111 turned up, because of delays to the F-111 program.

 

[Milne Bay]

They were on loan until the F-111 turned up, because of delays to the F-111 program.

Yes

@Milne Bay WE HAVE A RULE FOR ONE LINE POSTS WHICH ON OCCASION US MODERATORS WILL IGNORE POSTERS BREAKING. HOWEVER ONE WORD ANSWERS STRETCHES THE CONCEPTS OF THAT LENIENCY TO FAR.

NGATIMOZART

 

[south]

That's a bit of an older deal - the whole tanker routine is a bit of a mess as it's a PFI deal - a process which has now been entirely discredited as not offering best value for money for the tax payers. AirTanker have already offered to fit booms to the Voyagers as they as a business would get more value return on their fleet if they could refuel everything. Voyager was pre MRTT I believe and the requirement simply didn't exist - the only thing that tanked by boom was the E3. Obviously, if we'd known we'd be buying P8 and E7 to follow, might have been more of a priority but reasonably, why specify a capability you're not going to likely use ?

Mainly, the curse of UK Def Pro has definitely, just as you say, the constant attempts to include UK elements. I need only point to theF4 purchase, adding Spey engines to a perfectly serviceable jet, and in the process, adding enough drag with the enlarged inlets to off set the additional thrust..Wups...

We'll see - I suspect more stuff like the B where we'd be bidding for component manufacture etc will be closer to the norm.

That does leave the Tempest program however.

We'll see I guess.

Air tanker Lack of boom was solely reducing the upfront cost (it also reduces weight, which gives the Voyager a greater offload capability). The RAAF signed their A330MRTT contract in 2004. The RAF signed the air tanker contract in 2008. There was definitely a boom option available to them.

Even at the time I thought it an incredibly myopic decision, as the UK armed forces (as do Australia’s) normally operate in a coalition. And a significant amount, if not most NATO/ coalition fast air (usually vipers) are boom refuellers.

 

[StobieWan]

Was it a multi stage reheat like modern fighters have?

I'm fairly sure but don't *know* that it was a straight forward "on/off" affair but I did find this link to a book outlining some of the issues around the Spey's performance on the carrier and in the air.

Phantom from the Cockpit

The McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom was the outstanding aircraft in many of the Western World's air forces during the 1960s and 70s. It played a key role in the 'Cold War' and saw action in Vietnam. It first flew in 1958 and went into operation with the US Navy in 1960. During its long front-line...

books.google.co.uk

Interesting stuff - the USN regarded the F4K as fairly dangerous around a carrier due to the relight times etc.

Ironically, the RAF ended up ordering some more F4's which were delivered straight from USN stock I seem to recall - with modernised J79's that smoked rather less and which delivered the thrust the F4K had always intended to.

Overall, this program plus the Nimrod AEW program need to be required reading for anyone in procurement.

 

[StobieWan]

Air tanker Lack of boom was solely reducing the upfront cost (it also reduces weight, which gives the Voyager a greater offload capability). The RAAF signed their A330MRTT contract in 2004. The RAF signed the air tanker contract in 2008. There was definitely a boom option available to them.

Even at the time I thought it an incredibly myopic decision, as the UK armed forces (as do Australia’s) normally operate in a coalition. And a significant amount, if not most NATO/ coalition fast air (usually vipers) are boom refuellers.

I stand corrected !


I'll go with "PFI, PFI bad" and leave it there I think.

Not the worst fluff up from the MOD however - the Chinook SFOR purchase if that rings any bells ? Got to get some Chinooks for UK SFOR, spec sounds exactly what the Nightstalkers use, look at the brochure, faint at the cost and decide that we can get the same capability for less *somehow* and end up with some choppers that can't even be certified for IRF civilian flight. They then stay in a hangar for a decade before anyone fixes that.

We're awesome