A bit out of date. Latest reports suggest that potential lenders have woken up to it being a government deal, & effectively government-guaranteed, & they now have credit offered at about 50 basis points over LIBOR.
Royal Air Force [RAF] discussions and updates
- Thread starter neil
- Start date
Latest reports?Please provide details.
Sorry, I don't take notes of all the print media I read. Can't remember if it was in the FT or JDW. Read it in the last couple of days.
JDW, online article dated 31-10-2007. I read it in the print edition. I don't have a subscription.
Since that took me two minutes to find, in one of the two places I said I thought I'd read it, you can't have looked very hard.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #26
I cannot believe that the UK government would allow this deal to fall through. After all the controversy they had during the selection proccess, they wouldn't want to look foolish especially after PFI proposals have been rejected in other RAF programmes, such as the support helicopter replacement.
Anyway, good news that they got the credit in the end.
Anyway, good news that they got the credit in the end.
IIRC (this is from memory) it didn't say they have the credit signed sealed & delivered, but that the hiccup when credit dried up everywhere was over, & negotiations were proceeding on the basis of more favourable terms than before the credit crunch. Lenders seem to have decided that it's a safe haven for their money. Fair enough, given the state backing.
Still a bloody stupid deal. We should buy the damn things outright, & if we have spare capacity (unlikely unless we buy more), make a deal with a firm with suitable skills to operate any spare aircraft, wet-leasing them to whoever might want 'em - e.g. some of our allies.
From The Daily Telegraph:
£13bn RAF tanker deal is ready for lift-off
By Sylvia Pfeifer
Last Updated: 10:36pm GMT 10/11/2007
Britain's biggest private finance initiative, the long-delayed £13bn deal to supply the Royal Air Force with a vital new fleet of tanker aircraft, is ready for lift-off.
AirTanker, the consortium backing the project which is led by Airbus's parent company EADS, launched a competition to raise £2.5bn of financing earlier this year. Although the credit crunch has increased the cost of the fund-raising, the consortium insists that things are on track.
Anthony Forshaw, managing director at Deutsche Bank, the consortium's financial adviser, said: "We do have options, despite the credit crunch. We had extraordinarily aggressive pitches from the banks of around 50-70 basis points over Libor. But the credit crisis has moved the cost of bank finance up by between 10-20 basis points to about 70-80 basis points."
advertisement
According to Forshaw, even after the credit crunch, the terms offered by the banks support allocating some 25 per cent of the debt funding to banks. The remainder will now be raised via a bond issue, which would be the largest PFI bond ever issued.
"The rest is expected to be raised in the wrapped bond market. However flexibility is being maintained to vary each debt component, depending on the market," said Forshaw.
The consortium is in the process of finalising an agreement with Ambac, the world's second largest municipal bond insurer, and with HBOS on the bank debt side, but expects to bring other institutions into the deal before it closes.
Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland and RBC are arranging the wrapped bonds. The financing structure has also received preliminary investment grade indications from both Moody's and S&P.
"The bulk of the controversial documentation is in an agreed form and we will be disappointed not to be going to market early next year," added Forshaw.
The consortium includes VT, Rolls-Royce, Cobham and Thales. Under the terms of the 27-year deal, AirTanker will provide a fleet of Airbus A330 tankers to replace the RAF's old tanker fleet.
Tornado GR4 Replacement
The Tornado GR4 was originally to be replaced by a project known as the FOAC, which AFAIK was cancelled in 2005 and is now known as FCAC.
Numerous options are being examined as a replacement to the GR4, including:
-UCAVs
-Upgraded models of current aircraft (JSF, Typhoon etc)
-A completely new design of aircraft (Perhaps a heavy bomber)
-Adapting non-specialised aircraft (A400M etc) to carry cruise missles.
I thought I'd start this thread as nowadays you don't hear much about it.
A "Force-mix" proposal which incorporated a combination of the above, has for most of the time been seen as favorite.
I assumed that this would largely be based around later models of Typhoons and JSFs but current and projected UK orders for JSF and Typhoon do not suggest this.
A BAE Systems project known as Taranis will see a UCAV demonstrator and this seems quite serious but there is no indication of how large a part this will play in the FCAC "Force-mix".
In my opinion, the best solution would have been a heavy bomber. It is a shame that the UK will have no heavy bomber in the foreseeable future. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown the importance of having heavy bombers with high indurance being able to loiter in the air, waiting for a call. The benefits in range would also allow the UK to reach its enemy without having to rely on local basing.
I very much doubt a heavy bomber will be developed as there is not the time, nor the money for the UK to develop a new bomber on their own. The idea of modifying non-specialised aircraft is an interesting idea which would be a cost-effective way of acquiring some of the benefits of the heavy bomber's range and endurance. If this were to be carried out though, I think it would be better to see a new cruise missile (perhaps co-operating with America on a Hypersonic missile) to be developed, rather than just using Storm Shadows.
Storm Shadows brings me onto another point. One of the requirements of the FOAC (as it was then known) was the internal carriage of two 2000lbs Bombs/Storm Shadows. I am confident that the JSF/Typhoon/Taranis will all be incapable of achieving this: JSFs bays are too small, the Typhoon cannot carry internally, and the Taranis will be of similar size to a Hawk trainer.
I wonder if the orders of 232 Typhoons and 138 JSFs are essentially replacements of the Tornado (along with the F3, GR3A, Harrier and Sea Harrier) without directly replacing it, by effectively creating a smaller, yet more multi-role frontline force of fast jets, which will be supplemented by a new UCAV (Taranis).
Thoughts?
The Tornado GR4 was originally to be replaced by a project known as the FOAC, which AFAIK was cancelled in 2005 and is now known as FCAC.
Numerous options are being examined as a replacement to the GR4, including:
-UCAVs
-Upgraded models of current aircraft (JSF, Typhoon etc)
-A completely new design of aircraft (Perhaps a heavy bomber)
-Adapting non-specialised aircraft (A400M etc) to carry cruise missles.
I thought I'd start this thread as nowadays you don't hear much about it.
A "Force-mix" proposal which incorporated a combination of the above, has for most of the time been seen as favorite.
I assumed that this would largely be based around later models of Typhoons and JSFs but current and projected UK orders for JSF and Typhoon do not suggest this.
A BAE Systems project known as Taranis will see a UCAV demonstrator and this seems quite serious but there is no indication of how large a part this will play in the FCAC "Force-mix".
In my opinion, the best solution would have been a heavy bomber. It is a shame that the UK will have no heavy bomber in the foreseeable future. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown the importance of having heavy bombers with high indurance being able to loiter in the air, waiting for a call. The benefits in range would also allow the UK to reach its enemy without having to rely on local basing.
I very much doubt a heavy bomber will be developed as there is not the time, nor the money for the UK to develop a new bomber on their own. The idea of modifying non-specialised aircraft is an interesting idea which would be a cost-effective way of acquiring some of the benefits of the heavy bomber's range and endurance. If this were to be carried out though, I think it would be better to see a new cruise missile (perhaps co-operating with America on a Hypersonic missile) to be developed, rather than just using Storm Shadows.
Storm Shadows brings me onto another point. One of the requirements of the FOAC (as it was then known) was the internal carriage of two 2000lbs Bombs/Storm Shadows. I am confident that the JSF/Typhoon/Taranis will all be incapable of achieving this: JSFs bays are too small, the Typhoon cannot carry internally, and the Taranis will be of similar size to a Hawk trainer.
I wonder if the orders of 232 Typhoons and 138 JSFs are essentially replacements of the Tornado (along with the F3, GR3A, Harrier and Sea Harrier) without directly replacing it, by effectively creating a smaller, yet more multi-role frontline force of fast jets, which will be supplemented by a new UCAV (Taranis).
Thoughts?
AFAIK, GR4 is expected to be replaced by F-35 & UCAVs.
There should be new weapons available by the time Taranis, or whatever is derived from it, enters service, which may fit in the bays of an F-35B. I wonder if the the FOAS Storm Shadow internal carriage requirement has been dropped in the hope of something new turning up?
There should be new weapons available by the time Taranis, or whatever is derived from it, enters service, which may fit in the bays of an F-35B. I wonder if the the FOAS Storm Shadow internal carriage requirement has been dropped in the hope of something new turning up?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #33
the raf currently operates a little more than 300 combat aircraft. i cannot see in this era of shrinking frontlines and budgets.. a future force larger than the current one..
therefore i beleive there is little chance that 232 typhoons and 138 F35B will enter service.. the only question is.. how many planes can be cut within the F35B order and still have enough to fill out a carrier air group? ..and how many typhoons can be cut within tranche 3 without incurring too many penalties..
i believe that the above mentioned two aircraft types will indeed be the major part of the GR4 replacement.. remeber now that the current GR4 out of service date is somewhere in the early 2020's.. by that time all the typhoons will have long been delivered and the last F35's just about.. so i believe its going to be a matter of phasing in the new types as you phase out the old.. and with still new rumours of more cuts to the raf frontline following the comprehensive spending review by the uk government.. specificly cuts to the GR4 force..(as reported by janes).. i cannot see a new combat jet being taken into service other than taranis.. F35B.. or typhoon..
if successful(wich is nowhere near guaranteed).. i believe taranis will defenitely pick up some of the slack left by the tornado GR4.. UCAVs seems to be the way to go these days..
plus with senior raf officers (and u.s. officers) singing the praises of the nimrod in the overland recon role.. it might not be too far fetched to see a nimrod MRA4 with integrated storm shadow or even paveway IV operating in the war on terror..
with taranis being a real and funded project.. and with arming nimrod not costing too much.. i think that might be what we'll see..
p.s. doesnt anyone think this thread should be merged with the general 'RAF news and discussions thread'?
therefore i beleive there is little chance that 232 typhoons and 138 F35B will enter service.. the only question is.. how many planes can be cut within the F35B order and still have enough to fill out a carrier air group? ..and how many typhoons can be cut within tranche 3 without incurring too many penalties..
i believe that the above mentioned two aircraft types will indeed be the major part of the GR4 replacement.. remeber now that the current GR4 out of service date is somewhere in the early 2020's.. by that time all the typhoons will have long been delivered and the last F35's just about.. so i believe its going to be a matter of phasing in the new types as you phase out the old.. and with still new rumours of more cuts to the raf frontline following the comprehensive spending review by the uk government.. specificly cuts to the GR4 force..(as reported by janes).. i cannot see a new combat jet being taken into service other than taranis.. F35B.. or typhoon..
if successful(wich is nowhere near guaranteed).. i believe taranis will defenitely pick up some of the slack left by the tornado GR4.. UCAVs seems to be the way to go these days..
plus with senior raf officers (and u.s. officers) singing the praises of the nimrod in the overland recon role.. it might not be too far fetched to see a nimrod MRA4 with integrated storm shadow or even paveway IV operating in the war on terror..
with taranis being a real and funded project.. and with arming nimrod not costing too much.. i think that might be what we'll see..
p.s. doesnt anyone think this thread should be merged with the general 'RAF news and discussions thread'?
1) There's a big difference between "operates" and "owns", & one has to allow for time. 370 combat aircraft purchased over a 20 year time span does not give a larger force than we now have, but a smaller one. The oldest Typhoons will be over 20 years old by the time the last F-35 enters service. In that time, there will have been attrition, and some aircraft will be in reserve, as now. I doubt if the operational force will reach 250, even if we buy the full number.
2) Yes. I'll do it.
Do you expect this to be covered with additional F-35s to the 138 already ordered? If not then this would suggest that it has been blended in with the JCA program, which is what I suspect is the case.
I agree. I imagine that the Storm Shadow requirement has been dropped. I believe the storm shadow in its current form would be rather out-dated by the 2020 timeframe anyway and I thought that this requirement was a rather unusual one all along. In another thread, I mentioned my concern about internal cruise missiles for aircraft such as the F-35 and somebody suggested that a missile from Norway is being considered (I can't remember exactly, but it may have been swerve who mentioned, and the country may not be Norway).
I believe that MBDA should start to look more seriously at growth of the Storm Shadow. Versions such as an internal carriage version, a sea-launched version as a potential Tomahawk replacment, as well as improved range and various warhead variations.
I still see Dual 2000lbs carriage as important though. Although smaller smart weapons are being developed, it would be handy to be able to carry more of them (to take advantage of long-indurance) and there are still missions which require a larger weapon such as the penetrating PW3 (hence the RAF have not decided to phase PW3 out upon receiving PW4). I wonder whether there are any bomb requirements beyond PW4 which will arm the FCAC. I have always believed that the UK should consider the SDB but I don't know how happy the US is to export it.
I agree with swerve that the aircraft numbers won't become that low. There is argument over whether 138 F-35s and 144 Typhoons (if third tranche were cut) is a sufficient enough number to replace Jags, Harriers, Sea Harriers and the F3s. This excludes the need to replace 140 or so GR4s. To cut the Typhoon and F-35 orders without having a seperate replacement for the GR4 would be crazy. I think that if the current orders were intended as GR4 replacements as well as the rest of the fast-jet force, then they would have to be no further cuts to the numbers and if anything, more would need to be added.
As for the Nimrod MRA4, I have thought for a while that to modify it for ground attack would be a great idea and would be better than weaponising an A400M. However, the MRA4 force has already been cut and I wonder whether they will ever become available for ground attack given that they are likely to be stuggling enough with their primary role of maritime defense, considering low aircraft numbers.
If this were the case, then I see the A400M option as a good idea. I think a good amount of money should be invested in the A400M as the weaponised versions could be used for transport when required. Aerial refueling versions should also be considered for helicopters. The Merlin HC3 has the ability to refuel and so far, it is useless if we have nothing to refuel it with. The FRC-H (Future Rotorcraft Capability-Heavy) is likely to have a refueling ability too, as well as a special forces helicopter (If one is to be procured in the absence of the Chinook HC3). I think the europeans have turned out quite lucky with the A400M given that programs such as FCS and FRES have failed to fit into C-130s and the C-17 is likely to close.
The Taranis does seem like an excellent choice to replace the GR4 but I feel it would have to be part of a very good C4I network which I worry the UK wont be able to achieve. It is easier to encorporate stealth features and extra fuel with the UCAVs due to the absense of the cockpit. I think that a large weapons carriage is a must though.
Pingu,
I think it was me who mentioned the Norwegian missile - called the NSM. Fits in the bay of an F-35A or C, but I don't know about the F-35B. The NSM is smaller and shorter-range than Storm Shadow, & primarily intended as an anti-ship missile, AFAIK, though also with a land-attack role.
Agree about Storm Shadow growth & variants. There is, of course, Scalp Naval already under development, but I think other variants could be worthwhile. The proposed Taurus variants give an indication of what's possible.
http://www.taurus-systems.de/html/missilesystem.html
http://defence-data.com/paris2005/pagep175.htm
BTW, I think the weaponised A400M proposal doesn't require permanent modification. The missiles would be palletised, & the other necessary equipment would be plug-in.
I think it was me who mentioned the Norwegian missile - called the NSM. Fits in the bay of an F-35A or C, but I don't know about the F-35B. The NSM is smaller and shorter-range than Storm Shadow, & primarily intended as an anti-ship missile, AFAIK, though also with a land-attack role.
Agree about Storm Shadow growth & variants. There is, of course, Scalp Naval already under development, but I think other variants could be worthwhile. The proposed Taurus variants give an indication of what's possible.
http://www.taurus-systems.de/html/missilesystem.html
http://defence-data.com/paris2005/pagep175.htm
BTW, I think the weaponised A400M proposal doesn't require permanent modification. The missiles would be palletised, & the other necessary equipment would be plug-in.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #37
i stand corrected.. a force of 370 new aircraft purchased would indeed mean a smaller operational force than the one the RAF has now..
if memory serves me correctly i believe the RAF is planning on an operational fleet of 140 typhoons over the aircraft lifespan.. with 232 bought..
it stands to reason then that if 138 F35B are bought.. there should be about 80 operational airframes.. giving a total of 220 - 250 fighters..
nothing is this simple however and there are many variables.. so it is,essentially, a guessing game..
i stand by my other point however that either typhoon tranche 3.. or the F35B purchase(or both).. might be reduced..
i agree that it makes no sense to do so.. but this is the world we live in.. plus other european countries seem to be following the same route.. and the americans too(they are looking at a 25% reduction in their fighter fleet in the medium to long term)
i mean look at other uk platforms..
hawk - down from 70 odd to 34
AAC lynx - down from 100 to 40
tankers - down from 22 odd to 14
nimrod - down from 22 to 12
big fleet reductions is nothing new..
however it isnt all gloom and doom.. as was mentioned above the new fighter fleet will be fully multi role and more versatile than ever..
if memory serves me correctly i believe the RAF is planning on an operational fleet of 140 typhoons over the aircraft lifespan.. with 232 bought..
it stands to reason then that if 138 F35B are bought.. there should be about 80 operational airframes.. giving a total of 220 - 250 fighters..
nothing is this simple however and there are many variables.. so it is,essentially, a guessing game..
i stand by my other point however that either typhoon tranche 3.. or the F35B purchase(or both).. might be reduced..
i agree that it makes no sense to do so.. but this is the world we live in.. plus other european countries seem to be following the same route.. and the americans too(they are looking at a 25% reduction in their fighter fleet in the medium to long term)
i mean look at other uk platforms..
hawk - down from 70 odd to 34
AAC lynx - down from 100 to 40
tankers - down from 22 odd to 14
nimrod - down from 22 to 12
big fleet reductions is nothing new..
however it isnt all gloom and doom.. as was mentioned above the new fighter fleet will be fully multi role and more versatile than ever..
Do you know if the US or UK has shown any interest in this weapon. I'd prefer to see a Storm Shadow derivative but this seems to be a good option if nothing else is developed. I wonder how much it will cost to integrate certain UK weapons onto the F-35. Do you think additonal funding will be needed or is all projected weapons integration included in the contract with LM. Of particular interest is integration of PW4, the Norwegian missile you speak of and minaturised Storm Shadow and Meteor.
This concept seems rather simple and cheap. However, I wonder why it has never been adopted in the past. I fit can work, then I definitely think it should form part of the future force.
Pingu wrote: “I believe that MBDA should start to look more seriously at growth of the Storm Shadow. Versions such as an internal carriage version, a sea-launched version as a potential Tomahawk replacment, as well as improved range and various warhead variations.”
“As for the Nimrod MRA4, I have thought for a while that to modify it for ground attack would be a great idea”.
Development of a mid-life upgrade for Storm Shadow was expected to begin around 2005. Over a three-year period, MBDA planned to investigate potential improvements in areas such as guidance, propulsion efficiency and stealth. France plans a similar mid-life upgrade for the SCALP EG.
At that time MBDA envisaged a three-stage approach.
Epoch 1 – to enter service around 2010, introducing on-aircraft retargeting and battle-damage indication via a 150 km-range datalink.
Epoch 2, planned for beyond 2015, would introduce retargeting in flight and alternative warheads able to provide additional lethality.
Epoch 3 was intended for service from about 2020 onwards. It would cover future deep-strike systems including long-range weapons able to orbit over the target area for 10, 15 or even 24 hours.
Studies were planned for integration on new platforms such as Typhoon, the F-35, and large non-penetrating aircraft such as the A400. MBDA has looked at the possible use of converted civil aircraft as cruise-missile launchers but concluded that installation of weapons bays into the airframe of an airliner involves such drastic modifications as to be unaffordable.
Speaking at the Cranfield University Deep Attack Symposium hosted in the summer of 2006, the Team Leader of the UK Defence Procurement Agency's Conventionally Armed Stand-Off Missile Integrated Project Team, said a range of potential Storm Shadow improvements were being developed under two contracts awarded to prime contractor MBDA earlier in 2006, with a view to initial service introduction from 2010-11.
These upgrades include a battle-damage indication capability and the ability to retarget the missile while the parent aircraft is en-route to the missile-launch point. Also planned is an upgraded warhead using smarter fuzing and an enhanced follow-through bomb intended to achieve double the penetration of the existing BROACH warhead.
For the longer term, other improvements being studied include a new engine running on JP10 fuel rather than JP5, and an all-new warhead with five times the current target-defeat capability.
When the go-ahead UK to provide 12 Nimrod MRA.4 was announced in 2006, a UK Defence Procurement Agency official told Jane’s that the aircraft would incorporate the wiring and other hardware changes needed for the carriage of Storm Shadow or GPS-guided bombs.
Speaking at a 2003 conference in London, an MoD official stated that staging through one of six "readily accessible bases" spread out across the globe, MRA.4s fitted with Storm Shadow would be able to carry out a strike "pretty much worldwide" with just a single in-flight refuelling.
"Carrying two Storm Shadows under the wings would mean a small fatigue penalty, but we would only fly with the missiles in anger”, he stated. “We think that we can cope with the fatigue problem."
Other air-to-surface missiles being considered for carriage on the MRA.4 included Harpoon II, Maverick, and ALARM, plus ASRAAM for self-protection.
Mercurius Cantabrigiensis
“As for the Nimrod MRA4, I have thought for a while that to modify it for ground attack would be a great idea”.
Development of a mid-life upgrade for Storm Shadow was expected to begin around 2005. Over a three-year period, MBDA planned to investigate potential improvements in areas such as guidance, propulsion efficiency and stealth. France plans a similar mid-life upgrade for the SCALP EG.
At that time MBDA envisaged a three-stage approach.
Epoch 1 – to enter service around 2010, introducing on-aircraft retargeting and battle-damage indication via a 150 km-range datalink.
Epoch 2, planned for beyond 2015, would introduce retargeting in flight and alternative warheads able to provide additional lethality.
Epoch 3 was intended for service from about 2020 onwards. It would cover future deep-strike systems including long-range weapons able to orbit over the target area for 10, 15 or even 24 hours.
Studies were planned for integration on new platforms such as Typhoon, the F-35, and large non-penetrating aircraft such as the A400. MBDA has looked at the possible use of converted civil aircraft as cruise-missile launchers but concluded that installation of weapons bays into the airframe of an airliner involves such drastic modifications as to be unaffordable.
Speaking at the Cranfield University Deep Attack Symposium hosted in the summer of 2006, the Team Leader of the UK Defence Procurement Agency's Conventionally Armed Stand-Off Missile Integrated Project Team, said a range of potential Storm Shadow improvements were being developed under two contracts awarded to prime contractor MBDA earlier in 2006, with a view to initial service introduction from 2010-11.
These upgrades include a battle-damage indication capability and the ability to retarget the missile while the parent aircraft is en-route to the missile-launch point. Also planned is an upgraded warhead using smarter fuzing and an enhanced follow-through bomb intended to achieve double the penetration of the existing BROACH warhead.
For the longer term, other improvements being studied include a new engine running on JP10 fuel rather than JP5, and an all-new warhead with five times the current target-defeat capability.
When the go-ahead UK to provide 12 Nimrod MRA.4 was announced in 2006, a UK Defence Procurement Agency official told Jane’s that the aircraft would incorporate the wiring and other hardware changes needed for the carriage of Storm Shadow or GPS-guided bombs.
Speaking at a 2003 conference in London, an MoD official stated that staging through one of six "readily accessible bases" spread out across the globe, MRA.4s fitted with Storm Shadow would be able to carry out a strike "pretty much worldwide" with just a single in-flight refuelling.
"Carrying two Storm Shadows under the wings would mean a small fatigue penalty, but we would only fly with the missiles in anger”, he stated. “We think that we can cope with the fatigue problem."
Other air-to-surface missiles being considered for carriage on the MRA.4 included Harpoon II, Maverick, and ALARM, plus ASRAAM for self-protection.
Mercurius Cantabrigiensis
I made that point until I considered the Apache. A force of 40 Future Lynxs and 67 Apaches will be replacing 100 or so lynx AH7/9s. The UK will have more capable helicopters, more readily available due to their better engine power and reliability.