Royal Air Force [RAF] discussions and updates

[Pingu]

I believe re-targeting abilities are majorly important and if possible, the ability to re-target the missile during its own flight should be sought. I think this ought to be combined with a programable fuse that can be programmed from the aircraft in-flight. The BROACH warhead is very capable for hardened targets but believe that a standard non-penetrating (cheaper) warhead ought to be developed for targets which do not require penetration.

A data-link would be a great developement as it facilitate improvements in ISR and BDA and would work in synergy with a re-targeting ability.

I have never seen the importance of a loitering cruise missile. I believe it would be very expensive to develop and better ISR from other platforms could negate the need for a loitering missile.

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.

How capable is the current BROACH warhead (e.g. compared to the brute force of the RAF's 2000lb PW3)? I wonder why a 5x increase in "target-defeat ability" is needed and what targets these improved warheads would be intended for. Will the change to JP-10 fuel have any effect on the missiles range?

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.

I am not sure that 12 MRA4s are enough to achieve this given that they would already be tied down with surveilance tasks and at such few aircraft, they will be extremely busy.

Could the Storm Shadows not be carried internally? If they were minaturised, this would suit the needs of both the F-35 and the MRA4. Alternatively, The NSM could replace both the Storm Shadow and the Harpoon. The NSM would provide the UK with a single weapon capable of striking both land and sea targets while being carried internally by the MRA4 and F-35.

I do not really see the need for the Maverick to be installed onto the the Nimrod as its limited range would put the large MRA4 at risk and also, the presence of Brimestone, makes the Maverick obsolete anyway.

ALARM would be worthwhile integrating, especially with its indirect loitering kill ability. However, I have heard that the ALARM is soon to be phased out and I am not sure if a replacement is being sought.

ASRAAM ought only be installed if a LOAL off-boresight ability is developed for the MRA4.

 

[swerve]

...
Could the Storm Shadows not be carried internally? If they were minaturised, this would suit the needs of both the F-35 and the MRA4. ...

A miniaturised Storm Shadow would no longer be a Storm Shadow, but a new missile. Reduce the size very much, & you'd have to replace everything except the seeker.

 

[Pingu]

I guess that a Storm Shadow will never become small enough to fit internally into the bays of an F-35. I guess that the UK should definitely look at the NSM to equip both the MRA.4 and the F-35. Is the NSM a duel anti-ship/ground attack missile or is it a ground attack missile derived from an anti-ship?

Further to the discussion about numbers of Typhoons and F-35s, I wonder if the RAF will order any F-35As in addition to the F-35Bs already ordered to satisfy the FCAC requirement. The F-35A would provide better performance, range, payload etc that would better suit the FCAC.

If more F-35Bs were ordered, this could be seen as combining the FCAC with the JCA and would have some benifits of its own. It would provide a common pool of aircraft that can be operated from many types of bases (carriers, semi-prepared runways etc).

 

[Todjaeger]

I guess that a Storm Shadow will never become small enough to fit internally into the bays of an F-35. I guess that the UK should definitely look at the NSM to equip both the MRA.4 and the F-35. Is the NSM a duel anti-ship/ground attack missile or is it a ground attack missile derived from an anti-ship?

Further to the discussion about numbers of Typhoons and F-35s, I wonder if the RAF will order any F-35As in addition to the F-35Bs already ordered to satisfy the FCAC requirement. The F-35A would provide better performance, range, payload etc that would better suit the FCAC.

If more F-35Bs were ordered, this could be seen as combining the FCAC with the JCA and would have some benifits of its own. It would provide a common pool of aircraft that can be operated from many types of bases (carriers, semi-prepared runways etc).

Regarding the NSM, the acronym stands for Naval Strike Missile and is an anti-shipping missile. AFAIK versions of it are under development which will allow it to conduct land attack missions and the anticipated name for that missile is the JSM or Joint Strike Missile. At present it is an open quesition on whether the internal bays of the -B version would be able to take the NSM/JSM.

As for the value of carrying such a missile internally on a Nimrod... That I am unsure of. Given the value of a Nimrod as an ISR platform and what features are needed to make the best use of it (namely high loiter/persistance time) mounting weapons on it becomes less important IMV. Far better to have the Nimrod vector strike assets than to be used as a strike asset itself. Having said that, carrying some armament could make sense. The determination would then need to be made as to what level should be carried. Given a choice between Harpoon and NSM, it would depend on what is most likely to be engaged. Give that the Harpoon warhead is larger (twice the size?) and IIRC Block 2+ has something like 50% more range than the smaller NSM, if only a few are likely to be used, then external Harpoons might be just the thing.

-Cheers

 

[swerve]

...
As for the value of carrying such a missile internally on a Nimrod... That I am unsure of. Given the value of a Nimrod as an ISR platform and what features are needed to make the best use of it (namely high loiter/persistance time) mounting weapons on it becomes less important IMV. Far better to have the Nimrod vector strike assets than to be used as a strike asset itself. ...

-Cheers

Having thought a little more on it, I think the value of a Nimrod as a strike asset is in cases where nothing else can reach. We can't expect to have a carrier or a friendly airbase within Typhoon, F-35 (or until they retire) Tornado range, or an SSN within cruise missile range, of every possible target, all the time.

In this case, I'd say missile range is crucial, & while I think NSM could be useful in general, I'd rather our handful of Nimrod MRA4 kept further away from nasty people than the range of an NSM, if possible. Storm Shadow, or even better, an extended-range version, would be preferable.

There we have it: not a routine thing, but an occasional use for high value (I take it for granted we wouldn't waste such rare & expensive aircraft on low-value targets), time-critical (can't wait for an SSN or carrier to get there, or they'll be busy elsewhere until too late) targets. Not cases where there'd be any point skimping on the missile.

 

[Todjaeger]

Having thought a little more on it, I think the value of a Nimrod as a strike asset is in cases where nothing else can reach. We can't expect to have a carrier or a friendly airbase within Typhoon, F-35 (or until they retire) Tornado range, or an SSN within cruise missile range, of every possible target, all the time.

In this case, I'd say missile range is crucial, & while I think NSM could be useful in general, I'd rather our handful of Nimrod MRA4 kept further away from nasty people than the range of an NSM, if possible. Storm Shadow, or even better, an extended-range version, would be preferable.

There we have it: not a routine thing, but an occasional use for high value (I take it for granted we wouldn't waste such rare & expensive aircraft on low-value targets), time-critical (can't wait for an SSN or carrier to get there, or they'll be busy elsewhere until too late) targets. Not cases where there'd be any point skimping on the missile.

I agree completely. There is value in having something like the Nimrod, or in the case of other nations the Orion or upcoming Poisedon able to not only detect a target, but also strike it. My point regarding internal carriage of the NSM was that the strike mission aspect is of less (much less IMV) importance than the ISR aspect.

Now if a Nimrod or one of the other, similar type aircraft could be equipped with an internal weapons bay so that there was in improvement in aerodynamic performance that would be good. By this I mean improvements in range/loiter time and speed due to reduced drag, etc over a system using external hardpoints. At the same time though, it would likely be better to have a larger AShM for use from Nimrods and similar for the reasons Swerve mentioned. Such aircraft are valueable and limited in number, as such they should not be exposed to unnecessary risk by closing to a target. Given that there are other missiles available with greater range (and larger warheads) those would seem to make more sense for the limited occasions when such aircraft would make a warshot. I do not know if the various versions of Nimrod are set to take Storm Shadow, or if they are still using Harpoon, but those would seem to be better candidates (or at least Harpoon Block II+).

-Cheers

 

[swerve]

...
Now if a Nimrod or one of the other, similar type aircraft could be equipped with an internal weapons bay so that there was in improvement in aerodynamic performance that would be good. ...

-Cheers

Nimrod has an internal weapons bay, capable of carrying Stingray lightweight torpedoes, sonobuoys, etc. or additional fuel tanks for extended rang. I think there's a good chance NSM would fit in it. But Harpoon doesn't fit, & Storm Shadow is bigger than Harpoon.

A weapons bay is standard for MPAs in this class, e.g. P-3, P-8, the proposed A320 MPA all have one.

 

[Mercurius]

How capable is the current BROACH warhead (e.g. compared to the brute force of the RAF's 2000lb PW3)?

BROACH has at least double the performance of a general-purpose bomb of the same weight class. A BROACH based on a 245kg main charge can penetrate more than 2m of concrete.

Will the change to JP-10 fuel have any effect on the missiles range?

JP10 has a higher density than JP5, a valuable feature given that a cruise missile such as Storm Shadow has only a limited amount of space within the fuselage to carry fuel. Switching from JP5 to JP10 while leaving than tank size unchanged would give a range improvement of about 15%.


Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

 

[riksavage]

Quote taken from the RAF site today:

"The RAF’s ability to transport heavy equipment and supplies to troops in theatre was significantly enhanced with the purchase of a sixth C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft. The purchase of the aircraft, through a £130 million contract with the Boeing Company, was announced today by Baroness Taylor."

Out of the doom and gloom surounding the RN and UK Army procurement programs this is the one piece of good news. I also understand the RAF have also just received two Reapers and Hermes UAV's for use in Afghanistan.

 

[PeterCrisp]

Hello everyone this is my first post here so I opologise in advance if its less than great.

I have been interested in the Eurofighter for a long time now but it seems that while its among the best aircraft on Earth it isn't actually doing an awful lot. I fully admit that not being in the armed forces myself I could be way off the mark here (and if I am I'm sorry) but considering the UK is involved in 2 major conflicts I would have thought the Eurofighter would be sped into service to lend a hand.

All they ever seem to be doing is upgrading the aircraft (now that Tranch 2 is on the way and fast approaching they will be upgraded to that standard as well) and flying them at airshows with the only actual usage being QRA status to protect the UK (which while useful is not helping the troops doing an extremely hard job abroad).

So is the Eurofighter underutilised or am I just woefully under informed?

 

[Todjaeger]

Hello everyone this is my first post here so I opologise in advance if its less than great.

I have been interested in the Eurofighter for a long time now but it seems that while its among the best aircraft on Earth it isn't actually doing an awful lot. I fully admit that not being in the armed forces myself I could be way off the mark here (and if I am I'm sorry) but considering the UK is involved in 2 major conflicts I would have thought the Eurofighter would be sped into service to lend a hand.

All they ever seem to be doing is upgrading the aircraft (now that Tranch 2 is on the way and fast approaching they will be upgraded to that standard as well) and flying them at airshows with the only actual usage being QRA status to protect the UK (which while useful is not helping the troops doing an extremely hard job abroad).

So is the Eurofighter underutilised or am I just woefully under informed?

With respect to the Typhoon being underutilized at present, I would say not currently. IMV there are a few things that need to be kept in mind. When originally designed, the Typhoon was to be an air superiority fighter, as such most development done for was in the air to air combat arena, being a late Cold War-era design.

Given the practical experiences of the last decade or two, the apparent need for dedicated air superiority fighters is much reduced from what had been anticipated during the 80's and earlier. Instead, what seems to be of greater relavance to curent air forces would be multi-role fighters. Taking the examples offered by the various air campaigns from the Gulf War (Episode I), Kosovo, Afghanistan and Gulf War (Episode II) the Western air forces quickly established air dominance in the opening days of the campaigns. Having achieved air superiority/dominance against hostile aircraft (the role of an air superiority fighter) there was no further need for that role during the campaign.

Given the experiences gathered, IIRC decisions were made to being developing the Typhoon into a more multi-role aircraft than had originally been envisioned. Once the multi-role Typhoons enter service, I would expect to see them widely deployed. Until such development is completed though, there is not much operational work requiring an air superiority fighter compared to that of bomb trucks.

-Cheers

 

[Firehorse]

Fuel leak caused Nimrod crash

The Nimrod was due to have been retired some years ago and a £2.2bn contract was agreed in 1996 to upgrade 21 Nimrod MR2 aircraft to Maritime Reconnaissance Attack 4 (MRA4) standard.

The programme involved the complete replacement of the aircraft's systems and more than 80% of its airframe, creating a virtually new aircraft.

However, rising costs and long delays have meant that the Nimrod MR2 will remain in service until at least mid-2010.

"The replacement Nimrod was originally called Nimrod 2000 - that tells you something," said Sean Maffett, an aviation commentator.

"All 21 MRA4s had been due to be in service by last year. Now the RAF is going to get 12 starting in 2010.

"There has just been one problem after another. It has been deeply disappointing and it has caused these old MR2 aircraft to be soldiering on much longer than they should have been."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7128054.stm

I'm surprised that they didn't pick another airframe instead of putting all eggs in one basket. Maybe they could order some new MPAs from Japan!

 

[perfectgeneral]

I wish we had bought some japanese MPAs. That would make a good bargaining chip for selling Typhoons to Japan.

 

[swerve]

I wish we had bought some japanese MPAs. That would make a good bargaining chip for selling Typhoons to Japan.

Since 1) it's only just started flight trials, & is therefore much further away from being operational than Nimrod MRA4, & 2) asking the Japanese to sell us a weapon :shudder would give the Diet a fit of conniptions, I think it's a bit of a non-starter.

 

[riksavage]

Looks like the UK is going to buy ten additional Reaper's and five ground units bringing the total inventory to twelve (link below). I'm very surprised this 1- billion USD plus order has passed muster with the Treasury considering the pressure on the UK defense budget. If true very good news, the Reapers do represent the top of the food chain in current UAV technology, particularly the armed variants.

With the UK now introducing additional Reapers and Hermes 450s to the field I cannot see the Watchkeeper program surviving in it's current guise. Then again Watchkeeper was to be an Army asset (artillery), Reaper comes under the RAF, so maybe they will be drawn from separate budgets!

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3286749&C=europe

 

[Alpha Epsilon]

The Hermes 450s are just an interim lease deal and will go out of service when Watchkeeper comes into service.

Also Reaper is a completely different class of UAV to the Watchkeeper.

 

[swerve]

...
With the UK now introducing additional Reapers and Hermes 450s to the field I cannot see the Watchkeeper program surviving in it's current guise. Then again Watchkeeper was to be an Army asset (artillery), Reaper comes under the RAF, so maybe they will be drawn from separate budgets!

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3286749&C=europe

As Alpha Epsilon says, Reaper & Watchkeeper are different classes of UAV. They're complementary, not in competition. Also, Watchkeeper is more than just the air vehicles. It's a complete ground infrastructure as well.

 

[riksavage]

As reported by Industry Daily:

"10 MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) aircraft, 5 Ground Control Stations, 9 Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems (MTS-B/AAS-52), 9 AN/APY-8 Lynx Synthetic Aperture Radar/Ground Moving Target Indicator (SAR/GMTI) systems, 3 Satellite Earth Terminal Sub Stations (SETSS), 30 H764 Embedded Global Positioning System Inertial Navigation Systems, Lynx SAR and MTS-B spares, engineering support, test equipment, ground support, operational flight test support, communications equipment, technical assistance, personnel training/equipment, spare and repair parts, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $1.071 billion."

The UK are looking at the MQ-9 only as a high-end surveillance drone to complement their mid-range Watchkeeper Mk450 UAVs and short-range Deseert Hawk and RQ-11 Raven UAVs.

With the introduction of ASTAR, Reaper and Watchkeeper (2010) the UK will end up with an extremely capable surveillance umbrella covering the complete spectrum of requirements – good news for once. The question is which program will suffer - the Government will always steal from Pete to pay Paul!

 

[neil]

Yes good news indeed about the Reaper purchase.

When the Candberra PR9's were retired a couple of years ago without replacement, there were only three of them left. Still they were sorely needed on the frontlines and they flew operational missions in Afghanistan and Iraq right up to their retirement.

Many people were rightly upset at the lack of replacement, but as pointed out above, with No39 Squadron now operating a mixture of +- 13 Reapers and some Predator A's, the RAF has a better persistant reconaissance capability than it had with the Canberra's. Definitely a step up.

This is also very good news in the light of persistant rumours of further cuts to the front line, concerning the closing down of two Tornado GR.4 squadrons.
(One from each main operating base)

 

[Alpha Epsilon]

This is also very good news in the light of persistant rumours of further cuts to the front line, concerning the closing down of two Tornado GR.4 squadrons.

This has explicity been denied by a junior minister in parliarment iirc.