RAF Procurement scenario

[nb123]

With all this talk of defence cuts and a defence review if the Tories get in I thought I would get your guys opinions on what you would do if you were in charge of RAF procurement. You can do what you want as long as it is in budget.

Here is the scenario you have a budget of 3 billion (including 1.5 billion towards a puma replacement) plus any money saved from you cancelling any of the following projects:

Project Money saved (Not actual figures)
JSF - 5 billion
Tranche 3 Typhoon - 5 billion
A400M - 2.4 billion
FSTA - 2.5 billion
Retiring Harrier - 1 billion
Retiring 2 sqn’s of Gr4 - 0.5 billion
Sell 24 tranche 1 typhoons to Oman - 1.5 billion

Rules
• Must be in budget
• Must give reason for pulling out of a project
• Use current aircraft prices when deciding what to procure
• If you want feel free to give arguments towards merging AAC or FAA assets into the RAF (get extra 1 billion) for budget if you do

 

[PeterCrisp]

Do you mind if I swap a bit as I'd cancel the A400M but spend the money on more FSTA. The A400M is great and all but it's a mess and the tankers are multi role and compatible with many other nations so spares should be easier to find.

I'd sell the 24 Typhoons to Oman as I really want to see Tranche 3 as the Typhoon is my favourite current aircraft (ok so the PM getting up in the commons and saying that may sound less than convincing but it's worth a try).

I'd retire the Harrier as well to try to secure the new carriers with a decent fleet of aircraft and weapons/ammo and spend £100m on the Gr4 just to make sure they have all the spares they need.

I think I'm about 2 Billion in credit so I'd spend half that on another 5 Sentinel's and the rest on some UAVs.
Raytheon Sentinel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I had to due to massive cuts I'd cut the amount of F35 to the minimum number required to keep 2 decent air wings with a few spares.

 

[Ananda]

If I may to add:

Raf in my oppinion will be beter off to (due the budget concern):
Cancel Airbus A 400 (stick to C 130 J)
Sold Typhoon Tranche 1
Retired all Harrier,

And the last one (Something I know many Raf anthusiast does not like)...cancel JSF altogether.
Retain the new carriers as Catobar..and get Super Hornet (if the options for navalized Typhoon is already out of the equations).

 

[riksavage]

Personally I would like to see the RAF think out the box on a number of issues, as follows:

Reduce the A400 order from 25 to 12, buy 12 C-295M (help appease EADS) and 6 more C17's (bringing the total to 12). This will provide a balance of strategic, tactical and in-theatre assets (C-295M designated for SF for boutique missions in places like A-STAN). Worst case ditch A400 altogether and buy additional C130 J's.

Invest in Marinised Merlin to replace both Puma and Sea King Army/Marine lift. Stick with a proven airframe for both services under the joint helo-force.

Buy the minimum number of Tranche III Typhoons, selling the rest to Saudi as planned and hopefully the Oman. Upgrade Tranche II to ensure we have both CAP & CAS capable aircraft.

Once Typhoon is fully CAS capable in significant numbers withdraw Harrier. The T45 's will have to provide limited theatre defence until F35B arrives.

Because fast-air (Harrier and/or Typhoon) costs a fortune to maintain in A-STAN I would buy at least 24 Super Tucano or AT-6B airframes for counterinsurgency missions flown by a mix of RAF & Army Air-Corp personnel. I would also allow Sgt. Pilots to fly the aircraft. The two aircraft can be equipped with a comprehensive sensor suite and armed with a variety of weapons including 0.50 calibre machine gun pods; air-to-ground missiles like Hellfire, Paveway IV guided bombs and 2.75in rocket pods - just what the troops need, not too fancy, but does the job. These would be ideal and would complement the Apache fleet, plus it would save the MOD a fortune and allow for a much smaller technical support foot-print.

Buy only 85 F35B's, with minimum off 24 dedicated to the operational Carrier, the rest dedicated to training and CAS. We must stick with the F35B, the UK carriers all electric drive can not produce steam (without introducing specilaised boilers fitted for role), so until an electric catapult arrives which works the UK will have to stick with the 'fitted for, not with' option.

Continue with the tanker programme, the current fleet is overworked and knackered and we need the lift capability it comes with to move troops to and from A-STAN.

 

[WillS]

We must stick with the F35B, the UK carriers all electric drive can not produce steam (without introducing specilaised boilers fitted for role), so until an electric catapult arrives which works the UK will have to stick with the 'fitted for, not with' option.

I'm not sure that's the case. This is remember, the same basic design that was sold to and adapted by the French for PA2. PA2 was to be/is to be a conventional carrier equipped with the Rafale and the design work was done and the catapault/recovery kit even ordered from the US prior to the project's postponement.

Given that French estimates for the cost of PA2 (which are as likely to be accurate as our estimates for the final cost of the 2 QEs) put the price in the same ballpark as QE and PoW - for a significantly more capable ship (more aviation fuel storage for long term ops, better defensive armament, c&c capabilities) I cannot see any practical reason why we shouldn't just buy the adapted design back.

There are plenty of political considerations that would make this a 'brave' decision of course

And once you've got a conventional carrier we could have a proper "fly before you buy" competition for aircraft. Ditch the likely mess of ordering the most expensive, hardest to maintain, least capable version of the F35 and consider proven alternatives alongside the conventional F35 such as the Hornet, the Rafale (and we'd get a *damn* good price on the Rafale) .... and ... we could even consider a navalised Typhoon for a laugh.

Use the money saved (uncertain cost of F35 minus off the shelf cost of Rafale/Hornet) to buy some decent AEW for the carriers instead of strapping a radar in a plantpot to the bottom of a low-altitude helicopter and upgrade the Typhoons to the standard the RAF want.

But whatever we do, let's please please please ditch the A400M. Buy more C130Js and C17s instead and even if the capital cost was the same we'd save a packet* from not having to go through the training/spares rigmarole of introducing yet another aircraft type into RAF service.

WillS
Boiling The Frog

*packet = I should do the sums.

 

[swerve]

I'm not sure that's the case. This is remember, the same basic design that was sold to and adapted by the French for PA2. PA2 was to be/is to be a conventional carrier equipped with the Rafale and the design work was done and the catapault/recovery kit even ordered from the US prior to the project's postponement....

The French version incorporated boilers to make steam for the catapults.

 

[WillS]

The French version incorporated boilers to make steam for the catapults.

Then let's build the French version, the design has the capacity to encompass catobar operations and it makes financial sense.

WillS
Boiling The Frog

 

[riksavage]

The RN should stick to plan - buy F35B's, and build-in the infrastructure for future generation electric cat's. Fitting steam ones now only to have them ripped out later would be a mistake. I'm convinced that the next generation of aircraft will be UCAV's, which means electric cat's will have the ability to sling airframes off ships at vastly increased speeds, shortening launch times and distance required. We will no longer need to consider the impact of the launch on the poor pilots.

The RN have got used to operating STOVL aircraft, which can be deployed to theatre in a wide variety of vessels and then cross decked to the operational carrier to replace those lost through combat / accident attrition. This makes great sense when you have only one operational carrier at sea at any one time. The beauty of the F35B's is its high sortie rate and flexibility. As soon as the ARG has secured a footing ashore the F35B's can be very quickly deployed to improvised airstrips releasing the carrier to undertake other tasks (further off offshore).

The F35B sacrifices payload and range. The UK can't afford both COBAR and STOVL maritime airframes so they have wisely decided to go with the most versatile aircraft available, which brings maximum operational flexibility to military planners.

 

[WillS]

The RN should stick to plan

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one

But back to topic, I'm puzzled by your A400M suggestion. Reducing the buy to 12 units and making up the difference with C17s (which I like) and yet another new aircraft type is surely both complicated and expensive. We should never underestimate the costs of new aircraft type integration and maintenance.

Your worst case scenario of ditching the A400M entirely, is my best case scenario

WillS

 

[jaffo4011]

cancel f35(but stay in the project for profit),ensure that carriers have proper catapults and buy cheaper rafales or more likely super hornets.
.
then...... buy the full quota of typhoons to fulfill the air defence and ground attack roles currently undertaken by harriers and the cancelled f35's

should save a few quid and allow the carriers to be operational sooner whilst keeping bae in ful production with the typhoon and f35's for foreign buyers....

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

cancel f35(but stay in the project for profit),ensure that carriers have proper catapults and buy cheaper rafales or more likely super hornets

But that isn't what the RAF wants - it wants the carriers cancelled out-right.

Also I think it's too late for catapults. EMALS is progressing more slowly than first thought (quite possibly wouldn't be ready for 2016), so that would require the conventional steam-powered type - the QE-class won't have the boilers to make the steam.

 

[Ananda]

Musashi_kenshin;174182
Also I think it's too late for catapults. EMALS is progressing more slowly than first thought (quite possibly wouldn't be ready for 2016), so that would require the conventional steam-powered type - the QE-class won't have the boilers to make the steam

May I ask, if the progress on QE2 & PoW already so far, that no possible retrofit of steam boilers can be done ?
If RAF still want to have F 35, could the compromise go to F 35C ? It's just for me a little waste for UK to have two 60,000 tons carriers with only STVOL capabilities.

 

[riksavage]

Don't underestimate STOVL carriers. Both the RN and USMC have carried out comparative analysis and concluded that a supersonic STOVL aircraft generates higher sortie rates than a COBAR carrier and gives the Amphibious Ready Groups a great deal of flexibility. The fact that you can deploy limited numbers on other vessels (Commando carrier's and adapted container ships) builds in the added option of sustaining activity over extended periods cross decking clean airframes to be bombed up on the active carrier. Damaged STOVL aircraft can then be cross-decked to supporting vessels for maintenance.

Once the rolling landings and associated aids now being developed for the QE classes are perfected all the issues relating to the dumping of fuel and ordinance will be resolved. Agree the F35B has a reduced payload and range capacity, but this is compensated by the STOVL feature. The F35B is extremely easy to fly when compared to the old harrier, both RAF & Fleet Air Arm pilots will be able to remain carrier capable for much less training-hours than pilots forced to operate with catapults and arrester wires.

The carriers life-span is 50 years, it will continue to evolve and ultimately end up as a giant UCAV mothership. Electric catapult development has hit a few road bumps and there is talk of the next generation of US Carriers being fitted with steam catapults in the interim. Fitting boilers to the QE's is an expensive waste of time and space.

 

[Ananda]

Don't underestimate STOVL carriers. Both the RN and USMC have carried out comparative analysis and concluded that a supersonic STOVL aircraft generates higher sortie rates than a COBAR carrier and gives the Amphibious Ready Groups a great deal of flexibility. The fact that you can deploy limited numbers on other vessels (Commando carrier's and adapted container ships) builds in the added option of sustaining activity over extended periods cross decking clean airframes to be bombed up on the active carrier. Damaged STOVL aircraft can then be cross-decked to supporting vessels for maintenance.

Once the rolling landings and associated aids now being developed for the QE classes are perfected all the issues relating to the dumping of fuel and ordinance will be resolved. Agree the F35B has a reduced payload and range capacity, but this is compensated by the STOVL feature. The F35B is extremely easy to fly when compared to the old harrier, both RAF & Fleet Air Arm pilots will be able to remain carrier capable for much less training-hours than pilots forced to operate with catapults and arrester wires.

Rik, I'm not underestimate STVOL carriers, but we're talking 60,000 ton carriers, which in my oppinion with less then half of the tonnage, RN can provide mother ship operations for F 35B /STVOL operations.
From what I've read was one of the reasons the RAF brass put to argue for cancellation of QE2 & PoW because with only STVOL in horizon those 60,000 carriers deemed too overkill ? (outside off course more to budget war between RN and RAF).

I don't know whether it can be hold (since I also read it from other discussion in other forum), that RAF actually with threat of Warsaw Pact front in Germany's gone, they also reduced their interest with STOVL, but continue hold on Harriers due this's british fighters.
Some also argue that RAF feel they've forced to retain (jointly with Naval Air Arm) the harriers solely for RN need.

Thus if it's true that deep down RAF also already lost interest for STVOL, then the compromise can come with F 35C.
Also it open those two 60,000 tonage carriers for flexibility of multiple fixed wing operations (which if some arguments hold also one of reasons for RN having 60,000 carriers).

Off course with RN already commited for F 35B, it's seems a long way off, but with increasing opposition from RAF for 60,000 carriers (with only STVOL capabilities), then making them Catobar and make them more flexible for other type of aircfrats, probably will improved RN possitions.

 

[windscorpion]

Its QE not QE2 i think, though if HRH does pass away before it's built they'll probably rename it after her.

STOVL JSF is apparently pretty good and will also give added flexibility. The RN intend to only operate 1 CVF at a time i believe so other flat tops like amphibious warfare ships will be needed to provide the "reserve/emergency flat top" you can't really do that with CTOL.

 

[citizen578]

Rik, I'm not underestimate STVOL carriers, but we're talking 60,000 ton carriers, which in my oppinion with less then half of the tonnage, RN can provide mother ship operations for F 35B /STVOL operations.
From what I've read was one of the reasons the RAF brass put to argue for cancellation of QE2 & PoW because with only STVOL in horizon those 60,000 carriers deemed too overkill ? (outside off course more to budget war between RN and RAF).

I don't know whether it can be hold (since I also read it from other discussion in other forum), that RAF actually with threat of Warsaw Pact front in Germany's gone, they also reduced their interest with STOVL, but continue hold on Harriers due this's british fighters.
Some also argue that RAF feel they've forced to retain (jointly with Naval Air Arm) the harriers solely for RN need.

Thus if it's true that deep down RAF also already lost interest for STVOL, then the compromise can come with F 35C.
Also it open those two 60,000 tonage carriers for flexibility of multiple fixed wing operations (which if some arguments hold also one of reasons for RN having 60,000 carriers).

Off course with RN already commited for F 35B, it's seems a long way off, but with increasing opposition from RAF for 60,000 carriers (with only STVOL capabilities), then making them Catobar and make them more flexible for other type of aircfrats, probably will improved RN possitions.

The carriers were designed from the outset to be able to be quickly reconfigured to a CATOBAR configuration, so rest assured that the design is capable of it. The question is whether conventional aircraft are what suits the British defence doctrine (particularly in the maritime theatre) best.

Regardless of whether the aircraft are stovl or conventional, maintaining high sortie rates, and being able to bring a heavy weight of fire to bear is important, one of the primary needs for such a large vessel. 2x 65 000 tonne vessels are significantly more capable than, say, 3x 30 000 tonne vessels, despite being able to operate the same type of aircraft. The new carriers are a versatile 'future proofed' design, which can respond to a far broader range of scenarios more effectively than something smaller.

At the end of the day, the RAF will lie to save their cold-war relics exactly thre same way as they have done in previous decades. It's utter arrogance that they suggest the RAF can perform the same role as the FAA, when history has shown time and time again that they cannot. As is typical of the crabs, they need to wind their necks in.

 

[PeterCrisp]

Would it be possible to just have a single group of F35 and just swap them from carrier to carrier to save a bunch of cash? Sure it's a bit of a rubbish solution but it would cut the number needed in half and we could use the money saved to buy an extra transport helicopter or two just to shut the Daily Mail up for 5 minutes.