The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[riksavage]

Like I said at the start, opinions are worthless when they fly in the fact of facts. You can believe any shit you want, like some old desert cave hermit flew a 12 legged horse from the Hejaz to Judea 1,400 years ago and that is somehow important to our lives today. But that doesn’t make it remotely true.

Carry-on quoting ancient history, because that’s what most of your opinions are.

The improved dovetailing of UK & French assets across ALL three services will be announced November the 2rd by the UK and French leaders followed by a major joint exercise.

Both countries represent the two strongest militaries in Western Europe – Following quote taken from today’s media announcement:

UK/France “account for what one senior diplomat called a "critical mass" of Europe's military capabilities, including 45% of all EU military spending, half the total number of armed forces, and 70% of military research and development in the EU. Plans include synchronizing nuclear missile submarine patrols and aircraft carrier missions, squadrons of fast jets operating together, and high-level training. "The aim is to fill the gap – how to work together on operations," said a source familiar with the intense talks that have been taking place between French and British officials in recent weeks.”

This announcement ties in with the change from STOVL to the current cat & trap layout, which can host Rafi's. So French sqn's and Hawkeye WILL (my house is still available) operate from the QE class when their active carrier is in dry-dock. The recent decision to redesign PA2 to a size and internal volume / layout similar to that of the QE means it will be built IMHO, and if France chooses to operate ONLY a single carrier, then it will be CdG that will get the chop later in the decade (it’s spent more time broken than active, which offsets its nuclear advantage). See link

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4979660&c=SEA&s=TOP

Hopefully the UK will end up with two Carriers, however if only one is kept, it makes absolute sense that the French and UK synchronise down-time and cross deck conventional sqns and Hawkeye to keep pilots current. It wouldn't suprise me to hear that FAA pilots will not only train on SH in the US, but also Rafi prior to the arrival of the F35C.

The UK/France dedicated modern DDG force will amount to eight (6 x T45, 2 x Horizon), more than enough to protect a joint Strike/ARG should it need to be deployed based around a single strike carrier. Throw in a couple of Bays, 1 active Albion and a Mistral and should be able to lift 1 x UK Commando++ & 1 x French Naval Infantry Battalion.

Also I strongly believe the French will buy into the UIK Strategic Tanker programme and lease time, still allowing the UK to maintain a daily ration of nine available airframes. This new joint operating relationship may also lead to a reciprocal agreement with pooled Hawkeye, the UK buying maybe one or two extra to guarantee enough for both armed forces (a wild guess, buts let’s wait and see). The French are also interested in a JV on Mantis as a credible alternative to Reaper. Its twin engine configeration makes it ideal for a Naval application, should one engne fail it can still return to the host vessel.

I still think Taranis, or son of, will end up as a cheap marinised future strike option and that will require EMALS or EMCAT. We have to stop looking at the here and now and plan ahead, the QE's have a 50 year lifespan. In ten years time Taranis options should have been de-risked and MKII version possibly ordered to compensate for fewer numbers of F35C's. All those nations who have invested in STOVL platforms might end up with egg on their faces in 10-15 years time if suddenly the US, UK & France start fielding stealthy UCAV's requiring cat & trap launch technology.

Whilst the UK maintains strong ties with Italy, Spain and Germany, the only European country post WWII with the experience and the will to take part in overseas high-risk adventures is France, so a combined UK/French taskforce should hopefully provide enough credible Euro clout without getting tied down in petty politics and ludicrous restrictive caveats as witnessed in A-Stan. If you have to join with a partner to maintain a consistant credible presence then do it with your strongest nearest ally. The only way to do that from a Naval perspective is to ensure your principle deliverers of strategic influence (SSN's, SSBN's and Carriers) are sync'd - it makes absolute sense.

Over to you Herodotus...

 

[1805]

Carry-on quoting ancient history, because that’s what most of your opinions are.

The improved dovetailing of UK & French assets across ALL three services will be announced November the 2rd by the UK and French leaders followed by a major joint exercise.

Both countries represent the two strongest militaries in Western Europe – Following quote taken from today’s media announcement:

UK/France “account for what one senior diplomat called a "critical mass" of Europe's military capabilities, including 45% of all EU military spending, half the total number of armed forces, and 70% of military research and development in the EU. Plans include synchronizing nuclear missile submarine patrols and aircraft carrier missions, squadrons of fast jets operating together, and high-level training. "The aim is to fill the gap – how to work together on operations," said a source familiar with the intense talks that have been taking place between French and British officials in recent weeks.”

This announcement ties in with the change from STOVL to the current cat & trap layout, which can host Rafi's. So French sqn's and Hawkeye WILL (my house is still available) operate from the QE class when their active carrier is in dry-dock. The recent decision to redesign PA2 to a size and internal volume / layout similar to that of the QE means it will be built IMHO, and if France chooses to operate ONLY a single carrier, then it will be CdG that will get the chop later in the decade (it’s spent more time broken than active, which offsets its nuclear advantage). See link

U.K. Move Could See French Aircraft on British Carriers - Defense News

Hopefully the UK will end up with two Carriers, however if only one is kept, it makes absolute sense that the French and UK synchronise down-time and cross deck conventional sqns and Hawkeye to keep pilots current. It wouldn't suprise me to hear that FAA pilots will not only train on SH in the US, but also Rafi prior to the arrival of the F35C.

The UK/France dedicated modern DDG force will amount to eight (6 x T45, 2 x Horizon), more than enough to protect a joint Strike/ARG should it need to be deployed based around a single strike carrier. Throw in a couple of Bays, 1 active Albion and a Mistral and should be able to lift 1 x UK Commando++ & 1 x French Naval Infantry Battalion.

Also I strongly believe the French will buy into the UIK Strategic Tanker programme and lease time, still allowing the UK to maintain a daily ration of nine available airframes. This new joint operating relationship may also lead to a reciprocal agreement with pooled Hawkeye, the UK buying maybe one or two extra to guarantee enough for both armed forces (a wild guess, buts let’s wait and see). The French are also interested in a JV on Mantis as a credible alternative to Reaper. Its twin engine configeration makes it ideal for a Naval application, should one engne fail it can still return to the host vessel.

I still think Taranis, or son of, will end up as a cheap marinised future strike option and that will require EMALS or EMCAT. We have to stop looking at the here and now and plan ahead, the QE's have a 50 year lifespan. In ten years time Taranis options should have been de-risked and MKII version possibly ordered to compensate for fewer numbers of F35C's. All those nations who have invested in STOVL platforms might end up with egg on their faces in 10-15 years time if suddenly the US, UK & France start fielding stealthy UCAV's requiring cat & trap launch technology.

Whilst the UK maintains strong ties with Italy, Spain and Germany, the only European country post WWII with the experience and the will to take part in overseas high-risk adventures is France, so a combined UK/French taskforce should hopefully provide enough credible Euro clout without getting tied down in petty politics and ludicrous restrictive caveats as witnessed in A-Stan. If you have to join with a partner to maintain a consistant credible presence then do it with your strongest nearest ally. The only way to do that from a Naval perspective is to ensure your principle deliverers of strategic influence (SSN's, SSBN's and Carriers) are sync'd - it makes absolute sense.

Over to you Herodotus...

I agree with much of what you say, however concerns I do have are:

With the pushing back of the QEs to 2020, it is still far from certain either will enter service with the RN.

I was unaware that son of Taranis could potentially be big enough to be powered by EJ200 or similar. This is worrying as it gives the RAF the possility to get this past the politicans still as a low cost option, when it could easily turn into a hugely expensive Tornado replacement. We know if they attempted this as a direct request for a replacement they would never get it through. This could be another threat to CVFs/F35. Quiet easy for the RAF to argue that an advanced UCAV is a low cost/risk future and CV/F35 are the past?

On the positive side I heard yesterday that there is a lot of talk of countertrade deals with a number of countries, no detail but the idea of a shared tanker deal with the French would be a good one. I would not be surprised by anything at the moment. People in the RN are desparate to protect the carriers and do realise they are far from safe. I think RN pilots might just end up doing more than practice on Rafale. I mentioned a swap for a QE expecting a reaction of surprise/hostility, to my surprise I got neither.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Carry-on quoting ancient history, because that’s what most of your opinions are.

Ancient history? I’ve tried to explain to you how CTOL and STOVL carriers are operated today. Hardly historical. Though none of it seems to be getting through the almighty shield of your opinion.

The improved dovetailing of UK & French assets across ALL three services will be announced November the 2rd by the UK and French leaders followed by a major joint exercise.

This announcement ties in with the change from STOVL to the current cat & trap layout, which can host Rafi's.

And by converting from STOVL to CTOL the RN has lost a huge amount of capability ship to ship so it can be merged with the French Navy. Don’t try and misrepresent this as anything other than a massive cut in both scope and per unit capability.

Over to you Herodotus...

Sure thing Meletus though I think I’ve had enough of trying to explain carrier operations to such a close minded, armchair LSO as yourself.

 

[foxdemon]

Whilst the UK maintains strong ties with Italy, Spain and Germany, the only European country post WWII with the experience and the will to take part in overseas high-risk adventures is France, so a combined UK/French taskforce should hopefully provide enough credible Euro clout without getting tied down in petty politics and ludicrous restrictive caveats as witnessed in A-Stan. If you have to join with a partner to maintain a consistant credible presence then do it with your strongest nearest ally. The only way to do that from a Naval perspective is to ensure your principle deliverers of strategic influence (SSN's, SSBN's and Carriers) are sync'd - it makes absolute sense.

Over to you Herodotus...

Holland was active in 'overseas high-risk adventures' post WWII (attempted supression of independence in Indonesia), though I suppose that is some time ago now..

I find it curious that the RN is moving toward an allied expeditionary capability outside of NATO. Is this the begining of a shift in alignments from an Atlantic focus to a purely European focus?

 

[gf0012-aust]

This thread has been locked.

It's under review by the Mod Team

Seriously folks, after repeated requests and hints about playing the ball, and about self moderation , after all the hints about exercising civility etc.... we still see these lapses in posting judgement and personal attacks taking hold.

we shouldn't have to lock a thread to manage the spray, we shouldn't have to issue warnings, we shouldn't have to remind anyone with more than 50 posts about how to behave.

Its unacceptable and it stuffs it up for all those who are respecting the rules and who are exercising restraint.

If you disagree then find a way to move forward without derailing things.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This has been re-opened.

Any further breaches will see the individuals immediately banned.

so, for some, grip it up fellas.

its a relevant thread, its got some good content and it doesn't need this other fluff occurring to bugger up its progress and health.

 

[riksavage]

Holland was active in 'overseas high-risk adventures' post WWII (attempted supression of independence in Indonesia), though I suppose that is some time ago now..

I find it curious that the RN is moving toward an allied expeditionary capability outside of NATO. Is this the begining of a shift in alignments from an Atlantic focus to a purely European focus?

The Dutch remain closely aligned to 3 Commando Brigade and have SF assets permanently based at Poole. They fall into the 'Atlantic' camp, favouring overseas intervention as part of a wider coalition. Any UK/French move would comfortably dovetail with current Dutch military/political thinking. Dutch amphibious capabilities would greatly compliment any UK/ French initiative. You could replace Albion with Rotterdam and use it as the primary C&C vessel for the ground force contingent and bring the Dutch Marines along raising the UK/French/Dutch contingent to a Brigade level Amphib force.

I'm dead against any non-NATO EU military command structure usurping sovereign Governments, simply because of politics. Too much vested interest leading to protracted debating in hung parliaments resulting in a 'paper tiger' incapable of decisive action. However limited alliances between friendly nations with a common goal might work, hence I'm quietly optimistic about the ongoing Anglo-French discussions.

The US will remain the UK's number one partner, too much intelligence sharing and ongoing combined operations to have a serious impact there. But the UK does need a more balanced relationship and should move some eggs to other baskets. The difficulty will be sanitising technical info/intelligence shared with the French, which the US passed on and considered proprietary (UK eyes-only).

Regarding Taranis, the following graphic highlights some of the up and coming tests.

http://www.baesystems.com/Sites/Taranis/MissionCommand/index.htm

I think we can all agree a larger version capable of carrying Storm Shadow, Harpoon, Brimstone and/or surveillance pods would be an excellent compliment to F35C, and cheaper. Build-in the appropriate C&C infrastructer on the QE class and you should be able to launch multiple platforms, sit back and wait until it's near the target area before bringing the human interface back into the loop, greatly reducing operator fatigue levels. Plus the senior officers can stand and watch in real-time what's happening on the ground. The size of platform (same or slighty larger than Hawk) means more units can be carried with lower crewing requirements. 2020 is a long time off, so plenty of time to allow the technology to mature.

 

[1805]

The Dutch remain closely aligned to 3 Commando Brigade and have SF assets permanently based at Poole. They fall into the 'Atlantic' camp, favouring overseas intervention as part of a wider coalition. Any UK/French move would comfortably dovetail with current Dutch military/political thinking. Dutch amphibious capabilities would greatly compliment any UK/ French initiative. You could replace Albion with Rotterdam and use it as the primary C&C vessel for the ground force contingent and bring the Dutch Marines along raising the UK/French/Dutch contingent to a Brigade level Amphib force.

I'm dead against any non-NATO EU military command structure usurping sovereign Governments, simply because of politics. Too much vested interest leading to protracted debating in hung parliaments resulting in a 'paper tiger' incapable of decisive action. However limited alliances between friendly nations with a common goal might work, hence I'm quietly optimistic about the ongoing Anglo-French discussions.

The US will remain the UK's number one partner, too much intelligence sharing and ongoing combined operations to have a serious impact there. But the UK does need a more balanced relationship and should move some eggs to other baskets. The difficulty will be sanitising technical info/intelligence shared with the French, which the US passed on and considered proprietary (UK eyes-only).

Regarding Taranis, the following graphic highlights some of the up and coming tests.

Mission Command - BAE Systems

I think we can all agree a larger version capable of carrying Storm Shadow, Harpoon, Brimstone and/or surveillance pods would be an excellent compliment to F35C, and cheaper. Build-in the appropriate C&C infrastructer on the QE class and you should be able to launch multiple platforms, sit back and wait until it's near the target area before bringing the human interface back into the loop, greatly reducing operator fatigue levels. Plus the senior officers can stand and watch in real-time what's happening on the ground. The size of platform (same or slighty larger than Hawk) means more units can be carried with lower crewing requirements. 2020 is a long time off, so plenty of time to allow the technology to mature.

I would much rather they focused on getting a production version of the Taranis or that size rather than dreaming of Tornado replacements. A Taranis would be a big improvement over current performance and potentially have great export opportunities (if affordable). There is a need for speed to market. Likely armanent should be focused on SDB/Brimstone etc. More payload is always desirable, but they should cap weapons to Hawk 200 levels in fact I would prefer they focus more on range.

 

[swerve]

Hawk 200 was built as a light fighter, for local air defence & light strike. Taranis or Son of Taranis is a stealthy deep strike UCAV, intended to penetrate high grade air defences. I can't see why Taranis should be limited to Hawk 200 type weapons. It needs to be able to attack hard targets, which Hawk 200 was never intended or armed to attack..

SDB is appropriate, but Brimstone? Relatively low priority, I think. Bigger, deeper penetrating bombs than SDB would be desirable, for harder targets.

More F-117 than Reaper.

But I agree that the present Hawk-sized demonstrator could be useful as is, & have export potential.

 

[t68]

I think we have to assume that switching from STOVL F35B to F35C has been de-risked and the platform design will be altered to match the changes. The fact that the QE design forms the basis for PA2 strengthens this fact.

So we will have to wait and see what the predicated sortie rates are as more information becomes available in the public domain. I suspect the Carrier Alliance will very shortly release new images/models of the revised design. If the ramp goes, then we will IMHO see the catapult layout change allowing for staggered launches. The vessel needs at least two, thus having redundancy built-in to cater for cat down-time.

I cannot see how the QE have been de risked when JSF in all 3 model’s are yet to see full rate production, the only de risking in a change of aircraft comes from being able to choose a 4.5 gen aircraft that will see service with the USN till 2035 in place of 5 gen, but you still have the risk with EMALS not working as designed and hoping the Americans can make it work as advertised unless you go back to steam cats which i don’t think have been incorporated into the design. I am not 100% sure on that though.

The way i see it the risk is still there, but you have the cheaper option on 4.5 gen aircraft to save even more money that is the only de risk in IMO.

 

[swerve]

Remote-controlled RAF Reaper targets the Taleban - Times Online

RAF bomb the Taliban from 8,000 miles away - Telegraph

EXCLUSIVE: RAF's Reaper UAV conducts first air strike-04/06/2008-Flightglobal.com

MoD's DPOC projects also includes reaper-class UCAVs eg Mantis ATD. The assumption that Taranis is the sole deep strike UCAV project does not gel with the reality.

As to Tornado replacement, again MoD has only floated the possibility of a UCAV as a potential replacement under DPOC. There is nothing confirmed including the type. In fact, Tornado infrastructure was lucky to avoid the recent SDSR cuts and if the axe had fallen...

It cost £143 m just to build 1 Taranis demonstrator. The cost will have to be at least halved to even fall within consideration. And with current costs, "greater numbers" is only a pipe dream whatever the role.

It seems I was mistaken about the RAF Reapers not being used for attack, but that does not affect the reality of Taranis being the deep strike project. Mantis is not suitable. It's not at all stealthy, all its weapons have to hang off the wings (which could not hold anything heavy), it's slow - need I go on? It can fill the Reaper niche, perhaps better (it's bigger, & should be able to carry more sensors and/or weapons further or for longer), carry out maritime recce, etc., but most definitely not deep strike. Potentially very useful, but in different roles. Mantis & Taranis are complementary, not in competition.

I have not said that anything is confirmed about Tornado replacement, but Taranis is being funded specifically in order to determine whether a UCAV could perform the role.

The costs include design & development, & as StevoJH said "A one off custom/hand built prototype does not give an accurate indication of what a production airframe built on a mass production line would cost to procure. " The only thing we can really say about series production cost is that it would be very much lower.

 

[1805]

Hawk 200 was built as a light fighter, for local air defence & light strike. Taranis or Son of Taranis is a stealthy deep strike UCAV, intended to penetrate high grade air defences. I can't see why Taranis should be limited to Hawk 200 type weapons. It needs to be able to attack hard targets, which Hawk 200 was never intended or armed to attack..

SDB is appropriate, but Brimstone? Relatively low priority, I think. Bigger, deeper penetrating bombs than SDB would be desirable, for harder targets.

More F-117 than Reaper.

But I agree that the present Hawk-sized demonstrator could be useful as is, & have export potential.

The role you discribe which I'm sure is spot on where the RAF wants it would be is the beginings of a disaster (ok 15-20 years down the line).

Lets look into the future.......In todays money probably £100m each (we would get no exports as few countries could afford/have a need for such an aircraft, include the UK). The US is deploying a better type but marginally cheaper, those who can afford such high end kit buy the US. The rest buy a lower cost French equivilant (less capable but still more than fit for purpose) that was available some years before.

Crippling cost scut to say 40-60 (further pushing up the unit cost).

We could do the version where they get to near production and cancel it (TSR2, Nimrod AEW & MR4 Snap!!) and buy a foreign version or we go without.

Or the is always European JV disaster movie version where we blame everyone for over spec'ing when it was probably us that did it.

Replacing the Tornado is a role we just can't afford, even in an a conventional war we need battlefield attack aircraft.

 

[swerve]

Why do you think it's cost £100 mn each, when the current demonstrator is costing £143 mn including design & development, & the additional costs involved in it being a hand-built one-off?

Think for a moment: assume one non-afterburning EJ200 or similar. That's well under half the engine cost of a Typhoon. Carry that through to everything else. It should cost, to build, a fraction of what a Typhoon does - but you say it'll cost more. Why?

Why do you think a French equivalent will be available earlier? The Neuron project is currently running behind Taranis, on very similar lines. The production vehicle developed from Neuron should be larger, & have a non-afterburning M88 in place of the Adour.

Your last sentence seems to contradict itself. You say we can't afford to replace Tornado (in the 2020s? That's when the replacement is needed), but then you say we need battlefield attack aircraft. I thought that was one of the roles of Tornado.

I suspect there'd be a lot of pressure for any Son of Taranis to be a joint development, as Neuron is.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

I think we can all agree a larger version capable of carrying Storm Shadow, Harpoon, Brimstone and/or surveillance pods would be an excellent compliment to F35C, and cheaper. Build-in the appropriate C&C infrastructer on the QE class and you should be able to launch multiple platforms, sit back and wait until it's near the target area before bringing the human interface back into the loop, greatly reducing operator fatigue levels. Plus the senior officers can stand and watch in real-time what's happening on the ground. The size of platform (same or slighty larger than Hawk) means more units can be carried with lower crewing requirements. 2020 is a long time off, so plenty of time to allow the technology to mature.

It would be a massive waste to put high cost long range standoff weapons on a deep strike UCAV. The point of having long range standoff weapons is principally to avoid deep strike. Manned strike a/c can do the job as standoff weaponry reduces shoot down risk.

For unmanned UCAVs, the most appropriate weapons imho are time-sensitive munitions capable of targeting moving targets. That means Hellfire/JAGM, Maverick, 250lb SDB II, 500lb GBU-54s, Paveways, Brimstone or perhaps CBUs. Also more cost effective to use £25k bombs than £1m missiles which can be operated on typhoons/F-35C.

 

[swerve]

A fair point, but there's deep & deep. One of the reasons for development of Taranis & Neuron is to enable deeper strike, & while I agree that there doesn't seem to be much point in putting Storm Shadow on a stealthy deep strike UCAV, heavy bunker-busting bombs would be very useful.

A Taranis development could have much longer range than a manned fighter with stand-off missiles. It offers the potential to dismantle IADs from the inside out, attacking buried control centres as well as radars & missile launchers. If you can do that successfully, you may not need stealthy aircraft or UCAVs for time-sensitive battlefield strike, but only slow, vulnerable, but relatively cheap Predator-type UCAVs.

 

[1805]

Why do you think it's cost £100 mn each, when the current demonstrator is costing £143 mn including design & development, & the additional costs involved in it being a hand-built one-off?

Think for a moment: assume one non-afterburning EJ200 or similar. That's well under half the engine cost of a Typhoon. Carry that through to everything else. It should cost, to build, a fraction of what a Typhoon does - but you say it'll cost more. Why?

Why do you think a French equivalent will be available earlier? The Neuron project is currently running behind Taranis, on very similar lines. The production vehicle developed from Neuron should be larger, & have a non-afterburning M88 in place of the Adour.

Your last sentence seems to contradict itself. You say we can't afford to replace Tornado (in the 2020s? That's when the replacement is needed), but then you say we need battlefield attack aircraft. I thought that was one of the roles of Tornado.

I suspect there'd be a lot of pressure for any Son of Taranis to be a joint development, as Neuron is.

Production of the Taranis may have not been that much of the £143m. It will be development cost. Why should it cost much more that say twice a Hawk (hardly in mass production either?) so maybe £40m (pure guess). The danager of a son of Taranis is best demonstrated by the Nimrod. The Typhoon I assume cost far more to design and develop, ok probably half as much, to actually make but the Typhoon is c£70m (R&D and production over 600+?) The MR4 £400m (well when there was 9?). So a Tornado replacement; son of Taranis might just cost £6bn but if you only build 60....£100m each. Pure ficture apart from sadly these are very real examples.

God knows why the F35 is so expensive when the production run is so much higher.

 

[1805]

Your last sentence seems to contradict itself. You say we can't afford to replace Tornado (in the 2020s? That's when the replacement is needed), but then you say we need battlefield attack aircraft. I thought that was one of the roles of Tornado.

I suspect there'd be a lot of pressure for any Son of Taranis to be a joint development, as Neuron is.

Good point I had fogotten the Neuron has a Rafale engine. On the Battlefield bit yes the RAF have them doing some work in Afghanistan in support of troops on the ground, but we know that was to exit the Harriers. They are no more designed fro tank busting than dropping bombs on tribesmen.

They are deep strike anti C&C role. Ironically this doesn't work with enemies we currently face or even formal armies if they work on a decentralised doctrine based leadership model like Iran.

But it's not been unknown for the RAF to be behind the time on airwarfare strategy, remember how Tornado couldn't even do the job it was designed for in GW1 and the old Buccs had to help them out. Its a pity they were not flying from the CVA 01.

Actually thinking about it I wonder what role the RAF would have played in GW1 & 2 had the CVA 01/02 been in service. Some Valiants Camberras and Hunters saw action in Suez?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

A fair point, but there's deep & deep. One of the reasons for development of Taranis & Neuron is to enable deeper strike, & while I agree that there doesn't seem to be much point in putting Storm Shadow on a stealthy deep strike UCAV, heavy bunker-busting bombs would be very useful.

A Taranis development could have much longer range than a manned fighter with stand-off missiles. It offers the potential to dismantle IADs from the inside out, attacking buried control centres as well as radars & missile launchers. If you can do that successfully, you may not need stealthy aircraft or UCAVs for time-sensitive battlefield strike, but only slow, vulnerable, but relatively cheap Predator-type UCAVs.

The problem is that Taranis won't have that big a payload to hold that many munitions. At 18k lb mtow, that will probably yield ~4,000 to 6,000lbs max payload. With SDB or GBU-54s, one might have more munitions per vehicle but if we're talking 2000 pounders, its going to be just a couple max.

 

[Neutral Zone]

Actually thinking about it I wonder what role the RAF would have played in GW1 & 2 had the CVA 01/02 been in service. Some Valiants Camberras and Hunters saw action in Suez?

I suspect CVA-01 in GW1 would have been supplemental to the RAF presence, perhaps there would have been 1 fewer USN carrier but there probably were enough targets for them all!

 

[Systems Adict]

...Here's some NEW news about the RN.....

Upgrade For Royal Navy Minehunters Powers Ahead - BAE Systems


SA