Royal Air Force [RAF] discussions and updates

[RobWilliams]

First UK RC-135 arrives at RAF Waddington

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...-uk?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

The aircraft will form part of project Airseeker, which will provide the UK with a world class capability able to provide real-time on-scene intelligence, surveillance and analysis for forces in the air and on the ground.

The Boeing RC-135V/W Rivet Joint system has a proven track record, having been used by the United States Air Force (USAF) for many years. Since 2011, the RAF’s 51 Squadron have been training and operating alongside their USAF colleagues in preparation for the UK aircraft entering service in late 2014.

UK crews have already achieved in excess of 32,000 flying hours and 1,800 sorties as part of the US 55th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing.

MOD has purchased 3 aircraft from the US which will each be configured to support UK operations. The first aircraft has successfully completed its flight trials in Greenville, Texas, ahead of schedule, allowing it to be delivered to the UK early.

Good job, it'd be quite nice to have the trio all delivered ahead of schedule and this expedite the types ISD into service before mid-2017.

All we need is other important areas of our ISTAR capability to be secured in 2015 and we'll be golden.

 

[RobWilliams]

UK Shows Interest in Buying Another C-17 | Defense News | defensenews.com

DUBAI — Britain has added its name to the list of countries vying to get their hands on the last of the Boeing C-17 Globemaster IIIs being produced in Long Beach, Calif., ahead of its closure, according to Defence Ministry sources.

The case for buying what would be the Royal Air Force’s ninth C-17 are set to be discussed by UK defense acquisition approval chiefs in the next few days, they said.

Interesting development, the desire for C-17 #9 has been there for a while but the assumption was that what with Afghanistan drawing down and with it the required C-17 air bridge to help sustain it, we wouldn't particularly have the need for more aircraft like the C-17.

Still, it would be quite nice. Recently with Mali and the Philippines we've seen that these sorts of aircraft can be quite flexible.

 

[RobWilliams]

The Typhoon has flown with a pair of Storm Shadow cruise missiles in the last few days (airframe IPA2) in tests conducted by Alenia Aermacchi in Italy. ISD is 2015, the sooner we get this & Brimstone on Typhoon then the loss of Tornado won't be as bad. As much as the F-35 will still be our 'bomb truck', out of the door it'll be severely lacking in capability.

The weapons use two hardpoints which are compatible with external fuel tanks, meaning that there's only the centreline hardpoint for an external tank if loaded with 2 missiles, so true strike range is nullified due to lacking 2/3 of the external fuel capacity however this in turn can be counted by the adoption of conformal fuel tanks and the standoff nature of the weapon itself.

Eurofighter flies with Storm Shadow missiles

 

[StobieWan]

UK Shows Interest in Buying Another C-17 | Defense News | defensenews.com





Interesting development, the desire for C-17 #9 has been there for a while but the assumption was that what with Afghanistan drawing down and with it the required C-17 air bridge to help sustain it, we wouldn't particularly have the need for more aircraft like the C-17.

Still, it would be quite nice. Recently with Mali and the Philippines we've seen that these sorts of aircraft can be quite flexible.

If we can nab one, there'll never ever be a moment we'll say "God damn, I wish we didn't have so much strat lift..it sucks" I'm sure.

Unless you're USAF, where they're trying to *stop* buying or maintaining some strategic lifters because they're just a drain on resources. I think they're literally towing some C5's around to make sure their tyres don't get flat edges and the undercart doesn't seize.

 

[ngatimozart]

I was actually thinking of a smallish (717 to 737 size) possibly LO jet to take on tactical tanking, ISR, MPA, maybe even stand off strike with ALCMs.

The RCAF and the Luftwaffe operate a tanker based on the Airbus A310. The aircraft were built by Airbus Military. Then Airbus Military were going to build a MPA variant of the A319 but that seems to have disappeared quietly over the last 12 months. It could've done things like ISR etc.

 

[Juice]

The RAF has the problem though that although strategic lift and tactical lift capabilities have been improved hugely during Herrick and Telic, in the process, the force has become very used to operating in a highly permissive air environment and lost some of it's traditional focus on high-threat environment survivability. This can be seen in the effort required to suppress mid-tier and sparse air defences in Libya for Apache operations...

 

[RobWilliams]

Ocean and her 4 Apaches didn't even arrive on station until 2 months after the initial shots by the coalition had been fired. After 2 months of strikes from aircraft, warships and submarines I highly doubt their IADS was of much concern to the Apache crews. The West isn't actually that bad at stripping down an IADS (read US, Europe's lacking).

The first raid the Apaches conducted was against a radar site sited on the coast which was capable of tracking ships & aircraft. Not forgetting the Apaches HIDAS with various ECM, flares and so on.

 

[the concerned]

AT the next defence review in 2015 if we do get a maritime patrol aircraft again do you think it will stay with the RAF or will it finally go to the RN just want peoples thoughts

 

[RobWilliams]

RAF, RAF, 100% RAF.

Project Seedcorn (the MPA skills retention project) is only RAF personnel, the idea of handing over control of MPAs to the Royal Navy in 2015 seems wasteful in the extreme. If we have the crews who can do the job right now in RAF service and we're currently paying them to remain qualified in the role, what useful purpose would it serve to then dump them and try fill the posts with RN personnel when they know squat about MPA operations.

It's a convenient debate about saying who *should* have control of the aircraft, but for us, right here right now in times of financial restriction, RAF operation is the only reasonable way forward as we have the crews ready to roll. Why waste all that experience + the money to train RN members from scratch?

The RAF are actually quite good at this flying malarkey anyway.

 

[ADMk2]

The RAF has the problem though that although strategic lift and tactical lift capabilities have been improved hugely during Herrick and Telic, in the process, the force has become very used to operating in a highly permissive air environment and lost some of it's traditional focus on high-threat environment survivability. This can be seen in the effort required to suppress mid-tier and sparse air defences in Libya for Apache operations...

Sorry must have missed the recent NATO conflict where IADS weren't completely flattened within days of operations...

Given the dozens of Tomahawk, Storm Shadow, SCALP, SLAM-ER and JSOW that were employed in the early days of Libya it seems to me that operations continued as they always have for the past 30 odd years.

IADS completely beaten down within days by missile attack and operations shifted primarily onto ISR, CAS and battlefield strike tasks...

 

[RobWilliams]

Considering there's absolutely zero news about ALARM and its replacement, it will not be integrated onto the Typhoon and due to the fact that there are plenty of more important weapons to integrate onto the JSF first ALARM would end up out of service.

Chances are, we'll drop the capability and conduct SEAD/DEAD in other ways (although buying AARGM for our JSFs would be an option). The bigger question being how so.

For Libya, France - who doesn't have ARMs - used ISTAR aircraft to locate air defence sites and found out if they were/weren't operational and in turn targeted the operational sites first with AASM.

So for us, fixed sites can be hit with stand off weapons like Storm Shadow or TLAM whereas other weapons with a relatively good stand off range - like the future SPEAR 3 - for the more mobile launchers. Considering that Apaches hit sites with Hellfire then Brimstone 2 would be usable too.

IMO Libya seemed relatively textbook, dismantle the opposition air defence network then move onto ground strikes.

 

[RobWilliams]

A400M refuelled in flight successfully for the first time, this follows an early test with an RAF VC-10 tanker which resulted in the A400M "pitching and climbing violently" and ultimately resulted in the test being called off, resulting in an extensive rewrite of how the A400M goes about it. The successful contact was using a C-160 Transall of the French Air Force.

A400M refuelled in flight for first time

They are confident the new flight control law is usable, but to make the belief more firm, these tests will be followed by tests with an RAF A330 MRTT in February 2014. The new tests will be conducted at higher altitudes and at higher speeds.

Considering many consider the A400M to be more of a strategic airlifter than the Herc was, it's a decent capability to have considering we're unable to refuel the C-17 in flight.

Nice to have, not crucial. Plenty of our more strategic assets have this issue (E-3D, C-17, RC-135, R1)

 

[John Newman]

Considering many consider the A400M to be more of a strategic airlifter than the Herc was, it's a decent capability to have considering we're unable to refuel the C-17 in flight.

Nice to have, not crucial. Plenty of our more strategic assets have this issue (E-3D, C-17, RC-135, R1)

If the UK did at some point in the future think it was crucial to be able to refuel those other aircraft you mentioned, it could always consider adding a boom to some of the A330 MRTT's (as per the RAAF's KC-30A's).

It may never happen of course, but I suppose anything is possible.

 

[ngatimozart]

If the UK did at some point in the future think it was crucial to be able to refuel those other aircraft you mentioned, it could always consider adding a boom to some of the A330 MRTT's (as per the RAAF's KC-30A's).

It may never happen of course, but I suppose anything is possible.

No booms John. They'd probably put probes on the aircraft as they've done before e.g., C130s & Victors. I note that Airbus Military said that the A400 probe only takes an hour to mount / dismount. My question now is would it be possible to design a removable probe, that fits to the prexisting boom refuelling point in a receiving aircraft; e.g., a P8, C17 or C130?

 

[John Newman]

No booms John. They'd probably put probes on the aircraft as they've done before e.g., C130s & Victors. I note that Airbus Military said that the A400 probe only takes an hour to mount / dismount. My question now is would it be possible to design a removable probe, that fits to the prexisting boom refuelling point in a receiving aircraft; e.g., a P8, C17 or C130?

Ng, I agree it's unlikely to ever happen, but if the UK ever did decide one day that those particular aircraft mentioned by Rob needed to have the ability to be refuelled, fitting a boom to the MRTT's could be an option.

If it was to become a requirement, what would be cheaper? Adding booms to the tankers or modifying all those different types of aircraft to have a probe?

 

[t68]

Ng, I agree it's unlikely to ever happen, but if the UK ever did decide one day that those particular aircraft mentioned by Rob needed to have the ability to be refuelled, fitting a boom to the MRTT's could be an option.

If it was to become a requirement, what would be cheaper? Adding booms to the tankers or modifying all those different types of aircraft to have a probe?

For the larger aircraft it would also come down to flow rate. The flying boom can off load in half the time as a probe from memory refueling helicopters and fighter does not require large amounts of fuel to be transferred unlike a C17 or RC-135 Airseeker.

 

[RobWilliams]

If the UK did at some point in the future think it was crucial to be able to refuel those other aircraft you mentioned, it could always consider adding a boom to some of the A330 MRTT's (as per the RAAF's KC-30A's).

It may never happen of course, but I suppose anything is possible.

Meh, I've got a link which plots radius curves onto a map and I was just jotting down a few planes in the tougher points for us. If we want straight line distance, we've got key areas covered, then various NATO agreements and Cyprus for the ME/Africa (the latter seeing more troops these days, first Mali and now the CAR)

e.g An C-17 unrefuelled can carry 100,000lbs from the UK to Ascension Island, refuel, then from Ascension Island to the Falklands.

Basically, the RAF with it's strategic assets can cover the vast majority of the areas it would get involved in. By and large, our tanker force is tailored towards supporting our fighters and strike aircraft.

Then I hate saying this, but for the majority of scenarios we're going to be involved in, the US will be there for us to borrow their KC-135's. We've already got agreements in place to fuel our E-3D's and working on our RC-135's i think. This doesn't impact our PFI with AirTanker as the US is supplying a service which could be offered by the MRTT so we don't have to fork out for that too.

Basically, the most logistically challenging deployment we would make would realistically be to the Falklands. So I tend to use that as my yardstick (including a couple other assumptions) as to if our strategic assets are capable.

 

[swerve]

For the larger aircraft it would also come down to flow rate. The flying boom can off load in half the time as a probe from memory refueling helicopters and fighter does not require large amounts of fuel to be transferred unlike a C17 or RC-135 Airseeker.

Yes. Flow rate is often quoted as an advantage of booms. That's correct for large aircraft such as C-17, which is why the US SAC went for booms in the 1950s, to refuel its bombers. But hoses can deliver fuel as fast as smaller aircraft (fighters, helicopters) can accept it, & have far greater tactical flexibility (e.g. buddy refuelling, quick fit hose units for tactical transports, etc). Horses for courses.

I wish we had booms on some of our A330s, for refuelling each other & other large aircraft, but I'm happy with hoses & probes for most of the fleet.

 

[swerve]

My question now is would it be possible to design a removable probe, that fits to the prexisting boom refuelling point in a receiving aircraft; e.g., a P8, C17 or C130?

IIRC such probes have been designed & tested. I don't know if they've ever been used operationally. I've lost the reference, unfortunately. It's out there to be found, though.

One problem with such a system is that the receptacle is usually in the wrong place for hose & drogue refuelling. The pilot needs to be able to see it, to steer it into the basket, & boom receptacles are usually behind the cockpit. Not a problem with boom refuelling, where an operator in the tanker steers the boom.

 

[StobieWan]

Yes. Flow rate is often quoted as an advantage of booms. That's correct for large aircraft such as C-17, which is why the US SAC went for booms in the 1950s, to refuel its bombers. But hoses can deliver fuel as fast as smaller aircraft (fighters, helicopters) can accept it, & have far greater tactical flexibility (e.g. buddy refuelling, quick fit hose units for tactical transports, etc). Horses for courses.

I wish we had booms on some of our A330s, for refuelling each other & other large aircraft, but I'm happy with hoses & probes for most of the fleet.

It'd have been nice if we could have specified both for the Airtanker for sure - I believe the Australians have done so for their refuelling efforts and it would have opened up use of the tankers multinational assets a bit more.