Royal Air Force [RAF] discussions and updates

[Jeneral2885]

Interesting thoughts on the lack of a MPA in the RAF/RN

Binoculars and Maritime Patrol - Think Defence

In light of the missing Cheeki Rafiki.

I agree you can't blame the lack of a proper MPA and the sending of a C-130 with a binocular team. But that does not mean you ignore the MPA gap.

 

[RobWilliams]

Couple of recent news pieces with respect to the RAF, firstly that our first Rivet Joint aircraft has taken to the skies off the back of bending the rules of the military aviation authority.

Aviation News

It is expected IOC to be achieved within 5 months, with the second aircraft arriving n 2015 and the third arriving in 2017 to produce a FOC available in 2018.

Our new batch of 5 Reapers are unlikely to see service in Afghanistan due to hardware/software delays.

UK’s new Reaper drones remain grounded, months before Afghan withdrawal | The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Michael Clarke (director of RUSI) said he believed that UK drones would be put to work in the skies above Africa, particularly Kenya or Somalia. May as well use them while we've got them, seems that in some quarters people believe that Africa will be the next aim for NATO and the like.

Considering the ripples from Libya and Mali this doesn't sound so daft.

 

[RobWilliams]

News from Farnborough from a couple of days ago.

Brimstone 2 production given the green light, to start being fitted to Tornados next year. BAE trying to push Brimstone 2 integration on Typhoon from 2021 to 2018 to avoid the gap.

FARNBOROUGH: RAF Tornados to get Brimstone 2 missiles in 2015 - 7/17/2014 - Flight Global

Typhoons to get Storm Shadow in mid-2016, integration well under way as RAF/Italian Typhoons have flown with them (German aircraft did trials with Taurus)

FARNBOROUGH: RAF Typhoons to get Storm Shadow - 7/17/2014 - Flight Global

Tests validating the A400Ms capability to receive fuel in flight have been concluded, the tanker being a RAF Voyager. 100 wet contacts and 80t of fuel transferred.

A400M passes in-flight refuelling test - 7/16/2014 - Flight Global

 

[harryriedl]

News from Farnborough from a couple of days ago.

Brimstone 2 production given the green light, to start being fitted to Tornados next year. BAE trying to push Brimstone 2 integration on Typhoon from 2021 to 2018 to avoid the gap.

FARNBOROUGH: RAF Tornados to get Brimstone 2 missiles in 2015 - 7/17/2014 - Flight Global

Typhoons to get Storm Shadow in mid-2016, integration well under way as RAF/Italian Typhoons have flown with them (German aircraft did trials with Taurus)

FARNBOROUGH: RAF Typhoons to get Storm Shadow - 7/17/2014 - Flight Global

Tests validating the A400Ms capability to receive fuel in flight have been concluded, the tanker being a RAF Voyager. 100 wet contacts and 80t of fuel transferred.

A400M passes in-flight refuelling test - 7/16/2014 - Flight Global

What will be, more interesting is if and when the RAF certify them for tanker duties. As that will make them that much more useful to supplement the A330 on tanking duties

 

[StobieWan]

I don't believe the UK is buying the HDU's for A400M - the Airtanker PFI deal seems to guarantee Airtanker a chunk of business and it's possible or even probable that using other air assets for tanking would have to be compensated for.

 

[A4kscooter]

I don't believe the UK is buying the HDU's for A400M - the Airtanker PFI deal seems to guarantee Airtanker a chunk of business and it's possible or even probable that using other air assets for tanking would have to be compensated for.

This again highlights what a poor decision purchasing these A330 via PFI was because if the UK did have A400 with an AAR capability it may have given the RAF the ability to refuel helicopters if required.
How much will it cost to give the Tornado Brimstone 2 capability given it is to be withdrawn in 2019 or with current events maybe we may be forced for the Tornado to carry on for
a few more years?

 

[RobWilliams]

That's my understanding too Stobie, but there's one caveat which is mildly interesting which i've read about (but could 100% be false).

AirTanker is contracted to supply probe-and-drogue services and that if UK aircraft get probe-and-drogue services from any other source, then the UK Govt have to compensate AirTanker, sort of like a 'loss of business' thing I suppose.

Then the UK Govt secured a contract with the US for access to US tankers if we require boom services (like our E-3D's, they were mentioned specifically) and this does not require compensation to AirTanker because in their configuration AirTanker cannot provide that service, so there's no 'loss of business' happening.

A400M can do boom refuelling if fitted with its centre-line refuelling unit IIRC, so technically they could do boom refuelling without paying AirTanker for the privilege because of what I described earlier. But that's a big configuration change.

The whole "AirTanker" SNAFU was Gordon Brown trying to do clever accounting and taking AAR off the books, IIRC. I think it's BS.

 

[StobieWan]

This again highlights what a poor decision purchasing these A330 via PFI was because if the UK did have A400 with an AAR capability it may have given the RAF the ability to refuel helicopters if required.
How much will it cost to give the Tornado Brimstone 2 capability given it is to be withdrawn in 2019 or with current events maybe we may be forced for the Tornado to carry on for
a few more years?

If you think that PFI was a bad move, wait til you clock the nuclear power generation deal (I think the company get a shed load of change even if they suck their teeth, shake their heads and walk away)

Brimstone 2 isn't a big deal to integrate given the missile is externally either very similar or identical, and all the processing is done on the launch rail so you just need a big f*ck of switch with "DIE" written on it in the cockpit - which they already have.

If we go to past performance, they'll start the upgrades, then trash the fleet, possibly with an upgrade technician frantically stuffing bits of wiring into the last ones as they're hauled away to the boneyard.

I jest. Can't see Tornado being carried on beyond their 2019 OSD unless Putin does something extraordinarily silly or China kicks off - it'll leave the RAF light in frames as we'll be dropping the Tornado fleet vs an intake of a half dozen F35B at that point, leaving Tiffy as the mainstream RAF type to cover the whole gamut of strike, intercept etc.

 

[harryriedl]

I don't believe the UK is buying the HDU's for A400M - the Airtanker PFI deal seems to guarantee Airtanker a chunk of business and it's possible or even probable that using other air assets for tanking would have to be compensated for.

all contracts must run out so surely by end of the contract HUD can be on the A400M day the contract runs out. A stupid deal the these PFI's

 

[StobieWan]

It runs out just a bit before my driving license actually, 2035.

:nutkick

 

[swerve]

Contracts can be renegotiated, & the main members of the AirTanker consortium could make money out of the RAF using A400M for tanking. Cobham makes the HDUs, Airbus makes the aircraft & supplies support, Thales makes kit that goes on it, simulators, & provides training - more of which would be needed for tanking. And so on.

If it means more tanking, the AirTanker members would all stand to profit, so would probably be happy to renegotiate.

 

[StobieWan]

Ah - didn't realise Airtanker were "all of the people doing all of the stuff..." - I had this impression it was just the oiks in flying jackets and boiler suits - that would lend a different complexion on things.

 

[swerve]

AirTanker- who we are

AirTanker is a consortium made up of leading aerospace, defence and facilities management specialists, Babcock, Cobham, Airbus Group, Rolls-Royce and Thales.

They also form its primary supply chain, which means maintenance, repair and replacement programmes are carried out by ‘experts’ seconded from individual suppliers.

 

[RobWilliams]

A few days ago Japan approved the initiative to joint develop Meteor with MBDA and Mitsubishi, specifically using Japanese seeker technology.

On the flip-side, could make Japan a Meteor customer. Meteor can fit in the internal bays of the F-35 while Japans indigenous missile (AAM-4B) cannot, apparently.

Japan, Britain To Collaborate On Meteor Guidance | AWIN ONLY content from Aviation Week
Japan approves Meteor research JV between MBDA, Mitsubishi - IHS Jane's 360

In a recent interview, a Japanese Defence Ministry official suggested that the UK could buy the P-1 for our MPA requirement

Japan’s Defense Ministry Broadens Arms-Export Ambitions - Japan Real Time - WSJ

 

[harryriedl]

A few days ago Japan approved the initiative to joint develop Meteor with MBDA and Mitsubishi, specifically using Japanese seeker technology.

On the flip-side, could make Japan a Meteor customer. Meteor can fit in the internal bays of the F-35 while Japans indigenous missile (AAM-4B) cannot, apparently.

Japan, Britain To Collaborate On Meteor Guidance | AWIN ONLY content from Aviation Week
Japan approves Meteor research JV between MBDA, Mitsubishi - IHS Jane's 360

In a recent interview, a Japanese Defence Ministry official suggested that the UK could buy the P-1 for our MPA requirement

Japan’s Defense Ministry Broadens Arms-Export Ambitions - Japan Real Time - WSJ

I personal prefer the p8 because of how many have been purchased and ubiquity of 737 worldwide and the fact boeing seem quite keen to do a similar lease arrangement as they did with the C17s which seemed to work very well.

The P1 is part of a rather ambitious program along with their transport aircraft but if the price is right and its not development money the RAF are paying but for a good squadrons worth of craft with quick delivery its as good a possibility as any other option.

 

[StobieWan]

P1 will likely not be as cheap as P8 for simple reasons of volume and customer base.

Any weapons integration and so forth, they'll be spread across a smaller user base. I'm sure P1 will be a fine aircraft with good systems but I'm still voting P8...

 

[harryriedl]

P1 will likely not be as cheap as P8 for simple reasons of volume and customer base.

Any weapons integration and so forth, they'll be spread across a smaller user base. I'm sure P1 will be a fine aircraft with good systems but I'm still voting P8...

I could see the Japanese selling at loss to get a customer and tying it into trade or technology development or offering something that the P8s wouldn't be willing to do such as greater UK equipment integration. (depends really how desperately they want the export)

 

[ngatimozart]

I could see the Japanese selling at loss to get a customer and tying it into trade or technology development or offering something that the P8s wouldn't be willing to do such as greater UK equipment integration. (depends really how desperately they want the export)

More importantly in UK eyes, will the P1 offer the same capability as the P8? That is the question. Whizz bang and snoopiness for pounds my Lords.

 

[harryriedl]

More importantly in UK eyes, will the P1 offer the same capability as the P8? That is the question. Whizz bang and snoopiness for pounds my Lords.

difficult to say as such a wide variety of craft are nominally in the frame from P8 to bombardier biz jets, to turboprop small airliners all have said that HMG have had an interest for the maritime work. P1 has the interest (though not as great as the P8) as its a Japanese program which makes it interesting by its very nature.

 

[the concerned]

Its a shame the Japanese p-1 wasn't on offer when we where trying to sell the Japanese typhoon's then I'm sure a real good deal could have been arranged between both governments.