Redlands18
Well-Known Member
And the very well known Senator featured above is the perfect excuse to get rid of ours.
Royal Air Force [RAF] discussions and updates
- Thread starter neil
- Start date
Our Senate can be a right bag of numbnuts, but save us from a Unicameral Parliament. Queensland is an excellent test case of the things that can happen with a Government unrestrained by any form of review other than House committees dominated by Government appointees.
Which is not to say that the various parties do anyone any favours by asking unbelievably stupid questions, particularly when it's done by someone aiming to become a future Defence minister. Oh, aside from the press, who get easy and apparently important sound bites without actually reporting the truth
oldsig
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Unfortunately getting rid of our senate (which I agree with), a change in our constitution would be required.
This also involves the provincial governments. Nobody here wants constitutional talks because it will be epic fail.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
In Canada's case, a PM appointed Senate with no real power doesn't offer much restraint.
I like the version I have better.
“it’s better to say nothing and let them think you’re a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Now that we've discussed the pros and cons of bicameral and unicameral systems, best we get back on topic.
t68
Well-Known Member
It appears to be a done deal on UK Wedgetails, seems to be a lot of handwringing about it and the SAAB/Airbus not getting a look in.
UK MoD: Other bidders didn’t have a chance against Boeing Wedgetail
And in other news they have announced that 17 more F35B”s are to be bought and in service between 2022-24, that’s 33 airframes if you count the test platforms, will be interesting to see when they announce additional contracts to get to 48 airframes
UK to double F-35 fleet with 17-jet order, Defence Secretary announces
UK MoD: Other bidders didn’t have a chance against Boeing Wedgetail
And in other news they have announced that 17 more F35B”s are to be bought and in service between 2022-24, that’s 33 airframes if you count the test platforms, will be interesting to see when they announce additional contracts to get to 48 airframes
UK to double F-35 fleet with 17-jet order, Defence Secretary announces
I still say at this point that picking "something that works" and is available for a "known cost" is a "good idea"
Picking something that "has worked in other airframes" and "might be adapted to" airframes we don't own is a "less good idea"
I'm never going to get a job in PR am I?
Picking something that "has worked in other airframes" and "might be adapted to" airframes we don't own is a "less good idea"
I'm never going to get a job in PR am I?
Yep ... and you are also talking about pouring huge amounts of extra cash into what will ultimately end up being an order for 5 or 6 aircraft. It isn't like there is a huge untapped market for this type of aircraft so it is difficult to see any real benefit in reinventing this particular wheel.
Well Saab's bid seems to be underpinned by the assumption that the "surge" A330 fleet owned by Airtanker can be converted to AEW and still be available for AAR - but that surge fleet is currently chartered out to the civilian industry - and I don't know what settlement would be required to compensate Airtanker for the loss of those aircraft to AEW. Nor, and this is my point, does Saab.
So, there are uncertainties - some are technical and some are contractual.
I would therefore suggest that any discussion surrounding Saab's bid being "x billion cheaper" be treated with ..well, a realistic appraisal of how grounded that number might be.
And hey, it's not like the RAF has had prior experience of expectation shortfall when looking at bespoke and orphan platforms. Apart from Nimrod AEW, MRA4 and the SFOR Chinook purchase, they've been fantastic.
I suspect they weren’t thinking the aircraft would be available for AAR and AEW - the two roles aren’t compatible as the radar would be not emitting whilst refueling for one. AAR aircraft often fly random tracks (depending on what the receiver is coming from and going to, and where their next receivers are coming from) which again isn’t compatible with AEW as they will generally fly a more stable orbit in the location determined to give best observation and control.
Oh, I'm pretty sure they're not suggesting both roles be undertaken at the same time - but they are depending on being able to use those surge aircraft from the airtanker fleet, and that gets us into contractual issues, as Airtankers books are written around the assumption they'd be able to charter the surge fleet out and would lose that ability once Saab presumably start removing comfy seats and flat screen TVs etc and replace it with a pile of consoles,
Point being, we don't own the birds and we'd effectively have to lease them from Airtanker on a permanent basis to convert or buy the fleet out - it looks at a casual glance that it'd be an easy peasy thing as at a casual glance the tankers fly in RAF colours and it probably looks like we can do what we like with them.
However :
Voyager | RAF Live
"
Under a March 2008 agreement, the AirTanker consortium was selected to provide 14 aircraft under a 27-year contract. This includes a so-called ‘Core Fleet’ of eight military serialled and one civilian-registered aircraft, supplemented by a ‘Surge Fleet’ of five civilian-registered aircraft that AirTanker uses commercially to generate additional revenue. The surge aircraft are demodified very close to A330-200 standard and can be recalled for military use if required.
AirTanker owns, manages and maintains the aircraft and provides infrastructure,
support, training facilities and some personnel, in particular Sponsored Reserve pilots and engineers. Named Voyager in service, the A330 MRTT began RAF operations with 10 Sqn on May 12, 2012, flying an air transport sortie from its Brize Norton home base to RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus."
It's possible that Airtanker could be contracted to do the same job as they do for AAR and provide a fleet of AEW spec jets but that's a PFI contract and PFI's were killed dead in this year's budget as "not providing best value".
It's also possible that the end result could swing between roles but I'm feeling that there won't be enough spare cabs from the AEW pool to be able to shunt them around much so we might lose some of the flex capability for a refuelling fleet.
Or, we could just buy E7, and own the cabs etc.
Cheers, though I’m familiar with the issues surrounding Airtanker.
You wouldn’t “swing between roles”. They are too disparate and not at all complementary as I was trying to highlight. Quite a bizarre suggestion by SAAB as they generally seem quite clever.
Hopefully when finally delivered the RAF get as common an E-7 as possible with the RAAF. Such commonality could result in shared advantages in upgrades and capabilities into the future.
You wouldn’t “swing between roles”. They are too disparate and not at all complementary as I was trying to highlight. Quite a bizarre suggestion by SAAB as they generally seem quite clever.
Hopefully when finally delivered the RAF get as common an E-7 as possible with the RAAF. Such commonality could result in shared advantages in upgrades and capabilities into the future.
Last edited:
Understood - I'm not sure what the intention is for the way this would work - there's been no formal or concrete proposal but some of the lobbyists have seemed quite sure we're a hand-wave away from getting it done is all
From my point of view, the E7 presumably comes with the comms and secure links you'd expect a 5I country to be carrying so apart from adding a tea urn, I'd be going for "add to cart, when can we have it - I'm quite excited at the prospect as the E3 birds are off the track for upgrades, and they're also by now, fairly elderly birds. A bit of "new jet" smell and a common platform for P8 and E7 seems really convenient.
Had trouble digging out anything solid but here's an article that seemed to encapsulate the idea :
UK MoD: Other bidders didn’t have a chance against Boeing Wedgetail
"In its mid-October letter to Lewis though the Swedish company refuted concerns that its plan to fit two Erieye radars to the A330 to overcome possible wing blanking issues was high risk."
In short, that does strike me as being at least a developmental risk of sorts.
And here:
"It was the surge capacity aircraft the Europeans proposed to adapt for AEW duties, possibly replacing them later with new aircraft fitted a boom refueling capability. The current British A330s only have a probe and drogue capability.
Andrew said the AEW role is not compatible with refuelling and transport roles. The procurement minister said additional aircraft would have to be obtained incurring high procurement and operating costs higher than the 737."
Just as you say,. switching between the roles appears to be a non-starter.
So,. a configuration that's never flown attached to jets we don't own and which would cost more to run than the smaller but "right sized" 737 ..yeah, sign me up, doesn't ring any alarm bells at all.
UK MoD: Other bidders didn’t have a chance against Boeing Wedgetail
"In its mid-October letter to Lewis though the Swedish company refuted concerns that its plan to fit two Erieye radars to the A330 to overcome possible wing blanking issues was high risk."
In short, that does strike me as being at least a developmental risk of sorts.
And here:
"It was the surge capacity aircraft the Europeans proposed to adapt for AEW duties, possibly replacing them later with new aircraft fitted a boom refueling capability. The current British A330s only have a probe and drogue capability.
Andrew said the AEW role is not compatible with refuelling and transport roles. The procurement minister said additional aircraft would have to be obtained incurring high procurement and operating costs higher than the 737."
Just as you say,. switching between the roles appears to be a non-starter.
So,. a configuration that's never flown attached to jets we don't own and which would cost more to run than the smaller but "right sized" 737 ..yeah, sign me up, doesn't ring any alarm bells at all.
t68
Well-Known Member
It seems that the future order of F35 will be decided in the future SDSR in 2020, one would think capping B's at 48 would cripple the CV'S future planning output and put a lot of pressure on a small fleet.
UK to decide Lightning variant at SDSR, to deploy STOVL F-35B 'off-strip' | Jane's 360
UK to decide Lightning variant at SDSR, to deploy STOVL F-35B 'off-strip' | Jane's 360
Nimrod AEW was new electronics with new software doing something not done before on a heavily remodelled airframe, which ended up needing more computing power than could be fitted in the airframe with the computers of the day. Too heavy, too much power needed.
MRA4 was rejected by BAE's internal risk management - who were overridden, & the head forced into retirement (with a gagging order), & eventually was abandoned for the reasons he'd reported as unacceptably risky.
The SFOR Chinook fiasco came from an MoD demand to do something the manufacturer had never done before, & which failed.
SAAB has successfully integrated Erieye onto five platforms so far, suggesting they don't make such basic (politically-driven) blunders, & the proposed platform has loads of room & power. Physical integration should not be a problem. The hardware & most of the software exist & work. The one potential problem that I see is the integration of two antennae, but given how Erieye's built, & SAAB having demonstrated the ability to build AESA radars with more than one antenna, that should be a very small problem compared to the Nimrod AEW difficulties.
None of this affects your other arguments, & the risk of the SAAB/Airbus proposal is obviously higher than that of the 737 AEW. To me, it's the obvious best choice for the UK, for that & other reasons. But there's no need to over-egg the pudding.
Pros and cons on both sides -the A is the cheapest to buy and to own so we'd save a hefty chunk of change if the remaining 90 were A, plus the A has longer legs, more internal weapons space etc etc.
48 could be enough to routinely deploy 24 on board one of the carriers but we might end up with a situation like the last days of Joint Force Harrier with no cabs on deck as they were all off dispensing justice and freedom elsewhere.
That kind of negates the usefulness of the two carriers.
There’s no point in spending billions if they can’t fulfill their function , they will be emasculated if the full complement of Bs are not acquired.
As may have more range and weapon load but that advantage is totally negated by having a mobile airfield, for recent examples just look at the land based aircraft performance over Libya, it was a joke compared to the carrier borne performance even compared to rotary wing.
There’s no point in spending billions if they can’t fulfill their function , they will be emasculated if the full complement of Bs are not acquired.
As may have more range and weapon load but that advantage is totally negated by having a mobile airfield, for recent examples just look at the land based aircraft performance over Libya, it was a joke compared to the carrier borne performance even compared to rotary wing.
Last edited:
Absolutely right. 48 isn't enough to be reliably able to fill even one carrier, & it's not completely inconceivable that we might want to operate both at the same time. Not much point having them if we don't have enough fighters for them.
A carrier (or even two) off a coast can put those F-35s much closer to possible targets, with a much shorter response time & quicker turnround, & isn't dependent on having friendly airfields within range. That's why we've bought them.
Flying from remote runways with big external fuel loads negates any greater weapons load. More aircraft are needed to get the same number over the target, because of the time spent flying back & forth. Tankers are needed.
A carrier (or even two) off a coast can put those F-35s much closer to possible targets, with a much shorter response time & quicker turnround, & isn't dependent on having friendly airfields within range. That's why we've bought them.
Flying from remote runways with big external fuel loads negates any greater weapons load. More aircraft are needed to get the same number over the target, because of the time spent flying back & forth. Tankers are needed.