Royal Air Force [RAF] discussions and updates

[StobieWan]

That kind of negates the usefulness of the two carriers.
There’s no point in spending billions if they can’t fulfill their function by, 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.

The reasoning behind having two carriers was availability - getting two got us something like constant ability for 8 years straight with programmed refits - I don't recall anyone presenting the idea using two at the same time was a serious requirement - there will be occasions when it can be done but it wasn't presented at any level as a strong use case. The RN simply didn't want to be in the same position that the French were with one carrier - and have to endure long periods of no availability.

I take your point about Libya - I did find it immensely irritating that having junked fixed wing aviation, the armed forces were then pitched into a campaign vs a country where a considerable amount of the fighting could be done in easy reach of a Harrier, with no decks to fly off.

Instead AH-64's ended up doing the heavy lifting - with very little top cover or fast jet availability for much of that time.


Really don't want to do that again.

 

[swerve]

Absolutely. We have two to guarantee one, but to be sure of being able to make full use of that one, we need quite a lot more aircraft capable of operating from it than can actually fit aboard at one time, even assuming we never find ourselves in a situation where we'd like to use both & it's possible.

 

[40 deg south]

UK Officers Highlight Shortfall in Maritime Patrol Capacity

To the surprise of precisely no one, the RAF would like more than nine P-8s.

The chances of getting them are not great, so I hope they are focusing on getting maximum utility from what they have.

 

[ngatimozart]

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.

There's also the advantage of operating B's out of austere locations as well that you cannot do with A's. Something that the RAF did with the Harriers.

 

[StobieWan]

So, what sort of split would work ? If they bought another 12 B's and the rest A's then chopped 24 to FAA with the type conversion all happening at Wittering or wherever using the remainder of the purple assets ?

What would work for carrier aviation ? We're all worried about just not getting enough cabs on deck so what numbers on a split buy would work ? Or is a pure B fleet the only way ? There's a good twenty million between the A and the B let alone sustain costs so buyiing 90 A would save something just around 1.8bn just in procurement of the jets (or about half the price of a carrier..)

Add in spares costs saving and you'd be paying for a trio or more of Type 26 for instance.

What works ?

 

[t68]

Are you looking at worst case for strike carrier ops?

Put it this way if you had to do a Falklands 2.0 would you want both carriers available or only the one?... aircraft number should be governed by the likely conops you would use the carriers in a worst case, but that worst case only leave two for what 4 weeks of high entensity operations sooner or later one has to pull out You cannot sustain that level of operations, so 72 cabs plus attrition and OCU 84 airframes minimum.

 

[the concerned]

How about this as a idea. Actually buy 72 of each f-35 . The f-35b replaces the tornado but the f-35a replaces tranches 1 typhoons. We are only buying 6 more aircraft but making a much more flexible force.

 

[ngatimozart]

The late Windsor Davies in full RSM mode doing a training film for the RAF.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

This is thirty years old and yet so current. I work as a safety advisor and instructor of health and safety programs. I have never heard of this man but I am enamoured by his comedic skill and ability to communicate. Talent. Pure and simple. Can those here please provide some background on this gentleman for those of us not familiar with him?

 

[ngatimozart]

This is thirty years old and yet so current. I work as a safety advisor and instructor of health and safety programs. I have never heard of this man but I am enamoured by his comedic skill and ability to communicate. Talent. Pure and simple. Can those here please provide some background on this gentleman for those of us not familiar with him?

Obituary from The Guardian

 

[Novascotiaboy]

What a shame I have never been exposed to this man. Did he do other RAF safety videos or was this the only one?

 

[ngatimozart]

What a shame I have never been exposed to this man. Did he do other RAF safety videos or was this the only one?

There are a lot of episodes of "It Ain't Half Hot Mum" and "Never the Twain" on Youtube, plus he had a major role in the movie "Carry on England" and that is worth a watch. I do not know if he did any more RAF videos and only came across this one the other day.

 

[Volkodav]

Might bring this to the attention of the SSM at work, he may find a use for it.

 

[swerve]

How about this as a idea. Actually buy 72 of each f-35 . The f-35b replaces the tornado but the f-35a replaces tranches 1 typhoons. We are only buying 6 more aircraft but making a much more flexible force.

Not enough B to fill both carriers, plus attrition & an OCU.

 

[StobieWan]

Not enough B to fill both carriers, plus attrition & an OCU.

wot he sed. That split just screws over everyone. A complete B buy would be better - range can be fixed by either flying from a carrier or bringing a tanker.

Carrier quals for the B are apparently a joy vs the Harrier "and at this point, it will try to kill you.." moments.

Certainly, no A models until we have at least 90 or more B in hand.

Even then, I'm not convinced it's a smart move, a single homogeneous fleet would offer savings in terms of maintenance courses, spares chains etc to at least partially offset the higher cost of the B.

And hey, B has more UK content so there's that.

 

[t68]

I always thought 90 would be the minimum numbers, to be honest I just can’t see the UK keeping two CV’s long term with the Brexit mess it’s either another fire sale or mothballed

pending what happens post Brexit in regards to the economy and with the NI issues and Scottish banging the drum for independence, I really don’t see good times ahead for the UK nor for the greater UKDF

 

[south]

Personally, this is my opinion only, I’d be surprised if there is more than 70 B’s. Apart from the ability to stop then land the A is a better aircraft than the B, better range, endurance, internal carriage, and I believe maintenance.

70 will give enough for B’s 48 on ops on any one time (if required), allowing for deep maintenance and a small OCU B model footprint.

The bulk of the OCU can actually be taught on an A with a STOVL “top up” on the B, given the similar handling and identical mission systems.

 

[south]

I doubt having the B model only will generate maintenance savings... it has many unique parts as a result of the lift fan/moving parts. I believe the A has higher availability than the B. It’s also significantly cheaper.

 

[swerve]

Personally, this is my opinion only, I’d be surprised if there is more than 70 B’s. Apart from the ability to stop then land the A is a better aircraft than the B, better range, endurance, internal carriage, and I believe maintenance.

70 will give enough for B’s 48 on ops on any one time (if required), allowing for deep maintenance and a small OCU B model footprint.

The bulk of the OCU can actually be taught on an A with a STOVL “top up” on the B, given the similar handling and identical mission systems.

The planned number to be bought isn't a peak number, it's a total over the lifetime of the type. That implies buying a lot more than we'd ever expect, or even want, to deploy in one go. Considering that, the minimum number of Bs should be enough for two full carriers, plus significant attrition reserves & an OCU - just in case.

We could put 70 on the carriers simultaneously. We probably wouldn't ever need to, but it's still sensible to have the ability.

 

[south]

The planned number to be bought isn't a peak number, it's a total over the lifetime of the type. That implies buying a lot more than we'd ever expect, or even want, to deploy in one go. Considering that, the minimum number of Bs should be enough for two full carriers, plus significant attrition reserves & an OCU - just in case.

We could put 70 on the carriers simultaneously. We probably wouldn't ever need to, but it's still sensible to have the ability.

SDSR2015 only talks about one carrier in para’s 4.40 and 4.47. That’s not to say that there won’t be periods with two available, but I doubt even the most partisan RN Admiral will be saying you need enough B’s for two full (40+jets each) carriers, plus “significant attrition” and an OCU.

For one attrition buys are going out of fashion as both reliability, safety and cost per unit increase. The OCU also need not be operating solely on B’s; much of the training can be in sims and much of the normal sorties can be done on A’s.

For what you lose on the B (about 40 minutes endurance or about 200NM radius), at a 30-35% price premium I just can’t see the UK MOD buying about 100 B models.

I think it would be a nice to have. Problem is the Uk can’t afford “nice to have” unless they change their defence spending habits.

TBH I can’t see them ever buying 138 all told either, despite what the MOD keep saying. They already struggle to man and engineer the combat air fleet, and the training systems are in a poor state (search MFTS on PPRUNE).