The RAF have - unsurprisingly really - used the F-35B forward deployed to Cyprus on operations.
F-35 fighter jets join fight against IS
F-35 fighter jets join fight against IS
Royal Air Force [RAF] discussions and updates
- Thread starter neil
- Start date
The RAF have announced that they will resume MPA capability from 1/4/2020. Mind you that's April fools day too 
The announcement was made at RIAT last week. Also announced was it intends to have Wedgetail IOC by the second half of 2023 and it also intends to remain in lockstep with RAAF Wedgtail development cofunding said development. A win win for both air forces.
RAF targets April 2020 for maritime patrol resumption
The announcement was made at RIAT last week. Also announced was it intends to have Wedgetail IOC by the second half of 2023 and it also intends to remain in lockstep with RAAF Wedgtail development cofunding said development. A win win for both air forces.RAF targets April 2020 for maritime patrol resumption
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Wonder if the RAAF will send a E-7 to Britain for an extended period 6-12 months to help with Trg and integration.The RAF have announced that they will resume MPA capability from 1/4/2020. Mind you that's April fools day too
RAF targets April 2020 for maritime patrol resumption
As opposed to the RAF sending their crews here for training and familiarisation? Why not. Surely there'll be golf curses and 5 Star hotels for the RAAF crew
oldsig
the concerned
Active Member
When the new protector UAV enters service I was thinking about future possible armaments. How about the LMM missile and Sea venom for a possible maritime strike mission with the gulf in particular. You could combine or potentially the UAV could carry 20 LMM missiles.
PeterCrisp
Member
Sorry if this has been asked before but with the UK using the Eurofighter as a testbed for the Tempest are they going to fit the agility upgrades that were talked about a few years ago?
The Eurofighter is already agile so seeing it with even more agility could be pretty amazing even if just for airshow crowds.
The Eurofighter is already agile so seeing it with even more agility could be pretty amazing even if just for airshow crowds.
The first RAF P-8A Poseidon has arrived in the UK. It arrived at Kinloss on 4/2/2020. RAF welcomes first Poseidon to Kinloss base
Geez - it has taken this long?
I really thought that P-8's were already operational with the RAF.
Oh well - onward from here
MB
I lifted this photo from the Defence Connect site, a story about the RAF’s renewed campaign against ISIS. I am interested to know what the two things are sticking straight out right angles to the fuselage just forward of the of the main wings. or is it an error in the photo so people like me will ask stupid questions
Attachments
its a CGI photo with an error.
An interesting article that puts case for the acquisition of extra P-8A Poseidons and have them equipped with the AAS as a replacement for the Sentinel R1 aircraft. A Case for Replacing the RAF’s Sentinel R.1 Fleet with Additional P-8A Poseidon Aircraft. It does make sense and would be a good capability, however whether the MOD mandarins and pollies would agree is a completely different story.
A well put article. The glaring issue is the treatment of the Sentinel R.1 fleet, a lack of investment makes the existing capability untenable. This is the same as what happened with the E-3 fleet, which got so far behind the upgrade curve when compared to US, French and NATO E-3's that it wasn't financially viable to upgrade. I guess you could argue that worked out well in the end - they got E-7's out of it!
But isn't that the story of pommy defence in the last 30 years? It just seems to go from one clusterf⁸* to another, costing them significant more treasure in the end. Agree totally about the E-7A and if they follow the RAAF lead, methodology and stay in lockstep, then they will have one immense capability. However I can't see the mandarins in the MOD following that path because they'll see it as losing control.
Yep.
Politicians waste money with penny-wise, pound-foolish decisions such as stringing out projects to push spending into the future, forcing painful decisions when that money finally has to be spent, & stop-start funding which starves industry of money thus forcing capacity cuts (e.g. layoffs of skilled workers) & thus start-up costs when the money finally arrives & work resumes. Even politicians sometimes recognise the problems, but they don't seem to be able to help themselves when it comes to short-term decisions (or lack of decisions) overriding long-term policy, e.g. the BAE shipbuilding deal, where to stop the waste of stop-start funding the government agreed (& made it legally enforceable by BAE) to spend a minimum sum per year, to ensure the retention of skills & facilities - & then failed to order ships to be built by those workers in those facilities! So we ended up with River Batch 2 OPVs, just to get something useful for the money the politicians had promised BAE & to keep those skilled workers going.
Building the QEs at Rosyth was another one. It was denied that it was chosen because of proximity to Gordon Brown's constituency, but that denial is scoffed at. We now have a yard which is set up for maintenance of the carriers which they can only get into or out of when the tide is just right & the weather's good. In the month when Queen Elizabeth first left the basin, there was a six day window when the tides would allow her out, & bad weather could have closed that window. The minimal clearances & sharp angles mean that a lot of tugs are needed & risk damage to the ships. A lot of money was spent to make the yard capable of building the carriers, & now there's a yard which for the moment is the only one fitted out to dock them, but is difficult to use & struggling to get other work for that big dock. It's a bit of a white elephant.
The armed forces are also guilty of short-term thinking, as well as wanting everything bespoke & then complaining they don't get enough money.
And so on . . . Nimrod MRA4, the sorry saga of AFV procurement . . . .
Politicians waste money with penny-wise, pound-foolish decisions such as stringing out projects to push spending into the future, forcing painful decisions when that money finally has to be spent, & stop-start funding which starves industry of money thus forcing capacity cuts (e.g. layoffs of skilled workers) & thus start-up costs when the money finally arrives & work resumes. Even politicians sometimes recognise the problems, but they don't seem to be able to help themselves when it comes to short-term decisions (or lack of decisions) overriding long-term policy, e.g. the BAE shipbuilding deal, where to stop the waste of stop-start funding the government agreed (& made it legally enforceable by BAE) to spend a minimum sum per year, to ensure the retention of skills & facilities - & then failed to order ships to be built by those workers in those facilities! So we ended up with River Batch 2 OPVs, just to get something useful for the money the politicians had promised BAE & to keep those skilled workers going.
Building the QEs at Rosyth was another one. It was denied that it was chosen because of proximity to Gordon Brown's constituency, but that denial is scoffed at. We now have a yard which is set up for maintenance of the carriers which they can only get into or out of when the tide is just right & the weather's good. In the month when Queen Elizabeth first left the basin, there was a six day window when the tides would allow her out, & bad weather could have closed that window. The minimal clearances & sharp angles mean that a lot of tugs are needed & risk damage to the ships. A lot of money was spent to make the yard capable of building the carriers, & now there's a yard which for the moment is the only one fitted out to dock them, but is difficult to use & struggling to get other work for that big dock. It's a bit of a white elephant.
The armed forces are also guilty of short-term thinking, as well as wanting everything bespoke & then complaining they don't get enough money.
And so on . . . Nimrod MRA4, the sorry saga of AFV procurement . . . .
The Sentinel lack of investment has been dictated by the repeated plans to retire the aircraft. You don't spend a lot of money on something you're about to scrap. If the retirement keeps getting postponed, but always just a short time in the future, you're stuffed.
We have the Sentinels, they're paid for, & we have crews & logistics. Like P-8, the basic aircraft is a widely used commercial type. It should be cheaper to fly a Sentinel than a P-8, & modifying the radar for marine recce is supposed to be low-risk & relatively low cost. IIRC I read it was mainly or wholly software.
Unless it would be very expensive to refurbish them, it seems likely that it'd be significantly cheaper to keep them flying than buy & operate some more P-8s. The question is whether they're useful enough of the time, which could be got round by the MR radar modification.
Disposing of them & buying more P-8s seems like more of the same old stuff: failing to invest in what we have, then throwing it away & buying something new. We should sort out our maintenance & upgrade paths.
I know, but it highlights the very short term view taken with regards to the capability that has been in significant amount of demand. Sentinel R1 to be scrapped next year due to 'obsolescence'
From what I can gather, the RAF/UK MOD intent to work alongside the RAAF to maintain the capability, but I guess time will tell.
the concerned
Active Member
Just asking could any of the capability be replaced by some global hawks rather than extra p8's. Which one is cheaper to operate.
Indeed as part of NATO the UK has just started sharing the NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) with RQ-4D Global Hawks:
Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS)
NATO is acquiring the Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) system that will give commanders a comprehensive picture of the situation on the ground. A group of 15 Allies is acquiring the AGS system comprised of five NATO RQ-4D remotely piloted aircraft and the associated European-sourced ground...
So the UK is swapping a national ground surveillance capability with an equivalent Allied capability.
Do you have a source for the UK component?Indeed as part of NATO the UK has just started sharing the NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) with RQ-4D Global Hawks:
Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS)
NATO is acquiring the Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) system that will give commanders a comprehensive picture of the situation on the ground. A group of 15 Allies is acquiring the AGS system comprised of five NATO RQ-4D remotely piloted aircraft and the associated European-sourced ground...www.nato.int
So the UK is swapping a national ground surveillance capability with an equivalent Allied capability.