Royal Air Force [RAF] discussions and updates

[StobieWan]

Cummings is clever, but he's also very arrogant, & both his behaviour & gossip suggest that he's very much a "rules are for inferiors" & "break old things then work out how to replace them" person, who finds it hard to believe that he could ever be wrong. That's a scary person to have in a position of power.

Britain's version of McNamara possibly - radical reform without a deeper insight of the working mechanisms of the department as a whole.

We'll see - hopefully he'll screw up in some way that actually has consequences, rather than just a quick eye-sight check-ride to the local beauty spots.

 

[Terran]

This Is The Royal Air Force’s First Aggressor Eurofighter Typhoon

The black jet will take on a high-end adversary role, acting as the enemy to face off against frontline Typhoon aircrews and others.

www.thedrive.com

Typhoon in RAF Aggressor scheme a dark stormy Typhoon meant to show its siblings nothing but pain. It’s apparently owned by No. 9 (B) squadron.

 

[Systems Adict]

Appreciate that this is a bit of 'pie in the sky' as Tempest is still 'in development', but it is implied that it will replace Typhoon in the 2030's....

New image of new British fighter jet

 

[PeterCrisp]

I think Tempest has a half-decent chance of becoming a reality.
The number of good jobs it will secure will be pretty significant and it's always nice to retain the ability to design and manufacture high tech stuff like this ourselves. The fact that even at this stage we have 2 other nations helping and hopefully buying into the program is also a good sign.

If I were a betting man I'd say the Tempest has a 75% chance of becoming an operational aircraft and a mainstay of the RAF from 2035.

 

[Rob c]

I think Tempest has a half-decent chance of becoming a reality.
The number of good jobs it will secure will be pretty significant and it's always nice to retain the ability to design and manufacture high tech stuff like this ourselves. The fact that even at this stage we have 2 other nations helping and hopefully buying into the program is also a good sign.

If I were a betting man I'd say the Tempest has a 75% chance of becoming an operational aircraft and a mainstay of the RAF from 2035.

75% may be a bit high when you put the British Polly into the the picture, as unfortunately they have scrapped my good projects over the years for what have turned out to be very misguided reasons even when they are at times almost complete. At times I have wondered if it has just been to show who is in charge.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I'm not sure I'm as confident at 75% on Tempest. If you end up with something as pricey as the Mitsubishi F-2 was or the F-3 could be, I can see politicians balking at the cost when you multiply it by the hundreds the RAF would eventually need.

On the other hand if the project team can produce something that's both advanced and relatively affordable, I can see the RAF going for it - especially if the IAF stays on board and buys sufficient numbers. The IAF connection could be crucial, as it's very possible there will be limited export numbers due to relatively cheap upgraded F-35s being available on the international market and whatever the US eventually produces to succeed it.

75% may be a bit high when you put the British Polly into the the picture, as unfortunately they have scrapped my good projects over the years for what have turned out to be very misguided reasons even when they are at times almost complete. At times I have wondered if it has just been to show who is in charge.

Don't know if you're thinking about TSR-2, but most recently Nimrod MRA4 was a real problem such that I can understand the decision to scrap it. You must have read the FT article about there being several hundred non-compliant issues even with airframes supposedly nearly complete. The cost of the project could have easily continued to increase to get the planes fully ready for service - a great example of throwing good money after bad.

Instead the RAF will end up with nine brand new P-8s, which if you put aside the cost is a better outcome.

 

[swerve]

I recall reading once that the F-2 unit price was so high not because it was horribly expensive to build, but because the development cost was spread over a very short production run.

Nimrod MRA4 - yes, the more I hear about it the more of a disaster it seems. When it was cancelled I remember someone emerging who'd been retired early with an enhanced pension & a confidentiality agreement which meant he'd have lost all his pension if he opened his mouth. He decided he'd probably be safe after the project was cancelled. Refused to sign off the risk evaluation IIRC, because there were gaping holes in it. And all (or at least, a lot of) the things he'd said were potentially fatal risks which hadn't been looked at properly came back & bit them.

The whole "refurbished airframes" thing was political, a way of pretending it was a smaller job & less risky than in reality, but it led to loads of foreseeable - & foreseen, but brushed under the carpet - problems.

A great pity. It looked as if it could have been a good aircraft if it had been done right

 

[Rob c]

Yes the TSR2, the P1121 which was cancelled along with other aircraft by the infamous Duncan Sandy's manned aircraft are obsolete white paper , the P1154 supersonic VTOL for the Navy and RAF by the mid 60's labour Government and the list goes on. I agree that the Nimrod MRA4 turned into a dog's breakfast and a large part of this was trying to refurbish old airframes and fit new wings and engines to what was originally a hand built aircraft with the normal discrepancies that this involves[/QUOTE]

 

[swerve]

I recall seeing a picture online which had the original & new parts of the MRA4 airframe in different colours. It looked as if there was more new than old. Keeping those original sections, which had been hand-built to loose tolerances & filed to fit other parts which had also been filed to fit, & trying to marry them to uniform, precisely made to very tight tolerances CAD/CAM designed & built new sections looks an astonishing choice. The claims that it'd have been quicker, easier & cheaper to make all new airframes seem credible - but that would have meant they were no longer "refurbished old airframes".

Not the only issue, though, IIRC.

 

[StobieWan]

I think Tempest has a half-decent chance of becoming a reality.
The number of good jobs it will secure will be pretty significant and it's always nice to retain the ability to design and manufacture high tech stuff like this ourselves. The fact that even at this stage we have 2 other nations helping and hopefully buying into the program is also a good sign.

If I were a betting man I'd say the Tempest has a 75% chance of becoming an operational aircraft and a mainstay of the RAF from 2035.

well, I'm sceptical of Tempest flying as a complete aircraft but I am very excited about the concept of Tiffy being the test bed for the innovations the program spawns. If it produces a constant series of iterative updates for Typhoon, news sensors, avionics etc, that has to be a good thing.

Bearing in mind that the Italians are involved, that's two fleets that would be getting those updates and of course we have Sweden interested as well. I dunno, may produce something good, even if it never makes it to a finished jet.

 

[swerve]

Yes, very good indeed, potentially.

It frustrates me at times that the UK MoD seems less interested in updating than some other countries, & more likely to replace. For example "it isn't possible to upgrade Tranche 1 Typhoon". I don't believe it. I can believe that it's impractical to to do exactly the same upgrades to T1 as T2/3, or that it's been calculated that any significant upgrade wouldn't be worth the cost (perhaps not worth the cost of maintaining two distinct sub-types), but not possible to upgrade at all? That defies belief. Dammit, look at what the Pakistanis have done to Mirage IIIs, the Americans have done to various US types, & what everyone & his dog has done to F-5Es.

At least there does seem to be a plan to update later Typhoons.

 

[StobieWan]

I recall reading once that the F-2 unit price was so high not because it was horribly expensive to build, but because the development cost was spread over a very short production run.

Nimrod MRA4 - yes, the more I hear about it the more of a disaster it seems. When it was cancelled I remember someone emerging who'd been retired early with an enhanced pension & a confidentiality agreement which meant he'd have lost all his pension if he opened his mouth. He decided he'd probably be safe after the project was cancelled. Refused to sign off the risk evaluation IIRC, because there were gaping holes in it. And all (or at least, a lot of) the things he'd said were potentially fatal risks which hadn't been looked at properly came back & bit them.

The whole "refurbished airframes" thing was political, a way of pretending it was a smaller job & less risky than in reality, but it led to loads of foreseeable - & foreseen, but brushed under the carpet - problems.

A great pity. It looked as if it could have been a good aircraft if it had been done right

I think even if it'd gotten certified for flight and in service, it'd have been a nightmare in terms of monitoring for fatigue etc - so many new and different materials joined together in an airframe designed in the 50's I think it'd have been very difficult to know what to expect in comparison with the old airframe.

It should either never have been started or cancelled much earlier I suspect. My personal nail in the coffin moment would have been the engine selection - there was apparently a Honeywell engine with better fuel consumption but of the same dimensions as the existing engine which would have fitted in, but that was rejected in preference for something with more power. At that point, you now need new wing boxes, you've already built a wider body fuselage and you're fitting new engines - to something, which as has been mentioned, was a collection of bespoke parts.


And we *knew* this would be a problem because when the Nimrod AEW program came up, they were careful to match the wings with the fuselage because it was understood that the parts were not a mass-produced fit.

 

[ngatimozart]

I think even if it'd gotten certified for flight and in service, it'd have been a nightmare in terms of monitoring for fatigue etc - so many new and different materials joined together in an airframe designed in the 50's I think it'd have been very difficult to know what to expect in comparison with the old airframe.

It should either never have been started or cancelled much earlier I suspect. My personal nail in the coffin moment would have been the engine selection - there was apparently a Honeywell engine with better fuel consumption but of the same dimensions as the existing engine which would have fitted in, but that was rejected in preference for something with more power. At that point, you now need new wing boxes, you've already built a wider body fuselage and you're fitting new engines - to something, which as has been mentioned, was a collection of bespoke parts.


And we *knew* this would be a problem because when the Nimrod AEW program came up, they were careful to match the wings with the fuselage because it was understood that the parts were not a mass-produced fit.

That's something I couldn't understand. Why stick with an old airframe when they could've gone with a newer more modern type? It somehow defies sense and logic, especially considering the vast amounts of treasure sunk into the failed program.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

That's something I couldn't understand. Why stick with an old airframe when they could've gone with a newer more modern type?

Because the beancounters were presented with an option that (in the optium circumstances) would save 7.935% in project costs - the 0.035% being the deciding factor.

Joking aside, it's the same with the Type 45s. By stringing the project out and not committing to more ships, in the end the six cost what eight probably would have if the money had just been advanced in a somewhat shorter time period. Hopefully Nimrod was a helpful reminder for Whitehall of what happens when you try to save pennies.

 

[swerve]

That's something I couldn't understand. Why stick with an old airframe when they could've gone with a newer more modern type? It somehow defies sense and logic, especially considering the vast amounts of treasure sunk into the failed program.

There wasn't a newer more modern type on the market at the time. P-8 & Kawasaki P-1 hadn't yet been proposed AFAIK, & neither had an A320 MPA, though I expect Airbus would have responded positively to an expression of interest.

The choices were to develop something from scratch, build an updated old design (the Lockheed P-7 was a new aircraft based on the P-3, but the USN cancelled it too soon for it to be a candidate), or refurbish some old aircraft. The RAF was offered updated P-3s, both new build & refurbished, & updated (I think new build) Atlantiques. Atlantique was quickly withdrawn, & apparently being twin-engined was a factor. The RAF wanted four. That would have counted against B737 or A320-based options.

Developing something new was rejected as too expensive IIRC, & so was building new aircraft to a modified Nimrod design, but BAE cunningly disguised a new design based on Nimrod as refurbished old airframes, & that satisfied the accountants. Behind the scenes, some technical staff at BAE rebelled, but they were shut up. The most senior one was sacked with a payoff ("early retirement") & a gagging clause. He spoke out after MRA4 was cancelled.

It looks as if the P-1 cost a lot less to develop than MRA4, despite being new. Apparently sharing components with the C-2 transport & using off the shelf parts where practical was ordered.

 

[StobieWan]

There wasn't a newer more modern type on the market at the time. P-8 & Kawasaki P-1 hadn't yet been proposed AFAIK, & neither had an A320 MPA, though I expect Airbus would have responded positively to an expression of interest.

The choices were to develop something from scratch, build an updated old design (the Lockheed P-7 was a new aircraft based on the P-3, but the USN cancelled it too soon for it to be a candidate), or refurbish some old aircraft. The RAF was offered updated P-3s, both new build & refurbished, & updated (I think new build) Atlantiques. Atlantique was quickly withdrawn, & apparently being twin-engined was a factor. The RAF wanted four. That would have counted against B737 or A320-based options.

Developing something new was rejected as too expensive IIRC, & so was building new aircraft to a modified Nimrod design, but BAE cunningly disguised a new design based on Nimrod as refurbished old airframes, & that satisfied the accountants. Behind the scenes, some technical staff at BAE rebelled, but they were shut up. The most senior one was sacked with a payoff ("early retirement") & a gagging clause. He spoke out after MRA4 was cancelled.

It looks as if the P-1 cost a lot less to develop than MRA4, despite being new. Apparently sharing components with the C-2 transport & using off the shelf parts where practical was ordered.

The timing issue is one major problem - the RAF were first to market with a jet engined ASW platform and at the time the P7 program I think wasn't going anywhere. That left P3 or Atlantique. By the time alternatives were on the horizon, MRA4 was fairly well advanced. It'd be a fascinating "what if" regarding Kawasaki's P1 program.

I suppose one additional factor was that MRA4 had a weapons bay integral to the design whereas I think the alternatives were basically fairings outside the pressurised hulls with the accompanying limitations.

I suspect there were enough people in the decision chain unaware of the scale of the proposed rework (take the number plate off the old one and put it on the new one) that it slipped through.

Let's not do another one like that eh ?

 

[swerve]

Yes, exactly.

I can see two ways things could have worked. Either (1) a fairly short-term upgrade of second hand aircraft (doesn't matter what, IMO) pending a longer-term solution, to allow the RAF to wait until someone else who wanted a new aircraft would be available as either a partner or vendor, or (2) bite the bullet & build new from the outset.

 

[StobieWan]

Do a mid-life on MR2 ? Plenty of cabs around I believe so so a proper "tear down and re-life" exercise, but no funny business with new wing boxes etc ?

Tear them down to bare metal, rewire, redo the plumbing, new cockpit and sensors, get the avionics to modern standards, revamp the CMS and maybe stick the Honeywell engines in for a range/economy boost ?

 

[swerve]

Something like that. No new wing box, as you say, no new wing, therefore no largely new tail needed. IIRC a lot of the new stuff cascaded from decisions to change A, which then necessitated a change to B, & before you know it the alphabet doesn't look big enough.

Big thing with any hypothetical new engines is that they have to fit in without rebuilding the airframe.

I think one of the offers was to do something like that with second hand P-3s. The Spanish bit of Airbus did that successfully a few years later for Brazil, & IIRC for Spain, so we know it was doable. Can't see why it wouldn't be with Nimrod.

Either way, we could have been looking at a leisurely decision on when to buy something new.

 

[JohnJT]

It frustrates me at times that the UK MoD seems less interested in updating than some other countries, & more likely to replace. For example "it isn't possible to upgrade Tranche 1 Typhoon". I don't believe it.

Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Spain is upgrading their Tranche 1s with Tranche 2/3 kit.

Tranche 1 fleet has just started a modernisation programme, which includes hardware and software upgrades, taking care of obsolescence issues by integrating Tranche 2 hardware. Operational upgrades include new capabilities, like the possibility of carry litening targeting pods”, the official spokesperson of the Spanish Air Force, Lieutenant-Colonel Marcos Díez Estévez, told ESD.

The upgrade developed by Airbus includes modifications that integrate Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 equipment on the aircraft, such as a Computer Symbol Generator, Digital Video and Voice Recorder, Laser Designator Pod and Maintenance Data Panel.

A Long Life for the Spanish EUROFIGHTER - European Security & Defence

The retrofit of Tranche 1, the integration of the E-Scan radar and a possible replacement of the Spanish fleet of 85 F-18 aircraft are the most important pillars for the future of the jet-fighter in Spain. In July 2020, the Spanish Air Force will receive its last EUROFIGHTER jet, reaching the 72...

euro-sd.com