End of the line for Tornado GR4?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

In these difficult economic days, why don't we offer up the Tornado GR4 force as a sacrificial lamb?

We have Typhoon, Harrier and Tornado, all of which can do (or will soon be able to do) the strike role.

We need Harrier, as it alone can go to sea.

We need Typhoon, as it alone can also do AD.

So what do we need a third FJ type for, if it can't do anything unique?

I don't for a minute want to get rid of the Tornado, but we can't afford to keep everything we currently have and still get the new equipment which we so badly need. Of course the GR4 has only just gone to Afghanistan, so we can't ditch it overnight, but Typhoon will be able to assume the role before long...

[FlightTester]

To be sure, the GR4 is no doubt getting long in the tooth (it was when I left 31 Sqn is 2001), and I left the Typhoon Flt Test program prior to any of the gnd packages being tested. However, I'm not sure that it's time to get rid of the GR4 just yet and be faced with a similar situation to the one we were in twenty odd years ago but in reverse order - back then we were faced with a gap in fighter coverage, so they turned a bomber (the GR1) into a fighter (the ADV) with mixed results. Now we're turning an air superiority fighter into a swing role aircraft - to early yet I suspect to pole the jury on a verdict. Just as a for instance - can the Typhoon carry a Storm Shadow sized weapon, or a GBU-24 type store - Tornado can, Harrier as far as I know can't.

Good question though!

[downsizer]

Harrier can carry GBU-24.

I've also seen a Storm Shadow mock up loaded to a harrier. Not sure if it went any further than that.

[foldingwings]

During the procurement of SS, when it was still SR(A)1236,Typhoon was recommended for strengthening in the wing pylon area for SS but I don't think that it has done any proper flight trialling with the beast yet, but I may be wrong. If I am, then I don't believe it has been 'declared' yet with SS. Harrier was originally in the plan for SS but it was decided that it would be a no-goer off the deck and so.......................

Correct answer, too early yet. GR4's a very capable aircraft and has at least 9 years left in it to the projected OSD (at least that was true when I was last involved with these kind of things).

Now I am more interested in getting my golf handicap down!

Foldie:ok:

[Impiger]

Only the GR4 Force is big enough to sustain an operation over time. Even sharing the load the offensive mix of Harrier and Typhoon (in time) wouldn't be big enough. So before getting shot of the Bornado you have to adjust British aspirations for an enduring operation. As Alexander would say 'simple'.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Retire the RAF's only designed from the ground up strike aircraft and cover the role with an aging CAS aircraft with short legs and a multi-role aircraft, that won't be available in the numbers originally ordered to cover the retirement of the Jag and the F3 it was designed to replace, let alone a share of that of another retired type?

Please tell me you don't have any sort of budgetary or planning responsibilities in your current job.

[Wrathmonk]

Of course if we didn't have the carriers then we wouldn't need an aircraft that could go to sea.;)

And off we go again on the monthly GR9 v Typhoon v GR4 v JSF v why have a FJ fleet at all etc etc pi55ing contest.

[gashman]

GR4 does things that the FGR4 can't do (yet, possibly never?). The harrier force, due to its size is probably thankful for the respite from continuous ops of the same type of mission so the guys can get back on their game. I imagine operating from field strips or low level AI trips haven't been flown in a while, yet they are all probably subject matter experts at CAS.

It is a numbers game. Typhoon as a force is still small. If you compare what it has taken on from the F3, there's not much flex to do anything else until the rest of the jets are built and the pilots trained up. It all takes time. Even after then, a multi-roll pilot is likely to be more of a jack of all trades rather than a master of one. GR4 should be around for a loooong while yet.

[xray one]

Lessons must be learnt from previous changes in Types. In recent times the F3 and Jaguar all staying/stayed in service longer than necessary. In the case of the GR4, are the other aircraft suitably capable. If not, then they must be kept but with only enough aircraft required for those specific roles.

[Squirrel 41]

I'm with Wrathmonk; if you need to go to a two-type FJ fleet - which with the current budget seems sensible - then the one to go is Harrier, I'm afraid. As has already been said, GR4 has unique capabilities in the current RAF frontline (e.g. Storm Shadow, employment for Navs :E) and a we can fly it hard in the 'Stan through to OSD and replace it with Dave-C in the 2016-18 timescale.

Dave-C has longer legs and a more substantial marinised structure than the other variants, and given that we're going to fly it for a LONG time, then the extra beef may be no bad thing, even if they never go to sea. It's probably going to be cheaper than Dave-B, too. Oh, and it has internal bays that can take our existing weaponry, too. Bonus!

And if CVF gets built, then we can have probably have proper cats-n-traps, too. Personally, I don't think that CVF will - or should, in the current budgetary climate - be built, but CVF or no, Dave-C gets my vote. IMHO it also looks more purposeful with twin nosewheels than the dainty Dave-A, and that's better than most of the reasons published on tinternet for selecting one or other FJ pointy thing.

S41

[Easy Street]

So what do we need a third FJ type for, if it can't do anything unique?

A few operationally-relevant things GR4 can do that our other FJs can't...

Carry 2 Paveway IVs, 3 laser-guided missiles, Litening III pod with built-in recce capability, 27mm cannon, advanced IRCM, and enough fuel to stick around for a couple of hours. Plus this is all on one airframe so there's no need to go round as a pair to cover all the weaponeering bases. And if you don't want the missiles you can have 3 Paveway IVs instead.

Field the best airborne optical ISTAR kit currently available in theatre - yes, RAPTOR has come of age at last - with the cannon and 2 Paveway IVs to boot. Sorry DJRP, you're old news.

Sustain operational detachments to hot sandy places on an indefinite basis (19 years and counting, with at least 2 periods of "double ops"). The Typhoon force are already working hard to fulfil their existing UK and Falklands tasks; their future sqns will give them the capability to mount short-term deployments abroad but not on an enduring basis. And we've just seen how long the Harrier force can manage.

That gives GR4 the edge for me in the short-term cuts battle. And a few more, less relevant at the moment, but still unique...

Storm Shadow: do you honestly think the UK AI force would be asked to use anything else on "Night One"? It's never going to be fitted to Harrier by the way, it fouls the flaps or something.

ALARM: GR4 is still the only self-SEADing bomber out there, unless they've started strapping bombs onto the 'Growler':E

All-weather low level ingress: might be useful again one day... anyone know the latest on Iran's ongoing SA-20 purchase? :}

Brimstone: no-one else can fire it yet. Although I accept that it's not the most flexible weapon out there.

I think it's reasonable to forecast that Typhoon is safest from the axe. However, in a GR4 vs Harrier slugging match, I think the extensive list above trumps the Harrier's strong points (carrier and short field capability) - as a few posters have already wryly observed, you need carriers to justify a sea-going aircraft!

[peppermint_jam]

^^^^ +1

Well said that man.

[TheInquisitor]

the best airborne optical ISTAR kit currently available in theatre

I think you'll find there's much better optical ISTAR kit int theatre me old...it's just not on a FJ...

[Pontius Navigator]

I wouldn't have gone into the detail that Easy Street did, but reflect on recent aircraft improvements and modifications and OSD.

Certainly scraping an in-service aircraft saves future costs and the cost of recent mods is simple wastage that does not affect the future bottom line.

The FA2 was upgraded and had an excellent bombing system.
The GR3 again had an upgraded system.

Now you are talking of early OSD for the GR4 or GR9 to be replaced by an immature FGR4.

What this suggests is a schism between Defence Policy and Defence Planning.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

I would have agreed that the Harrier's situation seems a lot more awkward than the GR4's. JFH is simply too small to sustain any sort of long term op, as we've seen with HERRICK, so what is it really likely to do of use in the medium term as we're trying to save money?

I know that the previous CAS was rumoured to have offered the Harrier as a sacrificial lamb in the next round of cuts, but was shouted down by the Navy. How about a compromise?

The Harrier's only real USP is its ability to embark, so disband the entire RAF side of JFH and give the whole lot to the FAA. They can keep the NSW or form 2 unique squadrons again, and use it to cover training with the existing carriers and to maintain their cadre of FJ qualified pilots until JCA and the new carriers arrive.

Decimating the F3 force early left us with a glut of pilots who seem to have found jobs alright, so I'm sure that 1(F) and IV(AC)'s pilots wouldn't be left hanging.

You could disband Naval Fixed Wing Standards (I would have thought with FAA FW aviation being so small now, there's no reason at all why they couldn't be standardised and examined by CFS along with the RAF?) to save the FAA some money, and if the FAA Harrier force had less to do they could pick up on some of the Hawk roles. You could even move them all back to Yeovilton!

FAA gets to keep some element of FJ aviation, although one that's unlikely to be able to support any sort of deployment. RAF saves a bucket by effectively getting rid of a whole fleet, and frees up a bunch of pilots with some recent operational experience who might be considered very useful in the GR4 or FGR4 worlds.

We lose the ability to send the Harrier force on another operational det, but it looks unlikely that they'd be doing that anyway.

[The Helpful Stacker]

The Harrier's only real USP is its ability to embark, so disband the entire RAF side of JFH and give the whole lot to the FAA. They can keep the NSW or form 2 unique squadrons again, and use it to cover training with the existing carriers and to maintain their cadre of FJ qualified pilots until JCA and the new carriers arrive.


5 Forward 6 Back - Its a grand plan but one that fails to take in a reason it was shouted down by FAA/RN types last time any change to the current manner in which the JHF is supported was mentioned. It wasn't purely because they believed it was part of some grand conspiracy by the RAF to do away with the FAA (which never would have happened anyway), its because they were fearful of any unpalatable alternatives that were offered, such as the one you mention.

At the moment the lion's share of supporting the Harrier (and thus keeping the FAA in FW aviation) is paid for out of the RAF budget. The RN, what with its aspirations to have carriers, n-boats and all that fine stuff that sits in the water, couldn't afford to support its own FW assets, at least not an amount that would be of any use. This is one of the reasons the FA2 was binned.

Of course an RN type would say "well the budget would transfer across with the aircraft", but if the role that was being undertaken by the the Harriers for RAF is still required then the budget assigned to the Harriers would be needed to support the remaining RAF aircraft that have taken on that extra burden. After all you can't utilise an aircraft more with the same budget as before and expect cracks not to appear.

[Melchett01]

I think you'll find there's much better optical ISTAR kit int theatre me old...it's just not on a FJ...

It all depends what you want to achieve, but that's another topic not for here. Safe to say it isn't quite as cut and dry as you might think.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

THS, I'm aware of the RN's attitude towards keeping the Harrier. However, I think that if we're facing losing a chunk of the GR4 force, or further slowing the buildup of Typhoon numbers, then the RN need to face some harsh truths!

If they can't afford it, why should we pay for it, when it's of relatively little use to us, and the alternative is taking cuts in our busiest FJ force, or our future capabilities?

If CAS was to turn around and say publically that the RAF were going to stop operating the Harrier, but he was quite happy for the Navy to keep going at Cottesmore/Wittering, then the ball would be firmly in their court.

[The Helpful Stacker]

I fully agree with you '5 Forward 6 Back', but thats not the way the inter-service politics game works.

You know as well as I do that if the RAF attempted to pass control of the Harrier over to the FAA fully the RN would scream blue murder because they can't (or more likely won't want to) take on the full cost of operating the force because it'd likely eat into the budgets for ships etc.

JFH has worked out better for the RN than the RAF. The RAF front most of the costs and the RN keep their toe in the FJ world but don't even need to fully man 'their' squadrons with RN personnel, why would they (the RN) want to change this?

[Wrathmonk]

The other problem the RN may have is that if the RAF walked away from JFH tomorrow there would be a (significant) manpower problem. There are a lot of Dark Blue 'appointments', at most ranks and almost all, if not all, trades and branches that are either gapped or filled by Light Blue. The manning is certainly not a 50/50 split (as was originally envisaged). Last time I looked it was more like 65/35 split in favour of Light Blue.

As discussed on previous threads I think both GR9 and GR4 will take hits - most likely, IMHO, is that they will both be drawn down quicker / steeper / earlier [take your pick of one or all of the options] than previously planned (despite signing of recent support contracts which will almost certainly have a +/- figure on target output requirement to allow for such things to happen).

[FireAxe]

There seems to be a bit of 'if they can't aford it, tough!' on the RN. IMHO I believe that one of the best ways to project power is to park a carrier of the coast. You are not relient on bases, tankers etc... No force is funded sufficiently and who knows what will happen in the next 50yrs(life of CVF) but they are trying to maintain/develop the skills necessary for carrier ops. The RAF wouldn't bother as its all sexy FJ for them so to lose such a useful capability(cvf with all/most of the toys) is shortsighted in the extreem. They are attempting to keep it going until the Dave comes along. In the big scheme of things its not that much compared to other money being spent but maintains a limited skill base.
I am not particularly biased for the RN(am aircrew in RAF) but I recognise the advantages a CVF could bring, even in deterrance and flexibility it would prove its worth. Would the Falklands happened if we had the Ark Royal.
It is not the fault of the RN that they are not funded enough, yes they have big projects but so do the RAF, how many SH could we get for some Typhoons but we need all those currently for AD but are we more likely in the future to use Typhoon in the UKAD role or an operational CVF somewhere in the world. Big stick etc. Standing by to be shot down in flames!:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

what will happen in the next 50yrs(life of CVF)

The RN, unlike the USN, do not have a track record of keeping ships for 50 years, Victory excepted.

While 2nd user navies seem to keep our discards for that 50 year life the RN seems to update over 25 years or so. This contrasts with the RAF where 40 years plus seems to be becoming the norm.

[FireAxe]

Fair point Pontius, however the majority of the British carriers were based initially on WW2 or immediate aftermath designs where they were unable to stand the test of time through rapid advances in the jet age. Even the USA retired the last of her 40s era ship Midway in the early 90s and she was extensively modernised(go see her in San Degio a fantastic museum!) most well before then. The CVF should(hopefully) be designed for longevity in mind unlike any other previous British carrier, Ark being the most capable sat half completed in the yards for years. The Invincibles were simply not designed as such. CVF could be a fantastic asset however with constant scrimping and scraping I fear 'the lack of quality remains long after the thrill of the low price has faded', has not been heard in HM Treasury.
Maybe we should give them with a don't come back for 50 yrs tag!!!!

[Pontius Navigator]

FireAxe, you are right about the Ark, she was laid down in '44 and was just down the hill from us. I remember sitting in the front bedroom window watching the Queen Mum drive passed after she had launched her. Rust bucket from the word go.

Hopefully you will be right about the QEs although I hope I won't be around to say "I told you so".

[jordanpolonijo]

As an RN fan from a distance it seems these are very testing times for our once galiant Navy.

Head of Royal Navy: capability to maintain global security 'at risk' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6205166/Head-of-Royal-Navy-capability-to-maintain-global-security-at-risk.html)

[Father Jack Hackett]

Would it be churlish of me to contend that we are all falling into the divide-and-conquer trap of Labour and their Treasury by arguing amongst ourselves about what we can afford to lose, when actually we've lost enough already and we've already been reduced to the minimum constituent parts of a credible air force (for a nation of our size and standing)? If not somewhat less even?

[Pontius Navigator]

Father Jack, not really.

We know we are broke and cannot afford what we have let alone what we want. It follows that something has to go.

Now the majority of us are of a single colour and will naturally have our prefered concepts and ideas. Some of us may have coloured specs too.

But is we, as a potentially educated and defence orientated group don't thrash these things then it would be left to a few individuals who may be neither defence orientated nor educated.

I submit we are but a mirror of what is happening in RUSI, IISS and other groups.

[Father Jack Hackett]

PN,

I would agree that Pprune represents a vibrant talking shop, with some serious commentators with interesting things to say. I would also agree with the contention that although you could say we're a "special interest group", we should be cogniscent of the wider issues facing the nation, particularly the parlous state of the national finances.

Nevertheless, my personal opinion is (and I know that I'm less than neutral) that the number 1 responsibility of a national government is the defence of that nation and it's interests at home and abroad. Health, welfare, education, are all very important but nonetheless secondary priorities. If we don't have enough jets, helis, boots, anti-IED countermeasures, frigates, NVGs, armoured vehicles or whatever is needed to provide a rounded defence capability then Treasury priorities need to be recalibrated.

Defence is rarely a vote-winner but sometimes the government needs to stand tough when the man on the street wants more schools and hospitals, but needs a bit more spending on his country's defence. They found a fortune to bale out the banks, not because it was particularly popular with the general public, but necessary for the nation's well-being. I believe the same principle should apply to defence.

Father Jack

[soddim]

The idea that this country can continue to 'project power' is ridiculous. We have to come to grips with reality - we are no longer capable of operating as a world power and we must cut our coat according to the cloth.

By continuing to act as if we were still 'Great' Britain we run the risk of creating conflict that reaches our homeland. If we attract that threat can we afford to deal with it or would we rather have free education and healthcare?

How many terrorist attacks has Switzerland had?

What do we really want from our defence budget? Is it to defend UK or to project power?

[Modern Elmo]

By continuing to act as if we were still 'Great' Britain we run the risk of creating conflict that reaches our homeland.

Why? Why must Britain continue to take in more and more Muslim residents? What's so 'Great' about open borders?