Telegraph - Tucano a well-armed and reconnaissance-capable aircraft?

[Spartacan]

It makes you wonder just how much the average hack really understands his subject:

Whitehall's civil war will decide our place in the world - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7033237/Whitehalls-civil-war-will-decide-our-place-in-the-world.html)

>>>Why not use the Tucano instead – a propeller-driven, well-armed and reconnaissance-capable aircraft? After all, you could buy 16 – an entire squadron – for the cost of one Eurofighter Typhoon.

Needless to say, the other Services have a fair distance to travel before they accept this point. I put the Tucano option to RAF commanders at their headquarters in High Wycombe a year ago and was met with snorts of derision from a community whose jets clock up the cost of a Ferrari on every sortie over Afghanistan.<<<

[vecvechookattack]

Whilst you clearly cannot defend this country with a handful of training aircraft the thrust of the article is spot on. The Armed Forces are in desperate need of a defence review. WE have little direct or guidance, poor leadership but above all we have the worlds worst procurement process which has a sole aim of keeping inadequate civil servants in a job.

[CirrusF]

I thought Stanhope's arguments were weak - he mentioned Falklands three times - presumably he has actually heard of not basing defence policy on yesterday's wars? It was noticable also that he did not mention RN contribution to humanitarian aid in recent years - presumably because he did not wish to highlight the glaring absence of the RN in the current Haiti emergency.

I think CGS is definitely winning the argument here.

[Finnpog]

We had the Mixed Fighter Force concept in the 80's using the Hawk - why not consider it for COIN.

Grey & Green TWU Hawks from Chivenor & Brawdy were often pictured back then with SNEBs and Aden pods.

http://www.drivearchive.co.uk/xplanes/valley/ybk7.jpg

I know that the world has moved on a bit...but it isn't any worse an option than some of the other concepts knocking about.

A good point that all the FJ folks have already got time on type.

(If we win the lottery, maybe even invest in a fixed Har / SHAR-stylee AAR probe (:eek:) and upgrade the frame & wheels like the Goshawk?)

[Melchett01]

CirrusF - actually I think a lot of CGS' thinking is muddled and reminds me of the tactic of throwing a lot of mud in the hope that something will stick.
As discussed on the other defence at a crossroads thread, if CGS thinks high tech cyber war is the way ahead then you don't need thousands and thousands of line infantry.

As for the Tucano, it appears to me to be a nice idea, but simplistic thinking designed to appease the RAF by offering the chance to get a lot of airframes for the price of a couple of Typhoons. Yes it would be cheap, easy to operate, simple to maintain, cheap etc etc. But is the Tucano a well armed recce platform? Well I can't comment with any great authority on is it well armed - that is very much a relative question. Well armed in comparison to what? In comparison to a King Air then possibly. In comparison to a traditional CAS platform, then definitely not.

As a recce platform? It probably has a limited utility as an NTISR platform rather than a recce platform - you might fit a Tucano to a RAPTOR pod, but you certainly aren't fitting a RAPTOR pod to a Tucano! And whilst using Tucano as an NTISR platform will provide some sort of capability it will not be in the same ball park as a traditional recce sensor producing high resolution exploitable imagery. Remeber - you can collect all the happy snaps you like, but if they aren't exploitable then you may as well not have bothered.

In short if it's Tucano or nowt, then I'd go with the Tucano. But it wouldn't be my primary choice for either mission profile.

[Evalu8ter]

We've round this particular buoy a few times. The debate over sacrificing small quantities of "high end" platforms to purchase a larger number of "low end" platforms optimised to fight "the war" has been played out on here with mention to Texan II (which the Iraqis and USN seem to be buying for COIN/NTISR roles), the proposed resurrection of the OV-10 Bronco and the even more unrealistic option of re-starting A10 production. Our Tucanos would need to be re-winged for hardpoints; if you're going to buy in new capability then go for the AT-6 - the works already been done to arm it and put a FLIR on it. As for Hawk, well it is a UK product, but how much weaponry would it really be able to put on a target? Something like an AMX might be better. We could dust off the single seat Hawk - that could do point defence quite well in the UK too. How about buying up all those Hunters? 4xADENs could be quite handy in the CAS role.....

I'm surprised that their airships haven't been more supportive; the more squadrons they have, the more command positions they need and the more senior officer posts it generates. However, they do seem utterly welded to the Typhoon can do it all mantra - and this is exactly what CGS/Dannat et al are exploiting. This determination to stick to the high-tech toys, and justify it by constantly talking up a resurgent Russia and China, is providing ample ammunition to the RAF's opponents who can quite rightly point out that the Typhoon isn't stopping soldiers being killed in Theatre, thereby engendering public sympathy to their cause. In a recession, the public want to see the most economical use of their tax contributions; I don't think we in the RAF are playing this very well at the most senior levels.

[airborne_artist]

It was suggested a while back that Tucano was a great COIN platform. Apart from the fact that no one Tucano is the same as the next one, as they were all hand-built, and vary by several inches, there are hot and high issues, payload/loiter time issues, and then the whole problem of introducing a new fleet, getting guys CR on them, and so on.

Add in the fact that it's knack-all good for anything else, and you have a solution that'll spend much of its life looking for a problem, unless there just happens to be twenty-five years of COIN tasking.

Hang on - didn't someone say we'll be in Afg for 30 years? :E

[Melchett01]

The Hawk idea mentioned by Finnpog is probably the most sensible of the various concepts. With a bit of spending now, funding from the Typhoon T3 lines, you could probably buy 2 or 3 Hawk 200s for the price of one Typhoon.

It should be able to fulfil most if not all of the requirements for CAS, probably recce too if there was a simultaneous purchase of gen 3 RAPTOR which is much smaller than the version we currently ues. And as it's multirole, there's no reason why we couldn't go back to the mixed fleet concept of arming Hawks / Typhoons for UK air defence.

Hey presto - satisfy the requirements for Afghanistan, UK, and potentiall trg all in one platform. It'll never catch on!

[knowitall]

"you could probably buy 2 or 3 Hawk 200s for the price of one Typhoon."

where's the extra manpower coming from?


Surely the armed tucano would be a better suited to be a cheaper alternative to the apache as opposed to fast jets?

[Melchett01]

"you could probably buy 2 or 3 Hawk 200s for the price of one Typhoon."

where's the extra manpower coming from?


Probably the crews already factored into T3 of Typhoon manning plot, those F3, Jag, GR9 and 15 GR4 crews that are still floating around the system (those that haven't PVRd / left at options) and being drawing flying pay for flying a desk.

Tucano is a nice idea, but when you take into account the need to buy it, fit it for wpns, test it, incorporate DAS, bring it in to service, get it to Afghan, realise you can't actually carry much in Afghan's hot / high conditions, realise that it isn't as quick as you thought it might be and that you can't also fulfil the UK AD role like you could with the Hawk 200 or similar, then the Tucano has a lot of issues it needs to get past before it could even be considered.

[Dan Winterland]

The Embraer Super Tucano just about fits the description. The Shorts doesn't. The option was there to fit it with hard points like the export version, but it was delivered during the Conventional Forces Europe regulations and would have risked being classified as a combat aircraft if it had.

The only viable option is a new purchase of Super Tucanos. which isn't beyond the realms of impossibility.

[Brian Abraham]

Updated with the latest, eg laser etc, the answer.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/A-1H_602SOS_Jun1970.jpg

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Although I’m paid to view these things through dark blue glasses, I do become irritated by the recurrent hamster wheel arguments about Typhoons.

They have been ordered and the funds are committed (not that Commitment seems to matter much in the new and clever RAB world). If, in the event, we can’t or won’t pay for them, the contract and the Contractor will ensure that we do effectively pay for them. To sell on used or new machines, the price would need to be a fraction of that originally paid and would not make long term financial sense. You will note that I used 2 (well, 2 sets of 2, actually) words there that are alien to British Government; “long term” and “financial sense”.

The Typhoon is being built and is available at a stable price now. The Lines won’t stay open much longer than the final production batch needs. Keeping empty Lines open/available is possible but would make the product price so high that it would make no financial sense. The Lines also need other component Lines in 4 different Countries.

The Typhoon can be expected to be in service for around 50 years. In that time, aircraft will be lost or otherwise written off. Can we guess how many? If deterrence fails and we use them in action (or even just using them for CAS on current Ops), there will probably be losses and reserves will be needed to maintain momentum. With that in mind, why are we so dismissive and critical of the numbers ordered?

What’s that old Yorkshire saying? buy cheap and buy twice?

With regard to Thomas Harding; has Lewis Page taken to using a pen name?

[Gainesy]

Right then, as is traditional in this oft-repeated, done-to-death thread, its time for some banker to suggest the DH Mossie with Trent engines or similar bolleaux.

My solution, f-off big Chally II with each FOB/patrol.
Oh and napalm, lotsa napalm.

[Jackonicko]

Deliverance,

Go back to your Geography homework. You shouldn't be using school computers to post on internet bulletin boards.

Typhoon an 'air-to-air only F-16'?

Twit.

[Jackonicko]

GBZ,

He's not quite as deranged as Page, but he has a similar military background, giving him next to no appreciation of air or sea, and making him more open to these army centric stupidities.

[Jackonicko]

Even in these times, with no airborne threat at all from hijackers, terrorists, or a resurgent nationalist Russia .... oh, ok, wait, start again.....

Without sarcasm:

The primary reason that Typhoon is not being used in the A-G role is that UK AD, QRA and the Falklands has been calculated as requiring five frontline AD squadrons. We have two frontline Typhoon squadrons, and one F3 unit, so they're (how shall we put it?) just a little busy at the moment.

And it has to be said that while an 'austere' A-G capability that pairs Litening III with EPWII, PWII, strafe and dumb 1,000-lb bombs may be a little bit limited, PWIV, Brimstone, and Storm Shadow are on the way.

And the existing capability gives a capability against time sensitive and moving targets that certain foreign Omni Role fighters don't have, because they don't have an LDP.

It wasn't the words 'for now' that I had an issue with, it was the risibly stupid and schoolboy twaddle comparing Typhoon with F-16. Air-to-air there is no comparison, and air-to-ground, its critics too often confuse a lack of numerical capacity with what they assume to be a lack of operational capability.

Take 100 lines, copied from AP3000, each word in an alternating colour, order red, blue, green, black.....

[Four Types]

Tucano = Typhoon Under Cover And No Overspend

[Jumping_Jack]

I note that today's Times has now jumped on this particular bandwagon.....:rolleyes:

[hval]

:oh:

Or, as we aren't allowed to mention the Mosquito, what about SE5's?

Give them to 56 Sqn, watch the phoenix rise and give Istar to some one else.

Sorry, it is Friday though.

Hval

[melmothtw]

airpolice,

A few things wrong with your thinking:

You say: "I'm not saying they are coming before Easter, but if they did, we're in no position to stop them."
This is not true. The Typhoons would be more than a match for anythig the Argentines could put up against them (they have not recieved any new combat aircraft since before 1982). I know quantity has a quality all its own, but the FAA wouldn't even get close. They know this too which is probably why they raised such a stink when they were deployed. Also, their navy would not put to sea as they have no way to counter the UK's nuclear submarines.

With no air or sea dominance (or even parity) they wouldn't be so stupid as to try and invade.

Secondly, you say: " Since the US didn't help us the last time, it's fair to expect them not to help us next time."
Again, you're wrong. They did help by allowing us to dip into NATO stocks of the latest Sidewinder missile which allowed for shots other than directly behind. This missile was the main reason for the Sea Harrier's success. Satellite imagery was also provided and they offered us the use of an aircraft carrier but this was turned down for political reasons. It is fair to assume that such 'behind the scenes' help would again be offered if needed.


Again; "Losing one Typhoon would be a huge hole in the air defence cover, but losing one Hawk out of maybe four or five times as many Hawks as Typhoons would be less of an issue." The point is that the FAA wouldn't get close enough to take down any Typhoons. If it were Hawks they were up against it would be a very different story.

[cokecan]

Melmothtw...''With no air or sea dominance (or even parity) they wouldn't be so stupid as to try and invade.''

from what i recall, they didn't have parity - or anything like it - last time, yet they still went for it.

i accept that there is a force on the islands where there wasn't last time, however the Argies still chose to go up against a power with long range strategic bombers, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, the second biggest fleet in NATO, and a fearsomely trained and respected army - i somehow fail to see why anybody thinks that cold hard logic (the idea that 'they wouldn't be that stupid') is neccessarily part of the Argentine political decision making process when applied to the islands. i think people utterly fail to see the 'glistening eyes' effect in Argentina (particularly when the economy is in the ****ter) whenever an on-the-ropes politician starts banging on about 'las Malvinas' and how suddenly, all else is forgiven...

four airframes, while very good airframes, is still only four airframes - they will at some stage run out of missiles/go U/S and need to land, and it wouldn't take a professor of air supremacy to devise a situation where the four aircraft were kept busy chasing wild geese and then forced to re-arm/re-fuel while a main force carried out an attack that effectively neutralised them.

i would contend that while the RAF would probably win any air battle, i fear it would be rather closer than we would like - and given that a 'reforger' type operation would take rather longer than what remains of the AAF flying home, refueling and picking up more missiles for a return match, four airframes isn't enough. Typhoons if possible, GR4's as a dedicated strike force if not...

[melmothtw]

"Melmothtw...''With no air or sea dominance (or even parity) they wouldn't be so stupid as to try and invade.''

from what i recall, they didn't have parity - or anything like it - last time, yet they still went for it."

They didn't have parity in 1982, they had superiority - no UK air or naval presence and only a token force of marines and local territorial unit.

They didn't think we would fight last time (and so were only concerned with UK assets already in theatre). I think they probably know better now...

[cornish-stormrider]

To all those who doubt the Argies invasion plans -
Would you care to wager anything on that??

Say a few thousand loyal British Subjects, or how about mineral rights....

running everything else down to desperately fund the current coin war is a mistake. Any cash saved over and above the minimums that the lying bast4rd's' would spend would be lost in the give all our cash to lazy git scheme.

I don't disagree that we need to fund the war properly, I do disagree we need to hamsting everything else to give the illusion of funding it.

We need to stand together and say NO to the mandarins in whitehall, but then - I think that would take a leader and not a yes man or an empire builder.

In real terms the forces have been cut (in terms of numbers) by how much and for how long?

Need I say anymore

[melmothtw]

I don't disagree with you that running everything else down to fund COIN is a mistake, I'm just saying that Argentina will not invade the Falklands again (not in my lifetime at least).

And yes, I would be happy to place a wager on it (although quite how I would claim on such a bet as until they do invade the bet is still live!)

[North Front]

Notwithstanding the excellent debate on Falkands Islands defence, the Tucano/Typhoon debate misses one huge point (at least). That is - the Typhoons are paid for! We (the UK) have been trying to get out of buying our allocation for years but our unique procurement system has contracted us into a place where it is more expensive not to buy something! perhaps Gen Richards would like to identify the Rifle Battalion he wishes disbanded to pay for some new Tucanos.

We are unable to afford inflexible assets - ie something that can only operate in a benign environment - we have to be able to cover the whole spectrum of possible war. As for FJs being inflexible, isn't the valuable CAS support to TICs currently being very effectively provided by an aircraft purchased for low level IMC nuclear strike?

Bottom line - in an ideal world COIN platforms would be nice - given no ganja to smoke we'd better manage with what we've got!

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Would you care to wager anything on that??

Say a few thousand loyal British Subjects, or how about mineral rights....


Ah, mineral rights. They will count for sod all if we are denied free access to them. The Argentineans are unlikely to be happy with the situation near their sea area and will, undoubtedly, probe and harass by every means available too them. If we think about the more Southern Atlantic, it may not just be Argentina we need worry about. To date, the Army remains unable to walk on water, so may not be that useful in asserting our National interests.

Anyway, this has sod all to do with Tucanos (a Brazilian aeroplane from a Nation that might become sympathetic to Argentina).

[Dan Winterland]

"Anyway, this has sod all to do with Tucanos (a Brazilian aeroplane from a Nation that might become sympathetic to Argentina)."

They famously weren't in the last spat.

[barnstormer1968]

Dan Winterland

I take your above point, but can we rely on the Brazilians to be any good if they help us?

I seem to remember that they could not even spell the name of their air force correctly on their canberra's during the last spat :E

[TEEEJ]

Barnstormer,

You have mixed up Brazil and Chile. Brazil didn't operate the Canberra.
It wasn't the Chilean Canberras that had the spelling mistake on them but the RAF Hercules in country.

The Chief of the Chilean Air Force at the time of the conflict, General Fernando Matthei, revealed the following during a documentary.

"RAF C-130 with electronic intelligence equipment flew from the Pacific via Easter Island disgused as Chilean Air Force aircraft. This was done on the premise they had to fly between internal destinations within Chile collecting intelligence. The aircraft were noted by the misspelling of the Fuerza Area de Chile."

The Chilean documentary is available in Spanish on You Tube. Unfortunately not subtitled.

1/6
YouTube - Chile y su participacion en Malvinas (1/6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzIaCbwt10c)

2/6
YouTube - Chile y su participacion en Malvinas (2-6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD8OI2co4jg)

3/6
YouTube - Chile y su participacion en Malvinas (3-6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tU9OYiLjW0)

4/6
YouTube - Chile y su participacion en Malvinas (4-6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdu42R3-8X8)

5/6
YouTube - Chile y su participacion en Malvinas (5-6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnQwqJK7Ba4)

6/6
YouTube - Chile y su participacion en Malvinas (6-6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YFOwCAGiUk)

TJ

[alemaobaiano]

The latest Super Tucano is a superb aircraft, good range, excellent flying characteristics, great weapons capability, designed for a datalink environment and considerable cheaper than a Typhoon, BUT that doesn't mean it can fulfil the roles allocated to the Typhoon :ugh:

If it really was that capable why is Brazil currently running the FX2 program? Brazil is a relatively poor country, so this line of thinking should lead us to Super Tucanos, yet the government is planning to spend billions on the Gripen/Rafale/F18 aircraft when Embraer apparently builds the answer to our problem right here in Sao Jose dos Campos. Don't forget that the Typhoon was also considered for FX2 in the early stages.

Barnstormer, Brazil's armed forces are quite capable and reasonably well equipped in all branches, retaining a large cadre of long term professionals, so yes, IF they decided to help they would be a very useful ally. However, in the extremely unlikely event of a second Argentine invasion of the Falklands, Brazil will do what Brazil normally does in these situations, and that is keep out of it.



TTFN

[rmac]

Not sure if I go along with the general trend of opinion in this thread.

Seems to be that there is a wish to reduce or even eliminate elements of our strategic defence in favour of higher spending on tactical equipment to strengthen our efforts in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

The AQ threat may be real but our response is really rather pointless, wherever we invade, they will dissappear elsewhere (like from Afghanistan to Yemen) and leave us and the by now very pissed off indigenous population to fight it out. We will then bleed money, equipment and of course Trained manpower, very slowly but very steadily with a cumulative effect on our operational capability to defend ourself when it really matters.

I hope that this is an accidental outcome of our own stupidity and not a result of clever planning by OBL and AQ, otherwise we really are fu**ed.

The planet is undergoing some seismic shifts in power and influence with a strong emerging Asia, particularly China, of course and western politicians don't seem to find anything odd about mortgaging our economies to an upcoming rival to fund a totally pointless (but bravely fought) regional military operation.

At the same time, some very unpromising and unreliable political systems are getting their hands on nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile we have narrowly escaped by the skin of our teeth from global financial meltdown, and historically this kind of financial meltdown has given way to wars resulting in staggering levels of death and destruction (that would make 9/11, 7/7 and anything else that AQ could pull off, look like a quiet afternoon on the front).

On another thread there is discussion that we will be giving up our nuclear deterrent. This would be a disaster. By all means give up trident, but giving up nukes altogether while the Pakistanis, Indians, N. Koreans and others are only just getting their hands on them, what the hell would we be doing ??

Would we be relying on the US ? have they not shown that their only real interest is the US ?

And related to this thread, I have read somewhere (correct me if I am wrong) that JSF has been ACM with up to five F18 against one JSF, and it has ended with a 5-0 JSF victory, before the F18's could even find the JSF.

So you could put up 50 Hawks against new technologies and they would all be splashed before they knew WTF was going on. Broadswords against Musket, Bows and Arrows against Rifles, Cavalry against Machine Guns, Blenheims and Defiants against Messerschmidts (that worked out well didn't it :ugh:) technology moves on guys, so must we.

We need to work out what possible real threats of the future will be and prepare ourselves to fight the most dangerous ones and not allow our treasury and our budget to be deflected in to focusing on an expensive, painful but ultimately ineffective sideshow.

Rmac

[cornish-stormrider]

Well put RMAC.

And the only way to do that is to increase investment not shrink it. To increase it we must cut a bit off some of Noo Liarbors Bullsh*t vote earning programs from the masses.

[barnstormer1968]

Hi TEEEJ.
Thanks for the correction. That will teach me to post when I am tired!

Now you have said it, it's pretty obvious it was Chile, and I must admit it was even a pretty thick error, even going by my usual standards:}

I had still thought this applied to the Canberras too, especially as the number of Canberras in Chile's inventory rose after the conflict (done as a thank you from our PM so rumour has it).

[TEEEJ]

Hi Barnstormer,
No problem. The problem with the Fuerza Aerea De Chile titles is that the Chilean Canberra wouldn't have carried them.

Airfix Canberra PR9 - Fuerza Aérea de Chile (http://gregers.7.forumer.com/a/airfix-canberra-pr9-fuerza-area-de-chile_post10214.html)

The Argentine Air Force Canberras on the other hand carried large titles.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Canberra_Bomber_B-108.jpeg

The Chilean documentary along with the Hercules also mentions the Nimrods in Chile. No mention of any Canberras being operated in country by the RAF during the conflict.

TJ

[Caspian237]

Perhaps Gen Richards is on to something. How about instead of buying Tucanos the UK buys ex Argentinian Air Force FMA IA 58 Pucaras which seem to be of similiar calibre in the COIN/CAS role as the Tucano? That way we get some nice cheap propeller aircraft to send to Southern Asia while Argentina can spend the money on updating its airforce with modern Russian built jets just as their friend Hugo Chavez has done in Venezuela

Mischief aside, I think the UK should retain a balanced military force and not simply become a Division of the US Army. That will entail either increasing the defence budget or reducing commitiment in Afghanistan so that we can properly equip the troops that are in the theatre. Halving the number of deployed soldiers would still leave us with more troops on the ground than the next largest contributor Germany.

[barnstormer1968]

TEEEJ

Check your PM's please.


I've sorted out my error, but don't want to pull the thread off topic too much.

[Jackonicko]

Though the New Statesman reported that RAF Canberra PR9s DID operate from Chile during the war (and that they were spotted at Punta Arenas by Jon Snow), this may not be true. They were certainly destined to operate from Chile (which was not then a Canberra operator) but the aircraft apparently got only as far as Belize, where re-painting in Chilean markings may have begun.

There was also a proposal to fit an AAR probe (one aircraft may have trialled this, according to a then PR9 mate) for ops from somewhere else (South Africa?).

Chile got a shed-load of Hunters and three PR9s after the war, as a 'thank you'.