Time for a UK SEAD/DEAD Capability?

[Lima Juliet]

I’ve just been reading about the new Typhoon ECR. “Eurofighter ECR will be able to provide passive emitter location as well as active jamming of threats, and will offer a variety of modular configurations for electronic attack (EA) and suppression/destruction of enemy air defence (SEAD/DEAD). Latest national escort jammer technology will ensure national control over features such as mission data and data analysis. The concept also features a new twin-seat cockpit configuration with a multi-function panoramic touch display and a dedicated mission cockpit for the rear-seat.”

Is it time for the UK to have a SEAD/DEAD capability like others now have? Especially, as potential adversaries invest in higher end SAM capabilities and the RAF has gone from Low Level to Med/High Level tactics? SDSR20 anyone?


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1408/ee8776f8_a65b_4a1b_8832_1a2f429ae4e9_33655cccf85dabf4da1cb2c d5868f816050f3a29.jpeg

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/900x1200/879e2079_5d1c_4bc5_92d4_d722398c6ee1_933f7739deccdcadb30ac6d 5539e3e47f5aa8926.jpeg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x579/49f7b4f8_25d8_454f_8711_dc83906c7fee_fae93f0c4fc99efa40fd8fe d9568b5a1ade2ca64.jpeg

[Easy Street]

We are getting a SEAD/DEAD capability: F-35, when it eventually gets Spear 3 (https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/spear-3/). The Typhoon concept is for nations who aren't in the 5th gen club. Perhaps some additional stand-off jamming support would be useful in a large-scale op, but then that's what NATO burden sharing is for...

[ORAC]

Maybe next time round - and without a GIB....

Alert 5 » Leonardo UK demonstrates new RWR technology for Tempest - Military Aviation News (http://alert5.com/2019/12/19/leonardo-uk-demonstrates-new-rwr-technology-for-tempest)

[cokecan]

Easy Street said it - Typhoon ECR is an also ran prize for people who don't buy F-35.

an F-35 with a slack handful of SPEAR 3 and SPEAR 3/EW is going to be a far more capable SEAD/EW aircraft than any Typhoon ever built. personally i think we ought to go further and look at the lessons of ALARM vs HARM and develop a high speed, long range, but COST, SEAD missile - we already have a high speed missile body that will fit into the F-35B, lets put an Anti-Radiation seeker and guidence system on METEOR and Bob will be your Mums' gentleman caller...

the USN are developing the Next Generation Jammer pod to go on the E/A-18G to support F-35C/B operations - the obvious question will be whether it could be operated on an F-35B....

[pr00ne]

Those two UK F-35 Lightning squadrons are really going to have to go some! Replacements for Tornado force, replacements for Sea Harrier and now a replacement for the Tornado EF3 capability...

[Rhino power]

Those two UK F-35 Lightning squadrons are really going to have to go some... ...and now a replacement for the Tornado EF3 capability...

Not so much, the Tornado EF.3 lasted barely 18months, iirc, before the SEAD capability was removed/cancelled. The GR.1/4 carried ALARM from introduction until it was removed from the inventory in 2013 though...

-RP

[Bob Viking]

Knowing Proone, I would hazard a guess that his EF3 reference may have been a slightly tongue in cheek suggestion.

BV

[Lima Juliet]

With the pitiful range/endurance of the F35B, I don’t think so. So we would need to buy F35A (and some boom tankers) to do the SEAD/DEAD role or the better, and more expensive, F35C (which at least can use a drogue tanker). But these assets are EXPENSIVE compared to Typhoon ECR or aircraft like EA-18G Growler. Note that the RAAF ordered their Growlers around the same time as their F35As and see them as “complementary” to the F35A mission?

Then there are many articles like this that suggest that F35 needs a SEAD/DEAD and EW aircraft to support it’s mission: https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-needs-electromagnetic-cover-from-growlers-2014-4?r=US&IR=T (https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-needs-electromagnetic-cover-from-growlers-2014-4?r=US&IR=T)

As for range of the F35B - any truth in the rumour that the aircraft that took off from the QE this week had to ‘gas and go’ at Brize to get to Marham? :E

[BVRAAM]

With the pitiful range/endurance of the F35B, I don’t think so. So we would need to buy F35A (and some boom tankers) to do the SEAD/DEAD role or the better, and more expensive, F35C (which at least can use a drogue tanker). But these assets are EXPENSIVE compared to Typhoon ECR or aircraft like EA-18G Growler. Note that the RAAF ordered their Growlers around the same time as their F35As and see them as “complementary” to the F35A mission?

Then there are many articles like this that suggest that F35 needs a SEAD/DEAD and EW aircraft to support it’s mission: https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-needs-electromagnetic-cover-from-growlers-2014-4?r=US&IR=T (https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-needs-electromagnetic-cover-from-growlers-2014-4?r=US&IR=T)

As for range of the F35B - any truth in the rumour that the aircraft that took off from the QE this week had to ‘gas and go’ at Brize to get to Marham? :E

The F-35C has an almost identical range and endurance to the B model - it's significantly heavier so burns more, so I don't follow your reasoning other than internal payload capacity? It's also the most expensive - the Treasury won't like that part.

F-35A is surely the most sensible choice? 9G (as opposed to 7.5G), longer endurance, internal gun.....

It's for the money and aeronautical geeks to decide if it's cheaper to modify the A with a refuelling probe, than it is to upgrade Voyager with a boom and train a cadre of boom operators.

[vascodegama]

LJ

Where was the boat if the extra distance from BZN to MAR was significant I wonder?


BVRAAM

I suspect that the greatest cost would be the change to the contract!

[Lima Juliet]

BVRAAM

The range and endurance of the B model is most definitely NOT “almost identical” to the C model!


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/616x462/image_419460e347b489b6b409f394f858b7495b1d41a4.jpeg

[BVRAAM]

Apologies - I got the range and combat radius mixed up according to a table based on data provided by this publication:

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/18-F-1016_DOC_44_DOD_F-35_SAR_Dec_2017.pdf

Still, the A model makes the most sense if the refuelling issue can be worked out. It's also the better looking version.

[Easy Street]

With the pitiful range/endurance of the F35B, I don’t think so. So we would need to buy F35A (and some boom tankers) to do the SEAD/DEAD role or the better, and more expensive, F35C (which at least can use a drogue tanker). But these assets are EXPENSIVE compared to Typhoon ECR or aircraft like EA-18G Growler. Note that the RAAF ordered their Growlers around the same time as their F35As and see them as “complementary” to the F35A mission?

Then there are many articles like this that suggest that F35 needs a SEAD/DEAD and EW aircraft to support it’s mission: https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-needs-electromagnetic-cover-from-growlers-2014-4?r=US&IR=T (https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-needs-electromagnetic-cover-from-growlers-2014-4?r=US&IR=T)

You won’t get any disagreement from me on the A vs B question, but only the most hardcore FAA types want the UK to take all 138 F-35s as B-models. The question is ‘when’ there will be some A-models, not ‘if’ and they will have the extra legs needed to do SEAD/DEAD CAPs in support of their dumpy brethren.

Must admit, I’m sceptical about the whole concept of anti-radiation missiles these days. Modern SAM barely need to emit at all when fully networked. Location by ‘other means’ and targeting on coordinates, with active millimetric radar for terminal accuracy as per Spear 3 and AARGM, strikes me as a better concept.

Then there is the question of why bother with SEAD when you can sneak in and destroy the targets which actually matter... or lob these (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/anglo-french-future-anti-ship-weapon-passes-key-review/) in from a safe distance. And finally I think you’d be very surprised at the relative cost of Typhoon (at a time where each order for a handful of new aircraft means keeping production facilities open for longer) versus F-35 (where unit costs are falling as the committed order book grows).

And finally finally... stand-off jamming, yes. But as I stated, we’ve got to leave some jobs for our NATO colleagues to do, and this is a good one to leave for the Germans given their reluctance to do anything too offensive.

[Wensleydale]

Back in the day at Nav School at Finningley, a somewhat gullible member of our course was spoofed into believing that a "Wild Weasel" two seat Jaguar was shortly to enter service with the RAF (this after a presentation about EW in the Vietnam War). Needless to say that when the "Dream Sheet" form, where you put down your preference for posting, appeared a few days later, his first choice was (in big capital letters to make it stand out - another suggestion from our course comic) the said Wild Weasel Jaguars. Inevitably, he disappeared from training shortly afterwards and was later discovered in Air Traffic Control.

[Asturias56]

I'm trying to think of a situation where the RAF would need a stand-alone SEAD/DEAD capability when there are only 5 squadrons of fighters in service - and a drizzle of F-35's slowly arriving.

Seems like we're still thinking of a "full service" air force when in fact the UK can't afford anything like that

[typerated]

I think a lot of top specialist functions are too much for a single country to maintain.

I thought for a long time if the NATO AEW force was a good model to expand.

Now we have a small scale but cross nation tanker force and a C-17 heavy lift capability - what else could go this way.
P-8 ops? Even C-130s - You could imagine Netherlands/Belgium/Denmark/Norway pooling together- with much benefit.

If each Typhoon country went for the SEAD version It would be a good idea to base them all at Leeming to use Spade but set up like TTTE at Cottesmore

[Lima Juliet]

I'm trying to think of a situation where the RAF would need a stand-alone SEAD/DEAD capability when there are only 5 squadrons of fighters in service - and a drizzle of F-35's slowly arriving.

Seems like we're still thinking of a "full service" air force when in fact the UK can't afford anything like that

Has Ms Abbott lent you her abacus?

Typhoon
1 Sqn
2 Sqn
3 Sqn
6 Sqn
9 Sqn
11 Sqn
12 Sqn
Plus 29 Sqn (biggest number of jets), plus 41 Sqn (effectively the OEU with a small number of jets)

So that is 7x FL Sqns and at least a further in reserve as the OCU/OEU.

Lightning
617 Sqn
Plus 207 Sqn (the OCU), plus 17 Sqn (the OEU)
Plus 809 Sqn for the Royal Navy

If I recall correctly, there is an intent to buy 138 F35 in total, which will mean more RAF and RN sqns are to come?

[Asturias56]

Sorry - I was talking fighter squadrons - my mistake

Delivery of the final Tranche 3 aircraft brings to an end a production run of 160 Typhoons for the RAF that began in 2003. The RAF fields eight Typhoon units with 1 (Fighter), 2 (Army Cooperation), 6, and 9 (Bomber) squadrons based at RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland; and 3 (Fighter), 11 (Fighter), and 12 (Bomber) squadrons based at RAF Coningsby in England. There is also a permanent detachment (1435 Flight) located on the Falkland Island

With the F-35 only 617 is stood up and in action and it has about 6 -8 aircraft - a pretty small squadron IMHO and the rate of new deliveries is ... "measured"

[Lima Juliet]

Ok so a total fleet of 298 Combat Air FJs (discounting T1a and T2), so why not a small fleet of Typhoon ECR (say 24) to provide a 24/7 pairs capability for high-end warfighting? Especially as the F35 is years away from having the full envisaged capability (and hence the RAAF bought Growlers along with their F35s). It makes no sense to buy Growlers for the UK as we have a Typhoon-based Combat Air fleet like the Australians are Hornet-based. As for the GIB, this mission is best done with two, unless you just want a F16CJ reactive shoot at SAMs capability (which we don’t these days as the early SAMs go out of service and are replaced by more sophisticated systems) also the ability to selectively jam various EW locally to assist the F35 mission should not be discounted (which is what the US and Australians use it for in support of F35 LO missions).

Surely, it should have at least made our shopping list?

[weemonkey]

Those two UK F-35 Lightning squadrons are really going to have to go some! Replacements for Tornado force, replacements for Sea Harrier and now a replacement for the Tornado EF3 capability...

Have they cured the lack of range considering it's the stumpy lift fan version of the family [or do the initials USMC become a cure all?]

[Lima Juliet]

Have they cured the lack of range considering it's the stumpy lift fan version of the family [or do the initials USMC become a cure all?]

Nope. I haven’t seen a UK one with external tanks either, so maybe we haven’t bought that option yet? Then again, if you fit tanks then you lose LO qualities and then you need some sort of stand-off jammer with a SEAD/DEAD capability - circular argument about the requirement? :cool:

[weemonkey]

Nope. I haven’t seen a UK one with external tanks either, so maybe we haven’t bought that option yet? Then again, if you fit tanks then you lose LO qualities and then you need some sort of stand-off jammer with a SEAD/DEAD capability - circular argument about the requirement? :cool:

Stealth aircraft with a jammer. Uhuh, just what are we paying for? ;)

[Lima Juliet]

Stealth aircraft with a jammer. Uhuh, just what are we paying for? ;)

LO/Stealth only defends at range - closer in you’ll probably need some form of jammer for last ditch manoeuvre?

[57mm]

Or a TRD, as on Tiff

[BVRAAM]

Has Ms Abbott lent you her abacus?

Typhoon
1 Sqn
2 Sqn
3 Sqn
6 Sqn
9 Sqn
11 Sqn
12 Sqn
Plus 29 Sqn (biggest number of jets), plus 41 Sqn (effectively the OEU with a small number of jets)

So that is 7x FL Sqns and at least a further in reserve as the OCU/OEU.

Lightning
617 Sqn
Plus 207 Sqn (the OCU), plus 17 Sqn (the OEU)
Plus 809 Sqn for the Royal Navy

If I recall correctly, there is an intent to buy 138 F35 in total, which will mean more RAF and RN sqns are to come?

It was reported a few years ago that the Lightning Force will have an OCU (207 Sqn), an OEU (17 Sqn), and 4 frontline Squadrons (617 Sqn, 809 NAS and another Squadron from each Service at a later date.) One presumes the third Squadron would likely stand around 2026? I was told 809 NAS will stand in mid 2022.

Of course, I don't believe for a minute that the UK will actually buy 138 F-35's. Being realistic, and given our economic uncertainty at the moment, it will be closer to 100 I suspect.

[Evalu8ter]

BVRAAM,
I think that over the service lifetime we’ll likely end up with 150+ F35 tail numbers. However, I agree that the average in-service fleet will be nearer 100. The remaining tails will be attrition and later Blocks that enable advanced capability more cheaply than upgrading older Blocks. Inevitably, there will be a blend of As and Bs.....

57mm,
Not just a TRD, but the Britecloud EAD as well....

[57mm]

Evalu8ter, thanks, omission on my part due to brain fart.

[BVRAAM]

BVRAAM,
I think that over the service lifetime we’ll likely end up with 150+ F35 tail numbers. However, I agree that the average in-service fleet will be nearer 100. The remaining tails will be attrition and later Blocks that enable advanced capability more cheaply than upgrading older Blocks. Inevitably, there will be a blend of As and Bs.....


As I said to you before elsewhere, I'd absolutely love for that to be true - the more fast jets buzzing the place, the better. I just can't see the Treasury committing to the stated maximum, much less more.
Remember, the UK ordered 250 Typhoons in a time when we had several hundred Tornado GR's and F3's, a bunch of Jags and both types of Harrier. We no longer have all of those jets and we only have just under 160 Typhoons - that's bad.
Maybe we can expect an additional Typhoon Squadron from SDSR20?

[weemonkey]

Interesting to note that London's social security budget, and I use that term loosely, is greater than that for the MoD....

[VinRouge]

Interesting to note that London's social security budget, and I use that term loosely, is greater than that for the MoD....
does that include state pensions?
Worth pointing out that income tax, corporation tax and NI from london pretty much supports the rest of the UK...

[peter we]

Interesting to note that London's social security budget, and I use that term loosely, is greater than that for the MoD....

Nice. Want to put it to a vote on which to cut?

With the pitiful range/endurance of the F35B, I don’t think so. S

Its about the same as the Growler isn't it?

[TBM-Legend]

Typically how many cabs in a UK fighter squadron?

[Evalu8ter]

TBM,
The guff around TyTAN (the IOS for Typhoon) noted that the extra Sqns were being generated through efficiencies enabling the rest of the Sqns to be 'around 12 jets'. Not sure if this is still the case…

“We will be extending the life of our multirole Typhoon for 10 extra years through to 2040, meaning we will be able to create 2 additional squadrons. This will give us a total of 7 frontline squadrons, consisting of around 12 aircraft per squadron.”

[Lima Juliet]

Its about the same as the Growler isn't it?

Nope, from the following USN website: https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1

F18E/F (the F model is very similar to the G as an airframe):
Combat Range: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 kilometers), clean plus two AIM-9s

From the graphic above the F35B has a combat range of ~450nm!

The Super Hornets have about 1/3rd more fuel than the older bog-standard Hornets that you may be thinking of.

[Harley Quinn]

Typically how many cabs in a UK fighter squadron?

Probably none on a fighter Sqn, 'cabs' usually refers to those ugly earth rejecting rotary wing things doesn't it?

[flighthappens]

Nope, from the following USN website: https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1

F18E/F (the F model is very similar to the G as an airframe):
Combat Range: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 kilometers), clean plus two AIM-9s

From the graphic above the F35B has a combat range of ~450nm!

The Super Hornets have about 1/3rd more fuel than the older bog-standard Hornets that you may be thinking of.

just make sure you aren’t comparing range and radius...

[Evalu8ter]

Harley,
I was going to suggest that equating perennially bullet-dodging air defenders with proper combat aircraft was something of a compliment actually.....;-)

[Lima Juliet]

just make sure you aren’t comparing range and radius...

Thanks for that mate. Even when range is converted to radius then the Growler is far better than F35B by roughly 200nm. Oddly enough the last short range fighter we had was called Lightning too...

[Lima Juliet]

Harley,
I was going to suggest that equating perennially bullet-dodging air defenders with proper combat aircraft was something of a compliment actually.....;-)

I thought he was talking cabs to the hotel and casino whilst the Wokka mates slum it with the Pongos in tents??? :E

[flighthappens]

Thanks for that mate. Even when range is converted to radius then the Growler is far better than F35B by roughly 200nm. Oddly enough the last short range fighter we had was called Lightning too...

I wouldn’t be so sure.

You are comparing the Super Hornet, clean, of which the single seat version has more fuel, and possibly different assumptions regarding stores expenditure, certainly drag index.

This USN website has a 850+NM range for the EA-18G when combat loaded. If you halve that you end up 425NM. ALQ99 and AGM88 are heavy and draggy, particularly when not aligned with the airflow on outward canted pylons.

https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=950&ct=1

[Lima Juliet]

I wouldn’t be so sure.

You are comparing the Super Hornet, clean, of which the single seat version has more fuel, and possibly different assumptions regarding stores expenditure, certainly drag index.

This USN website has a 850+NM range for the EA-18G when combat loaded. If you halve that you end up 425NM. ALQ99 and AGM88 are heavy and draggy, particularly when not aligned with the airflow on outward canted pylons.

https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=950&ct=1


Yes, but put the same on a F35B and you’d be lucky to get outside of the Ship’s RADAR horizon! :ok:

Also, you then have to think about whether it can VTOL back onto the boat with all that extra stuff on board and also whether it can physically carry 3x ALQ-99 (which is way more capable than the bog standard F35B’s current suite) , 2x HARMs, extra fuel tanks and then some self defence weapons. Also, ALQ-99 is due to be replaced by the ALQ-249 Next Generation Jammer (NGJ - with 2 replacing the legacy 3) within the next couple of years which is more capable and less draggy as I understand it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx-thY9ce90

[flighthappens]

Yes, but put the same on a F35B and you’d be lucky to get outside of the Ship’s RADAR horizon! :ok:

Also, you then have to think about whether it can VTOL back onto the boat with all that extra stuff on board and also whether it can physically carry 3x ALQ-99 (which is way more capable than the bog standard F35B’s current suite) , 2x HARMs, extra fuel tanks and then some self defence weapons. Also, ALQ-99 is due to be replaced by the ALQ-249 Next Generation Jammer (NGJ - with 2 replacing the legacy 3) within the next couple of years which is more capable and less draggy as I understand it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx-thY9ce90
The aircraft are complimentary, rather than competitors.

Their range/endurance is similar enough that it isn’t a fundamentally limiting factor for either when operating together, although the B is at a handicap in that dept compared to its brothers

[Lima Juliet]

The aircraft are complimentary, rather than competitors.

Their range/endurance is similar enough that it isn’t a fundamentally limiting factor for either when operating together, although the B is at a handicap in that dept compared to its brothers




Absolutely, that has been my main thrust all along. The USN and the RAAF know this, but why can’t the UK military see this - we have only bought half of the clubs for our 5th Gen golf bag!! The F35B will struggle to do what it wants to do - fly against low frequency RADARs and it will struggle with its short range. The only way to make it more useful is to put drop tanks on it (which shags the LO until they ditch the tanks) and to have an escort jammer like Growler that can suppress the capabilities of low frequency RADARs that can detect aircraft like F117, F22, F35 and B2.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x638/image_b1304e828e506fd83c40e81b8b6f651d9ba798e0.jpeg

This graphic shows the future for 5th gen Air Power (although the COMPASS CALL should be a bit further back!!).

Low Frequency RADAR vs Stealth references:
https://www.c4isrnet.com/intel-geoint/sensors/2019/09/30/stealthy-no-more-a-german-radar-vendor-says-it-tracked-the-f-35-jet-in-2018-from-a-pony-farm/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=Socialflow+C4&utm_medium=social

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/rip-f-35-and-f-22-china-claims-it-has-radar-can-detect-stealth-aircraft-59977

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/11/article/nowhere-to-hide-has-china-won-the-stealth-war/

[Asturias56]

"The USN and the RAAF know this, but why can’t the UK military see this"

I'm pretty sure they can - but the US has a far greater budget and the Australians aren't spending money on SSBN's and carriers - the money just isn't there for an all singing , all dancing air force any longer - the UK has to make choices

[Lima Juliet]

Australia spends 1.9-2% GDP on defence (Australian GDP is roughly half that of the UK). Their 3x Services are roughly half the size of ours by proportion (even the Reserves). They are actively modernising (as are we). Indeed they have bought in the last 20 years 6x COLLINS Class SSG guided missile subs (and plan to buy more ATTACK Class SSGs), they have 2x CANBERRA Class LHD helicopter carriers that are bigger than our old INVINCIBLE Class (and also made tunes to buy F35B for them in their 2004 Maritime Strategy). In recent years they have bought Super Hornets (A/B/F/G models) and F35A, plus nearly twice as many P8s and they already have the Wedgetail. Yes, they don’t have an Independent Nuclear Deterrent, but then again there has never really been a threat to the Australian mainland until recently - hence they are now modernising their defence forces. Looking at their RAAF inventory then they seem to have just about every capability that we have but about half the number - apart from MPAs where they have much more sea to cover than us. The escorting SEAD/DEAD/EW/EA is really this missing piece in the RAF’s jigsaw, which is what this post is really all about - if Australia has 11x Growlers on a Sqn, then why haven’t we got 22 on 2 Sqns?

[Asturias56]

I wouldn't bring up the Collins programme with any Australian......................

The Australians no longer build their own airframes (same with the Canberra's - built in Spain) - so can shop around for the best deal - the UK still tries to support a national capacity with aircraft and ships (and even tanks) - this is VERY expensive. The latest World Naval Review reckons the RN & Norwegian Navy's latest tankers, built in S Korea, cost approx. 33%- 50% of the cost of equivalent French built vessels and an astounding 90% less than the latest Canadian home built support vessels. It will be very interesting g to see the costs of the costs of the submarines they are buying from France but building in Adelaide - same with the new Type 31's they are planning to build locally.

The SSBN force costs around USD $2.5- 3 Bn a year but replacement will cost s a fortune

[pr00ne]

Lima Juliet,

Because it is a silly comparison. Australia does not have two SSBN nor three and a half SSN, nor does it have one 65,0000 ton aircraft carrier or 38 Chinooks or 25 Apaches.

The RAF has never operated dedicated SEAD/DEAD/EA aircraft, and even during the Cold War neither did most of NATO, it was just a niche capability provided in small numbers by the US and the Germans. And that niche capability never existed in numbers to enable it to be everywhere at once, so it was never seen as a must have by anybody.

Asturia56,

A national capability in certain defence manufacturing is seen by the UK as an essential national asset and capability, if you buy everything from overseas then you risk your foreign policy inevitably becoming dependent upon those you buy from, not very independent and not a very good example of "taking back control". You would also ruin the second largest defence and aerospace industry in the world with all the implications for employment, GDP and tax take.

[Asturias56]

Agreed Pr00ne - but that comes that at a significant cost to the UK Armed Services - I was only pointing out that buying off the shelf allows the Aussies to buy more. Their record of building in Australia is pretty dreadful TBH.

If you want to subsidise an industry maybe just subsidise it rather than channel the funds through the RAF and the RN

[Lima Juliet]

Lima Juliet,

Because it is a silly comparison. Australia does not have two SSBN nor three and a half SSN, nor does it have one 65,0000 ton aircraft carrier or 38 Chinooks or 25 Apaches.

The RAF has never operated dedicated SEAD/DEAD/EA aircraft, and even during the Cold War neither did most of NATO, it was just a niche capability provided in small numbers by the US and the Germans. And that niche capability never existed in numbers to enable it to be everywhere at once, so it was never seen as a must have by anybody.

Asturia56,

A national capability in certain defence manufacturing is seen by the UK as an essential national asset and capability, if you buy everything from overseas then you risk your foreign policy inevitably becoming dependent upon those you buy from, not very independent and not a very good example of "taking back control". You would also ruin the second largest defence and aerospace industry in the world with all the implications for employment, GDP and tax take.

Proone

Last time I looked they had 22x Eurocopter Tiger AHs, 10x Chinook, 35x Blackhawk and 40x MRH90 helicopters. I’d say that was pretty good. Also, their 2x 27T helicopter carriers that could take F35B if they put their mind to it.

As for niche capabilities for SEAD/DEAD/EA then we had EF-3 too. Torpy didn’t like it as he was frightened it would reduce the numbers of his beloved GR1/GR4 and so he poo-poo’d it for TELIC. It was way more capable than GR4 with ALARM and if we had used the EF-3 with a different Mode 4 IFF and JTIDS then the Patriot accident with the GR4 might never have happened.

[pr00ne]

Lima Juliet,

I'm sure that it is pretty good, but your claim that we should have about double the Australian capability in quantity is nonsense. We are in very different strategic situations and have vastly different needs. Didn't the EF-3 exist at flight level for less than a year? We never had SEAD/DEAD/EA before, so why in a much smaller actual war fighting force should we suddenly demand one now?

[Easy Street]

We never had SEAD/DEAD/EA before, so why in a much smaller actual war fighting force should we suddenly demand one now?

Huge advances in ground-based air defence capability are a very good reason. My objection to a dedicated SEAD/DEAD capability is not so much that we can’t afford a dedicated squadron (you’re right, we can’t) but rather that such capability needs to be inherent to our ‘regular’ combat aircraft to give them any chance of surviving. Examples? Back in the autumn, CAS announced a project to develop a jammer-equipped version of the F-35’s Spear 3 missile, presumably to provide close-in support to other weapons or aircraft. It’s also one of the reasons why so much has been invested in developing the E-scan radar for Typhoon.

LJ,

ALARM was obsolete long ago and I think the future of ESM- and ARM-based SEAD more generally is in question given the combination of improved ‘coarse’ tracking with track-via-missile SAM endgame guidance, which together mean that SAM radars spend very little time emitting (note that the HARM replacement, AARGM, has GPS and an active radar seeker on board in addition to the passive seeker). I’ll reiterate my view that Typhoon ECR is aimed at customers without stealth and/or AESA-based SAR and electronic attack.

[peter we]

I wouldn’t be so sure.
You are comparing the Super Hornet, clean, of which the single seat version has more fuel, and possibly different assumptions regarding stores expenditure, certainly drag index.
This USN website has a 850+NM range for the EA-18G when combat loaded. If you halve that you end up 425NM. ALQ99 and AGM88 are heavy and draggy, particularly when not aligned with the airflow on outward canted pylons.

https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=950&ct=1

The F-35B has a target combat radius of of 450NM but it achieves 510NM. Significantly less than the C but more the F-18

[MJ89]

What was the Tonka EF-3s actual combat range with Alarms and tanks.

Now they are even longer retired and pepsi cans.https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/740x549/tor1_main_f3ed83ad93adec8da51d23f2ab33b6f60267f4b8.jpg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x476/f3_alarm_6719e8016885602f3818dd132750db7afb9c4fbc.jpg

[57mm]

Ah yes, the 2250ltr jugs, which imposed even more stringent limits on an already severely limited aircraft. Add the DI of the ALARMs and you'd be in the admiral's barge. On the plus side, however, the RHWR was brilliantly accurate for SEAD.....

[Lima Juliet]

Ah yes, the 2250ltr jugs, which imposed even more stringent limits on an already severely limited aircraft. Add the DI of the ALARMs and you'd be in the admiral's barge. On the plus side, however, the RHWR was brilliantly accurate for SEAD.....

That EF-3 has 1500L “Mike” fit tanks on. A little more G, but a little less speed (apparently :E).

In that fit, you should be able to fly for around 2 hours or so from being topped off. So, if you used a pre-push tanker expect to go about 400-500nm into bad lands before needing to come back. Of course, if you had to ditch the tanks at the limit of that range and then fight, you might have to step over the side as you got back to base as the engines go quiet :p. So in reality I would only expect to go a couple of hundred miles ‘sausage side’ to retain some fighting fuel on task before heading back with div fuel.

[ORAC]

If you were going that deep it would only be because you were a SEAD escort for a COMAO package - in which case the limiting factor would be the range of the mudmovers loaded with bombs and/or JP233…

[Davef68]

Was that role ever operational on the Tornado, or was it just an attempt to prolong the lifespan of the aircraft?