PDA

View Full Version : Europe Considers Red Air Needs As Fighter Fleets Shrink


DuckDodgers
23rd Jul 2021, 17:35
Useful article from Tony Osborne over at Aviation Week on how Europe, through the EDA, is looking to move towards a future Red Air provision across multiple member states.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/light-attack-advanced-training/europe-considers-red-air-needs-fighter-fleets-shrink

Full Text below for those not able to read:Europe’s air forces are considering how to resolve a regional shortfall in red air capability.

As fighter fleets across the continent continue to shrink, air forces are struggling to provide aircraft to act as adversaries against which to train for aerial engagements. Even where the numbers still exist, there is the challenge of increasing costs per flying hour.


EDA conducted red air market consultation in February.
U.S. adversary air companies are snapping up F-16s for contracts.

The reduction in European fighter numbers since the end of the Cold War makes clear the difficulties commanders face. This is particularly true for nations purchasing Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Prior to the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, Denmark was operating around 70 F-16s. During the 2000s, that fleet was reduced to around 48—and will soon be replaced by 27 F-35s. In Belgium, the 150-strong Cold War F-16 fleet is now just over 50, to be replaced by 34 F-35s. Switzerland wants to supplant a combined fleet of more than 50 F/A-18 Hornets and Northrop F-5s with 36 fighters, with the F-35 recently selected (https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/switzerland-chooses-f-35s-replace-fa-18s-f-5s).

Europe’s red air challenge mirrors that of the U.S., says Dion Polman, aviation project officer for the European Defense Agency (EDA), which works with EU nations to strengthen defense cooperation.

Over the last five years, the U.S. Air Force and Navy have both turned to private adversary-air operators, which have been snapping up secondhand third- and fourth-generation fighters from across the world to feed U.S. requirements. This has driven operators to acquire the first commercially operated F-16s, which recently made their first flights in Arizona in May with Canada-based training contractor Top Aces. Another training company, Draken International, purchased 12 ex-Royal Netherlands Air Force F-16s; it has options on 28 more as the Netherlands phases the type from service in favor of the F-35.

In February, the EDA held a preliminary market consultation with adversary-air operators and other training suppliers to fashion a model for red air operations in Europe, an initiative that aligns with the EDA’s air-superiority-capability development priority.

“We are trying to build a menu for member states to pick and choose from to fill in the shortfall in red air,” Polman says. “Those member states are still deciding which solution they would like.”

A handful of European countries currently have access to an organic aggressor capability—notably, the UK and France with subsonic jet trainers, although these are rapidly approaching their end of life.

Elsewhere, Germany has turned to Top Aces to provide A-4 Skyhawks as a red air capability for the country’s Eurofighters, while the French Navy has contracted Secapem Defense Training Services (SDTS) to provide A-4s and Aermacchi MB-339s. A spinoff of SDTS is planning to build a red air capability using ex-French Air and Space Force Dassault Mirage 2000s, while Draken—which took over the aviation services business of Cobham—is eyeing potential European needs.

“Right now, we are still in a transition phase where the air forces can still use the fourth-generation fighters to play the red air role. . . . But we are looking for a solution for the next 10 years,” Polman says.

The EDA is discussing four options with member states. One is organic aggressor units, essentially nations opting to acquire an in-house capability. The second is a multinational military aggressor unit that could deploy to different countries when needed. The third option is to outsource the capability but contract it on a national basis, as is currently done in Germany. The fourth choice is to contract it on a multinational basis, with the red air aircraft deployed to the countries where they are required.

Even once an approach has been selected, potential hurdles will remain in securing certifications from regulators if the aircraft are civilian-operated and -owned. Also, ex-U.S. combat aircraft such as the F-16 can be used only with approval from the U.S. State Department.

The commercially operated fighters operating under contract in Europe are flying under U.S. and Canadian approvals, which need to be acknowledged by the respective European authorities. Requirements for a proposed European red air fleet include transonic or supersonic performance. Supersonic performance will be required for only part of the missions flown, potentially making mixed fleets an attractive option for operators. Several respondents to the EDA’s request provided “well-developed solutions,” Polman says. Working groups are now discussing the way forward, but it is unclear when a decision could emerge.

Foghorn Leghorn
24th Jul 2021, 06:50
Useful article from Tony Osborne over at Aviation Week on how Europe, through the EDA, is looking to move towards a future Red Air provision across multiple member states.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/light-attack-advanced-training/europe-considers-red-air-needs-fighter-fleets-shrink

Full Text below for those not able to read:Europe’s air forces are considering how to resolve a regional shortfall in red air capability.

As fighter fleets across the continent continue to shrink, air forces are struggling to provide aircraft to act as adversaries against which to train for aerial engagements. Even where the numbers still exist, there is the challenge of increasing costs per flying hour.

EDA conducted red air market consultation in February.
U.S. adversary air companies are snapping up F-16s for contracts.

The reduction in European fighter numbers since the end of the Cold War makes clear the difficulties commanders face. This is particularly true for nations purchasing Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Prior to the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, Denmark was operating around 70 F-16s. During the 2000s, that fleet was reduced to around 48—and will soon be replaced by 27 F-35s. In Belgium, the 150-strong Cold War F-16 fleet is now just over 50, to be replaced by 34 F-35s. Switzerland wants to supplant a combined fleet of more than 50 F/A-18 Hornets and Northrop F-5s with 36 fighters, with the F-35 recently selected (https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/switzerland-chooses-f-35s-replace-fa-18s-f-5s).

Europe’s red air challenge mirrors that of the U.S., says Dion Polman, aviation project officer for the European Defense Agency (EDA), which works with EU nations to strengthen defense cooperation.

Over the last five years, the U.S. Air Force and Navy have both turned to private adversary-air operators, which have been snapping up secondhand third- and fourth-generation fighters from across the world to feed U.S. requirements. This has driven operators to acquire the first commercially operated F-16s, which recently made their first flights in Arizona in May with Canada-based training contractor Top Aces. Another training company, Draken International, purchased 12 ex-Royal Netherlands Air Force F-16s; it has options on 28 more as the Netherlands phases the type from service in favor of the F-35.

In February, the EDA held a preliminary market consultation with adversary-air operators and other training suppliers to fashion a model for red air operations in Europe, an initiative that aligns with the EDA’s air-superiority-capability development priority.

“We are trying to build a menu for member states to pick and choose from to fill in the shortfall in red air,” Polman says. “Those member states are still deciding which solution they would like.”

A handful of European countries currently have access to an organic aggressor capability—notably, the UK and France with subsonic jet trainers, although these are rapidly approaching their end of life.

Elsewhere, Germany has turned to Top Aces to provide A-4 Skyhawks as a red air capability for the country’s Eurofighters, while the French Navy has contracted Secapem Defense Training Services (SDTS) to provide A-4s and Aermacchi MB-339s. A spinoff of SDTS is planning to build a red air capability using ex-French Air and Space Force Dassault Mirage 2000s, while Draken—which took over the aviation services business of Cobham—is eyeing potential European needs.

“Right now, we are still in a transition phase where the air forces can still use the fourth-generation fighters to play the red air role. . . . But we are looking for a solution for the next 10 years,” Polman says.

The EDA is discussing four options with member states. One is organic aggressor units, essentially nations opting to acquire an in-house capability. The second is a multinational military aggressor unit that could deploy to different countries when needed. The third option is to outsource the capability but contract it on a national basis, as is currently done in Germany. The fourth choice is to contract it on a multinational basis, with the red air aircraft deployed to the countries where they are required.

Even once an approach has been selected, potential hurdles will remain in securing certifications from regulators if the aircraft are civilian-operated and -owned. Also, ex-U.S. combat aircraft such as the F-16 can be used only with approval from the U.S. State Department.

The commercially operated fighters operating under contract in Europe are flying under U.S. and Canadian approvals, which need to be acknowledged by the respective European authorities. Requirements for a proposed European red air fleet include transonic or supersonic performance. Supersonic performance will be required for only part of the missions flown, potentially making mixed fleets an attractive option for operators. Several respondents to the EDA’s request provided “well-developed solutions,” Polman says. Working groups are now discussing the way forward, but it is unclear when a decision could emerge.

As I’ve predicted for a couple of years now. The next big battleground for Red Air contract is going to be Europe after America has shown how it’s done. The natural advancement beyond that is a spread to the Middle East.

Asturias56
24th Jul 2021, 07:56
Looks like the EDA see a gap in the market their members feel should be filled (profitably)

Foghorn Leghorn
24th Jul 2021, 08:35
Looks like the EDA see a gap in the market their members feel should be filled (profitably)

Indeed, Austrias. It’s going to be a big market and quite a profitable one especially when you consider the spin off contracts for NATO.

Asturias56
24th Jul 2021, 15:28
I suppose the question is will they need more money or will it have to come out of the current budget............. It makes sense to have one contractor for the whole of Europe I think - no national force does enough flying to justify a specialist contractor for this but if everyone chips in you could have something quite substantial

etudiant
24th Jul 2021, 23:12
Dumb question here-- does anyone have a plausible threat they are practicing against? I recognize the publicity value, but afaik not even Russia fields a massive fighter/bomber force.
In fact, they are so strapped that they are reduced to hyping their potential F-35 equivalent in the hope of finding development money.
Would it not make more sense for Europe to take the lessons of recent conflicts more to heart?
Air superiority is wonderful, but it needs to translate into real military value. I do not see that here.

LateArmLive
25th Jul 2021, 00:32
Dumb question here-- does anyone have a plausible threat they are practicing against? I recognize the publicity value, but afaik not even Russia fields a massive fighter/bomber force.
In fact, they are so strapped that they are reduced to hyping their potential F-35 equivalent in the hope of finding development money.
Would it not make more sense for Europe to take the lessons of recent conflicts more to heart?
Air superiority is wonderful, but it needs to translate into real military value. I do not see that here.

If we only took lessons from recent conflicts to heart then all we would provide (from a fighter perspective) is CAS and strikes on undefended targets. Russia has more capability than you seem to give it credit for.
In the West, we've had the luxury of operating largely unopposed in the air since about halfway though GW2. Any conflict in SE Asia or Eastern Europe will be a far tougher nut to crack. That being said, against a peer threat I'd be more worried about the tactical buckets of insta-sun being thrown around than the fighter threat...

Foghorn Leghorn
25th Jul 2021, 07:33
Dumb question here-- does anyone have a plausible threat they are practicing against? I recognize the publicity value, but afaik not even Russia fields a massive fighter/bomber force.
In fact, they are so strapped that they are reduced to hyping their potential F-35 equivalent in the hope of finding development money.
Would it not make more sense for Europe to take the lessons of recent conflicts more to heart?
Air superiority is wonderful, but it needs to translate into real military value. I do not see that here.

The export market for Russia is huge with some quite potent capabilities up for sale. Whilst we may not fight Russia, we may be fighting Russian capabilities.

Furthermore, there’s a lot of thought going into how a conflict may develop around the Baltics/St Petersburg, which absolutely would involve Russian capabilities.

Asturias56
25th Jul 2021, 08:22
The kit is good and , in Russian hands, worth thinking about. But most of their sales are in small numbers to people like Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Indonesia. History shows that these countries have serious problems in keeping any advanced aircraft in service in meaningful numbers (even the USAF has problems with the F-35) so realistically they're not much of a threat.

The Panda in the room is of course licence -built Russian aircraft in China. Since the Chinese haven't fought an air war in decades we have no idea what their performance might be with modern kit.

DuckDodgers
25th Jul 2021, 09:01
The EDA are looking for a service that provides the full range of A2A and A2G training with a high/low mix and have asked for thoughts on 2,500hrs - 10,000hrs per year. Air Superiority just happens to be the EDA catch all domain title for programmes and projects which this sits in, itself is lodged under the Capability Development Plan. Those participating Member States (it's not as many as you think) will choose which capability they wish to utilise; for instance it is highly likely Germany would look to exploit only the supersonic aspect to supplement its national slow, medium, and fast target contracts.

bobward
25th Jul 2021, 19:46
Maybe someone will buy up all those Hawks that we are going to phase out next year. They can't all be earmarked for the Reds surely??

Foghorn Leghorn
25th Jul 2021, 21:29
Maybe someone will buy up all those Hawks that we are going to phase out next year. They can't all be earmarked for the Reds surely??

Why would you want to? They’re old, no radar, no RHWR, no data link and are suffering serviceability rates. Spare parts are at a premium as well.

There are other platforms out there with better capability and room for expansion that don’t cost the Earth.

DuckDodgers
26th Jul 2021, 09:24
Maybe someone will buy up all those Hawks that we are going to phase out next year. They can't all be earmarked for the Reds surely??

Let's not forget both the hours and number of landings that the airframes have accumulated over 43 years. This early withdrawal allows RAFAT to inherit the 20+ airframes that have below 8,500hrs/lower number of landings enabling them to reach OSD of 2030 without exceeding 10,000hrs that has historically been of concern within the annual safety statement signed off by ODHs.

As an adversary platform it adds minimal value and despite many papers written to offer modest upgrades (DRFM jammer or Airborne Radar Simulator in the Aden cannon body to name one) none were ever taken forward as electrical power generation was an issue and there was never any money!

As for what's next? Ask the customer, for which I'm sure the default answer will be 35-45K, M1.2, E-Scan or modern M-Scan, IRST, RWR, Data Link, Jamming, Target Handoff, HOBS Capability etc etc etc. Which means they'll get an Alpha Jet E. :}

etudiant
26th Jul 2021, 16:04
As for what's next? Ask the customer, for which I'm sure the default answer will be 35-45K, M1.2, E-Scan or modern M-Scan, IRST, RWR, Data Link, Jamming, Target Handoff, HOBS Capability etc etc etc. Which means they'll get an Alpha Jet E. :}

Reading this litany, one has to wonder how many pilots can be effectively trained within even the high end 10,000 hr/yr envelope.
It does seem to be very much a peacetime plan, with no real provision for the requirements posed by any sort of more protracted conflict.
One might catch echoes of the 'no war likely within 10 years' thought processes of the 1930s.

Foghorn Leghorn
27th Jul 2021, 20:52
Let's not forget both the hours and number of landings that the airframes have accumulated over 43 years. This early withdrawal allows RAFAT to inherit the 20+ airframes that have below 8,500hrs/lower number of landings enabling them to reach OSD of 2030 without exceeding 10,000hrs that has historically been of concern within the annual safety statement signed off by ODHs.

As an adversary platform it adds minimal value and despite many papers written to offer modest upgrades (DRFM jammer or Airborne Radar Simulator in the Aden cannon body to name one) none were ever taken forward as electrical power generation was and issue and there was never any money!

As for what's next? Ask the customer, for which I'm sure the default answer will be 35-45K, M1.2, E-Scan or modern M-Scan, IRST, RWR, Data Link, Jamming, Target Handoff, HOBS Capability etc etc etc. Which means they'll get an Alpha Jet E. :}

Those capabilities should be/is the answer if we want to train for the near-peer adversary otherwise the wrong lessons just get consolidated for another few years. Unfortunately, the MoD come with the shopping list above and don’t understand why they get laughed at when they are only willing to pay for a slack handful of low-capability aggressor aircraft. Bit like walking into a BMW garage and only wanting to pay Ford prices!

DuckDodgers
28th Jul 2021, 06:44
Those capabilities should be/is the answer if we want to train for the near-peer adversary otherwise the wrong lessons just get consolidated for another few years. Unfortunately, the MoD come with the shopping list above and don’t understand why they get laughed at when they are only willing to pay for a slack handful of low-capability aggressor aircraft. Bit like walking into a BMW garage and only wanting to pay Ford prices!

Oh come on, AIR (and MOD) don't want to even pay Ford prices! The irony being that if they didn't add superfluous nonsense to requirements documents, nor hold industry at arms length and actually worked with them, you could very easily end up with something that is viable for the price they're willing to pay. More so if you exploit technology as it matures enabling you to achieve that 50/50 or 60/40 balance by injecting it in at the right time. The hard part is getting AIR to understand its dependencies when their own programmes within a portfolio don't even talk to each other to ensure coherence to exploit synergies. Must be that quality P3M organisation they have, oh wait..........

pr00ne
28th Jul 2021, 13:13
But, if most Air Forces are moving to an 80/20 mix of synthetic to real non operational flying, why the need for more than exists now in private adversary ops?

DuckDodgers
28th Jul 2021, 13:28
But, if most Air Forces are moving to an 80/20 mix of synthetic to real non operational flying, why the need for more than exists now in private adversary ops?

Most air forces are not moving to 80/20 and I highly doubt the RAF will either despite the vociferous bloviation from certain VSOs. Well certainly not before 2030 at the very earliest. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

pr00ne
28th Jul 2021, 13:29
It was CAS who said it, not me.

Foghorn Leghorn
28th Jul 2021, 20:31
Most air forces are not moving to 80/20 and I highly doubt the RAF will either despite the vociferous bloviation from certain VSOs. Well certainly not before 2030 at the very earliest. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Absolutely right, most are forces are not doing so as they’ve realised it’s folly. Hence the Americans buying up every bit of COCO red area going!

Foghorn Leghorn
28th Jul 2021, 20:31
Oh come on, AIR (and MOD) don't want to even pay Ford prices! The irony being that if they didn't add superfluous nonsense to requirements documents, nor hold industry at arms length and actually worked with them, you could very easily end up with something that is viable for the price they're willing to pay. More so if you exploit technology as it matures enabling you to achieve that 50/50 or 60/40 balance by injecting it in at the right time. The hard part is getting AIR to understand its dependencies when their own programmes within a portfolio don't even talk to each other to ensure coherence to exploit synergies. Must be that quality P3M organisation they have, oh wait..........

ha ha, yes you’re quite right. Okay ‘used’ Ford prices!