RUSI: Typhoon Force "completely overstretched and worn out"

[Easy Street]

Justin Bronk is usually well informed, so one has to wonder why more was not made of the issues in his latest paper (https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/giving-raf-typhoons-ukraine-would-be-very-expensive-symbolic-gesture) by CAS in his recent Defence Committee appearance. How quickly his confidence in the Service's sustainability has resulted in yet more tasking in the shape of the PM's commitments to Ukraine!

[Posted outside the Ukraine thread with the intent of discussing RAF matters]

[Timelord]

A sensible, informed analysis of the issue which makes a refreshing change. And it’s not only engineers who are unavailable due to “burnout”.

[minigundiplomat]

My mistake - I misread the headline. When I saw the phrase 'completely overstretched and worn out' I thought it was an Odiham thread outlining Ops normal.

[NutLoose]

The aircraft has underslung air intakes that make it susceptible to engine damage from foreign object debris (FOD), which is common on the relatively austere dispersed airbases that the Ukrainian Air Force has been using to avoid being targeted by Russian strikes.

Erm, so has the Mig 29 and SU 27

The fact it gives a damning reading on the Typhoons capabilites in support of it's operations, requiring extensive and fixed bases and then gives glowing reports on the Gripens capabilities off base, sort of makes it read like the RAF have the wrong type of fighter for the coming Cold War part deux

[Mogwi]

Erm, so has the Mig 29 and SU 27

I seem to remember that the Mig 29 has intake doors that close on the ground and the donk’s take their air from auxiliary doors on top of the intakes. Not sure about the Su 27.

Mog

[melmothtw]

Erm, so has the Mig 29 and SU 27

The fact it gives a damning reading on the Typhoons capabilites in support of it's operations, requiring extensive and fixed bases and then gives glowing reports on the Gripens capabilities off base, sort of makes it read like the RAF have the wrong type of fighter for the coming Cold War part deux

True, though both the MiG and the Sukhoi have intake gates that can be closed when taxiing to protect against FOD ingestion. That said, I think the underslung intake position of both the F-16 and Eurofighter is being oversold as an inhibitor of austere operations. As has been pointed out elsewhere on Twitter, the F-16 has been used off base by the Norwegians and Singaporeans with no problems, and the Eurofighter's intakes are as high off the ground as the Gripen's.

https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/1623674584733024267

It seems that everyone is too concerned with looking for reason why an aircraft type can't be sent to Ukraine. They don't need a 100% solution - they need a fieldable capability and they need it now. The can work out the details as to how best to employ whichever aircraft type they receive just fine.

[Skeleton]

True, though both the MiG and the Sukhoi have intake gates that can be closed when taxiing to protect against FOD ingestion. That said, I think the underslung intake position of both the F-16 and Eurofighter is being oversold as an inhibitor of austere operations. As has been pointed out elsewhere on Twitter, the F-16 has been used off base by the Norwegians and Singaporeans with no problems, and the Eurofighter's intakes are as high off the ground as the Gripen's. https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/1623674584733024267 It seems that everyone is too concerned with looking for reason why an aircraft type can't be sent to Ukraine. They don't need a 100% solution - they need a fieldable capability and they need it now. The can work out the details as to how best to employ whichever aircraft type they receive just fine.No country in Europe has the capability gap to donate aircraft anywhere. Those being retired at present have to have a manufacturer's agreement to send them anywhere. Retired F16s, Tranche 1 Typhoons etc are going nowhere.​​​​​​​Why he asked the UK for aircraft is beyond me. It can barely defend itself and that will only get worse. He obviously did not like the feedback when he asked the same question of the USA, they are the only country remotely capable of supplying free aircraft, that would arrive as ever, with there own agenda.

[melmothtw]

No country in Europe has the capability gap to donate aircraft anywhere. Those being retired at present have to have a manufacturer's agreement to send them anywhere. Retired F16s, Tranche 1 Typhoons etc are going nowhere.Why he asked the UK for aircraft is beyond me. It can barely defend itself and that will only get worse. He obviously did not like the feedback when he asked the same question of the USA, they are the only country remotely capable of supplying free aircraft, that would arrive as ever, with there own agenda.

Donating aircraft doesn't necessarily result in a capability gap if those aircraft are either already retired (Norwegian F-16s, French Mirage 2000s) or very soon will be retired (Dutch F-16s, Polish and Slovakian MiG-29s, German and UK Tranche 1s).

[GeeRam]

Donating aircraft doesn't necessarily result in a capability gap if those aircraft are either already retired (Norwegian F-16s, French Mirage 2000s) or very soon will be retired (Dutch F-16s, Polish and Slovakian MiG-29s, German and UK Tranche 1s).

Not to mention those 96 x Gripen C/D's that the Swedish MOD were rumoured to be considering scrapping just a few years ago......after it placed an order for 60 new E's?

What ever happened with that situation...?

[melmothtw]

Not to mention those 96 x Gripen C/D's that the Swedish MOD were rumoured to be considering scrapping just a few years ago......after it placed an order for 60 new E's?

What ever happened with that situation...?

Sweden is keeping 60 Gripen C/Ds (the breakdown of how many C and how many Ds hasn't yet been confirmed) to add to the 60 Gripen Es for a total of 120 Gipen C/D/Es.

That would leave about 40 C/Ds shortly to be retired, plus an undisclosed number of A/Bs that remain in storage.

[Brewster Buffalo]

In his paper Bronk also says "...Russian fighters to patrol at high altitudes and relatively high speeds on the Russian side of the frontlines." my emphasis

That says something about the effectiveness of Ukraine Air Defence that, nearly a year into the war, the much larger Russian Air Force hasn't been able to gain air superiority over Ukraine.

Imperial War Museum has some ideas why.... What happened to the air war in Ukraine?

[ORAC]

The issue of intakes and runway availability is a red herring. Ukraine has plenty of available airfields and Russian hasn’t displayed any ability to be able to close a runway for any sustained period - the inaccuracy of their remaining cruise and ballistic missiles means their chances of cutting a runway or denying a MOS is negligible.

The problems of airframe and crew fatigue won’t be affected by retiring the F2s early - the air and ground crews can be spread elsewhere and the total numbers won’t change and the aircraft were only going to be flown until March 2025 before being stripped for spares. The F4 and F3 were operated under FI reduction programmes for many years and that was when operating low level rather than at altitude.

The F2s are/were going to be stripped for spares, but as the paper says new spares packages can be purchased as an offset instead. If the army can buy new artillery the RAF can buy spares.

The Typhoon may not be optimised for low altitude, but don’t compare it to aircraft that are, compare it to the Mig-29 it will augment/replace which sucks fuel like pig - the Typhoon will have about 4 times the endurance.

As to weapons, the F2 can carry Paveway 2 which can be ground lazed. If they can toss HARM they can toss Paveway. I’m sure they can also quickly fit a TB2 or simile with a designator. Brimstone also fits on the common launcher and, as with HARM, a fix to fire using A pre-programmed mode won’t take long to sort out.

It seems Wallace and Sunak are now backing hastily away from their promise of aircraft in the short term - and talk of Storm Shadow also seems to fading - it seems because of American pressure where they don’t want anyone providing anything with greater range than themselves.

[GeeRam]

Sweden is keeping 60 Gripen C/Ds (the breakdown of how many C and how many Ds hasn't yet been confirmed) to add to the 60 Gripen Es for a total of 120 Gipen C/D/Es.

That would leave about 40 C/Ds shortly to be retired, plus an undisclosed number of A/Bs that remain in storage.

All those retired and in storage A/B's which must 30+ if not more, would be the best bet for sending to Ukraine.....in terms of operation etc.
Politically how that could be achieved is another matter of course...:ooh:
At least the Czech's could assist with training/support as well, given they operate them. I doubt the Hungarians would do so given their pro-Pootin stance.

How far have the French got to handing over those very recently retired Mirage 2000's which was the other rumour?

[Ninthace]

What units are the instruments in on various types being discussed. How about captions and displays?.
I have flown to odd ac where the dials were in apples and pears. it was distracting doing the conversion in my head so I settled for keeping the needles in the right places most of the time.

[fdr]

The relationship with intake height v FOD is not linear, and can be mitigated by taking some care in thrust setting at low speed. The nose wheel location on the Typhoon is preferable to the MiG-29's geometry, and a smart engineer from the land that gave us Isambard Kingdom Brunel and other innovative engineers can probably come up with a CFRP wheel spat for the nose tyre to stop any debris deflection to avoid excitement and attendant disappointment after the hubcaps have stopped spinning in the wreckage.

The early Typhoons have other issues, which probably the pollies are now becoming aware of, defence cuts like health and education cuts take a long time to heal and occasionally fester.

F-16, after using them for 40 odd years we are going to get worried about... FOD?

There is an easy and timely fix. drive a couple of hundred A-10s from DMAFB and around the traps, unless Joe B is planning another sideshow somewhere, grab a few from MHAFB, Martin field and various other ANG units, and get them over to Ukraine, as the forecast is for meatballs with the odd occasional mass of targets heading westbound under threat of execution.

This is a land war, as most of them have been over history, and weapons that can reduce the effectiveness of Count Dracula's Zombie force would be very much appreciated by the long suffering Ukrainian troops that are fighting the war that has arisen from the negligence of the UNSC in reading their own rules, and the disinterest by the west in the reconstruction of the USSR post 1991.

IMHO.

PS: even Trafalgar was in essence a subset of a land war, as was Coral Sea, Midway, and even Pearl in it's own way. Plinking boats and "plains" doesn't often achieve the policy outcome of foreign policy, which in Russia's case is, "we have never signed a treaty that we were not prepared to use as a thoroughly absorbent bathroom tissue".

"Airwar" is a misnomer, WW2, VN, etc, GW1, GW2, the "airwar" was conducted to achieve the land battle needs. Air superiority is and always was a component of the land war, a step to achieve dominance of the battle space.

Ukraine can use tactical assets that don't take rocket scientists to flick switches on... and I have great respect for my hog driver friends, (not the Harley kind so much)

[Easy Street]

In his paper Bronk also says "...Russian fighters to patrol at high altitudes and relatively high speeds on the Russian side of the frontlines." my emphasis

That says something about the effectiveness of Ukraine Air Defence that, nearly a year into the war, the much larger Russian Air Force hasn't been able to gain air superiority over Ukraine.

It says something about GBAD in general, and it's not good news for air forces. Even operating close to the ground line of contact is a good effort in the contemporary context, and as the article makes clear, Russian fighters with long ranged missiles and no ROE worries can dominate the ground battle area from high altitude on their side of the line and prevent Ukraine carrying out effective CAS without much fear of retribution. That means the Russians can be less reliant on SHORAD, whereas the Ukrainians are completely dependent on it. Long range AAMs really don't like being launched from the low altitudes necessary to stay beneath Russian long-ranged GBAD coverage.

Anyway, as this was my thread, and I posted it separately from the Ukraine thread to focus on the RAF sustainability issue, let's do that! Does anyone know a Typhoon mate who disagrees with the article?

[bobward]

The US military have hundreds of aircraft in open storage at Davis-Monthan in Arizona. This will include the aforementioned A10's and F16's, many of which are in protected storage/spraylat.
Surely these are the best source for what Ukraine needs? Thinking back to the 1980's didn't we get our F4J(UK)s from there?

Just a thought from an old spotter. Over to you.

[teeonefixer]

Thinking back to the 1980's didn't we get our F4J(UK)s from there?
.
The F-4J(UK) fleet came from storage/depth servicing at North Island

[Coltishall. loved it]

The US military have hundreds of aircraft in open storage at Davis-Monthan in Arizona. This will include the aforementioned A10's and F16's, many of which are in protected storage/spraylat.
Surely these are the best source for what Ukraine needs? Thinking back to the 1980's didn't we get our F4J(UK)s from there?

Just a thought from an old spotter. Over to you.
100% correct...it's really simple. As the world knows there's loads of stuff in Arizona. over to the politicians to have the large testicles to make the wrong or right decision?
Even the bronco OV-10 must be there somewhere

[rattman]

The US military have hundreds of aircraft in open storage at Davis-Monthan in Arizona. This will include the aforementioned A10's and F16's,


Pretty sure for the F-16's they dont. All/most the F-16 left at Davis Monthan are allocated to be converted into QF-16's by boeing. They have a contract to convert 210 aircraft by 2025 into QF-16's to replace the QF-4's

Theres a LOT less avialable F-16's around than you would suspect when you really drill down the numbers

[sycamore]

`Send in the Drones`....

[fallmonk]

IF and it's a very big IF , we donate airframes do you think there would be a provision that they would only be used in defence of Ukraine.
ie that they wouldn't go on the offensive in to Russia even on a single mission,
for fear of us provoking Russia(more) or would they be there to do as they wished with?

[Ninthace]

IF and it's a very big IF , we donate airframes do you think there would be a provision that they would only be used in defence of Ukraine.
ie that they wouldn't go on the offensive in to Russia even on a single mission,
for fear of us provoking Russia(more) or would they be there to do as they wished with?
Given the range of Russian air defences, even operating within Ukrainian airspace is going to be problematic without some form of SEAD across the border,

[Just This Once...]

The relationship with intake height v FOD is not linear, and can be mitigated by taking some care in thrust setting at low speed. The nose wheel location on the Typhoon is preferable to the MiG-29's geometry...

F-16, after using them for 40 odd years we are going to get worried about... FOD?


If you are operating the F-16 you have to be paranoid with FOD. At idle, at very low speed or static the F-16 will pick-up anything on the ground that is close to the intake and not bolted down, due to the vortex phenomena created by the intake design. Weather and/or humidity will make this visible to the naked eye (hence all the photos around on the web) but it is present all the time. Push the throttle up and with a fast taxi the intake airflow increases considerably but it breaks the vortex and normal airflow returns. When you setup for a formation departure and you apply power you can see both the leaders and your own jet instantly 'dry' a damp runway in a rough diamond shape in front of the jet from the normal intake airflow alone. There was little to nothing with the F-16 intake design to reduce the potential for FOD but the widemouth Vipers do have a significant reduction in the vortex phenomena, although it remains a low-slung single intake with no aux doors.

I should add that operating from a base not used to F-16s can cause surprising issues. Honington was no stranger to hosting many types but a detachment of European F-16s operating from the large HAS site soon found a problem when 2 jets sucked the HAS site centreline lights from the asphalt. When you see the size of these lights and feel the weight of them it you would not have thought it possible.

Typhoon is significantly taller and at a much low level of FOD risk due to vortex forming. That said, with some unfavourable wind conditions, sharp turns, wake or asymmetric thrust, the vortex can still form (sometimes very briefly) and provide the initial kick needed for the main airflow to grab something.


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/819x593/typhoon_dusk_vortex_f021323d86741d2ab7acce53bbda67254eedd365 .jpeg

Even aircraft designed for austere bases can have issues. The C-17A is a prime example, despite the engines being mounted relatively high. The regular airflow does keep the engines 'clean' but crosswind blanking by the forward fuselage, large tailwinds, sharp turns or having the TR doors open is enough to change the airflow for the 'fenced-in' inboard engines to become giant hoovers. Thankfully the lower and more exposed outboard engines are less inclined to form a vortex:


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/678x449/c_17_intake_turning_deb2d1359b4fba62b4e184513c08a698ae4fdc8f .jpg

As you say, it is a very complex subject and design compromises have to be made. You can imagine the torment of designers such as those for the Harrier. In no way (like being dragged over broken glass type of no-way) did they want the weight and added complexity of aux doors on a large-fan VSTOL aircraft; but if you need to operate in genuinely austere conditions...


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/852x395/inlet_design_5e7e6ee6a784745826dd16254942f1e145725489.jpg

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/941x648/harrier_gr7_e40a38d6c5ef20dc185772eaeba949c24e297cd3.jpeg

[chevvron]

Given that conversion to F16s by Ukrainian pilots might take some time, what about something simpler.
Poland has a small number of Macchi 346 light attack aircraft which could carry Sidewinders, Mavericks or even Marte anti ship missiles.

[Bob Viking]

Why send a Ukrainian pilot into a war zone in an aircraft with no radar or RWR? Learning how to drop or fire weapons will take the longest time. So why not just go in an F16?!

BV

[Asturias56]

Surprised they haven't asked for A-10's....................

[ORAC]

They have - and Ukrainian pilots have been train8ng on PTT in the USA for months.

Absolutely no indication that the USA is willing to provide any however….

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-asked-for-100-a-10-warthogs-just-weeks-after-russias-invasion

https://time.com/6207115/ukraine-train-fighter-pilots-russia/

[Asturias56]

I'd have thought it would suit a lot of people- the US has been trying to run down the A10 fleet for several years, and they don't have the range/performance of the F16's - I'm sure the US is well aware of what the Israelis have achieved with long range strikes using F-16's..........

[fallmonk]

Surprised they haven't asked for A-10's....................
Was there not talk of them being offered them a while back, but they said they didnt need ground attack at the time but needed fighter jets?

[ORAC]

Let’s be frank about this - they’ll take anything they’re offered.

Why? Firstly they need anything they can get their hands on. Secondly, any aircraft, as with Challenger tanks, will prime the pump for other nations to offer other types.

[typerated]

I'd have thought it would not matter what the platform is offered, as long as it fires Meteor!