Telegraph - Tucano a well-armed and reconnaissance-capable aircraft?
Thread Starter
Telegraph - Tucano a well-armed and reconnaissance-capable aircraft?
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
>>>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.<<<
Whitehall's civil war will decide our place in the world - Telegraph
>>>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.<<<
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I think CGS is definitely winning the argument here.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 (
) and upgrade the frame & wheels like the Goshawk?)
Grey & Green TWU Hawks from Chivenor & Brawdy were often pictured back then with SNEBs and Aden pods.
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 (
) and upgrade the frame & wheels like the Goshawk?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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?
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?
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!
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!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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?
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?
"you could probably buy 2 or 3 Hawk 200s for the price of one Typhoon."
where's the extra manpower coming from?
where's the extra manpower coming from?
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.
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.
The only viable option is a new purchase of Super Tucanos. which isn't beyond the realms of impossibility.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
My solution, f-off big Chally II with each FOB/patrol.
Oh and napalm, lotsa napalm.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.....
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.....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What About Mosquitoes?
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
