RAF future fast jets
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
Bismark:
Two rather contradictory statements methinks.
And anyway I thought the Harriers (incl RAF ones) & carriers went because we were broke & not because the RAF wanted to be topdog & bully the poor FAA?
..until the RAF's successful campaign to get rid of the RN's true FW carriers we still were world leaders. They tried again in the 2000's to get rid of the FAA FW once and for all and have, so far. failed in this attempt.
Again this is not anti RAF banter.....
And anyway I thought the Harriers (incl RAF ones) & carriers went because we were broke & not because the RAF wanted to be topdog & bully the poor FAA?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I am not throwing out a challenge, I am just curious about the basis for your assertion. A friend of mine was on the Ark; she was a rust bucket with several compartments below the waterline flooded all the time. She had to have watertight doors shut and only opened one or two at a time in case of another leak.
I think then, as now, there was only so much cake to be cut - V-force was replaced by the SSBNs. The new carrier needed new escorts like the Type 82. The army needed new kit etc etc.
Where did the RAF fit in getting rid of the true carrier?
Thread Starter
When we were planning to gets lots of JSFs – some for the Navy, some for the RAF the picture was quite rosy – now we will have more deck space on the carriers than airframes it looks like a bun fight on who will own them and where they will fly from - nice!
Two more Typhoon squadrons still to come and will be based at Lossie along with 6 Sqn.
Presumably two Tornado units will make way for them? And then the remaining Lossie Tornado unit (the OCU?) will move to Marham.
But then I forgot that we are planning to retire the tranche 1 Typhoons before the end of the decade.
So by 2020 or so the RAF might be down to 4 frontline Sqns of Typhoons and part owner (maybe) of 50 JSFs?
Two more Typhoon squadrons still to come and will be based at Lossie along with 6 Sqn.
Presumably two Tornado units will make way for them? And then the remaining Lossie Tornado unit (the OCU?) will move to Marham.
But then I forgot that we are planning to retire the tranche 1 Typhoons before the end of the decade.
So by 2020 or so the RAF might be down to 4 frontline Sqns of Typhoons and part owner (maybe) of 50 JSFs?
IMHO, there is nothing clear about the future of H.M. Forces at all. With Eck Salmond looking to railroad a yes vote for the People's Democratic Republic of Caledonia, essentially by affording petulent, rash 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote on the matter and current problems around the globe from Iran to China not to mention American defence interests shifting away from Europe to the Far East and Pacific, prompted in no small way by European attitudes toward their own defence arrangements and casual, indeed, at times, mild contempt for American efforts to contribute to our ability to sleep safely in our beds at night. I think the future looks very interesting, including what may affect the R.A.F's future front line up!
FB
FB
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where did the RAF fit in getting rid of the true carrier?
The last true carrier was to be CVA01 (ARK was just living out her useful life). As well as some pretty poor staff work by the RN in the 60's the most famous incident was the redrawing of the map of the Indian Ocean by the RAF to demonstrate the reach of shore based air defence. The same trick was attempted in the 2000s by the then CAS but spotted by an astute PSO to the Minister.
Talk to any senior FAA serving officer and ask him about the daily grind of fending off the RAF from constant dimunition of the FAA and AAC. Has the directed Merlin transfer started - has it h**l, are the RAF trying to replace RN engineers with RAF (because they trained too many) yes they are. The one area where the RAF are holding back is FJ Maritime in the USN because no RAF aircrew want to commit to a maritime, embarked, future.
Not ant-RAF but I do want to see fair play. In general terms if the effect is to be delivered by embarked capability it should be flown by maritime crews in the FAA who want to be there and who willingly accept the trials and tribulations of life at sea.
Way off thread but needs to be said.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because this all started before the Scots started getting all upity(sp?) and we don't yet know if it's all sulky foot-stamping or real tantrum that will lead to actually stomping out and slamming the door! If the latter, we'll have to rethink that one.
But, by the time that we find out either way, money is going to be spent at Lossie. So until the jocks have their vote, let's not spend any defence money north of the border.
Regards, Den.
Regards, Den.
As well as some pretty poor staff work by the RN in the 60's the most famous incident was the redrawing of the map of the Indian Ocean by the RAF to demonstrate the reach of shore based air defence. The same trick was attempted in the 2000s by the then CAS but spotted by an astute PSO to the Minister.
The Spitfires were then launched rather too far from Malta for comfort.CVA01 was binned with our 'East of Suez' policy when the Labour Government decided that we'd stop playing world policeman...
A great shame - but with Earl Mountbottom having royally shafted TSR2, understandably there wasn't much love lost between senior officers in the MoD-box at the time.As for the F-35 and the Queen Elizabeth class carriers, what an utter goat this whole issue is. Aircraft carriers with no fixed wing aircraft able to be operated from them? Does the UK go back to the F-35B and no CATOBAR capability, given that the F-35C is years away from success - or an interim F-18/E/F/G acquisition and modification of both carriers to CATOBAR state to remove the risk of the whole F-35 programme going tits-up in a big way?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are certainly a lot of questions being asked about our real requirements and the [very] expensive bits of gear in the current procurement pipeline to fulfil said requirements....
It's been said before however, does the UK really need 2 huge carriers, one of which will get sold off because it doesn't meet our requirements? I pose the question not to enflame but because it is absolutely right to do so. Can we protect our sea lines of communication without such behemoths, instead relying on faster, more agile intercept craft with enough onboard firepower to get the job done? Op Ellamy proved to an extent that UK could send a stark message of international condemnation to a belligerent government without the need for embarked fast air. Sure, perhaps it would have been more flexible to have Harrier on Lusty or Ark but ultimately in that scenario it wasn't essential. Other scenarios may suit a carrier completely but equally may not; so it comes down to the sad situation we're in: if we continue wanting the 'kit' to cover every eventuality then we're sadly deluding ourselves given our financial disposition. The carriers are monumentally expensive but do they offer value for the taxpayer?
On the aircraft thread, there are some pretty strong reasons for remaining in the F-35 programme; a return on investment for every aircraft sold (££ to HM Treasury), enduring manufacturing work for UK employees at a time when unemployment is rising, and a lot of stuff that's not just stealth including fuel capacity, payload, radar, network capability, and the most important.... growth potential. The last point is one which puts an F-18 solution firmly as a stop-gap, giving us another headache further down the line. Do you think that procuring and supporting two types (F-18E/F into F-35C) within the next 10 years is going to cost more or less than staying the course on just F-35? IMHO, I don't think we need the aircraft carriers as much as we need an aircraft that can take UK's air power role well into the middle of this century. To me that means an F-35C that can be embarked onto a US CVN when required - could we foresee having a squadron permanently assigned in the USA onboard CVN while the land-based squadron(s) are in the UK? Maybe..
It's been said before however, does the UK really need 2 huge carriers, one of which will get sold off because it doesn't meet our requirements? I pose the question not to enflame but because it is absolutely right to do so. Can we protect our sea lines of communication without such behemoths, instead relying on faster, more agile intercept craft with enough onboard firepower to get the job done? Op Ellamy proved to an extent that UK could send a stark message of international condemnation to a belligerent government without the need for embarked fast air. Sure, perhaps it would have been more flexible to have Harrier on Lusty or Ark but ultimately in that scenario it wasn't essential. Other scenarios may suit a carrier completely but equally may not; so it comes down to the sad situation we're in: if we continue wanting the 'kit' to cover every eventuality then we're sadly deluding ourselves given our financial disposition. The carriers are monumentally expensive but do they offer value for the taxpayer?
On the aircraft thread, there are some pretty strong reasons for remaining in the F-35 programme; a return on investment for every aircraft sold (££ to HM Treasury), enduring manufacturing work for UK employees at a time when unemployment is rising, and a lot of stuff that's not just stealth including fuel capacity, payload, radar, network capability, and the most important.... growth potential. The last point is one which puts an F-18 solution firmly as a stop-gap, giving us another headache further down the line. Do you think that procuring and supporting two types (F-18E/F into F-35C) within the next 10 years is going to cost more or less than staying the course on just F-35? IMHO, I don't think we need the aircraft carriers as much as we need an aircraft that can take UK's air power role well into the middle of this century. To me that means an F-35C that can be embarked onto a US CVN when required - could we foresee having a squadron permanently assigned in the USA onboard CVN while the land-based squadron(s) are in the UK? Maybe..
Last edited by ICBM; 29th Jan 2012 at 13:17.
ICBM,
I'd by a cheaper type, like the F18 E/F or Rafale, or even investigate the Sea Typhoon idea being floated (pardon the pun). This given the we can't do anymore attitude creeping through the U.K. from the top down ought to find such an arrangment agreeable. We ditch the horrendously expensive magic jet once and for all and we buy some existing proper ones and perhaps a few more of them than we would the magic one. I understand that the Australians, already getting Super Hornets, as an intended interim, are looking at making it the chosen one for the long term!
FB
I'd by a cheaper type, like the F18 E/F or Rafale, or even investigate the Sea Typhoon idea being floated (pardon the pun). This given the we can't do anymore attitude creeping through the U.K. from the top down ought to find such an arrangment agreeable. We ditch the horrendously expensive magic jet once and for all and we buy some existing proper ones and perhaps a few more of them than we would the magic one. I understand that the Australians, already getting Super Hornets, as an intended interim, are looking at making it the chosen one for the long term!
FB
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB,
I see the attraction of buying something proven and tangible 'now' but we really don't have the money for it and like I said F-18E/F, though capable for a few more years, is at the end of it's run. The Americans and Aussies can afford an interim solution and we cannot.
I see the attraction of buying something proven and tangible 'now' but we really don't have the money for it and like I said F-18E/F, though capable for a few more years, is at the end of it's run. The Americans and Aussies can afford an interim solution and we cannot.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Bismark,
Thank you for that.
However the RN was not beyond a bit of flag waving (or the other waying) too. Think the Atlantic Air Race apart from the fact they needed RAF Tankers. THE STORY OF THE DAILY MAIL TRANS-ATLANTIC AIR RACE - The Education Forum
I recall the Buccaneer unrefuelled hop across the pond. It started up and taxiied at Goose then had to be topped up at the end of the runway.
There was certainly an anti-Buccaneer lobby in the RAF which did not want the Buccaneer 2* as it might have affected their F111 and then AFVG aspirations. Almost a rerun of the pre-war procurements whee the FAA was the ugly sister.
Thank you for that.
However the RN was not beyond a bit of flag waving (or the other waying) too. Think the Atlantic Air Race apart from the fact they needed RAF Tankers. THE STORY OF THE DAILY MAIL TRANS-ATLANTIC AIR RACE - The Education Forum
I recall the Buccaneer unrefuelled hop across the pond. It started up and taxiied at Goose then had to be topped up at the end of the runway.
There was certainly an anti-Buccaneer lobby in the RAF which did not want the Buccaneer 2* as it might have affected their F111 and then AFVG aspirations. Almost a rerun of the pre-war procurements whee the FAA was the ugly sister.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little more truth required I think:
The JSF aircraft will be procured by the RAF and the operational duty holder chain will be RAF. A deal has been struck to share the cockpits equitably, with the RAF getting the majority share.
The RN will rightly press for embarked supervisory roles, but they will probably have to share these with the RAF as the Force will not be big enough to grow sufficient FAA FW critical mass.
It is true that the RAF will have to step up to the plate – so start painting those cabins light blue inside! The RN aircrew in the US now are there to keep the FAA FW cadre alive (at a feed in rate of 2 per year!) as much as it is to grow cat and trap skills. The RAF want their share of the USN slots and are currently letting the RN take the lion’s share – small issue of how they are being paid for needs to be resolved!
With a significant distance away from full operating capability and the small size of the Force, it means that the RAF will be able to take the role on in a more measured way because of its fast jet strength in depth. The lack of RAF crews in USA is not an indication of reluctance to partake, but one of FAA survival instincts and necessity. Anyway, we bought the aircraft to deliver airpower away from the deck, not to be a vehicle for a macho landing contest (as deck ops so often become).
The more important issue here is how long is Defence, the RN sailors, HMG and the UK public going to be bombarded by FAA propaganda. We can’t afford to c**k this up (it has enough problems without infighting), so some of the old and bold who are peddling nonsense (regurgitated by certain posters here) about RAF intent need to let the generation who will have to make this work get on with it – together on board!
Those who are "leaking" (untrue) stories of Rafale and F18 have two agendas: to try and deflect the overrun costs of the whole programme, and/or to try and steal a march for FAA ownership. The fact is the F35 (once it is sorted out) brings far more capability than the “cheap” alternatives ever will – we would have some serious capability gaps elsewhere that F35 was planned to fill. The Treasury might also have a view, as we will make more money through the F35 work share (that is dependent on our tier 1 participation in the programme) than the costs of the programme by a number of factors. We could throw them away and still make on the deal, but only if we buy them first. So all those who are peddling the alternatives need to come clean about what it would do to our UK sovereign industrial capability, GDP and our resultant tax bills.
The JSF aircraft will be procured by the RAF and the operational duty holder chain will be RAF. A deal has been struck to share the cockpits equitably, with the RAF getting the majority share.
The RN will rightly press for embarked supervisory roles, but they will probably have to share these with the RAF as the Force will not be big enough to grow sufficient FAA FW critical mass.
It is true that the RAF will have to step up to the plate – so start painting those cabins light blue inside! The RN aircrew in the US now are there to keep the FAA FW cadre alive (at a feed in rate of 2 per year!) as much as it is to grow cat and trap skills. The RAF want their share of the USN slots and are currently letting the RN take the lion’s share – small issue of how they are being paid for needs to be resolved!
With a significant distance away from full operating capability and the small size of the Force, it means that the RAF will be able to take the role on in a more measured way because of its fast jet strength in depth. The lack of RAF crews in USA is not an indication of reluctance to partake, but one of FAA survival instincts and necessity. Anyway, we bought the aircraft to deliver airpower away from the deck, not to be a vehicle for a macho landing contest (as deck ops so often become).
The more important issue here is how long is Defence, the RN sailors, HMG and the UK public going to be bombarded by FAA propaganda. We can’t afford to c**k this up (it has enough problems without infighting), so some of the old and bold who are peddling nonsense (regurgitated by certain posters here) about RAF intent need to let the generation who will have to make this work get on with it – together on board!
Those who are "leaking" (untrue) stories of Rafale and F18 have two agendas: to try and deflect the overrun costs of the whole programme, and/or to try and steal a march for FAA ownership. The fact is the F35 (once it is sorted out) brings far more capability than the “cheap” alternatives ever will – we would have some serious capability gaps elsewhere that F35 was planned to fill. The Treasury might also have a view, as we will make more money through the F35 work share (that is dependent on our tier 1 participation in the programme) than the costs of the programme by a number of factors. We could throw them away and still make on the deal, but only if we buy them first. So all those who are peddling the alternatives need to come clean about what it would do to our UK sovereign industrial capability, GDP and our resultant tax bills.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-18E/F, though capable for a few more years, is at the end of it's run.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I understand that the Australians, already getting Super Hornets, as an intended interim, are looking at making it the chosen one for the long term!"
Do we have much choice if we don't want a capability gap ?
We also have a minister ATM that is prepared to ask some hard questions and make decisions, not that everyone agrees. Being "in favour" with the US at the moment and with our dollar good as well doesn't do any harm either.
Do we have much choice if we don't want a capability gap ?
We also have a minister ATM that is prepared to ask some hard questions and make decisions, not that everyone agrees. Being "in favour" with the US at the moment and with our dollar good as well doesn't do any harm either.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wise words, Capt PUG. Bottom line is the RAF wants a fifth generation capability so are keen that the UK gets F35. The RN are desperate to preserve the carriers so will suggest sacrificing the air capability in order to do that. I don't think that the RN have a hope of winning the argument because a. The F35 will be far more capable, b. The F35 will actually be cheaper to UK plc due to industrial workshare (not ticket price) and c. The politicians will never change their minds twice - they would look very stupid.
Btw, I don't think that the plan was ever for the RN to purely fly from the carriers and the RAF from land - there was always going to be a mix, although sqns would be biased to one service, exactly like JFH. Given the current CEPP philosophy, the RN have shot themselves in the foot (although clearly it is RAF scheming) by planning on only having 9-12 F35s embarked. With a single carrier that, optimistically, will have 75% availability it means that maritime will be a relatively small part of JFSF, although probably a disproportionate training burden.
Finally. Of those currently in the US flying, or training to fly, the Hornet, how many do you think will fly F35 for the RAF/RN. I would hazard a guess at none but there may be one or 2, if you are optimistic, so little sense in the RAF committing money there just yet.
Btw, I don't think that the plan was ever for the RN to purely fly from the carriers and the RAF from land - there was always going to be a mix, although sqns would be biased to one service, exactly like JFH. Given the current CEPP philosophy, the RN have shot themselves in the foot (although clearly it is RAF scheming) by planning on only having 9-12 F35s embarked. With a single carrier that, optimistically, will have 75% availability it means that maritime will be a relatively small part of JFSF, although probably a disproportionate training burden.
Finally. Of those currently in the US flying, or training to fly, the Hornet, how many do you think will fly F35 for the RAF/RN. I would hazard a guess at none but there may be one or 2, if you are optimistic, so little sense in the RAF committing money there just yet.
Those who are "leaking" (untrue) stories of Rafale and F18 have two agendas: to try and deflect the overrun costs of the whole programme, and/or to try and steal a march for FAA ownership. The fact is the F35 (once it is sorted out) brings far more capability than the “cheap” alternatives ever will – we would have some serious capability gaps elsewhere that F35 was planned to fill. The Treasury might also have a view, as we will make more money through the F35 work share (that is dependent on our tier 1 participation in the programme) than the costs of the programme by a number of factors. We could throw them away and still make on the deal, but only if we buy them first. So all those who are peddling the alternatives need to come clean about what it would do to our UK sovereign industrial capability, GDP and our resultant tax bills.
FB