CAS - Fly faster; higher; carry more; stay up longer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
CAS - Fly faster; higher; carry more; stay up longer
CAS at the DSEi Event today ...
DSEi Event London
I like/understand all of the above down to the bold bit (which I've done to highlight) ... so are we now contemplating PFI/leasing type mechanics for front line combat aircraft ?
“I want aircraft to be faster; to fly higher; to carry more; to stay up in the air longer; I want them to be more available; to be more serviceable; I want them to stay in service longer and to take fewer people to maintain them. They have to be cheaper, if I don’t have to buy them at all that would be even better, and they have to be much cheaper to support because we will continue to be challenged to be efficient, effective and to use our money wisely.”
I like/understand all of the above down to the bold bit (which I've done to highlight) ... so are we now contemplating PFI/leasing type mechanics for front line combat aircraft ?
No, Coff. I think he's hoping that the Americans will just give him lots of free jets. Of course, if he wants all that, he may not be too keen on the compromises involved in STOVRL jets. Oh dear, I see a couple of issues here!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,810
Received 136 Likes
on
64 Posts
B-29 meets most of that spec. Are Boeing busy at the moment?
What s CAS actually asking for?
Fast jets? Bombers? Loitering killing drones?
Not exactly clear to me. YMMV.
What s CAS actually asking for?
Fast jets? Bombers? Loitering killing drones?
Not exactly clear to me. YMMV.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess he's referring to leasing like C-17 or PFI like Voyager. Not sure if the evidence stands up that this is a cheaper practice.
Maybe he's thinking of the RN buying their own F-35s
Maybe he's thinking of the RN buying their own F-35s
Last edited by WhiteOvies; 11th Sep 2013 at 18:41.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I want aircraft to be faster than a speeding bullet; to fly higher than the tallest mountain; to carry more than the biggest aircraft; to stay up in the air longer than the longest flight ; I want them to be more available than rocking horse sh1t; to be more serviceable than a hangar queen; I want them to stay in service longerthan the Nimrod MRA 4 and to take fewer people to maintain them. They have to be cheaper than chips, if I don’t have to buy them at all that would be even better, and they have to be much cheaper to support than whatever costs more because we will continue to be challenged to be efficient, effective and to use our money wisely.”
I think he missed out a few qualifiers there. Definitely an ISS D.
I think he missed out a few qualifiers there. Definitely an ISS D.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like the Air Staff and TSR2 all over again. Maybe this time somebody might step-in and ask why aircraft have to be faster, why they have to fly higher, etc...
Ahh, the sweet sound of history repeating itself again
Ahh, the sweet sound of history repeating itself again
Nah - he's just over articulating the traditional "the answer is two chinooks" question.....
He's got no choice; budgets are not going to increase in real terms for a long time and people are expensive. More UAS (HALE/MALE), more PFI with only enough organic eng support for deployed Ops by the sound of it. Hard to do in practise unless we demand the enemy define a FLET in future conflicts so we know where the COCO aircraft stop....ACAS mentioned looking at a UAS solution as part of any reborn MPA capability at the UAS conference on Monday at Excel.
He's got no choice; budgets are not going to increase in real terms for a long time and people are expensive. More UAS (HALE/MALE), more PFI with only enough organic eng support for deployed Ops by the sound of it. Hard to do in practise unless we demand the enemy define a FLET in future conflicts so we know where the COCO aircraft stop....ACAS mentioned looking at a UAS solution as part of any reborn MPA capability at the UAS conference on Monday at Excel.
But your next assignment might be an exchange posting to Alaska me thinks
Great, which one?
Eielson - Moose Creek Lodge
Elmendorf - The Great Alaskan Bush Company
Thank you, Sir
LJ
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I want aircraft to be faster; to fly higher; to carry more; to stay up in the air longer; I want them to be more available; to be more serviceable; I want them to stay in service longer and to take fewer people to maintain them. They have to be cheaper, if I don’t have to buy them at all that would be even better, and they have to be much cheaper to support because we will continue to be challenged to be efficient, effective and to use our money wisely.”
Because we ballsed up big time and made too many of those engineering types redundant
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: I have a home where the Junglies roam.
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STOVRL? Is that the beefy drink for brave pilot types?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like CAS has been taking lessons from Billy Connolly
Billy Connolly - women's demands - best bit - YouTube
Billy Connolly - women's demands - best bit - YouTube
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm...
No disrespect to CAS, his wish list is entirely understandable, but...
"I want aircraft to be faster; to fly higher; to carry more; to stay up in the air longer;"
...is all very well, however:
1. The basic laws of physics have not changed and aeronautical engineers have become awfully good at getting the most out of their designs. There is not much more one can do to achieve the above. Aerodynamically speaking, aircraft such as Typhoon are already pretty much optimised as are transport types such as Voyager and C-17. Any significant improvement is going to require technological step changes, which I believe we don't have the money for.
2. Jet engine technology has come a long way but large improvements in specific fuel consumption are now increasingly hard to come by. Engine design will have to change radically, which needs R&D, which needs a LOT of investment. Again, where is the money going to come from?
3. How about re-engining the GR4 fleet with EJ200s? That would allow the wish list to be met for that fleet at least. Nice bit of work for BAE, RR and QQ too, which would fit well with the Defence Industrial Strategy!
Regarding the next bit:
"I want them to be more available; to be more serviceable; I want them to stay in service longer and to take fewer people to maintain them. They have to be cheaper..."
I can't see anyone on the front line or in the training system disagreeing with any of that, aircrew or engineers! However, again it is a BIG ask. The only way I could see the situation improving in the short term is to:
1. Buy a lot more spares!
2. Alongside the existing combat types, get a fleet of cheaper and simpler CAS/COIN aircraft for use when there is no significant air or surface-to-air threat. Fleet of armed Super Tucano's anyone?
Last point - hopefully there will be no more really stupid procurement decisions, such as MRA4 or Sentinel, where the airframe choice was ridiculous and should never have been sanctioned
"I want aircraft to be faster; to fly higher; to carry more; to stay up in the air longer;"
...is all very well, however:
1. The basic laws of physics have not changed and aeronautical engineers have become awfully good at getting the most out of their designs. There is not much more one can do to achieve the above. Aerodynamically speaking, aircraft such as Typhoon are already pretty much optimised as are transport types such as Voyager and C-17. Any significant improvement is going to require technological step changes, which I believe we don't have the money for.
2. Jet engine technology has come a long way but large improvements in specific fuel consumption are now increasingly hard to come by. Engine design will have to change radically, which needs R&D, which needs a LOT of investment. Again, where is the money going to come from?
3. How about re-engining the GR4 fleet with EJ200s? That would allow the wish list to be met for that fleet at least. Nice bit of work for BAE, RR and QQ too, which would fit well with the Defence Industrial Strategy!
Regarding the next bit:
"I want them to be more available; to be more serviceable; I want them to stay in service longer and to take fewer people to maintain them. They have to be cheaper..."
I can't see anyone on the front line or in the training system disagreeing with any of that, aircrew or engineers! However, again it is a BIG ask. The only way I could see the situation improving in the short term is to:
1. Buy a lot more spares!
2. Alongside the existing combat types, get a fleet of cheaper and simpler CAS/COIN aircraft for use when there is no significant air or surface-to-air threat. Fleet of armed Super Tucano's anyone?
Last point - hopefully there will be no more really stupid procurement decisions, such as MRA4 or Sentinel, where the airframe choice was ridiculous and should never have been sanctioned
Oh gawd... I could say that for £250,000 pa ,or whatever he gets?
Does he realise the Government fund a level of capability? All he will get is a smaller air force. Not exactly reassuring comments about the equipment and contracts we hold now.
OAP
Does he realise the Government fund a level of capability? All he will get is a smaller air force. Not exactly reassuring comments about the equipment and contracts we hold now.
OAP
