Time for a UK SEAD/DEAD Capability?
Originally Posted by flighthappens
I wouldn’t be so sure.
You are comparing the Super Hornet, clean, of which the single seat version has more fuel, and possibly different assumptions regarding stores expenditure, certainly drag index.
This USN website has a 850+NM range for the EA-18G when combat loaded. If you halve that you end up 425NM. ALQ99 and AGM88 are heavy and draggy, particularly when not aligned with the airflow on outward canted pylons.
https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_d...0&tid=950&ct=1
Also, you then have to think about whether it can VTOL back onto the boat with all that extra stuff on board and also whether it can physically carry 3x ALQ-99 (which is way more capable than the bog standard F35B’s current suite) , 2x HARMs, extra fuel tanks and then some self defence weapons. Also, ALQ-99 is due to be replaced by the ALQ-249 Next Generation Jammer (NGJ - with 2 replacing the legacy 3) within the next couple of years which is more capable and less draggy as I understand it?
Originally Posted by Lima Juliet
Yes, but put the same on a F35B and you’d be lucky to get outside of the Ship’s RADAR horizon!
Also, you then have to think about whether it can VTOL back onto the boat with all that extra stuff on board and also whether it can physically carry 3x ALQ-99 (which is way more capable than the bog standard F35B’s current suite) , 2x HARMs, extra fuel tanks and then some self defence weapons. Also, ALQ-99 is due to be replaced by the ALQ-249 Next Generation Jammer (NGJ - with 2 replacing the legacy 3) within the next couple of years which is more capable and less draggy as I understand it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx-thY9ce90
Also, you then have to think about whether it can VTOL back onto the boat with all that extra stuff on board and also whether it can physically carry 3x ALQ-99 (which is way more capable than the bog standard F35B’s current suite) , 2x HARMs, extra fuel tanks and then some self defence weapons. Also, ALQ-99 is due to be replaced by the ALQ-249 Next Generation Jammer (NGJ - with 2 replacing the legacy 3) within the next couple of years which is more capable and less draggy as I understand it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx-thY9ce90
Their range/endurance is similar enough that it isn’t a fundamentally limiting factor for either when operating together, although the B is at a handicap in that dept compared to its brothers
Last edited by flighthappens; 28th Dec 2019 at 05:36.
Originally Posted by flighthappens
The aircraft are complimentary, rather than competitors.
Their range/endurance is similar enough that it isn’t a fundamentally limiting factor for either when operating together, although the B is at a handicap in that dept compared to its brothers
This graphic shows the future for 5th gen Air Power (although the COMPASS CALL should be a bit further back!!).
Low Frequency RADAR vs Stealth references:
https://www.c4isrnet.com/intel-geoin..._medium=social
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...aircraft-59977
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/11/ar...e-stealth-war/
"The USN and the RAAF know this, but why can’t the UK military see this"
I'm pretty sure they can - but the US has a far greater budget and the Australians aren't spending money on SSBN's and carriers - the money just isn't there for an all singing , all dancing air force any longer - the UK has to make choices
I'm pretty sure they can - but the US has a far greater budget and the Australians aren't spending money on SSBN's and carriers - the money just isn't there for an all singing , all dancing air force any longer - the UK has to make choices
Australia spends 1.9-2% GDP on defence (Australian GDP is roughly half that of the UK). Their 3x Services are roughly half the size of ours by proportion (even the Reserves). They are actively modernising (as are we). Indeed they have bought in the last 20 years 6x COLLINS Class SSG guided missile subs (and plan to buy more ATTACK Class SSGs), they have 2x CANBERRA Class LHD helicopter carriers that are bigger than our old INVINCIBLE Class (and also made tunes to buy F35B for them in their 2004 Maritime Strategy). In recent years they have bought Super Hornets (A/B/F/G models) and F35A, plus nearly twice as many P8s and they already have the Wedgetail. Yes, they don’t have an Independent Nuclear Deterrent, but then again there has never really been a threat to the Australian mainland until recently - hence they are now modernising their defence forces. Looking at their RAAF inventory then they seem to have just about every capability that we have but about half the number - apart from MPAs where they have much more sea to cover than us. The escorting SEAD/DEAD/EW/EA is really this missing piece in the RAF’s jigsaw, which is what this post is really all about - if Australia has 11x Growlers on a Sqn, then why haven’t we got 22 on 2 Sqns?
I wouldn't bring up the Collins programme with any Australian......................
The Australians no longer build their own airframes (same with the Canberra's - built in Spain) - so can shop around for the best deal - the UK still tries to support a national capacity with aircraft and ships (and even tanks) - this is VERY expensive. The latest World Naval Review reckons the RN & Norwegian Navy's latest tankers, built in S Korea, cost approx. 33%- 50% of the cost of equivalent French built vessels and an astounding 90% less than the latest Canadian home built support vessels. It will be very interesting g to see the costs of the costs of the submarines they are buying from France but building in Adelaide - same with the new Type 31's they are planning to build locally.
The SSBN force costs around USD $2.5- 3 Bn a year but replacement will cost s a fortune
The Australians no longer build their own airframes (same with the Canberra's - built in Spain) - so can shop around for the best deal - the UK still tries to support a national capacity with aircraft and ships (and even tanks) - this is VERY expensive. The latest World Naval Review reckons the RN & Norwegian Navy's latest tankers, built in S Korea, cost approx. 33%- 50% of the cost of equivalent French built vessels and an astounding 90% less than the latest Canadian home built support vessels. It will be very interesting g to see the costs of the costs of the submarines they are buying from France but building in Adelaide - same with the new Type 31's they are planning to build locally.
The SSBN force costs around USD $2.5- 3 Bn a year but replacement will cost s a fortune
Lima Juliet,
Because it is a silly comparison. Australia does not have two SSBN nor three and a half SSN, nor does it have one 65,0000 ton aircraft carrier or 38 Chinooks or 25 Apaches.
The RAF has never operated dedicated SEAD/DEAD/EA aircraft, and even during the Cold War neither did most of NATO, it was just a niche capability provided in small numbers by the US and the Germans. And that niche capability never existed in numbers to enable it to be everywhere at once, so it was never seen as a must have by anybody.
Asturia56,
A national capability in certain defence manufacturing is seen by the UK as an essential national asset and capability, if you buy everything from overseas then you risk your foreign policy inevitably becoming dependent upon those you buy from, not very independent and not a very good example of "taking back control". You would also ruin the second largest defence and aerospace industry in the world with all the implications for employment, GDP and tax take.
Because it is a silly comparison. Australia does not have two SSBN nor three and a half SSN, nor does it have one 65,0000 ton aircraft carrier or 38 Chinooks or 25 Apaches.
The RAF has never operated dedicated SEAD/DEAD/EA aircraft, and even during the Cold War neither did most of NATO, it was just a niche capability provided in small numbers by the US and the Germans. And that niche capability never existed in numbers to enable it to be everywhere at once, so it was never seen as a must have by anybody.
Asturia56,
A national capability in certain defence manufacturing is seen by the UK as an essential national asset and capability, if you buy everything from overseas then you risk your foreign policy inevitably becoming dependent upon those you buy from, not very independent and not a very good example of "taking back control". You would also ruin the second largest defence and aerospace industry in the world with all the implications for employment, GDP and tax take.
Agreed Pr00ne - but that comes that at a significant cost to the UK Armed Services - I was only pointing out that buying off the shelf allows the Aussies to buy more. Their record of building in Australia is pretty dreadful TBH.
If you want to subsidise an industry maybe just subsidise it rather than channel the funds through the RAF and the RN
If you want to subsidise an industry maybe just subsidise it rather than channel the funds through the RAF and the RN
Originally Posted by pr00ne
Lima Juliet,
Because it is a silly comparison. Australia does not have two SSBN nor three and a half SSN, nor does it have one 65,0000 ton aircraft carrier or 38 Chinooks or 25 Apaches.
The RAF has never operated dedicated SEAD/DEAD/EA aircraft, and even during the Cold War neither did most of NATO, it was just a niche capability provided in small numbers by the US and the Germans. And that niche capability never existed in numbers to enable it to be everywhere at once, so it was never seen as a must have by anybody.
Asturia56,
A national capability in certain defence manufacturing is seen by the UK as an essential national asset and capability, if you buy everything from overseas then you risk your foreign policy inevitably becoming dependent upon those you buy from, not very independent and not a very good example of "taking back control". You would also ruin the second largest defence and aerospace industry in the world with all the implications for employment, GDP and tax take.
Because it is a silly comparison. Australia does not have two SSBN nor three and a half SSN, nor does it have one 65,0000 ton aircraft carrier or 38 Chinooks or 25 Apaches.
The RAF has never operated dedicated SEAD/DEAD/EA aircraft, and even during the Cold War neither did most of NATO, it was just a niche capability provided in small numbers by the US and the Germans. And that niche capability never existed in numbers to enable it to be everywhere at once, so it was never seen as a must have by anybody.
Asturia56,
A national capability in certain defence manufacturing is seen by the UK as an essential national asset and capability, if you buy everything from overseas then you risk your foreign policy inevitably becoming dependent upon those you buy from, not very independent and not a very good example of "taking back control". You would also ruin the second largest defence and aerospace industry in the world with all the implications for employment, GDP and tax take.
Last time I looked they had 22x Eurocopter Tiger AHs, 10x Chinook, 35x Blackhawk and 40x MRH90 helicopters. I’d say that was pretty good. Also, their 2x 27T helicopter carriers that could take F35B if they put their mind to it.
As for niche capabilities for SEAD/DEAD/EA then we had EF-3 too. Torpy didn’t like it as he was frightened it would reduce the numbers of his beloved GR1/GR4 and so he poo-poo’d it for TELIC. It was way more capable than GR4 with ALARM and if we had used the EF-3 with a different Mode 4 IFF and JTIDS then the Patriot accident with the GR4 might never have happened.
Lima Juliet,
I'm sure that it is pretty good, but your claim that we should have about double the Australian capability in quantity is nonsense. We are in very different strategic situations and have vastly different needs. Didn't the EF-3 exist at flight level for less than a year? We never had SEAD/DEAD/EA before, so why in a much smaller actual war fighting force should we suddenly demand one now?
I'm sure that it is pretty good, but your claim that we should have about double the Australian capability in quantity is nonsense. We are in very different strategic situations and have vastly different needs. Didn't the EF-3 exist at flight level for less than a year? We never had SEAD/DEAD/EA before, so why in a much smaller actual war fighting force should we suddenly demand one now?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,708
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
9 Posts
Originally Posted by pr00ne
We never had SEAD/DEAD/EA before, so why in a much smaller actual war fighting force should we suddenly demand one now?
LJ,
ALARM was obsolete long ago and I think the future of ESM- and ARM-based SEAD more generally is in question given the combination of improved ‘coarse’ tracking with track-via-missile SAM endgame guidance, which together mean that SAM radars spend very little time emitting (note that the HARM replacement, AARGM, has GPS and an active radar seeker on board in addition to the passive seeker). I’ll reiterate my view that Typhoon ECR is aimed at customers without stealth and/or AESA-based SAR and electronic attack.
Originally Posted by flighthappens
I wouldn’t be so sure.
You are comparing the Super Hornet, clean, of which the single seat version has more fuel, and possibly different assumptions regarding stores expenditure, certainly drag index.
This USN website has a 850+NM range for the EA-18G when combat loaded. If you halve that you end up 425NM. ALQ99 and AGM88 are heavy and draggy, particularly when not aligned with the airflow on outward canted pylons.
https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_d...0&tid=950&ct=1
You are comparing the Super Hornet, clean, of which the single seat version has more fuel, and possibly different assumptions regarding stores expenditure, certainly drag index.
This USN website has a 850+NM range for the EA-18G when combat loaded. If you halve that you end up 425NM. ALQ99 and AGM88 are heavy and draggy, particularly when not aligned with the airflow on outward canted pylons.
https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_d...0&tid=950&ct=1
