CAS - Fly faster; higher; carry more; stay up longer
CAS at the DSEi Event today ...
“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!
|
Contractor owned, Government operated PBH??
|
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. |
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 :E |
Sounds like Pulley wants some of these:
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4141/4...ee0dc956_z.jpg I'm sure that Bob Pleming can be negotiated to a reasonable rate! :ok: LJ |
Leon old chap ... I could be wrong ... But your next assignment might be an exchange posting to Alaska me thinks :p
|
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. |
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 :) |
I would imagine that the Americans would give us F-22's before Mr Pleming would reduce his expenses.
|
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. |
Given the wish list; did he actually tell us what task they are expected to do.
Form follows function? |
But your next assignment might be an exchange posting to Alaska me thinks Great, which one? Eielson - Moose Creek Lodge :E Elmendorf - The Great Alaskan Bush Company :E Thank you, Sir :ok: LJ |
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:ugh: |
ACAS mentioned looking at a UAS solution as part of any reborn MPA capability |
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil
(Post 8043519)
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!
|
Sounds like CAS has been taking lessons from Billy Connolly
Billy Connolly - women's demands - best bit - YouTube |
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 :ugh: |
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.:ooh: OAP |
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:44. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.