tonyot Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) Oh I`ve bitten,.....just to defend myself twice over! In this case (and probably any other `pops' that I`ve made?) ,.....it isn`t the entire RAF that I may be criticising ,..but it does feel as if there are some up in high places within the RAF who think that everything revolves around fast jets and that other roles, Did you miss the memo where it mentions three of the top four Officers in the RAF are ex-Rotary, it is unlikely they are fast jet centric. Answ- I didn`t know that and fair play,.....but during the phase out of the Harrier I remember that it was ex Tornado men ruling the roost then. especially those supporting the Navy and Army are just not worth the hassle (maritime especially,..Army not so much, probably because Iraq and Afghanistan have been so `centric; and high profile, although tactical fixed wing transport is questionable), Any real basis to this ? Whatever the conspiracy theorists like to think, JFH worked well, JHC deployments on ships worked well, and the Dark Blue & Light Blue are well into Purple when it comes to the Air Environment, I am sure that the the RAF will not be supporting F-35 when it comes to the FAA basing and operations, oops, all at RAF Marham.... And not supporting the Army, so those extra Chinooks, Puma Upgrades etc were brought and paid for just for a laugh...!! Answ- I don`t doubt that JFH works well now and close support helicopter work has come on leaps and bounds as a result within the RAF & RN with the AAC in a supporting role, aided a great deal by the necessity of ops in Iraq & Afghanistan after a dodgy start due to lack of helicopters (yes an MoD procurement problem and not just RAF) and some early `in fighting' at HQ levels. The Army also requires a tactical transport fleet to deploy its main `out of area' spearhead force, ie 16 Air Assault Bde which includes two parachute infantry battalions and parachute trained supporting arms,.....yet there is not enough capacity to deploy this force in the numbers required. Yes this is due to the early withdrawal of the old Herks and losses within the C-130J force in Afghanistan but for such a nationally important intervention force to be left without the means to carry it is another national embarrassment and the MoD should have seen this coming. Now that Afghanistan is over this deployable force is becoming more important once more. Every time British Airborne Forces are mentioned somebody always rolls out the `never jumped since Suez' answer but the Army wishes to retain this capability and other nations have used it, the French did recently in Africa for instance. Like the French, I feel that we should be ordering a top up order of Hercs. The maritime patrol `thingy' well that is plainly embarrassing. When the SHAR was `ambushed' with the set up of Joint Force Harrier and then the canx of the re engining programme the Fleet lost its aerial umbrella along with a fine fighter which was holding its own well with most others out there, especially with its radar/missile combination. The remnants of the RN fixed wing community moved onto the RAF Harrier and the whole thing came firmly under the umbrella of the RAF who loaned their Harriers for the RN to fly under a Purple arrangement which was heavily weighted in the RAF`s favour. A true JFH would have seen at least a squadron`s worth of RAF Harriers converted for air to air use probably using the radar and missiles from the SHAR in order to maintain the ethos and job of the original JFH to provided cover for the fleet and attack capability. The F-35 will no doubt be the same as the old JFH with airframes lent out to the RN (will they be allowed to wear RN titles for a start,...unlike the Harriers apart from the single fly navy example?), even though the main (but not unique) role is as a carrier fighter/strike aircraft. . . yet they cling onto these roles because they appear to be scared of losing them,.....it must stem back to the 1920`s when the RAF was in danger of being taken over again by the RN & Army which just isn`t going to happen in this day and age! The RAF cling onto these roles because, well, its what there is an RAF for !!! Answ- In many Armed Forces land based maritime patrol is a Naval responsibility and all support helicopters are flown by the Army,.....so the RAF could lose these roles, especially if the Army & RN complained that they were not getting the service that they desired. Could I add that I do hope that they don`t by the way,...I`m just saying! I do feel that the Fleet Air Arm fixed wing element was also killed off in a long running and well planned campaign by high ranking RAF officers in the MoD who felt that they alone deserved to fly fast jets. I refer you to the F-35, far from killing of the FAA, I would suggest the RAF is guaranteeing it's survival in the Fast Jet World Answ- I didn`t think that the RN would agree with you there, they seemed to be doing quite well until the SHAR was pulled from under them! Procurement,.....well I blame the MoD. Well so do I, BUT I spent more than enough time at Abbey Wood and Corsham to know that many of the Project Teams biggest problems are caused by the Military Staff. A ten year development Project with Military staff changed over every 24-36 months, those guys going through just looking to either 1. get an appropriate tick in the Career Check list and escape as soon as possible or 2. make the effort to get the Project Managers qualifications and then brown nose their way into consultancy roles with the contractor for the project they have just worked on for the MoD, the Civil Service are not blameless, but neither is the Military. Answ- I know that the MoD isn`t just staffed by faceless civil servants and I`m well aware of the ineptitude and service in fighting carried out by senior officers of all three services within the MoD, plus the career building which also goes on too! I`ve had a few officers shinning up my back too in order to get a rung on the career ladder. My argument re the RAF `top nobs' in the MoD is that they are quite better at PR and putting their service forward than the others seem to be, often to the detriment of the Army & RN it seems. Personally I think that the RAF should be ordering more transport Herk`s as the new Atlas thing is too large for tactical ops and apparently the current British low level parachute is incompatible with the Atlas,......a bit inconvenient if you need to drop a battalion into Africa at short notice! So we are going to build a defence policy, and a massive chunk of money we haven't got, for the Air Environment around the premise we are going to be lobbing a battalion of troops into Africa...just how many times have we done that since Suez ? Other than SF it ain't gonna happen. Yes but our defence policy maintains 16 Air Assault Bde as the Army`s main out of area spearhead ground force but there isn`t a large enough tactical transport fleet now available to convey it, especially in its tactical airland and parachute assault roles. They instead have to rely on friendly territory being available to launch helicopter assaults for the main force, taking time for these assets to reach theatre, if possible. Just to say that we`ve not jumped in since Suez is old hat,......the Army still strives to maintain this capability and other nations have used this method since, the French used it in Africa last year and they also jumped into Gulf War 2 alongside the Americans. You could use the same `Suez' arguement for RAF fighters,......when was the last time an RAF fighter (officially!) shot down an enemy aircraft,.....wasn`t it WW2, yet we still maintain an efficient air defence capability. I know that RAF pilots have scored kills whilst attached to the American Forces, RAAF & RN since WW2,......so I`m in no way deriding their capability to do so, I`m just stating that just because a capability has not had the chance to be used doesn`t mean that it should be derided,.........wasn`t Suez the last major amphibious assault until the Falklands too? Quote more transport Herk`s as the new Atlas thing is too large for tactical ops and apparently the current British low level parachute is incompatible with the Atlas Probably a lot cheaper to buy some new A400 compatible parachutes then. The whole reason for the new low level chute was to jump at 300 feet or so to keep the aircraft below radar but the only alternative looks to be the old US T-10 chute which would be a retrograde step, based upon a WW2 design. I`m not sure about the new US chute. Quote Airborne support operations have been woefully underrated by the RAF Well it's not the RAF that decides that and the C-130s have been somewhat busy doing support operations in several theatres Yes I know that they have been very busy and of course it isn`t solely the fault of the RAF,.....like most things to do with procurement it is an MoD thing but the RAF just seems to put a lower priority on this matter which the Army rates highly. Friends even tell me that the RAF don`t like fitting the Herk for a Wedge drop from the tailgate during parachute exercises any more when this is a major source of supplies to the blokes on the ground who need them and otherwise it is just wasted space on the ramp. All the RAF lads and lasses have to do is fit the wedge shaped runners to the ramp and secure the actual` Wedge' equipment load itself which is rigged up by the Army. I hope that you are not as bored as I am! Now I`ve argued my point ,.......the Sweet & Sour Chicken was lovely too! As for the P-8,......in my own limited opinion anything with wings that bend so easily shouldn`t be flying over the sea at low level for long periods, unless the flapping is safe and is actually designed to provide enough lift to enable one engine to be shut down and extend range that is! Like others have said, you cannot drop sonar buoys, torpedoes, depth charges etc from medium altitude, not without additional guidance. Cheers, Tony Edited to get all the pretty colours correct! Edited November 12, 2015 by tonyot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Pulfrew Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Ascoteer Try googling Ultra Multi Static Active. Then try googling P-8 High Altitude ASW Weapons Capability. P-8 operates at low level today, just as the MR2 and P-3 did because it hasn't yet got HAAWC. If the tactics require the aircraft to come down to low level to increase the accuracy of buoy drops it will just do that. C-130J seems to have done pretty well in Afghanistan for the last 10 years or so, so I'm guessing it's doing alright in Tac. A400? Even I agree it may be a bit big for Tac, but it's designed to operate at low altitude and rough field so I guess it'll cope OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ascoteer Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Roland, a. Have you actually done ASW? b. Have you actually done Tac AT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Pulfrew Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Ascoteer A. Yes - shed loads, have you? Even flown in a P-8 (at low level) thanks. B - No. So what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ascoteer Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Indeed I have. In which case: A. How do you ratify an inability to operate at low level with a Torpedo Drop (let alone a bouy pattern)? B. Yet you deign to pontificate on AT, specifically Tac AT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevej60 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Regardless of which aircraft is best suited the sad fact is we,ve been caught with our pants down again, those at the MOD who thought the Russians would melt down all those Bear's and Backfire's and turn them into Coca-Cola tins won out over those who knew the threat would alway's be there and could return,now they've dusted them off and patched them up and insist in flying the dam thing's around us again we need a quick fix personally you don,t need a a sophisticated early warning system I can open the loft window and hear the flipping thing's taking off from Durham,What really annoy's me is that the submarine threat that was the main reason for a sound ASW/MPA platform never went away to the extent the air threat did! Edited November 12, 2015 by stevej60 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Pulfrew Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 A. You haven't googled HAAWC have you? Or MSA? Try looking there first. And the P-8 CAN operate at low level, why is that so difficult to understand? B. I'm not pontificating, I'm just commenting on what I saw in Afg! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ascoteer Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Sigh. HAAWC is a band aid to the fact that P8 can't operate at LL. Why is that so difficult to understand? In Afg you saw what exaxctly? Oh yes Albert operating in the Strat role. How does that make you an expert at TAC AT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-FAAWAFU Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 OK Roland, How are you going to sow an accurate buoy field from ML? How are you going to make an accurate torpedo attack? Indeed how are you going to get a torpedo in the water from 10,000'? Those are easy. Get the Merlins to do it. [Thought it was getting a bit heated in here] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Foster60 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Wow, take a few hours off the forum and this has moved on! I have to say for the most part I agree with our Friend Tony, but I suspect we went to the same school. Unfortunatly I am still involved , even in my small way at my advanced age with MOD and HQ staff cock ups at arms length. I am so tempted to mention something I am currently dealing with as many others of my ilk are across the country at them moment and it concerns something very basic to all military operations and establishments. Whatever it is 'they' cannot even organsise it properly and it is way down the scale from ordering an aircraft or an 'advanced capability' There is something fundimental wrong with the way we organise purchasing for the military in this country, very sad because a lot of good people work very hard. Even sader if you are in the front line. I wonder if it is the same the world over? Nigel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted November 12, 2015 Author Share Posted November 12, 2015 I would tend to agree. Remember (not to digress too far), there are quite a few in the US who still want to bin the F35, even though it's pretty much the only game in town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magwitch Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 How are you going to make an accurate torpedo attack? Indeed how are you going to get a torpedo in the water from 10,000'? With the HAAWC glide kit on a Mk.54. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Foster60 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 I have to say the UK has possibly because of some bad ideas in 2010 has got only two paths to go down. Rather like the F35B, have nothing or we go with the one option the USA offers us, in this case the P8 Poseidon. (what ever the faults of either) Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Chaps - it's getting a bit huffy in here, so dial it back a bit and talk to each other like respectful adults so the topic stays open, eh? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeR Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 (edited) If anyone wants a bit of "deep background" on the UK's MPA requirements, I'd recommend buying "Nimrod's Genesis" by Chris Gibson: LINK. A very good read and it's given me a greater appreciation of the pro's and con's of the role. For one thing, it makes a very good case why a tactical transport is inherently unsuitable for the MPA role. Too much wasted space in the fuselage and it's very difficult to fit weapon stations without major redesign of the fuselage, thus negating the "cheapness" factor. Another thing is the RAF's preference for four engines for both "back up" reasons should one fail and also matters of fuel economy. Finally, should the RAF decide to go for a full spectrum MPA, where would they be based? What threat would they be looking to counter? What other roles do they have to do? These questions impact the range and loiter requirements. Using the book as a basis, then neither the C-130 nor the P-8 meet the RAF's "classic" MPA requirements. Mike. Edited November 22, 2015 by MikeR 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Martin Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Does anyone really think the P-8 does not fit the MPA bill? Do you really think the Americans would go down the P-8 road if they were not 100% sure. 100 large airframes is a lot to order these days. Does India and the RAAF have it right? In the fullness of time the RAF will get very limited numbers of P-8. Is it really worth paying two-three times more (spey Phantom!) to justify a slight deviation of requirement from what other nations are using and requiring? If Canada had not just re-winged the Auroras/Orion they would be looking at the P-8 now. Bottom line, the RAF ought to happy it gets anything at this point. Its not exactly a national priority these days.... until something happens to justify an action plan. PM 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted November 22, 2015 Author Share Posted November 22, 2015 How much parts commonality is there between P-8 and commercial 737's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlamgat9 Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Does anyone really think the P-8 does not fit the MPA bill? Do you really think the Americans would go down the P-8 road if they were not 100% sure. 100 large airframes is a lot to order these days. Does India and the RAAF have it right? In the fullness of time the RAF will get very limited numbers of P-8. Is it really worth paying two-three times more (spey Phantom!) to justify a slight deviation of requirement from what other nations are using and requiring? If Canada had not just re-winged the Auroras/Orion they would be looking at the P-8 now. Bottom line, the RAF ought to happy it gets anything at this point. Its not exactly a national priority these days.... until something happens to justify an action plan. PM Quite! Perfection is the enemy of the good here. It isnt P-8 or some other unspecified wonder plane. It is most likely P-8 or nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bentwaters81tfw Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 How much parts commonality is there between P-8 and commercial 737's? The windscreen looks the same, and maybe the doors. I imagine things might be different after that. Boeing will make the best use of what they have, but I suspect a good 80% is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul A H Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 The Guardian are reporting on the defence review and are suggesting that the Airbus C-295 Persuader is also in the frame for the future Nimrod replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dambuster Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Does anyone really think the P-8 does not fit the MPA bill? Do you really think the Americans would go down the P-8 road if they were not 100% sure. 100 large airframes is a lot to order these days. PM The USA will do whatever it needs to protect its homegrown aerospace industry, whether the product fits the bill or not. They can afford to throw $$ at most programs when they really need to and if it keeps Boeing, LM, or NG in business then it works for them. remember, the UK used to do this when we had the ambition to keep a diverse national aerospace industry. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeR Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Well, we're all going to find out tomorrow. Regardless of what's bought people will have strong views. Now, where do people think our prospective MPA's will be based? Even as a Scot I highly doubt that they'll be based in Scotland, there isn't anywhere to put them now plus the "P" word rears it's head, so where in England or Wales would be best guess? Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Now, where do people think our prospective MPA's will be based? Even as a Scot I highly doubt that they'll be based in Scotland, there isn't anywhere to put them now plus the "P" word rears it's head, so where in England or Wales would be best guess? Mike. If we get P-8's (I say half a dozen tops) and purely operationally does it matter where it is based? How long does it take to transit from (say) Valley as opposed to somewhere in Scotland to the Greenland Gap? Also I've read today that 'the SAS have successfully lobbied to keep the C-130'. I'm intruiged as to what will be announced tomorrow. Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirfixAndy Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 St Mawgan ? Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Foster60 Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 I see in the news that the French are based in Scotland to hunt a Russian submarine threating our Trident deterent, been there for over a week! Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts