Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
RAF to bring back proper aeroplanes?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Friday, 22nd January 2010
A report in the Times says that an army general is trying to get the RAF to replace some of its jets with a propeller plane made in Brazil.
His case is that prop planes are much cheaper & equally good for counter-insurgency work
The RAF don't sound too keen though
Any thoughts? -
Message 2
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Friday, 22nd January 2010
I think I'm with the RAF on this one. I also note this the Tucano offers a cost-effective platform to which high-tech equipment and munitions can be attached.Β and it's the "high-tech equipment and munitions" that make the Typhoon and Lightening so expensive.
-
Message 3
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 22nd January 2010
It depends on where you are fighting. You wouldn't want to be flying a ground attack A/C across the plains of Europe with the Russian Air Force bearing down on you. The best ground attack A/C for the likes of Afghanistan has to be the A 10 Thunderbolt. It was cheap to built and could take the hits. I would suggest the RAF have a word with the makers about turning out a few more. Problem is though, it can take up to 20 years for an A/C to go from idea to service. So the Typhoon built to fight Russian fighters is now being converted to fight a different war. The RAF spent millions a year or so ago upgrading the Jaguar ground attack A/C, only to have the bean counters decide to scrap them.
-
Message 4
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 24th January 2010
The problem is the length of the procurement cycle. Even WWII was largely fought with aircraft designed before that war, but modern combat aircraft take much longer to develop. The first JSF contracts were signed in 1996, and the type still has to enter service.
Therefore, attempting to build an air force for the war that you are fighting now is pointless. A modern air force needs to be prepared for all occasions, and that means investing in types such as the Typhoon, that can function and survive in a wide range of tasks and environments. Even if that means that 90% of the time, only a part of that ability will be used. -
Message 5
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Sunday, 24th January 2010
The lads brought back a working Pucara from the Malvinas. It was evaluated at Boscombe Down and can now bee seen at Duxford. No idea what the report said.
The point about long procurement cycles is well-made. They get even longer when a type has to be modified, such as adapting the Typhoon to carry bombs or getting the V-Bombers specifically designed to fly high and straight, to fly low and jinky (and mind the wings don't fall off, which in the case of the poor old Valiant...)
The type that's been lacking from the RAF inventory for years has been the long-range bomber. A few B-1's with Olympus Concorde engines might have been more handy than all those expensive anti-submarine frigates, but with defence you have to prepare for all forseeable threats and as many unforseeables as you can forsee in best Rumsfeltian terms. -
Message 6
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 24th January 2010
As stated, it is the long run in time that is the problem. The senior General is stating that aicraft carriers and type 45s are no use in Afghanistan. But in 10 years time if we had to fight another Falklands war, helecopters and transports would then be of no use for an invasion or a fight to defend the islands,and no doubt the senior General then would be complaining that we need carriers and 45s to protect the troops. Todays wars are always fought with yesterdays weapons. I read also that the army was buying 7.62 mil rifles from the U S because like the U S, our troops are being outgunned by the AK 47s. A case of yesterdays weapon being better than todays. The SLR would do the trick, (I Still perfere the Lee Enfield though) and could be bought from India, where it is still the standard army weapon, and no doubt cheaper than anything bought from the States.
-
Message 7
Posted by Penske666 (U9181113) on Monday, 25th January 2010
How much do Hawks cost to run?
-
Message 8
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Monday, 25th January 2010
Penske,
I can't answer your question, despite having been involved in Hawk projects for a number of years. If there's anyone out there who can they will need you to be more specific because there are many different versions in service with several different air forces (total production was approaching 1k last time I looked). And don't forget the US version (Goshawk). There are several engine options, as well as various avionics and armaments (virtual and real) that can be supplied and all are relevant to the potential running costs. I'd best shut up now as I'm in danger of breaching the OSA! -
Message 9
Posted by colonelblimp (U1705702) on Monday, 25th January 2010
The problem is the length of the procurement cycle. Even WWII was largely fought with aircraft designed before that war, but modern combat aircraft take much longer to develop. The first JSF contracts were signed in 1996, and the type still has to enter service.
Therefore, attempting to build an air force for the war that you are fighting now is pointless. A modern air force needs to be prepared for all occasions, and that means investing in types such as the Typhoon, that can function and survive in a wide range of tasks and environments. Even if that means that 90% of the time, only a part of that ability will be used.Β
The thing is, attempting to build an air force (or navy, or army) for a war you'ld never actually be able to fight is equally pointless. Being prepared for all eventualities is something we simply can't afford to do any more. It would be far better to acknowledge that and to direct our resources into delivering a few robust military capabilities rather than squandering them on shop-window ones with no substance to them. A case in point is the Nimrod MR4. If you want to be a global power, what are you going to do with a mere 9 maritime patrol aircraft, reconstructed at immense cost from 40 year-old airframes which were basically hand built originally and coming on stream years late? Or the solitary air wing, which is all we can afford, to split between two aircraft carriers - one of which is now slated to be a ludicrously large and uneconomic commando carrier, basically because we just haven't got the resources to use it for the purpose it was ordered for but can't afford to cancel it either. (Which is why we're also committed to far more Typhoons than the RAF can usefully operate.) We need to accept that we're never again going to be able to fight a first rank power except as an auxiliary to the USA, in which case we'll be reliant on them to provide most of the more sophisticated capabilities.
To put this in an historical context, I'ld draw an analogy with the British Pacific Fleet in 1945 - heavily dependent on the US for logistical support and for carrier aircraft, both of which it was simply beyond Britain's resources to provide. Could we have beaten Japan, at sea, on our own? No. Our contribution was not only tiny in comparison to America's, it wasn't even self-sufficient. With the expotential growth in the cost of military technology since 1945, what was true then is far more so today. Another analogy might be with the South American countries which, in the early 1900s, strained their finances buying one or maybe two dreadnoughts for reasons of prestige - a force so small as to be almost useless in practice. For one thing, ships need maintenance and your single dreadnought (or carrier....) might easily be unavailable at the crucial moment.
I'm with the Air Marshal, I'm afraid. Far better to buy a meaningful quantity of something we can use to fight a war we're actually capable of waging than to buy, say, 6 vastly expensive "Daring" class destroyers, currently without a functional missile system, to fight - who? China? Russia? The only opponents who would justify that sort of expenditure are out of our league in any case. -
Message 10
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 25th January 2010
Colonel Blimp, remember it was the RAF who told the Governments that the RN did not need carriers as they could supply aircover anywhere it was needed. Then along came the Falklands war.The senior officers of all three forces will alway put forward a case for increasing their share of the MOD spending at the cost to the other two forces. It is the nature of the beast.
-
Message 11
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 25th January 2010
ISTR The Crabs actually moved Australia on the map to "prove" their case.
-
Message 12
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 25th January 2010
Anybody notice and where did they put it?
-
Message 13
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Tuesday, 26th January 2010
Frank Parker,
From what I'm aware, guided munitions only need a relatively cheap software package, wiring and movable fins to turn a cheap "dumb" bomb into a guided bomb.
Personally I reckon the OP has a point. If aircover is proving to be too expensive with the hi-tech aircraft we deploy why not just use cheaper planes in a decidedly short term fix? And why design a new plane for it? Surely we can just steal an old design and modify it somewhat? I don't know an awful lot about Taliban anti-air capability but I'm pretty sure they're not operating state of the art SAMs so why not re-activate or re-build, say, a squadron of Mosquitoes with laser designators etc? Surely cheaper than a single Typhoon? Or maybe even an original Typhoon or Tempest, just for the irony?
As to the person who mentioned the V-Bombers, weren't they rolled out from design to production in just under 10 years? Nearly as long as the Afghanistan War? The reason defence procurement tends to take so long is more about economics and providing work than the actual building of the things in my view. -
Message 14
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Tuesday, 26th January 2010
India is making Hawks and flying Indian made Jaguars - and they are much closer to the theatre than we are. This suggests two options: 1) get the Indians to come in on our side or 2) buy some kit from the Indians.
-
Message 15
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Tuesday, 26th January 2010
Pity they destroyed all the tooling for the Hunter.
-
Message 16
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 26th January 2010
FOH The aircraft companies won't make much money by digging up an old design, and it has been tried but the generals/senior officers don't like it. A company started up a production line of updated P51s with terbo prop engine. I don't think anybody bought it. The US Generals didn't like the A10 Thunderbolt which is the best ground attack aircraft in service in the west. Now that should go back into production for the likes of Afghanistan. Or perhaps picking up some ex Soviet Hinds, also known as the flying tank. Which would be cheaper than most western helecopters and also doubled as a troop transport.
-
Message 17
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 26th January 2010
"actually moved Australia on the map"
Oh FFS, not this old naval whinge.
What actually happened was that it was an agreed planning assumption during the review of requirements that a suitable land base would be identified in a friendly country if necessary for any Indian Ocean contingencies.
After the RN had lost the battle over carriers, they decided to put it about that only Australia could be used as a base (and before wollemi erupts from her billabong, this was at the time of the Menzies' government) and therefore the RAF must have moved Australia 1000 miles to the West in their calculations. The RAF did not such thing.
It was also a central planners' decision to leave the Falklands out of the list of the defence contingencies to be addressed.
The Navy also like to point out that two of the senior RAF officers were lawyers. There weren't, although both CAS and ACAS had law degrees. But how on earth do these whingers think the ability to put together a decent argument in committee is CHEATING???? -
Message 18
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 26th January 2010
I think (Tongue in cheek) that the RAFs helpful remarks on the need for new carriers for the navy was payback for Montbattons helpful remarks about the TST 2 when in Australia, who at the time were considering buying it. The same thing is happening today with the army suggesting cutting back on big RAF/Navy prodjects.
-
Message 19
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 27th January 2010
That should of course read TRS 2 But thought for the day. As the RAF take delivery of the new C130Js , why not convert some of the older models in to gunships the way the US did. They started in the 60s with C47s, and went on to convert the 130. The aircraft can stay on site for hours giving heavy fire support.
-
Message 20
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Wednesday, 27th January 2010
That should of course read TRS 2Β Or even TSR2!?
-
Message 21
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 27th January 2010
GF
"why not convert some of the older models in to gunships the way the US did."
Probably for the same reason you don't use your old Vauxhall Viva for cross-country rallying :
LW -
Message 22
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 27th January 2010
LW but it has been proved to work. The C47 did stirling work in the role, and so has the C130.
-
Message 23
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 27th January 2010
GF
I meant, they are very old airframes, and not up to it. The current USAF machines are new-builds.
They are also very expensive pieces of kit, with all the sensors and defensive aids - a handful of miniguns and a 20mm or two won't do these days. Strictly something only the US taxpayer can afford.
LW -
Message 24
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Wednesday, 27th January 2010
The operations of gunships are more and more restricted in an environment were portable missiles are widespread. USAAF gunship are being forced to operate at higher altitudes (and therefore start to carry increasingly large calibre guns) and to flying at night, seeking out targets with their impressive array of sensor equipment.
That is not ideal for close air support -- yes, they can stay for hours, but only until the sun rises. The original purpose of gunships was not just close air support but also "interdiction", striking at enemy supply lines (read: the Ho Chi Minh trail) and reinforcements. That may now be their preferred function. -
Message 25
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
L W, M M. thanks for both answers. There was an inccident in my youth which involved the Shakelton. Information reached the British of a meeting of a group of terrorist leaders deep in the desert (I think it was something to do with the Aden conflict, but I could be wrong) To avoid them getting word, a flight of Shaks fueled and bombed up in Cypress and flew south over the med heading for the far east and dropped their bombs as they went. Thev raid was deemed a success.
-
Message 26
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
GF
That sounds like the Jebel Akhdar operation in 1958. But the Shacks involved were from 37 Sqn, based in Aden. Lincolns had been used previously (and in Kenya and Malaya) and as the Shack had certain characteristics in common, they took over, in addition to the maritime task.
37 Sqn supported counter-insurgency tasks in both Aden and Oman up until the withdrawal from Aden. They employed their cannon as well as 500lb and 1000lb bombs (Shackleton FGA.4, now there's a concept). I think Shacks were also used in Malaya.
David Lee's "Flight From The Middle East" has a fair amount of detail about Shackleton ops in the period.
Cheers
LW -
Message 27
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
The RAF already have propeller-driven aircraft with a similar function.
-
Message 28
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 29th January 2010
But remote controlled aircraft can't come back and shoot the line while throwing in a few "Wizzard Prangs."
-
Message 29
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Friday, 29th January 2010
Fair point GF, they certainly lack the romance of the Hurri-Spit era.
But armed with either Stingers or Hellfires they pootle about with some serious payloads. -
Message 30
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 29th January 2010
But you can't beat them doing a low level beat up of the airfield, then buying a few drinks in the mess. If you believe the stories,these things will be flown by a bunch of geeks who will never ever see a real aircraft. I wrote a story some time back about the next generation of pilots will be kids in an arcade not knowing that they are really fighting a war, and the bombs they are dropping being real ones.
-
Message 31
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Friday, 29th January 2010
Could they rent some A10s from the USAF?? I believe there are some in storage.
I also remember the company trying hawk around the re-engined Mustang for COIN operations, and they got no takers. However I think the US still has some sort of research/programme going on in that area.
However, as you said above, the A10 is the be-all and end-all for that kind of stuff and anything less would be putting pilots well in harms way. Perhaps its not RAF pilots they want to fly them though? -
Message 32
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 29th January 2010
S S, I raised both those points some posts back. I don't know what happened to the re engined Mustang though.
-
Message 33
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Friday, 29th January 2010
I think it just died a death Fred. Some sort of cheap A-1 Skyraider substitute could be quite useful in Afghanistan, flown by pilots from the Afghan Air Force.
-
Message 34
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Friday, 29th January 2010
In looking up the PA48 Enforcer, it just looks like nobody wanted it, especially the USAF. However I suppose then they never thought they were going to be involved in another long drawn out counter-insurgency deal like Afghanistan is... It would not have made sense in European skies but could make sense in other parts of the world, though some people will say "what can it do that a drone can't do?". Be cheaper for a start?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.