Air Command to 2030

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by Lord Jim »

I cannot see our Poseidons being tasked with anti-ship duties given the small number of airframes we are purchasing and the size of their primary tasks. As pointed out it is far too vulnerable tough looking to the future it could be used to control a number of LO UCAVs carrying say LRASM, providing targeting data etc.

We do have largish stocks of Stingray and we have the Merlins and Wildcats to use them. Remember what we used prior to Stingray, I think it was the US Mk44 or something similar. There is a precedent for using US ASW torpedoes.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:I cannot see our Poseidons being tasked with anti-ship duties given the small number of airframes we are purchasing and the size of their primary tasks.
The "or" in the post preceding does not hold, either. So what is the rationale for getting SLAM-ER then?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by Lord Jim »

There isn't any really. I mentioned it as it had been done so previously and I was making the point about the Poseidons using US sources weapons. I think some posters are getting confused as we used the Nimrod in Afghanistan, though as an ISTAR platform, and the Nimrod MRA4 was touted as a Storm Shadow long range carrier at one time. The Poseidon is purely for Maritime Patrol and ASW. The opposition is removed form play by other assets guided on to them by the Poseidon not engaged by the former.

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by S M H »

Lord Jim wrote:We do have largish stocks of Stingray and we have the Merlins and Wildcats to use them. Remember what we used prior to Stingray, I think it was the US Mk44 or something similar. There is a precedent for using US ASW torpedoes
I was on booth launches used for the manufactures trials of the waters west Scotland of the M R 2 with drill drops of mk 44 and mk 46. with the inert drop of the initial drill drop stingray. I was on launch Sunderland running test drop of Gibraltar the sting ray was designed to use the American designs software infrastructure. Using a submerged o boat as a target. With the charge section replaced with floatation ring and telemetry. The Norwegians bought sting ray for there P3s However little has been published about there integration. So it would make sense to purchase the same stock weapons including anti ship weapons if the fleet is supported by common maintained stocks pre positioned in the operating bases. Rather than having fleet in fleet airframes causing the need to hold operator only weapons. If Norway has the J S M integrated it could be a option if needed. As it is integrated into the f35. More pressing would be a purchase of the additional over land radar capability planed for the P8.

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

The Poseidon's that we receive will come with three weapons systems fitted in them as standard - SLAM-ER, Harpoon II + ER and the Mark 54 lightweight torpedo with HAAWC.

With each of these we have three options:
1. as the numbers are quite small we could 'rent' the systems and have them serviced by the US Navy. In the short-run this might be cost effective but over 10-15+ years service could easily be the most expensive option;
2. buy the US weapons and have them serviced by the US Navy. Again we would be faced with paying for, and maintaining, quite small stocks of weapons;
3. integrating British weapons. Although this would be the most expensive short-term, as it would involve the costs of integration, it should be the cheapest over a decade to simply use existing stocks of British weapons plus it might give higher critical numbers to allow for future improvements by MBDA/BAE.

Here's how this could work for the three weapons systems.

As the SLAM-ER is too short in range for the Poseidon to avoid the S-400 and S-500 it's my opinion that the aircraft should integrate the longer range Storm Shadow instead, which would also allow access to existing stocks.

With Harpoon II + ER I don't think there is any comparable British weapon so we should buy this system from the US and, to make it more cost effective and manageable, also buy the ship-launched version to replace the older Harpoon 1C.

As there are large stocks of Sting Ray both in the UK and Norway it should be cost effective in the long-term to integrate this torpedo with HAAWC for use both with the Poseidon and on the Sea Protector.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by Lord Jim »

A different scenario. The Poseidons come cleared to fire all three weapons systems described but the RN only actually purchases the Mk54 with HAAWC. The crews are trained on the remaining two and will use USN stocks is we need to in a conflict we are operating together in. AS for maintenance of the Mk54, well given the small numbers both us and Norway will probably use the USN depots with an agreement to receive replacement when one is returned for major maintenance. Forward maintenance would be carried out by a partnership between Boeing and the MoD at Lossiemouth. The aim is to get the minimum capability with the Poseidons for as little cost as possible. They are to carry out MPA and ASW and allow the Government to happily state that the capability gap has been closed. Repeating myself the Poseidon is too valuable to risk as a ASM platform or a Cruise Missile carrier. If we have to use them in such a way we and NATO are already in a very bad situation where all other alternatives have gone.

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

I know history doesn't repeat itself (well only occasionally) but if this scenario https://www.raf.mod.uk/history/OperationBlackBuck.cfm needed to be repeated in the near future wouldn't the Poseidon with Storm Shadow be the only realistic option as it's too far for Typhoon or even F-35B on carriers?

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by indeid »

AndyC wrote:I know history doesn't repeat itself (well only occasionally) but if this scenario https://www.raf.mod.uk/history/OperationBlackBuck.cfm needed to be repeated in the near future wouldn't the Poseidon with Storm Shadow be the only realistic option as it's too far for Typhoon or even F-35B on carriers?
Considering the limited amount we are buying I doubt that anything but ASW will be a priority. I doubt they are going to get more than two deployed lines out of the fleet. Whilst Seedcorn has maintained the skill set, it's going to take a while to get a new fleet up and running, why make that job more difficult than it already is?

I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers of Mk54 being bought are tiny, with the hope that if we start using them we can 'borrow' from US stocks. I reckon we will do the same with Harpoon, get a small number to claim a capability.

In terms of Storm Shadow I'd leave it well alone. It's use is commanded from on high, which would take aircraft away from their maritime role. It needs to be trained for, which will take away from the maritime focus, and since it is duplicating an existing capability why not put the money into filling a gap? Integration is never easy, or cheap! In the example you give I'd use TLAM, not always ideal depending on the runway build, but then neither is a SS for that mission.

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by Aethulwulf »

AndyC wrote:I know history doesn't repeat itself (well only occasionally) but if this scenario https://www.raf.mod.uk/history/OperationBlackBuck.cfm needed to be repeated in the near future wouldn't the Poseidon with Storm Shadow be the only realistic option as it's too far for Typhoon or even F-35B on carriers?
A SSN and Tomahawk Land Attack Missile would probably be the first choice.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by RetroSicotte »

AndyC wrote:or even F-35B on carriers?
How can an island be out of range for a plane off a carrier in the water? :p

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

What I mean is that due to the short range of the F-35B the carrier would have to get dangerously close to the shore, especially as we don't have that many escorts.

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by Aethulwulf »

The combat radius of the F35b is often quoted as about 830km. This is greater than the distance between London and Zurich.

An aircraft carrier attacking an island airfield has the distinct advantage that airfields are fixed and don't move, whereas the carrier's location changes from hour to hour. In theory, with a 830km combat radius, the carrier could conduct a raid from anywhere within up to 2,160,000 sq km. I would not class this as dangerously close to shore.

While the carrier may well be within range of enemy aircraft during launch and the recovery ops, before and after the raid it can also move out of range.

Any enemy faces big challenges attempting to counter a carrier moving to within 800km, launching a raid of 12 F35b stealth aircraft, dropping 24 Paveway IVs on their airfield, recovering the aircraft and then sailing out of range.

The enemy's challenges would be made even harder if, a few hours before the raid, a few of their key ISTAR nodes were disabled by 12 TLAMs launched by an Astute SSN.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by benny14 »

Aethulwulf wrote:Any enemy faces big challenges attempting to counter a carrier moving to within 800km
The combat radius and maximum range of the aircraft are 833km and 1,667km respectively. This is on internal fuel alone. When we eventually develop external fuel tanks, this range will be increased significantly. Although this does decrease the aircrafts carried armament and stealth.

One major drawback of having a V/STOL carrier, is the inability to launch aircraft capable of conducting airborne refueling, which puts us at a big disadvantage over a US carrier launching F35Cs with extended range and the ability to refuel mid air.

I don't think they would have spare refueling planes for us to use doing operations given their needs, which means that we will either have to put our carrier group much closer to the danger than them or not participate in the attack. Most likely we would act in a defensive CAP role defending the US group allowing them to commit more planes for the attack.

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by Aethulwulf »

I think it is way to early to make any definitive statements about how a future UK carrier group operating F35b would work with a US carrier group operating F18s and F35c.

If there are any earlier indications, it currently appears more likely a UK carrier group would be operating in support of a US amphibious group, rather than operating alongside a US carrier group.

However, need to wait and see...

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by benny14 »

Aethulwulf wrote: If there are any earlier indications, it currently appears more likely a UK carrier group would be operating in support of a US amphibious group, rather than operating alongside a US carrier group.
Fair point. That is a more likely scenario. The US launch marines from their LHD with limited air support, and we launch Marines from our LHD. We would be able to offer them much heavier air support due to the capacity of a HMS QE/POW.

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

The creation of an effective Sea Protector UCAV has moved a major step forward with the proven ability to track submerged submarines over long distances https://navaltoday.com/2017/11/16/ga-as ... -exercise/

The final major step forward is the capability to drop a Sting Ray torpedo from the drone on to the submarine!

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

Defence Minister Harriett Baldwin expanded on that agreement at a State of Qatar National Day reception in London today. She revealed that a new UK-based Typhoon joint squadron will be called No. 12 squadron, and that it will temporarily integrate Qatari personnel, including pilots and ground-crew based at RAF Coningsby, Lincolnshire.

Defence Minister Harriett Baldwin said:

Qatar proudly becomes the ninth nation to buy the world’s leading multi-role combat aircraft.

The formation of a joint squadron means our RAF will take the lead in providing training and support to the Qatari Emiri Air Force as it brings the Typhoon into service.
Confirmation of 12(B) Squadron moving to RAF Coningsby as it transitions from Tornado to Typhoon.

This is also important as Qatari funding will help make it more affordable for the RAF to move to an eight Squadron strong frontline Typhoon Force as outlined by Air Commodore Ian Duguid http://www.sldinfo.com/raf-air-commodor ... r-typhoon/

With eight frontline Squadrons it must be more likely that both IX(B) and 31 transition from Tornado to Typhoon and remain at RAF Marham which will have more space available than RAF Coningsby or RAF Lossiemouth well into the 2020s.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by topman »

If the eighth sqn does stand up I would imagine it'd go to lossie. 6 and 7 are going on current typhoon units, Coningsby has no space and Marham won't have one sqn of a different aircraft. The base picks itself.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by Lord Jim »

I agree, there isn't the infrastructure at Marham to support the Typhoon, which is actually quite a lot. To do so would mean treating it like a long term deployment and this would use assets reserved for use in genuine overseas operations.

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

I would have agreed about Lossiemouth if it hadn't also been chosen as the base for Poseidon and therefore also likely to be the base for Sea Protector.

If Marham were chosen as the base for IX(B) and 31 they would effectively carry on using the part of the base that they currently inhabit but move from Tornado to Tranche 3 Typhoon. Then in the mid 2020s IX(B) could transition to being the third frontline F-35B Squadron and later on 31 would be replaced by the second Naval Air Squadron.

Servicing and maintenance for all the Typhoons could still be based at Coningsby which after all is not that far away.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by downsizer »

This is fantasy land shit. The only thing that will be at marham is the handful of F35 we buy.

Re-energise the Leeming rumour mill. :crazy:

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by topman »

Not really doable, it's going to be typhoons at lossie or coningsby.

There's political issues with some bases for certain aircraft types but that's not the case.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by topman »

downsizer wrote: Re-energise the Leeming rumour mill. :crazy:
It was a bit more than a rumour, it was seriously considered.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by downsizer »

I know. But it's buried now. Thus like a fair portion of this thread, pointless. :crazy:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Air Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Some of us are not on the inside... our uptake might have all kinds of things slowing "it" down
... all "insiders" much appreciated (no fines :shh: , like in some other matters :D )
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply