Air Command to 2030

[ArmChairCivvy]

2039 if they are ordered at six per year.

which is a the time when the phased phasing out of even the newest Tiffies will start to bite.
- new tricks in the bag, starting from mid '30s?

[topman]

More importantly the RAF has regained the option of a punishment tour for naughty boys and girls.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... -k032r68d3

Sadly or not depending on where you work, I believe the plan is to operate the radar remotely.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the plan is to operate the radar remotely.

So, to take it out requires only a frogman, through a torpedo tube, rather than bothering with a platoon in black rubber dinghies, in black outfits and faces part-painted with charcoal?

[AndyC]

Peak Typhoon

• The fate of the two frontline tranche 1 Typhoon Squadrons is dependent on the speed of introduction of the third and fourth F-35B Squadrons. At the present time that looks likely to be either 2029 or 2030. Even after then some tranche 1 aircraft should remain in service in the ‘red air’ or training roles until the mid-2030s when more F-35s enter frontline service and so free up some tranche 2 aircraft to transfer to these roles.

• The RAF has started to recognise that they will have to address the issue of replacing the tranche 1’s AMRAAM C5 air-to-air missiles which have an OSD of 2024 http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/uk- ... -1-options

• The TyTAN contract signed in 2016 is on course to save £500 million from the cost of servicing tranche 2 and 3 Typhoons. Deep maintenance is being reduced from every 500 flight hours to every 750 flight hours per aircraft. This will reduce the number of aircraft in the sustainment fleet and enable the formation of an eighth frontline Squadron by 2023 https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-a ... -squadron/

• In the air superiority role the Typhoon can easily carry 6 BVRAAM such as the Meteor https://www.eurofighter.com/advantages and there should be no technical reason why it can’t carry 4 ASRAAM as well with two on the external wing hardpoints and two on the internal wing hardpoints. It’s just a question of having enough of both types of missile stockpiled to support this configuration.

• There is pressure but no definite news about fitting Conformal Fuel Tanks to tranche 2 and 3 Typhoons in development phase P4E http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... n-upgrades This becomes more of a priority if the SPEAR 4 mid-life upgrade for Storm Shadow does not greatly extend its range.

[AndyC]

MPA/ISTAR

• Orders for the nine Poseidon P-8 maritime patrol aircraft have been placed, together with an announcement confirming their basing at RAF Lossiemouth and their Squadron numbers http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-n ... d-40593474

• The uncertainty over what the Protector UCAV actually is has been cleared up and a firm order for sixteen has been placed. This is 20% fewer than indicated in the 2015 SDSR which may be due to the decline in the value of the Pound. An option for ten more exists and these may well be a Sea Protector variant although they could also be subject to numbers being reduced to reflect currency movements https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... uk-431587/ and https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-429994/

• Radar coverage around the UK is being upgraded https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... -k032r68d3 while the whole future of AWACS needs to be addressed https://rusi.org/publication/occasional ... and-future

[AndyC]

Complex Weapons: The Next Generation

• The mid-life upgrade for Storm Shadow has been announced https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mod- ... ge-missile but it falls disappointingly short of the improvements seen in the US ‘-Extended Range’ programme.

• Without the Extended Range, Storm Shadow is a less attractive missile for the F-35B as there is a trade-off between the greater range and the loss of stealth for the aircraft. So it simply isn’t worth it if the range isn’t increased. https://www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/c ... _followon/

• Similarly, without an Extended Range upgrade for Storm Shadow the cost of integration on the Poseidon isn’t worth it and instead it should use the already integrated SLAM-ER cruise missile.

• A requirement for a Maritime Future Offensive Warfare capability has appeared out of nowhere in the complex weapons section of the 2016 Defence Equipment Plan. Perhaps this is overdue recognition that the Harpoon 1C is about to leave naval service without an obvious replacement but a more advanced Harpoon II + ER will be available as a standard weapon on the new Poseidon P-8 from 2020? http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/201 ... rpoon.html This is significant as the MoD has said that it will only be using American weapons on the Poseidon – at least at the beginning of its service https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british ... n-weapons/ The Harpoon II + ER could also be used in the existing Harpoon launchers on destroyers and frigates keeping costs down and encouraging commonality.

• That means under current plans the Typhoon will be the sole operator of Storm Shadow after 2019, the Poseidon will carry SLAM-ER and the F-35B will not have a long-range strike missile until the FCASW comes along and replaces both of these weapons (and air-launched Harpoon II + ER) from 2030.

[AndyC]

Hawk Replacement

• The Defence Secretary has confirmed that the Red Arrows will be getting new aircraft and as this has to be a British aircraft the choice is limited http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/11/0 ... e-options/ Realistically it comes down to the Advanced Hawk.

• Once the decision is taken for the Red Arrows it would make sense on the grounds of commonality to use the same aircraft to replace the remaining legacy Hawks in 100 Squadron and 736 NAS.

• The MoD has launched a competition for the ASDOT contract http://www.monch.com/mpg/news/12-c5i/18 ... asdot.html This could either be seen as a genuine competition or as a device to reduce the cost of BAe’s likely bid as the Advanced Hawk is a more capable aircraft than most being proposed and it would damage its export potential if it wasn’t chosen by the RAF.

[dmereifield]

Unfortunately, according to to the MoD, there won't be a requirement to replace the T1 hawks until sometime after 2030.....

"There is no requirement to replace the Red Arrows Hawk T1 aircraft. The Hawk T1 is due to remain in service until 2030, as set out by SDSR 15.  Any decision about replacements is unlikely to be taken until after the end of this Parliament"

https://modmedia.blog.gov.uk/2017/10/15 ... ober-2017/

[AndyC]

The Hawk T1 will have served the Red Arrows for 41 years by 2020, surely that's long enough.

They are meant to show the cutting edge of British technology and yet are closer to obsolescence. Trying to get another 10 years out of this aged air frame cannot be right.

Instead the MoD should back BAE's future by ordering Advanced Hawks that have the latest equipment and electronics and will save jobs in this important hi-tech area. After all if the 'home' government won't buy this aircraft, what chance is there for exports?

Otherwise the MP's are right that there is a very real prospect that the UK won't have the ability to build this sort of aircraft by 2030!

[indeid]

The Hawk T1 will have served the Red Arrows for 41 years by 2020, surely that's long enough.

They are meant to show the cutting edge of British technology and yet are closer to obsolescence. Trying to get another 10 years out of this aged air frame cannot be right.

Instead the MoD should back BAE's future by ordering Advanced Hawks that have the latest equipment and electronics and will save jobs in this important hi-tech area. After all if the 'home' government won't buy this aircraft, what chance is there for exports?

Otherwise the MP's are right that there is a very real prospect that the UK won't have the ability to build this sort of aircraft by 2030!

What would you bin to pay for them?

[AndyC]

I'll answer that point in more detail in the near future but to quote from the Defence Equipment Plan 2016, page 9

" 12. Within the individual project costings that make up the core equipment plan, there is
specific risk provision of £10.95bn over ten years. The overall level of funding held for risk
at the end of ABC16 is an increase on the previous year’s figure of £10.3bn. The QRPC
process continues to provide a significant focus on whether project teams are holding the
right level of risk provision and to ensure that they are retiring risk appropriately. When
considered alongside the £5.25bn contingency provision, we have £16.2bn set aside to
cover emerging risks and potential cost growth in the equipment plan, totalling over 9% of
the core programme."

Set against this RUSI has estimated the cost of procurement has risen by £700 million due to the decline of the Pound.

I have also suggested earlier that the buying rate for the F-35B should be reduced from seven to six per year to partly offset this and the MoD has announced that the AAC will get it's new Apache AH-64E helicopters over a longer time frame.

So can the MoD find £240 million or so for a dozen Advanced Hawks? If the political will is there, they can easily.

[AndyC]

Basing

• The creation of an additional three frontline Typhoon Squadrons presents a challenge as to where they should be located. In a less financially challenging period an additional main operating base would probably have been the solution and I originally supported RAF Leeming. However, as Air Marshal Bagwell puts it this would “cost a pretty penny” http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/v ... 7&p=797623

• If the tranche 1 Typhoons are to specialise in QRA and be located at one base it would be most cost efficient to leave them where they are today at RAF Coningsby along with the tranche 1 maintenance facilities. This base has just about enough room for an additional Typhoon Squadron.

• Whichever way you look at the decision to make RAF Lossiemouth the base for maritime patrol and to welcome its use by the US Navy as well leaves it little room for additional expansion.

• Amongst the frontline main operating bases this just leaves RAF Marham. With the gradual build up of the Lightning Force this base has the capacity to host two Typhoon Squadrons at least until the late 2020s. At present there are three Tornado Squadrons based there. I would propose that 12(B) Squadron converts to the Typhoon and re-locates to RAF Coningsby using aircraft freed up by the TyTAN programme. Then IX(B) and 31 could swap the remaining Tornados for new tranche 3 Typhoons. Later on, as the Lightning Force builds up the F-35B’s numbers at RAF Marham these tranche 3 Typhoons could re-locate to RAF Coningsby and eventually replace the tranche 1 Typhoons.

• As a priority NATO should identify at least ten ex-Warsaw Pact airfields in Eastern Europe, not currently used by a local air force, and secure the perimeter, repair the runway and install new Hardened Aircraft Shelters that match NATO standards. These would not be permanently occupied but act as the forward bases that the USAF, RAF, France, Italy and Spain would occupy if tensions with Russia approached dangerous levels. The RAF should train at two of these bases in Poland and maintain an interest in the former RAF Gutersloh as its easternmost former airbase.

[ArmChairCivvy]

decision to make RAF Lossiemouth the base for maritime patrol and to welcome its use by the US Navy

- will t not be a three-way circulation of planes, with the Norgies included?

identify at least ten ex-Warsaw Pact airfields in Eastern Europe, not currently used by a local air force

- Bulgaria has one that was designated for squadrons to challenge the 6th Fleet, just by hopping over the mountains... could take 21 of them (squadrons; not planes)

[topman]

Basing

• The creation of an additional three frontline Typhoon Squadrons presents a challenge as to where they should be located. In a less financially challenging period an additional main operating base would probably have been the solution and I originally supported RAF Leeming. However, as Air Marshal Bagwell puts it this would “cost a pretty penny” http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/v ... 7&p=797623

The quote is from someone on an internet forum. Neither option is cheap, Coningsby and lossie require additional spending to make them capable and then there's airspace issues. I'm not sure Leeming was the worst option. Adding an extra sqn to each typhoon base will bring it's own issues.

[AndyC]

Funding Air Command Priorities to 2025

This assessment is based on the MoD’s defence equipment plan 2016 which can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -plan-2016
The MoD report provides plenty of detail that can be used to assess the state of the procurement budget by service.

For each budget heading this analysis examines the ‘Equipment Procurement (Uncommitted)’ figure. The budget headings below are those used on pages 18-31.

Combat Air - £5 billion in Uncommitted Equipment Procurement

Included in this are:
• the contracts to bring the number of F-35B up from 14 to 42 by 2023 as committed to in SDSR 2015 which will now cost £2.75 billion
• an additional £1.15 billion for the next twelve F-35B for 2024 and 2025
• £450 million to complete Project Centurion
• £400 million on the Typhoon Future Capability Programme including Captor E-Scan radar and integration of SPEAR 3 and
• £400 million for 16 new long-range Protector UCAV.

The Combat Air budget is over-committed by £150 million.

In addition, the TyTAN programme is targeted to save £500 million that can be re-allocated:
• £80 million to integrate Meteor (JNAAM version) on to tranche 1 Typhoons
• establishing an eighth Typhoon frontline Squadron (stated as costing £19 million per annum in a Parliamentary Answer in 2013)
• £80 million to upgrade all Typhoons assigned to QRA or air defence to carry six Meteors plus four ASRAAM and
• £50 million to fit tranche 2 and 3 Typhoons with Conformal Fuel Tanks.

That leaves a total of £720 million unfunded:
• £240 million of unfunded essentials for an order of 12 Advanced Hawks for the Red Arrows
• £300 million of unfunded desirables including £200 million for 8 Sea Protector UCAV and £100 million to integrate the Extended Range SPEAR 4 Storm Shadow on the F-35B and
• £30 million of unfunded optional items including the integration of ASRAAM on the Hawk T2.

Air Support - £4.5 billion in Uncommitted Equipment Procurement

Included in this are:
• the £2.3 billion contract for nine Boeing Poseidon P-8 aircraft (excluding the cost of US weapons)
• £2 billion on upgrading the Sentry E-3 AWACS aircraft and
• £130 million for buying two new Shadow R2 ISTAR aircraft and upgrading the existing six.

That leaves the Air Support budget £70 million to fund the integration of the Extended Range SPEAR 4 Storm Shadow and Sting Ray lightweight torpedo on the Poseidon.

[ArmChairCivvy]

• £400 million for 16 new long-range Protector UCAV.

Could be
- 4 down from the original 20,
- or the said four already paid for,
- or, moving 4 of the base version towards desiderata (i.e. the 8 of over-the-sea version)??

How can the P-8 money be uncommitted? Or are we talking about a second batch, also of 9? And with the 9+9 on the books, the integration of a British torp on them is no longer madness and a waste of money?

A lot of questions, sorry for that

[AndyC]

Could be
- 4 down from the original 20,
- or the said four already paid for,
- or, moving 4 of the base version towards desiderata (i.e. the 8 of over-the-sea version)??

There is now a firm order for 16 Protector's (down from 20) with an option to buy 10 more. I have assumed that the 16 are for land operations and reduced from 20 due to the devaluation of the Pound. I have also assumed that the 10 on option will be reduced to 8 for the same reason and be the over-the-sea version.

How can the P-8 money be uncommitted? Or are we talking about a second batch, also of 9? And with the 9+9 on the books, the integration of a British torp on them is no longer madness and a waste of money?

The Equipment Plan is always published behind the times. So the latest version starts in April 2016 but was only published in January 2017. At that time (April 2016) the contract for Poseidon had not been signed so it is an Uncommitted item. The next Equipment Plan should look very different after all of the contracts signed in the 2016/17 financial year.

I am still assuming that we will only buy 9 Poseidon but as far as I can tell the cost of integrating Storm Shadow and Sting Ray is not substantially different from having to buy a stock of SLAM-ER and Mark 54 torpedoes so we might as well go ahead and use our existing British weapons.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I am still assuming that we will only buy 9 Poseidon but as far as I can tell the cost of integrating Storm Shadow and Sting Ray is not substantially different from having to buy a stock of SLAM-ER and Mark 54 torpedoes so we might as well go ahead and use our existing British weapons.

Thanks Andy, for the clarifications.

On the bolded part though, in the quote, I would be surprised if that is the case as it took the Americans lots of time and money to mod the torp for high-altitude ASW use.

[AndyC]

At lower altitudes the Poseidon should be able to use either the Mark 54 or Sting Ray without serious modification due to their similarities - Sting Ray is just 120mm shorter than the Mark 54 but they both have the same diameter while Sting Ray is 9kg lighter. Both can be used by helicopters with a parachute to control their rate of descent from at least 10,000 feet.

The major difference is at higher altitudes (up to 30,000 feet) as the Mark 54 is being fitted with Lockheed Martin's High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapons Capability (HAAWC) which gives it added range and controls the speed of descent. As this is a low cost accessory it should be possible to fit it to Sting Ray at minimal extra cost and certainly if Lockheed Martin want to maximise sales outside the US it would be in their interest to develop this compatability.

See http://thesop.org/story/technology/2007 ... er-kit.php and https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lo ... dos-03340/

[ArmChairCivvy]

it should be possible to fit it to Sting Ray at minimal extra cost and certainly if Lockheed Martin want to maximise sales outside the US it would be in their interest to develop this compatability.

I like your optimism (that market would be UK & Norway... who, for the N. Atlantic pool the infra and logistics with the USA. So for one mission line - no one can say, a priori, for how long that would need to be maintained, any one of those three a/c markings could turn up on the tarmac, for a quick turn-around).

[Lord Jim]

I would say it is in the USA's interest to limit the number of non-US weapons able to be used from the Poseidon. I am pretty sure they will sell both the Mk54 and SLAM-ER at very attractive prices, maybe even letting other NATO members utilise US stocks as it reduces the competition for US manufacturers. Form a UK stand point the numbers of each munition we would actually but are incredibly small, probably no more than 50 of each, and we will plug into the USNs support and maintenance programme, or a European hub could be established in the UK as a sweetner.

Eventually we will realise there is no UK Defence Industry anymore. Yes we have a manufacturing base but the is shrinking and will vanish without Government subsidies. BAe has planted its flag firmly in the USA and other manufacturing sites are usually liked to specific programmes and owned by foreign companies. The only thing that concerns the UK Government is Jobs and because of this the subsidies will be forthcoming in aerospace and ship building, but regarding land systems it is too late as is the case with ammunition and propellants.

The RAF in the future will either get its hardware from the USA or possibly from Anglo-French co-operation, but the two are opposing interests especially from a US standpoint so they are likely to fight dirty to reduce the possibility of any next gen combat aircraft being built in Europe. Given the small size of such a programme to replace the Typhoon and Rafale (probably less than 300 airframes in total) weighed against likely costs, unless there is a huge increase in defence spending across Europe, the USA will become the only major western aerospace manufacturer. The only silver lining is that the UK could secure manufacturing and support facilities to support European customers.

[ArmChairCivvy]

there is
specific risk provision of £10.95bn over ten years. The overall level of funding held for risk
at the end of ABC16 is an increase on the previous year’s figure of £10.3bn. The QRPC
process continues to provide a significant focus on whether project teams are holding the
right level of risk provision and to ensure that they are retiring risk appropriately. When
considered alongside the £5.25bn contingency provision

This system and the changes to it since inception have been copied directly from banking (credit risk, more specifically).
Banks used to put as much as they could into the general contingency reserve (to regulate their taxable profits, and optimise taxes payable, along a multi-year view). However, this emphasis directly caused under-provisioning in specific risk provisions (which actually can be quantified, for changes both up and down; cfr. the "Q" in QRPC).
- so the banks were forced into the more specific direction
- the MoD (with the usual lag.. like a decade ) followed suit
- and they have also instructed "no hogging" as in "retiring appropriately" because every penny is away from the actual funding for new projects

[ArmChairCivvy]

possibly from Anglo-French co-operation, but the two are opposing interests especially from a US standpoint so they are likely to fight dirty to reduce the possibility of any next gen combat aircraft being built in Europe. Given the small size of such a programme to replace the Typhoon and Rafale (probably less than 300 airframes in total)

V important point (noting the unmanned air combat platform efforts, on the side).

What is missing from the above is the German need for a deep strike a/c (the same rqrmnt basically that we had a £1 bn provision for, which was then used as petty cash to top up the F-35 partner contribution to the required £2 bn). Some interesting deliberations (not from web bloggers but military and industry figures) have come out in the context of the Belgian fighter discussion (re: what alternatives are there, if any, over the life of the F-35... to appr. 2060's)
- the German requirement (deep as in range, even though the terminology strictly speaking refers to the importance of targets; the blurring of the distinction coming from... the RAF! as they started talking about battlefield interdiction as deep strike simply for the reason that there was no asset in inventory for deep strike) has been pointing to a Rafale XL as a starting point for the joint design
- deriving from the fact that Rafale Edition 1 had to be made super-compact to be of use as a carrier a/c

A long-ish way of getting to my point: the requirement is well in excess of 400, not under 300. One of the prestige projects is likely to fold into it (Turkey? - politics would have to change; Japan? - they remember that F-22 was not released to them and with China now building their own such, domestic capability in that race is seen as a must; Korea? Even if no such prgrm exists, the links German aerospace interests have been building over the years might come in handy)

Let the speculation continue (many years of it to come, before we will hear anything definitive)

[AndyC]

While it's true that the US has an interest to restrict the weapons on the Poseidon to being American only, Lockheed Martin's interest is to sell as many HAAWC systems as possible and they'll be able to do that if they can show that their kit is easily compatible with other non-US torpedoes such as Sting Ray and MU90.

Both the UK and Norway have large existing stocks of Sting Ray and surely have some leverage here.

There's also a problem with SLAM-ER. Its range of 170 miles/270 kilometres is well within the range of the latest S-400 and S-500. This would expose what is essentially a Boeing 737 to a great deal of risk that it’s not equipped to handle.

Even without extending its range Storm Shadow has a longer reach than these SAMs and would provide a greater degree of safety. That would be even more so if we developed an extended range Storm Shadow based around a new engine.

[ArmChairCivvy]

with SLAM-ER. Its range of 170 miles/270 kilometres is well within the range of the latest S-400 and S-500. This would expose what is essentially a Boeing 737 to a great deal of risk that it’s not equipped to handle.

Even without extending its range Storm Shadow has a longer reach than these SAMs and would provide a greater degree of safety.

Are we thinking of hitting ships, or, using these few planes (cfr. can maintain one task line) as intercontinental bombers?