OT - GR4 Replacement: What are the options? What is feasible - The Royal Navy - NavWeaps Discussion Boards - NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Message Board

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

OT - GR4 Replacement: What are the options? What is feasible

Author

Comment

shaun

OT - GR4 Replacement: What are the options? What is...

Lead

[-]

Posts: 304

(24-Jun-2009 17:22:22)

OT - GR4 Replacement: What are the options? What is feasible?

My post in one of the recent threads has gotten me thinking about the future of the UK's strike capability (notwithstanding CVF and her airgroup). This was an issue a few years ago when we had the FOAS study look into capabilities to replace the GR4s, a related study has been SUAV(E) that will no doubt influence any decision to replace the GR4s after 2020.

DEFAULT SCENARIO

The default (business as usual) scenario seems to be constrained by the Treasury's unwillingness to cough up more funds towards defence, especially when the RAF will have just completed a purchase of 180-232 Typhoons. This scenario would be that when the GR4s are retired, we simply default the capability to the overstretched Typhoons that simply take up the strike role, spreading the number of aircraft available even more thinly.

CHEAPEST REPLACEMENT OPTION

Should the RAF make enough noise about requiring a strike aircraft, what is the cheapest option to shut them up? We may seek to reduce the burden on the Typhoon fleet by developing cheap UCAVs, currently along the lines of Taranis and/or Mantis. My reservation with this is that UCAVs will still be in their infancy to fulfil the all-weather, supersonic strike requirement, until perhaps the 2030s (most UCAV R&D seems to be geared towards slow, non-stealthy, persistence roles - e.g. such as ELINT/SIGINT, loitering recce, CAS and maybe IFR if larger models can be made).

A CHEAP YET PALATABLE OPTION?

What is the next cheapest option? A buy of F-35s to replace the GR4s, which may or may not be on a one-for-one basis. E.g. 72 F-35s replacing 144 GR4s. Not a bad option in that manned strike aircraft which will have been fielded for approx 10 years in the process of block upgrades will be available, but is this sufficient to meet the strike capability? Benefits may be reaped from sharing a common pool of F-35Bs with the FAA to sustain the strike capability.

OPTIMISED OPTION

What would happen if we gave the RAF a piece of paper to jot down their requirements (but not a blank cheque)? I imagine that they would come back with some sort of flow diagram explaining the principles of strike and what they should seek to undertake; this would devolve into two core capabilities:

Persistence/loitering strike and CAS
Stealth, supersonic, large-payload stand-off strike

No 1. This sounds a lot like the capability offered by Reaper; ideal for providing enduring CAS for troops on the ground. Allowing UAV technology to develop this could see large unmanned turboprop aircraft loitering over areas with large payloads including 2000lb bombs and SDBs.

No 2. Assuming that the UK wants to maintain a strategic offensive capability, the second requirement is more complex and costly (btw, I don't think relinquishing a capable offensive ability is even an option - many air forces around the world are equipping themselves with F-15Es, Su-34s and the like). So how does the RAF address this? My argument is that an aircraft should have the technical capability to penetrate enemy air defences by stealth and speed, survive in ECM-rich environments, outfight adversaries, deploy stand-off range weapons and RTB.

	F-15E	F-22	F/A-18E/F	F-111	F-117	Su-34	GR4	Typhoon	F-35A
Length	19.4	18.9	18.3	22	20	23	16.7	16	15.7
Wingspan	13	13.6	13.6	10	13	15	9	11	11
Empty Weight (t)	14.3	19.7	13.4	21.4	13.4	22	13.9	11	13.3
MTOW (t)	36.7	38	30	45.3	23.8	45	28	23.5	31.8
Combat Radius (mi)	1150	470	450	1330	350	680	870	860	700
Ferry Range (mi)	3570	2000	2070	4200	1070	2490	2420	2300	1380
Speed (mach)	2.5	2.25	1.8	2.5	0.92	1.8	2.3	2	1.6
Ceiling (ft)	60000	65000	45500	66000	69000	49200	50000	65000	60000
Thrust (kN)	258	312	196	224	96	274	154	180	178

A comparison with similar aircraft shows that if we defaulted the capability to Typhoon, the aircraft itself (despite obvious technical advantages) simply does not move enough mud. The F-35 performs little better.

My recommendation is that:

The RAF adopts a hi-lo tiered approach to its strike capability, with UAVs meeting the persistent strike requirement, and manned strike fighters being the more capable 'first-day-of-war' aircraft
The manned strike fighter should be in the F-15E-to-F-111 class, with stealth, speed, a good pair of legs with wet points and CFTs, a large payload for Storm Shadow (maybe internal carriage of Paveways/SDBs too), ECM-jamming kit and a backseat role for a WSO to control networked UAVs (as was recently trialled in a GR4). We could buy OTS (F-15SE), license-build (BAE Systems F-15SE), or indigenously develop such an aircraft

All IMHO

Last Edited By: shaun 24-Jun-2009 17:30:02. Edited 1 time.

shaun

[-]

Posts: 305

(24-Jun-2009 17:26:22)

I should also add that, obviously there are other parameters that affect the capability (ease of maintenance/serviceability, lifetime, electronic systems etc) but I am not qualified to talk about all those.

BenRoethig

[-]

Posts: 2192

(24-Jun-2009 17:40:17)

I'm guessing the typhoon ranges are with minimal weapons and a bunch of fuel tanks.

shaun

[-]

Posts: 306

(24-Jun-2009 17:44:19)

^^ Typhoon flying a Hi-Lo-Hi Ground Attack mission, probably with fuel tanks. Although the numbers are from FAS so may be somewhat dated

hulahoop7

[-]

Posts: 1432

(24-Jun-2009 18:23:12)

F35A looks very low on range.. almost F35Bish. Also, I thought BAE were already flying black triangles - and apparently hitting wind farms????

Last Edited By: hulahoop7 24-Jun-2009 18:25:45. Edited 1 times.

flyingdutchman1980

[-]

Posts: 281

(24-Jun-2009 19:38:44)

I don't get the love for a F-15SE.
So far there's one demonstrator built without any orders yet.
Thanks to the conformal fuel tanks used as F-22/F-35ish internal weapon bays, range (which was one of the big advantages of the F-15E) is smaller.
To me this reminds of the F-20; developed by a manufacturer without any US DoD involvement.

Why would this work better than a Typhoon or a F-35 again?
Certainly since it's 2020 we are discussing both Typhoon and F-35 will be matured airplanes with better capabilities than any F-15SE could ever dream about.

Besides, the UK lost it's strategic capabilities with the retiring of the Vulcan and turning the Victors into tankers.

Bledlow

[-]

Registered Member

Posts: 565

(24-Jun-2009 20:20:47)

shaun wrote:
.We may seek to reduce the burden on the Typhoon fleet by developing cheap UCAVs, currently along the lines of Taranis and/or Mantis. My reservation with this is that UCAVs will still be in their infancy to fulfil the all-weather, supersonic strike requirement, until perhaps the 2030s (most UCAV R&D seems to be geared towards slow, non-stealthy, persistence roles - e.g. such as ELINT/SIGINT, loitering recce, CAS and maybe IFR if larger models can be made).

Current UCAV R&D is moving more towards the stealthy, high-subsonic strike models. The slow, non-stealth persistence models are now routine. The UK, for example, is spending a lot of money on Watchkeeper, but the R&D has been done, & that money's buying us a network which we should be able to plug other UAVs (e.g. Mantis) into. Mantis seems to be a relatively cheap development, at least partly because the control & communications R&D has already been done, & an airframe like that doesn't cost a lot to develop. It could be very good for Afghanistan & similar scenarios, & persistent ISR in low-threat areas, but not survivable as an attack aircraft against anyone with even a very modest air force or GBAD.

That's where Taranis (& Neuron) & their successors come in. They're costing more, because they're higher performance airframes & stealthy. They're what is being looked at as the future of strike.

M Barber

[-]

Posts: 312

(26-Jun-2009 13:13:01)

In the current financial climate, I'd think that the most likely replacement is bugger all.

Therefore the best solution, as far as I can see it, would be to buy more Typhoons and F-35s. I doubt we'll see any British/European UCAV go into production until the Typhoon line is shut down either.

perfectgeneral

[-]

Posts: 664

(26-Jun-2009 20:14:00)

Is there any chance that this strike aircraft/UCAV will be able to use an aircraft carrier?

Lord Palmerston, "The British Army should be a projectile fired by the Royal Navy".

Nathan

[-]

Posts: 2365

(26-Jun-2009 21:33:58)

From my not very well informed arm chair, I'd like to see:

A realisation that our expeditionary air capability needs a full range of capabilities even when host nation basing is unavailable: in other words, apart from the fighter aircraft earmarked for UK (and Falklands and our share of European etc...) Air Defence, everything needs either the range to operate from out of theatre (tankers, AWACS, strategic lift, ELINT, MPA...) or to be able to operate equally well from a nice long runway or CVF.

Effectively that means any medium-weight future UCAVS need to be carrier-capable which I think pushes us back rethink to the F35B/C choice. A mixed force of Typhoons and F35C plus carrier capable UCAVS is a pretty good base.

Add to that a lot more sea-launched cruise missiles.

The final thing I'd like to see is the reinstatement of a long-range bomber capability. A couple of (short) squadrons worth. Perhaps buy off the shelf the USAF's next generation bomber or look at a low-risk (ha ha) development to fill the type of role the B52 takes today - very long range, high payload, subsonic and either launches cruise missiles from outside the air defence reach of capable enemies or loiters over Afghanistan/Iraq type theatres with hundreds of laser-guided or GPS-guided bombs. I don't think that spec is too ambitious or implies a £1bn aircraft but it would give us a capability that nobody else apart from the US and Russia can claim and which would have been very useful in every conflict we've been in since WW2.

kev 99a

[-]

Registered Member

Posts: 658

(27-Jun-2009 00:29:13)

The Next gen bomber for the US was one of the cuts that Gates recently proposed wasn't it?

Nathan

[-]

Posts: 2366

(27-Jun-2009 15:51:42)

I suspect that the problem with "next gen bomber" type projects is mission creep. You start off wanting a modern-technology, value-engineered aircraft built with well-proven techniques and COTS and with the performance of a B52, before you know it you are paying for a B2++ stealth aircraft. I think the UK could live with a non-penetrating (of sophisticated air defence systems), only mildly stealthy aircraft rather than something that can circle undetected all night over Moscow. Perhaps even airliner-based (like MPAs), as long as it has good payload, very long range and we have some long-ranged cruise missiles for it to carry when the opposition has more than MANPADS and machine guns.

Zen9

[-]

Posts: 4404

(27-Jun-2009 17:25:30)

OT - GR4 Replacement: What are the options? What is feasible?

Options.
Option A was the A12 Avenger assuming it came into service with the USN, it did'nt option A is dead.

Option B was an interim LO version of the Tornado offered by BAe as it was then, ruled out as too expensive for too little.

Option C was a new aircraft, FOAC, this became FOAS as it embraced both UCAVs and cruise missiles.
There seemed to be two manned aircraft options, one seems derived from Typhoon systems and maybe influenced by the earlier F117, the other started life depicted as being as big as a Buccanneer but by the end the artists impressions where suggesting it was smaller. IMO I don't think the size changed at all, just the need to look cheaper to the politicans.

The new manned aircraft seems dead, so F35 seems to be the successor for LO delivery of LGBs and short range munitions. Typhoon with Storm Shadow seems to be the medium range option and the concept of a cruise missile launch aircraft seems to have gone dead, unless somebody's heard anything about the supposed trials of a launch system on a Herc?
This leaves us with UCAVs. Currently that seems to be Taranis. Quite what is happening there is not clear, but my guess is things are progressing very slowly for lack of funds or a clear order.

At one point some made the comment that it would make sense to buy a small number of B1Bs instead, and possibly the RAF has held off to see what the US was doing (hoping to get some it themselves). But the US's new manned bomber looks in even more trouble than their 'destroyer' or LCS.

We utterly missed the boat on the potential to buy tankers, troop transports MPAs, ASTOR, AEWACs and bombers based on a new aircraft back when we not only decided on updating Nimrod, but then on not building new aircraft as well. Since then the civil side of aircaft manufacturing in BAE Systems has died with the end RJX ended production.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

OT - GR4 Replacement: What are the options? What is feasible

OT - GR4 Replacement: What are the options? What is...

Quick Reply