RAF to become smallest since 1914...

[Starglider]

But for aerospace -- only the military has the money and funding to achieve some of these goals -- since there exists no commercial market for supersonic flight, and no company is willing to fund a new SST.

If commercial supersonic aircraft were on the cusp of viability, we could have another state-subsidised Concorde-style SST project (or for the UK, actually fund SABRE/Skylon). They aren't so that would make no sense, and funding new fighter designs with the hope that it would cause a new SST-making factory spring up in the UK (or even US) makes even less sense.

[MKSheppard]

If commercial supersonic aircraft were on the cusp of viability

They are; just look at the Boeing 2707 -- it was far more economically viable than Concorde; and the technology exists right now to build some sort of supersonic business jet easily if you don't think that there's a big enough market for 200+ passenger SSTs.

They aren't so that would make no sense, and funding new fighter designs with the hope that it would cause a new SST-making factory spring up in the UK (or even US) makes even less sense.

It's not just SST. All the money being spent by the US military on prompt global strike whether through advanced mach 3 turboramjets or Mach 4+ scramjets will eventually bleed into the commercial market a lot faster than simply waiting for the commercial companies to conclude that the risk is low enough for a venture into those directions.

[Starglider]

They are; just look at the Boeing 2707 -- it was far more economically viable than Concorde;

Oil prices have more than tripled (in real terms) since the 2707 was canceled. On top of that there is the fact that much of the state of the art in airliner airframe construction is inapplicable to mach 2+ aircraft, vastly increasing the costs of developing and acquiring such an airliner. Finally there is the rise of low-cost airlines and the fact that the mass-market modern customers are much more price sensitive than the elite that was flying regularly in 1970. Sorry, I'd like to see an SST as much as you, but realistically it isn't going to happen until we've got through the global economic crisis and solved the fuel price problem. As for business jets, I don't think they're being held back by engine issues, again it's commercial viability and producing technologically risky aircraft in small runs on the available budgets.

All the money being spent by the US military on prompt global strike whether through advanced mach 3 turboramjets or Mach 4+ scramjets will eventually bleed into the commercial market a lot faster than simply waiting for the commercial companies to conclude that the risk is low enough for a venture into those directions.

Well, it's arguable that we might skip SST entirely and go to sub-orbital. It's a whole order of magnitude improvement and we could possibly grow it from space tourism efforts. You still haven't overcome the argument that if we wanted to create an industry building these things, we could just subsidise another Concorde-still project to do it directly, with a much greater chance of success. Scramjets are particularly impractical for commercial aircraft as the massive complexity (variable intake ducts, high-performance turbofans for low speeds, active cooling systems) would translate into extremely high maintenance costs (remember, commercial airframes fly vastly more hours than military ones). Not to mention the fact that minor failures at hypersonic speeds are inherently more dangerous than at subsonic speeds. Skylon at least has the virtue of (relative) simplicity.

[Sea Skimmer]

You can STFU. Russia has a bit more than twice the population of the UK, and operates about 1000 fighters and 150 bombers. You were just whining in the Mig-31 thread about how 100 airframes isn't enough and they should all be upgraded ASAP. Yet apparently the UK having a mere 160 fighters is way too much, and it should not even consider upgrading its older fighters?

Not to mention Russia is the only nation on earth building new ICBMs and one of only two nations building new nuclear ballistic missile submarines, and is busily buying new versions of just about every single other class of weapon it has. What's more it does all this while announcing plans for new aircraft carriers and other very offensive weapons, and while demanding the US and the west pay to help dismantle its old nuclear weapons because they claim to have no money to do so.

[K. A. Pital]

The three basic arguments for keeping military strength in times of (relative) peace are;
1) The world could start getting much more dangerous at any time. A few ultra-nationalist regimes come to power, a couple of civil wars start, Israel finally gets involved in another major war. Modern militaries take a long, long time to scale back up.

Who the fuck cares about Israel? Why should Britain involve itself in wars with Israel?

3) A powerful military, particularly a powerful expeditionary force, gives you more political influence.

In other worlds, domination and neo-imperialism become more easy to pull off.

Obviously some people object to (3) on principle out of dislike for realpolitik etc but these people should be ignored.

Because people who dislike militarism obviously dislike realpolitik. What a nice set of definitions you have, Mr. Transhumanist.

(1) is the only good argument. We do live in a dangerous world facing resource shortages and proliferation of military technologies that are only going to exacerbate the numerous existing flashpoints and sources of tension. The UK is critically reliant on international trade and this won't change any time soon. UK firms are at the forefront of offshore resource exploitation and this will need defending, e.g. the Falklands vs Argentina.

"We live in a dangerous world where the First World appropriates the lion's share of world's resources grabbing them from poorer nations which it regularly dickstabs, ruins economically and does other shit. For the stability, and continuing prosperity of the First World and the Great British... um... not an Empire any more, but still... we are critically reliant on that and we need the military". I see. I've heard that a lot of times.

Actually, wasn't it the UK which invaded Egypt because it was losing profits from the Suez channel, when those uppity brown men decided they've had enough? I see the same justification here. And you're asking me why oh why I think that Britain should have no military?

You can STFU. Russia has a bit more than twice the population of the UK, and operates about 1000 fighters and 150 bombers. You were just whining in the Mig-31 thread about how 100 airframes isn't enough and they should all be upgraded ASAP. Yet apparently the UK having a mere 160 fighters is way too much, and it should not even consider upgrading its older fighters?

Um... I just said I welcome disarmament if it's really universal. Like, if Russia is disarming, it's pretty good that Britain is disarming too. Besides, Britain has what, a tiny fraction of Russia's territory, which is poor in resources and doesn't even need a fucking deterrent to protect itself because no one fucking cares about the UK and no one would care to capture it's islands.

You were just whining in the Mig-31 thread about how 100 airframes isn't enough and they should all be upgraded ASAP.

If you want my honest position - let it rust away. To explain a bit further - I do not, actually, wish see Russia's current regime better armed. I'm only worried about what the current regime will leave to those who will come after it.

[Ekiqa]

Back to the OP, they neglect to do one of the biggest money savers: bring back the forces from Germany. Closing the last of the bases in Germany saves money, plus it also puts more money back into the British economy, and not the German one. Forces haven't been needed there since the early 90's.

[[R_H]]

Back to the OP, they neglect to do one of the biggest money savers: bring back the forces from Germany. Closing the last of the bases in Germany saves money, plus it also puts more money back into the British economy, and not the German one. Forces haven't been needed there since the early 90's.

They're still not bringing those troops back - why?

While we're on the subject of downsizing military forces

German Military Reform Could Halve Ground Forces

German Defense Minister Guttenberg favors a plan to reform the army by halving the number of ground troops and battle tanks, SPIEGEL has learned. His ministry is due to present a reform plan in autumn in a bid to cut costs and boost the army's effectiveness.

Germany's ground forces would be almost halved under a reform plan favored by Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, SPIEGEL has learned.

An internal paper suggests cutting the army from 95,000 soldiers to 54,558. The number of battle tanks would also be reduced by almost half. The strength of the infantry would remain almost unchanged at around 10,000 troops.

Critics say the reform plan won't improve the situation of German infantry soldiers on foreign missions, who are being worn down by the high frequency of missions and insufficient rest and recuperation time. Germany is currently the third-biggest international troop provider in Afghanistan with more than 4,000 soldiers stationed there.

The government decided in June to radically downsize the German army as part of its austerity program. The Defense Ministry is currently reviewing a number of different reform plans aimed at modernizing the army and improving its ability to conduct military missions abroad. The ministry is expected to submit its proposal in the autumn.

The reforms have led to a debate about whether Germany should end conscription. The pro-business Free Democratic Party, the junior partner to Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives in the center-right coalition government, is calling for conscription to be abolished.

But the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) and the Christian Social Union (CSU) fear a grassroots rebellion in their parties, where many see conscription as a valuable tool to anchor the army in society.

Get your Leopard 2s at low low prices!

[Lonestar]

They're still not bringing those troops back - why?

Too many Flag officers want to be stationed in Europe.

What follows is RUMINT I've heard around work.

When the US decided to Stand up AFRICOM they did a study as to the best place(i.e. cheapest) to locate the headquarters. The list went something like this:

1. Close out JFCOM and take over the facilities in Norfolk
2.SHARE the facilities with JFCOM
3. BUILD NEW Facilities right next to JFCOMs in Norfolk

followed by a whole list of alternate locations at similiar Garden spots of the American South. Ultimate decision?

"Stuttgart, Germany."

Basically the most expensive choice possible, and one of the least secure from a Force Protection standpoint(employing a shitload of foreign nationals on the base). The whole "It's a nice post" culture permeates pretty good in the military, and places like the Presidio of SF were only shut down because the locals were actively making it more expensive to operate there.

Of course, they just announced that JFCOM was going to be stood down today so now we have all this empty space down in Norfolk...

EDIT: Obviously this has to do with Americna military culture, not British.

[Sea Skimmer]

They're still not bringing those troops back - why?

British forces in Germany have a lot more access to training facilities then anyone stationed in the UK does. The UK is very lacking in tank and artillery ranges, while Germany and Poland have a number of large training spaces. UK based forces heading for Afghanistan normally deploy to Canada because they need space to train in. This is not very cost effective either.

[Aaron]

Aye, the UK still train at Suffield because they don't have the space across the pond for armoured exercises.

[Zaune]

We'd probably save a bunch of money by ditching the JSF, which is going to cost about twice what it was originally supposed to, and standardising on a common airframe for land and carrier-based service; it's not like we didn't amalgamate the RAF and Fleet Air Arm anyway.

And how about taking a cue from TSF and putting the single-seater CAS version of the Hawk trainer into RAF service? With a good defensive-aids suite and Brimstone missiles (Hellfire airframe and warhead with a fire-and-forget, active radar seeker-head) it'd neatly fill the capability gap between the Eurofighter and the Apache AH1, and fit it with Blue Vixen radar and it'd probably do as an interceptor as well.

[Questor]

We'd probably save a bunch of money by ditching the JSF, which is going to cost about twice what it was originally supposed to, and standardising on a common airframe for land and carrier-based service; it's not like we didn't amalgamate the RAF and Fleet Air Arm anyway.

You do understand that your new carriers CANNOT launch anything remotely resembling a normal land-based fighter, and that is why you are buying the JSF, right? Lack of catapults = must have jumpjets.

fit it with Blue Vixen radar and it'd probably do as an interceptor as well.

An interceptor? Do you even know what an interceptor is? In what way do you think a trainer aircraft has the performance to do the job of an F-14 or a MiG-31? Why do you even want it to?

[TC27]

We are deeply involved in JSF (the only level 1 partner) so we arent going to back out....however alot of people in the services would prefer the 'C' model because its generally a better aircraft and there is a prospect that the 'B' model might not happen and putting catapults on the CVFs is entirely do-able.

There has being alot of political manouvring within the MoD recently and the Navy has come out largely on top by the look of it (quite rightly to IMO we are an Island nation)....I think the RAF is a fine service but having a blue water navy with force projection abilities is far more important to the UK and the air force will suffer the most in the forthcoming cuts.

[Kanastrous]

Were the ships designed with later addition of catapults in mind? Doesn't sound like the sort of equipment one just 'makes room' for without allowances in the design...

[Questor]

They apparently have room for them, but they don't have a steam plant. So the EMALS is the only one they can use.

[TC27]

Were the ships designed with later addition of catapults in mind? Doesn't sound like the sort of equipment one just 'makes room' for without allowances in the design...

Yes

In fact:

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jni/j ... _1_n.shtml

[Kanastrous]

Thanks, that's interesting.

I wonder what kind of effects an umpty-wow gauss field* capable of throwing a fighter off the deck might have, on the pilot...


* is gauss the correct unit-measurement for the field...?

[TimothyC]

Not the pilot, but the electronics are a big concern.

[Zaune]

An interceptor? Do you even know what an interceptor is? In what way do you think a trainer aircraft has the performance to do the job of an F-14 or a MiG-31? Why do you even want it to?

Got my terminology wrong there, sorry, though we actually planned to use Hawks as point-defence interceptors as part of the (frankly rather hare-brained) Mixed Fighter Force concept described here.
Still, a single-seater version of the T-45 with the gun-pod and hardpoints from the Hawk 200 such as Stuart postulates in TSF wouldn't have any trouble carrying four AMRAAMs and a radar set that can get the best use out of them, and it should be able to look after itself in a visual-range dogfight as well.

And perhaps most crucially in these cash-strapped times, we could have ten of them for the price of a single Lightning II.

[Sea Skimmer]

You’ll also pay a whole lot more then to operate a swarm of small aircraft then one F-35. You now need 10 ground crews and 10 pilots and 10 sets of maintenance equipment which all have to be airlifted overseas. Simply finding enough ramp space for the planes can become a serious problem in the field, given that USAF tankers, transports and bombers will always demand the lions share of the ramp space. Most of the cost of a warplane is in operating it, so all those personal and equipment costs are killers. That’s why even nations like China which could produce small planes very cheaply aren’t doing this.

A radar set that gets the best use of out of AMRAAM will run you a fair bit of money too, and you will not get this plane for 10 million or less which is what 10:1 requires, rounding up the latest F-35 cost from 87 to 100 million. The price for a combat capable Hawk, as opposed to the unarmed Goshawk is about 27 million. You can add roughly 5 million more for an improved radar or not. Either way it’s more like a three or four to one ratio. The lack of supersonic performance is a huge limitation too particularly when it comes to employing BVR weapons. 16 Hawk’s might face four F-35s or more like 8 Su-30s, that isn’t good odds when the more expensive jet can disengage at will and attack from a higher ceiling.

Likely a better idea would be to make a T-45 sized UAV or even a T-45 UAV variant which is a networked component of the air defense system. Then any radar platform you have can command it and guide its missiles into terminal homing. The drone can be bare bones and it doesn’t risk a highly trained pilot being raped by a passing MiG-31. AIM-120D will have a two way data link specifically for this purpose. The UAV having more fuel instead of a pilot and cockpit could thus have much longer loiter time. That means it can patrol longer, instead of having supersonic speed to react quickly with.

[Zaune]

Point taken. I do however stand by my other assertions; that the JSF's cost overruns have got to the point where continuing with it is just throwing good money after bad, level 1 partner or not, and that the Hawk 200 would make a worthy successor to the Harrier in the CAS role.

[TC27]

would make a worthy successor to the Harrier in the CAS role.

The RAF/FAA cant afford a non multirole platform anymore and even if it could I dont think a converted Hawk would be the best CAS platform.

[Zaune]

It might not be the best, but apart from the single-seater version of the Tuccano it's certainly the cheapest option that springs to mind, if only for commonality of parts with an existing type in RAF service.
And I'm not sure we can afford to not deploy a pure CAS platform, at least. Forward-deploying an aircraft to support an operation like Afghanistan is a pricey business, and the Typhoon has a considerable amount more that can go wrong with it than a straightforward gun truck.

Personally, I think we should standardise on two fixed-wing types: One for air-defence and medium-level surface attack with stand-off weapons, and one for pure CAS with nothing fancier than fire-and-forget missiles and iron bombs. The former should be carrier-capable as well as land-based, but it's not as important for the latter as we already have carrier-capable attack helicopters.
If we were undertaking an opposed landing followed by an extended occupation/peacekeeping operation such as in Sierra Leone, the air-defence/strike aircraft would spend the first phase of the conflict taking out fixed targets like command centres, supply dumps and bridges with LGBs and Storm Shadow ALCMs whilst the Royal Marines secure a beachhead with fire-support from the Apaches. After that, the engineers build a couple of runways and the CAS birds deploy from the UK to provide on-call support for ground troops as they settle in for the long haul, with a few air-defence/strike aircraft still on hand but flying much less often.

[Sea Skimmer]

You can buy a Reaper for the price of a Super Tuccano and the same bomb load, almost the same speed, much higher ceiling (enough to fly over a number of light battlefield SAMs) and over twice the range. The only advantage of the Tuccano is it can strafe people, useful sometimes, but only then with gun pods as it has no integral gun. A lot of that advantage will go away once smart bombs in the 30-50lb class become more prolific allowing even a small plane to bomb a whole bunch of different aim points from a safe altitude.

This also assumes zero enemy air defenses, not even heavy machine guns or MANPADS because those will inflict heavy losses on such a light plane flying low. Reaper also has integral FLIR and the option for integral radar. Both systems have to be podded on a Tuccano, at the cost of bomb load, in ordered to provide it with any night or bad weather capability whatsoever. Since Britain already flies the Reaper, buying more of them would be just as cost effective if not more so then introducing the Super Tuccano. The Short Tuccano the RAF flies currently flies uses a smaller weaker engine and can only carry 1,000lb of bombs (if it had hard points, currently models in RAF service do not) which is pretty limited compared to 3,000lb for the Super Tuccano and Reaper. A fair portion of the 1,000lb would be eaten up just with the FLIR pod. 3,000lb is also what the old RAF Strikemaster light jets could haul and the A-37 Dragonfly. Of course those planes all died out in the face of massive losses of light attack planes to the SA-7 in Vietnam.

So far the USAF has managed to get congress block all attempts to field an attack turboprop under the Imminent Fury program. Such a plane might make sense as a quick deployment right into a war, that is the only reason Imminent Fury has gone anywhere at all, they can train pilots to fly them faster then we could buy more UAVs. But in terms of long term planning, which is the situation the RAF is in since its funding is far too limited to rush anything into service, it’s just a bad idea. The last thing you need in a limited military is forces which have very very limited utility. Most of the people who push the turboprops are just doing it because it’s an excuse for disarmament.

.

[Zaune]

True, but UCAVs have a couple of problems. For one thing, the enemy successfully jamming communications between a manned aircraft and the troops it's supporting is a nuisance, but jamming communications between a UCAV and its ground-station renders the UCAV immediately combat-ineffective; they might be capable of returning to base unaided, but who in their right mind is going to give a current-gen AI the autonomy to drop live weapons? And if the enemy succeed in flattening said ground-station and its alternate with a few mortar rounds then you've got an even bigger problem.
Secondly, the best camera system in the world is not a perfect substitute for a set of Mark 1 Mod 1 Eyeballs and a Mark 1 Mod 1 Human Brain on the scene; a UCAV operator can't take his eye away from the crosshairs and look the way a pilot in a cockpit can.
Lastly, and I have to confess this is a personal ideological objection, but I can't help feeling that if we send UCAVs to fight our battles for us then we'll be a step further down the path of thinking that the negative consequences of war only have to apply to our enemies.