Minimalist airforce

[Dr Jekyll]

Given the pressure to save money by reducing the number of types would it be possible to run an effective airforce with just 2 fixed wing operational types?

IE C17 or A400 for tankers, transports, (and with suitable mods) maritime recon and AWACS. Eurofighter or Hornet for combat.

It always seems odd that the RAF uses 4 different transport/tanker types, a totally separate aiframe for AWACS, and used yet another airframe for maritime reconnaissance.

[Eric Mc]

Name any serious airforce that operates in this way?

[Tango13]

When the USAF was looking at buying the A-10 the bean counters looked at its role on the battle field and how it compared with the Armys use of attack helicopters. They then factored in the Marines with their A/V8s and AH-1s and realised that there was indeed a great deal of overlap. They went ahead with the A-10 anyway as they realised the overlap was better than the deficit.

What are the sayings about eggs in one basket or jack of all trades, master of none?

[bobthemonkey]

The US Navy probably isn't a bad model for how to do it.

One fast jet airframe, two fixed wing support airframes & one helo. You could probably get away with one training airframe nowadays.

[Dr Jekyll]

Of course there aren't any. Though the RAF is getting pretty close in terms of combat types. But that is partly because they replace types one at a time as they become obsolete. What I'm wondering is whether it could work if starting from scratch.

For example if he RAF or anyone else was able to start totally from scratch it would make sense to put the electronics etc that goes into an AWACS into the same aiframe as used for maritime reconaissance. In fact they tried to do this with the Nimrod AWACS. So why not make it a type already used for transport and tanking?

The only real problem would be combining the speed needed for tanking with the ability to get into short rough strips. So perhaps C130 as well as C17.

[aeropilot]

Dr Jekyll said:

Given the pressure to save money by reducing the number of types would it be possible to run an effective airforce with just 2 fixed wing operational types?

IE C17 or A400 for tankers, transports, (and with suitable mods) maritime recon and AWACS. Eurofighter or Hornet for combat.

It always seems odd that the RAF uses 4 different transport/tanker types, a totally separate aiframe for AWACS, and used yet another airframe for maritime reconnaissance.

Essentially....... no.

Not for the former at anyrate.

However, as far as the fast jet stuff goes, the RAF could get to a single airframe with the Typhoon, especially if the continuing troubles with the JSF mean it gets canned - although it's likely only the pointless F-35B might get the chop... and we've already dumped that in favour of the C for the RN.... but, whether that means the RAF will go for the A as per USAF or more of the carrier spec C or none at all is anyones guess.

A F-15E Strike Eagle is about the best jack of all trades combat jet around and the Typhoon could be turned into a similar a/c..... as the two seat trainer airframe could be developed in a similar way to replace the Tornado fleet....but it looks like that won't happen.

[rhinochopig]

Eric Mc said:

Name any serious airforce that operates in this way?

The Mighty Fighten' Irish.

[davepoth]

I wonder whether it would be possible to do everything "big jet" on a single type. I mean, the nimrod was originally a heavily modified comet, so it stands to reason that, at some point the RAF could conceivably have been running Nimrod/comet for AWACS, MRA, tanking, and passenger transport if it had wanted to.

Boeing currently offer the 767 as an AWACS platform, as a tanker, and obviously as a transport/passenger plane. They offer the 737 in AWACS, MRA, cargo and passenger variants, and it looks like they have something on the board for it as a tanker too. So it's not entirely infeasible that all of the "big jet" fleet could be consolidated down onto one airframe. And if HMG decide to plump for the A400M as a heavy lift transport solution, we would ditch the C130 and C17, leaving us with just the two types.

[Eric Mc]

davepoth said:

I wonder whether it would be possible to do everything "big jet" on a single type. I mean, the nimrod was originally a heavily modified comet, so it stands to reason that, at some point the RAF could conceivably have been running Nimrod/comet for AWACS, MRA, tanking, and passenger transport if it had wanted to.

The RAF operated a Comet 4s until 1975/76.

So, between 1970 and 1975/76, it DID operate both Nimrods and Comet 4s.

Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 14th January 16:59

[mrloudly]

Taking this a stage further then... Considering the Typhoon's stability (Or lack thereof) is artificially generated by on-board computers, would it be possible
to "Turn down the sensitivity" thus rendering it fit for basic jet flight training? I know in the real world it would be too costly, but I wonder if it'd be feasible ?
I'm told the Airbus range feel remarkably similar in flight. They're designed this way to make crew conversion training easier. It's all down to computers :-)

[thinfourth2]

mrloudly said:

Taking this a stage further then... Considering the Typhoon's stability (Or lack thereof) is artificially generated by on-board computers, would it be possible
to "Turn down the sensitivity" thus rendering it fit for basic jet flight training? I know in the real world it would be too costly, but I wonder if it'd be feasible ?
I'm told the Airbus range feel remarkably similar in flight. They're designed this way to make crew conversion training easier. It's all down to computers :-)

Sounds way to logical

[Eric Mc]

thinfourth2 said:

mrloudly said:

Taking this a stage further then... Considering the Typhoon's stability (Or lack thereof) is artificially generated by on-board computers, would it be possible
to "Turn down the sensitivity" thus rendering it fit for basic jet flight training? I know in the real world it would be too costly, but I wonder if it'd be feasible ?
I'm told the Airbus range feel remarkably similar in flight. They're designed this way to make crew conversion training easier. It's all down to computers :-)

Sounds way to logical

It's the other way around. The Typhoon is inherently unstable WITHOUT the fly by wire software. To make it more stable, the software would have to be redesigned.

If the software was switched off or removed, the Typhoon would be completely unflyable.

Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 14th January 18:20

[aeropilot]

Eric Mc said:

davepoth said:

I wonder whether it would be possible to do everything "big jet" on a single type. I mean, the nimrod was originally a heavily modified comet, so it stands to reason that, at some point the RAF could conceivably have been running Nimrod/comet for AWACS, MRA, tanking, and passenger transport if it had wanted to.

The RAF operated a Comet 4s until 1975/76.

So, between 1970 and 1975/76, it DID operate both Nimrods and Comet 4s.

And of course there was the farcical waste of money that was the eventually aborted Nimrod AEW3 so, that covers the AWACS role..... other than it was a disaster of course



I suspect that the Nimrod airframe could well have been adapted as a tanker, and had it been wished or ordered, a new build Nimrod AAR version may have been a possibility.

Edited by aeropilot on Friday 14th January 18:45

[mrloudly]

Eric Mc said:

thinfourth2 said:

mrloudly said:

Taking this a stage further then... Considering the Typhoon's stability (Or lack thereof) is artificially generated by on-board computers, would it be possible
to "Turn down the sensitivity" thus rendering it fit for basic jet flight training? I know in the real world it would be too costly, but I wonder if it'd be feasible ?
I'm told the Airbus range feel remarkably similar in flight. They're designed this way to make crew conversion training easier. It's all down to computers :-)

Sounds way to logical

It's the other way around. The Typhoon is inherently unstable WITHOUT the fly by wire software. To make it more stable, the software would have to be redesigned.

If the software was switched off or removed, the Typhoon would be completely unflyable.

Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 14th January 18:20

I know what I meant.... Manoeuvrability not stability, although it is really stability because, as you say, without the fly by wire augmentation it would be un-controllable :-) Guess to tame it down would be a simple matter
of reducing the available control throws maybe programme in a load of positive exponential around the control neutral points to soften it up even more.

[Dr Jekyll]

mrloudly said:

Eric Mc said:

thinfourth2 said:

mrloudly said:

Taking this a stage further then... Considering the Typhoon's stability (Or lack thereof) is artificially generated by on-board computers, would it be possible
to "Turn down the sensitivity" thus rendering it fit for basic jet flight training? I know in the real world it would be too costly, but I wonder if it'd be feasible ?
I'm told the Airbus range feel remarkably similar in flight. They're designed this way to make crew conversion training easier. It's all down to computers :-)

Sounds way to logical

It's the other way around. The Typhoon is inherently unstable WITHOUT the fly by wire software. To make it more stable, the software would have to be redesigned.

If the software was switched off or removed, the Typhoon would be completely unflyable.

Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 14th January 18:20

I know what I meant.... Manoeuvrability not stability, although it is really stability because, as you say, without the fly by wire augmentation it would be un-controllable :-) Guess to tame it down would be a simple matter
of reducing the available control throws maybe programme in a load of positive exponential around the control neutral points to soften it up even more.

Rechipping it in other words?

[aeropilot]

davepoth said:

Boeing currently offer the 767 as an AWACS platform, as a tanker, and obviously as a transport/passenger plane. They offer the 737 in AWACS, MRA, cargo and passenger variants, and it looks like they have something on the board for it as a tanker too. So it's not entirely infeasible that all of the "big jet" fleet could be consolidated down onto one airframe.

Neither option would be suitable, and the 767 tanker conversion has been a joke, the Airbus option is way more advanced in testing anyway - and by all accounts from those that know is the much better bit of kit.
The RAF AWACS have years left in them yet anyway, so it would be even more wasteful to replace them when it's not neccessary.

davepoth said:

And if HMG decide to plump for the A400M as a heavy lift transport solution, we would ditch the C130 and C17, leaving us with just the two types.

We will be going down to just two types anyway as A400M is a replacement for the C130J fleet. Ditch the C17.....you're 'aving a larf

[anonymous-user]

Current plan is the VC-10 and Tristar to go by 2014, being replaced by the hugely expensive PFI A330.

The transport fleet will consist of C-17 and A400M. A seventh C-17 was delivered a couple of days ago to Brize. Current plan is for 22 A400M's to replace the C-130's around 2020.

The RAF Fast jet fleet will reduce to a rumoured six squadrons. The First F-35 squadrons standing up in 2020. Can't see many more Typhoon Squadrons standing up. Current thinking is the Tranche 1 jets will be retired and be replaced with Tranche 2 or 3 Jets. We would get around 90 of these, but is dependant on how many we can flog to Oman.

So by 2020 the Fast Jet fleet will consist of the Typhoon and F-35C.
The E-3 is rumoured to continue to 2035.
Transport fleet C-17 / A400M
Helicopter fleet Chinook / Refurbished Pumas!!
We will also be getting Sigint RC-135s in a couple of years (converted from 40 year old KC-135 tankers).

Maritime Patrol - Non existant.
Sentinel (ASTOR) - Retired by 2015.

The fleets have been drastically reduced from 20 years ago. For example you had a Fast jet fleet of Buccaneer, Tornado F3, Tornado GR1, Harrier, Phantom, Jaguar then.

[Mr Dave]

mrloudly said:

Eric Mc said:

thinfourth2 said:

mrloudly said:

Taking this a stage further then... Considering the Typhoon's stability (Or lack thereof) is artificially generated by on-board computers, would it be possible
to "Turn down the sensitivity" thus rendering it fit for basic jet flight training? I know in the real world it would be too costly, but I wonder if it'd be feasible ?
I'm told the Airbus range feel remarkably similar in flight. They're designed this way to make crew conversion training easier. It's all down to computers :-)

Sounds way to logical

It's the other way around. The Typhoon is inherently unstable WITHOUT the fly by wire software. To make it more stable, the software would have to be redesigned.

If the software was switched off or removed, the Typhoon would be completely unflyable.

Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 14th January 18:20

I know what I meant.... Manoeuvrability not stability, although it is really stability because, as you say, without the fly by wire augmentation it would be un-controllable :-) Guess to tame it down would be a simple matter
of reducing the available control throws maybe programme in a load of positive exponential around the control neutral points to soften it up even more.

I think the Aermacchi M436/ Yak jobbie is able to do this with reconfiguring the flight controls and engine response to be similar to different types, with cockpit screens able to mimic front line jets.

Though I think I read that in the marketing blurb at Farnborough so take it with a pinch of salt.

The bit that seems strange to me is the amount of simulator time used instead of flying. IIRC the C-17 crews in the RAF spend months on the sim then quite few flights to get checked out on the type.

Having used the Typhoon and Sentry sims I can well see the value in them as they are unbelievably believable.

The big problem with fewer types is what happens if your fleet of Typhoons/C-17 say gets grounded, what happens then?

Edited by Mr Dave on Saturday 15th January 00:57

[davepoth]

aeropilot said:

davepoth said:

Boeing currently offer the 767 as an AWACS platform, as a tanker, and obviously as a transport/passenger plane. They offer the 737 in AWACS, MRA, cargo and passenger variants, and it looks like they have something on the board for it as a tanker too. So it's not entirely infeasible that all of the "big jet" fleet could be consolidated down onto one airframe.

Neither option would be suitable, and the 767 tanker conversion has been a joke, the Airbus option is way more advanced in testing anyway - and by all accounts from those that know is the much better bit of kit.
The RAF AWACS have years left in them yet anyway, so it would be even more wasteful to replace them when it's not neccessary.

davepoth said:

And if HMG decide to plump for the A400M as a heavy lift transport solution, we would ditch the C130 and C17, leaving us with just the two types.

We will be going down to just two types anyway as A400M is a replacement for the C130J fleet. Ditch the C17.....you're 'aving a larf

I'm sure I read it somewhere. Agreed, it's a bloody stupid idea, the C-17 has been a godsend for UK forces.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/06/a400m_canc...

There's one. There's loads of it about the internet. The thinking is that the A400m is likely to be too small and slow for strategic lift, and too big and delicate for tactical work.

[anonymous-user]

The C-17 fleet have been racking up the hours, however the seventh one was delivered this week. The A400M is probably more at risk. The A400M is huge when compared to the C130. The display at RIAT, loaded with test gear was impressive too.