"The RAF Does Not have The Means To Sustain An ..." Topic

…Air Campaign Against The Islamic State.

"Britain had 30 combat squadrons at the start of the 1991 war in Iraq – today it has only seven.

So here we go again: we're counting the RAF Tornado GR4 warplanes as they take off from Cyprus to attack Islamic fighters in Iraq; and then we're counting them safely back to base. Only this time, our main interest is focused not so much on the number of warplanes flying back from their combat missions, but whether any of them have actually managed to drop their bombs on the enemy.

Even at this early stage of Gulf War Three, as the military operation against Islamic State has somewhat ambitiously been labelled, it is pretty clear that it bears no relation to the two conflicts that preceded it…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

I agree with the general gist of the article (RAF too gutted) but some of the numbers are a bit misleading.

Firstly in terms of pure aircraft numbers, France has slightly more than Britain (290 in Armee de l Air/Aeronavale and 225 in RAF). However France is downsizing as we speak to a combined total of 225 split between Armee de l Aire and Aeronavale. The 225 force structure is expected to be attained by 2019. These numbers include all test, training, operational conversion and other aircraft as well as "combat coded" ones.

The French are not as up-to-date as RAF. A lot of the Mirage 2000s are still flying with 1980s/1990s avionics whilst the Super Etendards are reaching the end of their lives by 2016. Mirage F1 was retired this year.

The French also have far more near permanent commitments that stretch their forces and reduce flexiblity. This includes maintaining a squadron of Rafales in UAE (subsidise their defence and get big defence contracts) and subSaharan Africa (Djibouti).

Number of squadrons is irrelevant especially as most units pool aircraft today and aircraft are seldom assigned to specific squadrons.

Also combat squadrons can vary in size – French ones can go as little as 4-8 and as many as 20+ aircraft depending on assignment. British ones average 12-16 depending on type.

Most deployments of even small numbers of aircraft involves several squadrons in terms of aircraft, pilots and other crew.

Also, the RAF doesn't have to sustain an air campaign. It's a part of a coalition, preferably a minor part if the various Arab/Muslim states play their full part.

What Thomas said. The RAF also has nine current combat squadrons, not seven – five Typhoon and four Tornado.

The RAF also has nine current combat squadrons, not seven – five Typhoon and four Tornado.

Current number of operational Typhoon squadrons is 4 (1,3, 6 and 11). 29 is OCU. Fifth Typhoon squadron stands up next year (2 Squadron).

You wouldn't want to strip instructors from 29 OCU as it would hamper training of future pilots.

Bad news for Eurofighter/Typhoon – there's a serious manufacturing glitch in the engines. In Luftwaffe it's literally halved Eurofighter availability.
rt.com/news/192128-eurofighter-hull-strength-problem

Apparently it causes problems such as this:

Eurofighter deliveries are suspended and groundings could follow.

Truly worst possible time for this to happen for RAF.

Also forgot to mention:

The Dutch have estimated that to maintain a fleet of 4 fighters on a continuous combat deployment for 6 months and meet their air policing and training requirements, they need about 37 jets (current planned F-35 buy).

Hence with 200+ aircraft, a sustained commitment of 4-6 jets is relatively easy.

2 Sqn's already fully equipped, manned and flying. It's not fully operationally ready yet, but it exists. I wasn't including the OCU.

It would if it were true… But it's traditional RT (Russia Today – think Pravda without the journalistic integrity) propaganda, old chap. A problem has been found in one jet and roughly half the LW fleet (i.e. those of the same tranche) are on reduced flying hours until they've been looked at and any necessary rectification carried out. If it were that serious, they'd have been grounded. Absolutely routine response to any fault that might affect the fleet. The RAF at present is not affected.

Sorry, no, I've counted them twice – 2 Sqn is still operationally flying Tornados.

The Austrian Air Force has come out saying that the problems are reducing anticipated engine life from 6,000 to 2,000 hours (or even less if that German Eurofighter is an example).

Apparently over half the German Eurofighter fleet is grounded as such.

Dunno about Italians or Spaniards. Spaniards have been on reduced flying hours for some time and they did lose a Eurofighter earlier this year.

But then Spanish AF is dismal in terms of aircraft attrition – they're the only operator to have lost Eurofighters in service (2 so far), have an above average loss rate of F/A-18s (10.4% compared to 3-5% elsewhere) and large loss rate of Mirage F1s.

I've read statements from people serving in RAF or US services that the Spaniards don't really take care of their equipment.

Ironically they never lost an F-104 but then they flew them as interceptors in good weather and not low level fighter bombers in northern Europe. They also pensioned the F-104 out relatively quickly in favour of ex-US F-4Cs (which they then proceeded to crash at reasonable attrition rates (17% of fleet in 28 years which is not too bad but not too great)).

One doesn't hear much about Italian air force – I've been trying for a couple of years to discern actual numbers of AMX and Tornados still operational but even Italian spotters can't seem to agree.

Well, to be fair, it really is a waste to use limited airframe hours on bombing ISIS.

What is really needed is a very robust, low-cost aircraft, with decent endurance, protection, and ordnance carrying capabilities, like were developed in WWII, and afterwards.

I'm really surprised someone hasn't come up with a low-cost prop plane, or jet, in the $5 USD Million price range to take out personnel on the ground, in "stone-age tech" environments.

Mako,

There are actually a few options you are describing though none are that cheap:

MQ-1/-9 UCAV:

Operated by USA, Italy, Turkey, UAE (unarmed version on order), Morrocco, France (on order), Netherlands, RAF.

However most users don't currently use them in an offensive role and they're strictly recce assets. Future requirements may see them being armed.

EMB314 Super Tucano

Operated by Brazil, Indonesia, Senegal, Angola, Chile, Colombia, Burkina Faso, Ecuador, Mauritania, Dominica and recently ordered for Afghanistan by USA.

AT-6B Texan II
No buyers yet

AT802U

Operated by UAEAF

AC 208 Combat Caravan

Operated by Iraq

UTVA Kobac

Developed by Serbia, no buyers yet.

US Aircraft A-68 Dragon

Program status unclear. Was meant to be in $4 USD-$5 million range.

Textron Scorpion
No buyers yet.

There's more UCAVs mainly in development.

Bad news for Eurofighter/Typhoon – there's a serious manufacturing glitch in the engines. In Luftwaffe it's literally halved Eurofighter availability.
rt.com/news/192128-eurofighter-hull-strength-problem

Apparently it causes problems such as this:
[ img ]

Ouch! WTH could cause damage like that, an AB blowout? Doesn't seem to be a turbine blade shed, or if it was it was mostly contained…

Problem with using low-tech plane sis the chance of them getting shot down.

You want your pilots to be net to star in an ISIS video?

Plus of course they don't have much range.

Seems 2nd squadron is to continue operating Tornado for next 12 months and delay conversion to Typhoon:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141003/DEFREG01/310030034/To-Boost-Strike-Force-UK-Delays-Retiring-Jets

Problem with using low-tech plane sis the chance of them getting shot down.

Not really. Something like an EMB314 has electronic countermeasures for MANPADs (plus their engines don't run as hot as a turbojet/fan) and also use Precision Guided Munitions to keep them at high altitude.

Plus of course they don't have much range.

True for the trainers but neither does an F-16/-18. They use aerial refuelling.

Many countries have phased out light jets ala Strikemaster, A-37, EMB-326 in favour of EMB314. The EMB314 has seen combat actions and none have been shot dow so far but the opponents have lacked any form of airdefence.

Something like an MQ-1/-9 drone doesn't have a pilot and has huge range.

Their big problem in CAS is speed (lack of response time).

US is working on jet engined versions of MQ-9.

Plus of course [low-tech planes] don't have much range.

That Air Tractor can haul 9000lbs of ordnance, and that's AFTER it was armored.

I suspect ISIS have some kind of air defence capability stolen from the Iraqis….

But some sort of dedicated ground attack aircraft that can hang around for hours seems to be what's needed here – once again the A10 is looking pretty good…

Seems the picture of the damaged Eurofighter was from a collision with a Learjet target tug, not engine failure.

I suspect ISIS have some kind of air defence capability stolen from the Iraqis….

Other than some AA guns and maybe MANPADS, Iraq had no air defence capability.

They've overrun Syrian air defence bases but given Syrian air force still operates with impunity in medium-high altitude means the rebels haven't captured anything functional.