British Army looking to airdrop vehicles from A400M

Standard operating procedure for airshows is minimum fuel load as it improves performance no end. Manufacturer’s Fighter bombers also do airshows with dummy lightweight external weapons loads for the same reason.

with no
load

Well that goes for any air aircraft, fighter or transport

From memory the RAF were the Launch Customer for the ‘J’,i went to the IAT at RAF Fairford in 94 where the theme that year was the Hercules.

Well, just making the point that the Euros do actually have some useful kit and also how a technology choice drives you down expensive narrow development paths. For example, if you take the ski jump off QE class and fit an arrestor wire then a twin prop solution to COD, AEW and refuelling F-35B becomes a possibility: C295 Mk2 with strengthened undercarriage. And if you have a substantive refuelling plane then the range and payload advantage of the ski jump becomes irrelevant.

I completely agree with you Paul. The decision to save on the catapult arrester systems. Effectively tied the MOD/RN to a very costly future, while reducing CSG capabilities.

There is also the Bell Textron High-Speed Vertical Take-Off and Landing concept in the pipeline. Offering super expensive AI drones for refuelling and “wing man” applications. I shudder to think of the associated cuts and defunding of the other services that would bring if chosen.
What ever happened to K.I.S.S. as a rule of thumb?

The decision was driven by politics. A low risk cats and traps carrier project at that point in time would have meant steam catapults and F-18 or Rafale, neither of which would have been acceptable to BAE. I can imagine the Daily Express front page had we bought into Rafale, we previously having decided that there would be no naval version of Eurofighter.
But looking on the bright side we do have a nice 5th gen STOVL fighter. So what I would do now is take the ski ramps off QE, get de Havilland Canada to design a large twin prop solution for COD, AEW and refuelling and refit QE and POW with a well deck.
I would also another one then you have 3 good spec LSS ships.

Politics aside, a C&T option for the carriers would have also led to the possibility of E2-D, F35C being purchased. There would also be nothing to stop us employing F35Bs either, although that option attracts weight limits on the airframe for tack off and landings.
Swings and roundabouts really, I would personally have liked the C&T option, but it wouldn’t be without risk and was the more expensive option.

Yes, the C&T option was really what the RN and a lot of people wanted. There is the argument that out and out strike carriers are passé; yesterdays war etc. That’s strategy and above my pay grade. But looking at how the project unfolded teaches us a lot. It seems to me that faced with the financial facts we were indecisive. The French proposal to share the costs of training carrier pilots by creating a joint UK/FR strike force with a new carrier each, one always available would have worked but was deemed politically unacceptable. But really what are the chances of a need to retake the Falklands? Well, ok then but at that point rather than accept reality and build something relevant and useful say 3 America class with well decks we built a class that’s neither one thing nor the other and is very unlikely to ever be used as a ‘strike’ carrier. The fact that the USMC F-35Bs are on QE because of the fire on Bonhomme Richard says it all. The issue of LPD replacements is still outstanding when FR and AUST have useful Mistral and Canberra class ships. And now we need LSS ships too. All because we poured millions into an Imperial memory trip. Ok, rant over.

Yes, the decision to not go down the C&T route was ultimately political, but based on some hard decision making.
One was obviously cost, then there was the manpower issue, added to the fact and probably the deal breaker was the immaturity of the Emals technology that was being offered by the USA. Indeed, the USN are still having issues with it now! Some would say we dodged a bullet by going with the Ski ramp option, its hard to currently disagree dispite all the short comings wrt range payload that the B model has. Oddly enough, we might just end up with the best bersion of the F35 yey, as both the A and C versions arent without their problems.

“we might have ended up with the best version of the F-35”
Spot on. F-35B doubles the number of US ‘aircraft carriers’ not to mention it will be flying from 2 UK carriers, Japanese, Italian and probably Spanish ships. To use that hackneyed phrase, it is a game changer.
Quantity has a quality all of its own. The captain of every Chinese or Russian ship will know there’s a F-35B not too far away.

agree, F35bs are the QE Class are a 50-year program. on its 1st deployment.

yet people seem to think it should be all singing and dancing now.

Ford Class is for its repair work due to problems imagine if our carriers were both laid up not able to launch these expensive aircraft we brought at a greater cost than a F35b . Sea Typhoon was a total redesign like the Rafale.

I think that the majority of people on here are frustrated with the perceived lack of progress and associated cost of getting the aircraft to a reasonable level of OC. It certainly appears to be a uphill slog!!

There are those who a decade ago stated they believed that the F35 programme was flawed from the outset and should have been canned in favour of other designs – certainly the Air Power Australia website was highly critical of the programme, and proposed that a modified F22 Raptor was a better bet for the strike role, going from a F designation to a F/A designation. They also proposed a modified version for carrier ops! (they have some really interesting articles on there). The authors certainly believed the F35 was the wrong choice for Australia.

We will eventually get there with the F35, it’s just going to take time and more money.

Paul, are you saying our new carriers could not re-run the Falklands conflict? Why not? How can you predict we will not ever need to do carrier strike operations in the next 50 years?

For your first question, no I am not saying that. QE and F-35B are clearly light years ahead of Invincible, Hermes amd Harriers. We might struggle with other parts of the task force but not the carrier.
As regards the second part yes, at least in terms of the original thinking. QE was sized so as to be able to deliver comparable effects ( sortie rate, munitions, persistence) to a US carrier on day 1 of an operation like the invasion of Iraq. There are those who say we failed because we didn’t fit cats and traps and F-35B doesn’t have the range. Have to say I don’t know. But in any event I don’t think we will see that kind of operation again so there is a question would we have been better off with say 3 smaller more flexible flat tops, America class for example. But that opens up issues with build and running cost and crewing. Anyway its all a moot point, we are where we are. I guess I just haven’t accepted going down to just 2 carriers.

is your keyboard fighting back

Nope, just finished a nice curry and wheat beer after a day’s gardening. 😊

F35B is indeed a welcome replacement for the Harrier in RAF service. However, I would have been happy with the option of longer range F35C for the carriers and much upgraded naval variant of the BAE Hawk (McDonnell Douglas BAE T-45 Goshawk). BAE also cooperated with HAL India to develop what has been dubbed the Advanced Hawk. It nicely fulfils the F35 sensor environment training role but also brings real combat capabilities too. Some amalgamation of the two derivatives would be an allrounder and useful addition to the airwing. Keeping a smile on BAE faces. It’s well worth a look. Censor bot will not permit the url so please search Advanced Hawk BAE HAL.

The Hawk was a fine aircraft and advanced versions would be attractive to some nations. But I think its time for the UK to let it go. I think the F-35C is proving less attractive than anticipated to the USN and USMC, so all in all I can’t see your vision progressing. As the saying goes, we are where we are, bodging LPDs and LSDs to make into our ‘littoral support’ ships alternate reality. What we need is less Powerpoint and more helicopters and practical flat tops. How hard can it be?

My point Paul was more to do with your suggestion that BAE were the political reason why we have no cats & traps. There were options within easy reach that would have had their mouths watering all the way to the bank. Obviously more to it.
When it comes to military capability, versatility leading to more flexible response options is a key consideration. The MOD either did not think this through or more likely, were plagued with indecision. Corruption cannot be ruled out either. It is easy for the civil service to throw spanners into the works when it comes to procurement. I can bang on about this for hours and give real world examples of lucrative seats on boards, consultations contracts and other things. But it’s pointless.

I understand. As you say, best to avoid that area and leave it to our elected representatives. The carriers are history now and we are not in a bad place. QE plus F-35B looks like a good weapons platform when considered as a system whole.

Leave it to the elected politicians. Paul, you certainly have a knack for pressing my buttons. The pigeons in Trafalgar Square could do a better job than our mindless mob appointees in Parliament. At least the pigeons are not driven by party politics, re-election and self importance. Granted neither have the faintest grasp of national defence requirements. But both seem to delight in crapping on the heads of admirals.

The twisted priorities and failures of those parliamentarians are the root cause of the problem. For the most part, they do not even respect the wishes of the aforementioned mob, the electorate. Need I explain BREXIT and it’s lessons for patriots, with respect to MP’s and Lords.

Steady on, you’ll burst a blood vessel. Parliament would work better if they closed the bar. The wheels came off the EU in Lisbon when it stopped being a community and became a union. The Irish should have had the courage of their convictions and told them to stuff it. I think the commons defence committee is doing a good job on Ajax; another item in Cameron’s disastrous legacy.

“Need I explain BREXIT and it’s lessons for patriots, with respect to MP’s and Lords.”

Hear hear!

i use Brexit when i interview people now. Strips away there false personality in a stroke.

people show there true face,

my voting form only said Leave or Stay didnt explain what. David Cameron did a piss poor job in taking it seriously. but then every body has a different argument over Brexit

Correct 100% BAEs were asked to Navalise the Typhoon, and they redesigned the entire aircraft. Unit cost was higher than the proposed F35s.
They then in a pissing contest grounded the entire Harrier fleet over Airframe hours.
Ukgovs didnt want anything more to do with BAEs and then then crushed the MRA4 program.

BAEs were more interested in closing airfields and selling to housing developers.

Hawk is a 70s aircraft, wont last another 50 why the harrier was grounded….

I agree looking at something for COD, AEW solution. There potential airframes out there that could operate. I know Cats would have been expensive but I really don’t know why we did fit Traps for flexibility and plenty of proven solutions out there.

As I wrote in my other post it’s my belief that the reason was politics. Had we gone cats and traps we would have had to choose between F-18s and Rafale, neither of which was politically / industrially acceptable .

If we’d gone for Cats n Traps the build and operating costs would have been higher as would the crewing. Harsh truth is we would’ve been lucky to end up with one.

Indeed. We made a choice. It was either to go with the French proposal to share costs, to get out of the strike carrier game or to build QE class and hope that F-35B plus ski ramp would give you a credible strike carrier.

Yep. Everyone on here seem to do nothing but moan about everything. Not enough not good enough not soon enough and on and on and on. Truth is we’ve come out with the best result we could have.

Yes, my understanding is that F-35B launched from a ski ramp gives you roughly F-18F range and payload plus Growler ++ ECM plus stealth plus eventually Meteor plus Spear 3. This is not F-35C reach but it is a top drawer capability. I am not worried about AEW. I think Crowsnest is fine for sea skimmers which is the only realistic missile threat for some time to come. For COD use a Chinook or an RFA. Refuelling is the issue. Haven’t the Israelis done an underwing stealth external tank?
The issue is the knock on effect of the QE decision on the structure of the rest of the fleet in particular our ability to deploy a significant force of RM.

Lots of good info thanks. On Carriers there op costs were published on site not long ago. Each costs the same as 2 and a half Type 45’s As good as they are even on Anti – Air they don’t come close to what 18-24 F35’s can give you. Plus air-ground. On RM a specialist LPH might be ideal in theory but the RM are unanimous that PoW is far better with far more landing n take off spots than eg Ocean. We need to understand we’re never going to get perfection but right now what we have is good enough and endlessly slagging it off chasing after perfection is more likely to end in disaster.

Agree. We are where we are in a pretty good place. Your comment re the RM says that QE class will be used in the LPH role. So the range and endurance of Merlin and Chinook become key to staying out of range of shore based AShM. Also helps explain why we have ordered the extended range Chinook to replace the oldest models.

The USMC have been looking at the same problem of land based anti-ship missiles there solution was Osprey. I don’t think we have that kind of cash so we’ll have to be creative to get around it. Maybe buddy buddy IR ? Or like you say just extend the range. But i’m sure better minds than mine have been thinking about this for a while now.

Well, T26 and T31 flight decks will lily pad a Chinook. The River 2 flight deck will lily pad Merlin.😉

But that would mean a 26 or a 31 would be in range of the missiles ?

Yes, I suppose, if you refuel on the way in. But T31 is equipped to defend itself in close quarter littoral situations; lots of firepower and a Wildcat with Martlet and Sea Venom
I’m not an expert by any means. I’m just saying distributing flat top area gives you tactical options and reduces risk versus say using a single close in LPH.

Neither of us are experts then ! Maybe this is one of the reasons the RM is changing it’s doctrine away from large scale amphib assaults towards more of a raiding force. It will be interesting to see what kind of kit is introduced to the RM/RN in the coming years and how that impacts on this.

The UK has ordered the extended range version of Chinook. If you have air cover from F-35 you ought to be able to guarantee to be able to insert a company of RM several hundred miles inland. This article is talking about being able to drop 12 ton vehicle, logistics and weapons payloads from an A400 which has range of ‘000s miles. A400 is also now parachute qualified. Meanwhile with any luck you already have one of the new battalion strength Ranger units already on the ground helping to train the friendlies. Why do you need to storm any beaches?

David, you can be sure future changes to the RM/RN will be driven by the capabilities of the current fleet and imminent additions. Paul makes a valid point regarding distributing flat top area and associated theatre assets. Which opens up many tactical options offering unparalleled flexibility. Remember, “making do” along with creative highly aggressive thinking is the trademark of the British Armed Forces. Particularly the RN. Placing assets in harms way on picket duty for the fleet is in the SOP’s.

We’ve come out with something our RN will master and squeeze out every last drop of it’s abilities. While giving excellent user feedback, to drive future modifications and improvements. That is not the same as “the best result we could have.”
FYI, the people on here are for the most part British and I’m assuming many fellow veterans. Moaning is therefore traditional and our hard won birth right. Exercised with efficiency honed by years of dedicated practice. The time to worry is when we stop moaning, bitching and complaining. I hope this explains things. “God save the Queen.”

I understand your frustration and that your coming at it with the right concerns. My frustration is the tsunami of criticism that seems to be the instinctive reaction to any article or announcement on the site. Everyone single one of us has opinions on what we should be spending our defence budget on what we should be buying and how many of them. But almost every single one of those opinions ignores the reality. Our defence budget is not going to double or treble and even if it did it wouldn’t satisfy many people on this site. I am more interested in where we are and how we can the most from what we have and not attack anything that doesn’t match my own personal ideas.

Did you work in Army Procurement or the Warrior program going backwards

Nope. Spent most of my life in IT. Have to say all the systems I helped to design worked very well; not government of course😉

went out with WW2

Also at the time of design Emals and arrestors were seen as a un-proven design as proved by the ford class, keep it simple. QE class can out launch and recover a Ford Class KEEPING IT SIMPLE

So your plane is to redesign a plane that wasn’t designed for carrier operations to solve a single problem. when it isnt a problem.

1/BAEs asked to check the Typhoon for sea operations, Total redesign of the Airframe ie like Rafale.
2/ Throw away the past 30 years of carrier operations BY the RN/RAF.
3/ Ski Jump is not about just heavy lift off, as the USMC will tell you its a 50ft jump above the waves and allows you to launch in poor seas.
4/ QE Class was designed at the request of the Royal Navy to be STOVL. BAEs tried to push for cats n traps.
5/ BAEs grounded the Harrier force in a pissing contest over money, UKGovs didnt want anything BAEs offered.
6/ UK Royal Navy is the only world navy to fly a 5th gen aircraft from a 5th gen carrier, as the Ford class is a 4/5th gen WHITE ELEPHANT.

UK cannot afford everything but the RN procurement is far ahead of the Army who cannot even pick a shade of green paint

Well no, we are where we are. But I would pursue my idea of twin prop short take off and landing plane for AEW and refuelling. Checkout the DHC-3 Otter. Its take of distance is not a lot longer than QE and its landing distance is just a smidgeon longer than QE without arrestors. I would give an outline requirements to de Havilland and see what they can come up with. Point taken on Ford class.
As regards what’s going on in the army I think the less said the better. But from the outside it gives the impression that some kind of systemic malignancy has got established at the core. It might be difficult to root out.

Well, yeah, but currently you still got a lot more than 6 SHs flying.
So if you cut that force down to 6 aircraft and move them to France, there should be enough airmen available to service those SHs (also making use of synergies with the 10-12 GER-FRA craft) and still add a few bodies to A400M support …

Empty promises and flowery words do not make a fighter jet. Particularly when serviceable airframes are cut to fund the R&D. It’s pathetic. Worse still, the British people and Armed Forces just accept it. There is something to be said for those French Generals, Admirals and politicians sending threats to the government. Change your ways or count your remaining days.

WOW did I just say that, things must be bad. – memo to self.

You said it yourself. Your British which means you didn’t mean it. That’s not who we are.

Yes. The only example but even that will mean fast jet production in the UK will grind to a halt once Qatari Typhoons are complete. We’ll effectively be a parts producer for around 10 years before tempest goes into full production. Imagine if we were just producing parts for ships, there would be outrage. Some good watches ‘When Britain Ruled the Skys’ on Iplayer or ‘Cold War,Hot jets’ on Amzon prime shows how far we’ve fallen. 🙁

I know I loved those programmes too. The V bombers were arguably our greatest post war achievement. I know what you mean about our aviation industry but we need to export everything we produce. Hopefully that’s where we’re heading. We will never get the economies of scale just supplying ourselves. But the glory days of the 50’s are gone for good.

Germany ordered 38 EFs (tranche 4) last year and will need at least another 45 EFs (tranche 5) to replace its Tornado IDS. So EF construction will continue for a while.

Maybe the UK will even figure out that it can’t really afford a fleet made up only of F35 and Tempest, and, like Germany, plan on using the EF like the US is going to use the F15EX.

Yes but those Typhoons are built in Germany. UK will supply parts to the German assembly line. Our assembly line has no orders after the Qatari jets. So whst EF production will continue elsewhere we will no longer build a fast jet

Convince Canada to replace their F18s with EFs. Problem solved … 😉