A recent paper by Professor Justin Bronk, published by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), argues that regenerating the UK’s airpower through the enhancement of its Typhoon and F-35 fleets is the quickest and most effective way to strengthen NATO’s deterrence posture against Russian aggression.

With the current security landscape rapidly evolving, Bronk stresses that the UK’s immediate investment in its existing combat aircraft fleets will enable NATO to bolster its collective defence capabilities and respond more effectively to potential Russian threats.

Click here to read the paper itself.

Bronk begins by highlighting the increasingly dire situation in Europe, where the risk of conflict with Russia continues to grow. With Russian forces already engaged in Ukraine, the threat to European security is becoming more imminent. Bronk argues that NATO must act quickly to enhance its combat power, especially in the air domain, which remains critical to modern warfare.

He stresses, “To pose a threat, [Russia] must deploy its tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery, logistics and electronic warfare equipment in the field and keep them there. If air superiority can be gained and exploited, Europe’s relatively large numbers of fourth-generation jets and helicopters could efficiently conduct close air support and interdiction missions to rapidly destroy the Russian Army in any contested territory.”

As Bronk points out, the key to countering Russia’s ground forces lies in securing air superiority. This would allow NATO to deploy jets and helicopters to destroy Russian vehicles and artillery with relatively inexpensive direct-attack munitions, such as Paveway and JDAM series bombs. These bombs, costing only a few tens of thousands of pounds each, could be used to target multiple Russian vehicles per sortie once air superiority is achieved.

A significant part of the paper addresses Russia’s formidable air defence capabilities, which have been designed to thwart NATO’s efforts to gain air superiority. Bronk explains that Russia has heavily invested in ground-based air defence (GBAD) systems to protect its forces on the ground. These systems are highly effective at disrupting air operations, posing a considerable challenge to NATO air forces.

However, Bronk notes, “These GBAD systems are finite, have suffered some attrition in Ukraine already, and have known weaknesses.” While only the US currently has the capacity to conduct a full suppression/destruction of enemy air defences (SEAD/DEAD) campaign against Russia’s extensive GBAD network, the paper suggests that NATO could still gain air superiority with the right investments in air combat power.

He calls for a focus on regenerating the UK’s existing air assets, primarily the Typhoon and F-35 fleets, which could contribute to a significant enhancement of NATO’s air capabilities.

As Bronk observes, “Focusing in the SDR on investment to regenerate the combat power of the existing Typhoon and F-35 fleets is the quickest way for the UK to rapidly field high-end capabilities to significantly enhance NATO’s deterrence posture against Russian aggression.” By rapidly upgrading these aircraft, the UK can provide NATO with the tools needed to contest Russian air defences and achieve air superiority over the battlefield.

The author argues that by focusing on the swift enhancement of the Typhoon and F-35 fleets, the UK can ensure that NATO has the tools necessary to challenge Russian forces effectively.

As Bronk concludes, “The UK’s resolve and readiness to defend Europe’s security will define the strength and unity of NATO in the coming years.” Investing in air superiority and combat power is essential to maintaining the credibility of NATO’s deterrence capabilities in the face of growing Russian threats.

For more details on this critical issue, read the full research paper here.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

71 COMMENTS

  1. Yup, ordering 24ish of each would be the way fowards as F35B is essential for a range of missions as well as CSG any Typhoon needs sustained mass.

    And the reality is that it would be £4.8Bn spread over at lest 5 and sadly more like 10 years so £500m/yr investment. Which isn’t fortunes and is the kind of money that 2.2 -> 2.5% can sensibly achieve.

    Also these can be fixed price buys as they are matured platforms – OK forget exchange uncertainty…

    • I don’t think he is taking about buying more Typhoon rather moving forward with the AESA radar upgrade and getting SPEAR onto F35B.

      • At the very least we need to either upgrade and retain the T1s, or replace them with T3s.

        And purchase at least 90 total F35s.

        • Price. F35 is unaffordable so 90 airframes doesn’t look remotely likely, but I agree that we need quantity to be credible. Knock down BAES on Typhoon prices, as SB says, get a good fixed price deal up front for volume. At today’s prices it’s get three Typhoons for two F35s or maybe better. F35 numbers are also tied up with getting sufficient aircraft onto the two QE carriers, so that’s another circle to be squared.

    • The unfortunate truth is that the RAF/RN very probably needs to invest in acquisition of F-35B (and some F-35A models for a future tactical nuke deterrence mission), upgrading Typhoon Tranches 2&3, acquiring some Typhoon Tranche 4, and simultaneously investing appropriately in development of GCAP/Tempest. RAF acknowledged to have played a pivotal role in existential battle some 80+ yrs. ago, and may be required to do so again in the foreseeable future. Would seem to be a reasonable idea to equip RAF to succeed. Especially if ENATO as a functional unit has to become more self-sufficient, because of US preoccupation with the I-P. Not certain a 2.5% of GDP rate of expenditure will permit that level of investment. Totally understand that preaching to the choir on this website will have no influence real world events and policies. Recall that there was a character in Greek or Roman mythology, named (Cassandra?), w/ the same futile mission. 🤔😳

      • I certainly agree if the UK has to focus on ENATO then a major boost in our F35 and Typhoon fleets is the way to go. Of on the other hand we need to be in the pacific then it’s carriers and SSN’s. Economic limitations won’t allow both, If we can hold NATO+ together then we don’t have a problem however after a relative period of unity the cracks are now showing

      • Cassandra wasn’t believed but I think this is worse, everyone and the government do believe the world is becoming more unstable with rising bad actors, but they choose to ignore it or respond without urgency.

      • I agree with all apart from F-35A. It makes no sense to do a split buy unless we increase the buy to around 200 aircraft.

        I’d rather increase both Typhoon and F-35B numbers. The Bs can be used either on carriers against China or on land against Russia.

      • You’ll be amazed by how much some of the comments raised on here are either read by those in power or have influence in raising questions within Parliament. A number of MPs have used subjects and comments raised on this forum to address Chiefs of Staff and Ministers.

  2. Of course, there would be the little matter of finding pilots for the extra planes – from what I gather we can’t cope now.

  3. In reality the UK fast jet fleet is way to small. It’s not got the airframes to maintain a significant tempo of operations and even at present tempo has a risk of running out of airframe hours.

    I’ve gone into detail as to why I think that in another set of commentary but I think a couple of points are really telling

    The tornado fleet started life with 335 aircraft each with 8000 hours of airframe time for around 2.9 million airframe hours of flight time. The typhoon fleet of 160 aircraft each has 6000 hours of airframe time for around .95 million airframe hours.

    In only its first 28 years of operations the tornado fleet burnt 1 million hours of airframe hours or 2500 airframe hours per airframe. By the point tornado was 66% through its life the RAF had only burnt 30% of the airframe hours of the tornado and had it joined by 160 typhoons who then took up most of the flying hours.

    If we then consider the typhoon fleet, by around 2020 the tranche 1 typhoons had burnt on average 2500 airframe hours in only 12ish years this is because the typhoon fleet is both smaller and harder used than the tornado fleet.

    2014 is a great example as it was the balance point of the two fleets, the RAF had 110ish of both aircraft type and was using 14,000 hours of tornadoe flying time and 17,000 hours of typhoon..by the 2020s typhoon flying time was up to 22,000-23,000 hours a year. with a fleet of only 96 front line jets that’s a bit of a weakness.

    It will be very interesting to see the next FOI on airframe hours for those remaining 96 airframes..and to see if the have the required 500,000ish airframe hours to take the fleet into the mice 2040s.

    • Unfortunately it is the RAF delusion that running a few frames as hard as possible is the ‘best use of resources’ it leaves absolutely nothing for surge etc.

      Also the RAF delusion that part timers are no use at all. Tell that to US National Guard and the various reserve outfits that regularly fly F16 etc.

      The other RAF delusion that needs to be dealt with is that because there are so few frames and pilots every frame and everyone has to be able to do all roles. This makes every frame very expensive and every pilot eyewateringly expensive to train.

      We urgently need to stop looking down our noses as reserve formations of both kit and people. The reality is that there are a lot of fast jet pilots out there with skills atrophying who could be refreshed for more limited roles.

        • Oh it is both and you forgot about the reserves of each service who for the most part are certainly part time as most have other jobs often unrelated to their reserve role. Airline pilots for example for which many of our’s move too to fill their wallets. Active reserves would be a good thing for all ours, it helps with the return on the tax payers investment and gives real mass.

        • Try and explain that to both my friends who fly National Guard and for an airline the rest of the time….yes there are full timers but it is a split force.

      • The RAF is not suffering from any delusions – it can only work within the Budget it is given. Sure it would love to have extra Typhoons and F35’s but if the funding isn’t there there is not much they can do about it.

      • How many countries have a reserve air force? The US ANG is as far as I can tell unique. Can you imagine the RAF Reserve flying F-35? Can you imagine us having entire squadrons of Typhoons purely for reserve formations? That’s a hilarious level of luxury. I’d be happier with 10 active squadrons and 2 QRF.
        Don’t know if we could have a a few reserve squadrons of Hawk or something similar for light attack aircraft or the like. Think that would be more realistic and doable than anything else

        • The US runs 10 squadrons in reserve and they operate the F35. They are unique now because we gutted our reserves, We use to have reserve squadrons flying fast jets before 1991.

          Reserve squadrons are often populated by pilots at the end of their career who are already trained up and just need to maintain proficiency’s while they migrate to working for civilian airlines.

          It’s very doable.

      • We do have surge capacity. The Typhoon maintenance contract provides X number of aircraft available for operations at any one time to the frontline. With capacity to surge in times of crisis. Typhoon has very very high availability rates. Due to its outstanding reliability, and a genuinely superb maintenance contract. Most of these comment about airframe hours are way off from reality and just demonstrating a general lack of real world knowledge about how modern fast jet fleets are managed and the vast improvements in technology and engineering practices that have been developed over the years. 100 Typhoons can achieve way more than 229 Tornados ever could. Availability rates arw far higher. Mean time between failures is far higher. The EJ200 requires far less maintenance and time off the airframe compared to the RB199. And a genuinely multi role aircraft. People just obsesses over numbers, and ignore all the many other advancements and progress.

        • Robert it’s not just availability that’s a “now” tactical issue, not a strategic “long term” risk. The typhoon is more limited in airframe life than to tornado and there were only ever half the number ordered…as I pointed out the tornado fleet had 3 million hours of airframe time to burn in its 40 years..typhoon only has .9 of a million hours..the RAF then removed 60 of Those airframes with half their flying hours left on the airframes…that’s was the loss of around of around .2 million flight hours, it does not matter how good your maintenance is..when your fleet does not have the flying hours left your fucked. The RAF burned a million hours of tornado fight hours in 28 years..it’s used the typhoon fleet even harder..it’s going to run out of airframe hours probably in the late 2030s or early 2040s and if it’s not fully replaced typhoon at that point it’s got a problem ( and it will not have fully replaced typhoon at that point).

          It no longer has a reasonable sustainment fleet, it cannot have as its running 6 squadrons, Falklands, OCU on 100 airframes..in 2014 it ran only 4 squadrons, OCU and Falklands and had 110 aircraft and managed a sustainment fleet of 25.

          You can run it anyway you want while, it’s burning 23,000 hours a year of flight time with 96 single seat typhoons, 60 of which have been burning hours for 13 years ( the RAF will have burnt 2500 hours off each of those airframes in that time) the RAF needs another 30 airframes to run typhoon squadrons into the mid to late 2040s.

          Fast jets are a consumable product it’s that simple and the RAF will run out of consumables unless it buys some more.

  4. The UK must invest in a sensible diplomatic leadership, the ones we’ve got don’t seem to realise that war with a nuclear power is a definite no-no.
    Telling us Russia is bluffing is the biggest sign this crop of politicians really are fu€£in’ idiots.
    Make peace you idiots. ❤️✌️

    • But just letting Russia have its way isn’t the answer.
      Give them an inch and they will absolutely take a mile.
      The Russian mentality means they will only respect a robust response, anything else is viewed as a weakness to push against.

      • I think Churchill summed that up best. You cannot negotiate with a Tiger when your head is in its mouth. or words to that effect.

    • I’m sure if the Russians were to unilaterally withdraw from Ukraine, return to their pre 2014 borders and resolve not to encroach on anyones sovereign territory again The West would be more than happy to discuss Peace and instigate Russias return to the world stage.
      Not on your Nellie you say , Why should they you say, The Crimea is theirs you say ? Oh well thats a shame,never mind, it was a nice thought whilst it lasted I suppose.

    • Nato could have stopped Russia before the invasion by moving a large force into ukraine under a banner of a training force or miltary drill but nato isn’t a single body that can make decision it’s dozens of members each focused on their own internal polictcal matters and didn’t give a stuff about Ukraine until it was too late.

      Nato just needs to learn from it’s mistake and if Russia starts massing forces on any other country, it needs to do likewise.

      • Remember Ukraine refused to believe the Russians would invade and did not mobilise for fear of provoking them. I cant image they would have let in a large NATO force even if we had one to put there.

        • I bet they would have. Ukraine were worried about giving Russia and excuse for crossing their borders. They would happily have accepted a nato force as it would have guaranteed no escalation

          • Ukraine didn’t want to escalate as it was worried it didn’t stand a chance alone against Russia. Which was the common view pre war.

    • Aurelius, that’s lovely but it takes two to make peace and only one to make war. This linked to humanities behaviour across its entire history means that it’s impossible to make peace through weakness. The only times nations have prolonged periods of peace and prosperity is if they have the strength and show the will to utterly and completely destroy their enemies no matter the cost. The only time humanity in its history has peace is when a popular live through one of the periods of PAX imperia. You have had periods of regional peace such as pax Tokugawa where something like the Tukugawa shogunate simply destroyed all its opposition and because Japan was an island cut itself from the rest of humanity and informed peace through violence. Or the period of the Pax Sinica and Pax Romana where the world became dominated by two empires that enforced peace in their respective regions, with military might but were isolated from each other so they never came in contact..or a world wide peace enforced by a power like pax Britanni or Pax Americana from 1990 or where you have two major powers that have an enforce beach due to the fact both know the other will utterly destroy them if the make the wrong more or PAX atomica ( the Cold War)…

      But essentially every period of peace humanity has know is because of massive military dominance and a willingness to go to war. Every period of extreme violence and war has been triggered by one sides weakness or perceived weakness and unwillingness to fight.

  5. As proven by his many writings, Bronk is a silly boy and hopelessly biassed toward US industry. What he really wants is the UK to cancel GCAP.

  6. Typhoons are very potent aircraft, and the UK has enough for defence. And this is where they should be in this age. F35’s are more for projecting power. The UK is quite well balanced when it comes to air power. When talking about Russia, they likely wouldn’t try to wage an air war with the UK. If Russia ever attacked the UK directly, it would be via missiles. That is where the concern should be. We are woefully unprotected. As for projection, we might have low numbers, but our platforms are solid, and add up the partners strength, Russia would have no chance.

    • The Uk had 96 single seat typhoons, each with 6000 hours of life, most of which are over a decade old and have probably used a few thousand of the 6000 hours of life. The RAF is presently burning 23,000 hours of airframe life a year from the fleet which is the equivalent of around 4% 5% of the original airframe hours a year. That’s the problem fast jets are used up and the RAF are burning the equivalent of 40 typhoons a decade just in normal operations.

      Once you get your head around the fact a fast jet is actually a consumable item, you realise that 96 single seat fighters is an issue….

      • Jonathan. With all due respect. You have known idea how many hours Typhoons are using. You are just guessing. We have a sustainment fleet for a reason. Hours are very carefully managed. That is why the whole fleet is managed , rather than aircraft spending years on one sqn. Engineering practices have moved on tenfold.

        • Robert yes I do, you can look it up on a number of FOIs..the HMG quite happy give it out. So yes if you do the investigation you can track the hours on the fleet even by individual airframe.

          • The information available for hours by airframe is 2015 and 2020..there is then information on exact hours flown for the whole fleet by year for each year. There are a number of years where FOIs have tracked were every airframe is by airframe number and by squadron and sustainment so you can build a picture and trajectory for the fleet on historic usage and management of the sustainment fleet. You have to make a number of assumptions, but in the end you’re only really after the headline number of will the fleet as a whole run out of hours and when is that likely..

          • The RAF/ BAE Systems arw very good at managing fast jet fleets for hours/fatigue. My cousin is a airframe tech on Typhoons at Coningsby on 29sqn. He says hours are not an issue, and the jet is extremely reliable. Abd availability is very high.

  7. Has anyone actually been observing what is happening in Ukraine? The cost to Russia is immense and unsustainable for much longer as their manpower is running out. And really if they cannot quickly take over the likes of Ukraine there is little to no chance against NATO on mass. Only way they could take out the RAF is by sending over missiles to take out the few airbases we currently have thus taking out the RAF in a swift action. Spending large amounts on weapons is really false as Russia is not the real threat but China is and the one to watch together with the ongoing invasion across the Channel.

    • I agree.

      But that doesn’t stop stupid things happening.

      The bigger problem is all the crazies working in lockstep and containing them.

      That is why we need more force to make sure we don’t need it.

    • I with disagree with some of that. Russia is currently a clear and present danger, more so than China. Putin has put himself in a position where he has to win or come out of terms that favour Russia. Otherwise, he’s going to go on a trip to stare at the trees. This puts him in a position where he will be forced to act mostly against Ukraine. But as we have seen recently to up the tempo of the grey war. Where Russia is deliberately looking at means to undermine NATO, but also a Country’s ability to supply materiel to Ukraine. At some point Russia are going to be caught red handed. But then what will NATO do as a response? Will they then be forced to step over the line and become more overt testing the boundaries of what would constitute the use of NATO’s Article 5.

      Russia still has a huge manpower reserve. Next year their 18 year olds will be eligible for conscription. The number they can “call up” is some 10 times more than Ukraine. Plus if N.Korea send more troops as the rumors allude to. Then Ukraine definitely won’t be able to match the manpower available to Russia.

      Russia must be hurting in regards to the materiel it can send to Ukraine. They have lost a significant chunk of their vehicles and SAM systems, including a hefty number of helicopters and fighters. But as we’ve seen they have managed to ramp up T90 production as well as recycling their older T72s and T80s. Aircraft are a different matter, as it takes much longer to produce. They definitely aren’t getting deliveries of western avionics, sighting systems and communications etc used in these ground and air vehicles. So they’re probably getting it via China. But is this sustainable?

      I think Russia will struggle on. They have both a huge mineral reserve as well as the gas and oil. Which are being sold to India and China. Plus a few other countries on the quiet no doubt. Ukraine is in a dubious position, in how will they pay for the materiel being sent to them, as not all of it is gifted? They are hugely reliant on their cereal crops. Which Russia has tried its best to disrupt. I honestly do feel Russia are playing the long game. Where they are hoping that the attrition of men and material cannot be replaced as quickly as Russia are doing.

      I will caveat that, with a warning about China. China is mineral poor and just over their Northern border are huge reserves of resources. How weakened will Russia have to be, before China see these resources as an easy picking. I very much doubt the West will come to Russia’s aid. Leaving Russia with little choice but to go nuclear to deter China. It could get very messy. China always plays the long game like a chess match. Definitely something to watch in the near future.

      • The issue is it’s not just the west the west that can form a long term strategic alliance, china is pragmatic enough to form an alliance across any number of the wests enemies and is doing so..it’s old handed over Chinese ballistic missile tec that Iran is providing to its proxies.

      • @DaveyB

        We discussed the weakening of Russia to becoming China’s vassal when this all kicked off.

        China would be very happy with that and it is probably their mid term game plan to dribble enough into Russia to allow the Russians to grind to a halt and become exhausted and then China plays the kingmaker and tells Mad Vlad what to do and in return Xi gives Mad Vlad ‘investment’ in return for mineral rights and agricultural lands.

        Putin then presents this ‘investment’ as the bonus for the Russian people….some territory is given back to UKR….Xi looks good to everyone!

        I doubt it is in China’s interests for Mad Vlad to win – the reverse actually…..interesting to see where that thought process takes you!!

        • I agree, in reality I can see china playing Russia in the same way as the US played the UK in the early Cold War, it wants to reduce a geopolitical competitor intto a geopolitical tool/asset.

    • Following from supportive comments, and yours. I agree china is the massive threat in the room, but china has alway had one key weakness and the west one key strength and that’s alliances.

      Our big problem is that Ukraine has essentially forced Russia into chinas area of influence, china has also it decided it’s at war with the west and has been focusing a lot of political warfare activities around developments of its own alliances as well as weakening the west.

      Essentially now the west faces not individual actors each of which it could overcome ( even china in isolation would inevitably loss against the western alliance) but for the first time it’s facing a potential developing alliance lead by an opposing superpower.

      We are really now asking the wrong questions

      1) Can the NATO powers handle Russia and its European allies, the answer is yes, but it’s the wrong question.
      2) Can the west and its allies control the spread of Iran and its proxy’s as well as protect the western Indian ocean’s sea lanes, yes but it’s the wrong question.
      3) can the US and it’s pacific allies handle china stop it taking over Taiwan and blocking the western pacific and eastern Indian Ocean sea lanes, yes but it’s the wrong question.
      4) can the US and South Korea defend against a North Korean invasion, yes it can but it’s the wrong question.
      5) can the western democracies defend against china and Russia using the threat of religious extremists in Africa to bring the African nations into its alliances control. Yes but it’s failing miserably at present.

      The very big question is, can the west convince, china, Russia and its alliance, Iran and its proxies and North Korea that it can do all the above at the same time and win a world war across the globe, that could include:

      1) fighting and win a blood bath in the western pacific on chinas doorstep against the PLAN and PLAAF with support from the Russian pacific fleet and airforce.
      2) holding the eastern Indian Ocean choke points against the PLAN and allies in the region
      3) fight and win with the US forces in Korea and South Korea a land war against North Korea and the Chinese PLA.
      4) holding the western Indian Ocean and eastern med choke points against the PLAN, Iran and its proxies as well as support friendly governments in the Middle East as Iran fully unleashes popular unrest and a jihad in nations like Jordan.
      5) fight and win proxy campaigns and wars in Africa to protect access to resources and allies
      6) fight and win Russia and its allies nations in the Eastern European theatre.
      7) fighting and suppressing insurgents with its own NATO nations.
      8) keeping to together politically and ensuring the electorate across NATO and allies does not half way through a world war go “Fuck it” and vote in a group of appeasers before the west can win and wear down its enemies through strategic exhaustion.

      So the key question is can the west do all that because if china ever thinks the answer is definitely “no” and if it thinks it can spread a global war the west cannot win it will trigger world war 3.

  8. The main thrust of the article is the need to increase weapons stockpiles and focus on high intensity operations and training. Whilst arguing that a future order of F35Bs should be accelerated, the author recognizes that the limited air to ground weapons capability is a real problem. Spear 3 would give both Typhoon and F35 a SEAD capability to ensure UK/NATO could achieve air dominance.
    All well argued but since it is unlikely Typhoons will stop secondary operations eg against DAESH or the Houthis, the only way to secure air superiority against Russia is to increase the Typhoon fleet as well as ordering more F35.
    This would be a far better use of scarce funds than building more surface warships.

    • I wouldn’t order any more F35B until Spear3 and Meteor are contracted to be intergrated, with substantial penalties if not delivered. They were supposed to be delivered in 2025, now it’s by the end of the decade.

      • Good luck with that – Unfortunately we are in a position where we simply cannot not buy further 35Bs or our defence ‘strategy’ simply falls apart.
        We have ‘assumed the position’ many years ago.

  9. I gave up hoping for a common sense approach from UK governments to defence decades ago. Lie after lie, breaking the Military Covenant. Letting PIRA scum walk free whilst pursuing veterans? And now, “Defence Review” after bloody review = any excuse not to invest in our security. People will not face facts. In a way I hope Trump somehow forces our hand ( and the rest ) to spend what is needed.
    UK politicians are defence blind. All of the brass are arse lickers. There, thats me feeling better.

  10. There are several possible endings to the Russia – Ukraine war. One of them may be that it drags on for decades, or it may end as the Korean war did still a potential flashpoint over 70 years after the fighting stopped.

    The important thing for the UK to recognize is that the chances of it ending with a substantial victory for Ukraine and a defeat for Russia which causes a radical reset of Russian politics on the lines of what happened in Germany and Japan post 1945 appear to be marginal to non existent.

    Therefore irrespective of the outcome we will have to fight a second cold war at best and possibly a major or even world war.

    We can’t effectively fight the current second cold war on 2.5% of GDP on defence. Our primary concern is Russia, but also the three countries which are currently supporting Russia and who all have their own territorial aspirations. China against Taiwan, North Korea against South Korea and Iran against much of the Middle East.

    We can’t say we will deter Russia and not the others, therefore we need to play our part in deterrence across the board. More aircraft do make sense, perhaps with a weighting towards F35B more than Typhoon as the F35B is the more flexible aircraft.

    We probably don’t need more surface ships than are already planned, but we do need to develop a decent defence against missiles and drones along with an adequate armored force to drive into Russian territory as part of a counter attack. Poland is showing the way. Flying aircraft is so technical that it needs full time people. Armoured ground forces could quite reasonably be reservists. So say three full time armoured brigades and three mixed armoured brigades with 25% full timers and 75% part timers with an extra 75% part timers as reserves.

    A decent air defence for the UK might need four brigades full time and a similar number of personnel part time as reserves.

    The navy perhaps does need expanding but not with surface ships but with submarines. SSN for world wide operations but also some cheaper AIS vessels for use in coastal waters of the north sea.

    The most important lesson from the past is don’t think one weapon will win the war. In October 1939 Britain lost about 8% of its battle ships to U47 in one night, It’s only luck that it wasn’t 25%

    Without adequate missile and drone defence we could loose 25% of our Air Force in a single night.

  11. Investment is being made to the Typhoon/F35 Fleets. Hopefully post SDSR the T2 F35 order for 27 jets will be placed. Blk4 will be a massive series of incremental upgrades for F35. And £2.35Bn is being spent on upgrading T2/3 Typhoon. Including the ECRS MK2 radar among many other key enhancements. F35 and ECRS MK2 bring new capabilitys to the RAF we haven’t had before. Especially SEAD/DEAD and first night of war precision strike and air dominace.

    • “Economic limitations won’t allow both.” Sorry, history provides multiple counterexamples. Choice is really between sufficiently investing now, or being compelled to invest almost infinitely more blood and treasure in an emergency.
      Believe that the statement should read: Political limitations will not allow.

  12. There’s one critical factor not taken on to account. Which is the lack of sovereign weapons integration on the F35. Which massively limits its ability to prosecute targets. Especially when we consider the benefits Meteor and Spear-3 brings to the F35 party. An easy option would be simply just buy the weapons that are already integrated, which are predominantly US products. However that would be a huge kick in the teeth for the UK and its defence industry.

    Would a purchase of Tranche 4 Typhoons benefit the Air Force? Yes most definitely. It has more sovereign weapons integrated, so is better for the UK overall. Although the F35 can do things the Typhoon can’t. It will still provide a huge benefit to the Air Force.

    • Yes and a tranche 4 Typhoon would be a much upgraded aircraft with ECRS.2 with an upgraded or new defensive aids suite as well as an all new cockpit to provide information to the pilot. I’d rather that equipped with Spear 3/EW, upgraded storm shadow and Meteor and block 6 ASRAAM.
      What I’d also want is tranche 2/3 upgraded to the same standard although a SLEP may be required to add further hours.
      This would be better than additional F-35B especially as we should wait till block 4 / TR3 is fully developed and we’ve integrated all the weapons we require before a new order.

      • Agree in the end the typhoon is a very good aircraft that can act as the mass. Yes the RAF need a number of 5th generation aircraft and there needs to be adequate aircraft for the carriers. But there needs to be a massive recapitalisation in the RAF fast jet stock as people forget fast jets a limited life item you cannot keep them running for ever. Generally airframe hours are managed by having a large fleet that moves airframes through..that’s the RAF had 330 tornados. In reality you need around 25-30 fast jets per front line squadron across the life of the jet.

        The 100 typhoons the RAF will have is only really barely adequate to maintain 4 squadrons across its remaining life and that’s way too few. The 78 planned F35 is just adequate for 3 squadrons ( but the early F35Bs have a massive airframe hours issue that may cut their life to 1500 hours and it forced a change in construction on later F35Bs..so there may be a big issue with the first 12 RAF front line aircraft).

        To maintain 8 front line fast jet squadrons ( 5 typhoon and 3 F35) and the Falklands flight, the RAF need that second order of F35Bs to 78 as well as another order of 25-30 Typhoons. Personally I think at minimum it should be 2/1 squadron split with 6 front line typhoon squadrons and 3 F35..but that would really need a 40+ typhoon order.

  13. The name of the game is deterrence. Documentary evidence supports a long term Russian demographic imperialist intent to establish a 250 million strong European superstate on the Polish border. To retain Western European independence in foreign and domestic policy decision making, at least conventional parity of force structure is required. That means Britain, Germany and France matching Poland’s progress in fielding an Armoured Army Corps. Commensurate support in air defence, close air support is clearly required, as is strategic anti ballistic missile defence. All of that will require defence spending of five percent of GDP per annum. How many here believe that will ever happen. We have already conceded foreign policy leadership to the U.S. Once the U.S. pulls out of Europe, our foreign policy will be dictated from the East; and domestic policy will follow.

  14. If extra planes are needed and asap then what would be the comparative lead time difference between ordering more Typhoons and more F35Bs with the later coming later anyway? Time is of the essence isn’t it? Find a pragmatic way to have both if the times are demanding it. Italy seems to have been able to order additional Typhoons alpngdudevits F35Bs plus investing in GCAP.

  15. If extra planes are needed and asap then what would be the comparative lead time difference between ordering more Typhoons and more F35Bs with the later coming later anyway? Time is of the essence isn’t it? Find a pragmatic way to have both if the times are demanding it. Italy seems to have been able to order additional Typhoons alpngdudevits F35Bs plus investing in GCAP.

    • Personally as an immediate stop gap I would purchase the around 20 tranche 2 typhoons Spain keeps tying to sell to people that would at least give a bit of extra give in the system for little money.

  18. Anyone wants to delude themselves into thinking conventional warfare would be relevant in a hot war with Russia or China is deluding themselves. Government’s around the world both in NATO and China/Russia know this, they will sabre rattle that’s for the benefit of their populations (on both sides) but a real hot war we all will end up glowing in the dark and no side wants that or is prepared for that. Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl have scared the living crap out of every side.

    • Russia and US military personnel actively shot at and killed each other in wars during the Cold War and it never went nuclear. The Russians even had decorated missile ace who shot down no less that 6 US aircraft in south east Asia..when his unit was actively deployed into a war zone to shoot down U.S. fighters. Basically what the Cold War taught was you can fight around the edges as long as you don’t threaten the actual existence of a nuclear power.

      India and Pakistan have been knocking chunks while both being nuclear armed states and have never come close to slagging each others cities. Infact in 1999 they had a war that killed and wounded thousands.

      I honestly think china at least thinks it can fight a war with the US without going Nuclear, its entire nuclear posture is based around that concept. The reason it thinks it can do this is because although china and the US can hurt each other they cannot threaten each other existentially with destruction unless they go nuclear….so they will not go nuclear.

      Russia would probably take the chance around the Baltic states if it thought it could win, Because it knows the NATO nuclear powers will never go nuclear over a Baltic state.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here