Typhoon Tranche 2 order signed

[ORAC]

Daily Telegraph:
Hoon confirms £4.3bn order for combat jets

Defence secretary Geoff Hoon yesterday confirmed that Britain will buy £4.3billion worth of Eurofighter Typhoon jets.

The hurried announcement for an additional 89 combat jets torpedoed a carefully planned day-long press conference to be laid on by the Ministry of Defence tomorrow. It ended two years of speculation over whether the "second tranche" of Eurofighter would ever get signed. The project is already estimated to be six years late and costs have trebled to $100billion (£51billion).

Mr Hoon issued the statement to Parliament after the news started to leak out that Germany, Spain, France and the UK signed their order for 236 jets, worth €13billion, on Tuesday. He said: "This is excellent news for both the Royal Air Force and for United Kingdom industry and represents the achievement of another major milestone for the Typhoon project. "Typhoon will be an outstandingly capable, state-of-the-art aircraft which will form a cornerstone of the RAF's future capability. The Typhoon will be a world beating aircraft and this major investment will provide the RAF with the capability to respond to the challenges and threats we face now and in the future."

Not everyone was so upbeat. Shares in BAE closed up just 0.75 at 238.25p. One analyst said the successful conclusion of tranche two was factored into BAE's share price, adding that in his view "Typhoon is little more than a European job creation scheme".

BAE Systems, which is building 37pc of the jets, issued a brief statement saying it "welcomes" the announcement. A company spokesman admitted "it is not the best timing", with the top brass being wheeled out to trumpet the deal at RAF Northolt tomorrow. Dignitaries such as Mr Hoon and Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup (chief of the air staff) have been invited.

[AdLib]

That's £48,314,606 each. Special BWoS price ... (gulp).

[Green Meat]

Typhoon is little more than a European job creation scheme

Yep, and they said the same thing about the Tornado. They were right! Next time someone says that it's cheaper to spread the cost by having multiple partners (no smut please...), I'll remember AdLib's comment about £48,314,606 all-inclusive unit cost. :mad:

By my humble calculation, taking the first time I saw EAP prototype stooging above Base Air Depot 2 (going back some, that name!) it's a fifteen year gestation period and then some.

Anyone know of any significant world events in that time that may make the initial design considerations somewhat redundant?

Ouch, just burned my fingers on the match for the blue touchpaper...

[PPRuNeUser0172]

So thats 89 in tranche 2 and how many did we get in tranche 1?

Just curious as to how many there will be to play with:ok:

[mbga9pgf]

think i read 142 in flight.

[Jackonicko]

"A hurried announcement, indeed."

On the 14th the MoD said:

"Tranche 2 Order for Typhoon – Media Facility

A media facility will be held on Friday 17th December 2004 to mark the signature of the contract that will see the delivery of a further tranche of 89 Typhoon aircraft to the RAF.

Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, Minister for Defence Procurement, Lord Bach, Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, Dick Olver, Chairman BAE Systems and Mike Turner, CEO BAE Systems will be in attendance."

This was firmly embargoed......

[BEagle]

Long and loud did 't Bungling Baron chuckle....

"By 'eck, Seth", he exclaimed happily as he fondled the ears of his faithful but flatulent whippet Boogeroff, ".. but that's a reet champion result! £48.3M ferr each one. Old Mad Maggie werr reet when she told us that there'd allus br brass in it for thee and me wi't orderrs for 't Airr Forrce!"

"Aye, master", replied the sycophantic Seth, "an' 't second of 't owd Comets the lads at Woodferrd are buildin' has flown, an' all!"

"Well I'll go to the fooot o' ower' sterrs", chortled t' Baron, "That's over 5 yeerrs' werrk we've managed to stretch out from 't Modd boogers. 't lads at 't werrks'll be gettin' a bonus Christmas orange this yeerr! Now then, 'ave theesen' a piece o' pig pancreas pie and a celeberratorry glass o' Dandelion an Burrdock..."

[plebby 1st tourist]

Call me naive if you will...

At the risk of sounding like a Daily Mail reader, why can't the nation that made the Lightning, Harrier etc JUST BUILD OUR OWN JETS?

France and Sweden do it. As I understand it, Rafale and Gripen aren't quite as capable as Typhoon, but they are in service because they didn't require 37 commitee meetings and years of political wrangling every time the designers want to change anything.

Or we could go the Japanese route and licence-build F-15s. Stick a BAe radar and RR engines in them, a la phantom. Jobs for the boys and a capable jet, now:confused:

Btw I'm not aircrew, but it is saddening to see the same mistakes being made every time the forces, esp the RAF, get anything new.:ugh:

[Climebear]

plebby 1st tourist

Welcome to the world of living in a government department where buying from the US costs jobs in someone's constituency (jobs mean votes) and or effects share prices (prosperity means votes), and building a European ac - allegedly - shows a commitment to Europe. Mind you just buying US is not all its cracked up to be – anyone involved in STOVL JCA(JSAF) want to add anything here (STOVL variant = RR engine = jobs = votes; also = less range/payload = less utility than Carrier or CTOL varients)?

As for the Harrier - correct was British; however is now largely American.

[Pontius Navigator]

What price the JSF then?

No one has picked up the quote from Jock Stirrup in yesterday's torygraph.

"We should not just compare the cost of the project to initial estimates but to benchmarks against similar projects. The JSF, the plane's main US rival, had cost £40.5 billion in design and development. For the Typhoon the . . . bill is about £25 billion"

So if JSF is the Typhoon's main rival why are we buying both?

OK I know one is a bomber and the other is a fighter-bomber but why buy both then? If we do buy both then we need less of the fighter-bombers!

[dmanton300]

So if JSF is the Typhoon's main rival why are we buying both?

Can't stick a Tiffie on a deck. . .

[jwcook]

just a (pretty stupid) question, Could a Typhoon in wartime be

A. launched from the new RN carriers.
B. be recovered on the new RN carriers.


The main deck or the new carriers was supposed to be about 260m long, the T/O distance for the Typhoon is stated at 300m.

I guess the landing is not really possible, even with the tail hook.

cheers

[WE Branch Fanatic]

From Future Aircraft: RN site (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2002.html)

The MOD considered all other options very carefully before selecting the JSF as the preferred aircraft for its new aircraft carriers. The other options included a marinised version of the Eurofighter (232 Eurofighters are ordered for the RAF) the American F18E, the French Rafale and an updated Harrier. But the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant JSF emerged as the best option.

[Pontius Navigator]

There you have it then.

If the Typoon cannot use the carrier but the JSF is the rival to the Tihoon why are we buying ANY of the hoon machines?

The pundits all say we don't need a fighter. The Typhoon can't use carriers and tranche 1 can't bomb. Not only that but it is an 'old' machine albeit extensively modernised since its laucnh 6 years ago <g>.

[Jackonicko]

After the fiascos with Tornado, and some other BAE and European colborative products, and the delays and wrangling in the Eurofighter programme some cynicism about Typhoon is inevitable and justified, but I'm always astonshed by the sheer ignorance displayed about the programme and the aircraft, and by the touchingly naive belief that the USAcan do no wrong when it comes to advanced aircraft programmes. The 'buy American' argument is all well and good, if you've not looked in any detail at F-22, C-130J, Apache, etc.

The T1 Typhoons WILL bomb. Ensuring that they will be given that capability at Block 5 (and then retrofitting the remainder) has been the main cause of the T2 signature delay.

It's likely that Typhoon's A-G capabilities will eventually be greater than JSF's - except when it comes to range and it will be a more flexible, more versatile platform.

Don't ignore the fact that external carriage of all of the weapons the UK was relying on has just been canned from JSF (no ASRAAM, no Storm Shadow) and that the aircraft's A-A capabilities are as nothing compared to Typhoon's.

Developing a Typhoon with a hook and a new gear would not be rocket science, if you absolutely had to reduce to a single FJ type, but we do not. If we need carriers, the the Typhoon/JSF mix is better than relying only on JSF.

[Archimedes]

The 'pundits' PN cites are an interesting lot. Many of them moan about the loss of the SHAR on the one hand, and then inform the world that no-one does air-air combat any more, and if they did, then we could rely on the Americans anyway. They'd also do well to remember :

“It is necessary to win the air battle before embarking on the land battle. If this is not done, then operations on land will be conducted at a great disadvantage.” (Montgomery, 1944)

If there aren't enough F/A-22s to go around, or if the Americans aren't there (EU operation, perhaps, since El Presidente seems keen on this sort of thing?) and if the opposition are a) reasonably competent b) reasonably well equipped and c) have a BVR capability then having Typhoon is no bad thing...

[Navaleye]

Archimedes,

Many of them moan about the loss of the SHAR on the one hand, and then inform the world that no-one does air-air combat any more, and if they did, then we could rely on the Americans anyway.

Well either there is an air threat or there isn't. If there is then we need to maintain our land and naval air defence and perhaps the projected Typhoon order is justifiable. The problem is that govt has said that there is no air threat and we can get rid of the Shar and reduce other assets. You can't utter that statement and in the same breath justify the procurement of 232 largely air defence a/c.

I hope, if push comes to shove, the Americans don't send us what they sent us in 1939 - their best wishes

[Jackonicko]

Hmmm.

I don't think that retiring SHar early and reducing or stopping the Typhoon buy are remotely comparable.

Retiring Shar leaves a short term gap in a small spectrum of capability (carrier-based fleet air defence). A replacement for SHar has already been selected. In the interim Fleet Air Defence can still be provided by other means (land based, allied, SAMs, etc.). We could decide that expeditionary ops involving carriers are something we'll no longer do (in the short or long term), and still be able to do expeditionary warfare (albeit with some restrictions).

From FOC in 2007 Typhoon will be a multi-role platform (even the Tranche 1 jets) replacing Jaguar and Tornado F3, and increasingly augmenting a dwindling GR4 fleet.

Even in the AD role it does more than the SHar, (UKAD, QRA, expeditionary AD/AS, maritime, etc.) and will do so more impressively (6+ BVRAAMs, HMS, longer endurance, longer missile reach, etc.) and so it would be quite possible to decide "the AD mission is less important, so we don't need SHar, but do still need Typhoon."

Carriers provide a capability that is needed infrequently, and one that can realistically and legitimately be provided by Allies, whereas the need for land based AD is 'constant' and therefore must be a national capability.

[Navaleye]

Carriers provide a capability that is needed infrequently, and one that can realistically and legitimately be provided by Allies, whereas the need for land based AD is 'constant' and therefore must be a national capability.

In the event of trouble, the first thing a president asks is "Where are the carriers?", not "Where are the F15s or B2s?". You mention that air defence is a constant whilst choosing to forget that a carrier provides that air defence constant - where and when we need it as well as deep strike. That's a real joint asset and great value for money.

Don't the US have as many F15c based in the UK as we do F3s?

[ORAC]

No

[Navaleye]

Orac, Don't they still have 3 X F15 squadrons based in the UK? I haven't checked for a while.

[Regie Mental]

There are three USAFE squadron of F-15 at Lakenheath although only one of these is the dedicated air superiority variant (F-15C/D).

[Navaleye]

I'm sure the Strike Eagle is more than capable of holding its own in air to air engagement, as far as I know its fully swing role.

...Waiting to be corrected...

[pr00ne]

Navaleye,

“…..in the event of trouble, the first thing a president asks is "Where are the carriers?..........”

Does he, does he really? Maybe in a Clancy novel but surely not today? Today he will surely want to know what the position is as regards the UN, are there any US citizens nearby, and when can we launch the first “stealthy” air strike from the Continental US of A or Guam or Gloucestershire! The carriers are merely a handy way of applying F-18’s in quantity, not a first strike weapon of choice in any recent campaign, hence the USN need for the F-35.

The USN uses it’s carriers as the RN wants to use theirs, as strike platforms to employ in applying air power ashore in support of a land or air campaign.

Pr00ne

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The USN uses it’s carriers as the RN wants to use theirs, as strike platforms to employ in applying air power ashore in support of a land or air campaign.

Or at sea in support of a maritime campaign................

[Navaleye]

Pr00ne, we agree on something. The carriers are the most visible symbol of American military might, but have been hampered by lack of stealth which as you say has curtailed first night ops over the last decade.

I would be very interested to find out if the US or UK would consider a Typhoon to be capable of first night ops? I suspect not due to radar signature, but am willing to be enlightened. Anyone care to comment?

Having ths capability in the form of an F35 fleet and a flexible platform to deliver it from is a big step up in capability for UK Plc. Its just a shame the govt got its sums wrong and we are having to lose other capabilities to pay for it.

[Jackonicko]

Stealth is incredibly misunderstood. I've spoken to a number of -117 drivers, and it's clear that the aircraft's ability to remain undetected relies on excellent int and very, very clever flight planning, presenting the best possible aspect to enemy emitters by tailoring turn points and bank angles to slip through the gaps in radar coverage caused by the aircraft's low RCS, which reduces the effective range of enemy radar.

As soon as the enemy has a radar where you don't expect it, mobile radars, bistatic radar or airborne radars, the aircraft becomes relatively easy to detect.

Stealth has never given the level of 'invisibility' that many seem to think, and has never been a universal panacea. It certainly isn't today, and it definitely won't be by the time the JSF enters frontline service, even in it's full-up USAF form. Do you think that UK F-35s will enjoy the same level of LO as US aircraft, especially if it's still relevant?

[pr00ne]

Navaleye,

CVF with F-35 will put UK Plc in the forefront of expeditionary ops with a carrier bias, it will also address medium to long term doubts about maritime AD, or lack of. With limited resources and the extremely unlikelihood of any maritime AD need in the near to medium term the GR9/GR9A is a good compromise that addresses current needs.

WEBF,

…”Or at sea in support of a maritime campaign”................

Against who for goodness sake? There is no maritime threat anywhere, that is why the USN is taking Harpoon SSM’s off their frigates, retiring the S-3 and F-14 and cutting back on SSN numbers.

Jackonicko,

I would be very surprised if the UK F-35 is ANY less stealthy than it’s US counterpart, very surprised indeed………………………….

[Navaleye]

CVF with F-35 will put UK Plc in the forefront of expeditionary ops with a carrier bias, it will also address medium to long term doubts about maritime AD, or lack of. With limited resources and the extremely unlikelihood of any maritime AD need in the near to medium term the GR9/GR9A is a good compromise that addresses current needs

Pr00ne, in an ideal world your case sounds reasonable and plausible. I'm sure someone could have made a similar argument on the 23 December 1981, but it would be as wrong now as it was then.

Against who for goodness sake? There is no maritime threat anywhere, that is why the USN is taking Harpoon SSM’s off their frigates, retiring the S-3 and F-14 and cutting back on SSN numbers.

The USN deployed 7 CVBGs off China earlier this year, I would say that is a good place to look first. The USN has removed the MK13 launchers from OHP class ships, because the SM1 is no longer in service and the OHP class as a whole is approaching retirement. The submarine threat has not gone away, just reduced, but with arguably fewer boats but in more dangerous hands. Its reasonable to rid of the F14, when you have a nice shiny new F18 which meets the fleet's AD needs. We are not even close to being in that position.

I would be very surprised if the UK F-35 is ANY less stealthy than it’s US counterpart, very surprised indeed………………………….

Agreed. There's a reason why we are a Level 1 partner and £2b out of pocket.

Off to Rouen for Christmas, best wishes to ALL PPRuNe members. :ok:

[Jackonicko]

Level One status buys us guaranteed industrial participation - Level Two get only the right to bid against domestic US suppliers. There's no such thing as workshare or offset.... which is why Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark keep looking likely to leave.

Level One status also bought us some input into the decision making process and the choice between X-32 and X-35.

It DOES NOT and HAS NOT guaranteed a particular level of technology transfer, nor does it guarantee us access to the full spec F-35. Both Lockheed-Martin and the US DoD have been asked on numerous occasions whether the UK will get the full spec aircraft, especially wrt its Stealth technologies, and they have never answered in the affirmative, or anything approaching it.

Having any faith that the US Government or Lockheed-Martin will look after the UK's interests is naive. We've already seen ASRAAM and external Storm Shadow carriage disappear from JSF (limiting the export potential of these weapons, and limiting JSF's utility to our own forces) so to assume that they'll go all the way and provide us with the full spec aircraft seems a tad optimistic. If they were going to do so, they'd say so.

[jindabyne]

Guys

In a previous life (1999), the then Head of CSTO in Australia opined to me and many other non-believers in OZ that stealth was a decaying asset - what he meant was that, in his terms, ways will emerge of defeating stealth: and Jacko has described just some means as to how this might come about. Jacko (sorry to repeat) is also absolutely correct, in my view, that the US will never allow its best/latest military technology to be revealed to even its closest 'friend' - including Blair: the best bits of JSF will remain within the US. WHATEVER. PERIOD.

You could argue that Typhoon might not have the same DAY ONE strike capability of a 'new' JSF. But in tomorrow's terms, and given the 'decaying' argument, this might well be an irrelevance. WHATEVER, Typhoon will still have a very robust A/S capababilty in the near term: and given MoD money (if only), it could have a superalive capability in the longer term.

On balance, and given that I'm now a knackered old sod, I think that I might strongly prefer to edge my bets in a 2015 Typhoon cockpit rather than rather than that of a JSF. I do know where I'd rather be in an A/D match - and, given the 'on table' development potential I also know where I'd like to be if I was asked to drop stuff.

And as for a navalised version - piece of p*ss! Believe me.