Typhoon in Las Vegas [Archive]

Exrigger

22nd Feb 2007, 21:17

Wockameister & mojocvh, I suppose you said/agreed the same thing about the Tornado in 1982 during the Falklands Conflict. The decision to produce and purchase the Typhoon was done long before Bliar and cronies got us into the mess we are in now. You also know that it is to late to cancel the last manned fighter aircraft that the RAF will ever have (unless it buys american left overs) and you should be aware that it will cost the tax payer a damm site more to cancel than to keep, additionally even if the aircraft was cancelled no money would end up being used for AT/SH and JFH or any other military use.

wokkameister

22nd Feb 2007, 21:22

Rigger, you seem convinced in your argument and I respect that. My view is we have hangers full of jets with very little purpose. With regard to the Tornado, that was during the cold war when we expected Ivan to drop in at anytime. Different scenario, no matter how the terrorism threat is spun from Whitehall

Exrigger

22nd Feb 2007, 21:29

wokkameister, thanks I think, I mentioned the Falklands because it was a war and the Tornado was in the same position as the Typhoon is now i.e. a new aircraft not combat useable in a current conflict and I do remember people saying the same thing about the Tornado at the time.

mojocvh

22nd Feb 2007, 21:43

You are making a lot of assumptions there.

wokkameister

22nd Feb 2007, 21:47

Good news about the Typhoon standing up in the air-air role. I've been worried about the Taliban Air Force for a while now.
Will it be able to defend us from all airborne threats, such as A10 etc?

ConingsbyFlyingClub

22nd Feb 2007, 22:06

Well i'd like to see a Chinook doing QRA 24/7 like the Typhoon will be doing this year or do you think that's a waste of time too!!

mojocvh

22nd Feb 2007, 22:09

Does stand up mean "almost there" in an operational sense apart from some contractural issues outwith the control of the RAF?

wokkameister

22nd Feb 2007, 22:12

Sorry, but how many aircraft do you need for QRF?

ConingsbyFlyingClub

22nd Feb 2007, 22:20

We need loads because there's no spares for them!! Ring's a bell with all a/c types in the RAF these days I would imagine

mojocvh

22nd Feb 2007, 22:25

What do you mean "these days"? (from a former rob king of the RAF cira 1982)

Melchett01

22nd Feb 2007, 22:49

Well i'd like to see a Chinook doing QRA 24/7 like the Typhoon will be doing this year or do you think that's a waste of time too!!

I think if you have a look at Bastion and KAF out in the 'stan, you'll find that Chinooks have been doing QRA since LAST year!

Seldomfitforpurpose

22nd Feb 2007, 22:58

"Well i'd like to see a Chinook doing QRA 24/7 like the Typhoon will be doing this year or do you think that's a waste of time too!!"

I think you will find the whole SH force would love a try at QRA 24/7/365/52 on the east coast of blighty instead of the muck and bullets they currently find themselves in you utter tw@t

High_lander

22nd Feb 2007, 23:01

:eek: :eek: THREAD CREEP.

Back on topic.

Eurofigher, some-where abroad, not where it should be.

Safety_Helmut

22nd Feb 2007, 23:02

With 3sqn already stood up
under the 3sqn umbrella until they stand up
standing up in the air-air role

So what is all this stood up/standing up b0ll0cks all about then ? It's only beecome part of the RAF lexicon fairly recently. Has it come from the creeeping green influence ? Didn't we used to form squadrons and the like, rather than stand them up ?

S_H

ConingsbyFlyingClub

22nd Feb 2007, 23:14

"I think you will find the whole SH force would love a try at QRA 24/7/365/52 on the east coast of blighty instead of the muck and bullets they currently find themselves in you utter tw@t"

Touch a nerve did I?

I was not having a go at the SH force lads and lasses who do a great job wherever they are...Its not our fault here that Typhoon is years behind .We're doing our best to get it operational and into the front line wherever that may be.

threepointonefour

22nd Feb 2007, 23:29

Ignore him. He was abused.

... in training.

Seldomfitforpurpose

23rd Feb 2007, 06:32

Abused or not my directional consulting chum at least I got the job I applied for :ok:

Conningsby yes you did touch a nerve as your statement was rather crass, I have been away from the SH world for a few years but have lots of friends within, my comment was a little strong for which I apologise, however the sentiment remains.

wokkameister

23rd Feb 2007, 10:29

I'm just saying we have bought too many.
If I want to cook Mrs Wokka pasta, I nip down the shops buy a bag of penne and a tin of chopped tomatoes, I don't by 200 odd tins of tomatoes and find I've got no money for the pasta.
Same with the Typhoon. UK Air PLC does not take ground, we just support those that do. When regiments are being axed, and the elements that support them the most are being stretched to the limit, it makes little sense to blow the budeget buying an inordinate amount of air cover for these troops remaining.
QRA - Yeah good job, and Typhoon can only be an improvement on the F3, but 200 odd aircraft ???????????????

Zoom

23rd Feb 2007, 11:21

I think we just got stuck with a procurement programme that, 25 years ago, seemed to be a good deal that fitted our strategic requirements of the time. Then the price escalated and the political picture changed but nobody had the guts to say 'Stop'. I don't think you can blame the Air Force for that.

insty66

23rd Feb 2007, 11:27

As it seems we're commited to paying for them all even if we don't get them all, it seem daft to me to say we don't want them because we can't make a saving on them.

So why don't we take delivery of them all? Then put all the a/c into a continual upgrade/operational/storage etc etc cycle?
This would give the operators the most upto date airframes available.
Flying hours could be kept low helping manage FI so that the a/c could be operated nearer to its full RTS for much longer.
Additionaly by managing the fleet properly the useful service life could be extended by many years providing savings in the long run.

As for it's role. The F15 was designed as an air superiority fighter "Not a pound for ground" was the quote I seem to remember. It seems to be a decent enough ground attack platform now. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)

Writing off Typhoon as a ground attack a/c so soon seems premature to me.

ZH875

23rd Feb 2007, 15:22

Isn't the Concrete Convention on in Las Vegas, maybe the Typhoon F2 is going one better than the Tornado F2, and upgrading from Blue Circle to something a bit more expensive!!:p

Phochs3

24th Feb 2007, 08:28

wokkameister, you just said that the large number of ac would be "an inordinate amount of air cover for these troops remaining". Since when did the troops complain they had too much air?

The fact it is late is not a fault of the current operators; rest assured they are working their asses off!
You know as well as I do that you cannot deploy a jet before all the trials are complete. Remember that the lead multi role sqn hasn't even formed (stood up (sic)) yet!

In due course the jet will also have to cover QRA S, QRA N, the Falklands, and any other ongoing op deployments. Give it a chance.

Clockwork Mouse

24th Feb 2007, 09:22

I suggest that the troops remaining don't want air cover; they want close air support. So for pity's sake give the thing back its gun!

wokkameister

24th Feb 2007, 10:03

Agree with clockwork.

Phochs, your 100% correct, you can never have too much air cover.

That is of course unless your now a postman instead of a soldier because the budget wouldn't stretch to your regiment and 200 odd zoomy things.

Phochs3

24th Feb 2007, 10:11

Air cover.....close air support.....same thing in my book! Typhoon has got a 27mm Mauser in it.

High_lander

24th Feb 2007, 15:04

Air cover.....close air support.....same thing in my book! Typhoon has got a 27mm Mauser in it.

I seem to remember a while back something stating that because the RAF didn't see the need for the gun in the first tranche, that it was removed, this called all sorts of problems and an awful lot of cash to solve; and now, they're going to be replaced.

Or did I get the wrong end of the proverbial stick?

JagRigger

24th Feb 2007, 15:26

The bean counters saw sense and backed down

Archimedes

24th Feb 2007, 17:42

Highlander - the gun saga, in brief:

1. Senior Officer decrees that ASRAAM means that gun less likely to be needed so has it removed as a means of getting bean counters off his back.

2. Loud noises questioning senior officer's parentage/sanity/understanding are heard.

3. Tranche 1 aircraft to have the gun on board, but no ammo; Tranches 2 & 3 to have something in lieu of gun

4. Becomes clear that it would be cheaper to install the gun, minus ammo, rather than develop specially machined lump of metal to fit space left by ommitting gun. Gun to be unsupported, however, and no ammo bought

5. Loud noises questioning a different senior officer's sanity/understanding are heard

6. Consensus develops that gun should be supported, not least since if Typhoon is to be used in AG role, experience shows that strafing isn't a dead concept.

7. Late 2006/early 2007 AOC 1 Grp quietly announces that gun will be supported, since it appears that it may come in handy...

L J R

24th Feb 2007, 17:53

in case he needs to shoot himself in the foot again.

Clockwork Mouse

24th Feb 2007, 18:02

So Typhoon has quietly got its gun back! A triumph for common sense or the positive result from convoluted fudging (no dirty comments from the infants please).

I always took air cover to mean friendly aircraft on scene to keep naughty aircraft away from grounglings, ie air-air, while close air support was friendly aircraft dropping things on naughty groundlings, ie air-ground.

Exrigger

24th Feb 2007, 18:11

As Archimedes said the cost of not having the gun and supporting it was less than the cost of developing a dummy (which still required maintenance through life with tech pubs for remove/install fix when dropped damaged etc), especially considering that the gun was allready installed and paid for, as was the spares/support/tech pubs (as was stated though, no ammo).

sharmine

26th Feb 2007, 13:03

http://connectus.intranet.baesystems.com/images/general/as_Typhoon_fully_loaded.jpgLooks to carry quite a usful load for ground suport role:ok:

S

mojocvh

26th Feb 2007, 19:52

Sigh, thank heavens for that.

As an aside, with hindsight, do forum members now think the Tornado GR1 was "overgunned?.

MoJo

Exrigger

26th Feb 2007, 19:56

Added to that has the Tornado actually used its guns during any of the current conflicts that it is used in and if so was it of any use.

Added:
One of most striking features of the Eurofighter Typhoon (EF-2000) is its internal cannon. It is equipped with a single Mauser GmbH developed BK-27 cannon mounted internally in the fuselage forward of the starboard wing. It utilizes 27mm high explosive shells with a maximum firing rate of some 1700 rounds a minute; each aircraft will likely carry approximately 150 rounds.

The weapon apparently looks weaker than the 20mm M-61 cannon with a rate of 6000 rounds a minute. But in a fast dogfight, the Mauser will pour 4 kg of ammo in 0.5 seconds while M-62 would have poured only 2 kg. By the time M-61 reaches full firing rate, the target may be moved considerably. This is particularly if the pilot wishes to take snap-shots.

Due to cannon's ability to engage moving targets swiftly and with accuracy, the system was fitted with an automatic firing mode. When the radar solution shows that the target is passing through the line-of-fire of the cannon, it will fire a burst of 27mm and this can be quite helpful in maneuvering fights.

The primary BVR weapon of the Eurofighter Typhoon (EF-2000) will be the MBDA Meteor rocket-ramjet powered BVRAAM with range well over 100 kms. The missile will be guided using a mix of mid-course correction using data-link, inertial guidance and active radar in terminal stage.

The primary close-combat weapon of the Typhoon will be the AIM-132 ASRAAM 4th generation AAM. The missile has the capability to engage targets that are high off-boresight. When used with the HMS, it forms a formidable weapon system.

Other air-air weapons include AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-120 AMRAAM, Skyflash, Aspide and IRIS-T.

In air-ground mode, the Eurofighter Typhoon (EF-2000) employs the most modern line of precision guided bombs and standoff missiles. Its arsenal includes Storm Shadow and Taurus standoff missiles, Harpoon and Penguin AShMs, ALARM and HARM ARMs, Brimstone anti-vehicle missile, JDAM and LGBs, BL-755 and DWS-39.

Raymond Ginardon

27th Feb 2007, 08:47

Exrigger,

Where did you find that out of interest? Some 'interesting' ideas about stores (BL755!!!) - I suspect it is a late 80's article (sounds like it's been translated too).

Ray :-)

Clockwork Mouse

27th Feb 2007, 10:28

In respect of the Typhoon's canon, I'm heartened to see that the RAF are still fixated with projecting airpower through dog-fighting and not with using it for close air support for the PBI on the ground to whom, when in CLOSE contact with the enemy, a large LGB is sadly not the most effective option.

mojocvh

27th Feb 2007, 16:28

150 rounds, thats not going to do much in the sandbox, whatever happened to the old F4 SUE pods :E

Exrigger

27th Feb 2007, 16:34

Hi RG, I was going to take bits from various sites but if I remember rightly it came from:

http://www.defencetalk.com/world_military_aircraft/fighters/eurofighter-2000_typhoon_20050120.php

another site:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/

and the latest news is:

http://www.thebusinessonline.com/prStory.aspx?prid=3346160en-1

I did not actually check the dates of the articles but as they still mention EF2000 you are correct in thinking that it is old projections.

Archimedes

27th Feb 2007, 16:47

CM - AIUI (from chaps who ought to know...), the reason the Typhoon's gun is to be supported is for CAS, and nothing to do with its utility in air-to-air work.

And

In respect of the Typhoon's canon

The senior religious figure capability was deleted from the staff requirement a while ago...

Clockwork Mouse

27th Feb 2007, 16:51

Archimedes
Thank you. Reassuring.....but 150 rounds?

The Ugly Fend Off

27th Feb 2007, 20:50

That's no less than other 27mm cannon wielding aircraft in our inventory!

BombayDuck

28th Feb 2007, 05:02

...and the same amount as carried by Fulcrums and Flankers for their 30 mm Gsh-301 cannons.

What I want to know is, how long is the average gun fired at one time (burst) in air combat? Are there different yardsticks for A2A and strafing?

philrigger

28th Feb 2007, 07:15

;)
S H

These are not new terms. I guess that the terminology fell out of vogue for a few years and has now come back.

'We knew how to whinge but we kept it in the NAAFI bar.'

blackhandgang

9th Mar 2007, 07:38

Just wanted to say that we are having a great time in Vegas, also to correct one or two of you, the Typhoon has always had a gun fitted from production and is fully servicable (just need some bullets)

Enjoy

BEagle

9th Mar 2007, 07:59

The MiG 27 has been known to score a one shot kill with its integrated radar/laser rangefinder....:eek:

Gone are the days of hosing away with 4 x 30mm Adens or even a 20mm SUU - with good weapon design a half second burst should easily do the trick - in an A/A environment.

Not so good for PBI support though, regrettably.

Wader2

9th Mar 2007, 08:50

The ammunition would be enough for about 3-4 passes. As the second and subsequent passes would expose the aircraft to greater SAM and AAA threat you could argue that 170 rounds is enough.

BEagle

9th Mar 2007, 09:27

Why not just nape 'em on the first pass, then strafe any survivors on the second?

Gainesy

9th Mar 2007, 09:34

When did napalm fall out of vogue?

Excellent non-persistant area anti-personnel weapon. (Bit like Binnsworth really).

If you don't want to get frazzled, stay home and tend your goats.

Wader2

9th Mar 2007, 10:23

Gainsy,

As far as I am aware Napalm fell out of favour after the WW2. Instead we prefered to use liquified petroleum jelly; far more friendly and less emotive.

Gainesy

9th Mar 2007, 10:41

Is it actually illegal these days? IIRC the Argie Pucaras dropped it in 1982.
Call it Area Target Marker if you want to keep the huggyfluffs happy.

diginagain

9th Mar 2007, 10:43

Isn't that White Phos....sorry White Smoke?:ouch:

FATTER GATOR

9th Mar 2007, 10:46

The problem with Napalm is that if you get it on you, it stings a little bit. Some lefty decided that was unsportsmanlike and banned it.:D

Wader2

9th Mar 2007, 10:47

Googling "Is napalm legal" produced: <<Napalm was banned by United Nations convention in 1980, but the US never signed the agreement. Use of Mark-77 fire bombs is considered legal by the US ...>>

www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145828249.html (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145828249.html)

and

The proposed reservation of the United States would revise the legal ... Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW agents ...

www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/incendiary-legal.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/incendiary-legal.htm)

or

The use of firebombs “remarkably similar” to napalm is perfectly “legal”, and the use of white phosphorus as a weapon is totally “legitimate”. ...

www.yirmeyahureview.com/articles/napalm_phosphorus_iraq.htm (http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/articles/napalm_phosphorus_iraq.htm)

diginagain

9th Mar 2007, 10:50

Pretty academic if the Air Display Variant can't deploy on ops.

Wader2

9th Mar 2007, 11:20

Safety Helmut Didn't we used to form squadrons and the like, rather than stand them up ?

Is it not possible that some wordsmith decided to use the antonym of stand-down?

Clockwork Mouse

9th Mar 2007, 15:08

W2

Wouldn't that be Sit-up?

N Joe

10th Mar 2007, 20:54

Why does the AD Typhoon need a gun? Surely it can fire its Meteor BVRAAM shortly after taking off from Binbrooke and destroy the Russian Badger over the Norwegian coast.

Oh sorry - still in the Cold War mode. But the Meteor decision was taken well after the Cold War was ancient history so when are we going to learn?????

N Joe

Pontius Navigator

11th Mar 2007, 08:08

Sit down Clockwork Mouse.

N Joe

11th Mar 2007, 17:57

Deliverance
I make no pretence of understanding air combat but I can't remember either:
a. The last time the RAF sent fighter (well AD) aircraft into a conflict in which we hadn't already established air superiority, or;
b. Having ROE that would allow us to use a BVRAAM.
Having worked on both an (F) sqn and an AT sqn, I know where I would spend the money if they ever let me run the RAF!
N Joe

PS The FIs were before my time - you may wish to enlighten me!

Flatus Veteranus

11th Mar 2007, 18:10

"Having worked on both an (F) sqn and an AT sqn, I know where I would spend the money if they ever let me run the RAF!
N Joe"

Please God they won't. If you read some of Putin's recent speeches you would appreciate that the maintenance of an ability to secure the airspace over UK and combat forces that may threaten the UK is a primary consideration, overriding what many regard as irrelevant interventions abroad. A threat can develop in a year or two. It takes two decades to develop and produce a modern aircraft and associated weapons.

Pontius Navigator

11th Mar 2007, 19:01

N Joe,

Gulf 1990 the first AD aircraft there we F3. OK, they didn't go in to combat but there was definitely no air superiority had Saddam decided to attack.

One might deduce that their presence has the desired effect of ensuring that the Iraqi forces did not consider an expeditions further south.

ORAC

11th Mar 2007, 19:45

One might deduce that their presence has the desired effect of ensuring that the Iraqi forces did not consider an expeditions further south. Only if they were incapacitated by hysterical laughter.

IIRC the AOC wanted to send F4s, but was overriden for political reasons as we had, of course, sold F3s to the Saudis, and needed to show confidence in them. The story was his response was along the lines of, "you seriously want to send that into a combat zone?"

DownloadDog

11th Mar 2007, 19:50

Added to that has the Tornado actually used its guns during any of the current conflicts that it is used in and if so was it of any use.

Sorry been away on leave, but couldn't leave the GR4 undefended, the Mauser has been used in combat......

AdLib

11th Mar 2007, 20:27

... and by all accounts the Nav ended up with a Brown Endorsment, as the Front Gunner had neglected to inform his DC that he was going to open up. Apparently the muzzle flash is quite impressive in the dark. Much like what he imagined being shot down by a Roland is like, he told me.

ARINC

11th Mar 2007, 20:35

Gulf 1990 the first AD aircraft there we F3. OK, they didn't go in to combat but there was definitely no air superiority had Saddam decided to attack.

One might deduce that their presence has the desired effect of ensuring that the Iraqi forces did not consider an expeditions further south.

Hmmm and there's me thinking it was the pan full of US F15's and the rather handy Carrier battle group or two cruising around in the Gulf.

F3's demoted to CAP at night only methinks, good radar and jolly quick, but lousy in a turning fight, was the offical reason, provided by some or other Groupie who paid us a visit.

Exrigger

11th Mar 2007, 20:54

Thanks DownloadDog, I was just asking as I did not hear of the gun being used during the 91 Gulf War, the GR4 certainly does not need defending from my view point I know what it can/has done (except of course the gun bit).

N Joe

11th Mar 2007, 21:46

Flatus

Agree with your thoughts on defending Blighty but if that were the only driver, a decent UKADGE/SAM set up would go a long way toward meeting the requirement. I know the arguments about man-in-the-loop but that and arguing the value of a BVRAAM must be mutually exclusive.

The most likely use of AD Typhoon would be to deploy to wherever next conflict arising to cruise around well above all realistic MEZs, achieving little more than a political presence.

N Joe

rudekid

12th Mar 2007, 09:12

Air power starts and ends with control of the air. Therefore fighters with BVR missiles are quite rightly high on the shopping list for any air force.

With education like that, it's no wonder the Army and Navy spend so much time laughing at us!

:hmm:

rudekid

12th Mar 2007, 18:17

Deliverance

My point, old bean, in response to your marvellously condescending and patronising post, is that Air Power isn't all about control of the air. It's a doctrinally naive argument at best, but one I would expect to hear from some FJ mates who can't see past the end of their noses.

Not, of course, that I'm suggesting you're a FJ mate, you may just have received the benefits of their education...:hmm:

But surely one so learned as yourself wouldn't have so narrow a viewpoint.;)

PTC REMF

12th Mar 2007, 18:24

Quote:
With 3sqn already stood up

Quote:
under the 3sqn umbrella until they stand up

Quote:
standing up in the air-air role

So what is all this stood up/standing up b0ll0cks all about then ? It's only beecome part of the RAF lexicon fairly recently. Has it come from the creeeping green influence ? Didn't we used to form squadrons and the like, rather than stand them up ?

S_H

I was always led to believe that the opposite of "stand down" was "stand to", not sure where this "stood up" rubbish has come from.

Pontius Navigator

12th Mar 2007, 18:36

Rudekid, I see where you are coming from Air power starts and ends with control of the air. It may be a clumsy statement or a quote out of context.

Could it be taken to mean that "Air power starts and ends with control of the air with the other missions in between contributing to the land/sea battle, never losing sight of the need to maintain control of the air"?

Certainly ACM Sir Richard Johns in his forward to Air Power Doctrine makes no such claim. He said, in 1999, 'the generation of Air Power must take into account both 'jointery' and multinational operations . . . '

The first core capability is said to be information exploitation. Control of the air is second. Strategic effect is third ahead of indirect and direct air operations, combat support is fifth with force protection as sixth. Finally we have sustainability.

N Joe

12th Mar 2007, 20:06

Deliverance

I agree with the theory of what you're saying, I just don't see any likely application in a real modern-day conflict. I didn't know BVR had been authorised for TELIC but, realistically, the environment and the "sufficient ID" caveat combine to make it a meaningless statement.

Of course it would be nice to be like the US and buy bucket loads of weapons systems to fit every conceivable scenario; also, the importance of "keeping up with the Joneskis" in terms of defence capability can't be totally ignored. However, comparing the operational overstretch of the the rest of the RAF (particularly AT and SH fleets) with the possibility (even probability) of a requirement for Typhoon with a BVRAAM makes me question the sense of spending the money on Meteor.

Here endeth the rant.

N Joe

Spugford

12th Mar 2007, 21:09

N Joe,

Your knowledge of Air Ops and the ROE surrounding the weapons and weapons systems involved are limited to say the least.

BVR engagements are 'plausible' to say the very least in many scenarios I can picture (and have been involved in) due to the vast array of ID mechanisms that now exist, in our military (not just RAF) and those we may find ourselves alongside.

Archimedes

12th Mar 2007, 23:30

N Joe - the majority of US/NATO air-air victories over the past 15 years have been with BVR weapons systems; IIRC, all NATO kills over Kosovo in '99 were with AMRAAM. Afghanistan and Iraq didn't see air-air fighting, for obvious reasons. However, it would be foolish in the extreme for any air force to give up its BVR capability, since one could argue that the two current conflicts are the exception rather than the rule.

I can't buy the idea that Typhoon pilots should be forced to go up against adversaries equipped with R-77 armed Su-27s - which is not an impossibility. Although the details are sketchy, it would appear that the Ethiopian-Eritrean war saw the majority of air-air kills being scored with BVR weapons (albeit the R-27). BVR weapons have proliferated since the end of the Cold War, and to base assumptions on the requirement upon the fact that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have seen air-air combat since 2001 would be foolish in the extreme.

rudekid

13th Mar 2007, 19:27

Archimedes, Deliverance et al,
Sorry, I think I got out of bed the wrong side the other day!
Valid points all, however we already have/had a BVR capability with the F3 AMRAAM so why put all the effort into a BVRAAM with the Typhoon?
Maybe I have missed something, but whilst other military components are accepting capability gaps, surely we could have expended more energy earlier into Typhoons air-to-ground abilities? Especially as we already had an albeit more limited capability in the F3.
It seems that (rightly) current RAF No1 priority is getting Typhoon established with some form of AG capability so it can deploy and take some weight off the shoulders of some of the other fleets. This would also be politically expedient , given our current 'utterly useless' status!
However, the current scenario was easily forseeable (and foreseen) upto ten years ago, so why not realign the programme at that time to focus on something we really need? As far as I know, which has been spouted by every AOC I've heard on the subject, Typhoon has always been slated to get an AA role, with the AG role a distant (and apparently less favoured) cousin. it seems to me that this is and was shockingly naive.
We need to maintain a BVRAAM capability for lots of reasons, I accept, but it's a question of effective prioritisation. We needed to bite the bullet ten years ago, not knee jerk now.
We are where we are, is a phrase I hear more and more. Sadly, if we'd looked where we were going, we may well have avoided the mess!
I do object to the massive focus on Typhoon that has been the day to day thrust of RAF propaganda for the last five years. Hopefully, in ten years time the RAF will be less FJ-centric.
I'm sure Typhoon will be fantastic when it arrives in theatre, I just wish it hadn't been over hyped or three years late!
Still, would love a back seat if anyone's offering....;)

Pontius Navigator

13th Mar 2007, 20:19

Rudekid, PM plse

Kitbag

13th Mar 2007, 22:42

RK, another view may be that with the knowledge their airships had during the early years of EFA as it then was is that there existed a serious AA dogfighting gap. Unexpected levels of continuous operations for the last 17 years, plus cost saving by cutting some CAS fleets has produced the current AG shortfalls. Unfortunately with a complex aircraft, in terms of control laws etc I imagine the plan was always to get an aircraft that is aerodynamically mature and predictable before bringing it into close proximity to the ground as a CAS platform. Once these processes are written into a contract which three other nations have had to sign up to you can imagine how difficult it will be to change the programme. In short the seeds for this situation were sown in the last decades of the last century. (reminds me of HG Wells!)

rudekid

13th Mar 2007, 22:55

Deliverance

With you in charge it seems the air force would be AT & SH centric.

I don't think you need worry about that! ;)

Agree that Air Power should be the Holy Grail in whatever guise. But then wouldn't we equip MRA4 with some AG capability? Big bomb bay, long time on station, capable avionics and comms, just lacking some cash and will power? Doesn't seem to be a ridiculous idea to me...

And no, I'm not a Nimrod mate!

Do you wonder whether there is a legacy of platform type to specific role that has maybe clouded our judgement on some of these issues?

I agree with your premise of thinking long term, however I would argue that this is too late in the day. The strategic direction ten years ago should have been dragging Typhoon towards delivering AG capability as a primary concern. Maybe this wasn't possible- anyone care to comment?

I don't think we should be losing any capabilities in the long term, but the current state of affairs was predicted by many and not acted upon.

I suspect that key actors like BAe Systems would have a lot of influence over this and their self interest would be evident.

We (as a service) face a lot of political challenges over the next 18 months and I suspect our survival is at stake in the longer term. The current malaise may have been avoided if we'd taken some bold decisions ten years ago, instead of pursuing the holy grail of a new generation AA fighter. We do need this-just not now.

Luckily with my 20-20 hindsight pill, I would avoid the same mistakes...

rudekid

13th Mar 2007, 23:10

Kitbag

Damn it- you managed to pose some pertinent points whilst I was one-finger typing. Slow down!;)

I see your points, but wouldn't the fact that Typhoon was always slated as having a AG capability have mandated the requirements from the outset? The EAP (is that correct?) first flew in 1986, so I would hope that 21 years later it is aerodynamically proven. Mind you, given our proven inability to procure what we need, I'm less sure.

If (as I believe) we're currently expending all our energies in turning Typhoon into an AG platform, we're already skewing an immature programme in a slightly different strategic direction. I don't see how this decision couldn't have been taken some time ago?

You're right, the project contracts must be an absolute nightmare, but impossible? i hope not.

As always, standing by for correction!