Typhoon drops live Paveway IV's for the first time

[SHornet]

First Paveway IV Release for RAF Typhoons at RAF Lossiemouth (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/first-paveway-iv-release-for-raf-typhoons-at-raf-lossiemouth-27112014)

[NutLoose]

Ahhh... build an all singing all dancing air defence fighter and then turn it into a mudmover because of a shortage of the latter, due to flogging off/scrapping the fleets, then call it an upgrade in capability.... I suppose there is some logic in it somewhere.

1(Fighter) Squadron

1(Fighter/Bomber) Squadron ;)

The oldest frontline Royal Air Force squadron in the world

Ermm, should that not read oldest frontline squadron in the World? after all there is only one oldest RAF one, and that of course is 3 Sqn :p

[SHornet]

Surely Gripens would be a better solution for the bomber role? The cost of a single Typhoon could buy 2 or 3 Gripens therefore we could have more of them so the Typhoon and soon-to-be F-35 force can focus more on their specialist roles instead of trying to be jacks of all trades and masters of none.

[Hangarshuffle]

Crazy people are in charge.

[Wrathmonk]

after all there is only one oldest RAF one, and that of course is 3 Sqn

Don't open that can of worms again....clicky (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/405401-oldest-raf-squadron.html)

[Cows getting bigger]

First Paveway IV Release for RAF Typhoons at RAF Lossiemouth

They're bombing Lossie? :}

[Courtney Mil]

It was always supposed to be multi-role. The air-to-air role was done first because that was always the priority, especially as F-3 was being withdrawn from service, with the various air-to-ground capabilities to follow. It all just took a tiny, little bit longer than planned. But that's what you get when you have a a multinational consortium.

I take the point about Grippen, but the introduction of another type doesn't simply mean buying the aircraft. The entire support organision, clearances, integration, training etc means that the two for one airframe cost is soon lost in the noise. Lovely aeroplane, though.

[whowhenwhy]

Somehow I imagined that this thread would have generated a lot more comment on the length of time taken to deliver the capability...:rolleyes:

[Courtney Mil]

Yes, indeed. Mind you, there's still time. One of my favourite bits in the various delays was when they decided to call it EF2000, like that was what the program had always been shooting for. Of course it was quietly dropped when the year 2000 came and went with no result.

[SHornet]

I understand that it's not as easy as simply buying aircraft, although the RAF hasn't yet replaced the Jaguar force. Unless they intend to have the F-35's as the replacement for Harriers, Tornado GR4 and Jaguars......

Fast-UAV's are still quite a way off, I'm not aware of any breaking the sound barrier yet so the old-fashioned way is still the only way.....

[Darren_P]

Are there plans for a dedicated hardpoint for the Litening III pod like on the F-16, F-18, Rafale, Gripen E etc? Seems a waste of the wet centreline station.

[Courtney Mil]

No, Litening III goes on the centreline and I don't expect that will change.

[sandiego89]

Somehow I imagined that this thread would have generated a lot more comment on the length of time taken to deliver the capability...:rolleyes:

So did I, seems it is only fashionable to bash the F-35 delays now. In those other threads there are folks calling the F-35 a white elephant and soon to be obsolete- wonder what that makes the Typhoon? :ugh:

[Martin the Martian]

"Surely Gripens would be a better solution for the bomber role? The cost of a single Typhoon could buy 2 or 3 Gripens therefore we could have more of them so the Typhoon and soon-to-be F-35 force can focus more on their specialist roles instead of trying to be jacks of all trades and masters of none."


Except of course we've already bought the Typhoons.

[Rhino power]

seems it is only fashionable to bash the F-35 delays now

You'll have to do better than that, sandie. The Typhoon entered service doing it's primary role (A2A) roughly 10 years back! As, CM has already pointed out, Typhoon's A2G role was always going to be added at a later date, quite a bit later i'll admit! The F-35 hasn't entered service in ANY significant role yet!

-RP

[SHornet]

That's not fair, RP. The F-35 will enter service on my dinner plate, on the 25th of this month! :E

[Rhino power]

I like what you did there, SHornet... ;)

-RP

[sandiego89]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandiego89
seems it is only fashionable to bash the F-35 delays now
You'll have to do better than that, sandie. The Typhoon entered service doing it's primary role (A2A) roughly 10 years back! As, CM has already pointed out, Typhoon's A2G role was always going to be added at a later date, quite a bit later i'll admit! The F-35 hasn't entered service in ANY significant role yet!

-RP

I can try harder if you want, :} yes I get the Typhoon tranches, and the initial roll out as an air to air platform. I won't go into dates of the original programs that led to Typhoon or F-35 as it is too depressing, but perhaps first flights dates are worth the banter:

(EAP first flight 1986), Typhoon prototype 1994, dropping Paveway IV 2014, and some basic precision weapons a few years before that. So about 15 years from prototype first flight to some air to ground, maybe 20 years to state of the art air to ground.

No matter how it is spun, I do think the lack of demonstrated multi/swing role capabilty has cost the Typhoon in multiple competitions. A few selected Typhoon, some chose proven designs (Rafale, Grippen, F-18, F-15), some chose to wait and see, some chose to chase the promises of the F-35 and it remains to be seen how that will play out. Typhoon was always pitched as multi-role, but has only recently been able to prove it. If it had proven it a few years earlier I can't but help think more orders would have come in.

(X-35 first flight 2000), F-35A first flight 2006. Paveway IV trials in 2014. So perhaps 8 years. RAF successfully tests Paveway IV from Typhoon and F-35 - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2014/12/01/RAF-successfully-launches-Paveway-guided-bombs-from-Eurofighter-Typhoon-and-F-35/8011417465597/)

Yes I get the F-35 is not yet in front line service.

I doubt we will agree on much, but perhaps we can both agree that both programs have had troubling, nearly criminal, delays.

[SHornet]

SD, if every country went for proven, tried and tested designs 100% of the time then the production line for Spitfires would still be open.

The Yanks won't let anybody else play with their new F-22's, the British government won't invest in F-15's (and F-18's were never intended to be an air superiority fighter, they are fleet interceptors and strike a/c as I'm sure you know) so what other options did (and do) we have?

When fully operational, the Typhoon will be right up there with the very best of them. The only thing UK Defence now needs is an aircraft that is unique, that nobody else has. The US has done it (again) with F-22's. Now we need something......

[exMudmover]

Courtney,

“It was always supposed to be multi-role. The air-to-air role was done first because that was always the priority, especially as F-3 was being withdrawn from service, with the various air-to-ground capabilities to follow. It all just took a tiny, little bit longer than planned. But that's what you get when you have a a multinational consortium.”

Er, not quite Courtney. I remember accosting a Staff officer in the late 90s to ask about air-to-ground in the Eurofighter and he admitted that virtually no money was being spent on that aspect. He said that the RAF brass had realised that the machine was going to be horrifically expensive as well as late; they feared cancellation and at that time the policy was Air Defence and nothing else.

I would also ask various senior officers, “Why are we spending all this money on an agile pure AD machine, when what the RAF really needs is a long-range attack aeroplane?”. I argued that the requirement for a super- agile fighter disappeared decades ago (After the Korean war, in my estimate) . The F3 was perfectly capable of doing all the Air Interception necessary, as you would know. I was an Air Combat Instructor for many years on the Harrier, arguably one of the most interesting aeroplanes to fly in close manoeuvring combat, and I took a great interest in the INT reports on the ACM capabilities of our likely opponents. They didn’t amount to much.

But we all know the real answer to all this.

Like the Lighting, the super-agile fighter will be serious fun to fly, it will warm the hearts of small boys and Air Marshals at air displays, and the squadron shags will love it. After all, we practised all that close-in arm-wrestling for the main reason that it was FUN, although we knew there was little operational justification for it, looking at the likely threats. Don’t tell the taxpayer!

Donning tin hat and awaiting incoming!

[HAS59]

Maybe not the best place for this but ...

a mate (east of the channel) informed me that ll(AC) Squadron Tornadoes flew their last recce mission on 30 November. He went on to say it was their last Tornado mission, their jets and people soon become 12 Sqn at Marham before the sqn becomes a Typhoon outfit at Lossie in April.
With what will the RAF be conducting tactical recce in the future? Are those huge RAPTOR Pods going to fit under a Typhoon? No, I thought not. Is their going to be a RAPTYPH Pod? No, I thought not.
So what is the oldest RAF flying squadron going to be using to acquire information (which can then be turned into 'intelligence')?
This is not a job for 13/39 sqn with their 'things' - honestly.
Anyone know? Anyone care?

(And yes I know that Numbers 2 & 3 did bump off the ground at the same time on the same day - but as an ex 'Hereward' chap we do feel slightly older.)

[Courtney Mil]

ExMud,

I was a staff officer with the programme from about 93 onwards in AWC and later Group and was privy to pretty much all the policy meetings at Main Building. In the sense that the effort was on getting the Air Superiority sorted first, I guess you could say that the money was going there. But that was the intention from way before that.

Expensive and threatened with cancellation? In a way, yes to both. But by the time anyone was even talking about looking elsewhere the politicos of the day had already made it very clear that overseas options would not be considered - they had been many, many years before and dismissed in favour of UK plc. So, in messages of varying subtly, we were told to get on with it and make it work. Remember that by the nineties, the programme had already been through its worst times, for example the Germans trying to pull out after reunification. For the Governements it was all about "work share" which was based on the size of each country's stated purchase - some suspected that the UK stuck with the number 232 for so long because of that, but I couldn't possibly comment. Those in the know never thought it would be cancelled by that stage.

F3 had to be replaced at some stage and that, partly, was what Typhoon was about. At the time, everyone thought we would still have Tornado GR and Harrier for years to come, again hence air-to-air first. So, to your point about an agile fighter. Manoeuvrability and energy agility are good for many reasons, but for the sake of this discussion I would say that, RoE depending, there are plenty of potential scenarios where one could end up close in and manoeuvre becomes essential. Also, energy agility is essential to optimise missile Pk/effective range and missile defence.

Your last point is your best. Yes, of course we bought it because of the fun factor. And why not? :D:ok:

Fortunately, it all came good. And continues to do so. And, by the way, I have also been one of the biggest critics of the way the programme was run. The whole empire was so so massive, so political and so multinational, it was hardly surprising that it had its difficulties.

[Courtney Mil]

HAS,

Shiny Two was going to disband next year. The PM has extended them until 2016 because of ops against ISIL. Whilst their role will eventually move on, maybe that proves your point in that there is no one to take in on right now. Of course, the equipment and the Tornado crews will still exist, just not on Two.

[SHornet]

The Air-to-Air role isn't fully complete yet, the Typhoon might be qualified as an interceptor and a short-medium range dogfighter, but it doesn't yet have a front-line BVR capability. According to the RAF, that (Meteor BVRAAM) is due to be in service by 2016.

For anybody interested, scroll all the way to near the bottom of this page for weapons: Eurofighter Typhoon | The world's most advanced fighter aircraft (http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft)

Back to the ground capability, how long will it take to get this far with Storm Shadow and Brimstone?

[glendalegoon]

Iran is using old F4 phantoms to bomb ISIS targest in western Iraq. So, there you go.

Quite frankly, P47 thunderbolts could be good enough for certain air to ground roles.

[SHornet]

Iran is using old F4 phantoms to bomb ISIS targest in western Iraq. So, there you go.

Quite frankly, P47 thunderbolts could be good enough for certain air to ground roles.

Yeah, well Iran's Air Force primarily consists of everybody else's unwanted junk with a couple of additions of their own.

I'd be willing to bet that they will want to buy the US' Harriers once they are retired.

[Rhino power]

SHornet, I sincerely hope you're not referring to the F-4 as, 'everybody else's unwanted junk...'! :eek:

-RP

[SHornet]

RP, I like the Phantom just like everybody else, but it's an old machine that NATO air forces don't need any more.

An Air Force buying and operating Phantoms these days like Iran and Japan is a bit like buying an old VW Beetle. Yup, it will do the job you want it to do, and it will do it fairly well - it might need a bit of extra maintenance than most to keep it going, but it won't do anything as well as a '14 plate Audi TT that has been tested well with any major problems corrected.

[barnstormer1968]

SHornet.
Stop it, you are doing it again !

I will let you into a secret.
If you were an ISIS fighter in a ground position the rounds coming from an F4s gun pod would be just as fast and just as deadly as when the aircraft was brand new!!
The bombs dropped would go bang just as loudly too.
It's worth remembering that when Iran acquired their F4s and F14s direct from the USA they were very much in 'the good lads club' and were buying top notch gear, not cast offs.

[Courtney Mil]

Typhoon might be qualified as an interceptor and a short-medium range dogfighter, but it doesn't yet have a front-line BVR capability.

Wrong. AMRAAM.

[SHornet]

Barnstormer, my point is that most of their equipment is old, and wouldn't stand a chance against new kit. One of their top Naval officers reportedly said that they have been conducting exercises to sink US Navy ships - that surely constitutes a threat?

US aircraft carriers ?easy targets? in event of clash ? Iranian naval commander ? RT News (http://rt.com/news/157100-iran-us-navy-conflict/)

[SHornet]

I stand corrected, Courtney.

[david parry]

Nice to have stood on Farad Head and watch the Paveways being deposited on Garvie Island... Only seen 1000lb bombs going in, and they made a stir;)

[HAS59]

Further to my last, (after a bit of digging around) it appears the RAPTOR pod will continue to be used by 'recce capable flights' up to the current out of service date for Tornado of 2019. These 'flights' will probably be ex-II(AC) crews operating under the soon to reform 12 Sqn number.


What will happen to 'Tac-Recce' after 2019 is anyone's guess.

[downsizer]

Erm...pretty sure 9 and 31 will be doing raptor right up until gr4 OSD as well...

[Timelord]

HAS59- There have not been separate Tornado recce squadrons (or flights) for years. All GR4 aircraft, squadrons and crews are capable of RAPTOR as well as all the other roles.

As you said though, it has just been announced that the third GR4 Sqn at Marham will become 12 when the fifth Typhoon Sqn forms as II (AC) at Lossie.

[Jerry Atrick]

My goodness...they must have listened to me! :ok:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/548241-telegraph-raf-bare-bones-article-8.html#post8681461

[barnstormer1968]

SHornet.

Lots of the kit involved in this conflict is very old, and some of the kit is a lot older than the Iranian F4s are.

Just ask yourself a few questions:
Were the Iranian F4 missions succesful?
Should the Turks give up their F4s on your say so? While an F4 was lost recently (with the loss of crew QUALIFIED to fly) there is no reason that a more modern aircraft wouldn't have suffered the same fate doing the same mission.

I could say that IF and when you join up you may have to get used to working alongside forces whom will also have public plans to do you harm, but history should already have shown you that in war or conflict enemies can become uneasy friends and visa versa.
Holding a grudge just isn't always an option when politicians are involved, and just as Iran may say things against the West publicly the USA also had detailed plans to invade Canada not that long ago !!

[sandiego89]

Barnstormer, my point is that most of their equipment is old, and wouldn't stand a chance against new kit. One of their top Naval officers reportedly said that they have been conducting exercises to sink US Navy ships - that surely constitutes a threat?


An Air Force buying and operating Phantoms these days like Iran and Japan is a bit like buying an old VW Beetle

Super Hornet, I think you need to study a bit about the history of Iran and the F-4. Iran is not "buying" Phantoms, and has not done so for about 35 years. The last Phantom was delivered new from the factory in 1979. A few Phantoms still serve, a few countries like Germany recently retired them, and most had significant upgrades over the years. The Phantom has had a very good, long, service, and still remains a capable platform.

In case you are not aware in the 1970's the Shah of Iran turned to western equipment and training to make a modern military. Orders from the USA included F-4, F-5, P-3, various helos, 747, C-130, F-14 etc, and others from other sources including France. With the removal of the Shah and the revolution in Iran in 1979 support from the USA and most western countries was lost. Iran has managed to keep these aircraft still in limited service for decades through black market spares purchces, re-engineering and other means.

Iran turned to Russian and Chinese support and has partial success operating some of this equipment, and obtained a few squadrons of Iraqi aircraft including Mirages, transports, MiGs and SU's, fleeing Iraq in the first gulf war.

So cut off from western support due to sanctions, an off and on relationship with Russia/China, and an internal industry that has really only had success in unlicensed repordiction what do you see as the alternatives for Iran? Sure they would like to have modern equipment- who wants to let them have it? No one. Irans nuclear ambitions make most uneasy. Sanctions have been in place.

Yes they are still using aircraft delievered in the 1970's BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE. Even "old" equipment can still serve, and remains a threat. Is it on par with the latest gear? No.

[jindabyne]

Courtney,

I concur with all you have said - accurate and concise. Being totally pedantic, EF2000 wasn't quietly dropped in 2000 - the jet was christened Typhoon in 1998 :)

[Courtney Mil]

Jin, yes, of course. :ok:

[BEagle]

Courtney Mil, EF2000 Bureaufighter was indeed named 'Typhoon' after a meeting between the customer nations' representatives and BWoS some years ago..........

UK: "We need a name for this new jet. We don't think that Spitfire II would be terribly suitable, so we suggest following on the 'wind' tradition started by Tornado. How about 'Tempest'?"

Germany: "Nein. We are with this not happy being. Ein verdammte Englander did my father in his Me-262 mit ein Hawker Tempest shoot down. Ve suggest Sturm!"

UK: "No, sorry old chap. Absolutely not! Too many memories of Storm Troopers goose-stepping across Europe..... We'd prefer 'Hurricane'"

Germany: "Nein. This is NOT possible."

UK: "OK - something else then. How about 'Typhoon'.....?"

Germany: "Nein! You had those in the Second Weltkrieg. Ve do NOT vant unser aircraft so named being....

UK: "Ah - but you had a 'Typhoon' or rather 'Taifun' as well. Me 108 Taifun, if you recall....!"

Germany: "Himmel! Sie haben recht. Ve did indeed. Perhaps ve can consider this?"

UK: "OK - perhaps. Or what about 'Cyclone'? No-one had any aeroplane called 'Cyclone'?"

Germany: "Hmm. Sehr interesting. Zis ist perhaps OK. Ja - ve are liking 'Cyclone', oder, wie sagt man auf Deutsch, 'Zyklon'. Ve can fur das singleseaterflugzeug 'Zyklon A' have, und fur das doppelseaterjagdbomberflugzeug, vielleicht 'Zyklon B'......"

UK: "Ahhh - actually we don't think that would be a terribly good name. We want to sell our jet overseas, after all. We don't think that 'Zyklon B' would go down terribly well with some of our potential customers......"

Germany: "Ach so. Perhaps then ve should decide on 'Taifun'!"

UK: "Yes. Typhoon it is then. Spot of lunch, old chap?"

Germany: "Danke"

Spain: "¿Qué?"

;)

[TBM-Legend]

Why not a bombing camp in Cyprus and drop a few thingies in the sandpit? Just for practice of course....:hmm:

[Courtney Mil]

BEags! :D:D:D:D

[Tashengurt]

Very good BEagle. I needed that giggle today. Thanks.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Pontius Navigator]

Also, mid-90s, when the call sign system changed to an en claire system, Dave Harrison, OC Ops, opted for Typhoon for Coningsby and got it.

[TEEEJ]

Typhoon adds "Combat Low Collateral Damage Brimstone Missile" (http://brimstonemissile.com/typhoon-fitted-brimstone-missile-first-time/)

Typhoon tries Brimstone 2 missiles for size - 12/16/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/typhoon-tries-brimstone-2-missiles-for-size-407154/)