Eurofighter Tranche 3 to be axed ?

[Navaleye]

Micheal Boyce has siad that tranche 3 of the Eurofighter procurement is under "review" by the MoD and other may be altered for ground attack. Is theEurofighter the wrong aircarft at the wrong time for the RAF? Perhaps expanding the JSF order is better value.

[rivetjoint]

How about publicly announcing that the EuroFighter is to get a full air-to-ground kit then one's department wouldn't need to buy the JSF? :)

[Growbag]

RJ,
Are you seriously saying it would be better to buy more eurofighters than JSF????
Lunacy:eek:

[Archimedes]

My understanding (so this might be complete rubbish...) is that BWoS have 'lost interest' in Typhoon, and are much more interested in JSF these days.

I'm not quite sure what is meant by the idea that some aircraft would be 'converted' for ground attack, though. The most obvious answer is that some of the squadrons earmarked for the AD role will simply change to OS or multi-role - but I suppose that we could be talking about additional/different systems? Or maybe, at a push, having some two-seaters?

The big question, though, is whether any of the funding for the Tranche 3 aircraft would be released for the purchase of alternative platforms. Past experience suggests that the cancellation of 88 [I think] Typhoons wouldn't mean that a similar number of alternative platforms were purchased. I suspect that most of the cash earmarked for this purpose would go elsewhere.
If the money is available, then I guess that JSF might well be the answer - Gripen might be a dark horse - but Jackonicko is probably better placed to argue the case for this than I am.

[TC27]

IMO the F35 might be a better ground pounder than the Tranche 3 Typhoon, it has low observability design and (limited) stealth features (though some people seem to think it will be completely invisible and thus will trump any Eurocanard in Air to Air combat)
and a internal bomb bay meaning it will be be a far better 'first day of the war' interdiction platform.
It can carry Storm Shadows and LGBs externally and if we get JDAMS them it can carry a 2000 pounder internally.

I think Tranche 3 will not be bought, so many rumblings have being coming out of the MOD and the treasury about this over the last year. I think the JSF (perhaps with slight redesigns) will be procured as the manned element of the GR4 replacement while UCAVs (we have recently got involved with US over this) and cruise missiles will cover the rest.

[Growbag]

There is very little doubt that Eurofighter is a legacy that has already fallen out of popularity, with the fact it looks like becoming the mirror disaster that is the Tornado support and upgrade system along with Cold War specifications. JSF being in it's nature the latest generation system will manage to keep up to date rather than come into service already obsolete. There is little debate to the outsider that extra funding MUST go to more JSF units rather than flogging a dead horse?:hmm:

[Grimweasel]

Its obvious that the money saved would be better spent on upgrading our AT. Greater numbers of C-17's would be of much more use to all three services than 88 AD Typhoons. Exactly which country should we be affraid of in the air these days?

It was rumoured that the money spent on hiring the Antanov's in the latest skirmish could have bought another 2/3 C-17's!!

Save cash on the old Cold War relic and lets take a leaf out of Rumsfeld's new doctrine of fast, deployable and high tech forces. Expeditionary Warfare is the way ahead, not defending the home base!!

[Growbag]

But surely it's gone too far for that. Too many heads would roll and even if BWoS is no longer that interested they still rub their hands at the money they are making from the whole fiasco.

[Jackonicko]

232 EF Typhoons were required to see the type through to its planned OSD with seven frontline squadrons and the required training unit and attrition spares. It's replacing the Tornado F3 (4 squadrons) and Jaguar (3 squadrons). That includes Tranche 3.

Using Tranche 3 as a FOA (GR4 replacement) would either necessitate a further reduction in AD/OS strength, or an increased EF buy.

Re JSF. It's a great 'first day of the war' F-117 replacement. It makes sense to the USAF as the 'Low' element in a high/low mix with the F-22. It makes sense to the USAF who have the 'infrastructure' of offboard kit (F-22s, E-3s, JSTARS, Rivet Joint, etc.) to make it work. It makes sense to the USAF who will replace F-16s (which often carry a relatively small A-G payload). What it is not is an F-15E/Tornado/F-111 replacement. What it is not is an autnomous air superiority aircraft. What it is is cheap (though becoming progressively less so) and industrially vital for the USA.

In many respects EF Typhoon is a better aircraft than JSF for many air forces. A better air to air superiority aircraft (as long as everything works) with long sensor range, a great MMI (especially with DVI), good supersonic acceleration, low frontal RCS and shedloads of long-reach BVR-AAMs. Some of the planned EF derivatives, with conformal tanks and all the gear, might well be quite good long range interdictors, too.

The Gripen is also a great choice for many requirements too, and would perhaps be a better fit for the RAF, if we were not relying on JSF as the STOVL Harrier replacement and FCBA. A useful fighter, and a good multi-role aeroplane, an RAF order would be extremely good for UK plc, and would give the RAF an extremely cost-effective and versatile air power tool. But it's not shiny and high tech enough for the Air Staff, I suspect.

Grimweasel,

I suspect that that question was asked by many during the early 1930s. The problem now is that the development cycle is so long that you cannot build up an air force or design and build suitable aircraft to meet an emerging threat.

I agree with you on the necessity of having forces that are well suited to expeditionary warfare. US-style stealth warplanes which must be cosseted and kept out of the rain don't necessarily fit this scenario, however, and I think you'd be surprised at how well optimised the EF Typhoon is for out-of-area operations, rapid deployment, and autonomous operation from austere bases with minimum support. The Gripen is also top-notch in this regard, thanks to Sweden's unique concept of operations.

[tony draper]

Slightly off topic here I just read on another site that the Czech AF is to be loaned 24 Tornado F3s.

[Growbag]

JSF isn't necessarily going to be STOVL is it?:bored:

[soddim]

Whilst I admire the optimists who discuss what aircraft we will buy with the dosh we save by cancelling the third tranche of Typhoons, they should understand the nature of this government better. I have no doubt they would not miss the opportunity to claw back the money and waste it on one of their vote-winning projects instead.

[TC27]

No, only the B version will be STOVL, the A (USAF) and C (USN) versions take of and land in a conventional fashion, the C version has a wider wing span and is rigged out for carriers as you might imagine.
The RAF will be getting 75 B versions to replace the GR9s (I think) and the navy will be getting 75 to replace..well err to actually give them some fixed wing capability back.
I know there is some debate about the usefullness of VSTOL considering the range and payload limitations. I am not qualified to comment on this but what is noteworthy is that the F35B would not have had the range to fly from a carrier and operate over Afganistain.

To be honest i am cynical about the JSF, it promises to be everything to everybody for a relatively low price.

[Flatus Veteranus]

Can somebody tell me why we are buying the STOVL version of F35 when we are also buying two bloody great 50K ton carriers? Surely that gives enough deck for even the FAA to land conventionally? Some of the figures I have heard for its range/payload are pathetic and, when coupled to the support costs of the carriers and all their attendant hangers-on, the cost/effectiveness of the whole thing looks ridiculous. If you have the sort of air superiority that seems to have been established over Iraq within the first 24 hours, do you need a high-performance ordnance-deliverer at all? No. You need some air superiority fighters (a few Typhoons should do fine) and ideally a tanker/transport that can be fitted to deliver JDAMS and cruise missiles.

Can anyone think of a scenario where we are likely to have to go it alone without the Yanks, and where there is a credible air threat? If so, God help us! Every shot I saw of the army in the recent conflict, they were drawn up in parade-ground order just waiting for a stick of something nasty. Every lesson the army learnt in WW2 has been forgotten. But of course they have not had to fight under a hostile air envrionment since the reatreat from Burma in 1942.

[A Civilian]

Can somebody tell me why we are buying the STOVL version of F35 when we are also buying two bloody great 50K ton carriers?

The publicly stated reason is that the Navy version has an inservice date a few years to late for our needs whilist the "in the mud" version is within our timeframe. But when as everyone knows these things will get delayed (as they always do) you wonder why they bother. Susposedly the Cv's will have a CTOL capability from scratch so as to make them future proof for a future buy of E2's but this is obviously ear marked for a future budget cut :)

[Growbag]

It's not necessarily the STOVL version anyway, the carriers will be built with the ability to be either conventional or STOVL, with all the problems that changing from one to another after build, having supposedly been avoided.
I can't believe that someone said 'JSF' and 'Cheap' in the same sentance!
:D

[TC27]

I hate to sound like a jaded cynic but the CVF may not beat any version of the F35 into service..:*

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Thought this was about the Eurofighter?

FV Does Sierra Leone ring any bells? Succesful use of aircraft to scare rebels.

[Archimedes]

Partly, WEBF, but since Navaleye asked/said:

"Is theEurofighter the wrong aircarft at the wrong time for the RAF? Perhaps expanding the JSF order is better value."

It's perhaps not altogether surprising that we're chatting about the F-35 too...
:)

[Jackonicko]

Yes, WEBF, I'm glad you mentioned Sierra Leone, since it was a great argument against Carriers.

1) The Jag Squadron in the Azores was held back from deploying forward to Senegal (full basing permission already in the bag) from where it could have supported ground troops with PII, CRV7 and guns. (1,000 lb bombs and CBUs were ruled out due to colateral damage concerns). Oh yes, and it had a decent recce capability. And they could have been flying ops days before the carrier got there.

2) The only suitable weapon available to the GR.Mk 7s on the carrier then was..... "noise", due to aircraft and carrier hangar/magazine limitations.

[Grimweasel]

You must admit though, this a/c was ordered back in the Cold War days. I agree that the development and procurement programmes for these a/c are very long, but surely the Governement of the time has the right to adapt and retain some level of flexibility over up and coming orders?

After all...Flexibility is the key to air support and all that!!

The question is though, does the UK really need 232 Typhoons? As has been said before, why not go it with the yanks and obtain air-sup. then arm the tankers and uav's with Storm Shadow, Brimstone etc. Is there any real need these days for expensive delivery platforms when so much ordanance seems to be of the standoff fire and forget nature?

Going in fast and low seems to be a cold war relic along with the Typhoon. Why risk pilot lives when you can make the weapons themselves autonomous? I know that this is not what mud mover pilots want to hear, but this is the way of the future is it not?

The key ablility needs to be for an Army to get to the place of battle in the first place. With four C17's and 25 J models and a few K models left as our AT why not invest in more of these types of a/c? At the end of the day it's forces on the ground that keep the ground and police it. Air power goes along way to help them achieve this goal, but it doesn't retain ground in its self!

[ORAC]

The order for 232 Typhoons was always a political figure to obtain work share. If you take 7 sqns + an OCU at double sqn strength + an OEU of sqn strength (and this is OTT) you get 10 sqns. Assuming a sqn has 14 aircraft (OTT) you get a requirement for 140, add a 20% attrition buy gets you to 168. A decision to scale done or cancel tranche 3 would seem logical.

The above disregards JSF. The nominal purchase of JSF is supposed to be around 150 aircraft. This number was worked out before the decision was made to retire the SHAR and consolidate the RAF/FAA Harrier force on the existing GR7/9 fleet of around 60 airframes. To imagine that additional sqns will be added later to increase the force would seem highly unlikely. The required number of airframes would therefore seem to be 60 + 20% = 72. There would, therefore, also seem to be discrepancy between the required number and the purchase order.

If I had to hazard a guess I would say it is likely that tranche 3 will be cancelled and the Typhoon force will be reduced to 2 operational wings, an AD wing of 2 sqns and a swing-role wing of 3 sqns, plus a dual strength OCU/OEU. Give them 15 aircraft each and, with a 20% attrition buy, the required fleet works out at 126-130 allowing tranche 3 to be cancelled.

The planned 3rd Typhoon wing can instead be formed using the planned JSF buy. That would fit with the required buy and would give the flexibility to be able to operate from the new carriers as and when required. It wouldn't have the AD capability of the Typhoon wings, but it is planned to be a dedicated GA wing with no AD role anyway.

[Flatus Veteranus]

If you scale down the EF purchase at this stage from 232 to abpout 168 airframes, how much do you have to pay in cancellation charges?

If the FAA really needs STOVL, why does the RAF? The Harrier concept of operations rested on the assumption that main bases in RAFG were going to come under sustained attack from WP air forces and that runways would be interdicted. Despite the advances made in rapid runway repair techniques in the 1980s, it was thought advantageous to have some "off-piste" capability. Surely in any likely scenario there are runways galore - and no airfield denial threat to speak of?

Sierra Leone I do not understand why we involved ourselves at all, but to send a carrier and all its hangers-on just to scare the sh1t out of a bunch of thugs seems to have been OTT and bloody expensive. A much slower aircraft with real legs and a decent weapons load perhaps with AAR based on Ascension would have done the job - if it were necessary. Come back the Buccs - upgraded, of course!

[Jackonicko]

1) They are looking for a UE of 16 aircraft for the frontline squadrons, not 14.
2) The proportion required for attrition over the whole anticipated lifespan is far greater than you infer. Remember that they thought that they needed at least 173 F.Mk 3s to equip a similar number of squadrons for a much shorter period.
3) I can absolutely assure you that the 232 aircraft figure was worked out and is not political - or was not until the number of units to be re-equipped went from 7 to 6 frontline squadrons.
4) With a unit cost excluding R&D (which has already been irrevocably spent or committed) of £42 m, the Typhoon is not the ultra-expensive aircraft you claim. It's more than a JSF (just) or a Gripen or an F-16, but isn't much more than an F/A-18E/F and is cheaper than a Rafale, F-15 or F-22.
5) My lurking worry is still that it won't be much cop in the air-to-ground role, and will be very late, though people who ought to know keep telling me I'm being too pessimistic.

[Archimedes]

Jacko,

'...or was not until the number of units to be re-equipped went from 7 to 6 frontline squadrons.'

When did the number of intended frontline squadrons reduce? I've not seen any source quoting this (NB - I'm not doubting what you say!), so a steer would be of interest. Most of the sources available at the moment that I can find still suggest that Coningsby and Leeming will have two front line units apiece, with three at Leuchars.

[Growbag]

FV,

The FAA don't necessarily need the STOVL, and there are many debates about that. That's driven the Carrier design and it's a hot topic. The RAF, however, need the Eurofighter to keep all those pilots in that they have been promising the job to, for the last 5 years! Whether they need the A2G role is again a difficult point, and it all revolves around the cost doesn't it? Like everything.:ouch:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

With respect to Sierra Leone.....

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Sierraleone/forces.html

http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2000/0005/0000051901.asp

We deployed a CVS (to carry aircraft - obviously), a LPH (operating helicopters), two frigates to provide naval gunfire support (if needed), a stores ship (and tanker?) to support the RN group plus two LSLs to support the ground forces. One of the frigates was in the area already and the LSLs were there to support the ground forces. Therefore I think the comment about "hangers on" is not really relevent in a very low risk environment. The purpose of the deployment was largely for political and psychological reasons - noticing a number of large grey ships off the coast was intended to send a signal to both the rebels and the civil population.

Both Sea Harriers and Harrier GR7s were operating and at the time the MOD website stated that they were being used mainly in a reece role and that if necessary, the SHAR could use its 30mm cannons. (Incidently Jacko, can you explain why the GR7 can't take the cannon packs?) Can you imagine the political consequences if UK aircraft had started dropping bombs and firing rockets?

Ultimately it was troops on the ground that were needed, along with support helicopters, much more than combat jets - or ships.

[Archimedes]

WEBF,

Don't forget that the Jags could also have made use of their 30mm cannon had the need arisen. The GR7s don't have cannon because the 25mm Adens they were meant to use couldn't be made to work as advertised. IRR, they could have been with a bit more cash, but this wasn't forthcoming. Jackonicko has questioned why the old 30mm pods off the GR3s weren't used instead, but I can't recall if he got an answer. Something to do with them being incompatible?

The political consequences of using bombs is open to debate - but not relevant to the discussion here, since the Jag and GR7 could have delivered them (yes, I know the FA2 could have as well, but they tend not to be used in this role, as you know). Given the reaction following the rescue of the kidnapped soldiers, I suspect that the odd PII or CRV7 pod loosed off in the direction of the West Side Boys and their ilk wouldn't have raised too many eyebrows.

[XZ439]

From the thoughts on this forum site, we should blow the dust off the Harrier III drawings that must be in a F/boro draw, with Blue Vixen, a new airframe/wing and a bigger donk, maybe we'd have hacked all those mud-moving requirements and kept STOVL in UK going, albeit with less stealth? We might even get exports!

Isn't it still easier to stop then land, ask Bush!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Personally I would prefer the UK to play a greater part in the development of the STOVL version of the F35. Rolls Royce developed the technology that made the Harrier/Sea Harrier possible so why are they not taking a larger role in the development off the powerplant of the STOVL F35? Surely "Son of Pegasus" would be preferable to the current idea which (according to other threads) offers a loss in power (compared to other F35 versions) but without the benefits of Pegasus (eg VIFFing)?

But what the hell do I know?

Anyway - back to the Eurofighter.....

The above comments are based on the comments on the STOVL version of the F35 on the "F35 decision made" thread by Colonel WE Kurtz and ORAC, NOT on my understanding of it - I don't understand it!!

[knobjockey]

WEBF,
Please stop your uneducated drivelings, a lot of the people who browse this forum are military operators who wish to share their experiences and options across a variety of postings. You, however, are someone who wants desperately to be in the military who contributes to the military forum with uneducated analysis or conjecture.

Those of use who flew any type of fast jet around the time of Sierre Leone, not just the ac involved, know all about the whys and wherefors of which ac were used and for what reasons.

Now this thread is about Tranche 3 Eurofighter, WTF do you know, or have to contribute, about the governments deliberations of whether to buy Tranche 3?

There has been much deliberation of whether the government should buy any Eurofighters, some Eurofighters, all of the Eurofighters initially ordered. As operators, very few of us have the chance of experiencing either of the jets (JSF or Eurofighter). But we all have our opinions as operators from what we've seen on paper - can they be achieved? Who knows?

WEBF, please don't get the impression that I'm down on you especially, there are a lot of uninformed people who talk sh**e on this forum, but you are punching above your weight on this topic, having never been in the military proper, never mind being a fast jet operator.

Maybe we will buy 232 Eurofighters, maybe we will buy only 100, who knows whether they would have worked in Sierre Leone, Kosovo, Bosnia or the Gulf as AD or OS assets, maybe we will see in the future?

One thing I do know is that WEBF knows Sweet FA about FJ ac and their requirements.

WEBF, please stop talking about stuff you don't know about - I would never dare challenge your knowledge of the history of the RN!



:ouch:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

knobjockey

Fair comment. No offence intended.

You are right - I have no knowledge of the discussions relating to the Eurofighter, I was merely trying to reply to the usual "scrap the carriers" brigade.

[Growbag]

I agree completely, however like we always do in the military we make do with what we get, which is invariably out of date and the cheapest derivative, made cripplingly expensive by making it in the UK. This is the same with the Eurofighter but will hopefully not happen with the JSF as the American's won't stand for it. The Eurofighter is extremely capable and we will of course put British pilots into it and make it into one of the best forces in the world as we do with all our aircraft, it's just frustrating what we could become with the right funding and the right political backing.