One Third of Typhoons May Go
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One Third of Typhoons May Go
Plans to scrap a third of the troubled £50 billion Eurofighter programme and replace it with a new generation of unmanned fighter aircraft have been discussed by the Ministry of Defence and defence contractor BAE Systems.
Eurofighter - known as the Typhoon - is outdated, and its capability from a Cold War air defence role to ground attack are unlikely to be cost-effective.
Although the first batch of planes are being built, commitment to the third tranche is under question. Last week Finmeccanica conceded that tight European defence budgets placed the final 236 of the planned 620 aircraft in difficulties.
Those arguing for the unmanned programme believe it will be cheaper to deliver than Eurofighter, will push the European aerospace industry to the forefront of R&D, and provide a strategically more beneficial end product.
A BAE spokesman declined to comment. !!!! Probably did not understand the question.
Hurray. Can we have more money now to spend on developing our corporate image, developing our mission statements, ensuring our balanced score cards underpin the overarching....... blah blah blah blah.
Where are we going to train with these CUAVs
Eurofighter - known as the Typhoon - is outdated, and its capability from a Cold War air defence role to ground attack are unlikely to be cost-effective.
Although the first batch of planes are being built, commitment to the third tranche is under question. Last week Finmeccanica conceded that tight European defence budgets placed the final 236 of the planned 620 aircraft in difficulties.
Those arguing for the unmanned programme believe it will be cheaper to deliver than Eurofighter, will push the European aerospace industry to the forefront of R&D, and provide a strategically more beneficial end product.
A BAE spokesman declined to comment. !!!! Probably did not understand the question.
Hurray. Can we have more money now to spend on developing our corporate image, developing our mission statements, ensuring our balanced score cards underpin the overarching....... blah blah blah blah.
Where are we going to train with these CUAVs
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Losing 10 anyway !
New mini tank is taking 10 how many does that leave then?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...05/ixhome.html
Among the projects affected will be the construction of two new aircraft carriers, the Joint Strike Fighter, and Type 45 Destroyers for the Royal Navy. The extra £2 billion could be found by reducing the number of Type 45 ships from six to five, cutting the Joint Strike Fighter force by 10 aircraft and reducing the size of the carriers from 60,000 to 50,000 tons.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...05/ixhome.html
Among the projects affected will be the construction of two new aircraft carriers, the Joint Strike Fighter, and Type 45 Destroyers for the Royal Navy. The extra £2 billion could be found by reducing the number of Type 45 ships from six to five, cutting the Joint Strike Fighter force by 10 aircraft and reducing the size of the carriers from 60,000 to 50,000 tons.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Over there, behind that tree.
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmm . . . will the future new mini-tank drivers (or infantry) have remote control boxes that will let them call up, direct and fly Hellfire armed UAV's? If so, what's to become of CAS pilots etc? 
Well, I hope the grunts enjoy their little plastic tanks as much as Lt Gruber did in 'allo, 'allo...
But £2 billion slashed because of Trust-me-Tone's sucking Bush's bottom in Iraq - that sounds like a wonderful idea.
Sooooo glad I'm out now. Things can only get....err, not exactly 'better' under Bliar and his gang.
But £2 billion slashed because of Trust-me-Tone's sucking Bush's bottom in Iraq - that sounds like a wonderful idea.
Sooooo glad I'm out now. Things can only get....err, not exactly 'better' under Bliar and his gang.
Out of interest how many C130/C17/A400 sorties will it take to deploy and support a new Medium Brigade in the field in say Syria?
I am no expert in logistics but according to my calculator the answer is a ...er lot, and the number goes up if they actually have to do any fighting. Plus the MOD has just pulled out of the Boxer programme as the vehicle is too heavy at 18 tonnes for the MICV role, and it appears some of the alternative vehicles eg a derivative of the LAV won't currently fit in a C130 without letting the tires down and applying large quantities of vaseline.
Whilst the original RAF order of 232 Typhoons was originally calculated by adding up all the harriers and Jags (and a few other airframes in service circa 1987), even I figured out the RAF would be lucky to get 130-140 by the time the treasury had applied its axe, particularly when the wall came down in 1990.
The talk about cancelling tranche 3 of the Typhoon buy with a unmanned fighter is really about the bean countrs being able to defer a hardware purchase as long as is (un?)feasibly possible. So either the RAF will have to make do with aging airframes or more likely will have to do without. I doubt anyone in the MOD has ever heard, or more importantly understood what is meant by the phrase "The better is the enemy of the good".
Everytime I think about being reliant on unmanned aircraft I get cold chills up my spine. I can just see some terrorists overrunning a command post (or more likely 14 yr old hacker) ordering a strike to return to its base and give it a good hammering.
I am no expert in logistics but according to my calculator the answer is a ...er lot, and the number goes up if they actually have to do any fighting. Plus the MOD has just pulled out of the Boxer programme as the vehicle is too heavy at 18 tonnes for the MICV role, and it appears some of the alternative vehicles eg a derivative of the LAV won't currently fit in a C130 without letting the tires down and applying large quantities of vaseline.
Whilst the original RAF order of 232 Typhoons was originally calculated by adding up all the harriers and Jags (and a few other airframes in service circa 1987), even I figured out the RAF would be lucky to get 130-140 by the time the treasury had applied its axe, particularly when the wall came down in 1990.
The talk about cancelling tranche 3 of the Typhoon buy with a unmanned fighter is really about the bean countrs being able to defer a hardware purchase as long as is (un?)feasibly possible. So either the RAF will have to make do with aging airframes or more likely will have to do without. I doubt anyone in the MOD has ever heard, or more importantly understood what is meant by the phrase "The better is the enemy of the good".
Everytime I think about being reliant on unmanned aircraft I get cold chills up my spine. I can just see some terrorists overrunning a command post (or more likely 14 yr old hacker) ordering a strike to return to its base and give it a good hammering.
Woff,
You're factually incorrect. The figure of 232 Typhoons was arrived at 'not by adding up the F3s, Jags and Harriers' but by determining the number of aircraft required to maintain a seven squadron frontline force (137 active jets, if I recall correctly) out to the OSD. These seven squadrons were, it's true, expected to replace the F3 and Jag forces (which then stood at nine frontline squadrons, but have since reduced to seven).
95 'spare jets' for attrition replacements and to cover maintenance etc. is by no means an extraordinary proportion, especially over Eurofighters long planned lifetime. Any reduction from 232 aircraft will mean either a smaller force, or a reduced life.
You're factually incorrect. The figure of 232 Typhoons was arrived at 'not by adding up the F3s, Jags and Harriers' but by determining the number of aircraft required to maintain a seven squadron frontline force (137 active jets, if I recall correctly) out to the OSD. These seven squadrons were, it's true, expected to replace the F3 and Jag forces (which then stood at nine frontline squadrons, but have since reduced to seven).
95 'spare jets' for attrition replacements and to cover maintenance etc. is by no means an extraordinary proportion, especially over Eurofighters long planned lifetime. Any reduction from 232 aircraft will mean either a smaller force, or a reduced life.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Brontosaurus Mk2b
I just can't see the need for a dedicated AD fighter any more. I doubt the UK will fight hostile a/c armed with BVR weapons in the forseeable future.
Similarly I can't see us going to war without the Americans who have plenty of AD assets available. I'm sure they would be very happy to help us out. Clearly in the world we are in today, we need more strike planes. Sadly, we have spent 20 years re-inventing the Brontosaurus. I think the govt should have the courage of its convictions and axe it and replace it with a smaller number of F35s which are much more useful and can be deployed globally on joint assets.
Similarly I can't see us going to war without the Americans who have plenty of AD assets available. I'm sure they would be very happy to help us out. Clearly in the world we are in today, we need more strike planes. Sadly, we have spent 20 years re-inventing the Brontosaurus. I think the govt should have the courage of its convictions and axe it and replace it with a smaller number of F35s which are much more useful and can be deployed globally on joint assets.
Who says who we could be fighting in 10,15 or 20 years time. In 1980 who thought we would be fighting Argentina 1982, Iraq in 1991 or in Afghanistan in 2001?
If history teaches us anything it is that no one can or should try to predict the future.
Who knows, we could end up fighting France in 2008 or Japan in 2012 or the USA in 2021.
None of that is likely, but it is better to be prepared by retaining the capability than to fall into the idea that we would get help from the USA. After all the good old US-of-A really stood by us in 1956 didn't they and I am sure that could never happen again right?
If history teaches us anything it is that no one can or should try to predict the future.
Who knows, we could end up fighting France in 2008 or Japan in 2012 or the USA in 2021.
None of that is likely, but it is better to be prepared by retaining the capability than to fall into the idea that we would get help from the USA. After all the good old US-of-A really stood by us in 1956 didn't they and I am sure that could never happen again right?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
International projects always cost more and take longer than an in house project. They are also, however, far more difficult to cancel, which is why we went for them in a big way after the mass cancellations of the late 60s. 
The downside is that even when it might be sensible to cut orders, it's either impossible, difficult and/or too expensive to do so.
In the case of the Typhoon there would seem to be a move to cancel Tranche 3 with varied excuses being used as a smokescreen. There would seem to be no possibility of any reduction in Tranche 1 or 2 and the penalty clauses in doing so unilaterally would eliminate any savings.
We also already seem to be buying more than enough F-35s.....
The downside is that even when it might be sensible to cut orders, it's either impossible, difficult and/or too expensive to do so.
In the case of the Typhoon there would seem to be a move to cancel Tranche 3 with varied excuses being used as a smokescreen. There would seem to be no possibility of any reduction in Tranche 1 or 2 and the penalty clauses in doing so unilaterally would eliminate any savings.
We also already seem to be buying more than enough F-35s.....
Suspicion breeds confidence
Actually Wolf I agree with you
The argument I gave was just an extrapolation of the non-sensical reasons the govt gave for binning the FA2. We don't know who we mightfight tomorrow. As much I have reservations about the Typhoon, it will play a vital role. I just wish we didn't have to wait for T3 for a decent mud moving capability.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some questions to ponder on the issue of CUAVs:
1. Where in UK airspace can we train with these things.
2. What happens when the control the systems fail.
3. Can the RF spectrum accommodate all the control channels, weapon control channels and sensor channels. They will have to share the spectrum with 'Normal' UAVs, manned systems etc etc and be able to survive in a hostile RF environment.
3. When the first UAV/ CUAV has a near miss/ actual contact with a civilian aircraft I suspect we will have a major issue to overcome in the eyes of the general public. What is the fallback plan.
4. How will CUAV be delivered into theatre. Massive AT burden.
5. Who will sell programmes at air displays.
1. Where in UK airspace can we train with these things.
2. What happens when the control the systems fail.
3. Can the RF spectrum accommodate all the control channels, weapon control channels and sensor channels. They will have to share the spectrum with 'Normal' UAVs, manned systems etc etc and be able to survive in a hostile RF environment.
3. When the first UAV/ CUAV has a near miss/ actual contact with a civilian aircraft I suspect we will have a major issue to overcome in the eyes of the general public. What is the fallback plan.
4. How will CUAV be delivered into theatre. Massive AT burden.
5. Who will sell programmes at air displays.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But think of the money we can save by having spotty 13 yr old kids sat in a bunker flying these things like a computer game ! A copy of Playboy, some Wotsits and as much Dr Pepper as they can drink and that's it !!
No threats of rebellion, PVR'ing, leaving for an airline, etc.
We also wouldn't need people for PMEs: dentists, PD clerks, Work services, ATC, Ops wouls be massively reduced too.
No more OJARs.
One thing though . . . . . .would they still do monthly sims for currency ?
No threats of rebellion, PVR'ing, leaving for an airline, etc.
We also wouldn't need people for PMEs: dentists, PD clerks, Work services, ATC, Ops wouls be massively reduced too.
No more OJARs.
One thing though . . . . . .would they still do monthly sims for currency ?
There was also a man called Dennis Healey who decided we should scrap things like TSR2 and P1154 and buy everthing from the Americans because it would be cheaper, even though it virtually destroyed the UK aircraft industry. And despite all the American kit being cancelled or it didn't work.
And then there was a man called John Nott who decided in 1981 that the Royal Navy should get rid of all its surface ships and have a fleet of Nuclear Submarines instead... and we could afford all these subs because we were going to sell the ships for razor blades or to the Australians.
And then in 1982 all those ships went to the Falklands and won a war.
The motto of the tale is that politicians are all F$kcwits who couldn't organise a orgy in a brothel.
And then there was a man called John Nott who decided in 1981 that the Royal Navy should get rid of all its surface ships and have a fleet of Nuclear Submarines instead... and we could afford all these subs because we were going to sell the ships for razor blades or to the Australians.
And then in 1982 all those ships went to the Falklands and won a war.
The motto of the tale is that politicians are all F$kcwits who couldn't organise a orgy in a brothel.
What would be the net result of cancelling the third tranche of TypeHoon insofar as extending the life of Tornado and/or Jags? Would there be a considerable saving or would it be eaten up by a life-extension program for these existing types? (or would it in fact mean a further scaling down of frontline squadrons?)
Cheers.
CS
Cheers.
CS
Once heard the RAF described as "The only Third World Air Force which can't afford F-16s......."
Some truth in that. Funny how it's always our ME and RW assets which are needed most in Phoney Tony's bring-a-bottle wars. PR9s, Nimrods-without-pointy-tails, tankers, air transport - plus helicopters and C130s doing things for the chaps from a certain base near the Welsh border....
Plus some tac recce, of course. But it's the big boys who are called for first...... Although the RW chaps will be getting down and dirty long beforehand, just keeping schtum about it,
Some truth in that. Funny how it's always our ME and RW assets which are needed most in Phoney Tony's bring-a-bottle wars. PR9s, Nimrods-without-pointy-tails, tankers, air transport - plus helicopters and C130s doing things for the chaps from a certain base near the Welsh border....
Plus some tac recce, of course. But it's the big boys who are called for first...... Although the RW chaps will be getting down and dirty long beforehand, just keeping schtum about it,
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Tranche 1 & 2 are more than sufficient to replace the F3 fleet. The question of Tranche 3 was, and is, how comprehensive the GA capability was ever supposed to be and how much the partners would be willing to pay for it.
Cancelling Tranche 3 would almost certainly lead to the Jag force replacement being provided the JSF. That would require some additional airframes, but we're supposed to be buying 150 to replace a GR7/9 fleet of around 60, so I wouldn't imagine the numbers would be great.
That might lead to the Jag force being extended by another couple of years, but that would depend on the version chosen and the production rate. They could just thin the number per squadron across the fleet to transition both the GR7/9 and Jag fleets adding more later. I would imagine the bottlenecks would be factoring in the additional groundcrew/aircrew training into the present transition plan.
I don't believe the total joint orders of JSF and Typhoon were sustainable in view of the planned force structure. Cynically, which order was to be cut would reflect which would save on design and procurement costs and, importantly, which was seen as providing both a justification for a UK production line and more work for BAe and RR. The facts would seem to lean towards JSF.
Cancelling Tranche 3 would almost certainly lead to the Jag force replacement being provided the JSF. That would require some additional airframes, but we're supposed to be buying 150 to replace a GR7/9 fleet of around 60, so I wouldn't imagine the numbers would be great.
That might lead to the Jag force being extended by another couple of years, but that would depend on the version chosen and the production rate. They could just thin the number per squadron across the fleet to transition both the GR7/9 and Jag fleets adding more later. I would imagine the bottlenecks would be factoring in the additional groundcrew/aircrew training into the present transition plan.
I don't believe the total joint orders of JSF and Typhoon were sustainable in view of the planned force structure. Cynically, which order was to be cut would reflect which would save on design and procurement costs and, importantly, which was seen as providing both a justification for a UK production line and more work for BAe and RR. The facts would seem to lean towards JSF.