Typhoon - Why so Many
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: everywhere the Army sends me
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typhoon - Why so Many
A colleague of mine is writing a bit of a service paper re Typhoon and has to address why you need 232 (or whatever it is) of them. Is it part of doctrine, is it just a plucked out of the air number, SWAG or did it stay as a cold war requirement that we haven't changed.
Answers on a post card please, and BTW this is not a troll it is a genuine question........
No, really...
any sources of information would be appreciated also, AP3000 etc....
Answers on a post card please, and BTW this is not a troll it is a genuine question........
No, really...
any sources of information would be appreciated also, AP3000 etc....
ET,
Jackonicko can probably point to some open-access sources, but in essence the 232 buy is to sustain a fleet of 7 front line squadrons with 16 aircraft each; an OCU and OEU, trials aircraft and the like (so what - about 135 airframes in use at any one time) and to provide the necessary airframes to take account of attrition and fatigue so as to ensure that the fleet can stay in service for a quarter of a century or more (more likely 35 -40 years given current OSDs for RAF aircraft...).
And having signed the contract on that basis, a contract written more tightly than the tightness metaphor of your choice, the MoD hasn't yet worked a way out of it without incurring huge penalty costs...
At least that's my understanding of the general position.
Jackonicko can probably point to some open-access sources, but in essence the 232 buy is to sustain a fleet of 7 front line squadrons with 16 aircraft each; an OCU and OEU, trials aircraft and the like (so what - about 135 airframes in use at any one time) and to provide the necessary airframes to take account of attrition and fatigue so as to ensure that the fleet can stay in service for a quarter of a century or more (more likely 35 -40 years given current OSDs for RAF aircraft...).
And having signed the contract on that basis, a contract written more tightly than the tightness metaphor of your choice, the MoD hasn't yet worked a way out of it without incurring huge penalty costs...
At least that's my understanding of the general position.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add to Archemedes' comments, the contractual position is complicated by the fact that it (the contract) was all geared around national workshare and that, thus, to reduce numbers, all nations have to be in agreement; this doesn't take into account any cancellation clauses levied by industry. The result of all this is that, in basic terms, the UK could reduce unilaterally, but would still have to pay the partner nations for 232 aircraft's worth of the bits they provide plus any other cancellation fees. As I understand it, the Germans and Italians would gladly reduce numbers, but are being held to the quadrinational agreement by Spain, whose TUs would probably revolt in the event of a reduced workshare. This as explained to me by a severely harrassed Typhoon IPTL last year. Hope this points you in the right direction.
In fact, the Germans (as explained to me by a senior EADS bloke and a Luftwaffe 2 star) are actually looking at needing each and every one of their Typhoons - perhaps even some of their options, because they're looking at a much reduced Tornado fleet.
The first to blink and request a reduced offtake will be faced with MASSIVE penalties - such that it would be cheaper to take delivery of the aircraft, line them up, and pull them to bits with a JCB.
And while we may be buying more Typhoons than we need (the 137:232 figures were predicated on a seven squadron force) we're not buying a lot too many, and the 'spare airframes' could simply be used to further extend the OSD, to fulfill part of the moribund FOAC requirement, or perhaps even as a replacement for some or all of the JSF buy.
Bear in mind that despite the announced closure of Leeming as a FJ base, no-one has officially reduced the requirement from seven Typhoon squadrons, so theoretically we still need the full 137:232 figure.
And 232 Typhoons gives you a frontline force of 137, as we know.
"......the 232 aircraft being procured will support an active RAF fleet of 137 Eurofighters. These may become known as Typhoons in RAF service, as they already are on the export market, though this has yet to be confirmed officially. The 137 active aircraft will equip seven front-line squadrons (15 aircraft each, plus four in the Falklands), an Operational Conversion Unit (OCU) with 24 aircraft, and an Operational Evaluation Unit (4 aircraft). These units will share nine further aircraft which will be categorised as in-use reserves (one per squadron and two with the OCU). The remaining 84 aircraft will be rotated in and out of service, covering attrition and spreading flying hours to enable the aircraft to reach its scheduled out-of-service date.”
That pretty well directly repeats what was in Hansard at the time.
I'm sure that you don't need 232 Typhoons AND 150 JSF/JCA to have the 84 deployable FJs that are the current planning assumption.
Interestingly, the 137:232 Typhoons will be replacing 87 Tornado F3s and 46 Jaguars in seven squadrons...... 133 aircraft!
The first to blink and request a reduced offtake will be faced with MASSIVE penalties - such that it would be cheaper to take delivery of the aircraft, line them up, and pull them to bits with a JCB.
And while we may be buying more Typhoons than we need (the 137:232 figures were predicated on a seven squadron force) we're not buying a lot too many, and the 'spare airframes' could simply be used to further extend the OSD, to fulfill part of the moribund FOAC requirement, or perhaps even as a replacement for some or all of the JSF buy.
Bear in mind that despite the announced closure of Leeming as a FJ base, no-one has officially reduced the requirement from seven Typhoon squadrons, so theoretically we still need the full 137:232 figure.
And 232 Typhoons gives you a frontline force of 137, as we know.
"......the 232 aircraft being procured will support an active RAF fleet of 137 Eurofighters. These may become known as Typhoons in RAF service, as they already are on the export market, though this has yet to be confirmed officially. The 137 active aircraft will equip seven front-line squadrons (15 aircraft each, plus four in the Falklands), an Operational Conversion Unit (OCU) with 24 aircraft, and an Operational Evaluation Unit (4 aircraft). These units will share nine further aircraft which will be categorised as in-use reserves (one per squadron and two with the OCU). The remaining 84 aircraft will be rotated in and out of service, covering attrition and spreading flying hours to enable the aircraft to reach its scheduled out-of-service date.”
That pretty well directly repeats what was in Hansard at the time.
I'm sure that you don't need 232 Typhoons AND 150 JSF/JCA to have the 84 deployable FJs that are the current planning assumption.
Interestingly, the 137:232 Typhoons will be replacing 87 Tornado F3s and 46 Jaguars in seven squadrons...... 133 aircraft!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that we will be cancelling the JSF and using spare Typhoon Jacko.
The UK stands to make a fortune due to our JSF workshare. More, in fact than our entire JSF buy will cost us.
The UK stands to make a fortune due to our JSF workshare. More, in fact than our entire JSF buy will cost us.
if we did bin JSF in favour of a navalised typhoon - should such a thing be possible - when would we have to decide and how much would it cost? (ish).
say 150 extra T3 Typhoons?
say 150 extra T3 Typhoons?
The marginal cost of extra Typhoons would be about £45 m ($62 m) per jet (JSF is coming in at $110). Much of that cost would flow directly back to the UK Treasury. We build about one third of each Typhoon, and we'd obviously do the final assembly. We wouldn't need so many because there'd be a common OCU/OEU. Through life costs would be appreciably lower.
And we'd still have an industrial foothold in JSF.
And we'd still have an industrial foothold in JSF.
Contractually, the UK's industrial participation in JSF is unrelated to offtake of aircraft.
The only thing on which it is dependent is BAE's ability to continue to offer 'best value'. BAE Samlesbury is already 'tooled up' and making rear ends. Someone else would have to spend huge amounts to compete, and then to offer a better value price. Even more problematic is the fact that BAE Systems have (they tell me) had some design input into the rear fuselage. Is there thus some UK IP in there? The very fact that there is that possibility further complicates the process of finding a new rear fuselage supplier.
In any case, you don't simply withdraw. Because of lengthening timescales and ITAR problems, you regrettably reorientate your JSF procurement, delaying the buy to beyond 2012 and re-framing F-35 as UK FOA or somesuch, and as Tranche 2 of the JCA requirement, with a marinised Typhoon taking over as Tranche 1 of JCA.
The US GAO love this, because they want to delay the programme anyway.
Once the Marinised Typhoon is in production, and once BAE's position in JSF is unassailable, you cancel the residual UK JSF buy.
Once we're beyond LRIP, BAE will be impossible to replace.
Bwahahahahaha.
The only thing on which it is dependent is BAE's ability to continue to offer 'best value'. BAE Samlesbury is already 'tooled up' and making rear ends. Someone else would have to spend huge amounts to compete, and then to offer a better value price. Even more problematic is the fact that BAE Systems have (they tell me) had some design input into the rear fuselage. Is there thus some UK IP in there? The very fact that there is that possibility further complicates the process of finding a new rear fuselage supplier.
In any case, you don't simply withdraw. Because of lengthening timescales and ITAR problems, you regrettably reorientate your JSF procurement, delaying the buy to beyond 2012 and re-framing F-35 as UK FOA or somesuch, and as Tranche 2 of the JCA requirement, with a marinised Typhoon taking over as Tranche 1 of JCA.
The US GAO love this, because they want to delay the programme anyway.
Once the Marinised Typhoon is in production, and once BAE's position in JSF is unassailable, you cancel the residual UK JSF buy.
Once we're beyond LRIP, BAE will be impossible to replace.
Bwahahahahaha.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: earth
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko, you are absolutely right in everything you say except for the assumption that navalised typhoon is a credible option.
We will buy JSF regardless. UK has a very good work-share which has been won on best value and not future orders. Futhermore; (top ISS word) we will no doubt change the magic equation which tells you how many aircraft you need to buy to assure x number of FE@R, to save money. But this doesn't stop Typhoon being the best ac on the shelf for CAO and JSF being the best for AOSE and IAO.
PS. If you don't understand the abbreviations, then you don't deserve an opinion.
We will buy JSF regardless. UK has a very good work-share which has been won on best value and not future orders. Futhermore; (top ISS word) we will no doubt change the magic equation which tells you how many aircraft you need to buy to assure x number of FE@R, to save money. But this doesn't stop Typhoon being the best ac on the shelf for CAO and JSF being the best for AOSE and IAO.
PS. If you don't understand the abbreviations, then you don't deserve an opinion.
I struggled over two of your acronyms, Unmissable. ISS, IAO and CAO were easy, FE at R was ok (Force Elements at Readiness?), but surely out of date, but the other one (AOSE).....? 
I obviously have no right to an opinion.
As for UK I'm too PC 2 HAC, and PS? No GCSE in Latin or CS......
However, you lose your right to one too
if you can't identify BAE's estimated weight penalty for Typhoon N in 1) Ski Jump and 2) Catapault launched configurations.
A) +290 kg
B) +340 kg
C) +400 kg
D) +460 kg
E) +500 kg
F) +860 kg
I obviously have no right to an opinion.
As for UK I'm too PC 2 HAC, and PS? No GCSE in Latin or CS......
However, you lose your right to one too
if you can't identify BAE's estimated weight penalty for Typhoon N in 1) Ski Jump and 2) Catapault launched configurations.A) +290 kg
B) +340 kg
C) +400 kg
D) +460 kg
E) +500 kg
F) +860 kg
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
The remaining 84 aircraft will be rotated in and out of service, covering attrition and spreading flying hours to enable the aircraft to reach its scheduled out-of-service date.”
I accept that numbers will reduce with time as AC get pranged, but initially that's a lot of planes.
I trust they'll be dispersed to different locations?
Imagine them stored in one warehouse - a simple building fire could be very expensive!
"(top ISS word)"
An oxymoron, surely? Top.....ISS....?
Notwithstanding the "Oi am cleverer than yow" attitude, I note no abbreviations in that pompous post other than 'ac'. There was, however, a plethora of in-house TLAs and one 4LA.
Navalised TypHoon? Hmm - sounds like a black hole for the defence budget and a nice little earner for both 't bungling Baron and numerous civil serpents.
An oxymoron, surely? Top.....ISS....?
Notwithstanding the "Oi am cleverer than yow" attitude, I note no abbreviations in that pompous post other than 'ac'. There was, however, a plethora of in-house TLAs and one 4LA.
Navalised TypHoon? Hmm - sounds like a black hole for the defence budget and a nice little earner for both 't bungling Baron and numerous civil serpents.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tarnished
We could give them to Airwork Ltd to look after like they did so well with the F-3s
Airwork Ltd.
Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's claim for compensation for damage caused to Tornado F3 aircraft by Airwork Ltd. [20069]
Mr. Arbuthnot: A negotiated settlement has been reached in respect of my Department's claim for structural damage to Tornado F3 aircraft while being modified by Airwork Ltd. during 1992-93. I am pleased to report that, of the 16 aircraft involved, 11 have been repaired and delivered back to the RAF and the remainder will be delivered progressively over the next few weeks, with the last due for delivery in May this year. One aircraft was lost in the crash off Blackpool in September 1996, the cause of which was not related to the modification programme on which Airwork had been engaged. The F3 aircraft were repaired by replacing the damaged centre fuselages with those from surplus F2 aircraft which had been earmarked for disposal. This was to ensure that the aircraft were returned to operational service as soon as possible.
In choosing to replace the centre fuselage, the aircraft have been given valuable additional fatigue life. The overall cost of this work has been around £20 million. Taking this improvement into account, together with the costs which might have been incurred had arbitration been pursued, we have agreed that the Bricom Group, which owned Airwork at the time of the damage, will pay £5 million to the Ministry of Defence in settlement of our claim.