Typhoon news or already covered in other topic?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Belfast
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
You may well be right ref the Saudi back-fill but it does seem something of a suspicious coincidence that 40-16=24 ie no. of planes talked about for Oman
I may be being optimistic but is there any word on upgrades (eg AESA, conformal tanks) as part of this order.
When is the next deadline for T3B to prevent a halt in production, do we face the same pantomime again or will all the nations be ready to quietly agree to forget about it?
You may well be right ref the Saudi back-fill but it does seem something of a suspicious coincidence that 40-16=24 ie no. of planes talked about for Oman
I may be being optimistic but is there any word on upgrades (eg AESA, conformal tanks) as part of this order.
When is the next deadline for T3B to prevent a halt in production, do we face the same pantomime again or will all the nations be ready to quietly agree to forget about it?
hulahoop,
"The £1.4 Bn" is an utterly meaningless figure dreamt up by the half wits who the FT employ - who have not the first idea when it comes to defence subjects, and who are spectacularly clueless even by the standards of 'Fleet Street'.
I can be confident about that, because the cost of Tranche 3 is not known, is still being negotiated, and isn't yet set.
If Industry are to be believed, then one would expect the unit production price to be marginally lower that the unit production price of Tranche 2, which was €55.08 m (equivalent to £37 m on the day the contract was signed).
You might therefore expect the UK share of the T3 production contract to come in at somewhere over €2 Bn.
"The £1.4 Bn" is an utterly meaningless figure dreamt up by the half wits who the FT employ - who have not the first idea when it comes to defence subjects, and who are spectacularly clueless even by the standards of 'Fleet Street'.
I can be confident about that, because the cost of Tranche 3 is not known, is still being negotiated, and isn't yet set.
If Industry are to be believed, then one would expect the unit production price to be marginally lower that the unit production price of Tranche 2, which was €55.08 m (equivalent to £37 m on the day the contract was signed).
You might therefore expect the UK share of the T3 production contract to come in at somewhere over €2 Bn.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, my eyes start to glaze-over when I try to work-out just what Typhoons are being bought, which are going for export, which are replacements for exports and so on. However, I believe the final total of aircraft for the RAF is around 140 or so, is it not?
If this is indeed the case, what is going to be done with them all? Surely, it's significantly more than the current re-equipment plans call for, so does this mean that aircraft will be placed into storage? It also raises the question of just how great the appetite is for F-35 when there's the option of "navalising" a batch of Typhoons, thereby saving a fortune and giving the Navy an aircraft which is probably just as useful as the F-35 (I still can't work-out why anyone thinks we need a single-engined STOVL warplane in 2009... or whenever it finally enters service should I say).
If our beloved politicians soldier-on (or is it sailor-on?) with F-35, maybe there might be more of an appetite to form additional RAF Typhoon squadrons? There still seems to be some politically-driven impetus behind Leeming's future so maybe more squadrons might be formed there eventually? If so, one assumes that it would have to be at the expense of other reductions... how safe is the Harrier force?
If this is indeed the case, what is going to be done with them all? Surely, it's significantly more than the current re-equipment plans call for, so does this mean that aircraft will be placed into storage? It also raises the question of just how great the appetite is for F-35 when there's the option of "navalising" a batch of Typhoons, thereby saving a fortune and giving the Navy an aircraft which is probably just as useful as the F-35 (I still can't work-out why anyone thinks we need a single-engined STOVL warplane in 2009... or whenever it finally enters service should I say).
If our beloved politicians soldier-on (or is it sailor-on?) with F-35, maybe there might be more of an appetite to form additional RAF Typhoon squadrons? There still seems to be some politically-driven impetus behind Leeming's future so maybe more squadrons might be formed there eventually? If so, one assumes that it would have to be at the expense of other reductions... how safe is the Harrier force?
Not again please....
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim, Is the the fleet size not a function of the required operational numbers and the OSD, i.e you would expect a significantly larger fleet to be bought than deployed in order to rotate the airframe hours? Aircraft life is then decoupled to an extent from fleet life, with positive cost implications. It worked (sort of) for the Lightning...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it seems the 4 lead countries got what they wanted , which to my understanding is much longer payment terms , they might have had to confirm to stay with the A400 , but with that ongoing fiasco as a barganing chip , got what they wanted for `phoon purchases.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim, Is the the fleet size not a function of the required operational numbers and the OSD
You could certainly say that but I just don't see how that line would go-down with the media and politicians these days. It's not as if we're talking about just a half dozen or so, and the notion of having a fleet of at least thirty surplus aircraft languishing in storage seems a tad unlikely. Surely, there will be some appetite to use them if we're talking about maybe two squadrons-worth of aircraft?
I'm sure there must still be plenty of enthusiasm for killing-off the F-35 but if that programme manages to survive, I can't help thinking that the Harrier force might be the ultimate casualty. You know how the thinking goes these days - it's a bit like the Jaguar saga. A couple of additional Typhoon squadrons would surely be enough to enable the bean-counters to say that the Harrier fleet was redundant and thereby withdraw an entire fleet and save a fortune. We know it would be absolute folly but we also know that it doesn't mean it's impossible!
You could certainly say that but I just don't see how that line would go-down with the media and politicians these days. It's not as if we're talking about just a half dozen or so, and the notion of having a fleet of at least thirty surplus aircraft languishing in storage seems a tad unlikely. Surely, there will be some appetite to use them if we're talking about maybe two squadrons-worth of aircraft?
I'm sure there must still be plenty of enthusiasm for killing-off the F-35 but if that programme manages to survive, I can't help thinking that the Harrier force might be the ultimate casualty. You know how the thinking goes these days - it's a bit like the Jaguar saga. A couple of additional Typhoon squadrons would surely be enough to enable the bean-counters to say that the Harrier fleet was redundant and thereby withdraw an entire fleet and save a fortune. We know it would be absolute folly but we also know that it doesn't mean it's impossible!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was more of a rhetorical question to be honest. The aircraft are not 'surplus', rather they are required to meet the OSD. How many GR4s are deployed compared to how many were built (accepting that the order was placed pre-SDR)?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup, I agree with you, but I just can't see how that kind of line would be sustainable with the media these days. If for example, the RAF had shoved thirty-odd Tornado GR1's straight into storage in 2009 I think it would be kinda like inviting "open season" to media and politicians who would doubtless claim that it's a waste of taxypayer's money. I just can't see that many aircraft being stored somehow.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: England
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typhoon & JSF
-Tim
UK has been trying to remain full partners on two military fast jet programmes for years, when there has always been the option to try to turn JSF into a 'full-time' interceptor, or Typhoon into a carrier plane. That fact that neither has yet happened suggests that, apart from the Eurofighter penalty clauses, its either quite difficult to do, or they offer sufficiently distinct capabilities it's worth having both.
A question does come to mind though - Rafale and Eurofighter look similar, and are thought to have similar capabilities, so why has one made a good carrier-based fighter and the other apparently not?
UK has been trying to remain full partners on two military fast jet programmes for years, when there has always been the option to try to turn JSF into a 'full-time' interceptor, or Typhoon into a carrier plane. That fact that neither has yet happened suggests that, apart from the Eurofighter penalty clauses, its either quite difficult to do, or they offer sufficiently distinct capabilities it's worth having both.
A question does come to mind though - Rafale and Eurofighter look similar, and are thought to have similar capabilities, so why has one made a good carrier-based fighter and the other apparently not?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chasing Dreams
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tom,
Unfortunately looks and manoueverability are only a small part of the equation for whether a fighter is suitable for carrier ops or not.
Just look at the JSF, there are 3 variants, a CTOL (A), VSTOL (B), and Carrier version (C). Each one is essentially a different aircraft, with different underlying structure. The A version would never be able to land on a carrier, it's not strong enough and doesn't have the control capabilities of the C. A and C don't have the cool air vertical fan of the B, so they have a different structure there instead rather than a hole where the engine would go. The C's nose wheel opens in the opposite direction to the A and B, CAT shots would fold the nose wheel up on the A and B. The C has a larger wing and larger control surfaces. The differences just go on and on.
The Rafale was designed for carrier ops, the Typhoon never was. To make the Typhoon carrier capable would involve a complete redesign. A stronger undercarriage would only mean the aircraft breaks where the stronger undercarriage ends. So you beef up it's attachment points, then it snaps at where the attachment points join the aircraft. So you beef them up, it then snaps where you stop the previous beef up and it continues until you've redesigned the internal structure. But beefing up the internal structure takes up more space, then you find that the systems can no longer fit, so the systems need a redesign...it carries on ad nauseum. Never mind the arresting hook and the required structure to withstand multiple arrested landings. The loads involved in a carrier landing are greater than those generated by using the arrester gear at the end of a runway in an emergency.
Nothing in engineering is a simple fix or modification
Unfortunately looks and manoueverability are only a small part of the equation for whether a fighter is suitable for carrier ops or not.
Just look at the JSF, there are 3 variants, a CTOL (A), VSTOL (B), and Carrier version (C). Each one is essentially a different aircraft, with different underlying structure. The A version would never be able to land on a carrier, it's not strong enough and doesn't have the control capabilities of the C. A and C don't have the cool air vertical fan of the B, so they have a different structure there instead rather than a hole where the engine would go. The C's nose wheel opens in the opposite direction to the A and B, CAT shots would fold the nose wheel up on the A and B. The C has a larger wing and larger control surfaces. The differences just go on and on.
The Rafale was designed for carrier ops, the Typhoon never was. To make the Typhoon carrier capable would involve a complete redesign. A stronger undercarriage would only mean the aircraft breaks where the stronger undercarriage ends. So you beef up it's attachment points, then it snaps at where the attachment points join the aircraft. So you beef them up, it then snaps where you stop the previous beef up and it continues until you've redesigned the internal structure. But beefing up the internal structure takes up more space, then you find that the systems can no longer fit, so the systems need a redesign...it carries on ad nauseum. Never mind the arresting hook and the required structure to withstand multiple arrested landings. The loads involved in a carrier landing are greater than those generated by using the arrester gear at the end of a runway in an emergency.
Nothing in engineering is a simple fix or modification
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think maybe you're misinterpreting what I said. I know the reasons which would support a substantial reserve fleet of Typhoons in storage, but that's not my point. It's about politics, media and public perceptions (like everything which influences RAF policy these days). I just don't buy the notion that in - say 2012, the MoD would be able to justify holding onto maybe thirty or more new Typhoons which are doing nothing but sitting in a hangar. I just don't believe that is likely to happen.
As for navalising Typhoon, we've done that to death on other threads in the past. It could be done, it isn't as difficult as people claim, BAE Systems claim it can be done fairly easily, some Pprune "experts" immediately chime-in and say "well they would say that" but that doesn't make sense any more. BAE Systems wouldn't even suggest the practicality of navalising Typhoon unless they thought it could be done. The days of bottomless government pockets have gone so they must think it's a practical idea. Clearly, no matter what way you look at it, navalised Typhoons would be much less expensive than sticking with F-35. Quite why we've stuck with it for so long is anybody's guess really. The need for STOVL aircraft died a quarter of a century ago and yet...
I'm firmly of the belief that these "surplus" Typhoons will be used, either to replace a long-overdue abandonment of the F-35, or to replace the Harrier fleet. Dumping the F-35 would be a good move, whereas withdrawing the Harrier might not be so wise... Oh well, time will reveal what magnificent forward-looking policy the government and MoD wishes to pursue, gawd help us all!
As for navalising Typhoon, we've done that to death on other threads in the past. It could be done, it isn't as difficult as people claim, BAE Systems claim it can be done fairly easily, some Pprune "experts" immediately chime-in and say "well they would say that" but that doesn't make sense any more. BAE Systems wouldn't even suggest the practicality of navalising Typhoon unless they thought it could be done. The days of bottomless government pockets have gone so they must think it's a practical idea. Clearly, no matter what way you look at it, navalised Typhoons would be much less expensive than sticking with F-35. Quite why we've stuck with it for so long is anybody's guess really. The need for STOVL aircraft died a quarter of a century ago and yet...
I'm firmly of the belief that these "surplus" Typhoons will be used, either to replace a long-overdue abandonment of the F-35, or to replace the Harrier fleet. Dumping the F-35 would be a good move, whereas withdrawing the Harrier might not be so wise... Oh well, time will reveal what magnificent forward-looking policy the government and MoD wishes to pursue, gawd help us all!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we are going the distance in Afghanistan, then don't we need an aircraft relevant to a current conflict.
We can second guess what we might need (Typhoon/JSF) etc but just ask the folks on the ****ty end of the stick what they want and think the answer would be different to whats being planned!
We can second guess what we might need (Typhoon/JSF) etc but just ask the folks on the ****ty end of the stick what they want and think the answer would be different to whats being planned!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 80
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As well as evening hours over the fleet it also ensure that the stored aircraft remain near the fleet standard mod level.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As for BAE, they will promise the Earth, and then eventually charge it.
Leave them alone.
Jacko,
I am surprised that you, as a journalist and a man used to debate, would describe another writer as a 'scrofulus (meaning corrupt or morally degenerate) half-wit'. Such an ad hominem attack on someone whose views you disagree with does you no credit.
I am surprised that you, as a journalist and a man used to debate, would describe another writer as a 'scrofulus (meaning corrupt or morally degenerate) half-wit'. Such an ad hominem attack on someone whose views you disagree with does you no credit.
I'm glad that someone, at least, picked up the comedy spelling.
I'm not going to apologise for attacking Lewis Page or his views. He routinely spouts half-witted and highly damaging nonsense, and especially on Typhoon, he deliberately uses distorted and inaccurate figures to further his 'boots and boats' agenda.
To make honest mistakes is one thing, but Page is a bright enough chap (he writes very stylish prose, after all) and he must know exactly what he's doing by using such distorted prices and simplistic arguments.
I think that qualifies as being morally degenerate, actually, though I was using the term scrofulous in its more basic, insulting, 'schoolboy' sense - meaning 'scabby'.
And I believe that 'skoolboy abuse' (see what I did there?) is an entirely appropriate weapon to use to point out the true nature of Page's infantile crap.
I'm not going to apologise for attacking Lewis Page or his views. He routinely spouts half-witted and highly damaging nonsense, and especially on Typhoon, he deliberately uses distorted and inaccurate figures to further his 'boots and boats' agenda.
To make honest mistakes is one thing, but Page is a bright enough chap (he writes very stylish prose, after all) and he must know exactly what he's doing by using such distorted prices and simplistic arguments.
I think that qualifies as being morally degenerate, actually, though I was using the term scrofulous in its more basic, insulting, 'schoolboy' sense - meaning 'scabby'.
And I believe that 'skoolboy abuse' (see what I did there?) is an entirely appropriate weapon to use to point out the true nature of Page's infantile crap.