Typhoon drops live Paveway IV's for the first time
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: England
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typhoon drops live Paveway IV's for the first time
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,915
Received 2,839 Likes
on
1,212 Posts
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/Bomber) Squadron 
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 
1(Fighter) Squadron
The oldest frontline Royal Air Force squadron in the world
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: England
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 The air-to-air role was done first because that was always the priority, especially as F-3 was being withdrawn from service, with the various air-to-ground capabilities to follow.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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: England
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
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.....
Somehow I imagined that this thread would have generated a lot more comment on the length of time taken to deliver the capability...
"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.
Except of course we've already bought the Typhoons.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sandiego89
seems it is only fashionable to bash the F-35 delays now
-RP
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
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
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
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: England
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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......
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......
mudmoving Typhoon
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!
“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!