Eurofighter Tranche 3 to be axed ?
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!
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!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
'...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.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omnipotent
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
With respect to Sierra Leone.....
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Si...ne/forces.html
http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2...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.
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Si...ne/forces.html
http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2...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.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 3rd May 2003 at 06:49.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Isn't it still easier to stop then land, ask Bush!
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!!
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!!
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 5th May 2003 at 01:01.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: wiltshire
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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.
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.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 7th May 2003 at 21:30.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omnipotent
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
