Eurofighter Tranche 3 to be axed ?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Thread Starter
Eurofighter Tranche 3 to be axed ?
Micheal Boyce has siad that tranche 3 of the Eurofighter procurement is under "review" by the MoD and other may be altered for ground attack. Is theEurofighter the wrong aircarft at the wrong time for the RAF? Perhaps expanding the JSF order is better value.
My understanding (so this might be complete rubbish...) is that BWoS have 'lost interest' in Typhoon, and are much more interested in JSF these days.
I'm not quite sure what is meant by the idea that some aircraft would be 'converted' for ground attack, though. The most obvious answer is that some of the squadrons earmarked for the AD role will simply change to OS or multi-role - but I suppose that we could be talking about additional/different systems? Or maybe, at a push, having some two-seaters?
The big question, though, is whether any of the funding for the Tranche 3 aircraft would be released for the purchase of alternative platforms. Past experience suggests that the cancellation of 88 [I think] Typhoons wouldn't mean that a similar number of alternative platforms were purchased. I suspect that most of the cash earmarked for this purpose would go elsewhere.
If the money is available, then I guess that JSF might well be the answer - Gripen might be a dark horse - but Jackonicko is probably better placed to argue the case for this than I am.
I'm not quite sure what is meant by the idea that some aircraft would be 'converted' for ground attack, though. The most obvious answer is that some of the squadrons earmarked for the AD role will simply change to OS or multi-role - but I suppose that we could be talking about additional/different systems? Or maybe, at a push, having some two-seaters?
The big question, though, is whether any of the funding for the Tranche 3 aircraft would be released for the purchase of alternative platforms. Past experience suggests that the cancellation of 88 [I think] Typhoons wouldn't mean that a similar number of alternative platforms were purchased. I suspect that most of the cash earmarked for this purpose would go elsewhere.
If the money is available, then I guess that JSF might well be the answer - Gripen might be a dark horse - but Jackonicko is probably better placed to argue the case for this than I am.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: kent, England
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMO the F35 might be a better ground pounder than the Tranche 3 Typhoon, it has low observability design and (limited) stealth features (though some people seem to think it will be completely invisible and thus will trump any Eurocanard in Air to Air combat)
and a internal bomb bay meaning it will be be a far better 'first day of the war' interdiction platform.
It can carry Storm Shadows and LGBs externally and if we get JDAMS them it can carry a 2000 pounder internally.
I think Tranche 3 will not be bought, so many rumblings have being coming out of the MOD and the treasury about this over the last year. I think the JSF (perhaps with slight redesigns) will be procured as the manned element of the GR4 replacement while UCAVs (we have recently got involved with US over this) and cruise missiles will cover the rest.
and a internal bomb bay meaning it will be be a far better 'first day of the war' interdiction platform.
It can carry Storm Shadows and LGBs externally and if we get JDAMS them it can carry a 2000 pounder internally.
I think Tranche 3 will not be bought, so many rumblings have being coming out of the MOD and the treasury about this over the last year. I think the JSF (perhaps with slight redesigns) will be procured as the manned element of the GR4 replacement while UCAVs (we have recently got involved with US over this) and cruise missiles will cover the rest.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omnipotent
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSF
There is very little doubt that Eurofighter is a legacy that has already fallen out of popularity, with the fact it looks like becoming the mirror disaster that is the Tornado support and upgrade system along with Cold War specifications. JSF being in it's nature the latest generation system will manage to keep up to date rather than come into service already obsolete. There is little debate to the outsider that extra funding MUST go to more JSF units rather than flogging a dead horse?
Its obvious that the money saved would be better spent on upgrading our AT. Greater numbers of C-17's would be of much more use to all three services than 88 AD Typhoons. Exactly which country should we be affraid of in the air these days?
It was rumoured that the money spent on hiring the Antanov's in the latest skirmish could have bought another 2/3 C-17's!!
Save cash on the old Cold War relic and lets take a leaf out of Rumsfeld's new doctrine of fast, deployable and high tech forces. Expeditionary Warfare is the way ahead, not defending the home base!!
It was rumoured that the money spent on hiring the Antanov's in the latest skirmish could have bought another 2/3 C-17's!!
Save cash on the old Cold War relic and lets take a leaf out of Rumsfeld's new doctrine of fast, deployable and high tech forces. Expeditionary Warfare is the way ahead, not defending the home base!!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omnipotent
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But surely it's gone too far for that. Too many heads would roll and even if BWoS is no longer that interested they still rub their hands at the money they are making from the whole fiasco.
232 EF Typhoons were required to see the type through to its planned OSD with seven frontline squadrons and the required training unit and attrition spares. It's replacing the Tornado F3 (4 squadrons) and Jaguar (3 squadrons). That includes Tranche 3.
Using Tranche 3 as a FOA (GR4 replacement) would either necessitate a further reduction in AD/OS strength, or an increased EF buy.
Re JSF. It's a great 'first day of the war' F-117 replacement. It makes sense to the USAF as the 'Low' element in a high/low mix with the F-22. It makes sense to the USAF who have the 'infrastructure' of offboard kit (F-22s, E-3s, JSTARS, Rivet Joint, etc.) to make it work. It makes sense to the USAF who will replace F-16s (which often carry a relatively small A-G payload). What it is not is an F-15E/Tornado/F-111 replacement. What it is not is an autnomous air superiority aircraft. What it is is cheap (though becoming progressively less so) and industrially vital for the USA.
In many respects EF Typhoon is a better aircraft than JSF for many air forces. A better air to air superiority aircraft (as long as everything works) with long sensor range, a great MMI (especially with DVI), good supersonic acceleration, low frontal RCS and shedloads of long-reach BVR-AAMs. Some of the planned EF derivatives, with conformal tanks and all the gear, might well be quite good long range interdictors, too.
The Gripen is also a great choice for many requirements too, and would perhaps be a better fit for the RAF, if we were not relying on JSF as the STOVL Harrier replacement and FCBA. A useful fighter, and a good multi-role aeroplane, an RAF order would be extremely good for UK plc, and would give the RAF an extremely cost-effective and versatile air power tool. But it's not shiny and high tech enough for the Air Staff, I suspect.
Grimweasel,
I suspect that that question was asked by many during the early 1930s. The problem now is that the development cycle is so long that you cannot build up an air force or design and build suitable aircraft to meet an emerging threat.
I agree with you on the necessity of having forces that are well suited to expeditionary warfare. US-style stealth warplanes which must be cosseted and kept out of the rain don't necessarily fit this scenario, however, and I think you'd be surprised at how well optimised the EF Typhoon is for out-of-area operations, rapid deployment, and autonomous operation from austere bases with minimum support. The Gripen is also top-notch in this regard, thanks to Sweden's unique concept of operations.
Using Tranche 3 as a FOA (GR4 replacement) would either necessitate a further reduction in AD/OS strength, or an increased EF buy.
Re JSF. It's a great 'first day of the war' F-117 replacement. It makes sense to the USAF as the 'Low' element in a high/low mix with the F-22. It makes sense to the USAF who have the 'infrastructure' of offboard kit (F-22s, E-3s, JSTARS, Rivet Joint, etc.) to make it work. It makes sense to the USAF who will replace F-16s (which often carry a relatively small A-G payload). What it is not is an F-15E/Tornado/F-111 replacement. What it is not is an autnomous air superiority aircraft. What it is is cheap (though becoming progressively less so) and industrially vital for the USA.
In many respects EF Typhoon is a better aircraft than JSF for many air forces. A better air to air superiority aircraft (as long as everything works) with long sensor range, a great MMI (especially with DVI), good supersonic acceleration, low frontal RCS and shedloads of long-reach BVR-AAMs. Some of the planned EF derivatives, with conformal tanks and all the gear, might well be quite good long range interdictors, too.
The Gripen is also a great choice for many requirements too, and would perhaps be a better fit for the RAF, if we were not relying on JSF as the STOVL Harrier replacement and FCBA. A useful fighter, and a good multi-role aeroplane, an RAF order would be extremely good for UK plc, and would give the RAF an extremely cost-effective and versatile air power tool. But it's not shiny and high tech enough for the Air Staff, I suspect.
Grimweasel,
I suspect that that question was asked by many during the early 1930s. The problem now is that the development cycle is so long that you cannot build up an air force or design and build suitable aircraft to meet an emerging threat.
I agree with you on the necessity of having forces that are well suited to expeditionary warfare. US-style stealth warplanes which must be cosseted and kept out of the rain don't necessarily fit this scenario, however, and I think you'd be surprised at how well optimised the EF Typhoon is for out-of-area operations, rapid deployment, and autonomous operation from austere bases with minimum support. The Gripen is also top-notch in this regard, thanks to Sweden's unique concept of operations.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I admire the optimists who discuss what aircraft we will buy with the dosh we save by cancelling the third tranche of Typhoons, they should understand the nature of this government better. I have no doubt they would not miss the opportunity to claw back the money and waste it on one of their vote-winning projects instead.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: kent, England
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, only the B version will be STOVL, the A (USAF) and C (USN) versions take of and land in a conventional fashion, the C version has a wider wing span and is rigged out for carriers as you might imagine.
The RAF will be getting 75 B versions to replace the GR9s (I think) and the navy will be getting 75 to replace..well err to actually give them some fixed wing capability back.
I know there is some debate about the usefullness of VSTOL considering the range and payload limitations. I am not qualified to comment on this but what is noteworthy is that the F35B would not have had the range to fly from a carrier and operate over Afganistain.
To be honest i am cynical about the JSF, it promises to be everything to everybody for a relatively low price.
The RAF will be getting 75 B versions to replace the GR9s (I think) and the navy will be getting 75 to replace..well err to actually give them some fixed wing capability back.
I know there is some debate about the usefullness of VSTOL considering the range and payload limitations. I am not qualified to comment on this but what is noteworthy is that the F35B would not have had the range to fly from a carrier and operate over Afganistain.
To be honest i am cynical about the JSF, it promises to be everything to everybody for a relatively low price.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can somebody tell me why we are buying the STOVL version of F35 when we are also buying two bloody great 50K ton carriers? Surely that gives enough deck for even the FAA to land conventionally? Some of the figures I have heard for its range/payload are pathetic and, when coupled to the support costs of the carriers and all their attendant hangers-on, the cost/effectiveness of the whole thing looks ridiculous. If you have the sort of air superiority that seems to have been established over Iraq within the first 24 hours, do you need a high-performance ordnance-deliverer at all? No. You need some air superiority fighters (a few Typhoons should do fine) and ideally a tanker/transport that can be fitted to deliver JDAMS and cruise missiles.
Can anyone think of a scenario where we are likely to have to go it alone without the Yanks, and where there is a credible air threat? If so, God help us! Every shot I saw of the army in the recent conflict, they were drawn up in parade-ground order just waiting for a stick of something nasty. Every lesson the army learnt in WW2 has been forgotten. But of course they have not had to fight under a hostile air envrionment since the reatreat from Burma in 1942.
Can anyone think of a scenario where we are likely to have to go it alone without the Yanks, and where there is a credible air threat? If so, God help us! Every shot I saw of the army in the recent conflict, they were drawn up in parade-ground order just waiting for a stick of something nasty. Every lesson the army learnt in WW2 has been forgotten. But of course they have not had to fight under a hostile air envrionment since the reatreat from Burma in 1942.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can somebody tell me why we are buying the STOVL version of F35 when we are also buying two bloody great 50K ton carriers?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omnipotent
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STOVL/CV
It's not necessarily the STOVL version anyway, the carriers will be built with the ability to be either conventional or STOVL, with all the problems that changing from one to another after build, having supposedly been avoided.
I can't believe that someone said 'JSF' and 'Cheap' in the same sentance!
I can't believe that someone said 'JSF' and 'Cheap' in the same sentance!
Thought this was about the Eurofighter?
FV Does Sierra Leone ring any bells? Succesful use of aircraft to scare rebels.
FV Does Sierra Leone ring any bells? Succesful use of aircraft to scare rebels.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 30th Apr 2003 at 07:32.
Partly, WEBF, but since Navaleye asked/said:
"Is theEurofighter the wrong aircarft at the wrong time for the RAF? Perhaps expanding the JSF order is better value."
It's perhaps not altogether surprising that we're chatting about the F-35 too...
"Is theEurofighter the wrong aircarft at the wrong time for the RAF? Perhaps expanding the JSF order is better value."
It's perhaps not altogether surprising that we're chatting about the F-35 too...
Yes, WEBF, I'm glad you mentioned Sierra Leone, since it was a great argument against Carriers.
1) The Jag Squadron in the Azores was held back from deploying forward to Senegal (full basing permission already in the bag) from where it could have supported ground troops with PII, CRV7 and guns. (1,000 lb bombs and CBUs were ruled out due to colateral damage concerns). Oh yes, and it had a decent recce capability. And they could have been flying ops days before the carrier got there.
2) The only suitable weapon available to the GR.Mk 7s on the carrier then was..... "noise", due to aircraft and carrier hangar/magazine limitations.
1) The Jag Squadron in the Azores was held back from deploying forward to Senegal (full basing permission already in the bag) from where it could have supported ground troops with PII, CRV7 and guns. (1,000 lb bombs and CBUs were ruled out due to colateral damage concerns). Oh yes, and it had a decent recce capability. And they could have been flying ops days before the carrier got there.
2) The only suitable weapon available to the GR.Mk 7s on the carrier then was..... "noise", due to aircraft and carrier hangar/magazine limitations.