Yes, you'd think so wouldn't you Blacksheep? Unfortunately this government doesn't!

Blacksheep, the term "champagne on a beer income" springs to mind.
Seriously I do think we, as a country, need to very seriously consider whether we can still afford to be a "world power" or not, personally I think, unfortunately, the answer is not.

GG - we could afford it if we stopped wasting money... Cut the amount spent on quangos and MoD consultants by 50% each and you'd have £64 Billion to play with, of which a certain amount could be spent on defence/security, etc, etc...

We can quite easily afford to be a world power. However, the fact is that the military is just not a priority. The Govt is quite happy when it comes to forking out millions on benefits for those that can't be bothered to work, subsidising high levels of immigrants that could (and should) be claiming assylum in the first Euro country they get to, spending on wasteful management, quangos and focus groups - not to mention how many billions on consultants for the MoD (whose sole role appears to be to tell us we can't afford the kit we need and that to pay their fees we will have to sell off another sqn / warship / regt).

However, when it comes to spending cold hard cash on the national insurance policy during a time of war, well, we'll be fine. Give the Typhoon fund to McKinsey management consultants for their advice on setting up the Little Snoring on the Wold Single Parent Disabled Lesbian Support Group to help them achieve their potential as Olympic high jumpers...... cos there's more votes there than defence.

How many times have we recently heard politicians opine how it's dsigraceful that we are treated this way and that way and upholding the covenant? How many times have you actually seen them do anything about it? Not so much can't pay - more like won't pay. I rest my case!

With all respect, does the Eurofighter have a longer range than the F-35B?

The Lightning II has the highest fuel fraction of all existing American planes, something to the order of .35, because hanging pods will deplete its stealth. That's probably why it does look like a pigeon.

F-35B has a mission range of over 2000 km.
EF has a range of 1390 km, in fact it is famous for being a tad heavy and short legged.


I stand to be corrected. It is obvious that the EF is 15 years too late in any case.

That's as may be - but at least it's here! The F35 is at least half a decade away from RAF service, if not longer - by which time the Typhoon will be nicely in its stride.

LM - why is it 15 years too late?

That sort of line is often used by Typhoon's detractors, but is merely glib assertion without analysis. Do you mean that the capabilities offered by the aircraft are not up to the challenges of the current and likely future operating environments? Do you mean that it's been overtaken technologically by other newer aircraft Why 15 years too late?

Is your range comparison with underwing pylons fitted or not?

Bear in mind that from an RAF (and FAA) point of view, there will be meaningful numbers of Typhoons in service by 2015, while we won't have enough JCA airframes to do anything meanigful with the type until about 2020. What would the RAF do without the Typhoon, given that its aircraft would be increasingly aging platforms with various FI issues?

Given the context in which the RAF is getting the Typhoon (I concur that it's too late, but that's no fault of the aircraft design), why is it '15 years too late'?

So the government are saying, its either Tranche 3 Typhoon or Carrier Variant of F35, you cannot have both. Now lets look at a possible scenario:

The Government/MOD are not happy with the F35 that is being built due to technology exchange issues, cost escalation, delays to ISD, now another country has a similar aircraft to Typhoon that can be used on a carrier, Government/MOD ask the Typhoon consortium "can the Typhoon be modified to work off a carrier, how much will it cost and how long to convert a few". Consortium do a feasability study and it can be done at x cost, in y time, which is sooner than F35 and cheaper than F35, maybe we will call it Tranche 3..

So there is a possible reason why it is down to; Do you want F35 for the Carriers, or do you want a Carrier variant of Typhoon (Tranche 3), as you don't need/cannot afford both. Bearing in mind that this only a hypothesis.

Added before the people who have the proper gen start:

I am aware that Tranche 3 is another pre-planned upgrade to current planned capability though these may be rolled into Tranche 2, and various names for a carrier varient have been banded around like Sea Typhoon, Typhoon (N).

Like-minded

Would you care to define your 'mission range' capability with respect to F35B.

lm

"So the government are saying, its either Tranche 3 Typhoon or Carrier Variant of F35, you cannot have both. Now lets look at a possible scenario:

The Government/MOD are not happy with the F35 that is being built due to technology exchange issues, cost escalation, delays to ISD, now another country has a similar aircraft to Typhoon that can be used on a carrier, Government/MOD ask the Typhoon consortium "can the Typhoon be modified to work off a carrier, how much will it cost and how long to convert a few". Consortium do a feasability study and it can be done at x cost, in y time, which is sooner than F35 and cheaper than F35, maybe we will call it Tranche 3.."

#28 Above


Now see #16 :hmm:

Famous where? I've never heard that assertion. Bear in mind it is te F-35B that has had weight concerns, not the Tiff.

Tiff in a standard fit with external tanks (let alone conformals if those come along) should have a comparable or greater endurance than a F-35B which, unless they've changed anything recently, has no wet wing points.

F-35B should be excellent and I hope we get it for both the RAF and RN's sake. However, the Typhoon is already proving an excellent and versatile aircraft, well ahead of anything else in service today other than the F-22.

The reality is that we need both, and they each compliment one another effectively.

Regards.
MM

Yep saw post #16 , thought I would put in my pennys worth ;) anyway, and now for anyone who might be interested I have add this Link:

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-1.htm

F-35B - Facts but no Figures...
 

MM and others,

F-35B does have wet hard points. All 3 variants do. Why wouldn't they? All to note - the US are not stupid.

The fact is that Typhoon and F-35 (especially F-35B) are two radically different aircraft sitting in two different design spaces. Typhoon is an out and out air superiority fighter, optimised for high speed, high G sustained combat from BVR to close in. Period. Weight and internal volume is pared to the bone to achieve that - any ground attack capability it has is secondary. With all stores carried externally, it's 'mud-moving' range is severely degraded. But it's a truly excellent fighter - like it was designed to be.

F-35 is a strike fighter, which translates as 'not a bomber'. Small to keep cost down, designed to deliver weapons (especially precision weapons) in hostile environments. Has 'first day' stealth, then the ability to 'mud move' with external hardpoints. F-35B is a powered lift aircraft, which drives its design in large part - but it has a zero minimum flying speed. F-35A is a B with more fuel and bigger bays, F-35C is a B with lots more wing (driven by need to take the wire at an acceptable speed) and even more fuel (big wings have big tanks). But it does also have a good bit more drag and airframe weight to take carrier launch and recovery.

I agree, we probably need both EF and JSF. What we don't need, I believe, is the number of EFs that we have stuck to since SDR - it was always hard to justify, and I would not be surprised if we tried to scale back or cancel T3 to fully fund JSF.

With three OS squadrons of Jags to replace, and UK AD (which was once six squadrons of F3s) seven squadrons of Typhoons ("the number of EFs that we have stuck to since SDR") does not sound like "What we don't need" , nor is it remotely hard to justify, especially not when it's abundantly clear that a GR4 replacement isn't happening either.

With 'Bears' back probing APA9, and with an ongoing requirement for deployable OS/CAS, it strikes me that the Typhoon (whose performance is already proven, and whose cost is settled) will be a useful tool.

If hard choices need to be made, then I'd look elsewhere.

CVF/JSF won't be available for deployed ops for another 11 years, and even then it will be a bloody slow, and cripplingly expensive way of deploying a force whose sortie generation capability will be modest.

And that's if the JSF programme suddenly starts running like clockwork, and if we don't see further technical problems, delays, cost escalation, and if the USA don't continue to bugger us about on tech transfer and ITAR.

In an ideal world, we'd be back to a 24 or 30 squadron FJ force, and naturally that would include a carrier-borne element. But if funding is tight then we need to concentrate resources where they are most useful and most effective.

Which, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, is best achieved by not spending pots of cash on consultants rather than on rather more important things. I suspect that JCA and Typhoon T3 would both be affordable if the gross inefficiencies tucumseh notes and the frankly bizarre belief that defence can be run exactly like a business on the FTSE (something that no business types I know consider possible) were done away with...

Engines, I hope you're right. However, I've heard from a couple of sources that, at present, this is not the case.

Sadly, you're right on this and unfortunately the Army's insistence that anything not involved in Afghanistan and/or Iraq is not relevant is music to the ears of the Treasury. This means we're seeing big reductions in our overall capabilites which I fear will come back to haunt us in the future.

US Department of Defense: April 28 2006.

CONTRACTS - NAVY

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Ft. Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $52,400,000 ceiling-priced modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-02-C-3002) to exercise an option to certify the small diameter bomb for the U. S. Air Force Joint Strike Fighter conventional take off and landing (CTOL) aircraft and eliminate the effort for wind corrected munitions dispenser and external fuel tanks. Work will be performed in Ft. Worth, Texas (89 percent); El Segundo, Calif. (6 percent); Orlando, Fla. (3 percent); and Wharton, United Kingdom (2 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2013. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

At the risk of sounding stupid....
 

The Treasury is not all bad; after all, they are merely the voices of their political lords and masters.

Tuc has neatly outlined one of the problems, Engines et al the other. These are, therefore:

(i) MoD madly wasteful and equipped with a tin ear to solving problems largely of its own making, and

(ii) no political will from any party to signficantly increase military capital spending to recapitalise the forces' equipment as that procured for the Cold War wears out.

If the answer is that we need Tiffy and Dave (and pls make it Dave-C + E-2D + CVF escorts or lets not bother...), then MoD needs to get its own house in order as well as getting the political consensus to spend the cash. 2.2% of GDP is not a huge amount of cash, historically.

S41

Tranche Smanche
 

Boys
tranche 2 is not 'ours' anyway - it's going to Saudi (if they sign). Cutting T3 would be a massively short-sighted decision, especially in the current climate of increasing Russian Ops - the Q boys bagged Russians yesterday and loads of Bears have been intercepted over the past couple of months. 2 or 3 Sqns of Typhoons can't to north & south Q, Falklands and dets like the 'Stan. At this rate, standby to have the dear old F3 drawn out to 2015!

Archimedes,

If the JSF / Typhoon range comparison was based on a 'no pylons' configuration for the latter, what was it supposed to do whenever it got there ?

As far as I've read, the JSF is 'bearing in mind' the idea of plumbed wet pylons, but initially won't have them.