Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

[LordJim]

It is the low numbers of airframes per squadron that concerns me, with each squadron having only 12 on the books. These rotate out of deep maintenance, but how many can be reasonably deemed full serviceable per squadron at any one time. I know retaining squadrons numbers is the equivalent of army cap badges, but at this rate we are going to have to adopt the French system of wings made up of 2-3 8 aircraft squadrons, but at least we would still have all the squadron badges. We may be actually unintentionally moving towards this already with the Wings at Lossiemouth, Marham and Coningsby. I would like to see more airframes in the squadrons as soon as pilot numbers allow.

[Tinman]

It is the low numbers of airframes per squadron that concerns me, with each squadron having only 12 on the books. These rotate out of deep maintenance, but how many can be reasonably deemed full serviceable per squadron at any one time. I know retaining squadrons numbers is the equivalent of army cap badges, but at this rate we are going to have to adopt the French system of wings made up of 2-3 8 aircraft squadrons, but at least we would still have all the squadron badges. We may be actually unintentionally moving towards this already with the Wings at Lossiemouth, Marham and Coningsby. I would like to see more airframes in the squadrons as soon as pilot numbers allow.

The low numbers on Sqns represent the proven availabikity record of Typhoon, its a seriously reliable aircraft.

[ArmChairCivvy]

We may be actually unintentionally moving towards this already with the Wings at Lossiemouth, Marham and Coningsby.

I thought we already have - formally, too - Expeditionary Airwings?

[downsizer]

Sqns pool their aircraft on MOBs all the time. Eng Ops dictate what frame goes where and when, no one really owns the jet these days.

EAWs on MOBs are more to deploy support staff, think drivers, chefs, suppliers etc. Sqns deploy as FUs presently.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Thanks for pointing out the difference

Sqns deploy as FUs presently.

- when was the last time when a full sqdrn was sent (since Libya)?

[downsizer]

On shader almost all of the sqns manpower deploys. Only the biffs and mongs stay behind.

If you mean when did we last deploy 12 jets, that is a different question.

[ArmChairCivvy]

If you mean when did we last deploy 12 jets, that is a different question

yep, only asked as the number of a/c in fast jet sqdrns seems to be an emotional question. And the count, re: the above, from announcements that come to mind would seem to be a round zero?

[downsizer]

Squadrons don't have manning to support 12 jets on Ops 24/7. Want to do that, increase the manpower.

[LordJim]

MANPOWER, one of the two key improvements our armed forces need, the other being MONEY.

[MRCA]

It's certainly feasible to put asea radar on tranche 1 jets (the test a/c are) is it economically a worth while option probably not. The RAF were getting rid of the tranche 1 jets for 1 reason only, they had no budget to run 7 frontline typhoon sqns so we're going to a tranche 2/3 fleet only. Sense has since prevailed. But if I were any nation buying a new plane why would I want anything other that the latest variant coming off the line?

I would hope the recent shoot down of the su22 with 2 missiles needing fired will make a few people take notice of what effective missile loads outs for air combat in the real word instead listening to sales men and broachures about certain new fighter a/c.

Finally someone's mention the issues the fastjet fleet have been having for years and why ideas about deploying 12 a/c to a certain ship on a reqular basis will be em entertaining for such a small force.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Finlands Chief of Defence visiting Lossiemouth for a tour & a look at the Typhoon.

http://www.insidemoray.com/lossiemouth- ... n-finland/

Another day in the office:

[Timmymagic]

I would hope the recent shoot down of the su22 with 2 missiles needing fired will make a few people take notice of what effective missile loads outs for air combat in the real word instead listening to sales men and broachures about certain new fighter a/c.

I'm more concerned that the seeker head of the AIM-9X is the same as the Asraam....hopefully it was just a faulty missile. I know CAMM has a new seeker head but...

[RetroSicotte]

One missed shot doesn't equal it being useless. Nothing's ever certain.

Not to mention, I don't think it was ever confirmed it was a 9X, so it may not even have been.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Did I see 700m as the (final) engagement range?

That is about the distance when missiles are still in their initial acceleration stage, so the fins do not have as much effect as at intended engagement ranges.

Using a gun (and not bringing the target down! Not likely, but a possibility) would have been the worst option.

[shark bait]

Considering it was developed to be resistant to flares, its a bit crap it got tricked by an 80's aircraft. Apparently they're pretty good at evading American built flares, but not much else.

Can't say it's at all surprising, all in-service missiles a really dumb and easily mislead. It's only very recently the onboard sensors and software have gained the high fidelity and field of view needed to spot a fake in such a short time frame. Untill now its mostly just been luck the missile goes for the right blob, thus multiple missiles per engagement is fairly routine.

[Timmymagic]

Considering it was developed to be resistant to flares, its a bit crap it got tricked by an 80's aircraft. Apparently they're pretty good at evading American built flares, but not much else.

Can't say it's at all surprising, all in-service missiles a really dumb, and easily mislead, its only very recently the onboard sensors and software have gained the high fidelity and field of view needed to spot a fake in such a short time frame.

It's a very close range shot as well, it could have even been used to avert an attack run or to manoeuvre for a better shot. We'll not know for 10+ years either way.

[ArmChairCivvy]

and field of view needed to...

Sure, a problem, but the bolded in this
"The Meteor BVRAAM features a state-of-the-art active radar seeker, a two-way data link communication, and a solid-fuelled Ramjet motor to engage a wide range of targets with pin point accuracy. It also carries a blast fragmentation warhead with proximity and impact fuses for optimum lethality. The missile has high countermeasures resistance and offers the biggest 'no escape zone.'["] together with the end stage kinematics
- surely the sensors on the launching a/c (or its companions) are not just better, but also have much more range so as to eliminate the "narrow window of sight" the missile itself has-
- very short engagement ranges pose different problems

[Pongoglo]

It's certainly feasible to put asea radar on tranche 1 jets (the test a/c are) is it economically a worth while option probably not. The RAF were getting rid of the tranche 1 jets for 1 reason only, they had no budget to run 7 frontline typhoon sqns so we're going to a tranche 2/3 fleet only. Sense has since prevailed. But if I were any nation buying a new plane why would I want anything other that the latest variant coming off the line?

So to put this to bed (hopefully!) how many Typhoon Sqns do people believe we will finally get and what will be the breakdown between T1 and T2/3 ? Last I heard it was to be 3 Sqns at Coningsby and 4 at Lossiemouth with the Coningsby Sqns being all T1 and the Lossiemouth Sqns being T2/3, however with the retention of all the T1's I also heard a figure of 8 being banded about giving two balanced Wings. Does this also include 29 Sqn, the OCU, still at Coningsby I believe?

[shark bait]

There will be 7 Typhoon Squadrons.

There is possibility for an 8th, but the thought is this will only be formed by reducing the size of the other 7, so the 8th is only a 'virtual' addition.

There will essentially be 2 new squadrons, formed by retaining the T1, or T3's in storage, which ever way you want to look at it.

I think there will be 3 + OCU at Coningsby, and 4 at Lossiemouth

Eventually the 2 x T1 Squadrons will be lost to the F35, which is a shame. 6 x Typhoon + 4 x F35 would be spot on IMO.

[ArmChairCivvy]

breakdown between T1 and T2/3 ? Last I heard it was to be 3 Sqns at Coningsby and 4 at Lossiemouth with the Coningsby Sqns being all T1

Furthermore, were the real T's within T1s (the two-seaters) retained, or only the one-seaters? If the latter, is the total the driver behind 8 a/c sqdrns (for now)?

[MRCA]

They're is currently budget to go to 7 typhoon sqns in effect taking the manpower of 2 of the tornado sqns due to decommission shortly. There is an aspiration for an 8th typhoon Sqn, this is all to do with ensuring the force is large enough to sustain a Sqn deployment as well conducting QRA taskings. The 8th could possible be formed if the sustainability and maintenance contract can continue to allow enough airframes to be available not to mention sufficient manpower. While RAF fast jet sqns notionally have 12 a/c assigned they almost never deploy more than 8-10 a/c at a time as a Sqn deployment. So essentially there thinking of going to a strength similar to harrier near the end eg 9 a/c a Sqn but deploying all the jets.

The ability to cram anymore into coningsby would be challenging the OCU, OEU and the repair and overhaul facility there as well as a few other things, I could see 5 going up Lossiemouth. They will try and keep all the tranche 1 jets at a single base to simplify logistics support. The 2 seat jets will most likely go as training jets, offloading training requirements to the new hawks and new simulators has so far meant recent graduates to the force having sometimes a single flight in the 2 sweaters before going solo.

Like with f35 the aspirations for a 3rd and 4th Sqn are that aspirational based on future budgets or possibly a a/c establishment similar to what the typhoon force is thinking of doing with the 8th Sqn. The requirement for these may form part of what the mix between UCAVs and manned jets turn out to be. The UK rarely commits more that 8 a/c from a single fleet to a particular theatre of operation.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Haven't seen the flight hour cost comparisons for years now (I guess the Parliament only gets interested when there is a choice to be made between types), but Austria is a good example of how to bump up the costs by building a sub-scale support organisation:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... looms.html
- Would guess the RAF gets away with just over half of that cost per hr (with a much more advanced fit-out, as well)

I think we are on our way of getting rid of the same problem at a lesser level: operating fleets within fleets?

[ArmChairCivvy]

A point made in the context of the Belgian fighter competition, also very relevant to the post-Tornado mission capabilities of the RAF:

"There is a catch though. The Laser Designator pod can only fit on the central station. This takes up one of the three wet points. Also, the landing gear folds sideways into the wing. Long weapons like the Storm Shadow can't be fitted on the two points close to the body. They have to go on the wet points on the wing. While a Rafale C could take three drop tanks plus two ALCM's, a Typhoon could not.

Fortunately conformal fuel tanks are in development [albeit the development has not proceeded further than wind-tunnel testing by BAE? Or has it; has not caught my eye in any form of news]. They can alleviate this problem. But it will remain impossible to attain the optimal combination of 2 CFT's + pod + one central drop tank. It is not possible to fly with just one wing tank. The package has to be evenly balanced."

There is a blog dedicated to the alternatives in the competition: https://bestfighter4belgium.blogspot.be/

[Defiance]

Likely waiting for someone to open their wallet at this point.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Exactly, and of the other partner nations (perhaps save for Italy, who will get F-35s) Deep Strike does not figure prominently.
- so you can guess whose wallet it will be