Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

I get a sense from reading these comments there maybe some confusion between a Tranche 3 typhoon which is production build configuration and effectivity of the aircraft and p3e upgrade to typhoon. The p3e upgrade will be going on all typhoons bar the tranche 1 build lot. This allows typhoon to operate the project centurion weapons and systems upgrades. Meteor on typhoon is ITAR free, the meteor for f35 is not.

When the production contracts for f35 block 4 are agreed and all the horse trading is completed we will see what UK weapons make the grade and make no mistake US armed forces and US weapons company’s have first and second dibs and whatever is left goes to the highest bidder. We may have to choose between meteor or spear in this round.

Integration of the Martel er anti ship missile on typhoon should be completed within the next year its just not for the UK.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Lord Jim »

What caused the confusion was the press release saying only a certain number of Typhoons were to get the new AESA, can't remember if it was 40 or 50. So the Conningsby wing will have AESA as they are the get up and go boys, where as the Lossiemouth Wing will trundle on with the older but capable radar in its home defence role, only to go else where in time of crisis or peacetime air policing duties for friendly nations.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Lord Jim wrote:What caused the confusion was the press release saying only a certain number of Typhoons were to get the new AESA, can't remember if it was 40 or 50. So the Conningsby wing will have AESA as they are the get up and go boys, where as the Lossiemouth Wing will trundle on with the older but capable radar in its home defence role, only to go else where in time of crisis or peacetime air policing duties for friendly nations.
I was thinking that may of been the case. The tranche 3 typhoon build standard being the ones getting asea as it costs the least. The tranche 2 requiring cooling systems to be added to accept the radar.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by abc123 »

About Spain and their future Typhoons:

• +40% of Gross Contract Value (contract
VAT, other taxes, social
security contribution)
returned to public
funds of Spanish Government.

https://www.eurofighter.com/files/thumb ... 18-072.jpg
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:Integration of the Martel er anti ship missile on typhoon should be completed within the next year its just not for the UK.
And that is only happening because it was required by a Gulf country.
- just like the current Gripen has an anti-ship missile because Thailand required it
- The Swedes thought having to fight any ships in the Baltic to be very unlikely
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote:Integration of the Martel er anti ship missile on typhoon should be completed within the next year its just not for the UK.
And that is only happening because it was required by a Gulf country.
- just like the current Gripen has an anti-ship missile because Thailand required it
- The Swedes thought having to fight any ships in the Baltic to be very unlikely
That’s the point other nations are now paying to intergate weapons, sensors and pods. You can integrate whatever you want or to save time and money purchase what others are integrating and get a RTS. It’s not all about just the partner airforces anymore.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Timmymagic »

SW1 wrote:I get a sense from reading these comments there maybe some confusion between a Tranche 3 typhoon which is production build configuration and effectivity of the aircraft and p3e upgrade to typhoon.
My reasoning for focusing the Meteor on the Tranche 3 Typhoon is primarily on them receiving the AESA upgrade first, might as well maximise Meteor's performance with the highest performance A2A platform we have. Amraam D on F-35B would give that the best capability with the easiest integration path at the earliest time for the reasons you have outlined. Might as well wait for the AESA equipped Meteor for F-35B integration.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote:AESA upgrade first, might as well maximise Meteor's performance with the highest performance A2A platform we have. Amraam D on F-35B would give that the best capability with the easiest integration path at the earliest time
Agreed about D on the Dave (is the 6 of them internally mod applicable to our B's btw?).

However, not so sure about the logical link between AESA and Meteor: will there be a range advantage from moving (gradually) to AESA on Typhoons? What there certainly will be is the gain in "see, but not be seen"
- once you've acquired a target, you can track it without advertising yr presence to everyone else (with the wide beam of the mechanically scanned radar)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote:Integration of the Martel er anti ship missile on typhoon should be completed within the next year its just not for the UK.
And that is only happening because it was required by a Gulf country.
- just like the current Gripen has an anti-ship missile because Thailand required it
- The Swedes thought having to fight any ships in the Baltic to be very unlikely
I thought the Swedes integrated the SAAB RBS-15 on to the Gripen from day one, they just decided not to use it even though they have the missiles and the aircraft is capable? Like their deciding to reintroduce coastal RBS-15 missile batteries, I wouldn't be surprised if they are looking at actually bringing this capability on line.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: have the missiles and the aircraft is capable? Like their deciding to reintroduce coastal RBS-15 missile batteries, I wouldn't be surprised if they are looking at actually bringing this capability on line.
Were that the case, then the industry sources reporting that the Thais paid for the integration would be wrong
- the previous generations, all the way from Lansen, had that capability (over the years missiles have obviously changed)

The coastal batteries story is similar: they had all the kit ordered and paid, decided to "save" and only kept the missiles, binned all the rest (or put examples into museums)... a painful road back. - Luckily other countries had been ordering all the accessories (to use RBS-15 from land) and the production line was still there.
- similar story with the CV90 mortars (BAE recently delivered a much toned-down version... after the base vehicles had spent 20 years in storage)

OK, we also have Tiffies in storage, but they are being rotated, with the aim of husbanding the airframe hours across the fleet, to make a reasonable number reach at least 2040
- so nothing crazy about that
- except that there might be info about qualified pilot numbers kept back? The 2010 SDSR throttled back the training pipeline quite drastically, so by now that would be showing
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Timmymagic »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:However, not so sure about the logical link between AESA and Meteor: will there be a range advantage from moving (gradually) to AESA on Typhoons? What there certainly will be is the gain in "see, but not be seen"
- once you've acquired a target, you can track it without advertising yr presence to everyone else (with the wide beam of the mechanically scanned radar)
It's more that the Typhoon Tranche 3 with AESA will be our 'go to' force for operations where the possibility of actually engaging with enemy air forces is higher. Might as well deploy the best kit to where it is most likely going to be of use. Meteor would be available for use with Tranche 2 as well, but primarily focused on the T3 as they would be the go to for A2A work. T2 non-AESA (until the plan changes) if paired with T3 would be likely doing swing role.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Why would you do that ideally you only want 1 bvr missile meteor and should/are working towards that. Meteor is on typhoon now why delay force role out or limit it to units that will at some point get an AESA radar a/c when we don’t know exactly when that will be.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Timmymagic »

SW1 wrote:Why would you do that ideally you only want 1 bvr missile meteor and should/are working towards that. Meteor is on typhoon now why delay force role out or limit it to units that will at some point get an AESA radar a/c when we don’t know exactly when that will be.
Because we're getting up to 200 Amraam D, if we re-life the C-5's (principally for T1 Typhoons that will never get Meteor or AESA) and have the initial buys of Meteor we're actually looking good for the next few years. With the JNAAM collaboration underway, and with the prospect of Meteor gaining a Japanese AESA seeker head around the same time as the Captor-E Radar 2 could be ready we'd be best served by waiting for a 'full fat' Meteor then and avoiding any costly upgrades to keep relatively new Meteor's competitive in the Seeker dept. We're not going to one BVR missile any time soon. The Amraam D's will be around for the next 20 years at least. If re-lifed the C-5s could last until 2030, until the T1's on UK QRA retire. Ultimately, the delays to Typhoon integration, decision to retain T1's and the failure to get integration onto F-35B soon have killed the idea of purely having Meteor for BVR, at least until 2035+.

At the end of the day the stars have aligned to a degree. If we go ahead with the JNAAM upgrade to Meteor, order Captor-E radar 2 and integrate Meteor to F-35B all of those events occur in the 2025 timeframe. May as well maximise that situation, we will have lots of options up to then.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote:Because we're getting up to 200 Amraam D, if we re-life the C-5's (principally for T1 Typhoons that will never get Meteor or AESA) and have the initial buys of Meteor we're actually looking good for the next few years. With the JNAAM collaboration underway
like I stated before, there is an economic case for this, with only minor operational disadvantages
- worthwhile to note that the 'newer' Meteor is due for full testing in 2022
Timmymagic wrote:If re-lifed the C-5s could last until 2030, until the T1's on UK QRA retire.
Easily when we talk about shelf life (fuel & battery circuits); however it is not just calendar years, but also air hours (in this case I believe it to be 1500... so you can just use a pair for all of those hours, and then discard them - in the case of C5s)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote: Sorry thought it was 120, that may be the figure for the number of C-5 that we have
If that is the case (and they have been or are being relifed) then we have (120/2) x 1500 QRA hrs up to 2030
- if the patrol/ scramble is done in pairs, then only one a/c would be armed (routinely)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Timmymagic »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Easily when we talk about shelf life (fuel & battery circuits); however it is not just calendar years, but also air hours (in this case I believe it to be 1500... so you can just use a pair for all of those hours, and then discard them - in the case of C5s)
I think there may be a question about manufacturer support as well, as well as general obsolescence.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by downsizer »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: - if the patrol/ scramble is done in pairs, then only one a/c would be armed (routinely)
Eh? What?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

downsizer wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote: - if the patrol/ scramble is done in pairs, then only one a/c would be armed (routinely)
Eh? What?
Pls do refine the calculation :D how to make the C5s last out to 2030
- every little bit helps ;) (talking about money pinching, in extremis)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by downsizer »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
downsizer wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote: - if the patrol/ scramble is done in pairs, then only one a/c would be armed (routinely)
Eh? What?
Pls do refine the calculation :D how to make the C5s last out to 2030
- every little bit helps ;) (talking about money pinching, in extremis)
Pretty sure both QRA jets will always be armed.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Timmymagic wrote:
SW1 wrote:Why would you do that ideally you only want 1 bvr missile meteor and should/are working towards that. Meteor is on typhoon now why delay force role out or limit it to units that will at some point get an AESA radar a/c when we don’t know exactly when that will be.
Because we're getting up to 200 Amraam D, if we re-life the C-5's (principally for T1 Typhoons that will never get Meteor or AESA) and have the initial buys of Meteor we're actually looking good for the next few years. With the JNAAM collaboration underway, and with the prospect of Meteor gaining a Japanese AESA seeker head around the same time as the Captor-E Radar 2 could be ready we'd be best served by waiting for a 'full fat' Meteor then and avoiding any costly upgrades to keep relatively new Meteor's competitive in the Seeker dept. We're not going to one BVR missile any time soon. The Amraam D's will be around for the next 20 years at least. If re-lifed the C-5s could last until 2030, until the T1's on UK QRA retire. Ultimately, the delays to Typhoon integration, decision to retain T1's and the failure to get integration onto F-35B soon have killed the idea of purely having Meteor for BVR, at least until 2035+.

At the end of the day the stars have aligned to a degree. If we go ahead with the JNAAM upgrade to Meteor, order Captor-E radar 2 and integrate Meteor to F-35B all of those events occur in the 2025 timeframe. May as well maximise that situation, we will have lots of options up to then.
200 missiles is quite a small number its also likely they will be delivered over a period of time. These will likely be predominantly for f35 as meteor integration maybe some considerable time away.

T1s aren’t solely on qra, also there isn’t many t1s left. As was seen before Christmas meteor was on the qra launch jets. Getting them on as many typhoons as possible is better as you increase knowledge and use. Any future Japanese collaboration will be bought as future stocks at a later date an maybe used against a greater target set than just aircraft. It has little relevance to equipping the fleet now.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Timmymagic »

SW1 wrote:200 missiles is quite a small number its also likely they will be delivered over a period of time. These will likely be predominantly for f35 as meteor integration maybe some considerable time away.
I'd wager that 200 Amraam D would actually be a very significant, if not the main component of the UK BVR missile stockpile. What else do you think is there? No Skyflash, no Amraam B, just Amraam C-5's and a tiny number of Meteor at the moment. There ain't 1,000 missiles or 500 even. The UK FMS for Amraam C-5 was for $144m in 2004. That doesn't get you many missiles at all with a 10 year servicing contract. 120 Missiles is probably the max that could have bought, it may be significantly less.

As for the delivery speed for the Amraam D, it will be multi year, but it will be a lot faster due to production volumes than Meteor. Yes they will go on F-35 but are also being talked about for the Typhoon's that cannot have Meteor integrated, hence why it would be interesting to know if the proposed C-5 re-life is going ahead or if it has been supplanted by an Amraam D purchase.
SW1 wrote:Any future Japanese collaboration will be bought as future stocks at a later date an maybe used against a greater target set than just aircraft.
I think you might be over-optimistic on the numbers of missiles that we actually hold in stock or are purchasing. I'd be amazed if we could actually put a full loadout on every fighter we have at the moment...

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Timmymagic wrote:
SW1 wrote:200 missiles is quite a small number its also likely they will be delivered over a period of time. These will likely be predominantly for f35 as meteor integration maybe some considerable time away.
I'd wager that 200 Amraam D would actually be a very significant, if not the main component of the UK BVR missile stockpile. What else do you think is there? No Skyflash, no Amraam B, just Amraam C-5's and a tiny number of Meteor at the moment. There ain't 1,000 missiles or 500 even. The UK FMS for Amraam C-5 was for $144m in 2004. That doesn't get you many missiles at all with a 10 year servicing contract. 120 Missiles is probably the max that could have bought, it may be significantly less.

As for the delivery speed for the Amraam D, it will be multi year, but it will be a lot faster due to production volumes than Meteor. Yes they will go on F-35 but are also being talked about for the Typhoon's that cannot have Meteor integrated, hence why it would be interesting to know if the proposed C-5 re-life is going ahead or if it has been supplanted by an Amraam D purchase.
SW1 wrote:Any future Japanese collaboration will be bought as future stocks at a later date an maybe used against a greater target set than just aircraft.
I think you might be over-optimistic on the numbers of missiles that we actually hold in stock or are purchasing. I'd be amazed if we could actually put a full loadout on every fighter we have at the moment...
I don’t know what missile stocks there are or of what type but productions contracts for meteor with all partner nations was signed in 2012 so I would suspect stocks have been building up to allow entry to service especially if there required for QRA tasking.

You do know it was only a notification to Congress of an option to buy up to 200 missiles. It’s not how many will be bought.

I’m sure budget issues means stock numbers are kept bare minimum but 200 would equip about 48 a/c so it’s not a lot especially as I assume all squadrons still fire some at missile training deployments each year.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote:The UK FMS for Amraam C-5 was for $144m in 2004. That doesn't get you many missiles at all with a 10 year servicing contract. 120 Missiles is probably the max that could have bought, it may be significantly less.
Deagel gives per piece price as $1.5m
SW1 wrote:productions contracts for meteor with all partner nations was signed in 2012 so I would suspect stocks have been building up
France took 16 or 18 last year, just as an example (the Swedes were the first to put it into service, with a radar upgrade to make use of the range)
downsizer wrote: Pretty sure both QRA jets will always be armed.
Sarcasm is a difficult art; perhaps I should avoid it?
- translation in this case: to make the C-5s last (and cover all QRAs) out to 2030 might need bending backwards and touching the ground with the nose... and might still not do the trick
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote: have the missiles and the aircraft is capable? Like their deciding to reintroduce coastal RBS-15 missile batteries, I wouldn't be surprised if they are looking at actually bringing this capability on line.
Were that the case, then the industry sources reporting that the Thais paid for the integration would be wrong
- the previous generations, all the way from Lansen, had that capability (over the years missiles have obviously changed)

The coastal batteries story is similar: they had all the kit ordered and paid, decided to "save" and only kept the missiles, binned all the rest (or put examples into museums)... a painful road back. - Luckily other countries had been ordering all the accessories (to use RBS-15 from land) and the production line was still there.
- similar story with the CV90 mortars (BAE recently delivered a much toned-down version... after the base vehicles had spent 20 years in storage)

The Swedish Air Force received its first RBS-15F missile in 1887 these being the air launched version of the RBS-15 Mk1 introduced into service with the Swedish Navy in 1985. These will be replaced by the RBS-15F-ER in the early 2020s, this being a development of the RBS-15 MK3+. The 12 aircraft obtained by Thailand were already wired etc for the weapon during manufacture as Maritime Strike was one of the primary roles for the JAS-39. Now whether the Swedish Air Force decided in the 1990s that the threat from the Soviet Baltic Fleet had gone away and so they no linger the train with the weapon I do not know, but they still have them in storage and as I mentioned above are looking at introducing an improved version in a few years time.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:are looking at introducing an improved version in a few years time.
Which was just "launched" commercially, and was also in the running for the Finnish corvettes in build (plus replacing the older version on FCAs and in shore batteries; lost out to Israeli next-gen 'Gabriel' though).

Let's look at the detail, as the ER thinking was modified; meanwhile the Swedish navy has gone over to Mk2 but both the navy and the air force will skip Mk3 (see end comment about the AF):
"Mk3 was a radical redesign resulting in what was basically a completely new missile. Following a four-year test program it was adopted by the German Navy, and shortly after that by the Poles. The Swedish Navy is still soldiering on with the MkII, and would have been happy to adopt the Mk3. However, the Swedish Air Force had other thoughts, and had a requirement for the weapon to be lighter to allow four missiles to be carried simultaneously by the upcoming 39E Gripen. The result was the RBS15 ‘Next Generation’ (still lacking an official designation, though Mk4 wouldn’t come as a surprise), which is an upgraded Mk3 with a lighter launch weight, longer range, and generally improved performance. The weapon is contracted for introduction into Swedish service for both the Navy and the Air Force during the next decade"
- now Typhoon has Martel (Martel was dictated by an export customer that deploys it also in their navy)
- the new Gripen, thanks to the modified development path I mentioned before the quote, despite being at the smaller end in size (amongst modern fighter a/c) will be able to carry 4, easily beating the 3 JSMs carried by Norway's F-35s... Norway had the unique requirement for range, to be able to defend the Norway-Spitzbergen (Svalbard) gap, and that eliminated Gripen simply due to its size (fuel/ range) despite unequalled anti-shipping fire power
... can't remember if Typhoon was even in the running (the Marte story arose later)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply