Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

[ArmChairCivvy]

It's only when we export it that it comes into play. Hence the Black Shaheen for the UAE.

Proliferation only concerns third countries.

And the Treaty is tighter than for the strategic ones, where the carrier (missile or whatever) can be shared/ transferred.

And as for the intermediate-range, ground launched... we already know that Russia has re-used the paper that the treaty was written on. And that one was not focussed on third countries... so quite a serious thing. Combined with: "you know, we will escalate early... because we are only a little bear, and you nasty guys around us are threatening" (at least we feel that way... or at least we need to make our population feel that way. So that they don't feel that they are being robbed)

[topman]

I'm not sure it'd be cheap, there's not many places you could fit another station to hang a targeting pod on. It'd probably be cheaper to bring in to service the original plans for larger fuel tanks that were meant to used on the wing stations.

A new pylon up near the intake would cost a fortune, but hanging a pod on one of the conformal AAM stations would make an awful lot of sense. I seem to remember the US doing that with early Pave Spike generation pods on the Phantom. Realistically a Typhoon carrying 3 Meteor (instead of 4) and 2 Asraam is pretty well equipped for any air to air fighting....

There's really not much difference. there's not much space to fit it (the bits needed internally) and I don't think it be a small issues stress and fatigue wise to add it on in that part of the airframe.

Yes it would have been nice but that time has gone I'd say. We'll have to deal as it is now.

[ArmChairCivvy]

that time has gone I'd say. We'll have to deal as it is now.

Yes.

[Lord Jim]

Of course we can still operate packages where only some of the planes carry a Designator Pod. I am sure I have also seen a picture of the Pod being carried on one of the inner wing pylons. Sure it restricts the view of the pod but less so the higher you fly. Not always ideal but a possible option.

[dmereifield]

"The UK Royal Air Force (RAF) is to scrap 16 UK Eurofighter Typhoons as part of a project to save GBP 800 million (USD1.13 billion) on the running cost of the service's combat aircraft fleet."

http://www.janes.com/article/77413/raf- ... t-typhoons

Is this a sensible cost saving measure or is it a bad idea?

[sunstersun]

Sensible as fuck. Tranche 1 typhoons are a drain on resources while being terrible aircraft.

[ArmChairCivvy]

How could you possibly say that? Click bait begs to differ:

[Defiance]

They're mostly cutting twin seaters, you just don't need as many trainers these days.

[gordon44]

Very sensible , according to Jane's . £50 million approx per aircraft off parts. A balancing act too , as the F35 fleet will build up , so the Typhoon fleet will decrease .

[SKB]

Can we keep 10 of them? (1 as a spare)

[RetroSicotte]

And suddenly maintaining over 200 fast jet combat aircraft becomes further and further away.

Strangely enough, this gets less attention as Battalions and Escorts from the perspective of critical mass. Especially as many F-35 are going to be required to function effectively as "navy aircraft" (as they should).

Trainers or not, this is just a cut. Nothing sensible about cuts at all.

[shark bait]

When was the last time we maintained over 200 jets? Why would you pick that number as the critical mass?

I believe there is a small surplus of typhoon, so removing some of the older ones from device may be a reasonable measure, that has little effect on operations.

An improved maintenance schedule was supposed to free up aircraft for an additional squadron, so I guess they are now saving that money instead of spending it, with increasing pressure elsewhere in the RAF so something has to give.

[RetroSicotte]

When was the last time we maintained over 200 jets? Why would you pick that number as the critical mass?

I believe there is a small surplus of typhoon, so removing some of the older ones from device may be a reasonable measure, that has little effect on operations.

An improved maintenance schedule was supposed to free up aircraft for an additional squadron, so I guess they are now saving that money instead of spending it, with increasing pressure elsewhere in the RAF so something has to give.

Not that long ago, really. It was maybe only 5 years back, at the very longest back to 2010.

It's also a number that peer countries with similar levels of spending are above. France, the Saudis and Japan all maintain (and intend to maintain going forward) well over 200 each. And that's only counting Japan's modern aircraft, not the F-4s.

Right now the RAF meanwhile is set to probably drop to something like 125 when Tornado retires, around half of others at a similar level of spending. The excuse of "but we have 5th gens!" doesn't even work either, much as I'm a believer in that jets's potential. Because A) Mass matters and B) Japan's also getting them too anyway, so its a false comparison.

It's one of the biggest long term reductions that is getting very little attention paid to it.

[Caribbean]

Does that account for all the T1/T1A/T3 dual-seaters? And will we still be standing up the two "new" squadrons that were being muttered about so recently.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Not that long ago, really. It was maybe only 5 years back, at the very longest back to 2010.

If you go back to those days, yes, the plan was for a couple under 120 tiffies and a few over 90 Tornados (to be upgraded and then run down, to 2024, gradually with the F-35s coming in).
- so, with a couple of write-offs over the one and half decade (for both types) plan period it does make 200

Come the first day of 2024 and we will have only 23 F-35s, and the gap will be padded (for a long time) with the Tranche 1 tiffies (now minus the 2-seaters), which are not due to receive all the upgrades - which, in turn, does make a lot of sense.

[Little J]

Can we keep 10 of them? (1 as a spare)

Although that would bloody expensive to operate / justify, I would actually stay at Farnborough till the very end to watch 9 of those thundering around the sky

[Lord Jim]

Remember the plan a few years back, as describes by the CoAS, where the RAF was to be left with five front line Typhoon squadrons and only one or two F-35B Squadrons. If we look way forward the RAF could still end up with only seven Squadrons with say five with F-35s including one with the FAA and two squadrons of Stealthy high speed UCAVs as its fleet.

A lot of this has to do with the change from having forty eight plus aircraft deployable used to calculate the number of fast jets the RAF (and FAA) required to half of that. This has led to the large cuts in squadron numbers over the past two decades.

[topman]

Does that account for all the T1/T1A/T3 dual-seaters? And will we still be standing up the two "new" squadrons that were being muttered about so recently.

They'll be a few T2 twin stickers left behind. There weren't any T3 twin seaters bought by the UK, I don't think any were made.

[Tempest414]

In this months Air Forces Monthly it said that 12 (B) Squadron will stand up on typhoon soon and as part of its duties it will help Qatar pilots and maintenance staff work up on type.

[Caribbean]

They'll be a few T2 twin stickers left behind.

Thanks Topman.

There weren't any T3 twin seaters bought by the UK,

Seems like the "T3" twins described on Wiki were actually just upgraded T1s - I guess we might be keeping those and dismantling some of the vanilla T1s

[topman]

Don't believe Wikipedia

[Defiance]

Don't believe Wikipedia

But in this case it's a thing. Tranche 1 twin seaters are designated T3.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Don't believe Wikipedia

But in this case it's a thing. Tranche 1 twin seaters are designated T3.

Indeed, but by that time training use had become secondary; this is what RAF's own page says:
". In order to fulfill a potential requirement for Typhoon to deploy to Op HERRICK, urgent single-nation work was conducted on Tranche 1 to develop an air-to-ground capability in 2008. Tranche 1 aircraft were declared as multi-role in Jul 2008, gaining the designation FGR4 (T3 2-seat variant), fielding the Litening Laser Designator Pod and Paveway 2, Enhanced Paveway 2 and 1000lb freefall class of weapons. "
- have we fired away all Paveway 2s by now? (Only 4s in service?)

[ArmChairCivvy]

This stuff, on the remaining Tornado fleet,
"Ultra’s Secure Communications on Tornado (SCoT) radios provide for robust communications and the long-awaited Tactical Information Exchange Capability (TIEC) datalink is now also found across the fleet"
has cost an arm and a leg. And that "across the fleet" is an interesting one: those with squadrons (about 30) or those deployed (never above half of that number, in the days when that kit has been around)?
- originally, when it was planned for the whole retained fleet (of 96) the cost was announced at around* £300m
... and where will it find its way to: Tiffie's or JSFs?

--------------
* I seem to remember that this figure was mentioned in the famous The Times article on the F-35 cost (as one not budgeted for, yet, in the new fleet)

[topman]

Where will what find it's way, the radios or the budget?