UK Defence Forum

Cooper wrote:
Anyone that chooses F16's over Typhoons were never really in a financial position to buy them anyway...

In a way that is correct, as unlike Qatar and UAE they are less likely to be able to afford a mixed fleet (they will be also upgrading their existing 40 F-16s)... there might be other upgrades close by:
"talking to them about buying an additional production aircraft which will be designated Block 70,” he [from LM] said.

"Bahrain, the first country in the region to acquire F-16s about 25 years ago, is also looking to upgrade its existing fleet of 20 Block 40 aircraft", he said.

"Lockheed Martin is still in discussions about possible upgrade of the UAE’s Block 60 F-16s" which in their day, over ten years ago were way ahead of all other F-16s... as UAE threw $2bn development money into the ring.

Cooper wrote:

RetroSicotte wrote:Waited far too long on Bahrain. Missed the chance when it was sitting right there years ago.

Anyone that chooses F16's over Typhoons were never really in a financial position to buy them anyway...

There was chat some time ago about the Saudi's helping them finance a Typhoon buy in order to share fleets. But much like the Batch 2 for the Saudis, it all got delayed with successive Governments persistently failing to really push hard for it and failing to control even their own party constantly dredging up negative impacts on relations with them.

RetroSicotte wrote: chat some time ago about the Saudi's helping them finance a Typhoon buy in order to share fleets

It's a bit more than that as the Saudis have been pushing for a shared maintenance facility - perhaps with their money, but importantly on their soil.
- no problem for Bahrain (closely linked with the KSA)
- next: Qatari Typhoons stopping over, for a little refresh?

Storm Shadow entering Operational Test and Evaluation with 41(R) Sqn

Can Storm Shadow still only be carried in place of the fuel tanks?

Carrying two storm shadow must kill the unfulfilled range of Typhoon, another reason for conformal Tanks.

shark bait wrote:Can Storm Shadow still only be carried in place of the fuel tanks?

Carrying two storm shadow must kill the unfulfilled range of Typhoon, another reason for conformal Tanks.

Yup, still is as I am aware.

Definite case for conformals, but unfortunately "having" Storm Shadow is enough for the Government to soundbite that "we have upgraded and retained this capability from Tornado".

It's a checkbox.

A refuel over Europe, Conformals and Storm Shadow gives a hell of a reach from the UK.

USAF have been observed running long rage strike missions from Lakenheath to somewhere in north Africa, something useful for the RAF?

shark bait wrote:Can Storm Shadow still only be carried in place of the fuel tanks?

Carrying two storm shadow must kill the unfulfilled range of Typhoon, another reason for conformal Tanks.

You can carry one fuel tank on the centre station, as per the picture, when carrying stores on the centre wing pylon.

Edited for clarity.

topman wrote:
You can carry one on the centre station, as per the picture.

So, the airsuperiority fighter has been somewhat mod'ded over the last dozen years, from this:
"The Typhoon has a simple, wide-track main landing gear, but unlike the Rafale it does not have a high-capacity central stores station, and the inner-wing stations are limited because stores have to clear the landing gear."
- SS being a tad bigger than the A2A ordnance

Now, talking about the "one key RAF Tornado capability [that] is not scheduled for transfer— the Reconnaissance Airborne Pod for TORnado (RAPTOR)"... the name turned out to be an omen. Even though they did fly with it, fitted off(!) centre.

It's not sitting on the center station, its blocking the view of the rear landing gear.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- next: Qatari Typhoons stopping over, for a little refresh?

Given the current political fracas I suspect not....but given the way things work in the ME it wouldn't be an impossibility

ArmChairCivvy wrote:So, the airsuperiority fighter has been somewhat mod'ded over the last dozen years

Everyone keeps repeating this, but they all forget that the requirement that Typhoon was built for was in fact a Phantom AND Jaguar replacement. It has always been intended to be a swing role aircraft. Obviously the Phantom was gone already when Typhoon first flew, and the cancellation of FOAS has meant that Typhoon has in effect replaced Phantom, Jaguar, Tornado GR4 and F3.

The biggest (cheap) enhancement we could do for Typhoon would be a mounting for a targeting pod. At the moment its regularly hung on the centre (wet) pylon.

shark bait wrote:USAF have been observed running long rage strike missions from Lakenheath to somewhere in north Africa, something useful for the RAF?

Tornado did run SS missions from Marham against Libya. I'm still convinced that the SS range figures are massively understating its range. By a factor of 3...

Timmymagic wrote:cancellation of FOAS has meant that Typhoon has in effect replaced Phantom, Jaguar, Tornado GR4 and F3.

The biggest (cheap) enhancement we could do for Typhoon would be a mounting for a targeting pod. At the moment its regularly hung on the centre (wet) pylon.

I am a great fan of the a/c (its potential).

But as for FOAS, I seem to remember that the £ 1bn budget line for it was removed at about the same time when we paid into the Tier1 partnership on JSF => JSF = FOAS?

With conformals, keep the pylons for "useful" uses. Afterall, the wind testing of the conformals was restarted in a BAE tunnel a couple of years back; nothing is done without a purpose...

Timmymagic wrote: I'm still convinced that the SS range figures are massively understating

You only need to read the anti-proliferation treaty texts to come to some conclusion why these air-launched missiles (not just SS) all seem to have abt the same max. range

ArmChairCivvy wrote: With conformals, keep the pylons for "useful" uses. Afterall, the wind testing of the conformals was restarted in a BAE tunnel a couple of years back; nothing is done without a purpose...

I note bae are pushing for them, current line however is, nice but not a funding priority. Its felt the tanker force is sufficient for any long range mission.

Timmymagic wrote: The biggest (cheap) enhancement we could do for Typhoon would be a mounting for a targeting pod. At the moment its regularly hung on the centre (wet) pylon.

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.

topman wrote: not a funding priority. Its felt the tanker force is sufficient for any long range mission.

That has been my reading on RAF's part, too. If Luftwaffe takes more Typhoons as Tornado replacements ("penetrating strike") then we might see a lot of those conformals... thereby them becoming "cheap as chips"?

I doubt the GAF would be interested tbh. Not really something they do a great deal or have much of an interest in.

topman wrote:I doubt the GAF would be interested tbh. Not really something they do a great deal or have much of an interest in.

Don't the Luftwaffe use their Tornadoes to carry the Taurus cruise missile? If so they'll need the Typhoon as a replacement.

They do however many of that type of weapon they have I don't see them having a great appetite to use them. So it'll be a low priority for them to add extra cost onto typhoon to help them do a type of mission that they aren't really interested in.

There were, at some point, plans for the Targeting Pod to be mounted on the front right BVR recessed hardpoint, similar to where the Rafale mounts its Pod. You can stil lsee this layout in some old BAE infographics from years ago. At some point it was dropped as a requirement.

That one move would be very useful in freeing up another wet point.

topman wrote: I don't see them having a great appetite to use them. So it'll be a low priority for them

I think you are right about the past, but I can see a change in their mindset and not so sure the view about the future is equally "spot on".

RetroSicotte wrote: At some point it was dropped as a requirement.

- at the point when "we are going to get 138 5th gen strike fighters" became the thought of the day
- the thought is changing, but the requirement change has been frozen

topman wrote: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....

ArmChairCivvy wrote:You only need to read the anti-proliferation treaty texts to come to some conclusion why these air-launched missiles (not just SS) all seem to have abt the same max. range

In the UK's case as the manufacturer of SS the anti proliferation treaty has no effect. It's only when we export it that it comes into play. Hence the Black Shaheen for the UAE.

Have a look at the dimensions, weight and warhead size of an air-launched Tomahawk....pretty much exactly the same as an SS. No wonder the RAF keeps changing the range figure on their website...they keep forgetting what the 'correct' one is...