UK Defence Forum

Timmymagic wrote:

RetroSicotte wrote:s Raven AESA at the very least does match the past 120 degree plate of the Typhoon.

I was under the impression that Gripens was fixed in position and that it could rotate and the Typhoons installation was more a 'repositioner' so it could do all that Gripens could do and 'stare' as well.

I'm referring specifically to the ES-01 Raven AESA radar with that for the Gripen E, to be clear.

I am less sure about its current radar on the C/D etc.

RetroSicotte wrote: I am less sure about its current radar on the C/D etc.

That is the mechanically scanned, with the improved backend signal/ noise processing, so basically the same radar seeing further out.

And, yes, the AESA ES-05 for the E being very much on the lines of the CAPTOR, whereas as the PS-05A MkIV is the trick for the legacy a/c, allegedly improving the detection range by 50%.

I'm sure many have seen already...

Reports today in the Telegraph and Express (neither known for their defence reporting accuracy.. 5" toothbrushes etc.) that the SoS for Defence is looking to curtail the F-35 order after the first 48 and purchase further Typhoons.

The European manufactured jets are currently, on best estimates, about half the price of an F-35 - Torygraph

Now my immediate reaction was that this was a great idea and something i'd advocate, if for no other reason than to keep the line at Warton going till it's time to start something new. Then there's the proposal that Germany might be buying nearly 80 more too, alongside the 48 yet to be ordered by the Saudis, that could well drive down costs.

Indeed this might be the Typhoon's renaissance, or delayed adolescence for that matter, with a price point of half an F-35 that would be pretty competitive.

However, the downside would be, with less than 50 5th gen jets to utilise, surely they are going to be very rare sights atop a carrier? At least until the RAF eventually get a shinny new 6th gen in service.

Links: https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... -aircrafts

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... play-like/

Lastly this could all be nonsense but Gavin Williamson had a lot of form with leaking to the Telegraph when he was chief whip and this fits his style.

Jensy

If there ere sufficient F35bs and they were reserved (primarily for the carriers) (surely 48 wouldn't be enough, but 60 or whatever), would it be so bad if we went down this route? I can't imagine we are so organised to have coordinated this with the Germans/Japanese/Saudis' for a more joined up plan fir a Tranche 4...

The political fallout with the Yanks and the reputational damage for future multinational projects wouldn't be great (ending up with half or a third of the units we originally committed to)

60 sounds about right, with the RAF probably retaining a squadron.

Wouldn't mean a shortage of darts on the carriers as the USMC will take them up.

As for reputational damage it would be very slight, no-one really believed we were going to buy 138 anyway. Also they know that pushing the F-35 could result in serious capability losses elsewhere. Also Trump wouldn't be on strong ground as he was rather vocal about canning it.

Meanwhile Gav gets to solve the defence budget crisis almost in a stroke, promise more jobs in the North West, enhance ties with the Japanese and save some of the incoming cuts. He can also point out that having a single type for the RAF solves a lot of logistical problems. Training on the F-35 isn't an issue as it is all done in the States anyway, in fact the FAA could merely latch onto the USMC infrastructure.

Basically means the RAF would have given the RN £9 billion too, which is priceless.

Very strong move from Gav. I'm almost impressed.

Are people so sure that backing out of the full F35 order wouldn't be such a drama? By general consensus we have got a pretty good deal out of the programme. Reneging on our promises to our most important partner would make us look like a right bunch of wankers surely. Where would we stand next time around when looking for partners (US or otherwise) for a 6th gen aircraft ????? Seems morally dubious to me.

Plenty of countries row back on what they promised to do/buy. See all manner of defence programs for evidence. The world didn't stop turning then, it won't now.

Interesting. I must admit that the 138 figure has always seemed a tad unlikely to me. 48 for the carriers, however, does seem too low. At least 60, or preferably 72 if some are "on loan" to the RAF, would seem better. Not really sure what is the appropriate level to sustain sovereign ops, but it would seem that we would be unlikely to be facing a tier 1 opponent on our own and 60 F35B would be capable of handling most tier 2 opponents

To mitigate the potential reputational damage, maybe we should be talking to some of the currently uncommitted, potential, purchasers to see if they would like to take on some of our delivery slots (are Japan committed at the moment?). Add some woolly statements about "revisiting the decision" once our immediate needs are addressed, offer the USMC lots of training opportunities (show them what a great design we have - though PWLS might be more to their taste than QNLZ), take over some of the USN carrier taskings etc, etc and I think we should be OK.

topman wrote:Plenty of countries row back on what they promised to do/buy. See all manner of defence programs for evidence. The world didn't stop turning then, it won't now.

It'l be the last pukka work share we get from the US then. If people don't have a problem with that fine.
I'm all for buying UK made kit but a promise should be kept. Integrity is very important

Plenty of countries row back on what they promised to do/buy. See all manner of defence programs for evidence. The world didn't stop turning then, it won't now.

None that i can think of has gone from biggest partner to one of the smallest, though. A cap at 48 would be just that, a jump from Tier one to Tier "get the fuck out of here, you thief (of workshare)". It would be the biggest betrayal from the times of Skybolt, with the difference that there is no Polaris the UK can offer as replacement solution.

Anyway, i believe very little of this story. And Typhoon is not cheapter, not even without adding in stuff. How about getting that damn AESA thing to work...? Every year since 2015 the line has been repeated that it is due to imminently begin flight testing.

If people want to dress it up as a show stopper that's entirely their prerogative. It's not ideal far from it. But that's on us with champagne tastes on beer money.
We'll live, as well LM and the spams. Think we'll be chinned off over this ? If so think again.

Gabriele wrote:Tier one to Tier "get the fuck out of here, you thief (of workshare)".

Our tier 1 status was not based upon number of orders.

As for not believing it as ever you have no grasp of politics.

Whatever makes you feel better, i guess.

Spinflight wrote:Our tier 1 status was not based upon number of orders.

I thought tier status was based on how much money we put in to the development of the plane. Which also translates in to numbers ordered, countries that contributed more, planned to buy more planes. So we would still be tier 1, even with a number cut. We are still going to build parts of the F35 and we are still going to host one of the maintenance facilities regardless.

That said, cutting the F35 order in favor of the Eurofighter is beyond idiotic.

Spinflight wrote:

Gabriele wrote:Tier one to Tier "get the fuck out of here, you thief (of workshare)".

Our tier 1 status was not based upon number of orders.

As for not believing it as ever you have no grasp of politics.

It's a multitude of things. It's contribution from initial funding, tech contribution, # of orders and yeah. You can't be a tier 1 partner if you did all the UK did in the initial face but only order one plane.

Jensy wrote:Reports today in the Telegraph and Express ........ could all be nonsense but Gavin Williamson had a lot of form with leaking to the Telegraph when he was chief whip and this fits his style.

Hidden in the Express report is an interesting snippet. Seen a reference to it before, but first time I've seen a "reporting date".

"Williamson also set in motion a Combat Aircraft Industrial Strategy, which will be published this summer and will decide the future spending on jet fighters"

Now we just need one for armoured vehicles ...... and the Government cash to make it all happen.

Caribbean wrote: a Combat Aircraft Industrial Strategy, which will be published this summer and will decide the future spending on jet fighters"

Now we just need one for armoured vehicles ...... and the Government cash to make it all happen.

The one for armour:
GD/ Ajax
Ch2 LEP
MIV? Boxer or something else...
will there be an overlap, or are all of these just "green shoots" that will die as the next rain shower did not turn up in time?

Caribbean wrote:

Jensy wrote:Reports today in the Telegraph and Express ........ could all be nonsense but Gavin Williamson had a lot of form with leaking to the Telegraph when he was chief whip and this fits his style.

Hidden in the Express report is an interesting snippet. Seen a reference to it before, but first time I've seen a "reporting date".

"Williamson also set in motion a Combat Aircraft Industrial Strategy, which will be published this summer and will decide the future spending on jet fighters"

Now we just need one for armoured vehicles ...... and the Government cash to make it all happen.

Good spot.

Gavin looks to be following some of the sentiment on this forum. Perhaps he's lurking?

It seems that there are about three, in production, fast jets that the UK makes a substantial contribution too: Gripen, Typhoon and F-35 (+maybe Indian Jaguars)..

Two are currently in/entering service with the RAF. Of these two, only one is assembled here. So the industrial argument would likey support further purchases of the Typoon by a country mile.

I know the arguments over future capability and stealth will be made strongly in favour of the F-35 and I personally think the B model is the most innovative fighter in the skies; but these decisions are multi-faceted.

Back when the FCBA was merged with Harrier replacement, but before the concept of a joint Lightning Force, the split was 60 -> 48 Navy and 90 RAF (150->138). You could say the minimum number for carrier ops has barely shifted in nearly 20 years. So long as we are above the level there seems little issue with the wartime requirements for the carriers. Even if we only bought 60-72, that is still one heck of a fleet of aircraft.

With regards to our workshare, I once mapped UK F-35 contribution across the UK and globe for Farnborough some years back. I found, from the information available, that it's more about quantity than quality. The US is bringing that and the other partners don't really measure up. Certainly there are some high profile UK primes involved but they tend to manufacture elsewhere. The SMEs and niche suppliers are the real champions for British jobs, now and in the future.

I can't imagine the US would be delighted to see us halve out order (even considering arguments about intial investment and tech transfer). That said, we're not unique amongst some of the other Tiered partners:

T2: Italy 131 -> 90
T2: Netherlands 85-> 37
T3: Canada 65 -> 0-?
T3: Denmark 48 -> 27
T3: Turkey 100+ -> 0-?

Only the Aussies are really bringing international quantity to the project, with the Italians having the additional consideration of an assembley facility, which we lack.

A modest split buy for future requirments seems most sensible and politically wise. If balanced correctly this could deliver world-class capability and a domestic mil-air manufacturing base. As countries start lining up for next-gen development alliances the later grows in importance.

Jensy

Have just read an article regarding the Typhoon OCU and the increased training syllabus being taught. Of more interest however was the fact that the RAF is retiring all its T-Birds by the end of 2018.

http://www.janes.com/article/81570/raf- ... retirement

"Centurion" Typhoons now with the RAF.

Still such a pity that the Tornado retirement is happening this early before F-35 numbers are high enough to replace them. RAF is going to have a tiny amount of aircraft very soon.

In wider news:

https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 883_1.html

Here we go again! It's like Groundhog day over there, I swear.

Didn't they just cancel some programme or other because they didn't have the cash?

RetroSicotte wrote:http://www.janes.com/article/81570/raf- ... retirement

"Centurion" Typhoons now with the RAF.

Still such a pity that the Tornado retirement is happening this early before F-35 numbers are high enough to replace them. RAF is going to have a tiny amount of aircraft very soon.

The F-35 is to replace the harrier, in all fairness the typhoons upgrades to replace Tornado are at least arriving before the Tornado go completely OOS.

Do these upgrade include the new radars?

RetroSicotte wrote:In wider news:

https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 883_1.html

Here we go again! It's like Groundhog day over there, I swear.

Is there any point entering this????
Be fantastic to win of course but highly likely to end up as a whole bunch of nothing

Jdam wrote:The F-35 is to replace the harrier, in all fairness the typhoons upgrades to replace Tornado are at least arriving before the Tornado go completely OOS.

Do these upgrade include the new radars?

Whatever the "official" replacement, the F-35 is in practical purposes replacing the Tornado now in terms of retaining aircraft numbers. Tornado is going out right as F-35 comes in, so regardless of the role replaced, it is replacing it in numerics, and in this case the Tornado is going far too soon to retain the required numbers of aircraft.

Case in point, after Tornado goes, the RAF will only have around 130 combat jets. Typhoon will be multirole, but it'll have to be for everything, because it'll be the only thing the UK has for a long time until F-35 is around in decent numbers. It's the massive negligence that constantly goes unreported that the RAF is being gutted in its numbers of combat jets as of the past few years, before the replacements are ready to pick up the numbers without significant downturn.

Rather humiliating state of affairs.