Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

[ArmChairCivvy]

one of the many reminders as to why Germany should never lead Typhoon sales campaigns.

Were they the lead for India, as well?

[cky7]

Were they the lead for India, as well?

Yeah. IIRC there was criticism of their handling of the opportunity over here on that one too.

[dmereifield]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... tract.html

5 Year Arrangement to Support the Eurofighter Typhoon Fleet

[The Armchair Soldier]

Images of RAF Typhoons with HMS St Albans seen here in the foreground, with the Russian Warships Petr Velikiy (centre) and the Admiral Kuznetsov (background).

Defence Secretary, Sir Michael Fallon, said:
“We are keeping a close eye on the Admiral Kuznetsov as it skulks back to Russia; a ship of shame whose mission has only extended the suffering of the Syrian people.
“We are man-marking these vessels every step of the way around the UK as part of our steadfast commitment to keep Britain safe.”

Typhoon aircraft are a critical part of UK defences, on call every day, including Quick Reaction Alert (QRA). Whilst the British public are familiar with our role escorting Russian long-range aviation, on this occasion we launched to monitor the Russian warships as they transit near to our sovereign waters in order to ensure that their activity is monitored and executed safely in accordance with international procedures.

[Pongoglo]

Thanks for the info guys. So is it still possible to sustain 8 deployable aircraft if they reduce the squadron size from 12 to 10? I suppose the answer depends on whether they maintain the same number of support crew for the smaller squadron or whether they will need to be extracted from the 7 squadrons to build up the 8th....are we likely to get any of this type of info in the public domain?
The question still remains - why? The pessimist in me automatically assumes this means a reduction in frontline airframes - firstly the decision to increase the number of Typhoon squadrons would indicate a slower build up of F35 squadrons (or fewer F35 squadrons planned) as well as marginal reduction in frontline Typhoon airframes (8 x 10 as opposed to 7 x 12)....

Is there any actual evidence they plan to do it that way, 8 x 10 as opposed to 7 x 12, or are we just letting our understandable cynicism run ahead - can anyone link a source ? By my maths now that the Tranche 1's are being retained we will still have a fleet of 160 or so (out of 240 planned ) so to field 8 Sqns of 12 there should be approx 20 airframes per Sqn from which to draw?

[downsizer]

Sqns don't own aircraft so it is a moot point. When they deploy Eng Ops picks the most suitable frames from the entire pool of aircraft.

[ArmChairCivvy]

There seems to be a growing appreciation of OpFor's EW capabilities (one of the main themes in the latest Red Flag).

In a situation where both sides "blind" some of the sensors we might still come to appreciate the raw kinematics of Typhoons... so no hurry with getting rid of them.
- the newest quantity buy, of Mig-35s, has directly evolved from the venerable 29
- the thing is, there will be quite a few of them (but not that many PAK-FAs)

[marktigger]

if there is room for technological improvement and hours left on the airframes why rush in to buy a new aircraft. Look at the Longevity of the Phantom!

[Tinman]

Sqns don't own aircraft so it is a moot point. When they deploy Eng Ops picks the most suitable frames from the entire pool of aircraft.

Now now now, don't let your pesky facts get in the way of internet generals, you fix them I'll make sure the barrier goes up!

[LordJim]

The way are squadron size is shrinking we are heading by default the the French system with a RAF Station having a designated wing made up of 2 to 3 small squadrons, each maintaining its own identity but also acting as a pool for operations. Yes we sort of do this now but this would formalise it. If we pursued this we would end up with 2 Typhoon wings at RAF Conningsby and RAF Leuchars and a F-35B Wing at RAF Marham. With the numbers of Typhoons we have/are purchasing we should be able to form 6 front line Typhoon squadrons from our Tranche 2 and 3 airframes requiring 60 available at any one time. A further 10 to 12 would be needed for the OCU/OEU, also at RAF Conningsby so that is 72 in the line plus a reserve of a further 20. IF all were brought up to Tranche 3 specs it would give the RAF a pretty potent fleet that should be good until at least 2025 and probably further if the proper investment is made. Look how long the F-16 is due to run on to. This would also allow the F-35 Wing to concentrate on carrier operations, bringing its personnel up to speed and allowing the Carrier(s) to reach their potential. I have no doubt some will have noticed that by doing the maths I believe we only need around 50 F-35s until almost 2030 which isn't a bad thing as it would allow the RAF and FAA to get to know the F-35 on its initial form and then growth with the platform as it matures and evolves, with future purchases replacing first one then both Typhoon Wings in the 2030s.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Yes we sort of do this now but this would formalise it.

- yes, when did a full squadron (12) last deploy?

I have no doubt some will have noticed that by doing the maths I believe we only need around 50 F-35s until almost 2030 which isn't a bad thing

- the Red Flag numbers on constant availability would support this view (bearing in mind, though, that B is more complex than A):
" Since the exercise began, Hill’s Airmen have generated 110 sorties, including their first 10-jet F-35A sortie Jan. 30 and turned around and launched eight jets that afternoon. They have not lost a single sortie to a maintenance issue and have a 92 percent mission-capable rate, said 1st Lt. Devin Ferguson, assistant officer in charge of the 34th Aircraft Maintenance Unit. Legacy aircraft average 70 to 85 percent mission-capable."
That was written after 8 days into the exercise.

[dmereifield]

RAF escorting Pakistan plane to Stanstead, no details yet

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38899472

[SKB]

[dmereifield]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02 ... -shetland/

[dmereifield]

^^ Typhoons scrambled to interrupt Russian bombers

[LordJim]

It amazes me how short peoples memories are, with the media and public thinking a QRA launch is headline news. These people would think the Russians were invading if they we reporting in the 70s and 80s.

[Defiance]

Glad they report it though, if they stopped then it's likely the majority would assume the Russians aren't bothering anymore. If defence gets in the press in a positive manner then i'm happy.

[ArmChairCivvy]

It amazes me how short peoples memories are, with the media and public thinking a QRA launch is headline news. These people would think the Russians were invading if they we reporting in the 70s and 80s.

Actually the airspace intrusions relating to the countries around the Baltic (save for Germany and Denmark) are well above those levels.
- in the case of Denmark, the Russian ambassador there compensated by saying that "if you put ABM capable defences on your frigates, we will nuke them"

It is not for nothing that the NATO fighter rotation there was set up; Romania (doing the same thing there) puzzles me, though, as I do not see any incursions happening there. May be they just do not make it into the press?

[bobp]

Back in the 1970's we were doing QRA launches several times a week. It was almost routine.

[Old RN]

You cannot compare the Baltic now to the 1980s. In those days East Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia were either part of the USSR or fully allied with it. The current view of the NATO team appears to be that any flight between two parts of the Russian Federation (St Petersburg and Kaliningrad) is a provocation to world peace! No one appears to mention that there are far less Russian forces based in Kaliningrad than in the 1980s.

[ArmChairCivvy]

any flight between two parts of the Russian Federation (St Petersburg and Kaliningrad) is a provocation to world peace! No one appears to mention that there are far less Russian forces based in Kaliningrad than in the 1980s.

Why enroach on sovereign airspace when there is plenty for all in between? This (and the slightly shorter range for Bastion anti-shipping missiles)
http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/wp-conten ... ropped.png
expains why Sweden permanently put a BG on Gotland.

Taking that by surprise would close (together with Kaliningrad) the Baltic for all others. So it is not just the quantities, but also the reach which by now is in a wholly different league from the 80s.

[abc123]

IMHO all this shi* happening in the Baltics is very much overhyped... I understand that getting larger defence budget requiers an enemy, but this is too much...

[ArmChairCivvy]

IMHO all this shi* happening in the Baltics is very much overhyped

It is only a small step from the states bordering the Baltic (especially the northern ones are known for being warlike and always taking the lead in any arms race?) to Ukraine... and that step is called Belorussia.

What is your IMHO on that one; that they have genuinely chosen to stir up trouble with their Eastern neighbour? BTW, the energy button has already been pushed... about the same sequence as with Ukraine (may be; time will tell).

[abc123]

IMHO all this shi* happening in the Baltics is very much overhyped

It is only a small step from the states bordering the Baltic (especially the northern ones are known for being warlike and always taking the lead in any arms race?) to Ukraine... and that step is called Belorussia.

What is your IMHO on that one; that they have genuinely chosen to stir up trouble with their Eastern neighbour? BTW, the energy button has already been pushed... about the same sequence as with Ukraine (may be; time will tell).

About Baltic states, when you have Apartheid-light policy for your population of Russian ethnicity, you can't really expect good relations with Russia.

Russians do not want Baltic states. if they wanted them, they wouldn't give them independence in 1991 in the first place. And what would Putin do with 5-6 millions of angry non-Russians ( Estonians, Lituanians, Letonians )? He has enough problems without them.

[whitelancer]

Russians do not want Baltic states. if they wanted them, they wouldn't give them independence in 1991 in the first place. And what would Putin do with 5-6 millions of angry non-Russians ( Estonians, Lituanians, Letonians )

Oh you mean in the same way they don't want Crimea! As for their populations the Gulags spring to mind.