Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

[shark bait]

Again fleets within fleets, what happens when AMRAAM is no longer available? Or do you suggest another "small" investment in a weapon that only has one user?

Meteor will be used on Typhoon and F35b.

I don't think the fleet within a fleet is too bad, they are almost exactly the same and the MOD is no stranger to operating weapons with only a single use.

As I have said it is imperfect, but it is much better than scrapping them and letting the RAF fall to an embarrassing level. The only way to maintain a credible air force is keep tranche 1's, extend tornado or purchase a new type altogether.

[Foxbat]

Again fleets within fleets, what happens when AMRAAM is no longer available? Or do you suggest another "small" investment in a weapon that only has one user?

But surely AMRAAM isn't going to become unavailable until after we could potentially thrash the T1s to death on QRA or similar some time in the early/mid 2020s?

[Gabriele]

AMRAAM will be in stock out to 2020, the MOD has just put out a call for 5 years of support.

And after that, it'll probably have to be extended by another 5 years before Meteor is integrated and operational on the F-35... unless the MOD leaves not just the Tranche 1, but the F-35 fleet without an air to air missile.

So, effectively, having to stick with AMRAAM into the 2020s because of the F-35 helps opening up a chance to keep the Typhoon Tranche 1 and give them a residual, AA-only usefulness. Once Meteor is integrated on the F-35, though, the Tranche 1 and the AMRAAM can be expected to vanish quickly, if they don't do that even earlier.
My feeling is that if the squadrons are kept until then, it'll be easier to try and get the Treasury to allow further F-35s purchases. If the number of squadrons really drops to 6 right away, it'll be much harder to ever rebuild from that number.

Amusingly enough, in a way, if it will be confirmed that the Tranche 1s will be kept and two more squadrons formed, it'll be a (very partial, with many airframes less) realization of the original Typhoon plan for 7 squadrons, 2 of which for QRA and 5 multirole...

Downsizer rises a good point about the weirdness of doing QRA with the less capable aircraft in your fleet. But i think it would still be acceptable, overall. The other Typhoons, with Meteor, will be available to do air to air out of area and at home too if it ever becomes necessary. It is not optimal, but i would think the Tranche 1 and AMRAAM can still be credible enough in a QRA role for several more years.

[RetroSicotte]

They French were quite happy to sit with only small missiles on their Rafale until 2018, with only Magic and MICA available, neither are more than short or medium range anyway. Heck, MICA has about the same lethality envelope as an ASRAAM, albeit with a few more doodads attached.

So I wouldn't put it past them to can the AMRAAM in 2020 and just stick it out for some years.

[shark bait]

My feeling is that if the squadrons are kept until then, it'll be easier to try and get the Treasury to allow further F-35s purchases. If the number of squadrons really drops to 6 right away, it'll be much harder to ever rebuild from that number.

Exactly! something is needed in the interim before we build up suitable F35 numbers. It is not enough to expect a future government to stick to the plan and reinstate squadrons. Instead they will merely follow the prescience set by the incumbent leadership and leave numbers embarrassingly low.

Keeping tranche 1's is the most viable option, even if it brings some headaches it is much, much better than trying to rebuild from 6 squadrons.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Quite right, just look at the training pipeline, which was thrashed a couple of years back, to fall in line with the then planned sqdrn numbers. Fighter pilots are not like mushrooms: every time it rains (irregular extra funding), they just miraculously pop out of the ground.

[malcrf]

My feeling is that if the squadrons are kept until then, it'll be easier to try and get the Treasury to allow further F-35s purchases. If the number of squadrons really drops to 6 right away, it'll be much harder to ever rebuild from that number.

Exactly! something is needed in the interim before we build up suitable F35 numbers. It is not enough to expect a future government to stick to the plan and reinstate squadrons. Instead they will merely follow the prescience set by the incumbent leadership and leave numbers embarrassingly low.

Keeping tranche 1's is the most viable option, even if it brings some headaches it is much, much better than trying to rebuild from 6 squadrons.

Completely agree

[marktigger]

why not re furbish the tranche 1's and forget about "additional" F35's

[Gabriele]

why not re furbish the tranche 1's and forget about "additional" F35's

Because refurbishing them is almost impossible / extremely expensive; because they would do nothing to improve the number of aircraft that can be put on the carriers; because they would still struggle to enter heavily defended airspace.

[Tinman]

JP233 Runway cratering munition dispenser?



Banned under the Ottawa treaty as it contained mines and cluster bomblets.

Not as effective as hoped, like downsizer has stated LGB is the best for runway denial.

Again fleets within fleets, what happens when AMRAAM is no longer available? Or do you suggest another "small" investment in a weapon that only has one user?

Meteor will be used on Typhoon and F35b.

What's the alternative? Cut aircraft numbers to unreasonably low levels? Keep an entirely separate fleet of increasingly expensive Tornados going?

Also is there a definite timeline for AMRAAM to be replaced or is this a hypothetical argument?

The GR4 is still a very capable asset, carrying a varied A2G weapons and RAPTOR. I would rather see money invested into keeping those flying till we get the F35, than on Tranche 1 Typhoons.

[marktigger]

and F35b won't struggle in highly defended airspace?

[Tinman]

and F35b won't struggle in highly defended airspace?

Those that have flown it, worked with it speak extremely highly of the technology and capabilities. Its a game changer.

[marktigger]

Those sorts of statements are made about every new aircraft or system entering service.

[RetroSicotte]

Those sorts of statements are made about every new aircraft or system entering service.

Because each new aircraft entering service for any given country usually is. Very very few countries make a sidegrade.

[jonas]

likewise, derogatory comments are made about every new aircraft or system entering service. As has been remarked upon, mostly by people who have had no first hand experience of the product.

[Lugzy]

The f-35 is still many years and many block software upgrades away from being anything like what ppl want them to be , and we have no idea how effective they will be when they are finally up and running operationally , so I personally believe statments such as calling them game changers should not really be used until that is proven and deserved tbh.

[marktigger]

likewise, derogatory comments are made about every new aircraft or system entering service. As has been remarked upon, mostly by people who have had no first hand experience of the product.

Or are pushing a particular agenda like trying to keep an outdated platform in service of feel that this country should only buy for one other nation.

[downsizer]

Dude, work on your fucking grammar or get your dad to type for you. Your posts make my eyes bleed.

[jonas]

The f-35 is still many years and many block software upgrades away from being anything like what ppl want them to be , and we have no idea how effective they will be when they are finally up and running operationally , so I personally believe statments such as calling them game changers should not really be used until that is proven and deserved tbh.

Perhaps, in which case the same applies to the critics doesn't it ?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Also is there a definite timeline for AMRAAM to be replaced or is this a hypothetical argument?


The GR4 is still a very capable asset, carrying a varied A2G weapons and RAPTOR. I would rather see money invested into keeping those flying till we get the F35, than on Tranche 1 Typhoons.

A collection of quotes, reflecting some noise in the discussion channel (opinions turning into facts):

AMRAAM, like any other missile, have expiry of stocks dates, not that there wouldn't be any to be had (if we still wanted them, at the time).

Yes, GR4 is a very capable asset, but does not need any further money invested in it (the latest, I think, was bringing the HUDs [back?] to the number that we would ever expect to deploy simultaneously, in an expeditionary way.
- where the money is missing is keeping the numbers of sqdrns operating; so it is not an either-or between the two types. Once the sqdrn numbers question will get settled (and if the SDSR won't do that, what will it actually deliver), then the "x" in the x,y,z simultaneous equation to be solved is the speed at which F-35 numbers will be ramped up)
- personally, my take on it would be "not too much haste"

[downsizer]

GR4 might get a small extension, I don't genuinely know. But it can do a fair bit that typhoon can't or doesn't yet have the numbers to do.

However it won't be a long term solution as it is getting on and the huge elephant in the room of the lack of WSOs the longer it survives.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Radical third option in all this?? Take the pain of a gap until we can bring online a larger than originally/presently intended number of Lightnings. We avoid fumbling around with confused fleets within fleets and paying for stop gap measures and actually end up with a solution that will be far more beneficial to us in the long run??? Yesteryear's promise of 138 JCAs would sure look very attractive again right about now.

[marktigger]

hopefully they will buy more FGA4 in the short term and when F35b is better developed a decision made to convert some of the extra squadrons and pool the fleet or expand the airforce further.

[shark bait]

Radical third option in all this?? Take the pain of a gap until we can bring online a larger than originally/presently intended number of Lightnings. We avoid fumbling around with confused fleets within fleets and paying for stop gap measures and actually end up with a solution that will be far more beneficial to us in the long run??? Yesteryear's promise of 138 JCAs would sure look very attractive again right about now.

oooooo I don't like the radical third option.

This government cannot pass off the responsibility of giving us a credible air force onto a future government, simply because a future government will likely keep with the prescience set by its predecessor, and keep numbers low, cheap and embarrassing. I suspect it will be much more difficult than just buying more aircraft, their is the supply chain of well trained humans too. Instead of making that investment, money will go on a future vanity project rather than fixing the problem.

Right now what is needed is some stability with a helping of time and money to fill the holes left by the last review. Keeping tranche 1 is defiantly one of those holes.

[marktigger]

shark bait I agree maybe forming AD only squadron or 2 to provide UKQRA with the tranche 1's but thats a slight step back. Probably very welcome in some quarters in the Airforce who still hanker for the days of a fighter, strike, maritime, bomber and transport command with lots of staff non jobs. Rather than embrace swing role squadrons with multi role aircraft something most NATO airforces did over 20 years ago.