Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

[ArmChairCivvy]

Rafale having 9,500kg was always one of its big draws over the Typhoons previous reveal of 7,500kg.

Seems the Tiffy had more grunt than we knew.

Was looking for another quote, but came across this one by chance.

Probs the reason for the "divorce" between France and the other (original) Eurofighter partners:

The canards on Rafale only provide extra lift (to maximise payload/ weapon load) whereas the canards on Tiffie can operate independently, to maximise the manoeuvreability, especially at supersonic speeds.
- France needed a carrier-based strike a/c; the other partners did not

[ArmChairCivvy]

Those figures sounds like the additional cost per aircraft for an established operator. For example the NAO puts the actual Typhoon cost at £125m per unit, and recent export contracts corroborate that figure.

The same is probably true for the Gripen figure, the engine alone will cost about $10m, so theres no way the whole thing costs $40m.

Another accidental find... still searching for the quote I am after.

Reading up on these various competitions, it would seem that Rafale and Eurofighter come within a one-digit number of millions as for their price difference.
- it is not that the Gripen E/ NG would be much cheaper to buy (with all the "goodies" that those competitors are scheduled to receive, only in the future, or have had installed as older models (e.g. Rafale's AESA)
- it is the cost per flight hour (life cycle cost) that will make the difference

[topman]

The canards on Rafale only provide extra lift (to maximise payload/ weapon load) whereas the canards on Tiffie can operate independently, to maximise the manoeuvreability, especially at supersonic speeds.

You're thinking of the foreplanes, they move together not independently.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The canards on Rafale only provide extra lift (to maximise payload/ weapon load) whereas the canards on Tiffie can operate independently, to maximise the manoeuvreability, especially at supersonic speeds.

You're thinking of the foreplanes, they move together not independently.

topman, did not mean of each other, but was rather comparing what Rafale and Typhoon designs have been optimised for : increase lift vs increase manoeuvrability

[ArmChairCivvy]

As I still didn't word the above very well, went to hushkit.net to find the wordier explanation (of the comparison):

"Design philosophy

The Rafale and Typhoon share common programme roots and as such are fairly similar in design and aerodynamic philosophy. The biggest difference is in the optimisation of the wing aerofoil and camber shapes, as well as the aerodynamically coupled vs uncoupled canards. Aerodynamically coupled/uncoupled canards refer to the interaction between the lift created by the canards and the lift created by the leading edges of the wings. Uncoupled canards -i.e further from the wing- allow greater control authority due to a greater moment from the centre of lift, but cannot be used to improve the high-alpha performance of the wing.

Essentially Typhoon is aerodynamically designed to maximise manoeuvrability at supersonic speeds and relatively light (i.e. air superiority) load-outs. By contrast, Rafale’s coupled canards and wing shape is optimised for maximum lift generation and ordinance carrying capacity over a wide speed and angle of attack envelope."

[marktigger]

hmmm typhoon is meant to be an all rounder it was designed as the Tornado F3 & Jaguar GR3 replacement remember.

[The Armchair Soldier]

An eighth frontline Typhoon squadron is planned?

[dmereifield]

An eighth frontline Typhoon squadron is planned?

If true, would this be good news (i.e. an increased number of total frontline fast jet squadrons), or do we think that it most likely means a slower build up of F35 numbers?

[RetroSicotte]

Checking on twitter, seems this is just 7 squadrons having each reduced in numbers to make an 8th.

No increase in overall plane numbers, just each squadron gets smaller.

Checkbox military everyone!

[dmereifield]

Checking on twitter, seems this is just 7 squadrons having each reduced in numbers to make an 8th.

No increase in overall plane numbers, just each squadron gets smaller.

Checkbox military everyone!

That was my other thought...so down to how many airframes per squadron? 10? What would be the rationale for doing this? Do we need to deploy or base another squadron somewhere?

[downsizer]

RS beat me to it. Spread the numberplates by reducing the number of frames per Sqn. Hard I am not.

[downsizer]

What would be the rationale for doing this? Do we need to deploy or base another squadron somewhere?

The cynic would say it's a PR stunt. The PR people would say it's another front line deployable Sqn. Take your pick.

[dmereifield]

What would be the rationale for doing this? Do we need to deploy or base another squadron somewhere?

The cynic would say it's a PR stunt. The PR people would say it's another front line deployable Sqn. Take your pick.

Well then they need new PR people since it's so transparent. Clearly I don't know how having more squadrons with fewer airframes affects the overall operational availability of the airframes (if indeed it does?), but this doesn't make any sense to me unless there is a need for an additional squadron (is there?) but they can't afford to fund one...

[downsizer]

So they can say 8. Instead of 7.

[marktigger]

Checking on twitter, seems this is just 7 squadrons having each reduced in numbers to make an 8th.

No increase in overall plane numbers, just each squadron gets smaller.

Checkbox military everyone!

they have done that for years or to maintain numbers after aircraft have been written off.

[ArmChairCivvy]

"yes 8th front-line #Typhoon squadron in around 2023."
- the only way to get to 9 sqdrns by then
- I wonder when the second F-35 sqdrn is due?

[ArmChairCivvy]

I don't know how having more squadrons with fewer airframes affects the overall operational availability of the airframes (if indeed it does?), but this doesn't make any sense to me unless there is a need for an additional squadron (is there?)

Deployments have typically been in packets smaller than a whole sqdrn
- is this just a move to make the organisation fit the new reality?

[downsizer]

Realistically Sqns only have the manpower (aircrew and maintainers) to deploy 8 aircraft.

8 aircraft in Herrick took an entire Sqns manning, barring the medical mongs in the rear party.

[dmereifield]

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)....

[downsizer]

Sqns never have 12 aircraft available. It's a figure obsessed over by spotters. And if they did, they don't have the manpower to maintain or fly them anyway!

[dmereifield]

Sqns never have 12 aircraft available. It's a figure obsessed over by spotters. And if they did, they don't have the manpower to maintain or fly them anyway!

Thanks, I was made aware of that from earlier posters which is why I asked, in a roundabout way, whether each squadron could still maintain the same level of capability/airframe availability despite the reduction in airframe numbers.

It seems from what UKDJ are reporting improved cost and operational efficiencies allows for fewer airframes per squadron without reducing operational capability of the squadron....

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-a ... -squadron/

[AndyC]

In addition to what's in the report more Typhoons could be made available to frontline Squadrons by the increased use of flight simulators thus enabling the OCU to be reduced in size.

Also, does 41(R) Squadron still need a pair of tranche 1 Typhoons - I would have thought they'd know all there is to know about this aircraft by now!

Personally I think there's politics at play here. Even if for just for a few months in 2023 Air Command manages to field eight Typhoon and two F-35B Squadrons then in 2024-25 they can argue that when the third F-35B Squadron stands up they simply go back to seven Typhoon Squadrons with the same number of aircraft they've had since 2018-19! That's a crafty way of increasing the number of aircraft in the frontline without rubbing the noses in it of the poor Admirals and Generals who don't seem to be getting anywhere near as much new equipment.

[abc123]

What would be the rationale for doing this? Do we need to deploy or base another squadron somewhere?

The cynic would say it's a PR stunt. The PR people would say it's another front line deployable Sqn. Take your pick.

So, the USAF has 24 aircaft in squadron, French AdA has about 20, Spain has 18 ( IIRC ), Australia has 18, but the RAF is smartest of them all, so they can do the trick with 10?

Trying to be too smart rarely ends well.

[Gabriele]

Ask Hitler how well it did to double the number of Panzer divisions in the East by splitting them in half...

[abc123]

Ask Hitler how well it did to double the number of Panzer divisions in the East by splitting them in half...

Or Benny with doubling the number of divisions... ( no pun intended because youre Italian, just stating the historical example )