Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

[jonas]

Asked by Toby Perkins
(Chesterfield)
Asked on: 28 October 2015
Ministry of Defence
European Fighter Aircraft
13893
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the consequences for the UK's capability of the retirement in 2018 of the 53 Typhoon aircraft purchased in tranche 1; and if he will reverse this decision in the 2015 Strategic Defence and Strategic Review.
A
Answered by: Mr Philip Dunne
Answered on: 03 November 2015

The Ministry of Defence is reviewing the potential utility of all its current platforms, including its fleet of Tranche 1 Typhoon aircraft, as part of the ongoing Strategic Defence and Security Review. Where there is clear merit in extending the life of existing equipment in terms of both military utility and value-for-money, the opportunity to do so will be considered in the context of the wider Review. It is therefore not appropriate to anticipate decisions on the Typhoon Tranche 1, or other capabilities, that have not yet been made.

[Tinman]

but then your back to fleets within fleets, tranche three will be able to BVR with meteor, launch brimstone or storm shadow, tranche one can't.

[jonas]

but then your back to fleets within fleets, tranche three will be able to BVR with meteor, launch brimstone or storm shadow, tranche one can't.

You use T1 solely for UK air defence/QRA which then releases later tranches for their swing role use.

[malcrf]

You use T1 solely for UK air defence/QRA which then releases later tranches for their swing role use.

Sounds very sensible to me

[malcrf]

I would rather see a extra Sqn of tranche 3 bought.

Because that would cost less than keeping the T1s?

[downsizer]

Ignoring the fact that vis ID plays a significant part in some, but by no means all QRA, and bearing in mind that QRA won't always be done in the UK, surely the jets you have doing QRA should be meteor capable?

[jonas]

Ignoring the fact that vis ID plays a significant part in some, but by no means all QRA, and bearing in mind that QRA won't always be done in the UK, surely the jets you have doing QRA should be meteor capable?

Ideally of course, but beggers can't be choosers. You know better than I whether they could be upgraded to take meteor, and even if they could would the costs be prohibitive.

Wouldn't it though be better to keep them rather than not to, even without that capability.

[Pseudo]

Ignoring the fact that vis ID plays a significant part in some, but by no means all QRA, and bearing in mind that QRA won't always be done in the UK, surely the jets you have doing QRA should be meteor capable?

Why? Currently QRA appears to mostly consist of intercepting 1950's era turboprop bombers. If that were to change then I would assume that the T1's could be reinforced within hours by more capable Typhoon's from Coningsby.

[shark bait]

You use T1 solely for UK air defence/QRA which then releases later tranches for their swing role use.

By far the most sensible solution. The tranche 1's don't suddenly become obsolete as soon as the tranche 3's are cleared for meteor.
It is admittedly an imperfect solution, but many times better than writing them off.


The trance ones also carry paveway, surely it cant be too difficult to continue that capability.

[downsizer]

Tranche 1s only carry PWII. Of which there aren't many left, if it hasn't already gone past its OSD.

[downsizer]

Ignoring the fact that vis ID plays a significant part in some, but by no means all QRA, and bearing in mind that QRA won't always be done in the UK, surely the jets you have doing QRA should be meteor capable?

Why? Currently QRA appears to mostly consist of intercepting 1950's era turboprop bombers.

Because that isn't the only QRA we do (or are likely to do in the future).

[downsizer]

Ignoring the fact that vis ID plays a significant part in some, but by no means all QRA, and bearing in mind that QRA won't always be done in the UK, surely the jets you have doing QRA should be meteor capable?

Ideally of course, but beggers can't be choosers. You know better than I whether they could be upgraded to take meteor, and even if they could would the costs be prohibitive.

Wouldn't it though be better to keep them rather than not to, even without that capability.

Absolutely, something is better than nothing, just playing devils advocate.

But it is counter intuitive to have your least capable AD asset doing the bulk of your AD. [WINKING FACE]

[Pseudo]

You use T1 solely for UK air defence/QRA which then releases later tranches for their swing role use.

By far the most sensible solution. The tranche 1's don't suddenly become obsolete as soon as the tranche 3's are cleared for meteor.
It is admittedly an imperfect solution, but many times better than writing them off.


The trance ones also carry paveway, surely it cant be too difficult to continue that capability.

My admittedly simplistic take on this is using up the airframe life of the T1's is preferable to using up the T2's or T3's simply because it means that once they're eventually retired the T1's can be replaced by the more capable later tranche aircraft, by which time we should have enough F-35 squadrons to allow the T1's to be retired without the precipitous loss of aircraft numbers that would result from the retirement of the T1's in 2020.

Speaking to the fleets within fleets argument, the choice seems to be to allow aircraft numbers to drop to ridiculously low levels, or extend the life of Tornado which would be operating two fleets, one of which will require ever more costly maintenance due to its age, or operate a fleet within a fleet with significant levels of commonality between the two.

[shark bait]

Tranche 1s only carry PWII. Of which there aren't many left, if it hasn't already gone past its OSD.

Yes.
I didnt want to repeat my self from the last page but my thinking was if the tranche 1's can carry PWII, and the tranche 2's can carry PWIV, surely alot of that work can be reused to enable the 4's to work on the 1's. If it is a small investment could be worth it for a little extra utility.

[Jdam]

what's the difference between the laser guided components of PWII and PWIV could the T1's be quickly modified to use them, obviously they couldn't use the GPS part of the weapons.

While we have moved away from a lot of US air weapons what are we going to do with the F-35 if we still need weapons for those surely we could pool them with the T1's.

I guess it all comes down to what we really need, is a T1's with Amraam's really that inferior to a T2 or 3 with Meteor? If so how does it compare to other aircraft?

[downsizer]

Retaining any PWIIs isn't going to happen.

It's not just the head (which is totally different to a IV), but we have no 1000lb bombs (which no-one manufactures anymore), no more AFGs and no more fuses.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Slightly related question, and one i have been dying to ask for ages, but theoretically how well is it within our means to quickly regenerate a 'dumb bomb' capability should push come to shove?

[marktigger]

I think the dumb bomb may be a thing of the past due to the restrictions of ROE's

[Tony Williams]

I have read that the RAF no longer uses dumb bombs but whether they still have any in store I don't know.

[marktigger]

Do the stlll have CVR7 or is that exclusive to the Apache now?

[ArmChairCivvy]

I think the dumb bomb may be a thing of the past due to the restrictions of ROE's

- ROEs could change, due to a different type of conflict? Taking out runways with expensive PG weapons doesn't sound sensible to me

Speaking of which, the wunderwaffe developed expressly for the purpose disappointed in Iraq (but solely because what was under the asphalt was sand, which is not the case in many other geographies). So, do we still have any of those (I forget he designation for it, but it did cost an arm and a leg to develop)?

[arfah]

...............

[downsizer]

I have read that the RAF no longer uses dumb bombs but whether they still have any in store I don't know.

No dumb bomb capability.

Do the stlll have CVR7 or is that exclusive to the Apache now?

Not in RAF service.

Taking out runways with expensive PG weapons doesn't sound sensible to me

Easiest way to deny a runway is PGM.

[Tinman]

Tranche 1s only carry PWII. Of which there aren't many left, if it hasn't already gone past its OSD.

Yes.
I didnt want to repeat my self from the last page but my thinking was if the tranche 1's can carry PWII, and the tranche 2's can carry PWIV, surely alot of that work can be reused to enable the 4's to work on the 1's. If it is a small investment could be worth it for a little extra utility.

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.

[Pseudo]

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?