Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 548
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Jensy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jensy wrote: Saab offering a few Globaleye AEW&C, and Boeing reportedly including some Growlers with their Super Hornets.

Those were not thrown in as a splurge ('buy all of our range') but rather to get 'full points' for being able to complete three mission scenarios - which have not been published - but most likely Globaleye is for making most of defensive sorties against numerically superior attacking force; and Growlers for offensive counter-air... that would be just two of three, but essentially v different mission scenarios, also informing what weapon sets should be included in pricing the final bid.
No doubt that's the approach however I'd say it strikes me as a little bit of a grey area in the first place. If the primary offered platform can't meet the mission then it should be rejected from the competition, regardless of what buddies it brings along.

In that same spirit of flexibility, offering a batch of subsidised Hawks could be in lieu of designated trainer Typhoons, just as the Growlers would be in lieu of an inherent capability in the baseline Super Bugs. Brand it as a "complete combat air support package" if needed.
ArmChairCivvy wrote: any parts for the assembly would catch some of the value add, but likely that train has left the station (so trying to get onto it is rather hard).
Indeed I thought the Brough line was already dead, with some small scale assembly at Warton, the full line in India and a new line in Saudi putting together UK built kits. Don't want to go too off topic on the future of Hawk production/procurement but there is still nothing planned to replace our remaining fleet of T1s in the RAF and RN.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

You are assuming it’s all about a single platform. It is not. An aircraft only exists within a whole force structure/system. They don’t fly on there own

What is being offered in Finland is what is now called a system of system approach which included the ability for Finland to support and maintain there future fleet.

It should be remembered that the primary reason awacs was purchased by the U.K. was to plug radar gaps around the U.K. air defence network which remains its primary role even today.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jensy wrote: If the primary offered platform can't meet the mission then it should be rejected from the competition, regardless of what buddies it brings along.
I would imagine the mission sets (3 scenarios; not like in the Swiss competition AD, AG and Recce) were so construed that none of the competitors were likely to fully meet all three
... the competition after all is under an 'all-in cost' constraint, but the number of a/c is secondary to what they can do (e.g. in AD: dispersal, availability under such conditions, number of missions x length of mission... giving the numbers available to engage at any time under a protracted campaign by the invader)

That would boil down to capability, but one a/c could be a better BVR defender and another better taking out the invaders bases and supporting infrastructure (key elements of C&C)
... and still end up with the same composite score. Before one divides that by bid price; what might be the third scenario? Battlefield interdiction? When I say battlefield, in WW2 a Corps might have been the one requesting; can't say 'theatre' as in the modern day everything from the Danish Straits up to the Svalbard would be a theatre for ops
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 548
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Jensy »

SW1 wrote:You are assuming it’s all about a single platform. It is not. An aircraft only exists within a whole force structure/system.
I'm afraid assumption is all that those not intimately involved with the programme have. We do not know their exact requirements; the parameters by which they seek to make their choice; or their priorities.

From what is publicly accessible, the Finnish MoD seem certain that they are looking for a fighter:

https://www.defmin.fi/en/frontpage/admi ... m#33ff8a41

Where they specifically note:
Fighters cannot be replaced by other systems
Now we can debate the relevant merits of next-gen AESA radars integrated into the principal combat aircraft versus a stand-off non penetrating platform and the same with EW, but the way the H-x programme has been framed publicly is as a like-for-like F-18 replacement.

(Interestingly the Finnish F-18s have always had a superior jamming capability to other global fleets, making use of the same jammer fitted to the USN's Super Hornets.)

If looking at peripheral products to support that fleet of fighters then I believe Hawk 128 can still be considered part of a "system of systems", albeit a support and training one, that would permit Typhoons to be more focused on combat mass, rather than a force multiplier in the conventional sense...
ArmChairCivvy wrote: I would imagine the mission sets (3 scenarios; not like in the Swiss competition AD, AG and Recce) were so construed that none of the competitors were likely to fully meet all three
... the competition after all is under an 'all-in cost' constraint, but the number of a/c is secondary to what they can do (e.g. in AD: dispersal, availability under such conditions, number of missions x length of mission... giving the numbers available to engage at any time under a protracted campaign by the invader)
could be a
Very good and informative analysis ACC. Clearly there are great deal of "known unknowns" that even after selection next year (maybe?) will remain unknown.

Remembering how long this programme has now been running, and the geopolitical shifts we've seen since it started, the relevance of quantity might have changed somewhat. The platforms being considered have themselves evolved, and their prices dropped, quite substantially since it commenced too.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2544
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by dmereifield »

Jensy wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jensy wrote: Saab offering a few Globaleye AEW&C, and Boeing reportedly including some Growlers with their Super Hornets.

Those were not thrown in as a splurge ('buy all of our range') but rather to get 'full points' for being able to complete three mission scenarios - which have not been published - but most likely Globaleye is for making most of defensive sorties against numerically superior attacking force; and Growlers for offensive counter-air... that would be just two of three, but essentially v different mission scenarios, also informing what weapon sets should be included in pricing the final bid.
No doubt that's the approach however I'd say it strikes me as a little bit of a grey area in the first place. If the primary offered platform can't meet the mission then it should be rejected from the competition, regardless of what buddies it brings along.

In that same spirit of flexibility, offering a batch of subsidised Hawks could be in lieu of designated trainer Typhoons, just as the Growlers would be in lieu of an inherent capability in the baseline Super Bugs. Brand it as a "complete combat air support package" if needed.
ArmChairCivvy wrote: any parts for the assembly would catch some of the value add, but likely that train has left the station (so trying to get onto it is rather hard).
Indeed I thought the Brough line was already dead, with some small scale assembly at Warton, the full line in India and a new line in Saudi putting together UK built kits. Don't want to go too off topic on the future of Hawk production/procurement but there is still nothing planned to replace our remaining fleet of T1s in the RAF and RN.
When will the UK need to replace them, and how many are we talking about? (wasn't there some chatter of also needing to replace the Red Arrows not so long ago)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jensy wrote: F-18 replacement.

(Interestingly the Finnish F-18s have always had a superior jamming capability to other global fleets, making use of the same jammer fitted to the USN's Super Hornets.)
In reverse order, they were also the only ones with an F rather than an 'AF' designation, having been optimised for AD.
- that changed (also the designation changed) with their MLU which, among other things, brought offensive counter-air, using the stealthiest cruise missiles available at the time. A big ticket item; but also a capability that any invader would have to seriously countenance with
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

having been optimised for AD
Forgot to mention that the Spanish Hornets also received a performant upgrade, with the French helmet giving them the look-and-point A2A capability v early on
-despite this, I understand they were kept fully multi-role all along
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 548
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Jensy »

dmereifield wrote: When will the UK need to replace them, and how many are we talking about? (wasn't there some chatter of also needing to replace the Red Arrows not so long ago)
Now that's a question that I'm not sure an answer exists for.

Although all currently Hawks, there are four fairly distinct requirements that could be met by RAF aircraft, private contractors, a mixture of the two, or nothing at all:

- The Air Support to Defence Operational Training (ASDOT) programme to replace the RN's Hawks, (and some King Airs) that were due to leave service this year, has been shelved/cancelled. One of the platforms considered was the Textron Scorpion.

- Aggressor training currently performed by 100 squadron for the RAF, was once expected to also be replaced by ASDOT but is likewise up in the air (sorry). Some on here and elsewhere think it's likely to be replaced by one of the private 'red-air' contractors, some of whom even operate Hawker Hunters.

- Lingering advanced trainer requirement. The MoD simply didn't purchase enough Hawk 128s to replace the legacy Hawk fleet in the primary training role. Not certain about numbers but I believe that both fleets are operating at RAF Valley. This strike me as the obvious top order for more Hawk T2s, even as the trend towards synthetic training gains momentum.

- Finally.... the Red Arrows, according to a UKDJ article, are expected to keep flying their T1As until 2030.. and likely longer. Don't want to risk treason but I'd say this is the least important and easiest solved with off-the-shelf solutions. That is unless Aeralis works some magic in Whitehall (indeed their proposed family of aircraft would meet nearly all of the above requirements).

Image
Aeralis thread:http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=1034
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jensy wrote: In reverse order, they were also the only ones with an F rather than an 'AF' designation, having been optimised for AD.
Quite so, should have specified that they got theirs before the Super Hornet entered service. Despite not being the newest of aircraft, still a highly formidable capability to replace.

Edit: Mods deepest apologies for going so off topic on Typhoon. Please move if felt necessary. Thanks :angel:

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2544
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by dmereifield »

^ thanks for the comprehensive and interesting answers

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Jensy wrote:I'm afraid assumption is all that those not intimately involved with the programme have. We do not know their exact requirements; the parameters by which they seek to make their choice; or their priorities.

From what is publicly accessible, the Finnish MoD seem certain that they are looking for a fighter:
And all contenders are offering a fighter as part of the package but they do not operate alone and are part of the system.

“The primary purpose of Finland’s defence capability is to establish deterrence against the use of military force and the threat of its use, as well as to repel attacks on Finland. To perform this task, Finland needs fighters. They are an essential part of the air defence system and Defence Forces’ capability in engaging land- and sea-based targets. The fighter fleet’s capabilities also supplement the Defence Forces’ intelligence, surveillance and command environment.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:to establish deterrence against the use of military force and the threat of its use, as well as to repel attacks on Finland.
The first part is about threats to vital functions (energy, comms, foreign trade); that such will attract a similar response after the first shot, and the second is about what Hornets initially were bought for (AD).

The interesting part in that official communication is "sea-based" targets
- what weapons does this imply into the mix
- the RBS ( on Gripen) equivalent is already readily available from ships (foreign trade) and land launchers (against seaborne invasion)
... so something cheaper and thereby more plentiful is my guess
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote:to establish deterrence against the use of military force and the threat of its use, as well as to repel attacks on Finland.
The first part is about threats to vital functions (energy, comms, foreign trade); that such will attract a similar response after the first shot, and the second is about what Hornets initially were bought for (AD).

The interesting part in that official communication is "sea-based" targets
- what weapons does this imply into the mix
- the RBS ( on Gripen) equivalent is already readily available from ships (foreign trade) and land launchers (against seaborne invasion)
... so something cheaper and thereby more plentiful is my guess
It may point towards something to deal with smaller raiding craft often seen in the Baltic region.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

yes, and quite aside from the fighter competition, on that front Finland has been an early adopter of mobile weapons (SS-11, then Spike ER) suited to inflict enough damage on that kind of targets.
- glide bombs can be used against slowly (20 knots?) moving targets; I wonder e.g. how many such could be loaded onto an SH in one go
... and if the whole loadout would equate to the price of one RBS/ Gabriel
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:glide bombs can be used against slowly (20 knots?) moving targets
Why do the targets have to be slow?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Not necessarily; just that I don't know how much in unpowered flight a glide bomb can adjust from the initial launch parameters, when the distance from launch to target is x, from an altitude y, with the 'gifted' speed of the launch platform being z
... what do you think?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Not necessarily; just that I don't know how much in unpowered flight a glide bomb can adjust from the initial launch parameters, when the distance from launch to target is x, from an altitude y, with the 'gifted' speed of the launch platform being z
... what do you think?
Dunno, was curious.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Sounds like an operational debut for typhoon and stormshadow


User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 548
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Jensy »

BAE upping the ante in Finland:



Edit: Few more details from Flight Global: https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/uk ... 39.article
Andrea Thompson, BAE Systems’ managing director Europe and international, says the Eurofighter proposal includes more than 70 work packages, which would be established with over 100 Finnish companies. Final assembly will also be offered when the UK delivers its response to Helsinki’s request for best and final offers, which are due to be submitted on 30 April.
“As part of our offer, Finnish defence personnel and strategic industry partners will be given the sovereign capability and skills as well as operational knowledge on the engine in order to lead on all activities, where Eurojet will become a supplier to Finland,” Zino says.

Finland is the first potential Eurofighter customer outside of the core nations to be offered such work, he notes.

Also linked to the proposal, Helsinki was last November offered involvement in the Leonardo UK-led ECRS 2 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar programme in the event of a Typhoon selection. The UK Ministry of Defence last September placed an initial £317 million ($437 million) contract to complete development work, perform testing and produce the updated sensor for part of the RAF’s fleet.

“Finland gets what the Royal Air Force gets,” chief of the air staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston says with reference to the AESA product, which will also gain electronic warfare functionality. “Finland will have complete sovereign control of Eurofighter’s mission data, its management and manipulation,” he adds.
Offering final assembly would suggest that Warton is going to be very quiet from the final Qatari delivery until the mid 2030s. Not sure how killing of their production line fits in with the government's 'prosperity agenda'...

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 736
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Defiance »

Jensy wrote: Offering final assembly would suggest that Warton is going to be very quiet from the final Qatari delivery until the mid 2030s. Not sure how that fits in with the 'prosperity agenda'...
Fits in more than putting UK-assembly in the final bid and the UK gets nothing ...

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 548
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Jensy »

Defiance wrote:
Jensy wrote: Offering final assembly would suggest that Warton is going to be very quiet from the final Qatari delivery until the mid 2030s. Not sure how that fits in with the 'prosperity agenda'...
Fits in more than putting UK-assembly in the final bid and the UK gets nothing ...
Perhaps, if the other competing bidders were offering similar. Otherwise it comes across as a tad desperate and contradictory as we purchase another of the aircraft being considered.

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 736
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Defiance »

Jensy wrote:
Perhaps, if the other competing bidders were offering similar. Otherwise it comes across as a tad desperate and contradictory as we purchase another of the aircraft being considered.
Saab have offered that level of offset if I remember correctly (so did Rafale when they were in it). I would also consider bearing in mind the Finland bid is something like $12-14 Billion, it's likely they have some stringent demands as far as offset is concerned so 'desperate' is a bit of a stretch (especially as that's one large USP F-35 cannot provide to the same degree).

This isn't to say Typhoon will win, but when you compete against F-35 you gotta offer and promote the F-35 offer can't

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jensy wrote: “Finland will have complete sovereign control of Eurofighter’s mission data, its management and manipulation,” he adds.
Ahh, those bloody Finns, they :) are doing it again?
- -buying off the end of the production line, and
... getting the very next (and best 8-) ) radar into it, on the deal

Of course the Chief Air Marshall (in the quote) put a bit of a sting, into the tail of the sentence, as with the F-35 you don't get that
- or, has anyone heard of the Norgie-Italo joint project that set out to do that (for their F-35s) :?:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 548
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by Jensy »

Defiance wrote: Saab have offered that level of offset if I remember correctly (so did Rafale when they were in it). I would also consider bearing in mind the Finland bid is something like $12-14 Billion, it's likely they have some stringent demands as far as offset is concerned so 'desperate' is a bit of a stretch (especially as that's one large USP F-35 cannot provide to the same degree).

This isn't to say Typhoon will win, but when you compete against F-35 you gotta offer and promote the F-35 offer can't
Fair enough, "desperate" might have been a tad glib.

For c.64 jets industrial offsets seem to offer more to Finnish industry than setting up a fifth Eurofighter production line (already one of the greatest inefficiencies in the programme). The offerings from RR and Leonardo with ECRS 2 could be far more valuable for a country that procures combat aircraft at 30 year intervals.

Finland is a technologically advanced country with a capable defence industry, they don't need the kudos from local production that other, less confident, buyers might. Having ownership of MRO and upgrade work has been reported as being highly valued by them. These are the areas where Eurofighter can demonstrate its strength.

Despite all this, until recently my assumption was that F-35 had it in the bag, due to the 'deep strike' emphasis. Even with a few months of negative headlines I think they're still the favourite, with Gripen bringing the value/local option. At present, Typhoon and Boeing's hybrid offer still appear some distance behind.

P.S: Did Rafale officially drop out, or just withdraw any serious effort?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jensy wrote: until recently my assumption was that F-35 had it in the bag, due to the 'deep strike' emphasis.
What deep strike? Are you referring to the offensive counter-air rqrmnt?
Jensy wrote: Even with a few months of negative headlines I think they're still the favourite
May be I've not read the right press, but I'm lost as to what these headlines are?
- especially as I have been raising many such over the years
Jensy wrote: they don't need the kudos from local production that other, less confident, buyers might. Having ownership of MRO and upgrade work has been reported as being highly valued by them.
You have hit the nail on the head with this one. Defence industry rationalisation across the Scandies cannot be based on replication of work, but rather finding the niches where tech innovation and self-sufficiency (err, 'local supply') can be guaranteed. And to do that you have to work at scale - not with 'one offs'
Jensy wrote:(already one of the greatest inefficiencies in the programme). The offerings from RR and Leonardo with ECRS 2 could be far more valuable for a country that procures combat aircraft at 30 year intervals.
Finland does not do jet propulsion (so I am lost on the RR bit) whereas the radar (detection and deception) side of things is one of the focal areas... universities included
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Offering a final assembly capability isn’t as inefficient as is sometimes made out. The process is to ensure that your major subs are as complete as possible prior to arriving at a FAL so traveled work is minimal and as such it gives you a workforce with a skill set to do integration, certification and test.

Sovereignty over such a stage is important as we have seen in other industries of late.


You never know Nokia 5G contracts may also be getting an airing specially now there kicking Chinese stuff out.

Post Reply