Typhoon Questions

[get some time in?]

Hello,
Well here's the thing... I am doing some general research into different ac we operate (due to an impending visit to OASC) and i am wondering if any of the guys that work on the Typhoon sqns, or indeed anyone else in the know could clear a few things up for me.
I understand that the UK has ordered 232 Typhoons and that they will be delivered over three tranches. I also believe that there are currently 34 Typhoons currently in service, leaving 21 to go before the first tranche of deliveries has been completed. However, there has been plenty of talk about a possible cancellation of the final tranche of 88 ac. Has this been made official? Does anybody know when the next ac is due?
Any help with this would be great!
Thanks

[Lamptramp]

Hello,
Well here's the thing... I am doing some general research into different ac we operate (due to an impending visit to OASC) and i am wondering if any of the guys that work on the Typhoon sqns, or indeed anyone else in the know could clear a few things up for me.
I understand that the UK has ordered 232 Typhoons and that they will be delivered over three tranches. I also believe that there are currently 34 Typhoons currently in service, leaving 21 to go before the first tranche of deliveries has been completed. However, there has been plenty of talk about a possible cancellation of the final tranche of 88 ac. Has this been made official? Does anybody know when the next ac is due?
Any help with this would be great!
Thanks

A little too early in your Goat career to be asking Operationally sensitive questions isn't it?

[MattBombHead]

A little too early in your Goat career to be asking Operationally sensitive questions isn't it?

Off Topic Possible journo?

[wobbly]

Remember lads, the post counts are really true due to the rollback of the database and stuff and "get some in" has been posting since September.

[SirSaltyHelmet]

It's probably public domain anyhow but I can't be fooked to look

[get some time in?]

Possible journo? No I am just a little SAC trying to get a commission, and when the IO asks the old question of "So what ac would you like to fly then" I can go into the old "Typhoon this Typhoon that bla bla bla."
I dont belive this information to be Operationally sensitive as all the information i have, has been retreived from the public domain and i am trying to bulid my knowledge based on solid facts not on sneaky whispers about what may or may not be happening.
As for it being early in my goat career, i do prefer to watch then take part!:PDT_Xtremez_15:

[SirSaltyHelmet]

Possible journo? No I am just a little SAC trying to get a commission, and when the IO asks the old question of "So what ac would you like to fly then" I can go into the old "Typhoon this Typhoon that bla bla bla."
I dont belive this information to be Operationally sensitive as all the information i have, has been retreived from the public domain and i am trying to bulid my knowledge based on solid facts not on sneaky whispers about what may or may not be happening.
As for it being early in my goat career, i do prefer to watch then take part!:PDT_Xtremez_15:

Write to British Waste Of Space and ask, all they can do is ignore you at worse

[Scaley brat]

i do prefer to watch then take part!:PDT_Xtremez_15:

Perfect growbag filler then :PDT_Xtremez_35:

[MattBombHead]

appologies GSTI,

*must learn not to make assumptions to early*

:PDT_Xtremez_21:

[loafing]

Get Some Time In,

just ignore most of the previous posts on here & fair play to you for having the balls to go for it.

In answer to your question (a question which offers no risk to OPSEC LampTramp), The RAF actually has 35 Typhoons on it's books to date. Once Tranche 1 is complete, it is quite likely, depending on the political wrangling going on with BAE, that Tranche 2 a/c will be delivered to Saudi Arabia.

As a result of this, the F3 is set to remain in service for a little while longer than planned & hopefully, someone will have the sense to retain the Jaguar too.

Tranche 3 a/c will be delivered to the RAF in a few years time & as for further purchases, it could go either way.

Scenario 1: RAF & RN get JSF, no more Typhoons ordered.

Scenario 2 (my favourite as a Harrier mate): JSF gets canned & Typhoon gets a further order with some airframes being navalised. They have looked at Typhoon as a Navy option already & it could be done without too much added cost.

The only other way I see it going is if the RAF gets Tranche 2 & the Saudi order is delivered by ramping up the Typhoon manufacturing plants up to full speed.

Hope that helps.

Good Luck!!

[I look like Bruce Willis]

Possible journo? No I am just a little SAC trying to get a commission, and when the IO asks the old question of "So what ac would you like to fly then" I can go into the old "Typhoon this Typhoon that bla bla bla."
I dont belive this information to be Operationally sensitive as all the information i have, has been retreived from the public domain and i am trying to bulid my knowledge based on solid facts not on sneaky whispers about what may or may not be happening.
As for it being early in my goat career, i do prefer to watch then take part!:PDT_Xtremez_15:

While I applaud this use of this forum for its intended purpose as a venue where we all can discuss Airpower Power; I do think that if you want a commission you should sort out your capitalisation, spelling and puncutation. A course at your Force Development Centre may be of use.

[tommo9999]

While I applaud this use of this forum for its intended purpose as a venue where we all can discuss Airpower Power; I do think that if you want a commission you should sort out your capitalisation, spelling and puncutation. A course at your Force Development Centre may be of use.

What is Airpower Power then? And puncutation?

[Oh sir]

While I applaud this use of this forum for its intended purpose as a venue where we all can discuss Airpower Power; I do think that if you want a commission you should sort out your capitalisation, spelling and puncutation. A course at your Force Development Centre may be of use.

Are you trying to catch us out here Brucie?

Standards Flight Sergeant, standards.

[I look like Bruce Willis]

What is Airpower Power then? And puncutation?

Air power is the most difficult of military force to measure or even to express in
precise terms. The problem is compounded by the fact that aviation tends to attract adventurous souls, physically adept, mentally alert and pragmatically rather than philosophically inclined.

You should try reading AP 3000 which everybody was issued a copy of.

[tommo9999]

Air power is the most difficult of military force to measure or even to express in
precise terms. The problem is compounded by the fact that aviation tends to attract adventurous souls, physically adept, mentally alert and pragmatically rather than philosophically inclined.

You should try reading AP 3000 which everybody was issued a copy of.

Just a wee nibble there then????

[Oh sir]

You should try reading AP 3000 which everybody was issued a copy of.

Shouldn't that be.....

"You should try reading AP 3000, a copy of which everybody was issued with" ?

You really are slipping!

[The Masked Geek]

Or "Try reading your issued copy of AP3000". :PDT_Xtremez_30:

[I look like Bruce Willis]

Shouldn't that be.....

"You should try reading AP 3000, a copy of which everybody was issued with" ?

You really are slipping!

If you have nothing constructive to add and just come here to correct minor, supposed grammatical, errors please do not post or I will report you to site admin for power posting

[supersquip]

neither i or anyone i know has ever been issue with a copy of said ap

[The Masked Geek]

If you have nothing constructive to add and just come here to correct minor, supposed grammatical, errors please do not post or I will report you to site admin for power posting

Let's move those commas.

correct minor, supposed, grammatical errors, please

[I look like Bruce Willis]

neither i or anyone i know has ever been issue with a copy of said ap
Or attended the Forces Development Engish courses?

[Hu Jardon]

Scenario 2 (my favourite as a Harrier mate): JSF gets canned & Typhoon gets a further order with some airframes being navalised. They have looked at Typhoon as a Navy option already & it could be done without too much added cost.

Are you for real

Do you really believe that BAEs have looked at this and it could be done without too much added cost.

They've hardly got a good track record of modifying things, look at the AEW Nimrod and the MR4. They've never delivered anything either on time, on budget, that works right first time. Feck me it took em 20 odd years to get the GR Tornados to work as advertised.

Never mind that the bloody thing is made of plastic, glass, string, dirty bedsheets and glue. FFS have you ever seen an F4, F14, Buccaneer or anything else design to controlled crash land every time it comes back off a sortie?

To say nothing about having any Aircraft Carriers either long enough or strong enough to take a non VTOL aircraft.

Stick to flying them eh

:PDT_Xtremez_25:

[Oh sir]

If you have nothing constructive to add and just come here to correct minor, supposed grammatical, errors please do not post or I will report you to site admin for power posting

:PDT_Xtremez_14: :PDT_Xtremez_14: :PDT_Xtremez_14: :PDT_Xtremez_14:
Cracking comeback.

You missed the full stop at the end of your sentence by the way. :PDT_Xtremez_30:

[I look like Bruce Willis]

Let's move those commas.

correct minor, supposed, grammatical errors, please

This is a thread about the Typoon. If you have nothing constructive to add and just come here to correct grammatical, errors please do not post or I will report you to site admin for power posting
__________________

[sausage2]

This is a thread about the Typoon. If you have nothing constructive to add and just come here to correct grammatical, errors please do not post or I will report you to site admin for power posting
__________________

here Brucey. you dinnt put a full stop at the end

[firestorm]

Is ILLBW turning into PS?:PDT_Xtremez_03:

[I look like Bruce Willis]

here Brucey. you dinnt put a full stop at the end

What hope is there for this site when you, as a so called moderator, can not construct a sentence? The discussions are of a much better caliber over at Pprune and I would be over there like a shot if my account was not suspended.

Back on thread:

The four-nation Eurofighter Typhoon is a foreplane delta-wing, beyond-visual-range, close air fighter aircraft with surface attack capability. Eurofighter has 'supercruise' capability: it can fly at sustained speeds of over Mach 1 without the use of afterburner.

[MadMouse]

Oh Brucie, ref your signature:
Pride in self, Pride in Service.I never make mistakes. Well, I did make one once. That was when I thought I had made a mistake, but hadn't"

The second 'p' should be lower case.
There should be two spaces after a full stop.
There is no requirement for the final quote marks.

I hope this aids you in a continuous-improvement kind of way.

[arsolamio]

Is ILLBW turning into PS?:PDT_Xtremez_03:
I had heard that Brucie was a Ginger b@stard so maybe he is my dad and not Penguin Sucks and if he's a real Flt Sgt and a Techie that would mean he's got sh!tloads of cash so I would get even better Chrimbo prezzies

I'm off to tell my mum and my Uncles they can pop down to Wyton tommorrow.

[I look like Bruce Willis]

Oh Brucie, ref your signature:
Pride in self, Pride in Service.I never make mistakes. Well, I did make one once. That was when I thought I had made a mistake, but hadn't"

The second 'p' should be lower case.
There should be two spaces after a full stop.
There is no requirement for the final quote marks.

I hope this aids you in a continuous-improvement kind of way.

Do try and keep on thread or I will also report you.


Development of the aircraft has been carried out by Eurofighter GmbH, based in Munich and wholly owned by BAE Systems of the UK, Alenia Aeronautica of Italy and the EADS Deutschland (formerly DaimlerChrysler) and EADS Spain (formerly CASA).

In January 2003, Norway signed an agreement for industrial participation in the project, but has not committed to purchase of the fighter.

The EJ200 engine has been developed by Eurojet GmbH, in Munich which is owned by Rolls Royce, MTU Aero Engines, Fiat Aviazione and ITP.

[monobrow]

www.i_look_like_bruce_willis.justgotowned.com

[I look like Bruce Willis]

www.i_look_like_bruce_willis.justgotowned.com
This is blatant thread creep and has been reported to the site admin.

Back on thread:


The aircraft is constructed of carbon fire composites, glass-reinforced plastic, aluminium lithium, titanium and aluminium casting. Stealth technology features include low frontal radar cross-section, passive sensors and supercruise ability.

The foreplane/delta configuration is intentionally aerodynamically unstable which provides a high level of agility (particularly at supersonic speeds), low drag and enhanced lift. The pilot controls the aircraft through a computerised digital fly-by-wire system which provides artificial stabilisation and gust elevation to give good control characteristics throughout the flight envelope.

[Scaley brat]

I had heard that Brucie was a Ginger b@stard so maybe he is my dad and not Penguin Sucks and if he's a real Flt Sgt and a Techie that would mean he's got sh!tloads of cash so I would get even better Chrimbo prezzies

I'm off to tell my mum and my Uncles they can pop down to Wyton tommorrow.

Off Topic Don't bother, anyone who has read anything posted by ILFALBW already knows he is still a virgin unable to get so much as a mercy sh@g off a drunken wraf. The DNA test would show he is more closely related to a cephalopod Off Topic

To save you googling Bruce willy, click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod)

[I look like Bruce Willis]

Off Topic Don't bother, anyone who has read anything posted by ILFALBW already knows he is still a virgin unable to get so much as a mercy sh@g off a drunken wraf. The DNA test would show he is more closely related to a cephalopod Off Topic

To save you googling Bruce willy, click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod)

I am not even going to bother replying to your childish post.

[tommo9999]

This is blatant thread creep and has been reported to the site admin.

Get a life you sad individual.

Or should it be:

Get; A life, you, sad, Indviduail.

[I look like Bruce Willis]

Get a life you sad individual.

Or should it be:

Get; A life, you, sad, Indviduail.

I will not enter into childish name calling with you, you utter to$$er.

[tommo9999]

I will not enter into childish name calling with you, you utter to$$er.

1 thread, 2 nibbles. Oh Yes!!

[I look like Bruce Willis]

1 thread, 2 nibbles. Oh Yes!!

I refuse to be drawn into a pointless argument with you.

[TrenchardsLoveSock]

1 thread, 2 nibbles. Oh Yes!!

That's like being pleased that you've managed to get laid in a brothel!!

ILLBW exists for the sole purpose of biting and turning threads into rows about grammar and punctuation.

I missed him sooooo much.
[happy dance] Welcome back ILLBW [/happy dance]

[Never Alert]

Are you for real

Do you really believe that BAEs have looked at this and it could be done without too much added cost.

They've hardly got a good track record of modifying things, look at the AEW Nimrod and the MR4. They've never delivered anything either on time, on budget, that works right first time. Feck me it took em 20 odd years to get the GR Tornados to work as advertised.

Never mind that the bloody thing is made of plastic, glass, string, dirty bedsheets and glue. FFS have you ever seen an F4, F14, Buccaneer or anything else design to controlled crash land every time it comes back off a sortie?

To say nothing about having any Aircraft Carriers either long enough or strong enough to take a non VTOL aircraft.

Stick to flying them eh

:PDT_Xtremez_25:

Go and take a look at the variant of F35 we are looking at & you might just find that the conventional engine is the option we will probably have to take.

Technology transfer is a huge issue with this project and would force the RAF/RN to fly it's a/c over the pond whenever they are due a major service or upgrade. MASSIVELY expensive. Add to this the fact that project is having problems that make the Typhoon programme look smooth as silk.

Typhoon has been looked at, like I said, and relatively speaking, the cost will be lower than that of the F35 due to the fact that the government is contacted to cough up for Typhoon as it stands.

I appreciate your point about BAEs history however, the other option would be Rafale... Jesus.

Pulling out of Typhoon orders would bring on huge financial penalties, making any withdrawal of a purchase more expensive than buying the airframes (top bit of negiotiating by the MoD Procurement idiots).

Should Saudi not purchase Typhoon (Tranche 2), then the RAF will have to & if so, I wouldn't put much money on seeing the F35 with any UK aircrew in it, hence the likelyhood of a Navy variant of the Typhoon.

[Hu Jardon]

Typhoon has been looked at, like I said, and relatively speaking, the cost will be lower than that of the F35 due to the fact that the government is contacted to cough up for Typhoon as it stands.

Not the first (or probably last) time BAEs come up with that answer.

Never Alert

In a previous incarnation I worked on the EFA project and the Maritime version of the Eurofighter was one of the first ideas to be sh!tcanned closely followed by the Multi Role version.

The other thing to remember is that anything done to the Eurofighter must be agreed by all partners and I have personal experience that that is a complete nightmare, and would the rest of them want to be involved in the cost involved in such a small Buy? Fcuk me the gun in out debate was a doosie to say nothing about what colour wheels shold be on the ground equipment.

The other thing to remember is that the F35 was destined to have a maritime version from day one.

Two sensible solutions - get hold of the plans for Phantoms and Buccaneers - Toss a coin and decide which ones to build - you know it makes sense. Given a choice take the Phantom

[Scaley brat]

Two sensible solutions - get hold of the plans for Phantoms and Buccaneers - Toss a coin and decide which ones to build - you know it makes sense. Given a choice take the Phantom

Real Aircraft, built like brick sh1thouses :PDT_Xtremez_14:

[loafing]

[QUOTE=Scaley brat;45789]Real Aircraft, built like brick sh1thouses :PDT_Xtremez_14:[/QUOTE}

They don't build 'em like they used to!

The US Congress has gone against the proposal to use the Rolls Royce Engine in the F35, despite earlier promises and will not issue a technology transfer for export F35s.

Based on how things are going at the moment, I don't think we should buy any F35s and opt into more Typhoons. We have a pilot on the unit who has flown the F35 & although he does sing its praises in many areas, it would appear that there are also many areas of concern that perhaps outweight the positives.

We are fairly well advanced down the road of getting the type into service proper & 3 Sqn will stand up as a front line unit quite soon. The Harrier mates flying it are loving it & see a great deal of potential within the a/c as a G/A platform. F35 is a million miles from frontline service & unfortunately, the GR7/9s are going to need replacing by circa 2017. Lets not wait to be let down by a US administration that is losing interest in the UK & make sure we buy a capable a/c that will provide security for UK jobs & bring in a few quid into the bargain.

I appreciate Typhoon has had more than its share of bad press, much of it unjustified however, trust me, it is bloody awesome.

[exerk]

...Lets not wait to be let down by a US administration that is losing interest in the UK & make sure we buy a capable a/c that will provide security for UK jobs & bring in a few quid into the bargain.

I appreciate Typhoon has had more than its share of bad press, much of it unjustified however, trust me, it is bloody awesome.

It's not about UK job security, it's about having the best tools for the job!

I've been out of the mob for 5 years now and I and my contempories then were calling it 'yesterdays aircraft, tomorrow' because of the way entry-into-service kept slipping.

If we can buy off-the-shelf to best equip our people we should do so, if the spams wont do tech-transfer then don't buy the kit from them. As regards the JSF/F35 the bloody thing is already too heavy for the carriers we are (maybe) going to build.

[loafing]

It's not about UK job security, it's about having the best tools for the job!

I've been out of the mob for 5 years now and I and my contempories then were calling it 'yesterdays aircraft, tomorrow' because of the way entry-into-service kept slipping.

If we can buy off-the-shelf to best equip our people we should do so, if the spams wont do tech-transfer then don't buy the kit from them. As regards the JSF/F35 the bloody thing is already too heavy for the carriers we are (maybe) going to build.

That is why my post suggested that we should purchase a capable a/c. The fact that it will sustain UK jobs is an important factor when you look at the money involved.

Typhoon is certainly late into service, most fast jets do not come in on time. Rafale is in production now however, it is not offering anything more that a cheap Typhoon with the corners cut. F22 is very late and VERY over budget, to the point where the USAF are only going to receive 1 F22 for every 4 F15s they retire.

There is no such thing as an off the shelf fast jet if you are wanting to buy the next generation of technology. Should the UK go for F16 Block 50 it would have a lovely a/c however, Rafale, Typhoon, Grippen are all likely to be sold around the world & we would be putting ourselves at a disadvantage before we even start.

[Lamptramp]

Two sensible solutions - get hold of the plans for Phantoms and Buccaneers - Toss a coin and decide which ones to build - you know it makes sense. Given a choice take the Phantom

Can I be the Leckie shift boss on rects - I know a good armourer GEM by name GEM by nature!:PDT_Xtremez_28:

[MrMasher]

I went on a course to Rolls Royce about 4 years ago. Whilst there we were proudly shown the JSF engine. What a belter! As mentioned earlier in the thread, the yanks have binned it?

Will we be able to shoe horn it into the Typhoon?!!

I don't believe we will end up with the JSF. After all the speculation broadcast on the news about technology rights coupled with the fact that the US appear to be spending all of their development cash in Iraq it would appear that we really have to look at alternatives now.

We are bound to end up with more Typhoons, whatever the variant. The government will do the same thing they always do. BAE appear to be in trouble so the forces will step in and buy whatever it is they have built to prevent a "traditional" british company struggling. (Remember Westlands and the Merlin? We wanted more Chinooks and ended up with Merlins so that Westlands didnt go bust)

A cynical view perhaps or do you get what I'm saying?

[SirSaltyHelmet]

The government will do the same thing they always do. BAE appear to be in trouble so the forces will step in and buy whatever it is they have built to prevent a "traditional" british company struggling. (Remember Westlands and the Merlin? We wanted more Chinooks and ended up with Merlins so that Westlands didnt go bust)

A cynical view perhaps or do you get what I'm saying?

Maybe so, however the Merlin has proved itself a VERY capable aircraft. They have also sold it to the yanks.

[MrMasher]

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't slating the Merlin.

I was at Odiham at the time and we were screaming out for more Chinnies then.
It just seemed to us that the decision made was political more than military......

[Blind_beggar]

This is a thread about the Typoon. If you have nothing constructive to add and just come here to correct grammatical, errors please do not post or I will report you to site admin for power posting
__________________

Typhoon, surely?

[POB]

I am not a techie, but it seems to me at first sight anyway, that we could build new aircraft, based on the old ones. Please correct me if I am wrong (I am sure that some of you will!) but we have a proven good design (say for instance Phantom or may be Canberra) that we know works. They are just tired and worn out.

With the plans in one hand and new, modern materials in the other could we not rebuild the mighty 'Toom? But with modern engines etc? Or is that just far too simplistic? To me it seems that it would be cheaper...


P

[Hu Jardon]

With the plans in one hand and new, modern materials in the other could we not rebuild the mighty 'Toom? P
Keep up POB if you look back a few posts not only has that already been suggested we've already recruited enough manpower for the best shift on the first new Phantom Sqn FFS

:PDT_Xtremez_28:

[Hu Jardon]

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-12-12T143628Z_01_L12778356_RTRIDST_0_BRITAIN-JSF-URGENT.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna

LONDON, Dec 12 (Reuters) - Britain's Ministry of Defence said on Tuesday it had signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the United States on development of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) but did not formally commit to buying the combat jets.
"We have always been clear that the UK would only sign the MoU if we were satisfied that we would have operational sovereignty of our aircraft," the MoD said in a statement.
"We have today received the necessary assurances from the U.S. on technology transfer, which we would require to operate the aircraft safely and maintain, repair and upgrade it over its operational life."
Also called the F-35, the JSF is a Lockheed Martin Corp-led (LMT.N: Quote (http://stocks.us.reuters.com/stocks/overview.asp?symbol=LMT.N&WTmodLoc=InvArt-C1-ArticlePage1), Profile (http://stocks.us.reuters.com/stocks/fullDescription.asp?symbol=LMT.N&WTmodLoc=InvArt-C1-ArticlePage1) , Research (http://stocks.us.reuters.com/stocks/analystResearch.asp?symbol=LMT.N&WTmodLoc=InvArt-C1-ArticlePage1)) programme to build fighters for the United States, UK, and seven other partner nations.


Doesn't mean we'll actually buy it but then again there's no fekkin rush 'cos we havn't got them big flat boats to put the fekkers on. Lets hope they do soon though so we can get the Navy back where they belong, and probably rather be too.

Hu

[MrMasher]

Flat boats?

Not getting the VSTOL variant then?

Thats the engine from Rolls Royce I mentioned earlier in the thread!

[Harry_R_Jumpjet]

I am doing some general research into different ac we operate (due to an impending visit to OASC) and i am wondering if any of the guys that work on the Typhoon sqns, or indeed anyone else in the know could clear a few things up for me.
I understand that the UK has ordered 232 Typhoons and that they will be delivered over three tranches. I also believe that there are currently 34 Typhoons currently in service, leaving 21 to go before the first tranche of deliveries has been completed. However, there has been plenty of talk about a possible cancellation of the final tranche of 88 ac. Has this been made official? Does anybody know when the next ac is due?

I wouldn't worry too much about the numbers: you may well get asked "What are we going to use Typhoon for?" That is a difficult one - BAe had the EAP (Experimental Aircraft Programme) technology demonstrator flying around before I left the mob in 1990, and the EFA design was well advanced.

So, an aircraft designed in the 80's, when the Cold War was still around, and introduced into service about now. For what purpose? Can you explain why we need Typhoon today, noting that MoD didn't buy it to give growbags something to fly when they get to work, nor to keep techies busy trying to understand it and mend it. Our procurement programme has just got far too long, and by the time the kit hits the front line, the world has changed. No-one can predict the future, but we're unlikely to go it alone in any serious military activity (yes, I remember Dahn Saarf; I was there in 1982), and the coalition will undoubtedly include Uncle Sam. So why do you think we need that many air superiority fighters today?

To get a grip of this, what you could do is get yourself a copy of Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs from Amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lions-Donkeys-Dinosaurs-Lewis-Page/dp/0434013897/sr=11-1/qid=1166046142/ref=sr_11_1/203-3257516-9944716), go down to your local boozer, find a quiet illuminated corner and read this book over a couple of pints. Two or three evenings should do it. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with the authors conclusions, at least you'll be sufficiently well informed to argue your own views.

And to be able to talk that strategic view will get you Brownie points at the interview. Good luck.

[get some time in?]

Thanks very much to you all for your input, I'm just trying to get as much knowledge as I can on the matter, because there is nothing worse then being asked a question and not even having a clue what they are on about (this happened once or twice during my P2 filter interview!)
HRJ I have read Lions, Donkey and Dinosaurs and found it very interesting, and he quoted alot of useful facts and figures, but I found the author to be very anti RAF.
Thanks again to everyone for all your help!

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

I am not a techie, but it seems to me at first sight anyway, that we could build new aircraft, based on the old ones. Please correct me if I am wrong (I am sure that some of you will!) but we have a proven good design (say for instance Phantom or may be Canberra) that we know works. They are just tired and worn out.

With the plans in one hand and new, modern materials in the other could we not rebuild the mighty 'Toom? But with modern engines etc? Or is that just far too simplistic? To me it seems that it would be cheaper...


P

The second generation aircraft mentioned in your thread would get their butts kicked by the later Russian designs in service with some of the non aligned airforces, if ever faced (and regardless of the skill of our growbags). It is true that Typhoon is in really years too late into service and it is questionable that some of the features of the aircraft design really are suitable for the type of operations we are involved in now (Time in operational theatre's will tell) or if the airframe is really "bombhead" resistant. However all the growbags who fly it rave about its handling, performance and the quatum leap it gives them in capablity (one for u I.L.L.B.W!!!) I was sceptical about them, however seeing them in the flesh, they do blow the mind in what they can do as a fighter!!!:PDT_Xtremez_28:

[holedweller]

The Typhoon has received a lot of criticism about the fact that it was designed in the Cold War, and saying that it should now be binned because it is not relevant in modern wars.

But at the end of the day its replacing an aircraft that is good at hauling 8 missiles up over the North Sea to shoot down unescorted Soviet Bears, and is not much use at anything else.

The Typhoon can do that and is vastly more capable of carrying out the variety of missions which may be required these days.

When it finally gets its full Air to Ground capability it will finally come into its own, but that can wait. The Tornado GR/Harrier combination is not in as much need of replacement as the F3s are.

As for the delays in the programme - the Rafale is an aircraft which started development around the same time and which commenced deliveries at around the same time. And it had the advanatage of only one countries politicians to get involved. Looking at the JSF programme they are having a number of delays and set backs as well.

[Realist78]

Brilliant jet it maybe but consistent fawning to, and persistent blackmailing from, waste of space never gets what we want or need on time or on budget. I read an ace book this summer 'Lions ,Donkeys and Dinosaurs' by an ex Navy guy about the waste in the UK armed forces...highly recommended. As an example, we were offered F16s in 1979 at about £3m per airframe, off the shelf from the spams, 'Oh no thanks, we've got this marvellous Tornado F2 on the go at the moment(circa £20m)'. 5 nations were'nt wrong, 1 was! When we bought Apache's from Westland, it would have been cheaper to buy off the shelf from the spams, pay every westland employee £1m and say bye, have a nice life...and still save money, but oh no, BAe's the answer. The list goes on!

[Harry_R_Jumpjet]

When we bought Apache's from Westland, it would have been cheaper to buy off the shelf from the spams, pay every westland employee £1m and say bye, have a nice life...and still save money, but oh no, BAe's the answer. The list goes on!

Pray tell: What does BAE SYSTEMS have to do with the Apache? I thought Westland was owned by Finmeccania of Italy.

[Seymour Tw@tt]

Fcuk it, let's just buy some Sukhoi 30s and 37s, and even the MiG 29 will be better. And they'll be dirt cheap... just watch out for the polonium-210

:PDT_Xtremez_15:

[holedweller]

I read an ace book this summer 'Lions ,Donkeys and Dinosaurs' by an ex Navy guy about the waste in the UK armed forces...highly recommended. As an example, we were offered F16s in 1979 at about £3m per airframe, off the shelf from the spams, 'Oh no thanks, we've got this marvellous Tornado F2 on the go at the moment(circa £20m)'. 5 nations were'nt wrong, 1 was! When we bought Apache's from Westland, it would have been cheaper to buy off the shelf from the spams, pay every westland employee £1m and say bye, have a nice life...and still save money, but oh no, BAe's the answer. The list goes on!

Yes, we could have saved 17 million on each airframe, and had a combat aircraft that COULD NOT have achieved the mission that was required of it.

The threat that the UK was looking to defend itself from was from long range bombers from the Soviet Union coming around the North Cape (and from occupied areas of Europe), mainly relying on themselves to defend themselves (hence no real requirement for a maneuverable fighter). Even in those days the Soviets had missiles with a good stand off range.

To this end we needed an aircraft that had exceptional range/endurance and could carry a large air to air payload.

The F16 has a combat range of 500nms (with 10mins air combat) the Tornado could manage that, and loiter for two hours or go further with less loiter. Coupled with the fact that the air-air refueling of the F-16 was incompatible with the UKs tankers makes it even more pointless.

We also had to provide some defence to what would be vital North Atlantic convoys from long range maritime aircraft (as well as protection of our own maritime assets in that theatre).

All the purchasers of the F-16s at the time (with the exception of Norway) had the luxury that all their air to air combat was percieved to be over land or extremely close to usable airfields, which makes the cheaper F16 a reasonable purchase.

Also remember that most of these airforces were in urgent need of an air defence fighter to replace the Starfighter, which lockheed had dumped on them previously (and was probably a far worse aircraft than the Tornado ever was).

The only real option other than the Tornado at the time was to either upgrade the Phantoms or purchase F-15s (though I think the F15s were more expensive and were all being bought up by the Americans at the time).

Had the F-16 been a sensible option at the time I am sure that the government would at jumped at the chance to save money, however they and the RAF were well aware that it would have been the dumb choice. All 6 countries made the right decision a the time.


The Tornado does have its faults, but it does do what was required of it. The F-16 wouldn't.

[grumpyoldb]

Originally Posted by I look like Bruce Willis
This is a thread about the Typoon. If you have nothing constructive to add and just come here to correct grammatical, errors please do not post or I will report you to site admin for power posting


Typhoon, surely?

I think it was a TYPO LOL!

[loafing]

Holedweller,

lets not forget that we are an island surrounded by very cold water! I'm not too sure how happyu the F4 mates would have been if you had asked them to continue their QRA taskings with a single engine fighter. Redundancy is an important factor when operating 200 miles off the coast & the F16 has very little of it.

The F3 is actually a good platform today, JTIDS, AMRAAM & ASRAAM make it an a/c worth avoiding if you are one of the bad guys. They are very good at remainingf BVR & getting plenty of shots off.

Unfortunately, they never spent the money early enough & as a result, the F3 spend too many years flying around with a similar spec to a Mig 23. It was never a real threat to the Soviet Backfires etc.

[exerk]

...The F3 is actually a good platform today, JTIDS, AMRAAM & ASRAAM make it an a/c worth avoiding if you are one of the bad guys. They are very good at remainingf BVR & getting plenty of shots off.

Unfortunately, they never spent the money early enough & as a result, the F3 spend too many years flying around with a similar spec to a Mig 23. It was never a real threat to the Soviet Backfires etc.

Optimised low-level ground-attack airframe/engine combination does not a fighter make!

Also loafing

There is no such thing as an off the shelf fast jet if you are wanting to buy the next generation of technology...

Who say's we need next generation? As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, we don't go to war without Uncle Spam and then only as the little kid hiding behind the big kid.

The only people we are likely to go up against that have such advanced kit that we'll need to have 'next generation' stuff ourselves is..........the US of A! Can't see that happening.

The world has changed, as has the balance of power in it, so we now need to adjust our vision and procurement to match it. Remember that democracy did not bring about the fall of the Soviet Union, bankruptcy did; they could not match the USA's technology spend.

[holedweller]

Optimised low-level ground-attack airframe/engine combination does not a fighter make!

Who say's we need next generation? As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, we don't go to war without Uncle Spam and then only as the little kid hiding behind the big kid.

The only people we are likely to go up against that have such advanced kit that we'll need to have 'next generation' stuff ourselves is..........the US of A! Can't see that happening.

The world has changed, as has the balance of power in it, so we now need to adjust our vision and procurement to match it. Remember that democracy did not bring about the fall of the Soviet Union, bankruptcy did; they could not match the USA's technology spend.

1. Hence why we need a new aircraft NOW.

2. The last two wars we have fought have been with the Americans in charge, the next might be in support of some of our own national overseas teritories or treaty obligations, which the USA might not want to get involved in themselves.

3. The Russian equipment is getting better all the time, and it is being sold to countries that may become potentially hostile to the UK and its own interests.

4. Democracy allowed the free market economy, which gave the USA more economic capability than the Soviet Union.

[exerk]

Good replies...more answers!

1. The aircraft we will get are air superiority fighters specced for the a cold-war that no longer exists, therefore buy something proven that is available now.

2. Which overseas territories? Most of them are near to the US or the people we will to protect them from will be of the Argentinian variety, i.e. will not have advanced kit.

3. True but also increasingly expensive as they don't just give it away these days and 3rd-rate countries can't afford it (ergo they're generally stuck with stuff that a Meteor could handle) or the investment in technical ability to operate it.

4. Capitilism thrives in any state that allows it. Russia is no longer hard-line communist but neither is it a democracy in the sense we are.

Over to you :PDT_Xtremez_30:

[loafing]

Good replies...more answers!

1. The aircraft we will get are air superiority fighters specced for the a cold-war that no longer exists, therefore buy something proven that is available now.

2. Which overseas territories? Most of them are near to the US or the people we will to protect them from will be of the Argentinian variety, i.e. will not have advanced kit.

3. True but also increasingly expensive as they don't just give it away these days and 3rd-rate countries can't afford it (ergo they're generally stuck with stuff that a Meteor could handle) or the investment in technical ability to operate it.

4. Capitilism thrives in any state that allows it. Russia is no longer hard-line communist but neither is it a democracy in the sense we are.

Over to you :PDT_Xtremez_30:

1. The Cold War may be over however, most adversaries we are likely to come up against will be using Russian equipment & tactics (Iran is an example.)

2. Falklands, Malaysia (5 Nation Treaty).

3. The Russians sell their equipment off very cheaply indeed, they have to in order to compete with the Chinese. They also provide ongoing support for most of their buyers.

If you are happy to be a member of the Armed Forces using 2nd rate kit then fair play to you. My personal view is that I would much rather have Typhoon than say F16 Block 50 as I know I will have the edge in terms of capability. Having the edge will allow us to fight easy instead of trying to fight an enemy with similar equipment. The Russians are exporting some very tasty kit and they do sell it cheap. Having the edge is as vital today as it was 20 years ago.

Your are quite right that we will probably always fight alongside the US however, that does not mean that we should sit back and simply tag along with inferior equipment. It's simply not an option as it is VERY difficult to integrate inferior a/c into a COMAO that is being led by F15Es & F22s.

The days of the US having the spare capacity to assign F15s to escort our GR4s are going to become a thing of the past as the USAF is losing a large amount of a/c in order to sustain it's F22 fleet (a loss of 4 F15s per F22 purchased). The bottom line is that we will have to bring a decent package to the party in order to be made welcome. If we were to carry on with the F3 or simply buy F16s then we would have nothing extra to offer & would be pushed out (it happened to the F3s during GW1 & 2). should we ever be pushed out of any military coalition, the UK would lose a rather large percentage of its political swing.

[exerk]

My status is in the moniker exerk.

1. I want this country's services to have the best available kit, not the best available 'politically acceptable' kit, i.e. job-protection induced spend.

2. What have the Argentines re-equipped with that requires us to have such a technological response? Malaysia-type treaties tend to be more focussed on stopping the signatories from kicking off with each other or there is a neighbouring 'super power' that is a threat individually but not collectively.

3. Sell, not give it away and they tend to sell the bargain-basement stuff to 3rd-raters. The good kit and support generally goes to the more stable and 'UN-approved' nations. As to having the edge, see point 1.

As to the rest of your post, see point 1! We are probably in agreement here, just attacking it from different vectors.

[holedweller]

Good replies...more answers!

1. The aircraft we will get are air superiority fighters specced for the a cold-war that no longer exists, therefore buy something proven that is available now.

2. Which overseas territories? Most of them are near to the US or the people we will to protect them from will be of the Argentinian variety, i.e. will not have advanced kit.

3. True but also increasingly expensive as they don't just give it away these days and 3rd-rate countries can't afford it (ergo they're generally stuck with stuff that a Meteor could handle) or the investment in technical ability to operate it.

4. Capitilism thrives in any state that allows it. Russia is no longer hard-line communist but neither is it a democracy in the sense we are.

Over to you :PDT_Xtremez_30:

1. The initial batch is primarily for Air defence, however as I have said before we have currently capable aircraft for groud attack that do not need replacing as fast.

Many commentators have said that there is no longer a need for an air superiority fighter based on the lack of air to air action in the Gulf war. The reason why the Iraqi air forces stayed on the ground was because they did not want to waste their assets because they did not stand much of a chance against the coalition aircraft - the Coalition Air Superiority aircraft provided defence against enemy aircraft by DETERENCE. We now know that we took more dedicated Air to Air aircraft than we needed.

With the Typhoon we have an Air Superiority fighter which, once we have control of the air some can be re-rolled into ground attack aircraft.

I will admit that the A-G capability is limited in the first few batches, but it is there and will get better with time.

The fact is, much of the Eurofighter's delays and cost overuns have been caused by making the airframe more relevent in the changing world since the cold war and it is better for it.

Take a look at ALL the currently 'off the shelf' fighters available and they were ALL designed for the Cold War. Using the 'designed in the cold war' to attack the Eurofighter is just not a realistic argument.

2. Yes most of them are near the US, which is why the US probably would not want to get involved in any UK national action. But we do still have interests and treaties in the far east, Borneo etc which we may get involved with. There ar two countries who are laying claims to the British Indian Ocean Territory at the moment.

As before because we had a capability advantage over the enemy we could use deterence as an effective defence against aggression, remove the capability gap and that could change.

3. Russian equipment is cheap, and is freely available and some of it is even on the second hand market. Venezuala is pruchasing F-16s without the Americans having any say at the moment.

4. But the underlying reason that the Communist state failed was that there was no drive to maintain economic growth that the democracies could.

[Harry_R_Jumpjet]

It's all good fun having a willy-measuring contest between realist78's F-16s, holedweller's F3s and loafing's Typhoons, but we have to bring it back down to earth (don't groan yet, there are worse metaphors to come!). Which is best? I suggest 'best' is the one that demonstrably meets all the requirements, enters service on time, and the programme comes in on budget. All three happening together? Pie in the sky (told you there was worse to come!).

So, given that we would get an airborne platform with a 30-year in-service life, the requirements would provide for mid-life capability update to incorporate new technology and accommodate changes in the political scene. In-service date and budget overruns are contractual big sticks for MoD to beat industry with. To retaliate, industry beats up MoD and empties its wallet every time the requirements change.

These three variables continuously move around until, finally, the kit arrives on the front line. It doesn't have to be the best; it just has to do its job, however that is defined. To have the best kit means it takes an age to develop and it costs a fortune - not really practical.

The real trick here is to write a good set of requirements. I don't think any MoD man will stand up and say he (or MoD) is world champion at requirements writing, however they are getting better. A good set of requirements will deliver a specific capability, and can be fine-tuned as the project develops (noting that you can't start off with a set of requirements that will result in a C-17, and then part-way through change your mind and say you want a Typhoon). If the high-level requirement is for an air superiority/air defence capability, and the development time is measured in decades, it's not rocket science to work out that the world scene will change and we'd better build in some additional capability from the start.

Relying on luck is not recommended - unless the aeroplane in question is called Typhoon. Designed to meet a set of requirements for a high-altitude fighter, it dismally failed and was about to be cancelled when it was discovered it was a very potent air assault weapon and the 'Bomphoon' was used to devastating effect in the offensive against Nazi Germany in 1944.

So, whilst the F-16 might be jolly good (that's why it's sold so many), it's not suitable for our needs. The F3 might not be the best, but I've no reason to doubt the post that says it does its job. And the Typhoon? We'll have to wait and see if the MoD boys got the requirements right. Let's hope it doesn't repeat its Tempestuous (you were warned!) history.

[MAINJAFAD]

Let's hope it doesn't repeat its Tempestuous (you were warned!) history.

What you mean put a new wing on it, a new supercharger on the engine and other modifications and call it the Tempest?????? or put a sh!t engine in it and call it the Tornado!!!!!!!!

[Get Tae]

Mate there must be someone on here from a typhoon sqn that has nothing better to do judging by the ammount of flying they put in recently at the big excercise thingy held at ISK.
150 guys to fly 5 jets 3 times in two weeks, no ****ing wonder everyone else has manpower shortages, lazy useless feckers!!:PDT_Xtremez_27:

[Realist78]

What you mean put a new wing on it, a new supercharger on the engine and other modifications and call it the Tempest?????? or put a sh!t engine in it and call it the Tornado!!!!!!!!

If the Tonka engine is sh1te, why is the jet one of the fastest in the world at low level(admittedly, it's pump at high level, that's why the F3 is crap at altitude).

[metimmee]

The real trick here is to write a good set of requirements. I don't think any MoD man will stand up and say he (or MoD) is world champion at requirements writing, however they are getting better. A good set of requirements will deliver a specific capability, and can be fine-tuned as the project develops (noting that you can't start off with a set of requirements that will result in a C-17, and then part-way through change your mind and say you want a Typhoon).

In an ideal world that would be true. What happens in practice is that they get so far throught the programme then turn to the customer "sorry we cant deliver that unless time/quality/cost changes". Look at the MRA4, they stitched BAe up well with the requirements and with contracts. When it came to enforcing the penalties the MoD backed down.

Another thing manufacturers are good at is delivering faulty/badly tested kit/software and then spank the customer with a bill when they find faults.

[MAINJAFAD]

If the Tonka engine is sh1te, why is the jet one of the fastest in the world at low level(admittedly, it's pump at high level, that's why the F3 is crap at altitude).

The first British fighter to be called the Tornado was first flown in 1939 and was built by Hawker. It was fitted with an engine called the Vulture, which was Sh!te and was the cause of the project's cancellation. As a back up Hawker built a version powered by an engine called the Sabre. Guess what that aircraft was called??????

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

Mate there must be someone on here from a typhoon sqn that has nothing better to do judging by the ammount of flying they put in recently at the big excercise thingy held at ISK.
150 guys to fly 5 jets 3 times in two weeks, no ****ing wonder everyone else has manpower shortages, lazy useless feckers!!:PDT_Xtremez_27:

I was up at ISK with the Jags. We had to wait for two days for our equipment to get up as Conz MT had to use all their artic's to get 3's GSE up first. See the size of their stuff, its unbelievable!! A large percentage of it is also not Herc movable!! A welcome addition to the flexible and deployable airforce we are supposed to be!:PDT_Xtremez_28:

[exerk]

Not Herc transportable :raf:

Have they learned nothing since the F4J?

[JAFAD666]

Raf Typhoon

?????? You tell me

Spectrum Angel Interceptor

[MAINJAFAD]

I was up at ISK with the Jags. We had to wait for two days for our equipment to get up as Conz MT had to use all their artic's to get 3's GSE up first. See the size of their stuff, its unbelievable!! A large percentage of it is also not Herc movable!! A welcome addition to the flexible and deployable airforce we are supposed to be!:PDT_Xtremez_28:

But will it fit in a C-17 or A400M???

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

Air power is the most difficult of military force to measure or even to express in
precise terms. The problem is compounded by the fact that aviation tends to attract adventurous souls, physically adept, mentally alert and pragmatically rather than philosophically inclined.

You should try reading AP 3000 which everybody was issued a copy of.

The Airforce never issued it to people in the "REAL" Air Force!!!!:PDT_Xtremez_19:

[Realist78]

The Airforce never issued it to people in the "REAL" Air Force!!!!:PDT_Xtremez_19:

Oh, yes they did. However some clowns unnamed did try to feed them into the shredder which tried it's best but failed miserably.

[monobrow]

Oh, yes they did. However some clowns unnamed did try to feed them into the shredder which tried it's best but failed miserably.

Always found the good old Air Power Review to be a good stress tester for the big 4-hole hole punchers we have in the office. Managed to all but 10 sheets so quite impressed with that!

[Realist78]

At over an inch thick, how is that a feckin' brief history of the RAF?