makes sense - we just don't need 200+ Typhoons - if we sell off the earlier tranches and take the later, more modern ones on board, we avoid penalties for not buying the darn things and everyone's a winner.

 

As long as we have enough to chase off the odd Badger, maybe fight a shooting war with one middle east country at a time, then the resources could be better allocated (a larger buy of F35s for instance)

 

Ian

 

 

Any reason why you assume that chasing off the odd bear and fighting wars of choice in the middle east are all we need to worry about Stobie?

 

Any justification for preferring a non-existant, overweight, primarily attack aircraft to an existing primarily a2a aircraft that albeit over budget can at least take off an land with some weapons attached? 

First, I agree that threats in the future to the UK and NATO may be larger than the odd Bear or small desert war (e.g. Georgia anyone?) - so best to bone up with the best you can get.  The Typhoon is a great plane but still an earlier gen - so all the weapons are hanging out for every radar emitter to see - not a good thing.  Still, the biggest requirement - which may be the real reason Japan is interested - is the long legs attached to Typhoon.  This helps alot over the Pacific.

Now the UK is a member of the JSF program - which brings me to the second thought - your cheap shots at JSF.  The F-35B has a weight restriction for the VSTOL operations - of which the UK is a prime customer.  The pre-production proto-types are nearly at the required weight level already so they are way ahead of the curve compared to other development fighter programs.  The lift fans are the biggest weight hog and Rolls Royce is working with Lockheed to get them into spec.

 

The "landing with weapons attached" comment is a bit confusing.  The F-35 carries its primary weapons in an internal bay - so they are not going anywhere and will not show up on anyone's radar.  If you want to go non-stealthy - like the Typhoon - there are 11 external hardpoints to play with.  Once you've dumped the external weapons and fuel tanks - you can go back to being stealthy with internal weapons.  The last proposal put to the Norwegians showed block 4 and 5 with up to six AMRAAM Ds internal.  Quite a warload for a stealth air to air role.

 

So again - Tokyo is looking at the Typhoon as a pure air to air fighter to counter cruise missiles and PLAAF fighters/bombers over the Pacific.  They have been forced to do so because they cannot obtain the F-22 at the present time.

 

The F-35 is a strike fighter - serviing multple roles.  It is the weapon of choice for replacing the Harrier.  This is a case of apples and oranges - the aircraft are intended to serve two different roles.  The F-35 is designed to fit a high/low mix in the US inventory of stealth 5th gen aircraft.  It is also to serve as a replacement for the F-16, some F-18s and the Harrier.

MoD seems like they really want to unload the "eurocluck" as Herald would say

Though I'm quite sure that Herald can speak for himself... I'm under the impression that a tranche 3 CEASAR and METEOR armed Typhoon is competitive with, or superior to everything short of an F22 in a2a.

 

Is that a "cluck" in your book, or must you wait for Herald to provide you with your opinion before you commit?

 

MoD has little to do with it, the Labour Govenment needs to trim the defence procurement budget because they can't add up, and just like all the other times they've been elected, they've run out of money. Again....

 

Defence has almost no constituency in the UK so its always the first place to make cuts, despite a historically tiny percentage of the UK's GDP being currently spent on defence (2.2% ish) - whilst we're engaged in two small wars - it's still politically the easiest place to cut.

 

Forshame.

 

Oh and softwar your understanding is greater than mine but, my comment about "weapons attached" exaggerates the fact that they're having to look at "Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landing" to increase the payload F35C can land with. I'm not aware they had to do that with Harrier! It would also compromise some of the flexibility of the STOVL CVF design. It's also my understanding that they've given up on reaching the 2300kg bring back capability with vertical landing that was an original expecation even with SRVL....

 

MoD seems like they really want to unload the "eurocluck" as Herald would say

Though I'm quite sure that Herald can speak for himself... I'm under the impression that a tranche 3 CEASAR and METEOR armed Typhoon is competitive with, or superior to everything short of an F22 in a2a.

 

Is that a "cluck" in your book, or must you wait for Herald to provide you with your opinion before you commit?

 

MoD has little to do with it, the Labour Govenment needs to trim the defence procurement budget because they can't add up, and just like all the other times they've been elected, they've run out of money. Again....

 

Defence has almost no constituency in the UK so its always the first place to make cuts, despite a historically tiny percentage of the UK's GDP being currently spent on defence (2.2% ish) - whilst we're engaged in two small wars - it's still politically the easiest place to cut.

 

Forshame.

 

Oh and softwar your understanding is greater than mine but, my comment about "weapons attached" exaggerates the fact that they're having to look at "Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landing" to increase the payload F35C can land with. I'm not aware they had to do that with Harrier! It would also compromise some of the flexibility of the STOVL CVF design. It's also my understanding that they've given up on reaching the 2300kg bring back capability with vertical landing that was an original expecation even with SRVL....

 

"Why would Japan be interested in an earlier tranche Aircraft when they do have the money to purchase the most advanced ones?"

If you look at what Japan has done with her Burkes you can only imagine what she could do with EuroFighter.

If you want to forgo VLO, the F-35 has seven (7) external hardpoints onto which to attach ordnance not eleven (11). There are eleven weapon stations in all, four(4) of which are internal.

 

The external stations are:-

 

1 x 1250 lbs (centerline)

2 x 5000 lbs (inner wing)

2 x 2500 lbs (mid wing)

2 x 300 lbs (outer wing)

 

The internal stations are:-

 

2 x 2500 lbs (bay roof)

2 x 350 lbs (doors hinge) 

LINK

"When stealth is not required or in low-threat situations, additional weapons and fuel of up to 18,000 pounds can be carried on 11 external hardpoints for even greater range and combat efficiencies."

"The F-35 carries its primary weapons in an internal bay - so they are not going anywhere and will not show up on anyone's radar."

The F-22 is capable of supporting external hardpoints that are detachable in flight to regain stealth.  Obviously, this feature can be applied to the F-35.

Touché, not a great deal, depending on the cojones of the pilot of course...

 

My original point was that there is not a straight choice between Typhoon and F35 for the MoD. It's pears and lemons as you say. 

well, my original thinking has been that the Typhoon buy is almost always referred to as being now too large for the environment we're in, and the UK badly needs those two carriers with a full loadout of aircraft for at least one carrier. I'm not comparing the F-35 to the Typhoon, just pointing out we need a few less Typhoons right now and every carrier borne asset we can get.

 

With the Future Offensive Aviation System being still hypothetical, a few F-35s leading the strike packages in would help immensely - they're stealthy, have a good radar and can take on targets that Tornadoes and Typhoons can't get close enough to find and kill without being "at risk". I'd sooner go bunker busting for hard C3I targets in a lightning II than a non stealthy platform, put it that way.

 

That's my thinking. Also, it might be a good marketing opportunity to flog earlier tranche typhoons with an upgrade kit to be fitted locally for the Japanese aviation industry to some get workflow. I suspect that in fact, they'll be offered the later tranche ones tho ;)

 

 

Ian

 

 

 

We need the carriers, and the F35's to operate from them, in order to secure air superiority and support for our expeditionary armies.  Likewise we need RAF Typhoons to achieve air superiority when land bases are in range - we can hardly afford to bet everything on our carrier being available.  But as is the common consensus, I think we can cut the number of Typhoons in order to fund other requirements such as troop lift helos and fully replace and phase out Snatch.

 

What gets me, is if the PM wants to play the big man at foreign policy and stand up and fight these wars - why are we spending God knows how much on hosting the Olympics?  When Afghanistan is just another side show to politics as normal I can't help but think we aren't in it to win it.