Already the RAF has something in the range of 140 Eurofighters on its books, of which it can man and use about 40.The above quote is from a piece that I linked to today that described potential budget cuts to the UK military.
That is astounding.
How can the Brit military be serious about buying the F-35 if they have top tier fighters sitting unused?
Maybe Canada should pick up 36 Typhoons from the RAF. Not a bad move for UK as they keep the fighters in the "family".
ReplyDeleteWe can take that number also. For lease with "buy in future" option.
DeleteThere you go, problem solved.Not.
DeleteFor quite awhile now the RAF has maintained the policy of purchasing at least twice as many fighters as it requires to equip its squadrons. With five operational Typhoon squadrons the RAF would only need a maximum of 80 aircraft to bring them all up to full strength.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of pilots is a common factor due to the cost of training them combined with the fact that there is very little incentive for them to stay after they have completed their initial term of service.
As to why they are obtaining F-35, well to answer that you have only to look towards Lockheed and the US government.
it was sold as the greatest innovation in aerial combat since some guy decided to take a rifle with him in his biplane. Back in the heady days of the 90s not buying it would be seen as madness, and sadly now they are committed.
The problem is cost and lack of spares
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/
Canada would make a huge mistake if they brong them, like they did with the British subs
I don't take acquiring Typhoons from the UK seriously. Bu hey, maybe they would be dumb enough to sell them for a song, just like the Harriers.
DeleteOh we're more than dumb enough!
DeleteJames Hasik questioned the low rate of Eurofighter availability in Spain and Germany, last month, here.
ReplyDeleteThe Typhoon might be the best dogfighter in the world with as an added bonus very good BVR capabilities, but it also costs a lot of money to fly. It is claimed Saab Gripen costs a lot less, more then you would expect comparing aircraft capabilities.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how that is possible. Is it a design-choice made by the Swedes? Some smart way of thinking..?
If so why not try and learn from that?
Sadly with the F35 things will only get worst, since the costs related to that pig are even worst then Eurofighter...
I say: scrap that thing and invest in an extensive upgrade for the Typhoon that makes it cheaper to run!
If needed ad some Gripens in to the mix and you have a nice 2 tier air force.
Nothing magical just compare the size and engine power Tyhoon burns about 100% more fuel ,needs 100% more maintenance on the power pack considering it has 2 engines and parts for it are built in about 20countries.
DeleteReason Typhoon is so expensive is in part the same as it its in F35 its a multinational jobs program spread around Europe so that is almost imposible to kill for political reasons.
Reason for so many typhoons is in part that Tornados are to be phased out as soon as Typhoon can match their ground attack capability.
Not to mention their new carriers can't use Typhoons, so they are stuck with F-35B.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI still looking for the link were a British Typhoon's pilot said the plane he fears the most in dogfight is the F-18 with it's HMD, Aim-9X and amazing instant pich. If someone find it I'll apreciate to have the link. For BWR I prefer the ASH/Growler combo, for Canada I mean.
ReplyDeleteHmm many planes now have option of HMD and had ruskis helmen slaved off boreshight capable missiles for decades and all including the oldest SU27 and Mig 29 can outmaneuvre a F18 E/F
DeleteBoth, the legacy and the Super Hornet eat small Migs29 for breakfast and heavy Sukhoys for dinner after every bolshoi plunging maneauver.
ReplyDeleteF/A-18 hornet vs Mig-29 Fulcrum:
http://youtu.be/46GdLEl9yfQ
http://youtu.be/1nNajPYghAw
http://youtu.be/3gX_vZB-2nE
seriously, stop looking fighter masturbating video to judge an aircraft... How old are you...
DeleteDo you feel offended to see the limitations of the Sukhoy and Mig29 compared to the F-18? Its cheap to say they can outmaneaver the F-18 and the Eurofigjter based on useless cobras that make then plunge. In Red Flag clean Sukhoys were wiped out by F-15 with Fuel tanks and weapons, basically for doing those fancy plunging pirouettes. The Eagles just shoot them from above. I can judge their engines reliability or electronic obsolescence compared with the occidental fighters if you prefer.
DeleteDuring pitch back 2012 Indonesian Su-27s and Su-30s held their own against RAAF Hornets (with asraam) and Super Hornets (with aim-9x) and only the Super Hornets AESA radar gave it the edge over the su-27 radar in BVR.
DeleteBritain needs NATO help in submarine search:
ReplyDeletehttps://ca.news.yahoo.com/britain-calls-nato-help-submarine-hunt-media-114202368.html
Tornado community mission availability is even worse. For anyone that has observed UK MOD budget cuts for 20 years, this was bound to happen.
ReplyDeleteI hate being proven right.
ReplyDeleteI have always argued that the achilles heel of the F35 and F22 alike is their astonomical maintenance costs. It is inherent to stealth aircraft as complex as these two.
Assuming they are the finest flying machines ever devised by man, if you only have a handful of them, and your enemy has 100 4.5 gen fighters, the lack of availability will render a F35 force impotent. Lack of availability is a critical drawback. If you cannot afford them, and the rest of your force gets critically castrated to accomodate them budget wise, that doesn't do your nation a whole lot of good.
That is not even including needing them for other missions.
Plus, it invites an enemy who is vulnerable to stealth to think hard and long about a pre-emptive strike on F35 bases. Why wait for an enemy with stealth aircraft to launch those against you? Why not take out his carriers or bases with waves of cruise missiles.
DeleteConsidering the short legs of the F35, it means most bases would be within strike range of cruise missiles launched from subs, planes, ground launchers, etc.
Or simply push your enemy to switch radar bandwitdh...
DeleteVery sad, the UK used to develop very nice, affordable and commercially successful planes, that could actually fly CAP when required and didn't take half an army to keep them in the air. If countries like Russia, Japan, India, Turkey, South Korea, Sweeden and France can develop their own Fighter planes largely from the ground up then there is no reason why the UK can not...
ReplyDeleteEspecially when you consider all the potential sales to the Crown Realms and the Commonwealth (especially if they are affordable, capable, reliable, maintainable and can take off from shoddy runways). Doesn't need to be revolutionary to be successful, even just being comparable to the F15/16/18 with good multirole capabilities, as maintainable as the grippen, and highly affordable with a great assortment of effective weapons like brimstone/SDBII, an air launched variant of the Perseus Hypersonic stand-off ASM, JSOW with the proposed DPICM carriage, MALD equivelant, etc..etc.
Even if it's internal weapons carriage was limited largely to AAM and small munitions like SDBII
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlso embarrassingly from memory many of these planes (a whole tranche) do not even have cannons. And the F15s that the UK had before were replaced with these European planes for political reasons, the F15 even too this day is a very capable fighter-plane, and even now has plenty of upgrade potential (including the potential for some of the F22 components/technology like the power-plant which is similar dimension, which would allow supercruising in an A2A mode) and is comparable to these European planes.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention the F15 was fully operationally capable back then and these Europlanes are not even now. And if the UK was clever it could have fielded a combination of F15s, F111 seconds (from the US drawdown near the end of the cold-war, with enough spares till 2050 or something stupid) factory overhauled and upgraded and transferred the harrier to Army Aviation for CAS with a small fraction of what they spent on these European planes. And they could have had a replacement plane designed by now and ready to enter service in the Airforce/navy, and still had plenty of money available from the savings too build a good number of these!
Nothing shapes up a nation to prep its Army up like impending doom or an opportunity just waiting to be exploited. Currently for the UK, they have none of the two situations applicable to them and hence are making those Gendarmerie remarks and ruthlessly gutting their military. After a decade plus long conflict following the events of 9/11, its time for a little lull in the UK MoD. Offcourse, had they still been in possession of Hong Kong with a rising China of today knocking on the doors this "Pivot to the Pacific" would have been a British concept. But devoid of much threat and lacking any clear opportunity this is what is happening to their military.
ReplyDeleteRussia for all its activity in Ukraine or elsewhere still cant threaten the territorial integrity of Britain or France or Germany or Spain or Italy or Portugal or Holland or Switzerland or.....well you get the point. And so do the politicians and their taxpayers content with thinking that national security starts and ends with "territorial integrity" not realizing that threats to territorial integrity is something that happens as a very last resort. Not the first line of defence but the very last. It is the very last thing one should look for while providing for national security. But democracies by definition come unprepared for war...as one famous person once said.
The cuts are completely meaningless in terms of the budget and will have a negligable impact, I am sure they will also alienate some of their voters who are actually right wing conservatives. If they want to cut the deficit without actually reducing the wastage and bloat in these government services then there are better ways to do it, i.e. reducing (too below the rate of increase in revenue) or freezing budget increases for a few years.
DeleteOfcourse my understanding is that it is looking like they wont be in charge come the 2015 elections so they can promise all the things they want it is not like they will have to deliver them. Also I am convinced that the UK politicians are trying to degrade the military to the point of impotence out of their hatred of the nation state and their love of the EU, to make it so that the UK can not act independently.
Just look what much smaller countries are able to achieve with their budgets, Israel, Egypt, Poland although they have low wages and do recieve a degree of US financial assistance it isn't much cheaper to operate alot of this equipment, and they operate alot of it. Singapore is a great example, so is what sweeden used to achieve for their size. Its not an issue of money, its an issue of political will.
True and True, but I disagree with the point that the gutting of west European armies is because the lack of impending danger and that Europe just needs a little push to come back again on its feet, I think it’s a part of the problem but not the core of it. I personally believe is due to the sickening of Europe in general. I don’t think England or any other West European state for that matter, could restore its capabilities to pivot or to stop an attack in their overseas territories (You mentioned HK) on its own by conventional means, they simply don’t have the money to. To get their armies in shape they will have to cut down seriously their massive welfare states and unless they are facing a national catastrophe, that would mean revolution in their own countries, just look at the political situation in Spain after the so called “austerity” measures: protests and the real possibility of a radical left wing party gaining actual power and actually threatening the country institutions.
DeleteI think just like you that Russia is not a threat to Western Europe territorial integrity and I don’t know if they will ever be or want to be for that matter. But reflect this, do you think England alone could stop an attack on the Falklands if Argentine decided to reclaim its lost territories. The Argentinians could receive actual military support (or at least weapons and ammo) from other radical leftist countries like Venezuela, Brazil and Ecuador and they would definitely receive weapons and assistance from China and Russia, who would be more than happy to screw the brits. On the other side the English are gutting its navy, its army and are not even able to man their own damn fighter squadrons.
“But democracies by definition come unprepared for war...as one famous person once said.” In this case it seems they are becoming incapable of.
I just mentioned plenty of examples of countries able to get far more out of their military relative to the size of their investment, the Asian countries such as Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea are actually pretty good examples as they have wage levels that are similar to much of Europe, Switzerland is also another great example.
DeleteEven if the European states were to keep spending at their current rates they would still be able to afford a much more capable military force if they just spent their money more effectively like these asian countries do.
To be Honest I didnt read your post, I was going to reply to Sarabvir before you did but I had work to do and couldn’t. I think you are right, dollar by dollar the UK or any West European country could achieve more bang for their bucks if they invested their money wisely but. I´m going to thread in thin ice here because I’m no military expert, but to achieve the results you mention, the UK (Since is the country mentioned on the article) would need to change its doctrine entirely (which seems unlikely since the brits still think they are very relevant) limiting themselves to territorial defense, buying less fancy equipment like the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers and adopting a more neutral stance in world matters, like all of the countries you mentioned. It’s impossible to run both an empire and a welfare state (which by the way is likely to grow in the coming decades as it always does).
Delete