UK and Italy to service each other’s Typhoons and F-35Bs

Hello Jonathan, Exactly, including MARTE ER short-term and a decent amount of Tomahawk to act as a very useful long-range deterrent.

PLA exercises with YJ-62 anti-ship missile in Northern Theater Command25 January 2024

The 333rd Coastal Defence Brigade of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Northern Theater Command (NTC) has deployed land-attack YJ-62 anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) in a drill that took place in Haiyang, a coastal city southeast of the Shandong Peninsula in China.

According to the drill’s video footage released by Chinese state-owned broadcaster China Central Television (CCTV), the brigade was seen exercising with four 8×8 WS2400 transporter-erector-launchers (TELs) – each equipped with three YJ-62 ASCMs – and an 8×8 battery command post vehicle, which is likely the standard battery configuration of the system.

The land-attack YJ-62 missiles – mostly seen equipped with the Eastern Theater Command and Southern Theater Command of the PLA – are likely deployed with an NTC unit for the first time.
The PLA’s NTC is oriented towards the Korean Peninsula and Russian border security, including operations along China’s northern periphery, and the Yellow Sea (West Sea).
According to Janes Weapons: Naval ,

I had to chuckle at this, you make a press statement without actually knowing what the figure is.

Signs of desperation perhaps!

F-35 value to UK ‘significantly higher’ than before, Lockheed 25 January 2024

“The value of the F-35 programme to the economy of the United Kingdom is now “significantly higher” than it was just a few years ago, Lockheed Martin has said.

Speaking to journalists on 24 January, the chief executive of Lockheed Martin UK, Paul Livingston, said that a new economic impact analysis of the international F-35 programme will show that its contribution to the UK has risen significantly since the last such assessment released in December 2020.

“I have just seen an early version of it today, but we have refreshed our economic impact analysis of what the F-35 brings to the United Kingdom,” Livingston said. “A few years ago, when we last published those figures, we said 15% of each F-35 was built by UK companies. Well, that is now a significantly higher number today. I can’t give a number right now, but it is significantly higher!”

@ JANES

What’s the appeal of MARTE ER for you? We have a programme for anti-ship missiles and MARTE is a particularly lightweight one, originally for helicopter launch.

A programme that will not be operational until 2030.

Hello Chris, I tend to agree with you to a point, however, the time it would take to purchase them, train the pilots to fly them and set up the maintenance facilities to service them would take too long and increase the costs.

And bear in mind, a Typhoon has two engines, not one.

We need replacements as soon as possible replacing like for like and Typhoon is our best option in the near term.

Air Command Secretariat
Spitfire Block
Headquarters Air Command
Royal Air Force
High Wycombe
Buckinghamshire
HP14 4UE
27 September 2023

“Thank you for your email of 4 September 2023 requesting the following information:

“Can you please provide the following information, for the last 3 years:

1. The total number of flight hours for each of these aircraft type per year: F35, Eurofighter Typhoons and A330 (Voyager)

2. How many of each of these aircraft (for all aircraft listed in Q1) were operationally active during that year.

3. How many of these flight hours (for all aircraft listed in Q1) are related to active air-to-air refuelling operations (if this information is available)

4. The total cost per flight hour for each of these aircraft types (all aircraft listed in Q1)” I am treating your correspondence as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

A search for the information has now been completed within the Ministry of Defence, and I can confirm that some information in scope of your request is held and can be found below.

Aircraft
Flying Hours for Financial Years*

2020/2021 2021/2022 2022/2023
Voyager: 14,550 14,480 14,990
F35: 1,700 2,470 2,200
Typhoon: 20,540 21,360 20,150

*Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

The costs per flying hour are composed of a range of factors including elements such as fuel, spare parts and depth maintenance but this can change between different aircraft fleets, circumstances or dates. Accurately calculating an hourly rate is a complex and lengthy task.

We do hold some averaged, standard capitation rates for costs per flying hour for military aircraft however, these may not be completely current.

For that information which is held on cost per flying hour for military-owned and operated aircraft we have identified that the information may fall within the scope of Section S.43 (Commercial Interests) of the Act.

The Act requires that we have to carry out a Public Interest Test (PIT) in these respects to show that the reasons for withholding the information outweigh the reasons for
releasing information.

In favour of the release of this information is the opportunity to indicate the cost of military aviation and to reassure the public that public money is spent wisely and achieves value for money for the taxpayer.

Factors against release are that, on occasions, the MOD provides its aircraft to commercial companies at a competitive rate. It therefore needs to protect the basis for its charging
strategy in order to negotiate effectively with commercial or outside organisations and to meet its financial responsibilities to the public to use its resources in a cost-effective manner.

Section 43(2) is engaged because if this information were to be released it would prejudice the commercial interests of the MOD when dealing with companies or outside organisations that may
wish to lease the military aircraft. This could consequently have a detrimental impact on the UK’s ability to partake in future sensitive contracts and programmes at a commercial and governmental level.

I conclude that the balance of the public interest for providing cost per flying hour figures for the requested aircraft is firmly in favour of withholding the information under the S.43(2) exemption with the level of prejudice set at the level of “would”.

If you look at the attempted export opportunities, Typhoon is always by far the most expensive to buy and operate.

Literally just need a light, affordable, single engine QRA/multi role air policing fighter. Even upgraded C/D Gripens would suffice and they can use UK weapons. They could replace all the Hawk T2’s in aggressor and Red Arrows roles as well. A buy of 48 would allow for two full squadrons (12/12) and an OCU (24).

That would cover the North and South QRA sites in the UK, The Falklands flight, NATO air policing requirements and even allow for a multi role point defense squadron in Cyprus.

Have to stop buying gold plated hardware for simple roles. Even the US has older early block F-16’s still out doing their business.

Aeralis?

Seriously!

Well, apart from the whole waste of money thing, it’s a great idea

The whole concept is floored both aerodynamically and financially. You cannot produce an airframe where you can swop a basic benign straight wing introduction trainer with an advanced trainer with super manoeuvrability and a high power to weight ratio.

The concept would require absolute control over the aircraft’s centre of gravity and centre of pressure, when swopping the wings, engines etc. This would have to be married to a flight control computer, that can operate in both flight regimes. Or you could replace the computer with one for each role. Otherwise the flight control laws will have to solidly walled off between the two. A trainee pilot for example may try to command a slow rate 3g turn, when the computer commands a high rate 6g.

It far easier to produce two types of aircraft, that are each tailored to their specific roles.

DB, what sort of job do you do?
I thought at first you worked on radar and missiles, but now you demonstrate knowledge of APS systems and jet trainers.
I ask because I’m a young person who wants a career in defence or aerospace engineering and I want to know how you got a job with such wide ranging areas.

I have done various jobs within the military mostly in the aircraft field and been a guest of the RN a lot. Then latterly in specialist work and finished with DE&S. Did a lot of tours and OPs in some not so very nice places, but got to see and experienced what worked and what didn’t. I had also attained a degree or two in both mechanical aerospace and electrical engineering. So my experience base is quite wide. But since leaving after 30+ years, I now work for a defence company. The company does specialize in a particular field. But I have to keep appraised of various developments in weapons and countermeasures. I do also attend a few trade shows and various lectures.

All of the big military tech companies in the UK, such as Leonardo, MBDA, Thales and BAe run graduate schemes. But BAe in particular are running a really good apprentice scheme, which now includes RBSL at Telford. I know from a friend who works at Thales in Belfast. That they are maxed out producing Starstreak and Martlet and are looking for bods. Its similar with Leonardo, they have a number of programs running at the moment. One of the biggest is on the upgrades to Typhoon. Similar with MBDA, you just have to look at what the UK is providing Ukraine, to realize what MBDA are up to besides selling to Worldwide customers. Which means they are also after bods.

Could also look at the military. With all three services delivering good aerospace engineering. That will help transition to the civilian sector later in life.

I have looked at BAE, Thales, Qinetiq and the like, they do seem to get the most interesting work!
I’m thinking Uni rather than apprenticeship, do the jobs still work the same way?

I think the concept is for different airframes to have different roles still, rather than to directly swap between them. As in, the intro trainer is built as such, has the right flight computer and balanced CoM and CoL. The ISTAR/Tanker is a different aircraft but the two share a majority of parts (the company claim 85%) for cheaper maintenance and modules of the same type can be swapped out from a pool if necessary.
I have been reading a few of the Aeralis brochures and an interesting point has jumped out. One includes the claim “Carrier Strike Group provides in-theatre operation, sustainment and reconfiguration of aircraft” alongside an image of a QE2, which would imply carrier capability at least with the Ark Royal upgrades. Given that one option seems to be an unmanned air tanker and ISR combination with optimised loiter time (long wings and high bypass engine), this seems to be certainly worth looking into.
I will try to add a link to the brochure I found.

Interesting. Do you know how it compares to the latest iteration of the F-16 or F-15EX? or superhornet for that matter? I doubt the RAF would ever add a new type of 4th gen but i’ve always wanted to see F-16s or F-15s in the RAF 😅 F-16s used to be a bargain to operate but with all the tech in the latest version I have no clue if its still ‘cheap’

ETA i just read the USAF is updating 600+ of their F-16s with the latest APG-83 AESA. amazing they still invest so much in their older airframes even though they’ll be replaced over the next decade or so with F-35s.

Would it shock you to learn that the RAF nearly got F14s to replace the Phantoms, instead of the Tornado ADV. There was a lot of political lobbying to go for Tornado over the F14. Tornado was never an air defence fighter. But in the end it could hold its own.

The Gripen E/F is equivalent to the very latest F16. In some respects such as electronic warfare it is better. Same with Typhoon, which is more in the same class as the F15. Both the Gripen and Typhoon will out manoeuvre the F15 and F16 in close combat. As the F15 and F16 have grown in weight, which has eaten into their instantaneous performance. Even though the F15EX now uses digital fly by wire controls. It won’t have the same response as the Gripen or Typhoon, as it’s still a stable aircraft by design.

When the F16A first came into service, its avionics was pretty basic. It had a very good power to weight ratio. Which meant at the time it could run rings around other aircraft in close combat. It just wasn’t very good a beyond visual range combat. The F15A was the same, it was a monster when it first came into service. But its avionics were a massive step up from the Phantom. It wasn’t until later block versions of the F16 and the F15C came out. That their avionics became a step change in capability. But also came at a price, as both airframes gained a lot of weight.

Both the Gripen and Typhoon have gained weight over their earlier versions. But in the Typhoon’s case especially, it has an abundance of surplus power. The weight gain has had a negligible effect on its performance. Whilst The Gripen E/F is a completely new aircraft compared to its preceding A/B and C/D versions.

The Typhoon is not in the same class as the F-15. The Typhoon is roughly equivalent to the legacy hornets (C/D) Look at the fuel fraction, it’s the exact same 11,000lbs. The F-15 is a heavyweight long range fighter. At high altitude the F-15 will eat anything in a dogfight that isn’t named Raptor.

Now consider the improvements to our new ECRS MK2 Radar, upgraded PIRATE, and the Praetorian Defensive Aids Sub-System (DASS).
“The USAF stealth F-22 Raptor is a next-generation combat fighter that is more advanced than the Typhoon II and should therefore be able to win every engagement during a Red Flag top gun combat exercise. In dogfight situations, the F22 Raptor was found to be lacking.

The Typhoon is a smaller and lighter aircraft and can out-climb, out-accelerate and out-manoeuvre the larger F22. It is a bit like a WW2 battle of Britain RAF spitfire attacking a larger twin engine Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Me110.

For a Typhoon to engage a F-22 Raptor in a dogfight it would first have to get close to one. That is the big problem. The Raptor is very hard to spot on the radar and can shoot down multiple incoming targets at very long range.

The USAF will deploy these highly advanced fighters in situations that maximise its speed, stealth and high-altitude abilities to best advantage. It was not designed to become involved in head-to-head combat with other jet fighters.

The problem with this thinking is believing that in every future conflict, the rules of engagement will allow out of visual range aircraft to be targeted and engaged with missiles. In a crowded airspace visual identification may have to take place before the decision to fire is made.

That is when the F22 is vulnerable in dogfights with other advanced more agile jet fighters as was shown when Luftwaffe Typhoons scored numerous kills against Raptors during a Red Flag combat exercise in Alaska.

The Luftwaffe pilots used infrared sensors to spot the USAF F-22s 50km away. They were not showing up on radar. They got close fast as they knew the Raptor excels at long-range combat. To survive the German pilots forced the USAF pilots to fight a turning dogfight where they could exploit the abilities of the Typhoon 2 jet fighter.

The German�s used their integrated helmet-mounted sights to lock on to their opposite number. All they had to do was look at the F-22 and fire. This is a feature the Raptor pilots do not have.”

“That is when the F22 is vulnerable in dogfights with other advanced more agile jet fighters as was shown when Luftwaffe Typhoons scored numerous kills against Raptors during a Red Flag combat exercise in Alaska.”

You’re making some absolutely massive assumptions here. The actually set up to these mock engagements remain classified and it’s just speculation for you to say that one fighter was more maneuverable than another. What is publicly known is that engagements are set up to test and train for certain scenarios for example, the f-22 might start in an energetically or numerically disadvantageous position or vice versa. Yes it’s very possible and likely other aircraft are able to get kills on a superior fighter in these exercises but that doesn’t necessarily mean it will be the same if it was a real fight where there are no training restrictions being observed.

“but that doesn’t necessarily mean it will be the same if it was a real fight where there are no training restrictions being observed.”

So the answer is, we don’t know if the F-22 Raptor is as good as It is made out to be in that case until the gloves are off which is never going to happen.

No we never really know how real fights will turn out but based on the reported kill ratios for the f22 and your personal favorite the f35, we have some idea.

We certainly do!

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force repelled a Chinese invasion of Taiwan during a massive war game last fall by relying on drones acting as a sensing grid, an advanced sixth-generation fighter jet able to penetrate the most contested environments, cargo planes dropping pallets of guided munitions and other novel technologies yet unseen on the modern battlefield.

But the service’s success was ultimately pyrrhic. After much loss of life and equipment, the U.S. military was able to prevent a total takeover of Taiwan by confining Chinese forces to a single area.

Furthermore, the air force that fought in the simulated conflict isn’t one that exists today, nor is it one the service is seemingly on a path to realize. While legacy planes like the B-52 bomber and newer ones like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter played a role, many key technologies featured during the exercise are not in production or even planned for development by the service.

Still, the outcome was a marked improvement to similar war games held over the last two years, which ended in catastrophic losses. The Air Force’s performance this fall offers a clearer vision of what mix of aircraft, drones, networks and other weapons systems it will need in the next decade if it hopes to beat China in a potential war.

Some of those items could influence fiscal 2023 budget deliberations. China is “iterating so rapidly, and I think that forces us to change,” said Lt. Gen. Clint Hinote, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration and requirements, told Defense News in March. “If we can change, we can win.”

No we don’t. You really need to look into what assumptions are made going into specific war games before making bold statements how it applies to a real conflict.

The Gripen is about 30% cheaper than the F-16. Most of that is engine maintenance costs. The F404 is damn near a miracle motor from an operational perspective.

F-16’s would require their own weapons, or a pool shared with the F-35. The Gripen could use all the Typhoon weapons plus the F-35’s AMRAAM’s. It’s a little Swiss army knife. If the UK could buy used C’s/D’s and put a new radar in it, it would be great for it’s role.

The red arrows would be amazing, back in a 9G supersonic after burning jet.