RAF Lossiemouth has received a fourth operational Typhoon squadron.

The personnel and aircraft of IX(B) Squadron will be at the heart of the UK’s Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) Force, ready to take off within minutes of an alert being triggered.

The Squadron was officially stood up at a ceremonial parade and flypast at RAF Lossiemouth, but has been operational since 1 April. The standing up of the new Squadron coincides with RAF Lossiemouth marking its 80th anniversary.

LOS-OFFICIAL-20190213-0066-0031.jpg

At the ceremony Eurofighter CEO Herman Claesen presented the new squadron with a Eurofighter sword to formally welcome it to the wider Eurofighter family.

Some of the Squadron’s aircraft will be painted in distinctive markings to identify them as training ‘adversaries’, in their role as ‘aggressors’. In this role, they will provide training to RAF and NATO fast-jet pilots, as they will play the role of opposing aircraft which match their speed and manoeuvrability while using the real-world dogfighting and air combat tactics against them.

Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Hillier said:

“RAF Lossiemouth has and will continue to play a key role in the Defence of the United Kingdom, being ready to intercept potential airborne threats 24/7 and in addition shortly becoming home to our nine new submarine hunting P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft. These will work with our Typhoon force to patrol far out into the Atlantic protecting the UK’s submarine-based nuclear deterrent and two new aircraft carriers. 

The transition of IX Sqn from Tornado to Typhoon is one important part of the expansion of RAF Lossiemouth which will see the number of service personnel here increase to some 2,300, supported by a further 1,800 MOD civilian and contractor staff. 

I am proud to see our Combat Air capabilities continue to grow, a necessity as they will undoubtedly continue to be in exceptionally high demand on operations, here in the UK and across the world.”

Quick Reaction Alert involves aircraft ready to scramble 24/7, 365 days a year, with aircraft from RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Coningsby protecting northern and southern UK airspace respectively.

In recent months, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth have been scrambled four times as long-range Russian bombers approached UK airspace.

George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison

49 COMMENTS

  1. Great to see 9 Squdron back and the bat looks great on the Typhoon.

    Shame it’s only sharing from the existing pool and not a net increase in airframes.

    That said, aircraft are only part of the story, of arguably greater importance is the need for more air and ground crew.

    The new bodies coming from the now defunct Tornado force should improve critical mass somewhat….. It needs to, as Typhoon is the only game in town now.

    • Yep, that is key. Less aircraft but the same number of squadrons.

      The real issue here for me is putting 4 squadrons of Typhoon plus 2 of the the P8 at Lossimouth. We have a perfectly good base up the road at Kinloss now occupied by 39 RE, and the old RAF Leuchars with all the infrastructure of a QRA station, which it carried out for decades, also occupied by the army.

      Should be 2 Typhoon squadrons at Leuchars 2 at Lossimouth.

      At least these old RAF Stations are retained on the MoD estate in case they are needed again.

      • Hi Daniele. Back again but muddled. How many Typhoon sqds. are we going to have? Every time I look online the number seems to change. Maybe it’s me !!

      • Kinloss should House the p8s for sure. It’s a 10 min drive from my house and I miss the aircraft the raf base was good for the community, the army’s different!! Dam squadies!

      • In a perfect world that would be great, but the cost of running 3 RAF stations instead of 1 very large one is considerable.

        • But they are keeping kinloss runway and tower operational and will base army personnel in the rest of the base so why not just put RAF back. I see ur point though, I like the idea of big RAF bases.

    • The RAAF has heavily invested in the F35A which will form the backbone of its fighter force into the 2030s. It is likely to be supplemented by Boeing’s recently announced unmanned ‘loyal wingman’ UAS (to be built in Australia) rather than another manned platform.

      Given that Tempest is a clean sheet design currently at the conceptual stage, it is likely to take at least a decade to design, finance, develop and test and it would not likely be operationally deployed until closer to two decades from now.

      Two decades is a long time and we are likely to see further rapid development of UAS capabilities. Manned fighter jets typically are limited to around 9Gs – it will be interesting to explore the physical limits of UAS platforms which are likely to be more agile, cheaper to build and operate and able to (politically) cope with high levels of attrition (without losing pilots).

      Some might argue that we are already seeing the inevitable end of manned platforms. It’s a moot point but future manned platforms will almost certainly be sharing the skies with their unmanned counterparts.

      For Australia to be attracted to or partner in the Tempest program the new aircraft would need to better than the F35A in every dimension including: significantly better stealth, much greater weapons payload, significantly greater range on internal fuel, even more computing power and information fusion, more powerful radar and potentially include laser weapons. Not to mention be delivered at an affordable and attractive price point.

      That’s a very ambitious set of specs for any nation’s aerospace industry. Interesting to see how it shapes up beyond the mock-up stage.

      Also interesting to see if this is seen to be a Williamson project and will survive under Mordaunt who may have more of an RN than RAF focus.

      • Good job that Australia isn’t seen as a market or partner for Tempest then.

        They’re utterly tied in to US procurement these days for aerial platforms. I suspect unless they buy some A400 (unlikely) or additional A330 (a distant possibility) that all of their purchases of aircraft will be from the US following the Tiger and NH-90 debacles.

  2. It’s great Lossiemouth been kept, but kinloss should be home to the p8s. The base is occupied and runways being kept operational as a stand by airfield and used to house the nimrods so why not! The p8s will be based there for a few months… but it’s to late! Bigger RAF bases but less seems to be the way forward!

  3. I sincerely hope that Kinloss gets the P8 fleet. They moved 39 Engr Regt from Waterbeach to there to keep the air base for a future RAF station.

    In doing so they hacked off a load of soldiers because it is really hard to travel home. Not even the Scottish blokes like it for travel purposes.

  4. Reduce the order for F-35’s by 24. ( Still unconviced by the sales pitch and the limited load before stealth is lost. Neither is Germany The US order for F15’s and F18’s may also be significant). Order 48 new Typhoons with upgrades, including Conformal Fuel Tanks, Leading edge root extensions which apparently give much improved agility, engine upgrades. This may keep the BAE’s manufacturing capability going until the Tempest. The matured and evolved Typhoon may actually find export oppotunities. Get serious with the Tempest, Sweden (none eurozone), Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia possible partners. ( Turkey seems intent on getting into bed with Russia.)

    • Id agree with the swapping of F35 orders in favour of another batch of Typhoons.It stands to reason that F35 Production will continue long after the Typhoon lines are finally closed,this gives the option of more F35 orders later on if needed.As to the likelihood of this happening I’m not too sure,but as ive said here before the MOD should be at least negotiating with the Austrians in regards their replacement of Typhoon for another type,if their 15 can be bought at firesale prices it would be good business ,granted they are Tranch 1 only and wouldn’t add much more capability to the RAF but they would certainly help with sustainability for use as attrition replacements and spare parts etc.

      • I think buying 2nd hand 1st Tranche Typhoons would be a gross waste of public money. The RAF didn’t even want to keep their own Tranche 1s after 10 years.

        • The whys and wherefores of what the RAF wanted to do with their T1 Typhoons will always be a mystery, governed as always by the Treasury/MOD etc,perhaps they thought that early retirement of them would have got T3 or T4 orders to replace them which never materialised.All I’m saying is that if the door to further Typhoon orders is definitely shut and the Austrian Aircraft could be had at a good price it would make sense,as this article describes IX Squadron will use T1 Typhoons and they will need spares and attrition replacements over time.

          • Expensive way to source spare parts though! I mean, yes, if we’re really in a hole, we could buy them, but I think we need to bite the bullet and buy more and invest in the upgrades. It’s ludicrous BAE Systems salesmen can walk into a room and try and sell Typhoon on the strength of promises of future kit we’re not prepared to pay for ourselves like AESA, CFTs, etc. which are already being offered as standard on Typhoon’s competitors. The Typhoon line will wind down because none of the original national partner customers are willing to to back it up, sadly.

          • The original Typhoon F2 is a good aircraft in its original role, as an air-to-air interceptor/fighter. It is what is needed for long-range interception of incoming Russian/whoever bombers and attack planes, as I hope the Tempest will be, if it ever comes to pass.

            We have 2 squadrons of them, which would normally mean 48 aircraft (12 front line + squadron reserve, wartime reserve, OCU, attrition, TWU each sqn). We have 37, so are nominally 11 short, which means both squadrons are well under-strength. I would buy the Austrian jets or surplus German/Italian/Spanish ones pronto to make up the numbers, they are going to be a snip as there is no market for them, most countries are looking for a jack-of-all-trades fighter-bomber/tac air aircraft rather than the air superiority one we need. The F2 will be good until the successor/Tempest arrives.

            I think we are basically short of one Typhoon FG4 squadron. Lossiemouth is north, Coningsby is south, 400 miles away, but what happens if an attack inevitably comes at the midway point? That point is near Leeming, though Boulmer is the geographical centre and faces the Baltic, where Nato anticipates early action in any future conlict.

            3 sqns at Lossie, 2 plus OCU and OEU at Boulmer,, 2 at Coningsby, with 2 of the sqns earmrked for forward deployment to Estonia and Germany/Poland, that would do us fine as a minimum peace-time/mobilisation force.

            To meet that, we’d need a further batch of 18 x FG4s. As the F-35 procurement is so low and slow, we could fit them in the FJCA programme without much disruption. Of course the Treasury and MOD spreadsheet people are happy buying 2 or 3 F-35s a year rather than the necessary 8 x FJCA.

            Sod them, we need the FJCAs now, the numbers have dropped alarmingly under this and the previous administration, rather than future promises about deliveries of the (still unproven) F-35B.

          • Just being picky about Typhoons at Boulmer, it has no runways!!

            Boulmer is an ASCS CRC ( Control Reporting Centre ) and RRH ( Remote Radar head, though the radar is at Brizlee Wood )

            Leemings your base. There were 3 Tornado F3 squadrons there once. It still has HAS and all the facilities. Though other units have moved in since so I do not know what extra accomodation infrastructure would be needed for a Typhoon Wing.

          • I think it would be a chronic waste of resources to buy used Typhoon F2s, an aircraft that is good for only one task and a task that isn’t heavily strained during peacetime. As much as the RAF may like to report QRA intercepts of Russian aircraft over the North Sea, they aren’t facing huge bomber fleets and engaged in attritional fighting: we’re not short of assets that can zip up and intercept the weekly Tupolev flight to Scotland. It would be a waste to invest in a used, single role aircraft now to augment units assigned to QRA. If we’re going to buy more Typhoons, buy the latest and best versions, which can be used both at home for QRA and abroad for both air supremacy and interdiction missions.

          • Problem is, that’s Government think: as we are at peace, we just need the minimum possible assets to juggle the peacetime requirement.

            So despite the massive cuts at the end of the Cold War and through the 90s, since 2010, the Conservatives have slashed the small number of fast jet combat aircraft from 260 to 160* and of course the aircrew and groundcrew accordingly.

            There is no provision there for quick expansion in time of need, where the key component is the personnel rather than the aircraft. It takes 3 years to train a combat pilot, you can build or buy an aircraft in a few months or weeks.

            The reason to supplement our air defence/tac air force with whatever aircraft we can afford to procure is to keep sufficient squadrons and key personnel available so that we can at least fulfill our minimum force establishment. 160 FJCA does not begin to come near that, everything now hangs on actually getting 138 F-35s in 10 or 15 years time to bring FJCA numbers back up to 245. And of course that F-35 hurdle will be the poisoned chalice passed to the next governing party to solve.

            If all we can now afford to maintain numbers is used tranche 1 Typhoon F2s, so be it – at least we keep the trained body of pilots and aircrew in being and able to transition to the Tempest or whatever UOR fighter we can get at short notice in an emergency. Insisting on nothing less than the latest tranche of shiny Typhoon FG4s at £85 million a pop is a fool’s errand, it will never happen with Spreadsheet Phil in the Chancellory. The pilots and groundcrew will be run down to match the ever-reducing number of planes, rather than being maintained at the necessary 240-260 level, using whatever aircraft we can cobble together.

          • * The current drastically reduced number of FJCAs is 160, comprising:

            – 107 Typhoon FG4
            – 37 Typhoon F2
            – 16 (usable) F-35B

            We should have run on some of the Tornado squadrons until the F-35B production line gets into full gear, but no – what a tempting premature cut for the Government and Treasury, who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

        • It’s crazy how each tranche of typhoon is very different when most people just think typhoons are all the same…

          • That is exactly the same situation as F-16, F-15, F-18…even Tornado in its post GR.1 guise was substantially different across versions. The UK’s GR.4 was substantially different to the German, less advanced. MLU.

    • @John Hampson – I am not convinced the UK will ever order 138 F-35B aircraft. Especially as we are now embarked on Tempest which will come on stream as the earliest Typhoons are retired. Neither do I think we should order F-35As!

      As to Tempest itself I am on record as being very opposed to any involvement in the project by either Japan or South Korea. 3 main reasons:
      * Japan always insists on home production (witness F-15 and Merlin)
      * Both Japan and SK are nothing more than extensions of US military purchasing strategy. They of course totally rely on the presence of the US 7th Fleet. OK so SK bought 4 Wildcats but look at their purchasing histories.
      * Japan and SK (IMHO) would be risks to the project as any and all data would be leaked straight back to US Incorporated and we know from experience how it would then do all it could to suppress competition. By both fair means and foul.

      I doubt Australia would be interested as apart from the Mirage of the ’60s to ’80s they have relied on US aircraft for over 30 years. The last UK aircraft they bought were the Vampire and Meteor and even then bough the Sabre as well!

      So to me we have two countries we could trust and that would be in the market – Sweden and Canada. The former is militarily neutral and that could be an issue in some conflicts but it has an excellent aerospace record and could bring cost disciplines. Canada is distinctly anti US aerospace these days, is looking to rebuild its own capabilities and is open to British technology as T26 proved. However both would demand home build or be part of a production consortium. Which is fine provided a) that does not create endless design delays (Typhoon refers), b) adds significant cost and c) we do not end up with a committee designed horse that is actually a camel. The RCAF of course needs an early replacement for their CF-18s and a batch of Typhoons would fit the bill but then so would redundant F-18s from the RAAF

      Interesting times though ….

      • Umm… Not sure all the logic hangs together.

        Dont let someone invest because they have bought US in the past…. Dont involve Japanese because they will want to manufacture at home….. Sweden is ok… Australia wont….

        Sweden has a sound fast jet manufacturing and export record and they would be looking for a share of the manufacturing cake. Australia has a history of selecting what it considers the right kit for its needs in the past (leopard MBT, NAVAL GROUPSubs,) and developing / evolving its own spec when it needs it (Wedgetail and Type26) rather than simply takng US kit off the shelf.

        Get the right partners who have the cash and the ability to to contribute.. Share the development . Share the manufacturing… Share the thriugh life evolution…

        Kidding ourselves if we believe we will get partners to invest without them having a significant share of the pie.

        P

        • @pete. Well given what you quoted was not quite what I was arguing then maybe the logic isn’t right.
          “Dont let someone invest because they have bought US in the past”
          Not at all what I wrote so not a good start.

          “Dont involve Japanese because they will want to manufacture at home”
          Well that was one of 3 compelling objections but not an exclusive one because I also accepted Sweden and Canada will want to do the same. So you selectively choose something that I was not specifically arguing against.

          “Australia has a history of selecting what it considers the right kit for its needs in the past (leopard MBT, NAVAL GROUPSubs,)”
          Given we are discussing aircraft I was therefore commenting on the purchasing history of aircraft and therefore where their aerospace preferences lie. We can open it up if you wish…..

          “Get the right partners who have the cash and the ability to to contribute.. Share the development . Share the manufacturing… Share the thriugh life evolution…”
          Absolutely right and what I was arguing for. Its just I do not believe (IMHO) Japan and SK are the right partners given their tight links to and dependency on the USA. Its why I was agreeing with Sweden and Canada. But we already have a broad spectrum of major partners:
          BAE Systems
          Rolls Royce
          Leonardo
          MBDA
          Companies with which we already work on complex aircraft manufacture (Typhoon, Merlin and Wildcat) and one (Leonardo) with whom we share the unique capability within Europe of manufacturing 5th Gen fighters.

          “Kidding ourselves if we believe we will get partners to invest without them having a significant share of the pie”
          I never argued we don’t need partners. I argued for the RIGHT partners. But given who is involved I believe we already have the right partners. A selected few others are welcome but this time it is US who will control Tempest …

          • Why is it okay for Sweden and Canada to produce the Tempest in their countries but not for Japan? Is Japan’s sovereign rights to want to build the aircraft on their own soil less important than the rights of Canada & Sweden to build a joint venture aircraft in their countries?

            Then there’s the question of why would either Japan or South Korea want to join the Tempest program? They both already have their own on-going next gen fighter programs. It would be a waste of time and money for them to join a program that is in its infancy while their own programs are further along the way of development.

            Why would they even bother with a program that is half way around the world from them? There are several geographically closer countries that would be willing to join their programs.

            Then there’s Canada. Despite their trade war with the USA right now, the chances are still greater that they will buy American.

            Sweden has had a long history of going their own way as far as fighter aircraft are concerned. There is also the recent USAF TX program. The winner was a Boeing/Saab team. Seems that Sweden is going American as well.

            With all your concern about UK trade secrets being lost if South Korea or Japan become partners, have you thought about the reverse? Shouldn’t they be concerned about losing their closely guarded trade secrets to the UK? If BAE (who now more American that British) is part of the Tempest program, isn’t the chances greater for their secrets to end up in the USA?

            Or is it that if Japan and South Korea joins the Tempest program, it will show how glaringly antiquated and inadequate the UK Industrial complex is? After all, they both continue to build modern military aircraft (Kawasaki P-1 & C-2, Mitsubishi F-2, KAI T-50. FA-50) whereas the UK… remind me again, when was the last British military aircraft built? Would they consider the UK be the right partner for them?

          • @Rokuth – Please read what I have written in its entirety. I am NOT being selective as to one country against another. The reason I say we should not engage with Japan and SK as PARTNERS is because of their attachment to, and part of, the US Incorporated military machine. And indeed you make the point yourself by pointing out they have their own objectives in play

            Now whether any country wishes to join us is up to them. That is hardly the argument I am making.

      • I don’t think you should rule out potential customers based on their previous purchasing history – that’s not a great way to run a business! Japan and South Korea are massive markets so to rule them out is crazy – they are precisely the economies we want to be selling our tat to, Brexit or no Brexit.
        Japan and SK, and Australia and Canada, and just about everyone else for 40 odd years who are not utterly corrupt and can’t be bought by a BAE/Downing St bung has bought American because it works and is good value.
        We need to build things if we want people to buy off us; can’t blame japan or S Korea for that. The recent export successes of Wildcat, Merlin and T26s are proof of that.
        Also nothing wrong with them wanting a share of the work, most nations do and we don’t seem to have a problem with Australia and Canada doing that with T26. If they are happy to waste money reinventing the wheel and setting up an assembly plant in their countries to replicate what we’re doing, that’s fine, it’ll just cost them a hell of a lot more than getting us to do it, as we found out with the Westland Apache purchase.
        The key to Tempest is to own and lead the project, not repeat the mistakes of the Eurofighter consortium.

        • @the_marquis – Come on that was not my argument at all. I said Australia was hardly likely to buy Tempest given its current dependence on the US aerospace industry. And specifically now the F-35A. I dod not in any way say we should NOT sell to them. I just pointed out it was highly unlikely they would buy.

          Now as to Japan and SK by all means sell to them. I never said otherwise. I was pointing up my concerns as to having them as PARTNERS. Now we can debate whether them setting up a production line (as the Italians and Japanese have with F-35) makes them a partner is another discussion. But when you are trying to protect your own interests against a huge competitor (in name the USA) would you rather lose some sales or give away your project through the back door to that competitor?

          And in closing with this comment (which I heartily endorse) you very much make my own point Sir:
          “The key to Tempest is to own and lead the project, not repeat the mistakes of the Eurofighter consortium.”

          • I think Japan and S Korea would be good partners. Both will have a need for a Tempest type aircraft in the future, and both have a solid industrial base. It would be lovely to think we would build a military fast jet all by ourselves, and flog it to the world, but that would cost a lot of money and no UK Govt will do that. Furthermore, to sell it to other countries, you will need to give some kind of industrial participation, as Saab has with Brazil on the Gripen NG, where the initial purchase cost is offset. Otherwise potential customers won’t be interested. Having partners from the get-go means you are spreading the financial risk at the start, rather than absorbing it all as the French did with Rafale.
            Having customers as partners from the start also means they are less likely to cancel the order when the project hits problems, as we did with Eurofighter. If Typhoon had been a purely British aircraft being sold to the Luftwaffe, the Germans would have bought none after reunification. German industrial participation and German jobs on the line meant Kohl had to renege on his election pledge. Also, if the Americans wanted the tech from Tempest, and we sold Tempest to the Japanese as a customer only, not as a partner, the Japanese could still share with the Americans Tempest’s secrets, if they were so inclined, just as America is nervous about Turkey acquiring S400 missiles off Russia.

        • @the_marquis – I had to respond to this comment separately:
          “Japan and SK, and Australia and Canada, and just about everyone else for 40 odd years who are not utterly corrupt and can’t be bought by a BAE/Downing St bung has bought American because it works and is good value”

          I wouldn’t be so naive as to believe US Incorporated sell their wares on purely value for money / functionality reasons. There are politics, commercial leverage and other ‘inducements’ at play as there are anywhere else in the world. Arms sales is a mucky business and if you are in that game you have to play the game or lose out and if (as yet unproven) BAE and Downing Street were ‘bunging’ folks then don’t think others have not. And for clarity the fact BAE agreed to pay two fines in 2010 as a settlement of charges does not mean they were found guilty of corruption. The main charge in the USA was about selling US owned property rights not illegal ‘bungs’. Given it was all in the ’90s and last ‘offence’ in 2002 it is hardly current.

          There is, for example, a certain Middle Eastern country that was going to order a fleet of Typhoons and Raphael aircraft. They were also in the market for the 787 airliner. Negotiations proved difficult. ‘Interestingly’ the said country, having dismissed the F-15 because of Israeli complications and price, then announced a ‘deal’ to buy fewer Typhoons (24) and Raphaels (24) (since increased to 36) and ordered 72 F-15s. At the same time announcing a deal on the 787, 777 and 737MAX (oops). And the President at the centre of this? The saintly Barack Obama. Of course Qatar Airways denies any linkage at all. As they would.

          And if you believe President Mitterand had nothing to do with the extra Qatar Raphael sales or the Indian and Egyptian Raphael sales then I admire your innocence.

          Arms Sales = Politics = Arms Sales.

          • There’s a difference between political wheeling and dealing, and outright corruption. The Serious Fraud Office knows the difference, they compiled a weighty case file on it. BAE Systems knows the difference, which is why they paid out millions in fines and out of court settlements. Since the Lockheed scandal, in fact, the US companies used to bemoan the fact they couldn’t “compete” with the European firms for deals, due to the more stringent anti-bribery laws the US has.
            That said, I also believe there’s a difference between customers, too. Countries with existential threats to their state aren’t going to settle for shoddy kit. Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, etc will opt for what they think suits their needs (political considerations will play a part). Countries that don’t have a pressing military need (and have a less transparent procurement process), may allow themselves to be convinced by other options. Sometimes, a country does both when their circumstances change, eg Saudi Arabia, which bought Tornado F3s in the 80s under the al Yammamah deal when they had few external threats, then quickly bought the much more capable F15s after the Gulf War when they realised the kingdom had madman on their doorstep.

          • @the_marquis – I won’t extend the partners in Tempest debate any further as I would rather agree to disagree but I feel I must (again) refute what you keep peddling about corruption and BAE. You presumably read my earlier reply and yet still keep on? BAE were NOT charged with any corruption in the USA it was sales of aircraft using US equipment without authority ie breach of licence and dispensation from the US Government. The lesser charges mean its ability to conduct future business in the U.S. – where it is the biggest foreign supplier to the Pentagon – will not be affected.

            Likewise the SFO did not prosecute for any ‘corruption’ either. regarding Tanzania the fine and plea bargain relate to one charge of failing to keep accounting records (under the Companies Act 1985 no less). No charges or prosecution were brought for corruption against BAE. Now I am not making BAE out to be Saints in a world of Sinners and the US authorities gave a severe warning to BAE but there were no charges for corruption. But as I replied before this was all in the ’80s and ’90s and the last charge was from 2002.
            So by all means criticise but do please at least get the legalities right.

          • I’d be happy for the UK to commit to going it alone on Tempest and developing an aircraft that suits our purposes and supports UK industry, even at the cost of exports. Some people might say the Rafale is an expensive failure due to its lack of export success, but I think that is unfair. The French pretty much built their own 4.5 generation multirole aircraft from the ground up, using mostly domestically sourced kit. it fulfils everything their armed forces need – air defence, interdiction, nuclear strike, naval aviation etc, and it came into service quicker than Typhoon (most likely due to the lack of political wrangling between international partners). People can argue the relative merits of Rafale, Typhoon, F/A18, but they are all there or thereabouts, and all much better than the Soviet/Russian/Chinese built adversaries they were designed to face. You can’t ask for much more than that. In that way, I think success should be measured on the quality of the aircraft and whether it fulfils the roles expected on it, whether it is reliable and comes in on time and budget. No point building something super fantastic that is 10 years late and so over budget we can only afford 10 of them.
            However, no UK govt will go for it because i think there is a mindset since the 1960s that building a fast jet by ourselves “just can’t be done”, it’ll be too complicated and expensive etc etc, a mindset held not only by politicians but within the civil service. So, Tempest would almost certainly have to be a multinational partnership, if even that. There’s a chance it might just be used like Replica to buy a way into a next generation US fighter project, or worse, join the Franco-German FCAS project. It may even just be quietly dropped in the next spending review.
            So, therefore, if we did have to have a partnership, I’d happily take the Japanese and Koreans over the French and Germans, especially if they let us design it to our specs and they are happy to have a local assembly plant for their own units.

            As for BAE Systems’s corruption woes, the US Dept of Justice is pretty clear on the matter that BAE Systems paid money to shell companies and intermediaries to secure export contracts and wilfully hid this from investigators. And this wasn’t solely related to the Saudi Arabia and Tanzania deals, it was also contracts it negotiated with South Africa, Hungary, Romania and Chile. Saab themselves in 2011 confirmed that BAE Systems had paid a “consultant” over £3m to facilitate the Gripen sale to South Africa, back in the days when Saab had partnered with BAE Systems to help their export sales, which is also probably why Saab ended their arrangement with BAE Systems and decided to bring their foreign sales business in house.
            But yes, BAE Systems have never been found guilty in a court of law, but then it doesn’t help when prosecutors lose the evidence…

    • We should definitely buy more Typhoons to get us at least up to the 160 mark, but preferably closer to 200.
      We should also push ahead with AESA, CFTs, Meteor and the proposed upgraded EJ200 engine that would push it to 28,000lb class.
      Such a commitment would also hopefully give potential export customers added confidence in opting for Typhoon over the other candidates.
      How this could be funded though is difficult, unless numbers are cut elsewhere. The US is buying more F15s and F/A18s because they expect to use them either in combat or as a deterrent. MoD policy (governed by the Treasury) does not plan to do either, hence why we have no stockpile of munitions and every conflict we enter into begins with a mad scramble to get the basic kit together to equip a fighting force.

    • I’m another who would ditch a pile of the F35s and the expenditure that goes with them and throw it at Typhoon for now. I’m almost positive they could be combat ready long before the flying money pits are.

  5. A further increase in Typhoon numbers seems the best option given that Tempest’s airframe could incorporate the majority of Typhoons current powerplant, electronics etc. and be used as a testbed for future upgrades for Tempest too. A perfect fit for the RAF both short and long term.

    The F35B will not reach full operational capability until at least 2025 (block 4 software-internal fitting of Meteor) only two to three years before Tempest will first take to the skies.

    It appears to me that we are pretty much in the middle of a cycle, F35 12yrs too late, and Tempest 12yrs away from operational capability. Difficult decisions ahead!

    Introducing a longer range standoff air to ground missile (500nm+) based on MBDA’s Perseus would be a very wise move in order to help fill the gap.

    First flight 15 December 2006 (F-35A)

    “Stealth F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Has Some Serious Problems: Report”

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/stealth-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-has-some-serious-problems-report-42892

    “Why the F-35 Isn’t Ready for War”

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-f-35-isnt-ready-war-48312

  6. I’m a bit confused as to how many Typhoon squadrons we’re going to have under current plans. Anybody care to help me out?

    • Hi Geoffrey, With the reintroduction of Tranche 1 equipped Nos 9 & 12 squadrons, there will be seven front-line Typhoon Squadrons, plus an Operational Conversion Unit (29R Squadron), four at both Lossiemouth & Coningsby.
      You can also throw in No.41 Squadron, a Test & Evaluation unit – plus No.1435 Flight in the Falklands Islands.
      By my count, there should be about 144 Typhoons in the inventory, plus currently 17 Lightning IIs. An alarmingly small number of combat jets, in view of the myriad of tasks out there.

  7. A further increase in Typhoon numbers seems the best option given that Tempest’s airframe could incorporate the majority of Typhoons current powerplant, electronics etc. and be used as a testbed for future upgrades for Tempest too.

    A perfect fit for the RAF both short and long term, with the Royal Navy taking onboard the F35B as we have no other option currently available for the carriers.

    The F35B will not reach full operational capability until at least 2025 (block 4 software-internal fitting of Meteor) only two to three years before Tempest will first take to the skies.

    It appears to me that we are pretty much in the middle of a cycle, F35 12yrs too late, and Tempest 12yrs away from operational capability. Difficult decisions ahead!

    Introducing a longer range standoff air to ground missile (500nm+) based on MBDA’s Perseus would be a very wise move in order to help fill in the gap.

    F-35 Stealth Fighter: Not Ready for War?
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-35-stealth-fighter-not-ready-war-40857

    • There is not more though, that’s the catch.

      It is the same squadron as before which operated GR4’s now using the existing Typhoon fleet.

      There are still 8 Front line Fast Jet squadrons just like years ago when there were 5 Typhoon and 3 Tornado GR4. now 7 Typhoon 1 F35.

      In effect they’ve just played musical chairs with the squadrons and then scrapped the Tornado’s!

      The long term aspiration I believe is for 5 Typhoon 4 F35.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here