German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that Germany will purchase 20 additional Eurofighter jets amidst heightened tensions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, according to a press release.
This announcement was made at the opening of the ILA Berlin Air Show.
“We will order 20 more Eurofighters before the end of this legislative session (scheduled for autumn 2025) — in addition to the 38 aircraft currently in the pipeline,” Chancellor Scholz stated, highlighting his strong commitment to maintaining and expanding arms production capacity.
He added that the order would provide certainty to Airbus and its suppliers.
Eurofighter CEO Giancarlo Mezzanatto welcomed the announcement, saying, “Today’s announcement from the German government is great news for the Eurofighter programme and our industry partners. It underlines Germany’s long-term commitment to the Eurofighter. Eurofighter Typhoon will be the backbone of Europe’s defence for decades to come.”
The Eurofighter Typhoon is a twin-engine, canard-delta wing, multirole fighter, manufactured by a consortium of Airbus, BAE Systems, and Leonardo.
The companies involved in the Eurofighter programme manage a supply chain employing more than 100,000 skilled individuals, enriching the technological capabilities of the entire European region, they’re keen to point out.
Now that the S400 has been proven to be a bucket of shite, one wonders if it’s time to look again at the stealthy non stealthy mix of aircraft in NATO.
Typhoon is perfect for the roles it performs and the cost of operating LO aircraft like F35 seems to still be stubbornly high.
In the entire debate of which aircraft is better F22 or Typhoon I don’t think anyone envisaged in the 90’s that Typhoon would still be in production after F22 was retired but that’s close to where we are in the 2030’s.
With large fleets of drones as well as the ability of stand of missiles like stormshadow and future hypersonics are manned LO aircraft really still a requirement given the massive expense of operating them.
Will this put the USAF at a long term disadvantage considering the limitations of F15 relative to 4.5gen aircraft like Rafale and Typhoon?
No disrespect to F15 obviously, in its day it was unbeatable but it’s 30 years older than the Typhoon design.
Operating costs related facts still remain the key concern. Stand off missiles plus long range missile seam to be a better trade off than structurale stealth… I would like to know more about J20 though, because they are constructed right now.
Its not just drones and standoff missiles; sadly for Ukraine; its the winged iron bombs that are proving a very effective low cost high hitting power weapon.
What are we doing about this?
Or put another way, with regards to aircraft development, does Europe prefer to stand still and rest on its laurels in the short sighted hope that a potential adversary will never improve its anti air warfare capabilities, while the US, China and a host of other countries push forward with their next generation aircraft programs.
Or is structural stealth an expensive dead end much like Mach 3+ capable aircraft?
It’s not just Europe with reservations over LO. The USN been very reluctant.
Similar to aircraft carriers, anyone who has the technical know how and can afford their cost is trying to have stealth aircraft. It has become the cost of admission to high end air warfare. If you believe that structural stealth is a technological dead end I would point you to the b-21. I would also point to the general evolution of structural stealthy designs over time. Notice early stealth aircraft were all straight lines which as I’ve read was due to the limitations in computing power in testing and designing stealthy shapes. Now notice that the newer low observable aircraft like the b21 and to some degree the f-35 have a lot more curves that earlier stealth aircraft. Stealth design is not standing still. It’s actually way out ahead of the tech designed to counter them and this will probably be the case for the foreseeable future.
I would point you to the fact that every stealth aircraft America has ever developed has been retired early and legacy platforms like B52 and F15 will live out their replacement aircraft like F22 and B2 by decades.
I’m sure you will be aware of the interplay of physics and economics that results in this but there are limits to how undetectable and aircraft can be, just like there were limits to how fast they can go in an atmosphere.
Ultimately America and everyone else stopped trying to go faster with manned aircraft because it was a dead end.
Ultimately any stealthy aircraft will be eventually detectable.
We literally looking at having SAR/LIDAR satellite constellations that can track submarines in the deep ocean. Big black planes flying around in the sky don’t stand a chance in that environment long term.
The US is doubling down on low frequency stealth with the B21 and NGAD. The cost of low frequency stealth reduction is major reductions in kinetic performance and manuver.
GCAP seems to not be making this trade off.
Once stealth is inevitably defeated as with the F117 and soon the B2 and F22 the platform becomes rather useless and gets retired.
I can very much see F15 outliving NGAD and I would not be shocked if B52 outlived B21 as well.
That, I think, is because if you want to play with stealth the world is finding that you have to go big or go home.
For things like the F15 and B52 it doesn’t matter that the airframe itself is not optimal; the role is to carry a whole heap of weapons and, in the F15s case, to spot things a long way away. The important bits (radar, engines, weapons) are upgradeable without changing airframe and aerodynamics hasn’t been revolutionised since they were designed to the extent that they are obsolete.
With stealth aircraft the airframe itself is central to the success of the mission. As such, instead of e.g. making a new BVRAAM or a new radar, when technology advances the design of the aircraft itself is the thing that needs to change.
The problem is then that the very expensive stealth airframe that you paid for is now almost useless because sacrifices in other areas of performance were necessary. A half-stealthy jet is pointless because the air war is all about who shoots first.
As such, because the pace of development is currently very fast, lots of designs that were supposed to be long-term are falling by the wayside.
As a game developer would say, this is a feature, not a bug, of stealth aircraft design.
Totally agree there. They wanted to put an F-35 radar into an F-22 but the cost and complexity esp for an aircraft rapidly running out of useful airframes or are combat ready simply didn’t make sense, restarting of production of even seriously upgrading the aircraft was deemed in two separate studies to be more expensive than a brand new design. There will always be a balance of highly capable aircraft to be at the cutting edge with cheaper less capable aircraft in support, exploit the gaps they generate and make up the numbers required. Easy to forget when one goes on about B-52s outlasting more capable complex aircraft that back in the 60s these aircraft were so vulnerable that it was British V Bombers that were to go in first and take out much of the defences that the B-52s were then to exploit en-masse. Little has changed in many ways and that two pronged thinking is still vital to any successful campaign.
It was also mentioned that speed became less of a ‘selling point’ too which is generally correct certainly outside of Russia. However in recent decades it neither really offered an advantage worth the enormous cost and/or was technologically not really viable in both aircraft and missiles. The big advantage of Brimstone after all over Hellfire is that it can be launched at supersonic speeds so the fact that Hellfire is deemed acceptable shows the general thinking. However it’s worth noting the US is beginning to study the feasibility of high supersonic or hypersonic aircraft as technology and costs start to look more promising while defensive weaponry becomes more capable so yes speed is becoming a potential factor again as we see in missile technology already.
Did you consider that those platforms that were retired early was because technologically and economically the US can afford to keep advancing to something more capable? None of the early stealth platforms have ever been “defeated” as far as we know. Even the F-117 is still flying around in what reportedly as a test target for the US newest generation of radars. And I think you misunderstand the roles of the B52 and F15 in the usaf arsenal. Those are mostly used as bomb trucks and standoff platforms and will never be used as the platforms that will kick the door down in “first day of war” ops.
Another important point is you should not think of stealth as invisible. It is not and has never been promoted as such by people who designed it. Stealth is delayed detection and reduced ability to track and target. A stealthy aircraft just needs to delay detection long enough to get into its weapons range for it to be effective. It has been speculated that a s400 can detect a f35 from about 20-30 miles away which is almost useless when the f35 can fire a weapon like the aargm-er from over 100 miles away and destroy it.
SAR/LIDAR not designed to detect and track airborne fighter aircraft. You are misunderstanding the purpose of the planned constellations of US sattelites.
No actually the USAF plan for E3 is very much satellite based constellations combined with distributed sensors on drones. E7 is an interim solution for the USAF.
Obviously I’m not an idiot so I do realise stealth does not mean invisible.
However think about it, if I am launching a missile at an S400 from an F35 at 20 miles then what’s to stop me firing a larger missies from an F15/Typhhon from 100 miles away.
It then becomes a subject of economics. I.e what’s the most cost effective way to take out the target.
It’s much easier to upgrade long term the F15 with the big missiles than the F35 with the small one.
Missiles might be expensive especially hypersonic ones but then we don’t launch them regularly.
Stealth planes will have to fly daily to keep pilots trained, this is proving to be expensive.
“No actually the USAF plan for E3 is very much satellite based constellations combined with distributed sensors on drones. E7 is an interim solution for the USAF.”
Hi Jim,
I’m fairly certain you’re mixing up aircrafts here. I’m not referring to awacs aircraft but to a dedicated EW aircraft which the EA – 37B is.
One of the many reasons I can think of off the top of my head of why you will need a stealthy aircraft compared to a typhoon or F15 is some targets are mobile and a battlefield is often times dynamic and what is considered uncontested air space today might not be tomorrow and you will need aircraft that are survivable within that contested space.
My reference to satellites is in counter to your reference stating that LIDAR/SAR constellations have no role in air to air detection but they do in USAF future plans to replace AWACS with LO satellites and distributed drone sensors.
For sure contested air space will move and LO is always going to be useful.
My point is will it be worth the cost? Going at Mach 3+ is handy but no one does it anymore because it’s not worth the cost.
In the end it was better to make the missiles faster not the planes.
It always going to be easier to make a missile LO than a plane so same argument holds in the longer term.
You are right in this respect and it is always a combination of factors that push the line of value one way or the other between the two types (might be more than two of course) and this will change over time and as technology changes. I still say you need both to fulfil all your missions just the balance between them is in question as is the ultimate level of capability you invest in your high end platform and the ability and numbers in your lower end one.
If you were flying an F15 and firing from 100 miles away, you would have been engaged by several missiles by the time you got within firing range…believe the S400 has about a 250 mile detection/engagement range… much higher chance of the pilot and F35 surviving the same mission…
A lot of what you say here is correct but there are also a few basic errors. Stealth isn’t about not being detected, any airport radar is capable of detecting stealth aircraft to some degree or other it’s more about reduction in detection range esp against other potential ‘targets’ real or perceived and greatly degrading the ability for target radars and missile sensors in particular, to lock on. Remember present air to air missiles tend at range to run out of fuel and are in coast mode affecting their manoeuvrability and ability to hit a manoeuvring target. This is why Meteor is so highly rated as it is fuelled for longing being throttleable. The AIM 260 will be too I think but less discernible aircraft have a big advantage.
The F117 that was shot down was in fact the exception that proves the rule and was a combination of pilot/plannng complacency ie using the same course on a regular basis and a commander on the ground who exploited this with insight and lateral thinking to hit what was otherwise an unattainable target. He turned on the tracking radar just long enough to confirm the aircraft was where he suspected it would be on the way home from releasing its ordinance due to his knowledge of previous raids and then fired his missiles in that general direction hoping they would get close enough to acquire it despite its stealth. It worked but would only work once.
B52s and F15s stay in operation because they are still functional in certain missions and give numbers and capabilities unaffordable in stealth aircraft alone. B52s are useful as they can launch many stand off missiles, you need massive sophistication for that just competencies, Lorry’s are vital in F1 but they don’t replace the race cars. We all know the problems of the F22 but as I state elsewhere there are many circumstances until a Gen 6 replaces them where an F-15 or esp an F-16 would be outclassed by even dated foreign aircraft if it were simply a one to one game.
Radar absorbent material (RAM) has come a very long way since the F117. Which used angular displacement predominantly to reflect a radar transmission away from the aircraft. It also used a development of the ferric paint used on the SR71 and U2 to absorb some radar transmissions predominantly in the X-band.
Today’s F35 uses embedded RAM (eRAM). This is a composite material that incorporates layers of absorbent particles included as part of the lay up process. When dried, this forms the F35’s outer skin panels. The F22 used a combination of painted RAM and some eRAM. But also used radar trap baffles behind the skin. Which work better at longer frequencies.
All RAM works on the principle of converting the incoming energy into another form, predominantly heat. This increase in temperature is minuscule in comparison with the general skin temperature of the aircraft. Much like a sponge, RAM has a limit on how much it can absorb before it starts to emit. This is where eRAM and baffles have an advantage as the skin can be thickened, but also the baffles shaped to redirect the emission away from the transmitter.
An aircraft could inform the pilot on how much radar energy the aircraft is being painted with. This does correlate on how stealthy the aircraft remains. As there is a threshold on when the aircraft becomes detectable. So the pilot would be able to decide how close they can get, before being seen.
No aircraft is 100% radar stealthy. As a lot will depend on the type and number of radars. Is it mono-static or bi-static, do the radars form a network? Is the radar ground based or airborne?
As radars develop, RAM will also develop.
RAM is part of the LO build, you can get some way by just design a radar deflecting airframe and burrying some feature inside the airframe (engines, weapons), the mathmatics of this are now very well understood and newer stealth designs aren’t really paying any penalty in manauverabilty or speed through being LO. And of course modern materials which would also be used in non LO airframe like carbon fibre are conincidentally more stealthy than aerospace alloys.
Also flight profile can help, if I’m only ever going to be exposed to radar from below then I can limit where I use RAM coatings and which features need to be more stealthy.
I think its entirely possible for the UK to build a LO airframe that would be lower maintenance that full blown stealth airframes like the F22 and F35 by removing reliance on coatings.
Entirely agree in principle that the future of air warfare will be dictated by 5th and 6th gen platforms. However, even USAF has hedged options by procuring a few F-15EX to bridge the transitional period. RAF would be justified in acquiring additional Typhoons, provided there would be no significant tradeoff on future acquisition of F-35B and GCAP. Believe Typhoon would be be perfectly adequate, on an interim basis, for missions against non-peer adversaries. 🤔
Given the performance of S400 I’m not sure the US and NATO have any peer adversaries anymore in air combat.
If just storm showdow and ATACMS fired by Ukraine can take it out then imagine what a real strike package of US and NATO aircraft would do to it.
S400 is China backbone as well.
True though I have read that Su 35s unlike their SU34 brothers which they often escort have been able to out manoeuvre Patriots at distance. At least that’s what it has been said the loss numbers suggest.
All missiles are able to be avoided under certain circumstances. Range, energy left in missile all play a part.
At some point in the future, the Orcs and ChiComs may realize that forming a defence research partnership would result in synergies, ala AUKUS. Placeholder name: RUCHI. Between Russian basic research capability and ChiCom technology and capital, defence technology contest could become a sporting proposition. 🤔
There could be a case in keeping 4th Gen jets. Where the need for stealth and its associated costs is not required. For example QRA and policing missions.
Exactly. 👍
However the F35A is cheaper to fly and buy than the Typhoon.
Yeah that’s why they opted out of f35
Are you asking about aircraft skin that use embedded RAM or a painted in material. Not forgetting the radar trap structure that sits behind the skin.
With today’s material and propulsion science, we are in a much better place to design an aircraft that could sustain a cruise speed of Mach 3+. The big question is would such an aircraft provide an advantage over one that is slower?
As we are seeing with the KAI KF21, there is a potential market for aircraft with a much reduced RCS over a normal Gen 4 aircraft. As this uses predominantly aircraft shaping rather than RAM to reduce the overall RCS. However, this can only be taken so far. As you really need good quality RAM to be effective against today’s radars to minimize the aircraft’s detection range.
Embedded RAM as used by the F35, has a significant advantage over the painted on material. As the radar absorbent properties can be better tailored to match the expected threat. But also the material can be made thicker. Thereby minimizing proportionally the amount of energy being reflected. However, it does come at a much higher cost and is more tricky and maintenance intensive to maintain or repair.
Aircraft like the F35 will sadly have a much higher maintenance cost than a Typhoon. A lot of this is down to maintaining the aircraft’s RAM, to keep the RCS within the design specifications. Sadly the embedded RAM is quite brittle and can be easily damaged, much like any composite material.
However, a “stealth” aircraft like the F35, will always have a significant advantage over a non-stealthy aircraft like a Typhoon. As the Typhoon will always be detected a long time before the F35 is. Giving the F35 the option of shooting first or just being a ninja and staying out of detection range and observing what the Typhoon does.
The USN is not reluctant about getting F35s due to its RAM maintenance. Part is due to it still not being cleared for EMALS launching, plus there was an issue with the arrestor hook cracking. Which required a design change. So the F35C can only take-off from carriers with steam catapults. Also the USN are a bit peed off with LM, taking so long with the TR3 update. Not forgetting they are paying for the 6th Gen FA-XX program, which is to bring back a fleet dominance fighter, similar to what the F14 provided but in a much stealthier package.
I should have read your post first I also called out the KF21 as good option that not full stealth but better than the current 4th gen offerings.
Structural radar stealth has 2 categories imo, 1st is the airframe shape 2nd is the RAM and coatings. a stealth airframe shape is an easy win, just using shape and embeding things like the engine fan to reduce RCS is an easy win with modern computing. The thing that pushes up the cost of stealth is the coatings and maintenance of these. Of course there other aspects of stealth like IR signature.
But there some sense in part of the mix not being a full blown LO airframe. South Korea has gone with the KF21 which is not as good as the F35 but better than the Typhoon from a LO perspective.
In the UK we certainly have the skills and knowledge to produce something like the KF21, a lower end LO fighter, we just don’t have the will. Instead we sit back and watch the KF21 hoover up some nice epxort orders including in our own backyard.
Aren’t there 2 5.5/6th Gen programmes in development presently in z Europe?
Potentially 4, with FCAS/GCAP (UK, Italy and Japan, SCAF (France, Germany, Spain and possibly Belgium. TAI TF Kaan (Turkey) and Sweden’s Flygsystem 2020. I’ll keep the Russian efforts separate.
The French fighter is more versatile ie air craft carrier , so what will the Brits use with your comment re f35?9
Well there is an F15-EX variant which at circa £115m a copy is close to an F35A but carries a much bigger payload. As a multi role aircraft it’s not bad at all.
I’ve got to agree though the need for tranche 4 Typhoons is becoming more pressing. I can’t believe we as in the government and MOD are prepared to scrap without replacement the tranche 1 typhoons.
Still if Tempest was just around the corner I’d say keep typhoons on hold and push Tempest through to active service much quicker. We have to do one or the other.
Yes the F15 EX is primarily being procured as it’s cheaper than upgrades of the older F15 models, the USN benefited from having a true 4.5 Gen aircraft in the Super Hornet as did all the European Airforces.
The USAF bypassed this generation with the F22 which was ahead of its time but now the USAF lacks a true 4.5 Gen platform.
With the benefit of hindsight the USAF would have been better if the F22 had been a true 4.5gen replacement for the F15 and waiting until 5th Gen technology was more mature as with the F35.
P.S. I realise that the F15 EX is touted as a 4.5 Gen aircraft however it’s still the legacy design with upgrades, it’s really big and heavy and it’s aerodynamics are lacking compare to true 4.5 Gen aircraft like typhoon.
I also mean no disrespect to the F15, the things 50 years old and it’s still one of the most capable aircraft in the world.
Apparently the F15-EX’s are brand new factory built, and not just refurbs. Shows the capability of the design that the US still thinks it’s worth building new copies, albeit with modern upgrades.
After the retire of tranche 1 the RAF Will have Less fighters than the spanish air force for example , Britain needs at least 300 fighters not 100. Ridiculous
Well have around 180 fighters once the final F35s arrive. But no chance of 300 on our budget.
One question, if all russian armament is a disaster, If Russia uses washing machines to attack why sonmuch panic that Russia Will invade Europe ? , for me IS a non sense.
They,re in the border with Ukraine and are not able to penetrate more than a few meters in a day, how do you think Putin Will try NOTHING against all nato. ?
Please explain to me.
No panic here on Russia invading Europe, Russia would not last long against any real European force much less NATO.
The government clearly feels much the same as defence spending hasn’t moved up.
The USA has cut its own defence budget since Russia invaded Ukraine.
Certainly no panic
The Russian army still heavily outnumbers the land forces of the Baltic States, despite their losses in Ukraine, and if they cement deeper strategic partnerships with North Korea, China, and Iran, such that those countries also act militarily in their own geographic domains then NATO + allies would likely have to divide their resources between Europe and elsewhere. Not impossible also that if Trump wins a second term that he pulls the US out of NATO – he is a wild card and has threatened to do that in the past. All of which Putin would doubtless seek to exploit or encourage (e.g. wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the Kremlin, by way of it’s Iranian allies, had a hand in the Gaza/Israel war breaking out to divide the attention of the West).
Ukraine could still lose this war if they simply can’t generate the manpower or a Trump presidency cuts their US aid. Don’t get me wrong, I hope this doesn’t happen but we should at least be planning for the possibility that it might.
Interesting point, I saw a YouTube channel last week where an experienced ex USAF pilot flies various simulated missions against mostly Russian opponents. Haven’t seen an F-15 one yet but saw his F-16 take on I think it was an SU-27 and geez was he out classed. His AMRAAMS were well out ranged as was his radar and only his AWACS fed him the required information required to know where his adversary was. His only choice was to close while avoiding missiles esp when his AWACS was taken out. All he could do was fly at near tree top height using high ground to mask him watching smoke trails above. Incredible flying but in the end firing AMRAAMS in the general direction of only an occasionally acquired target he hit him but hell was it a risky business. Not sure how capable the F15EX is but they certainly do rely a lot on their stealth aircraft to give them advantage. The new AIM 260 is going to be vital to them I think in empowering their non stealth fighters beyond pilot and support competencies. That said Russian lack of AWACS numbers now is going to cripple them in any such confrontation.
Sorry it was an Su-35 not an Su-27 which is more believable considering the compatible vintage.
F16 is the cheap and cheery USAF fighter. Su27 would be dead in any engagement against F16 if it has the more modern US radar.
Su35 maybe, certainly if it was well flown, Mig 31 can certainly out range F16 with AMRAAM but then almost anything can outrange F16 with AMRAAM. This is why the USAF does not use F16 in the A2A role.
It uses F22 and F35 which even with AMRAAM a would destroy any aircraft on planet earth in a BVR engagement.
F16 is deadly close in unless fighting something like an F35 or Typhoon with off boar sighted missiles.
And if the Fighter Plane Mafia had gotten their way, neither the F-16 nor the F-15 would have had a Radar!
Also worth remembering that despite having all the advantages in numbers/weaponry on the night before the invasion, Russia still after 3-years have not destroyed the much smaller Ukrainian air force. I think even with some advantages such as the longer range missiles and highly manoeuvrable assets like Su-35, the Russian air force is outnumbered by NATO air forces and it’s pilots have considerably fewer flying hours/training than their NATO counterparts.
Ukraine has been massively saturating then as part of it attack. One last week was 60 odd drones and missiles. I don’t think there is any system in operation that could survive that. Dealing with massive saturation attacks is going to need to be the next big thing in military research
Even if they went down the Silent Eagle program. The conformal weapons bays didn’t drop the RCS below a Typhoon’s, primarily due to the two huge open engine air intakes, giving a perfect view of the engine from head on.
The AIM-260 is being developed to mitigate the F15’s huge RCS. Which is necessary when teamed with AEW or an F22/F35.
This is good news for Germany, they seem to be taking actual steps to rearm. If we are going to increase defence spending to 2.5% we should focus on procuring more of what we already have and know. 20 more typhoon and 6 new p8 are the two big candidates for this, they are both mature and the capability of a new typhoon is light years ahead of the oldest that we have.
However that is wishful thinking and I doubt that it will happen.
How many will that eventually leave them with?
Retiring tornados obvs, and I’ve heard T1s are also being retired for them.
So 110 T2/3s, 58 T4/5s and 35 F35?
I was wondering the same thing. I see they’re likely to order another 8 F35A, which would take them to a total of 43.
Odd number. There’s also the idea of an additional 15 Electronic warfare Typhoons floating around but they’ve run out of that emergency fund that was granted a few years ago.
Give the capability of the Mk2 CAPTOR E radar and the Praetorian DASS for EW missions I think it’s fair to ask is there is any need for an EW variant. Especially if you also have F35 in fleet.
There must be because they’re converting 15 of their current typhoon for the role.
It’s more to do with the need to replace their existing Tornado ECR’s, than a need for dedicated Electronic attack aircraft. It’s everything to do with institutional bias and preservation rather than a hard headed assessment of modern military needs.
The RAF for a long time has shied away from dedicated electronic attack aircraft.
Now the USAF and USMC are getting rid of their dedicated EA platforms.
This was the main reason the RAF insisted on the Mk2 version of CAPTOR E
“Now the USAF and USMC are getting rid of their dedicated EA platforms.“
This is simply not the true. Look up the EA-37B which the US has accelerated its development due to its urgent operational requirements.
That aircraft cannot realistically enter contested airspace.
The EA6, F111 and Tornado can/could.
It remains to be seen how this aircraft will be employed as much of the tech associated with it is still classified. The US military do seem to hold it in very high regard based on the procurement decisions so far.
If the EA37 B could operate in contested airspace then the US probably would be spending 1.5 trillion on the F35 would it?
Unfortunately warfare at the cutting edge is never that simplistic. I personally don’t see how that aircraft can operate in contested airspace and I don’t think that’s what the usaf expects of it but based on their own statements so far it will be right on the perifery of the high intensity stuff and might well be a part of any first day of war strike package.
Different aircraft with a different mission set to Tornado ECR. The USMC has removed its equivalent in the EA6B. The USAF is removing its F16 equivalent. Both forces will use F35 in the role.
The US has a tonne of aircraft that perform electronic attack missions but only the F18G of the USN will be a dedicated escort jamming aircraft like the ECR.
But they will have the Mk.1 AESA radar developed in Germany which doesn’t have the EA capabilities that the UK developed Mk.2 radar
In the end the German f35A is all about having a squadron that can deploy and use the 60 odd B61 free fall nuclear bombs stored in Germany.
F15s/16s will rock on through incremental upgrades and newer versions, however, will Gripen take more market share as cheaper to buy and should Gripen enter service with the UKRs its performance will be watched closely.
What Britain needs is more tiffies and that is not going to happen.
Where did you find that Gripen was cheaper to buy than an F-16? Cheaper operating cost, sure. But the Gripen is not a cheap purchase. The Gripen costs $80m, compared to the F-16’s starting price of $30m (although it can be optioned up to $70m).
We should join them, not only for “standard” models but the SEAD version as well.
I don’t think we’ll be getting any more typhoons in general.
Sadly, never going to happen.
Hi Hugo and DB. Sadly you’re right. In fact we’ll probably be lucky to keep the ones we’ve got, but a man can dream. 🤗
A purchase of 40 typhoons would be a great idea for the U.K. for transfer to Ukraine or Ukraine gets the T2 with the RAF taking the new ones. It keeps the production line going until tempest is ready.
If the plan was purely to get aircraft for ukraine the money might be better spent purchasing gripen for them. The french are moving in so rafale will be offered soon I think.
No argument from me but It’s probably a pipe dream. I don’t know where we are going now. Tories by 2030 for 2.5 per cent; Labour “creating a pathway”for discussion, once the defence review prioitises in two years, subject to the economy. I’m not holding my breath.
Something we should do too. Far more useful for current operations than the F35B in its current state of development.
Not without a raise in funding. Everything that isn’t going to F35s is going into GCAP
What’s happening to the RAF’s T1s, weren’t they looking at costings for upgrading these to T4 while GCAP is still a while away?
Maybe they were looking at 1 point. But done of them have already been salvaged for spares. All barring the ones at the Falklands I think will be out of service by next year.
There must be terrible amount of wastage with the T1s frames if being used for spare parts already. If upgraded new parts could be made. And with all the new orders by Germany, Italy and Spain it seems a bit silly not to take some
(cost?) advantage of this and order a top batch up for the RAF now? Why wait for later when the lead time already is what it is? Will the next F35Bs come any sooner?
Date is still 2031 for the last 27 F35s.
Unconfirmed obviously but plan seems like just to wait for Gcap. If its delayed or cancelled they’ll probably order more F35s.
The MOD has never asked BAE for a price to upgrade T1 to T4 standard.
Original plan was to use T1 in an aggressor squadron role.
I don’t think so. BAe have stated they can refurbish the RAF’s Tranche 1s to a later standard. But they haven’t publicly given a cost. Both Italy and Spain have done this with their Tranche 1s. Although Spain are also buying some additional new Tranche 4s.
I think it would be very wise to order more. Certainly we need more F35s and on a far shorter time scale than the current dribs and drabs.
If they are hell bent on retiring the T1,typhoon they should be replaced with newer models. They can be obtained at a sensible price now.
Even if they’re at a good price there’s still no money to spend on them. We’ve still to order the next 27 F35s and the rest is for GCAP
Also T1s are already essentially retired.
If they’re retiring the T1s there’ll be saved money there, use that plus gap to purchase new.
Not that much saved from the running costs of 30 aircraft in comparison to buying even a handful new. Don’t forget the MOD budget shrank this year by like 3 billion. There’s no spare change.
The savings from retiring T1 are going into the second tranche buy of F35B.
Hopefully the new defence review and increased spending will rectify that. Even ordering them now , it will be several years before they role off the line.
Bold of you to think there’s going to be a huge uplift in spending…
Then the next government will fail its first duty to the country. Protection of its citizens.
You don’t need a SDR to know our armed forces are not up to the job.
There is money. Just depends what the government want to spend it on. The UK could easily afford to arm and equip our armed forces properly. They just choose not too.
Id argue against easily, what other department are you cutting to add to defence?
If we don’t spend enough on defence we enevitably lose all the other depts. But then HMG has been doing a marvelous job of destroying most things people in this country rely on.
Spot on 👍
No such thing as a lsensible price. Typhoon is still very expensive to purchase.
It is still one of the most capable fighter aircraft on the planet, offering swing capabilities.
What do you suggest they buy if they were in the market for more jets?
Typhoons are pretty good. But it seems more F35s are more likely if any purchases are made.
Typhoon is better than pretty good especially with the new ESA radar.
The F35 does not excel at air defence or mud moving . Plus we are far short of the 70 promised.
The 2nd Tranche of 27 to bring the total to 74ish will happen this year.
But that’s well short of the original 138 that were envisioned.
Same old story. Promise to buy enough but in reality buy barely enough,
Standard UK Government practice i’m afraid. We don’t need to worry about Defence, that doesn’t get us votes, just blow millions on anything we think might be a headliner and just pay lip service to anyone who queries the dire state of our armed forces.
The only aircraft that comes close to matching F35 in air defence is the F22. The F35s combination of all aspect stealth, sensor fusion and situational awareness, its APG-81 radar, IRST and defenceive aids, weapons and performance all add up to deadly air dominace fighter. Typhoon is superb. But its lack of stealth puts it at a disadvantage straight away. Luckily for us. Both aircraft are on our side.
The F35 has limited fuel and speed. When it comes to intercepting the bad guys in the North Sea you need an aircraft capable of rapid QRA. The ability to launch meteor at high speed and altitude.
The F35 is an excellent aircraft but when it comes to hauling ass to west of the Hebrides . You need the Typhoon
I’m not questioning its capabilities. I’m just saying it isn’t cheap to buy or operate. A force mix of Typhoon and F35 offers a deadly combination.
Unfortunate the cost is the issue. Without a large increase in funding it is very difficult to see how we could afford another batch of Typhoons ( and pilots, infrastructure, support etc )
Hi Robert how are things? I’m keen to understand if these 20 Tranche 4 (and the other 38 on order) are simply replacements for the Luftwaffe Tranche 1? Might you have any insights on this?
Hi Klonkie. Yes, all good my end thanks. Yes. These new aircraft will replace T1 jet’s. Italy is also retiring T1 jets. Spain has carried out a limited upgrade on its T1 aircraft.
Much obliged for clarifying Robert, stay well.
It’s amazing that other countries with a far smaller defence budget than ours are purchasing more Typhoons while we are scrapping about 30 of them, reducing the main aircraft strike capability to just over 100 aircraft, as I’ve repeatedly said on here before, something not right about all this, especially with a war raging in Europe involving a serious military power which could easily spiral out of control, utter madness.
Germany has a slightly larger budget than us and was given something like 100 Billion to spend as an emergency fund when the Ukraine war broke out, which has now run out. But that’s why they’ve been able to make purchases like these.
Us meanwhile have had no such fund, and are trying to finish our F35 order and fund GCAP
Playing ‘Devil’s Advocate’ here while the RAF may be much reduced from what it once was, from a wider perspective NATO Air Forces overall maintain a significant numerical and qualative fast jet superiority over the Russia AF – a force demonstrably incapable of mastering Ukraine’s relatively outdated AF and GBAD. So it seems reasonable to conclude that NATO airpower would very probably rapidly gain a measure of air superiorly Vis a Vis Russia should it ever come down to that – and lets all hope it doesn’t given the lethality of both side’s conventional and nuclear arsenals.
So while I’m by no means against strengthening RAF air power I feel the more immediate problem is our appalling lack of any GBAD system worthy of the name. Furthermore, I guess that given the high initial purchase and ongoing operating costs of modern jets the money saved on not ording another squadron’s worth of Typhoons would go a long way perhaps towards obtaining the decent ground based missile defence capability the UK so obviously requires.
I have also said this. We do not seem to get good value for our buck
Because Germany doesn’t have many capabilities that we provide. It’s not just about fast jet numbers.
What we are doing. Is spending £2.34bn. Yes, billion. On upgrading the T2/3 fleet. Currently, 40 T3 jets will get the new ECRS Mk2 radar. Plus many other capability enhancements. This is what we are doing instead of purchasing new airframes.
If this were 1937 rather than 2024, would the UK be scrapping 30x Spitfire MkI’s or would it be keeping them and ordering, at the very least, another batch of 20x Mk II’s? Also standing up as many squadrons and pilots ….just saying for a comparison. ….history repeating itself and all that…the fools..
I say keep the UK should keep/upgrade all the Tiffys and order another batch of 60 pronto, and quickly start training/recalling as many pilots as possible. Start grabbing back a few UK aerodromes from developers for active squadron use too, rather than putting everything in a small handful of bases. Some things are beyond money.
Don’t know what you mean by Beyond money? But currently there is no money or political will for any of that.
…try defence of the Realm for starters, or in simpler terms, Nazi/Putin hoardes raping your mum and sister.
Not saying you’re wrong. Just stating that unfortunately very few care.
True. Agreed. I’m just making my point regardless.
I’d be shocked since the Spitfire MkI didn’t enter service until 1938 XD
Yes. My bad.1938. But tell me, you do still get my basic analogy and we are not getting lost in pedantic weeds here?
Hi, sorry have we met? Pedantic weeds is my natural habitat XD
Mind you so many mischievous acts were taking place back then even when things were bad it does bear comparison. Napier and Hawker could get ROTOL 4 blade props for the Sabre powered Typhoons because ROTAL was a joint Bristol RR venture, Bristol would transfer its sled valve expertise to solve Sabre reliability and RR doing everything to obstruct non Merlin engine use because if plans had proceeded RR would have had no single engined planes to power. Obviously events went very much in their favour as time passed. But that was very much helped by them totally stitching up Whittle to gain control of the jet future and driving the man who patented the high bypass turbojet engine that powers all jets today out of the business when still a young man. The Air Ministry was equally pretty much ‘managed’ by Vickers and Hawkers seriously damaging other manufacturers. Some aspects are certainly arguable due to circumstances true, but the general theme was there.
What is also interesting is that pre war aircraft production was pretty much done through stealth as the anti war movement was so powerful and sadly as it got into gear so late as a result that orders for fundamentally useless but available aircraft like the Battle were rushed through for ‘numbers’. Ironically that air raft might have been useful if it was built as a twin or the effectively twin Monarch engine was used as Fairey wanted but 30s International Conventions precluded.
My reading of the situation then also was that it depended very much on the individuals’ attitude to the coming war. A lot of “privateer” effort and vision from the likes of RJ Mitchell, and the tenacity of de Havilland to come up with the Mosquito helped get war-winning aircraft in place. The country was running out of time and I suspect people like Chamberlain deliberately stalled for peace to give extra time for British industry to ramp up, and the air defence system to be put in place.
My point is that the pre-war period is very similar to where we are now.
There will come a point where, because the RAF did not order more Tiffies that we will have to order the new aircraft. Gamesmanship I think.
As a matter of interest, as the Russian air effort (flying and SAM), how much might be because they are keeping their powder dry for some bigger conflict?
NATO or China would need that extra ability that is usually reserved.
Yes esp as the choice will be high end or higher end so numbers will always be a problem.
We really should be ordering a new batch to replace the tranche 1s that are being retired. It would support ensuring we had the airframe hours to keep up squadron numbers if the 6 gen offering is delayed.
If GCAP is delayed its more likely theyd look at more F35s or even A models. Doesnt appear to be any indication of intrest in more Typhoons
to be honest if they are looking for cost effective ways to increase mass then the typhoon is the way to go..we have a far better infrastructure to support typhoon numbers than we do for F35b.. I honestly think going for f35A would be a big mistake…although it has commonality with F35B it would still be a completely separate fast jet fleet that would require separate infrastructure…training pipelines, spares as well as its own OCS…
Im not against increased F35 but it has to be F35b for both cost effectiveness and maximising the vast investment in carriers. Personally I think we need 4 front line F35 squadrons..to ensure 3 for a full surge carrier and 1 for other RAF stuff or if we happen to have the second carrier two airwings of 2 squadrons. But I also think we need to move from 5 front line typhoon squadrons and IX bomber squadron to 8 front line typhoon squadrons ( that can be done by drawing down 12 squadron and standing it back up as a front line squadron and adding a new front line squadron).
for its commitments and security the UK really needs 12 front line fast jet squadrons ( 4 f35b and 8 typhoon).
Typhoon being cheaper than F35 is questionable. And while there is a benefit to consolidated fleets they’re clearly driving towards stealth aircraft, why would they get more typhoons when they’re trying to replace them with Gcap.
Hi Hugo.. the issue is not so much individual cost, it’s also about infrastructure and maturity..the reality is we have only managed to stand up a single operational squadron of F35Bs and the reality is the pipeline for supplying the airframes, time frame to maturity as well as pipelines for training pilots and ground crews mean even if we wanted to get to 4 f35b squadrons its more than a decade away.
Gcap is great but let’s be really honest with ourselves we are not going to have an operational squadron until the 2040s and like the f35 we will be lucky if we can bring up an operational squadron every 4 years so for 6-8 operational squadrons we are taking the 2060s before we could replace all the typhoon squadrons..so we could very well see the last typhoon squadron standing down in the 2060s that’s why we need a new tranche of say 20-30…if we could get them delivered for 2030-33 it’s almost inevitable they will be 30 years old on retirement.
The final point is industry and that delivery of Gcap is completely dependent on a seemless transition of the UK typhoon production line to Gcap…lets say we can go from concept to production in a decade..we will not be building Gcap until 2034-35, unless that production line has typhoons to build until 2033 we loss our fast jet industry and capacity to build Gcap without a massive rebuild and we made that mistake with our Nuclear sub industry…cost o fortune to rebuild the industry and it’s the reason why we only have 7 A class boats being built.
Our industry may well collapse. Its been done before and it’ll be done again. Without a funding increase we won’t have more than the planned 107 Typhoons and 74 F35s
As another post mentioned the retirement of the T1s savings are what’s being put into getting the 2nd tranche of 27 F35s, so clearly we’re having to scrape funds from other programs and active assets.
I agree with your analysis on 12 front line fast jet squadrons ( 4 f35b and 8 typhoon). For me , that strikes a good balance.
Let the Germans rearm. They owe Russia a hiding
“Owe”? Only from a Nazi perspective.
I wonder what we will hear at FIA24
And we scrapping 30 of ours, umm, that says it all.
The MOD wasn’t given 100 Billion in emergency funds to buy whatever they want.
VERY TRUE, but still a waste of aircraft, but those run the Armed forces must know best.
More like those who run down the armed forces, i.e. HMG.
True but you have to admit the recent loss of C130’s and the fact we have no AWACs and are scraping 30 Typhons does show as sign of inept top people in the RAF,
Is the supply chain for Eurofighter still intact?
Definitely.
But we’ll probably keep burning our assets rather than wisely buying a few more. Then when the SHTF & everybody else wants combat jets asap we’ll be in a queue.
It really feels like Germany doesn’t have high hopes for their 6th gen fighter project with France.
Pity the RAF can’t bang in an order for 50 additional Typhoons. Spare the argument that they are 90s jets. We only have to be better than the likely enemy capability.
I wonder if any “MOD” persons ever read this ukdj website? There’s some really good sense mentioned here and plenty of spirit, aspiration and frustration too! 🚀 🇬🇧!
The issue is in to my thinking what the Germans are doing compared to the UK. Germany has 38 T4 Typhoons on order, now a further 20 T5s thats 58 new Typhoons of the latest designs. A further 35 F35As and 15 Typhoon electronic warfare aircraft on order. That is almost if not more than the complete front line strength of the RAF. I also do not think that the Germans will dispose of the 134 Typoons that they have. That gives Germany 200+ combat aircraft.
Question, why can the Germans have this type of airpower and the UK has only 100+ combat aircraft. The Germans also have a fairly good GDAD network and getting better the UK none.
Then comes the second question, Gen 4.5 vs Gen 5 aircraft. What is the mix what is better. Gen 5 aircraft such as the F35 has the advantage in air to air for the first salvo, after that its a straight up fight. However a Gen 5 aircraft to keep stealth would have 4 missiles in an internal bay, possibly six, a Gen 4.5 aircraft would have 8-12 missiles.
Gen 5 aircraft have an advantage in the deep penetration or anti air defence attack. However, a mix of Gen 5 to take out air defence radar or air defence systems with Gen 4.5 following through with their heavier weapons load makes sense. Even in the combat air to air situation, mix an air group with a flight of F35s with two flights of Typhoons, the F35s to open up with the first salvo then bug out, the Typhoons to burn through the F35 line and mix it up and you have well chaos.
So my solution would be if the RAF/FAA was to have 78 F35Bs then they should have 156 Typhoons or which is more real 36 F35Bs for the FAA, 42 F35Bs for the RAF and 84-126 Typhoons for the RAF depending if you want a two to one or three to one mix. Taking my thinking further the RAF should have the 42 F35Bs, 84 Typhoons as tactical strike aircraft and 42 Typhoons as UK Air Defence interceptors. A total of 168 combat aircraft for the RAF and a further 36 F35Bs for the FAA. The FAA 36 F35Bs would be all 36 for a strike carrier group, 24 for a sea control combat group on one carrier and the second carrier with 12 F36Bs as a Amphibious escort Group. I would still prefer if the FAA could have 48 F35Bs but then again cost.
What people need to remember a stealth aircraft is not a bomb bus, the moment any payload is put on the wings stealth goes out of the window. Computer power, sensor power is a diffrent issue, I am dammed sure the Typhoon has the capability to have the same if not better computer/sensor ability. Just because you can stick pods etc where needed as it will not effect stealth to much, its not designed for stealth its designed to do a job. Can the RAF please have some electronic warfare Wild Weasel version of Typhoon!
Out of my interest has a Typhoon gone up against in a one on one in Typoon sensor contact situation against a F35, and if so what was the outcome. Something tells me that the Typhoon might win.
This is only my thinking and would stand corrected if anyone has a better idea for cost and effect to operational possibilities.
Yet.
Would I like the RAF/FAA to have 36 strategic bombers,one sqn front line,one work up, one repair. 48 tactical bombers,one front line sqn, one in UK readiness, one work up one repair. 72 strike aircraft, 48 for the RAF and 24 for the FAA, two front line, two workup, two repair. 78-136 F35Bs and 126 Typoons hell yes. A RN carrier with 24 F35Bs and 12 Strike aircraft is a real threat. The strike aircraft could be a drone.
Yet that whilst being realistic numbers as a deterant it will not happen.
Yet if Trump becomes President we might need those numbers. However, I did think on how these types of numbers if not more could be done. If Europe was to build its own bomber/strike force manned and controled by nations states according to the percentage input of cost then Europe would have a strike capability independent of the US and any future potential Trump. European nations have the know how, they have the industrial base, the US is not the garantee of European peace and Europe that includes the UK must sit at the table with the US as equal and do it alone if need be not need must. So just think if France would have the same strategic bomber and tactical bomber numbers, Germany tactical and strike numbers Poland tactical and strike numbers. Europe would not need the US but it would still be good to have.
By the way I am not thinking of a bomber as going over a target and droping bombs but an aircraft that could carry 16 cruise missiles within 1000 miles of the target and bug out. A tactical bomber would have a shorter range and cruise missiles in the 300-500 mile range, a strike attack aircraft for a close target 100-300 miles out from launch at low level. So just think of a potential European strategic strike mission of 24 aircraft from the UK and France each with 16 cruise missiles thats 384 missiles coming at you in a single strike, ouch is all I could say.
For the younger folks here that might not understand my terms, strategic bomber think Vulkan, tactical bomber Canberra, strike aircraft Buccaneer. Here is where the Gen 5 like the F35 comes into its own as an escort to take out enemy radar systems so the bombers can get in and do their job.
Then what do I know except this, the moment a nation has the ability to strike deep into your heartland you sit up take notice and become careful.
British Typhoon fleet may soon become the smallest one of the four nations for developing the Eurofighter.
GAF：143 eurofighters today, 38 T4 for replacing 33 T1 and 20 additional T4+ or T5.
SpAF：68 eurofighters today, 20 T4 and 25 T4+ for replacing F-18.
ItAF：94 eurofighters today, considering to buy 24 T4+ or T5 this year.
RAF：107 T2 + T3 eurofighters today, retiring the whole T1 without buying any new tranche of Typhoon.
German：Typhoon is a silly name for Eurofighter, and why should we let the country with the smallest Eurofighter fleet have the right to name it？ We should rename Eurofighter as the mighty “Schwalbe” ！！
They are also buying over 3000 Brimstone 3’s.
In other news, Italy has confirmed that they are buying 24 more Typhoons of a 4/5 Tranche
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/italy-to-order-24-additional-eurofighter-typhoon-fighters/