The Ministry of Defence has confirmed the withdrawal dates, scrapping figures and current numbers for the Royal Air Force’s Typhoon fleet, following a series of written questions from Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty.
Defence Minister Maria Eagle provided the answers on 1 September.
In response on retirement timelines, Eagle stated that “the planned out-of-service dates for the RAF’s fleet of Typhoon aircraft are given below: Tranche 1, 2027; Tranche 2, 2040; Tranche 3, 2040.” She added that “the RAF does not have any Typhoon Tranche 3A aircraft.”
The answers also revealed the extent of disposals from the earliest generation of the fighter. Eagle confirmed that “26 of the 30 Tranche 1 Typhoon aircraft have been scrapped as of 1 July 2025; this equates to 87% of the Tranche 1 fleet.” The remaining Tranche 1 airframes will leave service within the next two years.
Providing a snapshot of the operational fleet, Eagle set out that “the table below details the number of Typhoon aircraft currently in service with the Royal Air Force. Tranche 1 – 4; Tranche 2 – 67; Tranche 3 – 40. The Royal Air Force does not have any Tranche 3A Typhoon aircraft.”
Taken together, the answers show that while the RAF’s Typhoon force still totals more than 110 aircraft, its operational strength is now concentrated in the newer tranches. The four surviving Tranche 1s are due to be retired by 2027, while Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 fleets are planned to remain in service until 2040.
The written responses underline the government’s gradual transition away from the oldest Typhoons while sustaining the newer aircraft through upgrades. The Ministry of Defence has previously said that the Eurofighter programme partners are committed to ensuring the Typhoon remains competitive, including the integration of the European Common Radar Standard 2 radar, which will extend the aircraft’s relevance into the coming decades.
This is fantastic news, having such a massive fleet of cutting edge, state of the art World leading aircraft in such numbers should make the entire 70 million population sleep comfy in their beds.
Sure, if you don’t laugh, you cry, but sometimes I don’t know if I can take the sarcasm without wincing a bit. So when will we be upgrading tranche 3?
You said it.
The killer statement here is upgrading to make them competitive. Which would indicate they are not that good really
Accuse me of fantasy fleets if you want but we should have a combat fleet of c.280 manned assets. Let’s say 108 F35b and 168 typhoon/tempest with 1k loyal wings and capability to produce 50k attritionable drones in 2 weeks with 5k in stock at any given time (used for training and target practice)
Nothing stopping tempest being a successful as T26. We need to speed up and get orders in whilst defence is a hot topic.
It’s all doable if we are willing
Oi pacman, run away, you’re being eaten by a hungry mouthed video beast !🏃♂️➡️🏃♂️➡️🏃♂️➡️
I’d like more truth be known, not sure of numbers but we must be dangerously close to the limit now.
Aircraft technology doesn’t stand still. There will always be the need for upgrades. This does not equate to not very good.
As for you numbers, did you just pluck them out of the air? ,and what other expenditure on military and civilian budgets would you slash to achieve your numbers
Personally, I don’t think that’s terrible- obviously everyone wants more but I understand there are financial limitations. I think the key will be what the RAF decide to do with the ones they have, but also think they need to consider an order of Tranche ‘3A’ or 4 airframes. While, in some ways, 2040 seems quite close, 15 years is quite a reasonable way away- the Typhoon fleet has plenty of work still to do, so deserves proper investment and development.
As far as I’m concerned, and especially if the RAF aren’t going to get any more Typhoon, then all airframes need to be upgraded to Tranche 3 standard. I’ve no idea what the quoted ‘3A’ standard is, but maybe that if Tranche 4 is too expensive. Following that, the Mk2 AESA radar should be rolled out to all the airframes (now that they’re all T3). Spear 3 should also be confirmed and added to the Typhoon’s inventory, and preferably JSM too- but that may be an ask too far.
Typhoon has far too much to do, especially with F35 taking so long to get a proper weapons fit and needing progressive refit to get all the Block IV-ready hardware etc. Having the RAF ‘making do’ with a split fleet of old/new Typhoon, (arguably) F-35B that aren’t ready for combat, and mooning after F-35A that won’t give them all the offensive capabilities required either just won’t cut it.
Tempest, while I’m positive about it, is unlikely to be delivering airframes in quantities into trained frontline squadrons (i.e. ready to fight) in 2040. But I don’t see Russia developing anything in the next 15 years, either in terms of GBAD or air combat forces, that could cause a serious concern to a T3 Typhoon with AESA radar and stand-off PGMs. so, to me, an additional 24 Typhoon airframes delivered by the mid-2030s seems like a good shout to me- even if just to replace some of the older ex-T2s if not increase numbers.
We’ll have to see what happens though, especially considering we don’t have enough pilots for our squadrons as it is, from what I understand…
To be honest, I think that 50 is more than adequate, no need to have them all sat around gathering dust. (aircraft not crew) We should stop ordering those rubbishy American jets too and sell one of those silly willy waving carriers, and who needs Wedgies ?
Enough of this waste of Tax payers money, lets build Hotels instead, make Britain the Worlds favourite place to visit and stay.
Ahh..sarcasm, Ive missed you so.
This kind of thing always makes me wonder. My first reaction is to call BS, because there’s no way we will have replaced the Typhoons by 2040. Even if you can believe that GCAP will be operational in Japan by the target date of 2035 – it won’t be in production here; most likely we’ll take a few years more to get into mass purchase. So even if we only buy 80 Tempest, will we really buy them by 2040, not to mention train all the pilots and maintenance crews? How long before we even stand up a full conversion squadron? If we gave up on Tempest, would we buy 100 F-35As or F-47exp by 2040?
The Typhoons aren’t going OOS in 2040 unless we capability gap the RAF!
“ The Typhoons aren’t going OOS in 2040 unless we capability gap the RAF!”
Treasury are testing that approach with T23….to the very limits….
I mostly blame the Treasuries between 2000 and 2017 for the T23. We laid down HMS Norfolk in 1985 with a life expectancy of 18 years, and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out a replacement should be laid down in 2003, not 2017.
It’s true though, you don’t see the current Treasury owning the previous generation’s mistakes.
Got a feeling Norfolk Is still serving ? Chilian Navy I think.
Renamed after a British Admiral, and serving along with the other two T23s and a T22.
We are deffo doing something wrong !!!!
Their T23 aren’t doing anything
We also have F35 and there my be further buys to keen numbers up. Do not forget Typhoon is getting old and is a 4 generation plane. We have to progress and be realistic.
We will likely have at least 70 F35s by 2040. We still have an aspiration for more.
The F35B is a waste of money. Cannot carry many weapons, low range and expensive. Typhoon buy essential.
It was designed to replace the Harrier and it is much more capable than that – has longer range, and stealth, etc. Maybe we should work harder to supplement the carrier F35bs with drones, top up Typhoons, and ultimately invest more in Tempest?
The Harrier and the Tornado.
👍
F35 in UK service was to replace Sea Harrier and Harrier GR7/9. Tornado GR4 was to be replaced by an entirely different platform that was quietly dropped 15 ish years ago. Tornado GR4 was retired early without replacement (like many other systems in the UK over the past 30 years).
Drones drones drones, that’s all I hear !!!!!
Not sure what we have in the way of drones yet but I have seen Dave Cullens work on here a few times !
Jon, no need to call BS. The MoD is well known for gapping capabilities!
If you work it out at roughly 1/3 in maintenance at any one time that’s about 1 Typhoon per 1 million UK citizens. I’m sorry but someone really needs to think about that number and do something about it.
TBH the sensible thing to do would be to buy 36 new Tranche 4 Typhoons and another 36 F35 A’s, that releases the Typhoons from 1st Strike for AD, and let the FAA have all the 62 F35B’s we have in service, are modding from test and the 15 on order.
That’s roughly £7.6 billion extra over about 10 years.
Fantasy land Rachel from accounts says no !
I was going to say that !!!!
*One Typhoon for every one million citizens*, Think I’ll move to Quatar.
Now then, where did I put my Budgie smuglers !
France will soon have twice as many fighter jets as Britain. Force reductions are ongoing, and I fear that if the Conservatives already did it with a far-left government, it will be worse. However, Starmer keeps saying that they are going to increase defense spending. Since the globalist has been in power, not a single firm order has been issued for more planes, tanks, or ships. Only cuts. All smoke and mirrors. Neither those in power nor the Conservatives are interested in the country’s defense.
Its a shameful situation agreed but let’s not get carried away about France . The one thing they’re good at is « fumisterie « . It’s a national trait and particularly when referring to defence matters. They’re facing cuts too . Most of the more recently produced Rafale have been diverted to export sales and half of their fleet is made up of 4 gen Mirage 2000 . With more F35 deliveries to come their fleet is not going to be twice the size of the UK and will be entirely composed of 4th & 4.5 generation aircraft.
Correction, Starmer “aspires” to increase spending. Actually, he doesn’t say that, he says he “aspires” to increase the amount of Defense Spending relative to GDP. If you tank the economy you don’t have to spend any new money. In fact you can decrease the actual spend but increase the percentage. Even then, laying fibre optic cable for rural communities is to be considered Defence related so I wouldn’t hold your breath on any new plane count.
Twenty five years ago France has 500 combat aircraft and the RAF had 400, now France is down to around 200 and the RAF is down to 150.
These dates are pretty meaningless, the tranche 3s will be around to more like 2050ish , even if Tempest is delivered from 2035 it will be a good 15 year process (as with typhoon) to complete deliveries. Until 2019 the OSD was 2030! Just as the last Typhoons were being delivered. They just churn out the same dates until they change !
Madness! – Should keep as emergency air defence war reserves.
A Litmus test to see if Starmer and his motley crew are serious about protecting the UK against the likes of Putin, would be to see if his Gov make an immediate purchase/standing up of:
1) 40+ Typhoons
2) Stand-up 3 new Squadrons of Typhoons spread around the country
3) re-open at least one former RAF aerodrome.
…and that is just for starters. I’m not holding my breath.
107 combat aircraft to defend the county and support foreign policy.
Utterly embarassing.
Let’s not forget the defence agreements to defend all of western/Central Europe, Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand and a host of other locations dotted all over the world…
Unlike NATO, there is no defence agreement that Australia is party to that automatically requires any other country to commit forces to the defence of Australia if Australia is attacked.
This includes the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA), the ANZUS treaty, or AUKUS including the recent so called Geelong Agreement.
Notwithstanding the common military histories, culture or strategic interests, the wording is typically couched as an agreement to ‘consult’ etc. Check the fine print. As they say in advertising spiel ‘terms and conditions may apply’.
I consider that foreign policy
I have to say the MOD and RAF seem to have a bit of an inform issue. I did an FOI on the deployed numbers of jets to squadrons and the RAF answer was that as of July 7 2025 there were 123 FGR4s and 6 T3 deployed to squadrons (29, 3(F), x1(F) 12, 11(AC), 6, IX (B), squadrons , 1435flt and 14 TES.
So two completely contradictory sets of information from HMG..
What is interesting is that historically they published the data of which jets were deployed to each squadron as well as which were allocated to the sustainment fleet. This time around they claimed exemption to publication of individual squadron deployments and sustainment fleet numbers on national security grounds…. Which is a shame because there is some serious need for scrutiny on our fast jet fleet sustainability moving into the 2030s and pressure on HMG could see the issue solved before it becomes a major problem.
Essentially even if they are not publishing the figures we know how many FGR4s are in the tranche 2 and 3 fleet and that is 96. 96 FGR4s across 6 front line squadrons, the OCU, 41 TES, 12 squadron and 1435 will not go.
I predict that we will see a drop in numbers FGR4 equipped front line squadrons soon as well as the disbanding of 12 squadron and 41 TES at some point.
What I have a concern over is the timeframe against introducing tempest if we consider typhoon the first production model was delivered to the RAF in 2003 but the first front line squadron was not operational to 2008 then each other squadron took around 2 years after that.
So if the get their first product model in 35 ( a miracle) history would say the first front line squadron will not be operational until 2040 and if they have 6 front line squadrons in total the last will be operational in 2050.
So I’m sorry but to me the numbers of tranche 2-3 of FGR4s and the timelines for going out of service don’t add up at all. I suspect the RAF want a couple of squadrons of F35As for the 2030s and 40s
You need a minimum of 100 Typhoon to defend the UK + 50 more for a credible foreign deployment, so 150 total. Chance of that with Rachel’s doom loop tax & spend crashing the economy, is almost zero.
Airpower totally ineffective against the current crises affecting the UK (because they are not allowed too of course by the wonderful lefties in power) Soon we will see C17 and A400 transports bringing them in as it will be safer than the maritime route.
As I’ve said before on UKDJ, we can’t look at the UK in isolation. Our 107 Typhoons will not be defending our skies on their own. The US have nuclear interests here, so they will be involved. NATO’s article 5 means that many other friendly aircraft will be in the sky.
To me, it is inconceivable that the UK, as part of NATO, will ever have to stand alone in war (and, to be brutally frank, if we were alone we would not survive however many Typhoons we had).
When we look at likely European adversaries, ie Russia, we should always compare at a minimum eNATO forces against them, not just the UK. That is why I don’t think we’ll get (or need) more Typhoons. Just as long as we have Tempest in numbers by 2040!
They said that in the 1970’s and then the Falklands happened. With the US how it is you think Poland is willing to put their survival in the US or NATO’s hands? No the last 5 years has shown we never know whats going to happen.
UK having less combat jets that Spain is shocking no matter how capable the platforms
Falklands was outside the scope of Article 5 because it is below the Tropic of Cancer (the southerly limit of Article 5).
My point is that, however much we (including me) would like another decent tranche of Typhoons, it’s not going to happen, but that I can live with 107 because we have Article 5. And frankly, if Russia attacked the UK and NATO said tough shit, then 207 Typhoons wouldn’t be enough.
Anyway, as my kids used to say, “That’s what I fink.”
The fact where the Falklands was situated was irrelevant the uk was offered direct help by members of the commonwealth and turned it down. The UK reputation was on the line and we had to do itnourselves while Euro NATO allies told us to negotiate. Not talking about a never happen Russian attack on the UK however there could be situations we can’t think off, the future can’t be predicted and there is no way with our level of defence spending we should rely on article5 to protect us, world war 2 and the Falklands shows us we can’t predict the future.
If u want peace prepare for war
It really isn’t. NATO is specific to where an attack is located for Article V to be relevant.
“Article 6
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”
The Falklands are notably not north of the Tropic of Cancer, or even in the North Atlantic.
Your missing then point. Even if article five and NATO covered the Falklands Britain would never have accepted help or activated article 5 in the Falklands.
The point is that NATO isn’t the be all and end all. Situations arise that NATO can’t help or the UK will be unable to activate article 5
Its even a stretch that the southern nations would even vote as all nations have to agree to an article 5 which is unlikely.
That is quite literally just your opinion based on nothing other than a previous misunderstanding of article VI.
Also no: Not all nations have to agree to Article V, that’s a load of rubbish. I suggest you actually take time to read the articles of the NATO treaty.
A country under attack invokes Article V, there is no vote to agree to it. At best you are getting very confused over Article 9 which requires a meeting of NATO to discuss how to respond to someone invoking Article V.
Article 5 says that other NATO countries will help. It doesn’t say they’ll send fast jets. There’s no obligation on the US or anyone else to help us militarily, or how would Iceland be a member? Maybe a US president might help with a phone call to the Russian president asking him to stop, so ending WW3 (within a day), just as it has worked in Ukraine.
Its not Russia we should be worried about for there will soon not be a Britain worth defending as it like Rome it is being destroyed from within……………. UK Armed Forces whilst some of the best in the World it is simply not capable of doing anything these days and its once high respect is once had is dying with its demise……….. Sad times for all us service personnel who put our lives on the line for NOTHING.
Give over. Bet it was hard work in the NAAFI que. Our Armed Force’s are still highly respected. Nations are still desperate to send personal to train here. Just ask Ukraine.
“V: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
While it doesn’t obligate an armed respone per say, it requires all participant nations to view an attack as an attack on their own territory, so pretty hard to justify NOT going to war if a defensive shooting war breaks out.
I’m sorry James, but in today’s political climate does not work.
The recent wargame exercise held by a fictional Government during an urgent COBRA meeting by Sky News, that included Ben Wallace as the PM, with other ex-Governmental ministers and Ex-senior military. Where Russia used a false flag attack to blame the UK as legitimate reason to attack the UK. Clearly highlighted that if doubts are sown within eNATO, they won’t act uniformly until finally pushed where individual Nations interests are put at risk. Not forgetting that to invoke NATO’s Article 5, all the members most vote on it and agree that it needs to be acted upon. As per the wargame exercise where the USA were being belligerent about supporting the UK and didn’t believe the attack warranted invoking Article 5! In the wargame, Ben Wallace couldn’t believe the stance of the US President. But as per the exercise, the Great Tango’d one, has shown his interests come first and damn everyone else.
Therefore, the UK Government’s primary task is to protect the UK and its interests. Which means it must provide the security and means to do so. Over and above any commitment to or from NATO.
And that is the danger of NATO, it creates a false narrative of strength. In reality NATO is only worth the paper it’s written on.. because that can be the collective response from states if a member gets invaded.. yep if we get attacked other NATO states would be perfectly within their treaty obligations to write a strongly worded letter and nothing more. It’s unlikely they would, but who know what the political situation will be in a decade.
Any nation that is fully dependent on others to defend itself is always at potential risk.
NATO was created due to an overwhelming multi nation enemy that could have and wanted to crushed every European nation. But the modern world is different the reality is any of the major European nations should be able to face Russia alone if needed. That would be the base line.. the large NATO powers need to be able to face Russia alone.. if they cannot there is something rotten in NATO.
Because the point of NATO is not to allow you to weaken your own defence to the point you cannot defend yourself alone against a peer, it’s to prevent exploitation of smaller nations and provide collective mass that provides a deterrent to war ever happening as no single nation could ever combat the combined might of NATO in the NATO area, even china on its own. As long as NATO stayed cohesive.. the two key questions are, is will NATO stay cohesive in a prolonged painful war and will our enemies always act alone ? and for these question alone we need to be able to defend our own interests in the worst case of NATO failing and pull our weight across the globe if a new enemy power block develops ( as it is doing). Because if NATO fails due to individual weakness the nations that cannot defend themselves will be over the barrel with their trousers down and arse hanging out.
Collective defence should mean collective strength not collective weakness. We are richer than Russia we can afford tje airforce needed for our own defence and interests ( around 10-12 front line squadrons and 250ish jets )
Yours is one of a number of replies I’ve received making similar points, and I don’t necessarily disagree with any of you. But… but… but… we are not going to get any more Typhoons, there ain’t no money, so there is no point saying we must. They are not coming.
What I have been arguing is that, if Article 5 works, 107 Typhoons is enough. And Starmer will never admit Article 5 won’t work, ergo (in his head) 107 is enough.
Can I refer you to the recent Sky News podcast Wargame, with Ben Wallace, jack Straw etc. A very plausible scenario, where the good old USA does not come to help the UK when it is made an example of by Putin.
Did the rest of NATO help us? If they didn’t, I don’t think it was a realistic scenario Wallace was facing, because it would suggest that Putin could pick off other NATO countries individually at will, and even European politicians must realise that if they even hinted that might be a possibility then Putin effectively controls the whole of Europe without firing a shot – he just has to threaten to.
Around 150 Fast Jets is too few for the RAF.
The figure should never have dropped below 200.
Morning DM, I thought you might be on Holiday, haven’t spotted you posting much.
Yes and a good % of that figure will be non available for Ops.
Hello mate.
Still here, just observing.
Seen no need to post, so didn’t.
Ha, There were a few Quad packed articles about the T26 and the Missile one got properly hi-jacked with Eco stuff !
Stopped me making my normal stupid comments too 😁😁😁
But, I’m back now !
I was reading!
I go off piste sometimes but at least try to stay on defence related stuff.
This place becomes a political and eco arguing chamber too often and I for one am sick of it.
You go totally off piste! But at least you’re funny, and you can talk defence if you want to.
The RAF just sent me an FOI saying they have 129 typhoons deployed to squadrons…
Bloody RAF Spell Checker,
They meant Typhoo, they have 129 Typhoo tea bags.
*One lump or two*
Yep min force levels should have been 10 front line squadrons during the low risk timeframe and 12 squadrons from 2010, with a plan now to even go higher as the world is turning against the west hard and in times of upheaval like this really only hard power matters.
Personally I think we need frontline wise 8 squadrons of typhoons ( + Falklands flight) and around 160 aircraft and 4 squadrons of F35Bs for 90 aircraft.. so a fleet of 250
If you look at my post around a new FOI from the RAF they are still claiming they have 129 typhoons deployed directly to squadrons… there FOI responses have now become odd.
Mate.
I would not trust a word HMG or the forces say, to be honest.
I have a long history of FOIA requests myself, but not for a long time now.
Would they reply to a Halfwit ?
I might ask about “That Fire”.
Well that was in a BAES facility.
So I assume an immediate stalling reply if you asked the MoD, and I don’t think private companies are included.
If you do send one, the wording is all important to prevent “wriggling.”
Even then, plenty is exempt, often for good reason, but I suspect other times to hide incompetence.
Incompetence or Incontinence ?
Probably both.
We’re Spain with nukes
But Spain are getting rid of their Immigrants !!!
(😁)
And has better weather.
…and better lager.
The remaining 100 will be getting absolutely fragged given the commitments
Yep and realistically the final tempest squadron will not be operational until 2050 so the 2040 out of service date is a fantasy.
If, just if, investment is put into “loyal wingman” drones that can actually carry weaponry and do the job? Fighter numbers can be moderate.
However, around 100 Typhoons is no way near enough. F35 procurement is still a joke.
Eagle Speke is the usual politician garbage that comes from their mouths daily. None of them understand defence and the need for mass. None of the braid speak up or challenge, because for so long they have been political lick arse appointments.
GPMG’s mounted on dinghy’s is a good idea, cheap, and there are plenty to choose from.
Britain has plenty of money to give illegal immigrants free housing, but not enough for planes to defend itself. What a mess.
It’s crazy isn’t it out of nothing the government can spend billions a year on people who actually have no right to be here but we can’t spend a few billion on getting new aircraft in time I’m sick of our governments
Any UK government has a legal obligation to house immigrants (Re: Immigration and Asylum Act 1999),
which is why they had to take action against Epping council.
I’m not saying it is right, but until that law is reviewed/revoked, here we are.
Bunk beds in wooden cabins surrounded by a wire fence would be far far cheaper than a hotel.
You’d prefer them camping in parks and begging people for money on the streets.
Interesting…. 🤦🏻♂️
My question is what compels these people to cross the channel?
Surely, the advantages of settling in France are :
Lower rent/ House prices, better transport system and public utilities, Lower food prices.
I think they are cynically misinformed by the trafficking gangs who are happy to take their money.
An illegal immigrants can probably make more money here. Free accommodation, pocket money and unlimited opportunities to make thousands per week from drug dealing or other black market activities.
GCAP entering service (if no delays) in 2035… so in five years it is expected to have 100+ of these in service to replace Typhoon?
Very much doubt that’s going to happen…
Pie in the sky.
Like many other things HMG and the MoD say.
And who will hold them to account? No one, as so few are interested they repeatedly get away with it.
If you just take typhoon from first delivery it was two to three years before the OCU was running five years before standing up the first operation front line squadron then second squadron was 3 years later and the others were stood up every 2 years after that. So if the first tempests are delivered in 2035 ( big if) the RAF will have its first operation front line squadron in 2040 and stand up the last in 2050/51….
Basically in my view from the evidence ( typhoon fleet numbers, published letters etc) the RAF is planning to dump typhoons as quickly as it can and replace with F35A squadrons then slowly fill with tempest squadrons starting in 2040.
I know the RAF are enamoured with their shiny invisible F35 but we still need Typhoons for air defence. The F35 is just to slow and cannot carry the fuel or the bigger weapons a Typhoon can. I would like to see us buy at least some tranche 4 aircraft ( replace the retired tranche 1) and have all typhoon modernised with the new Mk2 radar only upgrading a handful makes a mockery of the entire project.
It would make sense to at least replace the tranche 1 with a tranche 4 order but this is the MOD/HMG, apparently 12 F35A with nukes controlled by a foreign country is a credible air force it seems.
I noted that in operation “Midnight Hammer”, the US used their stealth fighters to hand off targets to the non-stealthy 4th gen F-18s
A few AA units/radars were taken out, but mostly the Iranians chose not to fight.
It appears this “stand-off” air warfare is the new norm, I assume that the RAF would use F35/Typhoon the same way?
When we detect Bears or Worse Backfire coming our way in numbers you need something that is very fast and heavily armed.
The F35 cannot fulfil the role of quick Reaction and intercept those damn Ruskies way out over the North Sea.
Can we think about this hypothetical? Russia launches 100 Bears and Backfires, flies around Norway, launches a load of ALCM’s at the UK, maybe looses 20 to the QRA, and then a load more to British and Norwegian fighters on the withdrawl. Russia has now lost at least half it’s strategic bomber force to… do some damage to the UK’s infrastructure that will have minimal effect on NATO’s ground war on the Polish and Baltic borders?
It would not take a hundred it would not take 10, two or three badgers or backfires could deal considerable damage to the U.K, if the get close enough to fire off their cruise missiles,. , as part of a coordinates strike as part of an opening move, they can fly unmolested.
The simple fact is other than go nuclear there is not really much on the grand scheme of thing Russia can do to the Uk.
I don’t think the Russians have even 100 strategic bombers left to be honest. They had 125 ish before the Ukrainians blew up 40 of them so they are probably down to 90 and around 50% of those they have are old bears and let’s be honest there is no chance the bears will survive an incursion across the the Norwegian and North Sea and back again. Any airforce would be lucky to get 33% of its force available for a strike so let’s say Russia could sortie maybe 15 bear and 15 backfires.. thats 120 missile fired.. but in reality that fleet then has to both makes its way across the Norwegian and North Sea and then back again, so most of that bomber fleet is not coming home. Russia cannot build new strategic bombers.
Probably the biggest risk is from SSN SSGNs and even that is limited with 3 SSGNs capable of land attack and 6 SSNs in the north fleet. That means Russia could probably attack with an SSGN and an SSN, that’s about 50:cruise missiles, but then they have to head back to port…If the RN and RAF sink any of them they are not being replaced.
Essentially Russia could manage a few big hits on UK infrastructure, but once it losses the strategic platforms, which it will it’s for a snowball’s chance of hurting the UK.
The UK has the same sort of issue, its SSN fleet is limited in number and its carrier battle group as yet does not have any long range strike missile for its aircraft.
Essentially both Russia and the UK if they went to war would nibble at each other.
The number of planes, ships and tanks in Great Britain is ridiculous no matter how you look at it. Depending on alliances and other countries coming to defend us is pathetic, see Suez for example, and that in 1956 Great Britain still had great military power but even in union with France it could not win and had to withdraw. Imagine now.
The Suez campaign was a military victory for France /UK / Israel
Both the US and USSR were very angry about this military action and used political pressure to force a withdrawal.
Withdrawal from Suez had nothing to do with military strength, we could have easily defeated Egypt without Israel and France. The three countries worked together to try and reduce the inevitable international political condemnation they would receive.
The withdrawal was due to international condemnation (including a threat of UN sanctions, and threat from the USA to wreck the UK’s economy which was already facing a devaluation of Sterling) and less than 40% of the population supporting the war (even lower support than for Blair’s invasion of Iraq).
USSR also threatened military intervention (Egypt was an ally at the time)
They did, but it wasn’t the reason for the withdrawal.
More to my credit, you can’t rely on alliances or allies to defend yourself. You have to have credible armed forces to act as a deterrent, and currently, against a medium-sized power, Britain, with such a small armed force, can’t guarantee its defense alone. There isn’t enough decent amphibious force; the number of tanks, escorts, or aircraft is ridiculous. The Royal Navy has to be escorted by foreign navies with frigates and auxiliaries, since the United Kingdom doesn’t have enough. It’s pathetic.
Yes, we know the problems, they have been observed and stated here time and time again.
But what is the solution?
How to re-equip ?
How to build up recruit numbers ?
How to generate local industrial capacity?
How to afford all of the above?
No it is not “more to your credit”, you either didn’t read or understand my post.
The withdrawal from Egypt had NOTHING to do with the UK’s military strength, its military alliances, etc. 🤦🏻♂️
(And you don’t use amphibious forces to defend your home country. Try thinking before posting and embarrassing yourself.)
I have nothing to be ashamed of. If you don’t want to see that the state of the British armed forces is quite poor, that’s your problem. There’s no one so blind as he who refuses to see.
Britain did win in Suez, it was the US applying economic screw that forced us out.
Einstein said: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”
In the case of the MOD they keep on cutting and retiring capability while repeating these mantras:
“Do more with less”
“Increase the lethality of
“Fitted for but not with…”
“Future capability inserts/ upgrade”
Retiring planes that are probably better than most countries best planes.