RAF's new Eurofighter force to be slashed by a third in defence cuts

Frozen Hell

New Member
Late, over-budget and out of date: now the number of combat aircraft is to be reduced and the savings used to buy new weapons. Sean Rayment reports

Source
The government is to abandon plans to buy more Eurofighter warplanes in an attempt to control Britain's spiralling defence budget.

Defence chiefs have accepted that the aircraft, which was intended to be the cornerstone of the country's air defence strategy, will be outdated by the time it enters military service in 2006.

The decision to cut the Eurofighter programme, which is already £5.4 billion over budget, follows heavy pressure from the Treasury and will be made public in a defence White Paper to be published next month. It means that the number of aircraft the RAF will receive, originally set at 232, will by reduced by a third to 143.

As well as easing the financial pressure on the Ministry of Defence's annual £31 billion budget, the cuts have also been prompted by the emergence of new, unmanned aircraft, which are seen as the future of aerial warfare. One such warplane, the Predator, was used by the US Air Force to considerable effect in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

All three service chiefs are said to have agreed to the cuts in the Eurofighter - which is now known as the Typhoon - after being assured that the savings will be used to develop future weapon systems. These include unmanned aircraft and "smart missiles", which can be directed by computer on to targets hundreds of miles away with pinpoint accuracy.

A senior Ministry of Defence official said: "Eurofighter is a dead duck. Unfortunately we are stuck with it, but there is no way this Government is going to buy any more. It's expensive and obsolete."

A close ally of Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, also disclosed that the third tranche of Eurofighters, due to be ordered in 2007, would now be shelved. "Undoubtedly the third phase will be cancelled. It is too expensive and we don't need them any more," he said.

Mick McGinty, the editor of World Defence Systems, and a researcher at the Royal United Services Institute, said that the Eurofighter was a "legacy" aircraft that was already obsolete. "It will be operational 10 years behind schedule and therefore will be 10 years out of date," he said.

The decision to scale back the Eurofighter programme is the latest blow in the aircraft's troubled history. It was originally conceived in the 1970s, although it did not go into production until the mid-1980s. Five countries - Britain, Italy, Germany, Spain and France - were initially involved, but France broke away in the belief that a ground attack aircraft rather than a fighter was more suited to its needs. The British government, by contrast, backed the Eurofighter rather than opting to buy an alternative from the US, as some advocated.

The aircraft was designed to attack the massed formations of Soviet bombers that Cold War tacticians believed would be the prelude to a rapid invasion of western Europe. But with the demise of the Warsaw Pact, however, this threat disappeared and the needs of modern air forces changed radically.

During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan there was no enemy air force to fight and the only British and US aircraft that saw any action were the ground attack jets used to support troops, not to fight aerial battles.

Embarrassingly for the Government, however, the first tranche of 55 Eurofighters, which were delivered earlier this year, six years late, are equipped for an air defence role. Only the second tranche of 89 will be capable of undertaking a ground attack role.

There have also been severe delays in the production of the aircraft, which was originally due to come into service in 1998. Some of the hold-ups were caused by political in-fighting, including a threat by the Germans to pull out of the project, while others were caused by the complexity of co-ordinating the work of the large number of British and foreign companies involved in the project.

There have also been further problems with engine failures. All Eurofighters are currently grounded because of faults in the braking system.

Even Adml Sir Michael Boyce, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, appeared sceptical of the need for more Eurofighters. Shortly before he retired in April this year, the Admiral said: "Do we need to have 232 fighters in the modern context?" It is now generally accepted by the air industry that unmanned combat jets will begin to replace manned aircraft within 20 years, only a few years after the final batch of Eurofighters are due to enter service.

As well as the cuts to the Eurofighter programme, government funding for several of the military's most expensive procurement projects will also be cancelled or scaled back in the defence White Paper, in what will be one of the biggest overhauls of spending in recent years.

New warships, aircraft carriers and the joint strike fighter programme will be scaled back to direct funding towards new equipment programmes and to help pay for the war in Iraq.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence insisted that the Eurofighter was an effective aircraft but declined to comment on future spending announcements. "We are still committed to Eurofighter," he said.
 

Winter

New Member
I do not know what U.K. would do with close to 250 Eurofighters....The RAF only deployed several dozen combat aircraft in the Iraq War and they have little permaneant deployments outside of U.K....They shouldn't scale back on the other major procurements though, such as the Type 45 and the new aircraft carrier.....Though I admit, the British Army has little in the way of procurement programs going at the moment, whilst the Royal Navy is receiving new submarines, destroyers, aircraft carriers, stealth fighters to go with it, a possible trimaran frigate-class in a few years plus new combat APCs for the Royal Marines. Kind of unbalanced...I wouldn't be surprised if the new equipment programmes are for the British Army, which has successfully impaled itself into Iraq, more than any other service. Or perhaps not... :roll
 

Tazzers

New Member
Welll im not surprised ya know... Its a damn expensive aircraft.
Why? Exactly how expensive is it? It is in fact cheaper than a new F15E to buy and masses cheaper to operate and maintain. As for what would we do with 230+ Typhoons? Well plenty. The British armed forces are already stretched to breaking point, a few extra jets would no go amiss. :)
 

Winter

New Member
Tazzers said:
Welll im not surprised ya know... Its a damn expensive aircraft.
Why? Exactly how expensive is it? It is in fact cheaper than a new F15E to buy and masses cheaper to operate and maintain. As for what would we do with 230+ Typhoons? Well plenty. The British armed forces are already stretched to breaking point, a few extra jets would no go amiss. :)
The exact cost is actually quite hard to determine (see bottom) as it would depend on a number of things, such as individual country configuration, quantity purchased, or any number or agreements involved in the actual deal. (buy one, get one free). I think we would be looking at what is known as the 'replacement cost' of the aircraft, though I'm not qualified to say what it is or even if it has been identified yet (probably has though...). As I recall, it was in the region of half the price of an F/A-22, which as we all know is...very very expensive. :roll Of course, I could be totally wrong here, I'm sure someone else to come up with something better.

In regard to the Strike Eagles...Strike Eagles are exactly what it says, a strike aircraft, something the Eurofighter is not. The EF-2000 is 'supposed' to be a lightweight swing-role fighter. A standard Eagle would probably be closer to comparison, bu they are now inappropiate for the RAF and too old...Which is why the USAF is replacing the class with the F/A-22. Their version of the Eurofighter.

:frosty

There is a rough cost price of US $58,000,000 but I believe this can and will vary.
 

Tazzers

New Member
In regard to the Strike Eagles...Strike Eagles are exactly what it says, a strike aircraft, something the Eurofighter is not. The EF-2000 is 'supposed' to be a lightweight swing-role fighter. A standard Eagle would probably be closer to comparison, bu they are now inappropiate for the RAF and too old...Which is why the USAF is replacing the class with the F/A-22. Their version of the Eurofighter.
Sorry I have to disagree with you there. There is no "suppose to be" a lightweight swingrole fighter about it. If it can carry and deliver with the required accuracy any air to ground munition in the armoury of its host air force, which the Typhoon can; and if it can at the same time carry and launch any air to air weapon in the host armoury, which it can: and if it can do so at the flick of a switch, or in the Typhoon's case a word via VTAS (and also overridden by a switch if neccesary) which it can and if it weighs in at less that 25000lb and puts out over 40000lbst, which it can. I call it a lightweight swingrole fighter. You can call it what you want it doesn't change what it is.

Surely you remember the prototype YF16? A lightweight close in dogfighter yet look what it developed into. Look at the YF17 which became the F/A18. It was designed for the same competition as the YF16 yet look at what it became. Look at the F15 and what they said about it 'not a pound for air to ground' and then they went a built the F15E which in my book is a superlative strike fighter.

Yet when people talk about the Typhoon they say 'it is only a fighter, it wasn't designed for air to ground work' which flys in the face of the evidence. It is a highly advanced 'swing role' fighter/strike fighter and you cannot change it no matter how little you know about it.
 

Winter

New Member
Tazzers said:
In regard to the Strike Eagles...Strike Eagles are exactly what it says, a strike aircraft, something the Eurofighter is not. The EF-2000 is 'supposed' to be a lightweight swing-role fighter. A standard Eagle would probably be closer to comparison, bu they are now inappropiate for the RAF and too old...Which is why the USAF is replacing the class with the F/A-22. Their version of the Eurofighter.
Sorry I have to disagree with you there. There is no "suppose to be" a lightweight swingrole fighter about it. If it can carry and deliver with the required accuracy any air to ground munition in the armoury of its host air force, which the Typhoon can; and if it can at the same time carry and launch any air to air weapon in the host armoury, which it can: and if it can do so at the flick of a switch, or in the Typhoon's case a word via VTAS (and also overridden by a switch if neccesary) which it can and if it weighs in at less that 25000lb and puts out over 40000lbst, which it can. I call it a lightweight swingrole fighter. You can call it what you want it doesn't change what it is.

Surely you remember the prototype YF16? A lightweight close in dogfighter yet look what it developed into. Look at the YF17 which became the F/A18. It was designed for the same competition as the YF16 yet look at what it became. Look at the F15 and what they said about it 'not a pound for air to ground' and then they went a built the F15E which in my book is a superlative strike fighter.

Yet when people talk about the Typhoon they say 'it is only a fighter, it wasn't designed for air to ground work' which flys in the face of the evidence. It is a highly advanced 'swing role' fighter/strike fighter and you cannot change it no matter how little you know about it.
???...'I call it a lightweight swingrole fighter. You can call it what you want it doesn't change what it is.'

Read my post again...What did I call it? I merely added speech marks around my 'supposed' to emphasise perceived capabilities of what is still very much not a steady battle-proven aircraft and that it has yet to be deployed in full quantity for a period of operational time to an air force, let alone a combat situation. I believe you have misinterpreted me, for I was not questioning the Eurofighter's capabilities. Adding speech marks around one word has set you off from my post in the wrong direction from what I was intending and I'm sorry you didn't understand that.
 

Tazzers

New Member
Read my post again...What did I call it? I merely added speech marks around my 'supposed' to emphasise perceived capabilities of what is still very much not a steady battle-proven aircraft and that it has yet to be deployed in full quantity for a period of operational to an air force, let alone a combat situation. I believe you have misinterpreted me, for I was not questioning the Eurofighter's capabilities. Adding speech marks around one word has set you off from my post in the wrong direction from what I was intending and I'm sorry you didn't understand that.
I appologise for misunderstanding you. :)
 

Winter

New Member
Tazzers said:
Read my post again...What did I call it? I merely added speech marks around my 'supposed' to emphasise perceived capabilities of what is still very much not a steady battle-proven aircraft and that it has yet to be deployed in full quantity for a period of operational to an air force, let alone a combat situation. I believe you have misinterpreted me, for I was not questioning the Eurofighter's capabilities. Adding speech marks around one word has set you off from my post in the wrong direction from what I was intending and I'm sorry you didn't understand that.
I appologise for misunderstanding you. :)
That's alright...Here we are dealing with a different form of communication where opinions and images rise and fall on simple texts and of what people put into them...Here, on these forums, all this comes to a head, problems and all, so therefore these misinterpetations are both often and usual...Why, I imagine practically all messages and comments never give off their intended impressions and influences to everyone...Quite the opposite, more likely...Anyway, we a need a psychologist or someone for this. :roll

I'll stop rambling on now... :frosty
 

adsH

New Member
Damm i was looking forward to seeing those nice jets (in large amounts) in the RAF they have gon through alot over the past decade those ugly tordaos do packa punch but not the best lookers damm :mad
 

Howard Wheeldon

New Member
Six months have gone by since this misplaced report was filed and so has a the full government defense review. OK, so defense reviews rarely contain the major cutback announcements as these tend to come weeks and months later (except in 1965 when TSR2 and Blue Streak got the chop amongst others so that Concorde development could go on) but I think the chances are that the U.K. government will still go for the whole third tranche of Typhoon which I might add incidently is not even at the order negotiating stage yet. More likely is that the various cutbacks suggested in the press last week (Illustrious and Invincible, Jaguars, Harrier upgrades, Warrior Armoured Personel Carriers and Challengers plus possibly in my view, cutting the BAE's Nimrod rebuild will be an end of it this time round. The point is that the RAF could be grossly understrength ten years from now if Typhoon is cut back below envisaged numbers. With the Anglo French Jaguar finally being pensioned off and earlier cut backs likely planned for the Harrier VSTOL fleet I doubt that the British will cut back on Typhoon. The Panavia Tornado has served us well but the youngest now is nine years old. Remember too that this is a European Government joint venture and the British cannot make cuts without the other partners first agreeing. Only Germany would likely do so but even that is not so certain as it might have been three years ago. As to comments about Typhoon being expensive this is nonsense. In fact it is cheap and note that Austria has already announced it is buying Typhoon and the Singapore campaign continues. I first wrote about Typhoon (as the proposed EFA development) back in 1979/80 and even I would be forced to admit that twenty five years is long for any military aircraft development to only now be entering full service as Eurofighter/Typhoon now is. Indeed, one is at pains to think of longer programs (possibly the V-22 Osprey which dates from a similar time?) but none of this takes anything away from the superb aircraft that has been created.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Gidday Howard, thanks for the update. and welcome to the forum.

I edited the end of your response as I wasn't sure what you were trying to hilight etc..

gf
 

general

New Member
0ne expensive bird the EF-2000 is. USD 107 million in constant 1997 dollar for a plane with complete weapons suite
 

Tallgeese

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
What many seem to misunderstand is that Britain's ministry of defence is run by men who are looking to slash defence expenditures but have no real understanding of defence capabilities. In short, they are incompitant. In other words, they are their to fulfill posts & call for cuts in defence spending, hardware etc because they are very illiterate in defence matters, a trend that has become common in Western countries.

The fact of the matter is, the RAF is keen to acquire 232 Eurofighter/Typhoon & it has not been consulted on the matter of force reductions. With another plan calling for 150 F-35A JSF aircraft one wonders why not just purchase more Eurofighter/Typhoon especoially the so-called 'growth' versions that will show within the next few years fater the three original tranches enter service.

Still, why not keen to European products & acquire up to 150 Saab Jas-39C/D 'Gripen' aircraft to replace the Jaguar, Hawk 200, & even Harrier & have it fitted with the EJ-200????!!!!!


Besides, the UK cannot back out of 232 Eurofighter/Typhoon since it has to pay for them anyway. So why get 143 & pay the price of 232??? Those are the terms of the agreement.

One also has to question the integrity of these politicians who call for cuts yet seem poised to accept the Boeing KC-767 as an inflight refueling aircraft when the Airbus A-340 would have been not only more economical but would have created jobs & would be compatible even with the UK's allies specifically the USA. In the meantime, more Tristars as a stop-gap measure to replace the aging VC-10s would have been a good idea.

But as you see they are trying to cut & reduce defence expenditures without maintaining capability.
 

adsH

New Member
Tallgeese said:
What many seem to misunderstand is that Britain's ministry of defence is run by men who are looking to slash defence expenditures but have no real understanding of defence capabilities. In short, they are incompitant. In other words, they are their to fulfill posts & call for cuts in defence spending, hardware etc because they are very illiterate in defence matters, a trend that has become common in Western countries.

The fact of the matter is, the RAF is keen to acquire 232 Eurofighter/Typhoon & it has not been consulted on the matter of force reductions. With another plan calling for 150 F-35A JSF aircraft one wonders why not just purchase more Eurofighter/Typhoon especoially the so-called 'growth' versions that will show within the next few years fater the three original tranches enter service.

Still, why not keen to European products & acquire up to 150 Saab Jas-39C/D 'Gripen' aircraft to replace the Jaguar, Hawk 200, & even Harrier & have it fitted with the EJ-200????!!!!!



Besides, the UK cannot back out of 232 Eurofighter/Typhoon since it has to pay for them anyway. So why get 143 & pay the price of 232??? Those are the terms of the agreement.

One also has to question the integrity of these politicians who call for cuts yet seem poised to accept the Boeing KC-767 as an inflight refueling aircraft when the Airbus A-340 would have been not only more economical but would have created jobs & would be compatible even with the UK's allies specifically the USA. In the meantime, more Tristars as a stop-gap measure to replace the aging VC-10s would have been a good idea.

But as you see they are trying to cut & reduce defence expenditures without maintaining capability.
I can assure you that i take no offense on such remarks that our Defense Experts are " very illiterate in defence matters" this is frankly absurd and proof of it that, almost any one with a shred of understanding or common sense could extrapolate that The British forces are still considered one of the most Powerful in the World. The reason why they may choose to purchase the F-35 even it being American is because those are basically Our jets we have had an extensive participation in the JSAF program and a better part of the AC was and is going to built by our Aero space firms. the verticle take off ability has been designed by us along with alot of other key componet systems. The EF 2000 is not off the table and we are not going to reduce the number of the Aircraft we have spent alot of our resources time and expertise in deveolpment of the aircraft.(the cost of the weapon is not important) the initial purchase is not all that accounts for the total cost of such a suphisticated weapon system its cost for maintainance would surely surpass the intial price tagg in the long run !! and to mention Pilot training and its ability to adapt instantaneously to the role in the Gulf region, would be tested once it is deployed!! so keeping an effective force and be able to handle and afford cost for such weapon system is important!! our defensive ability is in our alliances that safeguard our territory. We may have a small force but i can assure you when we are put to the test we will surely remain victorious becasue of our defense doctrines dictated by our defense Experts and our Defense Department who have hundreds of years of War experience!!
The reason why we tend to purchase US Platforms for alot of our equipment is becasue the US treats our Defense industry as its own BAE systems gains alot of contract for the US Local needs (US ARMY, US NAVY, USAF etc) and there is an UnSpoken bond between the two nations!!
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
One also has to question the integrity of these politicians who call for cuts yet seem poised to accept the Boeing KC-767 as an inflight refueling aircraft when the Airbus A-340 would have been not only more economical but would have created jobs & would be compatible even with the UK's allies specifically the USA. In the meantime, more Tristars as a stop-gap measure to replace the aging VC-10s would have been a good idea.
BAe wins either way, it has technical input into both offers so they are in a win win situation.
 

Winter

New Member
adsH said:
Tallgeese said:
What many seem to misunderstand is that Britain's ministry of defence is run by men who are looking to slash defence expenditures but have no real understanding of defence capabilities. In short, they are incompitant. In other words, they are their to fulfill posts & call for cuts in defence spending, hardware etc because they are very illiterate in defence matters, a trend that has become common in Western countries.

The fact of the matter is, the RAF is keen to acquire 232 Eurofighter/Typhoon & it has not been consulted on the matter of force reductions. With another plan calling for 150 F-35A JSF aircraft one wonders why not just purchase more Eurofighter/Typhoon especoially the so-called 'growth' versions that will show within the next few years fater the three original tranches enter service.

Still, why not keen to European products & acquire up to 150 Saab Jas-39C/D 'Gripen' aircraft to replace the Jaguar, Hawk 200, & even Harrier & have it fitted with the EJ-200????!!!!!



Besides, the UK cannot back out of 232 Eurofighter/Typhoon since it has to pay for them anyway. So why get 143 & pay the price of 232??? Those are the terms of the agreement.

One also has to question the integrity of these politicians who call for cuts yet seem poised to accept the Boeing KC-767 as an inflight refueling aircraft when the Airbus A-340 would have been not only more economical but would have created jobs & would be compatible even with the UK's allies specifically the USA. In the meantime, more Tristars as a stop-gap measure to replace the aging VC-10s would have been a good idea.

But as you see they are trying to cut & reduce defence expenditures without maintaining capability.
I can assure you that i take no offense on such remarks that our Defense Experts are " very illiterate in defence matters" this is frankly absurd and proof of it that, almost any one with a shred of understanding or common sense could extrapolate that The British forces are still considered one of the most Powerful in the World. The reason why they may choose to purchase the F-35 even it being American is because those are basically Our jets we have had an extensive participation in the JSAF program and a better part of the AC was and is going to built by our Aero space firms. the verticle take off ability has been designed by us along with alot of other key componet systems. The EF 2000 is not off the table and we are not going to reduce the number of the Aircraft we have spent alot of our resources time and expertise in deveolpment of the aircraft.(the cost of the weapon is not important) the initial purchase is not all that accounts for the total cost of such a suphisticated weapon system its cost for maintainance would surely surpass the intial price tagg in the long run !! and to mention Pilot training and its ability to adapt instantaneously to the role in the Gulf region, would be tested once it is deployed!! so keeping an effective force and be able to handle and afford cost for such weapon system is important!! our defensive ability is in our alliances that safeguard our territory. We may have a small force but i can assure you when we are put to the test we will surely remain victorious becasue of our defense doctrines dictated by our defense Experts and our Defense Department who have hundreds of years of War experience!!
The reason why we tend to purchase US Platforms for alot of our equipment is becasue the US treats our Defense industry as its own BAE systems gains alot of contract for the US Local needs (US ARMY, US NAVY, USAF etc) and there is an UnSpoken bond between the two nations!!
The way I saw it, the UK Treasury wanted the straight £1 billion, most likely to pump it into the recent British Labour's creation of the world's monolithic third largest employer. What to cut to achieve this was probably done by the MoD.

Purchase even more Typhoons? Not in this decade, or government, if ever, really. Before these apparent cuts, and probably continuing on with it, the RAF planned to equip solely seven operational sqaudrons. Allowing for spares, conversion and research units, and the RAF still has going on 100 inactive aircraft handy. Is a larger order really needed? I think they were all heading for permanent storage for attrition. As an aside, I personally wouldnt know about attrition rates, but is a 60:40 ratio particularly normal in this case? It almost sounds like a repeat of the Army Air Corps Apache debacle.

As far as the Saab Gripen (on the subject, BAe has a hand in that too don't they?) goes, there isn't a stated need for it. The capability gap from the Jaguar and Harriers retirement will be replaced by the F-35. As for Hawk 200s, the RAF doesn't operate any (?).

In regard to your last paragraph, the Airbus design was selected rather than the Boeing. And RAF Tristars are almost as old as the VC-10s. Both are nearing the end of their op. lives. Purchasing more of the less-fatigued design off the shelf is expensively unneccesary. Both are being replaced generally at the same time by the Airbus FSTA.
 
Top