How many Eurofighters and JSF’s will the UK be buying?

Let’s start with the Eurofighter; can you see Britain ending up with the proposed amount of 232 Aircraft? I heard that the next order is still to be confirmed, is this right or have we signed on the dotted line for 232?

As for the JSF I believe we are looking at buying around 150 of them, do you think this figure is likely to fall or rise?

Do you honestly think we need the 382+ fighters we are talking about buying here? Is it a big enough deterrent or should be buying more?

Answers and opinions please.

Kaz

Yup,

The uk will buy the 232 typhoons and the 150 JSF's.. and put about half in storage. Give a few of each to BAE and DERA / Qineniq (poor spelling due to time) for intergration and testing.

The uk current fields around 82 to 90 offensive aircarft for blue water (pooh didn't see that coming ops.

So the RAF fields 4 defensive unit 12 each 48 planes.. And 5 offensive units 60 that's 108 i think. 2 new recces units 13 each 26 ish 134. And a 100 in storage.

So JSF's 150 two carriers 25 / 30 each 60ish. The RAF will get 12 for training and two units of 13 so 26. so 82 in storage.. Hmm that seems a little lite

anyway back to the joys of debuging

RAB

Fewer and fewer aircraft are being bought as the rate of rise of inflation in military hardware is 3 to 5 times greater.

Hence each generation of new and more and more expensive aircraft ends with fewer and fewer numbers.

A government think tank came out with a startling conclusion.

at the present rate the U.K will end up with just 1 super plane in 50 years time,1 super tank,and 1 super ship within the military budget.

according to the latest reports the number of Typhoons is still fixed at 232 but the number of Lightnings has fallen to around 100 in current planning.

In addition the F-35C Lightning is back in the running instead of the STOVL version due its superior payload/range performance and greater variety of weapons its bay can accomodate, as well as the fact that the F-35C unit price is likely to be considerably lower than that of the F-35B, more commonly known as 'more bang for buck'.

HMS Prince of Wales (2nd ship) is already going to be built with a catapult and arrestor gear, there is currently a feasibility study into the impact in terms of cost and delay of making HMS Queen Elizabeth the same.

The JSF is a massive rip off, theyve been developing this airplane since 1999 and it is ready in 2013, cost are rising and rising.And for what, an airplane that is mediocre at best at that time.

Originally posted by Boockelbee


The JSF is a massive rip off, theyve been developing this airplane since 1999 and it is ready in 2013, cost are rising and rising.And for what, an airplane that is mediocre at best at that time.

THe F-35 has twice the payload, twice the range, with the Radar cross section of a tennis ball compared to the F-16. If it were a mediocre plane then that would mean the F-16 is a horrible plane, but history seems to of judged the Falcon diferantly.

In my opinion the F-35 is actually an amazing aircraft, much more so than the F-22.

[edit on 4/9/2007 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by waynos
In addition the F-35C Lightning is back in the running instead of the STOVL version due its superior payload/range performance and greater variety of weapons its bay can accomodate, as well as the fact that the F-35C unit price is likely to be considerably lower than that of the F-35B, more commonly known as 'more bang for buck'.

HMS Prince of Wales (2nd ship) is already going to be built with a catapult and arrestor gear, there is currently a feasibility study into the impact in terms of cost and delay of making HMS Queen Elizabeth the same.

Now that is VERY interesting news waynos. I had been hoping that the RN/FAA would come to it's senses. I had not heard that there was any recent plan to fit the QE class with catapult gear. Last I heard was that they would go with the inferior ski jump F-35B option. When was this announced?

LEE.

It was a very small news item hidden away in last weeks Flight International, given the potential impact I would have thought it would have received more prominence, The first carrier has been signed off with a ski jump and the RN's idea is to have both ships equipped with both systems to enable exchange ops with other NATO and allied navies. If the F-35C is selected however the RN will need a cat launch capability straight away, my fear is that this alone will be used as an excuse to 'fall back' on the F-35B.

reply to post by waynos


Hey with this coming to light I have a feeling that alot of airforces (read Canada) will have to read the pros and cons between the A and C since the B is shaping up to the a money grab and really only suited for a more limited envelope then the other versions.

scratch that the C is stuck using the gun pod attachment. hassle if you ask me. stick with the A in my humble openion.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

The F-35A cannot land on a carrier...

reply to post by Harlequin


Who said that? I don't recall myself saying that it could. My point was other airforces like the CF or the RAAF would want to look into the C due to extended range and durablity.

Originally posted by waynos
It was a very small news item hidden away in last weeks Flight International, given the potential impact I would have thought it would have received more prominence, The first carrier has been signed off with a ski jump and the RN's idea is to have both ships equipped with both systems to enable exchange ops with other NATO and allied navies. If the F-35C is selected however the RN will need a cat launch capability straight away, my fear is that this alone will be used as an excuse to 'fall back' on the F-35B.

why not mix B's with C's?

reply to post by Canada_EH


The impression i got from your post was (especially as it was in reply to waynos and he explicitly taling about a carrier aircraft) that naval airforces would ditch the B and choose between the A and C - hence my comment that the A varient cannot land on carriers - it seems you took another direction though and it asn`t related to Naval airforces.


st3ve_o - cost - it is much cheaper to buy 1 model than mix 2 - although i do bleieve the RAF want the B varoant (as do the USMC) to replace the Harrier , but if the cost of the C varients IS much lower you could see a mixed force.


or they could just use

files.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 6/9/07 by Harlequin]

And I think that is where an argument lies, the RAF seems to be convinced that it still really needs to maintain STOVL ops (maybe partly because they were the first in the world to have them and now see them as a tradition perhaps whilst mainly having one eye on potential future European conflicts where STOVL would be MOST useful) whilst the FAA has realised the advantage that the C models holds for their particular needs. This might not have been a problem had the UKs Harriers not been pooled into 'Joint Force Harrier' in the first place, it all reminds me very much of the P1154 where two entirely separate supersonic jump jets were evolved from a common design to meet the needs of the RAF and FAA in the 1960's and both ended up getting junked.