Typhoon vs. JSF

[jollygreen]

If anybody here knows anything about MOD procurement, maybe you can answer this?

Will the F35 make the Typhoon redundant? I seem to remember reading that the MOD is buying >100 F35's in the STOVL configuration but they're not just destined for the two new super-carriers - the RAF are going to have land-based F35's too. So what's role? Strike presumably but it will likely be a far superior fighter to the Typhoon. And I read today the RAF are planning on modifying the Typhoon already to improve its strike capability!

Is this just another waste of taxpayers hard-earned? Surely the costs savings that could have been realised by using the JSF for all roles would have been massive!

[_Batty_]

i hear the rumblings of EricMc


he'll be here shortly. (STOL)

[anonymous-user]

I do like the JSF - looks reel nice!!!

[GHW]

Put simply, no. Different aircraft for different jobs. Think Harrier vs. Tornado.

[Neil_Sc]

GHW said:

Put simply, no. Different aircraft for different jobs. Think Harrier vs. Tornado.

Isn't the JSF going to be for the new carrier fleet and the Typhoon a land based aircraft with a land/air role

[telecat]

The Typhoon is a highly agile and very fast Air superiority fighter. It's also designed to carry a big weapons and fuel load so fits in nicely to replace the Jaguar as a Strike Fighter.


The Lightning II will be supplied to the RAF as a STOL/VL Attack Aircraft. result. It's main strengths are that it will be "Stealthy" and able to operate from "rough" terrain/ temporary airfields.

Drawbacks are that it's range will be limited, it's Air to air capability is not as good as the F/A16, F/A18 or F-15, and it's Weapons load will be compromised.

Some of these drawbacks are inherent to the F-35A and C designs for the USN and USAF Such as the Air to air capability, however range and weapons carriage will be greatly enhanced due to the lack of the "lift" fan.

The Air to air drawbacks is why the F-35 has opponents to the order placed by the RAAF. It isn't seen as being effective againest the SU-27/30 or MIG-29 series If the air war gets visual. Having said that the F/A-18's they run at the moment aren't exactly considered the best choice for a land based Fighter either.

Edited by telecat on Tuesday 1st July 12:34

[Winton]

As already posted, their roles are very different. At the moment, the Typhoon is mainly used in the Long Range Interdiction role.

The JSF will be more of a bomber used to deliver precision munitions in the forward battle arena.

[jollygreen]

Neil_Sc said:

GHW said:

Put simply, no. Different aircraft for different jobs. Think Harrier vs. Tornado.

Isn't the JSF going to be for the new carrier fleet and the Typhoon a land based aircraft with a land/air role

F35's for the RAF will be based at Lossiemouth. I presume these won't be stovl though?

[GHW]

I think the entire UK order of F-35s is the STOVL variant. The RAF currently runs a fair few Harriers anyway, so giving STOVL kit to them is nothing new.

[telecat]

jollygreen said:

Neil_Sc said:

GHW said:

Put simply, no. Different aircraft for different jobs. Think Harrier vs. Tornado.

Isn't the JSF going to be for the new carrier fleet and the Typhoon a land based aircraft with a land/air role

F35's for the RAF will be based at Lossiemouth. I presume these won't be stovl though?

It's the only version currently being purchased by the RAF. We'll have to see If RNAS Yeovilton gets the FAA's F-35's

Edited by telecat on Wednesday 2nd July 10:34

[Eric Mc]

The F-35 peobbaly won't enter service for another 10 years. By then, the Typhoon will be well bedded in to the various roles it has been allocated - which does now include the ground attack role.

[telecat]

Eric Mc said:

The F-35 peobbaly won't enter service for another 10 years. By then, the Typhoon will be well bedded in to the various roles it has been allocated - which does now include the ground attack role.

#

Yep that's ten years with Inferior Air cover over the Navy. Typical of a Labour government to de commission an aircraft before it's replacement is ready. At the current rate of progress HMS Queen Elizabeth And HMS Prince Of Wales will be in Service before the Lightning II.

[Shar2]

[quote=telecat
Yep that's ten years with Inferior Air cover over the Navy. Typical of a Labour government to de commission an aircraft before it's replacement is ready. At the current rate of progress HMS Queen Elizabeth And HMS Prince Of Wales will be in Service before the Lightning II.
[/quote]

That'll be about right

[rhinochopig]

Shar2 said:

telecat said:

Yep that's ten years with Inferior Air cover over the Navy. Typical of a Labour government to de commission an aircraft before it's replacement is ready. At the current rate of progress HMS Queen Elizabeth And HMS Prince Of Wales will be in Service before the Lightning II.

That'll be about right

Much as I dislike what the the current labour government are currently doing to this country, I do wish that people wouldn't lay all that ails the armed forces at their feet. The armed forces are more than capable of screwing up their own procurement projects and getting their future operational requirement predictions wrong. I'm not saying that past and current governments are blameless, just that the MoD need to shoulder some the responsibility.

Edited by rhinochopig on Wednesday 2nd July 11:31

[thewave]

Who cares, both gorgeous

[Shar2]

rhinochopig said:

Shar2 said:

telecat said:

Yep that's ten years with Inferior Air cover over the Navy. Typical of a Labour government to de commission an aircraft before it's replacement is ready. At the current rate of progress HMS Queen Elizabeth And HMS Prince Of Wales will be in Service before the Lightning II.

That'll be about right

Much as I dislike what the the current labour government are currently doing to this country, I do wish that people wouldn't lay all that ails the armed forces at their feet. The armed forces are more than capable of screwing up their own procurement projects and getting their future operational requirement predictions wrong. I'm not saying that past and current governments are blameless, just that the MoD need to shoulder some the responsibility.

Edited by rhinochopig on Wednesday 2nd July 11:31

I wasn't blaming the government. You are quite right about the MoD they can be a useless bunch of twunts. The number of projects and procurements they have fked up is quite unbelieveable

[anonymous-user]

telecat said:

Eric Mc said:

The F-35 peobbaly won't enter service for another 10 years. By then, the Typhoon will be well bedded in to the various roles it has been allocated - which does now include the ground attack role.

#

Yep that's ten years with Inferior Air cover over the Navy. Typical of a Labour government to de commission an aircraft before it's replacement is ready. At the current rate of progress HMS Queen Elizabeth And HMS Prince Of Wales will be in Service before the Lightning II.

what air cover does the Navy actually require? being serious for just a second, at what point in the current operational environemnt do we require more naval air cover than is currently present. with regards to future operational environments, where is there a requirement for better naval air capabilities? as i have said before the role of the Navy is changing, this is evident from the procurement and the success of the LPDs. It is becoming clear that the role of the Navy is to support expeditionary warfare and no longer to chase other Nations ships around the sea. SSBNs do a perfectly good job of that if and when required.

[MikeyMike]

They carry out completely different roles. The Typhoon is a dedicated fighter, it was designed to protect NATO airspace from the Soviet's Fulcrums and Flankers essentially, if the cold war ever heated up. Before the Typhoon we had the F3 which was/is very capable at beyond visual range engagements yet outclassed once up close and personal against 4th generation Soviet aircraft.
The Sea Harrier that is now out of service excelled in both long range engagements and "dog fighting" often out-performing the F15 on exercise, but its sub-sonic so was of little use as a mainland interceptor that needs to get to the threat as quickly as possible.
The Typhoon excells at both beyond visual range engagements and within visual range due to its incredible manouvreability plus its super-sonic so it gets where it needs to be very quickly.
The ground attack element to the Typhoon was an afterthought that was seen as essential considering current conflicts.
The F35 is a ground attack aircraft that uses stealth to penetrate enemy airspace. It's not a particularly capable air superiority fighter, if it came up against the latest Russian fighters it wouldn't last very long unlike the Typhoon.
They're very different aircraft.

[Kuroblack350]

jollygreen said:

If anybody here knows anything about MOD procurement, maybe you can answer this?

Will the F35 make the Typhoon redundant? I seem to remember reading that the MOD is buying >100 F35's in the STOVL configuration but they're not just destined for the two new super-carriers - the RAF are going to have land-based F35's too. So what's role? Strike presumably but it will likely be a far superior fighter to the Typhoon. And I read today the RAF are planning on modifying the Typhoon already to improve its strike capability!

Is this just another waste of taxpayers hard-earned? Surely the costs savings that could have been realised by using the JSF for all roles would have been massive!

Generally speaking they are designed for different roles, but there is a considerable overlap, which has been part of the MoD and DoD procurement strategy for some time.

In terms of the numbers being banded around, half this and divide by 2 is usually the rule when determining just how many aircraft will *actually* be purchased. Besides, by then the MoD will be looking at leasing agreements rather than outright purchases I suspect...

Interestingly the first full STOVL flight took place this week in the States, and it was a BAE Systems rather than Lockheed test pilot who did the driving...

[Blib]

pablo said:

with regards to future operational environments, where is there a requirement for better naval air capabilities? as i have said before the role of the Navy is changing, this is evident from the procurement and the success of the LPDs. It is becoming clear that the role of the Navy is to support expeditionary warfare and no longer to chase other Nations ships around the sea. SSBNs do a perfectly good job of that if and when required.

Pablo, could you explain what LPDs and SSBNs are please?

Thanks.