back to article UK.gov: Psst. Belgium. Buy these Typhoon fighter jets from us, will you?

Great Britain, which is buying the US-made F-35 fighter jet, is urging European neighbour Belgium not to buy the US-made F-35 fighter jet. Instead the British government is lobbying Belgium to buy 34 British-built Eurofighter Typhoons. Belgium is in the middle of a major revamp of its air force and is planning to replace the …

Page:

  1. wolfetone Silver badge

    ""Our world-class Typhoon has led the way in combat air power and this demonstrates the continued confidence in the capability the Typhoon has to offer. With more than 20,000 flying hours on global operations to date, the Typhoon offers unparalleled reliability and proven interoperability with our allies.""

    So why are the UK buying F-35's then?

    1. Steve 53

      We're buying F35Bs, which are STOVL for carriers. Eurofighter was never designed for carrier use, but that's hardly a concern for Belgium when they have no carriers.

      1. Toilet Duk

        The RAF is also buying F35-As.

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          The RAF is also buying F35-As.

          Toilet Duk,

          Are you sure? We need at least 60-odd F35Cs for the airgroup of one carrier. 48 + spares and training.

          Now we won't always have two carriers, but in the case of an emergency both can be sortied, if one isn't in long-term maintenance. At which point it would be silly not to have more planes.

          We're only committed to 150 odd total so far. Would it really be worth buying 30 F35As and 120 F35Bs?

          I know the MoD have never ruled it out. But for the savings in purchase price it would complicate the supply chain and training - so I can't see it happening, unless we choose to increase the strength of the RAF and buy more.

          1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
            Facepalm

            Bugger! For F35C (cats'n'traps carrier), I meant F35B VSTOL. Sorry. At least I got it right later in the post.

            I blame the chaps with moustaches...

        2. x 7

          "The RAF is also buying F35-As."

          not at the moment its not

        3. Mine's a Large One

          Not at this point we're not - whilst a split of F-35B/F-35A has been proposed in some quarters, at the moment we're still going -B only.

    2. codejunky Silver badge

      @ wolfetone

      The UK bought the eurofighter for the obvious reason of showing our love for the EU by buying an air fighter at daft expense to then bring it here to modify it for air to ground. I assume the reason for the F-35 is its ability to move on an aircraft carrier which I dont think the eurofighter does or at least with issues of our short aircraft carriers without the required short jump/arrester wires.

      The Eurofighter being one of those moments we were shamelessly on our knees pleasing the EU

      1. MajDom

        Re: @ wolfetone

        Be proud, lad. It's the UK's first aviationary contribution since Thatcher decided it should concentrate on services. Which primarily consisted of enabling Russian billionaires to speculate on EU governments and stabbing their EU partners in the back.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

      3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: @ wolfetone

        The Eurofighter being one of those moments we were shamelessly on our knees pleasing the EU

        The eurofighter is a vital first line of defence against the East German airforce's Migs

        1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

          Re: @ wolfetone

          The eurofighter is a vital first line of defence against the East German airforce's Migs

          Not only.

          The Eurofighter had two roles and establishing air superiority over Germany and Eastern Europe was probably the secondary one. It is first and foremost an interceptor, whose job was to meet the USSR Backfires and Bears when they come out remove the North American NATO fleet group out of the equation.

          While in theory a fleet group should stand on its own, elementary math shows that even the largest fleet NATO could assemble would be on the bottom of the ocean if USSR was to throw all of its maritime aviation against it (even without adding in the rocket cruisers). There were just too many of them. Similarly there are just too many of them today.

          This is why it has the range and the speed. You really do not need a nearly 4k km range and 2.5km/h speed for a dogfight above the BlackForest. You do, if you are to use it to support the F18s and F14s (in those days) of the carrier group above the North Atlantic.

          It is also a job which the F35 in any modification can never do. It is neither fast enough, nor has the range. So as long as there are 67 or so operational Tu-23Ms sitting on Russian airfields the Eurofighter still has a job.

          1. Mark 110

            Re: @ wolfetone

            Lets face it if ever theres a proper shooting war then all these carriers, and the planes still on the deck, will be on the bottom of the sea within about an hour.

            Carriers are just for bullying people that can't shoot back.

            1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

              Re: @ wolfetone

              Agreed. Don't believe a bunch of incoming hypersonic missiles can be stopped very reliably.

              1. Danny 14

                Re: @ wolfetone

                the not fully tested to be working zircon will possibly be stopped by the not fully tested to be working f35 launched from our not fully tested to be working aircraft carriers.

            2. fishman

              Re: @ wolfetone

              "Lets face it if ever theres a proper shooting war then all these carriers, and the planes still on the deck, will be on the bottom of the sea within about an hour."

              If it gets to that point the airfields will be smoldering holes in the ground and the cities will be ashes. And few will be alive to care what happened to the carriers.

              1. Zolko Silver badge

                Re: @ wolfetone

                "Lets face it if ever theres a proper shooting war then all these carriers, and the planes still on the deck, will be on the bottom of the sea within about an hour."

                "If it gets to that point the airfields will be smoldering holes in the ground and the cities will be ashes"

                well, no, think of tactical nukes: they can take out an aircraft carrier, even a big one, and infest everything in a radius of 100km around it, but if it's on open see no land will be harmed. So yes, indeed, in case of a true war, the aircraft carriers are going to be the first targets of (Russian) U-boats (*). Therefore, it's easy to conclude that aircraft carriers are only there to bully countries that can't shoot back.

                (*) EDIT: and there's nothing to do about it.

          2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

            Re: @ wolfetone

            2.5km/h

            Grrr... meant 2.5k km/h. Bad software engineer habits to use ks instead of zeroes.

        2. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: @ wolfetone

          @ Yet Another Anonymous coward

          "The eurofighter is a vital first line of defence against the East German airforce's Migs"

          Wonderful but what does that have to do with the UK? The UK air requirements is air to ground, which would be why after we bought lots of EU expensive candy which didnt do what we wanted, the UK modified them to do air to ground at our expense.

          I believe the F-35 is more useful. Previous versions of aircraft are currently available and do the job. The UK while selling out to the EU pumped them more money for an aircraft that didnt do what we wanted. If we bought the Eurofighter without it doing what we need then why did we buy it? Why did we agree to it as we had a PM who wanted to be president of the EU?

          The argument over US aircraft is BAE ripping us off to install cat and trap on the carriers forcing us to buy the expensive and more complex aircraft. The Eurofighter was if it had any use to us and the expense of making it any use.

          1. Lars Silver badge
            Pint

            Re: @ wolfetone

            "The Eurofighter was if it had any use to us and the expense of making it any use.".

            I think you need one to explain that sentence, unless it's me who needs one.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: @ wolfetone

              @ Lars

              "I think you need one to explain that sentence, unless it's me who needs one."

              Np, sorry if I wasnt clear. We bought the Eurofighter, brought them back here for 'upgrades' to add air to ground capability (if I remember that right) at additional expense. It didnt do what we wanted but we bought it anyway and then fudge a fix to make it work. I am not arguing in favour of the F-35 particularly and not the B variant which while cool seems to be more complicated than an aircraft needs to be.

              We do just seem to have bought the Eurofighter to please the EU.

              @ Mine's a Large One

              "We need an air defence aircraft to intercept Russian aircraft heading for our airspace."

              I agree. And of the air to ground aircraft available we bought the Eurofighter for political reasons and had to make conversions to it here to make it useful. I might be tempted to go grab lewis's book and reread the problems with the Eurofighter. Been a while since this has come up.

              1. EvilDrSmith Silver badge

                Re: @ wolfetone

                >Sigh<

                No.

                The Eurofighter / Typhoon was designed to meet a number of requirements, including replacing the Jaguar ground attack aircraft in RAF service.

                As I and others have said before it was always designed to have an air-to-ground capability.

                It was not an expensive 'fudge' upgrade; it was a sequential development of planned capability, which is still on-going.

                In fact, the UK were arguably the drivers for the current capabilities of Typhoon - the Germans in particular were reluctant to continue with the development of the aircraft as agreed, after 1990, and for a while pushed hard for a less capable (=cheaper) option.

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: @ wolfetone

                  @ EvilDrSmith

                  "The Eurofighter / Typhoon was designed to meet a number of requirements"

                  I suggest you read some of lewis page's writings on this. If you can grab a copy of his book 'lions donkeys and dinosaurs' it is a fun read. A quick search brought up this-

                  http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/

                  1. EvilDrSmith Silver badge

                    Re: @ wolfetone

                    Indeed...Lewis has never much liked Eurofighter / Typhoon, and at no point have I ever claimed that the programme was necessarily well managed.

                    However, that doesn't change the fact that the Typhoon was conceived and designed to replace Phantom FGR2 in RAF service in the air defence role, and Jaguar in the ground attack roll.

                    The RAF considered replacement of the Phantom (and stopgap Tornado F3) as more urgent than the replacement of the Jaguar, so development of the Typhoon gave priority to the air-to-air capability (I think the Luftwaffe and Italian air forces shared that view, since they both were also proud possessors of relatively new Tornado strike aircraft).

                    While I am always happy to read Lewis' articles (invariably entertaining), I prefer not to base my opinion on a subject purely on his views; if I were at home, I could add a fairly long list of book and magazine references on the Eurofighter /Typhoon dating back to the 1990's, which provide a somewhat less biased record of the development history than Mr Page.

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: @ wolfetone

                      @ EvilDrSmith

                      He does have a huge bias against them. I just dont know many from the forces (personally) who particularly disagreed. But at the time it seemed very much another way of pleasing the EU. Maybe I am just a bit cynical but at the time labour were selling us hook line and sinker as Blair wanted to be EU president.

                      1. EvilDrSmith Silver badge

                        Re: @ wolfetone

                        Cynical is good....

          2. Mine's a Large One

            Re: @ wolfetone

            "Wonderful but what does that have to do with the UK? "

            We need an air defence aircraft to intercept Russian aircraft heading for our airspace. The only thing we have to do that role since we retired the Tornado F3 is Typhoon, and it does it very well.

            "The UK while selling out to the EU pumped them more money for an aircraft that didnt do what we wanted"

            We were a partner in the Typhoon program, we knew what we were building, we had the same requirement and we knew we'd need to add additional capabilities. We did the same with the Tornado - the requirement was for a strike aircraft, but we modified the design to produce the F2/F3 interceptor which the other nations (apaprt from Italy) didn't need.

            "I believe the F-35 is more useful."

            At what? The original claims were for a low cost multirole aircraft that could replace most other types in most other customers' arsenal. At the moment, it costs more than double its original price, the performance figures have been chopped, the final version of the hardware/software still isn't ready, there are issues with the logistics system... You'll constantly hear statements from pilots saying "oh the situational awareness and sensor fusion is fantastic...", but situational awareness and sensor fusion at the moment are only useful for knowing which direction to run the f*#k away because it isn't able to fight and win.

      4. Da Byw
        Facepalm

        Re: @ wolfetone

        we bought the Typhoon because we build it like the Tornado before it

      5. MJI Silver badge

        Re: @ wolfetone

        Why should we not buy the production versions of the British Aerospace EAP?

      6. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @ wolfetone

        " ..the reason for the F-35 is its ability to move on an aircraft carrier which I dont think the eurofighter does.." - well, the French Rafale does have a variant explicitly made for carriers.

        Worse, the F-35 is plagued by innumerable delays and structural defects it's unimaginable any country would buy it for its intended purposes. It is great at stealth penetration ***as long as radar technology stays put" which is not the case, and as long as every one of its anti reflecting tiles is carefully examined and replaced (a labor intensive and expensive proposition)

        The F35 is much better as a stealth tool to provide stealth funding for black projects (if not plain corruption)

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: @ wolfetone

          "As long as radar technology stays put which is not the case, and as long as every one of its anti reflecting tiles is carefully examined and replaced "

          And as long as the avionics doesn't overheat. Opening the doors to cool things off negates the stealth.

      7. joeldillon

        Re: @ wolfetone

        Ummm we co-developed the Eurofighter. It's ours as much as anyone else's, and cross-national development of planes is neither new nor connected to the EU as such - see, for example, the Tornado or for that matter Airbus.

        International co-operation is actually a good thing, you know, no matter how much it seems to displease the sort of person who gets on their knees to please Nigel Farage.

    3. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Happy

      So why are the UK buying F-35's then?

      Once upon a time, a long time ago in a galaxy far away, there lived some people with a bit of a problem. There were some big, angy bears living nearby that kept causing trouble. So all the people eventually got together and spent vast amounts of money buying things to shoot the bears with, and training to shoot bears with them. Meanwhile the bears were also spending unfeasibly huge amounts of honey on guns to shoot the people with.

      One day they were sitting around in their brown courduroy flares and orange shirts, and worked out a design for a fantastically good aeroplane to shoot the bears with. Then that their men with moustaches would have something to fly when their Phantoms went out of date in 15 years time.

      Then they did lots of thinking about it, and seemingly little actual work, until eventually the Wicked Witch of the West got round to actually placing an order about ten years later. Along with a few friends with funny accents, who were also buying some.

      Then actual design work happened. But the bears suddenly ran out of money and started acting a bit nicer and looking a lot less threatening. And the boss bear starting drinking lots and lots of lovely vodka. But the people had already spent loads of cash on their new Typhoons, and the poor Phantoms had got so old they'd had to retire and the poor men with moustaches were reduced to flying sleds made of lead against the bears - who were no longer bothering anyway. So they had to carry on building them.

      Yet another decade later the Typhoons started to turn up. Hooray! But there were no other aeroplanes to shoot down, and the men with moustaches were now being required to drop things that go bang on people who were wearing their pyjamas and dressing gowns into combat.

      So they had to update the brand new Typhoons to do that, which meant the first ones that had been built went into storage, while the men with moustaches desperately looked for someone who'd like to buy them (so they could use their new shinier ones).

      Then a grumpy man with a funny accent took over from the slimy man with the funny shaped face. And his grumpy friends with funny accents and a liking for Haggis were thinking of voting for new friends. So he ordered some lovely big boats from them. And the new friends built him the lovely new boats, waited a few years, then voted for the new friends anyway.

      But what to do with these lovely boats with the big flat tops? Ah yes. Buy some new planes to go with the Typhoons. And so the Lightning was bought. And now the grumpy woman in charge is looking for some money to pay for the shiny new Lightnings, and decided that if people are foolish enough to put mayonnaise on their chips, they'll probably buy any old second hand aeroplane.

      Unfortunately for everyone, the bears became a bit grumpier again. Although the people mostly failing to sell the newest and shiniest guns were quite happy. So the chaps have put down their beer and horrible mayonnaisey chips to have a think and decide if they want to buy new toys for their chaps with moustaches from the grumpy lady or the really grump orange man.

      Does that help?

      1. Aladdin Sane

        Who said anything about second hand?

    4. thames

      @wolfetone: "So why are the UK buying F-35's then?"

      The UK currently flies two main fighter types - the Typhoon and Tornado. The Typhoon is optimised for air defence, but also does bombing. The Tornado is optimised for dropping bombs but also does air defence. Generally air defence planes can do ground attack very well in this era of guided weapons and smart bombs, provided they are equipped with the appropriate sensors and electronics. The earliest versions of the Typhoon left out the ground attack kit as an economy measure (since the buyers already had Tornadoes who could do that job anyway), hence the common myth that the Tornado couldn't drop bombs. Later versions included the kit for both roles by default, as do current production. However, the Tornado is still often use for those jobs because, well, they've got them so they may as well used them and get their wear out of them.

      The Typhoon is still a relatively new plane and will form the backbone of the UK's air force for many years to come, but the Tornado is at least a generation older and is getting long in the tooth and has to be replaced due to increasing age and obsolescence.

      The UK is buying the F-35 as a replacement for the Tornado. The 'B' version is being bought to also operate from carriers so it can be dual purpose. So far the UK has committed to buying 48 in total. That order could conceivably be extended to 138, but that decision awaits future approval by parliament. It is possible that the larger order may include buying some cheaper 'A' versions instead as strictly land based Tornado replacements, but that is up to the government of the day to decide in future. The F-35 is built by the equivalent of a consortium, and the UK has the second largest share in it (I think around 15%). The UK has various parts which go into it, Italy and Turkey will have final assembly lines, etc. The US of course as the biggest customer has the lion's share of the workshare.

      The Typhoon/Eurofighter is also built by a consortium. The parts which go into the plane are built in various countries, but there are four final assembly lines, one each in the UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Each of the four takes turns in leading the sales effort to countries outside of the consortium and getting the largest share of the resulting benefits from it. It appears likely that the UK is the lead country for sales to Belgium. Going by attendance at recent meetings, early indications are that the UK is also the lead country for sales to Canada (who are also shopping for new planes).

      1. x 7

        " The Tornado is optimised for dropping bombs but also does air defence. "

        no it doesn't

        The ADV Tornadoes (F1/F2 models) were all withdrawn from service years ago.

        The remaining fleet are bombers

      2. Sanguma
        FAIL

        f-35 - air inferiority fighter-bomber

        Face it, that's what it is.

        1. Emmeran

          Re: f-35 - air inferiority fighter-bomber

          The F-35 is a drone with a seat for an ego, we'll forgo the ego spot in future renditions.

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: f-35 - air inferiority fighter-bomber

          It's very good at its mission.

          The thing is the mission is spending lots of money and making lots of profit for the people who make it and sell spare parts for it, not to fight wars.

    5. MonkeyNuts.Com

      Because we have a blue water navy and the F-35 can take of and land off our carriers? A Typhoon cannot.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    but can it drop the ..

    Its this beautiful plane certified to carry and drop the B61-12 gravity bombs ..?

    Don't forget Belgium works in tandem now with their neighbour Kingdom the Netherlands (F-16 and F-35) to protect booth kingdoms sky's and reduce the cost.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: but can it drop the ..

      I doubt it. However, I'm sure there's some nice chaps at BAe who'll sort all that out for them. At a small, reasonable, harsh but fair, barely affordable, well OK then, frankly horrific cost.

    2. Berny Stapleton

      Re: but can it drop the ..

      If they fly over the south of belgium, do they speak dutch or french?

      1. Remy Redert

        Re: but can it drop the ..

        Neither. They speak English so they can communicate with other NATO aircraft as well.

      2. bitten

        Re: but can it drop the ..

        The Belgians working with the Dutch need to also have the F35 (a Dutch idea). Or better not so they can complement crippled with something else.

  3. macjules

    Going cheap

    "Our world-class Typhoon has led the way in combat air power and this demonstrates the continued confidence in the capability the Typhoon has to offer. With more than 20,000 flying hours on global operations to date, the Typhoon offers unparalleled reliability and proven interoperability with our allies."

    TRANSLATION: "Oi, Belgium. Look here mate, these planes have only done a few hours, barely seen any combat and some are so new that the paint isn't dry yet. Tell you what, a snip at £3Bn for the lot .. oh, ok £200m .. can you do cash please? Refund policy? No worries, tell you what I'll set a date for our refund policy to run from April 2019, is that ok?"

  4. MajDom

    Your article leads to believe the Typhoon is fully British. It's 33% BAE, 46% Airbus, and 21% Leonardo. Hence, a minority British participation.

    1. Peter2 Silver badge

      Your post leads one to beleive that we didn't have a complete, flying aircraft before getting Europeon nations involved to increase the size of the order book.

      https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/feature/eap

      1. MajDom

        That's a bit like the Mini Cooper, isn't it? Version 1 was fully British too. But you can't really compare it to today's version.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          That's a bit like the Mini Cooper, isn't it? Version 1 was fully British too. But you can't really compare it to today's version.

          Not really. The ACA concept aircraft is clearly very similar to the Typhoon. Whereas to compare Issigonis' brilliant Mini to the revolting, lumpen, lard arse German versions of today, well...... the only relationship is the name on the badge. The Mini Countryman in particular looks like it was originally intended to be the Mini Countrypanzerkampfwagen.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like