I haven’t studied the Typhoon in detail so please bear with me here… How can the Typhoon pilot do that? I don’t think that even cutting edge IR missiles have that kind of range yet. The only alternative I can think of is that the Typhoon uses third party supplied information to provide mid-course target updates to an MBDA Meteor, AIM-120 or some other similar missile.

…………….yes. Thats what I said. Data fusion is what it is all about and it is indeed the only way this can be done. Its not really a nifty feature anybody can do it in theory. Its not that you don’t have a radar rather that you are using somebody elses radar only that information is being displayed to the Typhoon pilot as though it were his own radar information. RAF Hawk T2s will have a similar capability with its ‘virtual’ radar for training purposes. All you need is a fast secure LOS datalink and your in business. Your weapons will be MRAAMs generally.

Yes. But Jack you know as well as I do, you give this government an inch and they’ll take a light year. It only starts with the deletion of the gun and ends with the stripping out of major (crucial) capabilities that are not so easily explained away. Operational experience has dictated the re-inclusion of the gun and for me thats far better than ‘bean counting’ dictating its deletion.

I have been loosely following the EF/Typhoon program for years now, and with all do respect to its supporters, I just don’t understand what is so awesome about this aircraft? I know I probably need a good “prospective kick in the pants” on this subject, so please give me your opinion of how the EF/Typhoon stacks up against similar platforms or what its groundbreaking or practical virtues are. It seems like a European Super Hornet with better aerodynamics and way less weapons/avionics integration and flexibility. I know there will be some very strong opinions on this subject so let it rip!

Way less weapons/avionics integration is it? Yes you do need to be hit with the perspective stick. Its up there and beyond the Super Hornet in that respect alone and they are still developing it. Oh and don’t forget the ‘way’ better power to weight ratio, ergo performance. You say you have been following the programme. Not very closely it would seem.

I’m with Bloodnok on this one, the support infrastructure is already dialled in to the procurement costs. It was estimated at one time that the total cost saved might have paid for one Typhoon. The RAF (when not being shotgunned into saying otherwise) would always choose one less aircraft over the loss of the gun over the entire fleet.

Operational experience has already been covered but there is also the issue of ROE when intercepting a suspected hyjacked airliner. You can’t shoot a heat seeking missile across the nose of an aircraft. ROE dictates that a shot across the nose is attempted before a more executive decision is made as to the fate of said airliner.

Seand I understand where you are coming from but the truth is that if it were to happen it would be purely to save money. By that I mean that the money saved would not go back into the forces, front line or otherwise, it would go back into the treasury in the the long term, in real terms and as inflation grips it would become an insignificant amount that nobody even notices. It will then go into the ‘petty cash’ system to pay for ministerial ‘expenses’. The front line wouldn’t see a penny of it and even if they did it wouldn’t do much to pay the bills.

Jonesy I know you have some issues with the crabs but I reckon you should cut them a little slack once in a while, we need them as much as we need the Army, the Navy and the Marines 😉 .

Note: The CVF’s will be very close in size to the USN Kitty Hawk Class of Super Carriers.:D

Yes and this is a nod to flexibility of the makeup of the airwing. From what I have read there is a peacetime airwing of perhaps two small squadrons, with as few as 8 aircraft each. In wartime operations, if the requirement called for it, then you may be looking at 3 squadrons of perhaps 12 aircraft, maybe even more. Sometimes mission requirements may mean a largely helicopter complement. Thats how the Navy operate their ‘pocket carriers’ today, as far as I know thats also how they intend to operate the CVFs.

Now I know people may say this is not ideal and to an extent I agree but in truth, for normal ‘peacetime’ operations doesn’t it pay to be flexible enough to have a large strike wing when you need it and a small, generally defensive wing when you don’t with lots of logistics helicopters to facilitate amphibious operations? Again, I know its not ideal but what do you expect when our government will only spend 2.5% GDP on an increasingly overstretched military force?

Another Australian Defence project gone wrong!
I am finding hard to remember the last Australian military project that went smoothly!
We can not keep this up and stay credible.

Pioneer

Why not? We do. Just.

MPA = Mount Pleasant Airport, as in civilian but used by the Falkland Islands defence aircraft.

Don’t forget that the Typhoon has been working up to IOC for a number of years now and in any case the end of 2007 is only a rumour. It would make sense though; at least one other squadron begins its workup on the Typhoon this year besides 3 and 11 Sqns, don’t know who it will be but you will be looking at a comparable number of Typhoons in service over the next couple of years (compared to the Tornado F3 as of now that is). The Tornado is more expensive to operate than the Typhoon in terms of ground crew, air crew, availability etc in any theatre even the South Atlantic, the economics alone make the 2007 date seem feasable as the justification for operating a small flight of increasingly unique aircraft (decreasing numbers of Tornado F3) will make less and less sense as time goes by. So it has less to do with propaganda or any perceived threat and far more to do with economics.