European Defence spending and strategy

[Annetts key]

The Typhoon is excellent at its primary role which is as an interceptor. It's extremely agile. So for air defence, yes we should order more.
But it is even better as it is also a multirole aircraft, as well as carrying out reconnaissance missions it can carry out ground attack missions. Including launching various missiles and guided bombs.

Other considerations:
The Typhoon costs less to operate (better fuel efficiency) and maintenance is less expensive compared to a F35.
There is a long waiting list for the F35.
The U.K. has bought F35B navy versions. We have received only 35. 30 are in operational use in the U.K., three are used for training in the U.S.A. and one crashed. These are smaller and have a lower payload and range compared to the F35C. The F35B are a similar size to the F35A but have a lower range.

Compare that to the Typhoon, the RAF have 137 aircraft, of which 102 are in operational service.

Despite being the older design, the Typhoon has upgrades that can be installed. And further developments and upgrades are expected to continue. The current production aircraft are much improved over those of the first production run.

 

[Railwaycat]

Have you heard of MBDA? CAMM, Aster, Storm Shadow, ASRAAM, Meteor, Brimstone, Sea Venom etc

The Aster 30 land based system (especially the block 1 anti missile upgrade) seems to fit the bill perfectly for a European Patriot alternative, especially seeing as the navy deploys it (and has upgraded it to block 1) on the type 45 destroyers.

Meanwhile, I've decided to spend more on defence, especially the bit that fell down last winter...

 

[Cloud Strife]

Despite being the older design, the Typhoon has upgrades that can be installed. And further developments and upgrades are expected to continue. The current production aircraft are much improved over those of the first production run.

I believe that BAE in particular has also been working very hard on reducing the operational costs of the Typhoon, bringing it down to something comparable to the F-16. For that reason, we should be building more of the Typhoon, not least because these can be cascaded down to smaller allied nations later on. If you look at how Ukraine has used their MiG-29s, it's clear that even older planes can function perfectly well in combat.

 

[Annetts key]

Against Russia, it's just as much a numbers game as it is a technological race. I believe it's previously been said that in order to defend Ukrainian air space, 100 combat aircraft are required.

How many F35 aircraft are available and how much would it cost to build the extra that would be required? And how long would building them take?

In comparison, how does the Typhoon compare on existing numbers available, the cost of building more and the timescale on the build time?

IMHO, in the current climate, the U.K. and Europe should increase the numbers of Typhoons.

 

[AM9]

Against Russia, it's just as much a numbers game as it is a technological race. I believe it's previously been said that in order to defend Ukrainian air space, 100 combat aircraft are required.

How many F35 aircraft are available and how much would it cost to build the extra that would be required? And how long would building them take?

In comparison, how does the Typhoon compare on existing numbers available, the cost of building more and the timescale on the build time?

IMHO, in the current climate, the U.K. and Europe should increase the numbers of Typhoons.

Remember that building Typhoons is a four nation exercise, so Italy Spain and Germany all need to have the same intent, even if they don't want to take on the same (or equivalent) financial burden and just provide commercial support. Then there's the acquistion of US materials and components, - modern aircraft (military and civil) tend to have supply chains spread across the world.

 

[JamesT]

Against Russia, it's just as much a numbers game as it is a technological race. I believe it's previously been said that in order to defend Ukrainian air space, 100 combat aircraft are required.

How many F35 aircraft are available and how much would it cost to build the extra that would be required? And how long would building them take?

In comparison, how does the Typhoon compare on existing numbers available, the cost of building more and the timescale on the build time?

IMHO, in the current climate, the U.K. and Europe should increase the numbers of Typhoons.

Depends what you consider as 'available'. There are at least 100 F-35As that have been delivered to European countries, plus the UK's 30 F35B. Several hundred more F35As are on order.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Remember that building Typhoons is a four nation exercise, so Italy Spain and Germany all need to have the same intent, even if they don't want to take on the same (or equivalent) financial burden and just provide commercial support

I think there's really no opposition among them to building them, as it's a good source of high quality jobs in those countries. Italy, Spain and Germany are all ordering more, so there's really no reason why we shouldn't do the same.

Against Russia, it's just as much a numbers game as it is a technological race.

I'd say it's even more about numbers than technology. We've been somewhat seduced into believing that we need 5th and 6th generation fighters, but for present needs, the 4th gen is more than adequate. We don't need them to fight offensively, but we need something reliable and cheap that can perform air policing missions.

Europe having a large fleet of fighters that can be deployed quickly is far more of a deterrent than a handful of very expensive planes, IMO.

 

[Railwaycat]

Remember that building Typhoons is a four nation exercise, so Italy Spain and Germany all need to have the same intent, even if they don't want to take on the same (or equivalent) financial burden and just provide commercial support. Then there's the acquistion of US materials and components, - modern aircraft (military and civil) tend to have a supply chains spread across the world.

It's companies from four nations that build the aircraft, not governments, so if those companies still have the capability and capacity to supply the final assembly line then surely there's no problem.

 

[tomuk]

I agree with you (and Unite, which must be a first!).

Dassault have plenty of export orders for the Rafale, along with an extended order from the French themselves, and these will keep them going whilst their 6th gen plane is being developed. The Typhoon order book looks rather less healthy, so if the only way to keep the production line running is for the UK to order some that’s what we should do. We wouldn’t just be buying them for the sake of it though; they’re still excellent aircraft that will strengthen our airforce.

There are 139 outstanding Typhoon orders and about 40 Rafale.

I think there's really no opposition among them to building them,

Germany has until recently blocked sales to Saudi and Turkey

 

[Gaz67]

There are 139 outstanding Typhoon orders and about 40 Rafale.


Germany has until recently blocked sales to Saudi and Turkey

Yes, plenty of orders for Typhoon and the excellent graphic above shows the work being done at Samlesbury by Bae . However of the 4 partners above the only final assembly line with no work is in the UK at Warton. Bae will not pay people to do nothing for long and even an order for the Raf tomorrow will take time to pulse along to Warton. The gap Bae feared is here now , skills are already eroding. Putting the Tranche 1s back into service would be helpful if indeed Bae was given this work to do at Warton. Blackjack would be interesting and would involve a visit to the 29 Squadron mess at Coningsby ( remember the Vulcan refuelling probe ash tray in the Falklands war), one for older aircraft enthusiasts .

 

[DustyBin]

There are 139 outstanding Typhoon orders and about 40 Rafale.

Yes I was talking bobbins, apologies.

 

[Railwaycat]

Yes, plenty of orders for Typhoon and the excellent graphic above shows the work being done at Samlesbury by Bae . However of the 4 partners above the only final assembly line with no work is in the UK at Warton. Bae will not pay people to do nothing for long and even an order for the Raf tomorrow will take time to pulse along to Warton. The gap Bae feared is here now , skills are already eroding. Putting the Tranche 1s back into service would be helpful if indeed Bae was given this work to do at Warton. Blackjack would be interesting and would involve a visit to the 29 Squadron mess at Coningsby ( remember the Vulcan refuelling probe ash tray in the Falklands war), one for older aircraft enthusiasts .

I cant understand what the problem is with upgrading the tranche 1's - surely it's a far quicker exercise than building new, even if a lot of work is required.

 

[Gaz67]

I cant understand what the problem is with upgrading the tranche 1's - surely it's a far quicker exercise than building new, even if a lot of work is required.

Upgrading can be a long job depending what is being done. Returning them to service as they are a lot easier, except for the ones that have been RTP, blackjack being one of these. Mog was flown to Lossiemouth for ground instruction use so is intact. My own view on the present Government is that they are stalling hoping some sort of deal happens in Ukraine and they can get away with doing next to nothing. Talk is cheap as they say and Starmer is doing plenty of it. I will reserve judgement until the defence review is published.

 

[Giugiaro]

US and UK companies excluded from EU's 150bn fund

Companies from countries without a defence and security agreement with the EU will not have access to the 150 billion in funding announced by Brussels.
Also excluded are defence systems that have use restrictions imposed by third countries on the EU.

(...)
The move goes against the UK's ambitions
The former EU member state has been lobbying the bloc to be included in this initiative, since several British companies - such as BAE Systems and Babcock International - have a large stake in the defence industry of EU nations like Italy and Sweden.
Negotiations to create a defence pact between London and Brussels are not new, and there is already a negotiating basis to achieve this.
But the negotiations are being limited by other issues, such as immigration and fishing rights.
(...)

Source is in Portuguese

I wonder how long will it take for Trump/Vance/Musk to react in a tantrum about "EU protectionism undermining the US". I give it less than 24 hours.

 

[Yew]

I wonder what restrictions from third parties they could possibly be talking about

 

[brad465]

Lockheed Martin have put out this post about their F-35s. This would have been an unthinkable post a couple of months ago, but the fact they had to shows just how much damage has been done to the US defence industry by Trump and co.'s actions:

Loading…

x.com

‘There is no kill switch’—The F-35 'kill switch' rumor has been debunked. “After weeks of speculation, the Pentagon formally denies having the ability to remotely disable @LockheedMartin ’s F-35 fighter jets.”

 

[Annetts key]

Lockheed Martin have put out this post about their F-35s. This would have been an unthinkable post a couple of months ago, but the fact they had to shows just how much damage has been done to the US defence industry by Trump and co.'s actions:

It doesn't matter what they say, the real fear is the possibility of removal of (technical, maintenance and other) support, spare parts, consumables or replacement weapons.

And of course, a review of what gear to purchase may also take into account cost, benefits to your country, benefits to other countries that still support you, and other political reasons.

Talking of cost, Trumps policies may actually increase the cost of 'American' 'made' systems, even without any reduction in the number of orders. Even if some of a system is locally produced/assembled, costs could rise due to his policies.

For all these reasons, buying 'American' may well be a lot less attractive now...

 

[gg1]

It doesn't matter what they say, the real fear is the possibility of removal of (technical, maintenance and other) support, spare parts, consumables or replacement weapons.

Would that be an insurmountable obstacle? BAE systems were involved in the development of the F-35 and manufacture some components of the production aircraft so there is considerable technical knowledge of the type in British hands.

Bear in mind Iran are still flying F-14s 45 years after losing access to all American technical support. Admittedly it's a less complex design but Iran were only ever customers, even pre-revolution Iran had no involvement in either the development or manufacture of the F-14.

 

[Annetts key]

Would that be an insurmountable obstacle?

No, but it may be enough to reject buying new. You don't have to go far back in our history to find aircraft that were removed from service due to increasing difficulties in maintaining them in an operational condition.

Bear in mind Iran are still flying F-14s 45 years after losing access to all American technical support. Admittedly it's a less complex design but Iran were only ever customers, even pre-revolution Iran had no involvement in either the development or manufacture of the F-14.

There is a rather large difference between trying to keep your existing aircraft in an operational state and buying new where there is a possibility of restrictions.

Of course, many countries that are capable of operating F35 aircraft could probably find ways of maintaining them etc. But it's not something a country may want to do.

 

[Giugiaro]

There is still the question of paying the US to buy their products during these circumstances.
If they want to be so protective of their industry, so can we.

Bear in mind Iran are still flying F-14s 45 years after losing access to all American technical support.

Same with Russia's Airbuses and Boeings. They're sourcing parts from the black market. Nature finds a way.

 

[tomuk]

Lockheed Martin have put out this post about their F-35s. This would have been an unthinkable post a couple of months ago, but the fact they had to shows just how much damage has been done to the US defence industry by Trump and co.'s actions:

Loading…

x.com

But the UK and Australia operates a mission planning office in Florida to make the jet work.

It doesn't matter what they say, the real fear is the possibility of removal of (technical, maintenance and other) support, spare parts, consumables or replacement weapons.

And of course, a review of what gear to purchase may also take into account cost, benefits to your country, benefits to other countries that still support you, and other political reasons.

Talking of cost, Trumps policies may actually increase the cost of 'American' 'made' systems, even without any reduction in the number of orders. Even if some of a system is locally produced/assembled, costs could rise due to his policies.

For all these reasons, buying 'American' may well be a lot less attractive now...

It is more than that. We have no access to F35 source code so are reliant on LM to integrate weapons and also reliant on LM and access to their system to operate the mission planning and logistics\maintenance software for the jet.

Would that be an insurmountable obstacle? BAE systems were involved in the development of the F-35 and manufacture some components of the production aircraft so there is considerable technical knowledge of the type in British hands.

Bear in mind Iran are still flying F-14s 45 years after losing access to all American technical support. Admittedly it's a less complex design but Iran were only ever customers, even pre-revolution Iran had no involvement in either the development or manufacture of the F-14.

BAE make every rear fuselage and Rolls Royce are responsible for the lift fan on F35B

 

[AM9]

But the UK and Australia operates a mission planning office in Florida to make the jet work.


It is more than that. We have no access to F35 source code so are reliant on LM to integrate weapons and also reliant on LM and access to their system to operate the mission planning and logistics\maintenance software for the jet.


BAE make every rear fuselage and Rolls Royce are responsible for the lift fan on F35B

Just because BAES make (to drawing) the rear fuselage for one version, it doesn't mean thaat they would be any use in the event of in-service failures. In the dynamics of modern aircraft deployment, only spares actually deployed at flight-line are much use - especially in a high tension situation.

 

[tomuk]

Just because BAES make (to drawing) the rear fuselage for one version, it doesn't mean thaat they would be any use in the event of in-service failures. In the dynamics of modern aircraft deployment, only spares actually deployed at flight-line are much use - especially in a high tension situation.

I wasn't suggesting they would be just clarifying what 'parts' BAE made.

 

[AM9]

I wasn't suggesting they would be just clarifying what 'parts' BAE made.

Didn't mean it to read that way, but the last few posts seem to give the impression that in an active deployment, we could keep fleets of aircraft flyung by knocking up a few spare parts. About the only way would be by cannibalisation, but even then, modern military aircraft can need jigs to set them up when major items are changed, (e.g. wings). The Typhoon has the major workshared sub-assemblies aligned on a laser setup, as they are all designed to be interchangeable.

 

[Giugiaro]

It is more than that. We have no access to F35 source code so are reliant on LM to integrate weapons and also reliant on LM and access to their system to operate the mission planning and logistics\maintenance software for the jet.

This is indeed the biggest concern. The fact that the whole aircraft isn't transparent to its operator means the product is inherently untrustworthy.
The good faith of Lockheed Martin (and any American company at this point) depends on the North American administration.
Since the confidence in the administration has been completely shattered, so has the confidence in any American company or product that doesn't operate independently or transparently outside of the US.

Meanwhile, the lobby is already reacting to the recent declarations from the Portuguese minister of national defence.
Andrew Bernard wrote an article on Expresso arguing for the F-35 for Portugal.
I'm choosing to ignore him just as I've ignored the Russian propagandists over the past decade.

 

[Yew]

Meanwhile, the lobby is already reacting to the recent declarations from the Portuguese minister of national defence.
Andrew Bernard wrote an article on Expresso arguing for the F-35 for Portugal.
I'm choosing to ignore him just as I've ignored the Russian propagandists over the past decade.

If you want a 5th generation fighter, that can't be seen on a radar from 100 miles away, your current options are Washington or maybe Beijing.

 

[Annetts key]

If you want a 5th generation fighter, that can't be seen on a radar from 100 miles away, your current options are Washington or maybe Beijing.

A "5th generation" fighter, that can't be seen on a radar from 100 miles away because it's parked on the ground because it cannot be flown is not much use for your air force...

And it's only a matter of time before a technology is developed that counters the "low RADAR" profile of so called "5th generation" aircraft.

 

[Yew]

A "5th generation" fighter, that can't be seen on a radar from 100 miles away because it's parked on the ground because it cannot be flown is not much use for your air force...

More useful than a cloud of wreckage.

Whilst I agree we should move away from American systems, the fact of the matter is that at this exact moment in time, there are no credible alternatives with the same capabilities.

Whilst the implied security guarantees that come with buying lots of American stuff may no longer hold, it is a very long way between that, and Lockheed Martin stopping selling you spare parts.

 

[Annetts key]

More useful than a cloud of wreckage.

Whilst I agree we should move away from American systems, the fact of the matter is that at this exact moment in time, there are no credible alternatives with the same capabilities.

Whilst the implied security guarantees that come with buying lots of American stuff may no longer hold, it is a very long way between that, and Lockheed Martin stopping selling you spare parts.

Please note that my argument was about the fear of a loss of support and how this may colour the discussion on what new equipment and systems to buy.

I don’t think Lockheed Martin would want to stopping selling spare parts or indeed complete systems to customers. Indeed, there are very likely a lot of very worried people in the American defence industry at the moment. They don’t want their export market to be compromised by Trumps policies and actions.

As to aircraft that don’t officially meet the definition of having stealth technology, that’s currently the vast majority of the aircraft that are currently in service. Yes, buying new aircraft that have stealth technology does appear to be the way to go. But in the real world of combat, there are many factors at play. That includes the type of aircraft, the type of radar systems in use and their capabilities. The type of missiles in use and their range and most importantly, the number of aircraft that you / your side has against the number the enemy has. Plus many more.

If the enemy has significantly more aircraft than you have (with similar conventional capability), or you don’t have enough, your stealth technology aircraft may be more effective. But the enemy may succeed simply because they can gang up on your aircraft or use gaps in the cover that your aircraft can’t cover.

Stealth technology is most useful in attacking the enemy over their own territory. Especially if flying deep within their territory.

But in the context of defending your own territory, stealth technology is not so critical. Having enough operational aircraft to defend your own airspace is however important.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Eventually the EU is going to need to federalise. It's going to need more fiscal spending powers to raise its defence spending, so it's going to need a directly elected President who has tax raising powers. It cant keep languishing in this strange halfway house its currently in.