Luftwaffe orders 38 x Eurofighter Tranche 4

The Bundeswher has signed contract for another 38 Typhoons albeit the Tranche 4 airframes thus keeping the production line open Till 2030 at least.


nice to see their Bavarian Tigers mount the other year at RIAT 2017 (my pics)

7702A4DC-286C-40DD-97D4-DA5F46D383E0.jpeg
0BF259B7-4201-459E-979E-EAE3E43A7560.jpeg
9643BEDB-1436-49E5-A019-AD1ABAF1A322.jpeg





Anyhow they have also ordered the Boeing E/A-18G Growler / F/A-18F Super Hornet moreso for the NATO nuclear commitment.
 

diverman

LE
Book Reviewer
The Bundeswher has signed contract for another 38 Typhoons albeit the Tranche 4 airframes thus keeping the production line open Till 2030 at least.


nice to see their Bavarian Tigers mount the other year at RIAT 2017 (my pics)

View attachment 520084View attachment 520085View attachment 520086




Anyhow they have also ordered the Boeing E/A-18G Growler / F/A-18F Super Hornet moreso for the NATO nuclear commitment.
The Tornado's are scrap value as they are having to make parts or canabalise remaining airframes, plus the Saudi's scooped as much of the RAFs spares stock as they could carry for their Tornado's. The consequences of not spending enough money.

With Tranche 4 airframes are they going to be in the position of fleets within fleets or are the early going to be retired?
 
The Tornado's are scrap value as they are having to make parts or canabalise remaining airframes, plus the Saudi's scooped as much of the RAFs spares stock as they could carry for their Tornado's. The consequences of not spending enough money.

With Tranche 4 airframes are they going to be in the position of fleets within fleets or are the early going to be retired?
I thought the article was about the TYphoon, not the Tornado?
 
8 Twin Seats will cost a bit being as though they havnt made any since tranche 1 AFAIK.

A production run of extra parts for just 8 aircraft, do the Luftwaffe not have any LIFTs
 
The Bundeswher has signed contract for another 38 Typhoons albeit the Tranche 4 airframes thus keeping the production line open Till 2030 at least.


nice to see their Bavarian Tigers mount the other year at RIAT 2017 (my pics)

View attachment 520084View attachment 520085View attachment 520086




Anyhow they have also ordered the Boeing E/A-18G Growler / F/A-18F Super Hornet moreso for the NATO nuclear commitment.
I heard today that they've only ordered Typhoons, they haven't ordered any F18s.

The new tranche 4 Typhoons are to replace tranche 1 Typhoons. However, no decision has been made yet on what to replace the Tornadoes with yet. They may order F18s for the nuclear role, but the final decision hasn't happened yet and its still possible they may pick yet more Typhoons for that role.
 
I heard today that they've only ordered Typhoons, they haven't ordered any F18s.

The new tranche 4 Typhoons are to replace tranche 1 Typhoons. However, no decision has been made yet on what to replace the Tornadoes with yet. They may order F18s for the nuclear role, but the final decision hasn't happened yet and its still possible they may pick yet more Typhoons for that role.

I thought they would then have to pay LOTS of money to integrate US nuclear weapon onto the typhoon?

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
 
I thought they would then have to pay LOTS of money to integrate US nuclear weapon onto the typhoon?

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
They could be hoping to call the US bluff on that one.

We dont have Nukes we dont want Nukes - thus we do not need a nuclear capable aircraft
If the US wishes us to have a Nuclear role in extremis then they can pay / make it cheap to integrate on our existing fleet.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
8 Twin Seats will cost a bit being as though they havnt made any since tranche 1 AFAIK.

A production run of extra parts for just 8 aircraft, do the Luftwaffe not have any LIFTs
For the EW role?

Eurofighter Typhoon | New Eurofighter electronic combat role (ECR) concept presented at the IFC

We've binned our two-seat requirement as lead-in training these days is synthetic. Hence no two-seat F-35s (although the Israelis were making noises about one at one time for the Wild Weasel role).

Also, bear in mind that the tranches are actually built differently to each other - that's why we can't readily turn our 1s into 3s. A Tranche 4 two-seater will truly be a fleet within a fleet.
 

diverman

LE
Book Reviewer
They could be hoping to call the US bluff on that one.

We dont have Nukes we dont want Nukes - thus we do not need a nuclear capable aircraft
If the US wishes us to have a Nuclear role in extremis then they can pay / make it cheap to integrate on our existing fleet.
Then. We don’t want to be part of NATO then.
 
I thought they would then have to pay LOTS of money to integrate US nuclear weapon onto the typhoon?

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
Regardless of which aircraft would be the best or cheapest or whatever, the point is that it isn't decided until parliament votes on it, and parliament only voted to approve the Typhoons. They haven't voted to approve any F-18s.
 
As much as i like Army type stuff i do have a unhealthy interest in aircraft so here is a question. Aside from F35 being the new messiah how does Typhoon compare to it? It seems that Typhoon has been around for years if you include EAP in 1986. Of course Tranche 1 is a lot different to latest but underneath design wise its still the same aircraft so how come its held its own for so long? Did we (ill include the European partners in this as well) actually do something right for once? This is where we need Magic Mushroom to chip in!
 

Slime

LE
As much as i like Army type stuff i do have a unhealthy interest in aircraft so here is a question. Aside from F35 being the new messiah how does Typhoon compare to it? It seems that Typhoon has been around for years if you include EAP in 1986. Of course Tranche 1 is a lot different to latest but underneath design wise its still the same aircraft so how come its held its own for so long? Did we (ill include the European partners in this as well) actually do something right for once? This is where we need Magic Mushroom to chip in!

Typhoon was something that was very right for once.
It could have been a bit better, but even as it is it’s very very good.
It‘s an excellent dogfighter, and has acceleration levels/time to height times far better than RAF aircraft in previous decades.
 
As much as i like Army type stuff i do have a unhealthy interest in aircraft so here is a question. Aside from F35 being the new messiah how does Typhoon compare to it? It seems that Typhoon has been around for years if you include EAP in 1986. Of course Tranche 1 is a lot different to latest but underneath design wise its still the same aircraft so how come its held its own for so long? Did we (ill include the European partners in this as well) actually do something right for once? This is where we need Magic Mushroom to chip in!

At the risk of missrepresenting the man, I believe MMs opinion on the matter was - F35 and Typhoon are a good combo they complement each other well and the USAF is itself envious of the mix**.

He could then elaborate on why stealth isnt binary - that typhoon has (some) Low Observable charecteristics (eg recessed missiles)



**Dont forget the much vaunted F22 is something of a silver bullet in US service
 

Slime

LE
Typhoon was something that was very right for once.
It could have been a bit better, but even as it is it’s very very good.
It‘s an excellent dogfighter, and has acceleration levels/time to height times far better than RAF aircraft in previous decades.

Edit.
The mention of ‘previous decades’ is very important, while the Typhoon is very very quick to get up to height, and thus a good interceptor, it’s worth noting that the Tornado F2/F3 that went before it wasn’t as fast as the EE Lighting that had gone before Tornado.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
As much as i like Army type stuff i do have a unhealthy interest in aircraft so here is a question. Aside from F35 being the new messiah how does Typhoon compare to it? It seems that Typhoon has been around for years if you include EAP in 1986. Of course Tranche 1 is a lot different to latest but underneath design wise its still the same aircraft so how come its held its own for so long? Did we (ill include the European partners in this as well) actually do something right for once? This is where we need Magic Mushroom to chip in!
At the risk of missrepresenting the man, I believe MMs opinion on the matter was - F35 and Typhoon are a good combo they complement each other well and the USAF is itself envious of the mix**.

He could then elaborate on why stealth isnt binary - that typhoon has (some) Low Observable charecteristics (eg recessed missiles)



**Dont forget the much vaunted F22 is something of a silver bullet in US service
From the outset, Typhoon was looked at in terms of peers and threats. The ranking peer on our side was the F-22, which was/is superb but hideously expensive. The Warsaw Pact peer was Su-27 - essentially their F-15 - and its successors (if we're tracing Typhoon's lineage to the EAP, then the Su-35 is essentially a Su-27).

In some respects, we went for an 80 percent solution. F-22 was the 100 percent but way out of everyone's budgetary range - even the Americans bought far fewer than they wanted (it was supposed to replace the F-15). But the 80 percent solution was intended to beat - consistently - the Su-27/follow-ons and anything other than the F-22. That includes the US teen jets, and Rafale (cue the howls of protest).

It's not just about kinetic performance. It's about electronic, too. For instance, an early F-16 is probably sprightlier than a later one in a turning fight, but you would rather be in the later version; better radar, better missiles (with high off-foresight cueing) and so on.

Typhoon is a very able dogfighter. Get in close enough and it'll take the F-22 (all things being equal, such as evenly matched pilots and so on). It'll struggle to get in close because of F-22's electronic capabilities, though. There are vectored-thrust solutions out there for it but it's been decided it doesn't need them, and anyone who's seen Typhoon sitting in the air pretty much on thrust alone will understand why.

In terms of electronic capabilities, Typhoon was supposed to prevent the 'fleets within fleets' that Tornado became. In some ways it succeeded, in others it failed. The Germans decided a long time ago that it couldn't afford all the bells and whistles. It went for a more austere electronics fit. The RAF got the full-fat version and very good it is, too. The defensive aids sub-system has recently been upgraded. The Germans have since realised that they need similar to be in the game.

The outstanding must-have is an AESA radar. We've dragged our heels (£££s) but the German/Spanish decision to fit one has kicked us into action. The Leonardo solution we're looking to get is apparently very good and will probably grow to be a part of Tempest.

In terms of Gen 4/5, the Typhoon is a decade and more on from the F-15/16/18 in terms of original concept, and that's reflected in its performance.

The Americans like the Typhoon. Its only failing in their eyes is Not Invented Here, otherwise we'd probably see it in USAF squadron service. Mixing the Typhoon with the F-35 is a capability that the Americans would love to have (remember how few F-22s there are) and Typhoon/F-35 has proven potent against F-22 on exercise; Typhoon on its own against F-22 loses but Typhoon cued by F-35 wins.

In other words, the RAF has a very nice sharp-end capability. We need Wedgetail in service - it's not all about the sexy stuff - but that's coming.

I wish in terms of front-end kit that the army was in anywhere near the shape that the Light Blue is.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Edit.
The mention of ‘previous decades’ is very important, while the Typhoon is very very quick to get up to height, and thus a good interceptor, it’s worth noting that the Tornado F2/F3 that went before it wasn’t as fast as the EE Lighting that had gone before Tornado.
We wanted the F-14. we couldn't afford it. F.3 grew to be a very good solution. But it was always designed as a long-range interceptor, intended to take on Frontal Aviation's heavy bombers coming in over the Pole. It was overtaken by developments. The arrival of the Su-27 was equivalent to the Mustang turning up next to the USAAF's previously unescorted bombers over Europe.
 
We wanted the F-14. we couldn't afford it.
Really? But I get your point, F-14 was a nightmare to run - low availability rates, insanely high maintenance demands (well over twice the maintenance man-hours per flying hour of the Tornado; over-60 compared to under-30 - while more modern stuff like Typhoon, Gripen, and F/A-18E/F all require less than 10). The radar was nothing special, and AIUI was similar in technology, power, and performance to the Foxhunter in the front of the F.3. Always remember, a lot of US kit is backed by truly excellent marketing departments - the reality can be less impressive.

As a student in the 80s, I interned for a UK firm that made inertial navigation systems; one senior engineer described the current "world-beating, awesomest, America F**k Yeah!" equivalent US system as being downright agricultural on the inside (they'd somehow got a peek at it); in the 90s, I worked on radars and listened as Hughes announced how their amazing new radar upgrade for the F-18C/D made it "unparalleled" - yeah, it now only had half the signal processing power of our kit in the new Sea Harrier...

As a simple example, consider the M-16; to listen to "anyone", you'd believe it was the "right arm of the free world", and that "SA80 is a sh!t joke of a weapon" - reality differs from marketing, and that's just something as simple as a rifle. The RN and RAF suffer from the same problem; a US purchasing system that relies on marketing kit to politicians, in public, compared to a UK system that generally does it in private.

I suspect the keyword for search engines is JOUST - a modelling tool by the bright people, which aimed to define what was necessary to exceed an X% likelihood of defeating FLANKER and similar, i.e. achieve a sensible balance of cost and operational effectiveness...
 
Last edited:
Cheers for all the replies. I did see on that font-of-all-knowledge(!) Wiki Typhoon page the thrust vectoring EJ200 variant. As pointed out, watching a Typhoon display done well puts most others to shame with the power and flight manouvers it can do.
 
They could be hoping to call the US bluff on that one.

We dont have Nukes we dont want Nukes - thus we do not need a nuclear capable aircraft
If the US wishes us to have a Nuclear role in extremis then they can pay / make it cheap to integrate on our existing fleet.
They/We want that 20+ B61. The Bundesregierung made clear that nuclear sharing is not in question. The implementation of the nuclear capabilities of the Typhoon will be expensive and the Yanks want details down to the last screw of the aircraft. So it will have to be the F/A-18, because the F-35 will apparently be far too future proof.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Really? But I get your point, F-14 was a nightmare to run - low availability rates, insanely high maintenance demands (well over twice the maintenance man-hours per flying hour of the Tornado; over-60 compared to under-30 - while more modern stuff like Typhoon, Gripen, and F/A-18E/F all require less than 10). The radar was nothing special, and AIUI was similar in technology, power, and performance to the Foxhunter in the front of the F.3. Always remember, a lot of US kit is backed by truly excellent marketing departments - the reality can be less impressive.

As a student in the 80s, I interned for a UK firm that made inertial navigation systems; one senior engineer described the current "world-beating, awesomest, America F**k Yeah!" equivalent US system as being downright agricultural on the inside (they'd somehow got a peek at it); in the 90s, I worked on radars and listened as Hughes announced how their amazing new radar upgrade for the F-18C/D made it "unparalleled" - yeah, it now only had half the signal processing power of our kit in the new Sea Harrier...

As a simple example, consider the M-16; to listen to "anyone", you'd believe it was the "right arm of the free world", and that "SA80 is a sh!t joke of a weapon" - reality differs from marketing, and that's just something as simple as a rifle. The RN and RAF suffer from the same problem; a US purchasing system that relies on marketing kit to politicians, in public, compared to a UK system that generally does it in private.

I suspect the keyword for search engines is JOUST - a modelling tool by the bright people, which aimed to define what was necessary to exceed an X% likelihood of defeating FLANKER and similar, i.e. achieve a sensible balance of cost and operational effectiveness...
Yes, we did. I know a lot of noise was made about us getting the F-15 but the Tomcat ticked the two-crew box and other stuff besides.

I'm totally with you on Foxhunter. That's more your bailiwick anyway - I shouldn't care to contradict. :)

Also on marketing departments.

I really do think that F-15 would have made a lot of sense - Lakenheath and all that - but covetous eyes were definitely cast at the Grumman.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top