HMS EAGLE in the Falklands

The real reason 187 were made and not hundred more is because production was spread across 48 states not in the interests of the project but simply for Political reasons.

Had their been a true and proper bidding process the cost per aircraft would almost certainly have come down and dare I say it the quality of some of the kit used in building it would have gone up as well as fewer delays resulting in production overruns further driving up the costs.

The other issue of course is that F15 still ruled the roost as Chinese and Russian super fighter had (and arguably still have not) yet to emerge in any real numbers - so there was no need for it!

Also Britain had a few issues of their own that had upset the cousins - that is sharing super secret stuff with the Spanish (IIRC) - after promising not to

I think this might have been related to the Euro-fighter project - so this last bit might not be relevant if the British instead of develop the EFA/Eurofighter jump in with the USA during the late 80s.

We might see the Germans go joint project with the French but not sure what happens after the wall comes down
That number was also chosen for a very stupid reason. It was the number of F-15s deployed during the Gulf War and therefore apparently all that would be "needed." Nevermind operational loses or Homeland defense or any other commitments. That's what was deployed to fight in Gulf War One, so that's all the Air Force needs for the next war. Yes, I rolled my eyes too
 
The UK wouldn't have the expertise or capability to produce the Tempest since if the UK buys the F-15 rather than proceeding with the Eurofighter, the experience and knowledge of producing a complex combat jet would be lost when the generation of engineers and designers that developed the Tornado move on to other careers or retire. As experience has fairly recently taught the British defence industry, regenerating key skills in design and engineering lead to significant increases in cost and delays in development. When you're talking about adding those significant costs and delays to an already eye-wateringly expensive project like a fifth or sixth generation fighter that you can't guarantee that you'll be producing more than a few hundred of then it becomes pretty inconceivable that a British government would consider going down that road.
Logically British participation in Eurofighter should be dead at the very moment the decision to buy these 200 F-18s was taken. What's the role Eurofighter will be filling than more Hornets /advanced derivatives of Hornets like the then Hornet 2000 (or alternatively Northrop-Dornier ND102) won't be filling? And the Hornet is already in service.

That said if we assume Britain is out of Eurofighter, design and development work for BAe P.125 start in the second half of the 1980s. The sensible thing to do is for the British government to be giving the go ahead to development of this in place of Typhoon by around 1986-88, this keeps the development teams going for the next couple decades and provides the needed Tornado replacement...
 
Logically British participation in Eurofighter should be dead at the very moment the decision to buy these 200 F-18s was taken. What's the role Eurofighter will be filling than more Hornets /advanced derivatives of Hornets like the then Hornet 2000 (or alternatively Northrop-Dornier ND102) won't be filling? And the Hornet is already in service.

That said if we assume Britain is out of Eurofighter, design and development work for BAe P.125 start in the second half of the 1980s. The sensible thing to do is for the British government to be giving the go ahead to development of this in place of Typhoon by around 1986-88, this keeps the development teams going for the next couple decades and provides the needed Tornado replacement...
The Eurofighter was intended to be a high-performance tactical interceptor used over the battlefields of Europe to fight the latest Soviet planes such as the Su-27. I love the Hornet as much as the next guy, but it's not quite up to that sort of task. Compared to the Hornet, the Typhoon is significantly faster and more maneuverable, climbs like a rocket, and has energy to spare. It also has better radar, and more advanced ECM and FLIR system - though granted all of that could certainly be crammed into a more advanced Hornet variant. Ideally, the Hornets are replacing some of the Jaguars, Phantoms, and Buccaneers, while the Typhoon replaces the ADV-model Tornadoes in the future.

Point is, if the RAF so chose there's space in the force structure for Typhoons, Hornets, and Tornadoes.
 
The Eurofighter was intended to be a high-performance tactical interceptor used over the battlefields of Europe to fight the latest Soviet planes such as the Su-27. I love the Hornet as much as the next guy, but it's not quite up to that sort of task. Compared to the Hornet, the Typhoon is significantly faster and more maneuverable, climbs like a rocket, and has energy to spare. It also has better radar, and more advanced ECM and FLIR system - though granted all of that could certainly be crammed into a more advanced Hornet variant. Ideally, the Hornets are replacing some of the Jaguars, Phantoms, and Buccaneers, while the Typhoon replaces the ADV-model Tornadoes in the future.

Point is, if the RAF so chose there's space in the force structure for Typhoons, Hornets, and Tornadoes.
But Hornet and Hornet 2000 in particular were being touted at the time as the much cheaper alternative to Eurofighter. 90% of the capability at a fraction of the cost I believe was the selling line? And the money got to be comming from somewhere. TTL RAF is still buying 300 Tornadoes as opposed to 385 in OTL. Where's the money for 200 Hornets, the two carriers and between half and a full dozen E-2C coming from? Not from the 85 fewer Tornados. Something got to get the axe... and Typhoon seems to me as the only likely candidate.
 
But Hornet and Hornet 2000 in particular were being touted at the time as the much cheaper alternative to Eurofighter. 90% of the capability at a fraction of the cost I believe was the selling line? And the money got to be comming from somewhere. TTL RAF is still buying 300 Tornadoes as opposed to 385 in OTL. Where's the money for 200 Hornets, the two carriers and between half and a full dozen E-2C coming from? Not from the 85 fewer Tornados. Something got to get the axe... and Typhoon seems to me as the only likely candidate.
That or the NHS and/or the pension system was properly reviewed and rationalized thus saving a massive chunk of taxpayer money. Of course doing so would be political suicide much like messing with Social Security here in the US is and never mind that such changes are needed for long term viability...sigh politics just don't make any sense
 
If intended to be a FGR, why .. years after introduction was it STILL G incapable with even basic weapons?

The whole spec was, is and now forever will be a fighter jocks wet dream,
but it's not a proper solution to even the British need for a genuine aid to the other services.

The so-called "different requirements" were simply their obvious need to fight a war on the ground versus overwhelming numbers
not win a dogfight to brag about in the mess.

You see the same bias in US service against cost-effective ground attack planes cf, stealth fighters
but the US can afford to humour the modern-day Brylcreem boys a lot more easily.
The UK can't
Because Germany was part of the project, they only really wanted a replacement for their Phantoms and didn't need a bomb truck because they were happy with their Tornados doing that. Because they were more desperate for a Phantom replacement than the UK was for a Tornado F.3/Jaguar replacement at the time it was agreed that the first tranche would be built as pure F. variants to keep the Germans happy.

The UK then basically funded a lot of the FGR.4 kit upgrades themselves (along with the Saudis) to bring it up to the spec they'd always wanted while the Germans were quite happy sticking with their F.2 variants until Putin and Russia started playing Soviet Union Redux and Germany realised there wasn't much between them and the Neu 3rd Shock Army.

Again, one of the aircraft it was supposed to replace in RAF service was the Jaguar, which isn't a notable air-to-air performer. The Typhoon is a stellar fighter (I've read it's second only to the F-22 and even that it has some advantages over it although they're not enough to make up for the advantages the F-22 has) but from day one (certainly to the UK) it was always designed to carry bombs too.
 
Y'know what else all these nations got in common?

They never bothered to develop their own high-end fighter jets. Even the F-1 is a warmed-over supersonic trainer comparable to the Jaguar or F-5 - not a full-on twin-engine heavy stealth fighter like the Tempest. The AIDC-CK isn't much better, was cut as soon as F-16s and Mirage 2000s were available, and relied heavily on cooperation with American companies for key systems and the aerodynamics.

Now, Korea and Japan are trying to develop their own stealth fighters. Time will tell if they can manage that. Personally, I'm skeptical.
I was actually referring to Pseudo's earlier statement that if you continually license producing some one else's designs you loose the ability to design your own aircraft . . . which you clearly don't from the examples I've given.

It also didn't seem to stop aerospace companies in Brazil, China or Indonesia either!
 
I was actually referring to Pseudo's earlier statement that if you continually license producing some one else's designs you loose the ability to design your own aircraft . . . which you clearly don't from the examples I've given.

It also didn't seem to stop aerospace companies in Brazil, China or Indonesia either!
High performance fighters seem to be the exception to this though. Plus all this talk of F15s/F16s ignores the fact that a) they are not carrier capable, and b) they both originated as pure fighters. The oh so pretty marketing images of them with lots of mud moving munitions- just how long was it between initial in service date for those aircraft, and those aircraft being able to carry all the weapons shown?
 
High performance fighters seem to be the exception to this though. Plus all this talk of F15s/F16s ignores the fact that a) they are not carrier capable, and b) they both originated as pure fighters. The oh so pretty marketing images of them with lots of mud moving munitions- just how long was it between initial in service date for those aircraft, and those aircraft being able to carry all the weapons shown?
The first variant of the F-16 that was capable of ground attack was the F-16C/D Blk.30/32 which entered service in 1987.
 
High performance fighters seem to be the exception to this though. Plus all this talk of F15s/F16s ignores the fact that a) they are not carrier capable, and b) they both originated as pure fighters. The oh so pretty marketing images of them with lots of mud moving munitions- just how long was it between initial in service date for those aircraft, and those aircraft being able to carry all the weapons shown?
F-15E's had them from the second they entered squadron service
 
High performance fighters seem to be the exception to this though. Plus all this talk of F15s/F16s ignores the fact that a) they are not carrier capable, and b) they both originated as pure fighters. The oh so pretty marketing images of them with lots of mud moving munitions- just how long was it between initial in service date for those aircraft, and those aircraft being able to carry all the weapons shown?
1 )Neither was the F-18 when it first flew alongside the F-16 in 1974!

It was originally a Northrop design called the YF-17 Cobra which was then modified for carrier service for the USN by McD only after the F-16 won the USAF's light weight fighter competition.

2) Neither was the Lockheed F-104, as that aircraft was designed from the out set as a pure supersonic interceptor and only converted to carry air to ground munitions after being sold to NATO and other friendly nations

So your point is invalid.
 

PKDkd33

Donor
Being British myself, I hadn't given it very much thought.

Having an adequate FGR in service with both RAF and RN 15 years before the still inadequate Typhoon
and without the outrageous cost that gutted the other services is quite enough benefit
without taking into account the need for the dog's breakfast of the F-35 A & B mix
(iTTL the savings would pay for the CatoBar version of the new carriers by itself
& getting them earlier too!)

As to other countries, here are my thoughts (FWIW). Without British involvement in any FEFA project,
France, being French and (more reasonably) because they think they need a carrier-based version, will have to go alone
- so still Rafale. And more power to their elbow.

Without Britain & France, Germany cannot go ahead. especially once the Wall falls and Unification begins.
They will delay selection and purchase until the 2000s.
They will probably select either a variant of the Strike Eagle (like Singapore)
or hopefully a Gripen with extra level upgrades (see OTL Turbo Gripen of 1997)
Austria will almost certainly follow Germany

Several more European minnows may take the Viggen or Gripen than OTL,
but US pressure will probably still force late block F-16s on some and the terribly expensive F-35A on others
What are your ongoing concerns about the Typhoon?
 
What are your ongoing concerns about the Typhoon?
Not deployable ... not carrier capable and poor rough field characteristics
Limited weapons load (HALF a F-15E)
STILL not a true FGR .. lacks good weapons
Poor BARCAP performance
Low numbers because outrageously expensive

basically still a Lightning replacement
 
Last edited:
Not deployable ... not carrier capable and poor rough field characteristics
Limited weapons load (HALF a F-15E)
STILL not a true FGR .. lacks good weapons
Poor BARCAP performance
Low numbers because outrageously expensive

basically still a Lightning replacement
It would be fair to say you don't know very much about aircraft generally & nothing at all about Typhoon specifically, wouldn't it??

Of course it isn't carrier or rough field capable - it wasn't designed to be. Nor were the F-15, F-16, F-22 etc. It (and they) also can't hover, operate underwater nor carry three MBTs 3,000 miles.

In the strike role, it carries everything Tornado was carrying when retired and more besides. It's had an A2G capability since 2008 & has been dropping & launching stuff at bad dudes in combat since 2011. All of this can be achieved whilst still carrying a world leading A2A loadout. Oh, and it's also capable of carrying just shy of 20,000 lb of ordnance vs 23,000 lb for the F-15E - which is academic as neither type fly with anything like a maximum loadout in the real, operational world.

It has excellent range & loiter abilities - better than the Tornado F.3 it replaced, which itself was twice as long legged as the F-4 before it. It's pretty much the best in the business, in fact.

I wouldn't call 160 units (in the RAF's case) 'low numbers', either - not with 150 F-35B on the way to lessen the strike burden. there may even be a follow on order on the near term horizon. In the real world - as opposed to the 'I want to push my own agenda' world, it's also no more expensive than the F-18E - and cheaper to operate, too.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, with the multirole Hornet in the pipleline ITTL for the RAF and RN, any calls for the UK to get involved in anything resembling the OTL Eurofighter project will see the instigators shut down so hard by Treasury that their grandchildren will feel it.

Going with the Hornet means that the UK doesn't have to deal with the Germans' workshare shenanigans, which they've already experienced with the Tornado project, which leaves the Germans to deal with the French if they want to build a Eurocanard, and that is seriously getting into ASB territory. As I've said in the past, the Luftwaffe would be more likely to go with the Hornet as well, cutting back on their F4F modernisation program and whatever was earmarked for the Eurofighter in OTL to fund it.
 
Seriously, with the multirole Hornet in the pipleline ITTL for the RAF and RN, any calls for the UK to get involved in anything resembling the OTL Eurofighter project will see the instigators shut down so hard by Treasury that their grandchildren will feel it.
They probably go with Super Hornets (assuming they get developed ITTL). If they don't, they probably buy F-15Cs and F-15Es for the RAF and whatever aircraft the USN buys to replace their own aircraft.


As I've said in the past, the Luftwaffe would be more likely to go with the Hornet as well, cutting back on their F4F modernisation program and whatever was earmarked for the Eurofighter in OTL to fund it.
Ehhhhhh. I think they probably stick with the F4F upgrade then go to Strike Eagles.
 
The Germans are dealing with re-unification at this point and the Soviet Union has just become history. The Germans aren't going to be wanting to spend the money when they have the East German resource sink to deal with.

The UK is already committed to the Hornet, so there is bugger all chance that they'll fork out money for the F-15. The Super Hornet is much more likely, no matter what the RAF want.
 
The UK is already committed to the Hornet, so there is bugger all chance that they'll fork out money for the F-15. The Super Hornet is much more likely, no matter what the RAF want.
Again, depending on if the US develops the Super Hornet in TTL. If they do, then yes, it's the obvious choice. If they don't, the only viable option for a top end multirole fighter is the Strike Eagle.
 
Top