Why retire Typhoon type 1 jets ?

[MolaKule]

Looks like the RAF generals wants to retire the certain Typhoons, but why now if upgrades are available.?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...phoon-jets-protect-Britain-attacks-Putin.html

 

[Cujet]

Seems like the right thing to do with looming conflicts....

 

[edyvw]

Looks like the RAF generals wants to retire the certain Typhoons, but why now if upgrades are available.?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...phoon-jets-protect-Britain-attacks-Putin.html

Pushing MP’s through public to open valet.

 

[GON]

I think the United Kingdom has a significantly greater threat from China than Russia. Planning and taking actions to defend against China is where I would be spending defense dollars. And I would also be looking at how to mitigate against loss of products that are exclusively produced in China or Taiwan.

 

[wpod]

I think the United Kingdom has a significantly greater threat from China than Russia. Planning and taking actions to defend against China is where I would be spending defense dollars. And I would also be looking at how to mitigate against loss of products that are exclusively produced in China or Taiwan.

The biggest threat that there is , is from their politicians, government employed and their military.

 

[Kira]

Maybe the UK will have a 'Lend Lease" program with Ukraine? (historical sarcasm)

 

[barryh]

Guys,

The Daily Mail is not what we would call a serious or reliable newspaper. We don't generally believe much of what it says and whatever element of truth there is in that story, will be greatly exaggerated.

They ran the story 16 hours ago and so far no other news channel seems to have picked it up so I won't be worrying about it until a more reliable source covers it.

 

[Audiman]

You would think that the chancellor would increase defence spending though. If parliament wants the jets kept then they should find out what the cost is to upgrade, maintain and deploy the jets over the next 5 plus years and give the RAF the funding to do so.

The UK armed forces are and have been under funded for too long.

 

[Astro14]

The Typhoon was decades late in reaching service. It’s a decent airplane, but the performance has been surpassed by newer jets.

The UK has a severely constrained defence budget. They spend about 2% of GDP (one of the few NATO countries to honor that commitment) but the net result is about $60 billion USD. Less than 10% of what the USA spends.

They have several expensive programmes - and not enough money to pay for all of them.

Their Defence White Paper priorities have shifted. The Typhoon is a good airplane, but not as relevant as it once was to their estimate of future defence needs.

They have shifted to prioritizing the ability to project power. The Typhoon isn’t the best platform for that given basing options.

So, it gets axed to save £…

 

[burbguy82]

The Typhoon was decades late in reaching service. It’s a decent airplane, but the performance has been surpassed by newer jets.

The UK has a severely constrained defence budget. They spend about 2% of GDP (one of the few NATO countries to honor that commitment) but the net result is about $60 billion USD. Less than 10% of what the USA spends.

They have several expensive programmes - and not enough money to pay for all of them.

Their Defence White Paper priorities have shifted. The Typhoon is a good airplane, but not as relevant as it once was to their estimate of future defence needs.

They have shifted to prioritizing the ability to project power. The Typhoon isn’t the best platform for that given basing options.

So, it gets axed to save £…

and replaced with what?

 

[Astro14]

and replaced with what?

Not really a matter of “replaced” as much as “we are spending the money on higher priorities”.

They have built two carriers. Bought F-35. Fielding new Type 45 destroyers.

Power projection is more of a priority than air defense.

 

[edyvw]

and replaced with what?

There are newer versions of Typhoon. But, it is an airplane that was never known as, to put it simplistically, “good bang for a buck.”
For years there are talks about 5th generation aircraft that would be built by same countries that participated in Typhoon project. Now that might happen, but, AND THIS IS BIG BUT, EU countries have to invest much more in defense, and that means cutting other programs. Other programs and their popularity is the real issue there.

 

[burbguy82]

Now that might happen, but, AND THIS IS BIG BUT, EU countries have to invest much more in defense

I suppose this is getting close to a political debate, but, they should. One respect to this issue, whereas some think that they should pay for their own defense, more directly, is that if the USA provides most of it, then it leaves the other country in the pocket of the USA. Better to have your friends weak, is what I am trying to say. I suppose both situation have their merit.

 

[burbguy82]

Power projection is more of a priority than air defense.

In your experience, do you find this to be a good move?

 

[edyvw]

I suppose this is getting close to a political debate, but, they should. One respect to this issue, whereas some think that they should pay for their own defense, more directly, is that if the USA provides most of it, then it leaves the other country in the pocket of the USA. Better to have your friends weak, is what I am trying to say. I suppose both situation have their merit.

American power projection in Europe is MUCH cheaper than alternative.
The old saying (coined by Zbigniew Brzezinski) about NATO role is to keep US in, Germany down and Russia out.

 

[burbguy82]

MUCH cheaper than alternative

Than making them pay for their own, or watching Russia steamroll over Europe?

 

[edyvw]

Than making them pay for their own, or watching Russia steamroll over Europe?

It is not that simple. It is not whether Russia is going to “steamroll “ which is fantasy anyway considering Russian economy and demographics, but inter European rivalry, old nationalistic goals etc. It is fine balance between not enough spending (NATO standard is 2% of GDP, but more importantly, 20% of budget spent on new acquisition) and too much spending. Whatever happens there CANNOT avoid us here. It never did, and won’t happen for sure in 21st century.

 

[burbguy82]

It is not that simple. It is not whether Russia is going to “steamroll “ which is fantasy anyway considering Russian economy and demographics, but inter European rivalry, old nationalistic goals etc. It is fine balance between not enough spending (NATO standard is 2% of GDP, but more importantly, 20% of budget spent on new acquisition) and too much spending. Whatever happens there CANNOT avoid us here. It never did, and won’t happen for sure in 21st century.

ok

 

[dubber09]

Than making them pay for their own, or watching Russia steamroll over Europe?

And why would Russia do that? They would lack resources to keep occupied land in check, gain no extra resources but extra headaches.

 

[burbguy82]

And why would Russia do that? They would lack resources to keep occupied land in check, gain no extra resources but extra headaches.

I would rather not get into a discussion over this on this site, at least in public forum, as I think it might be against the rules. I was asking a question as opposed to make a statement.

I do agree with your geographical and logistical argument though. If you would like to discuss this topic further, IM me, thanks.