SPAIN: Typhoons and F-35's to replace Hornets???

Spain's new Eurofighter purchase is going ahead.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... ect-halcon

Spain's new Eurofighter purchase is going ahead.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... ect-halcon

This just supports the earlier article. That said they would replace the replace Hornets based on the Canary Islands with 20 more Typhoons. While, leaving the door open to replace the remaining Hornets with the Super Hornet or F-35.....


Sounds like that may very well be the plan.

This just supports the earlier article. That said they would replace the replace Hornets based on the Canary Islands with 20 more Typhoons. While, leaving the door open to replace the remaining Hornets with the Super Hornet or F-35.....


Sounds like that may very well be the plan.

A country with an active assembly line of fighter jets, buying a foreign fighter? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it's not going to happen.

I'm not even sure the Spanish navy will get to keep flying fast jets in the future, when the Harriers is out.

From what I've read sounds like the Air Force is pitching a mix buy of Typhoons and F-35A's to replace the Hornets. While, the F-35B would replace the Harriers for the Navy.

As for the F-35 not competing in price and ground attack. That is laughable and not supported by fact....

I have heard rumours too, but they are all under tight budgets. There's talks of whether they should maintain the navy air wing even, although it's unlikely to happen.
The F-35A is more expensive to operate (per hour cost) and carries less ordnance than the ground attack Typhoon. It is not likely to be chosen because of cost.

The F-35A is more expensive to operate (per hour cost)

The Danes during their evaluation and competition completely disagreed with you.

and carries less ordnance than the ground attack Typhoon. It is not likely to be chosen because of cost.

Really??

Show me a Typhoon being able to carry 24 x SDBs or 6 x GBU-31 (2000lb) bombs...

Sounds like a trick request. Did the EF even qualify JDAM?


It's not exactly weight restricted.

Sounds like a trick request. Did the EF even qualify JDAM?


It's not exactly weight restricted.

Those are 1,000 lbs Paveway II variants known as the "Mark 13/18".........

The F-35A/C can easily carry six GBU-31's (2,000 lbs) and even go "supersonic". Your not even going to see a Strike Eagle do that........

Its not like Typhoon hasn't tested Paveway II, III, and JDAM. The UK opted for their Paveway IV.

The F-35A ... carries less ordnance than the ground attack Typhoon.

The issue was this quote, which was demonstrably false. It wasn't an LGB/JDAM argument, it was the "less ord" argument. the ability to carry 8x250# class weapons AND 4x2,000#class weapons AND 4xAAMs AND the targeting equipment AND the ECM AND the fuel to get them over a long range. IIRC the Typhoon only has three pylons rated for 2,000# class ord, and those are the fuel pylons.

The impressive part of that Tiffy picture is the 6x1,000# class precision weapons AND 6xAAMs. It is just lacking the targeting equipment.

Sounds like a trick request. Did the EF even qualify JDAM?


It's not exactly weight restricted.

Those are 1,000 lbs Paveway II variants known as the "Mark 13/18".........

Absolutely!

The F-35A ... carries less ordnance than the ground attack Typhoon.

The issue was this quote, which was demonstrably false. It wasn't an LGB/JDAM argument, it was the "less ord" argument. the ability to carry 8x250# class weapons AND 4x2,000#class weapons AND 4xAAMs AND the targeting equipment AND the ECM AND the fuel to get them over a long range. IIRC the Typhoon only has three pylons rated for 2,000# class ord, and those are the fuel pylons.

The impressive part of that Tiffy picture is the 6x1,000# class precision weapons AND 6xAAMs. It is just lacking the targeting equipment.

Absolutely as well!
At best the Typhoon can carry 3 x 2000lb ordinance/bombs which is exactly half the F-35A/C maximum capability with the same type of ordinance and then again if the Typhoon carried those three (3) potential 2000lb ordinance/bombs this would be done at the cost of not being able to carry a targeting pod at all which in the case of the Typhoon is usually carried on the centerline fuselage pylon.

Speaking of which where's the targeting pod in the Typhoon's photo above with the 6 x 1000lb LGBs??

This argument that many 4/4.5 Generation Fighters can carry a larger external load than the F-35. Is not supported by the facts. Especially, in the context of payload vs range!


As most 4/4.5 Generation Fighters have to carry at least 2-3 External Tanks to have any range at all. Then the weight of the former has to be taken away from the maximum payload (gross weight) that the aircraft can lift. Which, reduces it by a considerable margin. Nor, does this take into account. The far higher drag from carrying all of the external weapons and fuel outside the aircraft.


This is why even the Strike Eagle doesn't compare well with the F-35A/C.

The F-35A ... carries less ordnance than the ground attack Typhoon.

The issue was this quote, which was demonstrably false. It wasn't an LGB/JDAM argument, it was the "less ord" argument. the ability to carry 8x250# class weapons AND 4x2,000#class weapons AND 4xAAMs AND the targeting equipment AND the ECM AND the fuel to get them over a long range. IIRC the Typhoon only has three pylons rated for 2,000# class ord, and those are the fuel pylons.

The impressive part of that Tiffy picture is the 6x1,000# class precision weapons AND 6xAAMs. It is just lacking the targeting equipment.

What's the range of the Typhoon with those 6 - 1,000 lbs PGM's and 6 - AAM's. With just a single centerline fuel tank???

Less than 590nm I'd wager.

Less than 590nm I'd wager.

Is F-35A rated at 590nm carrying six 2000-pound class weapons? I would assume two AIM-9X, too.