PDA

View Full Version : Eurofighter a dud - London plans to reduce order for obsolescent fighter


Like-minded
13th Sep 2007, 13:47
UK govt trying to cut, delay or cancel Eurofighter Typhoon order - report (http://www.lse.co.uk/politicsNews.asp?ArticleCode=ohmdlpebqun1or3&ArticleHeadline=UK_govt_trying_to_cut_delay_or_cancel_Eurofi ghter_Typhoon_order__report)



13-SEP-2007 08:17

13-SEP-2007 08:17

LONDON (Thomson Financial) - The UK government is trying to reduce, delay or entirely cancel a 5 bln stg order for 88 Eurofighter Typhoon jets from a consortium including European aerospace group EADS and BAE Systems PLC, according to a report.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is in talks with the consortium about how much it would cost to cut the so-called Tranche 3 contract for the aircraft, the Times quoted the chief executive of EADS Defence Systems, Stefan Zoller, as saying.

http://www.lse.co.uk/PoliticsNews.asp?ArticleCode=ohmdlpebqun1or3&ArticleHeadline=uk_govt_trying_to_cut_delay_or_cancel_eurofi ghter_typhoon_order_-_report

Lima Juliet
13th Sep 2007, 20:14
Hoo-bloody-rah! Let's save some money for JSF...

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
13th Sep 2007, 20:40
Do you really believe that any money saved (unlikely) will buy any JSFs?

soddim
13th Sep 2007, 22:33
Hard to believe the assertion that the Eurofighter is a dud.

Word on the street is that it beat the Bugatti Veyron. Not too shabby for a multi- national product.

Razor61
13th Sep 2007, 22:36
Thats the Afghanistan budget sorted then

MrFlibble
13th Sep 2007, 22:44
Britain has already bought 144 of the jets for the Royal Air Force (RAF), but the UK Treasury will not allow the MoD to buy both Tranche 3 of Eurofighter and the Joint Strike Fighter, which will fly from the two new aircraft carriers being built for the Royal Navy, the newspaper quoted unidentified defence sources as saying.


Translation - "You can replace your QRA Tonkas and swing-role ground pounders, or you can have aircraft flying off carriers. Not both.

Cant believe its really come to this. If the budget for procurement was this damned tight, I'll be surprised we've got enough money to fly Spitfires off those carriers if they get built... :ugh:

Melchett01
13th Sep 2007, 23:25
Translation - "You can replace your QRA Tonkas and swing-role ground pounders, or you can have aircraft flying off carriers. Not both.

Cant believe its really come to this. If the budget for procurement was this damned tight, I'll be surprised we've got enough money to fly Spitfires off those carriers if they get built...

Great, so MoD screws up God knows how many projects so that they run so late and eye wateringly over budget, so that we can't actually afford the kit we need.

I suppose it would be too much to ask that those working in the MoD are given a good hard kick in the bollocks every time they screw up and project over runs lead to a little bit more of the country's defence capability being whittled away? After a couple of times of mincing their way down Whitehall to get the train back to their cushy houses in the Shires, they may get fed up and start to do their jobs properly. Just a thought. Well more of a hope really.

If MoD do all their project management based around Prince2, if I were the originator of Prince2 I would be looking to distance myself from this shower of ****e.

L J R
13th Sep 2007, 23:38
More MQ-9 Reapers anyone?

tucumseh
14th Sep 2007, 07:11
Melchett

It’s difficult to point fingers at ordinary sponsors (OR/DEC) and procurers (PE/DPA/DE&S) when those at the top (Ingram, and now Ainsworth) are prepared to place in writing their unqualified support for those who knowingly and quite deliberately waste money, and who uphold disciplinary action against those who refuse to commit such a fraud.

I’ve mentioned before that it would take me 5 minutes to make a case to save £200M on a single (named) project, with no adverse effect. In fact, I’ve done it, and been ignored. The process I used, mandated by PUS, is a legal obligation on all MoD staff, yet has effectively been outlawed by the above Ministerial rulings. I know good people who would rather lie, deceive and commit that fraud simply to avoid the odium they would face for doing their job properly. When you have that sort of conflict at the top, what chance does the ordinary man have? It’s politics. And the pressure from the fallout overcomes otherwise sane and competent people. I believe most in MoD do their best, but inside those cushy homes they have families to feed, and I cannot condemn them out of hand when they know they face the sack for refusing to waste money. In my experience, those who do stick their heads above the parapet are usually close to retirement or terminally ill. MoD ignores them, knowing one way or another they will soon be gone. The only thing that really has to be said to support this is - Dr David Kelly.

D-IFF_ident
14th Sep 2007, 07:39
Who wrote the contract, making it almost water-tight, so none of the other nations could withdraw? Oh, it was the UK.

LowObservable
14th Sep 2007, 07:44
Right you are... the contract was written that way to avoid the syndrome of partners proposing to buy large numbers of aircraft, thereby inflating their share of engineering and manufacturing work, and then scaling back.
But the pain of it is that now - with CVF and JSF committed and locked together - the Govt now announces that it can't afford JSF and Typhoon, and the UK gets JSF, which is slower, shorter-legged and less versatile.

BEagle
14th Sep 2007, 08:10
The question should be whether the country can afford this government.

Maybe on one of his days off from looking after Jockistan, Swiss Des could explain his position regarding TypHoon and F-35?

Melchett01
14th Sep 2007, 08:35
Tucumseh

You are right, it is difficult to accuse those at the implementation level ie mid management levels of screwing up massively. As much as I like a good harrumph at Civil Servants & MoD etc, there are probably very few of them that wake up in the mornings and go to work with the intention of doing a bad job.

The people that really need the kick in the bollocks are the senior policy stream - our so-called high flyers and the Machieavellian Sir Humphry types with their own personal agendas and power games (oh and the contract writers who are just plain incompetent). But I would reserve the biggest kick in the bollocks for the politicians who 'direct' and I use that word in its loosest sense, our defence policy.

tucumseh
14th Sep 2007, 08:47
Melchett

Totally agree.

Chugalug2
14th Sep 2007, 08:53
For those on this thread who are outraged at this threat to the expected fighter aircraft re-equipment of the Royal Air Force, the mechanics of this wasteful incompetence are succinctly encapsulated in tucumseh's post. Read it, study it, and read his previous posts on the Mull, Parliamentary and Panorama threads re Chinook, Hercules and Nimrod compromised airworthiness. In my view his testimony amounts to a damning indictment of the MOD and its political, civil service and military leadership. Now that it is seen to ensnare the "cavalry" as against the "truckers" and the "watchers", who are actually at war, there is a hue and cry raised. Well so be it, but you won't get your precious kit back by stamping your feet. There has to be a root and branch reform of the MOD, and military airworthiness needs to be removed to an independent authority beyond its incompetent malevolent reach. Self regulation has failed here as it always does, and the price is paid in wasted lives and squillions of pounds of tax.

RETDPI
14th Sep 2007, 09:10
Now wait for the inevitable reappearance of the bright spark proposal to transfer the unwanted Tranche 3 across as Hooked Typhoons for the carriers.

Pontius Navigator
14th Sep 2007, 09:31
Middle management is not blameless though.

In a project costing £1bn there are so many noughts that even a £10m saving barely registers.

In one case a senior civil servant - B1 ish - left his briefcase behind.

Someone drove to his office, collected the briefcase, drove to an airfield, delivered it to a Canberra crew, who flew it to a remote Scottish airfield, where it was then delivered to where its owner had wanted it.

In the great scheme of things it was a 'dot' on the accounts sheet. It was a total waste of money because the meeting went ahead anyway and the CS had left.

Now if budgets were devolved so that real decisions on expenditure had to be made at the petty cash end we might get some cumulative savings.

I know the old saw, spend upto or over budget otherwise it will be cut next year. Why not do it on a 'profit' and 'bonus' basis?

Not the "oh he's a jolly good chap, sterling job in adverse circumstances - enhanced bonus, next - "

But "Ah, this team has come in £100k under budget this year. We can afford to pay them a £10k bonus. The £90k can be rolled forward or put into the nice to have pot."

Real saving. Real bonus.

Kitbag
14th Sep 2007, 10:31
Unfortunately if a team comes in 100k under budget the bean counters say, well obviously you didn't budget properly or you deliberately inflated your requirement, therefore we will take the 100k plus a percentage as punishment for being inefficient from next years budget. Maybe a little too cynical but you know what I mean.

Next gripe really is what effect does making 5% year on year savings through efficiencies really achieve? I suspect that there is very little fat that can be pared now without stopping the routine and mundane and essential tasks that used to be done regularly.

Blacksheep
14th Sep 2007, 11:23
Aren't our rulers getting their carts before their horses?

If we can't afford the equipment then we can't commit our armed forces to foreign squabbles. The ill equipped and under resourced troops must be withdrawn from the fray.

Then we don't need Carrier Groups, so we cancel the carriers and the aircraft to go on them, hand the Malvinas over to Argentina and concentrate the RAF's role on home air defence, the navy on protecting the shipping lanes and the army on defending the beaches and landing grounds.

Or else we increase the defence budget to cover the cost of HM Government's committments to supporting and participating in foreign wars.

Lima Juliet
14th Sep 2007, 12:22
Please, please, please can we buy the CTOL/CV version...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/F35ctolstores.jpg

They're even trialling Meteor for it. :ok:

Chugalug2
14th Sep 2007, 12:22
Or else we increase the defence budget to cover the cost of HM Government's committments to supporting and participating in foreign wars


Yes, you'd think so wouldn't you Blacksheep? Unfortunately this government doesn't!

green granite
14th Sep 2007, 12:30
Blacksheep, the term "champagne on a beer income" springs to mind.
Seriously I do think we, as a country, need to very seriously consider whether we can still afford to be a "world power" or not, personally I think, unfortunately, the answer is not.

Archimedes
14th Sep 2007, 13:00
GG - we could afford it if we stopped wasting money... Cut the amount spent on quangos and MoD consultants by 50% each and you'd have £64 Billion to play with, of which a certain amount could be spent on defence/security, etc, etc...

Melchett01
14th Sep 2007, 13:05
Seriously I do think we, as a country, need to very seriously consider whether we can still afford to be a "world power" or not, personally I think, unfortunately, the answer is not

We can quite easily afford to be a world power. However, the fact is that the military is just not a priority. The Govt is quite happy when it comes to forking out millions on benefits for those that can't be bothered to work, subsidising high levels of immigrants that could (and should) be claiming assylum in the first Euro country they get to, spending on wasteful management, quangos and focus groups - not to mention how many billions on consultants for the MoD (whose sole role appears to be to tell us we can't afford the kit we need and that to pay their fees we will have to sell off another sqn / warship / regt).

However, when it comes to spending cold hard cash on the national insurance policy during a time of war, well, we'll be fine. Give the Typhoon fund to McKinsey management consultants for their advice on setting up the Little Snoring on the Wold Single Parent Disabled Lesbian Support Group to help them achieve their potential as Olympic high jumpers...... cos there's more votes there than defence.

How many times have we recently heard politicians opine how it's dsigraceful that we are treated this way and that way and upholding the covenant? How many times have you actually seen them do anything about it? Not so much can't pay - more like won't pay. I rest my case!

Like-minded
14th Sep 2007, 13:16
With all respect, does the Eurofighter have a longer range than the F-35B?

The Lightning II has the highest fuel fraction of all existing American planes, something to the order of .35, because hanging pods will deplete its stealth. That's probably why it does look like a pigeon.

F-35B has a mission range of over 2000 km.
EF has a range of 1390 km, in fact it is famous for being a tad heavy and short legged.


I stand to be corrected. It is obvious that the EF is 15 years too late in any case.

moggiee
14th Sep 2007, 13:23
It is obvious that the EF is 15 years too late in any case.
That's as may be - but at least it's here! The F35 is at least half a decade away from RAF service, if not longer - by which time the Typhoon will be nicely in its stride.

Archimedes
14th Sep 2007, 13:34
LM - why is it 15 years too late?

That sort of line is often used by Typhoon's detractors, but is merely glib assertion without analysis. Do you mean that the capabilities offered by the aircraft are not up to the challenges of the current and likely future operating environments? Do you mean that it's been overtaken technologically by other newer aircraft Why 15 years too late?

Is your range comparison with underwing pylons fitted or not?

Bear in mind that from an RAF (and FAA) point of view, there will be meaningful numbers of Typhoons in service by 2015, while we won't have enough JCA airframes to do anything meanigful with the type until about 2020. What would the RAF do without the Typhoon, given that its aircraft would be increasingly aging platforms with various FI issues?

Given the context in which the RAF is getting the Typhoon (I concur that it's too late, but that's no fault of the aircraft design), why is it '15 years too late'?

Exrigger
14th Sep 2007, 17:14
So the government are saying, its either Tranche 3 Typhoon or Carrier Variant of F35, you cannot have both. Now lets look at a possible scenario:

The Government/MOD are not happy with the F35 that is being built due to technology exchange issues, cost escalation, delays to ISD, now another country has a similar aircraft to Typhoon that can be used on a carrier, Government/MOD ask the Typhoon consortium "can the Typhoon be modified to work off a carrier, how much will it cost and how long to convert a few". Consortium do a feasability study and it can be done at x cost, in y time, which is sooner than F35 and cheaper than F35, maybe we will call it Tranche 3..

So there is a possible reason why it is down to; Do you want F35 for the Carriers, or do you want a Carrier variant of Typhoon (Tranche 3), as you don't need/cannot afford both. Bearing in mind that this only a hypothesis.

Added before the people who have the proper gen start:

I am aware that Tranche 3 is another pre-planned upgrade to current planned capability though these may be rolled into Tranche 2, and various names for a carrier varient have been banded around like Sea Typhoon, Typhoon (N).

lightningmate
14th Sep 2007, 18:25
Like-minded

Would you care to define your 'mission range' capability with respect to F35B.

lm

RETDPI
14th Sep 2007, 18:53
"So the government are saying, its either Tranche 3 Typhoon or Carrier Variant of F35, you cannot have both. Now lets look at a possible scenario:

The Government/MOD are not happy with the F35 that is being built due to technology exchange issues, cost escalation, delays to ISD, now another country has a similar aircraft to Typhoon that can be used on a carrier, Government/MOD ask the Typhoon consortium "can the Typhoon be modified to work off a carrier, how much will it cost and how long to convert a few". Consortium do a feasability study and it can be done at x cost, in y time, which is sooner than F35 and cheaper than F35, maybe we will call it Tranche 3.."

#28 Above


Now see #16 :hmm:

Magic Mushroom
14th Sep 2007, 19:07
EF...is famous for being a tad heavy and short legged.

Famous where? I've never heard that assertion. Bear in mind it is te F-35B that has had weight concerns, not the Tiff.

Tiff in a standard fit with external tanks (let alone conformals if those come along) should have a comparable or greater endurance than a F-35B which, unless they've changed anything recently, has no wet wing points.

F-35B should be excellent and I hope we get it for both the RAF and RN's sake. However, the Typhoon is already proving an excellent and versatile aircraft, well ahead of anything else in service today other than the F-22.

The reality is that we need both, and they each compliment one another effectively.

Regards.
MM

Exrigger
14th Sep 2007, 19:19
Yep saw post #16 , thought I would put in my pennys worth ;) anyway, and now for anyone who might be interested I have add this Link:

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-1.htm

Engines
14th Sep 2007, 22:29
MM and others,

F-35B does have wet hard points. All 3 variants do. Why wouldn't they? All to note - the US are not stupid.

The fact is that Typhoon and F-35 (especially F-35B) are two radically different aircraft sitting in two different design spaces. Typhoon is an out and out air superiority fighter, optimised for high speed, high G sustained combat from BVR to close in. Period. Weight and internal volume is pared to the bone to achieve that - any ground attack capability it has is secondary. With all stores carried externally, it's 'mud-moving' range is severely degraded. But it's a truly excellent fighter - like it was designed to be.

F-35 is a strike fighter, which translates as 'not a bomber'. Small to keep cost down, designed to deliver weapons (especially precision weapons) in hostile environments. Has 'first day' stealth, then the ability to 'mud move' with external hardpoints. F-35B is a powered lift aircraft, which drives its design in large part - but it has a zero minimum flying speed. F-35A is a B with more fuel and bigger bays, F-35C is a B with lots more wing (driven by need to take the wire at an acceptable speed) and even more fuel (big wings have big tanks). But it does also have a good bit more drag and airframe weight to take carrier launch and recovery.

I agree, we probably need both EF and JSF. What we don't need, I believe, is the number of EFs that we have stuck to since SDR - it was always hard to justify, and I would not be surprised if we tried to scale back or cancel T3 to fully fund JSF.

Jackonicko
14th Sep 2007, 23:15
With three OS squadrons of Jags to replace, and UK AD (which was once six squadrons of F3s) seven squadrons of Typhoons ("the number of EFs that we have stuck to since SDR") does not sound like "What we don't need" , nor is it remotely hard to justify, especially not when it's abundantly clear that a GR4 replacement isn't happening either.

With 'Bears' back probing APA9, and with an ongoing requirement for deployable OS/CAS, it strikes me that the Typhoon (whose performance is already proven, and whose cost is settled) will be a useful tool.

If hard choices need to be made, then I'd look elsewhere.

CVF/JSF won't be available for deployed ops for another 11 years, and even then it will be a bloody slow, and cripplingly expensive way of deploying a force whose sortie generation capability will be modest.

And that's if the JSF programme suddenly starts running like clockwork, and if we don't see further technical problems, delays, cost escalation, and if the USA don't continue to bugger us about on tech transfer and ITAR.

In an ideal world, we'd be back to a 24 or 30 squadron FJ force, and naturally that would include a carrier-borne element. But if funding is tight then we need to concentrate resources where they are most useful and most effective.

Archimedes
14th Sep 2007, 23:26
Which, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, is best achieved by not spending pots of cash on consultants rather than on rather more important things. I suspect that JCA and Typhoon T3 would both be affordable if the gross inefficiencies tucumseh notes and the frankly bizarre belief that defence can be run exactly like a business on the FTSE (something that no business types I know consider possible) were done away with...

Magic Mushroom
15th Sep 2007, 07:22
F-35B does have wet hard points.

Engines, I hope you're right. However, I've heard from a couple of sources that, at present, this is not the case.

It won't end with Typhoon either, lets not fool ourselves on this.

Sadly, you're right on this and unfortunately the Army's insistence that anything not involved in Afghanistan and/or Iraq is not relevant is music to the ears of the Treasury. This means we're seeing big reductions in our overall capabilites which I fear will come back to haunt us in the future.

ORAC
15th Sep 2007, 07:51
US Department of Defense: (http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=3246) April 28 2006.

CONTRACTS - NAVY

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Ft. Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $52,400,000 ceiling-priced modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-02-C-3002) to exercise an option to certify the small diameter bomb for the U. S. Air Force Joint Strike Fighter conventional take off and landing (CTOL) aircraft and eliminate the effort for wind corrected munitions dispenser and external fuel tanks. Work will be performed in Ft. Worth, Texas (89 percent); El Segundo, Calif. (6 percent); Orlando, Fla. (3 percent); and Wharton, United Kingdom (2 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2013. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

Squirrel 41
15th Sep 2007, 08:13
The Treasury is not all bad; after all, they are merely the voices of their political lords and masters.

Tuc has neatly outlined one of the problems, Engines et al the other. These are, therefore:

(i) MoD madly wasteful and equipped with a tin ear to solving problems largely of its own making, and

(ii) no political will from any party to signficantly increase military capital spending to recapitalise the forces' equipment as that procured for the Cold War wears out.

If the answer is that we need Tiffy and Dave (and pls make it Dave-C + E-2D + CVF escorts or lets not bother...), then MoD needs to get its own house in order as well as getting the political consensus to spend the cash. 2.2% of GDP is not a huge amount of cash, historically.

S41

Grey'npointy
15th Sep 2007, 11:01
Boys
tranche 2 is not 'ours' anyway - it's going to Saudi (if they sign). Cutting T3 would be a massively short-sighted decision, especially in the current climate of increasing Russian Ops - the Q boys bagged Russians yesterday and loads of Bears have been intercepted over the past couple of months. 2 or 3 Sqns of Typhoons can't to north & south Q, Falklands and dets like the 'Stan. At this rate, standby to have the dear old F3 drawn out to 2015!

Double Zero
15th Sep 2007, 14:56
Archimedes,

If the JSF / Typhoon range comparison was based on a 'no pylons' configuration for the latter, what was it supposed to do whenever it got there ?

As far as I've read, the JSF is 'bearing in mind' the idea of plumbed wet pylons, but initially won't have them.

Archimedes
15th Sep 2007, 16:39
DZ - er... not what I meant. Was the comparison based on Typhoon with pylons (obviously) and JCA without?

Double Zero
15th Sep 2007, 17:01
Archimedes,

Maybe I mis-read your ealier mail, but I thought you were pro- Typhoon - now with the comment about internal weapon carriage ( Something i've always been a great fan of, except for the Harrier which due to engine design doesn't mind what you hang on it ! ) I'm confused as to what you're promoting - certainly on the 'first night of war' being steathy etc I'd expect no pylons etc, on an F-35 - but a busy night on landing for a role change !

The Typhoon will be stuck with pylons & rely on jamming ( where have I heard that before ? ) so if in an allied force will again be at the back of the attacking fleet...

Before anyone says it, I know from chats with people involved that 'stealth' in it's many forms is no magic answer either.

Archimedes
15th Sep 2007, 17:44
DZ - Apologies for lack of clairity.

The point I was attempting to make was based on LM's statement about the JCA's range being vastly superior to Typhoon. I see now that it should have asked:

"Is your range comparison with F-35's underwing pylons fitted or not?"

I was endeavouring to ascertain whether or not LM had considered that factors such as whether JCA had pylons fitted, how many pylons Typhoon had fitted (seven or nine? With what hanging from them?) , etc, etc might have implications for comparing the brochure figures on range that he's referring to. Was his comparison fair, based on that sort of consideration, or a half-baked generalisation based on the LMart brochure?

That was all, but in haste I obviously wasn't as clear as I might have wished. I will admit to be pro-Typhoon in so far as all the info I have from those who fly it and from forward air control types who have done some practice with it suggests that it is an excellent aircraft that will do an awfully good job for the RAF - but we need enough of them. I don't, however, think that it is an all-singing, all-dancing panacea in the way that some spotters in another place I occasionally visit to see how well Jackonicko's faring in the face of their ignorance think that their precious Rafale is...

At the same time, I am equally pro-JSF/JCA. And we need enough of them as well. If we're talking about Typhoon and JCA having service lives of 35-40 years, imposing cuts on either is a bad idea. However, as things stand, it appears that the dear old Treasury will leave the RAF with not quite enough Typhoons before setting about the MoD so that we end up with not quite enough JCA either.

Exrigger
15th Sep 2007, 17:52
Archimedes

However, as things stand, it appears that the dear old Treasury will leave the RAF with not quite enough Typhoons before setting about the MoD so that we end up with not quite enough JCA either.

Add to this, not quite enough carriers, helicopters, Nimrods, A400M's etc etc and it makes you wonder when it will all end in tears.

trap one
15th Sep 2007, 18:01
Archimedes
Quote:
However, as things stand, it appears that the dear old Treasury will leave the RAF with not quite enough Typhoons before setting about the MoD so that we end up with not quite enough JCA either.
Add to this, not quite enough carriers, helicopters, Nimrods, A400M's etc etc and it makes you wonder when it will all end in tears.




But I bet between now and when Dave ? does enter service the Politicians and the Civil Servants will both have had at least enough money in inflationary beating pay rises to pay for both tranche 3 and Dave.
And yes I am Bl00dy cynical and Pi$$ed off with both of them.:ugh:

Biggus
16th Sep 2007, 09:18
Ok, so I might well be 'Mr Thicky', but I have a few points/questions.

According to the link provided on:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=291637

we will only start ordering JSF in any quantities in FY 2014, for delivery in 2016+. Now I'm not sure when we pay for aircraft, when we order then or accept delivery? So when exactly are we going to order/pay for Tranche 3 of Typhoon? I don't know, but would have thought it before 2014/2016! JSF orders/deliveries, and therefore presumably payments, go on until about 2027 according to the link - by which time Typhoon should all be in service!

It strikes me that this is just about saving money period! And the arguement about JSF vs Typhoon is just a typical Sir Humphrey smokescreen!!

Pontius Navigator
16th Sep 2007, 10:02
It certainly shows why CAS was so keen to push Typhoon earlier this year.

having got where it has got it would be foolish to make any decisions before it reaches an initial FOC. I say initial as the FOC will be based on what they thought they wanted. Once it has a FOC then you can be sure that more roles and capablity will become apparent - just need money and political will.

Now if you can neuter the product early enough you can bypass the inevitable argument for capabilty enhancement.

ambidextrous
17th Sep 2007, 09:46
For a good read & plenty of reasons why we should not be wasting our hard earned taxes on Typhoons, JSF, A400M's, antiquated Nimrods, aircraft carriers,etc., buy a copy of "Lions, Donkeys & Dinosaurs" by Lewis Page-ISBN: 978-0-09-948442-4.
Then write to your MP, ineffectual though he/she is to seek the sacking of the MOD procurement branch & the equally ineffectual Service Chiefs.
After that, start pushing for a Combined Defence Force on Israeli lines & get rid of the majority of the upper tiers of moribund Senior Staff Officers along with their inflated salaries/pensions etc.
When you've done that, recruit more "grunts", give them a decent wage, decent boots, body armour, & a new rifle which works every year!:ok:

The Helpful Stacker
17th Sep 2007, 10:12
I can't believe someone has recommended 'Lions, Donkeys & Dinosaurs' as a good read.

The only thing I would recommend it for is stand in duties if your usual soft, strong and very, very long supplies have run out.

Lewis Page stands out proud in a very competitive field as the most chip on shoulder wearing, mis-informed and basically clueless ex-serviceman to have written a 'if I was in charge' type book ever. Quite frankly I felt I soiled my own eyes just reading the tripe although I'm glad I did as it allows me to speak with some authority on the contents of his comic, an advantage I have over those who apparently read it, are serving members of the Armed Forces over 17 years old and still believe its a good read.

BEagle
17th Sep 2007, 12:28
So, what effect will the 72 EuropHoons flogged to Saudi at £4.43 billion have on this decision........

tonyosborne
17th Sep 2007, 12:47
Cancelling the most advanced variant of Typhoon is surely going to be a backward step, a Tiffie with full strike capability will be more effective than a Tornado GR4 in terms of payload especially, while in close air support.
Typhoon's persistance will be nowhere near matched by the JSF unless the MoD buys the SDB. Bear in mind, development of the VTOL F-35B is far from a satisfactory stage, the engine, gearbox and vertical lift system is so complex, its questionable whether the technology will be mature and reliable enough for shipborne operations. There are still far too many questions over JSF, whereas Eurofighter is ready to go, and will shortly get its chance to be proven. Hopefully the Saudi order will knock down the price per airframe for the MoD to re-think this idea. :ugh:

lightningmate
17th Sep 2007, 15:10
Just a gentle reminder that the F35B, operationally, has a STOVL capability, not VTOL. VL may also be a bit of a 'missing link' operationally unless basic weight can be reduced, and/or thrust at both ends can be increased.

lm

trap one
17th Sep 2007, 15:21
IMHO
In the present conflict's we need a capable platform NOW, with time on station and accuracy. For the treasury to tell MOD that Tranche 3 is not possible due to budget, should be combatted by CAS, et al telling Mr Brown that the RAF PLC can't support Army PLC.
As for binning the most capable variant, as I understand it the capability of full A-A and A-G is software implimentation along with trials, testing and training by the OEU/OCU.
Bit then again when have shortages stopped politicians deploying troops?:ugh:

radicalrabit
17th Sep 2007, 15:24
M.R.C.A ? (Tornado) Military Requirements Come Afterwards... all starting to sound like we have been here before with our not state of the art flying hardware doesnt it?

PTR 175
17th Sep 2007, 16:04
I do not see NETMA allowing the UK to pull out and pay off its contract just like that. The workshare was/is based on the number of aircraft purchased. The UK government would have to in theory also compensate company such as EADS, Ellectronica etc. for taking work from their share. It probably would cost the same as having them if not more to cancel T3

hulahoop7
17th Sep 2007, 16:14
Can't the Saudi sale be used as an offset to the T3 buy? I understand it was a government to government deal.

airsound
17th Sep 2007, 16:24
Saudis to buy Typhoon aircraft
17 Sep 07

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/SaudisToBuyTyphoonAircraft.htm
airsound

Exrigger
17th Sep 2007, 16:24
The workshare was/is based on the number of aircraft purchased. The UK government would have to in theory also compensate company such as EADS, Ellectronica etc. for taking work from their share. It probably would cost the same as having them if not more to cancel T3

Thats why the Germans are still in, some years ago the German government decided to see if they could pull out of the contract but it was going to cost as much to come out as it would to stay in, I believe they are happy now that they did stay with the aircraft. Allthough I think the Austrian Typhoons are actually from their 'quota'.

Pontius Navigator
17th Sep 2007, 17:09
FWIW, IMHO, it is a good deal selling Tranche 3 to the Saudis.
We needed the Typhoon yesterday and we need it today but we do not need it tomorrow. The day after tomorrow, OTOH, is when we might need it.
In other words, lets get tranche 2 up to speed and into operations. Once it is more mature, once we know how much attrition replacement we need, then is the time to order tranche 4.

For sure we will need the Typhoon in years to come but we would be better off with next year's model than stuck with last year's one.
The longer the production run the better.

Or looking at what Archimedes says about Austria:

The saudis would be happy as they get Typhoon sooner. The UK Govt are happy as they can defer a purchase and CAS will be happy if he gets all his Typhoons by the time he is telling everyone he needs them - 2025

Archimedes
17th Sep 2007, 17:14
The new Austrian govt decided that it wanted to pull out of buying Typhoon but then changed its mind when the cost of doing so was pointed out.

AIUI, they compromised so that they now receive some Tranche 1 ex-Luftwaffe aircraft. The Luftwaffe is happy, since it gets the Tranche 2 aircraft that would have gone to Austria and ends up with about a dozen newer airframes; the Austrians are happy since they don't spend quite as much and Eurofighter is happy because they sell the aircraft. Or something like that, anyway.

hulahoop7
18th Sep 2007, 09:10
If the Saudi deal was government to government, doesn't that mean that the UK is selling its own Tranche 2s? Therefore we appear to be getting more tranche 3's?

Surely if this is the case the UK government could offset the Saudi purchase against the UKs contracted amount.

Phil_R
18th Sep 2007, 13:33
My attitude to this, knowing only as much about it as Jane's Defence Weekly can tell me, is that you'd be far better off getting whatever airframes you can and gaffer-taping the bombs on at a later date if it turns out that's what's required. Cancelling multi-billion military orders always seems to waste huge quantities of money, and in the current climate I'm shocked anyone in the RAF would be interested in turning down aircraft - on the basis that if you refuse these, the money probably won't magically become available for other things.

Phil

Wrathmonk
18th Sep 2007, 13:37
Phil

No probably about it!:(

Mr-AEO
18th Sep 2007, 13:47
Hulahoop. I suspect you are onto something there. Given that the Salam deal has been used to fund some of our current activity, somehow the money must be flowing into UK MOD rather than straight to BAe. Seems a bit odd, but I'm sure that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation.....

hulahoop7
18th Sep 2007, 14:25
I'm guessing there is some fine print in the contracts which even prohibits resales...

I actually think we should get the lot.. but only if the procurement budget is increased to the point where £20bn isn't such a huge proportion. If not something has to give.

ORAC
18th Sep 2007, 14:34
If the Saudi deal was government to government, doesn't that mean that the UK is selling its own Tranche 2s? Therefore we appear to be getting more tranche 3's? Surely if this is the case the UK government could offset the Saudi purchase against the UKs contracted amount. No, Eurofighter has explicitly stated that the Saudi order cannot be offset against the UK order.

After the first 24, the remaining aircraft will be assembled in Saudi, so if they replaced the RAF order that would mean the Warton production line would have to be shut down. Now think like a Labour MP, keep the UK Typhoon line open in place of JSF orders, or shut it down to keep LM workers in work in Fort Worth?

The Times: (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article2441602.ece) ....."Stefan Zoller, chief executive of EADS Defence Systems, which is part of the Eurofighter consortium, said that the MoD was negotiating with the aircraft’s manufacturers over how much it would cost to cut the Tranche 3 order........

The MoD is working on a compromise that would enable it to count 72 Typhoons that it is about to sell to Saudi Arabia as part of its 88 commitment. However, Mr Zoller insisted that the Tranche 3 contract was firm and that this was not an option. “The Saudi order will be on top, not instead of Tranche 3,” he said.

Jetex Jim
18th Sep 2007, 14:40
The MoD is working on a compromise that would enable it to count 72 Typhoons that it is about to sell to Saudi Arabia as part of its 88 commitment. However, Mr Zoller insisted that the Tranche 3 contract was firm and that this was not an option. “The Saudi order will be on top, not instead of Tranche 3,” he said.

Gosh I wonder if that means that the RAF will get to have three Typhoon bases?
Conningsby, Leuchars and Leeming perhaps

oops that should say:
Gosh I wonder if that means that the RAF will STILL get to have three Typhoon bases?

hulahoop7
18th Sep 2007, 14:53
Unless it is in the contract I can't see what difference it makes to Eurofighter what the UK does with its tranche 2s. Particularly the 24 constructed here.

It certainly spreads the cost of Typhoon over more years. I'm guessing we will be receiving more tranche 3's so won't need to pay for them till later. Unfortunately this isn't going to help much as the later years must already be starting to fill up with things like Trident 2, helicopters, C1,2,3

Rob_1707
18th Sep 2007, 16:41
@Hulahoop7: It would directly reduce Eurofighter GmbH's order book and Eurofighters are not built in each country in their totality, the Saudi ones will be built in the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy, final assembly for the first 24 will be in the UK however.
The contract by the way apparently forbids resales or counting exports as a partner country's purchase, I can't see the UK reducing it's order at all.

Mr-AEO
18th Sep 2007, 18:37
If that ends up being the case, how does the MOD get any money out of the deal? Or does it all flow to BAe?

soddim
18th Sep 2007, 20:26
I suspect that all the oil flows to BAE with MOD in the wings as umpire or accountant, if you like. So the MOD is used by the government to provide profit to BAE from the arms sale to a country constantly under the microscope for human rights issues.

Trust the government's guarantees on the UK banks - really, I'd rather assume the tanker's airborne!

ambidextrous
19th Sep 2007, 11:21
AEO-Of course it all goes to BAE, squillions & squillions of taxpayers money straight to BAE shareholders!
In return, BAE deliver obsolescent kit, overweight & overbudget, which almost invariably doesn't work as advertised. Remember Tornado F.3, Nimrod AEW, SA80 mark one etc
You want it to work?, Yes, we can arrange that Sir, just pay squillions & squillions more for a product improvement programme.
Meanwhile, the Army are short of CAS, Helicopters which work & Transports which can reliably get their troops in/out of operations/leave on time.
with fraternal greetings, ambi :ok:

Like-minded
19th Sep 2007, 12:11
I don't see how anyone can argue that EF is an obsolescent dud.

Based on useful life.
Based on cost.
Based on friendly competitors.
Based on existing tech.
Based on projected enemies.
Based on multi-role capabilities.
Based on funding for futher upgrades.

The F-35 will fly rings around it, designed to at least have the same agility as the F-16, but super-stealthy while the EF gropes its way around, overweight and short-legged.

The EF will be the sidekick to the advanced F-35, not the other way round, only appearing after enemy defenses are suppressed. Otherwise they can fly around in safe Europe intercepting Bears and Cessnas.

All the range numbers I posted are no-tanks, but the F-35 has 700 km more range.

In tests, no matter which aircraft go up against each other, the results are always the same when the pilots are equipped with modern HMS. Both kill each other regardless of aircraft type. The superior supersonic agility of the EF - I'm not sure what it's really for!

Stealth and avionics of the F-35 will be so much superior.

The Helpful Stacker
19th Sep 2007, 12:23
BAe are a business not a charity. MoD employees who write such easy to wiggle out of and vague contracts are the culprits for poor kit, as are the folk who start changing requirements/specifications when the kit is in production without considering the ramifications from a contractual point of view.

Oh and to be fair, the 'SA80 Mark 1' was manufactured by Enfield Royal Small Arms Factory who later became Royal Ordnance Plc who in turn were brought out in 1987 by BAe, 2 years after the SA80 series had entered service with the British Army.

Wrathmonk
19th Sep 2007, 12:23
Like-Minded

Don't deny the F35 will be superior - but when will it be in service with the UK armed forces? 10 years minimum and if you refer to a previous thread from ORAC more like 15+ before we have decent numbers where we are able to train and deploy operationally in parallel. So what do we do before then? Make the most of what we've got I would suggest. Not the ideal soloution but at the end of the day cancelling Typhoon will cost as much to HMG as proceeding with the order. No Typhoon cash to put into other much needed projects - its already been spent. And Typhoon will, very soon [if not already], be far more capable than the F3 and the Jag (the airframes it was designed to replace).

Not following the party line that Typhoon is $hit so expecting incoming.:E

The Helpful Stacker
19th Sep 2007, 12:26
I don't see how anyone can argue that EF is an obsolescent dud.


I don't see how you can expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when so obviously have an axe to grind.

You're not one of those Grippen/Rafale groupies are you?

Boldface
19th Sep 2007, 12:29
The superior supersonic agility of the EF - I'm not sure what it's really for!

That says everything about your qualification to speak on this subject LM.:rolleyes:

cornish-stormrider
19th Sep 2007, 12:31
My highly limited experience of yphoonte was that is was in a different league to the f3, if the JSF is 10-15 years down the line and we need something now what do we do. Ask Mr Put-theball-in to sell us some Migs??

If you buy a car, soon enough a better model comes along. What do you do, walk until the better model comes out them buy it?? six month down the road another one comes out and what do you do then??

Don't blame BWOS for all of it, share the load to HMG, MOD, the Airships (god bless 'em) and the stupid fat hobbits that wrote the contract.

Like-minded
19th Sep 2007, 13:41
There is no reason for UK to receive F-35Bs so late when it will achieve IOC in 2011 in the US. The only hold-back is the funding, so that's sort of a self-inflicted wound right there.

I suppose the EF would use tactics similar to the F-16, concentrating on gaining an advantageous position at high transonic or low supersonic speeds, boom and zoom, but the problem is that this will not stop an ultra-agile modern WVR missile shot up the tailpipe aimed off-boresight by HMS. The F-18E uses its superior nose pointing ability to pump missile after missile at an F-16 doing its characteristic 90 degree full bank left or right or zoom climb after merge.

sorry if I don't get the terms properly, I'm not English or American.

Postman Plod
19th Sep 2007, 14:10
Not French are you? :}

Backwards PLT
20th Sep 2007, 11:32
Like minded

I was just reading Janes Defence weekly - normally a fairly accurate publication and it says that F35B has a combat radius of 503nm (800km). This doesnt really agree with your 2000km range figure, even when doubled. Also it has a 7.5g limit and no internal gun - something the Typhoon got ridiculed and lambasted for (quite rightly in my opinion). These figures dont really fit in with your ultra-agile F35B picture. Have I missed something?

If you want to push F35B I suggest you stick with its biggest strength over Typhoon/Rafale etc and that is "stealth". There is other avionics stuff, but that is currently unproven/planned capability that Typhoon could claim as well for Tranche 3/4/whatever.

The Helpful Stacker
20th Sep 2007, 14:41
How much relevance is stealth in the future? As new technologies are invented technologies to counter them are too.

Isn't comparatively cheap IRST/FLIR proving a thorn in the side of of this expensive stealth technology?

Modern Elmo
20th Sep 2007, 14:56
Isn't comparatively cheap IRST/FLIR proving a thorn in the side of of this expensive stealth technology?

Nope, passive infrared devices can't see much too farther than visual range in humid and/or dusty air. Active infrared radar has less range than microwave radar in any atmospheric conditions. ( Microwave wavelength radar -- that which is commonly called "radar." )

Radar stealth affords low observability at distances beyond passive electro-optical sensor or eyeball range. Radar stealth is what one needs for successful 21st century air to air bvr combat.

Let me ask this rhetorical question: why do longe range air interdiction missiles use radar guidance instead of IRST/FLIR?

The Helpful Stacker
20th Sep 2007, 15:00
Let me ask this rhetorical question: why do longe range air interdiction missiles use radar guidance instead of IRST/FLIR?

Isn't that mainly due to the maturity of the base technology?

Ok, whilst IRST/FLIR may not be the correct counter I'm sure my initial comment is true enough, ie: as one technology is invented someone invents one to counter it. Surely its only a matter of time before the stealth technology that the F35B will employ is countered and its all back to square one again (well at least against a 1st world foe)?

Like-minded
20th Sep 2007, 15:14
Golly, I'm not French, I'm a colonial.

The range of F-35B is not conclusively known, but at the very least, we know that it is possible that it will have a longer range than the EF, despite being a VSTOL fighter.

Furthermore, with the addition of beam weapons on the F-35A and F-35C, the natural agility of the EF is eroded even further. At the moment they have gotten a laser to fire up to 10 km range with effect and are miniaturizing it to fit into the forward fan space of the B version.

There is no plane fast or agile enough to escape the speed of lasers, eh.

Furthermore, the AESA radar of the F-35B, which is already into the fourth generation AESA for the Americans, is known to be a comprehensive weapon.

When it comes to space age **** like this, I don't doubt the Americans.

Archimedes
20th Sep 2007, 15:22
LM - put the spade down and step away from the hole...

The range of F-35B is not conclusively known, but at the very least, we know that it is possible that it will have a longer range than the EF, despite being a VSTOL fighter.

Anything might be possible. It is possible that the Pope will renounce his position in order that he might marry Kylie Minogue; it is, however, a tad unlikely.

Furthermore, with the addition of beam weapons on the F-35A and F-35C, the natural agility of the EF is eroded even further. At the moment they have gotten a laser to fire up to 10 km range with effect and are miniaturizing it to fit into the forward fan space of the B version.

How is agility eroded, unless the DEW is in a turret? If it'll 'fit in the fan space of the B version' (what happens to the fan?), then it'll be possible to fit it to Typhoon.

Furthermore, the AESA radar of the F-35B, which is already into the fourth generation AESA for the Americans, is known to be a comprehensive weapon.

That, with respect, is meaningless gibberish and ignores the fact that Typhoon will, in due course, have AESA.

Like-minded
20th Sep 2007, 16:36
Er, it won't fit into the EF, because the US will never ever share that tech.

The natural agility advantage of EF, I mean.

Show me a working AESA of EADS or Dassault, and I'll sell you a bridge over River Helmand.

Archimedes
20th Sep 2007, 17:24
If the US won't share the technology, then it means that as far as the RAF is concerned (and, one would hope the Austrians, Italians, Germans and Spanish at least) then the 'threat' is irrelevant, since unless we've fouled up spectacularly in the old special relationship, we're not going to be attempting to avoid DEW shots from F-35s.

And while European AESA may not be at full functionality now, by the time F-35 comes into UK service then unless something has gone wildly amiss, there will be one (unless you're adopting the arrogant view that only the US is capable of developing a functioning AESA radar).

Your argument is that the RAF shouldn't buy T3 of the Typhoon because of the 'failings' you mention, yet none of them actually stack up. Your argument might have some validity (a) if the timescale for JCA and T3 were parallel, but they're not and (b) if the UK finds itself at war with the US within the next 20 years.

McDuff
20th Sep 2007, 18:25
Furthermore, the AESA radar of the F-35B, which is already into the fourth generation AESA for the Americans, is known to be a comprehensive weapon.
When it comes to space age **** like this, I don't doubt the Americans.
I would be ready to doubt them, LM. I have found several instances where they pull the wool, either through ignorance or deviousness. I have worked quite closely with them and there are wide variations in their capabilities and understanding. When I was operating the APG68, the RWR in the same ac was pretty useless; but that capability was taken as state-of-the-art by the operators and their tactics tailored accordingly. The UK's kit is pretty good, really, and what we lack in technology we generally make up for with good training and practice.
It's a great pity that the F35 vs Typhoon discussion has become an argument from the 1960s: whether the UK needs floating ac carriers or a fixed one. Both the RN and the RAF seem to be fighting for survival, each trying to maintain a size of fleet that is sustainable as a separate service. The current's Government's SDR in 1997 was supposed to provide strategic direction, but since it was reneged upon with in months of its inception, has done nothing of the sort. So both services are fighting over a steadily reducing pot of cash with, it seems, little basis in what the requirement is.
McD

Melchett01
20th Sep 2007, 19:13
The range of F-35B is not conclusively known, but at the very least, we know that it is possible that it will have a longer range than the EF, despite being a VSTOL fighter.

Until it comes into productive service, the F35's longer range than the EF is purely theoretical and of no practical use whatsoever ...... Let me see, do I want a range of X miles now or should I wait 10-15 years for a jet with range 2X miles? Well, I would hazard to suggest that the troops on the grd in AF would be more than happy to take the EF with its X range next year rather than wait for the F35's 2X range.

Plus, the way things are panning out and given the likely future strategic priority for UK Plc being AF rather than IZ, I would think that the EF's range is plenty enough to get from KAF or KAIA down to Helmand with enough ordnance to do some landscaping.

Rob_1707
20th Sep 2007, 20:07
Ah, if my information is correct the MoD makes money out of the deal by taking a "brokerage fee" of around 1% of contract value, if the much quoted 20 billion pounds are correct for the whole deal the MoD should net around 200 million pounds.

As for European AESAs, there are lots currently working, CAESAR, RBE2, Vixen and ARTS spring to mind, none of them are operational but until the F35 comes along they pretty certainly will be in operational service.

Magic Mushroom
20th Sep 2007, 23:21
Show me a working AESA of EADS or Dassault, and I'll sell you a bridge over River Helmand.
Please see below the first Typhoon Captor AESA Radar (CAESAR) undergoing bench testing. Flight testing begins in a test Typhoon this year I believe and conservative estimates suggest it should be available for retrofit in Typhoons by around 2012.
http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s127/Magic_Mushroom_photos/CAESAR.jpg
Please see below the RBE2 AESA as fitted to Rafale and in service NOW.
http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s127/Magic_Mushroom_photos/RBE2.jpg
Top tips: know what you're talking about before engaging in debate.:rolleyes:

Finally, how much do you want for the bridge over the River Helmand then?:rolleyes:

Regards,
MM

glad rag
20th Sep 2007, 23:47
Nailed !!

Archimedes
21st Sep 2007, 00:12
Ah, but he'll claim that the Rafale' AESA is still being worked up, hence my reference to full functionality. QinetiQ have a GR4 that is trialling the very same sort of radar.

However, it has since occurred to me that there's another small point LM has overlooked in his claims, namely that the US Coast Guard has gone for an AESA for its HC-130s - Seaspray 7000E, which (whisper it gently) is a decidedly non-American product...

Rakshasa
21st Sep 2007, 00:21
Show me a working AESA of EADS or Dassault, and I'll sell you a bridge over River Helmand.
The Woofers have asked me to tell you that their Bridge is not for sale.
However, if you ask nicely, they'll sell you some of the goat ****e they've tramped across it. :E

The Helpful Stacker
21st Sep 2007, 00:24
Damn, imagine that. A non-american designing and building something Gucci.

Next you'll try telling me it was some backwards European person who came up with the concept of radar.

Green Flash
21st Sep 2007, 00:25
and I'll sell you a bridge over River Helmand
Sorry LM, you're a bit late with that one, too!
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/1Combat_Engineers/bridgebuild2.JPG

Magic Mushroom
21st Sep 2007, 08:13
Ah, but he'll claim that the Rafale' AESA is still being worked up, hence my reference to full functionality.
Like most in service AESA, I'm sure the RBE2 is still looking to develop some modes and roles, but Rafale has already deployed on ops with it. Something the USAF have yet to do with their own AESA equipped F-15s and F-22, and have only just done with their FA-18E/F. However, he'll probably come out with some new chimping to argue that the European AESA doesn't count!:hmm:
I noticed a little snippet in the aviation press recently which also suggested the B-2 AESA replacement for the M-Scan APQ-181 has been significantly delayed due to technical problems. So LM's assertion that the US are so wonderful with AESA is also questionable.
Ironically, the first nation to field an AESA was Russia, with the MiG-31 Foxhound.
MM

Jackonicko
21st Sep 2007, 09:40
RBE 2 is a PESA, and while the French have flown an AESA (two AESAs if memory serves) on Rafale, they are not in service, but are merely ahead, but not much further ahead than Euroradar, who have now flown CAESAR extensively on the QinetiQ 111, and on Eurofighter DA5.

But nor is US AESA technology much further ahead - and this claim that JSF has 'fourth generation AESA' is barking.

The USAF has 18 AESA F-15s, which are useful, but which still have limitations.

The USN has AESA Super Hornets but still can't deploy the AESA birds operationally (or has only just done so if something has changed in the last weeks).

The only in-service AESA that is working well is that on the F-22.

I'm not surprised that LM highlights AESA, since without a helmet and without a decent datalink, there aren't many examples of great advanced technology from the USAF's in service example of a 5th Generation fighter.

Archimedes
21st Sep 2007, 10:47
MM - yes, yes Rafale may have been on ops with it, but that doesn't count under LM rules. If it's not making nice latte because some modes are still being developed (I'm basing this on a chat I had with an Adl'A chap last month - I may have made up the bit about latte...), then it's not working as the designers intended and it therefore doesn't work, and we've failed to prove our point. We must try harder to obtain the bridge!

Moose Loadie
21st Sep 2007, 13:05
The UK's kit is pretty good, really, and what we lack in technology we generally make up for with good training and practice.

Disagree completely. We are given C@*P kit, which, we the people on the front line make work. This is not only true for the RAF but all of the services. Sometimes I feel we should just say no every now and then. Why are we given kit that isn't fit for purpose??? To keep European jobs that’s why. I don’t care who makes it, just give us kit that works and is reliable. Please for crying out loud stop spending money on stuff we don’t need, i.e. hundreds of typhoons and buy something that really is needed, i.e. helicopters and airlift.
Sorry for the rant.........:ugh:
Moose

Boldface
21st Sep 2007, 13:17
Disagree completely. We are given C@*P kit, which, we the people on the front line make work.

That, with respect is somewhat of a generalisation. I agree with the need to avoid the default setting of supporting the UK and European defence industry, but plenty of our kit is very good.

Finally, exactly why don't we need Typhoon?

Like-minded
21st Sep 2007, 14:32
oh my, a load of CRAB types and pilots sniffing up my arse, but I've just done a kulbit and and am doing a 6-G dive, inverted, cockpit to cockpit....

The Rafale radar is not working. The RBY2 is a pathetic dead end machine, which is why Rafale is selling like a flying anvil. Word is, Morrocco will buy 36 used F-16s for 1.4 billion euros than shell out another billion or so for the French turd holster...

And with the arguments on here, it's like all of you are padawans to the ultimate Daft Lord - Jackonicko, who's making an absolute ass of himself on Keypubs forums.

The EF AESA is not working. And it does not even have as many capabilities as the APG-77, which will soon be superseded by the 80, which is said to have three times the range of any AESA radar existing, according to an AF commander.

Please be serious, any medium sized country has a flying AESA, mainly of AWACS type, the Swedes have it, even the Chinese have it, the difference is whether it is fighter portable, and whether even the Pakistanis, who are generally of the beggary type, would accept it (which they didn't for the Chinese AESA, which looks like it's made in Detriot, nuff said).

The 80 is a true 4th gen AESA, able to direct energy attacks against opposing aircraft and sort out their avionics like Millwall types working over mouthy Spurs fans after Suds Sunday.

And I cannot believe some mealy mouthed fella is actually dissing the F-22, the plane that an astonished RAAF exchange pilot said that he could put a missile on even though he sees it outside his cockpit, and couldn't see on radar at whichever range, and which is known in aerophile circles to be loafing around in airshows but still putting on a spectacular display. Once in a while, the pilot gets bored, and pulls a 10 G right 180 degree bank and turn in something like 2 seconds, it's on Youtube...

Any the bridge, it's just been polished, and with the high tracked traffic, me thinks you can levy a nice toll for that one...

Boldface
21st Sep 2007, 14:58
LM

I am intrigued. What actually is your military experience? Are you a contractor? Because I have to say you are in danger of knocking WEBF off the 'Talks complete rubbish' PPRUNE table.

How, pray tell can you tell that an F-22 is pulling 10g (:rolleyes:) from a video?

You strike me as a somewhat sad walt trawling the pages of You-Tube. You certainly have very little understanding of what you're talking about.

Like-minded
21st Sep 2007, 15:09
Nice to see that you've called me a walt based on one point, Sir Walter Mitty.

Of course I don't know its 10G. It would have been 9 or close to it, or more than it, who knows? It is mere inflection meant to pound in the fact that the F-22 is not flying at the edge of its envelope during its spectacular air displays, which is astonishing considering the many other things working for it.

The EF looks only like a jaunty kite in comparison...

Moose Loadie
21st Sep 2007, 15:10
Finally, exactly why don't we need Typhoon?

Didn't say we didn't need it but do we really need the quantity that are on order. Again, even arguing over the merits of Typhoon vs. JSF seem ridiculous to me when the people who really need the investment are the SH and AT/AAR guys.

Archimedes
21st Sep 2007, 15:21
'Blame' Land for the lack of SH funding - they hold the purse strings there. We need something to replace the F3, and we will need something to replace Tornado, unless you're advocating we become a niche capability air force by 2025.

Might I suggest that we could, in fact, invest in both T3, JCA, SH and AT if the MoD stopped spending £2.3bn per year on consultants and that it would be far better to argue that we need all the capabilities rather than do the usual 'let's make the treasury happy that it's still dividing and ruling amongst the services' arguing over what to cut. I put ' ' around 'blame' above, since they have to make very awkward funding choices thanks to government parsimony and suggesting fault isn't entirely fair, IMHO.

LM - the three billy goats gruff will be over that bridge shortly and you can resume proper trolling duties there.

Moose Loadie
21st Sep 2007, 15:29
Might I suggest that we could, in fact, invest in both T3, JCA, SH and AT if the MoD stopped spending £2.3bn per year on consultants and that it would be far better to argue that we need all the capabilities rather than do the usual 'let's make the treasury happy that it's still dividing and ruling amongst the services' arguing over what to cut.

I'll agree with that.

Magic Mushroom
21st Sep 2007, 15:48
I notice you have avoided answering Boldface's question though LM.

What do you do? What qualifies you to speak on these subjects? What relevant military experience do you have? What military experience of any sort do you have?

You're being called a walt for several reasons. You stated the F-35 will have the same g capability (not frankly that that is all that relevant) as Typhoon. You are incorrect.

You intimated the Europeans didn't have a working AESA. You were proved incorrect and now attempt to create smoke and mirrors.

You've suggested Typhoon is too heavy yet proved no evidence to support that assertion.

You make sweeping statements about air-air tactics yet admit you do not understand the relevance of supersonic manoeuvering.

You ascribe 'death ray' type capabilities to AESA EA.

You state neither CAESAR nor RBE2 are working yet fail to explain how you are qualified to make such bold statements, nor why they ar not working.

You incorrectly state that 'most' medium sized nations have AESA.

You talk about an F-22s airshow performance as if it relevant to operations.

And you wonder why you are being called a walt?

Please answer the following questionsdirectly:

What is your profession?

What military experience do you have?

I await with interest.

MM

Tim McLelland
22nd Sep 2007, 00:54
I would think anybody would accept that no matter what the criteria, we certainly don't need the F-35, nice though it would be. Common sense would suggest that it would be far better to "navalise" a final batch of Typhoons (especially when BAe have repeatedly said that it can be done fairly inexpensively) and forget about another whizz-bang jet that, in practical terms, offers the RAF and FAA absolutely nothing of any practical value which can't be achieved with Typhoons. Okay, you can drift into Air Forces Monthly-esque fantasy trips about what weapons can be carried or what g can be pulled, blah, blah, but let's be realistic here - unless the Typhoon is already considered to be obsolescent (and it would seem that for the first time in its history the RAF has actually got a fighter that actually isn't *gasp*) then I do find the slightly misplaced eagerness for the F-35 quite comical.

As Engines outlined on Page2 of this thread, the Typhoon and F-35 are indeed very different aircraft but not sufficiently different to convince any self-respecting bean counter to accept that there's a good case to buy more than we need of either type, especially when (as has been said repeatedly) HM Forces are woefully short of many other assets which are arguably just as (or more) important. You only have to look back through the pages of PPrune to see that we all saw this coming for a long time. Even our beloved cousins across the Atlantic have started to appreciate that there comes a point at which the endless quest (usually encouraged by industry for very obvious reasons) for more advanced weaponry starts to look a tad pointless when there's scarcely enough money to finance what is already available.

I suppose that, based on the lessons of history, the final outcome of this saga will be illogical, bewildering and vaguely sad, no matter what happens, and will doubtless be based on the considerations of political spin-doctoring, regional and national employment figures, and the relative voiciferousness of assorted MP's, Air Chief Marshals and Admirals, and ultimately have very little to do with brochure performance figures.:rolleyes:

McDuff
22nd Sep 2007, 05:16
Disagree completely. We are given C@*P kit, which, we the people on the front line make work. This is not only true for the RAF but all of the services. Sometimes I feel we should just say no every now and then. Why are we given kit that isn't fit for purpose??? To keep European jobs that’s why. I don’t care who makes it, just give us kit that works and is reliable. Please for crying out loud stop spending money on stuff we don’t need, i.e. hundreds of typhoons and buy something that really is needed, i.e. helicopters and airlift.

ML you're right, we are given poor kit, but some of it is good and we shouldn't automatically consider everything the US forces get is good. Or that they can use it properly: I saw some real buffoonery by F15E crews in northern Iraq not too many years ago

I worked in OR for a couple of years, then in Air Plans, and we do buy stuff because someone else says to to do rather than for the OR and because it's right. But Typhoon is good, and we do need some. We have already come down from 244 and lower would be a bad plan. Of course we need more choppers, but that's just for the present scrap and it might not be so for the next.

McD

BEagle
22nd Sep 2007, 06:40
"....especially when BAe have repeatedly said that it can be done fairly inexpensively....."

Riiiiggggggghhhhhhhhhttttt............:hmm:

Since when has 't Bungling Baron ever done anything 'inexpensively'?

Magic Mushroom
22nd Sep 2007, 11:02
I would think anybody would accept that no matter what the criteria, we certainly don't need the F-35, nice though it would be.
I think there'd be VERY few people, certainly within the Armed Forces, who think that TM.
Common sense would suggest that it would be far better to "navalise" a final batch of Typhoons (especially when BAe have repeatedly said that it can be done fairly inexpensively) and forget about another whizz-bang jet that, in practical terms, offers the RAF and FAA absolutely nothing of any practical value which can't be achieved with Typhoons.
What utter hoop. The LAST thing common sense suggests is a Sea Typhoon is either viable, cheap or effective in the role. We'd end up paying more to BAe for a tiny batch of UK only aircraft.
Regards,
MM

PS. Surprise surprise! I notice we're still awaiting LMs explanation as to how he his qualified to comment on modern combat aircraft and tactics.:rolleyes:

Tim McLelland
22nd Sep 2007, 12:05
Beagle you have a valid point, and I'm sure that despite BAe's claims that a "navilisation" programme wouldn't be that difficult or expensive, it would doubtless turn-out to be another fiasco, but that's another argument entirely!

Magic Mushroom you're welcome to disagree of course but I think your view is also (as you put it so politely) "utter hoop". As I already mentioned, procurement decisions such as this one have a nasty habit of having very little to do with military expediency and much more to do with politics. And as I also said, you can wrap yourself up in projected performance figures until you go blue in the face, but the Whitehall bean counters might not see things in quite the same way. In essence, they're being presented with a choice between buying more Typhoons than we need (if you accept the argument that the RAF could ever have more aircraft than it needs, which personally I don't) and being unable (or unwilling) to also fund the F-35, or buying more Typhoons and abandoning the F-35. Ultimately, in broad terms, there really isn't much to choose between the two aircraft, at least not in terms of the UK's Armed Forces being able to get the job done (whatever the job might be), so it comes down to the relative costs of continuing or cancelling either type. In this respect, it may well make much more sense to "navilise" Typhoons rather than embark upon procurement of a completely different aircraft type.

You might disagree MM but that's your prerogative - it doesn't mean you're right though;)

glad rag
22nd Sep 2007, 12:30
Does the fabled "stealth" capability of non US F-35's match those of the USA?.

100%

OR

almost but missing that important final little piece??????

Tim McLelland
22nd Sep 2007, 14:29
But this presupposes that stealth capability is important. You could start a completely new thread discussing the merits (or otherwise) of Britain spending money on stealth;)

Magic Mushroom
22nd Sep 2007, 21:59
TC,
As I already mentioned, procurement decisions such as this one have a nasty habit of having very little to do with military expediency and much more to do with politics.

I agree totally.

And as I also said, you can wrap yourself up in projected performance figures until you go blue in the face, but the Whitehall bean counters might not see things in quite the same way.

I'm not wrapping myself up in figures. My own view is that the F-35 will in some areas (eg avionics and obviously LO) be far superior to the Typhoon. However, I don't think it'll be quite the same panacea as some think and it seems clear to me that navalising Typhoon is a non-starter.

Firstly, it'll be such a small production run as to prove very expensive. Secondly, the structural and FCS mods would be costly, risky and erode key areas of Typhoon's current excellent performance. History suggests that navalising a land based aircraft rarely works.

Clearly, the F-35 is still immature and still faces some problems, political and technical. However, F-35B or C offers the best solution for UK maritime air power. If it fails, I suspect that a lease of FA-18E/F would occur until a UCAV capability could be obtained.

I would also agree regarding the importance of LO being overstated. However, as more nations potentially purchase capable double digit SAM systems, the need to operate in very high threat areas during a conventional conflict will probably see it's importance increase.

Other than that, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree!:ouch:

Regards,
MM

Like-minded
23rd Sep 2007, 01:08
Tim, you're an absolute rookie. A neophyte. The greenest tree in the most virgin forest would laugh at your posts.

>>I would think anybody would accept that no matter what the criteria, we certainly don't need the F-35, nice though it would be. Common sense would suggest that it would be far better to "navalise" a final batch of Typhoons (especially when BAe have repeatedly said that it can be done fairly inexpensively) and forget about another whizz-bang jet that, in practical terms, offers the RAF and FAA absolutely nothing of any practical value which can't be achieved with Typhoons.

Except that the UK carriors don't have catapults, and unless you want the "analised" Typhoons to land and never take off again, it is no option.

Furthermore, navalising an aircraft, if it is suitable in the first place, which the streamlined Typhoon is not, adds thousands of pounds to the undercarriage and landing gear. The Russies tried what you think you know, adding a sling to the back only and hoping for the best, and watched silently as the front fuselage of the Mig-29 serenely detached itself from the rest of the shrieking caught aircraft and sailed down the runway before disappearing with a human scream off the front of the shop.

>>Okay, you can drift into Air Forces Monthly-esque fantasy trips about what weapons can be carried or what g can be pulled, blah, blah, but let's be realistic here - unless the Typhoon is already considered to be obsolescent (and it would seem that for the first time in its history the RAF has actually got a fighter that actually isn't *gasp*) then I do find the slightly misplaced eagerness for the F-35 quite comical.

The F-35, go read the clues, will be simply astonishing and simply a step and in many cases many steps up from the EF. It is impossible now for example to add the sensors that F-35 would have without adding massive weight to EF and affecting its centre of gravity. F-35 was designed from the bottom up as a true 5th gen multi-role naval fighter, the EF was a air superiority fighter now clipping on lots of weird ****.

>>As Engines outlined on Page2 of this thread, the Typhoon and F-35 are indeed very different aircraft but not sufficiently different to convince any self-respecting bean counter to accept that there's a good case to buy more than we need of either type, especially when (as has been said repeatedly) HM Forces are woefully short of many other assets which are arguably just as (or more) important.

Nuts!

>>You only have to look back through the pages of PPrune to see that we all saw this coming for a long time. Even our beloved cousins across the Atlantic have started to appreciate that there comes a point at which the endless quest (usually encouraged by industry for very obvious reasons) for more advanced weaponry starts to look a tad pointless when there's scarcely enough money to finance what is already available.

You need more advanced weaponry because the big players are all going stealth, and unless in a mere 75 years you want to move from the most advanced aerotech industry to being totally obsolete, a la muskets in front of further shooting rifles, siege cannons in front of basilisks, you would have to invest.

Like-minded
23rd Sep 2007, 01:14
MM,

what is my flying experience? How come I post such good posts? Well, just let me say one thing, Chuck, I knew Chuck well. He can be my no. 2 any time.

>>I'm not wrapping myself up in figures. My own view is that the F-35 will in some areas (eg avionics and obviously LO) be far superior to the Typhoon. However, I don't think it'll be quite the same panacea as some think and it seems clear to me that navalising Typhoon is a non-starter.

In most areas actually. It has the stealth signature of a metal golf ball while keeping its bombs warm and toasty inside its trembling body.

>>Firstly, it'll be such a small production run as to prove very expensive. Secondly, the structural and FCS mods would be costly, risky and erode key areas of Typhoon's current excellent performance. History suggests that navalising a land based aircraft rarely works.

Not really, just that it would be massively expensive and no one else would buy it.

>>Clearly, the F-35 is still immature and still faces some problems, political and technical. However, F-35B or C offers the best solution for UK maritime air power. If it fails, I suspect that a lease of FA-18E/F would occur until a UCAV capability could be obtained.

The F-35 won't fail. It's already met or surpassed every performance targets out there without the yet but coming benefit of removing 2 thousand pounds of weight in a slimming programme, and will benefit from a lot of the advances in F-22, which has turned out to be the big boy of aviation.

>>I would also agree regarding the importance of LO being overstated. However, as more nations potentially purchase capable double digit SAM systems, the need to operate in very high threat areas during a conventional conflict will probably see it's importance increase.

The Syrians had Tor-M1 and S-300 batteries and the Israeli using a good flight profile and good EW silenced them completely before bombing a few bunkers flat in the far side of Syria.

Why won't people see that Russian SAM systems are more hype than reality, although dangerous? I still remember that day in 1991...

Archimedes
23rd Sep 2007, 01:37
Ah. So you are a pathetic walting troll, then, as well as being more ill-informed than JFK when he observed on 22 Nov 63 that Dallas was a mighty friendly place that he'd visit again.

Just a small word of advice so when you re-engage after a swift ID change you won't make such schoolboy errors. The CVF is - as almost every single article written on the thing in the past few years tells you - designed so that it can be fitted with catapults. If the JCA were entering UK service at the time HMS Queen Elizabeth is due to join the fleet, there'd be no earthly technical reason why the ship couldn't be fitted with catapults to operate the CTOL variant had we chosen it.

And I have to say that I just love the way in which you're trying to tell one of the RAF's leading exponents of EW that he doesn't know what he's talking about...

Maple 01
23rd Sep 2007, 09:10
Why won't people see that Russian SAM systems are more hype than reality,

Really? I take it you've flown against them for real to prove this, rather than read something in the ABC book of aeroplanes or played a bit of F-15 Strike Eagle

Magic Mushroom
23rd Sep 2007, 09:15
LM,

I agree that the F-35 programme won't fail, although I still think there is a small chance the B could get chopped.

However, who is Chuck?!!:confused: If you mean Chuck Yeager, I'd suggest that little of his operational experience is of relevance today.

I ask you again to answer 2 simple questions:

What is your profession?

What military experience do you have?

Nevertheless, I give you one thing. You're brightening up PPRUNE with your comedy posts!:}

Archie, if you're talking about me, I'm flattered!

Regards,
MM

Squirrel 41
23rd Sep 2007, 09:17
Maple 01 you beat me to it!

L-M, I'm sure that the air forces of the world would be delighted for you to lead them into an Tor-M1 and S-300 notso-Super MEZ and demonstrate just how straightforward it is. :E

And since you're so happy to take on "S-300", I presume this means any one of GRUMBLE, GLADIATOR / GIANT or GARGOYLE - or all at once. :hmm:

After you Mate! :ok:

S41

(PS, do pls drop us a line on PPrune after you get back and tell us how you got on!! :E)


edited for spollink

Squirrel 41
23rd Sep 2007, 09:22
MM,

Interested that you think that Dave-B could yet be binned. Is this on the basis of technical failure or simply cost?

If cost, the cynic in me wonders if there's a deal to be done with RR / UK PLC to keep F136 running for Dave A and Dave C in return for binning Dave B. :confused:

Thoughts?

S41

Magic Mushroom
23rd Sep 2007, 09:31
S41,

I think it's a slim possibility, but not one that should be ignored. The USN have argued that the B will not be able to integrate efficiently into their carrier cycles when embarked a la USMC FA-18C. The USMC seem to be stiff arming this relatively successfully, partly by arguing that the UK rolling vertical landing (RVL) concept will offset such obstacles.

Longer term though I'm not sure USMC fixed wing is as viable as some think and I could see their fast air absorbed into the USN; I believe that their Hornet sqns are already included in USN deployment schedules.

Obviously, this would raise questions about assault carrier air wings, but USMC AV-8B dudes seem frustrated that they're often treated very much as a sideshow to the rotary assets anyway.

Finally, the USAF seem to have moved away from plans to purchase some B models in their own F-35 buy.

Again, I think it's a slim possibility but one that could still occur. Hopefully, I'll be proved wrong.

Regards,
MM

Squirrel 41
23rd Sep 2007, 13:05
MM,

Many thanks for this - what's your view on whether we should opt for Dave-C and cats and traps on CVF or stick with the STOVL / RVL option? With your handle, I presume that you'd prefer E-2D over a helicopter / compound helicopter design? Grateful for your insights.

Regards,

S41

edited for hitting "send" too soon....

Navaleye
23rd Sep 2007, 15:51
They will still need something to fly off these. So I can't see the USMC binning Dave B.

http://www.defense-update.com/images_new/lha-6.jpg

Modern Elmo
23rd Sep 2007, 20:44
Typhoon "Shot Down" (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a41e657d9-a715-45de-80fa-73989d7f5645)
Posted by David Axe (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/community/persona/index.jsp?newspaperUserId=145295&plckUserId=145295) at 9/21/2007 4:39 AM

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/21/dogfightfake_d7.jpg Back in July I relayed reports of the first-ever "shoot-down" (http://warisboring.com/?p=387) of an F-22 Raptor fighter, during a mock dogfight with a U.S. Air Force F-16. Our European friends -- Brits, Italians, Germans and Spaniards -- might have had a couple chuckles at the news, for their new fighter, the Typhoon (http://www.ausairpower.net/typhoon.html), had never suffered a similar humiliation. (Or if it had, no one had reported it.)

No longer. It has come to light that during an exercise (http://www.skycontrol.net/photography/philip-stevens-reports-on-this-years-spring-flag-exercise-decimomannu-sardinia-may-7-25-2007/) in Italy in May, a Hungarian Gripen light fighter -- a small, single-engined design generally considered only slightly better than an F-16 -- "shot down" an Italian Typhoon, according (http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/SuccessStories/070918_hungary.htm) to a press release from the manufacturer, quoting a Hungarian pilot:“Other aircraft couldn’t see us -- not on radar, not visually -- and we had no jammers of our own with us. We got one Fox 2 kill on a F-16 who turned in between our two jets but never saw the second guy and it was a perfect shot. Our weapons and tactics were limited by Red Force rules, and in an exercise like this the Red Force is always supposed to die, but even without our AMRAAMs and data links we got eight or 10 kills, including a Typhoon. Often we had no AWACS or radar support of any kind, just our regular onboard sensors –- but flying like that, ‘free hunting’, we got three kills in one afternoon. It was a pretty good experience for our first time out.”Should F-22 jocks worry? Maybe, according (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1818077.stm) to the BBC, which claims that the "RAF's Eurofighters have flown highly successful missions against the F-22 during recent exercises in the U.S."
The lesson here? Sometimes a basic fighter, expertly flown, will win even against your latest high-tech jets, no matter how many tens of billions of dollars you sink into whiz-bangs.
(Thanks, DID!)

Comments(1) (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a41e657d9-a715-45de-80fa-73989d7f5645) | Permanent Link (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a41e657d9-a715-45de-80fa-73989d7f5645)
Tags: hungary (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewTag&plckTag=hungary), italy (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewTag&plckTag=italy), gripen (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewTag&plckTag=gripen), typhoon (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewTag&plckTag=typhoon)
Email this post (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a41e657d9-a715-45de-80fa-73989d7f5645#)Recommend (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a41e657d9-a715-45de-80fa-73989d7f5645#none)

Report Abuse (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a41e657d9-a715-45de-80fa-73989d7f5645#none)

Report item as: (required)X (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a41e657d9-a715-45de-80fa-73989d7f5645#none)
Obscenity/vulgarity Hate speech Personal attack Advertising/Spam Copyright/Plagiarism Other
Comment: (optional)


http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/no-user-image.gif (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/community/persona/index.jsp?newspaperUserId=155848&plckUserId=155848)Airpower (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/community/persona/index.jsp?newspaperUserId=155848&plckUserId=155848) wrote:
Your lack of knowledge regarding the Gripen system is quaint, but embarrassing. Even an A-model jet – with its AMRAAMs, datalinks and PS-05/A radar – has the technology edge on every F-16 except perhaps a Block 60.

The Hungarians fly C/Ds and the most important point in this story is that they were limited to Red Air tactics, and therefore unable to exploit any of their technological or tactical advantages.

And they still did OK.

It’s a bit foolish to make too much of the loss of a Typhoon (or an F-22) in an exercise like this…and no details are given of just how this kill was achieved. The point of any exercise is to die. Sometimes.

However, anyone who dismisses a Gripen like it was some sort of MiG-21 is going to find themselves dying rather a lot.

Oh, and this wasn’t the first reported exercise kill of a Typhoon. Just the first you read about in a press release.

9/23/2007 12:39:15 PM
Recommend (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a41e657d9-a715-45de-80fa-73989d7f5645#none)
Report Abuse (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a41e657d9-a715-45de-80fa-73989d7f5645#none)


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a41e657d9-a715-45de-80fa-73989d7f5645

Archimedes
23rd Sep 2007, 20:55
ME - not quite sure I see your point. Are you having a bash at the Typhoon or highlighting for Like-Minded the fact that having a technologically superior aircraft doesn't guarantee success all of the time? (as the F-22 driver who appeared in some less-than-flattering HUD footage from a Super Hornet demonstrated).

Magic Mushroom
23rd Sep 2007, 21:40
S41,
I'm fairly sanguine about whether we get F-35B or C. C is undoubtedly the better aircraft. However, B offers the potential for greater versatility in operations from coalition decks and/or austere airfields. I think the most convincing argument regarding STOVL is that RAF aircrew could reinforce CVF decks with very limited famil/currency training. Cat and trap carries far greater overheads in maintaining RAF currency, and therefore reduces Joint flexibility in times of crisis. All the vibes regarding RVL are good, and there appears to be no shift in the long stated UK preference for STOVL. Whichever type we get, it'll be a good jet. But I think if I were to throw my hat in any ring now, it would be STOVL (just).

With reference to MASC, I'm actually not in favour of the E-2D. E-2D will be a very different beast to the E-2C 2000 but in many regards the Searchwater 2000 is still a superior sensor. The only limitation of the ASaC sensor is that it's mounted on a hugely limited airframe.

In a perfect world, an 'EV-22' Osprey with the mission system from the SKASaC would be my choice. Realistically however, unless the USMC fund such a development (which the USN E-2D community will likely block to avoid funding diversions) that isn't going to happen. In that case I'd opt for a Merlin with compound wing and the same sensor. No this wouldn't be able to support a CVF strike but I can't think of many circumstances where C2 would not be conducted by land based platforms such as the E-3 or 737 AEW&C. So let's take a less expensive rotary MASC option designed around securing CVF defence and 'bespoke' other tasks such as that offered by the SKASaC. A compound wing Merlin ASaC with maybe 4 mission crew (possibly including a flt deck dude) would overcome the majority of the Sea King ASaC7s current airframe limitations.

The money saved could be plumped into what will always be the C2 option of choice, AWACS, and a CVF J2/J6 infrastructure to support the strike wing. Far too many people are concentrating on MASC when in reality, the J2/J6 aspects are more important to the overall CVF package given the primacy of land based C2 assets.

I know many will disagree. But that's my opinion.

Navaleye,

They will still need something to fly off these. So I can't see the USMC binning Dave B.

I think that you're probably right. However, I've even heard some USMC AV-8 guys state that they can see the next generation of assault carriers being for rotary only. I just seriously doubt the long term viability of a seperate USMC fast air capability. With the increasing integration of their FA-18s and EA-6Bs into CAG deployment schedules, and USN resistance towards the B model, I can't see the USMC having fast air beyond 2020.

Regards,
MM

McDuff
24th Sep 2007, 04:42
Modern Elmo, I had a look at the cockpit and performance of the Gripen after a tour on F16s (Blocks 30/32) and I regarded the cockpit as pretty horrid and the performance OK. Since the F16 has AMRAAM capability and is pretty "Low Observable" unless carrying reflectors, I would regard it as a pretty even fight; but there's no accounting for expertise or luck ...

McD

Squirrel 41
24th Sep 2007, 06:52
MM,

Many thanks for your detailed and informative post. Not being an AEW type, my thoughts on MASC were based around radar horizon and the performance of the airframe - as well as being able to support strike missions a la E-2 (various).

As for J2/J6 cooperation, I couldn't agree more!

Best regards,

S41

Foghorn Leghorn
24th Sep 2007, 12:34
L-M is correct in certain areas

OCCWMF
24th Sep 2007, 13:33
MM,

I thinks that LM meant Chuck Norris......

http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/

Boldface
24th Sep 2007, 14:36
L-M is correct in certain areas

Looks like LM has re-registered!:D

Like-minded
24th Sep 2007, 14:44
My profession, MM my dear electrician, is distributor of Mig parts, nothing less.

This poster is at the tippiest end of the spear tip, first in, 3rd out (after the pair of Block 40 Wild Weasel guys who bank into SAMs doing the equivalent of ****** signs and thrusting their hips).

Who here has not quietly sipped a latte from a thermos at 50 feet AGL and your half-up helmet expressionlessly reflecting a thousand flaring oil fires?

Who here has not clambered out of a cockpit at first light with holes in the stabiliser, nothing in the tank, and tossing your head to be rid of helmet hair?

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.

The problem with F-22 comparisons is that the USAF is so fanatically proud of the plane that foreign powers never get to see it in full-go mode, they usually fix radar reflectors on the fuselage, little knob like things.

The EF is designed to be the furball fighter par excellence, able to take the first BVR shots at high speed and altitude and then mix it up with the best. Rather good, except (a) the necessary upgrades have been slower than sludge (b) it aims to achieve air superiority through attrition, not full spectrum dominance.

It is the ultimate 4th gen fighter in a 5th gen world, the little bird who's late for the prom. Fine bird though.

Off to slap at some volleyballs.

Boldface
24th Sep 2007, 14:53
Priceless!!!!!!!!!!!

Like-minded
24th Sep 2007, 14:56
Asking a warfighter to explain the technical efficiencies of Russian SAMs is pointless. If they understood all the math in the first place, they'll be flying loads of plastic cocks out of Hong Kong.

If you have carefully observed Russian weaponry in the last 7 years, the time when their economy begins to stabilize, you could see that they are taking the mickey out of their customers, under testing weapons (Bulava anyone), reengineering 80's eras weapons (which are supposed to receive the upgrades anyway in a perfect Soviet world) and calling them new, opting for iterations that take less time instead of new engineering, and showing an increased interest in stealing and co-developing avionics and user friendliness, finally recognized by them as not their long suits.

The Russians are in a rush to refinance their arms industry and they are not afraid to take shortcuts. Unless I am in the Axis of Evil, I would be very wary of buying Made in Russia. Even Ukraine is wary of buying Russian.

Unless I am China, who has no friends and the few aquaintances I have have an uncanny unfailing tendency to turn into ****holes - Burma, Sudan, Pakistan, to name just a few.

The Helpful Stacker
24th Sep 2007, 15:01
I quite like the arrival of L-M.

Its not often I feel knowledgeable on a site so full of true professionals in the field of military aviation but he has changed that a little.

Boldface
24th Sep 2007, 15:08
I wonder if his care home nurses know he's got access to a computer! Still, at least he's not hanging around outside schools!

LowObservable
24th Sep 2007, 16:04
LM...

<<The F-35 won't fail. It's already met or surpassed every performance targets out there without the yet but coming benefit of removing 2 thousand pounds of weight in a slimming programme>>

Fascinating observation. And here we are, all thinking that the weight reduction was needed in order to meet the bring-back KPP. And naive us, not realizing that an aircraft could meet or surpass all its performance targets without demonstrating one of them in flight tests.

LowObservable
24th Sep 2007, 16:08
"MM my dear electrician"

LM must be Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged.

Foghorn Leghorn
24th Sep 2007, 18:59
He is definately correct in certain areas

engineer(retard)
24th Sep 2007, 19:12
FL

You are not wrong:

"tossing your head to be rid of helmet hair?"

Much better than picking it out of your helmet with a pair of tweezers.

regards

retard

Foghorn Leghorn
24th Sep 2007, 21:17
Or get Vanessa Dobos to do it!:E

Magic Mushroom
24th Sep 2007, 21:22
LM/FL (because I assume that you're one and the same:hmm:),

You are the saddest and most amusing troll I've ever seen post on PPRUNE!

Take care out there on the tippiest bit of that spear!!!:rolleyes:

Regards,
MM

LowObservable
25th Sep 2007, 13:18
definately [sic] correct in certain areas

Then he should go to those areas before he tries to type a post.

Foghorn Leghorn
25th Sep 2007, 18:25
Nope Magic Mushroom, I am not L-M thank you very much.

Regards

FL