Typhoon news or already covered in other topic?

[Longhitter]

Came across this in the NY Times international edition:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/business/global/12fighter.html?ref=global

LH

[VinRouge]

Julie Parry, a spokeswoman at the Ministry of Defense, confirmed that British Defense and Finance Ministry officials had met to discuss the Eurofighter project on Monday.
“There might be a decision over the next couple of days,” Ms. Parry said, adding that a payment for the third of the three installments “has been stalled.”
The possibility that London might cancel its order for 88 more jets provoked a warning from the British aviation industry over damage to the country’s military capacity and a “brain drain” of technology engineers.


Sounds as if the coffers are bare (with bank bailouts and MP expenses).

Chances for A400M to see service in the RAF?

[JackRyan]

I thought I read recently that the penalty payments would cost more than just going ahead and buying this tranche... in which case, surely the most cost effective solution would be buy the ac then sell them at whatever price we can get. If they can't be sold, mothball them at Shawbury until the world economy picks up. If this is being cancelled just to keep the media happy then it's just another defence procurement disaster. If it's the bottom line that counts, forget the front pages.

[Mighty Quercus]

Mail On Sunday yesterday quotes BAe winning an order worth upto £1.6 billion to sell 24 Typhoons to the Omani Air Force to replace their aging Jaguars.

If true that only leaves 64 to find ahome for!!

[VinRouge]

THink this has lots to do with product lifecycle costs rather than initial purchase price.

Having said that, this is not exactly a good sign is it? What sort of warfighting ability are they planning for us to have if defence procurement is getting paired to the bone? :hmm:

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Worry not chaps, Uncle Gord and his puppet theatre have it all in hand; http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D7524677-281D-44BF-B3E5-F45C48E01F8A/0/tlmapr09.pdf (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D7524677-281D-44BF-B3E5-F45C48E01F8A/0/tlmapr09.pdf)

As JSP101 was probably a mystery to the (no doubt) bright young thing who drafted it, I can’t make easy references. So, pretty well down the document (in priority order?)

SECTION 3 - Equipment and LOGISTIC Support


Top Line:

Since 2006, we have delivered equipment valued at more than £10 billion to the Armed Forces. We give priority to equipping people on, and training for, operations but also ensure that we provide the necessary core capabilities for our forces over the longer term.


Supporting Lines:

Second blob

[Alongside industry, we continue to tackle the challenges in the complex business of delivering high quality battle-winning equipment for our forces; but the HCDC report on Defence Equipment praises the speed with which we are delivering vital equipment to our Armed Forces on the front-line and we remain committed to the Defence Industrial Strategy. We are working closely with industry to develop it further and its principles are firmly embedded in the way we conduct business with the defence industry.


Key Facts:

Fourth blob

On 1st July 2008, Eurofighter Typhoon was declared multi-role capable, suitable for precision Ground Attack as well as Air Defence tasks. Delivery of Typhoon Tranche 2 commenced on time and to cost, with the first two aircraft delivered to RAF Coningsby on 21st October 2008]

Fifth blob


Since 2006, we have increased the number of UK helicopter hours (and airframes) available to commanders in Southern Afghanistan by 60%. We are also increasing the overall size of our deployable battlefield helicopter fleet through the conversion of eight Chinook Mk3 helicopters to the support helicopter role, the acquisition of six Merlin medium helicopters from Denmark, and the upgrading of 12 Lynx Light Helicopters with powerful new engines to allow them to operate in Afghanistan all-year round.


No mention of Tranche 3 ‘Phoon. Bugger all to do with the Thread but no mention of Nimrod MK4 nor tankers.

[tonker]

It's amazing that Westminster finds the payments to Brussels more important than the defence of the people, who it is payed to represent.:hmm:

[fltlt]

Maybe we can get the same Chinese company that are building the replica Lancasters to build us a more modern "hollow force?" That would save a whole lot of money!

[Double Zero]

If one's making mega-bucks and has at least two nicely fitted out houses out of it, it's surprising how the priorities change !

Anyway if someone bothers to bomb us ( which would be silly as bombs are expensive ) what are the chances of hitting one's country seats compared to the cheek by jowel plebs ?

- I hadn't heard the Chinese are building Lancasters, is that for selling to rich collectors or real use ? And what engines ?

If this was April 1st I'd be a touch more suspicious than I am already.

I know the Russians tried it with B-29's, the story has it they even replicated battle damage repairs but I think they've proven brighter than that.

[Biggus]

Double Zero...

Maybe the Chinese are building them for a film, you know, the one with the PC dog it in....??

[adminblunty]

video link
3 News > Video > Entertainment > Secret leaked over World War II Lancaster bomber (http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/Entertainment/tabid/312/articleID/102737/cat/55/Default.aspx#video)

[BSweeper]

Considering this is the last FJ we shall ever build and that the RAF is a lot smaller than when I left it in 1990 (and we thought it too small to defend the country then), I cannot understand the logic.

But perhaps there isn't any or they are sure that no-one will ever attack us again!!

[LFFC]

13 May 09 - 01:59am LONDON (Reuters) (http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE54B7EA20090513)


Britain is set to approve the latest order of Eurofighter jets but is examining ways of containing its cost, according to a report in Wednesday's edition of the Financial Times.

Following intervention by business secretary Peter Mandelson, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has ruled out cancelling the order because of the impact on jobs and the risk of damage to Britain's reputation as a reliable industrial partner, the FT said in an unsourced report.

Britain had been opposing the purchase for cost reasons, European defence sources said last month, putting on hold an order for 112 jets costing some $10 billion (6.54 billion pounds) split between German, Italy and Spain as well as Britain.

The FT said a final decision on the details of the contract payments and production plans was expected within days.

A Downing Street spokeswoman declined comment on the FT report and said there had been no change to the government's position on the order.

An executive of Italy's Finmeccanica said late last month it expected a deal to secure the third round of production of the Eurofighter within a month despite British opposition.

Finmeccanica is one of the jet's manufacturers, alongside BAE Systems and EADS. They have warned production lines could close with the loss of thousands of jobs from 2012 without a deal.

[ORAC]

We already have an agreement to be able to offset the majority of T3 against the Saudi order. The sticking point has been the cost of the remaining 12-16 jets which the RAF would take, about £1.5 billion.

If we have an order from Oman for 24 jets then we should be able to offset that as well resolving the issue.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure I don't need to say that!) but isn't that "offset" a delay? At a later date, DE&S would still buy the "offset" 16 machines? To do otherwise, the established export potential of the aeroplane will have been diluted.

The important point there, though, would be for the fly-away price for the Omanis to be a true and mature production price; as would the subsequent British ones. The systemic flaw there, of course, is that the MoD is allowed no funding contribution from Trade and Industry, or whatever we call that element of Government this week.

[Lyneham Lad]

More information on the reasoning (if such a capability exists in Broon) and implications are in an article (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5fb84d30-3f2d-11de-ae4f-00144feabdc0.html) in today's FT.

Gordon Brown is set to sign off on the UK’s latest order of Eurofighter Typhoon jets, but is still examining options on how to contain production costs. Following an intervention by Lord Mandelson, business secretary, the British prime minister has ruled out cancelling the order because of the cost to jobs and the UK’s reputation. A final decision on the details of the contract payments and production timetable is expected within days, with key cabinet ministers scheduled to meet Mr Brown on Thursday.
Backing for the programme came as unemployment in the first quarter jumped by the most since 1981, leaving 2.22m people unemployed. The move will end months of speculation over the future of the four-nation programme. Mr Brown has come under intense pressure from the leaders of Germany, Italy and Spain – the UK’s programme partners – to stop holding up the aircraft’s third production run by making an overdue €1.6bn ($2.2bn, £1.4bn) payment.
The prime minister is anxious to avoid antagonising Angela Merkel, German chancellor, who has become a key ally in Europe. Berlin wants a decision from the UK this week in order to allow the authorisation of payments before the German elections in September.
Failing to make meet the deadline could cost the UK government £500m ($762m, €559m) in penalties, according to defence insiders, because the order of key manufacturing items would be delayed for months. Mr Brown is expected to allow the project to continue without significant disruption but he is still considering several options to keep down costs. These include tweaking the schedule for payments and the timescale of production. Britain is also attempting to sell parts of the third production run to other countries, including Saudi Arabia, which is tempted to add to its existing order of earlier Eurofighter models. But there are constraints in the contract regarding export sales, meaning Britain would need permission from its partners.
Lord Mandelson warned colleagues on the margins of Tuesday’s cabinet meeting, including Alistair Darling, chancellor, that the contract was not just important for British industry but was a vital reputational issue for the country. The minister, a former European Union trade commissioner, argued that Britain would be branded an “unreliable partner” by other European countries if it disrupted the prestigious aircraft project. Under the terms of the contract, the UK is obliged to buy 88 aircraft from the third run. But production plans have been scaled back and split into two separate batches, leaving Britain with a bill of about €1.6bn for 16 aircraft, once exports are taking into account. Cancellation of the order would have cost the UK more than £2bn in penalties and broken contingent deals on maintenance and upgrades, leaving Britain facing yet higher bills. It emerged as a serious option, in spite of the initial costs, because of serious budgetary problems at Britain’s Ministry of Defence.

Signing off on the Eurofighter is expected to have knock-on effects on other UK defence equipment programmes, as the MoD seeks to balance this year’s budget.

That final sentence whilst stating the obvious signals the start of another round of damaging infighting. :ugh:

[dougieb2]

As I understand it tranche 3 consists of 88 aircraft. This is being split into two batches in order to postpone some of the pain (payments).

The first batch consists of 40 aircraft. Saudi order is, currently, for 72 aircraft but only 24 of these being built in UK. The remainder to be assembled/built in Saudi :uhoh:. Therefore only 24 can be offset against T3 first batch. Leaving 16 for the RAF.

Presumably the Omani order will be offset gainst the second batch of 44.

Must go. Got to pack a suitcase for Taif.:)

[Jackonicko]

Argh!

ORAC especially (but you too, DougieB2), you're wrong.

You've made the fundamental error of believing the FT/Telegraph originated bol.locks that Tranche 3A will consist of only 16 new and additional jets for the RAF, because 24 of the T3A total of 40 will be replacements for export aircraft.

I'm told by industry and the customer that this is utter and complete nonsense.

The 24 Saudi jets being built at Warton are using RAF 'line positions' within Tranche 2. Were that 'it' then the RAF would be receiving only 67 of the Tranche 2 Typhoons that it ordered.

However (and both BAE and the IPT - the latter via the MoD press office) have both independently confirmed that these aircraft are being replaced (as was stated at the time) by aircraft being 'tacked onto' the end of Tranche 2. The confusion arises as they are (according to BAE's Typhoon production manager) subject to a separate 'diversion and replacement' contract or agreement.

However, both the MoD and BAE agree that the aircraft are ALREADY irrevocably on order.

Unlike Tranche 3/3A which remains to be signed. The 24 Saudi 'divert replacements' are additional to and CANNOT be part of Tranche 3, though there would still be scope for the aircraft to be completed to Tranche 3 standards if this differs from the late Tranche 2 standard. (It was once planned to, and then wasn't).

Tranche 3A is scoped at 40 jets for the RAF. This would take total UK orders to 184 and the RAF would receive somewhere south of 178 aircraft (the total includes the MAFT, IPAs, ISPAs, etc).

[hulahoop7]

That makes sense to me. But if it's 40 and 16 is BS what's the £1.4bn? The first of a sequence of payments?

[Double Zero]

Biggus,

While slightly off thread ( you started it first, I am thus blameless ) there's a pretty good display of 617's exploits at Tangmere, though it was nothing to do with the place...

There's an example of the ' Y ' shaped hand held target marker ( relative to the two towers on the Dam to give distance off ) - when people try it and back off to get the right position, they find they're standing on the marked spot on the floor.

As for G.Gibson's un-PC dog, there's a group photo taken after the war with a black Labrador in front; thing is, no members of the group saw the dog at the time, it only appeared in the print.

I would have dismissed this as B.S. myself, but I and others have seen some strange things at Tangmere, though not related to Nigger.

We do get the odd misguided Bader fan; let's say he wasn't anything like the Kenneth More portrayal, I used to work with someone who was groundcrew at the time; when Bader was shot down - which he later claimed was a collision - a party was held at Tangmere !

I also met a Spitfire pilot who'd been shot down early on in the Battle Of Britain and shared a POW camp with him ( before he made himself awkward and the Germans wittilly posted him to Colditz ) ; " Oh, we all had a good word to say for Bader, but I can't repeat it in front of your wife ! "

Moderators, this post started as a reply, but you may feel it best suited to the Aviation History section or the bin, though everything related is first hand, rather than a 'friend of a friend' related story.

As for the Typhoons, is it possible and finacially viable to update the earlier versions to Tranche 3 standard ?

DZ

[blandy1]

Jacko

You may well be right ref the Saudi back-fill but it does seem something of a suspicious coincidence that 40-16=24 ie no. of planes talked about for Oman:cool:

I may be being optimistic but is there any word on upgrades (eg AESA, conformal tanks) as part of this order.

When is the next deadline for T3B to prevent a halt in production, do we face the same pantomime again or will all the nations be ready to quietly agree to forget about it?

[Jackonicko]

hulahoop,

"The £1.4 Bn" is an utterly meaningless figure dreamt up by the half wits who the FT employ - who have not the first idea when it comes to defence subjects, and who are spectacularly clueless even by the standards of 'Fleet Street'.

I can be confident about that, because the cost of Tranche 3 is not known, is still being negotiated, and isn't yet set.

If Industry are to be believed, then one would expect the unit production price to be marginally lower that the unit production price of Tranche 2, which was €55.08 m (equivalent to £37 m on the day the contract was signed).

You might therefore expect the UK share of the T3 production contract to come in at somewhere over €2 Bn.

[airborne_artist]

BBC NEWS | UK | New batch of fighter jets for RAF (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8049521.stm)

[Tim McLelland]

Okay, my eyes start to glaze-over when I try to work-out just what Typhoons are being bought, which are going for export, which are replacements for exports and so on. However, I believe the final total of aircraft for the RAF is around 140 or so, is it not?

If this is indeed the case, what is going to be done with them all? Surely, it's significantly more than the current re-equipment plans call for, so does this mean that aircraft will be placed into storage? It also raises the question of just how great the appetite is for F-35 when there's the option of "navalising" a batch of Typhoons, thereby saving a fortune and giving the Navy an aircraft which is probably just as useful as the F-35 (I still can't work-out why anyone thinks we need a single-engined STOVL warplane in 2009... or whenever it finally enters service should I say).

If our beloved politicians soldier-on (or is it sailor-on?) with F-35, maybe there might be more of an appetite to form additional RAF Typhoon squadrons? There still seems to be some politically-driven impetus behind Leeming's future so maybe more squadrons might be formed there eventually? If so, one assumes that it would have to be at the expense of other reductions... how safe is the Harrier force?

[hulahoop7]

:ugh: Not again please....

[wonderboysteve]

Tim, Is the the fleet size not a function of the required operational numbers and the OSD, i.e you would expect a significantly larger fleet to be bought than deployed in order to rotate the airframe hours? Aircraft life is then decoupled to an extent from fleet life, with positive cost implications. It worked (sort of) for the Lightning...

[HalloweenJack]

it seems the 4 lead countries got what they wanted , which to my understanding is much longer payment terms , they might have had to confirm to stay with the A400 , but with that ongoing fiasco as a barganing chip , got what they wanted for `phoon purchases.

[Tim McLelland]

Tim, Is the the fleet size not a function of the required operational numbers and the OSD

You could certainly say that but I just don't see how that line would go-down with the media and politicians these days. It's not as if we're talking about just a half dozen or so, and the notion of having a fleet of at least thirty surplus aircraft languishing in storage seems a tad unlikely. Surely, there will be some appetite to use them if we're talking about maybe two squadrons-worth of aircraft?

I'm sure there must still be plenty of enthusiasm for killing-off the F-35 but if that programme manages to survive, I can't help thinking that the Harrier force might be the ultimate casualty. You know how the thinking goes these days - it's a bit like the Jaguar saga. A couple of additional Typhoon squadrons would surely be enough to enable the bean-counters to say that the Harrier fleet was redundant and thereby withdraw an entire fleet and save a fortune. We know it would be absolute folly but we also know that it doesn't mean it's impossible!

[wonderboysteve]

It was more of a rhetorical question to be honest. The aircraft are not 'surplus', rather they are required to meet the OSD. How many GR4s are deployed compared to how many were built (accepting that the order was placed pre-SDR)?

[Tim McLelland]

Yup, I agree with you, but I just can't see how that kind of line would be sustainable with the media these days. If for example, the RAF had shoved thirty-odd Tornado GR1's straight into storage in 2009 I think it would be kinda like inviting "open season" to media and politicians who would doubtless claim that it's a waste of taxypayer's money. I just can't see that many aircraft being stored somehow.

[Tom Laxey]

-Tim

UK has been trying to remain full partners on two military fast jet programmes for years, when there has always been the option to try to turn JSF into a 'full-time' interceptor, or Typhoon into a carrier plane. That fact that neither has yet happened suggests that, apart from the Eurofighter penalty clauses, its either quite difficult to do, or they offer sufficiently distinct capabilities it's worth having both.

A question does come to mind though - Rafale and Eurofighter look similar, and are thought to have similar capabilities, so why has one made a good carrier-based fighter and the other apparently not?

[Jimmy Macintosh]

Tom,

Unfortunately looks and manoueverability are only a small part of the equation for whether a fighter is suitable for carrier ops or not.
Just look at the JSF, there are 3 variants, a CTOL (A), VSTOL (B), and Carrier version (C). Each one is essentially a different aircraft, with different underlying structure. The A version would never be able to land on a carrier, it's not strong enough and doesn't have the control capabilities of the C. A and C don't have the cool air vertical fan of the B, so they have a different structure there instead rather than a hole where the engine would go. The C's nose wheel opens in the opposite direction to the A and B, CAT shots would fold the nose wheel up on the A and B. The C has a larger wing and larger control surfaces. The differences just go on and on.

The Rafale was designed for carrier ops, the Typhoon never was. To make the Typhoon carrier capable would involve a complete redesign. A stronger undercarriage would only mean the aircraft breaks where the stronger undercarriage ends. So you beef up it's attachment points, then it snaps at where the attachment points join the aircraft. So you beef them up, it then snaps where you stop the previous beef up and it continues until you've redesigned the internal structure. But beefing up the internal structure takes up more space, then you find that the systems can no longer fit, so the systems need a redesign...it carries on ad nauseum. Never mind the arresting hook and the required structure to withstand multiple arrested landings. The loads involved in a carrier landing are greater than those generated by using the arrester gear at the end of a runway in an emergency.

Nothing in engineering is a simple fix or modification :(

[Tim McLelland]

Think maybe you're misinterpreting what I said. I know the reasons which would support a substantial reserve fleet of Typhoons in storage, but that's not my point. It's about politics, media and public perceptions (like everything which influences RAF policy these days). I just don't buy the notion that in - say 2012, the MoD would be able to justify holding onto maybe thirty or more new Typhoons which are doing nothing but sitting in a hangar. I just don't believe that is likely to happen.


As for navalising Typhoon, we've done that to death on other threads in the past. It could be done, it isn't as difficult as people claim, BAE Systems claim it can be done fairly easily, some Pprune "experts" immediately chime-in and say "well they would say that" but that doesn't make sense any more. BAE Systems wouldn't even suggest the practicality of navalising Typhoon unless they thought it could be done. The days of bottomless government pockets have gone so they must think it's a practical idea. Clearly, no matter what way you look at it, navalised Typhoons would be much less expensive than sticking with F-35. Quite why we've stuck with it for so long is anybody's guess really. The need for STOVL aircraft died a quarter of a century ago and yet...

I'm firmly of the belief that these "surplus" Typhoons will be used, either to replace a long-overdue abandonment of the F-35, or to replace the Harrier fleet. Dumping the F-35 would be a good move, whereas withdrawing the Harrier might not be so wise... Oh well, time will reveal what magnificent forward-looking policy the government and MoD wishes to pursue, gawd help us all!

[tonker]

If we are going the distance in Afghanistan, then don't we need an aircraft relevant to a current conflict.

We can second guess what we might need (Typhoon/JSF) etc but just ask the folks on the ****ty end of the stick what they want and think the answer would be different to whats being planned!

[Jackonicko]

Posting a link to anything by that scrophulous half-wit Page just makes you look stupid, Diver.

[John Farley]

Jimmy

Nice to read a post where you argue your points so clearly.

Makes a change from many others on this thread.

JF

[Wader2]

Tim,

While some are in 'storage' they rarely stay there for long and each airframe is fed in to spread the hours over the fleet while other aircraft have their major/minor servicings.

As well as evening hours over the fleet it also ensure that the stored aircraft remain near the fleet standard mod level.

[Rigger1]

As for BAE, they will promise the Earth, and then eventually charge it.

Have you ever actually worked for them, have you ever tried working on a poject where every week the customer changes something and you get all the bad press, could you do better or would you rather us shut the British aerospace industry and buy American?

Leave them alone.

[Red Line Entry]

Jacko,

I am surprised that you, as a journalist and a man used to debate, would describe another writer as a 'scrofulus (meaning corrupt or morally degenerate) half-wit'. Such an ad hominem attack on someone whose views you disagree with does you no credit.

[Jackonicko]

I'm glad that someone, at least, picked up the comedy spelling.

I'm not going to apologise for attacking Lewis Page or his views. He routinely spouts half-witted and highly damaging nonsense, and especially on Typhoon, he deliberately uses distorted and inaccurate figures to further his 'boots and boats' agenda.

To make honest mistakes is one thing, but Page is a bright enough chap (he writes very stylish prose, after all) and he must know exactly what he's doing by using such distorted prices and simplistic arguments.

I think that qualifies as being morally degenerate, actually, though I was using the term scrofulous in its more basic, insulting, 'schoolboy' sense - meaning 'scabby'.

And I believe that 'skoolboy abuse' (see what I did there?) is an entirely appropriate weapon to use to point out the true nature of Page's infantile crap.

[mick2088]

I am surprised that you, as a journalist and a man used to debate, would describe another writer as a 'scrofulus (meaning corrupt or morally degenerate) half-wit'. Such an ad hominem attack on someone whose views you disagree with does you no credit.I was thinking the same thing. Page aside, the FT staffers were called half-wits as well. They probably don't have the access to the kind of contacts that writing for Plane Weekly has or an indepth understanding of how the Eurofighter production schedule works as they are likely to write on much wider subjects. I guess having the phone number of the MoD PR department or BAE Systems just to check a few facts probably wouldn't have gone amiss before writing it. But then their PR people could have easily phoned up the FT or others to tell them to stop writing such nonsense, and provide them with a few more details.

[Jackonicko]

If you profess to be a professional journalist, as these clowns do (dragging down the reputation of the entire profession in the process) there's one simple thing to do if you want to avoid my utter contempt.

Never just make it up (or guess), and never take on trust figures provided by troublemakers with an agenda.

That's what the FT and Mr Page have done.

[goldspar]

But then their PR people could have easily phoned up the FT or others to tell them to stop writing such nonsense, and provide them with a few more details.

Perhaps they did not contact him because what he was writing was factual? Lets face it the cost and the disposition of T3 has been reported by several news outlets and they all basically have the same numbers. Maybe, just maybe despite what some want to believe there is a bit of truth to what is being reported.

[mick2088]

Possibly, but I'd rather take Jacko's word specifically on the Typhoon than from journos working on national newspapers, even if he does seem to like it too much.

[Tom Laxey]

Any discussion on the problems of EF has a large amount of '6 to one, half a dozen to the other'. Yes the customer changed their mind, but after the end of the Cold War, and the peace dividend, there had to be changes to the aircraft role, cuts to numbers and renegotiation of workshare. On the industry side, the recent comments by MOD about EF being like a 'charity', and also the well-publicised technical problems that industry had (flt contrl, integration etc) suggest that industry carried a lot of uncosted tech risk. The same as it has in Nimrod, Astute, and others since.

EF has represented the most modern fast jet that European manufacturers have had the chance to develop, and most of the top engineers in the European industry 'cut their teeth' on it. It sustained R&D, test facilities and manufacturing for years - that's where the £20Bn went. It has at least left open the possibility that Europe could offer a military fast jet in the future. The 4 governments who supported it have to hope that the payback is good enough - in terms of the equipment itself, the fitness of the industry that has persisted, and the profits from exports. Sadly, for EF, the fact that it is about 10yrs 'behind the curve' has probably taken quite a toll on those 3 areas. Given what appears to be unfolding on A400M you wouldn't bet on European governments getting together to do it all again any time soon either ...

http://www.enm.bris.ac.uk/staff/rrc/mec/Defence-costs-trends.pdf

[Navaleye]

I agree with Jacko. Why would someone who's military career extended to diving and small ships be qualified to discuss aviation or blue water operations?

[Jig Peter]

Just to remind you - Dassault has done something pretty good with the Rafale, both ship-borne and land versions ... Pity that requirements diverged long ago, while the (now) Eurofighter nations and France were considering doing a common aircraft. IIRC, the sticking point was the size of lifts on the Charles de Gaulle which limited the possible wing span (and of course, suspicions that Dassault was never going to cooperate with anybody - never had, never would) .
Of course, at that time, the UK had no idea that it would ever need aircraft carriers ever again ...
Be all that as it may, Rafale's apparently well up to Typhoon's technology level - and in service in both naval and land versions. I know that it hasn't sold outside France (yet ?), but Typhoon sales aren't exactly vast either, specially to "level playing field" customers.
None the less, both programmes have kept design, engineering and radar skills up to the "top level" in Europe as a whole, which can't be a bad thing, can it ? Not to mention J O B S ...
:ok:

[Tim McLelland]

While some are in 'storage' they rarely stay there for long and each airframe is fed in to spread the hours over the fleet while other aircraft have their major/minor servicings. If the media cant get their head round that very simple idea, sod them.

Er... well nice thought but not a realistic one, is it? Anyone can see how politics is driven by media now and the armed forces are a victim of both sources. I just don't buy the notion that maybe thirty-odd Typhoons are likely to come-off the production line and languish in storage. Look at the Chinooks? A smaller example but enough to cause the MoD a great deal of embarrassment, so surely they wouldn't want to get into a similar situation with a large quantity of very expensive aircraft?

[knowitall]

"I just don't buy the notion that maybe thirty-odd Typhoons are likely to come-off the production line and languish in storage. Look at the Chinooks?"

How about looking at apache, a sizable chunk of that fleet is in storage as we speak!

[Jackonicko]

They won't all be languishing in storage, Tim, they'll be undergoing maintenance, or they'll be being upgraded, and yes (like the Tornado and Harrier today) some will be in store.

[Tim McLelland]

Think my point surrounds the use of terms like "some" ...

Okay, I'm sure it's legitimate to claim that a certain proportion of any fleet would be undergoing maintenance or upgrading but it's the actual figures that seem a bit unlikely to me. Unless I'm misinterpreting the predicted total of aircraft, I'm guessing that it leaves at least thirty aircraft which will effectively be redundant on either a short or long-term basis. Just seems to me that this is a pretty large number of very expensive aircraft and (as mentioned previously) when so much has been said about the Chinooks (for example), I can only imagine the same (or far worse) would apply to a whole fleet of Typhoons?

Okay, I accept that they may well be quietly ignored as being subject to upgrades or whatever, but surely it must raise the possibility that the MoD bean-counters might seize the opportunity to actually use these aircraft in order to make suitably foolish cost-savings elsewhere, namely by chopping the Harrier fleet prematurely?

[artyhug]

Ok Tim, I will now try to bite my tongue and explain what you are either having great difficulty understanding or at least inform other somewhat more reasonable people of the realities of running a large fleet of vehicles be they aircraft, trucks, buses or boats before they are convinced by your bizarre arguments that we should just fly every Typhoon we buy, everyday, until it gets sent to the scrapyard.

Fleet rotation is a tool used for a number of reasons, some of which are stated above. They include routine maintenance, allowance for attrition, predicted upgrade programmes and the balancing of fatigue.

Now as you point out it is perfectly feasible to reduce the number initially purchased to reduce capital expenditure in the short term. However unless you also reduce the tasking you aim to achieve with the self same purchase then as a result you are shortening the total life of the fleet. The sum you need to then do is then one of cost over fleet life and decide which approach is most cost effective.

I would hazard a guess that the people who actually have the figures in front of them are in a marginally better position to answer that question than someone who pontificates on a BBoard.

As for the Chinooks, please. The frames that sat in storage were never part of the main fleet, were never part of fleet rotation planning and have nothing to do with your argument other than to show your apparent lack of understanding of the point you are trying to argue.

By all means, we should, closely examine all areas of procurement in the current climate and in fact in any climate but to do so from a position of ignorance is frankly pointless.

[Wader2]

Lewis Page or his views. He routinely spouts half-witted and highly damaging nonsense,

. . .

Page is a bright enough chap (he writes very stylish prose, after all)

Total thread drift and not to say it is routine but I found the following article wholly believable given that I know the principal. :}

Book about D-Notices gets D-Notice slapped on it ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/24/d_notice_dustup_smokescreen/)

[Tim McLelland]

Artyhug, your sarcasm aside, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. I don't need any lectures on procurement, thanks very much. However, perhaps you might benefit from a few lessons on modern politics and media?

Point is, I was trying to consider how the situation might be perceived by the public, the media and the Government, and whether it might encourage some to use the Typhoons as a cheap excuse to dump the Harrier fleet prematurely. We all know that it's not unusual to have a number of front-line aircraft held in resreve, undergoing mods and so on, but that wasn't what I was getting-at.

Contrary to your sarcastic comments, I wasn't pontificating at all, just pointing-out a possibility for consideration. Geeeeez...:rolleyes:

[Pure Pursuit]

Artyhug is spot on Tim.

Once again, you're being a tad outspoken on an area you are clearly not an SME in.

Fleet rotation is an essential aspect of maximising the life of the a/c within it. To suggest that we should not purchase sufficient Typhoons (already paid for by the way) to have an attrition/maint/upgrade pool is very short sighted.

I say we bin the carriers & go for broke with Tiffies. The RAF can defend the fleet no matter where it is, honest!

[Tim McLelland]

Oh dear. It's a tad pointless making any contribution to a thread if people can't (or won't) even read what you've said before simply chiming-in with gratuitous sarcasm. I'll leave you to it. Incidentally BGG I don't recall having ever claimed to be a journalist or anything else, nor have I "pontificated" about anything. I'll leave you "experts" to your fun. Jackonicko, if you've any sense, you ought to do the same - you're wasting your time and talents here, I fear!;)

[NURSE]

If there are extra EF's in storage isn't that a good thing as it will mean aircraft can be modernised and modified more easily as there is spare capicity! And if an one of our allies needs to Borrow aircraft to fill a capability gap (eg Italians borrowing Tonka F3's) we won't have to deplete front line squadrons. If you also rotate aircraft to keep flying hours spread over a greater number of airframes does that not contribute to increasing the length of service or time between major overhauls?
If thease reserve aircraft are active reserves and not grounded as being unuseable like the chinooks I would sugest the public and press would understand as long as someone actually explains this and the benefits.

[Pilot Pacifier]

Hmmmmmm.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/_79_Vortex/USNTyphoon.jpg

:E:E:E

[Green Flash]

I was wondering when the first pics of the UAV trials Tiffy would show up. Presume they have painted it in USN colours so it blends in with everything else at Area 51.


Nice.

[Pontius Navigator]

Torpy, Sunday Telegraph 7 Jun, says the RAF Typhoon force will be 123 and not 232.

So, what do we do with the spare 109 frames?

My guess, like with the Tornado F2, is that the Typhoon tranche 1 will be replaced by the tranche 3 and possibly allowed to moulder away in a shed somewhere with some going to museums.

edit:

ORAC, the printed version is considerably shorter than your electronic link. Also the The RAF will only receive just over half the original number of the 232 Typhoons which were originally ordered, the rest will be sold to foreign allies to help pay for the cost of the aircraft. is not directly attributed to Torpy whereas much of the rest of the article is.

Almost every paragraph has a "He said" whereas the quoted para suggests it is the Torygraph answering a question and not Torpy.

PS, I have commented on the carrier thread too.

[ORAC]

Hmmm, that's a very misleading description of the article.

First off, The article say's that the additional aircraft will be, " sold to foreign allies to help pay for the cost of the aircraft."

The main, and very controversial, point of the article is Torpy forecasting the demise of the FAA...

RAF chief predicts controversial takeover of Royal Naval air power (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5461255/RAF-chief-predicts-controversial-takeover-of-Royal-Naval-air-power.html)

[TBM-Legend]

Glenn, Option 2 - maybe it's time to disband the RAF and give it back to the Army and RNAS!!!:uhoh:

[Data-Lynx]

Pontius. When you suggested that Typhoon tranche 1 will be replaced by the tranche 3 and possibly allowed to moulder away in a shed somewhere with some going to museums, did you have the Death Star in mind?

Seems like speculation elsewhere on the Typhoon's inaugural overseas mission is getting quite close to reality. Scroll down this link (http://milky01.piczo.com/?g=55672826) to find two pics taken recently at RAF Coningsby labeled: ZJ950 1435FLIGHT/3SQN TYPHOON FGR.4.

While I await news of the other three, I wonder which of the many barren rocks they will be able to use for target practice when they get down there.

[glad rag]

Bloody good site that Data-Lynx :ok: