Typhoons, clouds and computers

[Navaleye]

From Today's Times. The Evening Standard ran a similar story yesterday. Both lacking in hard facts. Looks like a non-story to me. Anyone know different?

Eurofighter pilots told to stay out of the clouds
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor

CLOUDS have proved to be the bugbear of some of the RAF’s finest aircraft, including the latest Chinook helicopter and the Tornado bomber. They have now claimed another victim: the Eurofighter.

With three years to go before it enters service, the Eurofighter, or Typhoon, as it is called, is currently being flight-tested by RAF pilots. However, independent assessors brought in by the Ministry of Defence to check out the multirole jet fighter advised against flying the Typhoon in cloud until computer problems were resolved.

The report by QinetiQ also recommended that “dynamic manoeuvres” be limited during flight tests. The jet needs manoeuvrability to join and win aerial dogfights.

The MoD said yesterday that since safety was paramount, modifications and limitations had been introduced since the report but insisted that RAF pilots were now flying Typhoons in cloud and were engaged in dynamic manoeuvres.

An official at BAE Systems, which is the main British contractor in the four-nation project, said: “I saw a Eurofighter flying through cloud only the other day.”

The estimated bill for the projected 232 Typhoons for the RAF, including research and development costs, stands at £19.7 billion. The programme is already more than four years late and £2.3 billion over budget. Eurofighter GMBH, which manages the project, confirmed that the RAF pilots were subject to limitations.

However, it said: “This is solely a matter for the UK . . . The Germans, for example, have been flying without any of these limitations.”

The QinetiQ report said there was “an unquantifiable risk” that computer problems could cause a catastrophic failure in flight.

The MoD said: “The risk has now been quantified.”

Although the RAF has taken over ownership of a number of Typhoons from the manufacturers, the aircraft and the pilots test-flying them are still based at the BAE production facility at Warton in Lancashire, while evaluations continue.

[Archimedes]

'Ang on a mo.

I thought that part of the case against the Typhoon was that we don't need an agile dogfighter any more.

Now, apparently, it is a bad thing that it is (allegedly) unable to be agile...

[Roland sizzers]

Saw a Typhoon just the other day. Made an instrument approach through cloud - landed on its wheels. Wings didn't fall off - didn't catch fire, appeared to get away without a software reboot, although the chance of if having crashed were probably quantifiable. Sure it'll have many more teething problems, is late and well over budget but should be more fun to fly than the mighty fin and anything other than a Jaguar is desirable/essential/safe. (See thread 'RAF modifies Jaguar to incorporate proper wing and third engine')

Lets assume that the Times defence correspondent doesn't know his ar**e from his elbow, has 12 hrs Piper Cherokee and has a mate in the Space Cadets.

[Jackonicko]

Or we could assume that the Times correspondent based his story entirely on an over-simplified Standard piece, which didn't adequately explain the issues it covered. I suspect that this story will be told in greater depth, and with rather less sensationalism and less nonsense.

In the meantime, Channel News Asia's take on the Standard piece seemed to understand the issues better:

"Eurofighter too dangerous for solo flight: British report

LONDON : The brand-new Eurofighter Typhoon has so many problems with its on-board systems that it should only be flown aggressively, or in foul weather, by two pilots, the Evening Standard newspaper in London said on Monday, quoting a leaked defence ministry report.

Test pilots at QinetiQ, the ministry's independent technological research and evaluation arm, spent eight months sizing up the highly sophisticated warplane, 232 of which are to go into service with the Royal Air Force.

But in an April 30 report, the Evening Standard said they found three problems in what is supposed to be a single-seat, all-weather, multi-purpose fighter:

- A computer system to alert the pilot when the aircraft is going too slow is inadequate. Until a better system is finalised, the report said, two pilots should be on board whenever "dynamic manoeuvres" are performed.

- The cockpit flight information displays "frequently fail in flight", and therefore, whenever a Eurofighter is taken into cloud or bad weather, it should again be with two pilots.

- "Corruption" of the flight control computer system means that it could suddenly switch from "in-flight" mode to "ground" mode in mid-air, leading to "immediately catastrophic" results.

"I would not be happy if the aircraft entered service without the failures having been investigated and understood," the Evening Standard quoted a Ministry of Defence spokesman as saying.

Nevertheless, the London newspaper said, assistant chief of air staff Air Vice Marshall David Walker has approved the Eurofighter's release to service on May 13.

The Eurofighter Typhoon is a multi-role combat jet with a range of 2,500 kilometres and can be equipped with a mix of missiles depending on its mission.

It is built by a four-nation consortium involving the French-Spanish-German group EADS, Britain's BAE Systems and Italy's Alenia, but is four years behind schedule and hundreds of millions of euros over budget.

Besides Britain, Italy has ordered 121 Eurofighters and Spain 87. Last year Austria became the first nation outside the consortium to place an order, asking for 18. Greece has committed to 60 with an option for 30 more.

Last month Germany officially put its first five Eurofighters into service in the northern city of Rostock. They will mainly be used for training.

Each Eurofighter costs about 80 million euros (US$96 million). - AFP"

[maxburner]

I believe the same Standard reporter claimed to have seen a Eurofightter on the dark side of the moon, along wih a London bus.

The article is a nice blend of rumour, half-truth and crap. Not worthy of either the Standard or The Times.

[emitex]

"CLOUDS have proved to be the bugbear of some of the RAF’s finest aircraft......and the Tornado bomber."

Someone please explain! :confused:


Utter bollox.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Maxburner - was Elvis flying it?

[Army Mover]

The ace reporter who wrote the piece for the Evening Standard is the ex-BBC Defence Correspondent (Mr Gilligan) !!!

[Jackonicko]

Good point! He's the reporter who thought that Mr Blair and his Government 'sexed up' the infamous 'dossier' (which they did!) and that they probably knew that the claim that Iraqi WMDs could be deployed within 45 minutes was incorrect (if they didn't know, then I'd suggest that they bloody well should have done).

He's also a reporter, I suspect, who is being pretty careful to stand up every aspect of his stories nowadays........

[NigelOnDraft]

Actually, I suspect the journo's have this one right... It's QinetiQs usual strategy to pour doom & gloom, and invent potential problems to keep on justifying their position and ever increasing fees and contracts. After all, what would their future earnings potential be by saying "what a fine airplane chaps - use it to the limit!"

NoD

[JessTheDog]

Mr Gilligan - the reporter who took an excellent story that should have brought Blair and Hoon (and others) crashing down and ruined it by tarting it up, prompting MoD to shaft an employee to the point of suicide.

[Jackonicko]

Thank you, Sir Jock.....

Hope you're standing well back after that piece of touchpaper lighting!

[opso]

... by employing a Typhoon-qualified safety pilot on sorties that include unplanned maneouvres at Climb/Dive Angle greater than 30 degrees nose up. How would they know at the planning stage (ie when deciding whether to roster a second pilot) if there will be an unplanned maneouvre or not? Does that mean that if they intend to climb/descend at greater than 30 degrees, they don't need a safety pilot, but if they don't plan to do it, they do need the added safety?

[High_g]

I wonder if the Qinetiq report posted above has been release for publication and if the facts/figures contained and presented are not covered by some sort of classification. Think about it frequent flier ....

[Wholigan]

Sorry frequent flyer, but I deleted your post. Took some advice and apparently not all of that info is in the public domain. Could leave PPRuNe vulnerable and we can't allow that.

[HectorusRex]

MoD to sell off undelivered Eurofighters
By Sean Rayment Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 30/05/2004)


The Ministry of Defence is seeking to sell off dozens of Eurofighter aircraft before it has even received them in an attempt to avoid further embarrassment over the escalating cost of the project.

The Government is committed to buying 232 Eurofighters despite concerns that the aircraft, which is 10 years behind schedule and £5.4 billion overspent on a budget of about £15 billion, is already outdated and not suited for modern warfare.

Ministers are now planning to sell up to 50 of the jets to Austria and Singapore instead of first re-equipping the Royal Air Force. The aircraft, which cost about £43 million each, could even be sold off at a loss if a country bids for a large number of them. Other countries on a list of potential purchasers include Norway and South Korea.

Austria has agreed to purchase 18 aircraft, while Greece, which had said it was interested in buying 60 British Eurofighters, has deferred a decision on the final contract until after the Olympic Games.

The Government had agreed to buy its Eurofighters in three separate packages of 55, 88 and 89, over the next 10 years as part of a joint project with Germany, Italy and Spain.

The RAF has already taken delivery of six of the aircraft, which are being used to train pilots. The arrival of the remaining 49 from the first tranche will be delayed, however, if required by other countries.

Although senior RAF officers have tried to argue that the full complement of 232 aircraft is essential for the security of Britain, the heads of the Army and the Royal Navy have convinced the Government that the money could be better used on more relevant defence projects.

The decision to sell off some of Britain's Eurofighters was disclosed by Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces minister, in a reply to a parliamentary question by Norman Lamb, a Liberal Democrat MP.

Mr Ingram said: "Some consideration has been given to the scope to provide for early export of Eurofighter to potential overseas customers.

"If pursued, a sale might be accomplished by adjusting the delivery profile to the RAF. The RAF remains, however, the primary customer for these aircraft and any decision made will take full account of its requirements."

Paul Keetch, the defence spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said: "If other countries get their hands on Eurofighter it will be a blow to our pilots who have been waiting for this plane for years.

"The fact that the Ministry of Defence is trying to sell off planes ordered for the RAF might make financial sense, but it is a damning indictment of government procurement strategy."

The embarrassing revelation comes just days after it emerged that the Eurofighter's test pilots had been told to avoid flying through clouds because computer problems risked throwing the aircraft into a "catastrophic spin".

In a leaked report by a test pilot it emerged that the computer had a tendency to switch from flight mode to ground mode while still in the air.

Eurofighter was originally conceived 30 years ago to attack formations of Soviet bombers attempting to penetrate Western airspace before a full-scale invasion of Europe.

When the threat of invasion disappeared with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the aircraft was remodelled to become a multi-role aircraft. The project has since been beset with a succession of problems, which have delayed the arrival of the aircraft and pushed up the cost.

Two weeks ago, Mr Ingram was also forced to admit that the separate £25 billion Joint Strike Fighter project was also facing serious difficulties after it emerged that the aircraft, which is due to replace the Harrier jump jet, was more than 3,000lb too heavy to fly safely.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman confirmed that the Government was examining a deal that would see Eurofighters delivered to the Austrian air force before being delivered to the RAF.

All Eurofighters were recently grounded because of problems with landing gear and brakes - a problem described by the manufacturers, British AerospaceSystems, as "teething troubles".

In 2002, during a test flight, a Spanish Eurofighter crashed after both of its engines failed. Both crew ejected and survived.

[Jackonicko]

What a load of absolute toss. How can a respected broadsheet employ someone who could so patently fail to understand last week's revelations as to write:

" it emerged that the Eurofighter's test pilots had been told to avoid flying through clouds because computer problems risked throwing the aircraft into a "catastrophic spin". In a leaked report by a test pilot it emerged that the computer had a tendency to switch from flight mode to ground mode while still in the air." Even the Standard came closer to accuracy than this.

Or who knew so little about the programme that he could seriously claim:

"Eurofighter was originally conceived 30 years ago to attack formations of Soviet bombers attempting to penetrate Western airspace before a full-scale invasion of Europe. When the threat of invasion disappeared with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the aircraft was remodelled to become a multi-role aircraft."

Hasn't he read AST403 or 409 or whatever it was? Does he think that the Jag was an AD aircraft?

The tabloidisation of Britain has now infected the Broadsheets. Why don't they employ someone who has some vague clue about defence/aerospace/the forces instead of clowns like this. (And no, thanks, I don't want the job!)


Tuesday 25 May 2004

Uncorrected transcript of evidence by LORD BACH, SIR PETER SPENCER, KCB and LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROB FULTON.
Neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.

Taken before the Defence Committee on Tuesday 25 May 2004

Quote:
Q297 Mr Hancock: The question I think you should answer first of all is on the latest report that there is a suggestion that the Eurofighter is not a very safe aircraft. It would be helpful for the record if that was dealt with first-off.

Lord Bach: Let me just start with that and then I will pass on. I notice that is not a story that was run on the BBC this morning at all. I listen to the Today programme always to find out what is going on in the world and I noticed that it was not even mentioned.

Q298 Chairman: In the MoD too probably.

Lord Bach: No, the MoD have been discussing it, but not the Today programme. I cannot think what the reason is for that.

Q299 Mr Hancock: Minister, were you discussing it before or after the report appeared in the paper?

Lord Bach: I really do not think it is an issue that deserves the kind of seriousness with which the article that appeared in the Evening Standard last night pretended. The fact is that ACAS, the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff, on behalf of the Secretary of State, decides the terms of release to service, standard introduction of a new aircraft type, and he looks at the safety case. One of the elements that feeds into a safety case is the independent study that is made, in this case by QinetiQ. All new military aircraft undergo a rigorous incremental series of testing and evaluations to gradually expand the flight parameters and increase the aircraft's operational capability. This is absolutely standard procedure. Operational effectiveness is important but, to us, safety is paramount. No country in the world, and I think I can say this absolutely clearly, is more concerned about safety and safety procedures than the United Kingdom. As a result of the report that was quoted in the Evening Standard last night, the Typhoon was modified, the procedures were reviewed and limitations applied to ensure that the aircraft was ready to enter RAF service and, indeed, it now has as a consequence of ACAS's decision on 13 March. Sir Peter?

Mr Hancock: I am satisfied with that answer.

Q300 Mr Jones: In this morning's Times there is a story about not being able to fly through clouds. Is that nonsense? This is your opportunity to knock these stories on the head.

Lord Bach: Absolutely, I agree with you.

Sir Peter Spencer: It is an incremental process. Because we put greater emphasis on safety in the long performance, we are cautious. What the report that appears to have been leaked consisted of was an independent report on a safety case which pointed out not that there was evidence of something which was unsafe so much as insufficient evidence to be absolutely to the levels of confidence that we aim to be to be able to independently underwrite the performance. It is a call in some cases for more data to be made available, apart from those areas where there is a specific problem as a work around solution while we wait for the design modification to come through. It is absolutely right for people to be concerned about safety. The fact of the matter is it is the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff, who has no line management responsibility for delivering this project, who independently forms that judgment on behalf of his service. That is a very good example of the right sort of responsible corporate governance which is necessary to look after safety issues.

Q301 Mr Jones: The Times this morning was wrong?

Sir Peter Spencer: It is an exaggeration of something which has moved on.


How interesting that Willie Bach should now be such a fan of the Toady Programme on Radio 4. Sorry, 'Today Programme'. Perhaps he and Hoon will at last have the decency, balls and the honour to show some backbone and some democratic accountability and occasionally deign to answer some questions, now that they've got rid of those nasty rough boys who used to bully Labour defence folks so badly, Gilligan Major and Liddle Minor.

[pr00ne]

JEEZ AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When is this nonsense going to stop?

Adjusting the delivery profile of the Typhoon to the RAF does NOT equate with selling 50 of the aircraft off!

This has always been the case with the potential export of military aircraft, 13 and 2 Sqn's had to wait for thier GR4A's as the Tories had sold a batch of IDS variants to Saudi Arabia and they took the planned RAF aircraft off the line and flogged them abroad. Later production went to the RAF after the Saudi frames had been delivered, something similar is probably an option with Typhoon, after all, there does seem to be rather a lot to do with it, and the early frames are AD only, and AD is something we don't actually need right now.

Do these people spend thier time trawling through defence journals looking for information that they can then misinterpret and misunderstand so that they can accuse the Govt of huge defence cuts? Or are they just plain stupid?

[Jackonicko]

Probably both, I suspect.

[Navaleye]

Of all the misinformation I have seen lately, this one has more than a ring of truth about it. Given the govt's desire for "eye catching initiatives" it may well be true. If so, what are the implications?

1. Jaguar fleet run-on until Tranche 2 aircraft are delivered.

2. F3s are run-on - but will they need to have their fatigue life extended? I heard that they are struggling to meet their planned OSD as it is.

3. No Tranche 1 Typhoon and running on of existing airframes makes it less likely that the Harrier fleet will be binned.

[WSO1]

Do you all know about the generator problem yet??? As there is no isolation switch in the cockpit (someone decided to put it in the wing as they thought that it would only fail on the ground on startup and the ground crew could switch it off!!!), the aircraft must not be further that 20 minutes flying time from a diversion on the backup battery or the pilot must eject... That will make crossing the Atlantic on an AAR trail impossible...

[pr00ne]

WeaponSystemOperatorOne,


Yeah, right.................................................

[SpotterFC]

And you wonder why this is a single seat jet?

WSO1, your post is a bit tortuous - if the gens fail you have 20 minutes - so what happens if you 'isolate' them - so why would you want a switch in the cockpit other than to turn them off at the end of the sortie?

Nice Try!

Doh!

:p