Typhoon cuts

[skua]

I am sure it will not come as a surprise to most in this forum, but:

the FT today reports that MoD is trying to get out of the last tranche of 88 airframes. In talks with India, Saudi and Japan to off load them.

and a quite good overview of the MoD on an inside page includes:

"One former defence offical says: "The MoD today has the weakest collection of ministers, chiefs of staff and civilian leaders since the 1970s." "

[Archimedes]

Interesting - it's always been assumed that the contract militated against the selling on of aircraft in this way.

Link to the story:

FT.com / World - UK tries to offload Typhoon fighters (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/144f2f38-6e2e-11dd-b5df-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1)

And to an assessment of the MoD's performance:

FT.com / World - MoD 'lurching from crisis to crisis' (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4910e5fc-6e21-11dd-b5df-0000779fd18c.html)

[Lyneham Lad]

Also in the Daily Telegraph (so it must be true :) ). Another boost for morale in the UK FJ world.
Daily Telegraph story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2588022/MOD-in-talks-to-offload-Eurofighters-because-of-cash-crisis.html)

The only foreign power identified is Japan and no deal is expected until next year.

[mlc]

Does anyone actually believe we spend more on defence than China!!

[Beermonkey]

Ah, holidaying in the Falklands for a little longer then me thinks:(

[mikip]

Mlc

I'd be willing to believe we spend more on defence than China, the difference being China spends it on defence and we spend it compensating typists with sore wrists, sending bean counters on jollies all over the universe and employing enough paper pushers to populate several third world countries

[tonker]

Cummon guys the cold wars over now and Russia's a modern liberal democracy that has no intention of massively modernising it's fleet, invading it's neighbours or ignoring the UN and NATO.:ok:

[Jackonicko]

UK tries to offload Typhoon fighters
By Stephen Fidler, Sylvia Pfeifer and Alex Barker

Published: August 19 2008 23:31 | Last updated: August 19 2008 23:40

Talks have been held with countries including Japan about offloading large numbers of Eurofighter Typhoons that the British Ministry of Defence has ordered but can no longer afford.
The talks, which officials say are at an early stage, underline the scale of the cash crisis facing the MoD as it grapples with an estimated budget deficit of £2bn.
The Royal Air Force, which had ordered 144 Eurofighters in two earlier contracts, is committed to buying another 88 as part of its membership of the Eurofighter consortium with Germany, Italy and Spain.
Severe financial penalties would be incurred for cancelling or cutting this number and the UK is sounding out potential buyers for all or part of its order.
Defence officials have confirmed that Japan, Saudi Arabia and India are among countries that have expressed interest.
Japan’s interest will surprise many in the industry as it has tended in the past to buy more aircraft from US manufacturers.
India, which has in the past bought Russian fighters, has made no secret of its ambition to expand its indigenous defence capabilities and is evaluating bids from five groups, including Eurofighter, for a new multi-role combat aircraft.
India’s tender could be a lucrative order for the consortium. In order to divert aircraft intended for the RAF to India, the UK would need approval from its consortium partners. The transfer of sensitive military technology is likely to be another potential hurdle.
The Saudi Royal Air Force has 72 Typhoons on order from the UK under an agreement signed last September, to be built by BAE Systems, the arms contractor. Separately, Riyadh has begun talks with London to buy between 48 and 72 additional Typhoons, a source close to the Saudi government confirmed.
The initial BAE order, known as Project Salam, was worth £4.3bn for the aircraft, with the contract value likely to rise to £20bn once support and maintenance are included.


More blinding reporting from the FT, who think that Typhoon has a unit production price of £68 m, roughly 50% more than Eurofighter GmbH, the IPT, and more in pounds than the first export customer paid in Euros.

To say that the FT is aviation and defence illiterate would be FAR too kind.

And here we have an article, bylined to a trio of unknown journos, not one of whom has any track record or credibility when it comes to aerospace or defence. Read their article, and it becomes clear that they have no grasp of the Typhoon programme, either, and have muddled together elements from a number of old stories, quite possibly with MoD connivance. (Whenever it’s time to sign a production contract, the UK has raised the spectre of cutting back numbers in an effort to screw the best possible deal out of industry and its NETMA partners).

It’s not that hard to learn about the Typhoon programme. Eurofighter regularly sit down with the press at major shows, arranging breakfasts at which all the major EF GmbH people (CEO, COO, CFO, production, exports, etc. are available for briefings and in depth conversations).

As a result, we know that while Germany and Spain are negotiating for their full committed totals for Tranche 3, Britain and Italy requested information on the cost and industrial implications of taking smaller numbers of aircraft in Tranche 3 – Britain requesting information on a zero option, a 50% option and the full total. NB that the umbrella contract (for 620 aircraft across three tranches) is a contract, and any reductions will entail penalties, requiring compensation to the other partners to make up for (say) wings that won’t be required, as well as some very complex financial and industrial restructuring.

In an effort to get the Brits and Italians on board quickly, the German Defence Ministry has suggested splitting Tranche 3 into two phases. Ruediger Wolf outlined the plan in a letter to his British, Italian and Spanish counterparts, and to NETMA, on 7 July.

In this letter, Wolf confirmed that Germany would sign for its whole third tranche commitment of 68 aircraft, but “could accept a two-step approach," with a first batch being ordered when the contract is signed, but with the second batch being contracted at a yet-to-be-defined later date.

Wolf suggested that the contract would have to indemnify the other nations if one country failed to complete the second step at the agreed date, and that the first phase should include more than 50 percent of the originally agreed Tranche 3 total.

Wolf stressed that the first phase of the Tranche 3 contract still needs to be signed within six months, and confirmed that all partners have a contractual obligation to approve the full third tranche of 236 aircraft – for which Eurofighter GmbH already have an umbrella contract.

Opinions differ as to whether a partner can sell its aircraft for export (this could be interpreted as taking work away from the other partners, who would otherwise expect exports to result in the production of new aircraft, providing work for all four nations).

It may be that this could be circumvented in Government-to-Government deals with countries that lie outside the agreed export campaigns, such as Saudi Arabia – or possibly Oman – and there have been whispers that such Government-to-Government campaigns are underway. At Farnborough, I got the strong impression that Omani interest was real and quite immediate, but that any Saudi repeat order was still much further away.

India and Japan are certainly Typhoon prospects, but Germany (EADS) leads a normal campaign in India, while the Japan campaign is jointly run by Italy and the UK (Finmeccanica and BAE). If the UK was separately negotiating to flog off its own second hand Typhoons, this would not go down well with our partners – and some of the journos here on PPRuNe, some of whom keep their fingers on the Typhoon pulse, one of whom has flown in the aircraft, would have heard about it.

[Archimedes]

You think the FT piece is bad, JN - you should see what Lewis Page has written in The Register. Won't provide a link, since I'm worried what it might do to your blood pressure. That, and the fact that as it's online it doesn't even have the merits of being soft and thoroughly absorbant... (precis - Page thinks that harder negotiation with the Germans and Spanish will lead to that pair of nations agreeing that there should be no Tranche 3 of Typhoon at all!!!)

[Jackonicko]

Thanks for your consideration.

Page is such a clown that his rubbish has little affect on my blood pressure, except when intelligent folk take him seriously.

He writes often well-phrased but always witless and usually dangerous and highly partial nonsense. To put his name to the trash that he churns out he must be utterly bereft of intellect or integrity, or possibly both.

The Register is a rag, and Lewis Page is beneath my contempt and yours.

And before anyone helpfully suggests that I get off the fence and say what I really think of this intellectual pygmy, you really don't want me to!

[Rigger1]

I apologise in advance for the thread creep ……. Having just read Lewis Page’s article about this, all I can say it what a prat. He obviously has little or no understanding of current defence programs and I bet he has never experienced the forces at the sharp end. It is people like this that should be made to ‘stand the watch’ and do their bit instead of commentating with so-called authority from the sidelines.

[Satellite_Driver]

I've been given to understand that Mr Page of El Reg is in fact a former Lt (RN). He occasionally makes comments that suggest at least a passing acquaintance with some elements of the military, but whenever he discusses something I have professional knowledge of he is usually wide of the mark.

The Register is a good source of rumour on what's going on in IT and some of its writers can be very insightful. Others, less so - whatever you think of Lewis Page and defence affairs, Andrew :mad::mad::mad::mad: Orlowski does a hundred times over for open-source and copyright issues.

[minigundiplomat]

Having just read Lewis Page’s article about this, all I can say it what a prat. He obviously has little or no understanding of current defence programs and I bet he has never experienced the forces at the sharp end



I've been given to understand that Mr Page of El Reg is in fact a former Lt (RN).


I don't need to be Inspector Frickin Morse to see a connection between those two statements.

[Archimedes]

He was a mine clearance diver, and his website/blog seems to suggest that he spent most, if not all, of his career in that field.

If anyone can read the blog without saying a word not dissimilar to the OED definition for neutered male cattle within two minutes, they're doing better than I managed...

[hulahoop7]

I think you'll find he's roundly ridiculed.. RN boys and girls included.

[GreenKnight121]

Lt. Page had a couple of decompression accidents with nitrogen bubbles forming in his brain? ;)

[Archimedes]

Send key setting?

Edit - Thanks, Pongochap - the formatting glitch made that a bit impenetrable!

[Pongochap]

Snore......

Lewis Page - oh no! He is selling books (and therby has an agenda.... ). However!

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/330471-we-can-do-fi-afghanistan-iraq-11sqn-2.html

232 jets - you're at best slightly unaware of what the 'real' military are doing and at worst on drugs/enjoying your non-deployable (outside of US/CAN/Euro hotels) life.

I have NOTHING against FJs having seen firsthand US (and to an extent British) capability. However I have an awful lot against the outrageous FJ trg and 'ops' tail that puts what, a Sqn supporting Iraq and one supporting Afghan -good effort!

The financial agreements and management of the Typhoon project is, without doubt, truly appalling. Truly appalling. Defending it is ludicrous. Other areas are by no means perfect (Flynx!!!!). Yet shallow accusations against journos pointing out rather obvious and droll facts (that the govt is rather quitet about) seems bizarre.... So, are you arguing this is the way Britain PLC should conduct business?

Gents this = tedious.



PS: Before you launch off on one read my post at the bottom of the link page about the NAO (where the press got their info from....although I'm sure they're 'in' on Page's 'bad' info too) before accusing websites of abject communism.

[Jackonicko]

The NAO figure (£68 m) is not a UPC (Unit Production Cost). It's inflated by including T3 costs, QinetiQ and NETMA running costs, etc.

The UPC or flyaway cost (the usual metric when measuring aircraft costs, and the metric always used by US manufacturers) of a Tranche 2 Typhoon is about £38m. Quite a bargain.

The unit programme cost (total cost including R&D, divided by the total number of aircraft) is about £84m.

It's not anywhere close to £125m.

Page is a mischievous and/or stupid little man.

But if we're going to cut and paste from that thread, let me join you:

"Quoting Lewis Page? He is Generalissimo of the coalition of the unwitting and you are demonstrably one of his witless admirers. My figures are accurate. His are a mix of invention and mischief.

Page is a biased, anti-RAF, clueless tw@t.

If you want to nail your colours to that mast, go ahead, knock yourself out."

[Archimedes]

Pongochap - rehashing the Page debate on these means is, as you say, tedious, and my reference to him was intended as a throwaway remark to JN rather than meant to be the foundations for another round of Page-bashing, although I confess I may not have helped with my second post about him.

However, I would observe that attacking those involved in the Typhoon programme now does not get to the heart of the matter. If you will forgive me for quoting myself from later in the thread you linked to:

Remember that the official government position post SDR and SDR New Chapter (i.e. before the Russians found the fuel and aircrew to resume their
long range flights) was that we'd need at least five AD squadrons to maintain QRA and a satisfactory level of defence of UK airspace in the post Cold War era, and taking account of the post 9/11 threat.

So, logically, we now find ourselves with four AD squadrons (if we include XI) to deal with a far greater set of challenges than the five squadrons deemed necessary to meet a much lower threat level.

It's all very well rehearsing the usual inter-service blue-on-blue and blaming the Typhoon force and the aircraft itself, but the problem, quite simply, is that the government, led by a man who claims that nobody has greater respect for the forces than he does, has left the RAF facing the dilemma of attempting to put one squadron in two places at once, and has helped to ease the problem by delaying the delivery of the Tranche 2 airframes.

It can find the money to bail out a failed bank (to protect votes in its heartlands) and can suddenly discover a few billion to offset the effect of the abolition of the 10p tax band (to protect its core vote), and can double the quango budget over the course of ten years, but it seems unwilling to and incapable of finding the money to provide the kit needed - FJ, AT, SH and the array of kit required by pongochap and his colleagues - despite the fact that it has committed the nation to two wars.

Typhoon isn't the issue here, with respect - it's the way in which the government goes about its business.

Attacking the Typhoon contract, debating the accuracy (or not) of Page and throwing observations about hotel-based life simply does the Treasury's work for them. What is needed is not faffing about with contracts for aircraft for which, like it or not, a case can be made (part of the 'fighting the war verus fighting a war' debate that crops up in a variety of unlikely places), but the appropriate level of funding for all three services, not the robbing Peter to pay Paul approach we've seen for the last decade.

[hulahoop7]

"but the appropriate level of funding for all three services, not the robbing Peter to pay Paul approach we've seen for the last decade."

Precisely, which is why I and most of the other CVF fanboys on here think the RAF should get the full allocation. Those machines have got to last a long time, and do a lot of work. The MOD / government has basically been very fortunate in that for the last decade it has been able live off a huge cold war legacy in equipment. That equipment is now being burned through on operations. The only thing which is going to prevent a standstill is A LOT more cash. It is precisely like the railways when Labour came to power. The Tories ran that system down because it was an easy area to save cash. So upgrades were postponed, and equipment run on. Suddenly the whole system is literally a train wreck, and you’ve got to spend huge amounts just to stand still, and more to claw your way back up the hill again.

[Jetex Jim]

If there was ever a damning inditement, it's this one.
"One former defence offical says: "The MoD today has the weakest collection of ministers, chiefs of staff and civilian leaders since the 1970s." "

[seakinger]

'So, logically, we now find ourselves with four AD squadrons (if we include XI) to deal with a far greater set of challenges than the five squadrons deemed necessary to meet a much lower threat level.'

Yeah. Thats called overstretch- just like the rest of the military on current operations... I feel your pain brothers. Really.:ok:

[Archimedes]

No pain here, Seakinger (since you were quoting me) - we'd be beyond overstretch and at ''broken beyond repair' if I were to be found doing AD (or anything else involving flying one of Her Majesty's aeroplanes)...

[PPRuNeUser0172]

I don't understand what the fuss is about

Yes we ordered 232 donkey's years ago but we don't need that many now. Simple really. If you replaced every Jag and F3 1 for1 you would only need about 150, not to mention the increased capability/reliablity blah, therefore probably requiring less for the same capability.

A bit of a none story surely. Why buy jets we don't need when the rest of defence is bleating for money, and we keep getting told "people first" so the money has to come from somewhere.

robbing peter to pay paul again but so what, better that than 100 surplus eurofighter at £65M a pop.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

This one of those occasions when it's worth reading the writings of Jackonicko (Srl 8). The Government will, no doubt, try any trick possible to wriggle out of the Agreement. This could ensure that Britain will no longer be trusted to be part of future collaborative projects.

Bearing in mind that this is a life of type buy, do you really believe that we are receiving too many? No machines in reserve for attrition or development? This socialist at heart Government has placed itself in a difficult financial position and there are many on here arguing for an easy get out. Don't; Defence should be a Nation's first priority.

[pr00ne]

Dirty Sanchez,

There's a LOT you don't understand..........................

Cancelling Tranche 3 will not save a penny thanks to extremely stringent contract penalty clauses introduced by the UK some years ago to ensure that Germany did not cut it's commitment. It would also result in a painful renegotiation of national workshare.

Replacing the Jag and F3 fleet is hardly relevant to todays front line. The existing 2 frontline squadrons will probably only be increased by another three to give 5 squadrons as the original "Jag/F3 replacement" whereas Tranche 3 and the rest will be useful to replace part of the GR4 force along with the JSF as there is a stated intent to only have a FJ front line composed of these 2 types.

[CirrusF]

Just a question here - the Typhoon and New Carrier bid processes must have been mostly concurrent. How much coordination and mutual influencing was there between the specification of the two programmes?

It seems to me that we have ended up with two programmes which are threatened with cuts because of their costs, and have non-optimised flexibility and inter-operability between the two aircraft types.

Would not a single joint RAF/RN Rafaele strike force not have been simpler and cheaper, giving savings in aircrew and programme costs, also with the advantage of better interoperability with French navy? I have read that Rafaele is possibly a more ground-attack oriented multi-role aircraft than Typhoon too.

I'm not pretending that I know the answer and am not knocking Typhoon in any way (excellent at what it was designed for) - I'm just interested to know whether the above scenario was fully studied and then discounted? Or did inter-service fighting end play a part in the situation we are now in?

[Jackonicko]

To sustain a fleet of 137 jets (7 squadrons, an OCU and an OEU) over the planned (30 year?) life of the jet you need 232 aircraft.

There's attrition, maintenance reserves, etc to take account of. So you need many more than will be in frontline service at once.

Typhoon is replacing F3 (165 procured) and Jag (200 procured) and the RAF intends to keep the aircraft in service longer.

There simply aren't '150 spare jets'

[Squirrel 41]

prOOne and JN are quite right: the contract is designed to stop the Germans walking away in the early 90s when they were going broke integrating the former East Germany. This lead to the contemporaneous rebranding of the programme as Eurofighter 2000, which IIRC, was made cheaper for the Germans by reducing the spec of their EW fit amongst other things.

So, what do we do? To keep the jet in service through to OSD will require 232 for a 7 Sqn frontline.

Q1. Can we reduce the buy?

A1. Sure, by reducing the number of frontline Sqns or bringing forward the OSD. Is this sensible? No, probably not.

Q2. Can we spend less money in the next five years when the EP is maxed out?
A2. Certainly, by flogging the jet to other countries and coming back to the UK buy later on. Does this save money in the long run? No, probably not, but it may get us more T3 jets than we would otherwise have ended up with.

The real question is whether the Saudi and other export jets are counted against the UK's 232 - and if someone out there in Ppruneland can provide the definitive answer, that'd be great.

S41

[Al R]

The Royal Air Force, which had ordered 144 Eurofighters in two earlier contracts, is committed to buying another 88 as part of its membership of the Eurofighter consortium with Germany, Italy and Spain.

I am being naive I guess. But if we stand to lose (say) 2 or 3 a year and not even considering combat losses or replacing tired aeroplanes.. in a little over a decade or so won't we be down to stupidly low levels with hardly any reserves?

[Jackonicko]

Definitively:

Austria took two RAF line positions in Tranche 1. Saudi Arabia will take 24 in Tranche 2. All are being replaced, directly, one for one, so they don't count against the UK commitment.

[Squirrel 41]

JN

Thanks for that - so where do the other 48 Saudi jets come in? And are these 25 replacement jets coming in T2 or T3? Or do we simply have no idea?

Cheers

S41

[Jackonicko]

The replacements are in Tranche 2 (Tranche 3 not being signed yet).

The remaining 48 Saudi Typhoons will be "built" in Saudi Arabia from quadrinational sub assemblies which are additional to the T2 numbers.