Typhoon - Bargain at 75% over budget.

[MATELO]

According to the Beeb.

BBC News - 'Bad planning' added billions to RAF Typhoon jets cost (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12614995)

[glad rag]

Who cares.

[MATELO]

Probably the people who are having their pension cut.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Probably the people who are having their pension cut.

...and those who are being cut from flying training through no fault of their own even while the tw@ts in power are suggesting military activity in Libya when we'd be hard f$cking pressed to defend Salisbury Plain right now... :ugh:

[Finnpog]

Wowsers. The work on the full ground attack capability will not be complete until 2018!!:ugh:

If true, then on the plus side, this must surely secure some of the Tornado GR force from being stood down.

[tucumseh]

Two sides the story.

I’ll give you one guess what the reaction in MoD is when you’re building up your costs and ask;

1. For 30% contingency because political machinations on a multi-national programme are going to delay the programme.
2. To be allowed to assume internal MoD dependencies will not deliver on their obligations.
3. For the 16% stock Contingency that the rules still say you should get, but don’t.

No politically motivated approvals committee is going to admit the first happens. The second would be an admission of poor leadership. The third is down to the regulations not being implemented properly for 20 years. Three simple reasons why any such report should include the Programme Managers’ right of reply, verified by independent (non-MoD) auditors.

What is the MoD’s primary tool for “learning from experience”? Post Project Evaluations. Here’s a recommendation from one PPE, dated August 2000;


The re-establishment of a department whose function it is to make Materiel and Financial Provision. The disbanding of these departments in 1987 has led to much criticism from auditors over cost escalation. However, while a programme may be over budget, it does not necessarily exceed a fair and reasonable cost for the actual requirement when the latter is eventually established. If the Customer has not stated his requirement correctly, it cannot be costed correctly.

There is another recommendation, that the airworthiness regulations be implemented. And another suggesting MoD should employ sufficient staffs who understand how to maintain safety and airworthiness. All were formally rejected by the Chief of Defence Procurement. No apologies for raising that subject. It is all interrelated.

[Pontius Navigator]

over budget, it does not necessarily exceed a fair and reasonable cost for the actual requirement when the latter is eventually established. If the Customer has not stated his requirement correctly, it cannot be costed correctly.

I feel for the MOD. I am refurbing the kitchen at the moment so I know how it goes :(

[tucumseh]

PN

It takes a real man to admit he has no control of his Kitchen Manager. :ok:

[Exascot]

Who cares

Anyone who pays British tax?

[Flyingblind]

And anyone who has spent a fair bit of time in the UK and would like to think that the UK still stands for something.

'Bout time someone in the UK told their pollies that the UK has about as much clout nowadays as Italy from where I sit.

[Geehovah]

Why is this a surprise?

If governments (principally Germany) delay a project for over 10 years and then Nations buy almost half of the originally contracted numbers of aircraft, unit cost WILL rise.

I'm just relieved that its only a 75% increase. If we get platforms into service on time and incorporate proper batch control with planned upgrades, rather than unplanned obsolescence programmes, we may get better. If we continue with international programmes we should expect delays and cost rises. F35 will be no different I'm afraid.

[airborne_artist]

Who cares.

The grunts on the ground who won't be able to get fast air on the two-way range?

[glad rag]

:rolleyes:
And when someone with the handle MATELO carps on about cost overruns,
I DON'T REALLY CARE!

[engineer(retard)]

Wonder what the real story is:

"The number of planes ordered has been reduced, but the bill for development and production has risen by 20% to £20.2bn."

If you reduce production numbers, you would expect an increase in unit cost because development costs remain the same, regardless of the number of copies you make. Reducing production numbers is not free either as it depends on when you reduce the numbers (have the long lead items already been ordered) and standard contracts include profit loss recovery for reductions in orders.

Other than that, the 20% increase should be contained within the risk budget. Its possible to spin this to say the aircraft was brought in on budget.

[Sgt.Slabber]

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Any mention of the percentage value of these cost over-runs caused by other customer delays: German, Italian, Spanish?

What about the value of embodied modifications since ISD/IOC, or whatever the current terminology is?

As has been written many times on these pages:

COST OF EVERYTHING - VALUE OF NOTHING :mad:

As an aside, I understand the value of embodied modifications on Tornado GR1/IDS in the five years following entry into service exceeded the original "cost" of the original, as delivered, aircraft.

[Heathrow Harry]

pull the other leg

Hardly any defence project is ever delivered on time and on budget

1. the people who spec the job have no responsibilty for controling costs - if we made promotion /civil service gongs dependent on that we'd get some progress

2. the people building things have no incentive to cut costs - we never build even the planned number never mind sell to anyone else so there is no upside

3. there is constant project creep = lets just add this gizzmo or that widget

4. the plug is rarely plugged until far too much £££ has been spent


The answer is to buy more of what we have already, buy off the shelf with NO "nice to have" add-ons and chain the peopel responsible to the job until it delivers - or not in which case they get fired

[SRENNAPS]

Wonder what the real story is:

Interesting reading to be found in the Pdf files found at this link:

Management of the Typhoon Project (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1011/management_of_typhoon_project.aspx)

Far better than distorted press headlines:ok: Or some distorted PPrune headlines for that matter:E:E

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

We send well intentioned people, people who you would not normally trust go buy a pint of milk, whose only qualifications are often a degree in Under Water Basket Weaving and a few weeks at the College of Knowledge to do battle with the Corporate Machine and then we show surprise when we get financially raped.

37 years in, no chip on either shoulder, happy as Larry with who and what I am, this is nothing more than a simple observation from someone who has watched it happen with depressing regularity.

Officer Cadre vs Corporate Machine............sadly there will only ever be one winner.

[engineer(retard)]

HH

Was that the approach taken for T5?

SRENNAPS

Reading the report is a sensible approach. If you look at it it still appears to be a self inflicted injury. Despite Tornado there is still not clear understanding of the difficulties associated with multi-national projects. An old adage is "the time taken for a project will be the multiple of the estimate and the number of partners, while the costs will be the a multiple of the original estimate and the square of the number of partners". Much of the cost overrun was due to poor assumptions about the ability of the nations involved to sort out workshare and requirements, whilst the project marching army costs and obsolesence had to be dealt with.

[SRENNAPS]

engineer(retard)

If you look at it it still appears to be a self inflicted injury. Despite Tornado there is still not clear understanding of the difficulties associated with multi-national projects. An old adage is "the time taken for a project will be the multiple of the estimate and the number of partners, while the costs will be the a multiple of the original estimate and the square of the number of partners". Much of the cost overrun was due to poor assumptions about the ability of the nations involved to sort out workshare and requirements, whilst the project marching army costs and obsolesence had to be dealt with.

I totally agree with you.
I spent a few years on the Project from 1988 involved with the EuroJet down at an engine company near Sadley Broke.
A few of more cynical of us (all SNCOs) predicted then, what we see now……….nobody listened. The attitude was that it was a new project being introduced, using new methods and new processes……..nothing could go wrong. It would all be better this time. We did not even have to have a “lessons learnt from Tornado”. True story, although I am sure that few people would admit to that now.

And so the world will carry on making those same mistakes.

[Geehovah]

Quote from the NAO Report:

"The Typhoon fighter aircraft is already fulfilling some key defence tasks but it is unlikely to reach its full potential as a multi-role aircraft until 2018, according to a National Audit Office report to Parliament. Getting full value for money from the significant investment in the project will depend on the MOD’s successfully progressing the delivery of multi-role capability so that the aircraft can be deployed when required and affordably."

Well theres a typical financial view in itself. The design driver and basic requirement for Typhoon (Eurofighter) was to deliver an air to air platform. Only the UK pushed the ground attack requirement during my time on the project. Initial OT quite rightly was to prove the spec compliance against what we asked for. Only in the mid "naughties" did the emphasis shift towards the swing role.

Requirements may shift but so does the financial memory!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

this must surely secure some of the Tornado GR force from being stood down


Hardly, in this day and age when capability gaps are all the rage...

[MATELO]

And when someone with the handle MATELO carps on about cost overruns,
I DON'T REALLY CARE!

Ouch! hit me where it hurts.... my "handle". ..and I didnt carp on about it, I just posted a link... you were the one who took offence... and it sounds as if you REALLY DID care judging by your trite remark in post no 2.

[Gravelbelly]

The design driver and basic requirement for Typhoon (Eurofighter) was to deliver an air to air platform. Only the UK pushed the ground attack requirement during my time on the project. Initial OT quite rightly was to prove the spec compliance against what we asked for. Only in the mid "naughties" did the emphasis shift towards the swing role.

Your time on the project was presumably after mine. I started work as a design engineer on the Typhoon radar in 1990, about the time the development contract was signed (the bid team in our department had been working on it for a few years before that).

I can assure you that the Air-to-Surface modes were a key part of the original 1980s radar bid, in response to the original specification. While some initial A-S modes were part of the first production radar software release, the bulk of the A-S functionality was always scheduled to turn up second (at the time, the Italians had a pressing need for some new fighters to replace their F-104, and so the original schedule had us delivering Air-to-Air stuff first).

In polite terms, I believe your statement to be either ill-informed or misleading...

[Geehovah]

Your time on the project was presumably after mine. I started work as a design engineer on the Typhoon radar in 1990, about the time the development contract was signed (the bid team in our department had been working on it for a few years before that).

I can assure you that the Air-to-Surface modes were a key part of the original 1980s radar bid, in response to the original specification. While some initial A-S modes were part of the first production radar software release, the bulk of the A-S functionality was always scheduled to turn up second (at the time, the Italians had a pressing need for some new fighters to replace their F-104, and so the original schedule had us delivering Air-to-Air stuff first). In polite terms, I believe your statement to be either ill-informed or misleading.. .




I joined the project just before the ESR-D was signed off and was involved in drafting specs (as an OR Rep) during the mid to late 80s. I left the project about the time you started work, although I became involved in testing later on. I struggle to recall any detailed discussion of the air to ground capability at all in my area on the defensive side of life during those early years. You would have known my colleague TB quite well as he did the similar job on the AI Sub System and you designed against his specs.

I maintain my line. The design driver was the air to air role. The secondary air to surface functionality was included but was subordinate when a conflict in requirement arose. There's a good reason why it was not in the early sw releases. Germany, emphatically, did not even require an A-G capability to be tested during the early years. Air to air capability was paramount and incidentally, the Italian F104 was purely an air to air platform. As an aside, if our cost increases are bad, for the Italians add the price of a Tornado F3 lease and bizarrely, an F16 lease to tide them over. Remember the context. For air to ground roles, Germany had the F4 but at that time was not allowed to operate outside of its own airspace. Italy had the Tornado GR1 and Spain had bought the dual role F18. We had Jaguar, Harrier and Tornado GR1 so no one envisaged the secondary A-G capability as being anything other than for operational flexibility. In retrospect, it's a good job that the UK "senior management" were indeed visionary and pressed the other Nations so hard but that's not the point.

As for OT, all the original testing was purely A-A based. It was only in 2005 that the emphasis switched and even then only on a National basis.

As I wrote the scenarios for spec compliance for one of the other sub systems and then supported much of the operational testing I am confident that I am 100% correct.

So to answer your criticism, whilst I didn't write the requirement, I was responsible for interpreting that requirement for MOD PE and Industry. I hope, therefore, that I wasn't ill informed. If you interpreted those specs in any other way during development, it may be quite illuminating.

To reemphasise my original point, it is mischievous for NAO to criticise a project for not delivering a capability which was not part of the original ESR-D other than as a secondary role. The aircraft costs more because industry was employed for 10 years longer than planned and Nations cut their production numbers. It should come as no surprise that it has cost us as much for fewer aircraft because the Industry contracts branches were careful to include punitive termination clauses tied to workshare.

As an aside, it is our lack of corporate memory that allows such discussions to ensue.

[jindabyne]

Geehovah

it is our lack of corporate memory that allows such discussions to ensue.

Spot on with this and all your other assertions! As you know, I was with the project from 1987 to 2000, and would add that 'it is a lack of corporate knowledge that allows some of these posts to ensue'. Nothing like re-writing/re-inventing history.

[Gravelbelly]

I maintain my line. The design driver was the air to air role. The secondary air to surface functionality was included but was subordinate when a conflict in requirement arose. There's a good reason why it was not in the early sw releases.

Some A-S modes were in the initial DS-C software release that was delivered in the late 1990s. Just not all of them.

Remember the context. For air to ground roles, Germany had the F4 but at that time was not allowed to operate outside of its own airspace. Italy had the Tornado GR1 and Spain had bought the dual role F18. We had Jaguar, Harrier and Tornado GR1 so no one envisaged the secondary A-G capability as being anything other than for operational flexibility. In retrospect, it's a good job that the UK "senior management" were indeed visionary and pressed the other Nations so hard but that's not the point.

...And I was under the impression that AST.403 and SR(A) 414 explicitly involved a replacement for the Jaguar...

As for OT, all the original testing was purely A-A based. It was only in 2005 that the emphasis switched and even then only on a National basis.


While I agree that the primary driver was to support A-A, I don't think that the order of testing should be mistaken for the sole intent. Air-to-Surface wasn't some kind of "bolt-on" that suddenly appeared less than a decade ago, it's been part of the design from the very beginning.

Reading the full report, it's interesting to note that the £3Bn increase in production costs weren't really to do with the aircraft design; a billion quid is put down to an attempt to save money by delaying things (just like the aircraft carriers) and the other two to the workshare and multiple-production-line issues. The delay in A-S modes isn't down to a lack of ability, it's put down to a lack of money - not having enough spare parts, aircraft, or time to qualify or train for the role.

and incidentally, the Italian F104 was purely an air to air platform. As an aside, if our cost increases are bad, for the Italians add the price of a Tornado F3 lease and bizarrely, an F16 lease to tide them over.


...hence my point about the need to push A-A to the front of the queue in order to get the Italians something to replace their aging F-104 :)

[Geehovah]

Gravelbelly, I missed your apology for the slur on my character:=

You're correct when you say that the UK had a National requirement to replace Jaguar hence the ability to include a secondary GA capability within the specs. Unfortunately the platform was not procured against a the National Staff Requirement - 414. The original UK requirement was to replace the F4 (and Jaguar) which, given the delays and world events, morphed into the Tornado F3. Unfortunately, the UK was the only Nation which had the air to ground requirement, although Spain was supportive. As a consequence, I remember discussions on the defensive capabilities where the Germans were vehemently opposed to any expense to include or validate a capability they did not require to meet a UK specific role. You will not find scenarios in the ESRD for ground attack missions, although some air to air scenarios that are included might look remarkably similar! This brings us back to the conclusion that air to air was the design driver. You cannot have an agreed design driver if one Nation does not require the platform to operate in that role. I do, however, agree that the functionality was included from inception. It would have been virtually impossible to do otherwise. I think we're agreed that this is an issue of emphasis but 4 Nations required a fighter and only one required a bomber.

Pushing the Italian requirement was indeed relevant. Had the aircraft met its original ISD, Italy could have avoided the Tornado F3 lease. The political delays that spawned the Eurofighter 2000 tag made the lease inevitable. That Italy chose the F3 (which incidentally I was also involved in), underlined their need for an interim air to air platform and emphasises the fact that Typhoon was procured by Italy as an air to air platform.

I'm afraid we do disagree on the emphasis on testing. Trust me when I say that the politics of test are tortuous and the order in which it is completed is extremely significant. It has taken years to evolve to a point where DT and OT can be integrated rather than run back to back. The test requirement was, in Typhoon's case complex, extremely role specific and involved different locations and test assets. Agreeing the priorities was fundamental and not accidental.

As to the breakdown of costs I'm sure all the design teams were under pressure to come in on budget. I agree totally that project delays never reduce costs, merely reprofile the additional cost into later years. I have no doubt that the Nations were the prime culprits for such cost inflation. That said, I suspect Eurofighter were relieved that they had wiggle room when problems such as those with the flight control software emerged. As we all know, elements of the requirement have still not been delivered. Rather than challenge the multi role issue NAO might have been better to concentrate on overall spec compliance.

As for workshare; we may wish to avoid that nugget. You will be well aware how National workshare was agreed and administered. Suffice to say for others that it was also fundamental to how the project was set up.

[Proof Reader]

Thank you for you informed information. Makes a change round here.

However on a point of detail was your personal association with the project something of which you are proud or ashamed?

PR

[Just This Once...]

Proof Reader, I know Geehovah and I am very glad he was involved with the project!

[Gravelbelly]

Gravelbelly, I missed your apology for the slur on my character

You did indeed - I carelessly assumed you were part of the ill-informed "A-S was an afterthought bolt-on" brigade, and not (clearly) far more aware of the ins and outs of the project management than myself. I apologise unreservedly.

I'll also admit that I hadn't appreciated the full complexity of trials planning until a decade into my career, when I got to work on a cute little demonstrator project that flew in TIARA. We had two trials engineers, who spent well over a year negotiating and planning the flight profiles that would be required to test the capability we were attempting to demonstrate - using one aircraft, for one subsystem, for one specific area of interest.

I'm quite happy to acknowledge that air to ground wasn't "main effort"... the A-S modes were scheduled for last, because as you point out there was no point in delivering them any earlier. This XI Sqn article (http://www.xisquadron.co.uk/News/AFM_GF/KingsofSwing.pdf) gives some idea of the A-S modes available in the radar; it should be obvious that that kind of processing has to have been a primary driver in the original design of the radar.

My defence is only this - that while A-S may have been a primary driver of the radar, it was not necessarily a primary driver of the aircraft. I've obviously confused the two...

[Modern Elmo]

From the xisquadron.co.uk cite:



ECR-90 Captor radar

» multi-mode pulse-Doppler radar
» resistant to active and passive countermeasures
» incorporates IFF with interrogator and an advanced Mode S
transponder
» automatically tracks, identifies and prioritises threats
» interleaves air-to-ground and air-to-air modes
» air-to-ground mode has multi-target track, scan, raid
assessment, non co-operative target recognition and close
range combat sub-modes
» air-to-ground mode has beam-sharpened ground mapping,
synthetic aperture radar (SAR), moving target indicator and
terrain avoidance sub-mode

Which of those modes are currently implemented? Can we assume that none of the air-to-ground modes are available?

[engineer(retard)]

The 2nd to last A-G looks like it should read A-A

[F3sRBest]

Don't forget there is a huge difference between what the Radar can do technically and what the Weapon System can do in Capability terms (across all the DLODs!).

[Geehovah]

Thank you for you informed information. Makes a change round here.

However on a point of detail was your personal association with the project something of which you are proud or ashamed?

PR Although I wish the equipment we procured worked better (and I wasn't responsible for the attack/ident sub system), I feel happy that a "cold war requirement" has proved adaptable and should be able to deliver a decent capability even if we did take 24 years to deliver it into service.

My conscience is clear and I'm happy with the result.

Proud:ok:

[maxburner]

I have to ride to the support of Geehovah here. During my time in Operational Requirements the mantra of the Typhoon office was 'not one pound for air to ground'. The radar may well have had some good A-G modes from the outset, but the airframe was primarily an air superiority platform.

[Politely_amused]

Parliamentary grilling by the select committee on the Management of the Typhoon project now being repeated on BBC Parliament....


'In hot', as one would say... (well, if you had an air – ground capability)

[ORAC]

Price of Typhoon falls by 40%. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B001U1WEZW/ref=nosim/?tag=hotukdeals-21) :cool: