Eurofighter - a cold war 'relic'?

[wub]

Flak flies over Eurofighter, a Cold War 'relic'

Daily Telegraph reports Brown wants to cut Eurofighter numbers to pay for carriers

[HectorusRex]

Brown wants to cut order for 'outdated' Eurofighter
By George Trefgarne, Economics Editor
(Filed: 10/07/2002)


Gordon Brown wants the Ministry of Defence to cut dramatically its order for the new Eurofighter in return for money to buy two new aircraft carriers, according to Whitehall sources.


The Eurofighter currently takes up a fifth of the MoD's annual weapons-spend
Britain is committed on paper to 232 Eurofighters, called Typhoon by the Royal Air Force. The total programme will cost Britain up to £18 billion.

But the Chancellor is said to believe it would be better to cancel some of the order now than be saddled with an expensive weapon system designed for the Cold War when there are new threats to be faced after the terrorist attacks of September 11.

The MoD spends around £6.5 billion a year on weapons procurement and the Eurofighter is taking up about a fifth of that, jeopardising other projects.

The Army is short of the most basic equipment, pay and conditions are poor and it is nearly 10,000 under strength. The SA80 rifle continues to jam and to replace it would cost around £600 million - the cost of just 13 Eurofighters.

The total of 232 Eurofighters was first set in December 1997. So far, only the first 55-plane tranche has been paid for.

The next tranche will be signed for at the end of next year, although the hoped-for 130 aircraft order may be scaled back. The Treasury does not want the final tranche to be ordered at all.

Instead of the Eurofighter project, Tony Blair and Mr Brown have told Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, that two new aircraft carriers can be ordered shortly.

One Whitehall source said: "There is a feeling across government that we are now living in a different world than we were five or even 10 years ago and the armed services need to reflect that."

On Monday, the Chancellor will unveil his Comprehensive Spending Review, which will give his spending plans for the next three years for all departments other than health.

An MoD spokesman said: "Obviously we don't know the outcome of the spending review but we don't anticipate a change to our plans as a result of that review." However, the department is writing a new chapter to its own Strategic Defence Review which is looking at all weapon systems.

A spokesman for Eurofighter said the project was vital for the European aerospace industry. "The capability and future of the industry is at stake in many of the technological features of the Eurofighter," he said. It is estimated that up to 45,000 British jobs depend on it.

The spokesman denied that the aircraft was out of date. "We have reconfigured the aircraft several times already. It is a true multi-role system . . just the sort of capability needed in the current environment."

Mr Brown intends to make education, policing and dealing with asylum seekers the the centrepiece of the Comprehensive Spending Review. But the MoD will receive hundreds of millions of pounds extra to pay for the war on terrorism and a possible attack on Iraq.
http://www.news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/07/10/nbrown10.xml:

[HectorusRex]

Where will this leave The Royal Air Force?

Flak flies over Eurofighter, a Cold War 'relic'
(Filed: 10/07/2002)


The Chancellor wants to cut Britain's order for the jet. Neil Tweedie traces an £18 billion controversy


Eurofighter is essentially a child of the Cold War, a super-agile combat aircraft conceived as long ago as 1984 to take on the likes of the Russian Mig 29 and Sukhoi Su 30 over Central Europe.

It is also Britain's most expensive defence project ever. The National Audit Office estimates the project will eventually cost the British taxpayer £18.8 billion. Time has moved on, however, and with it Britain's defence requirements.

Opponents of Eurofighter - renamed Typhoon for RAF service - would argue that the Ministry of Defence's over-stretched budget would be better spent on weapons suited to the kind of expeditionary warfare seen in Afghanistan: carriers and carrier-borne aircraft, amphibious platforms and helicopters.

The plane, they say, is an outdated design, lacking the stealthy characteristics of American rivals.

The aircraft's champions vigorously deny the charges, arguing that British forces will inevitably meet high-performance Russian, or even Western, fighters in future operations, and cannot afford to have second best.

The aircraft was originally intended to have entered service a decade ago, but changes in specification, prevarication by Britain's German partners in the Eurofighter consortium and last-minute technical hitches have taken their toll. The revised target date for RAF service entry was last month, but that has slipped to the end of the year.

That Eurofighter is a formidable weapons system is not in doubt. Its manufacturers claim that only the American F22 Raptor, due to enter service by 2005, could best it as an air superiority fighter. But Raptor, they point out, is twice as expensive at around $100 million (£67 million) a copy, and will never be bought by a country that could pose a threat.

Eurofighter is a collaborative project between four European nations: Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain. Britain has ordered 232 in three tranches. Firm contracts for the first 55 were signed in 1998, and the first RAF training unit is expected to take delivery of some of those aircaft at the end of the year. The aircraft is expected to become operational in 2006, eventually replacing the RAF's Tornado F3 air defence fighters and Jaguar strike aircarft.

Contracts for the second and third tranches, each of about 90 aircraft, are due to be signed in 2003 and 2007 respectively.

Tranche 3 aircraft would not be built until 2010. Those aircraft are intended to be the ultimate multi-role version of the aircraft, and if they are not built the RAF would be deprived of a huge part of its future strike force.

In addition to the RAF purchase, Germany will receive 180, Italy 121 and Spain 87. The consortium claims that 154,000 jobs across Europe are directly or indirectly reliant on the project, some 50,000 in Britain. BAE Systems's Warton plant in Lancashire is the centre of British Eurofighter manufacturing, employing 13,000 people.

If Britain cuts its buy, its share of the manufacturing work could fall also.

Britain and Germany have been responsible for most of the Eurofighter, with 37 per cent and 30 per cent of the work respectively. Italy and Spain account for 19 per cent and 14 per cent.

BAE Systems built the nose, the cockpit, canards, inboard flaps and rear tail. Rolls-Royce makes the engines.

Besides being the most expensive British combat aircraft programme, Eurofighter may also be the last. Its successor is likely to be an unmanned aerial vehicle.

http://www.news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$AC5A5EYAAI3BTQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2002/07/10/nbrown110.xml&_requestid=452462

[Lima Juliet]

Thank God it's finally hitting the Press. Typhoon is a relic and should have been in Service 5 years ago and not in 2 years time as is expected.

Having flown the last Air Defence "Relic" that BAe produced, that was also late into Service without a full Operational Clearance, I really don't fancy our chances in 2010. Picture this; Red Flag 2010, Typhoon has re-invented the "Funky-Chicken" (AKA Tornado vs AMRAAM) to try and break down the SA of the JSF and F22 drivers, failure to do so will enable these stealthier airframes to "First see and launch" against a jet designed in the 1980s.

Roll on 16/38 point I've had enough of playing these games. I suppose there's always JSF to hope for...............Dreeeam, dream, dream....:rolleyes:

[rivetjoint]

Will not say if I agree or disagree however, without firm orders of JSFs why bother buying carriers?

[ORAC]

The numbers never added up anyway.

The Typhoo is supposed to equip 3 wings of 2 squadrons each at LU, LI and CY. Optimistically, these will have arounf 15 ac each, bringing the total to 90.

Add in an OCU of around 20 and an OEU of around 10 and you get to around 120. Add in a very generous 20% attrition buy and you get to 134. Add a couple more for Boscombe etc and round it up to 140.

That all fits inside the tranche 1 and 2 figures.

Arguing that Tranche 3 could replace the GR4 doesn't cut it, as the case for, and budget for, FOAS is separate. The only case for tranche 3 is a commercial one on behalf of BAe.

The same process can be gone throught for JSF. The joint Harrier force is shrinking to share around 60 GR7/9s. Even allowing for a 1 for 1 replacement and a 20% attrition buy, we only need around 75. Yet the proposed buy is 150.

On that basis, either the JSF order could be cut or the GR4s could be replaced by the remaining JSFs with, perhaps, a few additional frames.

So, sorry, I'm not going to bleed over this. I think Gordon Brown has a good case.

[Archimedes]

ORAC,

Think your figures are out - but only by 15. The Eurofighter is meant to equip 7 squadrons (plus OEU and OCU) - there are supposed to be 3 units at 'St Andrews Airfield'

Still leaves a rather large attrition reserve....

[Jackonicko]

A flexible, versatile multi-role fighter/fighter-bomber with the most advanced MMI available, capable of beating any threat (except F-22) and of achieving a better kill ratio against a nominal 'developed Flanker' threat than any of its rivals (c.90% rather than the 60% achievable by its nearest rivals).

An aircraft capable of mounting deployed operations from austere bases.

An aircraft with contractually guaranteed MMH/FH and MTBF figures that will give it lower through-life costs of ownership than any of its rivals.

An aircraft with a lower price tag than F-22, F-15E, or Rafale.

An industrial programme that will safeguard British jobs for decades.

It might have been designed during the Cold War, but it sounds like a good weapon for the post Cold War world to me, especially if you want to avoid aircrew casualties.

Fast jet squadrons have proved their worth and cost-effectiveness in the post Cold War world. An aircraft carrier is a capable but supremely expensive (perhaps unaffordable) means of showing the flag, and one which is slow to deploy and vulnerable to enemy action.

The present size of the EF buy will allow the type to be maintained in service for many years, and might allow the type's use as a GR4 replacement, though this has not been 'budgeted for'. I just read that "the 232 aircraft being procured will support an active RAF fleet of 137 Eurofighters. These may become known as Typhoons in RAF service, as they already are on the export market, though this has yet to be confirmed officially. The 137 active aircraft will equip seven front-line squadrons (15 aircraft each, plus four in the Falklands), an Operational Conversion Unit (OCU) with 24 aircraft, and an Operational Evaluation Unit (4 aircraft). These units will share nine further aircraft which will be categorised as in-use reserves (one per squadron and two with the OCU). The remaining 84 aircraft will be rotated in and out of service, covering attrition and spreading flying hours to enable the aircraft to reach its scheduled out-of-service date."

I'd buy 232 Gripens as well and cancel the Carriers!

[lightningmate]

Jackonicko

And a contractual guarantee from BAES/Eurofighter is really guaranteed?

There is always a first for everthing I guess, but I would not hold my breath.

lm

[ORAC]

Tranche 1: 37 single seat (36 operational, 1 as test aircraft), 18 two-seat (16 operational, 1 fatigue test, 1 as test aircraft).

Tranche 2: 83 single seat, 6 two-seat.

Looks like the two-stickers will be like rocking horse ****, only 22 operational airframes, probably only 1 per squadron after the OCU take their cut.

Tranche 3 is/was supposed to have 13 two-stickers (75/13). Looks like the balance of tranche 2 will have to be changed if this goes through.

[Grimweasel]

I think that Gordon Brown has really hit the nail on the head. The Typhoon was concieved in the Cold War and as we all know we have moved on leaps and bounds from those days.
Why should we spend about 3-4 years worth of TOTAL procurement budget on an aircraft that is basically designed to defend the home base from Soviet attack.
The Army begs for a new rifle. The new C7 (Canadian M-16) is the new weapon of choice and for around the cost of 20 Eurofighter's we could equip the forces with a weapon that works.
We would be better served by obtaining the new carriers and the JSF to go with it. This would conform to the new defence ideology of 'Hit em at home first'
A nimble navy with floating airbases is far better than having 232 fighters based on some foreign soil or back in the UK.
We would also be better equipped by buying the C17's and a few new ones to go with them. Lets face it, A400m will drag on and go just as over its budget as the Typhoon has.
For once, we need to heed the advice from our allies (USA) and buy whats best on the market at the time. We have a history of ill fated procurement bodges and the forces are getting sick of it!
Opinions here will be biased as aircrew reign supreme within this forum. Please take time to think of the further implications of buying a relic and not equipping the rest of the forces with the basic kit needed to fight!

[L J R]

This thread sounds familiar.



.

Remember - the person wat bilt your jet put in the lowest bid...

.

[Fox_4]

Where to start:

Firstly I maybe slightly biased but a carrier (x2) that we are thinking of spending x billions on vs Eurofighter.

Well, I for one would vote whole heartedly for a full complement of Eurofighters. Who thinks seriously that we could take two carriers and park them off someones coastline and sustain any sort of campaign/operation.
Those that do are living in a dream world. With the weapon systems available on the open arms market nowadays the anti-ship threat could be huge. Political embarrasment?!!
Could we provide a carrier group capable of defending these carriers and carry out worthwhile strikes against johnny foreigner? Come on, we are not the USA after all.

When was the last time we took the fight to someone on our own? With carrier support I would suggest it was the Falklands. Now I have full respect for everyone involved in that campaign dont get me wrong but we cannot do that anymore. If we are to go on ops in the future it will be with the US. Now they have the money, equipment and people to support, protect and employ these "floating airfields" succesfully. We dont!

Let them do the carrier bit and why dont we do what we do best. Stage out of foreign airfields and schwack the bad guys with an aircraft capable of mixing it up with anything out there apart from maybe F-22.

The F-3 is coming to an end, although it has a very good capability at the moment and is employed in its role very well by guys very good at their job. Bring on eurofighter and let us do it even better! If we scrap the Eurofighter or cut the numbers back drastically, what are we going to do with all those commitments we have at the minute? Scrap QRA maybe, not in the present climate I would suggest? Bin the Falklands defence? Maybe back out of Southern watch and let the yanks and GR4 guys soak up all the deployments? Hmmmm.

Also coming back to a numbers thing without surfing back to quote the 137ish that are proposed as a better number than 230ish. Bollox. Have you guys taken into account the scrapping of the Jaguar in the not to distant future. There are 4 sqns at least that need to be replaced in the recce/gnd attack role by something. Or do you propose that the already overworked GR4 and Harrier guys take this on too!?
The GR4 has been lifed till about 2015-2020. I cant see Eurofighter filling their ramps to soon before that. As for the GR7/9 guys I think they would prefer JSF probably. I would imagine a lack of time on the boat wouldnt bother them too much either.

Screw spending money on carriers and let us have a CAPABLE FIGHTER that begrudgingly could be used in a muddy role in a few years! Instead of a political mantlepiece ornament to float about the channel.
You guys need to stop being so cynical and see Typhoon for the breath of fresh air that it is!

Us young guys in the fighter community cant wait for it!
Throw money at it and get it in quicker i say!

RANT OVER.

:cool: ;) :cool:

[ORAC]

Er, Fox 4, those figures included the Jag replacement. The AD wings at CY and LI replace the F-3 force. The OAS/Swing wing at Leuchars will replace the present 3 Jag squadrons (6/41/54).

Warton
No.17 Squadron: OCU. 10 two seat and 3 single seat aircraft
To move to RAF Coningsby in 2004 and disband in 2005.

Coningsby
No.29 Squadron: OCU. 24 aircraft. To form 2004.
No. ? Squadron: OEU. 4 aircraft. To form ?
No.? Squadron: 15 aircraft. Form 2005. AWX. NATO declaration Jan 2006.
No.? Squadron: 15 aircraft. Form 2006. AWX.

Leeming
No.? Squadron: 15 aircraft. Form 2006. AWX.
No.? Squadron: 15 aircraft. Form 2007. AWX.

Leuchars
No.? Squadron: 15 aircraft. Form 2008? OAS.
No.? Squadron: 15 aircraft. Form 2009? Swing-role.
No.? Squadron: 15 aircraft. Form 2010? Swing-role.

Mount Pleasant
1312? Flt: 4 aircraft. Form? AWX.

Total = 137 aircraft. Tranche 1 + 2 = 141.

Amoingst the problems are:

1. No attrition spares.
2. Insufficient two-stickers.
3. None of the additional capability planned for tranche 3 - meaning the realease of a sizeable number of tranche 1/2 airframes back to BAe for an upgrade programme (To be funded from where if all the money goes into the carrier force?)

[Jackonicko]

I believe that there are grounds for both optimism and pessimism. Sorry you found my piece too sunny Newshound - I'm aware of slippages and problems, of course, but had limited space and wanted to counter some of the more bizarre anti-EF propaganda which normally fills the media.

Pessimism:
1) It won't meet the revised ISD. There will be further delays. (So apply the penalties allowed for in the contract.)
2) It certainly won't have meaningful air-to-ground or recce capability for a while. (So run on the Jaguar, make some more 3As out of the GI aircraft at Cosford, - it may be an antique but its a cost effective and easy solution, so live with it!)
3) The proposed servicing/maintenance arrangements are aimed more at guaranteeing a continuing revenue stream for BAE than at fulfilling the customer's requirements. (So abandon these ridiculous PPPs, PFIs and 'hole in the wall servicing contracts.)
4) BAE still isn't being subjected to commercial disciplines, but is being feather-bedded in a way which isn't appropriate for a privatised company, and isn't in the customer's best interests.
5) Secrecy continues to surround the programme and its schedule. It's easy for this to lead to suspicions that there is 'something to hide'. Problems and delays may be embarrassing to the contractor and the IPT, but shouldn't be secret.

Optimism
1) It will be a great fun aircraft to fly.
2) It will soon be a very good AD aircraft. (Way better than any affordable alternative).
3) It will at least be a damned sight more versatile and useful than JSF. (Two AMRAAM and two JDAM? Please!)
4) Every other fifth generation fighter programme has suffered equal or greater difficulties.
5) Land-based FJ air power has been there when it mattered in the post Cold War world, and whenever carriers have been used there have been land-base alternatives (eg Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, etc.) with the single exception of the Falklands. It's the cost effective way of deploying air power, and when political constraints dictate whether or not ops can go ahead the carrier's supposed advantage of allowing autonomous unpopular ops seems like an expensive and largely irrelevant luxury.
6) The people guaranteeing in service MMH/FH and MTBF figures are CS&S, not the same idiots who are responsible for development and integration delays. Better qualified people than I believe that when it does eventually arrive it will be economical and maintainable to a hitherto unimaginable degree. And if it's not, then penalties can be imposed.

[canberra]

first a word about rifles, the army and raf and navy(dont forget it isnt just the army who have rifles!) can shout and scream all they want we arent going to get a new rifle until at least 2020. as far as im concerned the only problem with it is its not an ambidextrous weapon. as a left handed shot if i ever had to use it on the battlefield i would take the gas parts out and fire it left handed and single shot.
now on to typhoon. as far as i know the raf is to get 232 in 7 sqns. that seems a hell of a lot per sqn, even allowing for attrition and the ocu/oeu. the oeu will be 17 sqn and the ocu 29. correct me if im wrong but isnt the typhoon oeu going to be merged with the tornado oeu? and on the subject of typhoon, what is happening to coltishall? everything ive read and heard says that leuchars will have one ad sqn(wonder who'll do q eh!) and two ga. so whats happening at colt? im guessing it'll close but who knows

[BEagle]

Worked with a couple of EFs yesterday and boy, is it some jet!! "Warton, request the block FL410 to FL 510 please"......"(EF1) your tanker is 5 miles ahead, 30 000ft below, can you make the height? Affirm!"......and he did! "(EF 2) can you restrict your exercise to not above FL 410 as there's a similar type operating above you at up to FL 500"

We've had gutless, inadequate jets ever since the Lightning era. Now we've got this cosmic jet about to enter service - and all you can do is to bleat about a couple of grey tin targets full of cocktail party wallahs. Bo££ocks - expensive and obsolete floating gin palaces we simply do NOT need until F35 is a reality. And possibly not even then.............

andcanberraforheavenssakesortoutyourabysmaluseofgrammarandpu nctuation.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Ohhh I TRIED to avoid getting in on this thread but I could resist..I'm an addict:

Eurofighter, despite its delays, promises to be a GREAT aircraft. Lets not knock it before it enters service.

The same point also applies to the JSF/F35/FJCA (whatever you want to call it).

[Jackonicko]

WEBF

"The same" does not apply to JSF. US forces JSFs promise to be great 'silver bullet' day one F-117 replacements, with a much expanded air-to-air capability (compared with none!).

But it's the lo element in a hi/lo mix with the F-22, and will rely on technologies and kit which most export customers will never see.

But for foreign customers, the JSF promises little versatility, flexibility or 'bang per buck', while there is no guarantee of offsets or industrial participation.


Newshound,

My article did at least stress the doubts over A-G capabilities, and the support arrangements, and the delays, and pointed out the dishonesty inherent in the BAE definition of ISDs.


Canberra,

Am I alone in wondering why we're keeping Leuchars, in the People's Democratic Republic of Jockistan and closing Colt?


BEagle,

Sounds encouraging! There'll be lots of F3 and Jag mates who'll get scared being that high.....

[ThrustLust]

Please do not kid yourselves!

The RAF & / or HMG will buy all the EuroFighters ordered. What will surprise us is what they will do with them. I am fully aware of the recent air to ground issues facing EF but...... Can you seriously see Tornado making it to 2020? Add into this equation the lask of Navs and an increased SAM threat and you have close to the perfect POLITICAL solution. Secure jobs, cover shortfalls, improve capability.

My only grip is with the NAVs who signed on believing that the GR4 would last until 2020. WAKE UP! 2010 is as good as you will get.....it's a shame that they are not looking for people too enter the Ops Sup branch......Oh Hello! Leave now before it is too late.


I lust for Thrust

[ORAC]

Jacko, airspace.

The RAF is being squeezed out of the southern North Sea. Too crowded. I'm surprised they didn't close CY as well. You need to get further north for the clear airspace required for large super-cruise AD in, relatively, sterile airspace. And LI/LU also give easy access to all the scottish hills/LFAs and the ranges (Spadeadam, Tain etc).

--------------------------------------------

That's a bit simplistic. let me give some of the background as I understand.

Back in the late 70/80s the RAF got NATO to pay for the hardening of our main bases (HAZ/PBF etc). Coltishall did not qualify as the Jags were part of the AMF and, come the war, were supposed to fly of to Norway etc. So no hardening was done.

Later, when the USAFE started to run down, the idea arose to move the Jags to Woodbridge/Bentwaters, which were hardened and, supposedly, well equipped. The cunning scheme was to sell Colt to the council as a replacement for Norwich airport and use the money to fund the move. As an extra, the value of the land at the MQs at Horsham St Faith would soar. As I recall, they had got a very good proposal from a builder wo would build new quarters for Neatishead elsewhere, demolish the patch and build a few hundred new houses on the site.

That all fell through for 2 reasons. One, the council tried to be clever and demanded that, effectively, they be given Colt for free or they would insist it be returned to farmland. They so p****d of the MOD they even investigated the cost - including how much they could get selling the runway as hardcore. The second reason was the cost of the move to BT/WD was going through the roof when they looked at rewiring to 220V, building a new Ardour engine bay etc, plus the USAF had gutted the place and took all the good stuff home. I believe it was all called off as the price was escalating through about 200 million.

In the meantime, however, all work services had been suspended and the place was starting to go downhill.

As far as airspace goes, CS is not ideal for doing AD. The airspace is very constricted, and totally booked just to fit in CY flying. It has reasonable access to Donna and Cowden, but, with the move to medium level PG weapons, they are not ideally located (for land or airspace) and the proposed new East coast air route will make them almost impossible to use. The much more preferable locations are all north of B1 with close access to Spadeadam and ranges to the north.

When the decision was taken to make the Eurofighter a JAG/F3 replacement, it was also decided it would operate as 3 wings. The decision then came down to which bases to refurbish to accommodate them. CY, LI and LU were all hardened and had lots of new MQs etc. CS basically had nothing going for it.

I don't know the present position/politics reference HSF and CS, but I am sure someone will know.

[BEagle]

So it won't be long before there'll be no fighter bases south of clogs-and-whippets land? The only bases in civilisation will be those of the heavies, some bombers in Rutland and Learning Command?

But more decent places for the dung-eaters to take over and ruin?

[solotk]

Dung-Eaters? I appreciate your upset Beagle but......

Ok, so they way we are going, we'll be closing everything south of Catterick. So what?

The airspace in Southern England, is getting more and more crowded by the day. Da Government , is looking to create more runways/airports to service the increase in air traffic, and frankly, do the FJ's want to be operating in an envioronment where a lot of the workload, is taken up looking out for conflicting traffic?

This is a tiny island, and free airspace is rapidly becoming a precious commodity.

So, how about this.

How much would it cost, for us to LEASE an airbase, from one of our new NATO allies? I'm thinking of Poland here, especially the North. If you get your TPC's out, you'll see the area below the Baltic, and west of Kaliningrad, which includes an ENORMOUS area of absolutely nothing. I flew over that, in an Iskra some years ago. Absolutely nothing for miles, no farmers to upset for the muddies, and a lot of very clear airspace up to FL400 for the Air Defence gods.

Cost of lease would be cheap, and certainly less than opening/re-opening a new airbase in the South. If anyone flying a MFI bomber in the big house wants to know more, I can certainly get some info.

Failing that, let's look at bases in the former colonies for the same sort of exercise.

At the end of the day, it's all about space to train, and there is still a lot of it about, well within one Tanker hop.

Tony :D

[BEagle]

There's still plenty of airspace in the South West. FTS work could happily take place at Yeovilton or Chivenor....

You're right about certain areas in the East of Europe making good training airspace - and the need for vast chunks of airspace for EF to conduct training. But if we tanked it over to the East, perhaps the dismally low refuelling rate might need improving?

I guess I've been lucky to have done tours at Abingdon/Benson, Brize, Scampton and Wattisham, plus time at Brawdy, Chivenor, Coningsby, Honington and Wittering - and only brief visits to bases oop Nawrth or in Jockistan!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The airspace over the South West is less crowded than other parts of the UK.

Apart from personnel rentention issues, one of the arguments for keeping the Sea Harriers at Yeovilton (which, according to my journo mate, was under consideration BEFORE the shameful decision to retire them early) was the close proximity of a massive exercise area for ACM which covered Devon, the Bristol Channel and parts of Somerset and Cornwall (I think!). This area, I was told, is used pretty much exclusively by the RN and USAFE.

Is there any reason why the RAF cannot use it?

[solotk]

The more I think about the east, the better I like it.

Why comes to Polska? Apologies to Malcolm Bradbury

1. Loads of blimmin airspace and varied terrain
2. Poles mad keen for more integration
3. English widely spoken, Country has come on leaps and bounds
4. Easy access to the rest of Europe, Finmark and the baltic states.

5. Lots of other Air Forces around, for dissimilar ACT, all flying the kit you are most likely to come up against.
6. Potential customer for EF, nothing like having it demoed on a regular basis.
7. Cheaper Fuel
8. They need hard Western moolah
9. They LOVE the RAF, absolutely, and without reservation, something to do with a summer 62 years ago, it's deeply engrained in their psyche.
10. 2 hours flying time from the UK, or less depending on your throttle setting.

Well, thats my 2 zlotys worth anyway.

Oh , and here's a piccie of a previous deployment to the territory.....
http://aviation.pol.pl/jpg/88/88508.jpg[/IMG]

http://aviation.pol.pl/jpg/70/70617.jpg

Photo copyright Pawel Bonyark http://aviation.pol.pl/photo/place/deblin98.htm

[callsign Metman]

There's still plenty of empty airspace at our South Atlantic 'colony'.
Perhaps there should be longer and more frequent detachments to play..sorry practice down there. Or is it too windy and cold and devoid of women for dets. Still there'd be plenty of sheep for the 'dung-eaters'.


CM

[teeteringhead]

And of course many of the Cabinet and Defence Ministers represent Jockinese constituencies.........

And remind me which Station the Scottish VCDS commanded......

Clearly such things could NEVER be a factor.........

But I DO recall hearing that when the SAR world had comms which could facilitate a single RCC, the staff solution was Northwood. Oh no, came the Ministry's reply we've just closed a SAR Flt at Leuchars, we've got to put the single RCC in Scotland.......

[Jackonicko]

Anyone know whatever happened to Keith Hartley?

Is it another sorry tail? (sorry, tale!)

[RotaDish]

That's it, I can't stand it anymore. WEBF, please, please, please go somewhere, and do something either: a) Reproductive b) Productive or c) Imaginative. But please, stop posting on threads (That's all of them) that you have no knowledge of.

Don't misunderstand me, I don't dislike you, I just think that based on your own military expertise (Couldn't last 2 weeks), you should have the sense to Shut T F U.

Now, my question:

Who "In the know" can tell me when the OCU is "Actually" going to get it's fine craft? I understand this might be close to the chest at the moment, and if so, that's fine. But, an earlier poster has a good point; If "The Baron" has buffooned it, then the contract is written such that they have to pay! And So They Should! But will they be forced to? I doubt it. The parallels to the introduction of the "Fighting Fin" are uncanny, and we all know how that went!

WEBF: Don't feel hard done by, you can always log off, if you'd actually passed, you'd have probably had banter, better than mine, first hand for the rest of your career! (Just a guess).

Rota

[Lima Juliet]

Answer to Jackonicko's Q.

Relieved of command of EF due to impromptu display at BAe Warton (Ie. Sacked and moved into position of less responsibility).
A total lack of flying discipline.

Some say he should have gone when he nearly wrecked a BBMF Spit by running too much boost on a ground run and tipped it on its nose - Great bit of Test Pilot work.......:eek: :eek:

LJ

[Foreplane]

Regarding MMH/FH & MTBF, the requirements were originally written into the Aircraft's Development Spec which is what the DA's were built too. i.e. features designed in from day one by the techies supported by experienced, mostly ex-service engineers lobbying at every junction of the Design phase. CS & S in their current form have had nothing to do with it.

The Production Aircraft Spec is largely the Development spec (MOD held on very tightly to the hard to achieve bits) plus all the add ons of change proposals, well over a 100 last time I looked. Little changes like the AS role, new weapons, avionics, addressing obsolesence etc, you name it, its on the list!
These modified the Dev Spec and were embebbed in the Production Spec, in some cases before the feature had been built or tested in a DA, 'if you want the contract ' !!;)
So, don't underestimate the size of the Technical task moving from Dev to Prodn in the timescales involved. Add in the fact that the 'acceptable price' and new features required significant redesigns (airframe and equipment) for large scale manufacture and you begin to understand why things are not happening quite as fast as planned.
None of the above is meant to try justify the slips to programme.

No appologies for the biased perspective, two sides and all that!!
:D

[Jackonicko]

Foreplane,

Just want to get this straight...

MMH/FH, MTBF and other costs of ownership which BAE use as sales points are ALSO SPECIFIED for the DA aircraft?

The DA aircraft should achieve these figures more easily because they are less ambitious and don't incorporate the 'untested' mods and developments to which you refer?

The DA aircraft fail to meet these figures?


LJ,

Thanks, was astonished that BAES seemed to have lost both of its 'in-at-the-ground-floor', 'totally familiar with every aspect of development' TPs in recent years. Was KH's display work up (for ILA) at the end of a development hop really such a serious lapse in flying discipline? Or was it an excuse for him to be pushed for 'political reasons' or was it a 'tip-of-the-iceberg'/final straw-camel's back' thing.... ?



No bites on 'sorry tails'? Sorry, 'sorry tales'.......:D

[doh-nut boy]

My old man is a groundspike at Warton & KHs name is apparentley mud & as popular as a floater in a
swimming pool.

On landing back at Warton he was alledgedley suspended and escorted to the main gate by security for an incident over Salmesbury.

Vaguely remember similar treatment with Dave Eagles years ago when on his last flight took PO6 through Mach 1 over Warton & caused plenty wongas damage to residents windows. He did however become my hero for number of years & still get wood thinking of it.

The above is only rumour from Warton staff & not set in stone so if anyone knows better please correct me

[Ghostflyer]

My last job in the RAF was to do with EF. I was in post for a little over 2 and a half years. Sadly FOC slipped 3 years in that time!

Yep it was my fault; I should have been more forthright with my views but after 300 b**locks at the start of the meeting my arguments always started to lose impact. (Oops given my ID away)

Anyway, the view I always took was that EF would be a massive step forward for the RAF when it worked to spec. It would actually put us ahead of the 15Es and late generation 16s for a short while. Sadly the delays mean that the short while is becoming non-existant. And some of the procurement decisions for EOC leave one firmly boggled!

Were I a new lad on the street, EF would have been a massive lure to join the mob. Sadly, having been fortunate to have been on an exchange and done my share of punting around the sky in the odd yank hot pursuit ship, the thought of 10 years of in service development was enough to tip me over the edge and nail myself to the airline cross.

All I saw in my time was cost cutting that would only lead to more overstretch and more unfulfilled dreams. (What a load of old b**locks that was -- See haven't lost my touch) I hope EF reaches its potential because it will be a lot of fun to fly for the boys in the next decade. Even Beags will have retired by then. Sadly, with the Iron Chancellor, the prospects of continued funds for in-service development are looking quite bleek. A reduction in numbers will be sweetened with platitudes about more funds for future capabilities....don't hold your breath.

Oh well, off to the beach...I was lucky enough to pick up another choice posting abroad when I escaped.

Ghost:)

[Foreplane]

Seems we are agreed on my first point. :cool:
The Dev Spec figures still apply to the production aircraft, so in theory its harder to acheive with a far more complicated overall package. ;)
The contract requires that all the spec requirements must be demonstrated (some items not so,- sliding scale of importance, a claim can be submitted supported by evidence) to the customers satisfaction (this applies to all spec aspects). Where the DA's have a prodn representitive feature and a realistic measure can be made, and NETMA agree, it is acceptable to use the DA. In all other cases the MOD's say 'no chance' (insert your own choice of words) we'll wait to see the real Mccoy.
So with a Design that has moved on significantly from DA's you need, in a lot of cases, the finished article.
Add to this the fact that the full spec functionality is not able to, or needs to be, cramed into one DA airframe, it becomes a little harder to move it forward.
It is in EF's best long term interest to produce the most capable package at a price and having a tight spec with financial penalities is a big incentive.
Too many of the current players witnessed the F2/3 entry into service and the in-service development fiasco. Politics aside, the contract is sound enough to prevent this with EF. Rose tinted glasses doffed. :D

[Jackonicko]

Foreplane,

I'm kind of heartened that you think the contract is tight enough to prevent another F2 fiasco, but do you think it's tight enough if, as I've heard alleged but with no evidence, the £85 m penalty for missing the ISD was waived?

Jacko!

[Foreplane]

Jackonicko,
I think there's 6 months grace on the end of Jun date, which is why the push is on for Dec. Also I don't think it matters which Nation gets its a/c first. ;)
Regarding the contract, it is very tough, the tools are there if there is a willingness to use them. There is no doubt who pays in a straight spec non-compliance, either compensation (cashback or give us this & we'll call it quits) or fix it.
Further to the original thread of it being a relic, who considers current build F-15's a relic. A classic example of an excellent platform with bags of potential and internal capacity to take advantage of developments in the down-sizeing & capability of avionics. The basic airframe is the same, with no-doubt improvements applied over the years.
I'm not aware of anybody down-playing the aerodynamic performance of EF.:D

[solotk]

Just been listening to journomate Andy Gilligan (Ex Telegraph) talking about some of the problems still associated with Eurofighter.

Tailplane de-laminating , Missile not available, boxheads not contributing etc etc. When exactly are we going to have the first EF squadron in service again?

[Jackonicko]

Asked around a bit at Farnborough on the Keith Hartley thing. No-one I spoke too thought that the display in question was remotely 'hairy' and all suggested that the lapse in discipline was no more than token. Rumour central suggests that the display impressed the evaluation team then at Warton hugely (they'd only flown DA 4 which doesn't have the latest FCS software) and KH's show helped reassure them about Typhoon's agility. They liked it so much they've now bought it.....

Hence marketing people were busy thanking KH when security arrived to confiscate his pass and escort him off site.

PS: Was the four-ship at Farnborough any more legal, since it wasn't worked up or practised and involved at least one aircraft not cleared to fly in formation..........

[wub]

Jacko

KH was at Farnborough and very much involved with showing punters the EF (sorry, Typhoon) mock up. I belive he is about to depart for pastures new, where the sun shines, and was having a last fling :cool:

[maxburner]

I have to come to the aid of Keith Hartley here, knowing, as opposed to guessing, the story, and also respecting the guy's ability as a top-notch TP.

Point 1. Keith is well liked and respected widely within BAE.

Point 2. The display which caused the problems was very good, well within the pilot's capabilities and not remotely dangerous.

Point 3. Keith is still with the company and has not been sacked, as some are suggesting.

Point 4. Keith has been instrumental, if not pivotal, in the design of the cockpit and displays. He will be a great loss to the project when he moves on, something he always intended to do.

Point 5. Its my belief that Keith had too much flair for a company which over recent years has become bogged down by procedure, by bean counters and by constant reorganisation.

JN, if you want to know the full story, why not write to the guy and ask? You never know, he may tell you some of it.

[Jackonicko]

Max B, that's my impression too, though with the added thought that inter-personal relationships which have seen the departure of several Warton TPs may have had something to do with it, too.

Solotk, well done on the sorry tails reference - remember you heard it here before you heard it on R4!