Eurofighter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eurofighter
BBC Radio 4 is broadcasting a show titled
"Eurofighter: The Plane Truth"
2000 on Monday 5th January for those who are interested.....
This is the general gist of the show-
"Twenty years after it was first planned, the bill for the RAF's new Eurofighter aircraft now stands at £18 billion. David Lomax investigates the troubled history of Britain's most expensive defence procurement project."
"Eurofighter: The Plane Truth"
2000 on Monday 5th January for those who are interested.....
This is the general gist of the show-
"Twenty years after it was first planned, the bill for the RAF's new Eurofighter aircraft now stands at £18 billion. David Lomax investigates the troubled history of Britain's most expensive defence procurement project."
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Well North of London
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of the damning report from today's Torygraph:
In November 2002 a Spanish Eurofighter crashed on a test flight near Madrid. It had been flying at 45,000 feet when its engines suddenly stopped and its two-man crew was forced to bail out. They were not hurt, but the accident meant that the test programme was halted pending an investigation. A German audit office report into the Eurofighter in August last year said that the Spanish crash "was not caused by human error or the extreme demands of a test flight . . . It appears to have been attributed to the simultaneous firing of both afterburners, which should have been a normal operation in a fighter aircraft. Moreover two experienced test pilots merely activated both afterburners in level flight. It is particularly worrying that this should have led to a crash eight years after the first flight of the prototype".
The German report said that only eight Eurofighters would have been delivered to the Luftwaffe by the end of the year instead of the 15 originally promised. The performance of these aircraft was inadequate, the report said, with significant flight restrictions. Eurofighters were not cleared to fire their cannon or to carry ammunition for them and, because of potential problems, had to be operated at no more than 20 minutes' flying time from an airfield.
The first Eurofighter Typhoons, as they are now called, are being handed over to air forces in the four manufacturing countries. The RAF has at last got its hands on a few machines but they are still being tested and have merely been moved at the BAe factory in Lancashire into a different hangar with an RAF flag outside. All Eurofighters were grounded recently because of problems with the landing gear and brakes. The manufacturers described these as "teething troubles".
Even someone as close to BAe Systems (the name for British Aerospace after it merged with GEC's Marconi Electronic Systems in 1999) as Air Chief Marshal Sir Patrick Hine, the company's former military adviser and now consultant, admits that there is still much work to be done. The first batch of Eurofighters will be the air-to-air combat versions. What the RAF really needs, according to the former head of RAF Strike Command, is the ground-attack version, but Sir Patrick acknowledges that the engineers will still have to integrate all the weapons systems, and the ground-attack type will not be in squadron service until 2010 or 2014. This will mean even higher costs "which will have to be worked out with the MoD and RAF".
Nice to see we are getting some decent equipment .... not!!
In November 2002 a Spanish Eurofighter crashed on a test flight near Madrid. It had been flying at 45,000 feet when its engines suddenly stopped and its two-man crew was forced to bail out. They were not hurt, but the accident meant that the test programme was halted pending an investigation. A German audit office report into the Eurofighter in August last year said that the Spanish crash "was not caused by human error or the extreme demands of a test flight . . . It appears to have been attributed to the simultaneous firing of both afterburners, which should have been a normal operation in a fighter aircraft. Moreover two experienced test pilots merely activated both afterburners in level flight. It is particularly worrying that this should have led to a crash eight years after the first flight of the prototype".
The German report said that only eight Eurofighters would have been delivered to the Luftwaffe by the end of the year instead of the 15 originally promised. The performance of these aircraft was inadequate, the report said, with significant flight restrictions. Eurofighters were not cleared to fire their cannon or to carry ammunition for them and, because of potential problems, had to be operated at no more than 20 minutes' flying time from an airfield.
The first Eurofighter Typhoons, as they are now called, are being handed over to air forces in the four manufacturing countries. The RAF has at last got its hands on a few machines but they are still being tested and have merely been moved at the BAe factory in Lancashire into a different hangar with an RAF flag outside. All Eurofighters were grounded recently because of problems with the landing gear and brakes. The manufacturers described these as "teething troubles".
Even someone as close to BAe Systems (the name for British Aerospace after it merged with GEC's Marconi Electronic Systems in 1999) as Air Chief Marshal Sir Patrick Hine, the company's former military adviser and now consultant, admits that there is still much work to be done. The first batch of Eurofighters will be the air-to-air combat versions. What the RAF really needs, according to the former head of RAF Strike Command, is the ground-attack version, but Sir Patrick acknowledges that the engineers will still have to integrate all the weapons systems, and the ground-attack type will not be in squadron service until 2010 or 2014. This will mean even higher costs "which will have to be worked out with the MoD and RAF".
Nice to see we are getting some decent equipment .... not!!
Typhoon
Going to play Devils' Advocate here....
"Nice to see we are getting some decent equipment .... not!!"
Hang on, I seem to recall the F3 being late and having its troubles.
The GR7 IIRC had some difficulties - BTW why doesn't it have cannons fitted a la GR3, Harrier guys?
Even the Tucano had its niggles when it arrived.
What about the Merlin?
Seems to me that since I've been around not many military aircraft have done exactly what it says on the box they came in until a few years have passed. Before anyone says "what about the American stuff?", look at the grief they're having with the V-22 Osprey for example?
Lets just give the Typhoon time eh? At this governments' rate it'll be the only FJ we'll have in 5 years time anyway. Besides, it's the Germans' fault, I saw it in the Daily Mirror.....
"Nice to see we are getting some decent equipment .... not!!"
Hang on, I seem to recall the F3 being late and having its troubles.
The GR7 IIRC had some difficulties - BTW why doesn't it have cannons fitted a la GR3, Harrier guys?
Even the Tucano had its niggles when it arrived.
What about the Merlin?
Seems to me that since I've been around not many military aircraft have done exactly what it says on the box they came in until a few years have passed. Before anyone says "what about the American stuff?", look at the grief they're having with the V-22 Osprey for example?
Lets just give the Typhoon time eh? At this governments' rate it'll be the only FJ we'll have in 5 years time anyway. Besides, it's the Germans' fault, I saw it in the Daily Mirror.....
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here here Jobza - from what I can gather it's a good piece of kit but like any complex machine it will need time to work out the niggles.
Remember that almost every combat aircraft programme expeiences technical problems - F22 prototype crashed, as did the Grypen (gripen?), V22 etc.etc.etc.
Remember that almost every combat aircraft programme expeiences technical problems - F22 prototype crashed, as did the Grypen (gripen?), V22 etc.etc.etc.
Gripen almost did, Damien.
EF has its problems, and is disgracefully late, due mainly to the complete inability of our boxhead chums to make any decisions on time. The delays caused by German faffing have added millions to the cost of every EF.
But I'll lay you good odds that Lomax won't tackle any of the real issues facing the programme. His Newsnight piece some years ago was a disgrace - inaccurate, out of date and over dramatised (and with notionally independent interviewees who were known to be in LockMart's camp), and I'll bet that tonight's piece for Radio 4 (8 pm) will be just the same.
The reasons for the Spanish crash are well documented - as is the fact that the incident was entirely attributable to unique features of an entirely unrepresentative test series engine.
This twit is supposed to be a specialist defence reporter, yet his lack of specialised knowledge and his apparent ignorance about one of Britain's major defence programmes is profoundly depressing.
What a pity Gilligan is in 'exile' after the whole Hutton thang. He'd have over-sensationalised it, perhaps, but at least he'd have done his homework.
EF has its problems, and is disgracefully late, due mainly to the complete inability of our boxhead chums to make any decisions on time. The delays caused by German faffing have added millions to the cost of every EF.
But I'll lay you good odds that Lomax won't tackle any of the real issues facing the programme. His Newsnight piece some years ago was a disgrace - inaccurate, out of date and over dramatised (and with notionally independent interviewees who were known to be in LockMart's camp), and I'll bet that tonight's piece for Radio 4 (8 pm) will be just the same.
The reasons for the Spanish crash are well documented - as is the fact that the incident was entirely attributable to unique features of an entirely unrepresentative test series engine.
This twit is supposed to be a specialist defence reporter, yet his lack of specialised knowledge and his apparent ignorance about one of Britain's major defence programmes is profoundly depressing.
What a pity Gilligan is in 'exile' after the whole Hutton thang. He'd have over-sensationalised it, perhaps, but at least he'd have done his homework.
DamienB,
F-117A was just over 2 years from first flight to entering service, and the first squadron was fully operational around 2 years later. As far as I know the project also ran close to budget, albeit a black one.
Whatever happened to the likes of Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich? I suppose that the qualities that they possessed are outlawed in today's risk averse management culture!
F-117A was just over 2 years from first flight to entering service, and the first squadron was fully operational around 2 years later. As far as I know the project also ran close to budget, albeit a black one.
Whatever happened to the likes of Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich? I suppose that the qualities that they possessed are outlawed in today's risk averse management culture!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think most of the things Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich developed between them were under budget and beat the project timescales.
Anyone remember reading Kelly's rules for projects?
Rule Number 1
The Skunk Works' program manager must be delegated practically complete control of his program in all aspects. He should report to a division president or higher.
Rule Number 2
Strong but small project offices must be provided both by the military and industry.
Rule No. 3
The number of people having any connection with the project must be restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people (10 percent to 25 percent compared to the so-called normal systems).
Rule No. 4
A very simple drawing and drawing release system with great flexibility for making changes must be provided.
Rule No. 5
There must be a minimum number of reports required, but important work must be recorded thoroughly.
Rule No. 6
There must be a monthly cost review covering not only what has been spent and committed but also projected costs to the conclusion of the program. Don't have the books ninety days late and don't surprise the customer with sudden overruns.
Rule No. 7
The contractor must be delegated and must assume more than normal responsibility to get good vendor bids for subcontract on the project. Commercial bid procedures are very often better than military ones.
Rule No. 8
The inspection system as currently used by the Skunk Works, which has been approved by both the Air Force and the Navy, meets the intent of existing military requirements and should be used on new projects. Push more basic inspection responsibility back to the subcontractors and vendors. Don't duplicate so much inspection.
Rule No. 9
The contractor must be delegated the authority to test his final product in flight. He can and must test it in the initial stages. If he doesn't, he rapidly loses his competency to design other vehicles.
Rule No. 10
The specification applying to the hardware must be agreed to in advance of contracting. The Skunk Works practice of having a specification section stating clearly which important military specification items will not knowingly be complied with and reasons therefore is highly recommended.
Rule No. 11
Funding a program must be timely so that the contractor doesn't have to keep running to the bank to support government projects.
Rule No. 12
There must be absolute mutual trust between the military organization and the contractor with very close liaison on a day-to-day basis. This cuts down misunderstanding and correspondence to an absolute minimum.
Rule No. 13
Access by outsiders to the project and its personnel must be strictly controlled by appropriate security measures.
Rule No. 14
Because only a few people will be used in engineering and most other areas, ways must be provided to reward good performance by pay, not simply related to the number of personnel supervised.
Anyone remember reading Kelly's rules for projects?
Rule Number 1
The Skunk Works' program manager must be delegated practically complete control of his program in all aspects. He should report to a division president or higher.
Rule Number 2
Strong but small project offices must be provided both by the military and industry.
Rule No. 3
The number of people having any connection with the project must be restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people (10 percent to 25 percent compared to the so-called normal systems).
Rule No. 4
A very simple drawing and drawing release system with great flexibility for making changes must be provided.
Rule No. 5
There must be a minimum number of reports required, but important work must be recorded thoroughly.
Rule No. 6
There must be a monthly cost review covering not only what has been spent and committed but also projected costs to the conclusion of the program. Don't have the books ninety days late and don't surprise the customer with sudden overruns.
Rule No. 7
The contractor must be delegated and must assume more than normal responsibility to get good vendor bids for subcontract on the project. Commercial bid procedures are very often better than military ones.
Rule No. 8
The inspection system as currently used by the Skunk Works, which has been approved by both the Air Force and the Navy, meets the intent of existing military requirements and should be used on new projects. Push more basic inspection responsibility back to the subcontractors and vendors. Don't duplicate so much inspection.
Rule No. 9
The contractor must be delegated the authority to test his final product in flight. He can and must test it in the initial stages. If he doesn't, he rapidly loses his competency to design other vehicles.
Rule No. 10
The specification applying to the hardware must be agreed to in advance of contracting. The Skunk Works practice of having a specification section stating clearly which important military specification items will not knowingly be complied with and reasons therefore is highly recommended.
Rule No. 11
Funding a program must be timely so that the contractor doesn't have to keep running to the bank to support government projects.
Rule No. 12
There must be absolute mutual trust between the military organization and the contractor with very close liaison on a day-to-day basis. This cuts down misunderstanding and correspondence to an absolute minimum.
Rule No. 13
Access by outsiders to the project and its personnel must be strictly controlled by appropriate security measures.
Rule No. 14
Because only a few people will be used in engineering and most other areas, ways must be provided to reward good performance by pay, not simply related to the number of personnel supervised.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It really pains me to point this out, but just take a look at the French Rafale project. They embarked on Eurofighter before going their own way and now have not only operational squadrons but some of these squadrons happen to be the operating Rafale M from the boat.
Zut Alors!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
On cost control, a civil servant boffin concerned with the Stringray project left his briefcase at Boscombe. A Canberra was despatched post haste to Kinloss with the briefcase. Boffin left Kyle of Lochalsh and got back to Boscombe before the briefcase made it to Scotland.
No sweat, Macaroni merely stuck it on the bill.
When you get a bill with 9 noughts on it, 0.1% is a helluva lot os dosh.
No sweat, Macaroni merely stuck it on the bill.
When you get a bill with 9 noughts on it, 0.1% is a helluva lot os dosh.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lowobservable
Jacko is probably, understandably, reluctant to respond as you'd wish. But, as someone who was more close to the programme for many a year, I can tell you there were plenty - start with the lady (and her 'expert' advisors) who gave her 'educated' opinions on the Radio4 programme ; she and her like used to accept invites to the BAe and Eurofighter chalets at F'boro. Paris etc for their freebees in droves in the early-mid nineties, digging their hosts for titbits that we knew would enhance their anti-EFA/Eurofighter campaigns. As did others before them over Tornado. Good UK brethren. (I don't aim this barb at those who came along with more open minds).
Sir PH did reasonably well with his comments, but could've been more persuasive in a couple of areas.
I'll return to the topic tomorrow when I'm less-incensed - and less pxxxed!!
Jacko is probably, understandably, reluctant to respond as you'd wish. But, as someone who was more close to the programme for many a year, I can tell you there were plenty - start with the lady (and her 'expert' advisors) who gave her 'educated' opinions on the Radio4 programme ; she and her like used to accept invites to the BAe and Eurofighter chalets at F'boro. Paris etc for their freebees in droves in the early-mid nineties, digging their hosts for titbits that we knew would enhance their anti-EFA/Eurofighter campaigns. As did others before them over Tornado. Good UK brethren. (I don't aim this barb at those who came along with more open minds).
Sir PH did reasonably well with his comments, but could've been more persuasive in a couple of areas.
I'll return to the topic tomorrow when I'm less-incensed - and less pxxxed!!
LO.
Did you take me to mean someone in particular?
I merely mean the kind of f*ckw*ts who seriously suggested that EF Typhoon was lacking because it didn't have F-22 levels of all round LO, and who erroneously (and probably knowingly so) sugggested that aircraft like the F-16 were more agile, or that aircraft like the F-15E promised to be less expensive. The kind of idiots, in other words, who seriously suggested that the F-16 could have fulfilled the role.
If the cap fits, it won't fall over deaf ears, as my old granny said.
Best bit of today's programme:
"The nearest we could get to Typhoon was this children's computer game."
I thought that Smartman and his cronies let anyone fly the rig.......
The fact that EF Typhoon originated during the Cold War merely means that it was designed to cope with the very worst conceivable A-A and A-G threat, while the RAF requirement ensured that it had credible and robust out-of-area and forward deployed capabilities.
Yes it's late. Yes the A-G capability is still years away. Yes the quadruplication of final assembly and flight test is barking. Yes kow-towing to the Germans and Italians and Spaniards on workshare has added to both costs and timescales. But it's simply not fair to try and paint the aeroplane as being any more troubled than other modern fighter programmes.
And while the French (bless 'em) have managed to get about eight Rafale Ms into squadron service, they didn't have the Germans to slow them down.
Did you take me to mean someone in particular?
I merely mean the kind of f*ckw*ts who seriously suggested that EF Typhoon was lacking because it didn't have F-22 levels of all round LO, and who erroneously (and probably knowingly so) sugggested that aircraft like the F-16 were more agile, or that aircraft like the F-15E promised to be less expensive. The kind of idiots, in other words, who seriously suggested that the F-16 could have fulfilled the role.
If the cap fits, it won't fall over deaf ears, as my old granny said.
Best bit of today's programme:
"The nearest we could get to Typhoon was this children's computer game."
I thought that Smartman and his cronies let anyone fly the rig.......
The fact that EF Typhoon originated during the Cold War merely means that it was designed to cope with the very worst conceivable A-A and A-G threat, while the RAF requirement ensured that it had credible and robust out-of-area and forward deployed capabilities.
Yes it's late. Yes the A-G capability is still years away. Yes the quadruplication of final assembly and flight test is barking. Yes kow-towing to the Germans and Italians and Spaniards on workshare has added to both costs and timescales. But it's simply not fair to try and paint the aeroplane as being any more troubled than other modern fighter programmes.
And while the French (bless 'em) have managed to get about eight Rafale Ms into squadron service, they didn't have the Germans to slow them down.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did anyone record it??
Unfortunately Tiff did something on C5 at the same time about fast pointy things and I was torn, pictures won over words.
I also could not find a 'cassette' to record the radio so I could listen to it in the car tomorrow. I can't believe it I can record TV to DVD but radio....
Anyone?
Unfortunately Tiff did something on C5 at the same time about fast pointy things and I was torn, pictures won over words.
I also could not find a 'cassette' to record the radio so I could listen to it in the car tomorrow. I can't believe it I can record TV to DVD but radio....
Anyone?
18Greens,
(how many wheels?! - or little holes in the ground?)
I may have a radiocassette recording at home (with last month's one on forces overstretch on the back), but won't know until tomorrow.
However, try the following and page down to "E" for Eurofighter:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml
Hope that helps!
(how many wheels?! - or little holes in the ground?)
I may have a radiocassette recording at home (with last month's one on forces overstretch on the back), but won't know until tomorrow.
However, try the following and page down to "E" for Eurofighter:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml
Hope that helps!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Apres le programme ---------
Yes, if our home customer (MoD Air) could've afforded to develop EF alone it would've; but it couldn't, so there. Yes, if our home customer (MoD Air) had wanted to procure from the US, sooner or now, (egF15/16), it would've (maybe); but it didn't and it hasn't, so there. Swallow it!
The UK customer (with GE/IT/SP) wrote the EF specification way-back: the eventual, 4-Nation (like it or not) costed design was optimised for the A/A role, with a secondary (fallout) A/G capability. That became the specification. It still is: in the light of things, the customer has never changed it. So don't point the fingure at the manufacturers in that respect. And even if the customer had insisted on a change of priority in role, such a decision would've been tech-awkward to say the least, programme challenging (with even more delays), and with yet more delays. And that's ignoring those historical debates over cost-escalating issues such as threatened GE-withdrawal etc etc.
And as for development hiccups such as the loss of only one aircraft so far (break a leg) - hurray, in 10 years - and a software issue with the undercarriage (grounded? - bollxxks) - the aircraft has had more fortune than that of, eg Tornado. And than that of F22 (to a degree) - and certainly Grippen (Stig might say, quietly, 'oh,Yaa'). Don't be silly.
All agree - the changed TIME priority is for an A/G optimised vehicle. But if over the next few potentially 'dormant' years one can accept a shortfall in this or that capability area, what is the problem?? Let Typhoon evolve, firstly as a now irrevocerable A/D asset (yes, not now a top priority, but nevertheless good to have if it's already paid for). And given funding, (a customer issue), the beast will hopefully (it's all formally pre-spec'd) become a world-class mud-mover (and yes, with longish legs) in the 2010-ish timescale. It's in the frame - not a technology wish-list; but yes it does need cash.
Aside from a robust external stealth spec (and as an Oz boffin once mentioned - stealth will become a decaying asset; decaying, I said - future tense), Typhoon has the potential to give the RAF an omni-survivable combat capability for much longer than my son can procreate. (I failed a few months back).
Sir PH was right in the sense that A/D was the priority. But he placed less emphasis on the fact that this was CUSTOMER-CHOICE from the outset - and that had not changed; even in the light of post-cold war conditions. In purely military terms it should have. It MoD terms it should have. In Governments terms, it has been set aside. In PR-speak, Paddy might've been less-establishment I feel.
And as for Rafale - please take a closer look ------
Been out of it for 4 years now, but the facts are still there. End of the day, WE'RE getting it -- and I'll put that other quid on it being better than good.
Yes, if our home customer (MoD Air) could've afforded to develop EF alone it would've; but it couldn't, so there. Yes, if our home customer (MoD Air) had wanted to procure from the US, sooner or now, (egF15/16), it would've (maybe); but it didn't and it hasn't, so there. Swallow it!
The UK customer (with GE/IT/SP) wrote the EF specification way-back: the eventual, 4-Nation (like it or not) costed design was optimised for the A/A role, with a secondary (fallout) A/G capability. That became the specification. It still is: in the light of things, the customer has never changed it. So don't point the fingure at the manufacturers in that respect. And even if the customer had insisted on a change of priority in role, such a decision would've been tech-awkward to say the least, programme challenging (with even more delays), and with yet more delays. And that's ignoring those historical debates over cost-escalating issues such as threatened GE-withdrawal etc etc.
And as for development hiccups such as the loss of only one aircraft so far (break a leg) - hurray, in 10 years - and a software issue with the undercarriage (grounded? - bollxxks) - the aircraft has had more fortune than that of, eg Tornado. And than that of F22 (to a degree) - and certainly Grippen (Stig might say, quietly, 'oh,Yaa'). Don't be silly.
All agree - the changed TIME priority is for an A/G optimised vehicle. But if over the next few potentially 'dormant' years one can accept a shortfall in this or that capability area, what is the problem?? Let Typhoon evolve, firstly as a now irrevocerable A/D asset (yes, not now a top priority, but nevertheless good to have if it's already paid for). And given funding, (a customer issue), the beast will hopefully (it's all formally pre-spec'd) become a world-class mud-mover (and yes, with longish legs) in the 2010-ish timescale. It's in the frame - not a technology wish-list; but yes it does need cash.
Aside from a robust external stealth spec (and as an Oz boffin once mentioned - stealth will become a decaying asset; decaying, I said - future tense), Typhoon has the potential to give the RAF an omni-survivable combat capability for much longer than my son can procreate. (I failed a few months back).
Sir PH was right in the sense that A/D was the priority. But he placed less emphasis on the fact that this was CUSTOMER-CHOICE from the outset - and that had not changed; even in the light of post-cold war conditions. In purely military terms it should have. It MoD terms it should have. In Governments terms, it has been set aside. In PR-speak, Paddy might've been less-establishment I feel.
And as for Rafale - please take a closer look ------
Been out of it for 4 years now, but the facts are still there. End of the day, WE'RE getting it -- and I'll put that other quid on it being better than good.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Well North of London
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I accept that it’s becoming inevitable for any large project to come in late and over budget. However, the Eurofighter is in serious risk of becoming a white elephant before it even gets into service. With the widely touted cancellation of Tranche 3, the unit costs will increase even further, and if a single aircraft now costs the same as a new hospital or several new schools then we will have to very strongly justify each one we buy.
I missed the broadcast, but IMHO there were 3 major factors that have caused the problem. Firstly, we just couldn’t resist the temptation to amend the specification – even after it was supposedly frozen. Initially it was mainly an air superiority fighter, but now it has become an all-singing, all-dancing multi-role ground attack thing as well. As Smartman says, this was our choice, but any such changes have cost us much and caused major delays. Secondly, the original design included some extremely advanced technology – e.g. a fully electronically scanned phased array radar and, if memory serves me correctly, computer control using voice recognition. Whilst such things are very gucci, they were also very high risk and any failure to achieve technology goals in one area had knock effects for other parts of the project.
In Rafale, the French seem to have avoided these two pitfalls. They came up with an initial design for a fighter and stuck with it. They also included new technology but decided to use designs that were lower risk and much more quickly achievable, such as a mechanically scanned phased array. As a result their aircraft is now in service, whereas our gold-plated version remains several years off and is costing more by the minute.
Oh yes, I did say 3 major factors – the last is that we have BwoS to work with. Let me give you one example of why I believe this. Back in the early-mid nineties I was amongst a team who were treated to a presentation about the Eurofighter Fight Control System. It was given by BwoS, who were in charge of designing the system at the time. After the usual marketing blah and death by Powerpoint, the Chief Boffin was wheeled out to answer our questions. The Q&A went something like this:
Boffin: Our FCS is fantastic, it uses four computer systems and millions of lines of code to make something that has the aerodynamics of a brick into a super-agile fighter.
Audience: So how confident are you that there aren’t any bugs in the hardware/software that could cause a FCS failure?
Boffin: Oh, we are very confident – although you can’t 100% test that much code. Just in case we have included a fifth computer to monitor the other four and reset the whole FCS if it detects a problem.
Audience: But until your extra computer spots the problem and gets everything going again won’t your fighter be flying like a brick?
Boffin: OK, we’re well ahead of you on that one. In case there is ever any major difficulty, we’ve installed another computer which monitors the other five and if it spots a problem it automatically fires the ejector seat!!
With a design strategy such as this is it any wonder that our new super fighter has become late, over weight and ultra-expensive?
I missed the broadcast, but IMHO there were 3 major factors that have caused the problem. Firstly, we just couldn’t resist the temptation to amend the specification – even after it was supposedly frozen. Initially it was mainly an air superiority fighter, but now it has become an all-singing, all-dancing multi-role ground attack thing as well. As Smartman says, this was our choice, but any such changes have cost us much and caused major delays. Secondly, the original design included some extremely advanced technology – e.g. a fully electronically scanned phased array radar and, if memory serves me correctly, computer control using voice recognition. Whilst such things are very gucci, they were also very high risk and any failure to achieve technology goals in one area had knock effects for other parts of the project.
In Rafale, the French seem to have avoided these two pitfalls. They came up with an initial design for a fighter and stuck with it. They also included new technology but decided to use designs that were lower risk and much more quickly achievable, such as a mechanically scanned phased array. As a result their aircraft is now in service, whereas our gold-plated version remains several years off and is costing more by the minute.
Oh yes, I did say 3 major factors – the last is that we have BwoS to work with. Let me give you one example of why I believe this. Back in the early-mid nineties I was amongst a team who were treated to a presentation about the Eurofighter Fight Control System. It was given by BwoS, who were in charge of designing the system at the time. After the usual marketing blah and death by Powerpoint, the Chief Boffin was wheeled out to answer our questions. The Q&A went something like this:
Boffin: Our FCS is fantastic, it uses four computer systems and millions of lines of code to make something that has the aerodynamics of a brick into a super-agile fighter.
Audience: So how confident are you that there aren’t any bugs in the hardware/software that could cause a FCS failure?
Boffin: Oh, we are very confident – although you can’t 100% test that much code. Just in case we have included a fifth computer to monitor the other four and reset the whole FCS if it detects a problem.
Audience: But until your extra computer spots the problem and gets everything going again won’t your fighter be flying like a brick?
Boffin: OK, we’re well ahead of you on that one. In case there is ever any major difficulty, we’ve installed another computer which monitors the other five and if it spots a problem it automatically fires the ejector seat!!
With a design strategy such as this is it any wonder that our new super fighter has become late, over weight and ultra-expensive?
Is it true that if Bureaufrightener loses hydraulic power to the foreplanes, that the departure to double amplitude will be so rapid that the pilot will become so much pink sludge on the cockpit floor?
If so, what is the BWoS solution?
If so, what is the BWoS solution?
1) I am assured that that is not true.
2) It's not BAE's place to offer a solution.
One of the few things BWoS got really, 100% right in recent years was a robust, reliable, FBW FCS that was demonstrated in that pretty little EAP (thinks: with radar and armament that would surely have made a great fighter in service by the mid 90s....). In any sane programme, the level of expertise and excellence demonstrated would have ensured that BAE had leadership of the FCS on Eurofighter. So who did get leadership?
The boxheads.
And though BAE are now playing the 'changed requirement' card for all it's worth, in a desparate bid for more money, IIRC the aircraft (even when it was just AST.409, or ACA, or whatever, was always intended to have a robust (if secondary) air-to-air and swing role capability (it was always a fkn Jag replacement, ferchrissake) and Eurofighter GmbH have been happily touting the aircraft as being PWIII, Storm Shadow, Brimstone, ALARM and recce pod capable since before the aircraft made its maiden flight.
Find me one Typhoon brochure that does not include diagrams showing these payloads from the last five years.
And if BAE et al have been saying that the aircraft can do all of this (or will be able to in an early block/tranche) then why should the customer not believe it? It's only recently that A-G capability has been described as a T2 or even T3 feature.
2) It's not BAE's place to offer a solution.
One of the few things BWoS got really, 100% right in recent years was a robust, reliable, FBW FCS that was demonstrated in that pretty little EAP (thinks: with radar and armament that would surely have made a great fighter in service by the mid 90s....). In any sane programme, the level of expertise and excellence demonstrated would have ensured that BAE had leadership of the FCS on Eurofighter. So who did get leadership?
The boxheads.
And though BAE are now playing the 'changed requirement' card for all it's worth, in a desparate bid for more money, IIRC the aircraft (even when it was just AST.409, or ACA, or whatever, was always intended to have a robust (if secondary) air-to-air and swing role capability (it was always a fkn Jag replacement, ferchrissake) and Eurofighter GmbH have been happily touting the aircraft as being PWIII, Storm Shadow, Brimstone, ALARM and recce pod capable since before the aircraft made its maiden flight.
Find me one Typhoon brochure that does not include diagrams showing these payloads from the last five years.
And if BAE et al have been saying that the aircraft can do all of this (or will be able to in an early block/tranche) then why should the customer not believe it? It's only recently that A-G capability has been described as a T2 or even T3 feature.