Typhoon in plaudit shocker!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read all about it! Read all about it!
On Wednesday Sir Brian praised the jet for its capabilities.
But he added: "These days getting the right price for our equipment is paramount because our resources are less than infinite."
But he added: "These days getting the right price for our equipment is paramount because our resources are less than infinite."
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South Central UK
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being totally correct with regard to determination of the most senior serving RAF 'airman', then by virtue of rank and seniority in the rank, VCDS is ahead by a year or two.
I add the caveat that I have not considered Princess Alice, Dutchess of Gloucester nor any RAF 5*s.
lm
I add the caveat that I have not considered Princess Alice, Dutchess of Gloucester nor any RAF 5*s.
lm
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Sir Brian..added "our resources are less than infinite"
How much less than infinite, anyway?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it great how this thread has completely wandered? The most senior 'airman' by Occasional Aviator's interpretation would be the College WO at Cranwell, the senior WO post in the RAF regardless of the individual's seniority.
If we're still playing Top Trumps, I would like to offer MRAF Sir Michael Beetham - being a 5* he has never retired, and is a 'proper' airman unlike these royal folk. He's even bombed Germans! My case rests.
If we're still playing Top Trumps, I would like to offer MRAF Sir Michael Beetham - being a 5* he has never retired, and is a 'proper' airman unlike these royal folk. He's even bombed Germans! My case rests.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
"It is an amazing aircraft."
The RAF has 55 Eurofighters with a further 89 due to be delivered in phase two and another 88 in phase three, bringing the total number of aircraft to 232.
The Eurofighter programme, which has cost the British taxpayer an estimated £18bn, has been criticised over spiralling costs and problems with its development. "
Quite amazing - the taxpayer has already stumped up £18bn and, even if he had the 55 aircraft stated, has paid over £327 million per aircraft.
"It is an amazing aircraft."
The RAF has 55 Eurofighters with a further 89 due to be delivered in phase two and another 88 in phase three, bringing the total number of aircraft to 232.
The Eurofighter programme, which has cost the British taxpayer an estimated £18bn, has been criticised over spiralling costs and problems with its development. "
Quite amazing - the taxpayer has already stumped up £18bn and, even if he had the 55 aircraft stated, has paid over £327 million per aircraft.
£18 Bn is the amount committed for the 232 we are committed to, including R&D. Not all has been spent yet.
That's £77.5 m per aircraft, including R&D. That's up from £61 m only a couple of years ago, when the marginal unit cost (excluding R&D) was put at £38-42m per jet.
That's £77.5 m per aircraft, including R&D. That's up from £61 m only a couple of years ago, when the marginal unit cost (excluding R&D) was put at £38-42m per jet.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF has 55 aircraft (Typhoon)
Erm Does it? What's all this the future is here talk I though they had 6 now 5 depending on tits-up status gee, 17 and 29 sure must have been surprised when those extra 49 aircraft suddenly turned up?
the "in service" report was also a laugh to me, aren't they under going an RAF operational evaluation and therefore not actually "in service" quite yet.
Excuse the cynicism I'm not RAF bashing just seems that is the same all over- wherever you are, "in service" and "Value for money" is much talked about but never seems to actually occur.
Seems its good enough so why hype it up or pre-announce where it actually is in the program?
Erm Does it? What's all this the future is here talk I though they had 6 now 5 depending on tits-up status gee, 17 and 29 sure must have been surprised when those extra 49 aircraft suddenly turned up?
the "in service" report was also a laugh to me, aren't they under going an RAF operational evaluation and therefore not actually "in service" quite yet.
Excuse the cynicism I'm not RAF bashing just seems that is the same all over- wherever you are, "in service" and "Value for money" is much talked about but never seems to actually occur.
Seems its good enough so why hype it up or pre-announce where it actually is in the program?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko,
Accept your figure for all 232 but, presumably, when we cancel tranche 3, the true cost will be £125 million per aircraft.
The story about the gun just shows how screwed up our procurement system is.
Accept your figure for all 232 but, presumably, when we cancel tranche 3, the true cost will be £125 million per aircraft.
The story about the gun just shows how screwed up our procurement system is.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: kent, England
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably cancelling Tranche 3 will save money but will incur contract penalties......more likely they will be delivered but perhaps flogged straight to Singapore or Saudi ETC ETC
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking up A10 Thundybox's mention of Typhoon's Operational Evaluation - one has to question the reasons why the taxpayer commits £18bn to an aircraft and accepts it before such an evaluation. Why is the acceptance not subject to that evaluation in the same way the C of A clearance is required before it enters service? Maybe if it was we would get weapons systems as well as airframes and engines.
I remember the Operational Evaluation of the F15 and the interested aircraft companies were crawling all over the USAF and pouring their own dollars into getting it through. Why do we trust BWoS so much?
I remember the Operational Evaluation of the F15 and the interested aircraft companies were crawling all over the USAF and pouring their own dollars into getting it through. Why do we trust BWoS so much?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cutting aircraft orders does not always have a direct proportionate saving - note what happened to Nimrod Mk4 not so long ago - the exact details escape me - loss of three a/c for combined total saving of 21 million - need to check last NAO Major Projects Report. Watch what happens when it gets cut to 12.
I suspect a similar pheonemon (sp?) will assert itself as and when/if EF's 3rd batch gets the chop....
What a wonderful project it is - no-one can admit publicly just how much of a mess it really is.
I suspect a similar pheonemon (sp?) will assert itself as and when/if EF's 3rd batch gets the chop....
What a wonderful project it is - no-one can admit publicly just how much of a mess it really is.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: kent, England
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I ahve being reading up on it and it seems that the MOD would have to compensate the manafacturers for the value of any aircraft cancelled......ironically this clause was added by mainly becuase of British concerns over the commitment of the other partners.
"No-one can admit publicly just how much of a mess it really is..."
Because it isn't.
The aircraft is, admittedly, VERY late. But that doesn't matter, it's merely deferred the payments and has allowed us to get more use (and value) from the aircraft types that it will replace. That's fortuitous. It's lucky that we didn'y need it when we should have first had it, but we didn't. Its lateness has also meant that the aircraft is more mature than it would otherwise have been. It's given more time to add new and relevant capabilities and nuances, and to iron out problems. That's why the radar is working so well (and the radar is working very well indeed) and that's why all the delayed kit (Pirate, digi ASRAAM, the helmet) will actually be there in time for the first frontline squadron aircraft. Most of the jet's critics are repeating exaggerated, inaccurate and biased 'news' that's long out of date, and that is news that dates from the darkest days of the development programme.
The delays now may result in the RAF getting a useful A-G capability long before they otherwise would have done.
The aircraft is over-budget, but not by much, and not by as much as many other contemporary programmes.
There is still a long way to go, and there are still minor 'issues' but the aircraft is showing tremendous potential - as acknowledged and recognised by guys like John Jumper - hardly the most likely spokesman for the jet!
There are plenty of GREAT reasons to give BAE Systems a good kicking - £50 m per jet for the Harrier GR9 - excluding the rear fuselage work - is No.1 on my list, plus MRA4, plus Astute, plus GR4, etc. etc. But Typhoon is not a scandal - indeed in many respects its a great achievement.
Because it isn't.
The aircraft is, admittedly, VERY late. But that doesn't matter, it's merely deferred the payments and has allowed us to get more use (and value) from the aircraft types that it will replace. That's fortuitous. It's lucky that we didn'y need it when we should have first had it, but we didn't. Its lateness has also meant that the aircraft is more mature than it would otherwise have been. It's given more time to add new and relevant capabilities and nuances, and to iron out problems. That's why the radar is working so well (and the radar is working very well indeed) and that's why all the delayed kit (Pirate, digi ASRAAM, the helmet) will actually be there in time for the first frontline squadron aircraft. Most of the jet's critics are repeating exaggerated, inaccurate and biased 'news' that's long out of date, and that is news that dates from the darkest days of the development programme.
The delays now may result in the RAF getting a useful A-G capability long before they otherwise would have done.
The aircraft is over-budget, but not by much, and not by as much as many other contemporary programmes.
There is still a long way to go, and there are still minor 'issues' but the aircraft is showing tremendous potential - as acknowledged and recognised by guys like John Jumper - hardly the most likely spokesman for the jet!
There are plenty of GREAT reasons to give BAE Systems a good kicking - £50 m per jet for the Harrier GR9 - excluding the rear fuselage work - is No.1 on my list, plus MRA4, plus Astute, plus GR4, etc. etc. But Typhoon is not a scandal - indeed in many respects its a great achievement.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: I have a home where the Junglies roam.
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably cancelling Tranche 3 will save money but will incur contract penalties......more likely they will be delivered but perhaps flogged straight to Singapore or Saudi ETC ETC
House of Saud = Borrowed time. . . .
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"But Typhoon is not a scandal - indeed in many respects its a great achievement".
That's the funniest thing I've heard in ages - in what context? That its managed to get this far without having the plug pulled, or being exposed for what it is - in that case yes, I would agree with you.
Its not a scandal but it blinking well ought to be.
That's the funniest thing I've heard in ages - in what context? That its managed to get this far without having the plug pulled, or being exposed for what it is - in that case yes, I would agree with you.
Its not a scandal but it blinking well ought to be.