eurofighter
Guest
Posts: n/a
eurofighter
see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5262120.stm
i thought the eurofighter was a (costly) dead duck and the only reason the government is sticking to it is to save face (and uk jobs)??
i thought that the thing was too complex and not needed nowadays (end of the cold war, fighting guerillas in the desert/towns now)
??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5262120.stm
i thought the eurofighter was a (costly) dead duck and the only reason the government is sticking to it is to save face (and uk jobs)??
i thought that the thing was too complex and not needed nowadays (end of the cold war, fighting guerillas in the desert/towns now)
??
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eurofighter
I suggest that the Saudis are buying them to save the RAF from having to take delivery of them. Having worked at BAe, in Middle East Military Sales, I can suggest that there is a strong probability that 'contract facilitation fees' - or whatever they are called in 2006, have had as much to do with the purchase, as any actual need for this equipment in the Sandpit!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmmm
Looks like PPruNe is about to be treated to a nice long thread fuelled by people without a clue what they are talking about!
I hope Lone Kestrel gets a decent response.
Over to you A2QFI.
I hope Lone Kestrel gets a decent response.
Over to you A2QFI.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sales Fees
I got it by working at BAe Warton in the late 80s and being involved in negotating sales and contracts, in countries other than Saudi Arabia, which was not an area in which I was involved. Very senior management only for there! The concept of "the cost of doing business" - Commissions or call it what you will, and the use of local 'agents', was used then and is alive and well SFAIK! It works and lands contracts - why change it?
Last edited by A2QFI; 19th Aug 2006 at 14:11.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Dorset
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bongof4,
It just that I have to laugh at some of the comments made about Typhoon on this forum. I presume many of them are made by people who have not flown the ac or even have any direct, or even indirect, knowledge of its performance/capability or introduction into service. I have, and have also flown the majority of the US F Series jets on numerous occasions. I can assure you Typhoon is more than a match for all of them.
To suggest that the RAF does not want the 24 or so Tranche 2 Typhoon off-take that will initially be going to Saudi shows a lack of knowledge of the RAF’s current/future frontline requirements. The deal will no doubt require the running on of Tornado F3 to cover the FEAR shortfall and will also put more pressure on many young pilots to leave the Service as the possibility to fly Typhoon slips a few years. However, the deal appears to be good for UK PLC and given the current STP and EP difficulties the RAF will no doubt have to take the short term pain no matter how unpalatable it may be. You never know we might even manage to get a better jet out of the deal in the long term if the Saudis push for some of the Gucci kit.!!
It just that I have to laugh at some of the comments made about Typhoon on this forum. I presume many of them are made by people who have not flown the ac or even have any direct, or even indirect, knowledge of its performance/capability or introduction into service. I have, and have also flown the majority of the US F Series jets on numerous occasions. I can assure you Typhoon is more than a match for all of them.
To suggest that the RAF does not want the 24 or so Tranche 2 Typhoon off-take that will initially be going to Saudi shows a lack of knowledge of the RAF’s current/future frontline requirements. The deal will no doubt require the running on of Tornado F3 to cover the FEAR shortfall and will also put more pressure on many young pilots to leave the Service as the possibility to fly Typhoon slips a few years. However, the deal appears to be good for UK PLC and given the current STP and EP difficulties the RAF will no doubt have to take the short term pain no matter how unpalatable it may be. You never know we might even manage to get a better jet out of the deal in the long term if the Saudis push for some of the Gucci kit.!!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lone Kestrel
bongof4,
It just that I have to laugh at some of the comments made about Typhoon on this forum. I presume many of them are made by people who have not flown the ac or even have any direct, or even indirect, knowledge of its performance/capability or introduction into service. I have, and have also flown the majority of the US F Series jets on numerous occasions. I can assure you Typhoon is more than a match for all of them.
To suggest that the RAF does not want the 24 or so Tranche 2 Typhoon off-take that will initially be going to Saudi shows a lack of knowledge of the RAF’s current/future frontline requirements. The deal will no doubt require the running on of Tornado F3 to cover the FEAR shortfall and will also put more pressure on many young pilots to leave the Service as the possibility to fly Typhoon slips a few years. However, the deal appears to be good for UK PLC and given the current STP and EP difficulties the RAF will no doubt have to take the short term pain no matter how unpalatable it may be. You never know we might even manage to get a better jet out of the deal in the long term if the Saudis push for some of the Gucci kit.!!
It just that I have to laugh at some of the comments made about Typhoon on this forum. I presume many of them are made by people who have not flown the ac or even have any direct, or even indirect, knowledge of its performance/capability or introduction into service. I have, and have also flown the majority of the US F Series jets on numerous occasions. I can assure you Typhoon is more than a match for all of them.
To suggest that the RAF does not want the 24 or so Tranche 2 Typhoon off-take that will initially be going to Saudi shows a lack of knowledge of the RAF’s current/future frontline requirements. The deal will no doubt require the running on of Tornado F3 to cover the FEAR shortfall and will also put more pressure on many young pilots to leave the Service as the possibility to fly Typhoon slips a few years. However, the deal appears to be good for UK PLC and given the current STP and EP difficulties the RAF will no doubt have to take the short term pain no matter how unpalatable it may be. You never know we might even manage to get a better jet out of the deal in the long term if the Saudis push for some of the Gucci kit.!!
Still, enjoy your time at RIAT for the next few years. The rest of the Air Force will be on Ops...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know much about Typhoon, I do know the F series ac have been out there doing a good job for many years. Just wondered how the Typhoon compares against something a bit more modern like Raptor? I assume lone kestrel has not flown F-22A.....
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I suggest that the Saudis are buying them to save the RAF from having to take delivery of them. Having worked at BAe, in Middle East Military Sales, I can suggest that there is a strong probability that 'contract facilitation fees' - or whatever they are called in 2006, have had as much to do with the purchase, as any actual need for this equipment in the Sandpit
Rubbish, big man! Of course there are agents and commissions, and as you imply, it's a part of big business - any business. It went on in your time, it went on in my time, it still goes on, it always will; and in anticipation, it has nothing to do with so-called slush funds. That agreed(?), your comments concerning the RAF and in-theatre need are way off the mark. But then I seem to recall that you never were a fan of the product.
Slightly off-topic, but it has been mentioned on a different thread and will no doubt surface here, there are very similar parallels that can be drawn between this deal and that of the Tornado, with which I was closely involved at desk level; and IMHO, Lone Kestrel is right on all counts, in particular by implying that the long term benefits outweigh the short term pain - by miles. No doubt those that were caught up in the early 1980s will disagree, and I understand - but the point remains.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Originally Posted by bongof4
Looks like PPruNe is about to be treated to a nice long thread fuelled by people without a clue what they are talking about!
I hope Lone Kestrel gets a decent response.
Over to you A2QFI.
I hope Lone Kestrel gets a decent response.
Over to you A2QFI.
Seems Dutch, but who talked about Typhoon performance or not wanting Typhoon?
From a military perspective the machine is available now for a limited operational capability but no immediate operational requirement. We have Jaguar etc to cover while the FOC is delivered. In the short term therefore we do not need the full complement of aircraft. At the risk of repeating the inter-war rolling 'no war for 5 years' approach, it is better to have aircraft coming into service than in-service and costing.
Should push be required then I am sure we would re-appropriate the SA order much as we did with the Turkish battleship at the outbreak of WWI (mind you probably pissed the Turks off big time).
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
PN
A2QFI did
Seems Dutch, but who talked about ----------------not wanting Typhoon?
A2QFI did
I suggest that the Saudis are buying them to save the RAF from having to take delivery of them.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Might I suggest a joint partnership with the US regarding the F-22? Then you'd have an in with the most modern fighter around for now and have some real capability. And the gun comes with bullets!
No, that's alright. I'll show myself out........
No, that's alright. I'll show myself out........
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jindabyne
Rubbish, big man! Of course there are agents and commissions, and as you imply, it's a part of big business - any business. It went on in your time, it went on in my time, it still goes on, it always will; and in anticipation, it has nothing to do with so-called slush funds. That agreed(?), your comments concerning the RAF and in-theatre need are way off the mark. But then I seem to recall that you never were a fan of the product.
Last edited by A2QFI; 19th Aug 2006 at 16:27.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
A2QFI
I absolutely agree about the shortage and woeful underfunding of equipment that is needed in those combat zones into which our Prime Minister has taken us. But do you have a crystal ball that tells us there will be no conflict arising in the next 1 - 30 years in which an aircraft such as Typhoon will not be needed by the RAF? Most 'Western' country's procurement policies (with regard to modern fast-jet procurement) indicate that they have no such vision, which kind of gives me the feeling that we are not isolated in our thinking. Whilst it might be unfashionable to talk of insurance capability, my own view is that the argument is as valid now as ever it was. Yes the priority now is defeating the terrorist threat, but IMHO it would be foolish not to maintain a capability (equipped, trained and ready) for wider conflict. It would appear that on the one hand our present Government is rightly commited to both strategies, but won't commit the necessary funding (ie, morally bankrupt). On that, I hope we both agree?
I absolutely agree about the shortage and woeful underfunding of equipment that is needed in those combat zones into which our Prime Minister has taken us. But do you have a crystal ball that tells us there will be no conflict arising in the next 1 - 30 years in which an aircraft such as Typhoon will not be needed by the RAF? Most 'Western' country's procurement policies (with regard to modern fast-jet procurement) indicate that they have no such vision, which kind of gives me the feeling that we are not isolated in our thinking. Whilst it might be unfashionable to talk of insurance capability, my own view is that the argument is as valid now as ever it was. Yes the priority now is defeating the terrorist threat, but IMHO it would be foolish not to maintain a capability (equipped, trained and ready) for wider conflict. It would appear that on the one hand our present Government is rightly commited to both strategies, but won't commit the necessary funding (ie, morally bankrupt). On that, I hope we both agree?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How long do you think British troops will be in Afghanistan, needing SH, AT, CAS? 10 years? I think HCDC got it right by criticising political decisions behind procurement. Typhoon already looks out of date compared to Raptor. Why did we insist on parallel production of Apache ac? The eventual spiralling costs could have been used to pay each worker £1m and still have acquired Apache for less money direct from US. Problem behind your argument is that servicepeople are being killed regularly, are ill-equipped and short of all of the above assets.
Last edited by nigegilb; 19th Aug 2006 at 18:59.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jindabyne. If we need some response to a threat for the next 1 - 30 years what is going to cover it from now until year 5? I suggest it won't be the Typhoon. I am not far enough up the food chain to know about these things or squander squillions on my ideas! If Typhoon is the answer then what is the question? I note that the sale was greeted with the usual press reaction. Not "This important contract will ensure that RSAF is appropriately equipped to meet the Kindom's military requirements for the next ?? years" but "This important contract will ensure the security of vital jobs in the North West for some years to come"