Typhoon news or already covered in other topic?

[mick2088]

I am surprised that you, as a journalist and a man used to debate, would describe another writer as a 'scrofulus (meaning corrupt or morally degenerate) half-wit'. Such an ad hominem attack on someone whose views you disagree with does you no credit.

I was thinking the same thing. Page aside, the FT staffers were called half-wits as well. They probably don't have the access to the kind of contacts that writing for Plane Weekly has or an indepth understanding of how the Eurofighter production schedule works as they are likely to write on much wider subjects. I guess having the phone number of the MoD PR department or BAE Systems just to check a few facts probably wouldn't have gone amiss before writing it. But then their PR people could have easily phoned up the FT or others to tell them to stop writing such nonsense, and provide them with a few more details.

[Jackonicko]

If you profess to be a professional journalist, as these clowns do (dragging down the reputation of the entire profession in the process) there's one simple thing to do if you want to avoid my utter contempt.

Never just make it up (or guess), and never take on trust figures provided by troublemakers with an agenda.

That's what the FT and Mr Page have done.

[goldspar]

But then their PR people could have easily phoned up the FT or others to tell them to stop writing such nonsense, and provide them with a few more details.

Perhaps they did not contact him because what he was writing was factual? Lets face it the cost and the disposition of T3 has been reported by several news outlets and they all basically have the same numbers. Maybe, just maybe despite what some want to believe there is a bit of truth to what is being reported.

[mick2088]

Possibly, but I'd rather take Jacko's word specifically on the Typhoon than from journos working on national newspapers, even if he does seem to like it too much.

[Tom Laxey]

Eurofighter as saviour of European fast jet biz

Any discussion on the problems of EF has a large amount of '6 to one, half a dozen to the other'. Yes the customer changed their mind, but after the end of the Cold War, and the peace dividend, there had to be changes to the aircraft role, cuts to numbers and renegotiation of workshare. On the industry side, the recent comments by MOD about EF being like a 'charity', and also the well-publicised technical problems that industry had (flt contrl, integration etc) suggest that industry carried a lot of uncosted tech risk. The same as it has in Nimrod, Astute, and others since.

EF has represented the most modern fast jet that European manufacturers have had the chance to develop, and most of the top engineers in the European industry 'cut their teeth' on it. It sustained R&D, test facilities and manufacturing for years - that's where the £20Bn went. It has at least left open the possibility that Europe could offer a military fast jet in the future. The 4 governments who supported it have to hope that the payback is good enough - in terms of the equipment itself, the fitness of the industry that has persisted, and the profits from exports. Sadly, for EF, the fact that it is about 10yrs 'behind the curve' has probably taken quite a toll on those 3 areas. Given what appears to be unfolding on A400M you wouldn't bet on European governments getting together to do it all again any time soon either ...

http://www.enm.bris.ac.uk/staff/rrc/...sts-trends.pdf

[Navaleye]

I agree with Jacko. Why would someone who's military career extended to diving and small ships be qualified to discuss aviation or blue water operations?

[Jig Peter]

The "other" European fast jet ...

Just to remind you - Dassault has done something pretty good with the Rafale, both ship-borne and land versions ... Pity that requirements diverged long ago, while the (now) Eurofighter nations and France were considering doing a common aircraft. IIRC, the sticking point was the size of lifts on the Charles de Gaulle which limited the possible wing span (and of course, suspicions that Dassault was never going to cooperate with anybody - never had, never would) .
Of course, at that time, the UK had no idea that it would ever need aircraft carriers ever again ...
Be all that as it may, Rafale's apparently well up to Typhoon's technology level - and in service in both naval and land versions. I know that it hasn't sold outside France (yet ?), but Typhoon sales aren't exactly vast either, specially to "level playing field" customers.
None the less, both programmes have kept design, engineering and radar skills up to the "top level" in Europe as a whole, which can't be a bad thing, can it ? Not to mention J O B S ...

[Tim McLelland]

While some are in 'storage' they rarely stay there for long and each airframe is fed in to spread the hours over the fleet while other aircraft have their major/minor servicings. If the media cant get their head round that very simple idea, sod them.

Er... well nice thought but not a realistic one, is it? Anyone can see how politics is driven by media now and the armed forces are a victim of both sources. I just don't buy the notion that maybe thirty-odd Typhoons are likely to come-off the production line and languish in storage. Look at the Chinooks? A smaller example but enough to cause the MoD a great deal of embarrassment, so surely they wouldn't want to get into a similar situation with a large quantity of very expensive aircraft?

[knowitall]

"I just don't buy the notion that maybe thirty-odd Typhoons are likely to come-off the production line and languish in storage. Look at the Chinooks?"

How about looking at apache, a sizable chunk of that fleet is in storage as we speak!

[Jackonicko]

They won't all be languishing in storage, Tim, they'll be undergoing maintenance, or they'll be being upgraded, and yes (like the Tornado and Harrier today) some will be in store.

[Tim McLelland]

Think my point surrounds the use of terms like "some" ...

Okay, I'm sure it's legitimate to claim that a certain proportion of any fleet would be undergoing maintenance or upgrading but it's the actual figures that seem a bit unlikely to me. Unless I'm misinterpreting the predicted total of aircraft, I'm guessing that it leaves at least thirty aircraft which will effectively be redundant on either a short or long-term basis. Just seems to me that this is a pretty large number of very expensive aircraft and (as mentioned previously) when so much has been said about the Chinooks (for example), I can only imagine the same (or far worse) would apply to a whole fleet of Typhoons?

Okay, I accept that they may well be quietly ignored as being subject to upgrades or whatever, but surely it must raise the possibility that the MoD bean-counters might seize the opportunity to actually use these aircraft in order to make suitably foolish cost-savings elsewhere, namely by chopping the Harrier fleet prematurely?

[artyhug]

Ok Tim, I will now try to bite my tongue and explain what you are either having great difficulty understanding or at least inform other somewhat more reasonable people of the realities of running a large fleet of vehicles be they aircraft, trucks, buses or boats before they are convinced by your bizarre arguments that we should just fly every Typhoon we buy, everyday, until it gets sent to the scrapyard.

Fleet rotation is a tool used for a number of reasons, some of which are stated above. They include routine maintenance, allowance for attrition, predicted upgrade programmes and the balancing of fatigue.

Now as you point out it is perfectly feasible to reduce the number initially purchased to reduce capital expenditure in the short term. However unless you also reduce the tasking you aim to achieve with the self same purchase then as a result you are shortening the total life of the fleet. The sum you need to then do is then one of cost over fleet life and decide which approach is most cost effective.

I would hazard a guess that the people who actually have the figures in front of them are in a marginally better position to answer that question than someone who pontificates on a BBoard.

As for the Chinooks, please. The frames that sat in storage were never part of the main fleet, were never part of fleet rotation planning and have nothing to do with your argument other than to show your apparent lack of understanding of the point you are trying to argue.

By all means, we should, closely examine all areas of procurement in the current climate and in fact in any climate but to do so from a position of ignorance is frankly pointless.

[Wader2]

Originally Posted by Jackonicko

Lewis Page or his views. He routinely spouts half-witted and highly damaging nonsense,

. . .

Page is a bright enough chap (he writes very stylish prose, after all)

Total thread drift and not to say it is routine but I found the following article wholly believable given that I know the principal.

Book about D-Notices gets D-Notice slapped on it ? The Register

[Tim McLelland]

Artyhug, your sarcasm aside, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. I don't need any lectures on procurement, thanks very much. However, perhaps you might benefit from a few lessons on modern politics and media?

Point is, I was trying to consider how the situation might be perceived by the public, the media and the Government, and whether it might encourage some to use the Typhoons as a cheap excuse to dump the Harrier fleet prematurely. We all know that it's not unusual to have a number of front-line aircraft held in resreve, undergoing mods and so on, but that wasn't what I was getting-at.

Contrary to your sarcastic comments, I wasn't pontificating at all, just pointing-out a possibility for consideration. Geeeeez...

[Pure Pursuit]

Artyhug is spot on Tim.

Once again, you're being a tad outspoken on an area you are clearly not an SME in.

Fleet rotation is an essential aspect of maximising the life of the a/c within it. To suggest that we should not purchase sufficient Typhoons (already paid for by the way) to have an attrition/maint/upgrade pool is very short sighted.

I say we bin the carriers & go for broke with Tiffies. The RAF can defend the fleet no matter where it is, honest!

[Tim McLelland]

Oh dear. It's a tad pointless making any contribution to a thread if people can't (or won't) even read what you've said before simply chiming-in with gratuitous sarcasm. I'll leave you to it. Incidentally BGG I don't recall having ever claimed to be a journalist or anything else, nor have I "pontificated" about anything. I'll leave you "experts" to your fun. Jackonicko, if you've any sense, you ought to do the same - you're wasting your time and talents here, I fear!

[NURSE]

If there are extra EF's in storage isn't that a good thing as it will mean aircraft can be modernised and modified more easily as there is spare capicity! And if an one of our allies needs to Borrow aircraft to fill a capability gap (eg Italians borrowing Tonka F3's) we won't have to deplete front line squadrons. If you also rotate aircraft to keep flying hours spread over a greater number of airframes does that not contribute to increasing the length of service or time between major overhauls?
If thease reserve aircraft are active reserves and not grounded as being unuseable like the chinooks I would sugest the public and press would understand as long as someone actually explains this and the benefits.

[Pilot Pacifier]

Hmmmmmm.....

[Green Flash]

I was wondering when the first pics of the UAV trials Tiffy would show up. Presume they have painted it in USN colours so it blends in with everything else at Area 51.


Nice.

[Pontius Navigator]

Bag and cat, out of

Torpy, Sunday Telegraph 7 Jun, says the RAF Typhoon force will be 123 and not 232.

So, what do we do with the spare 109 frames?

My guess, like with the Tornado F2, is that the Typhoon tranche 1 will be replaced by the tranche 3 and possibly allowed to moulder away in a shed somewhere with some going to museums.

edit:

ORAC, the printed version is considerably shorter than your electronic link. Also the

The RAF will only receive just over half the original number of the 232 Typhoons which were originally ordered, the rest will be sold to foreign allies to help pay for the cost of the aircraft.

is not directly attributed to Torpy whereas much of the rest of the article is.

Almost every paragraph has a "He said" whereas the quoted para suggests it is the Torygraph answering a question and not Torpy.

PS, I have commented on the carrier thread too.