Typhoon - Bargain at 75% over budget.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from the NAO Report:
"The Typhoon fighter aircraft is already fulfilling some key defence tasks but it is unlikely to reach its full potential as a multi-role aircraft until 2018, according to a National Audit Office report to Parliament. Getting full value for money from the significant investment in the project will depend on the MOD’s successfully progressing the delivery of multi-role capability so that the aircraft can be deployed when required and affordably."
Well theres a typical financial view in itself. The design driver and basic requirement for Typhoon (Eurofighter) was to deliver an air to air platform. Only the UK pushed the ground attack requirement during my time on the project. Initial OT quite rightly was to prove the spec compliance against what we asked for. Only in the mid "naughties" did the emphasis shift towards the swing role.
Requirements may shift but so does the financial memory!
"The Typhoon fighter aircraft is already fulfilling some key defence tasks but it is unlikely to reach its full potential as a multi-role aircraft until 2018, according to a National Audit Office report to Parliament. Getting full value for money from the significant investment in the project will depend on the MOD’s successfully progressing the delivery of multi-role capability so that the aircraft can be deployed when required and affordably."
Well theres a typical financial view in itself. The design driver and basic requirement for Typhoon (Eurofighter) was to deliver an air to air platform. Only the UK pushed the ground attack requirement during my time on the project. Initial OT quite rightly was to prove the spec compliance against what we asked for. Only in the mid "naughties" did the emphasis shift towards the swing role.
Requirements may shift but so does the financial memory!
Thread Starter
And when someone with the handle MATELO carps on about cost overruns,
I DON'T REALLY CARE!
I DON'T REALLY CARE!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Geehovah
The design driver and basic requirement for Typhoon (Eurofighter) was to deliver an air to air platform. Only the UK pushed the ground attack requirement during my time on the project. Initial OT quite rightly was to prove the spec compliance against what we asked for. Only in the mid "naughties" did the emphasis shift towards the swing role.
I can assure you that the Air-to-Surface modes were a key part of the original 1980s radar bid, in response to the original specification. While some initial A-S modes were part of the first production radar software release, the bulk of the A-S functionality was always scheduled to turn up second (at the time, the Italians had a pressing need for some new fighters to replace their F-104, and so the original schedule had us delivering Air-to-Air stuff first).
In polite terms, I believe your statement to be either ill-informed or misleading...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your time on the project was presumably after mine. I started work as a design engineer on the Typhoon radar in 1990, about the time the development contract was signed (the bid team in our department had been working on it for a few years before that).
I can assure you that the Air-to-Surface modes were a key part of the original 1980s radar bid, in response to the original specification. While some initial A-S modes were part of the first production radar software release, the bulk of the A-S functionality was always scheduled to turn up second (at the time, the Italians had a pressing need for some new fighters to replace their F-104, and so the original schedule had us delivering Air-to-Air stuff first).
I can assure you that the Air-to-Surface modes were a key part of the original 1980s radar bid, in response to the original specification. While some initial A-S modes were part of the first production radar software release, the bulk of the A-S functionality was always scheduled to turn up second (at the time, the Italians had a pressing need for some new fighters to replace their F-104, and so the original schedule had us delivering Air-to-Air stuff first).
In polite terms, I believe your statement to be either ill-informed or misleading.. .
I joined the project just before the ESR-D was signed off and was involved in drafting specs (as an OR Rep) during the mid to late 80s. I left the project about the time you started work, although I became involved in testing later on. I struggle to recall any detailed discussion of the air to ground capability at all in my area on the defensive side of life during those early years. You would have known my colleague TB quite well as he did the similar job on the AI Sub System and you designed against his specs.
I maintain my line. The design driver was the air to air role. The secondary air to surface functionality was included but was subordinate when a conflict in requirement arose. There's a good reason why it was not in the early sw releases. Germany, emphatically, did not even require an A-G capability to be tested during the early years. Air to air capability was paramount and incidentally, the Italian F104 was purely an air to air platform. As an aside, if our cost increases are bad, for the Italians add the price of a Tornado F3 lease and bizarrely, an F16 lease to tide them over. Remember the context. For air to ground roles, Germany had the F4 but at that time was not allowed to operate outside of its own airspace. Italy had the Tornado GR1 and Spain had bought the dual role F18. We had Jaguar, Harrier and Tornado GR1 so no one envisaged the secondary A-G capability as being anything other than for operational flexibility. In retrospect, it's a good job that the UK "senior management" were indeed visionary and pressed the other Nations so hard but that's not the point.
As for OT, all the original testing was purely A-A based. It was only in 2005 that the emphasis switched and even then only on a National basis.
As I wrote the scenarios for spec compliance for one of the other sub systems and then supported much of the operational testing I am confident that I am 100% correct.
So to answer your criticism, whilst I didn't write the requirement, I was responsible for interpreting that requirement for MOD PE and Industry. I hope, therefore, that I wasn't ill informed. If you interpreted those specs in any other way during development, it may be quite illuminating.
To reemphasise my original point, it is mischievous for NAO to criticise a project for not delivering a capability which was not part of the original ESR-D other than as a secondary role. The aircraft costs more because industry was employed for 10 years longer than planned and Nations cut their production numbers. It should come as no surprise that it has cost us as much for fewer aircraft because the Industry contracts branches were careful to include punitive termination clauses tied to workshare.
As an aside, it is our lack of corporate memory that allows such discussions to ensue.
Last edited by Geehovah; 4th Mar 2011 at 10:03.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Geehovah
Spot on with this and all your other assertions! As you know, I was with the project from 1987 to 2000, and would add that 'it is a lack of corporate knowledge that allows some of these posts to ensue'. Nothing like re-writing/re-inventing history.
it is our lack of corporate memory that allows such discussions to ensue.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Geehovah
I maintain my line. The design driver was the air to air role. The secondary air to surface functionality was included but was subordinate when a conflict in requirement arose. There's a good reason why it was not in the early sw releases.
Originally Posted by Geehovah
Remember the context. For air to ground roles, Germany had the F4 but at that time was not allowed to operate outside of its own airspace. Italy had the Tornado GR1 and Spain had bought the dual role F18. We had Jaguar, Harrier and Tornado GR1 so no one envisaged the secondary A-G capability as being anything other than for operational flexibility. In retrospect, it's a good job that the UK "senior management" were indeed visionary and pressed the other Nations so hard but that's not the point.
Originally Posted by Geehovah
As for OT, all the original testing was purely A-A based. It was only in 2005 that the emphasis switched and even then only on a National basis.
Reading the full report, it's interesting to note that the £3Bn increase in production costs weren't really to do with the aircraft design; a billion quid is put down to an attempt to save money by delaying things (just like the aircraft carriers) and the other two to the workshare and multiple-production-line issues. The delay in A-S modes isn't down to a lack of ability, it's put down to a lack of money - not having enough spare parts, aircraft, or time to qualify or train for the role.
Originally Posted by Geehovah
and incidentally, the Italian F104 was purely an air to air platform. As an aside, if our cost increases are bad, for the Italians add the price of a Tornado F3 lease and bizarrely, an F16 lease to tide them over.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gravelbelly, I missed your apology for the slur on my character
You're correct when you say that the UK had a National requirement to replace Jaguar hence the ability to include a secondary GA capability within the specs. Unfortunately the platform was not procured against a the National Staff Requirement - 414. The original UK requirement was to replace the F4 (and Jaguar) which, given the delays and world events, morphed into the Tornado F3. Unfortunately, the UK was the only Nation which had the air to ground requirement, although Spain was supportive. As a consequence, I remember discussions on the defensive capabilities where the Germans were vehemently opposed to any expense to include or validate a capability they did not require to meet a UK specific role. You will not find scenarios in the ESRD for ground attack missions, although some air to air scenarios that are included might look remarkably similar! This brings us back to the conclusion that air to air was the design driver. You cannot have an agreed design driver if one Nation does not require the platform to operate in that role. I do, however, agree that the functionality was included from inception. It would have been virtually impossible to do otherwise. I think we're agreed that this is an issue of emphasis but 4 Nations required a fighter and only one required a bomber.
Pushing the Italian requirement was indeed relevant. Had the aircraft met its original ISD, Italy could have avoided the Tornado F3 lease. The political delays that spawned the Eurofighter 2000 tag made the lease inevitable. That Italy chose the F3 (which incidentally I was also involved in), underlined their need for an interim air to air platform and emphasises the fact that Typhoon was procured by Italy as an air to air platform.
I'm afraid we do disagree on the emphasis on testing. Trust me when I say that the politics of test are tortuous and the order in which it is completed is extremely significant. It has taken years to evolve to a point where DT and OT can be integrated rather than run back to back. The test requirement was, in Typhoon's case complex, extremely role specific and involved different locations and test assets. Agreeing the priorities was fundamental and not accidental.
As to the breakdown of costs I'm sure all the design teams were under pressure to come in on budget. I agree totally that project delays never reduce costs, merely reprofile the additional cost into later years. I have no doubt that the Nations were the prime culprits for such cost inflation. That said, I suspect Eurofighter were relieved that they had wiggle room when problems such as those with the flight control software emerged. As we all know, elements of the requirement have still not been delivered. Rather than challenge the multi role issue NAO might have been better to concentrate on overall spec compliance.
As for workshare; we may wish to avoid that nugget. You will be well aware how National workshare was agreed and administered. Suffice to say for others that it was also fundamental to how the project was set up.
You're correct when you say that the UK had a National requirement to replace Jaguar hence the ability to include a secondary GA capability within the specs. Unfortunately the platform was not procured against a the National Staff Requirement - 414. The original UK requirement was to replace the F4 (and Jaguar) which, given the delays and world events, morphed into the Tornado F3. Unfortunately, the UK was the only Nation which had the air to ground requirement, although Spain was supportive. As a consequence, I remember discussions on the defensive capabilities where the Germans were vehemently opposed to any expense to include or validate a capability they did not require to meet a UK specific role. You will not find scenarios in the ESRD for ground attack missions, although some air to air scenarios that are included might look remarkably similar! This brings us back to the conclusion that air to air was the design driver. You cannot have an agreed design driver if one Nation does not require the platform to operate in that role. I do, however, agree that the functionality was included from inception. It would have been virtually impossible to do otherwise. I think we're agreed that this is an issue of emphasis but 4 Nations required a fighter and only one required a bomber.
Pushing the Italian requirement was indeed relevant. Had the aircraft met its original ISD, Italy could have avoided the Tornado F3 lease. The political delays that spawned the Eurofighter 2000 tag made the lease inevitable. That Italy chose the F3 (which incidentally I was also involved in), underlined their need for an interim air to air platform and emphasises the fact that Typhoon was procured by Italy as an air to air platform.
I'm afraid we do disagree on the emphasis on testing. Trust me when I say that the politics of test are tortuous and the order in which it is completed is extremely significant. It has taken years to evolve to a point where DT and OT can be integrated rather than run back to back. The test requirement was, in Typhoon's case complex, extremely role specific and involved different locations and test assets. Agreeing the priorities was fundamental and not accidental.
As to the breakdown of costs I'm sure all the design teams were under pressure to come in on budget. I agree totally that project delays never reduce costs, merely reprofile the additional cost into later years. I have no doubt that the Nations were the prime culprits for such cost inflation. That said, I suspect Eurofighter were relieved that they had wiggle room when problems such as those with the flight control software emerged. As we all know, elements of the requirement have still not been delivered. Rather than challenge the multi role issue NAO might have been better to concentrate on overall spec compliance.
As for workshare; we may wish to avoid that nugget. You will be well aware how National workshare was agreed and administered. Suffice to say for others that it was also fundamental to how the project was set up.
Last edited by Geehovah; 5th Mar 2011 at 08:01.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geehover and Gravelbelly
Thank you for you informed information. Makes a change round here.
However on a point of detail was your personal association with the project something of which you are proud or ashamed?
PR
However on a point of detail was your personal association with the project something of which you are proud or ashamed?
PR
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Geehovah
Gravelbelly, I missed your apology for the slur on my character
I'll also admit that I hadn't appreciated the full complexity of trials planning until a decade into my career, when I got to work on a cute little demonstrator project that flew in TIARA. We had two trials engineers, who spent well over a year negotiating and planning the flight profiles that would be required to test the capability we were attempting to demonstrate - using one aircraft, for one subsystem, for one specific area of interest.
I'm quite happy to acknowledge that air to ground wasn't "main effort"... the A-S modes were scheduled for last, because as you point out there was no point in delivering them any earlier. This XI Sqn article gives some idea of the A-S modes available in the radar; it should be obvious that that kind of processing has to have been a primary driver in the original design of the radar.
My defence is only this - that while A-S may have been a primary driver of the radar, it was not necessarily a primary driver of the aircraft. I've obviously confused the two...
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the xisquadron.co.uk cite:
ECR-90 Captor radar
» multi-mode pulse-Doppler radar
» resistant to active and passive countermeasures
» incorporates IFF with interrogator and an advanced Mode S
transponder
» automatically tracks, identifies and prioritises threats
» interleaves air-to-ground and air-to-air modes
» air-to-ground mode has multi-target track, scan, raid
assessment, non co-operative target recognition and close
range combat sub-modes
» air-to-ground mode has beam-sharpened ground mapping,
synthetic aperture radar (SAR), moving target indicator and
terrain avoidance sub-mode
Which of those modes are currently implemented? Can we assume that none of the air-to-ground modes are available?
ECR-90 Captor radar
» multi-mode pulse-Doppler radar
» resistant to active and passive countermeasures
» incorporates IFF with interrogator and an advanced Mode S
transponder
» automatically tracks, identifies and prioritises threats
» interleaves air-to-ground and air-to-air modes
» air-to-ground mode has multi-target track, scan, raid
assessment, non co-operative target recognition and close
range combat sub-modes
» air-to-ground mode has beam-sharpened ground mapping,
synthetic aperture radar (SAR), moving target indicator and
terrain avoidance sub-mode
Which of those modes are currently implemented? Can we assume that none of the air-to-ground modes are available?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for you informed information. Makes a change round here.
However on a point of detail was your personal association with the project something of which you are proud or ashamed?
PR
However on a point of detail was your personal association with the project something of which you are proud or ashamed?
PR
My conscience is clear and I'm happy with the result.
Proud
I have to ride to the support of Geehovah here. During my time in Operational Requirements the mantra of the Typhoon office was 'not one pound for air to ground'. The radar may well have had some good A-G modes from the outset, but the airframe was primarily an air superiority platform.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parliamentary grilling by the select committee on the Management of the Typhoon project now being repeated on BBC Parliament....
'In hot', as one would say... (well, if you had an air – ground capability)
'In hot', as one would say... (well, if you had an air – ground capability)
