MM, I stand corrected as to your intent.


regards,

brick

Germany offers MoD way out on Eurofighters
 

Germany offers MoD way out on Eurofighters - FT Sat 13 Dec 08

The way I read things, it looks like this:

1. The UK has contracted to buy 88 Typhoons in the final tranch.

2. The Saudis want to buy 72 Typhoons from the UK.

3. However, Germany, Spain and Italy are arguing that the original Typhoon contract states that workshare from export sales should be divided equally between all 4 nations.

4. By contrast, the UK is arguing that the Typhoons it wishes to sell the Saudis would be it's own, and not an export order.

5. Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress has approved the UK's request to transfer 24 Eurofighter jets from its inventory to Saudi Arabia and cleared the way for the sale of another 48 new-build aircraft.


I think this is going to run and run.....

Oman
 

I'm sure I read that Oman were looking for 24 phoons to replace their Jags. Another outlet for tranch 1's ?

So what actually happened? Could it be that the UK ordered more than they were ever going to need, knowing that the Saudia order was in the bag. Always intending to eventually plead poverty, reduced requirments and, "oh gosh, what a surprise, here's a handy buyer for all those spare Typhoons." That original large order secured 37.5% of the workshare for the UK and the opportunity to get the ECR-90 RADAR onboard. Thus boosting the value of what was once Ferranti Edinburgh, now SELEX Gallileo, and now owned by Italy's Finmeccanica.

A clever trick, assuming the rest of the partner nations accept it. Italy will not have too many problems with it. They now own, in Finmeccanica, the fruits of all that dickering to get the UK extra workshare.

Now it could be, of course, that the other partners will kick up a fuss. Why should the Saudi order be treated differently to Austria? Additionally the Saudi's will be looking for offsets and workshare of their own. Perhaps at the end all the Saudia aircraft will be additional, as the consortium rules demand, and the UK will end up having to accept all of its original order so the RAF will end of with a lot of spare aircraft in storage. Or even worse, and all too plausible, the UK will pay the penalty and not get the aircraft!

Whatever the case, BAE will have done very nicely out of it. They get to build 37.5% of those 80+ 'unwanted' jets, or take the same percentage of the penalty, and they offloaded Ferranti/Selex to Italy for a tidy sum.

Well that, as some would have it, is how capitalism works. But who bought that 'nice little earner' for BAE, along with a bunch of jets surplus to requirements? Why the UK taxpayer of course, and that too is how capitalism works.

Hasn't it been a no brainer for a while?

230+ advanced multirole FJ's to replace x amount of legacy aircraft.

I'd guess as a conservative estimate that 230 Typhoons could do the job of say 350 'legacy' front line strike/fighter aircraft.

When was the last time the RAF had 350 front line strike/fighter aircraft, let alone required them?

This isn't even taking in to account the lack of a future deep strike capability, which will obviously bump up the numbers further.

Are FJ ILS costs still 10 x unit purchase price?

No wonder the country hasn't got a pot to piss in. :D

Sounds like you might be making the case for the cancel the order and pay the penalty option PP. And you hail from where? Ah yes Blackpool. The jewel of the north west, and darned handy for Warton.

I think you're on to something with that life cycle cost argument though. I can see that one coming out on the next round of MRA4 cost overruns, "See if we claim further enhanced capabilities, we can save money by reducing the fleet size to three aircraft." Which, with development overruns rivalling that of the Space shuttle, any possible way forward on costs will be grabbed.

Maybe I'm out of line comparing the MRA4 to the shuttle. I expect the final MRA$ fleet to be smaller than the shuttle fleet.

Jim-bobAnyone with half a brain can see that there is no comparison, but you already know that. :ok:

Steady on old chap, you're getting perilously close to being coherent, if still some way from developing an argument.

Jim bob,

Tbh, the pprune BS bingo banter gets a bit boring & tiresome. The jackanory cretin still provides the odd giggle though.

Banter's bound to be boring if you don't have the brain to manage any of your own, Pee Pee Pilot (Ooh look! You can mis-spell someone's user name for a cheap giggle.....). :rolleyes: