Air farce one

[fantassin]

Air farce one (the Eurofighter)
The Sunday Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 01/04/04 | David Lomax


The Eurofighter is 10 years overdue, has split its design partners and cost the British taxpayer £20bn. David Lomax reports on the project's political dogfighting and costly mishaps


It is 10 years late, £6 billion, if not more, over budget, and the RAF still hasn't got one in squadron service. And next month, the Eurofighter, Britain's biggest defence procurement project, will face a crucial export challenge.

Singapore, which needs to update its air force, will evaluate the Eurofighter's performance against French and American rivals. An overseas sale might offset some of the £20 billion which the aircraft has so far cost the British taxpayer - the equivalent of three Channel Tunnels or Railtrack's costs for the next five years - and would be much-needed encouragement to a four-nation collaboration which has been plagued by cost over-runs and difficulties for two decades.

Apart from a modest purchase by Austria and orders from the countries where the aircraft is being built, the UK, Spain, Italy and Germany, the Eurofighter has not been sold anywhere. At the Dubai Air Show last month, it was only present as a model while its rivals cavorted overhead in spectacular flying displays. The RAF was supposed to be getting 232 of them but there are still problems with the aircraft's electronic systems and it will not be in squadron service until 2006, and then only in the basic form of an air-combat version, which critics claim is a relic of the Cold War and should have been scrapped years ago.

Early in the 1980s officials from the departments of industry and defence were concerned about the threat from the Soviet Union's new generation of jet fighters. There were exploratory talks with Germany, France and others about a European collaboration. John Nott, the then Secretary of State for Defence, was lobbied to release funds for a European fighter design contract. He had just closed Chatham Dockyard, and was running down Portsmouth. Jobs were going to be lost in marginal seats, so it was difficult for him to sanction the loss of more, and as Mr Nott wrote in his autobiography, there was "grave concern in the industry because it was running out of work".

Another concern for government was that British Aerospace was a promising candidate for privatisation, which eventually occurred in 1985. The company could not be left to collapse. British Aerospace argued that the new European fighter concept ought to be allowed to the preliminary experimental stage. If not, it predicted that BAe would fold and the design teams disperse. Reluctantly, in 1982, Mr Nott released £300 million for the start of design work to keep jobs and the company's value high.

Michael Heseltine, Mr Nott's Europhile successor, grasped the project with enthusiasm but could not accept a French proposal that the aircraft should be based on a French design. France withdrew and went on to design its own Rafale fighter. (A squadron is now in service with the French navy.) In 1985 the four surviving partners signed an agreement committing themselves to building up to 750 Eurofighters. The cost of 250 for Britain was estimated at about £7 billion. The RAF's first squadron was to have been in service by 1992.

The collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, however, overturned the strategic thinking on which the Eurofighter had been based. The costs of German re-unification encouraged a rising chorus of dissent within the country's parliament over the new aircraft. Why did Germany need it? Volker Rühe, the defence minister, argued that Germany either had to have a cheaper aircraft or pull out of the project altogether. He had inherited MiG-29 squadrons from the old East German Air Force, so had a cheap alternative.

The discussions to persuade Germany to return took more than two years while design teams waited for instructions. Sir Donald Spiers, who, as controller aircraft at the Ministry of Defence, was managing the Eurofighter project, argued that the parties had already spent DM15 billion on the design and asked whether they really wanted to go back to square one. He told me that it is impossible to work out what the German delay meant - but keeping the design teams at the BAe factory at Warton in Lancashire added "many, many millions" to the growing bill.

In 1992, with the Germans back on board, production restarted. Already delayed and over-budget, the delivery of the first Eurofighter was postponed until 2000. The numbers the RAF was due to receive were cut from 250 to 232 - and there were further delays. Specifications kept changing and there were constant technical problems. The worst came from the lack of overall management and an agreement about how the work on Eurofighter should be divided, with each country trying to get its hands on new technology. Not only were different parts of the Eurofighter built in different factories in different countries, there were anomalies stemming from the work-share agreement itself.

According to Air Marshal Sir John Walker, the former head of defence intelligence, Britain's share of a third of the work meant that British companies could only bid for a third. This meant that the rest did not necessarily go to the most experienced and skilled contractors. "Not the best way of designing an aircraft," he told me.

The development of the flight control system was another casualty of national rivalry. The British had already designed a system that would have worked satisfactorily, according to Prof Ivan Yates, a former deputy chief executive of BAe, "but the Germans wanted the lead on the flight control system. They saw it as crucial technology and insisted on designing their own version from scratch - another reason for delays".

These delays were highlighted in a National Audit Office report in 1995, which put the total cost of the project to the taxpayer at £14.5 billion and said development work was three years behind schedule and overall equipment costs had increased by 56 per cent.

There was worse to come. In November 2002 a Spanish Eurofighter crashed on a test flight near Madrid. It had been flying at 45,000 feet when its engines suddenly stopped and its two-man crew was forced to bail out. They were not hurt, but the accident meant that the test programme was halted pending an investigation. A German audit office report into the Eurofighter in August last year said that the Spanish crash "was not caused by human error or the extreme demands of a test flight . . . It appears to have been attributed to the simultaneous firing of both afterburners, which should have been a normal operation in a fighter aircraft. Moreover two experienced test pilots merely activated both afterburners in level flight. It is particularly worrying that this should have led to a crash eight years after the first flight of the prototype".

The German report said that only eight Eurofighters would have been delivered to the Luftwaffe by the end of the year instead of the 15 originally promised. The performance of these aircraft was inadequate, the report said, with significant flight restrictions. Eurofighters were not cleared to fire their cannon or to carry ammunition for them and, because of potential problems, had to be operated at no more than 20 minutes' flying time from an airfield.

The first Eurofighter Typhoons, as they are now called, are being handed over to air forces in the four manufacturing countries. The RAF has at last got its hands on a few machines but they are still being tested and have merely been moved at the BAe factory in Lancashire into a different hangar with an RAF flag outside. All Eurofighters were grounded recently because of problems with the landing gear and brakes. The manufacturers described these as "teething troubles".

Even someone as close to BAe Systems (the name for British Aerospace after it merged with GEC's Marconi Electronic Systems in 1999) as Air Chief Marshal Sir Patrick Hine, the company's former military adviser and now consultant, admits that there is still much work to be done. The first batch of Eurofighters will be the air-to-air combat versions. What the RAF really needs, according to the former head of RAF Strike Command, is the ground-attack version, but Sir Patrick acknowledges that the engineers will still have to integrate all the weapons systems, and the ground-attack type will not be in squadron service until 2010 or 2014. This will mean even higher costs "which will have to be worked out with the MoD and RAF".

Throughout the project the MoD and British Aerospace have emphasised the numbers of jobs the project has generated. In July 1997 the late Alan Clark MP, a former Conservative defence minister, told the Commons in a debate about the Eurofighter that there must be "a more efficient way of paying people to make buckets with holes in them".

There are now similar criticisms from the former head of defence intelligence. Air Marshal Sir John Walker says a much more effective job-creation scheme would have been to have given £1 million each to 20,000 start-up companies.

Sue Willett, a defence analyst and long-standing critic of the Eurofighter, sees wider implications. "The project has taken such a big chunk of the budget that it's having a knock-on effect on all the armed services. Spares and ammunition have been cut back," she said to me.

"The delays and cost over-runs are demoralising for the troops and have caused many internal procurement problems." She claims that the project was deliberately excluded by Tony Blair from the last Strategic Defence Review and that it is now "out of control".

Lord Heseltine still maintains that he "negotiated the biggest deal Britain had ever done to give Britain potentially the leadership of fighter aircraft development in Europe". But this view isn't shared by his predecessor, who launched the Eurofighter. "It was a terribly bad decision," Sir John Nott told me. "One of the worst decisions I made at the MoD."


David Lomax's History of the Eurofighter is to be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 at 8pm tomorrow.

Good luck to the poor bastards who will have to fly in those deathtraps...

[He219]

Nice article, fantassin!
:D


What are your thoughts on the JSF program?

[Seraphim]

Forum Rules.

3. Don't post threads with TITLES IN ALL CAPS.

[fantassin]

All technical considerations apart (I have all the reasons to think the USA makes very good planes), I think it's the last straw in the plan to kill off the European military aircraft industry.

As of now, three countries are able to produce last generation jets on their own. The USA, Russia and France.

The JAS 39 Gripen is about 50% US-made and the Eurofighter is, well....somewhat European.

So once most of Europe will have signed to join the JSF, it will be France on its own in Europe. That's why it will surely team up with Russia for its next generation of combat aircrafts to replace the Rafale from 2040.

Then it'll be the USA and Franco-Russian aircrafts....when you look at India's SU30 Mk II (with French avionics) that could be interesting.

Just my thoughts though...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Man, what a mess they have. It's too bad - the longer it takes to get into active service, the more obsolete it becomes. The ground attack variant not ready until maybe 2014? That's nuts.

It's a testament to how complex (and expensive!) these programs are & how tightly integrated all the subsystems have become.

Seems like we're working towards the day whan only 1 or 2 companies will even be able to plan & execute a state of the art fighter.

I think back to the golden days of fighter aircraft- 50's & 60's when we had all kinds of cool & innovative designs in operational service. Northrop, North American, Convair, Grumman, Boeing, Republic, McDonnel, Lockheed, Vought, LTV, Douglas...brings a tear to my eye. And that's just the American stuff.

[Kitsune]

Another article about the Eurofighter from Time Magazine Europe (July 29th, 2002)



The € Fighter
The €12.5 billion Typhoon — a joint project by Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain — finally takes off this week. Who is going to buy this jet?

By BY JEFF CHU



BAE SYSTEMS
READY FOR TAKEOFF? The Typhoon



In the world of business and industry, "up in the air" isn't usually a good way to describe a product. For the four-nation Eurofighter consortium, though, it will be both a relief and sweet vindication to be able to use those four words to describe the long-awaited Typhoon jet.

The next-generation fighter takes off this week, when the first jets off the British and German production lines fly in formation at the Farnborough Air Show outside London. The Typhoon is expected to enter service by the end of 2002, after more than two decades of planning, 112.5 billion in R and D, repeated delays and years of criticism. But those behind Europe's largest-ever military aerospace venture should keep their crash helmets on. With the competition ready to fight over foreign sales and the critics as critical as ever, the Typhoon won't reach comfortable cruising altitude anytime soon.

The effort to build a joint European fighter has endured bureaucratic dithering and the rises and falls of governments, as most joint ventures of the European powers must. It survived when France quit to build its own combat aircraft, leaving four countries — Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain — to sign the Eurofighter development pact in 1988. The target date for production was 1996, and the $10 billion estimate for development cost was so great that a German defense official said, "There's no going back." Four years later, his country tried to test this theory, announcing plans to pull out of the project after fierce domestic opposition. Equally fierce peer pressure from its partners kept Germany in, and the project alive. But the jet's debut was pushed back to 2002 and its sticker price crept up from around €40 million to the current €60 million. That will get you a plane that Eurofighter test pilot Christian Worning praises as "miles ahead of anything we've seen." It's fast, with a top speed of Mach 2. It's highly computerized, making it not only easy for pilots to fly but also adaptable to new technology. And it's versatile, geared primarily for air-to-air combat but with air-to-ground attacking ability.

Some critics, though, say the Typhoon is designed for the wrong kind of warfare. "It's state-of-the-art. So what?" says Susan Willett, a defense analyst at the U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research. "In the new strategic environment, this aircraft has an exceedingly limited role." The idea for the Eurofighter comes from an era when midair tussles with MiGs were a real concern; but these days, missions in places like Iraq and Afghanistan emphasize air-to-ground roles.

Then there are the numbers. Even Typhoon fans who believe Europe should nurture its military-aircraft industry say the four consortium countries don't need the 620 fighters they've committed to. For instance, Britain is down for 232 and has an option for 65 more. "We're buying cold war numbers," says Andrew Brookes, aerospace analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "232? That's no reflection of the threat."

Not the ex-Soviet one, at least. In new Euro-math, 232 planes for Britain plus 180 for Germany plus 121 for Italy plus 87 for Spain is an equation to fight not a military enemy but a socio-economic one: unemployment. Eurofighter says its project has already helped to secure 30,000 jobs and will play a role in creating as many as 120,000 more.

At more than 1300,000 per job, this employment plan ain't cheap. But it is politically attractive. "We've got a project that will create European jobs," says Eurofighter exec Andy Lewis, and that pledge has helped sell the Typhoon to Greece (60 jets) and Austria (24). Eurofighter "will generate 200 percent of the [€1.79 billion] contract's value in business for Austrian industry," said Martin Bartenstein, Austria's Economics Minister.

The consortium aims to export as many as 500 Typhoons over the next 20 years. By its own estimates, that's about a third of the combat-aircraft market. But the competition will be tough. Eurofighter isn't the only one who can play the jobs card, and the Pentagon in particular has been lobbying hard to keep users of aging jets like the F-16 buying American.

The U.S. effort is paying off. In April, the Dutch chose the U.S.-built Joint Strike Fighter, which won't enter service until 2008 at the earliest, over the Eurofighter because of expected technology transfer and benefits for local firms such as Philips. Eurofighter took the loss hard. Lewis is still asking, "What's the magic ingredient that we didn't have right in the Netherlands?"

He may not have the answer, but he's still got the faith: Europe can take the U.S. on and succeed. The Eurofighter isn't just about building and selling jets. It's also a matter of pride. "It's not because we don't like Americans," says Worning, the test pilot. "We want to be equal." A worthy goal? Yes. But a sound business plan? We'll just have to wait and see how it flies.
With reporting by ANGELA LEUKER/Vienna and ANDREW ROSENBAUM/Amsterdam


Critisizing it seems to become an american past time. Nonetheless, after what I have read this is a first-class aircraft. Lets wait and see what the pilots say when it has seen some service time. The decision might have been costly. But I think it was ok. And clearly better than to buy American stuff. This isn't a rifle or something...this is technology you have to develope and nurture. This may be expensive. But independence has its prize. So does the raptor.
That some things went wrong? Happens in American projects, too. Too many went wrong? Take that as an opportunity to learn...next time we will do better. The main problem that we weren't able to include the French and Dutch. The French now have the Rafaele...but it came even more expensive to them. And the Dutch? Well, perhaps all European nations have to take lessons in teamplaying...in the meantime the Dutch are free from German-British domination...and the subject to American domination, instead. Their choice.


By the way...this here is quite interesting :
http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.html

[AFACadet]

Its too bad those articles are extremely biased, one sided, and spun.

They are the same poor arguments made for all the newest fighters, and they are the same arguments that can be made for just about every military aircraft in history.

The Typhoon does have problems, but so does the JSF and Raptor, and the F-14, and F-15, and F-16 ect ect ect (and many other foreign aircraft) had them during their development.

These people do not understand military hardware, the mission they are intended for, how complex they are nor the history of past aircraft.

Designing a bleeding edge fighter is the most complex common engineering task on the planet.

The Typhoon will become an excellent aircraft when it finishes its testing.

[martinexsquaddie]

well the typhoon exsists its not like theres any air threat coming from anywhere in the forseeable future.
and lessons have been learnt from eurofighter

[oldsoak]

Dear oh dear. Not the anti anything European Telegraph :roll: They really should do their homework.

[Ballistic]

Interesting reads.

I wonder what leaps and bounds, technologically, the next generation of fighters will undergo. Will they stay with the same type of airframe (roughly) thats existed since around the middle of last century, or will they take the plunge and delve into the unknown. Very interesting to see what the next 50 years will have instore for aviation, not only in the military, but civilian and on into space.

[cut]

the only people I know that read the telegraph are my grandparents and they are senile.. :bash:

[Durandal]

Why Europe is adoptiing an aircraft that is NOT a generational change but has the costs associated with one boggles the mind.

[Fioraon]

Buy American, you'll live longer and so will we. Its cheaper for better quality.

If it buggers you to depend on America then in the back of your head tell yourself it was the Germans who gave us wings with rockets.

Long live American World Domination (joking of course)

[FallenAngel]

I wonder what leaps and bounds, technologically, the next generation of fighters will undergo. Will they stay with the same type of airframe (roughly) thats existed since around the middle of last century, or will they take the plunge and delve into the unknown. Very interesting to see what the next 50 years will have instore for aviation, not only in the military, but civilian and on into space.

I give you the latest thing to fly out of Beoing: The Bird of Prey.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/images/space/space1102boeing_A1315x242.jpg
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20021019/450bird1.jpg
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20021019/450bird2.jpg

Evidentally it's been known for a few years to those who camp outside AF bases and look for super-secret-airplanes and aliens. ;) She was finally revealed last year after over 40 successful flights spanning 6 years. A squadron was formed and they are based at Nellis AFB, Nevada.

Squadron Patch ;)
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/images/space/space1102boeing_A5.jpg

Pretty cool eh? I don't know about you, but I would love for, in a few years, the government to show us what "Aruora" really looks like. :D

[stuntman]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20021019/450bird1.jpg
Whats the role of this bad boy?

[AFACadet]

To test a new generation of stealth and production/material technology.


You can see the design influences in the Boeing X-45 UCAV (although since OIF and OEF, it saw a complete redesign).

[Durandal]

Here are my photos of it. WPAFM in Dayton.

http://homepage.mac.com/richardstewart1/.Pictures/MISC/BP1.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/richardstewart1/.Pictures/MISC/BP2.jpg
Side shot with the Tacit Blue research bed below it.

Cheers!

[oldsoak]

Unfortunately buying American will not give us the full deal. UK JSF will be devoid of certain "US only " technologies.

[Durandal]

Unfortunately buying American will not give us the full deal. UK JSF will be devoid of certain "US only " technologies.

I can certainly understand that.

You have to weigh the options.

On one side you have a highly costly R&D and program with net results of a product compareable with advanced American made F-16. They will be self sustainable since the parts are European rather than relying on probably more costly parts from America.

On the other side you have a generational leap in multi-role technology. Yes, the per part cost is higher at purchase but with no R&D costs. Unfortunately, though you have to buy the part from the US which would probably cost more.

Ultimately, these aircraft (if you ignore the F-22s stealth capacity) are as good as their air controllers. If I were Europe I wold be spending a lot more on getting decent AWACS system up and runnig that is NOT American but is capable fo going toe to toe. Ultimately that is our edge over ANYONE, including the Russians and Chinese.

The F-22 does not have an equal currently and is probably one of the reasons why I think it is a waste of money. The generational leap is too far and far outpaces the threats it was designed for. When Chiina gears up and we end up going toe to toe with them in about 50 years...maybe, but right now? Just a big money trough for the arms industry.

[Guttorm]

Why Europe is adoptiing an aircraft that is NOT a generational change but has the costs associated with one boggles the mind.

Well... It isn't EUROPE thats adopting it, is it... :)

Some countries IN Europe is yes... :)

[oldsoak]

I'd like to think that Europe could develop a version of AWACS - unfortunately an electronics box is a bit hard to divide. There are other stumbling blocks as well -the UK was privy to some 'black' US developments, but wont be able to share this with Europe as part of the deal. Europe have the airframes - airbus - and a capable system in Sweden's Ericcson Erieye. It would certainly be possible to integrate the airframe with a more advanced version of Erieye. It would, however, be duplicating the AWACS systems that we already use. I do think that buying into the Swedish integrated defence sytem ( STRIC ? ) would be a good idea for NATO/Europe - it certainly would be a step in the right direction.

[fantassin]

As long as you don't try to promote the Nimrod AEW....

That's what should have been procured instead of the Eurofighter...

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/andrewbrooks1/display_buccaneer_top.htm

[Uncle Chô]

I give you the latest thing to fly out of Beoing: The Bird of Prey.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/images/space/space1102boeing_A1315x242.jpg
The BoP flew from 1996 to 1999. The aiplane is currently on display at the USAF Museum.

[oldsoak]

Nimrod AEW ? egad, thats going back a few. :)
The Brits are not short of good ideas, but we do seem to lack good project management in getting the damn things off the paper and into the metal.

[Durandal]

Why Europe is adoptiing an aircraft that is NOT a generational change but has the costs associated with one boggles the mind.

Well... It isn't EUROPE thats adopting it, is it... :)

Some countries IN Europe is yes... :)

True dat. :)

[He219]

Nimrod AEW ? egad, thats going back a few. :)
The Brits are not short of good ideas, but we do seem to lack good project management in getting the damn things off the paper and into the metal.

Aiborne Early Warning? How far back (http://www.nato.int/pictures/2003/031120b/b031120aw.jpg) was that ?

http://www.nato.int/pictures/2003/031120b/s031120aw.jpg

British Nimrod Maritime Patrol Aircraft
20 November 2003, Doganbey, Turkey / NRF
;)

[Ballistic]

I wonder what leaps and bounds, technologically, the next generation of fighters will undergo. Will they stay with the same type of airframe (roughly) thats existed since around the middle of last century, or will they take the plunge and delve into the unknown. Very interesting to see what the next 50 years will have instore for aviation, not only in the military, but civilian and on into space.

I give you the latest thing to fly out of Beoing: The Bird of Prey.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/images/space/space1102boeing_A1315x242.jpg
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20021019/450bird1.jpg
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20021019/450bird2.jpg

Evidentally it's been known for a few years to those who camp outside AF bases and look for super-secret-airplanes and aliens. ;) She was finally revealed last year after over 40 successful flights spanning 6 years. A squadron was formed and they are based at Nellis AFB, Nevada.

Squadron Patch ;)
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/images/space/space1102boeing_A5.jpg

Pretty cool eh? I don't know about you, but I would love for, in a few years, the government to show us what "Aruora" really looks like. :D

Amazing pictures, thanks heaps FallenAngel !! That looks mighty futuristic. Perhaps the future isnt all that far away :D :D

[Ratamacue]

I'm just wondering, but what is so technologically advanced on the Bird of Prey? Is it the wing design?

[Ballistic]

The F-22 does not have an equal currently and is probably one of the reasons why I think it is a waste of money. The generational leap is too far and far outpaces the threats it was designed for. When Chiina gears up and we end up going toe to toe with them in about 50 years...maybe, but right now? Just a big money trough for the arms industry.

Why stop research and development just because the aircraft cant be matched ? The only way better and more robust aircraft (or anything for that matter) can be developed is looking to the future. Gains made now effect the future of many industries. Taking the risks and coming out on top are the only way humankind will better itself, atleast from a technological standpoint.

[Uncle Chô]

I'm just wondering, but what is so technologically advanced on the Bird of Prey? Is it the wing design?
The most important feature is the tailess and slick design. The goal of the project was to test advanced low radar, visual and acoustic signatures. The "plane" was smaller than a F-18 and according to some "sources", the visual, radar and infrared signature was so low it was the equivalent of a small bird (much lower than the B-2 or the F-22).

It also led the way to another vital military program currently under development by Boeing - the X-45, the first third generation combat UAV to enter into service.

Armed UAVs could be the future of the Air Force fighter fleet in the next 10 years (no pilot = no casualties = politically correct ;) )

[Durandal]

Why stop research and development just because the aircraft cant be matched ? The only way better and more robust aircraft (or anything for that matter) can be developed is looking to the future. Gains made now effect the future of many industries. Taking the risks and coming out on top are the only way humankind will better itself, atleast from a technological standpoint.

You missed my point completely. This os NOT the Cold War anymore. We cannot afford to make generational leaps in PURCHASES. I never said a word about researching technology.

[Ballistic]

I'm just wondering, but what is so technologically advanced on the Bird of Prey? Is it the wing design?
The most important feature is the tailess and slick design. The goal of the project was to test advanced low radar, visual and acoustic signatures. The "plane" was smaller than a F-18 and according to some "sources", the visual, radar and infrared signature was so low it was the equivalent of a small bird (much lower than the B-2 or the F-22).

It also led the way to another vital military program currently under development by Boeing - the X-45, the first third generation combat UAV to enter into service.

Armed UAVs could be the future of the Air Force fighter fleet in the next 10 years (no pilot = no casualties = politically correct ;) )

Im wondering how these would be piloted ?? As a matter of fact, Im not to sure how current UAV's are flown, could you enlighten me please ??

Durandal, sorry, I took your wording in a different way. Still, current aircraft are starting to see very definate age and problems with airframes are a very real risk. I dont see a problem with upgrading current fleets to the most hi-tech solutions. Why fly old when new is very much available ? Why not give our Defence Forces the very best to get the job done ? Thats my opinion any way, as a tax payer, I have no problem with my money being spent on "bigger and better" for Defence.

[Kitsune]

@Ballistic:

There are two basic ways to pilot an UAV: either it controls itself via a computer brain or it is tele-operated.
The real solution will be a mixture of these two basic ways.

For an UAV to be truly autonomus you would need an Artificial Intelligence controlling it which has abilities close to a human brain. Something like this does not exist (don't let the media fool you) and will not exists for decades. And of course there is the problem of trusting a computer to make the decision wether to fire a weapon and kill humans or not...well not for the time being.
The other way is teleoperation...the vehicle is controlled by a pilot from ground.

This is how it will work:
Lets assume in the year 2034 the USA decide to attack, lets say, Iran out of some reason. The Aircraft carrier "George W. Bush" is stationed in the Arabian Sea. A UAV is brought to deck and started just like a normal Fighter Aircraft, the only difference is that the pilot is controlling it from a teleoperating station on the carrier. Once it has started it flies to its target destination...self-controlled...like a cruise missile. The pilot can drink a coffee now ;) . When the UAV approaches it target destination he again assumes control...drops his laserguided bombs...and drinks his next coffee while the UAV flies back. Finally he again assumes control and lands the vehicle via teleoperation on the carrier.

But teleoperating has its disadvantages, like time lag or a reduced situational awareness. Also a high tech opponent could try to use electronic countermeasures. So, especially in air to air combat manned vehicles may not be outdated for quite a time.

p-)

[Durandal]

Durandal, sorry, I took your wording in a different way. Still, current aircraft are starting to see very definate age and problems with airframes are a very real risk. I dont see a problem with upgrading current fleets to the most hi-tech solutions. Why fly old when new is very much available ? Why not give our Defence Forces the very best to get the job done ? Thats my opinion any way, as a tax payer, I have no problem with my money being spent on "bigger and better" for Defence.

No biggie. :)

Here is theproblem with spending money on the latest and greatest and I will put it inot terms relevant to you. A couple months back we were discussing Austrailia's need to replace its aging Leo 1A4 tank units. Spares were drying up and there was talk of finding a replacement.

Everyone was talking about buying M1A2s, Challenger 2s, and Leo 2s. The latest and greatest and certainly bigger and better. When was the last time Austrailia went toe to toe, tank vs. tank with another military force? Probably North Korea. Certainly nothing wwithin the last decade. The Tank is an offensive weapons platform and a costly replacement for thei aging tanks was an unnessary cost and would have had more impact if the money was spent on something else.

In the United States, I will argue that our advanced systems projects, have less impact than we think. Commanche? F-22? Osprey? Of the 3, only the F-22 has ANY signifigant impact. All three are EXTREMELY costly projects with a low net gain. But, the F-22 has no equal. The United States, when you look at EVERYTHING inovolved is at least two generations ahead of the closest opponent...if not more. Developing the F-22 is one thing, something I support, building it and filling orders are something else.

THis is NOT the Cold War. We no longer have the luxury of dumping baskets of money at a problem, unless you are the Chinese....then again it seems they be haviong the equivalent to our S&L problems, so who knows.

I am a tax payer also though I and I am getting tired of project that cost TRILLIONS with little net gain. I would much rather have Brigade sized units train and keep their edge than get a small stealth chopper with a crappy load out.

Cheers!

[Miles Teg]

Hi Durandal.

And if you want to talk about waste of money, take a look for "Star Wars".

Maybe effective, maybe not.

But certainly the most expensive Placebo project ever.

[He219]

Hi Durandal.

And if you want to talk about waste of money, take a look for "Star Wars".

Maybe effective, maybe not.

But certainly the most expensive Placebo project ever.

Some consider 'Star Wars' the defining factor in the resolution of the Cold War.

In another thread there was talk of the F-20 Tigershark. It was a fighter that was probably one of the most cost effective fighter designs in recent history. If the Europeans have the Rafael and the Grippen, why all the resource allocation for the Typhoon development?

I think of the Eurofighter as a subsidation of State-owned defense industries ....

My .02
:P

[fantassin]

The name is RAFALE in French, not Rafael.

It means either a burst of gunfire or a gust of wind.

[Uncle Chô]

I think of the Eurofighter as a subsidation of State-owned defense industries ....

My .02

http://www.eurofighter.com/Organisation/

I agree with Durandal. I think the Typhoon is a relic from the Cold War.

The Panavia Tornado who originated from almost the same companies succeeded because of the Warsaw Pact threat. At that times, despite the technical difficulties and domestic controversies, each country paid for the extra developments costs, no question asked.

Now, it is hard for the countries to finance a program that raises questions everyday.

And I bet the future arrival of a more modern, cheaper F-35 will kill the development of the Typhoon :(

[Kitsune]

Cho,
I think not. LOL.
The F22 is even more expensive. If you look at this:
http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.html
the Typhoon is nearly as good. Not bad how Europes "technology of yesterday" performs against Amaericas "technology of tommorow" ;) . And in the end the F22 might have a even worse efficiency/cost ratio. And the F35 will not be ready till 2008+...

And since the Typhoon is now put into service there is no reason to can the project anyway...that would be even more expensive.

[Durandal]

Hi Durandal.

And if you want to talk about waste of money, take a look for "Star Wars".

Maybe effective, maybe not.

But certainly the most expensive Placebo project ever.

I call it a a Cold War era defence project. I was a teenager at the time Regan announced the project I can honestly say that I am many around me thought that it was money, costly money, well spent. My parents and their children had lived under the fear of a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union. My parents simply because of the "Red Menace"...my generation because we thought someone wouold screw the pooch and make a mistake. It was appealing.

One could argue, seeing Russian data from that time, that it was one of the causes for the break up of the old Soviet regime, having sent them into a spending frenzy (theyhonsestly though the US was a year away from solviing the problems that BOTH nations were having and putting it into active use.

The benefits from the research in laser, rocket, and sattelite technology is seen today and benefits many of us.

Was it money well spent, who knows. I will argue that it was simply because hind-sight is 20/20. We didn't know any better.

Today we do though. America does not have the income to keep at this high level of procurement, especially on projects that attain little net gain overall. Research is different from actually putting a weapon platform online and into active duty. I wholeheartedly support research.

Look at the Osprey. A collosal waste of money. It can only serve TWO purposes. A fragile military aircraft with a ****ty payload capacity and a corporate taxi (the other goal for the vehicle if you did not know). Theere is no scaleability to the vehicle (the technology will only be used for this vehicle ONLY) unlike other rotor VTOL/STOL projects that are (using the exact same design in a scaleable form to create small vehicles such as drones to large cargo transports.

Some people might think that I am being to hard on the procurement side of things. I have familly that has been employed or was employed by the defense industry, I know how it works, or at least their portion of it. Its politics and little in the of common sense. The F22 project is the most valuable of the projects (with maybe the exception of the Interim Brigade) and I am against it simply because of the cost vs. return. It is easy to stand their and say "give our boys the most high tech tools to get the job done". We have the proper tools now, just train the troops. The United States military is getting as bad as computer technology. As soon as the newest toy is out we want something newer...

Hope that better explains my position. From an aviation/military gear geek side, I LOVE the F-22. I do not see the need to spend the money though.


Edit: As most here will tell you, this is one of the reasons why I think the Army's XM8 rifle project is such a waste. I am a SUPER HUGE opponent of it.

[He219]

Correction, that's the French RAFALE, not the Israeli Rafael (http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/)!
:D

Thanks fantassin. How do the Grippen (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/gripen/images/gripen2s.jpg) and Rafale (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/) compare with the Typhoon (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/index.html)?

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/gripen/images/gripen2s.jpghttp://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/images/rafale_10s.jpghttp://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/images/ef2000_12s.jpg

[Durandal]

Cho,
I think not. LOL.
The F22 is even more expensive. If you look at this:
http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.html
the Typhoon is nearly as good. Not bad how Europes "technology of yesterday" performs against Amaericas "technology of tommorow" ;) . And in the end the F22 might have a even worse efficiency/cost ratio. And the F35 will not be ready till 2008+...

You know, I love it when people site fanboy websites. The sources are listed, but there are no footnotes. Looking at a graph and saying "see this is sooo much better" is silly. Especially since neither one has gone head to head.

There is a LOT of biased info on that website.

[Uncle Chô]

I think not. LOL.
The F35 is even more expensive.
If you compare the actual price, yes. But the prospective sales figure is about 1000+ aircrafts worldwide. With the compensations offered to the local industrial partners and the power of the US industry, the cost per unit will be lower. We'll speak about it in 2015 ;)



the Typhoon is nearly as good. Not bad how Europes "technology of yesterday" performs against Amaericas "technology of tommorow" ;).
Sure but the European industry is always following the American technology by 90 %. Or at least, the American technology sets the standarts. The Typhoon, the Rafale and the Gripen are all good airplanes.

What will be interesting is how Europe will deal with the next generation. Working together and making the same mistakes as the Typhoon or the A400M or buying American ?


And in the end the F35 might have a even worse efficiency/cost ratio.
At least it is more oriented into the CAS/BAI role.


And since the Typhoon is now put into service there is no reason to can the project anyway...that would be even more expensive.
I am not talking of the cancellation of the program. The Typhoon flies and the current problems will be solved anyway. But I still believe the arrival of the F-35 in the game will reduce the export opportunities and the number of Typhoons in service.

[Kitsune]

@Durandal:

True ;)

But as I said...we have to wait until real pilots test the Typhoon against other aircraft. But since the people here cite all those BIASED contra-Typhoon statements, I countered it with biased Pro-Typhoon statements. So its done in court, too.
p-)

[Seiyuuki]

F-25 should become operational sooner than 2008.

What is the name of the F-35?