Royal navy buys Hornets not JSF...

[walker 0]

Eurofighter Typhoon: It's EVEN WORSE than we thought

"Analysis Yesterday the UK National Audit Office published a detailed report on the current status of the infamous Eurofighter combat jet – nowadays officially known as Typhoon. We here on the Reg defence desk have always had a low opinion of the cripplingly expensive, marginally useful fighter: but even we were amazed by the new facts and figures. The Eurofighter, almost unbelievably, is turning out to be even worse value for money than we had thought."

ARTICLE

Hi Hans Ludwig

That is what the journalist says; not what the report says. I suggest people read the the report.

http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docId=5cbfd09a-929d-4e8a-b210-a240f8767bc6&version=-1

In order to get a more accurate view than the sensationalist hook of a headline.

Interestingly the UK has now given up on the JSF as a stealth strike aircraft as it will not be able to carry either the Paveway or the Brimstone internaly.

http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docId=7FF4E48C-44DC-4C61-9614-7F081820D70E&version=-1

MPR06: Reviews of the external missile systems for Joint Combat Aircraft resulted in the removal of the requirement for integrating internally mounted Brimstone (-£41m), Paveway II and III (-£1m) capabilities and some internal configurations of the Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (- £49m). Further UK participation in the Joint Integrated Test Force to reflect UK acceptance into service strategy (+£20m).

The full UK Government report on the JSF, like the aircraft, is not available. But here is the US senate interim report. It seems to be already suffering from worse cost increases than the Typhoons 75%the JSF cost increases dwarf it at nearly 100% and it is still a decade away from completion. Note also the US airforce does not want it. It far prefers the F22.

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2010/03%20March/Sullivan%2003-11-10.pdf

Per Unit cost of the JSF 110 Million Dollars Source to 135 Million dollars Source

Per Unit cost of the Typhoon 90 Million Euros Source to 86 Million Pounds Source

Do the math here is a currency converter:

http://www.xe.com/ucc/

Of course that does not include all the costs that is just the sticker price there are also the maintainance costs which now we will not be making the Rolls Royce engine for the JSF will all 100% go to the US. That is on top of the 3Billion that aborted project will cost; incedentaly most of that cost goes to the UK tax payer as Rolls Royce is a UK company and losses to its profits reduce the tax it pays in the UK. So there are no business or jobs benefit for the UK. So this means all the cash flows OUT of the UK economy.

For comparison we can use this more comprehensive per unit cost and maintenace cost comparison report from 2006 before the current cost increases on both projects

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defense-aerospace.com%2Fdae%2Farticles%2Fcommuniques%2FFighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf&ei=esJ4TdHsAYaAhQewzejoBg&usg=AFQjCNG61EysJk1AMy-vHquV6j2vHqSqZA&sig2=Xw7Satwlx0gF9e40cOnLbw

No Matter which report you look at or which way you cut it the Typhoon is the more capable and cheaper option for the UK. It maintains more jobs in the UK and ensures the money is not adding to the UKs national Debt. Note we only just paid off the National Debt from World War II during the last administration. The UK spent five decades paying off Lend Lease and Gordon Brown used the Telecoms bandwidth sale to finaly pay it off. This JSF project will put it right back on again.

So can we stop the partial and partisan quotes now?

I suggest we all have a good read of those and digest!

Kind Regards walker

Edited March 10, 2011 by walker

[rksl-rock 1301]

That is what the journalist says; not what the report says. I suggest people read the the report.

http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docId=5cbfd09a-929d-4e8a-b210-a240f8767bc6&version=-1

In order to get a more accurate view than the sensationalist hook of a headline.

Oh the irony of that statement is crushingly funny.

Interestingly the UK has now given up on the JSF as a stealth strike aircraft as it will not be able to carry either the Paveway or the Brimstone internaly.

http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc.ashx?docId=7FF4E48C-44DC-4C61-9614-7F081820D70E&version=-1

Systems like Brimstone and other seekers that require a lock before launch have always been an issue for the F-35. It's partly why the US is developing a new series of bombs with more complex guidance systems eg JDAM derivatives and GBU-39 SDB.

And as far as I know (and going off Jock Stirrup's comments in 2009) It was assumed that most operational RAF/RN configurations would require the use of pylons anyway. So I see the formal removal of the internal requirement as a logical cost saving. Albeit not a hugely desirable one.

To quote one of my mates in Whitehall, "Stealth capability is more of a nice to have. But the real draw [of the F-35] is that it's the only aircraft on the market that has a planned life past 2050."

Currently considering the threats and forecasted roles for the RAF and RN I don't think they are too bothered as long as it flies and drops bombs. Stealth is only about reducing detection ranges anyway. Its not some magic system to win wars.

The full UK Government report on the JSF, like the aircraft, is not available. But here is the US senate interim report. It seems to be already suffering from worse cost increases than the Typhoons 75%the JSF cost increases dwarf it at nearly 100% and it is still a decade away from completion. Note also the US airforce does not want it. It far prefers the F22.

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2010/03%20March/Sullivan%2003-11-10.pdf

Welcome to the world of Defence contracting. Politics, poor management and corrupt officials and politicians, they all factor in the mess we call projects.

No Matter which report you look at or which way you cut it the Typhoon is the more capable and cheaper option for the UK. It maintains more jobs in the UK and ensures the money is not adding to the UKs national Debt. Note we only just paid off the National Debt from World War II during the last administration. The UK spent five decades paying off Lend Lease and Gordon Brown used the Telecoms bandwidth sale to finaly pay it off. This JSF project will put it right back on again.

I dont think anyone actually said the F-35 was better than the EuroFighter. We just repeatedly said the UK could not afford - politically or financially - to pull out. So the fantasy of a Navalised Typhoon for Britain was just that. A fantasy.

So can we stop the partial and partisan quotes now?

Really, where are the partisan quotes?

I suggest we all have a good read of those and digest!

Its nice that you are actually posting factual links now. Even if you still try and spin it to show something that isnt quite accurate.

Kind Regards

Rock

Edited March 10, 2011 by RKSL-Rock
Gramar, typos and a small addition

[NoRailgunner 0]

First: "Royal Navy buys Hornets notJSF..."

Second: "Navalised Typhoon for UK..."

Now: "...the Typhoon is the more capable and cheaper option for the UK."

In the end: "Its a conspiracy!!"

Meanwhile the 2nd F35 production JSF is flying around... :n:

[Hans Ludwig 0]

The RAF should invest in F22's. They are the only country at this point that can be trusted to prevent technology leakage. Because of this, I have no doubt the current law could be repealed or have a supplemental added with the inclusion of United Kingdom.

I'm sure the Brits could buy the F22 cheaper and add in their own engines, which might out perform or be more fuel efficient then the current ones. What the defense industry needs right now is competition.

Personally, I think the F35 is still a great concept. It's just over priced because the defense industry, not just in the US, but all over the globe no longer has real competition (i.e. Mig vs. Sukhoi, Boeing vs. Grumman vs. Locheed vs. Rockwell vs. McDonnell Douglas).

Edited March 10, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[Baff1 0]

UG!! F22's.

No thanks, mate.

You're all right keeping all that technology safe by yourself.

Zerg for the win.

We aren't fighting any high tech airforces.

We are fighting mud hoppers.

What we need is some el cheapo propellor driven close air support. Cheap to build, cheap to fly, cheap to train, cheap to support. Easy to deploy on small runways made from mud. Numerous. Available to drop bombs on demand.

What we have is a supersonic jet interceptor on order instead.

We also need some new AWACs/submarine hunters/spyplanes and some transport planes.

A supersonic jet interceptor with stealth!!! No thanks.

You keep that.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Baff1

[hellfire257 3]

Cheap to build, cheap to fly, cheap to train, cheap to support. Easy to deploy on small runways made from mud. Numerous. Available to drop bombs on demand.

That could turn out well. P-47 Thunderbolt anyone? :D

[Daniel 0]

Nah, armed Tucano. We can't afford A-10s, might as well get the next best thing.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

If you guys don't need an air superiority fighter, then why invest in two air craft carriers that are almost the size of the Nimitz class?

We aren't fighting any high tech airforces. We are fighting mud hoppers.

I would argue it was that thinking by the Chamberlain administration that led to the Spitfire coming online later than it should have.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[Baff1 0]

If you guys don't need an air superiority fighter, then why invest in two air craft carriers that are almost the size of the Nimitz class?

I would argue it was that thinking by the Chamberlain administration that led to the Spitfire coming online later than it should have.

Spitfire was an interceptor.

We have plenty of those online already.

We don't have all of what we need covered, but we do have that bit.

Apparently we need two aircraft carriers the size of the Nimitz so that the French have somewhere to land.

[rksl-rock 1301]

If you guys don't need an air superiority fighter, then why invest in two air craft carriers that are almost the size of the Nimitz class?...

We need a multi/swing role aircraft. We don't need a "stealth elephant" that can't even share data with AWACS or other aircraft. (F-22s only have a radio. They don't have a working data link (Link 16 etc) even now after 6+ years of flying). And if reports of Typhoon vs F22 engagments are true, the Typhoon is just as capable if not "better-value-for-your-buck" than the F-22.

Despite all its flaws, Typhoon, once the tranche 3 capability comes online then we will have a pretty good (if a bit expensive) multirole aircraft.

And if we ever get the F-35C we may even have a half decent multirole naval air wing. We may even have a use for the CVFs.

Edited March 13, 2011 by RKSL-Rock
typo/grammar

[Baff1 0]

Nah, armed Tucano. We can't afford A-10s, might as well get the next best thing.

Yes mate that would do.

I bet we have loads of qualified pilots for it already.

Imagine how much cheaper one of these is compared to a Predator drone.

**Edit**

Bugger that it's twice the price of a Predator.

Next!

Don't Skoda make planes?

---------- Post added at 01:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 AM ----------

.

Despite all its flaws, Typhoon, once the tranche 3 capability comes online then we will have a pretty good (if a bit expensive) multirole aircraft.

.

Do we really need multirole?

Are the Tornadoes not still good for a few years?

Edited March 13, 2011 by Baff1

[Hans Ludwig 0]

We need a multi/swing role aircraft. We don't need a "stealth elephant" that can't even share data with AWACS or other aircraft. (F-22s only have a radio. They don't have a working data link (Link 16 etc) even now after 6+ years of flying). And if reports of Typhoon vs F22 engagments are true, the Typhoon is just as capable if not "better-value-for-you-buck" than the F-22.

"MADL Integration on F-22 May Slip: The Multifunction Advanced Data Link, planned for the F-22's increment 3.2 software update, is probably out until further notice, according to Lockheed Martin's F-22 program manager, George Shultz. Speaking with reporters last week at the company's F-22 plant in Marietta, Ga., Shultz said it’s not official yet, but "we’ve been hearing" that Air Combat Command "is moving toward delaying MADL." This data link is designed to give the F-22 the means of sharing data with other platforms without compromising its stealth cover. It is also planned for the B-2 and F-35. The reason for postponing MADL on the F-22 is the usual one: money. "The budget is strained," said Shultz. "We still have Link 16" in the F-22 software, he noted. The 3.2 update is still planned to include the AIM-120D and AIM-9X missiles, advanced electronic warfare, geolocation, and electronic protection."

[Pyronick 21]

"MADL Integration on F-22 May Slip: The Multifunction Advanced Data Link, planned for the F-22's increment 3.2 software update, is probably out until further notice, according to Lockheed Martin's F-22 program manager, George Shultz. Speaking with reporters last week at the company's F-22 plant in Marietta, Ga., Shultz said it’s not official yet, but "we’ve been hearing" that Air Combat Command "is moving toward delaying MADL." This data link is designed to give the F-22 the means of sharing data with other platforms without compromising its stealth cover. It is also planned for the B-2 and F-35. The reason for postponing MADL on the F-22 is the usual one: money. "The budget is strained," said Shultz. "We still have Link 16" in the F-22 software, he noted. The 3.2 update is still planned to include the AIM-120D and AIM-9X missiles, advanced electronic warfare, geolocation, and electronic protection."

But is it compatible with existing systems, i.e. Link 16?

[rksl-rock 1301]

...

Do we really need multirole?

Are the Tornadoes not still good for a few years?

Tornados were due out of service in 2025. But recent estimates suggests that only 30-40 airframes would last that long. The larger part of the fleet would be stood down by 2018 at the latest. And given the government's recent habit of making stupid cuts Tornado is seen as a very expensive and maintenance heavy programme. It's ripe for cost cutting. So something needs to take it place. So that leaves Typhoon to pick up the slack.

"MADL Integration on F-22 May Slip: The Multifunction Advanced Data Link, planned for the F-22's increment 3.2 software update, is probably out until further notice, according to Lockheed Martin's F-22 program manager, George Shultz. Speaking with reporters last week at the company's F-22 plant in Marietta, Ga., Shultz said it’s not official yet, but "we’ve been hearing" that Air Combat Command "is moving toward delaying MADL." This data link is designed to give the F-22 the means of sharing data with other platforms without compromising its stealth cover. It is also planned for the B-2 and F-35. The reason for postponing MADL on the F-22 is the usual one: money. "The budget is strained," said Shultz. "We still have Link 16" in the F-22 software, he noted. The 3.2 update is still planned to include the AIM-120D and AIM-9X missiles, advanced electronic warfare, geolocation, and electronic protection."

And it keeps slipping. The data link functionality was promised from day one. So far they have 2 F-22's with it. Both have huge problems with both software and hardware. So much so that they removed the capability from fleet wide updates FOUR times!

The reported problems they are having are:

• On board Power supply. - The F-22 is so power hungry its having problems supplying everything. The generators have been upgraded 3 times but it's apparently still an issue.
  
• Data transmission and reception detection. By its nature the Link16 system is a constant radio contact that would compromise the "stealth" characteristics of the aircraft. (You can detect any radio - even encrypted -transmission and the omni directional antennas needed are perfect radar reflectors). MADL was supposed to fix this but so far its not worked as designed in any form.
  
• Hardware reliability and poor design - Reports suggested last year that the avionics packages are a tad unreliable with some having to be redesigned and remanufactured. Several sub-contractors have lost their contracts over these sorts of issues.
  
• Airframe restrictions - The aircraft like many others use an avionics rack bay. Unfortunately the F-22's is very full, which means some boxes need to be combined. This is causing the contractors serious technical problems. According to the press none of these combined systems are coming up to spec.
  

Lockheed were also going to use the same MADL data-link system and hardware for the F-35. Due to the delays, failures and what has been quoted in the press as an "unsupportable design" they dropped it and are using a proven Link16 compatible device.

This one "black box" has apparently already cost the F-22 programme over US$380+ million in development costs. And in this climate of slashing costs some people have even dared suggest that the Raptor may have to cut the MADL design and go with the proven systems at the cost of other capabilities. (And I have no idea what those "other capabilities" are.)

Edited March 13, 2011 by RKSL-Rock
grammar

[hellfire257 3]

Nah, armed Tucano. We can't afford A-10s, might as well get the next best thing.

I meant THE Thunderbolt, not Thunderbolt II, you know, the Jug.

Cheap? Yes

Reliable? Certainly

Survivable? Yes

Ground attack? Yes

Well armed? Yes

Perfect! :p

[Daniel 0]

Oh I realised that! I just really like the Tucano, and since the Thunderbolt II is arguably the best CAS plane going...

But yeah, P-47 would rock too!

Bugger that it's twice the price of a Predator.

Yeah, I wasn't going to mention that. :p

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

...We don't need a "stealth elephant"...

I disagree, a stealth Elephant would be fucking awesome

[rksl-rock 1301]

I disagree, a stealth Elephant would be fucking awesome

Is this to go with the Ballistic Llama?

[jagheterjan 10]

Elephants and ships don't match, everybody knows that. Ever seen an elephant in Navy dress?

EDIT: Behold the future of stealth naval livestock!

Edited March 13, 2011 by jagheterjan

[rksl-rock 1301]

Elephants and ships don't match, everybody knows that. Ever seen an elephant in Navy dress?

No, have you?

(This is getting pretty disturbing :D I mean an elephant wearing a navy dress. Unless its stood on its hind feet the dress wouldnt hang properly... :eek:)

---------- Post added at 22:12 ---------- Previous post was at 22:01 ----------

Elephants and ships don't match, everybody knows that. Ever seen an elephant in Navy dress?

EDIT: Behold the future of stealth naval livestock!

I can see a future addon there... :rolleyes:

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

That's no moon...

[spooky lynx 73]

We aren't fighting any high tech airforces.

We are fighting mud hoppers.

Now you're fighting mud hoppers, but what if in some years those hoppers will recieve 4+ fighters and well trained pilots for them? During cold war we thought that we will fight only high tech armies but not some guerillas. And then 80's came...

What we need is some el cheapo propellor driven close air support. Cheap to build, cheap to fly, cheap to train, cheap to support. Easy to deploy on small runways made from mud. Numerous. Available to drop bombs on demand.

Can't buy A-10 or Su-25?

[Prydain 1]

Can't buy A-10 or Su-25?

The UK wouldn't buy a dedicated aircraft of this type, because there isn't any reason to, it wouldn't make any sense.

Why would you buy an older airframe (presuming the production has been discontinued on both models) in place of newer and just as capable unmanned aircraft, that we already have, and the newer, more flexible and just as capable Typhoon, which we already have?

Aircraft with big auto-cannon on the front are analogous to the battleships of old, the pursuit for efficiency and cost-effectiveness will kill them in the same way too.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Aircraft with big auto-cannon on the front are analogous to the battleships of old, the pursuit for efficiency and cost-effectiveness will kill them in the same way too.

Yeah, because the SU-27 and A-10 are so expensive to operate, repair and build. They have longer ranges than your WAH-64 and can bring more and heavier ordinance to bear.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[spooky lynx 73]

I should not say Su-25 is expensive to operate, repair an build. In Afghan war it became primary and most effective CAS aircraft because it is much easier to operate, repair and maintain than all-weather Su-17 armed with large amount of guided weapons. And it was much more effective than Su-17 in mountain terrain with small hidden targets. I suppose A-10 is the same. BTW, both of them even in basic versions can use guided weapons.