StealthTiger 0 Posted October 19, 2005 Click: BBC News - video report. (Media Player) this fighter plane! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Supah 0 Posted October 19, 2005 Well looking forward to possibly seeming some of these at the large exercises held through out each year at the local airbase. I'm sure the RAF will be itching to try it against their NATO partners for a bit of sparring. Untill then who knows eh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ex-RoNiN 0 Posted October 19, 2005 So did the RAF put guns into them or not? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattxr 9 Posted October 19, 2005 proberly.. there not going to have a fighter which cant fight lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warden 0 Posted October 19, 2005 *Think* its a Gun pod like in the Old Phantoms We got off the Yanks. Took bloody long enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RKSL-Rock Posted October 19, 2005 So did the RAF put guns into them or not? Yes - it worked out cheaper in the end. There was a CofG issue with the ballast pack the would need to use so it was decided just to add the gun to the next set of deliveries - RAF is now happy and the MoD have shown that they cant manage a piss up in a brewery (again). *Think* its a Gun pod like in the Old Phantoms We got off the Yanks. Took bloody long enough. It was always going to be an internal 27mm Mauser cannon. It got deleted because of cost overruns (due to international lack of cooperation). The saga then went one step further when the RAF demanded that the airframe retain the option of having the gun fitted. NETMA (Nato EuroFighter & Tornado Management Authority) got in an argument with EADS and the MoD about design authority over the affected area (gun is located in the centre fuse which is 'owned' by Germany/EADS), saying that the ballast plug should be designed by BAE as EADS weren’t cooperating. There was an objection and a 2 year bitching match ensured; which inevitably snowballed into a bigger issue about other contested parts. In the end the MoD caved in and authorised the expenditure and the RAF went away happy but bewildered. Politics eh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ex-RoNiN 0 Posted October 19, 2005 Gotta love the MoD, they make for good comedy Not funny risking lives over beancounting though Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RKSL-Rock Posted October 19, 2005 Gotta love the MoD, they make for good comedy  Not funny risking lives over beancounting though To be honest it wasnt really the MoD's fault.  They didnt kick up a fuss until  EADS were 6 months over due on the design release.  They approached Eurofighter GMBH for a "local" design change.  EADS objected, BAE Systems asked for NETMA to get involved to mediate (UK MoD is an equal member) - EADS wouldnt give them local design authority despite NETMA directives.  The MoD (being the largest customer) then decided to put all the cards on the table (this is where it really went pair shaped) and put a list of 100+ areas where the lack of released EADS designs were causing delays in the production and increasing costs.  Demanding that EADS either rectify it within a set time period or pay the overun costs of all the partners (estimated 65million Euros for that year) due to their failure to supply correct and reliable data.  The stupid thing about this is that out of the original 4 partners, 3 were now all integrated into EADS.  Politics came into it rather than engineering common sense and everything went pear shaped.  EADS blocked any changes leaving the MoD with airframes coming off the production line with slots for guns but no guns or no flight authorised production ballast packs. Faced with a long drawn out battle that they wouldnt win (due to politics) and spiralling costs they did the sensible thing and took the cheaper option. The MoD's lack of foresight ended up costing delays to the RAFs deliveries but not to the German, italian or Spanish ones.  With hindsight and experience they should have know that they were going to get shafted.  You live and learn i suppose.  It nice to know that nothing changed, when i left Eurofighter in 2001 they were still fighting over who was going to make 22 interface parts.  Wheni went back in 2004 they were still arguming who was going to own them.  in 2001 they were about Å290 per aircraft set.  In 2004 the Å675... they were made in germany and shipped to the UK for treatments (only place in Europe that can do it) and then sent back to Germany for checking then sent back out to the UK. If you want to know why its cost soo much and is 5 years late... Egos of little men in dark rooms hiding behind the banner of international trade and politics  Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tovarish 0 Posted October 19, 2005 I remember reading that they will install the gun but will not order any ammo for them...but hey, at least it's an option in the future Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RKSL-Rock Posted October 19, 2005 I remember reading that they will install the gun but will not order any ammo for them...but hey, at least it's an option in the future Thats nonsense Its the same ammo as the Tornados use - withthe exception of the mountings its almost the same gun too. EDIT If i remember properly that statment was taken out of context and misrepresented by the press. From what i remember a spokesman for the MoD said "adding the gun now means a cost overun equivalent to the cost of purchasing the required ammunition for 5 years training." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mechastalin 0 Posted October 20, 2005 Can't belieive I missed this.Nice to see a good looking NATO fighter thats modern! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EiZei 0 Posted October 20, 2005 Well looking forward to possibly seeming some of these at the large exercises held through out each year at the local airbase. I'm sure the RAF will be itching to try it against their NATO partners for a bit of sparring. Untill then who knows eh No more technical excuses, now we will truly find out which country has the best pilots. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mechastalin 0 Posted October 20, 2005 Well looking forward to possibly seeming some of these at the large exercises held through out each year at the local airbase. I'm sure the RAF will be itching to try it against their NATO partners for a bit of sparring. Untill then who knows eh No more technical excuses, now we will truly find out which country has the best pilots. Well,clearly the answer would be some sort of Russian-Canadian hybrid :P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Supah 0 Posted October 20, 2005 Well looking forward to possibly seeming some of these at the large exercises held through out each year at the local airbase. I'm sure the RAF will be itching to try it against their NATO partners for a bit of sparring. Untill then who knows eh No more technical excuses, now we will truly find out which country has the best pilots. Within in NATO I don't believe there are large quality differences in pilot skill. Training has been pretty much standardised so any difference in skill will be small and purely on a personal basis, not structural Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlackScorpion 0 Posted October 21, 2005 What about non-NATO? I heard Finnish pilots are pretty good... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EiZei 0 Posted October 21, 2005 What about non-NATO? I heard Finnish pilots are pretty good... It is the finnish air force tradition to outperform (*cough* brewster *cough*) with underperfoming planes, not the other way around. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Supah 0 Posted October 21, 2005 What about non-NATO? I heard Finnish pilots are pretty good... It is the finnish air force tradition to outperform (*cough* brewster *cough*) with underperfoming planes, not the other way around. Look out for those low flying pornographic ski jumper politicians ! Their a FOD hazard! But seriously. Once outside NATO quality varies wildly from good (finland for instance) to laughable (name a country in the middle east outside of israel). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlackScorpion 0 Posted October 21, 2005 What about non-NATO? I heard Finnish pilots are pretty good... It is the finnish air force tradition to outperform (*cough* brewster *cough*) with underperfoming planes, not the other way around. Yeah... Juutilainen, Wind and others... great men... *Finlandia hymn* Would apply for FAF, but glasses... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
