Eurofighter Typhoon

Originally posted by FastJetPilot
Hey I dont want to start an arguament, but....No seriously like to hear the opinions.

Great, me too Unfortunately you have now awoken me to my favourite subject, hope I don't get carried away

Is the threat of grounding really a reason that the MOD Procurement would source 2 jets, I personally dont believe that arguament at all, we put all our eggs in one attack helicoper, one main battle tank, one of each class of everything, we dont build multi billion pound decisions on redundancy (except in the case of obsolete redundancy).

Sure. I'm not saying it actually is a consideration during procurement nowadays, only that it should be. In the past, when things were a lot cheaper, it was an active consideration and disparate types were often ordered at the same time, which is obviously something we aren't going to be doing anymore. Its why, for instance, we got the SE5a and Sopwith Camel, Bristol Bulldog and Hawker Fury, Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfire, Gloster Meteor and DH Vampire and we tried to procure both the Hawker Hunter and Supermarine Swift (which was pants) and the EE Lightning and SARO SR.177 (which was too expensive, and might have also been pants for all we know).

It also explains why we used to think we could buy three different heavy bombers with the wartime Stirling, Lancaster and Halifax being followed by the Victor Valiant and Vulcan, which was a mad idea.

While this type of procurement is dead and gone, never to return, I do think and hope that we need to maintain some redundancy in the front line of our air force through stepped acquisitions such as Typhoon now, Lighnting II between 2020-30, then something else to replace Typhoon, and so on .

Back in1980 there were the Harrier, Jaguar, Lightning, Phantom, Vulcan and Buccaneer all operating in our frontline squadrons.

Of these the Phantom, Vulcan and Buccaneer were replaced by the Tornado in a spell of sensible rationalisation. Since then we have also removed Harrier and Jaguar from service without any replacement (ironically, requirement AST403, that led to the Typhoon was specifically drawn up to produce a Jaguar/Harrier replacement, ho hum ) so we now have a two-type front line. To me this is a minimum we must not exceed. Look at the recent problem the F-22 had which kept it on the ground for weeks.

I think the JSF decision came about because of technology sharing, from what I can tell, BAE built Replica to prove it could make stealth on its own thus allowing access to production stealth technologies from the yanks for workshare in JSF.

There were other reasons as well, but BAE were also partners in JSF a long time before Replica was even thought of, right back when the BAE ASTOVL was killed and JCA was rewritten around the JSF instead. I think it certainly validated their participation though.

My comments on not needing JSF is driven by the fact i dont think we need stealth and its a massive red herring. We are not building a Eastern Bloc deterrent, we need to defend our shores but noone is going to invade us, if we need to project power over our allies and commonwealth and interests (falklands) we dont need stealth.

I don't disagree. I am only relieved that we have unshackled ourselves from the STOVL variant and opted instead for a more capable option, something I called for in a post on here a long time before it actually happened (smug mode ) Though we have also become the first Western nation to acquire VSTOL capability and then abandon it, which feels kind of strange.

All we need is a multi role adaptable platform and being as though we have already developed one, why bother with another?

We wont drop JSF and it will be a great aircraft, I just think we dont need it.

I'd rather we'd have also invested in a more tailored Gripen model while BAE still had a stake in it. We would then have had something to show for the development work that was done on the BAe P106, which was remarkably close to Gripen is spec and design AND we would have a tiered option both n our own front line and on the export market, win win.

But wishful thinking is easy

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by FastJetPilot

Back in1980 there were the Harrier, Jaguar, Lightning, Phantom, Vulcan and Buccaneer all operating in our frontline squadrons.

What an awesome lineup!

So instead we have:

Harrier / Jaguar - JSF
Lightning Phantom - Typhoon
Vulcan - Trident / Cruise Missiles
Buccaneer - Taranis/FOAS?

Still not bad.

reply to post by MisterBurns


It would be, if we get the Lightning II and Taranis (or a version of it). But given that Trident is un-usable, if you take them away it looks piss poor to me

I'm still fuming that we, as an island nation, can't afford a Maritime aircraft!

Yeah I agree its ridiculous, the Aussies are buying the P8 which is apparently a Boeing platform with Nimrod guts, was it BAE and Boeing partnership on the Nimrod MRA4 guts?

So Australia, with its smaller defence budget has a number of new P-8s on order plus a fleet of very capable P3 Orions. In fact, if we were so poor, why dont we just buy second hand Orions from America and Australia - heap some more shame on us.

Blood mishandled governments, Im sure there would be enough money to go around if the banks didnt take it all,

Japan has a rather nifty and relatively inexpensive maritime aircraft I'd like to have seen us buy into



In an idle moment I even dreamed up an E190MR for us, lol



But then, I wouldnt be paying for it

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by MisterBurns

 

I'm still fuming that we, as an island nation, can't afford a Maritime aircraft!

edit on 21-11-2011 by waynos because: (no reason given)

Oh, we can afford one - the problem with the MRA4 was it was horrifically expensive to operate, so in the end it made sense to dump it even after it was fully developed (you never, ever consider sunk cost when doing forward planning).

A P-8 buy would be awesome, and rather cheap as well in comparison to the MRA4. Now, don't get me wrong, I loved the Nimrod and was fuming when they cancelled it, but the cancellation did make very good sense in the end - it was a ridiculously small fleet and had huge operating costs as a result.

Largely, the same issue as the RAF had with the Nimrod AEW in the 70s and 80s....

reply to post by RichardPrice


But if we can afford it, Richard, why are we not hearing anything about a potential procurement? Is it political expediency in current economical climate or some other reason?

I also heard a rumour a while ago that some Strenuous internal lobbying may have done enough to save the Sentinel fleet. Have you heard anything about this at all?

I don't think the Nimrod AEW fleet was axed for reasons of operational cost. As I recall the Nimrod fleet then was much larger than in recent years and airframe commonality with the rest of the fleet would have been beneficial, while the Sentry AEW.1s are the only examples of the 707 airframe we have. From memory only, wasn't it insurmountable technical difficulties with the Cassegrain radar that did for the Nimrod AEW?

I recall that when that programme was axed, the programme to buy the Sentry began immediately, but since the MRA4 was axed, nothing at all seems to have been done about it.

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by RichardPrice

 

But if we can afford it, Richard, why are we not hearing anything about a potential procurement? Is it political expediency in current economical climate or some other reason?

Mainly because, no matter how well the goverment explained that "we cut that, saved billions, and will still save billions by buying this replacement...", they would be slaughtered in the media for wasting money by making the cuts in the first place.

It doesn't matter that a P-8 fleet would be more cost efficient to procure, more efficient to operate and we could afford to run more of them - because the current government ditched the Nimrod the story in the media would be one of "Government spends money after wasting billions".

There are plans for including a P-8 purchase in the next mini review around 2013-14, when the dust should have settled...

For a good example of what I mean, see the recent sale of Northern Rock to Virgin - the Government bail Northern Rock out to the tune of £1.4Billion, and sell it to Virgin for about £800Million... Of course the media launch a huge tirade of attacks against the Government for making a loss on the sale.

Then it emerges that the previous Labour government signed an agreement that Northern Rock had to be sold off by 2013 - putting the current government under huge pressure. This was mildly reported on, but didn't make as many headlines as the sale itself.

And then the government released the financials of Northern Rock, backing up their decision to sell - basically, Northern Rock was making a £350Million loss each year, and was projected to make that loss until the end of 2013. So by selling now, the government took a £600million or so loss, but if they had waited until the agreed sale date, that would have turned into a loss of £1.6Billion or so...

That didn't really get reported on, and even when it did the general public ignored the figures (there was an excellent BBC News article on their website detailing the above - and it was opened to comments from the public. The general topic in the comments was "the government should have waited and made more money in the two years before they had to sell" despite the article very clearly stating there was no money being made, and indeed the hit would have been much bigger...).

I also heard a rumour a while ago that some Strenuous internal lobbying may have done enough to save the Sentinel fleet. Have you heard anything about this at all?

I've heard that the planners want it saved, the upper management want it saved, but those working on the aircraft all want to work elsewhere.

I don't think the Nimrod AEW fleet was axed for reasons of operational cost. As I recall the Nimrod fleet then was much larger than in recent years and airframe commonality with the rest of the fleet would have been beneficial, while the Sentry AEW.1s are the only examples of the 707 airframe we have. From memory only, wasn't it insurmountable technical difficulties with the Cassegrain radar that did for the Nimrod AEW?

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest the AEW was axed for operational cost reasons - it was indeed the cost of development that was its downfall, but it was still going to be a relatively small subfleet within the Nimrod main fleet, with its own costs etc.

I recall that when that programme was axed, the programme to buy the Sentry began immediately, but since the MRA4 was axed, nothing at all seems to have been done about it.

While the E-3s we have are the only example of the 707 we currently have (although Air Seeker will be coming soon), its not the only example within NATO - and there in lies the reason we needed the AEW in the first place, as it was a NATO reporting and capability requirement for the UK. We had to have it as part of our NATO membership requirements...

However, there are no requirements for a maritime patrol aircraft - thats an internal requirement to protect our submarine fleet...