EF Typhoon - It's even worse than we thought

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: EF Typhoon - It's even worse than we thought
Wizbang1 3/3/2011 3:08:55 PM

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/page2.html This is an utterly devastating report from the NAO. I urge you to read all four pages of this report. I will give you some of the highlights before you delve in. At present the RAF has had 70 EF Typhoons delivered of different Tranches, of those, only 48 are flyable. Originally the RAF was to get 232 aircraft, but this was reduced to 160 and since all the T1 aircraft are going to be retired by 2019, we will be left with a fleet of only 107 but we will have paid for 232 therefore the development cost per aircraft will astonishly be some $350 million - higher than for the F22A Raptor! There are delays in receiving spare parts and aircraft that are being canibalised to keep others flying. There is the 24 EF's that are going to Saudi and the pilots that need to be trained as part of that contract which means that RAF pilot training isIn postponed. Only 8 RAY pilots are trained for ground attack. The RAF EF's will not be ready for ground attack until 2016 by which time the T1 aircraft will be in the process of being retired. In a few years time will the RAF want a non-stealthy aircraft, only a handfull of which can do ground attack anyway when there is a multitude of double digit SAMs and a more technologically advanced and stealthy (although with less raw performance granted) F35? Light the red touch paper and withdraw....

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 NEXT

earlm 3/3/2011 8:04:42 PM

Just remember kids, the Typhoon is a better value for money than the overpriced gold-plated US kit.

How many times have we seen that posted on forums? Morons, absolute morons.

Quote Reply

Wizbang1 3/4/2011 1:48:40 AM

That is just the point. The Typhoon is not better value for money at all. There is no reason to be smug about the EF Typhoon. It is less capable and more expensive than the F22 Raptor.

Quote Reply

MK 3/4/2011 2:49:27 AM

I suggest you read the original report rather than this article.

h*tp://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1011/management_of_typhoon_project.aspx

Quote Reply

Wizbang1 3/4/2011 3:21:01 PM

I have just read the original report. I would say that the article is a fair and balanced summary of the original report.

It has been suggested that the T1 aircraft will not be a total loss when they are retired since they could be sold on. I Iwonder who will want to take them though considering that even at this juncture we (leading partner in Eurofighter) are having difficulty to keep them flying because of a lack of spare parts. How much more difficult will it be for an - Arab perhaps - customer who might purchase the aircraft in five years time, to keep them going? It is a pretty damning indictment that out of 70 aircraft delivered only 48 are available for operations. Despite all the talk of swing-role operations, only 15% of RAF pilots had been suitably trained for this and that the EF Typhoon would not be the aircraft of choice for ground attack operations before 2019 by which time it will only be suitable for ground attack on third world theatres like Afghanistan (assuming we will still be fighting there in 2019).

Quote Reply

earlm 3/4/2011 11:48:28 PM

From the original article:

37 Billion pounds, 60% of which is for procurement and upgrade. That's 36 billion dollars for 160 planes or 225 million per plane. It's 137 million each production cost alone. 137-225 million for a marginal to moderate increase in capability over the F-15 in some missions. When you look at what the South Koreans and Israelis get for their money it's obvious the UK taxpayer got ripped off. People can spin it anyway they want but the reality is the UK will be conducting anti-piracy, anti-terror, and coalition warfare that requires a navy and some ground troops. They'd be better off with the F-16 for the missions they'll be doing.

From the MOD report, not from the horribly slanted article originally posted: "The 70 Typhoons already in service are protecting the air space around the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands."

No way F-15, F-16, or F-18 could do that. What was so bad about the Jaguar and Tornado that they needed replacement at that price? The upgrades are going to provide capability that the F-15, F-16, and F-18 (and Rafale) already have in A2G.

Quote Reply

MK 3/5/2011 9:28:21 AM

It's not exactly news that the Eurofighter program structure and management were largely inefficient. Things have improved as outlined by the NAO report, though further improvements are possible.

The fact that only some 40+ aircraft are available is owed to a lot of factors, spares shortage being one, but this issue is to be addressed. Other issues include the fact that a number of T1 examples is yet to be upgraded to block 5 via R2 and this takes several month on each aircraft, add those passing their 400 h inspections etc. and you are quickly down to such numbers. It's in fact not that unusual at all.

If the governments would have made the right decisions at the right time and allocate the necessary funding alone, it would have done wonders to accelerate the program and reduce costs.

Quote Reply

earlm 3/5/2011 12:12:18 PM

The right decision was to review every program after the end of the cold war. Anything that was a cold war system should have been heavily scrutinized. When the goal of programs is to keep the pipeline of tax money to the contractors open the taxpayers lose. The US is infected with the same thing but we did get the F-22 out of it. I just can't see how a 4++ fighter is worth the opportunity cost at that price.

Quote Reply

MK 3/5/2011 12:31:50 PM

Well in contrast to the US which has an alternative with the F-35, there is no such alternative for the Typhoon. The fault is not so much on the aircraft itself but inadequate decision making among the partner nations. This has been the main cause for the bulk of delays and cost growth. The program was nonetheless essential for the European aerospace industry and offers economical benefits given the 100000+ jobs created and the money being spent keeps inside the investors country to a large extend, which wouldn't have been the case if a foreign type would have been purchased. It's nonetheless an example of what can go wrong and the participating instances have hopefully learned from the mistakes being made, but that's something we won't know about until a follow on program is initiated.

Quote Reply

earlm 3/5/2011 5:38:06 PM

Defense programs don't create jobs, they suck tax $ out of the real economy and end up destroying jobs. This is established in the field of economics. They could have done some type of redesign to an F-teen then built it on their own soil for less $.

Quote Reply

SantaClaws 3/5/2011 6:42:06 PM

The alternative to the typhoon is the F35, which many of the NATO partners have already signed onto.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 4 NEXT