Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 1248 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2252 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Thread starter): Looks like a real "up yours" response to the investigation into the original Typhoon deal, if true..
Way to go....
What else would you expect?
Both parties are in the bed together, one will not go down without the other, the deal is too large to be cancelled, neither govt. will do that, fall guys will be found and if they do not exist they will be made. At the end of the day, the people will believe the official govt. statements because the natural order of things demand that, even if given by a new govt. the country still gets the deal.
Financially, it makes sense as the only ones in any real trouble is the UK side of things, there is much wealth in the Middle East and western govts. and business will do most anything to get it, so I can see some real discounts on this one with more accessories thrown in, customer is king in this deal.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 4924 posts, RR: 69 Reply 3, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2241 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 2): Financially, it makes sense as the only ones in any real trouble is the UK side of things
BAE SYSTEMS released its 6 months results last week - they're worth a look
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 4924 posts, RR: 69 Reply 4, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2218 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 2): so I can see some real discounts on this one with more accessories thrown in, customer is king in this deal.
I have to say, that, on second read, this appears to be an extremely simplistic (and frankly false) rendering of the situation.
My place of work wasn't part of the British Aerospace (as was) empire when the 3 Al Yammamah contracts were being executed.
But the talk in-house is of partnership, trust and confidence.
The "old" British Aerospace seem to have done an outstanding job of exceeding their customers expectations, and very strong relationships have been formed.
Al Y entailed essentially the creation of a modern airforce, and the full supporting infrastructure too, not just the planes.
I suspect that is a major competitive advantage to BAE.
Yes, the price will have to be "right". But you should be in no doubt that these will number amongst the most profitable contracts that BAE will put on their books, without question.
Rgds
I for one am delighted to see the relationship continue
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 371 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2213 times:
Very good news for the Eurofighter project and all the (mostly) European companies involved in it! It seems the Saudis are very pleased with what the aircraft does for them!
Jackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 248 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2109 times:
"How do you respond to an investigation into a 72 fighter deal? Enter into another one.....
Looks like a real "up yours" response to the investigation into the original Typhoon deal, if true..
Way to go...."
Except that the investigation was into the Tornado deal, not the Typhoon one.
And that celebrating another 48 aircraft deal is premature.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 4924 posts, RR: 69 Reply 8, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2041 times:
Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 6): Except that the investigation was into the Tornado deal, not the Typhoon one.
This is true.....
Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 6): And that celebrating another 48 aircraft deal is premature.
Quite possibly. Just 'cos the times says so doesn't mean it's a done deal..
Scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 2401 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2017 times:
The article talks about these planes actually being a reselling of the slots of 'Tranche3' planes that the RAF should of been getting. This leaves me with two questions:
1. Have the orders for the Tranche 3 planes actually been placed meaning that this is only BAe replacing one customer with another on the production line?
2. With the Tranche3 planes being better than the ones currently going to the RAF are we equipping our customers with better planes than ourselves.....
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 8310 posts, RR: 26 Reply 11, posted (3 months 19 hours ago) and read 1356 times:
Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 9): The article talks about these planes actually being a reselling of the slots of 'Tranche3' planes that the RAF should of been getting. This leaves me with two questions:
1. Have the orders for the Tranche 3 planes actually been placed meaning that this is only BAe replacing one customer with another on the production line?
2. With the Tranche3 planes being better than the ones currently going to the RAF are we equipping our customers with better planes than ourselves.....
I think the Tornado airforce have realized the Tornado's do things tht ft the current environment better then the Typhoons:
- A two man crew for complex, long, all weather missions.
- Extensive ground attack capabilities.
- Range
- Lots of fuselage for sensor / system upgrades
I think the RAF (and Luftwaffe) were sick of their Phantoms and ADV's being had for lunch for decades in NATO exercises involving M2000's, F15s, F16s and F18's. The Mig29 / Su27 looked bad too. The Eurofighter was the result.
But times have changed.. Rebuilding the nineties Typhhoon in the next decade to become a good medium range bomber seems smart only theoreticly (stealth, range).
Probably the RAF and Luftwaffe concluded replacing the Tornado with something future proof is higher priority then sinking many more billions into a "Tranch 3" Typhoon (New radar, thrust vectoring, radar reflection, etc..)
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 10193 posts, RR: 70 Reply 12, posted (3 months ago) and read 1292 times:
No, the Typhoon will mature in service into a highly capably attack aircraft.
(Helped some from the RAF insistence early in the project to up the fuel capacity-though they at the time were also thinking of loiter capability for Air Defence of the UK).
Saying otherwise is like claiming a single seat F-18 could never replace F-4's
Tranche 3 for eurofighter is highly contriversial and may never be realized.
The RAF already has 144 Typhoons ordered and the third batch of fighters designed to meet the Soviet threat has long been considered unnecessary by defence planners.
IMO Europe needs a different aircraft incorporating stealth, range, advanced sensors and communications, a comfi two man cockpit buddy-buddy refuel capabilities, good loither performance etc.
Quoting GDB (Reply 12): Saying otherwise is like claiming a single seat F-18 could never replace F-4's
Gulf War and Kosovo experience showed the french that a second crewmember is invaluable on strike and reconnaissance missions, and therefore more Rafale Bs were ordered, and not for training. Also conformal fuel tanks were developped for more range. .
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 10193 posts, RR: 70 Reply 14, posted (2 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1152 times:
You've been knocking the Typhoon on here for years.
All you've said it could not/would not do, much of which it IS doing now or soon will be.
For the RAF, their Tornado fleet is heavily worked, in actual operations, has been constantly for years, really since 1991, this increasing much more in the past 5 years.
The aircraft will wear out much faster than the other nations who operate it.
There can be a need for a two seater at the upper end of the strike requirement, well it so happens that a twin seater Typhoon, with upper fuselage conformal tanks, all of which has been worked on, could carry out the upper end of the Tornado role.
'Stealth' here is a not so relevant when the main weapon it will carry is the long range, low observable Storm Shadow cruise missile.
(The UK, unlike the other Tornado or Typhoon operators, also has and has used, Tomahawks from RN nuclear subs).
France indeed did change their planning for Rafale two mostly twin seaters, well they have since changed that back again to some extent.
Their Gulf War experience was based entirely on using their Jaguar aircraft, which had a much more austere avionic fit than the RAF machines, used in the same role in the same conflict.
Further more, they never upgraded their Jaguar fleet to anything like the extent the RAF did over the lives of both fleets.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 8310 posts, RR: 26 Reply 15, posted (2 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1121 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 14): You've been knocking the Typhoon on here for years.
All you've said it could not/would not do, much of which it IS doing now or soon will be.
I'm absolutely not the only one challenging the Typhoons capabilities for tomorrows environment. Range, observability, dual cockpits, strike requirements have changed drastically since the Typhoons were ordered. Adjusting the Typhoon will need bigger mods / more money then any previous upgrade & then still the platform will be a compromise. Nimrod MRA4 lessons have been/ are learned..
The Americans invested enormous into the F22, but it took a long time to enter service. At least they now have a powerfull basic platform to adjust / modificate it for future requirements. If the RAF gets a chance to tab into such a strike F22, trance 3 will be quickly forgotten..
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 10193 posts, RR: 70 Reply 16, posted (2 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1112 times:
Well great for the F-22, you've left out the fact that the USAF might end up with fewer F-22's than the RAF, a force many times smaller, could have of Typhoons.
The thing is too expensive for the USAF to have in the numbers they think they need, about 200 less in fact.
So a similar European type version of the F-22, if it had been developed instead of Typhoon, would mean too few for it's respective AF's.
Only it wouldn't, since it never would have happened.
Since the requirements that drove both types were different, they were developed in two very different national/bugetary environments.
If you think there is going to be a FB-22, don't hold your breath. It might make sense for the USAF, but they've decided for some bizarre reason, to try and get this '2018 Bomber'. God knows why.
The Eurofighter was very nearly axed by Germany, but it had nothing to do the the aircraft itself, and what did they find when casting around for alternatives that made any sense?
The Eurofighter.
To think a much more expensive and complex type would have even have made it to actually flying, is nonsense.
Designing and even specifying combat aircraft, is not just about aerodynamics or technology, it's about what is pragmatic for the users, what is politically acceptable too.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 8310 posts, RR: 26 Reply 17, posted (2 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1090 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 16): The Eurofighter was very nearly axed by Germany, but it had nothing to do the the aircraft itself, and what did they find when casting around for alternatives that made any sense?
The Eurofighter.
The german Airforce will upgrade the Tornado for the next 20 yrs. Tranch 3 for Eurofighter is highly unlike. What message sends that out?
Quoting GDB (Reply 16): To think a much more expensive and complex type would have even have made it to actually flying, is nonsense.
To publicly admit another aircraft is needed will take some time. It has cost too much and taken too long to realize Eurofighter. At militairy HQ's planners are looking at scenarios. To say the Typhoon is the right aircraft at the right time is acting willingly blind IMO. The world moves on.
Sorry Keesje... but if you're going to convince us that there is a truly viable option to replacing the Tornados with something other than the Eurofighter... you're going to have to do better than showing us some cartoon drawings!
But hey, since we're showing fantasy drawings, and arguing that they are viable options for replacing the Tornado. I would like all of you to consider the following submission by Vandalay Industries - Import/Export of Fine Latex Materials:
The Frogger Speed: Mach 5.4
Radar Cross Section: .0000000003
Weight: 1 ton
Cost: 500 clams
Range: 5parsecs on internal, 7parsecs with externals
Payload: Everything.... even at once!
PS: I will buy a beer for the first person/nerd who figures out how long it would take the Frogger to travel its max range, at its max airspeed!
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 10193 posts, RR: 70 Reply 19, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1061 times:
Germany is also replacing some of it's Tornados with the additional 40 Typhoons they ordered, after the big (and understandable) cut from the original Cold War levels planned.
(The RAF reduced their level post Cold War, by just 18 aircraft less).
Again, different AF's have different needs, the RAF Tornado fleet is hard worked, in action, in action in hostile environments. Over many years, not just small deployments.
One way to bolster the case for all of Tranche 3, is for the RAF to replace some Tornado GR.4's with the twin seater, conformal tank equipped versions.
At the moment, they are planning a small number of units from a large buy of airframes, now they do this a lot anyway, they did relatively speaking with both Tornado versions, with the Jaguars too, in the 1970's
Because they want enough spare aircraft for not only attrition over the longer term, but to have a pool to ensure that front line units are fully operational even allowing for maintenance and to ensure this stays the case over the long term, since rotating around airframes reduces the cycles on the whole fleet.
Even with this, the fleet is still very hard worked.
The RAF is a bit too small for it's current takings, this has in part been allowed to happen, since they do such a good job with often limited assets.
Make no mistake, all the NATO AF's are well trained, amongst the world's top AF's, most have at least some operational experience, but in Europe the most experienced in this respect is the RAF. By a considerable margin.
So here is the environment that the RAF is in as regards getting all the Typhoon's it wants.
They need a large spare pool of airframes, but they need to justify the buy too.
In their favour is that it's not decided just what will replace the Tornado GR.4 force, how much will be some new UCAV late next decade? Could an additional buy of F-35C's (the USN version having the most range and a compatible flight refueling system), provide some of the manned element?
In all this, the GR.4's are still aging, still hard worked, replacing say half the fleet with Tranche 3 Typhoons, would retain Typhoon production (aiding future further exports), as well as answering a genuine need.
Sponsor Message: 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 4924 posts, 
From Saudi Arabia, joined Jul 2003, 8430 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 1248 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 371 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 248 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2057 posts, 
From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2005, 2645 posts, 