Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Turkey Eyes Large Eurofighter Order  
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 5112 times:

From an article of the same name:
http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuot...05-11-09_00-00-05_l08520049_newsml

The first part of the article reads:

Quote:
TURIN, Italy, Nov 9 (Reuters) - Turkey has requested information on buying more than 100 Eurofighter Typhoon combat jets in a deal worth 6 billion euros ($7.1 billion), Italian aerospace firm Finmeccanica (SIFI.MI: Quote, Profile, Research) said.

The possible order may help restore export hopes for the jet after it lost out in the bidding for an order from Singapore.

Finmeccanica, which holds a stake in the Eurofighter consortium, is leading negotiations with Turkey, where pilots have already flown the plane, while partner BAE Systems (BA.L: Quote, Profile, Research) is the lead in talks with Saudi Arabia on buying the fighter.

A while back there was a thread that Saudi Arabia had gone for the Rafale. It would appear that that deal is still "in play".

If Turkey were to go for the quantity cited, this would be an incredible shot in the arm for this program, and a notable loss for the Rafale. Also, couldn't hurt Turkey's chances of EU membership someday.  Wink


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3910 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 5103 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
Also, couldn't hurt Turkey's chances of EU membership someday.

I believe you nailed it right in the head...

Not that the Eurofighter is a bad plane but in sheer gorgeousness it can't compete with the Rafale (not that anything can...) Big grin



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 5098 times:

sounds like mostly a political rather than military decision indeed. Of course the Turks wouldn't want a French aircraft (the French are way too cosy with the Greeks...).
They're mostly American now, with some Russian helicopters. That would make JSF the logical choice, but maybe they want them as F-4 replacements in the ADF role rather than F-16 replacement in the strike/ground attack role.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13155 posts, RR: 78
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5004 times:

Greece's Typhoon order was a victim of Athens 2004 cost overruns, word is a new competition will be held there.
So you might one day see both Greek and Turkish Typhoons, wouldn't be the first time the two air arms have had similar types, though relations between the two are much better nowadays.


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3473 posts, RR: 29
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4986 times:

I really think this order is not a stupid Idea. Turkey is situated in a pretty unstable region, and the Eurofighter certainly is the best combat airplane available, even though I have some doubts about its Air to Ground capability.

What I find much stranger is the fact that Austria, a country that never had capable combat airplanes before (the Draken is ok but its not really state of the art) suddenly ordered it.

It will be interesting to see which differences the export version will have. While Turkey is a Nato member, will it get a fully capable variant of the Eurofighter if they order it?


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4954 times:

Again...from the article:

Quote:
Austria has ordered 18, but defeats in competitive bids to supply Eurofighters to South Korea and more recently to Singapore have cast doubt on the companies' export estimates of 800 planes.
"Our current expectations are not that high -- I would say half of that," one Finmeccanica official said.
He noted that Saudi Arabia, Greece and Denmark were the top export prospects for the plane, which competes against the Rafale from France's Dassault Aviation (AVMD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) and Boeing's (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) F-15.

OK, so EADS has "halved" their expectations. Dassault has lost in Singapore and Korea also. One can infer from this article that the rumored sale (of 96?) to Saudi Arabia is still being competed. So where are the future markets? Typhoon will have purchases from the four member governments, but so far only France has "rogered up" for the Rafale. [WARNING: Flamebait follows]
(...and apologies if this has been discussed before. I couldn't find anything in the archives.)

My speculation is that one of the driving forces behind the push to lift the ban of arms sales to China is to bail out Rafale. I have no doubt the French government would sell them a couple of hundred if given the chance (although the Chinese probably only want one!  Wink ) I am in no way accusing the French or Dassault of being more mercenary or opportunistic than anyone else (F-14s to Iran was a nice precedent), but they DESPERATELY need foreign sales to salvage this program (I will apologize if the sales to the French Air Force and Navy have resulted in this program being "in the black"). And...what would be the response of Taiwan? I seriously doubt that the Eurofighter would threaten the EU's trade relations with China by offering the Typhoon. World peace would break out before the U.S. offered Taiwan either the F-22 or the JSF. The Russians won't touch the Taiwanese arms market with a ten meter pole, so what would be their response? Admittedly, this is all speculation, but I firmly believe that if the ban is lifted we will see an announcement within one year that China is in negotiations with France to purchase the Rafale.

What would India do?



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3473 posts, RR: 29
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4938 times:

Denmark? I don't think this will ever happen, they will order the JSF, and therefore I do not see them ordering anything else. Also, Denmark has always bought American equipment, be it the C130, the F-16 or the helicopters, therefore I do not see them ever ordering the Eurofighter.

User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4917 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 6):
Denmark? I don't think this will ever happen, they will order the JSF, and therefore I do not see them ordering anything else. Also, Denmark has always bought American equipment, be it the C130, the F-16 or the helicopters, therefore I do not see them ever ordering the Eurofighter.

JSF is a strike aircraft. Eurofighter has a air to air role. The question is does Denmark need an air to air fighter?



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4885 times:

I see Denmark, Norway, Belgium, and the Netherlands continue to soldier on with their F-16s for the next 20 years.

None have the money to buy Typhoon, even if they had the need (which IMO the Netherlands and Norway do, Denmark and Belgium may not).
For political reasons they may well cancel their intent to buy JSF (there's strong political pressure from the left in the Hague to do just that in the Netherlands, and those moonbats stand to win the next elections here) and our airforce isn't too keen on Rafale (the cost of regearing our entire infrastructure to French equipment would be tremendous, and would have to come out of training and operational budgets, not purchase budgets, and that's before going into the capabilities of the aircraft).

Other Euro F-16 operators are in a similar position, with left-leaning Euro lovers wanting Rafale to show they're good little serfs to the European idea, no money to buy Typhoon, and the military not wanting Rafale.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3910 posts, RR: 28
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4882 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 8):
and that's before going into the capabilities of the aircraft).

Never mind the fact that, apart from the JAS-39 Gripen, it is the most capable OPERATIONAL 5th generation fighter flying today (the Typhoon is almost a decade away from being a true multirole fighter and who knows what the overweight JSF will turn out to be?).
You are so willing to talk about political orders (which are perfectly natural for military equipment) but you forget to mention why the F-15K got the contract from South Korea instead of the Rafale...

But then again we wouldn't expect anything else from you: French bashing does seem to e your favorite sport.

Lumberton, regariding your comments about the ban: if Dassault gets the Indian and Brazilian orders for the Mirage 2000 that may be enough to get them the money to support a few more years without any Rafale sales. If they don't I would more likely see a Rafale sale to Taiwan than to Mainland China (lifting the ban would IMO mostly be for the helicopter, space and defense electronics business).



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4845 times:

Nowhere did I say Rafale is a bad product. But the best aircraft overall may not be the best for any particular mission.

I've little doubt for example that an F-22 will blast any number of Rafales out of the sky when it comes to BVR engagements for example, but in a dogfight my money would be on Rafale (given equally competent pilots).

Same with ground attack. I'd rather have a true mudmover than a compromise "multi-role" aircraft.

Typhoon isn't intended to be multi-role first. It's primarilly an air defence platform to replace the F-4 in German service and the F3 in the RAF.
In that role it's likely superior to Rafale, again especially in BVR engagements.
Ground attack capabilities are secondary for both.

Noone knows what JSF will provide there, but for that one ground attack is a far higher priority which makes it more suitable for airforces where the main purpose of their structure is to provide support for ground forces.
That's what JSF was designed for from the outset, with a secondary self-defense capability for when there's no top cover from dedicated air defense aircraft available or to take on targets of opportunity.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3910 posts, RR: 28
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4824 times:

No matter what the generals think a multirole aircraft is the only viable solution for almost every Air Force in the world (apart from maybe the U.S., Russia and the U.K.). Even the U.S. Navy saw the light with the Super Hornet. Given today's modern technology having the same aircraft perform different roles is basically a question of software.

Looking at the recent wars and the threats against us realistically the most necessary abilities for a modern fighter are precision strike and (gasp) close air support (fighter jocks may hate mud-slinging but that is the thruth). With the support of state-of-the-art AWACS aircraft even an F-4 could do the air defense job these days (recent air wars have been so one-sided that no-one even bothers to use their aircraft, if they have them). The days of the interceptor are dead.

The Typhoon is intended to be an air defense project because it was designed 20 years ago, during the Cold War, when there still was a viable air threat. The same thing happened to practically all aircraft entering service today but some have been more sucessful than others in adapting themselves to the new realities (the /A in F/A-22 must be one of the best aviation jokes ever).

Actually an F-22 would blast a Rafale to pieces both in dogfight and in BVR (assuming the pilot wasn't busy rebooting the aircraft, as he has to do every 5 hours or so). The problem is the Rafale (or the Typhoon, for that matter) are much more versatile (the Rafale has 14 hardpoints for use as you please) and cost a fraction of that white elephant called Raptor (appropriate name, that of a dinosaur).

P.S. - before I get slammed the F-22 is a great technological achievment (those engines alone are a gigantic engineering accomplishment). Sadly it is obsolete (as a concept) before even becoming operational.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13155 posts, RR: 78
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4814 times:

I wouldn't underestimate the Typhoon's air to ground ability, which (despite the media reporting otherwise) has always been a major part of RAF planning.

It seems the air to air only batch 1, won't be, at least in RAF service, where some off the shelf targeting pods are being procured to provide an initial air to ground capability for batch 1.

Batch 2 will take the multi role capability further.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4811 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 11):
Even the U.S. Navy saw the light with the Super Hornet.

The U.S. Navy got screwed into taking the "Super Hornet". Ask any Navy fighter pilot if they had a choice between the Super Hornet and the NATF I'm pretty sure what their answer would be.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 11):
cost a fraction of that white elephant called Raptor (appropriate name, that of a dinosaur).

The term Raptor actually has nothing to do with dinosaurs, it's the definition of a bird of prey. If the F-22 is a white elephant it's an elephant that will trample anything that comes it's way. While the concept of a fighter like the F-22 taking on hoards of Soviet fighters is obsolete. The concept of a having a fighter that can clear the air of enemy opposition to make way for attack aircraft is not.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4806 times:

The name of the game is "battlespace management". One-on-one fighter engagements, while interesting in themselves (especially for the pilots involved!) don't have nearly the impact on the outcome as C4I. In effect, the battle is won or lost before it begins. There are a host of "force multipliers" to take into account, AWACS, UAVs, satellites, stealth capabilities, and others that have just as much impact on the outcome as the capabilities of individual aircraft. Nobody wants a fair fight. There will always be a few "ship to ship" dogfights, but spending billions on the most sexy aircraft doesn't make sense if there's no way to manage the fight!

[Edited 2005-11-10 17:19:36]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3910 posts, RR: 28
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4791 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 13):
Ask any Navy fighter pilot if they had a choice between the Super Hornet and the NATF I'm pretty sure what their answer would be.

Luckily it isn't (only) the pilots who choose which aircraft to buy (not in any armed force and not in any airline). As sexy as the F-14 and A-6 were multirole is the way to go in the future.

I actually don't know where the term Raptor came from but don't get me wrong, the F-22 is a great interceptor. My point (which maybe was better explained why by Lumberton in reply 14) is that it is a complete overkill in any foreseeable combat situation during its lifetime (unless of course the U.S. gets into a full-scale war with China, in which case that would be the least of our problems).

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 14):
Nobody wants a fair fight.

Exactly. The last one we had in the Western world, and will for a long time, was the Falklands conflict in 1982 (and that is only because one of the countries was 12.000 km away from the battlefront). The Iran-Iraq war was the last true one.

Quoting GDB (Reply 12):
Batch 2 will take the multi role capability further.

I am sure the Typhoon will be a great multirole fighter in the future. The Rafale isn't exactly one yet, it is just a bit closer to it than the Eurofighter. The U.K. has a great ground attack platform in the Tornado and won't need the capabilities just yet but that is not the case for most existing or potential clients.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4782 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 15):
Luckily it isn't (only) the pilots who choose which aircraft to buy (not in any armed force and not in any airline). As sexy as the F-14 and A-6 were multirole is the way to go in the future.

Don't take this the wrong way but that statement makes no sense what so ever. God forbid the guys who actually fly the aircraft into combat would have a say in the type aircraft they do it in. Instead of having a fighter that can take on anything in the sky and come out on top they have a plane that would have it's hands full with the likes of the Rafale, Typhoon or SU-27/37.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 15):
I actually don't know where the term Raptor came from but don't get me wrong, the F-22 is a great interceptor.

It comes from the USAF naming it's fighters after birds of prey. The F-22 Raptor being the ultimate bird of prey.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 15):
My point (which maybe was better explained why by Lumberton in reply 14) is that it is a complete overkill in any foreseeable combat situation during its lifetime (unless of course the U.S. gets into a full-scale war with China, in which case that would be the least of our problems).

Like Lumberton, and to which you agreed, no one wants a fair fight. The F-22 ensures that it won't be. Like showing up to pick up game of basketball and you have Michael Jordon while the other team has an overweight bus driver with bad knees.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3910 posts, RR: 28
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4776 times:

They should have a say in the aircraft to choose (I used the word only), just not the final say. It isn't them who will be paying for it, after all...
More than an airframe an aircraft these days is merely a support for a weapons system and in that respect the U.S. has a clear superiority (one of the reasons being the fact that they have understood the concept of multirole for a long time). There is no point in having a fighter able to fly circles around an F-18 (which is a very manouverable aircraft in its own right) if it is detected by AEW as soon as it takes off and shot down before even retracting the gear. You can pack as much AMRAAMs into an F-18 as you can into a dedicated interceptor.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 16):
Like Lumberton, and to which you agreed, no one wants a fair fight. The F-22 ensures that it won't be.

Yes I am sure of that but at what cost? The U.S.A.F. hasn't had a fair fight in decades (which is their job, after all) and managed to do it for much less with the F-15. With all the C4I systems you have today what are the situations where you need the $120 million dollar F-22 to perform things you can't with a much cheaper plane (a proper JSF, for example)?

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 16):
It comes from the USAF naming it's fighters after birds of prey

Any chance of an F-35 Spotted Owl? Big grin



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4737 times:

The aircrews in fact should have final say. They're the ones who know what works, rather than some corrupt armchair strategist politician who only knows which product gives him the largest amount of dollars in his Swiss bank accounts and/or the highest approval rating for the next elections.

Spotted Owl would be an excellent name for the F-35.
Stealthy, lethal, nighthunter.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3910 posts, RR: 28
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4719 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 18):
The aircrews in fact should have final say

Aircrews and armchair generals aren't the only ones involved in the process. There are actual generals involved, you know?



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4549 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 17):
They should have a say in the aircraft to choose (I used the word only), just not the final say. It isn't them who will be paying for it, after all...
More than an airframe an aircraft these days is merely a support for a weapons system and in that respect the U.S. has a clear superiority (one of the reasons being the fact that they have understood the concept of multirole for a long time). There is no point in having a fighter able to fly circles around an F-18 (which is a very manouverable aircraft in its own right) if it is detected by AEW as soon as it takes off and shot down before even retracting the gear. You can pack as much AMRAAMs into an F-18 as you can into a dedicated interceptor.

Who's going to be doing the shooting in that situation? Who's to say an opposing force will not have early warning of their own and a fighter equal, or greater, in capability that can get a shot off first.


User currently offlineBsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 11 hours ago) and read 4476 times:

With all due respect, the pilot's don't have a say in it. The former pilots may have a say but, these days, it's the politicians (who could forget them?) and the bean counters who have the final word.

The F-22 is the dog's danglies and it's lucky that it won't be exported for many years, if ever. The Typhoon, on the other hand, is a SERIOUSLY capable aircraft that will have an operational 'nasty' air to ground capability within a short space of time.

The French equipment is also seriously potent. However, you need to remember that the biggest cost of any of these systems is not the purchase cost, but the training cost. Fifteen years ago, the cost of an aircraft (and its associated ground equipment) was only the same cost as training ten pilots. You can imagine how low that proportion is now (excluding 'special' aircraft like the F-22). Aircraft are relatively cheap, compared with the cost of training the people to use and maintain it. The 'Smart Procurement' policy that the UK MoD now uses means that it is not an 'aircraft' that is bought; it is a 'weapon system' that includes everything from the aircraft, simulators, spares etc. to the maintenance trainers, spares management software, in service support etc. To do this with an existing structure and procedures is relatively easy. To do this with new equipment, companies and Nations (even language) can be very problematic.

The US (Boeing in particular) upset a lot of nations with the restrictions on upgrades and the cost of maintenance for export products. It is likely (IMHO) that the export market is likely to turn to other, more 'customer-friendly' nations for future supplies that are almost as potent.

I am also sure that Turkey's decision will be based more on politics than anything else. I reckon that they will get a true 21st Century 5th Generation fighter (Typhoon) with ground attack capability.

That said, Dassault has taken the European lead for UCAVs with the Neuron programme which will lead, within 15 years (I predict) to them being the main 'European' (with the involvement of Sweden, Italy, Greece and several others) UCAV manufacturer. They have vision, finance and a good head start on the competition and, unless the French government and/or anti-French feelings get in the way, they have an excellent chance of being the European lead for the commercial 'fight' with Boeing and the rest of the US UCAV market. The UK has its own FOAS programme, but so few details are available that no real assessment can be made.

In summary, the Typhoon is today's new multi-role (fighter/ground attack) aircraft for the export market. However, tomorrow belongs to the UAV. As the UK's Watchkeeper programme (which uses an Israeli airframe and other bits) has already shown, both the near and distant future should show breaks in the traditional USA/Europe split in the industry. Once Russia gets off it proverbial behind and China finally shows its hand in the public forum, things could get even more interesting...



The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4430 times:

Quoting Bsergonomics (Reply 21):
With all due respect, the pilot's don't have a say in it. The former pilots may have a say but, these days, it's the politicians (who could forget them?) and the bean counters who have the final word.

Yes I am very well aware of that fact. In the end it's quite often politicians making political decisions. What else would explain the superhornet or the Typhoon having four separate production lines.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Turkey Eyes Large Eurofighter Order
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Turkey Shortlists Two For $2B Attack Helo Order posted Sat Jul 1 2006 01:18:46 by AirRyan
US Senate Approves Selling 100 F-35's To Turkey posted Thu Nov 9 2006 11:30:01 by Wing
Rcaf Order Status On C-17 posted Wed Nov 1 2006 07:13:19 by ZBBYLW
Austrian Eurofighter Purchase In Doubt? posted Tue Oct 10 2006 21:31:40 by Lumberton
Why To Usaf Never Order KC-11? posted Sat Aug 26 2006 21:03:21 by 747400sp
FAB To Order 50 Casa 212-400 posted Thu Aug 24 2006 00:53:15 by DEVILFISH
Turkey Wants 30 F-16 Block 52 Plus posted Tue Aug 1 2006 19:02:31 by TK787
IAF 126 Plane Order posted Fri May 26 2006 11:02:24 by HAWK21M
Greek And Turkey Fighters Accident posted Tue May 23 2006 12:53:05 by An225
Large Amount Of Military Planes Overhead posted Thu Mar 9 2006 21:35:43 by Ryanair0pk

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format