GDB
Topic Author
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:57 pm

11 Sqn Typhoon FRG.4's have become operation for air to ground ops, at least initially with LGB's, after exercises in Nevada with the US.

Operational for air defence since last year, (as Russian TU-95's have seen), the type is now ready for a combat deployment in a swing role.

Other weapons to be integrated in time, will include the Brimstone and Storm Shadow air to ground missiles.

From the MoD;
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...claredReadyForGroundAttackRole.htm

From the BBC, reports, intended for a general audience;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7482309.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7482756.stm

No narration, but with some good views for the LGB's and targeting pod;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7482317.stm
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:32 pm

In excess of 60,000,000 British Pounds...Ouch! Excellent reports.
 
GST
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:27 am

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:59 pm

That is indeed superb news. I'm looking foreward to seeing these beauties strut their stuff at RAF Waddington this weekend. Its nice to know they will also be able to precision drop a bomb right into my flask of coffee  alert   hyper 
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:21 am



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 1):
In excess of 60,000,000 British Pounds

Dated July 1 2008 from the beeb no less.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7482756.stm

And Jacko said it was far less. Go figure. You could buy two F-35s or two Super Hornets for that price.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:37 am

Is it safe to say that, of the Eurocanards, the Typhoon has seen the most operational service?
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:47 am



Quoting N328KF (Reply 4):
Is it safe to say that, of the Eurocanards, the Typhoon has seen the most operational service?

Nope, both the Gripen and Rafale have been in operational service longer.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:54 am

Quoting Alien (Reply 5):
Nope, both the Gripen and Rafale have been in operational service longer.

I guess this isn't what I mean. I mean, which one has really seen more action/deployment, in the "peaceful" non-hot-war manner of speaking?

[Edited 2008-07-01 21:54:46]
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:07 am

Rafale has deployed to Afghanistan. Tiffie has chased some Bears. I'm not sure about Gripen.
 
GDB
Topic Author
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:39 am

Oh right, so just passing on some videos brings out the 'usual suspects'
'Yawn'.

Another way to look at it is that the RAF has another asset to support operations, which will include supporting US ground forces.
But no, the partial facts brigade are out.
The ones who trawl around lifting a bit here and there, correct or not, to support their odd view of the world, just like conspiracy theorists.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1552
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:15 am

Quoting Alien (Reply 3):
You could buy two F-35s or two Super Hornets for that price.

hey you have a point there, you could also buy 6bllion penny chews, I wonder why they didn't?

Maybe they wanted better capability than the Super hornet and F-35 for the air to air role and wanted it before 2020 or whenever the F-35 will enter service. Plus I dont think the F-35 will be any cheaper than the tiffie when it finally does enter service.

Its the same reasons that the USAF went for the stupidly expensive F-22 instead of a whole fleet of F-35s. Tis better and worth the money!  thumbsup 

Fred

[Edited 2008-07-02 04:33:23]
Image
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:41 pm



Quoting GDB (Reply 8):
Another way to look at it is that the RAF has another asset to support operations, which will include supporting US ground forces.

Always love the support but the argument does not work. The UK, like any other nation determines what is in their own best interests. Don't paint it like they are doing the US any favors.

Quoting GDB (Reply 8):
But no, the partial facts brigade are out.

What partial facts. The BBC said it was over 60 million. Bloomberg has said it was over 60 million, the Saudi MOD said it was over 60 million. What partial facts?

Quoting Flipdewaf (Reply 9):
Maybe they wanted better capability than the Super hornet

The Super coming off the line today is a more capable and flexible system than the tiffie. Better avionics, better radar, better ground attack, and better A2A weapons load out this fall when AIM-120-C8 becomes available.

F-35 will be in UK hands long before 2020, and with 20 percent work share of all F-35s, a far better economic deal to boot.
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:51 pm



Quoting N328KF (Reply 4):
Is it safe to say that, of the Eurocanards, the Typhoon has seen the most operational service?

Yes other planes have a longer operational time canards.

But the EF canards even they look similar are pretty diffrent then the Gripen/Rafale canards. Same as the wing which is almost a perfect delta has been designed for much higher supersonic agility and are much more aerodynamic instable.
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
TGIF
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:01 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:13 pm

I read about the Green flag exercises in Flight and it seems they finally got a true swing role configuration.

Quote:
Typically, Typhoons would leave Nellis in dry power carrying four Enhanced Paveway IIs, a Litening III pod and two external fuel tanks, plus two Raytheon AMRAAM and two MBDA ASRAAM air-to-air missiles. The fighters would then transit to the exercise area at 40,000-50,000ft, delivering an unrefuelled mission endurance of between 1h 50min and 2h.

This sums up to 11 out of 13 hard points occupied. This picture of an EF shows a similar A2A/A2G configuration with two additional AAM. It looks kinda crowded... Perhaps a stupid question but can the missiles/bombs be fired in an arbitrary sequence or do you have to, for example, drop one inner GBU to be able to fire the AAM next to/behind it?

Quoting N328KF (Reply 6):
I guess this isn't what I mean. I mean, which one has really seen more action/deployment, in the "peaceful" non-hot-war manner of speaking?

Although being in the SwAF since -96 I can't recall any reports that the Gripens have seen any action other than patrolling the boarders. Don't know, but I think, this also applies for Czech and Hungary. If NBG would have gone to Darfur/Chad I guess the Gripens would have been deployed.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1552
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:42 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 10):
The Super coming off the line today is a more capable and flexible system than the tiffie. Better avionics, better radar, better ground attack, and better A2A weapons load out this fall when AIM-120-C8 becomes available.

Yes thats right, today it does but in a few years when more of these milestones are reached then the super bug will be totally insignificant, future planning its called. Lets face it, if one were up there in the sky against the enemy I'd rather be up against the enemy in an aircraft which has a better range, better T/W and Lower wing loading. The tiffie has proper supercruise and most importantly the workload with the immense amount of data fusion in the tiffie cockpit means that the pilot can concentrate on flying the jet.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:23 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 10):
The Super coming off the line today is a more capable and flexible system than the tiffie. Better avionics,

Still posting bullsh*t  banghead  ? As always you show your lack of understanding about the EF and its systems. Keep on dreaming.  Yeah sure
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
GDB
Topic Author
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:11 pm

Alien, are you really trying to assert that two F-35's will cost the same as one Typhoon?
How can you possibly know this?
Because the current price of the Typhoon is for these full production models.
F-35 on the other hand, is years away from service, costs are (inevitably) rising, it is in the early stages of flight test.
If it maintains the planned price, whatever it is right now, it will be unprecedented.
Anyway, which F-35? F-35B, will will operate alongside Typhoon replacing Harriers, is thought to be the most expensive of the three variants.

I wonder what the Typhoon detractors make of the pilot in one of the videos refuting one of their totems.
The capability on dry power, (of course it's known it can supercruise-expect for the knee jerk detractors of course).

But then this is where the similarity to the conspiracy types comes in, I suspect the first few prototypes, fitted with RB.199 engines from Tornado, with the much less performance compared to the engine designed for Typhoon.
The ill informed detractors claiming this was still the case with the definitive engines, deliberately?
(The '9/11 Truth' idiots claimed that debris from UA93 was found 6 miles from the point of impact, 'proving' the official story was not true. Problem is, they used something like Google Earth to research this, but this measured distance from impact to farthest debris found from the nearby roads, which snaked around the area and were far from the proper direct 'as the crow flies' distance. Likewise, an unsurprising slip up in the chaos for the mass landing order, mistook for a very short time, later corrected, a Delta flight for UA93. This of course to the conspiracy types 'proved' foul play, a cover-up).

What do we mean when we say 'operational'?
Since in a limited sense Typhoon was before the RAF officially declared it so.
In Italian service, providing QRA over some international summit, (a reality since Sept 11th).
Gripen, a slightly older type was first, then the only aircraft you can fairly compare with Typhoon, the Rafale.

Back to F-35, we perhaps should not be that surprised about the cost rises, even though affordability was one of the main reasons for the programme in the first place.
If you think of it as a 21st Century F-16/F-18, like these legacy aircraft, needed since as with F-14/F-15 in the 70's, how they could never be procured in anything like the numbers to replace the legacy fleet without a drastic cut in numbers.
Same now, with the F-22, as well as the need to replace both legacy Hornets and the Harrier fleet, building separate types here was never going to happen post Cold War.

Anyway, hope you all liked the videos.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:24 pm

Here we go again.

In defiance of all the evidence, Alien trots out the same old lie – that Typhoon costs “twice as much as an F-35”.

What a load of nonsense….

The USAF’s own estimates for F-35 pricing contradict Lockheed’s claims of a $50-60 m price tag. The USAF figures give a programme flyaway average of $83.131 m, with a price of $199 million in 2009, $158 million in 2010, $124 million in 2011, $101.726 m in FY2012 and $91.223 m in FY2013, and $79.973 m thereafter. But that’s founded on the assumption that inflation will run at only 2% per year, which is unlikely in the defence and aerospace sectors.

Lockheed have claimed an export price of “$58.7 million for each of the first 368 foreign-bound fighters.”

But let's look a little more closely at $58.7 m.

That’s in 2002 dollars, so the real price is likely to be $80-90M in real world dollars with even modest inflation.

And that’s just a predicted price, not an actual or guaranteed price. It’s a deliberately attractive figure intended to ensnare the Aussies and is deliberately ‘optimistic’. Indeed it was specifically stated that this fixed price would “only be able to be offered if consortium numbers and schedules are maintained, and that it would likely add additional costs should partner nations start deferring or reducing their buys."

So with Denmark and Norway looking hard at Gripen, Super Hornet and Typhoon, and with the Netherlands equally shaky, and with the UK more likely to take about 82 aircraft, and not the planned 150, you’d have to be a hopeless optimist to imagine that numbers and schedules would be maintained, so this price is MOST unlikely to be met.

That’s the F-35 price taken care of.

How about Typhoon?

Firstly, you have to compare like with like – so you have to compare F-35 unit flyaway cost with Typhoon unit FLYAWAY cost not with Typhoon unit SYSTEM cost.

(We’ll ignore the fact, for now, that European unit flyaway costs are always higher, because they include more initial spares provisioning and GFE). They’re close enough to be interesting.

Now you could believe ‘experts’ like Lewis Page (notoriously unreliable, partial and inaccurate), Bloomberg and the BBC (who like all the mainstream non specialist media take the latest figure and accept it uncritically), or you could look at what industry, the partner nations air forces and governments, and real expert defence journos say…..

The source of most of the inaccuracy and mis-reporting is the NAO figure of £64 m quoted in the Major Projects Report 2005 (MPR05). This IS NOT A UPC, and was based on the production costs only for 144 Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 aircraft that are currently on contract - but included R&D and other costs that should properly be divided across all three production tranches, making it meaningless as a proper unit flyaway cost. (Some costs for 232 aircraft, some for 144 aircraft, divided by 144 does not give a real unit cost, obviously).

That figure is £20m out of kilter with ALL previous AND subsequent UK, German, Italian and Spanish figures - ALL OF WHICH HOVER AROUND £45 M. That figure is higher than the price paid by Austria (the contract was leaked so we KNOW what that price was) which would be illegal under the heads of agreement, which provide that the partner air forces will always pay less.

£64 m ($122 m) is NOT an accurate unit flyaway cost for Typhoon. So what does it cost?

The real costs of Typhoon are:

1) £42-45 m Unit production cost (validated by the NAO, confirmed by the Typhoon IPT, and backed up by the equivalent official figures from all four partner nations and Austria)

Tranche 1 cost £45.45 m (NAO MPR: "The contract for the first Tranche of 148 aircraft, of which 55 valued at some £2.5bn are for the UK, was signed in September 1998.")

NB That the R1 and R2 upgrades (NAO: "retrofit of Tranche 1 aircraft to Tranche 2 standard (+£117m))" add £2.12 m per aircraft.

In the NAO major projects report 2004, the unit production cost (excluding R&D) was quoted as £49.1 m (assuming a full 232 aircraft buy) across all three Tranches. (£11.39 Bn + R&D)

It was later said (by the NAO and the Government) that our 55 Tranche 1 aircraft were costing £2.5 Bn, representing a unit production cost of £45.45 m.

Figures released in Germany, Italy and Spain would all suggest that the Typhoon's UPC is in the region of £40-45 m ($73-83 m).

So if 55 Tranche 1 aircraft cost £45-49m each, how could the average Tranche 1 and 2 UPC have got to £64.8 m? Is there any way that a £64 m UPC could be real?

No, there isn't.

The 144 RAF aircraft in the first two Tranches would have to cost £9.333 Bn (excluding R&D), and since Tranche 1 costs £2.5 Bn, the Tranche 2 aircraft would have to cost £6.833 Bn, or £76 m each - £30 m more, per jet, than Tranche 1.

Whereas NAO and UK Government figures show that they actually cost £42 m each, fractionally less than Tranche 1, as planned.

Or you could arrive at a Tranche 2 unit cost by dividing the production contract total (€13 Bn or $16 Bn US) by the 236 aircraft in the tranche. That's €55 m/$67.8 m - £42 m at that time.

Or you could look at the Austrian price of €61 m - guess what - fractionally more than £42 m......

2) £82-84 m total programme unit cost. (UK total cost (£19 Bn - £19.6 Bn) divided by UK production total of 232). That's cheaper than Rafale - which works out at £88 m.

So Typhoon has a unit programme cost of £82 m, and a unit system price of about £60 m - which includes the unit flyaway cost of about £42 m.

That’s rather cheaper than F-35, and (as you’d expect) rather more expensive than the less capable F/A-18E/F.
 
GST
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:27 am

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:54 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 16):

Thanks for that, I've rarely seen such a good aero economics introduction.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:02 pm

I should have added that the basic "What you pay for one aircraft" cost - what the US refer to as UFCs (Unit Flyaway Cost) - we generally refer to as a UPC (Unit Production Cost).

Neither UFC nor UPC includes R&D, of course, but a UPC will tend to include some batch-specific tooling costs that are excluded from a US style flyaway cost.

Typhoon is very competitive price-wise with other aircraft in its class (F-22, F-35, Rafale, F-15SG) but is naturally more expensive than less capable types like the F-16, Gripen, and Super Hornet.

Though Alien will doubtless hate any inference that his beloved Super Hornet is inferior to Typhoon, it is fact. During a recent visit to Boeing, very senior programme people admitted as much - though they did naturally claim that the Super Hornet enjoyed some specific superiorities and claimed better cost-effectiveness for their aircraft.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:27 am

LM has not guaranteed a price of $58 m for anyone.

The prices quoted to the Netherlands and Australia were in 2002 dollars – factor in inflation and you’re talking in the $80-90 m ballpark.

Nor are they guaranteed prices – they are conditional on the export customers maintaining their planned uptake and timescales. ANY reduction in numbers by ANY export customer, or ANY delays, and the prices are not guaranteed.

Doesn’t matter how many F-35s the USAF buys, export prices are specifically linked to export uptake and schedules. In any event, the USAF costs outlined are founded on the US forces making the full planned purchase.

I quite deliberately did not even talk about the cost of the initial OT&E F-35s – but quoted production costs.

The AVERAGE F-35 flyaway over the whole life of the programme is predicted at $83.131. No early customer for the F-35 will buy an F-35 for less.

The stable, post LRIP F-35 flyaway is $79.973. No-one will buy an F-35 cheaper than that – and certainly not an export customer.

Typhoon costs are as I have given. The manufacturer, all four partner nations, all four partner air forces, and Austria all confirm the same flyaway level of £42 m. I’ve cited sources for these costs (IPT, NAO, etc.), backed up by the value of the Tranche 2 Production Contract.

There is a £64 m price out there, it’s not a UPC or a flyaway cost, and for those without unshakeable anti-European bias, or without an agenda I explained exactly where that figure came from, and exactly why it isn’t a UPC, and thus why it is NOT comparable to US flyaway costs. Unfortunately, the idiots at Bloomberg (and elsewhere) have used it without appreciating its inaccuracy, and have ignored the audited and validated Typhoon UPCs that are available.

You keep harping on about the Saudi price of £4.43 Bn, which, when divided by 72, gives an average of £61.527. That’s a unit programme price for the Saudis, including many elements that mean that it is not a UPC or a flyaway.

AGAIN: The UPC of a Tranche 2 Typhoon is £42 m. (Tranche 1 jets cost a little more, Tranche 3 will cost marginally less). Export jets will have an export levy applied.

Today that Typhoon UPC is equivalent to €53 m, or $83.4664.

That’s the price you’d pay for a Typhoon if you placed an order today.

F-35s will not be available at that level of flyaway cost until after 2013 – assuming no further delays, no further reductions in numbers, and no increases in costs.

That means that until 2013 at least, the Typhoon will cost less than F-35 (not “twice as much”). Until 2011, in fact, F-35s cost twice as much as Typhoons!

USAF figures give a programme flyaway average of $83.131 m, with a price of $199 million in 2009, $158 million in 2010, $124 million in 2011, $101.726 m in FY2012 and $91.223 m in FY2013, and $79.973 m thereafter.
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:20 am

thanks jack for the very elaborate post.

Someone must really try hard to ignore the facts and numbers you poster over and over again.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:39 am

Some people are certainly very selective in their use of numbers, and very lacking in discernment when examining the credibility and expertise of their sources.

Lewis Page? Bloomberg? The Daily Mail? BBC Online? Quotes from 2006? Reports dating back five years?

Give me strength, Lord.

With a unit programme cost of £82 m ($160 m) including R&D, the Typhoon has been a massively expensive programme for the UK tax-payer, and the unit production cost of £42 m (about $80 m) for Tranche 2 jets makes Typhoon one of the most expensive fighters in service today. Though cheaper than F-22, and with a lower unit programme cost than Rafale, Typhoon does have a hefty price ticket. But it is not 'double the price' of an F/A-18E/F, nor does it cost twice what you'd pay for an F-35.

Comparisons with the F-35 are especially odious. There are just two F-35s flying, and the programme is in its infancy. Cost escalation is inevitable (every major defence aerospace programme suffers it in the early stages), the only question being "by how much?' Even the USAF's own estimates are likely to be extremely optimistic.

Moreover, this whole argument lacks any reference to through life support and operating costs, perhaps because such costs aren't easily available to enthusiasts, and perhaps because they'd further underline Typhoon's cost effectiveness.
 
TGIF
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:01 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:01 am

So, if we're assuming stealth for the F-35 to be superior meaning no external fuel or weapons, I'd say its abilities (range, variety of weapons etc) are quite limited compared to the EF. With two A2A + two A2G weapon stations you would need two F-35 delivering the amount of bombs one EF could do, with the EF doing it from a base further away from the target. I agree that the F-35 may be a "multi purpose fighter". The EF however, is a true swing-role fighter.

It's also interesting to see JSF partners Netherlands, Norway and Denmark (although EF turned the latter two down) considering the EF, not as a compliment to the F-35 but a replacement, because of the rising JSF program costs. Why would they consider a "more expensive, less capable" fighter?
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:53 pm

It would be a mistake to underplay the F-35's capabilities, just as it's a mistake to understate its cost, or to exaggerate how soon it will be available.

On day 1, against a fully functional integrated air defence system, only an all-aspect Stealth aircraft will guarantee a high enough survival rate against the most potent threats.

But how likely is it that you'll be going against such defences?

How long will it be before EO/IR/bistatic defences remove the cloak of invisibility/invulnerability from LO aircraft?

But if you're planning on going 'down town' today using manned aircraft, then you'll want to do so in an F-117, F-35, F-22 or B-2.

Or let your allies 'kick down the door'.

Or just use Tomahawk and a lot of stand off weapons....

But in that 'Day 1, sophisticated IADS' scenario, there's no doubt that an F-35 enjoys real advantages over any legacy, non-stealth fast jet.

But there are other scenarios in which Typhoon scores higher, and it may well be that you need only a relatively small force of 'silver bullet' F-35s, augmented by a larger number of more flexible, generally more capable conventional fighters.
 
GDB
Topic Author
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:04 pm

Well I did say 'for general audience' for the BBC videos, meaning that it is a general news piece, not a specialised aviation report.

We know that in aviation, they often pass over doing too much specialisation, for time reasons clearly.
Add in an inherent media scepticism on defence matters, not that these are in any way a hatchet job.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:00 pm

No worries, GDB. The pictures were great, and your warning was well given.

It's just annoying when the 'partial facts brigade' come in with their propaganda about Lockheed's latest $200 m fighter....... taking the highest possible cost, and using it out of context.

Wink wink!
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:20 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 19):
LM has not guaranteed a price of $58 m for anyone.

They certainly have.

Quote:
So it was with some relief that by day's end the company had, for the first time, revealed a realistic figure on the fly-away price for Australia's new frontline air combat aircraft.

That $58.7 million will be for each of the first 368 foreign-bound fighters to roll off the line.

It was the price the Pentagon, which sells military gear to foreign countries, quoted to Norway as

it decides between the JSF and other options, including the European-built Eurofighter and SAAB Gripen.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23855599-662,00.html

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 18):
Typhoon is very competitive price-wise with other aircraft in its class (F-22, F-35, Rafale, F-15SG) but is naturally more expensive than less capable types like the F-16, Gripen, and Super Hornet.

The Typhoon should in no way shape or form be mentioned in the same sentence with the F-22 and F-35. The Super Hornet as delivered to the NAVY today is far more developed, far more advanced and far better sensors than the Tiffie as well. The Super is flying with an AESA now. The Super has better low speed maneuverability, and the Super has a far better and more comprehensive air to ground capability.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 23):
How long will it be before EO/IR/bistatic defences remove the cloak of invisibility/invulnerability from LO aircraft?

Don't make me laugh. You and I will be pushing up daisies long before that happens. It's physics my boy. Bistatic radars are by nature land or space based. They do not fly on aircraft. Do you really think a bistatic radar will be precise enough to enable a missile to track? No they are not designed to do that Jack. Bistatic radars may one day work well enough to act as a trip wire to alert you that an aircraft is in the general area but nothing else.

As for EO, well it's been tried. Too bad it doesn't work to well at long range or in darkness and fog. Assuming that in 20 years they are able to package a suitable EO/IR sensor suitable for target acquisition and tracking, do you really think that a stealth fighter equipped with a LPI radar like APG-81 will not see and deal with the potential threat long before any IR missile ever get a lock from our non (cannot say tiffie) LO platform?

Quoting TGIF (Reply 22):
So, if we're assuming stealth for the F-35 to be superior meaning no external fuel or weapons, I'd say its abilities (range, variety of weapons etc) are quite limited compared to the EF.

Not true. The combat radius of an F-35 with 2 AIM-120, and 5000 pounds of A2G ordinance is over 600 NAUTICAL MILES. I seriously doubt you need more than 5000 pounds of ordinance to do your job. In fact I would challenge you to cite more than one or two instances where this has happened in the real world. Further the F-35 will have the capability to carry up to 6 AAM internally and just like A2G ordinance, the option existing to mount more weapons externally if so desired.

Quoting TGIF (Reply 22):
Why would they consider a "more expensive, less capable" fighter?

That is why the tiffie is no longer in the competition. They knew they could not win.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 23):
Or let your allies 'kick down the door'.

Yeah, screw them over then ask the yanks to risk their blood and treasure taking care of your business. How pathetic.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 23):
Or just use Tomahawk and a lot of stand off weapons....

Yeah, how many you got? Where did you get them from?

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 16):
1) £42-45 m Unit production cost (validated by the NAO, confirmed by the Typhoon IPT, and backed up by the equivalent official figures from all four partner nations and Austria)

Wrong again Jack. Here is what the NAO said:

Unit production cost for Tranche I and II, according to the NAO is 64.8 Million Pounds each.

See page 117 of the ACTUAL NAO REPORT.
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506595_II.pdf

Frankly Jack I am getting sick of me posting facts backed up with quotes from reliable sources and you just writing whatever you damn well please. Put up or shut up. Lets see some cited sources. It really is sad that there are people on here who actually believe the things you make up but I guess the truth is hard to take sometimes.
 
F27Friendship
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:45 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:45 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 26):
Frankly Jack I am getting sick of me posting facts backed up with quotes from reliable sources and you just writing whatever you damn well please.

ow don;t worry, you are not the only one who is getting sick about your posts from your so called reliable sources.

Especially that you try to convince people that there is a guranteed price for JSF for any of the partners is really really laughable.

If that were true, Dutch parlement wouldn;t be breathing down the neck of the state secretary of defence to take the super F-18 into considerations for F-16 replacement
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:47 am

1) Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 19):
LM has not guaranteed a price of $58 m for anyone.

They certainly have.


No, They have not.

The $58 m offer is:
a) Conditional on all export customers maintaining numbers and timescales
b) Quoted in FY2002 $
The price (flyaway) of JSF is $198 m today, or $83.131 m (average over the programme) or $79.973 m (stable price post 2013).

2)
The Super Hornet as delivered to the NAVY today is far more developed, far more advanced and far better sensors than the Tiffie as well. The Super is flying with an AESA now. The Super has better low speed maneuverability, and the Super has a far better and more comprehensive air to ground capability.

Wrong!

The Super Hornet has no IRST, inferior DASS, and though it has an AESA (which offers some capabilities that a Typhoon pilot would die for), that's an AESA that failed its IOT&E, and that has not yet completed a combat cruise. It's an AESA that is out-performed in range and range at azimuth by M-Scan Captor.

The Super Hornet cannot supercruise, has markedly inferior thrust to weight ratio, and while it has good high Alpha performance has poorer sustained turn performance and lower pitch rates than Typhoon at low speeds, and inferior supersonic agility. The Super Hornet does have more air-to-ground weapons integrated, but Typhoon has a better Swing Role capability and already has Rover fully integrated.

If Boeing deliver on their promise of a $49.1 m flyaway for Block 3, the Super Hornet will be a remarkably cost effective fighter (a parameter it already scores well on) but even Chris Chadwick (President of Boeing's Precision Engagement & Mobility Systems, the IDS business unit responsible for the 'Bug) has explicitely praised Typhoon as being a 'very advanced aircraft' stressing the Super Hornet's cost advantages, and not claiming superior capability.

3) Typhoon does not have a UPC of £64 m. That figure includes costs from Tranche 3, and other elements that mean that it is neither a true average NOR a unit production price. The UPC of Tranche 2 Typhoons is simple to calculate by dividing the value of the Tranche 2 production contract by the number of aircraft in Tranche 2. These numbers are in the public domain. The Tranche 1 UPC for the RAF has been widely published and validated by the NAO. The Tranche 1 UPC (£45.45 m) and Tranche 2 UPC (£42 m) are supported by every other official figure released by the other three partner nations, and by the leaked Austrian price. That's all in the public domain, and the sources are cited in one of the posts above. That's not me "making it up". (I also have non public domain confirmation - which I will eventually publish - including confirmation by the Typhoon Secretariat within the IPT). The one-off £64 m price is out by £20 m, and is unsupported by any other evidence.

I've cited EF GmbH, the UK NAO (and I've explained by the one NAO figure that you recognise is NOT a UPC), the UK MoD, the UK Typhoon IPT, and the Austrian MoD. You favour Lewis Page, Bloomberg, and BBC Online.

Your use of outdated, discredited and biased sources is a joke.
 
TGIF
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:01 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:59 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 23):
It would be a mistake to underplay the F-35's capabilities, just as it's a mistake to understate its cost, or to exaggerate how soon it will be available.

There are no underestimations in the F-35's capabilities from my side. I think it's an awesome fighter and the stealth features certainly gives it advantages over non-stealth-fighters. What I tried to point out was that I believe the EF, with its improved A2G capabilities demonstrated in the Green Flag exercises, has better swing-role capabilities, given that the F-35 only uses its internal stores.

Quoting Alien (Reply 26):
Not true. The combat radius of an F-35 with 2 AIM-120, and 5000 pounds of A2G ordinance is over 600 NAUTICAL MILES. I seriously doubt you need more than 5000 pounds of ordinance to do your job. In fact I would challenge you to cite more than one or two instances where this has happened in the real world.

The EF will get you another 150nm...
5000lbs (although I can't find any bombs bigger than 2000 lbf fitting inside the each bay) will most likely do the job you intended to do when taking off for your mission. But today, new information is constantly available from AWACS and ground troops positioned close to the target. This meaning the situation at the target may change and the weapons you started the mission with might not be ideal anymore. The EF, being bigger and able to carry more bombs, is more versatile since it can bring "secondary weapons" if the situation were to change.

Quoting Alien (Reply 26):
Further the F-35 will have the capability to carry up to 6 AAM internally and just like A2G ordinance, the option existing to mount more weapons externally if so desired.

Using the external stores, the stealth is compromised...

To all Americans, Happy 4th of July!
 
red329
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:41 am

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:47 am



Quoting TGIF (Reply 29):
To all Americans, Happy 4th of July!

Thanks TGIF!

When other countries such as the UK in this case, fly their fighters to the US for training exercises, do they bring their tankers to refuel them crossing the pond and to partake in the training? Were there RAF L-1011-500s and/or VC10s in Nevada as well?

I'm not sure if the video states one way or another, I'm at work and pretty much all videos clips are blocked.


Jim
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:11 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 28):
The Super Hornet has no IRST, inferior DASS, and though it has an AESA (which offers some capabilities that a Typhoon pilot would die for), that's an AESA that failed its IOT&E, and that has not yet completed a combat cruise. It's an AESA that is out-performed in range and range at azimuth by M-Scan Captor.

Thanks Jackonicko for your interesting and informative post.
I would like to add: The PIRATE is a unique sensor which can't be compared to Russian IRST's, it acts like a passive radar.(TWS)

Besides the EF will have a two-way datalink with the METEOR and can carry the IRIS-T, again features the SH or Rafale don't have..

Some people just can't accept the truth that the SH isn't as good as they think.  crazy 
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:30 pm

It's a shame, as the Super Hornet is a great aircraft, and any realistic assessment would admit that. And during that window when Typhoon and Rafale were unavailable, F/A-18E/F made a great deal of sense.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:40 pm



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 27):
Dutch parlement wouldn;t be breathing down the neck of the state secretary of defence to take the super F-18 into considerations for F-16 replacement

F-18 is no longer being considered. I wonder why?

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 28):
The $58 m offer is:
a) Conditional on all export customers maintaining numbers and timescales
b) Quoted in FY2002 $

Wrong Jack. I understand some others misreading articles in english but you are supposedly from the UK and supposedly a writer. You would think that someone in your line of work from the country that invented the english language would know how to read. The article, dated June 13, 2008 (thats very recent Jack), quotes LM directly as saying it is for the first 368 export fighters. It says noting about 2002 dollars and it says nothing about production rates. It was indeed a landmark announcement because for the first time LM GUARANTEED A PRICE..

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 28):
The price (flyaway) of JSF is $198 m today,

Jack you know that is for this years batch of 12 development models and it does not reflect the true final in production price.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 28):
or $83.131 m (average over the programme) or $79.973 m (stable price post 2013).

That is BUDGETED average prices for all three models. The B and C models will be significantly more expensive the the A model Jack.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 28):
3) Typhoon does not have a UPC of £64 m. That figure includes costs from Tranche 3, and other elements that mean that it is neither a true average NOR a unit production price.

No Jack, the price I gave is a direct quote for UPC from the NAO and the report SPECIFICALLY states that it is for tranche I and II only. Follow the link I gave and go to page 117 to read it for yourself.

Quoting TGIF (Reply 29):
What I tried to point out was that I believe the EF, with its improved A2G capabilities demonstrated in the Green Flag exercises, has better swing-role capabilities, given that the F-35 only uses its internal stores.

Well then you don't know what you are talking about. The F-35 can carry external stores as well if need be. But I am sure that even Jack will tell you, 5000 pounds of A2G plus A2A missiles is more than what 99.999 percent of what you would ever carry on a real mission.

Quoting TGIF (Reply 29):
The EF will get you another 150nm...

Not on internal fuel it will not. The number I gave was for internal fuel only. Hang tanks off of the F-35 (yes some fo the pylons are plumbed) and you can double the radius.

Quoting TGIF (Reply 29):
The EF, being bigger and able to carry more bombs, is more versatile since it can bring "secondary weapons" if the situation were to change.

No that is not true. The F-35 can carry more ordinance than the Tiffie if need be.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:03 pm

No Alien, it isn't guaranteed. It's conditional on all export customers maintaining their totals and timescales.

And it's in 2002 dollars, which is why it appears to be HALF THE PRICE THE USAF IS PAYING.

The USAF figures are prices for the USAF F-35s, Alien, so while the F-35B and F-35C will cost more, they do not inflate the USAF's quoted prices for each fiscal year..

Of course the $200 m figure this year is for SDD Jets, and is thus artificially inflated, though it is the official FY 09 price. That's how much F-35 costs at the moment.

Your £64 m price for Typhoon has appeared only once in an NAO report, and I have it in black and white from the NAO and the IPT that it changed because the basis of calculation changed, that it isn't a UPC, and that it contains some costs for the first two Tranches, some for all three tranches, and some costs that wouldn't be included in a UPC at all. That's why this one single price is inaccurate as a UPC, and explains why it is £20 m higher than all of the other UPCs issued, and why the average given for T1 and T2 is somehow £64 m when the average for Tranche 1 was £45.45 (go and look at the relevant NAO report) and for Tranche 2 was £42 m (go and look at any release about the value of the Tranche 2 production contract).

If the average for Tranche 1 is £45.45 m, and the average for Tranche 2 is £42 m, the average for both Tranches together must lie between the two figures. That's basic maths, and it confirms that the NAO's one-off £64 m figure is NOT AN ACCURATE UPC. How many more times?

I do think that the F-35 promises to be a great fighter bomber, and its Day One capabilities make it a very compelling aircraft. I'm very glad that the RAF is buying both, though I view Typhoon as a more important and immediate priority, and I'd favour a much smaller F-35 buy for FCAC, since I'd bin CVF and JCA.

I would agree that 5,000-lb is enough ordnance for most missions. More than enough, even. What would concern me would be the dimensions of the bays - whether particular weapons can be carried, and whether other weapons are going to be cleared for internal carriage. (For the RAF and RAAF, for example, the lack of plans to carry ASRAAM internally are a big problem).

Though some F-35 external hardpoints are plumbed, as you suggest, clearance of external tanks is not funded, so as it stands, the F-35 will not carry external fuel.
 
TGIF
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:01 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:04 pm

Ok, I'll try to make myself as clear as possible. You seem to constantly ignore the points I'm trying to make and the conditions they are based upon. My whole argument is based on what you wrote in a post that was deleted (which caused my response to be removed as well since i quoted you) stating that the F-35 was more capable at half the price because of its stealth properties i.e. no use of external stores. I then tried to explain that there are areas where the EF is more capable given this.

Quoting Alien (Reply 33):
Well then you don't know what you are talking about. The F-35 can carry external stores as well if need be.

I'm well aware of this fact, but that was not a part of the conditions.

Quoting Alien (Reply 33):

But I am sure that even Jack will tell you, 5000 pounds of A2G plus A2A missiles is more than what 99.999 percent of what you would ever carry on a real mission.

I said 5000lbs would do the job, but with only internal stores used you are limited in the number of different bomb types you can bring. Thus making it less capable as a swing-role fighter (meaning you change tactics during the mission).

So to sum up. As I said before, the F-35 is an awesome fighter but with when using no eternal stores, the EF is a superior swing-role fighter.

Quoting Alien (Reply 26):
Quoting TGIF (Reply 22):
Why would they consider a "more expensive, less capable" fighter?

That is why the tiffie is no longer in the competition. They knew they could not win.

That doesn't answer my question. But in response, the EF withdrew since they felt it wasn't a fair competition, since the countries are involved in the JSF program. With this in mind, it's strange to see them compete in the Netherlands F-16 replacement selection.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:33 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 34):
No Alien, it isn't guaranteed. It's conditional on all export customers maintaining their totals and timescales.

It is guarenteed Jack, read the entire article. It is for the first 300+ aircraft for export and it does take into account currency fluctuation since much of the JSF is produced overseas. It says nothing about 2002 dollars. The article is from June 13 2008, not 2002. It is in fact based on 2006 dollars.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 34):
The USAF figures are prices for the USAF F-35s,

Jack the GAO budgetary numbers you are using cover all three models.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 34):
Your £64 m price for Typhoon has appeared only once in an NAO report,

For once you are correct Jack.

The updated UPC price from the NAO is 68.9 million pounds for T! and TII.
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/07-08/070898ii.pdf
Page 158 of the updated NAO report.

As for your and TGIF's F-35 inaccuracies I will deal with them later. I have to get going.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:12 am

I don't care when the article was published, Lockheed use FY02 $ as a baseline on JSF. (Otherwise how would the Aussies be offered a price more than $20 m cheaper than the cheapest USAF price?)

The prices I quote aren't from the GAO, they're from the USAF's Committee Staff Procurement Backup Book's FY 2009 Budget Estimates.

They don't include USN or USMC JSF aircraft, except in LRIP.




Your Typhoon figure is still not a valid UPC.

I've explained how the price is suddenly £20 m higher (it includes new costs that aren't part of a UPC). My explanation is supported by letters from the IPT and NAO saying exactly the same thing. If you dispute that reason for the £20 m price hike, perhaps you'll offer an alternative explanation.

Bear in mind:

The NAO certified UPC for Tranche 1 was £45.45 m

""The contract for the first Tranche of 148 aircraft, of which 55 valued at some £2.5bn are for the UK, was signed in September 1998."

See Major Projects Report 2004, p.111 (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/03-04/03041159_II.pdf)

On page 115 there's a slightly contradictory cross Tranche UPC of £49.1 m.

The UPC for Tranche 2 was £42 m.

The Tranche 2 production contract was "worth €13 Bn" for 236 aircraft - €55.08 m each. On 17 December 2004, when that contract was signed, the rate was 0.68545, so €55.08 = £37.76 m. Other rates give a figure of £42 m, which was the one recognised by HMG and the NAO.

(Using http://www.oanda.com/convert/fxhistory)

[Edited 2008-07-04 17:28:31]
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:57 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 37):
I don't care when the article was published, Lockheed use FY02 $ as a baseline on JSF. (Otherwise how would the Aussies be offered a price more than $20 m cheaper than the cheapest USAF price?)

It is 2006 prices Jack. You cheapest USAF price is a budgetary estimate and as such it is deliberately set high. In other words it is worst case. It is also old. Obviously LM now has a good handle on what the production costs will be or they would not have put it in writing.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 37):
Your Typhoon figure is still not a valid UPC.

It is not my Typhoon figure, it's your own government's NAO number. You know the National Accounting Office. Just in case you have never heard of them I offer the following:

Quote:
The National Audit Office scrutinises public spending on behalf of Parliament. We are totally independent of Government.....

We audit the accounts of all central government departments and agencies, as well as a wide range of other public bodies, and report to Parliament on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which they have used public money.

Here is their website. You may want to familiarize yourself with what they do.

http://www.nao.org.uk/

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 37):
See Major Projects Report 2004, p.111 (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/03-04/03041159_II.pdf)

On page 115 there's a slightly contradictory cross Tranche UPC of £49.1 m.



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 37):
See Major Projects Report 2004, p.111 (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/03-04/03041159_II.pdf)

On page 115 there's a slightly contradictory cross Tranche UPC of £49.1 m.

Jack that's for initial tranche 1 tiffies with only basic combat capability. You need to read better.

It is interesting to note that the very same report but from 2005 (more recent) puts the UPC (in black and white) for T1 and T2 at 64 M Pounds and the subsequent 2008 report puts it now at 68.9 M Pounds. Both reports are more current than 2004. Both reports include tranche 1 and 2 and both report DETAIL and QUANTIFY THE COST CHANGES for the program.

I may be off by a million of two for the entire program but the "accounting" changes you speak of accounted for a 416M Pound increase over the entire program.
See page 116. Last entry in project costs table.
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/07-08/070898ii.pdf

So if I where to agree that these accounting adjustments should not be included (and I don't, they are there for a reason) then if you spread the increase over the entire 232 frame buy for the program the UPC adjusts to somewhere around 67.2M Pounds.

Please Jack, stop digging.
 
GDB
Topic Author
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:41 pm

Alien, I really think that the phrase 'when in a hole, stop digging', really refers to you.

Aside from partial, not well informed or just plain dodgy sources, the fact that there is some weird, obsessive, misplaced, odd version of some form of nationalism at work, hardly makes for credibility.
Because we've seen it too often in past.
Such as the ones on how 'the A380 will never get airborne or 'no one will actually ever operate it', others on how the 787 would not have delays because Boeing are American and great and Airbus are useless Euros type, more recently.

So you are not the first to rant endlessly on, about something you seems to have little in depth knowledge on, just that because it's not American, it must be no good, or has no right to exist.

But two can play at your game.
Do you really want me to do a webserch on how the Super Hornet is no good?
They are there, I've seen enough of them.
But this time not from outside the US, articles slating it's performance, often it seems from ex US brass-hats, US magazines as well as just interested parties'.

These too were just as partial, selective, often plain wrong in general.
Some seemed to be about the SH not being a true F-14 replacement, either in it's designed role or as the later 'Bombcat'.
Which missed the whole point, SH was not intended to be this, it was however, the only way the USN could realistically modernise it's fleet in the short to medium term.
SH is more relevant generally, for the USN, for today's conflicts anyway.

That also reminds me, with the F-14 Tomcat to Bombcat role, how most said it was a very successful transition, even if it was a gap filler.
So how do critics of Typhoon, now they are being forced by real events to admit what was always true, that it IS a swing role type, square this stuff about Typhoon being just air to air, with only a limited, patched together, not all that good air to ground role?

It was designed to be, unlike the F-14 which did a good enough job anyway, (later enhancements that were cancelled/never approved would have improved further too).

But logic and reason, much less in depth knowledge, have had much place in your contributions, not to mention some real howlers in all those threads of yours I've noticed, but some of us are well used to this as I've stated.
I've my own very in depth knowledge about certain types/operations, which I've attempted to cite, to add weight, context all too often just the truth, on here.
Typhoon is not one of them, but I can tell from the level of detail, the appropriate sources, what is.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:26 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 39):
Aside from partial, not well informed or just plain dodgy sources

The BBC, Suadi MOD, Bloomberg Financial, the Herald Sun, and the NAO, partial, well informed or dodgy. You cannot be serious. What is in your opinion a well informed source? Jackonicko?

Quoting GDB (Reply 39):
Do you really want me to do a webserch on how the Super Hornet is no good?

Go right ahead and cite all you want. In fact I challenge you to cite something from any decent source that supports your claim.

Quoting GDB (Reply 39):
But logic and reason, much less in depth knowledge,

I have given you all of that and you just don't like the answers.

I have cited plenty of authoritative sources in regard to the Super, F-35, and Eurofrauder. I am no longer going to waste my time unless you and Jack and whatever other Euro cheerleaders decide to chime in come up with a few of your own.

Have a nice day.

[Edited 2008-07-05 09:28:23]
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:12 pm

LM's JSF prices are in FY 2002 $. Lockheed say so themselves.



The NAO changed the basis of calculating Typhoon costs. What now appears in the Major Projects Report no longer represents a UPC. The NAO is an authoritative source, but you have to understand what its figures mean, and you have to put them in context.

You quote a bald figure because it suits your partial, nationalistic argument. I've demonstrated why that figure is not what it purports to be (eg is not a UPC) and that the NAO has changed the basis on which it calculates costs, including costs that form no part of a UPC, and which include costs for Tranche 3 as well as for T1 and T2.

This is why the current figure is more than £20 m higher than the UPCs provided previously, by all other partner nations, by the leaked Austrian price, and by the Tranche 2 production contract.

This change has been confirmed by the NAO and by the Typhoon IPT.

The last proper UPC for Tranche 1 was £45.45 m.

The last proper UPC for Tranche 2 was £42 m.

Typhoon costs may have increased - but not by enough to make Tranche 2 jets cost more than Tranche 1, and certainly not by the £3.312 Bn necessary to cause a £23 m (50%) hike in UPC.

If you think that Typhoon costs have increased by 50% in four years, perhaps you'd explain how you think that might have happened. It's not as though only two prototypes were flying.....

They haven't, so I should save my breath, if I were you.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground

Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:14 am

You said that my cheapest USAF JSF price was a budgetary estimate "and as such it is deliberately set high."

Not so. Such estimates usually prove to be on the money, or sometimes, when there is cost growth, prove a little bit too optimistic. It is NOT worst case, and nor is it "old" - in fact it's an FY09 figure.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests