"John Cook" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:55:18 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:
"John Cook" wrote in message
. ..
(From Western Daily Press)
The Chairman of UKIP Exeter chooses to attack the Eurofighter, or
Typhoon as it is called in RAF service, not because it is a bad,
expensive warplane but because it is a way of attacking European
co-operation (WMN, August 24).
There have been problems with the development of this aircraft, due to
the changing nature of combat and the shift from a single Cold War
enemy to multiple threats from hot-spots around the globe.
Remember that the next time you take to bashing at the F/A-22.
This is true also of many other major defence programmes. David
Challice fails to mention that the US-led Joint Strike Fighter is
overweight and is suffering cost and schedule overruns.
Uhmmm...JSF is at a much earlier point in its development history than
Typhoon is--maybe what, a fifteen or even twenty year difference in terms
of
development time?
Nor does he
address fears that the US is squeezing the UK out of involvement in
key technologies on the project. Despite investing US2 billion in JSF
development, the UK is still the junior partner on JSF, not the equal
partner it is in European co-operation.
Maybe because (gasp!) the US is still providing the lion's share of the
development money? Not to mention accounting for purchasing eight or ten
times the number of aircraft to be produced? Why, how DARE we consider
ourselves the majority shareholder!
You can still be the majority share holder _and_ share the technology,
especially with a very close allied nation, or is the US afraid of the
UK attacking it?, seems a wee bit paranoid to me.
Your statement included: "Despite investing US2 billion in JSF development,
the UK is still the junior partner on JSF, not the equal partner it is in
European co-operation." Now explain to us why a minor contributor should be
an "equal partner"?
Or are you suggesting that the UK should withhold key technologies
from the US (just a little bit, as they are a minority shareholder).
or are you getting 'contractor' and 'partner' confused.
No, you appear to be the guy who is confused. Technology transfer is a
touchy business, especially when you are dealing with companies that *also*
are major partners in competing aircraft programs. If that seems
unreasonable to you, too bad.
The UK access to software code is more than likely to cause a few
problems.
"More than likely" in your humble view? Where's the real beef?
Mr Challice is too scathing about Typhoon. It is a very capable
aircraft and better than the American F16 he champions.
That remains to be proven (see below).
In a recent
competition run by Singapore to find a replacement for its F16
fighters, Typhoon was up against the American F15E and the French
Rafale.
Actually, the competition is designed to find a replacement for its A-4's
and F-5's, and not the F-16's as yet.
Not arguing that one, eh? Kind of points to a suspect value of the entire
rant you copied/pasted--they can't even get the program basics right.
Typhoon won all three combat tests, including one in which a
single Typhoon defeated three RSAF F16s, and reliably completed all
planned flight tests. According to one observer, neither competitor
aircraft could claim the same (Defence Analysis August 2004).
That would be after one aircraft was left behind on Crete, right? After
breaking down on the first leg of the journey?
Yes to the left behind at Akrotiri and no to the 'breaking down' part,
do you know what happened to it?, Do you want to tell the story or
shall I?. (I have a sneaky suspicion that it will have to be me).
Tell all you want. Bottom line--two aircraft arrived at Crete and another
had to be dispatched to replace one that went deadline. That aircraft was
indeed replaced for the remainder of the flight. Are you thinking a fifty to
sixty-seven percent OR rate for deployed aircraft (depending upon how you
want to look at it) is something to be *bragging* about?
You forgot to mention they were delayed on the way back due to
'breakdowns', do you want to elaborate on that too?.
Nah, I already pointed out the fact that this was anything but a troublefree
mission. Taken with the fact that the writer could not get the basics of the
Singapore competition right, and failed to recognize that they are looking
for a multi-role platform and not a pure air-to-air platform, this whole
"puff piece" looks pretty worthless.
Brooks
Seems to confirm the Typhoon as the best AtoA for sale in the world.
But unfortunately, Singapore wants a multi-role aircraft, and as yet the
Typhoon has not proven its abilities in the air-to-ground CAS, BAI, or
strategic strike roles.
Your quite right there, its all yet to be decided, and the Typhoon is
roughly two years behind the the Rafale in its deployment cycle, I
posted this as its the first feedback from the competition, the
Singaporeans are being very tight lipped about the evaluation process,
as are all the manufacturesr involved, you can't seem to get solid
information anywhere.
I'm interested in which varient of F-16's were beaten.
Cheers
Brooks
Cheers
John Cook
Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk
John Cook
Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk