Eurofighter news

Sun 30 May 2004

UK to sell £43m fighters before seeing service

BRIAN BRADY
WESTMINSTER EDITOR



IT WAS the "fourth generation" aircraft designed to protect the skies above
free Europe at the height of the Cold War. But, 15 years after the fall of
the Berlin Wall, after Perestroika and German reunification, Eurofighter is
already accused of being years behind the times.

No single piece of military hardware has caused so much trouble for
successive governments, in Britain and across Europe, as the ill-fated
Eurofighter Typhoon. Beset by problems with design, hideous delays and
enormous cost overruns, the fighter is already four years behind schedule.

It was with some relief that the British military, and the politicians in
Whitehall, greeted the recent assurance that the "Jonah" of the defence
establishment is finally ready to take its place on the front-line of the
nation¢s defences.

But, just as the Royal Air Force prepares to take delivery of the first of
more than 200 Eurofighters to which it has been committed for almost a
decade, it has emerged that the RAF will not have all of them in its hands
for long.

A sheepish Ministry of Defence (MoD) has admitted that moves are already
underway to sell off dozens of the brand-new super-fighters as soon as they
are delivered.

"Some consideration has been given to the scope to provide for early export
of Eurofighter Typhoon to potential overseas customers," admitted armed
forces minister Adam Ingram. "If pursued, a sale might be accomplished by
adjusting the delivery profile to the RAF. The RAF remains, however, the
primary customer for these aircraft and any decision made will take full
account of its requirements."

Britain has endured more than 20 years of frustration and embarrassment
over the Eurofighter fiasco but now, at the last minute, the government
appears to have had enough. In short, the UK has decided that it can do
without many of the planes that were supposed to form the cornerstone of
air defences for the next generation.

The MoD had been planning to spend £20b on 232 Eurofighters over the next
20 years, already £2.3bn above the original budget. They are hardly likely
to recoup the overspend by selling the planes off at knock-down prices
overseas.

Defence analysts and opposition politicians last night admitted that the
news represented a truly astonishing twist in the Eurofighter saga. But,
for a procurement process that has been dogged by farcical hurdles,
including the latest official warning that its pilots should not fly in
cloud, it is surely the only appropriate finale.

Yet the switch in policy may, in fact, represent the overdue application of
common sense to the Eurofighter imbroglio. In the first place, within a
department that is facing its most troubling financial situation for some
years, offloading such expensive aircraft does follow a certain logic.

"In the next couple of months, the government is going to announce that it
will make the most swingeing cuts to our armed forces," observed Tory
defence spokesman Gerald Howarth. "They are looking to make savings
wherever they can."

Ministers deny that they are planning to impose such drastic budget
restrictions on an arm of government that routinely complains of
"overstretch", but the signals from within the MoD tell a radically
different story. The department¢s most senior civil servant, Sir Kevin
Tebbit, has already admitted that the armed forces face major cuts because
of Treasury spending restrictions.

The Royal Navy and the RAF are preparing to endure the most severe cuts,
and expensive new projects, notably the Eurofighter Typhoon, are inevitably
under greater scrutiny.

Under proposals thrashed out within the MoD itself, the RAF would lose all
of its 141 Jaguar and Harrier ground attack aircraft, its 39 Puma
helicopters and a number of bases. Reducing the number of Eurofighters to
be maintained in the fleet would free cash to be spent elsewhere.

Recent attention has concentrated on the possibility of the UK scaling down
its original commitment - given by a previous Tory Government - to buying
232 of the planes, slashing the figure by up to a half.

But, with the first tranche of 55 to be delivered by 2006, their room for
manoeuvre in the short term is limited. It would also risk more political
fall-out with Britain¢s partners in the project: Italy, Spain and Germany.
The most acceptable alternative to emerge is an agreement that Britain will
meet its commitment, but seek to reduce the costs by selling up to 20 of
the first delivery elsewhere. Singapore, Austria and Greece have emerged as
the most likely customers.

Howarth, at least, recognises the spin-off value of what would inevitably
be an embarrassing development, to British manufacturers including BAE,
which are heavily involved in the Eurofighter project.

"Providing we have sufficient cover, if some of the production-line places
allocated to the RAF are allocated to the open market, I cannot complain,"
he told Scotland on Sunday. "Defence sales are hugely important to the UK
because, without them, our unit costs for our own equipment would be
incredibly expensive."

The wider argument, one more enduring than any short-term budget crisis, is
that the UK would simply not need so many of the new planes, even if it
could easily find the money to pay for them. Some critics, in fact, argue
that, with the Cold War threat having evaporated, Britain does not really
need the new planes at all.

"The really ironic thing is that the planes we might have the most need
for, the ground-attack variant of the Eurofighter, are in the third tranche
[of 88 planes], and that is the one most at risk of being cancelled,"
Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Paul Keetch told Scotland on Sunday.

"The first tranche, the air-defence Eurofighters, are terribly good
aircraft, but there is no longer any aerial threat to the UK, so who are we
going to use them on? The only nation with a comparable capability is the
United States and, short of going to war with them, I can¢t see us ever
needing any of these planes."

Howarth insists that Eurofighter, and particularly the ground attack
variant, will be vital in defending British forces and interests in future
conflicts. "We don¢t want to find ourselves ranged against a country that
has air supremacy over us," he said.

"Without supremacy in the air you put your men at risk on the ground. With
the anniversary of D-Day coming up, anyone who thinks we can just get rid
of planes like these should be reminded of the slaughter that can be
suffered by ground forces if you do not win the battle in the skies above
them."

The difference in philosophy, which has forced the Eurofighter to face
charges that it is "obsolete" even before it enters service, underlines the
perils of allowing the process of designating, ordering and developing a
crucial piece of military equipment to drag on for years.

Above all, it emphasises a fundamental problem with the project: the fact
that it was as much a political expedition as a military one. In its
earliest days, the Eurofighter dream, originally the European Fighter
Aircraft, was heading for oblivion when the French pulled out, deciding to
develop their own Rafale fighter. Eurofighter¢s fiercest critics, and some
of its stoutest defenders, might find themselves wishing it had ended
there.

At the MoD, however, the mood remains defiantly optimistic. "Maybe next
time we go into a project with the Italians and the Germans and the Spanish
we¢ll get it right first time."


This article:

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...m?id=614292004

British armed forces:

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1034


--

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

"Yeff" wrote in message
...
Sun 30 May 2004

(snip)

1) Scotland on Sunday is not a very good newspaper.

2) Four years behind schedule is not that much.

How far behind its original schedule has the F/A 22 slipped?

Here is an equivalently uninformed and biassed story, but this time about
the 22. (Excerpt)

'A GAO report in 1994 concluded that it would be cheaper and perhaps even
more effective from a military point of view to stick with the F-15.
"Instead of confronting thousands of modern Soviet fighters, the US air
forces are expected to confront potential adversary air forces that include
few fighters that have the capability to the challenge the F-15-the US
frontline fighter. Our analysis shows that the F-15 exceeds the most
advanced threat system expected to exist. We assumed no improvements will be
made to the F-15 but the capability of the 'most advanced threat' assumes
certain modifications. Further, our analysis indicates that the current
inventory of F-15s can be economically maintained in a structurally sound
condition until 2015 or later."
So what's behind the F-22? The project's driven in large measure by what
some Pentagon analysts call "the cult of stealth". In the mid-80s the Air
Force, struggling to stay relevant, realized that "stealth" was a great
marketing tool. The public was fascinated by those black, oddly configured,
"invisible" airplanes and so were members of congress. It didn't matter if
the stealth bomber was just as visible to most Russian radar system as the
B-52 and cost 50 times as much to produce.
"The F-22 is not going to be a fighter-versus-fighter airplane," says
Riccioni. "And if you want that capability, you can get it if you don't
design for stealth. And if you don't design for stealth, you can make it
affordable. And if it's affordable, you can get the numbers you want."
Riccioni's right, of course, except for the fact that the Air Force doesn't
even need a new fleet of planes because there's no existing fighter threat,
hasn't been one since the Korean War, and there's none in the foreseeable
future.
Some high-ranking Republicans are beginning to shake their heads at the
Pentagon's incessant begging for ever-larger budgets and more expensive
weapon systems, like the F-22, even in the face of epidemic cost over-runs.
"The Pentagon does not know how much it spends", says Senator Charles
Grassley, the Iowa Republican who now heads the Senate Armed Services
committee. "It does not know if it gets what it orders in goods and
services. And the Pentagon, additionally, does not have a handle on its
inventory. If the Pentagon does not know what it owns and spends, then how
does the Pentagon know if it needs more money? Ramping up the Pentagon
budget when the books are a mess is highly questionable at best. To some it
might seem crazy." '

The whole story is at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/f22.html


John

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:29:13 -0400, Yeff wrote:

Not impressed with this story - the paper claims....

But, just as the Royal Air Force prepares to take delivery of the first of
more than 200 Eurofighters to which it has been committed for almost a
decade, it has emerged that the RAF will not have all of them in its hands
for long.

A sheepish Ministry of Defence (MoD) has admitted that moves are already
underway to sell off dozens of the brand-new super-fighters as soon as they
are delivered.

But what the MOD actually said was......

"Some consideration has been given to the scope to provide for early export
of Eurofighter Typhoon to potential overseas customers," admitted armed
forces minister Adam Ingram. "If pursued, a sale might be accomplished by
adjusting the delivery profile to the RAF. The RAF remains, however, the
primary customer for these aircraft and any decision made will take full
account of its requirements."

Which is different. The MOD is saying it's prepared to delay delivery
of some of its buy in order to allow quicker delivery of export
models.

Extremely suspect journalism in other words.

Peter Kemp

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:29:13 -0400, Yeff wrote:

Not impressed with this story - the paper claims....

But, just as the Royal Air Force prepares to take delivery of the first
of
more than 200 Eurofighters to which it has been committed for almost a
decade, it has emerged that the RAF will not have all of them in its
hands
for long.

A sheepish Ministry of Defence (MoD) has admitted that moves are already
underway to sell off dozens of the brand-new super-fighters as soon as
they
are delivered.

But what the MOD actually said was......

"Some consideration has been given to the scope to provide for early
export
of Eurofighter Typhoon to potential overseas customers," admitted armed
forces minister Adam Ingram. "If pursued, a sale might be accomplished by
adjusting the delivery profile to the RAF. The RAF remains, however, the
primary customer for these aircraft and any decision made will take full
account of its requirements."

Which is different. The MOD is saying it's prepared to delay delivery
of some of its buy in order to allow quicker delivery of export
models.

Extremely suspect journalism in other words.

It really is a **** newspaper.

John

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:29:13 -0400, Yeff wrote:

Not impressed with this story - the paper claims....

But, just as the Royal Air Force prepares to take delivery of the first
of
more than 200 Eurofighters to which it has been committed for almost a
decade, it has emerged that the RAF will not have all of them in its
hands
for long.

A sheepish Ministry of Defence (MoD) has admitted that moves are already
underway to sell off dozens of the brand-new super-fighters as soon as
they
are delivered.

But what the MOD actually said was......

"Some consideration has been given to the scope to provide for early
export
of Eurofighter Typhoon to potential overseas customers," admitted armed
forces minister Adam Ingram. "If pursued, a sale might be accomplished by
adjusting the delivery profile to the RAF. The RAF remains, however, the
primary customer for these aircraft and any decision made will take full
account of its requirements."

Which is different. The MOD is saying it's prepared to delay delivery
of some of its buy in order to allow quicker delivery of export
models.

Extremely suspect journalism in other words.

While I generally agree with your critique in terms of the usual
journalistic twisting of words, the MoD quote does allow leeway for them to
say later, "Well, we relooked at our requirements and decided we *really*
did not need 232 of these aircraft, that 180 is just fine..." or some such
drivel. It is not as if it should be a surprise that the RAF and/or UK
government might cut back on their "requirement"; for gosh sakes, they are
so close to the bone that they plan to field a chunk of them sans-guns
solely based upon financial concerns (that indicates a pretty nasty
budgeting situation to me). The USAF has adjusted (downward) its requirments
for the F/A-22 over the years--that other nations would do the same for
high-dollar systems is to be expected, especially given the change in the
nature of the threat spectrum.

Brooks


Peter Kemp

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:11:47 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:29:13 -0400, Yeff wrote:

Not impressed with this story - the paper claims....

But, just as the Royal Air Force prepares to take delivery of the first
of
more than 200 Eurofighters to which it has been committed for almost a
decade, it has emerged that the RAF will not have all of them in its
hands
for long.

A sheepish Ministry of Defence (MoD) has admitted that moves are already
underway to sell off dozens of the brand-new super-fighters as soon as
they
are delivered.

But what the MOD actually said was......

"Some consideration has been given to the scope to provide for early
export
of Eurofighter Typhoon to potential overseas customers," admitted armed
forces minister Adam Ingram. "If pursued, a sale might be accomplished by
adjusting the delivery profile to the RAF. The RAF remains, however, the
primary customer for these aircraft and any decision made will take full
account of its requirements."

Which is different. The MOD is saying it's prepared to delay delivery
of some of its buy in order to allow quicker delivery of export
models.

Extremely suspect journalism in other words.

While I generally agree with your critique in terms of the usual
journalistic twisting of words, the MoD quote does allow leeway for them to
say later, "Well, we relooked at our requirements and decided we *really*
did not need 232 of these aircraft, that 180 is just fine..." or some such
drivel. It is not as if it should be a surprise that the RAF and/or UK
government might cut back on their "requirement"; for gosh sakes, they are
so close to the bone that they plan to field a chunk of them sans-guns
solely based upon financial concerns (that indicates a pretty nasty
budgeting situation to me).

The "However, the spokesman said that the ministry was still committed
to taking the same total number of aircraft. " bit that was missed out
of the newspaper peice, I havn't yet managed to find any reference to
the MoD saying that 180 is all thts needed!!!.

cheers

The USAF has adjusted (downward) its requirments
for the F/A-22 over the years--that other nations would do the same for
high-dollar systems is to be expected, especially given the change in the
nature of the threat spectrum.

Brooks


Peter Kemp


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" wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:11:47 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

[...]

While I generally agree with your critique in terms of the usual
journalistic twisting of words, the MoD quote does allow leeway for them
to
say later, "Well, we relooked at our requirements and decided we *really*
did not need 232 of these aircraft, that 180 is just fine..." or some
such
drivel. It is not as if it should be a surprise that the RAF and/or UK
government might cut back on their "requirement"; for gosh sakes, they
are
so close to the bone that they plan to field a chunk of them sans-guns
solely based upon financial concerns (that indicates a pretty nasty
budgeting situation to me).

The "However, the spokesman said that the ministry was still committed
to taking the same total number of aircraft. " bit that was missed out
of the newspaper peice, I havn't yet managed to find any reference to
the MoD saying that 180 is all thts needed!!!.

The Ministry spokesman has not yet been to be told they can only afford 52
(or that a new aircraft design contract award is imminent).

"Brett" wrote:
"John Cook" wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:11:47 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

[...]

While I generally agree with your critique in terms of the usual
journalistic twisting of words, the MoD quote does allow leeway for
them
to
say later, "Well, we relooked at our requirements and decided we
*really*
did not need 232 of these aircraft, that 180 is just fine..." or some
such
drivel. It is not as if it should be a surprise that the RAF and/or UK
government might cut back on their "requirement"; for gosh sakes, they
are
so close to the bone that they plan to field a chunk of them sans-guns
solely based upon financial concerns (that indicates a pretty nasty
budgeting situation to me).

The "However, the spokesman said that the ministry was still committed
to taking the same total number of aircraft. " bit that was missed out
of the newspaper peice, I havn't yet managed to find any reference to
the MoD saying that 180 is all thts needed!!!.

The Ministry spokesman has not yet been to be told they can only afford 52

The Ministry spokesman has not yet been told they can only afford 55

(or that a new aircraft design contract award is imminent).

"John Cook" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:11:47 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:29:13 -0400, Yeff wrote:

Not impressed with this story - the paper claims....

But, just as the Royal Air Force prepares to take delivery of the
first
of
more than 200 Eurofighters to which it has been committed for almost a
decade, it has emerged that the RAF will not have all of them in its
hands
for long.

A sheepish Ministry of Defence (MoD) has admitted that moves are
already
underway to sell off dozens of the brand-new super-fighters as soon as
they
are delivered.

But what the MOD actually said was......

"Some consideration has been given to the scope to provide for early
export
of Eurofighter Typhoon to potential overseas customers," admitted
armed
forces minister Adam Ingram. "If pursued, a sale might be accomplished
by
adjusting the delivery profile to the RAF. The RAF remains, however,
the
primary customer for these aircraft and any decision made will take
full
account of its requirements."

Which is different. The MOD is saying it's prepared to delay delivery
of some of its buy in order to allow quicker delivery of export
models.

Extremely suspect journalism in other words.

While I generally agree with your critique in terms of the usual
journalistic twisting of words, the MoD quote does allow leeway for them
to
say later, "Well, we relooked at our requirements and decided we *really*
did not need 232 of these aircraft, that 180 is just fine..." or some
such
drivel. It is not as if it should be a surprise that the RAF and/or UK
government might cut back on their "requirement"; for gosh sakes, they
are
so close to the bone that they plan to field a chunk of them sans-guns
solely based upon financial concerns (that indicates a pretty nasty
budgeting situation to me).

The "However, the spokesman said that the ministry was still committed
to taking the same total number of aircraft. " bit that was missed out
of the newspaper peice, I havn't yet managed to find any reference to
the MoD saying that 180 is all thts needed!!!.

It was an example, you twit.

Brooks


cheers

The USAF has adjusted (downward) its requirments
for the F/A-22 over the years--that other nations would do the same for
high-dollar systems is to be expected, especially given the change in the
nature of the threat spectrum.

Brooks


Peter Kemp


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

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:11:47 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

While I generally agree with your critique in terms of the usual
journalistic twisting of words, the MoD quote does allow leeway for them to
say later, "Well, we relooked at our requirements and decided we *really*
did not need 232 of these aircraft, that 180 is just fine..." or some such
drivel.

If so, then it would be easier to just not order Tranche 3, rather
than ordering all 232 and then immediately selling some on. That's why
it tripped my BS meter.

Peter Kemp