Eurofighter news

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
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.

But isn't tranche 3 the one that finally captures the full multi-role
capability? I would think that given the RAF's budgeting problems, the very
last thing they would want to do is give up the fully multi-role aircraft;
upgrading the earlier variants to that standard would presumably require a
cost somewhat greater than what is being saved by deleting those cannon...

Brooks


Peter Kemp

In article ,
Kevin Brooks wrote:

But isn't tranche 3 the one that finally captures the full multi-role
capability? I would think that given the RAF's budgeting problems, the very
last thing they would want to do is give up the fully multi-role aircraft;
upgrading the earlier variants to that standard would presumably require a
cost somewhat greater than what is being saved by deleting those cannon...

This is exactly the reasoning behind what the
Swedish air force is doing regarding Gripen. (Not
that they're not multi-role already, but they ones
in service now aren't JAS 39C/Ds.)
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
"It is bad luck to be superstitious." - Andrew W. Mathis

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.

Sorry I was questioning the leeway bit and its sounds a bit ambigious
rereading it. - I should have said :-

I haven't yet managed to find any quotable reference to the MoD or
Eurofighter implying that a reduction was/is/may be being contemplated
or planned, now or in the future. nor any thing stated that could be
interpreted as a leaving the door open or leeway or ambiguities in
their statements that could be interpreted as a reduction is likely.

But that's a bit of a mouthful.

All the quotes from the officials always have a caveat either in the
paragraph or preceding it, that the full 232 will be purchased, and
that they are committed to the program, (now you shouldn't gather
from this that tranche 3 is safe, they are politicians after all.
;-)), but there are substantial penalties for any cancellation, The
only way I can think of to get around the penalties is for the RAF to
take delivery and then sell them to an export customer...messy but
possible.

Can you actually quote any quote from MoD/UK Govt that allows that
leeway or room for interpretation that the full 232 isnt being
purchased?, they seem to be very careful in what they are saying.


BTW the first tranche 1 aircraft will be upgraded to tranche 2 then
to tranche 3 aircraft as a rolling program, the plan being the fleet
is homogenous, the troubled UK tranche 2 negotiations is because of
tranche 3 planned requirements are required now, and they are trying
to incorporate some of them in tranche 2.

See http://www.airpower.at/news02/0119_e...r/tranchen.gif
for an old but more detailed description, the program is about 2
years behind, the program is now about at block 2.

Cheers



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


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

O
BTW the first tranche 1 aircraft will be upgraded to tranche 2 then
to tranche 3 aircraft as a rolling program, the plan being the fleet
is homogenous, the troubled UK tranche 2 negotiations is because of
tranche 3 planned requirements are required now, and they are trying
to incorporate some of them in tranche 2.

Ooops - I should say the tranche 2 negotiations for improvements to
AtoG may not be from tranche 3, they may be from later blocks in
tranche 2 (eg block 10 or 15), just incorporated earlier.

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