Eurofighter is turning into German nightmare

--
And by the way, Mr. Speaker, The Second Amendment is not for killing
ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an aunt and uncle. It
is for hunting politicians like in Grozney and in 1776, when they take
your independence away".

Robert K. Dornen, U.S. Congressman. 1995
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Silvey" wrote in message
. com...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/englis...265466,00.html

"A Bottomless Pit"

Armaments: The Eurofighter is turning into a nightmare. According to a
report by the Federal Audit Office, the mega project will not only
cost five billion euros more than planned - it also suffers from
severe flaws. Defence minister Peter Struck's budget is not big enough
to continue to maintain an army of 285,000 with modern equipment at
its disposal. In particular, the minister wants to economise on arms.
The room for manoeuvring available to army planners is minimal. To the
intense annoyance of the army and navy, more than two thirds of the
money is earmarked for aeronautical equipment: helicopters, Airbus
transport aircraft and in particular the airforce's controversial
Eurofighter. But the first Eurofighters, which are now being delivered
considerably behind schedule, are virtually useless.

It is an interesting contrast between modern, industrialized societies'
weapons procurement versus Eastern Bloc nations' command economy

Wrong. If you read the arcticle in full you would learn that
8 EF2000 just arrived to German airforce have huge number of
purely technical problems which according to that report
make them "useless" as combat aircraft. Given the cost paid
rather the story proves inefficiency of industrialized societies'
weapons procurement versus Eastern Bloc nations' command economy.

and the
diktat that forced various industries therein to essentially create and
perform with little or no regard to reward or payment; surely if files
covering all Soviet aircraft developments

All this is certanly contrary to very vell known facts that
soviet command economy was more cost effective in arms production
than US market economy was.

(and currently, that's all Russia
has to fly beyond a few never-never technology demonstrators)

dispite the obvious fact that 100s of Su-27, Mig-29, Mig-31, Tu22Ms
and Tu160 are newer and more than enough match to their US opponents
F16, F15, B1 abd B2. That's why. Was it you who was just complaining
about cost inefficiacy of soviet command economy?



And your ships are better and your subs more advanced and you won the cold
war and put down your crack pipe...

In message , "Christians for
Cheeseburgers." wrote:

So where are the results of all this Russian innovation? Flavored vodkas?

I hear there was this guy named Yuri Gagarin. . . Wasn't the T-55 the first
true MBT? The USSR/Russia also was the first nation to install gas turbines in
an operational warship design.

Soc.culture groups snipped

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

Michael P. Reed wrote:

:In message , "Christians for
:Cheeseburgers." wrote:
:
: So where are the results of all this Russian innovation? Flavored vodkas?
:
:I hear there was this guy named Yuri Gagarin. . .

But the Russians didn't invent space flight and there was nothing
particularly innovative about the 'man in a can' approach.

:Wasn't the T-55 the first true MBT?

Define "true MBT". Under whatever definition, unless you're quite
careful to tailor it specifically to the T-55, I would say 'not'.

:The USSR/Russia also was the first nation to install gas turbines in
:an operational warship design.

Which subsequently had one explode, which was predicted by Western
sources.

Now, if you were to want to talk metallurgy or high energy beam
physics....

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

"Michael P. Reed" wrote in message


Wasn't the T-55
the first true MBT?

No. The Germans beat that out by about two decades.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

"Michael P. Reed" wrote in message
...
In message , "Christians
for
Cheeseburgers." wrote:

So where are the results of all this Russian innovation? Flavored
vodkas?

I hear there was this guy named Yuri Gagarin. . . Wasn't the T-55 the
first
true MBT? The USSR/Russia also was the first nation to install gas
turbines in
an operational warship design.

Certainly the Centurian beat the T-55, but how will you define MBT?

Gagarin was hardly an innovation, just the first across the line.

Gas turbines in ships, putting them there and making them work are 2
different things.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 22:28:36 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
(Michael Petukhov) wrote:
But the first Eurofighters, which are now being delivered
considerably behind schedule, are virtually useless.

But... but... people here keep telling me that the Eurofighter is really
inexpensive, nearly perfect, and everyone in Europe is going to buy them
all!

Read some US GAO reports. According to them, the F/A-22 shakes itself to
pieces when it flies, fails every fifteen minutes, is escalating hugely
in cost, misses most of its performance requirements, has avionics that
simply don't work because of repeated unsolved software crashes, and is
inferior to the F-15 it's meant to replace.

Do you believe that? Or is there a core of truth in each claim that is
being wildly exaggerated and distorted to suit an agenda?


Not that journalists (or even analysts) will _ever_ write the story
their audience want to hear rather than honestly reporting the truth...

Typical anti-military rant by some hack "journalist".

Al Minyard

"Ian Craig" wrote in
:

"Anonymous" wrote in message
...

Ian Craig wrote in message ...

"ArVa" wrote in message
...
Another gratuitous statement.... "Always"? What about the
Concorde, the Jaguar, the Alphajet, the Mig AT, the Tiger and the
entire Eurocopter line-up? What about Airbus? What about EADS?
What about the ATR family?
What
about SNECMA working with GE to produce the CFM-56, one of the
most successful family of jet engine ever? What about all these
successful partnerships and some I may have forgotten?...

You'd have got me if you hadn'#t mentioned Jaguar and Alphjet, and
probably
MIG AT. They've not been that successful? The others have.

The SEPECAT Jaguar has been in service with both Frances' own air
force
and
the RAF in the UK for a long time.

I remember the name Alphajet, but not the aircraft.

Cheers
Graeme


Yeah, but its not exactly a brilliant aircraft? The only reason its
still in service is because fo the recent engine upgrade(if you can
call it that), and the fact that the air planners don't believe its
role can be performed by anything else in the RAF.



Right on ArVa!
I love it when the ignorant attack the French aviation industry...
Answer this: Which aviation sector is healthier? England's or France's?
Me? I'll give the nod to France.
So far as I can tell, France has continuously constructed their own highly
capable aircraft by themselves. The outcome: Mirage III; F.1; Etendard;
Mirage 2000; and Rafale. By all authoritative accounts, their aircraft are
world class. American class? Close, but no. Nobody is. America is the
undisputed leader in cutting edge design and execution. Literally a
generation ahead. Similar to the Luftwaffe during WWII.

And England? Decades earlier, England decided to resort to joint projects
with other nations--surely a sign of ill financial health or lack of
design/manufacturing leadership and expertise. Look at the outcome:
Tornado (IDS and ADV); Hawk 100/200 (a fighter? Hee hee!); Nimrod AEW.
Jeez, I'm going to stop--I'm getting depressed!
-Chuck

Chuck Johnson wrote in message ...
"Ian Craig" wrote in
:

"Anonymous" wrote in message
...

Ian Craig wrote in message ...

"ArVa" wrote in message
...
Another gratuitous statement.... "Always"? What about the
Concorde, the Jaguar, the Alphajet, the Mig AT, the Tiger and the
entire Eurocopter line-up? What about Airbus? What about EADS?
What about the ATR family?
What
about SNECMA working with GE to produce the CFM-56, one of the
most successful family of jet engine ever? What about all these
successful partnerships and some I may have forgotten?...

You'd have got me if you hadn'#t mentioned Jaguar and Alphjet, and
probably
MIG AT. They've not been that successful? The others have.

The SEPECAT Jaguar has been in service with both Frances' own air
force
and
the RAF in the UK for a long time.

I remember the name Alphajet, but not the aircraft.

Cheers
Graeme


Yeah, but its not exactly a brilliant aircraft? The only reason its
still in service is because fo the recent engine upgrade(if you can
call it that), and the fact that the air planners don't believe its
role can be performed by anything else in the RAF.



Right on ArVa!
I love it when the ignorant attack the French aviation industry...
Answer this: Which aviation sector is healthier? England's or France's?
Me? I'll give the nod to France.
So far as I can tell, France has continuously constructed their own highly
capable aircraft by themselves. The outcome: Mirage III; F.1; Etendard;
Mirage 2000; and Rafale. By all authoritative accounts, their aircraft are
world class. American class? Close, but no. Nobody is. America is the
undisputed leader in cutting edge design and execution. Literally a
generation ahead. Similar to the Luftwaffe during WWII.

And England? Decades earlier, England decided to resort to joint projects
with other nations--surely a sign of ill financial health or lack of
design/manufacturing leadership and expertise. Look at the outcome:
Tornado (IDS and ADV); Hawk 100/200 (a fighter? Hee hee!); Nimrod AEW.
Jeez, I'm going to stop--I'm getting depressed!
-Chuck

Tornado was a brilliant project, and is still a superb combat aircraft.

I see, hear, and feel them tearing low over our town regularly (a pair just
flew over my office about an hour ago). Used in both the Gulf Wars, they
have proved themselves as worthy multirole aircraft on many occasions.

Hawk was never designed as a fantastic combat aircraft; it is primarily a
trainer, but is lightly armed so that it can provide defensive capabilities
when required. It doesn't matter how small it is, it can still kill you if
the pilot gets a lock on (which is likely in close combat; the Hawk is an
incredibly maneuverable aircraft; the Red Arrows display team shows them
off really well).

Nimrod is still brilliant as a maritime patrol, ASW and AEW jet. They're
going through an upgrade program to give them up-to-date avionics, computers,
radar, and new engines (for longer range, rather than speed increases). All
the RAF's Nimrods are based at RAF Kinloss (which isn't too far away from
here), but they have enough range to allow them to patrol the entire UK
coastline. They were based on the DeHavilland Comet, which was one of the
first transatlantic passenger jets.

I see you miss out on Harrier, which was a British invention (granted, it
suffered from more losses than most other combat jets, but you still have
to give it the respect it deserves).

I have to point out that the idea of co-operating with other nations to
develop fighter aircraft is a good idea. There is less cost incurred in
design and production, and you get the benefits of each nations' designers'
brilliance. Because the cost incurred per nation is the same as it would
be for designing an aircraft by themselves, a joint project can produce a
more high-tech design.

What's the point of having an alliance of nations if they won't work with
each other ?

Cheers
Graeme

Anonymous wrote:

All the RAF's Nimrods are based at RAF Kinloss (which isn't too far away
from
here), but they have enough range to allow them to patrol the entire UK
coastline.

Not all. Three 51 Squadron R.1s are based at RAF Waddington. Lincolnshire.


TJ

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:55:50 +0000 (UTC), "Anonymous"
wrote:

Nimrod is still brilliant as a maritime patrol, ASW and AEW jet.

The AEW.3 version never entered service, which is why we've got Sentry
AEW.1 aircraft, based at Waddington.

Peter Kemp