The main problem in Canada has been poor availability as a DIRECT result of an incompetently judged spares buy.

The fatal crash shook public and press confidence in the cab, but not that of the aircrew who love the machine (I’ve spoken to two different CAF crews visiting the sim this year), and who seemed satisfied with the tail rotor half hub fix (this was the big problem).

The RAF Merlin has proved a tremendous success in Afghanistan, with good hot and high performance and great reliability and availability, and with useful characteristics in ‘brown out’.

If you want heavylift, and especially underslung loads, nothing beats CH-47, but for the US CSAR-X requirement the Merlin (with the more powerful engines, ceramic gearbox and BERP IV blades) is the best possible option – fast, quiet, powerful and capacious.

The S-92 doesn’t compare.

Look at when the next generation of US fighters were designed, and at

1) the importance of stealth in those designs
2) the lack of canard experience in the USA compared to Europe
3) the relative lack of emphasis placed on agility at the early stage of conceptual design

And it’s about fear of the unknown. Who was it at Lockheed who said that:

“The best location for canards is on someone else’s airplane!”

“You still haven´t explained why the Typhoon does the job better than for instance the Gripen?”

1) Better offset (I can hardly believe it, but that’s what the Austrians say)
2) Lower through life and support costs
3) Offers commonality with neighbour and potential strategic partner
4) Better A-A capability, especially BVR
5) Sends a clear signal about not simply being non-aligned and neutral, and that Austria is prioritising defence
6) It’s one up on Czech, Hungary, etc.

“The Gripen or F-16 would also be overkill in my opinon but they would at least be much less expensive to operate than the EF2000.”

There’s no doubt that these aircraft would be cheaper to buy, but I doubt that their through life costs would be any cheaper – and Typhoon offers contractually agreed MMH/FH, TBO and availability rates and a low cost of ownership that no F-16 has come close to achieving yet…..

I have official documents from both air forces using the names CE.16 Tifon, Eurofighter Typhoon 2000 and Eurofighter 2000 Tifone.

See: http://www.airliners.net/ open.file/546035/L/

The HC3s are:

M4476 ZH897 Chinook*HC3 Ex N2045G, arrived 09/05/2002 at Bristol Docks, d/d Boscombe Down 14/05/2002
M4477 ZH898 Chinook*HC3 Ex N2057Q, arrived 15/07/2001 at Bristol Docks, returned to N2057Q
M4478 ZH899 Chinook*HC3 Ex N2057R, arrived 15/07/2001 at Bristol Docks, returned to N2057R
M4479 ZH900 Chinook*HC3 Ex N2060H, arrived 28/07/2001 at Bristol Docks, damaged whilst being off-loaded, stored Boscombe Down
M4480 ZH901 Chinook*HC3 Ex N2060M, arrived 09/05/2002 at Bristol Docks, d/d Boscombe Down 15/05/2002
M4481 ZH902 Chinook*HC3 Ex N2064W, arrived 24/10/2001 at Bristol Docks
M4482 ZH903 Chinook*HC3 Ex N20671, arrived 01/2002 at Bristol Docks
M4483 ZH904 Chinook*HC3 Ex N2083K

Scorpion,

The Spanish use the name Tifon as well as the C16/CE16 designations. The AMI use the name Tifone, in addition to the EF2000 designator.

The only operator who don’t officially use the name in any form is the Luftwaffe.

That’s interesting Scorps. I don’t get to talk to many AMI folk, but EF GmbH said that Italy were looking at Crosseye or Crosseye/TRD the last time I spoke to them about it, so I’d be interested in your source.