Over time, this board seems to have become more and more full of witless nationalistic drivel, and the quality of discussion and debate has plummeted.

Airshows can only ever show subsonic agility – and then only those manoeuvres that can be safely and predictably carried out at airshow altitude and usually at the lower end of the speed envelope.

They show what aircraft can do at airshow weight – usually clean or close to clean. Look at the difference between what a ‘Flanker’ can do with its internal auxiliary tank empty, and what it can do when fully fuelled, for example.

Many crowd-pleasing airshow manoeuvres have little or no tactical applicability. Tail slides, cobras, and hooks all represent last ditch moves of very little wide aplicability – though they do indicate the level of confidence that the pilots have in the handling of their aircraft, and they do dramatically illustrate the achievements of the FCS designers in being able to have soft limits. (But they also leave the pilot hugely vulnerable – ‘a sitting duck’ – until they can regain energy). They also give a stark illustration of the fundamental stability of the aircraft – you couldn’t override the FCS limits in a Typhoon or a Rafale because the aircraft are so unstable that if you did, you’d lose control and break up. But the upside of that level of instability is MUCH higher pitch rates, especially supersonically.

But too many enthusiasts have never flown an aircraft of any sort, let alone a military aircraft, and have never flown an energetic tailchase, let alone undertaking any ACM. They therefore look at an air display from an ‘ignorant’ perspective, and are dazzled by the spectacular and unimpressed by the significant but less obvious. Pugachev’s Cobra was universally admired, for example, while Keith Hartley’s HAVV roll in the Typhoon went unnoticed.

Airshows can be useful guides to some aspects of performance – if you know what you’re looking at. No-one needs to apologise for Typhoon in this arena, except perhaps for the lack of cloud-pleasing but irrelevant circus-stunt spectacle in its display.

But look at the take off roll, and look how rapidly it transitions into a near vertical climb. Look at the HAVV roll. Look at the roll rate without unloading to zero g. Look at the performance even when carrying 6 1,000-lb bombs.

But you do have to know what you’re looking at.

Spotters and schoolboys will always be blown away by the Russian displays. The professionals usually appreciate what they are seeing when they watch Rafale and Typhoon.

And the British simulation that you sneer at (JOUST) was validated by its many customers, and was confirmed by subsequent simulations, including SILVE. I would say that while ANY simulation has limitations and limited usefulness, JOUST was a more accurate predictor of combat success than a layman’s impression of an airshow routine.

“I feel it doesn’t offer the level of Superiority needed vs advance models of the Flanker and a lessor extent the Fulcrum…………Which, is its whole reason for being.”

You feel?

Put simply, you’re wrong.

It wouldn’t get the kind of 200-1 exchange rate that the F-22 would, just 10 or 20-1, assuming parity in pilot training, weapons, etc.

Just go and ask anyone who has flown it or flown against it. Or go and ask the US Aggressor community.

If Japan needs to ensure air supremacy against an Su-30/35 based threat, then neither the F-15 nor the Super Hornet is adequate. Typhoon is.

“From a technical aspect, it’s nearly a total failure.” Has to be the most risibly stupid comment on here for weeks.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the kit on these aircraft has been developed to suit quite different ways of doing the job.

The RAF approach is to have VERY high skills on board the aircraft, with lots of human decision making, analysis based on experience, manual tuning, etc. This demands heavy manning, and very long assignments to the squadron.

The 55ths does it very differently, with much more automation and with a much more rapid turnover of less experienced, less skilled people.

Cheaper to run on the R.Mk 1s with Helix as planned.

Except politically.

Perhaps it was the other option after all…..
:rolleyes:

It’s amusing that you should be so offended at people not reading your links, Hyperion, which are inevitably to shabby, non specialist, generalist pieces written by lazy and ignorant journos who think that you can arrive at a meaningful unit cost by dividing total contract value by the number of aircraft on order, or who parrot the latest NAO figure without knowing what has gone into it.

You have no excuse for such ignorance, since, if you bothered to read the posts by Scorps, Swerve, and myself, you’d know what the cost really was.

And it starts to look as though you aren’t reading our posts, let alone any links.

1) Since 2005, UK NAO Typhoon costs have included programme elements that make them invalid as an average or unit production cost or flyway cost.

2) Prior to 2005, the Unit Production Cost of Typhoon quoted by the NAO was closer a true unit production cost – the marginal cost of producing/purchasing each additional aircraft – not including programme costs, NETMA running costs, QinetiQ fees, R&D and programme costs. That is to say a UPC that is broadly equivalent to a US flyaway or unit production cost.

Calculated according to those parameters, the cost of a Tranche 1 Typhoon was about £45 m. The NAO MPR said: “The contract for the first Tranche of 148 aircraft, of which 55 valued at some £2.5bn are for the UK, was signed in September 1998.”). 2,500m/55 = £45.45 m.

The R1 and R2 upgrades that bring T1 jets to Block 5 standard (NAO: “retrofit of Tranche 1 aircraft to Tranche 2 standard (+£117m))” added a further £2.12 m per aircraft.

The cost of a Tranche 2 Typhoon was just over £42 m, according to the NAO. In fact, this is a bit high, as the Tranche 2 production contract totalled €13 Bn ($16 Bn US) for the 236 aircraft in the tranche. That’s €55 m/$67.8 m each. On 17 December 2004, when that contract was signed, the rate was 0.68545, so €55.08 = £37.76 m. By including some UK-specific costs (and some costs that render the result costlier than a true flyaway) the resulting figure recognised by HMG and the NAO was £42 m.

3) The cost of the Austrian aircraft was €1.132 mln for 18 aircraft (excluding financing, simulators and support systems), giving a UPC/Flyaway of €62 m.

4) The Austrian aircraft are mostly Tranche 1, Block 5 jets, Saudi Arabia’s will be Tranche 2, Block 8s. In NO RESPECT are the Austrian jets ‘inferior’ – and indeed they could be seen as superior, as all Block 5 aircraft have the software required to use the Litening LDP and (like all T1 aircraft) to drop LGBs and dumb bombs, and to use cannon for strafe.

I can only conclude that you are biased (you are intelligent enough to see the truth but choose to ignore it) or stupid (you can’t see that my figures and Scorpion’s are more detailed, better explained, and more accurate than the generalised “Austria paid €2.5 Bn for 18 aircraft, therefore the cost is 2500m/18…”)

In view of your speculation that: “For all i know, unless there was a serious cut in the austrian pice tag, this would end up in an arbitration court, that nobody would like. This once more is in line with the Saudi deal.” I suspect bias.

The Greek government will have the information they need. The danger is that the people (who are important because they vote) may be misled by the kind of propaganda that inflates the price of Typhoon, and that you have clearly swallowed.

Your links (to the BBC, Al Jazeera and DID) are not what I’d view as reliable sources when it comes to the detail of UK defence procurement, nor to the details of a still largely secret government-to-government deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia. Swerve and I are more than familiar with the inaccuracy and financial illiteracy to be found there, which is why we’ve both taken time out to explain how you are mistaken.

The fact is that the Typhoon’s flyaway or UPC is around £37-45 m (€60-68 m).

I fully expect that Rafale will beat that, but not by much of a margin.

That’s not propaganda, it’s fact, and I’ve explained exactly where the reliable figures come from, and exactly why the figures that are out of kilter with the true UPC are higher.

I’m aware that you were linking to the 2007 MPR. My reference to the 2005 MPR was because this was the first with a changed basis of calculation – resulting in a jump of nearly £20 m (50%!) to £64 m. The subsequent MPR figures have gone up in small increments to £68.9 m but they ARE NOT VALID UPC OR FLYAWAY COSTS.

Typhoon’s UPC simply isn’t anywhere close to the level that you suggest.

Your take on Austria is interesting, but I’d venture to suggest that it is wrong. I was regularly talking to board level people from both Gripen International and EF GmbH throughout the Austrian competition, and far from being a ‘must win’ on which German national pride was being staked, the Austrians were expected to go with a neutral Swedish product again, and Typhoon won largely because Saab and Gripen were complacent, and did not offer a compelling enough package.