EOC1 and EOC2 were replaced by P1E and P2E.

P2E is now dead, as future ‘big step’ upgrades are being replaced by a more rapid, iterative and flexible process.

Nah. Batting is dead in the RAF, except perhaps for very, very senior officers.

The old uniformed batman (whose job was to look after his officer’s uniform and personal equipment as a valet, and perhaps to be a runner/driver/general factotum) became a shared batman before WWII (except for very senior officers).

At some time post war, the term was applied to civilians who cleaned single officer’s quarters in officers’ messes or in officer’s married quarters. In RAF Germany in 1966 a Wing Commander would typically have a live-in batwoman (or batman), but by 1974 a Group Captain would not.

In the Royal Air Force, free married quarters cleaning services were phased out for all officers except for Squadron Leaders or above in command appointments with effect from 1 April 1972.

By 1978, an Officers’ Mess guide (in your room) typically had a section on batting – but this had become a service (getting your shoes cleaned, etc.) and you very definitely did not have an individual batman to yourself, nor even shared between a group of you.

And it may be fewer than seven. At least one is likely to be a non-instrumented ‘ISPA’ type jet, jointly operated with BAE.

And I suspect that some of the six will end up with the Saudis.

Before P1E, Block 8 aircraft will be an embarrassment for the RAF.

I would presume the initial Typhoon to go down will be F2, the FGR4 are too useful elsewhere.

No they will have block 5 software (FGR.4), but they won’t use the version with austrere support.

You made no mention of Block 8, Scorps. And I’m not yet a mind reader.

Quite apart from the fact that the RAF will hardly get any Block 8s, and that those they do get will be used by the OEU and for Saudi training, I don’t see the UK sending its newest Typhoons (those that haven’t been shaken down post delivery) down to MPA. What would be the point, even if there were enough of them to support a four aircraft det?

I suspect that they’ll use whichever jets have the longest time to go before the next major. These might well be aircraft from the R2 line, in full FGR4 fit.

And which deters the Argies most – pure interceptors, or jets that could also ‘plink’ their landing craft?

I can’t remember off hand how many hours the Hawk ‘fleet leader’ has amassed – though I have the number in a Farnborough notebook from Mike Christie’s Hawk upgrade briefing.

But as I recall it was closer to 10,000 hours than 6,000 – and the current LIFT Hawks have FOUR TIMES the fatigue life of a T1 or a Series 50/60.

And we know that at least one potential customer for L-159 was given a 3,000 FH life for L159 given his planned usage profile (with 3,000 FH = 100 FI) which was ‘about half’ the life offered for the Hawk.

There are more civil Gnats and Hunters than Hawks, and more airworthy civil Lightnings than civilian Meteors….. Does that mean that the Lightning is more maintainable and cost effective? It does not, of course.

You are right that the absolute performance differences between the two types is insignificant in the advanced training role – except that the L159’s plank wing is a limiting factor in emulating some of the handling characteristics of modern frontline types. That stems from the original design of the L-39, which had a vital basic flying training capability, in the days when most L-39 students would fly a great deal of the AFTS syllabus in aircraft like the MiG-21U.

I’m a big fan of the L-39, and indeed of the L159, but a Hawk it isn’t.

Flex,

I don’t have shares in BAE, thus I have no interest in the Hawk’s continuing success or otherwise. Certainly I have zero interest in defending an aircraft on ‘nationalist grounds’ or because it’s the ‘domestic product’.

Indeed, if Hawk does continue, I suspect that it will soon not be a British-built aircraft.

That may help address it’s high up front price tag.

It will continue to be an exceptionally maintainable and supportable aircraft, however, with notably low through life costs.

Why?

MMH/FH, overall airframe life, and TBO.

The L-159 is still essentially an L-39 airframe, with a very short life by modern standards and designed to a different maintenance concept.

UK tries to offload Typhoon fighters
By Stephen Fidler, Sylvia Pfeifer and Alex Barker

Published: August 19 2008 23:31 | Last updated: August 19 2008 23:40

Talks have been held with countries including Japan about offloading large numbers of Eurofighter Typhoons that the British Ministry of Defence has ordered but can no longer afford.
The talks, which officials say are at an early stage, underline the scale of the cash crisis facing the MoD as it grapples with an estimated budget deficit of £2bn.
The Royal Air Force, which had ordered 144 Eurofighters in two earlier contracts, is committed to buying another 88 as part of its membership of the Eurofighter consortium with Germany, Italy and Spain.
Severe financial penalties would be incurred for cancelling or cutting this number and the UK is sounding out potential buyers for all or part of its order.
Defence officials have confirmed that Japan, Saudi Arabia and India are among countries that have expressed interest.
Japan’s interest will surprise many in the industry as it has tended in the past to buy more aircraft from US manufacturers.
India, which has in the past bought Russian fighters, has made no secret of its ambition to expand its indigenous defence capabilities and is evaluating bids from five groups, including Eurofighter, for a new multi-role combat aircraft.
India’s tender could be a lucrative order for the consortium. In order to divert aircraft intended for the RAF to India, the UK would need approval from its consortium partners. The transfer of sensitive military technology is likely to be another potential hurdle.
The Saudi Royal Air Force has 72 Typhoons on order from the UK under an agreement signed last September, to be built by BAE Systems, the arms contractor. Separately, Riyadh has begun talks with London to buy between 48 and 72 additional Typhoons, a source close to the Saudi government confirmed.
The initial BAE order, known as Project Salam, was worth £4.3bn for the aircraft, with the contract value likely to rise to £20bn once support and maintenance are included.

More blinding reporting from the FT, who think that Typhoon has a unit production price of £68 m, roughly 50% more than Eurofighter GmbH, the IPT, and more in pounds than the first export customer paid in Euros.

To say that the FT is aviation and defence illiterate would be FAR too kind.

And here we have an article, bylined to a trio of unknown journos, not one of whom has any track record or credibility when it comes to aerospace or defence. Read their article, and it becomes clear that they have no grasp of the Typhoon programme, either, and have muddled together elements from a number of old stories, quite possibly with MoD connivance. (Whenever it’s time to sign a production contract, the UK has raised the spectre of cutting back numbers in an effort to screw the best possible deal out of industry and its NETMA partners).

It’s not that hard to learn about the Typhoon programme. Eurofighter regularly sit down with the press at major shows, arranging breakfasts at which all the major EF GmbH people (CEO, COO, CFO, production, exports, etc. are available for briefings and in depth conversations).

As a result, we know that while Germany and Spain are negotiating for their full committed totals for Tranche 3, Britain and Italy requested information on the cost and industrial implications of taking smaller numbers of aircraft in Tranche 3 – Britain requesting information on a zero option, a 50% option and the full total. NB that the umbrella contract (for 620 aircraft across three tranches) is a contract, and any reductions will entail penalties, requiring compensation to the other partners to make up for (say) wings that won’t be required, as well as some very complex financial and industrial restructuring.

In an effort to get the Brits and Italians on board quickly, the German Defence Ministry has suggested splitting Tranche 3 into two phases. Ruediger Wolf outlined the plan in a letter to his British, Italian and Spanish counterparts, and to NETMA, on 7 July.

In this letter, Wolf confirmed that Germany would sign for its whole third tranche commitment of 68 aircraft, but “could accept a two-step approach,” with a first batch being ordered when the contract is signed, but with the second batch being contracted at a yet-to-be-defined later date.

Wolf suggested that the contract would have to indemnify the other nations if one country failed to complete the second step at the agreed date, and that the first phase should include more than 50 percent of the originally agreed Tranche 3 total.

Wolf stressed that the first phase of the Tranche 3 contract still needs to be signed within six months, and confirmed that all partners have a contractual obligation to approve the full third tranche of 236 aircraft – for which Eurofighter GmbH already have an umbrella contract.

Opinions differ as to whether a partner can sell its aircraft for export (this could be interpreted as taking work away from the other partners, who would otherwise expect exports to result in the production of new aircraft, providing work for all four nations).

It may be that this could be circumvented in Government-to-Government deals with countries that lie outside the agreed export campaigns, such as Saudi Arabia – or possibly Oman – and there have been whispers that such Government-to-Government campaigns are underway. At Farnborough, I got the strong impression that Omani interest was real and quite immediate, but that any Saudi repeat order was still much further away.

India and Japan are certainly Typhoon prospects, but Germany (EADS) leads a normal campaign in India, while the Japan campaign is jointly run by Italy and the UK (Finmeccanica and BAE). If the UK was separately negotiating to flog off its own second hand Typhoons, this would not go down well with our partners and they would be moaning about it to every specialist journo who’d listen.

This is not a story that three of the FT’s reporters would scoop the professionals on.

The JASDF will make their decisions on radar based on capability – they are not enthusiastic adolescents who have an absolute “it has to be an AESA” precondition, and their experience with the F2 might well inform their decision. If they do require AESA, then Captor-E will meet that requirement. I hate to rain on Spitfire’s parade, but Rafale isn’t even in the running in Japan.

Nor is India a shoo-in for Rafale, though the success of the Mirage 2000 helps counteract BAE’s long history with the IAF. But at the end of the day, politics may dictate a US solution, while cost/capability could favour Gripen or Typhoon. You might think that Dassault will offer Rafale much cheaper than Typhoon, though with a higher unit programme cost, they might find that difficult. You may think that India would be relaxed about being the first (and perhaps the only) export customer for the type. I think that Rafale faces an uphill battle in India.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here about Tranches – which are a production/funding designation – capabilities are quite separate, and even if Tranche 3 were to be cancelled altogether (unlikely when one partner still has options on more than its T3 commitment, and when another is committed to a full T3 buy) the capability enhancements would still go ahead.