JackonickoThat’ll be the ‘irrelevant’ “Cold War bomber destroyer” that has no utility in current operations, then?
:rolleyes:
JackonickoSo we’re being promised a price of:
“$58.7 million for each of the first 368 foreign-bound fighters.”
Except that that’s in 2002 dollars, so the real price is likely to be $80-90M with even modest inflation.
The USAF’s own estimates are for a programme average of $83.131 m, with a price of $101.726 m in FY2012 and $91.223 m in FY2013, and $79.973 m thereafter. But that’s founded on the assumption that inflation will run at only 2% per year, which is unlikely in the defence and aerospace sectors.
And that’s just a predicted price, not an actual or guaranteed price. It’s a deliberately attractive figure intended to ensnare the Aussies and is deliberately ‘optimistic’. Indeed it is specifically stated that this fixed price would “only be able to be offered if consortium numbers and schedules are maintained, and that it would likely add additional costs should partner nations start deferring or reducing their buys.”
So with Denmark and Norway looking hard at Gripen, Super Hornet and Typhoon, and with the Netherlands equally shaky, this price is actually unlikely to be met.
JackonickoNick’s link says:
The Navy has (already) placed nine Rafales ‘in storage’
23/05/2008
The information, revealed by our excellent fellow-members Air Fan and Air and Cosmos, appears striking. The Aeronavale has indeed just placed nine of its Rafale aircraft ‘in storage’, confirmed to us by l’état-major de la Marine (the naval staff). It is said that they are de facto withdrawn from service.
These aircraft were perceived as very modern and very expensive at the beginning of the year 2000 and flotilla 12 F has been operational on this type for less than four years, since June 25, 2004 to be exact. Placing an aircraft in storage clearly means that one does not really need it for the moment. It’s funny that whereas the staffs worry about the cuts to come in the programs d’ armament…
The Navy however have a good reason to act this way. The nine Rafales in question are the first machines of the series, of the F1 standard, with which l’ Naval Aviation “wiped the plasters” (essuyé les plâtres – I’m sure someone can translate!). The more recently delivered aircraft are to the F2 standard. On the outside, the aircraft is almost identical, but “systems architectures are radically different” explained a specialist. F1 has certain air-to-air capabilities, whereas F2 has quite higher capabilities, in particular for air-to-ground attacks. The F3 standard, even more complete, is awaited from 2009.
The piloting and the maintenance of F1 and F2 are different. However, good management …. (my French isn’t up to this!) means that there will be 14 aircraft on line, all of one model.
At Landivisiau (Finistere) where the decision has been taken to store the Rafale F1s “for long a time” the aircraft will be housed in hangarettes (shelters) equipped with air-dryers. These planes will then be modernized and upgraded directly to the F3 standard.
Flotilla 12 F, the only unit of the Navy equipped with Rafale, today has twelve aircraft (including one deployed for tests at Mount-de-Marsan) and will have sixteen of them in the summer, not counting the nine stored.
JackonickoIt’s a shame, a travesty, and a farce.
The RC-135V/W is great for current ops, where all you need is Comint, but if ever we go up against a more sophisticated air defence system, or need to snoop on the Russians, then we’ll miss the Nimrod R…..
And I do mean the USAF, Mick. (Or more particularly folk within the Rivet Joint programme office and in the 55th Wing).
And the Times article was pretty well bang-on.
JackonickoHelix is dead in the water.
Note that these support contracts are for Extract and Star Windows (the existing kit).
Nimrod R’s replacement has not been officially announced over here, but is widely talked about in the USA. They know exactly when RC-135 for the RAF is delivered, how many, what Block, and how they’ll be operated.
It may be disgraceful, it may represent a dramatic loss of Elint capability, but it’s a done deal, I suspect.
JackonickoThe planned OSD WAS 2025.
The ISD for the first RC-135 is 2010.
Support contracts running to 2011 therefore don’t fill me with confidence, but if you think that they indicate that the R1 is ‘safe’ then knock yourself out, fella!
JackonickoJon James,
With the greatest possible respect, you’re talking nonsense.
I strongly suspect that the Coroner has been listening to ‘qualified informed opinion’ as many journalists have been. The Nimrod community is angry about this, and many individuals are leaking like mad, determined that the truth will not be brushed under the carpet.
And the line coming from the MoD (and senior RAF officers) via official channels is diametrically opposed to the line coming from frontline RAF aircrew, RAF engineers and Nimrod programme insiders within the IPT and industry.
It’s clear that Nimrod airworthiness is (if we want to be charitable) hanging by a thread, with an inadequately produced safety case. To understand the issues, you need to understand the difference between Physical and Functional Safety, and need to understand airworthiness and how it is managed in the RAF.
According to senior engineer and aircrew officers, airworthiness regulations were not implemented properly, and functional safety has been viewed as being optional. It ain’t.
I conclude that AAR is probably inherently unsafe in the Nimrod, and that (thanks to the proximity of the crossfeed pipe) the aircraft is “at considerable risk whenever the SCP is operated with the engines at or above cruise power.” In technical terms, I’d say that the Nimrod has not been airworthy since 1982.
JackonickoNice pics, Hyper.
And nice scheme on the J-8, too
JackonickoSince it will be spending much of its time refuelling the mighty Dave (F-35) it has to be ‘Derek’.
JackonickoA Lightning, with bubble canopy, four guns, two BVR AAMs, more fuel, and four underwing winders.
Or a Draken with a better radar and more AAMs.
JackonickoFunding priorities.
The first priority for Rafale was to get the long range stand off weapon in place.
Effort was then expended on getting an unplanned austere LGB integration in place for Afghan ops.
Self designation will happen eventually. There’s no great problem or scandal, and in the interim, the AdlA and MN both have alternative platforms for laser designation.
You might just as well ask why the RAF took so long to clear Typhoon for dropping LGBs and dumb bombs (a capability that was latent in the initial software release) and why Litening LDP designation capability (the so-called austere A-G capability) is only now being incorporated. And why Storm Shadow integration won’t happen for years. Priorities.
Jackonickoand dumb 1,000-lb bombs, too.
A very useful weapon if economy and guaranteed low miss distances are required. (An LGB can miss by a VERY long way if guidance fails, while a less accurate dumb bomb is more predictable).
And 27-mm strafe.
JackonickoJWCook,
The Typhoon involved has not been categorised Cat 5, and won’t get a final cat until its back in the UK. I’d be surprised if it were cat 5, I’d expect it to be Cat.4(WKS).
Since 1961 RAF accidents have been categorized as follows:
Cat. 1 Repairable on site by first line maintenance personnel.
Cat. 2 Repairable on site by second line maintenance personnel.
Cat. 3 Repairable on site but beyond the technical resources of the unit. Repairs will be done by a Service repair party (Cat.3(SER)), or civilian contractor’s working party (Cat. 3(CWP)). A Cat. 3(FLY) aircraft may be flown under limitations until repaired.
Cat.4 The damage sustained requires special equipment not available on site and the aircraft must be moved for repair at an established Service repair depot. (Cat.4(SER)) or to a contractor’s works (Cat. 4(WKS)). A Cat. 4(FLY) aircraft may be flown from a site, after temporary repairs have been carried out, to the repair agency for full repairs.
Cat. 5 The aircraft is damaged beyond economic repair.
Cat. 5(GI) Damaged or surplus, but suitable for ground instructional use.
Cat. 5(COMP) Beyond economical repair or surplus, but is salvage of components or spare parts is possible.
Cat. 5(SCRAP) Beyond economical repair or surplus, and suitable for scrap only.
Cat. 5(MISSING) Missing – presumed lost.
If there was an LDP on the jet, then the LDP was, I’m sure, Cat 5! However, I haven’t seen a Litening pod on a single seat Typhoon yet (even with 17) so I’d doubt that it was carrying one. Not that the loss of one pod would “set the RAF Typhoon Afghanistan deployment back” much – they have plenty of pods.
Nor will the loss of one pod have any “subsequent knock on effects to weapon integration.” That’s all done, even down to the secondary weapon (dumb 1,000 lb bombs have been dropped in sticks of up to five), and the only effect will be on training and tactical development.
Nor is an RAF Typhoon deployment to Afghanistan a driver, now.
With the growing QRA requirement and the shrinking F3 force, the RAF needs two home-based Typhoon squadrons for UK AD, and anything that takes away from this is not going to fly.
They still want to declare a deployable A-G capability in July, with FOC, but the likelihood of demonstrating that capability with an Afghan deployment has become progressively smaller. They simply can’t spare the jets for an extended overseas commitment. At most I’d now expect a brief four-jet flag wave.
This will disappoint industry – who want and need Typhoon to be showing its mettle as an A-G platform, but their needs are secondary insofar as the RAF is concerned. It’s a shame, as Typhoon’s self designation capability, and ability to use cheap, available weapons is a useful differentiator (Though Rafale is clocking up combat experience, and despite the obvious advantages of AASM – a weapon I’ve always ‘envied’ for Typhoon, the French aircraft still currently relies on offboard designation).
LordAssap,
You asked: “What …. impact this could have on the future development and sales of Typhoon?”
None. Finger trouble and minor problems happen to every aircraft. They had to cut a pilot out of an F-22, the F-35 had a total electrical failure on flight 18, and they’ve lost a Rafale and its pilot. None of these incidents reflect on what are, essentially, three excellent aircraft. Nor will a belly landing sink Typhoon.
JBR,
Look at it another way:
You’re the commander of an air force, you’re looking to buy either Rafale of Typhoon.
Do you go for the cheaper one that is also a superior A-A platform, that will give you a better kill:loss ratio against the likely threat, that can self designate LGBs, or the one that, while it is admittedly in service in Afghanistan supporting NATO, relies on ageing Mirage 2000s for designation, and which is an inferior A-A platform?
JackonickoFor my American chums, may I make the following observations.
Airbus is not a French company – and never was, though the dominance of Toulouse makes it easy to perceive it that way.
Once you take final assembly of the A330 out of Toulouse, it’s French content is actually very small – and I believe that (JBoyle please note) “it’s more English than French.”
France has been a far more active and loyal ally than any of the ‘foreign partners’ involved in the 767 production programme – having regularly provided combat forces, including troops on the ground, who have spilled French blood in defence of mutual interests to support US led coalition efforts.
How many Japanese troops have died on ops alongside US and UK forces in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Moreover, with Sarkozy at the reins, you now have a French leader who is Atlantacist and pro-American. You really need to ditch the old fashioned and out of date thinking!
JackonickoSome people seem to be saying that: “If there’s no link on the internet saying that it happened, then it didn’t happen.” or “until it’s confirmed on the internet I don’t believe it.”
I hope they’re wrong, and that the RAF haven’t dispatched a C-17 to China Lake to pick up the wreck for nothing…..
Yes, PPRuNe is the only online source for this rumour, but it was being widely discussed in crew rooms before the first post was made on PPRuNe.
But what’s the big deal, anyway? A Typhoon landed wheels up. The pilot may or may not have ejected. It won’t be the last aircraft to do so. Unless and until there is a serious suggestion that this is anything more than ‘finger trouble’ or aircrew error, what’s the big deal?
Sign In
