Well there you go then. USAF F-16s must still be on M-Scan too.
Of course they are. They are also in the process of being replaced.
Where?
Everywhere
The German defense ministry has no overview of the costs it is incurring for Airbus Group’s (AIR.PA) Eurofighter jets and will spend twice as much as it originally planned on the country’s most expensive defense project, federal auditors said.
The German Federal Court of Auditors, which oversees the government’s financial management, said in a report the costs for the Eurofighter jets over their life cycle would climb to around 60 billion euros ($83 billion) from an originally planned 30 billion, despite the number of jets having been reduced.
The auditors said operating expenses, especially maintenance costs, had increased particularly strongly.
They also said the budget of 11.8 billion euros the defense ministry had calculated in 1997 for the purchase of 180 Eurofighter jets would only be enough to buy 140 of the planes.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/30/us-germany-eurofighter-airbus-group-idUSBREA3T06C20140430
Only six Eurofighters in Spain’s Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) service in bases at Morón de la Frontera and Albacete are currently capable of taking off, according to military insiders. These jets are kept ready to scramble 24 hours a day, year-round, to intercept suspicious aircraft in Spanish airspace.
Spain only ordered a total of 73 Eurofighters: 19 of the original Tranche 1, 34 of tranche 2 and 20 of Tranche 3A.
These Tranche 1 aircraft have major support issues, acknowledged by the industry and experts say little planning has taken place to support the jets once they have been delivered.
In addition, the contract with Eurofighter for the redesigns associated with delivering the upgraded did not include any provision for later components to be compatible with the earlier T1 jets. Subsequently, companies stopped building the new components, leading to a shortfall.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/10/29/spanish-airforce-eurofighter/
Unfortunately this means that we’ll need to support them and keep them flying into the future – all the way to 2030 on current plans. In general, a military aircraft typically costs two or three times in support over its lifetime what it cost to acquire: that would be a horrifying £46bn at minimum in the case of Eurofighter, enough to replace Trident twice over. Allowing for the fact that we will scrap 53 planes of 160 early, we’d still be looking at £30bn or more.
Amazingly, however, the MoD tells the NAO that it expects to pay no more than £13.1bn to keep its fleet flying until the end of its life. As the auditors dryly note, “Living within the support cost budget will be challenging”. They point up some problems in particular:
The Department is confident that it can deliver the full range of support for the reduced number of aircraft within the originally approved figure of £13.1 billion.
Risks remain … prices on Typhoon contracts are negotiated with United Kingdom industry on a non-competitive basis under longstanding agreements which enable industry to recover agreed overhead costs. The Strategic Defence and Security Review accelerated the retirement of Harrier to April 2011 and committed to reduce the Tornado fleet by half by 2015 with consequent reductions on work placed with industry. Unless industry is incentivised to restructure to manage this reduced workflow there is a risk that, under the existing arrangements, the costs of under-utilised industry assets will be re-charged to the Department on its remaining contracts – notably Typhoon …
The collaborative arrangements present serious challenges if the Department is to upgrade and support the aircraft quickly and cost-effectively …
And indeed the MoD, referring to its pie-in-the-sky £13.1bn estimate of Typhoon support costs, admits in a very small footnote:
[Estimates of support] costs exclude … the impact of Strategic Defence and Security Review decisions and the impact of changes to industry overheads.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/?page=4
A bit like posts about the Eurofighter costing a ridiculous amount then isn’t it.
:rolleyes:
Are you even serious? How long was the F-15 in service before AESA was added? How long was the F-14 in service before bombs were added? Heck why bother with F-16s when you can just us the Tornado forever. These are some really ridiculous points.
How about the Super Hornet, which first flew in 1995, a year after the Typhoon, and was operational with an AESA in 2005… ten years ago?
How about the F-35, which first flew in 2006, 12 years after the Typhoon, and is operational with an AESA today?
There is simply no excuse for the snail like pace with which the Eurofighter program has progressed.
The lack of money is because of the Iraq War and 2008.
Wars are expensive, but really? You don’t see how the Typhoon costing far more than it was supposed to might have played a role? Why blame war? Why not blame social spending, or health care, or the overall economy?
Within the context of a discussion of military procurement budgets, the Typhoon has been an ugly mess.
Sign In
