dark light

BarnesW

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 331 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXV #2156999
    BarnesW
    Participant

    1; well I should have said “R-77-like” missile, obviously a R-77 will not fit anywhere.
    2; All is true for A-A config, however with 4 AG munitions in main bays there is no space left for any missiles. A two BVR missiles would offer much better self defense than two WVR missiles; At what cost?

    Sidebay’s max. length (speaking of door) is already longer than R-77, but -maybe- it won’t fit because of the diamond shaped rear end of the door. A R-77’s diameter is only 3,5cm larger than R-73, and I assume dimensions of their modern derivatives are similar. Enlarge the bay downwards by 3,5 cm, lengthen it by 15 cm and Izd-180/K-77M etc will easily fit in there. So there is negligable cost to aerodynamics, ~140kg addition to total missile weight and PAK-FA will fly with 2xIzd.180+4xKAB-500, instead of 2xIzd.750+4xKAB-500. It would have been a good compromise IMHO.

    I know Russia are planning a longer range R-73 replacements with IIR/LOAL/HOBS, so that may well be the intended fit.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXV #2157001
    BarnesW
    Participant

    Personally, I found sidebays to be a a little long for R-73-like missile, and little short for anything else; extend it by a mere 15-20 cm and I believe a R-77 will fit in there.

    You need clearance though and shaping of edge may be a factor.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015 #2157005
    BarnesW
    Participant

    In fact you factor in the single purpose, low impact T1 in that number. Just like if France had factored-in their alphajet time. The T1 remaining a dead-end operationally (no upgrade no dual role), you can’t mix the number to make an assessment for a comparative analysis.
    If you want such, you’ll need to subtract the Rafale M costs and compare the result with that of the latter Typhoon.
    If Dassault had made a land based, day only fighter, the cost would have dropped drastically.

    The funniest part is that the end result might be favorable to the Typhoon.

    The T1 will have put in its hours when it is finally retires as planned. But you would also have to factor in that the Rafale has only done about a third as many flying hours, so there is uncertainty in what the next 200,000 will bring. Then you have development costs for new engines, because France wants more reliability and a customer (UAE?) wants more power.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015 #2157042
    BarnesW
    Participant

    you are right. If you take into account everything, cost is from 2009 to 2013 14596 €. Note it is on a disminishing curve.

    https://www.ccomptes.fr/Publications/Publications/Le-maintien-en-condition-operationnelle-des-materiels-militaires-des-efforts-a-poursuivre

    (click firt pd link)

    Thanks. There is no directly comparable figure for Typhoon. The total Operational Support Phase budget is holding at £13.1bn, which includes everything (support-wise, not manufacture and development) for operational life-time. Now I know they’d flown 100,000 hours in Jan 2011 with a very limited quantity of aircraft in the early days. So I imagine the following 8 years will see twice as many hours, with another 24 years service from 2011 to 2035. And of course factoring in inflation and reduced value of money, the current CPH is probably near the same as the Rafale.

    This is probably optimistic.:D

    http://www.armedforces.co.uk/raf/listings/l0028.html

    I guess when you factor in reliability, and the relatively few losses, the Typhoon works out pretty cheap. RAF has had zero aircraft losses. If you were to add five $150m aircraft to flying hour costs over 100,000 hours, that would add $7,500 (plus payments to widows/families, plus retraining), which is not negligible.

    https://www.eurofighter.com/news-and-events/2015/07/eurofighter-typhoon-delivers-300000-reliable-flying-hours

    Press Release | Jul 17, 2015

    438 aircraft in service / 7 customers/ 22 operating units
    Backbone of five European Air Forces / Combat proven

    Eurofighter Typhoon has now achieved more than 300,000 flying hours since the entry-into-service of its worldwide fleet. Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH confirmed the milestone today adding that, with 571* aircraft ordered and 438 delivered, the programme has “delivered unprecedented levels of reliability”.

    *599 with Kuwait deal.
    http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2015/09/11/kuwait-purchase-28-typhoons/72059404/

    Kuwait To Purchase 28 Typhoons
    By Andrew Chuter 11:30 a.m. EDT September 11, 2015

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015 #2157049
    BarnesW
    Participant

    Rafale C CPH : 9484 €
    http://questions.assemblee-nationale.fr/q14/14-22636QE.htm
    All these numbers are questionable depending on what is included in.

    That figure is not mentioned anywhere in the link you provided.

    Here is the figure from Air and Cosmos. Note that this is from several years ago before the Euro tanked. Back then it was equivalent to $20,000.

    http://imageshack.com/a/img674/1092/MpiGJ3.jpg

    But you’re right, comparing these figures is impossible because some only include fuel, some include fuel and spares, some include fuel spares, ground crew wages, base running costs, pilot accommodation, training costs (pilot and groundcrew, lecturers, materials, simulators ………………).

    It’s unlikely you will ever manage to achieve a like for like comparison. What I can tell you, is that by the cost measuring methods the RAF use, the Typhoon costs less than a Tornado F3 per flying hour.

    in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2157102
    BarnesW
    Participant

    What does 9/11 have to do with this? Terror and bloody retaliation have always been part of a certain kind of Middle-east autocrats. Assad is one of them and remain famous by his cautious application of the Ahma rule.
    Putin foreign affair team had just changed their vocabulary around Assad standing in power. There is a convergence here. It is then legitimate to put the question in the debate.

    Daesh didn’t attempt such action before despite, as it seems to be today, the lack of rigorous security in Egyptian airports, a country where they are present since long now.

    So please, leave the tin hat aside and try to discuss the matter with plain logics.

    Seriously dude. In case you haven’t heard, British intelligence has picked up chatter amongst ISIS boasting about the incident. So there is no conspiracy.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015 #2157123
    BarnesW
    Participant

    Fair enough, the ATF program would be a much better comparison, its costs make the entire Eurofighter program look “controled”, but the aim in terms of technology was way higher.

    Easy to say that now, but given the 15 year separation of the projects, the difference isn’t that great. Let’s not forget things like HMD/HMCS, LOAL, IRST (also longest range IRST except for EOTS) and VTAS were things that were standard on the Typhoon but dropped from the F-22 for being ‘too risky’. Put yourself back in the late ’90s and that stuff is pretty high up in terms of technology.

    The other point I can’t mention strongly enough is that the overspend (and indeed total spend) is pittance compared to the war costs and 2008 bailout cost.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015 #2157285
    BarnesW
    Participant

    What is that hole in Typhoon vertical tail for

    Engine bleed air heat exchanger.

    http://i.stack.imgur.com/YYkFJ.jpg

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015 #2157295
    BarnesW
    Participant

    “Far more”

    Let me get the exact UK numbers for you:

    Page 172 https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Appendices-and-project-summary-sheets.pdf

    My, my, from 16064 million pounds to 18189 million pounds?! Shocking, just shocking…
    These numbers are not disputable by the way, they are the absolute latest from the UK NAO.

    Cheers.:eagerness:

    Wow, a whole 13%. In terms of defence spending norms that’s probably even classed as under-budget.

    Figure 3, in 2012 actually shows underspend and support phase cost is unchanged on page 61:

    https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Major-Projects-full-report-Vol-1.pdf

    in reply to: test pilot: "F-35 can't dogfight" #2157364
    BarnesW
    Participant

    Let’s go to a something completely different….F-35 dogfighting capabilities.

    What if the F-35 Lightning II air superiority fighter couldn’t dogfight ( as the test pilot claims )….could it still out come as a winner 100/100 in an aerial combat ?

    I mean does stealth and all systems combined make the difference ?

    There are several air combat cases where even an outdated i-153 biplane downed a P-39 Airacobra.

    Similarly wingloaded F-104E was a quite a hod rod and able to zoom and do many other things.

    Is the future of aircombat all about better awareness ?

    In Vietnam the F-4 pilots still needed to go to guns, but are those days long gone ?

    The way I see it. Even if it was a bit inferior to an F-16 in agility and EODAS and HOBS/LOAL didn’t works and BVR misisles didn’t work, dog-fighting is largely pilot driven and the F-35 handles well enough for a good pilot to get kills anyway. But we’ve made some seriously pessimistic assumptions there.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015 #2157370
    BarnesW
    Participant

    Of course they are. They are also in the process of being replaced.

    The aircraft are, the radars aren’t. That’s because the F-16 is a very old design, the Typhoon is not.

    Everywhere

    Nowhere apart from the odd sensationalist pile of BS.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/30/us-germany-eurofighter-airbus-group-idUSBREA3T06C20140430

    Again, don’t site the German AF as a source of sound information. Do you even know what this includes? What are you comparing it against? Is it the same as the $1tr quoted for the F-35 perhaps?

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/10/29/spanish-airforce-eurofighter/

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/?page=4

    Have you stopped to ask why the UK say £13.1bn for the lifetime cost of more planes than the Germans quote 60bn Euro for? I mean it’s only a factor of 4 different. And even multiplied up directly to 2,500 planes, it’s still much cheaper than the $1tr quoted by some for the F-35.

    :rolleyes:

    :rolleyes:

    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?

    Yes, well the SH didn’t have a banking collapse mid-flow.

    How about the F-35, which first flew in 2006, 12 years after the Typhoon, and is operational with an AESA today?

    Now you’re just comparing apples and rotten eggs. The F-35 was planned to have AESA from the off and its operational status is marginal at best.

    There is simply no excuse for the snail like pace with which the Eurofighter program has progressed.

    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.

    Not even in the slightest. In fact it’s a mere trickle of pennies compared to the Iraq and Afghan War costs, plus the Libyan intervention, plus the banking bailout. Due to that, a heck of a lot has had to be cut from everywhere, not to mention the UK funding of the F-35, which also ended up being more than expected and taking a bit longer. Can’t you do simple maths? I’ll spell it out:

    £13.1bn << £850bn (Banks 2008) + £37bn (Iraq) + £37bn (Afghanistan) + £Xbn (Libya) + £Xbn (F-35 development) + £Xbn (Bombing ISIS) = ~$1 trillion

    Amount extra in that £13.1bn:

    Assume a few billion <<< $1tr.

    So the extra cost is 3 orders of magnitude less than all the other unexpected/unwanted crap.

    So the Typhoon AESA has been delayed for the same reason that F-22 production, 29 Zumwalt Class destroyers, 19 CG(X)s and 1 Gerald Ford Class and umpteen other things have been cancelled entirely from the US budget. The only difference is that Captor-E is going ahead but you will never see:

    a) Another F-22;

    b) The other 29 Zumwalt Class destroyers.

    c) The 19 CG(X) guided missile cruisers.

    d) The 11th Gerald Ford Class carrier.

    e) SBLIFX.

    f) SLIRBM.

    g) SM-3 Blk 2B

    I think our spending has actually been affected fairly little in comparison with your own.

    Now if I were to Google F-35 over cost, how many hits do you think I’d find? Yet you willingly cite trash media as genuine sources.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015 #2157388
    BarnesW
    Participant

    No F-16 has a PESA.

    Well there you go then. USAF F-16s must still be on M-Scan too.

    All operators have experienced very high costs. Who said anything about the 2008 crash?

    Where?

    Word of advice, don’t post that Janes graphic if you want to be taken seriously. It has been completely debunked more than once.

    A bit like posts about the Eurofighter costing a ridiculous amount then isn’t it.

    As for wars… staying out hasn’t helped Germany much has it? If you are going to make an assertion it has to be at least minimally compatible with reality.

    Helped France out though.

    Why are people still talking about “tomorrow” with the Typhoon? Really?

    It first flew in 1994 (20+ years ago) and it entered service in 2003 (12 years ago).

    We are still talking about future capabilities that are years from operational service?

    Besides, three of the above are weapons that could be integrated onto an F-15 or F-16 if there were a desire to do so.

    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.

    Typhoon lacks an AESA due to lack of money. Money wouldn’t have been a problem is billions and billions hadn’t been spent developing a fighter nobody could afford to keep current.

    The lack of money is because of the Iraq War and 2008.

    I’ll put this super simply for you. The Iraq War and 2008 gutted NATO force structure in general. That’s why the US is only getting 3 of 32 planned Zumwalt Class destroyers and cancelled all 19 CG(X), as well as F-22 production, SM-3 Blk IIB, as well as an aircraft carrier. So I think I’ve just detailed about $100+bn-worth of gutting right there without even getting serious.

    As for the UK:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War#U.K._war_costs

    As of 2013, summations for the UK war in Afghanistan came to £37bn ($56.46 billion) .

    So you can double that for Iraq and add 2008 crash (several hundred billion)…. BUT oh no, you think Typhoon has gutted European force structure.:rolleyes: We could have ran a 1000-strong force of Typhoons for a century with GaN AESA and uprated EJ230s plus every munition under the sun qualified for half the amount we wasted in war and 2008 bailout.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html

    Government support for Britain’s banks has reached a staggering £850bn

    Heck, scratch the above, we could have ran a 1,000 strong fleet of Klingon Warbirds for a century, if we didn’t have to pay that.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015 #2157391
    BarnesW
    Participant

    Where’s the evidence for Typhoon being more expensive than it should have been? So far I see supposition and hearsay with zero grounding in evidence.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015 #2157397
    BarnesW
    Participant

    Look at where the force structures were before Typhoon, and where they are today.

    They are still producing Typhoons with obsolete mechanically scanned radars and only a minimal multi-role capability.

    Lets be honest, Typhoon has been disastrous for Europe. If they had simply purchased F-16 Block 60s or similar way back in 2000 they would be far more capable today.

    Not in the air-to-air role. And even the M-Scan Captor beats the PESA on USAF F-16s.

    If you’re taking Germany as an example of high costs, don’t be deceived, they just don’t believe in running an AF properly. All their aircraft have poor availability because they don’t spend enough. As for Spain, the Eurofighter didn’t cause the 2008 crash.

    Costs are reasonable given the level of fighter it is.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RjBCAPsvieU/UUPKpGrnHvI/AAAAAAAABJ4/tUW2cxbN3UY/s1600/flight+hours+cost.png

    As for AESA, we basically just haven’t been arsed. The technology to do it has been around for over a decade or more, demonstrators existed in 2000. It’s financial lethargy nothing to do with Eurofighter and everything to do with things like:

    a) Dumbass wars that another NATO country drags you into, which cost a shed-load and soak up money that would otherwise be spent on developing useful capabilities, rather than fighting tea-cosy wearers; and

    b) Idiot bankers who have zero understanding of risk.

    If you look at countries that didn’t get involved in a), they had more money to spend.

    As for tomorrow, I think it’s quite positive. Captor-E + Meteor + Storm Shadow + Brimstone. No F-16 Block 60 will be a patch on that.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015 #2157406
    BarnesW
    Participant

    There is no mention anywhere of replacing the Tranche 1 jets with new builds. In fact there are some noises being made now about keeping some of the Tranche 1 jets in service, rather than retirement and storage.

    Maybe, maybe not. Upgrade or replace. SDSR will decide. Replacement is just my guess.

    The Typhoon’s incredibly high costs have effectively gutted European force structures already.

    Where do you get such dreadful information?

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 331 total)