YellowSunSo, first prize one copy – second prize two copies.
YellowSunOriginally posted by Vympel
….and perhaps the AIM-120C-8.
Vympel
This reference sneaked through a little while back and I’d be interested to hear your take on what the C-8 configuration actually is…
YS
YellowSunPhil
A most useful post, nice one.
So, at the beginning of March 2004 there are two operational Eurofighters flying with the RAF.
The total in operational service with all four partner air forces is 10.
Germany: GT001 to GT005
UK: BT003 and BT004 (but NOT 001 & 002, as noted above)
Spain: ST001 and ST002
Italy: IT001
(figures confirmed by Eurofighter)
YS
YellowSunTwilight
I hope you’re not loosing too much sleep over this one!
You’ve clearly done a lot of thinking about it all, but there’s a danger in looking at a programme like this as if it were a packet of biscuits in the supermarket. The Block 60 exists for very specific and clear-cut reasons – and I think, in a few places here, you mightn’t be seeing the wood for the trees.
Why did LM build it? Because the UAE ordered, bought and paid for it in hard cash. Not FMS, not paying in palm oil or rubber gloves – but with real money and lots of it. Ca-ching!
Why does the UAE want it? Because it meets the strategic needs of the UAEAF. It’s tailor-made to a UAEAF requirement and is completely controlled by the UAE.
What is the UAE trying to do? Protect its strategic assets and financial well-being into the 21st Century. It’s not looking to attack Israel, it’s looking to counter-balance Iran and its Arab neighbours. The Block 60 is the UAE’s big stick – as integral to the UAE’s future economic development plans as Palm Island or Dubai Airport.
The Block 60 exists for the UAE and the UAE alone – it is not supposed to be exported. It is an extremely profitable programme for LM and NG and all the other contractors involved because the UAE is a wealthy customer that has agreed to fork over a LOT of money to get back a very impressive aircraft – surely the most advanced combat aircraft anywhere in the world (if it works as advertised, which is a whole other issue).
LM, for its part, is able to use some Block 60 technology (for which it has NOT had to pay a penny from its own resources) to cross fertilise other advanced F-16s and to hold in its back pocket in case the JSF gets binned. Remember, at the time when the Block 60 deal was going through the JSF was very far from being a done deal and LM couldn’t have been more pleased that the UAE was paying to develop a ready-made JSF alternative, should the need arise. That need may still arise.
In fact, the final Block 60 configuration is quite a modest aircraft compared to the big-wing F-16U and other concepts that LM was offering in the early stages of the competition.
The UAE will not be cleared to receive JSF because it is a controlled programme, restricted by US national disclosure policy. The Block 60 delivers pretty much all the capability of a JSF (apart from first-day stealth), and delivers it in a form that will be in service 10 years before any JSF. The argument for all-aspect stealth is becoming less and less convincing. Militarily you just don’t need it any more; politically it’s becoming a mill-stone around the neck of the entire JSF programme. See how the existing JSF ‘partner’ nations (including even the UK) are being locked out by the whole issue of stealth and technology access.
Thanks to the UAE, LM keeps the F-16 in production, up-to-date and available for any other customers who can’t have the JSF. From that point of view it makes even more financial sense for LM. Remember, it’s all free as far as Ft Worth is concerned. The UAE pays for everything.
What’s not to understand?
In several important respects the Block 60 is MORE advanced than the JSF – certainly in terms of effective warload. It is also going to accommodate UAE-specific weapons systems like the Hakim PGM that will not be integrated on the JSF.
As for waiting around for Tranche 2 Eurofighter – that’s going to be a long wait. Tranche 2 is as far away from entering service as JSF is.
Rafale didn’t get the nod because it was politically a good move to place a big order with the USA. At the same time the UAE retains and upgrades its Mirage 2000-9 force, armed with Black Shaheen – a weapon that it could not get from the US. These people know what they’re doing.
All-in-all you’ve got to see the UAE as VERY smart operator that has retained strategic independence, operational effectiveness and excellent international relations – all thanks to Block 60 (and the rest).
YellowSunRe: Not a bad load for an interceptor initially intended for the MiG-25 and Backfires
Originally posted by Haleyoneshoemak
Item said to be part of display in AA2004
Emmm, AA2004?
Asian Aerospace 2004??
Last week’s Singapore air show???
Item most emphatically NOT part of display at *that* AA2004.
Item scanned in from old, old, OLD Shenyang brochure.
There was a J-8 model at Singapore, but otherwise…
Bandwidth is such a precious thing to waste
YS
YellowSunOriginally posted by Steve Touchdown
YS, we have far more common ground than disagreement, of that I’m quite certain! My only problem with what you posted was that the same airframes are being seen on the production line on subsequent visits. The last year (14 months to be more precise) has, like you’ve said, seen definite progress. Visits in Nov 2002 and 2003 would have seen a big change.
Steve
I’m with you on that, and this is not some kind of blind Eurofighter knocking exercise – we are agreed on that too. But implicitly you seem to be supporting what I said about the lack of progress between 1999 and end of 2002, when the programme should have been striding forward. Again, I accept that things picked up in early 2003 BUT if there are only two or three or four or five aircraft in active service – when so many have been in build for so long – something is wrong somewhere.
Maybe that something is being fixed right now – but that’s why the question of how many jets are flying with 17 today is important.
Originally posted by Steve Touchdown
I certainly agree that it would be great to have answers to all of the Typhoon questions being posed, but the fact that the OEU programme is some 18 months behind schedule is “news” from 2002 is it not? I thought this was already common knowledge from around the time of the Farnborough ‘show in July ’02.
Now that sounds like something Eurofighter would say! Being years behind schedule is no big deal – or rather we know about it, so it doesn’t matter? And look again, it’s WAY more than 18 months. It’s YEARS. Even on the revised, revised schedule it’s more than 18 months.
Actually if you look back at the Farnborough 2002 news you mention (as I am right now) you will find that EF was claiming that RAF Eurofighters WOULD BE IN SERVICE by the end of 2002. Indeed, I see a quote from Ross Bradley, Eurofighter Managing Director at BAE Systems, that “Eurofighter will be a war-fighting machine by 2004.” There had been a flurry of first flights by the various IPAs in April 02 and, at Farnborough, handover of the first RAF aircraft was predicted for October 2002.
Now, ask yourself what actually happened…
And would be churlish to point out that IPA1 was originally due to fly in August 2001?
No, there was no admission at that time that things were going to be so delayed. By Paris 2003 Eurofighter was predicting that Typhoon would be in service by the end of June that year…that didn’t happen either.
The use of language has always been very important here – ‘accepted for service’ does not mean in service. We know now when Eurofighter’s acceptance into service was (finally) announced, but the aircraft stayed firmly on the ground all the same.
Originally posted by Steve Touchdown
It would certainly have been nice to have seen fully operational squadrons on the horizon next year, as was planned at one time, but the need outside of the AMI is hardly pressing is it? The same can be said of the air-to-ground capability: I doubt the RAF are feeling short-changed with GR.4 and Storm Shadow to play with for the next few years until they get their shiny new toys.
Well, we were never going to have a fully operational squadron next year – just a conversion unit. We were supposed to see the first NATO declared RAF Typhoon squadron stand up in 2006. That’s seems unlikely to happen.
Saying that the need isn’t pressing is surely missing the point. When does the need becoming pressing: 5 years, 10 years. Hey, why bother? There’s supposed to be a well-organised plan here to put Eurofighter into service.
Oh, and since Storm Shadow was introduced under a UOR, that qualification has now expired and SS is technically not available for the GR4 fleet until all the standard clearance work and massed paperwork have been completed. Mind you, having SS capability on the Eurofighter looks to be about 10 years away right now, given that Tranche 2 still has not been agreed and Tranche 3 remains a pipe-dream as a result.
I have to bang out of this for a while now – can someone have a look over the Manching fence while I’m away? I’ll try and come back with those Rafale numbers you are so eagerly searching for.
YellowSun[QUOTE]Originally posted by Steve Touchdown
ZJ803/AA and ZJ802/AB, both Typhoon T.1, are on-strength with 17 Sqn/OEU at Warton.
YS, to say the “same airframes have been seen on the line” is complete BS! I have full logs for Warton from 4 dates over the past 14 months and there is a more than obvious progression.
Steve
Don’t get too carried away. I step back just a little from what I said and admit that in the last year or so some clear progress has been made in completing aircraft at Warton BUT prior to that – and I’m talking from 1999 into early 2003 – it was the same small handful of BT aircraft that were being moved around the building. I have my own notebooks – and how many completed airframes did you see over those 14 months BTW?
Remember, the first components for BT001 were produced in May 1998! It was supposed to be completed in 2000. By July 2002 we were supposed to have the OEU up and running. That became July 2003. Now you say there are two jets on strength…where is the BS?
For the record, the official position on deliveries and manufacture is as follows:
18 to be delivered to the FOUR air forces by end February 2004
35 to be delivered by end May
48 aircraft in final assembly
Major assemblies for 110 in production
My point was that those same (approximate) figures have been cited again and again by the EF organisation – but the dates keep on changing and not much else appears to be happening.
Originally posted by Steve Touchdown
I asked the same questions almost 3 months ago about Rafale here (the Armee de l’Air ones, not the premature Aeronavale versions) but nobody could provide answers for that either. It doesn’t mean the programme isn’t happening, just we’re not party to every single step along the way until someone wants us to know I guess!
Rafale’s progress can be very clearly tracked through the regular National Assembly reviews and other government reports – although you do have to read French to get at them. There is no comparable process in the UK.
We sure aren’t party to every single step but that makes it all the more reasonable to ask just what is going on, because too often the public pronouncements have failed to match reality.
Don’t get me wrong I want to see this programme get on and succeed. Operationally, industrially, politically Eurofighter is a hugely important programme – important for the UK, important for Europe. That is why it’s so frustrating to see such a hash being made of the whole thing.
YellowSunYes indeed, the Hermes programme has been floating around for a while now but PB’s report is the first concrete news for some time. I wonder who is paying Tula for it? With so few Ka-50s in service the air-launched variant has no real future in Russia…
After some years in the shadows, the Izdeliye 172 resurfaced at the Dubai show last December, on a model of an Su-35. I believe there was a small piece with a photo in Aviation Week a little while ago. The missile was labelled 172S-1 and the *suggestion* is that it’s being funded by an export customer.
We shall see.
The world needs more missiles.
YellowSunOriginally posted by Transall
Thanks for the clarification, Yellow Sun.
But why could there be a problem with the jump to the Typhoon?
I thought the RAF had highly qualified personnel, used to operating Mach 2 capable fighters with radar.
Why would they have problems transitioning to a more modern aircraft that is supposed to be user-friendly?
Tranz
I may have been overly caustic, but I was referring to the difficulties that are inherent with the introduction of any new type into service – and, as it turns out, Eurofighter has had more than its fair share of ‘teething troubles’. The Eurofighter is a quantum leap in every way for the RAF. With no experienced personnel familiar with the ins-and-outs of the jet, the CSS arrangement allows BAE – with its intimate knowledge of its product – to deliver that knowledge to the RAF people who will take it away and train the rest of the air force.
Remember, everything about the Typhoon is new – new engines, new systems, new materials, new procedures. That’s the ‘jump’. Just because you know your way around a Tornado doesn’t mean you know where to plug the tow bar into a Typhoon, or how to switch it on, or how to switch it off again!
There is a huge learning curve coming to all four partner air forces – that’s not a good or a bad thing, just a fact of life.
YellowSunOriginally posted by Jwcook
Thats why I used ‘may’ in my post, I’m not sure exactly whats happening I was surmising (always a bad move)….. But I have emailed the question the the DPA for any information they can give.BTW The RAF don’t own the aircraft until they are taken off contract by the RAF, I assume Eurofighter Gmbh does until then.
John
No harm done, but let’s be clear about this. The Case White jets flying (or otherwise) at Warton today have to be active RAF assets flying with an active RAF unit. CSS is a support arrangement – operations are being conducted by the RAF in the shape of No. 17 Sqn.
By entering service with the OEU these aircraft have, by definition, ‘come off contract’ and become service assets.
If anything other than this arrangement has been implemented then there has been a massive and unspoken revision of the entire UK Eurofighter entry into service plan.
There is no official indication that any approach other than the agreed CSS methodology is being implemented but the question remains, at what speed is meaningful progress being made – and clearly the biggest factor in that is how many Eurofighters are actually flying in RAF hands at Warton.
YellowSunOriginally posted by Jwcook
It may just be a question of semantics, there is the ‘Case White’ program for the UK Typhoons, which means that BAEsystems still owns the aircraft but loans them to the RAF to train the pilots.So the RAF only have 2 at present with 1 on the way, But BAE Warton may have a few more to ‘train’ up the trainers…
JC
I’m going to have to stop you there, because that’s just not correct.
‘Case White’ – properly known as the Contractor Support Service (CSS) agreement – is an essential part of the Eurofighter introduction to service plan for the RAF, but there is no blurring of the lines of ownership. BAE Systems does NOT own any of the RAF’s aircraft. After the initial Development Aircraft (DA) Eurofighters, all the aircraft from the IPAs to the SPAs and onwards are CUSTOMER aircraft – they are owned and operated by the air forces. There isn’t some grey mix of BAE and RAF aircraft involved in Case White.
Incidentally, the Case White project name was quietly changed several years ago after someone pointed out that it sounded a bit too much like the original German plan to invade Poland – Plan White was it?
To explain, this is what Case White (CSS) is all about. The Contractor Support Service agreement was signed in December 1998. Under its terms the RAF was to have established its dedicated Eurofighter OEU at Warton on 1 July 2002. A new purpose-built operations facility was set up there, alongside the production line. Officially CSS was all about smoothing the entry into service. Unofficially, it was a recognition that there were going to be big problems with the jump to Eurofighter and the only way to deal with them while maintaining any kind of operational tempo was to have everything on site, and not on some far away RAF station.
13 Eurofighters (all two-seaters) were to be delivered to this OEU (No. 17 Squadron). Under the terms of the CSS agreement BAE would directly support the OEU for 18 months and 1,300 flying hours, to train 16 instructor pilots plus ground personnel. Once the CSS/OEU phase is completed, RAF operations should shift to the OCU (No. 29 Squadron) phase, at Conningsby.
The CSS phase was supposed to have been finished by December 2003. No-one seems to have any clear idea where we now are in that schedule – how many aircraft are flying at Warton in RAF hands? When did the OEU formally start on what was supposed to be an 18-month programme? Is it still an 18-month deal? Will the OCU now set up in 2004, 2005 or 2006??
The CSS agreement is absolutely fundamental to how the RAF plans to put its Eurofighters into service. In Germany the Luftwaffe is doing more or less the same thing at Manching – and again, the level of progress they have achieved is very unclear. I would speculate that it’s even less than the UK. Eurofighter is also offering an essentially identical CSS plan to Singapore so the question of whether or not CSS is actually working is a pretty big deal.
YellowSunThere are plenty who’d agree with that – and plenty who wouldn’t.
It’s a moot point as far as the JSF question goes.
The real issue here is a fight for funding and a general shoring up of the JSF programme. The A-10 ‘situation’ is just a peg to hang it all on.
IMHO
YellowSunThis story has been poorly reported in several places.
It is NOT true that the USAF *will* buy up STOVL F-35Bs. What was said at AFA was that the USAF would study the possible acquisition of the F-35B, and that’s as far as it goes for now.
I would suggest that this is a clever hedge by the Air Force making a play for funding in connection with a potential A-10 replacement (which clearly CANNOT be replaced by a JSF, that’s just nonsense) while supporting the overall JSF programme which is increasingly finding itself on shaky ground – particularly the STOVL variant.
When the big funding crunch for JSF (and everything else) arrives around 2009/2011 it would be nice to have some more cash to throw into the pot. That’s what this is all about.
The USAF will never buy STOVL JSF and I’ll take that bet now.
YellowSunThe question of ‘where are all the Eurofighters’ ? is a bl@@dy good one and I really hope that someone here can shed a bit more light on what is going on – all it needs is a look over the Warton and Manching fences after all!
Remember that the UK’s OEU, No. 17 Sqn, was supposed to stand up at Warton in JULY 2002 and that 18 months of squadron ops were to have been completed by now so that these jets and their crews could move to the OCU. Remember also that even this timetable was much delayed following all the build problems and other hitches with the IPTs.
So, what has happened? Well, officially BAE says that four or five Eurofighters are flying ‘every day’ with No. 17 Sqn at Warton. It also states that real meaningful air force ops are underway in Germany too.
I open the question to the floor – is this true? Is it noisy out there, or what? Can anybody see meaningful numbers of aircraft undertaking meaningful numbers of sorties?? I really want to know!
Officially 10 or so of Italy’s aircraft are ready fo delivery – which is VERY embarrassing given all the money that’s being spent on those interim F-16s. But again, is this actually true?
Forget all this stuff about the number of aircraft in build and the number of aircraft on the line. Visitors to Eurofighter production facilities over the last few years have noted the same aircraft ‘on the line’ each time – yeah they’re in production, but they’re supposed to be in the air.
Also, the crucial Tranche 2 negotiations are badly stalled. They were to be settled last year, then it was before the end of last year, then it was first quarter 04 now its definitely this year, sometime. Without Tranche 2 Eurofighter is a ramp weight – without the funding for technology insertion not only is there no Tranche 3 but there isn’t even a realistic multi-role capability. Everybody knows this, but nobody seems to want to cough up the cash.
So yes, the question is – what’s going on??!
YellowSunBAe have been heavily involved in the Gripen program from the start, they designed the wing and made wing prototypes.
This is ABSOLUTELY not true. British Aerospace’s involvement with the Gripen’s earliest years was limited to the supply of some wing components (important ones, true) which were required largely to cover a gap in Saab’s composites manufacturing set up. BAe did NOT design the wing – or anything else – and its involvement with the prototype jets began and ended there.
At a later date BAe Brough came on board as a supplier of landing gear assemblies – this relationship was not a roaring success.
Even now, with BAE Systems as a 35 per cent owner of Saab, there is no meaningful UK design or manufacturing input into Gripen – which is as it should be!
It’s true that the P 106 design (and many others from around the world) look like the Gripen, but the JAS 39 design process is well documented and quite separate. Sweden had some very unique design drivers such as the FBW FCS, the need to operate from the air force’s roadbase network and the fundamental integration of core digital systems that resulted in a very tailored Swedish design. Some would say that this is the aircraft’s great strength – and a weakness…but you can leave BAe WELL out of it.
Sign In
