eagle“You still haven´t explained why the Typhoon does the job better than for instance the Gripen?”
1) Better offset (I can hardly believe it, but that’s what the Austrians say)
2) Lower through life and support costs
3) Offers commonality with neighbour and potential strategic partner
4) Better A-A capability, especially BVR
5) Sends a clear signal about not simply being non-aligned and neutral, and that Austria is prioritising defence
6) It’s one up on Czech, Hungary, etc.
I completely agree with 1 and 3.
2: Probably.
4: doesnt matter much. Every modern fighter provides A2A capabilities good enough for Austria.
5: Probably not. It was just the better offer.
6: Liechtenstein and Slovenia are in Austrias league. 😮
eagleNew Zealand and Ireland are not poor countries either and see no need to spend $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$’s on fast jets. Equally, there are very poor countries who do blow $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$’s on weapons that’d be better spent providing their people with health care, education, opportunities etc. This is not an argument over Austria’s economic position.
Ireland is guarded by British Tornados. Anything like that does not work in neutral Austria and is not for free either. New Zealand is different altogether, just look at a map.
The comparison with poorer countries I made would not include Ireland and NZ of course.
eagleI think you missed my point. My point was that when it comes to military spending such as upgrades they are often postponed or cancelled altogether.
True, but Finns do upgrade their Hornets, but exclusively for A2A work. 😉
eagleI get the feeling you´re Austrian? No one has compared Austria to African nations in any way. Austria could afford a lot of military aircraft if they were willing to. The problem is that the Austrian population is not willing to pay for expensive milititary equipment no matter how advanced it is. Maybe that is why Austria is wealthy? :rolleyes:
You still haven´t explained why the Typhoon does the job better than for instance the Gripen?
Yes, I’m Austrian (but living in Switzerland which provides me with a healthy distance 🙂 ) Someone mentioned African airspace is not guarded so Austria wouldnt need to guard its airspace. But there are some minor differences in air traffic and safety. 😉
Besides, I dont think spending money on high tech military equipment like EF decreases welfare.
eagleThat is probably true. Just look at the Finnish AF with their F-18s. According to an official statement they MIGHT upgrade their F-18s with A2G capability in 2012-13. 😮
Dont confuse updates with A2G capability. The Finnish F-18s were the most advanced fighters in Europe a few years ago. I’m not sure, but I think they want to upgrade them with Aim-9X and HMD (as the Swiss do).
eagleTrainers were ruled out. Hawks or L159 are too slow and climb rate with weapons is less than impressive. Im pretty sure an L159 with a pair of Sidewinders and some fuel tanks would never catch an airliner. The Hawk is maybe a little better, but trainers are just too slow. Theres probably a good reason Hawk 100 was a failure.
Gripen is another matter. It would suit just fine but lost the contract. The EF was the best on offer, its as simple as that.
As Distiller wrote, chances for upgrades are very slim so its very important to get a brand new fighter.
Another point: Why do people compare Austria to African nations or New Zealand? Austria is among the richest countries on earth and there is a lot of air traffic. Compare Austria to Switzerland, Sweden or Finland. They operate a lot more advanced fighters than Austria does.
eagleMaybe the smaller intakes hurt the PWs performance?
In combination with a lower bypass ratio the PW is weaker on the deck.
Thats the reason I wouldnt want to put the GEs into C Eagles because with their pretty high bypass ratio they are better suited for strikers duty ala F-15E or F-16.
eagle[QUOTE=Fedaykin]Yeah if they mess around with the Eurofighter deal the F-5 might well be the only thing they could afford to operate.[QUOTE]
fortunately, the Swiss own the Tigers and they want them back. They probably need them for themselves or the USN/USMC wants more aggressors.
eagleIts funny really whilst I want Typhoon to win orders I can see that it was a bit much for Austria, but then again I think Gripen is a bit much for them as well.
There are plenty of used F16 out there but new build has some serious cost advantages look at the Swiss F/A-18 purchase for example, with the Titanium bulkheads they will be able to keep them in service for over 40 years which is impressive for a fighter.
Tyhpoon was also chosen for its longevity. Id’ rather not repeat the mistake buying obsolete second hand fighters that turn into long term solutions like the Draken did. Buy used F-16, and you have to get another fighter in 15 years whereas the Eurofighter is a permanent solution for at least 30 years. Support from industry is also assured with the last of the planned 620 EFs comming of the line around 2015 (?).
Plus maintenance facilities are just around the corner in Manching. 😉
eagleWho really cares if a NATO fighter jock strays into the airspace of neutral Austria? Let the diplomats protest – at least it will give them something to do.
Austria really doesn’t have anything to defend against? I mean seriously, who is going to invade?
Any possible threat is still decades away, and the already dated Eurofighter would hardly be much of a deterrent against a renewed Russian threat in 20 or 30 years time.
Its not about defending the airspace against enemy fighter bombers. Its all about air policing, i.e. escorting lost airliners, intercepting German Cessnas without radio contact and to make some nice photos of unannounced US F-16s 😉
And probably to keep a core capability so a real air force can be set up faster in emergencies.
eagleI agree. However… under a secret plan, to have crews only, go out of the country and do annual A2G training including sim work. Having an inventory of weapons (Paveway kits and some iron in a modest quantity, and laser pods ) that could be stored out of country ( only a C-17 flight away in case of looming crisis ) and never showing an Austrian jet carrying any A2G stores, and having this detailed contingency plan sitting in a safe somewhere, beats not having it when you need it, all the day long. Austria is a beautiful country. It deserves to have the option of being defended.
I cant say i dont like the idea. But no one in Austria would do such things. Nothing to gain, but everything to lose.
Plus i wonder how such things would remain secret.
Austria would need more Typhoons too. 24 are required for air policing only, about 40 for actual air defence and about 70 to form an actual air force.
18 is nothing more than an airborne police.
eagle@Distiller,
points 1 & 2 are unproven.
More than that, Austrian Rechnungshof investigated the contract twice and had nothing to complain about.
eagle-Austria has a history of numerous intruders into it’s airspace that have to be told to go away or be escorted. More than a few of those were from the area formally known as Yugoslavia.
Yeah, more than a few of those were from Ramstein, Spangdahlem or Aviano. :diablo:
-Leftist tree hugging love the neighbor ideals are nice and commendable on any given day. However the history of Europe shows no one is very good at predicting the future. Having a squadron of jets like the Eurofighter that have some growth room options is a nice fuzzy warm feeling with a value all it’s own. In an upcoming crisis of ( pick one )…. they can be rapidly setup ( or have provisions in place to do it )…. to start the day loaded with cheap, all weather PGMs to prove a point. 10 jets carrying 40 Paveway IV’s = a lot of dead critical infastructure targets of a potential aggressor who weeks before was a harmless little euro team player.
Buying bombs would mean political death for anyone in Austria. The Drakens initially werent even fitted with missiles until some MiG-21 flew over large parts of southern Austria and there wasnt anything to stop him.
Typical story of a red mayor goes something like that: I dont want those noisy war machines in my neighbourhood (before Yugoslavian crisis). Then: Thank god we have our beloved Drakens! (during). Afterwards: guess what.
eagle… I wonder what the average joe on the street there thinks.
More than 70% think the Eurofighter is not needed, is too expensive and a death bomber. :rolleyes:
Thats probably because the boulevard paper more than 70% of Austrians read tells them exactly that, without mentioning neutrality, air space sovereignty, security etc. :rolleyes:
eagleThe offer was for 24 aircraft as that was the requirement. There was no exception for the Swedes. There was a better offer from Saab later yes, but its not very trusty to come up with a high price and then later saying “oops ok we see you don’t take our product, now we make a fair offer”. The competition was lost. Dassault also made an offer after the decision for Eurofighter which looked quite cheap, but such a procurement includes more than only the aircraft… And as said all came up with better offers after they lost due to their crappy opening offers.
Yes, SAAB priced itself out of the market with its marginal less expensive offer. Unfortunately for them, this time there werent any red brothers in charge, unlike in the 80s when the Draken was selected.
Sign In
