JSRYeah, and? So you’re changing your tone now are you? The F-16 was basic, so was the F-15, F/A-18, F-22 (still is), Mig-29, Flanker, Tornado, Rafale, Gripen so on and so forth.
Yes F-16 was basic and so was MIG-29. But the budget and development at that time was to create a basic airdefence fighter in shortest time. not some multi decade super fighter. EF from the start was expensive programe. so the fighter entering in 2003 should have every thing.
Costs increases because aircraft are upgraded throughout their life. Costs decrease once aircraft are properly integrated into the air force, running costs, training of personnel be it in the industry, ground crew and air crew etc.
Cost not just increasing because of upgrades. Cost increases due to slow procurement rates and long R&D times. upgrades are very minor.
We’re not talking about India are we, they have nothing to do with this discussion. Once again, the UK’s 10 year defence plan which has a value of some �160 billion, �18+ billion of which will be spent towards air assets including the Typhoon ‘and’ F-35B, there’s nothing to suggest that anything will be diverted in favour of another. In addition, it’s self explanatory that the Typhoon’s upgrades and enhancements are funded.
160b pounds in 10 years. from where these figures is coming from and the credibility of politicians in implementing it in 10 years. it isnt self explanatory either. India does not have that big budget and it is supposed to over take UK. so UK can maintain more nuclear subs, larger aircraft carriers on smaller budget?
http://news.yahoo.com/janes-uk-military-spend-overtaken-india-161445155.html
Jane’s: UK military spend to be overtaken by India
Storm Shadow an old missile? It’s been in service since 2002… so by your definition Typhoon is an old aeroplane?… Why shouldn’t it be integrated?
2002 is very old missile if it hasnt been upgraded interms of speed, rcs and steep dive s curves. It is not brahmos. Aeroplane has more and is more verstile so various features can be upgraded.
Do you know what those pods are for on the Typhoon’s wingtips by any chance?…
those are small pods.
See my earlier post, I’m not going to repeat it again – in addition, realistically the market for a carrier aircraft is no where near significant to those of a land based aircraft, that’s where the market is. Countries looking for a carrier based aircraft are already committed to the F-35B, Rafale for France, Mig-29K for India, other’s won’t have access to Typhoon. So there’s no point in having a navalised Typhoon.
The point is Naval Typhoon from 1980s would have more success. with continous enhancements.
It’s not waiting for anything. As Swerve pointed out (thanks by the way, Swerve) the Meteor can be used for real if the need arised. As what has already been stated, Typhoon has AMRAAM at the moment and it ain’t going to be in service for much longer.
It only confirm Meteor is short range missile that current Gripen radar can fully exploit it. and even that is not integrated and bought for Typhoon.
It’s reality alright, what images and footage you seen are very real! What he claimed regarding the Captor is what professional pilots and experts claim. Of course, no one has to take their word for it.
There is alot of radar manufacturers. so i am not sure why such claim of best M Scan radar.
JSRI think you ought to re-read the posts other members as well as myself have posted, if you even bothered in the first place.
Do you know exactly how significant the enhancements and upgrades are and how much they’ve changed the aircraft since 2003? In case you didn’t know, costs increase when aircraft are upgraded and enhanced to perform more effectively with the capabilities they’re given, that’s pretty obvious. And what are the cost increases by the way?
It just proves that EF in 2003 was very basic aircraft and everything needed to added.
Where’s the reports suggesting that production will slow down and costs will increase as a result?
Production will slow down and cost will increase is very obvious. it happens in every aircraft towards the tail end of production. See F-16 example.
Whom is stating that further investment will be diverted to the F-35B?
so F-35B procurement budget will come from some where else. you didnot see IHS report that India budget will be larger than UK in couple of years. and that budget is already tiny.
As mentioned already on several occasions, Typhoon WILL replace the Tornado GR4 in the A/G role: Meaning; Storm Shadow (first flight this quarter with an introduction in 2015), Paveway IV, Paveway II (enhanced), Brimstone or more likely SPEAR III, recce/ISTAR capability (all more or less already suggested in the 10 year defence plan).
Storm Shadow is old missile why you want to integrate that to aircraft that will serve for next 40 years?
Where are the requirements for such a variant?
why there is no requirement from begining? when you create such huge multinational programe. you want to make it as verstile as possible. Electronic warfare is most critical element of modern fighting.
Probably because the Typhoon operators don’t have aircraft carriers or simply require another aircraft for that role.
see above you dont make an airplane for short term requirement. Naval Typhoon could gather alot more orders and engines with enhanced power could have surpassed F414 variant for Indian Naval LCA.
For an aircraft that can go straight into the vertical after take-off and go supersonic by time it reaches 6,000ft (while still in the vertical), there’s little to no call for an engine upgrade to deal with those. It already has a very impressive thrust to weight issue, and that’s being modest.
Its not big deal. considering light weight airframe with limited fuel capacity and not so so gigantic radar in nose. it is same old MIG-21 concept when radar and sensors will detect things at last moment and you need such takeoff.
See Fedaykin’s post. Besides, what other aircraft is the Meteor operational on?
why it has to wait for some other aircraft for Meteor to be operational?
Again, see Fedaykin’s post.
Why don’t you think about that?
his posts are mere conjectures. not anything to do with reality. no one can make claim like best M scan radar etc.
JSRFedaykin beat me to it and addressed your “points”, however… Spain, bankrupt, 6+ million unemployed, 57% of youths unemployed, large portions of small towns/cities with property deserted and even have a 5 year old international airport in ruins, hardly the fault of the Eurofighter programme. Italy, despite being largely frowned upon to work on a Sunday it’s no wonder they’re in such a state in terms of economy but they’re in a slightly better position than Spain are, again hardly the fault of the Eurofighter programme. Germany, a very healthy economy, healthy import/export situation, one or two defence programmes have gone down the pan but that’s due to incompetent political decision making, once again hardly the fault of the Eurofighter programme. Austria, what is there to be said about them… they have minimal requirements for their Typhoon fleet so that’s their choice. Oman, much to early to tell yet they’re having a ball of a time in spending, both planned and current as is the same for Saudi Arabia.
The big one is the UK. Despite losing a lot of personnel in all branches of the armed forces, the RAF losing their entire fleet of Harriers and Nimrods et all, the UK have a �160+ billion plan over the next decade. Typhoon will replace the Tornado GR4 in the A/G and recce role and gain the capabilities Fedaykin pointed out.
Regarding the differences in Typhoon in 10 years, I said ‘go into detail’ not add ‘there is no fundamental difference’ to your gibberish to make yourself sound a little less incompetent. There’s a whole set list of differences, want to try again?
I think you should reread my post. I didnot say there is no improvement it is just that improvements are not fundamental considering the cost increases. cost will further increase when production rates slow down and further investment diverted to JSF.
THere is no fundamental difference between Typhoon of today or Typhoon of 10 years ago.
where is the Growler version of EF?. see Austallia F-18 example
where is carrier version of EF?. F-18/Rafale/MIG-29 and JSF/PAK-FA carrier version are sure thing.
No engine upgrade to deal with more higher power radars, extra weight of CFT.
No Meteor operational.
No AESA operational.
how many standoff supersonic cruise and antiship missiles EF can launch simulataneously?
JSRI would not use the Saudi re-engining deal as a supporting argument. The reason for that deal was not about service life or MTBF etc, but failure of P&W to comply with Saudis and poor performance of their engines with SA Eagles, in terms of maintenance and logistics.
Did Saudi paid UTX contractors less money than GE contractors that your now blaming poor maintianance and logistics. you will be lucky with 8000 hr airframe life without costly life extension let alone engine life.
2011 – 2020 procurement plan oversaw a total of USD640bil to be spent, to raise the percentage of modern (new production) aircraft in inventory from 10% to somewhere around 70. However the economy minister last month stated that this plan will take serious revision and delays, since the industry is not capable of meeting orders plus financial constrains on state budget. Look at the Bombardier and Agusta Westland local co-production deals, or Eurocopter slowly and silently “invading” the country with its support network or European engines for Kamov etc. Not to mention the deals with Germany, France and Israel in sensors, electronics, UAV etc. The Rus aviation sector has not been very succesful on performing a reform in terms of cost – effectiveness (Note the emphasis by Putin on service/maintenance issues: http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/5086) The industry has not been able to modernize itself, which resulted in less capability to meet orders in time, provide seamless lifecycle support, logistics and system/subsystem service life. The overall system was good for the strategy and conditions before, but not today.
First you have to define modern as some thing modern in Turkey may not be considered modern in Russia. than you have to consider the percentages of whole inventory.
Russian official like Chinese under estimate the scale of money in government projects. $10b Olympics converted into $50b. I would not be surpized that this $640b in reality is more than $1T.
http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/press/news/index.php?id4=1122
�This year will see us producing 40 civil aircraft, and 70 military aircraft for Russia�s Ministry of Defence. By 2015, we expect our production rate to be totalling more than 200 aircraft a year.� This expansion puts UAC firmly on track to become one of the world�s top aircraft manufacturers.
Agusta-Westland. ( Can you put how many ordered and how many per year inducted?)
European heli Engines. ( Again how many engines per year?)
Israel UAV deal is at most $400m in total and that takes 4 to 5 years to implement. so hardly $100m a year impact.
Even the biggest Mistral is $1.5b divided over 5 years time and it even has Russian sub assemblies.
Now this maybe considered big money in some import depended technology deficient countries but its peanuts in Russia context.
In terms of system/subsystem performance, Su-34 is a very impressive aircraft, but from a PLM perspective I see it as one of the last members of the previous era.
I showed you RMAF Su-30MKM has 70% readiness rate. considering the small fleet it means they have longer MTBO. Its country with tiny airforce budget. Even Algeria can afford Flankers with smaller budget than Turkey. India budget is not much bigger and it can afford alots of Flankers.
Su-34 is newer by 5 years than MKM.
JSRI am not talking about reliability, nor have I ever mentioned they are unreliable.
Low MTBF does not mean low reliability. You produce your system to have 100 hours MTBF and it breaks down almost exactly after 100hrs of operation, while equivalent systems can promise 1,000hrs MTBF and yet your system has high reliability.
The order for 42 engines is 30 for ordered aircraft plus 12 spares, because: 1. long term storage / spare, 2. high flight hours of the F-16’s, especially this Block 50+ examples.
The argument “if 8000hrs service life so why buy spares” is not worth a comment
As i said these are old figures. now MTBO is very similar to western engines and it is contributing to Flanker success. see RMAF 70% readiness. You cannot have such readiness with so short overhaul times.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/paris-air-show/2013-06-17/malaysia-invests-sukhoi-fighter-readiness
The increased spending is meant to boost combat readiness of the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) Su-30MKM fleet from the current level of 65 to 70 percent to 85 percent in the “near term” and eventually increase this to 100 percent
THis is a myth that you can use same engine for 30 to 40 years service life of an aircraft with peak performance.
http://www.geaviation.com/press/military/military_20071003.html
October 03, 2007EVENDALE, Ohio — The Royal Saudi Air Force has selected General Electric Company’s F110 fighter engine to begin to re-engine its twin-engine Boeing F-15S aircraft.
JSRI wasn’t specifically mentioning Su-34 but let’s take the AL-31 for example:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?66798-Compare-GE-F110-to-AL-31
Su-34 is powered by AL-31FM AFAIK, which has around 1,000 hours MTBF at most.
As for the MTBO, for example, GE F110 has 2,000hrs MTBO with a total service life of 8,000 hrs, while earlier models of AL-31 varies between 300 – 500 hrs MTBO and 900 – 1,500hrs total service life.
Similar with the RD-33 (http://www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29-2b.htm), MTBO of 150 – 750hrs, depending on operating & maint. conditions.
Similarly, the Zhuk radar is stated to have an “operating time” (service life, I assume) of 150 hours, given by Phazotron: http://toad-design.com/migalley/wp-content/gallery/equipment/mig29-zhukm-radar3.jpg
On the other hand, it is claimed that the MTBF of the AN/APG-68 can be increased from 289 hours to 729 hours: http://www.usynaptics.com/index.php/component/content/article/35-company-news/66-anapg-68-mlprf where the MTBF of the latest version, AN/APG-68(V)9 is quoted as 400 hours: http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Northrop_Grumman_%28Westinghouse%29_AN/APG-66
Again, I was not specifically focused on the Su-34, but underlining an approach.
And again, these facts do not mean one is inferior to the other.
This is old links. RD-33MK and 117 has 4000 hrs life. I presume AL-31FM life will be closer to that now.
8000 hr life for Western engines on paper otherwise why buy spare engines. $30m is reasonable price for Su-34 as it lacks composites that make aircraft expensive and Russia is largest titanium producers. Engines are shared across Flanker line up.
Zhuk-m radar is 1980s. It Zhuk-ME that is refined.
Flanker is highly reliable plane despite its long range use. very low crash rates and no airframe breakup.
See this request for 30 F-16. extra engines from begining
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/turkey-orders-30-f16c-block-50s-et-al-for-29b-02671/
Requested items include:
30 Lockheed Martin Advanced F-16C Block 50 Aircraft;
32 Northrop Grumman AN/APG-68v9 Radars external link;
42 General Electric F110-129 Engines external link;
JSRReally, I see this vast increase in defense spending as having little value for China. As it just pushes many Regional Nations back into the US Camp. Instead China could continue to focus on improving the day to day lives of the Chinese People sending its resources on things like Infrastructure, Education, etc. etc. etc. Which, is not to say China shouldn’t upgrade its Military. Yet, she could have spent it on more Defensive Weapons. For example Aircraft Carriers and Amphibious Assault Ships are going to be considered very offensive and China’s Neighbors. Especially, considering China has very few territories (islands) far from the Mainland.
Plus, it’s and Arms Race even China can’t win……….The USSR found that out the hard way!
The problem with regional countries is that there economies are badly mismanaged. so even if they are allied with US they can afford very little in equipment and training. South korea has delayed its FX purchase as 60 combat aircraft dont it in its $8b or so budget and that delivery was in 2017-2021. Japan has depreciating yen and higher energy bills. It can barely afford one or two JSF per year.
JSRIt is not the number of troops but large area involved to practice logistics, communication etc. Su-34 will be flying 4000km missions.
http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20130717/182283317/Over-40-Aircraft-Start-War-Games-in-W-Russia.html
JSRPlease, do feel free to explain the differences between a Typhoon of today and a one from 10 years ago, list the number of upgrades and enhancements that have been carried out and the ones that are currently funded for and are being integrated at this moment. Also, once you’ve explained those, go into great detail why it’s a failed programme.
Can you do that?
THere is no fundamental difference between Typhoon of today or Typhoon of 10 years ago.
No Engine upgrade
No CFT
No large Jamming pods
No AESA radar
Meteor not operationalized yet.
No carrier version.
huge increase in price. when customers buy it they simply dont have money for anything else.
See dispute on price of Saudi EF enhancement. Its failed programe as it is killing the airforces that buying it. A programe is not failed if it is cancelled early and concentrate on some thing better.
JSRI was under the impression that India had already reduced planned FGFA numbers from ~200 to ~150 airframes.
India can afford FGFA?
JSRAnd?
What´s your point?
If we start looking at the planned production orders by the eighties all programs look like they were hit by a train…
Both SAAB and Dassault aircraft orders have been heavily slashed, remember the 320+ Rafale´s for Adla and the MN? And dont get me into the 720+ ATF´s and 600+ NATF´s.
F-22 is among the first AESA, internal carriage of weopons, TVC fighter. so even if numbers are cut capability is still there.
Problem with EF is that numbers are cut but no capability enhancement. There is not even CFT certified.
Another failed programe like EF is Chinese J-10.
Even after 10 years into production it is practically same plane. no AESA, no Engine upgrade, No CFT and certainly no advanced strike capability.
JSRyour still have no idea about topic and keep posting. Chinese invented gun power so what? these are all primitive innovations not complex engineering projects that can easily be replicated. Try to implement TVC in EF and see how much weight increase and relaiblity decreases with countless billions and decades of testing.
Israel around 70 years is only in physical state but intellectual resources are built centuries before in Russian empire.
True empires does not need external Marshall Plan to rebuilt itself nor they are finished in single battle with some one not an empire.
I am still cannot find the 25% control of world land.
JSR…and consequently, if Russia had a more potent leader, the US would adapt their policy better, like dedicating more forces on the mission, seeking more allies in the neighborhood, or provoking internal unrest in Iraq (rings any bell?) or discouraging Saddam from invading Kuwait altogether. That’s the problem with “ifs”. One if brings another, and then another, and another et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. History is not written on the basis of “ifs”, but rather on what actually happened, and the truth is that regardless of one’s interpretation of the reasons, Russia at that time did not oppose the assault on Iraq, in fact, they encouraged it. That’s not the case today. Today I think it’s safe to assume that if it was not for Russia, Assad would have fallen already.
It is not lack of resources in Soviet Union in 1990 that your implying but lack of leadership. Soviet Union still had alot of military power in 1990. They could have withdrawn all the equipment from EU and thrust it into Middleast.Iraq would still be sitting in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia will be part of history with all the Oil rich regions liberated.. infact without Saudi employment money. Egypt/Jordan would have collapsed in 1990 as there will be no hard currency for import. prolong higher energy prices would have very negative impact on rest of world.
You can never know for sure. International diplomacy is highly unpredictable, One could bargain anything these days, from delivering a high-profile individual, to the non-delivery of important weapons to unfriendly nations, or the easing of antarctic natural resources claims, to escalate a bit. All depending on how badly they may want something.
Those bargaining chips are gone. the last one was WTO membership. Now Russia has chosen side of increasing arm exports. That $750b arm procurement will have big impact. first factories will be modernized. that will create exportable surplus. It is not Greece/France that need external resources to modernize itself.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/xinhua/2013-07-02/content_9478453.html
JSRSo this is completely off topic but needs saying and some points need making and then we can put this to bed hopefully
(Control mean you fundamentally change some thing under control)
Firstly what you are trying to tell me is that none of the countries you have mentioned were shaped and change mostly for the better by the British Empire if so you need to go away for a long time and read world history
First you made claim of controlling 25% of world land mass at same time. when most of it is barren sparsely populated land.
Russia has become a world leader in fighter design but its first real jet fighter was powered by a straight copy of the British Nene engine and lets be straight about history both Russia and the British Empire have had many a common fight that has seen there making Russia nearly fell to Napoleon but he could not bring his full force to the fight as he was also fighting the British and the same could be said about the First and Second World Wars this said it also works the opposite way round
Russia does not make world leader due copying some outdated British science. Just look at past 150 Years of scientific achievements in US/Israel. were they related to British Empire or Russian Empire.
As for Australia I have a lot of friend and family who live there but in its modern form it was born and shaped by the British Empire
British went to empty land when other powers were simply not interested. It does not mean other powers cannot do it. Even Chinese can built much larger natural resource firms and can built much taller buildings cities with high speed transport network. Australlia is non scientific and non Engineering nations. You dont need empire for this capability.
And Thobbes you are right the Queen is only symbolic but she symbolic and as time goes on I see that Australia will drop the British monarch
And to say the British have no scientific base is simply wrong the Typhoon is one of the best fighter out there now the Type 45 is one of the most powerful fighting ships in the world we are heavily involved in the F-35 program
We dont know at this point how much percentage is British. best of this and that is not proven. Meteor missile is joint EU project. Radar is similar case. Engine is also EU based.
JSRThe British Empire can hardy be called a failed superpower at its height it controlled a � of the earths land mass and held sway over one fifth of the worlds population and was the foremost global power for over a century and the biggest Empire in history given all that I think all other upstarts have got some big shoes to fill
The world control to 1/4 earth cannot be applied to British empire. Control mean you fundamentally change some thing under control. see the legacy of failed islamic states that British ruled. India forged alliance with Soviet Union. Australia went into American lap. HK delivered to China.
Above all there is no money (Olympic facilities need Qatar funding) or scientific heft left in Britain despite fully adopting multiculturalism.
Soviet Union different kind of empire. Russia still command still great deal of influence in that space and is center of all scientific base of Soviet Union.
see this example. let Britain command such power.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/article3607261.ece
Sign In
