Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 04 March 2011, 22:34:18
-
I read this and I want to cry.
This means that we UK taxpayers will have shelled out no less than £215m for each of our 107 jets – that's $350m at today's rates, rather more than the US taxpayers have been made to pay for each of their 185 Raptor superfighters2, almost all of which will be used operationally. And the Raptor has third-generation Stealth: the Eurofighter has no stealth features at all. The Raptor has thrust vectoring for unbeatable manoeuvrability in a dogfight: the Eurofighter doesn't.
Read the whole 4-page article.
I'm off for another cry. :'( ;)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/
-
Its interesting to watch the pair at airshows, the vectored thrust certainly shows as an advantage on the Raptor but, the Typhoon still seems to compete very well without and does have a far better engine which helps
So, will the Typhoon get vectored thrust at some point........
-
I should add, the Raptor is easily spotted on modern radar and I would much prefer cash spent on such things going into EU R&D (because we cant do it ourselves anymore) than across the pond.
-
I should add, the Raptor is easily spotted on modern radar and I would much prefer cash spent on such things going into EU R&D (because we cant do it ourselves anymore) than across the pond.
It's that acronym again! :P
No, the US make much better planes than the Europeans, and always will. :y
-
I should add, the Raptor is easily spotted on modern radar and I would much prefer cash spent on such things going into EU R&D (because we cant do it ourselves anymore) than across the pond.
It's that acronym again! :P
No, the US make much better planes than the Europeans, and always will. :y
Who cares, as long as they are competitive, its still better the cash is spent here.
But as usual, the yanks cant make engines!
-
Ow yes, and the planes only as good as the jokey strapped to the seat..........so the yanks are way behind there to ;D ;D :y
-
imo its not that important how good they are.. SAMs will always be faster at every altitude..
-
I should add, the Raptor is easily spotted on modern radar and I would much prefer cash spent on such things going into EU R&D (because we cant do it ourselves anymore) than across the pond.
It's that acronym again! :P
No, the US make much better planes than the Europeans, and always will. :y
Who cares, as long as they are competitive, its still better the cash is spent here.
But as usual, the yanks cant make engines!
Wads and wads of cash! The point is, in this world run by accountants, US planes represent better value for money - as reported in the article. Every EU project ends up in massive overspends - Typhoon included and Tranche 1 is only a few years from the scrapheap!! :o
The Yanks can make engines. OK, Rolls Royce maybe better, but the difference between RR and GE is not that great.
-
Still costs less in the long run to buy British - all the workers are paid and they pay taxes.
I have heard that in mock fights Typhoon normally wins against Raptor.
BTW Lewis Page at elreg is an ex naval officer and rather pro American military hardware.
-
I should add, the Raptor is easily spotted on modern radar and I would much prefer cash spent on such things going into EU R&D (because we cant do it ourselves anymore) than across the pond.
I think that the actual design of the Typhoon is more British than any other country.
The engines are basically a Rolls Royce design but they don't claim it to keep their partners happy.
Typhoon prototype is the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_EAP
Yes British Aerospace :y :y
-
So basically we could have built a Eurofighter without help from abroad apart from finances.
-
So basically we could have built a Eurofighter without help from abroad apart from finances.
I'm not decrying our skills...far from it! Remember we built the English Electric Lightning & the TSR2!
The point is, in my view, we should these days look at what provides the best for the RAF. In the cold light of day, we should not be considering jobs, merely what is best in terms of the job the RAF have to do. I am unconvinced (though willing to be swayed) that the Typhoon is better, from a BOTH a cost and performance point of view.
Go ahead, convince me! ;) ;)
-
Yeeeahs proper topic this Nick. :y
-
I should add, the Raptor is easily spotted on modern radar and I would much prefer cash spent on such things going into EU R&D (because we cant do it ourselves anymore) than across the pond.
It's that acronym again! :P
No, the US make much better planes than the Europeans, and always will. :y
Who cares, as long as they are competitive, its still better the cash is spent here.
But as usual, the yanks cant make engines!
really? we still hold the world records on our F-14 tomcats and F4 phantoms..for speed GE /pratt and whitnney/Yes I work on them and we train your pilots too...
thats why we no longer need pilots on our aircraft for war, in the cockpits, we now land/takeoff without pilots on aircarft carriers.
-
I believe the British and European partners are making a lot of excellent aircraft that are favoured all over the world. Indeed last year, 2010, it was the first time Airbus built more commercial aircraft than the Americans! :y :y :y
I cannot comment specifically on the military Typhoon myself, but all I have heard is that our pilots love them! Typical though some of us British want to knock something we have created well.
All new aircraft have had their flaws when first introduced, but development continues and they become even more successful ;) ;)
-
So basically we could have built a Eurofighter without help from abroad apart from finances.
I'm not decrying our skills...far from it! Remember we built the English Electric Lightning & the TSR2!
The point is, in my view, we should these days look at what provides the best for the RAF. In the cold light of day, we should not be considering jobs, merely what is best in terms of the job the RAF have to do. I am unconvinced (though willing to be swayed) that the Typhoon is better, from a BOTH a cost and performance point of view.
Go ahead, convince me! ;) ;)
The Americans would not sell us them.
The Typhoon is as capable.
RAF pilots are very well trained.
-
I have found these two sites for the fighters being discussed.
http://www.eurofighter.com/capabilities/technology/design-features.html
http://www.f22fighter.com/
All very polished presentations, but I wonder how they would fair in combat against each other! That is the only way we would really get to know the differences, as the German ME109 pilots got to assess the worth of the British Spitfire!!
Everything is in academic terms, thanks goodness, and will be unless the worst happens!
It is also important to point out that it is unlikely the RAF Typoon will be ever up against the American F22A, and it is more likely they would both be up against a Russian or Chinese fighter. ;)
-
I have found these two sites for the fighters being discussed.
http://www.eurofighter.com/capabilities/technology/design-features.html
http://www.f22fighter.com/
All very polished presentations, but I wonder how they would fair in combat against each other! That is the only way we would really get to know the differences, as the German ME109 pilots got to assess the worth of the British Spitfire!!
Everything is in academic terms, thanks goodness, and will be unless the worst happens!
It is also important to point out that it is unlikely the RAF Typoon will be ever up against the American F22A, and it is more likely they would both be up against a Russian or Chinese fighter. ;)
"piloted by an airman from a despotic oil rich,in civil conflict, Arab regime no doubt." Won't be long now....... :( :( :(
-
Key things to consider.
The 'sherman tanks' develop new planes far more regularly then us and hence the incremental development costs for each plane is lower.
In the case of the typhoon, the last major fighter was the Tornado and hence a LOT more development was required which costs more money.
And the most important thing is that by developing our own and not buying from the untrustworthy yanks, we keep people in jobs and skills honed.....which makes the real cost probably about 50% less than the miss quoted figure.
And the eurojet is by for the best turbo jet out there at the moment.
-
Before slagging off the American planes too much, you should note that the next generation F-35 Lightning will have optional Rolls Royce engines and battle systems by BAe (as does the F-22).
The critical point of the original post is summed up by the following:
What a joy it is to think that we paid £119m to upgrade the Tranche 1 planes back in 2008 so that they could do ground attack. In 2016 the RAF will finally have the pilots it needs to use this capability: but by then the Tranche 1s will already be being thrown away – all of them will be gone by 2019, remember.
We paid all that money upgrading the Tranche 1s and now we'll dispose of them without ever having pilots trained to use the upgrade!
So, I'm concerned that while it may not be an inferior plane, the tardy delivery, the perceived need to alter them and their "imminent" disposal, leads me to question whether they were the best option for the RAF when the decision was taken. :-/
-
Before slagging off the American planes too much, you should note that the next generation F-35 Lightning will have optional Rolls Royce engines and battle systems by BAe (as does the F-22).
The critical point of the original post is summed up by the following:
What a joy it is to think that we paid £119m to upgrade the Tranche 1 planes back in 2008 so that they could do ground attack. In 2016 the RAF will finally have the pilots it needs to use this capability: but by then the Tranche 1s will already be being thrown away – all of them will be gone by 2019, remember.
We paid all that money upgrading the Tranche 1s and now we'll dispose of them without ever having pilots trained to use the upgrade!
So, I'm concerned that while it may not be an inferior plane, the tardy delivery, the perceived need to alter them and their "imminent" disposal, leads me to question whether they were the best option for the RAF when the decision was taken. :-/
But thats a very different question now Nickbat.
The other question is, would BAe and co have had the slightest chance of getting a look in on the latest american planes if the euro fighter had NOT been developed.
I am very much in favour of seeing uk tax payers cash spent in the Uk (which is why I am not overly happy about where the carriers are being built!)
-
Before slagging off the American planes too much, you should note that the next generation F-35 Lightning will have optional Rolls Royce engines and battle systems by BAe (as does the F-22).
The critical point of the original post is summed up by the following:
What a joy it is to think that we paid £119m to upgrade the Tranche 1 planes back in 2008 so that they could do ground attack. In 2016 the RAF will finally have the pilots it needs to use this capability: but by then the Tranche 1s will already be being thrown away – all of them will be gone by 2019, remember.
We paid all that money upgrading the Tranche 1s and now we'll dispose of them without ever having pilots trained to use the upgrade!
So, I'm concerned that while it may not be an inferior plane, the tardy delivery, the perceived need to alter them and their "imminent" disposal, leads me to question whether they were the best option for the RAF when the decision was taken. :-/
But thats a very different question now Nickbat.
The other question is, would BAe and co have had the slightest chance of getting a look in on the latest american planes if the euro fighter had NOT been developed.
I am very much in favour of seeing uk tax payers cash spent in the Uk (which is why I am not overly happy about where the carriers are being built!)
Since 2007, BAE has been selling more to the US than the MoD, so it's a debatable point.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/industrials/article2231494.ece
I would love to see ALL UK taxpayers' money spent here but, when it comes to defence, I'd rather buy cheap guns from my neighbour than make expensive bows and arrows in my home. (Poor analogy, I know, but you get my drift.) ;) ;D :y
-
have to agree these jobs were in Europe and if R&D cost more who cares we have european planes and we're not relying on the yanks for nought and lets be honest we aren't in an arms race against the yanks(god forbid) even the british government isn't that stupid!!!
-
Before slagging off the American planes too much, you should note that the next generation F-35 Lightning will have optional Rolls Royce engines and battle systems by BAe (as does the F-22).
The critical point of the original post is summed up by the following:
What a joy it is to think that we paid £119m to upgrade the Tranche 1 planes back in 2008 so that they could do ground attack. In 2016 the RAF will finally have the pilots it needs to use this capability: but by then the Tranche 1s will already be being thrown away – all of them will be gone by 2019, remember.
We paid all that money upgrading the Tranche 1s and now we'll dispose of them without ever having pilots trained to use the upgrade!
So, I'm concerned that while it may not be an inferior plane, the tardy delivery, the perceived need to alter them and their "imminent" disposal, leads me to question whether they were the best option for the RAF when the decision was taken. :-/
But thats a very different question now Nickbat.
The other question is, would BAe and co have had the slightest chance of getting a look in on the latest american planes if the euro fighter had NOT been developed.
I am very much in favour of seeing uk tax payers cash spent in the Uk (which is why I am not overly happy about where the carriers are being built!)
Since 2007, BAE has been selling more to the US than the MoD, so it's a debatable point.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/industrials/article2231494.ece
I would love to see ALL UK taxpayers' money spent here but, when it comes to defence, I'd rather buy cheap guns from my neighbour than make expensive bows and arrows in my home. (Poor analogy, I know, but you get my drift.) ;) ;D :y
Yes and 2007 is long after the end of the typhoon development.
If BAe and co dont get major development contracts from its own government then its fairwell (look at what happened when they binned the TSR2).
And guns are one thing, multi billion euro developments of advanced aircraft is very different.
And the spin offs that come from it also appear in everyday life to!
I personaly would slash the defence budget and halve the forces we have (as its bigger than we can afford and we are involved in more than we can afford).
-
have to agree these jobs were in Europe and if R&D cost more who cares we have european planes and we're not relying on the yanks for nought and lets be honest we aren't in an arms race against the yanks(god forbid) even the british government isn't that stupid!!!
European jobs are no more valuable to me than US jobs since, either way, they are not British jobs. Well, obviously there are some British jobs connected, but equally there are British jobs involved in sub-contract work with US aerospace companies like Boeing. There's nothing wrong in my book about relying on the "yanks". In many ways I see them as better friends than some of our European partners. ;)
-
Ah.................TSR2.............fond memories of the ONE that never was..........................
English electric Lightning..........what a plane in its day.
-
Ah.................TSR2.............fond memories of the ONE that never was..........................
English electric Lightning..........what a plane in its day.
Must agree with you. Fine planes, indeed world-beating, planes in their day. We had the engineers and the skills, just lacked government belief. Scrapping TSR2 was almost an act of treason in my book. >:(
-
The Rise : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsgIcURRN7M
and the fall : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjN3PE4ICj0&feature=related
Ken
-
My dad has seen a TSR2 fly
-
i've 32 hours in a lightining :y
done 1200 mph and been up to 42000 ft ;D ;D
spent 3 1/2 years keeping the rather things flying and loved every minute :y :y
WIWOL
-
if aerospace engineering was left to engineers and not pen-pushers, penny pinchers and indecisive politicians, we would still lead the way in technology. The teeser 2 was the real start of the rot, fancy cancelling an aircraft that was 30 years ahead of anything else in the world and then play catch-up ever since??!! :o mad !!! When left to our own devices, we come up with the goods. Mosquito, lightning, as previously mentioned, and the greatest of em all, the spitfire.
-
if aerospace engineering was left to engineers and not pen-pushers, penny pinchers and indecisive politicians, we would still lead the way in technology. The teeser 2 was the real start of the rot, fancy cancelling an aircraft that was 30 years ahead of anything else in the world and then play catch-up ever since??!! :o mad !!! When left to our own devices, we come up with the goods. Mosquito, lightning, as previously mentioned, and the greatest of em all, the spitfire.
You forgot the Harrier
Concorde, Tornado, Typhoon are/were mainly British lead as well
-
if aerospace engineering was left to engineers and not pen-pushers, penny pinchers and indecisive politicians, we would still lead the way in technology. The teeser 2 was the real start of the rot, fancy cancelling an aircraft that was 30 years ahead of anything else in the world and then play catch-up ever since??!! :o mad !!! When left to our own devices, we come up with the goods. Mosquito, lightning, as previously mentioned, and the greatest of em all, the spitfire.
You forgot the Harrier
Concorde, Tornado, Typhoon are/were mainly British lead as well
............and the Lancaster, Vulcan..........VC10, Comet, Vanguard, Viscount, Trident..................... 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) ;)
-
and as for the Vulcan, well thats just one amazing machine. The man who was initially responsible for that design was Roy Chadwick. Father of the lancaster.
-
if aerospace engineering was left to engineers and not pen-pushers, penny pinchers and indecisive politicians, we would still lead the way in technology. The teeser 2 was the real start of the rot, fancy cancelling an aircraft that was 30 years ahead of anything else in the world and then play catch-up ever since??!! :o mad !!! When left to our own devices, we come up with the goods. Mosquito, lightning, as previously mentioned, and the greatest of em all, the spitfire.
You forgot the Harrier
Concorde, Tornado, Typhoon are/were mainly British lead as well
You also forgot to mention that other great flying British Turkey the Nimrod. Surely this must be British Wasteofspace's finest financial achievement they sucessfully scammed the UK taypayer twice with two versions of of an ancient De Haviland Comet kitted out first as an airbourne early warning aircraft (that didn't work) then as a flying death trap of a maritime patrol aircraft (that also didn't work) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
The directors of BAe must be pissing themselves with laughter sitting in their large stockbroker belt mansions and marvelling at how they managed to milk the UK Government of over 7 billion pound in ongoing development costs in return nothing more then a few dozen skips filled with scrap aluminium. ;D ;D ;D ;D
No wonder the Americans referred to RAF Kinloss as the worlds most expensive vintage flying club. :D :D :D
-
if aerospace engineering was left to engineers and not pen-pushers, penny pinchers and indecisive politicians, we would still lead the way in technology. The teeser 2 was the real start of the rot, fancy cancelling an aircraft that was 30 years ahead of anything else in the world and then play catch-up ever since??!! :o mad !!! When left to our own devices, we come up with the goods. Mosquito, lightning, as previously mentioned, and the greatest of em all, the spitfire.
You forgot the Harrier
Concorde, Tornado, Typhoon are/were mainly British lead as well
You also forgot to mention that other great flying British Turkey the Nimrod. Surely this must be British Wasteofspace's finest financial achievement they sucessfully scammed the UK taypayer twice with two versions of of an ancient De Haviland Comet kitted out first as an airbourne early warning aircraft (that didn't work) then as a flying death trap of a maritime patrol aircraft (that also didn't work) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
The directors of BAe must be pissing themselves with laughter sitting in their large stockbroker belt mansions and marvelling at how they managed to milk the UK Government of over 7 billion pound in ongoing development costs in return nothing more then a few dozen skips filled with scrap aluminium. ;D ;D ;D ;D
No wonder the Americans referred to RAF Kinloss as the worlds most expensive vintage flying club. :D :D :D
Indeed, and that plus the fact that the MRA4 was £789 million over-budget and over nine years late, having never flown, and apparently would not have done for some considerable time to come even if it had not been cancelled, has been forgotten by a lot of the public who are just mourning the loss of another "great British aerospace project!
It was a huge waste of money, as you said based on an airframe first designed in the 1950s!! Very good money after very bad money! :( >:( >:( >:(
-
one of the bigest problems with the mra4 was bae trying to match up the new wings that was made using cad engineering with a fuselage that was made with a hack saw, rivit gun and a tape measure :o
and they could'nt understand why the things never fitted ;D
for me, the bigest problem we have is the loss of skills that the crews have :(
the sound of a sub under water is'nt something you can teach in a classroom with a computer. it take years or even decades to develop these >:(
as for british aircraft, lets not forget the canberra :y
so good in its day, we even sold it to the yanks ;)
-
Yup, best air crews in the world, backed by the biggest bunch of self important, pocket lining !£^^^"""**s. Working with a bigger bunch of clueless, gilt lined pension assured chinless paper pushing, committee sitting @@@***£"",s
But hey, its only our money. :exclamation :'(
-
I see that the nimrod gained a reprieve today,they were going to the scrapper at the end of this month,now delayed untill at least june due to policing the Libya no fly zone that is being planned
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/11/nimrod-spy-planes-scrapping-delayed
-
one of the bigest problems with the mra4 was bae trying to match up the new wings that was made using cad engineering with a fuselage that was made with a hack saw, rivit gun and a tape measure :o
and they could'nt understand why the things never fitted ;D
for me, the bigest problem we have is the loss of skills that the crews have :(
the sound of a sub under water is'nt something you can teach in a classroom with a computer. it take years or even decades to develop these >:(
as for british aircraft, lets not forget the canberra :y
so good in its day, we even sold it to the yanks ;)
It wasn't just the new wings (apparently made by Airbus) that didn't fit, every other part on the fusalage that had to be replaced also had to be individually custom made for each airframe :o Given the airframes were originally from left over unsold Comet Mk 4's that had already been in service for for over 30 years in a maritime patrol role a heck of a lot had to be replaced due to corrosion. Not surprisingly costs went through the roof. At this point any sensible organisation would have abandoned the project and simply bought a new A300 or Boeing 737 airframe to put the kit in. Not Britishwasteofspace systems with the taxpayer picking up the tab they knew they were on a financial winner even if the product was an obsolete pile of junk. So they just plodded on regardless banking the foolish MOD's cheques as they merrily went along. Even if they had managed to get the things flying and into service the running cost of keeping the worlds last remaining 9 De Haviland comits flying for another 20 years would have been horrendous and would have financially crippled the RAF. Pretty much every required spare part would have had to be custom made :o This has to have been one of the most stupid ill conceived military development project ever embarked upon and a truely grotesque waste of money. :D :D
I quite agree about the Canberra on the quiet its probably about the best and most sucessful military aircraft Britain ever made and was in service for years. Long after it retired from frontline duties many were still flying in support roles a truely fantastic success. :)
-
The RAF is currently having to cannibalise aircraft for spare parts in order to keep the maximum number of Typhoons in the air on any given day.
The committee said the Ministry of Defence had warned the problems were likely to continue until 2015 when it expects the supply of spares finally to have reached a "steady state".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spares-shortage-keeps-typhoon-jets-grounded-2268301.html
:o :o ::) ::) ::)
-
I'd have to say Raptor.
The Typhoon maybe a first class plane but we only have EIGHT pilots trained on ground attack. Of those:
Two are on annual leave
One on paternity leave
Two on a team talk
One phoned in sick
That leaves two to fly the missions BUT European working time directive means that they have already flown their allowance this month so our bombing raids can't recommence till May1st. Lets hope we have enough spare parts then. :y
-
A good friend of mine from Coningsby told me a story about when we sent 4 typhoons to the good old US of A to play with the Raptors.
After various games of 1 v 1, 2v2 ect, the yanks took there ball home and refused to play anymore ;D ;D
It would seem that unless the raptors paint is in perfect condition, our lads was getting a radar lock and spoiling there day ;D ;D
Also when they popped open there weapons bay doors, you can get a good reflections off the internals of the bay :y
Also, in a 1 v 1 dogfight, the typhoon can more than hold its own ;)