back to article Eurofighter Typhoon: It's EVEN WORSE than we thought

Yesterday the UK National Audit Office published a detailed report on the current status of the infamous Eurofighter combat jet – nowadays officially known as Typhoon. We here on the Reg defence desk have always had a low opinion of the cripplingly expensive, marginally useful fighter: but even we were amazed by the new facts …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    is it any better than the Harrier?

    I'm not a plane geek so forgive me for asking this question. Why are we getting rid of Harriers jump jets for Eurofighers / Typhoons? Are they actually better? Would it have been cheaper to upgrade the Harrier's or make the next generation of fighters based on that design?

    I wonder if anyone took bribes to let this project happen.

    1. Yag

      Just guessing...

      But VTOL/STOVL like Harriers have a few drawbacks inherent to the design : The crafts are expensive, maintenance is a pain, performance is so-so (especially for fighters).

      The price is one of the main reason why the UK recently changed their mind about the F35 and decided to buy the CATOBAR version instead of the VTOL version : it's cheaper to add a catapult and enlarge a bit the carrier than buying the VTOL... At least if EM catapults are ready on time.

      However, the F35 will be able to land on the french carrier Charles de Gaulle, thanks to some military agreements. How ironic for the UK to be reliant on the french for the "navy" part...

      Footnote :

      - VTOL : Vertical Take-off and Landing

      - STOVL : Short Take-off Vertical Landing (usually a planned VTOL with engines finally too wimpy to manage the take off part)

      - CATOBAR : Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery

    2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Happy

      AC@10:25

      "Why are we getting rid of Harriers jump jets for Eurofighers / Typhoons? Are they actually better?"

      Excellent question. Strictly the Harriers are being sacrificed to keep the Tornadoes in service (although they've sacked quite a few of the pilots for those as well).

      it could be said the Harriers have gone because the RAF wanted something new fast and shiny andt he MoD were not smart enough to work out a way of getting out of the whole contract without *paying* the whole contract price. Defense accountancy. Love it.

      "Better" is a tricky question. It's designed to match the mach 2+ fighter planes of the Warsaw Pact countries and the USSR.

      Except neither exists any more. So it's better at dealing with a non existing threat.

      Upgrading the Harrier *would* be difficult in some ways. It's not a fighter, although its vectored thrust (people bang on about TVC with the Raptor. TVC makes and the Pegasus engine made Harrier possible) . It was originally designed to hit ground targets in support of ground troops.

      Stealth was *never* a high priority in its design so it would show up on Al Qaeda's radar (if they *had* any radar). Engine mods to improve thrust (Plenum chamber burning is the phrase that comes up) could probably have bought the thrust up to avoid water injection and let it go supersonic even in the hot and high conditions of Afghanistan but you'd still need to take a wing off to do an engine overhaul/replacement.

      Harriers date from the time when NATO realized that the USSR had the *precise* coordinates of *all* those nice new 5000 feet reinforced concrete runways it had built on file and ready to program in to their aircraft/missile flight computers at a moments notice and the resulting cluster bomb (or nuke this being the 60's) attack would make a mess of said runway.

      It's a lesson modern air forces forget at their peril. Destroy the runway (or the planes on the ground, as the SAS did in the desert in WWII) and your numerical superiority or pilot skills become *irrelevant*.

  2. Ooo-wait-BUT!
    WTF?

    8 pilots - 107 planes

    nice...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Joke

      Re: 8 pilots - 107 planes

      Spill your beverage on the seat? Never mind! Just drive another one out of the hangar next time round.

      Saudi bloke: "Why is the seat sticky on this one?"

      Technician: "Oh that's a feature to stop you sliding around as you pull a tight turn!"

  3. Leeroy
    Stop

    When facts are not facts at all.

    While I agree that the project looks like a mess and has cost a lot of money, aircraft generally tend to be quite expensive. A few of the presented "facts" seem to be slightly off.

    "And the Raptor has third-generation Stealth: the Eurofighter has no stealth features at all.

    From the sales brochure

    "The Low observability technology is incorporated in the basic design." -snip- "The Eurofighter Typhoon is, by any standard, a low observability aircraft with a fleet effectiveness superior to any other competitor. The airframe is constructed mainly from Carbon Fibre Composites (CFCs), lightweight alloys, titanium and Glass Reinforced Plastics (GRP). "

    The pilot can also control the electronic emmissions of the aircraft directly including features such as passive radar etc. This seems to sugest the aircraft does have at least some stealth features.

    "The Raptor has thrust vectoring for unbeatable manoeuvrability in a dogfight: the Eurofighter doesn't."

    The F22 has thrust vectoring due to its size. The EF is a much smaller plane and uses its foreplane / delta configuration to increase manuverability without sacrificing speed as the F22 does when using thrust vectoring. It is believed that the EF would be superior in a close quarters (less that 20 mile) engagement with an F22.

    "The Raptor is a hugely more sophisticated and powerful aircraft"

    More sophisticated ? it can not attack ground targets, imagine the outrage if the UK had bought a fleet of "Air dominance fighters" that could not attack ground targets ?

    A few more points, EF service ceiling 65'000 ft vs F22 60'000, runway length 2500 ft vs 7000 ft oh and the icing on the cake is that the EF can target an F22 at BVR (beyond visual range) defeating the design goal of its main competitor (if you can rellly call it that). FFS you should be behind the plane and its designers even if the financial side is a complete clusterf?*k, a bit of national pride would not hurt every now and again !

    1. nichomach
      Thumb Up

      Well said, Leeroy.

      I like reading Lewis on death-tech, but he does sometimes tend to let polemic take precedence over fact.

    2. tomsk
      WTF?

      madness

      1) The Typhoon does have some features aimed at reducing its radar signature, but they're trivial compared even to those of the F35. Compared to the F22 they're barely worth mentioning. The sales brochure may not be the best place to look for unbiased information on the plane's abilities.

      2) The claim that the Raptor "can not attack ground targets" is stark, staring madness. What is your source for this bizarre claim?

      3) The Typhoon's alleged ability to shoot down the F22 at BVR rather depends on its ability to detect it before it is itself detected, no? Given that the F22 is a true stealth aircraft and the Typhoon isn't, this may in practice prove to be a sticking point.

      4) National pride isn't a good reason to pretend to believe things we know to be untrue.

  4. Tony Rogers
    Pint

    The Master Plan ?

    People need to know more of the factories on the Derry Peninsular in Ireland.

    The Irish Strategic Bomber Command are as we write, launching the new "SPUD 1" missile. The Poteen fueled Hellraiser MK ll sidearms are believed to be the most fierce

    tracking arms ever produced since the "Chipmunk" flew.

    The Chipmunk has now been updated to the present MK Vlll equipt with the latest Irish Linen

    "Anti-Macasser's" in the cockpit. Air crew are well catered for with the addition of an outside loo

    for those long range missions to the Scilly Isles.

    Pilots are being are being trained to be able to operate at the high "G Forces" by total immersion

    in high presure Guiness Tanks.

    Field Marshall Spud O'Leary" wants more Euro involvement and Euro's to finish the job.

    Lets give the boyo's the money now to finish this wonderful plan.

    ( if this all sounds rubbish....check out the MOD,s plans again )

  5. Astarte

    Grand Unified Theory of Multinational Procurement

    Once upon a time some clever chaps in MoD (PE) decided to test a theory. It had the right feel to it and went something like this:

    If one nation can design, develop, produce and maintain a weapon system for £X then the total cost for 'n' nations would increase by the root of the number of nations. For example, for two nations to the total project would be 1.7 time more expensive. And there's a nice 'but' here – they would share the bill which meant they would actually get the weapon system for half of the total. In other words they'd get it for %70 of the original solo-nation procurement (cost 1.4X). Tempting. Increase that to three nations and the total cost would be 3^0.5 or 1.7 times the cost shared which equals %58 of the single-nation cost. Even more tempting.

    Extend the theory to four nations and they'd each share the total cost of twice the original or %50 each. The more the merrier because no single nation was responsible for the overall project costs and they'd all get part of a very expensive result at a good discount.

    What they didn't expect was that government and industrial management and bureaucracy costs for each nation would increase steeply because of the complex multi-national relationships most and differing work practises. Each company would use its own standards methods, standards and work practises but English would be 'the Language' for everything; they'd need more committees and more complex management to deal with the three other nations. Why care – they'd still be paid and, with no single nation in charge, they couldn’t be told how to do things. With hundreds of companies involved came many hundreds of methods. Remember, there was no leading design authority. At the time it was not thought important – like buying a Sony TV for use with a Panasonic PVR.

    The technical requirements were far from ideal – vague and poorly often worded but perfectly well understood by each company in their own context and so there was no end of confusion. It was clear the requirements had needed a re-write at a more 'atomic' (non reducible) standard. Fair enough but it didn't happen until after contracts had been let and of course everyone wanted more money to adopt the re-written requirements.

    A central authority was necessary to make sure the bits came together correctly but the companies were often reluctant to divulge their rationale for the way they did things. This resulted in countless disagreements and a fair amount of bullying.

    How on earth did the ISS turn into a successful project with more than 20 nations and world-wide input get off the ground? Answers on the back of a postcard please.

    Eurofighter is still a very good weapon system, it's a pity it's been smothered and strangled – a bit like the rest of the UK I suppose.

  6. S Larti
    Grenade

    At least the Eurofighter looks nice

    So we get a lot of expensively useless toys. Rather than the MOD spending all the money stocking up on light bulbs at £22 each when they are available for 65p, or £103 a time for screws, believed to be on sale online for £2.60.

    Oh wait, they've done both.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12643966

  7. Mips
    Jobs Horns

    The RAF...

    ... is still pissed off from loosing the nuclear deterrent. So it's Spend! Spend! Spend! all the way.

  8. codemonkey
    IT Angle

    I Love it,..

    There are two strands to this story

    1) Business as usual. Your tax payers money straight into the hands of private companies.

    2) Less murder machines on our planet. Result.

    No more killing please people, this is not the dark ages. Fuck, it’s not even the 90s. Time to grow up.

    Peace.

    I'm still looking for the IT angle mind...

  9. Bob-Bobomobomoboss

    Since we won't have any military anyway...

    Why not just paint them all red and give them to the Red Arrows?

    Would make for some impressive high speed displays especially as all these defence cuts sound like there's only going to be about 12 pilots left in the RAF.

  10. Alf the Unlucky

    More anti-Typhoon bile

    More inaccurate anti-Typhoon bile from Lewis Page. The man distorts facts better than a Cabinet minister.

    Take this:

    "At the moment it has received 70: the last of the 160 planes ordered by the UK will be delivered in 2015."

    And then this:

    "It is now acknowledged that the development and production cost to the UK of Eurofighter will be £23bn with planned upgrades. This means that we UK taxpayers will have shelled out no less than £215m for each of our 107 jets"

    Hold on, he's now deciding the unit cost is based on a final fleet size in order to make a flattering comparison of the F-22's cost. That is deeply misleading.

    I see he says the USAF F-22 fleet will be based on its 189-aircraft production run. Some of those aircraft wil crash (I think one has been lost already) in service. Should he not divide the active USAF fleet accordingly by the total unit cost?

    He is talking utter rubbish so much does he hate the Typhoon. Total production costs including R&D would, on these figures, have been £143.75m per aircraft, not $350m. And many Tranche 1 aircraft withdrawn early are likely to be sold to Oman. It's hardly Eurofighter's fault that, 20 years after the project was launched, the MoD has decided to reduce its frontline fleet to less than half its planned force.

    Also:

    "the NAO reports that of the 70 Eurofighters the RAF currently possesses, just 42 are actually available to flying squadrons"

    So what? How does a reader know if that's good or bad? If you mulitply the number of squadrons that flew the Tornado GR1 at its peak by the typical 13 aircraft complement you'll find it way short of the 229 delivered. Why? Well, even the MoD is not so stupid that it knows it will lose aircraft during the type's service life so it builds in an attrition reserve to its fleet. It also knows that aircraft will be in various stages of servicing at any period ranging from a Primary to a Major, when the aircraft is out of service for several months. So you need additional airframes to retain the desired frontline fleet. So, what is an appropriate ratio of frontline aircraft to total fleet? I don't know and I'm pretty sure Lewis Page doesn't know either.

    As for criticism of the lack of flying hours what on Earth does this have to do with the aircraft? If the MoD can't or won't afford the cost of providing sufficient pilots and appropriate training hours this can hardly be deemed a fault of the aircraft!

    Political delays and changes of mind plus inept contract handling are failings of the project as a whole but that simply shows that any project, whether a built-in-America solution or an entirely homegrown one would have been equally affected.

    -- Iain

  11. A J Stiles
    Stop

    Better idea innit

    Close down the army, navy and RAF altogether. Spend the money we save on essential civilian infrastructure, including alternatives to fossil fuels -- which ultimately will mean we don't have to get involved in any more wars over oil (which annoys people enough to make them want to blow us up).

    And if for some reason we do need to go to war in the meantime, then we can just hire mercenaries.

  12. despairing citizen
    Unhappy

    Academic issue

    It's not really an issue if we are not going to have pilots to fly them,

    having got rid of 40% of our pilot intake (not the MoD leaked early 25%, and hope nobody spots it when the real numbers come out rouse), it will take around 7 years to generate new combat ready fast jet pilots.

    We could just have bought F-18's as a cheaper paper weight though!

  13. Francis Offord

    Fly Navy

    I spent 22 years in the RAF and thought that we had to endure some terrible political decisions but this is far worse than anything we had to suffer. At least the decisions then were taken by politicos who had a slight idea of necessities but were usually held in check by servicemen, it appears that this is no longer the case as decisions are being taken by servicemen who have no idea as to what they are doing. We had, in 1940, a government who had knowledge first hand of service requirements and experience to make correct decisions, now we do not as nobody I can recognize has experience of the problems of the services and certainly no training in economics. Is it so surprising when we have an educational system which in in denial as to it's actual purpose. Let us ensure that, for the security of the nation (or should that read nations?) within this island we manage to acquire some professional assistance in order to manage our defences. Had this been the state of affairs in 1940 we should all have been speaking German and ruled over by "amphibian devourers", not a pretty thought.

    Still, we get the government we deserve and appoint but we do not ever get value for money. It appears that this is a universal problem and it is easy to see how dictators are appointed when nobody stands up to be counted or punished for wrongdoing.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Couldn't we have just bought Gripens?

    The Swedes are looking for export markets for their latest Saab fighter. It's hellishly less expensive than either the Typhoon or the F35 and available right now. BAe is even one of the subcontractors.

    Meanwhile, is anyone going to place any bets on which MoD project is going to go massively tits up next? I'm plumping on the aircraft carriers on the grounds that BAe has never put anything into the water on schedule or on budget.

  15. Tom 7

    I cant be bothered to read all the posts

    but I cant believe its the civil servants who are actually charging this kind of money for a heap of shit - presumably that's down to the private companies that don't seem to be able to build it?

    When I've worked on project planning, if there was a problem with the proposed plans we tried to sort it out, business seems to build as many of the knowingly incompatible parts as possible, charge for them and then blame the civil service after giving them all the advice necessary to get to the stage we are at. Makes fucking up a bank look like childs play.

  16. Jemma
    FAIL

    I think I am going to cry...

    @ whoever - The original tempest/typhoon was great - when its tail wasnt dropping off and squishing cows - and when it wasnt winter and the engine had to be left running overnight (all night every night) because if you tried to start it cold the oil would just sit and grin while the Napier Sabre bent itself more out of shape than an el reg commentard...

    Its all academic since if we are lucky all these things are going to be used for is a cheap target scoring drone for idiot politicians - and to pretty up Duxford Air Show once a year.. assuming they are fit to fly...

    If we arent lucky, they are going to be cheesed (like creamed only it takes longer) by the fighters of the Chinese AF when they invade europe.

    More to the point - it doesnt matter what you are flying - at all - if the other guy gets the jump on you and hits you while you are daydreaming/researching rule 34 as it relates to your ex and her dog... you will still BURN and DIE...

    I dont know how much it would cost, but I am sure its possible to go down the local engineering shop with some old plans and get us a nice airforce with the pocket change in the kitty...

    How, I hear you ask

    Its perfectly simple - the purpose of the planes hasnt changed - just how they are powered and all the electronical kit.. so why not just go back, build uprated & updated ducted-fan/turboprop versions of old stalwarts as the tempest/typhoon - spitfire/seafire - beaufort or B-25 for ground attack/bombing...

    See, its all very well hollering that speed is of the essence and manueverability and all that - but its been proved that all you need to do is get the jump and you, or they, still win 80% of the time.

    So why spend shed loads of money on speed, when its a white elephant?

    Then you have people saying - but if you are flying something thats top speed is 500-550mph (a speed that Griffon spitfires, with a bored-out merlin could just about manage 60 years ago) against something that can do mach 2.25 - remember viffing, that trick the harrier could play?

    newsflash - everything low and slow, that will set your bald spot on fire if you are standing too close when it starts up can do the same trick... drop flaps/wheels, back throttle to just above stall, watch flyboy barrel past you looking bewildered, and then shoot him.. It was done in Vietnam/Korea for heavens sake with biplanes dropping grenades out the door. A German WWII ace almost got court martialled because the same thing happened in tests with one of the first Me262.

    Its all irrelevant anyway, because its numbers that matter these days, and we don't have them.

    What should be done is one person who has the authority to make the decision cans the whole program - the jets are taken to bits, and those bits recycled into a new autonomic flight/fight system - that way we don't lose the value we've spent but we get something that can fight way beyond the envelop that is currently possible (as has been stated before, fighting could be so much more fighty, if it wasnt for the requirement to bring the fleshies back in one piece) - and (assuming they dont use Windows CE Embedded) wont be looking at ramblers on the Cairngorms from below on a more or less regular basis...

    I don't think there is any thing to be gained wingeing about Typhoon any more - because there is nothing anyone can do to change or cancel it. The government cannot back out, because it would be political suicide on a scale yet seen (even compared to their efforts now), the air force don't want to back out, because then they *will* be asking to borrow Duxfords planes (or the Confedarate AF, at probably half the price) so the only way is to stop now, and make something from the mess of the typhoon project, by moving the thing forward as a remote piloted fighter/munitions platform.

    Yes, that does seem like more expense, but if its done properly, at the right price and properly overseen - then we will have a fighter/fighter bomber that is more capable and alot more future proof...

    Or we could just be sensible - and buy a few boatloads of patriots and the like and be done with it - after all - I am sure there is some African country with a friendly (if politically dubious) government that we haven't palmed our overpriced military crap on somewhere ... after all, turning a load of rifle armed tribesmen into Whiskas with the Typhoon should be well within its capabilities...

    Oh wait - its hot and sunny in Africa *sigh* and jets dont like to go out when its hot and sunny (can a harrier *get* sunburn...?)

  17. sloop
    WTF?

    Typhoon vs Raptor

    Why would you buy a Typhoon as opposed to a Raptor, which is cheaper, more manoeuvreable and "stealthier"? Because you're a moron, perhaps; or maybe there were "sweeteners" in the deal?

    If the article is "true", this is one HUGE cock-up! If I were a UK taxpayer, I would want to see several (if not dozens) of rolling heads.

    Bad form MoD

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Because, as usual, this article is full of missinformation

      You can't buy a F-35 becuase they are still developing it and it probably would be ready for deployment for another 10 years. The F-35 price is also uncertain although it keeps getting more expensive. Its also VERY expensive to run, the Canadians are have doubts about it.

      http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/123416/pbo-says-jsf-could-cost-canada-c%2430-billion%2C-twice-government-estimate.html

      The F-35 is looking like a very expensive aircraft at $300million dollars.

      Lewis also failed to point out that the report notes that the Typhoon is NOT more expensive that over aircraft such as the F-35 and Rafele, unless you fiddle the figure like he is wont too.

      The F-35 could well end up as a white elephant; expensive, pointless stealth, under armed, heavy and oversized making it an easier target.

  18. Wayland Sothcott 1
    Black Helicopters

    the £12 screw

    I think the overspend on these projects and the aparent lack of interest in making decent aircraft belies the real reason they cost so much. The money is really being spent on secret projects. Obviously to remain secret they have to launder the money through a public non-secret project.

    I have chosen a black helecopter but I expect it's really hypersonic ramjet attack drones.

  19. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Flame

    Gotta love absorption costing.

    "How much for 200 Eurofighters?"

    "£2Bn"

    "How much for 100"

    "£2Bn"

    Why, because that's how much they've *priced* it at.

    And while the Chairman of BAe enjoys unlimited access to the PM that sort of price will *never* be questioned.

  20. Death_Ninja
    Go

    I think I must have worked in IT too long...

    ...couldnt we just outsource the whole defence of the UK?

    In fact an outsourced, leveraged EU defence force would prove to be excellent price-performance.

    Outsourcing is always better value *ahem*

  21. Christian Berger

    What I don't understand is...

    If those officials are of the opinion that such fighter jets are important, why are they outsourcing it's development to private companies? Everybody knows private companies are inefficient.

  22. Andreas W.
    FAIL

    Let them die, Spock.

    Apparently the European aircraft industry is just too stupid to produce reasonable aircraft at reasonable prices and it only survived because our politicians are even more stupid.

    Should we leave the European aircraft industry to die a quick death (including the civilian one, if that's how it needs to be)?

    I'm sure in the next 100 years we'll always be able to buy either from the USA or from the Russians for a much cheaper price, as you would always have a fierce competition.

    I'm not sure where the money went, but I'm sure it would be cheaper to let our aircraft experts go to the USA, Russia and China and have the non-experts be put on the dole.

    Regards from Germany

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Grenade

      Regards from Germany

      Frankly, speaking with insider knowledge, if Eurofighter had dispensed with the Germans it would have come in a whole lot cheaper and more capable.

  23. Joel 8

    And I Thought The US DoD Was FUBAR'ed!

    To think that the eye-watering cost of the marginally useful Raptor could be surpassed is an all out attack on the senses. Reading things like this makes me feel like I live in Bizzaro-land.

    Now keep in mind, the F-35 is ridiculously expensive, designed for enemies that do not exist, and marginally better than an F-18 or F-16. Look at the spec's anyway. I do not fly arecraft, but I do understand things like wing loading, range, max climb, etc.

    If you look at those numbers the F-35 is maybe a half-step backwards, as is the Raptor. The USAF has this pie in the dream of BVR engagements, but the BVR requires beacons to identify friendlies. How hard would it be to home in on a beacon using triangulation? Besides, I do haven't heard any reports of the Taliban, or our mythical bugaboo Al Qaeda flying any aircraft, let alone anythign as sophisticated as an obsolete F-104! Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!!

    BTW, has the UK gone after the teachers and sanitation workers yet for their ridiculously lavish benefits and pensions? ROTFLMAO! It's about time to go Egypt on this F&*CKING BULLS*&T!!

  24. Peter 6
    FAIL

    Also...

    You want to know why they're expanding the capabilties of the Typhoon to handle ground attack? The fact that the F-35 is continuing to be a delayed over budget behemoth threatening to de-rail the procurement programs of multiple countries as well as the Americans. I'd though you would have kept that on the quiet being as biased towards American kit as Arsene Wenger is towards Arsenal.

    Speaking of which maybe you should declare any interests you may or may not have.Just saying.

    Just because Britain can't watch its finances properly doesn't mean you should have a pop at a perfectly good plane like the Typhoon.

    For shame Lewis, for shaaame.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Suddenly...

    ... F-15s for air superiority and A-10 warthogs for ground blasting don't sound too ridiculous, do they?

    - Both were built in the '70s;

    - Both were proven to fly with parts missing, - including but not limited to - large portions of wings;

    - Both can carry any new fancy missiles if required, and by all that is Holy, one of them has the biggest Gatling Gun there is.

    Add Harriers for good measure between both of 'em, choppers for ground support and you have all bases covered. Not to mention 3 of these can take off short grass runways, or practically anywhere.

    ...or...

    Ditch these Typhoons and buy used F-15s, slap canards and Thrust Vectoring on them like NASA did and be done with it. Hell, even F-16s fare better, since they can carry bombs, dogfight, and are cheap in comparison.

  26. Wibble257
    FAIL

    More dribble

    What a surprise, Lewis writes an anti-RAF article that also claims US made kit is brilliant!! Lewis just face it, Boeing are not going to give you a job so quit the PR!!

    The Tranche 1 aircraft issue is a red herring and I am sure Lewis knows this. Due to the lack of aircraft those early jets have been thrashed and therefore will be worn out by the time they are being scrapped, that is why they are being scrapped!!!

    The Typhoon is fully operational and can drop bombs already. The only thing holding things back is money for flying hours and therefore manpower (not enough crews trained etc). There is no money and that would be no different if we had bough US kit.

    There is no doubt the MOD has bodged up the procurement but the Typhoon is a highly capable aircraft that this country needs. The F35 has been slated and is in trouble, running late etc so we can not rely on it turning up on time and being able to do what it is supposed to do (F35= jack of all trades, master of none). The F22 is also not working as planned, is stupidly expensive to operate and knowing the USAF they will not send it anywhere dangerous anyway (too expensive when you have cheap F15s, F16s, F18s etc).

  27. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Boffin

    A note on staff costs

    The average UK weekly salary is £499 according to

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

    Assuming you worked from 18 to 70 your *lifetime* salary would be £1 349 296

    On the claimed cost of one aircraft at £216m that would pay off 160 workers.

    Or nearly 34 years of the RBS bosses bonus for 2010 (£2m in cash, £4.5m in shares).

    it's one hell of a lot of money. Still "There's always an enemy, you just need to know *where* to look for them."

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like