Articles
Thursday, November 8, 2007
The great Eurofighter debacle - nemesis of the RN?
In 2007 the RAF finally took the first deliveries of the very pretty, very agile, and very expensive Eurofighter or Typhoon aircraft. This monstrously expensive white elephant is officially ‘just’ 4 years late although it has taken over 20 years to develop at cost the UK alone a whopping 19 Billion pounds - nearly 3 times the original quoted cost of £7 Billion!
Those
magnificent men in their flying machine! The Eurofighter Typhoon - darling
of the airshows but is it any use? Is it bankrupting the rest of the armed
forces?Unfortunately the Euro fighter was designed to defend the UK mainland from the threat of Soviet bombers and escorting fighters – a threat that currently does not exist. While it is prudent to have air defence for the UK in the future, if this money had been spent on developing a naval carrier-based fighter it would have been far more use in the current climate of overseas involvement but could just as easily contribute to UK mainland defence. Additionally, for a fraction of the cost, the UK could have purchased (or manufactured under license) existing US fighter designs but political considerations and a desire to been seen to be co-operating with our beloved European partners over-ruled such common sense.
A Euro fiasco
The whole project has been a fiasco, mainly by trying to involve European
partners with different requirements and budgets. Bitter experience shows
that most large defence projects with European countries that
are meant to save money actually mean delays and cost more (Eg
the European NFR 90 and then the ‘Horizon frigate’ which the
UK thankfully gave up on and went for the UK-only, but now delayed, Type
45 destroyers).
Eurofighter is the triumph of politics over common sense. A series of defence ministers (and civil servants), lacking the guts to cancel the project merely kept paying the huge bills and passed the problem on to their successor, knowing that in the long run it will be someone else’s who has to sort out the mess after they are long gone. Nobody seems to be held to account for this debacle and it looks likely the whole sorry story may be repeated again for future procurement programs.
White Elephant
The UK committed itself to a massive order of 232 in 3 batches or ‘tranches’ in
order to keep the program from faltering. This order was made with such
legally binding clauses that even though we don’t need so many aircraft
it is virtually impossible to cancel them and spend the money on urgently
needed items.
The Typhoon is in some ways a remarkable aircraft, amongst the best fighters in the world. It is incredibly agile would be great in dogfights against other fighters. However it’s shortcomings are even more remarkable, given its price tag. Its weapons and radar are far from ready for the frontline and most aircraft will have to be ‘upgraded’ long after they are delivered in order to meet basic requirements. In the ground attack role which they would actually be most useful they are poorly equipped and will require yet more 'upgrading' at a later date. The last time a British fighter aircraft engaged another aircraft was over 25 years ago in the Falklands war and tellingly, they were RN carrier-based Harriers. However UK aircraft have carried out many ground-attack missions in recent years in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
During the August 2007 intrusion by Russian reconnaissance planes close to British airspace, the RAF proudly showed off photos of Typhoons escorting the Russians away. What they didn't show was the old Tornado aircraft that took the photos and that actually had the weapons to warn them off. The Typhoon (At approximately £80 million each) is still unready for combat and was just there for show. In fact about the only positive thing to say about the Eurofighter folly is that about 16,000 people are employed by the program in the UK.
Harrier
GR9 ground attack specialist but little use for defending the fleet.Typhoon - paid for by cuts
The purchase of the Typhoon is by far the biggest drain on the defence budget
in recent years. (If we accept the government line that the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan are not being paid for from the defence budget) Although
the RAF has also suffered cuts, the cost of the Typhoon has undoubtedly
contributed to the lack of funds for the RN.
The Typhoon has very limited use compared to the flexibility of carrier based aircraft. Carrier aircraft can go all over the world and do not need friendly airfields in order to deploy. The very presence of a carrier off a coastline can exert a huge influence without the need for aircraft to even get airborne. Carrier aircraft are more robust and can use local airfields or spend extended periods at sea. If the money spent on Typhoon had been spent on new carriers and the development of a naval fighter/bomber (to replace the Harrier FRS2) the UK would be in a far stronger position now.
The new carriers that are now being built have a big question mark over what aircraft they will be armed with. The Typhoon has no potential for conversion to a carrier borne aircraft and the "Joint Strike Fighter" program in partnership with the US that is supposed to provide the aircraft for the new carriers is troubled.
Since the Harrier FRS2 aircraft were decommissioned prematurely to
save cash, the RN has no fighters to defend the fleet. At present
the only area air defence for the fleet relies on the ancient Sea
Dart missile system carried on 8 elderly Type 42 destroyers. Also
most seriously, the Fleet air arm now has no specialist fighter pilots.
They have all (resigned?) or been converted to fly the ground attack GR9
Harrier. Where will the RN find the experienced pilots needed to operate
the JSF if and when it finally flies? The RAF has always been keen
to get its hands on the Fleet Air Arm (going back to the 1930s) RN
pilots now fly from RAF
bases and the new Joint
Force Harrier is manned by a mix
or RN and RAF personnel. Inter-service co-operation is always desirable
but there
is no substitute for the RN having it's own fighters under its own
control. This lesson has been learned over and over from Crete
1941 to the Falklands
1982.
Please click on the comments link below each post to leave comments. (You do not have to register to do this)


-
toymaker
said...
- Can Britain really afford a separate air combat force in each of the armed services - i.e. the Fleet Air Arm, Army air Corps, Royal Air Force?
- December 17, 2007 4:44 AM
-
Anonymous
said...
- Actually the current system is probably more efficient than you think. The FAA,RAF and AAC all use the same documentation, and will now receive the same training at RAF St. Athens. They all share a similar command structure, such as Joint Force Harrier and Joint Helicopter which pools all the resources from all three services to fight as a collective unit. The reason why all three services should have their own aircraft is simple: if they didn't it would be a case of jack of all trades master of none. The army is very good at battlefield air ops, the FAA is very good at naval aviation and operations and the RAF are good at ground attack and lifting and shifting operations. If all the services aircraft were amalgamated into say the RAF, I'm positive that naval air operations and the roles the army air corps used to provide would suffer detrimentally.
- January 2, 2008 6:14 AM
-
Anonymous
said...
- I think that the best long term solution for military aviation is to scrap the R.A.F. since it has proved time and again to be incapable of delivering the required level of support to the nations fighting arms. The Royal Navy should get maritime strike, recon and air defence with ground attack and lift given to the R.A.F. It will never happen of course because of the Battle of Britain factor but it should.
- February 16, 2008 12:05 PM
-
Anonymous
said...
- It's all very well crying into your beer (or rum ration) but we are where we are. Come up with positive suggestions.
- April 15, 2008 1:33 AM
-
Anonymous
said...
- oh yeah, and sort out Nimrod MR4 - maybe with Storm Shadow on wing hard points, plus internal bomb bay, gives a long range big throw strike capability...
- April 15, 2008 1:35 AM
-
Anonymous
said...
- Yeah sort out nimrod MR4, scrap it. Get P3C Orion for Maritime ASW.
- September 4, 2008 9:18 AM
-
Anonymous
said...
- THE MR4 NIMROD WILL BE A BRILLIANT AIRCRAFT jUST GIVE IT TIME AND STOP BEEN SO NEGITIVE ...WHAT HAS A P3C ORION GOT TO SLOW FOR TASK REQUIRED AND ITS PROP JOB COME ON
- September 29, 2008 1:41 AM
Post a Comment < Back to latest postWould it not be more efficient - financially, militarily and in terms of administration - to have one service primarily responsible for land forces, one for naval operations and one for air operations. The present system of effectively having three air combat forces must result in duplication and wastage of resources, spares, training, command and control etc.
Here's a thought. The thrust per gross pound of takeoff weight of Typhoon is about the same as Harrier (0.8)so in theory Typhoon could take off across a ski jump.
Landing would require structural mods but the carriers have an "adaptable design" so arrestor wires should be possible. Then maybe Tranche 3 could be marinised, save a ton of money on JSF which the budget doesn't really have enough of anyway. This could be ploughed into more Type 45, one or two more Astutes...
Sweat the assets by enhancing capabilities wheerver practicable...
The forces do not have the money anymore to do alot of its own R&D, look at the Typhoon debacle. Its about time we brought more off the shelf tried and tested weapons and not buying just because its British.
Look at the long list of failed European projects NFR 90, Horizon and these are just the RN ones.