Eurofighter Cost At 20 billion pounds and growing

[DarthAmerica]

yes it is - in fact fleet airborne ISR has been used since time immemorial to look for cruise missiles - and that includes using IR sensors.

Orions are also used (in Iraq currently) to watch for heat sigs on fast moving cruise missiles.

Thats why a fleet attack will need to broach a 300-450km window guarded by an AWACs as well as other organic sensor systems in play.

what you say has relevance for a non NATO navy more than 45 years ago - its certainly not the case now or since then.

I'm not questioning the use of IR as a part of a system. Only that it doesnt offer the same level of early warning that radar does. Also in the context of the scenario being debated which was penetration of the UK IAD. Its a non factor IMO.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm not questioning the use of IR as a part of a system. Only that it doesnt offer the same level of early warning that radar does. Also in the context of the scenario being debated which was penetration of the UK IAD. Its a non factor IMO.

Thats true if you look at threat identifiers in isolation - but no one does. On board systems are collaborative and have been a sympathetic package ever since the first primitive fighter solutions of 1969 (circa).

Look at F117's. F-14's, Tornado F3's etc... all use sympathetic systems which include IR as part of the ID package.

A lot of the ident work in GW1 was done by IR out of necessity as it was passive. Thats still the case now as IR has some clear advantages of going into contested but unannounced airspace.

 

[P.A.F]

all i have to say is that i disagree with the title of this topic. i think that the eurofighter, although costing a huge amount would deliever the much required performance once in full service. i'm sure the European countries in this project would make sure that the aircraft deliveres. i don't see any other rival at the moment except the F-22.

 

[DarthAmerica]

El Cucuy

Thats incorrect though. We do know what its RCS is because its just a P800 with an indigenous guidance system. The internal changes made by the Indians don't change its RCS profile at all.

So it's not speculation at all. Its based on what we know of the original russian product which brahmos fundamentally mirrors in 99% of its external design.

As for the threat of a supersonic cruise missile - I've yet to come across any USN EW Officer who sees them as the bogey man articulated by the press. The counter systems in place still deal with supersonics as well as subsonics - irrespective of reaction times that some may wax lyrical about.

I'll trust that you actually do "know" the RCS because I dont think knowing it changes the arguement in favor of the defence. God forbid a shooting war breaks out and the Brahmos or other missile signature exhibits different characteristic via such things as RAM applied as a modification ect.

Also I'm not talking about the threat to just fleets and you know I'm not the type of poster who is easily excitable and hyperventilates over press releases. But I do acknowledge reality. And the reality is and many contancts of mine agree that significant gaps exist in the regard to cruise missile defense. Ignore it at your peril. Given your Wedgetail procurement I would say Oz understands the threat as well.

I dont believe in "El Cucuy". Just methods and counter methods.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Thats true if you look at threat identifiers in isolation - but no one does. On board systems are collaborative and have been a sympathetic package ever since the first primitive fighter solutions of 1969 (circa).

Look at F117's. F-14's, Tornado F3's etc... all use sympathetic systems which include IR as part of the ID package.

A lot of the ident work in GW1 was done by IR out of necessity as it was passive. Thats still the case now as IR has some clear advantages of going into contested but unannounced airspace.

Agreed but in those cases radar, on board or off board, was used to cue the IR sensors. And the threat at that time ended up not being primarily from low flying cruise missiles.

 

[DarthAmerica]

all i have to say is that i disagree with the title of this topic. i think that the eurofighter, although costing a huge amount would deliever the much required performance once in full service. i'm sure the European countries in this project would make sure that the aircraft deliveres. i don't see any other rival at the moment except the F-22.

Thank You for that response. But I have a question about your last sentence. At the moment how do you think the Eurofighter compares to the SU-30, F/A-18C, F-16 blk 52, F-16 blk 60, F-15E/SG/K and the F/A-18E? Think about it.

 

[webmaster]

Reminder:​

• Do not disrespect anyone on this board - whether you disagree with them or agree with them. It is suggested that you keep your cool and show restraint when discussing important defence matters.

• Civility will be adhered to on this forum or posts will get locked pronto.

We've spent the last 12 months getting the unnecessary sarcasm and flippancy out of posts - I or the other Mods will not have it revert to the days when we had kids have arse rubbing competitions.

This forum is not here to create a venue for competition on opposing thoughts.

The title of this thread has been changed to be more user friendly. Also, please adhere to the warning above. As personal as this maybe for you or as much as you know about this topic, it still doesn't mean anyone should step out of their way to degrade the party with different perspective on Eurofighter project.

Enjoy!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Agreed but in those cases radar, on board or of board, was used to cue the IR sensors.

Definitely not the case with the F-117's. They went in cold with aerials retracted to reduce their signatures. Once they cleared their corridors, they had to travel 100-150km inside an active area only running on IR for passive detection. They couldn't get anything sensible out of local airborne ISR and were on their own. That meant passive IR.

And the threat at that time ended up not being primarily from low flying cruise missiles.

except for a fleet in progress, the organic AWACS uses everything to sense the real estate - and IR sats are also used to check the locale as well. IR is actually one of the tools de rigeur to sniff for cruise missiles.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Agreed but in those cases radar, on board or of board, was used to cue the IR sensors. And the threat at that time ended up not being primarily from low flying cruise missiles.

In the case of the F117 in GW1, Gw2 and 2003 they went in using IR only.

They have to as they retract their aerials when they leave the corridor - thus they aint getting much at all except what onboard passives bring to then table.

as for low flying cruise missiles, the main tool for AWACs is a combination of radar and IR - its not just radar.

IR is actually the primary system for detecting ballistic and mid ocean cruise missile launches. when we tracked Scuds from within australia it was basically using an IR hybrid system - not radar at all.

the point being that systems are used in companion and synpathetic mode

 

[LancerMc]

Former U.S.A.F. Chief of Staff John P. Jumper, gave praise to the Eurofighter as a great fighter. I have attached a link to the Air Forces article about his flight of the aircraft. If he thinks its good aircraft, that's good enough for me.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123010102

 

[DarthAmerica]

In the case of the F117 in GW1, Gw2 and 2003 they went in using IR only.

They have to as they retract their aerials when they leave the corridor - thus they aint getting much at all except what onboard passives bring to then table.

Thats not entirely true and I suspect you are probably aware of what I' suggesting.

as for low flying cruise missiles, the main tool for AWACs is a combination of radar and IR - its not just radar.

IR is actually the primary system for detecting ballistic and mid ocean cruise missile launches. when we tracked Scuds from within australia it was basically using an IR hybrid system - not radar at all.

the point being that systems are used in companion and synpathetic mode

Thats good but we arent talking ballistic missiles or ocean launched missiles. Granted though your point about sympathetic detection methods. However there are gaps and opportunities to be exploited. Particularly with regard to the UK vs Russia in the context being discussed. For all the 12 years of war leading up to OIF a primitive silkworm managed to get through this firmly established ISR picture that should have in theory been able to detect it. Admittedly though as a singular event.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Former U.S.A.F. Chief of Staff John P. Jumper, gave praise to the Eurofighter as a great fighter. I have attached a link to the Air Forces article about his flight of the aircraft. If he thinks its good aircraft, that's good enough for me.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123010102

It's good enough for me too! He is only comparing the flight performance which is not in question other than supercruise which the General makes clear isnt part of the equation.

"Despite being designed for different missions, General Jumper said the Eurofighter and the Raptor are equally high-tech aircraft.

"The Eurofighter is certainly, as far as smoothness of controls and the ability to pull (and sustain high G forces), very impressive," he said. "That is what it was designed to do, especially the version I flew, with the avionics, the color moving map displays, etc. -- all absolutely top notch. The maneuverability of the airplane in close-in combat was also very impressive."

The F/A-22 performs in much the same way as the Eurofighter, General Jumper said. But it has additional capabilities that allow it to perform the Air Force's unique missions.

"The F/A-22 Raptor has stealth and supercruise," he said. "It has the ability to penetrate virtually undetected because of (those) capabilities. It is designed to be a penetrating airplane. It can maneuver with the best of them if it has to, but what you want to be able to do is get into contested airspace no matter where it is." - Gen Jumper

He couldnt possibly be talking about avionics or stealthiness because there is a golden mile worth of difference. This is confirmation of my post by a fighter pilot.

 

[JWCook]

Hello again Darth...

I have a couple of questions which I'd like straight answers to.
When given proof that most normal people would accept, you reply:-

That doesnt prove anything.

You are simply quoting your opinion, (which I might add is in error on several counts) unless of course you can provide any credable reference to substantiate any of your opinions?? (HINT:- this time use one that doesn't directly contradict you.), I'm sorry if I don't count you as a credable source, but links you provide are either immaterial, or (more amusingly) contraditory to your opinions.

On costs again:-
When given details of the Austrian deal you simply dismiss it, here are the links (I'd be interested how you will dismiss these!!)
Austrian deal (in German):-
http://www.airpower.at/greymatter/archives/00000049.htm
Breakdown of costs in English (My translation)
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=718&highlight=typhoon+cost+austrian,

Thats simply not true. The Austian deal was heavily subsadized to spur exports. Whats funny about that is that even if you believe the misleading $76M USD number. The aircraft is significantly less capable than F-15E, F-16 blk 60 or F/A-18E in addition to being more expensive. Be careful using numbers like that because it is very missleading. Every defense aviation publication and expert agrees that the cost of the Eurofighter is higher than the number you listed.

OK Darth heres the challenge - Show me these some 'Every defense aviation publication and expert ' who rate the Typhoons price at $100M+ USD flyaway...

Darth these are the figures as given by the Austrian parliament, Hmmm. unless you think they are also mistaken...they did after all pay for them, so they really should know...

You also stated the AMSAR section on my website was in error! when asked what was in error your reply was:-

I would do so in private so as not to provoke the moderators.

I'm sure the moderators would like to know whats 'in error', just as I do, and I'm sure you could phrase it in such a way as not to offend anyone....

Can you provide any straight answers please.

Thank you

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thats not entirely true and I suspect you are probably aware of what I' suggesting.

The bit about going in inert with aerials down is absolutely true - documented by the pilots. Once in the corridor they were absolutely on their own. There is more than enough evidence that shows that even blue assets didn't know they were there and passed WVR and missed them.

RCS management was a huge issue and they were deliberately ordered to keep sensors retracted until they hit a defined corridor. Blue forces were invariably kept out of the corridor to minimise blue on blues, but the evidence of F-15's/F-16's not seeing them inbound to target is substantial.

Thats good but we arent talking ballistic missiles or ocean launched missiles. Granted though your point about sympathetic detection methods. However there are gaps and opportunities to be exploited. Particularly with regard to the UK vs Russia in the context being discussed. For all the 12 years of war leading up to OIF a primitive silkworm managed to get through this firmly established ISR picture that should have in theory been able to detect it. Admittedly though as a singular event.

None of the ISR capability thats available now was in place then - in fact the processing capability for data distribution is literally more than 100 times faster. The ISR snapshot capability is literally 5 times prev real estate "snaps" at a given altitude.

If you want to stick current capability in a temporal flux it has relevance - otherwise you're loading the bases to suit the argument.

 

[P.A.F]

Thank You for that response. But I have a question about your last sentence. At the moment how do you think the Eurofighter compares to the SU-30, F/A-18C, F-16 blk 52, F-16 blk 60, F-15E/SG/K and the F/A-18E? Think about it.

All the fighters u mentioned are great and very capable. maybe some capabilities outweight that of the eurofighter. But if where talking about the overall aircraft strength then i personally would have to opt for the eurofighter to come out on top.

just have a browse through the website if you haven't done so already. i'll let you decide on the rest for yourself.
http://www.eurofighter.com/

 

[Ramjetmissile]

it just made me realised why singapore has the reputation of being taken as reference customer.its a soild stamp of approval.

 

[adsH]

I agree with this. And at the systems level, the Russians are able to overcome the RAF even in their weakend state. Of course this is partly due to sheer strength of numbers. But how you win doesnt matter at the end.

It's hard to say if you don't have a clear scenario defined for us to compare the two forces in. unit Attrition I’d say yes they'l eventually Beat us. hell they can throw rocks at us and eventually we'll cave in since.

But we're forgetting the most important aspect of any warfare, something that even dates back to Caesar’s Time. Logistics. There are very few forces that can match our Logistical capabilities and our Training regimes. Yes Russians can win if we fight them on there turf but i suspect they’ll struggle if we pull them out of the Pit hole.

You’re also forgetting our NEC Network enabled assets, our Extensive training in utilizing data link early warning system, we've even beaten the USAF in Mock-up skirmishes here in the UK using the E-3Ds with Tornado F3 through the JTIDS need I say more.


We’re rapidly developing and extending our long-range Information exchanging network capabilities. We’re building long-range Aerial bombing capabilities. I doubt we’ll let anyone off that easily.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Hello again Darth...



OK Darth heres the challenge - Show me these some 'Every defense aviation publication and expert ' who rate the Typhoons price at $100M+ USD flyaway...

Darth these are the figures as given by the Austrian parliament, Hmmm. unless you think they are also mistaken...they did after all pay for them, so they really should know...

You also stated the AMSAR section on my website was in error! when asked what was in error your reply was:-


I'm sure the moderators would like to know whats 'in error', just as I do, and I'm sure you could phrase it in such a way as not to offend anyone....

Can you provide any straight answers please.

Thank you

I'll answer the first part and for the second you would have to deal with me in private. The cost of the Eurofighter in Austria as lowered and subsidied by offsets to spur sales.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_476.shtml

 

[DarthAmerica]

The bit about going in inert with aerials down is absolutely true - documented by the pilots. Once in the corridor they were absolutely on their own. There is more than enough evidence that shows that even blue assets didn't know they were there and passed WVR and missed them.

RCS management was a huge issue and they were deliberately ordered to keep sensors retracted until they hit a defined corridor. Blue forces were invariably kept out of the corridor to minimise blue on blues, but the evidence of F-15's/F-16's not seeing them inbound to target is substantial.http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_476.shtml

I dont doubt that the aerials were retracted. But I think there is more to this than is being disclosed. I cant tell if you are unaware or just being careful. Doesnt matter though, I understand your point about the effects on RCS and the use of IR in this case.

 

[JWCook]

I'll answer the first part and for the second you would have to deal with me in private. The cost of the Eurofighter in Austria as lowered and subsidied by offsets to spur sales.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_476.shtml

Sorry Darth Can't see any prices mentioned there!!,
There was this obscure bit though...

Aloysius Rauen, EADS' chief executive officer for military programmes, told (George Mader) in an interview for Jane's, in summer 2002: "No other customer will ever get the Austrian price for Tranche 2 [Eurofighter again].

.

This is quite amazing when you consider the Austrain deal was signed in July 2003.
and The contract price for the Tranche 2 was signed in December 2004!!.

The negotiations with all four partners in 2004 were centred around the Typhoon being made cheaper, Austria was also told that they would not be disadvantaged by the new lower price.

Now how can you make a statement from Aloysius from 2 years before the reduced price contract was signed your centre peice, on how expensive the Typhoon is?

Surely if all experts and defence magazines concur with your assesment of a US100M+ Flyaway Typhoon it would be a breeze to link to one..
(preferably a recent comment post Dec 2004 would do...).

Heres the challenge again - Show me these 'Every defense aviation publication and expert ' who rate the Typhoons price at $100M+ USD flyaway...

Come on its that simple!!

As for the private discussion please leave a PM...

Cheers