EF:Typhoon boondoggle. RAF doomed?

[TLAM Strike]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03..._nao_analysis/

Is the RAF doomed?

A fella over at SNAFU pointed out that the Typhoon will end up costing more then the Raptor on a production basis.

[TorpX]

Is the plane really that bad?

I get the impression that European countries don't take military matters seriously. They seem to think they will never have to fight in any wars again.

[GoldenRivet]

I think the RAF has endured darker days

[Skybird]

The detail's final shape may be new, but I know since long that when you think of what you get for the money, the Typhoon probably is the most expensive fighterjet that has ever entered service - worldwide.

And it STILL is not fully equipped.

And it STILL is said to be vulnerable to certain weather constellations that are typical for Europe.

In flight characteristics and on paper it may not be a bad plane. But it is hopelessly overpriced.

This is what happens when too many cooks with too big egos crowd the kitchen with too incompetent a management.

"Aber wir haben's ja..."

Why is it that politicians never are held personally responsible when they negotiate bad contracts? Like greedy bankers and bad managers - they too almost never are held responsible for the bad decisions they make and that ruin the company.

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by Skybird

This is what happens when too many cooks with too big egos crowd the kitchen with too incompetent a management.

"Aber wir haben's ja..."

Why is it that politicians never are held personally responsible when they negotiate bad contracts? Like greedy bankers and bad managers - they too almost never are held responsible for the bad decisions they make and that ruin the company.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/

The Pentagon Wars.

Good flick about just that.

[MaddogK]

Hmm, isn't the F-35 following the same business model ?


Great movie Gargamel.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Labour's fault for scrapping the TSR2

Seriously, the problem of procurement in all levels of government is attrocious, and that includes 'independant' bodies like the NAO themselves (John Bourn's expenses anyone! And their tens-of-millions-of-pound refurbishment - including some £20m on temporary accommodation!).

Contractors tender bids, usually the same faces just mixed up to form a new consortium (in my field - IT and Comms, it was always Dell, Fujitsu, BAe Systems, EDS, EADS, RACAL, Thales, or a mixture of them!) and get some ex-military chief or minister to chair/lobby. Nobody, ever, adds a penalty clause for missed dates or budgets but then why should they when they need a job with they retire early on a massive pension? It's the same from local councils up.

[Oberon]

TSR-2 would have been lovely. Then again, we sold the Upholders as well and they were damn capable boats.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Oberon

TSR-2 would have been lovely.

Honestly while its a neat looking jet if the RAF bought the F-111 like they planned no one would remember the TSR-2.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Honestly while its a neat looking jet if the RAF bought the F-111 like they planned no one would remember the TSR-2.

That's the trouble, half the time the procurement process takes longer than the government lasts and then the next one immediately puts the kibosh on the whole thing. There's rarely any consistancy. Thank god the current government is actually committing to a full Astute run.

[XabbaRus]

hmmm any article written by Lewis Page is toibe taken with a pinch of salt. bHe has a major axe to grind against the raf and anything procured in europe. he thinks we should just get everything from the US.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

hmmm any article written by Lewis Page is toibe taken with a pinch of salt. bHe has a major axe to grind against the raf and anything procured in europe. he thinks we should just get everything from the US.

That is probably what will happen in the not too distant future.

Our forces are shrinking so much it'll not ba a viable proposition to design, test and develop anything because of the low numbers we'll require.....better and cheaper to purchase something from an ally that has already undergone all the above.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

he thinks we should just get everything from the US.

and I agree with him on that.

Sorry Brits but you guys must have the least number of NATO Standardized weapons in the Alliance.
Just look at all the NATO wide weapons you don't use:
SM-1/SM-2 Standard (you have the slower and shorter ranged Sea Dart)
RIM-7 Sea Sparrow (you have the shorter ranged Sea Wolf)
RIM-162 ESSM (Ditto)
MIM-104 Patriot (you got nothing)
RUR-4 ASROC (you had the slightly better Ikara but only on 8 outdated ships, and one modern ship; all since decommissioned)

Even just buy the plans on build them your selves under license. Just imagine if you built copies of the Burke like the Japanese instead of that Type 45; 96 vs. 48 launch cells, already designed for Tomahawk among others.

[Oberon]

I doubt we'd have the money to buy them, we're not the Israelis

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I doubt we'd have the money to buy them, we're not the Israelis

British Defense Spending in 2009: $69,271,000,000
Isreali Defense Spending in 2009: $14,309,000,000