You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Europe
The Eurofighter Meltdown
2008-02-10
If you think the United States has problems with the constant price increase of new-generation programs like the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), take a look at the situation with the four-nation consortium Eurofighter program. Several news reports, including a January 26 story in the Washington, D.C. based Defense News, state that the bill for the Eurofighter is going to now cost some €10 billion ($15 billion) more than the most recent cost estimates had previously projected.

The main reason for the increase in the program's cost is that the ambitious plans for three production runs--referred to as Tranche 1, 2 and 3--may now have to be scaled back to the point where Tranche 3 will be cancelled all together. No official announcement has been made, but without the additional production of the third Tranche in order to help amortise the R&D costs of the aircraft, the costs for the first two batches must increase accordingly.

As far back as December 2006 the then-UK Defense Procurement Minister, Lord Drayson, said that he would sign no contract to build Tranche 3 airplanes until the program is reformed.

"The area which for 2007 is a big project for me to deliver is further changes in the Typhoon industrial structure," he told the parliamentary committee in testimony on the MoD's 2005 Defence Industrial Strategy. "Before we can go forward on a Tranche 3 decision--and we do not need to take that decision yet--I believe there needs to be a remodeling of the [Eurofighter] Typhoon structure."

But another real driver behind the woes of the airplane is the increasing conflict of interest between those Eurofighter consortium nations that are part of the F-35 program and those that are not. The UK and Italy are both heavily vested in the U.S. program and they now realize that they cannot afford to have the JSF as part of their air force and at the same time procure additional Eurofighters with the advanced systems originally called for in Tranche 3. But Eurofighter is the only new aircraft being procured by the other two partners, Germany and Spain, and they have to stay in to the end and fulfill all of their procurement plans in order to maintain their force levels and replace aging aircraft in their existing fleets.

This puts countries in both categories in a bad spot. The Eurofighter definitely needs all of the future growth capabilities listed above--particularly the AESA radar--in order to remain relevant in any future combat environment. This will come at considerable cost to those "Eurofighter only" nations. For those that are buying the Euro jet and the JSF as well, they are taking a gamble that the US program stays on schedule and that they can afford to stretch out retrofitting of the AESA and other technologies--technologies that the JSF will have on board from day one--sometime down the road.

At the end of the day both airplanes are primarily industrial base program in which the main underlying purpose is to preserve infrastructure and keep jobs from going offshore. The question is which industry is going to be the one that ultimately is "chosen" to survive in the long-term.
Posted by:Pappy

#17  Give them the choice of an F-18 E/F and they'd jump at it probably
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-02-10 22:14  

#16  I have heard from pilots that the Eurofighter is a hanger queen and a basic piece of shit. The Germans would prefer the Mig-29 over the Eurofighter.

Ouch....
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-02-10 18:41  

#15  The Eurofighter has been shown to only be par in certain aspects with the well-established, long running US F16 andor F18, and despire any new innovations to original specs.

Ironically, IIRC it was DEFENSETECH.org or DEFENSEDAILY a few months ago > the US F20 TIGERSHARK was reportedly being considered for revamp + upgrade as per ME + Asian customers lieu of the Eurofighter???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-02-10 18:27  

#14  It does what it is designed to do. It's an interceptor and dogfighter against non stealth aircraft. It's an aircraft that lost it's mission 18 years ago.
Posted by: ed   2008-02-10 17:41  

#13  Point taken, OS.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2008-02-10 16:59  

#12  Barb, the pilots are nto worried in the least. They know they will not be sent to battle in these aircraft because their nations lack the guts to do so.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-02-10 16:29  

#11  ... Correction: dummy cannon would be about £88m.
Posted by: Bulldog   2008-02-10 10:21  

#10  So the final aircraft has to have a *dummy* cannon in it, just to equalize it.

Not just a 'dummy' cannon, either - they found it was easiest to use the disarmed real cannon as the object's components had to weigh and be distributed just right. The estimated saving of using a disarmed cannon was something like £2m - the cost of the cannon/dummy cannon being £90m, IIRC. That's right.

I think a while ago they decided to reverse this decision. Genius!
Posted by: Bulldog   2008-02-10 10:20  

#9  Defense spending when you won't actually defend yourself is pork wrapped in a flag, nothing less.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2008-02-10 09:40  

#8  #6 - Easily the frontrunner for Worst Rantburg Pun of 2008. But the year's still young.
Posted by: Matt   2008-02-10 09:29  

#7  I also suspect that the Eurofighter is a lemon, but that they refuse to admit it. For many of the same reasons, it is like the Airbus 380, designed by bureaucrats, not engineers. And until the 380 failed magnificently, they insisted that it was just as good as anything Boeing produced.

For example, while it was being created, the design called for an internal cannon in the fuselage. However, the plan was changed so that the cannon was omitted; yet the plane was balanced taking the cannon into account. So the final aircraft has to have a *dummy* cannon in it, just to equalize it.

Big time red flag.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-02-10 09:28  

#6  You always get bogged down when you choose to engage in tranche warfare.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-02-10 07:43  

#5  You need to keep building in sectors like aerospace or ship-building; once you stop it is catastrophically difficult to start again. The Japanese are still figuring out how to build large carriers despite having been excellent at the job at one time and not being short on finance or engineering.

BUT for Europeans to think Eurofighter is primarily about industry is correct for the wrong reasons: None of them ever plan to actually, you know, use these aircraft in combat. At most these are the equivalent of super-cars and their useless customers are always the same Arabs. The Swedes and the French are no different.
Posted by: Excalibur   2008-02-10 07:20  

#4  Europidgeon was doomed from the start. If they focused on developing avionics alone, they'd have made some bucks. Nothing the euros can produce will compete with the sheer volume of the 35. Nor will their bomb loads, stealth, TCO, range, etc.
Posted by: Vanc   2008-02-10 04:01  

#3  Well yes, but at the same time the Euros want to build at least some of their defense equipment, particularly the big ticket items, at home if they can. It does indeed preserve jobs, and just as importantly the industrial and knowledge base. We do it too, we're just a little more successful ...
Posted by: Steve White   2008-02-10 00:56  

#2  the Eurofighter is going to now cost some €10 billion ($15 billion) more

Forgot to add graft, did you?
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-02-10 00:54  

#1  "the main underlying purpose is to preserve infrastructure and keep jobs from going offshore"

Anybody ask the pilots about that?

Silly me - I thought the main purpose of any generation of jet fighters was to build a jet that, you know, can fight.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2008-02-10 00:43  

00:00