UK advances talks on Eurofighter, A400M deals

maddog65 · Post by **maddog65** » 22 Apr 2009, 12:56

DATE:22/04/09
SOURCE:Flight International
UK advances talks on Eurofighter, A400M deals
By Craig Hoyle

The UK Ministry of Defence is expected to approve a production deal for its first Tranche 3 Eurofighter Typhoons in the coming weeks, and is continuing discussions with EADS in a bid to resolve a dispute over its delayed Airbus Military A400M transport.

Describing the Typhoon as "an essential capability" for the UK armed forces, minister for defence equipment and support Quentin Davies says: "There have been a series of negotiations in Berlin, and I hope we can make a positive and favourable decision soon."

Eurofighter partner nations Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK in mid-March outlined a plan to sign a so-called Tranche 3A contract for 107 of their remaining 236 production aircraft, on the condition that industry first commit to delivering "significant life cost reductions". Davies declines to comment on the UK's planned order numbers for the deal, or to specify when this should be signed.

Davies meanwhile told the Royal Aeronautical Society's Aerospace 2009 conference in London on 21 April that the A400M remains "a problem", and that MoD officials will meet lead stakeholder EADS on 22 April to discuss the issue.

"Hopefully we will have a solution before too long," says Davies, without disclosing whether the UK is prepared to provide more money to complete the troubled development. However, the MoD has other "options and discussions" related to solving its emerging air transport shortfall, he adds.

Separately, Davies used the conference to defend the MoD's £3.9 billion ($5 billion) order for two 65,000t Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) vessels for the Royal Navy, after four members of the opposition Conservative Party called for the deal to be cancelled during a debate on 20 April.

"We need to have local airfields for long-range operations," he says. "We need the [aircraft] carriers, to take our airfields with us."

Abandoning the CVF project would also undermine the UK's future purchase of Lockheed Martin's stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, he cautions. "With the carriers come JSF, and if you cancel one you cancel the other."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... deals.html

nickblack423 · Post by **nickblack423** » 22 Apr 2009, 13:03

There was an article in AirForces Monthly saying that the options for JSF and the new carriers were possibly to scrap the Tranche 3 of the Typhoon.

Wonder if this means JSF is going to die a death...hope so, its a bloody stupid aircraft, we could do so much better. Bring on the Super Hornet in RAF Colours.

Nick

Post by **Firebird** » 22 Apr 2009, 16:13

Only because it will save you doing a model of one

.

In all seriousness, after listening to the budget today - which just doesn't add up to me - the only way that they will save 15 billion is to do something to defence.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Tornados grounded if they go ahead with the Tranche 3. Its the only way they can do it. Hope I'm wrong.

Post by **VulcanDriver** » 22 Apr 2009, 17:42

I'd love to do a repaint of the VRS F-18E in RAF/RN colours! Wouldn't it be great to have it flying from the new RN Carriers!

Rotten Ralph · Post by **Rotten Ralph** » 22 Apr 2009, 21:20

Yeah, £2 Billion spent on just develoment already? How many super hornets could we have purchased with that sort of money, and how much more is it going to cost to purchase the JSF`s that we need?
If it is true,what you read in the papers about our forces in Afganistan not having the proper equipment to protect themselves & do the job etc, well , there is something wrong there isn`t it.
£2 Billion better off being spent elsewhere I say.
Just my opinion, anyway?

aljude · Post by **aljude** » 24 Apr 2009, 07:00

Sorry i'm late but here's my thoughts:

Do we really need new aircraft carriers and new aircraft!
I understand the need for "home country" air defence but many years ago i was told that, in a war situation, the life expectancy of a surface vessel was approx 20 mins...

OK, what we have are "a bit long in the tooth" but why not just park a sub off the shores of most country's and ask which building they want destroying first. It will work..

I'll stop now before this turns into a "war and piece"

Tony

nickblack423 · Post by **nickblack423** » 24 Apr 2009, 09:11

aljude wrote:Do we really need new aircraft carriers and new aircraft!
I understand the need for "home country" air defence but many years ago i was told that, in a war situation, the life expectancy of a surface vessel was approx 20 mins...

Tony,

Hear what youa re saying here, however having read a rather interesting article in AirForces Monthly about this subject I have earned some valuable insights.

If you ask the "Yanks" they will tell you the Aircraft Carrier, is the biggest asset their military has. It is a mobile strike force in itself able to carry upto 100 aircraft of all roles and capabilities directly to the battle theatre, while itself staying relatively safe because of the array of defensive aids, and the armada of support vessels that travel with it. It can do what the Air Force can only dream of, and generally have to do from a "borrowed" airbase in a neighbouring country, which in itself can be very political.

However this also comes at huge cost. Because the Carrier is such a big asset it needs to guarded which means it cannot survive alone, it must go with a huge entourage. This obviously costs alot of money.

So you look at the UK and you say we could do the same, however with out "stretched thin" military we could never dream to have the kind of assets to man and supply a Carrier Battle Group and protect it properly. Plus in order to have a big carrier using the Hornet for instance means we would need type specific training and also have to keep the pilots hours up at a huge cost. The UK Military prides itself with being adaptable to many different roles. The worry is for them that buying Trap and Cat carriers and Hornets for instance would be very limiting for crews, supplies and would also cost a hell of alot more than the current Carriers and Harriers. They want 1 aircraft across the whole spectrum that will operate from land or sea. They want carriers that can operate helicopters or these aircraft.

The most obvious current choices are either Harriers on Invincible type carriers, or Hornets on Nimitz type carriers. You tell me which would be cheaper to run for the government?

We could have solved this issue years ago by buying the Hornet C/D for both Air Force and Navy and 2x bigger carriers with trap/cat. But thats just my personal opinion.

Nick

aljude · Post by **aljude** » 24 Apr 2009, 11:05

Nick,

The point i was trying to put across was, do we need to carry the battle to anyone? Why not sit at home [with great savings to the taxpayer] and wait to see if anyone wants to "have a go"...
Maybe we need to stay out of the rest of the world, [leave that to the americans], and concentrate on our problems at home. Surely money would be better spend on Education, Health and of course Prisons!!!.

I am not a politicaly minded person but with all the unhealthy, retarded thugs roaming the streets maybe it's time to take back the country we took so long to build. lol.

Kindest regards to all and have a nice day

[on the fence] Tony

nickblack423 · Post by **nickblack423** » 24 Apr 2009, 11:34

aljude wrote:The point i was trying to put across was, do we need to carry the battle to anyone? Why not sit at home [with great savings to the taxpayer] and wait to see if anyone wants to "have a go"...
Maybe we need to stay out of the rest of the world, [leave that to the americans], and concentrate on our problems at home. Surely money would be better spend on Education, Health and of course Prisons!!!.

Yeh right like that is ever going to happen!!!

Get off the Fence Tony,

Nick

Post by **Firebird** » 24 Apr 2009, 12:27

Slightly off tack here but the trouble with sitting on the fence is that there is always somebody willing to push you off it.

My take here is that in the modern age the military need to be as flexible as possible to respond to whatever the Government wants them to respond to. Isolationism is cheaper undoubtedly, IF you are willing to pay somebody else to go fight your fires for you.

Trouble is your friends and neighbours don't necessarily think the same way as you do and therefore may not regard putting out your blazing garden shed as important enough to them. Hence why a Euro Combat Force will never happen.

Going back nearly thirty years, the Falklands Conflict was largely caused by the fact that the Argentine Government believed that the Brits didn't care enough about the islands due to cost cutting measures. A lot of money and lives were spent hammering home their misconception.

If you don't believe that its relevant in the 21st century, I would suggest that if we had no way of maintaining an air presence at long ranges, Gibraltar would be annexed by the Spanish. If you think I am exaggerating then you don't understand how much that Gib really, really rankles with the Spanish.

You can make the argument that why do we need to go anywhere in the world. The simple truth is that we have given our word in the past in agreement, pact or treaty. We have to honour them or we become a nation that doesn't keep its word.

A lot of people make a fairly valid argument about Health and Education etc. I will not knock their importance, however the bottom line is that if you don't defend what you have somebody else will take it from you. There is a reason that you lock up your house and car. I am willing to bet that health and education do not enter the equation here.

Post by **VulcanDriver** » 24 Apr 2009, 17:18

I personally think that the Falklands would have happened if we had a Nimitz size carriers with some heavy fire power onboard on patrol in the Atlantic.

Still it got Maggie re-elected on the back of the war...

CelticWarrior · Post by **CelticWarrior** » 25 Apr 2009, 18:08

I'm not sure cutting the defence budget would make much of a difference. UK defence budget = ~£30bn, sounds like a big number until you look at the UK NHS budget = ~£100bn. The prescription bill alone for england is ~£1 bn!!!! The NHS is a bottomless pit. Yes, the health service is important, but it's the most inefficient organisation I've ever come across.

Did you know that the NHS is the third biggest employer. Not in the UK. Not in Europe. No, it's the third biggest employer in the world!

If noo lay bore want cuts I know where I'd start looking.

Post by **Firebird** » 25 Apr 2009, 19:43

Yup, CW, I wouldn't disagree with you but unfortunately we both know what politicians will actually do.

The reason the US has a pretty healthy defense budget is that they don't have a Health Service.

CelticWarrior · Post by **CelticWarrior** » 25 Apr 2009, 20:18

Yep, it's always been a big vote winner here. But with 25% of the UK workforce now directly or indirectly dependant on no lay bore for their jobs they know where their bread is buttered.

The welfare state has become the dependant state.