Indonesia wants to buy Austria's Eurofighters?

[qn30jEkPz7]

In desperate times I don’t think anyone does. The sacrifices and war crimes we’d hope a human in the loop would prevent have all (& worse) been done before AI was ever a glint an Babbage and Lovelace’s eyes

Edited August 3, 2020 by LostCosmonauts

[Lord Riot]

On 31/07/2020 at 11:30, Calum said:

But sensible 

 

The more capable and already tried and tested Nimrod MRA4 would have been even more sensible!

[Tiger331]

On 7/24/2020 at 5:42 PM, Bandsaw Steve said:

New Zealand has not disbanded its armed forces. In 2001 - rightly or wrongly - it disbanded the fast jet component of the RNZAF. New Zealand retains a small but highly professional defence force that is quite active within our country, our region and - when required - in many places around the world.

 

Just saying...

 

Remember it well.......the 'argument' over this whole issue with A-4K vs. F-16 formed a large part of my dissertation for my MA. I know there was a discussion about the laws of diminishing returns with such a small force (1+ Squadron) but 1 Squadron is better than none and I'm sure the RAAF would have liked some buddies 'next door' in times of tension.     

[Truro Model Builder]

The RAF's P-8A is identical to the US Navy aircraft, though I believe that a hot water boiler has been added to the galley. It is doubtless a hugely capable aircraft, and I am very glad we are at last reinstating a vitally important national asset that should never have been allowed to lapse, though I still remain to be convinced that anti-submarine warfare can be successfully prosecuted from medium altitude.

 

The P-1 was designed from the wheels up as a maritime aircraft for operations at low level over the sea. I too wish we had gone for it but at least we have some form of capability back again.

 

[Blimpyboy]

54 minutes ago, Truro Model Builder said:

I still remain to be convinced that anti-submarine warfare can be successfully prosecuted from medium altitude.

 

I'm with you - I'd be very interested to see how high-to-low ASW will unfold!

[Calum]

On 8/3/2020 at 5:33 PM, Blimpyboy said:

I've read that the P-1 unit cost is 125 million-to-168 million, vice the P-8's 90 million-to-200 million.

 

I would think that the P-8 gives you a larger (global) user base and a lot of sub-system commonality that would be easier to fix/standardise, especially over early iterations of the P-1.

Mind you, I guess it depends what you buy to put in/on it...

The thing is you just buy the same configuration (within reason) as what everyone else is buying... This keeps costs down initially and if you maintain the same configuration as close as possible though life costs will stay lower than if you go it alone.  

[Calum]

On 8/4/2020 at 12:37 AM, Lord Riot said:

 

The more capable and already tried and tested Nimrod MRA4 would have been even more sensible!

Really? Why couldn't they get it into service then?  Perhaps because it was neither more capable, tried or tested?

[Blimpyboy]

11 minutes ago, Calum said:

The thing is you just buy the same configuration (within reason) as what everyone else is buying... This keeps costs down initially and if you maintain the same configuration as close as possible though life costs will stay lower than if you go it alone.  

 

I agree - but only if you're a close ally of the US, or not mandated by domestic policies to have country-specific fits.

 

My Australian colleagues have a term for when they buy a piece of kit and then Australianise it - they call it Aus******* (rhymes with trucking), and it generally costs much more, and takes longer to produce or bring into service!

 

Plus, countries like India probably don't get a like level of capability with their internal fitouts as the closer allies do.

 

Edited August 6, 2020 by Blimpyboy

[Calum]

2 minutes ago, Blimpyboy said:

 

I agree - but only if you're a close ally of the US, or not mandated by domestic policies to have country-specific fits.

 

My Australian colleagues have a term for when they buy a piece of kit and then Australianise it - they call it 'Aus******* (rhymes with trucking), and it costs a bomb and takes much longer to produce or bring into service!

 

Plus, countries like India probably don't get a like level of capability with their internal fitouts as the closer allies do.

Yeah all of that is true. Japan would certainly get the full meal deal but India definitely doesn't .

 

 

[Blimpyboy]

On 8/4/2020 at 12:37 AM, Lord Riot said:

Nimrod

Best looking signals bird ever (plus a lot more comfy than others I've known)!

 

[Truro Model Builder]

The RAF's Sentry AEW.1 fleet shows what happens when you do not 'keep up with the Joneses'. RAF and French E-3s were broadly to the same spec as USAF and NATO E-3s, with the exception of the engines and some nation-specific equipment. The radar systems were identical, which allowed for common upgrades, as per the Radar System Improvement Program which was applied to all USAF/NATO/RAF/AdlA Sentries. Since then, however, AEW has not been seen as a priority by the MoD, with the result that further upgrades to other fleets were not applied to RAF aircraft which, added to budget cuts, has meant that there is no longer interoperability with the other fleets and mission availability has been low. The software is out of the date and the whole system is hampered by obsolescence.

 

The result of this is that the RAF fleet has been reduced from seven to (I think) four, and we have forked out almost $2 billion on five new E-7s to replace them. All because we didn't want to spend the money when it was needed, with the result that we could have joined what will almost inevitably be a joint USAF/NATO (and possibly French) E-3 replacement project post-2030, which may have been somewhat cheaper.

 

So yes, you can pay less for a common design, but if you do not keep it updated with everybody else you may have to fork out more money when you don't expect it.

 

[Truro Model Builder]

4 hours ago, Calum said:

Really? Why couldn't they get it into service then?  Perhaps because it was neither more capable, tried or tested?

It was late because of cuts to budgets and very poor project management on the part of both the prime contractor and the MoD, something I am sure you are familiar with that in Australia as well. Seasprite ring a bell? The MRA.4 and its systems were very capable, the latter providing the basis for the P-8's mission suite, and it would have been in full operational service by now had it not been cancelled, without forking out a further £3 billion for the P-8 to replace it.

[Lord Riot]

10 hours ago, Calum said:

Really? Why couldn't they get it into service then?  Perhaps because it was neither more capable, tried or tested?

 

All to do with politics and the constant moving of the goalposts in terms of what it was being asked to do. The Nimrod airframe was very capable, more reliable in being four jet instead of two, giving added safety and loiter time, as well as crews and engineers already familiar with working with it. 

 

It could also be armed, including an array of anti-shipping ordnance allowing it to seek and destroy instead of just seek then ask for help. 

[Blimpyboy]

I think there were indeed some issues with the Nimrod’s airframe and its age, as well as some redesign aspects

 

Apart from cost, I don’t think there was much question with the capabilities of the mission avionics (if previous marks were any indication, plus the fact that the RAF bagged most of the Fincastles)!

Edited August 7, 2020 by Blimpyboy

[Blimpyboy]

Getting back to the original theme, I wonder what groovy camouflage scheme the Indonesians could paint on the Eurofighter!

 

Anything would be better than the light greys currently used (utility notwithstanding).

 

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Blimpyboy

[Truro Model Builder]

10 hours ago, Blimpyboy said:

I think there were indeed some issues with the Nimrod’s airframe and it’s age, as well as some redesign aspects

 

Apart from cost, I don’t think there was much question with the capabilities of the mission avionics (if previous marks were any indication, plus the fact that the RAF bagged most of the Fincastles)!

 

The problem with the airframe was that it was considerably underestimated how individual each of them were. The fuselage shell was retained, with new wings. A fuselage was carefully measured, and each of the new set of wings was perfectly CAD designed to match it. Unfortunately each Nimrod fuselage was slightly different due to the design tolerances built in to it, which caused almighty problems when it came to fit the new wings. Much alteration was required, and in the end it cost rather more, and took rather longer, than if new fuselages had been built from scratch.

[Blimpyboy]

18 hours ago, Truro Model Builder said:

All because we didn't want to spend the money when it was needed

Sadly, such a common occurrence, for pretty much any government service!

[Calum]

14 hours ago, Lord Riot said:

 

All to do with politics and the constant moving of the goalposts in terms of what it was being asked to do. The Nimrod airframe was very capable, more reliable in being four jet instead of two, giving added safety and loiter time, as well as crews and engineers already familiar with working with it. 

 

It could also be armed, including an array of anti-shipping ordnance allowing it to seek and destroy instead of just seek then ask for help. 

 

Quote

t was late because of cuts to budgets and very poor project management on the part of both the prime contractor and the MoD, something I am sure you are familiar with that in Australia as well. Seasprite ring a bell? The MRA.4 and its systems were very capable, the latter providing the basis for the P-8's mission suite, and it would have been in full operational service by now had it not been cancelled, without forking out a further £3 billion for the P-8 to replace it.

 

 

I don't deny politics and poor project management played  a role in it's demise . But your argument that that was the only reason doesn't hold much water. Their were major issues (as mentioned above) with the integration of new wings to the airframe that also resulted in massive cost blow outs. They should cut their losses long before they did IMHO and jumped in the P-8 earlier. That could have saved a ton of money .along with not losing a fixed wing ASW capability for the period of time . (PS Truro Model Builder Nice dig with the Seasprite.... But the story there is a little different (notwithstanding the project management) 

 

Reliability of 4 engines vs 2 is a bit of myth when it comes to modern engines. They are incredibly reliable, hence modern airliners are large twins . Not sure 4 engines means more loiter time - more fuel bur more likely. As commonality with the earlier Nimrods , didn't MR4  have new engines and new wings? It was being sold as a new so there would be a lot of "new training required regardless ... plus it was taking so long to get into service that all the old Nimrod guys would be retired:  🙂    And  most of the avionics would be all new so that argument falls down even more . The P-8 has a lot of 737 systems that are well known to the aerospace community as a whole.  I'd argue that's a huge advantage in terms of maintenance and support rather than a trying to look after 8-12 orphans 

And your last sentence makes no sense in relation to the P-8... it can do that as well. And it can attack land targetsl. When you look the USN's plans for weapons integration you can see it's going to even more capable than Nimrod, with it's low number of frames, could ever hope to be.  

 

One area were Nimrod does win hands down though is looks... It does look cool way cooler than the P-8

 

IMHO the major issue people in the UK have with the P-8 is that it's  "Not Invented here " 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Calum

[JohnT]

8 hours ago, Truro Model Builder said:

 

The problem with the airframe was that it was considerably underestimated how individual each of them were. The fuselage shell was retained, with new wings. A fuselage was carefully measured, and each of the new set of wings was perfectly CAD designed to match it. Unfortunately each Nimrod fuselage was slightly different due to the design tolerances built in to it, which caused almighty problems when it came to fit the new wings. Much alteration was required, and in the end it cost rather more, and took rather longer, than if new fuselages had been built from scratch.

No one tell them that you sand and test fit several times before glueing as with all limited run models then?

 

 

[JohnT]

5 hours ago, Calum said:

IMHO the major issue people in the UK have with the P-8 is that it's  "Not Invented here " 

Not sure I go with that.  We buy lots of kit abroad and as far as aerospace is concerned the UK does not really have deep enough pockets anymore to design and manufacture indigenous kit that's short run with limited/non existent sales potential.

 

If I recall correctly the MR4 got the chop (literally?) when the new Government found out that there was no cash under the bed or in the tea pot and not even enough to put the airframes into mothballs.  No cash so scrap the planes and do without till finances improve or so many thought.  

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello

LostCosmonauts: valid points in your post, certainly for the 80's, but perhaps less so for the earlier decades. Noelh: yes, combat aircraft are getting expensive, but that did not prevent purchases of top of the range aircraft, even by less wealthy countries, in the past.

Anybody else thinks price of both military and civil aircraft today are set way beyond their value? Cheers

Jure

[spruecutter96]

Going back to the subject of military aircraft costing huge amounts of money....

 

I read many moons ago that the US Airforce added a late requirement to the development of the Rockwell B-1B bomber, which stipulated that all the crew should be able to eject when the aircraft is upside down at 100 feet altitude. The article claimed that this one requirement added a cool $1 Billion to the programme.

 

Chris.  

[JohnT]

Just now, spruecutter96 said:

Going back to the subject of military aircraft costing huge amounts of money....

 

I read many moons ago that the US Airforce added a late requirement to the development of the Rockwell B-1B bomber, which stipulated that all the crew should be able to eject when the aircraft is upside down at 100 feet altitude. The article claimed that this one requirement added a cool $1 Billion to the programme.

 

Chris.  

Rather different to the UK solution to getting rear crew members out of V Bombers at any altitude then......

[Slater]

IIRC, early F-104's had a rather dicey ejection arrangement.

[spruecutter96]

2 hours ago, JohnT said:

Rather different to the UK solution to getting rear crew members out of V Bombers at any altitude then......

I know what you mean here. I've always thought it was deeply unfair on the rear crew-members of the V-Bombers. Their chances of successfully escaping in an emergency were worse than awful, to be blunt. Still, at least the pilots had a good chance of surviving....

 

Chris.