Eurofighter to be renamed Eurocrap

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-01-31 11:33am

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=114082005

Storm brewing over glitches in Typhoon

MURDO MACLEOD AND BRIAN BRADY
mmacleod@scotlandonsunday.com

THE seriously delayed and massively over budget Eurofighter Typhoon is so unreliable it is barely airborne, according to the German government, which has just taken delivery of a squadron of the £60m planes.

The new fighter-bomber, being jointly built by the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy, also lacks some of the most basic systems to protect it over the modern battlefield and has been plagued with technical problems.

A report prepared for the defence committee of the German parliament said that the eight aircraft bought for the air force spent an average of just one hour a week in the air because components had to be replaced so frequently.

German officials - whose reluctance to go ahead with the project in the 1990s delayed it by several years - have tried to play down the problems, but have admitted "teething troubles" with the new aircraft.

The report indicated that each aircraft had spent an average of only one hour in the air per week since they came into service last April. They also lack one of the most basic defences against missile attack - decoy flares.

The flares, which are often made from magnesium, are fired from aircraft and used to fool heat-seeking missiles.

The reason that the lack of decoy flares is so much of a concern is the fact that many terrorist organisations have access to shoulder-launched heat-seeking missiles which are easy to carry and use and can destroy an aircraft.

During the Cold War, the US and Soviet Union distributed thousands of the missiles to their allies, such as the US-backed Muslim fighters in Afghanistan and Soviet-backed Syria.

British MPs have admitted that they are concerned by the difficulties with the project. One blamed the large number of countries involved in the aircraft and suggested it was a matter of "too many cooks spoil the broth".

Tory defence spokesman Gerald Howarth, who has supported the plane as "a fantastic bit of kit" throughout its troubled development, admitted he was dismayed by the latest setback.

He claimed many of the problems experienced were the result of trying to involve too many countries in the project, rather than relying on UK industry to produce the plane.

"It doesn’t look good and it gives all sorts of people the chance to knock the project," Howarth told Scotland on Sunday. "I would have gone for a national construction programme, which would have prevented all these problems - but it is too late for that.

"I haven’t heard of any problems with the UK Typhoons - in fact everyone who has flown them says they are great machines. We just have to get more of them up in the air and keep them there."

The project has been plagued by rising costs and delays. The bill for Britain’s order of 232 aircraft to replace the RAF’s Tornado F3s and Jaguars has risen over the years from £7bn to £20bn.Germany will receive 180 aircraft, Italy 121 and Spain 87.

The aircraft was originally called the Eurofighter 2000, because it was due to come into service in 2000, but the number was quietly dropped in the late 1990s when it became apparent that the 2000 deadline would not be met.

The current name, Eurofighter Typhoon, was designed to be more dynamic and export-friendly, but the word Typhoon caused controversy because it recalled a famous RAF fighter-bomber of World War II which devastated German tank and troop columns.

In the early 1990s, German misgivings over the Eurofighter almost scuppered the entire project. Hit by the costs of German unification, Berlin considered opting for the Soviet-designed Mig-29s it inherited from the East German air force.

The end of the Cold War also led to Germany questioning the need for the plane.

German delays added to the costs of the project, and even after opting to continue with the Eurofighter, the Germans cut their orders for the new planes.

A spokesman for the Eurofighter project admitted that the first deliveries of fighters did not posses the decoy flare systems but said that future deliveries would have the flares and that air forces would be able to ‘retro-fit’ them to their existing machines.

He said claims that planes had been grounded because of a lack of spares were based on information that was current last November and that the problems were "rapidly" being addressed now the fighters were in service and that the plane was well-liked by pilots.

A spokesman for the Bundestag’s defence committee said that it could not discuss the contents of the report because defence reports were confidential.

However, a defence committee source, based in Berlin, told Scotland on Sunday that there had been a number of "issues" with the new aircraft, although they were the "normal teething problems".

A British Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "The MoD is unable to comment on the reports in the German media on their Typhoon aircraft."

Master Arachnos · Post by **Master Arachnos** » 2005-01-31 11:37am

Did it get its gun put back in in the end??

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-31 11:39am

Actually, I have noticed this trend everywhere: recent R&D projects seem to be more plagued with delays and overruns and problems than they were in the past. Even in my own personal experience, the Pickering and Bruce nuclear power plants were designed and built with a small fraction of the problems that plagued the much more recent and modern Darlington plant here in Ontario. And of course, there's the ridiculously expensive F-22 project in the US.

I wonder if this is due to the increasing reliance upon software for system functions, or just the inevitable growth in bureaucracies over time.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2005-01-31 11:52am

Darth Wong wrote:Actually, I have noticed this trend everywhere: recent R&D projects seem to be more plagued with delays and overruns and problems than they were in the past. Even in my own personal experience, the Pickering and Bruce nuclear power plants were designed and built with a small fraction of the problems that plagued the much more recent and modern Darlington plant here in Ontario. And of course, there's the ridiculously expensive F-22 project in the US.

I wonder if this is due to the increasing reliance upon software for system functions, or just the inevitable growth in bureaucracies over time.

At least the F-22 looks like it will be an excellent fighter, expensive though it is. The Eurofighter is beginning to sound like an expensive boondoggle.

I lack the technical expertise to speculate on what might be the cause of the trend toward delay, cost overruns, and numerous bugs, but even I, layman that I am, have noticed that it seems to take very much longer, and very much more money these days for both government and private industry to take any given technology to the next level. I keep thinking of the U.S. space program, both space station the U.S. proposed as a counterpart to the Soviet Mir, and we we never got, opting instead for participation in an international space station. There's also the National Aerospace Plane, which was to fly with scramjets. And there are the numerous proposed replacements to the space shuttle, none of which have yet materialized.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-01-31 11:56am

The Raptor and EFA were made to counter a threat that no longer exists and then costs skyrocketed as mission profiles changed and people showed disinterest. Personally, the UK should've pulled out and gone it alone with something else, at least now we are getting JSF sorted and have other projects in the works. It's the other EU nations that have got their own stuff like the Rafale or Gripen who have helped kill this project. Germany didn't help with the double-tale plane problem and then gun dispute.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2005-01-31 12:01pm

Perinquus wrote:I lack the technical expertise to speculate on what might be the cause of the trend toward delay, cost overruns, and numerous bugs, but even I, layman that I am, have noticed that it seems to take very much longer, and very much more money these days for both government and private industry to take any given technology to the next level.

Maybe it's time to go back to the aircraft development concept from the days of the F-4 Phantom and before: "make sure it mostly works in development, then work out the bugs during it's service life" rather than the current idea of "work out every last bug during development"

Gunhead · Post by **Gunhead** » 2005-01-31 12:01pm

Trend towards costs, overruns and bugs specially when it comes to military, is that they want a "do-it-all" wonder machine. Heck, the tech might allready exist but when they start to incorporate them, that's when the trouble starts.
i.e "It has to be heavily armored but amphibious and air droppable".
Then once a project is started, when it's discovered it was a bad idea. No one stops the project in the fear of looking guilty/bad/stupid. Mix this with politics and it's a major clusterfuck in the making.

-Gunhead

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-01-31 12:06pm

I've also noticed that more construction projects seem to be running over-budget and past-deadline in recent times, too. I'd guess that they're related to bureaucracy, if in fact there is a trend.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-31 12:10pm

The biggest impact that bureaucracy has upon R&D times is their tendency towards revisions and micromanagement. To an engineer, there is no more hated word than "revision"; it is simply unbelievable the costs that you can incur by repeatedly changing your mind about what you want, and that's to say nothing of the effect on morale.

I know, you military guys can scoff at the notion of civilian morale in a desk job, but it's a real problem. When you just spent eight weeks designing a subsystem and some asshole in a suit comes over and tells you to delete it all and start something entirely new because they just had an idea for a new direction, it fucks up your whole attitude.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2005-01-31 12:12pm

Master of Ossus wrote:I've also noticed that more construction projects seem to be running over-budget and past-deadline in recent times, too. I'd guess that they're related to bureaucracy, if in fact there is a trend.

Tell me about it: A new high school was built in my neighborhood last year: it was supposed to be all done by mid-summer, but the building itself was only "mostly" finished (enough to function as a school) just in time for the start of the school year, and the grounds still aren't quite finished (work has stopped during the winter), and yes the project was over-budget...

Gunhead · Post by **Gunhead** » 2005-01-31 12:15pm

Good morale wins fights. Doesn't matter if it's taking a hill, or keeping your guys better equipped than the opposition. Also in both cases bad management is going to fuck things up.

-Gunhead

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2005-01-31 12:18pm

Darth Wong wrote:The biggest impact that bureaucracy has upon R&D times is their tendency towards revisions and micromanagement. To an engineer, there is no more hated word than "revision"; it is simply unbelievable the costs that you can incur by repeatedly changing your mind about what you want, and that's to say nothing of the effect on morale.

I know, you military guys can scoff at the notion of civilian morale in a desk job, but it's a real problem. When you just spent eight weeks designing a subsystem and some asshole in a suit comes over and tells you to delete it all and start something entirely new because they just had an idea for a new direction, it fucks up your whole attitude.

No the feelings us military types have on changing things is the same. I've lost track of how many times we switched directions in the middle of fielding a new Command Post design, or how many times things were redesigned for the CF's new radios. It fucks with your morale, because it flushes everything you worked on so hard down the toliet. I would imagine that civvies would have similar feelings.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-01-31 12:20pm

Darth Wong wrote:The biggest impact that bureaucracy has upon R&D times is their tendency towards revisions and micromanagement. To an engineer, there is no more hated word than "revision"; it is simply unbelievable the costs that you can incur by repeatedly changing your mind about what you want, and that's to say nothing of the effect on morale.

I know, you military guys can scoff at the notion of civilian morale in a desk job, but it's a real problem. When you just spent eight weeks designing a subsystem and some asshole in a suit comes over and tells you to delete it all and start something entirely new because they just had an idea for a new direction, it fucks up your whole attitude.

Seriously. There was this one manager that no one wanted to work for, and I could never figure out why. Then, one day, he finds out I'm good with spreadsheets and orders me to develop a new distribution, inventory, and marketing model. We sit down for an hour or two and go over what features it needs to have, what it needs to chart, etc. I spent three weeks modeling it, running contingencies, analyzing the results, etc. and then presented it to him. He didn't even remember what the project was. Two days later he comes back and asks me to run ANOTHER frickin' inventory and marketing model, with features that I could've easily slipped into the first one prior to running my contingencies and regressions.

I soon found out that, on his team, NO ONE bothered to do the work he told them to do, since they knew he would change his mind or forget about it in a week.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-31 12:34pm

Darth Wong wrote:The biggest impact that bureaucracy has upon R&D times is their tendency towards revisions and micromanagement. To an engineer, there is no more hated word than "revision"; it is simply unbelievable the costs that you can incur by repeatedly changing your mind about what you want, and that's to say nothing of the effect on morale.

I know, you military guys can scoff at the notion of civilian morale in a desk job, but it's a real problem. When you just spent eight weeks designing a subsystem and some asshole in a suit comes over and tells you to delete it all and start something entirely new because they just had an idea for a new direction, it fucks up your whole attitude.

Amen ... we run into the same thing in the software dev process .... the dreaded meeting where some yahoo from Sales says 'You know, what would be really great is if it would do _____________' .... at which point the engineering project manager grits his teeth, remembers we have a no weapons in the workplace policy, and mutters 'What would be really great is if you had asked for that TWO MONTHS AGO!'

The whole thing gives me vague F-111 flashbacks, although its initial problems were quite different from Typhoon's 'issues'.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2005-01-31 01:33pm

yeah, the eurofighter is an expensive piece of shit. bloody annoying.

BenRG · Post by **BenRG** » 2005-01-31 01:43pm

It just astonishes me that exactly they are making the same error with the F-4 and F-102, only 40 years later: "Air-to-air missiles are so good that we don't need a gun." Unless you are strafing a small, soft, low-emission ground target... or if you are within the safety cut-off range of your missiles... or if you are out of missiles. The F-4E and F-106 'Six-Shooter' were such breaths of fresh air and did so much to improve the basic aircraft. It just can't believe that they are falling for it again.

I just suppose that, so long as they don't have to fly it, the politicians will cut as many costs as they dare.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-01-31 02:00pm

And of course, there's the ridiculously expensive F-22 project in the US.

Largely because of bureacratic foot dragging and mentality that everything has to be absolutely perfect.

And the skyrocketing cost per plane is the same as that of the B-2, they are simply buying less and less so the chunk of R&D and other fixed costs paid off on each plane is going up. A long production run will reduce the per plane cost, not increase them.

I wonder if this is due to the increasing reliance upon software for system functions, or just the inevitable growth in bureaucracies over time.

A lot of it is the paper-pushers and the mentality that everything has to be perfect and the best possible. It's leading to things like making the F-22 into the F/A-22 and other boondoggles and of course it's hampering programs from the Osprey to ABM. Of course bueracracy has a heck of a lot to do with it, constant interference will only make things worse.

Julhelm · Post by **Julhelm** » 2005-01-31 02:01pm

Gripen for life \o/

AMX · Post by **AMX** » 2005-01-31 02:02pm

BenRG wrote:It just astonishes me that exactly they are making the same error with the F-4 and F-102, only 40 years later: "Air-to-air missiles are so good that we don't need a gun."

Where did you get that nonsense from? The EF has a 27mm Mauser as standard.
Or are you talking about the F-22?

As for "the German government says the planes are barely airworthy", could we get a source for that? Press release (not "press report", press release; EF-bashing is the euro-madia's favorite sport) or anything?
Or are they refering to that old Rechnungshof report, where they claimed bureaucratic restrictions were technical problems?

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2005-01-31 02:06pm

AMX wrote:
BenRG wrote:It just astonishes me that exactly they are making the same error with the F-4 and F-102, only 40 years later: "Air-to-air missiles are so good that we don't need a gun."
Where did you get that nonsense from? The EF has a 27mm Mauser as standard.
Or are you talking about the F-22?

As for "the German government says the planes are barely airworthy", could we get a source for that? Press release (not "press report", press release; EF-bashing is the euro-madia's favorite sport) or anything?
Or are they refering to that old Rechnungshof report, where they claimed bureaucratic restrictions were technical problems?

Gugsch du hier:
Spiegel article about it, in German

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-01-31 02:10pm

AMX wrote:
BenRG wrote:It just astonishes me that exactly they are making the same error with the F-4 and F-102, only 40 years later: "Air-to-air missiles are so good that we don't need a gun."
Where did you get that nonsense from? The EF has a 27mm Mauser as standard.
Or are you talking about the F-22?

According to the Globalsecurity page the F-22 will have a 20mm Gatling gun.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2005-01-31 02:10pm

Since the article says the UK is happy with its Typhoons wouldn't this be more of a case of the German air force not being up to snuff?

AMX · Post by **AMX** » 2005-01-31 02:14pm

Dahak wrote:Gugsch Du hier:
Spiegel article about it, in German

Gugscht du hier:
What airpower.at thinks about it, also in German.

Stormbringer wrote:According to the Globalsecurity page the F-22 will have a 20mm Gatling gun.

Thanks.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2005-01-31 02:16pm

Where did you get that nonsense from? The EF has a 27mm Mauser as standard.

The RAF decided to delete the gun from it's version of the Typhoon so they could save £90 million...

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-01-31 02:24pm

AMX wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:According to the Globalsecurity page the F-22 will have a 20mm Gatling gun.
Thanks.

No problem. The US learned it's lesson from the F-4 about having interceptors and fighters with out guns.

You might have confused it with the F-117 which is a pure bomber despite the common misname (and designation) of it as stealth fighter, and thusly carries no gun.