Hoon to ditch EuroFighter

TheSUN ^ | 03/02/04 | GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON

[Pikamax]

The bomb's rush ... Geoff Hoon is set to scrap orders for the ill-fated Eurofighter

By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON
Deputy Political EditorDEFENCE Secretary Geoff Hoon is poised to scrap the Eurofighter warplane — because it’s useless.

Military experts reckon the jet — jointly built by Britain, Germany, Spain and Italy — cannot be used either as a fighter or a bomber.

Now Mr Hoon is on the brink of axeing orders for 177 Eurofighters to ensure taxpayers are not left with a white elephant costing £30billion.

The move risks infuriating our three EU partners.

But Mr Hoon believes RAF pilots will be placed in grave danger if we do not back out.

The planes, called Typhoons, will not carry air-to-air missiles or precision-guided air-to-ground weapons.

Hoon ... on brink of axing orders
Picture: REUTERS

One source said: “The British taxpayer should not end up with a machine that looks pretty at air displays but can’t go into action. Geoff won’t sign up to future phases unless it is fit for going to war. And under current plans, it’s just not up to the job.”

Ministers have already written off £7billion on the first batch of 55 Typhoons.

Pulling out of future orders would cost around £2billion because of penalties in the contract.

Italy, Germany and Spain are all dragging their heels over funding.

Germany has refused to fork out the extra needed to equip the jet with up-to-date weaponry.

The RAF have only taken delivery of four aircraft.

They were four years late and will not be ready for action for another two years.

The project has been plagued by delays and cash overruns since its design 20 years ago.

Experts blame EU-loving ex-Defence Secretary Michael Heseltine for lumbering us with the project.

[spetznaz]

"In what ways was the F-23 a better fighter than the F-22? I watched that 2 hour NOVA special on that competition, and did not get that impression at all."

That NOVA documentary he is talking about was not between the F-22 Raptor and the YF-23 BlackWidow. It was between the JSF projects of the YF-32 and the F-35. As is evident the F-35 won, and it should have because the YF-32 seemed to be gasping for breath (and to be honest with you was a truly ugly bloke. Seriously needed some surgery).

I actually posted a thread once the documentary came out on the JSF competition ....it should still be floating somewhere in Freeperspace.

I think Shryke mixed it up here.

[Vinnie]

......The first prototype, designated the P.1, took to the air on the 4th of August 1954, piloted by Roland Beamont, EE's chief test pilot. Powered by Sapphire engines, on its third flight (on the 11th) it exceeded Mach 1 in level flight, the first British aircraft to do so. Reheat (afterburner) had not been used; supercruise was here a hell of a long time before the Americans and their ATF programme! The second prototype, the P.1A ......... http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/history.html

[spetznaz]

My take on the Typhoon: it should have been cancelled in 1991. It was intended for the Central Europe scenario, and unless Germany charges across the Rhine for the fourth time, it'll be another waste of money.

Just wondering ....wasn't the Raptor intended for the same situation? I am not 100% sure, but i believe i saw something that pertained to the ATF being meant to engage future high-octane Soviet fighters over Europe, and to win by providing air-supremacy instead of just superiority. Under your premise woudn't the Raptor also have been cancelled after the fall of the Berlin wall?

[Pukin Dog]

Nova? I was not aware of any Nova special on the ATF competition.

However, the answer to your question is EVERY way, except for one. The F-22 had better high-alpha, low speed handling characteristics. In the fly-off the F-22 was also more maneuverable, that that was written off, because Northrup did not have their thrust-vectoring system installed on their prototype. A study of the airframes would suggest that with equal vectoring, the F-23 would be more nimble due to wing loading and lower drag equaling a higher corner-speed and G-bleed. The F-23 was much faster, accelerated better, slowed better, pitched better, and so on.

The F-23 should have been selected, but the aircraft cost more, was less complete at the time of the fly-off, and came from a company under fraud investigation and other bad deeds too.

[Poohbah]

Just wondering ....wasn't the Raptor intended for the same situation?

Not quite. The Middle East scenario was also a major driver.

[scotsman1]

LOL........Beckham doesnt play in England anymore(he plays for the mighty Real Madrid).And given that we gave the world the astoundingly great Harrier,why aren't we just building our own again?......

[fdsa2]

Hey, scrap the EFA - you can have our JAS 39 Gripen, we are giving them away for free....

[Shryke]

Yes, I did confuse the JSF program. In fact, your mentioning of the YF-23, and my subsequent google of it, was the first time I had ever seen a picture of it. Really nice looking aircraft. I'll take two, please.

[hchutch]

If they don't want `em, I'll take one. Cheap.

[spetznaz]

..he plays for the mighty Real Madrid...

Hey Scots, the only 'mighty' team i am aware of is Arsenal! End of story! LOL

However since Real Madrid is not an English team i will let it pass, i'll just not call it mighty.

(p.s: Don't bother telling me different. My best pal was a Manchester United fan, and we almost got into a fight once over that heretic choice of a football team. I'm rabid!)

LOL.

Thanks Scots ....the boots thing was a faux pas on my part. I meant the World Cup not the Enlgish League.

[Gunrunner2]

Thanks. Just back from long trip, quickly followed by funeral, and no getting caught up. . .but I will say this. . .thus far, P.D. has the edge in this fight.

[Gunrunner2]

I'll get back to this later, but the EF is a great airshow jet, but not the jet for the 21st century, if only because it has zero stealth, and not to mention that due to European acquisition laws, the avionics packages are way out of date and suppliers gone bankrupt.

Side note: It constantly amazes me the very high level of technical knowledge in-depth thoughtful analysis that goes on here. We are fortunate to have on FR some of the world's best experts. I troll DU sometimes and their debates on any matters related to technical issues/capabilities appear to be based entirely upon whining and name-calling and reflect no expertise at all.

[templar]

"What, then, was it designed to do?", one might ask.

Look good at airshows, maybe?

[VaBthang4]

Tell me about the Gripen...

Why do you say that you're [Swedes] giving them away?
Attractive airframe and a pretty decent avionics package as well as a pretty fancy datalink if I am not mistaken.

[fdsa2]

Every "succesful" deal selling the plane to a foreign country has ended up in a 100% counter purchase deal...

The plane was designed to fulfil three purposes (J=Jakt, Fighter, interceptor), (A= Attack, Air-Air, Air-Ground) and (S=Spaning, Surveillance). Many argue that it does all three but not as good as it could have, if they had limited the task to one primary and possibly a secondary.

It´s a single engine Jet. I don´t know enough about delta ving vs. modern vings to have an opinion there.

Beside the above the avionics and datalink are probably good since Saab/Ericsson worked together on this.

Most importantly, the reason for Sweden´s JAS project are that Swedish defence politics still suffers from the 1938-39- and cold war syndrom. It has always been important policy wise to not have to rely on a foreign power for supplying defense material. Also the doctrin of neutrality almost demands it.