| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Eurofighter canât fly |
| 2004-05-25 |
| THE RAFâs new £43million Eurofighter jet cannot fly in cloud or carry out aerial combat, tests have shown. A leaked MoD report reveals the aircraft should not be flown in action without a safety pilot in the back seat. High-powered computers which fly the Eurofighter are unreliable and risk throwing the plane into âa catastrophic spin.â Details are revealed in a test pilotâs report after an eight-month trial period. The report says the computer is in danger of switching from flight mode to ground mode while in the air. It adds: âIt is recommended as essential that the cause of this fault are investigated, understood and if necessary rectified.â MoD chiefs insist the Eurofighter is still in its development stages and problems are being addressed. The aircraft, a joint project involving the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy, has been jinxed by a series of faults. It should have been handed to the RAF four years ago but is massively behind schedule. It is set to replace the Tornado F3 fighter bombers â but Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon is already threatening to cancel many of the orders to save taxpayersâ cash. The damning new report comes just a week after it was revealed another new jet is too fat to fly. The Joint Strike Fighter may be too heavy to take off from Royal Navy aircraft carriers. There are also computer problems with the Armyâs new Apache helicopter gunships, which cannot fly in bad weather. |
| Posted by:Howard UK |
| #12 JSF = TFX, and is about as likely to succeed. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-05-25 7:38:02 PM |
| #11 1)The Eurofighter is not just 4 years behind schedule-it was originally called Eurofighter 90,because it was supposed to be flying in the early 19990's. 2)The JSF or F-35 is a total disaster.Here's why(long rant follows-if too long understand deletion).The USAF wanted a replacement for f-117 Steath a/c,but couldn't justify cost for such a limited run.So USAF announced F-35 was F-16 replacement.Didn't matter F-16 has better dogfighting ability,longer range,and more payload capacity,the F-35 is STEALTHY!The Navy needed an all-weather strike a/c to replace A-6,and wanted to get a stealth a/c also.The Marines want a replacement for Harriers which are getting close to 20 years old.The F-35(JSF) was the proposed to replace all of the above.A VTOL version for USMC,carrier version for USN and land version for USAF.Britain signed on for VTOL version for RN,w/more for RAF.Now look at differ types of a/c F-35 is to replace:F-16,A-6,Harrier,F-117-they have virtually nothing in common except being combat a/c.It is same as buying a 4door sedan and expecting it to replace a mini-van,a pick-up truck,an Indy racecar and a jeep. Then the USAF(in charge of project)announced that the price was going to be fixed-in other words if you wanted to add something to a/c you had to lose something else.The first thing lost was VTOL capability.USAF studies "proved" the USMC didn't use VTOL that much,so STOL(short takeoff & landing vs.vertical)was good enough.The Marines didn't fight too much cause they needed USAF support over other flop,the OSPREY(V-22).(Didn't work,the USAF has said it won't commit to buying any OSPREY's.)Meanwhile the STOL version keeps needing longer and longer distances to take off. The USAF discovered it intended to sell the F-35 to other countries and it now needs new software that can't be copied.Since this was such a suprise to USAF(heavy sarcasm!),the USAF announced that fixed price was not feasible and that the unit price is going to rise-in other words all the goodies everybody wanted could now be added,cost be damned,which also means weight goes up and performance declines even more.So a new stealthy strike a/c that would cost a little more than fully loaded new F-16 is now costing at least 50% more for a less capable a/c.It is no longer VTOl capable,and USAF even had b**** to ask USMC if they really needed STOL version,cause Marine a/c usually operate from carriers or concrete airbases.That request died when British stated w/out STOL they had no reason to buy F-35. The F-35 will cost more,dogfight worse than F-16's,is incapable of VTOL like Harrier,and is far superior to F-117.Is that a reason to buy this turkey,especially when F-22 can fairly stealthily carry a couple of pgms? |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-05-25 5:06:33 PM |
| #10 Mike S: Maybe France should consider buying some too to park at the de Gaulle aeroport! Considering how it's falling down around them! Man, what a time to live in America! When even the Frenchies can't keep their airport open (as if any true Americans wanted to visit France now). Guess the next plane to fly into the Eiffel Tower will have to come from Germany! |
| Posted by: BA 2004-05-25 1:38:56 PM |
| #9 a joint project involving the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy, Wasn't there an old saying about, "Too many cooks spoil the broth" OR "But it was so good in the virtual reality test." Try flying it upside down. Might Work. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-05-25 11:30:55 AM |
| #8 The real indicator of program difficulty is not how far behind schedule it is, but how many times its budget has been rebaselined. It's usually three strikes and you're out. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-05-25 11:29:55 AM |
| #7 Four years doesn't sound massively behind schedule to me. Yeah its embarrassing and unfortunate but not massively behind schedule compared to other military hardware that's slipped the schedule. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-05-25 9:55:58 AM |
| #6 Considered unlikely now TomA weight and cost problems. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-05-25 9:29:14 AM |
| #5 I thought the JSF was to have a VTOL version. |
| Posted by: TomAnon 2004-05-25 8:59:45 AM |
| #4 I don't think a decision to build or not build catapults on the new carriers has been made. Worse case is that it is left off but allowance is made for future installation. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-05-25 8:36:40 AM |
| #3 The JSF isn't going to be operational until 2010 or 2012 and it's possible to pare the weight down before then so it'll fly off the end of a boat. The ski jump carriers are much cheaper to build than the flat ones, and since they already have a couple I doubt the Brits would be looking to scrap them. So they'll just have to skinny the JSF down. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2004-05-25 8:17:01 AM |
| #2 Alongside their F14 paperweights. Won't the new British large deck carriers have catapults? Without them, aircraft won't be able to take off with a decent payload, let alone fly the E2C. With catapults, aircraft weight is a moot point. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-05-25 7:53:09 AM |
| #1 Iran should buy some to park at its new aiport. |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-05-25 6:38:37 AM |