Who owns the Eurofighter?

Snickers Man

I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist (and hope this won't be moved to that Forum) but in the event of a break up of NATO, given recent comments by President-to-be Trump, and the fact that Britain is effectively cutting its ties with Europe, it's not too outlandish to speculate that America is rationalising the number of allies it has in Europe downwards.

Some in Europe want a European army. "That will never happen!" say those in the know. With all the conviction that others "in the know" said the same thing about President Trump and Brexit. (Just saying) One of the most implacable opponents of an EU Army was Britain which always made the point "Why do we need an EU army? We have NATO!"

But if American support for NATO cools, Trump thinking that with two nuclear-armed allies on which America can absolutely depend (Britain and Israel) why should he commit to the automatic defence of places like Netherlands, Belgium, the Baltics, Poland, etc etc, maybe the need for a European army as a counterweight to both the US-Britain-Israel alliance and the Soviet Union becomes more apparent.

In which case it would need to come to some pretty swift agreement about defence procurement, starting with the most expensive and most strategic conventional weapon, namely combat aircraft. France, as always does its own thing. Several other European countries, including Britain pooled their resources into developing the Eurofighter. But if Britain is no longer allied with the other members of the consortium (assuming a NATO implosion) who gets the rights to manufacture and develop, not to mention deploy, the Eurofighter?

I don't actually think this is a mad question.

Gatling

There's an actual eurofigher company which is owned by Airbus ,Bae and Alenia Aermacchi who designed , produced and upgrade the aircraft ,
And would likely do so in the event of a NATO break up ( won't actually happen) ,
Unless conflict broke out in countries where it's actually produced on a production line ,it will be business as usual for the company and aircraft

Snickers Man

Gatling wrote: »

There's an actual eurofigher company which is owned by Airbus ,Bae and Alenia Aermacchi who designed , produced and upgrade the aircraft ,
And would likely do so in the event of a NATO break up ( won't actually happen)

Airbus? Isn't that a French based company with partially French ownership? So the French own a stake in Eurofighter while their own air force has nothing to do with deploying it and they instead design and build (at massive expense) their own Rafale fighters? That's mad Ted.

And how, in the wake of the Trump election and Brexit, can you be so sure that a NATO break up "won't actually happen"?

I hope you're right, BTW, but I don't like the way the wind seems to be blowing.

BoJack Horseman

Snickers Man wrote: »

Airbus? Isn't that a French based company with partially French ownership? So the French own a stake in Eurofighter while their own air force has nothing to do with deploying it and they instead design and build (at massive expense) their own Rafale fighters? That's mad Ted.

The main issue (or one of them) was that France wanted a carrier-capable aircraft which the other consortium nations were not interested in.

So, France split off and funded the Rafale.
You can see from the two that they share some design DNA.

sparky42

Snickers Man wrote: »

Airbus? Isn't that a French based company with partially French ownership? So the French own a stake in Eurofighter while their own air force has nothing to do with deploying it and they instead design and build (at massive expense) their own Rafale fighters? That's mad Ted.

And how, in the wake of the Trump election and Brexit, can you be so sure that a NATO break up "won't actually happen"?

I hope you're right, BTW, but I don't like the way the wind seems to be blowing.

As mentioned France was part of the Eurofighter consortium at the start, and has already stated that they will join with other countries for the next gen fighter. Really if the UK had known it was going back to large Carriers Rafale would have been the better option for them as well, but the UK and France always have issues working together.

From memory the production of the Eurofighter is split with the UK only building some of the airframe, that being said unless there's new orders of significant amounts coming soon (ie more Tranche 3's) then the entire production line is going to face some questions as to viability.

ohnonotgmail

Snickers Man wrote: »

Airbus? Isn't that a French based company with partially French ownership? So the French own a stake in Eurofighter while their own air force has nothing to do with deploying it and they instead design and build (at massive expense) their own Rafale fighters? That's mad Ted.

And how, in the wake of the Trump election and Brexit, can you be so sure that a NATO break up "won't actually happen"?

I hope you're right, BTW, but I don't like the way the wind seems to be blowing.

because the decision is not going to be put to a public vote.

sparky42

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

because the decision is not going to be put to a public vote.

No but so far Trump hasn't been close to adhering to norms in regard to NATO/US FP, to the point that even Merkel is talking about Europe looking to it's own needs.

TBH, given how hollowed out the EU nations have allowed their militaries to become some level of increase isn't a bad thing.

ohnonotgmail

sparky42 wrote: »

No but so far Trump hasn't been close to adhering to norms in regard to NATO/US FP, to the point that even Merkel is talking about Europe looking to it's own needs.

TBH, given how hollowed out the EU nations have allowed their militaries to become some level of increase isn't a bad thing.

but nothing trump does will breakup nato. he might remove the US from nato (which would be an incredibly stupid thing to that would be resisted internally) but nato would live on without the US.

sparky42

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but nothing trump does will breakup nato. he might remove the US from nato (which would be an incredibly stupid thing to that would be resisted internally) but nato would live on without the US.

The reality is NATO without the US becomes an relatively empty force that would struggle to deploy and sustain meaningful numbers outside of Europe even in the Med (as seen by issues both in Libya and Mali)

tac foley

Let's just remind ourselves of what the term 'global power' actually means...

A few days ago, two B2 bombers took off from their home-base in Missouri, and bombed the almighty bejabbers out of a bunch of isis thugs located near the Gulf of Sirte, Libya. They refueled at least five times midair during the mission. The flight lasted about 30 hours. The planes flew around the world and back without landing.

Nobody else on earth can do that.

The Russians sailed the floating scrap pile 'Kuznetzov' to the coast of Syria, without most of its heads working, at reduced power, emitting two hundred and fifty years-worth of airborne ****e from its hyper-inefficient old machinery, and followed all the way by its very own pet rescue tug. While they were there, they flew off a couple of jets, losing one in the process, to show the world how it's done. Just to remind you that this is the only carrier they have.

Meanwhile, any of the many US Navy CGNs can happily fly off around a hundred aircraft, 24/7 and every thirty seconds, for as long as the 3.8/4.5 million gallons of jet fuel lasts.

The USAF transport fleet currently has over one hundred C-5 Galaxy heavy lift of one mark or another......plus another 2000+ other aircraft.

Think NATO can do without the US?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

tac

Gatling

tac foley wrote: »

Let's just remind ourselves of what the term 'global power' actually means...

A few days ago, two B2 bombers took off from their home-base in Missouri, and bombed the almighty bejabbers out of a bunch of isis thugs located near the Gulf of Sirte, Libya. They refueled at least five times midair during the mission. The flight lasted about 30 hours. The planes flew around the world and back without landing.

Nobody else on earth can do that.

The Russians sailed the floating scrap pile 'Kuznetzov' to the coast of Syria, without most of its heads working, at reduced power, emitting two hundred and fifty years-worth of airborne ****e from its hyper-inefficient old machinery, and followed all the way by its very own pet rescue tug. While they were there, they flew off a couple of jets, losing one in the process, to show the world how it's done. Just to remind you that this is the only carrier they have.

Meanwhile, any of the many US Navy CGNs can happily fly off around a hundred aircraft, 24/7 and every thirty seconds, for as long as the 3.8/4.5 million gallons of jet fuel lasts.

The USAF transport fleet currently has over one hundred C-5 Galaxy heavy lift of one mark or another......plus another 2000+ other aircraft.

Think NATO can do without the US?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

tac

That's the difference between an actual Superpower and a regional power with nuclear weapons ,
Let's see what China will be capable of in the next 4 years

Fratton Fred

sparky42 wrote: »

As mentioned France was part of the Eurofighter consortium at the start, and has already stated that they will join with other countries for the next gen fighter. Really if the UK had known it was going back to large Carriers Rafale would have been the better option for them as well, but the UK and France always have issues working together.

From memory the production of the Eurofighter is split with the UK only building some of the airframe, that being said unless there's new orders of significant amounts coming soon (ie more Tranche 3's) then the entire production line is going to face some questions as to viability.

different bits are made in different countries, but generally speaking, final assembly for the RAF (as well as Saudi and Omani airframes) is in the UK, in Germany for the German and Austrian airforces and Spain and Italy for theirs.

sparky42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

different bits are made in different countries, but generally speaking, final assembly for the RAF (as well as Saudi and Omani airframes) is in the UK, in Germany for the German and Austrian airforces and Spain and Italy for theirs.

Of course, could you imagine the complaints if a RAF Typhoon was fully assembled in Germany...

BoJack Horseman

The latest order of Eurofighters, 28 units for Kuwait will be assembled in Italy.

Perhaps the consortium nations take turns in leading orders?

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The latest order of Eurofighters, 28 units for Kuwait will be assembled in Italy.

Perhaps the consortium nations take turns in leading orders?

From memory those are going to be the latest variant of the Tranche, maybe Italy took the lead on those developments? Or yeah maybe they had space on the assembly line?(Or gave the best bribe?)

Stovepipe

The different countries have different build models (who thought up the word Tranche?) and different war loads. Austria is said by some commentators to have the least capable of all the Typhoons. The RAF claim that theirs is the best and that it's better than the Rafale,etc,etc. You could join Arrse and PPrune and lose the will to live arguing about Typhoon, carriers, F35,etc, until the drag your cobwebbed corpse off your laptop...

sparky42

Stovepipe wrote: »

The different countries have different build models (who thought up the word Tranche?) and different war loads. Austria is said by some commentators to have the least capable of all the Typhoons. The RAF claim that theirs is the best and that it's better than the Rafale,etc,etc. You could join Arrse and PPrune and lose the will to live arguing about Typhoon, carriers, F35,etc, until the drag your cobwebbed corpse off your laptop...

"Tranche", no different from "Flight", "Batch" etc. Yeah they have different loads as they all have different suppliers and weapons, think the Austrian ones are Tranche 1's, so are pretty much strictly A2A (as that's what the Typhoon was meant for) as they were the cheapest.

Stars and Stripes

Sadly Ireland wouldn't be getting any Eurofighters But I was thinking, if the Irish govt instead of trying to ludicrously not take the €13 Billion in taxes (€19 Bn with interest) owed by Apple - how many Eurofighters and other military hardware could we buy with the €13 Bn !!!

donvito99

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Sadly Ireland wouldn't be getting any Eurofighters But I was thinking, if the Irish govt instead of trying to ludicrously not take the €13 Billion in taxes (€19 Bn with interest) owed by Apple - how many Eurofighters and other military hardware could we buy with the €13 Bn !!!

Enough for all the laid off MNC workers?

sparky42

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Sadly Ireland wouldn't be getting any Eurofighters But I was thinking, if the Irish govt instead of trying to ludicrously not take the €13 Billion in taxes (€19 Bn with interest) owed by Apple - how many Eurofighters and other military hardware could we buy with the €13 Bn !!!

Whatever amount brings the spend up to 1-1.5%, the rest pumped into economic investment to increase the economy.

Morpheus

Wont be buying much with this news....
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/little-or-no-room-left-for-spending-increases-in-next-years-budget-775932.html

sparky42

Morpheus wrote: »

Wont be buying much with this news....
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/little-or-no-room-left-for-spending-increases-in-next-years-budget-775932.html

Well that was clear from the moment the pay deals were outlined, it was clearly going to eat through any headroom there was.

Morpheus

And guess which group will be last to feel any pay restoration. Sometimes i almost feel like this country needs a short sharp reminder of why we have a military (the more stable side of me obviously hopes the status quo of peace continues)

sparky42

Morpheus wrote: »

And guess which group will be last to feel any pay restoration. Sometimes i almost feel like this country needs a short sharp reminder of why we have a military (the more stable side of me obviously hopes the status quo of peace continues)

I think that goes without question, just like all the other times the DF have been at the end of the line for the budget.

Snickers Man

tac foley wrote: »

Let's just remind ourselves of what the term 'global power' actually means...

A few days ago, two B2 bombers took off from their home-base in Missouri, and bombed the almighty bejabbers out of a bunch of isis thugs located near the Gulf of Sirte, Libya. They refueled at least five times midair during the mission. The flight lasted about 30 hours. The planes flew around the world and back without landing.

Nobody else on earth can do that.

The Russians sailed the floating scrap pile 'Kuznetzov' to the coast of Syria, without most of its heads working, at reduced power, emitting two hundred and fifty years-worth of airborne ****e from its hyper-inefficient old machinery, and followed all the way by its very own pet rescue tug. While they were there, they flew off a couple of jets, losing one in the process, to show the world how it's done. Just to remind you that this is the only carrier they have.

Meanwhile, any of the many US Navy CGNs can happily fly off around a hundred aircraft, 24/7 and every thirty seconds, for as long as the 3.8/4.5 million gallons of jet fuel lasts.

The USAF transport fleet currently has over one hundred C-5 Galaxy heavy lift of one mark or another......plus another 2000+ other aircraft.

Think NATO can do without the US?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

tac

The issue isn't whether or not the European countries would be weaker without America watching their backs; of course they would. It's whether NATO in its current form is going to endure. If the Americans pull the plug on the NATO of today--and Trump has more than hinted that he may do just that--there would have to be a realignment.

I could imagine Europe splitting into separate alliances, nominally friendly to each other, at least at the start, but nonetheless still rivals. One faction would be dominated by the USA and Britain and would probably contain other NATO-but-not-EU members like Norway and Turkey. The other would be dominated by Euro-federalist powers like Germany Italy and France (Putative President Le Pen notwithstanding). Other smaller countries like the Baltics and Poland, who have genuine fears of Russian aggression or at least interference would have to make their choice about which faction to join.

And then there's little old neutral Ireland facing a whole new state of affairs that it probably couldn't remain aloof from.

Again, I don't believe this is "George-Bush-Bombed-the-Trade-Center" conspiracy theory paranoia. This is just a simple relatively clear-eyed look at the strategic situation as it currently is following recent events. NATO is under pressure from two interest groups: those who want a European Army and those in America who want a reduction of their own commitment--NOT, I hasten to add, a complete withdrawal from useful European allies. Can it take the strain and emerge relatively unscathed and unchanged or will it mutate into (an)other entity(ies)?

I'm just curious

Snickers Man

tac foley wrote: »

Let's just remind ourselves of what the term 'global power' actually means...

A few days ago, two B2 bombers took off from their home-base in Missouri, and bombed the almighty bejabbers out of a bunch of isis thugs located near the Gulf of Sirte, Libya. They refueled at least five times midair during the mission. The flight lasted about 30 hours. The planes flew around the world and back without landing.

Nobody else on earth can do that.

Actually just thinking about this.

If, as you say, America has bombers that can fly around the world without the requirement of a base close to their intended target, why the hell does IT need a military alliance like NATO? The scenario you describe is analagous to the Trumpian notion of how America should do business: build it all in America; sell it all over the world. America First!!

Why does it need local manufacturing close to market? Why does it need allied air bases close to target?

Maybe reality will kick in and the strategic decision makers, in both the military and business senses, will decide that it is BETTER if not absolutely NECESSARY to build local partnerships the better to support their plans outside their own jurisdiction. And therefore there will remain the need, for tariff reasons if nothing else, to manufacture product intended for Europe in Europe and to support "Boots on the Ground" here too.

What is the advantage of a plane flyng all around the world just to bomb a single target? Was this perhaps a "proof of concept" mission?

sparky42

Snickers Man wrote: »

Actually just thinking about this.

If, as you say, America has bombers that can fly around the world without the requirement of a base close to their intended target, why the hell does IT need a military alliance like NATO? The scenario you describe is analagous to the Trumpian notion of how America should do business: build it all in America; sell it all over the world. America First!!

Why does it need local manufacturing close to market? Why does it need allied air bases close to target?

Maybe reality will kick in and the strategic decision makers, in both the military and business senses, will decide that it is BETTER if not absolutely NECESSARY to build local partnerships the better to support their plans outside their own jurisdiction. And therefore there will remain the need, for tariff reasons if nothing else, to manufacture product intended for Europe in Europe and to support "Boots on the Ground" here too.

What is the advantage of a plane flyng all around the world just to bomb a single target? Was this perhaps a "proof of concept" mission?

The B2's have a fair amount of restrictions in where they fly out of. Their Stealth coating can be affected by conditions so their hangers are designed for them, think it's only Guam, Diego Garcia, and their homebase that they regularly stay at (and even then they crashed 1 in Guam due to moisture getting into the Avionics).

While air power can base out of the US it's limited, really you are talking about only the Strategic bombers and of them only the B2 (some 20 planes) can operate against a Peer nation (rather than being a bomb truck like the B 52). Everything else it tactical and needs to be closer to operations.

And there's the whole air power alone can't win a war issue.

gallag

Pfft that's nothing ;-) operation black buck 1982 lol 1 vulcan bomber needed 13 refulers to drop a bomb 8000 miles away!!

Captain Chaos

gallag wrote: »

Pfft that's nothing ;-) operation black buck 1982 lol 1 vulcan bomber needed 13 refulers to drop a bomb 8000 miles away!!

It was 21 bombs they dropped and only 1 hit the runway, the rest landed either side of it. Still it was more a message sent than anything.

sparky42

gallag wrote: »

Pfft that's nothing ;-) operation black buck 1982 lol 1 vulcan bomber needed 13 refulers to drop a bomb 8000 miles away!!

Well that was more a result of the small size of their tankers in the repurposed Victor's, had the RAF the larger tankers of the USAF at the time the situation would have been different.

Captain Chaos wrote: »

It was 21 bombs they dropped and only 1 hit the runway, the rest landed either side of it. Still it was more a message sent than anything.

Considering the situation of the Vulcan fleet before the War it should be impressive as hell. No air to air refueling training/fittings, no conventional bombing training/fittings/stocks...

gallag

Good weekend doco of Operation black buck here

https://youtu.be/PBJ99bIhAVk