Alpha,
I knew you were misguided, but not that you were either deliberately prevaricating or deluded, or a fool. Just to set the record straight, I'd challenge four of your glib arguments.
1) JP233. Loss rates when using it were very low - only one of six RAF Tornados lost in action during Granby was on a JP233 mission and that was hit by a SAM while outbound, well outside the target area, having achieved its objective. Of the other four lost at low level two were lofting 'dumb' 1,000-lb bombs (the profile that your precious FA.Mk 2s would have used under the same circumstances) and one was downed by the premature explosion of its own bombs when these 'bumped' on release.
It was hardly the "miserable failure" which you aver, and one which did not "lead to the downing, capture and degradation of several “caterpillar club” aircrew". In fact two aircrew Flt Lt David W and Flt Lt Robert Stuart were captured, but (uniquely as Iraqi PoWs) according to official accounts were 'treated well in an Iraqi hospital' before being repatriated. Oh yes, and the Russians feared it, and it drove the GSFG drive to the establishment of highway strips co-located with most of the main airfields in East Germany.
2) Nimrod. a) don't bore me with your ill-founded nonsense about the MR.Mk 1, which has been adequately countered here and elsewhere. b) your allegations about MR1 are as factually inaccurate as those about JP233 c) you ignore the MR2 and d) most of the cost of MRA 4 will improve the aircraft's capability in other areas and roles (eg Storm Shadow).
3) Tornado. You are out of date and inaccurate about F3's current capability, as has been hinted at on these fora by current F3 aircrew, who one might expect to be rather more 'up to speed' than a super-annuated ex RN pilot who is lounging around in the sun (perhaps you should wear a hat?). The F3 was 'held back' in Desert Storm because of others (including F-14 aircrew) aver that the reason was a desire to maintain a USAF kill monopoly. The F3 is not agile. The F3 lacks thrust at medium level. But the radar is very good, and with JTIDS and a back-seater the aircraft's BVR capability is respectable enough. Repeating your nonsense does not make it any closer to the truth.
You claim to be "one of that strange breed that wants operationally and cost-effective weapon systems for Britain" yet you denigrate the Jaguar (cost effective if nothing else), ignore the F3's multi-role and SEAD potential and yet harp on and on about single-role Sea Harriers and Carriers (gold plated and highly expensive solutions).
4) Eurofighter's costs are transparent and are available easily from the NAO. £61 m apiece including R&D, £42 m without. Not £93 m.
Westy,
You make good points, as ever, but have the advantage of being from a country which CAN AFFORD carrier air power (which we cannot) and which is used to carrying out sustained operations where carriers may enjoy some of the advantages you claim. Fast Jet squadron deployments suit our pocket and more short term approach rather better.
JN
Edited upon advisement by a reliable source for legal reasons. Admin
Last edited by Capt PPRuNe; 15th June 2002 at 00:11.