Eurofighter a dud - London plans to reduce order for obsolescent fighter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK's kit is pretty good, really, and what we lack in technology we generally make up for with good training and practice.
Sorry for the rant.........
Moose
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Inner Planets
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disagree completely. We are given C@*P kit, which, we the people on the front line make work.
Finally, exactly why don't we need Typhoon?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: your mother's bedroom
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh my, a load of CRAB types and pilots sniffing up my arse, but I've just done a kulbit and and am doing a 6-G dive, inverted, cockpit to cockpit....
The Rafale radar is not working. The RBY2 is a pathetic dead end machine, which is why Rafale is selling like a flying anvil. Word is, Morrocco will buy 36 used F-16s for 1.4 billion euros than shell out another billion or so for the French turd holster...
And with the arguments on here, it's like all of you are padawans to the ultimate Daft Lord - Jackonicko, who's making an absolute ass of himself on Keypubs forums.
The EF AESA is not working. And it does not even have as many capabilities as the APG-77, which will soon be superseded by the 80, which is said to have three times the range of any AESA radar existing, according to an AF commander.
Please be serious, any medium sized country has a flying AESA, mainly of AWACS type, the Swedes have it, even the Chinese have it, the difference is whether it is fighter portable, and whether even the Pakistanis, who are generally of the beggary type, would accept it (which they didn't for the Chinese AESA, which looks like it's made in Detriot, nuff said).
The 80 is a true 4th gen AESA, able to direct energy attacks against opposing aircraft and sort out their avionics like Millwall types working over mouthy Spurs fans after Suds Sunday.
And I cannot believe some mealy mouthed fella is actually dissing the F-22, the plane that an astonished RAAF exchange pilot said that he could put a missile on even though he sees it outside his cockpit, and couldn't see on radar at whichever range, and which is known in aerophile circles to be loafing around in airshows but still putting on a spectacular display. Once in a while, the pilot gets bored, and pulls a 10 G right 180 degree bank and turn in something like 2 seconds, it's on Youtube...
Any the bridge, it's just been polished, and with the high tracked traffic, me thinks you can levy a nice toll for that one...
The Rafale radar is not working. The RBY2 is a pathetic dead end machine, which is why Rafale is selling like a flying anvil. Word is, Morrocco will buy 36 used F-16s for 1.4 billion euros than shell out another billion or so for the French turd holster...
And with the arguments on here, it's like all of you are padawans to the ultimate Daft Lord - Jackonicko, who's making an absolute ass of himself on Keypubs forums.
The EF AESA is not working. And it does not even have as many capabilities as the APG-77, which will soon be superseded by the 80, which is said to have three times the range of any AESA radar existing, according to an AF commander.
Please be serious, any medium sized country has a flying AESA, mainly of AWACS type, the Swedes have it, even the Chinese have it, the difference is whether it is fighter portable, and whether even the Pakistanis, who are generally of the beggary type, would accept it (which they didn't for the Chinese AESA, which looks like it's made in Detriot, nuff said).
The 80 is a true 4th gen AESA, able to direct energy attacks against opposing aircraft and sort out their avionics like Millwall types working over mouthy Spurs fans after Suds Sunday.
And I cannot believe some mealy mouthed fella is actually dissing the F-22, the plane that an astonished RAAF exchange pilot said that he could put a missile on even though he sees it outside his cockpit, and couldn't see on radar at whichever range, and which is known in aerophile circles to be loafing around in airshows but still putting on a spectacular display. Once in a while, the pilot gets bored, and pulls a 10 G right 180 degree bank and turn in something like 2 seconds, it's on Youtube...
Any the bridge, it's just been polished, and with the high tracked traffic, me thinks you can levy a nice toll for that one...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Inner Planets
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LM
I am intrigued. What actually is your military experience? Are you a contractor? Because I have to say you are in danger of knocking WEBF off the 'Talks complete rubbish' PPRUNE table.
How, pray tell can you tell that an F-22 is pulling 10g (
) from a video?
You strike me as a somewhat sad walt trawling the pages of You-Tube. You certainly have very little understanding of what you're talking about.
I am intrigued. What actually is your military experience? Are you a contractor? Because I have to say you are in danger of knocking WEBF off the 'Talks complete rubbish' PPRUNE table.
How, pray tell can you tell that an F-22 is pulling 10g (
) from a video?You strike me as a somewhat sad walt trawling the pages of You-Tube. You certainly have very little understanding of what you're talking about.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: your mother's bedroom
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see that you've called me a walt based on one point, Sir Walter Mitty.
Of course I don't know its 10G. It would have been 9 or close to it, or more than it, who knows? It is mere inflection meant to pound in the fact that the F-22 is not flying at the edge of its envelope during its spectacular air displays, which is astonishing considering the many other things working for it.
The EF looks only like a jaunty kite in comparison...
Of course I don't know its 10G. It would have been 9 or close to it, or more than it, who knows? It is mere inflection meant to pound in the fact that the F-22 is not flying at the edge of its envelope during its spectacular air displays, which is astonishing considering the many other things working for it.
The EF looks only like a jaunty kite in comparison...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally, exactly why don't we need Typhoon?
'Blame' Land for the lack of SH funding - they hold the purse strings there. We need something to replace the F3, and we will need something to replace Tornado, unless you're advocating we become a niche capability air force by 2025.
Might I suggest that we could, in fact, invest in both T3, JCA, SH and AT if the MoD stopped spending £2.3bn per year on consultants and that it would be far better to argue that we need all the capabilities rather than do the usual 'let's make the treasury happy that it's still dividing and ruling amongst the services' arguing over what to cut. I put ' ' around 'blame' above, since they have to make very awkward funding choices thanks to government parsimony and suggesting fault isn't entirely fair, IMHO.
LM - the three billy goats gruff will be over that bridge shortly and you can resume proper trolling duties there.
Might I suggest that we could, in fact, invest in both T3, JCA, SH and AT if the MoD stopped spending £2.3bn per year on consultants and that it would be far better to argue that we need all the capabilities rather than do the usual 'let's make the treasury happy that it's still dividing and ruling amongst the services' arguing over what to cut. I put ' ' around 'blame' above, since they have to make very awkward funding choices thanks to government parsimony and suggesting fault isn't entirely fair, IMHO.
LM - the three billy goats gruff will be over that bridge shortly and you can resume proper trolling duties there.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might I suggest that we could, in fact, invest in both T3, JCA, SH and AT if the MoD stopped spending £2.3bn per year on consultants and that it would be far better to argue that we need all the capabilities rather than do the usual 'let's make the treasury happy that it's still dividing and ruling amongst the services' arguing over what to cut.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I notice you have avoided answering Boldface's question though LM.
What do you do? What qualifies you to speak on these subjects? What relevant military experience do you have? What military experience of any sort do you have?
You're being called a walt for several reasons. You stated the F-35 will have the same g capability (not frankly that that is all that relevant) as Typhoon. You are incorrect.
You intimated the Europeans didn't have a working AESA. You were proved incorrect and now attempt to create smoke and mirrors.
You've suggested Typhoon is too heavy yet proved no evidence to support that assertion.
You make sweeping statements about air-air tactics yet admit you do not understand the relevance of supersonic manoeuvering.
You ascribe 'death ray' type capabilities to AESA EA.
You state neither CAESAR nor RBE2 are working yet fail to explain how you are qualified to make such bold statements, nor why they ar not working.
You incorrectly state that 'most' medium sized nations have AESA.
You talk about an F-22s airshow performance as if it relevant to operations.
And you wonder why you are being called a walt?
Please answer the following questionsdirectly:
What is your profession?
What military experience do you have?
I await with interest.
MM
What do you do? What qualifies you to speak on these subjects? What relevant military experience do you have? What military experience of any sort do you have?
You're being called a walt for several reasons. You stated the F-35 will have the same g capability (not frankly that that is all that relevant) as Typhoon. You are incorrect.
You intimated the Europeans didn't have a working AESA. You were proved incorrect and now attempt to create smoke and mirrors.
You've suggested Typhoon is too heavy yet proved no evidence to support that assertion.
You make sweeping statements about air-air tactics yet admit you do not understand the relevance of supersonic manoeuvering.
You ascribe 'death ray' type capabilities to AESA EA.
You state neither CAESAR nor RBE2 are working yet fail to explain how you are qualified to make such bold statements, nor why they ar not working.
You incorrectly state that 'most' medium sized nations have AESA.
You talk about an F-22s airshow performance as if it relevant to operations.
And you wonder why you are being called a walt?
Please answer the following questionsdirectly:
What is your profession?
What military experience do you have?
I await with interest.
MM
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think anybody would accept that no matter what the criteria, we certainly don't need the F-35, nice though it would be. Common sense would suggest that it would be far better to "navalise" a final batch of Typhoons (especially when BAe have repeatedly said that it can be done fairly inexpensively) and forget about another whizz-bang jet that, in practical terms, offers the RAF and FAA absolutely nothing of any practical value which can't be achieved with Typhoons. Okay, you can drift into Air Forces Monthly-esque fantasy trips about what weapons can be carried or what g can be pulled, blah, blah, but let's be realistic here - unless the Typhoon is already considered to be obsolescent (and it would seem that for the first time in its history the RAF has actually got a fighter that actually isn't *gasp*) then I do find the slightly misplaced eagerness for the F-35 quite comical.
As Engines outlined on Page2 of this thread, the Typhoon and F-35 are indeed very different aircraft but not sufficiently different to convince any self-respecting bean counter to accept that there's a good case to buy more than we need of either type, especially when (as has been said repeatedly) HM Forces are woefully short of many other assets which are arguably just as (or more) important. You only have to look back through the pages of PPrune to see that we all saw this coming for a long time. Even our beloved cousins across the Atlantic have started to appreciate that there comes a point at which the endless quest (usually encouraged by industry for very obvious reasons) for more advanced weaponry starts to look a tad pointless when there's scarcely enough money to finance what is already available.
I suppose that, based on the lessons of history, the final outcome of this saga will be illogical, bewildering and vaguely sad, no matter what happens, and will doubtless be based on the considerations of political spin-doctoring, regional and national employment figures, and the relative voiciferousness of assorted MP's, Air Chief Marshals and Admirals, and ultimately have very little to do with brochure performance figures.
As Engines outlined on Page2 of this thread, the Typhoon and F-35 are indeed very different aircraft but not sufficiently different to convince any self-respecting bean counter to accept that there's a good case to buy more than we need of either type, especially when (as has been said repeatedly) HM Forces are woefully short of many other assets which are arguably just as (or more) important. You only have to look back through the pages of PPrune to see that we all saw this coming for a long time. Even our beloved cousins across the Atlantic have started to appreciate that there comes a point at which the endless quest (usually encouraged by industry for very obvious reasons) for more advanced weaponry starts to look a tad pointless when there's scarcely enough money to finance what is already available.
I suppose that, based on the lessons of history, the final outcome of this saga will be illogical, bewildering and vaguely sad, no matter what happens, and will doubtless be based on the considerations of political spin-doctoring, regional and national employment figures, and the relative voiciferousness of assorted MP's, Air Chief Marshals and Admirals, and ultimately have very little to do with brochure performance figures.
Last edited by Tim McLelland; 22nd Sep 2007 at 01:16.
Disagree completely. We are given C@*P kit, which, we the people on the front line make work. This is not only true for the RAF but all of the services. Sometimes I feel we should just say no every now and then. Why are we given kit that isn't fit for purpose??? To keep European jobs that’s why. I don’t care who makes it, just give us kit that works and is reliable. Please for crying out loud stop spending money on stuff we don’t need, i.e. hundreds of typhoons and buy something that really is needed, i.e. helicopters and airlift.
I worked in OR for a couple of years, then in Air Plans, and we do buy stuff because someone else says to to do rather than for the OR and because it's right. But Typhoon is good, and we do need some. We have already come down from 244 and lower would be a bad plan. Of course we need more choppers, but that's just for the present scrap and it might not be so for the next.
McD
"....especially when BAe have repeatedly said that it can be done fairly inexpensively....."
Riiiiggggggghhhhhhhhhttttt............
Since when has 't Bungling Baron ever done anything 'inexpensively'?
Riiiiggggggghhhhhhhhhttttt............
Since when has 't Bungling Baron ever done anything 'inexpensively'?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think anybody would accept that no matter what the criteria, we certainly don't need the F-35, nice though it would be.
Common sense would suggest that it would be far better to "navalise" a final batch of Typhoons (especially when BAe have repeatedly said that it can be done fairly inexpensively) and forget about another whizz-bang jet that, in practical terms, offers the RAF and FAA absolutely nothing of any practical value which can't be achieved with Typhoons.
Regards,
MM
PS. Surprise surprise! I notice we're still awaiting LMs explanation as to how he his qualified to comment on modern combat aircraft and tactics.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle you have a valid point, and I'm sure that despite BAe's claims that a "navilisation" programme wouldn't be that difficult or expensive, it would doubtless turn-out to be another fiasco, but that's another argument entirely!
Magic Mushroom you're welcome to disagree of course but I think your view is also (as you put it so politely) "utter hoop". As I already mentioned, procurement decisions such as this one have a nasty habit of having very little to do with military expediency and much more to do with politics. And as I also said, you can wrap yourself up in projected performance figures until you go blue in the face, but the Whitehall bean counters might not see things in quite the same way. In essence, they're being presented with a choice between buying more Typhoons than we need (if you accept the argument that the RAF could ever have more aircraft than it needs, which personally I don't) and being unable (or unwilling) to also fund the F-35, or buying more Typhoons and abandoning the F-35. Ultimately, in broad terms, there really isn't much to choose between the two aircraft, at least not in terms of the UK's Armed Forces being able to get the job done (whatever the job might be), so it comes down to the relative costs of continuing or cancelling either type. In this respect, it may well make much more sense to "navilise" Typhoons rather than embark upon procurement of a completely different aircraft type.
You might disagree MM but that's your prerogative - it doesn't mean you're right though
Magic Mushroom you're welcome to disagree of course but I think your view is also (as you put it so politely) "utter hoop". As I already mentioned, procurement decisions such as this one have a nasty habit of having very little to do with military expediency and much more to do with politics. And as I also said, you can wrap yourself up in projected performance figures until you go blue in the face, but the Whitehall bean counters might not see things in quite the same way. In essence, they're being presented with a choice between buying more Typhoons than we need (if you accept the argument that the RAF could ever have more aircraft than it needs, which personally I don't) and being unable (or unwilling) to also fund the F-35, or buying more Typhoons and abandoning the F-35. Ultimately, in broad terms, there really isn't much to choose between the two aircraft, at least not in terms of the UK's Armed Forces being able to get the job done (whatever the job might be), so it comes down to the relative costs of continuing or cancelling either type. In this respect, it may well make much more sense to "navilise" Typhoons rather than embark upon procurement of a completely different aircraft type.
You might disagree MM but that's your prerogative - it doesn't mean you're right though
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One Question
Does the fabled "stealth" capability of non US F-35's match those of the USA?.
100%
OR
almost but missing that important final little piece??????
100%
OR
almost but missing that important final little piece??????
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But this presupposes that stealth capability is important. You could start a completely new thread discussing the merits (or otherwise) of Britain spending money on stealth
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC,
I agree totally.
I'm not wrapping myself up in figures. My own view is that the F-35 will in some areas (eg avionics and obviously LO) be far superior to the Typhoon. However, I don't think it'll be quite the same panacea as some think and it seems clear to me that navalising Typhoon is a non-starter.
Firstly, it'll be such a small production run as to prove very expensive. Secondly, the structural and FCS mods would be costly, risky and erode key areas of Typhoon's current excellent performance. History suggests that navalising a land based aircraft rarely works.
Clearly, the F-35 is still immature and still faces some problems, political and technical. However, F-35B or C offers the best solution for UK maritime air power. If it fails, I suspect that a lease of FA-18E/F would occur until a UCAV capability could be obtained.
I would also agree regarding the importance of LO being overstated. However, as more nations potentially purchase capable double digit SAM systems, the need to operate in very high threat areas during a conventional conflict will probably see it's importance increase.
Other than that, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree!
Regards,
MM
As I already mentioned, procurement decisions such as this one have a nasty habit of having very little to do with military expediency and much more to do with politics.
And as I also said, you can wrap yourself up in projected performance figures until you go blue in the face, but the Whitehall bean counters might not see things in quite the same way.
Firstly, it'll be such a small production run as to prove very expensive. Secondly, the structural and FCS mods would be costly, risky and erode key areas of Typhoon's current excellent performance. History suggests that navalising a land based aircraft rarely works.
Clearly, the F-35 is still immature and still faces some problems, political and technical. However, F-35B or C offers the best solution for UK maritime air power. If it fails, I suspect that a lease of FA-18E/F would occur until a UCAV capability could be obtained.
I would also agree regarding the importance of LO being overstated. However, as more nations potentially purchase capable double digit SAM systems, the need to operate in very high threat areas during a conventional conflict will probably see it's importance increase.
Other than that, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree!
Regards,
MM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: your mother's bedroom
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim, you're an absolute rookie. A neophyte. The greenest tree in the most virgin forest would laugh at your posts.
>>I would think anybody would accept that no matter what the criteria, we certainly don't need the F-35, nice though it would be. Common sense would suggest that it would be far better to "navalise" a final batch of Typhoons (especially when BAe have repeatedly said that it can be done fairly inexpensively) and forget about another whizz-bang jet that, in practical terms, offers the RAF and FAA absolutely nothing of any practical value which can't be achieved with Typhoons.
Except that the UK carriors don't have catapults, and unless you want the "analised" Typhoons to land and never take off again, it is no option.
Furthermore, navalising an aircraft, if it is suitable in the first place, which the streamlined Typhoon is not, adds thousands of pounds to the undercarriage and landing gear. The Russies tried what you think you know, adding a sling to the back only and hoping for the best, and watched silently as the front fuselage of the Mig-29 serenely detached itself from the rest of the shrieking caught aircraft and sailed down the runway before disappearing with a human scream off the front of the shop.
>>Okay, you can drift into Air Forces Monthly-esque fantasy trips about what weapons can be carried or what g can be pulled, blah, blah, but let's be realistic here - unless the Typhoon is already considered to be obsolescent (and it would seem that for the first time in its history the RAF has actually got a fighter that actually isn't *gasp*) then I do find the slightly misplaced eagerness for the F-35 quite comical.
The F-35, go read the clues, will be simply astonishing and simply a step and in many cases many steps up from the EF. It is impossible now for example to add the sensors that F-35 would have without adding massive weight to EF and affecting its centre of gravity. F-35 was designed from the bottom up as a true 5th gen multi-role naval fighter, the EF was a air superiority fighter now clipping on lots of weird ****.
>>As Engines outlined on Page2 of this thread, the Typhoon and F-35 are indeed very different aircraft but not sufficiently different to convince any self-respecting bean counter to accept that there's a good case to buy more than we need of either type, especially when (as has been said repeatedly) HM Forces are woefully short of many other assets which are arguably just as (or more) important.
Nuts!
>>You only have to look back through the pages of PPrune to see that we all saw this coming for a long time. Even our beloved cousins across the Atlantic have started to appreciate that there comes a point at which the endless quest (usually encouraged by industry for very obvious reasons) for more advanced weaponry starts to look a tad pointless when there's scarcely enough money to finance what is already available.
You need more advanced weaponry because the big players are all going stealth, and unless in a mere 75 years you want to move from the most advanced aerotech industry to being totally obsolete, a la muskets in front of further shooting rifles, siege cannons in front of basilisks, you would have to invest.
>>I would think anybody would accept that no matter what the criteria, we certainly don't need the F-35, nice though it would be. Common sense would suggest that it would be far better to "navalise" a final batch of Typhoons (especially when BAe have repeatedly said that it can be done fairly inexpensively) and forget about another whizz-bang jet that, in practical terms, offers the RAF and FAA absolutely nothing of any practical value which can't be achieved with Typhoons.
Except that the UK carriors don't have catapults, and unless you want the "analised" Typhoons to land and never take off again, it is no option.
Furthermore, navalising an aircraft, if it is suitable in the first place, which the streamlined Typhoon is not, adds thousands of pounds to the undercarriage and landing gear. The Russies tried what you think you know, adding a sling to the back only and hoping for the best, and watched silently as the front fuselage of the Mig-29 serenely detached itself from the rest of the shrieking caught aircraft and sailed down the runway before disappearing with a human scream off the front of the shop.
>>Okay, you can drift into Air Forces Monthly-esque fantasy trips about what weapons can be carried or what g can be pulled, blah, blah, but let's be realistic here - unless the Typhoon is already considered to be obsolescent (and it would seem that for the first time in its history the RAF has actually got a fighter that actually isn't *gasp*) then I do find the slightly misplaced eagerness for the F-35 quite comical.
The F-35, go read the clues, will be simply astonishing and simply a step and in many cases many steps up from the EF. It is impossible now for example to add the sensors that F-35 would have without adding massive weight to EF and affecting its centre of gravity. F-35 was designed from the bottom up as a true 5th gen multi-role naval fighter, the EF was a air superiority fighter now clipping on lots of weird ****.
>>As Engines outlined on Page2 of this thread, the Typhoon and F-35 are indeed very different aircraft but not sufficiently different to convince any self-respecting bean counter to accept that there's a good case to buy more than we need of either type, especially when (as has been said repeatedly) HM Forces are woefully short of many other assets which are arguably just as (or more) important.
Nuts!
>>You only have to look back through the pages of PPrune to see that we all saw this coming for a long time. Even our beloved cousins across the Atlantic have started to appreciate that there comes a point at which the endless quest (usually encouraged by industry for very obvious reasons) for more advanced weaponry starts to look a tad pointless when there's scarcely enough money to finance what is already available.
You need more advanced weaponry because the big players are all going stealth, and unless in a mere 75 years you want to move from the most advanced aerotech industry to being totally obsolete, a la muskets in front of further shooting rifles, siege cannons in front of basilisks, you would have to invest.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: your mother's bedroom
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM,
what is my flying experience? How come I post such good posts? Well, just let me say one thing, Chuck, I knew Chuck well. He can be my no. 2 any time.
>>I'm not wrapping myself up in figures. My own view is that the F-35 will in some areas (eg avionics and obviously LO) be far superior to the Typhoon. However, I don't think it'll be quite the same panacea as some think and it seems clear to me that navalising Typhoon is a non-starter.
In most areas actually. It has the stealth signature of a metal golf ball while keeping its bombs warm and toasty inside its trembling body.
>>Firstly, it'll be such a small production run as to prove very expensive. Secondly, the structural and FCS mods would be costly, risky and erode key areas of Typhoon's current excellent performance. History suggests that navalising a land based aircraft rarely works.
Not really, just that it would be massively expensive and no one else would buy it.
>>Clearly, the F-35 is still immature and still faces some problems, political and technical. However, F-35B or C offers the best solution for UK maritime air power. If it fails, I suspect that a lease of FA-18E/F would occur until a UCAV capability could be obtained.
The F-35 won't fail. It's already met or surpassed every performance targets out there without the yet but coming benefit of removing 2 thousand pounds of weight in a slimming programme, and will benefit from a lot of the advances in F-22, which has turned out to be the big boy of aviation.
>>I would also agree regarding the importance of LO being overstated. However, as more nations potentially purchase capable double digit SAM systems, the need to operate in very high threat areas during a conventional conflict will probably see it's importance increase.
The Syrians had Tor-M1 and S-300 batteries and the Israeli using a good flight profile and good EW silenced them completely before bombing a few bunkers flat in the far side of Syria.
Why won't people see that Russian SAM systems are more hype than reality, although dangerous? I still remember that day in 1991...
what is my flying experience? How come I post such good posts? Well, just let me say one thing, Chuck, I knew Chuck well. He can be my no. 2 any time.
>>I'm not wrapping myself up in figures. My own view is that the F-35 will in some areas (eg avionics and obviously LO) be far superior to the Typhoon. However, I don't think it'll be quite the same panacea as some think and it seems clear to me that navalising Typhoon is a non-starter.
In most areas actually. It has the stealth signature of a metal golf ball while keeping its bombs warm and toasty inside its trembling body.
>>Firstly, it'll be such a small production run as to prove very expensive. Secondly, the structural and FCS mods would be costly, risky and erode key areas of Typhoon's current excellent performance. History suggests that navalising a land based aircraft rarely works.
Not really, just that it would be massively expensive and no one else would buy it.
>>Clearly, the F-35 is still immature and still faces some problems, political and technical. However, F-35B or C offers the best solution for UK maritime air power. If it fails, I suspect that a lease of FA-18E/F would occur until a UCAV capability could be obtained.
The F-35 won't fail. It's already met or surpassed every performance targets out there without the yet but coming benefit of removing 2 thousand pounds of weight in a slimming programme, and will benefit from a lot of the advances in F-22, which has turned out to be the big boy of aviation.
>>I would also agree regarding the importance of LO being overstated. However, as more nations potentially purchase capable double digit SAM systems, the need to operate in very high threat areas during a conventional conflict will probably see it's importance increase.
The Syrians had Tor-M1 and S-300 batteries and the Israeli using a good flight profile and good EW silenced them completely before bombing a few bunkers flat in the far side of Syria.
Why won't people see that Russian SAM systems are more hype than reality, although dangerous? I still remember that day in 1991...
Ah. So you are a pathetic walting troll, then, as well as being more ill-informed than JFK when he observed on 22 Nov 63 that Dallas was a mighty friendly place that he'd visit again.
Just a small word of advice so when you re-engage after a swift ID change you won't make such schoolboy errors. The CVF is - as almost every single article written on the thing in the past few years tells you - designed so that it can be fitted with catapults. If the JCA were entering UK service at the time HMS Queen Elizabeth is due to join the fleet, there'd be no earthly technical reason why the ship couldn't be fitted with catapults to operate the CTOL variant had we chosen it.
And I have to say that I just love the way in which you're trying to tell one of the RAF's leading exponents of EW that he doesn't know what he's talking about...
Just a small word of advice so when you re-engage after a swift ID change you won't make such schoolboy errors. The CVF is - as almost every single article written on the thing in the past few years tells you - designed so that it can be fitted with catapults. If the JCA were entering UK service at the time HMS Queen Elizabeth is due to join the fleet, there'd be no earthly technical reason why the ship couldn't be fitted with catapults to operate the CTOL variant had we chosen it.
And I have to say that I just love the way in which you're trying to tell one of the RAF's leading exponents of EW that he doesn't know what he's talking about...