|
williamp
11,320 posts
143 months
|
Not a lot at all..
Perosonally although the Typhoo is an excellent aircraft, and fits down to a tea, I still prefer the looks of the Tornado F3 and, when I was a lad that was the aircraft I wanted to be in.
|
|
|
baldy1926
863 posts
70 months
|
What was the final outcome with the gun saga?
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,846 posts
135 months
|
I am sure those pilots who are moving on to the Typhoon will not be too sorry to see the back of the Tornado F3.
|
|
|
MudasarKhan
Original Poster
92 posts
37 months
|
Reply to Jonny. First I heard about UK being a potential customer. But nonetheless very good news if it goes through.  I do know Canada has ordered 65 for $9billion. And that Turkey have become involved. Japan was refused the F-22, so they may be buying the F-35 instead. It's quickly becoming the new F-16. A Multi Role Combat Aircraft with a large export programme. With regards to nukes, I would differ that we are a big player. Israel may have more nukes than the UK, Pakistan and India combined. We obviously need a deterent, no question there, but I dont think Trident is the way forward. IMO.
|
|
|
Bedazzled
4,308 posts
91 months
|
The Eurofighter seems like a bit of a white elephant to me, I can't really understand what opponent it was designed to fight even in the cold war, most of the Russian fighters are much bigger and faster and turning ability isn't that important, not since 1940 anyhow. Most WWII pilots got shot down being 'bounced' by an enemy who they didn't even know was there, seeing your opponent before they saw you and having an energy advantage (speed or height) was what mattered. Having said that it's an impressive piece of kit and having a few of them to defend the Falkland Islands and protect our troops abroad is no bad thing.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,846 posts
135 months
|
What should the RAf use for air defence? Are you implyiong that UK airspace doesn't need to be defended. The Typhoon has some impressive BVR capability. And the "old enemy" hasn't exactly gone away either. 
|
|
|
Bedazzled
4,308 posts
91 months
|
Great pic  That illustrates my point though, you don't need to turn on a six-pence to defend against a Russian Bear. A modern-day interceptor (like the old Lightning) would better suit our needs, huge speed combined with advanced avionics and weaponry, then you can choose your fights. The Eurofighter seems to sacrifice payload, range, firepower, etc for unnecessary agility - I'm just curious to know why they did that.
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,846 posts
135 months
|
Because EVERY advantage is worth having. I am sure the Typhoon is optomised for a BVR engagement - but any fighter pilot worth his salt will value having an agile fighter under him as well as fast one. Ask all those chaps who fly F-16s, F-15s and MiG 29s - and ask those pilots who are gladly giving up their Tornado F3s.
Also, ask those American pilots who rode into Vietnamese skies in their missile toting, non-agile Phantoms thinking they were going to have it all their opwn way.
|
|
|
aeropilot
7,077 posts
97 months
|
digimeistter said: Finished aircraft undergoing test flying still doesn't mean they will ever enter service ..... plenty of excellent test aircraft have been canned before full scale production...  TSR2 for example. There's huge pressure on the US defense budget as well as our own, and there's still talk of 1 of the 3 versions of the F-35 getting chopped, and the odds would be the Dave B which the USMC/RAF/RN would be buying, as this is the most expensive of the three versions and the the most pointless........
|
|
|
Tango13
2,654 posts
46 months
|
Eric Mc said: Because EVERY advantage is worth having. I am sure the Typhoon is optomised for a BVR engagement - but any fighter pilot worth his salt will value having an agile fighter under him as well as fast one. Ask all those chaps who fly F-16s, F-15s and MiG 29s - and ask those pilots who are gladly giving up their Tornado F3s.
Also, ask those American pilots who rode into Vietnamese skies in their missile toting, non-agile Phantoms thinking they were going to have it all their opwn way. 100% Nail on head The USAF & USN went to war in Veitnam with the F4 Phantom convinced that the the gun was obsolete and the long range missle was king. They were wrong. The inital kill ratios for both the USN & USAF at the start of the air war were 2:1 ie two Migs for one Phantom. Irrespective of cost of aircraft etc you will not win a war fighting that way. The USN took a very hard look at itself and took some very difficult decisions which resulted in TOPGUN and a total overhaul of the way they fought the F4 against the Migs. The USAF kept blundering along convinced they were on the right track. The USN finished the war with a 12:1 kill ratio and decisvely won the air war the USAF was still on 2:1 One thing the Typhoon needs is a gun for the simple reason that if you are using tracer rounds you will scare the s  t out of who ever you're shooting at. If they are scared/distracted there is more chance they will make a mistake and a mistake in ACM is usualy fatal. @ Eric get a copy of "Scream of eagles" by R.K Wilcox ISBN 0-671-74566-2 edditted four spooling
|
|
|
dr_gn
7,012 posts
54 months
|
Did I just stumble upon a TOP GUN audition 
|
|
|
mybrainhurts
71,770 posts
125 months
|
Eric Mc said: Britain has a small number of tycoons. Some are approaching obsolescence and will need to be replaced fairly soon - especially imn view of the growing threat from the east.  Not successful in the bomber role, unfortunately.... 
|
|
|
bitwrx
1,029 posts
74 months
|
MudasarKhan said: Reply to Jonny.
With regards to nukes, I would differ that we are a big player. Israel may have more nukes than the UK, Pakistan and India combined.
We obviously need a deterent, no question there, but I dont think Trident is the way forward. IMO.
Number of nukes is a bit irrelevant. You only need one to do its job.....
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,846 posts
135 months
|
mybrainhurts said: Eric Mc said: Britain has a small number of tycoons. Some are approaching obsolescence and will need to be replaced fairly soon - especially imn view of the growing threat from the east. Not successful in the bomber role, unfortunately.... I think Barnes Wallis' method of making heavy objects bounce was much superior.
|
|
|
mybrainhurts
71,770 posts
125 months
|
|
|
Simpo Two
54,618 posts
135 months
|
bitwrx said: Number of nukes is a bit irrelevant. You only need one to do its job..... Well, one to deter. You couldn't wipe out Russia with just one, but they might pause at the prospect of crispy fried Moscow (assuming it wasn't shot down en-route by some secret missile we don't know about)
|
|
|
Engineer1
7,247 posts
79 months
|
Jonny671 said: Eric Mc said: As I said, 20 years is not unusual these days from setting of specifictaion to entering service. Surely thats too long though, realistically? Say, in 2030 imagine what new materials we'll have, new software and weapons. Who cares, the cutting edge of weaponry and materials won't be in the field in large numbers for years, the only time stuff gets really rushed into combat is when the s t hits the fan.
|
|
|
digimeistter
2,059 posts
79 months
|
Tango13 said: Eric Mc said: Because EVERY advantage is worth having. I am sure the Typhoon is optomised for a BVR engagement - but any fighter pilot worth his salt will value having an agile fighter under him as well as fast one. Ask all those chaps who fly F-16s, F-15s and MiG 29s - and ask those pilots who are gladly giving up their Tornado F3s.
Also, ask those American pilots who rode into Vietnamese skies in their missile toting, non-agile Phantoms thinking they were going to have it all their opwn way. 100% Nail on head The USAF & USN went to war in Veitnam with the F4 Phantom convinced that the the gun was obsolete and the long range missle was king. They were wrong. [quote]In May 2000 the British MoD announced that Tranche-2 and 3 Eurofighter's in RAF service will not be fitted with any cannon whatsoever, while Tranche-1 cannons would not be utilised. The recommendation for this was made by the Equipment Capability Organisation (ECO) which was tasked with finding the most appropriate mix of weaponry for combat systems. The official Government line is that the capability offered by ASRAAM equipped Eurofighter's leads to the cannon becoming operationaly and economically unviable. However, the British MoD has so far spent £90M on the BK-27 while annual savings from not using it are put at a mere £2.5M (the costs of removing it are put at £32M). This casts some doubt on the economic merits of cancelling the weapon. wtf?
|
|
|
Simpo Two
54,618 posts
135 months
|
Politicians, that's what.
Unfortunately they have to be in charge of the military or we'd have a dictatorship.
(mind you dictators, not having elections to worry about, can make remarkable progress in a short time!)
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,846 posts
135 months
|
Dictators are just politicians with no opposition - so they're even more disastrous.
|
|
