Wilf Rosenberg was a member of the first leeds rlfc team to win the championship in 1961.
that is a major milestone in the clubs history

Better than the single line "Classic" type stuff

You should get out more BB

I still have great memories of that day at Odsal- Also saw most of Rosenberg's tries in Leeds colours - fantastic

i was very near when Colin Evans scrambled over .that day is probably the most important final in the clubs history

I spent almost 20 years living next door to Colin Evans from being a baby to leaving home. Fantastic bloke who always had time to talk regardless of what time it was and if we had just got back from the pub and I couldn't understand a word of his drunken Welsh.

Toughest man I have ever know too. He once fell off the roof of the house landing flat on his back, and after lying on the floor for a minute, got up, dusted himself off and climbed the ladder and carried on repairing the roof tiles.

I feel very fortunate to have known "Uncle Colin".

I do but prefer them when they are 100% accurate.



I don't recall that was a particular concern before the Harrier force were withdrawn from service with 'immediate effect' yesterday in the coalition's alleged SDR. Under Labour's plan the GR9's were due to take up station on board the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers as soon as the first entered service (last time I looked that was due around 2015 - transferring from operational duties on the Ark Royal which would then be decommissioned) allowing for continuity of any required carrier based fast-jet capability. That sounded like a strategic plan to me, not the treasury driven dog's dinner served up on Tuesday.

On a similar theme this item on E-Bay may interest you

Considering the UK, West Germany and Italy withdrew from the FEFA (Future European Fighter Aircraft) project with France and Spain in the mid-eighties to form the EFA programme (basically as France were insisting on there being a navalised version included in the development phase) that seems reasonably unlikely to be the major stumbling block. France went their own way with the Dassault Rafale. Tidy little thing it is too. And incidentally Spain joined the EFA project much to France's dismay shortly after.




Whatever you claim, the Typhoon is here and here to stay as the backbone of the present and future RAF in a developing multi-role capability. It has been declared 'combat ready' in the air-to-ground role for over two years now, four have been stationed at RAF Mount Pleasant (no not Batley) in defence of the Falklands for the past 12 months and I see upwards of a dozen training flights undertaken on almost any given weekday where I live. Not forgetting the QRA interceptions when the Bears come snooping, testing our air-space.

From an enthusiast's point of view, I don't particularly like them, I much prefer the Tornado in both the F3 and GR4 variants but times move on.



So similar to Germany wishing to leave the Eurofighter project after the costs of re-unification mounted and Helmut Kohl had given a pre-election commitment to do so but in the end felt unable due to the contractual obligations, financial commitment, defence jobs involved etc. Again more proof (if any were needed) that difficulties in defence procurement are not just a UK nevermind a Labour issue just as Tom King had to commit the then Tory government to give an assurance to his German counterpart to underwrite the project when the decision on the competing radar systems threatened to split the project.



If you say so.

Just a couple of things here, the Typhoon is a multi-role platform including (but not restricted to) that of air superiority fighter, the intended replacement for the F3. 11 Squadron, based at RAF Leeming, stood down as an F3 operator in October of 2005 before re-forming as a Typhoon unit in March 2007 at RAF Coningsby. In early 2008, 25 Squadron, also based at RAF Leeming, was disbanded, along with 56 Squadron, the Tornado F3 Operational Conversion Unit at RAF Leuchars. This left 43 Squadron and 111 Squadron, along with 1435 Flight in the Falklands as the last remaining users of the RAF’s F3s. As already stated 1435 flight (RAF Mount Pleasant) re-equipped with Typhoons September 2009. 43 Squadron disbanded in July 2009. 111 Squadron holds the distinction of being the final RAF Tornado F3 squadron.

Meanwhile the Typhoons currently equip 3, 11, 17 and 29 Squadrons at RAF Coningsby (housing the Operation Evaluation Unit and Operational Conversion Unit) and are responsible for the Southern sector QRA duties. The Northern QRA duties are still with 111 Squadron at RAF Leuchars but that is scheduled to pass to the re-formed 6 Squadron (Typhoons) early in 2011 at the Scottish base under current plans.

If the Typhoon is not yet up to the task as you suggest you have to wonder where all the F3 Squadrons and aircraft have gone or is the mounting of CAP over UK airspace no longer neccessary in the post 9/11 world where terroists wouldn't dare try and take control of commercial flights and use them as flying bombs.

As far as it lagging behind 'the competition' unless you believe the Americans are about to become or if not to start selling Raptors to the enemy (whoever they might be) why would comparisons to the F22 be in any way shape or form be particularly relevant to anything of interest?



No argument over the qualities of the GR4 but I've yet to see one operate without the need of a bare minimum 2,500 feet (probably longer if carrying ordenance) of well manicured flat concrete and tarmac under friendly control or operate from a carrier that can be independantly positioned within reach of potential enemy targets.

Why the need to choose between aircraft (while similar in task) are very different in versatility, it's not even as if the Harrier is almost time expired or anything, oh yeah I forgot ...... we can't afford both after the SDSR - Strategic Defence and Spending Review.



So lets kiss goodbye to the enormous investment already made in our Nimrod MRA4 and buy something American off the shelf instead? Is that what they've said they will do, if so i think I missed it. The planes are all but complete (some of them are already) I've seen the new Nimrod perform flypasts at airshows for the past two years. Bugger any hope of deterring a submarine-based blockade of Britain. Presumably that is not expected to happen before the end of the week.

As Nimrod MRA4 is (... er was) primarily designed to carry out anti-submarine warfare and long range surveillance. It takes decades of training and operational experience to build up the knowledge and skills required for such specialist tasks. Therefore, unless there is a plan to buy the USN P-8 Poseidon (or modified P-3 Orions) this capability is lost. No doubt the Government will hope the French, Germans, Italians, Spanish, Norwegians, Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Japanese, Koreans, Thais, etc etc etc - all of whom retain this un-needed capability will help Britain out in a crisis!

Quote: tvoc " Quote: tvoc "The Typhoon is restricted to the Falklands at present because of the technical problems. Lets hope it becomes more reliable soon so it can indeed become the backbone. However it is not a supercruiser like the F22 and neither is it a stealth aircraft so it lags behind the competition. '" Just a couple of things here, the Typhoon is a multi-role platform including (but not restricted to) that of air superiority fighter, the intended replacement for the F3. 11 Squadron, based at RAF Leeming, stood down as an F3 operator in October of 2005 before re-forming as a Typhoon unit in March 2007 at RAF Coningsby. In early 2008, 25 Squadron, also based at RAF Leeming, was disbanded, along with 56 Squadron, the Tornado F3 Operational Conversion Unit at RAF Leuchars. This left 43 Squadron and 111 Squadron, along with 1435 Flight in the Falklands as the last remaining users of the RAF’s F3s. As already stated 1435 flight (RAF Mount Pleasant) re-equipped with Typhoons September 2009. 43 Squadron disbanded in July 2009. 111 Squadron holds the distinction of being the final RAF Tornado F3 squadron. Meanwhile the Typhoons currently equip 3, 11, 17 and 29 Squadrons at RAF Coningsby (housing the Operation Evaluation Unit and Operational Conversion Unit) and are responsible for the Southern sector QRA duties. The Northern QRA duties are still with 111 Squadron at RAF Leuchars but that is scheduled to pass to the re-formed 6 Squadron (Typhoons) early in 2011 at the Scottish base under current plans. If the Typhoon is not yet up to the task as you suggest you have to wonder where all the F3 Squadrons and aircraft have gone or is the mounting of CAP over UK airspace no longer neccessary in the post 9/11 world where terroists wouldn't dare try and take control of commercial flights and use them as flying bombs. As far as it lagging behind 'the competition' unless you believe the Americans are about to become or if not to start selling Raptors to the enemy (whoever they might be) why would comparisons to the F22 be in any way shape or form be particularly relevant to anything of interest? Quote: tvoc "The Harrier, brilliant in it's day, is now past its sell by date so the powers that be had to decide between the Harrier and the Tornado. The Yanks have lobbied strongly that we keep the GR4 for at least 10 more years because its still the best all rounder at ground attack and they want us to have it available. The GR4 can carry more, go further and is considerably quicker than the Harrier so although long in the tooth its the one to stay.'" No argument over the qualities of the GR4 but I've yet to see one operate without the need of a bare minimum 2,500 feet (probably longer if carrying ordenance) of well manicured flat concrete and tarmac under friendly control or operate from a carrier that can be independantly positioned within reach of potential enemy targets. Why the need to choose between aircraft (while similar in task) are very different in versatility, it's not even as if the Harrier is almost time expired or anything, oh yeah I forgot ...... we can't afford both after the SDSR - Strategic Defence and Spending Review. Quote: tvoc "It is always going to cost us more to produce in Europe than buy off the shelf in the USA and it becomes a political decision because of jobs etc.'" So lets kiss goodbye to the enormous investment already made in our Nimrod MRA4 and buy something American off the shelf instead? Is that what they've said they will do, if so i think I missed it. The planes are all but complete (some of them are already) I've seen the new Nimrod perform flypasts at airshows for the past two years. Bugger any hope of deterring a submarine-based blockade of Britain. Presumably that is not expected to happen before the end of the week. As Nimrod MRA4 is (... er was) primarily designed to carry out anti-submarine warfare and long range surveillance. It takes decades of training and operational experience to build up the knowledge and skills required for such specialist tasks. Therefore, unless there is a plan to buy the USN P-8 Poseidon (or modified P-3 Orions) this capability is lost. No doubt the Government will hope the French, Germans, Italians, Spanish, Norwegians, Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Japanese, Koreans, Thais, etc etc etc - all of whom retain this un-needed capability will help Britain out in a crisis!'" Re Typhoon; The Typhoon was designed 20 years ago, however the long delays in it becoming operational (still not in theatre) due to technical problems and "manufacture by committee" have meant it has been overtaken in capability. Some say it performs at 80% of an F22. You have to compare it with an F22 (or the best) to see the value of the Typhoon. RAF pilots were always able to best the Yanks when on practice sortes. With the Typhoon we are 2nd best. The Typhoon rates as a 4.5 Gen Fighter whilst the F22 is a 5 Gen fighter The Typhoon hits mach 1.2 against the F22 supercruises at mach 1.8 The Typhoon lacks thrust vectoring which the F22 has (and many of the Sukoi have & SU35 & 37's) The Typhoon has external weapons which reduce the maneuverability unlike the internal weapons on the F22 The Typhoon is not a bomber (hence keeping the GR4s) the F22 is a bomber The Typhoon has a smaller payload than the F22 The requirement now is for a fighter/bomber with steath capacity which the Typhoo does not have. With modern missile technology there is little room just for an old fashioned fighter plane. The Typhoon was originally designed as a fighter with air superiority and with ground attack as a secondary feature. It now does not have superiority in its primary role and with its history of technical troubles is becoming something of a lemon. See Sept 2010 All Typhoons grounded on safety grounds: www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... y-concerns Capability comment: answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 717AANFiPX With regard to the GR4. Yes it needs a decent runway but that isn't the problem in the forseeable future and it can deliver so much more than carrier babies and can fly so.. so low. We are stuck with the Typhoon and if we cannot afford both the Harrier and the GR4 it's a no brainer which to keep.

Quote: tvoc " Quote: tvoc "The Typhoon is restricted to the Falklands at present because of the technical problems. Lets hope it becomes more reliable soon so it can indeed become the backbone. However it is not a supercruiser like the F22 and neither is it a stealth aircraft so it lags behind the competition. '" Just a couple of things here, the Typhoon is a multi-role platform including (but not restricted to) that of air superiority fighter, the intended replacement for the F3. 11 Squadron, based at RAF Leeming, stood down as an F3 operator in October of 2005 before re-forming as a Typhoon unit in March 2007 at RAF Coningsby. In early 2008, 25 Squadron, also based at RAF Leeming, was disbanded, along with 56 Squadron, the Tornado F3 Operational Conversion Unit at RAF Leuchars. This left 43 Squadron and 111 Squadron, along with 1435 Flight in the Falklands as the last remaining users of the RAF’s F3s. As already stated 1435 flight (RAF Mount Pleasant) re-equipped with Typhoons September 2009. 43 Squadron disbanded in July 2009. 111 Squadron holds the distinction of being the final RAF Tornado F3 squadron. Meanwhile the Typhoons currently equip 3, 11, 17 and 29 Squadrons at RAF Coningsby (housing the Operation Evaluation Unit and Operational Conversion Unit) and are responsible for the Southern sector QRA duties. The Northern QRA duties are still with 111 Squadron at RAF Leuchars but that is scheduled to pass to the re-formed 6 Squadron (Typhoons) early in 2011 at the Scottish base under current plans. If the Typhoon is not yet up to the task as you suggest you have to wonder where all the F3 Squadrons and aircraft have gone or is the mounting of CAP over UK airspace no longer neccessary in the post 9/11 world where terroists wouldn't dare try and take control of commercial flights and use them as flying bombs. As far as it lagging behind 'the competition' unless you believe the Americans are about to become or if not to start selling Raptors to the enemy (whoever they might be) why would comparisons to the F22 be in any way shape or form be particularly relevant to anything of interest? Quote: tvoc "The Harrier, brilliant in it's day, is now past its sell by date so the powers that be had to decide between the Harrier and the Tornado. The Yanks have lobbied strongly that we keep the GR4 for at least 10 more years because its still the best all rounder at ground attack and they want us to have it available. The GR4 can carry more, go further and is considerably quicker than the Harrier so although long in the tooth its the one to stay.'" No argument over the qualities of the GR4 but I've yet to see one operate without the need of a bare minimum 2,500 feet (probably longer if carrying ordenance) of well manicured flat concrete and tarmac under friendly control or operate from a carrier that can be independantly positioned within reach of potential enemy targets. Why the need to choose between aircraft (while similar in task) are very different in versatility, it's not even as if the Harrier is almost time expired or anything, oh yeah I forgot ...... we can't afford both after the SDSR - Strategic Defence and Spending Review. Quote: tvoc "It is always going to cost us more to produce in Europe than buy off the shelf in the USA and it becomes a political decision because of jobs etc.'" So lets kiss goodbye to the enormous investment already made in our Nimrod MRA4 and buy something American off the shelf instead? Is that what they've said they will do, if so i think I missed it. The planes are all but complete (some of them are already) I've seen the new Nimrod perform flypasts at airshows for the past two years. Bugger any hope of deterring a submarine-based blockade of Britain. Presumably that is not expected to happen before the end of the week. As Nimrod MRA4 is (... er was) primarily designed to carry out anti-submarine warfare and long range surveillance. It takes decades of training and operational experience to build up the knowledge and skills required for such specialist tasks. Therefore, unless there is a plan to buy the USN P-8 Poseidon (or modified P-3 Orions) this capability is lost. No doubt the Government will hope the French, Germans, Italians, Spanish, Norwegians, Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Japanese, Koreans, Thais, etc etc etc - all of whom retain this un-needed capability will help Britain out in a crisis!'" Re Typhoon; The Typhoon was designed 20 years ago, however the long delays in it becoming operational (still not in theatre) due to technical problems and "manufacture by committee" have meant it has been overtaken in capability. Some say it performs at 80% of an F22. You have to compare it with an F22 (or the best) to see the value of the Typhoon. RAF pilots were always able to best the Yanks when on practice sortes. With the Typhoon we are 2nd best. The Typhoon rates as a 4.5 Gen Fighter whilst the F22 is a 5 Gen fighter The Typhoon hits mach 1.2 against the F22 supercruises at mach 1.8 The Typhoon lacks thrust vectoring which the F22 has (and many of the Sukoi have & SU35 & 37's) The Typhoon has external weapons which reduce the maneuverability unlike the internal weapons on the F22 The Typhoon is not a bomber (hence keeping the GR4s) the F22 is a bomber The Typhoon has a smaller payload than the F22 The requirement now is for a fighter/bomber with steath capacity which the Typhoo does not have. With modern missile technology there is little room just for an old fashioned fighter plane. The Typhoon was originally designed as a fighter with air superiority and with ground attack as a secondary feature. It now does not have superiority in its primary role and with its history of technical troubles is becoming something of a lemon. See Sept 2010 All Typhoons grounded on safety grounds: www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... y-concerns Capability comment: answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 717AANFiPX With regard to the GR4. Yes it needs a decent runway but that isn't the problem in the forseeable future and it can deliver so much more than carrier babies and can fly so.. so low. We are stuck with the Typhoon and if we cannot afford both the Harrier and the GR4 it's a no brainer which to keep.

Quote: Juan Cornetto "Re Typhoon; The Typhoon was designed 20 years ago, however the long delays in it becoming operational (still not in theatre) due to technical problems and "manufacture by committee" have meant it has been overtaken in capability. Some say it performs at 80% of an F22.'" Which theatre would you like it to be in? It's operational in the Falklands and over the UK as it replaces the F3 in the air defence role. The multi-role capabilities are still being developed but seeing as the GR4 was not scheduled to be retired anytime soon (as far as I were aware) that's hardly surprising. The Typhoon will not now be seen in anything like the numbers first envisaged, how those decreased numbers are split between the varying roles it's supposed to take over in time will be interesting to say the least. Let's not forget the Tornado was a bomber first from the ground up and only became a (ADV) fighter to plug a continuity gap. Looks like we could be heading down the reverse of that same route where inevitably we'll end up with a jack of all trades type with probably overstretched pilots to match. Quote: Juan Cornetto "You have to compare it with an F22 (or the best) to see the value of the Typhoon. RAF pilots were always able to best the Yanks when on practice sortes. With the Typhoon we are 2nd best. '" Perhaps in the days when the man inside the cockpit was the determining factor but seeing as nowadays most potential encounters will be BVR it's the machine with the superior radar, target acquisition and weaponry that should succeed and fairly obviously a fifth generation fighter ought to win that hypothetical battle. That said I'd still take an RAF pilot to shoot down a Terrorist pilot almost regardless of equipment. If the US ever get taken over by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party then I might be concerned about their military being able to p1ss all over ours but until then I'll still consider them an ally. Quote: Juan Cornetto "The Typhoon rates as a 4.5 Gen Fighter whilst the F22 is a 5 Gen fighter The Typhoon hits mach 1.2 against the F22 supercruises at mach 1.8 The Typhoon lacks thrust vectoring which the F22 has (and many of the Sukoi have & SU35 & 37's) The Typhoon has external weapons which reduce the maneuverability unlike the internal weapons on the F22 The Typhoon is not a bomber (hence keeping the GR4s) the F22 is a bomber The Typhoon has a smaller payload than the F22'" No doubt if your source material says so but considering it was only in your last post you were claiming the Typhoon wasn't a supercruiser and now it is what do you want me to discuss on this point. There has to be a world best at everything (and in machine terms) it's the most expensive one out there that usually wins. Quote: Juan Cornetto "The requirement now is for a fighter/bomber with steath capacity which the Typhoo does not have. With modern missile technology there is little room just for an old fashioned fighter plane. The Typhoon was originally designed as a fighter with air superiority and with ground attack as a secondary feature. It now does not have superiority in its primary role and with its history of technical troubles is becoming something of a lemon.'" And in that regard not too dissimilar to your apparent desire to undermine the reputation of the RAF and it's equipment with ridiculous irrelevant comparisons and comments like they have difficulty getting them off the ground let alone a carrier. Perhaps we should simply scrap the lot and issue every citizen with a bow and arrow, hey it'd be cheaper too. Quote: Juan Cornetto "See Sept 2010 All Typhoons grounded on safety grounds You doubt a Harrier can fly as low as a Tornado? It's only the coalition that appears to think we cannot afford to keep the assets we currently have and were about to acquire. The country's defence should be the governments first responsibility and we live in uncertain times. Funny how historically most of the recent wars/conflicts we've been involved in were basically of the unforseen variety. How is it when Terrorism is termed as a Tier 1 threat as of Monday's National Security Strategy that on Wednesday it's announced that the UK Border Agency's budget will be cut by up to one fifth. Where is the logic going to come from in this coalition? Oh and as I know you're a big fan of the IFS you'll have noted their analysis of the measures in the CSR are that they are regressive just as I predicted they would be so no surprises there. As the Guardian appears your paper of choice above try this out for size: www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... um=twitter And the latest example (as if one was needed) of what can happen if you decommission an asset (or plan to) before a replacement is in place: www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/2 ... tute-freed

Quote: Juan Cornetto "Re Typhoon; The Typhoon was designed 20 years ago, however the long delays in it becoming operational (still not in theatre) due to technical problems and "manufacture by committee" have meant it has been overtaken in capability. Some say it performs at 80% of an F22.'" Which theatre would you like it to be in? It's operational in the Falklands and over the UK as it replaces the F3 in the air defence role. The multi-role capabilities are still being developed but seeing as the GR4 was not scheduled to be retired anytime soon (as far as I were aware) that's hardly surprising. The Typhoon will not now be seen in anything like the numbers first envisaged, how those decreased numbers are split between the varying roles it's supposed to take over in time will be interesting to say the least. Let's not forget the Tornado was a bomber first from the ground up and only became a (ADV) fighter to plug a continuity gap. Looks like we could be heading down the reverse of that same route where inevitably we'll end up with a jack of all trades type with probably overstretched pilots to match. Quote: Juan Cornetto "You have to compare it with an F22 (or the best) to see the value of the Typhoon. RAF pilots were always able to best the Yanks when on practice sortes. With the Typhoon we are 2nd best. '" Perhaps in the days when the man inside the cockpit was the determining factor but seeing as nowadays most potential encounters will be BVR it's the machine with the superior radar, target acquisition and weaponry that should succeed and fairly obviously a fifth generation fighter ought to win that hypothetical battle. That said I'd still take an RAF pilot to shoot down a Terrorist pilot almost regardless of equipment. If the US ever get taken over by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party then I might be concerned about their military being able to p1ss all over ours but until then I'll still consider them an ally. Quote: Juan Cornetto "The Typhoon rates as a 4.5 Gen Fighter whilst the F22 is a 5 Gen fighter The Typhoon hits mach 1.2 against the F22 supercruises at mach 1.8 The Typhoon lacks thrust vectoring which the F22 has (and many of the Sukoi have & SU35 & 37's) The Typhoon has external weapons which reduce the maneuverability unlike the internal weapons on the F22 The Typhoon is not a bomber (hence keeping the GR4s) the F22 is a bomber The Typhoon has a smaller payload than the F22'" No doubt if your source material says so but considering it was only in your last post you were claiming the Typhoon wasn't a supercruiser and now it is what do you want me to discuss on this point. There has to be a world best at everything (and in machine terms) it's the most expensive one out there that usually wins. Quote: Juan Cornetto "The requirement now is for a fighter/bomber with steath capacity which the Typhoo does not have. With modern missile technology there is little room just for an old fashioned fighter plane. The Typhoon was originally designed as a fighter with air superiority and with ground attack as a secondary feature. It now does not have superiority in its primary role and with its history of technical troubles is becoming something of a lemon.'" And in that regard not too dissimilar to your apparent desire to undermine the reputation of the RAF and it's equipment with ridiculous irrelevant comparisons and comments like they have difficulty getting them off the ground let alone a carrier. Perhaps we should simply scrap the lot and issue every citizen with a bow and arrow, hey it'd be cheaper too. Quote: Juan Cornetto "See Sept 2010 All Typhoons grounded on safety grounds You doubt a Harrier can fly as low as a Tornado? It's only the coalition that appears to think we cannot afford to keep the assets we currently have and were about to acquire. The country's defence should be the governments first responsibility and we live in uncertain times. Funny how historically most of the recent wars/conflicts we've been involved in were basically of the unforseen variety. How is it when Terrorism is termed as a Tier 1 threat as of Monday's National Security Strategy that on Wednesday it's announced that the UK Border Agency's budget will be cut by up to one fifth. Where is the logic going to come from in this coalition? Oh and as I know you're a big fan of the IFS you'll have noted their analysis of the measures in the CSR are that they are regressive just as I predicted they would be so no surprises there. As the Guardian appears your paper of choice above try this out for size: www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... um=twitter And the latest example (as if one was needed) of what can happen if you decommission an asset (or plan to) before a replacement is in place: www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/2 ... tute-freed

I guess that you two won’t be on each others Christmas cards list?

Why do you choose to make things personal? Why would I like it to be in any theatre?

My point is that this aircraft has suffered from massive delays in production, major technical problems to such an extent that it has not been deployed in any of the wars we are, and have been, engaged in. There are still doubts about its reliability and futher doubts about its future role as it is now not up with the best in class.




I am sure they will be relieved to know that then



So why not just say you agree with my comment. Or is that too difficult for you?



What is it with you? When you are confronted with facts that question your one-eyed viewpoint you either disagree but fail to say why (even when asked several times) or you come up with spurious comments like these.

We have been discussing the pros and cons of a particular aircraft and not the RAF. In doing so I have made comparisons which show the F22 to be the better aircraft so these are not "ridiculous irrelevant comparisons"

With regard to my comment about "they have enough problems getting them off the ground let alone an aircraft carrier" you know full well this was in the context with my points about the many technical problems that have been keeping the Typhoo out of service and nothing to do with the RAF.

May I remind you my son in-law is a front line Tornado pilot so do not dare suggest I have anything but the highest regard for him and his brave colleagues. The RAF deserve the best equipment and to say the Typhoon is not the best is a statement of fact and in no way undermines the reputation of the RAF. My whole point is that politicians, designers and manufacturers have let down the RAF!



Really intelligent point!



For someone who is always quoting stats it appears you only like to use the ones that suit your own prejudice. 64 operational RAF Typhoons were grounded and priority checks were made on the quick reaction force and those stationed in the Falklands. All the Typhoons aircraft in Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria and Saudi Arabia were been taken out of service.




No. Do you?



They can both fly as low but the Harrier is no where near as fast or can take as large a payload, which is why the GR4 is the low level fast ground attack aircraft of choice for both the RAF & NATO.