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.

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.

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.



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.



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.



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.



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

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.



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.



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.



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.



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 don't. I'm debating the subjects.

You said the Typhoon isn't in theatre yet (which it is in the roles I identified) so I simply asked which theatres it has missed that you think it should have made since it came into service with the RAF?



So name the wars it has been held back from and the roles it should have been fulfilling in them.



'Facts' like the Typhoon isn't a supercruising aircraft or the RAF have difficulty getting it flying off the ground. Those sort of facts?



It's irrelevant to this discussion because the F22 is not now and probably never will be in the future part of the RAF's inventory nor will it likely fall into the hands of an aggressor.



It's in service. I see them flying in service every working day and have done for at least 3 years, probably longer. Where's your evidence that it isn't in service?



Stating that the RAF are unable to fly one off the ground would suggests otherwise.



Taken out of service? More over-dramatisation, how is this furthering the discussion?

The article you posted was a minor issue concerning the Martin Baker Mk16A ejector seat. I don't believe it was an issue for the RAF Typhoons as such as the correct procedures for arming the seat were carried out through adherence to the manual (perhaps the Saudis should have come to Britain rather than go to Spain) the temporary cessation of training flights was only a procedural matter. The ban (which never effected operational flights) came in on the Wednesday for the training flights and was lifted five days later once all the paperwork was filed 3 working days later.

Your evidence of a serious problem with the Typhoon fell at the first hurdle and the Austrians agreeto discontinue exercise and training flights of the Eurofighter because of a perceived safety problem in the ejection seat.

This is a normal procedure to ensure safety.

The interruption was necessary because, if mishandled, the parachute could become separated from the ejection seat in case of ejection.

Pilots are being trained in the new procedures. Thereafter, the training and exercise operations are resumed.

This measure has no effect on the supervision and monitoring of air space.

Eurofighter will continue to carry out operational missions - so-called A-priority flights - and remains fully operational.




Yet you just did.



And a capable platform it is too but without the flexibility of the Harrier. What size of aircraft package would it take for a Tornado to drop a bomb on the Falklands or to provide close air support to the troops on the ground should the Argentinians fancy taking the island again?

From the in house Conservative newspaper

What they are doing to the armed forces under the heading Strategic is anything but and while I expect no-one to listen to my concerns perhaps they should listen to those expressed by Dr Liam Fox - the coalition's defence secretary

Personal attack after personal attack but unlike you I'll just stick to the subject which is far more important if that's alright with you.



You quoted the IFS on page 7 of this thread.

How we got here is interesting but not as interesting as how we go forward from here.



Is there any need, really?



I have already quoted The Mail and The Telegraph (Theresa May and Liam Fox also) unless they are also on the left these days. I have no real need to quote from a paper who supported the Lib Dems at the last election.

More evidence of the direction we are taking:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ciety.html

I don't. I'm debating the subjects.

You said the Typhoon isn't in theatre yet (which it is in the roles I identified) so I simply asked which theatres it has missed that you think it should have made since it came into service with the RAF?



So name the wars it has been held back from and the roles it should have been fulfilling in them.



'Facts' like the Typhoon isn't a supercruising aircraft or the RAF have difficulty getting it flying off the ground. Those sort of facts?



It's irrelevant to this discussion because the F22 is not now and probably never will be in the future part of the RAF's inventory nor will it likely fall into the hands of an aggressor.



It's in service. I see them flying in service every working day and have done for at least 3 years, probably longer. Where's your evidence that it isn't in service?



Stating that the RAF are unable to fly one off the ground would suggests otherwise.



Taken out of service? More over-dramatisation, how is this furthering the discussion?

The article you posted was a minor issue concerning the Martin Baker Mk16A ejector seat. I don't believe it was an issue for the RAF Typhoons as such as the correct procedures for arming the seat were carried out through adherence to the manual (perhaps the Saudis should have come to Britain rather than go to Spain) the temporary cessation of training flights was only a procedural matter. The ban (which never effected operational flights) came in on the Wednesday for the training flights and was lifted five days later once all the paperwork was filed 3 working days later.

Your evidence of a serious problem with the Typhoon fell at the first hurdle and the Austrians agreeto discontinue exercise and training flights of the Eurofighter because of a perceived safety problem in the ejection seat.

This is a normal procedure to ensure safety.

The interruption was necessary because, if mishandled, the parachute could become separated from the ejection seat in case of ejection.

Pilots are being trained in the new procedures. Thereafter, the training and exercise operations are resumed.

This measure has no effect on the supervision and monitoring of air space.

Eurofighter will continue to carry out operational missions - so-called A-priority flights - and remains fully operational.




Yet you just did.



And a capable platform it is too but without the flexibility of the Harrier. What size of aircraft package would it take for a Tornado to drop a bomb on the Falklands or to provide close air support to the troops on the ground should the Argentinians fancy taking the island again?

From the in house Conservative newspaper

What they are doing to the armed forces under the heading Strategic is anything but and while I expect no-one to listen to my concerns perhaps they should listen to those expressed by Dr Liam Fox - the coalition's defence secretary

Personal attack after personal attack but unlike you I'll just stick to the subject which is far more important if that's alright with you.



You quoted the IFS on page 7 of this thread.

How we got here is interesting but not as interesting as how we go forward from here.



Is there any need, really?



I have already quoted The Mail and The Telegraph (Theresa May and Liam Fox also) unless they are also on the left these days. I have no real need to quote from a paper who supported the Lib Dems at the last election.

More evidence of the direction we are taking:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ciety.html