EELightning“My question is why are our forces been reduced so dramatically and the number of personnel, aircraft, ships etc.”
One simple answear. Because the government don’t want to dish out money for them, recession or not!
It’s always been the case with the British Armed Forces, they’ve always been getting cut and having to make do with what they get. Lucky for us they sure know how to adapt themselves and getting in with what they’ve got. I doubt that some other countries that have a far larger budget could go through the same and still operate just as effectively.
All I can say is, it’s good job training is their main priority.
EELightningThat is what the UK is doing. :dev2: But seriously what a stupid post. No one is saying to disband the military. The Marine Corps is a redundant service and the USA military would LOSE nothing if the service was disbanded. I know the Corps has a long and strong history with the USA but it is a redundant service and should be disbanded IMO to save money.
Would it really be a good idea to disband the entire USMC?
I must admit, personally I don’t know too much about the USMC but, I have an uncle who is an ex Royal Marine and has trained and served along side the USMC and the US Army on many occasions in Afghanistan and Iraq, (or in “US English”, ‘A-stan’ and ‘I-rak’. 😀 ) what he thinks of both services is, well, he respects them to the highest standards. He speaks quite highly of the USMC, ‘a fine bunch of lads that are good at what they do, yeah, they’re canny’, what his words were. (Not too many compliments then, but as good as any I suppose). The US Army on the other hand, well again, he thinks quite highly of them, but did go on to say that it wouldn’t hurt them too much if they had a bit more discipline the USMC has. Might be a “Marine thing” but, I got the impression that if he had to choose one of the two, he’d go for the USMC. His words and experiences of course.
It would probably make more sense to scrap their fast jets for start, do they really need all of that gear when the USAF & US Navy have so many? Of course keep a load of helicopters & all, but, fast jets, they should get shot of them. Like I say, the USAF & US Navy has plenty.
EELightningorko_8,
Thanks for the info. The ‘Eurofighter 2020’ proposal was what I was referring to above, unfortunately like the other variants that have been proposed over the years the details are very sketchy. And unlike many other manufacturers Eurofighter never seem to even produce any concept artwork to get exited over. 🙁
I just done a quick search around on the net, via Google-trusty old things that is, and had a look around one or two forums to read a bit more into this Eurofighter ‘2020’. Quite interesting I must say.
Some imagined upgrades for the Eurofighter ‘2020’ to be things such as, new weapons, sensors, radars etc to suit ones own particular needs. Who knows, maybe Turkey asked for something which Eurofighter didn’t agree with or something.
But whatever the reason. I think Turkey have missed out on something here. They got offered, or so it seems, a great deal and could have been involved in something that would replace the Typhoon later on. Got a feeling they never thought of that, I hope India have already thought of that or at least been told.
I wish Eurofighter would release more concept art, too. I think they will when their boffins think up something to replace the Typhoon and the F-35 with. 😉
I just like to go back to the possible upgrades part. Someone even reckons an upgrade such as; removing the entire Tail Fin and having TVN/TVC to compensate. I’ve heard that been mentioned quite a few times.
Anyone that think it could work? (IMO I think it could)
EELightningWhat are you talking about??? We have plenty of information! From sources like Jon Beesley and other Test Pilots. That have extensive knowledge of both the F-35 and F-22 Programs. Plus, representatives from all the JSF Partners and the USN, USMC, and USAF. That all have access to the program and how it compares to existing types.
If, we know the capabilities of the F-22 and how it compares to other types. Plus, we know how the F-35 compares to the F-22. We get a good picture on the F-35 Capabilities. You just don’t what to except there findings.;)
C’mon, scooter. I think you really do know what I’m talking about, you’re not that stupid…
You believe one thing your favourite people say, which frankly hasn’t been proved yet, it’s just on paper, but then go on to say; ‘We have seen no information that would lead us to believe that the Typhoon can out perform the F-35.’ Or to put it in simple terms; you believe nobody but. You just don’t want to except anyone elses findings. To be polite.
EELightningYou said:
The F-35 is amazing in action: Able to simultaneously fight at least eight enemy planes, and, at the same time, lock-on to as many as 16 enemy ground targets.
Then went on to say:
We have seen no information that would lead us to believe that the Typhoon can out perform the F-35. Especially, in the real world with a Combat Load.
You say theres no information that would lead us to believe that the Typhoon can out perform the F-35, but you’re fine with; the F-35 can fight at least eight enemy planes…”With no information that would lead us to believe.”…?
…Your logic. :rolleyes:
EELightningWith respect I had always thought that the Typhoon and the Raptor come to think of it were designed to fulfill the A2A role basically over the German border. The problem with the Typhoon now is that the Cold war ended some 20 years ago and is now being “developed” to have an A2G role as well as its role as QRA for the UK and indeed the Falkland Islands.
Horses for Courses?
Well, kind of. The Typhoon was designed from the start to be a multi-role platform, according to Eurofighter. It’s just that they wanted to focus more on the A/A role of the Typhoon at first and work on it’s A/G role later on in life. I believe this because Europe lacked a decent air-superiority aeroplane of their own at the time. Although we had the likes of Tornado F2/3’s, Mirages etc, very good at what they did but they were soon to get a bit long in the tooth and France were in the process of producing their own aircraft, Rafale. Plus, Eurofighter also wanted their aircraft to have growth potential for future upgrades of whatever they may be. So, I believe it’s worked out quite well.
The problem with that logic is your assuming that the EF has the same chance of success and that the same numbers of EFs are needed to do the F-35’s job.
The EF carries only 2 high price & high RCS cruise missiles (relative to SDB) while the F-35 can carry 8 low cost, low RCS SDBs.
Assuming that the Storm Shadow has the same chance of success as the SDB, you still need four times the number of EFs to get the job done.
I see your point and it’s perfectly a valid one.
The thing is you have to notice though, give both aeroplanes to do their job and the Typhoon will spend less time in the air due to it operating at a distance closer to it’s operating base and the chances of it being shot down is reduced in the same way the F-35 chances are reduced because of it’s stealth. What one can’t do, the other one will do and visa-a-versa, too. They would compliment each other rather well in the A/G role if they worked together if you ask me.
How do you provide targeting data for Storm Shadows if the EF cannot get close enough to use its sensors without becoming a SAM magnet?
The solution would be to send stealthy F-35s ahead to identify targets and data link target coordinates to EFs who stay safely out of the SAM’s reach.
And if that doesn’t work…
…Solution; get yourself an eight man SAS team to sneak in and destroy the targets for you. Job done. 😀
An F-4 defeating a Typhoon or F-35 doesn’t break any of the Laws of Physics, so with that in mind, it is physically possible. And that last bit is my point. I never said that it was likely, probable, or that it would in fact happen. Just that it’s possible.
Apparantly, an RAF Tornado F3 once managed to get a kill agains’t an RAF Typhoon F2. Was it luck? Skill? A better pilot?…Whatever it was, it and it’s crew managed to pull it off.
It’s not impossible, just difficult.
EELightning@netta,
If I was going to compare F-35 and Typhoon on the A/G role, I’d simply say; If you want to operate undetected in enemy airspace and destroy targets on the ground, use the F-35, thats what it was designed to do. If you want to destroy the same targets on the ground but at a safe, distance, i.e. a long way away, use a Typhoon, that was what that was designed for. Meaning of which, both designed to do the same role, only in different ways.
EELightningWhen people who love Rafale come to the defence of Typhoon, then Netta my friend something truly beautiful has happened:D
Ha! You see, the French and British do get along. 😀
EELightningDear sir,
It’s not a fact that reheat is more efficient than fuel dumping? You need a source for that
I don’t know, is it? How much fuel does the F-35 burn in full reheat compared to how much it dumps it. Prove it. Then if it is, all well & good, kind of. And if it isn’t, well so be it.
Oh, now are are talking about not a WVR Fight. But, some type of Super Sonic Engagement???:confused::confused::confused:
It’s an example, isn’t it not, does it not suit your perfect environment? It’s only about performance we’re talking about so I’ll say it once again, *yawn* the Typhoon was designed to fight (meaning, with A/A ordnance) at, and above supersonic speeds be it WVR or BVR. The F-16 on the other hand, despite it being quite a capable little thing as far as performance is concerned, it’s certainly no slouch in that department, but it’s never going to keep up with a Typhoon, clean or not.
At subsonic speeds, still, I wouldn’t want to bet on a clean F-16 getting the better of a Typhoon with 6 A/A missiles in a performance competition. The simple fact of the matter is, Typhoon’s airframe is way superior than the F-16’s.
Still based on stereotypes, so either way I’m right. Of course I could make stereotypes about the British, but I’m better than that.
The proper way of dealing with them is to ignore them. You’re never going to change their mind, so what’s the point?
Whether you think you’re right or wrong, it simply doesn’t bother me. I know what I mean when I say something & I’ll stick by it. On the other hand, it certainly wasn’t a malicious attack on anyone in particular and if it was, I would’ve made it a hell of a lot more obvious. But, I wouldn’t lower myself to that level in the first place.
Your last point…Is just so tempting. But it’s quite funny, although tedious. Then again when a little toddler falls off a trike I tend to be concerned….No I mean, laugh! Oops I’ve given away my sense of humour…No fun now! 😉 😀 😛
EELightningDear sir,
So when someone says the F-35 is a dog its the gospel truth, and when someone turns the tables and calls the Typhoon a dog its senseless babbling? I have an axe to grind.
Don’t quote me on that. I never said such a thing. So be careful what you say and who you quote in future, I can grind an axe, too.
EELightning[COLOR=”DarkRed”]Mod Edit: Quoted posting deleted.[/COLOR]
But, but…But it’s so much fu….Oh okay. 😀
EELightningWhat a load of pish! Do you suffer from small-knob syndrome or something? Well, hence this thread you started, so yeah.
Yes, the Typhoons current radar was developed from the Harriers Blue Vixen. (surprised you know that) Which happened to be a very good radar. So whats your point?
So, is the Typhoon also a “dog” in performance? Well of course you think it is, but hey, thats why RAF pilots says it climbs like an home sick angel, which means, it can climb rather ruddy quick. Thats why it can fight it’s fights at instantaneous and sustained turn rate performances at, and over supersonic speeds, of which, since we’re on that particular subject, how many other aeroplanes can do that? Of course, I mean, actualy fight in that regime and not just fly fast in a straight line and launch an AMRAAM, I’m talking about actually fighting at those speeds, so how many others? Theres maybe about, two, maybe even three other aeroplanes in the world that have proved they can do that. Kinda pi**es on your boy scout camp fire, doesn’t it.
Your babblings are just nonsense to say the least. :rolleyes:
EELightningMost of the F-35s extra weight OS fuel.
Remember as much fuel as the EF with all tanks.
More gas equals even more Time on reheat. In fact Ab seems more efficient
“In “fact”-blah-blah-AB “seems” more efficient”.
Fact, seems, fact, seems! It’s either a fact, or it isn’t, mate! Which is it?
If it’s a fact, could you provide a source saying so? If it “seems” to be, well, does it really? Is it your opinion, or?…What?
“More gas equals even more time on reheat.” Okay, so in that case. Which also means; you need more power to carry it around, which means more power for the engine, which means more fatigue on engine, airframe life, which means more body work, infrastructure etc to hold it all together, which means all of that weight to haul around, which results in performance loss! And not to mention, more time on reheat with all the power it produces etc, which means you’re going to be a pretty big IR target. Now thats “stealthy!”
EELightningDear sir,
A dog in kinematics, last generation Doppler radar. You have to turn it into a flying gas can to go any where. I wanna see a Typhoon with 2 storm shadow, 2k pound bombs and 3 external fuel tanks super cruise at mach 1.5. That would impress me.
Why would it want to supercruise at mach 1.5 with those particular weapons? Indeed it would be impressive but theres really no need for it, especially if it’s carrying Storm Shadow. If you’re carrying two Storm Shadows then you’re going to fire them at stand-off ranges where the speed you’re traveling isn’t really important. Unless if you want more energy to launch them, then you’d up the speed and gain the energy you need, but, why waste fuel supercruising around when you don’t need to because you’re at a safe distance to operate from. Keep it simple. Fight where it works best not where it doesn’t! If you want to go undetected, use the F-35, if you want to fight at a distance, ‘shoot ‘n’ scoot’, use the Typhoon.
“A dog in kinematics”? Can you explain that, please?
And, so what about it’s current radar? It’s one of the best radars in service at the moment and it’s just, if you like, a stop gap until AESA comes online. Wait until it gets that, Meteor partnered with ASRAAM, new helmet etc nd it’ll be a lethal bit of kit.
EELightning@netta, and Wrightwing too for this matter.
Netta. I’ll be perfectly honest with you, put an A/G load on a Typhoon and knowing how agile it is, is something I do not know about so I cannot comment that. I’m not going to pretend to know. All I’ve seen is, is a Typhoon, two seater variant with a centre droptank, six LGB’s and six A/A missiles while performing at an airshow. Certainly it looks impressive and it certainly looks it could hold it’s own. Of course, I don’t believe it will be, ‘just as agile’ as it would while it’s carrying an A/A load, but still decent enough to do the job it was designed to do. i.e ‘shoot and scoot’ at a great distance. Thats all I can say on that matter.
Put a heavy load on an F-35, you’ll be fine as far as aerodynamics is concerned, I wouldn’t argue agains’t it, thats fine. But you still get the penalty of weight which reduces performance at an alarming rate. I explained a little about this in the last F-35 thread using Formula 1 as a metaphor (although in a bit more detail), which is as close as you can get to aviation. But thats another story and a different argument.
Like I say; you do not gain an avantage without sacrificing something else. That goes for every single aeroplane that exists
@Wrightwing. I see where you’re coming from, but, I’m not the one that claimed a Typhoon with an A/A load of six missiles and a drop tank cannot outperform a clean F-16. But I disagree. That was the original argument, anyway, the simple fact of the mater is; (once again) the Typhoon was designed to fight it’s fights at, and above supersonic speeds where as the F-16 was not.
Sign In
