In the Daily Telegraph yesterday disclosure of documents shows American Commanders pouring scorn on British efforts in Sangin Province in Helmand. The leaked cables express by US commanders the failure of British forces to maintain security around town. The comments have been said by the father of Capt Tony Philipson who died in securing Sangin as being insulting and inappropiate. He states that when the British went in during 2006 the Americans and Canadians had been there for some years and had been banned from going into the centre of Sangin because it was too dangerous. In his opinion they had never taken charge of the place.

My uncle spent 20+ years in the Royal Marines as a sniper, he’s been in all over the place, The Falklands, Northern Ireland, GW2, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan to name but a few etc etc and retired from the British Armed Forces not so long a go, well about 6 years ago actually.

And with him being an Irishman and currently living in Northern Ireland, he sometimes got a lot of sh*t because he served in the RM’s, being called silly names such as, “murderer” and all that rubbish, really just petty stuff…Anyway, to us, i.e family, friends fellow country men/woman that appreciate what they do for a living and career, he’s a hero through & through and one of the nicests chaps you could ever meet. (But you wouldn’t want to cross him. No, no!)…

…And you get idiots like those Yanks (not all) that don’t appreciate what the British Armed Forces have done and sacrificed for them and their little pathetic “empire”. Well, I’ve got much to say about them and their arrogance but, I’d keep it simple for now:

Envy is a nasty thing to have and I’d like to see them do any better than us, and of course, their own military, “professional” record isn’t the greatest in history, is it!!!

Now, can we NOW bring the British Armed Forces back home because it’s now obvious that they’re not appreciated! Makes me sick!

Just my pennies worth!

Sorry, the US and France are experts in Naval Aircraft Designs. The Russians are Amateurs.

Sorry, but, no, yes, no, yes…I mean no, well, yes, but no but, but, well no in a way; it’s a bit unfair to call them “amateurs” I think.

Besides, perhaps the US and France aren’t the the most experienced when it comes to aircraft carrier innovations, but I wouldn’t say that they’re amateurs because of it. Ski jump, angled flight deck, steam catapults, mirror landing sites, conning/control tower, “flexible deck”, electro-magnetic catapult or EMCAT, optical landing system and a whole lot more etc etc etc oh and the aircraft carrier itself, just off the top of my head, so when the US and France are quite good at Naval aircraft, Britain are rather ruddy good at the carrier itself, bit. 😀

Just felt like saying that. 😀

I understand what you say and in an ideal scenario, i would say “yes, get Typhoon or Rafale!” They are OBVIOUSLY the 2 better aircrafts and yes they are the ones with more A-A capabilities and development future ahead of them, etc.

If the only concern was Pakistan, i would say “sure, why not”. But, one must take this into account:

China’s 2009 official defence budget of $70.37 billion is 2.2 times that of India’s 2010 budget.

http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/BudgetingforIndiasDefence2010-11_lkbehera_030310

Which means, that the Indians, must try to optimize everything to compete. IMHO, just like China’s aircrafts aren’t all of them “cream of the crop”, there is no need for the indian ones to be either. The US won’t go for all F22 either and as matter of fact, the navy will keep going with Super Hornet. In an ideal world, USAF should also get more F22s and all the rest F35s. But it’s not an ideal world.

A tendency to specialization isn’t bad. I think for India it is almost imperative. Because they don’t have a couple of aircrafts which like or not will have to do everything. They have (too) many aircraft types. It’s not just the cost increase in logistics, there is also yet another problem in supporting. They already have russian and french aircrafts. Different technology. Can any base service both? Perhaps some. Will they be able to service 3 different tech aircrafts? I say this, because in Greece we do have such issues.

I don’t see why every Indian aircraft must be able to “beat” the various Flanker variants that the chinese will field in future. Do the Chinese build their aircrafts so that all of them can beat PAK-FA? No… Will India expect to send unescorted aircrafts inside China? I hope not. An aircrafts when loaded for A-G is hardly expected to perform miracles in A-A anyway. Even if it is the Typhoon. Because the Chinese CAP will be lighly loaded for A-A. Of course the Typhoon can drop A-G stores, but then simply the mission has failed.

IMHO: India must use the PAK-FA and Sus as main A-A. If PAK-FA wasn’t chosen, then i ‘d say Typhoon. I consider a waste of resources using the Typhoon for A-G, to do a job that less costly aircrafts can do. The upgraded Mirage for starters, will be able to launch SCALP.

The rest of the indian aircrafts should concentrate on A-G and auxiliary role in A-A when possible.

Then, buy the appropriate numbers to fill the needs. If India sends in the future F16s alone against the latest chinese flanker variant, then it will simply be a tactical blunder. The PAK-FA and the Sus should be doing most of the work in that, with the F16/SH trailing and giving a hand if necessary or going after the older chinese aircrafts.

If nonetheless a more expensive solution is required, to minimize the chaos, i ‘d get Rafale, simply because it will require less hassle to integrate it to the “french support line” that India already has, share weapons with the Mirage, etc.

And all this, because India must get the best cost-effective solution for the role. Because, what holds true about the airforce, will hold true about the army and navy too. If the expenses of the airforce rise, the army or navy will have to be pressed.

You ‘re right, but when you buy from abroads there is always the risk of diplomatic clash at some point. Behind Obama’s good words for India, there is something of more substantial interest i am sure, it’s just that i don’t follow closely that region of the world to know what exactly. If Indians decide to get american, it won’t be for the kind words, but for something involving $ or geopolitical gains.

I don’t doubt that you have a better airforce having Typhoons or Rafales in there. What i doubt, is whether the best cost-effective solution about India, considering the Chinese outspend them 2.2:1 and having 3 “high end” types in 1 airforce, which are all excelling in the same thing, isn’t the best way. It’s more like spreading thin your resources (IMHO).

And to me, the Typhoon is the least indicated. Not because it’s bad aircraft, but exactly for the increased cost that it will mean in supporting them and in operational availability. In how many bases will they be able to have full support for russian, french, eu aircrafts and missiles? How many engineers will be able to work on all 3? Either they will have to specialize bases or triplicate their personnell. As i said, we ‘ve already seen this in Greece, with just 2 aircraft types. Mirage for example can’t expect to be serviced in an F16 base at high level, if they need to land there. The support is limited. And the opposite for american aircrafts. But in a war, especially your first class fighters, you need to be able to service them in the greater number of bases you can. To make an analogy,if you can’t service adeguately the A-7 in a forward base it’s not the end of the world, but if you can’t do so with the F16 then you have an issue. Having 3 “top” aircrafts to service, is feasible, but it’s waste of resources and headache. You must spread all around spare parts, engineers, missiles. All this is $.

P.S: The Storm Shadow costs a lot. Better save their money to buy as many as they can. And the Typhoon is a waste to send it to launch Storm Shadows, when a Mirage can do it. After 15-20 years that the Mirage -5 will have to be retired, the bought missiles will probably have reached their life expectancy anyway and some new missile with even more range will be available.

Well, your points are certainly valid and worth while debating of course, but, at the end of day I’d rather go with the best offer available of which I think in the long run, India will be fine with, afterall they’d get rid of the better type(s) if they thought they couldn’t support it in the future. Better to be safe than sorry IMO. Some good points you’ve brought up though.

No. I think the other contenders fit the gap with a more economic oriented approach. Having in mind that they have Sukhois and PAK-FA commitment. The A-A is covered. They can get more PAK-FAs if they feel it’s not. Additional expensive to operate twin engine aircrafts, are imho not needed for India. Given the talk about China being the concern, in my view, stand off munition is probably more important for A-G than the capability of the aircraft itself. And since they want to compete with China, although they are in rapid growth, they should think about saving money to invest to what’s more needed to them. IMHO, Typhoon is too much A-A oriented and India has no lack in that sector. Rafale will have costly weapons and upgrade program. Both are twin engined and will cost more in operation. And both won’t make the revolution in deep penetration against an organized air defence. The ammunition may do what the platforms can’t.

I see and understand where you’re coming from, and I guess you’re quite right in many ways.

But don’t you think it’ll be that much more comforting knowing that all your aircraft, say in this case; PAK FA,’s Typhoon’s and Sukhoi’s has very good A/A capabilities rather than say, two of the three? (Of course India has more types of aircraft I know).

Don’t forget, the Typhoon was/is, from the start, designed as a multi-role platform, they just concentrated on it’s A/A capabilities first, I believe because some of the major players of Europe lacked an all out right A/A platform, so it was a priority, IIRC anyway. At some point the Typhoon will be cleared to carry the Storm Shadow cruise missile as will the Rafale, although under a different name I believe. So theres your answear if you don’t want your aircraft to perform deep penetration missions, and make no mistake about it, these two aircraft will boast excellent A/G capabilities in the future, especially at stand-off.

I agree about possible strings attached, but the decision will also be political. If not primarily political. And given the recent warmth in Indian-US relations, it may come down to which of the 2 american India wants.

I agree on this too. But you overlook the political influence. If India wants to buy american, what you say won’t stop them.

The 2 “anti-US” reasons you mention, are also why i ‘d prefer Gripen NG. It has the risk of “innovation” , but at the end, this comes down to contract terms.

What everyone says won’t stop anyway I believe. Political influence might be ok for some, India, US etc, persuading India to buy US types just because; ‘hey, we’re best mates us are’, isn’t, IMO always a good thing. What if a major country, say China for example, has a pop at India and it all gets ugly, the US or any other of her allies might not want to get involved because of whatever reasons for their own sake, and India is left with this with a bunch of US type aircraft that are, lets face it, way more mature than they were in the competition. Especially if India couldn’t up-date them because the US said so. And it gets even more interesting etc etc etc…

Of course, thats just an example, theres countless other of possibilities that could happen, devil knows what might happen. So the way I see it; get the best offer that is available and what it offers you in the future. Which is why I’d go for the Typhoon 1st and the Rafale as my 2nd choice. Having one of these two working along side the PAK FA’s and Sukhoi’s…Well, you’ve got one heck of an air force.

Just my two pennies worth.

Can we return to the topic of the thread, please?

Preferably without indulging in crude national/ethnic stereotypes from here on in.

Thanks

GA

They love each other really, it’s a love-hate relationship, a fetish thing, you know. :diablo:

In fact even the F 16/F 15E are too much. A handfull of drones can do a better job. The F 22 wasnt’ designed for this kind of operations.

Are you saying a handful of drones can do a better job than the F-22 or are you saying they can do a better than F-16’s & F-15E’s in this kind of operations, i.e CAS?

Sad day, a great loss of, I’m sure, a wonderful chap and pilot.

RIP

…

Just a personal opinion, but, is that particular picture really appropriate? By all means have a picture of the aircraft one was flying…But that one looks like it’s saying: “Pilot is sadly lost….But hey look how awesome this aircraft he was flying is! It cost this much, can carry this, is this big, long, high, can go this fast etc etc”… No need for it. Just have A picture of A F-22 for goodness sake.

Just what I think anyway.

Ten years ago the RAF announced that it would cancel the 27mm cannon for its troubled Eurofighter Typhoon. This crazy cost-savings scheme gradually lost traction only because the weight change imbalanced the airframe and degraded performance. Later it was proposed to keep the guns installed as ballast, but without ammunition, because lives were considered to be worth less than the cost of bullets, maintenance, and training. By 2006 the RAF changed its mind again, and declared that Typhoons would deploy to Afghanistan by 2008, where the pilots would use the guns in support of British ground troops. They are still waiting.

Please. Old news…

The RAF/RN Harrier GR7’s and 9’s used CRV-7 rockets, very accurate, very powerful and versatile. They did the job a cannon could do. There you go. Simple.

The Tornado’s have the 27mm cannon, the Typhoon also has it but theres not enough Typhoon’s at the present moment to be in three different places at once. Why? Well because it’s still on the production line. Besides, the Tornado is doing a splendid service out in Afghanistan, no need for the Typhoon yet.

I can see why Micheal Franzak called the Harrier the “widow maker”, because you know, when the US first got their Harriers they thought it’d be a good idea to put helicopter pilots in them, why? Well….The Harrier hovers like a helicopter….Why not? Okaaaaaaaaaaay, nice thinking…Until you fly the Harrier in a straight line & crash into a hill… :rolleyes:

Sounds like they still do that, but then again, you just have to take a look at the accident’s & incident’s of aircraft from around the world in the pages of Air Forces Monthly. You’ll usually find theres quite a few US aircraft, both helicopters and jets.

I’m glad the British Harrier’s don’t crash as often as the US ones. Hmmm why is that I wonder?…:rolleyes: