It is possible that they could have been the BAE operated A-4s, which are used by the Luftwaffe for target towing duties. I can’t think of many other A-4 users that would be in Spain though – Brazil, Argentina, Malaysia, and Indonesia not being likely for geographical reasons. The only other possibilities would be Israeli and Singaporean A-4s (which are based in France).

90,000 tons of diplomacy? Have they been reducing, it used to be 100,000 tons of diplomacy on previous Nimitz!

It is always possible that they have been offered some of the JAS-39As being retired by Sweden, and have decided that it works out cheaper, even with punitive cancellation fees on the Typhoon order. The concern is if they have not got an alternative lined up, and it ends up like the Canadian order for EH-101s cancelled by the Chretian government (i.e. costing almost as much as buying them, and killing any budget for replacements).

It is unlikely that Austria truly needs the Typhoons, and that F-16s or Gripens would not meet the requirement, but now they are ordered, cancellation makes little sense.

“(anyone know the Italian & Spanish for Typhoon?)”

Typhoon in Italian is Tifone, and in Spanish it is Tifón.

It would actually be possible – the US Marines share training with the USN, so some of the T-45s have ‘Marines’ written on them, but they are not specifically assigned (i.e. the aircraft just belong the the pool). It would be similar to the arrangement with the RAF Predator unit in the US.

The whole idea with Iraq buying this equipment is to allow it to fight the insurgents – building a road or repairing a school is important, but so is hunting down the people who blew up the previous road or school! The deal as a whole makes sense, and is part of the wider handover of responsibility to Iraqi forces – it is not instead of equipping the Iraqi forces, but part of it!

I disagree that new designs are always needed to cope with changing tactics – new designs are needed to deal with new threats though. In air to air combat, you face enemy fighters, so if they are of a certain standard, then you need to match or exceed that standard.

As shown by the excellent service given by aircraft like the B-52, A-10, P-3, AH-1 and many others, it is not the always the platform that matters, but the systems onboard. The attack helicopter has not changed greatly in the last 40 years, but the systems and weapons they use has changed a great deal.

One of the major problems with trying to design a helicopter for ‘tomorrows needs’ is that tomorrows needs keep changing – just look at the Commanche.

Arguably the best solution would be to maximise capability, while minimising cost, so if you discover you made the wrong choice, you have some chance of adapting. An off the shelf purchase of either AH-1s or AH-64s might have been a better choice. Look at the A-330 MRTT, arguably one of the better aircraft choices, but being procured in such a ridiculous way that nobody else on earth would even try it.

I have to disagree re the Apache – one of the finest (and most useful) attack helicopters around remains the AH-1 Cobra, which is even older. It is a mistake to assume that a more recent design is inherently going to be more relevant in 15-20 years. The Apache is giving excellent service in Afghanistan, and the problems with it were mainly to do with a shortage of pilots. The Apache purchase makes a lot of sense, though the way it was done was not so sensible.

What other helicopter would you have chosen?