The RAF has all of the Harriers anyway, thats why the RN had to play with the USMC on its last exercise. The F/A-2 was at one point to get the new Pegasus, so it may have been usable in the ghan but it is know where near the Striker that the dedicated GR-9A is.

Still not the point chap. The point is that the RAF would still have what is it? 3 or four squadrons of Harriers for army co-operation, dedicated to that task instead of having to parcel off airframes so that the navy can still say they have an air force until the F35 arrives. Problem is that it splits available resources and leaves the navy that much more vulnerable to air attack because the GR series don’t even have radars. To save money the British government wouldn’t even give them that much. Both types were meant to soldier on until 2012, the government mothballed essential assets because they were not prepared to ‘do’ defence properly. It is unforgiveable and successive British governments just blythly carry on doing it and the unwashed masses pay the ultimate price. Thats you me and our kids and it makes me want to spit. 😡 😡

First my heart goes out to the families, friends and collegues of the men who died or were injured. RIP.

I have no idea if the root cause of this had anything to do with a lack of British CAS equipment but there is no doubt that there is indeed such a lack. Two peices of equipment spring immediately to mind the Jaguar and the Sea Harrier. The Jag was fit for purpose and taken out of service 5 years early to save money and so to was the Sea Harrier. Had the Sea Harrier still been in service there would be more Harriers to provide CAS and the Jag would still be working overtime but doing the job nonetheless. The army requested 97 Longbow Apache gunships, an asset that the troops on the ground regard very highly and if they had 97 then there would be more to deploy, obviously but, to save money, the government gave them 67 and it isn’t enough.

I read about soldiers saying they need a bigger slice of the defence budget but I think the answer should not be a redirection of available funds, the funds should simply be increased to ensure everything is covered. The RAF still need their ‘shiny new jets’ and the Royal Navy still need their ‘shiny new ships’ but the British Army still needs basic equipment and raw manpower and the British government will not listen. They don’t care, they are removing perfectly suitable equipment from the duty roster to pay for the shiny new stuff which is still a year away from even basic CAS capability but that doesn’t mean that the new stuff is not required.

The British government has two choices so far as I am concerned, either provide adequate funding for equipment and personel or withraw Britain from the world stage. We should be over the imperialist bug by now but if we are not we can’t send people into the firing line unless they are properly funded and properly supported. 😡 😡

When i asked on eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk, Andy (boff180) answered me this :

Though i knew about the phase 5 FCS, i’m confused… :confused:

This only pertains (I think) to the air to ground capability. Block 5 gives Typhoon about 80 or 85% of its intended final air to ground capability, I think it has less to do with the FCS capability which, as I understand it is complete but is being expanded.

As I read it, in Block 5 standard trim the Typhoon can switch roles in flight but once a ground attack has been initiated it cannot simply switch to the air to air mode and back again (this is at Block 5 standard remember, the full capability is intended to address this shortcoming), if the pilot needed to switch to the air to air role they can do so but would have to effectively abandon the air to ground run, deal with the air to air threat and then go back round to setup the air to ground run a second time.

4. Wheres the bragging or implied insult to the RAF?

Oh you can see it ‘old boy’ you’re just not acknowledging it and as such there is no pint trying to spell it out to you. People don’t see anything when they shut their eyes.

Oops. Double post.

Its fun when you are stuck at work isn’t it?

EAP, single seat, single fin, canard cropped delta with twin engines.

Including the T1?

Su-27, single seat, single nosewheel, no canards, no TVC engines.

Nosewheel? Check. Cannards? Check. TVC? Check. Single seat? Check………………….except of course for the two seet trainer from which the Su30 derivative was developed.

Su-30MKI, twin seat, canards, TVC engines, bigger rudders, twin nosewheels.

See above comment.

Visually (and aerodynamically) IMHO, airframewise, the Typhoon is much closer to the EAP than the Su-30MKI is to the ‘vanilla’ Su-27.

Not for an anorak it isn’t but then if your interest in it is only cursory then your eye and your knowledge will be left wanting.

If you’d said Su-30MKI to Su-27UB, then I might have acceded that they were closer, but even then you have to add in canards & TVC – which are major differences.

Pedant :p 😀

Phil

ROFLMAO! 😀

That has made me smile a lot.

If you really want to compare lineage – to check which is the more mature – then consider the first flight of the Flanker (in its original T10 version) was in 1977, the first flight of the EFA (progenitor to the Typhoon) was in 1986 – so there isn’t much difference in ‘maturity’.

Only 9 years then. Thats a generation in fighter design.

Using the same daft argument – you could say that the Nimrod MRA4 is a ‘mature’ design – in that it first flew in 1949 as the Comet airliner!

I do try to keep the ‘daft’ arguments to a minimum but the Nimrod MRA4 is indeed a mature design, it is at the current ‘end’ of a very long development that indeed began with the Comet airliner. At least we can agree on that. I get your point but in truth the Su30 is indeed at the current ‘end’ of a long development which, wether you like it or not, started with the Su27. They did not start with a clean sheet with the Su30, the clean sheet was the Su27, the Su30 is a development of an existing, know quantity, allbeit a very major development.

And in that regard, the Su-30MKI is just as ‘immature’ to the IAF as the Typhoon is to the RAF.

This is true in operator terms but the Typhoon is still right at the start of its operational airframe and systems development with any airforce.