Difficult. I like the all singing all dancing tactical types. An F/A18A or C but the E model doesn’t do anything for me, Rafale, Typhoon, Mig29SMT you know the types I mean? I like the Hecules idea especially if I can fly them tactically or better still the C17 again, tactically but the plane I would really love to fly would have been the Northrop F20 Tigershark. They really should have built that plane.

Aren’t there some range benefits of mech array radars too? I saw something like this mentioned in earlier discussions. The argument was that Active array systems are still in a relatively early stage of development and their range capabilities were not quite up those of the mech arrays.

If you’ve read that somewhere (and I don’t doubt that you have) then the author needs shooting!

Okay chap, shoot the editor of the supplement I’ll go elsewhere in future for my information.:D

http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=818&sid=e414c7d43607a98b6829df40d624fa67

Somebody else here is of the opinion that there may be more produced, when you went to the plant did they say the ones you saw were the first ones under production? I suppose they must have been seeing as production (I assume) is a ‘rolling’ concern. I don’t know how it all works.:)

And looking from an air power view only (no politics or economics) would it have been better to adopt the Rafale? This aircraft is already in service, and my poor knowledge makes me think that the Rafale and Eurofighter are comparable.

The Rafale project is in danger of falling behind the Typhoon. There are perhaps a dozen in service with the Navy, not sure what level of capability they are at though integration is ongoing. There maybe a handful in service with the AdlA though I do mean a ‘handful’. As for the Typhoon? I’ve lost count how many have been delivered or built. BAES apparently fulfilled their contractual obligations for 2003 deliveries. I’m not sure how many aircraft this is off the top of my head but it is the better part of 20. I know thats not 20 operational because they didn’t have the aircrews trained by the time I read this but thats the RAF alone. It seems the Luftwaffe is ahead of the RAF in production terrms and Italy and Spain are hard on their heels. So if the RAF had nearly 20 aircraft available by the end of 2003, how many did the Luftwaffe have? Or the EdA or the AMI? My point is that there are more Typhoons available to the producer nations than there are Rafales to anybody. I am open to correction.

I know you state no politics or economics but I have to wonder the motives of people who put these ideas forward. They don’t seem to have studied any real facts at all. Sorry. 🙂

Sorry chaps not at my eloquent best, sleep depravation does nasty things to the mind. Many in the UK think we have nothing to proove to the world but I think it is a dangerous atitude. It got us in to trouble in 1982 when the Argentine Junta though we were a pushover and it seems many still think we are today. I just wonder where and when this theory will be tested next and what price we will have to pay to go it alone.

Some teeth we have lost but we have grown others. We have never had the level of strategic transport capbility that the C17 provides us today, even the Shorts Belfast was no where near this capable. AWACS has been an RAF asset for 10+ years now and the Sentry is an order of magnitude better than the old Shackletons we used to have. Stand off strike capability has been improved another order of magnitude so has battlefield and strategic recce. We keep as much from the USA as they keep from us as two seperate countries we still keep secrets from each other. The entry in to service of the Eurofighter Typhoon and the ASTOR, in whatever numbers, will improve tactical fighter/strike/recce and battlefield surveilance beyond any capability we ever had.

I’ve changed my mind, it would take me all day to put forward a case for a robust British military with capabilities that we once never dreamed of. You would have to study it for yourself to see what I mean and you would have to take everything into account to fully understand. We cannot let the government do what they want to our armed forces, given the chance they might just go too far in cutting them back. However, as it stands I’m not sure we have fewer teeth afterall; they are just smaller and possibly sharper.

Thing is we don’t know how we influence the USA. We might we might not. If we don’t then I don’t like passing stuff down a one way street if you see what I mean. If we are influencing them, maybe the relationship is worth it. Problem is we don’t know the extent of the influence even if there is any.

Well maybe but so far as power projection is concerned a small fleet of C17 Globemaster IIIs (up to a squadron of 11 or 12 aircraft by some accounts) helps an awful lot along with 50 or 60 C130s. Basing rights? True at present the light carriers we use are okay after a fassion but you can’t sustain any bombardment with 8 or 9 Sea Harriers can you? However the SSNs Tomahawk capability offsets this slightly. If we go to war in say 2015 this capability gap may be filled by HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales (the names mooted for the new carriers) and their F35 aircraft. Add into the mix a robust AAR capability and 300+ combat aircraft, AWACS, ASTOR, MPA, ELINT and a very effective airborne, air mobile and air portable capabilty (see the C17) you can’t help thinking that the British armed forces are not that badly off. At the moment. The government doesn’t like spending on defence. In fact they don’t like spending on anything, health, education, law and order, you name it; and they are tax happy. So I suppose we will have to watch this space.