Originally posted by GarryB
“I’m sorry I thought that if you were going to make abstract examples of your own I might be perfectly entitled to do it as well. It seems not however eg you said:”

What relevance does the pilot of the aircraft have to whether you buy an aircraft or not? I didn’t tell you you couldn’t make up examples, I am just pointing out your point as not relevant to the discussion.
If the US trains all of its pilots 1,000 hours per month can they save some money by buying Mustangs instead of Hornets? If they did would third world countries do the same?

“Remember. You said the comparrison was between aircraft so why are you talking about their weapons in the above quote?”

Because the weapons are part of the aircraft. The aircraft is a fighting tool… its gun and weapons are what it uses it fight with.

A good example is that on paper a SHs new AESA radar looks comparable to the radar fitted to the F-14. Of course without the missiles to match the range performance and considering both will be operating in an area with Hawkeye surveillance then the reality is the radar range difference is less important than the missile range performance. A third world country can buy missile performance but you can’t buy pilot quality except by hiring mercs. In fact the missiles and weapons often come with the plane when you buy it.

“Blimey here you are talking about tanks not aircraft and at the very end you might notice it was you who brought up the subject of flying hours yet here you say:”

I was using an analogy of how the Americans use their weapons. The pilot variable is too much of a variable and is not transfered to the customer whe they buy aircraft. Stating that a Hornet is the best plane in the world simply because it has the best pilots in the world is hardly a reason to BUY a Hornet. Cost, the weapons it comes with and how it has performed in the past are relevant, though the latter is conditional on strategy. If a Flanker is used for low level slow speed reconnaisance and gets shot down is that a fault of the aircraft and therefore a reason not to buy it, or is that irrelevant?

“……….and then you tell me I can’t make my own examples.”

Where did I say that? If you use relevant examples of course that will help you get your points across, but if your point is irrlevant then I will bring that up… I will also point out if the example you are using is helping or hindering your point from being understood.

“Sorry. Its not about rugby but I digress.”

If it aides understanding then it is worth digressing, though my lack of knowledge and interest in Rugby makes this a less useful example. Of course you were not to know that.

“My point is a valid one Garry, arguable? Yes but valid nonetheless you are once again dismissing what you don’t like to hear.”

I am dismissing the point that because US navy pilots are well trained and get plenty of time in the air that that makes the Hornet a better buy for a potential customer. Australian Hornet pilots also get plenty of flying hours and are also very competant fighter pilots. That doesn’t mean that every country that splashes out a rather substantial sum of money to buy Hornets will suddenly be a force to reckon with. (Of course it doesn’t mean it won’t either… as I said irrelevant unless you can tie the purchase to a defence agreement where the US defends you from invasion and you help them when they ask you to… that would be very expensive… and fickle (ask the Argentinians) but as long as you don’t go to war with anyone more important to the US than you you should be well looked after.)

Garray, please use the quote button, it’d make your posts easier to read.