Verbal claim related to guessing. You even missed, that the Flanker is FBW from the start.

Typical star49 rubbish.:mad:

No it isn’t a threat scenario but it is an argument for increasing the defence budget. Surely we can agree that it is not all about threats and to be fair I am deliberately moving away from threat scenarios with regard to this example.

Recently it was announced that personel serving in an active theatre of operations would be eligable for a refund of (now here I admit I am sketchy about exact details and am wide open to cricism) ‘council tax?’ Obviously it would have to be paid for and it was announced that it would be paid for out of the existing defence budget. This is not a threat scenario either, it is also a social rather than a defence issue but if the last statement is correct then a precedent has been set.

Indeed the money will be taken from the existing budget (which frankly is ridiculous, if they are to be given a rebate why not get councils to give it to them?). However it does go to show that money can be found within the existing budget.

The treatment of wounded and ex service personnel is as much a case of military attitude as it is of funding. As far as the military is concerned once a man is no longer able to serve they are no longer useful and thus the establishment dislikes caring for them. It is the same reason why widows are given so little time to move out of Army accommodation.

Social or no, as I said, if we agree that the money needs to come out of the defence budget because afterall it is a defence related matter and that the defence budget currently cannot accomodate it then the defence budget needs to be increased to accomodate it.

No, simply shift the responsbility to the department of health or trim the money from elsewhere within the MoD budget. With some reorganisation the MoD could easily fund wounded serviceman better, a few less Typhoons would not kill the RAF.

Either way this is hardly a threat scenario is it?:rolleyes:

I cannot accept that China nor Russia nor both together will never pose a threat but crystal balls aside one reason to increase defence spending (and I’m not going to get into the percentage argument because I have no idea about costs) would be the care of injured personel. I don’t think for a second that shutting down all of the dedicated military hospitals and handing over the care of injured troops to NHS facilities is in any way adequate for their needs. Headley Court is a rehabilitaion centre in Surrey and is the only dedicated facility left yet even it has to rely on charity donations to plan for what I think are essential rehabilitation facilities such as a swimming pool used for physiotherapeutic treatment. Currently they have to use a public pool and this is becoming unworkable because of protestations from civilian users.

A pool was recognised as a requirement by the MoD themselves but a lack of cash precluded one.

It is only one example and I’m sure sombody will argue that injured troops are perfectly adequately catered for. I also accept that it is just one example of why an increase might be required. However, if we agree that injured personel should not have to rely on charity to recieve the care that they need and if we agree that the money should come out of the defence budget; if we agree that the current defence budget cannot accomodate it then it stands to reason that the defence budget should be increased to take it into account.

Perfectgeneral sneering and belittlement is to some here like breathing, it is a fact of life. You will see demands for detail and example and none will be returned. Sit back, settle down and try not to care too much about it, life is too short.

That is more social rather than defence spending even if it does happen to come under the MoD banner, that may be part of the problem?

I think you will find that it is perfectgeneral who has provided no detail or example.;)

I’ve also nominated the F-107 and F8U-3 elsewhere.

The F-107 was done in by a budget crunch and Ike’s policy of the most bang for the buck. By the late fifties, the US services had learned that the latter meant nuclear. Thus, the F-105 got the contract. Not to belittle the Thud, but it was a fighter-bomber in the sense that it was a bomber with the speed of a fighter. The F-107 was a fighter in the sense of mixing it up with the other side’s fighters, but it wouldn’t be around a few years later in Vietnam when such a plane was needed. The successes of USAF flyers in F-4s was due to their experience and skill in a plane basically unsuited for that style of fighting. (A plane reportedly forced on the service by McNamara instead of a preferred tactical F-106.)

As for the F8U-3, the USN gave the nod to the F4H because it saw the main mission of its fighters as downing Soviet bombers as far away as possible. As the F-4, Navy Phantoms would also be in the same situation as their USAF counterparts. They also did well all things considered, but it was the F-8 that became known as the MiG Killer. By the way, the USN continued to procure the smaller Crusaders because they were better suited to the smaller Essex carriers, not for their suitability at dogfighting.

Would you really want to mixing it with Migs in an F-107 with that air intake?:confused:

so do u think M2K will not require Newer Engines, AESA radar, IRST, TVC, enhance fuel capacity and mult vendor Avionics and weopons integration with all TOT?.
I have doubt about France ability to deliver M2K-5II in reasonable amount of time even if it is standard fully developed version let alone customized for India

Do you actually know anything about the history of the MMRCA tender? You are aware that the IAF was originally seeking the Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 are you not? Both Greece and the UAE seem content with their aircraft.:rolleyes:

Again stop posting and take your usually racist drivel elsewhere.:mad:

It took Dassualt more than 10 years to finish M2K-9 contract. how long do u think M2K-5 with all TOT fore engines, Avionics and Indian specific multivendor avioncis/weopons and lastly dealing with Indian negotiation. (price alone will be big sticking point)
here we are not talking about simple 1980s version of M2K but that is built for next 40 years. Hence it will require AESA, IRST, TVC, more powerful version of M-88 engines etc. (u dont want that underpowered outdated M-53).
MIG-35 is no more on paper than MIG-29K was in 2004. only the current MIG-35 version is not flying with RD-33MK. The rest of small body changes for future Russians can easily handle with FBW. Its not big deal. AESA just lacks the full modules.

As per usual you are talking absolute nonsense. Mirage 2000-5 MK2 is in service and complete and would not have required TVC, IRST etc etc. Why you insist on posting here I do not know, all you do is waste otherwise useful bandwidth.