JackonickoRuud,
How about those ‘extra six’ Philippine jets? (09001 – 09006)
I do wonder whether there’s more than a coincidence between the cancelled Brunei jets and the sudden appearance of FOUR demonstrators – an unusually large number for such a small programme.
JackonickoGreat stuff Hendrik, especially those demonstrators – I wonder whether those were laid down as the aircraft for Brunei? Interesting about 338 and 339, too!
I am so grateful to you.
If you’re going to be at Singapore next week send me a message and we’ll arrange to buy you a beer!
JackonickoThe Tuskegee airmen were then fighting in Italy/Balkans/Med. Though a couple of 262 kills were obtained, I’d suspect that the 262 didn’t make an appearance down in Italy early enough for the first shootdown to occur in tht theatre.
Certainly if “One Sturmvogel was shot down near Brussels on 28 August by a pair of USAAF P-47 Thunderbolts, the first Me-262 to be lost to direct enemy action” then it wouldn’t have been Tuskegees responsible.
JackonickoBager clearly doesn’t understand the concept of CCVs and Fly By Wire, clearly. His ill-informed rant about Airbus flight control philosophy is flawed when applied to airliners, and is entirely irrelevant to military fast jets.
My understanding is that ALSR is disabled with the gear down, but perhaps, just perhaps, this highly experienced instructor felt that deploying the AAR probe (which also guarantees the same thing) was a good bit of ‘belt AND braces’.
JackonickoPR9 is extended to July. FA2 may be extended to allow delivery to India.
JackonickoThe GR7s are from 1 and 20, alas.
JackonickoYou really are a clot, Fonk:
“try to make up that it have been designed for low/speed performances when these weren’t even part of its requiered specifications”
Because being able to cope with MiG-29 and Su-27 weren’t part of the spec, I suppose?
Grow up.
JackonickoWhat a cracking looking jet it is.
If we have to have carriers, then I’d support having it for the UK carriers – or better yet for a joint European carrier force along the lines of the NATO AEWF – but with French and UK integration not duplication.
Jackonicko“The German fighter pilots them self reccon they lost more than 650 aircraft to the AdA during the invasion of France..”
Yeah. The might of the AdlA had the Luftwaffe quaking in its boots.
The AdlA outclassed the Luftwaffe and had nothing to do with the humiliatingly rapid collapse.
Whereas the RAF were viewed as being such an easy obstacle that the Germans didn’t try (and fail) to win air superiority before attempting an invasion.
Stop it Fonk, it hurts to laugh this much!
JackonickoIn all of the hot air Fonky, my dear chap, you managed to find one piece of truth. Congratulations!
Tornado “didn’t serve too well in Afagnistan.”
Indeed. Not participating at all was the main reason it didn’t. Tactical FJs were limited to those operating from the neighbouring ‘Stans (Uzbekistan etc.) and from carriers, because of difficulties with overflight rights and the distance from bases in the Gulf.
But even then, you manage to spoil a good debating point with rubbish. You claim that “they are not only underpowered” when at low level the Tornado is so underpowered as to be the fastest kid on the block. 800 KIAS below 250 ft agl. No Mirage 2000 can touch that. The aircraft is, as you rightly suggest, “equipped with an engine which is notorious for the lack of thrust at high altitude” because it was specifically designed to offer thrust and low sfc at low level. At anything up to 20,000 ft, however, Tornado IDS is more than adequate.
As to the performance of RAF and AdlA aircrew in Granby/Daguet and in Bosnia, I refer you to the official ‘lessons learned’ papers published by the USAF and freely available under FOI. I’ve given you the relative scores for PGM accuracy, because you claimed (without foundation, and without any figures) that the French achieved better LGB scores than the RAF.
Further fun Fonkhoods:
“Typhoon is German”: No, it was BAE led, using TKF90/JF90, P106, P120, and EAP
BVR tactics: If you want to destroy your enemy at maximum range you accelerate to the highest possible speed (imparting greater velocity and reach to your AAM) and break as fast as possible to your gimbal limit, making his return shot more difficult. That applies 1 vs 1 or 1 vs many. It has nothing to do with a particular Cold War scenario. (The boys at EC5 have a great briefing on this…..)
“Mirage 2000 turns better than anything except Rafale and Typhoon:” Except F-16, FA-18, MiG-29, Su-27, Gripen……
You harp on and on with your schoolboy aerodynamics Fonky. Perhaps you’d clarify where Dassault got help from when they redesigned the fin and spine of the MD550, and to refine the fineness ratio, in order to produce the Mirage III? Fairey Aviation. Or do you think it’s a coincidence that the production aircraft used the Fairey Delta 2’s configuration?
JackonickoPilotGIT,
I was interested that you couldn’t challenge any of the points made, except my cheeky claim that Rolls make: “the best civilian turbofan engines in the world.”
Your diagram may show the Market share of engines in service, perhaps. But what is acknowledged as the engine of choice for aircraft being built and sold today, where fleet commonality/common support isn’t an issue?
In any case, I said best, not best selling.
You call me chauvinistic and narrow minded when your argument is that Rafale is better than Typhoon because it is French, and French industry is better than UK industry. You’re wrong on both counts, and you’re the one who is being nationalistic and xenophobic to a moronic extent. Which bit of:
“Typhoon isn’t a UK programme. It is also lucky enough to be able to count on magnificent contributions by Germany (your own partner in EADS, Eurocopter, Airbus, Transall, Atlantic, and Alpha Jet), Italy and Spain. And you have the stupidity and arrogance to claim that France can not only guarantee to do better than the UK (which we’ve proved to be an empty claim) but that it can do better than the combined might and excellence of the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain.”
Don’t you understand, monkey boy?
Sealordlawrence,
We don’t attempt many autonomous programmes any more, but the market has changed, and fortunately we’ve concentrated on adding value to world-beating international programmes, rather than being ruled by jingoistic chauvinism and driven into producing mediocre indigenous aeroplanes. Yes Rafale looks beautiful, and is a surprisingly good aeroplane, but its markedly inferior to Typhoon.
And where is France’s Hawk? How many French aircraft have been sold to and licence built by the US? Where is France on JSF? What French technology is on F/A-22?
JackonickoListen, my snail-eating chum. It was Fonk and you who brought up the notion that Rafale was better than Typhoon because Dassault (and French industry) was more talented and more experienced than the entire UK aviation industry. It was you blokes who claimed that this experience and expertise was somehow proven by the number of individual projects flown since 1945 – a date you chose because it handily saves you from having to explain the risible performance of French aircraft in 1940, I suspect. On previous threads, it’s been claimed by people like you that the greater sales success of M2K (compared to Tornado, for example), proves the same thing.
You are the idiot who claimed that: “french aerospace industries produced more and more famous while last century, till today!”
You are the person who asked: “british are leader of what aerospace program today?”
In highlighting the success of the UK aerospace sector, we’re merely correcting the facile, baseless, nationalistic tub-thumping that cretins like you and Fonk seem to love.
Leadership is irrelevant, as you’d realise if you look at the best, most advanced and most successful programmes France has been involved with – Airbus, Concorde, Jaguar, Alpha Jet, Transall, Tiger, etc.
But since you ask about Britain’s aircraft industries today.
1) They designed and still build Hawk (the best and best selling advanced military trainer – exported to the USA – the toughest market in the world to crack. Not only exported, but exported in massive numbers and licence built in the USA in preference to domestic alternatives. In doing so, Hawk followed Canberra and Harrier.)
2) They designed and still build Merlin (the best and best selling medium lift helicopter – exported to the USA – the toughest market in the world to crack, and not just exported, but exported as the next Presidential helicopter. And licence built in the USA in preference to domestic alternatives. This is an achievement that Dassault has never come close to emulating.)
3) They designed and still build Lynx (the best and best selling small-ship helicopter)
4) They participate in Typhoon (the best and best selling fourth generation swing role fighter programme)
5) They are the only Level One participant in JSF, which relies on UK design and manufacturing expertise.
6) They are building Nimrod MRA4 (the most advanced maritime recce platform)
7) They have leadership on the Airbus wing – arguably the cornerstone of the aircraft’s success. They are a key partner in A400M.
8) UK industry is responsible for ASRAAM and largely responsible for Meteor. UK industry produces the best lightweight tacR pod in the world (Vinten JRP). UK industry produces the best civilian turbofan engines in the world. UK industry produces the best inflight refuelling pods.
But Typhoon isn’t a UK programme. It is also lucky enough to be able to count on magnificent contributions by Germany (your own partner in EADS, Eurocopter, Airbus, Transall, Atlantic, and Alpha Jet), Italy and Spain. And you have the stupidity and arrogance to claim that France can not only guarantee to do better than the UK (which we’ve proved to be an empty claim) but that it can do better than the combined might and excellence of the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain.
Jackonicko“When you don’t produce it, it’s just a challenger…”
How many French programmes resulted in meaningful production runs?
Of those, how many sold significant numbers to developed nations?
And how many were built under licence in the USA? (like Canberra, Harrier, Merlin….)
Jackonickoand you still missed the Beagle Airedale, Husky, and 242! And some Austers.
And the Trago Mills SAH1, the Edgeley Optica, and the Firecracker and Turbo Firecracker.
And the Supermarine 508/529, 510/517, 525, 528/535, 545, the BAC 221, the Hunting 126 and the DH108.
And though their prototypes flew during the War, the Meteor, Vampire, Lincoln, and York were major post war programmes.
Did you remember the Fieldmaster, Islander, Trislander and Defender (I’m editing this post so can’t see…..)
We can hardly help it that the French were too busy resisting (or in some cases collaborating) to build and fly any prototypes between 1940 and 1945, can we?
JackonickoPersonally, I think that such a list would be no more dull and boring than endlessly re-posted lists of dodgy statistics re-posted from Jane’s, as long as it stays within one post and is re-edited, rather than repeated again and again at every new iteration.
It also gives the lie to Fonk’s silly claim that the French industry has produced more significant aircraft than Britain’s…..
Sign In
