Look at the TBOs, to start with. Then look at the airframe life.

The F-4?

No way.

Of the sixties, perhaps.

But in the F-4 in the 70s you have a fighter that can be bested by far too many opponents.

Multi role versatility is great, but not if you die when you come up against modern opposition.

Swerve,

1) South Ossetia is roughly 66% Ossetian and 29% Georgian by ethnicity, with most of the remainder being Russian. More than 70% of the South Ossetia citizens voluntarily hold Russian citizenship. Whether they do so legally or otherwise it does give a powerful indicator of their wishes.

2) While we might not understand it, and while we might deplore it, the vast majority of South Ossetians want to unite with the other ethnic Ossetians in North Ossetia (part of Russia) and do not want to be citizens of the Georgian government in Tbilisi. They have repeatedly rejected Georgian offers of ‘autonomy’ and instead demand full independence.

3) The current hostilities began when Georgian forces invaded South-Ossetian-controlled territory and began shelling the Tskhinvali capital of the break-away Government of the Republic of South Ossetia. Only then did the Russians intervene. What did we expect them to do? Stand by and watch the South Ossetians being crushed and forcibly incorporated into Georgia?

One might draw a parallel between China/Taiwan and Georgia/Ossetia. Pragmatism demands that we side with the oppressor, morality that we side with those demanding self determination. I certainly find it hard to swallow the Georgian line that this is all about Russia trying to crush freedom and democracy. Just because Saakashvili wants to join NATO and has had a ‘rose revolution’ does not make him one of the good guys.

The West seems to be favouring Georgian demands for support for its ‘Territorial Integrity’ over the rights and wishes of the South Ossetians for independence, and over their preference for Moscow over Tbilisi.

I am extremely uncomfortable about this choice, which seems morally questionable (we’re the good guys, we’re supposed to support self determination) and foolish, as it feeds Russian paranoia and distrust of the West.

The UK has made some small successes already – the BAE 125s, for example – so the Japanese defence market isn’t quite the US monopoly people think.

Moreover, the success of the EH101 buy by the JMSDF has further encouraged Japan to look at more diversification in its defence procurement.

And there are some factors that give Typhoon a better-than-you-might-imagine chance in Japan.

The JASDF boys who flew the jet LOVED it.

It clearly provides the capability to maintain air supremacy over any regional threat.

The industrial package makes a great deal of sense for Mitsubishi, and the aircraft could be used to leverage greater advantage with the EU, while technology transfer is likely to be greater than it would be from a US solution.

National pride, face, and love of new toys mitigates against the F-15. The F-15 has been bought by Korea and Singapore, for starters, and it could be perceived as “already been there, done that” old hat for the JASDF, unless Boeing have the sense to call it the F-37 Super Eagle II or somesuch.

Even the Super Hornet suffers to some extent – Australia have bought them as an interim (bad for Japanese face to select the same aircraft as more than an interim aircraft) and it’s still a teen series jet.

But while the JASDF might be happy with today’s Typhoon, without AESA will the type be politically acceptable? There are an awful lot of numpties who believe that AESA should be a prerequisite.

Nhampton,

If you believe the latest NAO figure represents a real unit production cost for Typhoon (including, as it does, elements of fixed costs for Tranche 3, QinetiQ and NETMA running costs, and is RAB-based, all of which make it anything but a UPC or flyaway) then I’d suggest that it’s you who meets the description:

“people who have a hard time separating fact from rumour and fiction.”

But I wouldn’t want mere truth to stand in the way of your tired anti-Typhoon prejudices.

Satorian,

That day it had been the brandy that did the damage…..

With regard to the “don’t like how the EF2k comes out of a loop” comment, I agree with you. Airshow 101 tells the display pilot that you should always plan to come out of a loop nice and high, and then slacken the pull out (easing the back pressure) to give a nice low recovery to give a safe crowd-pleaser. That way, if you misjudge anything you can still get away with it.

It happened to be the period when the UASs were going from the old Mk 1 helmet (outer shell with visor over separate green cloth ‘Biggles’ helmet) to the swept-up Mk 3 (integrated helmet, dual visors externally). Some of us went via the Mk 2 (dual clear/tinted visors semi-recessed, with a visor retraction bar across the front).

I got through five or six helmets in three years – two Mk 1s (white first, then green as instructed) and then a Mk 2 in the first year. Then I was issued a Mk 3, which was white, and was soon told to hand it back and get a more tactical green one….. ‘Cos a green helmet made all the difference in a red and white Bulldog…. :rolleyes:

We went back and forth from white to green flying gloves, too.