the way they’re going, a reverse engineered F-4 with 5 tails and canards.

Any photoshoped about of that one anybody :diablo:

Could you please precise what you suggest by france’s “support” for the middle-east despotic regimes ? Is it as stupid as it seems ?

I think its got something to do with the French not giving any thought about the types of people that they will sell their high tech weapons (or Nuclear Reactors) to (a problem that Russia and China have as well, but they do have the excuse of needing the money). The UK and US are not perfect on this matter in anyway (the US support to Saddam was however twofold, A to break Iraq away from the Soviet block and B, cause Iran a lot of problems. (Remember, the Iranians had attacked and taken over the US embassy which is in international law technically an act of war) UK support was for the same reasons (our embassey was just attacked and set alight)) , However they were prepared to take a hit in the wallet (and in the human casualties) to do something about it (which would have most likely worked had the US not gone and c**ked it up big time, but lets not go there on that topic). I’m not going to go totally over the top on this one like most Americans do, as the French have done good work in Bosnia, Kosevo, Afghanistan and in Gulf War 1. However it seem to be that whenever the French wallet is going to take a major hit the word NON is mentioned at the UN.

The F-16 comment re Iran may not be as far off the mark as you think. There is a theory doing the rounds in London that to encourage the Iranians from continuing with their nuclear program uncle sam may consider exporting to them a load of F-14’s that have become available and some F-16’s all as part of a much larger ‘sweetener’ deal including some new Boeing airliners. It could just be talk though as I can’t see congress going for this. :rolleyes:

I would not put any money on this one at all.

No it isn’t. Most of the people who post cost estimates here do the same as you, & base them on the manufacturing cost, excluding everything else, while claiming it’s cheaper than X or Y (based on total project cost of X or Y) or only slightly more than Z (based on contract price of Z, including manufacturers profit, training, weapons, support, etc).

Spot on there, mate. It was a favourite story of my late grandfather who worked in the accounts department of a large British aircraft manufacture. A British project was always sold as a twenty-year package of training and spares. They were always being undercut by the competitors that didn’t add in life cycle costs and therefore looked cheaper.

they’d have some trouble taking out an Iranian Flanker because it doesn’t exist.

Future Threat, My Friend :diablo: 😮 😮 :diablo: Think longish term 😉

a) An USAFEUR assigend wing could deploy to their forward operating location in Germany in less then 24 hours. The planes would arrive fully armed and German ground personal were trained to cross service the planes, meaning they could perform basci checks and rearm the planes. You might do not know about those huge Ample Train excersises which made sure that any NATO aircraft could be turned around at any NATO airbase without problems. The forward operating locations of USA based planes had weapons and spares already palced in storage in Germany, to begin operations they just needed the planes. The USAF had enough tankers to deploy up to 3-4 wings within 24 hours.

b) Their was no politcal influence. The Soviets do something unusual that seems threatening Reforger kicks in. It happened more then once that there was an un-scheduled reforger happening, which was later called a “planed” surprise excersise.

c) They would not be asked. IT was an autmatic system. Once NATO headquarter starts Reforger, then it starts. No need to ask any goverment.

RAF Harriers and Jaguars based in UK would also forward deploy to Norway and Denmark. OCU Aircraft and Crews would become attrition reserves. USAF Aircraft from States would also have deployed to UK airfields, Phantoms to Coltishall, ANG A-7s to Sculthorpe (saw it happen in the late 1980’s), etc. All these aircraft have In-flight refuelling capability, can operate over central Europe and are defended by RAF Phantoms (plus a few Tornado F3’s), Bloodhound SAM (from the Humber to the Thames), Hawks armed with Sidewinder L and a cannon. to top it off 30mm Skyguard controlled guns and the odd Rapier battery (unless your on a USAF MoB were you have a number of them) and of course any USAF fighters you want to add. Fencer has the range with a small bomb load, maybe or do you want to risk long range aviation assests (suggest you do not use ballistic missiles however, as Moscow will then eat Polaris and its GAME OVER :diablo: Which to be frank, would have been the most likely outcome of this thread ).

Crazy amount of monies, but do they really require this AC?

They want something C:cool::cool:L that will kick the C:dev2::dev2:P out of an Iranian Flanker or an Israeli Eagle, The F-22 would be their preferred choice, but it is not for export sale, and if it was they would not be allowed to operate it were they liked. (Plus a good chance its because the British do a good line in bribes :diablo: :diablo: :diablo: ). I wonder how this will effect the RAF orders and the final rundown of the Jaguar Fleet?

All Russian planes are built to operate on grass runways too. So…no problemos there. :rolleyes:

I’d say big problems, yes, they could have operated with a greatly reduced fuel/ weapon load 😮

RAF Harriers in Germany never operated from grass if they could help it. Plus did they practice it week in, week out and have the massive MT support required to kept up the required operational tempo.

Also, 59?? F-117’s have been built. In time of increased tension, would not more have been made??

Not likely!!!