Simviation Forum - Valid arguments against the Typhoon (go America!)

Reply #15 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 7:59am

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

Quote:

Lets not even go into the can't afford area Craig, I'll start foaming at the mouth about the MoD again Tongue

You and me both Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 8:01am

ozzy72 Offline
Global Moderator
Pretty scary huh?
Madsville

Gender:
Posts: 37122

Quote:

Current western militairy is based on Coorperation between nations

Absolutely, the problem is our glorious leaders haven't realised that having more missiles/planes/feather dusters does not mean you can control things. You need men on the ground to control an area. Many governments have made that mistake, thinking control of the air means you've won. This mistake has been written in the blood of hundreds probably thousands of soldiers Sad

There are two types of aeroplane, Spitfires and everything else that wishes it was a Spitfire!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 8:12am

Souichiro Ex Member

Recent wars have shown the ever increasing importance of ground forces once more! The days of one army in Red and one in Blue are over.. it's red versus all kind of colours if you get my drift... Air support is needed more than air superiority I think.. The days of: "he who controls the sky controls the world"..(or something like that) are over.. I think at least..

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 8:41am

Politically Incorrect Offline
Colonel
Personal opinion given
free of charge!
Williamsport, PA

Gender:
Posts: 3915

Quote:

... Air support is needed more than air superiority I think.. The days of: "he who controls the sky controls the world"..(or something like that) are over.. I think at least..

I agree, airwarfare in WWII was what won the battles, but in todays world the dogfight is the last place you want to be and ground force is necessary to locate and define targets.
And only in a combined effort is a suitable outcome to be expected, it now requies the entire military force to win a battle.

Quote:

You always spoke a lot of sense

Well I don't know about that, I also have been known to speak alot of non-sense also Wink

Thanks for the kind words.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 8:45am

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

to go into the many problems of military tactics would take years. Perhaps if more was put into training these days there wouldn't be so many problems.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 9:05am

ozzy72 Offline
Global Moderator
Pretty scary huh?
Madsville

Gender:
Posts: 37122

That comes back to money again though Craig......

There are two types of aeroplane, Spitfires and everything else that wishes it was a Spitfire!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 9:06am

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

Quote:

That comes back to money again though Craig......

which to avoid foaming we wont discuss

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 9:12am

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Quote:

Well I don't know about that, I also have been known to speak alot of non-sense also Wink

Me too.

Mind you, I usually have a lot to say on most subjects. Even those I know very little about. Cheesy

Quote:

Lets not even go into the can't afford area Craig, I'll start foaming at the mouth about the MoD again

You have to be practical. Although some people seem to think otherwise, Britain is no longer a world power. It's a tiny speck on the map compared with most other countries. The total population of the UK was around 59.6 million in 2003 compared with the latest US estimate of 295,734,134 for 2005. It's quite likely that less than 50% of those 59 million are taxpayers & there's no bottomless pit. I have no idea where they found the money to buy 230 or so Typhoon IIs or why we need that many. ??? Without the great British Empire we can no longer afford to stand alone & have to depend on our allies to help in times of trouble.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #23 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 9:43am

beefhole Offline
Colonel
common' yigs!
Philadelphia

Gender:
Posts: 4466

Hey everybody-I'm on my way out, so I only had time to look at the first five posts or so.

ozzy-I'm sorry to hear that, but that doesn't really pertain to my point-yes, the USAF is known for grave mistakes that cost civilian lives, however that really doesn't correlate to my infrastructure argument, or to how powerful the USAF (or any airforce, for that matter) is-the power of one's airforce can only be tested in combat with the enemy, only it's intel can be measured in the amount of innocent civilians who have been caught in the crossfire, or incorrect Chinese buildings bombed.

I'm not saying that the Brits don't have AWACS and tankers guys-I'm saying we coordinate them better. Prefer Brit AWACS and tanker crews?

An AWACS crew is an AWACS crew is an AWACS crew.

A tanker is a tanker is a tanker.

I'll get around to the rest later Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #24 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 9:47am

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

Quote:

A tanker is a tanker is a tanker

dont know how to explain how wrong that is.
Down to the types of planes used, to the way a crew will fly the pattern during refueling, to whether it uses a boom or hoses.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #25 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 11:28am

Ivan Offline
Colonel
No, I'm NOT Russian, I
only like Russian aircraft
The netherlands

Gender:
Posts: 6058

Small Correction for craigl s post:
you have
- booms
- NATO hoses
- russian hoses

Although it is possible to have a connector for both russian and NATO system (Malaysia)

One to one is and was rare even in ww2, but they still train for it as part of the NATO doctrine.

The only reason that the US trains agains the Typhoon is that the Typhoon is the closest they can get to Su-27 / Su-35 / Su-30 performance whitout having to call New Delhi or Moscow

Anything from the US and NATO is Flanker feed when the range limit of the R73 is passed anyway so most of the focus will be on long range (where the open pipes of the F-22 won't help in reducing the detection chance)

F-22 will rely on AWACS, as its cover is blown when its own radar is operating, and as stated its open pipes won't help much (except in running away at M2.0 after firing their shots which makes it light up like a christmas tree on radar)

Russian planes: IL-76 (all standard length ones), Tu-154 and Il-62, Tu-134 and An-24RV&&&&AI flightplans and repaints can be found here

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #26 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 12:09pm

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

I found this transcript of a speech to the House of Lords by Air Marshal Sir Timothy Garden on 13 January 2005. http://www.tgarden.demon.co.uk/writings/articles/2005/050113hol.html
Straight from the horse's mouth.

Quote:

It might have been that we would have gone down the route of a very high cost stealth fighter optimised against Soviet threats. The US F/A22 Raptor is a good example of such a programme. In simulated combat against a Sukhoi Su-35, the F22 shoots down 10 for every one of its own losses. The figures for Eurofighter Typhoon are just under half that capability (some 4.5 Su-35s for every Typhoon lost). The next best capability is the Rafale C which loses one for one. All others (F15C, F/A-18, F16C) are worse than unity. They would be shot down more often than they would have a victory. These are unclassified results using networked simulators and give no more than indications of comparative capabilities of different aircraft with similar missile systems. But they do bear out that we are getting into service a very high performance agile fighter, at what is a good price.

Quote:

Tim Garden read Physics at Oxford and International Relations at Cambridge. He was a pilot in the Royal Air Force for 32 years. His command posts included a V-bomber squadron and a helicopter station. He was the RAF Director of Defence Studies from 1982 to 1985. and became Assistant Chief of the Air Staff in 1991. He was subsequently responsible for forward planning for all three Services as Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff (Programmes) in the Ministry of Defence. His final military post was as the Air Marshal Commandant of the Royal College of Defence Studies.

He retired from the RAF in 1996 and was then Director of the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House, London. He has been Visiting Professor at the Centre for Defence Studies at King's College, London since 2000. He has sat as a Liberal Democrat peer since June 2004. He is the front bench Defence spokesman, and is a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #27 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 12:40pm

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

I think Ivan, you put way to much stock in the Flanker. Its outclassed completely by anything new today. Doug the one aircraft i notice missing on the list in your quote is the Grippen. Which is better than the rafael and comparable to the typhoon. I am guessing it was not included in the simulations.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #28 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 12:42pm

Ivan Offline
Colonel
No, I'm NOT Russian, I
only like Russian aircraft
The netherlands

Gender:
Posts: 6058

Are these sims based on 1 vs 1 or group combat. if it is group combat, they are only valid for former CIS, while Brazil and India are something totally different.

The latest russian toys are the Su-37 (flanker with TVC), Su-30MKI stage 2 (Su-30 with TVC) and Su-41 (S-37 FSW production version). Most of the stuff is too expensive for them to fly it themselves but it's a popular export product

Russian planes: IL-76 (all standard length ones), Tu-154 and Il-62, Tu-134 and An-24RV&&&&AI flightplans and repaints can be found here

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #29 - Jul 12^th, 2005 at 12:58pm

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

I have no idea one way or the other. I would expect someone of Air Marshal Garden's vast experience to know what he's talking about. Here's his CV. http://www.tgarden.demon.co.uk/biog/tgbio1.html

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: