Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground  
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9184 times:

11 Sqn Typhoon FRG.4's have become operation for air to ground ops, at least initially with LGB's, after exercises in Nevada with the US.

Operational for air defence since last year, (as Russian TU-95's have seen), the type is now ready for a combat deployment in a swing role.

Other weapons to be integrated in time, will include the Brimstone and Storm Shadow air to ground missiles.

From the MoD;
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...claredReadyForGroundAttackRole.htm

From the BBC, reports, intended for a general audience;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7482309.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7482756.stm

No narration, but with some good views for the LGB's and targeting pod;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7482317.stm

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1140 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9170 times:

In excess of 60,000,000 British Pounds...Ouch! Excellent reports.

User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 938 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9162 times:

That is indeed superb news. I'm looking foreward to seeing these beauties strut their stuff at RAF Waddington this weekend. Its nice to know they will also be able to precision drop a bomb right into my flask of coffee  alert   hyper 

User currently offlineAlien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 9104 times:



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 1):
In excess of 60,000,000 British Pounds

Dated July 1 2008 from the beeb no less.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7482756.stm

And Jacko said it was far less. Go figure. You could buy two F-35s or two Super Hornets for that price.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 9096 times:

Is it safe to say that, of the Eurocanards, the Typhoon has seen the most operational service?


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineAlien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 9090 times:



Quoting N328KF (Reply 4):
Is it safe to say that, of the Eurocanards, the Typhoon has seen the most operational service?

Nope, both the Gripen and Rafale have been in operational service longer.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 9085 times:

Quoting Alien (Reply 5):
Nope, both the Gripen and Rafale have been in operational service longer.

I guess this isn't what I mean. I mean, which one has really seen more action/deployment, in the "peaceful" non-hot-war manner of speaking?

[Edited 2008-07-01 21:54:46]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineAlien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 9079 times:

Rafale has deployed to Afghanistan. Tiffie has chased some Bears. I'm not sure about Gripen.

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9053 times:

Oh right, so just passing on some videos brings out the 'usual suspects'
'Yawn'.

Another way to look at it is that the RAF has another asset to support operations, which will include supporting US ground forces.
But no, the partial facts brigade are out.
The ones who trawl around lifting a bit here and there, correct or not, to support their odd view of the world, just like conspiracy theorists.


User currently offlineFlipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 8968 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Alien (Reply 3):
You could buy two F-35s or two Super Hornets for that price.

hey you have a point there, you could also buy 6bllion penny chews, I wonder why they didn't?

Maybe they wanted better capability than the Super hornet and F-35 for the air to air role and wanted it before 2020 or whenever the F-35 will enter service. Plus I dont think the F-35 will be any cheaper than the tiffie when it finally does enter service.

Its the same reasons that the USAF went for the stupidly expensive F-22 instead of a whole fleet of F-35s. Tis better and worth the money!  thumbsup 

Fred

[Edited 2008-07-02 04:33:23]

User currently offlineAlien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8926 times:



Quoting GDB (Reply 8):
Another way to look at it is that the RAF has another asset to support operations, which will include supporting US ground forces.

Always love the support but the argument does not work. The UK, like any other nation determines what is in their own best interests. Don't paint it like they are doing the US any favors.

Quoting GDB (Reply 8):
But no, the partial facts brigade are out.

What partial facts. The BBC said it was over 60 million. Bloomberg has said it was over 60 million, the Saudi MOD said it was over 60 million. What partial facts?

Quoting Flipdewaf (Reply 9):
Maybe they wanted better capability than the Super hornet

The Super coming off the line today is a more capable and flexible system than the tiffie. Better avionics, better radar, better ground attack, and better A2A weapons load out this fall when AIM-120-C8 becomes available.

F-35 will be in UK hands long before 2020, and with 20 percent work share of all F-35s, a far better economic deal to boot.


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1609 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8892 times:



Quoting N328KF (Reply 4):
Is it safe to say that, of the Eurocanards, the Typhoon has seen the most operational service?

Yes other planes have a longer operational time canards.

But the EF canards even they look similar are pretty diffrent then the Gripen/Rafale canards. Same as the wing which is almost a perfect delta has been designed for much higher supersonic agility and are much more aerodynamic instable.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineTGIF From Sweden, joined Apr 2008, 277 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8850 times:

I read about the Green flag exercises in Flight and it seems they finally got a true swing role configuration.

Quote:
Typically, Typhoons would leave Nellis in dry power carrying four Enhanced Paveway IIs, a Litening III pod and two external fuel tanks, plus two Raytheon AMRAAM and two MBDA ASRAAM air-to-air missiles. The fighters would then transit to the exercise area at 40,000-50,000ft, delivering an unrefuelled mission endurance of between 1h 50min and 2h.

This sums up to 11 out of 13 hard points occupied. This picture of an EF shows a similar A2A/A2G configuration with two additional AAM. It looks kinda crowded... Perhaps a stupid question but can the missiles/bombs be fired in an arbitrary sequence or do you have to, for example, drop one inner GBU to be able to fire the AAM next to/behind it?

Quoting N328KF (Reply 6):
I guess this isn't what I mean. I mean, which one has really seen more action/deployment, in the "peaceful" non-hot-war manner of speaking?

Although being in the SwAF since -96 I can't recall any reports that the Gripens have seen any action other than patrolling the boarders. Don't know, but I think, this also applies for Czech and Hungary. If NBG would have gone to Darfur/Chad I guess the Gripens would have been deployed.


User currently offlineFlipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8838 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Alien (Reply 10):
The Super coming off the line today is a more capable and flexible system than the tiffie. Better avionics, better radar, better ground attack, and better A2A weapons load out this fall when AIM-120-C8 becomes available.

Yes thats right, today it does but in a few years when more of these milestones are reached then the super bug will be totally insignificant, future planning its called. Lets face it, if one were up there in the sky against the enemy I'd rather be up against the enemy in an aircraft which has a better range, better T/W and Lower wing loading. The tiffie has proper supercruise and most importantly the workload with the immense amount of data fusion in the tiffie cockpit means that the pilot can concentrate on flying the jet.

Fred


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1609 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8818 times:



Quoting Alien (Reply 10):
The Super coming off the line today is a more capable and flexible system than the tiffie. Better avionics,

Still posting bullsh*t  banghead  ? As always you show your lack of understanding about the EF and its systems. Keep on dreaming.  Yeah sure



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 8770 times:

Alien, are you really trying to assert that two F-35's will cost the same as one Typhoon?
How can you possibly know this?
Because the current price of the Typhoon is for these full production models.
F-35 on the other hand, is years away from service, costs are (inevitably) rising, it is in the early stages of flight test.
If it maintains the planned price, whatever it is right now, it will be unprecedented.
Anyway, which F-35? F-35B, will will operate alongside Typhoon replacing Harriers, is thought to be the most expensive of the three variants.

I wonder what the Typhoon detractors make of the pilot in one of the videos refuting one of their totems.
The capability on dry power, (of course it's known it can supercruise-expect for the knee jerk detractors of course).

But then this is where the similarity to the conspiracy types comes in, I suspect the first few prototypes, fitted with RB.199 engines from Tornado, with the much less performance compared to the engine designed for Typhoon.
The ill informed detractors claiming this was still the case with the definitive engines, deliberately?
(The '9/11 Truth' idiots claimed that debris from UA93 was found 6 miles from the point of impact, 'proving' the official story was not true. Problem is, they used something like Google Earth to research this, but this measured distance from impact to farthest debris found from the nearby roads, which snaked around the area and were far from the proper direct 'as the crow flies' distance. Likewise, an unsurprising slip up in the chaos for the mass landing order, mistook for a very short time, later corrected, a Delta flight for UA93. This of course to the conspiracy types 'proved' foul play, a cover-up).

What do we mean when we say 'operational'?
Since in a limited sense Typhoon was before the RAF officially declared it so.
In Italian service, providing QRA over some international summit, (a reality since Sept 11th).
Gripen, a slightly older type was first, then the only aircraft you can fairly compare with Typhoon, the Rafale.

Back to F-35, we perhaps should not be that surprised about the cost rises, even though affordability was one of the main reasons for the programme in the first place.
If you think of it as a 21st Century F-16/F-18, like these legacy aircraft, needed since as with F-14/F-15 in the 70's, how they could never be procured in anything like the numbers to replace the legacy fleet without a drastic cut in numbers.
Same now, with the F-22, as well as the need to replace both legacy Hornets and the Harrier fleet, building separate types here was never going to happen post Cold War.

Anyway, hope you all liked the videos.


User currently offlineJackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 472 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 8735 times:

Here we go again.

In defiance of all the evidence, Alien trots out the same old lie – that Typhoon costs “twice as much as an F-35”.

What a load of nonsense….

The USAF’s own estimates for F-35 pricing contradict Lockheed’s claims of a $50-60 m price tag. The USAF figures give a programme flyaway average of $83.131 m, with a price of $199 million in 2009, $158 million in 2010, $124 million in 2011, $101.726 m in FY2012 and $91.223 m in FY2013, and $79.973 m thereafter. But that’s founded on the assumption that inflation will run at only 2% per year, which is unlikely in the defence and aerospace sectors.

Lockheed have claimed an export price of “$58.7 million for each of the first 368 foreign-bound fighters.”

But let's look a little more closely at $58.7 m.

That’s in 2002 dollars, so the real price is likely to be $80-90M in real world dollars with even modest inflation.

And that’s just a predicted price, not an actual or guaranteed price. It’s a deliberately attractive figure intended to ensnare the Aussies and is deliberately ‘optimistic’. Indeed it was specifically stated that this fixed price would “only be able to be offered if consortium numbers and schedules are maintained, and that it would likely add additional costs should partner nations start deferring or reducing their buys."

So with Denmark and Norway looking hard at Gripen, Super Hornet and Typhoon, and with the Netherlands equally shaky, and with the UK more likely to take about 82 aircraft, and not the planned 150, you’d have to be a hopeless optimist to imagine that numbers and schedules would be maintained, so this price is MOST unlikely to be met.

That’s the F-35 price taken care of.

How about Typhoon?

Firstly, you have to compare like with like – so you have to compare F-35 unit flyaway cost with Typhoon unit FLYAWAY cost not with Typhoon unit SYSTEM cost.

(We’ll ignore the fact, for now, that European unit flyaway costs are always higher, because they include more initial spares provisioning and GFE). They’re close enough to be interesting.

Now you could believe ‘experts’ like Lewis Page (notoriously unreliable, partial and inaccurate), Bloomberg and the BBC (who like all the mainstream non specialist media take the latest figure and accept it uncritically), or you could look at what industry, the partner nations air forces and governments, and real expert defence journos say…..

The source of most of the inaccuracy and mis-reporting is the NAO figure of £64 m quoted in the Major Projects Report 2005 (MPR05). This IS NOT A UPC, and was based on the production costs only for 144 Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 aircraft that are currently on contract - but included R&D and other costs that should properly be divided across all three production tranches, making it meaningless as a proper unit flyaway cost. (Some costs for 232 aircraft, some for 144 aircraft, divided by 144 does not give a real unit cost, obviously).

That figure is £20m out of kilter with ALL previous AND subsequent UK, German, Italian and Spanish figures - ALL OF WHICH HOVER AROUND £45 M. That figure is higher than the price paid by Austria (the contract was leaked so we KNOW what that price was) which would be illegal under the heads of agreement, which provide that the partner air forces will always pay less.

£64 m ($122 m) is NOT an accurate unit flyaway cost for Typhoon. So what does it cost?

The real costs of Typhoon are:

1) £42-45 m Unit production cost (validated by the NAO, confirmed by the Typhoon IPT, and backed up by the equivalent official figures from all four partner nations and Austria)

Tranche 1 cost £45.45 m (NAO MPR: "The contract for the first Tranche of 148 aircraft, of which 55 valued at some £2.5bn are for the UK, was signed in September 1998.")

NB That the R1 and R2 upgrades (NAO: "retrofit of Tranche 1 aircraft to Tranche 2 standard (+£117m))" add £2.12 m per aircraft.

In the NAO major projects report 2004, the unit production cost (excluding R&D) was quoted as £49.1 m (assuming a full 232 aircraft buy) across all three Tranches. (£11.39 Bn + R&D)

It was later said (by the NAO and the Government) that our 55 Tranche 1 aircraft were costing £2.5 Bn, representing a unit production cost of £45.45 m.

Figures released in Germany, Italy and Spain would all suggest that the Typhoon's UPC is in the region of £40-45 m ($73-83 m).

So if 55 Tranche 1 aircraft cost £45-49m each, how could the average Tranche 1 and 2 UPC have got to £64.8 m? Is there any way that a £64 m UPC could be real?

No, there isn't.

The 144 RAF aircraft in the first two Tranches would have to cost £9.333 Bn (excluding R&D), and since Tranche 1 costs £2.5 Bn, the Tranche 2 aircraft would have to cost £6.833 Bn, or £76 m each - £30 m more, per jet, than Tranche 1.

Whereas NAO and UK Government figures show that they actually cost £42 m each, fractionally less than Tranche 1, as planned.

Or you could arrive at a Tranche 2 unit cost by dividing the production contract total (€13 Bn or $16 Bn US) by the 236 aircraft in the tranche. That's €55 m/$67.8 m - £42 m at that time.

Or you could look at the Austrian price of €61 m - guess what - fractionally more than £42 m......

2) £82-84 m total programme unit cost. (UK total cost (£19 Bn - £19.6 Bn) divided by UK production total of 232). That's cheaper than Rafale - which works out at £88 m.

So Typhoon has a unit programme cost of £82 m, and a unit system price of about £60 m - which includes the unit flyaway cost of about £42 m.

That’s rather cheaper than F-35, and (as you’d expect) rather more expensive than the less capable F/A-18E/F.


User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 938 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 8719 times:



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 16):

Thanks for that, I've rarely seen such a good aero economics introduction.


User currently offlineJackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 472 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8685 times:

I should have added that the basic "What you pay for one aircraft" cost - what the US refer to as UFCs (Unit Flyaway Cost) - we generally refer to as a UPC (Unit Production Cost).

Neither UFC nor UPC includes R&D, of course, but a UPC will tend to include some batch-specific tooling costs that are excluded from a US style flyaway cost.

Typhoon is very competitive price-wise with other aircraft in its class (F-22, F-35, Rafale, F-15SG) but is naturally more expensive than less capable types like the F-16, Gripen, and Super Hornet.

Though Alien will doubtless hate any inference that his beloved Super Hornet is inferior to Typhoon, it is fact. During a recent visit to Boeing, very senior programme people admitted as much - though they did naturally claim that the Super Hornet enjoyed some specific superiorities and claimed better cost-effectiveness for their aircraft.


User currently offlineJackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 472 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8528 times:

LM has not guaranteed a price of $58 m for anyone.

The prices quoted to the Netherlands and Australia were in 2002 dollars – factor in inflation and you’re talking in the $80-90 m ballpark.

Nor are they guaranteed prices – they are conditional on the export customers maintaining their planned uptake and timescales. ANY reduction in numbers by ANY export customer, or ANY delays, and the prices are not guaranteed.

Doesn’t matter how many F-35s the USAF buys, export prices are specifically linked to export uptake and schedules. In any event, the USAF costs outlined are founded on the US forces making the full planned purchase.

I quite deliberately did not even talk about the cost of the initial OT&E F-35s – but quoted production costs.

The AVERAGE F-35 flyaway over the whole life of the programme is predicted at $83.131. No early customer for the F-35 will buy an F-35 for less.

The stable, post LRIP F-35 flyaway is $79.973. No-one will buy an F-35 cheaper than that – and certainly not an export customer.

Typhoon costs are as I have given. The manufacturer, all four partner nations, all four partner air forces, and Austria all confirm the same flyaway level of £42 m. I’ve cited sources for these costs (IPT, NAO, etc.), backed up by the value of the Tranche 2 Production Contract.

There is a £64 m price out there, it’s not a UPC or a flyaway cost, and for those without unshakeable anti-European bias, or without an agenda I explained exactly where that figure came from, and exactly why it isn’t a UPC, and thus why it is NOT comparable to US flyaway costs. Unfortunately, the idiots at Bloomberg (and elsewhere) have used it without appreciating its inaccuracy, and have ignored the audited and validated Typhoon UPCs that are available.

You keep harping on about the Saudi price of £4.43 Bn, which, when divided by 72, gives an average of £61.527. That’s a unit programme price for the Saudis, including many elements that mean that it is not a UPC or a flyaway.

AGAIN: The UPC of a Tranche 2 Typhoon is £42 m. (Tranche 1 jets cost a little more, Tranche 3 will cost marginally less). Export jets will have an export levy applied.

Today that Typhoon UPC is equivalent to €53 m, or $83.4664.

That’s the price you’d pay for a Typhoon if you placed an order today.

F-35s will not be available at that level of flyaway cost until after 2013 – assuming no further delays, no further reductions in numbers, and no increases in costs.

That means that until 2013 at least, the Typhoon will cost less than F-35 (not “twice as much”). Until 2011, in fact, F-35s cost twice as much as Typhoons!

USAF figures give a programme flyaway average of $83.131 m, with a price of $199 million in 2009, $158 million in 2010, $124 million in 2011, $101.726 m in FY2012 and $91.223 m in FY2013, and $79.973 m thereafter.


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8512 times:

thanks jack for the very elaborate post.

Someone must really try hard to ignore the facts and numbers you poster over and over again.


User currently offlineJackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 472 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8507 times:

Some people are certainly very selective in their use of numbers, and very lacking in discernment when examining the credibility and expertise of their sources.

Lewis Page? Bloomberg? The Daily Mail? BBC Online? Quotes from 2006? Reports dating back five years?

Give me strength, Lord.

With a unit programme cost of £82 m ($160 m) including R&D, the Typhoon has been a massively expensive programme for the UK tax-payer, and the unit production cost of £42 m (about $80 m) for Tranche 2 jets makes Typhoon one of the most expensive fighters in service today. Though cheaper than F-22, and with a lower unit programme cost than Rafale, Typhoon does have a hefty price ticket. But it is not 'double the price' of an F/A-18E/F, nor does it cost twice what you'd pay for an F-35.

Comparisons with the F-35 are especially odious. There are just two F-35s flying, and the programme is in its infancy. Cost escalation is inevitable (every major defence aerospace programme suffers it in the early stages), the only question being "by how much?' Even the USAF's own estimates are likely to be extremely optimistic.

Moreover, this whole argument lacks any reference to through life support and operating costs, perhaps because such costs aren't easily available to enthusiasts, and perhaps because they'd further underline Typhoon's cost effectiveness.


User currently offlineTGIF From Sweden, joined Apr 2008, 277 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8499 times:

So, if we're assuming stealth for the F-35 to be superior meaning no external fuel or weapons, I'd say its abilities (range, variety of weapons etc) are quite limited compared to the EF. With two A2A + two A2G weapon stations you would need two F-35 delivering the amount of bombs one EF could do, with the EF doing it from a base further away from the target. I agree that the F-35 may be a "multi purpose fighter". The EF however, is a true swing-role fighter.

It's also interesting to see JSF partners Netherlands, Norway and Denmark (although EF turned the latter two down) considering the EF, not as a compliment to the F-35 but a replacement, because of the rising JSF program costs. Why would they consider a "more expensive, less capable" fighter?


User currently offlineJackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 472 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8437 times:

It would be a mistake to underplay the F-35's capabilities, just as it's a mistake to understate its cost, or to exaggerate how soon it will be available.

On day 1, against a fully functional integrated air defence system, only an all-aspect Stealth aircraft will guarantee a high enough survival rate against the most potent threats.

But how likely is it that you'll be going against such defences?

How long will it be before EO/IR/bistatic defences remove the cloak of invisibility/invulnerability from LO aircraft?

But if you're planning on going 'down town' today using manned aircraft, then you'll want to do so in an F-117, F-35, F-22 or B-2.

Or let your allies 'kick down the door'.

Or just use Tomahawk and a lot of stand off weapons....

But in that 'Day 1, sophisticated IADS' scenario, there's no doubt that an F-35 enjoys real advantages over any legacy, non-stealth fast jet.

But there are other scenarios in which Typhoon scores higher, and it may well be that you need only a relatively small force of 'silver bullet' F-35s, augmented by a larger number of more flexible, generally more capable conventional fighters.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8389 times:

Well I did say 'for general audience' for the BBC videos, meaning that it is a general news piece, not a specialised aviation report.

We know that in aviation, they often pass over doing too much specialisation, for time reasons clearly.
Add in an inherent media scepticism on defence matters, not that these are in any way a hatchet job.


25 Jackonicko : No worries, GDB. The pictures were great, and your warning was well given. It's just annoying when the 'partial facts brigade' come in with their prop
26 Post contains links Alien : They certainly have. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23855599-662,00.html The Typhoon should in no way shape or form be mentioned in t
27 F27Friendship : ow don;t worry, you are not the only one who is getting sick about your posts from your so called reliable sources. Especially that you try to convin
28 Jackonicko : 1) Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 19): LM has not guaranteed a price of $58 m for anyone. They certainly have. No, They have not. The $58 m offer is: a) Co
29 TGIF : There are no underestimations in the F-35's capabilities from my side. I think it's an awesome fighter and the stealth features certainly gives it ad
30 Red329 : Thanks TGIF! When other countries such as the UK in this case, fly their fighters to the US for training exercises, do they bring their tankers to re
31 AutoThrust : Thanks Jackonicko for your interesting and informative post. I would like to add: The PIRATE is a unique sensor which can't be compared to Russian IR
32 Jackonicko : It's a shame, as the Super Hornet is a great aircraft, and any realistic assessment would admit that. And during that window when Typhoon and Rafale w
33 Alien : F-18 is no longer being considered. I wonder why? Wrong Jack. I understand some others misreading articles in english but you are supposedly from the
34 Jackonicko : No Alien, it isn't guaranteed. It's conditional on all export customers maintaining their totals and timescales. And it's in 2002 dollars, which is wh
35 TGIF : Ok, I'll try to make myself as clear as possible. You seem to constantly ignore the points I'm trying to make and the conditions they are based upon.
36 Post contains links Alien : It is guarenteed Jack, read the entire article. It is for the first 300+ aircraft for export and it does take into account currency fluctuation since
37 Post contains links Jackonicko : I don't care when the article was published, Lockheed use FY02 $ as a baseline on JSF. (Otherwise how would the Aussies be offered a price more than $
38 Post contains links Alien : It is 2006 prices Jack. You cheapest USAF price is a budgetary estimate and as such it is deliberately set high. In other words it is worst case. It
39 GDB : Alien, I really think that the phrase 'when in a hole, stop digging', really refers to you. Aside from partial, not well informed or just plain dodgy
40 Alien : The BBC, Suadi MOD, Bloomberg Financial, the Herald Sun, and the NAO, partial, well informed or dodgy. You cannot be serious. What is in your opinion
41 Jackonicko : LM's JSF prices are in FY 2002 $. Lockheed say so themselves. The NAO changed the basis of calculating Typhoon costs. What now appears in the Major Pr
42 Jackonicko : You said that my cheapest USAF JSF price was a budgetary estimate "and as such it is deliberately set high." Not so. Such estimates usually prove to b
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic RAF Typhoons In Nevada/Ready For Air To Ground
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
F-15C And Air To Ground posted Fri Dec 2 2005 18:23:37 by CX747
USN To Ground All Aircraft For One Day posted Sat Mar 4 2006 16:43:03 by AviationAddict
Germany: Eurofighter Ready For QRA posted Thu Jan 24 2008 02:38:56 by TheSonntag
If You Were In Flight School You'd Want To Fly.... posted Sat Oct 20 2007 15:32:28 by KevinSmith
RAF Shadows Russian Bears Provoking UK Air Space posted Tue Aug 21 2007 21:50:47 by VANGUARD737
Decent Hand-held Scanner For Air Shows? posted Mon Jul 16 2007 01:55:12 by ChrisNH
Great Time For Usmc To Buy Super Hornets... posted Sun Jun 24 2007 20:09:58 by AirRyan
Mi-24 Air-to-Air Video posted Thu Apr 26 2007 03:20:39 by Vzlet
Red Arrows Back In Cyprus Again, For Training posted Wed Apr 25 2007 19:47:09 by Spetouss
More Info For Air Force Week. posted Tue Mar 20 2007 02:04:19 by Jacks757
Germany: Eurofighter Ready For QRA posted Thu Jan 24 2008 02:38:56 by TheSonntag
If You Were In Flight School You'd Want To Fly.... posted Sat Oct 20 2007 15:32:28 by KevinSmith
RAF Shadows Russian Bears Provoking UK Air Space posted Tue Aug 21 2007 21:50:47 by VANGUARD737
Decent Hand-held Scanner For Air Shows? posted Mon Jul 16 2007 01:55:12 by ChrisNH
Great Time For Usmc To Buy Super Hornets... posted Sun Jun 24 2007 20:09:58 by AirRyan
Mi-24 Air-to-Air Video posted Thu Apr 26 2007 03:20:39 by Vzlet
Red Arrows Back In Cyprus Again, For Training posted Wed Apr 25 2007 19:47:09 by Spetouss

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format