Valid arguments against the Typhoon (go America!)

[C]

[quote]

[C]

Prefer Brit AWACS and tanker crews?

The US Navy did during the Balkans conflict and Afghanistan - our VC-10 tankers had drogues, so they were able to use them - note the number of KC-135s now being retrofitted with wingtip drogue units!

I dont see Typhoon on the RAF lists, not sure of the exact numbers but it was in the couple hundred for orders i beleive. In the end, we just dont need the same numebrs as the US. Or to be more accurate. Cant afford the numbers.

What people often fail to realise is that the number we are procuring (and this applies to other projects too) applies to the entire life cycle of the type in service. The Typhoon may be operational for up to forty years (or more), and will probably be looking at an operational force of somewhere between 60 and 100 (60 or 72 at a guess) aircraft at any time - the others will be kept in storage. The 232 the RAF have ordered are required to cover the whole life cycle, including attrition. If you then think you may lose 1 or 2, maybe 3 jets per year on average, plus others being retired at the end of their fatigue life, then you understand the reason for having so many on order in the first place. This is also what makes the project affordable.

[Craig.]

What people often fail to realise is that the number we are procuring (and this applies to other projects too) applies to the entire life cycle of the type in service

Oh i know they arnt going to be dropped on the doorstep of a base all at one go.

[C]

Oh i know they arnt going to be dropped on the doorstep of a base all at one go.

It would be impressive though...

... a good target for subversive types too.

[beefhole]

Beefy - careful what you say, there are people out there who know a lot more about these things than you appear to...

Not from my mouth Charlie

Everything I've posted came straight from the mouth of a guy who knows what he's talking about.

Craig-I wasn't refering to the specific equipment or patterns of tankers, I was refering to the skill and quality of tanker pilots-honestly, one tanker is just like the next.

[Hagar]

[quote]but during a war time scenario, it is our infrastructure (not to mention numbers, as stated) that gives us the edge.

[C]

Sorry Beefy. Like any patriotic Brit I can't accept that. The RAF might be much smaller but it's just as capable in all respects. In fact they probably invented some of the procedures you're using now.

The RAF being smaller means that they can afford to really be selective as to who we recruit and the standards we apply in our training - guys who would have easily gone down the fast jet route 15 or 20 years ago are now going straight into the Rotary or Curry eating (multi engine) world - even worse, in the last couple of years guys who had breezed basic and advanced fast jet training courses were being restreamed to rotary or multis - that's how selective the RAF's been able to be...

CFS - first dedicated military flying school in the world, and still going strong!

Also - not everyone in the military always know what they're on about either, even Marine Corp Majors

[SilverFox441]

I'll say this about tanker crews...

During the Gulf War USN pilots in an F-14 definitely preferred Canadian tanker crews over USN.

The reason is simple...a tanker configured CC-137 crew went north to get them when nobody else would. The F-14 was leaking fuel badly and would not have exited hostile territory unless fuel was available.

The CC-137 was low itself, but the crew elected to extract the F-14 to a position where other tanker assets were available. The Canadian tanker then made an emergency landing with fuel reserves below minimums.

As for the concept that logistically the US handles the air war better...

That's a joke.

At exercises like Red Flag, Maple Flag and many others integrated C3I operations are conducted...Allied as well as US operators learn how to do their jobs in the exact same way, modified only for national assets. The NATO AWACS at Geilenkirchen uses and teaches AWACS tactics and uses to all NATO members. Exchanges between Allied nations ensure that the knowledge base gained by one country is shared across allies.

I conducted many exercises with USAF or USN units...their performance was acceptable, nothing more. The one advantage they had over us was numbers...a much bigger budget granted much higher force levels.

One last point for beefhole.

As a former technician and Technical Air Crewman in 414 (EW) Sqdn, CAF I found nothing to indicate that US aircrews communicated any more or less than Canadian crews, British crews or anybody else's. The only deciding factor was how well they responded to disruptions in communications caused by our jamming efforts. On that point British and Canadian crews worked better...they had more practice working against EW Aggressors. Both forces had access to their own training forces, which the US military lacked (one of 414's most common calls for deployment came from Tyndall AFB to work as the primary during Copper Flag or Green Flag Exercises).

It was fun though watching the USAF commit to "blue on blue" kills during an exercise.

Forget to validate a target instruction and the bad guys can send you where they want, point your weapons where they want...and have you expend weapons and freindlies when they want.

Nothing better than listening to the exercise over the Gulf of Mexico and hearing:

"LA 24, that's a kill. LA 21, steer 175 for 75, flight level 210 to regenerate. Confirmed kill by LA 24. LA 21 contact Blue control before turning inbound."

It was worth about 15 seconds of dead silence on the radios monitoring Blue freqs.

It was also worth a case of beer from both LA crews.

[beefhole]

Hey guys... it's getting late here and I have to get up early, I'll try to post then.. I tell you this now because the first ethernet jack just went and now the one we're on now is going, so I'm not sure how soon I'l be able to get back on.

Real quick-the marine I know isn't just some schmuck ground soldier (*SARCASM SARCASM*), he works intel and part of his job is to train fighter pilots on USAF/USMC infrastructure and identification fo enemy units (nothing to do with this, I know).

I'l try to get back on morning.

[Felix/FFDS]

Let's hope we never have to find out which is better - the F-22/Typhoon/Flanker, etc.

[Felix/FFDS]

Amen to that.

RELIGIOUS SPEECH!!  BAN BAN BAN !


hehe:)

[Felix/FFDS]

and since when do I let facts get in the way?


(Warning: Anything you write may (and probably) be twisted beyond recognition to support my own point of view!)