Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / General => Topic started by: FluffyMcDeath on July 21, 2004, 06:11:31 PM
-
But it was nearby.
Hopefully it wasn't their best people flying it, but sometimes you gotta wonder.
Story here. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/21/nfarn21.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/21/ixhome.html)
-
Maybe someone was having a wedding and it was deflected off-course by its precision wedding-bombing computers.
-
Lies, all lies! We all know those guys never make mistakes!!!
- Mike
-
In related news, the RAF is to decomission its remaining Jaguar multi role stovl attack aircraft two years before its planned retirement, also the base that they operate from is to be closed.
Beautiful aircraft with an insanely short take off and landing distance, with the ability to reliably land on grass strips.
Expect to see airframes (minus radar and engines) of these aircraft go for a song (as with the Buccaneer) in the very near future.
-
Hum,
So it missed the great Boeing/Airbus battle...
Incredible, not...
Probably the one good thing was that it wasn't loaded with high explosive bombs...
yea,
i suppose those airframes would make nice green houses..
-
I don't know what the big issue is with B52 accuracy anyway. These things were meant to drop the H-bomb. Dropping one within 50km of your target is generally good enough. :-P
-
With or without the pilot perched on top of the bomb? :-P
(Dr Strangelove reference)
-
Are they buying Eurofighters or some American aircraft?
Are the Typhoons in production yet?
-
Hum,
the Eurofighter (http://www.eurofighter.com/Default.asp?Flash=True) of course!
Heres the Farnborough (http://www.farnborough.com/) website
if your intrested in ordering the latest ordnance or plane...
Hum, thats strange, just noticed that the US only have 4 flying displays the rest are static...
-
@ Fluffy
Eurofighter (Now called "Typhoon") was supposed to be here by the end of the year, to my knolledge it isn't even in production as of yet and is currently shedualed to arive for active service some time in the next two years with a price tag of £40 million per aircraft, some £15 million over cost. It will be replacing the Tornado F3 and GR1's, along with just about everything else in this class, including Jaguar.
The navy on the other hand is set to replace its Harrier GR7's (See Harrier - currently the only air defence aircraft available to the british navy was retired this year, leaving the ground attack GR7's to fill in the void) is to be replaced by American designed Joint Strike Fighters, because of their vertical take off and landing capability and because they can also go supersonic, price tag for them is around $50 million per unit.
However, Niether of these aircraft are as well suited to the role that Jaguar played - able to take off from unprepaired runways and specialised in ground attack.
The Navy is set to loose some 12 major warships, reducing the home fleets surface strength to a mere 25 (less then half of what we had available to us during the falklands crisis) major war ships and 7 or 8 nuclear attack submarines.
The Army is to loose 4 batalions and get working radios in return...
-
The Typhoon was supposed to be operational in 2000, hence the hame "Eurofighter 2000".
The German government requested a redesign of several features to meet the needs of a post-cold war Luftwaffe, which resulted in substantial delay. Not only that, but there have been significant cost overruns as a result. The UK is dragging it's heels on it's original procurement of 230+ Typhoons which look set to be cut in the defence review. Fortunately, the Greek air force look set to purchase Typhoons and Eurofighter consortium are trying to sell to air forces around the world.
The original BAe EAP demostrator, upon which the Typhoon was based first flew in 1986.
Meanwhile, the US are also experiencing delays with their F22 Raptor programme. The YF22 first flew in 1990 and is entering service about now with controversy over the original USAF order for 600+ Raptors. It looks unlikely that the USAF will receive more than 300, thus pushing the unit cost higher (as in the case of the Typhoon). It's also unlikely that the Raptor will be as extensively marketed overseas as it's F15 predecessor, given the nature of the technology involved.
The Lockheed / BAe JSF (F35) is slated for a 2012 in service date, but that looks optimistic given the delays faced by other projects. The aircraft is also gaining weight rapidly, which is far from ideal given the weight constraints of carrier operations. The Royal Navy is also expected to get two new large carriers during the next decade, specially designed for JSF operations.
-
The JSF is a peice of junk, there is a reason why the Harrier is the only VsTOL aircraft in the world today. The reason is that it is painfully simple. YOU HAVE TO KEEP IT SIMPLE.
The JSF is so complex, they'll spend more time in the mantainace shop than in service...
The Jaguars are all end of life now, the air frames cost a fortune just to keep them fight worthy... add to that they have never really been used properly in their intended role. It's plain to see why they want to get rid of them.
The buccaneer was an odd aeroplane, it under performed and no one wanted it... stick new engines in it, and it became the best low level laser guided bomb platform available juring the Gulf war.
Back on topic, did you know that the B52 will be 80 years old by the time they plan to retire it, I expect it will probably stay in service for some years after that too!
It seems inconcevable to me right now, of an aircraft that has been flying for 80 years and is still in a front line role... :-)
-
blobrana wrote:
Hum,
the Eurofighter (http://www.eurofighter.com/Default.asp?Flash=True) of course!
I like the phrase:
"Affordable Air Dominance"
-
Eurofighter 2000 seems like a false economy to me. F16 and MiG 29 designs might be inferior, but they're not that inferior. If for the price of buying and maintaining 10 eurofighters, your enemy can buy and run 30 Mig29s for the same price, you're pretty stuffed.
-
hum,
yeah,
but what about all the jobs?
is it not better to keep the money in the community?
Anyway i`m not a great fan of the Eurofighter anyway, i probably would have bought a bulk load of cheap russian planes instead (an spares)...
And i remember seeing an Israeli F16 that manages to land with only one wing...
-
the Mig29 is a nice aircraft and whilst it is a formiddable fighter in its own right, getting parts and more importantly getting parts that actually meet UK aviation standards would make it very costly to maintain. F16 again although cheeper to purchase initially, is costly to maintain.
Eurofighter however is more then capable of out performing the pair of them. Can carry heavier weapons loads then both and go further then the F16.
You are correct in saying that overwhelming numbers would eventually wipe out a technologically more advanced foe. However, as was shown in the falklands, where a 10 - 1 advantage against us was present, technology does count for some things. Argentines lost fighters in double figures, whilst we lost none in air to air combat (We lost two harriers due to AA fire).
A bit of inovation, well trained and well motivated pilots will even against statistically impossible odds.
-
A bit of inovation, well trained and well motivated pilots will even against statistically impossible odds.
Quiet true, an example of this can be seen here (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2848/operate5.htm).
-
And i remember seeing an Israeli F16 that manages to land with only one wing...
Not quite...it was actually an F-15 (http://www.stormpages.com/skythe/f15_wing.htm).
-
blobrana wrote:
hum,
yeah,
but what about all the jobs?
is it not better to keep the money in the community?
Anyway i`m not a great fan of the Eurofighter anyway, i probably would have bought a bulk load of cheap russian planes instead (an spares)...
And i remember seeing an Israeli F16 that manages to land with only one wing...
@Blob
Moot point, but I think it was actually an F-15 that landed safely with a wing missing after being hit by a SAM.
Several western countries have looked at buying in the SU-27 in place of traditional western designs and it's worth noting that some Soviet era aircraft were designed to be compatible with NATO ground handling facilities and could be flown from captured airstrips. The expensive bit would be either procuring Russian weaponry or adapting our own to fit the Russian aircraft which could conceivably require an extensive refit.
That said, I think the SU-27 is probably the coolest looking thing in the sky right now.
-
KennyR wrote:
Eurofighter 2000 seems like a false economy to me. F16 and MiG 29 designs might be inferior, but they're not that inferior. If for the price of buying and maintaining 10 eurofighters, your enemy can buy and run 30 Mig29s for the same price, you're pretty stuffed.
That's why the Griffin exists: It's the most advanced fighter aircraft in active service, and itw way cheaper than the Eurofighter.
:-D
-
@whabang
not keen on that name, the Gripen, and the colour scheme is way off...
@correctors
Ahh, of course,
i should have remembered,
(due to the hours of flying f15 strike eagle, on the amiga and C64)
-
not keen on that name, the Gripen, and the colour scheme is way off...
Sigh! Women!
/me runs
:lol:
-
KennyR wrote:
Maybe someone was having a wedding and it was deflected off-course by its precision wedding-bombing computers.
:roll: :lol:
-
I do like Griffin, I like it a lot. Personally, I'd love to see a carrier born version of it to be on the forthcomming large aircraft carriers that the Navy is planning, as its reletively small, light and highly dangerous to anyone going up against it.
-
whabang wrote:
not keen on that name, the Gripen, and the colour scheme is way off...
Sigh! Women!
/me runs
:lol:
:-P:-P:-P
@thread
(http://www.kleinsmit.com/images/Luchtballon.jpg)
-
blobrana wrote:
@whabang
not keen on that name, the Gripen, and the colour scheme is way off...
Which scheme? AFAIK most Swede jets are painted in the two tone NATO grey scheme but they used to paint their fighters in this really cool crazy-paved camo.
If you want to see some cool colours then check out the pics of 1960's RAF Lightnings. Before 1967 when the MOD got sniffy about these things Lightning squadrons seemed to be trying to outdo each other for spectacle. There are photos of red/white chequered tail fins or bright red / blue shades painted on the spine / tail / wing leading edge while the rest of the jet was polished aluminium. The RAF roundels too came in for similar treatment, with lightning bolts, red / yellow chequers, tiger stripes (74 squadron) being applied liberally below the canopy.
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/full/ligh_026.jpg
http://www.lightning.org.uk/photo.php?img0039.jpg
http://www.lightning.org.uk/photo.php?img0011.jpg
http://www.lightning.org.uk/photo.php?img0014.jpg
http://www.lightning.org.uk/photo.php?img0024.jpg
http://www.lightning.org.uk/photo.php?img0025.jpg
-
blobrana wrote:
@whabang
not keen on that name, the Gripen,
Well, you can't really call it "the gripen". In Sweden (or in the rest of Scandinavia for that matter), we don't really have a conterpart to the English word "the". Instead, we put endings, like an, en, or et (depending on the word's gender), at the end of the word. Thus, "Gripen" means "The Griffin"; if you put "the" in front of "Gripen", it would mean "The the Griffin".
-
whabang wrote:
blobrana wrote:
@whabang
not keen on that name, the Gripen,
Well, you can't really call it "the gripen". In Sweden (or in the rest of Scandinavia for that matter), we don't really have a conterpart to the English word "the". Instead, we put endings, like an, en, or et (depending on the word's gender), at the end of the word. Thus, "Gripen" means "The Griffin"; if you put "the" in front of "Gripen", it would mean "The the Griffin".
I thought that might be the case, arn't I clever? :-)
-
Yes you are, but did you know that if you pronounce "gripen" with a short "i", then it means "arrested" instead? :-P
Make that a long, high-pitched "i" instead
-
@Whabang
Can you post some Gripen pics here?
-
Hum,
tnx for the correction...
So i presume i can't say `the Grip` ?
i was thinking more of a scheme like this (http://jaddams.csw.uic.edu/aod/images/FramtonHO/TigerMeet.gif)
Rather than the usual grays or greens (http://www.ontheway.us/articles/graphics/merdec/MERDEC_Cammo.jpg)
-
@PMC
saabaerospace.com image gallery (http://www.saab.se/node4734.asp?cat=18580&level=2&selectbox=18580%2C2)
-
@Blob
No problem!
You could call it the Grip, although the Griffin would be more apropriate. :-)
That was a cool colour scheme, BTW.
-
@Blob,
The Tigermeet thingy is normally an excuse for the Dutch, Germans and Belgians to paint some very lurid schemes on their planes, including tiger stripes liberally airbrushed everywhere.
http://www.highgallery.com/tiger-meet-98-F-16-Belgium-AF-SPa_2.jpg
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.highgallery.com/tiger-meet-98-F-16-Belgium-AF-SPa_2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.highgallery.com/Tiger-Meet-98.html&h=434&w=750&sz=48&tbnid=hmSLwfVCB0cJ:&tbnh=81&tbnw=139&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3DTiger%2Bmeet%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8
The Saab scheme I was referring to is as follows:
http://www.eyeinthesky.com.au/individual_ac/saab_viggen.jpg
-
@PMC
hum, i thought that Norwegian F-5 looked cool, in a sort of 70s retro way...
but then again i think zebra stripes always look good on landrovers...
-
blobrana wrote:
@PMC
but then again i think zebra stripes always look good on landrovers...
What's black & white and eats like a horse.....
Oops.
I like the schemes the Russians use for the artic / naval based SU-27s. They're a kind of blue / turquiose camo pattern that's a lot nicer than it sounds.
Anyway I think I'm going to get my MTB frame sprayed in camo now...