RAF Halve Eurofighter Order

drunkenmaster said:
The chances of Iran sending a huge wave of bombers all the way to the UK, without being intercepted by multiple airforces en route, in numbers large enough that 200 eurofighters are required are quite literally non existant.
Click to expand...

Iran doesn't need to attack the UK to harm the UK. Using its aircraft to close the straights of Hormuz will be much more effective. Having the odd aircraft able to do something about that may be useful. The number of aircraft we need to buy is of course open to discussion.
 
Flukester said:
Don't usually post 'omg in the news' threads but....This is aweful news if true...
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable. We've got a choice between large public spending cuts or large tax increases. I'd rather we cut spending rather than increased taxes. Then the decision where to cut... and halving the number of new planes (still getting over 100!) seems like a very smart choice. :)
 
drunkenmaster said:
In terms of fighting air to air against Iran, its pretty simple, wait till their planes run out of fuel, land, then send some long range missiles or some bombers to take the airfield out while they are grounded.
Click to expand...


Oh yes its just as simple as that! Im guessing you have never been on an out of area attachment
 
Isn't there a case for the military to be investing more in cyber defences?

I mean, I seriously doubt wars of the future would involve just physical combat without people trying to hack each others (electronic?) infrastructures first, etc; even current terrorist groups show a diminishing requirement for things like aircraft carriers and high-tech fighter jets (pure speculation).
 
Chimerical said:
I mean, I seriously doubt wars of the future would involve just physical combat without people trying to hack each others (electronic?) infrastructures first, etc;
Click to expand...
They do. And that's the job of the Int Corps and Signals (army) as we as the other branches.

Most notable Russia haxored George's infrastructure IIRC.
 
matt_fsr said:
Falklands, and even then the RAF weren't involved in shooting down ANY of the Argentine planes, in fact the RAF hasnt shot down a plane in air combat since World War 2.
Click to expand...

are you sure, I thought harriers shot down several with the then new sidewinders kindly supplied by the US

edit: oh fleet air arm :)
 
Yes, it came to light a little after the Falklands that we perhaps shouldnt have dipped into the NATO stocks of the latest AIM-9M sidewinders at the time..... but hey, what are friends for?

(Oh, and the 2,000,000 gallon tanker full of AvTur parked off Ascention island, yeah cheers USA.... dead handy that came in) :p
 
meghatronic said:
They do. And that's the job of the Int Corps and Signals (army) as we as the other branches.

Most notable Russia haxored George's infrastructure IIRC.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But then why such 'dismay' at a decreased order of Eurofighters? I'm sure if there was an actual world war 3 or something we'd maybe have to buy a load more anyway or 'buy' based on the situation and priorities would drastically change, etc.
 
Great, the govt bugger us up again. First they don't buy enough spares for the jets we already have, and now they cancel the rest of the fleet and give them to Saudi. Nice move. And they actually wonder why so many people are leaving and getting jobs with BAe.

Nickg said:
sounds like good sense to me... the Eurofighter 2000, or whatever is overdue, outdated, overhyped, all for a hyperinflated price! its not like we really need an elite air arm of air to air fighters really..

would be better off just buying a load of F35's as far as i can make sense out of the whole thing...
Click to expand...

Yes we do need Air-Air fighters, you can't do ANYTHING else without top cover. Can't argue with them being overdue, but they are certainly not outdated. There is only one aircraft in the world that is more advanced, and that is the F/A-22 Raptor, which costs twice as much.

Typhoon is multi-role, not just air to air and it's the most capable jet we have, far more versatile and value for money than Tornado of Harrier. And as for the F-35, please. They can't even get the thing to fly properly, let alone enter service. Not to mention the fact it can't carry a fag packet across a pond, and if it's anything like the Raptor it'll spend more time on the ground being serviced than in the air.

Andr3w said:
Correct, however the tornado was more of a bomber.
Click to expand...

Typhoon is replacing the Tornado F3 (worst air to air fighter ever), not the GR4.

For those who think we don't need an air-air capability, what do you think is watching the skies over your head every day? It really is ture that civillians don't think about anything they don't see everyday isn't it. Let me give you a reminder, this is still happening a lot more often than you would ever realise, it just doesn't get reported.

10-HH-QRA-RAF-0005-171455AUG07-12.jpg


I really do wish politicians and other civillians would keep themselves out of military strategy and tactics and leave it to those who actually understand it for once.
 
Last edited:
Wait, wait. Why are people talking about the carriers being cancelled! They're not cancelled. Infact, steel is being cut as we speak for the HMS Queen Elizibeth and HMS Prince of Wales. :confused:
 
If we're going to politically wander around in America's arse, why on earth don't we just get them to protect us should the need arise.

If the money's going to be pulled from this then either equip our troops correctly in Iraq and Afghan or at least shove it somewhere which is desperate at the moment e.g. the NHS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom