Yes, let's leave the procurement of the most expensive objects in the world entirely to the prime beneficiaries of said objects, that's not going to turn into a horrible waste of money is it
RAF Halve Eurofighter Order
- Thread starter Flukester
- Start date
Yes, let's leave the procurement of the most expensive objects in the world entirely to the prime beneficiaries of said objects, that's not going to turn into a horrible waste of money is it
The RAF likes fast jets, always have and always will and all RAF poeple will pull their faces at this as will all those who go to airshows and are wowed by statistics, but the facts are we don't need loads of Eurofighters based on the missions we are fighting most of the time. If we have another Falklands for example what use is the Eurofighter? If we spend more time in the middle east, more likely for a generation than fighting Russian forces with vast airforces, what real value are loads of Eurofighters when top cover is assured already. Close support and heavy lift, ground kit for the army and carriers allowing a platform from which to work then yes, fleets of air defence fighters which are being adjusted to become more multi role then no.
Yes the Eurofighter is the most capable aircraft we have ever had but we simply need other capabilties and ask anyone in a strategic role in any force, even the RAF and they will agree money is right now better spent elsewhere.
Yes the Eurofighter is the most capable aircraft we have ever had but we simply need other capabilties and ask anyone in a strategic role in any force, even the RAF and they will agree money is right now better spent elsewhere.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 1,595
Perhaps this means they will be selling on the older 'tranche' aircraft in favour of the newer ones. IIRC any cut in order numbers requires the approval of all four partner states.
No loss really - as much as it's a great aircraft (and it really is) it's somewhat of an anachronism.
No loss really - as much as it's a great aircraft (and it really is) it's somewhat of an anachronism.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
id rather they spend the money sensibly and invest in protection for squaddies on the front line and have parts for our existing air force fleet, than to spend it all on new Eurofighters, whuich lets face is is quite a superflous purchase.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 May 2004
- Posts
- 4,488
- Location
- Tall building nearby
You cant just knock up a batch of Typhoon's
, its not a production line of cars, 'IF' RAF needed more fighters ASAP they would most likely Lease standing aircraft from a NATO ally, If we had the pilots, less planes means less pilots needed to fly them so the aquisition of aircraft dose not mean you can use them.If the saved money strengthens the navy and army then its money well invested, they should buy more helecopters and transport aircraft with some of that money and finish both carriers, until they are launched and comissoned they are cut back targets.
Great Britain does not need 232 of the most advanced warplanes ever built.
Who are we going to fight with them?
As for posting pictures of the dastardly Chinese spying on us, we do it to them, the russians, and the yanks, and vice verser.
Nobody has any interest or reason to go around kicking off against anyone else.
They realised that at the end of the cold war.
When the old man liaised with russian officers at the end of his time in the forces, they were force fed the same crap we were about the red menace who wanted to nuke us in our sleep, accept for them they were told we wanted to rape their resources after we had blown them all away.
Its all rubbish.
Who are we going to fight with them?
As for posting pictures of the dastardly Chinese spying on us, we do it to them, the russians, and the yanks, and vice verser.
Nobody has any interest or reason to go around kicking off against anyone else.
They realised that at the end of the cold war.
When the old man liaised with russian officers at the end of his time in the forces, they were force fed the same crap we were about the red menace who wanted to nuke us in our sleep, accept for them they were told we wanted to rape their resources after we had blown them all away.
Its all rubbish.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
You cant just knock up a batch of Typhoon's
And there you are. You're using "What If" to justify it. What if the Eurofighter turns out to be completely useless in this potential future war? What if new types of weapons are being used? What if there just is no conflict which requires them?
How can you even speculate that jets in the future will need pilots to fly them? You can't safeguard against anything at the end of the day and if such a situation occurred we would have to deal with it as and when it happens.
the world is as unstable as ever and though we have NATO we still need to contribute to it, a global police force if you like
i guess the new carriers with F35 will be a much better force projection tool though and a lot more useful. if these all get binned also it would be a discrace!
2nd most advanced btw
, though gen 4.5 / 5 manned fighters seen now will be last built, unmanned drones will takeover.Thats a russian plane.
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.
There was some recent talk that the government was abandoning them.
Who cares? thats not the point.
It might as well be scooby doo for all the difference it makes to the argument, they have a look at us, we do the same back, we all tell the same lies about each other to the people, we all hide the same truths from each other whether knowingly or not.
Its a nonsense, and its all entirely unnecessary.
2nd most advanced btw
Wonder how long it would take for a 2nd/3rd rate military to equip a fleet of cheap, semi-disposable drones and arm them with AMRAAM or Sidewinder equivalents, to the extent that they would hugely outnumber any attacking aircraft, thus making its' limited number of missiles useless. Could be a "cheap" way to down enemy aircraft?
Glad the Govt have had *some* sense in not buying all 232 Typhoons, just a shame there's so much politics in weaponry, and that ground troops have died for want of helicopters when we're wasting billions on useless fighter jets.
Me
You dont realise it now, they didnt realise it back in the 70's and 80's either, its only when you step away and can see that on the other side is a guy who has been fed the same bull**** about you as you have about him, that you will see its all ultimately pointless.
No one is going to come and kill us in our sleep, regardless of if you were there or not.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
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.
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.
Now, can you tell me when the last time we actually SHOT at one of the plans encroaching our airspace was? Also, are you trying to say that we need the latest and most expensive planes, and 200 of them, to escort one plane at a time a few times a year back out of our airspace?
You can't do anything without cover, do what? we haven't had to do anything but as that picture shows, escort a couple plans out. we could have escorted that plane out with a freaking Spitfire for gods sake, firstly because that isn't a fighter being escorted and secondly, because they didn't even require firing, but the fact that a 30 year old fighter could have knocked that out of the sky without any effort doesn't exactly back your argument that we need 200 brand new fighters.
Frankly, its a complete waste of money having enough fighters and other things around to wage a war, on the off chance we go to one. Because you'll simply constantly be spending and waste 10'/100's of billions over the decades between wars the equipment is required in.
200 fighters wouldn't be enough on the ridiculously slim chance that the USA, uk, nato went to war with say, China, Korea and Russia, we'd be making them by the dozens throughout a war like that anyhow. For a Iraq/Afghan conflict, 200 is complete overkill also, and overkill for escort duties also.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Glad the Govt have had *some* sense in not buying all 232 Typhoons, just a shame there's so much politics in weaponry, and that ground troops have died for want of helicopters when we're wasting billions on useless fighter jets.
And who made those helicopter cuts when he was Chancellor
Mr.G.Brown to quote Clarkson. ****
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
I don't think the Typhoon is outdated. It is still one of the most capable multi-role aircraft in the world but the budget has spiralled for years in its development.
When it comes to cuts in Government spending, defence is always amongst the first to suffer and it seems as if Typhoon numbers are on the list.