Thanks, glad you like it. I'm hating it at the moment as I've spend all of today trying to get it ported over to using CSS rather than tables.
Indeed, the NHS doesn't need more cash, it is very well funded.
RAF Halve Eurofighter Order
- Thread starter Flukester
- Start date
Thanks, glad you like it. I'm hating it at the moment as I've spend all of today trying to get it ported over to using CSS rather than tables.
Indeed, the NHS doesn't need more cash, it is very well funded.
I was kinda hoping for the story behind it, thanks any way.
Still a far cry from the original number.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- York
A Tornado GR1 ought to be credited with a kill over a MiG-29. The MiG was hit by a JP233 munition, and there is some evidence that it had just taken off when it was hit, and thus counts as a kill. The consensus seems to be that it is technically an air-air kill, but not in the spirit of air combat (aircraft needs to be brought down by something being aimed in his general direction, not by colliding with incoming ordnance).
i dont know exactly why but just speculating...there are two tail fins to so the f14 can meet the manoeuvrability requirements. It COULD use one big tail to do the job but in high speeds manoeuvres stresses would increase on the extremities of the fin and the internal structure required to strengthen it would result in increased weight. so it is easier to use twin fins. although not an outright dogfighter, it was designed to be relatively good at dogfighting for its size.
the typhoon wouldnt need to be as manoeuvrable with the beyond visual range air to air missiles designed for it, the MBDA Meteor, which should arrive in 2013. there arent really designed for dogfighting as much, initially the MoD wanted our Typhoons to have their cannon disabled to save money but the usefulness of the cannon for close support in afghanistan/iraq changed their mind apparantly.
Not strictly true. From the outset the Tornado was intended fulfil both fighter and bomber roles - it was to replace the EE Lightning in the fighter role - hence the original project name of MRCA (Multi-Role Combat Aircraft). Also, the Tornado F2/F3 was designed as a fighter - the fuselage was specifically stretched to carry four Skyflash missiles conformally under the fuselage (ironically improving the aerodynamics of the airframe!).
However, while the Tornado is a fighter, it is not an air superiority fighter in the same vein as the F-15 and MiG-29. Instead it was designed to be - and fulfil the role of being - an interceptor fighter, in very much the same way as the EE Lightning was. The Tornado was all about point-to-point interception of Soviet Bear, Backfire and Bison bombers coming across the Baltic and North Sea. The EE Lightning was primarily designed as a collision course bomber interceptor - indeed being hailed as the best of those in the world - to protect the V-bomber bases. This is borne out by its' lack of range; the Lightning did not have the fuel capacity to loiter in dogfights, nor the armament - it only carried two missiles on the side of the fuselage. It was a happy circumstance that it just happened to be a decent dogfighter as well as an interceptor and extra fuel tanks were added (over the wings!) in later versions to give it some 'legs'.
While the Tornado was jointly the first aircraft into service with Fly-By-Wire (with the F-16), there was much less accent in the design on maneuverability and dogfighting. The wing loading is high (small wing area for the size of airframe) which is fine for speed, especially at low level where it reduces gust response from turbulence but much worse for sustaining tight turns. Compare the wing area of the Tornado with that of the F-15 for example - the latter was designed from the outset to be an air superiority fighter (with much better maneuverability than the F-4 Phantom it replaced) which evolved into a bomber variant (F-15E) which does not perform as well at low level as the Tornado GR-4 due to the large wing area beung more suceptible to turbulence.
Anyway, the Tornado's design was a compromise, but it was designed to be both a fighter and a bomber, just not a dogfighter.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
It is a shame, after spending so much time developing these that we arn't getting as many, however the US are getting less F22s also, atleast it isn't just us.
Hopefully it will mean more money for the carriers and F35s.
not that the carriers have the capability to launch aircraft anyway do to their propulsion system.
Hopefully it will mean more money for the carriers and F35s.
not that the carriers have the capability to launch aircraft anyway do to their propulsion system.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/31/eurofighter_ditched/
As this article (imo) correctly says, the brief for these planes is simply out of date. There are more pressing needs for military spending as well as the need to trim the government budget where possible.
As this article (imo) correctly says, the brief for these planes is simply out of date. There are more pressing needs for military spending as well as the need to trim the government budget where possible.
The UK was originally getting 232 planes. 72 being sold to the saudis and now losing planes in tranche 3 production.
So we end up with ~120 eurofighters. The mainstream media isn't wrong. You have failed to realise how many we are selling to the saudis.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article2402913.ece - Saudi deal
edit:
Okay, I guess I was wrong. Who would have known it (I'm not surprised, but I know how people love to criticise it), wikipedia has properly tracked the order changes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
The UK was planning on increasing production to 280 to partially satisfy the Saudi's order. 24 transferred from UK designated tranche 2 and 48 new planes produced at the same time. This meant the UK was going to get 208 planes (232 minus 24 transferred). Now that 48 planes have been cut from tranche 3 production, the total plane count will be 160.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 3,499
- Location
- London, UK
exactly my thoughts about the matter. in the current economic
climit its understandable, if they ditched them all i would begin to worry.
she is a pretty thing too
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Interesting again. Thanks for that.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 1,595
The Reg hate the Eurofighter and it's well documented. They've been guilty of being factually incorrect about the project/aircraft many times.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 1,595
I also believe that the aerodynamic profile of fighters that produce lift via their fuselages as well as wings (F-14/F-15) necessitates the use of the dual vertical stabilisers.
afaik we still have 2nd largest blue water navy in the world, go Britain
We may be the 2nd best at being able to project our power but with the reduction in type 45 destroyers, reduction in the type 23 frigates that were sold off, the cutting of an aircraft carrier from the fleet and the lack of any of our planes to intercept with medium/long range missiles i have some serious doubt about the ability to defend that blue water navy in a modern war.
We may be the 2nd best at being able to project our power but with the reduction in type 45 destroyers, reduction in the type 23 frigates that were sold off, the cutting of an aircraft carrier from the fleet and the lack of any of our planes to intercept with medium/long range missiles i have some serious doubt about the ability to defend that blue water navy in a modern war.
So? We're not the second most powerful country in the world by any measurement, so why should we have these pretensions to the second best navy in the world? It's about time we reevaluated our self-image, and perhaps it might stop us being such idiots on the international stage.
True, we're the fourth best, with plenty of territory thousands of miles from home that needs defending (eg southern atlantic)...
well as of 2008 according to wiki we still have 4th largest military budget.. we may be small but we have a lot of good kit.
we're 2nd highest spender in nato also...
we should re-eval our self image ?, why should we... we once were the major superpower of the world and still are one of them.
being a superpower doesn't mean you go around warmongering, it just means what you say people take notice of, and thats a good thing for us as a country. I'd really hate to live in a country with no military clout.
gotta keep all these breakaway commie nations in check as much as possible, they are warmongers and if the west didn't, we'd have ww3 on our hands.
just 65 odd years ago the whole world was fighting with millions dieing as some warmongers (germany and japan) tried to bascially take of the world by force... if we had done as you said back then we would all be speaking german by now.
things have changed, and I doubt another world war, but you should not let down your guard, things can become unstable in the blink of a eye....
say for example korea started invading all the small states around it, and commiting mass genocide.. who would stop that ?, or should we sit around and do nothing.
military might in the hand of a democracy of people who care about others is a good thing.....
sorry for ramble
, but tree hugging is not the best policy to survive in this world