Left wing ?

You make him sound like Alf Garnetts son-in-law Mike, the scouse git.

I wonder what will be going through Wilf Rosenberg’s mind if he ever reads this thread?

Quote ="Juan Cornetto"Please be accurate. I have never said it has not entered service. I said it has never been in theatre (of war) It had been announced by the MOD that the Typhoon would be operational in Afganistan in 2007. This never happened because the plane was not fit for purpose at the time despite what PR spin was put on it. The Harriers in Afganistan were replaced by Tornados to much better effect.'" Some point in 2008 www.raf.mod.uk/currentoperations/airdefence.cfm but that illustrates why the removal of an asset (Harrier, Ark Royal, Nimrod MRA4, submarine tugs etc.) before replacements are on force/combat ready is a dubious way to proceed with strategic military planning. Almost all major millitary procurements (by their nature - complex and subject to changing requirements) will overrun and unfortunately miss their anticipated in-service dates. Always have (regardless of government colour) and probably always will (regardless of government colour.) To pretend otherwise is naive - which I am sure you are not. Quote ="Juan Cornetto"It seems everything is irrelevant to you if it doesn`t meet your viewpoint. The Typhoon programe was started in 1983 with the object of producing a multi-role air superiority fighter. Had it come in on time it would have fullfilled its objectives. However huge time overruns (caused partly by the politicians) and technical troubles have dogged the programme to such an extent that it has fallen behind in the current technology. Planned upgrades may bring it up to speed but at what cost.'" The cost is irrelevant when there is little or no alternative to continuing. The investment made is too great for it to be shelved now and the alternative you put forward of buying the superior F22 off the peg is impractical even if it was an option ie. even if the US were looking for export customers. Quote ="Juan Cornetto"I think you will find that that majority of RAF pilots would disagree with this chap who also said some bitter things about his RAF chiefs because they have retired his plane. The Army, Nato, USA and the RAF are very pleased with the enhanced performance that the Tornado has brought to Afganistan.'" I've no idea if that is a trueism and I suspect neither do you. The comment that really interested me though was an operational one, 'You need three Tornados to do the same work as one Harrier in Afghanistan. Where’s the sense in that?” Would you care to comment? And that links in with the flexibility offered by a carrier-borne asset being able to operate independant of the need of finding a friendly airstrip nearby. The Black Buck bombing raid on Port Stanley in 1982 (the package required to place a lone Vulcan over the Falklands was out of all proportion to the damage inflicted) although arguably it persuaded the Argentine Junta to hold back it's Mirage 111 jets to defend the mainland. How many prods would it take to get a lone Tornado over the same target if it became neccessary today? Quote ="Juan Cornetto"Because we cannot afford it! Tough decisions have to be made - accept it.'" I've no problem with tough decisions having to be made as long as they are the correct ones strategically. If Dr Liam Fox has difficulty following the logic of some of the choices being made then why should the British public be any different. As he concluded in his strategically leaked letter: 'Even at this stage we should be looking at the strategic and security implications of our decisions. It would be a great pity if, having championed the cause of our Armed Forces and set up the innovation of the NSC, we simply produced a cuts package. Cuts there will have to be. Coherence, we cannot do without, if there is to be any chance of a credible narrative.'

Quote ="Juan Cornetto"Please be accurate. I have never said it has not entered service. I said it has never been in theatre (of war) It had been announced by the MOD that the Typhoon would be operational in Afganistan in 2007. This never happened because the plane was not fit for purpose at the time despite what PR spin was put on it. The Harriers in Afganistan were replaced by Tornados to much better effect.'" Some point in 2008 www.raf.mod.uk/currentoperations/airdefence.cfm but that illustrates why the removal of an asset (Harrier, Ark Royal, Nimrod MRA4, submarine tugs etc.) before replacements are on force/combat ready is a dubious way to proceed with strategic military planning. Almost all major millitary procurements (by their nature - complex and subject to changing requirements) will overrun and unfortunately miss their anticipated in-service dates. Always have (regardless of government colour) and probably always will (regardless of government colour.) To pretend otherwise is naive - which I am sure you are not. Quote ="Juan Cornetto"It seems everything is irrelevant to you if it doesn`t meet your viewpoint. The Typhoon programe was started in 1983 with the object of producing a multi-role air superiority fighter. Had it come in on time it would have fullfilled its objectives. However huge time overruns (caused partly by the politicians) and technical troubles have dogged the programme to such an extent that it has fallen behind in the current technology. Planned upgrades may bring it up to speed but at what cost.'" The cost is irrelevant when there is little or no alternative to continuing. The investment made is too great for it to be shelved now and the alternative you put forward of buying the superior F22 off the peg is impractical even if it was an option ie. even if the US were looking for export customers. Quote ="Juan Cornetto"I think you will find that that majority of RAF pilots would disagree with this chap who also said some bitter things about his RAF chiefs because they have retired his plane. The Army, Nato, USA and the RAF are very pleased with the enhanced performance that the Tornado has brought to Afganistan.'" I've no idea if that is a trueism and I suspect neither do you. The comment that really interested me though was an operational one, 'You need three Tornados to do the same work as one Harrier in Afghanistan. Where’s the sense in that?” Would you care to comment? And that links in with the flexibility offered by a carrier-borne asset being able to operate independant of the need of finding a friendly airstrip nearby. The Black Buck bombing raid on Port Stanley in 1982 (the package required to place a lone Vulcan over the Falklands was out of all proportion to the damage inflicted) although arguably it persuaded the Argentine Junta to hold back it's Mirage 111 jets to defend the mainland. How many prods would it take to get a lone Tornado over the same target if it became neccessary today? Quote ="Juan Cornetto"Because we cannot afford it! Tough decisions have to be made - accept it.'" I've no problem with tough decisions having to be made as long as they are the correct ones strategically. If Dr Liam Fox has difficulty following the logic of some of the choices being made then why should the British public be any different. As he concluded in his strategically leaked letter: 'Even at this stage we should be looking at the strategic and security implications of our decisions. It would be a great pity if, having championed the cause of our Armed Forces and set up the innovation of the NSC, we simply produced a cuts package. Cuts there will have to be. Coherence, we cannot do without, if there is to be any chance of a credible narrative.'

If the upgrades work then we should stick with for now. However the cost is relevant if it becomes higher than buying off the peg. I am sure the USA would sell the F22 to the RAF in the future if we needed it.





I already did comment. It is not true. My sources are pilots (but of course only a few) but the RAF/MOD policy and the Governement cuts would also imply that they too would not agree with this angry Harrier pilot who may lose his job.



This is an interesting one. I too feel it reduces our flexibility. However it would appear the current thinking is that a carrier is quite a big target and as such needs quite an expensive fleet to protect it adequately. There are not too many places where we would not have use of friendly airstrips. As you know Ascension Island was used as a staging and refueling post in the Falklands. Tornados refuel 3 at a time and they train a lot for this purpose and are quite used to popping over the Atlantic to the US for excercises. The two man crew helps on long trips. And we still have the subs!





As Defence Secretary Liam Fox has to stand up for the Military otherwise he would lose all their respect. I don't doubt the views he has expressed are genuine. But he is a right winger and a champion of the the back bench right wing, so he also is taking a political stance against the Centre Coalition thinking. So this political aspect has to be factored in to get a balanced view.

Funny you siding with a right winger! I prefer Wilf Rosenberg

Fine except 1) US Law prohibits the sale of the F22 abroad and 2) an F-22 export version would have significantly fewer capabilities than the U.S. version and this could weaken the business case for an export jet and 3) the additional re-design costs would have to be incorporated into the price of the jet making them even more prohibitively expensive to acquire (considering the small quantity that would be involved this would be a considerable additional expence) and 4) the additional conversion to type costs - pilot training, maintenance service lines, integration into electronic systems etc. would also be huge for the comparitvely few 'B' spec jets bought.



Is Ian Smith Watson a pilot or just someone who posts his opinion on the internet for you to present as your own?

It were true in Operation Granby where the Buccaneers were needed to laser designate targets for the GR1's after they were re-tasked to medium level operations after suffering an unacceptably high attrition rate at low level but that was then and this now I guess.

When the GR4's replaced the Harriers in Afghanistan Des Browne (Defence Secretary) described Joint Force Harrier’s provision of close air support services in theatre as "Amongst the most potent of all our capabilities in deterring and denying the insurgency.” But also noting: “I am very mindful of the strain that this extended deployment has put upon the crews, their families and the wider roles of Joint Force Harrier,” Browne said: “I have therefore decided to withdraw the Harrier force by spring 2009 and to replace them with an equivalent force of Tornado GR.4s.”

The number of jets and pilots available appeared the limiting factor rather than the capability of the weapon platform. His successor (+3) has further reduced the strain on the aircraft and men by sending them to the scrapyard.




Not quite 'in' the Falklands though is it. At 7500 Km's it would present a logistical nightmare and sortie durations would also be completely impractical in providing support to the grunts on the ground. The subs it is then if they can manage to navigate their way out of harbour without beaching themselves.



The Nation's Security is not a left, centre or right of politics issue for me. Perhaps you will discover I'm not as left wing as you wish to portray me?

I now look forward to seeing the details of the much trumpeted but so far invisible Universal Credit proposals from the other noted right wing Tory left in the cabinet.

For goodness sake! Are you two still at it?
You're worse than G1 & Gotcha.

Lifted from [url=http://viewtopic.php?f=17&t=349852&start=780this thread[/url as I don’t want this debate to dominate that thread as well.



I shall stoop down to your level now shall I.. (or try to)

I remember when Leeds used to be a city that had no airs or graces about anything or anyone. Everyone was equal and we didn’t have the likes of yourself taking moral high grounds on such trivial matters as the ones you mentioned above.

I was in the Hospital some time this week (lost track of time) and do you think I went around telling the nurses to serve me before the ‘unworthy foreigners’ at 3am in the morning?

I didn’t because unlike you, I understand that I’m not better or worse than them. I’m in the same place as them so am equal. There’s a word that would suit you nicely and that’s snob. You go around telling everyone how life should be lived whilst living in the same city as them. At the same time you also have a go at the government for trying to control aspects of your own life.

You stand on the Western Terrace with fans you don’t like because of where they come from - SNOB!

You boast (and you’re not the only one) on this thread that it only took you a short while to find a job after losing your last one. Well congratulations, but it just goes to show that you know fk all about long term unemployment. Your experience of the long term unemployed is whatever is on Jeremy Kyle or in the paparazzi who do their very best to portray a majority of the long term unemployed as ‘lazy, work-shy, good-for-nothing, idle spongers’.

You’ve only experienced short term unemployment - you really don’t understand.



I’m assuming that ‘lazy, work-shy, good-for-nothing, idle spongers’ is aimed towards me. I’m nothing of the kind and that two years of college proves that. I could of just went straight from school to the job centre but I didn’t. However after college I’ve lost the way and that’s opened me up to narrow minded idiots like yourself and Batley rhino in particular.

I quote G1 -



Whilst I don’t agree with all that G1 is saying, he has a point. You and Batley Rhino have one thing in common and that’s bringing up this debate for no other reason than you have an ill informed view of the unemployed and that I’m the scrape goat on here for that ill informed view.

You ought to have a good look at yourselves in the mirror - snobs.

Well said Damo - been out of work is no fun and demoralising.

Unfortunately some people do tar everyone with the same brush - it shows a lack of intelligence - just ignore them

I don’t like to be ignored myself, so I’m not going to start by ignoring others





However thanks for the praise.

and all this come about because of Wilf Rosenberg suspected of being involved with the Israeli mafia

I think it's a conspiracy.

Being.

The Sunday Times published an article this weekend with the headline "4.6bn pound RAF jets scapped after 3 years" It would appear the RAF plans to axe 53 Typhoons that cost at least 4.6 billion and only became operational three years ago. A senior air force officer says "they will be approaching obsolescence by 2015"

Air Vice-Marshal Greg Bagwell who is charge of all RAF frontline attack aircraft told Aviation Week magazine that "Tranche 1" Typhoons would not be required beyond 2015. He said the jet would become "prohibitive for us to operate" and "too expensive to modify" once Britain had taken delivery of more capable planes.

Saudi Arabia is already buying 72 aircraft originally intende for Britain and there are now plans to sell up to 15 more "Tranche 3" jets to Oman. This will leave us with just 92 of the planes.

Underlines some of the points I was making

How's the work search going Damo, did you ever get back in touch with David after you got your glasses back following his offer of work at his company?

I’d rather not spend another year on here discussing my bleaker and bleaker job prospects. Hope you can respect this.

Of course I can respect your desire not to discuss this, I wouldn't want to do anything that could lead me to be referred to as a Snob or an idiot. If you are genuinely trying to find work, then I wish you good luck in your quest.

You’re not a snob and certainly not an idiot



This thread and any talk of it was dead and buried until Juan Cornetto resurrected it from obscurity to discuss Aeroplanes with TVOC.

Thanks for your concerns and well wishes though!

=#FF0000EDIT: Apologies to anything that may of offended you above. I think it was an example of ME using you as a scrap goat and tarring you with LS16!

Wouldn't you also prefer the RAF to equip with the latest tranche of Typhoons if they satisfy the numbers deemed sufficient?

If your point was that modern military aircraft aren't cheap to procure, develope and operate then that was never in dispute.

Your suggestion of purchasing off the shelf F22 Raptors despite them being even more expensive and not available to purchase in any form (not even as a 'B' spec jet) is where I disagree with your alternative vision.

They should have let Ronnie Reagan continue with the development of his Star Wars defence system, we wouldn't need an Air Force by now if he'd got that working.

My point was made perfectly clear as you will be well aware assuming you read my comments: that the current Typhoon was outclassed and had a history of manufacturing problems which caused delays in delivery and further technical and reliability problems which limited its effectiveness and meant it was somthing of a "lemon"

Your point seemed to be it was that best thing since sliced bread and stated that it would be the "backbone of the present and future RAF" Well scrfapped after only 3 years in non combat service is hardly backbone for the future.

The RAF are trying to sell off as much of their commitment as they can for the latest Tranche of Typhoons because although much improved they have lost the confidence of the service.

With regard to alternatives despite what is given out to the media if we really wanted to buy the Raptor it would happen. We are not some Middle East state. Some of our pilots have road tested them!

This apparent 'lemon' of yours is currently equipping the German, Austrian, Spanish, Italian and Saudi air forces as well as our own. It appears you must know something that they collectively and individually don't. It won't reach the numbers first envisaged in service over here but there is nothing unusual in that as these huge military projects invariably come in late and massively over-budget and there's a limit as to what can be afforded at any given time, not forgetting the evolving nature of the threats it has to counter-act which can change relatively quickly by comparison.

The Saudi order was placed a few years ago and at least ensures the RAF will eventually receive it's Tranche 3 aircraft. An export success for the beleaguered economy? The irony being that at this rate the Saudi Air Force will probably end up with more Typhoons (Tornados and Hawks) than the RAF.

The F22 has been and will only be produced in bare minimal (by US standards) quantities (a production run of 187 airframes in total - considering the original requirement was envisaged in the region of 750) and I repeat there isn't now and I doubt ever will be (given the low numbers and the huge cost) an export version not even in a 'B' spec configuration. The focus is very much on the F35 which, unlike the Raptor, was always developed with export versions and customers in mind.

RAF pilots have flown many different US types over the years (and vice-versa) that never formed any part of the RAF's inventory (including the F117 and they were even known to publically display said type in this country while doing so on occassions) so the comment implies nothing as far as I can tell.

Odd that you mention the UK not being a Middle East state as if being one would prevent the US supplying military kit especially as one such state is the USA's biggest military customer since the 2nd World War in terms of both military sales and military aid.

Because the other governments that co-funded the Typhoon/Eurofighter have been obliged politically to buy it does not in any way make the aircraft worthy.

The fact that you are avoiding is that the Typhoon is being ditched by The RAF after only 3 years in non combat service at a huge cost. If this fact together with its troublesome history does not qualify for the term "lemon" then I don't know what does. You think there is "nothing unusual in this" but I think that this is most unusual.

This plane was a problem from the start with too much political interference from the governments involved. Its long delays and technical problems and meant it is not fit for purpose and the RAF have know this for some time. The only reason it was not ditched years ago was political.

The RAF have already sold some of their Tranche 3 aircraft and would like to sell more. I suspect all of them. There is no guarantee that these latest models with a better spec. will be any more reliable than those now to be scapped. There is also some doubt that we will need this type of aircraft for much longer.

The UK is the leading ally of the US. With our high military commitment to NATO and other world trouble spots we would have access the their best products if the need arose. Our commitment over the years to the Eurofighter meant the US only has been producing the bare minimum of F22s because we were not in the market. So not odd at all.

Anyone got a ruler?

I like Belugas.



Belugas are funny.

Thats like the designer was in a rush one morning and as he left the house he accidently picked up some drawings of airplanes that his five year old had been doing the night before, arriving at work he thrust them into the arms of the production director and just said "here, thats the new transporter, make it"

And they all sat around in the canteen holding the drawings up to the light and saying "they're fooking mad these designers aren't they"...


You can see in that photo the designer who's come in on his day off, stood there thinking, "THATS NOT WHAT I DREW..."