Are the Scottish and women voters worth any less than anyone else in the UK in your opinion and if so why? How about the Welsh, the Irish, ethnic minorities, Kevin Sinfield, trade unionists? I imagine the next government will be elected in the same way as in the last few unless the AV referendum gets through.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rdest.html

Last time I checked Theresa May wasn't a noted Labour supporter and the Mail not renowned for it's left leaning tendencies. The emergency budget that followed her comments delivered £8 billion in cost savings/tax rises, £5.8 billion of which fell on the female portion of the population. Go ahead do the maths.

One person's scare story is another person's truth. You have to set it in context of the coalition's much boasted about fairness test. They demand to be held accountable and I think they will get their wish.

You asked earlier if I'd spoken to a Scot who even liked us, well as it happens I do so every couple of weeks as my mother was born and raised in Inverness before meeting my dad (Leeds lad) while both were on National Service at RAF Swinderby. I've never lived up there but have not encountered any problems while on many a holiday visiting relatives and it's a stunningly beautiful country.

If anyone has an issue on this thread it appears to be the person who struggles to accept the current constitution and seeks to declare validity of the election based on only a proportion of the results. What next, only counting the home counties and cutting off the rest of England who lets face it are a drain on the wealth creators in the South East.




Unfortunately as you screwed up your reply I cannot seriously be expected to mount a response, close season or not I still have other responsibilities to tend to.

Not least of which will be the ceremonial disbandment of the Harrier force (dependant on the definition of 'with immediate effect') and likely as not RAF Cottesmore with it. I think the word Strategic in the SDR should be dropped and replaced by Treasury.

Are the Scottish and women voters worth any less than anyone else in the UK in your opinion and if so why? How about the Welsh, the Irish, ethnic minorities, Kevin Sinfield, trade unionists? I imagine the next government will be elected in the same way as in the last few unless the AV referendum gets through.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rdest.html

Last time I checked Theresa May wasn't a noted Labour supporter and the Mail not renowned for it's left leaning tendencies. The emergency budget that followed her comments delivered £8 billion in cost savings/tax rises, £5.8 billion of which fell on the female portion of the population. Go ahead do the maths.

One person's scare story is another person's truth. You have to set it in context of the coalition's much boasted about fairness test. They demand to be held accountable and I think they will get their wish.

You asked earlier if I'd spoken to a Scot who even liked us, well as it happens I do so every couple of weeks as my mother was born and raised in Inverness before meeting my dad (Leeds lad) while both were on National Service at RAF Swinderby. I've never lived up there but have not encountered any problems while on many a holiday visiting relatives and it's a stunningly beautiful country.

If anyone has an issue on this thread it appears to be the person who struggles to accept the current constitution and seeks to declare validity of the election based on only a proportion of the results. What next, only counting the home counties and cutting off the rest of England who lets face it are a drain on the wealth creators in the South East.




Unfortunately as you screwed up your reply I cannot seriously be expected to mount a response, close season or not I still have other responsibilities to tend to.

Not least of which will be the ceremonial disbandment of the Harrier force (dependant on the definition of 'with immediate effect') and likely as not RAF Cottesmore with it. I think the word Strategic in the SDR should be dropped and replaced by Treasury.

I do but prefer them when they are 100% accurate.



I don't recall that was a particular concern before the Harrier force were withdrawn from service with 'immediate effect' yesterday in the coalition's alleged SDR. Under Labour's plan the GR9's were due to take up station on board the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers as soon as the first entered service (last time I looked that was due around 2015 - transferring from operational duties on the Ark Royal which would then be decommissioned) allowing for continuity of any required carrier based fast-jet capability. That sounded like a strategic plan to me, not the treasury driven dog's dinner served up on Tuesday.

On a similar theme this item on E-Bay may interest you: cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ... 566wt_1139

Contains some interesting exchanges in the Q and A's if you open them up. Poor sod.



Considering the UK, West Germany and Italy withdrew from the FEFA (Future European Fighter Aircraft) project with France and Spain in the mid-eighties to form the EFA programme (basically as France were insisting on there being a navalised version included in the development phase) that seems reasonably unlikely to be the major stumbling block. France went their own way with the Dassault Rafale. Tidy little thing it is too. And incidentally Spain joined the EFA project much to France's dismay shortly after.




Whatever you claim, the Typhoon is here and here to stay as the backbone of the present and future RAF in a developing multi-role capability. It has been declared 'combat ready' in the air-to-ground role for over two years now, four have been stationed at RAF Mount Pleasant (no not Batley) in defence of the Falklands for the past 12 months and I see upwards of a dozen training flights undertaken on almost any given weekday where I live. Not forgetting the QRA interceptions when the Bears come snooping, testing our air-space.

From an enthusiast's point of view, I don't particularly like them, I much prefer the Tornado in both the F3 and GR4 variants but times move on.



So similar to Germany wishing to leave the Eurofighter project after the costs of re-unification mounted and Helmut Kohl had given a pre-election commitment to do so but in the end felt unable due to the contractual obligations, financial commitment, defence jobs involved etc. Again more proof (if any were needed) that difficulties in defence procurement are not just a UK nevermind a Labour issue just as Tom King had to commit the then Tory government to give an assurance to his German counterpart to underwrite the project when the decision on the competing radar systems threatened to split the project.



If you say so.

I do but prefer them when they are 100% accurate.



I don't recall that was a particular concern before the Harrier force were withdrawn from service with 'immediate effect' yesterday in the coalition's alleged SDR. Under Labour's plan the GR9's were due to take up station on board the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers as soon as the first entered service (last time I looked that was due around 2015 - transferring from operational duties on the Ark Royal which would then be decommissioned) allowing for continuity of any required carrier based fast-jet capability. That sounded like a strategic plan to me, not the treasury driven dog's dinner served up on Tuesday.

On a similar theme this item on E-Bay may interest you: cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ... 566wt_1139

Contains some interesting exchanges in the Q and A's if you open them up. Poor sod.



Considering the UK, West Germany and Italy withdrew from the FEFA (Future European Fighter Aircraft) project with France and Spain in the mid-eighties to form the EFA programme (basically as France were insisting on there being a navalised version included in the development phase) that seems reasonably unlikely to be the major stumbling block. France went their own way with the Dassault Rafale. Tidy little thing it is too. And incidentally Spain joined the EFA project much to France's dismay shortly after.




Whatever you claim, the Typhoon is here and here to stay as the backbone of the present and future RAF in a developing multi-role capability. It has been declared 'combat ready' in the air-to-ground role for over two years now, four have been stationed at RAF Mount Pleasant (no not Batley) in defence of the Falklands for the past 12 months and I see upwards of a dozen training flights undertaken on almost any given weekday where I live. Not forgetting the QRA interceptions when the Bears come snooping, testing our air-space.

From an enthusiast's point of view, I don't particularly like them, I much prefer the Tornado in both the F3 and GR4 variants but times move on.



So similar to Germany wishing to leave the Eurofighter project after the costs of re-unification mounted and Helmut Kohl had given a pre-election commitment to do so but in the end felt unable due to the contractual obligations, financial commitment, defence jobs involved etc. Again more proof (if any were needed) that difficulties in defence procurement are not just a UK nevermind a Labour issue just as Tom King had to commit the then Tory government to give an assurance to his German counterpart to underwrite the project when the decision on the competing radar systems threatened to split the project.



If you say so.

The Typhoon is restricted to the Falklands at present because of the technical problems. Lets hope it becomes more reliable soon so it can indeed become the backbone. However it is not a supercruiser like the F22 and neither is it a stealth aircraft so it lags behind the competition.

The Harrier, brilliant in it's day, is now past its sell by date so the powers that be had to decide between the Harrier and the Tornado. The Yanks have lobbied strongly that we keep the GR4 for at least 10 more years because its still the best all rounder at ground attack and they want us to have it available. The GR4 can carry more, go further and is considerably quicker than the Harrier so although long in the tooth its the one to stay.

It is always going to cost us more to produce in Europe than buy off the shelf in the USA and it becomes a political decision because of jobs etc.

Thought you might like this tvoc:

The improved National Health Service

The British Medical Association has weighed in on the new Prime Minister
David Cameron's health care proposals.

The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to
make any rash moves.

The Gastroenterologists had a sort of a gut feeling about it, but the
neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

The Obstetricians felt they were all labouring under a misconception.
Ophthalmologists considered the idea short-sighted.

Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Paediatricians said,
"Oh, Grow up!"

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the
Radiologists could see right through it.

Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing. The ENT
specialists wouldn’t hear of it.

The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic
Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter...."

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were
ed off at the whole idea.

The Anaesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the
Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to
the s in London

The Typhoon is restricted to the Falklands at present because of the technical problems. Lets hope it becomes more reliable soon so it can indeed become the backbone. However it is not a supercruiser like the F22 and neither is it a stealth aircraft so it lags behind the competition.

The Harrier, brilliant in it's day, is now past its sell by date so the powers that be had to decide between the Harrier and the Tornado. The Yanks have lobbied strongly that we keep the GR4 for at least 10 more years because its still the best all rounder at ground attack and they want us to have it available. The GR4 can carry more, go further and is considerably quicker than the Harrier so although long in the tooth its the one to stay.

It is always going to cost us more to produce in Europe than buy off the shelf in the USA and it becomes a political decision because of jobs etc.

Thought you might like this tvoc:

The improved National Health Service

The British Medical Association has weighed in on the new Prime Minister
David Cameron's health care proposals.

The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to
make any rash moves.

The Gastroenterologists had a sort of a gut feeling about it, but the
neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

The Obstetricians felt they were all labouring under a misconception.
Ophthalmologists considered the idea short-sighted.

Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Paediatricians said,
"Oh, Grow up!"

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the
Radiologists could see right through it.

Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing. The ENT
specialists wouldn’t hear of it.

The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic
Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter...."

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were
ed off at the whole idea.

The Anaesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the
Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to
the s in London

The Typhoon is restricted to the Falklands at present because of the technical problems. Lets hope it becomes more reliable soon so it can indeed become the backbone. However it is not a supercruiser like the F22 and neither is it a stealth aircraft so it lags behind the competition.

The Harrier, brilliant in it's day, is now past its sell by date so the powers that be had to decide between the Harrier and the Tornado. The Yanks have lobbied strongly that we keep the GR4 for at least 10 more years because its still the best all rounder at ground attack and they want us to have it available. The GR4 can carry more, go further and is considerably quicker than the Harrier so although long in the tooth its the one to stay.

It is always going to cost us more to produce in Europe than buy off the shelf in the USA and it becomes a political decision because of jobs etc.

Thought you might like this tvoc:

The improved National Health Service

The British Medical Association has weighed in on the new Prime Minister
David Cameron's health care proposals.

The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to
make any rash moves.

The Gastroenterologists had a sort of a gut feeling about it, but the
neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

The Obstetricians felt they were all labouring under a misconception.
Ophthalmologists considered the idea short-sighted.

Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Paediatricians said,
"Oh, Grow up!"

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the
Radiologists could see right through it.

Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing. The ENT
specialists wouldn’t hear of it.

The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic
Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter...."

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were
ed off at the whole idea.

The Anaesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the
Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to
the s in London

The Typhoon is restricted to the Falklands at present because of the technical problems. Lets hope it becomes more reliable soon so it can indeed become the backbone. However it is not a supercruiser like the F22 and neither is it a stealth aircraft so it lags behind the competition.

The Harrier, brilliant in it's day, is now past its sell by date so the powers that be had to decide between the Harrier and the Tornado. The Yanks have lobbied strongly that we keep the GR4 for at least 10 more years because its still the best all rounder at ground attack and they want us to have it available. The GR4 can carry more, go further and is considerably quicker than the Harrier so although long in the tooth its the one to stay.

It is always going to cost us more to produce in Europe than buy off the shelf in the USA and it becomes a political decision because of jobs etc.

Thought you might like this tvoc:

The improved National Health Service

The British Medical Association has weighed in on the new Prime Minister
David Cameron's health care proposals.

The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to
make any rash moves.

The Gastroenterologists had a sort of a gut feeling about it, but the
neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

The Obstetricians felt they were all labouring under a misconception.
Ophthalmologists considered the idea short-sighted.

Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Paediatricians said,
"Oh, Grow up!"

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the
Radiologists could see right through it.

Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing. The ENT
specialists wouldn’t hear of it.

The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic
Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter...."

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were
ed off at the whole idea.

The Anaesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the
Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to
the s in London

Re Typhoon;
The Typhoon was designed 20 years ago, however the long delays in it becoming operational (still not in theatre) due to technical problems and "manufacture by committee" have meant it has been overtaken in capability. Some say it performs at 80% of an F22.

You have to compare it with an F22 (or the best) to see the value of the Typhoon. RAF pilots were always able to best the Yanks when on practice sortes. With the Typhoon we are 2nd best.

The Typhoon rates as a 4.5 Gen Fighter whilst the F22 is a 5 Gen fighter
The Typhoon hits mach 1.2 against the F22 supercruises at mach 1.8
The Typhoon lacks thrust vectoring which the F22 has (and many of the Sukoi have & SU35 & 37's)
The Typhoon has external weapons which reduce the maneuverability unlike the internal weapons on the F22
The Typhoon is not a bomber (hence keeping the GR4s) the F22 is a bomber
The Typhoon has a smaller payload than the F22

The requirement now is for a fighter/bomber with steath capacity which the Typhoo does not have. With modern missile technology there is little room just for an old fashioned fighter plane. The Typhoon was originally designed as a fighter with air superiority and with ground attack as a secondary feature. It now does not have superiority in its primary role and with its history of technical troubles is becoming something of a lemon.

See Sept 2010 All Typhoons grounded on safety grounds:
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... y-concerns
Capability comment:
answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 717AANFiPX

With regard to the GR4. Yes it needs a decent runway but that isn't the problem in the forseeable future and it can deliver so much more than carrier babies and can fly so.. so low.

We are stuck with the Typhoon and if we cannot afford both the Harrier and the GR4 it's a no brainer which to keep.

Re Typhoon;
The Typhoon was designed 20 years ago, however the long delays in it becoming operational (still not in theatre) due to technical problems and "manufacture by committee" have meant it has been overtaken in capability. Some say it performs at 80% of an F22.

You have to compare it with an F22 (or the best) to see the value of the Typhoon. RAF pilots were always able to best the Yanks when on practice sortes. With the Typhoon we are 2nd best.

The Typhoon rates as a 4.5 Gen Fighter whilst the F22 is a 5 Gen fighter
The Typhoon hits mach 1.2 against the F22 supercruises at mach 1.8
The Typhoon lacks thrust vectoring which the F22 has (and many of the Sukoi have & SU35 & 37's)
The Typhoon has external weapons which reduce the maneuverability unlike the internal weapons on the F22
The Typhoon is not a bomber (hence keeping the GR4s) the F22 is a bomber
The Typhoon has a smaller payload than the F22

The requirement now is for a fighter/bomber with steath capacity which the Typhoo does not have. With modern missile technology there is little room just for an old fashioned fighter plane. The Typhoon was originally designed as a fighter with air superiority and with ground attack as a secondary feature. It now does not have superiority in its primary role and with its history of technical troubles is becoming something of a lemon.

See Sept 2010 All Typhoons grounded on safety grounds:
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... y-concerns
Capability comment:
answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 717AANFiPX

With regard to the GR4. Yes it needs a decent runway but that isn't the problem in the forseeable future and it can deliver so much more than carrier babies and can fly so.. so low.

We are stuck with the Typhoon and if we cannot afford both the Harrier and the GR4 it's a no brainer which to keep.

Which theatre would you like it to be in?

It's operational in the Falklands and over the UK as it replaces the F3 in the air defence role. The multi-role capabilities are still being developed but seeing as the GR4 was not scheduled to be retired anytime soon (as far as I were aware) that's hardly surprising. The Typhoon will not now be seen in anything like the numbers first envisaged, how those decreased numbers are split between the varying roles it's supposed to take over in time will be interesting to say the least. Let's not forget the Tornado was a bomber first from the ground up and only became a (ADV) fighter to plug a continuity gap. Looks like we could be heading down the reverse of that same route where inevitably we'll end up with a jack of all trades type with probably overstretched pilots to match.



Perhaps in the days when the man inside the cockpit was the determining factor but seeing as nowadays most potential encounters will be BVR it's the machine with the superior radar, target acquisition and weaponry that should succeed and fairly obviously a fifth generation fighter ought to win that hypothetical battle. That said I'd still take an RAF pilot to shoot down a Terrorist pilot almost regardless of equipment.

If the US ever get taken over by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party then I might be concerned about their military being able to p1ss all over ours but until then I'll still consider them an ally.



No doubt if your source material says so but considering it was only in your last post you were claiming the Typhoon wasn't a supercruiser and now it is what do you want me to discuss on this point. There has to be a world best at everything (and in machine terms) it's the most expensive one out there that usually wins.



And in that regard not too dissimilar to your apparent desire to undermine the reputation of the RAF and it's equipment with ridiculous irrelevant comparisons and comments like they have difficulty getting them off the ground let alone a carrier.

Perhaps we should simply scrap the lot and issue every citizen with a bow and arrow, hey it'd be cheaper too.



And? Let's not be overdramatic. The RAF's operational Typhoons were not grounded after that incident at all and only training flights were affected briefly. In the interests of fairness care to elaborate when the ban was lifted. 24 hours, 48 hours, a week? Either way it was hardly a calamity for the project now was it.

And unfortunately incidents occur with all aircraft types: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/gla ... 587389.stm perhaps if it'd been a Tiffie they'd have made that turn.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 873189.ece



Do you use Yahoo answers for all your facts? I'm beginning to sense you're not taking this debate too seriously anymore.



You doubt a Harrier can fly as low as a Tornado?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbqQr2EEtHA

Your Tornado video goes here:

Question: What's the only thing you're likely to find under a Tornado on a low level bombing run?

Answer: A Harrier on it's way home for tea.



It's only the coalition that appears to think we cannot afford to keep the assets we currently have and were about to acquire. The country's defence should be the governments first responsibility and we live in uncertain times. Funny how historically most of the recent wars/conflicts we've been involved in were basically of the unforseen variety.

How is it when Terrorism is termed as a Tier 1 threat as of Monday's National Security Strategy that on Wednesday it's announced that the UK Border Agency's budget will be cut by up to one fifth.

Where is the logic going to come from in this coalition?

Oh and as I know you're a big fan of the IFS you'll have noted their analysis of the measures in the CSR are that they are regressive just as I predicted they would be so no surprises there.

As the Guardian appears your paper of choice above try this out for size: www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... um=twitter

And the latest example (as if one was needed) of what can happen if you decommission an asset (or plan to) before a replacement is in place:
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/2 ... tute-freed

Which theatre would you like it to be in?

It's operational in the Falklands and over the UK as it replaces the F3 in the air defence role. The multi-role capabilities are still being developed but seeing as the GR4 was not scheduled to be retired anytime soon (as far as I were aware) that's hardly surprising. The Typhoon will not now be seen in anything like the numbers first envisaged, how those decreased numbers are split between the varying roles it's supposed to take over in time will be interesting to say the least. Let's not forget the Tornado was a bomber first from the ground up and only became a (ADV) fighter to plug a continuity gap. Looks like we could be heading down the reverse of that same route where inevitably we'll end up with a jack of all trades type with probably overstretched pilots to match.



Perhaps in the days when the man inside the cockpit was the determining factor but seeing as nowadays most potential encounters will be BVR it's the machine with the superior radar, target acquisition and weaponry that should succeed and fairly obviously a fifth generation fighter ought to win that hypothetical battle. That said I'd still take an RAF pilot to shoot down a Terrorist pilot almost regardless of equipment.

If the US ever get taken over by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party then I might be concerned about their military being able to p1ss all over ours but until then I'll still consider them an ally.



No doubt if your source material says so but considering it was only in your last post you were claiming the Typhoon wasn't a supercruiser and now it is what do you want me to discuss on this point. There has to be a world best at everything (and in machine terms) it's the most expensive one out there that usually wins.



And in that regard not too dissimilar to your apparent desire to undermine the reputation of the RAF and it's equipment with ridiculous irrelevant comparisons and comments like they have difficulty getting them off the ground let alone a carrier.

Perhaps we should simply scrap the lot and issue every citizen with a bow and arrow, hey it'd be cheaper too.



And? Let's not be overdramatic. The RAF's operational Typhoons were not grounded after that incident at all and only training flights were affected briefly. In the interests of fairness care to elaborate when the ban was lifted. 24 hours, 48 hours, a week? Either way it was hardly a calamity for the project now was it.

And unfortunately incidents occur with all aircraft types: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/gla ... 587389.stm perhaps if it'd been a Tiffie they'd have made that turn.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 873189.ece



Do you use Yahoo answers for all your facts? I'm beginning to sense you're not taking this debate too seriously anymore.



You doubt a Harrier can fly as low as a Tornado?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbqQr2EEtHA

Your Tornado video goes here:

Question: What's the only thing you're likely to find under a Tornado on a low level bombing run?

Answer: A Harrier on it's way home for tea.



It's only the coalition that appears to think we cannot afford to keep the assets we currently have and were about to acquire. The country's defence should be the governments first responsibility and we live in uncertain times. Funny how historically most of the recent wars/conflicts we've been involved in were basically of the unforseen variety.

How is it when Terrorism is termed as a Tier 1 threat as of Monday's National Security Strategy that on Wednesday it's announced that the UK Border Agency's budget will be cut by up to one fifth.

Where is the logic going to come from in this coalition?

Oh and as I know you're a big fan of the IFS you'll have noted their analysis of the measures in the CSR are that they are regressive just as I predicted they would be so no surprises there.

As the Guardian appears your paper of choice above try this out for size: www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... um=twitter

And the latest example (as if one was needed) of what can happen if you decommission an asset (or plan to) before a replacement is in place:
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/2 ... tute-freed

I don't. I'm debating the subjects.

You said the Typhoon isn't in theatre yet (which it is in the roles I identified) so I simply asked which theatres it has missed that you think it should have made since it came into service with the RAF?



So name the wars it has been held back from and the roles it should have been fulfilling in them.



'Facts' like the Typhoon isn't a supercruising aircraft or the RAF have difficulty getting it flying off the ground. Those sort of facts?



It's irrelevant to this discussion because the F22 is not now and probably never will be in the future part of the RAF's inventory nor will it likely fall into the hands of an aggressor.



It's in service. I see them flying in service every working day and have done for at least 3 years, probably longer. Where's your evidence that it isn't in service?



Stating that the RAF are unable to fly one off the ground would suggests otherwise.



Taken out of service? More over-dramatisation, how is this furthering the discussion?

The article you posted was a minor issue concerning the Martin Baker Mk16A ejector seat. I don't believe it was an issue for the RAF Typhoons as such as the correct procedures for arming the seat were carried out through adherence to the manual (perhaps the Saudis should have come to Britain rather than go to Spain) the temporary cessation of training flights was only a procedural matter. The ban (which never effected operational flights) came in on the Wednesday for the training flights and was lifted five days later once all the paperwork was filed 3 working days later.

Your evidence of a serious problem with the Typhoon fell at the first hurdle and the Austrians agree:

Source: Austrian Ministry of Defence; issued Sept. 15, 2010)
(Issued in German; unofficial translation by defense-aerospace.com)

VIENNA --- The Eurofighter user countries were =#FF4000recommended to discontinue =#FF4000exercise and training flights of the Eurofighter because of a =#FF0000perceived safety problem in the ejection seat.

=#FF4000This is a normal procedure to ensure safety.

The interruption was necessary because, =#FF4000if =#FF4000mishandled, the parachute could become separated from the ejection seat in case of ejection.

Pilots are being trained in the new procedures. Thereafter, the training and exercise operations are resumed.

This measure has no effect on the supervision and monitoring of air space.

Eurofighter =#FF0000will =#FF4000continue to carry out operational missions - so-called A-priority flights - =#FF4000and remains fully operational.




Yet you just did.



And a capable platform it is too but without the flexibility of the Harrier. What size of aircraft package would it take for a Tornado to drop a bomb on the Falklands or to provide close air support to the troops on the ground should the Argentinians fancy taking the island again?

From the in house Conservative newspaper: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... itics.html



What they are doing to the armed forces under the heading Strategic is anything but and while I expect no-one to listen to my concerns perhaps they should listen to those expressed by Dr Liam Fox - the coalition's defence secretary:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -full.html



Personal attack after personal attack but unlike you I'll just stick to the subject which is far more important if that's alright with you.



You quoted the IFS on page 7 of this thread.

How we got here is interesting but not as interesting as how we go forward from here.



Is there any need, really?



I have already quoted The Mail and The Telegraph (Theresa May and Liam Fox also) unless they are also on the left these days. I have no real need to quote from a paper who supported the Lib Dems at the last election.

More evidence of the direction we are taking:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ciety.html

I don't. I'm debating the subjects.

You said the Typhoon isn't in theatre yet (which it is in the roles I identified) so I simply asked which theatres it has missed that you think it should have made since it came into service with the RAF?



So name the wars it has been held back from and the roles it should have been fulfilling in them.



'Facts' like the Typhoon isn't a supercruising aircraft or the RAF have difficulty getting it flying off the ground. Those sort of facts?



It's irrelevant to this discussion because the F22 is not now and probably never will be in the future part of the RAF's inventory nor will it likely fall into the hands of an aggressor.



It's in service. I see them flying in service every working day and have done for at least 3 years, probably longer. Where's your evidence that it isn't in service?



Stating that the RAF are unable to fly one off the ground would suggests otherwise.



Taken out of service? More over-dramatisation, how is this furthering the discussion?

The article you posted was a minor issue concerning the Martin Baker Mk16A ejector seat. I don't believe it was an issue for the RAF Typhoons as such as the correct procedures for arming the seat were carried out through adherence to the manual (perhaps the Saudis should have come to Britain rather than go to Spain) the temporary cessation of training flights was only a procedural matter. The ban (which never effected operational flights) came in on the Wednesday for the training flights and was lifted five days later once all the paperwork was filed 3 working days later.

Your evidence of a serious problem with the Typhoon fell at the first hurdle and the Austrians agree:

Source: Austrian Ministry of Defence; issued Sept. 15, 2010)
(Issued in German; unofficial translation by defense-aerospace.com)

VIENNA --- The Eurofighter user countries were =#FF4000recommended to discontinue =#FF4000exercise and training flights of the Eurofighter because of a =#FF0000perceived safety problem in the ejection seat.

=#FF4000This is a normal procedure to ensure safety.

The interruption was necessary because, =#FF4000if =#FF4000mishandled, the parachute could become separated from the ejection seat in case of ejection.

Pilots are being trained in the new procedures. Thereafter, the training and exercise operations are resumed.

This measure has no effect on the supervision and monitoring of air space.

Eurofighter =#FF0000will =#FF4000continue to carry out operational missions - so-called A-priority flights - =#FF4000and remains fully operational.




Yet you just did.



And a capable platform it is too but without the flexibility of the Harrier. What size of aircraft package would it take for a Tornado to drop a bomb on the Falklands or to provide close air support to the troops on the ground should the Argentinians fancy taking the island again?

From the in house Conservative newspaper: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... itics.html



What they are doing to the armed forces under the heading Strategic is anything but and while I expect no-one to listen to my concerns perhaps they should listen to those expressed by Dr Liam Fox - the coalition's defence secretary:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -full.html



Personal attack after personal attack but unlike you I'll just stick to the subject which is far more important if that's alright with you.



You quoted the IFS on page 7 of this thread.

How we got here is interesting but not as interesting as how we go forward from here.



Is there any need, really?



I have already quoted The Mail and The Telegraph (Theresa May and Liam Fox also) unless they are also on the left these days. I have no real need to quote from a paper who supported the Lib Dems at the last election.

More evidence of the direction we are taking:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ciety.html

Theatre is short for theatre of war. We have been involved in a war situation in Afganistan and in Iraq since the Typhoon came into service yet it has not been deployed in either despite the announcement it was to go to Afganistan in 2007.



You are being pedantic. FACT: The F22 raptor supercruises at Mach 1.82 (with afterburners is Mach 2+) The Tornado at Mach 1.1 and the Typhoon at about Mach 1.3 but the Typhoon can only supercruise in a clean configuration ie: without missiles or fuel tanks. So the Typhoon is inferior in performance to the F22 which was my point.



You choose to miss the relevance. My point was simply to say the Typhoon performance has been overtaken by other aircraft and in particular the F22. Therefore before committing more funds to buy future Typhoons we should consider buying the F22 off the peg.



I have answered your mis quote already and yet you persist with the same mis quote - very New Labour!

I did not say or imply the RAF are unable to fly off the ground period. What I said was "They have enough problems getting the Eurofighter to fly off land let alone a carrier." You may recall we had been discussing the delay and technical problems of the Typhoon which together with insufficent spares meant the Typhoons spent more time on the ground than in the air. The "they" is the manufacturers & Ministry of Defence procurement people and nothing to do with the RAF.




Evidence of more technical problems which are keeping it on the ground

"The grounding order was made on Tuesday. Typhoon aircraft in Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria and Saudi Arabia have been taken out of service" Source: Daily Mail 18th Setember 2010

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z13NZv3Jul

"Grounded" see below Daily Mail - BBC News - The Sun - Telegraph - armedforces-int.com - belfast telegraph- Brotish forces news etc etc etc

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -seat.html

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11355789

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... phoon.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... cerns.html

www.armedforces-int.com/news/ger ... unded.html

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... 52287.html

www.bfbs.com/news/worldwide/typh ... 39256.html

etc etc




"Almost every aspect of the Tornado is superior to the Harrier, including 2 man crew, greater range, larger and more versatile payload, the gun (which is proving useful in Afghanistan since it replaced the Harrier), two engines, greater speed and loiter time and enhanced combat survivability. While the Harrier has rocket pods the Tornado carries two 27mm Mauser cannon for strafing, two crew that allows for greater targeting ability and can carry more fuel giving them more time over targets. The Tornado has a top speed of 990mph compared to the Harrier's 660mph.

The Harrier popularity is bouyed up almost always by hype because of it's almost unique VSTOL capability, which it rarely if ever uses to any advantage. The truth is the Harrier is a light weight, it is not the most agile, it hasn't got the range, it hasn't got the payload, indeed it hasn't got anything over the Tornado apart from viffing for the airshow crowds. That in itself hasn't much recently. Also, I understand the Harrier is closer to it's airframe sell by date? Another thing, the Harriers are much fewer in number. If it's simply a type that needs to go, well then I'm sure we'll miss the Harrier's operational capability least of all."

Theatre is short for theatre of war. We have been involved in a war situation in Afganistan and in Iraq since the Typhoon came into service yet it has not been deployed in either despite the announcement it was to go to Afganistan in 2007.



You are being pedantic. FACT: The F22 raptor supercruises at Mach 1.82 (with afterburners is Mach 2+) The Tornado at Mach 1.1 and the Typhoon at about Mach 1.3 but the Typhoon can only supercruise in a clean configuration ie: without missiles or fuel tanks. So the Typhoon is inferior in performance to the F22 which was my point.



You choose to miss the relevance. My point was simply to say the Typhoon performance has been overtaken by other aircraft and in particular the F22. Therefore before committing more funds to buy future Typhoons we should consider buying the F22 off the peg.



I have answered your mis quote already and yet you persist with the same mis quote - very New Labour!

I did not say or imply the RAF are unable to fly off the ground period. What I said was "They have enough problems getting the Eurofighter to fly off land let alone a carrier." You may recall we had been discussing the delay and technical problems of the Typhoon which together with insufficent spares meant the Typhoons spent more time on the ground than in the air. The "they" is the manufacturers & Ministry of Defence procurement people and nothing to do with the RAF.




Evidence of more technical problems which are keeping it on the ground

"The grounding order was made on Tuesday. Typhoon aircraft in Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria and Saudi Arabia have been taken out of service" Source: Daily Mail 18th Setember 2010

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z13NZv3Jul

"Grounded" see below Daily Mail - BBC News - The Sun - Telegraph - armedforces-int.com - belfast telegraph- Brotish forces news etc etc etc

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -seat.html

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11355789

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... phoon.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... cerns.html

www.armedforces-int.com/news/ger ... unded.html

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... 52287.html

www.bfbs.com/news/worldwide/typh ... 39256.html

etc etc




"Almost every aspect of the Tornado is superior to the Harrier, including 2 man crew, greater range, larger and more versatile payload, the gun (which is proving useful in Afghanistan since it replaced the Harrier), two engines, greater speed and loiter time and enhanced combat survivability. While the Harrier has rocket pods the Tornado carries two 27mm Mauser cannon for strafing, two crew that allows for greater targeting ability and can carry more fuel giving them more time over targets. The Tornado has a top speed of 990mph compared to the Harrier's 660mph.

The Harrier popularity is bouyed up almost always by hype because of it's almost unique VSTOL capability, which it rarely if ever uses to any advantage. The truth is the Harrier is a light weight, it is not the most agile, it hasn't got the range, it hasn't got the payload, indeed it hasn't got anything over the Tornado apart from viffing for the airshow crowds. That in itself hasn't much recently. Also, I understand the Harrier is closer to it's airframe sell by date? Another thing, the Harriers are much fewer in number. If it's simply a type that needs to go, well then I'm sure we'll miss the Harrier's operational capability least of all."

The Typhoon has entered service (despite you claiming it hasn't) in the air to air role. What role was there in either of those conflicts for an air superiority fighter? Not been committed to theatre is hardly the fault of the type if there is no enemy to face in that arena. Your point is another irrelevance.



The comparison is irrelevant. The Eurofighter was developed by a European consortium to satisfy a requirement for a future European fighter aircraft. There is a subtle clue in the name of the project Euro-fighter. Which part of supercruise involves the use of afterburners? It is also American, not for sale and too expensive which is my point, odd that you can't appreciate that with your desire to make cuts and cost savings.

As for comparisons: In 2004, United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper said after flying the Eurofighter, "I have flown all the air force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter." The Typhoon's combat performance, compared to the new F-22 Raptor and the upcoming F-35 Lightning II fighters and the French Dassault Rafale, has been the subject of much discussion. In March 2005, Jumper, then the only person to have flown both the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Raptor, talked to Air Force Print News about these two aircraft. He said, "the Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still difficult to compare to the F/A-22 Raptor. They are different kinds of airplanes to start with; it's like asking us to compare a NASCAR car with a Formula One car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance. Further, "The Eurofighter is certainly, as far as smoothness of controls and the ability to pull (and sustain high g forces), very impressive", he said. "That is what it was designed to do, especially the version I flew, with the avionics, the color moving map displays, etc. — all absolutely top notch. The maneuverability of the airplane in close-in combat was also very impressive."




More funds to buy more? I think you must have missed the recent SDSR and CSR. Your proposition appears to ignore the reality where the numbers of proposed aircraft have been falling for years now. Can you buy the F22 off the peg? At $150 million a pop they may not represent good value for money for the RAF who already appear fairly committed to the Typhoon after £billions spent on development and manufacture, training, integration, spares etc.

Your simplistic suggestion would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic for British tax payer and BAE.

Besides which, the high cost of the F22 aircraft, a lack of clear air-to-air combat missions because of the lengthy delays in the Russian and Chinese fifth generation fighter programs, =#FF0000a US ban on Raptor exports, and the development of the cheaper and more versatile F-35 resulted in calls to end F-22 production. In April 2009 the US Department of Defense proposed to cease placing new orders, subject to Congressional approval, for a final procurement tally of 187 Raptors. The US Senate and House each passed 2010 budget bill versions =#FF0000without F-22 production funding in July 2009. Congress worked to combine these versions into one bill and President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 in October 2009, =#FF0000without funding for F-22 production.

Looks like the Americans want to keep it all to themselves which appears another fly in your ointment.



Where is your evidence to back this claim up?




Non of which is evidence that the aircraft has been 'taken out of service' or 'keeping it on the ground.' Not in any meaningful way. You've copied several news reports concerning the one incident that I've already put in it's correct context earlier and posted an Austrian Airforce response to the situation. No operational planes were grounded at all and RAF training flights were grounded for 3 working days as safety procedures (paperwork) were filed. Just supposing this was in anyway a serious fault (which you appear determined to imply) that needed rectification - would it be sorted in 3 working days? It'd take months to design a modification let alone manufacture and retrofit it to the jets. Lets wait for the board of enquiry or AAIB or whoever is tasked to report into the incident to find out where the fault lay. Human error cannot be ruled out at this stage.



The Tornado cannot operate from a carrier, the Tornado cannot operate from a unprepared landing strips, the Tornado cannot operate without the availability of friendly airstrips away from friendly bases. In that circumstance (such as a Falklands Mk2 conflict) it cannot deliver it's ordanance without a huge logistical support package being launched to get it over target.

Do you disagree with the Harrier pilot who recently said (according to the Telegraph report - linked to previously): "You need three Tornados to do the same work as one Harrier in Afghanistan. Where’s the sense in that?”

Why does the Harrier need to go before it's replacement is on force? Why does the Ark Royal need to go before it's replacement is on force? Why does the Nimrod MRA4 need to be cancelled (having spent most of the money) with no obvious replacement leaving a huge gap in capability and making our coastlines in particular more vulnerable?

These are monetary decisions not military ones and that's why they stink.

The Typhoon has entered service (despite you claiming it hasn't) in the air to air role. What role was there in either of those conflicts for an air superiority fighter? Not been committed to theatre is hardly the fault of the type if there is no enemy to face in that arena. Your point is another irrelevance.



The comparison is irrelevant. The Eurofighter was developed by a European consortium to satisfy a requirement for a future European fighter aircraft. There is a subtle clue in the name of the project Euro-fighter. Which part of supercruise involves the use of afterburners? It is also American, not for sale and too expensive which is my point, odd that you can't appreciate that with your desire to make cuts and cost savings.

As for comparisons: In 2004, United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper said after flying the Eurofighter, "I have flown all the air force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter." The Typhoon's combat performance, compared to the new F-22 Raptor and the upcoming F-35 Lightning II fighters and the French Dassault Rafale, has been the subject of much discussion. In March 2005, Jumper, then the only person to have flown both the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Raptor, talked to Air Force Print News about these two aircraft. He said, "the Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still difficult to compare to the F/A-22 Raptor. They are different kinds of airplanes to start with; it's like asking us to compare a NASCAR car with a Formula One car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance. Further, "The Eurofighter is certainly, as far as smoothness of controls and the ability to pull (and sustain high g forces), very impressive", he said. "That is what it was designed to do, especially the version I flew, with the avionics, the color moving map displays, etc. — all absolutely top notch. The maneuverability of the airplane in close-in combat was also very impressive."




More funds to buy more? I think you must have missed the recent SDSR and CSR. Your proposition appears to ignore the reality where the numbers of proposed aircraft have been falling for years now. Can you buy the F22 off the peg? At $150 million a pop they may not represent good value for money for the RAF who already appear fairly committed to the Typhoon after £billions spent on development and manufacture, training, integration, spares etc.

Your simplistic suggestion would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic for British tax payer and BAE.

Besides which, the high cost of the F22 aircraft, a lack of clear air-to-air combat missions because of the lengthy delays in the Russian and Chinese fifth generation fighter programs, =#FF0000a US ban on Raptor exports, and the development of the cheaper and more versatile F-35 resulted in calls to end F-22 production. In April 2009 the US Department of Defense proposed to cease placing new orders, subject to Congressional approval, for a final procurement tally of 187 Raptors. The US Senate and House each passed 2010 budget bill versions =#FF0000without F-22 production funding in July 2009. Congress worked to combine these versions into one bill and President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 in October 2009, =#FF0000without funding for F-22 production.

Looks like the Americans want to keep it all to themselves which appears another fly in your ointment.



Where is your evidence to back this claim up?




Non of which is evidence that the aircraft has been 'taken out of service' or 'keeping it on the ground.' Not in any meaningful way. You've copied several news reports concerning the one incident that I've already put in it's correct context earlier and posted an Austrian Airforce response to the situation. No operational planes were grounded at all and RAF training flights were grounded for 3 working days as safety procedures (paperwork) were filed. Just supposing this was in anyway a serious fault (which you appear determined to imply) that needed rectification - would it be sorted in 3 working days? It'd take months to design a modification let alone manufacture and retrofit it to the jets. Lets wait for the board of enquiry or AAIB or whoever is tasked to report into the incident to find out where the fault lay. Human error cannot be ruled out at this stage.



The Tornado cannot operate from a carrier, the Tornado cannot operate from a unprepared landing strips, the Tornado cannot operate without the availability of friendly airstrips away from friendly bases. In that circumstance (such as a Falklands Mk2 conflict) it cannot deliver it's ordanance without a huge logistical support package being launched to get it over target.

Do you disagree with the Harrier pilot who recently said (according to the Telegraph report - linked to previously): "You need three Tornados to do the same work as one Harrier in Afghanistan. Where’s the sense in that?”

Why does the Harrier need to go before it's replacement is on force? Why does the Ark Royal need to go before it's replacement is on force? Why does the Nimrod MRA4 need to be cancelled (having spent most of the money) with no obvious replacement leaving a huge gap in capability and making our coastlines in particular more vulnerable?

These are monetary decisions not military ones and that's why they stink.