On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:54:28 -0700, hobo > wrote:

>
>The Eurofighter started as a British project and then they brought in
>other countries, some of whom then left and then some came back and
>politically it has been a big mess. Would the Brits have been better off
>doing what became the Eurofighter on their own? By better I mean have a
>better plane finished sooner and for less money or some combination of
>these qualities which would push it ahead of what they have now, or will
>have if they ever finish it.

The Brits wouldn't have ever been able to field such an advanced
system as the current eurofighter who's design owes much to the German
TKF90 design.

The UK would no doubt have designed a good aircraft, and perhaps a
couple of demonstrators and thats about it.

Collabration does a lot to keep the program going, it might slow it a
bit, but it will keep going, and the engineering ideas from multiple
sources is good, the solutions (in the main) are even better.

There has been some conjecture that the EAP would have been a good
fighter in the 1990, as a flying platform is was adequate, systems
wise it was almost non existant - it would have ended up as a basic
sporty Tornado F.3.

The Eurofighter is much much more than that, it has huge potential and
providing the political will is there, the excellent cutting edge
engineering will come together...



Cheers

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:54:28 -0700, hobo > wrote:
>
> >
> >The Eurofighter started as a British project and then they brought in
> >other countries, some of whom then left and then some came back and
> >politically it has been a big mess. Would the Brits have been better off
> >doing what became the Eurofighter on their own? By better I mean have a
> >better plane finished sooner and for less money or some combination of
> >these qualities which would push it ahead of what they have now, or will
> >have if they ever finish it.
>
> The Brits wouldn't have ever been able to field such an advanced
> system as the current eurofighter who's design owes much to the German
> TKF90 design.
>
> The UK would no doubt have designed a good aircraft, and perhaps a
> couple of demonstrators and thats about it.
>
> Collabration does a lot to keep the program going, it might slow it a
> bit, but it will keep going, and the engineering ideas from multiple
> sources is good, the solutions (in the main) are even better.
>
> There has been some conjecture that the EAP would have been a good
> fighter in the 1990, as a flying platform is was adequate, systems
> wise it was almost non existant - it would have ended up as a basic
> sporty Tornado F.3.

And the TFK90 would be different how? It was purely a concept for the
airframe, same really as EAP. If EAP (or TFK90) had actually went on to be
full aircraft, then the systems would have come along. Don't forget the
first 2 Eurofighter development aircraft have practically no weapon system
integration - they are envelope expanision aircraft

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:54:28 -0700, hobo > wrote:
>
>The Eurofighter started as a British project and then they brought in
>other countries, some of whom then left and then some came back

Which countries left and came back?

Eurofighter was originally British, German and Italian. Later
Spain joined.

>and
>politically it has been a big mess. Would the Brits have been better off
>doing what became the Eurofighter on their own? By better I mean have a
>better plane finished sooner and for less money or some combination of
>these qualities which would push it ahead of what they have now, or will
>have if they ever finish it.

Cynic that I am, I'd be very surprised if more MoD input on *any*
project led to it being quicker or cheaper.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:37:17 +1000, John Cook > wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:54:28 -0700, hobo > wrote:
>
>>
>>The Eurofighter started as a British project and then they brought in
>>other countries, some of whom then left and then some came back and
>>politically it has been a big mess. Would the Brits have been better off
>>doing what became the Eurofighter on their own? By better I mean have a
>>better plane finished sooner and for less money or some combination of
>>these qualities which would push it ahead of what they have now, or will
>>have if they ever finish it.
>
>The Brits wouldn't have ever been able to field such an advanced
>system as the current eurofighter who's design owes much to the German
>TKF90 design.

If Sweden (population 9 million) can design and build a modern
fighter, I'm sure Britain (population 60 million) could.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

"phil hunt" > wrote

>
> If Sweden (population 9 million) can design and build a modern
> fighter, I'm sure Britain (population 60 million) could.

They can design it. Could they (would they) pay for it on their own?

Pete

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "phil hunt" > wrote
>
> >
> > If Sweden (population 9 million) can design and build a modern
> > fighter, I'm sure Britain (population 60 million) could.
>
> They can design it. Could they (would they) pay for it on their own?
>
> Pete

Part of the idea of these multinationl designes is to lock several countries
into being customers and to make it politically difficult to withdraw.

Britain has a reputation for cancelling its own Brilliant designes and
****ing the money up the wall on inept politics.

Germany has had some of the most advanced concepts, including stealth when
it was not a fashion, of any country but they never get past the technology
demonstators stage because (mainly left) wing politics usually leads to
cancellations. The Germans also have enormous political problems in
exporting so they need to link into someone elses program.

The French generally don't get involved in major programes because they
don't want any export restrictions. If they do get involved in a program
they eventualy seem to come up with their own version of a missile.

In General will power and direction and a sense of autonomous independence
is missing in the west: We don't know what we are and what we stand for
accept vague concepts such as 'diversity' or whatever is in vogue. The
willpower doesn't exist. While there are reasons for having a strong
military the history of the misuses and abuses of the US military really
don't endear the idea of a large armed forces to most people.

"Pete" > wrote in message >...
> "phil hunt" > wrote
>
> >
> > If Sweden (population 9 million) can design and build a modern
> > fighter, I'm sure Britain (population 60 million) could.
>
> They can design it. Could they (would they) pay for it on their own?
>
> Pete


Who's paying it for them?

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:51:38 GMT, Pete > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote
>
>>
>> If Sweden (population 9 million) can design and build a modern
>> fighter, I'm sure Britain (population 60 million) could.
>
>They can design it. Could they (would they) pay for it on their own?

Britain spends a good deal more on its armed forces than Sweden
does.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:51:38 GMT, Pete
> wrote:
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote
> >
> >>
> >> If Sweden (population 9 million) can design and build a modern
> >> fighter, I'm sure Britain (population 60 million) could.
> >
> >They can design it. Could they (would they) pay for it on their own?
>
> Britain spends a good deal more on its armed forces than Sweden
> does.

Spread around among many more types of equipment. Not knocking the Swedes,
but do they have any carriers?

Pete

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:51:38 GMT, Pete
> wrote:
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote
> >
> >>
> >> If Sweden (population 9 million) can design and build a modern
> >> fighter, I'm sure Britain (population 60 million) could.
> >
> >They can design it. Could they (would they) pay for it on their own?
>
> Britain spends a good deal more on its armed forces than Sweden
> does.

In comparative terms there's not that much difference

Sweden spends 2.1 % of GDP on its military while
the UK spends 2.4%

Keith

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:12:29 +0100, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:51:38 GMT, Pete
> wrote:
>> >
>> >"phil hunt" > wrote
>> >
>> >>
>> >> If Sweden (population 9 million) can design and build a modern
>> >> fighter, I'm sure Britain (population 60 million) could.
>> >
>> >They can design it. Could they (would they) pay for it on their own?
>>
>> Britain spends a good deal more on its armed forces than Sweden
>> does.
>
>In comparative terms there's not that much difference
>
>Sweden spends 2.1 % of GDP on its military while
>the UK spends 2.4%

The UK has about 7 times as many people. Assuming GDP per head is
roughly the same in both countries, it's clear the UK spends a lot
more.

Even if you factor in that Britain spends 1/3 on each of its three
services, whereas Sweden spends half on its army and navy (probably
not the exact proportions, but you get the idea) then UK airforce
spending is a lot greater than Swedish.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)