If the EU is looking for more reach without carriers, how about heavy
bombers? Certainly something on the order of B-1B as far as airframe might
be a goal, or something less radical. It depends on their budget and
requirements, I guess. From bases in Europe they could cover much of Africa,
the Middle East, etc.

Of course if they wanted to go somewhere with fighters they might need
escort, etc.

DEP

David E. Powell wrote:
>From bases in Europe they could cover much of Africa,
> the Middle East, etc.

And USA!

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
s.com...
> If the EU is looking for more reach without carriers, how about heavy
> bombers

They don't need bombers for two reasons:

1. The USA will protect them. They claim they don't like that, but it
speaks volumes that they have all (except for the UK) let their military
budgets and capabilities decline to ludicrous levels.

2. Even if they had them, they'd never use them. The EU would spend years
debating military action, even if the hordes of whoever were beating on the
parliament doors.

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
s.com...
> If the EU is looking for more reach without carriers, how about heavy
> bombers? Certainly something on the order of B-1B as far as airframe might
> be a goal, or something less radical. It depends on their budget and
> requirements, I guess. From bases in Europe they could cover much of
Africa,
> the Middle East, etc.
>
> Of course if they wanted to go somewhere with fighters they might need
> escort, etc.
>
> DEP
>
>

I don't think that they'd have to be all that large, as the white flags and
rose petals they'd be designed to dispense tend to not take up as much room
as bombs.

David E. Powell wrote:
> If the EU is looking for more reach without carriers, how about heavy
> bombers? Certainly something on the order of B-1B as far as airframe might
> be a goal, or something less radical. It depends on their budget and
> requirements, I guess. From bases in Europe they could cover much of Africa,
> the Middle East, etc.
>
> Of course if they wanted to go somewhere with fighters they might need
> escort, etc.

Actually the EU member states have carefully studied the relative effectiveness
of the USN and USAF and most have concluded that the correct platforms for power
projection in the future will be carriers and submarines. ;-)

-HJC

>They claim they don't like that, but it
>speaks volumes that they have all (except for the UK) let their military
>budgets and capabilities decline to ludicrous levels.

And what heavy bombers does the RAF have exactly?

Duncan

"DunxC" > wrote in message
...
> >They claim they don't like that, but it
> >speaks volumes that they have all (except for the UK) let their military
> >budgets and capabilities decline to ludicrous levels.
>
> And what heavy bombers does the RAF have exactly?

I never said they did, only that the UK has a military that actually works.
Perhaps you could re-read the sentence you cut and pasted.

>I never said they did, only that the UK has a military that actually works.

To be entirely fair, so does France.

The Brits did especially well in Basra, because they treated it as a
Middle East version of Belfast, just oozing into it rather than taking
it by assault.

France has done especially well in African messes. We tend to forget
how many of these there have been (French military adventures, not
messes) because American media resolutely ignore anything that doesn't
have an American angle. Before the U.S. bombed Gaddafi, for example,
the French had a small army in Chad (was it Chad? oh God I can't
remember) that whupped Gaddafi's invasion.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

In message >, Ragnar >
writes
>
>"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
s.com...
>> If the EU is looking for more reach without carriers, how about heavy
>> bombers
>
>They don't need bombers for two reasons:
>
>1. The USA will protect them. They claim they don't like that, but it
>speaks volumes that they have all (except for the UK) let their military
>budgets and capabilities decline to ludicrous levels.

The Chancellor has reduced the military budget by 1 billion GBP for the
next year.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

>What use would they be, anyway? These days heavy bombers
>appear to be used mostly for tactical air support

I'm not sure what gave you this "appearance", but all three U.S. bombers have
done much more than CAS in the last three conflicts (since 1999).


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

>.
>
>France has done especially well in African messes. We tend to forget
>how many of these there have been (French military adventures, not
>messes) because American media resolutely ignore anything that doesn't
>have an American angle. Before the U.S. bombed Gaddafi, for example,
>the French had a small army in Chad (was it Chad? oh God I can't
>remember) that whupped Gaddafi's invasion.
>
>
>
>
>
You are right...It was Chad, and there always French military people there..

>>
>>
>> =20
>>
>
>I don't think that they'd have to be all that large, as the white flags =
and
>rose petals they'd be designed to dispense tend to not take up as much r=
oom
>as bombs.
>
>
> =20
>
Quel sac d'=E2neries issues des Foax News...

Henry J Cobb wrote:

> Actually the EU member states have carefully studied the relative effectiveness
> of the USN and USAF and most have concluded that the correct platforms for power
> projection in the future will be carriers and submarines. ;-)

Well, the Royal Navy attacked a target or three in Afghanistan by
submarine not so long back - and the battle damage assessment may have
been done by an old Canberra PR9.

DunxC wrote:

> And what heavy bombers does the RAF have exactly?

We still have one - and we used it across the Channel the other week.

Henry J Cobb wrote:
> David E. Powell wrote:
>> If the EU is looking for more reach without carriers, how about heavy
>> bombers? Certainly something on the order of B-1B as far as airframe
>> might be a goal, or something less radical. It depends on their
>> budget and requirements, I guess. From bases in Europe they could
>> cover much of Africa, the Middle East, etc.
>>
>> Of course if they wanted to go somewhere with fighters they might
>> need escort, etc.
>
> Actually the EU member states have carefully studied the relative
> effectiveness of the USN and USAF and most have concluded that the
> correct platforms for power projection in the future will be carriers
> and submarines. ;-)

....and in a typical EU way of thinking the French vetoed the subs, the Brits
vetoed the carriers and the whole thing went to a vote. The net result is
that a committee came up with the conclusion that combining both roles would
be best so we'll shortly be announcing carrier subs as the new EU
peacekeeping fleet, to be manned by the Austrian navy.
:)

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

In article >,
James Hart > wrote:
>peacekeeping fleet, to be manned by the Austrian navy.

Glad to see the quality of (probably) the second-best navy of the first
half of the last century recognised. The Austrian navy in Big Mistake
One were /bloody/ good. They saw the back of the RN in a serious
amd fairly equal cruiser action, which IIRC no-one else managed for
100-odd years before (and never since).
Also the first navy to use organic ASW air for convoy escort (1915,
I believe). The Austrian navy was a serious force. Just be glad the
german navy never matched its quality.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 01:44:07 GMT, David E. Powell > wrote:
>If the EU is looking for more reach without carriers, how about heavy
>bombers? Certainly something on the order of B-1B as far as airframe might
>be a goal, or something less radical. It depends on their budget and
>requirements, I guess. From bases in Europe they could cover much of Africa,
>the Middle East, etc.

A Tornado, Typhoon or Rafale with droptanks and Storm Shadow
missiles could probably reach quite far.

--
"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 Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:01:59 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

>"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
>> 1. The USA will protect them. They claim they don't like that, but it
>> speaks volumes that they have all (except for the UK) let their military
>> budgets and capabilities decline to ludicrous levels.
>
>Actually, that also applies for the UK. It is accepted as a part
>of UK policy that the Royal Navy will not (be able to) operate
>without US support; hence the willingness to withdraw the Sea
>Harrier from the fleet and do without air cover -- at least until
>new 'big' carriers are declared operational, some considerable
>distance in the future.
>
>But it isn't quite true that the EU is without carriers. France
>is committed to keep conventional carriers in service, and
>besides the UK, Spain and Italy operate small STOVL carriers.
>
>As for the US moaning about the inability of European nations
>to defend themselves, every time the EU does try to do something
>about it the USA declares that this is a threat to NATO (read to
>unchallenged US supremacy) and should be stopped. No politician
>ever died of hypocrisy...
>
>> 2. Even if they had them, they'd never use them.
>
>What use would they be, anyway? These days heavy bombers
>appear to be used mostly for tactical air support, which
>suggests that they are a comparative luxury. Almost everything
>else has a higher priority: Modern fighters and strike aircraft,
>reconnaissance platforms, strategic transport aircraft, tactical
>transport and attack helicopters, ...

Interesting comment, since the EU does not have "modern fighters" or
strike aircraft. They also have no organic strategic transport aircraft and
no usable attack helos. Of course the UK has some Apaches, and
may get some C-17's.

Al Minyard

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:05:18 -0500, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>Interesting comment, since the EU does not have "modern fighters" or
>strike aircraft.

Then neither does the US since there are large numbers of F-16s in the
EU, which after the MLU program are comparable to Block 50.
Some might think the Tornados are relatively capable strike aircraft
as well, espcecially the GR.4 that the RAF has been using in anger.

>They also have no organic strategic transport aircraft and
>no usable attack helos. Of course the UK has some Apaches, and
>may get some C-17's.

So the Dutch Apaches (D model IIRC but without the radar) that have
been deployed in the Balkans don't count, nor do the Italian
Mangustas, nor do the C-17s that the UK already has? And strategic
lift in general is recognised as a weakness, hence the A-400 orders.

Peter Kemp

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >I never said they did, only that the UK has a military that actually
works.
>
> To be entirely fair, so does France.

They do? When did they last actually DO anything with it?

> France has done especially well in African messes.

So has Belgium. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

> Before the U.S. bombed Gaddafi, for example,
> the French had a small army in Chad (was it Chad? oh God I can't
> remember) that whupped Gaddafi's invasion.

Yes, and as I recall, the US had a large hand in getting the French there
and then supporting them.

"Peter Kemp" > wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:05:18 -0500, Alan Minyard
> > wrote:

> So the Dutch Apaches (D model IIRC but without the radar) that have
> been deployed in the Balkans don't count, nor do the Italian
> Mangustas, nor do the C-17s that the UK already has? And strategic
> lift in general is recognised as a weakness, hence the A-400 orders.

Well if "strategic lift in general is recognised as a weakness" most of
Europe would appear to be wasting their money on A-400 purchases.

"Ragnar" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> >
> > >I never said they did, only that the UK has a military that actually
> works.
> >
> > To be entirely fair, so does France.
> They do? When did they last actually DO anything with it?


What about using your Internet access to get one or two clues about how the
world *actually* goes and went during those last 20 years?

> > France has done especially well in African messes.
> So has Belgium. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.


So hasn't the United States in Somalia.


> > Before the U.S. bombed Gaddafi, for example,
> > the French had a small army in Chad (was it Chad? oh God I can't
> > remember) that whupped Gaddafi's invasion.
>
> Yes, and as I recall, the US had a large hand in getting the French there
> and then supporting them.


A "large hand"? Would you care to develop? Or is it just another outward
sign of your "nothing-happens-on-this-earth-without-us" syndrom?


ArVa

In message >, ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
> writes
>In article >,
>James Hart > wrote:
>>peacekeeping fleet, to be manned by the Austrian navy.
>
>Glad to see the quality of (probably) the second-best navy of the first
>half of the last century recognised. The Austrian navy in Big Mistake
>One were /bloody/ good. They saw the back of the RN in a serious
>amd fairly equal cruiser action, which IIRC no-one else managed for
>100-odd years before (and never since).
>Also the first navy to use organic ASW air for convoy escort (1915,
>I believe). The Austrian navy was a serious force. Just be glad the
>german navy never matched its quality.

Delete 'Austrian', Insert 'Swiss'?

Mike.
--
M.J.Powell

>From: Robert Briggs
>Date: 6/21/2004 12:43 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>DunxC wrote:
>
>> And what heavy bombers does the RAF have exactly?
>
>We still have one - and we used it across the Channel the other week.

True, but spare parts for Lancs are getting kind of scarce.

Dan, U.S.Air Force, retired

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>Interesting comment, since the EU does not have "modern fighters"

Eurofighter? Rafale? Gripen?

>or
>strike aircraft.

Tornado GR.4? Harrier GR.9?

>They also have no organic strategic transport aircraft

We're assured that the A400M will be wonderful.

>and
>no usable attack helos.

Lynx AH.7? Tiger? Mangusta?

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> In message >, Alan Minyard
> > writes

<...>

> >They also have no organic strategic transport aircraft
>
> We're assured that the A400M will be wonderful.

It might have had a chance if France and Germany had never entered the
program.

In article >,
(DunxC) wrote:

> >They claim they don't like that, but it
> >speaks volumes that they have all (except for the UK) let their military
> >budgets and capabilities decline to ludicrous levels.
>
> And what heavy bombers does the RAF have exactly?

He didn't say they had any.

Just that everyone, except for the UK, have let their militaries decline
badly.

In article >,
"James Hart" > wrote:

> Henry J Cobb wrote:
> > David E. Powell wrote:
> >> If the EU is looking for more reach without carriers, how about heavy
> >> bombers? Certainly something on the order of B-1B as far as airframe
> >> might be a goal, or something less radical. It depends on their
> >> budget and requirements, I guess. From bases in Europe they could
> >> cover much of Africa, the Middle East, etc.
> >>
> >> Of course if they wanted to go somewhere with fighters they might
> >> need escort, etc.
> >
> > Actually the EU member states have carefully studied the relative
> > effectiveness of the USN and USAF and most have concluded that the
> > correct platforms for power projection in the future will be carriers
> > and submarines. ;-)
>
> ...and in a typical EU way of thinking the French vetoed the subs, the Brits
> vetoed the carriers and the whole thing went to a vote. The net result is
> that a committee came up with the conclusion that combining both roles would
> be best so we'll shortly be announcing carrier subs as the new EU
> peacekeeping fleet, to be manned by the Austrian navy.
> :)

Are they going to name it the "von Trapp"?

"ArVa" <no.arva.spam_at_no_os.fr> wrote in message
...
> "Ragnar" > a écrit dans le message de
> ...
> >
> > "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > >I never said they did, only that the UK has a military that actually
> > works.
> > >
> > > To be entirely fair, so does France.
> > They do? When did they last actually DO anything with it?
>
>
> What about using your Internet access to get one or two clues about how
the
> world *actually* goes and went during those last 20 years?

What about providing some relevant cites?

>
> > > France has done especially well in African messes.
> > So has Belgium. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
>
>
> So hasn't the United States in Somalia.
>
>
> > > Before the U.S. bombed Gaddafi, for example,
> > > the French had a small army in Chad (was it Chad? oh God I can't
> > > remember) that whupped Gaddafi's invasion.
> >
> > Yes, and as I recall, the US had a large hand in getting the French
there
> > and then supporting them.
>
>
> A "large hand"? Would you care to develop? Or is it just another outward
> sign of your "nothing-happens-on-this-earth-without-us" syndrom?

Well, lets see. France had no strategic airlift, so the US stepped in to
get trrops and equipment into country. France couldn't support themselves
once deployed, so the US stepped in again.

In article >,
Steve Hix > writes:
> In article >,
> "James Hart" > wrote:

> Are they going to name it the "von Trapp"?

THat wouldn't be unreasonable - George von Trapp was one the early
submarine test pilots, and had a very successful record in WW 1,
inlcluding sinking the Italian Protected Cruiser Leon Gambretta in the
first night attack by a submarine, and sinking an Italian sup iv one
of the first sub-sub torpedo duels. The Austro-Hungarian submarine
force was probably the best of that war. They acheived an overall hit
rate of 90% of torpedos fired.

His first wife, the mother of most of the kids, was the
Granddaughter of Robert Whitehead, the inventer of the self-propelled
("Automobile" back then) torpedo.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Alan Minyard
> > writes
> >Interesting comment, since the EU does not have "modern fighters"
>
> Eurofighter? Rafale? Gripen?

How many of them are actually in service? Hmmm....

Nobody ever said that Europe couldn't design or build modern fighters, but
that they simply choose not to because it's easier to let the USA fight all
their wars for them, then complain about American 'imperialism'. They have
it both ways.

>
> >or
> >strike aircraft.
>
> Tornado GR.4? Harrier GR.9?

How many? Last I heard, both of those aircraft were on their way out in the
near future.

>
> >They also have no organic strategic transport aircraft
>
> We're assured that the A400M will be wonderful.

If they decide to buy and field more than three.

>
> >and
> >no usable attack helos.
>
> Lynx AH.7? Tiger? Mangusta?

Hardly up to Apache standards.

In message >, Thomas J.
Paladino Jr. > writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> Eurofighter? Rafale? Gripen?
>
>How many of them are actually in service? Hmmm....

More than there are F-22s or JSFs :)

>> Tornado GR.4? Harrier GR.9?
>
>How many?

Eighty-four Tornado GR.4s in seven frontline squadrons, plus forty-two
Harriers in three squadrons (plus OCU aircraft and a few others)

>Last I heard, both of those aircraft were on their way out in the
>near future.

Harrier's good for another ten years, the Tonka until 2020 or so.

>> Lynx AH.7? Tiger? Mangusta?
>
>Hardly up to Apache standards.

Lynx did a very good job in Telic, despite being charitably described as
'austere'.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Steve Hix wrote:
> DunxC wrote:

> > And what heavy bombers does the RAF have exactly?
>
> He didn't say they had any.
>
> Just that everyone, except for the UK, have let their militaries
> decline badly.

And we haven't?

I (dimly) remember the days when the Royal Navy could have taken several
fixed-wing types to the Falklands.

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > writes:
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In message >, Alan Minyard
> > > writes
> > >Interesting comment, since the EU does not have "modern fighters"
> >
> > Eurofighter? Rafale? Gripen?
>
> How many of them are actually in service?

Gripen: about 140 in the Swedish air force so far.
Rafale: one squadron?
Eurofighter: (cough)

/Tomas

In message >, Tomas By
> writes
>"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > writes:
>> How many of them are actually in service?
>
>Gripen: about 140 in the Swedish air force so far.
>Rafale: one squadron?
>Eurofighter: (cough)

First examples are with the Operational Conversion Unit, but not many of
them yet.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Ragnar" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>
> > What about using your Internet access to get one or two clues about how
> the
> > world *actually* goes and went during those last 20 years?
>
> What about providing some relevant cites?


Like I said : search, read, like everybody (should) do. And if possible
widen your search to not only the last 20 years but the last 2000 years, you
might learn one or two things...


> > > > Before the U.S. bombed Gaddafi, for example,
> > > > the French had a small army in Chad (was it Chad? oh God I can't
> > > > remember) that whupped Gaddafi's invasion.
> > >
> > > Yes, and as I recall, the US had a large hand in getting the French
> there
> > > and then supporting them.
> >
> >
> > A "large hand"? Would you care to develop? Or is it just another outward
> > sign of your "nothing-happens-on-this-earth-without-us" syndrom?
>
> Well, lets see. France had no strategic airlift, so the US stepped in to
> get trrops and equipment into country. France couldn't support themselves
> once deployed, so the US stepped in again.
>


This is a strange intellectual process, indeed. You have obviously no idea
of what you're talking about yet you imagine things the way they *should* be
according to *your* incomplete and innacurate vision of the world. Ever
heard about the word "fact"?

About Chad, know that in 1983 France declined the logistical help of the US
administration which was really eager to see the French troops go farther up
north, attack Libya itself and possibly oust the then-embarassing Gaddafi,
when France's goal was only to protect the northern boundaries of Chad. As
for why we did it, make your own search.

The strategic airlift has been accomplished by French Air Force Transalls
and now-disappeared civilian carrier UTA's planes. No MAC involved. The US
has provided satellite pictures of the area though, France having no space
capabilities in the eraly 80's.

ArVa

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:33:45 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
> wrote:

>
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> In message >, Alan Minyard
>> > writes
>> >Interesting comment, since the EU does not have "modern fighters"
>>
>> Eurofighter? Rafale? Gripen?
>
>How many of them are actually in service? Hmmm....

Several squadrons of Gripens, one squadron of Rafale IIRC(certainly
they have done a dpeloyment on CdG), and Typhoon is still some way
from squadron service. Otherwise for "modern" we have to rely on F-16
MLU which there are dozens of in Europe and oh look are roughly
equivalent to a Block 50 F-16C which is the most modern in the USAF.

>> Tornado GR.4? Harrier GR.9?
>
>How many? Last I heard, both of those aircraft were on their way out in the
>near future.

You heard wrong - GR.9 is to be replaced by F-35 sometime next decade
(first deliveries were to be in 2010, but that has slipped IIRC), and
Tornado will be around even longer before being replaced by FOAS.

>> >They also have no organic strategic transport aircraft
>>
>> We're assured that the A400M will be wonderful.
>
>If they decide to buy and field more than three.

Current orders stand at 180 aircraft - IIRC that is slightly more than
3.

>> >and
>> >no usable attack helos.
>>
>> Lynx AH.7? Tiger? Mangusta?
>
>Hardly up to Apache standards.

But the Dutch have apaches (AH-64D no less), so I guess they're good
enough for your standards?

Any more sniping uninformed comments?

Peter Kemp

"ArVa" <no.arva.spam_at_no_os.fr> wrote in message
...
> "Ragnar" > a écrit dans le message de
> ...
> >
> > > What about using your Internet access to get one or two clues about
how
> > the
> > > world *actually* goes and went during those last 20 years?
> >
> > What about providing some relevant cites?
>
>
> Like I said : search, read, like everybody (should) do. And if possible
> widen your search to not only the last 20 years but the last 2000 years,
you
> might learn one or two things...
>
>
> > > > > Before the U.S. bombed Gaddafi, for example,
> > > > > the French had a small army in Chad (was it Chad? oh God I can't
> > > > > remember) that whupped Gaddafi's invasion.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and as I recall, the US had a large hand in getting the French
> > there
> > > > and then supporting them.
> > >
> > >
> > > A "large hand"? Would you care to develop? Or is it just another
outward
> > > sign of your "nothing-happens-on-this-earth-without-us" syndrom?
> >
> > Well, lets see. France had no strategic airlift, so the US stepped in
to
> > get trrops and equipment into country. France couldn't support
themselves
> > once deployed, so the US stepped in again.
> >
>
>
> This is a strange intellectual process, indeed. You have obviously no idea
> of what you're talking about yet you imagine things the way they *should*
be
> according to *your* incomplete and innacurate vision of the world. Ever
> heard about the word "fact"?
>
> About Chad, know that in 1983 France declined the logistical help of the
US
> administration which was really eager to see the French troops go farther
up
> north, attack Libya itself and possibly oust the then-embarassing Gaddafi,
> when France's goal was only to protect the northern boundaries of Chad. As
> for why we did it, make your own search.
>
> The strategic airlift has been accomplished by French Air Force Transalls
> and now-disappeared civilian carrier UTA's planes. No MAC involved. The US
> has provided satellite pictures of the area though, France having no space
> capabilities in the eraly 80's.

Gee, I worked at MAC HQ from 86 to 92 and we had lots of C-141s going to
Chad in 86-87. Seems the French needed help . . . . again.

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:12:55 -0400, Peter Kemp > wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:05:18 -0500, Alan Minyard
> wrote:
>
>>Interesting comment, since the EU does not have "modern fighters" or
>>strike aircraft.
>
>Then neither does the US since there are large numbers of F-16s in the
>EU, which after the MLU program are comparable to Block 50.

I was speaking of EU produced a/c, sorry if that was not clear.

>Some might think the Tornados are relatively capable strike aircraft
>as well, espcecially the GR.4 that the RAF has been using in anger.
>
>>They also have no organic strategic transport aircraft and
>>no usable attack helos. Of course the UK has some Apaches, and
>>may get some C-17's.
>
>So the Dutch Apaches (D model IIRC but without the radar) that have
>been deployed in the Balkans don't count, nor do the Italian
>Mangustas,

Striped down Apaches are not all that bad, as I said I was referring
to "organic" assets

>nor do the C-17s that the UK already has?

I was not aware that deliveries had already started.

>And strategic
>lift in general is recognised as a weakness, hence the A-400 orders.

The A-400 is not a capable strategic lifter, IMHO.

Al Minyard

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:10:25 +0100, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>Interesting comment, since the EU does not have "modern fighters"
>
>Eurofighter? Rafale? Gripen?

Not capable, modern a/c
>
>>or
>>strike aircraft.
>
>Tornado GR.4? Harrier GR.9?

Harrier is not a capable strike a/c, although it has been used
as such on occasion. The Tornado is OK if you have air supremacy.
>
>>They also have no organic strategic transport aircraft
>
>We're assured that the A400M will be wonderful.

Good luck.
>
>>and
>>no usable attack helos.
>
>Lynx AH.7? Tiger? Mangusta?

Not in the same league as Apache, etc.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard > writes:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:10:25 +0100, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
> >In message >, Alan Minyard
> > writes
> >>Interesting comment, since the EU does not have "modern fighters"
> >
> >Eurofighter? Rafale? Gripen?
>
> Not capable, modern a/c

Bit hard to deny that Gripen is (and has been since '97) the most
"modern" fighter in service.

As for "capable", on usenet, who knows.

/Tomas

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:10:25 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>Eurofighter? Rafale? Gripen?
>
>Not capable, modern a/c

Based on what analysis?

>>Tornado GR.4? Harrier GR.9?
>
>Harrier is not a capable strike a/c,

The results tend to disprove this.

>although it has been used
>as such on occasion. The Tornado is OK if you have air supremacy.

And no slouch if you don't (when have US aircraft been so tested?)

>>Lynx AH.7? Tiger? Mangusta?
>
>Not in the same league as Apache, etc.

That's a sizeable "et cetera" - the Cobra's a good attack helo and
performed well in TELIC, but it's still a much-updated 1960s design.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Delete 'Austrian', Insert 'Swiss'?
>
> Mike.
Swiss are NOT part of EU (just surrounded by it!)

David

"Tomas By" > wrote in message
...
> Alan Minyard > writes:
> > On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:10:25 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
> >
> > >In message >, Alan Minyard
> > > writes
> > >>Interesting comment, since the EU does not have "modern fighters"
> > >
> > >Eurofighter? Rafale? Gripen?
> >
> > Not capable, modern a/c
>
> Bit hard to deny that Gripen is (and has been since '97) the most
> "modern" fighter in service.
>
> As for "capable", on usenet, who knows.

And more importantly, how many Gripens can the EU (as a body) commit to
action anywhere in the world? None. Nada. Zilch. Its rapid reaction force,
which we heard so much about when it was first conceived, but much less
about as time pointed to the lack of practical requirements for its
formation, much less the laughable thought that the EU could ever be
coersced or encouraged to really coalesce around the thought of actually
deploying that paper dragon, is more aptly described as a "rapid reaction
farce". The inability of the EU to reach a single acceptable course of
action regarding Iraq a year or so ago points to the fact that the body is
"not ready for prime time" when it comes to foreign policy; too many of the
member nations seem to consider their *own* dealings with that body as being
an element of *foreign* policy!

Brooks

>
> /Tomas

Alan Minyard wrote:

> Harrier is not a capable strike a/c, although it has been used
> as such on occasion. The Tornado is OK if you have air supremacy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

With that qualification, you could deliver some mean munitions with an
old Vickers Vimy.

:-)

"Ragnar" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>
>
> Gee, I worked at MAC HQ from 86 to 92 and we had lots of C-141s going to
> Chad in 86-87. Seems the French needed help . . . . again.


Well, it's not very suprising that MAC planes were sent over there, given
the fact that US military advisors were present in Chad since the beginning
of the 80's, the US and France being the two only nations militarily helping
the Chadian government.

See : http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-2376.html

It's not the French you were supporting, it was the Chadians.

See also :
http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-2377.html
and
http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-2378.html


I'm not denying the role the United States played in Chad, nor saying that
they didn't help the French in probably more ways than officialy stated but
your initial statements ("large hand in getting the French in Chad", "large
hand in supporting them", "the US stepped in to get troops there", "France
couldn't support themselves once deployed", etc...) are just false.
Pdt Mitterrand had good relationships with the different US administrations
he had to deal with (by today's standard, I guess they were even excellent)
but he was also quite aware of the many subtle, diplomatic, attempts on the
part of the US to increase their influence in Africa and diminish France's
one. Wether it complies or not with your biased view of facts, he clearly
refused the US direct help in 1983.
Note also that neither operation Manta neither operation Epervier were
gigantic deployments and while revealing the limits of the French forces
projection means, it was not beyonf their capabilities.

Nowadays, when French troops are deployed, be it in Africa or somewhere
else, they use more civilian An124s than AMC C-5s.


ArVa

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Thomas J.
> Paladino Jr. > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Eurofighter? Rafale? Gripen?
> >
> >How many of them are actually in service? Hmmm....
>
> More than there are F-22s or JSFs :)
>
> >> Tornado GR.4? Harrier GR.9?
> >
> >How many?
>
> Eighty-four Tornado GR.4s in seven frontline squadrons, plus forty-two


Where did you get these figures from if you don't mind me asking? I was
pretty sure that 140 had went through the GR4 MLU hangars?

In message >, Ian
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> Eighty-four Tornado GR.4s in seven frontline squadrons, plus forty-two
>
>Where did you get these figures from if you don't mind me asking? I was
>pretty sure that 140 had went through the GR4 MLU hangars?

http://www.raf.mod.uk/

There may be more in attrition reserve and otherwise off the books, but
that's the cited operational strength.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

>From: "ArVa" no.arva.spam_at_no_os.fr
>

>The strategic airlift has been accomplished by French Air Force Transalls
>
>ArVa

Transalls are strategic airlift? Tactical perhaps?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Kevin Brooks" > writes:
> And more importantly, how many Gripens can the EU (as a body) commit to
> action anywhere in the world?

Actually...

There is now something called the `Swedish Air Force Rapid Reaction
Unit JAS 39'

http://www.f17.mil.se/article.php?id=7841

(The page seems not to be available in English unfortunately)

/Tomas

Tomas By <tomas NO @ SPAM basun THANK . YOU net> writes:
> There is now something called the `Swedish Air Force Rapid Reaction
> Unit JAS 39'

and it seems to be eight aircraft, operating up to 4000kms from
Brussels, for up to six months.

/Tomas

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:06:51 +0100, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:10:25 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>>Eurofighter? Rafale? Gripen?
>>
>>Not capable, modern a/c
>
>Based on what analysis?
>
>>>Tornado GR.4? Harrier GR.9?
>>
>>Harrier is not a capable strike a/c,
>
>The results tend to disprove this.

Not really, it has been used effectively in the CAS role, but not as a
true "strike fighter" such as the F-15E. And yes, this includes the MD
AV-8B.
>
>>although it has been used
>>as such on occasion. The Tornado is OK if you have air supremacy.
>
>And no slouch if you don't (when have US aircraft been so tested?)

Well, we tend to have "air superiority".
>
>>>Lynx AH.7? Tiger? Mangusta?
>>
>>Not in the same league as Apache, etc.
>
>That's a sizeable "et cetera" - the Cobra's a good attack helo and
>performed well in TELIC, but it's still a much-updated 1960s design.

True.

Al Minyard

On 24 Jun 2004 12:17:05 +0200, Tomas By <tomas NO @ SPAM basun THANK . YOU net> wrote:

>"Kevin Brooks" > writes:
>> And more importantly, how many Gripens can the EU (as a body) commit to
>> action anywhere in the world?
>
>Actually...
>
>There is now something called the `Swedish Air Force Rapid Reaction
>Unit JAS 39'
>
> http://www.f17.mil.se/article.php?id=7841
>
>(The page seems not to be available in English unfortunately)
>
>/Tomas

And just exactly how would these aircraft deploy to, say S Korea?? No tankers,etc
limits them to local use.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard > writes:
> And just exactly how would these aircraft deploy to, say S Korea?? No tankers,etc
> limits them to local use.

Well I am not an expert on these things but can't you stop somewhere
on the way and refuel? Or maybe that is too pedestrian.

Several EU countries have tankers, I believe. (But I guess those are
all US made aircraft. We'll have to wait for that new super Airbus.)

/Tomas

B2431 wrote:
> ArVa wrote:

> > The strategic airlift has been accomplished by French Air Force Transalls

> Transalls are strategic airlift? Tactical perhaps?

Are you saying that a C-160 can't handle a supply of bleached linen?

<GD&R>

Tomas By wrote:

> Several EU countries have tankers, I believe. (But I guess those are
> all US made aircraft. We'll have to wait for that new super Airbus.)

Er, since when has the VC10 been a Yankish aeroplane?

(Or the Victor which we used to use?)

I M B E C I L E

>From: Robert Briggs
>Date: 6/24/2004 1:18 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>B2431 wrote:
>> ArVa wrote:
>
>> > The strategic airlift has been accomplished by French Air Force Transalls
>
>> Transalls are strategic airlift? Tactical perhaps?
>
>Are you saying that a C-160 can't handle a supply of bleached linen?
>
><GD&R>

That's textile airlift.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:06:51 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>The results tend to disprove this.
>
>Not really, it has been used effectively in the CAS role, but not as a
>true "strike fighter" such as the F-15E.

Harrier GR.7 was chosen over Tornado GR.1 for strike work in Allied
Force. (Harder choice between Harrier GR.9 and Tornado GR.4 - but in
1998 the Harrier was more survivable, just as accurate, and in range)

>>And no slouch if you don't (when have US aircraft been so tested?)
>
>Well, we tend to have "air superiority".

Sure, but then the Tornado was designed to fight from Day One when
control of the air was disputed, and it can do so. (The F-15E has a
great many many strengths, but with that large wing it's not really a
low-level penetrator except in emergencies: not if you want the crews to
keep their eyeballs in their heads)

The Tornado can also fight very effectively when our side owns, or at
least leases, the skies - and has done so.

>>That's a sizeable "et cetera" - the Cobra's a good attack helo and
>>performed well in TELIC, but it's still a much-updated 1960s design.
>
>True.

Doesn't detract from its performance either.

For that matter, the Al Fao operations were supposed to be heavily
supported from the air, but due to 'changed priorities' the only air
support provided was Lynx AH.7s, which did yeoman work without loss.
Similarly, while the Apaches had some problems - doctrine and tactics
rather than airframe AFAIK - the Cobras demonstrated the old DBF motto,
that 'age and treachery will always triumph over youth and vigour'.

Luck, crew training, tactics and blind chance all play parts in


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

encore un autre I M B E C I L E

Robert Briggs > wrote in message >...
> B2431 wrote:
> > ArVa wrote:
>
> > > The strategic airlift has been accomplished by French Air Force Transalls
>
> > Transalls are strategic airlift? Tactical perhaps?
>
> Are you saying that a C-160 can't handle a supply of bleached linen?
>
> <GD&R>


Yes, always use as pale as possible fabrics for tents to ensure a good
protection from the sun of the African deserts.
But maybe you were thinking about something else?... Well,
nevermind...

ArVa

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: "ArVa" no.arva.spam_at_no_os.fr
> >
>
> >The strategic airlift has been accomplished by French Air Force Transalls
> >
> >ArVa
>
> Transalls are strategic airlift? Tactical perhaps?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


One size fits all.

ArVa

Robert Briggs > writes:

> Tomas By wrote:
>
> > Several EU countries have tankers, I believe. (But I guess those are
> > all US made aircraft. We'll have to wait for that new super Airbus.)
>
> Er, since when has the VC10 been a Yankish aeroplane?
>
> (Or the Victor which we used to use?)

OK, sorry!

/Tomas

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:22:11 +0100, Robert Briggs > wrote:

>Tomas By wrote:
>
>> Several EU countries have tankers, I believe. (But I guess those are
>> all US made aircraft. We'll have to wait for that new super Airbus.)
>
>Er, since when has the VC10 been a Yankish aeroplane?
>
>(Or the Victor which we used to use?)

Is there a system in place where by they can refuel JAS 39s?
I don't recall ever seeing a probe on a SAAB and I thought
probe and drogue was the "Brit method".

Al Minyard

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:22:11 +0100, Robert Briggs
> wrote:
>>Er, since when has the VC10 been a Yankish aeroplane?
>>
>>(Or the Victor which we used to use?)
>
>Is there a system in place where by they can refuel JAS 39s?
>I don't recall ever seeing a probe on a SAAB and I thought
>probe and drogue was the "Brit method".

The Gripen has a retractable probe above the port engine inlet.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

>From: Alan Minyard
>Date: 6/25/2004 1:00 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:22:11 +0100, Robert Briggs
> wrote:
>
>>Tomas By wrote:
>>
>>> Several EU countries have tankers, I believe. (But I guess those are
>>> all US made aircraft. We'll have to wait for that new super Airbus.)
>>
>>Er, since when has the VC10 been a Yankish aeroplane?
>>
>>(Or the Victor which we used to use?)
>
>Is there a system in place where by they can refuel JAS 39s?
>I don't recall ever seeing a probe on a SAAB and I thought
>probe and drogue was the "Brit method".
>
>Al Minyard

U.S. Navy uses it too as did some U.S.A.F. aircraft.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

>Sure, but then the Tornado was designed to fight from Day One when
>control of the air was disputed, and it can do so. (The F-15E has a
>great many many strengths, but with that large wing it's not really a
>low-level penetrator except in emergencies: not if you want the crews to
>keep their eyeballs in their heads)

When carrying a typical warload for deep interdiction, doesn't
the increased wing loading cure the rough ride ? Not that the ride
home wouldn't be pretty bumpy...

I have to wonder why designers haven't adopted the SMCS
compensating canards from the B-1 program. Perhaps it is because "down
in the weeds" doctrine changed so much during Desert Storm. I get
goosebumps thinking about the Tornado crews with that Hunting runway
denial weapon - what a nasty job.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"James Hart" wrote:

>we'll shortly be announcing carrier subs as the new EU
>peacekeeping fleet, to be manned by the Austrian navy.

Excellent. They can be armed with Darkness Guided Bombs.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In message >, John S. Shinal
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>>Sure, but then the Tornado was designed to fight from Day One when
>>control of the air was disputed, and it can do so. (The F-15E has a
>>great many many strengths, but with that large wing it's not really a
>>low-level penetrator except in emergencies: not if you want the crews to
>>keep their eyeballs in their heads)
>
> When carrying a typical warload for deep interdiction, doesn't
>the increased wing loading cure the rough ride ?

Still a rougher ride than a F-111 or Tornado or other airframe designed
for the job. (The F-15 is a superb airframe for both air superiority and
mid-level strike, but designed as a low-level penetrator it is not)

> I have to wonder why designers haven't adopted the SMCS
>compensating canards from the B-1 program. Perhaps it is because "down
>in the weeds" doctrine changed so much during Desert Storm.

We became more confident in our ability to suppress radar-guided SAMs
and fighters, and realised how intractable the small-arms, light AAA and
MANPAD threat was.

>I get
>goosebumps thinking about the Tornado crews with that Hunting runway
>denial weapon - what a nasty job.

Only one loss in more than fifty sorties (most of the Tornado losses
were throwing iron bombs rather than JP233) but it's still a job for
brave men.

Teamwork all around, though. I had an argument with a F-117 pilot some
years ago when I said Iraqi AAA was ineffective: he took exception to
that, because he was inside its lethal range and those tracers looked
awfully bright zipping by, and one hit could have ruined the rest of his
life. But I consider I was right, because scared or not he pressed on,
hit his targets, and all that ammunition fired into the sky availed the
Iraqis nothing. The point of the air defences is to prevent the enemy
hitting your valuable targets: if they succeed, you fail, even if the
pilot needed help to get the seat cushion out from between his buttocks
after the mission. Scaring him enough that he misses or aborts, is a
win: scaring him while he hits, is a loss.


Indeed, one reason I give high marks indeed to F-117 pilots on Day One
of Desert Storm is the sheer uncertainty of "does this Stealth crap
actually work?" Seeing streams of tracer and clouds of barrage fire
burst around them, is bad enough: but the gut-wrenching anticipation of
wondering at what point those streams of fire will begin to converge on
your aircraft because you're less invisible than the contractors hoped,
must have been hard to bear indeed.

There were many brave deeds done in that conflict: some we know about,
some we don't.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam wrote:
> In message >, Alan Minyard
> > writes
>> Is there a system in place where by they can refuel JAS 39s?
>> I don't recall ever seeing a probe on a SAAB and I thought
>> probe and drogue was the "Brit method".
>
> The Gripen has a retractable probe above the port engine inlet.

Some Gripens do, most don't. The probe was introduced in Block 3 and export
models. Right now, Batch 1 and 2 covers the majority of Gripens built.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...

> I don't recall ever seeing a probe on a SAAB and I thought
> probe and drogue was the "Brit method".


AIUI, everyone but the USAF uses probe-and-drogue (USN, NATO countries
other than USAF, people who buy their jets, etc.). Buddy refueling is
a tremendous advantage for people operating tactical jets, and so they
use probe-and-drogue. The USAF, though, needed (and still needs) much
higher flow rates to keep their enormous aircraft in the sky. For
uniformity, the USAF went to booms for all of their aircraft, even for
the tactical jets that don't need those flow rates.

The Soviets worked out some crazy-fool system involving passing the
fuel from wing-tip to wing-tip for their big thirsty jets, I seem to
recall. Though I'm not sure what Backfire and Blackjack used, the wing
system was for the Badger, I do believe.

No guarentee's on this info; it's based on memory of an article I read
several years ago.

Chris Manteuffel

In article >,
(Chris Manteuffel) writes:
> Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
>
>> I don't recall ever seeing a probe on a SAAB and I thought
>> probe and drogue was the "Brit method".
>
>
> AIUI, everyone but the USAF uses probe-and-drogue (USN, NATO countries
> other than USAF, people who buy their jets, etc.). Buddy refueling is
> a tremendous advantage for people operating tactical jets, and so they
> use probe-and-drogue. The USAF, though, needed (and still needs) much
> higher flow rates to keep their enormous aircraft in the sky. For
> uniformity, the USAF went to booms for all of their aircraft, even for
> the tactical jets that don't need those flow rates.

Not quite true - the Spanish used boom-equipped KC-97s to refuel their
F-4s, right off the top of my head. I'll have to dig my copy of teh
NATO Air Refuelling Guidebook to give you more current answers.

Buddy refuelling doesn't buy you much, in terms of fuel transfer, and
cuts the number of bomb-carriers in half. It's worth noting that the
French Force de Frappe originally intended to buddy-refuel their
Mirage IVs, but abandoned that concept adn went with KC-135s, albeit
with the Drogue Adapter.
>
> The Soviets worked out some crazy-fool system involving passing the
> fuel from wing-tip to wing-tip for their big thirsty jets, I seem to
> recall. Though I'm not sure what Backfire and Blackjack used, the wing
> system was for the Badger, I do believe.

The Tu-16 Bombers & Tankers used the wingtip-wingtip method. (I'd
hate to see what a hookup looked like - the Tanker ends up as the aft
plane in the formation). The Tu-95, M-4, and various Backfires used a
fairly standard-type Probe & Drogue.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Chris Manteuffel" > wrote in message
om...
> Alan Minyard > wrote in message
>...
>
> > I don't recall ever seeing a probe on a SAAB and I thought
> > probe and drogue was the "Brit method".
>
>
> AIUI, everyone but the USAF uses probe-and-drogue (USN, NATO countries
> other than USAF, people who buy their jets, etc.). Buddy refueling is
> a tremendous advantage for people operating tactical jets, and so they
> use probe-and-drogue. The USAF, though, needed (and still needs) much
> higher flow rates to keep their enormous aircraft in the sky. For
> uniformity, the USAF went to booms for all of their aircraft, even for
> the tactical jets that don't need those flow rates.

Not quite correct. Some other air forces also have boom tanking; IIRC the
Turks have some KC-135's to handle their own F-16's, as does Singapore, and
the Netherlands has their own DC-10 conversions with boom.

>
> The Soviets worked out some crazy-fool system involving passing the
> fuel from wing-tip to wing-tip for their big thirsty jets, I seem to
> recall. Though I'm not sure what Backfire and Blackjack used, the wing
> system was for the Badger, I do believe.

That system was actually first developed by either the US or Brits, from
what I recall, and quickly discarded in favor of the hose and drogue, and
then the boom in the case of the USAF.

Brooks

>
> No guarentee's on this info; it's based on memory of an article I read
> several years ago.
>
> Chris Manteuffel

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:17:00 +0100, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:22:11 +0100, Robert Briggs
> wrote:
>>>Er, since when has the VC10 been a Yankish aeroplane?
>>>
>>>(Or the Victor which we used to use?)
>>
>>Is there a system in place where by they can refuel JAS 39s?
>>I don't recall ever seeing a probe on a SAAB and I thought
>>probe and drogue was the "Brit method".
>
>The Gripen has a retractable probe above the port engine inlet.

Ahh, thanks. I have not seen any pictures of it extended.

Al Minyard

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 22:59:49 +0100, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>
>
>Indeed, one reason I give high marks indeed to F-117 pilots on Day One
>of Desert Storm is the sheer uncertainty of "does this Stealth crap
>actually work?" Seeing streams of tracer and clouds of barrage fire
>burst around them, is bad enough: but the gut-wrenching anticipation of
>wondering at what point those streams of fire will begin to converge on
>your aircraft because you're less invisible than the contractors hoped,
>must have been hard to bear indeed.
>
>There were many brave deeds done in that conflict: some we know about,
>some we don't.

And some that did not occur during the publicized dates for either Shield or Storm :-)

Al Minyard

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Alan Minyard
> > writes
> >On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:22:11 +0100, Robert Briggs
> > wrote:
> >>Er, since when has the VC10 been a Yankish aeroplane?
> >>
> >>(Or the Victor which we used to use?)
> >
> >Is there a system in place where by they can refuel JAS 39s?
> >I don't recall ever seeing a probe on a SAAB and I thought
> >probe and drogue was the "Brit method".
>
> The Gripen has a retractable probe above the port engine inlet.
>
> --
There used to be some pics of the trials on the BAe website, but they don't
appear to be there anymore.... Trials were done using RAF VC10 and Tristar
tankers a few years ago.

But if you go here:

http://www.gripen.com/4.17aece8f9e5eefe8b7fff2528.html

and select 2003 from the Photo CD dropdown category, the middle pic on sheet
1 shows a gripen approaching a VC10. Sheet two shows a ground static pic
with the probe deployed.

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

> In message >, John S. Shinal
> > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
> >>Sure, but then the Tornado was designed to fight from Day One when
> >>control of the air was disputed, and it can do so. (The F-15E has a
> >>great many many strengths, but with that large wing it's not really a
> >>low-level penetrator except in emergencies: not if you want the crews to
> >>keep their eyeballs in their heads)
> >
> > When carrying a typical warload for deep interdiction, doesn't
> >the increased wing loading cure the rough ride ?
>
> Still a rougher ride than a F-111 or Tornado or other airframe designed
> for the job. (The F-15 is a superb airframe for both air superiority and
> mid-level strike, but designed as a low-level penetrator it is not)

The F-15E's ride is rougher for two primary reasons, wing loading and aspect
ratio. Even at MTOW of 81,000 lb., the wing loading is only 133 lb./ sq. ft
(wing area is 608 sq. ft.). Aspect ratio of the F-15 is 3.01 (span is 42'
9.75": Aspect ratio is span^2 /area). By comparison, an F-111C at 110,000 lb.
has a wing loading of at least 200 lb./sq.ft. and an aspect ratio of 2.10. I
say "at least" because I only have handy the area for the wing when at minimum
sweep, 550 sq. ft. At max sweep (span 33' 11.5") some of the wing area will
be covered by the fairing. Tornado's wing loading is a bit higher (on
unverified MTOW and area I get 215 lb./sq.ft.) than the F-111, while its
aspect ratio at max. sweep is also a bit higher, about 2.78.

As the aspect ratio increases, small changes in wing angle of attack will
cause relatively larger changes in lift than is the case with a lower aspect
ratio wing. In bumpy air down low (caused by the wind flowing
around/over/through terrain, as well as differential heating of the ground),
every bump may cause a change in wing angle of attack and lift (and thus
instantaneous g loading, positive or negative), as the a/c is constantly going
up and down. These changes in lift will be greater on a higher aspect ratio
wing, causing the ride to be much bumpier than on a lower aspect ratio wing.
In addition, the a/c with the higher wingloading will need more of a bump to
affect it than is the case with a more lightly loaded wing - bumps that would
be throwing a Cessna all over the sky would probably be unnoticeable in a 747
(at the same speed).

Guy

"John S. Shinal" > wrote in message
...
> I get
> goosebumps thinking about the Tornado crews with that Hunting runway
> denial weapon - what a nasty job.
>
It always amuses me to see US objections to the Hunting JP233 airfield
attack weapon. It was originally a joint US/UK program but the US withdrew
beause they did not believe that it was practical to attach a Warsaw Pack
airfield that way. When their own stand off airfield attack weapon did not
materielise they bought the French Duardal (spelling in doubt!) which
required a direct flight over the runway - at a higher altititude that the
JP233! During the Gulf War the Tornado and JP233 was the only combination
used in the key role it was designed to do - keep the enemy airforce on the
ground for the key first 24 hours of the war.

David

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "David
Nicholls" confessed the following:


>During the Gulf War the Tornado and JP233 was the only combination
>used in the key role it was designed to do - keep the enemy airforce on the
>ground for the key first 24 hours of the war.

Interestingly enough, a co-worker flew F-16s in DS. His first combat
sortie was part of a daylight 16 ship that dropped Mk-84s (2000
pounders) in a 45 degree high dive profile on an Iraqi airfield. His
mission was on the first *day*

FWIW I have my "lady's aide" (weapons guide) close at hand and the
numbers look like...12k' release, airspeed limit 550 KIAS with two
bags of gas.

Robey

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Guy Alcala
confessed the following:


>The F-15E's ride is rougher for two primary reasons, wing loading and aspect
>ratio. ....
>In addition, the a/c with the higher wingloading will need more of a bump to
>affect it than is the case with a more lightly loaded wing - bumps that would
>be throwing a Cessna all over the sky would probably be unnoticeable in a 747
>(at the same speed).

IMO this is all "relative"...I remember Phantom and Aardvark guys
knowingly opining on the quality of the ride in an F-16. "Ah, those
guys in their toy jet will get the **** beat out of them down low."

Funny thing was the Viper was a sweet ride down low. On a hot, humid
day the Phantom's air conditioning was often suspect. Not so with the
F-16. Perhaps it was just me, but sweat pouring down my face (and into
my eyes) during a low level was routine in the Phantom, but usually in
the Viper it only happened pulling several (6+) Gs during BFM/ACM.

Robey