Re: Eurofighter is turning into German nightmare

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Michael Petukhov) wrote:

> http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/english/0,1518,265466,00.html
>
> "A Bottomless Pit"
>
> Armaments: The Eurofighter is turning into a nightmare. According to a
> report by the Federal Audit Office, the mega project will not only
> cost five billion euros more than planned - it also suffers from
> severe flaws.

<snip>

> But the first Eurofighters, which are now being delivered
> considerably behind schedule, are virtually useless.

But... but... people here keep telling me that the Eurofighter is really
inexpensive, nearly perfect, and everyone in Europe is going to buy them
all!

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[NEMO ME IMPUNE]

At least, and by chance not by France

[Ian Craig]

Only cos they did what they always do - join up, get the idea and then ****
of and make their own. Granted Rafale is in (limited) service, but its a
MMI nightmare!

"NEMO ME IMPUNE" > wrote in message
...
> At least, and by chance not by France
>
>

[ArVa]

"Ian Craig" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> Only cos they did what they always do - join up, get the idea and then
****
> of and make their own. Granted Rafale is in (limited) service, but its a
> MMI nightmare!
>
> "NEMO ME IMPUNE" > wrote in message
> ...
> > At least, and by chance not by France
> >
> >


Another gratuitous statement.... "Always"? What about the Concorde, the
Jaguar, the Alphajet, the Mig AT, the Tiger and the entire Eurocopter
line-up? What about Airbus? What about EADS? What about the ATR family? What
about SNECMA working with GE to produce the CFM-56, one of the most
successful family of jet engine ever? What about all these successful
partnerships and some I may have forgotten?...

See on http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/history.html the
reasons of France's withdrawal from the project : "The F/EFA project called
for a STOL (Short Take Off and Landing) twin engine air superiority fighter
optimised for Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat but retaining a ground attack
capability. France however wanted a small lightweight system which may
operate from its aircraft carriers. In addition they wanted a guaranteed 50%
workshare and overall control of the project, these were of course
unacceptable terms to Britain and Germany".

As for the Rafale being a man to machine interface (I hope I get it right)
nightmare, on which facts do you base your statement? It might be right
(though I have never heard nor read anything stating such a thing) but I'd
sure like to know your sources.

I've seen the Rafale prototype in flight at the 89 Paris air show, three
years after the program was officialy launched (and it had already flown
over 400 times), when all the EFA stand had to offer to visitors was posters
and stickers. Not so bad for a country on its own, isn'it?

The only actual part in your post is about the Rafale being in limited servi
ce, with about ten commissioned planes. In case you don't know, we don't
exactly have the US DoD budget. Why don't you send us $100 000 000 so that
we could quicker buy a couple more?

ArVa

[Ian Craig]

"ArVa" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ian Craig" > a écrit dans le message de
> ...
> > Only cos they did what they always do - join up, get the idea and then
> ****
> > of and make their own. Granted Rafale is in (limited) service, but its
a
> > MMI nightmare!
> >
> > "NEMO ME IMPUNE" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > At least, and by chance not by France
> > >
> > >
>
>
> Another gratuitous statement.... "Always"? What about the Concorde, the
> Jaguar, the Alphajet, the Mig AT, the Tiger and the entire Eurocopter
> line-up? What about Airbus? What about EADS? What about the ATR family?
What
> about SNECMA working with GE to produce the CFM-56, one of the most
> successful family of jet engine ever? What about all these successful
> partnerships and some I may have forgotten?...
>
You'd have got me if you hadn'#t mentioned Jaguar and Alphjet, and probably
MIG AT. They've not been that successful? The others have.

> See on http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/history.html the
> reasons of France's withdrawal from the project : "The F/EFA project
called
> for a STOL (Short Take Off and Landing) twin engine air superiority
fighter
> optimised for Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat but retaining a ground
attack
> capability. France however wanted a small lightweight system which may
> operate from its aircraft carriers. In addition they wanted a guaranteed
50%
> workshare and overall control of the project, these were of course
> unacceptable terms to Britain and Germany".
>
> As for the Rafale being a man to machine interface (I hope I get it right)
> nightmare, on which facts do you base your statement? It might be right
> (though I have never heard nor read anything stating such a thing) but I'd
> sure like to know your sources.
>
> I've seen the Rafale prototype in flight at the 89 Paris air show, three
> years after the program was officialy launched (and it had already flown
> over 400 times), when all the EFA stand had to offer to visitors was
posters
> and stickers. Not so bad for a country on its own, isn'it?
>
> The only actual part in your post is about the Rafale being in limited
servi
> ce, with about ten commissioned planes. In case you don't know, we don't
> exactly have the US DoD budget. Why don't you send us $100 000 000 so that
> we could quicker buy a couple more?
>
> ArVa
>
>

[ArVa]

"Ian Craig" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>
> >
> You'd have got me if you hadn'#t mentioned Jaguar and Alphjet, and
probably
> MIG AT. They've not been that successful? The others have.
>


To paraphrase a former US president, it depends how you define success...

The Jaguar is in service in France, the United Kingdom, Ecuador, Nigeria,
India and Oman. The alphajet is in service in France, Germany, Belgium,
Cameroon, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Morocco, Nigeria, Portugal, Togo and Quatar.
And both still fly some 25 years later (probably not for a very long time
now concerning the jaguar).

I agree the Mig AT is not a commercial success yet but the financial aspect
is not the only one to take in consideration. I was refering to successful
*partnerships*, as this is what you say the French can't achieve...

ArVa

[IanDTurner]

Don't write off my Jags yet - don't forget the Indians are still building them

Ian

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
Ian Craig > wrote:

> Granted Rafale is in (limited) service, but its a
>MMI nightmare!

I think the autopilot interface seems like a pretty smart
solution, is the rest worse designed? Something in particular
you had in mind?
--
Urban Fredriksson
Military aviation: Swedish military aviation, the rec.aviation.military FAQ
http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/
Weblog http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/avblog.html

[Anonymous]

Ian Craig wrote in message ...
>
>"ArVa" > wrote in message
...
>> Another gratuitous statement.... "Always"? What about the Concorde, the
>> Jaguar, the Alphajet, the Mig AT, the Tiger and the entire Eurocopter
>> line-up? What about Airbus? What about EADS? What about the ATR family?
>What
>> about SNECMA working with GE to produce the CFM-56, one of the most
>> successful family of jet engine ever? What about all these successful
>> partnerships and some I may have forgotten?...
>>
>You'd have got me if you hadn'#t mentioned Jaguar and Alphjet, and probably
>MIG AT. They've not been that successful? The others have.

The SEPECAT Jaguar has been in service with both Frances' own air force and
the RAF in the UK for a long time.

I remember the name Alphajet, but not the aircraft.

Cheers
Graeme

[Ian Craig]

"Anonymous" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ian Craig wrote in message ...
> >
> >"ArVa" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Another gratuitous statement.... "Always"? What about the Concorde, the
> >> Jaguar, the Alphajet, the Mig AT, the Tiger and the entire Eurocopter
> >> line-up? What about Airbus? What about EADS? What about the ATR family?
> >What
> >> about SNECMA working with GE to produce the CFM-56, one of the most
> >> successful family of jet engine ever? What about all these successful
> >> partnerships and some I may have forgotten?...
> >>
> >You'd have got me if you hadn'#t mentioned Jaguar and Alphjet, and
probably
> >MIG AT. They've not been that successful? The others have.
>
> The SEPECAT Jaguar has been in service with both Frances' own air force
and
> the RAF in the UK for a long time.
>
> I remember the name Alphajet, but not the aircraft.
>
> Cheers
> Graeme
>
>
Yeah, but its not exactly a brilliant aircraft? The only reason its still
in service is because fo the recent engine upgrade(if you can call it that),
and the fact that the air planners don't believe its role can be performed
by anything else in the RAF.

[Ian Craig]

From what I've learned (from aircrew who have seen/flown it) they hate it.
Its just too difficult to use for a single person. There was talk a while
ago, that the French forces were seriously considering changing their orders
to include a lot more twin seats? I vaguely remember they did actually order
another batch?

Eurofighter on the other hand, is by no means a perfect MMI, but is the
closest to it in the forthcoming aircraft
"Urban Fredriksson" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Ian Craig > wrote:
>
> > Granted Rafale is in (limited) service, but its a
> >MMI nightmare!
>
> I think the autopilot interface seems like a pretty smart
> solution, is the rest worse designed? Something in particular
> you had in mind?
> --
> Urban Fredriksson
> Military aviation: Swedish military aviation, the rec.aviation.military
FAQ
>
http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/
> Weblog
http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/avblog.html

[JasiekS]

Uzytkownik "Jack Linthicum" > napisal w
wiadomosci om...
> (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message
>...
> >
> > > there would have been little to no oversight in terms of
> > > cost-to-use effectiveness. What was it that sage hero of Soviet
history,
> > > Josef Stalin, said? "'Perfect' is the enemy of 'good enough'."
> >
> > It is not Stalin proverb, rather general russian proverb.
>
> So young, Mikhail, if Stalin used it it's a Stalin proverb.
>

In mid 80. IIRC one US engineer visited Aviation Institute (ILot) in Warsaw,
Poland. He was real Tex in stetson hut. He worked before in the team
designing heat-resistant cover for space shuttle. He used the same
expression. He claimed that if they wouldn't stop to play with new
inventions space shuttle wouldn't never fly.

Tell me - maybe it's Texan proverb? ;-8)

This is rather OT, so bye in this thread.

JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> (Michael Petukhov) wrote:
>> But the first Eurofighters, which are now being delivered
>> considerably behind schedule, are virtually useless.
>
>But... but... people here keep telling me that the Eurofighter is really
>inexpensive, nearly perfect, and everyone in Europe is going to buy them
>all!

Read some US GAO reports. According to them, the F/A-22 shakes itself to
pieces when it flies, fails every fifteen minutes, is escalating hugely
in cost, misses most of its performance requirements, has avionics that
simply don't work because of repeated unsolved software crashes, and is
inferior to the F-15 it's meant to replace.

Do you believe that? Or is there a core of truth in each claim that is
being wildly exaggerated and distorted to suit an agenda?


Not that journalists (or even analysts) will _ever_ write the story
their audience want to hear rather than honestly reporting the truth...

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes
> >In article >,
> > (Michael Petukhov) wrote:
> >> But the first Eurofighters, which are now being delivered
> >> considerably behind schedule, are virtually useless.
> >
> >But... but... people here keep telling me that the Eurofighter is really
> >inexpensive, nearly perfect, and everyone in Europe is going to buy them
> >all!
>
> Read some US GAO reports. According to them, the F/A-22 shakes itself to
> pieces when it flies, fails every fifteen minutes, is escalating hugely
> in cost, misses most of its performance requirements, has avionics that
> simply don't work because of repeated unsolved software crashes, and is
> inferior to the F-15 it's meant to replace.

The F-22 is slated for cancellation in FY05, unless a miracle occurs and the
problems are fixed. Odd that Paul should be posting information for which I
was thouroughly discredited at ram; years ago.

> Do you believe that? Or is there a core of truth in each claim that is
> being wildly exaggerated and distorted to suit an agenda?

Nope, Congress has warned the program of its immenent cancellation. The
F-22 is in real trouble both structurally and avionics wise.

> Not that journalists (or even analysts) will _ever_ write the story
> their audience want to hear rather than honestly reporting the truth...

The lunes of ram have a real problem accepting anything outside their own
childish fantasies.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> The F-22 is slated for cancellation in FY05, unless a miracle occurs and the
> problems are fixed. Odd that Paul should be posting information for which I
> was thouroughly discredited at ram; years ago.

Since they have the production line running, it's a teeny bit late to
cancel it...

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > The F-22 is slated for cancellation in FY05, unless a miracle occurs and
the
> > problems are fixed. Odd that Paul should be posting information for
which I
> > was thouroughly discredited at ram; years ago.
>
> Since they have the production line running, it's a teeny bit late to
> cancel it...

Yes it is, but Lockmart was able to block a Nyquist shake of the airframe
prior the program went to production; even though the responsible USAF
person tried to force the issue. Production had already begun before the
weapons integration went zero for three, this year, with the new joint
standoff munition. I think part of the credit for this monumental waste of
money has to go to the lunes of ram.

Fortunately, the F-35 is looking good.

[Bill Silvey]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
>> The F-22 is slated for cancellation in FY05, unless a miracle occurs
>> and the problems are fixed. Odd that Paul should be posting
>> information for which I was thouroughly discredited at ram; years
>> ago.
>
> Since they have the production line running, it's a teeny bit late to
> cancel it...

Come on; it's Tarverworld - anything can happen! Words can mean letters,
definitions of aircraft parts can change, and sterno can become an
after-dinner cordial!

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
...
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> >> The F-22 is slated for cancellation in FY05, unless a miracle occurs
> >> and the problems are fixed. Odd that Paul should be posting
> >> information for which I was thouroughly discredited at ram; years
> >> ago.
> >
> > Since they have the production line running, it's a teeny bit late to
> > cancel it...
>
> Come on; it's Tarverworld - anything can happen! Words can mean letters,
> definitions of aircraft parts can change, and sterno can become an
> after-dinner cordial!

Speaking of the lunes of ram. :)

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 22:28:36 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>>In article >,
>> (Michael Petukhov) wrote:
>>> But the first Eurofighters, which are now being delivered
>>> considerably behind schedule, are virtually useless.
>>
>>But... but... people here keep telling me that the Eurofighter is really
>>inexpensive, nearly perfect, and everyone in Europe is going to buy them
>>all!
>
>Read some US GAO reports. According to them, the F/A-22 shakes itself to
>pieces when it flies, fails every fifteen minutes, is escalating hugely
>in cost, misses most of its performance requirements, has avionics that
>simply don't work because of repeated unsolved software crashes, and is
>inferior to the F-15 it's meant to replace.
>
>Do you believe that?

The bit about software problems strikes true for me -- complex
software projects often overrun on time and cost.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Marcus Andersson]

"Ian Craig" > wrote in message >...
> From what I've learned (from aircrew who have seen/flown it) they hate it.
> Its just too difficult to use for a single person. There was talk a while
> ago, that the French forces were seriously considering changing their orders
> to include a lot more twin seats? I vaguely remember they did actually order
> another batch?

The Frech navy had first planned to only buy single-seaters, but they
changed their order so now around half of the planes will be twin
seats.




> Eurofighter on the other hand, is by no means a perfect MMI, but is the
> closest to it in the forthcoming aircraft
> "Urban Fredriksson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Ian Craig > wrote:
> >
> > > Granted Rafale is in (limited) service, but its a
> > >MMI nightmare!
> >
> > I think the autopilot interface seems like a pretty smart
> > solution, is the rest worse designed? Something in particular
> > you had in mind?
> > --
> > Urban Fredriksson
> > Military aviation: Swedish military aviation, the rec.aviation.military
> FAQ
> >
> http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/
> > Weblog
> http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/avblog.html

[Jim]

--
And by the way, Mr. Speaker, The Second Amendment is not for killing
ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an aunt and uncle. It
is for hunting politicians like in Grozney and in 1776, when they take
your independence away".

Robert K. Dornen, U.S. Congressman. 1995
"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> "Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > om
> > > http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/english/0,1518,265466,00.html
> > >
> > > "A Bottomless Pit"
> > >
> > > Armaments: The Eurofighter is turning into a nightmare. According to a
> > > report by the Federal Audit Office, the mega project will not only
> > > cost five billion euros more than planned - it also suffers from
> > > severe flaws. Defence minister Peter Struck's budget is not big enough
> > > to continue to maintain an army of 285,000 with modern equipment at
> > > its disposal. In particular, the minister wants to economise on arms.
> > > The room for manoeuvring available to army planners is minimal. To the
> > > intense annoyance of the army and navy, more than two thirds of the
> > > money is earmarked for aeronautical equipment: helicopters, Airbus
> > > transport aircraft and in particular the airforce's controversial
> > > Eurofighter. But the first Eurofighters, which are now being delivered
> > > considerably behind schedule, are virtually useless.
> >
> > It is an interesting contrast between modern, industrialized societies'
> > weapons procurement versus Eastern Bloc nations' command economy
>
> Wrong. If you read the arcticle in full you would learn that
> 8 EF2000 just arrived to German airforce have huge number of
> purely technical problems which according to that report
> make them "useless" as combat aircraft. Given the cost paid
> rather the story proves inefficiency of industrialized societies'
> > weapons procurement versus Eastern Bloc nations' command economy.
>
> > and the
> > diktat that forced various industries therein to essentially create and
> > perform with little or no regard to reward or payment; surely if files
> > covering all Soviet aircraft developments
>
> All this is certanly contrary to very vell known facts that
> soviet command economy was more cost effective in arms production
> than US market economy was.
>
> > (and currently, that's all Russia
> > has to fly beyond a few never-never technology demonstrators)
>
> dispite the obvious fact that 100s of Su-27, Mig-29, Mig-31, Tu22Ms
> and Tu160 are newer and more than enough match to their US opponents
> F16, F15, B1 abd B2. That's why. Was it you who was just complaining
> about cost inefficiacy of soviet command economy?



And your ships are better and your subs more advanced and you won the cold
war and put down your crack pipe...

[Michael P. Reed]

In message >, "Christians for
Cheeseburgers." wrote:

> So where are the results of all this Russian innovation? Flavored vodkas?

I hear there was this guy named Yuri Gagarin. . . Wasn't the T-55 the first
true MBT? The USSR/Russia also was the first nation to install gas turbines in
an operational warship design.

<Soc.culture groups snipped>

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

[Fred J. McCall]

Michael P. Reed > wrote:

:In message >, "Christians for
:Cheeseburgers." wrote:
:
:> So where are the results of all this Russian innovation? Flavored vodkas?
:
:I hear there was this guy named Yuri Gagarin. . .

But the Russians didn't invent space flight and there was nothing
particularly innovative about the 'man in a can' approach.

:Wasn't the T-55 the first true MBT?

Define "true MBT". Under whatever definition, unless you're quite
careful to tailor it specifically to the T-55, I would say 'not'.

:The USSR/Russia also was the first nation to install gas turbines in
:an operational warship design.

Which subsequently had one explode, which was predicted by Western
sources.

Now, if you were to want to talk metallurgy or high energy beam
physics....

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

[Bill Silvey]

"Michael P. Reed" > wrote in message


> Wasn't the T-55
> the first true MBT?

No. The Germans beat that out by about two decades.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[L'acrobat]

"Michael P. Reed" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, "Christians
for
> Cheeseburgers." wrote:
>
> > So where are the results of all this Russian innovation? Flavored
vodkas?
>
> I hear there was this guy named Yuri Gagarin. . . Wasn't the T-55 the
first
> true MBT? The USSR/Russia also was the first nation to install gas
turbines in
> an operational warship design.

Certainly the Centurian beat the T-55, but how will you define MBT?

Gagarin was hardly an innovation, just the first across the line.

Gas turbines in ships, putting them there and making them work are 2
different things.

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 22:28:36 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>>In article >,
>> (Michael Petukhov) wrote:
>>> But the first Eurofighters, which are now being delivered
>>> considerably behind schedule, are virtually useless.
>>
>>But... but... people here keep telling me that the Eurofighter is really
>>inexpensive, nearly perfect, and everyone in Europe is going to buy them
>>all!
>
>Read some US GAO reports. According to them, the F/A-22 shakes itself to
>pieces when it flies, fails every fifteen minutes, is escalating hugely
>in cost, misses most of its performance requirements, has avionics that
>simply don't work because of repeated unsolved software crashes, and is
>inferior to the F-15 it's meant to replace.
>
>Do you believe that? Or is there a core of truth in each claim that is
>being wildly exaggerated and distorted to suit an agenda?
>
>
>Not that journalists (or even analysts) will _ever_ write the story
>their audience want to hear rather than honestly reporting the truth...

Typical anti-military rant by some hack "journalist".

Al Minyard

[Chuck Johnson]

"Ian Craig" > wrote in
:

> "Anonymous" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Ian Craig wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >"ArVa" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Another gratuitous statement.... "Always"? What about the
>> >> Concorde, the Jaguar, the Alphajet, the Mig AT, the Tiger and the
>> >> entire Eurocopter line-up? What about Airbus? What about EADS?
>> >> What about the ATR family?
>> >What
>> >> about SNECMA working with GE to produce the CFM-56, one of the
>> >> most successful family of jet engine ever? What about all these
>> >> successful partnerships and some I may have forgotten?...
>> >>
>> >You'd have got me if you hadn'#t mentioned Jaguar and Alphjet, and
> probably
>> >MIG AT. They've not been that successful? The others have.
>>
>> The SEPECAT Jaguar has been in service with both Frances' own air
>> force
> and
>> the RAF in the UK for a long time.
>>
>> I remember the name Alphajet, but not the aircraft.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Graeme
>>
>>
> Yeah, but its not exactly a brilliant aircraft? The only reason its
> still in service is because fo the recent engine upgrade(if you can
> call it that), and the fact that the air planners don't believe its
> role can be performed by anything else in the RAF.
>
>
>
Right on ArVa!
I love it when the ignorant attack the French aviation industry...
Answer this: Which aviation sector is healthier? England's or France's?
Me? I'll give the nod to France.
So far as I can tell, France has continuously constructed their own highly
capable aircraft by themselves. The outcome: Mirage III; F.1; Etendard;
Mirage 2000; and Rafale. By all authoritative accounts, their aircraft are
world class. American class? Close, but no. Nobody is. America is the
undisputed leader in cutting edge design and execution. Literally a
generation ahead. Similar to the Luftwaffe during WWII.

And England? Decades earlier, England decided to resort to joint projects
with other nations--surely a sign of ill financial health or lack of
design/manufacturing leadership and expertise. Look at the outcome:
Tornado (IDS and ADV); Hawk 100/200 (a fighter? Hee hee!); Nimrod AEW.
Jeez, I'm going to stop--I'm getting depressed!
-Chuck

[Anonymous]

Chuck Johnson wrote in message ...
>"Ian Craig" > wrote in
:
>
>> "Anonymous" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Ian Craig wrote in message ...
>>> >
>>> >"ArVa" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >> Another gratuitous statement.... "Always"? What about the
>>> >> Concorde, the Jaguar, the Alphajet, the Mig AT, the Tiger and the
>>> >> entire Eurocopter line-up? What about Airbus? What about EADS?
>>> >> What about the ATR family?
>>> >What
>>> >> about SNECMA working with GE to produce the CFM-56, one of the
>>> >> most successful family of jet engine ever? What about all these
>>> >> successful partnerships and some I may have forgotten?...
>>> >>
>>> >You'd have got me if you hadn'#t mentioned Jaguar and Alphjet, and
>> probably
>>> >MIG AT. They've not been that successful? The others have.
>>>
>>> The SEPECAT Jaguar has been in service with both Frances' own air
>>> force
>> and
>>> the RAF in the UK for a long time.
>>>
>>> I remember the name Alphajet, but not the aircraft.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Graeme
>>>
>>>
>> Yeah, but its not exactly a brilliant aircraft? The only reason its
>> still in service is because fo the recent engine upgrade(if you can
>> call it that), and the fact that the air planners don't believe its
>> role can be performed by anything else in the RAF.
>>
>>
>>
>Right on ArVa!
>I love it when the ignorant attack the French aviation industry...
>Answer this: Which aviation sector is healthier? England's or France's?
>Me? I'll give the nod to France.
>So far as I can tell, France has continuously constructed their own highly
>capable aircraft by themselves. The outcome: Mirage III; F.1; Etendard;
>Mirage 2000; and Rafale. By all authoritative accounts, their aircraft are
>world class. American class? Close, but no. Nobody is. America is the
>undisputed leader in cutting edge design and execution. Literally a
>generation ahead. Similar to the Luftwaffe during WWII.
>
>And England? Decades earlier, England decided to resort to joint projects
>with other nations--surely a sign of ill financial health or lack of
>design/manufacturing leadership and expertise. Look at the outcome:
>Tornado (IDS and ADV); Hawk 100/200 (a fighter? Hee hee!); Nimrod AEW.
>Jeez, I'm going to stop--I'm getting depressed!
>-Chuck

Tornado was a brilliant project, and is still a superb combat aircraft.

I see, hear, and feel them tearing low over our town regularly (a pair just
flew over my office about an hour ago). Used in both the Gulf Wars, they
have proved themselves as worthy multirole aircraft on many occasions.

Hawk was never designed as a fantastic combat aircraft; it is primarily a
trainer, but is lightly armed so that it can provide defensive capabilities
when required. It doesn't matter how small it is, it can still kill you if
the pilot gets a lock on (which is likely in close combat; the Hawk is an
incredibly maneuverable aircraft; the Red Arrows display team shows them
off really well).

Nimrod is still brilliant as a maritime patrol, ASW and AEW jet. They're
going through an upgrade program to give them up-to-date avionics, computers,
radar, and new engines (for longer range, rather than speed increases). All
the RAF's Nimrods are based at RAF Kinloss (which isn't too far away from
here), but they have enough range to allow them to patrol the entire UK
coastline. They were based on the DeHavilland Comet, which was one of the
first transatlantic passenger jets.

I see you miss out on Harrier, which was a British invention (granted, it
suffered from more losses than most other combat jets, but you still have
to give it the respect it deserves).

I have to point out that the idea of co-operating with other nations to
develop fighter aircraft is a good idea. There is less cost incurred in
design and production, and you get the benefits of each nations' designers'
brilliance. Because the cost incurred per nation is the same as it would
be for designing an aircraft by themselves, a joint project can produce a
more high-tech design.

What's the point of having an alliance of nations if they won't work with
each other ?

Cheers
Graeme

[TJ]

Anonymous wrote:

> All the RAF's Nimrods are based at RAF Kinloss (which isn't too far away
from
> here), but they have enough range to allow them to patrol the entire UK
> coastline.

Not all. Three 51 Squadron R.1s are based at RAF Waddington. Lincolnshire.


TJ

[Peter Kemp]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:55:50 +0000 (UTC), "Anonymous"
> wrote:

>Nimrod is still brilliant as a maritime patrol, ASW and AEW jet.

The AEW.3 version never entered service, which is why we've got Sentry
AEW.1 aircraft, based at Waddington.

Peter Kemp

[Ian Craig]

Ignorant? Having worked in the aerospace industry for a while including
with the French, I take that as a personal insult ; )

Love the way you try to claim the Rafale is "world class", but then not
quite up to American class. Given the different approaches to defence
spending, I don't think any other country would get close? But then, its
not as if America hasnt used other countries ideas before - Canberra?

And then on to the health of the respective countries aviation industry.
Britain (not just England) is acknowledged by all the european partners in
Airbus to be the best at wing design. Last time I checked an aeroplane
needed wings??

The Hawk was never really designed as a fighter. The original staff
requirement was for a trainer, that somebody then decided to bung some air
to air capability on to. Still, it cant be that bad given that its in
service with so many countries (not just as a trainer). If america is so
cutting edge, why is it that during Gulf War I they asked the Brits to go in
against the heavily defended airfields with JP233? Surely a cutting edge
country could have had some other less risky way? Or was it just not sexy
enough?
"Chuck Johnson" > wrote in message
. 165.241...
> "Ian Craig" > wrote in
> :
>
> > "Anonymous" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> Ian Craig wrote in message ...
> >> >
> >> >"ArVa" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> Another gratuitous statement.... "Always"? What about the
> >> >> Concorde, the Jaguar, the Alphajet, the Mig AT, the Tiger and the
> >> >> entire Eurocopter line-up? What about Airbus? What about EADS?
> >> >> What about the ATR family?
> >> >What
> >> >> about SNECMA working with GE to produce the CFM-56, one of the
> >> >> most successful family of jet engine ever? What about all these
> >> >> successful partnerships and some I may have forgotten?...
> >> >>
> >> >You'd have got me if you hadn'#t mentioned Jaguar and Alphjet, and
> > probably
> >> >MIG AT. They've not been that successful? The others have.
> >>
> >> The SEPECAT Jaguar has been in service with both Frances' own air
> >> force
> > and
> >> the RAF in the UK for a long time.
> >>
> >> I remember the name Alphajet, but not the aircraft.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Graeme
> >>
> >>
> > Yeah, but its not exactly a brilliant aircraft? The only reason its
> > still in service is because fo the recent engine upgrade(if you can
> > call it that), and the fact that the air planners don't believe its
> > role can be performed by anything else in the RAF.
> >
> >
> >
> Right on ArVa!
> I love it when the ignorant attack the French aviation industry...
> Answer this: Which aviation sector is healthier? England's or France's?
> Me? I'll give the nod to France.
> So far as I can tell, France has continuously constructed their own highly
> capable aircraft by themselves. The outcome: Mirage III; F.1; Etendard;
> Mirage 2000; and Rafale. By all authoritative accounts, their aircraft are
> world class. American class? Close, but no. Nobody is. America is the
> undisputed leader in cutting edge design and execution. Literally a
> generation ahead. Similar to the Luftwaffe during WWII.
>
> And England? Decades earlier, England decided to resort to joint projects
> with other nations--surely a sign of ill financial health or lack of
> design/manufacturing leadership and expertise. Look at the outcome:
> Tornado (IDS and ADV); Hawk 100/200 (a fighter? Hee hee!); Nimrod AEW.
> Jeez, I'm going to stop--I'm getting depressed!
> -Chuck
>
>
>

[Peter Kemp]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:42:59 +0100, "Ian Craig" >
wrote:

>The Hawk was never really designed as a fighter. The original staff
>requirement was for a trainer, that somebody then decided to bung some air
>to air capability on to. Still, it cant be that bad given that its in
>service with so many countries (not just as a trainer).

Quite right. IIRC quite a large flying arm is using over the other
side of the Atlantic - T-45 Goshawk ring a bell Chuck?

>If america is so
>cutting edge, why is it that during Gulf War I they asked the Brits to go in
>against the heavily defended airfields with JP233?

IIRC the main reason was the US never undertook the airfield denial
mission on the grounds that the losses would be too high, and that it
was covered by the NATO allies (RAF/Luftwaffe). Of course we did take
losses, but none of them were during the *dangerous* part of the
mission (i.e. flying dead level and straight down the runway).

> Surely a cutting edge
>country could have had some other less risky way? Or was it just not sexy
>enough?

Well, to be fair the US did plink the shelters with LGBs (as did the
Buccaneers IIRC - despite their age), but only after the aircraft were
confined to the ground by the JP233 attacks.

Peter Kemp

[Anonymous]

TJ wrote in message >...
>
>Anonymous wrote:
>
>> All the RAF's Nimrods are based at RAF Kinloss (which isn't too far away
>from
>> here), but they have enough range to allow them to patrol the entire UK
>> coastline.
>
>Not all. Three 51 Squadron R.1s are based at RAF Waddington. Lincolnshire.

OK - mild goof on my part... sorry !

What I -Should- have said is that Kinloss is the UK's only dedicated Nimrod
station...

My bad !

Cheers
Graeme

[Anonymous]

Peter Kemp wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:55:50 +0000 (UTC), "Anonymous"
> wrote:
>
>>Nimrod is still brilliant as a maritime patrol, ASW and AEW jet.
>
>The AEW.3 version never entered service, which is why we've got Sentry
>AEW.1 aircraft, based at Waddington.

Ah; this I wasn't aware of - I had been under the impression that the
E3 was being bought in as a replacement for the original Nimrod AEW
version.

Thinking about it, the E3 could have been bought in instead of the AEW
Nimrod (rather than to replace).

D'oh! Two goofs in one day isn't good going... :O(

Cheers
Graeme

[Stephen Harding]

Peter Kemp wrote:

> On 24 Sep 2003 08:07:53 -0700, (defaultnot)
> wrote:
>
> >When did Europeans do anything right???
> >
> >In Iraq, Europeans only stood idle and watched and supplied the
> >equipment Saddam massacred millions of innocent human beings until the
> >USA stepped in again. Now the Europeans are still doing nothing but
> >bitching about USA.
>
> Don't talk crap. The US was standing idle watching Iraq as well you
> halfwit. Or if you don't get back under your bridge I'll bring up some
> of the US' less golden moments in recent history.

Oh don't let alleged trolls under the bridge stop you!

Brining up "US' less golden moments in recent history" has been de rigeur
in discussing American foreign policy for some time now.

I presume that is because they seem so much better documented than the
"less golden moments" of others.


SMH

[Peter Kemp]

On 25 Sep 2003 16:29:09 GMT, Drewe Manton >
wrote:

>Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in
:
>
>> The US was standing idle watching Iraq as well you
>> halfwit.
>
>Methinks you credit him with entirely too much intellectual capacity . . .

But it's *so* much fun beating him with the clue stick since I added
the nails of knowledge (rusty nails at that)!

But then again, how does the quotes go?

"I'm in a battle of wits with an unarmed man"

"Never argue with an idiot - he'll drag you down to his level and beat
you with experience".

Peter Kemp

[Peter Kemp]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:26:24 -0400, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

>Peter Kemp wrote:
>
>> On 24 Sep 2003 08:07:53 -0700, (defaultnot)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >When did Europeans do anything right???
>> >
>> >In Iraq, Europeans only stood idle and watched and supplied the
>> >equipment Saddam massacred millions of innocent human beings until the
>> >USA stepped in again. Now the Europeans are still doing nothing but
>> >bitching about USA.
>>
>> Don't talk crap. The US was standing idle watching Iraq as well you
>> halfwit. Or if you don't get back under your bridge I'll bring up some
>> of the US' less golden moments in recent history.
>
>Oh don't let alleged trolls under the bridge stop you!
>
>Brining up "US' less golden moments in recent history" has been de rigeur
>in discussing American foreign policy for some time now.
>
>I presume that is because they seem so much better documented than the
>"less golden moments" of others.

Hardly, I doubt there's a country in the world who's happy for their
closets to be examined for skeletons (although Iceland doesn't seem to
have done anything too bad........yet), and they're all documented,
even if not in the US, which does have the biggest media voice.

Hell, I'm proud to be a Brit (ok, ok, half-Brit), and we did some damn
nasty things in our past.

Peter Kemp

[TJ]

"ZZBunker"

> The US was hardly standing by idle, since we bought and renovated
> Diego Garcia from the idiot British. Just in case their
> Indian sub-empire gets like you know, how do the British say it, bridgy.
>

Diego Garcia is still BIOT (British Indian Ocean Territory). The joint UK-US
facility is on lease to the US. Please explain to the commissoner in the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London, that the US has bought outright
Diego Garcia and the BIOT.

TJ

[Kulvinder Singh Matharu]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:35:43 +0100, "TJ" >
wrote:

[snip]
>Diego Garcia is still BIOT (British Indian Ocean Territory). The joint UK-US
>facility is on lease to the US. Please explain to the commissoner in the
>Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London, that the US has bought outright
>Diego Garcia and the BIOT.

Are the Ilois still trying to get their homes back and be allowed
back on the island? IIRC they were suing the UK and the US.

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/

"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash

[Stephen Harding]

Peter Kemp wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:26:24 -0400, Stephen Harding
> > wrote:
> >
> >Brining up "US' less golden moments in recent history" has been de rigeur
> >in discussing American foreign policy for some time now.
> >
> >I presume that is because they seem so much better documented than the
> >"less golden moments" of others.
>
> Hardly, I doubt there's a country in the world who's happy for their
> closets to be examined for skeletons (although Iceland doesn't seem to
> have done anything too bad........yet), and they're all documented,
> even if not in the US, which does have the biggest media voice.

Yes most countries of the world have done bad things at one time or another.
I mention US atrocities being much better documented because of two major
factors: A free press for most of its history, and the hugh leap in
technology that has occurred during a significant part of its national history
(say 150 years) in conjunction with that free press. I think that puts US
deeds under better focus than those of many other nations.

European nations have done far more to brutalize indigenous peoples, steal
their lands, exploit their populations, enslave and kill than Americans
have ever done, yet the standard for underhandedness seems to be American
slavery and colonial through national Indian policies, followed perhaps by
CIA operations during the Cold War.

> Hell, I'm proud to be a Brit (ok, ok, half-Brit), and we did some damn
> nasty things in our past.

Yet the focus always seems to be on the nasty things done by the US.

BBC, CNN, ABC and the like can be right in that Baghdad neighborhood when
an errant bomb from those aggressive, bloodthirsty Americans goes off, but
are absent when Saddam's thugs round up Kurdish villagers "for interrogation"
never to be seen again.

Wonder what our opinion of the Swedes or Danes would be if BBC was on scene
in 900 AD to record [on *film*!] the results of a Viking raid, and we could
bring up that footage for viewing whenever we had a disagreement with
nationals from those countries?


SMH

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Stephen Harding
> writes
>BBC, CNN, ABC and the like can be right in that Baghdad neighborhood when
>an errant bomb from those aggressive, bloodthirsty Americans goes off, but
>are absent when Saddam's thugs round up Kurdish villagers "for interrogation"
>never to be seen again.

But isn't that Saddam the same one the west armed in the '80s and fought
a war against in '90/91, only to leave him in power? Aren't those the
same Kurds the west said they'd help if they rose up against Saddam, but
didn't and allowed him to use helicopters against them when they did?

What about Turkey, are they bombing the Kurds in northern Iraq?

--
John

[ZZBunker]

"TJ" > wrote in message >...
> "ZZBunker"
>
> > The US was hardly standing by idle, since we bought and renovated
> > Diego Garcia from the idiot British. Just in case their
> > Indian sub-empire gets like you know, how do the British say it, bridgy.
> >
>
> Diego Garcia is still BIOT (British Indian Ocean Territory). The joint UK-US
> facility is on lease to the US. Please explain to the commissoner in the
> Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London, that the US has bought outright
> Diego Garcia and the BIOT.

I didn't say that we bought BIOT. Given that I bought
Tee-shirts from Picadilly Circus, Stone Henge, BIOT, Gitmo,
Rockerfeller Center, The White House, and The Pentagon, none of them is
anything more than a standard issue British-French-Canadian tourist trap.

But, being Americans, rather than moron Europeans we
bought landing rights in Diego Garcia, Puerto Rico, Brazil, Argentina,
Panama, Ireland, Scotland, London, Paris, Berlin, Toronto, Moscow, Rome,
Tel Aviv, New York, Washington, Los Angelos, San Diego, San Franciso,
Seattle, Norfolk, North Carolina, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Orlando,
Miama, Toykeo, Soeul, Sydney, The North Pole, The South Pole, North Dakota,
Wyoming, and the Moon.

We didn't really buy landing rights in Jeruselem since the
Iraqis have squatters rights.

[Stephen Harding]

John Halliwell wrote:

> In article >, Stephen Harding
> >
> >BBC, CNN, ABC and the like can be right in that Baghdad neighborhood when
> >an errant bomb from those aggressive, bloodthirsty Americans goes off, but
> >are absent when Saddam's thugs round up Kurdish villagers "for interrogation"
> >never to be seen again.
>
> But isn't that Saddam the same one the west armed in the '80s and fought

Not that I know of. US followed a policy of cautious favoritism for Iraq
as opposed to Iran (for obvious reasons). This "US armed Iraq" line is way
out of proportion from truth.

Pretty much, the Soviets armed Iraq, and did so throughout the Saddam reign,
and if the UN (French) get the US out of Iraq within 6 months, will be arming
Saddam again inside of 5 years.

Yet only the American flirtation with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war seems to
be remembered.

> a war against in '90/91, only to leave him in power? Aren't those the

Why are you arguing against this? Isn't this the UN line? Isn't this what
many of the "hate Bush so much I'll help Saddam" crowd believes? Why criticize
something you seem to believe in?

> same Kurds the west said they'd help if they rose up against Saddam, but
> didn't and allowed him to use helicopters against them when they did?

For all the same reason spoken today by anti-Bush people for getting out of
Iraq. If you argue in favor of immediate withdrawl, or non-involvement to
begin with, how can you bring up American non-involvement in 1991?

> What about Turkey, are they bombing the Kurds in northern Iraq?

Don't think so. The PUK seems largely under control now.


SMH

[Alan Minyard]

On 2 Oct 2003 13:00:49 -0700, (Stuart Wilkes)
wrote:

>"Christians for Cheeseburgers." > wrote in message >...
>> "DM" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > > > For the largest nation on earth, what is truly amazing is just how
>> little
>> > > > Russia has given to world civilization.
>> >
>> >
>> > How about saving the world from the Nazis in WW2? ;-)
>> >
>> > (see, every thread gravitates to the Nazis eventually!)
>> >
>> >
>>
>> They did not save the world from the nazis.
>
>They certainly saved Poles in Poland.
>
>> They only sought to save themselves
>
>They offered to supply weapons and muntions to Poland in 1939. Beck
>and Rydz-Smigly couldn't be bothered. Dumb. I mean, even the
>"Peanut" had the sense to take Soviet arms and munitions when they
>were offered.
>
>> but did not pass up the chance to enslave eastern Europe.
>
>Hey, the West was perfectly willing to see the Nazis take over Eastern
>Europe.
>
>The West didn't lift a finger to impede the military conquest of
>Poland, or the process of racial/cultural extermination the Nazis then
>initiated.
>
>Eastern Europe only became important to Western Russophobes as the
>Soviet Army got close.
>
>Stuart Wilkes

Great Britain and France both declared war on Germany within a day of
the invasion of Poland.

Al Minyard

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2 Oct 2003 13:00:49 -0700, (Stuart Wilkes)
> wrote:
>
> Great Britain and France both declared war on Germany within a day of
> the invasion of Poland.

Close. IIRC, the Germans invaded on 1 September (at about 0500 GMT). HM's
government declared a state of war as of 1200 Berlin time on 3 September.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Stuart Wilkes]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On 2 Oct 2003 13:00:49 -0700, (Stuart Wilkes)
> wrote:
>
> >"Christians for Cheeseburgers." > wrote in message >...
> >> "DM" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > > > For the largest nation on earth, what is truly amazing is just how
> little
> >> > > > Russia has given to world civilization.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > How about saving the world from the Nazis in WW2? ;-)
> >> >
> >> > (see, every thread gravitates to the Nazis eventually!)
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> They did not save the world from the nazis.
> >
> >They certainly saved Poles in Poland.
> >
> >> They only sought to save themselves
> >
> >They offered to supply weapons and muntions to Poland in 1939. Beck
> >and Rydz-Smigly couldn't be bothered. Dumb. I mean, even the
> >"Peanut" had the sense to take Soviet arms and munitions when they
> >were offered.
> >
> >> but did not pass up the chance to enslave eastern Europe.
> >
> >Hey, the West was perfectly willing to see the Nazis take over Eastern
> >Europe.
> >
> >The West didn't lift a finger to impede the military conquest of
> >Poland, or the process of racial/cultural extermination the Nazis then
> >initiated.
> >
> >Eastern Europe only became important to Western Russophobes as the
> >Soviet Army got close.
> >
> >Stuart Wilkes
>
> Great Britain and France both declared war on Germany within a day of
> the invasion of Poland.

And then did what to militarily assist the Poles?

Stuart Wilkes