PDA

View Full Version : So much for the Eurofighter...


Thomas J. Paladino Jr.
June 2nd 04, 06:50 PM
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=614292004

Seems the British are going to sell off a lot of these 'super' planes before
they even enter service with the RAF. I suppose that if the program hasn't
been cancelled yet, it never will be... but still, it's pretty funny.

By the way, is it true that they still can't fly it above 1200 meters or
through clouds?

John Mullen
June 2nd 04, 08:06 PM
"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
> http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=614292004
>
> Seems the British are going to sell off a lot of these 'super' planes
before
> they even enter service with the RAF. I suppose that if the program hasn't
> been cancelled yet, it never will be... but still, it's pretty funny.

See the thread on Eurofighter news.

> By the way, is it true that they still can't fly it above 1200 meters or
> through clouds?

No.

Is it true the F/A-22 is now predicted to cost something like $350 million
per airframe?

Getting your news on aviation from the Scotland on Sunday website is a bit
like getting it from the site below.

http://www.counterpunch.org/f22.html

I suggest you seek out better informed sources. I do.

John

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.
June 2nd 04, 08:44 PM
"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> ...
> > http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=614292004
> >
> > Seems the British are going to sell off a lot of these 'super' planes
> before
> > they even enter service with the RAF. I suppose that if the program
hasn't
> > been cancelled yet, it never will be... but still, it's pretty funny.
>
> See the thread on Eurofighter news.
>
> > By the way, is it true that they still can't fly it above 1200 meters or
> > through clouds?
>
> No.
>
> Is it true the F/A-22 is now predicted to cost something like $350 million
> per airframe?
>
> Getting your news on aviation from the Scotland on Sunday website is a bit
> like getting it from the site below.
>
> http://www.counterpunch.org/f22.html
>
> I suggest you seek out better informed sources. I do.
>

Someone had posted that link, and I reposted it here. That's why I asked if
it were true, because it seemed pretty crazy. The pertinant information in
the article was that the RAF were going to sell a lot of their Typhoon
inventory before it even went into service (which I assume is true, and is a
pretty big deal in and of itself), but the technical info seemed suspect to
me. I just figured that people here would know the details better than
whoever wrote that article.

John Mullen
June 2nd 04, 08:47 PM
"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=614292004
> > >
> > > Seems the British are going to sell off a lot of these 'super' planes
> > before
> > > they even enter service with the RAF. I suppose that if the program
> hasn't
> > > been cancelled yet, it never will be... but still, it's pretty funny.
> >
> > See the thread on Eurofighter news.
> >
> > > By the way, is it true that they still can't fly it above 1200 meters
or
> > > through clouds?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > Is it true the F/A-22 is now predicted to cost something like $350
million
> > per airframe?
> >
> > Getting your news on aviation from the Scotland on Sunday website is a
bit
> > like getting it from the site below.
> >
> > http://www.counterpunch.org/f22.html
> >
> > I suggest you seek out better informed sources. I do.
> >
>
> Someone had posted that link, and I reposted it here. That's why I asked
if
> it were true, because it seemed pretty crazy. The pertinant information in
> the article was that the RAF were going to sell a lot of their Typhoon
> inventory before it even went into service (which I assume is true, and is
a
> pretty big deal in and of itself), but the technical info seemed suspect
to
> me. I just figured that people here would know the details better than
> whoever wrote that article.

Check the other thread.

John

Google