EU Heavy Bomber ideas?

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

"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

"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 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

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?)

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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

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