Eurofighter is turning into German nightmare

--
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
. com...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/englis...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...

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

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

"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.

"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.

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

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

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

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

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