French planes are crap

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
If that were true, then we'd have binned Eurofighter in 1994 and leased
F-16s instead.

Seriously examined and pushed quite hard.

...and bought for a small advantage, for (at least in part) political
reasons.

No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much less
money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is thirty
years old and it's running out of growth room.

You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
twenty years old.

But at that point, if the F-16 had offered a cost-effectiveness
advantage, it would have been bought: there was significant pressure to
walk away from Eurofighter.

There still is, as evidenced by the reduced buys.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
If that were true, then we'd have binned Eurofighter in 1994 and
leased
F-16s instead.

Seriously examined and pushed quite hard.

...and bought for a small advantage, for (at least in part) political
reasons.

No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much less
money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is thirty
years old and it's running out of growth room.

You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
twenty years old.

But at that point, if the F-16 had offered a cost-effectiveness
advantage, it would have been bought: there was significant pressure to
walk away from Eurofighter.

There still is, as evidenced by the reduced buys.

The UK could save a lot of money in a no F-22 world.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

The UK could save a lot of money in a no F-22 world.

They could also save a lot of money by using ultralights...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On or about Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:02:29 GMT, Chad Irby
allegedly uttered:

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
If that were true, then we'd have binned Eurofighter in 1994 and leased
F-16s instead.

Seriously examined and pushed quite hard.

...and bought for a small advantage, for (at least in part) political
reasons.

No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much less
money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is thirty
years old and it's running out of growth room.

You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
twenty years old.

As is the F-22. Thanks to extended gestations there aren't any "new"
designs with less than a 10 year history, and at 20 the Typhoon's
about average.

But at that point, if the F-16 had offered a cost-effectiveness
advantage, it would have been bought: there was significant pressure to
walk away from Eurofighter.

There still is, as evidenced by the reduced buys.

Indeed, just like the reductions in buy of F-22, and the cuts in the
required F-18E/F numbers and F-35 numbers. Welcome to the post cold
war era.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much less
money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is thirty
years old and it's running out of growth room.

You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
twenty years old.

As is the F-22 - is *that* obsolete?

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

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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much less
money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is thirty
years old and it's running out of growth room.

You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
twenty years old.

As is the F-22 - is *that* obsolete?

The difference being that the F-22's hopes rest on BAE Systems ability to
**fix** the F-22's software post code creation, wheras the Eurofighter was
there's to write from day one.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much less
money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is
thirty
years old and it's running out of growth room.

You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
twenty years old.

As is the F-22 - is *that* obsolete?

The difference being that the F-22's hopes rest on BAE Systems ability to
**fix** the F-22's software post code creation, wheras the Eurofighter was
there's to write from day one.


Sorry - are you talking FCS software here?

"Ian Craig" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Chad
Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
No, because it would be significantly less capable for not much
less
money. The F-16 is a provably superb aircraft but its design is
thirty
years old and it's running out of growth room.

You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
twenty years old.

As is the F-22 - is *that* obsolete?

The difference being that the F-22's hopes rest on BAE Systems ability
to
**fix** the F-22's software post code creation, wheras the Eurofighter
was
there's to write from day one.


Sorry - are you talking FCS software here?

I misspelled their's, so sorry.

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes

You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
twenty years old.

As is the F-22 - is *that* obsolete?

The actual F-22 design we see now is really only about ten years old,
due to fairly complete revamps of the program along the way. They took
a long time getting to initial designs, but ti's those designs you have
to compare. The Eurofighter is pretty much the same design (plus some
avionics and materials changes) as the late-1970s initial requirement.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message , Chad Irby
writes

You should remember, though, that the Eurofighter's design is over
twenty years old.

As is the F-22 - is *that* obsolete?

The actual F-22 design we see now is really only about ten years old,
due to fairly complete revamps of the program along the way.

One of the reasons the Eurofighter's late is... significant changes to
the original design, as newer technologies came along (the RCS reduction
program being one example).

They took
a long time getting to initial designs, but ti's those designs you have
to compare. The Eurofighter is pretty much the same design (plus some
avionics and materials changes) as the late-1970s initial requirement.

Sorry, but that last is no more true than that the F-22 that enters
service is just a productionised YF-22.

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

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