A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

French planes are crap



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old November 10th 03, 07:28 PM
Peter Kemp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #112  
Old November 10th 03, 08:42 PM
Paul J. Adam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #113  
Old November 10th 03, 09:42 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #114  
Old November 10th 03, 10:22 PM
Ian Craig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?


  #115  
Old November 10th 03, 10:53 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #116  
Old November 10th 03, 11:13 PM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Read up on the RR F-35 engine offering and also see the test results for the
F-22. One is short of expectations and the other looks like a trick.


....except for the needed "trump" of offering half the fuel economy o do
what you claimed.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #117  
Old November 10th 03, 11:14 PM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #118  
Old November 10th 03, 11:17 PM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #119  
Old November 11th 03, 08:06 AM
Paul J. Adam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #120  
Old November 11th 03, 05:49 PM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes


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).


But those involved fairly minor changes (the "low RCS program" mostly
consisting of sticking some RAM in the intake), not major design issues.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________-+__ ihuvpe Chris Instrument Flight Rules 43 December 19th 04 09:40 PM
About French cowards. Michael Smith Military Aviation 45 October 22nd 03 03:15 PM
Ungrateful Americans Unworthy of the French The Black Monk Military Aviation 62 October 16th 03 08:05 AM
American planes are crap! Peter Mollror Military Aviation 20 October 7th 03 06:33 PM
Conspiracy Theorists (amusing) Grantland Military Aviation 1 October 2nd 03 12:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.