EU Heavy Bomber ideas?

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 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

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

B2431 wrote:
ArVa wrote:

The strategic airlift has been accomplished by French Air Force Transalls

Transalls are strategic airlift? Tactical perhaps?

Are you saying that a C-160 can't handle a supply of bleached linen?

GD&R

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?)

I M B E C I L E

From: Robert Briggs UCKET
Date: 6/24/2004 1:18 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

B2431 wrote:
ArVa wrote:

The strategic airlift has been accomplished by French Air Force Transalls

Transalls are strategic airlift? Tactical perhaps?

Are you saying that a C-160 can't handle a supply of bleached linen?

GD&R

That's textile airlift.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:06:51 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
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.

Harrier GR.7 was chosen over Tornado GR.1 for strike work in Allied
Force. (Harder choice between Harrier GR.9 and Tornado GR.4 - but in
1998 the Harrier was more survivable, just as accurate, and in range)

And no slouch if you don't (when have US aircraft been so tested?)

Well, we tend to have "air superiority".

Sure, but then the Tornado was designed to fight from Day One when
control of the air was disputed, and it can do so. (The F-15E has a
great many many strengths, but with that large wing it's not really a
low-level penetrator except in emergencies: not if you want the crews to
keep their eyeballs in their heads)

The Tornado can also fight very effectively when our side owns, or at
least leases, the skies - and has done so.

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.

Doesn't detract from its performance either.

For that matter, the Al Fao operations were supposed to be heavily
supported from the air, but due to 'changed priorities' the only air
support provided was Lynx AH.7s, which did yeoman work without loss.
Similarly, while the Apaches had some problems - doctrine and tactics
rather than airframe AFAIK - the Cobras demonstrated the old DBF motto,
that 'age and treachery will always triumph over youth and vigour'.

Luck, crew training, tactics and blind chance all play parts in


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

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

encore un autre I M B E C I L E