EU Heavy Bomber ideas?

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Alan Minyard
writes
Interesting comment, since the EU does not have "modern fighters"

Eurofighter? Rafale? Gripen?

How many of them are actually in service? Hmmm....

Nobody ever said that Europe couldn't design or build modern fighters, but
that they simply choose not to because it's easier to let the USA fight all
their wars for them, then complain about American 'imperialism'. They have
it both ways.


or
strike aircraft.

Tornado GR.4? Harrier GR.9?

How many? Last I heard, both of those aircraft were on their way out in the
near future.


They also have no organic strategic transport aircraft

We're assured that the A400M will be wonderful.

If they decide to buy and field more than three.


and
no usable attack helos.

Lynx AH.7? Tiger? Mangusta?

Hardly up to Apache standards.

In message , Thomas J.
Paladino Jr. writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Eurofighter? Rafale? Gripen?

How many of them are actually in service? Hmmm....

More than there are F-22s or JSFs

Tornado GR.4? Harrier GR.9?

How many?

Eighty-four Tornado GR.4s in seven frontline squadrons, plus forty-two
Harriers in three squadrons (plus OCU aircraft and a few others)

Last I heard, both of those aircraft were on their way out in the
near future.

Harrier's good for another ten years, the Tonka until 2020 or so.

Lynx AH.7? Tiger? Mangusta?

Hardly up to Apache standards.

Lynx did a very good job in Telic, despite being charitably described as
'austere'.

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

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

Steve Hix wrote:
DunxC wrote:

And what heavy bombers does the RAF have exactly?

He didn't say they had any.

Just that everyone, except for the UK, have let their militaries
decline badly.

And we haven't?

I (dimly) remember the days when the Royal Navy could have taken several
fixed-wing types to the Falklands.

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." writes:
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Alan Minyard
writes
Interesting comment, since the EU does not have "modern fighters"

Eurofighter? Rafale? Gripen?

How many of them are actually in service?

Gripen: about 140 in the Swedish air force so far.
Rafale: one squadron?
Eurofighter: (cough)

/Tomas

In message , Tomas By
writes
"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." writes:
How many of them are actually in service?

Gripen: about 140 in the Swedish air force so far.
Rafale: one squadron?
Eurofighter: (cough)

First examples are with the Operational Conversion Unit, but not many of
them yet.

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

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

"Ragnar" a écrit dans le message de
...

What about using your Internet access to get one or two clues about how
the
world *actually* goes and went during those last 20 years?

What about providing some relevant cites?


Like I said : search, read, like everybody (should) do. And if possible
widen your search to not only the last 20 years but the last 2000 years, you
might learn one or two things...


Before the U.S. bombed Gaddafi, for example,
the French had a small army in Chad (was it Chad? oh God I can't
remember) that whupped Gaddafi's invasion.

Yes, and as I recall, the US had a large hand in getting the French
there
and then supporting them.


A "large hand"? Would you care to develop? Or is it just another outward
sign of your "nothing-happens-on-this-earth-without-us" syndrom?

Well, lets see. France had no strategic airlift, so the US stepped in to
get trrops and equipment into country. France couldn't support themselves
once deployed, so the US stepped in again.



This is a strange intellectual process, indeed. You have obviously no idea
of what you're talking about yet you imagine things the way they *should* be
according to *your* incomplete and innacurate vision of the world. Ever
heard about the word "fact"?

About Chad, know that in 1983 France declined the logistical help of the US
administration which was really eager to see the French troops go farther up
north, attack Libya itself and possibly oust the then-embarassing Gaddafi,
when France's goal was only to protect the northern boundaries of Chad. As
for why we did it, make your own search.

The strategic airlift has been accomplished by French Air Force Transalls
and now-disappeared civilian carrier UTA's planes. No MAC involved. The US
has provided satellite pictures of the area though, France having no space
capabilities in the eraly 80's.

ArVa

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:33:45 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
wrote:


"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Alan Minyard
writes
Interesting comment, since the EU does not have "modern fighters"

Eurofighter? Rafale? Gripen?

How many of them are actually in service? Hmmm....

Several squadrons of Gripens, one squadron of Rafale IIRC(certainly
they have done a dpeloyment on CdG), and Typhoon is still some way
from squadron service. Otherwise for "modern" we have to rely on F-16
MLU which there are dozens of in Europe and oh look are roughly
equivalent to a Block 50 F-16C which is the most modern in the USAF.

Tornado GR.4? Harrier GR.9?

How many? Last I heard, both of those aircraft were on their way out in the
near future.

You heard wrong - GR.9 is to be replaced by F-35 sometime next decade
(first deliveries were to be in 2010, but that has slipped IIRC), and
Tornado will be around even longer before being replaced by FOAS.

They also have no organic strategic transport aircraft

We're assured that the A400M will be wonderful.

If they decide to buy and field more than three.

Current orders stand at 180 aircraft - IIRC that is slightly more than
3.

and
no usable attack helos.

Lynx AH.7? Tiger? Mangusta?

Hardly up to Apache standards.

But the Dutch have apaches (AH-64D no less), so I guess they're good
enough for your standards?

Any more sniping uninformed comments?

Peter Kemp

"ArVa" no.arva.spam_at_no_os.fr wrote in message
...
"Ragnar" a écrit dans le message de
...

What about using your Internet access to get one or two clues about
how
the
world *actually* goes and went during those last 20 years?

What about providing some relevant cites?


Like I said : search, read, like everybody (should) do. And if possible
widen your search to not only the last 20 years but the last 2000 years,
you
might learn one or two things...


Before the U.S. bombed Gaddafi, for example,
the French had a small army in Chad (was it Chad? oh God I can't
remember) that whupped Gaddafi's invasion.

Yes, and as I recall, the US had a large hand in getting the French
there
and then supporting them.


A "large hand"? Would you care to develop? Or is it just another
outward
sign of your "nothing-happens-on-this-earth-without-us" syndrom?

Well, lets see. France had no strategic airlift, so the US stepped in
to
get trrops and equipment into country. France couldn't support
themselves
once deployed, so the US stepped in again.



This is a strange intellectual process, indeed. You have obviously no idea
of what you're talking about yet you imagine things the way they *should*
be
according to *your* incomplete and innacurate vision of the world. Ever
heard about the word "fact"?

About Chad, know that in 1983 France declined the logistical help of the
US
administration which was really eager to see the French troops go farther
up
north, attack Libya itself and possibly oust the then-embarassing Gaddafi,
when France's goal was only to protect the northern boundaries of Chad. As
for why we did it, make your own search.

The strategic airlift has been accomplished by French Air Force Transalls
and now-disappeared civilian carrier UTA's planes. No MAC involved. The US
has provided satellite pictures of the area though, France having no space
capabilities in the eraly 80's.

Gee, I worked at MAC HQ from 86 to 92 and we had lots of C-141s going to
Chad in 86-87. Seems the French needed help . . . . again.

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:12:55 -0400, Peter Kemp wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:05:18 -0500, Alan Minyard
wrote:

Interesting comment, since the EU does not have "modern fighters" or
strike aircraft.

Then neither does the US since there are large numbers of F-16s in the
EU, which after the MLU program are comparable to Block 50.

I was speaking of EU produced a/c, sorry if that was not clear.

Some might think the Tornados are relatively capable strike aircraft
as well, espcecially the GR.4 that the RAF has been using in anger.

They also have no organic strategic transport aircraft and
no usable attack helos. Of course the UK has some Apaches, and
may get some C-17's.

So the Dutch Apaches (D model IIRC but without the radar) that have
been deployed in the Balkans don't count, nor do the Italian
Mangustas,

Striped down Apaches are not all that bad, as I said I was referring
to "organic" assets

nor do the C-17s that the UK already has?

I was not aware that deliveries had already started.

And strategic
lift in general is recognised as a weakness, hence the A-400 orders.

The A-400 is not a capable strategic lifter, IMHO.

Al Minyard

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