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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Yeff" wrote in message
... Sun 30 May 2004 (snip) 1) Scotland on Sunday is not a very good newspaper. 2) Four years behind schedule is not that much. How far behind its original schedule has the F/A 22 slipped? Here is an equivalently uninformed and biassed story, but this time about the 22. (Excerpt) 'A GAO report in 1994 concluded that it would be cheaper and perhaps even more effective from a military point of view to stick with the F-15. "Instead of confronting thousands of modern Soviet fighters, the US air forces are expected to confront potential adversary air forces that include few fighters that have the capability to the challenge the F-15-the US frontline fighter. Our analysis shows that the F-15 exceeds the most advanced threat system expected to exist. We assumed no improvements will be made to the F-15 but the capability of the 'most advanced threat' assumes certain modifications. Further, our analysis indicates that the current inventory of F-15s can be economically maintained in a structurally sound condition until 2015 or later." So what's behind the F-22? The project's driven in large measure by what some Pentagon analysts call "the cult of stealth". In the mid-80s the Air Force, struggling to stay relevant, realized that "stealth" was a great marketing tool. The public was fascinated by those black, oddly configured, "invisible" airplanes and so were members of congress. It didn't matter if the stealth bomber was just as visible to most Russian radar system as the B-52 and cost 50 times as much to produce. "The F-22 is not going to be a fighter-versus-fighter airplane," says Riccioni. "And if you want that capability, you can get it if you don't design for stealth. And if you don't design for stealth, you can make it affordable. And if it's affordable, you can get the numbers you want." Riccioni's right, of course, except for the fact that the Air Force doesn't even need a new fleet of planes because there's no existing fighter threat, hasn't been one since the Korean War, and there's none in the foreseeable future. Some high-ranking Republicans are beginning to shake their heads at the Pentagon's incessant begging for ever-larger budgets and more expensive weapon systems, like the F-22, even in the face of epidemic cost over-runs. "The Pentagon does not know how much it spends", says Senator Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican who now heads the Senate Armed Services committee. "It does not know if it gets what it orders in goods and services. And the Pentagon, additionally, does not have a handle on its inventory. If the Pentagon does not know what it owns and spends, then how does the Pentagon know if it needs more money? Ramping up the Pentagon budget when the books are a mess is highly questionable at best. To some it might seem crazy." ' The whole story is at: http://www.counterpunch.org/f22.html John |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:29:13 -0400, Yeff wrote:
Not impressed with this story - the paper claims.... But, just as the Royal Air Force prepares to take delivery of the first of more than 200 Eurofighters to which it has been committed for almost a decade, it has emerged that the RAF will not have all of them in its hands for long. A sheepish Ministry of Defence (MoD) has admitted that moves are already underway to sell off dozens of the brand-new super-fighters as soon as they are delivered. But what the MOD actually said was...... "Some consideration has been given to the scope to provide for early export of Eurofighter Typhoon to potential overseas customers," admitted armed forces minister Adam Ingram. "If pursued, a sale might be accomplished by adjusting the delivery profile to the RAF. The RAF remains, however, the primary customer for these aircraft and any decision made will take full account of its requirements." Which is different. The MOD is saying it's prepared to delay delivery of some of its buy in order to allow quicker delivery of export models. Extremely suspect journalism in other words. Peter Kemp |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
... On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:29:13 -0400, Yeff wrote: Not impressed with this story - the paper claims.... But, just as the Royal Air Force prepares to take delivery of the first of more than 200 Eurofighters to which it has been committed for almost a decade, it has emerged that the RAF will not have all of them in its hands for long. A sheepish Ministry of Defence (MoD) has admitted that moves are already underway to sell off dozens of the brand-new super-fighters as soon as they are delivered. But what the MOD actually said was...... "Some consideration has been given to the scope to provide for early export of Eurofighter Typhoon to potential overseas customers," admitted armed forces minister Adam Ingram. "If pursued, a sale might be accomplished by adjusting the delivery profile to the RAF. The RAF remains, however, the primary customer for these aircraft and any decision made will take full account of its requirements." Which is different. The MOD is saying it's prepared to delay delivery of some of its buy in order to allow quicker delivery of export models. Extremely suspect journalism in other words. It really is a **** newspaper. John |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Kemp" wrote in message ... On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:29:13 -0400, Yeff wrote: Not impressed with this story - the paper claims.... But, just as the Royal Air Force prepares to take delivery of the first of more than 200 Eurofighters to which it has been committed for almost a decade, it has emerged that the RAF will not have all of them in its hands for long. A sheepish Ministry of Defence (MoD) has admitted that moves are already underway to sell off dozens of the brand-new super-fighters as soon as they are delivered. But what the MOD actually said was...... "Some consideration has been given to the scope to provide for early export of Eurofighter Typhoon to potential overseas customers," admitted armed forces minister Adam Ingram. "If pursued, a sale might be accomplished by adjusting the delivery profile to the RAF. The RAF remains, however, the primary customer for these aircraft and any decision made will take full account of its requirements." Which is different. The MOD is saying it's prepared to delay delivery of some of its buy in order to allow quicker delivery of export models. Extremely suspect journalism in other words. While I generally agree with your critique in terms of the usual journalistic twisting of words, the MoD quote does allow leeway for them to say later, "Well, we relooked at our requirements and decided we *really* did not need 232 of these aircraft, that 180 is just fine..." or some such drivel. It is not as if it should be a surprise that the RAF and/or UK government might cut back on their "requirement"; for gosh sakes, they are so close to the bone that they plan to field a chunk of them sans-guns solely based upon financial concerns (that indicates a pretty nasty budgeting situation to me). The USAF has adjusted (downward) its requirments for the F/A-22 over the years--that other nations would do the same for high-dollar systems is to be expected, especially given the change in the nature of the threat spectrum. Brooks Peter Kemp |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:11:47 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote: "Peter Kemp" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:29:13 -0400, Yeff wrote: Not impressed with this story - the paper claims.... But, just as the Royal Air Force prepares to take delivery of the first of more than 200 Eurofighters to which it has been committed for almost a decade, it has emerged that the RAF will not have all of them in its hands for long. A sheepish Ministry of Defence (MoD) has admitted that moves are already underway to sell off dozens of the brand-new super-fighters as soon as they are delivered. But what the MOD actually said was...... "Some consideration has been given to the scope to provide for early export of Eurofighter Typhoon to potential overseas customers," admitted armed forces minister Adam Ingram. "If pursued, a sale might be accomplished by adjusting the delivery profile to the RAF. The RAF remains, however, the primary customer for these aircraft and any decision made will take full account of its requirements." Which is different. The MOD is saying it's prepared to delay delivery of some of its buy in order to allow quicker delivery of export models. Extremely suspect journalism in other words. While I generally agree with your critique in terms of the usual journalistic twisting of words, the MoD quote does allow leeway for them to say later, "Well, we relooked at our requirements and decided we *really* did not need 232 of these aircraft, that 180 is just fine..." or some such drivel. It is not as if it should be a surprise that the RAF and/or UK government might cut back on their "requirement"; for gosh sakes, they are so close to the bone that they plan to field a chunk of them sans-guns solely based upon financial concerns (that indicates a pretty nasty budgeting situation to me). The "However, the spokesman said that the ministry was still committed to taking the same total number of aircraft. " bit that was missed out of the newspaper peice, I havn't yet managed to find any reference to the MoD saying that 180 is all thts needed!!!. cheers The USAF has adjusted (downward) its requirments for the F/A-22 over the years--that other nations would do the same for high-dollar systems is to be expected, especially given the change in the nature of the threat spectrum. Brooks Peter Kemp John Cook Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them. Email Address :- Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"John Cook" wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:11:47 -0400, "Kevin Brooks" wrote: [...] While I generally agree with your critique in terms of the usual journalistic twisting of words, the MoD quote does allow leeway for them to say later, "Well, we relooked at our requirements and decided we *really* did not need 232 of these aircraft, that 180 is just fine..." or some such drivel. It is not as if it should be a surprise that the RAF and/or UK government might cut back on their "requirement"; for gosh sakes, they are so close to the bone that they plan to field a chunk of them sans-guns solely based upon financial concerns (that indicates a pretty nasty budgeting situation to me). The "However, the spokesman said that the ministry was still committed to taking the same total number of aircraft. " bit that was missed out of the newspaper peice, I havn't yet managed to find any reference to the MoD saying that 180 is all thts needed!!!. The Ministry spokesman has not yet been to be told they can only afford 52 (or that a new aircraft design contract award is imminent). |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Brett" wrote:
"John Cook" wrote: On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:11:47 -0400, "Kevin Brooks" wrote: [...] While I generally agree with your critique in terms of the usual journalistic twisting of words, the MoD quote does allow leeway for them to say later, "Well, we relooked at our requirements and decided we *really* did not need 232 of these aircraft, that 180 is just fine..." or some such drivel. It is not as if it should be a surprise that the RAF and/or UK government might cut back on their "requirement"; for gosh sakes, they are so close to the bone that they plan to field a chunk of them sans-guns solely based upon financial concerns (that indicates a pretty nasty budgeting situation to me). The "However, the spokesman said that the ministry was still committed to taking the same total number of aircraft. " bit that was missed out of the newspaper peice, I havn't yet managed to find any reference to the MoD saying that 180 is all thts needed!!!. The Ministry spokesman has not yet been to be told they can only afford 52 The Ministry spokesman has not yet been told they can only afford 55 (or that a new aircraft design contract award is imminent). |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"John Cook" wrote in message ... On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:11:47 -0400, "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Peter Kemp" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:29:13 -0400, Yeff wrote: Not impressed with this story - the paper claims.... But, just as the Royal Air Force prepares to take delivery of the first of more than 200 Eurofighters to which it has been committed for almost a decade, it has emerged that the RAF will not have all of them in its hands for long. A sheepish Ministry of Defence (MoD) has admitted that moves are already underway to sell off dozens of the brand-new super-fighters as soon as they are delivered. But what the MOD actually said was...... "Some consideration has been given to the scope to provide for early export of Eurofighter Typhoon to potential overseas customers," admitted armed forces minister Adam Ingram. "If pursued, a sale might be accomplished by adjusting the delivery profile to the RAF. The RAF remains, however, the primary customer for these aircraft and any decision made will take full account of its requirements." Which is different. The MOD is saying it's prepared to delay delivery of some of its buy in order to allow quicker delivery of export models. Extremely suspect journalism in other words. While I generally agree with your critique in terms of the usual journalistic twisting of words, the MoD quote does allow leeway for them to say later, "Well, we relooked at our requirements and decided we *really* did not need 232 of these aircraft, that 180 is just fine..." or some such drivel. It is not as if it should be a surprise that the RAF and/or UK government might cut back on their "requirement"; for gosh sakes, they are so close to the bone that they plan to field a chunk of them sans-guns solely based upon financial concerns (that indicates a pretty nasty budgeting situation to me). The "However, the spokesman said that the ministry was still committed to taking the same total number of aircraft. " bit that was missed out of the newspaper peice, I havn't yet managed to find any reference to the MoD saying that 180 is all thts needed!!!. It was an example, you twit. Brooks cheers The USAF has adjusted (downward) its requirments for the F/A-22 over the years--that other nations would do the same for high-dollar systems is to be expected, especially given the change in the nature of the threat spectrum. Brooks Peter Kemp John Cook Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them. Email Address :- Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:11:47 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote: While I generally agree with your critique in terms of the usual journalistic twisting of words, the MoD quote does allow leeway for them to say later, "Well, we relooked at our requirements and decided we *really* did not need 232 of these aircraft, that 180 is just fine..." or some such drivel. If so, then it would be easier to just not order Tranche 3, rather than ordering all 232 and then immediately selling some on. That's why it tripped my BS meter. Peter Kemp |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
30 Jan 2004 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 31st 04 03:55 AM |
15 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 15th 03 10:01 PM |
27 Nov 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | November 30th 03 05:57 PM |
Shock news EUROFIGHTER to be axed in RAF program changes. | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 11 | November 10th 03 08:55 PM |
18 Sep 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 19th 03 03:47 AM |