Eurofighter is turning into German nightmare

Ignorant? Having worked in the aerospace industry for a while including
with the French, I take that as a personal insult ; )

Love the way you try to claim the Rafale is "world class", but then not
quite up to American class. Given the different approaches to defence
spending, I don't think any other country would get close? But then, its
not as if America hasnt used other countries ideas before - Canberra?

And then on to the health of the respective countries aviation industry.
Britain (not just England) is acknowledged by all the european partners in
Airbus to be the best at wing design. Last time I checked an aeroplane
needed wings??

The Hawk was never really designed as a fighter. The original staff
requirement was for a trainer, that somebody then decided to bung some air
to air capability on to. Still, it cant be that bad given that its in
service with so many countries (not just as a trainer). If america is so
cutting edge, why is it that during Gulf War I they asked the Brits to go in
against the heavily defended airfields with JP233? Surely a cutting edge
country could have had some other less risky way? Or was it just not sexy
enough?
"Chuck Johnson" wrote in message
. 165.241...
"Ian Craig" wrote in
:

"Anonymous" wrote in message
...

Ian Craig wrote in message ...

"ArVa" wrote in message
...
Another gratuitous statement.... "Always"? What about the
Concorde, the Jaguar, the Alphajet, the Mig AT, the Tiger and the
entire Eurocopter line-up? What about Airbus? What about EADS?
What about the ATR family?
What
about SNECMA working with GE to produce the CFM-56, one of the
most successful family of jet engine ever? What about all these
successful partnerships and some I may have forgotten?...

You'd have got me if you hadn'#t mentioned Jaguar and Alphjet, and
probably
MIG AT. They've not been that successful? The others have.

The SEPECAT Jaguar has been in service with both Frances' own air
force
and
the RAF in the UK for a long time.

I remember the name Alphajet, but not the aircraft.

Cheers
Graeme


Yeah, but its not exactly a brilliant aircraft? The only reason its
still in service is because fo the recent engine upgrade(if you can
call it that), and the fact that the air planners don't believe its
role can be performed by anything else in the RAF.



Right on ArVa!
I love it when the ignorant attack the French aviation industry...
Answer this: Which aviation sector is healthier? England's or France's?
Me? I'll give the nod to France.
So far as I can tell, France has continuously constructed their own highly
capable aircraft by themselves. The outcome: Mirage III; F.1; Etendard;
Mirage 2000; and Rafale. By all authoritative accounts, their aircraft are
world class. American class? Close, but no. Nobody is. America is the
undisputed leader in cutting edge design and execution. Literally a
generation ahead. Similar to the Luftwaffe during WWII.

And England? Decades earlier, England decided to resort to joint projects
with other nations--surely a sign of ill financial health or lack of
design/manufacturing leadership and expertise. Look at the outcome:
Tornado (IDS and ADV); Hawk 100/200 (a fighter? Hee hee!); Nimrod AEW.
Jeez, I'm going to stop--I'm getting depressed!
-Chuck

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:42:59 +0100, "Ian Craig"
wrote:

The Hawk was never really designed as a fighter. The original staff
requirement was for a trainer, that somebody then decided to bung some air
to air capability on to. Still, it cant be that bad given that its in
service with so many countries (not just as a trainer).

Quite right. IIRC quite a large flying arm is using over the other
side of the Atlantic - T-45 Goshawk ring a bell Chuck?

If america is so
cutting edge, why is it that during Gulf War I they asked the Brits to go in
against the heavily defended airfields with JP233?

IIRC the main reason was the US never undertook the airfield denial
mission on the grounds that the losses would be too high, and that it
was covered by the NATO allies (RAF/Luftwaffe). Of course we did take
losses, but none of them were during the *dangerous* part of the
mission (i.e. flying dead level and straight down the runway).

Surely a cutting edge
country could have had some other less risky way? Or was it just not sexy
enough?

Well, to be fair the US did plink the shelters with LGBs (as did the
Buccaneers IIRC - despite their age), but only after the aircraft were
confined to the ground by the JP233 attacks.

Peter Kemp

TJ wrote in message ...

Anonymous wrote:

All the RAF's Nimrods are based at RAF Kinloss (which isn't too far away
from
here), but they have enough range to allow them to patrol the entire UK
coastline.

Not all. Three 51 Squadron R.1s are based at RAF Waddington. Lincolnshire.

OK - mild goof on my part... sorry !

What I -Should- have said is that Kinloss is the UK's only dedicated Nimrod
station...

My bad !

Cheers
Graeme

Peter Kemp wrote in message ...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:55:50 +0000 (UTC), "Anonymous"
wrote:

Nimrod is still brilliant as a maritime patrol, ASW and AEW jet.

The AEW.3 version never entered service, which is why we've got Sentry
AEW.1 aircraft, based at Waddington.

Ah; this I wasn't aware of - I had been under the impression that the
E3 was being bought in as a replacement for the original Nimrod AEW
version.

Thinking about it, the E3 could have been bought in instead of the AEW
Nimrod (rather than to replace).

D'oh! Two goofs in one day isn't good going... :O(

Cheers
Graeme

Peter Kemp wrote:

On 24 Sep 2003 08:07:53 -0700, (defaultnot)
wrote:

When did Europeans do anything right???

In Iraq, Europeans only stood idle and watched and supplied the
equipment Saddam massacred millions of innocent human beings until the
USA stepped in again. Now the Europeans are still doing nothing but
bitching about USA.

Don't talk crap. The US was standing idle watching Iraq as well you
halfwit. Or if you don't get back under your bridge I'll bring up some
of the US' less golden moments in recent history.

Oh don't let alleged trolls under the bridge stop you!

Brining up "US' less golden moments in recent history" has been de rigeur
in discussing American foreign policy for some time now.

I presume that is because they seem so much better documented than the
"less golden moments" of others.


SMH

On 25 Sep 2003 16:29:09 GMT, Drewe Manton
wrote:

Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom wrote in
:

The US was standing idle watching Iraq as well you
halfwit.

Methinks you credit him with entirely too much intellectual capacity . . .

But it's *so* much fun beating him with the clue stick since I added
the nails of knowledge (rusty nails at that)!

But then again, how does the quotes go?

"I'm in a battle of wits with an unarmed man"

"Never argue with an idiot - he'll drag you down to his level and beat
you with experience".

Peter Kemp

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:26:24 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:

Peter Kemp wrote:

On 24 Sep 2003 08:07:53 -0700, (defaultnot)
wrote:

When did Europeans do anything right???

In Iraq, Europeans only stood idle and watched and supplied the
equipment Saddam massacred millions of innocent human beings until the
USA stepped in again. Now the Europeans are still doing nothing but
bitching about USA.

Don't talk crap. The US was standing idle watching Iraq as well you
halfwit. Or if you don't get back under your bridge I'll bring up some
of the US' less golden moments in recent history.

Oh don't let alleged trolls under the bridge stop you!

Brining up "US' less golden moments in recent history" has been de rigeur
in discussing American foreign policy for some time now.

I presume that is because they seem so much better documented than the
"less golden moments" of others.

Hardly, I doubt there's a country in the world who's happy for their
closets to be examined for skeletons (although Iceland doesn't seem to
have done anything too bad........yet), and they're all documented,
even if not in the US, which does have the biggest media voice.

Hell, I'm proud to be a Brit (ok, ok, half-Brit), and we did some damn
nasty things in our past.

Peter Kemp

"ZZBunker"

The US was hardly standing by idle, since we bought and renovated
Diego Garcia from the idiot British. Just in case their
Indian sub-empire gets like you know, how do the British say it, bridgy.


Diego Garcia is still BIOT (British Indian Ocean Territory). The joint UK-US
facility is on lease to the US. Please explain to the commissoner in the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London, that the US has bought outright
Diego Garcia and the BIOT.

TJ

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:35:43 +0100, "TJ"
wrote:

[snip]
Diego Garcia is still BIOT (British Indian Ocean Territory). The joint UK-US
facility is on lease to the US. Please explain to the commissoner in the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London, that the US has bought outright
Diego Garcia and the BIOT.

Are the Ilois still trying to get their homes back and be allowed
back on the island? IIRC they were suing the UK and the US.

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/

"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash

Peter Kemp wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:26:24 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:

Brining up "US' less golden moments in recent history" has been de rigeur
in discussing American foreign policy for some time now.

I presume that is because they seem so much better documented than the
"less golden moments" of others.

Hardly, I doubt there's a country in the world who's happy for their
closets to be examined for skeletons (although Iceland doesn't seem to
have done anything too bad........yet), and they're all documented,
even if not in the US, which does have the biggest media voice.

Yes most countries of the world have done bad things at one time or another.
I mention US atrocities being much better documented because of two major
factors: A free press for most of its history, and the hugh leap in
technology that has occurred during a significant part of its national history
(say 150 years) in conjunction with that free press. I think that puts US
deeds under better focus than those of many other nations.

European nations have done far more to brutalize indigenous peoples, steal
their lands, exploit their populations, enslave and kill than Americans
have ever done, yet the standard for underhandedness seems to be American
slavery and colonial through national Indian policies, followed perhaps by
CIA operations during the Cold War.

Hell, I'm proud to be a Brit (ok, ok, half-Brit), and we did some damn
nasty things in our past.

Yet the focus always seems to be on the nasty things done by the US.

BBC, CNN, ABC and the like can be right in that Baghdad neighborhood when
an errant bomb from those aggressive, bloodthirsty Americans goes off, but
are absent when Saddam's thugs round up Kurdish villagers "for interrogation"
never to be seen again.

Wonder what our opinion of the Swedes or Danes would be if BBC was on scene
in 900 AD to record [on *film*!] the results of a Viking raid, and we could
bring up that footage for viewing whenever we had a disagreement with
nationals from those countries?


SMH