Re: OT - RAF Typhoon for sale... needs work.



It may have been the 2 seat trainer...or another example of CRD as mentioned in another post. I wonder how RAF pilots like being referred to as "top gun" too...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
eyeball wrote:

Anothe issue I have with the Typhoon is the nomenclature. Traditionally, the first mark number has a mark prefix referring to the intended main role of the aircraft. The Harrier is a ground attack aircraft with a secondary recce capability. Therefore the first version was the GR1. The trainer version was the T2.
That has been turned on its head with the Typhoon. Its main mission is as a fighter with a grund attack and recce capability. Yet, the Mk 1 version is the T-bird so we end up with the Typhoon T1. Pathetic!
As the single-seat version still isn't capable of operating in a ground attack role, they are designated F2. They will only gradually be retrpfitted to the FGR4 standard.
The Typhoon isn't the only British aircraft that has nomenclature problems. The initial mark of the Sea Harrier was intended for the fighter, recce and strike roles, so it was designated FRS1. Fair enough. The mark 2 version had the strike capability removed and was intended as a fleet defence fighter with a secondary ground attack capability. There was a perfectly adequate designation available - FGA2 - but some idiot at the MOD decided that the US designation of the Hornet was far sexier. So the Mk 2 version of the Sea Harrier became the F/A2... Grrrrrrrrrrrrr!
And don't get me started on the Phantom F-4J(UK)...

LOL The youngsters love it!
--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Enzo Matrix wrote:

I guess now that you mention it I'd sort of wonder why it isn't something like "FA Mk.1" myself...but it's not really of much concern to me...whatever they want to call it is fine.
...from what I've seen of them just flying in the pattern I'm sort of impressed with them. Nice small, compact little fighter. Points it's nose very nicely.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rufus wrote:

What a shame that a number of European air forces had a similar capability 25 years ago... Typhoon is simply an F-16A that is a quarter of a century behind the times.
--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Enzo Matrix wrote:

From what I do know about the Typhoon it does have a few interesting advanced systems in it, but yeah - other than it's delta/canard plan form and mostly composite structure (and even that's been around since Harrier II) it's not really that far in front of Gripens or Vipers as airframes go. But then I don't know anything about it's capability/capacity for incorporation of future systems, which is really what longevity of the newest gen of fighter airframes is all about - growth potential. And even that growth returns to depending on how much money will be available for incorporation of those future systems.
I'm of the growing opinion that fighter - or more likely, strikefighter - aircraft are going to become obsolete within my lifetime anyway. They take far too long to develop, they cost too much, and there are growing numbers of technological alternatives to placing a crew in harm's way. And if strikefighters vanish I'm not really sure what sort of use there would be for fighter jets either, really.
And even though they've rolled out a VSTOL F-35 recently, I'm still dubious about it as well...
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rufus wrote:

The growth potential is immense. The limiting factor is the funding available. The Tornado MLU programme which resulted in the GR4 only really succeeded in introducing a GPS capability to the aircraft. It is still unable to update the fuzing parameters of munitions while in flight, and that capability was supposed to be in place by 1994!
And even that growth returns to depending

EggZACKerly!
--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Limpet wrote:

From what I understand the GR.4 also gained a night attack capability...that's significant. But yeah, it's still another older airframe ready for replacement just like the Tomcat.
...but where's the bankroll gonna come from? And why?..
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rufus wrote:

And yet, it seemed to do perfectly well in Operation GRANBY! I didn't see the light of day for a month in that campaign!

Another very good point. I also wonder why the MOD is continuing to fund Meteor. Just *when* will a BVR missile ever be needed? Every single operation that the RAF has been involved in in the last twenty years has had ROE that require visual identification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Meteor
--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Enzo Matrix wrote:

Sounding more like "improved capability" vise capability...

Another universal argument for the retirement of Tomcat/Phoenix along with fleet age - AFAIK there has never been a BVR engagement resulting in a kill in the entire history of air warfare. It's more of a deterrent capability rather than a tactical one, IMO. And "need or requirement" would be highly dependent upon/relative to the size of the area being defended.
Not to mention that as I've mentioned, there is a growing reluctance to send these highly valued aircraft and crews into scenarios where they might be lost in the first place - and the current level of in-theater air threat in the first place.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
eyeball wrote:

Looking at the canopy it seemed like a single seater, but now that you mention it I haven't seen a two seater on the wing - but they are still flying. Got swooped by one on my way to lunch just yesterday.
Very hard to distinguish a Typhoon from an F-16 at some angles...has to go wing-high so you can see that delta, then you can tell.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message news:DsidnSnjTJ-

Actually a few years ago the USAF, in yet another attempt to codify tradition, decided to call everyone in the USAF "Airman", regardless of rank. Capitalized. To compare to "Marines" "Soldiers" "Sailors". So USAF non-NCO enlisted persons are both airmen and Airmen. NCOs and officers are Airmen. So the reporter was not incorrect, as long as he capitalized Airmen. Clear as mud?
--
Curt
KVPS



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: : Clueless Reporter's Disease - it's a real crippler. Usually appears in the : form of anything with treads that is not a bulldozer is a tank and any : warship with a turret is a battleship. :     Well, if they are saying "battleship", then they are wrong. Problem is, they could be saying "battle ship", and that is perfectly correct, if a mite confusing. I would prefer that they use the appropriate term (destroyer, frigate, etc), but that is expecting WAY too much from a reporter. So, "man 'o war" would work, but is doubtless far too politically incorrect...
    So, perhaps they should stick to "war ship". Probably still too non-PC.
                            Bruce
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Everything points to the pilot forgetting to lower the wheels, which does happen from time to time," an RAF insider said.
AVM Prune was unavailable for further comment.
(It's the Sun, after all. Remember the Falklands? "The Sun Sez: Kill all Argies!")
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sorry but those who fly are considered and called Airmen. Pilots and aircrews hold an Airmen certification or "licenses." No where on my Pilot's License does it say "pilots license" it says Airman Certificate.
All personnel serving in the USAF are called Airmen collectively. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines....no where do we separate the officers from the enlisted individuals in these descriptives. So the author of the story was correct.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bluumule wrote:

But the pilot concerned was in the RAF, where aircrew are certainly *not* referred to as "airmen".
--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think he's zeroing in on my comments referring to the two USAF pilots killed in TX a few weeks ago. A day late, dollar short - but it's all good.
WmB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
WmB wrote:

Ah... sorry... I'll just stand over here and keep quiet then. :-D
--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

pssst, got any peectures, seenor?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@some.domain wrote:

Sorry no... but I'd be interested in looking at your peectures. Provided they show what is located behind the fuselage hatches on an FW-190, that is...
--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

oh, you saucy devil! would snaps of the undercarriage of a ar 234 turn you on?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.