Eurofighter - Not such a failure.

[Pathy 0]

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=673262005

Quote[/b] ]IT might be over budget and years late but the Eurofighter Typhoon has shown that it can shake off America's best fighter plane and shoot it down.

A chance encounter over the Lake District between a Eurofighter trainer and two F-15 aircraft turned into a mock dogfight, with the British plane coming off best - much to the surprise of some in the RAF. The episode was hushed up for fear of causing US blushes.

For a project 10 years late and $8bn over budget, it is a welcome piece of good news.

The 'clash' took place last year over Windermere when the two-seater RAF Eurofighter was 'bounced' from behind by the two F-15E fighters.

The US pilots intended to pursue the supposedly hapless 'Limey' for several miles and lock their radars on to it for long enough so that if it had been a real dogfight the British jet would have been shot down.

But much to the Americans' surprise, the Eurofighter shook them off, outmanoeuvred them and moved into shooting positions on their tails.

The British pilots themselves were almost as surprised at winning an encounter with an aircraft widely regarded as the best fighter in the world.

Seems maybe its the right choice after all

[Tovarish 0]

This article really doesn't say much, and IMHO the author doesn't know much of what he's talking about. The Eurofighter is much lighter than an F-15, so it's no surprize it can outturn one - nevermind the fact that it was the strike Eagle and not the air superiority F-15C involved - it would have been more interesting to see it versus a late model F-16 for example. F-15's reportedly had trouble against India's upgraded MiG-21s in a recent excersize - doesn't mean that an upgraded MiG-21 is the fighter for the future.

And then there's the fact that in real life the aircraft doing the bouncing would have gotten off the first missile shot....

*edit* and I thought these days America's best fighter was the F-22?

[shinRaiden 0]

The F-15E's an all-weather multirole, on an older and chunkier airframe. A modernized F-16, or JSF would have been much more appropiate. Then it would be just yet another ford-vs-chevy debate.

Similar arguements about FA-18 and F-14. The only thing that came close to mirroring the unique tactics of the F-14 was the intercept model for the Mig-25 to engage the B-70 Valkerie.

If you want some FUD, how about you try hanging a couple A-10's worth of ordnance under the wings - all of it laser/optically controlled - with all the other telemetry and mission control stuff for multirole, and do a full AWACS on AWACS test.

[Daniel 0]

Anyone here about the mounted gun incident? Apparently the original design had, quite logically, involved a mounted cannon in the nose. However, the MoD decided aeroplane cannons are now out of date (even though RAF Pilots argued against it, saying cannons acted as a useful defence on return trips from bombing runs, or as a last defence in a dogfight).

However, the MoD went ignored this and the gun was removed from the budget. Unfortunately, the guns weight had been a major part of the aerodynamics of the plane, and so a replacement was designed of exactly the same weight as the original gun to be placed in the same area.

The research and development of the replacement material cost the same as it would have been to use the cannon.

[sniperuk02 0]

They have actually refitted the guns and amunition because the wieght balance was all messed up without it.

[Supah 0]

LOL someone is looking for reasons to feel good about that project! To think winning a dogfight from some F-15E's is some great achievement .... The F-15 is a HUGE and heavy plane. Its not a good turn fighter. The E version is a ground attack version which is not optimalised for dogfighting. Go up against an F-16AM loaded for ACM and then see how you fare. The EF2000 project has taken far too long and the plane will be old technology by the time it reaches unit level deployment. Compare it to the JSF etc. and what ever the russians are doing with those flanker variants of theirs and it has a big problem. We europeans don't know how to do this like the americans. They can develop and field fighter jets in ~10 years not 30 years which is WAY too long.

Quote[/b] ]Anyone here about the mounted gun incident? Apparently the original design had, quite logically, involved a mounted cannon in the nose. However, the MoD decided aeroplane cannons are now out of date (even though RAF Pilots argued against it, saying cannons acted as a useful defence on return trips from bombing runs, or as a last defence in a dogfight).

However, the MoD went ignored this and the gun was removed from the budget. Unfortunately, the guns weight had been a major part of the aerodynamics of the plane, and so a replacement was designed of exactly the same weight as the original gun to be placed in the same area.

The research and development of the replacement material cost the same as it would have been to use the cannon.

hahaha o yes that one! The RAF apparently STILL hasn't learned the lessons the USAF learned in vietnam. But then again for years they havent had an effective fighter having wasted a lot of their time on tornado which really didn't do anything well. Another one of those pan european fiasco's. Mediocre to poor bomber, poor fighter. I know some german F-4F pilots who can show you tapes of them defeating Tornado ADV's everytime they meet them. Hey and guess which plane they RAF spent billions on developing to replace what plane?

[harley 3 1185 0]

Yes, it's all very well and good to criticise the Eurofighter, the RAF etc. when the bane of British fighter development has ALWAYS been the Ministry of Defense (and normally Labour governments).

How about this for size then;

Quote[/b] ]To finish up, my conclusion has to be that given the choice between the F-15 and the Lightning, I would have been mad not to take the Eagle, but only because it has such superb avionics and weaponry. For the pure joy of flying, the Lightning still heads the list. It was and indeed still is a magnificent aircraft, and a credit to the designers and test pilots who developed and brought it into service for people like me to enjoy.

By a recently deceased Wing Commander (equal to a Lt. Colonel in the U.S.A.F.). In his report he made the point that performance wise the English Electric Lightning could match the F15C hands down on everything but range and armament. If we hadn't made the rash decision to replace it in the Air Superiority category with bloody Phantoms (Labour government again) the Lightning fleet could have been progressively upgraded to the point where in the 1980s it would have been the equal of the F15C.

The fact that the Lightning outperformed nearly every jet until the 1980s, yet was shelved in favour of the inferior and more costly Phantom, is a mystery to me. How the British Aerospace Industry was ever able to sell and planes to such a retarded Government is quite beyond me.

So what you're all arguing is quite a moot point; yes, the Eurofighter may be inferior to the F15C (which I'm still not convinced of), but it would wipe the floor with the Phantom and any other fighter which it is likely to go into combat against. Unless we go to war with Israel, then even you Yank pilot jocks are screwed.

And if the dear old Lightning (which would be 50 years old now) were still around, it would be wiping the floor with half the air forces of the world.

[MontyVCB 0]

you sure about that? as it would'nt be able to mount the modern Air 2 Air missiles of today. and back in the 80s it would of cost more to maintain the lightening and retro fit it with more modern missiles than getting the phantom, which were first bought for the navy not the RAF. they only came to the RAF after our larger carriers were decommisioned.

[Messiah 2]

But then again for years they havent had an effective fighter having wasted a lot of their time on tornado which really didn't do anything well. Another one of those pan european fiasco's. Mediocre to poor bomber, poor fighter.

i know an RAF pilot who would differ in that opionion... Yes, it wasn't the greatest plane ever developed, but it still does the job from what he tells me and can still be suprisingly agile etc...

[Supah 0]

Yes, it's all very well and good to criticise the Eurofighter, the RAF etc. when the bane of British fighter development has ALWAYS been the Ministry of Defense (and normally Labour governments).

How about this for size then;

Quote[/b] ]To finish up, my conclusion has to be that given the choice between the F-15 and the Lightning, I would have been mad not to take the Eagle, but only because it has such superb avionics and weaponry. For the pure joy of flying, the Lightning still heads the list. It was and indeed still is a magnificent aircraft, and a credit to the designers and test pilots who developed and brought it into service for people like me to enjoy.

By a recently deceased Wing Commander (equal to a Lt. Colonel in the U.S.A.F.). In his report he made the point that performance wise the English Electric Lightning could match the F15C hands down on everything but range and armament. If we hadn't made the rash decision to replace it in the Air Superiority category with bloody Phantoms (Labour government again) the Lightning fleet could have been progressively upgraded to the point where in the 1980s it would have been the equal of the F15C.

The fact that the Lightning outperformed nearly every jet until the 1980s, yet was shelved in favour of the inferior and more costly Phantom, is a mystery to me. How the British Aerospace Industry was ever able to sell and planes to such a retarded Government is quite beyond me.

So what you're all arguing is quite a moot point; yes, the Eurofighter may be inferior to the F15C (which I'm still not convinced of), but it would wipe the floor with the Phantom and any other fighter which it is likely to go into combat against. Unless we go to war with Israel, then even you Yank pilot jocks are screwed.

And if the dear old Lightning (which would be 50 years old now) were still around, it would be wiping the floor with half the air forces of the world.

Agreed the Lightning was the greatest fighter britain ever develloped but to say it would be better then the phantom .... I remember tales of my father and his mates of them not being that impressed by them in their F-104G's. The Phantoms were mainly brought in because of the Lightnings Range problems and non-existant AG capabillity. The Lightning was an impressive development by English Electric but to say that it would still beat half the airforces our there is just plain uninformed. You might have noticed that most of the airforces around the north sea are equipped with F-16AM's. One of the most capable fighters of the day. These would have had no problems with the Lightning. The german Phantom's would pbb have been able to handle it through proper tactics. The eastern block 29's (most of which are slated to be replaced by falcons too) would have an edge over it, they have range problems of their own but not as bad as lightning. The French Mirage might have a problem in a sustained turn fight due to the high drag of the Delta wing while at alpha but once Rafale comes in ..... The spanish operate F/A-18's which would have no problem with the EE bird, neither would the portugese Falcons nor would belgian falcons. I don't think you want to think about messing with the Swedes and their Saab's (Viggen and grippen) as that would be rather painfull. So basically which airforce were you going to lord over with your Lightnings? Togo? Tuvalu? Iraq? Afghanistan?

It is normal for old men to let their factual memories be tainted by their love for a certain aircraft they flew but if you want to claim you are the best historian britain has ever know, as you appear to be doing in your signature, I believe you should learn to see through that A LOT more.

[harley 3 1185 0]

I'm sure  .  The reason that it would have cost so much to maintain and retrofit them in the 1980s was a) production had ended decades before, meaning no new-builds, and b) a good proportion of the fleet had been scrapped when the Phantom was introduced to the RAF in 1968.  And seeing as the Royal Air Force has not had to exercise its Air Defense capability in the past 30 years it would have been a damn site cheaper than first building Phantoms, then ADV Tornadoes and finally now the Typhoon.

Supah, do you honestly think we'd ever go to war with any of the countries on the North Sea or in NATO - that, is just uninformed. I'm talking about the real world where the likeliest enemy is going to be an even more underfunded and under trained air force such as Iran, what was the Iraqi Air Force and maybe certain African nations.

[Supah 0]

But then again for years they havent had an effective fighter having wasted a lot of their time on tornado which really didn't do anything well. Another one of those pan european fiasco's. Mediocre to poor bomber, poor fighter.

i know an RAF pilot who would differ in that opionion... Yes, it wasn't the greatest plane ever developed, but it still does the job from what he tells me and can still be suprisingly agile etc...

Couple of reasons why it is uneffective:

1. Poor maintainabillity, At most large exercises I have been to Tornado's from all airforces that participated in that project have been unable to fly a lot of their sorties due to engine failures, gear failures and random electrical problems. I have seen planned waves of 12 tornado's going out with 5 of them being back within minutes of take off with gear and other failures.

2. Designed for a flawed strategy. During the first gulf war the concept of high speed low level attacks on ground forces and airbases proved far to costly. Tornado's had one of the worst loss rate of all aircraft types involved.

3. ADV's poor turn fighting ability, this speaks for its self. It's no match for the F-16, MiG-29 or flanker. Its Missile and radar system are inferior to that of the flanker and on par (just) with older planes. It most certainly is no better then the F-4F KWS and ICE (basically phantoms with F/A-18 radar and fire guidance/ controll systems). The RAF had been better off updating their phantoms to german standards.

The money and time put into the tornado project had been better spent on extending the service life of the RAF Phantom fleet or on participating with the netherlands, belgium, denmark and norway when they decided to buy the F-16A. This would have given the RAF a MUCH better fighter allround. With the RAF budget it might even have been possible to get a number of F-15 to patrol britains aerial shores. With the F-16 they RAF could have done away with the buccaneer and Jaguar in 1980, imagine the cost saved not having to operate all those airplane types? Tornado was a big mistake.

[Badgerboy 0]

1. The gun will be fitted to all 1st tranche aricraft. After that, all progressive tranches will not have the gun fitted, but retain the capabilty to have them fitted if needed.

2. The Typhoon would defeat a F15C hands down in BVR and WVR combat. The F15 has a cross section similar to a articulated lorry, whilst the Typhoon's is very small indeed.

The Typhoon is late, overpriced, and perhaps lacking a definative role, but it is still an excellent aircraft. On paper, it will still out maneouver and engage the JSF easily. To be fair however, the JSF is designed for value per unit. I spoke with a Typhoon test pilot not to long ago, and he says it is a joy to fly.

With the Brimstone coming into operation, and its integration with the Typhoons airframe, you have a very nasty anti armour standoff weapon. (Typhoon carries 18, can ripple fire them, then the missile themselves can choose their own targets, and use telemetry to ensure than two are not engaging the same target)

Providing the Meteor goes into production any time soon, you also have a ramjet BVR missile, with a 60mile range, which can be guided in by other fighters. Nice. Do keep in mind though, that both variants of the Eagle are old airframes. I distinctively remember a gaggle of RAF Harriers mauling a element of Eagles at Red Flag a few years ago.

Edit - With regards to the above mentioning the Tornado F3, its not a fighter. Its an interceptor. Two very different roles, and the F3 isn't too bad at the latter.

[Messiah 2]

agreed it was a mistake - but you're still considering it against dedicated fighters compared to the tornado's multirole purpose...

we do have alot of aged aircraft, but spending the money of them would have been a waste in my eyes as well - a better course of action is what they're doing now (granted its late) and then slowly take the older planes out of service. Say what you want about the tornado... i still think its a sexy piece of kit

[FatNinjaKid 0]

Wouldn't it have been cheaper to simply buy some F16s/F16s from the Americans? Besides what is the point in comparing the Eurofighter and an F15? It is not like the Eurofighter was designed for a war with the USA.

[Badgerboy 0]

Well the Eurofighter was designed to go up against massive packs of Soviet thrust vectoring Flankers, but that's a thing of the past as well. (The Soviets that is)

F16's would have been a good idea in the 80's. Many RAF pilots never forgave the MOD for not purchasing them when many other NATO countries were.

[Supah 0]

I'm sure . The reason that it would have cost so much to maintain and retrofit them in the 1980s was a) production had ended decades before, meaning no new-builds, and b) a good proportion of the fleet had been scrapped when the Phantom was introduced to the RAF in 1968. And seeing as the Royal Air Force has not had to exercise its Air Defense capability in the past 30 years it would have been a damn site cheaper than first building Phantoms, then ADV Tornadoes and finally now the Typhoon.

Supah, do you honestly think we'd ever go to war with any of the countries on the North Sea or in NATO - that, is just uninformed. I'm talking about the real world where the likeliest enemy is going to be an even more underfunded and under trained air force such as Iran, what was the Iraqi Air Force and maybe certain African nations.

And to quote you again

Quote[/b] ]And if the dear old Lightning (which would be 50 years old now) were still around, it would be wiping the floor with half the air forces of the world.

I wasn't talking about going to war with them. I was comparing airforces of countries with a comparable technical and financial ability and what they operate against which the Lightning would be compared. I'd also like to point you to the fact that the operational costs of the lightning would have risen sharply as the planes were reaching the end of the fatigue life span and would need to be basically rebuilt or new planes would have to be made. What do you think the cost of that would have been? why spend that much money on producing a type that is archaic? does not make sense.

So you only want to take on the poorer half of the world? Some of those african nations have airforces consisting out of Mi-8/17's and some Mig-15/17/19. Though a Mig-17 or 19 would still be able to seriously mess up a Lightnings day. Lightings radar wasn't too dependable and missiles of that day had the word miss in their name for a reason. Look up the effectiveness figures of AIM-7's and AIM-9's over vietnam. The british missiles wouldn't have done better.

Fighting a war against a country with an airforce that wont rise up to fight you relies far more on AG ability and CAS. What was the usefull bombload of a Lightning again? Exactly.

Also to fresh up your memory:

Saudi Arabia: F-15C/D

Egypt: F-16C

Libia: MiG-23

Bahrain: F-16C

Kuwait: F/A-18C

Qatar: Mirage 2000-5

Iran: Mig-29

United Arab Emirates: Mirage 2000-9

The Iranian Airforce might not be on par with most NATO forces but it would still do heavy damage to the Lightning RAF you. If the Lightning had been kept every airforce in the middle east today outside of the lebaneze and the palestinians would have a technological edge on the RAF.

The Lightning would have been hopelessly out classed by now no matter how much it would get updated. If you want to live in your dream world thats up to you It's a great plane but by todays standards it just doesnt cut the cheese anymore.

[Supah 0]

agreed it was a mistake - but you're still considering it against dedicated fighters compared to the tornado's multirole purpose...

we do have alot of aged aircraft, but spending the money of them would have been a waste in my eyes as well - a better course of action is what they're doing now (granted its late) and then slowly take the older planes out of service. Say what you want about the tornado... i still think its a sexy piece of kit

The tornado is not multi role. There are two distinct different version of it to do each task. The F-16 and F-18 are multirole airplanes. The same airplane should be capable of both AA and AG to quailify for the title multirole. The Tornado doesnt do that. a ADV can bomb and you can slap sidewinders on a IDS but neither will do it to a level of effectiveness.

Sexy ... they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder For me the Lightning would beat the tornado on the sexy scale hands down.

[MontyVCB 0]

well, our current fleet of tornados is more than capable than defending our airspace, which is all that matters

[Supah 0]

well, our current fleet of tornados is more than capable than defending our airspace, which is all that matters

Against the odd stray airliner perhaps. If the irish took a turn for the radical yes. But I wonder what will happen when the rest of the EU decides to take back that rebate by force (yes this is a joke)

[harley 3 1185 0]

Quote[/b] ]In any case, the multirole F.53s could be fitted with a single pylon under each wing to carry unguided rocket pods or bombs of up to 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) size, and the overwing pylons were also reinforced to allow carriage of external stores as well. Exactly what external stores Saudi F.53s actually carried is unclear, but the available options were impressive and surprising.

Each underwing pylon could carry either one or (using a side-by-side adapter) two 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) general purpose bombs, or one or two French Matra Type 155 rocket pods, each carrying 18 SNEB 68 millimeter (2.68 inch) unguided rockets. Of course, the top pylon could carry a standard ferry tank or a rocket pod, but it could even carry a parachute-retarded 450 kilogram bomb, tossed up from the wing pylon using an explosive cartridge ejector mechanism. An even more surprising stores arrangement for the upper pylon featured an adapter that could carry two Matra JL100 pods, which contained an 18-round SNEB rocket launcher in front and a 227 liter (50 Imperial gallon / 60 US gallon) fuel tank in back. This gave the F.53 such formidable warload configurations as eight rocket launchers, with a total of 144 rockets.

The weapons pack for the Red Tops could also be swapped out with the Microcell unguided rocket pack or a reconnaissance pack. Day and night reconnaissance packs were developed. The day reconnaissance pack featured five Vinten 70 millimeter film cameras. The night reconnaissance pack featured cameras and an infrared linescanner, backed up by photoflash flares carried on the wing pylons. The cameras in the reconnaissance pack rotated out for use and then were rotated back for storage. It is unclear if the Saudis obtained both types of reconnaissance pack, and very unclear if they obtained the Microcell rocket pack.

The F.53, like the F.6, could accommodate two 30 millimeter Aden cannon in the front of the ventral tank, and in fact this feature was developed for the F.53 and then retrofitted to the F.6. With the unguided rocket pack, unguided rocket pods on the wings, and the twin Aden cannon, the F.53 had a fair punch in the strike role. The T.55s were even more unique, being basically a trainer version of the F.6. Some authors claim the RAF missed a bet by not taking any interest in such a variant, as it would have made an excellent basis for a very capable multirole aircraft.

For once I will condemn the foolishness of the R.A.F. in not at least acquiring a number of these Lightning variants to be used as an interim strike aircraft, which certainly could have filled the gap left by the cancellation of the TSR 2 program and the failure of the F-111 program to yield substantial benefits.

Yes, I will concede the Lightning would be rather long in the tooth now, and seeing as there aren't many air-worthy examples left it's a very moot point.

However, you have highlighted one great fallacy, and that's why the hell have the yanks been selling so many aircraft to these "Regimes"

P.S. I claim to be a historian of World Wars, not post wars, though I do know a great deal. That's what the sig says

[Supah 0]

Quote[/b] ]In any case, the multirole F.53s could be fitted with a single pylon under each wing to carry unguided rocket pods or bombs of up to 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) size, and the overwing pylons were also reinforced to allow carriage of external stores as well. Exactly what external stores Saudi F.53s actually carried is unclear, but the available options were impressive and surprising.

Each underwing pylon could carry either one or (using a side-by-side adapter) two 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) general purpose bombs, or one or two French Matra Type 155 rocket pods, each carrying 18 SNEB 68 millimeter (2.68 inch) unguided rockets. Of course, the top pylon could carry a standard ferry tank or a rocket pod, but it could even carry a parachute-retarded 450 kilogram bomb, tossed up from the wing pylon using an explosive cartridge ejector mechanism. An even more surprising stores arrangement for the upper pylon featured an adapter that could carry two Matra JL100 pods, which contained an 18-round SNEB rocket launcher in front and a 227 liter (50 Imperial gallon / 60 US gallon) fuel tank in back. This gave the F.53 such formidable warload configurations as eight rocket launchers, with a total of 144 rockets.

The weapons pack for the Red Tops could also be swapped out with the Microcell unguided rocket pack or a reconnaissance pack. Day and night reconnaissance packs were developed. The day reconnaissance pack featured five Vinten 70 millimeter film cameras. The night reconnaissance pack featured cameras and an infrared linescanner, backed up by photoflash flares carried on the wing pylons. The cameras in the reconnaissance pack rotated out for use and then were rotated back for storage. It is unclear if the Saudis obtained both types of reconnaissance pack, and very unclear if they obtained the Microcell rocket pack.

The F.53, like the F.6, could accommodate two 30 millimeter Aden cannon in the front of the ventral tank, and in fact this feature was developed for the F.53 and then retrofitted to the F.6. With the unguided rocket pack, unguided rocket pods on the wings, and the twin Aden cannon, the F.53 had a fair punch in the strike role. The T.55s were even more unique, being basically a trainer version of the F.6. Some authors claim the RAF missed a bet by not taking any interest in such a variant, as it would have made an excellent basis for a very capable multirole aircraft.

For once I will condemn the foolishness of the R.A.F. in not at least acquiring a number of these Lightning variants to be used as an interim strike aircraft, which certainly could have filled the gap left by the cancellation of the TSR 2 program and the failure of the F-111 program to yield substantial benefits.

Yes, I will concede the Lightning would be rather long in the tooth now, and seeing as there aren't many air-worthy examples left it's a very moot point.

However, you have highlighted one great fallacy, and that's why the hell have the yanks been selling so many aircraft to these "Regimes"

P.S. I claim to be a historian of World Wars, not post wars, though I do know a great deal. That's what the sig says

That would have given it the offensive worth of a Su-7 with a much much shorter range. I can't even seriously think about this even being anywhere near either the TSR (no weapon tests done with this plane I know of so you wont know what it was worth) or the F-111. Once problems with it Variable geometry mechanisme breakup in midflight (auch) were sorted it proved to be one of the safest aircraft ever operated by the USAF. The RAAF used it as a deterent against the Indonesian airforce, its effectiveness there can't really be gauged as I dont get the impression the AURI ever was truelly capable or willing to attack the Australian mainland. But the RAAF personel I spoke with seemed very fond of it. The F-111 also proved to be a great plane for striking targets in the north of Iraq during the first gulf war and proved very effective at "plinking" tanks in the desert with LGB's.

The morality of selling arms to dubious regime is a discussion in its own, one in which the UK, the netherlands, germany and basically everyone except sweden in europe is clean either. The UK sold their planes to those same countries you are objecting too as well Where do you think the arabs got the Meteors and hunters from with which to attack the Israeli's? Where do you think the Saudi Arabian Lightnings and Tornado's came from? Who sold the egyptians their Mirage's? Almost every country with a advanced aircraft industry wanted to supply it with orders no matter what happened with those planes afterwards.

The Americans have also used the F-16 as a tool for peace though. Operating the same airplane types has driven the Israeli's and the turkish together in trying to maintain them. So it has had some good sides. Also the nature of modern fighter jets binds those regimes to the americans. You cant cut ties with the US and continue to operate the F-16's. Ask Pakistan or Venezuela about that Another effect is that you will have to train an militairies leaders and other personel in the states to operate these machines. This will expose these people to your culture and creates good will ... which you can then use for evil to overthrow governments you don't like Its a complicated affair which has a lot of facets.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Hmm, maybe it does warrant it's own topic. But looking at the sheer number of American-made aircraft around the world, a picture does emerge.

I know that every country (except Sweden) tries to hawk its aircraft to other countries. My best friend's father is deputy-director of the effort to stuff as much BAE Systems gear down the throats of the Indians as possible !

As for supplying the Meteors and Hunters to the Arabs, we covered that by selling the Israelis tanks .

Sigh, what a world we live in...

P.S. The TSR-2 was never given a chance, thanks to Labour and bloody Mountbatten - if it weren't for him it would have been TSR-2s scaring the crap out of the Indonesians. Alas, it's all in the past now. Now where's the Iraqi Embassy on the rolodex, I'm sure I could sell them a few F15s by dinner time...

[Supah 0]

Hmm, maybe it does warrant it's own topic. But looking at the sheer number of American-made aircraft around the world, a picture does emerge.

I know that every country (except Sweden) tries to hawk its aircraft to other countries. My best friend's father is deputy-director of the effort to stuff as much BAE Systems gear down the throats of the Indians as possible !

As for supplying the Meteors and Hunters to the Arabs, we covered that by selling the Israelis tanks .

Sigh, what a world we live in...

P.S. The TSR-2 was never given a chance, thanks to Labour and bloody Mountbatten - if it weren't for him it would have been TSR-2s scaring the crap out of the Indonesians. Alas, it's all in the past now. Now where's the Iraqi Embassy on the rolodex, I'm sure I could sell them a few F15s by dinner time...

For the last 30 years americans have made the best airplanes, to a degree political wranglings sure helped but these planes have to a degree sold themselves on their own merrits The Indians are building up a rather impressive Airforce but to me it seems they largely shop russian. Offcourse a updated Su-27 is far cheaper then a F-15 and pbb just as capable if not more capable. Add to that that the indian aircraft industry isn't childish either ....

[harley 3 1185 0]

Have you seen how the Indians acquire aircraft?!! They say they'll buy some examples, just to whet the manufacturer's appetite, then they say "Give us the technology and we'll build the rest ourselves." That is one damn clever way to build up an aircraft industry .