Stephen Tye Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I don't believe the Typhoon can cut it against a Soviet Incursion, few in numbers... and not enough... I would like 2 squadrons of F-22's please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J D 8 Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 F22 pilot's say "in the sky there's us and there are target's" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Tye Posted February 21, 2015 Author Share Posted February 21, 2015 Russia can draw level or nearly beat N.A.T.O. but with the U.S. F.22 we can beat them Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 21/02/2015 17:40:53 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keiran Arnold Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Given the issues of F22 OBOGS I'll settle for another 6 Sqns of Typhoons please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Plains Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Defence? Yes, I blame defence for breaking my glider this afternoon. If defence hadn't been there my glider would only be in 4 pieces instead of 10!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bravo Delta Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Posted by Chuck Plains on 21/02/2015 18:37:35: Defence? Yes, I blame defence for breaking my glider this afternoon. If defence hadn't been there my glider would only be in 4 pieces instead of 10!! Arf Arf ! Who has what aircraft could be a immaterial as a direct square-off between NATO and Russia could escalate into Nuclear whizz-Bangs pretty rapidly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hopkin Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Posted by Bravo Delta on 21/02/2015 18:51:58: Posted by Chuck Plains on 21/02/2015 18:37:35: Defence? Yes, I blame defence for breaking my glider this afternoon. If defence hadn't been there my glider would only be in 4 pieces instead of 10!! Arf Arf ! Who has what aircraft could be a immaterial as a direct square-off between NATO and Russia could escalate into Nuclear whizz-Bangs pretty rapidly Naaah cant see them chucking buckets of instant sunshine around...... the old MAD theory still holds good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bravo Delta Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Posted by Dave Hopkin on 21/02/2015 18:53:48: Posted by Bravo Delta on 21/02/2015 18:51:58: Posted by Chuck Plains on 21/02/2015 18:37:35: Defence? Yes, I blame defence for breaking my glider this afternoon. If defence hadn't been there my glider would only be in 4 pieces instead of 10!! Arf Arf ! Who has what aircraft could be a immaterial as a direct square-off between NATO and Russia could escalate into Nuclear whizz-Bangs pretty rapidly Naaah cant see them chucking buckets of instant sunshine around...... the old MAD theory still holds good One would hope so , but the opposing theory is that Generals may take first strike in order to prevent the other from first striking ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prop Nut Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Posted by Keiran Arnold on 21/02/2015 18:21:28: Given the issues of F22 OBOGS I'll settle for another 6 Sqns of Typhoons please. The Typhoon is at least equal to the F-22 and, probably, marginally better. But the real contest is with the current generation of Russian fighters and the proposed Sukhoi T-50. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_B Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Posted by Keiran Arnold on 21/02/2015 18:21:28: Given the issues of F22 OBOGS I'll settle for another 6 Sqns of Typhoons please. I was involved in development work on the R-R Adour many, many years ago which included an OBOG System which was going to be required for the Goshawk. I take it things haven't improved much over the years then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename-John Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Posted by Stephen Tye 1 on 21/02/2015 17:13:55: I don't believe the Typhoon can cut it against a Soviet Incursion, few in numbers... and not enough... I would like 2 squadrons of F-22's please. Given that the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991, I quite seriously doubt any soviet incursions will happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin b Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I can understand these Russian incursions into our air space. They just want to come over here like the rest of the Eastern Europeans. Or should that be to join ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monz Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Pfffft, three NG Gripens for one Typhoon. 18 squadrons of Gripen please. Numerical superiority Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Concorde Speedbird Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 The Americans do not export the F22. And production has ended. So you'd be getting rid of the Typhoon and replacing it with nothing. We shouldn't need to buy from the Americans anyway.Perhaps a squadron of full size Wot 4s, that would show them...CS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_B Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 However, they do export the epically hideous and useless F-35 which they've conned our gullible politicians into buying. Bring back the Harrier........ Oh wait, we gave them away to the Muricans, D'oh! Edited By Bill_B on 21/02/2015 22:00:32 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Posted by Bill_B on 21/02/2015 21:59:11: However, they do export the epically hideous and useless F-35 which they've conned our gullible politicians into buying. Bring back the Harrier........ Oh wait, we gave them away to the Muricans, D'oh! Not all of them, Bill - there's hope for us all yet! Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hopkin Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Oh its all just like the cold war all over again..... Perhaps some of us aging ex's should dust off the DPM's, 58 pattern webbing and good old 7.62 for the elephant gun and show em we mean business.... now which pouch should the ralgex go in? Roll Call for the Sanatogen Rifles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Concorde Speedbird Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Why don't they fly those Harriers, if they want experience using aircraft on carriers, then fly the damn things! That way instead of having no seaworthy air force until the F35s arrive we will have something.CS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hopkin Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Posted by Concorde Speedbird on 21/02/2015 23:48:47: Why don't they fly those Harriers, if they want experience using aircraft on carriers, then fly the damn things! That way instead of having no seaworthy air force until the F35s arrive we will have something. CS Defence budgets probably, seen the cost of avgas recently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_B Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Sorry to appear pedantic, but gas turbines don't use AVGAS, they use Jet-A1, AVTUR, AVCAT etc. AVGAS is for internal combustion engines used in aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Posted by Stephen Tye 1 on 21/02/2015 17:37:46: Russia can draw level or nearly beat N.A.T.O. but with the U.S. F.22 we can beat them Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 21/02/2015 17:40:53 How can Russia beat NATO? Russia has one Command and Control structure, and has amalgamated the Air Force (VVK) into the Aerospace Force (VKS) along with Air Force ground troops. That means only one Command structure. It would be relatively easy to confuse and diasble their ability to react by attacking, as any Armed Forces would, their control structure. NATO, on the other hand, does not share that due to the fact that each Member State has their own Armed Forces and therefore their own Command structure. Targets are already determined anyway and share a common goal so can take over if another country is disabled enough to be under threat. Russia could never knock out enough to disable NATO's 27 individual command structures. For the observant among you there are 28 members but Iceland does not have an MOD structure based in NATO. As for the Russian aircraft entering our area of interest, Russia has been sending aircraft on border skipping exercises, on a very regular basis, for the past fifty years! The only difference is that it does not generally make headlines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reno Racer Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I'm afraid any F-22s are wishful thinking, they are too expensive to buy and operate, we can just about afford 4 Sqns of F-35. typhoon is OK, remember it's first flight, as the EAP, was in 1984. That said, a Tornado F3 could still happily shoot down a Bear. At what point in history, I'd we have the best aircraft, lightning? Well err no. Short range missile, ineffective radar and very short range. In fact through our history, our beloved aircraft have always been behind the curve when the actually entered service, the one exception was the GR1 Tornado. Even the beloved Vulcan, designed as a nuclear bomber to attack the British targets of Moscow, was obsolete as it entered service, it could simply have not survived the Soviet air defences around Moscow (nuclear tipped AAMs). An early RAF report claimed its chance of success was 10%. One of the reasons whay we bought Submarone launched Polaris off the US. CS, towards the end of its service life, the Harrier was a pain to operate and maintain. In contest against a near peer or peer enemy, it was just unsurvivable and not very effective. Besides which, we have to wait a few years yet for at least one of the QEC carriers to be online. f35 is the best aircraft we can afford and plays to its technological quality edge, we can't afford mass anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Don't even mention flying Harriers again if you want to see daylight for the next few years. When we went off to bomb Libya a few years ago someone suggested getting the Harriers out of mothballs and started looking for a flat decked ship. They were jumped on very hard and fast. The powers that be "do not make mistakes" and squash anyone who suggests that they may have done so. After all, wasn't it much more sensible to fly all the way from Italy gto Libya rather than take off from a ship close to the target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hopkin Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 At no point during the cold war or since has NATO the depth of forces to defeat the Soviet Union/Russian Federation and indeed at no point was that ever an objective, the entire rationale behind NATO defence strategy in Europe was to make a Soviet/Russian incursion into West Germany so expensive and to act as a tripwire for nuclear release as to persuade the Kremlin it wasnt worth it I recall many threat lectures in Germany where we were shown the size and capabilities of 3rd Shock Army and the supporting tactical air forces in GSFG that were positioned facing British Arny of the Rhine, where combat ratios were in the order of 5 to 7 to 1 and that our task (as ground forces) was to slow down the attack by 72 to 96 hours after that it was commonly accepted that BAOR would be effectively cease to exist as a cohesive combat force and that the whole thing would go to strategic nuclear release As for the Air Force, it too would have been all but destroyed on pretty much the same timescales and frankly it didnt matter what type of aircraft they had it was a case with combat aircraft ratios of the disparity likely in western europe they attrition rate would have been very very high Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.