No real capability for finding them either.laurencechris wrote:The RAF has no capability for taking out any surface ship so well done to the Italians for having some sense
If you're going to sink it w/Brimstone you'd better hope you got a shit ton of them or it's a very small ship. If you're going to sink them with a 4, you better hope their MEZ is non-existent.Ron5 wrote:Paveway IV & Brimstone won't sink ships??
probably wouldn't sink it, their not large enough. However with the added accuracy of modern missiles that might be ok. If the missile can be programmed to find critical infrastructure and hit that smaller lower yield weapons could be a good option. If you could take out a ships bridge, or radar it would be as good as dead in the water.Ron5 wrote:Paveway IV & Brimstone won't sink ships??
Guess you didn't hear about the drone that disabled a USN cruiser. Warships these days have about as much armor as your car. And plenty of warships would have trouble with a typhoon/F35 carrying paveway. As you must know, that has decent standoff range.downsizer wrote:If you're going to sink it w/Brimstone you'd better hope you got a shit ton of them or it's a very small ship. If you're going to sink them with a 4, you better hope their MEZ is non-existent.Ron5 wrote:Paveway IV & Brimstone won't sink ships??
I think that's a reasonable bet, unless another platform is acquired there wont be enough numbers to match our commitments and still intervene in a meaningful way such as in Iraq. Hopefully at that stage there will be plenty of spare parts available, it just depends if they are willing to fund the staff to keep them running.ArmChairCivvy wrote: My bet is that a sqdrn of Tornados specialising in Tac/R will be retained well beyond the 2019 planned retirement
Ron5 wrote:Guess you didn't hear about the drone that disabled a USN cruiser. Warships these days have about as much armor as your car. And plenty of warships would have trouble with a typhoon/F35 carrying paveway. As you must know, that has decent standoff range.downsizer wrote:If you're going to sink it w/Brimstone you'd better hope you got a shit ton of them or it's a very small ship. If you're going to sink them with a 4, you better hope their MEZ is non-existent.Ron5 wrote:Paveway IV & Brimstone won't sink ships??
Whilst this is most laudible and not wishing to decry the efforts of our armed forces, I fear this smacks of Neville Chamberlains "peace in our time' . We have the weakest Army since the Napoleonic wars, the weakest Navy since the Armada and the weakest RAF since the start of the second world war.The Armchair Soldier wrote:Two RAF Typhoons took part in Estonia's Victory Day parade today:
Thank you. Very interesting.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Have you guys read the RUSI number on Typhoon "Unlocking the European airpower" or something like that?
Although slightly biased (the name says it all), very informative and quite detailed.
Cost savings come in the deletion of entire fleets, not keeping a slack handful of AC in the air. Thats why it was a straight choice between Harrier or Tornado last time round. Little savings could be found in running a large/small mix.shark bait wrote:I think that's a reasonable bet, unless another platform is acquired there wont be enough numbers to match our commitments and still intervene in a meaningful way such as in Iraq. Hopefully at that stage there will be plenty of spare parts available, it just depends if they are willing to fund the staff to keep them running.ArmChairCivvy wrote: My bet is that a sqdrn of Tornados specialising in Tac/R will be retained well beyond the 2019 planned retirement
Treasury isn't intrested in that. It's all about the benjamins!ArmChairCivvy wrote:Britain not fielding RAPTOR (our own U2, economy version) for its Ops or for a coalition would count as a bigger loss than a handful of aircraft.
Where is the parallel accounting; not debit vs. credit, but cost vs. value?
Agreed, but it will save typhoons which as we know are costly and precious given there few numbers.downsizer wrote: Cost savings come in the deletion of entire fleets, not keeping a slack handful of AC in the air. Thats why it was a straight choice between Harrier or Tornado last time round. Little savings could be found in running a large/small mix.
Read More: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... um=twitterA pair of Royal Air Force aircraft came within “20-50ft” of a high-speed collision in March this year, with only luck preventing an accident, UK safety investigators have determined.
Disclosed by the Civil Aviation Authority’s Airprox Board (CAAB), the 12 March incident involved a formation of three Eurofighter Typhoon jets and a Shorts Tucano T1 turboprop trainer over RAF Conningsby in the east of England.
Having observed the Typhoons approaching from astern “with a high overtake speed”, estimated at around 190kt (388km/h), the instructor in the rear seat of the Tucano was forced to initiate evasive action and take control from his student after he saw the lead aircraft “initiate a break directly towards him” from only 100-200m (330-660ft) away.
“Without time to say ‘I have control’, he aggressively pushed forward on the control column and heard the jet noise of the Typhoon as it passed directly overhead in a right-hand breaking turn,” says the CAAB report.
“The instructor assessed that the Typhoon’s right wing-tip was within 20-50ft of the Tucano.”
Although the Typhoon pilots were informed of the presence of the Tucano, which had been conducting a touch-and-go manoeuvre ahead of them, “all three formation pilots perceived that the Tucano had transited down and was past the upwind end of the runway”, the report says.
Read More: http://www.janes.com/article/52678/raf- ... itime-roleThe UK Royal Air Force (RAF) has renewed focus on the air-maritime integration (AMI) role, with the deployment of its No II(AC) Squadron Typhoons to RNAS Culdrose from 22-25 June to conduct AMI training, something the RAF accepts it had neglected in the recent past.
In deploying to RNAS Culdrose in Cornwall, the unit also marked its first squadron deployment from RAF Lossiemouth, in Scotland, since being re-roled with the RAF's latest fighter in January.
As the commanding officer of II(AC) Sqn, Wing Commander Roger Elliott, said, "Preparing for global ops means that we could be going anywhere and that's why we are down here - practicing a deployment as a squadron. While here we will practice AMI with a Royal Navy Type 45 destroyer, because it's not often we get one going up north."
Sucking up to the Navy in case the Navy takes away the new shiny F-35's? Be a good time to argue for that in the upcoming review.The Armchair Soldier wrote:RAF Typhoon Force Trains for Maritime RoleRead More: http://www.janes.com/article/52678/raf- ... itime-roleThe UK Royal Air Force (RAF) has renewed focus on the air-maritime integration (AMI) role, with the deployment of its No II(AC) Squadron Typhoons to RNAS Culdrose from 22-25 June to conduct AMI training, something the RAF accepts it had neglected in the recent past.
In deploying to RNAS Culdrose in Cornwall, the unit also marked its first squadron deployment from RAF Lossiemouth, in Scotland, since being re-roled with the RAF's latest fighter in January.
As the commanding officer of II(AC) Sqn, Wing Commander Roger Elliott, said, "Preparing for global ops means that we could be going anywhere and that's why we are down here - practicing a deployment as a squadron. While here we will practice AMI with a Royal Navy Type 45 destroyer, because it's not often we get one going up north."
