http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/v...nado-gr4-video
Can this be a case of bad reporting by someone who has no clue of things ?
Printable View
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/v...nado-gr4-video
Can this be a case of bad reporting by someone who has no clue of things ?
The F22 is the latest fighter aircraft in active US service, isn't it?
Do the US have a newer fighter in service? Where the commentary is wrong though, is describing the Tornado as the UK's latest fighter - the Typhoon has already replaced it in that role.Quote:
Originally Posted by OilSheikh
The F-35 hasn't entered service yet.
Within the next few years, the Typhoon will be upgraded to carry the Brimstone system, offering a superior platform to the F-22.
Of course, given the technology of the 'enemy', it's all rather a waste of money.
The F35 is a different animal anyway isnt it? Not planned to replace the F22 by any means, its more of a support fighter.
I thought that we already had Typhoons in active service?
We do. However, they replaced the F3 version of the Tornado. As TeePee stated, they are flexible enough to fill in the role of the GR4, but as it wasn't originally designed for that (cold-war era interceptor, like the F22), it's taken a bit of time to get there. Typhoon's first took part in combat in Libya a couple of years ago. They also took over the Quick Reaction Alert role a few years ago (air intercept).
Comparing the GR-4 and the F22 is pretty pointless. The GR-4 is built for Ground and Reconnaissance (thus the GR). It is never meant to be an air interceptor and only carries a couple of short range AA missiles for self defense. The F22 is an Air Dominance Fighter which is undergoing a similar role change that the Typhoon is going through to make it more useful but it's taking much more time and effect. That's probably why it is now that it has seen combat for the first time; we haven't been fighting anyone with decent aircraft so haven't needed it until it's bombing role was up to speed.
The F-35 is a strike fighter, as opposed to air-superiority. The Typhoon is in service primarily again as in an air-superiority role like the F-22. The upgrades to the Typhoon will give it better air-to-ground capability, which is what the video is trying to compare. Got to spend another $1Billion so that a $412 million dollar aircraft can drop a $280,000 bomb on a guy riding a camel. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
would seem the USA want to buy Brimstone from us - they really like what it can do ; and whilst it looks like hellfire - the internals are a lot different
Considering the amount of conflicts US / US allies are involved with, and the reluctance of committing boots on the ground (understandably), I think it is time we develop some ground drones (Terminators).. if we are going to continue involving in conflicts. Air superiority alone doesn't seem to work faced against a committed group (ISIS is still advancing even in regions the coalition is striking).
enforcement droid series 209 would be perfect
The first ground drone will undoubtedly be built off an armoured vehicle chassis such as a tank or IFV. There's already talk about having robot driven road convoys to supplement supplies when air-lift is greatly reduced and don't for one second, think that Google are just researching their self-driving cards for civilian use only.
$412 million per aircraft is pretty mind-blowing... I remember the development of the Typhoon costing an awful lot though a few years back. Critics of the Typhoon said we could have just gone for the F-16 instead and saved a few hundred million pounds/Deutsche mark/lira etc.
The British are always bashed by other European countries for not "co-operating" with them on European based projects, but we did here. I notice they don't attack France for not being involved in the Typhoon and developing their own Rafale fighter and they then under cut us when we try and sell some aircraft to India! Looking after their own national interests at the end of day I suppose.
TBF the Typhoon is a very different aircraft to the F-16, the latter being a relatively cheaper multi-role aircraft, also built around the same time as the Tornado so I don't see why it would be considered as a replacement. Sure it could have been chosen over the Typhoon to save money, but so could a Mig-21; it just doesn't make a lot of sense to do so.
The USAF's 'flagship' fighter at the time, and up until the F-22 very recently, was the F-15, with the F-16 serving a different role.
In terms of cost, the F-16 is on the order of $15M, the Typhoon ~£65M (Wikipedia numbers, and possibly not taking inflation into account).
$412 Million is the procurement cost of the F-22, which includes development costs. The equivalent cost for the Typhoon would be about $200M.
A decent riding dromedary camel costs around $500-800USD in Afghanistan. Obviously you'll also need to set aside a little extra for a saddle. Ongoing maintenance costs are also an issue. Shipping is also likely to be expensive.
If only they could sort out that face-recognition glitch... :PQuote:
Originally Posted by HalloweenJack
However, the F22 cannot be classed as the "Latest", can it? :secret:
It is the latest in service, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Game388
Unless you count drones, I suppose.
the F22 only reached full operational capability in 2005.... still think they chose the wrong one though (IMO THE F23 would have been far better suited to the new role for the 21st century)
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sop=...+saddle&_frs=1Quote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
http://media.wtfunny.com/content/pic...uIpUcAcYt5.jpg
hope damage in transit is covered by Royal Mail's Special delivery service
I don't think their insurance policy includes, 'precision air assault from western strike fighter'