Eurofighter Typhoon

User avatar
SovietComrade
Warrant Officer
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu 25 Oct 2012 16:42
Contact:

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon

Postby SovietComrade » Mon 29 Sep 2014 21:35

Vulcan 607 wrote:VTOL is a gimmick and I don't understand the UK's obsession with it. Also lol @ the insinuation that a VTOL Typhoon would have actually worked.

VTOL has always been a bit of a joke, much like low-level penetration.

The argies thought the same and they got slaughtered by the harrier so don't mock what no one else has succeeded in doing. Making a combat operational votl jet (if any one says forger I will mentally give them the finger) and reply with this link http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=DfNSfyRw-Gs


Man I hear that forger is pretty good
Image

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon

Postby Killertomato » Mon 29 Sep 2014 21:38

Regnar wrote:I'm not saying being able to operate without a full-sized carrier is completely without value, but you give up far too much in terms of capability to make that value really relevant.


True if it's a choice between CVs with CATOBAR (or normal birds using ski jumps as on the Kuznetsov) and some little SCS-type harrier carrier, which makes me wonder how much coke was rolling around the 'defense reformist' movement and the Pentagon in the '70s.

Not true if those little things are the only ships you have money for. Aircraft that are there, even if they aren't very good, beat aircraft that aren't there.

Man I hear that forger is pretty good


We're the Soviet navy, we half-assed a good missile cruiser so we could have an 'aircraft carrier.'
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

User avatar
Tipsy
Warrant Officer
Posts: 470
Joined: Mon 25 Nov 2013 20:11
Contact:

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon

Postby Tipsy » Mon 29 Sep 2014 21:42

Regnar wrote:It's a unique aircraft but hardly some glorious design.


Rather revolutionary in my opinion. Had a purpose, served it well. May be a gimmick but most revolutionary technologies are or start out as such. The first iPhone was revolutionary, now it's taken for granted. (Not a very good comparison I know but...)
Image

User avatar
GodofHellfire
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 6 Dec 2013 16:20
Location: Oktoberfest
Contact:

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon

Postby GodofHellfire » Mon 29 Sep 2014 21:44

The only tging wrong with the EF is that the germans dont have it
1 2 3 memes ?

Image
Thanks kiheerSEDMAN for the custom profile sig

TAP INTO... THE POWER

Liare
Lieutenant
Posts: 1415
Joined: Wed 24 Apr 2013 22:40
Contact:

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon

Postby Liare » Mon 29 Sep 2014 21:47

katt wrote:TBMs on airbases is day 1 hour 1.

Harrier wouldn't have survived past day 2 because it still needs the infrastructure of an airbase to support itself, including paved landing area and prepared strip for rolling takeoff. At that point just use A-10s or something.

VTOL has always been a bit of a joke, much like low-level penetration.
not necessarily, the weird thing about cold-war-gone-hot scenarios is that they always escalate from a minor conflict of some sort into a full scale tac-nuke scenario, followed quickly by the red ICBM button.

EE had some rather plausible scenarios of this type, including the first campaign that is basically a minor border skirmish escalating almost to the point of full scale mechanized war with tactical nukes and everything else attendant, dropping TBM's on airfields is a no-brainer though, and i should have written as "received a TBM, or be scheduled for one"

yet that's the real strength of the concept behind Viggens, Gripens and Harriers, the ability to operate off minimal support on impromptu fields, when you can stuff the majority of the support structure into a couple of trucks and service where-ever the plane can put down you have a viable weapon system even after the major airforce bases are gone.

oh sure, it's not great, but in the land of no airfields, the harrier rules supreme. :)

Majorpain
Master Sergeant
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun 26 May 2013 17:59
Contact:

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon

Postby Majorpain » Mon 29 Sep 2014 21:49

Image

The whole point of Harrier was that it could operate from Austere conditions, even the Germans planned to use bits of autobahn as emergency runways after the airfields were reduced to dust. Clear a bit of forest with open ground nearby, lay down some steel matting, put up a cam net and bobs your uncle!

A VTOL aircraft in support is better than no aircraft at all.

User avatar
Regnar
Lieutenant
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon 25 Aug 2014 19:41
Location: Islamic State of Donetsk and Luhansk

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon

Postby Regnar » Mon 29 Sep 2014 21:52

Tipsy wrote:Rather revolutionary in my opinion. Had a purpose, served it well. May be a gimmick but most revolutionary technologies are or start out as such. The first iPhone was revolutionary, now it's taken for granted. (Not a very good comparison I know but...)

Using the word revolutionary implies that the Harrier led some VTOL revolution. It was certainly innovative, but there's a reason VTOL hasn't found more widespread use. It was a good solution to a budget problem but the Royal Navy would have been far better off with a proper CV and a bunch of F-4s or some indigenous design.

As for being able to operate without airbases, yeah, that's all very nice, but airbases aren't just made up of runways. The lack of supporting infrastructure would have degraded the Harrier's capabilities even further.
Last edited by Regnar on Mon 29 Sep 2014 21:53, edited 1 time in total.

Liare
Lieutenant
Posts: 1415
Joined: Wed 24 Apr 2013 22:40
Contact:

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon

Postby Liare » Mon 29 Sep 2014 21:53

and once the apocalypse is less than a week away, who gives a **** about anything but essential servicing? let the Pegasus burn out, it doesn't matter.

Regnar : the Harrier REPLACED that setup, and provided fine service all things considered, conventional carriers are expensive to run, expensive to maintain, and the British armed forces had significant assets in germany that had to be kept up to spec.

User avatar
Regnar
Lieutenant
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon 25 Aug 2014 19:41
Location: Islamic State of Donetsk and Luhansk

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon

Postby Regnar » Mon 29 Sep 2014 21:54

Liare wrote:Regnar : the Harrier REPLACED that setup, and provided fine service all things considered, conventional carriers are expensive to run, expensive to maintain, and the British armed forces had significant assets in germany that had to be kept up to spec.

Yeah. It was a downgrade.

User avatar
SovietComrade
Warrant Officer
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu 25 Oct 2012 16:42
Contact:

Re: Eurofighter Typhoon

Postby SovietComrade » Mon 29 Sep 2014 21:57

Britain was not a cold war superpower the harrier was a budget solution for a country that didn't want to sink a huge amont for defense. Was it a downgrade? Yes. However it can be argued that the harrier is more cost efficient.
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests

cron