Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ] |
| Subject: ... | |
Author: Dave (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 15:11:10 11/07/04 Sun In reply to: Trixta (UK) 's message, "Alternatives" on 05:30:45 11/07/04 Sun “What use, exactly, have we for a gunship that puts the stress on bucket-loads of armour and anti-tank missiles in this day and age? Who's going to shoot at us?” The recent conflict in Iraq involved numerous anti-armour missions. “Step forward the Lynx. Damned effective in Northern Ireland, bloody handy in Kosovo and able to provide for the needs of both the army and the navy.” I agree, and I do not believe that the Lynx is being phased out. The Apache will supplement its capability in an intense battlefield scenario. The Apache is a much more survivable helicopter, and has a much larger combat radius than the Lynx. The lynx is a fast and agile aircraft, and makes a good “recce” and light attack platform - different roles, different platforms. “As for at least being allowed to tender a bid - that's meaningless. It's like you or I lining up in the Olympic 100 metres” I’ve already conceded we are unlikely to win the contract. Concorde was indeed Europe’s finest engineering achievement, and I mourn its loss everyday. The Tornado is junk. I’ve heard stories from some RAF friends that you wouldn’t believe. About a third of them are unserviceable at any one time. Compare this aircraft, with its agility analogous to a three-legged rhino, and the radar profile/heat signature of Manhattan (the reason its bombing missions were primarily at 500 feet), with its American contemporaries, the F-15 and F-16. Considering the latter aircraft are still the best air superiority and ground attack planes in NATO service today, it becomes clear which side of the Atlantic has the better technology. I grant you that the Eurofighter will eclipse both of these aircraft, but so it should, as it was conceived 25 years later. “The Vulcan, the Spitfire, the Lightning, the Hurricane, the Buccaneer - excuse me while I wipe the nostalgic tear from my eye. But, sadly, those days are gone.” Yep, it is a sad fact that each generation of aircraft programme is vastly more expensive than the last. It is therefore an inevitable fact that multinational efforts are the reality today. It has been predicted that at the current rate of spendig grown, the USAF will only be able to afford one plane in 75 years. We shall wait and see if the “Anglosphere” JSF project is more successful than Eurofighter. JSF is the nearest we have got to a Commonwealth programme at the moment with the UK, Australia and Canada on board. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Apache and anti-armour | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:32:39 11/10/04 Wed Ah, no - I won't accept that. We are in Iraq because of Dubya. We do not need an anti-armour gunship - we have aircraft that can do that. The helicopter's greatest strength is it's flexibility - the fact that it can land anywhere and get your infantry / special forces in or out quickly. As a troop transporter it's a great machine but to take out tanks? Nah, there are better ways - infantry for one. As regards needing an anti-armour gunship - who precisely would the British engage that would make a new anti-armour platform is a useful piece of kit? Russia? China? Iran? (Oh, hell I hope not). And just how useful is the AH64 in Iraq at present - sure its blowing the crap outta Fallujah but there's something strangely reminiscent of Israeli Apaches hitting Gaza in the footage. Throwing a Hellfire at a building that looks like 'an insurgent stronghold' (how do they know - do they have a billboard outside saying "beware the suicide bomber") is counter-productive especially when you end up slaughtering civilians. What is really needed in Iraq, as even the US agree, is more infantry - more feet on the ground and more faces doing the hearts n minds routine. All in all I remain convinced that, given we are unlikely to engage another nation state in an all-out land war and faced massed tank columns (unless Dubya does Iran) why spend an absolute fortune on a bunch of anti-tank helicopters that duplicate a function of the Lynx but without the flexibility to drop in an SAS unit? Sure, Lynx's aren't as armoured as the AH64 but the armour doesn't make a huge amount of difference when hit by AA fire. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |