Royal Marines Gucci Rebrand

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Mid-1980s, when you declared that "Hawk/Jaguar replacement" was somehow mangled into an air-superiority fighter to stop the RAF buying F-15As.

You know the time, back when the proposals looked like this:-
View attachment 486761

Clearly, nothing like the operational aircraft - you can see how the project had to be transformed.

Remember when this sleek, svelte, agile little beauty was going to be the USAF's new Advanced Tactical Fighter?
View attachment 486762

Funny how projects change from early proposals, to "what actually works", isn't it? Or the way this:-
View attachment 486763

was originally meant to look like this:-
View attachment 486764

Now, go and try to actually read some of your references, rather than just colouring in the pictures.
Oh, I'd have gone back before EPA to ACA - which many people commented was reminiscent of the P.1121.

P.1121? Blimey, shark mouth intake and stellar performance as far back as the mid-1950s...
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
But haven’t you in one of your previous incarnations complained that Typhoon’s A2G role was akin to turning a Lamborghini into a dumpster? Whereas the truth is that Typhoon was always going to be swing-role, it was just that people needed the A2A capability in service first? Haven’t you complained that bolting an A2G capability onto Typhoon was a ridiculous waste, compromising a good fighter?

Yet here you are arguing that Typhoon was to be a Jaguar replacement that ‘just happened’ to be a bit good in a knife fight.

You’re talking cock.
Typhoon was meant to be a Jaguar replacement and was hopelessly compromised by forcing it to be an improvised, imperfect air-combat fighter. It was always a light-strike aircraft never intended to be a fighter. In no public or private utterance could it ever be admitted that it might have been different. Anyone who believes otherwise, merely cannot properly control their memories. After all, PhotEx says it was designed from the wheels up as a strike aircraft. And PhotEx is an honourable man.

When the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, said of advancing Typhoon's air-to-ground capability, "Clearly it was originally designed as an air defence fighter and will always be a very, very high performance air defence fighter, but the multi-role will give it the additional capability" he merely proved how little he knew compared to PhotEx. For PhotEx says it was always intended as a pure air-to-ground platform, and is an inadequate, incapable fighter, and PhotEx is an honourable man.

FlightGlobal wrote, "Eurofighter is now making rapid progress towards achieving an air-to-ground capability on the Typhoon – a capability whose absence was believed to be behind the type’s rejection from Singapore’s fighter competition last year." But PhotEx says it always had air-to-ground capability, any air-to-air being a late, desperate, bodged addition; and PhotEx is an honourable man.

When Defence Aerospace enthused that "In air combat, Eurofighter Typhoon is the unquestioned Number One in Europe, an Air Force capability-multiplier benefiting the five Nations on the order book." they should have sought PhotEx for correction: for PhotEx says Typhoon was merely a replacement for Jaguar, and surely, PhotEx is an honourable man.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
In fact, for the benefit of the audience (and apologies for the continued thread drift), let's share the Wikipedia entry for the P-1121.

This bit is of particular interest:
The proposed P.1121 was similar to the F-4 which was at that point also under development, both aircraft possessing comparable performance and load carrying capacity. According to Hawker, the P.1121 was promoted as being ready for production as early as 1960, and was to have been capable of speeds of up to Mach 2.5. Elements of the design included its high speed, large internal fuel capacity, provision for a wide range of munitions and equipment, and being strengthened for a full range of ground attack profiles.
Seem familiar?

It's from over 70 years ago.

It's Typhoon by any other name.
 
Typhoon was meant to be a Jaguar replacement and was hopelessly compromised by forcing it to be an improvised, imperfect air-combat fighter. It was always a light-strike aircraft never intended to be a fighter. In no public or private utterance could it ever be admitted that it might have been different. Anyone who believes otherwise, merely cannot properly control their memories. After all, PhotEx says it was designed from the wheels up as a strike aircraft. And PhotEx is an honourable man.

When the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, said of advancing Typhoon's air-to-ground capability, "Clearly it was originally designed as an air defence fighter and will always be a very, very high performance air defence fighter, but the multi-role will give it the additional capability" he merely proved how little he knew compared to PhotEx. For PhotEx says it was always intended as a pure air-to-ground platform, and is an inadequate, incapable fighter, and PhotEx is an honourable man.

FlightGlobal wrote, "Eurofighter is now making rapid progress towards achieving an air-to-ground capability on the Typhoon – a capability whose absence was believed to be behind the type’s rejection from Singapore’s fighter competition last year." But PhotEx says it always had air-to-ground capability, any air-to-air being a late, desperate, bodged addition; and PhotEx is an honourable man.

When Defence Aerospace enthused that "In air combat, Eurofighter Typhoon is the unquestioned Number One in Europe, an Air Force capability-multiplier benefiting the five Nations on the order book." they should have sought PhotEx for correction: for PhotEx says Typhoon was merely a replacement for Jaguar, and surely, PhotEx is an honourable man.
Mark Antony Walt
 

Euclid

War Hero
Typhoon was meant to be a Jaguar replacement and was hopelessly compromised by forcing it to be an improvised, imperfect air-combat fighter. It was always a light-strike aircraft never intended to be a fighter. In no public or private utterance could it ever be admitted that it might have been different. Anyone who believes otherwise, merely cannot properly control their memories. After all, PhotEx says it was designed from the wheels up as a strike aircraft. And PhotEx is an honourable man.

When the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, said of advancing Typhoon's air-to-ground capability, "Clearly it was originally designed as an air defence fighter and will always be a very, very high performance air defence fighter, but the multi-role will give it the additional capability" he merely proved how little he knew compared to PhotEx. For PhotEx says it was always intended as a pure air-to-ground platform, and is an inadequate, incapable fighter, and PhotEx is an honourable man.

FlightGlobal wrote, "Eurofighter is now making rapid progress towards achieving an air-to-ground capability on the Typhoon – a capability whose absence was believed to be behind the type’s rejection from Singapore’s fighter competition last year." But PhotEx says it always had air-to-ground capability, any air-to-air being a late, desperate, bodged addition; and PhotEx is an honourable man.

When Defence Aerospace enthused that "In air combat, Eurofighter Typhoon is the unquestioned Number One in Europe, an Air Force capability-multiplier benefiting the five Nations on the order book." they should have sought PhotEx for correction: for PhotEx says Typhoon was merely a replacement for Jaguar, and surely, PhotEx is an honourable man.
Ahh - I see your problem - reading anything that PhotEx posts. He’s one strange chap.
 

Truxx

LE
Typhoon was meant to be a Jaguar replacement and was hopelessly compromised by forcing it to be an improvised, imperfect air-combat fighter. It was always a light-strike aircraft never intended to be a fighter. In no public or private utterance could it ever be admitted that it might have been different. Anyone who believes otherwise, merely cannot properly control their memories. After all, PhotEx says it was designed from the wheels up as a strike aircraft. And PhotEx is an honourable man.

When the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, said of advancing Typhoon's air-to-ground capability, "Clearly it was originally designed as an air defence fighter and will always be a very, very high performance air defence fighter, but the multi-role will give it the additional capability" he merely proved how little he knew compared to PhotEx. For PhotEx says it was always intended as a pure air-to-ground platform, and is an inadequate, incapable fighter, and PhotEx is an honourable man.

FlightGlobal wrote, "Eurofighter is now making rapid progress towards achieving an air-to-ground capability on the Typhoon – a capability whose absence was believed to be behind the type’s rejection from Singapore’s fighter competition last year." But PhotEx says it always had air-to-ground capability, any air-to-air being a late, desperate, bodged addition; and PhotEx is an honourable man.

When Defence Aerospace enthused that "In air combat, Eurofighter Typhoon is the unquestioned Number One in Europe, an Air Force capability-multiplier benefiting the five Nations on the order book." they should have sought PhotEx for correction: for PhotEx says Typhoon was merely a replacement for Jaguar, and surely, PhotEx is an honourable man.
Jock Stirrup was in the Navy.

Might have been a WAFU though I can't remember.
 
It's not often you're right....and this is no exception. F-86 had better pilots and tactics, Mig 15 better performance and guns.
Concur, hence the switch from .50 calibre mgs to 20mm.
The ex WW2 Russian types flying the MiG in Korea alongside the NKs and PRC gave a good account of themselves in combat. It flew higher, turned tighter in a sustained turn and climbed better. The Sabre had radar assisted sights, better roll rate and less demanding handling. The US adapted tactics accordingly and trained it's pilots better.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
It's not as if there's a shortage of real work. Turn the RE loose on the accom, useful work and and chance to practice their trades. Similarly the Sigs could sort out the wifi.
They can't. The majority of accomodation and WiFi are contracted out so the army can't do anything with either.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
What you don't understand or won't accept is that you need a certain amount of "spare" service personnel.

The RAN lost many trained and experienced personnel because they had no shore billet to go to anymore. The thinking being civvies were cheaper and we'll just keep sailors at sea. This gets old very quickly and the only option is to hand in your papers.

You now have to recruit, train and wait 10 years to regain that experience. This is fine if it's one or two but not when it's on mass.

You end up with a false economy where you spend more money for less capability.
Don't know if you're RAN or not, but the RN largely lost that argument a long time back in the early 90s with the inception of FLAGSHIP which impacted catering and support, which then encroached upon engineers billets ashore. All of which as you highlight reduced shore opportunities and created a lot of issues with harmony and retention.

I don't disagree with the broad premise you highlight but equally there were, and there still are, too many places where we have been and we still do use Service Personnel in roles that aren't exploiting all of their skills/experiences and that has been a much commented factor on negative retention. Equally when we have a number of gaps at sea the seniors points out to a large cohort ashore and that's triggered analysis of which posts have to be filled by SP, which could be filled by CS and what the impacts upon harmony/retention will be.

This is tending to be in the rump of HQ or support areas and to compensate for that to ensure there are shore/harmony posts Naval Base, training establishment and Op HQ posts and a lot of engineering support organisations (in partnership with industry) will keep or enhance their sP footprint. The lessons from FLAGSHIP are understood and that harmony aspect is a key consideration as the organisation is redesigned. Time will tell how successfully. I'm not saying I agree with all of it, some I don't and I've made my views very clear but I do agree in some areas we've unnecessarily bloated.

I'm not sure I'd agree we got to a position of paying more for less capability in the 90s but the initial concept of the shore posts being filled by recent leavers or FTRS (full time reserves) only held true for a while as the civilian companies squeezed pay to manage their bottom line and there was a definite wobble for a while that self rectified when the companies were held to account for their contracts and had to provide better training and support.

No matter how we alter things we're going to get issues with the sea/shore ratio. I've listened countless times to people who have done an 18-24m sea draft and then think they should be ashore for the next 3-5 years. The lean nature of the RN has undoubtedly led to too many people doing back to back sea drafts and the paucity of available ships and the operational tempo has driven that and created uncertainty in the lives of many. Forward basing and crew rotations, with added fat in the manning is being seen as one way to address this. Again, only time will tell.

Of course, the real answer is autonomy ;-)

Edit: Whilst slightly tongue in cheek I do think autonomy in the medium to long term may offer Navies a way to redevelop their manning model.
 
Last edited:
The drawing could almost be an AMX. And it’s very pretty.

But requirements change. By the time we moved to Eurofighter, it was very much about a swing-role, very capable airframe (as is the Rafale, incidentally) because that’s what was needed.

But haven’t you in one of your previous incarnations complained that Typhoon’s A2G role was akin to turning a Lamborghini into a dumpster? Whereas the truth is that Typhoon was always going to be swing-role, it was just that people needed the A2A capability in service first? Haven’t you complained that bolting an A2G capability onto Typhoon was a ridiculous waste, compromising a good fighter?

Yet here you are arguing that Typhoon was to be a Jaguar replacement that ‘just happened’ to be a bit good in a knife fight.

You’re talking cock.

Swing role? How very nuevelle PowerPoint.

As originally envisioned, Eurofighter was a better Jaguar, a ground pounder that could hold its own in a fight over the IGB. It was never seen a a long range strategic air superiority fighter swanning around the North Atlantic facing off hordes of Backfires. Thats why its small with short legs.
Pour qui? At the time it was first dreamt up, the RAF was still looking covetously at those damn sexy BFO super fighters the USAF and USN was was getting, the F-15 and F-14 for that air superiority mission until the crappy Tornado ADV was foisted on it.

Arguing Typhoon is a very good fighter doesn't cut it, 'Typhoon' bears no resemblance to 'Eurofighter'; as originally thought up, infinite delays allowed the design to grow into a proper fighter through a myriad rethinks, but thats making a virtue out of 25 years of dicking about working out what we wanted and arguing with reluctant European 'partners'.

Typhoon entered front line service 15 years AFTER the SU-27 - it really missed the party.
If the Cold War had turned hot in the late 80's like it nearly did, the RAF would have gone to war with no viable air superiority fighters, none, not a one.

And there were more than a few in the RAF if given the option, would have walked away from the thing in the 90's when the Germans were furiously dragging out the project by more years and another redesign and bought F-15E's

One really good thing about the Eurofighter programme?
Convinced MOD finally, don't design planes with the EUropeans - with them, its all about workshare and politics and designing down to the lowest common denominator, it will always be late and over budget (lessons not learned with Jaguar and Tornado).
 

Polyester

Old-Salt
we still do use Service Personnel in roles that aren't exploiting all of their skills/experiences
Few organisations get this right to be fair. I’ve personally witnessed it across all three services. It’s easy to spot and even easier to see the agenda behind why.
 

Polyester

Old-Salt
Typhoon entered front line service 15 years AFTER the SU-27 - it really missed the party.
If the Cold War had turned hot in the late 80's like it nearly did, the RAF would have gone to war with no viable air superiority fighters, none, not a one.
Utter utter nonsense.
 

Latest Threads

Top