Best RAF fighter jet in 2003 ?? Some info please

[craigmason71]

i must diagree with vodoo sprout the raf has more than two types of fighters there are tornado gr1+2 then there is the harrier/hawk&jaguarand soon to be issued to raf units the eurofighter

[craigmason71]

It's not a true rivalry, put simply, The Paras and the SAS think they are Gods' Gift whereas The Marines and our SBS Know we are.




Incoming................

the marines are not half as good as the raf regiment .

[voodoo sprout]

there are tornado gr1+2 then there is the harrier/hawk&jaguarand soon to be issued to raf units the eurofighter

If you're suicidal perhaps, bombing other aircraft worked against airships but I don't fancy trying to drop a two thousand pound bomb on a moving MiG . That, or we're just using different definitions - I'd say a fighter is an aircraft tasked with engaging other aircraft, of which there are only two unless things go really badly .

[Topper]

A fighter is probably thought as an aircraft with a turning circle somewhat smaller than an oil tanker's, at the moment the RAF doesnt have one. The Harrier is not equipped for air-to-air work and the F3 is a nice big family aircraft, a sort of Montego Estate compared to something like a porsche, which could be an F-16 say. Whereas the GR aircraft just don't have the equipment or radar guided missles to be a credible air-to-air capability.

[rabby]

We don't need an air to air capability anymore anyway, this eurofighter is good, but useless, what we need is a fleet of small, and large bombers...

[may18]

A fighter is probably thought as an aircraft with a turning circle somewhat smaller than an oil tanker's, at the moment the RAF doesnt have one. The Harrier is not equipped for air-to-air work and the F3 is a nice big family aircraft, a sort of Montego Estate compared to something like a porsche, which could be an F-16 say. Whereas the GR aircraft just don't have the equipment or radar guided missles to be a credible air-to-air capability.

We dont need one atm, but who is to say what might happen in the future?

do we want to always have to rely on the US for air superiority ?

But yes, i agree air superiority seems less important than strike..has the F3 ever fired a missile in anger?

[Dmanton300]

I guess May has already seen this elsewhere, but here is a breakdown of Typhoon costs in relation to the Austria deal:-

So the Flyaway cost of each Batch 2 Typhoon is :-
EUR 62,890,000

The flyaway Cost of each Typhoon with a 9 year finance deal is :-
EUR 74,280,000

The System Cost of each Typhoon without the 9 year finance deal, and including Logistics, Training, and Simulators is :-
EUR 74,280,000

The System Cost of each Typhoon including the 9 year finance deal, and including Logistics, Training, and Simulators is :-
EUR 109,380,000


So as you can see there the actual cost of an individual Typhoon is, relatively speaking a bargain given it's capabilities. All the extranous costs nearly double the unit price.
£44 million a pop flyaway. . . .I'll take two!

[regiment_rock]

Can I just point something out to you all. There is actually only one true RAF fighter aircraft in service. If you look at aircraft like the Jaguar GR1, Tornado GR1, and even the Hawk T1 that somebody else said was a fighter, you will notice that the first two start with GR and then the mark number or whatever they are. GR stands for Ground Reconaissance and Attack, and the Hawk also is a T. Mk. 1, the T standing for Trainer. So, therefore, the Tornado F3 is the only true fighter, hence the F of F3 standing for Fighter. Simple really isnt it? Just like if the Phantom F4 was still in service, it would be a fighter because of the F.
Just another note, did anyone stop to think that the person who started this discussion, who knows nothing about RAF and USAF assets yet seems very interested, could possibly not be exactly what they seem?
Call me cynical or paranoid, but I think in this modern world I am allowed. Maybe you all should be a little more careful who you give very detailed information about the RAF and USAF to, that sort of information could be very useful to certain groups of people or even individuals...
Jeez, Im going to be so wasted in the RAF Regiment!

[Dmanton300]

Can I just point something out to you all. There is actually only one true RAF fighter aircraft in service. If you look at aircraft like the Jaguar GR1, Tornado GR1, and even the Hawk T1 that somebody else said was a fighter, you will notice that the first two start with GR and then the mark number or whatever they are. GR stands for Ground Reconaissance and Attack, and the Hawk also is a T. Mk. 1, the T standing for Trainer. So, therefore, the Tornado F3 is the only true fighter, hence the F of F3 standing for Fighter. Simple really isnt it? Just like if the Phantom F4 was still in service, it would be a fighter because of the F.

In actual fact, and to be pedantic from a British point of view, the Phantom's US designation of F-4 wasn't applicable in British service, it was classified a fighter using the British system , i.e. FG.1 and FGR.2, later when 74 Sqdn received remanufactured J-79 engined F-4J(UK) it's official designation was Phantom F.3, but F-4J(UK) remained the common due to the fact that the F.3 Tonka was about to enter service and it was deemed liable to confusion. It's worth noting that mark designations in British use come *after* the name , so what the Americans called the McDonnell Douglas F-4M Phantom II was, in British service called the McDonnell Douglas Phantom FGR.2. . . note the use of a full stop rather than a hyphen as well. To be positively anal about it there should, for complete accuracy be a Mk in there as well, i.e. McDonnell Douglas Phantom FGR. Mk 2, but the Mk is rarely, if ever used these days. . . I can bore for my country, me!

Just another note, did anyone stop to think that the person who started this discussion, who knows nothing about RAF and USAF assets yet seems very interested, could possibly not be exactly what they seem?
Call me cynical or paranoid, but I think in this modern world I am allowed. Maybe you all should be a little more careful who you give very detailed information about the RAF and USAF to, that sort of information could be very useful to certain groups of people or even individuals...
Jeez, Im going to be so wasted in the RAF Regiment!

Nothing that has been said in this thread is unavailable in the public domain or anything more than opinion (sometimes educated, sometimes not). If potential subversives wanted to obtain detailed info this would be one of the last places on earth to find it - too much heresay and information freely available elsewhere without all the hassle of having to wade through threads to get to it. There isn't a red under *every* bed you know!

[Topper]

Just to be an utter ball bag, the F3 might of fired some of those radar repression missles in the recent conflict.
I'm sure if some utter nutter wanted to find out about acerbic wit he/she/it would love this sort of site. However, i'm sure there are many more websites with far less sociable people who divulge far more anoraky facts than presented on this forum.

[may18]

Far more information than discussed here is revealed at the MOD site, future procurements, even detailed analysis of the iraq conflict

[regiment_rock]

Well, if I was a terrorist, and wanted to know about my enemies assets and capabilities, who better to ask then its own servicemen or potential servicemen on a website, where every question you ask will get a full answer, rather then sifting through useless information looking for what you want to know?
I just think that maybe some things we should be a little more cautious about, I mean since September 11th, the world isnt the safest place to live in now, is it!?
As for all that crap about the Phantom, its just pointless blabber we dont want to know, the main thing is that aircraft that have an 'F' designation are fighters, hence there only being the Tornado F3 and any other I've forgotten, but you get my point.

[Topper]

The world certainly is an unstable place, but i think the little discussion about the RAF has harldy given away the most closely guarded state secrets. I'm sure most of the punters on this website would realise if they were being irresponsible as to the content of their postings. It may give more useful information as to morale of people and their attitudes, but thats a different matter.

[regiment_rock]

Im not saying everyone on here is irresponsible, Im just saying maybe we should be careful about some things that are said.
You should never under-estimate anybody.

[Dmanton300]

Im not saying everyone on here is irresponsible, Im just saying maybe we should be careful about some things that are said.
You should never under-estimate anybody.

You're not getting it are you? Read my initial point. . nothing that's been said on here isn't already freely available in the public domain, thus I think you can take it as read that people on here are just as careful as they need to be, whether serving in the forces or not. You're right, you should never underestimate anyone, which is *exactly* what you're doing, unerestimating our ability to hold an intelligent, reasoned discussion on pertinent issues of the day without breaching security.
As for aircraft with an "F" being fighters, suggest you check out the air-to-air combat record of the F-111 Ardvaark and F-117 Nighthawk sometime. . proof positive that mis-designations can and do occur. Also note that the Buccaneer never had a meanigful Strike mission for the majority of it's career but was enever re-designated and remained the the S.2, and the RAFG Tornados did have a primary Strike role but never received the S designater. The only time convention was remotely followed was when the Sea Harrier lost it's strike tasking in the conversion to the FRS.2, and was shortly thereafter re-designated the F/A.2, but even that is a bastardisation and not really appropriate. You DO know the difference between a Strike aircraft and a Ground Attack aircraft in British forces terms I take it?
Sorry if I come off sounding like a smart arse, but you are doing exactly what you think we may be doing.