We had the same problem in the 1st Gulf War. Untill they crash-developed the TIALD pods we had to fly Buccaneers as laser designators for the Tornados carrying Paveway.

I knew about that one but I'm always amazed to the low level of reading among aircraft engineers. Moreover, we are supposed to be on the same side and, in 15 years, they could have tried to learn from British experience.

The worse into this is that our mirage 2000D are supposed to be equipped with that type of equipments. Then, why would you put the same equipment, first hand, on the aircraft which is planned to replace them?:D

There is something else I love since the end of the Cold war and that is range reported to our nuclear capable aircrafts.
Mirage IV: 2000 km (external tanks)
Rafale and Mirage 2000D : around 800km.

During the cold war we could deliver nukes as far as western USSR (Belarus and Ukraine). With our new aircraft our main targets have become Berlin, London, Madrid and Rome.

Finally, according to our current government, due to changes in the nature of threats, we will soon be closing most of our air bases to the East and North. Then, our nuclear bombers will be capable to reach highly strategic targets such as Tunis, Madrid and Rome (we might have some kind of issue with the Italian and Spanish), Malta, Baleares, Lille, Paris and Strasbourg... :D British and German can sleep well now but you might think about avoiding the Mediterranean and France for your vacations or risk sunburns.:cool::p

[QUOTE=Mohoender;34368]During the cold war we could deliver nukes as far as western USSR (Belarus and Ukraine). With our new aircraft our main targets have become Berlin, London, Madrid and Rome.[QUOTE]

Well, the Romans do have that past history of invasion and conquest of the Guals, better safe than sorry!


So the drivers of Paris are now considered to be threats to national security. Yup! This calls for swift action!

:D

@ 95th Rifleman
Ah I see what you're saying now and I have to agree.

In regards to what everyone else has been saying (especially the info from Mohoender), it's kind of scary to see how much money and effort has been put into new aircraft designs and yet it would appear that the models they are replacing were actually more capable.
It seems to be that that's the reason why the UK kept the Buccaneer for so long and why Australia kept the F-111 for so long - no modern design could replicate what they do.

It sometimes seems that governments replace planes for the sake of replacing them,to be seen to be advancing in technology when they are taking a backward step.

After they scrapped the Jaguar the ONLY aircraft we had that was designed for close air support was the Harrier. Now they have scrapped that we are flying CAS missions in Libya less than a freaking year after we scrap the Harrier fleet! We are putting Brimstone missles onto Tornados desighned for strategic bombing/photo-recce roles and calling it a CAS bird.

The Typhoon was supposed to be an interceptor but ended up being a multi-role aircraft that is essentilay an interceptor. It's like taking a peregrine falcon, training her to hunt pigeons and then expecting her to do tricks, talk like a parrot and help with fishing.