Read the forum code of contact
Posts: 3,652
By: - 1st April 2015 at 01:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Alll,
unsurpassed global air superiority..... :highly_amused:
The gif below pretty much sus up the whole affair concerning the F-35.
http://coub.com/view/1nn7qy68
Geoff.
By: - 1st April 2015 at 14:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The liveleak article actually first saw the light of day at least 6 months ago (or if not this one another very similar one saying much the same). In my opinion, which doesn't count for much, the whole idea was a mess from the start.
By: - 1st April 2015 at 15:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The existing F-15, F-16 and F-18 designs will not last forever. The F-22 is too expensive, cannot carry-out some of the roles required and is unsuitable for export so if not the F-35 the USA and its Allies will need something.
So does the USA:
a) Scrap F-35 and start again from scratch?
b) Buy a foreign aircraft design?
c) Not bother and use F-15 / F-16 / F-18 for ever?
d) Persevere with F-35 and make it work?
Posts: 3,652
By: - 1st April 2015 at 16:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi All,
CD you say the F-22 is to expensive and the F-35 is not ? I mean they are talking about 6th gen aircraft when they haven't got the 5th sorted out so why would you throw money down the drain ? somebody should have put a stop to this flying money pit years ago instead they keep throwing money at it with crossed fingers behind there backs you cant throw money at a problem and say that will put it right. There have been and was a number of designs that could have carried on from where the Harrier left off, personally the Boeing X-32 concept design was my favourite of the two competing airframes and at leas they admitted in the beginning when they had trouble with the chin mounted air scoop, for the money that has been thrown at the F-35 Boeing could have sorted that problem out in no time also if I am not mistaken didn't the Boeing utilise many off the shelf parts while at the same time adding new designed features (Please correct if wrong.)
I just think that stealth was the in word when designing these aircraft but it wouldn't be very stealthy with all that hardware hung on the pylons in another post showing all the weapons it was capable of carrying.
You are of coarse correct in saying the current crop of 4th gen aircraft are on the finishing straight but rather than trying to do the Long jump shouldn't they be doing the Hop/Skip and jump ? IMHO they were simply trying to cram all the latest all singing dancing whistle and bells kit into an airframe that looked good on paper, but in reality cost to much to bring off the drawing board without incurring the technical delays never mind the increased price that have cost not just the USA but all other nations who were promised this ballerina of the sky, not to mention that already allegedly there are systems now capable of seeing the aircraft and like I mentioned in another post I believe that the aircraft was defeated in combat exercises by 4th gen aircraft (Please correct if wrong.)
Geoff.
By: - 1st April 2015 at 16:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What you have to separate is what is factual from what makes a good story; do you remember all the similar stories about the Eurofighter Typhoon? Not so many of those stories about these days now are there? Why not?
The F-35 cost a lot, yes, but all military procurement at this scale costs a lot. I bet if you look back there will be articles scandalised by the cost of the F-15, F-16, F-18 and F-14. Were these aircraft programmes procurement disasters?
If Britain had been as conservative as you are suggesting in 1930 we'd have gone to war in biplanes in 1940!
Posts: 3,652
By: - 1st April 2015 at 19:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi All,
CD,
I dare say you are right but nothing comparable to this shambles, as far as the Typhoon goes it has turned out to be better than what was hoped hasn't it ? It's not about being conservative just about wasting money that could have been better spent, on the Modern military thread page they are discussing the 6th Gen fighter and all the development costs that would incur, I just don't understand why when the 5th Gen is not fully operational has been plagued by cost overruns and equipment malfunctions etc.etc. Yes I agree these come as part of the aircraft developments package but really the cost involved that have been swallowed up by the F-35 is just mind blowing mismanagement to the highest level from top to bottom I would guess.
As far as going to war in biplanes we did Gladiator and Swordfish and we weren't the only ones according to this site below. :D
http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/biplanes.htm
Geoff.
By: - 1st April 2015 at 19:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...as far as the Typhoon goes it has turned out to be better than what was hoped hasn't it?
Or did Typhoon just turn-out as good as it was expected to.....and it was criticised unfairly?
Yes, the costs involved are huge but the programme is for over 3000 aircraft. And who says the Boeing X-32 wouldn't have suffered cost-overruns? The only way to reduce cost, and cost-overruns, is to build a far less-ambitious aircraft...
...and nobody wanted a less-ambitious aircraft. The F-35 is what they wanted.
Posts: 3,652
By: - 1st April 2015 at 19:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi All,
CD,
Have to agree again on your first point I suppose at the end of the day you can always make any viewpoint fit into any standpoint and there are always two sides to any argument.
3000 Aircraft is that figure correct now ? especially as the UK has reduced our order also if I am not mistaken a few others have all reduced theirs simply due to the cost shooting up and it will continue to go up even further if they make fewer surely ?
Like your 1st point I will agree with you on the costing and I would of thought you only build what is practical and not overstretch that surely is just sound logic business wise isn't it ?
Geoff.
By: - 1st April 2015 at 22:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Never mind Geoff, once they find those buried Spitfires, problem solved.
Simples, Eh ! :D
Jim
Lincoln .7
By: - 1st April 2015 at 22:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
These things are so expensive could we actually risk them in a war?
By: - 1st April 2015 at 23:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, they're designed to discourage war...
...the question is: would a cheaper aircraft do as good a job of that?
By: - 2nd April 2015 at 10:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Crazy suggestion Thursday; buy one of China's newest creations and put a decent power plant in it.
By: - 2nd April 2015 at 10:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does anyone know how much the UK is spending on the development of this aircraft ?
By: - 2nd April 2015 at 10:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
At the last count about £2.5 billion for the total order for aircraft spares, support costs etc, but I don't think the offsets accounted for by the UK's production costs contribution are included.
By: - 2nd April 2015 at 10:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
2.5. Billion plus!! the mind boggles. We can hardly keep the N.H.S. afloat, but can spend this amount on aircraft, that do we really need?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: - 2nd April 2015 at 10:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yep, the NHS has only cost us about £100 billion each and every year for the last ten years...
...if we replaced the F-35 with something that was, I dunno, free, think how much better the NHS would be! :rolleyes:
By: - 2nd April 2015 at 11:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
At the last count about £2.5 billion for the total order for aircraft, spares, support costs etc...
Actually I think that's just the first 'spend' (or the F-35 is an amazing bargain!)...
...the total UK cost is, I think, about £15 billion?
By: - 2nd April 2015 at 11:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Then you add the cost of an aircraft carrier, specifically designed to handle this aircraft.
By: - 2nd April 2015 at 12:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This country used to be good at something called 'value engineering'.
Value engineering means making something that will do the job it is designed to do from a few empty Heinz baked bean tins. In aviation terms, I might be right in mentioning the Folland Gnat, in this context, alleged to be a very cheap and cost effective fighter of its day.
I find it difficult to understand how and where it is possible to spend billions not millions, on a proposed all singing, all dancing aeroplane that, in spite of all that expenditure might not deliver as promised.
By: - 2nd April 2015 at 12:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Then you add the cost of an aircraft carrier, specifically designed to handle this aircraft.
I think the 'cost' of the (two) aircraft carriers is about £7 billion but I'm not sure if that is the total lifetime cost or just the construction costs...
...anyway, that's not really the point.
The point is are we serious about defence? Do we want our armed forces to be equipped with the best tools for the job or do want the cheapest? Do we want our defence industry to keep pace with the state-of-the-art technology or do we want this industry (too) to be starved of funds, wither and die?
So what if we spend £25 billion on the F-35 and two Aircraft Carriers...
...that is what we GIVE AWAY in our international aid budget every TWO YEARS!
In the THIRTY years that F-35 will last we will spend at least £400 billion in international aid so do you still think that the F-35 is something that we cannot afford as a nation?
(My apologies for all the capitals but I cannot seem to make the underline function work on the damn iPad!)
Posts: 1,071
By: MrBlueSky - 1st April 2015 at 00:17
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1f6_1427769814
Shall we ask to have our Harriers back!