By: Creaking Door
- 27th April 2015 at 19:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, I'm not implying (much) technical assistance, just financial; without which Kestrel and Harrier would never have existed. I think NASA was involved in some of the early Kestrel testing, at least?
Tornado MRCA would make the last five biggest European aircraft projects list...
...and Tornado was also late and over-budget!
Oh, and I forgot Rafale.....late and very over-budget!
By: 1batfastard
- 27th April 2015 at 19:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi All,
CD,
Nobody's suggesting that programmes are on time and within budget as I have said I agree it happens as with anything, development problems and cost over run is part of the process and no matter how you pitch an idea it will inevitably have the x factor of overspend some of which can be helped some of which cannot, but this F-35 is beyond belief if it was a dog and in that much pain it would have been put out of it's misery for the want of a better analogy.
The only reason we had French and U.S. help according to wiki anyway was the engine was a result of an adaption based on a French (Michel Wibault)design as far as international funding goes it was only the U.S., they only became involved because our wonderful government never gave Hawker any funding because of the defence white paper of 1957, so they went cap in hand to the U.S. for money, NASA was only involved in wind tunnel testing with the sub scale models also Hawkers test pilot Hugh Merewether was asked by NASA to test the Bell X-14.
By: charliehunt
- 27th April 2015 at 20:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pipped to the post, Geoff. I was going to make a similar point. In terms of technogical development Hawker and Bristol and later RR drove the project and against considerable odds. An exceptional British programme produced an exceptional British aircraft. But it was the last.
By: Creaking Door
- 27th April 2015 at 20:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The only reason we had French and U.S. help according to wiki anyway was the engine was a result of an adaption based on a French (Michel Wibault) design...
I don't think there was any French involvement in the Kestrel / Harrier programme whatsoever but, as you have indicated in numerous posts, political will and, above all, a commitment to fund a project is the most important element...
...however, on the one hand, you are critical of lack of British funding of Harrier and TSR2, both projects that pushed the available technology to its limits, and to cancellation in the case of the TSR2, and on the other hand...
...you suggest exactly the opposite approach when it comes to F-35!
Now, it seems, we both admit there are almost universally cost overruns when it comes to complex military aircraft programmes but yet you apparently seem to think that with the F-35, and only the F-35, this means that it is 'a dog' and should be cancelled without replacement!
There seems to a general lament at the loss of British engineering excellence and yet, at the same time, an absolute unwillingness to commit politically or financially to anything that pushes technology into areas where true advancements can be made...
...but then, nobody ever achieved greatness by playing-it-safe and spending as little money as possible!
By: 1batfastard
- 28th April 2015 at 16:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi All,
Charlie,Mike and CD,
Of coarse you are all correct with your last posts but CD the reason the F-35 is such a dog is simply it cannot fulfil what was promised despite what the test pilots say on camera. The millions that have been sunk into it despite assurances the extra funding would easily fix the problems, then yet more extra millions pumped into the programme on top of that they still cannot fix the problems, that is why it should be cancelled. Now ask yourself this when do you admit enough is enough if everybody still pumps money at a programme it could go on for ever, the only thing that gets fixed is the Lockheed bank balance.
By: Creaking Door
- 29th April 2015 at 10:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm sorry but I really don't think you have a grasp on the scale of the programme; the development stage alone is costing £40billion and the whole programme at least £400billion. So a few million in cost overruns isn't really the disaster you seem to think it is.
When you say the F-35 should be 'cancelled' are you suggesting the whole programme? Or just that the United Kingdom should pull-out of the programme?
And, as yet, you haven't suggested a single viable alternative. The United Kingdom cannot afford, or is unwilling to afford, even a modest aircraft programme on its own. It would also leave the Royal Navy without a fighter for at least the next twenty years.
And if the United States cancelled the programme, what then? Start a new fighter programme fifteen years 'late' and just hope that the new fighter programme doesn't have problems too (which it almost certainly would)?
By: mike currill
- 29th April 2015 at 13:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
CD the government has effectively left the RN without a fighter already and no effective replacement in sight. I think the reason no one has suggested a viable alternative is that there isn't one available or in the pipeline at present.
By: 1batfastard
- 1st May 2015 at 18:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi All,
Mike,
Correctomundo matey.
Cd,
It's exactly the amount of many billions of money that you point out is what I object to mainly that even with extra funding on top of extra funding costs that have been asked for and given and still they fail to fix the problems they say the extra funding will cure like I say were do you say enough is enough ?
As far as cancelling the programme goes that is it just shut the money pit down and get a more realistic team to improve what we have as should have been done simple. As for an alternative I have already said the Harrier could have been developed further but instead of developing the Harrier they chose the new all singing all dancing route which has now been proven the wrong choice, like I said learn to walk before running, as for RN I have already said a Navalised Typhoon would suffice, as far as the UK pulling out then yes pump the money into a Navalised Typhoon if I have to have pushed on a decision if not then what about resurrecting the Boeing design that aircraft utilised lots of on the shelf parts so why not just do that I always likened the Boeing JSF to the A-10 ugly in some respects but was probably capable of dong the job.
I have already agreed with you that all programmes have teething problems and yes if it means starting again then yes do that but keep Lockheed out of it as they had their chance and messed up big time or like I mentioned above just say well it's over to you Boeing instead of funding a programme that just hoovers the money with know real further improvement give the runner up a chance to shine.
By: Creaking Door
- 3rd May 2015 at 18:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm sorry but you keep objecting to the F-35 on grounds of cost and then suggest an alternative that goes in the opposite direction to every other current military aircraft programme; current military aircraft programmes that are designed to deliver capability but above all to reduce cost by spreading the development burden over many more airframes (and as a consequence, many more nations).
As a case in point, the peak strength, I think, for Sea Harrier was about fifty-five airframes; now I was a bigger fan of the Sea Harrier FA2 than you would believe but there is no way the MOD would replace them on a one-for-one basis with a nasalised Typhoon (even if such a thing did exist). Let us be generous and say the MOD would fund thirty-five Typhoons for the Royal Navy so that means the entire development costs would have to be spread over these airframes (because there are no other customers)...
...does that sound like it would be cheaper than a programme with nearly three thousand airframes?
Plus there is the cost of the catapults; last time I heard they were quoting a billion per carrier (not sure if pounds or dollars) but that was the reason that the United Kingdom changed back to F-35B from the catapult-launched F-35C.
Plus, do not forget the cost off-sets of the F-35 programme; BAE Systems is building the tail-section of every F-35 that will ever be built. I've seen that, and other components, quoted as being 15% of the cost of each aircraft; that will keep thousands of high-skill jobs going in Britain for years.
And guessing that Boeing will do a better job (and by that you mean, will cost us less) than Lockheed-Martin is ludicrous; it would require scrapping everything done so far, wasting billions, putting us back decades...
...and then there is no guarantee that the Boeing aircraft would be any better but it would certainly cost more.
By: silver fox
- 3rd May 2015 at 20:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi All,
Charlie you are quite correct I was being polite with my reference being as we are a global forum. :D It's just a shame that we never fully developed the plenum chamber burning or indeed utilised two engines of coarse not to mention the development of the supersonic P1154 with said plenum chamber burning, yet another example of this country's excellent ability to interfere.Personally liked this design to follow on the Harrier - The super Harrier below. :cool:
Geoff.
The sad part of this is that prototypes were under construction as far back as 1965, think we could have ironed out any problems by now, in fact it was the cancellation of this aircraft which lead to the the Harrier as a cheaper alternative.
By: 1batfastard
- 3rd May 2015 at 21:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi All,
silver fox,
Absolutely correct you are.
CD,
Sorry to bang on about the cost that is my main opposition, will this help you out then ? The money being spent on the F-35 could have been spent better but instead those in power keep pumping more into an obvious failing programme that to be honest money will not fix. How is it the opposite direction ? I realise that programmes need developing and the money to back that up but I say again could have been better spent elsewhere.
As for the Typhoon follow this link and download the PDF that is available pretty interesting reading. http://www.eurofighter.com/news-and-events/2011/02/eurofighter-naval-version-makes-debut-at-aero-india-2011
Even wiki has some info here (Scroll to bottom of page). :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon_variants
As you quite rightly point out the UK would probably be the sole customer but IMHO it would be money well spent all you have to do is adapt the rear of the airframe for a hook, the reason why the government changed their minds was simply the bean counters as always giving the UK cheaper kit and expecting the forces to keep the same readiness which as you know is a false economy cheaper is not always better.
It may be ludicrous to scrap the programme but like I said what do we do keep pumping money into this bottomless pit that is F-35 as you put it wasting billions, again I ask where do you draw the line or is it when the US Congress/Generals/Company C/O's/Investors etc.etc. finally get fed up and want to cancel then everybody is allowed to ? How can this put us back decades ? If it accomplished tasks given that gave the aircraft advantages over every other apposing Fighter/Bomber then we wouldn't be having this discussion, the very fact we are doesn't that sound some alarm bells ringing for you ? as if the aircraft was performing as advertised we would all be patting Lockheed on the back the fact it is not doing what it says on the tin is an obvious red flag.
Why would you scrap all the development info surely they could be given to Boeing as a guide to what is possible and what is not and would aid them further with their decisions, while you say my idea is a bad one I would throw your own questions back How do you know it would worse than the money pit ? How do you know it would cost more ? As far as a guarantee that's impossible as the F-35 is proving.
By: snafu352
- 4th May 2015 at 16:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And the forerunner of the 'British' Harrier was...
...the internationally funded Kestrel! (When much of the 'dirty work' was done!)
The last four biggest aircraft design projects in Europe were: Eurofighter, A400M, A380 and Nimrod MRA4...
...which ones of those came-in trouble-free, on-time and on-budget?
Oh, and which one got cancelled?
No, I'm not implying (much) technical assistance, just financial; without which Kestrel and Harrier would never have existed. I think NASA was involved in some of the early Kestrel testing, at least?
Tornado MRCA would make the last five biggest European aircraft projects list...
...and Tornado was also late and over-budget!
Oh, and I forgot Rafale.....late and very over-budget!
Accuracy lacking a little here.
Rafale was not over budget and neither it nor the Eurofighter suffered from any real technical issues.
There were issues in both programs due to political decisions to not sustain the required funding for the entire period of the program(s) which obviously also massively contributed to the delays.
This contrasts rather well with the F-35 which has had sustained funding over and beyond its allocated budget for the entire period of the program.
By: snafu352
- 4th May 2015 at 16:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In response to a number of posts from CD that ask what is the alternative to the F-35, here is a list:
Rafale
F/A-18E/F
Sea Gripen? (Brazil apparently showing serious interest.)
The F-35 has two elements that the above do not have; 1) a degree of shaping of the airframe that aids radar cross section (RCS) reduction beyond that seen in the alternatives and 2) STOVL.
In my opinion the RCS reduction shaping and STOVL combined have compromised the F-35 design beyond an acceptable level.
I'm also doubtful that "hard" shaping will continue to be an effective countermeasure as the opposing electronic systems and their hardware evolve. I would rather put faith in the development of electronic countermeasures.
The F-35 design limits the degree of enhancement that is possible by the need to maintain the shaped "stealth," the other designs I have noted are less limited. They also cost less, enabling more units to be purchased. Quantity has a quality all of its own as the old saying goes
By: j_jza80
- 4th May 2015 at 17:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pipped to the post, Geoff. I was going to make a similar point. In terms of technogical development Hawker and Bristol and later RR drove the project and against considerable odds. An exceptional British programme produced an exceptional British aircraft. But it was the last.
By: charliehunt
- 4th May 2015 at 17:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Absolutely right!!:) How could I have omitted it and worse still how could all the other contributors to this thread have missed the error?:( Thank you!!
By: John Green
- 4th May 2015 at 17:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And surely another purely British success story altho' non military is the BAe 146. Taken together with the Hawk, doesn't this mean that we have the means if not the will to make a solo effort ?
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 27th April 2015 at 19:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, I'm not implying (much) technical assistance, just financial; without which Kestrel and Harrier would never have existed. I think NASA was involved in some of the early Kestrel testing, at least?
Tornado MRCA would make the last five biggest European aircraft projects list...
...and Tornado was also late and over-budget!
Oh, and I forgot Rafale.....late and very over-budget!
Posts: 3,652
By: 1batfastard - 27th April 2015 at 19:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi All,
CD,
Nobody's suggesting that programmes are on time and within budget as I have said I agree it happens as with anything, development problems and cost over run is part of the process and no matter how you pitch an idea it will inevitably have the x factor of overspend some of which can be helped some of which cannot, but this F-35 is beyond belief if it was a dog and in that much pain it would have been put out of it's misery for the want of a better analogy.
The only reason we had French and U.S. help according to wiki anyway was the engine was a result of an adaption based on a French (Michel Wibault)design as far as international funding goes it was only the U.S., they only became involved because our wonderful government never gave Hawker any funding because of the defence white paper of 1957, so they went cap in hand to the U.S. for money, NASA was only involved in wind tunnel testing with the sub scale models also Hawkers test pilot Hugh Merewether was asked by NASA to test the Bell X-14.
Geoff.
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 27th April 2015 at 20:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pipped to the post, Geoff. I was going to make a similar point. In terms of technogical development Hawker and Bristol and later RR drove the project and against considerable odds. An exceptional British programme produced an exceptional British aircraft. But it was the last.
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 27th April 2015 at 20:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't think there was any French involvement in the Kestrel / Harrier programme whatsoever but, as you have indicated in numerous posts, political will and, above all, a commitment to fund a project is the most important element...
...however, on the one hand, you are critical of lack of British funding of Harrier and TSR2, both projects that pushed the available technology to its limits, and to cancellation in the case of the TSR2, and on the other hand...
...you suggest exactly the opposite approach when it comes to F-35!
Now, it seems, we both admit there are almost universally cost overruns when it comes to complex military aircraft programmes but yet you apparently seem to think that with the F-35, and only the F-35, this means that it is 'a dog' and should be cancelled without replacement!
There seems to a general lament at the loss of British engineering excellence and yet, at the same time, an absolute unwillingness to commit politically or financially to anything that pushes technology into areas where true advancements can be made...
...but then, nobody ever achieved greatness by playing-it-safe and spending as little money as possible!
Posts: 8,505
By: mike currill - 28th April 2015 at 13:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
At a guess I'd say none of them. The 380 certainly didn't, I doubt the Nimrod did either.Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 28th April 2015 at 13:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Perhaps another question could be asked. When was the last time post war that ANY programme in any country came in on time and on budget?
Posts: 3,652
By: 1batfastard - 28th April 2015 at 16:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi All,
Charlie,Mike and CD,
Of coarse you are all correct with your last posts but CD the reason the F-35 is such a dog is simply it cannot fulfil what was promised despite what the test pilots say on camera. The millions that have been sunk into it despite assurances the extra funding would easily fix the problems, then yet more extra millions pumped into the programme on top of that they still cannot fix the problems, that is why it should be cancelled. Now ask yourself this when do you admit enough is enough if everybody still pumps money at a programme it could go on for ever, the only thing that gets fixed is the Lockheed bank balance.
Geoff.
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 29th April 2015 at 10:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm sorry but I really don't think you have a grasp on the scale of the programme; the development stage alone is costing £40billion and the whole programme at least £400billion. So a few million in cost overruns isn't really the disaster you seem to think it is.
When you say the F-35 should be 'cancelled' are you suggesting the whole programme? Or just that the United Kingdom should pull-out of the programme?
And, as yet, you haven't suggested a single viable alternative. The United Kingdom cannot afford, or is unwilling to afford, even a modest aircraft programme on its own. It would also leave the Royal Navy without a fighter for at least the next twenty years.
And if the United States cancelled the programme, what then? Start a new fighter programme fifteen years 'late' and just hope that the new fighter programme doesn't have problems too (which it almost certainly would)?
Posts: 8,505
By: mike currill - 29th April 2015 at 13:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
CD the government has effectively left the RN without a fighter already and no effective replacement in sight. I think the reason no one has suggested a viable alternative is that there isn't one available or in the pipeline at present.
Posts: 3,652
By: 1batfastard - 1st May 2015 at 18:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi All,
Mike,
Correctomundo matey.
Cd,
It's exactly the amount of many billions of money that you point out is what I object to mainly that even with extra funding on top of extra funding costs that have been asked for and given and still they fail to fix the problems they say the extra funding will cure like I say were do you say enough is enough ?
As far as cancelling the programme goes that is it just shut the money pit down and get a more realistic team to improve what we have as should have been done simple. As for an alternative I have already said the Harrier could have been developed further but instead of developing the Harrier they chose the new all singing all dancing route which has now been proven the wrong choice, like I said learn to walk before running, as for RN I have already said a Navalised Typhoon would suffice, as far as the UK pulling out then yes pump the money into a Navalised Typhoon if I have to have pushed on a decision if not then what about resurrecting the Boeing design that aircraft utilised lots of on the shelf parts so why not just do that I always likened the Boeing JSF to the A-10 ugly in some respects but was probably capable of dong the job.
I have already agreed with you that all programmes have teething problems and yes if it means starting again then yes do that but keep Lockheed out of it as they had their chance and messed up big time or like I mentioned above just say well it's over to you Boeing instead of funding a programme that just hoovers the money with know real further improvement give the runner up a chance to shine.
Geoff.
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 3rd May 2015 at 18:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm sorry but you keep objecting to the F-35 on grounds of cost and then suggest an alternative that goes in the opposite direction to every other current military aircraft programme; current military aircraft programmes that are designed to deliver capability but above all to reduce cost by spreading the development burden over many more airframes (and as a consequence, many more nations).
As a case in point, the peak strength, I think, for Sea Harrier was about fifty-five airframes; now I was a bigger fan of the Sea Harrier FA2 than you would believe but there is no way the MOD would replace them on a one-for-one basis with a nasalised Typhoon (even if such a thing did exist). Let us be generous and say the MOD would fund thirty-five Typhoons for the Royal Navy so that means the entire development costs would have to be spread over these airframes (because there are no other customers)...
...does that sound like it would be cheaper than a programme with nearly three thousand airframes?
Plus there is the cost of the catapults; last time I heard they were quoting a billion per carrier (not sure if pounds or dollars) but that was the reason that the United Kingdom changed back to F-35B from the catapult-launched F-35C.
Plus, do not forget the cost off-sets of the F-35 programme; BAE Systems is building the tail-section of every F-35 that will ever be built. I've seen that, and other components, quoted as being 15% of the cost of each aircraft; that will keep thousands of high-skill jobs going in Britain for years.
And guessing that Boeing will do a better job (and by that you mean, will cost us less) than Lockheed-Martin is ludicrous; it would require scrapping everything done so far, wasting billions, putting us back decades...
...and then there is no guarantee that the Boeing aircraft would be any better but it would certainly cost more.
Posts: 686
By: silver fox - 3rd May 2015 at 20:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The sad part of this is that prototypes were under construction as far back as 1965, think we could have ironed out any problems by now, in fact it was the cancellation of this aircraft which lead to the the Harrier as a cheaper alternative.
Posts: 3,652
By: 1batfastard - 3rd May 2015 at 21:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi All,
silver fox,
Absolutely correct you are.
CD,
Sorry to bang on about the cost that is my main opposition, will this help you out then ? The money being spent on the F-35 could have been spent better but instead those in power keep pumping more into an obvious failing programme that to be honest money will not fix. How is it the opposite direction ? I realise that programmes need developing and the money to back that up but I say again could have been better spent elsewhere.
As for the Typhoon follow this link and download the PDF that is available pretty interesting reading. http://www.eurofighter.com/news-and-events/2011/02/eurofighter-naval-version-makes-debut-at-aero-india-2011
Even wiki has some info here (Scroll to bottom of page). :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon_variants
As you quite rightly point out the UK would probably be the sole customer but IMHO it would be money well spent all you have to do is adapt the rear of the airframe for a hook, the reason why the government changed their minds was simply the bean counters as always giving the UK cheaper kit and expecting the forces to keep the same readiness which as you know is a false economy cheaper is not always better.
It may be ludicrous to scrap the programme but like I said what do we do keep pumping money into this bottomless pit that is F-35 as you put it wasting billions, again I ask where do you draw the line or is it when the US Congress/Generals/Company C/O's/Investors etc.etc. finally get fed up and want to cancel then everybody is allowed to ? How can this put us back decades ? If it accomplished tasks given that gave the aircraft advantages over every other apposing Fighter/Bomber then we wouldn't be having this discussion, the very fact we are doesn't that sound some alarm bells ringing for you ? as if the aircraft was performing as advertised we would all be patting Lockheed on the back the fact it is not doing what it says on the tin is an obvious red flag.
Why would you scrap all the development info surely they could be given to Boeing as a guide to what is possible and what is not and would aid them further with their decisions, while you say my idea is a bad one I would throw your own questions back How do you know it would worse than the money pit ? How do you know it would cost more ? As far as a guarantee that's impossible as the F-35 is proving.
Geoff.
Posts: 2,248
By: snafu352 - 4th May 2015 at 16:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Accuracy lacking a little here.
Rafale was not over budget and neither it nor the Eurofighter suffered from any real technical issues.
There were issues in both programs due to political decisions to not sustain the required funding for the entire period of the program(s) which obviously also massively contributed to the delays.
This contrasts rather well with the F-35 which has had sustained funding over and beyond its allocated budget for the entire period of the program.
Posts: 2,248
By: snafu352 - 4th May 2015 at 16:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In response to a number of posts from CD that ask what is the alternative to the F-35, here is a list:
Rafale
F/A-18E/F
Sea Gripen? (Brazil apparently showing serious interest.)
The F-35 has two elements that the above do not have; 1) a degree of shaping of the airframe that aids radar cross section (RCS) reduction beyond that seen in the alternatives and 2) STOVL.
In my opinion the RCS reduction shaping and STOVL combined have compromised the F-35 design beyond an acceptable level.
I'm also doubtful that "hard" shaping will continue to be an effective countermeasure as the opposing electronic systems and their hardware evolve. I would rather put faith in the development of electronic countermeasures.
The F-35 design limits the degree of enhancement that is possible by the need to maintain the shaped "stealth," the other designs I have noted are less limited. They also cost less, enabling more units to be purchased. Quantity has a quality all of its own as the old saying goes
Posts: 1,542
By: j_jza80 - 4th May 2015 at 17:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What about Hawk? that has been a huge success.
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 4th May 2015 at 17:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Absolutely right!!:) How could I have omitted it and worse still how could all the other contributors to this thread have missed the error?:( Thank you!!
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 4th May 2015 at 17:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And surely another purely British success story altho' non military is the BAe 146. Taken together with the Hawk, doesn't this mean that we have the means if not the will to make a solo effort ?
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 4th May 2015 at 19:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indeed so but the relevant thread subject was military. We certainly HAD the means.
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 4th May 2015 at 20:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've been back to the beginning and yes it was but, it didn't explicitly exclude civilian offered as an example.