Oh dear!

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 894

Why did BOTH Blair AND Cameron promise us a referendum, as to whether we should stay in the E.U. or opt out, but both renaged on their promise?.

Because they're politicians, and you can tell a politician is telling lies, because his lips are moving.

Member for

13 years

Posts: 2,841

To me the most useful thing is Trident. Its a don't mess with us weapon for home defence. A couple of dozen Typhoons in the UK is all we need and the rest of crab air to ferry people and things about. If you enemy has a stick and you have a club use it if they do not back off.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Which the F-35 un-doubtably is... a second rate air-defence fighter.

Well, it's a second-rate air-defence fighter that the whole western-world will be flying...

...unless your alternative.....which is?

Member for

13 years

Posts: 2,841

Not the whole world how about the T 50?

Member for

17 years 5 months

Posts: 8,980

To me the most useful thing is Trident. Its a don't mess with us weapon for home defence. A couple of dozen Typhoons in the UK is all we need and the rest of crab air to ferry people and things about. If you enemy has a stick and you have a club use it if they do not back off.

Having been closer than most to the ultimate deterrent, one would only say if you ever have to let that particular turkey out of the bag then you and your bag will cease to exist along with everything else. Chernobyl was a wake up call for the world that showed there is nothing such as a tactical nuke anymore and the resulting fallout would spread further than previously thought. Yes hold the club, but never use it, and if you do at your peril.

Member for

14 years

Posts: 4,996

So what is the F-35 actually good at ?

This may only be one persons point of view, but he seems pretty knowledgeable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE7NDEYB5yU

With all the talk on the cost of Trident, this seems to have gone unnoticed.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Not the whole world how about the T 50?

The whole western world.

Are you seriously suggesting that as an alternative?

Member for

13 years

Posts: 2,841

No but it seems the F 35 is a pile of junk so far just throwing another aircraft into the pot. The T50 will have a naval version by 2020

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 2,248

Well, it's a second-rate air-defence fighter that the whole western-world will be flying...

...unless your alternative.....which is?

The Typhoon and Rafale are first rate air defence fighters and will continue to be so for some time yet.
The F-35 is not designed as such and never will be able to match those aircraft in that role. (Or the F-22 or Su-35 or T-50 for that matter.)
As I said, after considerable outlay the F-35 will eventually be a decent mid-2010's strike aircraft, the only issue is that will occur sometime in the 2020's.
"Stealth" in the form of rcs reduction is the F-35's only unique element and that has brought compromise (along with the ridiculous STOVL requirement imposed by the USMC) which restricts the aircraft in the air to air arena.
It is not "undetectable" as proponents would like us to believe and it does not have the raw kinetic performance to satisfactorily perform as a first line air to air aircraft.
The other aircraft I have noted have both the detection systems and kinetic performance to perform, with upgrades, the air to air role for a considerable time.

Member for

20 years 8 months

Posts: 8,505

Because they're politicians, and you can tell a politician is telling lies, because his lips are moving.
Politicians always remind me of a piece of advice I once heard. "Believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear."

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

The problem is that people don't want to hear the truth! They want to hear (unrealistic) promises!

For example, the United Kingdom deficit and debt; the coalition set-out to reduce both and said they were going to do so and that would mean cuts to some of the services that people were used to...

...the result is protests about the cuts and a general resistance to 'austerity'! But were we lied to?

Look what happened in Greece; the country was bankrupt and needed an EU / IMF bail-out but when the last elections were held what did the Greek people vote for? They voted for a party that promised an end to 'austerity' and all sorts of other unaffordable stuff...

...in a few years they'll be more rioting and the population will say the politicians lied to them!

Profile picture for user 1batfastard

Member for

11 years 2 months

Posts: 3,650

Hi All,
To my mind to many people have to much money to lose let alone embarrassment by those who promised an all singing all dancing aircraft, and lets not forget those who fly and test this aircraft will be gagged from saying a bad word about it, you only have to look at the F-22 and how it's problems came out not by some technician admitting them but by a pilot who flew them sitting in silhouette expressing his concerns about that aircraft. This article below is just as an example of another failing of the F-35 white elephant. Along with the C4 Despatches programme 'Britain's Defence Squeeze' slightly touching on it's failings just shows the lack of belief that certain armed forces are having in this aircraft. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2974717/Pentagon-s-expensive-fighter-jet-set-use-Royal-Navy-HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-not-carry-advance-weapons-design-flaw.html
Another video you should watch.


Pierre Sprey has long held the belief that the F-35 cannot do the job of the aircraft currently in service and should be scrapped just watch his videos and he being one of the designers.. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Pierre+Sprey

Geoff.

Geoff

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Well that bloke above works for Dassault Aviation, a company that produces an aircraft, the Rafale, that has been in direct competition with the F-35...

...can you think of a reason that he would have for criticizing the F-35?

Not sure I'd trust any documentary that had to rely on a commercial competitor to produce its evidence!

Profile picture for user 1batfastard

Member for

11 years 2 months

Posts: 3,650

Hi All,
I can think of several and not just because he is employed by a rival company, all in all the F-35 is taking so long to deliver on what was promised and still after having many millions more spent on it the job it was designed for has moved on now they are trying to play catch up at the rate it is going they will be into the development phase of the 6th Gen aircraft that some are now talking about.
To my mind they should quit and go back to basics take notice of what is realistic, there is no way on earth that this aircraft can become the successor to the Harrier or the A-10 just cannot escape the fact that it is a failed programme already and will only continue to eat money until somebody up the chain decides they want something different. To me it like reinventing the wheel yes it's round but just look at the Spokes,The wood we used,Look it has this that and the other it's well worth spending the extra money when it does the same job as the old one. I have said it before (Or words to that effect) they have tried to run before they could walk and should have spent the money more wisely on development of aircraft that are still capable of doing the job at hand.

Geoff.

Geoff.

Member for

14 years

Posts: 4,996

Well that bloke above works for Dassault Aviation, a company that produces an aircraft, the Rafale, that has been in direct competition with the F-35...

I would hardly have thought the F-35 to be in competition with the Rafale.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

...there is no way on earth that this aircraft can become the successor to the Harrier or the A-10...

Well, neither the RAF nor the FAA operated (or wanted) the A-10 so I guess that point is moot...

...and as for the Harrier; do you want to qualify your rather sweeping statement?

Apart from carrying a heavier bomb-load, faster, further and more stealthily than any mark of Harrier what else do you want?

It has better radar (or, in fact, has a radar which the Harrier GR9 didn't), it has immeasurably better computing power and (probably) massively reduced pilot workload. It will also carry a far larger and more effective range of modern weapons (and weapons that are yet to be adopted).

I'll go out-on-a-limb and say that it also requires far fewer maintenance-hours per flight-hour than the Harrier but, of course, this isn't the sort of statistic that will appear in the Daily Mail because they are only concerned with the price; as if buying an F-35 is like buying a Vauxhall Vectra!

Plus, the Harrier (and its Pegasus engine) have been out of production for twenty years and the factory where they were last built has been turned into the 'Top Gear' studio.

Do you remember fifteen years ago all those stories in the Daily Mail about how much the nasty EUROfighter was going to cost compared to all those nice British planes, and how dreadful it was going to be, and how much the programme had overrun cost-wise?

Well, look up a few posts; apparently those awful Typhoons are now better than the F-35!

Face facts; Britain can no longer afford to develop a military (or civil) aircraft on its own. Britain MUST collaborate in an international programme like the F-35, A380 or A400M or get out of the aircraft building business altogether. If that is the case the F-35 is the only game in town!

The reason that the Daily Mail and TV documentaries criticise the F-35 is because they can find somebody to criticise it and because, most importantly, it makes good copy!

The F-35 is expensive but then any new aircraft is going to be expensive. Saying it is expensive but brilliant is no story, saying it is expensive but does exactly what it was intended to do is no story...

...saying it is expensive and crap is a good story.....but, I say again...

...what is your alternative?

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

CD

"Britain can't afford to develop a military or civil aircraft on its own...."

How is it then that the French can do it - with a similar sized economy?

The Swedes can do it with a smaller economy

The Russians can do it with a smaller economy

We, in Britain, managed to manufacture fairly successful a'c many years ago when our economy was considerably smaller than it is now.

How did we do it then but not now. Not forgetting our much larger Navy and Army. Perhaps social welfare and foreign aid payments weren't so top heavy.

Profile picture for user 1batfastard

Member for

11 years 2 months

Posts: 3,650

Hi All,
CD,
The A-10 was designed purely as a reaction of an aircraft that the US could have done with in Vietnam, The Harrier was as far as I am aware he RAF'S answer to a similar need for the European theatre and an aircraft that was VSTOL in design in need of WW3 being fought in Europe and envisaging that most airfields would be damaged halting fixed wing operations.
I may not know much about what the foreseen capabilities of the F-35 as apposed to the Harrier but IMO and that is all it is don't forget, what benefits has the F-35 over the Harrier ? The F-35 still carries outside weapons stores on pylons just like the Harrier thus making what supposedly stealthy quality it allegedly has useless.
The Harrier had one engine doing the work of the F-35's two I have said before about another post saying it's lugging dead wait around until landing or take off, so in my mind given all the money that has been spent on the F-35 it could have been spent in more development of either a better Pegasus or new design engine with the same layout if you have to have a second engine then the layout of the Harrier engine and it's thrust vectoring with wing puffer jets is the way to go, I just cannot understand why they went with a separate lift engine when the Russians gave up on their lift engines in the yaks I don't know I am not an engine designer.
What was wrong with upgrading the radar on the Harrier ? Everything you mentioned could have been achieved for the Pilot's workload just the same as the maintenance every aircraft has these issues not until it's in service and the maintenance crews can actually field test these aircraft can any sense be truly made out of the flight per Hr's of maintenance it's one thing to do maintenance and fly the aircraft in test conditions they will never realistically produce the same results as when in theatre or everyday on the line use all the tests are for when said and done is to do A/B/C or D and if a tester thinks it can be done then it gets the nod.
Yes I remember all the negative story's about the Typhoon and yes I realise that this country cannot produce aircraft anymore but let's not forget all the design from paper to first flight changes depending on Who wins elections,Who benefits from whoevers involvement the political side of the coin so to speak etc.etc. all these little moves come into play and of coarse those who are against whatever will always use it as ammunition against the apposing side of any argument even if it's not true all said and done what is wanted and what is needed are pitted against each other and affecting the design of any aircraft, for example (Please correct if wrong :eagerness:) Didn't the RAF want guns in the Typhoon but politics got in the way as it did with other designs in the past ? Wasn't there story going around that they had weights in the aircraft to balance the COG out ? To my mind it would make sense that all the Typhoons constructed be the same including guns as if I am not mistaken Germany/Italy and Spain all had them and we were the only ones that never or was that issue resolved ?
My main opposition o the F-35 is the cost and that the job it was designed for it cannot do as example some weapons are to large for the internal bays allegedly, in an exercise with Pacific area partners it was found not to be as stealthy as promised being shot down by lesser aircraft allegedly because it's not a very good dog fighter, to my mind they have just given this aircraft to much to do in the first place along with adding extras on to it's mission profile.
My alternative is develop the current aircraft and base designs on an evolutionary curve rather than cobble a mission then design an aircraft in this day and age, don't forget the more this aircraft is delayed the more chance there is of an apposing programme to negate the so called advanced characteristics of this wonder weapon that can be developed, as with every advance in attack weapons it's inevitable that defensive weapons are being designed at the same pace if not faster to counter any offensive weapon.

Geoff.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

"Britain can't afford to develop a military or civil aircraft on its own..."

Fair point. Maybe what I should have said is that 'Britain does not have the will to afford to develop a military or civil aircraft on its own'; just look at some of the attitudes expressed here about the, fairly modest, investment that Britain has made into the F-35 programme!

As I said in an earlier post: Britain spent less than £7billion on two Aircraft Carriers (and look at all the fuss that caused!) but spent, spends, and plans to keep spending about £12billion on International Aid every year, even through the worst financial crisis in decades...

...anyway, it's what the voters wanted.....apparently!

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

We have become a nation of appeasers!:(