Oh dear!

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

14 years

Posts: 4,996

You have to wonder, that given a similar set of circumstances back in the late 1930s, if the Spitfire
and Hurricane would ever have been built ?
I can just imagine the brass hats arguing over what these aircraft should be capable of.

Member for

20 years 8 months

Posts: 8,505

Well the Spitfire very nearly wasn't as the MAP were all in favour of Supermarine being made to build hurricanes. Likewise they wanted Avro to build Stirlings or Halifaxes. This was supposedy because of delays with the Spitfire production and the Air Ministry's dissatisfaction with the operational record of the Manchester.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 3,381

Huh, the UK is actually rather generous when it comes to foreign aid, I didn't know that. It's one of the few OECD nations to meet the UN target of 0.7% GNI devoted to Official Development Assistance (ODA), along with Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Luxembourg.

In absolute terms, the UK's ODA spending lags only the United States, and not by nearly as much as one would expect -- $19.4bn vs. $32.7bn. The UK spends more than Germany on ODA, and nearly double what France and Japan do.

Interestingly, this seems to be a recent phenomenon, and the current rate is an all-time high. As late as 2007 the UK devoted only 0.36% GNI to ODA -- barely half the current level -- and this in turn was up from an historic low of 0.24% in 1999. The UK's long-term average since 1960 seems to be around 0.4%.

In Australia, cuts to foreign aid have been in the news recently. Our ODA reached a peak of 0.66% in 1975, and a low of 0.25% in 2003. However, as planned cuts take effect over the next couple of years, our ODA spending is projected to decline to a new historic low of 0.22% of GNI.

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 894

Well the Spitfire very nearly wasn't as the MAP were all in favour of Supermarine being made to build hurricanes.

No, they weren't; they wanted Eastleigh to build Spitfires until the end of 1940, then go over to Beaufighters, probably as nightfighters. Castle Bromwich had an initial order for 1000 Spitfires, which they tried to modify into 600 plus 400 Whirlwinds, but Nuffield refused to have anything to do with it. Everything changed the moment that France fell, and day fighters assumed extra importance.

Member for

14 years

Posts: 4,996

Sounds about right !!

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Just received this F-35 article...

The F-35 was designed to replace the A-10 and the F-16; that was always going to be a compromise...

...so the reason that it isn't as good as an A-10 is that it was designed not to be!

The only way to make it as good as an A-10 and an F-16 is to spend at lot more money on it, make it far more complicated, and introduce more risk into the project...

...and you've already said you don't want to do any of those things.

So what is your solution?

Profile picture for user 1batfastard

Member for

11 years 2 months

Posts: 3,650

Hi All,
CD,
Have already said should have developed the Harrier come to think of it the A-10 as well still a very capable aircraft even now like the B-52, what they are trying to do is make a silk purse out of a sows ear. To my mind like the TSR2/Avro Arrow as well as so many other designs that have been cancelled due to politics and others medalling in programmes when they should let those who know what's feasible and what's not just get on with the job.

Geoff.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

The TSR2 was cancelled for exactly the reasons that you are suggesting that the F-35 should be cancelled; it was too expensive and had a number of technical problems that would have been difficult to sort out!

And who should have developed the Harrier, Britain? Britain did 'develop' the Harrier once to produce the, almost, entirely new aircraft, the Harrier GR5, or Harrier II to the Americans, but we wouldn't have been able to afford that if it wasn't for the fact that the United States funded 60% of the cost (including 25% of the cost of the new Pegasus engine).

The next 'development' of the Harrier is the F-35, it is the next development because that is what those that use the Harrier II want to fund, and it is the funding that decides what gets built...

...Britain couldn't, or didn't want to, afford Harrier II so how would Britain afford Harrier III alone?

Profile picture for user 1batfastard

Member for

11 years 2 months

Posts: 3,650

Hi All,
CD,
Like I mentioned before aircraft should evolve naturally not try and force them to do what it has been proved that it cant, as for the TSR2 that was not just funding and technical difficulty's politics had a great deal to play with it and dare I say other US aircraft manufacturers who saw this technical achievement as a direct competition threat to their edge in the aircraft sales department allegedly.
I say again about the two engines in the F-35 one is being lugged around and not utilised until VTOL, the Russians gave up on exactly the same layout principle only difference is they had two lift behind the pilot they never got it right and the F-35 suffers from the same inefficiency. If you say the next development of the Harrier then were are the similarities as other VSTOL it has no other redeeming qualities that I can see the negative features and literature surrounding this aircraft are to many to ignore this programme is emerging money, you just cannot keep throwing money at a project in the hope of that is the fix needed it isn't, it was a badly thought aircraft design and programme you cannot even begin to compare it to the TSR2, the TSR2 while having teething troubles like any programme has was on the verge of being corrected the F-35 keeps getting sticking plasters when it obviously needs an amputation.
You ask what is the solution cancel the programme simple, start again with realistic possibility's instead of wanting something that is fanciful.

Geoff.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

I'm just a bystander here but if I might just interpolate a comment on your last paragraph. Start again? So that's a brand new aircraft in service around 2035/40!! I think not!

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

I say again about the two engines in the F-35...

The F-35 does NOT have two engines...

...it has ONE engine and a lift fan that can be clutched-out when not in use.

OK, so you cancel the F-35 programme.....fine.

Who are you going to get to design the F-35 replacement? Presumably not Lockheed-Martin as they've made such a balls-up of the F-35? And certainly not Boeing as their prototype wasn't even as good as the F-35?

Or are you suggesting that Britain should go-it-alone while America and the rest of Europe buys the F-35; are you seriously suggesting that?

Member for

20 years 8 months

Posts: 8,505

Not a realistic idea but having seen all the hassle LM are having with the F-35 we could hardly do any worse.

Member for

14 years

Posts: 4,996

VTOL aside, what does the F-35 do that other aircraft already in service, don't ?

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

Isn't that aspect the crucial element though?

Profile picture for user 1batfastard

Member for

11 years 2 months

Posts: 3,650

Hi All,
Mike,Alan and Charlie,
Exactly my thoughts.
CD,
Well if the fan isn't an engine what is it ? It must have moving parts to make it turn and produce a lifting force/thrust and thus needs fuel(PLEASE CORRCET IF WRONG :eagerness:) and in my mind that defines an engine, it does however have one jet engine. Like I said before their have been other designs that would have followed on naturally from the Harrier I will say what some American said about the Harrier while they developed the AV8B " We looked at the Harrier and thought nice try but we can do better" all you need to do is substitute F-35 for Harrier.
As for the Boing that never reached it's development potential, how do you define "Wasn't even as good as" other than a problem with the intake (Which I cant think of off hand.) I cannot recall it had any major issues unlike the F-35 has had an is continually having, yes I agree with you every programme has development problems but the F-35 has just a continuation from one to the next and if they cannot solve these issues before service entry what will it be like in service ?
Not for one instance we Europeans could have developed the Harrier without the Americans as for the rest of Europe well the only reason they are sticking with it is simply because of the amount of money they have all pumped into the programme and are to worried about the outcry if they pulled the plug, incidentally there are a number of country's seriously thinking about pulling out simply because they are being asked for increased expenditure on top of what has already been pledged.
I suppose at the end of the day there is no quick fix but the amount of money that has been pumped into this project could well have been split between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin and I know who I would have put my money on to get their aircraft sorted first.
Another truth mentioned is politics while in the Avro Arrow and TSR2's case it was their demise IMHO it is the opposite in the F-35's case and that is why the programme continues somebody somewhere is making a mint on the back of this white elephant allegedly. It's just common sense that you just do not pump money to the amount that has been spent on the F-35 if your product continually has problems you pull the plug and start again why this has not been done is anybody's guess, I have my own ideas but I could be completely wrong.

Geoff.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

But Geoff the British and the British without any help from Europe or the US developed and built the Harrier and the Sea Harrier. The US then took the development a stage further with a more powerful Pegasus. All the dirty work had been done.

Profile picture for user 1batfastard

Member for

11 years 2 months

Posts: 3,650

But Geoff the British and the British without any help from Europe or the US developed and built the Harrier and the Sea Harrier. The US then took the development a stage further with a more powerful Pegasus. All the dirty work had been done.

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:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/jsf/astovl_superharrier_01.jpg

Geoff.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

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?

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

CD - I accept that there was early French theoretical input into the Pegasus development and that there was US money invested in the aircraft development but I was not aware that there was any technical development from any other partners, certainly not to the extent we saw in later programmes. (Haven't you omitted the MRCA/Tornado from the list of European design projects?) But please correct me if I am wrong.