Britain should 'scrap F-35 stealth fighter'

[Space Commander Travis]

Two revolutions will occur this century:

A - One will start somewhere in the EU. The cause will be a people angry at their Government selling them out against their will. It will spread throughout the union causing a major European war as those Governments intent on dragging their peoples into a United States of Europe attempt to put it down.

B - Multi-Party Democracy will come to an end thanks to the internet. Political parties dont represent most of their nations people because each has their own set of ideals they want to impose. The internet allows the removal of political parties and the expanding of Government to include everybody in the country instead. It will only occur following a revolution because politicians will do anything they can to stop it. After all if people start getting the policies they want it underminds the politicians ideals and it also removes their power. The revolution will spread as other peoples want the same and cause many Governments to try and put it down causing a major conflict.

There you go, two scenarios which I suspect may occur together that have a high probability of coming true this century. Whatever side your people are on (the true democracy/Euroskeptic side or the side that tries to put it down) you'll want to be well equipped.

Both of those make a lot of sense to me. Regarding option A, look how the Eu treated Greece and Spain in its desperation to keep the Euro together. People surely aren't going to stand for it for ever. And its' quite right that you never know what might happen next year, let alone in several decades time.

[Space Commander Travis]

F-35 development is being principally funded by the United States and United Kingdom with additional funding from partners. The partner nations are either NATO members or close U.S. allies. Israel, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Turkey are part of the active development program; Japan has ordered the F-35, while Singapore may also equip their air force with the F-35. South Korea decided to purchase 40 F-35s in late 2013.

Well, exactly. Close NATO Allies, or those countries that want to continue to be best friends with Uncle Sam.

[Yamato]

Meanwhile, the F-18s are going straight on and off the decks.

Good people, what is the problem?

Do makeshift landing zones make for adequate facilities to even touch this science project on wings? No, not a one. So what is so important about it being there, at all? Why is that tactic so important in the big picture? Is the F-35 going to be landing in the jungle and bringing candy for the kids? Is it going to hand over one of its two bombs to the jungle tribe and hope they can figure out how to use it as a ground to ground weapon? What the hell is it doing there?

"Well sir, the F-35s are currently sitting on a makeshift runway right now approximately 300 miles away from the nearest person who knows anything, and...well sir, it's all going according to plan." What the bloody hell is so great about that? Excluding some catastrophic failure in machine or mission, either refuel in the air, or return to your ship. Now we're throwing carrier doctrine out the window too for this turkey? As if buying it wasn't bad enough.

I raise a toast, to the lost!

Make a plane that takes off like a plane, lands like a plane and flies like a plane. It's well within our capability but we get stuck in the bureaucracy and corporatism. The one size fits all from the federal govt strikes again. One thing is very clear to me, overhype something enough and the myth alone will carry it on.

As for this vertical fetish, get a helicopter good Lord.

[Space Commander Travis]

Meanwhile, the F-18s are going straight on and off the decks.

Good people, what is the problem?

Do makeshift landing zones make for adequate facilities to even touch this science project on wings? No, not a one. So what is so important about it being there, at all? Why is that tactic so important in the big picture? Is the F-35 going to be landing in the jungle and bringing candy for the kids? Is it going to hand over one of its two bombs to the jungle tribe and hope they can figure out how to use it as a ground to ground weapon? What the hell is it doing there?

"Well sir, the F-35s are currently sitting on a makeshift runway right now approximately 300 miles away from the nearest person who knows anything, and...well sir, it's all going according to plan." What the bloody hell is so great about that? Excluding some catastrophic failure in machine or mission, either refuel in the air, or return to your ship. Now we're throwing carrier doctrine out the window too for this turkey? As if buying it wasn't bad enough.

I raise a toast, to the lost!

Make a plane that takes off like a plane, lands like a plane and flies like a plane. It's well within our capability but we get stuck in the bureaucracy and corporatism. The one size fits all from the federal govt strikes again. One thing is very clear to me, overhype something enough and the myth alone will carry it on.

As for this vertical fetish, get a helicopter good Lord.

But what about a situation like the battle of Midway, when they got back to the carrier to find there no longer was a carrier. Admittedly, that would suppose that there'd be somewhere suitable to divert to within range, but nevertheless it might be an advantage. And with vertical landing you wouldn't need to have a suitable airfield within range.

Of course, that's another problem with the multi-role aspect; while the small number you have are off bombing somewhere, what if someone sneaks in and attacks your carrier? Even if (as would surely be sensible) you've kept a few back for carrier protection, you wouldn't have nearly enough to be able to cover from all directions, so while they're chasing off in one direction someone might come in from the other direction and attack the carrier. I think that's the basic problem; you'd just never be able to afford enough of something this complex and expensive.

[Yamato]

But what about a situation like the battle of Midway, when they got back to the carrier to find there no longer was a carrier. Admittedly, that would suppose that there'd be somewhere suitable to divert to within range, but nevertheless it might be an advantage. And with vertical landing you wouldn't need to have a suitable airfield within range.

Of course, that's another problem with the multi-role aspect; while the small number you have are off bombing somewhere, what if someone sneaks in and attacks your carrier? Even if (as would surely be sensible) you've kept a few back for carrier protection, you wouldn't have nearly enough to be able to cover from all directions, so while they're chasing off in one direction someone might come in from the other direction and attack the carrier. I think that's the basic problem; you'd just never be able to afford enough of something this complex and expensive.

I don't think "it might be an advantage" is nearly good enough to base a design off of. We should count on what we can and will do every day, and build a design around that, not on what might happen once. The entire fleet is there to prevent someone from sneaking in and attacking the carrier so I'd rather not chase such a gremlin when determining grand strategy. But to your point, so many assumptions get made anymore that I'm willing to bet someone predicted that combat air patrols are a thing of the past too.

[keithisco]

But what about a situation like the battle of Midway, when they got back to the carrier to find there no longer was a carrier. Admittedly, that would suppose that there'd be somewhere suitable to divert to within range, but nevertheless it might be an advantage. And with vertical landing you wouldn't need to have a suitable airfield within range.

Of course, that's another problem with the multi-role aspect; while the small number you have are off bombing somewhere, what if someone sneaks in and attacks your carrier? Even if (as would surely be sensible) you've kept a few back for carrier protection, you wouldn't have nearly enough to be able to cover from all directions, so while they're chasing off in one direction someone might come in from the other direction and attack the carrier. I think that's the basic problem; you'd just never be able to afford enough of something this complex and expensive.

Vertical landing is one thing, but the F35B is an STOVL aircraft, it requires a Short Take Off platform - not likely if it bales over much of the world, certainly not in a boggy or jungle environment. Just where is this aircraft supposed to operate, what are the combat scenarios?

[Harry_Dresden]

So bullying wimps is all your crystal ball can come up with. "The Cold War is over" is as much rhetoric as "the Cold War is back on". The absence of credible threats such that there is, is a good reason to pull the plug altogether not waste money you don't have on things you don't need. Given your stack of assumptions you don't even need the F-35. Who would attack your carrier, the fear is limited, in the absence of threats, you've got to be kidding. If things in the world have proven anything it's that they change overnight. Betting on forever is a fool's bet.

...as noble as your sentiment is, Yamoto, the real world works differently. An integrated world economy and a huge leap in technology pretty much means a stalemate in any WW1/WW2 type war. Strong nations are occasionally provoked by weaker nations (sometimes at the urging of other strong nations), to test their resolve. I'm not saying that there will never be another great war...but the chances of one are very limited at the moment. and yes, military assets of certain nations carry a threat of war...sink an American nuclear carrier and it's pretty much Armageddon...that's why we had a cold war for 60 years... also I've made no assumptions. The facts and spec's speak for themselves. The F-35B is a networked centric fighter that has features that just can't be replicated by current air assets. Fly's like a fighter plane, lands and hovers like a helicopter and able to work in limited space. This type of air asset will be indispensable in fighting modern war doctrine. COIN and rouge nations pose more of a threat to world peace and the NATO alliance than Russia or China.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Bring back the flying boats i say!

[Yamato]

...as noble as your sentiment is, Yamoto, the real world works differently. An integrated world economy and a huge leap in technology pretty much means a stalemate in any WW1/WW2 type war. Strong nations are occasionally provoked by weaker nations (sometimes at the urging of other strong nations), to test their resolve. I'm not saying that there will never be another great war...but the chances of one are very limited at the moment. and yes, military assets of certain nations carry a threat of war...sink an American nuclear carrier and it's pretty much Armageddon...that's why we had a cold war for 60 years... also I've made no assumptions. The facts and spec's speak for themselves. The F-35B is a networked centric fighter that has features that just can't be replicated by current air assets. Fly's like a fighter plane, lands and hovers like a helicopter and able to work in limited space. This type of air asset will be indispensable in fighting modern war doctrine. COIN and rouge nations pose more of a threat to world peace and the NATO alliance than Russia or China.

Sounds like more prophecy from Lockheed Martin Inc. I see no need to replicate different things with one thing that are already being done by different things. The only valid reason I've heard for doing this at all is saving money. And we know we're not saving money. Networking planes has nothing inherent to do with the F-35. You can do that with all aircraft, and it's a safe assumption that we will.

[+and-then]

But what about a situation like the battle of Midway, when they got back to the carrier to find there no longer was a carrier. Admittedly, that would suppose that there'd be somewhere suitable to divert to within range, but nevertheless it might be an advantage. And with vertical landing you wouldn't need to have a suitable airfield within range.

Of course, that's another problem with the multi-role aspect; while the small number you have are off bombing somewhere, what if someone sneaks in and attacks your carrier? Even if (as would surely be sensible) you've kept a few back for carrier protection, you wouldn't have nearly enough to be able to cover from all directions, so while they're chasing off in one direction someone might come in from the other direction and attack the carrier. I think that's the basic problem; you'd just never be able to afford enough of something this complex and expensive.

THIS... It's just too expensive and too complicated to be survivable in a modern environment. I hope it proves to be better than most think but even if it does everything it is billed to do, PM alone on this thing would keep a significant number grounded at all times I'd imagine.

[Duke Wellington]

...as noble as your sentiment is, Yamoto, the real world works differently. An integrated world economy and a huge leap in technology pretty much means a stalemate in any WW1/WW2 type war. Strong nations are occasionally provoked by weaker nations (sometimes at the urging of other strong nations), to test their resolve. I'm not saying that there will never be another great war...but the chances of one are very limited at the moment.

And if you're wrong?

How have you arrived at the conclusion that the chances of a major war are very limited at the moment? Can you see whats going to happen tomorrow? Next month? Next Year? There doesnt have to be a foreign power going through a buildup for tens years allowing everybody to see whats coming and prepare. Attacks can be a surprise, look at 9/11 and Pearl Harbour as examples.

We need a force which is flexible and adaptable enough to cope with all situations. If we aren't able to defend ourselves in various scenarios and one of them arises we are doomed. We need a capable airforce not one where we buy second rate equipment to keep allies happy.

The EU story, if you look throughout European history, has happened multiple times. It has always failed and always resulted in major war.

[Guest]

The EU story, if you look throughout European history, has happened multiple times. It has always failed and always resulted in major war.

Nothing comparable to the EU has ever happened in European history. All previous attempts at unifying Europe have been by conquest not consent.

European conflict has generally be driven by meglomanic individuals, even without the EU the possibility of similar scenarios's developing any time soon is remote since democracy is the default mode of government in all European countries. If we fall back into dictatorships again then that may change - but the EU is a balwalk against that happening so I cannot see the scenario developing again unless the EU collapsed - which it shows little sign of doing.

Your logic is flawed.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 22, 2014 by Guest

[skookum]

^ This thread ^

[Duke Wellington]

Nothing comparable to the EU has ever happened in European history. All previous attempts at unifying Europe have been by conquest not consent. European conflict has generally be driven by meglomanic individuals, even without the EU the possibility of similar scenarios's developing any time soon is remote since democracy is the default mode of government in all European countries. If we fall back into dictatorships again then that may change - but the EU is a balwalk against that happening so I cannot see the scenario developing again unless the EU collapsed - which it shows little sign of doing.

Your logic is flawed.

Br Cornelius

The EU has been attempted multiple times - http://samvak.tripod.com/nm032.html

Each time it failed and a lot of the time the failures triggered European conflicts.

Edited May 22, 2014 by RabidMongoose

[Guest]

The EU has been attempted multiple times - http://samvak.tripod.com/nm032.html

Each time it failed and a lot of the time the failures triggered European conflicts.

That article refers to monetary unions, ie a currency accepted in multiple countries. Not really relevant to a discussion of the EU. i wouldn't discount the conclusion that the Euro may fail in the face of its inadequacies - but the Euro is not the EU - though they are inextricably tied at this point.

I am going to respect the obvious wishes of people here and not mention the EU again, I suggest you take the hint also

Br Cornelius

Edited May 22, 2014 by Guest

[Duke Wellington]

That article refers to monetary unions, ie a currency accepted in multiple countries. Not really relevant to a discussion of the EU.

Br Cornelius

Its so hard to tell if I'm being trolled right now.

Edited May 22, 2014 by RabidMongoose

[Space Commander Travis]

this seems to have become a thread about the EU.

[skookum]

this seems to have become a thread about the EU.

Yeah possibly the most boring subject compared to state of the art jet fighters

[Yamato]

Maybe if Europe could at least agree on its jet fighters, the Union might bear some relevance. Mongoose is right to call out Harry's crystal ball for what it is. Picking on tinpot dictators and stalemates and major wars that can't happen? That's why we spend two hundred million dollars on a plane? Those are all reasons not to.

[Yamato]

I ran into this piece about Canada resurrecting one of its own designs from the 1950s called the Avro Arrow as an alternative to the F-35. As crazy as it sounds I don't think it's crazy at all. I have to admit it's got the makings of a solid design for an interceptor that could walk all over the F-35 in many areas, service ceiling, combat radius, payload, power and presumably cost and reliability. Even as a project just to see what's possible on a shoestring budget I think it's fascinating. It'd give some great engineers in Canada a great job too.

[Space Commander Travis]

How about the TSR2? Now that was a plane.

[skookum]

Both those planes sound like excellent ideas, as well as a totally new Harrier. But alas it is time again, to be feasible this would have been needed to be discussed and actioned at least a decade ago.

[stevewinn]

talking about resurrecting 1950's plane designs with a glint of nostalgia while knocking a 21st century modern day fifth generation fighter/bomber. the mind boggles. the reason the alternatives to the F35 are cheap is because their Rubbish. for some if this plane was built in Europe it would be held as a marvel of engineering.

put it this way i'd rather be in partnership with the USA when it comes to such projects. the yanks can do things most can only dream about. they had a reusable space shuttle program that was grossly over budget, criticised, the soothsayers saying it wouldn't work. when a dated but proven method of rocket and re-entry capsule - the cheaper alternative existed. looking back how many would have cancelled the space shuttle program. none - i thought so.

So im in no doubt, the F35 will prove itself as a capable aircraft. Put it this way - which nation wants to be on the receiving end of its capability.

[Yamato]

How about the TSR2? Now that was a plane.

Tiny wings. Looks like it flies really fast in a straight line.

Which is a good segue to the F-104, as an analog to the F-35, which we also dumped on NATO. "The missile with a man in it!" or some such crap. Yeah, wow exciting. Meanwhile we were like, yeah, no, we'll just stick with this F-102 we've been using, thanks. Which really meant we're sticking with the F-106, surprise, surprise. And just like the F-22, ye blind olde followers of Uncle Sam didn't get any of that either.

[Space Commander Travis]

talking about resurrecting 1950's plane designs with a glint of nostalgia while knocking a 21st century modern day fifth generation fighter/bomber. the mind boggles. the reason the alternatives to the F35 are cheap is because their Rubbish. for some if this plane was built in Europe it would be held as a marvel of engineering.

put it this way i'd rather be in partnership with the USA when it comes to such projects. the yanks can do things most can only dream about. they had a reusable space shuttle program that was grossly over budget, criticised, the soothsayers saying it wouldn't work. when a dated but proven method of rocket and re-entry capsule - the cheaper alternative existed. looking back how many would have cancelled the space shuttle program. none - i thought so.

So im in no doubt, the F35 will prove itself as a capable aircraft. Put it this way - which nation wants to be on the receiving end of its capability.

Not being so incredibly astronomically expensive that it costs as much to equip one squadron as it did for a whole air force in the old days means that they're rubbish? Surely you know that in the world of defense procurement, how much something costs is very rarely an indication of how good it is, or how much value for money.