Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Britain should 'scrap F-35 stealth fighter'


Still Waters
 Share

Recommended Posts

Comparing modern fighters to WW2 era planes and MBT's is like chalk and cheese. Fighters and most other military kit now-days, have to pack multiple mission tasks into one frame which leads to complex products that requires higher degrees of engineering and R&D and not to mention maintenance and training. Quality over quantity adds a cost... As for the Germans. just too many enemies for their industrial base to cope with.

You don't have to. You only have to because it's a bureaucratic decision. For instance, you can build A-10s and use those when close support aircraft are needed. You can use helicopters for the up and down fetish. You don't have to replace those either, and never will anyway. Replacing bombers with two bombs? That's an LOL.

Sorry it's not quality over quantity. It's a cute baby seal. The only legitimate reason the bureacrats have to stand on for building this multi-role please-everybody design in the first place was to save money. If anyone thinks they're saving money with the F-35 their heads are missing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You don't have to. You only have to because it's a bureaucratic decision. For instance, you can build A-10s and use those when close support aircraft are needed. You can use helicopters for the up and down fetish. You don't have to replace those either, and never will anyway. Replacing bombers with two bombs? That's an LOL.

Sorry it's not quality over quantity. It's a cute baby seal. The only legitimate reason the bureacrats have to stand on for building this multi-role please-everybody design in the first place was to save money. If anyone thinks they're saving money with the F-35 their heads are missing.

Ah, yes you do have to constantly introduce new technology and thinking if you wanna stay ahead of the pack and that's exactly what the F-35 is. Saving money while important isn't as important as winning wars.

Truth is that this F-35 fighter, has been developed for future battlefields, and you shouldn't be comparing it per se with the legacy fighters it's replacing. So I can't see how you can critique the F-35 without first criticising those that have taken a overall view of future air combat and the potential technology of likely adversaries like Russia, China and future Euro tech exports. The USAF wants to stay ahead of the potential enemy aircraft by reinventing air combat by multi-rolling and networking the fighter plane and with other military assets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As said so many times, the F35 is likely to be the last manned fighter built for use in the modern battlefield.

To all those who think Britain should have developed their own must be forgetting Tyrannis. Tyrannis is in development and was test flown in Australia last year and was reported to far exceed expected performance.

Tyrannis is the future of the battlefield, not the F35. Tyrannis is due to become operational around 2030, interestingly around the time the RAF think Typhoon will be at its absolute limits of operational status.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a carrier version of Tyrannis will be developed after it has become operational for the air force, a number of years after I suspect which makes the F35B perfect to fit this timescale.

Britain lost irreplaceable time in the constant delays ordering the new carriers. Although now seems on course for what will be required for the future.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As said so many times, the F35 is likely to be the last manned fighter built for use in the modern battlefield.

To all those who think Britain should have developed their own must be forgetting Tyrannis. Tyrannis is in development and was test flown in Australia last year and was reported to far exceed expected performance.

Tyrannis is the future of the battlefield, not the F35. Tyrannis is due to become operational around 2030, interestingly around the time the RAF think Typhoon will be at its absolute limits of operational status.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a carrier version of Tyrannis will be developed after it has become operational for the air force, a number of years after I suspect which makes the F35B perfect to fit this timescale.

Britain lost irreplaceable time in the constant delays ordering the new carriers. Although now seems on course for what will be required for the future.

The Taranis is an incredible UAV! It will have carrier capability, and can fly in tandem with either the Typhoon or the F35 - thus vastly increasing the bomb / Missile load for any mission. I envisage a number of these on the Carrier to offer extended surveillance around the fleet and with its intercontinental range and supersonic capabilities. The Talarion (EADS UAV on which I consulted) cannot in any way equal the superb characteristics and airframe of Taranis.

I have often stated that I consider the F35 to be a lemon, born from a committee that decided on requirements with no role in which it surpasses other dedicated aircraft. The fact however, is that the die is cast and backpedalling on acquisition is not an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, yes you do have to constantly introduce new technology and thinking if you wanna stay ahead of the pack and that's exactly what the F-35 is. Saving money while important isn't as important as winning wars.

Truth is that this F-35 fighter, has been developed for future battlefields, and you shouldn't be comparing it per se with the legacy fighters it's replacing. So I can't see how you can critique the F-35 without first criticising those that have taken a overall view of future air combat and the potential technology of likely adversaries like Russia, China and future Euro tech exports. The USAF wants to stay ahead of the potential enemy aircraft by reinventing air combat by multi-rolling and networking the fighter plane and with other military assets.

I fail to see what new technology you have to introduce here to accomplish what, so I reject that supposition. And I don't know what "overall/potential/future war" you could possibly be talking about. The USAF wants to reinvent air combat from time to time but it can't. Bureaucratic imagination is no substitute for results. Pretending that things aren't going to happen and then hoping your hypothetical future enemies pretend accordingly is no substitute for reality. Sounds like more bureaucratic denial of what's not going to happen anymore. "They're not going to get on our six and shoot us with guns anymore, we're flying at supersonic speeds now!" And we're still learning the hard way today.

Of course we shouldn't be comparing it to current aircraft or else it looks terrible. Two bombs in a pregnant airframe and an expensive marketing campaign about technology that doesn't deliver on its promises and I'm not sure who you're going to be winning wars against in the future but it'll be tinpot dictators from third world countries with no navy and no air force. The F-35 was a great test bed for technology; a perfectly adequate prototype; and more than anything one hell of a good sales pitch. Inferior power, performance, range, armament, reliability, and cost. "It's got state of the art avionics and secret weapons and just trust us, wink wink!"?? Yeah yeah, put that secret stuff in a good airplane. Not a fat "stealth" that can't get out of its own way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For decades I have heard all this about American fighter planes being expensive, inferior and over priced.

I was under the impression the Americans have built the finest fighters since WW2 (many say the P51 was WW2's best fighter). Only exception was the English Electric lighting which was a superb short range interceptor.

After WW2 the F86 Sabre was certainly better than the MIG 15 and the figures of kills showed it, even then it had radar guided aiming system. Vietnam the F4 Phantom run rings around the MIG 17. The F15 boast a service record of not a single one lost to enemy fire. Critics said it would be inferior to the MIG 29 in a dog fight although the record was set straight when they encountered Iraqi MIG 29's at close range in the first Gulf war. The MIGs were thoroughly outclassed.

When the F35 hits the skies I certainly wouldn't want to face it in anything else.

You can knock the yanks for a lot of things but not their fighter aircraft. Many experts have said that if your budget is unlimited as they are expensive, you would not be thinking of buying anything else.

Edited by skookum
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.