UK to buy F-35Bs

ajrimmer42 · 05-10-12, 05:10 AM

Quote:

The Government is expected to make a U-turn over Britain's new strike jets for the Royal Navy - going with Labour's preferred option.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/prime-minis...091911833.html

Jimbuna · 05-10-12, 05:22 AM

Quote:

"The good news for the Royal Navy is the jump-jet version means that the two new aircraft carriers can come into service."

I'll believe that when I see them in operation...plenty of time to change mindset and government for that matter.

HunterICX · 05-10-12, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

I'll believe that when I see them in operation...plenty of time to change mindset and government for that matter.

You reckon it should've been posted in the joke thread?

HunterICX

TarJak · 05-10-12, 06:05 AM

Its probably the Australian F35's that are being delayed. You guys get first use to run them in for us.

Oberon · 05-10-12, 06:18 AM

What is this F-35? I say it is a myth!

Herr-Berbunch · 05-10-12, 06:52 AM

I caught a snippet of this on the BBC news yesterday, all I got was the words

government, jump jets, u-turn

I wrongly thought they'd decided to get Harriers out of mothballed storage.

TarJak · 05-10-12, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

I caught a snippet of this on the BBC news yesterday, all I got was the words

government, jump jets, u-turn

I wrongly thought they'd decided to get Harriers out of mothballed storage.

Now why would they do that when they can spend billions of pounds on a white elephant that might never get delivered in their term of office?

Jimbuna · 05-10-12, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HunterICX

You reckon it should've been posted in the joke thread?

HunterICX

I'm following the topic on another 'dedicated' forum and the 'experts' are absolutely scathing about the aircraft choice.

Skybird · 05-10-12, 07:37 AM

No matter whether B- or C-version - still too expensive in these times, still to small an internal payload (spending all that money on making it stealthy and then compromising stealth by adding external payloads...???), and as many also say: too short legs, with the B-version having even shorter legs.

I saw the customer list so far somewhere, 11 countries - all names on the list suffering from extremly troublesome financial status. Spending without being able to afford it - something's wrong there. Sometimes you have to cut back your global intentions and stay with the cheaper solutions. You may still be able to defend what is vital to you. Just that maybe you have to shorten the planned front and can no longer plan for operations and wars that are no needs but luxurious choices.

TarJak · 05-10-12, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

I'm following the topic on another 'dedicated' forum and the 'experts' are absolutely scathing about the aircraft choice.

This guy is certainly in the scathing category: http://www.smh.com.au/world/why-the-...509-1ycjt.html

Oberon · 05-10-12, 08:00 AM

It's a fantastic aircraft, I'm not questioning its capabilities...when it's finally finished...

It's just beyond the price range of most countries these days, well...nearly all of them in fact, except perhaps Saudi Arabia...

Herr-Berbunch · 05-10-12, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarJak

This guy is certainly in the scathing category: http://www.smh.com.au/world/why-the-...509-1ycjt.html

A defence contract wouldn't be a defence contract if it wasn't over-running, under-performing, and wildly more expensive.

If it was my contract I'd say 'stuff it'. And I'd also make sure that that was written in the contract before signing - tight budgetry and timescale controls along with the fact it must at least reach the brief. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Herr-B will never be involved with government procurement - unless they want to buy something off me.

Catfish · 05-10-12, 11:08 AM

" ... The design was born in the late 1980s in the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Pentagon agency that has earned an undeserved reputation for astute innovation. ..."

1980ies .. with the strategical need of those times ?

On one hand the project is too big to fail, on the other hand maybe it will die a silent death - of course after the elections, and regardless who's in charge then.

For what i read on multiple forums:
- Stealth will not be accomplished due to the two rudders - a clear blip visible on any 30-year-old radar.
- It cannot carry enough arms, even as the "normal" non-VTOL or even catapult version (the VTOL is being hampered by multiple problems, too fuew fuel and ams, due to the space needed for VTOL components)
- It cannot be used in low altitude missions (why not b.t.w.?)
- The fuselage cell is prone to cracks, especially with the VTOL and catapult versions, limiting the calculated life and needing more maintenance and state supervision
- The costs have exploded, but the machine still fails to deliver.

It seems they wanted a jet that did all - and what they get is a jet that can do all, but nothing right.

Also, from an article:

"In a decade's time, the United States plans to have 15 times as many modern fighters as China, and 20 times as many as Russia."

" ..
So, how many F-35s do we need?
100?
500?
Washington intends to buy 2,443, at a price tag of $382 billion.
Add in the $650 billion that the Government Accountability Office estimates is needed to operate and maintain the aircraft, and the total cost reaches a staggering $1 trillion.
In other words, we're spending more on this plane than Australia's entire GDP ($924 billion). ..."

from:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/the-f-35-a-weapon-that-costs-more-than-australia/72454/

I think those jets are fascinating, but i do not think it would be wise to go on spending that money on .. "defence".

Jimbuna · 05-10-12, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarJak

This guy is certainly in the scathing category: http://www.smh.com.au/world/why-the-...509-1ycjt.html

That's a pretty good article...I enjoyed that

HunterICX · 05-10-12, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

I'm following the topic on another 'dedicated' forum and the 'experts' are absolutely scathing about the aircraft choice.

Not really suprising, to me the aircraft seems an over engineered flying dreadnought.

HunterICX

05-10-12, 06:52 AM	#6
Herr-Berbunch Kaiser Bill's batman Join Date: May 2010 Location: AN72 Posts: 13,203 Downloads: 76 Uploads: 0	I caught a snippet of this on the BBC news yesterday, all I got was the words government, jump jets, u-turn I wrongly thought they'd decided to get Harriers out of mothballed storage. __________________

05-10-12, 07:37 AM	#9
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,764 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	No matter whether B- or C-version - still too expensive in these times, still to small an internal payload (spending all that money on making it stealthy and then compromising stealth by adding external payloads...???), and as many also say: too short legs, with the B-version having even shorter legs. I saw the customer list so far somewhere, 11 countries - all names on the list suffering from extremly troublesome financial status. Spending without being able to afford it - something's wrong there. Sometimes you have to cut back your global intentions and stay with the cheaper solutions. You may still be able to defend what is vital to you. Just that maybe you have to shorten the planned front and can no longer plan for operations and wars that are no needs but luxurious choices. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

05-10-12, 06:05 AM	#4
TarJak Fleet Admiral Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 17,052 Downloads: 150 Uploads: 8	Its probably the Australian F35's that are being delayed. You guys get first use to run them in for us.

05-10-12, 06:18 AM	#5
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	What is this F-35? I say it is a myth!

05-10-12, 08:00 AM	#11
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	It's a fantastic aircraft, I'm not questioning its capabilities...when it's finally finished... It's just beyond the price range of most countries these days, well...nearly all of them in fact, except perhaps Saudi Arabia...

05-10-12, 11:08 AM	#13
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,819 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	" ... The design was born in the late 1980s in the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Pentagon agency that has earned an undeserved reputation for astute innovation. ..." 1980ies .. with the strategical need of those times ? On one hand the project is too big to fail, on the other hand maybe it will die a silent death - of course after the elections, and regardless who's in charge then. For what i read on multiple forums: - Stealth will not be accomplished due to the two rudders - a clear blip visible on any 30-year-old radar. - It cannot carry enough arms, even as the "normal" non-VTOL or even catapult version (the VTOL is being hampered by multiple problems, too fuew fuel and ams, due to the space needed for VTOL components) - It cannot be used in low altitude missions (why not b.t.w.?) - The fuselage cell is prone to cracks, especially with the VTOL and catapult versions, limiting the calculated life and needing more maintenance and state supervision - The costs have exploded, but the machine still fails to deliver. It seems they wanted a jet that did all - and what they get is a jet that can do all, but nothing right. Also, from an article: "In a decade's time, the United States plans to have 15 times as many modern fighters as China, and 20 times as many as Russia." " .. So, how many F-35s do we need? 100? 500? Washington intends to buy 2,443, at a price tag of $382 billion. Add in the $650 billion that the Government Accountability Office estimates is needed to operate and maintain the aircraft, and the total cost reaches a staggering $1 trillion. In other words, we're spending more on this plane than Australia's entire GDP ($924 billion). ..." from: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/the-f-35-a-weapon-that-costs-more-than-australia/72454/ I think those jets are fascinating, but i do not think it would be wise to go on spending that money on .. "defence".