Jump to content


Photo

Fairey noise


  • Please log in to reply
491 replies to this topic

#51 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 25 November 2011 - 10:54

The Americans didn't lose control in Iraq they actually stopped what (was) at the time a very serious threat from one of the strongest powers in the Middle East that was getting stronger (with Russian help).The threat of an aggressive well armed Iraq has been removed which is what the object of the mission was and that mission wouldn't have been accomplished if the US didn't have air superiority fighters of the type it had v those of the Russian supplied Iraqi air force.What came after was just what happened by listening to the pc do gooders who think that it's the job of those who've stopped an aggressive power to then police it and re build it instead of sending the place back to the stone age and then closing the borders and forgetting about them.

But the terrorist threat from Afghanistan etc would be a lot less of a threat if the western countries stopped immigration by nationals from those States and applied travel and border restrictions against them instead of trying to deal with the problem at the wrong end.


It was America that put Sadham in power in the first place.
Its no good having a selective memory VP.
In the 20s and 30s there was a British military opinion that in simple terms said:-
'Dont mess around in Mesopotania'.
It was based on hundreds if not thousands of years of military experience which even included the Romans.
The area of the middle east where Iraq and Afghanistan are is impossible to consolidate militarily.
Any powerful force can easily conquer the area and gain bragging rights.
It is after the conquest that the real unwinnable war begins.
Using billion dollar modern aircraft from multi billion dollar aircraft carriers achieves exactly the same result as all the previous attempts.
Big holes in the desert sand.

The fact that the terrorists bring the war out of the area to the West is hardly a surprise with such brain dead morons running things here. The only thing that those in charge here think of is how much 'they personaly' can make out of the arms sales and the rebuilding of the civil infra structure these same arms have damaged.

Edited by 24gerrard, 25 November 2011 - 10:58.


Advertisement

#52 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 25 November 2011 - 11:03

The 'opposition' in this case seems clear enough and it's as 'real' as it gets.


Real enough for the RAF to suggest taking it ALL out on the ground inside 48 hours.
Air superiority my ar---.

#53 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 25 November 2011 - 11:09

The outcome of the Falklands conflict was dependent on what happened at sea and in the air not just on land and in the air and there would have been no way of sustaining the required forces to defend the place so far away,against a country that was that close,without getting air superiority/supremacy in the area of exclusion required from air and naval interdiction,around the Islands, without naval air power.They never did get that air superiority/supremacy because the Harrier was never designed for that role.The casualties sustained were mostly the result that issue.As the Argentines rightly said they lost the Falklands war because their bombs weren't fused correctly and they ran out of exocet missiles (just) before we ran out of ships.


Thatcher WANTED the Falklands war, she dreamt of it making her appear like a modern Celtic Princess in a war chariot.
The Argentinians were still buying polo ponies from the UK at the height of the war.
A proper force in the Falklands would have prevented any invasion.
It has worked for hundreds of years in Gibraltar.

#54 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 25 November 2011 - 14:26

It was America that put Sadham in power in the first place.
Its no good having a selective memory VP.
In the 20s and 30s there was a British military opinion that in simple terms said:-
'Dont mess around in Mesopotania'.
It was based on hundreds if not thousands of years of military experience which even included the Romans.
The area of the middle east where Iraq and Afghanistan are is impossible to consolidate militarily.
Any powerful force can easily conquer the area and gain bragging rights.
It is after the conquest that the real unwinnable war begins.
Using billion dollar modern aircraft from multi billion dollar aircraft carriers achieves exactly the same result as all the previous attempts.
Big holes in the desert sand.

The fact that the terrorists bring the war out of the area to the West is hardly a surprise with such brain dead morons running things here. The only thing that those in charge here think of is how much 'they personaly' can make out of the arms sales and the rebuilding of the civil infra structure these same arms have damaged.


I think we agree on the basics of the politics of the area but it's the mindset of conquer,occupy,re build and do good there by trying to look on the middle eastern native population as worth bothering about which is the problem.However it's Russia that has had a more destabilising policy in the Middle East than the US and the US support of different factions and leaderships and the sale of arms to the unstable Arab populations has mainly been a result and a reaction to Russian interference in the area first.The policy of fighting a type of proxy war with Russia,by arming different opposing middle eastern factions,instead of dealing with the problem at source is the main reason why we're in the mess we are now with the area.However as history shows 'if' you want to negotiate with Russia and stop it doing things which aren't anyone's interests it needs to be done from a position of strength not weakness.But for the Middle East it's a bit late now.However it's more than a co incidence that Russia still seems to take an 'interest' in an area which seems to have no strategic value to it's own interests whereas the area does for us so why has Russia always been so historically keen to get involved there ?? and that question answers your issues as to America's involvement in the region.

The question is why would a country like Russia,with sufficient oil reserves of it's own,wish to get involved in an area of the world in which the British seemed to be doing a reasonable job of keeping the peace there by making sure that the Arab populations were kept in their place and doing the total opposite to the Russian idea of arming them to the teeth.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 25 November 2011 - 14:53.


#55 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 25 November 2011 - 14:31

Thatcher WANTED the Falklands war, she dreamt of it making her appear like a modern Celtic Princess in a war chariot.
The Argentinians were still buying polo ponies from the UK at the height of the war.
A proper force in the Falklands would have prevented any invasion.
It has worked for hundreds of years in Gibraltar.


Thatcher was just an idiot who was writing cheques with her mouth that her cut price navy couldn't cash.But the basics of defending the Falklands were correct in that it needed to be shown that Argentina shouldn't be allowed to take the place from it's British population by force of arms and invasion.


#56 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 25 November 2011 - 14:44

Are you trying to say that Russia has no strategic or commercial interests in the area?
I suggest you take a closer look.
Of course Britain was capable of stopping the area becoming heavily armed prior to WW2.
We were far stronger than today and there was little interest in oil then.
IMO Russia and America have been their own worst enemy in the area.
Both have armed terrorist factions and the results are obvious.
One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter and arming them simply spins a roulette wheel and stirs up trouble.
Britains biggest mistake (which is still obvious) was to give Palestine to the Isralies.
A number of my Fathers friends in the British Army were butchered by so called Israeli freedom fighters.
Some are now in the Israeli government.
All of that government originates from East Europe and not from any twelve tribes in the historical middle east.
Israel remains the biggest and most dangerous problem in the area.

#57 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 25 November 2011 - 15:16

Are you trying to say that Russia has no strategic or commercial interests in the area?
I suggest you take a closer look.
Of course Britain was capable of stopping the area becoming heavily armed prior to WW2.
We were far stronger than today and there was little interest in oil then.
IMO Russia and America have been their own worst enemy in the area.
Both have armed terrorist factions and the results are obvious.
One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter and arming them simply spins a roulette wheel and stirs up trouble.
Britains biggest mistake (which is still obvious) was to give Palestine to the Isralies.
A number of my Fathers friends in the British Army were butchered by so called Israeli freedom fighters.
Some are now in the Israeli government.
All of that government originates from East Europe and not from any twelve tribes in the historical middle east.
Israel remains the biggest and most dangerous problem in the area.


We sort of agree on that issue of Israel.However it's all water under the bridge and Britain was one of the countries that did eventually recognise the state of Israel and why the double standards that if anyone here moans about different ethnic immigrant groups they get called a racist but the Arabs can threaten death and destruction on an immigrant ethnic group just because they are jewish not arab muslim and get sympathy for their cause.

But yes I am saying that Russia should have no inteterests in the area and I am also suggesting that their historic and continuing 'interest' in the area to date has been motivated by a deliberate policy of destabilisation,in an obvious attempt to disrupt the western economic oil interests in the area,thereby weakening the west's military strength,and it's working.So no I don't agree with you that the US has been wrong in trying to redress that issue but what I am saying is that the US did it the wrong way by not taking the issue up directly with Russia in just the same way that they did with the arming of Cuba with Russian strategic missiles.However it was actually mostly because of our oil interests which was the reason 'why' Britain was involved in the area 'before' WW2 and which is why the Afrika Corps was trying to reach them when it was stopped by the British forces originally based in the Arab states.

My own father was lucky in not being one of those who was shipped out to fight against the Israeli forces in Palestine just after WW2 finished in Italy.However if he had been he did say that it would have been ironic to have survived fighting against the Germans and then the Yugoslavs in the take over of Istria and then not survive a fight with a group who he was actually sympathetic with.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 25 November 2011 - 15:21.


#58 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 898 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 26 November 2011 - 05:39

STOVL combat aircraft that go supersonic are IMO impossible to design and develop, certainly for carrier operation.
There is no possibility of matching land based designs in performance. (a waste of time and money)
The F-35 has been sold to the British government as a CON to make Americans money.
It has little chance of ever working, if it does it will be hell on earth to operate.
If they can stop the daft thing from burning huge holes in the flight deck it will be a start.
The Harrier supersonic project was dropped when the subject was studied a bit.
The Americans rarely do this, you only have to look at the reliant three wheeled design they have stolen for CART racing. :rotfl:
Without saying to much, I understand there have been major changes to the British carrier designs during build.
Somebody tell our daft government just what patsies they are?
Perhaps they can get our Harriers back before we end up with two static carrier displays in regents park like the Chinese concrete one Cheapy showed us.


24gerrard,

The F-35B (STOVL) is a supersonic, carrier based aircraft. Since it is currently flying, and has performed both vertical take-offs and landings from a ship deck, it would not appear to be an impossible task.

As for the F-35B being sold to the British MoD as a "con to make Americans money", Rolls-Royce makes much of the propulsion system.

As for the British Navy Harriers, it's too late. They were just sold for salvage.

riff_raff

#59 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 478 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 26 November 2011 - 05:42

Britains biggest mistake (which is still obvious) was to give Palestine to the Isralies.
A number of my Fathers friends in the British Army were butchered by so called Israeli freedom fighters.
Some are now in the Israeli government.
All of that government originates from East Europe and not from any twelve tribes in the historical middle east.
Israel remains the biggest and most dangerous problem in the area.


Ah...I can see this heading downhill quickly as almost all discussions on the middle east does.


Advertisement

#60 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 26 November 2011 - 09:58

24gerrard,

The F-35B (STOVL) is a supersonic, carrier based aircraft. Since it is currently flying, and has performed both vertical take-offs and landings from a ship deck, it would not appear to be an impossible task.

As for the F-35B being sold to the British MoD as a "con to make Americans money", Rolls-Royce makes much of the propulsion system.

As for the British Navy Harriers, it's too late. They were just sold for salvage.

riff_raff



:rotfl:

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related


And how dare the yanks call this thing a Lightning!
The Lightning is STILL a better aircraft than anything ever built in dreamland just like the Spitfire.
I notice they dont have the 'balls' to use that name.

Of course Rolls Royce build the engine, nobody else could for this joke.

The USAAF should keep takeing those 'stealth' pills it looks like it is going to need them.

Edited by 24gerrard, 26 November 2011 - 10:15.


#61 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 26 November 2011 - 10:12

just like the Spitfire.


Well if you make enough bad aeroplanes your sure to make one or 2 good ones.

The end of Australia's F1-11's has become fairly permanent ..


http://www.courierma...2-1226204896564

#62 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,783 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 26 November 2011 - 10:59

Well if you make enough bad aeroplanes your sure to make one or 2 good ones.

The end of Australia's F1-11's has become fairly permanent ..


http://www.courierma...2-1226204896564

Australia bought 24 F1-11's. They crashed a couple and have saved seven to be loaned to museums. So that leaves 23 to be buried? Something doesn't add up.

Could they be the second hand US ones that Australia bought for parts? And they are burying them because of the toxic materials in the fuselage?

#63 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,503 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 26 November 2011 - 11:45

It certainly seems to be the weirdest form of 'recycling'.

#64 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,603 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 26 November 2011 - 11:47

Found an interesting website: Air Power Australia: RAAF vs F-35 Lightning II

It seems that the JSF will give similar strike capabilities to the F-18E/F, but to get similar strike capabilities to the 25 F-111s we had would require twice as many F-35s, plus additional air to air refuelling tankers and improved AWACS systems.

The F-35 has less stealth capabilities than the F-22, and in an air to air role against current gen Sukhoi Su-35s will be detected and shot down before it is within it's own effective weapons range.

Meanwhile Russia's own stealth fighter, the PAK-FA is undergoing flight testing. It has less stealth capability than the F-22, but has better manouevrability and longer range.

#65 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 26 November 2011 - 13:44

It certainly does look like the near death of the British aircraft industry has left America with nobody to steal ideas from.

#66 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 26 November 2011 - 15:41

:rotfl:

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related


And how dare the yanks call this thing a Lightning!
The Lightning is STILL a better aircraft than anything ever built in dreamland just like the Spitfire.
I notice they dont have the 'balls' to use that name.

Of course Rolls Royce build the engine, nobody else could for this joke.

The USAAF should keep takeing those 'stealth' pills it looks like it is going to need them.



:eek: I've (almost) agreed with Gerrard again.A single engined uprated Harrier that's able to go 'supersonic' isn't the same thing as an air superiority fighter like the Phantom or F14.But the (real) Lightning probably would have lost some of those it was chasing and caught up with when it had to break off for refuelling because of it's limited range compared to a Phantom or an F14 or F15.




#67 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 26 November 2011 - 15:44

It certainly does look like the near death of the British aircraft industry has left America with nobody to steal ideas from.


I think the Lightning used that British idea of an all moving tail plane/elevators that the Americans stole to get through the sound barrier too.

#68 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,555 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 26 November 2011 - 16:18

It certainly does look like the near death of the British aircraft industry has left America with nobody to steal ideas from.


Why would Britain need an aircraft industry, anyway? That would be like the Duchy of Grand Fenwick having a space program.


#69 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 26 November 2011 - 16:39

I think the Lightning used that British idea of an all moving tail plane/elevators that the Americans stole to get through the sound barrier too.


Miles aircraft invented the all flying tailplane for their sonic test aircraft.
It was given to Bell (I still do not know why for the life of me), who modified their X1 with it and claimed the speed of sound record.
If they had not a few more American test pilots would have died.
DH lost Geofrey De Haviland in their experimental delta for (IMO) the same reason.
Of course the ME163 actualy went sonic on many occasions in the 40s and was in service as a rocket fighter.
The Americans conveniently ignore this, just like the first ever heavier than air claims.

Miles Aircraft also license built the Wallis W116, they were a fine company with many new ideas.
I owned a Miles Messenger for a while in the 60's, built like the Mosquito out of wood, a fine aircraft.
One of the Miles Brothers during a talk on the construction asked for ideas for a material that could be as strong as steel, flexible and easy to shape. Everyone was surprized to hear his answer, wood.
It is still a great material for vehicles of all sorts.
The W116 rotor blades are a wood steel laminate with exact flex figures, they have 'unlimited' fatique life.

Edited by 24gerrard, 26 November 2011 - 16:42.


#70 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 26 November 2011 - 16:45

Why would Britain need an aircraft industry, anyway? That would be like the Duchy of Grand Fenwick having a space program.


I have already given the answer to this Magoo.

To have a brilliant pool of aviation ideas for the yanks to steal from.

To confirm this just study aviation history, its all there.

#71 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,555 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 26 November 2011 - 16:48

Onlookers wave goodbye to the British aircraft industry:


Posted Image


#72 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 26 November 2011 - 17:12

Onlookers wave goodbye to the British aircraft industry:


Posted Image


Strange Magoo, the Comet airframe is STILL in military service as a COMBAT aircraft.
You realy should study more.

#73 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,555 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 26 November 2011 - 17:47

Strange Magoo, the Comet airframe is STILL in military service as a COMBAT aircraft.


In a respectable air force or are you referring to the RAF?


#74 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,750 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 November 2011 - 19:14

So is the Electra:
Posted Image

Doens not mean it's still in production.

#75 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,503 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 26 November 2011 - 20:18

In a respectable air force or are you referring to the RAF?

I think he means the aircraft that has killed complete crews and now been broken up after £Billions were wasted on it.

#76 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 26 November 2011 - 21:00

Strange Magoo, the Comet airframe is STILL in military service as a COMBAT aircraft.
You realy should study more.



There's a difference between constructive criticism and just saying that everything British or American is good or bad.The US aircraft manufacturing industry has turned out enough good well proven products in it's time regardless of who did what and things that may or may not have happened concerning competition and/or questionable transfer of industrial know how between the two countries in the past.

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related




Co operation is probably better between the two than just having a go at each other across the pond and both sides have had their technological flaws.The Comet really failed because it just wasn't good enough compared to the 707.Nothing more nothing less.The Lightning was probably the best fighter that Britain ever produced but was it a good enough all rounder,considering it's range issues,and would developments of the F14 to follow the Phantom,for carrier use,and the F15 had been better investments than the Harrier,Tornado and Eurofighter etc that have followed it and the same applies to recent,obviously flawed,American designs ?.

However assuming that the Comet had been successful and went into widespread service how long might it have been before a major engine failure might have showed up the flaws in having it's engines inside the wing roots instead of using pods mounted away from the wings using fuse pins even allowing for the flaws involved in that idea too ?.








#77 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 478 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 26 November 2011 - 22:30

A number of my Fathers friends in the British Army were butchered by so called Israeli freedom fighters.
Some are now in the Israeli government.
All of that government originates from East Europe and not from any twelve tribes in the historical middle east.
Israel remains the biggest and most dangerous problem in the area.


Been thinking about this some more. You seem to think that a 'lost tribe' would be you turning a corner in the country one day and almost running down a load of swarthy blokes with camels standing around looking at a map and pointing in different directions. Israel, for all its faults - and there are a great many - sadly remains a shining light in the area as far as development goes.
Re the 'butchered' bit - you obviously feel strongly about this...would the result have been any different in your mind if the killing had been the other way?
Also has not Britain continually played arab states off against each other and against israel since, making a massive amount of money from arms sales...in fact was there not a government minister trying to 'assist' some arms manufacturers sell weapons to Gaddafi quite recently...

#78 Spoofski

Spoofski
  • Member

  • 262 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 26 November 2011 - 23:17

Are you trying to say that Russia has no strategic or commercial interests in the area?
I suggest you take a closer look.
Of course Britain was capable of stopping the area becoming heavily armed prior to WW2.
We were far stronger than today and there was little interest in oil then.
IMO Russia and America have been their own worst enemy in the area.
Both have armed terrorist factions and the results are obvious.
One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter and arming them simply spins a roulette wheel and stirs up trouble.
Britains biggest mistake (which is still obvious) was to give Palestine to the Isralies.
A number of my Fathers friends in the British Army were butchered by so called Israeli freedom fighters.
Some are now in the Israeli government.
All of that government originates from East Europe and not from any twelve tribes in the historical middle east.
Israel remains the biggest and most dangerous problem in the area.

You should go there. You might find that Israelis are people too, rather than just a 'dangerous problem'.

#79 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 27 November 2011 - 00:22

Been thinking about this some more. You seem to think that a 'lost tribe' would be you turning a corner in the country one day and almost running down a load of swarthy blokes with camels standing around looking at a map and pointing in different directions. Israel, for all its faults - and there are a great many - sadly remains a shining light in the area as far as development goes.
Re the 'butchered' bit - you obviously feel strongly about this...would the result have been any different in your mind if the killing had been the other way?
Also has not Britain continually played arab states off against each other and against israel since, making a massive amount of money from arms sales...in fact was there not a government minister trying to 'assist' some arms manufacturers sell weapons to Gaddafi quite recently...


It needs to be remembered that Britain has always been in a catch 22 concerning how to handle the issues that have applied in the Middle East since Israel's recognition as a state.The fact is that we tried to stop the formation of Israel but then had to agree to world pressure,especially from America,for it's recognition as a state with obvious implications for Palestine.But no Britain hasn't 'played off' Arab states against each other.It's always been a case of wanting to keep the place disarmed as much as possible because when the Arabs aren't busy uniting against Israel they are busy fighting each other.However the problem has always been Russia which has,for some reason,always wanted to support the Arab states in carrying out their stated aim of driving the Israelis into the sea assuming they don't massacre the whole Israeli population first and Israel's position has been one of defence,not offence,against that threat since it's recognition.

Everything in the region,which Britain has done since,has been a case of walking a tightrope of (trying to) seek more moderate Arab governments in the region to (try to) counter that problem and it's those governments that we've dealt with most and unfortunately part of that involved supplying those (relatively) more moderate governments with arms to keep them in power and to counter the threat posed by the less moderate ones.Unfortunately the general populations throughout the Middle East don't see things in that 'moderate' way.Which is why there's no way that there'll ever be any peace in the region unless something is done to rectify that mistake of recognising Israel's formation in Palestine although unfortunately it's now too late for that.

However it's ironic that the remaining European Jewish population at the end of WW2 should have felt so unsafe about living in the new post war Europe that they decided to move in amongst a population that wants to drive them into the sea or massacre them instead while Europe and the US has allowed itself to be subject to immigration from muslim Middle Eastern and Asian groups who's stated aim is the destruction of both us and Israel. :eek:


Advertisement

#80 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,603 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 27 November 2011 - 00:22

Why would Britain need an aircraft industry, anyway? That would be like the Duchy of Grand Fenwick having a space program.


Why would the US need an aircraft industry? Or France, Sweden, China, India, Russia, Italy?

#81 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 27 November 2011 - 00:36

Why would the US need an aircraft industry? Or France


What if Concorde had been allowed to run internal flights in the US from the time of it's introduction shared 50/50 between Air France and British Airways ?.


#82 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,603 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 27 November 2011 - 00:43

Reading more about the F-35, it seems that the USAF always intended to use them in conjunction with F-22s providing top cover/air superiority. For Britain the top cover is to be provided by the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Here in Australia we will have Super Hornets and F-35s....both similar type aircraft. The F-35 is more biased to the strike role, as is the F-18, I believe.

Wiki lists the cost of an F-18E/F Super Hornet as $55m each. The F-35A is listed at $122m (B $150m, C $139.5m). The F-22A is listed as $150m (though I have seen numbers as high as $350m).

The argument for purchasing the F-35 over the F-22 was always one of cost. But it seems that is debatable. The F-35 is much less capable than the F-22.

Meanwhile, according to Wiki, you can get a Sukhoi Su-35 for between $45m and $65m - about the same as a Super Hornet with far greater capability.

Personally I don't understand why a country with a small airforce would choose an aircraft which is biased towards offesnive roles (ie strike) rather than defensive roles (ie air superiority).



#83 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,603 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 27 November 2011 - 00:44

What if Concorde had been allowed to run internal flights in the US from the time of it's introduction shared 50/50 between Air France and British Airways ?.


Domestic US service?

Not sure it would have been cost effective.

#84 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 27 November 2011 - 12:15

You should go there. You might find that Israelis are people too, rather than just a 'dangerous problem'.


I have and I agree.
In my experience people the whole world over are very much the same.
Not so governments and the powers behind them.

Years ago I was involved with training Israeli pilots.
I have no problem with Jewish people.

#85 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 27 November 2011 - 12:16

Domestic US service?

Not sure it would have been cost effective.


Sonic overfly in US airspace perleeeease.

#86 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 478 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 27 November 2011 - 21:13

Reading more about the F-35, it seems that the USAF always intended to use them in conjunction with F-22s providing top cover/air superiority. For Britain the top cover is to be provided by the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Here in Australia we will have Super Hornets and F-35s....both similar type aircraft. The F-35 is more biased to the strike role, as is the F-18, I believe.

Wiki lists the cost of an F-18E/F Super Hornet as $55m each. The F-35A is listed at $122m (B $150m, C $139.5m). The F-22A is listed as $150m (though I have seen numbers as high as $350m).

The argument for purchasing the F-35 over the F-22 was always one of cost. But it seems that is debatable. The F-35 is much less capable than the F-22.

Meanwhile, according to Wiki, you can get a Sukhoi Su-35 for between $45m and $65m - about the same as a Super Hornet with far greater capability.

Personally I don't understand why a country with a small airforce would choose an aircraft which is biased towards offesnive roles (ie strike) rather than defensive roles (ie air superiority).



because a short range strike weapon is good politically in the region.
You are also counting purchase cost vs running cost and the fact that the Americans did not want to sell the F22...though now I think they'd happily sell it.

#87 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,603 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 27 November 2011 - 23:08

because a short range strike weapon is good politically in the region.
You are also counting purchase cost vs running cost and the fact that the Americans did not want to sell the F22...though now I think they'd happily sell it.


The air forces in the region use Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35s predominately. In that environment the F-35 won't survive to do its short range strike.

#88 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 478 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 28 November 2011 - 00:12

The air forces in the region use Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35s predominately. In that environment the F-35 won't survive to do its short range strike.


I am by no means an expert on this stuff, but one of the hillclimb group I'm part of is involved in such things and he has pointed out to me that the plane/plane comparison assumes that the pilots, weapons systems and the support services are the same. In a combat situation the planes lose combat effectiveness relatively quickly. However consider Indonesia, who I assume you are referring to. They have a limited number of airports that their planes can operate out of (sure they can land and take off from a lot but that's not supporting the plane), limited ability to repair the planes and indeed a small number of them. Their range is limited and they have less in-flight refuelling capability than Australia...which is not great...so the threat is limited. The real strike concern is cruise missiles and Australia has been very conspicuous in not acquiring them as that would simply get our neighbours worried. We are better off keeping the region poorly armed...if we are worried about China then frankly we cannot afford to combat that threat by ourselves.

#89 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,603 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 28 November 2011 - 00:35

Indonesia is our most likely threat, not that it is very high at the current time.

In terms of serviceability the F-22A is quite poor and maintenance intensive. I expect that the F-35 will be little better.

Reading a report on http://www.ausairpower.net/ it seems that to maintain the same strike capability as we had with the F-111s will require double the number F-35s and 2-3 times the number of in-flight refuelling tankers we have, and extra AEW&C aircraft.

The USAAF never intended the F-35 to operate solo - theirs would be provided cover from F-22s.



#90 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 898 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 28 November 2011 - 01:45

I think the Lightning used that British idea of an all moving tail plane/elevators that the Americans stole to get through the sound barrier too.


That's not a nice thing to say. Miles theorized the idea and did some tunnel tests, but never flew it. The Bell X1 had an electric pitch actuator to trim the horizontal stabilizer when it was designed in 1945. After initial attempts at transonic flight resulted in loss of pitch control, Bell engineers advised test pilot Chuck Yeager to try using this trim actuator to control pitch during transonic speeds. It worked and the X1 airframe was retrofit.

All innovation is built on bits and pieces from elsewhere. Whether it's basic science like mathematics, chemistry, physics, etc. or other designs. With regards to transonic aircraft, I believe the concept of the swept wing was originally developed by German scientists.........and later "stolen" by British designers for the English Electric Lightning. Of course the Brits also pinched the Lightning name from the Lockheed P-38. :smoking:

slider

#91 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 28 November 2011 - 02:10

That's not a nice thing to say. Miles theorized the idea and did some tunnel tests, but never flew it. The Bell X1 had an electric pitch actuator to trim the horizontal stabilizer when it was designed in 1945. After initial attempts at transonic flight resulted in loss of pitch control, Bell engineers advised test pilot Chuck Yeager to try using this trim actuator to control pitch during transonic speeds. It worked and the X1 airframe was retrofit.

All innovation is built on bits and pieces from elsewhere. Whether it's basic science like mathematics, chemistry, physics, etc. or other designs. With regards to transonic aircraft, I believe the concept of the swept wing was originally developed by German scientists.........and later "stolen" by British designers for the English Electric Lightning. Of course the Brits also pinched the Lightning name from the Lockheed P-38. :smoking:

slider



I'm a lot more 'sympathetic' than Gerrard in giving US technology credit where it's due but I was only relaying the story as I've always grown up with it on this side of the pond.I actually prefer the story about the Lightning being the only fighter that's ever been able to catch the Concorde and the only fighter plane that could reach the U2.But I can also remember when they sent an SR71 Blackbird over here for an airshow and the thing had crossed the Atlantic in a lot less than 3 hours and the public address system reported that he was just turning back over Holland and Germany because he'd overshot the airfield while slowing down. :clap: :cool:

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Edited by Vanishing Point, 28 November 2011 - 02:26.


#92 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,603 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 28 November 2011 - 02:18

Of course the Brits also pinched the Lightning name from the Lockheed P-38. :smoking:


However, Lightning was the designation the British gave the aircraft when they received them (a small number sans turbo, which proved to be poor and were returned to the US). The British name, as in the case of the Mustang, was adopted afterwards.


#93 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 28 November 2011 - 02:51

However, Lightning was the designation the British gave the aircraft when they received them (a small number sans turbo, which proved to be poor and were returned to the US). The British name, as in the case of the Mustang, was adopted afterwards.


But it was the English Electric jet fighter which fitted the name Lightning most and deserved it best.I've read some stories about it being used in joint excercises between The US air forces and the other NATO air forces and the story goes that nothing anyone else had at the time could touch it for dogfighting.


#94 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 478 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 28 November 2011 - 03:02

But it was the English Electric jet fighter which fitted the name Lightning most and deserved it best.I've read some stories about it being used in joint excercises between The US air forces and the other NATO air forces and the story goes that nothing anyone else had at the time could touch it for dogfighting.


sorry but that is incorrect. It was always a point defence weapon based on 1950's technology. It's radar was poor, the missles were not great even when new and it bled speed in a dogfight. What it was very good at was interception: getting from A to b at 50,000 feet very quickly and then staying there for a short amount of time.

#95 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,603 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 28 November 2011 - 08:27

A couple of F-35 vids.


http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

"Run, don't walk [away from the JSF program]"

#96 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 28 November 2011 - 10:59

It seems a number of very sensible and qualified aircraft designers
even in America agree with me and state that the JSF is a DOG.

A huge disaster thanks to out braindead governments.
I could have complete air cover of the middle east with the W116 consolidation system for the cost of the JSF so far.
With NO/ZERO opposing air force, the concept is not only feasible but actualy highly workable.

#97 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 28 November 2011 - 14:28

sorry but that is incorrect. It was always a point defence weapon based on 1950's technology. It's radar was poor, the missles were not great even when new and it bled speed in a dogfight. What it was very good at was interception: getting from A to b at 50,000 feet very quickly and then staying there for a short amount of time.


Considering that it could get up to 80,000 feet or so then it's obvious that it's going to be able to get up to a lot higher than 50,000 feet very quickly.The stories which I was referring to concerning it's dogfighting ability were written by some of it's pilots so they wouldn't have been a million miles away from the truth.The missile aramament on the Phantom wasn't that great either which is why,like the Lightning,it was fitted with guns as well.


#98 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,512 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 28 November 2011 - 15:30

But it was the English Electric jet fighter which fitted the name Lightning most and deserved it best.I've read some stories about it being used in joint excercises between The US air forces and the other NATO air forces and the story goes that nothing anyone else had at the time could touch it for dogfighting.


IIRC the Lightning was a flying fuel leak.

#99 Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 28 November 2011 - 18:22

IIRC the Lightning was a flying fuel tank with two great big jet engines bolted to it.


Fixed that. :clap:

Edited by Vanishing Point, 28 November 2011 - 18:23.


Advertisement

#100 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,603 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 28 November 2011 - 23:53

IIRC the Lightning was a flying fuel tank with two great big jet engines bolted to it.



Fixed that. :clap:


That would imply it had some range....it did not.