Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 606

Thread: F35 News only thread for 2013

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    EF shouldn't be shy to show their charts ?
    1. From brake-off to breaking sonic barrier: less than 30 secs.

    2. From 200 kts to mach 0.9, altitude unknown: less than 20 secs (Two-seater with one 1,000 L tank and two AAMs, the A/B had been switched off in the medium of acceleration in order not to break sonic barrier, Flight International 2007/04/27).

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by Tu 160 View Post
    F-35C needs 104 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 that abyssmally bad and more than 4 times slower than Mig 29 acceleration. Based on specs Pakfa should probably acceletate even better than the Mig29.
    Is F35 acceleration even slower than Mig19?
    If F-35C did this with two 2,000 Ib JDAMs and two AIM-120s, then it is still an impressive performance ~ Most, if not all, other fighters around the world today can not even go supersonically with such kind of weapon loads, including the F-15, F-16, Mig-29, and Typhoon.
    Last edited by toan; 18th January 2013 at 04:19.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    5,341
    Yes, but it didnt do this with 2 JDAM.
    Anyway this goes to show that F-35 is a bomber, this is where it excel
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  4. #64
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    199

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,870
    That LM report are rather humble in its layout form.
    I guess LM have been jacked down a few notches after these reports from DOT&E..
    Thanks

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    I believe the general conclusion by the USAF after they had a look at and trained against Luftwaffe Mig-29 was "Don't wrestle in the mud with the pigs, you both get dirty and the pig likes it!". In other words avoid getting into a turning dog fight as the Mig-29 doesn't bleed energy in a turn like Western types and has a helmet mounted sight.

    Then again West German airforce opinions about the quality of ex East German pilots that they didn't have the training or doctrinal conditioning to make use of the types low speed turning capabilities.
    What I've read about the ACM with Luftwaffe MiG-29s points to the AA-11s and HMCS being the key advantage. The comparisons to the F-16 I've read suggest the MiG-29 is more maneuverable at low speeds, while the Viper has the edge at higher speeds. This seems rather similar to what ACM between the F/A-18 and F-16 has shown IIRC. The F-16 isn't bad about bleeding energy. That only seems to be a complaint about the Super Hornet for some reason.

    Anyway, hasn't it been stated that the primary reason for the large increase in the C variant's acceleration time is due to a buffeting problem unique to that variant? The additional drag of the C variant means it will never match the other two, but buffeting problems have been corrected on other fighters in the past. Hopefully they can achieve somewhat less disappointing numbers than these.

    Spitfire9 the structural cracks are a problem with some of the composite components of the B model, not the C model.
    Last edited by F/A-XX; 18th January 2013 at 09:37.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,341
    Quote Originally Posted by toan View Post
    Since we have no idea for the configuration of JSF and the altitude during the acceleration test, I think it is still a little imprudent to make the conclusion that F-35 has an awful accelerating performance right now....
    We do for the F-35A 240-3 standard. Acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec, half fuel tanks, two AMRAAMs in the internal bays (no JDAMs).
    We do not know the conditions for lowering the specs by another 43 seconds which sounds strange to me.
    Last edited by MSphere; 18th January 2013 at 10:03.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,707
    Quote Originally Posted by F/A-XX View Post
    Spitfire9 the structural cracks are a problem with some of the composite components of the B model, not the C model.
    My big mistake! Sorry to all for posting rubbish. Somehow I read F-35C when it was F-35B.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,110
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    That LM report are rather humble in its layout form.
    I guess LM have been jacked down a few notches after these reports from DOT&E..
    What else they're gonna say " we're s**t, we're s**t ,we're s**t we know we are " ?
    So yeah, all those bombastic press releases about how many points and how many flights and how far ahead they are in everything were just PR lies, not that i personally didn't expected that.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,903
    For me as a British person after everything else what matters is "Does it out perform what it is replacing"! In respect of Sea Harrier FA2 or GR7/9 the F35B out performs them in every metric. Payload, range, bring back and sensor performance is vastly superior. Training for STOVL operations is far easier then Harrier for the pilots with only a couple of simulator and one real flight required to get a pilot ready to land on a ship. In comparison to Harrier which needs many check rides before they even dare do it.

    In respect of Tornado GR4, the sensor performance is superior and it is properly multi-role. In respect of range and bring back F35B operating from a conventional long runway has similar or better range. The payload between types operating off a conventional runway is not that different. The main difference is F35B carries certain munitions internally restricting certain weapon systems. In respect of Storm Shadow F35B could carry two vs Tornados four due to it only being able to fit on the inner wing pylons. I don't see that as a big issue per say and the main weapon systems for the type will be Paveway IV and a Brimstone variant. Getting back to range when you throw in wing drop tanks or our tankers it becomes a non-issue.

    I choose to be glass half full. Frankly I think it has become fashionable for some to hate the F35 program ignoring everything else.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    939
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    We do not know the conditions for lowering the specs by another 43 seconds which sounds strange to me.
    Lowering the bar is a direct consequence of poor transonic performance resulting in buffeting, the 3 variants' buffeting issues vary (these downgrades are independent of load out, fuel load considerations):

    • The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by 8 seconds. These changes were due to the results of air vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations...

    • The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35B, reducing turn performance from 5.0 to 4.5 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by 16 seconds. These changes were due to the results of air vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations...

    • The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35C, reducing turn performance from 5.1 to 5.0 sustained g’s and increasing the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by at least 43 seconds. These changes were due to the results of air vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations.
    …Due to the difference in wing design, transonic buffet becomes severe in different portions of the flight envelope and is more severe in the F-35C than the other variants.

    The program is making plans for investigating how to reduce the impact of transonic roll off in the F-35C with the use of wing spoilers; however, detailed test plans are not complete.
    The whole report is pretty dire. Whilst LM are busy trying to remedy the many problems cited in the report, it's unlikely the points for this year (and in all probability 2014- when the flight regimes were intended to be opened up), will be achieved.

    The indiscriminate axe of sequestration may have been avoided, but the F-35 programme will face spending cuts from 2015 onwards for sure. So LM have around 2 years to get their house in order.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    For me as a British person after everything else what matters is "Does it out perform what it is replacing"!
    This is a remarkably short-sighted perspective. =/
    "The United States' aim is to win the war -- it has no sovereign interest in the integrity of Australia." -- Douglas MacArthur, 1942

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,903
    Quote Originally Posted by Rii View Post
    This is a remarkably short-sighted perspective. =/
    In what way?

    F35B outperforms Sea Harrier, GR7/9 and Tornado GR4. In other words it is meeting a key performance parameter. How is that short sighted?

    For Britain's armed forces it is a quantum leap in performance capabilities over our legacy platforms. How is that short sighted?

    Care to explain how outperforming legacy platforms is a bad thing or short sighted?

    I rest my case with my earlier comment:

    I choose to be glass half full. Frankly I think it has become fashionable for some to hate the F35 program ignoring everything else.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  14. #74
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Button Moon
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    For me as a British person after everything else what matters is "Does it out perform what it is replacing"! In respect of Sea Harrier FA2 or GR7/9 the F35B out performs them in every metric. Payload, range, bring back and sensor performance is vastly superior. Training for STOVL operations is far easier then Harrier for the pilots with only a couple of simulator and one real flight required to get a pilot ready to land on a ship. In comparison to Harrier which needs many check rides before they even dare do it.

    In respect of Tornado GR4, the sensor performance is superior and it is properly multi-role. In respect of range and bring back F35B operating from a conventional long runway has similar or better range. The payload between types operating off a conventional runway is not that different. The main difference is F35B carries certain munitions internally restricting certain weapon systems. In respect of Storm Shadow F35B could carry two vs Tornados four due to it only being able to fit on the inner wing pylons. I don't see that as a big issue per say and the main weapon systems for the type will be Paveway IV and a Brimstone variant. Getting back to range when you throw in wing drop tanks or our tankers it becomes a non-issue.

    I choose to be glass half full. Frankly I think it has become fashionable for some to hate the F35 program ignoring everything else.
    I agree that the F35B certainly offers the greatest leap in capability of all the F35 versions over the contemporary aircraft they are due to replace. It must be said though that this capability has come at the cost of huge increases in weight, complexity and price compared to the Harrier.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    .
    Or the Brits could have bought twice, three times?? as many Rafales as they are ever going to get F35's for the same cost and same level of capability increase.
    Aircraft which could be in service today (Naval varient included); which with the planned upgrade path the French have been successfully following will still be relevant alongside UCAV's many decades into the future.

    Or you spend your cash on the white elephant that is going to be the bestest ever, honest. To buy 2 aircraft, that also cost rather a lot to keep in the air.

    Your call.

    Sustainment costs:
    http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...1-79df6aff101a
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
    Bertrand Russell

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    5,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    For me as a British person after everything else what matters is "Does it out perform what it is replacing"! In respect of Sea Harrier FA2 or GR7/9 the F35B out performs them in every metric. Payload, range, bring back and sensor performance is vastly superior. Training for STOVL operations is far easier then Harrier for the pilots with only a couple of simulator and one real flight required to get a pilot ready to land on a ship. In comparison to Harrier which needs many check rides before they even dare do it.

    In respect of Tornado GR4, the sensor performance is superior and it is properly multi-role. In respect of range and bring back F35B operating from a conventional long runway has similar or better range. The payload between types operating off a conventional runway is not that different. The main difference is F35B carries certain munitions internally restricting certain weapon systems. In respect of Storm Shadow F35B could carry two vs Tornados four due to it only being able to fit on the inner wing pylons. I don't see that as a big issue per say and the main weapon systems for the type will be Paveway IV and a Brimstone variant. Getting back to range when you throw in wing drop tanks or our tankers it becomes a non-issue.

    I choose to be glass half full. Frankly I think it has become fashionable for some to hate the F35 program ignoring everything else.
    I dont hate F-35, i got fed up with the relentless rant how
    F-35 was n e a r l y identical to F-22 cause it's clean

    How many times has this junk been quoted and wringed around ?
    In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.

    The aircraft flies in "large measure like the F-22, but it's smaller, and stiffer"
    Last edited by obligatory; 18th January 2013 at 14:55.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,903
    Indeed, but an increase in weight and complexity was to be expected considering what was being asked of the aircraft.

    In an ideal world a completely different aircraft (but sharing certain sub systems) for land , navy and Marine Corp/FAA/RAF could of been developed. In that was the design could of been optimised for each role. That never had a chance of funding so F35 has to be a compromise with the limitations that entails.

    Half of the issue for me with F35 Hate is Carlo and his crowd shouting at the top of their voices how bad it is because they want F-22!
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,903
    Quote Originally Posted by snafu352 View Post
    Or the Brits could have bought twice, three times?? as many Rafales as they are ever going to get F35's for the same cost and same level of capability increase.
    Aircraft which could be in service today (Naval varient included); which with the planned upgrade path the French have been successfully following will still be relevant alongside UCAV's many decades into the future.

    Or you spend your cash on the white elephant that is going to be the bestest ever, honest. To buy 2 aircraft, that also cost rather a lot to keep in the air.

    Your call.

    Sustainment costs:
    http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...1-79df6aff101a
    Errr no Rafale would not be in service now on the QE class. QE class only hit maingate decision in 2007 and they didn't cut metal until 2009.

    It would also require the UK to regenerate a CATOBAR capability from a cold start. Another MASSIVE issue is Rafale does not benefit UK PLC!
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,903
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    I dont hate F-35, i got fed up with the relentless rant how
    F-35 was n e a r l y identical to F-22 cause it's clean

    How many times has this junk been quoted and wringed around ?
    Well not by me, never mentioned the F-22 or its performance vs F35.

    What I am saying is it outperforms British legacy types and highly benefits UK PLC. How is that a bad thing?
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,651
    The word used was "could"...

    A purchase of CATOBAR Naval aircraft could have been used on US and the French carrier(s) whilst waiting for the UK's.

    The focus on UK PLC has always resulted in top of the line kit at a reasonable cost which is exactly what the forces need to perform the role tasked by the politicans hasn't it....or not.

    In reality UK PLC generally equals BAE; usually refered to by the forces as BWoS; aka British Waste of Space.

    I'm not convinced that "benefiting UK PLC" is in reality anything more than retaining votes for the politicans whilst also lining their and others pockets, delivering expensive, in-effective product.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
    Bertrand Russell

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,903
    No it couldn't be "Could..."

    With a 2007 maingate there is no way Rafale would be in service now on a British carrier. operating off a US or French carrier in the meantime is a waste of money in a time of extreme fiscal pressure.

    Regardless of what people think of BAE Systems to be involved in the manufacturer of F-35 to such a high extent is an excellent deal for UK PLC.

    I knew I was wasting my breath posting in the F-35 thread. I leave you guys to hating for the sake of it...
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,651
    Fedaykin, it is difficult to rationalise your comment: "in the meantime is a waste of money in a time of extreme fiscal pressure" with your advocacy of purchasing a platform that (due to cost) will not allow sufficient units to be purchased to constitute a viable force.

    This again ignores the sustainment costs problem.

    It would be useful if you could detail why you believe British involvement is an excellent deal for Britain rather than have us accept your word; you will note that my thoughts were offered as my opinion rather than an absolute claim.

    (PS at no point did i make any claim that Rafale or any other platform would today be in service on a British carrier. Strawman argument that.)
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
    Bertrand Russell

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,903
    Firstly actual procurement numbers haven't been stated yet for the UK and that can be spread out over the life of the aircraft.

    As for:

    It would be useful if you could detail why you believe British involvement is an excellent deal for Britain rather than have us accept your word; you will note that my thoughts were offered as my opinion rather than an absolute claim.
    Come off it that is well known, didn't think you needed me to spell it out! The UK is a tier 1 partner! The aft fuselage on EVERY SINGLE F35 will be made in the UK. A significant proportion of the avionics are UK supplied. EVERY SINGLE F35 will have an MB ejection seat. All F35B will have a lift fan assembly made in the UK! Looking at all that for a type which could well end up having thousands made that is a massive injection into UK PLC and a great deal! Compare that to at best the chance to make Rafale CKD or Super Hornet off the shelf.

    You clearly stated:
    Aircraft which could be in service today (Naval varient included); which with the planned upgrade path the French have been successfully following will still be relevant alongside UCAV's many decades into the future.
    Without the caveat that it would be on US or French carriers I had to assume you meant on QE class! So no I was not making a strawman argument, only making a comment based on the statement you made!

    As I said hate for hates sake!
    Last edited by Fedaykin; 18th January 2013 at 16:20.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,651
    Care to supply some numbers for this "massive injection?"
    Care to detail who actually benefits from those?

    I stated aircraft not carriers; you introduced the UK carriers. It was your assumption re the UK carriers that you continued to present as if i had stated it. That is a strawman, albeit it seems not intentionally.

    My position is not hate at all, merely a reasoned viewpoint based on the data we have. It is strange that any position that points towards the flaws and weaknesses in the F35 and the overall program is quickly labeled as "hate" yet any LM press release or SLD / Lexington Institute puff piece can be treated as unadultereated truth.

    The F35 does not provide the best value for the UK or the UK armed forces either today or tomorrow in my opinion.
    BAE may well do well from it but BAE is not the UK.
    (PS it won't have thousands built of any more than the A model. Hagel is about to become US Defence Secratary and has already called for the B to be cut. As you pointed out these are times of fiscal straits which the US is suffering from as much as the UK, B and C models are looking very liable for cancellation. No B no lift fans, and incidently no UK maritime ops. What price your UK carriers now?)

    Take a look at the link discussing sustainment costs i posted earlier.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
    Bertrand Russell

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,903
    You said naval variant, that means carrier operations...don't spin it into a strawman argument when one was not meant.

    If thousands of only the A model is made that is brilliant for UK PLC and a great deal!

    Because:

    The aft fuselage on EVERY SINGLE F35 will be made in the UK. A significant proportion of the avionics are UK supplied. EVERY SINGLE F35 will have an MB ejection seat.

    You don't think it offers best value for the UK...fine that is your opinion. I think it is ...that is my opinion and it is backed up with the facts stated above. Take it or leave it.

    It is nothing to do with statements from Lock Mart or any institute, it based on my observations of the program. I find it tiresome that in any thread where we talk about F-35 people jump down your throat with how awful it is and a disaster when in my opinion there are clear program positives alongside the negatives.
    Last edited by Fedaykin; 18th January 2013 at 16:54.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,651
    I believe the positives are in the scheme of things very small and certainly confined to a small group of beneficaries.
    (You still haven't supplied any numbers to support this claim btw.)

    To spin them as making up for the continued failures does not wash.

    The reality is that the platform does not deliver any capability at present, several years past original IOC date, costs are un-determined and rising and time is moving on.

    None of those facts is in any way balanced by a small contribution to a limited number of UK firms.

    Guess you won't see it that way.

    Even if the positives did balance the failures, is this a programme to produce a platfrom for the armed forces or a jobs / wealth creation exercise? Your argument seems to be suggesting it is the latter.

    (PS As i've already pointed out; I did indeed say Naval variant, which does generally mean carriers, i did not however make any mention of UK carriers, you did that... Projecting your incorrect assumption onto my point and then attacking it is creating a strawman. I do acknowledge based on your subsequent comments that the assumption was an error on your part and that you did not intend to create a strawman.)
    Last edited by snafu352; 18th January 2013 at 17:19.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
    Bertrand Russell

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,903
    Small positives? Thousands of fuselage sections, thousands of ejections seats and lots of avionics! Strange your concept of small return.

    i don't quite see why you are insistent about providing figures?! What don't you understand in the statement "EVERY SINGLE F35 will have the aft fuselage, significant avionics and ejection seats" from the UK! Pretty clear cut I would think! Quite a simple concept I would think or am I missing something here! How do I give you a figure when all F35 have high UK input and we don't know the final build figure for the life of the program. Again excuses made just to hate...

    Last time I checked Luxembourg has virtually no armed forces to speak of so I don't quite understand your concern for the British tax payer...but for me I am happy to accept the program cost for the high-tech jobs provided in the UK vs just giving it to the French!

    Guess you won't see it that way. Hey ho.
    Last edited by Fedaykin; 18th January 2013 at 17:27.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,651
    You can't make claim of "massive benefit" and not expect to have to provide some meat to that claim.

    It's pretty meaningless otherwise.

    Yet you dismiss fact based observation as "hate."

    So we have on one side un-substantiated claims versus documentated, verifiable facts that show a programme failing to meet requirements and you chose to describe the fact based observation as "hate."
    Good argumentation skills there...

    Is the programme a jobs and wealth creation scheme or a weapons programme?

    Alternatively which is more important of these two?

    As a modern military aviation forum i would expect the focus of interest to be on the utility of the platform as a military aircraft rather than a jobs programme!
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
    Bertrand Russell

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,903
    You can't make claim of "massive benefit" and not expect to have to provide some meat to that claim.
    Look what don't you understand in the very simple statement:

    "EVERY SINGLE F35 MADE WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT BRITISH CONTENT IN PARTICULAR THE AFT FUSELAGE AND EJECTION SEATS!"

    That is typed in caps to express me exasperation! It is nothing to do with my argumentation skills...it is very simple all F35 built benefit UK PLC...I think that is something to be celebrated.

    Britain is a tier 1 partner and is building a significant proportion of the aircraft! How much meat do you want?!

    Look if you don't believe me when I say "EVERY SINGLE F35"! Have a look at BAE Systems fact sheet on the program! It is there in black and white:

    http://www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/...aes_026379.pdf

    For a potential 3000+ build that is a massive return on investment for UK PLC.

    I think that whilst there have been significant problems in the life of the program but there are many positives to be talked about as well and I am sick and tired of having somebody jump down my throat when I don't show myself to be irrational hater of the program...I would argue that focusing only on where the program is not meeting targets and ignoring the positives is sign of poor argumentative skills on your part.

    Grow up!
    Last edited by Fedaykin; 18th January 2013 at 18:01.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  30. #90
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    It would also require the UK to regenerate a CATOBAR capability from a cold start. Another MASSIVE issue is Rafale does not benefit UK PLC!
    Oh yes it would, because if Rafale is selected as the RN plane, the RAF can focus on the EF to make it truly multirole, and use all the money it has sinked into barrel of the danaids to invest on further development of the EF & its subsystems & the rest on stealth UCAVs like Taranis follow on.

    Nic
    "allah akbar": NATO's new warcry.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES