Read the forum code of contact
By: - 4th January 2015 at 15:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: - 4th January 2015 at 18:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm torn on the notion of the U.S./NATO shouldn't have purchased the F-35. In my opinion, besides being a scam to make a whole bunch of companies money courtesy of the taxpayer, I'm not sure the F-35 is needed. From what I read about the aircraft, it really isn't what the designers cracked it up to be. I do agree that something is needed, but I am not sure the F-35 is it. I don't believe that the F-35 is a replacement for the A-10 based on pure capability. It seems as if all of these air arms put their eggs in the F-35 basket and it the product is not all it is cracked up to be.
By: - 4th January 2015 at 20:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Austria: should have bought Gripen instead of Typhoon. Perfectly adequate for Austria's needs, cheaper to buy & operate, & logistics could have been pooled with Hungary & the Czech Republic.
By: - 4th January 2015 at 21:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gripen E is what the Gripen C should have been
By: - 4th January 2015 at 22:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm torn on the notion of the U.S./NATO shouldn't have purchased the F-35. In my opinion, besides being a scam to make a whole bunch of companies money courtesy of the taxpayer, I'm not sure the F-35 is needed. From what I read about the aircraft, it really isn't what the designers cracked it up to be. I do agree that something is needed, but I am not sure the F-35 is it. I don't believe that the F-35 is a replacement for the A-10 based on pure capability. It seems as if all of these air arms put their eggs in the F-35 basket and it the product is not all it is cracked up to be.Don't let the F-35 lovers on the F-35 thread see this you'll have them crying in their beer (or milk as I get the impression that some of the posters are not old enough for beer, mostly the ones who are most vociferous in defence of the pig).
By: - 4th January 2015 at 22:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
India should've bought the ex Qatari Mirage 2000s...
And the Mirage 2000 production line when it was offered . . .
India shouldn't have bought the Gorshkov
But had the first of class of the IAC built in Italy with Indians observing & learning, while India prepared to build the second of class.
actually I feel that half the list will mention India..
:D
Let's add -
India should have selected the RR offer to re-engine Jaguar, & actually had the project underway by now.
I think there will be examples from Malaysia along soon.
By: - 4th January 2015 at 23:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And the Mirage 2000 production line when it was offered.
Plus one
RN should have gone for Spey engined Crusaders instead of Phantoms (no need to buy carriers and planes and refurb older flat tops all in one go and commonality with our nearest big naval ally)
RN should have gone for CTOL (or at very least contract writers should have insisted that FFBNW cats and traps actually stayed in place during detailed design phase of QE2)
RAAF should have got Buccaneers not Aardvarks
USN should have selected A11 not A12
NATO should have gone for .280 and British Army bought EM2
RAN should have gone Japanese for their Collins class
whoever suggested PFI for RAF IAR should have been shot
likewise whoever allowed a submarine designing and building holiday in the UK
By: - 4th January 2015 at 23:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One problem with that list. Japan had a complete ban on arms exports when the Collins class was ordered & built.
By: - 5th January 2015 at 00:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Australia should've bought Rafale instead of F-35.
By: - 5th January 2015 at 00:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i don't see how you can justify the extra expenses on logistic with Raf when you have alrdy SH in your fleet... It does not make any senses.
If you had in mind that Au shld have bought Rafale instead of SH, then that could be discussed rationally.
But by the way, shld hve Australia bought Tiger and NH90 ? ;)
By: - 5th January 2015 at 00:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i don't see how you can justify the extra expenses on logistic with Raf when you have alrdy SH in your fleet... It does not make any senses.If you had in mind that Au shld have bought Rafale instead of SH, then that could be discussed rationally.
But by the way, shld hve Australia bought Tiger and NH90 ? ;)
Australia did not have SH at the time, and only has so now due to the repeated failures of the F-35 program and government bureaucracy taking the path of least resistance (imagination, career risk, etc.) at each successive turn. So yes, the suggestion is that Australia should've bought Rafale instead of SH+F-35.
NH90 was clearly the wrong choice. Tiger is more complicated.
By: - 5th January 2015 at 00:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Everyone that has bought the nh90 should have bought other helicopters instead...
By: - 5th January 2015 at 00:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok understood. I completely agree. But the Growler is a nice little temptation when Boeing start marketing their fighter.
By: - 5th January 2015 at 01:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In the naval aviation realm, France should have developed a carrier-capable multirole Mirage F1M (preferably M53 powered) in the early 70s, instead of wasting time with the Jaguar M, warmed-up Super Etendard and Crusader upgrades.
If the Cold War had gone hot, the European buyers of the F16A would have regretted not buying the Mirage F1-M53 instead.
Luckily for them, the wars that did come generously waited for the F16 MLU upgrade to fix the F-16As limited capabilities, and were ideally suited to close air support (instead of more stressful high-altitude BVR scenarios).
By: - 5th January 2015 at 03:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Everyone that has bought the nh90 should have bought other helicopters instead...
Other helicopters like what? There wasn't that much choice 15 years ago. Funny how bad press (especially in Germany) is overriding positive news.
The NH90 seen by its pilots (in French)
By: - 5th January 2015 at 03:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm torn on the notion of the U.S./NATO shouldn't have purchased the F-35. In my opinion, besides being a scam to make a whole bunch of companies money courtesy of the taxpayer, I'm not sure the F-35 is needed. From what I read about the aircraft, it really isn't what the designers cracked it up to be. I do agree that something is needed, but I am not sure the F-35 is it. I don't believe that the F-35 is a replacement for the A-10 based on pure capability. It seems as if all of these air arms put their eggs in the F-35 basket and it the product is not all it is cracked up to be.
In light of recent Chinese and Russian advances, spelling out a requirement for a fifth gen aircraft was wise. The F-22 ran on proprietary software and couldn't be navalized. So a new fifth gen design was required. The USMC had a fleet of AV-8Bs needing replacement, so a STOVL capability was required to standardization and to reduce costs through higher economies. So the design needed a STOVL variant. (And the F-35B's export prospects are shaping up to be excellent.) It needed to be able to carry a standoff strike weapon internally, so deeper weapons bays were necessary.
In the end, the program over-promised (cheaper than the SH, IOC in ten years flat), and it was badly mismanaged for a long while but for the most part it has delivered what could reasonably be expected.
(The A-10 is also being replaced by the F-16, F-15E, B1B in the CAS role. The days of low level gun attacks are coming to an end. Even the A-10 uses the AGM-65 as its primary air-to-ground weapon rather than the main gun.)
By: - 5th January 2015 at 03:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
India should have selected the RR offer to re-engine Jaguar, & actually had the project underway by now.
That one was sound. The aircraft's performance in hot and high conditions is poor and a significant thrust upgrade is necessary, if its to be operated past 2020.
By: - 5th January 2015 at 11:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It ain't sound if it doesn't happen. The technically & financially more challenging option was chosen, & seems to have run into quicksand.
By: - 5th January 2015 at 12:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That one was sound. The aircraft's performance in hot and high conditions is poor and a significant thrust upgrade is necessary, if its to be operated past 2020.
Or they could just retire them from 2020-2025 and replace with Tejas/Mk. 2.
Even today that still might be the best course of action.
By: - 5th January 2015 at 13:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
India shouldn't have bought the Gorshkov
They still got a good deal even after the price increases.
Slightly outside of the topic, but still fits;
F-23, F-23, F-23. Did i mention F-23? With F120's...
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 4th January 2015 at 15:09
Brazil should've chose the Gripen from the first FX
India should've bought the ex Qatari Mirage 2000s
Russia should've built their own landing dock carrier instead of buying French
India shouldn't have bought the Gorshkov
actually I feel that half the list will mention India..