Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 68

Thread: New F35 exceeds specs by reducing them and we want to dump our Eurofighters for it!

  1. #1
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    31,619
    Thanks
    3,755
    Thanked
    5,059 times in 3,911 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    New F35 exceeds specs by reducing them and we want to dump our Eurofighters for it!

    http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/new...xtbigfuture%29

    This is the plane which will replace the Tornado and the Harriers which made up the majority of our strike force. The F35 is essentially a stealth strike fighter.

    We have about 120 Tornadoes in service and it was intended that 128 F35 fighters would replace them and the bunch of Harriers we withdrew,with a total reduction in airframes.

    The F35 programme has become so delayed and hit so many issues,that the cost per aircraft has skyrocketed and countries like Canada are considering cancellling their order. Even our F35 buy has been reduced due to the increasing cost down to 48 fighters initially:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8160ZB20120207

    Even that number is for our carriers,and probably it will mean only one of our two carriers will have a full air wing.

    However,I did not know that supposedly,the MoD said it is going to replace the Eurofighter fighters(which are more optimised for air superiority) with the F35 in the near future:

    http://www.janes.com/products/janes/...annel=business

    LOLWTF??

    To put in context this how many Eurofighters we will get:
    1.)Tranche One - 55
    2.)Tranche Two - 89
    3.)Tranche Three - 40

    That is a total of 184 aircraft bought.

    Now the first Tranche was deliver starting 2007:

    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...phoons-215964/

    However,these will be withdrawn between 2015 to 2018 as upgrading them will be too expensive(after only 8 years for the oldest),and Saudi Arabia bought the 24 of the Tranche two aircraft. So that will leave us with around 105 aircraft.

    The thing is not all the tranch two and tranch three aircraft have not been delivered yet,so it shows how young most of the aircraft will be.

    Yet now the MoD is wanting to replace the Eurofighter so soon. The timeframe is supposedly between 2015 to 2030 IIRC.

    That means the Eurofighter will have a very short lifespan as frontline RAF aircraft. Considering how much we contributed to the development,and the cost of each aircraft,so how can 10 to 20 years be an acceptable lifespan?? Moreover,the Eurofighter for non-strike duties is meant to be better suited than the F35. For instance it won't replace the F15 in USAF,and plenty of them are over 20 years old. Even the USAF F22s were delivered between 2003 and 2012,and I doubt they will be withdrawn very soon either.

    So we will spend billions on new fighters to replace old fighters we just spend billions of quid on. On top of that we are upgrading the T2 and T3 aircraft for better ground attack ability,the reason we are ditching the T1 aircraft is because they are more suited for interception duties! So what is the point of upgrading them,then if it is a stop gap??

    The worst thing is we gave up a lot of manufacturing share on the F35, to get more control over the software and Italy gets more financial benefit from the programme than us!

    Why don't we just keep a certain number of F35 for our carriers,keep our 105 already paid for Typhoons,and use UCAVs for the rest?? I can just see what will happen. We lose a lot of money ditching the Typhoons,buy more F35s which are not cheap either, and then find cheaper UCAVs can do the job of a lot of them,5 years later, and we end up wasting even more money since we will mothball a decent number of the F35s.
    Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 14-02-2013 at 11:52 PM.

  2. Received thanks from:

    watercooled (15-02-2013)

  3. #2
    HEXUS.social member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,562
    Thanks
    102
    Thanked
    320 times in 213 posts

    Re: New F35 exceeds specs by reducing them and we want to dump our Eurofighters for

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    To put in context this how many Eurofighters we will get:
    1.)Tranche One - 55
    2.)Tranche Two - 89
    3.)Tranche Three - 40

    That is a total of 184 aircraft bought.

    Now the first Tranche was deliver starting 2007:

    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...phoons-215964/
    Actually, the first Typhoons were delivered in 2005...I was working on them then! That article is about multi-role capability, which was a little rushed forward to satisfy the Saudi demand I believe.

    I find it highly unlikely that we would replace the Typhoons so quickly. The Jane's article may be referring to only replacing the T1 Typhoons with F35s, but I'll guess we'll have to wait until the 2015 SDSR to find out for sure. No doubt the Government will change their minds again... On the plus side, the F35's seem to be slipping at about the same pace as our new carriers!

  4. Received thanks from:

    CAT-THE-FIFTH (14-02-2013),watercooled (15-02-2013)

  5. #3
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    31,619
    Thanks
    3,755
    Thanked
    5,059 times in 3,911 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: New F35 exceeds specs by reducing them and we want to dump our Eurofighters for

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerrard View Post
    Actually, the first Typhoons were delivered in 2005...I was working on them then! That article is about multi-role capability, which was a little rushed forward to satisfy the Saudi demand I believe.

    I find it highly unlikely that we would replace the Typhoons so quickly. The Jane's article may be referring to only replacing the T1 Typhoons with F35s, but I'll guess we'll have to wait until the 2015 SDSR to find out for sure. No doubt the Government will change their minds again... On the plus side, the F35's seem to be slipping at about the same pace as our new carriers!
    Nice to here from someone on the actual project!!

    I hope they are not replaced that quickly too!! At least according to many evaluations around the world it is meant to a great aircraft.

    However,even then,wouldn't upgrading the T1s be cheaper than buying the F35??

    At least looking at other air forces around,the upgrade path is supposed to be cheaper than buying brand new aircraft,or would the T1s need extensive rebuilding??
    Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 15-02-2013 at 12:40 AM.

  6. #4
    Moderator chuckskull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Posts
    7,713
    Thanks
    951
    Thanked
    690 times in 463 posts
    • chuckskull's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z77-D3H
      • CPU:
      • 3570k @ 4.7 - H100i
      • Memory:
      • 32GB XMS3 1600mhz
      • Storage:
      • 256GB Samsung 850 Pro + 3TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 980Ti Classified
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic M12 700W
      • Case:
      • Corsair 500R
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus VG278HE
      • Internet:
      • FTTC

    Re: New F35 exceeds specs by reducing them and we want to dump our Eurofighters for

    Frankly it's testament to the discipline and professionalism of our armed forces that they never turn around and shoot these people. I'm not sure I could restrain myself.

    The Eurofighter has been a long time coming but it a very competent fighter and while armchair generals can whinge all they like about it being built for the last war etc. A high quality interceptor is crucial to our strategic defence as an island nation. Modern Warfare 101; no air superiority, no beach landings, no paradrops.

    The US Military industrial complex is just hilariously corrupt. Dropping the specs like this is done on almost every project. They maintain several illegal monopolies and their behaviour in political spheres is just atrocious, we shouldn't touch their products with a barge pole.

    My 2 favourite examples; Stryker MGS, designed for close infantry fire support and AT duties. Except it fires a (deliberately)lower powered 105 round to combat recoil, that won't penetrate a last gen tank out of a gun so loud it can't be fired within 500yards of dismounts because it would cause permanent and total hearing loss even with ear defenders again because due to recoil they had to fit a muzzle brake. It's an autoloader and comes with it's own replenisher, great you might think, except the replenisher is not in any way connected to the autoloader and serves only to point ammo at the crew. Speaking of ammo there is absolutely no proper HE rounds(HEAT doesn't count) for it only armour piercing which is utterly useless against buildings and personnel(according to West point 90%+ of a tanks targets in any conflict) this goes for a lot of US heavy guns(due to GDLS illegal monopoly), ever seen those vids from Iraq where tanks and APC's are just laying into brick and mud buildings for hours on end with their main armament and they don't fall down? Now you know why.

    It's turning circle is over 100ft, so they redesigned the training area to contain no 90 degree turns(cause you never see those in real life right?). Think about that with city fighting. While almost every other armoured vehicles has had a pivot ability for 50+ years. It has run flat tires, but because the suspension was chopped up to give it the ability to kneel and fit in a C-130, it can't actually run with more than two punctures because the axles snap, not to mention the fact it will quite often just kneel of it's own accord and stop completely. I suppose this problem is fixable but it's probably not worth it as a C-130 can never, ever lift it's weight. Speaking of wheels the hubs and wheel wells are practically un-armoured, an AK can penetrate them. Oh and every study ever, most of which btw performed by the US military, shows that for it's assigned role tracks are absolutely essential, yet the Strykers main selling point was the fact it had wheels. Wheels that burn and I mean really burn vulcanised rubber will do that, oh and explode with so much force it can kill and maim beyond 20ft due to the huge weight. Wheels with a ground pressure that would embarrass 80ton tanks. Wheels that in their own testing were defeated by a drum roll please... 6 degree slope, yeah SIX. YCMIU.

    It's wiring is so bad it needs a breaker box, yeah really and is designed not only without spall liners(standard since WW2), which are utterly crucial to crew safety, but in a way that they can never be fitted due to terrible ergonomics. Ergonomics so bad several have been lost to people walking up to them with a carrier bag full of explosives, lighting the fuse and walking away while fully manned and on alert, because visibility is just that bad.

    I could keep going for hours, but I'll spare you, if you're bored and want a laugh(or cry) go read about how New Zealand ended up with no air force due to a variant of this very vehicle.

    Or the M1A2 'The best tank in the world'(sic) with no proper HE rounds(see above) and turbine engine that burns with an exhaust so hot if they travel to close in convoy it will set the tank behind on fire, yup really. Over 700c, hope nobody invents some kind of heat seeking technology... oh in the 50's you say? Oh along with vegetation, buildings, people and well anything else with a flashpoint below 700c. That uses almost exactly the same amount of fuel whether you're at the Abrams claimed but never demonstrated top speed or sitting idle. That same top speed used to calculate it's range which looks ok on paper but is only achievable at top speed. Any drop below that speed equals an equivalent drop in range. Oh and if you drive it at top speed, you're going to want a new power pack by next week. Oh and don't go crushing cars with your tank, I knows it's tempting, because the gearbox can only take about 3 sedans before again the whole power pack needs replacing. Not to mention, shedding tracks, still not having a proper APU, less ammo stowage than any previous US tank and only having composite armour on the front and DU in the rest. Yeah that DU the radioactive pyrophoric one.

    Ok that's enough military nerding, to make the point; This is fairly standard behaviour of the US military industrial complex, the people we are relying on to provide perhaps our most crucial layer of national defence and the majority of our strike capabilities. We're buying a flying version of that tat. These companies have a long and proud tradition of utter failure at great expense.

    I'd take EADS over these people any day and I can't really think of a more damning criticism than that.
    Last edited by chuckskull; 15-02-2013 at 12:45 AM.

  7. Received thanks from:

    Andeh13 (16-02-2013),CAT-THE-FIFTH (15-02-2013),Phage (15-02-2013),watercooled (15-02-2013)

  8. #5
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    31,619
    Thanks
    3,755
    Thanked
    5,059 times in 3,911 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: New F35 exceeds specs by reducing them and we want to dump our Eurofighters for

    Quote Originally Posted by chuckskull View Post
    Frankly it's testament to the discipline and professionalism of our armed forces that they never turn around and shoot these people. I'm not sure I could restrain myself.

    The Eurofighter has been a long time coming but it a very competent fighter and while armchair generals can whinge all they like about it being built for the last war etc. A high quality interceptor is crucial to our strategic defence as an island nation. Modern Warfare 101; no air superiority, no beach landings, no paradrops.

    The US Military industrial complex is just hilariously corrupt. Dropping the specs like this is done on almost every project. They maintain several illegal monopolies and their behaviour in political spheres is just atrocious, we shouldn't touch their products with a barge pole.

    My 2 favourite examples; Stryker MGS, designed for close infantry fire support and AT duties. Except it fires a (deliberately)lower powered 105 round to combat recoil, that won't penetrate a last gen tank out of a gun so loud it can't be fired within 500yards of dismounts because it would cause permanent and total hearing loss even with ear defenders again because due to recoil they had to fit a muzzle brake. It's an autoloader and comes with it's own replenisher, great you might think, except the replenisher is not in any way connected to the autoloader and serves only to point ammo at the crew. Speaking of ammo there is absolutely no proper HE rounds(HEAT doesn't count) for it only armour piercing which is utterly useless against buildings and personnel(according to West point 90%+ of a tanks targets in any conflict) this goes for a lot of US heavy guns(due to GDLS illegal monopoly), ever seen those vids from Iraq where tanks and APC's are just laying into brick and mud buildings for hours on end with their main armament and they don't fall down? Now you know why.

    It's turning circle is over 100ft, so they redesigned the training area to contain no 90 degree turns(cause you never see those in real life right?). Think about that with city fighting. While almost every other armoured vehicles has had a pivot ability for 50+ years. It has run flat tires, but because the suspension was chopped up to give it the ability to kneel and fit in a C-130, it can't actually run with more than two punctures because the axles snap, not to mention the fact it will quite often just kneel of it's own accord and stop completely. I suppose this problem is fixable but it's probably not worth it as a C-130 can never, ever lift it's weight. Speaking of wheels the hubs and wheel wells are practically un-armoured, an AK can penetrate them. Oh and every study ever, most of which btw performed by the US military, shows that for it's assigned role tracks are absolutely essential, yet the Strykers main selling point was the fact it had wheels. Wheels that burn and I mean really burn vulcanised rubber will do that, oh and explode with so much force it can kill and maim beyond 20ft due to the huge weight. Wheels with a ground pressure that would embarrass 80ton tanks. Wheels that in their own testing were defeated by a drum roll please... 6 degree slope, yeah SIX. YCMIU.

    It's wiring is so bad it needs a breaker box, yeah really and is designed not only without spall liners(standard since WW2), which are utterly crucial to crew safety, but in a way that they can never be fitted due to terrible ergonomics. Ergonomics so bad several have been lost to people walking up to them with a carrier full of explosives, lighting the fuse and walking away while fully manned and on alert, because visibility is just that bad.

    I could keep going for hours, but I'll spare you, if you're bored and want a laugh(or cry) go read about how New Zealand ended up with no air force due to a variant of this very vehicle.

    Or the M1A2 'The best tank in the world'(sic) with no proper HE rounds(see above) and turbine engine that burns with an exhaust so hot if they travel to close in convoy it will set the tank behind on fire, yup really. Over 700c, hope nobody invents some kind of heat seeking technology... oh in the 50's you say? Oh along with vegetation, buildings, people and well anything else with a flashpoint below 700c. That uses almost exactly the same amount of fuel whether you're at the Abrams claimed but never demonstrated top speed or sitting idle. That same top speed used to calculate it's range which looks ok on paper but is only achievable at top speed. Any drop below that speed equals an equivalent drop in range. Oh and if you drive it at top speed, you're going to want a new power pack by next week. Oh and don't go crushing cars with your tank, I knows it's tempting, because the gearbox can only take about 3 sedans before again the whole power pack needs replacing. Not to mention, shedding tracks, still not having a proper APU, less ammo stowage than any previous US tank and only having composite armour on the front and DU in the rest. Yeah that DU the radioactive pyrophoric one.

    Ok that's enough military nerding, to make the point; This is fairly standard behaviour of the US military industrial complex, the people we are relying on to provide perhaps our most crucial layer of national defence and the majority of our strike capabilities. We're buying a flying version of that tat. These companies have a long and proud tradition of utter failure at great expense.

    I'd take EADS over these people any day and I can't really think of a more damning criticism than that.
    Wow!

    About New Zealand,do you have any links on the connection between their LAVs and the withdrawal of the combat aircraft?? It would be interesting to read!

  9. #6
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    31,619
    Thanks
    3,755
    Thanked
    5,059 times in 3,911 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: New F35 exceeds specs by reducing them and we want to dump our Eurofighters for

    Just read the link again - the additional F35s they are thinking of getting are land based F35A fighters,so it is even weirder they want to replace the Eurofighter with it??

  10. #7
    Moderator chuckskull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Posts
    7,713
    Thanks
    951
    Thanked
    690 times in 463 posts
    • chuckskull's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z77-D3H
      • CPU:
      • 3570k @ 4.7 - H100i
      • Memory:
      • 32GB XMS3 1600mhz
      • Storage:
      • 256GB Samsung 850 Pro + 3TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 980Ti Classified
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic M12 700W
      • Case:
      • Corsair 500R
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus VG278HE
      • Internet:
      • FTTC

    Re: New F35 exceeds specs by reducing them and we want to dump our Eurofighters for

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    Wow!

    About New Zealand,do you have any links on the connection between their LAVs and the withdrawal of the combat aircraft?? It would be interesting to read!
    I actually heard the story from a former RNZAF guy who came over to the RAF. The short version is GDLS's bribed lots of people to push through a $700million order for a LAV variant named the NZLAV an order paid for by not going through with the purchase of F16's and scrapping their other air combat wings. Leaving them with no fighter aircraft what so ever. NZ only managed to deploy 8 to Afghanistan, due to their sheer weight once again and have mothballed and are trying to flog a good chunk of the fleet already.

    Current strength is less 70 aircraft total. From wiki;

    No. 3 Squadron RNZAF—UH-1 Iroquois/Agusta 109LUH/NH-90 RNZAF Base Ohakea
    No. 5 Squadron RNZAF—P-3 Orion RNZAF Base Auckland
    No. 6 Squadron RNZAF—SH-2 Seasprite RNZAF Base Auckland
    No. 40 Squadron RNZAF—C-130 Hercules/Boeing 757 RNZAF Base Auckland
    No. 42 Squadron RNZAF—Beech Kingair B200 RNZAF Base Ohakea
    PTS/CFS—CT-4E Airtrainer RNZAF Base Ohakea
    You'll notice a distinct lack of weaponry for something described as a force. Many of the people incriminated in these articles now work for GDLS or their subsidiaries.

    http://www.newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=737
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...bjectid=585147
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0108/S00440.htm
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10010097
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0406/S00175.htm

    There's plenty more out there on it.

    EDIT: Gotta love the internet, no matter what it is there's someone out there was a serious bee in their bonnet over it. If you can get past the god awful presentation, this seems well fact checked and pretty comprehensive; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqapvvBaYxw (4 parts).
    Last edited by chuckskull; 15-02-2013 at 01:24 AM. Reason: links

  11. Received thanks from:

    CAT-THE-FIFTH (15-02-2013),mikerr (15-02-2013)

  12. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,567
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked
    179 times in 134 posts

    Re: New F35 exceeds specs by reducing them and we want to dump our Eurofighters for

    recent flight article is saying the F-35 (according to the maker) has better kinetic performance than a `phoon (the A2A bomber killer remember , designed to fight the very best flankers in a turning fight) , also is better than a Rafale and a gryphon and can match the F-22.

    thats the same F22 that when the luftwaffe took there eurofighter to on a red flag , the F22 drivers said (on record) , once you get to the merge , the eurofighter has nothing at all to fear from the F22 ; the USA were also surprised of just how good the mechanical radar on teh eurofighter actually is... and they`re getting an electronic set as we. Most pilots are saying teh F35 will be a reasonable bomb truck.... but it`ll never be an F16.

    BAe need to be shot - `easily converted carrier design` that the moment its mentioned for cat and trap , oh thats an extra £1 BILLION.

    erm , wheres the cheap and easy part then?


    replacing the tranche 1 typhoons.

    this has been mentioned for a while now actually - the eurofighter was desined A2A , and now we need A2G on it - thats the cost part , adding A2G to an aircraft not wired for it; hence why most nations are looking at off loading them when they can - they can drop A2G stuff , but LGB`s need external targetting , cant use gsp guided (lack of wiring) and alot of other smart stuff cant be self designated

    BUT


    neither could the GR1 tonka`s on `sand box part 1` in 1991 , when the realised that the runway denial mission didnt quite work as well as they wanted and they had to stick stuff at FL25+. along came the bucc`s to designate for the tonka`s and voila that worked (dont get me started on scrapping the buccs... faster in the weeds than most other aircraft , even now)


    as for cost of the F35

    australia wont be buying many now - they have a second order for 24 for sub hornets (sorry super hornet) and just paid for 12 of the previous order to be EA-18G birds , and honestly i can see canada going the same way;

    and all it`ll take it 1 euro country to reduce or cancel their planned purchase and the house of cards omes down.

    3000 to be made? can only see 1000 at best for the USA @ $250 million each
    Last edited by HalloweenJack; 15-02-2013 at 02:29 PM.

  13. #9
    Pork & Beans Powerup Phage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    6,260
    Thanks
    1,618
    Thanked
    608 times in 518 posts
    • Phage's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Crosshair VIII
      • CPU:
      • 3800x
      • Memory:
      • 16Gb @ 3600Mhz
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 960 512Gb + 2Tb Samsung 860
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 1080ti
      • PSU:
      • BeQuiet 850w
      • Case:
      • Fractal Define 7
      • Operating System:
      • W10 64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Iiyama GB3461WQSU-B1

    Re: New F35 exceeds specs by reducing them and we want to dump our Eurofighters for

    Ok - I followed that for a while...I think I could probably have stopped here.

    "Frankly it's testament to the discipline and professionalism of our armed forces that they never turn around and shoot these people. I'm not sure I could restrain myself."

    Good call.
    Society's to blame,
    Or possibly Atari.

  14. #10
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,459
    Thanks
    1,539
    Thanked
    1,022 times in 868 posts

    Re: New F35 exceeds specs by reducing them and we want to dump our Eurofighters for

    Loads of good points there, and some stuff I wasn't aware of. Not to mention a refreshing change from any minor criticism of anything American on some other forums results in a massive influx of super-trolls (think Intel vs AMD is bad?) defending the gear based on on-paper specs. Other problems I've heard from fielded M1 is the inferior armour, quite a few have been lost to fairly basic enemy fire in recent conflicts, as well as a few who thought it was a good idea to drive over IEDs (although it's probably more correct to blame the crew in those cases). People often come out with the argument 'oh but there were a lot more Abrams in the country than Challengers' well yeah there might have been, but they were in far lower demand, and such a statement is pretty insulting to the CR2 crews. And the gun, isn't the M1 still using the L44 gun, vs the L55 in the Leopard 2, and the L55 rifled gun in the CR2? Best tank in the world my rear. Well, the powerpack is meant to be quieter than a 1,200hp Perkins Diesel.

    I agree we should have as little to do with that industry as possible, based on blank cheques, have the gov't spying for them, and can out-bribe other countries. Pity we're so reliant on the F-35B for STOVL, as cancelling it would likely be a nice surprise for them.

    Remember that incident where two F-15s were IIRC flying over near Cumbria or something (could be completely wrong on location) and pinged a Typhoon. The mock dogfight that ensued would have seen both F-15s destroyed, but since it was their most advanced fighter at the time, they were obviously embarrassed and did what they could to put a lid on it. There was also a more official test vs the Spanish Air Force, with similar results.

    The F-22 seems an essentially useless aircraft for anything other than a US mainland invasion, where they need to keep air superiority. Communication and armament is so limited, it's simply not suitable for other roles. As for its performance, I take the usual chest-beating with a pinch of salt, but I don't personally know enough to argue either way.

  15. #11
    Moderator chuckskull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Posts
    7,713
    Thanks
    951
    Thanked
    690 times in 463 posts
    • chuckskull's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z77-D3H
      • CPU:
      • 3570k @ 4.7 - H100i
      • Memory:
      • 32GB XMS3 1600mhz
      • Storage:
      • 256GB Samsung 850 Pro + 3TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 980Ti Classified
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic M12 700W
      • Case:
      • Corsair 500R
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus VG278HE
      • Internet:
      • FTTC

    Re: New F35 exceeds specs by reducing them and we want to dump our Eurofighters for

    Been reading more this morning, and well I can't find a single metric, bar radar cross section in which even F35As will outperform the Typhoon(assuming Tranche 3/3A, Captor-e and full weapons integration, which all have a comparable in service date). It's goes higher, faster, further and in the dogfight they aren't even comparable, the F35 being an order of magnitude less agile than an F22 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Kl-Jz8swN4..._F-15_F-35.jpg , a plane the phoon can happily go toe to toe with in the merge, does it all with supercruise, better sensors and a heavier weapons load. The only way the F35 can even get close in many of these metrics is to sacrifice it's stealth by using external pylons(a fact Lockheed Martin desperately tries to skirt around with sophistry and outright lies), which rather defeats the point.

    F35 proponents like to call the F35 "better armed", due to the F35 being able to field a wider range of ground attack weapons, except it can't yet. Just like the Typhoon. There's also the problem that some of these weapons will not even fit the F35 internally, again negating it's only advantage. An advantage that is already becoming technologically and tactically whittled away, due to improvements in both. The Typhoon does all this with a lower unit and lifetime/maintenance cost and far more potential for upgrades, due to it's more traditional airframe(Think Eagle to Strike Eagle). All while providing lots and lots of UK jobs. Did we need more jobs? I can't remember.

    These difference are only exacerbated in the STOVL variant. Regular vertical landings are admitted to greatly increase wear and in turn maintenance and ours will only be landing vertically on carrier ops. We should can the whole order and spend the money on cats, traps and the naval Typhoon, but we can't or Obama will sulk and send back another statue or something. We really should have listened to France 20 years ago, as galling as that is to say.

    As of last year the pentagon also identifies the following 'concerns', from wiki;


    The helmet-mounted display system does not work properly.
    The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard.
    The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service.
    The F-35C's arresting hook does not work.
    Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth.[160]
    The wing buffet is worse than previously reported.
    The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan.
    The flight test program has yet to explore the most challenging areas.
    The software development is behind schedule.
    The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, not properly balanced for VTOL operations.
    There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft.
    The automated logistics information system is partially developed.
    The lightning protection on the F-35 is uncertified, with areas of concern.
    It's a monkey model.

    United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper said after flying the Eurofighter, "I have flown all the air force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter."

  16. Received thanks from:

    scaryjim (15-02-2013)

  17. #12
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    31,619
    Thanks
    3,755
    Thanked
    5,059 times in 3,911 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: New F35 exceeds specs by reducing them and we want to dump our Eurofighters for

    It was a trainer version of the Typhoon too.

    The thing is for a country with such a massive defence budget,we are quite poorly defended. For instance our SAM network is basically a mix of old Rapier low level systems which have under 10KM range and short range MANPADs. In fact our Type 45 ships have our longest range systems in Aster. However,there are really meant for fleet defence.

    Outside of that,it is our fighters which really are the primary element of our air defence. The Typhoon is a high performance air superiority fighter. The F35 is more a strike fighter which is trying to do other things too. It is not meant to be uber manoeuvrable,be the best for acceleration or even have a highe top speed. In fact it seems the F16 Block 50 is meant to be better in some performance areas when compared to the F35 in air interception duties in things such as acceleration.

    So it is hilarious,the MoD is trying to dump the Eurofighter with the land based F35A. The F35A cannot be deployed on carriers so will be used mainly for air defence,and yet the Eurofighter already does that!!

  18. #13
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Gateshead
    Posts
    15,196
    Thanks
    1,230
    Thanked
    2,291 times in 1,874 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Dell Inspiron
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 8250U
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR4 2666
      • Storage:
      • 128GB M.2 SSD + 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon R5 230
      • PSU:
      • Battery/Dell brick
      • Case:
      • Dell Inspiron 5570
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1080p laptop panel

    Re: New F35 exceeds specs by reducing them and we want to dump our Eurofighters for

    Quote Originally Posted by chuckskull View Post
    ... All while providing lots and lots of UK jobs. Did we need more jobs? I can't remember. ...
    All the aircrafty stuff in this thread is going way over my head, but it was worth reading it just for this line - made me giggle like a naughty schoolboy! Nicely put sir

  19. #14
    Moderator chuckskull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Posts
    7,713
    Thanks
    951
    Thanked
    690 times in 463 posts
    • chuckskull's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z77-D3H
      • CPU:
      • 3570k @ 4.7 - H100i
      • Memory:
      • 32GB XMS3 1600mhz
      • Storage:
      • 256GB Samsung 850 Pro + 3TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 980Ti Classified
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic M12 700W
      • Case:
      • Corsair 500R
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus VG278HE
      • Internet:
      • FTTC

    Re: New F35 exceeds specs by reducing them and we want to dump our Eurofighters for

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    Outside of that,it is our fighters which really are the primary element of our air defence. The Typhoon is a high performance air superiority fighter. The F35 is more a strike fighter which is trying to do other things too. It is not meant to be uber manoeuvrable,be the best for acceleration or even have a highe top speed. In fact it seems the F16 Block 50 is meant to be better in some performance areas when compared to the F35 in air interception duties in things such as acceleration.
    That's one of the most damning things, by the time the Typhoon is at Tranche 3 standards and has the A2G stuff integrated it will make a better strike fighter anyway. The only field the F35 might have an advantage would be A2G SEAD, due to it's stealth, but that's done at standoff ranges anyway and I'm not convinced that even in that scenario that a Tphoon with 6-8 HARM style missiles wouldn't outperform an F35 with 2.

  20. #15
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    31,619
    Thanks
    3,755
    Thanked
    5,059 times in 3,911 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: New F35 exceeds specs by reducing them and we want to dump our Eurofighters for

    Quote Originally Posted by chuckskull View Post
    That's one of the most damning things, by the time the Typhoon is at Tranche 3 standards and has the A2G stuff integrated it will make a better strike fighter anyway. The only field the F35 might have an advantage would be A2G SEAD, due to it's stealth, but that's done at standoff ranges anyway and I'm not convinced that even in that scenario that a Tphoon with 6-8 HARM style missiles wouldn't outperform an F35 with 2.
    I can even understand the use of the F35B for carriers,but I simply don't understand what the heck the MoD is smoking?? The RAF is kept all its other types in service for decades too.

    It does make me think,whether this is simply a money grab,so they can keep the defence budget up.

  21. #16
    Moderator chuckskull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Posts
    7,713
    Thanks
    951
    Thanked
    690 times in 463 posts
    • chuckskull's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z77-D3H
      • CPU:
      • 3570k @ 4.7 - H100i
      • Memory:
      • 32GB XMS3 1600mhz
      • Storage:
      • 256GB Samsung 850 Pro + 3TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 980Ti Classified
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic M12 700W
      • Case:
      • Corsair 500R
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus VG278HE
      • Internet:
      • FTTC

    Re: New F35 exceeds specs by reducing them and we want to dump our Eurofighters for

    Oh definitely, this is all about money and politics.

Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast

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
  •