The F-35 was never going to be ‘cheap’ to buy or maintain but rather cost effective (aka not that much more expensive than legacy fighters but MUCH more effective).

If I remember correctly, the F-35 was supposed to be a “cheap” stealth fighter/bomber (or bomber/fighter if you want to put it like that) from the start? Don’t think I remember anyone from LM or DoD or where abouts saying it was going to be expensive to buy and maintain?…

it looks video-shopped to me, if it was real the tarmac would catch fire or the concrete explode
myths like this are all over the net

Yeeeeeeah, I know things aren’t going smoothly for the F-35, but c’mon….:rolleyes: Just thinking there*, I don’t recall the good old little Harrier setting fire to the concrete or melting holes through the Harrier carriers… :rolleyes:

EE, I don’t know what your original intention was but it certainly seemed as a bait. I hope you’re grown enough to understand why. DJ was very much offended as every Serb would be, so I understand his response (I’m aware it wasn’t nice at all), which came as an answer to a provocative post of yours.
Now when you have nicely cleared that up we can carry on with the thread.

Regards

I’d like to add that my intentions were not meant to upset nor offend anyone in general, even if it seemed like that then I apologise. The nature of my original post was more of a personal opinion, (of which the reasons I’d rather not go into) rather than start a flame war. Yes, it were a mistake, I admit now.

Regards

I came to this forum to learn, share and exchange.. I haven’t been here long but I really wonder why every local zero thinks he can speak to me as if we have known each other for years. :confused:

Don’t worry about it. Some people get a bit touchy when one questions their super toy in a negative way, not that your comments were negative of course.

Anyway, on the supercruise bit. Call it what you want, but if an aeroplane can break the sound barrier and hold a particular speed above that without useing its reheat with or without weapons, drop tanks etc then its more than worthy enough to be called supercruise in my book. As for LM’s definition of supercruise, its nothing more than a marketing gimmick. Its just like getting on old series 3 Land Rover, stripping it down & calling it a Formula 1 car…Doesn’t make sense. I bet if the F-35 makes it to the speed of say, Mach 1.2 without reheat, I bet LM say: “LOOK! The F-35 can supercruise”.

Yes, silly them. European countries would never do such a thing! 😉

I know. Funny ironic world we live in, isn’t it. Even more funny when its obvious when selling to two countries pretty much at the same time. 😉 Funny world, funny world…

santiagorivas,

You said:
“Excuse me, but Falklands is the British name and Malvinas the Argentine name, as I respect the British name, you must respect my name.”

No, actually we don’t have to respect any such thing. The Falklands is the name preferred by the overwhelming majority (perhaps even a unanimous majority) of those who live on the Falkland Islands.

Nor, beyond mere geographic proximity, does Argentina have any legitimate claim to the Falkland Islands, let alone a claim that could overturn the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders themselves.

To claim the Falklands for Argentina is like insisting on depopulating Argentina of its existing population and returning it to those who occupied it before the Spanish settlement.

And even the argument of geographic proximity is shallow – Port Stanley is further from Buenos Aires than are Montevideo or Santiago, while South Georgia is further away than Rio. These are huge distances, and it is simply not correct to claim that the Falkland Islands have ever been part of Argentina’s territory.

The Falklands are British by history, ethnicity, culture and the overwhelming preference of their inhabitants. Those are all overwhelming arguments. Get over it, Argentina!

Actually you’re quiet right. So no personal offence, santiagorivas. I don’t take it back.

Sounds very sensible to me, although the question remains if Typhoon is too expensive 🙂

If Eurofighter were offering the same deal to me and my imaginary country (:D) and the Typhoon costs the same as it does now or in a few years time, I wouldn’t be too worried about the price of the Typhoon, I’d just take the deal because I thinks its the best one out of the lot & they’re offering a hell of a lot. ToT, partnership etc and not to mention its by far the best aeroplane as far as performance & growth potential is concerned IMHO.

I think that the Gripen is the best aircraft for the FAA, but it’s impossible to buy it until the problem on the Malvinas / Falklands could be resolved. It’s cheaper than it’s contenders, need less logistics and could be easily deployed to anywhere. It’s better for operations on non prepared bases, as most of our airports are, and on highways. Also, a good option is to first buy some second hand Gripens as a stop gap, then to buy the NG. But first of all, we have to convince our population that spending money on combat aircraft is important.

Please, just keep it at Falklands. Not Malvines. 😉