Hi All,
Yet more outstanding work by all you snappers who are so generous sharing your photos with all on the forum many thanks and keep up the good work. :applause:

Geoff.

Hi All,
PJ,
Many thanks for the article great post and like you say that Stuka looked to be a good candidate for recovery ? On the initial image I thought wow then as you got closer it looked rougher and rougher but all the same excellent stuff. :applause:

Geoff.

Hi All,
Cd,
You make some good points in particular about the F.3 I remember reading that on quite a few exercises it held it’s own against F-16 and F-15’s despite it not being a thoroughbred designed fighter. This old Telegraph article I found while searching some other info on the F-35 it basically outlines what I have been banging on about, I was wrong when I stated no test pilot’s would speak out against it, one senior pilot has in this article referring to how he shot it down and how it couldn’t stand up to a Typhoon. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/farnborough-airshow/10977537/Everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-F-35-Britains-70m-new-stealth-fighter.html
It also states much of what I said about the Costs/Payload etc.etc.etc. also like I said other aircraft could be upgraded, in the end it’s a nice Idea but badly planned for while trying to make an aircraft that can perform miracles the one it may not perform is surviving the battle field it was intended for.

Geoff.

Hi All,
God this thread has expanded just catching up with all you others, some good points well made but Snafu made a point that has affected various aircraft programmes over the years (IMHO)Uncle Sam peering over our shoulder telling us what we can and can’t do and whose toes we will be treading on if we go ahead with A/B or C. Like mentioned the will of each country’s government is a critical factor in the decision making progress of coarse the all empowering bankers are in their with their 2d worth and at the end of the day all these mixed together give us what we have now a programme that while on the surface appears an excellent choice has just become black hole for money (As like mentioned earlier who wouldn’t want one aircraft hat can do all)
Like the saying goes to many cooks spoil the broth this I fear is what has been the main cause of the problems that plus the promises made of the aircrafts performance and capabilities not living up to what was stated on the tin and falling short with all the complexities the programme has had in the on going saga that is F-35.

Geoff.

Why don’t we buy the F22 Raptor from the USA, seems to fit the bill.
Jim
Lincoln .7

Hi All,
Jim hasn’t that still got some teething troubles or have they been sorted now anybody ???

Geoff.

But cheaper than a solely British programme along the lines of Rafale or Grippen…

…but still not as cheap as some on this thread want (and claim is possible)!

There have been failures in procurement in Britain but are we really saying that the procurement executive in the United States, Italy, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, and Israel (Israel!) are also, at best, incompetent or, at worst, corrupt?

Hi All,
CD,
You mention these country’s but most are having second thoughts due to the cost overrun, the initial idea was that the cost per basic unit would decrease for everybody who bought into the programme plus what extras you have as a personal fit I assume, but on the whole the price per unit has steadily increased with all the delays over and above what was promised, yet still these problems are not being fixed and everybody is asking to stump more money, thus reducing the amount of units purchased by each country that pushed the price up yet again per basic unit as the total units ordered are now falling it just appears to m a never-ending story of wanting more and more money.

Geoff.

Hawk and BAe-146? Right, so as examples of Britain’s ability to ‘get it right’ we have to go back forty years?

Also neatly forgetting Britain’s last attempt to go it alone with a modern combat aircraft, not a fighter perhaps, but extremely software intensive, and ‘low risk’ by being a development of an existing proven design: Nimrod MRA4.

I am not for a second saying that Britain doesn’t have the capability to design a modern combat aircraft but we certainly lack the political will; our politicians (and more than a few forum members) are terrified of spending money and therefore we are condemned to do the best we can ‘on the cheap’!

I also do not think the F-35 is any ‘wonder plane’ although I’m prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt (and time to develop) before I condemn it.

The Rafale, F/A-18 and Grippen are fine aircraft but I do not believe that they are right for Britain as they are all mature designs and the total British input would be virtually zero. There would be a cost saving certainly but that cost ‘saving’ would inevitably result in a cut in funding of British aircraft design jobs; British skills would be lost and French, American and Swedish jobs would be preserved (and subsidised by the British taxpayer). Successive British governments have had little understanding of this aspect of aircraft procurement and is is not understood at all by the vast majority of British taxpayers (even those that think we should be spending the money on defence in the first place).

In that respect the F-35 is the best choice for Britain or, at least, the least worse choice for Britain.

Hi All,
CD,
What do you think of a navalised Typhoon in respect of the navy ?

Geoff.

I have little interest in current aircraft development, but I would make two points here.

1) Wouldn’t expecting the FAA to face combat with an upgraded Harrier be something akin to expecting the WW2 FAA to be operating an upgraded Sea Gladiator rather than an F4U or similar?

2) It is not possible to state it was ‘the wrong choice’ when you haven’t a clue as to the capabilities and problems of an upgraded Harrier. That statement is just wishful guesswork.

Moggy

Hi All,
Moggy,
My point about the upgraded Harrier is simply that they had plans for this but as already mentioned but where persuaded to back the white elephant that has promised all to everybody who got sucked into the programme as I have said there was an option for a navalised Typhoon it’s not that I don’t think the forces didn’t need to upgrade but at what cost and where do you have a cut off point and say enough is enough if the F-35 was as good as was the fanfare why have they just voted the continuation of the A-10 after all close air support is one of it’s major roles supposedly ?
I agree that replacing an aircraft with a similar like aircraft is defeating the object and like I said I agree upgrades are needed but not at the expense that has been pumped into this money pit, my other problem is they where really just getting the hang of the VSTOL world operating the Harrier then instead of walking a bit faster with the developments they had those who control the budget decided to go for the 100mt Gold medal and thus resulting with all the problems of the F-35 I like you do not follow the infinitely intense world of all the ins and out but I can see where good money is being thrown after bad if the F-35 had completed all the tasks without the problems that I have noticed and the videos that I have watched were major players have said that it simply cannot do what was advertised by the salesman and before you say it that probably happens to most programmes no matter what they but it’s the sheer lunacy hat sees money being thrown at programmes like this when the whole of our armed forces in the U.K. at least could have upgraded weapons I suggest.

Geoff.