Britain told "No Access" to F-35 Software codes
Discussion
aeropilot said:
Makes me think we (netherlands) should just get it over with and buy some eurofighters, by the time those have lasted their useful life the F35 might be nearing completion...Vitorio said:
aeropilot said:
Makes me think we (netherlands) should just get it over with and buy some eurofighters, by the time those have lasted their useful life the F35 might be nearing completion...I can't ever see the Netherlands, Norway, Italy etc., ever going it alone and needed first day strike capability!!
Stupifing decision.
aeropilot said:
I don't understand why any of the 'F-35' EU countries have ordered the bloody things......over ordering either Eurofighter, Rafale or Gripen instead.
I can't ever see the Netherlands, Norway, Italy etc., ever going it alone and needed first day strike capability!!
Stupifing decision.
Indeed, but just for us personally, we tend to want to be the best boy in class, and cow-tow to the US quite a bit. There also were lots of promises about maintenance/fab/dev work for subsystems of the F35 to be granted to dutch companies. Any economic bonus of those promises have probably long since been ruined by the cost/time overruns on the project though.I can't ever see the Netherlands, Norway, Italy etc., ever going it alone and needed first day strike capability!!
Stupifing decision.
V8 Fettler said:
It's depressing that the UK cannot design and build its own maritime aircraft to meet its own unique needs.
Considerable UK design imput into the F-35, with many UK design staff at LM.We wouldn't ever be buying enough of anything to ever afford to design & build on our own. Simple economics I'm afraid.
Sylvaforever said:
" I'm sure any other stealth plane on reheat looks the same"
Hmmm, go to the back of the classroom. 30 years in development and redesign? passive sensor capability has moved ahead in generational terms.
Name me one aircraft in the world this isn't true for? Any one will do, just one.Hmmm, go to the back of the classroom. 30 years in development and redesign? passive sensor capability has moved ahead in generational terms.
Sylvaforever said:
In fact the optional upgrade to the F35's electro optical suite [yours for 5 million+] is already 2 generations behind the lightning pod being fitted to Omani typhoons.
I'm guessing you mean the Litening pod but it too will be obsolete soon enough, thats the nature of the business. Trouble is, its an unstealthy podded solution (by the way they still cost an arm and a leg and require expensive qualification onto the platform and avionics upgrades). I don't know how £5million a pop compares with the all up cost of rolling out a new podded optical sensor but I'll tell you unless your fleet is very large it's not going to be so very different.Sylvaforever said:
btw F22 can supercruise, go look it up.
Wind your arrogance back a notch or two, you might find it comes down to merely 10. I'm well aware of this, I do it for a living. You posted images of reheat (for no apparent reason) as if it supported your arguments.Sylvaforever said:
F35 transonic acceleration times? that reheat becomes an AD magnet.
Really? which long range optical system are you referring to? which of the F35 roles require it to be supersonic? which ones require it to be supersonic within the sightline and range of your optical AD system? As far as I am aware there are no public domain facts about whether F35 can even sustain supersonic speeds without reheat, the suspicion is that it cannot but it can nudge supersonic on reheat and gradually slow down on dry. Can your optical solution establish a firing solution within these ranges? can it continue to track the F35 after it reheat is turned off? can the F35 go supersonic far enough away that it is still supersonic on dry by the time it gets where it needs to be? does supersonic matter for the intended usage of the F35? would M.95 work? You seem to have made up your mind. Sylvaforever said:
Not that they can go all that fast anyway due to thermal control reasons, fuel, airframe, internal heat management...
It was never designed to be a speed king, it doesnt need to be.Sylvaforever said:
In fact it's a $120 million Harrier...without the payload capacity.
Won't bother responding to that, others have already explained the error in your thinking.Edited for quoting cockups
Edited by mebe on Thursday 12th January 21:20
mebe said:
V8 Fettler said:
It's depressing that the UK cannot design and build its own maritime aircraft to meet its own unique needs.
It can, however the country cannot afford to do so (or rather doesn't want to spend that much).aeropilot said:
V8 Fettler said:
It's depressing that the UK cannot design and build its own maritime aircraft to meet its own unique needs.
Considerable UK design imput into the F-35, with many UK design staff at LM.We wouldn't ever be buying enough of anything to ever afford to design & build on our own. Simple economics I'm afraid.
V8 Fettler said:
The UK can't because we don't have the political will, although we may have the engineering expertise.
There was a serious proposal for a UK equivalent to the F18 called the P163.
but it was decided it would be so similar to the F18 there would be no point. Collaborating on Eurofighter looked like producing a more capable aircraft for the same cost.
Mave said:
Sylvaforever said:
Except the part it cant take off from the carriers with a full fuel and weapon loadout.
Can a sea Harrier do that? And land again?DMN said:
Harrier could only take off and land with full fuel and weapons when it was cold. Around the tropics the engines cannot put enough thrust out, so they had to drop un-used weapons and fuel to make it light enough for a safe landing.
I remember them having to take off with the external tanks empty and then AAR to brim the tanks before getting on with the sortie. Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff