What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?

[andymadmak]

And yet another problem hits the F35 program

http://rt.com/usa/170376-entire-f35-fleet-grounded...

When are we supposed to be confirming our order for these? Ship's nearly ready.........

[andymadmak]

Looks like we have ordered 4.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/in...


Yes, that's right, four

[andymadmak]

I am firmly of the view that the F35 is a waste of time. What we should have done is bought navalised, thrust vectoring equipped Typhoons. Granted not very stealthy, but at least it has 2 donkeys, can dogfight with the best (and win) and can carry pretty much most of the desirable air to ground stuff.
Given the intended service life of the F35 I don't think there is any doubt that it will not be "stealthy" by the end - indeed I doubt if it will be stealthy within 5 years given the advances in sensor and radar technologies. Given all the performance compromises that had to be accepted just to go with the F35, to have it's core raison d'être obsolete within a short period is just unacceptable.

Typhoon would at least have let us protect a few jobs. All F35 gives us is a lift fan (so that RR sorted, even though the Americans bunked out of the alternate engine program) and some bits of fuselage.

[andymadmak]

It may be that I have fallen foul of the BAE publicity machine with regards to Sea Typhoon, but I have read in a number of places that a Sea Typhoon was indeed a possibility. The core structure of the aircraft is ( or I have read is) very strong and would require only minor mods to make it carrier compliant. The undercarriage would need beefing up.

The use of TVN was proposed so as to reduce the landing and take off speeds and improve the view over the nose during approach. Perhaps it was all nonsense but there are videos out there of the Typhoon engine being operated on a test rig with TVN fitted.
Typhoon is also quite a small aircraft compared to (say) that old beast the F4, so I would think that getting enough on board, even without installing folding wings.
Anyway, its all academic now cos it aint happening, but personally I think its a tragedy that in the 70 or so years since the war we have gone from being a leader in the global combat aircraft industry to hardly building very much at all.

[andymadmak]

RizzoTheRat said:

Interesting that the more complex B is more reliable than the A and C.

Halmyre said:

All those naysayers wailing "oh no, navalised Typhoon, too expensive, tra-la-la", we could have navalised it and plated it in 22 carat fking gold and it looks like it would still come in cheaper than the Dunderheed F35 Shightning.

Wouldn't be anywhere near as capable as the F35 is supposed to be though.

As I understand it the Sea Typhoon would have had greater manoeuvrability and similar range. It also has a far larger weapons fit available. Plus it has two donkeys....

The only thing it cannot do is be as stealthy as F35, and even then that's only under certain operational conditions. I've said before that I think stealth is a complete red herring for a naval combat aircraft for a number of reasons. We should have gone Sea Typhoon. Ironically if we had agreed to a Navalised Typhoon early enough maybe the French would have stayed in the program and there would be no Rafale..?

[andymadmak]

hidetheelephants said:

Do we have a big enough gaffer tape budget to keep them airborne?

And how on earth are we going to land them on the carriers?

[andymadmak]

Lefty said:

Is the F-35A going to replace the Typhoon?

No. We are not buying any A variants. And why would we? The Typhoon is faster, more manoeuvrable and carries a greater warload. It is significantly better in a dog fight too.
We should have pressed on and made some navalised Typhoons in the first place, instead of the F35B - it would have worked out cheaper overall. The carriers could then have been built with cats and traps, which would have meant that we could also have embarked some proper fixed wing AWAC aircraft on them too, and also done some cross decking with other friendly nations with non stovl fixed wing carrier aircraft

Edited by andymadmak on Wednesday 7th October 08:53

[andymadmak]

aeropilot said:

Also, why do people keep banging on about a Navalised Tiffie as that was never a realistic option.

I'm not sure that that is 100% correct. Yes, there were requirements to beef up structure and undercarriage, but that is normal when navalising an aircraft originally designed for land use only. The vectored thrust variant of the Typhoon engine has been tested already (albeit not in a Typhoon) and as I understand it this was proposed for use on the navy Typhoon

That being said, I could have it all wrong and the sad fact is we are getting Dave. God help the pilots who are expected to take it into battle is all I can say

[andymadmak]

So, the F35 can now fire a gun, but carrying the gun makes it less stealthy...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-429...

Plus it still can't fly in a thunderstorm
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news...

And it still can't hit moving targets on the ground apparently

That being said, there have been some good reports:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/28/good-new...

So, F35 here we come?

[andymadmak]

Redders, is not not possible for you to participate in a thread without ruining it with your abusive posting style?
There are lots of well informed posters on these threads, some of whom have shared valuable insights. You just seem to regurgitate old news and recycled opinions of a fairly low ranking, now retired naval officer. I don't think anyone is saying that the F35 is the full package yet. Many doubt if it will ever achieve the goals that were set for it. (which were undoubtedly ambitious), but equally it's not a complete pile of tutt, and it can only get better as the complex fixes and updates are implemented. The media loves to bang on about issues as if they are insurmountable, and you seem very eager to take what you read as gospel. People on here who have been involved in the project, or at least have more up to date knowledge of it are not agreeing with you. Who to believe? The Daily XXXXX or the guys at (or near) the sharp end.......?

[andymadmak]

Red 4 said:

snipped.... , although I clearly annoy you. I'll take that as a win on this and many other threads.

You don't annoy me Redders. I feel sorry for you (genuinely). Every thread you enter degenerates into an abusive slanging match. Ask yourself why that might be? And no, it's not because of your insightful questioning, or the insecurities of others. It's because you're a rather sad, small minded ex copper who's clearly a very angry man underneath it all. it's not hard to see where the abuse starts. Have a look in the mirror.

[andymadmak]

Red 4 said:

Oh, I see. Due to your garbled message I thought you were referring to Biggy over on the other thread.
We (or at least I) appear to have our wires crossed.

Perhaps you do take yourself too seriously given your reply. Like I said, I'm happy for banter but, in my experience, people who over-compensate and always want to be right are often covering up for inadequacies (or worse).

Carry on, Field Marshall

It's Field Marshal