Britain told "No Access" to F-35 Software codes

[telecat]

Which Idiot thought it a good idea to make Turkey the centre to repair the engines??? Hell Ford and Fiat are going to be regretting moving Van production there let alone Combat Jet engines.

[Vitorio]

telecat said:

Which Idiot thought it a good idea to make Turkey the centre to repair the engines??? Hell Ford and Fiat are going to be regretting moving Van production there let alone Combat Jet engines.

Well, you have to keep all your tech partners happy/tied to your fate if you want them to foot the bill

Over here in the netherlands there have been several calls to drop the JSF and just buy the eurofighter instead, but then we'd lose several big contracts, which would be bad for some big companies over here... hence we just swallow another cost increase on the project.

All this crap makes you wonder why most of europe didnt just go eurofighter instead.

[Ayahuasca]

Nanook said:

Vitorio said:

Well, you have to keep all your tech partners happy/tied to your fate if you want them to foot the bill

Over here in the netherlands there have been several calls to drop the JSF and just buy the eurofighter instead, but then we'd lose several big contracts, which would be bad for some big companies over here... hence we just swallow another cost increase on the project.

All this crap makes you wonder why most of europe didnt just go eurofighter instead.

Because it was never designed for carrier ops.

It could be made to work, but there'd be weight penalties, lower range, lower MTOW etc.

Most of Europe does not have carriers. Turkey for example.

[aeropilot]

Ayahuasca said:

Nanook said:

Vitorio said:

Well, you have to keep all your tech partners happy/tied to your fate if you want them to foot the bill

Over here in the netherlands there have been several calls to drop the JSF and just buy the eurofighter instead, but then we'd lose several big contracts, which would be bad for some big companies over here... hence we just swallow another cost increase on the project.

All this crap makes you wonder why most of europe didnt just go eurofighter instead.

Because it was never designed for carrier ops.

It could be made to work, but there'd be weight penalties, lower range, lower MTOW etc.

Most of Europe does not have carriers. Turkey for example.

Exactly.....which is why most of Europe (except the UK and Italy) are buying the F-35A, not the B or C.

And yes, I also wonder why most of Europe didn't buy the Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen instead of the F-35A, as most of Europe don't need first day stealth, which is about the only reason to choose the hideously expensive F-35.
I think the Dutch buy was now down to twenty something jets to replace it's 70 odd surviving F-16's - how is that going to be a cost effective buy let alone operationally effective!!!!

[Vitorio]

Nanook said:

Because it was never designed for carrier ops.

It could be made to work, but there'd be weight penalties, lower range, lower MTOW etc.

What version are you guys in the UK getting, the B or the C? Either version is also going to be compromised compared to the A i would imagine, in one way or the other.

aeropilot said:

I think the Dutch buy was now down to twenty something jets to replace it's 70 odd surviving F-16's - how is that going to be a cost effective buy let alone operationally effective!!!!

Something like that, its absolutely ridiculous. Now with the F16 we can send four of em on Nato ops like afghanistan or something. The F35 is now planned for 37 planes, with 2 delivered (testers/trainers) and 8 on actual order. If we need some aircraft on permanent standby for interception duties (like those lovelt Tu-95s which drop by now and then), some down for either short or long term maintenance, and some for training, it is going to be bloody hard to do anything useful.

The EF would be cheaper, the Grippen a whole lot cheaper..

Interestingly i just found a 2013 dutch article advocating a third alternative, much cheaper, better aero performance, less dependent on high tech electronics, half the cost of even a grippen, and similar cost per hour as the F16.. wanna guess what?

the Mig 35

[dirkgently]

Vitorio said:

Something like that, its absolutely ridiculous. Now with the F16 we can send four of em on Nato ops like afghanistan or something. The F35 is now planned for 37 planes, with 2 delivered (testers/trainers) and 8 on actual order. If we need some aircraft on permanent standby for interception duties (like those lovelt Tu-95s which drop by now and then), some down for either short or long term maintenance, and some for training, it is going to be bloody hard to do anything useful.

The EF would be cheaper, the Grippen a whole lot cheaper..

Interestingly i just found a 2013 dutch article advocating a third alternative, much cheaper, better aero performance, less dependent on high tech electronics, half the cost of even a grippen, and similar cost per hour as the F16.. wanna guess what?

the Mig 35

Why couldn't we buy Russian? They build some very competent aircraft that are designed to be maintained by an eighteen year old with a hammer.

[aeropilot]

Vitorio said:

What version are you guys in the UK getting, the B or the C? Either version is also going to be compromised compared to the A i would imagine, in one way or the other.

UK buy is for the B.

And yes, it's very compromised.

Vitorio said:

If we need some aircraft on permanent standby for interception duties (like those lovelt Tu-95s which drop by now and then), some down for either short or long term maintenance, and some for training, it is going to be bloody hard to do anything useful.

What interception duty...?

The F-35 hasn't been designed as an interceptor, it's a strike aircraft with a self defence capability.

[Vitorio]

dirkgently said:

Why couldn't we buy Russian? They build some very competent aircraft that are designed to be maintained by an eighteen year old with a hammer.

Im all for it myself, in terms of the hardware. But big chance our NATO partners wouldnt much like it...

And there is something to be said for standardization amongst allies, we are more likely to rock up on a UK or US run airbase with some deployed jets, and going "hey, can you guys give our migs a tuneup?" might get some awkward looks

And as dickish as the US can be, they arent as likely as Russia to threaten the delivery of spares/ammo..

Personally i wouldve gone for gripens i think.. cheap, good enough for airspace defence/patrol and the occasional recon/bombing run in durki-durkistan when we want to suck up to the US

[Sylvaforever]

aeropilot said:

What interception duty...?

The F-35 hasn't been designed as an interceptor, it's a strike aircraft with a self defence capability.

perhaps someone needs to point this out to the RN then.

btw remind me what's stealthy about this?

[aeropilot]

Sylvaforever said:

aeropilot said:

What interception duty...?

The F-35 hasn't been designed as an interceptor, it's a strike aircraft with a self defence capability.

perhaps someone needs to point this out to the RN then.

Funnily enough......I think they might just know that....

[Vitorio]

aeropilot said:

What interception duty...?

The F-35 hasn't been designed as an interceptor, it's a strike aircraft with a self defence capability.

Same duties the F16 currently fulfills.

It might not be a true interceptor, but we have to send something up to meet those russian bombers which come by now and then. Our airforce isnt big enough to justify multiple combat aircraft, so we go for a jack of all trades solution.

The US apparently uses F22s for interceptor duties, but there is no way we could afford those in any real number, and we'd still need a ground attack aircraft.

[aeropilot]

Vitorio said:

aeropilot said:

What interception duty...?

The F-35 hasn't been designed as an interceptor, it's a strike aircraft with a self defence capability.

Same duties the F16 currently fulfills.

Except the F-16 was designed as an air-combat aircraft that has then been developed into a multi-role, so it is capable of both.

The F-35A has been designed as a bomb-truck - not as an air-combat aircraft.....expecting it to perform air defence duties is like buying a Kia and expecting it to do 7m 30s laps of the 'ring.....

[RobGT81]

dirkgently said:

Why couldn't we buy Russian? They build some very competent aircraft that are designed to be maintained by an eighteen year old with a hammer.

Most of the RAF/RN fleets are maintained by 18/19 years olds with big hammers.

[Vitorio]

aeropilot said:

Except the F-16 was designed as an air-combat aircraft that has then been developed into a multi-role, so it is capable of both.

The F-35A has been designed as a bomb-truck - not as an air-combat aircraft.....expecting it to perform air defence duties is like buying a Kia and expecting it to do 7m 30s laps of the 'ring.....

Well, im not in charge of the buying committee :P, the reality is that it will be used for that purpose, as there is nothing else we will have available to chase those Russian bombers.

Wikipedia lists it as a multirole fighter "designed to perform ground attack and air defense missions"

If it were up to me we would've bought enough F22s to patrol and secure our own skies, and filled the middle east ground support role with a bunch of second hand A-10s none of that jack of all trades crap.

[aeropilot]

Vitorio said:

If it were up to me we would've bought enough F22s to patrol and secure our own skies, and filled the middle east ground support role with a bunch of second hand A-10s none of that jack of all trades crap.

The only flaw in that idea is the F-22 buy.......as the US Govt expressly forbid the sale of the F-22 to anyone other than the USAF.


I don't understand why many other European airforces didn't buy the A-10, best CAS a/c bar none.

Berrrrrrrrtttttt ........

[eharding]

dirkgently said:

Why couldn't we buy Russian? They build some very competent aircraft that are designed to be maintained by an eighteen year old with a hammer.

Depends. The field toolkit that came with our Yak-52 has an assortment of highly specialised and quite delicate tools for fertling with specific bits of the aeroplane that react badly to being touched inappropriately.

On the other hand, clamped in pride of place in the toolkit, and taking up a considerable proportion of the space, is a GBFO hammer that wouldn't look out of place being wielded by Thor in a Marvel feature film.

Back in the Soviet days, the engineering approach seems to have been to first apply the specialised and delicate tools to the job, and if that doesn't work, beat the living crap out of the offending part of the aeroplane with the GBFO hammer until it stops either a) offending or b) being what might still be described as a part of the aeroplane.

Nowadays, of course, things are different. Stages (a) and (b) still apply, but are then followed by step c) present the aircraft owners with a GBFO invoice.

[telecat]

The Typhoon as an Air superiority Fighter and Interceptor is quite capable of taking on anything the Russians can throw at it. It also holds its own against the F22. I doubt that will be said of the F35.

[Ayahuasca]

There doesn't appear to be much rear visibility from the F35 cockpit - definitely not a classic dog-fighter.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

Having sat in the F35 mock up at RAF Marham a couple of years ago, I can tell you that the rearwards visibility is actually quite good - at least as good as a Hawk.

Of course that's moot given that the helmet mounted sight that will come with F35 which effectively makes the airframe transparent.

[Ayahuasca]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Having sat in the F35 mock up at RAF Marham a couple of years ago, I can tell you that the rearwards visibility is actually quite good - at least as good as a Hawk.

Of course that's moot given that the helmet mounted sight that will come with F35 which effectively makes the airframe transparent.

Happy to bow to your superior knowledge, with the caveat that the Hawk was not conceived as a fighter either...

Interesting however that the F22 seems to have more of a bubble canopy, in common with other 'fighters' eg F15, F16, later marks of Spitfire, Mustang, etc.