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

[telecat]

Despite been told the RAF and FAA would have access to the codes and the supply of UK expertise to the F35 programme it seems the US is about to renege on it's promise.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230724/UK...

Time to dust off the Sea Harrier??

[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.

[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.

[telecat]

DMN said:

Ayahuasca said:

V8 Fettler said:

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.

Does the RN need a manned aircraft as an interceptor?

The RN already has a few good interceptors. They are called Type 45 destroyers.

I would imagine the RN wants air power to project force, i.e. to threaten enemy land or surface targets.

And they learnt from the Falklands that you need many layers to your defence. Air power (fighters and AEW), decent SAM's, close in weapons and top of the range ECM.

Going back to the F35's alleged performance against the F16. Its more than a little harsh to compare a fully developed 35+ year old aircraft against one still under development. Once the production versions start reaching frontline squadrons and OCU's, then its time to compare.

The F16 started as a Agile lightweight Air superiority/Interceptor Fighter and became a good Strike Fighter. The F35 is working the other way. Not Good for those wishing to Defend their Air space with it.

[telecat]

Evanivitch said:

Vitorio said:

I dont know anywhere near enough to make a real call on the F35s capacities, but i cant help but wonder if this thinking is going to lead to another F-4 scenario (stuck over vietnam without a gun, just missiles)

Speaking of which, the F-35 does have a gun, what would be the point of that if everything is going to be handled at long range through datalinks and BVR missiles?

Politically, it's designed to replace the A10 warthog, there was no way it would be accepted for that role (CAS) without a gun.

It cannot do that job either. USAF now looking at a turnkey solution. Along the lines of an armed Tucano or T-6 then a 21st century even better protected A-10 replacement.

[telecat]

Its still like the F35 the wrong plane. The F18E just about performs to spec. Even that is not particularity good and that's a problem. You have to laugh at Boeing putting the F/A18 up to replace the F16. Buy the latest F16. It's a better platform.

[telecat]

Z06George said:

I realise it doesn't help the original brief of an F16 replacement but regarding the USN surely Boeing will just reply with the Advanced Superhornet. I posted a video with some specs ages ago in the other F35 thread. 50% radar cross section reduction, with better range and avionics. I wouldn't have thought there's enough money left to start over.

I wouldn't think that the USAF or Marines would be impressed. The Current "Super" Hornet is a bodge job with Aerodynamics that are severely compromised. It cannot carry it's weapons without having to cut speed. is slower than the Hornet and has barely any better range. The Advanced Tomcat would have been a better aircraft but was overlooked due to Boeing's influence on the "hill". Even the Display teams won't use it. An advanced F16 or further development of the F15 would be a better bet.