1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Does the UK realy need LM F-35?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Katanga, Jan 18, 2017.

  1. El Pew

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 1, 2009

    Posts: 1,053

    No. The US initiated sanctions over Japanese atrocities in China following the invasion, as well as the aggressive seizure of first northern Indochina (to prevent supplies entering China via the Burma road) and then southern Indochina. Japan could either give up and withdraw from China and regain access to American and British oil, or it could attack and invade the oil rich Netherlands East Indies to secure its 'independence'.

    It was never a trade war.
     
  2. Roar87

    Soldato

    Joined: May 10, 2012

    Posts: 5,534

    Location: Leeds

    Oh sorry I think I quoted one of your posts first then deleted the wrong thing because of how the new forum works
     
  3. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 11,860

    Location: Vvardenfell


    As far as I am aware, Japan declared war on the US, but the message was never delivered properly before Pearl Harbour, so it looks like the US declared first. But the attack was a declaration of war in itself, so actually Japan went first. Germany then declared war on the US while the US was deciding whether to fight in Europe or not. Pretty much everyone, even in Germany, thought it an insane decision.
     
  4. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,575

    It's already been done, the original decision when we were planning to build new carriers and replace the harriers was between a naval Typhoon and STOBAR* carriers or F-35B's and STOVL** carriers. Even after we chose to buy American over British the development of the naval Typhoon variant was continued and we almost sold them to India for their new carrier but they chose to go with MiG-29K instead.

    *Launch off a ramp, stopped with a wire.
    **Launch off a ramp, land vertically.


    They also provided the tanker ship and the fuel that got the Vulcan to the Falklands and back.
     
  5. El Pew

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 1, 2009

    Posts: 1,053

    Actually the 14 Part Message you're talking about was not a declaration of war, it was a breaking off of relations. Japan never actually formally declared war on the US.
     
  6. stuie

    Mobster

    Joined: May 29, 2012

    Posts: 3,037

    Location: Dorset

    Easy answer for me.

    You dont need a fire alarm in your house if you dont have a fire. Doesnt stop you changing the batteries and checking in every so often.
    No different IMO to quote Mr Stark
    "They say that the best weapon is the one you never have to fire"

    Secondly modern day tech has ground to a halt. Nothing new has been developed since the cold war, yes things have been improved on drastically the current fighters for example make the ww2 planes look like dangerous garage built how tough can it be jobs, but the principle ideas are the same. We need a kick start, a purpose, a reason to get out of bed. Where are the flying cars, plasma weapons and holidays to the moon? I dont know what that will be or what cost it will have but yes we need projects like this to keep things going to continue to develop new ideas and better ways of blowing stuff up so that tech gets passed down to everyday life. Without military funding we wouldn't have all sorts of stuff from gps to ssds and all our modern smart phones to name just a few.

    Regardless of the costs we need to keep this sort of stuff being backed funded and produced
     
  7. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 64,245

    Holidays to around the moon are coming - though the cost is in the millions per person.

    There has been a rash of developments over the last 5 years or so despite a lull post cold war - drones, over the horizon sensory capabilities, AI and robotics and so on are rapidly picking up at the moment.
     
  8. Nikumba

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 4, 2002

    Posts: 3,595

    Location: Bourne, Lincs

    I think we could have looked at other options rather than the F-35, for one we could have used the Typhoon.

    As I understand it during it's development the French wanted it to be able to be carrier based but when the others would not go for that plan, they left the programme and created their own which looks very similar to the Typhoon.

    I do think it is silly we do not have have catapults on our carriers and also that our new carriers are not nuclear power, its not like we don't know how it is done.
     
  9. El Pew

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 1, 2009

    Posts: 1,053

    No we couldn't. As has already been pointed out, navalised land fighters are almost always worse than the aircraft they are based on. A purpose built naval aircraft is what's needed, not some shonky conversion job.
     
  10. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,002

    F-18 E Super Hornets could have been bought practically off the shelf and relatively cheaply. A mature capable design perfect for bombing medieval numbnuts back to the stone age. Then we could commit to F-35C's later in the programme when the costs and risks are understood and maybe bought fewer to have mixed carrier air groups with the Hornets, just like the yanks will do. We could be flying F-18's now building up competence before our own CATOBAR carriers are ready. What a truly awful decision by New Labour not to buy nuke powered CATOBAR carriers.
     
  11. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 64,245

    F-18s do atleast have a bit longer til EOL than some of the other options but still the money would be better used towards a next generation aircraft. As always you can't base your capabilities purely on current threats and geopolitics even if they are adequate for use against low tech hostiles.
     
  12. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 21,500

    Too bad the main capability of the F35 is being a boondoggle for Washington and mediocre at everything else.
     
  13. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,575

    The government did look at them, Labour chose to go with the F-35B and build STOVL carriers over going with the naval Typhoon variant and building STOBAR carriers.

    BAE later tried to sell the naval Typhoons to India for their new STOBAR carriers but they went with the MiG-29K instead (as the Russian government have the confidence to use them).

    Yes we could have, and IMO we should have, **** Blair.

    That's also an argument against the F-35 you know :p
     
  14. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,575

    double post
     
  15. El Pew

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 1, 2009

    Posts: 1,053

    Well not really, because the different models of the F-35 are effectively different airframes that share some parts and design commonality. They didn't start with one specific design for say the USAF, then try and alter it to also meet the requirements for the USN and USMC. That's the issue - for a land-based fighter like the Eurofighter to be navalised it's not just a matter of adding catapult and arrestor gear, you have to greatly strengthen the airframe to take the shock of catapult launch and arrested recovery, as well as adding saltwater corrosion prevention on top of all the differences in electronics and safety gear between naval and land versions. At that point you may as well start again with a fresh design.

    That's why it's a lot easier to take a Navy fighter and strip off all the naval gear off to make a dual-purpose machine for the USAF rather than the other way around - you end up with an aircraft that is over-engineered for land use instead of one that is under-engineered for naval use. The F-4 Phantom is the perfect example of this. To my knowledge there's never been a particularly successful example of a navalised land aircraft (except possibly the Su-33 or MiG-29).

    The dual-design approach has never really been tried before, except for maybe the F-111B which was a much simpler aircraft than the F-35.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2017
  16. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,575

    Don't worry I'm pretty sure the designers at BAE knew what they were doing, they have a little bit of experience with this plane malarkey :)
     
  17. El Pew

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 1, 2009

    Posts: 1,053

    Well we wouldn't know, would we, because BAE have never produced a design for a navalised Eurofighter. It's never gone beyond the proposal stage - a proposal literally nobody has actioned.
     
  18. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,575

    :confused:

    Er, dude, read the thread, they produced a design decades ago, the Blair government had to choose between buying the F-35B and making the QE class STOVL carriers or buying the naval Typhoons and making the QE class STOBAR carriers, they went with the F-35B and STOVL to save money (then the price ballooned costing even more than the Typhoon/STOBAR would have lol).

    BAE later entered the navalised Typhoon design into the bidding to become India's next naval fighter, and produced a large scale model of the design. However India ended up selecting the MiG-29K (a naval variant of the MiG-29M) instead (and ironically they selected the Dassault Rafale to become their next land based fighter).
     
  19. daver

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 20, 2010

    Posts: 1,404

    Location: Manchester

    The AIM 9-L was really new and the only stocks we held were 'NATO war stocks' - we took these with the task force but were only supposed to use them if NATO agreed, but the US agreed to replace them. In any case I belive analysis of all the sidewinder SHar kills showed that widespread G model would have done the same job (the L had all aspect capability so could fire head on but the only 2 engagements it should have made a difference it failed to lock on - pretty much every kill was close and from the rear)

    They covered the RAF Nato Tanker commitments by sending more aircraft to the UK. The tanker aircraft which got the Vulcans down to the Falklands were RAF Victors.

    They did however cover the above mentioned NATO commitments and more (sub partrols, standing naval patrols etc)

    The main help was letting us use Wideawake though.
     
  20. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,575

    I said tanker ship, as in the giant boat full of aviation fuel that made it possible for the Vulcans/Victors to even get off the ground ;)

    Retaking the Falklands would have been significantly harder without the support we got from the USA and France.