F-35... destined for greatness?

[TankGunner]

Also, there have been other systems, outside of Lockheed, that were designed and built fo this fighter, many of them having never undergone field testing.

Trust me, the US military will not put a multi-million dollar fighter until the technology is fully proven. Even advanced design will be dropped if it is flawed. Just look at the M-8 rifle.

That's crazy talk. It's one thing to not underestimate your enemy... and entirely another to think that everybody's out to get you. North Korea will never, ever launch nuclear missiles at the US, not even if they ever develop the capacity to do so. This isn't some mad race against time, trying to stop a crazy psychopath before he gets you... it's mere politics.

I agree with Quatro, MAD worked with the Soviets for 30+ years, and it will work with N. Korea. Kim Jong II just wants to continue living in luxury. He does that by crushing an entire nation beneath him, and threatening the West, to maintain his popular support. (See LOAF's post earlier) He isn't stupid enough to pick a fight with the most powerful nations in the world. And the West is content to let him continue, and jsut wait until he dies.

the explosive would be easily detonated.

The bomb WILL NOT FUNCTION in an intercept! The explosives require incredibly precise timing, since the goal is to crush the plutonium into a very small, even sphere. That won't happen in an intercept. They wouldn't build a missile defense system like ours if that could happen. And hydrogen bombs have been around since the late '50s, not 'recently'.

The Typhoon is superior to the F-35 in manuvearability

We have reached the limits of what a human can withstand in maneuvering. Too high of G force will knock out a pilot or kill him. There can't be that big of a difference in maneuvering ratings. And if the fighter is stealthy, it don't matter. You can't hit what you don't paint on radar.

Britain builds their own ships, the RN wouldn't buy a carrier, and the US won't sell one. We were still using the oil-fired Kitty Hawk class from the '60s well into the mid 90's. Tigerhawk, you said you're Navy. If I made any errors, please correct me.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

The bomb WILL NOT FUNCTION in an intercept! The explosives require incredibly precise timing, since the goal is to crush the plutonium into a very small, even sphere. That won't happen in an intercept. They wouldn't build a missile defense system like ours if that could happen. And hydrogen bombs have been around since the late '50s, not 'recently'.

That's correct -- nuclear weapons are specifically designed to be as inert as possible until they reach their target... you don't want *any* possibility that your bomb will go off in the wrong place.

Of course, no one thinks North Korea has a hydrogen bomb -- and no one seems to seriously believe they even have a Plutonium implosion bomb yet, either.

 

[TankGunner]

I don't seriously believe they have any nuclear devices.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I'm not sure anyone does -- other than people who've been terrified by the television news.

 

[Dundradal]

Most likely they have replicated the nuclear device seen at the end of Goldfinger with all the distracting rotating discs and assorted other things. They probably thought it would work as it did in the movie...

 

[Frosty]

They won't tell the other country how to build that part them themselves. An example is the M-1 tank plant in Eygpt.

I'm not sure what you're saying is true. The F-35 is designed and built by a team of manufacturers who share information, rather than withhold it. Rolls Royce is no doubt expertly acquainted with the airframe and F135/F136 engines as a result of their work designing the lift fan. Like I said before, this is a thoroughly mainstream fighter, not a Skunk Works project.

The Typhoon is superior to the F-35 in manuvearability (yes my spellings probably wrong.. it usually is), but such that it is likely to be the last manned air superiority fighter until we develop these wonderful inertial dampeners like you have in Star Trek etc.

I hear this claim a lot, but I don't think anyone actually knows this to be true. It's assumed for no good reason other than to justify the existence of an essentially redundant fighter plane.

In common with the obscenely maneuverable F-22, F-35s have huge control surfaces set far back from the center of gravity. They are very, very agile.

F-35 was to be a joint Venture between the USA and Britain, Britain having helped Beoing's proposal with experience of the VTOL.

Boeing's candidate was the X-32.

What I meant by the untried technologies: the F-35 will be the FIRST plane to use the fan instead of directional jets, and having looked into it, this fan does infact have some flaws to it, which I suggest you look into before you try telling me I'm wrong.

You actually said "new" technologies. I also fail to see what's new about this. Vehicles that can hover by virtue of an inboard fan such as that in the F-35 are nothing new, and the drive-shaft and gearing which deliver power to this fan are hardly exotic.

Really what you meant to say rather than this being a "new technology" is that it's a "different technique." Specifically different from that of the Harrier and X-32. Harriers suffer heat problems and can only hover for very short periods of time, and the X-32 could barely stay aloft at all. The X-35 has already proven that the method used in Lightnings is superior, and probably a lot more reliable.

The idea behind useing the fan over the tried and proven methods was that it was more cost effective

Actually the reason it was chosen was because it proved dramatically better in competition against the "tried and proven" method.

For ANYONE who is nieve enough to think "North Korea cannot do it" I will remind you of the phrase "Do not underestimate your enemy." Such (I will use the word) stupidity will let the USA drop its guard, and IF N Korea does get those missiles working, I doubt you'll be able to tell me otherwise.

Someone tell me, did I write the word "If" or "when"?

Oho, that's a clever little out you've constructed for yourself, there. "IF!" Pure genius. You can make any kind of wild and crazy declaration you please, and avoid any accountability for it. You are to be commended.

Seriously, though, you can't browbeat people about never underestimating their enemies in the same breath you imply they'll never be a threat.

Unless that's not what you were implying, rendering that "if" an effective "when."

Let me break it down for you:

• We should never underestimate our [potential] enemies.
• IF North Korea is able to develop a reliable multi-megaton bomb and delivery system, it is a given that the United States will be struck with this bomb (your claim, not mine.)
• Now, if we should avoid fatal underestimations, we'd best stay on the safe side and assume that they will eventually accomplish these things.
• Consequently - by your logic - we are all forced to assume that it is only a matter of time (indeterminate) until North Korea launches a nuclear bomb or bombs at the United States and successfully strikes their target(s).

Which returns us to what Quarto said. That claim is ludicrous on its face. North Korea stands to gain nothing and lose everything from that course of action. It serves no purpose.

We have reached the limits of what a human can withstand in maneuvering. Too high of G force will knock out a pilot or kill him. There can't be that big of a difference in maneuvering ratings. And if the fighter is stealthy, it don't matter. You can't hit what you don't paint on radar.

This is absolutely correct. The F-35 has total control over the battle.

 

[ChrisReid]

Is it just me, or does "Sibb Tigre" sound an awful lot like Icey...?

I find that insulting. I assure you, I am not someone who dosent have some knowledge of what he's talking about. And of course, feel free to check IP.

No, you're not Icey, but you do have quite a lot in common with him. Much like Icey, you're guilty of registering a duplicate account, and with your new account, all you've done is jump into the middle of arguments and threads that are destined to be closed.

 

[Tigerhawk]

Britain builds their own ships, the RN wouldn't buy a carrier, and the US won't sell one. We were still using the oil-fired Kitty Hawk class from the '60s well into the mid 90's. Tigerhawk, you said you're Navy. If I made any errors, please correct me.

Nope, you're right, TG. Like I said, I really need to get the WD-40 out and update myself, but last I knew, the only oil-fired carrier we have left is the Constellation, which is forward-deployed over in Sasebo, Japan. And you're also correct, there's no way in any world that the U.S. would sell off a modern carrier to anyone, even an ally.

 

[TankGunner]

but last I knew, the only oil-fired carrier we have left is the Constellation, which is forward-deployed over in Sasebo, Japan. And you're also correct, there's no way in any world that the U.S. would sell off a modern carrier to anyone, even an ally.

Ok, I wasn't sure if we still had a oil-fired carrier on Active Duty. That's good to know, that the old Connie is still there. Wonder how many times she's been updated to stay relevent....

 

[Sibb Tigre]

No, you're not Icey, but you do have quite a lot in common with him. Much like Icey, you're guilty of registering a duplicate account, and with your new account, all you've done is jump into the middle of arguments and threads that are destined to be closed.

Ah.. yes.. I know. Trouble is I've forgotten the password for that one, and dont use that email address anymore. Also that's one thing, not a lot.

Jumping into the thread, I had to make some comments, which I can admit may be flawed by poor english, or misinformation since I am a fulltime student and dont usually have the time to double check every source I use.

Since a lot of people here seem to have rather closed minds: Britain does buy ships, and the comment about buying an aircraft carrier was more joke than fact. North Korea may not have the ability right now, but that dosent they will never.

Also, since I am obviously not welcome to have an opinion that differs so much from your own, I will gladly block this forum address from my internet.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Do you have a preference as to which account name you want? I can change the e-mail on the old one so you can use it instead, if you like.

 

[Quarto]

Nope, you're right, TG. Like I said, I really need to get the WD-40 out and update myself, but last I knew, the only oil-fired carrier we have left is the Constellation, which is forward-deployed over in Sasebo, Japan. And you're also correct, there's no way in any world that the U.S. would sell off a modern carrier to anyone, even an ally.

As a general rule, nobody ever sells modern capital ships to another country, simply because nobody has such ships to spare - you don't purchase a nuclear carrier hoping that some other country will come along and ask to buy it off you, you purchase one because you need it. Note the word "purchase", by the way - the US does not build its carriers, they simply commission civilian shipyards to build them.

And as for the UK - they wouldn't be interested in a modern US carrier anyway. Nuclear carriers are expensive equipment. The UK doesn't have as much need for overseas power projection as it once did (and as the US currently does), so a nuclear-powered carrier would be expensive overkill. If they ever decide to obtain such a carrier, however, the US will most certainly not protest if the UK awards the contract to a US shipyard. Quite the contrary, in fact - they'll be very happy that their shipyards have money coming in and an opportunity to gain additional experience building a new class of carrier for an allied nation.

BTW, a small correction - the USS Constellation is not in active duty, she's been mothballed since 2003. The two conventional-powered US carriers in active duty are the Kitty Hawk and the John F. Kennedy.

I hear this claim a lot, but I don't think anyone actually knows this to be true. It's assumed for no good reason other than to justify the existence of an essentially redundant fighter plane.

There's plenty of good reasons, actually - it's just that none of them have anything to do with the planes' capabilities. The main reason, I would imagine, is simply that it's dangerous to focus on just one fighter design - if something goes wrong with the F-35 project, they need an alternative option to replace their current planes, and they don't want to end up in a situation where a new fighter design is conceived only after the F-35 goes down the drain - the delay in the introduction of a new design would be simply too long. Of course, there doesn't currently seem much danger of the F-35 project running into serious trouble, but when you're dealing with something as serious as this, you simply must have a back-up plan.

Another reason is politics - the UK is situated politically between the US and Europe, and they want to maintain a high level of military cooperation with both sides. So, on the one hand, they're working with the US on the F-35, while on the other, they work with other European nations on the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Besides - the Typhoon is a much older project than the F-35, so there was never really a choice of F-35 vs. Typhoon. The UK is supposed to be getting the first of its Typhoons this year, while the F-35 is still a long way off - so another reason to stick with the Typhoon is simply to provide an intermediate plane between the UK's current strike fighters, and the F-35.

 

[TankGunner]

Britain does buy ships, and the comment about buying an aircraft carrier was more joke than fact

Name one major surface combatant that Britain has purchased for combat use, in modern times, and which country they bought it from.

I cannot think of one major surface ship that the Royal Navy has bought since the Lend-Lease program was ended. The RN has one of the best ship-design and building programs in the world, and sells many of their obsolete ships (example: the HMS Hermes to India). Don't even think about subs, the RN Trafalgar-class is equal to the USN 688-class.

which I can admit may be flawed by poor english, or misinformation since I am a fulltime student and dont usually have the time to double check every source I use.

If you don't have time to check your facts, then don't say it.

Note the word "purchase", by the way - the US does not build its carriers, they simply commission civilian shipyards to build them.

Yeah, you're right. But the civilian yard won't start it until the money is provided from Congress, and the Navy is going to buy it. I used the 'Navy builds' phrase to shorten it and clarify.

Quatro's reason why the US shipbuilding industry would be happy to build a RN carrier (if that were to happen, and it's not) are the exact reasons why the British would want to build it. Why bolster another nation's economy when you can help your own?

 

[ChrisReid]

Ah.. yes.. I know. Trouble is I've forgotten the password for that one, and dont use that email address anymore.

Which is a quick and easy fix if you address it before registering a second account.

12) You are allowed one Crius.net account. If there is an issue with your account, please contact the Administrators instead of registering a new one.

Also, since I am obviously not welcome to have an opinion that differs so much from your own, I will gladly block this forum address from my internet.

I can't even remember if I agreed with you or not in any of your posts, but I wouldn't be too disappointed if everyone who signed up here just to wedge themselves into arguments in every thread kinda disappeared.

 

[Frosty]

words

None of this is really unreasonable, (although I doubt anyone seriously budgets for two fighter programs just in case one turns out to suck) but my comment was actually directed at the assumption that a Typhoon can outmaneuver a Lightning. Something which hasn't been proven and probably isn't true.

Quatro's reason why the US shipbuilding industry would be happy to build a RN carrier (if that were to happen, and it's not) are the exact reasons why the British would want to build it. Why bolster another nation's economy when you can help your own?

You make it sound like he was advocating that they do this. He was just saying nobody would have a problem with it on the American end if they did.

 

[TankGunner]

You make it sound like he was advocating that they do this. He was just saying nobody would have a problem with it on the American end if they did.

No, no, I know he wasn't advocating it. I was stating that the any nation wouldn't be too smart to pay another nation to do what their own industry and economy could do. Sorry if that post was a little confusing.

 

[Alexco]

I hear this claim a lot, but I don't think anyone actually knows this to be true. It's assumed for no good reason other than to justify the existence of an essentially redundant fighter plane.

Why do you think it is a "redundant fighter plane"?
The Eurofighter is not redundant, the problem with this plane is that it was designed as "Fighter 90" (Jaeger 90 in german) as replacement for the Phantoms (and other older planes) in many european counrtries. So the initial design is as old as the swedish JAS-39 "Gripen".

Since there is no big country financing military research (with more money than any other country in the world) in Europe but only small countries having their own small funds, many countries came together to form a partnership to build this thing.

But with too many partners the development stalled. Some partners (countries) left the project and bought american fighters or designed their own variants (e.g. French Raphael).
The nineties passed and the project was stripped down to a cheaper variant known as Fighter 2000 or Eurofighter 2000.

Today (2006, remember) the fighters are deployed, so about 10 years after the initial plan.

The lesson learned from this is that you can not expect to have a modern fighter/plane/whatever in a short amount of time if entire Europe spends only 1/6 of the american funds to military research or armament.

But this does not make this fighter redundant.

 

[Foxtrot]

. But why Korea? Pakistan or Iran... that I can understand. Iran... well they hate us because of Jimmy Carter's stupidity... but Pakistan... the Taliban was formed from the Fundamentalist "Freedom Fighters", which they paid for with our tax money. It is also where Osama Bin Laden is hiding now. Yes they are our ally... but that is only because thier president is our ally. If he gets killed, forget it, we're loosing an ally, and things will get twice as bad for the Afganis.

well, its sad that this dude had multiple accounts and had to be banned but i think he is right. i grew up in the Kashmir capital Srinagar and part of life there was accepting that everything is terribly messed up and that nothing can be done about it as there are higher powers involved. pakistan formed the taliban for 2 reasons, to drive away the soviets from afganistan and to help them take over Kashmir completely. and yes, the US tax payers money is responsible for the regular deaths of civilians and defence personel in the kashmir valey till this year ( there might be a good chance that the bomb blasts in Bombay which killed almost 200 this month were also carried out by the ISI ). a lot of the high tech equip/weaponry we have confiscated from the pkistani terrorist orgs have had a made in USA stamp on them, i recall seeing a pic of a RPG with such a stamp, i will try to find it. anyways, the pakistani president is cooperating only because of US and Indian pressure. if he is to be overthrown by these terrorists which the pakistani ISI supports the US will loose an ally and India might face a nuclear war as these jehadis dont seem to care much about dying.

sorry for deviating from the topic, just wanted to voice my knowledge.

 

[Dyret]

well, its sad that this dude had multiple accounts and had to be banned but i think he is right.

Huh, he was banned for being an ass... the multiple accounts crap was only a secondary reason, IIRC.

 

[TankGunner]

a lot of the high tech equip/weaponry we have confiscated from the pkistani terrorist orgs have had a made in USA stamp on them, i recall seeing a pic of a RPG with such a stamp, i will try to find it.

That's bound to happen, since the US has been selling military equipment to anti-Soviet governments and insurgencies (Yes, that included the taliban and good old Osama, back in the 1980's) for a very long time. So has almost every industial nations that produce weapons, it is a very good market. That stuff ends up everywhere, we took alot of US-manufactured weapons in our unit's raids while I was in Iraq too.

For the record, the US does not produce RPG's (either any of the -7 variants or -18's) but did build the M-72 LAW rocket that looks alot like a RPG-18. The US military used Rifle-mounted grenades, but haven't since the Vietnam War.

I highly doubt the US would fund any of the Kashmir terrorist at all, or that the Pakistani ISI would risk such a large and destabilising attack as the one in India (I apologize, I can't spell the city's name correctly right now)