F35 cancelled..by marines

[Procopius]

That was more down to tactics and combat experience. Look what we went on to do with 3 Gladiators!

No, the Hurricanes came after the Gladiators. A number of very experienced pilots were shot down and killed in Hurricanes by 109s over Malta -- hence supplementing and then replacing them with Spitfires, which were previously considered too finicky and sophisticated for overseas use.

[Alan P]

Any more specious analogies? How about twin tub washing machines vs modern solid state ones? Steam trains vs electric? Sailing ships vs nuclear submarines?

There are obvious advantages to the previous generations, but should the progressive evolution of our culture and technology realistically propose a return to the older, less capable versions on the basis of complexity and increased possibility of failure?

I had a Ford Mondeo for seven years. It worked perfectly. The only thing that failed was the air con compressor. My neighbour had a E-class Merc. It never broke down either, and it looked a hell of a lot better, drove better and was about a zillion times more comfortable and had lots of very cool and useful gadgets. It was newer and a lot more expensive to own and run.

Given the choice, I'd have taken the Merc over the Mondy any day of the week. Funny old thing, that.

[Knight_Flyer]

You can't really stay with old tech. The F-15 and F-16 were the most advanced aircraft at the time of entering service. You could argue why bother when the F-4 seemed to be a rugged aircraft able to fulfill a variety of roles. I'm sure it would have been a very different Gulf War if F-4's were the best aircraft that could be deployed to the theatre of operation. Not to mention this was the conflict that showed the value of stealth in the form of the F-117.

[bentwaters81tfw]

Given the choice, I'd have taken the Merc over the Mondy any day of the week. Funny old thing, that.

So would I. The rust factor is the same though! I suspect you bought the Ford as it was affordable.

Seriously, for the sake of our defence, I would like to see the F-35 be a successful combination with our carriers. As yet I remain unconvinced it will be what is claimed. Numbers worry me as well as there seems to be nothing else to back it up.

We have already lost most of our strike capability and all of our maritime aircraft to fund this ugly duckling.

I'm not suggesting modern developments are not a good thing for fighting battles, but the opposition, whilst playing by the old rules, have superior numbers of everything, and in wartime, numbers count for much. You can't sneak up on everyone at once with only a handful of airframes, and you probably could not assault the Falklands again with our proposed offensive forces.

Our supposed 'enemies' are becoming 'low tech'. If you research von Braun, and his revelations before he died, of 'future threats,' we are in phase two of a phony war to keep the weapon manufacturers current. F-35 will be no use against phase three, or phase four, but maybe they won't be announced until we have something 'capable'. By then, perhaps we will have disclosure on anti gravity drives. Ben Rich told us 'we have the means to travel to the stars', 'if you can imagine it, we already know how to do it.' I suspect neither he nor Kelly Johnson would have turned out something like F-35. I would like to see the hyperdrive craft they deny exists. Everything else would be superfluous compared to that.

[bentwaters81tfw]

In any aerospace project that is likely to take more than ten years to develop, it is necessary to set a year for "technology freeze" - the point at which technology will not be further developed for the system. For most projects, this tends to be about five years before the projected every into service. This is to allow the applied technology to be refined, debugged, tried and tested during developmental testing, and ensures a modern product that is not hampered by continued integration of new technologies after the freeze.

The F-35 is slightly different in this respect, as it not only has a freeze date of just two years, (as much of the technology is not mature) but is specifically designed to be able to incorporate future tech as part of the integrated electronic architecture.

This is similar to the Boeing 787 and Zumwalt-class destroyer, being similarly designed from new technologies with an eye on future development.

This is a very exciting time for applied technology. Of course it's expensive, and of course it well take time to evaluate, integrate and test in the real world. The constant, ill-informed griping about this project is quite disheartening in the general short-sighted nature it takes. Not so much Luddite as completely missing the whole picture of what a truly modern, integrated weapon system represents.

I give you TSR-2.

This is exactly what was said in 1959. Now decades after it was canned because of 'cost' or other factors, loads of armchair pundits tell you it was too far ahead of it's time to succeed.

Back then, it promised to eat everything, and all without stealth.

Deja-Vu anyone?

[Alan P]

Look, we're not going to agree. In three years we'll compare notes. We could both be wrong, but were not both going to be right!

I think it's a fantastic project, one of the few international tech projects that has kept momentum and exceeded its target capabilities in the face of bitter opposition from jealous competitors and their significant media lobby, fiscal conservatism and political fear. I want the F-35 to succeed. I also want it to be the prototype for a new generation of exciting warplanes that I can admire into my dotage.

Until then, I'll remain an interested observer and ardent supporter. I probably don't need to say any more, in this thread anyway!

[Nigel Foster60]

Gentlemen

I think there are a lot of comments on both sides of the discussion which are correct and very valid, even if they conflict to some degree. The important thing is that we have a range of capabilities, some the most up to date technology and some tried tested and proven. A balanced mix. I do not wear wellingtons on parade and I do not wear parade shoes in the garden.

If we are doing the Malta thing then Gladiators/ Hurricanes were ok against the Italian Air Force but the ME109's were a different story.

If any of the 'terrorist' groups we are up against get SU34's then we will need Typhoon and F35 every time but in the meantime why risk a £50m aircraft when a £20m one will do the job and probably with less chance of going U/S.

If we wake up before the bear in the east gets out of hand we will need plenty of hi tech aircraft and plenty of low tech ones will be a great use around the margins and for training and support.

Just for the record Ford produced the XR3i and I will always be grateful for it formed a vital part of my growing up, I do not think I could have had that much fun in a Merc! Each to there own!

Nigel.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Look, we're not going to agree. In three years we'll compare notes. We could both be wrong, but were not both going to be right!

Three years.....Are we sure about that?

[Ingo Degenhardt]

thats the real damm problem and the thing I personally have against it, they trioed to squeeze the roles of 4/5 previously aircraft many of them much larger airframes into one platform, wit h the additional capability of next gen software and hardware thrown in and with stealth on top of that, plus with the added pressure of not costing that much more than the old stuff, should have been 2 or 3 distinct aircraft made from the specification not 3 highly different version of the same base, theres just too much capability squeezed into too small a packet

You will hardly find any government to be willing or able to pay for your 2-3 different aircraft these days.

[Slater]

In theory at least, the F-35 is/was supposed to replace the F-16, A-10, and AV-8B in US service, as well as some of the F/A-18's.

[SleeperService]

This has been a fascinating thread so far. However the overall picture hasn't been mentioned much so if I may?

It has been a very long time since military (or much else actually) equipment has been selected on the basis of suitability for use, Ever since Eisenhower referred to the Military-Industrial-Complex the right equipment has been what is right for that vested interest the Military Contractors. There are many (myself included) who believe that we have passed the peak of mechanical technology as more of each contract is mined out of providing hardware or software to go to 'corporate infrastructure' or investment. That's another way of saying tax dodge and political palm greasing.

Pick any project in any government supply contract and you will see far less spent on the equipment than a similar contract 30 years ago. If you doubt that then look at where you work, is everybody contributing to the product? Of course not but the numbers of non-contributors is far higher than it was.

This atmosphere leads to a greater aversion to risk so the rate of progress slows meaning that it takes several incremental gains in subsequent generations before potential apparent at the start is realised. So the MIC gets a lot of money for modest increases in performance.

Is the F-35 a better plane than those it will replace? Yes! But is it better in proportion to the current year adjusted cost of those it's replacing? No!

More vitally is it going to be the right plane for the next 30 years? Unlikely. In this country the Spitfire and Hurricane were available in just enough numbers for the pilots to carry the day. That was down to far sighted decisions to build them ahead of Government contract. If the normal chain of events had happened we'd be looking at a very different world today.

As a final thought what threat do you see us facing? Militant Islam, oil, gas, the Eastern Bear, water? Kit like the F-35 or Challenger/Abrams MBT are right for one and peripheral to another.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Very well said SS......These ultra-sophisticated weapons are of significant use only when major powers are in confrontation, I had hoped until recent years that the likelihood of that was diminishing.

The battles we actually fight might be better served with larger numbers of less sophisticated weapons.....The fact that ISIS were able to hold a parade featuring a mile long convoy of vehicles, apparently unmolested, rather suggests that the current high-tech pin-point approach just isn't up to snuff.

As for the current utility of the F-22 in penetrating the air defences of the Assad regime.....I wasn't aware that we were actually at war with Syria (despite the best efforts of propagandists in the media), indeed I seem to recall that war with Syria was voted down, world-wide.

The west's use of the Saudi funded ISIS as a proxy in their attack on Syria and the wider Arab world in general, is utterly sickening IMHO, we should all hang our heads in shame.

Supplying the pathalogical lunatics currently running NATO with weapon systems that might just give them the belief that they can try it on with another major power is a bloody silly idea if you ask me.

There I've said it.....I'll probably get into trouble now, but it needed to be said.

[rustywelder]

Edited June 28, 2015 by rustywelder

[Gary C]

There I've said it....

Good for you. It's not healthy to keep all that crazy bottled up.

[bentwaters81tfw]

So many people who just follow the rest of the herd. I'm pleased that at least some of the membership actually have their eyes and minds open to what is really going on in the world.

Of course we met the usual response of 'conspiracy theorist' or 'Tinfoil hat wearer'.

If they spent more time on real research rather than name calling, we would not collectively be under the thumb of our 'leaders', who forget they are appointed, not anointed, and are in fact public servants.

[Mike]

I've had just about enough of this topic now, and am getting serious deja vu of both the content and the main protagonists. Whenever the F-35 is mentioned the same old arguments come trotting out, and invariably leads to either name calling, political diatribes or both. Well - we've had both, and it's time we got off this particular merry-go-round.

Same arguments, different F number, ad nauseum every time something new comes along, and misty-eyed eulogy about the outgoing airframe. Maybe they should name the next fighter "Cancelled" or "Retired", so everyone will get all misty eyed about it straight away?