bruno22rf Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Does anybody REALLY believe that the yanks could not have built a VSTOL fighter long before us had they wanted/needed to? The Harrier has been a huge waste of money-built for a scenario that could never occur-whats the point in a fighter that can operate from behind enemy lines?-where do the ground crew come from not to mention the huge amount of consumables needed to keep the beast in the air.Modern warfare needs stealth and speed in that order-neither of which the Harrier is capable of.Truth be known we would now be a far superior adversary if we had bought the F 15 and 16 from the good old US of A instead of throwing money at the Harrier and later Tornado.Still,at least we have learned our lesson with the new Typhoon with its amazing stealth technology and superior performance to the ......oh burger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Scholl Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 I saw a program on tv about this some time ago they had several different firms designing prototypes and this was the one that they decided on it was no good us being involved out pockets are not big enough/empty. :look: The F-35B was built specifically for the U.S Marine Corps. It's also caused by far the most problems with the program and there has been talk of cancelling it. That was the main reason the Marines bought the Harriers from the Royal Navy, to keep their Harriers flying in case the F-35B gets cancelled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveoM Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 I worked on these back in the early days of development whilst finishing off the last harriers. This was the out come of the jfs (joint fight striker) program and was designed as a replacement harrier by several nations including the uk. It was not designed by the yanks for the yanks it was a joint program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schern Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Is the new plane vertical takeoff capable? Doesn't show it doing it in that vid just STOVL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ped Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) As I supply the JSF subbie chain, here's some info; Yes its supersonic and uses super cruse to save fuel, the lift fan for the STVOL version is built by rolls royce here in the uk, as is the entire power system amongst other things like ice protection systems and pilot helmets etc. It is vertical takeoff and landing capable. Main engine is built by **** & Witney but there are options on a RR engine as well. As the US DoD want to sell loads of these, they are sharing work out from the main contractor, Lockheed Martin, in about 18 different countries - basically anyone who's committed to buying them get a share of the program. It is also pretty stealthy (radar cross section of a small bird) and has loads or really cool tech on board. The uk has committed to buying about 40 if I remember correctly, with a total build of nearly 3000 aircraft being discussed. It is intended to replace many current frontline aircraft in the us fleet an will have a service lift of around 50 years, making it the most expensive defence project ever with projected life costs of about $1 trillion!! Ped Edited January 18, 2012 by Ped Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) it`s everything the British government should have developed/improved the harrier too and not scrapped it!! short sighted idiots. perhaps not so short sighted? IE why re-invent the wheel? the Harrier GR9/9As had a scheduled out of service date of 2018, and at most potentially to 2022 and thats IF the airframes were up to it , so the Harrier fleet could have been maintained at great cost for another 10 years max, the F35 will go for 30 maybe as long as 50 years from now and the development cost has been met by the USA! so in truth perhaps a little shrewder buisiness than you give merit to, in fact even the RAF pilots stated that to keep the harrier would mean a degrading of the service, sometimes facts like that get missed KW Edited January 18, 2012 by kdubya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 As i tell a us friend, they got to the moon with German scientists and English\Polish designed computers. Their aircraft use jet engines that were invented in the UK. The basis of most navigation up until the 20th century was by an accurate timekeeping clock invented in the UK by John Harrison. Let's be honest here, most of the stuff in the world was invented by a Brit, be they Welsh Scottish or English with a good sprinkling of Irish writers etc in there as well. We didn't get to rule the world by just sitting on our bums with our brains in neutral Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 As i tell a us friend, they got to the moon with German scientists and English\Polish designed computers. Their aircraft use jet engines that were invented in the UK. The basis of most navigation up until the 20th century was by an accurate timekeeping clock invented in the UK by John Harrison. Let's be honest here, most of the stuff in the world was invented by a Brit, be they Welsh Scottish or English with a good sprinkling of Irish writers etc in there as well. We didn't get to rule the world by just sitting on our bums with our brains in neutral Jeremy Clarkson with brains - good man ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Were you asleep during the whole world trade centre thing... :blink: As a matter of fact I was. On my honeymoon in Port Douglas, Australia. a supersonic attack jet could well have made a big difference to about 2595 people... What are you on about? The US has had supersonic jets for years. Not that one would have helped on 11/9. Post FAIL I'm afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkield Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Looks like they copied it from the plane in Die Hard 4.0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddy boy Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 have to say, the brits really rule. what a pity we are governed by tossers,sorry meant to say silly billies. A.T.B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 I am English born and bred but the one thing that I can never understand is quite why so many British people seem to live in the past a hundred years ago this country was a force to be reckoned with we controlled half of the world and made stuff that we exported all over the world. Fast forward to today we are a tiny country on the edge of europe living way beyond are means we make very little to be honest the country only keeps going by having dogy banks doing crooked deals with other peoples money and skimming profits off the top apart from this we are in debt up to our eyeballs but the thing that amazes me is that a lot of you still live in the past and have this gung ho attitude lets smash johny foreigner after all we are British and have a rite to do whatever we want to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 As a matter of fact I was. On my honeymoon in Port Douglas, Australia. What are you on about? The US has had supersonic jets for years. Not that one would have helped on 11/9. Post FAIL I'm afraid. Erm...no - you hinted that America were building a pointless jet due to not having and enemy air threat - 9/11 proved this - one of the problems posted with 9/11 was the reaction time, therefore if an attack jet could theoretically take off from any location it could be used as defence of any location - not just be at a particular air base ....so in fact I'd still say your response was a FAIL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmooney Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) It wasn't necessarily a reaction time failure. It was a procedural failure. The standard approach to hijacking was to placate them, wait to see what Middle Eastern country they took the plane to, give them some political prisoners in exchange for the passengers and everyone is happy. There was no conception of this type of event. There are bases up and down the east coast, they could have intercepted them easily if anyone had thought to. The other problem then is what to do when you intercept. They could have stopped them from hitting the towers but likely only by destroying the airliners with air-to-air missiles over one of the most densely populated areas of the US. There was no way to win that day I'm afraid. Edited January 19, 2012 by jmooney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 It wasn't necessarily a reaction time failure. It was a procedural failure. The standard approach to hijacking was to placate them, wait to see what Middle Eastern country they took the plane to, give them some political prisoners in exchange for the passengers and everyone is happy. There was no conception of this type of event. There are bases up and down the east coast, they could have intercepted them easily if anyone had thought to. The other problem then is what to do when you intercept. They could have stopped them from hitting the towers but likely only by destroying the airliners with air-to-air missiles over one of the most densely populated areas of the US. There was no way to win that day I'm afraid. But the fact remains it was an air threat...the fact there was no procedure to deal with it does not change the fact it was a real threat not an "invisible" one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artschool Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 Erm...no - you hinted that America were building a pointless jet due to not having and enemy air threat - 9/11 proved this - one of the problems posted with 9/11 was the reaction time, therefore if an attack jet could theoretically take off from any location it could be used as defence of any location - not just be at a particular air base ....so in fact I'd still say your response was a FAIL! actually jets were scrambled but stood no chance of stopping even the last plane flight 93. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 Erm...no - you hinted that America were building a pointless jet due to not having and enemy air threat - 9/11 proved this - one of the problems posted with 9/11 was the reaction time, therefore if an attack jet could theoretically take off from any location it could be used as defence of any location - not just be at a particular air base ....so in fact I'd still say your response was a FAIL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) Great, well balanced response... Edited January 19, 2012 by gixer1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamekeeper1960 Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 They'll reinvent the wheel next! The way they drive around lakenheath and midenhall I bet its going to be square!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Scholl Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Hey, you'd be speaking German if it weren't for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Great, well balanced response... Took me ages to compose too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DSPUK Posted January 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) Doc Took you long enough to get that one in :rolleyes: Dave Edited January 20, 2012 by DSPUK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Hey, you'd be speaking German if it weren't for us. Oh no... not that old chestnut! Hitler originally actually wanted us as an ally, not an enemy, if anything, if it wasn't for our British stubborness and resolve, he would have quite possibly been a global threat and, you, as well as us would be learning German in our schools! :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Jawohl Herr Hauptmann. Achtung, Schnell Schnell....! Die Englander! Aieeeeeeee...oh no that was Japs wasn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Jawohl Herr Hauptmann. Achtung, Schnell Schnell....! Die Englander! Aieeeeeeee...oh no that was Japs wasn't it? 10 out of 10 for effort! :lol: :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.