Absolute waste of money

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Uhh... you'r the one that need's to take your head out of the sand and read this...

versions for some countries other than the U.S... may be subject to some export restrictions and be equipped with different mission systems. What equipment would be changed, and the difference in capabilities is not known.


F-35 Versions

Tech Restrictions

If development continue as planned for now other countries will not have the same tech as the U.S. F-35's

[edit on 24-3-2005 by WestPoint23]




posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   


Reportedly, versions for some countries other than the U.S. and U.K. may be subject to some export restrictions and be equipped with different mission systems. What equipment would be changed, and the difference in capabilities is not known.


There is a term for cutting and pasting selections that fit your view, the PG13 term I suppose would be called baiting.

I also note the term "May".

- Philip

[edit on 24-3-2005 by gooseuk]



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Firstly, the delays in the schedule have raised doubts that the aircraft will be ready in time to replace the aging Australian air force fleet of F-111 ground attack planes and F-18 fighters. The cost blowouts have also raised worries about the fleet's affordability. There has been considerable annoyance about the fact that the Australian planes will be less stealthy than the American versions, which, combined with concerns about the plane's short range, lack of supercruise and unproven dogfighting capabilities, have led to worries about its suitability to replace both the F-18 and F-111.


Why is the RAAF being sold second best?
The unproven dogfighting capabilities could come back to haunt the F-35.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11

Why is the RAAF being sold second best?
The unproven dogfighting capabilities could come back to haunt the F-35.



True, the F-35 is looking shakier by the minute. Australia should've taken the F-22 (if it was offered). Look at the surrounding airforces, i doubt the F-35 would gain air-superiority over the Flanker series of planes. And Flankers arn't hard to buy.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Even the F-35 that the rest of the world is getting is a different version than ours, and wont have some of the tech that the U.S. ones will.




And they will certainly modify it to utilise tech that the US doesn't have. This is a completely rhetorical argument. It is highly understandable that all hardware is modified by its users since the users have different requirements and expectations.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I myself would prefer that the UK bought the Su Flanker series of naval aircraft, rather than the JSF, there are a few reasons.

1. We know it works, why do you think the americans are rushing to get the JSF and F/A-22 operational.
2. They sure are pretty

3. We wouldn't have to wait till 2012 to get the sods operational.
4. The Flankers where designed to operate using "stolen" nato weapons an fuel as standard. Smart huh.
5. Did I say they were pretty?
6. They are a stable and capable weapon system.
7. Cheap as chips!
8. Upgradeable with "Western" technology.

Thats my view point.

- Phil

[edit on 25-3-2005 by gooseuk]



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28

Originally posted by xpert11

Why is the RAAF being sold second best?
The unproven dogfighting capabilities could come back to haunt the F-35.



True, the F-35 is looking shakier by the minute. Australia should've taken the F-22 (if it was offered). Look at the surrounding airforces, i doubt the F-35 would gain air-superiority over the Flanker series of planes. And Flankers arn't hard to buy.


Somehow even if it was offered ( and it may well have been ), the $US200 million price tag is just a tiny bit out of our reach. Hell we couldn't afford enough ammo for training a few years ago.

The F-35 is a far cheaper choice and still far more advanced than our neighbours.

The F-18 was a bad choice IMO as it was built for carrier duty and had short legs. We should've purchased the F-15 or F-16 to take advantage of the freater rabge land based aircraft have.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Gooseuk, it would be pointless to buy Russian fighters and upgrade them with Western tech, because of the cost. You'd be better off then with just buying Western aircraft from the start.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
The F-35 is a far cheaper choice and still far more advanced than our neighbours.


I dunno man, even the Indonesians use F-16's and Su-27's & 30's, but it's just that they servicing record is shaky.

And the F-35 might blow out in price. Have we ever considered trying for the Typhoon or even the Rafale?



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk
I myself would prefer that the UK bought the Su Flanker series of naval aircraft


- We in the UK aren't ever going to buy that pretty - but ancient (it first flew in 1977 so it is all based upon a 30yr+ old design - Russian crate.

End of.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
i find it a bit amusing that the british are complaining about second rate millitary hardware. what about those subs that brittin sold canada? you remember the ones that are patheticaly useless.

it is the us's right to hold back some secrets. not nice mind you but it does belong to them.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by drogo
i find it a bit amusing that the british are complaining about second rate millitary hardware. what about those subs that brittin sold canada? you remember the ones that are patheticaly useless.

You bought them knowing the condition of them....not our fault in anyway.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by drogo
i find it a bit amusing that the british are complaining about second rate millitary hardware.


- It's nothing to do with anything being "2nd rate"

It has got everything to do with bilking the British taxpayer for hardware that cannot work without the necessary computer codes. (unless we decide to do our own at great additional cost)

It has got everything to do with Britain having been the USA's most staunch ally, at enormous cost and getting treated like a potential enemy or credible security risk.


what about those subs that brittin sold canada? you remember the ones that are patheticaly useless.


- Firstly the Canadians knew Britain was planning to junk those 4 subs.

Secondly Britain did refurbish them before selling them on.

Thirdly Canada bought all 4 of them for a pittance.

Fourthly the inquirey has heard evidence that the Canadians were 'pushing' the last sub sold when it got into trouble off of Ireland (and when that poor guy died).

Fifth, in what way has this the slightest relevance?
There is no similarity in this case at all.


it is the us's right to hold back some secrets. not nice mind you but it does belong to them.


- No.
A sale means the buyer becomes the owner.
(Stick an immobiliser on it and try to pull that one next time you sell your car, huh?)

If the UK (or any other nation) is buying hardware the least the selling nation can do is point out that the millions will be spent in vain as the stuff won't be able to function.

Particularly when in the case of the F35 the UK is supposed to be a manufacturing partner.

Still, if that is how the Americans now want it, they'll maybe carry it off the once but ultimately it's their (already staggeringly sorry) balance of payments that is going to suffer.

[edit on 27-3-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Just out of curiosity ---

Is anyone here in the aerospace business or is/was in the military?



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   



what about those subs that brittin sold canada? you remember the ones that are patheticaly useless.


- Firstly the Canadians knew Britain was planning to junk those 4 subs.

Secondly Britain did refurbish them before selling them on.

Thirdly Canada bought all 4 of them for a pittance.

Fourthly the inquirey has heard evidence that the Canadians were 'pushing' the last sub sold when it got into trouble off of Ireland (and when that poor guy died).

Fifth, in what way has this the slightest relevance?
There is no similarity in this case at all.




The Upholders were not junk and were most definatly not pathetically useless, They were built in the late 80's and early 90's and are basically a deisel electric version of the trafalger class. They were mothballed after the end of the cold war (mid 90's) because the MoD decided the UK would have an all nuclear sub fleet from then on. When the Canadians decided to buy them they all went through refit and sea trials with full cooperation from the Canadian government.


The information i have on the inquiry into HMCS Chicoutimi suggests that water entered through a hatch in the conning tower that was open, leading to a short and the fires that killed a member of the crew. The datate is raging as to whether the hatch was left open by the crew (which the brits say, and the Canadian navy dont like) or that the hatch was shut but leaked due to inproper build quality (which the Canadians think, and the british dont like).

Personally (i am british though), the sub had already done extended sea trials including underwater dives, so if the was a significant build fault with the hatch it would have been picked up already. Saying that the Canadians have the sub intact so can 'inspect' the hatch to see what state its in.

The inquiry continues

[edit on 29-3-2005 by paperplane_uk]



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   


it is the us's right to hold back some secrets. not nice mind you but it does belong to them.


Nope why should America loyal allies put up with 2nd rate stuff?
Why should the RAAF personal put there lives on the line for a country that sold them out?



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Guys,

Can we get back on topic please? All I asked was, what, in your opinion, was or is an absolute waste of taxpayer's money?



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Whats a waste of money?
The scottish rugby and football teams

But if we are talking military then I would have to say the 2 mil it took to "fix" the SA-80 but didnt improve anything...thank god we got HK to help with that...



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Nope why should America loyal allies put up with 2nd rate stuff?
Why should the RAAF personal put there lives on the line for a country that sold them out?


Because we in the U.S. have the mentality of we worked hard, we built the system, we pay the money we keep it for ourselves and give you something less capable.
I don't know I kind of like it, plus the British don't need the same advanced tech as the U.S. does their a small country they are not going to fight any big wars by them selves.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   


Because we in the U.S. have the mentality of we worked hard, we built the system, we pay the money we keep it for ourselves and give you something less capable.

That what I dont like about the US they think its US vs the world.


I don't know I kind of like it, plus the British don't need the same advanced tech as the U.S. does their a small country they are not going to fight any big wars by them selves.


You forgot that the poms and aussies fight along side the US in those wars since when has the US fought alone?
and some people say the french will stab you in the back well the US is doing a pretty good job of it.



[edit on 31-3-2005 by xpert11]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join