JSF and British/American Ties

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
your assistance/canadas/australias/indias etc.

a newly rich america came along funded putting the bomb together in the 'manhattan project'.. funny thing is many americans claim the 'atom bomb' is an american invention just because of this reason
but they don't realize most of the scientists that worked on the manhattan project were british and canadian (british commonwealth at the time).

[edit on 16-12-2006 by st3ve_o]


Well, I cant speak for the "majority" that was working on the bomb. However, since the plants and other facilities were/are located in the United States, I would argue the "majority" of the work was done by americans.

Furthermore, Robert Oppenheimer was an american, not a brit or canadian. The other scientists were usually german or italian immigrants (fermi, etc).

If "most" of the research was done by britain, why were the british so insistant we share the technology? why couldnt they build one on their own?

Why did britain trade the formula for VX for thermonuclear technology if "most" of the research had been done by them?

nice attempt to rewrite that particular aspect of history.




posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Semperfoo, help from a German to design the jet engine? Surely not, old boy?

As I understant it, the world's first flying jet aircraft of any type, was the German aircraft designed by the brilliant 25 year old Pabst von Ohain and Ernst Heinkel.

The aircraft in question, was the Heinkel He-178. It was flown by a Capitan Erich Warsitz of the Luftwaffe on August 24th and again on August 27th, 1939.

Frank Whittle designed a jet engine way back in the late 20s, early 30s. He patented his design but, owing to lack of funding from the RAF and the government of the day and, having no funds to invest himself, the patent lapsed.

Whittle carried on his designing and built an engine, aided by two RAF pilot/mechanics who stumped up about 1500 between them, to restart the project.

After much trial and error, a jet aircraft was built and had it's engine tested at the Brockworth based Gloster Aircraft Company works in Gloucestershire [3 miles from where I live]

The maiden flight of the Gloster E28/39 was on 15 May 1941 with Flight Lieutenant Gerry Sayer flying Whittle's first jet from RAF Cranwell, where the aircraft flew for 17 minutes.

This aircraft went on to become the world's second operational jet fighter, the Gloster Meteor, which went operational just a few weeks after the Messerschmidt Me 262.

Incidentially the first flight of the ME 262 powered by two Jumo 004 jets took place on July 18th, 1941 and lasted 12 minutes.

So semperfoo, how did the Germans help design our first jet engine?



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by waynos
So, you owe us nothing eh? Well, If it wasn't for us you'd all be living in teepees and wearing feathered headresses.


Actually no, at least I would be living in Germany or England depending on how things went, damn, that would suck.


Glad you can appreciate the silliness of it all westy.

PS Madonna seems to like it here


Fritz; what can I say? Nothing to add, top post


[edit on 17-12-2006 by waynos]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Unless Britain has leaked classified information before, why are we being so reluctant to share with them now?


You are joking right?

Burgess, Philby and McLean anyone.

Let the British buy a navalized Rafale, we should keep technologies such as those used in the Raptor and JSF under local control.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
If "most" of the research was done by britain, why were the british so insistant we share the technology? why couldnt they build one on their own?



If you look at the 2 men most responsable for the atomic bomb Professor Rudolph Peierls and Otto Frisch, of Birmingham University - yes they 'wasn't' British, but most of thir work was conducted in Britain, it was those 2 men who designed a "blue-print" for making an atom bomb in 1940.

But Britain was researching into the atom bomb 'the ultimate weapon' (it was known) for years but our research doubled during ww2 under the name 'tube alloys project'...also the first man to sepearte the nucleus of the atom btw was a british scientist in the 1920's.

why didn't we build one of our own then?

as said we were broke and the Americans wouldn't help us (stabbed us in the back), as it was orinally agreed both countrys would share resources/knowledge for building the bomb in the 'manhattan project'. But in 1946 the American Truman Administration, made it clear britain would be no longer be allowed access to US atomic research


hence why the British Foreign Secretary (Ernest Bevin) made is speach "We've got to have it and it's got to have a bloody Union jack on it"

we conducted our first test in 1952 (7 years later), so there we go
- but most work into 'how to build an atomic weapon' was researched by Britain.

[edit on 17-12-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
So, you owe us nothing eh? Well, If it wasn't for us you'd all be living in teepees and wearing feathered headresses.

Now can we stop this puerile bitching? I see nobody has responded to my factual post but you would rather bitch away like an old woman instead


LOL I like that. thats pretty funny! Actually im german. So like westpoint I would be in germany.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
Semperfoo, help from a German to design the jet engine? Surely not, old boy?

As I understant it, the world's first flying jet aircraft of any type, was the German aircraft designed by the brilliant 25 year old Pabst von Ohain and Ernst Heinkel.

The aircraft in question, was the Heinkel He-178. It was flown by a Capitan Erich Warsitz of the Luftwaffe on August 24th and again on August 27th, 1939.

Frank Whittle designed a jet engine way back in the late 20s, early 30s. He patented his design but, owing to lack of funding from the RAF and the government of the day and, having no funds to invest himself, the patent lapsed.

Whittle carried on his designing and built an engine, aided by two RAF pilot/mechanics who stumped up about �1500 between them, to restart the project.

After much trial and error, a jet aircraft was built and had it's engine tested at the Brockworth based Gloster Aircraft Company works in Gloucestershire [3 miles from where I live]

The maiden flight of the Gloster E28/39 was on 15 May 1941 with Flight Lieutenant Gerry Sayer flying Whittle's first jet from RAF Cranwell, where the aircraft flew for 17 minutes.

This aircraft went on to become the world's second operational jet fighter, the Gloster Meteor, which went operational just a few weeks after the Messerschmidt Me 262.

Incidentially the first flight of the ME 262 powered by two Jumo 004 jets took place on July 18th, 1941 and lasted 12 minutes.

So semperfoo, how did the Germans help design our first jet engine?


Good points.
Erm... I stand corrected.
I was just pointing out a german not a brit helped. But really it doesnt matter.


[edit on 023131p://111 by semperfoo]



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 03:47 AM
link   
This thread is now outdated, the Americans sent us the codes. And the F-35 (though it was the F-35A, not the F-35B) has flown for the first time, so the program WILL be continued and our military WILL get that stealth fighter.

Honestly, I hope we order even more F-35s, instead of those EF-2000s.

Besides:
1) As Turkey ordered 200 F-35s, they've contributed a lot of money to the producer, and there's no point for us or any other country to stop helping with the program that has been supported by so many countries.
2) By ordering 200 planes, they've lowered the price of the plane (the more you buy, the cheaper the plane is), which was already lower than the price of the EF-2000 before they did. Of course, French planes are even cheaper, but who wants to buy their planes if we can buy BETTER fighters?

Finally, I advise everyone to read this: www.globalsecurity.org... - not just the index page, but also all other subsites.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
AntiBliarPolitician, what's the beef against the Typhoon? You a pilot? If you are, your the only one EVER that I have heard bitch about the Typhoon. If not, then WTF are you basing your opinions on apart from an obvious hatred of anything European?



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Firstly, don't assume that I hate "everything that's European", because I don't. I only know, and tell other people, that Paneuropean military equipment is inferior to ours.

And no, I'm not a pilot, I'm a retired sailor. Luckily, the RN will never be using the EF-2000.

[edit on 26-12-2006 by AntiBliarPolitician]



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I'll ask the question again, as just like Mr Bluuurgh, your hero
, you avoided the question..

Whats the beef with the Typhoon?

Specifically and without equivocation or sidestepping, please...

EDIT: This should be fun....

[edit on 26/12/06 by stumason]



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   
You're joking right? You think that a plane that is not even steath and requires a runway 4 times longer than the F-35B is better than this plane?

Not to mention that, as I already said (but you ignored me) it is possible to predict when the F-35B will fail, but you CAN'T say that about the Eurofighter Typhoon.

No wonder why the French don't fly it and the Turks have decided to buy F-35s instead of EF-2000s.

BTW: Have you read the site titled "GlobalSecurityOrg"?

[edit on 26-12-2006 by AntiBliarPolitician]



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician
You're joking right? You think that a plane that is not even steath and requires a runway 4 times longer than the F-35B is better than this plane?

Not to mention that, as I already said (but you ignored me) it is possible to predict when the F-35B will fail, but you CAN'T say that about the Eurofighter Typhoon.

No wonder why the French don't fly it and the Turks have decided to buy F-35s instead of EF-2000s.

BTW: Have you read the site titled "GlobalSecurityOrg"?

[edit on 26-12-2006 by AntiBliarPolitician]


What on earth are you one about? How can you "predict when the F-35B will fail" but not with a Typhoon? If anything, if the Typhoon has engine failure, it has another one there, if the F-35 has engine failure, it becomes a brick. Standard RAF thinking, my friend.

And where did I say the Typhoon is better than the F-35? You said this another thread when it is entirely contrary to what I had already stated.

A few sandwhiches short, methinks.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
if the Typhoon has engine failure, it has another one there

And what if the second engine fails, too?



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician
And what if the second engine fails, too?

Then It'll do the exact same as the F-35 would when it loses its one engine.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Haha, nice one DW...


At least there is a second available to the Typhoon....



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician
And what if the second engine fails, too?

Then It'll do the exact same as the F-35 would when it loses its one engine.

And can you guarantee that the second engine will not fail? Answer: no, you can't. But as I said, we're not talking only about reliability of these two planes.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I have already covered the Typhoon's on board diagnostics on the aircraft board but a question does occur to me regarding the appraent surety there appears to be that the Lightning will be a superior fighter to the Typhoon.

This deserves further investigation as I am not actually aware what A2A systems the Lightning will include. The function of the Lightning in the RAF will be to replace the Harrier, this suggests to me that it will be loaded with bombs, so where will the missiles go? If they are under the wings it isnow no more stealthy than the Typhoon, no?

Will the Lightning be equipped with CAESAR or PIRATE in RAF service? If not then it is already at a severe disadvantage against the Typhoon in A2A ops, is it not?

Will it have the ability to launch the Meteor BVRAAM at all? What sort of detection system will be installed?

What reason is there to thionk that the Lightning will be more manouverable than the Typhoon in WVR combat? It has a conventional layout, it has no TVC to boost its manouverabilty, I see no reason to suppose a high degree of agility on the type.

I don't doubt that the Lightning will be a superb machine and a worthy addition to the RAF, but as to being a better fighter than the Typhoon? I really don't see why. I would have thought that the Lightnings party piece was to sneak in to a land or surface target unobserved making the most of its LO capabilities with internal weapons carriage and to employ pinpoint accuracy in delivery. This is not the same thing at all as being a better fighter, and certainly offers the RAF no alternative to a mixed force of Lightnings and Typhoons.

I am also aware that the A and C models for the USA will have significant A2A capability, especially in BVR, but these will still fall a little short of the Typhoons WVR spec from what I have seen (and please show me more if I am wrong here).

The main reason for this post is anti blairs desire for the RAF to get more Lightnings instead of Typhoons, given their two completey different roles, what would be the benefit?




And can you guarantee that the second engine will not fail? Answer: no, you can't. But as I said, we're not talking only about reliability of these two planes.


But didn't you start banging on about the inferiority of the twin engine Typhoon? Do you think the EJ-200 is more than twice as likely to fail? If so, on what grounds?

[edit on 26-12-2006 by waynos]



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by AntiBliarPolitician
And can you guarantee that the second engine will not fail? Answer: no, you can't. But as I said, we're not talking only about reliability of these two planes.

No but 2 chances are better than one, arent they?



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
the appraent surety that the Lightning will be a superior fighter to the Typhoon.

I have already proven it will be. Read my previous messages.



This deserves further investigation as I am not actually aware what A2A systems the Lightning will include. The function of the Lightning in the RAF will be to replace the Harrier, this suggests to me that it will be loaded with bombs

Wrong. The Harrier could serve the AF as an attack plane only because it is a specialised-role-plane. The F-35B is a multirole plane, meaning it will be able to eliminate flying as well as ground targets. Thus, the Squadron that has so far operated the Harriers will now be operating the multirole F-35Bs.



If not then it is already at a severe disadvantage against the Typhoon

Why do you think it won't?



Will it have the ability to launch the Meteor BVRAAM at all? What sort of detection system will be installed?

Why do you think it won't? The producer is still developing it (the F-35B).

What reason is there to thionk that the Lightning will be more manouverable than the Typhoon in WVR combat?

The Typhoon's G limit isn't known, but F-35Bs is: 9G. It's not know if the EF-2000 can "survive" even 7G.



I don't doubt that the Lightning will be a superb machine and a worthy addition to the RAF, but as to being a better fighter than the Typhoon?

I have already proven it will be. And if you don't believe GSOrg experts, ask Gerard Batten (a member of the EP's Defence Committee), who has written that:



Almost X billion pounds has been wasted on the Eurofighter, a European fighter plane that is obsolete. A better and cheaper plane could be bought from the USA.


Link: www.ukip.org...

By the term "cheaper, better plane that could be bought from the USA", he means either the F-16 or the F-35. How do you think, which one? The F-16 or its replacement?





top topics
 
0
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join