Originally posted by WestPoint23
Damn looks like the USAF really messed Britain's projects up is it like that still today? does the USAF or US military still pressure Britain not to finish certain projects? Also devil don't give s the torpedo but you isn't getting MTHEL system.

most likely yes if we did make a new plane u would stop it.
yes, but these are done quietly.
dont give us it then. im sure russia has some more interesting projects,they'll be happy to make a deal.

Yeah do by some rusting missiles rather than solid state lasers
Plus Tony would never buy weapons form Russia or he will get smacked by bush

Ask anyone in Britain and they will tell you that Tony doesn't do the fighting, he gets Prescott to throw the Punches, and they are real slammers!

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah do by some rusting missiles rather than solid state lasers
Plus Tony would never buy weapons form Russia or he will get smacked by bush

- Hey Westy go have a look back through the history of just about everything useful and you'll find you were given most of it by the Brits and if not the Brits then by the rest of our 'olde Europe' crowd.

What makes you think we stopped popping out the good stuff?:

Some folk know the story of your airforce dudes having a deep shock fit several years back when 'we' showed them 'our' F117-stylee facet steath plane.....'cept of course that, unlike the F117, the euro one was supersonic! We weren't supposed to know about any of that stuff were we.....cept of course that stealth was a euro invention too.

Maybe you just don't know enough to justify that little smirk on yer face, HUH?



[edit on 28-7-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by rustiswordz
or Roll Away the Future if Tony the Traitor Bliar has his way...

- bit obsessive and OTT about our PM then, huh?

[edit on 28-7-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

What makes you think we stopped popping out the good stuff?:

the fact that you are cutting your military spending and cutting your forces you guys need to spend more money on your military.

Also What are you talking about the British F-117 care to explain?

also no we havnt stopped our funding dont believe everything u hear, we still run projects.
its just army that has a problem.

A stealth plane is not good if it can fly supersonic cuz first it would make a lot on noise the sonic boom for example and a radar operator would notice a bird going mach 2. the B-2 and F-117 could have both been supersonic but it was counterproductive for a stealth plane to go supersonic.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
A stealth plane is not good if it can fly supersonic cuz first it would make a lot on noise the sonic boom for example

- well that would depend on where it was flying at supersonic speeds, wouldn't it? Are you seriously suggesting that the F117 mission would have no use whatsoever in having a supersonic capability? I do not believe that mate, sorry.

and a radar operator would notice a bird going mach 2.

- again you're making assumtions that the speed would only be used in high-threat area, why?

the B-2 and F-117 could have both been supersonic but it was counterproductive for a stealth plane to go supersonic.

- ifs, buts, coulda, woulda, shoulda. LMAO. Pure groundless assertion and speculation.

Come on westy, wise up and own up, there's no way the B2 could have met it's requirement (especailly it's cost requirement....cos the B2 is sooooo affordable, even for the USA, huh?! lol) and gone mach1+ ditto the F117.

This was just another example of Americans thinking themselves so far ahead of the game and to their enormous surprise finding it just wasn't quite as they imagined.

uhh... why do you have to make this anti American I am stating you why its not good for stealth plane to go supersonic. first if your not in a high risk are why the hell would you go supersonic to waste your fuel in 1-2 minutes? Also what are you saying the Us is incapable of making supersonic stealth aircraft?

Originally posted by WestPoint23
uhh... why do you have to make this anti American I am stating you why its not good for stealth plane to go supersonic. first if your not in a high risk are why the hell would you go supersonic to waste your fuel in 1-2 minutes? Also what are you saying the Us is incapable of making supersonic stealth aircraft?

why do we do this? well i do it because i can
hmm lets see you can go supersonic and get your self in and out quickly BUT slow down to go to the tarrget then once uv gone thats it sorted.
no but you dont have any and never did want any and couldnt of made one at the time.

devilwasp over

Originally posted by WestPoint23
uhh... why do you have to make this anti American

- "Anti - American"? Bit strong isn't it Westy?

Anyhoo it seems only fair....you were surely pulling 'our' chain with that "Yeah do by some rusting missiles rather than solid state lasers
Plus Tony would never buy weapons form Russia or he will get smacked by bush" stuff weren't you?

I am stating you why its not good for stealth plane to go supersonic. first if your not in a high risk are why the hell would you go supersonic to waste your fuel in 1-2 minutes?

- think of it as the old supersonic dash idea.... but in reverse. There may be value (especially with tanker support) in very fast transit to the target; then you slow down at the target and go super stealthy; then you get out ASAP..... to repeat the sortie as fast as poss = Force multiplier effect.

Also what are you saying the Us is incapable of making supersonic stealth aircraft?

- No, I'm saying that true to form the US people couldn't believe that someone else was - completely independently - doing a better version of what they were up to.

I thought this very funny.

No doubt if it had been the Russians you'd have been crying about how they had copied you guys!

Of course the US is capable of doing a supersonic stealth aircraft.....what do you call the F22/23?

.....it's just that compared to a Euro design - as anyone with any connection with US 'leading edge' design methods knows - a US version would cost at least 10 times as much to research and develop and have about 10 times the manpower thrown at it to get it right.

[edit on 30-7-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Yes but the raptor can fly mach 1.6 without afterburner so its not the usual supersonic mode where you can only stay supersonic for a few minutes before you run out of fuel so that is a good thing. Also there is a reason the US planes cost more because they can still be good after 30+ years.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yes but the raptor can fly mach 1.6 without afterburner

- Oh I know, supercruise. It's kind of new-ish. We got it on our Typhoon2 too. Rafale has it too.

We Brits have a history of making fuel efficient jet engines.....less smokey too. (touch of early stealth there with that little characteristic. RAF pilots always used to love exercising with US guys, you could see them coming miles off!....which is pretty strange really as the UK gave the US it's start with jet technology.....and kept passing along our good stuff into the 60's.

so its not the usual supersonic mode where you can only stay supersonic for a few minutes before you run out of fuel so that is a good thing.

- well that's true-ish. 'Minutes' is a tad severe, I'd say.

It is - by far - preferable from a fuel consumption point of view but it isn't the answer to everything. Kinetic heating will still be a major problem, sound too. It's a transit thing, rapid reaction/deployment, you can choose to use by and large as I said.

You were more right about this originally. Go supersonic and you lose a lot of your stealth ability.

Also there is a reason the US planes cost more because they can still be good after 30+ years.

- Yeah but that's the game all play these days. No-one is going to put up with a short-lived multi-million cost system.

Seriously, the US approach to design is (or, to be more fair and accurate, definitely has been) as I described. UK design staff working in the USA are always astounded at the sheer weight of man-power and money throw at development in the US. It's your culture.



[edit on 30-7-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
UK design staff working in the USA are always astounded at the sheer weight of man-power and money throw at development in the US. It's your culture.
[edit on 30-7-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Yep. That's the American traditional way of getting things done.

If you have a problem, hit it head on with as much force as possible.

Oh I know, supercruise. It's kind of new-ish. We got it on our Typhoon2 too. Rafale has it too.

Rafael doesn't have it. Also the typhoon and Rafael that your bough and are going to buy from the french Is this how low British aviation has come that it has to buy planes form the french So the Brits don't have super cruise the French do.

Next here is how it works the US spends money to developed new systems and other countries just do what we did they don't have to do it form the beginning cuz we were already there so they save money.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Also the typhoon and Rafael that your bough and are going to buy from the french Is this how low British aviation has come that it has to buy planes form the french So the Brits don't have super cruise the French do.

What are you talking about?

The British are not buying Rafaels from France.

The Eurofighter is being built (and bought) by the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Rafael doesn't have it. Also the typhoon and Rafael that your bough and are going to buy from the french Is this how low British aviation has come that it has to buy planes form the french So the Brits don't have super cruise the French do.

Westpoint, despite your rampant jingoism a hell of a lot of your posts are intelligent and informative, so why do you let yourself down with rubbish like this? Untrue and inaccurate statements made in a fit of pique are not generally a 'good thing'.