138 F35s!!!! And they are already groundeded!

So Kaibeth, you are the aeronaughtical member, what's goin' on? I have just learnt that we are buying 138 of these F35s with my taxes! Why on earth we need sooo many of 'em is way beyond me, coz 138 x £100 million is..... well a lot! It could house a lot of homeless people, build enough hospitals and prisons and sweep the seas of plastic!

I know we have to have a little defence and that should be for home defence, not careering around the world trying to police other people. I'm not cool with anyone having nuclear weapons at all, a complete waste of money for all the ones that do, they should be outlawed! But why on earth we are spending so much when other countries spend next to nothing, truly is unfathomamable! I know our US allies spend lots more, but do we really need to? No, no, no!

Celia xx

I have read that a lot of fighter pilots are spontaneously dying in these things due to unknown causes. Technology may advance, the human body not so much.

Jehanne wrote:I have read that a lot of fighter pilots are spontaneously dying in these things due to unknown causes.  Technology may advance, the human body not so much.

F-35 pilots at Luke Air Force Base battle unexplained in-flight symptoms
F-35 pilots at Luke Air Force Base continue to experience unexplained symptoms similar to oxygen deprivation while flying, even after the base temporarily grounded all flights to investigate the problem.
Since flights resumed June 21, pilots at Luke have reported three more cases of hypoxia-like symptoms, 56th Fighter Wing spokeswoman Kiley Dougherty said Thursday.
https://www.azfamily.com/archives/f--pilots-at-luke-air-force-base-battle-unexplained/article_15894d77-87f5-5f27-a636-614eddd5da76.html

The F-35 is a piece of marvelous military aircraft engineering - but, one Surface to Air (SAM) missile will destroy the aircraft in a millisecond.

A lot of the sales points for this new aircraft is its fighter ability (dogfighting) but the Russians and Chinese have fighters fully capable of engaging in a dogfight.

Another sales point is the ability to deliver weapons (bombs) to targets. There are much cheaper ways to do this and the development of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) [drones] has been very effective, costs much, much less and recent tests have shown they can be launched and recovered from aircraft carriers. Drones can also stay aloft for a day or more without refueling. A F-35 has a range of less that 1,500 miles.

In 1966, I was part of the crew of an aircraft carrier that shot airplanes at North Vietnam. I was in relative safety compared to my compatriots in the Army and Marines who saw combat face to face.

But today, China has demostrated missiles that can take out a surface ship with nuclear weapons. I would not want to be on board my 'safe' carrier if we were taking on China in the South China Sea. I fear a Trumpian-type president may choose a military solution over a diplomatic or economic solution and all the Navy ships and planes and crews we have 'protecting' us in the western Pacific ocean could vanish over-night.

From what I have gathered (from my former, having been fired from, defense contractor), is that SAMs have evolved to the point that they can take down any aircraft, which is why Trump did not use fighter bombers in Syria.

Well, that's silly then, what is the point of buying them!!!!! All you need is a lot of these sam thingys dotted around every bit of the coast! I think there is probably things that the US and UK have that they don't tell about like the thingy fighter or bomber whatever it is that can't be picked up by the radar detector thingy, so they won't know where to point the sam.

I remember when I was reading History, the Royal Navy admirals clinging on to sailing ships until it beacme absolutely obvious that powered ships were the future, other things like the infantry square and red uniforms and all that being kept until it became clear they had to go. The vast sums spent on two giant Royal Navy aircraft carriers looks like a waste of money too, £3 billion each for kinda 1940's style stuff and that don't include the F-35s or running cost. Sitting ducks, or rather sitting floating Hippopotamuses!

Well I should comment on this as a long standing aerosexual now in remission. I've worked in aviation since I was 20 years old. So I know a thing or two. I like to think.

The issue with the F35 is not huge despite the loss of one aircraft and in fact it was the first to crash. It seems there's an issue with a fuel tube from a particular manufacturer. Not all are affected and indeed only those with the particular parts are grounded. The rest are flying again.

None of this is new when it comes to aircraft. They break, particularly with newly introduced and complex machines. I have personal experience of this. Yes the F35 has it's share of problems and went massively over budget and many think it's not worth the money and perhaps they're right.

But they're not all grounded and the affected aircraft will be back in the air soon. This stuff happens to airliners too. I was regularly snowed under with service bulletins and airworthiness notices. Every crash increased my workload and paperwork blizzard. It's a standing joke that no aeroplane can fly unless the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the aircraft. To give you an example. I used to update manuals for jet engines. Each volume was about six inches wide and there were ten or twelve of them. Revisions came in boxes 18 inches high. That's just the engines. Boeing manuals ran to about 24 volumes.

So the news story is a bit of an exaggeration.

On the other hand the issue of whether there is any point to the F35 itself. Well the jury is out on that one. They are perhaps the last of the manned fighters. Fighters indeed are pretty much obsolete. Air to air combat is all but dead. If I told you that last time the RAF shot down an enemy aircraft you'd hardly believe it. It was a Spitfire and it shot down another Spitfire of the Egyptian air force in 1948.

The whole dogfighting thing like the Battle of Britain is long over. If you get close enough to see the enemy, you're too close. The latest missiles are effective beyond BVR, beyond visual range.

I don't believe that SAMs are as capable as some people, ie Russians claim. They have to be able to detect the aircraft in the first place. Believe me technology has moved on since 1940. Detecting an aircraft requires radar and when you switch on your radar you invite an anti radar missile right on top of you. Not to mention jamming and the fact that modern fighter/bombers are stealth.

I don't know where Jehanne got the idea that Fighter bombers weren't used in Syria. They have and are being used including the F35. The Israelis have them too and used them. The idiot Syrians managed to shoot down a Russian plane trying to hit them.


Ladies there is a lot of false news out there. Maintain a critical viewpoint.


I do agree though that the new British carriers are a bit of an indulgence and are sitting targets. The latest thing is hypersonic missiles, undetectable and unstoppable. Both side are developing them. Hard to stop something that fast.

I hope they never get to use them but if they do the war will be over in a day.

mariehart1 wrote:I don't believe that SAMs are as capable as some people, ie Russians claim. They have to be able to detect the aircraft in the first place. Believe me technology has moved on since 1940. Detecting an aircraft requires radar and when you switch on your radar you invite an anti radar missile right on top of you. Not to mention jamming and the fact that modern fighter/bombers are stealth.

I have a business acquaintance who would beg to differ with you after his RF4C was shot down by a SAM in 1968. I was also a classmate with a B52 Navigator/Bombardier who came back to Thailand one rainy morning with a basketball sized hole in his tail elevator.

Also, there was a 'radar invisible' F117 shot down in 1999.

But this is all silly talk as long as we continue to spend our future and fortune on building a bigger, better, faster gun.

Things have moved on since 1968 too, Michaela. By the end of  the Vietnam war so called 'Wild Weasel' aircraft whose job was to detect SAM radar and send a missile down it's throat. It got so that they could only operate the missile radar for a minute or two at a time if they wanted to survive. Saddam got the the full effect of that in 1991 when a huge defence system was effectively neutralised in one night. Both by missiles and jamming.

As for the F117, that's an interesting story. Essentially the USAF made the mistake of using the same routes over and again. The wily Serbs knew this plus they modified their radar. Even then they only had seconds to detect the F117 and that was only when the bomb door opened and the stealth effect was reduced that they got lucky. You can bet lessons were learned from that.

It is a myth that stealth aircraft are undetectable, it always was.

It's an ongoing process. Develop a new form of defence or attack and the other side will counter it.

Celia Eriksson wrote:Well, that's silly then, what is the point of buying them!!!!! All you need is a lot of these sam thingys dotted around every bit of the coast! I think there is probably things that the US and UK have that they don't tell about like the thingy fighter or bomber whatever it is that can't be picked up by the radar detector thingy, so they won't know where to point the sam.

I remember when I was reading History, the Royal Navy admirals clinging on to sailing ships until it beacme absolutely obvious that powered ships were the future, other things like the infantry square and red uniforms and all that being kept until it became clear they had to go. The vast sums spent on two giant Royal Navy aircraft carriers looks like a waste of money too, £3 billion each for kinda 1940's style stuff and that don't include the F-35s or running cost. Sitting ducks, or rather sitting floating Hippopotamuses!

Your post reminds of the B1 stealth bombers, in that the engineers did a good job of designing the surface of the aircraft not to reflect radar signals (of course, a form of light, EM), but what they "forgot" about was that the material inside the aircraft (aka, the bombs) would still reflect the EM, hence, the aircraft would still be visible on radar!!  Ooops!!!  Or, maybe they and their management realized that there was some serious $$$ in all of it!!!

mariehart1 wrote:Things have moved on since 1968 too, Michaela. By the end of  the Vietnam war so called 'Wild Weasel' aircraft whose job was to detect SAM radar and send a missile down it's throat. It got so that they could only operate the missile radar for a minute or two at a time if they wanted to survive. Saddam got the the full effect of that in 1991 when a huge defence system was effectively neutralised in one night. Both by missiles and jamming.

As for the F117, that's an interesting story. Essentially the USAF made the mistake of using the same routes over and again. The wily Serbs knew this plus they modified their radar. Even then they only had seconds to detect the F117 and that was only when the bomb door opened and the stealth effect was reduced that they got lucky. You can bet lessons were learned from that.

It is a myth that stealth aircraft are undetectable, it always was.

It's an ongoing process. Develop a new form of defence or attack and the other side will counter it.

Iraq was (and is), of course, a 3rd World country.  The Serbs were much better fighters, but as with Iraq, still very much 3rd World, also.  Syria, however, has the latest Russian SAMs, which is why even Trump elected to use cruise missiles (at 50M piece), about half of which may have been shot down by the Syrians, or so they claimed.  In any case, one of their airbases that was hit was operational within a few days of the attack.

Inasmuch as this thread is clearly about military hardware......

But military history/hardware is pretty much about the one area of my past, I tend to avoid. Not quite triggering in some ways, but, yeah it is in others.

Today, military hardware is just a source of models for me. Which is why Lesley hasn't been interacting with this thread if anyone was wondering.

I understand; these types of threads do not appeal to my "feminine" side very much, but having worked for a DOD contractor, I cannot help but be amazed at the lies and deceits that I witnessed.

Jehanne wrote:Iraq was (and is), of course, a 3rd World country.  The Serbs were much better fighters, but as with Iraq, still very much 3rd World, also.  Syria, however, has the latest Russian SAMs, which is why even Trump elected to use cruise missiles (at 50M piece), about half of which may have been shot down by the Syrians, or so they claimed.  In any case, one of their airbases that was hit was operational within a few days of the attack.

In fact at the time Iraq was one of the most heavily defended airspace with latest Soviet equipment and French. It was pretty much state of the art at the time but the coalition, notably the US were ahead of them and most losses to coalition aircraft were lost to accidents and AAA fire.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Serbia is a third world country. It most certainly is not being a modern European country. The Serbs I know would be most offended.

As the US, Israel, Britain and France have carried out airstrikes on targets in Syria again I'm sure where you are getting your information. As for shooting down half the cruise missiles, well they would say that wouldn't they?

Facts are facts, and the fact is that Donald Trump elected not to fly B1 stealth bombers into Syria, in spite of them being more effective and cheaper, because he feared them getting shot down and the embarrassment of having that happen.  As for Serbia, I stand corrected; it is a second world country:

https://www.quora.com/Is-Serbia-a-third-world-country-1

My apologies; still, the Serbian army did manage to down some NATO aircraft, a fact that is well known.

1st 2nd 3rd world, it's not too relevant if the US or Russia sells a country their best shit and it get's used against the latest equipment.

The Soviets in A-stan in the 70s found out the hard way, that it doesn't take much to get in over your head. Planes were lost in Vietnam, and they are routinely lost in all sorts of ways. During the Falklands, the main advantage the British had, was the Harrier flies in an odd fashion. It was an advantage they used well.

Stealth is a handy asset, but, stealth forces design limitations on performance too.
The navy insists on aircraft designs that the air force doesn't need to deal with. So if you are projecting power from a carrier, it's different than projecting power from a land-based airfield.

I'm not commenting on politics.

Since I brought up Vietnam in a previous post, I will take this opportunity to deflect the intent of the thread. Most people believe that the intent of the Vietnam War was to stop the spread of communism in Southeast Asia. Well, let me tell you a somewhat different story...

I was in Vietnam waters (Gulf of Tonkin) in 1966 and discharged in 1967. I returned to uni in 1968 studying accounting at a local, but highly respected business school. I interned briefly at a then 'Big 8' accounting firm (Lybrand, Ross Bros and Montgomery - now Price Waterhouse Coopers) who after my internship placed me with one of their clients until I could graduate and be offered a full-time position.

The company I was placed with, U.S. Natural Resources, Inc., (still exists) had an interesting business model, which included the holding of gas and oil leases. I was researching an accounting problem one day and while rummaging through a set of map drawers (very wide 40" but shallow cabinet drawers) I came across a set of maps delineating oil leases issued by the State of Vietnam which was a self-governing entity of the French Empire until 1955 when it became the Republic of Vietnam (1955-1975). These leases were for thousands of square miles located in Mekong River Delta as it emptied into the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand.

To give you an economic analog of the potential oil and gas wealth of the Mekong River Delta, imagine the same scenario as the Mississippi River Delta as it empties into the Gulf of Mexico.

Now it is true that the West (primarily the United States) wanted to stop the progress of the Chinese Communists in the Southeast Asia area, it is my belief this was not for political reasons, but for the economic wealth that could be ripped from the region.

Now, back to what the Wright Brothers have wrought upon us.

Combat aircraft are outside the purview of my knowledge.

Suffice to say any new aircraft is going to have niggles to overcome. 787 batteries, anyone?

Kaibeth wrote:Combat aircraft are outside the purview of my knowledge.

Suffice to say any new aircraft is going to have niggles to overcome.  787 batteries, anyone?

Incredibly complex machines, as are all modern aircraft ('cept for my paper planes). Throughout my career in the USAF (non-aviation), I can't, off hand, recall any new aircraft, that once brought into operational use, didn't have problems - from minor to life-taking. Anyone remember during the early to mid 80s then the nickname for the F-16 was "lawn dart"? They had this annoying habit of suddenly, and uncontrollably pitching nose down and crashing. Lot's of suspect reasons, from being a single engine fighter and having an engine flame out, to being (I think) the first fly by wire combat fighter. Over the years, upgrades were made, the plane got heavier and more expensive, but evolved into a reasonably reliable fighter.

These aren't pleasure craft, and certainly are not built for comfort of the occupant. Most, these days have flight capabilities that exceed the physiologic tolerances of the pilots. In 1999 I was troop commander for 80 souls being redeployed from Bahrain back to home station. We were manifested on a fully loaded C-17, the newest long haul cargo aircraft in the AF inventory. It had incredible power and unbelievable maneuverability for such a huge piece of machinery. We were all seated in web troop seats along the side of the fuselage, facing perpendicular to the direction of travel. As the plane made is initial roll, then powered up, we were all tipping back due to the incredibly fast acceleration. When the plane rotated, the pilot put it into a near vertical climb and it continued to accelerate. We were all laying on our side, pushed back by the g force. As soon as we passed through 10000 ft, the plane leveled off into a more gradual climb. I was invited up into the cockpit where I asked about the steep take off. Turns out, there were members of this group called Al-Qaeda known to be in the area with man pad missiles - shoulder launched surface to air rockets. The ceiling for these things were approximately 10,000ft, hence our rapid assent.

Celia Eriksson wrote:So Kaibeth, you are the aeronaughtical member, what's goin' on? I have just learnt that we are buying 138 of these F35s with my taxes! Why on earth we need sooo many of 'em is way beyond me, coz 138 x £100 million is..... well a lot! It could house a lot of homeless people, build enough hospitals and prisons and sweep the seas of plastic!

I know we have to have a little defence and that should be for home defence, not careering around the world trying to police other people. I'm not cool with anyone having nuclear weapons at all, a complete waste of money for all the ones that do, they should be outlawed! But why on earth we are spending so much when other countries spend next to nothing, truly is unfathomamable! I know our US allies spend lots more, but do we really need to? No, no, no!

Celia xx

Its a waste of money if you ask me.

Of course, the majority of our tax dollars will continue to go to big corporations and military installations, all the meanwhile society will whine about paying poor people on welfare. It's like they are Stockholmed. Like those people who vote to pay more taxes for better police cars, so they can get arrested by one of those new Dodge Chargers.