Quote:

NO! i don't think it's because of the cooperation. the cooperation between european states is a sign for unity and if we hadn't had cooperations between the states of europe ,we couldn't get much farther than living door-to-door without further relations. sure,the eurofighter's got some probs,but they're just minor ones. the manufacturers will learn through this and improve their "skills",so that this won't happen again in future.

Quote:


stealth? why stealth? expensive ,unnecessary and vulnerable. as you could see during the kosovo crisis. they weren't even necessary during the war on iraq,because B-52s could have performed those bombardements,too.

Stealth is nice... on a machine which is based on a well-proven concept.

The main reason the JSF will fail is that the concept is flawed. The design is based on the phased-out Yak-38 (Forger) and the Yak-141(Freestyle) that never became a success and is replaced by Su-35's.

Even if it looks like the poor man's F-22 which it really is, it never gets near to the performance of it, even when you scale the Raprtor down to the size and relative engine strength of the F-35.

Why Lockheed ever got the idea to continue the (failed) Yak-141 in a different shape is a mystery to me. The USMC harriers, even if they aren't supersonic, are good enough for the job they are bought for (close air support), especially in the operating enviroment of today.

Furthermore it isn't capable of flying backwards (the harrier can fly backwards) which restricts the landing and takeoff capabilities and will cause the RAF to completely rethink and rebuild the VTOL operations and the equipment associated with it as it was built to utilise the complete movement envelope of the Harrier.


Quote:

Stealth is expensive to construct, maintain and fly (computer stuff)
I still have to see the firsth stealt aircraft which can stay airborne with it's main flight control computer disabled. The MiG-29 and all the Flanker variants can do that.

And as long as both the F/A-18 and F-15 and their weapons can be out-flown by machines from the late 60's if the pilot wants to (Mig-25, January 1991, one kill againsa a F/A-18 which the USAF likes to deny) speed is more important than radar visibility. FYI: that same aircraft can outrun AIM-7 and AIM-9 missile fuses, AIM-120s probably have a hard time catching one if it wants to run. Who needs stealth when you can outfly anything the west has in stores at the moment (MiG-25: advised speed limit by MiG is M2.6, max safe speed M2.83, max recorded M3.2. MiG-31: advised speed limit by MiG is M2.83 but it can go faster as it has even more power than a MiG-25 and won't overspeed the engines)

Can't think what use this JSF will be then. I suspect the good old Harrier will still be in service for a few more years yet. Isn't a new carrier on the cards? Goodness knows when that will be in service. I seem to remember it's already well over budget. Woody will know the details.

PS. Check this out. http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/

Quote:

Oops.....! Forewarned is forearmed. I'd better keep my big mouth shut on this one then.

Quote:

LOL i wouldnt worry, i know very little from him, all i ever get is the "its top secret information right now" speach
although in true MOD fashion, they had a major computer failure this week
its one of those i will try and feed bits of info i get from him, but generally i know less than you lot do:)

Quote:

OK, so here's the obvious question. Well, it seems logical to me anyway.

I believe the Harrier is the only aircraft capable of operating from the RN carriers currently in service. You say the Royal Navy retires its Harriers in 2006 which I don't doubt is correct. According to the link I posted  "The first steel is to be cut in 2005 and the two carriers will enter service in 2012 and 2015." Allowing for the inevitable delays this could well be even longer. So what do we do in the meantime? ???