Thanks for the reply, losing stealth capabilities is bad if the mission would be penetrating Russian airspace, or attacking warships, but I think wont matter much in the future missions of the Raptor, most like bombing some rebel muslim army in the Middle east.
It also depends what model we're talking about. The F-35B is the V/STOL version and the one having the issue with the small diameter bomb. The F-35A/C USAF/ USN version have no such issue AFAIK as they don't have the lift fan installation. The aircraft is adaptable to the mission.
Its Politics FlyboyJ. The Carrier borne variant does nothing to defend the UK but may tempt future politicians to "project" in order to secure a position as a peace envoy. If Putin decides to roll in to Europe carrier borne AC are not what I want to see. I am not knocking the aircraft just the decision to put a massive part of our defence budget on two carriers + aircraft + support vessels.
That's a military/ political issue that really has nothing to do with this aircraft. I would think the Typhoon would be the primary aircraft used for the defense of the UK
If the F-35's primary mission is to drop boom-booms, why is it then called F-35, I thought that F was reserved for fighters...is this gonna be one of them there turkeys, jack of all Trades, king of none?
While I could somewhat share your feelings I did a little research and there's been only one UK combat aircraft lost in the north Sea since 2005 and it was not weather related.
Flyboy I looked at the links, but that is in the main after we had no harriers or carriers in operation.
here is a list of sea harrier, ejection history which may not be the total of write offs. I count 28 ...a substantial number, some are understandable operational stuff but even an all singing all dancing plane can have a bird strike. I am not knocking the F 35 in any way just I dont think its a great choice for us in Uk especially the vertical take off version.
After a decade or two of having no carriers once we have 2 with F 35s on board I am sure our idiot politicians will see some place they really must be used.
Unless there are MASSIVE oil fields around the Falklands I cannot see any real use for the carriers and F35s....but then I believe there are massive reserves there lol
Well that's the compromise with this very expensive aircraft. In theory you should never lose one, but then again one B-2 was lost and that was at $1 billion a copy
If the F-35's primary mission is to drop boom-booms, why is it then called F-35, I thought that F was reserved for fighters...is this gonna be one of them there turkeys, jack of all Trades, king of none?
Thanks for the reply, losing stealth capabilities is bad if the mission would be penetrating Russian airspace, or attacking warships, but I think wont matter much in the future missions of the Raptor, most like bombing some rebel muslim army in the Middle east.
Strela-2 was old news by the time of 1st Desert Storm, if not earlier. A bulls-eye hit was not sufficient many times to bring down the lowly A-4 of Israel's AF or Super Galeb of Yugoslavia/Serbia (though we bagged that type sometimes, along a number of the less resilient Galebs and Jastrebs), let alone the sturdy A-10. The level of countermeasures the modern combat aircraft has today means the guidance system can be fooled in no time.
By now any non-western armed force worth that name switched from Strela-2 to the Igla.