some F35 info (2 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

"...JASDF examiners wanted to compare the F-35 with the Eurofighter in actual flights before their conclusion but the airframe was not available. Yes, it was genuinely political decision to order."

Off-sets for building military AC are alway a political decision, Shin. Would there have been vacant procurement slots for Japan in the Eurofighter program ...? Somehow I doubt it.
 
michaelmaltby said:
"...Maybe opposed is a little strong Sweden is Neutral and likes to preserve some independence while France likes to be free to operate in its own way and keep an independent air industry."

In other words Allies in smooth air.
Click to expand...

Well neutral is neutral, not an ally at any time but not an enemy either. I have a lot of respect for Swedens attitude Neutral but not defenceless, their AC may not be world beaters but they can still make good planes attractive to countries with a small budget.. French policy is understood only by the French but to be fair the make their own nuclear deterrent their own AC and ships, being in the west doesnt mean you must agree with every decision the US president makes and they pay to be detached.

Compare to Belgiums neutrality who sell the UK guns but refuse to supply ammunition when they dont like who we are in conflict with and sit in the middle of europe cosy under an umbrella provided by others.
 
A big part of this program as well as other military program among allies is manufacturing or post production offset.

​KFX to benefit from F-35 offsets - 9/25/2014 - Flight Global

30 years ago I work on the CP-140 program. 18 CP-140s were purchased from Lockheed, in return parts of the P-3 production was placed through out Canada (Canadair, Enheat, IMP, Bristol Aerospace, fleet industries). This agreement existed until P-3 production was halted.
 
Gentlemen, I do hope that you did see this smiley and this smiley in post #345....if so, you'd understand that I did a tongue in cheek comment, all in the good spirit of banter....some might have missed it..
 
I noticed your but I just assumed it was your Swedish diversion attack strategy, Lucky.

"...Well neutral is neutral, not an ally at any time but not an enemy either." Sell ore to the Germans and bearings to the British .... in my neck of the woods we call that business opportunism.

My in laws, refugees from Stalin's liberated Estonia, fled their new adapted country, Sweden, for Canada once Sweden started surrendering war refugees to the USSR. Finns, Latvians and others were betrayed. Forgive me if I'm from Missouri on the subject of Sweden's smug neutrality.
 

Political decision this time may guarantee the stabler alliance with partners but not necessarily the future power superiority in the region.
Seeing from inside, though as an engineer, there was a chance for Eurofighter when its competitor only showed paper plan and mockup.
There was argument.
 

Lost my line of thinking here (not that difficult most of the times! ), but.....who buys them because they feel that they have to, because they're members of NATO..
How many members of aforementioned club for internal admiration (just trying to lighten the mood here! ) still have a fully functional aviation industry, an industry able to build advanced fighters, not as a consortium, we all know what they say about too many cooks!


Well, we did win the Swiss deal, even if the Swiss population voted against it and we also won the Brazil contract (what was it 108 aircraft), which will possibly open more doors for the Gripen...

Most expensive doesn't always have to mean it's the best...
 
michaelmaltby said:
"...The only ones that arent are those philosophically and doctrinally opposed to the west ..."

Sweden? France?

Click to expand...

Ill answer in these terms....during the war, Sweden profited handsomely from consorting with the enemy. During the war, when the French realized they were not as important to the world as they thought, the French also got into bed with the enemy. Its a variation of Churchills saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend...sort of "the friend of my enemy is my enemy".....

I dont trust the french, sorry. Thats not coming from something Ive read in books either. During our little foray into a place called Vietnam, we wanted to deploy our brand new Mirage fighters into the combat zone, but couldnt, because the french said we couldnt. At various times the Swedes have done similar things though not as bad....they just love their "neutrality" a bit too much. Israel has had far worse dealings with these two beacons of fair play as well.

No, I dont trust nations that play games like that. Everyone does it, but these two morally bankrupt entities are particularly bad. . They can keep their junk as far as im concerned. Wouldnt matter if it could break the speed of light, I would still say no.
 
Because if we didn't let Germany use our trains to transport troops (in '40-'41 was it, or something) among other things, they thought that it would certainly mean an invasion, in which Germany would get all the iron ore, all bearings among other things, things that came in handy to the allies...which included a lot of intel, also....over 8,000 Swedish sailors fought on the allied side...
Think that you need to look into what they did for both sides, to stay neutral...
Besides, what does this have to do with the F-35?

I'm out of here...
 
Last edited:
"...if we didn't let Germany use our trains to transport troops (in '40-'41 was it, or something) among other things, they thought that it would certainly mean an invasion, in which Germany would get all the iron ore, all bearings among other things, things that came in handy..."

No sin in experiencing fear, my friend. We here all understand the courage is only courage when it requires overcoming fear.

I too am out of here, my friend. The F-35 and its crews will have to prove themselves soon enough.
 
Sweden was indeed neutral on the paper, people fail to see the thousands of volunteers that signed up for the allied cause....would like to see what other countries would do in the same situation...
I think, it feels like, people here is taking the criticism of the F-35 as personal, it certainly looks like it...
I know that the Gripen is a great aircraft, it's not the best and it's not the worst....the same goes for the F-35, it's not the best, but it's not worst either, far from it....
 
Lucky13 said:
I think, it feels like, people here is taking the criticism of the F-35 as personal, it certainly looks like it...
Click to expand...

Sometimes I do take it personally and I'll share why...

I worked for Lockheed over 10 years and was very proud of my employment there. I got to work on and see things that I could only dream about as a kid. For the most part most of the people I had to work with and for were dedicated and hardworking and were also dedicated in giving our customers exactly what they asked for, and sometimes even more. We believed in our products.

I know many people who worked on the X-35 and who are now still there working on the F-35. What yanks my chain is there are people and some in the media who make criticisms about this aircraft and they haven't a clue about it's origins, what it's supposed to do and what it can do, as a matter of fact many people out there who try to condemn this aircraft never worked on any type of aircraft or are even in the aviation business, they just parrot what they read on the internet. I see comments by people who haven't a clue what it's like to design and build complicated aircraft and do so under the scrutiny of the press and the government. I'm not saying that this project is without fault, there were many flat out "dumb" things done during the development and design phase and many promises made that didn't pan out. If one reads the latest headlines about the F-35 LMCO stands to loose about $30 million due to errors in software design. Are these errors preventable? Probably. Is this the only time they ever happened? Definitely not!

I don't mind the criticism of this aircraft when someone could accurately point out specific issues; but when the same BS about things that were brought up 8 years ago that have now been long addressed, keep being repeated over and over again, it gets a bit old.

All this because of the Rand Report and some jealous has-been aircraft engineer (who was brilliant in his day I must add) who sold a great story to the media, and the non-aviation public who thinks that air warfare is like what they seen on Top Gun.

Lucky13 said:
I know that the Gripen is a great aircraft, it's not the best and it's not the worst....the same goes for the F-35, it's not the best, but it's not worst either, far from it....
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
Last edited:
FlyboyJ many people in the media are paid to write in the "media" writing about supposed waste of government money always gets a good audience, just dont let facts interfere with a story.

Lucky 13 ew countries neutrality was respected in WW2 and most of those who wernt invaded didnt matter, I presume there was a reason why Germany didnt just march in to Sweden., I personally have never read anything negative about Swedens conduct as a neutral, as I understand it Sweden was as sympathetic as possible in a very very trying situation.

Parsival and Michaelmaltby are you saying that only people in Sweden made a profit in the second world war. Considering Sweden was sandwiched between the 3rd Reich and the Soviet Union it is remarkable tat the allies got one ball bearing or scientist out of Sweden and as I understand it Sweden allowed the Allies to buy up all their ball bearings after the Schweinfurt raids to cut off supplies and make those raids worthwhile. It is possible to reproach many for their conduct in WW2 and no one is blameless from what I have read in the blame game Sweden comes out about as good as the best.

What has this to do with the F-35? I wish the western European Nations would get their asses in gear, we in Europe have a political organisation in Belgium trying to expand its reach up to the Russian border while having no military capacity whatsoever. Belgium spends about $5Bn on its military of which 65% is salary, they are phasing out tracked vehicles in favour of wheeled vehicles for humanitarian missions. Military hardware is expensive, if all Euro nations got together and made a commitment then maybe there could be a F-35D which would suit EU nations more share in the costs and make it cheaper and better for everyone..

FAT CHANCE!!!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Similar threads

Gulf of Sidra 1981 Info wanted
Replies
7
Views
1K
Barrett
B
F
Allison J33 -A-24 Info
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
SR-72 Darkstar info
Replies
8
Views
1K
SaparotRob
M
Some Interesting Vietnam Shots
Replies
5
Views
1K
Gnomey
Experimental Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base. Some rare, unclassified footage
Replies
2
Views
691
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register