Absolutely, it CAN do a lot. But we keep freighting these new, "we screwed
up the last procurement, so now this next one has to go an ADDITIONAL
generation beyond," projects with so many requirements we BEG them to
break, and we continue to face block obsolescence. The Soviets really did
have the right idea with incremental improvements so that one day you wake
up and realize that you ARE at the next generation, rather than trying to
build leap-ahead technology and cancel, restart, cancel, restart, all
while the current fleet gets older and greyer.
> F35 is a great replacement for F16 on the AF side and the non super
> hornets
> on the navy side. Can internally carry as much as a Viper and retain
> stealth and full agility. With external stores approaches Striker Eagle
> packages... Just being asked to do too much, particularly CAS.
>
> It's easy to forget the teething problems the "teen" fighters had....
>
> ___
> From my T989
> On Sep 9, 2012 1:02 PM, <> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Martin, I can't understand why the US military got suckered into the
>> F-35,
>> except that the US military is always a sucker for PPT slides and the
>> Next
>> Big Thing that must be leap-ahead technology, all things to all people,
>> etc. Did we learn nothing from the F-111? No, we did not. RAH-66? B-2?
>> Future Combat System? Crusader? NATF? A-12?
>>
>> > Personally, I can't understand why our government and MOD decided on
>> F-35s
>> > of any type. BAE tried to sell Eurofighter Typhoons to India,
>> including a
>> > proposed NAVALISED version...
>> > why couldn't the Royal Navy buy those?
>> >
>> > Dunno about the magazines, because the only history one I buy is from
>> the
>> > US - (VIETNAM magazine)
>> >
>> > I guess they'll throw me off too, as I don't think I've posted
>> anything
>> on
>> > this group until today!!
>> >
>> > Anyway, I guess the Third Imperium had the same problems of overruns,
>> > spiralling costs and late deliveries of equipment that doesn't do the
>> job,
>> > though by TNE times it would have to be right first time!
>> >
>> > Martin.
>> >
>> > --- In , dcndcn13@... wrote:
>> >>
>> >> By the way, I LOVE the way that the QE and PoW ship's crests are
>> painted
>> >> on their bulbous bow assemblies. That is classy, in a way that we
>> have
>> >> never gotten the hang of over here.
>> >>
>> >> The best aviation and military history magazines are still British
>> and
>> >> Japanese. We (US) still publish that stuff as if it were "Tiger Beat"
>> or
>> >> "Vogue," worthy only of newsprint paper.
>> >>
>> >> Someone is going to throw me off this list any second...
>> >>
>> >> Nice knowing you!
>> >>
>> >> Dave
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
up the last procurement, so now this next one has to go an ADDITIONAL
generation beyond," projects with so many requirements we BEG them to
break, and we continue to face block obsolescence. The Soviets really did
have the right idea with incremental improvements so that one day you wake
up and realize that you ARE at the next generation, rather than trying to
build leap-ahead technology and cancel, restart, cancel, restart, all
while the current fleet gets older and greyer.
> F35 is a great replacement for F16 on the AF side and the non super
> hornets
> on the navy side. Can internally carry as much as a Viper and retain
> stealth and full agility. With external stores approaches Striker Eagle
> packages... Just being asked to do too much, particularly CAS.
>
> It's easy to forget the teething problems the "teen" fighters had....
>
> ___
> From my T989
> On Sep 9, 2012 1:02 PM, <> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Martin, I can't understand why the US military got suckered into the
>> F-35,
>> except that the US military is always a sucker for PPT slides and the
>> Next
>> Big Thing that must be leap-ahead technology, all things to all people,
>> etc. Did we learn nothing from the F-111? No, we did not. RAH-66? B-2?
>> Future Combat System? Crusader? NATF? A-12?
>>
>> > Personally, I can't understand why our government and MOD decided on
>> F-35s
>> > of any type. BAE tried to sell Eurofighter Typhoons to India,
>> including a
>> > proposed NAVALISED version...
>> > why couldn't the Royal Navy buy those?
>> >
>> > Dunno about the magazines, because the only history one I buy is from
>> the
>> > US - (VIETNAM magazine)
>> >
>> > I guess they'll throw me off too, as I don't think I've posted
>> anything
>> on
>> > this group until today!!
>> >
>> > Anyway, I guess the Third Imperium had the same problems of overruns,
>> > spiralling costs and late deliveries of equipment that doesn't do the
>> job,
>> > though by TNE times it would have to be right first time!
>> >
>> > Martin.
>> >
>> > --- In , dcndcn13@... wrote:
>> >>
>> >> By the way, I LOVE the way that the QE and PoW ship's crests are
>> painted
>> >> on their bulbous bow assemblies. That is classy, in a way that we
>> have
>> >> never gotten the hang of over here.
>> >>
>> >> The best aviation and military history magazines are still British
>> and
>> >> Japanese. We (US) still publish that stuff as if it were "Tiger Beat"
>> or
>> >> "Vogue," worthy only of newsprint paper.
>> >>
>> >> Someone is going to throw me off this list any second...
>> >>
>> >> Nice knowing you!
>> >>
>> >> Dave
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>