[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49173729]
All the while our NHS doctors strike for fairer pay, cuts are being made to police (they no longer attend burglaries), cuts are being made to social security (tax credit cut will put 200000 children into poverty in the next year) and our national debt is still growing despite austerity measures.
[/QUOTE]
Assuming this is a 12 billion pound expenditure or so by the government, that is literally 30,000 nurses, assuming a nurse gets £30k (and they don't, a new nurse gets band 5, which is £21k). At £21k, the sum is the same as 571,000 nurses. That's right, literally half a million nurses.
As of October 2015, the NHS had 377,191 registered + licensed nurses.
You could literally pay double the number of salaries for nurses for that cost and leave more than enough for pretty much every trust to get a shiny new CT scanner.
Don't get me wrong, national defense is important, but I just want to put the price into context. I don't know how it compares to other fighters and I won't pretend to know, I was just doing some very basic maths.
[QUOTE=download;49176315]Wow, all this stupid misinformation about the F35.
Lets makes this clear:
*It's 3x cheaper than the only other 4th gen fighter, the F22, and only slightly less capable.
*It's 20 -50% cheaper than any 3.5 gen fighter and many times more capable.
*The obscene sounding program costs thrown around are for 4000+ aircraft over the entire 60 year life of the project.
*Every new Western aircraft over the last half-century has had significant teething problem and generally later on went on to be exceptional aircraft.
*Anything Pierre Sprey is complete shite.[/QUOTE]
It's popular to circlejerk over how bad/make up bullshit about every new piece of military equipment that's announced in the news nowadays.
Please
Just don't buy into pierre spey's bullshit
The future is BVR, and with the meteor BVRAAM coming into service, the F-35 is a very scary BVR package indeed
[editline]24th November 2015[/editline]
Sprey is a fucking moron and has a hardon for the two aircraft he designed
And please don't link war is boring as a source, that place is only good for military history
[editline]24th November 2015[/editline]
Plus the F-35 is a much better bomber than what we have now considered it has the best stealth tech in the world, fantastic data fusion and future compatibility with munitions like the HARM and small diameter bomb
[editline]24th November 2015[/editline]
Plus you don't even know if they'll be that expensive, planes will get cheaper as they get out of LRIP
[editline]24th November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=adam1172;49175245]They could probably save more space and just ditch that ramp for VTOL[/QUOTE]
VTOL never works when you have a combat payload, and unless you want to spend even more money to install a CATOBAR or EMALS system you're going to need the ramp
The quarter million helmet is an integral part of the aircraft's systems, not just a helmet for protection.
It's an instrument as well as a helmet, the press just likes to spin things to make them sound ridiculous.
Ejector seats cost ~100k and the press could say "$100k for a chair with rockets?!"
[editline]24th November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49173729]
Stealth tech and avionics leaked to china already.
[/QUOTE]
They rewrote all the flight computer code and tweaked the instruments after the leak, so what the Chinese knew would be an ineffective counter.
As much as the program did fuck up, the whole F35 thing has become a circlejerk of hate in the media.
[QUOTE=Mallow234;49176466]Please
Just don't buy into pierre spey's bullshit
The future is BVR, and with the meteor BVRAAM coming into service, the F-35 is a very scary BVR package indeed
[editline]24th November 2015[/editline]
[B]Sprey is a fucking moron and has a hardon for the two aircraft he designed[/B]
And please don't link war is boring as a source, that place is only good for military history
[editline]24th November 2015[/editline]
Plus the F-35 is a much better bomber than what we have now considered it has the best stealth tech in the world, fantastic data fusion and future compatibility with munitions like the HARM and small diameter bomb
[editline]24th November 2015[/editline]
Plus you don't even know if they'll be that expensive, planes will get cheaper as they get out of LRIP
[editline]24th November 2015[/editline]
VTOL never works when you have a combat payload, and unless you want to spend even more money to install a CATOBAR or EMALS system you're going to need the ramp[/QUOTE]
He didn't design any aircraft. He was part of the committee that wrote the specifications for the F15 and F16, and didn't get his way (very high power to weight ratio, gun and two IR missiles only, no radar and no ground attack capability).
[QUOTE=download;49176315]
*It's 3x cheaper than the only other 4th gen fighter, the F22, and only slightly less capable.
[/QUOTE]
5th generation.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;49174356]Why do we need fancy new jets when we're not at war with any countries that have anything better than what we currently employ? Said fancy jets aren't going to make a shred of difference in such an event if our economy keeps going down the shitter, something that not blowing billions on said jets could help alleviate. The F-35 could be the pinnacle of combat aircraft design and it wouldn't make a difference; We don't need them, we need the money that's being spent on them going other places.[/QUOTE]
"we dont need machineguns" -every major power pre-ww1
[QUOTE=Mallow234;49176466]
And please don't link war is boring as a source, that place is only good for military history[/QUOTE]
wrong, war is boring is garbage and good for nothing
i wouldn't even take a shit within 5 miles of anyone who writes for it, my flatulence is of higher quality than their writing
[editline]24th November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;49175139]Instead of spending the money for a proper catapult, they switched back to a carrier ramp, which is worthless.[/QUOTE]
funnily enough they were going to buy our EMALS but it turned out that they didn't have enough money
so either they shell out the cash for force projection or fall into irrelevancy. and then we get to be called the world police again
kinda humorous how their neighbor across the channel gets the last laugh after pulling through with finally getting rafale sales
For fuck's sake, I wish we'd get our priorities straight instead of allowing these worthless fucknuts to run around freely. Didn't we already scrap a part of our airforce a few years ago when we made earlier cuts, ditching our harriers in the process? Fucking idiots. If only ISIS could do one useful thing and target these fucking warmongers.
And this is exactly why I literally felt ill and almost cried when the conservatives won the election, I cannot for the life of me fathom why people voted for these morons? They don't understand how anything works, nobody is benefitting from the changes they are forcing on us and they are sending more people into poverty than ever, they are doing far more harm to the country than good but people seem to love being fucked up the arse by them??
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49174119](eg carrier capability, eurofighter can be adapted for carrier capability)[/QUOTE]
ahahahahahahaha
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Put more effort into the posts you make in SH" - postal))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;49176717]For fuck's sake, I wish we'd get our priorities straight instead of allowing these worthless fucknuts to run around freely. Didn't we already scrap a part of our airforce a few years ago when we made earlier cuts, ditching our harriers in the process? Fucking idiots. If only ISIS could do one useful thing and target these fucking warmongers.[/QUOTE]
The Harrier is a terrible aircraft tbh
Its a miracle more pilots haven't died flying the damn things. I'd rather fly a B-52. You're not going to miss it. Roll_Program and Mallow234 covered it pretty well. Besides that, most major aircraft are just so so so terribad when they're first being tested. Aircraft now are soooo much more complex than they used to be, with a pile of systems and electronics that all have to be made to interact and work together in an airframe. Its tough work, and instead of having to adjust the timing slightly to get that good 'ol inline convetional engine firing there is a lot more work involved in any given modification or bugfix.
No lawndart F-35's yet, so it doesn't have F-16 syndrome. It just has "the-media-is-shitting-on-me" syndrome
[QUOTE=steelman111;49176720]And this is exactly why I literally felt ill and almost cried when the conservatives won the election, I cannot for the life of me fathom why people voted for these morons? They don't understand how anything works, nobody is benefitting from the changes they are forcing on us and they are sending more people into poverty than ever, they are doing far more harm to the country than good but people seem to love being fucked up the arse by them??[/QUOTE]
First Past The Post. The Conservatives don't even have a majority of the vote but the only reason they got in was because they used UKIP and the SNP as a buffer to draw away Labour votes.
A strong and capable military is worth it on my opinion.
[QUOTE=Jund;49176745][quote=me](eg carrier capability, eurofighter can be adapted for carrier capability)[/quote]ahahahahahahaha[/QUOTE]
Very mature
[url]http://www.defencetalk.com/naval-eurofighter-an-aircraft-carrier-version-under-development-31926/[/url]
[url]https://www.eurofighter.com/news-and-events/2011/02/eurofighter-naval-version-makes-debut-at-aero-india-2011[/url]
Might mean they carry less munitions than land based but the f35b also carries less munitions when deployed from a carrier.
Could adapt some of current fleet (or get more eurofighters). 95% part commonality simplifying maintenance and logistics. Could use current pilots (and repair crews) and their training. Those reports are from 2011 so arguably more proven than the problem prone f35B's we are buying instead, the more different aircraft you have the more expensive and complex logistics, training and maintenance becomes.
Most of the fighting we will be doing (helping allies in afghanistan and iraq or potential interventions in africa) we will have land bases at our disposal. Even if the f35b is necessary why do we need 138 of them? Our nation is tiny we don't need and can't afford the bloated military super power that is the US armed forces.
Its a waste of money. We who pay the taxes are getting cuts left right and centre (health service, policing, social security and armed forces resulting in a smaller but more expensive army) while decisions are made to spend billions on these things.
[QUOTE=Jund;49176745]ahahahahahahaha[/QUOTE]
He's not entirely wrong. You can't adapt airframes for it but it could easily become a carrier fighter with a new model, see the Rafael
[editline]24th November 2015[/editline]
Well we don't have a catapult so that's a problem, guess we'll just go full throttle off the end.
[QUOTE=Jund;49176745]ahahahahahahaha[/QUOTE]
Think before you post.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon_variants#Navalised_Eurofighter[/URL]
I know this was addressed already but I thought I'd link this for more info.
I think some people here are failing to look at the bigger picture...
I could imagine launching navalised eurofighters from a CATOBAR carrier but the problem is we don't have CATOBAR carriers and refitting the QE class ships and making the neccessary retrofits to the eurofighters (strengthened airframe and landing gear, tailhook, catapult compatibility, seaproofing) would most likely be more expensive than buying f35s
Plus the RAF is getting the non-vtol A model, and the fleet air arm is getting the f35b which is the problem version
[editline]24th November 2015[/editline]
Plus the eurofighter doesn't have anywhere near the strategic capability of the lightning II - The eurofighters are capable dogfighters, but aren't stealthy and have nowhere near the sensor fusion capacity that the F35 has, and since only four nations operate the eurofighter but nearly everyone is going to buy the F35, maintenance costs are going to be quite low comparatively for the F35
[QUOTE=steelman111;49176720]And this is exactly why I literally felt ill and almost cried when the conservatives won the election, I cannot for the life of me fathom why people voted for these morons? They don't understand how anything works, nobody is benefitting from the changes they are forcing on us and they are sending more people into poverty than ever, they are doing far more harm to the country than good but people seem to love being fucked up the arse by them??[/QUOTE]
The plan to buy F-35s has been around since the early 2000s tho and has been supported by all parties as far as I can tell. Labour under Miliband [url=http://press.labour.org.uk/post/76347092143/f-35-decision-hard-to-have-confidence-in-a]attacked the government for taking so long to place the initial order[/url]
Who knows what Labour thinks now though
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;49177198]He's not entirely wrong. You can't adapt airframes for it but it could easily become a carrier fighter with a new model, see the Rafael[/QUOTE]
No
the rafale was built assuming that there would be a carrier variant down the line. that's why france dropped out of the EFA, and that's why the rafale A tech demonstrator was already carrier take-off/landing capable during testing years before they started on the M
ok, so let's say that they do decide to do this for whatever reason. the [i]bare minimum[/i] it would take to make a typhoon ramp carrier capable would be as follows
strengthened airframe (+weight)
strengthened undercarriage (+weight)
tailhook (+weight)
strengthened landing gear (+weight)
redesign undercarriage to fit bigger landing gear, which is between intakes
change intakes, rework aerodynamics
wing shape changes (high angle dogfighting wings = bad low speed stability = crashy smashy landing)
anti-salt corrosion
new factories. lots. rafale m shares 95% part commonality with other variants. f-35 shares about 30% between variants, and that program started with variants in mind to begin with. i hope germany, spain, and italy are willing to play ball and start producing new parts for a plane they most likely won't use
congrats, you spent 10+ years development and billions upon billions of euros to have a 4th gen unstealthy carrier capable fighter with atg capabilities that they've desperately been trying to throw on for the past few years because, surprise surprise, dogfighting ain't as relevant as they thought it would be
oops, now it's too heavy to take off from a ramp carrier with combat load. and it goes the way of the su-33 and j-15 "flopping fish" and gets replaced by something that can actually operate from a carrier
[editline]24th November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;49177254]Think before you post.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon_variants#Navalised_Eurofighter[/URL]
I know this was addressed already but I thought I'd link this for more info.[/QUOTE]
"proposed variants" is completely different from having anything that would work. they're hoping india's stupid enough to buy into it because then they'd have to pay for the r&d
here's the link to their model: [url]http://defense-update.com/20110210_naval_typhoon.html#.VlRN8PmrSUk[/url]
it's literally just a fucking model. like, a computer model
so how about you think before you post
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49177134]Very mature
[url]http://www.defencetalk.com/naval-eurofighter-an-aircraft-carrier-version-under-development-31926/[/url]
[url]https://www.eurofighter.com/news-and-events/2011/02/eurofighter-naval-version-makes-debut-at-aero-india-2011[/url]
Might mean they carry less munitions than land based but the f35b also carries less munitions when deployed from a carrier.
Could adapt some of current fleet (or get more eurofighters). 95% part commonality simplifying maintenance and logistics. Could use current pilots (and repair crews) and their training. Those reports are from 2011 so arguably more proven than the problem prone f35B's we are buying instead, the more different aircraft you have the more expensive and complex logistics, training and maintenance becomes.
Most of the fighting we will be doing (helping allies in afghanistan and iraq or potential interventions in africa) we will have land bases at our disposal. Even if the f35b is necessary why do we need 138 of them? Our nation is tiny we don't need and can't afford the bloated military super power that is the US armed forces.
Its a waste of money. We who pay the taxes are getting cuts left right and centre (health service, policing, social security and armed forces resulting in a smaller but more expensive army) while decisions are made to spend billions on these things.[/QUOTE]
Naval Eurofighter was pitched to both the UK and India and the concept was plagued by too many problems and was decided against by both parties. IIRC the main problem was that the landing gear was too weak for arrested recovery and they were never able to find a way to strengthen it without a near-complete redesign of the aircraft to keep it within weight limits. Add to that the expense of designing a new aircraft that we would have to undertake entirely on our own, we're talking further billions for R&D here and a complete redesign of the carriers to add an angled deck and an arrestor system. All for a small run of aircraft that would have to be bought entirely upfront, individual unit prices likely being far in excess of the F-35 which is going to be built in the thousands and with a production line spanning a over a decade where we can make several smaller orders as and when we need to.
As for current pilots and training? No. With the F-35B actually, yes. Arrested recoveries are a big deal which require constant training and testing to remain carrier qualified. The rolling landing of an F-35B, not the case. That's one of the main perks of commonality of the F-35B with the RN and the RAF, RAF pilots can embark on the carrier at anytime without needing to undergo an intensive qualification/requalification process.
Land bases, I refer you to the 5,000km round trip flown by a sortie of Tornadoes out of RAF Marham to strike at Libya before we could secure bases in Italy. They had to be refueled four times over the course of the sortie. France, meanwhile, parked the Charles de Gaulle about 150km off the coast of Libya. This was in the Mediterranean as well, NATO allies abound and look how long it took us to secure bases. You can't always secure land bases to fly out of and you can't always secure overflight rights for countries between whichever land bases you can get and your target. Countries generally aren't very fond of aiding the bombing of one of their neighbours. Even if you can secure both, you might not secure them or be able to build up sufficient logistics there in time.
Why do we need 138 of them? Because we need enough to be able to form three squadrons (the still-current going plan I believe), an Operational Conversion Unit and to have spare airframes for rotational and maintenance purposes. Not all 138 of them will be combat ready at once. The numbers add up when you consider it's replacing the Harrier and Tornado fleets.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49173729]A worse dedicated fighter than our current fighter.
A comparable bomber to our current fighter-bomber.
Overpriced.
Stealth tech and avionics leaked to china already.
A £263000 helmet?
[/QUOTE]
Demonstrable crap.
Edit - Reading through this thread, there are many terribly misinformed people here commenting on things they know nothing about.
I don't think people are upset at the fighter, they're just upset that money that should be going to the dangerously underfunded NHS is being spent on fighters that we really don't need.
It's all well and good to masturbate over the latest military technology but that money could really be going to somewhere better.
[QUOTE=Holt!;49177636]I don't think people are upset at the fighter, they're just upset that money that should be going to the dangerously underfunded NHS is being spent on fighters that we really don't need.
It's all well and good to masturbate over the latest military technology but that money could really be going to somewhere better.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34905801[/url]
NHS is getting extra funding. Government spending has to balance many different things, not just the NHS. It would seem some people need to face the reality of the world they live in.
[QUOTE=Matriax;49177666][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34905801[/url]
NHS is getting extra funding. Government spending has to balance many different things, not just the NHS. It would seem some people need to face the reality of the world they live in.[/QUOTE]
We have had complaints about lack of beds and long waiting times. Our doctors are striking because they aren't being fairly compensated for their time.
Well the NHS was found to be the most efficient healthcare system in the world.
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10375877[/url]
They might have increased funding this year but for the past 5 years budget has been near constant, despite inflation.
Its not a lack of efficiency, its a lack of funding.
In Direct Democracy, the book co authored by our health secretary jeremy hunt ([url]http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/08/jeremy-hunt-homeopathy-studies-chief-medical-officer[/url] he also seems to advocate homoeopathy?) there is a call to dismantle the NHS criticising it as a state run monopoly and advocates and american style insurance lead private healthcare system.
Key figures (michael gove was also involved in this project hes current justice secetary who supports death penalty, ex education minister and ex whip who gained his position through the merit of his journalism degree) in government don't want nationalised healthcare, they want a private system which they and their private school buddies can profit from at the expense of the consumer.
[QUOTE=Jame's;49177058]A strong and capable military is worth it on my opinion.[/QUOTE]
While cutting public spending, benefits and the NHS while refusing to pay our doctors a decent salary? It's really not worth it, I'd rather have a functioning country than one filled with jets and Tridents that we will never fucking use
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49177745]We have had complaints about lack of beds and long waiting times. Our doctors are striking because they aren't being fairly compensated for their time.
Well the NHS was found to be the most efficient healthcare system in the world.
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10375877[/url]
They might have increased funding this year but for the past 5 years budget has been near constant, despite inflation.
Its not a lack of efficiency, its a lack of funding.
In Direct Democracy, the book co authored by our health secretary jeremy hunt ([url]http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/08/jeremy-hunt-homeopathy-studies-chief-medical-officer[/url] he also seems to advocate homoeopathy?) there is a call to dismantle the NHS criticising it as a state run monopoly and advocates and american style insurance lead private healthcare system.
Key figures (michael gove was also involved in this project hes current justice secetary who supports death penalty, ex education minister and ex whip who gained his position through the merit of his journalism degree) in government don't want nationalised healthcare, they want a private system which they and their private school buddies can profit from at the expense of the consumer.[/QUOTE]
To the first point - the NHS has a limited budget, and has to make do with what the Government can allocate. Obviously it would be better if this was higher but the reality of the day constrains the Government it what it can do. You cannot blinker yourself to the threats of the world and say that the highest priority is health - it isn't.
The rest of your comment is utterly irrelevant and of questionable veracity.
[QUOTE=Tacooo;49177885]While cutting public spending, benefits and the NHS while refusing to pay our doctors a decent salary? It's really not worth it, I'd rather have a functioning country than one filled with jets and Tridents that we will never fucking use[/QUOTE]
We will use the carriers and the jets, for everything we currently use jets for and used to use the Invincible/Harrier strike group for. If you agree with how they were used is irrelevant in this argument - they will be used
How many times is this "We never use Trident" trotted out? We use it every day, and have done since 1969.
[QUOTE=abcpea;49176594]"we dont need machineguns" -every major power pre-ww1[/QUOTE]
Pfft. Because we're on the eve of WW3, right? And the difference between a slightly better jet than what we have is as significant a technological and strategic leap between having only bolt-action rifles vs having them in addition to the machine gun.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.