No "French Bashing" at Trafalgar!
- Thread starter samildanach
- Start date
Not really. Check any project on www.airforce-technology.com, I think F-15 is the one least influenced by BAE.YNCS said:
F/22 Raptor: Thrust vectoring is controlled by a Hamilton Standard dual redundant full authority digital engine control (FADEC). The FADEC is integrated with the flight control computers in the BAE Systems Flight Controls vehicle management system.
JSF: For decades, the USSR and UK have been the only nations with VTOL technology (1960s). The USA built some British GR8 fighters under license (1990s), and now the the US-UK join project is resulting in an American version (2008+). Only lagging 50 years behind
MarineCorps
Explosion!
stormbind said:
Uh-huh. The JSF is going to be part stealth aircraft. I wasn't aware the British had stealth aircraft.
And the only part of the JSF program on which your are helping with is the STOVL http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_background.htm
Face it, the US military is just a puppet of the British banking industry
Bite my shiny metal ass.
I was not aware that the USA had STOVL technology until the UK sold it to them?
JSF has STOVL. Harrier have VOTL + STOVL, presumably, the Super Harrier is the same.
The UK does have stealth, used on current warships and tanks. The UK feels that it is more cost effective to share one airframe with the USA.
I thought it was quite interesting that the USA built the JSF and then the UK tested it and said no: Make such and such changes. The changes were made. Now both UK and USA are ordering the changed version.
So which direction is technology transferring in? I think any objective opinion has to conclude that it is a collaboration. The UK probably would not build stealth airframes due to cost, and the US probably wouldn't get STOVL for the same reason. USA has been trying to build VOTL since the 1960s and failed persistently until it bought a license to build Harrier GR8 from the UK int he 1990s.
JSF has STOVL. Harrier have VOTL + STOVL, presumably, the Super Harrier is the same.
The UK does have stealth, used on current warships and tanks. The UK feels that it is more cost effective to share one airframe with the USA.
I thought it was quite interesting that the USA built the JSF and then the UK tested it and said no: Make such and such changes. The changes were made. Now both UK and USA are ordering the changed version.
So which direction is technology transferring in? I think any objective opinion has to conclude that it is a collaboration. The UK probably would not build stealth airframes due to cost, and the US probably wouldn't get STOVL for the same reason. USA has been trying to build VOTL since the 1960s and failed persistently until it bought a license to build Harrier GR8 from the UK int he 1990s.
MarineCorps
Explosion!
stormbind said:I was not available that the USA had STOVL technology until the UK sold it to them?
Um, well, er, yeah. I'm sure we would have been able to buy a Yak-38 off of the Russkies had we waited a year or so.
stormbind said:
Stealth ships (America has one also) I am aware of but Stealth tank?
On the tank: Only the turret has stealth. I guess that is normally the first thing to give away the vehicles position.
Infact, the JSF has working too similar to the Yak-41 for comfort. Probably nicked some ideas there. Yak-38 is old, the Ruskies currently have a replacement for the Yak-41 in the pipe-line (but is has no funding atm). For comparison, the UK has far more experience and has produced far more VTOL aircraft than the Ruskies. The British Kestrel (early 1960s VTOL fighter) resulting in discovering VIFFing technology.
Infact, the JSF has working too similar to the Yak-41 for comfort. Probably nicked some ideas there. Yak-38 is old, the Ruskies currently have a replacement for the Yak-41 in the pipe-line (but is has no funding atm). For comparison, the UK has far more experience and has produced far more VTOL aircraft than the Ruskies. The British Kestrel (early 1960s VTOL fighter) resulting in discovering VIFFing technology.
MarineCorps
Explosion!
Oh. That I knew of.stormbind said:
Yak-141.
Well, from what I understand the STVOL employed by the YaK-38 and JSF while not as powerful as the STVOL the harrier employes it does conserve more fuel.
Zardnaar
Deity
Mario Feldberg said:French bashing event?
Where do I sign up?
![[party]](/images/smilies/partytime.gif "Party [party]")
Save room for me.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,077
Moderator Action:Zardnaar said:
Not in these forums.
____________________________________________________
@others: Please keep the discussion focused on-topic.
If you want to discuss the military stuff, then please start another thread on it.
I think the reenactment is a 5 day event, but in total "almost 600 ships will take part in the review altogether including modern naval fighting warships, merchant shipping and some of the world's finest tall ships."
Source: BBC
Related events:
International Fleet Review, Tuesday 28th July, 1pm - 3pm
Son et Lumière, Tuesday 28th July, 7pm - 10.10pm
The International Festival of the Sea, HM Naval Base, Portsmouth - 30th June - 3rd July, 10am -10pm
Royal Maritime Day - 20th July
Trafalgar Day at HMS Victory on 21st October
Source: BBC
Related events:
International Fleet Review, Tuesday 28th July, 1pm - 3pm
Son et Lumière, Tuesday 28th July, 7pm - 10.10pm
The International Festival of the Sea, HM Naval Base, Portsmouth - 30th June - 3rd July, 10am -10pm
Royal Maritime Day - 20th July
Trafalgar Day at HMS Victory on 21st October
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
The Australian defence and communication centre. Has been able to sucessfully track the US stealth aircaft by the simple expeidency of monitoring spikes in heat fluculations when ever the US lauched a stealth fighter. (They had own heat signature) and then simply monitoring it.
Just for laughts they would phone the US airforce and let them know that we know a stealth aircraft just took off.
Australia: You just launched a stealth fighter
US: How the (beep) did you know
Australia: Muhahahaha
US; God dammm it
Australia: Pwned
JoeM
Imperator
stormbind said:Spoiler RAF,RAAF,USAF :
Spoiler RAF,RAAF,USAF :
Tank_Guy#3
Lion of Lehistan
They're right, it won't be a "French-bashing" Tournament, it'll be a Turkey Shoot, like the air battle in WW2 .
.Verbose
Deity
It seems there doesn't have to be any French-bashing since the Brits and the Americans are happy tearing into each other.
And it's kind of strange, the British not celebrating defeating the Spanish-French navies? It did remove the possibility of a French invasion and sent Napoleon all the way into Russia and disaster in his attempts to find a military solution to the situation he had created.
As for the French navy, by wars end it was up at 70 ships of the line vs. 125 British (and 45 frigates vs. 145 British). France lost a total of 80 ships of the line during the Napoleonic wars.
The thing that gave the British Admirality hiccups at wars end were the huge facilities for building an Imperial French navy under construction in Anvers. Admiral Martin on the spot in 1814 to Castelreagh (clumsily retranslated from French):
"We have concluded that the naval establishement at Anvers had reached a development that, though alerted, we had had no idea about. This establishment would through continous progress shortly have given the French navy such an augmentation, that it would have been impossible for England to equal it. We can say that the peace, which has reduced this port to a simple commerical role, is an event equal in importance to any other in our history."
http://www.napoleon.org/fr/salle_lecture/articles/files/Napoleon_Angleterre_2_marine.asp
(There's an English version of the Napoleon.org site as well.)
And it's kind of strange, the British not celebrating defeating the Spanish-French navies? It did remove the possibility of a French invasion and sent Napoleon all the way into Russia and disaster in his attempts to find a military solution to the situation he had created.
As for the French navy, by wars end it was up at 70 ships of the line vs. 125 British (and 45 frigates vs. 145 British). France lost a total of 80 ships of the line during the Napoleonic wars.
The thing that gave the British Admirality hiccups at wars end were the huge facilities for building an Imperial French navy under construction in Anvers. Admiral Martin on the spot in 1814 to Castelreagh (clumsily retranslated from French):
"We have concluded that the naval establishement at Anvers had reached a development that, though alerted, we had had no idea about. This establishment would through continous progress shortly have given the French navy such an augmentation, that it would have been impossible for England to equal it. We can say that the peace, which has reduced this port to a simple commerical role, is an event equal in importance to any other in our history."
http://www.napoleon.org/fr/salle_lecture/articles/files/Napoleon_Angleterre_2_marine.asp
(There's an English version of the Napoleon.org site as well.)
That's because the Invincible-class started life as anti-submarine cruisers, not carriers. The advent of VTOL completely transformed them. The ramp on the front really was added as an afterthought!JoeM said:The Illustrious was parked up outside my flat the other week, I think they were allowing visitors but I didn't anywhere advertising the fact. They had a Harrier on deck for display too.
It looked quite cool, after getting used to the size I realised how small it is in comparison to the US carriers you see on TV these days
The UK probably would have built supercarriers in the 1960s, of comparible size to the US ships, had technology have been as backward as theirs
If you look up the Queen Elizabeth-class you will see this is not complete fiction, but my brilliance is casting biased shadows
The UK could not afford to develop VTOL and maintain supercarriers at the same time
However, the government decided to let the RN have huge supercarriers anyway. They should be delivered in 2012 but I doubt the near-future will feature in this year's naval celebrations. Last British carriers to intimidate oponents just by sending a postcard operated around 1945-1970s, they did actually prevent wars just by showing up looking menacing.
Thousands of US southerners flock to reenactments to see the Confederates beat again...and again...and again. So far I've seen the Confederates lose the Battle of Selma eleven times.
What's the big deal with the French and Spanish being ashamed of losing?
What's the big deal with the French and Spanish being ashamed of losing?
stormbind said:That's because the Invincible-class started life as anti-submarine cruisers, not carriers. The advent of VTOL completely transformed them. The ramp on the front really was added as an afterthought!
The UK probably would have built supercarriers in the 1960s, of comparible size to the US ships, had technology have been as backward as theirs
If you look up the Queen Elizabeth-class you will see this is not complete fiction, but my brilliance is casting biased shadows
The UK could not afford to develop VTOL and maintain supercarriers at the same time
However, the government decided to let the RN have huge supercarriers anyway. They should be delivered in 2012 but I doubt the near-future will feature in this year's naval celebrations. Last British carriers to intimidate oponents just by sending a postcard operated around 1945-1970s, they did actually prevent wars just by showing up looking menacing.
Too bad the advanced technology of your ASW carriers couldn't stop the Argentinians from dropping iron bombs into British frigates in the South Atlantic whereas one backward-tech US big-deck carrier would have splashed the Skyhawks and Mirages 50nm from the outer screen.
Similar threads
