• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

Are people here really celebrating that the US didn’t destroy Iran’s nuclear capability? Seriously?
 
Kat Cammack almost died under a Republican abortion ban but it's the Democrats fault somehow.
What else has Biden done?

Rep. Kat Cammack on her ectopic pregnancy that she says doctors wouldn't initially treat because of Florida's Republican abortion ban: "The left absolutely played a role in making sure that doctors and women were scared to seek out the help that they needed."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1938584155417153738
 
Planigale said:
The RAF and RN are already invested in the F-35
Click to expand...
Typhoons? Cheaper, better air interdiction.
Click to expand...
Errrr... not really.

The F35B is capable of Carrier landings. The Typhoon is not.

But if you are interested in costs: If you are talking about the direct comparison then you have to compare the typhoon with the F35A. Doing some googling, the unit cost of the Typhoon is $117 million, while the unit cost of the F35A is under $90 million. Now, there are currently issues with high maintenance costs of the F35, but those have been dropping as militaries get more experience with the plane. Meanwhile, the Typhoon is a 2 engine plane, which can significantly increase maintenance costs in the long run.

(There are a lot of myths surrounding the cost of the F35... the problem is, people factor in the price of the B and C variants, which are more expensive because they do things the A variants do not do. But most militaries will be buying the A model, which has become fairly const-competitive with other similar planes.)
 
Segnosaur said:
Errrr... not really.

The F35B is capable of Carrier landings. The Typhoon is not.

But if you are interested in costs: If you are talking about the direct comparison then you have to compare the typhoon with the F35A. Doing some googling, the unit cost of the Typhoon is $117 million, while the unit cost of the F35A is under $90 million. Now, there are currently issues with high maintenance costs of the F35, but those have been dropping as militaries get more experience with the plane. Meanwhile, the Typhoon is a 2 engine plane, which can significantly increase maintenance costs in the long run.

(There are a lot of myths surrounding the cost of the F35... the problem is, people factor in the price of the B and C variants, which are more expensive because they do things the A variants do not do. But most militaries will be buying the A model, which has become fairly const-competitive with other similar planes.)
Click to expand...
The Typhoon is almost certainly worse as a fighter and as a ground attack aircraft. Still useful but getting to be similar to Phantoms in the late 1980s
 
jimbob said:
The Typhoon is almost certainly worse as a fighter and as a ground attack aircraft. Still useful but getting to be similar to Phantoms in the late 1980s
Click to expand...


Why is it worse as a fighter?

It's a dedicated fighter with ground attack as a secondary function.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Yup, the UK designed their Carriers around the F-35 and put up 10% of F-35 development costs.
trump will be gone in a few years, F-35 will be in service for decades.
Click to expand...
It is true, Stubby McBonespurs will be gone by 2029 (if not sooner). The question is, what do you expect the republican party to do in a post-Trump environment. Will they revert to a more "traditional" republican mindset (which, if not great, at least had a few adults in the room when making foreign policy decisions)? Or could we be seeing Trump as just the first of a string of populist "america first" leaders. Other countries need to consider what will happen if Trump gets replaced by Vance and Meatall Ron in the future.

Note that I am not necessarily saying all countries should avoid buying the F35. There are certainly situations where the benefits outweigh the risk of tying themselves to an unreliable ally like the US. But if there isn't an immediate need to purchase new planes, then waiting to see what happens in the US over the next decade makes sense.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Why is it worse as a fighter?

It's a dedicated fighter with ground attack as a secondary function.
Click to expand...
Stealth and situational awareness which includes integration with other aircrafts' sensors, where IIRC, the F35 is supposed to be better than even the F22 simply because it's newer, so the architecture is more modern.
 
Andy_Ross said:
The Typhoon is almost certainly worse as a fighter and as a ground attack aircraft.
Click to expand...
Why is it worse as a fighter?
It's a dedicated fighter with ground attack as a secondary function.
Click to expand...
The Typhoon certainly has some good characteristics as an air-to-air fighter.... for example, faster speed than the F35.

I think the main disadvantage the Typhoon has is its lack of stealth. Not only can the F35 attack the Typhoon before it is seen, in rare situations that involve close-up air battles (i.e. "dogfighting"), the F35s stealth would allow it to get into a better position before the battle began.

(I am not sure, but I think the F35 also has slightly better avionics, such as the ability to fire missiles "off bore")
 
Segnosaur said:
The Typhoon certainly has some good characteristics as an air-to-air fighter.... for example, faster speed than the F35.

I think the main disadvantage the Typhoon has is its lack of stealth. Not only can the F35 attack the Typhoon before it is seen, in rare situations that involve close-up air battles (i.e. "dogfighting"), the F35s stealth would allow it to get into a better position before the battle began.

(I am not sure, but I think the F35 also has slightly better avionics, such as the ability to fire missiles "off bore")
Click to expand...
The radar is electronically scanned as opposed to mechanically scanned which has a lot of advantages
 
Segnosaur said:
The Typhoon certainly has some good characteristics as an air-to-air fighter.... for example, faster speed than the F35.

I think the main disadvantage the Typhoon has is its lack of stealth. Not only can the F35 attack the Typhoon before it is seen, in rare situations that involve close-up air battles (i.e. "dogfighting"), the F35s stealth would allow it to get into a better position before the battle began.

(I am not sure, but I think the F35 also has slightly better avionics, such as the ability to fire missiles "off bore")
Click to expand...

The Typhoon would absolutely murder the F35 after the merge. Particularly the B version, so, technically, the Typhoon is a better dogfighter.

The very, very large problem would be getting to that point...
 
lionking said:
Are people here really celebrating that the US didn’t destroy Iran’s nuclear capability? Seriously?
Click to expand...
No people are pointing out that the operation was never likely to achieve its goals, partly for technical reasons and partly because the Iranian bomb program didn't exist, and pointing and laughing as Trump and his cronies try to claim it as the greatest military operation ever. BTW the way that is pretty damn insulting to those who took part in operations that were better planned and far more important this one, and this rhetoric comes just a couple of weeks after the D-Day commemoration. If you want to jump on the Trump bandwagon by suggesting that anyone who points out the stupidity of this mission and the insanity of the rhetoric is somehow siding with Iran, and by implication an enemy of the USA, well no one can stop you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom