+1 The point I was actually trying to make was that the Germans used very concentrated firepower (especially using aircraft and tanks) during Blitzkrieg ... and this overwhelmed the enemy.
http://rt.com/usa/f35s-turbine-crack-flaw-310/ Could the 'fatal flaw' be that you could get killed flying one? I love an ironic headline.
I wonder if it's of potential value to the government to have the odd money pit like this? Afterall, there is foreign investment that is also driving this project. And perhaps that foreign investment is also being divested elsewhere in empire USA for other purposes unbeknown to the foreign "investors"?
While the Armada was bearing down on me I would take all possible steps to stop it too. Surely you must concede that if the English did not sail the ships they did the Armada would have been able to load Parmas army in France, sail straight onto Plymouth or straight up the Thames and take the capital. Yes the weather was the coup de grace but in pre-industrial naval battles often as much damage could be done by delaying the enemy until exhaustion, scurvy, fever or misadventure took their crews. The English tried all desperate measures including fireships but I still contend that without their small force of well trained ships mostly due to Drake and Howards' leadership prevented the Spanish army loading to the Armada. By then the winds and tides prevented the Armada from any course other than going the long way around Britain. Plus Drake was sniping at the ships the Spanish was able to field for a year while it was being assembled, including his raid on Cadiz harbour buring the Spanish at anchor. That is my favourite pre-industrial naval action apart from the Battle of Lepanto which had a different context. I doubt the Spanish felt their very existance was threatened by the English Armada Each German bomber was bristling with defensive machine guns and they flew in waves to protect each other (mutual support/layered defence). Your own figures point to the Poms losing twice as many aircraft as they started with! I think that underlines how tenuous a position that was. As always it was Hitlers lunacy that turned the tide by him ordering the bombing of cities rather than bombing of airfields and factories producing Hurricanes. Yes well for every Agincourt there is a Patay looming.
No doubt both actions were hard-fought. But coming back to the main point, it was that these two battles were used to demonstrate small, superior forces overcoming larger, competent enemies. But what I was trying to show is that in the case of the Armada, the sizes of the forces were comparable and there were positive reports of Spanish seamanship at that time, so I'm not sure this is a good example of "so much owed by so many to so few". Also in the case of the Battle of Britain, the sides were also comparable both in size of their single engined fighter forces and the quality of pilot training. Losses in turn were comparable. Again, not really a case of small superior force overcoming a larger and competent enemy. In fact, it was the Luftwaffe that was at the disadvantage here - their bombers were vulnerable (half of all Luftwaffe losses from the battle) and they were fighting a well-prepared enemy over their home island with limited fuel in their tanks. To illustrate an example of your point though, I would say the Battle of Myeongnyang is a good example, but these sorts of events are few and far between to make it anything close to a general principle of warfare.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states.html Even the US media (who's reporting needs to be taken with extreme care) acknowledges the extent of this money-pit.
They thought that they would be really smart and buy the Euro-Tiger. From what I know a fantastic aircraft straight off the shelf. However the retards in defence decided they would buy the Euro instead of the updated apache then try to retrofit it to fire US weapons. Problem with that is, the two systems don't talk to each other and the aircraft is useless. It was the "Air87" project, billions spent and still no helo.
I'd like you to think about this. If one fighter has the capability to carry enough air to air armaments (missiles) to effectively take out 10 opposing fighters (say Migs). It has stealth technology that prevents/hinders it being seen by other enemy aircraft. Has radar/targeting capabilities that can have all 10 missiles locked on to 5 separate fighters and be fired and half way to the target before the Migs are even aware that there is a single opposing jet in the area. And by that time the single jet has turned and on its way well out of range....... How much is your stack worth?
Sorry mate and with all due respect to you. But, I've got to chip in on this one seeing as I was the one who facetiously joked about us (Australia) being better off getting a few various MIGs as well as investing a few bob in a Chinese fighter development project rather than continue sinking money into the F35 lemon. In short, lots of promises, lots of money, more money being asked, more time being asked, and we're still to see a single F35 for all that money and time. Even if it does live end up being as flash as the Yanks make it out to be, a Sopwith Camel would be a better investment. At least we could get it up in the sky tomorrow to do "something" (like fly) rather than wait another couple of years for our expensive lemon to finally be delivered.
Hey I'm not defending the decision of buying the F-35 at all. In fact if the Tiger is anything to go by it is more than likely to be a monumental screw up. I was simply pointing out the poorly thought out idea of YKY that there is no way one jet is going to take down 5 no matter how advanced it is. When in reality, the dogfight of yesteryear is over and the decisive advantage in modern jets fighting each other lies in its ability to detect, target, fire and run well before the other jet even knows its there. For arguments sake, if the F-35 can do that over the Mig, then YKY's argument falls apart entirely. But of course, if old mate from the four corners show is correct, then the F-35 certainly won't achieve this.
Actually, it would be a very similar comparison between the Abrahams tank and any T series tank in operation. The T series are dug in so far that their turrets are the only thing exposed but they are still dead before they can see the Abrahams coming across the desert. And before you pipe up YKY, no the Mig can not be compared to the Leopard 2 or the Israeli version.
YKY is pretty sure that the F35 wont achieve this - hence why 5 or more (even 1 or 2) of the latest MIGs would knock ten colours of cr@p outa it!! :lol:
The F-35 certainly can't do this, but neither can the "King of Modern Fighters" the F-22: http://theaviationist.com/2012/04/30/iran-f-22/#.US2ccMop8qg Long story short, the US F-22s had mock exercises with French Rafales in the United Arab Emirates. In six simulated dogfights, the result was 5 draws and 1 win for the F-22. Although I'm not sure how you get a "draw" out of a dogfight. Amazingly, a UAE Mirage 2000 even managed to score a win over an F-22! Now, for a billion dollars, you can put 6 F-22s into the air and 12 Rafales into the air. If pilot training is equal, it would make sense to go with the 12 Rafales.
The lemon keeps getting more ....... lemon like. Bring on the Migs! http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-would-be-defeated-aerial-combat-2013-3 "According to an article published by the Washington Times, the F-35A, the Conventional Take Off and Landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter, would be defeated in aerial combat because of its current shortcomings."
Yep the Oz goverment loves buying crap military equipment, just look at the Subs, Euro helicopter, 2nd hand ships from the USA which cost multi millions to outfit again,what else hmmmm......providing sub standard equipment to our front line troops - couple of ppl I know have had to order webbing, boots and other equipment from the US because the OZ gear provided is absolute shit. And I bet your ass the new air warfare destroyers will blow out big time. They really should just order another 100 FA-18 Super Hornets (those planes rock) and some more M1 Abram tanks (we only have 100 based in QLD, 100 tanks for our vast land mass is quite crap). Would really love to know why the guberment do not buy weapon platforms that have been tried and tested for Oz conditions.
"Actual" threat or "perceived" threat? As for "threat", how much of this has has to do with on our governments decisions to be involved in Multi-national International Forces?
