Britain's billion-pound F-35s not quite ready for, well, anything The F-35 stealth fighter is not meeting its potential in British service because of availability issues, a shortage of support personnel, and delays in integrating key weapons that are limiting the aircraft's effectiveness. The various problems are highlighted in a reality check from the UK's National Audit Office (NAO) that …
Who made the Harrier? Hawker Siddeley, a British organisation.
Who makes the F35? Lockheed Martin. An American company.
Then we get nonsense like this
These delays have been caused by "poor supplier performance," the NAO says, referring to the US defense firm responsible for the F-35, Lockheed Martin.
and
...a shortage of engineers able to work on the F-35 in Britain's forces
Part of the problem is we need a big mindset shift. This isn't the 1950s anymore and Britain hasn't really kept up in terms of delivering cutting edge technology especially when it comes to anything related to aerospace.
If we were genuinely a world leader in this field we'd make our own aircraft, have trained engineers to service them and have something better than an F-22 (which ironically could still beat an F-35 despite being many years older) that we'd come up with ourselves.
> If we were genuinely a world leader in this field we'd make our own aircraft
You have thank Thatcher and her successors, who made the UK into a world leader in buying stuff in rather than investing in our own capabilities.
Heseltine was a lone voice when he called the policy out over the government preferring US helicopters over Westland. Likewise the UK government has dragged its feet over any form of European joint ventures.
Perhaps Trump is doing Europe (and specifically the UK) a favour and the UK is starting to become more serious about joint European ventures…
Making Europe Great Again (MEGA†) - sounds much better than MAGA and sort of self referential. Works for England too; the UK not so much.
I suspect in hindsight this will be the time when the UK had to choose between the US and Europe as trusted partners in security, economic and foreign policy.
If the US doesn't deviate from its current insanity which realistically I don't imagine that it will for a decade at least, the sensible thing for Europe including the UK to actively disengage from the US in these arenas to further develop self reliance and separate dialogues with the nations that the US has estranged.
Unfortunately I cannot see any government of the UK having the political balls to dispense with the fictional special relationship and part rags with an increasingly erratic US.
† Of course the Francophones would likely have it RGE (Rendre la Grandeur à l'Europe) or some such.
Imagine if that speech were delivered today though? Harry Potter might not rate quite such a mention. Footballers - you'd have to pick from Stanway, Toone, Hemp, Russo, Mead, Beever-Jones and (dare I suggest) Hannah Cain.
We might be a small country. But we are a collection of great ones. Despite the knavish tricks of our political class.
...I think the dickhead is doing great work in Making Europe Great Again
I read somewhere (unsure of the reliability) that there's a common Chinese phrase now for "Nation-Builder Trump". Except the nation he's implied to be building up is China.
As a Yank watching my country go into decline, I hope you're right about Europe and the UK becoming Great Again. I fear he's doing a better job at Making Russia and China Great Again.
Bear in mind, the last time Europe was "great" it didn't go so well for a lot of people, both in Europe and in the rest of the world.1
Maybe we could Make Europe Sane Again, but that presupposes that Europe (or anywhere else for that matter) was ever sane in the first place.
______________
1 I'd give references here but they'd have to start at the Trojan War and run through World War II, inclusive, with side trips to Africa, the Americas, Southeast Asia, and pretty much everywhere else but Antarctica.
Thatcher was too late - it started in the 50s with the Sandys review, which recommended moving away from aircraft to missile-based defence. A few projects survived, but nowhere near enough to support a British aerospace industry. Westland in the 80s was just the nail in the coffin.
They weren't exactly wrong, and your aircraft and car industries in the 50's were a glorious mess. Lots of small factories hand tooling designs that were almost all brilliant, in parts. If you'd managed to bring them together, rationalise them but keep the good bits, who knows where you'd be now? Instead you brought them together, politicised them and kept the cheap bits.
"Perhaps Trump is doing Europe (and specifically the UK) a favour and the UK is starting to become more serious about joint European ventures…"
Careful now, King Farage of Cameo won't take too kindly to that sort of talk.
> You have thank Thatcher and her successors, who made the UK into a world leader in buying stuff in rather than investing in our own capabilities.
Let’s not forget that the labour government under Harold Wilson in the 1960’s cancelled the TSR2 aircraft.
What would the TSR2 have been used for?
It would have been used for the same role that the RAF used the aircraft that it got instead. Nothing, which is the most ideal scenario.
Part of the reason it was cancelled was USA hegemonic pressure. The idea was to pay General Dynamics for an F1-11 fleet. Thankfully never happened. RAF used improved F4 Phantoms for a while alongside Jaguars until the Euro partnership Tornado eventually arrived and got a bit of a swan song in the desert.
"Tornado eventually arrived and got a bit of a swan song in the desert."
A more accurate way of putting it would be "got shot to shit in the desert". Obsolete aircraft and obsolete tactics resulted in 6 being shot down and a LOT more damaged. Even the inbreds at the top of the RAF rapidly came to the conclusion "lets not do that again".
Why the RAF took so many years to identify that low-level missions were no longer effective tactics is another matter.
Three of the six RAF Tornadoes that were lost were lost after they started operating at medium altitude.
At the time the RAF (and Italian and Saudi) Tornados were still operating at low level, if I recall correctly, the only other Allied manned aircraft operating over Iraq were the F117 stealth 'fighters' (and them only at night).
No one anticipated that the very large Iraqi fighter fleet would largely stay on the ground and allow the allied forces to achieve air dominance; once it was clear that there was no significant air threat from the Iraqi air force, the urgency to neutralise the Iraqi fighters evaporated, and Allied aircraft (including the Tonkas) were freed up to operate at medium altitude.
Also, the Tornado was in no way obsolete in 1991.
The avionics were obsolete, especially the ECM pods - which had direct consequences on how/why/when the aircraft were lost.
Sky Shadow was a fucking nightmare to maintain - it was pretty much all thick-film modules from Plessey (gone by this time) designed 15 years ago and EVERYTHING on every board was end-of-life/obsolete. Mod kits galore.
It overheated pretty much every time you looked at it in the UK, the filters weren't intended for desert use so blocked all the time and so just didn't work. There were literally hundreds of pods on the runway, all knackered. The filters? You guessed it - obsolete, no replacement.
Disclaimer : I have some passing familiarity with what happened prior to, during and post-Granby ;) I also ended up having to do some post-design work on the mapping system for the GR4 when I briefly ended up as the PDSO for that (clearly wasn't paying attention enough to dodge that bullet).....
Vestas,
Thank you for that information - I have not previously seen reference to the unreliability of Sky Shadow to that extent.
On that basis, I feel I should withdraw my remark that "the Tornado was in no way obsolete in 1991", since it seems that the ECM fit may have been (or at least, obsolescent).
However, since the aircraft remained in RAF service for a further 28 years, is still flying with the Luftwaffe and is, I think, still in service with the Saudi air force, I think it is still fair to say that the Tornado generally was not obsolete in 1991.
The F35s are being bought by everyone to suck up to Trump. The UK will be relying on Typhoons for a good while to come. Can't call them Eurofighters any more, as Reform will get upset.
Imagine if we had built a next gen stealth Harrier Jump Jet. Or continued to develop Concorde. And transputer chips.
"The F35s are being bought by everyone to suck up to Trump. The UK will be relying on Typhoons for a good while to come. Can't call them Eurofighters any more, as Reform will get upset.
Imagine if we had built a next gen stealth Harrier Jump Jet. Or continued to develop Concorde. And transputer chips."
Stealth jets cost a fortune to develop. The US is the only country who can afford them at the moment, plus the new generation of Chinese jets (Chengdu J20, Shenyang J-35). The technology is gradually getting easier and cheaper but even Russia slowed development of the PAK FA and there are only about 40 Su-57s built. BAe systems are developing a stealth aircraft (named Tempest). But for now the F-35 is the only game in town.
Stealth Harrier jump jet - will appear on the next playstation. There is no way that a Harrier could be configured for stealth, mostly due to the huge engine fan.
If only we had developed, Concorde, or TSR 2 or a thin wing Gloster Javelin ....
If only
Stealth Harrier jump jet - will appear on the next playstation. There is no way that a Harrier could be configured for stealth, mostly due to the huge engine fan.
I'm guessing you must be left-pondian and not keen to question why the US defence world costs so much, and delivers so little. Meanwhile, over on this side of the pond-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czey8xw42y7o
The headquarters of a new international fighter jet project have opened in Reading.
The Global Combat Air Programme is a collaboration between the UK, Italy and Japan to develop a next-generation aircraft, which is expected to be called Tempest by the RAF.
No idea if Sony will be contributing to that project, but as the US becomes an unreliable & expensive partner, perhaps more nations will join.
You have thank Thatcher and her successors, who made the UK into a world leader in buying stuff in rather than investing in our own capabilities.
We can also thank Thatcher and Reagan for soaking up Milton Friedman's guff about monopolies being "efficient".
As aerospace became more complex, there was always going to be consolidation of manufacturers because there wasn't room for Blackburn, Bristol, Westland, Hawker, Supermarine, Avro, Fairey, Vickers, Armstrong-Whitworth, Boulton, Handley Page, Shorts and others to all be offering complex jet fighters/bombers. That's almost more manufacturers than the RAF has types these days!
However, we are now stuck with a handful of megacorps that only innovate "on demand" - there's very little speculative work done, it's mostly in direct response to tenders and competitions.
This wouldn't be so bad if there were more of them. For instance, railways are a natural monopoly, but rolling stock manufacturing benefits from a diversity of suppliers - CAF, Alstom/Bombardier, Siemens, Stadler, Astra, Newag (okay, maybe not!), Fuji, Hitachi, Voith, Vossler, Škoda, etc, etc.
That's a much better list than "Boeing or Lockheed?". Or "BAE/Airbus+Partners" if you're feeling European-ish. Saab and Dassault are the standouts there I suppose, delivering aircraft largely in their own name. It's not a healthy ecosystem though.
Can't believe I'm doing this but, "In defence of Milton Friedman" ....
What the Chicago school professor said was competition was best, private monopolies less good, but when well-regulated usually better than government ownership.
I'm not his biggest fan, more of a J K Galbraith kind of girl, to be honest.
What the Chicago school professor said was competition was best, private monopolies less good, but when well-regulated usually better than government ownership.
I'm less convinced. In regulatory land and looking at competition, there's a common phrase- "Equally effficient operator". So two businesses, equally efficient, should be able to compete on equal terms. Which then becomes a public sector issue, and government ownership should be 'better' because it removes most of the profit motive. So with an equally efficient company, a state run company should result in lower costs. Which I think should be done with natural monopolies. So as an example, Thames Water has a monopoly on water supply, but got raped & pillaged by Macquarrie who extracted all the value they could & then dumped the company on the next sucker. And now they're close to bankrupt and might have to be taken into state ownership anyway.
But then there's defence and projects like F-35, Tempest, new submarines etc where I think complexity is too much for a state to own the enitire means of production. I read that the F-35 has over a thousand suppliers scattered around the world, some of whom apparently don't know they're supplying components for it. The UK supplies some, eg engines, optics etc because although we're still good at niche companies, we're not good anymore at more commoditised stuff because our cost base means we can't compete.. Unless we subsidise, but then that can fall afoul of international competition rules. So Labour refused to fund Sheffield Forgemaster's large press, so now we rely on imports for large steel components. We used to be able to build tanks, those rely on forged & cast components along with 'niche' components like gun barrels that we can't (or won't) produce any more.. Which is problematic, if we're trying to create a new 'Arsenal of Democracy' to compete with Russia's defence capacity.. Which is largely state owned for their strategic industries.
So Labour refused to fund Sheffield Forgemaster's large press, so now we rely on imports for large steel components.
Errr... I think you've find it was the Conservatives (Cameron/Osborne) who in 2010 cancelled the £80m state-backed loan that Labour had arranged for SFIL.
And then in 2021 when it became apparent that we were endangering national security through the potential loss of domestic specialist castings, the MoD bought SFIL.
The MoD is now investing(!) £400m in new equipment and tooling over the next decade.
We used to be able to build tanks, those rely on forged & cast components along with 'niche' components like gun barrels that we can't (or won't) produce any more..
True. Part of the SFIL investment is the capability to cast tank & artillery barrels for domestic use and - more immediately - to supply Ukraine.
We also have a some domestic rifle barrel manufacturers, but mostly oriented to civilian hunting and match-rifle shooting. We don't really have "military scale" mass production compared with the likes of Remington or Heckler & Koch. I believe Accuracy International use barrels from (American) "Proof Research". Phoenix Barrels in Birmingham (former Sassen, formerly Border Barrels) are civvie-oriented. RPA make their own I believe. And of course you've got the London Gunmakers making big game Nitro Express rifles, but they don't really count in terms of volume and have no wider relevance to national security considerations.
Canada was at the forefront at the time of the Arrow, too, but cancelled the program in favour of buying inferior aircraft from a then-reliable partner: the US.
Now we're considering cancelling our F-35 contracts as Drumpf has threated to ensure that any F-35's sold to foreigners are "crippled" compared to the American's version.
Nobody needs a "defense partner" who is going to cripple their partners' capabilities, so we're looking at Saab, the Eurofighter, and other EU-based options, some of which are more suitable for service in Canada's cold climate.
Nobody needs a "defense partner" who is going to cripple their partners' capabilities, so we're looking at Saab, the Eurofighter, and other EU-based options, some of which are more suitable for service in Canada's cold climate.
Or willing to sanction and wage economic warfare against their 'allies'. Canada still has aerospace and engineering, so perhaps it should join the Tempest project. I think I also heard rumblings about Canada joining AUKUS as well. CAUKUS anyone?
That's not entirely true....
I saw a documentary years ago where, and my memory is especially hazy on this, BAE and RR created a mule in response to a tender from 'merica.
The mule they created far exceeded the parameters for the test....
We do have the capabilities: Despite a move to the services sector in the 80's, the UK is excellent at specialist engineering. It's just that we let the MPs with no technical expertise whatsoever make purchasing decisions, which is why we end up with this dead duck and not something fit for purpose
Bombardier, smiths aerospace, RR (of course), Airbus (The wings are the most complex part of a plane), GKN, Leonardo, . Apparently, the industry is worth 10.9 billion per year in the UK. BAE, to some extent, although I believe it's a much bigger company in the US than the UK now. Marshall's in Cambridge spring to mind, and, of course, Martin-Baker
Engineering done in the UK is not the same as engineering led by the UK. Ownership matters - not just for profits, but for decision-making, R&D priorities, and long-term sovereignty. A country renting out industrial floor space while the IP, control, and profits flow overseas isn't a powerhouse - it’s a rented workshop in someone else’s supply chain.
And the government has made it worse by turning the country into a low-cost engineering hub for foreign firms. It’s easy to import cheaper labour, outsource critical roles, and grind wages down to the bone. Local engineers aren’t incentivised to specialise or innovate - they’re too busy competing with whoever’s willing to do it for less - or just retrain as trades people to make ends meet.
Yes, the talent exists - but it's underpaid, demoralised, and strategically sidelined. Strip away the branding and sentiment, and you’ll see it clearly: British engineering is still here, but Britain no longer owns it, nurtures it, or believes in its future.
The engines for the drones that Israel uses are manufactured in Lichfield. (Elbit Systems' UAV Engines, Shenstone)
My brother worked there when one of the protesters fell through the roof and broke the break-room table.
There is a big British workload in the F35. Rolls Royce are solely responsible for the lift mechanism, which is described as a 'descendant' of the Pegasus engine.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/defence/aerospace/combat-jets/rolls-royce-liftsystem.aspx
Other major parts made by British companies include the rear fuselage assembly, ejection seat, targeting laser, life support system.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/how-much-of-the-f-35-is-british-built/
But as the article notes, the UK has now decided to build its next gen GACP aircraft with Italy & Japan. The US was sniffing around GCAP a few months ago as their own next gen NGAD and F/A-XX programs had hit problems. But was presumably given a firm 'no thanks' as they announced the F47 shortly after.
https://asiatimes.com/2025/03/us-eyes-euro-japanese-next-gen-fighter-program
The UK was the only tier 1 supplier to the project, and this was because the US wanted UK technology for the plane.
The UK wanted in on the project as getting a small chunk of a big global project was seen as more lucrative for UK industry than getting a big chunk of something that only the UK bought. At the time the F-35 was expected to have huge sales due to economies of scale lowering costs to a degree that it would make it difficult for other planes to compete. The US in turn wanted to sign up major launch customers in order to get enough sales to obtain those economies of scale.
UK participation in the overall project was largely driven by the perceived benefits to UK industry of being partners in the biggest defence project going.
try to get a tech job these days. there odds nothing there because everything was sold off or offshored. when senior IT guys & real engineers who build stuff earn less than a supermarket manager; why would you do it? end up with £10,000s in debt. start on minimum wage. then see your job offshored or cheap visas given out.
this country hasnt supported intelligence or engineering or even medical for decades & now we are suffering, quite rightly AND deserved.
on top of thatof, wherever a consultancy can be used, it will be rather than have internal govt staff who'd keep the skills. so you've got consultants whose firms are also working for the arms manufacturers & are basically letting this shit get through every time, whereas a civil servant who saw them screw it might know the tricks they use & not let them bid.
the country is deservedly fucked & even if everything turned around TODAY you're looking at 100 years to fix it. to get to the point where people can affird to have kids, send them to GOOD schools with good teachers who are well paid, to get them to do STEM degrees to then graduate and get work as engineers who are respected and then to create our own firms.
as it is today, i would NEVER advise anyone to do a stem degree.
@cookiecutter: "this country hasnt supported intelligence or engineering or even medical for decades & now we are suffering, quite rightly AND deserved."
My oldest offspring would like to offer you a cheery wave from Derby, where they work for a certain aero engine maker; First degree was through said company's apprenticeship programme, so no student debt, and now doing a company funded master's.
You do have a point on medicine: my youngest is close to finishing a five year medicine course, and will leave the course with around £60-70k of debt - so we're encouraging them to think about taking their skills to countries willing to pay serious salaries to doctors.
One of the major problems the NHS has is the number of doctors trained at a cost of roughly a million quid each who promptly bugger off to make more money elsewhere. For a start we ought to bill them for the full cost of their training and write it off at 10% for each year they spend working in the NHS; we also need to change medical school recruitment so it no longer overwhelmingly favours greedy middle class children.
Its been decades since I left the UK because I had engineering degrees and skill but nobody was willing to use them. It just got a bit tedious having industries shot out from under me -- the talent was there but when engineering becomes just putting 13 amp plugs on imports (metaphorically speaking) then its time to look around. Obviously there's exceptions to the rule, the UK has always excelled at garden shed scale engineering, i.e. if you come up with a winning design on the QT, be it a Spitfire, Mini or ARM, then there's always someone who'll exploit it for you. Just don't expect any long term investment.
So I went to pastures new. In my case it was the US. It was a different world at the time, plenty of enterprise and capital, but it has gone down the 'dominated by money' pathway and is now in exactly the same state as the UK. Its just a whole lot bigger. But literally all the things that contributed to making the place the powerhouse it is (was?) have been undermined, starting with the education system. So the initiative baton has been passed to Asia, primarily China, and now we've noticed we're impotently thumping tables and blathering on about MAGA and stuff.
The F-35 illustrates the problem exactly. Its overpromised, overdesigned and overpriced. Its one of those marvelous things that does everything brilliantly except work reliably. Its still more or less useful -- when it works -- but its being challenged by aircraft from China and Russia. But not to worry -- you should see the artists' renderings of the F-47. That's going to take on and beat anything in the world.....
"Do we have skilled carpenters? Nope"
Should have snagged Xyla the last time she was in the UK hanging out with Daisy Tempest (Luthier) and Colin Furze (madman).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1CP3ZSXDJo
There are plenty of people in the UK that could do the work. An issue is if there is no industry for somebody to get into, why would they spend 4-6 years getting qualifications? Things such as planes have been outsourced.
"I believe with his level of sponsorship, he's crossed over from (madman) to (English eccentric)."
It's a pretty fuzzy line and I say "madman" with affection. Colin's projects are epic and hopefully inspire younger generations to buy a welder and start making things. Tunneling under one's house should be put off as a more advanced project.
"IKEA - They can be assembled in the UK"
Might be a big ask given the number of un- or partially- assembled bookshelves said to be discarded in garden sheds.
For a British compatible bookshelf or Lamiwood Lancaster you would need a least a half dozen different screw threads, half of which would be Whitworth fine and left handed threads for the right side of the construction. All dimensions in feet and inches; except when they aren't.
FWIW I have assembled quite a number (10-12) of fairly involved IKEA products and I concede the PRC machining/hole drilling/groove cutting was impressive; the visual instructions not so impressive - sometimes the visual equivalent of the Muppets' Swedish chef's mutterings.
Perhaps the UK could assemble its fighter-in-a-box fleet with Swedish au pairs. ;)
"half of which would be Whitworth fine "
Still in use by some Chinese manufacturers - took bloody ages to track down a Whitworth 3/8 nut when one went missing from a steel bed frame. Why they were using them I can't say - perhaps bought the tooling from a UK factory closedown, or simply copied the standard without realising it was a tad outdated, who knows?
"FWIW I have assembled quite a number (10-12) of fairly involved IKEA products and I concede the PRC machining/hole drilling/groove cutting was impressive; the visual instructions not so impressive - sometimes the visual equivalent of the Muppets' Swedish chef's mutterings"
Some parts of my house look like an IKEA show room. Be very careful when building a corner wardrobe unit. The interior vertical element looks the same top/bottom, but if you get it the wrong way up then the shelf holes are off by 5mm. Nothing in the The Fine Manual to indicate there is a difference. You don't find out until the whole thing is built and the last operation is putting the shelves in - argh!
Give a contract to IKEA, who know supplier management - who can then get their suppliers in China to send them over flat-packed. They can be assembled in the UK, adding the engine/ancillaries"
Oh Bog!, the last thing I'd ever fly is an Ikea flat-pack aircraft. As soon as I could afford real furniture, I started getting rid of my Ikea stuff from when I had just left Uni and needed something and didn't know enough to shop sales where furniture, even really good stuff, is often given away.
What production prowess?
Put it into perspective. In May 1917 an order was placed for 250 aircraft. By the end of 1917 they'd delivered 1325 aircraft. In 1918 up until November when the war was won and orders cancelled they delivered 4655 aircraft for a total of 5980 aircraft in ~18 months.
Does anybody seriously believe that we'd do better producing them these days? We'd be more "efficient" which is to say that we'd eventually produce them (in about 5 years time after we'd produced an automated factory to do the job) with much fewer man hours and therefore cost per unit, but in the 21st century we'd still be having meetings about completing the paperwork and buying in machinery in the timeframe it took to build the lot originally.
Just look at shell production for the Ukraine war. In WW1 the UK alone produced one hundred and seventy million shells in 4 years starting from a not radically dissimilar point to where we were in 2022, France produced just shy of double what the UK did IIRC (something like three hundred million shells during WW1 and Germany produced much less than we did in WW1 as a result of us blockading any supplies via sea.
Raw output doesn't lie. The allies fired like half a billion shells during WW1. With our modern technology and "production prowess" we are struggling to collectively produce 2 million shells a year across the entire of Europe after 3 years after an existential threat to the EU started on it's borders. The difference is simply one of attitude. A hundred years ago they aggressively bulldozed every obstacle. Not enough material to produce explosives? Get chemists to invent a new explosive composition that available industry can build and mass manufacture. If it's too difficult to do then it's a failure. You can't build that fuse in quantity? Design one that you can. etc, etc etc.
At our current rate of production then the half billion shells produced in 4 years during WW1 will take us a century or so to produce with modern technology and our modern "production prowess".
"Raw output doesn't lie. "
It does hide that maybe most of those aircraft were not going to last even if not shot down. If the minimum bar is they can fly 10 sorties, building them isn't that big of a problem. I remember The Nerds on Scrapheap Challenge that had a guiding principle to make something no better than what will work once. Their diver tow vehicle didn't bother with protecting the electrics from corrosion as they were to be run in a large fresh water aquarium and only one, maybe two days. Just leave the connections uninsulated. For a wooden aircraft, why bother with sealing the wood and using fasteners that wouldn't rust away in a year? Statistically, they won't last long enough.
In modern times where there isn't an active war, it's all training and years, years, years of it so the aircraft must last and be repairable.
It does hide that maybe most of those aircraft were not going to last even if not shot down.
They were made out of wood and cotton with glue over the top to make the covering stiff in an era where there was a 25% improvement in performance every 6 months. The Sopwith Camel was ordered in May 1917 and deliveries started in June 1917. The Sopwith Dophin entered service in Febuary 1918 with the Sopwith Snipe entering service in September 1918.
I'm fairly confident that nobody really expected them to last indefinitely, or to be particularly repairable after being shot full of holes by a machine gun or nearby explosion from an AA shell etc.
In WW1 and 2 much of normal peacetime production stopped and many normal day to day things could no longer be bought, things had to be patched up and kept going.
Because to meet those production demands for war, everything stopped their normal business to turn production over to the war effort. So a company producing domestic kitchen ranges or metal hearths, for example, was repurposed for making artillery shells or parts for them. Right down to the smallest workshop.
I doubt there is the amount of manufacturing going on now to do the same, but the nation is not supplying arms on a war footing like 1915 so there is no point comparing.
Trouble is, with all the automation our factories are less flexible. I remember reading a report on the paper mills which effectively said whilst they could produce more at better quality than before their ability to introduce new lines or special runs had been markedly reduced.
I suggest a good piece of war planning is to look at the reality of just how much and how easily we can turn production over to a war effort; before we find ourselves in a war... Mind you given how efficient our food supply chain is, I suspect if war ever was to happen, a decision would have to be taken within days on how much of the population would be left to starve...
"I doubt there is the amount of manufacturing going on now to do the same, "
There are loads of YouTube channels featuring a guy inna shed. (Sorry gals, you don't seem to be represented) That sort of thing was a problem for the US in WWII as there were loads of sheds in Japan with a mill/lathe and things being run between sheds in barrows rather than giant factories making everything. I've got a load of machinery in my garage for making things that doesn't get used that often. I've been able to pick it up so cheap due to younger folk not being interested in doing things with their hands (always occupied with a phone).
"Not very efficient production as clearly a lot of handling and transportation involved, but as a production network very resilient to attack."
I'd agree that it isn't efficient, but the resilience was a bigger factor in war time. There's still something of a craft movement in Japan from YT videos I've found. Very small shops that produce really good products. Now that I have a nice array of Wusthof knives, I may have to sell them off to buy a few craft made Japanese ones.
Fun bit of historical trivia; after they were basically bankrupted by government policy the senior staff from Sopwith bought the assets of Sopwith and opened a new company under the name of Harry Hawker, Sopwith's head test pilot.
Hawker Aviation produced the Hawker Hurricane for WW2, very deliberately using the same techniques (such as doped fabric over the airframe) that the WW1 aircraft used so that all of the people trained and experienced in repairing those sort of aircraft (ie; everybody who'd served in the RNAS, RFC or RAF from the dawn of flight) could easily maintain them thus maintaining much higher readiness rates than the Spitfires, which used modern stressed metal techniques which about two people in the country knew how to repair and thus meant that damaged Spitfires had to go to central depot maintenance for relatively minor repairs and thus harming their sortie rates relative to the Hurricane.
The Hurricane is therefore a direct successor to the Sopwith Camel.
Hawker then continued on postwar producing the Hawker Hunter, the Hawker Harrier, and the Hawker Hawk trainer before being nationalised in the 1970's.
In fact as Hawker Siddeley the company picked up the remnants of DeHavilland and did a lot more than that. HS were the company behind the Hawk trainer, HS made the Harrier which was a development of Hawker's P.1127. They also developed Blue Streak into the Europa rocket first stage and this was the ancestor that developed into Ariane.
"I wonder if, with modern technology and production prowess, we could build Sopwith Camels in anything like the quantities and speed that was achieved in 1917…"
Production would be the easy part. Getting high quality wood is the harder problem. Lumber is harvested and milled for maximum profit, not quality cuts of wood.
I used to make more things out of wood but it's a long drive to a real lumber shop. The big box stores have loads of crap and charge the moon for mediocre pieces. The next elevated planter I build will be made from steel tubing and only lined with wood (scrap). I'll likely design it with pallets in mind. I still scoop up what I can at estate sales, which are a great place to score wood as most people are looking at other things.
Getting high quality wood is the harder problem.
Yes, it was in WW1 as well. That's why the Forestry Commission was created; after they arbitrarily chopped down most of the forests for timber during the war it was decided that a more comfortable reserve in the future might be nice.
"That's why the Forestry Commission was created; after they arbitrarily chopped down most of the forests for timber during the war it was decided that a more comfortable reserve in the future might be nice."
There's the raw material (trees), but also how it's seasoned and milled. Even before WW1, timber for making wooden ships was getting hard to come by without going far afield. The lengths they needed for masts and keels take a long time to grow and there wasn't the same level of 'engineered' lumber as there is today. Getting certain grain structures/shapes can be a custom order these days with long wait times. If you are building a timber frame home, you need the wood to be cut from the tree a certain way. For fence posts, it's not as critical. Cuts for aircraft are even fussier.
These jets are not designed, nor is their support system, for attritional warfare. So if you don't win in the opening hours, it's a wasted investment.
If you're far enough to be affected by direct strikes, it can work.
They can work for the US, where the whole support system is sovereign, but not for other countries in a true conflict.
Countries who buy in to the program are confirming that, for the next decade or so, their defense is a subsidiary of the US, who will revoke the support chain if your foreign policy doesn't align with theirs.
Not a problem with the F35B that we currently have - they can be refueled by UK (and most other nations') air-to-air refueling systems.
It's the F35A that we have just ordered that use the flying boom refuelling system.
The issue seems not associated with the aircraft itself (as noted by the reports that other allies are getting their aircraft into service), but poor project management at the US manufacturer (delays in the development programme), (routine) abysmal project management at the UK MoD, and the effects of decades of underfunding of UK defence, leaving the services short of suitably trained personnel.
Buying the F35C with it's longer range & UK compatible refueling system would have been better* but that's the catapult carrier version and the RAF would worry that this would give the Navy an excuse to give the QEs catapults in the mid-life refit.
* As different from the F35B as the A version but probably cheaper long term.
Ah, now we're talking about one of my areas of expertise. The easiest way is to attach a probe-and-drogue hose to a boom system. One of the KC-135 updates (I think it might be KC-135T? Mine were the KC-135R, and didn't have this) includes a pair of drogue hoses on reels near the wingtips. So those are your main options if you want to get a probe refuellee connected to a boom refueller. As far as I know, there's no practical solution for refuelling a boom receptacle-carrying aircraft from a drogue refueller; if there were such a thing, that would have to be on the receiving aircraft.
So, to sum up, yes, one could, but only for the refuelling boom to receiving probe, and it's done on the refueller end. Oh, and for the record, it's not really a UK-style system; it's shared amongst most European/NATO refuelling-capable aircraft, including the US Navy & Marine ones. Fun fact: Even some helicopters are probe-equipped. I've never seen that in action myself, but they need some of the less typical refuellers for that, just for them to fly low and slow enough without stalling.
(For the pedantic, assume that everywhere I've said 'refuelling' or its variations, I mean 'aerial refuelling'; s/refuel/aerial refuel/g; and don't let it recurse.)
CH-53E Super Stallion...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90KF-fzKZlg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M4ljh-vliQ
V-22 Osprey
That's longer than the whole of the Second World War (using the European start date).
Compare that with the number of weapons systems that were designed from scratch in that time and you have to ask* where all the time (and money) is going...
* except you don't, we all know it's being used to line pockets.
A cynic might suggest that the mindset has changed from 'let's build the bugger and see what needs fixing' to 'an endless cycle of meetings and project plans so that we're absolutely definitely amazingly certain that it will work first time, in five or ten years'.
Does the US still have the skunk works at Lockheed? Does the UK have anything similar? Probably not. That sort of place is managed by engineers who have an eye on the urgent need for the end product, not ensuring that all the tick boxes on the project plan have been ticked. I.E. death by MBA.
A real cycnic would suggest Lockheed-Martin have a vested interest in not integrating foregin weapons systems on the F-35 when the US has its own equivalents to sell...
But the issue is that the Meteor is a competitor to the Aim260 which the Americans haven't started building yet, not a competitor to AMRAAM which has about half the range of Meteor.
you have to ask where all the time is going
well, we have 3D CAD systems now, thus designing and drawing parts is much faster now than before when everything had to be hand-draw. Wait ... that's backwards ! Yeah, I've been wondering also why can't we be faster with better tools.
Keep in mind, that outside of the US, aircraft in the 40s and 50s were hand built and parts were made to fit each other, meaning that the drawings were more of an approximation then the exact art that it is now. As a result, tolerances were much more loose (look at Soviet and late war german planes for reference), meaning that accuracy, fuel economy and stealth were not possible.
Also, the certification ruleset was much simpler. Todays ruleset is much more complicated and costly to fulfill, but it must be kept in mind that the paragraphs are written in blood, and the expanded testing conditions mean that the aircraft will continue to work in conditions where 40s and 50s aircraft had to be kept in the hangar so that they would not fall out of the sky.
"Everything used to be better in the past" is usually a statement of ignorance.
"well, we have 3D CAD systems now, thus designing and drawing parts is much faster now than before when everything had to be hand-draw."
3D CAD is awesome, but I think I am a better designer/draftsman through learning mechanical drawing manually first. I still usually start with a hand drawn sketch initially that's somewhere between a scribble and neatly done with a straight edge/french curve. I can doodle just about anywhere and then sit down at a desk and transfer all of that into Solidworks (If I'm using Solidworks). I take my doodle notebook with me on train trips which I find as great place to relax and flesh out ideas. I've made is a policy to not have any electronic visual entertainment on the train. I'm addicted to my iPod so that has to go with me. I never know when I must listen to "Going Postal" again or the world will end.
I get the frustration people feel when they read these stories, but most seem to ignore the complexity of modern aircraft vs legacy aircraft, as evidenced by many of the comments here. I am a yank (who currently works in IT) but spent 20 years in the USAF and Air National Guard as an avionics tech, the complexity of modern aircraft vs even 4th gen aircraft is hard to imagine at times without directly working in the field. Some of those changes are obviously for the better, and arguably many are for the worse (especially in regards to build time and spares). I agree with one of the statements above about attrition in a war in that these planes are not meant to be quickly replaced, but that's a function of capability and complexity. These planes (when working) are insanely good at their job vs even their 4th-gen counterparts. 5th-gen aircraft aren't meant to be in a fair fight. While the UK alone may be struggling, consider all the NATO partners flying 5th-generation aircraft vs Russia with basically none. NATO, on the whole, even with the issues, is light years beyond Russia in any Non-Nuclear war. What is mind boggling to me though is the constant search for a 99% solution by all nations vs the 85-90% solution. The cost goes up exponentially, and in turn, you end up with less equipment when sometimes, numbers are what you need. While the F-35 has issues when taken on the whole of NATO/Europe, there will be a whole lot of them if SHTF, and we will be thankful for that.
While the UK alone may be struggling, consider all the NATO partners flying 5th-generation aircraft vs Russia with basically none. NATO, on the whole, even with the issues, is light years beyond Russia in any Non-Nuclear war.
I think this can be a danger of repeating the old mistake of Wunderwaffe, or differences in doctrine. So ok, if the SHTF, F-35s can swarm across Russia's borders, and Russia doesn't have parity. But then Russia's been well aware of stealth developments, NATO relying on this for offensive capability. So Russia's been busily developing their GBAD to counter, or try to counter stealth aircraft. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't, but after Israel v Iran*, Russia will have more data.
Plus it's a bit of a massive gamble that stealth aircraft could somehow sneak into Russia without them noticing the build up and win a conventional conflict in a suprise first strike. And the Dead Hand doesn't fall, and we alll die, and Russia's strategic missile forces are widely dispersed just to guard against that kind of scenario. Despite now having 5th & 6th (ish) generation, we still live in a MAD, MAD world. But do we really want or need lots of F-35s, or would a few, and lots of A-10 or an A-10 equivalent give us more bang (or BRRT) for the buck in a conflict like Ukraine?
*People who grumble about living in the past? Well, that one showed the spirit of the LRDG lives on.
Plenty of evidence exists that their GBAD isn't nearly as good as advertised from the UKR and Iran/Syria conflicts, even with GBAD, you run out of missiles, tactics that UKR and Russia have both used on each other massive jamming drone swarms, decoys etc. Then you are ripe for picking apart. Nuclear is really all Russia has left, I know media likes to make it out that they are still some sort of credible threat beyond that but really, they are not. They have limited armor, very few strategic/tactial bombers in comparison, and they cannot even gain air superiority in UKR. The fact is Russia is only really a threat with nuclear weapons. To date, over 1100 F-35s have been built, a number that likely exceeds Russia's tactical aircraft numbers completely on its own. Not counting all the other aircraft. They would be able to gain a very short upper hand only in a complete surprise attack, and I highly doubt they could do that without others noticing their preparation.
Plenty of evidence exists that their GBAD isn't nearly as good as advertised from the UKR and Iran/Syria conflicts
Cool. Cite some of this evidence maybe? Ukraine's airforce isn't very active for some reason. The Kerch bridge is still standing for some reason, despite Storm Shadow/SCALP being fired at it. Iran & Syria probably aren't great examples given HTS didn't have an airforce and Syria wasn't allowed to engage Israeli or US aircraft, but their, and Russia's systems would have collected data. Iran also wasn't a great example given Israel used infantry for SEAD, and Iran didn't have the latest systems either. So you're making some rather risky assumptions. But then people have done that before-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown
The F-117, which entered service with the U.S. Air Force in 1983, was cutting-edge equipment, and the first operational aircraft to be designed using stealth technology; by comparison, the Yugoslav air defenses were considered relatively obsolete
you run out of missiles
Eventually. Again a wunderwaffe thing, or just how logistics wins wars. We run out of missiles before Russia does, they win. Or we run out of money using 2x$1m missiles to double-tap a $50,000 drone. Of course if you're selling those $1m missiles, or not having to pay for them, then fire away!
.. very few strategic/tactial bombers in comparison, and they cannot even gain air superiority in UKR.
Do they need it? Their tactical bombers are dropping a lot of FAB glide bombs all along the front lines and Ukraine is unable to really stop them. If they try to move GBAD close enough, Russia destroys it and it leaves their military/industrial centers unprotected. Which is back to the role & utility of strategic/tactical bombers when drones and missiles are doing that job, then whether fighter/interceptors might be more useful to try and shoot down those drones & missiles. And then whether it becomes drone v drone and those magnificent men fly their machines from the comfort & safety (ish) of a base somewhere.
The fact is Russia is only really a threat with nuclear weapons.
That isn't a big enough threat for you? But it's also where a lot of rehetoric from arms salesmen like Rutte don't really make sense. We're going to be at war with Russia in 5 years, so give all your weapons to Ukraine. Or, if Russia's military is really so toothless and useless, what's the threat again? Or Germany giving their Patriots away when replacement systems might not be produced for maybe 7 or 8 years.. Assuming the neocons don't drag us into a war with China, or another Middle East crisis before then.
Logic and facts - a lost art form. It's depressing how many people will simultaneously hold conflicting beliefs - Russia is not a threat because obsolete tech - and Russia is a imminent threat because they're going to invade the European Continent.
Russia has far, and away the most experienced armed forces in the world now - with Ukraine second - nobody else has any practical experience of this sort of armed conflict.
As Iran / Russia has shown the future of Manned aircraft is limited. Drones, and unmanned Avonics platforms are the future, We had a guy on one of these threads who works for a Canadians Drone Manufacturer - it's incredible the cost difference, scale difference.
As they Say Quantity has a Quality all of it's own. Russia has outproduced the entire NATO supply chain, and they are still on SMO footing - The cold hard facts are privatisation doesn't work, the State Sector in Russia and China and Iran - has outperformed the Private sector in the US/NATO countries.
That's not going to change, it's a systemic economical reality. Russia could keep going at this pace forever. Iran has not used even a fraction of its assets prior to compelling US Backed Zionist State Terrorist group to cry Uncle.(sam). We on the other hand are told we need to starve the disabled, freeze the elderly, dismantle our healthsector to send money to the US Armed industry.
The US used a submarine launch cruise missile to make a hole and not much else.
The US Backed Zionist State Terrorist group used ISTAR assets on the ground and then flew manned missions to perpetrate the unproved act of nuclear Terrorism against a civilian facility under the monitoring of IAEA.
In no way can either the unmanned or manned attacks be considered "effective" other than at causing the destruction of the Oil refineries and other Military equipment inside occupied Palestine, hence leading to the US backed Zionists State Terror group crying Uncle (sam).
It did show some issues with Iran's air defence and Intelligence assets - which they rapidly recovered from, showing they could Target anywhere in Occupied Palestine at will, leading to high profile military targets include HaKirya being directly struck, despite surrounding them with Zionist Human shields, and carrying out their acts of Terrorism from a Terror base under a hospital.
Israel's Channel 13:
" The War Cabinet meeting tonight will take place in the new IDF fortified HQ under Ichilov hospital,
The Ichilov hospital is a military base in disguise with underground military facilities and tunnels to IDF military headquarters in 450m radius of hospital."
See how they described it when it was built..
"Tel Aviv Hospital Unveils Largest Bombproof Medical Facility in Israel Ichilov Hospital facility provides protection against conventional, chemical, and biological attack; additional larger emergency hospital is currently being constructed in Haifa"
https://www.haaretz.com/2011-03-10/ty-article/tel-aviv-hospital-unveils-largest-bombproof-medical-facility-in-israel/0000017f-e2ac-d568-ad7f-f3ef96d40000
The US backed Zionist State Terrorist group then began to arrest foreign correspondents showing the Damage, before imposing an even more draconian censorship regime - but sufficient video has emerged to show that Iran decisively won that confrontation.
Having shot it's bolt with the on-the-ground assets, US backed Zionist State Terrorist group has now got limited options. The Chinese GBAD delivered shortly afterwards marks a step up.
The Iranian people are now more aware that the US and IAEA cant' be trusted as anything more than an arm of the US Backed Zionist State Terrorist group.
Iran has now a large quantity of enriched Uranium, which is not under any IAEA oversight. So effective, not even slightly - it was a good dress rehearsal for the Iranians, who came out on top.
It was a utter failure of NPT. and a deliberate attack on Humanity as it shows that any country lacking Nukes, is likely to be attacked even if they are signatories to NPT in good standing.
I was misled by the subtle headline "U.S. Navy uses 30 submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles to strike targets in Iran"
https://defence-industry.eu/u-s-navy-uses-30-submarine-launched-tomahawk-cruise-missiles-to-strike-targets-in-iran/
There is footage of the Launch and three holes in the ground - no evidence exists for the use of the manned bombers despite claims of their usage.
The article I cited also claims that large bombs were delivered via manned aircraft and that's possible but, it seems like there's an absence of evidence for that.
So I err on the side of thinking Trump is a moron, who wouldn't know one thing from another.
I don't categorically refute the use of manned US aircraft, but as yet it's only the sub launch stuff that's been confirmed.
Why are there only three smallish holes, for 30 cruise missiles and 14 MOP bombs? It seems a little anaemic as a result.
Why are there only three smallish holes, for 30 cruise missiles and 14 MOP bombs? It seems a little anaemic as a result.
Physics and geology mostly. Tomahawks wouldn't be very effective against deeply buried structures so were used to attack above-ground ones. The MOPs are designed to go deep, then detonate so small entry hole and an unknown amount of damage underground. Might be able to guesstimate some of that if anyone can do LIDAR or RADAR scans and measure any terrain deformation. Or maybe some day, someone in Iran will produce evidence. I don't think there's any doubt they were dropped, and some day, we may also see footage from that given suitably censored video wouldn't show much we don't already know, ie big bomb dropping and not making a very big bang when they landed.
The only doubt I think reasonable is the effectiveness and if Iran managed to move stuff before the strike, or can recover anything and resume activities. Biggest risk I see is given Fordow was subject to IAEA inspections, and if Iran really was planning to higher states.. that final stage was going to be done somewhere else, away from IAEA eyes. Then if that site existed, or still exists. Which is kind of a guessing game. So maybe Irans plan was 10 weapons. They have/had 400kg of HEU which was claimed to be enough to make 9-10. So if that stage was complete, it might be a reasonable guess that the final enrichment site was also complete because there'd be time pressure to get weapons produced before that could be detected.
Thanks - that makes a bit more sense.
It's still quite mad to bomb nuclear facilities, it seems a tad reckless - have these people not seen Godzilla?
Disrupt/damage a civilian nuclear energy facility, unclear as to what that has achieved other than road testing Iran's design for protecting their installations. I think there has been footage of trucks and such so possibly they moved - stuff.
Regardless, I don't think they want nukes, they seem pretty genuine about the rationale of religious prohibited weapon due to indiscriminate nature. I'm not in anyway capable of arguing that point one way or the other - but I do believe it's a sincere posture.
I'm sure they could make one, but I don't think they want one. They've decided to go with non-nuke missiles, as a strategic choice. The US Intel lot seemed to suggest that was credible, prior to being ordered to change their mind.
So they've been prevented from making a weapon they don't want, and handed useful data on US strike package efficacy against their fortifications.
Do you think they do want one? I sort of get that implication from your phrasing, but that might be me reading too much into it?
So they've been prevented from making a weapon they don't want, and handed useful data on US strike package efficacy against their fortifications.
Yep. Iran is the only nation that actually know the real-world performance of the MOP. There was some theatre showing one going through a few meters of rock into an inreinforced tunnel that made an impressive bang, but not much in the way of realistic testing. Plus Iran were world leaders in making high pressure reinforced concrete.
Do you think they do want one? I sort of get that implication from your phrasing, but that might be me reading too much into it?
I think most nations that have them don't really want them, but nukes are all about deterence. You bomb us, we nuke you. So do you feel lucky? It used to be a small, MAD club but then it expanded because Iraq, Libya, Syria etc showed that potentially trying to join the club and develop WMD would be used as an excuse to do the regime change thing. Especially if you had oil & gas. So that showed the world that it's not really something to bluff about. Do a DPRK and announce your nuclear program with an underground test.
So I think if Iran didn't have a weapons program before, it does now because the best way to stop being bombed at a whim or a pretext is to have the ability to glass a few cities in return.
I don't think the Iranian calculation has changed either strategically or religiously, they'll take their chances with a non-nuke strategy based on destroying the Persian gulf energy installations, and wiping US bases off the map - almost none of which have anything like the AD that Israel has.
Let's say they had a nuke from China say. They Nuke Israel ? a US base ? how does that change the view - they already had bigger weapons and it seems they and the US both don't want to get into it more than absolutely needed, Well Israel has Nukes, Iran pounded them at will for days, Yemen - those has been shutting down air travel out of it.
It seems like it's almost all downside for them, and very little upside since you can't really use it. not to mention if you do sincerely believe, and they do, this is not winning this is damnation, it's desecrating your belief in honourable conduct because you failed to trust in your creator.
I suspect an opinion where clerics and military personnel have different views, but short of a coup, supreme leader gets the casting vote, and that's a hell of a reverse ferret to pull off because of this minor skirmish. We've decided it's no longer haram, and we're now sponsored by the great Satan - would you like fries with that?
Besides surely this is attritional - they are the 900lb gorilla in the region, with missile cities - they can surely do what ever don't mess with me damage with conventional missiles, especially the hypersonic and the new fancy Russian stuff.
Well Israel has Nukes, Iran pounded them at will for days, Yemen - those has been shutting down air travel out of it.
That's the problem with relying on 'peace through strength', so you can only rely on that to get your way as long as there's the perception of strength. Israel and Iran had been trading missiles for a couple of years. Neocons in both Israel and Iran have also been wanting to do the regime change thing in Iran, so they finally got their way, with or without Trump's blessing. Pretty much everyone knew the only way to destroy Fordow with any certainty was to let the US try with the MOPs, or go nuclear. If Israel did that, Israel would become the pariah rather than Iran. So the US got dragged in, especially as Iran naturally retaliated to Israel's attacks and did quite a lot of damage.. Perhaps more than Israel was expecting, or hoping.
Meanwhile over in Yemen, they'd been firing missiles into Israel and shipping, including US warships. So the Houthis got bombed, but still kept launching and have sunk a couple of large merchant ships in the last couple of weeks. And then of course there's Ukraine, where the US/NATO/EU vs Russia hasn't been going quite according to plan. Especially now some NATO members are asking out loud how exactly the latest deal is supposed to work when NATO can't really buy weapons from the US to give to Ukraine, only the NATO members can, and they either don't have the money or budgets authorised. Especially when the biggest NATO member is boasting about what a wondefully profitable deal it will be.. for that member only.
But $500m for the US to poke a few holes in a mountain, billions spent by Israel to deplete their war stocks and nobody really knows what success looks like.. Which is bad because all these misadventures risk making the 'West' look weak. Lindsay Graham goes on Twitter telling China if they don't stop doing business with Russia, in 51 days, S.Carolina's going to stop buying Chinese! China just announced that it looks forward to working more closely with Russia.
Oops.
I suspect an opinion where clerics and military personnel have different views, but short of a coup, supreme leader gets the casting vote
That's the problem with regime change. Ok, so the Ayatollah gets killed, or regime changed. Who replaces him? IRGC? The military who've just had a bunch of their leaders assassinated and might no longer be moderated by Iran's religious leaders? The media bigged up Reza Pahlavi leaving LA and returning as Iran's next Shah to take his rightful seat on the Peacock Throne, but Iranians of the non-expat variety aren't exactly keen on that idea. So it would more than likely end up as yet another regional civil war.
they can surely do what ever don't mess with me damage with conventional missiles, especially the hypersonic and the new fancy Russian stuff.
Yep, and Russia and China along with some other nations like Pakistan have seemed very willing to help Iran protect their sovereignty and it's not like Iran's going to be trusting the West any time soon.
Which is also back to the good'ol F-35 and what data our enemies got as a result of Israel v Iran. Or how effective they'd really be in a conflict against someone like Iran given it's mountainous, hot and massive. So how many sortees could an F-35 fly per day without failures. Especially given with a single engine, failures around that would be bad.
Here's another one which confirms the Sub launches, and coyly hints that people don't believe the use of Manned Airpower in this particular strike https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/american-submarines-fired-tomahawk-missiles-at-iran-this-weekend
Again it's not 100% that they didn't use them, but it seems evidentially unsupported - which is not to say untrue - but there are doubts - especially when the same reporting says the US has destroyed the facilities which even they've walked back already.
So, currently it's unproved, possibly false, it may well be true, but it's Trump, and unsubstantiated so, it's not exactly credible.
Did you read the whole of the link you posted? As well as the missile launches it confirms the B2 strike. Your "coyly hints" is actually "Many on social media...". I'll post another link, https://www.twz.com/air/b-2-strikes-on-iran-what-we-know-about-operation-midnight-hammer, which also mentions both Tomahawk and B2 operations in a lot more detail.
Your Kremlin handler needs to keep you more up to date.
Maybe not substantiated sufficiently for your satisfaction, but it is what history will record.
Those entry holes, the amount of dust settled around them and the before images. All photoshoppable of course. But still the official story.
And you know that there are people in the US military itching to test these weapon systems and get some real world performance measurements.
JE's explanation seems fine to me, I don't claim any expertise in these matters. I just assume Trump is lying as a baseline.
Fine they dropped the MOP with manned flights, but still the human in the plane is expensive, surely it's going to go the way of the dodo to keep flying the meatsack?
And to the main point, so I guess it's effective in that they presumably hit something they aimed at in a manned flight.
I still don't see the actual point beyond as you say data collection, they're a large country three times the size of Ukraine, they have 26 airports and missiles cities underground all over the country.
This was only going to ever go one way.
"While the UK alone may be struggling, consider all the NATO partners flying 5th-generation aircraft vs Russia with basically none."
Russia is an 800lb gorilla, but the dust-ups where military winds up doing their thing is someplace else. That makes one wonder why spending all of the money to keep the one-upsmanship games brisk is a good idea. The machines are far more expensive per unit and the operational costs are extremely prohibitive. For all of the talk that a few military academies use Arthur's "Superiority" as a text book, few are taking it's core message to heart.
Jake and Ellwood spent most of the movie (The Blues Brothers) running from very few cops, at the end when there were ranks and ranks of them pointing guns at them you have to ask what was more impressive. Even if the few officers were packing a super hand gun, hundreds with Mk1 slug throwers would be far more scary to be looking into the barrels. I see the same thing between 4 F-35's and 40 F-16's. The pilots of the F-16's would get far more stick time as well.
Perhaps we could take a page from the Ukraine development cycle book and stop the fascination with high ticket items. There is some hope with systems like Gravehawk which would fit the 'good enough for now' slot but the strides Ukraine has made with drones suggests that a lot of these systems like the F35 are out of date before they even start the build phase
Except that they also need the big-ticket items (like Patriot).
The problem comes when you put all your money into big-ticket items for mostly the wrong reasons and end up with an assortment of white elephants and insufficient money for the basics (like shells and soldiers).
The problem comes when you put all your money into big-ticket items for mostly the wrong reasons and end up with an assortment of white elephants and insufficient money for the basics (like shells and soldiers).
But that's also a problem with Ukraine. Sure, $1bn Patriots would help, with $1m+ missiles that we can only make maybe 500 a year for all markets. Then Patriots might be very effective against $50,000 drones, but much less effective against hypersonic missiles. Especially when trying to deal with salvos of 500+ drones & missiles at a time.
So then whether things like this-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyshield
would be more useful. Germany has so far donated.. 2. Ukraine needs more. They've also been using domestically produced light aircraft fitted with guns because they can have more of those & they're much cheaper than F-16s. Which also gets into politics around Trumps announcement. US will give Ukraine lots and lots of new weapons, and NATO is expected to pay for those. NATO members like Canada and extended members like Australia might go "Err.. no?". EU members might also say the same, along with being a tad suprised that this is now an EU conflict, rather than one the US started. And if we're going to spend money, perhaps we'd prefer to spend it on the EU MIC rather than giving it to the US. Especially when the US is also sanctioning the EU at the same time. It might also be unpopular with Swedes and Finns. Welcome to the club, now here's your very large bill.
Ah, politics. Especially with countries like Germany who now that they've had the chance to compare their IRIS-T performance against Patriot might decide to cancel their orders for Patriot and buy IRIS-T instead.. And then whether more EU countries will decide to join the Tempest program instead of buying American. It's still NATO, so it's all good, right?
The big strike last Friday/Saturday against western Ukrainian cities was reported to be about 600 Shaheds and circa 2 dozen missiles.
It's very unlikely that the Ukrainians are using Patriot against the drones - they are much slower than any of the missiles that the RAS is firing at Ukraine's cities, so will be obviously drones.
The Ukrainians have multiple lower-than-Patriot capability systems that can knock these drones down (Older soviet-era systems, I-HAWK, NASAMS, Raven (FrankenSAM), Gravehawk (FrankenSAM), Gepard, Skyshield, 0.50 Cal with sighting systems. Mi-24 attack helicopters, even a Yak training aircraft with a rear-seat gunner..plus electronic warfare which appears to remain highly effective - and those are just the ones I can think of, off-hand).
I strongly suspect that the Patriots (and Samp-T) are restricted only to engaging missiles, and, wherever possible, only the Russian hypersonic weapons, at which point cost of interceptor is favourably comparable to the cost of the target.
The NATO purchase of US weapons is I suspect actually going to be popular (at least at government level) - my understanding of the recent NATO requirement to spend 5% (3.5% defence + 1.5% defence adjacent) is that any moneys spent on supplying arms to Ukraine counts towards that target. It's therefore a quick and easy way that NATO governments can meet the new requirements, without having to build new military bases, recruit people into the armed services, etc.
And I am quite sure that Germany won't purchase IRIS-T instead of patriot, since IRIS-T is a short-range air-to-air missile, which is carried by German Typhoons. It appears to be a very good missile, but can no more replace Patriot than Patriot could replace IRIS-T. Possibly you meant the Franco-Italian SAMP-T?
US backed Zionist State Terrorist group's illegal occupation of Palestine, is not a democracy - it's an Genocidal[1] apartheid [2] regime with an overwhelming [5] paedophile [4] problem engaged in Systemic mass Rape [3]. Concentration camp for people it's attempting to exterminate in pursuit of the Shared Nazi-Zionist WorldView [7]
What you'll find is that Terrorist group [12] has funded our government[8], to steal our civil liberties[9] and perpetrate a Genocide[10], while importing Dangerous Rapists/Murderers [11] onto British Streets.
So no - we are being used by the US, and its proxy US Backed Zionist State Terrorist group, and it's not to the benefit of the UK or our Armed Forces.
[1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/
[2] https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/19/world-court-finds-israel-responsible-apartheid
[3] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/03/more-human-can-bear-israels-systematic-use-sexual-reproductive-and-other
[4] https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-child-rape-assembly-line-0000141-v20n11/
[5] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-jewish-american-pedophiles-hide-from-justice-in-israel/
[6] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/14/lapid-olmert-slam-israels-plans-for-concentration-camps-in-gazas-rafah
[7] https://mronline.org/2024/06/28/the-treachery-of-the-nazi-zionist-alliance/
[8] https://www.declassifieduk.org/israel-lobby-funded-a-quarter-of-british-mps/
[9] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2025/07/we-accept-of-course-that-it-is-draconian-and-deliberately-so/
[10] https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-03-18/debates/C5900243-EC83-4C59-BABA-F3EDEE9D8E60/MilitaryCo-OperationWithIsrael
[11] https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-british-israeli-soldiers-at-risk-of-gaza-war-crimes-probe/
[12] https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/13/israel-gaza-historian-omer-bartov
Hamas thought it was the right thing to do to kill or kidnap 1,000 civilian Israelis, and that if was a good idea. It never was the right thing to do, and it turned out to be a very bad idea.
And that’s the reason why Gaza has turned into a stinking heap of shit.
Occupied Palestine has the absolute right to use armed struggle to liberate themselves from the Paedophilic rape cult illegally occupying Palestine in violation of the Inalienable rights of self-determination of Palestinians.
There are no civilians in Zionist State Terrorist Group - Only combatant and non-combatant perpetrators. Spare me your justifications - save them for your Televised Trial for Crimes against Humanity including Genocide - and Mass Rape.
There is no Israel, it's occupied Palestine, There are no Israelis "There are those who have tried to attain recognition of their nationality as “Israeli”, but those who have tried receive the standard answer from the Ministry of the Interior, that “it was decided not to recognize an Israeli nationality”." https://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/israelis-dont-exist/
ICC fugitive Ben "Bibi" Mileikowsky is Polish, So is Gallant / Ben Gvir is a Kurdish Khanenist from Iraq, Smotric is from Ukraine, Katz is Romanian.
The Zionist killed their own human shields with tanks, and helicopter gunship fire - which they alone possess, https://www.ajiunit.com/investigation/october-7/
"The statements include depictions of all Palestinians in Gaza as responsible for the Hamas attack on 7 October and therefore legitimate military targets, " As your statement does.
Zionism is an inherently Genocidal belief system, which is why the UK courts have ruled it "Unworthy of respect in a Democratic society"
"As established in the 2021 case of Forstater v CGD Europe, a philosophical belief will only be considered unworthy of respect in a democratic society if it is an extreme belief akin to Nazism or totalitarianism, or a belief which incites hatred or violence in the gravest of forms."
You and your fellow foamers neatly demonstrate as Haartez publishes articles entitled "How Might Israel Go About Planning the World's Biggest Concentration Camp in Gaza" https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2025-07-09/ty-article-opinion/.premium/israels-delusional-plans-for-gaza-will-turn-soldiers-into-jailers/00000197-eb28-d0a0-a1df-effd86260000
Israel's actions in Gaza are contemptible, but if they are trying to commit genocide they are surprisingly bad at it. Hamas' claimed deaths in Gaza over 20 months are roughly two days' throughput at Bergen-Belsen.
I'll note in passing that I think it was a great shame when Amnesty turned from a focussed, single-issue (political prisoners) campaigning organisation into general purpose rentagobs for whatever it is students are marching about - and donating for - this week. In the old days Amnesty would have been against Hamas taking hostages.
The Nappy wearing paedophilic rape cult have been slowed by the heroic resistance, which has led to a regular supply of videos showing resistance fighters eliminating Tanks, APC, dismounted Infantry.
Given the US backed Zionist State Terrorist group exclusively target civilians, it's unsurprising they're ineffective, leading to the mass-starvation of millions of people in an attempt to force them into a Concentration Camp.
Genocide Scholars disagree. https://contendingmodernities.nd.edu/global-currents/statement-of-scholars-7-october/
As does the ICJ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/02/israel-defying-icj-ruling-to-prevent-genocide-by-failing-to-allow-adequate-humanitarian-aid-to-reach-gaza/
The unprecedented level of destruction and killing points to large-scale war crimes in Israel’s attack on Gaza. There is also evidence of a “widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack” that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines as a crime against humanity. Moreover, dozens of statements of Israeli leaders, ministers in the war cabinet, and senior army officers since 7 October—that is, people with command authority—suggest an “intent to destroy” Palestinians “as such,” in the language of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The statements include depictions of all Palestinians in Gaza as responsible for the Hamas attack on 7 October and therefore legitimate military targets, as expressed by Israeli President Herzog on 13 October and by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu when he invoked, on 29 October, the Biblical story of the total destruction of Amalek by the Israelites, just as Israel began its ground invasion. Casting an entire civilian population as enemies marks the history of modern genocide, with the Armenian genocide (1915-1918) and the Rwanda genocide (1994) as well-known examples. The statements also include dehumanizing language, such as Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s reference to “human animals” when he proclaimed “total siege” on Gaza on 9 October. The slippage between seeing Hamas as “human animals” to seeing all Palestinians in Gaza in this way is evident in what Israeli Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories Maj. Gen. Ghassan Alian promised to people in Gaza the next day: “Hamas has turned into ISIS, and the residents of Gaza, instead of being appalled, are celebrating. … Human animals must be treated as such. There will be no electricity and no water [in Gaza], there will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell.”
These expressions of intent need to be understood also in relation to the widespread incitement to genocide in Israeli media since 7 October. Israeli journalist David Mizrachi Wertheim, for instance, wrote on social media on 7 October that “If all the captives are not returned immediately, then turn the [Gaza] Strip into a slaughterhouse. If a hair falls from their head – execute security prisoners. Violate all norms on the way to victory.” He also added, “we are facing human animals.” Four days later, another Israeli journalist, Roy Sharon, commented on social media “that if, in order to finally eliminate the military capabilities of Hamas, including Sinwar and Deif, we need a million bodies, then let there be a million bodies.” Annihilatory language now also appears in public spaces, such as banners on bridges in Tel Aviv that call “to annihilate Gaza” and explain that “the picture of triumph is 0 people in Gaza.” There are dozens of examples of incitement in Israeli media, which recalls the incitement to genocide in Rwanda as genocide was unfolding there in 1994.
I'm sure you going to tell me that "Omer Bartov" is a Jew Hater, or some other nonsense - do you suggest he's unqualified to make that statement?
it's Genocide https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israeli-professor-omer-bartov-says-israel-committing-genocide-gaza
A renowned professor of Holocaust and genocide studies has called Israel's war on Gaza an "inescapable" case of genocide, joining a chorus of prominent Israeli and Jewish scholars coming to the same conclusion about Israel's 21-month war on the besieged enclave.
Omer Bartov, a professor at Brown University and a former Israeli army soldier, wrote in The New York Times on Tuesday that after deliberating and examining Israel's war, his "inescapable conclusion… [is] that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people".
"Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the IDF [Israel Defence Forces] as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could," he wrote.
"But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one," he added.
Bartov is considered one of the world’s leading scholars of the WWII Holocaust and an expert on genocide. One of his most well-known books is Anatomy of a Genocide.
So there was this RAF F-35 sneaking around India, probably testing their AD systems when it ran into a bit of a problem and couldn’t take off again.
A month worth of bed rest in the monsoon didn’t help.
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/stranded-british-f-35-fighter-jets-completes-one-month-in-india-repair-underway-2755609-2025-07-14
I have been informed that theaircraft paint is a special radar absorbent coating - and that the deliver time for a single pot of paint from Lockheed Martin is 2 - 3 months.
Recruitment was screwed by outsourcing to Crapita with a 10 year contract that never delivered anywhere near what it was supposed to do.
In the post-war and cold-war eras companies like GEC, Rolls Royce and Marconi had fat contracts for supplying the UK's defence forces. Those companies make fat profits for themselves and their shareholders. Who wouldn't put GEC in their pension fund? Then Labour, and later the Conservatives, realised that Britain was not earning enough to let this process continue and, mistakenly, we were shrinking our defence capability.
If there was a single event that illustrated this it was the cancellation of TSR2 by Wedgie Benn.Then the disastrous fixed-price contract with Lockheed bankrupted Rolls Royce while developing the RB211 jet engine for the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar.
Why bother anyway?
Very important people such as successive NATO Secretaries General, peace-loving German 'statesmen', and 'special needs' political leaders in France, the UK, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and so forth, plus the never to be forgotten Ursula von der Leyen, harp on about an imminent Slavic invasion covering the entirety of Western Europe, including the UK. The incursion is set to begin in 2030. Thankfully, given the sheer incompetence of the Babelian NATO - it led by a gaggle of fourth rate people for whom a career in politics was their only route to infamy - Russian forces setting off in the Spring of 2030 will reach London by early June of that year to sight-see neatly delineated Oreshnik missile craters at key locations including 'No. 10', Westminster Palace, Buckingham Palace, buildings in the City of London, and the homes of the particularly avaricious; the Russians will meet cheering crowds, and pass along flower-strewn streets.
Bring it on.
> Those companies make fat profits for themselves and their shareholders. Who wouldn't put GEC in their pension fund?
The days of the “Blue chip” companies. Not sure about far profits, but definitively reliable profits, better than utilities, but not as good as more risky seasonal businesses.
We not only allowed these industries to decline, but 1980s MBA guff encouraged the (post Weinstock I - see https://www.theguardian.com/business/2002/aug/18/mbas.madeleinebunting ) executives to break up these diversified businesses into individual businesses. I’m not aware of a single former GEC business that hasn’t been “saved” by being taken over by a former competitor.
....clearly NOT an objective for the MOD!!
See:
(1) Aircraft carriers have propellers fall off!
(2) Six F45 destroyers currently getting THREE upgrade programs each.....to be delivered in 2032!
(3) F-35 program seems to have numerous problems (see article). Software upgrade due in 2033!
(4) F-35 ditched in the Indian Ocean thanks to careless ground staff!
(5) F-35 doesn't work properly in 2025......serious help needed from the Indian government!
.....and so on.....
.....and that's what we know about! I wonder what "full disclosure" would look like......
.....and I wonder if any of this gets any better when defence spending RISES to 5% of GDP......I'm not holding my breath!!!!
The F35 is totally fit for purpose.
There is no need for an fighter aircraft, the UK is not about to be invaded
The point of buying the F35 is to channel money to the USA and so prove we are good little allies and don't deserve punishing sanctions like those evil no-good Europeans.
It's the same reason that Saudi Arabia is the 2nd biggest buyer of US arms
Those jets are a no bottom money pit. Everyday it's billions more here , billions more there .. That airplane is never done , complete or even fully working and combat ready. This is ridiculous. It's the worst choice done by defense everywhere in the world. Canada , where i live , even needs the Americans permission to use them. They have the keys. It's ridiculous. Scrap that program. It's the worst choice in modern defense history.
Unfortunately this is not about logic, it's about money and power. The people who make the decisions, make the choices that benefit them personally the most. Governments, and especially the US are like the mafia. If you took the mafia and gave them the military, police and justice system it would be no worse. The mafia don't hurt everyone, only those who try not to pay, our governments start with property seizure, follow up with prison and ultimately total ruination. If you really upset them, or become a liability, you commit suicide.
The primary, and perhaps only, purpose of the F35 is to ensure income for the manufacturing corporation and the occasional US politician.
It is not there to defend the UK or, even occasionally, the USA.
Isn't this from the same source as the F104, which our politicians were not bribed enough to accept, unlike some European countries?
We really need to stop buying US hardware. It's not well assembled, it is ultimately controlled by a narcissistic toddler with management skills that my 3-year-old granddaughter would laugh at.
If it doesn't live up to the sales PowerPoint, can we have our money back? Then we would have enough money to get a load of more maintainable Swedish offering that would be more reliable.
MOD top brass, pen pushers and politicians not capable of choosing the right kit, time and time again they make stupid mistakes that cost our armed forces, decisions should be made by experience officers who have command modern forces, not some Admiral who hasn't left a desk for 25 years or pen pusher who doesn't understand specifications and requirements.
In fact, the UK Lightning Force faces "major personnel shortages across a range of roles," which the NAO says are not likely to be resolved for several years, although it notes the MoD is recruiting to fill some of these gaps.
There are multiple levels for maintenance that require (sometimes) different skill sets and it varies by trade.
Flight line / flight deck. Limited to LRU replacement (a part of the avionics kit in a bay, for instance). Other things such as refuelling, adding / removing payloads and turnaround checks.
Hangar. For most electronics, this is the same as flight line (replacement of LRUs) but also full system testing can be done. For airframe and engines it can be much more in depth but that depends on a number of things such as level of training and equipment availability. When I was doing this stuff (admittedly a long time ago), we could do engine changes in the hangar when at sea.
Third line support. Often with contractors either from the company or simply sending equipment back to the OEMs for repair. We used to have a pretty much sovereign repair capability on bases and ships for most avionics but that changed over the years to support contracts and is now mainly card replacement within a box. The turnaround time for some equipment can take several months especially if the kit is US made and sold with the aircraft under FMS (foreign military sales). Even UK made kit [1] (of which there is actually quite a bit) may still need to go back via Lockheed Martin (depending on the wording of the contracts of which I am ignorant).
For weapons, it is not just the aircraft software, but also the rather slow process at Boscombe Down to get weapons approved onto an aircraft.
So it is not a simple problem.
The day to day stuff is flight line and hangar and needs to be serving RAF / RN personnel, of which there is a known shortage for a number of reasons. Until that is addressed, the problem will continue.
Note 1. I have been involved in the design of some of it.
