These wonderful north Korean missiles: First you have to know how they operate. THe defenses in the Sea of Japan and Japan itself, if the missiles work, are rendered useless, as the missile should leave the atmosphere. The Alaskan defences, or any others, would be able to take down the missiles, yes, but the payload would matter a great deal. Yes, it may not match the USA's missile abilities, but it can still carry a several megaton nuclear warhead to your shores. You shoot that down, you'll still get a considerable EMP wave that might render your defenses useless or a second missile. I say might, because I dont know how much shielding, or how effective that shielding is, on your defenses.
The China question, and korean war: I agree with Tankgunner - it was a war. Whenever you get two or more armies engaged in combat it fulfills the definition of war, whether or not its declared. "Police Action" was a term used to make it seem legal without the declaration, but if you speak to anyone fighting, it was a war. In 1953, there was a ceasefire, though I'm not sure of its duration, I am sure that it has expired. Britain, France, USA, and a few others are, officially, still "engaged in police action", or in reality, "still at war with" China and North Korea.
All nuclear warheads are measured in megatons, since thats the severity of the damge it an do compared to conventional weapons. Thus, I said several megaton nuclear warheads. France has 20 megaton.. and I thought USA was the top...?
And these "new technologies" would be...Sibb Tigre said:The F-35.. Multi-role, with different models. There is indeed a long range version, air superiority version etc. My only argument with it is that it relies heavily on new technologies which we havent had experience of before.. which could provide a unique tactical advantage or flaw.
I'm curious to know what purpose a Eurofighter Typhoon serves in an air force that also happens to have F-35s. Seriously.Being British, I'm really not bothered since my country is going to benefit from the F-35 and the Eurofighter, as well as our own creations.
We're still talking about North Korea, right?Second, that was a test missile ... what was that word.. "TEST"..? Yes, a failure, but dosent meant they wont get it right.
Wow.All nuclear warheads are measured in megatons, since thats the severity of the damge it an do compared to conventional weapons. Thus, I said several megaton nuclear warheads. France has 20 megaton.. and I thought USA was the top...?
Because there's no magical ICBM fairy to help them out, and they're not in a position to accomplish anything worthwhile by themselves, nor with the help of what few and equally pathetic friends they have.And as for whether N korea has the tech.. do we know for sure?
I'm curious to know what purpose a Eurofighter Typhoon serves in an air force that also happens to have F-35s.
Tell, when the missile disintigrates, what happens to the payload? does it stay intact?
TankGunner said:Frosty, The Typhoon is a air-superiority fighter, while the F-35 is a ground attack fighter, designed to be a stealthy counterpart to the F-22. Britain just uses the Typhoon in the role of the F-22
The F-35 is a multirole fighter that can handle air-to-air combat as well. Its stealth and superior BVR offensive capability puts the Typhoon at a severe disadvantage. In an unlikely clash between the two, the probability of the Lightning acquiring and terminating the Typhoon before the latter even knew it was there is very high. At the very least, the F-35's stealth and networking give the pilot the option to disengage while the other guy is still totally oblivious to his presence.TankGunner said:Frosty, The Typhoon is a air-superiority fighter, while the F-35 is a ground attack fighter, designed to be a stealthy counterpart to the F-22. Britain just uses the Typhoon in the role of the F-22
That's a reasonable question, but it's not what I was driving at. They fill essentially the same role, one is geared slightly more toward intercepting ridiculous numbers of inferior aircraft without much warning, and might not actually be better at it than the other.Maj.Striker said:I think his question is why the UK would obtain the F35...?
I think his question is why the UK would obtain the F35...?
The UK is only 33% of Eurofighter and EF is headquartered in Germany.TankGunner said:Britain could be trying to secure its means to build planes by itself and with Europe, and not rely on the US.
Large, critical components of the Lightning are designed and supplied by BAE Systems and Rolls Royce. This isn't a Skunk Works project.Even if the F-35 were built in Britain, Lockheed would not release the trade secrets behind the F-35, and would choose to produce some components (i.e.; the wings, engines) in the US.
The Typhoon doesn't appear to possess that capability. The Lightning has been designed to.If they built a new carrier, the typhoon could be a choice to fly from it.
Which is what makes the F-35's STOVL capabilities so attractive. Especially since the Typhoon's STOL capability was stripped from the plan early on as a cost-saving measure.The Royal Navy shows no inclination to build a new, larger carrier. As far as I know.
Large, critical components of the Lightning are designed and supplied by BAE Systems and Rolls Royce. This isn't a Skunk Works project.
The Typhoon doesn't appear to possess that capability. The Lightning has been designed to.
TankGunner said:Yep, you're right, I looked up that the British are building two new carriers to replace the Invincible class. These two ships are expected to be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. They will be able to operate about 50 aircraft and will have a displacement of around 60,000 tonnes. The two ships are due to enter service in 2012 and 2015 respectively. Their primary aircraft complement will be made up of F-35 Lightning IIs, and their ship's company will number around 1000.
Well I don't think it's entirely up to them. I believe Congress gets to make that decision, and they seem to have been in favor of keeping both engines.Tigerhawk said:There's serious talk from the Pentagon of the Rolls Royce engine being completely scrapped from the project entirely, taking the Brits largely out of loop.
I believe the Lightning has a greater range than the Eurofighter.TankGunner said:What's the range on the F-35 compared to the Eurofighter? Obviously the F-35 could carry external tanks, but that gives up some stealth, as well as possibly a weapon slot.
This is hard to respond to because it doesn't make any kind of real sense.Yeah, but Lockheed will hold on to patented parts of it, to protect their edge in the market. Lots of manufacturers do this with stuff built in other countries.
This is hard to respond to because it doesn't make any kind of real sense
Tigerhawk said:Is it just me, or does "Sibb Tigre" sound an awful lot like Icey...?
That's crazy talk. It's one thing to not underestimate your enemy... and entirely another to think that everybody's out to get you. North Korea will never, ever launch nuclear missiles at the US, not even if they ever develop the capacity to do so. This isn't some mad race against time, trying to stop a crazy psychopath before he gets you... it's mere politics.Sibb Tigre said:For ANYONE who is nieve enough to think "North Korea cannot do it" I will remind you of the phrase "Do not underestimate your enemy." Such (I will use the word) stupidity will let the USA drop its guard, and IF N Korea does get those missiles working, I doubt you'll be able to tell me otherwise.