F-16.net

Quote:

Yep, real smart move by the British. They give up on having the one plane that superior to every other plane except the F-22 and go for the Rafael or Typhoon. Two planes that are and will continue to be inferior to late model F/A-18s and upgraded F-15s.

Proof? I havn't really read into the Rafale but the Typhoon is an exceptional aircraft, a shame about the cost over-runs and delays that are in fact beginning to happen to the F-35 as well. You can in no way say the F-35 is superior to the Typhoon, can the F-35 even super-cruise? The F-35 has a different purpose to the Typhoon so maybe you should think before saying these outragous statements.

Quote:

I agree with you corsair. I just don't have much faith in the boobs in Washington. We would be fools to give anyone one unfettered access to the brains of the JSF. This is not like an f-4. Integrated, computerized combat systems and avionics are one of the things that sets the JSF apart from most AC. Why give a competitor help in developing both their own competing combat systems and a way for them to compete with us in future upgrades on the JSF.

Well like I have said many a time, the UK has given technology to the US with full rights to upgrade it independantly of the UK, think of all the UK jobs lost? Think of all the money the UK could have made? Theres a little bit more to this than jobs and money. Australia also wants the same access rights as the UK, after being ripped off with the F/A-18, they are even considering alternatives.

Quote:

I think the other problem is the British are unhappy about some helicopters that where sold to them. They are trying to get being to make some free modifications to them that according to the contract they are not entitled to. If they had the source code for the choppers they could do it themselves. It seems they have no sense of intellectual property.

Yes that must be it Thumper, and its 'were' not 'where'. The UK must be causing this problem because of some helicopters??? I bet you havn't even read the contract, your just making assumptions and stating 'thumper facts' to suit your argument. Yes it is definitely the UK who has no sense of intellectual property... Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Will we show BAE and RR the door also? I am sure Mitsubishi and maybe Honda could take their place. JSF would be a fine addition to the JSDF. There is no reason to give British industry any industrial benefit if Britain is no longer part of the program.

Right and do Mitsubish and Honda have much experience in building modern fighter jets. Would their engineers have the experience of BAe engineer teams? BAe is one of the biggest defence companies in the world, manufacturing a wide array of weaponry and defence technolgy, they have state of the art facillities for building what they are set out to build. They have a lot of experience in the aerospace industry. Again another 'thumper assumption'.[/quote]

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Quote:

You can in no way say the F-35 is superior to the Typhoon, can the F-35 even super-cruise? The F-35 has a different purpose to the Typhoon so maybe you should think before saying these outragous statements.

Reality check on the Tiffy and planes other then the Raptor that claim to supercruise. You need to read the fine print. Even the F-104 could supercruise for short periods of time at speeds just slightly above supersonic.

In order for supercruise to be useful you need to be able to cruise significantly higer than the speed of sound and you need to be able to do it for more than a few minutes. The manufacturers use the term supcruise as a marketing gimmick. It only does so marginally when loaded in any useful (M1.3 w/tanks and missles) configuration.

The F-35 has no need to supercruise to knock the Tiffy out of the air. Missles are much faster than the Tiffy and the F-35 will use them to shoot down the Tiffy before he even knows the F-35 is in the area. Should said F-35 pilot be asleep and the tiffy get WVR aim-9x and helmet mounted sight coupled with superior avionics and IR stealth will make short work of Tiffy. This all aplies for whatever trench you pull the tiffy out of. First trench, third trench.It will make no difference. Tiffy is dead and buried in any trench.

Australia is another matter. Contrary to what your opinion they did not get rpped off on the F-18, they probably bought the wrong AC for the job and now they are debating whether the F-35 is the right AC to replace F-111s which it probably is not. They need a heavy fighter for the role.

How come the UK is making such a big deal about certifying the source code on the helicopters? The US and others have 100s of similarly equiped Chinooks and they don't fly in to mountains.

Mitsubishi has co-produced many a fighter witht he US and they are major subcontractors for many of Boeing's passenger AC. Honda has been making jet engines for business AC for some time now.

Many years ago I think it was Gandhi that hit the nail on the head. "The reason why the sun does not go down in the British empire is because God does not trust the Brisith in the dark". That is certainly true today. The only reason teh Britsh want the source code is to help them reverse engineer the combat systems and avionics on the F-35. This is something that their 2 billion dollar investment does not entitle them to.

Enthusiast Joined: Feb 29, 2004 Posts: 40 Status: Offline

Just released by AP:

Quote:

Britain Signs Deal on Strike FIghter Jet

COLLEGE PARK, Md. (AP) — Britain signed an agreement Tuesday committing to the next development and production phase of the new Joint Strike Fighter, resolving a dispute between the Pentagon and its biggest overseas partner over sharing technology for the advanced fighter jet.

Lord Peter Drayson, Britain's arms procurement minister, said the country hasn't fully committed to buying the jets, though preliminary plans call for it to buy 150 of the fighters, also known as the F-35.

Britain already has invested $2 billion in the $276 billion defense program. But it had threatened to pull out because of concerns the Pentagon wasn't sharing enough information about the sensitive software and other technology for the jet.

Drayson said he received assurances within the last 24 hours that the Pentagon would allow an unbroken British chain-of-command once the planes are being used by the Royal Air Force. That means the British would not have to rely on the U.S. military for technology support.

"It will not be a requirement, for example, to have U.S. Air Force personnel on a British aircraft carrier to deliver our operational sovereignty," Drayson told reporters Tuesday after meeting with U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.

He also said Britain has source codes for the aircraft's stealth technology and expects the production phase to last about two years.

Drayson said Britain has promised an additional $67 million for the project, and he will return to Washington in the spring to monitor progress, but he added that Britain is still considering an unspecified "Plan B" alternative to buying the Joint Strike Fighter.

The Joint Strike Fighter is expected to make its maiden flight this week in Texas.

After 10 years of development, lead contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. of Bethesda, Md. is moving to the early stages of production for what could eventually be thousands of fighter jets for the American military and eight countries.

Along with Britain, the Netherlands and Canada have signed agreements, and Australian officials were in Washington on Tuesday to sign their own deal. Turkey, Italy, Norway and Denmark have until the end of the year to sign.

"It will see Australia through the next 30 or 40 years," Australian Defense Minister Brendan Nelson said at a State Department ceremony.

Britain plans to buy a version of the jet that takes off and lands vertically to use aboard two new aircraft carriers.

President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair met earlier this year to sign a deal in which the United States pledged to hand over technology details of the fighter jet. But Britain complained it was still blocked from seeing the inner workings of software and weapons systems.

Last week, a Parliament committee issued a report recommending that Britain consider pulling out of the program, which would have eliminated a major buyer for the fighter.

The British were also upset when Congress cut funding for a backup engine that was to be built by the British firm Rolls Royce PLC and General Electric. Funding was later restored.

Source: Associated Press

Also see the F-16.net news article <a href="news_article2092.html">Canada, Britain and Australia sign production agreement for F-35 fighter</a>.

Quote:

Lord Peter Drayson, Britain's arms procurement minister, said the country hasn't fully committed to buying the jets, though preliminary plans call for it to buy 150 of the fighters, also known as the F-35.

This is insane. Nothing good is going to come of this. Look for them to try to blackmail us again at whatever the next milestone is.

I would loe to see just exactly what they are getting access to. They have no need or right to any software that contributes to the F-35's stealth. I hope that was a typo.

Why should I pay the development cost for the software just to have some europeans turn around and use what they learned to sell competitive AC and put Americans out of work. BAE has it's fingers in a few too many pots and they are not to be trusted.

We would have been better off telling the British to stick it and work with the Japanese.

Quote:

Reality check on the Tiffy and planes other then the Raptor that claim to supercruise. You need to read the fine print. Even the F-104 could supercruise for short periods of time at speeds just slightly above supersonic

The English Electric lightning was the first to superscruise but that was with a clean conguration. The Typhoon can supercruise at mach 1.3 with full load and external tanks. It can also supercruise at mach 1.5 with 4 BVRAAMs and 2 IR AAMs. The F-22 and Typhoon are considered the only 2 true fighters that can supercruise as they have demonstrated this. The Rafale is what I'm guessing your talking about, Dassault claim it can supercruise but it has yet to be proven. Mach 1.3 is not marginal, a lot of drag occurs around mach 1 so you either have to be going faster or slower but you cannot hang around mach 1. The Typhoon at Mach 1.3 is past the significant amount of drag associated with the sound barrier.

Quote:

The F-35 has no need to supercruise to knock the Tiffy out of the air. Missles are much faster than the Tiffy and the F-35 will use them to shoot down the Tiffy before he even knows the F-35 is in the area. Should said F-35 pilot be asleep and the tiffy get WVR aim-9x and helmet mounted sight coupled with superior avionics and IR stealth will make short work of Tiffy. This all aplies for whatever trench you pull the tiffy out of. First trench, third trench.It will make no difference. Tiffy is dead and buried in any trench.

Funny how you make these claims when we havn't seen the F-35 fly yet, how do you know the effectiveness of its stealth. Wern't you claiming a while ago in another thread that the F-35 will be a poor dog-fighter and falling out the sky because its so fragile, and thats why the US should go for the F-22?

Quote:

Australia is another matter. Contrary to what your opinion they did not get rpped off on the F-18, they probably bought the wrong AC for the job and now they are debating whether the F-35 is the right AC to replace F-111s which it probably is not. They need a heavy fighter for the role.

Well it wasn't my opinion it was a fact, they had to bring over US personal for upgrades and major repairs which were not cheap, as the Ausies didn't have access to do it themselves. The technology access was one of the main factors in deciding whether to drop the F-35, as well possibly better dog-fighting alternatives such as the F-22, Typhoon and Rafale.

Quote:

Mitsubishi has co-produced many a fighter witht he US and they are major subcontractors for many of Boeing's passenger AC. Honda has been making jet engines for business AC for some time now.

Yes and many other countries can produce parts and assist in aspects of designing aircraft. But they havn't had experience in the construction or design of building a completely new fighter aircraft. Rolls Royce is one of the main leaders in jet engines for both civilian and military aircraft, the VTOL on the F-35B is Rolls Royce designed and manufactured.

Quote:

Many years ago I think it was Gandhi that hit the nail on the head. "The reason why the sun does not go down in the British empire is because God does not trust the Brisith in the dark".

And the relevance of this comment is? Has nothing to do with fighter jets does it? I think my obeservation of you being anti-British holds firm here don't you?

Quote:

This is insane. Nothing good is going to come of this. Look for them to try to blackmail us again at whatever the next milestone is.

I would loe to see just exactly what they are getting access to. They have no need or right to any software that contributes to the F-35's stealth. I hope that was a typo.

Why should I pay the development cost for the software just to have some europeans turn around and use what they learned to sell competitive AC and put Americans out of work. BAE has it's fingers in a few too many pots and they are not to be trusted.

We would have been better off telling the British to stick it and work with the Japanese.

*Slaps head* You are either very wrong or very paranoid, theres been a lot of money made off UK tech by the US you know. I don't see why you think the British are out to get you, radar stealth technology wasn't American orginally anyway. What are you worried about? Are you worried they will design better stealth technology that the US thumper? Because thats what they would have to do (if they would) to compete with the US in stealth technology, and that isn't going to happen.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

radar stealth technology wasn't American orginally anyway. What are you worried about?

Beyond your other assertions about which I will not comment at this time--although I agree with you on some points but disagree on others, particularly your defense of the Typhoon, an aircraft I loathe--radar stealth technology was in fact American originally. What was not American was the theoretical physics behind it (Russian). It was the Americans who recognized the potential of the physics work as applied to low-observable shaping techniques. Applied science=technology.

If you're referring to work done in Germany during WWII, that is not properly considered "radar stealth" but rather radar signature reduction efforts, some of which were "discovered" by accident and not part of a concerted technological push to achieve a true low-observable airframe.

Feedback zu Idesof post 410. Idesof I did not no that you Americans had such a great sense of humor, the Krauts are curtainly lacking it.

Sorry my boy, but a (bad) yankee habit is that they 'think' that every invention is an American invention, I have met Americans who thought that Pizza is invented in the USA. Well the spagetti-consumers in that 'tigh-high boot shaped' country know better.

The Germans did however research RAM and radar deflecting constructions on purpose, RAM were even applied to U-boots! Schuessss.

To Locum, Speak the Truth and various other non US citizens who have a hard time believing that the US invented so many things.

It was the Unites States in the late 70's that developed the computer program that could predict radar characteristics for complex 3 dimensional objects. This program resulted in the Have Blue project which where the first two practicle stealth AC. Maybe some Russian, German, British, whatever did some theoretical work on stealth and maybe the Germans came up with a type of RAM, but it was the SR-71 that was the first flying stealthy AC to use RAM materials and it was Have Blue that used the computer program (developed in the US) that resulted in the first true stealth AC. These are facts feel free to look them up.

Speak the Truth
Mach 1.3 is not true super cruise. There is not a great enough difference in speed between M1.3 and M.90 to be tactically significant. At what altitudes does Tiffy supercruise? So again sure it supercruises, barely at limited altitudes for short periods of time. As you pointed out many other AC do that also. Rapter can do it all day long at M1.7.

So lets review. Tiffy is "supercruising" along at a set altitude at M1.3 minding its own business when whamo! A Slammer or two blows up under his wing. Where did it come from? they never even saw the stealth JSF. See it first, kill it first.

How did the Aussies get ripped off? I bring my car to the mechanic and pay him to fix it. whats the difference?

You are clutching at straws and you know it about stealth. If it where not sufficently stealthy congress would shut the program down in a heartbeat.

No compared to the F-22, I hate the JSF. Compared to the F-22 it's a lousy bird. Anything else except maybe a late model Rhino would be road kill.

I am not anti british. I am just tired of Britain trying to take advantage of the "special" relationship.

Quote:

To Locum, Speak the Truth and various other non US citizens who have a hard time believing that the US invented so many things.

Ermm can you read? I havn't once shown myself having a hard time believing the 'so many things' invented in the USA. I'm reminding you Thumper that there is a world outside the US, that has invented 'so many things' as well, and that the US has acquired these. What your proposing is almost isolation from the world, and that benefits no one.

Quote:

Mach 1.3 is not true super cruise. There is not a great enough difference in speed between M1.3 and M.90 to be tactically significant. At what altitudes does Tiffy supercruise? So again sure it supercruises, barely at limited altitudes for short periods of time. As you pointed out many other AC do that also. Rapter can do it all day long at M1.7.

Well its going a good bit faster than the speed of sound of which it CAN sustain for long periods. Also M1.3 not being any more tactically significant than mach 0.9? Can you do maths, thats around 50% faster???? Its widely accpeted that the 2 ture supercruise fighters at this point in time Thumper are the F-22 and Typhoon, FACT! Please drop this argument now.

Quote:

So lets review. Tiffy is "supercruising" along at a set altitude at M1.3 minding its own business when whamo! A Slammer or two blows up under his wing. Where did it come from? they never even saw the stealth JSF. See it first, kill it first.

Once again no proof, we don't know the effectivness of the F-35's stealth.

Quote:

How did the Aussies get ripped off? I bring my car to the mechanic and pay him to fix it. whats the difference?

Well say my car is from Japan, and that Nissan decided to keep the EMS and other computerised systems in my car a closely guarded secret, I'd have to go to a Nissan mechanic which would cost a lot more, or if i lived in a country where Nissan cars were not so popular then I'd have to spend a hell of a lot more to find a place where there are Nissan engineers. Its just an analogy so please dont quote this and point out errors.

Quote:

You are clutching at straws and you know it about stealth. If it where not sufficently stealthy congress would shut the program down in a heartbeat.

I don't doubt stealth, but don't think it makes you invisible either, and do remember we don't know its effectivness against modern radars in a combat environment as of yet.

Quote:

I am not anti british. I am just tired of Britain trying to take advantage of the "special" relationship.

Why do I bother replying to you Thumper when you say silly things like that. Just a reminder if you don't see it in the news or you can't read what I've said in my previous posts, but the UK is really your only commited partner in both the current US initiated wars in the middle east. When the US has requested extra troops, tanks, aircraft etc the UK has delivered. The UK could have just sat with France and Germany on Iraq and said "were not interested" but the UK followed the US into Iraq.

DogF16 wrote:

Just released by AP:

Quote:

Britain Signs Deal on Strike FIghter Jet

COLLEGE PARK, Md. (AP) — Britain signed an agreement Tuesday committing to the next development and production phase of the new Joint Strike Fighter, resolving a dispute between the Pentagon and its biggest overseas partner over sharing technology for the advanced fighter jet.

Lord Peter Drayson, Britain's arms procurement minister, said the country hasn't fully committed to buying the jets, though preliminary plans call for it to buy 150 of the fighters, also known as the F-35.

Britain already has invested $2 billion in the $276 billion defense program. But it had threatened to pull out because of concerns the Pentagon wasn't sharing enough information about the sensitive software and other technology for the jet.

Drayson said he received assurances within the last 24 hours that the Pentagon would allow an unbroken British chain-of-command once the planes are being used by the Royal Air Force. That means the British would not have to rely on the U.S. military for technology support.

"It will not be a requirement, for example, to have U.S. Air Force personnel on a British aircraft carrier to deliver our operational sovereignty," Drayson told reporters Tuesday after meeting with U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.

He also said Britain has source codes for the aircraft's stealth technology and expects the production phase to last about two years.

Drayson said Britain has promised an additional $67 million for the project, and he will return to Washington in the spring to monitor progress, but he added that Britain is still considering an unspecified "Plan B" alternative to buying the Joint Strike Fighter.

The Joint Strike Fighter is expected to make its maiden flight this week in Texas.

After 10 years of development, lead contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. of Bethesda, Md. is moving to the early stages of production for what could eventually be thousands of fighter jets for the American military and eight countries.

Along with Britain, the Netherlands and Canada have signed agreements, and Australian officials were in Washington on Tuesday to sign their own deal. Turkey, Italy, Norway and Denmark have until the end of the year to sign.

"It will see Australia through the next 30 or 40 years," Australian Defense Minister Brendan Nelson said at a State Department ceremony.

Britain plans to buy a version of the jet that takes off and lands vertically to use aboard two new aircraft carriers.

President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair met earlier this year to sign a deal in which the United States pledged to hand over technology details of the fighter jet. But Britain complained it was still blocked from seeing the inner workings of software and weapons systems.

Last week, a Parliament committee issued a report recommending that Britain consider pulling out of the program, which would have eliminated a major buyer for the fighter.

The British were also upset when Congress cut funding for a backup engine that was to be built by the British firm Rolls Royce PLC and General Electric. Funding was later restored.

Sounds like the whole debate is moot at this point? Good as I hate when such close friends fight! Sad

Source: Associated Press

Also see the F-16.net news article <a href="news_article2092.html">Canada, Britain and Australia sign production agreement for F-35 fighter</a>.

locum wrote:

Feedback zu Idesof post 410. Idesof I did not no that you Americans had such a great sense of humor, the Krauts are curtainly lacking it.

Sorry my boy, but a (bad) yankee habit is that they 'think' that every invention is an American invention, I have met Americans who thought that Pizza is invented in the USA. Well the spagetti-consumers in that 'tigh-high boot shaped' country know better.

The Germans did however research RAM and radar deflecting constructions on purpose, RAM were even applied to U-boots! Schuessss.

I would not and did not dispute the fact that Germany researched RAM and other RCS reduction techniques during WW II. However, when we talk about "stealth" as a systems-wide effort to reduce radar signature throughout an airframe or other body, it cannot be properly said that it existed at all until the Have Blue program in the U.S. in the mid to late 1970s. As per one of Thumper's earlier posts, the U.S. took the physics from a theoretical work of a brilliant Russian scientist and applied it using computer modelling to create workable, flyable shapes. The "creation" of stealth technology (or techniques) is a distinctly American phenomenon. And if you read some of my earlier posts, I am hardly one of those anything-not-invented-here-is-crap Americans (I think the Typhoon is crap simply because it was obsolete before it ever even achieved IOC and not because it's European).

And yes, some people assume pizza was "invented" in NY by Italian-Americans but it was in fact an original Italian invention dating back several centuries.

Thank god the people who count don`t have the same views as some people posting on this topic. If people want the UK to go screw ourselves over JSF and have BAE, a principal partner, as well as RR and a couple of hundred other firms pull out, fine..The only problem is that nobody will see an in-service fighter for another 15 years, that ok guys??? Honda going from making business jet engines to top of the line military powerplants? Not yet mate.

A lot of what I have seen in this thread has been insulting and quite disgraceful, from all sides sometimes, I am glad other people make the decisions fella`s. Some might not like it but the US and UK are the closest of allies, I think I can safely assume that a hell of a lot more technology sharing occurs behind the scenes than that in full public view with F-35....

I wonder if a Honda Accord engine will fit in a Lightning II?

Read somewhere else that the Aussies had access problems, ie it was denied to them for their RAAF F-18`, regarding codes. Guess what? The Aussies were able to get around that issue and re-engineer the things to get them to do what they wanted.

I suppose it`s possible that some kind of back-door deal was done to enable them to do that.....politics and big business, bah!

snypa777 wrote:

Thank god the people who count don`t have the same views as some people posting on this topic. If people want the UK to go screw ourselves over JSF and have BAE, a principal partner, as well as RR and a couple of hundred other firms pull out, fine..The only problem is that nobody will see an in-service fighter for another 15 years, that ok guys??? Honda going from making business jet engines to top of the line military powerplants? Not yet mate.

A lot of what I have seen in this thread has been insulting and quite disgraceful, from all sides sometimes, I am glad other people make the decisions fella`s. Some might not like it but the US and UK are the closest of allies, I think I can safely assume that a hell of a lot more technology sharing occurs behind the scenes than that in full public view with F-35....

I wonder if a Honda Accord engine will fit in a Lightning II?

Read somewhere else that the Aussies had access problems, ie it was denied to them for their RAAF F-18`, regarding codes. Guess what? The Aussies were able to get around that issue and re-engineer the things to get them to do what they wanted.

I suppose it`s possible that some kind of back-door deal was done to enable them to do that.....politics and big business, bah!

Agree 100%. I just hope that our British and Aussie friends who frequent this board understand that some of the xenophobic sentiments expressed by some so-called "patriotic Americans" are by no means representative of how all or even most Americans feel. I am thrilled that Canada, the U.K. and Australia have signed on for the next phase of the F-35 program. Welcome aboard! Very Happy

idesof wrote:

snypa777 wrote:

Thank god the people who count don`t have the same views as some people posting on this topic. If people want the UK to go screw ourselves over JSF and have BAE, a principal partner, as well as RR and a couple of hundred other firms pull out, fine..The only problem is that nobody will see an in-service fighter for another 15 years, that ok guys??? Honda going from making business jet engines to top of the line military powerplants? Not yet mate.

A lot of what I have seen in this thread has been insulting and quite disgraceful, from all sides sometimes, I am glad other people make the decisions fella`s. Some might not like it but the US and UK are the closest of allies, I think I can safely assume that a hell of a lot more technology sharing occurs behind the scenes than that in full public view with F-35....

I wonder if a Honda Accord engine will fit in a Lightning II?

Read somewhere else that the Aussies had access problems, ie it was denied to them for their RAAF F-18`, regarding codes. Guess what? The Aussies were able to get around that issue and re-engineer the things to get them to do what they wanted.

I suppose it`s possible that some kind of back-door deal was done to enable them to do that.....politics and big business, bah!

Agree 100%. I just hope that our British and Aussie friends who frequent this board understand that some of the xenophobic sentiments expressed by some so-called "patriotic Americans" are by no means representative of how all or even most Americans feel. I am thrilled that Canada, the U.K. and Australia have signed on for the next phase of the F-35 program. Welcome aboard! Very Happy

Clearly, the British and the Australians are our closes and dearest friends. Yet, I believe many here are aggravated by the usual one sided take on the subject? Which, much of it sound more like American Bashing that a true healthy debate on the subject. As in any disagreement there are two sides to the story................

USA had also adopted English fighter (Harrier) before, and then revised it totally to American specification (AV-8A & AV-8B), and then sold this American Harrier to the whole world with a exporting number that is much more than the exporting number of English Harrier right now.

Has UK ever complained the behavior of USA to put anything it wants into this UK Blood relationship fighter without the approval of UK government and help of UK manufacturer??? Has UK ever protested the action of USA to sell this fighter to the whole world that it has threatened the exporting business of UK's Harrier???

If some of you Americans describe the requests of UK for its own F-35B (Enough sovereignty in source codes that UK will be able to operate and upgrade F-35B independently) as "Greedy" and "Shameless", then please tell me what kind of words will you guys use to describe the behavior of USA to treat UK-designed & developed Harrier??? Your own is my own, but my own is nothing for you. Do you really think that it is the proper philosophy for USA to treat its dearest friend???

As for the belief and thought that Japan will be a much better partner than UK, please don't forget: Who had sold the secret manufacturing technology to USSR that it made USSR's SSNs and SSBNs have a quantum-leap in noise reduction in the late of 1980s??? Japan.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

UK may pull out of F-35 project