Classic British Flight Sim

Well none of the Shar pilots I knew seemed to think it was a vital feature and it wasn't used in the Falklands conflict which is really the only arena it could have been proved as a tactic.

Either way I don't think it's relevant that the F-35 can't do it as it's designed to be as manoeuvrable as the F-16 (it was a baseline requirement) which the Harrier wasn't, it's stealthy which the Harrier isn't and it's got bleeding edge avionics which the Harrier doesn't.

Hi Skippy

Difficult for us not in the loop to really get to grips with fact given the mess of decision changing and media interpretation

So back to basics...If the F-35 VSTOL was built to spec is it all round better than the Harrier??

Given the huge timescale since the Harrier was designed I would expect it to be but most media reports on what the latest machine can't do rather than what it can so hard to see the truth.

Even if not now for the VSTOL, perhaps it could be an option for the future.

The other thing that springs to mind and this was said about the Tornado rightly or wrongly, has trying to design different versions that can cover most things mean that it's not perhaps as good at any of them as it might have been if a specialised frame?...sort of Jack of All Trades Master of None.

As always with these stories the media report how they want to the story to sound, the rumour monger get going in the public arena and when you actually hear it from someone that has first hand knowledge it's a very different story.

This works both ways..the lame ducks aren't quite so lame and the "answers to everything" wonder designs can't do the task as well as the guys using it would have been led to believe, or so it often seems.

The VSTOL F-35 is better all round than the Harrier in terms of speed/payload/range/manoeuvrability etc. The sensors and system integration is mind blowing in terms of what it should be able to do think being able to generate a map with the radar in real time, using sensors on the airframe to 'see through' the floor etc. Certainly a generation on from the Typhoon in that respect.

However when compared to the conventional F-35 it's lacking in terms of range and more importantly what it can bring back to the boat, which then leads to difficult decisions such as do you take a full load of smart weapons knowing you'll have to ditch any you don't fire to be able to land on, or take fewer weapons and risk running out while supporting troops ashore. It should be able to land on with internal weapons and eight minutes of fuel, but add external pylons and the gun pod to that and it may get 'interesting'. When you consider any operation we've been involved in in recent memory would prioritise extra weapons over stealth and you can see why that may cause issues down the line.

Thank you for that Skippy

Looks a lot clearer like that.

Difficult to know what to specify

The Falkland was a war of an unexpected kind, with the main defence strategy aimed at the cold war threat meaning quick mods and compromises to do the job.

The Vulcan had been through many operational changes yet when it was actually used ,right at the end of it's career, it was to do the job it was first designed for...dropping bombs from high altitude.

Specs therefore must be almost impossible to get right as it's likely to be different to a greater or lesser extent on the actual job.