Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "Truss' pledge on defence good for 'overstretched' military - Tory MP" video.

There was no games being paid, the F-35B is the most complex and challenging of the 3 to build. Besides that, the US also to deal with politicians constantly trying to cut funding. The F-35B was targeted several times because of its issues for cancellation As for the UK changing its order, its simple abacus Future Combat Air System (FCAS) NGF plans to fly by 2027, if the Tempest wants to compete ,it has be either before or within the same year They need money and pulling it from the F-35B is simple gambit Besides the US and UK, there are 100 F-35B on order from other countries which means that F-35B production will be going strong for a while, easily into 2027 They can pull those funds and accelerate the Tempest so it able to pace or outpace the NGF but ultimately the UK won't keep their F-35B numbers to the bare minimum The decision to keep he QE STOVL makes that the odds of a navalised Tempest is highly unlikely
1
@chrismitchell4622 In simple terms not happening A hybrid between STOVL and CATOBAR is not feasible. The USN uses flat deck on the LHA/D and if the UK went CATOBAR, the F-35B won't suffer any lost in performance with flat deck. They would just mirror the US in take off Now for the practical problems As this will be a British solution You have to spend time and money developing EMALS and AAG As nuclear power is a touchy subject in the UK, more time and money developing an conventional electric system able to power the EMALS as well the ship France had no land-based catapult test facility, they took the Rafale to US to use the systems at NAS Lakehurst Thats yet another problem for testing the aircraft In simple terms, 20 years at minimum Why do you the UK army went to Rheinmetall for the Challenger 3 Most all the companies that built the original Challenger 1 and 2 were defunct Its easy to buy than build
1
@1chish One other point, the reason why there was no navalized typhoon was the Eurofighter program was massively delayed and behind schedule
1
@1chish Thats called delayed and no it does not compare to other projects I
1
@1chish Again trying to rewrite history The ATF was started in 1991. Two companies were selected in 1986 and prototypes flew by 90 with selection by 91 The program entered the Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) in 92 and fly by 1997 with delivery by 2003 and fully operation by 2005 Lets look at the Eurofighter European Combat Aircraft (ECA) programme started in 70s, then cancelled, then restarted Future European Fighter Aircraft (F/EFA) programme in 1983 France withdrew in 1985. EAP demonstrator flies in 1986 The EAP last flight was 1991 Production was till 2000 need I go on
1
@1chish The quote Eurofighter GmbH or Typhoon consortium was founded in 1986 so again you come up short
1
Overstretched No Severely under equipped , yes
1
@Gus Gone Lack of suitable docks is not issue Repairing a ship that size goes considerably smoother when you use the dock where it was built In the US, Newport News Shipbuilding builds CVN as well does refueling and complex overhaul (RCOH) work in the same shipyard Docking the ship somewhere else means a whole lot of effort getting parts, material and personnel security is also an issue
1