Comments by "David Houseman" (@davidhouseman4328) on "F-35 Dambusters Squadron Joins HMS Queen Elizabeth For The FIRST Time! | Forces TV ✈️" video.

  1. Yep, that why we are continuing to buy them.
    14
  2. Why, it wasn't charity, it was a business deal.
    6
  3. It's the squadron nickname, various other aircraft have flown under it over the years, gives an extra sense of pride.
    4
  4.  @VincentComfy  We no longer have the army of the Rhine. Large numbers of tanks something we can't deploy quickly and so not a high priority.
    4
  5. It is honouring those people by keeping the name alive. If you you hadn't seen the name here would you have thought about them today?
    4
  6. Because thats what we wanted, helped select, develop and build.
    4
  7. We haven't always done, see the F4 flown from previous carriers. But the F35 is a joint project, we build 15% of each. Net that's about 3x the about we will buy. The F35 is good for British aviation.
    4
  8. A capable military allows you to decide on peace. Politicians decide how to use it.
    4
  9. Nope, but for the F35s it's a joint force. 617 is even commanded by a Navy man at the moment. The next squadron will be 809, a FAA one.
    3
  10. There's a gun pod if needed, but as you say technologically advanced, that means it wants to stay away from the kind of fair fight a gun suggests.
    3
  11. Beat 4th gen aircraft, break through capable A2AD.
    3
  12. Having two isn't really about deploying both at once but having cover when one is being maintained. That said if all planned 138 (they are joint Navy and Air force) are F35B we could deploy the 72 needed to fill both. But I think if we are deploying both at once one will be heavier on the helicopters either for antisub warfare or to deploy marines depending on the enemy.
    3
  13. That analogy would only work if it was called a Harrier. What is true is we got industrial benefit from both.
    3
  14. Why have 2 squadrons that only fly from land and 2 only from sea when you can have 4 that can fly from either? You also only need one airbase, one testing squadron etc. Removing duplication.
    2
  15.  @martinw245  The RAF don't have any F35As yet and the only thing decided are the first 48 will be F35B.
    2
  16. But that would have been a completely different machine. Not stealthy, not supersonic, less range, less payload, worse sensors and networking.
    2
  17.  @orangecat3021  actually on the F35 it's the internal gun that's having accuracy issues.
    2
  18. Which do you think is more likely, the military of as dozen countries across the world with access to the jet have been scammed or random people on the internet without access to the jet are wrong about it being bad?
    2
  19. It not a secret we don't have enough F35Bs yet, 2023 is when we are looking at being up to speed. The reason we don't have jets is money, and your answer is buy hundreds of jets?
    1
  20.  @dellawrence4323  why? They were limited in capability and needing expensive upgrades. And we fought the same wars as the US anyway.
    1
  21.  @FallenPhoenix86  I stand corrected, cheers.
    1
  22.  Hammerschlägen M  the fatness is more about the STOVL, see the sleeker F22.
    1
  23. That would be a lot of tokens you'd have to save up.
    1
  24. Aren't going to turn around and change the fighter for these carriers whether we can or not. But if we are going to we could also refit the carriers to use catapults.
    1
  25. Yes
    1
  26. You think you could get an F4 with the latest electronics for £3m?
    1