Harrier vs. JSF-35

"Merlin" wrote in message
oups.com...
Brooks is probably correct = I know nothing about military things.

So my comment that it will only be in conflict whether or not the Super
Carrier is proven becoming obsolete has no validity.

What has no validity is your continual ranting about further development of
a program that most posters have already well informed you is about at the
end of its development potential. You started this argument once before, and
a number of folks provided well reasoned arguments that pretty much
destroyed your basic premises (you could not even get the basic facts right
about the mechanics of the F-35B's vertical propulsion, for gosh sakes). Why
don't you first address the points that were raised then, instead of
bull-headedly restating the same clap-trap?

Further lack of validity is the comment that in the next major
war(heaven forbid) the submarine will reign supreme and advanced
torpedo technology will cause the super carrier endless problems. If
the steering system and screws are disabled by an advanced torpedo that
would be a pretty cost effective round ?

Not if your very expensive submarine sent to deliver that uber-weapon
instead ends up being ripped apart by a combination of ASW helicopter,
patrol aircraft, and destroyer/frigate attacks.


It is likely that the lateness and the cost overruns of the F-35 will
give Defence Ministers headaches. There will likely be a gap between
the old systems ending and the new(F-35) beginning).

When you can get your basic facts right about the F-35B, then you can come
back and sling all of the website cites you care to, en mass, in another
attempt to obfuscate; till then, back to the basics.

snip numerous references of unexplained applicability

Brooks