What If: Eurofighter and JSF cancelled

HindStrike

Active member
What if both of these programs were cancelled early in their development? What jets would the countries who were going to buy these jets buy? How would their doctrine change without these jets? I saw a thread like this on another forum and wanted to see what everyone here thought .
 
Well the Euro Fighter is in production and has been for a few years and it now goes under the name of Typhoon
 
If they had not been produced then some thing else would have come along. The planes that were flying before the Euro or JSF were over thirty years old and why would some one want to buy a 30 year design
 
The rafale, gripen, mig-29, su-30/35, and late block f-16s were all available then, as well as the f-15 and f-18 still being common. And yes the f series were 30 years old, but they were continually upgraded and are still viable options to this day.
 
I know that, I just asked what it would be like if it had been cancelled early on.

Knowing the stupidity of the British government, they would probably order the Spitfires and Hurricanes of the Battle of Britain Flight to be made ready for operations.
 
The problem is that buying stuff from any one apart from your own country leaves you open for problems if you pursue a policy that they disagree with. Then you find your supplies are cut of and you have a load of expensive junk om your hands.
 
Why couldn't you get the gripen then, bae owns saab i think and they are a neutral country, so no political bs to deal with. The gripen might be good because it is all you would need for defense of the home islands and when the sea gripen comes along, you have the perfect jet for a medium carrier like the uk operates. And just think how many could be put on the queen elizabeth class carriers.
 
The new carriers are only designed to take VTOL and could not operate any thing else, thats the labour governments thinking for you.
 
I don't know why the f-35 was designed in a vtol version when a dedicated vtol jet would suit the purpose far better. If only we had the super harrier.
 
I don't know why the f-35 was designed in a vtol version when a dedicated vtol jet would suit the purpose far better. If only we had the super harrier.


It was designed so the Navy and Marine branches would have it's stealth close-air support (same goes for the UK navy). If we ddn't get the F-35s we would be looking at only B-2s and F-117s for stealth bombers....

Remember the initial part of an invasion is clearing the skies. If we only have the expensive B-2s and F-117s it limits our capabilities against ever increasing threats from modern SAMs.

I believe U.S wants a fleet of 2500 F-35s? Am I wrong on this number?
 
Last edited:
The problem is that buying stuff from any one apart from your own country leaves you open for problems if you pursue a policy that they disagree with. Then you find your supplies are cut of and you have a load of expensive junk om your hands.

During the Falklands War Belgium refused to supply Britain with a certain type of ammunition, because they didn't agree with Britain taking it back. I forget what type it was, but it goes to show how dangerous it can be having one foreign supplier as the sole source of certain supplies.
 
I think you will find it artillery shells they refused to supply in case they lost their contract with Argentina
 
During the Falklands War Belgium refused to supply Britain with a certain type of ammunition, because they didn't agree with Britain taking it back. I forget what type it was, but it goes to show how dangerous it can be having one foreign supplier as the sole source of certain supplies.

Shame on Belgium :2guns:
 
Shame on Belgium? It's bloody disgusting. Belgium is supposedly a partner in NATO and one of Britain's allies. It goes to show who to trust and who not to trust.

Alliances occur when countries share interests, the moment they don't share interests; the alliance is gone. With other words, countries do not have friends; they share interests. They do things that benefit their strategic interests, nothing more, nothing less. The cohesion of NATO has never been tested.
 
Alliances occur when countries share interests, the moment they don't share interests; the alliance is gone. With other words, countries do not have friends; they share interests. They do things that benefit their strategic interests, nothing more, nothing less. The cohesion of NATO has never been tested.

Belgium was in effect supporting a dictatorship at the expense of a people who had been invaded. They must have very short memories and forgotten their own experiences under an invading army and the assistance that Britain gave them during that time and who liberated them along with other Allies.
 
Belgium was in effect supporting a dictatorship at the expense of a people who had been invaded. They must have very short memories and forgotten their own experiences under an invading army and the assistance that Britain gave them during that time and who liberated them along with other Allies.


France did something similar in the 1960s, how easy it is to forget what happened earlier. So Belgium refused to sell artillery shells to Britain?
 
France did something similar in the 1960s, how easy it is to forget what happened earlier. So Belgium refused to sell artillery shells to Britain?

They refused to supply the ammunition, I can't remember where the blokes got them in the end but Belgium annoyed quite a few people. At the end of the day, Belgium didn't do themselves any favours.
 
Back
Top