UK Defence Forum

RetroSicotte wrote:

mickey wrote: and the F-35 isnt worth the money and has the same problem as the Hawker jump jet had when fully loaded it cant lift off and has to use the ski ramp . . . plus i read that the F-35 is slower than the Russian equivalent

Where does this "it can't take off" stuff come from? I'm legitimately confused. If you're referring to VTOL, there has never been a VTOL fixed wing combat aircraft. It's STOVL. The F-35B has been designed to its payload with that in mind.

This a good one for you to start with . . . . limited bomb payloads !
not much of an aircraft if you cant fly with full complaments arminents
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/222 ... terrifying

Hydrogen isn't the safest form of fuel you can use. It's a highly reactive gas with a tiny molecular mass making it way more difficult to transport and store.

It is only explosive when mixed with Oxygen, which is everywhere......

Yes its perfectly safe when not mixed with oxygen....... just like every other fuel.

Making its own oxygen? how on earth does it do that? why would it even do that? the atmosphere is full of the stuff.

Hydrogen and oxygen are two completely different and seperate elements. One element cannot just suddenly make the other.

well they can, but certainly not in this weird scenario. Everything was Hydrogen once upon a long time ago.

SKB wrote:Hydrogen and oxygen are two completely different and seperate elements. One element cannot just suddenly make the other.

You guys crack me up
i thought everyone new this
You can not get Hydrogen without producing Oxygen and guess what guys, you get Hydrogen from water,
if you have a petrol vehicle you can mix 50/50 to run said vehicle,
you could run a vehicle sole on Hydrogen but you need a few diaphragm for acceleration

you can't run a Vehicle solely on Hydrogen.

They fly the drones solely on Hydrogen that stay aloft for days even weeks
i can run a generator solely on it with its own fuel cell
so why not a vehicle, iv got an old Honda outside, maybe in summer il get it running solely on Hydrogen

No, it runs on hydrogen and oxygen

mickey wrote:

RetroSicotte wrote:

mickey wrote: and the F-35 isnt worth the money and has the same problem as the Hawker jump jet had when fully loaded it cant lift off and has to use the ski ramp . . . plus i read that the F-35 is slower than the Russian equivalent

Where does this "it can't take off" stuff come from? I'm legitimately confused. If you're referring to VTOL, there has never been a VTOL fixed wing combat aircraft. It's STOVL. The F-35B has been designed to its payload with that in mind.

This a good one for you to start with . . . . limited bomb payloads !
not much of an aircraft if you cant fly with full complaments arminents
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/222 ... terrifying

And would you care to link something that isn't from a heavy 3rd party source, cherrypicking (inaccurately) from an old report, in an article that is almost a year old and riddled with massive inaccuracies and willful alterations of the truth?

The F-35B has already carried out loaded STOVL launches at sea. The plane has done it. You don't get much more proof than that. Much of these sites just aim to get clickbait from people ignorant of the jets status by treating "in testing" restrictions as "end result" specifications. In other words, it's like criticising a toddler because he can't run a company yet.

mickey wrote:They fly the drones solely on Hydrogen that stay aloft for days even weeks
i can run a generator solely on it with its own fuel cell
so why not a vehicle, iv got an old Honda outside, maybe in summer il get it running solely on Hydrogen

Name one? I can only find Hydrogen drones that can manage hours, certainly not days.

Running Hydrogen in a ICE is inefficient. Running a fuel cell is a better idea, but requires a complete re design of a vehicle drivetrain.

In terms of armoured vehicle applications, the industry is struggling with Lithium batteries as it is. A Hydrogen tank has some serious hurdles to clear before it gains acceptance.

Defiance wrote:Something feels a bit off here.

It's all in the name.

shark bait wrote:No, it runs on hydrogen and oxygen

Yes the Oxygen is with the Hydrogen , unless you make it differently with an advanced fuel cell, it's so easy to do aswell,
You say the military has looked into this .....
anyone got a petrol engined military vehicle I can develop ?

May I remind you this is a BAE Systems news and discussion thread? All other topics are regarded as off-topic here.

fuel cells dont make hydrogen, they consume it.

there is no reason for the military to use hydrogen as a fuel, for a very long time at least. Theres no advantage, plus its difficult to get hold of, and transport, something they dont need at war.

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/id ... =worldNews

So it looks like the Eurofighter is no longer in the running for the Malaysian air force.....

Defiance wrote:Something feels a bit off here.

Agreed.

Mickey, what is the "Russian equivalent of the F-35"? The Russians (and Chinese for that matter) haven't got anything in full production that rivals the F-22 and they've had a lot longer to match that than the jsf.

Not to be rude here fella, but I get the feeling that you are trolling.... Hope I'm wrong .

Plus, we're all going waayyy off topic here

dmereifield wrote:http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/id ... =worldNews

So it looks like the Eurofighter is no longer in the running for the Malaysian air force.....

It's almost like once again the UK Government completely ignored the existence of the competition and put no weight behind it at all while the French one was constantly out there, including its PM making personal visits to promote their product and offer enticing deals.

Product can't sell on its own in such a market. The Government here is flat out allowing it to fail every single time.

I didn't think Malaysia was our turf to pitch typhoon on?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... -says-bae/

Brexit won't harm Anglo-EU defence co-operation on drones, says BAE

"BAE has previously said it has more than 600 people working on drone technology and there are hopes a prototype - which builds on technology developed for its Taranis stealth drone which is named after the Celtic god of thunder - could fly within 10 years"

10 years....jeez....

dmereifield wrote: 10 years....jeez....

Likely good reason, Taranis and nEuron were built on shoestring budgets as tech demonstrators compared to this UCAV.

2 full scale demonstrators will be flying by 2025, that's not bad going.

Part of me still thinks they should just crack on and buy some Taranis, even a limited number to get some fast jet uav experience under their belts.

me too, USAF are.

Thing is, we don't know how flaky it was as a demonstrator.

Poll question: "Should BAE be nationalised by the UK?". You may change your vote at any time.
You may also explain and discuss your opinion in this thread.

BAE no.

BAE Marine, perhaps...