Nah, never would be.
SPEAR and Meteor adapters for the internal bays have recently popped up for the F-35, so it should be implemented by the time they arrive in game. Or at least be an option with good backing to be implemented.
1 Like
It’s not too dissimilar to the F-111’s story (that results in the B-1B & F-14), two separate programs ( the Joint Advanced Strike Technology a Stealth focused “Low end” design to complement the F-22, and the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter a Follow-On to the Harrier II) get rolled into one, and leverage the latter’s further progress as the baseline which results directly in the F-35B, having the tiny bays, due to shaping considerations the design needing to work around the lift-fan which takes up most of the spare internal volume.
Seems I misremembered, we only wanted to order super hornets back in 2020, but I seems a formal order was never placed.
(I hope we did some trials with them before making that decision)
1 Like
this was just a dilemma back then.
F-35 was unwanted and the only other real option was the SH. Pretty sure no trials were ever conducted
Well that’s dumb (not that I expect anything else from the pre Pistorius MoD (and even post we still do dumb stuff)), but ehy weren’t strike/advanced eagles or F-16s an option?
Why was the F/A-18E/F the only option and not the F-16E/F or F-15(E) too?
but oftentimes better than a master of one.
1 Like
The number of people who misquote and assign this as a negative trait is concerning.
1 Like
It’s called a concession bud.
So it has both a positive and a negative connotation to it, jack of all trades means it’s decent at everything. Master of none, means that in each and every field it’s a jack in, one or more opposing objects or in this case vehicles are better than it.
The F35 tbh doesn’t seem to all it’s cracked up to be, especially the carrier versions Britain bought considering their operational capabilities are extremely middling.
With barely any engineers, nor pilots as well as troubles with weapon integration leaves it at a shocking 40 percent availability of the planes we have are all that can be used.
So yeah.
1 Like
As pointed out in the actual idiom.
Being a master of one thing is good but not as good as being able to do more than one thing.
This and “Keep it simple stupid” are often used to demonise multifaceted systems. F-35 is a complicated system you cannot “keep it simple”
There is no simple way to build a Gen 5 combat aircaft.
I have seen the headlines for F-35 availability I havent looked into it. Like most F-35 articles it’s probably exaggerated and framed in a way to make the F-35 look bad.
The actual idiom can be two things you are aware of this yes?
So the half Idiom, and more frequently used one, is to imply a negative connotation to the statement.
As well as this.
The actual original idiomatic phrase was from the 17th century and was simply, A jack of all trades.
Then, in the 18th century specifically 1785, it appeared in the negative connotation we use quite often, the addition of master of none was applied, it appeared in a publication by Charles Lucas.
To imply that those who are jack of all trades tend to be lacking in a specified field, which generally is true.
I’d much rather the guy plastering my house was a plasterer, not a “handy-man”.
I’d much rather my Neurosurgeon be specifically trained in it, not just a general practitioner.
Only recently in the last 60 , if that, years or so has it had that last part.
So no, the original idiomatic phrase is not
“Jack of all trades, master of none, though oftentimes better than master of one.”
It is in fact purely, A jack of all trades.
-
EDIT : The newest part of the phrase comes from the 21st century that ladies and gentlemen is from the 2000s’ which as far as I am aware as well, the change was extremely recent and thus is largely irrelevant as no official source I can find, from Oxford , nor Cambridge state it.
-
however it is a concession which means to imply both a negative , and positive at the same time. So it’s realistically both observing a positive + negative fact about something.
-
EDIT 2 : By the way I did some more research as well, as folks are saying the “newer” version comes from Shakespeare, not a single one of his works contains the modern version of the phrase, which is what you and the other gentleman are claiming is the original.
F-35 is a modern system yes, in which Britain was a key founder in its development.
We cannot even intergrate our weapon systems to it.
This has got to be one of the most niave statements about it I have read, it is well know the carrier versions of the F-35 seem to be having issues.
As well as that the MoD came out months ago stating the availability as well as the combat availability of the F-35s was dramatically lower than it should be.
So genuinely, the F-35 for Britain right now is causing us nothing but headaches.
Which none of this is to do with the german tree so yeah.
I guess Gajin doesn’t take the number of ordnance into account. As soon as you have certain type of AA or CAS ordnance, you get the standard BR slapped on it.
Even if its just two AAMs, it doesn’t seem to matter. Ingame however, its a huge difference whether you sport just two missiles or a full loadout of 8.
Its the same for CAS. A Bf109 with just one 250 kg bomb doesn’t costs less spawnpoints or get a BR decrease. Compared to fighters with much more bang.
2 Likes
Electronic warfare as Tornados ECR were getting quite old by that point
Britain doesn’t have true carrier F-35’s. They aren’t exported.
You have F-35B which are for austere airbases and LHD/LHA’s. They have VTOL but also have reduced payload capacity because of this. The US uses F-35C on carriers, which no one else has because no other F-35 program member has good enough carriers for it. They have larger wings with folding parts, and have the same payload capacity as an F-35A
2 Likes
No idea, Id consider the F-35B the more carrier orientated F-35 than the Catobar version which can be used anywhere
1 Like