What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?

[TheJimi]

Slightly O/T but jeez, the US Navy's capabilities is staggering.

When you take a step back and actually consider the USA'S military capabilities, it makes you very glad they're on our side

[IanH755]

Evanivitch said:

Trevatanus said:

I thought we could not afford them?

Some reports it was Harrier or Tonka fleet, not both.

Long story short, it was because we could only afford one fleet after the Strategic Defence Review and Harriers were considered "poorer" at modern (post 2005 - Afghanistan) warfare than Tornados were.

Now, just before the pitchforks appear, I've got 22 years as groundcrew in the RAF and spent 5 years on 20(R) Sqn (Harrier OCU GR7/T10) and 3 years on 617 Sqn (Tornado GR4's) with time on Op's with both so I'm unbaised but the fact remains that the Labour government was massively cutting the budget of the armed forces and a decision had to be made which to scrap, the Harriers or Tornados and, for the reasons below, it was Harriers that had to go -

• The carriers were being scrapped so the Harriers couldn't deploy at sea, which was their biggest advantage over the Tornado
• They couldn't carry as many weapons
• They couldn't carry the Brimstone AGM
• They couldn't carry the StormShadow CASOM
• They couldn't carry the RAPTOR pod
• They couldn't carry the AIRCM pod
• Without being able to carry the above weapons/equipment it could not be used in "any" theatre post 2009 as it could only carry 2x Paveway 4 (not enough to support troops and too big for use near civilians) or 2x AGM-65 (as above) or unguided weapons (CRV-7 rockets) which can't be used anymore (no "unguided" weapons allowed).
• They couldn't be modified to carry the above without massive expense and time (Tornado was already using everything)
• The software couldn't be updated for the above without involving the US which leads to "other" issues
• They had less range when flying from a land base
• We could make more money selling the Harriers than by selling the Tornados

So you can see, keeping the Tornado was the only real choice which meant the Harrier unfortunately had to go. Now, should we be buying the F-35? I'm not 100% convinced it'll ever be as good as the makers are telling the buyers TBH. I'd have rather spent the F-35 money on the F-18E/F SuperHornet with parts license built in the UK as we could have bought many, many more of those than the very low number of F-35's we currently have, whilst keeping an "option to buy" on the F-35 once it was in service and all the bugs worked out.

[Evanivitch]

IanH755 said:

I'd have rather spent the F-35 money on the F-18E/F SuperHornet with parts license built in the UK as we could have bought many, many more of those than the very low number of F-35's we currently have, whilst keeping an "option to buy" on the F-35 once it was in service and all the bugs worked out.

Would that be F18 for the carriers or to maintain fast jet numbers?

Long term, the economic benefits of our involvement in F35 are greater than if we'd done licensed F18 production and not been involved in F35.

[mcdjl]

In 1936 some one invented the Spitfire. In 1938 the RAF trted flying them. They spent the next 10 years developing its capability. We don't seem to be far off going from a can we get the F35 to work to getting the Mk19 in a planned, public way rather than the WW2 approach of well we've managed that, lets see if we can improve it more ad-hoc approach.

[Globs]

MartG said:

Oh no, he's off again

Ah It's 'Conspiracy Theory' Marty - let me guess, the F35's Lockheed Martin's secret plan to bankrupt us all so they can buy the NHS?
Or is the F-35 debacle a result of budget cuts?
Jeez.

TheJimi said:

Carriers = force projection

Yes, that's the problem I think - right there.
Since the Falklands can you name a situation where UK 'force projection' has benefited the UK taxpayer? Or anyone?
The case for a UK carrier is rather slight, particularly as one decent missile is all it takes to remove it again.

TheJimi said:

Slightly O/T but jeez, the US Navy's capabilities is staggering.

When you take a step back and actually consider the USA'S military capabilities, it makes you very glad they're on our side

Very true, the expense is breathtaking. I think we are on their side however, rather than them being on our side.

Also mainstreet are paying for that with a $20,000,000,000,000 debt though. Half of which was run up under Obama as I recall, who presided over the creation of ISIS and the ruin of the middle east. It's still unclear how that benefits the security of their nationals who are now walking targets around the world.
Was Obama's cost of $10e12/ 330e6 = $30,000 for every US man, woman and child really value for money?

IanH755 said:

- Interesting stuff -

Now, should we be buying the F-35? I'm not 100% convinced it'll ever be as good as the makers are telling the buyers TBH. I'd have rather spent the F-35 money on the F-18E/F SuperHornet with parts license built in the UK as we could have bought many, many more of those than the very low number of F-35's we currently have, whilst keeping an "option to buy" on the F-35 once it was in service and all the bugs worked out.

Agreed.
I'm not even sure we need an F-35 even if it did work and we had control over it's usage and spares. Would it have stopped the terrorists attacking parliament? Or 7/7? How does it begin to address ISIS? What possible threat does it actually address?. I.e. What is it for?

[IanH755]

Evanivitch said:

IanH755 said:

I'd have rather spent the F-35 money on the F-18E/F SuperHornet with parts license built in the UK as we could have bought many, many more of those than the very low number of F-35's we currently have, whilst keeping an "option to buy" on the F-35 once it was in service and all the bugs worked out.

Would that be F18 for the carriers or to maintain fast jet numbers?

They would've only been for the Fleet Air Arm, giving them an air and ground capability which would currently surpass what the F-35 can provide (weapons types/numbers greater with F-18) along with greater numbers of aircraft. However, the F-35 once developed, would be a great addition to those F-18's we'd made/bought.

However it's all a moot point now so it doesn't matter what I think

[IanH755]

Globs said:

I'm not even sure we need an F-35 even if it did work and we had control over it's usage and spares. Would it have stopped the terrorists attacking parliament? Or 7/7? How does it begin to address ISIS? What possible threat does it actually address?. I.e. What is it for?

For the "next" war, not for the current one. If that "next" war turns out to be against someone who is a peer nation then they'll be needed, however if it's against yet another 3rd world nation it'll considered by most to be a more of a waste.

I think developing the "next gen" versions of anything is a time/money consuming process but the F-35 program just seems to have been too many "next gen" things all attempted at the same time, rather than just a few at a time, and the project has suffered for it.

[TheJimi]

Globs said:

MartG said:

Oh no, he's off again

Ah It's 'Conspiracy Theory' Marty - let me guess, the F35's Lockheed Martin's secret plan to bankrupt us all so they can buy the NHS?
Or is the F-35 debacle a result of budget cuts?
Jeez.

TheJimi said:

Carriers = force projection

Yes, that's the problem I think - right there.
Since the Falklands can you name a situation where UK 'force projection' has benefited the UK taxpayer? Or anyone?
The case for a UK carrier is rather slight, particularly as one decent missile is all it takes to remove it again.

TheJimi said:

Slightly O/T but jeez, the US Navy's capabilities is staggering.

When you take a step back and actually consider the USA'S military capabilities, it makes you very glad they're on our side

Very true, the expense is breathtaking. I think we are on their side however, rather than them being on our side.

Also mainstreet are paying for that with a $20,000,000,000,000 debt though. Half of which was run up under Obama as I recall, who presided over the creation of ISIS and the ruin of the middle east. It's still unclear how that benefits the security of their nationals who are now walking targets around the world.
Was Obama's cost of $10e12/ 330e6 = $30,000 for every US man, woman and child really value for money?

IanH755 said:

- Interesting stuff -

Now, should we be buying the F-35? I'm not 100% convinced it'll ever be as good as the makers are telling the buyers TBH. I'd have rather spent the F-35 money on the F-18E/F SuperHornet with parts license built in the UK as we could have bought many, many more of those than the very low number of F-35's we currently have, whilst keeping an "option to buy" on the F-35 once it was in service and all the bugs worked out.

Agreed.
I'm not even sure we need an F-35 even if it did work and we had control over it's usage and spares. Would it have stopped the terrorists attacking parliament? Or 7/7? How does it begin to address ISIS? What possible threat does it actually address?. I.e. What is it for?

lol

[donutsina911]

IanH755 said:

Long story short, it was because we could only afford one fleet after the Strategic Defence Review and Harriers were considered "poorer" at modern (post 2005 - Afghanistan) warfare than Tornados were.

Now, just before the pitchforks appear, I've got 22 years as groundcrew in the RAF and spent 5 years on 20(R) Sqn (Harrier OCU GR7/T10) and 3 years on 617 Sqn (Tornado GR4's) with time on Op's with both so I'm unbaised but the fact remains that the Labour government was massively cutting the budget of the armed forces and a decision had to be made which to scrap, the Harriers or Tornados and, for the reasons below, it was Harriers that had to go -

• The carriers were being scrapped so the Harriers couldn't deploy at sea, which was their biggest advantage over the Tornado
• They couldn't carry as many weapons
• They couldn't carry the Brimstone AGM
• They couldn't carry the StormShadow CASOM
• They couldn't carry the RAPTOR pod
• They couldn't carry the AIRCM pod
• Without being able to carry the above weapons/equipment it could not be used in "any" theatre post 2009 as it could only carry 2x Paveway 4 (not enough to support troops and too big for use near civilians) or 2x AGM-65 (as above) or unguided weapons (CRV-7 rockets) which can't be used anymore (no "unguided" weapons allowed).
• They couldn't be modified to carry the above without massive expense and time (Tornado was already using everything)
• The software couldn't be updated for the above without involving the US which leads to "other" issues
• They had less range when flying from a land base -
• We could make more money selling the Harriers than by selling the Tornados

So you can see, keeping the Tornado was the only real choice which meant the Harrier unfortunately had to go.

With respect, much of that is nonsense. It's only true if you are doing a playground top trumps entirely out of context to the operations we've been involved in over the past couple of decades or indeed ignoring the thrust of recent SDRs. Our intervention globally since the decision to bin Harrier was taken has (on the face of it) largely been splatting Hilux trucks in the desert, so our requirements would appear to have been fairly rudimentary. Actually they've been a bit more sophisticated - an ex RN mate was OC A Flight 1F Sqn and he said most of his time on two Herricks was spent on reconnaissance utilising the SNIPER pod and DJPR or just showing force. Even with this in mind, there's much to be debated in your stats, particularly around the relevancy of Stormshadow (esp in Afghanistan or similar theatres) and the fact that your comment around PWIV is simply not true - the GR9 routinely carried 4 Paveway IV (500lb, laser and GPS guided) in lieu of CRV7.

Anyway, the GR Harriers were self evidently short-range ground attack aircraft, best suited for use against low capability opposition - sounds quite similar to our recent operations wouldn't you agree? Ellamy is a curve ball of course, and there's a much tougher debate to be had there about the 'right' or optimal mix of airpower, particularly given some of the dramas getting the Italians onside and the mix of assets we could/should have been able to deploy whilst also on Herrick.

Ultimately, the decision was never as simplistic as you describe. Indeed, the decision should never have been an either or - contrary to what you've written, culling Tornado would have saved more (by some margin), but IMHO a reduction in both, whilst we brought in new aircraft would have made more sense.

Regardless, the bigger picture shows that it wasn't the 'only real choice' at all. Power projection and influence beyond NATO and near NATO borders goes to ratst if basing rights and over flying rights are not granted by nations nearby - this is the essence of maritime air and those at the top of the food chain took a calculated risk that we could blag this until the F35 arrives. The Harrier in both shades of blue offered a (different, sometimes better and sometimes worse) capability, without dependence on Cyprus, Italy or Malta, without the requirement to pre plan/locate logistical support and without requiring the nod from friendly or non friendly states. Falklands, Belize and Sierra Leone are further examples from the not too distant past.

IanH755 said:

Now, should we be buying the F-35? I'm not 100% convinced it'll ever be as good as the makers are telling the buyers TBH. I'd have rather spent the F-35 money on the F-18E/F SuperHornet with parts license built in the UK as we could have bought many, many more of those than the very low number of F-35's we currently have, whilst keeping an "option to buy" on the F-35 once it was in service and all the bugs worked out.

Agreed. F18 in it's various iterations would have been my preference.

Edited by donutsina911 on Friday 24th March 17:17

[IanH755]

donutsina911 said:

With respect, much of that is nonsense

As someone with years of operational experience on both types, no it really isn't. Every point above is valid from a current (post 2009) operational standpoint, but I understand you disagree with that and, for the 2005-2009 era, you wouldn't be that wrong but like I said, post 2009 lots of things changed regarding our TTP's in operational theatres, 90% of which would have ruled the GR9 out of use instantly until a whole bucket load of time/money had been invested in upgrading the aircraft again.

I loved working on the Harrier fleet and the specific Pegasus noise will stay with me forever but as fantastic as it was for it's time, it just couldn't keep pace with the evolving battlefield needing newer weapons/systems in the same way that the Tornado GR4 could (although TBF I still preferred the SNIPER pod footage quality to the Litening III stuff we got to see after the aircrew had employed weapons). In the end the military could see that basic fact too and made the correct choice to scrap it.

One point I will clarify though, yes the GR9 could carry 4x PWIV's until 2009 when the ground threat was increased and the ROE changed meaning it became a requirement to carry lower collateral weapons (AGM-65/Brimstone/Cannon) and an AIRCM pod (anti-SAM pod) which meant GR9's post 2009 would be carrying a maximum of 2x PWIV, 1x AGM-65 (still too big to use vs Brimstone) and 1x AIRCM pod (not Harrier certified at the time).

[Ian Lancs]

IanH755 said:

1x AIRCM pod (not Harrier certified at the time).

Harrier carried TERMA long before Tornado carried AIRCM. Different set of letters to describe the same thing (I love the MoD and it's random letter generator system). IIRC the only difference was the Harrier implementation didn't have forward firing flares, but it's been a while since I dealt with both.

[Flying Phil]

"an ex RN mate was OC A Flight 1F Sqn and he said most of his time on two Herricks was spent on reconnaissance utilising the SNIPER pod and DJPR or just showing force."

As an occasional reader of this thread is a "Herrick" an aircraft carrier?? I have a close personal interest....

[Elroy Blue]

Operation Herrick is the name given to the Afghanistan deployment.

Op Granby-First Gulf war

Etc etc

[Flying Phil]

Elroy Blue said:

Operation Herrick is the name given to the Afghanistan deployment.

Op Granby-First Gulf war

Etc etc

Thanks Elroy - Services acronyms and initials can be a bit impenetrable at times but enjoyable and informative detailed posts are always appreciated.
Philip Afgan Deployment!

[telecat]

Looks like the Germans are getting together with Airbus to create their own Sixth Generation Fighter. Lets hope they make their minds up and do not delay it as they did to Typhoon.

http://defence-blog.com/news/germany-looks-to-deve...

[aeropilot]

telecat said:

Looks like the Germans are getting together with Airbus to create their own Sixth Generation Fighter. Lets hope they make their minds up and do not delay it as they did to Typhoon.

http://defence-blog.com/news/germany-looks-to-deve...

Given Airbus have struggled with the A400M (their only ever mil aircraft design thus far) good luck with them getting a 6th gen combat aircraft sorted/built/working etc.,etc. with no previous in that field...!!
Ballsy move by ze Germans......especially when there are other sources within Europe to get into partnership with that have years of proven combat aircraft design to draw on!

[telecat]

The UK appear to be heading into a 6th Gen Typhoon replacement with the French. Given BAE have experience of 5th gen with the BAE Replica and F35 probably a good move by the French. Means BAE and Dassault linking up independent of Airbus.

[IanH755]

Ian Lancs said:

IanH755 said:

1x AIRCM pod (not Harrier certified at the time).

Harrier carried TERMA long before Tornado carried AIRCM. Different set of letters to describe the same thing (I love the MoD and it's random letter generator system). IIRC the only difference was the Harrier implementation didn't have forward firing flares, but it's been a while since I dealt with both.

You're right, AIRCM was just the internals of a TERMA pod squeezed into a BOZ-107 shaped pod but I didn't realise TERMA also came with MWS sensors which I though was AIRCm only (I thought it was still only linked into the GR9's own ECM suite).

[telecat]

telecat said:

The UK appear to be heading into a 6th Gen Typhoon replacement with the French. Given BAE have experience of 5th gen with the BAE Replica and F35 probably a good move by the French. Means BAE and Dassault linking up independent of Airbus.

Now the UK has signed up with Japan to develop a fighter. Looks like we are spreading the risk although the BAE Replica and Taranis surely mean they could go it alone. To me it looks like the development costs are the stumbling block and sharing them could leave room for a BAE product at the end of it.

[aeropilot]

telecat said:

Now the UK has signed up with Japan to develop a fighter. Looks like we are spreading the risk although the BAE Replica and Taranis surely mean they could go it alone. To me it looks like the development costs are the stumbling block and sharing them could leave room for a BAE product at the end of it.

Interesting, but perhaps not surprising, given that Japan wanted to buy F-22's but USA refused all exports of the F-22.

All of the USA's future eggs are now in the F-35 basket which isn't a F-22 class aircraft, so its no surprise that Japan and probably others are looking at a JV to come up with something else for the future....as the only other option is Russian....or maybe Chinese, and Japan won't be looking in either of those directions!
(just don't let Honda get involved )