What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?
Discussion
maffski said:
davepoth said:
...When that's combined with the new helmet (that is heavy, and substantially heavier than the previous version), you can see how it's a bit neck-snappy.
I think that's a significant part of the problem, the new Gen 3 helmet seems to oversize and overweight.
Lefty said:
Is the F-35A going to replace the Typhoon?
No. We are not buying any A variants. And why would we? The Typhoon is faster, more manoeuvrable and carries a greater warload. It is significantly better in a dog fight too. We should have pressed on and made some navalised Typhoons in the first place, instead of the F35B - it would have worked out cheaper overall. The carriers could then have been built with cats and traps, which would have meant that we could also have embarked some proper fixed wing AWAC aircraft on them too, and also done some cross decking with other friendly nations with non stovl fixed wing carrier aircraft
Edited by andymadmak on Wednesday 7th October 08:53
andymadmak said:
Lefty said:
Is the F-35A going to replace the Typhoon?
No. We are not buying any A variants. And why would we? The Typhoon is faster, more manoeuvrable and carries a greater warload. It is significantly better in a dog fight too. We should have pressed on and made some navalised Typhoons in the first place, instead of the F35B - it would have worked out cheaper overall. The carriers could then have been built with cats and traps, which would have meant that we could also have embarked some proper fixed wing AWAC aircraft on them too, and also done some cross decking with other friendly nations with non stovl fixed wing carrier aircraft
Also, why do people keep banging on about a Navalised Tiffie as that was never a realistic option.
aeropilot said:
Also, why do people keep banging on about a Navalised Tiffie as that was never a realistic option.
I'm not sure that that is 100% correct. Yes, there were requirements to beef up structure and undercarriage, but that is normal when navalising an aircraft originally designed for land use only. The vectored thrust variant of the Typhoon engine has been tested already (albeit not in a Typhoon) and as I understand it this was proposed for use on the navy Typhoon That being said, I could have it all wrong
and the sad fact is we are getting Dave. God help the pilots who are expected to take it into battle is all I can sayProject XYZ will cost a zillion quid; here's your friendly special relationship partner who will flog us a ready-made alternative at a fraction of the price, unfortunately it's not as ready-made as you thought and the additional costs (you did read the small print, didn't you?) suddenly makes a zillion quid look like chicken feed. Oh hang on, it's been cancelled...any chance of a refund? Thought not...
Halmyre said:
Project XYZ will cost a zillion quid; here's your friendly special relationship partner who will flog us a ready-made alternative at a fraction of the price, unfortunately it's not as ready-made as you thought and the additional costs (you did read the small print, didn't you?) suddenly makes a zillion quid look like chicken feed. Oh hang on, it's been cancelled...any chance of a refund? Thought not...
Is that Naval Typhoon, F35, Nimrod, Carriers or something else you're referring to? Or all of the above....andymadmak said:
Lefty said:
Is the F-35A going to replace the Typhoon?
No. We are not buying any A variants. And why would we? The Typhoon is faster, more manoeuvrable and carries a greater warload. It is significantly better in a dog fight too. We should have pressed on and made some navalised Typhoons in the first place, instead of the F35B - it would have worked out cheaper overall. The carriers could then have been built with cats and traps, which would have meant that we could also have embarked some proper fixed wing AWAC aircraft on them too, and also done some cross decking with other friendly nations with non stovl fixed wing carrier aircraft
Edited by andymadmak on Wednesday 7th October 08:53
Lefty said:
andymadmak said:
Lefty said:
Is the F-35A going to replace the Typhoon?
No. We are not buying any A variants. And why would we? The Typhoon is faster, more manoeuvrable and carries a greater warload. It is significantly better in a dog fight too. We should have pressed on and made some navalised Typhoons in the first place, instead of the F35B - it would have worked out cheaper overall. The carriers could then have been built with cats and traps, which would have meant that we could also have embarked some proper fixed wing AWAC aircraft on them too, and also done some cross decking with other friendly nations with non stovl fixed wing carrier aircraft
Edited by andymadmak on Wednesday 7th October 08:53
mcdjl said:
Halmyre said:
Project XYZ will cost a zillion quid; here's your friendly special relationship partner who will flog us a ready-made alternative at a fraction of the price, unfortunately it's not as ready-made as you thought and the additional costs (you did read the small print, didn't you?) suddenly makes a zillion quid look like chicken feed. Oh hang on, it's been cancelled...any chance of a refund? Thought not...
Is that Naval Typhoon, F35, Nimrod, Carriers or something else you're referring to? Or all of the above....andymadmak said:
The vectored thrust variant of the Typhoon engine has been tested already (albeit not in a Typhoon)
Not really. A proof of concept thrust vectoring bench demo has been tested. That is a long long way away from a productionised flight worthy engine, especially as you've now made the vectored thrust functionality flight safety critical....MartG said:
At the very least, going cat & trap, we could have leased some old F-18Cs to build up experience while waiting for delivery of whatever we decided to get longterm. Instead we are stuck with carriers which can only operate a single type ( apart from helicopters )
We could probably have bought 'C's, Superhornet is something like $60 million flyaway cost. So surely the older Hornets would be $30-$40 million? Unless there's a reason leasing airframes is better than owning?Edited to say a quick Google shows the C/D going for $29 million in 2006. So surely even cheaper now!
doogz said:
MartG said:
At the very least, going cat & trap, we could have leased some old F-18Cs to build up experience while waiting for delivery of whatever we decided to get longterm. Instead we are stuck with carriers which can only operate a single type ( apart from helicopters )
Why can they only operate a single type?Could buy some 29s or 33s
Mad 5 minutes so bear with me- What would the UK do if we needed to deploy air forces at short notice, as per the falklands, and no-one wanted to help us?
Can't retro-fit a cat to the so-called modular carrier very easily but a traps do-able without too many tears right? What about JATO typhoons with droppable rocket boosters on external hard points?
Can't retro-fit a cat to the so-called modular carrier very easily but a traps do-able without too many tears right? What about JATO typhoons with droppable rocket boosters on external hard points?
hairyben said:
Mad 5 minutes so bear with me- What would the UK do if we needed to deploy air forces at short notice, as per the falklands, and no-one wanted to help us?
Can't retro-fit a cat to the so-called modular carrier very easily but a traps do-able without too many tears right? What about JATO typhoons with droppable rocket boosters on external hard points?
Trident.Can't retro-fit a cat to the so-called modular carrier very easily but a traps do-able without too many tears right? What about JATO typhoons with droppable rocket boosters on external hard points?
Lefty said:
hairyben said:
Mad 5 minutes so bear with me- What would the UK do if we needed to deploy air forces at short notice, as per the falklands, and no-one wanted to help us?
Can't retro-fit a cat to the so-called modular carrier very easily but a traps do-able without too many tears right? What about JATO typhoons with droppable rocket boosters on external hard points?
Trident.Can't retro-fit a cat to the so-called modular carrier very easily but a traps do-able without too many tears right? What about JATO typhoons with droppable rocket boosters on external hard points?
hairyben said:
Mad 5 minutes so bear with me- What would the UK do if we needed to deploy air forces at short notice, as per the falklands, and no-one wanted to help us?
Can't retro-fit a cat to the so-called modular carrier very easily but a traps do-able without too many tears right? What about JATO typhoons with droppable rocket boosters on external hard points?
in the case of the falklands the scenario really is la-la land Can't retro-fit a cat to the so-called modular carrier very easily but a traps do-able without too many tears right? What about JATO typhoons with droppable rocket boosters on external hard points?
the argentianins have fundamentally the same offensive capability they had in the 1980s ...
when they invaded there where less than 100 regular personnel and a dad's army FIDF , with No air assets
mph1977 said:
in the case of the falklands the scenario really is la-la land
the argentianins have fundamentally the same offensive capability they had in the 1980s ...
when they invaded there where less than 100 regular personnel and a dad's army FIDF , with No air assets
Only threw the falklands in there as the UK was relatively unsupported compared to most wars we've been involved in since where we'll have an allie nearby, with runways we can use etc. Maybe argentina could train some SF to mount a surprise attack and take out the forces there thus a full invasion force would be required but this isn't about argentina current status so much as the general scenario.the argentianins have fundamentally the same offensive capability they had in the 1980s ...
when they invaded there where less than 100 regular personnel and a dad's army FIDF , with No air assets
mph1977 said:
hairyben said:
Mad 5 minutes so bear with me- What would the UK do if we needed to deploy air forces at short notice, as per the falklands, and no-one wanted to help us?
Can't retro-fit a cat to the so-called modular carrier very easily but a traps do-able without too many tears right? What about JATO typhoons with droppable rocket boosters on external hard points?
in the case of the falklands the scenario really is la-la land Can't retro-fit a cat to the so-called modular carrier very easily but a traps do-able without too many tears right? What about JATO typhoons with droppable rocket boosters on external hard points?
the argentianins have fundamentally the same offensive capability they had in the 1980s ...
when they invaded there where less than 100 regular personnel and a dad's army FIDF , with No air assets
http://www.alternet.org/world/why-russia-trading-f...
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff