What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?
Discussion
Trevatanus said:
As far as google can see it did not; the SU24 is a ropey old piece of warmed-over cold war junk and the Argies are skint anyway. The only way such a deal is likely is in exchange for a southern hemisphere naval base, and I don't think even Kirchner is up for that level of debasement.hidetheelephants said:
Trevatanus said:
As far as google can see it did not; the SU24 is a ropey old piece of warmed-over cold war junk and the Argies are skint anyway. The only way such a deal is likely is in exchange for a southern hemisphere naval base, and I don't think even Kirchner is up for that level of debasement.hidetheelephants said:
...the SU24 is a ropey old piece of warmed-over cold war junk...
The MOD and Jane's Analysts appear to think otherwise.http://www.janes.com/article/47293/uk-reviews-falk...
mph1977 said:
also forgot to add St Helena's airport is currently in the build up to opening - calibration of Naviaids and the like ... somewhat closer than Ascension ....
Jamestown St Helena - Port Stanley = 3271 Nautical MilesGeorgetown Ascension - Port Stanley = 3381 Nautical Miles
Not a lot in it really, especially when you consider that the R/W at St Helena will only be 6000ft whereas Wideawake is 10,000 ft.
SlipStream77 said:
hidetheelephants said:
...the SU24 is a ropey old piece of warmed-over cold war junk...
The MOD and Jane's Analysts appear to think otherwise.http://www.janes.com/article/47293/uk-reviews-falk...
I think the biggest issue with the SU24 is probably if the Argentines get longer range precision weapons. This would in theory allow it to attack Port Stanley from beyond the range of the Rapier systems installed there.
The lack of an area denial SAM system is a capability that British army and airforce have been lacking for sine time.
maffski said:
Curve it round the base or just slope it up the mountain side?
There's a flat(by TdC standards) area at Stoneyhill point on the south side of the island that is large enough to hold a strip similar or slightly longer than the one on St Helena running more or less east/west, which conveniently is the prevailing(gale force) wind direction. Providently this is remote from the settlement and too high for use for crops like the only other flattish area to the southwest of the village. Above the escarpment there are flat(again by TdC standards) areas but the likelihood is the wind acceleration zones and frequency of low cloud would make it not very safe.Practically there is no likelihood of a runway being built, the locals aren't agitating for one, there's only 300-odd inhabitants and the ecology of the island is fragile and jealously guarded so mass tourism probably isn't wanted or legally possible. There wasn't much of an economic case for the airfield on St Helena and that's got a population of 4500; it was justified as the RMS St Helena was being retired and the government were faced with either buying a new one and funding it for 30 years or building an airstrip. The only feasible justification is as a staging post/diversion airfield for the Falklands and that's flimsier than a flimsy thing.
Talksteer said:
The Argentines would still be faced with the problem that there is 1000 armed forces on the island.
Of which less than 1/3 are front-line troops, the rest are support i.e admin, chefs & mechanics etcTalksteer said:
Even if you managed to destroy the Typhoons on the ground and bomb the airfield the Argentines cannot land enough forces to displace those men in enough time to stop the UK flying in thousands of reinforcements in less than 24 hours.
It takes 16+hrs to fly there which leaves less than 8hrs to get "thousands" of light troops armed for war, kitted, down to brize norton to meet up with transport aircraft, fighters and tankers which would need to be readied and then after all that somehow manage to fly to a bombed (but hopefully repaired) runway, refuel and return whilst under the threat of air attack.Talksteer said:
The lack of an area denial SAM system is a capability that British army and airforce have been lacking for sine time.
Definitely a huge lack of capability there. I spent a few tours down there and we practised things regularly but if it ever came to a serious confrontation it'd be at least a few days at minimum before we'd have got help from the UK.
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
What we do know is that we have less capability to deal with such situations than we did then.
What's unexpected that the Argentine forces could feasibly spring? There's ~1500 personnel in uniform of which about a third carry guns for a living, the rest have had basic infantry training so know one end of a gun from another and are capable of defending a fixed position. The Ladybird book of the Art of War states that you need at least 3:1 to assault fixed positions reliably, so Argentina needs to be able to land at least 4500 marines and their equipment in battle order and in a short time without Tommy waking up and f
king with their st. The UK doesn't have that ability so I'm quite sure Argentina doesn't.
king with their st. The UK doesn't have that ability so I'm quite sure Argentina doesn't. 
scrwright said:
I see its being reported the new Canadian PM plans to cancel any plans for the f35. Will that put up the cost for the UK units?
Not by much as Canadian buy was for F-35A, not the B.What it might do though is make other nations that are waivering on continuing or join in with cancelling, which could create the spiral going.....
F-35 was never the right decision for Canada anyway.
hidetheelephants said:
What's unexpected that the Argentine forces could feasibly spring? There's ~1500 personnel in uniform of which about a third carry guns for a living, the rest have had basic infantry training so know one end of a gun from another and are capable of defending a fixed position. The Ladybird book of the Art of War states that you need at least 3:1 to assault fixed positions reliably, so Argentina needs to be able to land at least 4500 marines and their equipment in battle order and in a short time without Tommy waking up and fking with their st. The UK doesn't have that ability so I'm quite sure Argentina doesn't.
If that was aimed at my post above, you missed the point in epic style. king with their st. The UK doesn't have that ability so I'm quite sure Argentina doesn't. Anything the argies could do is now expected. What I worry about is the next unexpected thing, from wherever. We don't know what it might be, by definition, but we do know that we couldn't mobilise a naval task force as we did then, should it be needed.
Unexpected would be, for example, having an SF raid on Ascension at the same time as an SF raid hitting the Falklands. If they could knock out Ascensions runway for a week (does it have any repair capabilities standing by for immediate use etc) then that'd be a big blow even if the Falklands raid is a shambles which fails. They don't even have to force us off the island to be fair, they could just use that week to build-up massively whilst pouring Artillery and air-raids at the base keeping the runway unusable.
We'd also have massive issues keeping Typhoons/Tornados flown from the Ascensions over the Falklands. Again, it's an 8hr trip at cruise speed with 4+ tankings in each direction at a minimum, plus extra Typhoon A2A cover for the tankers, transports, AWAC's etc. Plus out AT (air transport) fleet is massively stretched, although now Afghan is winding down it's getting better.
Anyway, enough of this doom & gloom, our "ace" is which ever Sub happens to be hanging around the area at the time, thats a game changer!
Plus when we start carrier op's again it'll all change
We'd also have massive issues keeping Typhoons/Tornados flown from the Ascensions over the Falklands. Again, it's an 8hr trip at cruise speed with 4+ tankings in each direction at a minimum, plus extra Typhoon A2A cover for the tankers, transports, AWAC's etc. Plus out AT (air transport) fleet is massively stretched, although now Afghan is winding down it's getting better.
Anyway, enough of this doom & gloom, our "ace" is which ever Sub happens to be hanging around the area at the time, thats a game changer!
Plus when we start carrier op's again it'll all change
aeropilot said:
scrwright said:
I see its being reported the new Canadian PM plans to cancel any plans for the f35. Will that put up the cost for the UK units?
Not by much as Canadian buy was for F-35A, not the B.What it might do though is make other nations that are waivering on continuing or join in with cancelling, which could create the spiral going.....
F-35 was never the right decision
But in actuality, the F-35C's combat range is expected to be 550 nautical miles, only 50 nautical miles longer than the Navy's current complement of F/A-18E and F Super Hornets.
Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 21st October 19:41
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff