What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?
Discussion
doogz said:
RSoovy4 said:
What I can't understand is why we just don't build some brand new Harriers.
Well they could offer BAE a contract to build some I suppose, but the F35 is a newer, faster, more capable aircraft with a larger combat radius and a heavier useful payload.Bit like saying back then "These Harriers are a bit pricy, lets just build some more Buccaneers" or similar.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Aye that'll work. 
'Same as before'
Same as before what exactly?
Tell me, how is the atmosphere in Cloud Cuckoo Land?
'Same as before'
Same as before what exactly?
Tell me, how is the atmosphere in Cloud Cuckoo Land?
Before 1st April 1918, RFC & RNAS ring any bells?
As for Cloud Cuckoo Land
Wasn't it the RAF who re-designed the Globe to prove that the RN could be defended anywhere at sea with land based aircraft? Didn't they come a bit un-stuck with that line of bulls
t when the Falklands kicked off?El Stovey below has the right answer, not a popular answer. Nor one that would be easy to implement mainly due to short sighted types who see their precious RAF as the be all and end all of the armed forces but non the less it would be the most sensible decision.
The only thing I would alter from a very sensible idea would be to keep a very small RN composed of submarines for the nuclear deterrent.
el stovey said:
Why have a RN, RAF or Army, just combine the lot into one force like the USMC.
Get rid of independent command structures get rid of inter service squabbling, we're a small county with a small military, it's the logical step. If you were designing a military today with the available budget you'd never decide having three separate groups would be the way to go.
Get rid of independent command structures get rid of inter service squabbling, we're a small county with a small military, it's the logical step. If you were designing a military today with the available budget you'd never decide having three separate groups would be the way to go.
Tango13 said:
The Army can take control of transport and ground attack
That one statement alone shows how little you know about how the forces treat their aircraft. There's a very good reason the Army don't have anything big or fast, they just wouldn't be able to cope with them, well not without them dropping out of the sky with monotonous regularity!Godalmighty83 said:
IanMorewood said:
Getting them (Reapers for example) on and off the deck wouldn't be too difficult given the low stall speeds, I'm not sure how they would handle repeated deck landings though.
The figures I have dug up have quite a bit of variance in them but take off distance is between 470m and 520m, be quite a challenge to get them off a 280m deck even with a 30 knot head wind.Landing would also be tricky with around 600m required.
Drones would no doubt take take a bit of navalising, but I doubt it would be impossible with even 1/1000th of the money being thrown at the F-35.
eccles said:
Tango13 said:
The Army can take control of transport and ground attack
That one statement alone shows how little you know about how the forces treat their aircraft. There's a very good reason the Army don't have anything big or fast, they just wouldn't be able to cope with them, well not without them dropping out of the sky with monotonous regularity!Had an AAC snco on the course, boy he knew it ALL, lynx, gazelle ops etc,etc.
First day, after lunch in the mess, it was time to get down to business.
First up a Tornado F2 with damage to the looms above the location of the CSAS lru's.
Not too bad as they wanted this 'cab to last a bit so only two different emc classed looms cut, about 70 cores in all, nice and simple.
Ever seen a brown job go white? Fair dues he held his hand up and said help, turned out a good egg in the end and he admitted he'd learned an awful lot about aircraft engineering during the course. Hell he even got into the french/latin combo for the Jag's diagrams
The RAF is a bloated inefficient organisation that cannot provide the services it is tasked to provide. The organisation is so busy looking after itself that it can't provide essential services that are at the core of the RAF's function.
The Serving RAF ex-RAF will by crying back at the above. Or course they will, they a product of the fat, bloated, self serving culture that runs right through the service.
And breath...
The Serving RAF ex-RAF will by crying back at the above. Or course they will, they a product of the fat, bloated, self serving culture that runs right through the service.
And breath...
stevesingo said:
The RAF is a bloated inefficient organisation that cannot provide the services it is tasked to provide. The organisation is so busy looking after itself that it can't provide essential services that are at the core of the RAF's function.
The Serving RAF ex-RAF will by crying back at the above. Or course they will, they a product of the fat, bloated, self serving culture that runs right through the service.
And breath...
Do you think any of the Forces are efficient? If you do you are sadly misguided.The Serving RAF ex-RAF will by crying back at the above. Or course they will, they a product of the fat, bloated, self serving culture that runs right through the service.
And breath...
Aaah excellent, another argument over who the best in the forces is.
Why not create a thread for it and stay out of the interesting ones, like this?
To keep on topic, I think the nail has been hammered in repeatedly on this thread. F-35 shouldn't have been the solution, but due to political pressures and economic input, there's no way we won't end up with them.
It'd be interesting to see how the Super Hornet, Rafale & F-35 (B & C) would compare in the real world.
Why not create a thread for it and stay out of the interesting ones, like this?
To keep on topic, I think the nail has been hammered in repeatedly on this thread. F-35 shouldn't have been the solution, but due to political pressures and economic input, there's no way we won't end up with them.
It'd be interesting to see how the Super Hornet, Rafale & F-35 (B & C) would compare in the real world.
Edited by LukeBird on Monday 18th March 23:09
LukeBird said:
Aaah excellent, another argument over who the best in the forces is.
Why not create a thread for it and stay out of the interesting ones, like this?
To keep on topic, I think the nail has been hammered in repeatedly on this thread. F-35 shouldn't have been the solution, but due to political pressures and economic input, there's no way we won't end up with them.
It'd be interesting to see how the Super Hornet, Rafale & F-35 (B & C) would compare in the real world.
In terms of per plane, the F-35 will win. But in terms of per £, it's a different story. Most current flyaway costs I can find are $67m for an F-18, and $150m for an F-35. I doubt the F-35 is as good as two F-18s for any of the tasks it'll be used for; I'm still not convinced that there's really any use for stealth on a strike aircraft in the drone/cruise missile age. Why not create a thread for it and stay out of the interesting ones, like this?
To keep on topic, I think the nail has been hammered in repeatedly on this thread. F-35 shouldn't have been the solution, but due to political pressures and economic input, there's no way we won't end up with them.
It'd be interesting to see how the Super Hornet, Rafale & F-35 (B & C) would compare in the real world.
Edited by LukeBird on Monday 18th March 23:09
LukeBird said:
Is the flyaway cost of the B & C variants of the F-35 pretty comparable?
I've had a quick Google, but information seems wildly different!
.
The figures are tricky at the moment as current construction is essentially small batch prototypes / test machines, I think we are in the LRIP 3 group at the moment and prices are all over the place, the bulk of the expected 3000 aircraft will be from LRIP 6 and on where the economies of scale should in theory drop the production cost to half its current figure.I've had a quick Google, but information seems wildly different!
.
The big question will be how many get cancelled by US budget cuts and how that will effect the prices as it will damage the economy of scale, something our government has never understood when it comes to defence procurement.
eccles said:
Tango13 said:
The Army can take control of transport and ground attack
That one statement alone shows how little you know about how the forces treat their aircraft. There's a very good reason the Army don't have anything big or fast, they just wouldn't be able to cope with them, well not without them dropping out of the sky with monotonous regularity!
davepoth said:
I'm still not convinced that there's really any use for stealth on a strike aircraft in the drone/cruise missile age.
I agree 100% with you on this. AFter first day/ first strike in just about any conflict it's hard to see the merits of stealth. Looking forward 15 years, who's to say that advances in radar technology wouldn't render stealth obsolete anyway? Drone and cruise missles are perfectly capable of hitting fixed targets, and some targets of opportunity. The bit where the pink cargo is a necessity would surely be air defense fighter type activity and close air support of ground troops? In both cases stealth is as useful as a chocolate teapot. What is really required is agility, weapons carrying capability and survivability. A modernised, supersonic Harrier FRS2 would have addressed the fleet air defense requirements (some Argie skyhawks got away because the harriers were not fast enough to catch them) and a similarly updated GR9, backed up by an expanded fleet of Apaches could have dealt with the close air support. Typhoon could also be augmented with thrust vectoring and better radars for the RAF.
Whats the point of having a stealthy fleet defense fighter when the 300meter long metal airfield is the most obvious target on the block!
doogz said:
The frigates, destroyers, and submarines should be doing a pretty good job of protecting the 300m long metal airfield.
When was the last time we lost an aicraft?
When was the last time we lost a carrier?
Tada.
well..... Atlantic Conveyor - OK, I know it wasn't a proper grey aircraft carrier, but to all intents and purposes it could have been.. There but for the grace of god etc etc.. When was the last time we lost an aicraft?
When was the last time we lost a carrier?
Tada.
andymadmak said:
I agree 100% with you on this. AFter first day/ first strike in just about any conflict it's hard to see the merits of stealth. Looking forward 15 years, who's to say that advances in radar technology wouldn't render stealth obsolete anyway?
Drone and cruise missles are perfectly capable of hitting fixed targets, and some targets of opportunity. The bit where the pink cargo is a necessity would surely be air defense fighter type activity and close air support of ground troops? In both cases stealth is as useful as a chocolate teapot. What is really required is agility, weapons carrying capability and survivability. A modernised, supersonic Harrier FRS2 would have addressed the fleet air defense requirements (some Argie skyhawks got away because the harriers were not fast enough to catch them) and a similarly updated GR9, backed up by an expanded fleet of Apaches could have dealt with the close air support. Typhoon could also be augmented with thrust vectoring and better radars for the RAF.
Whats the point of having a stealthy fleet defense fighter when the 300meter long metal airfield is the most obvious target on the block!
There is plenty of work going on in developing air defence capable UAV's. BAE's Taranis is being developed as a dual role UAV for example. Ship board air defennce systems are pretty much totally automated already. If the UK is going to have a longer wait for carrier aircraft the best solution may be to skip manned aircraft entirely and concentrate on rapid UAV development and deployment. Drone and cruise missles are perfectly capable of hitting fixed targets, and some targets of opportunity. The bit where the pink cargo is a necessity would surely be air defense fighter type activity and close air support of ground troops? In both cases stealth is as useful as a chocolate teapot. What is really required is agility, weapons carrying capability and survivability. A modernised, supersonic Harrier FRS2 would have addressed the fleet air defense requirements (some Argie skyhawks got away because the harriers were not fast enough to catch them) and a similarly updated GR9, backed up by an expanded fleet of Apaches could have dealt with the close air support. Typhoon could also be augmented with thrust vectoring and better radars for the RAF.
Whats the point of having a stealthy fleet defense fighter when the 300meter long metal airfield is the most obvious target on the block!
donutsina911 said:
Your experience must have been with a different RN then or you had your eyes closed during your 'sea time.' Or maybe you've made it all up.
Oh, I don't have the same point of view as you, so I must have made it up or am lieing?
Command of small ships from Mine countermeasures / Fish boats upwards is dependent on being Command Qualified. There are sea time requirements and a list of exams to pass and most MM/PP Commanding Officers are from the 'Warfare' specialisation, but aviators, submariners, divers are all represented in the current RN bridge card.
'Current' being the operative word. Not AFAIK when I was floating around the Red Sea on a big boat.
Good to see some flyers in charge now.
The RN see aircraft as 'just another weapon system' at the disposal of Command. Nothing more, nothing less.
Fair enough, but they never listen to anyone else. They tried to teach us the basics of operating Harriers. On the course lead in video, 'Hide ops' were being shown. The Sergeant in charge on the 1980's video was the Flight Sergeant sat next to me on the course Oh, I don't have the same point of view as you, so I must have made it up or am lieing?
Command of small ships from Mine countermeasures / Fish boats upwards is dependent on being Command Qualified. There are sea time requirements and a list of exams to pass and most MM/PP Commanding Officers are from the 'Warfare' specialisation, but aviators, submariners, divers are all represented in the current RN bridge card.
'Current' being the operative word. Not AFAIK when I was floating around the Red Sea on a big boat.
Good to see some flyers in charge now.The RN see aircraft as 'just another weapon system' at the disposal of Command. Nothing more, nothing less.
After all, we had only been operating Harriers since 1969, including a trip down south on Invincible......(Bu££er. Can't get the quoting right. Sorry!)
FF
Fat Fairy said:
donutsina911 said:
Oh, I don't have the same point of view as you, so I must have made it up or am lieing?
It's not a point of view Fairy, it's a fact. For as long as there's been a FAA, there have been aviators driving ships.
'Current' being the operative word. Not AFAIK when I was floating around the Red Sea on a big boat. Good to see some flyers in charge now.
See above - it's always been this way. But because the CO of the ship you were in for a period of time wasn't an aviator, you must be right eh?
Here's some less than current examples just for you. Seeing as you remember 1982 with such clarity, how about the CO of HMS Hermes at the time? Funnily enough, another aviator.
http://www.fleetairarmoa.org/news/rear-admiral-lyn...
http://www.gapan.org/ruth-documents/MastersCVs/RAD...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Johns
Fair enough, but they never listen to anyone else. They tried to teach us the basics of operating Harriers. On the course lead in video, 'Hide ops' were being shown. The Sergeant in charge on the 1980's video was the Flight Sergeant sat next to me on the course After all, we had only been operating Harriers since 1969, including a trip down south on Invincible......
And therein lies the rub. You've been operating them since 1969, so there's nothing more to learn eh? A typical RAF 'we're the aviation experts' borish response. Given the differences in operating afloat compared to life ashore, not to mention expertise the FAA built up operating Harriers in 1982 (an almost exlusively Army/Navy gig in case you'd forgotten), enforcing the no fly zone in Iraq, policing a no fly zone in Kosovo and operating in Sierra Leone, I'd have thought you'd show your hosts a little more courtesy.
It's not a point of view Fairy, it's a fact. For as long as there's been a FAA, there have been aviators driving ships.
'Current' being the operative word. Not AFAIK when I was floating around the Red Sea on a big boat.
Good to see some flyers in charge now.See above - it's always been this way. But because the CO of the ship you were in for a period of time wasn't an aviator, you must be right eh?
Here's some less than current examples just for you. Seeing as you remember 1982 with such clarity, how about the CO of HMS Hermes at the time? Funnily enough, another aviator.
http://www.fleetairarmoa.org/news/rear-admiral-lyn...
http://www.gapan.org/ruth-documents/MastersCVs/RAD...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Johns
Fair enough, but they never listen to anyone else. They tried to teach us the basics of operating Harriers. On the course lead in video, 'Hide ops' were being shown. The Sergeant in charge on the 1980's video was the Flight Sergeant sat next to me on the course
After all, we had only been operating Harriers since 1969, including a trip down south on Invincible......And therein lies the rub. You've been operating them since 1969, so there's nothing more to learn eh? A typical RAF 'we're the aviation experts' borish response. Given the differences in operating afloat compared to life ashore, not to mention expertise the FAA built up operating Harriers in 1982 (an almost exlusively Army/Navy gig in case you'd forgotten), enforcing the no fly zone in Iraq, policing a no fly zone in Kosovo and operating in Sierra Leone, I'd have thought you'd show your hosts a little more courtesy.
andymadmak said:
davepoth said:
I'm still not convinced that there's really any use for stealth on a strike aircraft in the drone/cruise missile age.
The bit where the pink cargo is a necessity would surely be air defense fighter type activity and close air support of ground troops? In both cases stealth is as useful as a chocolate teapot.For close ground support it does have some advantages, but a low IR signature is probably more use?
I think the problem is that no one really knows who we are likely to fight in the next 100years! The days of having an "army" and invading, fighting opposing uniformed troops, to capture a fixed portion of land are long gone aren't they? I don't know who we'd go to war with that might have even slightly comparible technology than that which we already possess?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff