What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?
Discussion
eccles said:
Esseesse said:
Haven't read the thread, but we should invest money developing our own planes. Harrier has been old for as long as I can remember (literally), we could have spent the last few decades developing our own STOVL (or not) aircraft. But then that would require something other than short-term thinking.
Put simply, we can't afford that any more.Mave said:
Esseesse said:
Haven't read the thread, but we should invest money developing our own planes. Harrier has been old for as long as I can remember (literally), we could have spent the last few decades developing our own STOVL (or not) aircraft. But then that would require something other than short-term thinking.
What other spec would you place on this aircraft other than STOVL? Money, risk and development time goes up increasingly quickly with increasing capability. There's a sweet spot which is useful additional capability versus cost and risk, with obsolescence chucked into the pot for added complexity... Esseesse said:
Mave said:
Esseesse said:
Haven't read the thread, but we should invest money developing our own planes. Harrier has been old for as long as I can remember (literally), we could have spent the last few decades developing our own STOVL (or not) aircraft. But then that would require something other than short-term thinking.
What other spec would you place on this aircraft other than STOVL? Money, risk and development time goes up increasingly quickly with increasing capability. There's a sweet spot which is useful additional capability versus cost and risk, with obsolescence chucked into the pot for added complexity... Esseesse said:
Mave said:
Esseesse said:
Haven't read the thread, but we should invest money developing our own planes. Harrier has been old for as long as I can remember (literally), we could have spent the last few decades developing our own STOVL (or not) aircraft. But then that would require something other than short-term thinking.
What other spec would you place on this aircraft other than STOVL? Money, risk and development time goes up increasingly quickly with increasing capability. There's a sweet spot which is useful additional capability versus cost and risk, with obsolescence chucked into the pot for added complexity... 
eccles said:
Esseesse said:
Mave said:
Esseesse said:
Haven't read the thread, but we should invest money developing our own planes. Harrier has been old for as long as I can remember (literally), we could have spent the last few decades developing our own STOVL (or not) aircraft. But then that would require something other than short-term thinking.
What other spec would you place on this aircraft other than STOVL? Money, risk and development time goes up increasingly quickly with increasing capability. There's a sweet spot which is useful additional capability versus cost and risk, with obsolescence chucked into the pot for added complexity... aeropilot said:
Esseesse said:
Mave said:
Esseesse said:
Haven't read the thread, but we should invest money developing our own planes. Harrier has been old for as long as I can remember (literally), we could have spent the last few decades developing our own STOVL (or not) aircraft. But then that would require something other than short-term thinking.
What other spec would you place on this aircraft other than STOVL? Money, risk and development time goes up increasingly quickly with increasing capability. There's a sweet spot which is useful additional capability versus cost and risk, with obsolescence chucked into the pot for added complexity... Mave said:
Esseesse said:
Does STOVL have to be in the spec? We have big carriers on their way, what's wrong with steam catapults and wires?
I was just echoing your suggestion- so if we take STOVL out of the equation, what's the spec for your new aircraft? Esseesse said:
I don't know, whatever the RN wants and is realistic. My opinion is just that it's preferable to be able to build these things yourself than buy something from abroad.
Oh definitely, but we haven't had enough money to design our own front line jet since the 60s. So a jet that we can afford will have seriously reduced capabilities. Something like a hawk with a dry, marinised ej200 in it, with the t45 wing and undercarriage / hook?Esseesse said:
Mave said:
Esseesse said:
Does STOVL have to be in the spec? We have big carriers on their way, what's wrong with steam catapults and wires?
I was just echoing your suggestion- so if we take STOVL out of the equation, what's the spec for your new aircraft? The RN didn't get what it wanted.
IanMorewood said:
I watched a documentary last night about English Electric and they said most of the talented staff left for the state's once TSR2 was binned.
I suspect that's a typical exageration sound-bite much loved by tv sorts. The reality in all engineering fields is the majority of the 'talented' staff exist in a fur-lined rut. That is, they have too many ties to a locale, pension, etc. etc. to consider moving. It's how the likes of R-R / BAES keep staff whilst paying typically below market rates.IanMorewood said:
I watched a documentary last night about English Electric and they said most of the talented staff left for the state's once TSR2 was binned.
TSR2 was binned 50 years ago, so the staff would have all retired by now anyway. The remaining staff have managed to create the Hawk, Jaguar, Tornado? Typhoon, Taranis, so there's some legacy and talent left...Edited by Mave on Friday 23 January 18:08
aeropilot said:
Esseesse said:
Mave said:
Esseesse said:
Does STOVL have to be in the spec? We have big carriers on their way, what's wrong with steam catapults and wires?
I was just echoing your suggestion- so if we take STOVL out of the equation, what's the spec for your new aircraft? The RN didn't get what it wanted.
andy97 said:
Not true, BOTH the RN and RAF wanted CTOL F35 but Rolls Royce and BAe wanted STOVL because it meant greater work share for them. Industry convinced the Defence Secretary (Hoon) that jobs were more important that meeting the military capability requirement. (Source - the RN Commodore on the F35 study team, a former CO of mine)
I think we're at cross purposes here, it was the change from the C back to the B that I was referring to (which was current Cameron led Govt, not previous labour Govt that Hoon was DefSec in)I wasn't aware that there was an previous preference for the C.
In which case, we've gone from the C to the B back to the C and back to the B........
Feckin useless politicians.
I see that renowned Harrier TP, John Farley reckons the F-35 is at least another 15 years away from being fully sorted.
aeropilot said:
I see that renowned Harrier TP, John Farley reckons the F-35 is at least another 15 years away from being fully sorted.
I'd like to see a quote where John has said that - I know he posts on pprune now and again - I don't think it to be unreasonable that an aircraft with a possible forty year life span might have prolonged gestation. JF has been supportive of the F35 in general. I'm an ex Nav, ( a kind of more exclusive, glamorous club than to be a mere pilot/driver), so in my opinion the major flaw with F35 is that it shan't have a seat behind the driver for a mission commander and shall thus be incapable of aught other than take off.
jimreed said:
I'm an ex Nav, ( a kind of more exclusive, glamorous club than to be a mere pilot/driver), so in my opinion the major flaw with F35 is that it shan't have a seat behind the driver for a mission commander and shall thus be incapable of aught other than take off.
Does this not make recruitment of pilots somewhat problematic? Do they get a bandana with a meatball on it and last rites administered beforehand? 
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff