What SHOULD we have?
Discussion
I've been following all the shenanigans about defence budget cuts and the costs of new pieces of kit for the army navy and air force. Many people have said we can't afford the F35.. and its benefits in STOVL configuration (as we are planning to buy) are compromised somewhat when compared to the conventional version. Certainly I wonder whether we've missed a trick and what we should be doing is buying a cheap, upgraded (super sonic?) harrier for the STOVL work, and a simpler cheaper stealth attack aircraft for the other stuff.....? I also read somewhere that the actual airframe is the easy bit, and that its the sexy sensors/weapons suites/radars etc that cost the dev pounds. But that stuff is computer geeky, and we're really good at that, so we could upgrade/do just about anything if we weren't wedded to the stealth notion (which I think is a total red herring as Stealth will always fall victim to the next gen radar / satellite etc) So, if we ditch stealth, what sort of aircraft SHOULD we be buying?
1, Ressurect and upgrade older designs - Harrier, Buccaneer etc for conventional work and then pair with Typhoons for protection?
2, Simple super agile one task Jets (ie, not multi role) of 100% British design and manufacture - simpler to build, simpler to operate, cheaper all round?
3, Carry on on the present path of Typhoon + F35 but in tiny numbers
What could we do with a clean sheet of non stealth confined paper?
1, Ressurect and upgrade older designs - Harrier, Buccaneer etc for conventional work and then pair with Typhoons for protection?
2, Simple super agile one task Jets (ie, not multi role) of 100% British design and manufacture - simpler to build, simpler to operate, cheaper all round?
3, Carry on on the present path of Typhoon + F35 but in tiny numbers
What could we do with a clean sheet of non stealth confined paper?
SamHH said:
Re. stealth aircraft "falling victim" to future radar systems, how it that different to every other sort of military technology?
It isn't .. thats my point. We are spending umpti billions chasing something (stealth) that cannot really be delivered in even the medium term. That which may be super stealthy today probably won't be in 5 years time. But in chasing stealth we make things more expensive and we compromise other fundamentals of the weapons delivery platform. (cost, complexity, range, agility, etc) Forget stealth and all sorts of options come into play, as I suggested in my original post. That being the case, and given who we might be fighting, what should we have? Personally I'd rather have 500 cheaper, non stealthy but super capable jets in place of 200 super expensive, slightly less capable but stealthy for 5 minutes ones
I am of the opinion there is no point rebuilding the harrier, simply because it is such an old design (nearly 50 years)… There would be no way of making it supersonic without fitting new engines (the costs) and a complete overhaul and development of new avionics would be required (again not cheap, I actually work at the BAE Avionics division). Look at Nimrod MRA4, this is what happens when you try and revolutionise old designs…
Granted the F35B is not the best version performance wise. However, the UK has great experience in this field and the RAF still insist that they can have a strike package that can pop up. There is an argument for procuring the F-18 Super Hornet; but when costs of everything including fitting Cat and Traps to the carriers, all of a sudden appear to be as expensive as the F-35….
As for stealth, it is necessary for the 1st day strike… Look at all the future UCAVs, Stealth is a feature on all of them. And simple super agile one task jets actually work out more expensive in the long run due to having to operate different aircraft types.
Would love to elaborate but am short of time. Should be a decent thread.
Granted the F35B is not the best version performance wise. However, the UK has great experience in this field and the RAF still insist that they can have a strike package that can pop up. There is an argument for procuring the F-18 Super Hornet; but when costs of everything including fitting Cat and Traps to the carriers, all of a sudden appear to be as expensive as the F-35….
As for stealth, it is necessary for the 1st day strike… Look at all the future UCAVs, Stealth is a feature on all of them. And simple super agile one task jets actually work out more expensive in the long run due to having to operate different aircraft types.
Would love to elaborate but am short of time. Should be a decent thread.
andymadmak said:
SamHH said:
Re. stealth aircraft "falling victim" to future radar systems, how it that different to every other sort of military technology?
It isn't .. thats my point. We are spending umpti billions chasing something (stealth) that cannot really be delivered in even the medium term. That which may be super stealthy today probably won't be in 5 years time. But in chasing stealth we make things more expensive and we compromise other fundamentals of the weapons delivery platform. (cost, complexity, range, agility, etc) Forget stealth and all sorts of options come into play, as I suggested in my original post. That being the case, and given who we might be fighting, what should we have? Personally I'd rather have 500 cheaper, non stealthy but super capable jets in place of 200 super expensive, slightly less capable but stealthy for 5 minutes ones
SamHH said:
By that rationale, why bother making any new sort of military technology? After all, it'll be superseded in five years time.
well because some benefits might be worth having - faster, longer range, better payload, supercruise, more accurate etc etc. I just don't see stealth as a sensible decision driver for our manned aircraft.
andymadmak said:
SamHH said:
By that rationale, why bother making any new sort of military technology? After all, it'll be superseded in five years time.
well because some benefits might be worth having - faster, longer range, better payload, supercruise, more accurate etc etc. I just don't see stealth as a sensible decision driver for our manned aircraft.
The problem we have is trying to guess what we'll need in 10 years time. We've got it wrong everytime from WW1, WW2, Falklands, Gulf 1 & 2..etc and ended up having to rush things in to service.
I feel that we should scrap the GR4, F3 Tornados and replace with just Typhoons (and plenty of them!). The Typhoon from reports is seriously capable and already being rolled out so we will have the support required to train and run them. The days of low level Tornado GR1 runs are well gone, nowadays the planes can sit at 15,000ft and drop the nasty stuff well out of gun fire. They can fight their way in, drop their payload and fight themselves home.
In close air support for troops can come from the Apache (lots more of them), no need for Harriers. From reports the harriers in Afghanistan couldnt hit a cows a** with a banjo. If I was on the ground I'd rather an AH64 attached to the battalion covering 24/7 rather than calling in fast air that often isn't available or inaccurate.
As for the new carriers I simply don't know, there is a strong case for super hornets, they're very good and proven marine based fighters/bombers that will come wih off the peg support/supplies. Marine rafales and gripens wont cut it, both single engined and not combat proven.
I feel that we should scrap the GR4, F3 Tornados and replace with just Typhoons (and plenty of them!). The Typhoon from reports is seriously capable and already being rolled out so we will have the support required to train and run them. The days of low level Tornado GR1 runs are well gone, nowadays the planes can sit at 15,000ft and drop the nasty stuff well out of gun fire. They can fight their way in, drop their payload and fight themselves home.
In close air support for troops can come from the Apache (lots more of them), no need for Harriers. From reports the harriers in Afghanistan couldnt hit a cows a** with a banjo. If I was on the ground I'd rather an AH64 attached to the battalion covering 24/7 rather than calling in fast air that often isn't available or inaccurate.
As for the new carriers I simply don't know, there is a strong case for super hornets, they're very good and proven marine based fighters/bombers that will come wih off the peg support/supplies. Marine rafales and gripens wont cut it, both single engined and not combat proven.
jimbobsimmonds said:
I am of the opinion there is no point rebuilding the harrier, simply because it is such an old design (nearly 50 years)… There would be no way of making it supersonic without fitting new engines (the costs) and a complete overhaul and development of new avionics would be required (again not cheap, I actually work at the BAE Avionics division). Look at Nimrod MRA4, this is what happens when you try and revolutionise old designs…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_P.1154We were so very close...
davepoth said:
jimbobsimmonds said:
I am of the opinion there is no point rebuilding the harrier, simply because it is such an old design (nearly 50 years)… There would be no way of making it supersonic without fitting new engines (the costs) and a complete overhaul and development of new avionics would be required (again not cheap, I actually work at the BAE Avionics division). Look at Nimrod MRA4, this is what happens when you try and revolutionise old designs…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_P.1154We were so very close...
andymadmak said:
jimbobsimmonds said:
cheap + super capable never appear in the same sentance... ...
Is that in part because we insist on multi role capability for the aircraft? also it allows aircraft to fight alone. Instead of needing a strike and escort element (like Israeli F-15A and F-16A during the Osirak reactor strike) you can have a 4 ship fight their way to the target (shouldn't need to fight as with stealth it should be too late to effectively scramble aircraft to intercept), strike, and extract themselves. Allows for great flexibility in mission planning...
There is a reason multi-role is in the vogue...
Edited by jimbobsimmonds on Monday 16th August 19:41
Taffer said:
disco1 said:
Marine rafales and gripens wont cut it, both single engined and not combat proven.
Err, the French Navy say otherwise......
But, the Rafale is twin engined (as you can see in that photo
) but single engine isn't or should be an issue, as the FAA operated plenty of single donk a/c for years, incl the Sea Harrier as has the French Navy and the US Navy who have both operated single donk a/c off of carriers during the past 60 years.My, view, if we have to buy F-35, bin the B version and change to a mix of A and C for the RAF and RN appropiately....which would be cheaper.
But, if we are still having the carriers (which isn't also a given) the F-18 buy to me is the most logical. We don't need first strike stealth but we do need what the Superbug offers.
I heard that UK pilots are now going on conventional carrier take off and landing courses, is that because we might 'down grade' the F35 buying to the conventional type and not the STOVL, or might the fixed wing of the future carriers not be the F35,or are they just getting big carrier experience. Who knows.....
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff