HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
Kccv23highliftcam said:
220 said:
ecsrobin said:
Kccv23highliftcam said:
Oddly, across on pprunne, we were categorically told that they would be on ops the day after delivery!
Now I think we can forgive some "enthusiasm".
Even so, the above statement blends seamlessly into the corporate image of the program, which is far, far from the reality of the situation.
"some of the military’s oldest F-35s, aircraft availability is suffering as planes sit waiting for spare parts and for key hardware and software modifications."
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/06/01/some-of...
Guess what F35B's we are getting??
Red columns tells the shocking truth about the UK's F35 buy and lack of capabilities...
I’m sure you post this all the time? That is the standard thing for aircraft procurement. Typhoon isn’t at its full capability yet as I don’t believe it’s operational with storm shadow. Now I think we can forgive some "enthusiasm".
Even so, the above statement blends seamlessly into the corporate image of the program, which is far, far from the reality of the situation.
"some of the military’s oldest F-35s, aircraft availability is suffering as planes sit waiting for spare parts and for key hardware and software modifications."
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/06/01/some-of...
Guess what F35B's we are getting??
Red columns tells the shocking truth about the UK's F35 buy and lack of capabilities...
Someone sure f
ked up there.Suppose we could wait till 2023 so we get the new fancy planes you could then moan that we have an aircraft carrier with no aircraft for 5 years
220 said:
Seeing as it includes A, B and C aircraft, 300 for testing and training for 10 countries doesnt seem that high of a number to me. I'm also pretty sure that the block 3F usage will also help develop the block 4 aircraft with issues arising in the next 5 years.
Suppose we could wait till 2023 so we get the new fancy planes you could then moan that we have an aircraft carrier with no aircraft for 5 years
They haven't even designed the new processor let alone written software or WAIT FOR IT tested it. [little F35 black humour there btw]Suppose we could wait till 2023 so we get the new fancy planes you could then moan that we have an aircraft carrier with no aircraft for 5 years
So I think your 5 year plan is slightly optimistic considering we are almost into the third decade of JSF [which my previous clearly shows isn't "joint"] so what a colossal misuse of funding the whole shooting match has turned out be.
If your lucky QE's will end up mothballed.
If your not then it's razor blades.
The armed services CANNOT sustain this BLACK HOLE in the defence budget. ...
Kccv23highliftcam said:
Oddly, across on pprunne, we were categorically told that they would be on ops the day after delivery!
Now I think we can forgive some "enthusiasm".
Even so, the above statement blends seamlessly into the corporate image of the program, which is far, far from the reality of the situation.
"some of the military’s oldest F-35s, aircraft availability is suffering as planes sit waiting for spare parts and for key hardware and software modifications."
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/06/01/some-of...
Guess what F35B's we are getting??
Red columns tells the shocking truth about the UK's F35 buy and lack of capabilities...
Even the Yanks are breaking cover now...an example of the deceptions used to justify the programme??
Ref.
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/do...
"F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
• Extends the prohibition on retirement of the A-10 until F-35 Joint Strike Fighter initial operational testing (IOT&E) and
evaluation is completed. The NDAA also ensures the F-35 IOT&E includes comparison testing and detailed assessment
of A-10 and F-35A abilities to conduct close air support, combat search and rescue, and airborne forward air controller
missions.
Requires F-35 Follow-on Modernization program, which is estimated to cost more than $8 billion for the first block
upgrade, to be treated as a separate major defense acquisition program (MDAP). Given the Department of Defense’s poor
track record on upgrade programs like this one, a separate program will enable rigorous oversight by the Congress to
protect taxpayers.
Disbands F-35 Joint Program Office following the full rate production decision scheduled for April 2019 and devolves
responsibilities to Departments of the Navy and the Air Force. Despite aspirations for a joint aircraft, the F-35A, F-35B, and
F-35C are essentially three distinct aircraft, with significantly different missions and capability requirements. Devolving
this program to the services will help ensure the proper alignment of responsibility and accountability the F-35 program
needs and has too often lacked.
Now I think we can forgive some "enthusiasm".
Even so, the above statement blends seamlessly into the corporate image of the program, which is far, far from the reality of the situation.
"some of the military’s oldest F-35s, aircraft availability is suffering as planes sit waiting for spare parts and for key hardware and software modifications."
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/06/01/some-of...
Guess what F35B's we are getting??
Red columns tells the shocking truth about the UK's F35 buy and lack of capabilities...
Even the Yanks are breaking cover now...an example of the deceptions used to justify the programme??
Ref.
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/do...
"F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
• Extends the prohibition on retirement of the A-10 until F-35 Joint Strike Fighter initial operational testing (IOT&E) and
evaluation is completed. The NDAA also ensures the F-35 IOT&E includes comparison testing and detailed assessment
of A-10 and F-35A abilities to conduct close air support, combat search and rescue, and airborne forward air controller
missions.
Requires F-35 Follow-on Modernization program, which is estimated to cost more than $8 billion for the first block
upgrade, to be treated as a separate major defense acquisition program (MDAP). Given the Department of Defense’s poor
track record on upgrade programs like this one, a separate program will enable rigorous oversight by the Congress to
protect taxpayers.
Disbands F-35 Joint Program Office following the full rate production decision scheduled for April 2019 and devolves
responsibilities to Departments of the Navy and the Air Force. Despite aspirations for a joint aircraft, the F-35A, F-35B, and
F-35C are essentially three distinct aircraft, with significantly different missions and capability requirements. Devolving
this program to the services will help ensure the proper alignment of responsibility and accountability the F-35 program
needs and has too often lacked.
Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Saturday 18th August 14:22
Kccv23highliftcam said:
Despite aspirations for a joint aircraft, the F-35A, F-35B, and
F-35C are __essentially three distinct aircraft, with significantly different missions and capability requirements
Well who'd have thought it - 3 distinct separate services with 3 distinct and individual needs might actually need 3 different aircraft rather than modifying 1 airframe to attempt everything all three services need F-35C are __essentially three distinct aircraft, with significantly different missions and capability requirements
Why don't we ever learn from our many previous mistakes?
Kccv23highliftcam said:
Kccv23highliftcam said:
Oddly, across on pprunne, we were categorically told that they would be on ops the day after delivery!
Now I think we can forgive some "enthusiasm".
Even so, the above statement blends seamlessly into the corporate image of the program, which is far, far from the reality of the situation.
"some of the military’s oldest F-35s, aircraft availability is suffering as planes sit waiting for spare parts and for key hardware and software modifications."
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/06/01/some-of...
Guess what F35B's we are getting??
Red columns tells the shocking truth about the UK's F35 buy and lack of capabilities...
Even the Yanks are breaking cover now...an example of the deceptions used to justify the programme??
Ref.
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/do...
"F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
• Extends the prohibition on retirement of the A-10 until F-35 Joint Strike Fighter initial operational testing (IOT&E) and
evaluation is completed. The NDAA also ensures the F-35 IOT&E includes comparison testing and detailed assessment
of A-10 and F-35A abilities to conduct close air support, combat search and rescue, and airborne forward air controller
missions.
Requires F-35 Follow-on Modernization program, which is estimated to cost more than $8 billion for the first block
upgrade, to be treated as a separate major defense acquisition program (MDAP). Given the Department of Defense’s poor
track record on upgrade programs like this one, a separate program will enable rigorous oversight by the Congress to
protect taxpayers.
Disbands F-35 Joint Program Office following the full rate production decision scheduled for April 2019 and devolves
responsibilities to Departments of the Navy and the Air Force. Despite aspirations for a joint aircraft, the F-35A, F-35B, and
F-35C are essentially three distinct aircraft, with significantly different missions and capability requirements. Devolving
this program to the services will help ensure the proper alignment of responsibility and accountability the F-35 program
needs and has too often lacked.
Now I think we can forgive some "enthusiasm".
Even so, the above statement blends seamlessly into the corporate image of the program, which is far, far from the reality of the situation.
"some of the military’s oldest F-35s, aircraft availability is suffering as planes sit waiting for spare parts and for key hardware and software modifications."
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/06/01/some-of...
Guess what F35B's we are getting??
Red columns tells the shocking truth about the UK's F35 buy and lack of capabilities...
Even the Yanks are breaking cover now...an example of the deceptions used to justify the programme??
Ref.
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/do...
"F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
• Extends the prohibition on retirement of the A-10 until F-35 Joint Strike Fighter initial operational testing (IOT&E) and
evaluation is completed. The NDAA also ensures the F-35 IOT&E includes comparison testing and detailed assessment
of A-10 and F-35A abilities to conduct close air support, combat search and rescue, and airborne forward air controller
missions.
Requires F-35 Follow-on Modernization program, which is estimated to cost more than $8 billion for the first block
upgrade, to be treated as a separate major defense acquisition program (MDAP). Given the Department of Defense’s poor
track record on upgrade programs like this one, a separate program will enable rigorous oversight by the Congress to
protect taxpayers.
Disbands F-35 Joint Program Office following the full rate production decision scheduled for April 2019 and devolves
responsibilities to Departments of the Navy and the Air Force. Despite aspirations for a joint aircraft, the F-35A, F-35B, and
F-35C are essentially three distinct aircraft, with significantly different missions and capability requirements. Devolving
this program to the services will help ensure the proper alignment of responsibility and accountability the F-35 program
needs and has too often lacked.
Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Saturday 18th August 14:22
“Except that everyone seems to be expert on driving their agenda, which ever side it is.”
So what is your agenda? Did you wife run off with an F35 engineer or did you fail to become a pilot?
What is your alternative to F35 and the QE carrier then?
You are aware that the current and predicted build of the F35 to batch 13 [old block 4] does not allow it to comply with coalition ROE in current theatres of operation[s] don't you?
YOU DO KNOW THAT
No it's not ROVER either.
It's much more FUNDAMENTAL than that.
YOU DO KNOW THAT
No it's not ROVER either.
It's much more FUNDAMENTAL than that.
Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Saturday 18th August 15:01
ecsrobin said:
And we all laughed at you last time if you remember?
“Except that everyone seems to be expert on driving their agenda, which ever side it is.”
So what is your agenda? Did you wife run off with an F35 engineer or did you fail to become a pilot?
What is your alternative to F35 and the QE carrier then?
Cessation of Expeditionary Warfare for one.“Except that everyone seems to be expert on driving their agenda, which ever side it is.”
So what is your agenda? Did you wife run off with an F35 engineer or did you fail to become a pilot?
What is your alternative to F35 and the QE carrier then?
aeropilot said:
Which is what happened to the Hawkins & Power C-130 aerial fire fire tanker when it's wings folded up at low level after a retardant drop in California about 15 years ago. Again, not the ideal platform for low level fire bombing, but they are using lots of them, as replacement for all the old knackered big piston stuff that was used up until the late 80's era.
All that stuff was built for that sort of flying environment, modern stuff isn't.
Video of the C-130 crash here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybYeJVh1cew
.
That’s awful to watch All that stuff was built for that sort of flying environment, modern stuff isn't.
Video of the C-130 crash here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybYeJVh1cew
.
Kccv23highliftcam said:
ecsrobin said:
And we all laughed at you last time if you remember?
“Except that everyone seems to be expert on driving their agenda, which ever side it is.”
So what is your agenda? Did you wife run off with an F35 engineer or did you fail to become a pilot?
What is your alternative to F35 and the QE carrier then?
Cessation of Expeditionary Warfare for one.“Except that everyone seems to be expert on driving their agenda, which ever side it is.”
So what is your agenda? Did you wife run off with an F35 engineer or did you fail to become a pilot?
What is your alternative to F35 and the QE carrier then?
There is a case to be made for more expeditionary warfare, but the political will needs to be there over the long term. Politicans considering the long term, imagine that.
FWIW, Captain Jerry Kyd (HMS QE), has stated the amount of Russian activity at the moment is frightening and is also concerned with China's current posturing.
Sure, there's most likely an element of "he would say that" but I would presume he's in a reasonable position to comment.
Sure, there's most likely an element of "he would say that" but I would presume he's in a reasonable position to comment.
Captain Jerry Kyd said:
The increase in Russian activity we have seen in the last couple of years is frightening. For national security reasons, it just underlines why we need to maintain a balanced, strong, able and capable fleet. It’s been quite eye-watering for the last couple of years.
Russian submarines are more active in the north Atlantic [now than] since the Cold War and we take that very seriously.
We remain an island nation with worldwide obligations, not least foreign overseas territories but also the contingency that may be required in the South China seas, the Baltic area or across the world.
We saw that in 1982 where we are absolutely useless in predicting always the next conflict. [In the Falklands War] we had to act as a sovereign nation, on our own to safeguard British territory and British people.
Clearly the rise of Chinese seapower and the reinvigoration of Russian activity is a reminder the Royal Navy must be able to operate at range from the UK, sufficiently and able-supported and most importantly with military credibility.
Russian submarines are more active in the north Atlantic [now than] since the Cold War and we take that very seriously.
We remain an island nation with worldwide obligations, not least foreign overseas territories but also the contingency that may be required in the South China seas, the Baltic area or across the world.
We saw that in 1982 where we are absolutely useless in predicting always the next conflict. [In the Falklands War] we had to act as a sovereign nation, on our own to safeguard British territory and British people.
Clearly the rise of Chinese seapower and the reinvigoration of Russian activity is a reminder the Royal Navy must be able to operate at range from the UK, sufficiently and able-supported and most importantly with military credibility.
Cold said:
FWIW, Captain Jerry Kyd (HMS QE), has stated the amount of Russian activity at the moment is frightening and is also concerned with China's current posturing.
Sure, there's most likely an element of "he would say that" but I would presume he's in a reasonable position to comment.
ok suppose there was a war tomorrow ( or today) similar to the falklandsSure, there's most likely an element of "he would say that" but I would presume he's in a reasonable position to comment.
Captain Jerry Kyd said:
The increase in Russian activity we have seen in the last couple of years is frightening. For national security reasons, it just underlines why we need to maintain a balanced, strong, able and capable fleet. It’s been quite eye-watering for the last couple of years.
Russian submarines are more active in the north Atlantic [now than] since the Cold War and we take that very seriously.
We remain an island nation with worldwide obligations, not least foreign overseas territories but also the contingency that may be required in the South China seas, the Baltic area or across the world.
We saw that in 1982 where we are absolutely useless in predicting always the next conflict. [In the Falklands War] we had to act as a sovereign nation, on our own to safeguard British territory and British people.
Clearly the rise of Chinese seapower and the reinvigoration of Russian activity is a reminder the Royal Navy must be able to operate at range from the UK, sufficiently and able-supported and most importantly with military credibility.
Russian submarines are more active in the north Atlantic [now than] since the Cold War and we take that very seriously.
We remain an island nation with worldwide obligations, not least foreign overseas territories but also the contingency that may be required in the South China seas, the Baltic area or across the world.
We saw that in 1982 where we are absolutely useless in predicting always the next conflict. [In the Falklands War] we had to act as a sovereign nation, on our own to safeguard British territory and British people.
Clearly the rise of Chinese seapower and the reinvigoration of Russian activity is a reminder the Royal Navy must be able to operate at range from the UK, sufficiently and able-supported and most importantly with military credibility.
What equivalent to Harriers do we have, and what could be brought out of mothballs like the Vulcans
saaby93 said:
ok suppose there was a war tomorrow ( or today) similar to the falklands
What equivalent to Harriers do we have, and what could be brought out of mothballs like the Vulcans
I believe that's the point he's making. We don't really have a stash of suitable machines (or personnel) to dig out and send to war, so now is the time to spend money on re-stocking. What equivalent to Harriers do we have, and what could be brought out of mothballs like the Vulcans
saaby93 said:
ok suppose there was a war tomorrow ( or today) similar to the falklands
What equivalent to Harriers do we have, and what could be brought out of mothballs like the Vulcans
At the moment the only things we have which could fly off QE are Merlin helicopters and 9 brand new F-35s which aren't yet operational.What equivalent to Harriers do we have, and what could be brought out of mothballs like the Vulcans
We have a few Tornado GR.4s which will still be flying until next year, and the Typhoons
Nice little send off this evening. Large crowd turnout along the Hot Walls, the Round Tower and Gunwharf, all in good spirits.
HMS QE slid out of the harbour rather serenely with the crew standing to attention, the fog horn sounding and three extra rotaries on display. The band was playing on deck loud enough to be heard from the shore, and hopefully the crew could hear the public's cheers and applause from where they were.
HMS QE slid out of the harbour rather serenely with the crew standing to attention, the fog horn sounding and three extra rotaries on display. The band was playing on deck loud enough to be heard from the shore, and hopefully the crew could hear the public's cheers and applause from where they were.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff