What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?
Discussion
UK F35s apparently deployed on operational missions for the first time, with sorties against Islamic State. No munitions delivered though.
https://news.sky.com/story/rafs-new-f35-jets-fly-o...
https://news.sky.com/story/rafs-new-f35-jets-fly-o...
Condi said:
Very expensive eye in the sky....
I get they need shake-down missions and these are probably little else, but given the hourly running cost there must be a cheaper way to deliver bombs over unopposed air space.
The fuel, manhours, flying hours and support would be costing about the same price whether the aircraft are in Norfolk or Cyprus. At least the guys get a decent tan. I get they need shake-down missions and these are probably little else, but given the hourly running cost there must be a cheaper way to deliver bombs over unopposed air space.
There have been a lot of stories in the public domain about the F-35, some of them negative, that those of us with an interest but no first hand knowledge base our opinions on.
The military, amongst other things, is a foreigb policy tool The perception that we have a capable military is just as important as the reality.
The fact that there's enough confidence in the aircraft to use it operationally, even with minimal effect in this instance, is a very positive thing.
The military, amongst other things, is a foreigb policy tool The perception that we have a capable military is just as important as the reality.
The fact that there's enough confidence in the aircraft to use it operationally, even with minimal effect in this instance, is a very positive thing.
Tony1963 said:
The fuel, manhours, flying hours and support would be costing about the same price whether the aircraft are in Norfolk or Cyprus. At least the guys get a decent tan.
That is very true, it was more a musing over the need for a cheap fighter or drone to do this type of work. Suspect it already matters little because drones will do much of the same work from now on. This generation of fighters might well be the last with a human in the cockpit. It's ironic that at the end of the cold war there was a widespread suggestion that it would be a waste of money spending money on new combat aircraft for the RAF because they wouldn't be needed. Yet the two new types bought since then have been over hostile territory almost straight away, while many of the types bought before then never saw combat with the RAF at all. The Tornado Jaguar and Buccaneer did but only after the cold war ended.
Dr Jekyll said:
It's ironic that at the end of the cold war there was a widespread suggestion that it would be a waste of money spending money on new combat aircraft for the RAF because they wouldn't be needed. Yet the two new types bought since then have been over hostile territory almost straight away, while many of the types bought before then never saw combat with the RAF at all. The Tornado Jaguar and Buccaneer did but only after the cold war ended.
I was in the RAF at the end of the Cold War and I don’t remember that suggestion at all. The Tornado was already about ten years old, and the Typhoon was still two or three cockpit sections on trestles at Warton, surrounded by men in white dust coats (I saw them). I’m 55, and I really don’t think I’ll live to see a conflict fought exclusively with unmanned aircraft.
Dr Jekyll said:
It's ironic that at the end of the cold war there was a widespread suggestion that it would be a waste of money spending money on new combat aircraft for the RAF because they wouldn't be needed. Yet the two new types bought since then have been over hostile territory almost straight away, while many of the types bought before then never saw combat with the RAF at all. The Tornado Jaguar and Buccaneer did but only after the cold war ended.
Current drones are only good against ground targets such as terrorists etc. They wouldn’t be much use against an adversary with fighter jets. Pretty sure you need 100% command of the sky to use them. Against other nations, you’ll always need fighter jets.
What’s being done over Syria etc could be done by drones. One British pilot shot down and in a cage with fuel drenched over him will be all it takes to stop us flying planes over places with nutters in control.
Although in the recent event I suspect otherwise.
Whilst the US has countless expendable Predators - the drone that Iran recently zapped was the version of the Global Hawk optimised for maritime recon of which the US Navy had only 2 in its inventory (now 1!). That's a real loss.
That said, not withstanding that the wreckage of a drone shot down at 60,000 feet will fall a long way from the point of intercept - it's curious that the Iranians, not the US, allegedly recovered and displayed the wreckage of the drone that the US claims was in international airspace.
I've read claims that there are factions within the US govt and military that are trying to drag the US against into a war with Iran against Trump's wishes - but that sounds like serious tin foil hat stuff. Maybe.
Whilst the US has countless expendable Predators - the drone that Iran recently zapped was the version of the Global Hawk optimised for maritime recon of which the US Navy had only 2 in its inventory (now 1!). That's a real loss.
That said, not withstanding that the wreckage of a drone shot down at 60,000 feet will fall a long way from the point of intercept - it's curious that the Iranians, not the US, allegedly recovered and displayed the wreckage of the drone that the US claims was in international airspace.
I've read claims that there are factions within the US govt and military that are trying to drag the US against into a war with Iran against Trump's wishes - but that sounds like serious tin foil hat stuff. Maybe.
Edited by Seight_Returns on Saturday 29th June 22:07
TTmonkey said:
Dr Jekyll said:
It's ironic that at the end of the cold war there was a widespread suggestion that it would be a waste of money spending money on new combat aircraft for the RAF because they wouldn't be needed. Yet the two new types bought since then have been over hostile territory almost straight away, while many of the types bought before then never saw combat with the RAF at all. The Tornado Jaguar and Buccaneer did but only after the cold war ended.
Current drones are only good against ground targets such as terrorists etc. They wouldn’t be much use against an adversary with fighter jets. Pretty sure you need 100% command of the sky to use them. Against other nations, you’ll always need fighter jets.
What’s being done over Syria etc could be done by drones. One British pilot shot down and in a cage with fuel drenched over him will be all it takes to stop us flying planes over places with nutters in control.
A: The state of the art in terms of UCAV
B: The potential for such a vehicle given current technological capabilities
Air force's procurement are basically path dependant, arse covered, specification and contractually straight-jacked messes. Billions are spent integrating 90s technology weapons on 70's technology aircraft when scrapping the lot would be more effective.
The technology to achieve air dominance with unmanned systems has existed for decades the will and vision is only just beginning to appear.
The reason why they haven't is probably best summed up by the following observations:
1: Air forces are lead by old pilots, mostly fighter pilots
2: When the RN launched HMS Dreadnought in 1906 they immediately obsoleted everybody else's battleships, they also cut their numerical advantage in modern battleships over all competing navies to a total of one, nobody wants to be the one who obsoletes their own air force.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff