What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?
Discussion
donutsina911 said:
Fat Fairy said:
donutsina911 said:
[b] And therein lies the rub. You've been operating them since 1969, so there's nothing more to learn eh?
Ooh, have I touched a nerve? I didn't say that as you well know.
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),
Including 1(F) Sqn in case you'd forgotten!
...enforcing the no fly zone in Iraq,
Yup, did that with 1(F). Twice.
policing a no fly zone in Kosovo....
Yup, did that with 1(F) and 4(AC). Twice. Including a rather long bombing campaign.
...and operating in Sierra Leone, didn't do that gig, but 3(F) did
I'd have thought you'd show your hosts a little more courtesy.
Discourtesy never shown by us to the RN (more often the other way round!). It's all in your mind.
We're obviously not going to agree. I'm not going to carry this on any further. It is not on topic.
[/b]
Ooh, have I touched a nerve? I didn't say that as you well know.
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),
Including 1(F) Sqn in case you'd forgotten!
...enforcing the no fly zone in Iraq,
Yup, did that with 1(F). Twice.
policing a no fly zone in Kosovo....
Yup, did that with 1(F) and 4(AC). Twice. Including a rather long bombing campaign.
...and operating in Sierra Leone, didn't do that gig, but 3(F) did
I'd have thought you'd show your hosts a little more courtesy.
Discourtesy never shown by us to the RN (more often the other way round!). It's all in your mind.
We're obviously not going to agree. I'm not going to carry this on any further. It is not on topic.
[/b]
(Still unable to get the quoting right, Sorry!!!)
Max_Torque said:
Surely, in terms of Air-Air combat, which is highly likely to be over horizon / missile based these days, being invisible to your enemies weapons systems is just about the biggest advantage possible?
Yes, in theory. Provided you really are invisible for as long as you are within your weapons range (so that you can launch an attack and leave without being seen). However, I do believe that advances in radar, combined with other sensor technologies and the direct linking of multiple sources of data will probably render the present approaches to stealth all but obsolete within 10 years and certainly within the planned service lifetimes of the airframes. We already know that maintaining stealth capabilities in service is hard to do. This being the case, it makes more sense to look at the practical capabilities of the aircraft - ability to carry large amounts of weapons, turning/fighting capability, ability to deliver the payload accurately, withstand battle damage, servicability and uptime, and so on and so forth. These are the elements that should be foremost in the minds of aircraft designers in my honest opinion. Instead all these elements are being compromised to some degree or another in the quest for stealth. Lets face it, as others on here have pointed out, the ships are better able to defend themselves and their neighbors these days -a T45 Destroyer is a good example of this. If long range stealth attacks are denied, then you end up in a close in dog fight. Under those circumstances what would you rather be in, a very manoueverable jet with good weapons payload like a Typhoon/ updated Harrier or the less chuckable F35 with its limited weapons load?
doogz said:
An F35 is not less 'chuckable' nor does it have a smaller useful payload than a Harrier. Obviously, we don't know what an 'updated Harrier' would comprise, but it's unlikely to be a more formidable aircraft than the F35.
The stuff I have read suggests that the F35 is only really stealthy when it carries all it's weapons payload internally. Under those circumstances doesn't it carry less than a Typhoon or Harrier? (genuine question)If it has to be in non stealthy mode (external stores)to match the others carrying capacity, then what's the point of stealth at all?
I have also read that the F35 has lower G limits than the T and H, and suffers from high speed handling problems. (Transonic roll off?)
Of course, this is only what I have read, and it may be nonsense. Happy to defer to one with greater knowledge
Edited by andymadmak on Tuesday 19th March 14:12
Chances are, the US for example, has a significant "anti-stealth" capability, which they certainly aren't going to crow about. They have been developing stealth for 40 years now, and again chances are, when doing detail design to achieve stealthyness (made up word?) you also learn a lot about how to defeat it!. But, Who exactly are we going to fight single handed that has this anti-stealth technology in the next 10,20,30 or even 40 years? When you consider that a basic, cheap, shoulder launched missile system (say £10k a pop) can take down a multi-billion dollar aircraft (that we can afford to build many of) surely stealth is a high priority. Yes, having space for a couple more missiles is good, but not at the expense of being shot down. With a proper stealth aircraft i'll just come back and get you on the next trip........ ;-)
Max_Torque said:
Chances are, the US for example, has a significant "anti-stealth" capability, which they certainly aren't going to crow about. They have been developing stealth for 40 years now, and again chances are, when doing detail design to achieve stealthyness (made up word?) you also learn a lot about how to defeat it!. But, Who exactly are we going to fight single handed that has this anti-stealth technology in the next 10,20,30 or even 40 years? When you consider that a basic, cheap, shoulder launched missile system (say £10k a pop) can take down a multi-billion dollar aircraft (that we can afford to build many of) surely stealth is a high priority. Yes, having space for a couple more missiles is good, but not at the expense of being shot down. With a proper stealth aircraft i'll just come back and get you on the next trip........ ;-)
If by twiddling the nobs on your radar set you can find a band that makes stealthy stuff visible then you've pretty much wasted your money on stealth. Fighting the Taliban and such like doesn't need full on stealth, and to avoid the hazards or new shoulder launched stuff we just need to pay careful attention to IR signatures and such like. Failing that, bomb from height. Failing that, use A10s (or the modern updated version)and build in survivability. Heck, even use Apaches... How many have we lost so far in the big sand pit? Fact is we are not losing aircraft to these bods during asymetric warfare to any significant degree, so we don't need stealth to the degree in which we have it (and have compromised our aircraft designs to accomodate it)to fight them.
As for who else we might fight that COULD have the bucks and technology to detect a super stealthy aircraft then I come back to my original point that if they can overcome stealth then there is no use for stealth if it compromises other functions/capabilities.
Ian Lancs said:
Radar stealth is easier than many think. There are very few materials (or combinations of materials) that exhibit stealth characteristics across a large usable bands. All you (the royal you) need a sensor operating outside the band, and whatever you're trying to see will be there.
hence the fact that stealth requires more than just materials there are certain design features which will increase radar cross section regardless of material ( there's a market for 'reverse stealth' in this way such as the radar reflectors used by small boats to make them more visible to shipping
andymadmak said:
The stuff I have read suggests that the F35 is only really stealthy when it carries all it's weapons payload internally. Under those circumstances doesn't it carry less than a Typhoon or Harrier? (genuine question)
If it has to be in non stealthy mode (external stores)to match the others carrying capacity, then what's the point of stealth at all?
I have also read that the F35 has lower G limits than the T and H, and suffers from high speed handling problems. (Transonic roll off?)
[/footnote]
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/01/looking-forward-to-an-f35-future-part-3-the-promise/#Payload_and_Bring_BackIf it has to be in non stealthy mode (external stores)to match the others carrying capacity, then what's the point of stealth at all?
I have also read that the F35 has lower G limits than the T and H, and suffers from high speed handling problems. (Transonic roll off?)
[/footnote]
Worth reading the whole thing to be honest, lots of info.
There is quite a lot of mistruth and selective quoting in here IMHO... To answer the original question, if F35 is cancelled then in my humble opinion UK plc should buy the Super Hornet. I am unconvinced that the EMALS option (in order to equip the boats for cat/trap ops) is that economically unviable as has been presented thus far, but we shall see I guess.
There was a view expressed above that 'the RAF' believe that the STOVL model should be bought because 'the ex-GR7/9 mafia' want it - as a current frontline FJ chap I consider this hoop! Everyone I know thinks that STOVL is madness in terms of capability versus a proper navalised F35 designed for cat/trap.
To counter some of the pro-FAA/anti-RAF arguments presented above (normally espoused by those with some connection to the RN, but not as aviators... - except for Sharkey Ward who must be drunk most of the time!), no one I know wants the RAF to 'own' FJ in total. That is as much a cr*p plan as spreading our assets between the Army and RN would be - the facts are that an independant Air Force works, and works well. Carrier defence and strike is best left to a specialised force that in my humble opinion should be the FAA. I agree that us RAF types didn't join up to go to sea - but let's face it we all wear uniform and will do what we are ordered to. Most of these tired, single Service arguments are fought on the internet by people who serve so far from the frontline they have to send their laundry forward. The vast majority of people (of all Services) you meet who actually do the job respect the other Services and the roles/capabilities/operational output they provide - even if they might not want to do it themselves!
Donning helmet for incoming...
There was a view expressed above that 'the RAF' believe that the STOVL model should be bought because 'the ex-GR7/9 mafia' want it - as a current frontline FJ chap I consider this hoop! Everyone I know thinks that STOVL is madness in terms of capability versus a proper navalised F35 designed for cat/trap.
To counter some of the pro-FAA/anti-RAF arguments presented above (normally espoused by those with some connection to the RN, but not as aviators... - except for Sharkey Ward who must be drunk most of the time!), no one I know wants the RAF to 'own' FJ in total. That is as much a cr*p plan as spreading our assets between the Army and RN would be - the facts are that an independant Air Force works, and works well. Carrier defence and strike is best left to a specialised force that in my humble opinion should be the FAA. I agree that us RAF types didn't join up to go to sea - but let's face it we all wear uniform and will do what we are ordered to. Most of these tired, single Service arguments are fought on the internet by people who serve so far from the frontline they have to send their laundry forward. The vast majority of people (of all Services) you meet who actually do the job respect the other Services and the roles/capabilities/operational output they provide - even if they might not want to do it themselves!
Donning helmet for incoming...
frodo_monkey said:
There was a view expressed above that 'the RAF' believe that the STOVL model should be bought because 'the ex-GR7/9 mafia' want it - as a current frontline FJ chap I consider this hoop! Everyone I know thinks that STOVL is madness in terms of capability versus a proper navalised F35 designed for cat/trap.
.
Its utterly pointless asking the RAF about STOVL, everything we are utilising those capabilities for are entirely naval in purpose and also come with a few perks to counter the obvious disadvantages. The harrier for instance embarrassed more then a few targets by being able to take off and land in weather that a cat and trapper can't leave the hanger in. There are also very useful advantages in surge rate and deck utilisation both vital to carrier ops.
doogz said:
An F35 is not less 'chuckable' nor does it have a smaller useful payload than a Harrier. Obviously, we don't know what an 'updated Harrier' would comprise, but it's unlikely to be a more formidable aircraft than the F35.
That's not really the question. Consider whether two or even three Harriers would have been better than an F-35, because that's the reality. All of the difficult work on making it do vertical stuff had already been done, even the tech to fit an afterburner and push a marginally less lumpy harrier past Mach 1 in level flight was developed decades ago. If you could cut down on the inevitable "It'd be nice if..." stuff that always happens it would have been a pretty straightforward job.Godalmighty83 said:
The C is having quite a few issues of its own at the moment, if its accel rating gets knocked back again the carrier that launched the thing could out run it.
Its utterly pointless asking the RAF about STOVL, everything we are utilising those capabilities for are entirely naval in purpose and also come with a few perks to counter the obvious disadvantages. The harrier for instance embarrassed more then a few targets by being able to take off and land in weather that a cat and trapper can't leave the hanger in. There are also very useful advantages in surge rate and deck utilisation both vital to carrier ops.
Fair enough - I hadn't considered the 'ship handling' side as I don't have much knowledge in that area (not exactly much chance of getting a Tonka on/off one...). What wx lims do the USN have with the current Nimitz class boats, any ideas? I can see the merits of being able to slow down deconflicted from the ship and then drop onto it vertically, but as you say the obvious bring-back and fuel (and therefore range) disadvantage would be why I would think the RN would want the C vice the B. Happy to wear the orthopaedic shoes and stand corrected if that isn't the case!Its utterly pointless asking the RAF about STOVL, everything we are utilising those capabilities for are entirely naval in purpose and also come with a few perks to counter the obvious disadvantages. The harrier for instance embarrassed more then a few targets by being able to take off and land in weather that a cat and trapper can't leave the hanger in. There are also very useful advantages in surge rate and deck utilisation both vital to carrier ops.
All in all the RN would probably prefer the C or at least the multiple options having cat carriers allow but I was just pointing out that there are some advantages to what otherwise looks like a mistake, its not quite all on way.
Also of interest in the B vs C argument is that the factor most often listed between them the C's larger range is a bit misleading, Cat aircraft typically come into to land with upto 30% fuel left in the tanks due to longer time in holding above and just incase of missing the wire which would require a big old blast of AB to get up again and some more time in holding, like the harrier the B cant fail to land (unless it misses the carrier anyway, in which case ban the pilots from taking LSD) and as such will normally land with 5 to 10% fuel in the tanks. That extra fuel bring back bites heavily into the C's range advantage.
The B is also much faster accelerating and has a slightly higher top speed.
Still would prefer the versatility a Cat equipped carrier would allow though. If the B is also purchased for the RAF as a tonka replacement then I can see the issue, the A would be far better all round but wont allow mixed fleets.
Also of interest in the B vs C argument is that the factor most often listed between them the C's larger range is a bit misleading, Cat aircraft typically come into to land with upto 30% fuel left in the tanks due to longer time in holding above and just incase of missing the wire which would require a big old blast of AB to get up again and some more time in holding, like the harrier the B cant fail to land (unless it misses the carrier anyway, in which case ban the pilots from taking LSD) and as such will normally land with 5 to 10% fuel in the tanks. That extra fuel bring back bites heavily into the C's range advantage.
The B is also much faster accelerating and has a slightly higher top speed.
Still would prefer the versatility a Cat equipped carrier would allow though. If the B is also purchased for the RAF as a tonka replacement then I can see the issue, the A would be far better all round but wont allow mixed fleets.
frodo_monkey said:
Carrier defence and strike is best left to a specialised force that in my humble opinion should be the FAA. I agree that us RAF types didn't join up to go to sea - but let's face it we all wear uniform and will do what we are ordered to. ..
Finally some sense O/T but I don't suppose you're in any way connected to the old XIII Sqn at Marham are you?
Edited by donutsina911 on Tuesday 19th March 20:09
Not me old bean - same aircraft, different base...
As we are on the subject of fuel etc, what does concern me with the whole QE-class boats/F35 issue is that we don't really seem to be getting the 'full deluxe' carrier package that would be desirable - air refuelling (buddy/buddy not much give), AEW (and no, SkASACS doesn't count if you're talking a proper, long range air picture), even COD apart from organic helos. I appreciate that T45 will be following the QE-class boats around the world, but even then it seems that we could do the whole package better - although how you could pay for it is another matter.
As we are on the subject of fuel etc, what does concern me with the whole QE-class boats/F35 issue is that we don't really seem to be getting the 'full deluxe' carrier package that would be desirable - air refuelling (buddy/buddy not much give), AEW (and no, SkASACS doesn't count if you're talking a proper, long range air picture), even COD apart from organic helos. I appreciate that T45 will be following the QE-class boats around the world, but even then it seems that we could do the whole package better - although how you could pay for it is another matter.
The thing that nags me, is that unlike in the old days when you could afford to have a fleet of carriers and aircraft standing by and able to step up to the mark if your leading Detachment got torpedoed amidships, a non VTOL air arm is pretty pointless if you loose the one or two places they can actually be flown from. The fact you could fly a harrier off a container ship for example, or the car park behind B&Q, surely that still counts for something?
Max_Torque said:
The thing that nags me, is that unlike in the old days when you could afford to have a fleet of carriers and aircraft standing by and able to step up to the mark if your leading Detachment got torpedoed amidships, a non VTOL air arm is pretty pointless if you loose the one or two places they can actually be flown from. The fact you could fly a harrier off a container ship for example, or the car park behind B&Q, surely that still counts for something?
Not really, if we are fighting people who have the real capability to sink our carrier which is protected by F35C's and AEW aircraft plus a nuclear sub and T45's and T23's then the ability to fly unsupported F35Bs off a container ship is not really a bonus.It is the ability to fly E3 and eventually UCAV's off the carrier that is the real bonus of the conventional carrier and why it should have been picked from the outset.
That said I think the principle issue with the carrier is that the idea for it dates all the way back to the SDR of 1998 so the development cycle to make it happen is 20 years (or more once actual capability is taken into account).
A more forward thinking replacement would be to look at what capabilities we actually want and how to achieve this preferably using solutions which involve lots of units being bought off the shelf rather than two massive bespoke items.
I would argue a large number of persistent AEW and SAR platforms (solar powered UAV, ship mounted aero stats, free flight airships, long range UAV) networked to ground and sea based SAM's and surface to surface missiles (arsenal ships) could give you a formidable capability against air and ground targets.
Combine this with an RFA type ship which can locally deploy various types of UAV and you have most of a carriers capability for far less cost and more systems which means they are far more likely to be available, where you need them when you want them.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff