F22 or F35 or Typhoon or Super Hornet?
Discussion
I had assumed that the F35 was going to be a more capable aircraft than the F22 based on nothing more logical than it has a bigger number and is coming out later.
Now it seems that the F35 is inferior to the 22, but I guess VSTOL was attractive. But now the UK may end up not buying the VSTOL version after all.
Should we have gone with Super Hornets instead (or a navalised Typhoon)?
Now it seems that the F35 is inferior to the 22, but I guess VSTOL was attractive. But now the UK may end up not buying the VSTOL version after all.
Should we have gone with Super Hornets instead (or a navalised Typhoon)?
The F-35A was intended to be a replacement for the F-16, i.e. the 'cheap and cheerful' class, not a competitor to the F-22.
In terms of a navalised aircraft, the F-35C or Super Hornet would probably have been better bets (navalising the Typhoon would be hugely expensive and probably deliver a flawed aircraft). Inevitably, the argument about cost of adapting training for cat. launches is brought up, but there really aren't that many Harrier pilots in the UK who are cleared for carrier ops (even most of the RN pilots haven't been on carriers too much recently - Afghanistan is a bit devoid of water).
If the new carriers are going to be built, you could argue that to open up their full potential they should have been fitted with cats, and pilots trained for cat. launches while the carriers are in build - the USN must have some spare capacity to train our pilots and advise on setting up training programs. Unfortunately, to stay 'current' on cats would require more effort and money, which is a bit of a problem - look at the sacrifices being made in the RN just to pay for these new carriers. It's a bit of a shame really - there was the opportunity to massively change our naval air capability, and deliver new carriers with the capability to work with other nations' aircraft, but we seem to have ended up with a compromised product that is forcing huge cuts from other sectors just to pay for it.
In terms of a navalised aircraft, the F-35C or Super Hornet would probably have been better bets (navalising the Typhoon would be hugely expensive and probably deliver a flawed aircraft). Inevitably, the argument about cost of adapting training for cat. launches is brought up, but there really aren't that many Harrier pilots in the UK who are cleared for carrier ops (even most of the RN pilots haven't been on carriers too much recently - Afghanistan is a bit devoid of water).
If the new carriers are going to be built, you could argue that to open up their full potential they should have been fitted with cats, and pilots trained for cat. launches while the carriers are in build - the USN must have some spare capacity to train our pilots and advise on setting up training programs. Unfortunately, to stay 'current' on cats would require more effort and money, which is a bit of a problem - look at the sacrifices being made in the RN just to pay for these new carriers. It's a bit of a shame really - there was the opportunity to massively change our naval air capability, and deliver new carriers with the capability to work with other nations' aircraft, but we seem to have ended up with a compromised product that is forcing huge cuts from other sectors just to pay for it.
Eric Mc said:
But the US Marine's Harrier is for ground attack - not a fleet defence fighter.
The Royal Navy should have upgraded their Sea Harrier FA2s.
I know it is, that but my point remains; an upgraded SHAR, following the same ethos of upgrades that the AV8 went through would have been another (probably cheaper) option. A better P2W ratio, increase in payload, and better avionics is as just as relevant for fleet defence as it is for GA aircraft.The Royal Navy should have upgraded their Sea Harrier FA2s.
Taffer said:
The F-35A was intended to be a replacement for the F-16, i.e. the 'cheap and cheerful' class, not a competitor to the F-22.
In terms of a navalised aircraft, the F-35C or Super Hornet would probably have been better bets (navalising the Typhoon would be hugely expensive and probably deliver a flawed aircraft). Inevitably, the argument about cost of adapting training for cat. launches is brought up, but there really aren't that many Harrier pilots in the UK who are cleared for carrier ops (even most of the RN pilots haven't been on carriers too much recently - Afghanistan is a bit devoid of water).
If the new carriers are going to be built, you could argue that to open up their full potential they should have been fitted with cats, and pilots trained for cat. launches while the carriers are in build - the USN must have some spare capacity to train our pilots and advise on setting up training programs. Unfortunately, to stay 'current' on cats would require more effort and money, which is a bit of a problem - look at the sacrifices being made in the RN just to pay for these new carriers. It's a bit of a shame really - there was the opportunity to massively change our naval air capability, and deliver new carriers with the capability to work with other nations' aircraft, but we seem to have ended up with a compromised product that is forcing huge cuts from other sectors just to pay for it.
Yup, the USMC are being pressurised to drop the F-35B, they afterall don't really need as well, which is that does happen, the VSTOL version would get binned, and rightly so, it's a waste of money. It's only the RAF's puffer jet mafia that wants it. The extra cost of it (for less operational ability as well In terms of a navalised aircraft, the F-35C or Super Hornet would probably have been better bets (navalising the Typhoon would be hugely expensive and probably deliver a flawed aircraft). Inevitably, the argument about cost of adapting training for cat. launches is brought up, but there really aren't that many Harrier pilots in the UK who are cleared for carrier ops (even most of the RN pilots haven't been on carriers too much recently - Afghanistan is a bit devoid of water).
If the new carriers are going to be built, you could argue that to open up their full potential they should have been fitted with cats, and pilots trained for cat. launches while the carriers are in build - the USN must have some spare capacity to train our pilots and advise on setting up training programs. Unfortunately, to stay 'current' on cats would require more effort and money, which is a bit of a problem - look at the sacrifices being made in the RN just to pay for these new carriers. It's a bit of a shame really - there was the opportunity to massively change our naval air capability, and deliver new carriers with the capability to work with other nations' aircraft, but we seem to have ended up with a compromised product that is forcing huge cuts from other sectors just to pay for it.
) would pay for cat n trap training for cheaper a/c...F-35C or off the shelf Super Hornets, or perhaps the Sea Gripen being developed by Saab as this could have some UK jobs potential with BAe's link with Saab.Navalised version of the Typhoon is a complete non-starter due to it's design.
I would argue for the F/A-18E/F as it is the only one that actually exists. It is doubtful either the F-22 or the Typhoon could ever be converted into a naval variant without huge sums of cash as they were never envisioned for carrier operations. I personally think the F-35 (all variants) is a huge boondoggle. Building another single engine fighter, particularly for carrier operations? Have we learned nothing from the F-16 and the AV-8?? And the F-35 is being built with lowest common denominator technology so that it can be sold to everyone and their brother to cover development costs. So I would go for the Super Hornet.
Naval Rafale vs F/A-18E/F is pretty much a toss up IMO.I would consider the F/A18 to be outdated. It's "relatively" slow not that manoeuvrable and it weapons package would need upgrading. The RAAF have only acquired the Super Hornet because they already have "Hornets" and need to have a "stop gap" fighter. They want the F-22 but are only being allowed the F-35. As it stands I doubt any variant of the F-35 is going to match it's performance objectives with a Power plant upgrade. As for the USMC the reason they wanted the Harrier and it continues to this day is to be independent of the USN for air support. Their own Carrier's are a lot smaller and are ideal platforms for S/VTOL aircraft. The RAF and FAA also see the need for this type of Aircraft because they are so versatile with regards to positioning in a hostile environment. Both the RAF, FAA and USMC have experience of running V/STOL aircraft and find them invaluable.
telecat said:
I would consider the F/A18 to be outdated.
Hmm a 4th Gen aircraft yes, but one that is proven, and perhaps most importantly, one that has capability for whatever systems come along in the future ensuring easy modification.Add the new APG-79 AESA radar, AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR, TRD, JHMCS, Infra-Red and Ultra-Violet MAWS, AN/ALQ-214 jammer, and Link 16/AN/USQ-140 along with two, (yes two, handy if one goes POP when you are over the ocean with no diversions) F414 engines, each having 35% more power than the preceding F404, enabling bringback in excess of 9,000 pounds and with 33% more internal fuel, increasing mission range by 41% and endurance by 50% you have a superbly equipped off the shelf solution.
And it's got a proper tailhook one that goes up and down too(tonka boys will know what I mean).
Now, WHY are we throwing money away with the F35?
Mojocvh said:
telecat said:
I would consider the F/A18 to be outdated.
Hmm a 4th Gen aircraft yes, but one that is proven, and perhaps most importantly, one that has capability for whatever systems come along in the future ensuring easy modification.Add the new APG-79 AESA radar, AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR, TRD, JHMCS, Infra-Red and Ultra-Violet MAWS, AN/ALQ-214 jammer, and Link 16/AN/USQ-140 along with two, (yes two, handy if one goes POP when you are over the ocean with no diversions) F414 engines, each having 35% more power than the preceding F404, enabling bringback in excess of 9,000 pounds and with 33% more internal fuel, increasing mission range by 41% and endurance by 50% you have a superbly equipped off the shelf solution.
And it's got a proper tailhook one that goes up and down too(tonka boys will know what I mean).
Now, WHY are we throwing money away with the F35?
telecat said:
As for the USMC the reason they wanted the Harrier and it continues to this day is to be independent of the USN for air support.
Except the reality is they are never going to go expeditionary without a USN Carrier group in tow, so it's just a willy waving contest.telecat said:
The RAF and FAA also see the need for this type of Aircraft because they are so versatile with regards to positioning in a hostile environment. Both the RAF, FAA and USMC have experience of running V/STOL aircraft and find them invaluable.
The RAF and FAA puffer jet mafia have never used a V/STOL in a hostile enviroment other than off carriers in the Falklands...and the 'V' element is only ever used in a land-on-deck situation.Therefore there's no advantage other than not having cat n trap, which was OK 30 years ago, as we had the Sea Harrier. Why spend 50% more to develop and buy a 'V' capable land-on-deck aircraft just to continue to do that. You might as well buy off the shelf and spend the money on cat n trap. Even the Indians and Brazilians are going down the cat n trap route.
F-35B is all RAF Harrier mafia driven.....bloody pointless toy.
aeropilot said:
telecat said:
As for the USMC the reason they wanted the Harrier and it continues to this day is to be independent of the USN for air support.
Except the reality is they are never going to go expeditionary without a USN Carrier group in tow, so it's just a willy waving contest.telecat said:
The RAF and FAA also see the need for this type of Aircraft because they are so versatile with regards to positioning in a hostile environment. Both the RAF, FAA and USMC have experience of running V/STOL aircraft and find them invaluable.
The RAF and FAA puffer jet mafia have never used a V/STOL in a hostile enviroment other than off carriers in the Falklands...and the 'V' element is only ever used in a land-on-deck situation.Therefore there's no advantage other than not having cat n trap, which was OK 30 years ago, as we had the Sea Harrier. Why spend 50% more to develop and buy a 'V' capable land-on-deck aircraft just to continue to do that. You might as well buy off the shelf and spend the money on cat n trap. Even the Indians and Brazilians are going down the cat n trap route.
F-35B is all RAF Harrier mafia driven.....bloody pointless toy.
aeropilot said:
telecat said:
As for the USMC the reason they wanted the Harrier and it continues to this day is to be independent of the USN for air support.
Except the reality is they are never going to go expeditionary without a USN Carrier group in tow, so it's just a willy waving contest.telecat said:
The RAF and FAA also see the need for this type of Aircraft because they are so versatile with regards to positioning in a hostile environment. Both the RAF, FAA and USMC have experience of running V/STOL aircraft and find them invaluable.
The RAF and FAA puffer jet mafia have never used a V/STOL in a hostile enviroment other than off carriers in the Falklands...and the 'V' element is only ever used in a land-on-deck situation.Therefore there's no advantage other than not having cat n trap, which was OK 30 years ago, as we had the Sea Harrier. Why spend 50% more to develop and buy a 'V' capable land-on-deck aircraft just to continue to do that. You might as well buy off the shelf and spend the money on cat n trap. Even the Indians and Brazilians are going down the cat n trap route.
F-35B is all RAF Harrier mafia driven.....bloody pointless toy.
telecat said:
Mojocvh said:
telecat said:
I would consider the F/A18 to be outdated.
Hmm a 4th Gen aircraft yes, but one that is proven, and perhaps most importantly, one that has capability for whatever systems come along in the future ensuring easy modification.Add the new APG-79 AESA radar, AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR, TRD, JHMCS, Infra-Red and Ultra-Violet MAWS, AN/ALQ-214 jammer, and Link 16/AN/USQ-140 along with two, (yes two, handy if one goes POP when you are over the ocean with no diversions) F414 engines, each having 35% more power than the preceding F404, enabling bringback in excess of 9,000 pounds and with 33% more internal fuel, increasing mission range by 41% and endurance by 50% you have a superbly equipped off the shelf solution.
And it's got a proper tailhook one that goes up and down too(tonka boys will know what I mean).
Now, WHY are we throwing money away with the F35?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff