F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO: But does the RAF get six more FJ squadrons or do the remaining 90 slip well into the 2030s?
Oh the joy
will the UK keep the Tornado's going?
when will the first Typhoon retire?
will there be a 3B Typhoon buy?
Will it be an all f-35b or there be a split F-35B and A fleet. OR will UK design and build a 6th gen fighter?
will UK sell off the 48 F-35b fleet and 2 ski jumps to Australia and build 3 real cat and trap carriers, to fly the UK gen 6 plane off of? Circle around guys, we are about to raise our glasses and sing a rousing rendition of Rule Britannia
Last edited by a1bill; 27th Nov 2015 at 02:21.
A1bill,
What a strange set of questions. Before getting to that, not everyone here that takes an interest in F-35 and questions various aspects of it or its programme is a "naysayer" thank you very much.
As for future UK buy, you seem to know more than the UK Government does about it at the moment. Well done. The rest of us will have to wait a few years to see what the plan will be.
Tornado - no reason to change the current OSD. Why would you imagine there would be?
Typhoon - when F-35 is ready to replace OR at lifex OR when further spending cuts are announced. Future buy as planned already, excepting future pilotics.
F-35A - why would that change again?
Gen 6 - you might as well be asking about Gen 7.
Australia - can buy their own F-35s. Apart from anything else, why would they want to buy second hand, early frames with limited capability when all the procurement plans were based on LM glossy brochures and the capabilities proffered theriein?
Perhaps you need to take the sketchy SDSR outline plan for what it is. The detail will slowly fill in over the next few years on the equipment front. One of the main drivers to the future is not the hardware, but the manning - some things will have to go in order to man the new stuff - RAF and RN numbers are only going up by 700 and that's got to man a couple of big boats too!
What a strange set of questions. Before getting to that, not everyone here that takes an interest in F-35 and questions various aspects of it or its programme is a "naysayer" thank you very much.
As for future UK buy, you seem to know more than the UK Government does about it at the moment. Well done. The rest of us will have to wait a few years to see what the plan will be.
Tornado - no reason to change the current OSD. Why would you imagine there would be?
Typhoon - when F-35 is ready to replace OR at lifex OR when further spending cuts are announced. Future buy as planned already, excepting future pilotics.
F-35A - why would that change again?
Gen 6 - you might as well be asking about Gen 7.
Australia - can buy their own F-35s. Apart from anything else, why would they want to buy second hand, early frames with limited capability when all the procurement plans were based on LM glossy brochures and the capabilities proffered theriein?
Perhaps you need to take the sketchy SDSR outline plan for what it is. The detail will slowly fill in over the next few years on the equipment front. One of the main drivers to the future is not the hardware, but the manning - some things will have to go in order to man the new stuff - RAF and RN numbers are only going up by 700 and that's got to man a couple of big boats too!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2017 HMS QE presumably in service but only with helicopters. 2025 first F-35s on board. There are still Harriers operating in some countries - why isn't the gap filled by buying some. It would get the ship up to speed on fixed wing operations surely. One would imagine at least some Harriers might be acquired quite fast.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having £1.6 trillion in national debt (It doubled over the past 5 years) suggests to me that how the economy is doing is an irrelevance.
Pious Pilot,
Seeing as whom the majority of that debt is owed to I doubt it...
Seeing as whom the majority of that debt is owed to I doubt it...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The country can't afford the interest, let alone reduce the debt. They'll just borrow more of something that doesn't actually exist and buy with it things that do actually exist, rinse and repeat. The country is bankrupt, but can't fail as it owes too much.
Pious Pilot,
Yes it can, especially as a substantial amount is owed to itself...
UK is an extremely long way from being anywhere near bankrupt.
Yes it can, especially as a substantial amount is owed to itself...
UK is an extremely long way from being anywhere near bankrupt.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USMC aircraft aboard our carrier ...... and able to veto any order we try to give because they can simply say "our President doesn't want that" We have no control, we have no say, what's the point in our having the carrier? Can the Americans just tell us they want the ship in the Pacific and we have to meekly send it there? Who did our taxpayers build the ship for?
Royalistflyer,
What a juvenile almost hysterical post! Ever heard of NATO?
What a juvenile almost hysterical post! Ever heard of NATO?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I've heard of NATO - and I also know that some of our top politicians are privately asking whether NATO now serves any purpose. They are asking whether NATO will still exist by 2020. So what does NATO have to do with it? Supposedly the RN is to protect this country. If the UK exits the EU, then NATO will certainly be called into question. You might have noticed that since the USSR collapsed, NATO has not served in its original function - its operations have not been to protect its members - they have been far from its geographical area of interest. We in this country should be free to pick and choose whether we will be party to any overseas action. Such involvement should be in pursuit of our national interests and nothing else.
Royalist,
On the contrary, since Crimea and Ukraine I don't think that NATO has EVER been on more solid ground. If any politician is asking whether NATO serves any purpose then they have had their heads firmly buried in the sand for about a decade and a half.
A lot of NATO is not in the EU, I don't see what on earth difference it would make to our continuing NATO membership if there is a UK exit from the EU?
Oh, and "Such involvement should be in pursuit of our national interests and nothing else." Sounds SO like the 1930's appeasement rhetoric over Czechoslovakia.
On the contrary, since Crimea and Ukraine I don't think that NATO has EVER been on more solid ground. If any politician is asking whether NATO serves any purpose then they have had their heads firmly buried in the sand for about a decade and a half.
A lot of NATO is not in the EU, I don't see what on earth difference it would make to our continuing NATO membership if there is a UK exit from the EU?
Oh, and "Such involvement should be in pursuit of our national interests and nothing else." Sounds SO like the 1930's appeasement rhetoric over Czechoslovakia.
We have no control, we have no say,
Can the Americans just tell us they want the ship in the Pacific and we have to meekly send it there?
Who did our taxpayers build the ship for?
This answer was provided in lieu of "YGBSM!"
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The USMC Harriers always enjoyed their time embarked on the Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal. The fact they could drink on board helped 
An MOU was always in place, even for exercises, so no drama, no fuss, all very normal.
The USMC fit very well alongside the RN and working closely with each other on F-35 as well as having RN pilots flying on USMC Harrier and USN Hornet squadrons only strengthens the ties.
I'll stop with the facts now....
An MOU was always in place, even for exercises, so no drama, no fuss, all very normal.
The USMC fit very well alongside the RN and working closely with each other on F-35 as well as having RN pilots flying on USMC Harrier and USN Hornet squadrons only strengthens the ties.
I'll stop with the facts now....
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I served during the 1960s at the height of the Cold War. I also know my history. The Americans - after British scientists during the War had handed over all their nuclear research and worked on the Manhattan Project - subsequently refused to share their atomic technology with us. British politicians of both parties agreed that we must develop our own atomic weapons and subsequently thermonuclear weapons. By this time the Americans agreed to supply us with some weapons the B2b, which we accepted, only to find that the design was defective and had to be replaced. This drove us to a policy of not relying on their technology.
Over the years, largely unknown now or forgotten there have been a number of such instances of unreliability in the Americans.
I'm sorry, but I am writing for our own people - not Americans - I don't care in the slightest what Americans here attempt to tell us - I have worked at sufficiently high a level in the past to know that I simply do not trust their word. We may indeed have a marvellous MOU agreement, but I'm afraid that I and some politicians I know doubt that its worth the paper. We have, in my view fallen yet again for something which we were taught the hard way decades ago not to fall for.
Ultimately we are the only people responsible for these islands. Way back at the beginning of the Cold War there was a paper issued by the Chiefs of Staff which pointed out that America's interests and ours were not always the same and that we must maintain absolute control. Does no one here remember the established procedures for supply of NATO allies from US nuclear weapons stocks held in US custody in Europe? Our British Army on the Rhine was supposed to have access to them. Well I knew the former British Commander of BAOR - Sir John Winthrop-Hackett and frankly that "access" was a joke from his point of view.
I am sure Americans here will loudly proclaim that I'm an old fogey harking back to the past. Well the past holds some very painful lessons about trusting the USA.
Over the years, largely unknown now or forgotten there have been a number of such instances of unreliability in the Americans.
I'm sorry, but I am writing for our own people - not Americans - I don't care in the slightest what Americans here attempt to tell us - I have worked at sufficiently high a level in the past to know that I simply do not trust their word. We may indeed have a marvellous MOU agreement, but I'm afraid that I and some politicians I know doubt that its worth the paper. We have, in my view fallen yet again for something which we were taught the hard way decades ago not to fall for.
Ultimately we are the only people responsible for these islands. Way back at the beginning of the Cold War there was a paper issued by the Chiefs of Staff which pointed out that America's interests and ours were not always the same and that we must maintain absolute control. Does no one here remember the established procedures for supply of NATO allies from US nuclear weapons stocks held in US custody in Europe? Our British Army on the Rhine was supposed to have access to them. Well I knew the former British Commander of BAOR - Sir John Winthrop-Hackett and frankly that "access" was a joke from his point of view.
I am sure Americans here will loudly proclaim that I'm an old fogey harking back to the past. Well the past holds some very painful lessons about trusting the USA.
Royalist,
I feel your pain, but I think you might be getting this terribly out of proportion. Think of the thousands of UK/US MOUs are, and have been, in place and have served us both extremely well. Perhaps you've just been unlucky in your experiences, your words certainly don't reflect mine.
LoneWolf's words ring true to me.
Edit to add: To be more specific, either signatory to this agreement would be able to veto an unwelcome deployment. The ship won't go anywhere the UK doesn't wish it to, the jets won't operate anywhere the US doesn't what them to. Plus the obvious support issues.
I feel your pain, but I think you might be getting this terribly out of proportion. Think of the thousands of UK/US MOUs are, and have been, in place and have served us both extremely well. Perhaps you've just been unlucky in your experiences, your words certainly don't reflect mine.
LoneWolf's words ring true to me.
Edit to add: To be more specific, either signatory to this agreement would be able to veto an unwelcome deployment. The ship won't go anywhere the UK doesn't wish it to, the jets won't operate anywhere the US doesn't what them to. Plus the obvious support issues.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norgs, Dutch and now UK again.
United Kingdom F-35B Testing | Code One Magazine
The system is clearly impressing Beck, who is a former Tornado pilot. “I simply cannot explain to you how good this sensor suite is,” he said. “It is mind-blowing. We don't actually even need to carry a weapon, albeit we can. I can track targets, identify them all, after having turned [nose] cold [away from the targets], then datalink that information to my Typhoons. The Typhoon pilots can then carry their ordnance to bear against the targets.
“So, I’ve identified everything at distances that no one thought previously possible,” Beck continued. “I’ve shared that data with other assets. I can lead them all into the fight. We are very focused on getting value for money and we can do a lot more by blending our assets.
“This jet isn’t just about the weapons — it’s a game-changing capability. The Tornado GR.4 can't just stroll into a double digit SAM MEZ [Missile Engagement Zone]. In the F-35 I can generate a wormhole in the airspace and lead everyone through it. There isn’t another platform around that can do that. This isn’t all about height and supercruise speed — it’s the ability to not be seen,” added Beck.
Waterfall added: “The F-35 is providing the pilot with all the needed information; it is largely irrelevant where that information has come from because the aircraft is manipulating all of the sensors available and taking the best of those sensors, correlating the information and presenting it to the pilot.”
Beck noted: “We can never be explicit about the true capabilities of this jet, we've got to hold our cards close because otherwise people will try to reverse engineer it. This aircraft is so sophisticated that no pilot who has actually flown it says a bad thing about it. That tells you a lot about what this can do.”
United Kingdom F-35B Testing | Code One Magazine
The system is clearly impressing Beck, who is a former Tornado pilot. “I simply cannot explain to you how good this sensor suite is,” he said. “It is mind-blowing. We don't actually even need to carry a weapon, albeit we can. I can track targets, identify them all, after having turned [nose] cold [away from the targets], then datalink that information to my Typhoons. The Typhoon pilots can then carry their ordnance to bear against the targets.
“So, I’ve identified everything at distances that no one thought previously possible,” Beck continued. “I’ve shared that data with other assets. I can lead them all into the fight. We are very focused on getting value for money and we can do a lot more by blending our assets.
“This jet isn’t just about the weapons — it’s a game-changing capability. The Tornado GR.4 can't just stroll into a double digit SAM MEZ [Missile Engagement Zone]. In the F-35 I can generate a wormhole in the airspace and lead everyone through it. There isn’t another platform around that can do that. This isn’t all about height and supercruise speed — it’s the ability to not be seen,” added Beck.
Waterfall added: “The F-35 is providing the pilot with all the needed information; it is largely irrelevant where that information has come from because the aircraft is manipulating all of the sensors available and taking the best of those sensors, correlating the information and presenting it to the pilot.”
Beck noted: “We can never be explicit about the true capabilities of this jet, we've got to hold our cards close because otherwise people will try to reverse engineer it. This aircraft is so sophisticated that no pilot who has actually flown it says a bad thing about it. That tells you a lot about what this can do.”
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
then datalink that information to my Typhoons. ]
Repeating PR puff goes nowhere. Those chosen to fly a new aircraft have multiple reasons to be verbally supportive of it; including those obvious ones of supporting their countries choice and ensuring their continued participation and career. Equally, however, if they had any other view they wouldn't be put in front of the press for interview and comment by the PR team.
In fact can you produce any aircraft type where any member of the test team has been interviewed and been derogatory of their product?
Last edited by ORAC; 28th Nov 2015 at 10:50.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact can you produce any aircraft type where any member of the test team has been interviewed and been derogatory of their product?[/QUOTE]
No, but privately, people are less diplomatic. I've yet to find anybody closely associated who has anything but exceptional things to say about it, and that is very not the case normally with projects.
No, but privately, people are less diplomatic. I've yet to find anybody closely associated who has anything but exceptional things to say about it, and that is very not the case normally with projects.
