JSF - if we lose it to save £9bn, we'll be using Typhoon...

[Yeoman_dai]

SO, as the title says - MoD are considering sacking off JSF, cause it'll cost £9bn and we havn't paid for it yet, hence solving our £1.5bn defense budget hole - I believe there is another thread on this very forum discussing it. However, what I would like to put out there, is would we actually gain from using Typhoons instead of JFS from the carriers.

They can carry more ordenance, their more manouverable, and they'll force the Govt to install a proper CATOBAR system, meaning we can get a decent AEW frame on it, and we're buying the d*mn things anyway, so may as well make use of them.

On the other hand, we lose out on the stealth, which, if we ever got into a real high intensity conflict, seems to me to be an excellent thing to have on our side. Plus the F35 has more current avionics (?)

So what do people think is the best answer...?

[barnstormer1968]

Can I just check if I have understood what you are asking. You seem to be saying would we be better off if we pull out of JSF (which is under development) and design a whole new aircraft from scratch, but based around the existing Typhoon. As naval aircraft are very different from land based types, we would have no idea of it's weapon carrying ability or weight, or it's manoeuvrability in naval form. What percentage of the new Typhoon do you see as using the same parts as the existing Typhoon, and do you see Britain going alone in it's production?
I'm only asking as I'm curious as to your own thoughts. If I were being troublesome I'd probably ask which service you feel should fly it from carriers:E

[RichardIC]

Lovely idea,... 'ceptin how as Typhoon was never designed to land on no carrier.... so it would have to be adapted... which is another way of saying redesigned... which would take 10 years and involve a whole load of expensive imponderables....

Then you'd have to fit CATOBAR to the carriers... more delays... more money

Total bill?... quick guess...

£9 billion.... kerrching!

[The Helpful Stacker]

Technicalities aside, you'd never hear the end of the tin foil hat brigade in the RN calling it a scam by those nasty people in the RAF to get rid of the WAFU.

Like they need an excuse to bleat their paranoia.:ugh:

[Ken Scott]

Speaking as a light blue uniformed person, any navalised Typhoon should be definitely flown by dark blue FAA types, as we much prefer our runways to stay still, attached to land and close to home!

[Jackonicko]

If binning 66 JSFs saves £9 Bn, they're costing £136 Bn each, unit programme cost. That's some affordable fighter!

But if we want to really save money, and fund all the other priorities, then bin them, and bin the flipping carriers too.

[Radar Command T/O]

Well for a start, why not claw some of it back from RBS who want to spend £1bn of govt bailout money on staff performance bonuses? If they've got that much spare money now to spend on bonuses, surely we gave them too much?

Unbelievable that the UK is throwing hundreds of billions of pounds at banks while the armed forces are reduced to squabbling over pocket change.

[Yeoman_dai]

barnstormer.... much as I admire that admirable cynicism ;) BAe have already carried out conversions and tests on a EF, and have found out that it works. Plus, the carriers are currently in building, so don't require any expensive retrofitting - their already designed to bolt a cat and trap on anyway, if need be.

Plus, i'm advocate dark blue pilots, although cross training would be possible obviously.

and we can't bin the carriers because at the end of the day, any true strike carrier is an exceptionally useful asset.


I think a better question would be, which would give us the greatest capability? JSF or EF?

[Wader2]

If binning 66 JSFs saves £9 Bn, they're costing £136 Bn each, unit programme cost. That's some affordable fighter!

A cynic might suggest that the total bill and unit cost is a variable depending on whether you want it to be affordable or unaffordable.

If you really want something then you will move all the bolt-on items on to someone elses budget - ground equipment if is can be used for something else - works services for sqns etc etc.

If you want to prove it unaffordable then you include the flying clothing, kettle, carpets, curtains and fittings.

What would you really get for your £9bn? 66 jets or 66 jets and . . .

[Magic Mushroom]

Sweet Jesus, not this again!!!:ugh:

BAe have already carried out conversions and tests on a EF, and have found out that it works. Plus, the carriers are currently in building, so don't require any expensive retrofitting - their already designed to bolt a cat and trap on anyway, if need be.

Unless you work for BAeS YD, go and take a VERY large reality pill and think about what you've just written!

Regards,
MM

[ZH875]

Any Typhoon can land on any carrier...........






...........but only once.

[ChecklistPlease]

I like the Idea of a Navalised Typhoon. This will also open up doors for other AEW aircraft, such as the E-2 Hawk eye :ok:

But, the Crew should be FAA Dark Blue Suiters........ Keeping Fixed Wing Flying in the RN :)

[mick2088]

Deja vu. This from the House of Commons Defence Committee a few months ago.

General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: At the moment, and this is still a decision-making process going on, we are looking at buying three [F-35B], which are the Operational Test and Evaluation aircraft [due to be ordered very very shortly].

Robert Key: Beyond that?

General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: Why do we not wait and see what the Operational Test and Evaluation comes out with? [due to end 2014ish]

Robert Key: Is a marinised Typhoon still an option?

General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: That is not being looked at, no.

Robert Key: What discussions have you been having with the French about the possibility of purchasing a French aircraft that could fly on the French aircraft carriers and the British aircraft carriers?

General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: I have not been having any.

Mr Jenkin: Would we still consider buying the non-STOVL version [F-35C] if the STOVL version [F-35B] was not available?

Rear Admiral Lambert: At the beginning of the process we looked at the capability requirement needed for both carrier strike and for our future combat air capability, and the option that met the bill was STOVL. We revisit it every so often to make sure that we have got all our figures right, and the requirement right, and the answer still comes up as STOVL.

Mr Jenkin: So would we develop STOVL on our own account if the Americans did not want to develop it?

General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: The carriers are not fitted for, but could be fitted for, the carrier variant.

Chairman: Was that a yes?

General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: No, it could be - if STOVL went, which I think is your question?

Mr Jenkin: Yes, that is what I am asking.

General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: Then carrier variant must be an option.

[RichardIC]

Dai - BAe have not carried out any conversions or tests on a navalised Typhoon.

They have done some computer modelling and concluded that it would be feasible if anyone wanted to throw billions of quid at making it a reality.

A navalised Typhoon doesn't exist; it hasn't been funded; it hasn't been designed.

And adding cats and traps to the carriers would require considerable time and cost. There is (supposedly) some margin for future growth built into the design. But there has been no detailed work done, let alone cash set aside for the hardware. And it's not just a case of bolting the equipment on. Cats require enormous amounts of extra power that has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere doesn't exist on the current design.

And how much energy would it take to launch a Typhoon N? Answer: Dunno because it hasn't been designed and doesn't exist.

[Megawart]

Surely if the real and pertinent question was posed:

'How much does it cost to eliminate a man on a 20 year old motorcycle carrying an even older RPG",

then any answer which cost £9 billion pounds would not get past the starting post?

Or am I being naive again?

I'll get my coat.

[Wader2]

Or am I being naive again?

I'll get my coat.

Yes.

JSF and the CVS are for the war but one. Tiffy is for the next one. JFH was for the current one but now we might get rid of it.


hat, coat, umbrella (it's snowing).

[FlightTester]

BAe have already carried out conversions and tests on a EF, and have found out that it works. Plus, the carriers are currently in building, so don't require any expensive retrofitting - their already designed to bolt a cat and trap on anyway, if need be.

Really! Was that on DA2 or DA4, the only reason I ask is that when I worked on them they hadn't had any such testing carried out, and I haven't heard anything from my collegues that still work at Warton to substantiate your claim. I would have thought that would be quite a major rework too - beefed up landing gear and all the fittings that it bolts to, beef up the hook, install a hook retraction hydraulic system, and beef up the frames that the hook attaches to. Then theres all the EMC testing that needs to be carried out to put an Air Force fighter onto a boat

Yep - great way to spend 9 billion quid I'd say, or you could just by some F-35's

[racedo]

Given the £12 Billion for St Athan which asks the question what is the money really being used for then how does it sit with the concept of Naval aviation in the future ?

Is the money better spent on the development of pilotless drones flown from anywhere....ok I guess this is really popular with Pilots.

If you look at Aircrew being the most important asset.........some will get big heads with statement like this.

Equipment can be replaced..eventually but air crew trained to that level cannot and while you can train others it uses up scare resources and can be delivered too late to make an impact when required.

Surely resources should be looking more at the development of pilotless aircraft / drones that can do the same thing i.e. eliminate an enemy. Bottom line whether eliminated by a JSF or Typhoon or Drone the impact is still the same.

Losing a £500k drone v a JSF with crew is an easy calculation to make but harder when you consider the impact of a Senior Defence Chief's ego.

[Sunk at Narvik]

Yeoman,

Is this a new story or just speculation on your part?

FWIW I believe the CVF design has space set aside for steam gennys for any future cats.

cheers

[hulahoop7]

There is a possible perverse logic. That is:

We're going to spend around £8bn of tranche 3 Typhoon, and £9bn on JSF.

If you go for Typhoon M, you could spend an extra £3 - 4 bn navalising the 80 or so tranche 3 aircraft (plus fit cats and traps to the 2 CVF).. and still save £5bn. You end up with a one type airforce, but fantastically expensive aircraft.

BUT - this has been done to death. There are a load of other factors - including the work you'd need to do on the airframe, CTOL training regimes, UK earnings from the JSF programme etc etc etc. Use the search function!

I think we've concluded time and again that it's JSF or nothing.

[Yeoman_dai]

once more an ill thought out question, and the limitless cynicism of the military mind gets me a shouting at. I'll try again... and I really apologise to you who have wasted your time reading the above mentions and i'll admit I should really have added the news story into the link (i've lost the damnable thing now) and not taken the info at quite such face value (note to self, stop trusting journo's). So, i'll try re-write to get an answer I was origionally looking for.


Which is the most capable airframe?

NOT could it be done, not which is more expensive, not any of the prblems i've been listed.

Which, the JSF, or the EF, if flown as part of the carrier air wing, would be the more capable airframe for ground attack, and defending the airspace?

Someone is bound to say its acedemic, and it'll never happen so there's not point speculating, but, well, humour me, i'm only young lol

[barnstormer1968]

Thank you for your admiration.:O
But no Typhoon has been fitted for, or tested fully on a carrier so I stand by what I say.
If you consider that even differing flying clothing has to be tested to ensure it's safe to use in the cockpit, then an aircraft re-made in different alloys and a differing construction, is a whole new ball game (literally)

Do you have a reference to the testing that BAE have done?. I'm sorry to be old fashioned here, but on paper the 400M looks a top aircraft, but just does not quite live up to it's computer performance in real life.

(Beags I'm sure it will be great one day, but I am thinking more of how the floor worked on a PC screen more robustly than on the finished article:rolleyes:)

[Double Zero]

To my microsopic knowledge, no Europhoon has ever had hardware for deck operations tried, though I'm sure BAe will have tried simulated projections.

About the best thing out of a conventional rather than STOVL design seems to be AEW, though that doesn't seem an insurmountable snag.

If really wishing to save money, how about warmed-over Harrier 2+ , some with buddy tanks...? They carry AMRAAMS, Sniper etc, and not many potential enemies can leg it past those !

Harrier 2+ & V-22 seems a good bet ( so won't happen ).

[Finnpog]

There was a good post on the other thread which summarised as:
If you want a 5th generation fighter - it's the JSF, if you want a 4.5th gen - then you have choices.

Rafale M or Super Hornet off the shelf are the quick answers ( and the Rafale is stunning).

[Yeoman_dai]

Britain considers £9bn JSF project pullout - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837746.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1) this is one of them, i'll endevour to locate the other one, it's on a mil news page somewhere, I just can't remember exactly where :O :\

i'm aghast, that last post was almost an actual answer!!! gosh! ;)

[Finnpog]

Damn my eyes Yeoman Dai - you're right.

I'll start altering it now:eek:

[OFBSLF]

Which is the most capable airframe?
Capable at what?

At air to air combat? At air to ground? At range carrying what ordnance? At penetrating heavily defended airspace?

A navalized Typhoon would have to be greatly redesigned, so you can't take assume that its performance would mirror the current Typhoon.

Your question simply can't be answered.

[Pontius Navigator]

There was an assessment a while back with kill ratios - how many bandits you could kill for the loss of your jet. I can't remember the absolute figures but the F22 was way ahead. The Typhoon was something like 5:1, the Rafael was, IIRC but I stand to be corrected, 1.6:1.

No match really. The study which was recent did not, again IIRC, include JSF but if it had it would presumably be like including Harrier in the fight evaluation.

There is the other old saw, you can make a bomber out of a fighter but not a fighter out of a bomber - Hurricane, Mosquito, Hunter, F3. You might suggest that the FA2 disproves that theory or that the FA2 was really a different design from a Harrier GR.

[dave_perry]

From a very reliable source -

A section had a toilet seat fitted. Instead of just getting one from B&Q and fitting it which would have cost £20 let's say, they had to have surveyors, health and safety inspectors in before hand. All of these little things added up in the end to £1,500.

If people had their head screwed on in Whitehall, then we wouldn't be having this debate..

Therefore, wouldn't keeping the Reds at Scampton save money!

Rumour has it that a move has been totted up and is in the billions, with new hangars, buildings etc.. plus the fuel that is needed to get to and from Scampton.

Dave

[Double Zero]

The Sea Harrier FA2 was equipped with overall decent kit ( GPS, link etc ) about 5 seconds before it was binned !

New - build Seajets, or Harrier 2+ with modern BVR radar /weapons, IRST & AIM9X / ASRAAM etc should be more than enough to knobble anything, plus a good A-G capability with Sniper etc ?

[Zoom]

I am also aghast at service personnel who cannot see the big picture and would remove one service's capability/platform to increase their own budget... I'm a former Army Officer and am surprised at the tunnel vision/narrow mindedness of my colleagues in all of the forces who would advocate such things.

Couldn't agree more with Poose. Some plonker re-re-restarted this tiresome debate in the DT by saying that the RAF should be binned and now everyone else is jumping in and proposing the end of every other Service. Why not let each Service do what it's best at in/on its chosen medium? The end. :*

[mr fish]

assuming it was possible to navalise typhoon, givien the cost of redesign, flight test, trials etc, how would she stack up against rafale.
or, given the hornet is available, a few F18Gs as well.
oooh, now yer talking!!!!

[Pontius Navigator]

Mr Fish, provided navalising didn't degrade the Tiffy there would be no contest. As I said 3: against Rafaele and I think 2:1 on the Hornet.

I will have to put my thinking cap on and remember where I read it.

[Tourist]

Pontious

"The study which was recent did not, again IIRC, include JSF but if it had it would presumably be like including Harrier in the fight evaluation."

"Mr Fish, provided navalising didn't degrade the Tiffy there would be no contest"

You may be correct, but you have put forward no evidence for this whatsoever.

[Engines]

YD,

I must agree with MM that this thread starts with a false premise - that Typhoon can be navalised.

If you mean could it recover to and launch from a carrier reliably, the honest answer is that it can't. Not now, not ever, not at a cost and risk that our defence budget can stand. And even if it were, for some benighted reason, made to happen, the performance of the resulting aircraft would be a huge disappointment.

It's never been 'tested' and the navalized variant has never been 'designed'. Trust me (and others) on this.

Happy to converse via PM if you wish - I've posted plenty on this subject before - do a search, take a look and come back to me if I can help more.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[dunc0936]

just a question, could the V22 Osprey be converted for AEW or are there any plans to do so? that way there would be no need for a cat to be fitted to the carriers so not spending more money on them.


Just on another note, I'm sure Im not the only one getting sick of the in fighting between the services on doing away with one service or another. I have never served and I would have thought the Admirals, Air Vice Marshalls etc would have more knowledge than me,

But looking at the bigger picture, perhaps we should be fighting the Treasury not ourselves!!!!!!

Duncan

[Cyclone733]

Pontius Navigator,

Could well have been the DERA study into the Eurofighter's BVR capability

Eurofighter Technology and Performance (http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.php)

[Pontius Navigator]

Cyclone, thank you. The figures match although the presentation is different. I guess that it was the same source albeit different article.

Tourist, I accept your apologies.

[Tourist]

Pontious.

Assuming you are being obtuse rather than just irritating,

That study has no JSF in it, so how can that answer the "Which, the JSF, or the EF, if flown as part of the carrier air wing, would be the more capable airframe for ground attack, and defending the airspace?" question that was asked by Yeoman.

You have presented figures for various carrier aircraft, but dismissed the JSF with a silly harrier comparison.

[Occasional Aviator]

YD,

accepting that marinised Typhoon is not a reality, I think there are still quite a few reasons why this really comparing apples with oranges.

Who are you fighting? What do you want to do? JSF is stealthy and can carry a small bombload against a very high threat. It can also carry a slightly bigger weaponload if it sacrifices stealth, but that means it doesn't go very far at all. Typhoon carries much more, further, but probably won't do as well against a very sophisticated enemy. I would venture to suggest that our nation's air capability would be well served by having a mix of the two types.

As for what you fly off the carrier, it's only going to be a very small part of the combat power in any significant op; having carriers is probably more about the ability to put them somewhere to make a statement than exactly what you can do with the aircraft on them.

[ro1]

Both of these aeroplanes are so much a part of ‘big war’ thinking I can’t actually believe they receive serious consideration on a forum where at least a few of the participants must have first hand knowledge of who, and where, we’re likely to be fighting over the next 30 years.

The next wars will be won by the people on the ground winning the hearts and minds of the other people on the ground. It really is that simple.

[Pontius Navigator]

Tourist, apologies but I was under the impression that the Harrier was a bomber not a fighter and that JSF would be more characteristic of a bomber-fighter than a fighter with a bomber capability.

Ed:

Having done a quick google search, while I didn't find any JSF-Tiffy comparison, I found plenty of comment that the JSF was more of a bomb truck than a fighter. In the fighter role it was less of a fighter than the F22 as its weapons fit was less capable. While smaller than the F22 and possibly less easy to spot it had shorter legs and could be out flown.

If the Tiffy is almost as good as the F22 the question is in the margins. I would bet a fighter-bomber over a bomber-fighter.

[SirToppamHat]

You're all missing the obvious solution to this. We just need to buy/build carriers that are about 9,000ft long with toilets and a fold-over roof!

I'll get me coat.

STH

[hulahoop7]

"forum where at least a few of the participants must have first hand knowledge of who, and where, we’re likely to be fighting over the next 30 years"

I didn't realise our conributors had super powers.

Tell you what ... start at 1935 and work forward 30 years and note which conflicts the UK used airpower in. Then tell me how many the UK knew we would fight.

JSF/CVF/EF will be around to meet threats for at least that period. Mix in climate change, shrinking resources, new emerging super powers, pandemics... BE PREPARED!

:ugh:

[Yeoman_dai]

Oh I don't know occasional aviator, a 40 strong strike wing is more aircraft than we deployed in total to Iraq, so i'd say thats a fairly significant amount of combat power lol

Sitoppamhat... I'm not sure, but are you taking this seriously? :p:ok:

9000ft carrier does seem a good idea though. You need about two miles to get a B52 off the ground, no? Thats about right, imagine THAT air group :P

[Wrathmonk]

Yeoman

a 40 strong strike wing is more aircraft than we deployed in total to Iraq

Are you sure? Certainly seemed to me to be a lot more there. According to here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Telic_order_of_battle) the combat air power deployed in support of TELIC 1 (or what most people refer to as Gulf War 2) was:

30 x GR4
18 x GR7
14 x F3
2 x PR9

+ 32 x multis and 27 x RW.

And if memory serves me right the FJ were split over 5 different air bases (of which only 1 (maybe 2) were within Iraq missile (SCUD) range.

[racedo]

JSF/CVF/EF will be around to meet threats for at least that period. Mix in climate change, shrinking resources, new emerging super powers, pandemics... BE PREPARED!

Valid point but how flexible can a carrier be ?

Assuming new carriers were both at home or in close to home then how quickly could they deploy to Gulf in the event of a crises where passage via The Suez was blocked. 6 weeks or less ?

[ro1]

"forum where at least a few of the participants must have first hand knowledge of who, and where, we’re likely to be fighting over the next 30 years"

I didn't realise our conributors had super powers.

And I didn’t realise you’re word-blind when it comes to the word ‘likely’…

The point being, preparing to project air power *splutter* with aircraft carriers equipped with super-duper carbon magic machines means nothing to a guy with a belief and an rpg launcher. Why is that so hard to understand?

If you have to fight him (And do you really have to fight him? Why? Is there a better way to get what you want or to keep him happy?) fight the way he chooses. Out the back of a Toyota pickup, using innovative tactics and without much in the way of mercy.

Doing so will cost slightly less than 9 billion, you don’t have to stress over collateral damage caused by your latest laser guided toy going haywire, and it makes the bad guy think twice before launching his own personal jihad.

But it was just a thought. I’ll let you get back to the flying-carbon-toy-fest now…’cos, yes, the F35 / Navalised Eurofighter clanging off a carrier is sure going to save us from all the evil in the world.

*sigh*

[hulahoop7]

"Valid point but how flexible can a carrier be ?

Assuming new carriers were both at home or in close to home then how quickly could they deploy to Gulf in the event of a crises where passage via The Suez was blocked. 6 weeks or less ?"

Suez blocked which hints at local opposition? I guess we won't be getting access to airbases either then?

OK you get access - but now you need to set up shop. Fuel, spares, people, supply lines – they all need defending. As well as pay off the locals.


A decent CVBG has all this in the box.

A CVBG also works when it's not 'fighting'. On one 6 month deployment a CVBG can demonstrate the UK's foreign policy resolve off the coast of a dozen friends or enemies. Three examples off the top of my head...

1. Civil war - UK citizens trapped – A CVF with a dozen JSF, ASAC, 5-6 Chinooks full of 1 Para and a few Apaches might be useful??? Nobody need know that they are there until the woka woka woka overhead. No need to telephone the news by setting up shop at the local airport.:suspect:

2. Insurgents having a dig at your favourite warlord off the horn of Africa? Help out.. bomb the cr*p out of the insurgent bases, and then move along without having to be drawn into the nasty business or basing, mortars and Chinese rockets.;)

3. Oil price gradually rises over the next 20 years. Falklands exploration becomes viable. South American grouping starts threatening attacks. Send a carrier and remind them that if even one platform is touched they can say goodbye to their top 20 generating powerstations.:E

The fact is big decent CVs demonstrate their utility as soon as you have one. The UK hasn't had one for over 30 years. Do you not wonder why the US finds them so useful?

[hulahoop7]

"And I didn’t realise you’re word-blind when it comes to the word ‘likely’…

The point being, preparing to project air power *splutter* with aircraft carriers equipped with super-duper carbon magic machines means nothing to a guy with a belief and an rpg launcher. Why is that so hard to understand?

If you have to fight him (And do you really have to fight him? Why? Is there a better way to get what you want or to keep him happy?) fight the way he chooses. Out the back of a Toyota pickup, using innovative tactics and without much in the way of mercy.

Doing so will cost slightly less than 9 billion, you don’t have to stress over collateral damage caused by your latest l@ser guided toy going haywire, and it makes the bad guy think twice before launching his own personal jihad.

But it was just a thought. I’ll let you get back to the flying-carbon-toy-fest now…’cos, yes, the F35 / Navalised Eurofighter clanging off a carrier is sure going to save us from all the evil in the world."

And your assuming that this is the war we will fight for the next 50 years (the projected lifespan of the carriers). My point is that ALOT changes in 50 years. We got in a lot of bother between 1935 and 1985 - and it wasn't all fighting the Adoo in the Dhofar. I'm counting 1 world war and 3 major wars - Korea, Suez and Falklands. Carriers were used for all 4.

Would you prefer the UK becomes a complete COIN force and be completely unprepared when the next big one comes along? ... and do this in a century when we face the potential for friction and conflict for dwindling resources?

[Barn Doors]

You may like to read some of Colin S. Gray's excellent work....:D

[mayorofnewark]

I'm an ex-grubber. Word on the streets is that the carriers won't ever happen.

[Tourist]

mayorofnewark

For possibly the first time in my life, I appear to be speechless.
I cannot work out where to start with your post.

[Tyres O'Flaherty]

I'm not remotely a Cv fan, but have to say Hullahoop carries the argument with his penultimate paragraph.

Fact is, this country, our home, & our family's home, has threats to it that are going to be worse than my ( god bless em ) grandparents had to face.

Things are not improving in the world, & whatever capability we can beg steal or borrow will be necessary. If we give a sh**

[ro1]

Strangely enough, young Colin’s hypotheses have formed part of my bedtime reading.

Whether we agree or not on possible future conflict scenarios, one things is certain; the JSF / Eurofighter + carrier combo is going to place us where we need not be.

Carriers are about power projection, pure and simple. Even if you believe they’re defensible in a major conflict - and I sincerely doubt it - their air groups are limited in strength and fairly inflexible operationally. They can (hopefully) defend themselves and offer reasonable support to the chaps in khaki. They will not win you a war, though if you chose to go to war with one the loss of it will very probably cause you to head home with your tail between your legs.

9 billion will buy you many things…people, information, resources and some well-trained individuals on the ground. These, my friend, are the things which are likely to win you future wars.

The JSF is a thing of wonder. Seriously. And I’ve no doubt a Eurofighter zooming around a carrier would make my heart beat faster too. But don’t waste you time pretending they’re the most effective way we can defend the realm or bring our influence to bear in the harsher places in this world, because they’re not.

[ADVOCATE_56]

As everyone seems to be agreed that we need a large degree of flexibility to deal with at present unforseeable threats, may I ask whether there continues to be support for the so-called Independent Nuclear Deterrent? It occurs to me that if HMG admits to a lifetime cost of £30Bn for Trident's replacement the true figure is going to be much greater. Lets say £50Bn over the next 50 years. Should we not be accepting that we are not a super power; that we have been unable to use Trident to deter the threats we presently face; and that Terrorists are not in any event going to be deterred by the threat of a city busting strike when they don't have any cities?

Personally I do not subscribe to the IND being our passport to a permenant seat on the UN Security Council - if mere possession of nukes is the criteria then presumably Israel; India; Pakistan; and query - N Korea would be there. I assume that the US would continue to want us there.

Thus, £30-50Bn freed up for flexible conventional forces - or £9Bn for JSF and the balance for bankers' bailouts.

[Guzlin Adnams]

A cheaper deterrent then?
Three wings of Typhoons, one of Dave b's plus Taranis etc and a wing of Dave C's for the navy. There you go, jobsagoodun.:E

[Double Zero]

Pontious,

Sorry I'm late into the fray but have been away.

I can't believe you're calling the Harrier a bomber, except for the AV-8B, GR5 5-9 apart from Harrier 2+ ...

The point is it's a proven, AMRAAM etc capable aircraft, even capable of carrying 'special' or rescued people.

It's a proven platform, and while Duncan Sandys was a berk in his time, nowadays one does not to be supersonic ( or bloody expensive ) if one's systems & weapons are !

As of course you know, carrier fighters are a very different breed from land-based aircraft; witness the pitiful at-sea handling of the Seafire, far too fragile & crap u/c ( if you don't believe me, ask my dad, he was at Salerno ! ) compared to the Hellcat which excelled but would be no match for a Spit' .

I'm pretty conviced a marinised Typhoon would be in the Spitfire category...We'd have been a lot better off in the meantime with the Hurricane !

Regards,

DZ

[Pontius Navigator]

I can't believe you're calling the Harrier a bomber, except for the AV-8B, GR5 5-9 apart from Harrier 2+ ...

The point is it's a proven, AMRAAM etc capable aircraft, even capable of carrying 'special' or rescued people.

It's a proven platform,

I am amazed.

Armament: AIM-9 Sidewinder, Maverick, Paveway II, Paveway III, Enhanced Paveway, General Purpose Bombs, CRV-7, Cluster Bombs

Look more bomber than fighter to me.

And this website seems to agree:

The primary purpose of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is to fulfill the ground attack duties now performed by aircraft like the F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-18 Hornet, and AV-8B Harrier. In other words, the JSF is often referred to as a "bomb truck" that will attack ground targets once the skies have been cleared of any enemy fighter threat by dedicated air superiority fighters like the F-22 Raptor and F-15 Eagle.

So, on what basis are you suggesting the Harrier is not a bomber?

[GeeRam]

As of course you know, carrier fighters are a very different breed from land-based aircraft; witness the pitiful at-sea handling of the Seafire, far too fragile & crap u/c ( if you don't believe me, ask my dad, he was at Salerno ! ) compared to the Hellcat which excelled but would be no match for a Spit' .

I'm pretty conviced a marinised Typhoon would be in the Spitfire category...

A good analogy.

However, it's a bit unfair to say a Hellcat was not a match for a Spit. Maybe in a non-combat aero's competition as a pure pilots aircraft, but as a weapons platform the F6F was pretty much one of the best and probably better than a Spit.
In FAA hands it was a match for Luftwaffe 109's and 190's on the odd occasions they were encounted, and the F6F had the best kill to loss ratio in the Pacific theatre against Jap Zero's, Oscar's and Tony's etc and there were more Hellcat aces (over 300) than any other US flown fighter of WW2.

[Modern Elmo]

The next wars will be won by the people on the ground winning the hearts and minds of the other people on the ground. It really is that simple.

All we need is love, umm-hmm.

[Pontius Navigator]

And beat the cr^p outta them until they see sense?

[ro1]

No, you silly little dumplings, but if you focused less on the very real wonders of aviation technology and a little more on what these things were actually being designed to do, you’d hopefully realise there are simpler, cheaper and more effective ways of delivering ordnance to a particular place and time. And isn’t that what this branch of naval aviation is meant to be about?

And yes, my Yankee chum, it is all about the love. Though not quite in the way you meant it.

Americans and irony…when will they ever learn?

[Yeoman_dai]

Dear me ro1. I'm often jumperd up and down on by member of this site because of my lack of knowledge about the workings of aircraft and their weapons - jus look at the beginning of this post. However, I am a 1st student on the subject of international relations and military history.

However, I doubt you'll believe me, or even care if you do. However, i'd ask you're background. I'm guessing, if you ARE military, then you are Army, and if you are Army, then you are infantry. Well hello, because whist at university i'm in the TA, before I go onto the regulars. Whichever way you look at it, i'm looking at it from an Army perspective at the moment.

Right, this insistance on the lack of need for carrier aircraft. Loath as I am to point to the Falklands, it a very good example of how aircraft carriers have made somethign that would have been exceptionally difficult, impossible. Just picking out a random book from the shelf above my head, I get this from Commodore Michael Clapp CB, Commander Amphibious Forces, Falklands - 'To me, from the start, our survival and overall success depended almost entirely on the Sea Harriers. We did what we could with point defence and close range weapons but that was terrifyingly little' Admiral Sir John Woodward said much the same thing. Brigadier Julien Thompson as well...'Without them we would have won' - thats from an infanteer.

You, cannot in any way shape or form sit behind your computer screen and say that we will not need the JSF - we, the British Armed Forces are finally getting a good Sea Harrier replacement - something at least with part air to air capability as well as strike capability (although I aknowledge as part of the winder argument on this forum, the jury is out on that haha) as well as being stealthy.

YES, it is a very expensive way to drop a 500ib bomb on a Toyota Hilux and a couple of Taliban, when you could have much the same effect with an A-1 Skyraider or whatever, but unlike the Skyraider it can up its performance for when we need a 5th Gen fighter capable of taking on and defeating a mediumly capable foe, sometime within the next 30 years, and that is a very very real possibility.

Yes, 'people, resources, information and some very well trained inidividual on the ground' are all useful, but none of those defend a carrier group from an airstrike, or have the capability to knock out armour, or mount a show of force, or anything as useful. Not only that, but they are very very vague - what do you mean by 'resources' - it suggests to me that you really are unsure yourself, but feel the need to defend your stance simply because somebody else has picked you up on it, which is, at best, childish, don't you think?

As i've found out, there are a lot of very knowledgable people on this forum, and most of what you say will be shot down in flames. learn to accept it, maybe?

At the end of the day, petty remarks aside, JSF will be an excellent, much needed capability for the armed forces. It fits in with the capability for medium intensity conflict we have been geared towards, and I think if you must poke holes, the British Army and Royal Airforce STRUCTURE could do with a lot more work and a good hard look, and damn the history - be it Regiments, ranks, money allocation - if its preventing the most efficient use of our resources.

I have no idea how this topic got onto this, from a question about the capability of two aircraft, compared to the other, but oh well, such is what makes these forums interesting, no?

Much love, i'll wait for a huge reply from several members dissecting that and arguing it individually, but its given me a break from dissertation writing, so I shan't complain too much ;)

[ro1]

Dai, my background is irrelevant, and even if it weren’t should my argument make no sense then my professional status counts for naught. In other words, if I’m talking nonsense, why would anyone care what my job title is?

I don’t mean to sound condescending, and I apologize if I have (or am about to) but, really, you simply don’t understand the issues here.

I’m not commenting on - for I’m not sufficiently well informed to comment upon - the merits of the F35 or the Eurofighter as a weapons system. I’m sure they’re both absolutely terrific and will entertain many a pilot, ground crew and assorted engineers for decades to come. What they will not do is provide c.9 billion pounds worth of security for your nation.

But, hey, we could argue about this for eons and you’d still mark me down as an idiot. And my ego - such as it is - is sufficiently robust for me not to stress over placing myself in peril of ‘being shot down in flames’ here or anywhere else.

I spoke earlier about irony, and it’s somewhat ironic that, as a student of ‘International relations and military history’ you hold the views you espouse. I hope that, as you advance through your course and become aware of the realities of modern warfare and the historical failures leading to many of the poor (for the west) outcomes in recent conflicts, you adopt a more open perspective on this matter, and are less entranced by the sinuous curves of a modern mud-mover and a little more focused on what your enemy is actually doing - or likely to do - and how best to beat him at his own game on the playing field of his choice.

And big hugs and kisses right back at ya’ :ok:

[Tourist]

ro1

"In other words, if I’m talking nonsense, why would anyone care what my job title is?"

Or anything alse about you......

[Yeoman_dai]

'advance through my course' gah, i'm almost completed. I refuse to get drawn into a slanging match, but I will limit myself to a few comments.

They will prove 9bn in security, because that is how much they are worth. It is impossible to protect a state with information and Special Forces. Which is what you seem to be saying.

'Security' is NOT in any way shape or form the same as investing to win one particular war, is is much much broader, so yes, they will provide security, along with EVERYTHING ELSE.

:ugh:

[Double Zero]

Pontius,

no offence but you neatly side-stepped my point about the Harrier 2+ & AMRAAM, listing only the mud movers !

Indian Sea Harriers updated to close FA2 standard with Israeli kit are another consideration ( wonder how that may work out as we're trying to flog them the Typhoon now ) ?

The British could do with a gun in a perfect world, ( I followed that sorry saga closely ) but having seen a 2+ with 6 Amraams on BOL launchers and the big engine - on trials, let's say I was impressed...

Of course the underfuselage UK gun positions are either just fitted with strakes or used for other things now, but I can't help feeling the Russian approach - a thousand very good aircraft are more use than a few dozen 'silver bullets' is correct.

I completely agree that having aircraft armed with just Sidewinders for fleet defence is nothing short of a national scandal.

I also worked on modern aiming systems at a range, quite often; it was remarkable to us that the best Test Pilot's in the world often missed dayglo targets, on preplanned routes with no opposition.

That is by no way a critiscm, just even very good humans have their limit.

Western society seems to have become obsessed with speed & "what's possible?" Rather than "what makes sense "? be it fighters, trains or cars - we need to slow down and have better 'targetting sytems' - mental or mechanical - whether it's the school run or Afghanistan !

When we were hosting a U.S.Admiral for what became the T-45 Goshawk contract, he commented " we can always get funding for sexy supersonic aircraft as they appeal to Congress -it's the important stuff which usually gets screwed !"

DZ

[Occasional Aviator]

Double Zero,

I don't understand what you're on about. It would be a national scandal if we were using aircraft only armed with a couple of sidewinders for 'fleet defence' - but my impression was that the sidewinders were for the aircraft's self-defence. 'Fleet Defence' is not a role we're getting carriers for - if you think this then you need to get hold of a copy of 'Future Navy Vision' or the Future Maritime Operational Concept and look up carrier strike. The whole idea is that the carriers are offensive

[ADVOCATE_56]

Which then triggers the question, who and what is going to protect the carriers? The Americans surround theirs with shed loads of Ad and ASW vessels, plus of course all the resupply ships too. Does the RN have the capacity adequately to protect the two carriers? If not, then are they not just going to be part of a multi-national strike force, rather than some form of national assets which is how they are currently pitched at we civvies.

[Tourist]

"Does the RN have the capacity adequately to protect the two carriers?"


Yes

[Not_a_boffin]

The carrier strike element is supposed to include the ability to provide Fleet AD when required. Painting it as mud-moving to the exclusion of all else ignores the whole point of having multi-role ac at sea.......

[glad rag]

"Does the RN have the capacity adequately to protect the two carriers tied up at Rosyth?


Yes

EFA.

[Occasional Aviator]

NaB,

I concede your point in that a small proportion of the embarked aircraft are earmarked in the air defence role - but in the scenarios envisaged in the requirement documents, this is about defending the carrier, and more to the point establishing a suitable air situation to enable strike, not "Fleet Defence". So no, not mud-moving to the exclusion of all else, but in what the RN has published, the point of having aircraft at sea is for strike. "Fleet AD" doesn't make it in to any of the official documents - unless you can tell me different.

Now, if what you're saying is that the strike element has been overplayed in order to make sure the RN gets shiny new aircraft that they really want to use for defending the fleet without having to go over any tiresome "self-licking lollipop" arguments, that's something different - but take a look at the RN ORBAT. The point about the carrier is that it will go where we need to project air power - on its own if necessary - because with the scandalously small surface fleet that we have left, to put a carrier battle group out in any sustainable way will mean we have to stop doing everything else - and don't try to convince me that we need a carrier to defend some T45s and FSCs if they decide to start going round in big groups...

[Modern Elmo]

The next wars will be won by the people on the ground winning the hearts and minds of the other people on the ground. It really is that simple.

A white person -- I assume you are a specimen of such -- who thinks that white peepul can induce love for palefaces -- "win the hearts" --among persons of color is deluded.

"Winning their hearts and minds," etc., is a somewhat disguised form of neo-colonialism.

[Finnpog]

I was under the impression that 'hearts and minds' was a philosophy and tactical option rather than exporting the Empire to the fuzzy-wuzzies.

It is the difference between not treating everyone who lives in the coutry where we are waging war as either scum, whore, target, expendable collateral or candidate for rendition.

That doesn't mean security shouldn't be at the forefront of minds on Ops - it is a healthy realisation that after 'we' have brought democracy and peace to the world we will pull back and leave it to the host nation...so you need a bit more that a puppet prime minister of a vassal state left behind.

In using this as an operating concept it might be a suprise to find out that a large chinck of people of probably 'about right' and just want to get on with their life without some geezer with a big gun (skin tone not an issue here) telling them how their life is to be led.

[Not_a_boffin]

"but in the scenarios envisaged in the requirement documents, this is about defending the carrier, and more to the point establishing a suitable air situation to enable strike, not "Fleet Defence".

Personally, I'd call what you have just described as pretty much the definition of "Fleet AD". Nobody is suggesting that the RN bimble round with clouds of f/w embarked purely to defend itself. That is an SLL.

However, there is a little more to integrated AD than defending the carrier alone. Lose an amphib and/or a solid stores RFA and any power projection op will suffer - ergo there needs to be an element of layered defence (AEW, FW fighter cover, T45 and PDMS) where and when an appropriate threat exists. The nice thing about a properly capable airwing is that it can do both OCA/DCA and strike sometimes simultaneously, sometimes sequentially as required.

Not sure what your last point is about. We only need a surface navy if we're in the game of power projection and/or large scale ops out of area, otherwise, it's OPVs and EEZ enforcement all round chaps. (Same logic also applies to RAF & Army) - we're either doing home defence or working in a global theatre - anything else is falling twixt two stools.

[Occasional Aviator]

NaB,

OK, that's fine - we seem just to be arguing over the definintion of 'Fleet Defence' - not a term that I'm aware of a strict defintion for (athough there may be one).

Now you put it like that, I think we're pretty much in agreement - although I stand by my original point, that AD is not the primary purpose of the air wing under the Carrier Strike concept.

Apologies if I appear stormy.

[LowObservable]

NaB - A very interesting encapsulation of what CVF + FJCA + MASC is all about. As you say, if there's an air threat, even from a couple of dozen not-very-well-operated MiGs or Sukhois, then you need enough FJ to protect the fleet, troops deployed ashore, and your own air assets while, at the same time, performing strike and CAS.

Anything less is the SLL, as you put it. Hence 65000 ton carriers with enough jets to do both at the same time.

If there isn't an air threat, though - it's an insurgency, civil problem, evacuation, counter-piracy, whatever - you don't need the FJ at all. You'd be better off with an updated version of the Wyvern or Skyshark, or a mini-A-10 with a hook. Indeed, that would be ideal for the Marines if they could ever get over their :mad::mad: Guadalcanal complex.

That said, I wonder what the Italians and Spanish think they are doing...

[Pontius Navigator]

The next wars will be won by the people on the ground winning the hearts and minds of the other people on the ground. It really is that simple.

A white person -- I assume you are a specimen of such -- who thinks that white peepul can induce love for palefaces -- "win the hearts" --among persons of color is deluded.

"Winning their hearts and minds," etc., is a somewhat disguised form of neo-colonialism.

Not sure what your point is as you seem to be commenting on your post further up the page.

As it happens the real hearts and minds was exactly that with SF delivering medical care to villagers in return for food and shelter and friendship - it generally worked.

[Not_a_boffin]

LO

Apart from the minor problem with the AVGAS, a Spad would do nicely - even a SLUF for that matter......!