Typhoon Tranche 2 order signed
Suspicion breeds confidence
I'm sure the Strike Eagle is more than capable of holding its own in air to air engagement, as far as I know its fully swing role.
...Waiting to be corrected...
...Waiting to be corrected...
Navaleye,
“…..in the event of trouble, the first thing a president asks is "Where are the carriers?..........”
Does he, does he really? Maybe in a Clancy novel but surely not today? Today he will surely want to know what the position is as regards the UN, are there any US citizens nearby, and when can we launch the first “stealthy” air strike from the Continental US of A or Guam or Gloucestershire! The carriers are merely a handy way of applying F-18’s in quantity, not a first strike weapon of choice in any recent campaign, hence the USN need for the F-35.
The USN uses it’s carriers as the RN wants to use theirs, as strike platforms to employ in applying air power ashore in support of a land or air campaign.
Pr00ne
“…..in the event of trouble, the first thing a president asks is "Where are the carriers?..........”
Does he, does he really? Maybe in a Clancy novel but surely not today? Today he will surely want to know what the position is as regards the UN, are there any US citizens nearby, and when can we launch the first “stealthy” air strike from the Continental US of A or Guam or Gloucestershire! The carriers are merely a handy way of applying F-18’s in quantity, not a first strike weapon of choice in any recent campaign, hence the USN need for the F-35.
The USN uses it’s carriers as the RN wants to use theirs, as strike platforms to employ in applying air power ashore in support of a land or air campaign.
Pr00ne
The USN uses it’s carriers as the RN wants to use theirs, as strike platforms to employ in applying air power ashore in support of a land or air campaign.
Or at sea in support of a maritime campaign................
Or at sea in support of a maritime campaign................
Suspicion breeds confidence
Pr00ne, we agree on something. The carriers are the most visible symbol of American military might, but have been hampered by lack of stealth which as you say has curtailed first night ops over the last decade.
I would be very interested to find out if the US or UK would consider a Typhoon to be capable of first night ops? I suspect not due to radar signature, but am willing to be enlightened. Anyone care to comment?
Having ths capability in the form of an F35 fleet and a flexible platform to deliver it from is a big step up in capability for UK Plc. Its just a shame the govt got its sums wrong and we are having to lose other capabilities to pay for it.
I would be very interested to find out if the US or UK would consider a Typhoon to be capable of first night ops? I suspect not due to radar signature, but am willing to be enlightened. Anyone care to comment?
Having ths capability in the form of an F35 fleet and a flexible platform to deliver it from is a big step up in capability for UK Plc. Its just a shame the govt got its sums wrong and we are having to lose other capabilities to pay for it.
Stealth is incredibly misunderstood. I've spoken to a number of -117 drivers, and it's clear that the aircraft's ability to remain undetected relies on excellent int and very, very clever flight planning, presenting the best possible aspect to enemy emitters by tailoring turn points and bank angles to slip through the gaps in radar coverage caused by the aircraft's low RCS, which reduces the effective range of enemy radar.
As soon as the enemy has a radar where you don't expect it, mobile radars, bistatic radar or airborne radars, the aircraft becomes relatively easy to detect.
Stealth has never given the level of 'invisibility' that many seem to think, and has never been a universal panacea. It certainly isn't today, and it definitely won't be by the time the JSF enters frontline service, even in it's full-up USAF form. Do you think that UK F-35s will enjoy the same level of LO as US aircraft, especially if it's still relevant?
As soon as the enemy has a radar where you don't expect it, mobile radars, bistatic radar or airborne radars, the aircraft becomes relatively easy to detect.
Stealth has never given the level of 'invisibility' that many seem to think, and has never been a universal panacea. It certainly isn't today, and it definitely won't be by the time the JSF enters frontline service, even in it's full-up USAF form. Do you think that UK F-35s will enjoy the same level of LO as US aircraft, especially if it's still relevant?
Navaleye,
CVF with F-35 will put UK Plc in the forefront of expeditionary ops with a carrier bias, it will also address medium to long term doubts about maritime AD, or lack of. With limited resources and the extremely unlikelihood of any maritime AD need in the near to medium term the GR9/GR9A is a good compromise that addresses current needs.
WEBF,
…”Or at sea in support of a maritime campaign”................
Against who for goodness sake? There is no maritime threat anywhere, that is why the USN is taking Harpoon SSM’s off their frigates, retiring the S-3 and F-14 and cutting back on SSN numbers.
Jackonicko,
I would be very surprised if the UK F-35 is ANY less stealthy than it’s US counterpart, very surprised indeed………………………….
CVF with F-35 will put UK Plc in the forefront of expeditionary ops with a carrier bias, it will also address medium to long term doubts about maritime AD, or lack of. With limited resources and the extremely unlikelihood of any maritime AD need in the near to medium term the GR9/GR9A is a good compromise that addresses current needs.
WEBF,
…”Or at sea in support of a maritime campaign”................
Against who for goodness sake? There is no maritime threat anywhere, that is why the USN is taking Harpoon SSM’s off their frigates, retiring the S-3 and F-14 and cutting back on SSN numbers.
Jackonicko,
I would be very surprised if the UK F-35 is ANY less stealthy than it’s US counterpart, very surprised indeed………………………….
Suspicion breeds confidence
CVF with F-35 will put UK Plc in the forefront of expeditionary ops with a carrier bias, it will also address medium to long term doubts about maritime AD, or lack of. With limited resources and the extremely unlikelihood of any maritime AD need in the near to medium term the GR9/GR9A is a good compromise that addresses current needs
Against who for goodness sake? There is no maritime threat anywhere, that is why the USN is taking Harpoon SSM’s off their frigates, retiring the S-3 and F-14 and cutting back on SSN numbers.
I would be very surprised if the UK F-35 is ANY less stealthy than it’s US counterpart, very surprised indeed………………………….
Off to Rouen for Christmas, best wishes to ALL PPRuNe members.
Level One status buys us guaranteed industrial participation - Level Two get only the right to bid against domestic US suppliers. There's no such thing as workshare or offset.... which is why Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark keep looking likely to leave.
Level One status also bought us some input into the decision making process and the choice between X-32 and X-35.
It DOES NOT and HAS NOT guaranteed a particular level of technology transfer, nor does it guarantee us access to the full spec F-35. Both Lockheed-Martin and the US DoD have been asked on numerous occasions whether the UK will get the full spec aircraft, especially wrt its Stealth technologies, and they have never answered in the affirmative, or anything approaching it.
Having any faith that the US Government or Lockheed-Martin will look after the UK's interests is naive. We've already seen ASRAAM and external Storm Shadow carriage disappear from JSF (limiting the export potential of these weapons, and limiting JSF's utility to our own forces) so to assume that they'll go all the way and provide us with the full spec aircraft seems a tad optimistic. If they were going to do so, they'd say so.
Level One status also bought us some input into the decision making process and the choice between X-32 and X-35.
It DOES NOT and HAS NOT guaranteed a particular level of technology transfer, nor does it guarantee us access to the full spec F-35. Both Lockheed-Martin and the US DoD have been asked on numerous occasions whether the UK will get the full spec aircraft, especially wrt its Stealth technologies, and they have never answered in the affirmative, or anything approaching it.
Having any faith that the US Government or Lockheed-Martin will look after the UK's interests is naive. We've already seen ASRAAM and external Storm Shadow carriage disappear from JSF (limiting the export potential of these weapons, and limiting JSF's utility to our own forces) so to assume that they'll go all the way and provide us with the full spec aircraft seems a tad optimistic. If they were going to do so, they'd say so.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,528
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Guys
In a previous life (1999), the then Head of CSTO in Australia opined to me and many other non-believers in OZ that stealth was a decaying asset - what he meant was that, in his terms, ways will emerge of defeating stealth: and Jacko has described just some means as to how this might come about. Jacko (sorry to repeat) is also absolutely correct, in my view, that the US will never allow its best/latest military technology to be revealed to even its closest 'friend' - including Blair: the best bits of JSF will remain within the US. WHATEVER. PERIOD.
You could argue that Typhoon might not have the same DAY ONE strike capability of a 'new' JSF. But in tomorrow's terms, and given the 'decaying' argument, this might well be an irrelevance. WHATEVER, Typhoon will still have a very robust A/S capababilty in the near term: and given MoD money (if only), it could have a superalive capability in the longer term.
On balance, and given that I'm now a knackered old sod, I think that I might strongly prefer to edge my bets in a 2015 Typhoon cockpit rather than rather than that of a JSF. I do know where I'd rather be in an A/D match - and, given the 'on table' development potential I also know where I'd like to be if I was asked to drop stuff.
And as for a navalised version - piece of p*ss! Believe me.
In a previous life (1999), the then Head of CSTO in Australia opined to me and many other non-believers in OZ that stealth was a decaying asset - what he meant was that, in his terms, ways will emerge of defeating stealth: and Jacko has described just some means as to how this might come about. Jacko (sorry to repeat) is also absolutely correct, in my view, that the US will never allow its best/latest military technology to be revealed to even its closest 'friend' - including Blair: the best bits of JSF will remain within the US. WHATEVER. PERIOD.
You could argue that Typhoon might not have the same DAY ONE strike capability of a 'new' JSF. But in tomorrow's terms, and given the 'decaying' argument, this might well be an irrelevance. WHATEVER, Typhoon will still have a very robust A/S capababilty in the near term: and given MoD money (if only), it could have a superalive capability in the longer term.
On balance, and given that I'm now a knackered old sod, I think that I might strongly prefer to edge my bets in a 2015 Typhoon cockpit rather than rather than that of a JSF. I do know where I'd rather be in an A/D match - and, given the 'on table' development potential I also know where I'd like to be if I was asked to drop stuff.
And as for a navalised version - piece of p*ss! Believe me.
