Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

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

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

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

Old 13th Feb 2009, 07:02
  #41 (permalink)  
ro1
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam
Posts: 5
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.
ro1 is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2009, 07:35
  #42 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,646
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.

Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 13th Feb 2009 at 08:41.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2009, 09:00
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,007
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
SirToppamHat is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2009, 09:46
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 180
"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!

hulahoop7 is online now  
Old 13th Feb 2009, 10:47
  #45 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: See that little island just above France? Yeah, there...
Age: 32
Posts: 168
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?

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
Yeoman_dai is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2009, 11:28
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,335
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 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.
Wrathmonk is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2009, 11:43
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 6,042
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 ?
racedo is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2009, 14:52
  #48 (permalink)  
ro1
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam
Posts: 5
"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 [email protected] 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*
ro1 is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2009, 17:49
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 180
"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.

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.

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 is online now  
Old 13th Feb 2009, 18:00
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 180
"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 [email protected] 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?
hulahoop7 is online now  
Old 13th Feb 2009, 19:29
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tx, USA
Posts: 63
You may like to read some of Colin S. Gray's excellent work....
Barn Doors is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2009, 20:26
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2
I'm an ex-grubber. Word on the streets is that the carriers won't ever happen.
mayorofnewark is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2009, 22:45
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
mayorofnewark

For possibly the first time in my life, I appear to be speechless.
I cannot work out where to start with your post.
Tourist is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2009, 01:07
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oxenfforrdde
Posts: 160
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**
Tyres O'Flaherty is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2009, 02:55
  #55 (permalink)  
ro1
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam
Posts: 5
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.
ro1 is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2009, 11:14
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Church Fenton
Posts: 20
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.
ADVOCATE_56 is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2009, 12:01
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bury St Edmunds.
Age: 56
Posts: 196
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.
Guzlin Adnams is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2009, 18:15
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,770
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

Last edited by Double Zero; 14th Feb 2009 at 18:39.
Double Zero is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2009, 22:37
  #59 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,646
Originally Posted by Double Zero View Post
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?
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2009, 23:00
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West London
Posts: 1,018
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.
GeeRam is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.