F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
oh Stuffy, you need to do a bit more reading.
the French did not 'navalise' Rafale, they designed it as a carrier aircraft from the first time pencil touched paper.
i could probably turn my Mondeo into a Landrover Defender given enough cash, but it would not be cheap - or cheaper than just buying a Landrover Defender - and it would not be finished over the weekend. it would also be ****.
your posts are getting (got long ago...) embarrassing.
the French did not 'navalise' Rafale, they designed it as a carrier aircraft from the first time pencil touched paper.
i could probably turn my Mondeo into a Landrover Defender given enough cash, but it would not be cheap - or cheaper than just buying a Landrover Defender - and it would not be finished over the weekend. it would also be ****.
your posts are getting (got long ago...) embarrassing.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why did BAe try to sell a naval version of the Eurofighter?
Read the links.
You'll be embarrassed when the F-35 gets cancelled in 2014.
Read the links.
You'll be embarrassed when the F-35 gets cancelled in 2014.
Last edited by Stuffy; 28th Mar 2013 at 21:40.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Stuffy I know the Rafale has a naval variant why do you think I said the time for Seaphoon was when the French wanted to add it to the Eurofighter requirements. The fact is that yet again UK decision makers were shortsighted and opted to save cash today to blow truckloads of cash years later is just a typical fact of shortsighted UK defence procurement. Personally I'd get procurement well away from politicans its's always far too short term.
Trying to bodge those requirements back into the aircraft now is a non starter, a fancy vapour ware presentation does not an aircraft make.
Seaphoon was a) a political attempt by the UK government to influence the USA on certain F35 technologies (a negotiating tactic in effect, which worked btw) and b) desperate BAE marketing gimick to try and influence the Indian MMRC competition (ignoring the fact India had already bought a bunch of MIG29 carrier borne aircraft and are currently building an indigenous jet the Tejas).
Look at all the developmental problems we've had with the F35 are you really suggesting that we do do it all over again? The time to can F35 and do something else was probably 6 years ago when we still had time to spec an alternative.
Trying to bodge those requirements back into the aircraft now is a non starter, a fancy vapour ware presentation does not an aircraft make.
Seaphoon was a) a political attempt by the UK government to influence the USA on certain F35 technologies (a negotiating tactic in effect, which worked btw) and b) desperate BAE marketing gimick to try and influence the Indian MMRC competition (ignoring the fact India had already bought a bunch of MIG29 carrier borne aircraft and are currently building an indigenous jet the Tejas).
Look at all the developmental problems we've had with the F35 are you really suggesting that we do do it all over again? The time to can F35 and do something else was probably 6 years ago when we still had time to spec an alternative.
Last edited by eaglemmoomin; 28th Mar 2013 at 21:30.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shortsighted defence procurement. Definitely can't argue with that.
Dozy Civil Servants wanted to remove the gun from the Eurofighter.
The title of this thread is 'What next if the F-35 is cancelled'.
Not.
'The F-35 is a great bit of kit, no matter that it costs a fortune. And my boss says I must support it because I am a management lackey'.
Dozy Civil Servants wanted to remove the gun from the Eurofighter.
The title of this thread is 'What next if the F-35 is cancelled'.
Not.
'The F-35 is a great bit of kit, no matter that it costs a fortune. And my boss says I must support it because I am a management lackey'.
Last edited by Stuffy; 28th Mar 2013 at 21:55.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuffy,
I'm not a management lackey I'm a serving member of HM Armed Forces...how about you?
However, you have brought us back to the thread.
Frankly, if F-35 is cancelled we are up s#$t creek. There is no alternative or Plan B without spending billions on converting the carrier back to cats and traps and buying Super Hornet or Rafale. That's if we keep the Carriers at all and don't try to flog them to someone who has money and wants a big carrier.
So, lots of jobless people in the Navy and RAF, as well as BAES, and a completely toothless military.
I'm not a management lackey I'm a serving member of HM Armed Forces...how about you?
However, you have brought us back to the thread.
Frankly, if F-35 is cancelled we are up s#$t creek. There is no alternative or Plan B without spending billions on converting the carrier back to cats and traps and buying Super Hornet or Rafale. That's if we keep the Carriers at all and don't try to flog them to someone who has money and wants a big carrier.
So, lots of jobless people in the Navy and RAF, as well as BAES, and a completely toothless military.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuffy if the F35 is cancelled then our military aerospace industry is buggered as several important employers are dependent upon it for the next decade or so. We would have two next to useless leviathan aircraft carriers (or two enormous LPH to replace HMS Ocean and Invincible depending on glass half empty/half full tendencies).
I don't wish to be Mr negative but we've pretty much allocated budget for the carriers now, they are so intertwined with the aircraft that if they go then the justification for UK fixed wing naval aviation goes with them for ever. Again cancelling EMCAT (the UK version of EMALS was utterly utterly moronic) was what killed any chance of cat and trap on our carriers at least there was the likely hood of designing the thing for our carriers unlike EMALS which is designed to go in a totally different carrier (notice how no Nimitz class CVN is getting it?).
Then again the manning requirements of a Cat and Trap vessel are massive the CVN's are some 4000+ sailors, our old Audacious class carriers were 2000+ crew not including flight crew I think. The STOVL QE's are a little over 600ish from memory.
This thread really should be what we did wrong at the early design and requirements stage. Having read several studies written by naval personnel while attached to various bits of the MOD you can see the thinking and logic of our choices and why F35 got picked then you can see where some politician/the treasury tipped up and totally crapped on the idea.
I don't wish to be Mr negative but we've pretty much allocated budget for the carriers now, they are so intertwined with the aircraft that if they go then the justification for UK fixed wing naval aviation goes with them for ever. Again cancelling EMCAT (the UK version of EMALS was utterly utterly moronic) was what killed any chance of cat and trap on our carriers at least there was the likely hood of designing the thing for our carriers unlike EMALS which is designed to go in a totally different carrier (notice how no Nimitz class CVN is getting it?).
Then again the manning requirements of a Cat and Trap vessel are massive the CVN's are some 4000+ sailors, our old Audacious class carriers were 2000+ crew not including flight crew I think. The STOVL QE's are a little over 600ish from memory.
This thread really should be what we did wrong at the early design and requirements stage. Having read several studies written by naval personnel while attached to various bits of the MOD you can see the thinking and logic of our choices and why F35 got picked then you can see where some politician/the treasury tipped up and totally crapped on the idea.
Last edited by eaglemmoomin; 28th Mar 2013 at 22:19.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say the word management, and I reach for my gun.
In 1934, work on the two Cunard Liners, Queen Mary and Elizabeth was stopped. This was the bottom of the Great Depression.
I expect 2014, to be about the same point.
Work will be stopped on the two carriers.
If one reads my link, a navalised Eurofighter will not need a catapult. Just a ski ramp like the Admiral Kuznetzov of the Russian Navy.
The point of this thread, is, 'What Next'? If the F-35 is cancelled.
Not the pros and cons of the F-35.
I wish people would address the issue.
It is not impossible that the F-35 is cancelled.
In 1934, work on the two Cunard Liners, Queen Mary and Elizabeth was stopped. This was the bottom of the Great Depression.
I expect 2014, to be about the same point.
Work will be stopped on the two carriers.
If one reads my link, a navalised Eurofighter will not need a catapult. Just a ski ramp like the Admiral Kuznetzov of the Russian Navy.
The point of this thread, is, 'What Next'? If the F-35 is cancelled.
Not the pros and cons of the F-35.
I wish people would address the issue.
It is not impossible that the F-35 is cancelled.
Well if your assumption
is correct, it will be largely irrelevant. Typhoon FGR4, 5 and 6 will stay in service till their planned OSD (and beyond). We will look at procuring something off the shelf in 2025/30/35/40 as, when and if the economy picks up.
Just as an aside, it wasn't
but an RAF 2 star
Work will be stopped on the two carriers.
Just as an aside, it wasn't
Dozy Civil Servants wanted to remove the gun from the Eurofighter
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 28th Mar 2013 at 22:52.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuffy you do realise that most of the first CVF QE has been already stuck together. In a couple of months it will be floated out of No1 dock in Roysth.
The carriers would still HAVE to be built the UK gov has a binding commitment to provide work equivalent to two naval vessels a year until 2020ish. This is what 'retaining a sovereign ship building capability' really means. This was the deal agreed to stop BAE shutting down all the yards while the government constantly buggered about over several years of delays and constant mind changes with signing the contract for CVF (intended originally to be delivered this year with Harriers operating off it after trials in 2014ish) and T26 (which they still have not done).
Stuffy you don't just wire an arrestor to the back of a Typhoon and cross your fingers and hope for the best.
The nose wheel will have to vastly strengthened to not collapse as it goes off the ramp and when it crashes onto the deck when arrested. What are its slow speed handling charecteristics when trying to get back on the deck. Could the Typhoon get off the deck with a meaningful load of fuel and weapons without a catapult, how much would it's range be effected. The F35 uses both wing lift and jet borne lift from the massive lift fan to get off the deck (max weapon load of 15,000 pounds or over double Harrier) in a short takeoff. How much runway does the Seaphoon actually need for meaningful loads? Whats the sortie and recovery rate like because of these issues in comparison to the F35B.
Because it can't get back on deck as easily as a STOVL/VTOL aircraft you need organic AAR available from the carrier when you can't trap and your eating into the fuel reserve. It goes on and on.
All of these things generate hundreds and thousands of requirements that have to be approved it would take years and lots of money to actually make Seaphoon a reality and the costs would be prohibitive because of the small buy.
Hence why the treasury would just laugh and take away all the toys.
The carriers would still HAVE to be built the UK gov has a binding commitment to provide work equivalent to two naval vessels a year until 2020ish. This is what 'retaining a sovereign ship building capability' really means. This was the deal agreed to stop BAE shutting down all the yards while the government constantly buggered about over several years of delays and constant mind changes with signing the contract for CVF (intended originally to be delivered this year with Harriers operating off it after trials in 2014ish) and T26 (which they still have not done).
Stuffy you don't just wire an arrestor to the back of a Typhoon and cross your fingers and hope for the best.
The nose wheel will have to vastly strengthened to not collapse as it goes off the ramp and when it crashes onto the deck when arrested. What are its slow speed handling charecteristics when trying to get back on the deck. Could the Typhoon get off the deck with a meaningful load of fuel and weapons without a catapult, how much would it's range be effected. The F35 uses both wing lift and jet borne lift from the massive lift fan to get off the deck (max weapon load of 15,000 pounds or over double Harrier) in a short takeoff. How much runway does the Seaphoon actually need for meaningful loads? Whats the sortie and recovery rate like because of these issues in comparison to the F35B.
Because it can't get back on deck as easily as a STOVL/VTOL aircraft you need organic AAR available from the carrier when you can't trap and your eating into the fuel reserve. It goes on and on.
All of these things generate hundreds and thousands of requirements that have to be approved it would take years and lots of money to actually make Seaphoon a reality and the costs would be prohibitive because of the small buy.
Hence why the treasury would just laugh and take away all the toys.
Last edited by eaglemmoomin; 28th Mar 2013 at 23:08.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 53
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wetter or not the F35B will be cancelled will be entirely dependant on how the struggle for funds will unravel between the US different defense departements.
USAF and NAVY have already painted a bulls eye on the STOVL F35B for the MARINES, the LHA project is pretty much death after the first 2 (out of a planned six) 'carriers'.
The fight for money has just begun and it is not entirely unfathomable that the B version will be placed on the chopping block to assure the rest of the F35 purchase, 260C's for the NAVY and a decent amount of A's for the USAF will inevitably drive the unit price further up (because of the cut B's) but as a whole ,the acquisition price will be substantially lower and further development and commonality will be greatly simplified and improved with the most difficult version out of the way.
Money, money and money will be the biggest enemy of the F35,many of the originally planned purchasing numbers will simply never come to fruitation, UK, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Holland, Italy and even the USAF will most likely either not order at all (not USAF) or order a substantially lower amount of JSF's.
3130 copies could very well be closer to 2200-2500 (included the likely singapore and JAPAN ones) as soon as reality sets in.
The easiest way to save money will be to get rid of the B version, no matter how much the UK wants it.
Looking at the size of the Marines and more importantly the likely future generals in charge in the Pentagon, the Marines will have to come to terms with the fact that their JSF ratonalisation is the most difficult to defend.
I really like the UK's 2 new Carriers and contrary to what so many people claim, I do think that they can serve many useful missions in the future but I really fear that they could fall victim to what could very possibly happen in the US once the Obama administration makes the long overdue cuts in the government budget.
The last 2 years of his presidency could very well turn out in his electoral favor, the house and the senate will most likely go all democrate, once this happens all bets are of as to what will happen with the Defense budget, the JSF will never be cut, the USAF just has no other alternative but the B elimination is more than just a distant possibility.
So back to the original question, for the UK, what will happen when the F35B is cancelled?
Not many people might want to hear it but a (temporary until a midlife update point where some Cats can be installed)-skijump in combination with some SH's (or yes, even a Seaphoon) and some arrestor hooks might well be a solution.
Given the relatively low wingload , high T/W ration and rather long run to a fairly big skijump, I wouldn't be surprised that they can take off at almost MTOW, with as little as 15-20 knots WoD.
Besides a navalized Typhoon will undoubtly be expensive but EF consortium already calculated that it (CAT+TRAP outfit) will add about 2,500lbs over the OEW and most of the Typhoon systems are already very well protected against a saline environment.
USAF and NAVY have already painted a bulls eye on the STOVL F35B for the MARINES, the LHA project is pretty much death after the first 2 (out of a planned six) 'carriers'.
The fight for money has just begun and it is not entirely unfathomable that the B version will be placed on the chopping block to assure the rest of the F35 purchase, 260C's for the NAVY and a decent amount of A's for the USAF will inevitably drive the unit price further up (because of the cut B's) but as a whole ,the acquisition price will be substantially lower and further development and commonality will be greatly simplified and improved with the most difficult version out of the way.
Money, money and money will be the biggest enemy of the F35,many of the originally planned purchasing numbers will simply never come to fruitation, UK, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Holland, Italy and even the USAF will most likely either not order at all (not USAF) or order a substantially lower amount of JSF's.
3130 copies could very well be closer to 2200-2500 (included the likely singapore and JAPAN ones) as soon as reality sets in.
The easiest way to save money will be to get rid of the B version, no matter how much the UK wants it.
Looking at the size of the Marines and more importantly the likely future generals in charge in the Pentagon, the Marines will have to come to terms with the fact that their JSF ratonalisation is the most difficult to defend.
I really like the UK's 2 new Carriers and contrary to what so many people claim, I do think that they can serve many useful missions in the future but I really fear that they could fall victim to what could very possibly happen in the US once the Obama administration makes the long overdue cuts in the government budget.
The last 2 years of his presidency could very well turn out in his electoral favor, the house and the senate will most likely go all democrate, once this happens all bets are of as to what will happen with the Defense budget, the JSF will never be cut, the USAF just has no other alternative but the B elimination is more than just a distant possibility.
So back to the original question, for the UK, what will happen when the F35B is cancelled?
Not many people might want to hear it but a (temporary until a midlife update point where some Cats can be installed)-skijump in combination with some SH's (or yes, even a Seaphoon) and some arrestor hooks might well be a solution.
Given the relatively low wingload , high T/W ration and rather long run to a fairly big skijump, I wouldn't be surprised that they can take off at almost MTOW, with as little as 15-20 knots WoD.
Besides a navalized Typhoon will undoubtly be expensive but EF consortium already calculated that it (CAT+TRAP outfit) will add about 2,500lbs over the OEW and most of the Typhoon systems are already very well protected against a saline environment.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kbrockman... apparently you missed the news that Singapore has just signed up for an initial buy of 12 F-35B, with the intent of buying 75 total.
That means the F-35B will have 3 confirmed foreign buyers in addition to the USMC, and if Spain ever gets some spare cash they have declared they will replace their Harriers with F-35Bs, making 4 international buyers.
This will put F-35B numbers* to nearly twice that of F-35C** (485-600+ vs 340).
There is discussion that this total will drive the unit cost of the F-35B to equal or below that of F-35C... which would eliminate the claimed economic case for canceling the F-35B, especially considering that development of the -B is further along than that of the -C.
Canceling F-35C, accelerating development of the carrier-capable UCAV, and buying more F/A-18E/Fs would save more money than canceling F-35B.
However, I really don't see any version being canceled.
After all, Australia, the UK, and Turkey are all still firmly committed (Turkey is to purchase ~100 F-35A), as are Norway & Israel.
* 340 USMC + 75 Singapore + 48-138 UK +22-50+ Italy
** 260 USN + 80 USMC
That means the F-35B will have 3 confirmed foreign buyers in addition to the USMC, and if Spain ever gets some spare cash they have declared they will replace their Harriers with F-35Bs, making 4 international buyers.
This will put F-35B numbers* to nearly twice that of F-35C** (485-600+ vs 340).
There is discussion that this total will drive the unit cost of the F-35B to equal or below that of F-35C... which would eliminate the claimed economic case for canceling the F-35B, especially considering that development of the -B is further along than that of the -C.
Canceling F-35C, accelerating development of the carrier-capable UCAV, and buying more F/A-18E/Fs would save more money than canceling F-35B.
However, I really don't see any version being canceled.
After all, Australia, the UK, and Turkey are all still firmly committed (Turkey is to purchase ~100 F-35A), as are Norway & Israel.
* 340 USMC + 75 Singapore + 48-138 UK +22-50+ Italy
** 260 USN + 80 USMC
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 29th Mar 2013 at 03:39.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Seaphoon was an option years ago when the French wanted to have the capability in Eurofighter and we nixed it (they buggered off not long after) because we didn't need carrier borne EFA, ooops.....
Last edited by ORAC; 29th Mar 2013 at 08:59.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Rafale is what a tonne or two lighter is it not? Slightly longer legged but not quite as fast but it's engines are more efficient, something like that? They also wanted a larger work share, and a true swing role aircraft. Which lets face it is where the Typhoon is now going (far far too late imho) and has got to go if we want to off load some of the Tranche 3 jets that we contractually obligated to buy to buy. I honestly think the French got the Rafale more right than we did with the Typhoon at least initially. I still think we as in the other Eurofighther nations nixed what the France wanted though as we all split off and started the Typhoon development from memory.
Typhoon's development was severely dented by the consortuim of nations, that's why it's taking so long to get there. Lucky we had Tornado to do the other stuff. There was always talk of a 'navalized' Typhoon - one of the restrictions on the size and weight from the days when the French were in the programme. But it may be much more than a hook and a bigger nose gear leg; the internal structure wasn't designed for too many arrested landings.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wetter or not the F35B will be cancelled will be entirely dependant on how the struggle for funds will unravel between the US different defense departements. USAF and NAVY have already painted a bulls eye on the STOVL F35B for the MARINES, the LHA project is pretty much death after the first 2 (out of a planned six) 'carriers'. The fight for money has just begun and it is not entirely unfathomable that the B version will be placed on the chopping block to assure the rest of the F35 purchase, 260C's for the NAVY and a decent amount of A's for the USAF will inevitably drive the unit price further up (because of the cut B's) but as a whole ,the acquisition price will be substantially lower and further development and commonality will be greatly simplified and improved with the most difficult version out of the way. Money, money and money will be the biggest enemy of the F35,many of the originally planned purchasing numbers will simply never come to fruitation, UK, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Holland, Italy and even the USAF will most likely either not order at all (not USAF) or order a substantially lower amount of JSF's. 3130 copies could very well be closer to 2200-2500 (included the likely singapore and JAPAN ones) as soon as reality sets in. The easiest way to save money will be to get rid of the B version, no matter how much the UK wants it. Looking at the size of the Marines and more importantly the likely future generals in charge in the Pentagon, the Marines will have to come to terms with the fact that their JSF ratonalisation is the most difficult to defend. I really like the UK's 2 new Carriers and contrary to what so many people claim, I do think that they can serve many useful missions in the future but I really fear that they could fall victim to what could very possibly happen in the US once the Obama administration makes the long overdue cuts in the government budget. The last 2 years of his presidency could very well turn out in his electoral favor, the house and the senate will most likely go all democrate, once this happens all bets are of as to what will happen with the Defense budget, the JSF will never be cut, the USAF just has no other alternative but the B elimination is more than just a distant possibility. So back to the original question, for the UK, what will happen when the F35B is cancelled? Not many people might want to hear it but a (temporary until a midlife update point where some Cats can be installed)-skijump in combination with some SH's (or yes, even a Seaphoon) and some arrestor hooks might well be a solution. Given the relatively low wingload , high T/W ration and rather long run to a fairly big skijump, I wouldn't be surprised that they can take off at almost MTOW, with as little as 15-20 knots WoD. Besides a navalized Typhoon will undoubtly be expensive but EF consortium already calculated that it (CAT+TRAP outfit) will add about 2,500lbs over the OEW and most of the Typhoon systems are already very well protected against a saline environment.
The LHA already built/in build are Flight 0 the follow on will be flight 1 and will have the dock added back in while retaining the additional air capability (I suspect they will get even bigger). The original plan was for four LHA now it's two. The America's are not cancelled the build rate has been slowed and a redesign is happening to make them more like the older LHA's. There are more B's in the buy than C's which will be the last jet off the lot.
Obviously because in the UK the F35 is so inextricably linked to our carriers and the 'centrepiece' of our defence strategy and we are a Tier 1 nation anyone with an interest in the F35 would know all this.
STOBAR is the worst solution of them all, all the bad bits of cat and trap and VSTOL opeartion rolled into one sub optimal mess. If the UK were to go STOBAR that would be it we'd have a crap capability for decades and still have most of the equipment, training, qualification and man power penaties of having gone Cat+Trap. Without the range, carry and secondary airframe benefits of a Cat+Trap carrier.
Honestly if you were the treasury and had the defence minister in front of you'd be saying:
So first of all we delayed building the carriers and added several billion onto the cost then changed our mind mid way through build about the planes and carriers (after having already messed about with the design at least four times during the design stage (CVF is actually the 'delta' design)). Now we've decided to bin the plane again after having spent all the development money and more money testing and training effort on them. So we'll be ripping two fully built carriers apart to fit arresting gear (a big job in it's self) then down the line we'll rip them apart again. We will also be then spending more development time, testing and money on another plane to make it fit for UK naval air requirements. Have I got all of that right?
'Close the door on your way out by the way old boy'.
The F35 'replacement' if it happens is keeping more of our Typhoon tranche 3 (the ones without a funded AESA radar as of yet) and adding more capability to it to turn it into the aircraft I personally think it should always have been. But from a naval strike perspective and Force 2020 I think you'd be ripping up the strategy and changing the doctrine as we would not be 'doing' naval strike at all.
Last edited by eaglemmoomin; 29th Mar 2013 at 14:16.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typhoon's development was severely dented by the consortuim of nations, that's why it's taking so long to get there. Lucky we had Tornado to do the other stuff. There was always talk of a 'navalized' Typhoon - one of the restrictions on the size and weight from the days when the French were in the programme. But it may be much more than a hook and a bigger nose gear leg; the internal structure wasn't designed for too many arrested landings.
Then again without the utterly stupendous cock up, losing the enormous Indian MMRCA contract and the Saudi buy would we be getting all the goodies onto Typhoon and some industry funding of other bits of capability? We've already stuffed it in Brazil as well.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think cancelling the F35B would be great for us in the long term.
It would obviously mean having to refit the ships as soon as they're completed, therefore not getting either of them into service before 2020, but that would allow HM government to legitimately not make the F35C operational before 2020 and pin it on the Americans for cancelling our chosen varient while staying loyal to the programme overall.
Net result would be an awful lot of pressure relieved from the procurement budget up to 2020 and we could keep (and fully upgrade) T1 Typhoon as well as buy a few more...eventually replacing the oldest T1 airframes as we begin to finally get F35C into service. We'd end up with the aircraft that actually suits our needs and the deep strike role, which it supposed to now be fulfilling.
It would of course, pip the current story to become the most farcical procurement in history!
It would obviously mean having to refit the ships as soon as they're completed, therefore not getting either of them into service before 2020, but that would allow HM government to legitimately not make the F35C operational before 2020 and pin it on the Americans for cancelling our chosen varient while staying loyal to the programme overall.
Net result would be an awful lot of pressure relieved from the procurement budget up to 2020 and we could keep (and fully upgrade) T1 Typhoon as well as buy a few more...eventually replacing the oldest T1 airframes as we begin to finally get F35C into service. We'd end up with the aircraft that actually suits our needs and the deep strike role, which it supposed to now be fulfilling.
It would of course, pip the current story to become the most farcical procurement in history!
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally think keeping T1 for QRA only and some 'austere' air to ground capability is a valid approach.
However if the JSF gets canned in particular the B then we just close the book on Carrier air as we won't be able to afford the additional cash burden post 2020 what with CROWSNEST, T26, Successor, MHPC, FRES. Apache upgrades (or whatever replaces it) still all to pay for. Maritime patrol when it comes back or have we not noticed the farcical UOR procurement for you guessed it UAS patrol solutions for the RN and draw down of the Seaking AEW fleet.
Thats the normal trick of moving it all to the right, covering your ears singling la la la and hoping the whole rotten edifice doesn't come tumbling down on top of you when you have a third of the time to do four times the amount of work. It's why we are in the huge steaming mess we are already in.
I'd rather we stick to the original bloody plan (we'd already have sodding supercarriers with aircraft on them if we had). I understand that development is tough and things go wrong and integration and testing is always the thing that no one realisticaly budgets for and is always the thing that rips the bum out of a military project. But constantly going backwards and forwards makes a an already bad situation even worse.
If the current plan doesn't 'fly' then forget it ditch the lot and move on and stop whining about not having UK 'carrier' air.
Cats+Traps, non existent Hawkeye buys etc etc and crack on making the best out of another horrific procurement mess the Typhoon.
Also DPOC got binned several times. Do we really need long range low level nap of the earth bombing runs? How many Tornado's have gotten bricked? I'd rather leave that for UCAV's when they come on stream in 30, 40 years (current UCAV's have a million miles to go imho).
However if the JSF gets canned in particular the B then we just close the book on Carrier air as we won't be able to afford the additional cash burden post 2020 what with CROWSNEST, T26, Successor, MHPC, FRES. Apache upgrades (or whatever replaces it) still all to pay for. Maritime patrol when it comes back or have we not noticed the farcical UOR procurement for you guessed it UAS patrol solutions for the RN and draw down of the Seaking AEW fleet.
Thats the normal trick of moving it all to the right, covering your ears singling la la la and hoping the whole rotten edifice doesn't come tumbling down on top of you when you have a third of the time to do four times the amount of work. It's why we are in the huge steaming mess we are already in.
I'd rather we stick to the original bloody plan (we'd already have sodding supercarriers with aircraft on them if we had). I understand that development is tough and things go wrong and integration and testing is always the thing that no one realisticaly budgets for and is always the thing that rips the bum out of a military project. But constantly going backwards and forwards makes a an already bad situation even worse.
If the current plan doesn't 'fly' then forget it ditch the lot and move on and stop whining about not having UK 'carrier' air.
Cats+Traps, non existent Hawkeye buys etc etc and crack on making the best out of another horrific procurement mess the Typhoon.
Also DPOC got binned several times. Do we really need long range low level nap of the earth bombing runs? How many Tornado's have gotten bricked? I'd rather leave that for UCAV's when they come on stream in 30, 40 years (current UCAV's have a million miles to go imho).
Last edited by eaglemmoomin; 29th Mar 2013 at 15:15.