No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key of course being that the RN per se is not to receive a single F-35 and never has been. The aircraft will belong to AOC 1 Gp whose parent service, I suspect, wouldn't shed a single tear for the demise of the carrier strike capability.
Of course, there is no reason why anyone not versed in the UK's FW C2 would understand that jets procured against a maritime strike requirement would be Joint crewed but owned, commanded and controlled by an Air Force.
Of course, there is no reason why anyone not versed in the UK's FW C2 would understand that jets procured against a maritime strike requirement would be Joint crewed but owned, commanded and controlled by an Air Force.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
orca,
At this point, who owns the 48 Dave-Bs is the least of our concerns. Indeed, if there are to be only 48 Dave-Bs (B for Boat?) and c. 100 Dave-A (A for Air Force?) then you could even paint ROYAL NAVY on the side of each one and operate them from Yeovs.
The bigger point now is that there is clearly a debate in the US about whether the USMC actually needs the STOVL capabilities of Dave-B, and if so, at what price? It is interesting to me that the USMC is going to have at least 80 Dave-C http://defensetech.org/2011/03/14/na...plan-revealed/, opening to door to an all Dave-C buy in the mid-2020s.
And as was pointed out earlier by HH's quote:
Um, yep. And the odds on this happening are shortening.
S41
At this point, who owns the 48 Dave-Bs is the least of our concerns. Indeed, if there are to be only 48 Dave-Bs (B for Boat?) and c. 100 Dave-A (A for Air Force?) then you could even paint ROYAL NAVY on the side of each one and operate them from Yeovs.
The bigger point now is that there is clearly a debate in the US about whether the USMC actually needs the STOVL capabilities of Dave-B, and if so, at what price? It is interesting to me that the USMC is going to have at least 80 Dave-C http://defensetech.org/2011/03/14/na...plan-revealed/, opening to door to an all Dave-C buy in the mid-2020s.
And as was pointed out earlier by HH's quote:
But if the US Marine Corps gives up on the F-35B, the Royal Navy is royally screwed. If design changes in the Queen Elizabeth II carrier class have been finalized, closing the door on CATOBAR and committing them to STOVL, they have even fewer viable alternatives than the US Marine Corps. The Royal Navy has no other high performance, multirole or support aircraft to fall back upon and don’t have the luxury of a sister service providing deck space for
CATOBAR aircraft to make up for lost high end capabilities on their ships. Either the Royal Navy would be forced to undergo an outrageously expensive development program of a new aircraft by itself, or go back and convert the QE IIs back to handle CATOBAR aircraft and chose from the small palette of options in this class.
CATOBAR aircraft to make up for lost high end capabilities on their ships. Either the Royal Navy would be forced to undergo an outrageously expensive development program of a new aircraft by itself, or go back and convert the QE IIs back to handle CATOBAR aircraft and chose from the small palette of options in this class.
S41
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
go back and convert the QE IIs back to handle CATOBAR aircraft
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 7th Aug 2012 at 22:19.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squirrel,
You miss my point. I was merely pointing out that there is a significant amount of ignorance surrounding the UK buy. 'The Royal Navy' left the jet game upon the 'cross decking' of the SHAR to 3 Gp if you ask me. But no-one did.
.
I have never hid my own opinion and it is very simple. We had an opportunity to buy the right aircraft with F-18E as a back up if it failed. We (IMHO) are now buying not only the wrong aircraft but there is no back up.
As to who owns it? Well, if it's cats and traps with all that entails I really can't see why anyone other than a navy would have anything to do with it. If it's the easy one then there's a strong argument for an air force owning the lot.
You miss my point. I was merely pointing out that there is a significant amount of ignorance surrounding the UK buy. 'The Royal Navy' left the jet game upon the 'cross decking' of the SHAR to 3 Gp if you ask me. But no-one did.
.I have never hid my own opinion and it is very simple. We had an opportunity to buy the right aircraft with F-18E as a back up if it failed. We (IMHO) are now buying not only the wrong aircraft but there is no back up.
As to who owns it? Well, if it's cats and traps with all that entails I really can't see why anyone other than a navy would have anything to do with it. If it's the easy one then there's a strong argument for an air force owning the lot.
It is interesting to me that the USMC is going to have at least 80 Dave-C http://defensetech.org/2011/03/14/na...plan-revealed/, opening to door to an all Dave-C buy in the mid-2020s.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No ASRAAM carried internally on F35?
According to this well known , but surprisingly well informed ,F35 critic, the F35 won't carry any ASRAAM (and it looks like no other rail launched missiles either) in its internal bay.
That'll put a serious dent in the plans of anyone (eg,UK)using the stealth advantages optimally
http://elpdefensenews.********.be/20...r-defense.html
So from originally 4 internally carried ASRAAM's to 2 in 2008 and now down to 0.
That'll put a serious dent in the plans of anyone (eg,UK)using the stealth advantages optimally
http://elpdefensenews.********.be/20...r-defense.html
Since the start of the UK signing on to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program years ago, it was briefed that one of the weapons to be cleared for internal carry by the end of systems development and demonstration (SDD) phase with UK jets was the ASRAAM AIM-132 air-to-air missile.
Now, according to a briefing by program officials earlier this year, it seems that the AIM-132 will only be cleared for outside carry--the non-stealth mode--by the end of SDD.
There have been other degraded affects with the AIM-132 and UK F-35. Back in 2008, program officials announced that it was just too much work to clear the AIM-132 for carry on internal air-to-ground hard-points. In each of the F-35's two internal weapon's bays you have one hard-point which can hold either an air-to-ground weapon or an air-to-air weapon. One door from each of the two bays can also hold an air-to-air missile. This gives the potential for the F-35 to carry 4 air-to-air missiles internally.
Originally the UK expected to have the ability to carry 4 AIM-132s internally; 2 for each weapons bay. With the 2008 announcement, that left the UK with 2 internal carry AIM-132s (hung on the internal part of one of the weapons bay doors) and the other two would be carried externally. In 2008 it was passed off that the external carry would be with low-observable hard-points to carry the missile but program officials have already stated that if you carry weapons externally, you are not stealthy.
Now, according to a briefing by program officials earlier this year, it seems that the AIM-132 will only be cleared for outside carry--the non-stealth mode--by the end of SDD.
There have been other degraded affects with the AIM-132 and UK F-35. Back in 2008, program officials announced that it was just too much work to clear the AIM-132 for carry on internal air-to-ground hard-points. In each of the F-35's two internal weapon's bays you have one hard-point which can hold either an air-to-ground weapon or an air-to-air weapon. One door from each of the two bays can also hold an air-to-air missile. This gives the potential for the F-35 to carry 4 air-to-air missiles internally.
Originally the UK expected to have the ability to carry 4 AIM-132s internally; 2 for each weapons bay. With the 2008 announcement, that left the UK with 2 internal carry AIM-132s (hung on the internal part of one of the weapons bay doors) and the other two would be carried externally. In 2008 it was passed off that the external carry would be with low-observable hard-points to carry the missile but program officials have already stated that if you carry weapons externally, you are not stealthy.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kbrockman, Uk can have what they want to pay for, if they want to put asraams internal, they can. Nothing has changed.
LO, what a waste of time looking at the link you posted. I hope he's better at his trade, army logistics
LO, what a waste of time looking at the link you posted. I hope he's better at his trade, army logistics
From Block 3 onwards ASRAAM (F-35B) and AIM-9X (A,B & C) will be cleared for release from stations 1 & 11 (outboard pylon).
Neither missile will be carried internally, nor are they candidates to do so.
Neither missile will be carried internally, nor are they candidates to do so.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're link works too!
tightest m-> fit I've seen, is that a CB panel under the insulated pipe? Weather shields?? Droppers only too as per article.....
tightest m-> fit I've seen, is that a CB panel under the insulated pipe? Weather shields?? Droppers only too as per article.....
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Neverland
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that the UK armed forces are seemingly pared to the bone the argument that the UK can have what they pay for is a great one for ditching the F35 and obtaining other kit that will allow GB to operate as a sovereign nation at a level appropriate to our real size, importance and relevance.
Any purchase of F35's is going to be too small to have any real use unless it is alongside the Yanks, even then it is simply a political cloak for US foreign policy!
As for a certain "contributors" comments re those thoughts of a serving military officer i'm just in awe at the superb rebuttal and coherently argued counter points put forward...
Any purchase of F35's is going to be too small to have any real use unless it is alongside the Yanks, even then it is simply a political cloak for US foreign policy!
As for a certain "contributors" comments re those thoughts of a serving military officer i'm just in awe at the superb rebuttal and coherently argued counter points put forward...
Last edited by Snafu351; 9th Aug 2012 at 14:47.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a certain merit to what you say, although there is also a compelling argument that when F-35 hits the streets the nations of the free world will simply fall into two categories. Those that have it and those that don't.
From my limited participation in the project I think it is a capability step change that we have never seen and few appreciate. Nothing, including so called Gen 4.5, comes close.
As for the size and status of our country and an armed forces that seemed appropriate I couldn't agree more. That's why the fact that a small wind swept rock in the north atlantic got rid of its MPA, CVS and VSTOL aircraft still confuses me!
From my limited participation in the project I think it is a capability step change that we have never seen and few appreciate. Nothing, including so called Gen 4.5, comes close.
As for the size and status of our country and an armed forces that seemed appropriate I couldn't agree more. That's why the fact that a small wind swept rock in the north atlantic got rid of its MPA, CVS and VSTOL aircraft still confuses me!
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Neverland
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of thoughts if i may; accepting that the F35 will bring a level of capability previously unseen does the long gestation have any bearing on it's effectiveness once it does eventually reach front line service, given the likelihood that the "opposition" will also not have stood still?
Secondly what does it actually mean if you are not a member of the F35 club?
Focusing on GB and being in complete agreement on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of the reductions in capability you mention how does being a member of the "F35 club" yet possessing a militarily ineffective "force" of front line jets and no other capabilities that a small maritime nation might deem useful, actually benefit GB?
Secondly what does it actually mean if you are not a member of the F35 club?
Focusing on GB and being in complete agreement on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of the reductions in capability you mention how does being a member of the "F35 club" yet possessing a militarily ineffective "force" of front line jets and no other capabilities that a small maritime nation might deem useful, actually benefit GB?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If only we had never bought Typhoon, maybe could have kept the older legacy aircraft longer (F-3, GR4, Jaguar, SHAR), bought an MPA such as P-8 or surplus P-3s and then had enough money to buy more F-35s and sooner! We could have been an all F-35 force with F-35C for the Navy and F-35A for the RAF. Instead of wasting a fortune on the disaster that is the Eurofighter programme.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"enough money to buy more F-35s and sooner! We could have been an all F-35 force with F-35C for the Navy and F-35A for the RAF. Instead of wasting a fortune on the disaster that is the Euro-fighter programme"
God forbid that anyone would suggest the Euro-fighter programme was a great success but it has actually delivered an aircraft into service
More money would not expedite delivery of the F-35 which is looking more and more like a dead duck as every year (not day, week, month...) passes
God forbid that anyone would suggest the Euro-fighter programme was a great success but it has actually delivered an aircraft into service
More money would not expedite delivery of the F-35 which is looking more and more like a dead duck as every year (not day, week, month...) passes
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snafu,
The answer to your question is (as we all know) that any system's capability against a threat will suffer due to long gestation as that threat either develops or changes completely. Somewhere in this thread or a similar one someone posed the question as to the F-35s stealth and in what part of the spectrum it was stealthy. i.e. one sensor may not see it but another possibly could.
The other thing to consider is that requirements change as well as threats. If you buy a machine for a full-up state-on-state scrap that never happens you will 'waste' a lot of money and end up with a system that isn't as good at other stuff as legacy systems. Thinking COIN specifically. However, defence as always been about insurance policies, so you might not want to be without the full-up capability.
In answer to your question about what happens to the non-players...well, if you don't make the grade which is usually given in some form of theatre specific orders, you don't play. An example might be that if a GW1 scenario (or any for that matter - but you get the point) was moved to the 2020 timescale the ACC could well direct that only LO platforms would go north of the border. So a country that doesn't buy F-35 (or F-22 I suppose) might not even make the ATO.
The answer to your question is (as we all know) that any system's capability against a threat will suffer due to long gestation as that threat either develops or changes completely. Somewhere in this thread or a similar one someone posed the question as to the F-35s stealth and in what part of the spectrum it was stealthy. i.e. one sensor may not see it but another possibly could.
The other thing to consider is that requirements change as well as threats. If you buy a machine for a full-up state-on-state scrap that never happens you will 'waste' a lot of money and end up with a system that isn't as good at other stuff as legacy systems. Thinking COIN specifically. However, defence as always been about insurance policies, so you might not want to be without the full-up capability.
In answer to your question about what happens to the non-players...well, if you don't make the grade which is usually given in some form of theatre specific orders, you don't play. An example might be that if a GW1 scenario (or any for that matter - but you get the point) was moved to the 2020 timescale the ACC could well direct that only LO platforms would go north of the border. So a country that doesn't buy F-35 (or F-22 I suppose) might not even make the ATO.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the F-35 which is looking more and more like a dead duck as every year (not day, week, month...) passes
Absolutely! At 400 knots, you push a half-ton mass off the ejector rack and it keeps going down! Awesome!
BTW, am I being hypercritical, or does it look like either (a) there was a lot of turbulence or (b) the FCS computers had one too many last night? Seems to be wandering in pitch a bit, but I'll leave that discussion for the pilots.
BTW, am I being hypercritical, or does it look like either (a) there was a lot of turbulence or (b) the FCS computers had one too many last night? Seems to be wandering in pitch a bit, but I'll leave that discussion for the pilots.
Last edited by LowObservable; 9th Aug 2012 at 21:51.