No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as has been pointed out several times, the USMC ConOps requiring the -B are so improbable as to be absurd, meaning that it's an easy thing to cut as it will have virtually no impact on real-world (rather than theoretical) US combat capability. RN? Not so much....
S41
S41
Why do you think the USMC is not getting the Bravo model?
From recent Flight magazine:
From recent Flight magazine:
The US Marine Corps will stand up its first operational Lockheed Martin F-35B squadron this November if everything goes according to plan, a senior service official says. Prior to that, the USMC hopes to formally start training new F-35B pilots in October at Eglin AFB, Florida.
"VMFA-121 will now be the first squadron to stand-up in Yuma, [Arizona]," the senior official says. "They will stand down as an F/A-18D squadron in July once they return from deployment to Japan."
"VMFA-121 will now be the first squadron to stand-up in Yuma, [Arizona]," the senior official says. "They will stand down as an F/A-18D squadron in July once they return from deployment to Japan."
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth I personally think the USMC will (as it has done to date) fight tooth and nail for the F-35B. They already have some, as has been pointed out.
The USMC also has a strong political lobby, so it will undoubtedly have its case heard.
However, it is worth noting that for some reason the misconception exists that the USMC is a VSTOL force transitioning to STOVL F-35. This is somewhere between misleading and fundementally incorrect. I am prepared to stand corrected but I believe the USMC has circa 200 Hornets and circa 110 Harriers. It is taking delivery of 80 F35Cs I believe.
I know that the spectre of being left to fend for oneself in the Pacific is still writ large in the USMC psyche and have a feeling that the F-35B is probably born out of it. But so long as one model survives the USMC will have a FW capability. Not a bad position to be in really.
The USMC also has a strong political lobby, so it will undoubtedly have its case heard.
However, it is worth noting that for some reason the misconception exists that the USMC is a VSTOL force transitioning to STOVL F-35. This is somewhere between misleading and fundementally incorrect. I am prepared to stand corrected but I believe the USMC has circa 200 Hornets and circa 110 Harriers. It is taking delivery of 80 F35Cs I believe.
I know that the spectre of being left to fend for oneself in the Pacific is still writ large in the USMC psyche and have a feeling that the F-35B is probably born out of it. But so long as one model survives the USMC will have a FW capability. Not a bad position to be in really.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cut any one variant and the other 2 become unaffordable to partner nations. It's a downward spiral as Governments concerned about costs amid economic worries pull the plug (Canada, Italy etc). Fewer orders of A's puts the price up further and the spiral continues.
It's all 3 variants or nothing. Nothing would prob bancrupt LM as their other military platforms drop off, unless T-50 becomes T-38 replacement. Massive job losses politically unacceptable so I see all 3 surviving but with delays to full capability.
UK sucks up the costs long term.
It's all 3 variants or nothing. Nothing would prob bancrupt LM as their other military platforms drop off, unless T-50 becomes T-38 replacement. Massive job losses politically unacceptable so I see all 3 surviving but with delays to full capability.
UK sucks up the costs long term.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone heard what plan 'B' will bee 
if the 'B' is not to be??
I would like to think our 'Illustrious' leaders have an alternative plan other than a reclassification of type. STOVL becomes and extremely expensive, impractical assault type ship as per the Illustrious which I note was parked outside our front door a few days ago. How embarrassing is it to have aircraft carriers sailing the high seas without aircraft, how much money is being wasted on having that thing trying to perform a role it was never designed for.
if the 'B' is not to be?? I would like to think our 'Illustrious' leaders have an alternative plan other than a reclassification of type. STOVL becomes and extremely expensive, impractical assault type ship as per the Illustrious which I note was parked outside our front door a few days ago. How embarrassing is it to have aircraft carriers sailing the high seas without aircraft, how much money is being wasted on having that thing trying to perform a role it was never designed for.
Glojo
"That thing" - Lusty - is working up ready to assume the role of duty LPH when Ocean goes into upkeep very shortly. That includes provision of a ready multi-spot deck deck to allow various FAA squadrons to maintain deck currency. I hardly classify that as a "waste of money". I'm sure you remember that when designed her primary role was operation of helicopters rather than f/w, so I'm somewhat at a loss at the phrase "never designed for", though I will concede troop accom, assault routes etc are far from ideal.
As for "plan B", I would hazard a guess that it's a binary option. Either :
a) Bite the bullet and implement CTOL conversion (noting that we have now missed our place in the queue for ship sets of EMALS/EAR)
b) Bite the other bullet, abandon naval f/w ops (and therefore any notion of power projection ops), sell the ships - assuming a buyer can be found, which is a big assumption.
Neither of these are particularly difficult to work out. What is a bit difficult to fathom is the almost gleeful anticipation of some on here (not you btw) of the B being cancelled. As should be well known, I personally would have preferred the C option for the UK, but it ain't going to happen unless B gets canned and then only if the money can be found. There are a number of folk however, who appear to be hoping for a B cancellation, largely so an "I told you so" T-shirt can be worn on the CVF/F35 as a whole, rather than any sensible formulation of defence policy / capability.
"That thing" - Lusty - is working up ready to assume the role of duty LPH when Ocean goes into upkeep very shortly. That includes provision of a ready multi-spot deck deck to allow various FAA squadrons to maintain deck currency. I hardly classify that as a "waste of money". I'm sure you remember that when designed her primary role was operation of helicopters rather than f/w, so I'm somewhat at a loss at the phrase "never designed for", though I will concede troop accom, assault routes etc are far from ideal.
As for "plan B", I would hazard a guess that it's a binary option. Either :
a) Bite the bullet and implement CTOL conversion (noting that we have now missed our place in the queue for ship sets of EMALS/EAR)
b) Bite the other bullet, abandon naval f/w ops (and therefore any notion of power projection ops), sell the ships - assuming a buyer can be found, which is a big assumption.
Neither of these are particularly difficult to work out. What is a bit difficult to fathom is the almost gleeful anticipation of some on here (not you btw) of the B being cancelled. As should be well known, I personally would have preferred the C option for the UK, but it ain't going to happen unless B gets canned and then only if the money can be found. There are a number of folk however, who appear to be hoping for a B cancellation, largely so an "I told you so" T-shirt can be worn on the CVF/F35 as a whole, rather than any sensible formulation of defence policy / capability.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi NAB,
I agree our through deck cruiser has been reclassified and is now a half hearted LPH!! I say half hearted as the other LPH is the so called real article although I believe it was built on the cheap and conforms more to a merchant ship type build specification as opposed to a warship?? (question) A polite question which I believe you are well qualified to answer
By not carrying a full air wing has the Illustrious got comparable accommodation for its military 'cargo'
It is easy to call an aircraft carrier an LPH but our genuine 'Landing Platform Helicopter' also carries four Mk 5B LCVP's, 40 vehicles that support the embarked parts of 3Cdo brigade, plus of course the ramp that allows these vehicles to embark and disembark.
How ironic that the through deck cruiser was a half hearted attempt at being a proper aircraft carrier
And now we are seeing it rebadged as a second HMS Ocean or LPH except it lacks the ability to carry landing craft, lacks the ability to have the roll on, roll off feature.
Does sticking a badge on the funnel make it a genuine replacement for the Ocean?
Apologies for the tongue in cheek sarcasm regarding the role of the through deck cruiser and I would appreciate your observations regarding the build methods of Ocean compared to the build of a warship.. (I have only read books regarding claims about merchant ship build standards)
I agree our through deck cruiser has been reclassified and is now a half hearted LPH!! I say half hearted as the other LPH is the so called real article although I believe it was built on the cheap and conforms more to a merchant ship type build specification as opposed to a warship?? (question) A polite question which I believe you are well qualified to answer
By not carrying a full air wing has the Illustrious got comparable accommodation for its military 'cargo'
It is easy to call an aircraft carrier an LPH but our genuine 'Landing Platform Helicopter' also carries four Mk 5B LCVP's, 40 vehicles that support the embarked parts of 3Cdo brigade, plus of course the ramp that allows these vehicles to embark and disembark.
How ironic that the through deck cruiser was a half hearted attempt at being a proper aircraft carrier
And now we are seeing it rebadged as a second HMS Ocean or LPH except it lacks the ability to carry landing craft, lacks the ability to have the roll on, roll off feature.
Does sticking a badge on the funnel make it a genuine replacement for the Ocean?
Apologies for the tongue in cheek sarcasm regarding the role of the through deck cruiser and I would appreciate your observations regarding the build methods of Ocean compared to the build of a warship.. (I have only read books regarding claims about merchant ship build standards)
I wouldn't get over excited about the Ro-Ro capability if I were you. Yes there's a ramp and a ramp support pontoon which allows it to interface with LCVP5 and LCU.
Trouble is, the VP's are usually kitted out with Arctic shelters, which makes it difficult to use them for vehicle offload, which pretty much means you need a Bay or LPD (with LCU or Mexe) with you in order to move any significant number of vehicles by surface. Although the ramp is nominally rated for Viking, that capability isn't used often, which pretty much limits it to Pinzgauers and TUMs (Landy's to the rest of us). The ramp is a bit on the fragile side as well, as Royal found out when he b8ggered it good and proper about three years ago.
Ocean can obviously deploy troops in surface lift, but that's pretty much it in terms of a differentiator.
As far as build quality goes, Ocean is a bucket of bolts IMO. However, she is the only major warship we have that is designed and built to "commercial standards" - Lloyds Rules and Regulations for Ships to be precise. These should not be confused with Lloyds Rules & Regulations for Naval Ships which is what LPD, QEC and T45 are built and maintained to.
Trouble is, the VP's are usually kitted out with Arctic shelters, which makes it difficult to use them for vehicle offload, which pretty much means you need a Bay or LPD (with LCU or Mexe) with you in order to move any significant number of vehicles by surface. Although the ramp is nominally rated for Viking, that capability isn't used often, which pretty much limits it to Pinzgauers and TUMs (Landy's to the rest of us). The ramp is a bit on the fragile side as well, as Royal found out when he b8ggered it good and proper about three years ago.
Ocean can obviously deploy troops in surface lift, but that's pretty much it in terms of a differentiator.
As far as build quality goes, Ocean is a bucket of bolts IMO. However, she is the only major warship we have that is designed and built to "commercial standards" - Lloyds Rules and Regulations for Ships to be precise. These should not be confused with Lloyds Rules & Regulations for Naval Ships which is what LPD, QEC and T45 are built and maintained to.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The patriot in me, despite my current location, would love to see HMS QE steaming the high seas, catapulting state of the art fighters into the skies to demonstrate British Sea Power and military might. The realist in me asks, to what end would this be?
Despite the quote, this is not directed at Not_a_boffin directly, rather it is a reflection on the sentence re: defence policy. It all depends upon how one sees our defence requirement. Personally, I believe that our policy should indeed be defence rather than offence, and to that end my take would be that aircraft carriers and the argument of power projection is not relevant to the defence of the UK. Equally, the argument about our interests overseas is no longer relevant and sensible defence policy may be to accept that the Empire days are gone, that even if the Royal Navy has two large carriers with aeroplanes launched by whatever means, the days of steaming around the world sorting out bother, be that the Straits of Hormuz or somewhere in the South China Sea are over and that our attention and budget would be better served concentrating on our immediate region. Afghanistan should be the last British Military venture into the Middle East and the sooner our troops of any service are removed from there, the better. Enough good, brave service personnel have died already in a conflict I personally do not believe they should ever have been involved.
Sensible defence policy may also include not blowing the budget on short-range stealth aircraft when, as many have already here observed, there is little chance of stealthing the carrier, or the tanker - unless that tanker is the same shape as the recipient aircraft.
Sensible defence policy may be to ensure the services have sufficient means to defend the UK only. A strong Royal Navy to operate in the Atlantic Ocean, the English Channel and north towards Scandanavia and Iceland. To do this does not necessarily require an expensive carrier. A strong Royal Air Force with sufficient numbers of fighters, not all of which need to be stealthy, to maintain the defence of the UK plus some maritime patrol capability. A strong, flexible Army able to operate within our region if required, but with home defence as the primary goal.
I believe this would be doable in a budget that was spared the cost of the current military deployments, the carriers and the F35.
There are a number of folk however, who appear to be hoping for a B cancellation, largely so an "I told you so" T-shirt can be worn on the CVF/F35 as a whole, rather than any sensible formulation of defence policy / capability.
Sensible defence policy may also include not blowing the budget on short-range stealth aircraft when, as many have already here observed, there is little chance of stealthing the carrier, or the tanker - unless that tanker is the same shape as the recipient aircraft.
Sensible defence policy may be to ensure the services have sufficient means to defend the UK only. A strong Royal Navy to operate in the Atlantic Ocean, the English Channel and north towards Scandanavia and Iceland. To do this does not necessarily require an expensive carrier. A strong Royal Air Force with sufficient numbers of fighters, not all of which need to be stealthy, to maintain the defence of the UK plus some maritime patrol capability. A strong, flexible Army able to operate within our region if required, but with home defence as the primary goal.
I believe this would be doable in a budget that was spared the cost of the current military deployments, the carriers and the F35.
Dermedicus,
The trouble with the 'Defend UK' in the Western approaches and North Sea argument is to define where UK's interests really start. Not considering where outside UK local waters we might need power projection for political purposes is short sighted. I am not suggesting that we need that capability to do another Iraq or 'stan but much of our energy (gas as well as oil) currently comes through the Strait of Hormuz; Somali pirates affect our imports and exports and there might yet be oil in the South Alantic. There are other examples where we are dependent on free passage on the seas. We need the ability to ensure those things continue, regardless of the attitude of others, if we are to keep the lights on and people at work. Whether the current and projected RN are what we need to do that I rather doubt, but 1SL can only work with what the politicians will give and hope that there is an opportunity to re-shape things later.
I see that you are in Oz. Some years back an academic called Dibb "persuaded" the Government (Bob Hawke as PM with Kim Beasley at Defence I think) that what the Strine people needed was a capability to defend Oz (in Oz' water/land/airspace) and that meant a more numerous but small-ship brown-water navy with more widely spread bases (as well as more widely spread Air Force bases). Dibb failed to consider all of Australias strategic interests and as a result of the rearguard action by those who better understood them Oz still doesn't have a small ship brown water navy (or a more numerous one).
N
The trouble with the 'Defend UK' in the Western approaches and North Sea argument is to define where UK's interests really start. Not considering where outside UK local waters we might need power projection for political purposes is short sighted. I am not suggesting that we need that capability to do another Iraq or 'stan but much of our energy (gas as well as oil) currently comes through the Strait of Hormuz; Somali pirates affect our imports and exports and there might yet be oil in the South Alantic. There are other examples where we are dependent on free passage on the seas. We need the ability to ensure those things continue, regardless of the attitude of others, if we are to keep the lights on and people at work. Whether the current and projected RN are what we need to do that I rather doubt, but 1SL can only work with what the politicians will give and hope that there is an opportunity to re-shape things later.
I see that you are in Oz. Some years back an academic called Dibb "persuaded" the Government (Bob Hawke as PM with Kim Beasley at Defence I think) that what the Strine people needed was a capability to defend Oz (in Oz' water/land/airspace) and that meant a more numerous but small-ship brown-water navy with more widely spread bases (as well as more widely spread Air Force bases). Dibb failed to consider all of Australias strategic interests and as a result of the rearguard action by those who better understood them Oz still doesn't have a small ship brown water navy (or a more numerous one).
N
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair points Bengo, but the question has to be how much can we realistically afford to do in terms of safeguarding our interests in distant parts of the world and what resources do we require to do that? I am not sure that aircraft carriers are part of that, but others take a different view.
On the subject of Australia, they are in the process of making their military more 'amphibious', with the acquisition of two large LPHs (both bigger than their last carrier) and preparing, I believe, one regiment at least for an amphibious, marine like role. I am not sure where they plan to use them, as invading Indonesia would be a tall order and I am not sure there is the will to start colonising South Pacific Islands. I am also not aware of them proposing to acquire and operate any F35Bs off of these ships.
On the subject of Australia, they are in the process of making their military more 'amphibious', with the acquisition of two large LPHs (both bigger than their last carrier) and preparing, I believe, one regiment at least for an amphibious, marine like role. I am not sure where they plan to use them, as invading Indonesia would be a tall order and I am not sure there is the will to start colonising South Pacific Islands. I am also not aware of them proposing to acquire and operate any F35Bs off of these ships.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dermedicus
Fair points Bengo, but the question has to be how much can we realistically afford to do in terms of safeguarding our interests in distant parts of the world and what resources do we require to do that? I am not sure that aircraft carriers are part of that, but others take a different view.
On the subject of Australia, they are in the process of making their military more 'amphibious', with the acquisition of two large LPHs (both bigger than their last carrier) and preparing, I believe, one regiment at least for an amphibious, marine like role. I am not sure where they plan to use them, as invading Indonesia would be a tall order and I am not sure there is the will to start colonising South Pacific Islands. I am also not aware of them proposing to acquire and operate any F35Bs off of these ships.
On the subject of Australia, they are in the process of making their military more 'amphibious', with the acquisition of two large LPHs (both bigger than their last carrier) and preparing, I believe, one regiment at least for an amphibious, marine like role. I am not sure where they plan to use them, as invading Indonesia would be a tall order and I am not sure there is the will to start colonising South Pacific Islands. I am also not aware of them proposing to acquire and operate any F35Bs off of these ships.
Canberra Class - Royal Australian Navy
Overall, they're just a mobile base to make things like the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands easier to achieve.
S41
An American gentleman once pointed out that (in his view) the United States uses AV-8B equipped amphibious ships in a similar fashion to the way it used its smaller carriers (eg the Essex class) during the Cold War (and they can embark up to twenty Harriers to act as a light (sic) carrier). In other words, it gives the US an option short of sending a CVN, and of course more ships with a fixed wing capability is useful. As such, it offers Washington a degree of political dexterity. Consider the deployment of USS Kearsarge during operations in Libya last year.
Additionally, the reason the USMC wanted the Harrier back in the 70s was that it provided them with firepower only a short flying time from the shore, making up for the loss of the six inch and eight inch gun cruisers that provided naval gunfire support during the Cold War conflicts in Korea and Vietnam.
Both arguments seem sound to me, and relevant today to a future of (relatively) small scale, littoral engagements.
Not so long ago one of the aviation magazines had a feature about the STOVL strike force. Apart from noting that the USMC intends to be able to run the AV-8B until 2025 or beyond (partly due to the spares source from the UK GR9s), and that sixteen of the UK Harriers are being kept intact, it made the point that they are very useful, and busy. I wonder what their views are on the UK's decision to axe Harrier, and to throw away our carrier capability?
I wonder what they make of the F-35B being dropped in favour of the F-35C, then chosen again, without (thus far) a rethink of the planning to develop the skillsets needed for future. Given the real possibility of conflicts this decade, what will they think of having to provide air cover for UK forces?
Another US gentleman suggested that part of the reason for the switch back to F-35B might be political, whilst I do not believe that to be the case, does it not strengthen to Marines' hands? In which case maybe they could help us out, embarking Harriers aboard Illustrious/QE, perhaps even lending us a few aircraft, as I suggested here.
If we assume that F-35B survives, and that HM Government will not change its mind again, then these are the issues that need to be thought about, as do operations that might take place in the (very) near future. These were the points I tried to make in post 1664, but my words were misinterpreted and provoked a single engine vs two engine top trumps session. Yet the issues of future skills and current (ie this decade) capabilities remain.
Perhaps dithering politicians who will not commit to a decision and join the dots up are the problem, as cornish-stormrider suggests.
An American gentleman once pointed out that (in his view) the United States uses AV-8B equipped amphibious ships in a similar fashion to the way it used its smaller carriers (eg the Essex class) during the Cold War (and they can embark up to twenty Harriers to act as a light (sic) carrier). In other words, it gives the US an option short of sending a CVN, and of course more ships with a fixed wing capability is useful. As such, it offers Washington a degree of political dexterity. Consider the deployment of USS Kearsarge during operations in Libya last year.
Additionally, the reason the USMC wanted the Harrier back in the 70s was that it provided them with firepower only a short flying time from the shore, making up for the loss of the six inch and eight inch gun cruisers that provided naval gunfire support during the Cold War conflicts in Korea and Vietnam.
Both arguments seem sound to me, and relevant today to a future of (relatively) small scale, littoral engagements.
Not so long ago one of the aviation magazines had a feature about the STOVL strike force. Apart from noting that the USMC intends to be able to run the AV-8B until 2025 or beyond (partly due to the spares source from the UK GR9s), and that sixteen of the UK Harriers are being kept intact, it made the point that they are very useful, and busy. I wonder what their views are on the UK's decision to axe Harrier, and to throw away our carrier capability?
I wonder what they make of the F-35B being dropped in favour of the F-35C, then chosen again, without (thus far) a rethink of the planning to develop the skillsets needed for future. Given the real possibility of conflicts this decade, what will they think of having to provide air cover for UK forces?
Another US gentleman suggested that part of the reason for the switch back to F-35B might be political, whilst I do not believe that to be the case, does it not strengthen to Marines' hands? In which case maybe they could help us out, embarking Harriers aboard Illustrious/QE, perhaps even lending us a few aircraft, as I suggested here.
If we assume that F-35B survives, and that HM Government will not change its mind again, then these are the issues that need to be thought about, as do operations that might take place in the (very) near future. These were the points I tried to make in post 1664, but my words were misinterpreted and provoked a single engine vs two engine top trumps session. Yet the issues of future skills and current (ie this decade) capabilities remain.
Perhaps dithering politicians who will not commit to a decision and join the dots up are the problem, as cornish-stormrider suggests.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 18th Sep 2012 at 08:10.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF:
There's all the difference in the world between "useful if you already have it" and "would spend money on it instead of [X]". This is the heart of the Dave-B vs Harrier debate for the USMC - of course you'll use Harriers that are available here and now, and that includes some cheap one picked up off the Brits.
However, looking forwards, you may not decide that it is the most sensible method of spending said cash to procure STOVL JSFs to replace STOVL Harriers - especially with a sizeable budget crunch coming in 2013.
On the Pentagon's budget crunch, (c. $54bn p.a. if sequestration isn't sorted), it's worth remembering that this is the same as the *entire* UK defence budget, give or take. Once you start talking these sorts of numbers, retaining the uber-expensive Dave-B for some pretty unlikely scenarios becomes much less attractive/likely. Especially when the programme is still reportedly "challenging"
It's for this suite of reasons that I think we'll have Dave-B cancelled, and revert to either F-18E/G or F-35C as the RN/RAF new all weather strike platform - with the mix being largely cost driven. At about £100m a piece, JSF is going to be a rather rare bird in UK colours, I fear.
S41
There's all the difference in the world between "useful if you already have it" and "would spend money on it instead of [X]". This is the heart of the Dave-B vs Harrier debate for the USMC - of course you'll use Harriers that are available here and now, and that includes some cheap one picked up off the Brits.
However, looking forwards, you may not decide that it is the most sensible method of spending said cash to procure STOVL JSFs to replace STOVL Harriers - especially with a sizeable budget crunch coming in 2013.
On the Pentagon's budget crunch, (c. $54bn p.a. if sequestration isn't sorted), it's worth remembering that this is the same as the *entire* UK defence budget, give or take. Once you start talking these sorts of numbers, retaining the uber-expensive Dave-B for some pretty unlikely scenarios becomes much less attractive/likely. Especially when the programme is still reportedly "challenging"
It's for this suite of reasons that I think we'll have Dave-B cancelled, and revert to either F-18E/G or F-35C as the RN/RAF new all weather strike platform - with the mix being largely cost driven. At about £100m a piece, JSF is going to be a rather rare bird in UK colours, I fear.
S41
Last edited by Squirrel 41; 18th Sep 2012 at 17:49. Reason: Incoherent spollink
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More Major General Bogdan Comments
Flight Global has some additional comments from Bogdan here.
They include: -
"The future of the Lockheed Martin F-35 programme is at risk over software concerns and a breakdown in the relationships between the contractor and the government"
"There is no more money and no more time "
"If we don't get ALIS right, we are not flying aircraft."
The article is worth a read.
More at Business Insider & elsewhere. It includes this little gem.... "he Pentagon also needed to stop making changes to the program, calling such moves destabilizing to an already complex program.".
They include: -
"The future of the Lockheed Martin F-35 programme is at risk over software concerns and a breakdown in the relationships between the contractor and the government"
"There is no more money and no more time "
"If we don't get ALIS right, we are not flying aircraft."
The article is worth a read.
More at Business Insider & elsewhere. It includes this little gem.... "he Pentagon also needed to stop making changes to the program, calling such moves destabilizing to an already complex program.".
Last edited by hval; 18th Sep 2012 at 19:46.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are the West close to losing the war over stealth fighters?
With China and its products, and Russia and their products we could soon be encircled (figuratively) by these nations, their allies and to nations that China and Russia sell their products to?
The aircraft may not be as technically advanced as the F35 is supposed to be, nor the F22, but they won't be that far away. They will have more up time than the overly complicated Western products. They will be cheaper, and there will be brazillions of them compared to the USA's 3 F%'s and the UK's 1 F35, but no carrier. The rate development of the F35 is being developed at perhaps the West will end up chasing after Russia and China who could have their aircraft in use before us.
If it is true that we will not be able to afford sufficient aircraft to defend ourselves, perhaps we should be looking elsewhere. What about investing massively in UAV technology? If we are able to advance the technology sufficiently perhaps we would reduce the advantage that Russia and China will shortly have? Not that UAV's can operate independently, as yet.
The above may be slightly tongue in cheek, but I do think that there is much truth in what I have written.
The aircraft may not be as technically advanced as the F35 is supposed to be, nor the F22, but they won't be that far away. They will have more up time than the overly complicated Western products. They will be cheaper, and there will be brazillions of them compared to the USA's 3 F%'s and the UK's 1 F35, but no carrier. The rate development of the F35 is being developed at perhaps the West will end up chasing after Russia and China who could have their aircraft in use before us.
If it is true that we will not be able to afford sufficient aircraft to defend ourselves, perhaps we should be looking elsewhere. What about investing massively in UAV technology? If we are able to advance the technology sufficiently perhaps we would reduce the advantage that Russia and China will shortly have? Not that UAV's can operate independently, as yet.
The above may be slightly tongue in cheek, but I do think that there is much truth in what I have written.
Last edited by hval; 18th Sep 2012 at 20:01.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: on the beach
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My most humble apologies to WEBFan for inadvertently starting the engine top trumps session. My comments were based very much on my preference for the known, flying, dependable F/A-18. But they would be, I worked on that program, and a jolly good one it was too.
I have a trivia question which I hope can be answered without diverting the discusion. Of course I know that the 'J' in JSF stands for 'Committee', always a bad letter in US program parlance, but where the heck does 'Dave' come from? I've tried googling but everyone points back to pprune and says it originated here.
A less trivial question, after Dave-B is cancelled, what plans are there for the nice shiny new carriers? Nobody else is going to want them. Prison ships? Satellite launch pads?
I have a trivia question which I hope can be answered without diverting the discusion. Of course I know that the 'J' in JSF stands for 'Committee', always a bad letter in US program parlance, but where the heck does 'Dave' come from? I've tried googling but everyone points back to pprune and says it originated here.
A less trivial question, after Dave-B is cancelled, what plans are there for the nice shiny new carriers? Nobody else is going to want them. Prison ships? Satellite launch pads?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mike-wsm,
The F18 has turned in to a nice, effective aircraft/ tool.
Those carriers could be modified to be missile launch platforms possibly. What a waste. The amount of work that would be required would be incredible and much technology on them binned.
Or, they could become floating museum/ cruise ships
Or sold to the mega wealthy (Abramovich) as their personal yacht.
The F18 has turned in to a nice, effective aircraft/ tool.
Those carriers could be modified to be missile launch platforms possibly. What a waste. The amount of work that would be required would be incredible and much technology on them binned.
Or, they could become floating museum/ cruise ships
Or sold to the mega wealthy (Abramovich) as their personal yacht.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike wsm
If this happens, then the chances are that (after massive intake of breath at MoD, much sniggering elsewhere in Whitehall, and huge "I told you so" here on Pprune) the money will be found to convert PoW to CTOL and, if the RN are lucky, convert QE II at her first major refit.
As for the jets? Heart says Dave-C, but head is more equivocal given that the cost is off the scale.
S41
A less trivial question, after Dave-B is cancelled, what plans are there for the nice shiny new carriers? Nobody else is going to want them. Prison ships? Satellite launch pads?
As for the jets? Heart says Dave-C, but head is more equivocal given that the cost is off the scale.
S41