Which will make the best JSF?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here is a much cheaper solution and would get the SHAR replacement in twice as quick.
Licence build two Charles de Gaulle carriers in Britain. This would give a much needed boost to the ship yards, also most of the cost of a new ship is Research and development and as one of these vessels is already at sea this would mean huge savings.
The downside would be the French!!! Politics and all that.
The F-18E/F is a vast improvement on the older C/D model, although not as advanced as the JSF, it would more than meet our needs. OK its not STOVL but who needs it anyway. Also the RAF would no longer be required to go to sea.
Licence build two Charles de Gaulle carriers in Britain. This would give a much needed boost to the ship yards, also most of the cost of a new ship is Research and development and as one of these vessels is already at sea this would mean huge savings.
The downside would be the French!!! Politics and all that.
The F-18E/F is a vast improvement on the older C/D model, although not as advanced as the JSF, it would more than meet our needs. OK its not STOVL but who needs it anyway. Also the RAF would no longer be required to go to sea.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Which service lost the least during downsizing, which service has pushed the Osprey as far as it has today despite all its problems?(amazing considering Cheney, the then master of the puzzle palace and now veep tried to kill it, his words to the Marine Corps, "o.k., just dont jam it down my throat") The F18 program was NEVER a favorite of the Marine Corps past the late 80's. Yes, the Corps does live in the reality of finite budgets, both in blue and green dollars, all things considered, they have done quite well.
Guest
Posts: n/a
For Roland:
Licence build two CDGs? Probably not, when the French can't even afford one!
The CDG design is, in the opinion of many, badly flawed. The French used two submarine nuclear plants to cut costs instaed of the one big one they should have developed. As a result the ship is thought to be slow and short of space.
It's really too small at around 40,000 tonnes to be a decent CV carrier, and would have REAL trouble handling the E/F EFFECTIVELY (ie at max weights).
E/F is not a bad bird, but the costs to get a relatively small improvement in performance over the C/D have been HUGE. The USN have done very well to keep it going, but have hammered their other aviation prgrammes to do so.
Finally, the whole POINT is to get the RAF to sea, when it's the right thing to do. They are the best strike pilots in the world: put them in JSFs on the CVF and the UK moves to the VERY FRONT of the world 'kick ass' queue. The whole reason we (and by we I mean the RAF and the RN) are getting the JSF is because of the CVF. 'Joint' can actually work for us all.
Licence build two CDGs? Probably not, when the French can't even afford one!
The CDG design is, in the opinion of many, badly flawed. The French used two submarine nuclear plants to cut costs instaed of the one big one they should have developed. As a result the ship is thought to be slow and short of space.
It's really too small at around 40,000 tonnes to be a decent CV carrier, and would have REAL trouble handling the E/F EFFECTIVELY (ie at max weights).
E/F is not a bad bird, but the costs to get a relatively small improvement in performance over the C/D have been HUGE. The USN have done very well to keep it going, but have hammered their other aviation prgrammes to do so.
Finally, the whole POINT is to get the RAF to sea, when it's the right thing to do. They are the best strike pilots in the world: put them in JSFs on the CVF and the UK moves to the VERY FRONT of the world 'kick ass' queue. The whole reason we (and by we I mean the RAF and the RN) are getting the JSF is because of the CVF. 'Joint' can actually work for us all.
