Why the raf can’t deliver the punch cameron wants in syria
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris,
All views are obviously welcome. Many seek to bait but most seek to educate in their own way. You're right about polarisation - group think etc.
The 2010 SDSR sought to procure F-35C not B, which had been the choice, on balance, since the late 1990s. It is right that JSF's design has been heavily influenced by the STOVL requirement but remember that the USMC also lobbyed strongly for this trait. Perhaps their view is as stymied as others who never took to the concept or believe it to be outdated. I personally have found no end of situations where STOVL has come into its own on the tactical battlefield.
As for F-35 being a lemon, just check out the well-trodden thread on these pages. Suffice it to say that those involved know and rave about its capabilities even before it has hit the Block 3F standard. Most appreciate such capabilities cannot be revealed. Those that don't, or wish they did, continue to doubt it. I've seen not an ounce of hard evidence but a lot of propaganda in the press.
Back to the thread - Sharkey's utterances are actually factually incorrect and polarised. End of.
All views are obviously welcome. Many seek to bait but most seek to educate in their own way. You're right about polarisation - group think etc.
The 2010 SDSR sought to procure F-35C not B, which had been the choice, on balance, since the late 1990s. It is right that JSF's design has been heavily influenced by the STOVL requirement but remember that the USMC also lobbyed strongly for this trait. Perhaps their view is as stymied as others who never took to the concept or believe it to be outdated. I personally have found no end of situations where STOVL has come into its own on the tactical battlefield.
As for F-35 being a lemon, just check out the well-trodden thread on these pages. Suffice it to say that those involved know and rave about its capabilities even before it has hit the Block 3F standard. Most appreciate such capabilities cannot be revealed. Those that don't, or wish they did, continue to doubt it. I've seen not an ounce of hard evidence but a lot of propaganda in the press.
Back to the thread - Sharkey's utterances are actually factually incorrect and polarised. End of.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"What little the poor old RAF is currently capable of doesn't really merit much positive comment..." Thank you for that reasoned opinion, wageslave.
Tourist if our defence policy hinges on refighting the Falklands campaign then I agree with you. But it's pretty unlikely we'll have to -because of land based air power. For all the undoubted benefits of carriers, you don't seem prepared to acknowledge the difficulty and cost of maintaining a group on station..every drop of fuel, every bullet, every weetabix has to be got out to it. As to your hotel cost/nights on town argument -surely you're scraping the barrel? Even there, "Lusty" managed to earn some legendary tabloid column inches!
Tourist if our defence policy hinges on refighting the Falklands campaign then I agree with you. But it's pretty unlikely we'll have to -because of land based air power. For all the undoubted benefits of carriers, you don't seem prepared to acknowledge the difficulty and cost of maintaining a group on station..every drop of fuel, every bullet, every weetabix has to be got out to it. As to your hotel cost/nights on town argument -surely you're scraping the barrel? Even there, "Lusty" managed to earn some legendary tabloid column inches!
Quote from MSOCS:
"The 2010 SDSR sought to procure F-35C not B, which had been the choice, on balance, since the late 1990s."
Thanks for the reminder.
"It is right that JSF's design has been heavily influenced by the STOVL requirement but remember that the USMC also lobbyed strongly for this trait."
Okay, I'll have to inform myself on whether the US are building any carriers without "cats and traps", that will be unusable by conventional fixed-wing a/c in a contingency.
"I personally have found no end of situations where STOVL has come into its own on the tactical battlefield. "
Not trying to dispute that, but the concept of lugging an engine around for most of the mission in-lieu of the equivalent payload.
"The 2010 SDSR sought to procure F-35C not B, which had been the choice, on balance, since the late 1990s."
Thanks for the reminder.
"It is right that JSF's design has been heavily influenced by the STOVL requirement but remember that the USMC also lobbyed strongly for this trait."
Okay, I'll have to inform myself on whether the US are building any carriers without "cats and traps", that will be unusable by conventional fixed-wing a/c in a contingency.
"I personally have found no end of situations where STOVL has come into its own on the tactical battlefield. "
Not trying to dispute that, but the concept of lugging an engine around for most of the mission in-lieu of the equivalent payload.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is, however, a compromise that is necessary for some of the uses it is designed for.
A full size carrier is not one of those uses it was designed for. We should have decks full of "C" models or even F18 or Rafale plus E2/V22 Bagger plus Growler (if only for the name!) plus COD
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris, let me help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...s_assault_ship
Your last point was exactly my point about STOVL design compromising what 'could have been' however the remit of the F-35 program was always commonality - economies of scale to make 5th Gen affordable and, ultimately, globally supportable. Did LM promise a lot and deliver not quite what it promised? Yup, but not in terms of where things matter. I'd love more range on F-35B but the lift fan (not an extra engine) removes that space where fuel could be. A module fuel tank to put there in place of a lift fan when you don't need STOVL was probably mooted and dismissed. Still a reasonable idea as most F-35B arguments still centre around range...especially where Carrier Strike is concerned.
STOVL does give access to nearly double the land based options that conventional types required though...Peter and Paul etc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...s_assault_ship
Your last point was exactly my point about STOVL design compromising what 'could have been' however the remit of the F-35 program was always commonality - economies of scale to make 5th Gen affordable and, ultimately, globally supportable. Did LM promise a lot and deliver not quite what it promised? Yup, but not in terms of where things matter. I'd love more range on F-35B but the lift fan (not an extra engine) removes that space where fuel could be. A module fuel tank to put there in place of a lift fan when you don't need STOVL was probably mooted and dismissed. Still a reasonable idea as most F-35B arguments still centre around range...especially where Carrier Strike is concerned.
STOVL does give access to nearly double the land based options that conventional types required though...Peter and Paul etc...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, if this is going to descend into silliness....
The press never find out that the carrier (through-deck cruiser really) had to spend a couple of weeks in port because the radome nearly fell off its mountings.
The press never find out that the carrier (through-deck cruiser really) sailed out of theatre because its aircraft could no longer get airborne with any significant weapons load due to the ambient temperature (not a problem on a long, fixed runway of course).
Now, has that moved the debate on a bit?
The press never find out that the carrier (through-deck cruiser really) had to spend a couple of weeks in port because the radome nearly fell off its mountings.
The press never find out that the carrier (through-deck cruiser really) sailed out of theatre because its aircraft could no longer get airborne with any significant weapons load due to the ambient temperature (not a problem on a long, fixed runway of course).
Now, has that moved the debate on a bit?
A radome problem is an unserviceability like any other, and whilst the Harrier certainly was weight limited for bring-back in the heat, I don't think that is embarrassing so much as part of the compromise inherent in the design. The trade-off is of course that you can put it really close to the enemy and move it around.
A little research on your part could have found far more relevant port visits.....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is almost word for word what the RAF said that killed off our carriers.
At the time, of course the RAF had really long range bombers and a vast transport wing etc etc.
I don't think even politicians will fall for that one twice, even they have google earth nowadays, and Australia is easy to find on it..
....actually, maybe politicians would
Like many others I have a lot of respect and admiration for Cdr. Ward's work in 1982, but what he writes these days is pretty much libellous and one day somebody will call his bluff on it.
In the meantime, he reminds me of one of those slightly elderly relatives who attends family events, drinks a bit too much and at some point in the evening gets unsteadily to his feet and taps a fork against his glass. He then insists on saying a few words about the happy couple/recently deceased etc while everyone else is looking on, thinking as one: "Oh, Christ, what's the stupid bu66er going to say now?"
Sad really, as I enjoyed his book thoroughly.
In the meantime, he reminds me of one of those slightly elderly relatives who attends family events, drinks a bit too much and at some point in the evening gets unsteadily to his feet and taps a fork against his glass. He then insists on saying a few words about the happy couple/recently deceased etc while everyone else is looking on, thinking as one: "Oh, Christ, what's the stupid bu66er going to say now?"
Sad really, as I enjoyed his book thoroughly.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
We know that there was a glimmer of a C variant once.....but we didn't have the money to make it stick.
Would we be terrifically surprised to see carriers gain this ability at some point in the middle-distant future?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it's going to be interesting times for the FAA.
If we can survive the obvious problem of operating at a nearly unsustainably small size for a little bit longer, the world is pretty rosy.
Every aircraft is brand(ish) new, 2 new proper(ish) carriers coming.....
ASW Merlin is the best ASW helicopter in the world.
Wildcat is the best small ships helicopter in the world.
Bagger Merlin is unlikely to be worse than the Bagger Seaking and that is currently a fantastic asset in various spheres.
Commando Merlin is rather over expensive for a troop truck, but that aside it is a great piece of kit.
F35, well, time will tell. At the very least it will be better than harrier which served us well over the years.
If we can survive the obvious problem of operating at a nearly unsustainably small size for a little bit longer, the world is pretty rosy.
Every aircraft is brand(ish) new, 2 new proper(ish) carriers coming.....
ASW Merlin is the best ASW helicopter in the world.
Wildcat is the best small ships helicopter in the world.
Bagger Merlin is unlikely to be worse than the Bagger Seaking and that is currently a fantastic asset in various spheres.
Commando Merlin is rather over expensive for a troop truck, but that aside it is a great piece of kit.
F35, well, time will tell. At the very least it will be better than harrier which served us well over the years.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless you can convince the USMC of the need to redesign and manufacture the appropriate section of the aircraft [to regain the original internal weapons spec] that will be an expensive, single nation, endeavour indeed.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
In the current situation with precision weapons and restrictive ROE weapons resupply is of a lower order than fuel and hotac.
BYOW and AAR reduce the logistics burden on an FOL in the early phases of an operation. In other words the RAF can still get to the party first. You can then compare the need for FP at FOL with the requirements for SSN and DDG protection for CVS and AOR etc.
BYOW and AAR reduce the logistics burden on an FOL in the early phases of an operation. In other words the RAF can still get to the party first. You can then compare the need for FP at FOL with the requirements for SSN and DDG protection for CVS and AOR etc.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would we be terrifically surprised to see carriers gain this ability at some point in the middle-distant future?
We are where we are. We need to stop crying over what could have been, accept we won't ever be a conventional carrier force and make F-35B and QEC work to our strengths: amazing people; amazing ethos's and total commitment. Get those right, stop the petty squabbles, roll your eyes at the Grenadian dinosaur and crack on.
the astronomical cost of converting QEC that was supposedly fitted, "for, but not with" cat and trap capability was much harder in the post-2010 SDSR reality when they realised it wasn't exactly as Aircraft Carrier Alliance had said.
Who is being hilti-gunned to the underside of a Challenger tank for their part in this? Why is it OK for businesses to screw over the MoD, and thus J. Taxpayer, in this way?
Aaargh!
P
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MSOCS, the MOST telling thing is the limitation that we will NEVER have the capability to "go it alone".
Some may say, in the future, what a short sighted, expensive and ultimately flawed chain of decisions this whole program has been..
...some may not.
Some may say, in the future, what a short sighted, expensive and ultimately flawed chain of decisions this whole program has been..
...some may not.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GR: Unless you can convince the USMC of the need to redesign and manufacture the appropriate section of the aircraft [to regain the original internal weapons spec] that will be an expensive, single nation, endeavour indeed.
Tourist,
Perhaps I view the world a little less rosily......
ASW Merlin, yep - agree with you there though it's a big/expensive airframe to haul that mission kit around.
Wildcat? Pretty good, and you stitched the AAC in some of the config. The S Korean one is probably better - at least they've gone for DAFCS....
Bagger Merlin; agreed, to a point. The mission kit out of the SK7 seemed excellent, but it's a very expensive asset to fly 24/7 and will massively limit the radar horizon compared to E2, V-22 or a lift-compounded Merlin.
CHF Merlin - can't lift all of Royal's combat configured loads, and marinisation will give it even less payload. V good in the extreme cold, and will be OK as long as you stay at msl.
F-35B. Could (should) be hoofing. Yes, we should have the C, but the BAES part of the Carrier Alliance were never going to make it easy for Boeing to pitch SH as an 'interim' fighter.
IIRC the 2010 F35C was cadged in risk terms, as the B was in a bad place then. The fact that we could have got a proper AEW, COD and EW capability is a serious issue going forward. We could have been looking at an SDSR providing a 'silver bullet' force of 24 F35C and a larger buy of SH/Growler to replace Tornado/T1 Typhoons - all of which could embark to bolster the CAG if required.
As for Mr Ward, he is entitled to his opinion. He is, unfortunately, rapidly becoming the Jeremy Corbyn of naval airpower; out of touch, surrounded by acolytes and utterly incapable of accepting alternative opinions.
Perhaps I view the world a little less rosily......
ASW Merlin, yep - agree with you there though it's a big/expensive airframe to haul that mission kit around.
Wildcat? Pretty good, and you stitched the AAC in some of the config. The S Korean one is probably better - at least they've gone for DAFCS....
Bagger Merlin; agreed, to a point. The mission kit out of the SK7 seemed excellent, but it's a very expensive asset to fly 24/7 and will massively limit the radar horizon compared to E2, V-22 or a lift-compounded Merlin.
CHF Merlin - can't lift all of Royal's combat configured loads, and marinisation will give it even less payload. V good in the extreme cold, and will be OK as long as you stay at msl.
F-35B. Could (should) be hoofing. Yes, we should have the C, but the BAES part of the Carrier Alliance were never going to make it easy for Boeing to pitch SH as an 'interim' fighter.
IIRC the 2010 F35C was cadged in risk terms, as the B was in a bad place then. The fact that we could have got a proper AEW, COD and EW capability is a serious issue going forward. We could have been looking at an SDSR providing a 'silver bullet' force of 24 F35C and a larger buy of SH/Growler to replace Tornado/T1 Typhoons - all of which could embark to bolster the CAG if required.
As for Mr Ward, he is entitled to his opinion. He is, unfortunately, rapidly becoming the Jeremy Corbyn of naval airpower; out of touch, surrounded by acolytes and utterly incapable of accepting alternative opinions.
