|
And all that expensively purchased (cos it ain't an exchange) F-18 expertise is for ............. 350J Erm...embarked maritime fixed wing experience to grow expertise within the RN to run Carrier Strike. Be that delivered with the B or the C. |
Originally Posted by Navaleye
(Post 7180125)
This sensibly means that we can operate/rotate both our new carriers as planned. Agree they should be Navy cabs also.
Where does the optimisim come from that B Version still equals 2 active carriers ? Being German I don't have much experience with your politicians. If I look at ours I'm sure I would expect the smallest common denominator. And that would be the combination of only 1 carrier plus selecting the less capable aircraft. :} But maybe you are more lucky with your politicians... |
Henra: Just out of curiosity: Where does the optimisim come from that B Version still equals 2 active carriers ? It will be interesting (and perhaps revealing) if the number of carriers is not mentioned if the u-turn is annouced tomorrow? |
Quote: And all that expensively purchased (cos it ain't an exchange) F-18 expertise is for ............. 350J Erm...embarked maritime fixed wing experience to grow expertise within the RN to run Carrier Strike. Be that delivered with the B or the C. LFFC ... that by the time the capability arrives, will be flying for the airlines! |
Change to the B also potentially brings capability further left arguably strengthening the rational for F/A18 slots right now. |
This is true, but perhaps the RN crews currently with the USN F-18s could switch to the USMC and train with the new GR9 squadron that they're about to stand up - VTOL Harrier ops more relevant to B etc Also, a tour with the USMC doesn't guarantee embarked experience. The only benifit with going AV8B is VSTOL experience which we are all led to believe is a very straight forward affair in the JSF. The RNs biggest challenge and main argument for being involved in JSF is that they need experienced aircrew to run the show on the carriers. The bigger, more complex the carrier and the more time they spend on board the better. |
Or is it because there ain't gonna be ANY F35's purchased at all and the RN ain't gonna commission any carriers?
who knows how this CF will turn out!:mad: |
The article in the Times cites risk of no carrier strike capability until 2023 as the biggest driving force behind the decision, along with up front cost...am I missing something when I say that the F18E seems like the perfect solution to this, in more ways than one?? I'm sure the 100 unnecessary trainee pilots in the pipeline would be thrilled to hear that there is suddenly going to be cockpits available for them, the cost of catapults is mitigated by the peanut price of the F18 and the lack of F35 is completely acceptable because the US Navy are on the same time frame?? Who knows, we may even have been able to eek out a deal with the Americans for a discount as compensation for having to buy them in the first place.:mad:
|
Fantastic. A giant, expensive, fault prone fan where bombs, missiles and fuel could be, all because we're too poor to afford real carriers. You couldn't make it up.
|
More of the same....
Government forced into U-turn over Royal Navy fighter jets | UK news | The Guardian The navy will hope that the second carrier, which was due to be mothballed as soon as it was completed, will now be reprieved and made ready for service. |
F-35B? Oh good, another "whistling sh!tcan" like the Harrier...
http://echostains.files.wordpress.co...pot-groovy.jpg |
Henra asked where does the optimism come from that B Version still equals 2 active carriers.
I don't think there is any suggestion that there would ever be 2 carriers active at the same time, rather that because both would be usable without conversion we would cycle them in and out of high readiness, meaning we'd have one carrier available 8 years out of 8. Given how difficult reversion to B will be politically (the Guardian has helpfully reprinted all Cameron's statements about B vs C at the time of the SDSR) I'm kind of hoping that the Govt will cite the ability to alternate between both carriers as one way of sugaring a difficult pill. |
However, the uncomfortable truth here is that CTOL did not necessarily equal one carrier. I think it was Gerald Howarth who noted that it was hoped that converting the second ship (ie QE) would be looked at in 2015.
What the current debate has done is highlight that at no stage has the provenance of these "conversion" costs been exposed to real scrutiny. I think I am correct in saying that it is still unclear whether the "£1.8Bn" or whatever it is today has been generated by ACA, by MOD or by Aunty Betty in the commons tea room. I hope the "costs" are opened to scrutiny, but doubt it will happen. This has stitch up (with saving DPOC as a non-carrier capable frame) written all over it. Forget all the nonsense about UCAVs. Whether the next generation aircraft is manned or unmanned, high in the requirements list ought to be carrier compatibility. By going STOVL, it is pretty much guaranteed that "carrier compatibility" will be too difficult and expensive. |
However, the uncomfortable truth here is that CTOL did not necessarily equal one carrier. I think it was Gerald Howarth who noted that it was hoped that converting the second ship (ie QE) would be looked at in 2015. What the current debate has done is highlight that at no stage has the provenance of these "conversion" costs been exposed to real scrutiny. I think I am correct in saying that it is still unclear whether the "£1.8Bn" or whatever it is today has been generated by ACA, by MOD or by Aunty Betty in the commons tea room. I hope the "costs" are opened to scrutiny, but doubt it will happen. This has stitch up (with saving DPOC as a non-carrier capable frame) written all over it. Forget all the nonsense about UCAVs. Whether the next generation aircraft is manned or unmanned, high in the requirements list ought to be carrier compatibility. By going STOVL, it is pretty much guaranteed that "carrier compatibility" will be too difficult and expensive. What I would like to know is who actually pushed for the B >> C switch during the SDSR - was it a political driven request - perhaps driven by Liam Fox and his "advisors" in pursuit of the catchy headline, or a jolly good idea from one of the floors of MB to make some short term or through life savings that was actually pushed in the first instance by some in MoD? I wonder what side of the B/C fence some of the key actors are actually on - e.g. CAS, FSL etc.? |
NaB,
I totally agree, I can't help but get the feeling that old STOVL habits die hard, and that the Harrier guard's nostalgia has a lot to do with this. |
NaB - Not to mention this factoid, which just appeared again in the Grauniad:
"We are looking at a potential seven-year delay for the F-35C, which would mean we would not get the aircraft on the carriers until 2027," the source said. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? If the C is seven years late it will be dead, because its carrier slots will be filled willy-nilly by Super Hornys by then. The B will then be nonviable. |
I totally agree, I can't help but get the feeling that old STOVL habits die hard, and that the Harrier guard's nostalgia has a lot to do with this. |
Arseholes.
|
Pious,
Was that a (succinct and accurate) summary of the whole debacle or an answer to the question about SHAR and Phantom? Or both? I wonder if we could have a year when we found something out by the proper channels instead of just getting it from the press with 24 hours to run? |
Phantom / Sea Harrier
"Does anyone think the Sea Harrier was more capable than the Phantom?"
Maybe not, but what about the Falklands? Rgds SOS |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:48. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.