Royal Navy to buy F/A - 18 super Hornet (copy of artical added)

[jenko]

Just seen in the Sunday Times (page 2, right hand side) that the Navy are set to drop the order for the the Joint Strike Fighter and buy the F/A - 18 super Hornet. This is on the grounds of cost.

Looks like a lot of those "what if" could be redundant........ OR is a cunning move by the model industry to boost sales??

Comment to your hearts content guys and gals.....................

Dick

Edited August 1, 2010 by jenko

[Antoine]

Rafale M anyone???

[RussTnailZ]

If this is true they made me a happy man as i love the bug and hated the F-35 plus we were getting a dumbed down version of what the USMC were getting anyway. As for what if builders f-18 red arrows anyone and yes the rafale is a fantastic plane i would accept that too over the f-35. Im now wondering if the navy are going to fit catapults as i dont think the decks of our carries are long enough

Russ

Edited August 1, 2010 by RussTnailZ

[denstore]

Hmmh, couldn't they have picked Sea Gripen instead?

[Mentalguru]

Errr- right- IF one can slap a hook on a rafale- wtf can it not be done witt a Typhoon?

w rs

[zipper]

Errr- right- IF one can slap a hook on a rafale- wtf can it not be done witt a Typhoon?

w rs

A Sea Phoon, now theres an idea

[jasman71]

ok , all you WIFfers, get your F/A-18s up and running in RN colours But in Red Arrows? no However, Red Bull Matadors.. oh yessssssssssss!

I wouldn't be sad to not see the JSF, but Rafale, yes, that looks more like it! (Just aesthetic choice!)

[bentwaters81tfw]

Yes they could put a hook on a Typhoon. This is about cost.

Since when have we produced anything on time on budget?

Sea Typhoon....The Fishheads would want interminable extras which would delay it for years, and jack the price above that of the carriers themselves.

At least Super Bug is a combat proven tool. Typhoon and Rafale M are not.

[jasman71]

A Sea Phoon, now theres an idea

Sounds dangerously close to a Seagoon, which I'm sure would have the carrier crews lining up to all shout "he's fallen in de water" every time one ends up in the drink

[RussTnailZ]

ok , all you WIFfers, get your F/A-18s up and running in RN colours But in Red Arrows? no However, Red Bull Matadors.. oh yessssssssssss!

I wouldn't be sad to not see the JSF, but Rafale, yes, that looks more like it! (Just aesthetic choice!)

The angels do a fantastic job with the Hornet i think the Reds would top them tho given training time its just a personal vendetta to say the Reds are the best aerobatic team in the same plane lol.

I might just fit that RN Hornet build in before the end of the current whif GB

Russ

[Shar2]

If the RN buy the F-18 or Rafale I'd be tempted to join up again. The only thing is the huge amount of training that will be required in going back to conventional carrier ops. Something we haven't done since '78.

[kspriss]

Yes they could put a hook on a Typhoon. This is about cost.

not without strengthening the rear of the jet first...then the front to take catapult stresses..then upgrade and strengthen the undercarriage, and shorten it at the same time...then think of folding wings and possibly tail..then navalize the rest of the airframe to withstand salty sea air...

oh and when you have done all that (remembering they took out the gun to save weight), you will need to lengthen, widen and increase the height of the carriers as well as fitting wires and cats..

...maybe we should use our 'special relationship' to strike a deal for the old uss kitty hawk?

..just my 2p worth

steve

[magwitch]

Hmmh, couldn't they have picked Sea Gripen instead?

Probably the same reason they didn't pick the Macross VF-1 or any other aircraft that doesn't actually exist.

[Nigel Bunker]

IF one can slap a hook on a rafale- wtf can it not be done witt a Typhoon?

The difference is that Rafale was designed from the outset to have a Navy version and the structure is strong enough to accept this. Regrettably it is not just a matter of adding a hook - look at what MDD had to do to the Hawk to make the T-45 - it even included moving the main gear attatchment points to a location that could take the load of a carrier landing. I suspect the cost of making a few Sea Typhoons for the RN would be astronomical.

[SPerx]

Blimey - common sense planning? That cannot be right.

IIRC the two flat-tops on order have been specified such that they can be readily modified for cat & trap operations. Maybe someone who knows more can confirm that?

If this story is correct, bring on the Hornet FGA1 - I never did much like the F-35.

Now, where are my FAA decal sheets.........

[Enzo the Magnificent]

If this story is correct, bring on the Hornet FGA1

That's a perfectly valid designation and as such is unlikely to be used!

The MOD have done it twice. Once with the F-4J Phantoms, which really should have been designated Phantom F.3 but became the Phantom F-4J(UK).

The second time was with the upgraded Sea Harrier. It should have been the Sea Harrier FGR.2 (or maybe FGA.2) but instead they had to make it sound as though it was equivalent to a Hornet and called it the F/A2.

And what is all this idiocy with "tranches"? They used the term "phase" on Harriers. Why make it sound French?

[Graham T]

F-35 is a dad duck IMHO. F-18 gets my vote although the rafale is highly appealing! IIRC didn't BAE actually commence studies on navalising the Typhoon some time ago? As others have said, hook, strenghtened rear fuselage & probaly u/c but probably doable. It would also provide savings with common training RAF/RN training, servicing etc.

[arnobiz]

And what is all this idiocy with "tranches"? They used the term "phase" on Harriers. Why make it sound French?

I doubt it, even in France we use "phase", which is a french word too BTW

[GrahamS]

Trouble is, in order to keep jobs in the UK, to make up for those lost by pulling out of the F35, will they feel the need to Anglicise them (build in the UK, RR engines etc) in some way thus increasing costs to that of the F35?

Graham

[Seahawk]

There are lots of stories, wild and otherwise, floating around at the moment. Very mixed feelings: from what I hear, I'm no great fan of the F-35, esp the F-35B, but on the other hand the layman's cry of "let's buy something cheaper off the shelf" usually means "let's buy something at least a generation earlier which will prove less survivable, become obsolete that much sooner and cost more in the long run". The good news is that such a decision would indicate a commitment to fixed wing naval aviation and at least one of the carriers.

I understand the carriers are currently being built with provision for catapults and arrestor wires if required at some point in their life. However I think the assumption was it would be an electromagnetic catapult: not sure where that idea has got to or whether the new carriers have the steam generation capacity if it were necessary to revert to steam catapults.

[Dave]

It's seems that the electromagnetic catapult system is still on the cards:

EMCAT

The carrier design would now also include a sufficiently angled flight deck.

[denstore]

Probably the same reason they didn't pick the Macross VF-1 or any other aircraft that doesn't actually exist.

Bad example. The Macross VF-1 is a pure sci-fi product.

The Sea Gripen is an ongoing (started in 2009) SAAB project, which was started as a response to Indias request for a new carrier aircraft.

http://www.stratpost.com/saab-offers-naval-gripen-to-india

Edited August 1, 2010 by denstore

[keefr22]

Personally speaking I ask myself, why do we actually need the carriers. Why do we still think we are important enough to send a gunboat anywhere anymore, let alone 'force project' with a carrier battle group? If the latest story that the whole Tornado fleet is likely to be grounded overnight, leaving the R.A.F. with just 40 odd Typhoons & a similar number of Harriers becomes true, then the only sensible defence strategy left to this country is to re-trench & re-deploy all the armed forces to become a solely home- defence force. Send another 4 Typhoons to the Falklands & that'll be our international commitments covered. I also can't see how we can continue to meet our NATO obligations with the threatened defence cuts, so we may as well leave that organisation as well & declare ourselves neutral. After all, we'll end up with a weaker front line air force than Switzerland or Sweden.....(no disrespect meant to either of those superb air-forces, it's just that to me they appear to know what to do with the resources they have and to concentrate on what is important to them, whilst this near bankrupt country of ours still thinks it can play games way out of its league.)

And as to Sea Typhoon I've heard the reason why it can't work, but can't relate it here.

Keef

[canberraman]

If the Times story is true, and I think that's a big 'if' considering the amount of speculation rife at present while the SDR proceeds, what will the RAF receive if JSF/F-35 gets the boot? I had assumed that the only reason their airships were even contemplating binning Tornado GR4 and or Harrier GR9 was on the assumption they would receive their full quota of F-35s to be operated alongside those of the FAA. So if the FAA are to get the Super Bug instead where does that leave the RAF? It's been sugegsted that the RAF will only utilise two combat types in future, so one is clearly going to be Typhoon, what about the other? If Super Bug does get delivered that will signal the end of the GR9, so will this be the reprieve for GR4 until a successor is eventually found? Questions, questions...

Mark

[bootneck]

Is the plan to drop the JSF in entirety or just the naval version?

If it was completely dropped then could we see a spate of what ifs and yearnings for JSF kits - just like the TSR2?

Mike