Stephen Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 F-35 U-turn Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveJL Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 I think that was only to be expected! Makes you wonder what goes on behind the scenes! Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbuna Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Plenty of time for the bugga to perform a double U-turn....I simply don't trust him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickers McFunbus Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Shame. If only we'd been sensible and gone for a conventional carrier borne fighter from the start, not a Harrier hangover (for whatever reason). That said, I can imagine the contractors dribbling when SDSR announced the F-35C initial u-turn. Maybe (obviously, given this further U-turn) they weren't quite as forthcoming with accurate costs and timescales for converting the carriers. F-35C will be a better platform (once they sorted the hook!) Shame we've gone back to the B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowler0000 Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Why can`t we have Tomcat`s?!?! >that should light a fire!< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Why can`t we have Tomcat`s?!?! Some people in the US Navy have asked the same question after the big cat's retirement.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff_B Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Now you can see how we got a £38 billion defence black hole if our defence chiefs are that daft enough to switch back to an inferior variant with no alternatives when its still got a long way to go in its flight testing and development.Its not the Conversion costs thats spooked them, its discovering that the USN put back the F-35C in service date to the next decade, but despite the USMC pushing to get its Windows 8 beta release F-35B classed as operational, the fact remain that the aircraft are in very low rate production till 2017 and most of those batches are not going to be viable warfighters but rather training machines with various defects and restrictions on them untill they are scheduled for their concurrency upgrade/rebuild to bring them upto standard. They are willing to sacrifice our future capability becuase they don't have enough backbone to say the F-35 is not going to meet our JCA requirment untill the middle of the next decade, in terms of capability, cost and deliveries, as we have no harriers or carrier capable aircraft then we will need a stop gap aircraft from our friends to cover that gap and bring a carrier into service. Just so they can sit there and get their pensions as HMS Queen Elizabeth is comissioned with a token F-35B on board in 2016, but wont see a squadron till 2021 at the earliest (Be it B or C the schedule was for 18 aircraft by 2020 and that was before the US deferred its orders back by 5 years to 2017 !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shelfspace Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Gotta be a u-turn cos they can't VIFF... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 It also means that they can have two carriers with STORVL capability rather than one with CATOBAR and one with STORVL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Haven't the USN just placed an order for the new fangled catapult launch system on behalf of the RN? What about the much vaunted interoperability with the Aeronavale? If the 'C cannot operate from the Charles de Gaulle, the Rafale certainly cannot operate from the QE!! without the cat and trap? Are the French going going to buy the 'B to operate off the QE? I doubt it. As I have said before, what do we want to be capable of - what do we need for it - fund it accordingly. Whatever you think of the coalition, you have to admit their PR department sucks lemons. If the MoD were ever serious about the 'C, then the logical thing to do would have been to lease F-18D/E's or Rafales in the interim, so that way we could have had a cadre of trained pilots and ground crew ready for the great day. But what do I know? Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kallisti Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 FFS, just put cats on them and buy f18s for a fraction of the cost and better performance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christof Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 The May issue of Airforces Monthly did a pretty good article on F-35B. Covered its shortcomings in detail. Thing is restricted in warload. Can't get back aboard with weapons on so will have to dump them. Can't carry air-to-air missiles if carrying bombs. Biggest bomb is 500lb and its range reduced. I recommend anyone to read it. Articles author called it a "wheezy pig". And the airframe is getting heavier reducing the engines available power. RN/RAF are going to be stuck with this for the next 30 years. Christof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hovis Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Time to increase my anti-depressants...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antoine Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Rafale anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowler0000 Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Rafale anyone? Ummm, no!!! How about we buy BACK those Harriers we sold to the Yanks, or just go with navalized SU-27`s!?!? Shorely a better option???? (it`s late & i been at the wine, but i`m STILL more coherent than any fool who selected the F-35! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Rafale anyone? I have said for a long time this is the way we should go. Would give complete inter-operability with the Aéronavale, which should be given the fact we are only buying 2 carriers which is really one short. We should be also building up the European defence capability and not having to rely on the US as much. The F-35 should have been dropped a long time ago. Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xffw45343tg Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 (edited) Excellent news. I wonder if its too late to reverse the Harrier sale to the USMC and recomission them? Edit: Looks like I may be in luck. The RAF's site, which is obviously up to date and representing the forefront of military aviation thinking says that the future Hawk 128 will be "Used to train aircrew for Harrier, Tornado, Typhoon and the future Joint Combat Aircraft.". Maybe a U-turn on keeping aircrew too then. Remember, you heard it here first. Edited April 17, 2012 by Kirk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 While AirForces Monthly sure is a serious magazine, some things written in the article should be put in the correct perspective: Thing is restricted in warload. It is compared to the F-35A and C versions, but can still carry a respectable 14,000 Lbs. As every maximum load, this actually means nothing ! What's important is the load that can practically be carried. As most aircrafts load is limited by the need to carry pods, tanks and so on, a proper comparison should be done for similar mission profiles. Can't get back aboard with weapons on so will have to dump them. This depends on the load and is true of other carrier based aircrafts. Even the Tomcat had strict limits on the bring-back load, limits that affected the loads carried when on operation. This is a problem mainly in certain missions where ordnance might or might not be used. However these same missions don't usually involve the heaviest possible loads. Can't carry air-to-air missiles if carrying bombs. Biggest bomb is 500lb and its range reduced. Bombs and missiles can't be carried at the same time in the internal bays, but using the external pylons it's possible to carry both. Same for the 500 Lbs limit, it's for bombs in the internal bays only, the outer pylons can carry up to 1500 Lbs each. Yes, it is range reduced but again it is compared to the A and B versions of the same aircraft. Every VTOL aircraft compares unfavourably to conventional aircrafts of similar weight, so nothing new here. Does anybody remember the range of the original Harrier GR.1 with no external fuel tanks ? I recommend anyone to read it. Articles author called it a "wheezy pig". And the airframe is getting heavier reducing the engines available power.RN/RAF are going to be stuck with this for the next 30 years. They are going to be stuck with an aircraft that compared to the harrier has longer radius, higher speed, better avionics, superior AA capability (vastily superior if we compare it with the GR.9), stealth capability (if only the internal bays are used). While I agree that the C version would have been better as a carrier aircraft, it doesn't sound too bad a deal ! Here's one thing I struggle to understand: the FAA has been stuck with aircrafts inferior to the competition for most of its existance. There is the chance of the FAA having one of the most advanced aircrafts around, an aircraft that is potentially superior to everything any enemy could throw at it, and nobody seems to want this to happen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenshb Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 (edited) I have said for a long time this is the way we should go.Would give complete inter-operability with the Aéronavale, which should be given the fact we are only buying 2 carriers which is really one short. We should be also building up the European defence capability and not having to rely on the US as much. The F-35 should have been dropped a long time ago. Julien I think the Rafale would make perfect sense. Interoperability with a country that the UK has Defence treaties and seeks closer cooperatwion with, and aircraft off the shelf that has been designed as a carrier aircraft from the outset and economies of scale because you can make three virtually identical (or at least far more similar) carriers instead of two different ones based on the same platform. The article on the details of the Swiss evaluation of the Rafale made very interesting reading. Yes, the Typhoon may be better at dogfighting and have superior manouevrability and supercruise, but it's effectiveness as a warplane/integrated weapon's system/platform even in the air to air role (where it was always assumed to be superior) is deemed less than the French aircraft. That I found rather surprising, but I'm expecting Typhoon fanboys to say the Swiss haven't got a clue what they are talking about... The Typhoon seems to suffer from "almost not a pound for air to ground" wheras the Rafale was again developed as a multi-role aircraft which is just what you need at a carrier unless you want to go back to specialised types, and that is neither affordable, nor desirable. The only "problem" with the Rafale is that it "was not invented here". You can put a price on national pride - in this case a few billion quid... Don't want to be stuck with the aircraft? Why not do what the Czechs did with the Gripen? Lease the aircraft for a period of 10-15 years, outsource maintenance keep it as a temporary solutioin, but at least it will give the FAA fixed wing cat and trap experience that they haven't had for 30 years and they'll hit the ground running when the F-35C comes on line and down in cost due to large-scale production. Jens Edited April 17, 2012 by jenshb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian M Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Would it be an idiotic question to ask why not a navy Eurofighter. I recall seeing that some place was playing with a carrier Eurofighter.. Ian M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike romeo Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 (edited) Would it be an idiotic question to ask why not a navy Eurofighter. I recall seeing that some place was playing with a carrier Eurofighter..Ian M Ian, Not a stupid question at all, but it's been looked at a number of times already and unfortunately it's a non-starter due to cost & capability issues. regards, Martin Edited April 17, 2012 by mike romeo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPerx Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Would it be an idiotic question to ask why not a navy Eurofighter. I recall seeing that some place was playing with a carrier Eurofighter..Ian M Bluntly, yes. The reason they cannot have a naval Typhoon is that it was conceived and designed to be land-based. The wings are one piece and it would be a major re-design effort to make them folding so as to be able to fit on a lift. It is not stressed for carrier operation; the undercarriage is not stressed to deal with the sink-rates inherent in carrier landings. The back end is not stressed to take the loads of arrested landings. It may have a tail hook, but that is for emergencies rather than every landing. Its substantially made of plastic and what metal bits there are do not have saltwater tolerant properties. In a nutshell, they would have to re-design the entire project which, as the Eurofighter partners would not want Naval Typhoon, would be utterly beyond the economic capacity of the UK. There would be no export sales because any other nation which wantd a naval fighter would get Rafale or F-18E for a fraction of the cost that Naval Typhhons would be. There are loads more reasons why we could not do Naval Typhoon but I dare say if I wrote them I would get flamed for being polictical. Lets just say that, yet again, Britain is making bad decisions on defence procurement and in the future we will, once again, be ill-equipped with yesterday's machine tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 They're all Mentioned above was the fact the Rafale wasn't invented here. Neither is the F-35!!! Good money after bad afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 (edited) While we're on the subject, here are some recent UK-related press releases on F-35 testing: Feb. 2012 Yesterday Since the first F-35B STOVL variant for the UK was flown yesterday, the same day the "U-turn" was announced, perhaps it had been anticipated for a while? Why can`t we have Tomcat`s?!?! 'Cuz we shredded them all. Talk about a waste of taxpayer money... Cheers, Bill Edited April 17, 2012 by Navy Bird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandX Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 All nonsense! The Parnall Plover would be the logical choice, possibly with a basket slung beneath wherein some luckless rating could observe the fall of shot and direct fire from our Ironclads... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts