If the RN had bought or chooses to buy F/A-18 in places of the F-35 what changes do you all would think be incorporated into the design to make it more “British?”
I bring this up after reading a article on think defense how the Apache the Royal Army bought and developed were similar to the Block III Apaches the US Army is now rolling out from the begining.
By: benroethig - 27th January 2012 at 00:43
None. By the time the B/C fully replace the A-D models in Navy/Marine Corps service, they’ll be held together by chewing gum and tinfoil.
By: Al. - 26th January 2012 at 16:24
why is it the Royal Navy and Airforce then but then the British Army?
Many reasons.
One is that the RN has never rebelled against the Crown (spithead you cry but nay that was matelots mutineed against their officers and the monarch even agreed that said officers were not gentlemen and had to have silly dangly swordbelts to remind them).
The Army (as a professional body of men) of course began with a rebellious anti-royal New Model Army. Interestingly though many (might even be all) British Army Regiments and Corps have their own Royal charter anyway.
On original question:
If the (pie in the sky) interim plan happens; how many airworthy ‘legacy’ hornets are still availible? Surely that’d be the absolute cheapest option. Failing that the RAF can fit CFTs to Typhoon and claim that there is no need for Naval fixed wing anyway.
By: Sintra - 26th January 2012 at 12:34
Paint… And weapons clearance.
By: kev 99 - 26th January 2012 at 12:23
Weapons integration would be a must, not much of the current UK weapons are cleared for F/A 18E/F.
By: benroethig - 26th January 2012 at 00:17
If the RN had bought or chooses to buy F/A-18 in places of the F-35 what changes do you all would think be incorporated into the design to make it more “British?”
Depends on what they want and what they’re willing to pay. Low end: incorporation of British weapons. High end: localized (and possibly British assembled) variant of the international upgrade version. EJ230/270 (if ever developed) will fit as should Captor-E and Pirate IRST variant.
By: Jonesy - 25th January 2012 at 23:03
Short answer is because of the Regimental system that the British Army has employed for hundreds of years. Individual regiments have a Royal charter not the service as a whole.
The senior service, the RN, has held a royal charter in its “current” form since the late 17th Century and records of ‘Kings ships’ go back to the 10th Century. That charter is as a single service hence the “Royal” prefix.
By: Arabella-Cox - 25th January 2012 at 22:46
British Army not Royal Army
Fleet Air Arm not Royal Air Arm
Royal Air Force and Royal Navy as they are😎
As to the question, similar things to those changed on the F35. I think comms was one of them.
why is it the Royal Navy and Airforce then but then the British Army?
By: TooCool_12f - 25th January 2012 at 19:34
I wouldn’t see them put an EJ200 version inside, as it is about a good 10% less powerful already, which wouldn’t be exactly interesting, especialy for a naval aircraft (in case of bolter, you use all the power you can get to take off again)
By: Distiller - 25th January 2012 at 18:55
Paint scheme?
By: Rookh - 25th January 2012 at 17:55
I think engines as well, an uprated EJ200 with TVC?
By: ppp - 25th January 2012 at 16:25
British Army not Royal Army
Fleet Air Arm not Royal Air Arm
Royal Air Force and Royal Navy as they are
😎
As to the question, similar things to those changed on the F35. I think comms was one of them.
By: obligatory - 25th January 2012 at 04:12
Only some weapons, like ASRAAM, Brimstone.
Sign In
January 24, 2012 at 11:48 pm