FedaykinWhat was the projected through life attrition rate for the F-22? At this rate they will start to suffer OSD issues. With the procurement capped they will either have to work the existing airframes harder, thus accepting a significant midlife SLEP, reduce flight hours or bring forward the OSD.
FedaykinSome more videos, again emphasizing the comprehensive integrated system from ground to air. Something they can demonstrate with the RAF T.2, but that KPP has some problematic issues, nevertheless the system as a whole is an advantage to BAE SYSTEMS as they have a proven modern solution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhxeJu8T9mM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4lAhcsVQyU – this one made me chuckle for its full level of cheese!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QClgAPV59gg
The final video did make an interesting point, the Hawk is already in effect a lead in trainer for the F-35 with the USN, RAF, RAAF and RCAF. I wonder if they are going to push that point hard for the US selectors? They also seem to be confident about the air refuelling issue, clearly they had been prior warned about that KPP. HAve any of the other companies bidding put out any promotion videos yet?
Oh and it did me chuckle seeing Valley standing in for a USAF base in the advert 😀
FedaykinInteresting looking at the BAE SYSTEMS promotion video for the Hawk AJTS from last year. Clearly they were pushing the mature sophisticated synthetic ground based training side of the offer and a minimal change Hawk. The KPP throws a spanner in the works so it will be interesting how they propose to meet the KPP over the next few months:
FedaykinTo be honest with CVA01 if the navy had gone for something just big enough to operate Phantom then they might of got it. A bit bigger then the Audacious class maybe around 40’000 tons might of got built. Reading one of Eric “Winkle” Brown books he feels they shouldn’t of messed around with p1154 and gone straight with Phantom anyhow. Levering as much as possible from the Americans as possible.
Nevertheless it is academic now.
FedaykinCheck the final sentence Hambo 😉 RAF not RN?
FedaykinThe pilot reportedly stayed with his crippled jet until the last moment to avoid the civilian damages.
This T-50 crash has a consequence in the F-X, as the ROKAF is historically dead against single engine jets because of the population density, and serves as a reminder of why they cannot go with a single engine jet like the F-35.
Dead against single engine jets? What about the Hawk they operate? What about all those F-16 they operate? I think there is a flaw in your theory about their desire to purchase single engine jets…
FedaykinWhat is interesting with Vanguard and Ohio successor is how similar a path they appear to be taking. They both getting a similar reactor with the UK built PWR3 being a version of the American design, to my mind an excellent idea considering how much more testing the Americans can put into the parent design to what we can afford. Ohio successor is lifting as much as possible from the Virginia class whilst Vanguard Successor is lifting as much as possible from Astute class.
Personally I think an 8th Astute should be purchased to avoid a gap until Vanguard successor, then again Barrow could work a bit harder to get sub contract for Diesel sub work globally. A step I feel was made in the right direction recently when Barrow got sub contract work to build the fore and aft pressure domes for Italian S-80 diesel subs. Considering Navantia is bidding an S-80 variant for the Australians who are already apparently consulting the UK on Collins successor that could be a useful development.
FedaykinImportant definition was ‘on patrol’ there. One boat was on station continually. Whether that was a Polaris or Trident patrol station isnt really an issue the station would be within weapons range of the target.
I think more what Fed was saying was that an SSBN was mobile and persistent enough that it could reach any point on the earths surface within a couple of thousand miles of open water and, provided the SSBN was in range, could place a warhead on target assuredly within 30 minutes of the launch order.
Yep 😉
FedaykinMaybe, but tucked in behind the canopy like that it might not actually make much difference.
What is significant is what SATCOM means to its long range strike capability. With SATCOM it can discretely communicate with other assets in a strike package or back to Israel real time wherever it is flying!
FedaykinThe Singapore base protected Commonwealth countries such as Australia and India as much as British interests, and nuclear weapons were stored there to enable Bomber Command to deter aggression from the likes of China and Indonesia as much as the USSR. Obviously, with just four SSBNs, that could not happen
Errrrrr no! Quite the reverse! SSBN were better at the role in that sense as the four SSBN had an ability to strike any part of the globe from any ocean in thirty minutes flat!
Your points about the vulnerability of an air launched deterrent are not without merit, but please accept the fact that in 1962 the UK was committed to just such a deterrent, and had signed the agreement to buy Skybolt. If the US had not cancelled Skybolt, it would have been our deterrent into the 1980s.
So we were very lucky they did cancel giving us the far cheaper more effective solution then. In the end this is about Trident and its launch platform not decisions made in the 1960’s, CVA01 was doomed regardless of what happened with the deterrent.
Trident is remaining in service until 2042 at the least, the current procurement process is purely about replacing the launch platform. The wheels are rolling and it will be successor submarine with Trident…we can’t bring back CVA01 now and frankly we are getting QE class so things are on the up! I hate reduction in fleet numbers as much as you do but the rot had already set in regardless of the Polaris SSBN decision!
FedaykinNow now guys I have a hunch that Wanshan has made an innocent mistake!
Whist the HDW Type 214 is not 4000 tons the proposed HDW Type 216 is!
Wanshan you didn’t get your types and figures mixed up did you:p
We have all done it with our Google-fu in the past;)
FedaykinOf course one irony of this process is the ground simulation equipment for the RAF Hawk T.2 are provided by Lockheed Martin.
I suppose the devil is in the details, the Hawk will need a redesign to meet the KPP. For example the USAF want a dry receptacle to allow air to air refuelling training (then again if they want that why not make it wet capable to actually allow the option of refuelling!). Next do they offer an Adour variant or put something like the Honeywell F125 in it. I suppose it is a question of offering the bare minimum changes to meet the KPP or something more significant. Catch is to meet the KPP performance parameters I think they will have to make some significant changes.
FedaykinIf Typhoon and Silent Eagle are running neck to neck then the Boeing will I think. Why induct another type when they can adopt the F-15.
FedaykinI read it was the peak district, nevertheless the public reaction to millions of tons of concrete being poured to build silos in areas of outstanding beauty wherever they are plus all the road infrastructure would of been rather strong!
FedaykinIndeed for a liquid fuelled booster Blue Streak was very advanced and served as the basis of the European launcher program, the technology handed over to the French when Tony Benn pulled the plug on the project to help fund council estate tower block building in his own words! (clever one there Mr Benn – hand the technology for what became multi billion pound industry to the French to fund social housing that is now being knocked down due to its general awfulness!
Fact is whilst Blue Streak was state of the art in a liquid fuelled launcher sense LGM-30A Minuteman rendered it obsolete! Minuteman had solid fuel making it far easier to store for long periods of time and totally removing the complex fuelling procedure required pre-launch for a liquid fuelled missile. Minuteman also had a digital embedded fire control computer giving it a far higher level of accuracy then prior systems.
With Skybolt gone the UK effectively had several choices:
1) Carry on with current freefall bombs and Blue steel accepting the degrading of the capability over time.
2) Take over Skybolt.
3) Get Blue Streak to work.
4) Adopt AGM-28 Hound Dog (Americans offered this first).
5) Update Blue steel with the proposed long range updates in particular extra fuel tanks.
6) Adopt LGM-30A Minuteman
7) Adopt UGM-27 Polaris
8) Drop nuclear weapons. (The deterrent not use them ;-))
Option 1 degrades our second strike capability over time. Option 2 was highly expensive, not guaranteed of success and also degraded our second strike capability over time. Option 3 is costly, forces adoption of a missile already obsolete in comparison to an America system and forces the unpopular construction of silos in the national parks. Option 4 is reasonable but accepts deterrent degradation, the costs of supporting a system that Americans were retiring and most importantly didn’t fit on the V-bombers. Option 5 on the face of it is reasonable as it could be adapted to an in service system but Blue steel is a troubled program and again we accept a degradation over time of the deterrent. Option 6 is reasonable but suffers the same problem of building in the national parks. Option 7 offers a new state of the art system paid for significantly by the Americans and maintains the minimum second strike capability. Option 8 no comment!
Sign In
