FedaykinThat doesn’t mean there has to be conspiracies around each corner Nicholas10. The events of SSDR 2010 are the result of a severe budget crunch, general mismanagement of the defence budget over several decades and short sighted bungling. To suggest that somehow there was a grand conspiracy by the people in power to get rid of Harrier and ensure STOVL adoption into the future by selecting CATOBAR is absurd. If they wanted STOVL in the first place during SSDR 2010 then they could of ditched Harrier then, kept to the original plan in respect of the build, save £100million on conversion R&D and pocket the money from selling Harrier to the Americans.
FedaykinWell I agree cost will probably win out and Cerberus will get installed but nevertheless it will be a dated solution and not as neat as Vigilance. Also it is still an open requirement at the moment, the MOD hasn’t come down yet on any kind of firm decision. Maybe LM can make an interesting cost based solution considering UK is buying the radar as part of the F35B purchase.
Anyhow it will keep us all occupied pondering it out for the next few years 😀
FedaykinWell a low freeboard might affect flight operations if there is a reasonable amount of chop.
FedaykinCertainly no lack of vision here :p:D:rolleyes:
Строку, которую сыновья шлюх!
Well that is what google translate says!
FedaykinWith the to my untrained eyes low freeboard and other changes to her design I am curious to see how she handles at speed and in any kind of chop. Not a criticism before people jump down my throat but going on how the Kuznetsov handles in rough seas and her rather pedestrian performance its a reasonable question in respect of the Vikramaditya.
FedaykinWith Cerberus we get a system (albeit very good) developed in the 1990’s and nearly twenty years old when it enters service on the Merlin. It requires more messing about either converting surplus HM1 or using Commando force Merlin’s. LM Vigilance as a bolt on to the HM2 allows for a far more streamlined fleet and the flexibility of being able to swap it around the HM2 fleet as needed.
I agree as a podded solution you could hang it off some form of UAV, there is also another advantage. In its podded form it could also act as a austere AEW solution by hanging it on the wings of different fixed wing types. For example the A400 have an outer wing station for refuelling pods, I see no reason why Vigilance couldn’t be hung off it (accepting that wiring would have to be run) and the mission stations placed on some form of pellet to roll into the cargo hold.
FedaykinIts funny how the people in the UK who have followed this saga in detail over decades are now being called naive…
the harrier is an old and less capable airframe and something had to give.
The B was the original airframe selected for the carriers and it was a political whim (to differentiate the decision from the previous government that led to the change of type).
But given the way this have eveloved (or regressed) of the past 20 years or so, its no surprise that the carriers were not as flexible as they were supposed to be at some point in the past.
Why need there be any conspiracy?
Its far more a case of c*ck up than conspiracy, but its a c*ck up that lands the UK with very capable aircraft and massive carriers.
Further from that people who bemoan the loss of Harrier and retention of Tornado clearly don’t understand the pressures within the RAF on the run up to SSDR 2010. The fact is the RAF owned both types not the navy and the treasury effectively put a gun to the RAF’s head and said “one type HAS to go”. Given the choice between Harrier and Tornado retaining the former meant a loss of more capability. Tornado had more weapons integrated at the time, now I am sure it wasn’t lost on the Air Vice Marshall’s that it would also give the FAA a kick but nevertheless they were RAF aircraft and a decision had to be made on a capability based solution. Frankly I am of the opinion that the navy shouldn’t of so easily given up the Sea Harrier and looked at alternative solutions to dealing with the types hot and high performance but funding decisions had to be made.
FedaykinWorse than that: “I think it will probably outperform it”
But the F35 achieved most of its objectives: ruin the development of european (and other) fighters by sucking up R&D project.
Look at how the Typhoon didn’t get developed for AtoG because most of the partners were on the F35. Imagine what the Tyhpoon could be if half the money that went into F35 had been poured into it? It would already have an AESA, Storm Shadow/Taurus, EPWII/III and PWIV, Brimstone & most importantly CFTs.
Or look how the UK sold all their Harriers right after they switched to F35C for the price of, what, 1 LRIP F35, only to revert their decision back to F35B just after the deal was done. With a VSTOL carrier, the UK could have operated their harriers until the F35B was both operational and affordable. I think the switch to F35C was only a temporary measure to justify the sale of the Harriers to the US, to force the UK to buy F35Bs ASAP when their carrier gets ready. There are some big time traitors in the UK MOD.
Nic
Oh no Nicholas10! Not that old nugget again!
You have been told time and again how the Typhoon development schedule ties in with the partner nations fleet replacement program and you still peddle the conspiracy theories about funding being sucked into the F35 program. There is no nefarious plot to delay Typhoon AtoG integration for several very simple and prosaic reasons.
1) Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Spain all operate a perfectly capable ground attack fighter in the form of the Tornado or the F/A18 Hornet. All of those aircraft are earmarked to stay in service for many more years and have been upgraded. So there is no need to rush AtoG integration for any nation.
2) How can there be a plot to steal funding from Typhoon AtoG R&D when not all the nations are confirmed customers for the F35. So far only the UK and Italy are firmly signed up for the F35, Spain is a possible down the line and Germany don’t want it all.
3) Typhoon is earmarked to get full clearance for most if not all of the weapons and get the systems like AESA that you state. Some already have been or are in the process of integration. Some are ahead of schedule due to the UK wanting an austere AtoG capability. Actually spending money on that austere AtoG hardly fits in with you idea of the F35 plundering budget. Again as I said in point one the speed of integration of these weapons is dependent on the out of service dates of legacy fighters. In most cases the out of service dates are well into the next decade.
4) Now looking at the Rafale yes its AtoG integration is well ahead but that is quite simple to explain. France is going through a radical fleet upgrade converting to a two type fast jet fleet with a trainer and Rafale. Out of service dates of types like the Super Etendard , Mirage F1 and Mirage 2000D are ahead of the legacy types in the Typhoon partner nations. Frances need for AtoG capability on the Rafale is far more pressing.
Now for your paranoid concept that the whole CATOBAR debacle was some form of conspiracy to get rid of the Harrier and force STOVL adoption is absurd. The decision was based on a bungled defence review pure and simple, we have a government like many before that doesn’t seem to understand the concept of “spend to save in the future”. Going to CATOBAR and selling Harrier was a decision made to avoid short term spending by the treasury and MOD. Reverting back to STOVL was again a short term decision to avoid up front spending. Now whilst I am well known here as someone who would of preferred a CATOBAR capability I generally agree STOVL is probably the better way of getting two carriers in service.
FedaykinNow its back to Plan A and STOVL a Merlin based solution is the only practical option for the short to medium term. UAV based options are for the future at the moment.
The Cerberus based solution certainly has a good chance as it would use government furnished items and it would have adequate performance but personally I would prefer the AN/APG-81 AESA Vigilance pod from Lockheed Martin.
Cerberus involves some kind of Heath Robinson palletised solution hanging out the back of a ramp equipped Merlin (either the RAF examples entering the Commando force or a conversion of the spare HM1 not being converted to HM2. Vigilance is hung off the torpedo rail of an HM2 and interfaces with the new consoles already fitted. In effect any of the HM2 fleet can then act in the AEW role, also it has a next generation radar common to that fitted to the F35B.
FedaykinWell any upgrade should involve the cutting of several hundred holes for oarlocks to allow the crew to row when the boilers inevitably break down.
FedaykinLooking aside from the normal critics I think the Atlas C1 will start an interesting new capability in RAF transport.
The Triad of Atlas C1, Voyager KC2/KC3 and C17 Globemaster means the RAF has some serious modern kit moving capability. There are also some interesting synergies between Atlas and Voyager, they have a very similar cockpit and Airbus has developed a concept of commonality allowing crew to shift between types. In theory the Atlas and Voyager could share a common pilot pool.
That leaves the C130J which has done sterling and vital work in Afghanistan but is also some of the earliest built and fairly thrashed from heavy taskings. I woudn’t be surprised seeing an accelerated retirement post 2015 SDSR.
FedaykinThey should paint them red and form a display team……
The ‘Red Barrels‘ anyone ??? 😀
Ken
Hmmmm two Atlas C1 as the Synchro pair will be interesting :diablo:
This in red?
FedaykinWell returning to Subic shouldn’t be too problematic logistically for the US navy, presumably its facilities will have to be modernised but that means cash to local and US companies.
As for Clarke AFB nothing is impossible but considering it and Cubi point NAS are now international airports there could be conflicting issues. Nevertheless if the USN is returning to Subic a solution will be needed, Clarke might be the better solution as it is big and the Philippine air force is based there.
FedaykinErrr I am late to this but is somebody actually suggesting a SSK fitted with a large calibre gun!?:confused:
There is a reason why all the guns got removed from subs at the end of WW2, they utterly compromised what diesel subs are good at and was a very good way to get your boat blown out of the water. A corvette or Frigate is a much better platform for NGS as it can pack all the necessary sensors and self defence systems to operate on the surface close to the enemy! Anyhow if its a police action like Libya a frigate or corvette as Jonesy pointed out can do other stuff like fighter control or rescue of civies! If its a major Falklands type scenario with Amphibs the frigates/corvettes will be there anyway protecting the rest of the assault fleet along with the AAW destroyers in a layered defence.
If you really want to attack land targets like airfields with an SSK then sacrifice some of the Torpedo load in favour of a land attack missile, fitting a large calibre gun would give you such a compromised platform that it would hardly be of any use.
FedaykinYeah I pondered that as well Swerve, I am taking Radar choice with a pinch of salt at the moment.
Sign In
