FedaykinBrazil were lucky with their Skyhawks, they were some of the last built, they had no carrier cycles, low flight hours and their previous owner Kuwait kept them in pretty much the driest environment you could find.
They are getting an upgrade similar to the F5M of the airforce with new avionics, a semi glass cockpit, new HUD, ELTA 2032 radar and more then likely the BVR Derby missile. Combined with their rebuilt Tracker/Trader Tanker and AEW aircraft we are talking the most potent capability over water in the entire region…nothing to be sniffed at!
Fedaykindid they not learn nothing from the Arado 234 or Me-163??
Well many gliders use skid landing for similar weight saving reasons, the Phantom Eye is in effect a powered glider.
FedaykinAh Beedall, not as prolific as he used to be but nevertheless interesting.
There are an odd few conclusions I wouldn’t agree with firstly:
Billions could of been saved if a 35-40,000 ton carrier had been built.
Not really the major cost is in the systems, steel is cheap! The initial design review that led to a 65,000 ton vessel being selected was sensible…a STOVL carrier that large met the tasking better then a small one.
Secondly:
There is a good chance the RN only will stand up with F35B.
Not a chance for several reasons! Firstly the RAF will provide the surge capability and secondly provide the larger bulk of pilots from the Tornado squadrons as they stand down. Thirdly operating from a conventional runway and using external stores the range and payload figures of F35B become far more favourable in comparison to GR4 bringing the type into the acceptable (but not perfect) for the RAF as a penetration strike type…also don’t forget the tankers! Fourthly there is NO WAY the RAF is going to allow the navy to get a cutting edge stealth jet with no look in themselves!
I do agree with him that the carrier conversion costs stink to high heaven and the intended adaptability of the design was clearly ignored or given up on by BAE SYSTEMS/THALES/Carrier alliance as they tried to bring costs down and get the carrier main gated.
FedaykinNot entirely true, but it doesn’t matter for this discussion
Lets just agree to quibble on that one as it is rightly a complex technology.
In fact because the T26 missiles will be the shorter ranges ones, it is unlikely that a T26 could do much to assist a T45 if the target is out of the T26 sensor range, especially of not a crossing (to the T26) target. The reverse situation is more likely in all honesty
CAMM has better Kinematic performance then Sea Wolf so it would benefit from a helping hand from Sampson and as I KEEP saying if the Daring runs out of missiles Type23/26 might have to step in (a very real possibility in a saturation attack)…CEC only enhances its chances in that scenario. Also I don’t get your comment about the target being outside the T26 sensor range…that is why we are talking about CEC! CAMM on the T23/T26 is an active missile, CEC enables the sensors on the T45 to act for the missiles on the T23/T26.A true case (though it relies on a few other ifs and procurements), and indeed I recognise there are others. But if those are the most likely operational scenarios you can construct, does it really warrant all that money? Ahead of so many other competing programmes which we also cannot fund? I can certainly think of several I would rate higher priority
It is one case but if you want another and for me the GREATEST reason for investment is we have only bought six Type-45 half what the navy wanted! CEC helps mitigate that AAW shortfall making it well worth the investment in my opinion.
In the end the debate is academic CEC is not funded for the moment however much I lament the fact…funding might be available once QE enters service.
FedaykinDropping F-35C makes the USN’s eleven CVNs irrelevant because they would not be able to participate in the first days of conflict with a near peer. The CVNs would have to wait until USAF eliminated the threat. F/A-18E/Fs are good for uncontested missions, but would be attrited quickly by a numerically superior near peer. USN knew this in the mid-1990s. That is why they signed on to F-35.
To be honest I don’t buy into this group think which has developed over time that the Super Hornet can’t cope with uncontested missions and is greatly threatened by peer and near peer rivals.
It has an excellent radar, the latest Sidewinder and AMRAAM plus excellent situational awareness due to the off platform sensors that it can access.
There has been lots of talk about day one kick down the door technology but that doesn’t mean non stealthy types can’t survive in a contested environment. As it stands nobody except America even operates a fully stealthy fighter and even then the F22 and F35 are more then visible to certain radar types.
FedaykinI suppose it will also mean the retiring IL-76 will become handy parts mules for the remaining Il-78MKI and A-50EI. I presume India has a sizeable parts holding for the IL-76 so cannibalising parts from retiring airframes they add to the cost savings in the remaining fleet.
FedaykinThe Navy department is the Federal pay master, the USMC is still a separate branch of the US armed forces.
FedaykinAh well just to quibble one thing there 19K11, as an American you should know that the USMC is a separate branch of the US armed forces and not part of the US Navy. They do deploy from the sea and use USN amphib assault ships but they are not part of the Navy as you seem to think.
Now if we were talking about the Royal Marine Commandos then you would be correct as they are part of the Royal Navy.
FedaykinLink-11/16 allows different platforms to share a common picture, CEC goes beyond that as it effectively treats all the different platforms as one system.
The higher performing SAMPSON on a Type 45 could be providing fire control to a Type 26 extending its engagement range or acting as a missile bin if the Daring has expended all its missiles in an engagement and hasn’t time to reload.
Another possibility (and a capability that would of been useful 30 years ago in the Falklands war) is the engagement of targets by the Type 45 with its longer range missiles when its sensors are masked by terrain by using information from ships and aircraft that are not masked.
FedaykinI read your quote 3 times, you clearly imply that CEC falls into the category of what you think should be considered, and what you thought should be considered had to be “known to work off the shelf”
Which part of that understanding of your quote is incorrect?
I said it was established and known to work I did not say off the shelf. I was saying we should focus on off the shelf and known to work technologies.
My opinion is it is worthwhile going through the cost and effort to integrate it, I don’t see that as absurd.
CEC is established and known to work or am I missing something? Will it be a complex job to add it to the fleet certainly but is it worth it? As far as I am concerned…yes.
Again I didn’t say it was an off the shelf solution, that’s not what I think and I apologise if my earlier post was not clear enough on the matter.
FedaykinSorry Fedaykin but suggesting you can just buy CEC off the shelf is ridiculous, it is like saying a ferrari engine works off the shelf so I can just pop it into my lambo and it will work fine. Only 10000 times more so
That is why CEC would be so costly for UK- all the changes to it and other systems to make them work together. Same reasons many other systems are changed or developed specially
Errr where pray did I say that CEC was off the shelf or easy to integrate Prom?
I said it was an established known to work technology, integration would be a MASSIVE force enhancer! That is why it was deemed worthwhile going through the cost and hassle of adding it to the fleet and why I am lamenting its knocking into long grass…
I suggest you read mine and others posts carefully before you deem them as ridiculous;)
FedaykinMy previous posting is about replacing the Legacy Hornets of the RAAF that require it. I dont believe F18-F,s would be a good replacement, although I do agree that if the RAAF converts 12 of its Super Hornets to Growlers, they would probably need to purchase a further 12 F18-F’s to keep the number of strike aircraft at 24.
For the legacy Hornets, a single seat aircraft would be a more apt replacement. So if the RAAF bought a number of F18-E’s, would they require a seperate supply chain to the F18-F’s, or would they both be able to operate off the same maintenance supplys?
They operate within the same supply and maintenance chain. The differences between the twin seat and single seat variant are so minimal to make it virtually a non issue!
FedaykinAfter SSDR 2012 as far as I am concerned future procurement should be focused on buying kit that are force multipliers and known to work off the shelf. New technology like CAMM has to based on established systems. For example I have greatly warmed to the procurement of RC135 over cobbling together something with BAE SYSTEMS. CEC is an established known to work technology which will greatly enhance RN AAW capability and interoperability with the Americans.
FedaykinAfter reading the articles about the Super Hornet, I am now worried about the RAAF. The F18-F’s they now have are probably adequate for the Strike role, but they are considering getting additional Super Hornets to replace some of the aging Hornet fleet. Surely a small purchase of aircraft that are better in the air to air would be more sensible. The Gripen N is looking good, but I am not sure on its range whether it is enough for the RAAF. The fact that it does not need full airfields to operate from is a plus for Australia though.
Extra Super Hornet will be more then adequate in the Air to Air role as well! It has a good radar, the latest AMRAAM and Sidewinder variants plus a helmet mounted sight. The USN plan to use it in that role for many years to come so it has a fully financed upgrade program which should keep it up to date at little cost to the RAAF. Partnered up with their new Wedgetail and KC30 tankers they can command a significant amount of airspace around Australia.
Inducting Gripen-N would involve setting up a new logistics chain, servicing facilities and training stream. Super Hornet fits into an already established structure. Australia also has an established training stream for conversion from Legacy Hornet to Super Hornet. Buying a different interim type makes little sense at all.
FedaykinDarwin glow in dark!
Sign In
