Personally I will be looking for the first time she comes into Portsmouth. More impressive I think.

As to dates, well the ACA now have to re-plan putting all the bits they had taken off QEC back on so that will probably slip things.

In the meantime another block (LB02) goes on the barge next week

I hope A&P Tyne get the work to build the Ski jumps, it would make up for losing work due to BAE Systems cancelling sub-contracts last year. Has the advantage in that they have the capacity and it doesn’t impact build work at other yards.

What is so amazing is this is an exact repeat of what happened with the US Army C-7 Caribou in the 60’s. An Army aircraft performing a vital mission in Vietnam grabbed by the USAF who promptly retired it as they said the same task could be performed by the C130.

Proposal Directs Pentagon to Give Battle-Ready Dates for F-35

Interesting development there, could mean several things…including the executioners sword is still hanging over the program.

Sorry I am not playing that game ppp, I have constructively answered you and to talk any further about it is only a trip down the slippery slope of thread war.

You are the person who has rather rudely attacked another forum member with the accusation of arrogance which in all respects is regarded as bad form in this environment. You could of taken it to a private message if you had a particular issue and I have made pains to show that I respect you but in this case am not interested in a debate about something I think is self evident, if it transmits it can be jammed…it might be difficult but it can be so. I have stated repeatedly that I think combat UAV will play a part in the UK’s future defence posture but I have also stated that I think there will always be a place for a manned solution and I have given some reasonable reasons why. You are more then welcome to differ but I offered an olive branch like before and tried to be reasonable I am saddened that you are determined to pick a fight.

My opinion is mine, I respect that yours differs but please don’t come in and start throwing around accusations of arrogance or demanding in depth analysis for a reasoned opinion. This is a forum with many opinions and when we have some members who state an opinion is fact purely because equipment y was made by country x its sad that you see me in this light.

I have apologised, I do not wish to spend more time on this if your not happy take it up with the mods.

Even with the Ski jump it could serve as a useful helicopter platform, there maybe the odd interested party if the price was right. Off the top of my head it might interest a South American nation like Brazil or Chile….probably not Argentina now as they have done a good job pi$$ing off Spain.

It’s not the “end of the story” just because you once again arrogantly declare yourself to be correct without a shred of proof. If effective jamming was a certainty, then nobody would bother using UAVs at all, nor would anyone bother with aircraft data links or any form of communications, since they are soooo easily jammed according you. With a powerful enough jammer a link can be jammed, but you don’t show how an enemy is going to find it practical to get such jamming in place. An extremely powerful jammer can be placed on the ground, but then it’s stationary and approaching the signal from the wrong end, making it easy to circumvent. An airborne jammer can act, but is severely limited in power, but then it might as well just shoot the UAV down. You’ve still not shown us how all jammers will be able to raise the noise level such that the min SNR any link can tolerate is exceeded, and how these jammers will be able to block any frequency range in use to prevent hopping. Since you are so very sure, this should be trivial I’m sure! Let’s be clear here, jamming radar is much easier than jamming data links, since the signal of a radar must bounce off you, and getting the power advantage in that situation is much easier.

Another day, another MoD fvck up :rolleyes:

Tons of proof, loads of articles (one last year in AFM actually) – not to count plenty of real life conversations with service personnel. My opinion there is a serious issue based on that background of investigation, I don’t see that as arrogant just realistic – if it transmits it can be jammed, there are ways as you have pointed out of mitigating that and I am strongly of the opinion that armed UAV WILL form a part of our offensive strike future but I also strongly feel that you need a person in an aircraft in the end for certain taskings and as a back up for the drones when you do come up against somebody who has some tech savvy. So its “end of story” for me! If you feel otherwise fine, but don’t get so upset when people take a different view.

My debates with Jonesy over STOVL vs CATOBAR are pretty much rock and a hard place with both of us not really budging from our view points but we shrug it off with a laugh (actually with Jonesy saying that I shouldn’t change my opinion or viewpoint just on his sake – the fun is in the cut and thrust of debate and disagreement)…this is the second time you have accused me of arrogance – last time I apologised and I am happy to do again but to be honest of you can’t take the cut and thrust of a forum maybe you should find a different hobby.:(

We come to forums to state our opinion and debate different view points, I can and do change my view but if I think as in this case that there is an issue I am not going to censor myself as it doesn’t meet with the view of another poster…thats just silly.

Now again I am sorry if you feel wronged, I respect your opinion and have changed mine (in the case of radar horizons) on your input but maybe have a think before you throw around accusations of arrogance….in that is the slippery slope to unnecessary stress and forum thread wars.

The US army is mad keen on them. The USAF wants rid of them because it doesn’t want to do the job they’re designed for, & the army wants them to do. The evaluation as ‘not operationally suitable’ means they don’t do the job the USAF wants to do, & ignores the fact that the US army (i.e. the consumer of the service the aircraft would provide) is crying out for them, because it wants a different job done.

Australia has the good fortune to have an air force which is more responsive to the needs of the military as a whole.

Of course this begs an interesting question, if the C27 is blocked now is there scope for an upgrade program for the Sherpa?

Airframe overhaul, new wing spas, cockpit upgrade and new engines might give some capability for the US army without messing about with the USAF. If I was Bombardier I might be considering doing some speculative work, possibly levering technology off other programs for example the Dash 8 flight deck upgrade and a dash of composites. The engines are PT6 so huge scope for an affordable upgrade to newer more powerful/economical units.

@Fedaykin

We are talking about a strike UAV, that means autonomous, but with man in the loop for target verification, and probably will be the case for a hundred years or more.

Sure, you can jam a datalink, but that doesn’t mean it will be effective. The more directional the antennas, the more power you’ll need to throw at the free space in the middle. Then there is frequency hopping to reduce the effectiveness of jamming further, even you wifi router does that. GPS is easier to jam, but a UAV can go without GPS for a while without any issues.

@Snow Monkey

Of course it is, but I was trying to establish a very basic point with Fedaykin, the last thing I wanted to do was make the situation more complex 🙂

Sorry if there is a data link of any kind it can be jammed end of story! We have been luck so far with our UCAV dropping bombs on militants in Afghanistan…against a peer rival its a serious risk to the effectiveness of the system. A peer or near peer rival is going to look at jamming whatever data links as there first order of the day, certainly the technology is getting better but it can still be jammed if somebody puts their mind to it. My opinion is clear on the matter, you have to have a system with a flesh computer in it that can operate over the theatre of operations.