FedaykinThankyou Gary for replying in this thread, AFM and AI are two of my favourite magazines since I first started to buy them about fifteen years ago. Clearly you are close to the right balance when it comes to the finished product. If you do not mind I am going to query a couple of issues:
Firstly there is a feeling of tour the entire USAF/USN, due to the uniformity of types in their inventory it does feel that old ground is being covered. I agree that it is core market but there must be a way of mixing it up a bit?
Secondly I am going to take slight issue with your statement:
There is no sharing of resources, other than specially commissioned supplements that sometime run in both AFM & AI (the F-35 was the last one, and no more are planned at present).
I actually have the April edition of AI in front me and the May edition of AFM. The April edition of AI has a Rafale on the cover and an article about that type written by Jon Lake in it, the May edition of AFM has a Rafale on the cover and an article written about it by Jon Lake. Now I realise the May edition of AFM has other articles about Rafale but I can’t but feel that I am paying twice for a very similar product. Fair play that AI might well be under different editorial rule to yourself but being a Key Publishing title some joined up thinking would be nice…just saying. Now fair enough we are in an important news period for Rafale with the recent Indian order so both magazines are in a difficult place.
I don’t want it to be seen that I am biting the hand that feeds me, heck if I had a real problem I would stop buying them but I think feedback is always a constructive thing.
Oh and please do go to PhantomII’s base it sounds like he is really eager to be interviewed!
FedaykinYou forgot the sarcasm emoticon Amiga500 😉
FedaykinPlease correct me if I’m wrong but the BAE Systems MK45 5 inch should be compatible with the Volcano munitions range.
FedaykinThat is pretty much my thinking, its a saturated market segment and any new jet would have to compete with the Embraer and Bombardiers of the world…even Airbus with the A318. As you also point out there was little interest in continuing RJ production…actually as far as I see it the government and Bae did everything they could to kill it off. I think there was talk of some newer more competative twin engine RJ variant but that died a death. On the other hand Hawk sales have been a consistent over the years, whilst I don’t think we can compete with the K8 in the low end of the market there is no reason why a new type levering off the old Hawk and Typhoon programs couldn’t be a success especially with a suitable UK order post 2020…might well be a good solution as a replacement for the older none T2 Hawks in UK service (maybe even a new platform for the Reds…;))
FedaykinI don’t know how cost effective it is, but its pretty ingenious how they came up with a way to build this ship using the UK’s current destroyer sized shipbuilding capabilities.
When Bae started to put together its plans for an Invincible replacement in the 90’s there preferred build location was H&W Belfast. They had facilities that only required minimal work to make ready for large carrier construction, a suitable construction basin large enough to allow parallel construction of major carrier sections, suitable gantry cranes, no tidal or bridge restrictions floating the vessel out of the harbour and more recent experience of large ship construction. With peace developing in Northern Ireland it would of been a fantastic boost to the economy of the area helping to cement regrowth and cross community reconciliation. … Only one tiny problem, post 1997 election you had a Labour government with a chancellor who had a ship repair yard in his constituency. That chancellor (who has consistently shown no interest in defence except when it pertains to jobs in his constituency) was only going to release money if plans were changed! We now have had to spend lots of money constructing the vessels in a yard intended for repair with dry docks unsuitable without significant rework and the purchase of a new gantry crane. The owners of said yard have said they have no intention of carrying on ship building in Rosyth after the carriers are finished and they have to fly up people from other construction focussed yards to help in the build process.
It is an entirely ass ended way of building a ship that doesn’t make much sense in a cost or efficiency basis. Lets not forget that in a long forgotten earlier pre-1997 election SSDR Rosyth was intended to be closed. On a side note using H&W Belfast for carrier construction might well of been enough to push the yards nose through the lucrative Cruise ship and large fast container ship build market, the one area of ship building where Europe is still competitive…
FedaykinIf I came over as arrogant I apologise, looking at my previous comment I think that is a fair comment on your behalf. I certainly don’t see myself as always right and readily take corrections from those who have more expertise. But my main issue is the propaganda coup that would entail from Argentina doing this. On reflection I see your point about a radar picket.
Anyhow sorry, I dislike being called arrogant and if I came across as such I am happy to withdraw anything you found offensive.
FedaykinWell thats a lovely video of a landing onto a runway. But I presume the aircraft has no payload.
Sorry Jonesy, you are not going to shift my opinion that it would be a TERRIBLE retrograde step to return to STOVL. A step that would seriously restrict our offensive capabilities and even endanger our crews. That is my opinion but I respect that yours differs and you are not budging from it. Maybe we are both wearing different rose tinted glasses:D.
Anyhow I am going to step back from this argument for the moment as I don’t want to be seen to be arguing with a fellow poster and forum friend who I respect for his clear thinking (even if I don’t think it is clear on this;)). I suppose we all wait for the next government study to finish…
FedaykinBoth options are unrealistic. In that scenario the best solution is to either move the South Atlantic patrol ship to the radar horizon thus extending warning or reinforcing the Islands defences with a couple of E3D Sentry plus extra tankers.
As I said my scenario is not an actual attack but a nuisance mission over the islands.
The cheapest option is moving the frigate/destroyer to a radar picket position but that then ties up resources and severely limits the general patrol role of that ship.
As you point out if the warning is 24 hours then it is a slim chance but not impossible that support assets can be put in place.
FedaykinI am going to take slight issue with this noble idea that natural resources would stay with the Islanders if Argentina gained sovereignty. That just won’t happen within what the Islanders think! Argentina will allow the Islanders to keep resources ON the Islands. There is no way that they will let the Islanders gain from the offshore natural resources like oil and gas. Argentina already claims those resources as part of their continental plate, with the current state of their economy do people really think that the Argentine government will allow the Islanders to solely benefit from its tapping. For that matter they will probably make trouble with the fishing rights as well.
AS for retaining their culture and legislature well that’s all well and nice but we know Argentina would allow lets say 4000 patriotic citizens to move to the Island set up in a new town. Of course these people will have a right to vote for the legislature as well…oh hang on they are now the largest voting block so can impose whatever cultural changes they like!
Now I am sure moderate Argentines would say this isn’t true and life would be all pixies and light for the Islanders but for those who live on the Islands the things I have stated are probably very real in their minds along with their current and prior treatment by Argentina.
FedaykinFed,
UD DoD allegedly has VLBB at 142lb UNDER target set in KPP currently – which, as earlier described, is 2 x 1000lb JDAM and 2 x AIM-120 for about 3000lb total on top of reserve fuel.
There is not much margin for weight growth, but, were a very, very long way from saying that it cant VL with payload. With a loadout of a couple of 500lb PGMs or Brimstone class weapons and a couple of AAMs – as we’ve seen in Afghan and Libya you arent even close to the weight limits.
Can you provide a link to this issue of fuel carry as it really just does not make a great deal of sense?.
Simples Jonesy, go to Newsagent pick up latest copy of AFM, buy then takes home and read Tim Coxs article. I am not saying it can’t VL with a load I am saying it is unsafe. AMRAAM has been deleted from the load out on a strike mission due to weight issues. F-35B as it stands doesn’t meet the JCA KPP, so that means STOVL has failed as far as I am concerned and we should go with CATOBAR.
FedaykinNo it isn’t, even if the crews are on the highest alert it takes five minutes to even get the aircraft to the runway. The Argentines will have been and gone.
FedaykinOn an interesting side note for Liger30 Italy almost operated Polaris alongside the UK.
FedaykinYou know I’m not sure, I think Skybolt had Lemon written all over. Sub launched ICBM are by far the best deterrence.
FedaykinAgain we are not talking about Harrier! We are not talking about land operations! There are some very worrying figures about marginal fuel states with F35B. The aircraft is dangerous with any kind of payload when it comes to landing. Hover landing by all accounts is not an option meaning SRVL with naff all fuel. ANY problems and they are stuffed.
FedaykinI don’t think I am off Jonesy.
We are not talking about Harriers landing on a land base, we are talking about F35B and carriers.
We have ACTUAL TEST PILOTS involved with the program who say that F35B will have virtually no bring back and an awful payload as it is. We have ACTUAL TEST PILOTS involved with the program who say that the fuel state will be dangerously marginal on return back to the carrier. We have ACTUAL TEST PILOTS involved with the program who say SRVL is a compromised concept that has little to no safety margin. Again we are talking about F35B not Harrier! F35B which has significant weight issues and doesn’t meet the performance requirements laid out for JCA as it stands. As for tanking it was well reported a few years back that the MOD were funding studies into buddy tanking with B due to its marginal fuel state on return back to carrier.
Going on that I can only conclude that CATOBAR is safer with the added plus of having two alternatives if C does not work out.
Sorry to hit you over the head with this Jonesy but I think you are looking upon F35, STOVL and SRVL with Harrier tinted spectacles. Also I think you are being slightly naive in thinking that a decision to revert to STOVL is still reversible to CATOBAR. Every year those ships are in service makes that change less likely. Actually it makes early retirement more likely (lets say after twenty years) as I doubt they will convert to CATOBAR and I am certain there will not be a future STOVL fighter to replace F35B. In effect if we go for B we are trapped in that decision.
Another thing any money saved not installing CATOBAR gear is NOT going to go to future SSBN or Type 26…that just isn’t how the treasury works. Money not spent stays with the treasury.
Sign In
